My dealz on wheelz is popping over on his lunch break with my delivery of one ounce of some fine product grown by a guy thats been growing it since he was 15 (hes now 62) he produces the best stuff. Very very best. You should see it you wouldnt believe it. Great great stuff. And i am winning and will keep winning. Great great stuff oh my hands
Well that is true with the Eraser of the moon landing that is not what has been stated but federal government when it comes to a plane slamming into the Pentagon. And in what way does that compromise National Security, for the public to see that video?
The moon landing thing is interesting bc I understand having a shortage of tapes but like...pf all the things we didnt keep there was the no on landing?
I'm of the belief we faked it to win and went there in the 70s. I think weve been there (we can shine lasers and see) I just dont think it went down exactly like they said.
I think joe Rogan has a lot of good discussion over the landing
The densest part of the plane are the engines. When the planes hit the WTC, the engines cut right through and were found in the streets below. There was no facade damage on the limestone where the engines were supposed to hit the Pentagon. Some have suggested that they sheared off on the lawn but the lawn wasn’t gouged. It’s all really strange.
Well first of all a missile doesn’t really make sense with all of the visible evidence.
Secondly there is evidence of a 757. We have engine pieces, pieces of the landing gear, and chunks of the airframe all over the place. I don’t know why you think the tail would be intact. The fire from the impact was intense. That being said remains were found and identified as well as the “black box”. The Flight Data Recorder was intact but the cockpit voice recorder (which used tape) was damaged. There is no evidence of anything being planted so...
engine pieces, pieces of the landing gear, and chunks of the airframe all over the place.
pieces easy to plant, but no big section of tail, no luggage, no block of seats.. and penetrated a series of walls like a bunker buster.
the data recorder shows a flight path that would be difficult for even a pro.. the supposed pilot couldn't fly a cessna. the flight path also makes no sense, choosing to corkscrew 180 and fly impossibly low to the ground into the most reinforced wall.. when instead it could do a simple dive right into the middle of the building to do the most damage..
surely the expected evidence isn't present, and what is there, is very suspicious..
there is evidence from the cabbie Lloyd England that the lamp posts scene was staged.
you ever see what a bird does to a plane? how does this aluminum plane penetrate dense reinforced bunker wall like a bunker buster? the physics is impossible.
Are you saying it's easy to plant a large chunk of airplane engine into the middle of a building that's on fire? Is there any evidence that suggest the pieces were planted?
no big section of tail
Why would there be a big piece of tail section? This isn't a cartoon where the plane would only bury itself halfway into the building with the tail sticking out.
no luggage,
Well the fire burned and melted a lot of shit. Why would you expect to find luggage? Do you actually know for sure that none was found or are you just assuming that none was found based on your "research".
penetrated a series of walls like a bunker buster.
I'm pretty sure a bunker buster would have went through more of the building. Are you saying that cinder-block construction should have withstood the force of a fully loaded 757 flying in at full throttle? Whats with you guys and cartoon physics?
a flight path that would be difficult for even a pro
But not impossible
the supposed pilot couldn't fly a cessna.
There is a big difference between legally piloting an aircraft from take off to landing to flying a plane into a building. I really hope you can understand this.
when instead it could do a simple dive right into the middle of the building to do the most damage
Well it's debatable if flying straight down could do the most damage but it's certainly not easier. It's actually pretty simple, so hopefully you can follow along. He flew the plane until he had a visual of the target, then he dropped altitude and turned around to actually be able to hit the target. If he had simply tipped the stick when he saw the Pentagon, then he probably would have overshot the building when the plane would exceed it's VNE and lose control.
surely the expected evidence isn't present, and what is there, is very suspicious..
No the evidence is there, you are just choosing to ignore it because it doesn't fit your fantasy.
there is evidence from the cabbie Lloyd England that the lamp posts scene was staged.
I'd love to see this.
you ever see what a bird does to a plane? how does this supposed aluminum plane penetrate dense reinforced bunker wall like a bunker buster? the physics is impossible. that's why they make bunker busters.
Oh you don't understand planes or bunker busters or buildings. I don't know if I can hold your hand long enough to explain all of this to you.
there were 80 odd cameras that didn't see a thing.
Were they for sure pointing at the impact area?
we get a few frames of
Of what looks like a silver airliner. Then we couple that with the actual evidence, the missing plane itself, and the remains of people who were on the plane but now in the debris in the building.
Put all of that together and we get evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon.
Now, is there any actual evidence of a missile or anything other then a 757 hitting the Pentagon? No. Hmmmmmmm
The plane was moving at hundreds of miles per hour. The field of view was maybe a few hundred yards. Under these conditions, a security camera will naturally show only a few frames, and it’s going to look nothing like an action movie.
I think this is the problem, they’ve seen too many movies and think they know what an airplane crash looks like.
Are you saying it's easy to plant a large chunk of airplane engine into the middle of a building that's on fire? Is there any evidence that suggest the pieces were planted?
are you saying that it's impossible to have been planted before?
go look up Lloyd England the cabbie. his confession is on youtube.
there is good evidence of a missile, you just ignore it because it doesn't fit your fantasy..
we have evidence of hijacked passenger jets that were flown into multiple buildings
there is not one photo or video of any of the supposed 19 hijackers in any of those airports on that day. all I can find is one undated video of two in Dulles, and another still shot of another two from Portland, the wrong airport.
What remains convinced you? I was not convinced by what we were shown at all. So much expected evidence at this and the other supposed passenger jet crashes is missing, and even hidden under big blue tarps.
As I said, the onus is on you to prove the jet. So far we have a notable lack of expected evidence, and even a guy who claims the lamppost scene with his cab was staged.
Then there's the fact of Operation Northwoods, that prescribes pretty much this scenario that played out...
Obviously you aren't convinced. No matter how many times you have been shown evidence of a plane hitting the building you still seem to ignore it. You seem to have trouble objectively analyzing information.
As I said, the onus is on you to prove the jet.
I did prove a jet. Do I need to show you more pictures of jet debris at the Pentagon.
So far we have a notable lack of expected evidence,
Oh so all of this hinges on what you expected to see. Well you seem to believe in cartoon physics so I'm not sure what you really are expecting.
even a guy who claims the lamppost scene with his cab was staged.
Still waiting for this. Does he have evidence that the lamppost were staged? Lots of claims but no proof. Yawn...
Then there's the fact of Operation Northwoods, that prescribes pretty much this scenario that played out...
Cool got some of that proof? No? Why am I not surprised...
Well first of all there is the physical evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon. There is also the fact that AA77 and all it's passengers are missing but their remains were found at the Pentagon so...
I'm not sure how you draw some other conclusion unless, you are specifically wanting to draw another conclusion...
but I find it is impossible on many accounts.
Cool you might find it impossible but you have already shown to believe in some funky cartoon physics.
If it's impossible
Nothing suggest it is impossible.
not backed by convincing expected evidence
You mean you are again rejecting the actual evidence because it doesn't support your fantasy?
You ever stop and try to objectively look at the facts instead of trying to fit the facts into your theory?
then what else remains?
Well there is no evidence of anything having hit the building so....
the onus isn't on me to prove anything. I didn't make the claim there is a passenger jet crashed into the pentagon. what specifically should convince me? I am very unconvinced. You seem to have a lot of faith in the official narrative. Keep the faith, faither.
uhh you are making the wild claims remember? You are the one claiming that it wasn't AA77 when all the evidence points to it being AA77.
You seem to have a lot of faith in the official narrative.
I have faith in the evidence that exist. You seem to have a problem with the evidence that exist but offer no evidence of anything else.
I get it, most of your conspiracy tools realized that when you make wild claims, people will call you out on it and then you find yourself on the defense with nothing to back you up. So you play this game of "I'm just asking questions, not making claims." while posing loaded questions and making bullshit claims.
In the end you are still making accusations but you aren't actually backing them up with any proof.
how could I possibly make such a claim if there was no original claim of AA77 being hijacked and flown perfectly into the reinforced side of the pentagon, as if it were a bunker buster missile on a test run.
again, the onus is not on me, and you seem to profer nothing that has convinced me of your conspiracy theory..f this sub!
Oh man how many times does this have to be explained to you.
You are the one who is rejecting the overwhelming evidence that AA77, a Boeing 757 flew into the Pentagon. It is no longer a theory that AA77 hit the Pentagon, it is a fact. This isn't a scientific proof.
You are rejecting the overwhelming evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon. At this point, it is on you, to provide the evidence of something other then AA77 hitting the Pentagon. You are the one making the claims that the evidence that exist doesn't make sense. That means you need to back up those claims with evidence. Get it?
bunker buster missile
By the way, if you want people to take you seriously you need to stop spouting words you don't understand. You don't seem to understand what the effect of an actual bunker buster type munition would have on an office building like the pentagon. Because in the real world (not the cartoon physics world you believe in) a bunker buster would go through the office building upper levels of the pentagon, through a good chunk of the basement and blow up, underground in whatever is under the Pentagon. It would not, pierce only a few walls, doing less and less damage as it went into the building.
Also it would not leave behind the debris of a AA 757 but I take it, it might take you a while to figure that one out.
I already showed you pictures of 757 debris. I shouldn’t have to repost things because you won’t click on any links that might challenge your preconceptions.
What are you afraid of? I thought skeptics are supposed to have an open mind.
none of that debris has any forensic connection proven to that flight, and nor does it need to. it will never be reconstructed and much debris was carried away hidden under a big tarp
none of that debris has any forensic connection proven to that flight
Why because you personally didn’t see it come from the plane smashing into the building? Do you have anything that suggest the debris didn’t come from the the plane hitting the building? You are making claims again. You need to support them.
Do you have anything that suggest the debris didn’t
you ask me to prove the negative. how many times do I need to repeat that the onus is on you to prove your conspiracy theory of 19 arab hijackers flying planes like aces into buildings, while evading all security cameras everywhere... go on..
but there is no debris to make a claim about without your original extraordinary claim that such debris came from that passenger plane..
You seem to have some problems with your logic.
Lets start again.
Debris that clearly resembles parts from an AA passenger jetliner were found all around the point of impact. You don't dispute this right?
It is your claim, that this debris did not come from an AA airliner. You need to offer proof of that.
I told you something recognizable from that plane would do
No you didn't. You told me what you think the plane should do but what your knowledge is based on, I don't know. So far you have shown that you believe in "cartoon" physics where the plane should have stripped off its wings and tail intact when it hit the building or it should have flattened against it like a can getting smashed. Both of those are wrong.
I agree a lot with this guy's analysis. some things appear legit, but when taken in context and considering what is missing and how/why anyone with sense would conclude that there is no proof of your purported conspiracy plane.
In this essay I asked what conclusions about the Pentagon attack were supported by physical evidence -- primarily post-crash photographs of the site. I found that, in every aspect I considered, this evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757. At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77.
How does that say no proof? That says that all the evidence points to it being a 757. He's saying it's not conclusive, which based on his evaluation it might not be, but he isn't saying It's not a 757 either.
I linked you a much better article by the way. Make sure you take the time to read it.
he says it does not prove the conspiracy theory.. and really it should if it were flight 77.. it should be easy to prove with expected evidence, but instead is covered up and obfuscated
I found that, in every aspect I considered, this evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757.
So he evidence fits with a 757. The witness saw an AA airliner, so that fits with a 757. We have a radar track of AA77 leaving the airport and then crashing into the Pentagon. We have the remains of passengers who were on AA77 found in the crash at the Pentagon. But you, for some reason, even though you don’t have any evidence to support your theory, think it was something other then AA77?
your conspiracy theory that flight 77 was hijacked by arabs and flown into the pentagon does not stand up to scrutiny.
It stands up to the scrutiny in the article you yourself posted! Did you read the article I sent you? It stands up to scrutiny every time you actually apply the scientific method and analyze the actual facts and not all the misinformation that conspiracy theorist like to push around. There is a mountain of evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. There is zero evidence that something else hit the Pentagon. I’ve been following these conspiracy theories for over 10 years and to date there is still no evidence of a “missile” or anything other then flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.
There is not one thing that convinced me but all of he actual evidence is what convinced me.
I don't see anything much different than Operation Northwoods prescribes, and that's fact, not theory.
That’s you changing the subject and making a claim without offering any evidence.
Let’s stick to one thing at a time.
So right now, all the evidence points to AA77 hitting the Pentagon, there is no evidence that supports the claim that something other then AA77 hit the Pentagon.
what isn't there and what is covered up is more telling.
Oh so now your “evidence” is actually evidence that you don’t have evidence of? Now who’s trying to prove a negative?
it's easy to plant evidence before and after the fact when you control everything.
Got any evidence of anyone planting anything? No?
You asked for evidence and it was given to you. It was given to you even in the link you posted. Why are you still trying to deny evidence?
the original conspiracy theory claim of hijackers flying planes into buildings is far from assumed fact.
It’s assumed fact, supported by physical evidence. You just keep ignoring the evidence that exist. Like I don’t know how to make this any more simple for you.
Oh you don't understand planes or bunker busters or buildings. I don't know if I can hold your hand long enough to explain all of this to you.
pedantic aren't we. I have a good background in science (check my xkeyscore) and there is experimental evidence of numerous bird strikes.
no tail section, no luggage no seats, but something hidden under a big tarp... there's no good evidence that the purported flight was hijacked and flown into that building as purported by officials.
I have a good background in science (check my xkeyscore) and there is experimental evidence of numerous bird strikes.
Cool, do I need to explain to you the difference between a bird strike and an airplane flying into a building?
no tail section
Why are you so hung up on this tail section? Are you trying to suggest that the tail section should have survived the impact? In your world should the last third of the aircraft have magically stopped and not crashed into the building with the rest of the plane?
there's no good evidence that the purported flight was hijacked and flown into that building as purported by officials.
Ohhh there you go ignoring reality.
I have a good background in science
I doubt that. Otherwise you would have a better understanding of the scientific method. You aren't following the facts. You are picking the ones that guide you to your preconceived conclusions.
picking the ones that guide you to your preconceived conclusions.
that's your bias talking to you. clearly you are indoctrinated and cannot question the official narrative, and project preconceived conclusions on those who do.
lets do an experiment. take a stationary plane and slam a reinforced bunker into it at 450mph. what do you think happens... does the plane pass right through the wall (3 of them even) with nice neat holes? even the tail section?
'American Airlines Flight 77 struck the portion of the building that had already been renovated. It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes--enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety.
The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows--2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each--that stayed intact during the crash and fire.
That doesn't really sound like a bunker. That sounds like a steel reinforced building. Were you expecting the 757 to crumple into a beer can on the side of the building? You watch too many cartoons.
What do you expect? In one case the wings and tail appear to penetrate the steel framed World Trade center building, but in the case of the pentagon, the wings don't penetrate.
Do I really have to go back and relink the images of 757 debris in the middle of the Pentagon?
I already mentioned what would convince me.
What seeing something unrealistic like the plane tail sticking out of the building or luggage surviving the fire? You do understand basic physics right? Just because the plane hit the building doesn't mean everything else on it should stop instantly from 400 miles an hour and land on the grass, away from the fire. You do understand that right?
Only if you take it personally. You seem to believe in some sort of cartoon physics where the plane should have hit the building but half of it should be left undamaged?
The debate isn't lost because there never was a debate. You ignore evidence for no real reason then offer nothing to support your own conclusions. That's not a debate, that's you trolling, badly.
didn't you see the wings slice right through in videos? so what is it? we can't have it both ways. lets do the experiment. stationary flimsy aluminum tube passenger plane vs thick steel frame at 450mph. who wins?
Ohhh another problem with your understanding. You think planes are just flimsy tubes. I keep seeing more and more of your cartoon logic every time you post.
lets do the experiment... it has been done similarly on occasions, but lets do it again. it can be simulated using accurate models for airplane, and building.
show me what you mean.. you are simply speculating.
No I'm not speculating. I'm telling you what happened. You are speculating that the impact site should look differently, not me.
tail is not the same shape and should not penetrate
You mean the horizontal and vertical stabilizers then. The tail would refer to the whole aft structure. The stabilizers were obliterated during the impact. They are not nearly as strong as the wing structures. Only an idiot would expect the plane to leave a perfect silhouette. Remember, this isn't a cartoon.
to unrecognizable ashes?
Into small hard lumps of plastic. Have you ever dug through the ashes of a house fire? You can usually only pick out large chunks of steel and stone.
all of them?
Whole suitcases? Sure. Small personal effects of passengers were found throughout the wreckage.
again, speculation.
Yes, speculation on your part. Why do you keep speculating that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon when all the evidence points to a 757 hitting the Pentagon? Do you have evidence of something else hitting the Pentagon?
The tail would refer to the whole aft structure. The stabilizers were obliterated during the impact. They are not nearly as strong as the wing structures. Only an idiot would expect the plane to leave a perfect silhouette. Remember, this isn't a cartoon.
yet that is what we see at the world trade center. wings, tail, and engines attached by two pins leave 'cartoon cutouts'. you can't have it both ways.
That’s actually not what we see at the WTC and as I’ve explained it to you before, those were different planes hitting a different building.
Maybe I should take some consolidation in the fact that you aren’t one of the “no planes” idiots. Of course that would make me wonder why you believe an airliner hit the towers but one didn’t hit the Pentagon.
All of this ignoring the fact that around 70 witnesses said they saw a large passenger plane hit the Pentagon...
No. Probably a newscast or random video from a plane. No videos of the impact have ever been released other than the doctored one from the guard house.
I understand that I'm in a bubble right now, but if this gets enough traction then maybe people who have a different point-of-view can try to explain there point of view to me in a rational manner.
We know that a plane hit the Pentagon, we have debris of a plane, we have a plane missing and we even have some shitty footage from a security camera that looks like a plane. Do we have any evidence of anything other then a plane hitting the Pentagon?
As for building 7, why it failed is a bigger discussion that took many actual engineers time to figure out. Conspiracy theorist were screaming “where is the report on building 7?” Over and over again and the. When the report on it was finally released, they ignored it.
My understanding of the report was that the fire protection failed at a much lower temperature and a much shorter duration then it was designed to. WTC7 like WTC1 and 2 relied on a lighter construction method that meant that the floors were spanning over relatively large distance. When the trusses supporting those floors failed in the fire, they pulled in on the vertical columns. This caused the sagging and leaning that people, including the FDNY saw, before the fire crews were pulled out of the building.
It’s one thing to have actual questions, it’s another when you are attempting some bullshit “redpill” strategy to get people to follow you down your rabbit hole and maybe buy some merch on the way.
What debris of a plane? I never saw anything but random scraps. We don't know what hit the pentagon, because nobody has any pictures or video except the government. Watch the tapes they released and tell me again that's American Airlines Flight 77. all i see is a fuckin' blur. Curiously, both cameras show an identical blur, like it was photoshopped. hmmmmmmmmmm.
You obviously haven't read the NIST report on WTC7. People didn't ignore it, it's just ridiculous and wrong.
What debris of a plane? I never saw anything but random scraps.
You mean plane debris? I'm sorry a 757 flying into a building didn't leave the amount of debris you were hoping for.
If you were honestly asking the question 'what debris of a plane' well then you should know, that question has been answered already.
So we know for a fact that there was debris of an AA 757 found at the pentagon. So much for that "question".
As for the NIST report on building 7, my point was that people like you, desperately looked for something wrong in the report, couldn't find it on your own, so you cling on to some vaguely smart sounding person who disagrees with the report. Mind you, before the report came out, the talk of conspiracy theorist was that the reason the report hadn't come out, was because NIST found out something they shouldn't have, and the report would clear it all up. When the report was released, those same people dug their heads in the sand and screamed that it was wrong.
For example, the report is 137 pages and I've seen nothing in it that was redacted or classified. They list their sources and it wouldn't surprise me if not all of the publications were free to view though.
It really seems like you didn't actually read the report or at least unbiased summaries on it. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
He means the plane debris that they had office stiffs out combing the area for. Cause that's how you work one of the biggest crime scenes in American history.
Somethin' hit the pentagon, yeah we agree. Was it American Airlines Flight 77? Yeah i'm doubtful.
Where in the NIST report is this information classified
It's not in the report, because it's classified. What is the information that is classified related to?
All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed
connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads,
break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable
ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop
floor connection failure modes and capacities.
All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA
47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures
leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to
develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
You know those conclusions in the report? This data is how they got them. And it's classified.
Was it American Airlines Flight 77? Yeah i'm doubtful.
Well the evidence only suggest that AA77 hit the Pentagon. There isn't evidence of anything else hitting the Pentagon. Yes, there is speculation, but no evidence.
You know those conclusions in the report? This data is how they got them. And it's classified.
The data from two models is classified. Not the output, nor the rest of the report. That doesn't negate the information in the report. It's just a easy excuse for you, and others like you, to ignore the report that you CTs previously were asking for.
You have this habit of ignoring anything that contradicts your "theory" but you avoid defending your accusations by claiming that you just have "questions".
The annoying part about all this isn't that you have some questions. That's fine. The annoying part is that you've already been given the answers to those questions but since they don't fit your world view, you pretend that you never had them and go on asking "questions"
How about this, show me actual evidence that something other then AA77 hit the Pentagon, or something other then the fire and damage caused by the collapse of WTC1&2 caused WTC7 to fall.
Yes, because that's what the evidence was supposed to suggest. And I disagree with that evidence, because it amounts to:
unreliable eyewitnesses
random, unserialized plane parts
two shitty seven-frame videos
The most compelling argument you have is the plane parts, which could've as easily been on drone or planted.
You need to realize something pal, you and I are in the same boat, just different sides. You want actual evidence of my claims, and guess what? I want actual evidence that AA77 hit the pentagon, or that fires brought down three steel buildings! What actual evidence is there for any of it? ALL of it is speculation, even the official government reports. They obviously had to assume conditions for the reports. They assumed the now classified inputs. It's not science, because nobody else can repeat it with the same data. We haven't been given real empirical "answers"
It's too bad they shipped all the real evidence to china so damned quick, a real travesty.
The most compelling argument you have is the plane parts, which could've as easily been on a drone or planted.
Oh so now you are making more unsubstantiated claims! Do you have evidence that the debris of an AA757 was planted or just more shitty conjecture?
You don't have evidence of it not being AA77 that crashed into the Pentagon, you just have evidence of AA77 but you don't like the evidence (because it doesn't fit your views).
I want actual evidence that AA77 hit the pentagon
Which you have been given but you keep dismissing. No we aren't in the same boat. I'm not the one making wild claims here. You are.
What actual evidence is there for any of it?
There is actually quite a bit of evidence. Engineers want to know what went wrong with the systems that were designed to withstand these fires. We understand that WTC1&2 had tremendous structural damage, and the fires burned without any attempt at containment. WTC7 showed us that fire protection systems that were thought to be able to contain a fire for a longer duration of time in fact didn't.
That's why we have studies and reports that look into this.
What we don't have evidence of is explosives or missiles or whatever nonsense that Avery stirred up when they were making Loose Change (They actually made it as a joke but realized that conspiracy theorist were eating it up).
They assumed the now classified inputs.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you think things only get classified because of some national security reason. I wouldn't be surprised if the some parts of the models were classified so that the company that provided the modeling software wouldn't have to release their (very expensive) software to the public as part of a public records request.
It's not science, because nobody else can repeat it with the same data.
Who says they can't?
We haven't been given real empirical "answers"
No you've been given the answers. The problem is, you don't like them. They don't support your fantasy. And no matter what, you will never find the answer you are looking for because in the end, you aren't actually looking for answers. The good news is, you will most likely grow out of this.
It's too bad they shipped all the real evidence to china so damned quick, a real travesty.
You mean it's too bad that of the evidence that exist, you guys couldn't find anything to support your claims. The steel sat in multiple yards for years. You can even find chunks of it all over the country now. Hell it wasn't even all removed from Ground Zero until spring of 02. Yet not a single person found any evidence of explosives. But don't let that complete lack of evidence stop your imagination!
The US would not want footage of the pentagon being hit because that footage can be used by its enemies to undermine their military power and persuade more people to join radical groups in the middle east.
If they could have confiscated all the footage of the twin towers being hit, they probably would have as well for the same reason, but seeing as that would be impossible they didnt even try.
Footage of the pentagon being hit also shows how the defenses of the pentagon (if any) reacted to the plane and other foreign nations could use that information to plan on attack on the US in the future in the case of a land invasion that could (but most likely wont) happen in the future.
I think it comes down to the fact that the heart of the US Military was hit so easily with a regular passenger plane is just something that the US Military would want everyone to conveniently forget about because it shows a weakness to fucking passenger planes from the most powerful military on the planet.
This is not a very solid argument. There's a ton of footage from that day already.
Our military response that day was somehow disabled. I heard it was in part because of the training that was going on at the time. We've since upgraded our response techniques. Your points are not strong enough to warrant refusal to comply with massive public calls for the release of the confiscated footage.
So it's ok to show the smoldering wreckage of the Pentagon after it was hit, but God forbid anyone see it actually happen. And don't forget, the YouTube video recruitment tactic and the war on terror didn't start until a while after 9/11.
Footage can be created nowadays. Also, If they didn't want any footage released of the pentagon being hit they wouldn't have released the 7 frame potato quality GIF that they have released.
Does it show a 737?
Or does it show a vapor trail followed by a small explosion?
I mean, WHAT DO YOUR EYES ACTUALLY SEE?
Pretend someone just shows you this clip, out of the blue with no pretext whatsoever, and you have zero knowledge of anything related to 9/11, and this person says “please explain to me what you see happening in this little video clip?” What can you truthfully say?
I remember this, I’m like positive you’re right. I’m pretty sure I saw a clip of the gas station owner describing the shadiness surrounding it being seized
That video footage release seemed like a big old middle-finger to conspiracy theorists.
"We have footage that proves this was an airplane, not a missile! See, the first frame is an empty parking lot, the third frame is a cloud of smoke, and the second frame is a white cylindrical shape moving sideways into the Pentagon! Exactly like the cross section of the middle portion of an airplane!"
I don't know. That's the part that seems absolutely impossible, as opposed to just out there. I can imagine there might be people in the government who would follow orders and just kidnap and murder 250 people, but I can't imagine the logistics of any of it.
I remember the original footage agents didn't recover from surrounding areas. It was from a building across the street. It clearly showed a white missile before the explosion.
Several days later I went back to show a friend and it was gone. In its place was a crappy doctored version showing a glob meant to look like a plane. Early video editing sucked. I'll never forget.
Well that's pretty fucking crazy, if you ask me. Just more YouTube censorship of alternative facts.
Unfortunately, I am not sure of another source for the 2nd parking booth footage. But the video on the now "terminated" account was pretty interesting...
Who the hell could fly a plane a couple of metres off the ground moving at cruise speed and hold control against all the various factors that make it near impossible for airliners to maintain altitude a couple metres above ground. This was a jetliner not some small cessena and they were able to do that?
To be fair, the plane was only going at 350 knots, 100 knots above landing speed. Not at cruise speed, closer to 500 knots. There is no reason it wouldn't survive that speed at that low of an attitude for the few seconds it was that low.
Well obviously the building destroyed the plane. That's the point. People are saying the plane would have been torn apart or unmanageable before it could have hit the building because they assume it was flying at 500 knots. But flight data says it was only flying at at 350.
No commercial airliner lands at 250 knots. They don’t even land above 180 knots and a plane that size would land around the 140-160 range depending on weight and other variables. Furthermore 350 knots is well too fast for their near sea level altitude. Planes fly faster as they go higher because air density begins to decline, thus they need a higher air speed to avoid stalling.
Don’t talk like you know what you’re talking about when you don’t. 9/11 was not the event that the Bush administration said and we all know that. It’s better to spend your time researching and doing something to try and work together to bring the truth out than spread garbage information.
If you are saying the plane was going well above landing speed, wouldn’t that mean that it had more than enough lift to maintain altitude close to the ground?
Yes it had more than enough lift but that was never a question. At those speeds that low it would be stressing the airframe an immense amount and require a large amount of skill to be flown the way it was and complete the maneuvers it did. The question is was it really a 757? And to further that was it really piloted by who they said it was? The first no one can answer till more information is available but the latter most people with a working knowledge of aviation would cast very large doubts that it could be flown with that success rate by someone as untrained as the supposed terrorists.
When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.
Hey no worries I take anything I read online with a grain of salt. But I have to ask, Snopes is in the business of proving and disproving claims. I feel like if someone presented their writers with evidence they were incorrect, then they would have to confront that right?
All this would require a bank angle of between 32 and 45 degrees, and a moderate rate of descent. Nothing that requires Iceman (remember Top Gun?) to do. Again, the hijacker decided to err on the undershoot side, and descended a lot more than what a good pilot would have done.
Well you imply that it was piloted by terrorists who have never flown a 757. How do you suppose they flew it a few metres off the ground with only training in small GA planes prior?
I believe a plabe hit the Pentagon and planes hit the WTC and they were flown by terrorists from mostly Saudi Arabia. I think the real conspiracy is how we knew (before and after) Saudi Arabia's involvement but did nothing and have done nothing. I think the whole "9/11 was an inside job/the planes were holograms" stuff is mainlu to discredit the real unanswered questions about 9/11
Yes. Stir up the pot so the average joe thinks even the truth is a lie.
The lack of airport security footage of the highjackers makes me question if they even existed. The bits we have are altered with no time stamps. When was the last time you saw security camera footage without date and time on it?
The four emptiest planes in the air that day. Convenient way to get rid of dead spies or make new ones.
Both WTC planes flying over the Airforce Base on their way to the attack is strikingly odd too.
If it was flying at landing speeds then there would be more debris and larger pieces. They had to make the official narrative full throttle (which it is) to explain the empty yard in the first photo
Landing speed is generally between 150 and 200 miles per hour. Cruising speed would be about 525. At 525 miles an hour, an airliner would break up because of the wind shear.
Not at sea level - watch the video. John Lear says the exact same thing. Perhaps you know something he doesn’t? The top speeds of these aircraft are at ALTITUDE, where the air is thinner and there is much less resistance.
Firstly.... They we're at sea level. Both planes decended from their cruising altitude and turned on the speed after they we're lined up with the building while coming down at a downward angle.
When people do these bullshit conspiracy theories about the planes breaking apart half of them don't realize most planes are rated much higher when it comes to speed, thrust, and what it can actually do opposed of just reading shit on a forum and saying "hey I did some quasi math, it's the government!"
Sir, the Pentagon's elevation is 40ft above sea level, according to the army's heliport. It's as close to sealevel as you are going to find. The previous poster is indeed correct. The airframe can not handle the stress of the max speed at lower altitudes. The wings will quite literally shear off.
Is there a statistic from the actual manufacturers on safe speed for airplanes at different altitudes? Most of the time safety ratings are put much lower than the actual maximum limits.
You said cruising speed is 525 mph, then immediately you say that it would break up at 525 mph from wind shear. This doesn't make sense. This is the sort of comment that discredits this entire sub.
You're stretching pretty far here. According to your apparently calculations, what is the surface area of the car normal to the backwash velocity? What was the diffusion coefficient of the wake comping from the jet engines? What was the backwash velocity angle to the ground? What force would be necessary to overcome static friction of a 2 ton vehicle with contacting rubber to concrete?
I'm assume you haven't done these calculations, so "it probably should have" is frivolous and wrong. I'm assuming you have absolutely no credentials to make such a conclusions, so maybe you should be more careful in the future.
My dad is a 22 year veteran pf the army (most national guard but hes been to all the major stuff since the 80s). Hes a science teacher for middle school turned 5th grade teacher. He is about to complete a 2nd masters (has one in education this one is for education leadership/administration so he can be a principal)
I asked him why I cant see the footage and he said because I dont need to :/
I asked him why the pentagon looks like a missile strike just like the picture of the building in iraq I sent him when I was there in 06. He said because the plane behaves like a missile.
