Hello Albert,
It seems we haven't exactly rolled out the red carpet for you here. I'll try to be a bit more specific about why others have been poking fun at you. Its not exactly kind of them, but the TruthMove forum is a place where you are likely to hear about it if you say something that has been refuted by facts or experience.
Even local businesses had their security camera footage confiscated within hours of the attacks. This is what leads to this kind of speculation. Can you blame for thinking this might a possibility?
No one here would argue that its not a possibility that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. However the issue at hand is not possibility but probability. The movement is not strongly advanced by promoting possibilities. Our various hypotheses have no place in our summaries of the issue or our flyers. The movement has grown as we have promoted the most well established facts and most strongly founded theories. Some would even like to leave out the theories as the facts alone are quite sufficient.
So go ahead and formulate all the possibilities you can think of. Just don't promote them unless they are supported by the facts. And it is the position of TruthMove that there is insufficient evidence to establish that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon.
Regarding the voice-morphing, it seems unlikely, yes, but the entire event has that characteristic.
The entire event is fantastic but not unlikely.
Two possible facts, one that cell phones would not work at 30k feet in 2001, and the other was the nature of the calls themselves especially the one from Mark Bingham in which he says to him mother, 'Hi Mom, this is Mark Bingham'.
How do you know that cell phone don't work at 30k feet? Are you sure about that? Do we know that the planes were flying at that altitude after they were hijacked? What's your source for that info? And while it might sound silly for Mark to say his last name, do you really mean to suggest that something silly proves a fraud? Actually it demonstrates nothing. Odd, yes. But not evidence.
A few thoughts on the Pentagon; how does such a large plane, traveling at such high speed hit the bottom floor of the building and not destroy the lawn in front of it? We can all see those huge rolls of cable still sitting upright in what is supposed to be the path of the plane. What punched a circular hole though the C ring brick wall? Not the nose of the plane, that's for sure. Questions that make people think it's at least possible something else hit the building.
Once again, it may be possible, but that doesn't mean we have any evidence that suggests it. I don't care whether random people think its possible. What is that supposed to be an argument for? Based on the black box data, the plane came in at an angle. If it hit the Pentagon at exactly the ground level, it would not have damaged the lawn. It might have even missed those cable spools. Now that doesn't correspond with the light posts being knocked down, but what in the world does that demonstrate? Something being fishy doesn't signify at all what actually happened.
I remember reading a quote from someone who supposedly was on the sidewalk beneath the towers at the moment of impact of one of the planes, he said, 'a plane hit the building but it fired a missile into the building just before impact.' I remember thinking, wow people see all kinds of crazy stuff under stressful situations.
Some guy thought he saw something? I can totally shoot that down. Why can't you? In the video, the "missile launch" and "flash" occur in the last couple of frames before impact. Try watching the video at full speed and tell me how someone could have seen a missile launch from 1000 feet away in the fraction of a second it took for the plane to impact and then disappear into the building.
As you yourself say, people see crazy stuff. Witnesses of traumatic events see lot of different things including Jesus. The flash, pod, and missile theory have been adequately explained by most of the well respected people in this movement who concern themselves with dissecting misinformation. If their arguments aren't compelling to you, I would guess that you are more interested in the fascination than the facts. And if you haven't read their arguments, I'd recommend that you not express any "opinions" about this subject at all until you've read a lot more.
Just being straight with you. This isn't a casual thing for the people who post to this forum. I'm sure you care a great deal about this issue and no one here is trying to belittle your concern or activism. But I would like you to consider the possibility that there is something that you are missing. Its a matter of strategy, and a matter of understanding the scientific distinction between hypothesis and theory.
Generally speaking this movement is best advanced by the promotion of well established facts. We also include some of our most factually supported theories. Hypotheses do have a place in all of this. People who do research are free to consider any option. But much of what they consider would never be promoted.
We have found that many in the movement are fond of promoting something because they feel like they understand it. But that's not a very high bar to set. Just because my uncle Larry thinks the ejection of gas from the collapsing building looks like a squib firing, doesn't make it a squib.
Anyway, I wish you luck in learning more about the movement and all its facts and pitfalls.