posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:50 PM
As most people know eyewitness accounts aren't always that accurate. Many people have been wrongly convicted of crimes solely due to faulty
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
This contradiction has baffled me for some time now.