Reply #165: "Fewer engines" than what?

[Make7]

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

What exactly does Mr. Flocco say that allows you to know that his "fewer engines" comment is comparing the number of engines on the plane that struck the Pentagon to the number of engines on the other hijacked aircraft that day? The plane had fewer engines than a 747. And a DC-10. A L1011. A C-130. A B-52. etc....

I do not see anything that would indicate that he is comparing it to the other hijacked aircraft - you are simply assuming that is the comparison he is making.

I dismiss it as a "smoking gun" because it is based on your assumption of what "fewer engines" is being compared to, and also your assumption that he would be in a position to actually know the number of engines on the plane that struck the Pentagon with any certainty.

This is not rocket science - if you want to claim something as a "smoking gun", it has to be based on what was actually said, not your interpretation of what the real meaning was.

- Make7