Your inability to rebut the report and what it says means the report remains unchallenged. Speculate all you like, but until you produce evidence that's all it will be.
Really? So you can refute all those images of aircraft parts from the Pentagon? Or are you just dismissing any and all images found simply because it is easier than addressing the facts?
Why do you assume the "big chunk" had to stay a big chunk and not be reduced down to littler chunks? It is not reasonable to assume the entire tail section had to remain whole while everything else was reduced to small pieces.
Google is not a reputable place to collect data? Is that what you just said? Really? What "reputable" search engine do you use?
I didn't write that. Regardless, where is it written that something sheared off has to remain whole, ESPECIALLY when it is traveling at a very high rate of speed and in the middle of an explosion? It is a simple question.
Hey genius, Google is not the source of the photos. Google is a search engine. Click on the individual photos for their original source.
There is quite a body of photographic evidence that shows wings, tails and landing gear being sheared from aircraft, impacting at or near the same speed and remaining intact and indentifiable.
OK. Show us ANY photographic evidence that shows intact wings and tails from aircraft going around 530 miles an hour into a steel reinforced concrete building. Should be easy since there is quite a body. The landing gear was clearly identifiable in the wreckage, so that is a moot point. Here is a good example of not much left after a high speed crash. IranAir 7908 crash site One other thing you should consider. Finding an instance of a wing or tail that survived a high speed impact doesn't mean anything. All one has to do is find one example where the wings and tail DIDN'T survive a high speed impact to prove it is possible. Once it is proven the results of an event is possible, you can no longer claim the results have to be different.
I never said it was sheared. I just wanted to know why the tail left no impact marks above 25 and left no indentifiable wreckage suggesting it been removed by the exterior wall below the 25 foot mark. There is no evidence suggesting a tail 36' 6" tall struck the building above 25 feet. The report also states the left wing left no marks either, yet it contained quite a bit of fuel at impact. Again no marks suggest the wing was removed at the fuselage by the exterior wall, and again no remnants of wing exist outside of building?????
Neither does the post you quoted. Do you have any response to what was actually said? For example: and Any rebuttal, or agreement with the above statements?
