Your "scientific approach" is severely lacking in ballistics and physics analysis--which would be the preferred scientific method for saying even the first thing about whether or not a plane did or could hit the pentagon. This would require more than informed guesses. It would require data, equations, trials. Do you think we build these giant machines to test physical quantities for nothing? No. We build them to tell us things about stuff like this.
Wind tunnels aren't for getting a mean blowout.
What you've done is reasoned science-ishly. Science is a thing with a definite definition, and you've done none of it. You've conjectured, not identified.
As to the question about whether or not I trust my friends whom I've known since I was shitting in diapers--yes I do.
I'm not so pedantic that relationships mean nothing to me. We're talking a close friend of mine--he watched it with his eyes, and that's good enough for me (given the rest of the OVERWHELMING data which suggests this did happen, and the multiple digital and first-hand accounts about the events in NYC).
That said. The really awesome thing about science is that it's a flag which is really incredibly hard to wave when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. This truth betrays when pretenders and opportunists try to use it to their advantage without the requisite knowledge.
That's what you're attempting to do here. Unfortunately for you, I am a student and practitioner of science rather than a slave to it.
You're committing a fallacy here, a famous one even. It's called the appeal to ignorance. You've placed the burden of proof on the wrong side--and in fact have committed the fallacy in an even deeper sense by using a perceived lack of evidence for the accepted case as "evidence" in the negative, or unaccepted, case.
The burden of proof is on you, and you offer nothing but youtube videos which claim that youtube videos are unreliable.
It.
Is.
A.
Joke.
A supremely dry and nearly unfunny joke, but a joke all the same.
You can't use science as a shield if you don't know shit about the science. The old adage goes: "Knowledge is Power."
On this issue, unless you've got some degrees or a helluva lot of expertise that you're not letting on--you are totally powerless.
At least shoot the misleading youtube videos yourself. Then maybe I'd take you somewhat seriously, at least for your ability to deceive, commit logical fallacies left and right, and cut video files together.
As it stands here it looks like you're really good at letting other people do your thinking for you, relying on information you don't have the expertise to assay, wasting time when you could be developing such expertise, and being really really suggestible.
It's not that these lies are stupid ones, easily picked out. Often the worst and most damaging (and the most successful) lies are the best told ones. They often are half-truths, and appeal to the human's mind to want a spoon-fed picture of how things really are.
Being manipulative and deceptive is about being smart--not only about being greedy, selfish, or in this case--craving attention. You can't feed the latter three without being a good liar, an intelligent manipulator. The best lies sometimes make even more sense than the truth.
This argument goes both ways, but that is why we handle burden of proof the way that we do. It's about weight of the evidence, not how convincing one particular piece of it is (unless its a red-handed type of thing, like DNA in a murder trial).
As a chemist, I'm sure I could start spouting off some deep organic chemistry jargon--and for any layman who would listen, I could convince him of some wildly untrue stuff. I'd be free to essentially make it up as I went along.
That's why we look to people who KNOW things about asking physics and ballistics questions when we ask these questions. People like you are free to make it up as you go along. There's no standard, no peer review, no equation or data to discount. Just your gut feeling that you know what's up. That's a bullshit model for you to use, and then accuse me of relying on faith and trust.
What are you relying on? Have you formed the expertise to judge any of the info?
Just as I could convince you of some chemistry shit, another dude could come along and convince you of some physics shit.
No matter which of them you read, or how true they are--the fact will remain:
You wouldn't know the difference between something true and something false it it bit you in the face 600 times.
The solution: Become a learned physicist, or move on to a different method of proving your flimsy point.
