A perfect example of "how Jon feels." I posted my facts piece 2x on HuffPo, and emailed it to him directly, and nothing. They didn't allow either post, and he has ignored me. I think there's a reason for that. Because as long as they can define the 9/11 Truth Movement as being about A) Controlled Demolition B) Flight 77 Not Hitting The Pentagon, both, you must admit, sound "outlandish" to those who don't know any better, then the "powers that be" have little to worry about. Because it's easy to make something that sounds "outlandish" to those who don't know any better, sound "outlandish." If we hit them with what they're not prepared for, or can't refute with paragraphs about science this and science that, then we come off looking a lot better. In my opinion of course.

And the south side approach -- described by everyone CIT didn't interview, somewhere over 100 people as far as documented witnesses and probably hundreds or thousands of undocumented -- does not support a flyover.

Demolition was observed on film. The "flyover" was not.

Demolition has hard evidence in the form of dust to analyze to expose the method of destruction. The "flyover" does not.

Demolition can be observed with simple physics, as David Chandler has shown with the speeds of collapse which are impossible without removing all the the structure below the wave of destruction moving down the buildings. The Pentagon cut-out is endlessly debated within the movement -- Is that a column? Or is that a piece of flooring the upper floor hanging down? Could that spool have moved just the way it did? Or not? None of these or a dozen other points are agreed upon even within the movement. If we used the same arguments being used about the Pentagon to claim the cut-out is wrong, then we would reach the same dead-end as we do with those who are convinced that the cut-out in the WTC is "wrong", such as Leonard Spencer of Serendipity, and Reynolds, Holmgren, etc. It's a swamp when you are in constant debate over the most basic points.

To say that somehow the northside approach -- contradicted by far more people than those who claim it -- is equal to all these points on demolition is bizarre, to say the least.

Likewise, I respect your point of view and will not viciously attack you. I applaud your willingness to forget about popularity and defend your position. This is what I had to do when I first became a 9/11 researcher, and I will NEVER forget that.

It's a charged topic that could potentially rupture the movement if we're not careful. So we must be careful and respectful.

However, I'll say this, witness statements don't have the same empirical quality of physical evidence, however, when physical evidence can be manipulated, it can be an extremely strong tool of deception. (Planting DNA evidence to frame somebody, for example, or placing child pornography on somebody's computer).

Of course, physical evidence is conclusive if tampering with that evidence is scientifically impossible or if it does not change the implications. For example: hypothetical tampering with the destruction of the WTC buildings to frame either Bin Laden or the United States Government does not exonerate the United States Government, because it can be conclusively established that no entity other than the United States Government could produce and place the quantities of nano-thermite and/or cover up the crime as observed. Should I be wrong about this assertion, one could alternatively say that the likelihood of the United States Government being framed approaches infinitesimal

Demolition research, unlike contradictory statements by NORAD for example, logically and empirically proves the official story false and proves a government conspiracy.

NORAD's behavior and contradictory statements are completely unacceptable, but unacceptable does not equal empirically impossible. In a court of law, that still results in a guilty verdict for the United States Government, but it does not result in empirical, scientific certainty that the United States Government is the responsibly entity. This is why we sometimes find innocent people in jail, and guilty people on the streets.

That said, I don't feel that the physical evidence in the Pentagon can all be manipulated so as to include even the witnesses reporting the physical evidence. Is tampering scientifically impossible? No. Therefore, logically, it must follow from that reasoning that flyover isn't impossible. However, given the volume of physical evidence and testimony thereof, and the difficulty of tampering, it is unlikely. Outside the realm of empirical certainty, we rely solely on likelihood.

Therefore, my conclusion about the Pentagon is that I don't want to draw a conclusion other than that there's an extremely worrying contradiction between witness statements and physical evidence. If CIT had done that too, and if the other camp hadn't cited faulty arguments in their pursuit to debunk CIT, I tell you, none of this animosity and misunderstanding would have occurred.

Is it within their right to conclude that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon based on a flight path contradiction? In my opinion not until they also conclusively disprove the validity of the physical evidence, and they haven't done so thus far. They should have/could have independently confirmed the stories of witnesses of physical evidence in the Pentagon too, and they haven't done so thus far. (Certainly, I understand that north side flight path, if hypothetically empirically indisputable, renders the physical damage to the light poles and/or the Pentagon impossible)

As for empiricism, this often concerns physical evidence and the application of the scientific method. Empiricism is often a valuable tool to expose theories, witness statements (or government narratives) as impossible.

David Ray Griffin has a presentation about it, I'm sure you're familiar with it, but I'll link it here for reference for anyone interested. Part of theology is the philosophy of science, and the philosophy of science includes the topic of empiricism. DRG, as a theologian, is qualified to talk about empiricism and logic, and this is often the basis of discussions between theists and atheists. (That is another matter which I will not go into here)

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=D1A8EF5E3959F3AA

Of course, DRG is not infallible, so neither are his books. I suspect though, that the application of empiricism and logic is just what prevented him from extending his endorsement of CIT to include flyover.

I hope I haven't offended your sense of what is logical, honest or just, I am simply reasoning to the best of my ability. Theories A and B are mutually exclusive, therefore both are in doubt. A could be correct, B could be correct, and both can be incorrect. They cannot be correct simultaneously, unless, of course, either A or B or both are revised accordingly.