Quote:
Radar contact was not lost

Sorry. Misused terminology. Of course it was the transponder. Regardless, my point remains the same, that it had gotten far away from the DC area.

Quote:
As far as I know, no one has ever really come out to say it's not true.
Quote:
So that makes it true?

Of course not. As I've said time and time again in this thread, it just raises interesting questions that I didn't have good answers to. In the same way that it's up to the producers of this presentation to prove their points, it's as much up to the researchers to prove that a plane did hit the Pentagon. We have little-to-no visual documentation, and many opposing eyewitness accounts, as opposed to the WTC crashes. Most of the explanations for why the Pentagon ended up that way (one wingless hole, basically) are based on the "well it must have happened that way because a plane hit it" argument, which is less than scientific. Also, if you're trying to disprove that someone is lying, giving evidence provided by that same organization is less than convincing. It's like saying "Bitt's not lying because Bitt said he wasn't lying."

I'm happy with the explanations given, finally, by various folks linked to by this thread, most especially the photograph of the scorched area of the Pentagon left by the wings. I never really believed any of the things almost proposed by the presentation, but there were things in it that seemed anomalous to me. There still are, but fewer of them.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk