I agree that the most *logical* conclusion to make based on all of the things you said above is that there must have been a flyover.

It's really just a matter of whether that conclusion is proven by direct evidence or by inference, which could be an important distinction when trying to campaign on this issue. To most people, without being able to show them either direct evidence or more substantial corroborated witness testimony of a flyover, stamping that conclusion with "proven" may seem like jumping the gun. As I've said before, I hope that continuing research and uncovering additional evidence will either corroborate the conclusion or expose an alternative scenario. A 757 sure as hell did not crash into the Pentagon, that we can be sure of, and it would be absolute lunacy to believe that the DNA of all the alleged passengers could have been identified if the plane disintegrated/burned up to the degreee claimed by the official legend.

We will probably never know all the details of what exactly transpired on 9/11 until we have subpoena powers in a court of law or something. The fact that we aren't being allowed by the authorities to know what really happened is criminal in of itself. I think that we do have sufficient evidence at this point, with or without directly *proving* a flyover, to prove that the authorities engaged in a deception at the Pentagon and a massive, ongoing cover-up.