We're not talking about imaginary missiles. The largest operational cruise missile currently is the AGM-86, which were build at the plant where I worked. I saw inert fuselages in a transportation corridor in another building and became quite familiar with their size and shape. Far too small to do the trick---and I continue to repeat, there is POSITIVE eyewitness identification of the airliner. In effect, there was a "missile" built to match the size of a Boeing 757---but it was a Boeing 757. It is clear that you do not personally know the size of every cruise missile in existence.
There is nothing to prevent the airplane from flying that close to the ground, especially when it is in a shallow dive. Where did you get your aeronautical engineering degree? I have 3 of them from the University of Washington. The 757 crash speed was 550 mph (maximum specification speed is 571 mph, but that is under its own power only, not in a dive). The Land World Speed record (wheeled vehicle) is 760 mph. A cruise missile wouldn't fly that low because it would be in danger of hitting ground clutter before it got to the target.
The Wikipedia article on American Airlines Flight 77 has a map of the radar ground track. Or are you going full-paranoid-denialist and refuse any evidence that you haven't seen personally? And even evidence that you can see? Why would you even bother to argue over this? It indicates to me that you are flailing to find a case.
So, no witnesses means nothing happened? How many traffic accidents were you in a position to see and know what you were seeing. How do you know that it was only one person who saw anything? There were multiple witnesses, including one that was airborne.
My friend, what company were you in and what did you do? I worked for Boeing and was familiar with airplane size, construction, and performance, as well as with cruise missiles. You know less than you think you know.
Take a look at yourself. You are simply denying all the evidence---period. Anyone doing careful metrology of the image will see that the shape was far too large to be a missile---and a missile could never have produced so much damage with no explosion. The tip-off is your pathetic appeal to imagination ("a missile couldn't be built to match the size of a Boeing?"). This is the real world and we have to cope with what is real in this world. Not invoke imaginary worlds. (The largest cruise missile we have ever built was the SM-62 "Snark," but it was pulled out of service in 1961 because it was less accurate than an ICBM and only 5 museum examples exist today.)
It's obvious that you are buying into the government narrative about what happened that day. Sometimes people can have too much education and not enough real life experience and this produces overeducated fools like yourself.
Assuming you are drinking the entirety of the governments Koolaid, how do you explain the unconventionally unexplainable collapse of WTC7? And with regard to WTC7, if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you DON'T believe the ridiculous government/NIST conclusion that the freefall collapse of WTC7 occurred due to a few isolated fires created by WTC1 and WTC2, my reasoned question is if the insider culprits responsible for WTC7 controlled demolition were willing to go to those lengths to bring that building down as well as WTC1 and WTC2, how in the world can you not imagine the lengths they would go to fake a Boeing hitting the Pentagon? With unlimited resources what lengths could our government go to. Additional questions arise as well. For instance, why are you discounting the testimony of the individuals who said they saw NO airplane parts, luggage, bodies or passenger seating (which pairs exactly with any and all photos I have ever seen of the aftermath)? This contradicts the testimony of those people you harken to. How do you explain no landing gear or core engine parts, no tail, etc. I have never seen a large jet aircraft crash...no matter how destroyed on impact that didn't leave some recognizable part identifying it as indeed a large airliner! How do you explain the video recording that started our dialogue is the only video of that incident the government has allowed to be seen? The Pentagon is the most secure structure in the United States and every square inch of that building is surveilled. How is it that the FBI confiscated all the videos and will not release them? Why is this?
I have 35 years experience flying jet aircraft. Based on the one video released, I can 100% guarantee you that there isn't a pilot alive that could have centerpunched the building at that speed and mere feet from the ground over a distance of what looked like at least several hundred yards to impact. And assuming there is a skilled pilot who could fly that distance just feet off the ground at close to the speed of sound, to keep the aircraft from hitting the ground before it reached the Pentagon would have been nothing shy of amazing! I ask you personally, have you ever tried to fly a small Cessna at altitude, by hand and maintain said altitude within just a few feet for any period of time? I have many hours of instructing under my belt as well and I know how impossible this is for any pilot especially for an individual with no real world piloting experience like the so called "terrorists!" Those individuals supposedly had NO real world experience hand flying a large Boeing! Dude the whole narrative is absurd to say the least and it just shows how gullible some people are and the lack of critical thinking when it comes to twisting their own natural logic into making it fit the most suspect government/media narrative!
