If X Then Y

Pat Curley has commented on Chandler and Bursill's discussion. I haven't actually listened to that discussion coz I've been busy, but I will coment on this:

4. Bursill and Chandler decry the "If X then Y" nature of the CIT theories, where X is "the plane flew north of the Citgo" and Y is "then Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon". But Chandler does the same thing (and Bursill gushes that this is the most incontrovertible evidence he's ever found) when he says, "If Building 7 fell at freefall then it must have been a controlled demolition."

There's a difference. It's not the logic of 'if X then Y' that's the problem, the problem is CIT have not proven 'X'. If CIT had indeed proven beyond all doubt that the plane flew north of citgo, then the flyover theory must indeed be true, but they haven't. A few witnesses putting the plane on the wrong side is not proof. Especially since other witnesses put the plane on the official flight path and others actually saw the plane hit. With WTC7 however, we have proven that the building collapsed at freefall. It's been proven by a number of video analyses and NIST has even acknowledged this.

Put simply, with WTC7 it's:

If X then Y. We know X is true. Therefore Y is true.

But with CIT it's:

If X then Y. Here's evidence for X, here's evidence against X.
Ignore the evidence against X and Y is true!