I asked him where all the debris is and he said it was vaporized
I asked him why they hit the only section of tge pentagon reinforced to withstand a bomb. He said bad luck.
I asked him how building 7 fell and he said what the he'll is building 7 I yold him and he said it must have been fire.
I asked him how come america has the only towers in modern history to fall due to fire and he said because god is pubishing us
So...I dont think intellect has much to do with it
I can understand I was in the 82nd Airborne in 2003 and I have tried to understand why I was sent there. Unfortunately there is no good answer and unfortunately I feel your father has a similar problem.
I had a rough patch after I opened my eyes. I was super super mad because I watched a good friend get blown to pieces in iraq and I couldnt shake he died for lies
I am surprised veterans havent made some major terrorist attack honestly
I am an Iraq veteran who signed up to stop little girls from getting acid thrown in there faces for going to school. I ended up i Fallujah, and this video helps explain how I feel.
“Ah man you mean that thing that I risked my life and mental health for lied to me about the deadliest terror attack in American history for monetary purposes?”
Exactly how I felt when realized it. I mentioned to someone else I am surprised more veterans havent committed a terrorist attack against the government.
My problem explaining this to my dad is he says “well where is the plane then? They had two hit the towers, one hit the pentagon, and one go down in the field. They can’t make a plane disappear.”
Ask him "why would a novice oilot who could barely fly his single engine Cessna do an aerobatic maneuver before hitting the side of the target, giving him the worst chance of causing mass destruction, instead of simply slamming it into the giant bullseye that the rings of the Pentagon present to you... if youre in the air... in a plane?"
I can understand older people buying into all this probably because they grew up believing the news, media and politicians. Back in the good old days when the President came to town he was like a super hero, now as we all know that has changed. I think the older generation just doesn't want to admit that their whole life has been based on lies. Time will change opinions though, just look at JFK, it took a while but the majority now believes that it was a conspiracy.
I asked him how come america has the only towers in modern history to fall due to fire
This gets repeated a lot but it's not actually true. A 17 story steel skyscraper fully collapsed due to uncontrolled fire just last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasco_Building
These are obviously pretty uncommon because fires tend to be put out before they get this out of control, but for obvious reasons firefighters were a bit spread thin on 9/11.
I was skeptical like you, then I actually read the entire NIST report on building 7. The building was shaped like an extruded trapezoid with the weakest part being the main beam in the middle. This beam had many other beams attached to it perpendicularly. The heat from the fire expanded those beams which in turn pushed laterally on the main beam, forcing it off its bolts. The rest was a domino effect. Part of the reason it falls so fast is the core of the building collapses before the outside. In the video you can see the roof fall into the core seconds before the rest fall.
I consider myself highly intelligent and these facts make me buy the story more. Yes, it's surprising an undamaged building could collapse at freefall, but the series of events they released do fit with the laws of physics.
Nah, NIST says WTC7 collapsed at free-fall speed due to "normal office fires", meaning paper and desks and chairs, carpets etc. They don't even try to blame jet fuel for building seven. Building 7 is the absolute Achilles heel of the official story for 9/11. Which is why they tried to hold off on even mentioning it in the 9-11 Omission
You need to watch the presentation done by The University of Alaska Fairbanks about this. The NIST leaves out very important factors that are easily refuted just by looking at the original blueprints. The NIST report is tailored in such a way to make you believe it. This is the presentation... https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_rxmrybkv
No it didn't, it burned unabated the whole time because the firefighters didn't have the water pressure to run their hoses up to put them out and the sprinklers in the building were shit.
During the afternoon, the fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.
If building 7 was brought down by a few hours of an office fire then those who designed & approved it being built need to be brought to trial as that's a massive oversight. Office fires happen in skyscrapers every year and they are 100% expected to stay upright in any fire beyond one that's all encompassing.
You aren't addressing my argument. You aren't anwering my question. You are responding with a silly YouTube video that regurgitates one unfounded claim after another.
I had read that the plane was moving too fast to be caught in the cameras frame rate (simple math), and saw pictures of airplane debris in the pentagon lawn.
I have a 'soft' opinion that the pentagon was actually hit by a plane (personal research not extensive, open to being wrong).
"Where is the black box" "It was a missile" "it looks like a controlled demolition". If the pentagon was not hit by a plane, why is that the narrative 'they' came up with?
Wouldn't it be much simpler to car bomb / suitcase bomb / missile strike the pentagon, and then just say the terrorists did exactly that?
It's because believing something besides the "mainstream story" completely wrecks people's view of the world and the government, lots of people can't handle that.
Too many people saw a plane for a missile to be used. I have a hard get believing hundreds of people misidentified a 30ft cruise missile for a 300ft airplane.
That's ridiculous... if it was a plane they wouldn't have confiscated footage from every place near the pentagon and would have shown some kind of video of a plane crashing, it would be that simple to disprove it. There would be debris from a gigantic plane as well, which there was none.
They would have confiscated all footage of 9/11, that was impossible in new york. To many people, to many angles.
The pentagon was easier.
And as for why? Only takes someone high up saying the heart of the military was hit, footage could show the US to be weak and maybe lead to other attempts if it was that easy. Also for the investigation.
Only really takes one paranoid person in a highish position.
But in the end footage doesnt matter. Hundreds of eye witnesses seen a plane, and there were parts of the plane in photos all over the place, lawn and found in building.
People will just deny that exists and aay because footage wasnt released it didnt happen which means nothing, because even if that footage was out theyd be arguing it was doctored, fake or a missle shaped like a plane.
let me rephrase, why confiscate all the footage and then keep it completely secret only to release a tiny little 7 frame video that shows absolutely nothing?
They would have confiscated all footage of 9/11, that was impossible in new york. To many people, to many angles.
The pentagon was easier.
And as for why? Only takes someone high up saying the heart of the military was hit, footage could show the US to be weak and maybe lead to other attempts if it was that easy. Also for the investigation.
Only really takes one paranoid person in a highish position.
But in the end footage doesnt matter. Hundreds of eye witnesses seen a plane, and there were parts of the plane in photos all over the place, lawn and found in building.
People will just deny that exists and aay because footage wasnt released it didnt happen which means nothing, because even if that footage was out theyd be arguing it was doctored, fake or a missle shaped like a plane.
I'm not even talking about NY, im talking about the "plane" that hit the pentagon. You're just making up bullshit reasons that dont even make sense. They werent released because of the "investigation"? (which was a god damn farce by the way). Right.... which is why nothing has been released to this day even with freedom of information requests. Where are these eye witnesses? All of your excuses are silly strawman arguments that honestly don't even make sense.
The facts are the facts and there was no wreckage.
show me 1 photo with wreckage of a plane at the pentagon.... it doesn't exist. There's no engines, no seats, no people, no luggage, no fuselage, no wings....
have you seen footage of an actual plane wreck? They don't even compare to the pentagon "plane"
It was definitely a plane but was it controlled by terrorists, not likely, probably guided in from ground control somewhere. They can land rovers on Mars so this is not a huge task.
Yes, but witnesses are always notoriously inaccurate. You see something and then you hear the media say it was a plane and you figure that must have been what it was. Also, they could have painted the missile to match a plane and added small wings on the side, etc
Like your car mirror. "Objects are closer than they appear" kind of effect. You hold your finger in front of your eye and it looks like a bus so they could have been mistaken about how close it was.
Interesting considering It flew right over the freeway, with it's wings hitting light poles.
Many witnesses saw the plane hit light poles. In all, five light poles were torn from their bases and broken into pieces. Pole pieces had considerable curvature as if hit by a blunt force at high speed, such as the moving wing of a plane. One pole piece pierced the windshield of a taxi driven by Lloyde England. The back seat of the taxi was pierced indicating how the pole piece was supported at that end and stuck out through the windshield. The separation and positions of the downed light poles indicate a plane wingspan of more than 100 feet, but less than 130 feet. The wingspan of a Boeing 757 is 124 feet 10 inches.
John D. Wyndham, PhD Physics, Cambridge University. One of the founding members of Scientists for 9/11 Truth, a group of scientific professionals who are calling for new, independent, and scientific investigations of the events of September 11, 2001.
Dismissing a website outright without even checking the sources is LOL.
Yeah, that's more or less my assessment. Missile because I don't believe it could have been a plane given the damage and the necessary approach trajectory., and missile is the next most likely option imo.
The fact that the WTC buildings collapsed symmetrically on their own footprints at freefall speeds is to me 99.99% percent confirmation they were controlled demos.
The fact that the WTC buildings collapsed symmetrically on their own footprints at freefall speeds is to me 99.99% percent confirmation they were controlled demos.
absolutely, and despite the proper logic, there are still idiots who refute their own rationale, all so that they can believe the 'official narrative'. Ridiculous.
While I agree with all of the points you bring up, I try to simplifying my questions to try and get the people who play into the narrative to answer some basic questions.
The engines survived both WTC hits and were found on the streets. Yet there are no holes or leftover engines in the debris. Titanium doesn't melt like the other stuff.
I'm no expert but check into the Murray street engine that was found. Apparently it was too small and should not have been on either plane. I saw it on some YouTube video years ago.
Has nothing to do with the blades. The cooling duct is a radically different shape than the one that should have been on the engines of the planes supposedly involved.
It brings nothing new to the table what-so-ever. It's not like there aren't 9/11 posts every-other-day. Get out of here with your useless fucking comment /s
The battle with the shills is a daily battle. They are here so that new authentic users don’t learn anything. We should be reposting this daily until there is not a single organic user left that doesn’t understand just what our government truly is. I mean think about it, we are literally run by organized crime, people who need us to die, and there are users on this sub that somehow are missing this point
I find it important to look at the user's history and see whether it's a an account that is a few days old, or an account that is multiple years old without any kind of posts, or comments.
I agree but it’s typically even easier than that. The snarky cocksucker “nothing to see here” replies are the dead give away. Remember they want us to stop asking questions. They want us to not give a fuck. Any user adopting this attitude is suspect
I don’t. Just responding to the Comment America is run by organised crime. I still hold on to some hope there is still a political establishment in the U.K. that works for the uk. But that hope is gradually fading.
You’re not wrong about the CCTV. I’m sick of it can’t even have a piss in a bush without it being seen, it feels like we are naughty children being monitored by our parents. I hate it.
The nasa guy is right.. there could be a new person questioning reality at any given moment and talking about it all the time helps everyone catch wind of truth bombs
You also need to remember that in 2001 people did not routinely have cameras on them.
Considered how many photos and videos we ahve of the flight with engine failure that landed in PA a couple days ago. We have simultaneous video from multiple camers throughout the cabin, shots of the engine at multiple times, etc.
