ummmm Im going to go WAY out on a limb here....
Understand that i Do Not find it Credible that the Pentagon attack was an inside job.

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index4.htm

This Link DavidC has posted many times and up til now i couldnt get the page open- i opened it today and BRIEFLY scanned it ( i have to go to some customer calls and short on time
Another thing DavidC points out is that it makes SENSE.

Ok so i scanned it and i see Discrepencies it states that Do INDEED APPEAR ( i resay it APPEAR... Ok one more time for the hard heads who cannot Read APPEAR) to make sense
Example one: DavidC points out no wing damage. according to Photos - there isnt even a SCRATCH! it "makes sense" that there should be something right?
Example two: According to the site -it Shows the Video footage and claims that the Frame in which the aircraft would be in FULL view has been removed- variable in demonstrations it ELLUDES TO MATH, but doesnt show the work
Example three: By Comparing a 757 image to the building (superimposed to scale) it states that the left engine would have Dug into the ground- yet there is no groove.

ALL these claims seem to make sense. (Invite DavidC to read the Moon Hoax pages on Bad Astronmy where the BA clearly says these things SEEM to make sense until you study the Factors involved (e.g. lighting- reflective surfaces etc)
This SENSIBLE approach easily appeals to the crowd <shrug>
Sensationalism- so ... later ill try to figure out the math involved in the photos on that site- (Speculation) Engine should have grooved but didnt? engine Struck once and broke free? Ground is Lower in rreality than depicted by a flat Schematic- need Photos of that area.. Etc
i repeat
im NOT SAYING these claims are correct-im saying we can Address the "Sensible" claims and debunk them the way BA demonstrates in the Moon Hoax Claims
After which the crowd says "Ohhhh.. i GET IT!"
(third time)
why i say? cuz yeah- it does APPEAR to make sense..