Reply #152: I was discussing Mr. Flocco and his experiences.

[Make7]

So you believe this specific knowledge of his concerning the number of engines could have come from "chit-chatting" with other construction workers during the rebuilding in 2002? Were the workers receiving daily briefings on the status of the investigation? How exactly would they come by the knowledge of the number of engines?

You really don't understand why we don't think that knowledge possibly acquired by "chit-chatting" with construction workers does not constitute a "smoking gun"?

In this exchange, where is he comparing the "fewer engines" to the other planes hijacked that day?

KING: Michael, the Pentagon was kind of lucky in a sense, wasn't it?

FLOCCO: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

KING: The side they hit wasn't that populated and it didn't make a direct, full -- like top of the Pentagon hit, right?

FLOCCO: Correct. Also, the other contributing factors -- fewer engines -- was the fact that it hit initially on the newly renovated section that had (UNINTELLIGIBLE) wire inside of -- able to withstand more of an impact.

Plus, some of the columns and the windows had previously been reinforced for the first phase of the renovation. It was a five-phase renovation program. The first phase had just been completed only a week before. And where the plane hit was under restructured, reinforced part of it. So initially, it hit a very solid part and then, glanced off of that and went into the old section that had just been evacuated for phase two renovation. Had it hit anywhere else, it could have been catastrophic.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/08/lklw.00.html

Fewer engines than what? How do you know he is talking about the other hijacked planes?

Also, I believe the word engines is the plural form of engine. Meaning more than one.

I simply think you interpreting those two words the way you want to see them.

- Make7