Comment: So you saw video before the

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I won't attack you but don't (see in situ)

So you saw video before the

So you saw video before the roof collapsed, that showed no plane wreckage that you could make out, and now no amount of evidence can change your mind that it was not a plane that hit it? Not an attack but I find that to be a very unreasonable and illogical position to take. Sorry I trust my eyes as well, but almost all the plane wreckage was inside the building, seems logical to me that would be the case with a plane slamming 530mph into the side of a building. So it's very likely you couldn't see any recognizable plane parts from video a distance away outside the smoking building, doesn't mean there wasn't any there.

Anyway I don't know what else I could add to this. I've left plenty of links to a whole lotta evidence that supports my position.