It is beyond a reasonable doubt that flight 77 hit the Pentagon

Cons case that Flight 77 may not have hit the Pentagon is so far based on four perceived anomalies with the official story. He uses these anomalies to support the theory that Flight 77 actually approached the Pentagon and flew over, apparently leaving some secondary device to cause the damage. Con however provides no direct evidence that a plane flew over the Pentagon and no evidence of what might have caused the damage. Yet remarkably he claims that it is beyond rational dispute that a plane flew in from the west at a very low altitude. How does he conclude this? The evidence supporting that a plane flew in from the west at a low altitude comes almost entirely from eyewitnesses, the same ones who said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. The Evidence A) Con responds to my 104 eyewitnesses who directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon with 13 eyewitnesses of his own. And yet his claim is not that his eyewitnesses saw the plane fly over, but rather that they saw the plane approach from a path north of the Citgo gas station near the Pentagon instead of the south side of the station where the official flight path is placed. Strangely, he uses this to conclude that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. The theory here is that if Flight 77 approached from the north side path then the damage to the Pentagon could not have been from the plane. In other words, north side approach = conspiracy. This is the closest thing that Con has provided as evidence of the fly over theory, yet as the makers of his cited documentary admit on their own website; many of these 13 witnesses saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon(1). Con is literally using his witness interviews as support for a theory that his own witnesses don’t believe. Meanwhile there are plenty of witnesses who in their testimonies gave specifics which place the flight path south of the Citgo station, lining up perfectly with the official story. 10 of them are cited and sourced here(2). And of course let me reiterate that not *one* eyewitness, including Cons, has ever reported seeing a plane approach the Pentagon and fly over. Con has also failed to address the downed light poles and damaged power generator left by Flight 77 as it approached. This path is completely inconsistent with the north side approach Cons witnesses describe. Physical evidence and strength in numbers is what we use to sort out the eyewitnesses and determine which accounts are likely accurate. Con is instead using his hand picked 13 witnesses to rule out the other 104 as well as the physical evidence. That is not how real investigation works. B) The most likely cause of white smoke coming from the engine is a light pole induced fuel dump, which is not only normal but would be expected. Bird strikes typically cause this phenomenon(3). Con ignores this possibility and instead asserts that black smoke is evidence of the video being faked. No, it is evidence that Con needs to consider other possibilities, even if they contradict his theory. C) The glass windows at the Pentagon were blast resistant and thus designed to withstand a strong impact. The windows that were still intact were not directly hit by the plane’s wings or tail so there is no reason they would be broken, that is what they were designed to do. The columns hit by the plane were not displaced outward as Con claims. They are clearly bent towards the north(left) side of the photograph, which is exactly what we would expect from a south side angled approach. And it is not strange to see no damage in the foundation of the building, the engine would have been mostly torn to pieces as soon as it hit the building facade, and the floors would have absorbed some of the impact before it got to the foundation. Con also seems to expect to see a large tail section or a wing sitting on the lawn, which his video argues is normally seen in plane crashes. Neither Con nor the makers of the film seem to take into account the fact that none of the examples being compared to Flight 77 flew directly into a concrete wall. If they had we wouldn’t expect any large debris, that is not what this phenomenon looks like(4). The physical evidence found at the crash site is perfectly consistent with what we would find if Flight 77 crashed there as reported, and there is no reasonable alternative to explain it. D) If Con wishes to convince anyone that Flight 77’s data recorder was faked then he must provide evidence of his allegation, not tell us what he thinks happened to Air France 296’s data recorder. His only attempt at this was to argue that the Flight 77’s data is inconsistent with the official story. Cons theory here is that the conspirators took a flight path which contradicts their story, and yet still put this forward as evidence to support their story. This assumes that the conspirators could be so masterful while attempting the impossible, yet entirely amateur while attempting such simple tasks. Moreover, Con provides no analysis or source to support his claim. He simply states that this conclusion was reached by Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an organization which literally formed to support 9/11 conspiracy theories. And yes, the cockpit voice recorder was found(5). E) No response Summary When confronted with evidence that does not support his theory Con simply hand waives it away by claiming that any anomaly in that evidence allows us to disregard it entirely. Strange anomalies are found even in the most controlled science experiments, it is simply not reasonable to believe that every imaginable question or minor inconsistency regarding an event as chaotic as 9/11 should have an indisputable explanation. Rather, an honest assessment of an event should be attained by looking at the main evidence and the story it tells. The official story is consistent with all of the observed facts and physical evidence, even if Con doesn’t understand every detail about every photo or video. I commend Con for actually stating an alternative theory, something most conspiracy theorists are unwilling to do. However, for his theory to be taken seriously Con must explain how 104 people directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon while not one saw it fly over. He must explain what caused the downed light poles and damaged power generators on the south side path. He must explain where all of the pieces of an American Airlines 767 at the crash site came from. And he must give some realistic possibility for what happened to the passengers and the plane, as well as why anyone would go to such painful lengths to pull off such an unnecessarily complicated task. Note that these would presumably be the same conspirators who had no problem flying planes into the WTC yet for some reason thought it would be better to fake the impact at the Pentagon. This would involve hundreds if not thousands of people to pull off, all of them with conflicting personal interests and all of them remaining silent over the passing years knowing that they assisted in one of the greatest mass murders in US history. The theory loses all credibility on that point alone. A reasonable conclusion requires that one take the evidence and follow it where it leads. The official story accounts for all of the evidence and tells a clear and consistent story. Not one piece of evidence supports Cons fly over theory.(1) http://www.thepentacon.com...;(app 2/3rd of the way down)(2) http://csarnsblog.blogspot.com...(3) http://contrailscience.com...(4) http://tinyurl.com...(5) http://www.scribd.com...