Reply #203: Look, I know you want to believe this is a "smoking gun",...

[Make7]

...but you have not been able to show any factual basis on which to reach a conclusion that this proves anything at all. You have interpreted Mr. Flocco's "fewer engines" comment to mean that he was comparing it to the other hijacked aircraft on 9/11, and you have speculated that he could have come by the knowledge of the number of engines when he worked on the reconstruction in 2002. But the fact of the matter is that there is nothing in what Mr. Flocco has said to prove either of those speculations to be correct. You are simply deciding that this is a "smoking gun" based on what you assume he meant, not based on what he has actually said.

I fail to see how myself engaging in the sort of speculation that you claim as "smoking gun" evidence is needed for you to substantiate your claim that these two words uttered by Mr. Flocco are evidence that the plane that struck the Pentagon had only one engines.

But if I had to venture a guess, I'd say he was comparing it to something that had a greater number of engines than the number of engines he believes were on the plane that struck the Pentagon.

- Make7