The Pentagate Claim briefly analysed

Howdy all,

A friend of mine recently sent me a link to a flash animation about how the Pentagon plane crash of 911 never happened. This is my take at what I think is a structurally flawed argument. Just so you kow what I’m talking about, watch it anyway:

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

That was an interesting flash animation wasn’t it. Back in 2002 when I first encountered this claim, I posted a link to this french site to a forum:

http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/11septembre.html

I think this site had the original and complete "dossier" claiming the pentagon was not struck by a Boeing at all. Overtaken by the meaning of it all, I decided to take this as the word of god, as a 'dear friend' of mine pointed out and said something like "in a few months maximum, this story will break out and it will be over for Bush"...my email was rightly blasted by a few people and I just figured, indeed, if I’m wrong, I’ll look like a fool [more than I normally do...] so I did something I’d never done before, and never really did thereafter... I retracted.

The thing is... regardless of whether the claim is right, or at least well founded, unfortunately, the authors of this theory –I believe they're French- present their arguments as cheap and geeky alien-sex-claiming conspiracy theorists would: by mixing up 'evidence' and 'claims' and using them in both directions.

example: at some point in the animation [and the conspiracy claim in general] they point to a neat little hole in one of the Pentagon’s inner rings and say "Hmm Moldy/ Sheaplock, how could a Boeing do such damage to a steel-reinforced wall?" and then, later on, they show the site in general and say "how could a Boeing loaded with fuel cause such little damage?"

See what I mean? And yet I actually agree that the damage is odd to say the least, and that there should be more debris... but this is not the way.

They also do the number 2 theorist mistake: add junk evidence to fatten up the dossier. When you have a real case, you don't need to add junk evidence, or use the opinion of simple-minded civilians as expert insight.

For example when they quote a civilian saying "Well, it was a missile”, why is this "homo simplus primat" suddenly a "key witness" whose opinion matters so much? Who is he anyway? These are questions that an honest investigator would ask before quoting anyone in his 'extensive dossier'.

Finally, this case lacks the key backbone: if that plane didn't hit the pentagon, then where did it go? If they have so much evidence of a cover-up at the Pentagon, why were they incapable of finding anything at the true location of the plane? The have happily decided to completely ignore missing evidence. that's mistake number 3.

By no means am I blasting the author of this theory. And I praise them for questioning the authority, and praise them even more for questioning this dubious authority (which has already been caught misleading the public on several issues). I'm merely suspicious of their arguments. This whole pentagon thing is weird, worth being curious about, but as much as you can hate the official version, you gotta see a booger for what it is [choose from definition below].

References and definitions

Booger: 1. Dried nasal mucus 2. An imaginary monster used to frighten children

I love dictionary.com

Please, care to disagree and express yourself!