Reply #50: In order for it to be a good analogy, you'd need to show a B757 crash...

[Abe Linkman]

into the Pentagon. In the case of the Sandia experiment, there's little question about whether or not a plane crashed into the wall. It's a small jet, but never mind about that. The size of the plane is not so important as the fact that we know a plane actually did crash into the wall.

If we had a photo of the Sandia site AFTER the crash, it would be helpful, but even if we did have such a photo, it wouldn't prove your analogy is a good one. In order to use photographic evidence to make an anlogy, you need photographs. You don't even show one. You only show a video of a small, single engine plane crashing into a building, as part of an experiment.

What you are doing is trying to prove a point with only half of the needed factual evidence to prove your point. The video image of the attack jet at the Pentagon does show a small jet, but you are trying to claim that a large B757 crashed there.

If you could provide photographic evidence of a large plane crashing into a building AND a photo of the results of it, and if that photo looked like what we see in the photos of the Pentagon, THEN, you'd have something. If you've ever seen any of the photos of the plane that crashed into the apartment building in the Netherlands (the Isareli plane), that's the kind of evidence that you need if you want to make an analogy with the Pentagon. Plane crashes of large jets leave evidence that a jet plane crashed. At the very, very least, you
see engines, and nearly always other identifiable aircraft pieces, too.

It's not the worst attempt at making an analogy, but then, you never claimed to have a degree in Philosophy, did you? They must not include the subject of logic as a course requirement for engineering majors, at Drexel.