If you haven't already read Dave McGowan's take on the defenders of Flight 77 at the Pentagon, I highly recommend you do so. He casts important doubt on the "witness list" and statements therefrom, which constitute the bulk of Arabesque's constantly reposted defense:

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html

Remember, the OCT was never imagined or conceived to be invincible, any more than the 60's assassinations were; what was counted on is the complicity of the media to keep acknowledgement of damning information to such a slow leak that it can become accepted by a majority without the major revolt that would result from too large a piece being revealed at any one time. (80% of the American public thinks the JFK assassination was a conspiracy covered up by the government, but this acceptance was too late in coming to provoke citizens to storm the Bastille.) This process requires layers of fallback positions to be inserted into the research community as inconvenient facts become uncovered and accepted in the wider public realm (such as the theory that the WTC was pre-wired for demolition unrelated to 9/11).

There is no such viable fallback position for the Pentagon if Flight 77 didn't hit it. There is nothing but the revelation of outright murder of the workers inside by people within the military structure. That's why we've been slowly steered away and steered toward a LIHOPpy "Nothing SHOULD have hit the Pentagon." For many reasons, it's the true Achilles heel -- which is why McGowan asks, "If the evidence is so convincing, why the need to gild the lily?"