[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon#11_September_2001...
https://www.archives.gov/files/isoo/training/training-reason...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...
I was there (at the time, in front of my TV I mean) and I clearly remember the first witnesses being interviewed by reporters: as soon as a witness would say something not fitting the official narrative, it would never be aired again. For example regarding the pentagon one eye-witness said he saw something like a big missile on which wings had been strapped. I saw that on TV. I clearly remember it. Now I'm not saying it's not a Boeing that hit the Pentagon: what I'm saying is that it's very weird that all these ramblings from these drunkards mistaking, say, a Boeing with a "missile with wings strapped on it" were basically aired once then erased. I'm pretty sure that guy was both drunk and of course because the plane was going fast, the mistake was made in honest faith (you, too, would certainly mistake a Boeing for a missile with wings strapped on it).
Same thing with people saying they heard explosions in the WTC: as soon as they'd mention that, they'd be cut off by reporters and these people would never be interviewed again and their account never aired again (FWIW I don't believe in a controlled demolition but I do believe in narrative manipulation).
After these oddities of course we all know totally normal things then happened: for example IIRC one the rare flight that was allowed to happen when no plane were flying in the US was a flight evacuating members of the Bin Laden family.
And then the wars that followed. Made perfect sense. No fabricated evidence. Guantanamo and the like: all perfectly cromulent.
When you take all this, honestly that we don't have any footage of that impact just seems on par for the course.
I don't know what Bin Laden flights, Guantanamo, or the following wars have to do with the pentagon on 9/11 or footage of it. Honestly, I don't know what point you're trying to make.
It's more of a case of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
There are plenty of places on the internet where wild claims without a shred of evidence are tolerated and even encouraged. HN is not one of those.
However I really hope people move toward skepticism (even of the official narratives) because I fear the effects of censorship more than I do the disinformation. Conspiracy crap has been around a long time and most of those people were considered crackpots, but since the major ramp up in effort that started about 6 years ago, the conspiracy stuff has exploded and is absolutely everywhere now. I think it's because the censorship (in some cases for clearly political reasons) actually makes the conspiracy theories seem more credible, because if they were wrong why would anybody waste effort trying to fight it? (I'm not arguing that's solid reasoning, only that it seems a reasonable argument to most people). Once you can't trust that most people operate in good faith, you have to question everybody's motives with extreme skepticism. Combine that with human nature to look for patterns/explanations in everything and you get a mess.