But why stop here? If you are such an expert on the Boeing aircraft, then you know what is in the nose of a Boeing airplane right? First off, it houses the radome and avionics equipment and the nose itself is made of lightweight composite material so as to not affect the operation of the weather radar system. After that it's basically a hollow metal tube. Now from what I understand, the walls of the Pentagon were made of at least 3 feet of rebar reinforced concrete. Of course coming from our government, who knows if this is even the case, but assuming it is, how could a basically hollow aircraft tube structure made of composite and lightweight aluminum material center punch a perfect 12' diameter hole in solid concrete? And then we are to believe that the actual parts of the plane (i.e. the engines) that could have done this kind of damage...DIDN'T? There was no indication that the engines hit the building at all...in fact there was no evidence that there were any jet engines at all!
I could go on, but you might be an AI bot for all I know. In any case, it definitely takes more faith to believe in your fantasy world than it does to believe that we have actually been severely lied to about the worst terrorist attack (pre Covid of course) ever to occur on US soil. As long as people like you keep spreading the government lies, we will never get to the truth and the families of the victims will continue to suffer not knowing the truth...shame on you!
You think in terms of package deals, not event by event. Everything must be explained to your satisfaction. Well, WTC7 caught fire, burned for a prolonged time in the core, which first collapsed, and then the outer walls followed suit. It's explainable, but you seem to think you know better than the experts (if we are to point to experts). And then you get off into fantasy land about non-existent airplanes and unlimited resources. I work in the aerospace industry; there are no "unlimited" resources (as Ukraine is finding out the hard way).
You also have no skills in logic. I've been to Africa. I haven't seen zebras or elephants. By your logic, they don't exist and are only narrative creations. The people who don't see things---haven't seen things. It does not refute the existence of things that are uncovered after the debris is sifted, including such things as you mentioned (specifically an engine turbine disk), which can be easily found after a few minutes of internet searching. The people who see nothing have no evidence of anything. The people who have seen something have evidence. This is a very elementary point about logical proof, yet you seem to be not only ignorant of it, but hostile to it. It is the basis of the scientific method (and yet you call me a fool).
You also seem to think that posing challenge questions are a method of refutation ("How do you explain...?"). Questions are only proof of ignorance. If there is an alternative explanation, you get to come up with the evidence that it is true and credible. If you are so concerned about the answer, ask the government. Maybe they will give you an answer, maybe not. But as someone who worked at a government-certified secure facility, I can tell you with some confidence that the location, nature, and capability of surveillance equipment is not exposed to the public. I would venture to say that ALL video surveillance records are kept as classified material. 9/11 simply fits into this standard.
Your experience flying jet aircraft does not seem to acquaint you with the extremes of aircraft performance. There was, for example, the 1979 flight of TWA Flight 841 over Michigan, which got into a spiral dive that exceeded the Mach limit of the airframe. The aircraft survived, albeit with permanent structural deformation. A 757 at 550 mph is nowhere near the speed of sound at 767 mph. I don't read that image as showing the distance covered in the frame to be much more than the aircraft length of 155 feet. There is every indication it was in a shallow dive, as the wing would have been at least 10 feet above ground level to clip the streetlight. There is also the presence of the ground effect, which becomes stronger as the aircraft nears the ground. (So strong, in fact, the the first flight of the U-2 had an interesting dilemma because it couldn't land. The ground effect prevented the plane from touching ground. They had to kill the lift by manipulating the control surfaces.) If you are flying into a ground effect environment that will buffer the effect of a dive, the event becomes understandable. 550 mph is 897 feet per second, which is 300 yards in one second. If the pilot set up a reasonable glide path (point the nose), he would have had essentially no time to make an error. And we don't know that these terrorists were not ex-military pilots that may have trained in fighters or transport aircraft, and only needed classwork in the U.S. to spruce up their familiarization. But don't lecture me about letting my imagination carry me away---you are the shining example of that. I tell you who I believe...I believe the pilots that fly 757s and the feedback that filters through the manufacturing and ex-military community at Boeing. Since 9/11, I have never heard of the pilots' union saying Flight 77 was impossible, nor have I heard any scuttlebutt within Boeing that it was technically impossible. Not for the 15 years prior to my retirement. So, I think you are talking outside your expertise.
