Not here to debate anyone, but of course I have questions...
There was round hole in the building, at ground level. Even with landing gear retracted a 757 couldn't get that low. So what could?
A round hole means 757 wings didn't penetrate the building, and no pieces of wings were outside the building, so where did they go?
The first reporter on the scene, minutes after the event, broadcast live and reported that there was no sign of a plane, or any plane wreckage. I'd imagine that video has been scrubbed from the Internet, but a lot of us here have seen it. Why would he report that, and then have his report scrubbed from the Internet?
Why did the FBI gather all surveillance camera footage from around the Pentagon area and keep it sealed to this day? Why can't we see it? It reminds me of how they still won't unseal the evidence of the JFK assassination. Or how they tried to seal the Pfizer data for 75 years. Hiding evidence makes you look guilty, just sayin'.
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.)
Not here to debate anyone, but of course I have questions...
There was round hole in the building, at ground level. Even with landing gear retracted a 757 couldn't get that low. So what could?
A round hole means 757 wings didn't penetrate the building, and no pieces of wings were outside the building, so where did they go?
The first reporter on the scene, minutes after the event, broadcast live and reported that there was no sign of a plane, or any plane wreckage. I'd imagine that video has been scrubbed from the Internet, but a lot of us here have seen it. Why would he report that, and then have his report scrubbed from the Internet?
Why did the FBI gather all surveillance camera footage from around the Pentagon area and keep it sealed to this day? Why can't we see it? It reminds me of how they still won't unseal the evidence of the JFK assassination. Or how they tried to seal the Pfizer data for 75 years. Hiding evidence makes you look guilty, just sayin'.
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.)