In 10 years we will probably have full-time and real-time live video in lapel pins and eyeglasses that stream to cloudservices.
Yeah that’s clearly bullshit. But for me a simple explanation for that would be that the investigators knew it was him because of previous tips and information that they did not act on. So instead of saying “we know who did this because we were warned here here and here”, they save face and say they found their passports at the scene.
I’m not positive that’s the case. But at least that one has a simple possible explanation that points to cover up rather than conspiracy.
It is NEVER stated that they used the passports to identify the terrorists on the flights. It's completely irrelevant. It's just a crazy thing that happened. It's not like that was the hot tip they used to crack the case.
So do you believe that they found the passport on the ground as they said they did? Why would the black boxes be destroyed in the fire and not the passports?
Blackboxes are largeish and heavy. A passport is a small and light. Most if the surviving debris is small stuff that won't get destroyed immediately on impact. A black box is basically too big for its own good in this situation. I don't think there's anything wrong with finding the passport I guess. It's a weird point to latch onto since it was ultimately not really a piece in the investigation. 9/11 had a lot of weird difficult to explain situations, but the passport thing is just a red herring that people are stuck on.
The black boxes could have burned for a while and been fine. Theyre designed to take it. That assumes that whatever hit the wtc had black boxes. Same with the pentagon.
And also the titanium and aluminum turbines. I’m quite certain , are made to have a pretty high temper. That is my main hiccup. I need someone to til5 me how the hell those engines were incinerated, if they indeed were
Actually the blades of several stages in modern jet engines are single crystal nickel superalloys, which are only meltable with things like arc furnaces or induction furnaces.
Yes a paper passport soaked in jet fuel is likely to survive a massive fireball impact, while the black boxes specifically designed to withstand plane crashes wouldnt.
Makes sense. About as much sense as an aluminum airplane punching through a building that was designed to survive a jet airliner that size impacting it.
As much sense as it not only slicing through the outer steel superstructure, but also the massive core columns that most people forgot existed, which would have remained standing if the outer building partially collapsed...
The fact that three steel buildings fell within hours of being hit, directly down into their own basements.
The nanothermite residue. The fact that wtc7 didnt even get hit, yet fell into its own basement from "office fires". The fact that the NIST models are garbage. Even though they dido say most of the fuel on the planes was instantly consumed, meaning the fire weakened the beams is bullshit.
But anyone with basic metallurgical or structural engineering knowledge knows the official story is a lie.
I remember when the msm started reporting that they found the pilots body in the cockpit with his hands tied. We are so dumb as a population that people are still repeated the fake fact that the pilots had their hands tied.
I can understand the thought that the black box is too heavy to fly off in the same way that a passport can. I realise it wasn't a part of the investigation but it's part of the official story and seems pretty obviously fake - if we can establish the official story is untrue in any part then it draws the entire thing into question.
The part I really don't understand is how the passport would have gotten there, surely it would have been either in the terrorist's bag or in his pocket? How would it come to be lying on the ground on its own?
Perhaps it wasn't a piece of the investigation in a legal sense, but that passport was very much part of the sales pitch (if you will) to the American public.
I don't think there's anything wrong with finding the passport I guess.
Seriously? 3 modern day skyscrapers were completely flattened, and you "guess" there's nothing wrong with finding multiple passports that were in the god damn cockpits of the very planes that demolished said buildings? Literally one of the buildings wasn't even touched by a plane, yet it was completely demolished. A 47 story steel building that wasn't even hit by a plane collapsed, and yet the god damn passports of the people in the planes themselves survived???? Well let's just agree to disagree, to say the fucking least...
Evidence gets planted when the truth is found through illegal means
Well put
Obviously necessary to question the ethics of this to uphold any libertarian ideals; but a good serious question would be “is this ever acceptable ?” & “at what point in the chain of command do you place the responsibility?”
When I raise this point multiple people have replied: "If they were lying about the passports why would they make it so obviously fake?" How would you go about replying to this?
People have to red pill themselves. If you throw too much info at them at one time, they will ignore it all. give them a snippet of info that they can research themselves or that makes them think and leave it at that... that way when they eventually put two and two together they think they did it on their own. It’s really about pride. People don’t want to be wrong, so they deny and ignore, even when evidence is overwhelming.
give them a snippet of info that they can research themselves or that makes them think and leave it at that... that way when they eventually put two and two together they think they did it on their own.
Fucking THIS. Well said, I've red pilled many people with this method. Just have to plant some seeds, and usually they will be back with some more questions for you.
Yup. Kinda like when someone is given obvious evidence of a crime, and that person is so in defense of the suspect that their only reaction is, "well if it's true, why would they make it so obvious?"
You didn’t answer his question, tbh. If the goal is to get someone to believe bullshit, why have such extraordinary coincidences as part of the deliberate narrative?
I don’t think it’s bullshit... most normal people just accept things the way they are and the way they are taught. If you don’t believe the narrative, your crazy or a conspiracy theorist... being afraid of being called crazy weeds out most people, so basically the one calling the narrative can put anything crazy out there and most will just accept it as it is.
It's a stupid question. It's like seeing someone murder someone in broad daylight in a public venue, and then thinking, "hmm... well I guess he didn't kill that guy because he made it too obvious that he did it."
If you don’t believe the narrative, your crazy or a conspiracy theorist
you worded it wrong. If you believe the official narrative, then you're considered normal. If you question or go against it the narrative, then you are a 'crazy conspiracy theorist'.
If you're interested in knowing who they are, simply look at who gained obscene amount of money in the days leading up to and after 9/11 a lot of Pakistani families profited hugely, including the owner of the WTC. The paper trail is more telling than the lies we're fed
I shouldn't have grouped them together that way my bad. I meant, among those who profited were Pakistani royalty families and the owner of the WTC. I hope that sounds better sorry for not putting it there way I meant it
The owner of the WTC received an insurance payout that was nowhere near what the buildings were actually worth. The whole "insurance scam!" angle is a head scratcher.
If somebody is going to destroy something you own regardless of what it's worth and your only option is to take what you can get for it before they destroy it, you're going to listen to them and take out that shit insurance policy on it because millions are better than zero. The telling sign was that he took it out just days before the towers came down. There's nothing head scratchy about this.
Essentially, they know that the majority of people are too honest, naive and trusting to ever believe that someone could tell such a huge and obvious lie. Then they repeat it, over and over and over until everyone hears it and shout down the few who call BS.
That's not really what that means. This is just some bread crumbs. The context of the big lie is when you claim entirely obvious falsehoods that are on the fact of untrue. Its not entirely obvious that anyone buy Bin Laden planned those attacks. Nibbling at the corners of something isn't what that means at all.
It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.
I'm pretty sure you misunderstood the concept of the Big Lie because you seem to be falling for it. Why do you believe that it's obvious that only Bin Laden planned 9/11? The FBI had Bin Laden on their Most Wanted list for other terrorist attacks i.e. the USS Cole Bombing & the Embassy bombing in Nairobi but it makes no connection between 9/11 and Bin Laden. Mueller has been on record stating that in all (a treasure trove) of the evidence that they recovered, not one single piece of paper mentions 9/11. Bin Laden has been on record, more than once, emphatically denying any involvement with 9/11.... then, right before the '04 elections, a new video magically appears in which Bin Laden does take credit for 9/11.... keep in mind that the authenticity of that particular video has been discussed ad nauseam.
Certainly your claim that "obviously Bin Laden panned those attacks" is dubious at best and hearkens back to Hitler's definition of creating a Big Lie that regardless of facts, people will continue to believe that there must be some other explanation.
WTC7 collapsing on its own footprint and free fall speed with no structural damage is such an 'extraordinary coincidence' (read: impossibility). Most people just don't ask questions - they are conditioned what they are told.
Why plant a passport on the streets of NYC. That's not really believable to happen, right? It would have been possible to plan it to look more like a collapse to you. Wouldn't you agree?
I didn’t defend it as true. You want me to, but I didn’t. If it’s unlikely to happen, then they might be unlikely to plant it. Or weird shit happens in crashes and weird shit survives. Those are literally unconsidered. I’m suggesting that people be more open-minded to it. In complex events, weird outlier shit happens.
Good question. I don’t know the answer for sure. Maybe it’s just that: sloppy bullshit that wasn’t meant to happen. Maybe it’s just as normal for the passport to survive as it would have been for the buildings to have survived too, if you get what I’m saying. After all, the passport was found a block away from the WTC before the towers collapsed. Sounds like a really convenient and somewhat believable story/reason for finding the passport. People do believe it after all anyways. But I’m also skeptical of the passport being able to make it that far away from the site only from the initial impact of the plane itself. But like I said maybe it is true. What do you think, it’s fishy if you ask me but not completely unbelievable, which maybe makes it the perfect lie. But maybe the passport really was found the way it was, but if you ask me, it’s not normal for a paper passport that was in one of the planes itself to survive something that 3 skyscrapers were completely flattened by in a matter of seconds, one of which was completely untouched by a plane. I think either the passport was a lie, or if it wasn’t a lie, then those buildings should have survived just as the passport did, but they didn’t. Why lie if it’s untrue, and if it’s true, why did the buildings demolish in free fall fashion while a paper passport was left to survive?
Dude, I have yet to see you make a coherent argument that doesn't use a logical fallacy.
I mean, right here, this is an entire argument from incredulity:
Why plant a passport on the streets of NYC. That's not really believable to happen, right?
You are refusing to look at what we actually know, but base truth on what you deem is "believable."
This is what is known as a priori reasoning:
It would have been possible to plan it to look more like a collapse to you. Wouldn't you agree?
This is similar to the argument, "If this conspiracy were true, MSM reporters would be all over it!"
The fact is, 9/11 was a sloppy job. Like, really sloppy. We have a mountain of evidence in multiple fronts, including a money trail and clear-as-day motive. These people know that there will be enough people who will refuse such a thing is possible. All they have to do, as the poster above said, is use the Big Lie method in conjunction with CIA's vast Mockingbird-influenced outlets in order to cement the narrative and quickly label those who question it as crazy "conspiracy theorists."
This is the literal approach they used for JFK, and it worked. This is what they used for the MLK assassination, and it worked.
Good question. Why would someone who's shown obvious evidence to a crime defend the suspect with the question, "if it were true, why would they make it so obvious?"
WTC 7 sustained an enormous amount of structural damage, actually. There are valid questions regarding the official narrative, but so much misinformation regarding topics that have been thoroughly debunked by independent experts completely overshadows inquiry that is actually relevant.
Good question. Why would someone who's shown obvious evidence to a crime defend the suspect with the question, "if it were true, why would they make it so obvious?"
It's about pride and sleeping at night. Most people don't want to believe their government is evil or can be evil. It's easier to live a naive fairy tell life than know the real truth.
