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.