[davinxtk]

Yeah, nobody's paying attention to the post I linked.

Originally Posted by Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:53 pm, I

Punch some key words into google on this one. There's a whole host of sites arguing in both directions, and both of them have alarmingly weak evidence.

All of the security camera footage that could have covered this was confiscated. Eyewitnesses report a huge jet, but I don't think many people have been so close to a commuter jet. They could be completely mistaken about the style/size.
When asked to produce debris, the sites arguing that a 757 hit the building all show the same piece of debris on the ground over and over again, as though it was the only one there. On one site it's argued that the reason not as much damage was done to the building as you'd expect a 757 to do is because it hit the ground first. There are, however, no marks on the ground at all. The same site says that at the speed it hit, the engines probably smashed and shattered themselves against the outside of the building; while later on in the page they point out a 14-foot-hole on the fourth wall of the building that was apparently caused by one of the engines forcing itself through the walls. Where's the shot of the engine resting inside the Pentagon?
The sites that support the jet theory claim that the remains of all but one of the passengers was found. Which passenger? Could that be significant? Or really, are any of those passengers real people whose remains can actually be confirmed?
Could it be that the jet hit first, and the missile scream and second explosion heard was a missile that was fired in an attempt at defense, from a fighter jet, that didn't make contact soon enough?
If so, could much of what happened to the Pentagon be collateral damage?

These sites all raise questions that I don't think we're ever going to find the answers to. At least not until some b-rate Zapruder comes around. And I can almost promise you the first one won't be authentic.

Not that I expect anyone to pay any more attention to me NOW.