I do agree, the story's been done to death on the web. But what irks me, is that the official story is dished up with the caveat that the onus now lies on the 'conspiracy theorists' to come up with evidence to disprove the official version.
Of course, without coming up with any evidence at all to support either the official version, or in explaining anomalies as put forward in the official story.
The video footage you referred to regarding the plane flying into the Pentagon is the only video clip that was released by the FBI. And, in that particularly santitary version, NO AIRPLANE is visible. You see the building's facade, and the next moment, an explosion. And, mind you, an explosion emanating from a central point. Not from a broad front, where fuel tanks would ignite from wing to wing. No, a single blast from a single point. Much like a missile would. Maybe one of the other 79 confiscated, sealed security tapes might show something more. Why is it not made available?
As well, the official story about the World Trade Centre also does not add up. If I ask how it is possible that molten steel is still found weeks after the collapse, I'm told that the jet fuel on board did it. Without those toeing the official line explaining to me how it is possible for jet fuel to burn hotter than the melting point of steel (it doesn't), or why thermite residue is found on the support structures (it shouldn't be there).
Make no mistake, I do think most people seeing a conspiracy in the whole mess are a bit whacked. But the official story simply doesn't add up. And being the good skeptic that I am, I am open to both sides of the story. But labelling any doubt cast on the official version in a knee-jerk fashion as 'conspiracy theorist' crap is not right. Does it validate the official version if I can't tell you what happened to the flight that supposedly flew into the Pentagon? That's not cricket. It's like me telling you the dog ate my homework, and until you can show me an alternative location for my homework, my story simply must be true. It doesn't gel, yet it seems to me the demonisation and caricaturisation of the 9/11 truthers is about the only weight the US government's side of the story has.
Case in point - the fuel on board purportedly burnt hot enough to melt steel. Yet, they found Mohammed Atta's passport in mint condition in the rubble? Do you actually believe that? How can that not smack of a plant-job?
The whole thing stinks.