Most people don't want to believe their government is evil
I wonder if they would find it easier to swallow if they knew that their government did it in conjunction with another country, which completely controls their country?
I hate it when people comment this!, but ... A million times this .
My friend in the military told me there's no way it was an inside job because the government isn't that organized, they would have slipped up somewhere and there would evidence.
... the evidence is the stuff I just told you. How can you say there's no need to look into any evidence, because if it was true, there would be evidence?
So weird that people think like this, it's just them being too close minded. My personal theory, most people think they live in a "what you see is what you get" world, and dont believe close door conspiracies happen (like MKUltra, the list goes on and on obviously, but I dont have to tell you all) so to get them to look at something one way, when the TV is telling them it was a different way, would shake their world view, and it's hard to shake someones world view.
Most people believe that the source of truth is the TV, so it takes someone like Edward Snowden to get on TV and tell them about something before they believe it. TV knows all
I agree with many of your points. It blows my mind that people don’t understand the concept that mainstream news media (mainly the stuff of TV) exists for the sole purpose of selling advertisements and telling the general populace exactly what the powers that be want you think. They could give two shits about the truth or honest reporting.
Also apparently they are pushing/have pushed "anti fake-news" laws where the government can now decide what's fake and what's not. Richard Dolan talks a lot about this. Freedom of Speech is at risk if that is true
the thing is, the tv does tell us the truth - if we know where to look for it. all kinds of movies and shows have story lines with conspiracies in the government, elite circles, the mob, the military, etc, etc, that allude to these kinds of things happening in real life, behind the scenes. in these stories, the news media conspires to hide the evidence and tamper with the story for reasons either alluded to or unknown. there are often a lot of gaps in these stories, but they occur so often that we must recognize that there is truth to them. and the reason that these stories are allowed to be made over and over again is because if the uninitiated see these "made up" stories first, they will refuse to believe that the news stories that they watch can be similar to the fiction that they watch on other channels. it's called hiding things out in the open.
You need to be able to read between the lines. Most news stories are fluff, or filler now adays. Most are trying to push a narrative. BUT there is always a morsel of truth in these articles and stories that is not only invaluable to the story, but to the truth seeker as well. You just have to be able to identify this morsel of truth when 90% of an article is bullshit. You cross reference this with all types of different information; social media, MSM, alt media, and so on and take the morsels of truth out of those if there are any, mash them together and form the bigger picture, or your own opinion. Much of this can unmask currently stories to do with foreign policy.
I am a firm believer in the idea that there are organizations that literally do not exist, that are handsomely funded, and operate outside of any judicial or moral background. It would not be “the government” who fostered or perpetrated 9/11. It’d be organizations like these.
Have you interacted with many adults recently? Its like 90% of the adult population has had a lobotomy between all the shit food they eat and mind numbing prescriptions they take.
You really think most brainwashed people are capable of questioning the mainstream narrative once theyve been through 18 years of shit food, public "school" indoctrination?
Then maybe 4 more years of white guilt, gender studies, pro refugee studies, how Amazon is capitalism bullshit socialist "economics" propaganda and all the other garbage the Antifa fascist qualified on paper but completely useless and incompetent college types with their toilet paper degrees... Yeah by the time most people are 20 their brain has been successfully programmed not to critically think at all or to literally prefer death to being politically incorrect(UK, Germany, Sweden rape capital of Europe).
I.... I don't think Gen Z's being concerned because their peers work in an actual sweat shop and have to piss in bottles are the brainwashed ones....... you were so great until that whole last paragraph, and then I did like three double-takes. There's too much to unpack here so I just went with an obvious strawman.
I'm so glad you commented. I literally read that last paragraph three times because it was so off from the rest of the comment I was sure I'd missed something.
What was unclear? I just specifically said people over 20 or so(is Gen Z over 20 now? They keep reclassifying when this generation began and the last ended.) tend to be the brainwashed ones.
If they are concerned about that, hate Amazon, etc then they arent the brainwashed ones. The millenials and older are the ones who are mostly brainwashed.
Im pretty sure this upcoming generation is pretty redpilled, woke, based, whatever you want to call it. They're also the most conservative generation since WW2.
Its like an oscillating system. The last few generations got progressively more and more socialistic, leftist, politically correct, decadent, dim witted, and now the i believe the tipping point in the sysyem has been reached(self organized critical point) and the generation currently growing up is going to be better because they will reject the culture of apathy that the idiots of my generation took to its most extreme.
Okay, but millenials are the generation that is actively, statistically fighting for dramatic social changes, though. They could even be credited for sparking this new zeitgeist. I feel you are mixing up perceptions of generations. Generation X is absolutely the generation you must be referring to, otherwise we are living in separate universes. Think 28+.
I dont think most millenials(currently 28 plus) are. In fact, socialism is on the rise in popularity among that age group, plenty of SJWs and biology deniers in that range too.
I think millenials ideologically aligned with Gen Z are the exception, not the rule. I mean, just look at most college campuses. A lot of them are trying to turn the USA, Canada Australia, UK and much of the EU into some socialist failed state. Bernie, a literal socialist candidate, was popular among the millenials too...
I don't think you understand which aged go in which generations. Millenials are people ages 20ish to 20ish. Again, I am pretty sure you are not referring to millenials. I am also a bit confused/concerned that you seemed to lump people who deny science with a dog whistle stereotype buzzword term used to shut down those who are concerned that people are treated kindly and fairly.
Socialist is a dog whistle term designed to shut people who belive in what up??? Socialism is preaching the virtues of slavery, not fairness.
And no, people in their 20s and 30s are the demographic of largely socialist indoctrinated people im talking about. The only change most of them want is to turn the USA into a looter failed state.
SJW is the key term I am speaking of. It is designed to shut down someone when the other party is concerned primarily with social welfare. If you believe that socialism is slavery, then how do you feel about capitalism? It is common knowledge that capitalism is far more like slavery than socialism ever has been. Millenials seem to be concerned about the fact that CEO to worker ratios have gone up from 25x in the 50's to 300x now. They are concerned that inflation has risen 300% but wages have remained stagnant. They are concerned that the vast majority of taxes go to a military industrial complex in a war most if the country disagrees with and yet social services that we pay into get slashed. That's the blame of the GOP, not people wanting a safety net for a failing economy. On average you must make at least $24 an hour full-time in the cheapest state in order to afford adequate living conditions. In the 50's you could support an entire family, buy a car, and pay your mortgage on one salary alone.
You are wrong, just plain and simple, you are wrong. There have been many, many studies done that show how the generation of millenials has had to work harder for what they have more than any other modern generation. Would you like some links or do you know how to use Google Scholar?
Yes, I am greatly concerned that there are individuals out there in the wild that hold wildly and factually wrong, unfortunate opinions towards an entire generation. That's a pretty shitty attitude, even if it was founded in reality, but it's not. Have fun with your whole lack-of-empathy thing you've got going on though.
I agree about the issues you speak of, yet you have the typical misconception about capitalism and socialism that i wanted you to spell out by baiting you with trigger words, and you revealed exactly what i suspected.
How is the exchange of value for value, the core principle of capitalism, which is completely voluntary, like slavery? It is diametrically opposed to slavery.
Socialism and communism are essentially legalized theft. If you make more money than me, a greater portion of your money goes to taxes. Its a perverse incentive that makes people either become welfare queens or shelter their money where it cant be taxed(Panama papers style).
To me, its much less compassionate and empathetic to say "well you are forced to work harder because more of your money will be going to other people and their families, many of whom dont even work than the voluntarism of capitalism.
Forcing people to work and then taking the products or profits of their labour is basically slavery in a nutshell, and socialism too.
You think taxing the ultra rich cunts who did a bunch of unethical shit to get rich, and should never have gotten rich to begin with is going to fix the system that made them rich and the middle class poor?
All that mentality has done so far is lead to economic collapse in socialist failed states, and the rise of mega corporations and monopolies which are antithetical to the free market of a capitalist system.
What you call the evils of capitalism are the evils of a corrupt socialist elite, who does not play by the rules they make for the middle class, who they enslave through socialist tax schemes.
Yikes, there's a lot to unpack here. I am not wanting to start an argument, but I would like to address every point that I can. I would also like to be very clear that you are speaking in a lot of broad terms about what people other than yourself believe and are mispresenting it dramatically, as well as making sweeping assumptions about my viewpoint when I merely pointed out obscene inflation. If we cannot agree on that basic point, then I don't see how we have enough common ground to continue this discussion, but I will bite.
I also would like to add that I absolutely do not tolerate manipulation tactics in conversations and if there cannot be mutual respect going forward then there is no use continuing. I am not sure why I even have to tell you how inappropriate it is to try and "bait" someone to try and validate misconceptions you hold about them. That is incredibly off-putting and disconcerting. Moving on.
The system of capitalism is not voluntary. To suggest so is a logical fallacy. That implies choice. You have no choice but to participate in capitalism. If not, you are homeless, which I have been, as I am disabled and am largely socioeconomically worthless. You do not have a choice but to participate in society.
Taxes work as ratios. If I make more then you, I pay more taxes. It is basic math. Right now, however, if I make more than you, I pay significantly less taxes. How does that work out? That makes zero sense. Absolutely nutty.
Right now, the large portion of my taxes go towards a military industrial system I do not morally support and a federal debt that is designed to keep growing. I would much rather my contribution go towards infrastructure, schools, healthcare, etc. I do not consent to where my taxes go, and yet I involuntarily pay them in order to justify a roof over my head.
You seem to think that people like being on welfare and other various social services. That's a misconception I don't even know how to address except for. I am not sure if you are aware how social services work, what requirements you have to meet, or how payments are distributed. I would love to share recourses with you if it matters towards your general feelings. As for sheltered taxes, that would be in offshore tax havens so the people who pay less taxes than they should, pay even less than that.
To clarify welfare, I have never known a single person in my entire life that solely lived off of social services unless they were disabled and were unable to work. I know many people on food stamps and medicaid, myself included, because it is physically impossible to make ends meet while still working beyond our means. What you are speaking of is a non-issue and social safety nets would not be needed, had wages rose with inflation.
We have a system right now where people are forced to work, whether they like to or not, whether they physically/mentally can or should not. Unless you are diagnosed with a severe mental or physical disability, you absolutely must either have a job or live off of someone else who has one. Period. Nobody has a choice to opt out of this system. No family lives for free.
To answer your question if taxing the ultra rich cunts would fix everything, no, I don't think it would, but I think that having them proportionately taxed to the rest of us would be a great start, don't you think?
Are you suggesting that we do not currently have a system of mega-corporations and monopolies? Wild.
