Nonsense. When you make ridiculous statements like that, you reveal your bias and territorial defensiveness. If you can't understand the difference between the video-taped proof of explosive demolition of the WTC, coupled with the physical evidence that supports it, to the case of the Pentagon attack in which all we have is a logical inference based on incomplete witness testimony (there is no way to be 100% sure at this point that additional eyewitnesses wouldn't contradict anything that the 14 CIT witnesses reported, for example), and incomplete evidence, with much that conflicts that seems designed to lead us in different directions, then I question your reasoning ability and bias.

Also, you seem to purposely distort my argument about how it is a salient point that the truth movement should not automatically accept the veracity of any government supplied data. I've already explained that whether or not Hordon was only referring to CIT is not the issue. Why do you persist in constructing a straw man over this and misrepresenting my argument?

Oh, and by the way, it was 100% clear that he was specifically talking about CIT when referencing the ASCE report as he says:

He's wrong. They do not and have not. This is not a "salient" point, it is an entirely false characterization that is opposite to reality, and a good reason to think that his criticisms are off the mark.

EDIT: I just noticed that you copied and pasted the quote about "CIT depends upon the Building Performance Report..." from an entirely different thread, as it is not from any of Robin's posts above. Why? You are going out of your way to construct a straw man argument in order to try to prove that Hordon was only referring to CIT when he clearly was not.

Hordon has discussed other cases of researchers blindly accepting the veracity of government supplied data and reports, BESIDES the ASCE report and BESIDES CIT. And you already know what my meaning is, and WHY I think this is a salient point, so why do you persist in constructing this straw man?

Also, YOUR claim that "P4T has shown too much willingness to accept government supplied data" is also false. As far as I can see, P4T have made it their mission to analyze government data and expose anomalies - this is primarily what they do. So, of course they reference the official data, but from a position of skepticism. Why would you claim the opposite, especially without citing an example? I see this as a complete false characterization from what I have seen, at least, from P4T.

Wasn't Rob Basalmo making the ridiculous argument that the Flight Data that was supplied by the government couldn't have been hacked because it was too complicated, and therefore it must be real data? P4T's animation of "AA77" was entirely based on the assumption that it is accurate data. They spent all that time making an animation instead of discussing how it was fraudulent data to begin with. As Hordon points out:

Take the point that I have been trying to make for years...a point that P4T has blithly ignored as they present exactly what the HI PERPS wanted presented...IE: ...that AA77 never started a descent and WAS the airvehicle that fully turned around and headed east. The NTSB Flight Path Study establishes that AA77, when still in positive radar contact, was observed to begin a descent and had only made a partial left turn at the point where it was lost to positive radar identification. For the FAA ATC system to "see" the beginning of a descent, the aircraft has to be AT LEAST 400 feet off of assigned altitude...in this case FL350. Therefore, the altitude "seen" by the FAA ATC system had to be at FL346 or lower.

And CIT does NOT depend upon the FDR that was "allegedly" from AA77 to form its positions.

By the way, notice how Hordon is also complimenting CIT for not blindly accepting government supplied data?

But let me ask you this: what is the point of staging damage at all if the plane hit the building? The point is that the C-ring hole IS the very end of the damage pattern which definitively establishes the ending point of the trajectory. This can not be denied, and we don't have to rely on an government report to determine exactly where this is located. This can not have been caused by a plane on the north side.

For you or anyone to claim to know the exact logic and purpose of staging or manipulating all the various kinds of damage and evidence at this point, some of which conflicts with each other, is laughable. Your certainty over things that you can't possibly be certain about reveals your bias and lack of reasoning ability.

Regarding the right bank: you ignored the "relatively slow" part. The official flight path can not have a relatively slow plane in a significant right bank as described and completely disintegrate. This is irreconcilable with all the physical damage. The witnesses don't describe a wild flight path - like the absurd path postulated in a silly video by someone named "broken sticks" - with an acrobatic right to left roll which is also irreconcilable with the physical damage. You can't just make stuff up that is unsupported by the witnesses and all evidence.

I didn't ignore anything. You completely missed my point. I wasn't arguing that we are forced to choose between the official flight path/speed, and the NOC path with right bank precisely at the point closest to the Pentagon, YOU were. And, for you to be certain that these are the only 2 precise possibilities is a false dilemma. The witnesses do not all describe a right bank, nor did all the witnesses see what the plane was doing as it was closest to the Pentagon. For you or anyone to claim to know what the plane was doing at this point with any degree of certainty is absurd, and again reveals your bias.