I still don't understand how this is "dishonorable". There's compelling evidence in that video. It may be explicable, but it's not obvious. As far as I know, no one has ever really come out to say it's not true. And, to be honest, as anti-Bush as I am, I never connected this with any anti-Bush sentiments. My first thought was that the terrorists had some sort of missile that, for some reason, the government didn't want us to know about. Of course, that probably flies in the face of them going out of their way to scare us at every possible opportunity.

From a site linked from that about.com site that is actually trying to debunk, it says:

Quote:
Eyewitnesses and news reporters have talked about the twelve-foot hole punched through the inside wall of the second ring by one of the plane’s engines.

Then later on says:

Quote:
Since the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building, enough energy was lost by the initial impact and friction with the ground that the engines probably did not penetrate the building.

So which is it? Of course, this isn't proof that their entire explanation is wrong (although they debunk a different, if similar, set of evidence and doesn't mention some of the things brought up in this presentation), but it does make you wonder if they're stretching just as far to explain it as being an airplane hit as the makers of this video are stretching to make it appear not to be.

I'm not saying that this is an answer. In fact, it's not answering anything. It is, however, raising, I think, legitimate questions that have never been answered, including by the debunking sites referenced.