the engine doesn't come from the model of plane that supposedly hit the pentagon

(incorrect)[https://files.catbox.moe/s88oz4]. (EDIT, the Catbox link wasn't working, so here is, yuck, imgur: https://i.imgur.com/0stu3tX.jpg)

nothing in vid explains away possibility of smaller airplane or airplane shaped missile

I guess it somehow made the exact contact with every light pole that the larger aircraft's wingspan matches perfectly by zig-zagging?!

what your video doesn't explain is all the professional pilots with thousands of hours in the type of aircraft that supposedly hit the pentagon having to make multiple attempts at the same flight path in simulators.

Professional bias - they have decades of muscle memory of what the NEVER do because it can cause a crash. By the way, this is EXPLICITY addressed as a concern from the report by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth that conducted the experiments you are referencing - how about you read the whole thing, not the headline and consider yourself informed.

the video doesn't at all explain how the airplane maintained it's course despite the ground effects of travelling so low to the ground for hundreds of feet on the flight characteristics/handling of the airplane type that supposedly hit the pentagon.

Show me your FAA license and how many hours do you have solo? You're a typical nutjob making the rest of us who are aware of things like the fact that we absolutely shot down flight 93 with an AIM-9M from an Florida ANG F-16 that then landed at Wright Patterson afterward look like idiots.

Tell me again how a wall collapse would cause damage to the next section of the building's contents. It's almost as if load bearing walls exist for a reason.

You want to accuse actual engineers of not knowing what the fuck they are doing, I would bet a paycheck you couldn't engineer a dugout in the woods that survives a season.

the engine doesn't come from the model of plane that supposedly hit the pentagon

(incorrect)[https://files.catbox.moe/s88oz4].

nothing in vid explains away possibility of smaller airplane or airplane shaped missile

I guess it somehow made the exact contact with every light pole that the larger aircraft's wingspan matches perfectly by zig-zagging?!

what your video doesn't explain is all the professional pilots with thousands of hours in the type of aircraft that supposedly hit the pentagon having to make multiple attempts at the same flight path in simulators.

Professional bias - they have decades of muscle memory of what the NEVER do because it can cause a crash. By the way, this is EXPLICITY addressed as a concern from the report by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth that conducted the experiments you are referencing - how about you read the whole thing, not the headline and consider yourself informed.

the video doesn't at all explain how the airplane maintained it's course despite the ground effects of travelling so low to the ground for hundreds of feet on the flight characteristics/handling of the airplane type that supposedly hit the pentagon.

Show me your FAA license and how many hours do you have solo? You're a typical nutjob making the rest of us who are aware of things like the fact that we absolutely shot down flight 93 with an AIM-9M from an Florida ANG F-16 that then landed at Wright Patterson afterward look like idiots.

Tell me again how a wall collapse would cause damage to the next section of the building's contents. It's almost as if load bearing walls exist for a reason.

You want to accuse actual engineers of not knowing what the fuck they are doing, I would bet a paycheck you couldn't engineer a dugout in the woods that survives a season.