Eyewitness Accounts

As most people know eyewitness accounts aren't always that accurate. Many people have been wrongly convicted of crimes solely due to faulty eyewitness testimony.

In the case of what hit the Pentagon, several dozen witnesses saw what they said was a commercial jet fly into the Pentagon.

In the case of the collapses of WTC's 1, 2, and 7; many people are quoted as saying they heard explosions.

How then can conspiracy theorists discredit the eyewitness accounts of those at the Pentagon, yet hang their hats on the earwitness accounts of those at the WTC's?

Most discussions of any length on the collapse of the towers has the "I heard an explosion" quotes trotted out at. At some point in every discussion of any length on the Pentagon the same people that use witness accounts to support the controlled demolition theory say they're inaccurate to discredit the official story of the Pentagon.

My question is this: how can you have it both ways? People actually seeing with their own eyes something that they've flown on, have seen flying, or even just on TV be wrong about what they saw, but when someone says "it sounded like an explosion", it must have been an explosive device used in a controlled demolition?

This contradiction has baffled me for some time now.

Originally posted by PistolPete
In the case of what hit the Pentagon, several dozen witnesses saw what they said was a commercial jet fly into the Pentagon.

In the case of the collapses of WTC's 1, 2, and 7; many people are quoted as saying they heard explosions.

Out of all the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon they could not agree on if it was a commercial jet or a business jet. Also eyewitnesses admitted they did not know what hit the Pentagon they were told afterwards it was a 757.

As far as WTC1,2 and 7 police, firemen, and EMTs reported hearing explosions, as well as some videos you can hear what sounds like explosions.

That's bogus and you know it.

Even if the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon can't agree on what they saw, where exactly do the "ear" witnesses at the WTC's have any kind of agreement on the fact that they most definitely heard explosions involved in a "controlled demolition?

There isn't any.

In the very least, the arguments on both sides should be a moot point, correct?