Comment: Your statement: "My

(See in situ)

Your statement: "My

Your statement:
"My contention is it was not a regular 747. The best I can come up with is a specially built plane or drone."

My statement:
"Can you answer any of the questions I've asked since you still must contend it wasn't the United flight?"

See how you said "My contention" and then I said "you still must contend". So I used the same word you did and if it doesn't mean that you are stating it as fact then I didn't say you stated it as fact.

I don't know if we've ever chatted or not but I am not trying in anyway to personally attack you or anything, this is an argument I had with a friend for a long time and so I have researched it very well. If you are all about truth then I don't know how you can look at the evidence I've provided on this thread alone and not see the truth on this particular issue. I'm not sure what you expect to have happen when a plane slams into a building like it did, but I provided evidence that it could go through the building, and there is evidence that plane parts (including a 767 engine) shot backwards, forwards, etc. in the explosion. I'm not arguing anything semantically, I'm arguing that United flight 175 hit the WTC and there is vast amounts of evidence to prove it.