Most intelligent people can understand difference between proof in the form of physical evidence, and a logical inference, which is not direct proof. Deal with it. Overstating the case and pretending that one is equal to the other is not helpful.

Back to the straw man.

"I am referring specifically to Hordon's point from the statement that you quoted."

No, you copied and pasted a quote from an entirely different thread from 911Blogger. The quote you copied and pasted:

The biggest problem in establishing a "flyover" is that...

...CIT depends upon the Building Performance Report to accomplish this.

is not part of the same thread that I copied Robin Hordon's comments above from. In the quote that I was referring to, you can clearly see that Hordon was not only referring to CIT:

...most Truthers are actually BELIEVING the Building Performance Report...

Also, it is clear that Hordon is referring to the truth movement in general when he makes the "salient point" that I was agreeing with:

Is there anybody out there that automatically DOUBTS the veracity of ALL information provided by ANY department or organization within the US government...or am I alone in this skepticism? This skepticism is in place for all of my analysis...and I try to so state when I make my points.

The fact that you had to copy text from an entirely different thread on 911Blogger shows the extent that you were going to in order to try to prove your straw man argument.

As far as Rob Basalmo discussing how unlikely it would be to fake the flight data, I remember a debate on 911Blogger where Basalmo was arguing just that. I will have to go back to 911Blogger and search for the exact text, but it will be difficult since I don't have an account on 911Blogger anymore and therefore cannot use the "search" function. So, I will have to get back to you on that.

But the main point I am making is that it does not help to overstate the case of the flyover, and claim that something is proven when it clearly is not, even if one can agree that that theory is the most reasonable or logical so far. Also, you need to be careful about claiming certainty over things which you can't be certain about, such as what kind of plane it was, what the plane was actually doing right at the closest point to the Pentagon, etc., which seems to be happening a lot.