There's more to an airplane than a tube (e.g., the main deck) and more to forcing structure than dimensions alone. The airplane was fully loaded, and amounted to a projectile weighing 84,000 pounds at a speed of 550 mph, with a cross-sectional area of, say, 144 square feet. So imagine a weight having the frontal area of a small kitchen, weighing 42 tons, falling from a height of 2 1/3 miles. Yeah, I think it would smash through concrete curtain walls and some interior columns. Not and stay together, of course, which is where people go wrong in their thinking. High winds or rushing flood currents can rapidly destroy major structure, and there is nothing solid about air or water. It is about momentum, more than about material strength. As for the engines, they were most likely ripped off the wings by the ground and/or the Pentagon foundation in the final approach (they were about 6 feet lower than the ventral line of the fuselage), and then covered and crushed by the building debris. Parts of them were found.
You could go on---but then I would have to go on---and on---clearing up your misunderstandings. If you think an AI/bot could write like me, prove it. Just one more fanciful idea. I "believe" in facts, and so far the facts are clear. You are the one who refuses to accept facts---because they are discordant with your premise that the government only lies. You don't know this at all. You assume it, and you construct fantasies about it. You don't have any positive evidence of an alternative truth, and you ignore the evidence that exists, or misinterpret it in order to have your fantasy. It is tiresome. And bizarre, because it seems you think it is WORSE for the government to have created a hoax in which no one was killed---than there to have been an air piracy that killed 189 people.
We're not talking about imaginary missiles. The largest operational cruise missile currently is the AGM-86, which were build at the plant where I worked. I saw inert fuselages in a transportation corridor in another building and became quite familiar with their size and shape. Far too small to do the trick---and I continue to repeat, there is POSITIVE eyewitness identification of the airliner. In effect, there was a "missile" built to match the size of a Boeing 757---but it was a Boeing 757. It is clear that you do not personally know the size of every cruise missile in existence.
There is nothing to prevent the airplane from flying that close to the ground, especially when it is in a shallow dive. Where did you get your aeronautical engineering degree? I have 3 of them from the University of Washington. The 757 crash speed was 550 mph (maximum specification speed is 571 mph, but that is under its own power only, not in a dive). The Land World Speed record (wheeled vehicle) is 760 mph. A cruise missile wouldn't fly that low because it would be in danger of hitting ground clutter before it got to the target.
The Wikipedia article on American Airlines Flight 77 has a map of the radar ground track. Or are you going full-paranoid-denialist and refuse any evidence that you haven't seen personally? And even evidence that you can see? Why would you even bother to argue over this? It indicates to me that you are flailing to find a case.
So, no witnesses means nothing happened? How many traffic accidents were you in a position to see and know what you were seeing. How do you know that it was only one person who saw anything? There were multiple witnesses, including one that was airborne.
My friend, what company were you in and what did you do? I worked for Boeing and was familiar with airplane size, construction, and performance, as well as with cruise missiles. You know less than you think you know.
Take a look at yourself. You are simply denying all the evidence---period. Anyone doing careful metrology of the image will see that the shape was far too large to be a missile---and a missile could never have produced so much damage with no explosion. The tip-off is your pathetic appeal to imagination ("a missile couldn't be built to match the size of a Boeing?"). This is the real world and we have to cope with what is real in this world. Not invoke imaginary worlds. (The largest cruise missile we have ever built was the SM-62 "Snark," but it was pulled out of service in 1961 because it was less accurate than an ICBM and only 5 museum examples exist today.)
