I like a world of discrete facts. WHO are these "GOP members" who are pushing to expel Gaetz? How many are there? So far, they are nameless and numberless. One can only ask: Do they even exist?

We're not talking about imaginary missiles. The largest operational cruise missile currently is the AGM-86, which were build at the plant where I worked. I saw inert fuselages in a transportation corridor in another building and became quite familiar with their size and shape. Far too small to do the trick---and I continue to repeat, there is POSITIVE eyewitness identification of the airliner. In effect, there was a "missile" built to match the size of a Boeing 757---but it was a Boeing 757. It is clear that you do not personally know the size of every cruise missile in existence.

There is nothing to prevent the airplane from flying that close to the ground, especially when it is in a shallow dive. Where did you get your aeronautical engineering degree? I have 3 of them from the University of Washington. The 757 crash speed was 550 mph (maximum specification speed is 571 mph, but that is under its own power only, not in a dive). The Land World Speed record (wheeled vehicle) is 760 mph. A cruise missile wouldn't fly that low because it would be in danger of hitting ground clutter before it got to the target.

The Wikipedia article on American Airlines Flight 77 has a map of the radar ground track. Or are you going full-paranoid-denialist and refuse any evidence that you haven't seen personally? And even evidence that you can see? Why would you even bother to argue over this? It indicates to me that you are flailing to find a case.

So, no witnesses means nothing happened? How many traffic accidents were you in a position to see and know what you were seeing. How do you know that it was only one person who saw anything? There were multiple witnesses, including one that was airborne.

My friend, what company were you in and what did you do? I worked for Boeing and was familiar with airplane size, construction, and performance, as well as with cruise missiles. You know less than you think you know.

Take a look at yourself. You are simply denying all the evidence---period. Anyone doing careful metrology of the image will see that the shape was far too large to be a missile---and a missile could never have produced so much damage with no explosion. The tip-off is your pathetic appeal to imagination ("a missile couldn't be built to match the size of a Boeing?"). This is the real world and we have to cope with what is real in this world. Not invoke imaginary worlds. (The largest cruise missile we have ever built was the SM-62 "Snark," but it was pulled out of service in 1961 because it was less accurate than an ICBM and only 5 museum examples exist today.)

And what are you to think it was a 747, when it was a 757? It wasn't "parallel" to the ground. The wings clipped the top off a streetlight. It was in a shallow dive. That sort of flying happens all the time; they are called take-offs and landings.

I am an aeronautical engineer with 40 years experience at the Boeing Company, and am familiar with its product line and product capabilities. Do you want to give me lessons?

You realize, of course, that you only confirm my conviction that you are wrong, by resorting to name-calling. The ultimate in impotent objection.

Everybody did. Including the Pentagon.

The 757 was in a shallow dive and impacted, seemingly, coming in on its belly. (The engines may have been torn off by ground encounter.)

The wings, along with the rest of the airplane, were torn to shreds by the collision. Apparently, the wings also folded aft upon encountering a drag load (concrete) over a thousand times their design limit.

I have been to Africa and haven't seen a zebra in the wild. Does that mean there are no zebras? I haven't seen any elephants, either, and they are claimed to be there. Just because someone fails to "see" something doesn't mean the something is not present. I come into my home and walk about, not seeing any intruder. Of course, I will not see the intruder in my bedroom closet. And someone new to the scene, nowhere near where the wreckage is located, not having any access to it, would report "I can't see anything." An old and valid principle of formal logic is "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (This is connected to the formal difficulty of proving a negative statement.) But there was evidence. It was all mingled with the building debris, as one might expect. It doesn't take much searching to find photos of, e.g., a fuselage panel with livery, and an engine turbine disk.

Hmmm....why would the FBI prevent the public from knowing where all the surveillance cameras are? Could it be that such information is classified, and is a matter of vulnerability for the Pentagon? Ask them. Just because you don't know the answer is no basis for dreaming up an answer. But you tell me: if the evidence is collected by classified means, do you expose the means to public knowledge? Generally, the answer is "no." (By the way, was it the FBI or one of the military security services? We tend to be sloppy and assume the former, but I have my doubts that the FBI would have clearance to obtain custody of the footage.)

Your problem is that you don't know what you are talking about. The ATM video that I saw had maybe one frame available of the full airplane, but what there was had the American Airlines livery...and it was the right size compared to the height of the Pentagon. The final hole was much larger than the fuselage diameter. Since they found components of the engines, the facts are more important than your imagination. The wings folding is quite reasonable, as they were designed to withstand the drag force of air, not the drag force of concrete, which is over a thousand times denser. The leading edge of the wing is NOT the strongest part of the airframe. The strong parts are the wing box beam that is in the fuselage, and the wing beams themselves, which are all designed to support lift and gravity loads---not crashing into concrete. This is consistent with the mid-air crash of a B-25 into the Empire State Building in 1945.

The objections are: the video captured an American Airlines airplane; multiple ground and aloft witnesses saw the airplane, the airplane wing clipped off a streetlamp (which would have fatally damaged a cruise missile); there was no explosion, just a fireball from ignited jet fuel; the AA flight was tracked by radar from takeoff to collision; the passengers are dead and gone; there was aircraft wreckage found in the debris. All of these are facts.

Your "findings" are all imaginary. You misconstrue an airplane to be some unspecified "cruise missile" on the strength of a blurry image. You ignore the fact that had a cruise missile clipped a streetlight, it would have been fatally deflected from its path (cruise missile wings are strong for their size, but not much bigger than a surfboard). You ignore the fact that even terrain-following cruise missiles do not fly so low---because they would encounter fatal obstacles. You ignore the fact that precision attack cruise missiles dive at their target (in order to minimize the effect of height error on miss distance). So, your "findings" are a mixture of wishful thinking and ignorance.

