@RainmanTime
Your post is certainly extremely over-defensive good sir. We are only trying to establish what occured here, not tear each other to shreads. Sorry, I have my Sherlock hat on.
Now, what proposes to me that such an aircraft is not an airliner are two things.
One, the aircraft would have to fly low. Now, your witness reports claimed it flew overhead, however, if this was such the case, it would not have been able to form a direct impact on the pentagon. At least, had it dived down out of the sky, the pentration point would have not been at the bottom of the building, and the plane would have crumpled into the ground.
Alas, it has not crumpled into the ground, not damaged the building at an angle. The craft was therefore flying low.
Now, as you know, airliners are a large peice of aircraft. Now, I am no pilot, but, I doubt the craft is able to fly at high speed, low to the ground, without hitting any objects or obstructions, given it is a large, noticable object. Remember, this conflicts with the reports of the eyewitnesses who claim to have seen it flying overhead, which would mean it's approach angle is wrong.
This is not forgetting that no Airline pilot would be trained to push a craft to such limits, and nor would a hijacker. If it had hit a single obstuction, it would have probably veered off-course and smashed. This makes for an interesting ploy that the craft lost it's wings earlier on... how do you suppose an aircraft could continue a direct, low-level flight towards the pentagon minus one, or two, wings? If it had lost the wings, surely the jet engines (attached to the wings) would not have been found at the scene? Is it not also curious the jet engine found at the scene could not support such an aircraft in the first instance. This is not forgetting the wreckage at the scene is too small scale to have been an airliner... I don't suppose you could explain where the large proportion went... including the wings?
The problem is, you make an assumption. You assume the eyewitnesses tell the truth, and the aircraft they saw continued towards the pentagon and smashed into it. Since we have no video evidence, and any evidence, such as
this is relatively suspicious the frame showing the aircrafts transition is missing, we cannot make any real stable assumptions of what went on, aside from the provable facts of the case.
The outer, steel concrete wall had been penetrated.
The inter, steel concrete wall had been penetrated in a straight line direct from the penetration on the outter steel concrete wall, through several steel concrete walls.
The explosion, disruption or other such destruction occured at where the aircraft's point hit.
There was minimal damage to the lawn. I think it is safe to say the groundskeeper would be at least been pleased.
A rotor was retrieved was for a smaller aircraft.
Little debris was left at the scene.
Now, the rotor and lack of debris suggest the aircraft was small. The lack of damage around the scene suggests it was directed, something all planes do not do when they crash. The direct line suggests the craft was flying low, something any airplane, and pilot, would have great difficulty doing - do not forget the point of entry was almost at ground level. The level of penetration suggests the craft was designed for such a purpose, or was at least stronger than the standard type of aircraft. The most damaging part of an airplane is it's fuel tank and engines, which happens to be contained in the wings. The very wings missing from the scene. So why had the plane exploded?
Do not forget, when the airliners crashed into 9/11, a non-reinforced building, it only got roughly half way in. Now, imagine what the airline would do if it went into a wide-spread, low-down ground building which is reinforced.
What you are trained in, regardless of profession, does not make you the sole bearer of the facts, remember this as you suggest to others to get their theories peer-reviewed.
