> “photographic evidence at the NPS Flight 93”
Your links were unsolicited and irrelevant.
Flight 93 did not hit a building, did it?
How many times do you need to be told that Wood referred to WTC and Pentagon, NOT Flight 93?
The OFFICIAL reports found no AC remains around WTC or the Pentagon.
The unofficial news stories were never proven.
Wood, as a lawyer, is going to use official reports, not news stories because those are considered hearsay in a court of law.
> “I asked you specially about WTC-7 the WTC-7 reports as YOU made very specific claims about a report not being done very well. How do I know what report you are referring to?”
You really are an AH aren’t you?
nist.gov
Search: Final Report Collapse Building 7
Only one such report.
Find it.
It’s pretty obvious you did not watch the video on Youtube.
Wood specifically mentions that the Pentagon was hit by a missile (a declarative statement) and says that “there were no plane fragments found at anywhere on any of the sites, New York, Pennsylvania, the Pentagon” (a declarative statement). Those statements are contradicted by evidence on the ground (at least in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon) so Wood is pushing false information.
I’m ordering “Pentagon 09/11” tomorrow that also talks about the aircraft debris and recovery efforts at the Pentagon. That book was put out by the Historical Office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, so it can be considered “official”.
The 09/11 Commission Report did not detail any recovery details of bodies or aircraft parts, so when you write “The OFFICIAL reports found no AC remains around WTC or the Pentagon.”, that’s a very specific claim that you make. Where did you find it?
A site that provides some additional details is found at http://www.attivissimo.net/antibufala/meyssan/pentagon_debris_from_rense-com.pdf
I have the NIST report. I provided a link to the UAF report that calls info question the NIST report. Have you even read it? Good grief, you have an attitude.