And the Pentagon was not melted, so what are you trying to say? You need to get a grip on logical thinking.

By the way, jet fuel can melt aluminum easily, and also steel. Do your research on adiabatic flame temperature and melting points. Stop repeating ignorance. But nothing was melted in this event.

Wow. "I didn't see anything to show what the cause was---but obviously the official explanation is all made up." She goes directly from an experience where she observed nothing, to a package-deal conclusion based on having observed nothing. How can observing nothing mean that anything else is "obvious"? Can no one see the ideological motive driving her account?

It makes one think that her only concern was for the lives of the people in the Pentagon, and not for any passengers obliterated in the collision. Easy to erase the passengers from concern by inventing the fantasy that they never existed.

It is a commonplace in accidents of all kinds that the direct participants can have widely varying accounts of what happened. This has been demonstrated over and over again in psychological experiments. In this case, evidence had to be sifted and sorted from the mass of building wreckage that was created. It was not just lying around, in large intact pieces.

As for jet fuel, the fact that one was not doused in it is not evidence against there being any. The impact fireball is pretty definite evidence of jet fuel being ignited by the collision. Why didn't it then burn more? Because it was extinguished by the building mass coming down on it. Got a puddle of burning gasoline? Just put it out with a few shovelfuls of dirt or sand---or pulverized concrete. Same principle.

You guys are grasping at straws. He says "a missile, a plane..." That is not recovery from a fatal misidentification, it is the recollection of someone on the scene who did not at that moment know what he saw---which was a plane that had been repurposed to be a missile. He could have said "a something..." and that would have had the same significance.

Is it that you find the truth (airplane full of passengers destroyed in a moment) so terrible, you have to dream up an alternate reality where it didn't happen...and then somehow interpret that "no kill" fantasy as being more terrible than the reality? You are turning your minds into pretzels.

It was the 757 in AA livery. A cruise missile would have been much smaller. The recovered engine turbine disk was much larger than that in a cruise missile. People on the scene identified the aircraft as a plane. A cruise missile would have been hard to see.

You are plugging in your expectation bias instead of objective analysis.

Not a cruise missile and the video is very blurry, due to exposure smear. Far too large for that. No cruise missile files that close to the ground. Wreckage was found, consistent with the airplane being a 757. The flight was tracked by radar from its origin at the airport. The collision was witnessed by a person who was flying above at the time. What you claim to know is only fantasy.

Well, in fact it landed in farmland where it was seen and the wreckage photographed. The scandal has to do with the firing of weapons at a neighboring country who is a NATO member. Any missile launch is deliberate. Cars don't start up and drive themselves. Neither do missiles launch except by human control. The fact that it was a Ukrainian missile and they boldly lied to blame the Russians is a patent of deceit, which eliminates the possibility of innocent accident. The Poles are not stupid enough to not understand all this.

I don't go along with the argument against impeachment. We have no patent on the future, so we must take steps according to what we have.

1. If the election fraud was exposed, that will void Biden's presidency under the principle that fraud vitiates everything. Plus, he will be subject to prosecution for the associated crimes, without any protection as a former president.
2. The Democrats are willful beings, not robots. We don't control what they do, especially do we not control them by failing to act. (We encourage them, in fact.)

I agree that there are down sides for the Democrats so conspicuously devouring their own, but they thrive on thinking and saying two contrary things at once, so I don't expect they would care---nor would their supporters.

According to Dame Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian by birth, external aid to Africa only perpetuates a pusher-addict relationship, preventing independence and self-governance. She had to leave the country for fear of official reprisal because she was refuting the whole strategy of obtaining "donors."

No, I was thinking of God's clock. And, to be fair, no one escapes the entrance interview with St. Peter.

I appreciate the sentiment, but it takes more energy to send something into the Sun than it does to expel it from the solar system.

Silver makes a pretty decent substitute for lead in bullets, only 10% less dense, but more "slick." I've seen references to lead-silver alloy bullets. More expensive, of course. The Lone Ranger was not being entirely frivolous.

You guys love White Hat scenarios...how about Biden nominating Trump for VP?

I think it is a fever dream, but I can't resist stirring up the herd.

I got mentally whipsawed when I first misread her name as "McCain." (I guess I need my morning coffee when I read these things.)

I found out about it only this morning, with an odd reaction: equal parts pity and hope. I guess these surprises are what come when one has ceased to watch the evening news on TV. Completely unexpected, but on Breitbart News it was like a big ho-hum. No indication of cause of death (where, admittedly, "ran out of time" was probably the answer.)

It varies. I had a "sigmoidoscopy" (only goes partway up) under tranquilizer, and it was excruciatingly painful. I had later colonoscopies under anesthesia, and thank God for that. Maybe they call it "sedation." I don't care. I was out like a light and loving it. Very interesting and abrupt "cut" from prior consciousness to post-consciousness.

1. It was identified as a Ukrainian surface-to-air missile by the wreckage and serial numbers. There was no way it could have gotten there except by launch azimuth selection.

2. Who said you needed to hit anything on the ground accurately in order to create an incident to frame the Russians? (Surface-to-Air missile systems have been repurposed to Surface-to-Surface, e.g., the Nike Hercules system by the South Koreans.)

Ever had a colonoscopy? It may take a while to shake the aftereffects of the anesthesia. (In that case, I simply cannot forbear to call it "anusthesia.")