obviously the latter is more reliable. I don;t understand...are you inferring no one saw the plane hit the pentagon? or that an investigation found no evidence of a plane hitting the building? what do you mean
There were witness statements which said both things - some got a crystal clear description of the jet - even somehow describing the terrified faces of passengers (of a plane travelling 500 mph, eh?). But there were dozens of people who saw a very small plane or glider. Eyewitness testimony is VERY unreliable here - because it happened quickly, people like to be involved as witnesses, and if it was shady at any level, you don't know who is just plain lying. And it's very possible there was a big plane (AWACS filmed afterwards) with a small glider JDAM head globalhawk glider floating under it.
Now VIDEOTAPED evidence could answer every question very easily. There were about 80 cameras (which could be spotted) which would have recorded the impact. This kind of evidence is irrefutable, and undeniable. Yet they won't release any of it. You get 9 fiery frames, and that was only released because the French was releasing a book called "The big Lie". yes, they *found* those frames just in time.
The evidence at the plane crash - physical evidence - was very lacking. I mean, it could have been put there by a pickup truck - that is how little remained. it's mcuh easier to plant 500 pounds of debris, than it is to make 125 TONS of steel, engines, etc, DISAPPEAR.
We know something hit. But the lack pf plane debris, all removed camera angles, and multiple conflicting statements are certainly not even NEAR conclusive. If anyone but a govt person tried selling this story, no one would believe it. But since we're conditioned to trust those in power, we don't even quesiton which is actually a story lacking any
real evidence.
