Our illustrious leaders are on the one hand claiming security footage doesn't contain anything, but somehow may effect national security and thus aren't releasing it. On the other hand, if it doesn't contain anything, then why not release it. Mick in another thread agreed that it was the way it is.
If I remember there would have been no investigation at all if not for the public outcry against the Bush administrations inaction.
The simple logic is that simply because you can't explain something, doesn't mean its true. If you can't explain the disappearing elephants trick, does that make it true. Obviously there are going to be things we observe, that remain inexplicable, but that doesn't mean that the first, highly dubious and least likely explanation is what we must accept, rather than continue digging until a viable explanation is found.
A hypothesis is exactly that. Within the sciences multiple hypothesis might be forwarded before a working theory emerges.
did I really have to explain that ?
Oh and almost forgot
my personal take on this photo is that the lines are drawn somewhat wrong. The left hand, port wing line should be lining up with the center line of the fuselage better , that , and the whole thing should be raised up off the ground to at least clear the engines off the dirt, since there was no furrows evident in the grass. Which makes the hole even less plausible
I think the perspective is somewhat off and a better view of the horizon would indicate these red lines are somewhat askew
Something else thats not being considered is that given the angle of attack the hole should actually be a lot larger, or at least the scar left by the plane on the buildings facade should be. Also that tail stabilizer is quite substantial, its often the only large piece of debris left in an air disaster. Could be because they don't tend to catch on fire but also they do have some very heavy members as they are expected to resist some significant forces. Yet no broken windows where the tail should have hit. I also question where they project the tail stabilizer should have hit. Should have been directly above the centerline of the fuselage and about midway of the fourth floor. Puts it right about in the middle of the column, yet that column looks entirely intact. I'm not sure if a 757 hit this building or not, but I see a lot of problems with this picture. There should at least be some scaring in the areas left substantially intact and there isn't.
The deal is if enough energy is imparted on the two materials, concrete and aluminum, its the aluminum that will be the one to dissociate first, this is due to its greater rigidity however, that concrete will deform substantially in the transfer of that energy, due to its lesser rigidity. So the opportunity for a 757 to hit a chunk of concrete at hundreds of miles a hour and leave no appreciable mark other than maybe dust the surface is highly unlikely. If we consider there was a material harder than concrete veneering the outside of the structure then we'd see an even more mutual dissociation between the two, yet again all I see is some soot residue and some whole lot of intact windows.
My inclination is to await a more reasonable explanation. Problem is, without pushing for that more reasonable explanation I'm being asked to accept that rabbit in the hat trick, and those security videos that presumably don't show anything, apparently are vital to national security ;-)