I appreciate you trying to split this into capitalism VS socialism, but you must know that I hold neither and none of those or any political ideologies. I just see things that are obviously unfair or don't make any sense, and I see things that obviously need to be fixed. I am unconcerned about other so-called socialist nations as they are not examples of perfectly executed socialism and as such, I am again not a socialist but believe in what is clearly fair and just. If some of those things are what a socialist would believe, cool coincidence, but I am not a socialist.
There is no need for ad homing and creative assumptions about my life. I have no doubt you display very kind attributes. I am simply unimpressed and disappointed by the viewpoints expressed within our dialogue and as most of them are largely just generalizations against me and my peers as people, you could understand why that might make me feel a lack of empathy from you. Especially given that I have spent four years of my life living on the street, am disabled, have earned two degrees and have devoted nine years of my life to service work. How about we both agree we do not know what each other has gone with and at least agree to not make assumptions about each other based upon little to no info? It will help me feel like you are less uncompassionate with the way you communicate your feelings.
Again, it is severely offensive to make some of these assumptions. Beat you and steal your wallet? Are you fucking lost? I can't even watch anything but kids cartoons because I am such a pacifist marshmallow. Our government holds no empathy for me, or for you, for that matter. I am wholeheartedly against our current political and social structure. I don't need a government to tell me to be a decent human being. It's called having a moral compass and caring about other people and having empathy.
Do you need the government to tell you not to steal and cheat? If not, why would you assume I do? Because I expressed that I wished the super-wealthy was held to the same fiscal and moral standards?
Government corruption is possible because of capitalism. Politicians are bought like products. Regulations are controlled by whoever holds the cash flow. Whoever holds the cash flow controls the laws and whoever controls the laws controls where the money goes. Our system isn't even capitalism anymore; it's capitalism gone rogue.
And, uh, you just listed several incredibly recent events that have literally nothing to do with the steady nosedive from the 50's till now that I addressed multiple times. Each bullet point was also a dramatic oversimplification that has absolutely nothing to do with staggering CEO/worker wage inflation, housing crisis, education debt, I could go on. Would you like me to go on?
When I think SJW, I think of someone like me and my peers, who are graduates and can't afford to live anywhere but squeezed in apartments with multiple strangers, who has to pay for gas in quarters or ride the bus, who will be paying for their education into their retirement, who can't find a job paying a living wage or benefits even though they obtained a degree in a competitive field, who has to choose between their phone bill and food for that week, or has a cavity and can't get it filled so they just deal with pain for months, or works even if they are on the verge of vomiting and because they cannot afford even a day's worth of missed hours... I think of people like myself and my peers, who spend every ounce of their energy justifying their existence when they grew up raised by parents who walked right out of college or even high school and got to play house with a wife and cars and a normal life and who told them they could be anything they wanted to be.
But again, I would love to share with you dozens upon dozens of articles, studies, forums, etc if someone living life in a certain demographic telling you what life in that demographic is an unreliable primary source. At the end of the day, I may not help your perceptions. However, the official consensus is certainly unanimous on this matter, whether you like it or not. It just sucks that you have to be so loud about your unfortunate opinions, because they are literally, factually just straight wrong, and it can really bum out people like me who have really, really big hearts. Have a good night🐵!
"Taxes work as ratios. If I make more then you, I pay more taxes. It is basic math. Right now, however, if I make more than you, I pay significantly less taxes."
Im not sure where you live that taxes are set up that way. Progressive taxes mean the more you make, a larger % of your money goes to taxes.
Its basic math that's the opposite of an equitable system too. If it was "fair" high earners would pay a smaller percent since their smaller percent is more money than a lower earners actual amount put into the tax system.
Or a truly "fair" tax would be a flat tax. But we cant have nice things like a flat tax because people who get into positions of power are often dickheads who shelter all their money like Jeff Bezos and his ilk.
And actually, government corruption is incentivized by feeding the government more money and making it larger, something capitalism doesnt have much room for, but socialism is the epitome of.
I also didnt list recent events. Getting off the gold standard was something the Roman empire did before it collapsed, when they used base metal coins instead of gold and silver, and in the USA they started in the early 20th century(1913 i believe) and finished abolishing the standard in the 70s. Now your money is worth less than the denim its printed on. So a lot of whats wrong started long before the 50s.
Inflation because of outsourcing to slave labour countries isnt new either. Its been a slow slide into a new dark age where everything is made in a communist shithole, which makes a few CEOs wealthy while obliterating the middle class.
You wouldnt personally hold me at gunpoint to take "your" slice of my money. You have the government to do that on your behalf. Thats what socialism is: forced wealth redistribution to accomplish equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
And in a capitalist system, despite your accusation that it leaves people to starve if theyre unable to work because of disability, there is no reason not to have a safety net for stability. The Golden Rule applies there. Which is where the rationally selfish aspect of capitalism works wonders.
If i am able to work, but i get sick or hurt and cant work, obviously i would want some kind of safety net. So its in everyones best interest to have a system like that in place. Only its not pretending to be something it isnt, like in a socialist system.
In a socialist system, the government takes your money disproportionately and wastes it, lining the pockets of politicians and bureaucrats under the guise of social welfare.
The college debt thing isnt new either. Its a symptom of a paper pushing debt backed fake economy, where many people who "make a living" do so by doing something either completely useless or actually detrimental to others(think pricks like Bezos who exploit the system to get rich).
Failing to make your point means you have to fall back on the "false consensus" logical fallacy? Really?
So you cant defend socialism well enough with facts and reason, that you literally resort to "However, the official consensus is certainly unanimous on this matter, whether you like it or not."
There is a fractal misunderstanding that you have on this subject that, on mobile, would take my tiny fingers far too long to tap out. You are genuinely out of touch, my friend. I am not going to spend my day teaching somebody how the sky is blue when they keep insisting it is green. Have fun
I actually agree with most of what you said. I’ve lost many dear friends growing up because we just became incompatible over time. Most people just want to “conform”. They want the “cookie cutter” life. They want to “fit in” and be “normal” so bad they are willing to smother the part of their mind that begs for critical thinking and fearless individualism.
Then, on the other hand, I am also a skeptic. To me, 9/11 as an inside job has always been too far-fetched. But I’m always willing to change my mind, if I can see facts and logic. Just like I once did with the Mandela effect, for example.
I just call that kind of conformity "selling out".
To me, there is too much compelling evidence to believe 911 was anything but pre planned. If you arent familiar with the Project for A New American Century, you should look into it. The Dancing Israelis who failed polygraphs and hundreds of Israeli spies who were "deported"(sent home safe with no consequences), the Israeli "art students" who had unlimited construction access to the WTC and did two "art projects" in the sections of the buildings that got hit.
i wouldn't put most ppl in that basket, think about it from a provisioning angle (the all time greatest theory), if 40% of youth under x years have y hours of wonder time then what should they wonder about. actually my greatest theory of all time is hierarchy but if we talk about that then i would get banned
so let's just say hierarchy is based on various shades of cannibalism, all shades require provisioning, so a 10 pounder goes to a 10 pounder eater and so on. in this case specifically, we would need roadmap knowledge, for instance this incident is part of a build up for west muslim 4th world war, we also need design knowledge specifically opportunity cost minimization, what all can be achieved by a single event and its msm portrayal
Youre being too vague and im too hung over to know what cannibalism has to do with self organized emergent phenomena like a person's psychological development or how societal hierarchies form.
social hierarchies do not just quote unquote form, they are forced, hence the idea of cannibalism. if a must quote unquote eat b then a forced hierarchy needs to be in place
Ever heard of self organized criticality or emergent phenomena? Im not saying people dont have agency, but its not as straightforward as "ok im going to make everyone follow my rules". Its a systemic flaw, and an error that gets "amplified" over an iterative, self organizing process.
you believe in natural iteration, i believe in hierarchy and provisioning, to each his own. if a snake is in the business of snake skin wallets and waits for shed skins then he might be human in the sense that raw direct cannibalism is a baser instinct, reusable cannibalism is where humans are at. if a is able to eat b over and over, then it must be shed skin AND media cover (the reason b never sells wallets) and both these require brand management ie active management so if instances of b are likely to get into wallets they're taken care of (not killed, just derailed)
Nobody who believes the official story has taken the time to authenticate the passports. It's such a small unimportant detail that I don't think anyone ever really took the time to confirm the story.
Like a boyfriend who is so obviously cheating and the girlfriend just blindly trusts him no matter what, when he comes home with a girls perfume smell on his coat and lipstick in his collar he can make up a ridiculous story about how he gave a dying girl CPR and got her smell and makeup on him in the process of saving her life! And how dare u, crazy woman, ever even DOUBT me!! And over time, the lying story teller knows that no matter what he says, the Too-Trusting Fool will believe him.
First, only 4 passports were recovered. Two were from UA93 which crashed in PA. A third was found on the ground in NYC after the planes hit but before the crash. The fourth was not recovered at the crash, but was found in the hijackers luggage which didn't make it onto his connecting flight (AA11).
But the passports are--by far-- the single weirdest part of this whole affair. Are wallets and passports commonly recovered from crashes?
Even three is still too many to be realistic in that situation. The best deception is to make it not too obvious--like recovering all the passports--but just enough...they "found" enough passports to make the story plausible but not so many to make it ludicrous. It is, however, still ludicrous.
That argument could be used for just about everything that happened on that day. Building 7, the crash site in Shankville, the molten metal in the rubble, the BBC reporting building 7 fell, oh an don't forget the anthrax letters that were linked to 911 but only could have come from a state power.
The answer is: It was a fucking government operation that was very poorly planned and executed, and we fell for it. (at least I did at the time.) Most previous false flags (pearl harbor, gulf of Tonkin, the Maine) were at sea where a real investigation is impossible.
Show them how they always find the passports of nearly all terror attack perpetrators at the scene (seriously, it still happens every time whether it's a bombing, shooting or a truck attack), either on the ground or placed on a chair etc. Go look it up. Show them what you'll find by doing that.
The powers that be love to rub our faces in it, just in case we aren't fully aware of their power. Hell, they originally named the invasion of Iraq Operation Iraqi Liberation . Some adviser made them rename it. You can't make this stuff up if you tried.
Not so. ABC reported on 9/14 that both the Pentagon and Pennsylvania flight data recorders had been recovered-- although the voice recorder from the Pentagon was to damaged to be used.
They find passports and other identifying information left behind terrorist attacks all the time, it does not necessary mean government conspiracy. In fact terrorists are encouraged to ensure they are quickly identified. Also when the airplane hit there was massive ball of debris raining down the streets, its not like the passports were the only thing that survived its just that this is the most talked about and most well documented debris found.
If something is incredibly unlikely and the odds are really low, it does not mean that its impossible, that is a logical fallacy. In reality, either they actually survived or were planted at the location by co-conspirators.
