Reply #71: so, you have no response to any of my points

[OnTheOtherHand]

As for your new "point," that's just another unsupported claim. I'll grant that it's less nonsensical than invoking the Rumsfeld press conference as evidence of a cover-up, but that's not very high praise.

That plane at Congonhas was attempting to land. I don't know why anyone would expect its accidental collision with an unidentified building to look a lot like a high-speed ramming of the Pentagon. (I also don't know how anyone makes any sense out of the idea that someone shot... something into the Pentagon and then pretended it was a jumbo jet.)