It's obvious that you are buying into the government narrative about what happened that day. Sometimes people can have too much education and not enough real life experience and this produces overeducated fools like yourself.
Assuming you are drinking the entirety of the governments Koolaid, how do you explain the unconventionally unexplainable collapse of WTC7? And with regard to WTC7, if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you DON'T believe the ridiculous government/NIST conclusion that the freefall collapse of WTC7 occurred due to a few isolated fires created by WTC1 and WTC2, my reasoned question is if the insider culprits responsible for WTC7 controlled demolition were willing to go to those lengths to bring that building down as well as WTC1 and WTC2, how in the world can you not imagine the lengths they would go to fake a Boeing hitting the Pentagon? With unlimited resources what lengths could our government go to. Additional questions arise as well. For instance, why are you discounting the testimony of the individuals who said they saw NO airplane parts, luggage, bodies or passenger seating (which pairs exactly with any and all photos I have ever seen of the aftermath)? This contradicts the testimony of those people you harken to. How do you explain no landing gear or core engine parts, no tail, etc. I have never seen a large jet aircraft crash...no matter how destroyed on impact that didn't leave some recognizable part identifying it as indeed a large airliner! How do you explain the video recording that started our dialogue is the only video of that incident the government has allowed to be seen? The Pentagon is the most secure structure in the United States and every square inch of that building is surveilled. How is it that the FBI confiscated all the videos and will not release them? Why is this?
I have 35 years experience flying jet aircraft. Based on the one video released, I can 100% guarantee you that there isn't a pilot alive that could have centerpunched the building at that speed and mere feet from the ground over a distance of what looked like at least several hundred yards to impact. And assuming there is a skilled pilot who could fly that distance just feet off the ground at close to the speed of sound, to keep the aircraft from hitting the ground before it reached the Pentagon would have been nothing shy of amazing! I ask you personally, have you ever tried to fly a small Cessna at altitude, by hand and maintain said altitude within just a few feet for any period of time? I have many hours of instructing under my belt as well and I know how impossible this is for any pilot especially for an individual with no real world piloting experience like the so called "terrorists!" Those individuals supposedly had NO real world experience hand flying a large Boeing! Dude the whole narrative is absurd to say the least and it just shows how gullible some people are and the lack of critical thinking when it comes to twisting their own natural logic into making it fit the most suspect government/media narrative!
But why stop here? If you are such an expert on the Boeing aircraft, then you know what is in the nose of a Boeing airplane right? First off, it houses the radome and avionics equipment and the nose itself is made of lightweight composite material so as to not affect the operation of the weather radar system. After that it's basically a hollow metal tube. Now from what I understand, the walls of the Pentagon were made of at least 3 feet of rebar reinforced concrete. Of course coming from our government, who knows if this is even the case, but assuming it is, how could a basically hollow aircraft tube structure made of composite and lightweight aluminum material center punch a perfect 12' diameter hole in solid concrete? And then we are to believe that the actual parts of the plane (i.e. the engines) that could have done this kind of damage...DIDN'T? There was no indication that the engines hit the building at all...in fact there was no evidence that there were any jet engines at all!
I could go on, but you might be an AI bot for all I know. In any case, it definitely takes more faith to believe in your fantasy world than it does to believe that we have actually been severely lied to about the worst terrorist attack (pre Covid of course) ever to occur on US soil. As long as people like you keep spreading the government lies, we will never get to the truth and the families of the victims will continue to suffer not knowing the truth...shame on you!
You think in terms of package deals, not event by event. Everything must be explained to your satisfaction. Well, WTC7 caught fire, burned for a prolonged time in the core, which first collapsed, and then the outer walls followed suit. It's explainable, but you seem to think you know better than the experts (if we are to point to experts). And then you get off into fantasy land about non-existent airplanes and unlimited resources. I work in the aerospace industry; there are no "unlimited" resources (as Ukraine is finding out the hard way).
