"but ignored: "In part I of No Arabs on Flight 77, I presented evidence from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), that there were no Arabs on American Airlines Flight 77." "

No. Read my refutation again. You are not even on the same page with me.

I refute that in 'part one' the fellow presented ANY sound evidence. A claim to evidence is NOT, evidence.

And yes, at the first sign of willful misdirection in a piece of evidence or expository essay, I WILL leave the work to the garbage heap. You should to. Its called vetting your sources. Claiming that the 'Victims' list published by cnn.com was a roster of flight 77 was a willful misdirection on the part of the author.

"However, since you freely admit "...I have not read it all (nor, probably will...", I cannot be surprised that you are eager to, ah, overlook unpleasant facts."

Give an ennumeration of those facts that I am over-looking, and support them, or shut up.

"A classic denial is It can't be; therefore, it isn't, and I'll waste no time looking at it, typified by the Papal envoys sent to review Galileo's "heresy" that the Earth was not the center of the universe because his (Galileo's) telescope had revealed that moons were orbiting Jupiter. The Cardinals refused to look through Galileo's telescope, and I coined the term Blind Cardinal Disease to reflect an avoidance of confronting facts at odds with one's cherished beliefs."

Yes, and here is where we try to drag Galileo, or Socrates, or Einstein, or [etc] in. I have stated this before: these great men not only had great vision, but they had great knowledge of the field in which they made their contribution. They had a deep and subtle understanding of the body of facts at hand and NOT just a willingness to form a hypothesis that was novell. In fact, ALL of them began their revolution by focusing on facts that could not be explained and developing hypothesies that explained/were supported by ALL THE FACTS, not just one or two..

I will state this again, emphatically:
That there are no arabs on the autopsy lists cited by this fellow means, precisely, that there are no arabs on the autopsy lists cited by this fellow. Nothing more, nothing less. The point being: there are multitudes of explanations for why this could be the case and outside of corroboration I will not choose your/his interpretation, nor place any faith in his account of the 'facts'

Given the BODY OF EVIDENCE AT HAND, the most convincing assumption to draw from the Autopsy report is that, and only: this is an uncorroborated outlier.

Bring me corroboration, or refute some LARGE and non-trivial part of the evidence that Flight 77 (and the other three) was hijacked by Saudis. THEN I will re-evaluate what I think of your claim. Which is precisely nothing.

Davin L.