I suppose this is progress from "you must be in denial" at least.As you have said previously, all of the physical evidence appears to support it, however unlikely the damage to the Pentagon is following collision with a large jet.
I've already said that the OT is not dependant on this one witness. Neither is my worldview, which is hardly relevant here. There are hundreds (including many of the CIT ones) who saw the plane impact, which can only support the South flightpath. You make out as if Lloyd England is the only bit of evidence supporting the OT... again. This is not true and I would like you to admit that.How happy are you to have a world view that depends on a confused cab driver saying he climbed out of a cab that had been struck by a 200 pound lightpole struck by a fast-moving jet and escaped without a scratch?
Again this is utterly twisted logic. How many 'witnesses' were asked about lightpoles? Can you imagine the journalists on the scene asking...And that on a supposedly busy highway, not a single other eye-witness claims to have seen it happen.
"Excuse me, ignoring the plane that hit the pentagon for a moment, can you describe for me the crucial moment where it hit the lightpoles?"
This explains the lack of accounts of the lightpoles lifted from the hundreds of news reports. Wouldn't you agree?
As for the probable hundreds of witnesses stuck in a traffic jam on that road on the morning of the attack, CIT have interviewed two to my knowledge. One of whom CIT brand a liar. The other they brand a liar involved in a death cult with connections in Washington. There are many more witnesses they brand liars because they don't fit CIT's theory (see my third link). I don't think that is reasonable behaviour - you cannot just accuse anyone whose evidence doesn't fit your pet theory of being a liar. At least you cannot do that and retain any credibility imo.
All witnesses seem to agree that the plane hit the building. The witness count on that simple statement of fact seems to be 100s vs 0!!! Do you accept that the plane hit the building?
If not, then what is going on in your mind? You rely on 13 supposed witnesses with vague recollections of a different flightpath, yet cannot accept hundreds of witnesses plus a wealth of physical evidence that establishes the fact that the plane hit the building?