You also have no skills in logic. I've been to Africa. I haven't seen zebras or elephants. By your logic, they don't exist and are only narrative creations. The people who don't see things---haven't seen things. It does not refute the existence of things that are uncovered after the debris is sifted, including such things as you mentioned (specifically an engine turbine disk), which can be easily found after a few minutes of internet searching. The people who see nothing have no evidence of anything. The people who have seen something have evidence. This is a very elementary point about logical proof, yet you seem to be not only ignorant of it, but hostile to it. It is the basis of the scientific method (and yet you call me a fool).
You also seem to think that posing challenge questions are a method of refutation ("How do you explain...?"). Questions are only proof of ignorance. If there is an alternative explanation, you get to come up with the evidence that it is true and credible. If you are so concerned about the answer, ask the government. Maybe they will give you an answer, maybe not. But as someone who worked at a government-certified secure facility, I can tell you with some confidence that the location, nature, and capability of surveillance equipment is not exposed to the public. I would venture to say that ALL video surveillance records are kept as classified material. 9/11 simply fits into this standard.
Your experience flying jet aircraft does not seem to acquaint you with the extremes of aircraft performance. There was, for example, the 1979 flight of TWA Flight 841 over Michigan, which got into a spiral dive that exceeded the Mach limit of the airframe. The aircraft survived, albeit with permanent structural deformation. A 757 at 550 mph is nowhere near the speed of sound at 767 mph. I don't read that image as showing the distance covered in the frame to be much more than the aircraft length of 155 feet. There is every indication it was in a shallow dive, as the wing would have been at least 10 feet above ground level to clip the streetlight. There is also the presence of the ground effect, which becomes stronger as the aircraft nears the ground. (So strong, in fact, the the first flight of the U-2 had an interesting dilemma because it couldn't land. The ground effect prevented the plane from touching ground. They had to kill the lift by manipulating the control surfaces.) If you are flying into a ground effect environment that will buffer the effect of a dive, the event becomes understandable. 550 mph is 897 feet per second, which is 300 yards in one second. If the pilot set up a reasonable glide path (point the nose), he would have had essentially no time to make an error. And we don't know that these terrorists were not ex-military pilots that may have trained in fighters or transport aircraft, and only needed classwork in the U.S. to spruce up their familiarization. But don't lecture me about letting my imagination carry me away---you are the shining example of that. I tell you who I believe...I believe the pilots that fly 757s and the feedback that filters through the manufacturing and ex-military community at Boeing. Since 9/11, I have never heard of the pilots' union saying Flight 77 was impossible, nor have I heard any scuttlebutt within Boeing that it was technically impossible. Not for the 15 years prior to my retirement. So, I think you are talking outside your expertise.
There's more to an airplane than a tube (e.g., the main deck) and more to forcing structure than dimensions alone. The airplane was fully loaded, and amounted to a projectile weighing 84,000 pounds at a speed of 550 mph, with a cross-sectional area of, say, 144 square feet. So imagine a weight having the frontal area of a small kitchen, weighing 42 tons, falling from a height of 2 1/3 miles. Yeah, I think it would smash through concrete curtain walls and some interior columns. Not and stay together, of course, which is where people go wrong in their thinking. High winds or rushing flood currents can rapidly destroy major structure, and there is nothing solid about air or water. It is about momentum, more than about material strength. As for the engines, they were most likely ripped off the wings by the ground and/or the Pentagon foundation in the final approach (they were about 6 feet lower than the ventral line of the fuselage), and then covered and crushed by the building debris. Parts of them were found.
You could go on---but then I would have to go on---and on---clearing up your misunderstandings. If you think an AI/bot could write like me, prove it. Just one more fanciful idea. I "believe" in facts, and so far the facts are clear. You are the one who refuses to accept facts---because they are discordant with your premise that the government only lies. You don't know this at all. You assume it, and you construct fantasies about it. You don't have any positive evidence of an alternative truth, and you ignore the evidence that exists, or misinterpret it in order to have your fantasy. It is tiresome. And bizarre, because it seems you think it is WORSE for the government to have created a hoax in which no one was killed---than there to have been an air piracy that killed 189 people.