You characterize the flyover evidence as based on "incomplete witness testimony", arguing "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". No, you're right, Santa Claus might come forward one day and admit he and his reindeer were what flew over the Pentagon, but until he does, we have to deal with the evidence we have, not some theoretical evidence that might emerge in future. And based on the available evidence, I see no other possibility other than a flyover. You still see other possibilities, apparently, but have yet to outline said possibilities with any kind of evidence to support them. Like I said, if you have a better explanation, I'd like to hear it, complete with evidence.

And I'm not constructing a straw man here. I am referring specifically to Hordon's point from the statement that you quoted. He prefaced it to be clear what he meant: "The biggest problem in establishing a "flyover" is that... CIT depends upon the Building Performance Report to accomplish this". Taking the rest of the statement out of context of what he meant and praising it in general doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

But I was also referring to your own statement "P4T has shown too much willingness to accept government supplied data" - which, like Hordon's insinuation above, is false, for the reasons I've already cited. I am NOT referring to other cases of researchers blindly accepting the veracity of government supplied data and reports that Hordon has discussed. Of course, we agree that the truth movement should not automatically accept the veracity of any government supplied data, and my point was that neither CIT nor P4T have done so, to the best of my knowledge.

And it sounds like you need to check some of your own facts, while you're at it: the animation P4T included in their video was not created by them - it was supplied by the NTSB itself.

Unless you are talking about this animation:

The purpose of this animation is to show how the official data is irreconcilable with the physical damage, i.e. from a point of skepticism. So no, they are NOT trying to claim or assume that the data has to be real - quite the opposite.

You state: "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?"

The fact that you have to ask is rather telling ... where's the quote of Balsamo stating it? It sounds like a baseless accusation regarding P4T's position, that sure doesn't jive with the presentations from them that I have seen, that completely expose the data as anomalous on MANY levels.

Your quote from Hordon is a prime example of what I stated earlier of him railing off unsupported fallacies without providing a single example or quote from P4T to prove his case - and here you are falling for it.

You say that for me or anyone "to claim to know what the plane was doing at this point with any degree of certainty is absurd" - which to me simply reveals how little you have considered the evidence we have and its implications. After a certain point, it is possible for competent, intelligent skeptics to start ruling out various possibilities. Should we leave open the possibility that Santa Claus and his reindeer flew over the building? Obviously not, but what I would like to know is what other possibilities you are prepared to rule out at this point, or is about everything fair game?

In fact, that "everything is fair game" is the position I used to take, say, back in 2005/2006 when the evidence genuinely seemed contradictory. But now that more evidence has surfaced - and in particular the eyewitness evidence gathered by CIT - it becomes intellectually dishonest to ignore the obvious implications of this evidence, especially when all the other possibilities (and yes, there are way more than just two) fall apart under close scrutiny.