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.
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.