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

Con continues to argue the 4 points we have been discussing while adding very little to what he presented in the previous round. Most regrettably, he fails to provide any logical support for how any of his arguments refute the resolution. Quite simply, they don’t. A) Con begins by defending his decision to cite the unanimity of his 13 eyewitnesses. Con doesn’t understand what unanimity is. Wikipedia defines unanimity as “agreement by all people in a given situation”(1). Cons 13 eyewitnesses account for “all people” in this situation because he disregards everyone who recall’s the flight path differently then his witnesses do. This is a blatant fallacy of logic. Con then states that the strongest evidence of his fly over theory is the testimony of Pentagon police officer Roosevelt Roberts. Roosevelt was interviewed in the documentary Con sites, and in that interview he makes it clear that he did not see the plane approach the Pentagon or the impact. He was in the east loading dock at the time of the crash and only after hearing the impact, he ran outside where he claims to have seen “another plane” flying away. While there are so many problems with using this testimony as evidence for a fly over, it is not even worth arguing. Even if we accept this as a “flyover witness”, this is inadequate evidence of Cons conclusion. Con accepts what his eyewitnesses claim while ignoring the fact that others saw the exact opposite. His conclusions based on these 13 testimonies are directly contradicted by 104 other reported witnesses as well as the physical evidence such as the downed light poles and damaged power generator along the opposite side path which proves Cons witnesses wrong. And even if we accept Cons absurd claim that the witnesses on the west side would not have seen the fly over, I395 is just south of the Pentagon and at the time of the impact was crowded with bumper to bumper traffic. There were hundreds of witnesses with a clear view of the event, yet not one of them reported seeing the fly over then or in the decade plus since. Con does not have eyewitness testimony on his side. He simply picks and chooses which ones he wants to believe and even then, he picks and chooses which parts of their testimony he will accept. This is the confirmation bias fallacy on steroids.B) Con claims my light pole induced fuel dump explanation is utterly unconvincing. Cons incredulity is not evidence that the video was faked and he has provided no factual or scientific analysis to support his claim. Meanwhile I cited a credible source which specifically cites bird strikes (exterior damage) as a cause for white smoke coming from a jet engine. C) Con still claims that the pictures of the damage show conditions inconsistent with the crash of a 757(correction from earlier claims of a 767). Note that Con has yet again provided no scientific analysis to support his claim and his only source is a video put together by a couple of 9/11 conspiracy theorists who have no expertise in the relevant fields. Also note that Con never made any reference to the many pieces of Flight 77 found at the crash site. Con is simply looking at the photos and asking questions, although he phrases them as statements to be accepted as fact because he and his conspiracy theorist film makers say so. In round 2 Con claimed that the columns were displaced outward according to the photographs. After correcting him, he now claims that the columns should not be standing. He gives us no physical calculations or facts of any kind to support his claim, instead he offers just another unsupported assertion of his incredulity. Con also claims that the engines should have damaged the foundation. All he gives us to support this claim is the notion that if the “aircraft body” could have penetrated the wall then so too could the engine. Apparently this is supposed to prove that there should have been damage to the foundation by the engines. However there was no damage to the foundation by the body of the aircraft either, so this argument does not even lead us to his conclusion. While Con is fixated on the damage the “massive engines” should have caused, he ignores the fact that Flight 77’s engines weighed just over 7,000lbs each(2) in comparison to the total weight made up mostly by the aircraft body(fuselage) which exceeds 200,000 lbs(3). There is no reason to put so much emphasis on the damage the engines should have caused, it would have been relatively minimal compared to the damage caused by the rest of the plane as was observed. If Con was focused on facts and legitimate science as opposed to claims of what he wants to believe we should have seen, he would have factored this into his arguments. D) Cons source for his black box argument is a link to a page with over 10 articles. The only one which looked like it was about Flight 77 is a video over an hour long. It is not my job to guess what Cons argument is here. All he has stated is that the data from Flight 77’s black box is “at variance” with the official story. This tells us absolutely nothing, and certainly doesn’t mean that it did not crash into the Pentagon. Con has made no argument here. E) Again, no response to the fact that the DNA from 58 of the 59 passengers was identified at the crash site. This point alone affirms the resolution. Recap: A) Eyewitness testimony Favors Flight 77 crash? YES Favors Fly over theory? NO. Requires the overwhelming majority of eyewitnesses to be wrong or lying. B) Video footage evidence Favors Flight 77 crash? YES Favors Fly over theory? NO. Requires footage to be faked with no evidence. C) Physical evidence Favors Flight 77 crash? YES Favors Fly over theory? NO. Requires staging and alternative explosive device with no evidence. D) Black box data Favors Flight 77 crash? YES Favors Fly over theory? NO. Requires falsified data with no evidence other then possible error cited but not supported by Con. E) DNA Favors Flight 77 crash? YES Favors Fly over theory? NO. Requires staging with no evidence. F) Flight path damage (light poles and generator) Favors Flight 77 crash? YES Favors Fly over theory? NO. Requires staging with no evidence. Conclusion The more complex a story or event gets, the easier it is to find some kind of perceived anomaly or inconsistency within it. One indication of whether a doubt of an event is reasonable is the significance of the perceived anomalies used as justification for that doubt. Con pretty much summed up this debate by stating that the strongest evidence of his fly over theory was the eyewitness testimony of one man, who did not see the event in question and remarkably does not even believe the fly over theory. The major fallacy in Cons logic is that he treats the official story like it is a house of cards, where knocking over any one card with some percieved anomoly automatically collapses the entire story. That is not how reality works. We can find percieved anomolies in nearly every explanation for every event in history. The more documented an event the more anomolies we will find, and 9/11 is perhaps the most documented event in history. Instead, real and honest investigation requires one to scrutinize their own theory in comparison alternative explanations. If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon then something else did, and Flight 77 along with it's passengers ended up somewhere, and thousands of people are all in on it, and someone actually thought this plan was a good idea as opposed to a simpler one with a much higher probability of success, and no one has ever spoken about it since. Con has no logic or evidence to suggest that any of this is actually true. He instead focuses on insignificant details of the official story because he does not want to deal with this reality. Any reasonable person interested in a reasonable conclusion would. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) http://en.wikipedia.org... 3) http://en.wikipedia.org...