What positive evidence do we have that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon? I'm not talking about refuting supposed evidence against, but actual evidence in support.

1. Eyewitness testimony is worthless for at least two reasons: many eyewitnesses said that the plane hit the ground before hitting the building, which is patently false. Also, they didn't have the time to see the plane clearly before it hit.

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/6.jpg

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/pentalawn.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml

The story of the plane making the circular dive contradicted the initial Bush Administration story about AA 77.

At the White House Friday, spokesman Ari Fleischer saw it a different way.

"That is not the radar data that we have seen," Fleischer said, adding, "The plane was headed toward the White House."

The Bush Administration has lied hugely about what happened in 9/11.

We are supposed to believe that mediocre terrorist pilots flew in a way that 90 percent of trained pilots couldn't fly, seriously jeaprodizing the mission (risking hitting the ground instead of the Pentagon), succeeding, yet hitting the Pentagon where it would do the least damage -- killing fewer than 200 persons instead of thousands.

If anyone believes this, I have some oceanside land for sale in the middle of the Sahara Desert.

2. Photographic evidence is neutral to against. There is no photographic evidence whatsoever in the public arena showing that the plane hitting was in fact a commercial airliner. Furthermore, all video evidence was seized. Only a few lousy pictures and very slow video that doesn't show what the thing was that hit the Pentagon have been released.

The release of those obscure images was done in manifest bad faith. Why don't they release a video that actually shows something? Probably because it would show something other than a commercial airliner.

The fireball is primarily from the fuselage, with minimal fire from the fuel in the wings.

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/pentalawn/pl8.jpg

Many columns remain where the wings should have penetrated. If they were strong enough to resist the wings, burning fuel would have splashed outward -- you'd see a ground covered with burning fuel. Instead, the ground wasn't touched.

Large wooden spools of industrial cable block the wings and were almost untouched.

3. Scraps and forensic evidence found there -- I can't recognize anything as definitely from AA77 myself. Given the Bush Administration's lies about 9/11, I refuse to believe this until I get independent confirmation from experts I can trust. If DNA from victims was found, I want proof that it was actually found in the Pentagon.

The on-time performance data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics leaves out American Flights 11 and 77 completely for September 11th. (United Flights 93 and 175 are listed as "diverted.")

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/DL_SelectFields.asp?Table_ID=236&DB_Short_Name=On-Time&SYS_Table_Name=T_ONTIME&USER_Table_Name=On-Time%20Performance&Frequency=Monthly&Data_Frequency=Annual,Quarterly,Monthly&Num_Geo=2&Info_Only=0&Year_Info=1&Last_Year=2004&Origin_Field=ORIGIN_STATE_NM&Dest_Field=DEST_STATE_NM&Is_Big_Table=2

The Twin Towers: the spectacular attack

The Pentagon: the mild self-injury

Flight 93: the heartwarming tale of tragic heroism and self-sacrifice.

Why have almost none of the passenger lists actually included the hijackers? Where are the official manifests? Documents that can't be altered once the plane takes off?

I can't think of anything short of impeachment that would reign in the Bush Administration. Congress can pass laws and allocate or not allocate money. The problem is that the Bush Administration has shown that it will disregard laws as it chooses. What evidence do we have to conclude that the Bush Administration will obey these laws, and not spend money that hasn't been allocated?

The Bush Administration will do as it darn well pleases, regardless of laws passed, hearings done, money allocated.

One other consideration is a military (or intelligence-force) takeover. That could appear in either of two ways: the Bush Administration might be thrown out, or Congress's attempt at impeaching the Bush Administration might be overthrown. Given the horrid history of military takeovers and martial law, I call for an absolute ban on military takeovers of democratic countries. Therefore, the only kind of takeover that would be allowed is under the following situation:

• Congress impeaches (and convicts) President Bush and Vice President Cheney. (Or their terms end.)
• The Bush Administration refuses to leave power.
• The military (or someone) forces them out, and installs the legitimate next in line as President, and gets out of the way.

"Will he be subjected to the same sarcasm, gossip and investigative zeal so routinely applied to, for example, his potential Democratic rival Hillary Clinton?"

No.

> [T]his whole measurement is about to become moot, particularly

> if Barack Obama wins in November.

This is patently false. The Republican Noise Machine and the Bush puppeteers will still exist. Bush was little more than a puppet these past eight years.

During the summer of 2001, when the speculative media frenzy was raging about Democratic Representative Gary Condit and the disappearance of Chandra Levy, the dead body of a young female aide, Lori Klausutis, was found in Republican Representative Joe Scarborough's northwest Florida office.

Outside of coverage in the local paper (Northwest Florida Daily News), there was a virtual nationwide media blackout on the subject.

How does this fit into your discussion of the media?

...although I'd forgotten about that particular article.