I almost forgot that part. I remember back then, when hours after the impacts they said they found a passport and that it belongs to one of the hijackers. I couldn't believe what i just heard. Ignore everything else, just this little thing is so strangely unbelievable. And i wonder why it was produced, it's like they said "Let's tell them some ridiculous lie to show all the conspiracy nerds out there that we can get away with ANY lie"
Once a flight has been hijacked, I suggest it would be fairly easy to identify the hijackers based on specific patterns: they likely worked in a group; you can probably eliminate families, regular business travelers. The FBI claims that they made very few attempts to conceal their identity, which would help quite a bit.
Then according to Wikipedia, the flight crew on one flight told them:
Two flight attendants called the American Airlines reservation desk during the hijacking. Betty Ong reported that "the five hijackers had come from first-class seats: 2A, 2B, 9A, 9C and 9B."[5] Flight attendant Amy Sweeney called a flight services manager at Logan Airport in Boston and described them as Middle Eastern.[5] She gave the staff the seat numbers and they pulled up the ticket and credit card information of the hijackers, identifying Mohamed Atta.[6]
At that point, it's probably trivial to figure out who was a hijacker and who wasn't, based on their connections to this group.
Here's a quote from this source if you would like to know more, "The investigators were quickly able to link the 19 men to the terrorist organization al Qaeda, by accessing their intelligence agency files."
So, if any passport were to survive the crash, it's more likely to be a hijacker's.
I don't think it's significant. Small, light objects are more likely to survive an impact intact, so passports are a candidate, assuming they escape the burn area. Given the momentum, there's a decent chance a passport could escape the immediate crash site.
Debris flying around, bags would be torn open by the dense objects inside, there's any number of ways they could come loose: a plane was disintegrating all around them.
Sources suggest 4 were found: 1 in New York, 2 in Virginia, one in luggage that didn't make it on the flight. The two in Virginia, they don't explicitly mention they weren't found with their bodies, but it was a plane crash.
Regarding hijacker passports and the process of id'ing them, I think it was just the one. But honestly ive never come across info regarding what other stuff or docs from the plane was recovered on the streets below. Remember within a short while the whole place was shrowded in the dusty smoke cloud. Hard even to imagine they found the one passport at all. And in good time. But then again, and I know this is one of the hotter topics discussed about 911, I just dont see why they would even lie about finding this. It wasnt very significant in helping to id, meaning they found out their id's through many other ways. And basically the entireity of the intellegence community was working on it post haste. Its a conundrum.
It was 4 passports used to help confirm identification of those 4 high-jackers. 3 of the 4 passports were found in or around the debris in NYC, the 4th was in luggage on a seperate, connecting flight. [Source](Authorities said they had also identified accomplices in several cities who had helped plan and execute Tuesday's attacks. Officials said they knew who these people were and important biographical details about many of them.)
According to this 4 of the high-jacker's passports were found, one of which was not on the planes, it was in luggage on a connecting flight. The other 3 were found in or around the debris in NYC. No info on passenger passports but I haven't looked it up myself yet.
They found the black boxes from the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania crashes. Only the ones' from the Twin Towers weren't found because the ratio of black box to debris field was too high.
I feel like they could have possibly found them, but lied about /not/ finding them? Because yeah, they should have at least found parts of the black boxes, if not the whole damn thing. If that makes sense.... //shrugs
Didn't the "plane" supposedly knock down some light poles before hitting the building. But at its speed, the poles should have sheared off the "plane"'s wings.
Then one of the poles supposedly landed on a taxi. There is audio of the taxi driver admitting it was bullshit when he thought he was off camera.
Oh yea, the trajectory data for the "plane" had it moving at a speed that made it impossible for the "plane" to get close to the ground because of ground effect.
Yeah it was flying really low and knocked down many poles. It was in broad view of everyone driving to/from the Pentagon so there are vast witnesses. I'm also pretty sure someone would say something if they were pre knocking the poles by a main road. I'm on board with a false flag but I don't believe the no planes story. Likewise I have friends in New York who saw the second plane quite clearly as they were looking at the first plane incident.
There is a video out there where they interview a bunch of eye witnesses (including the taxi driver mentioned in the previous comment). Something like a dozen eye witnesses reported seeing a low flying plane but it was on a different path than the official reports say (iirc stuff like it was seen north rather than south of a particular building, it was banking in a different direction, different altitude, etc) and several eye witnesses claimed to have seen the plane flying from an opposite side of the pentagon, which would have been impossible if it had truly struck where they said it did.
Agreed that it is not an ideal source of info and I would not doubt the official narrative if eyewitnesses were the only evidence (they aren’t though).
People always point out that many witnesses saw a plane near the pentagon (such as the comment I replied to), I was merely adding that “eyewitnesses saw the plane” doesn’t confirm the official narrative at all, and in fact many of these eyewitness’s accounts cause more doubt.
I think I found the documentary I was referencing, if you are interested in checking it out. https://youtu.be/_HlUmmPBoLg
A plane flew OVER the pentagon according to people who worked there. There are many conflictibg reports on what hit it and when the explosions occurred.
Most reports i’ve read (which, tbh, aren’t many- depressing shit gets to me easy) of firsthand accounts mention that it felt/sounded much more like a missile- at least, not like a goddamn PLANE CRASH.
As far as I know, only ONE witness claims a plane flew over the Pentagon. The large majority of eyewitnesses say they saw an airliner impacted the Pentagon.
Would love some sources if you have more eye witnesses claiming that.
For some "unknown" reason, nearing 9/11, "they" decided to use bulldozers to build these big hills all the way around the Pentagon. They essentially built dirt walls to block the view.
It's almost like there is an interstate, numbered 395, right next to the Pentagon where the plane through over. Strangely witnesses on the interstate saw the plane and the fireball from the Pentagon. Yep totally fishy for people busy driving on the interstate to all witness a plane.
Most definitely. However there is no lack of witnesses. It was on a tuesday with a packed interstate. Given the sample size you could weed out irregularities.
I saw the interview with the taxi driver too! It’s wild how he says such drastically conflicting things and slips up when he didn’t realize he was being recorded.
Whats the pentagon made of? If its mostly steel and stone the hole would maybe just be that big naturally. I mean you seem to care so I guess you studied a little bit about the forces colliding etc.
They never recovered and parts of the fucking titanium Rolls Royce twin engines from the Pentagon. Don't care if it is concrete and steel- something would have survived other than the little bit of "debris" seen being collected on the lawn- which was then plowed over with fresh dirt just a few days later.
Also- the pentagon hole is quite small for what you would expect- especially when looking at the holes in the Twin Towers. And one of the most armed, important military bases in the world, had only one camera, that couldn't even catch the plane live but in a reflection?
As the guy said (and you ignored his evidence), they did. If they can somehow knock over a bunch of light poles on broad daylight with no one seeing it, surely they can plant some engines.
The specific part of the pentagon that got "hit" wiped out important records you should look into.
It also required a manouver that veteran fighter and airline pilots said was impossibleo for them, much less a first time flier who basically was so bad he wasnt allowed to solo fly a small single engine plane.
I've seen videos of people in Somerset County claiming that something crashed into the trees a little ways away from where the "officail" crash site is. Them shooting it down and saying it crashed doesn't sound that far-fetched to me.
The fact that Hollywood made a movie about it was reason enough for me to be suspicious about the true story behind United 93.
Plus, having a heroic story of passengers fighting back and sacrificing themselves is probably a better, more reassuring story (especially in the wake of tragedy) than the government shot down a plane of people- even if absolutely necessary, because it was hijacked. That would turn a lot of people against the government, tbh. At least I would think so.
I have family who live a few miles from the crash site. They say paper/debris landed in their yard and others in their neighborhood.
I always thought it was strange that a crash on the ground would send things that far, but I also don't know much about the physics of it. Maybe that much force could send stuff flying that far.
There is no reason to lie about this as on 9-11 during the early morning chaos people were actively calling for fighters to shoot down planes. The public would have totally understood why this was necessary after the planes hit the WTC.
You have to understand that hijackers crashing planes into buildings never happened before 9-11. Prior to that day, hijacking meant someone stormed the cockpit, and flew the plane to another country, taking the passengers hostage as part of some political ransom. The PLO did this in the 70's and 80's, and communists tried to hijack planes and take them to Cuba in the 50's and 60's.
If you listen to the ATC tapes on 9-11, the hijackers come on the radio, explain that they have a bomb, and that they will issue their demands shortly. They say this because this is exactly what happened with every single hijacking before this.
No one ever expected people to crash planes into buildings. The moment people saw it happen in New York, people in the streets were demanding that other hijacked planes be shot down.
So the government wouldn't hav to lie about this because the public would not have been outraged. It would have been the opposite.
What did outrage the public was the fact taht the fighters that were scramble over Northeast US airspace were all unarmed. There was no protocol for scrambling fighters with live ammo in response to a commercial hijacking. Because again, hijackings usually ended with he passengers surviving, and scrambled a fighter in pursuit raises the risk of the terrorist setting off a bomb if they have one or an accident or malfunction causing the jet to be shot down.
So suffice it to say, if commercial aircraft are intercepted in restricted airspace zones in the US, they are now intercepted by fighters with live ammo and a rigid engagement protocol that has the possibility of ending in an authorized shooting down of the plane.
I stopped reading after your “no one ever imagined this could happen back then!” argument, because you obviously haven’t done any research yourself or read any of the conversations below.
How many of those ended with the hijacked airplane deliberately crashing into a building. Not accidentally crashing, not a thwarted attempt to crash or a stated intent to do so, how many actually ended that way?
Not count how many ended with the hijackers surrender. The usual conclusion to a hijacking was passengers survival and the hijackers surrender.
Maybe you should get yourself out of the habit where you "stop reading" things you disagree with. I for one did read the rest of the thread. The people in the thread below me are wrong. It's that simple.
It’s the same cookie cutter answer I’ve responded to at least 5 times already in this thread alone. Are you aware at all of the drills that NORAD was running both in the months leading up to and including the day of 9/11? If you haven’t, check out one of the 5 places below where I posted the link. Your entire schtick about previous hijackings is completely irrelevant to the idea that what happened on 9/11 was “unfathomable” before 9/11.
Check out the link I posted below with pictures from the day of the crash. There's some minor debris, but not nearly enough to look like a plane crashed there (compared to every other picture of a 747 crashing that you can find anyway).
There was a shitload of debris, it was just small. Most planes that crash the pilots are attempting to mitigate it, this was full force into the ground
The reason the plane left almost no debris is because the plane was going so fast that the plane broke up to very small pieces. also the reason for no one seeing that the plane was off coarse is because radar cannot see every part of America. there are several places in between radar towers that can not be detected.
The reason the plane left almost no debris is because the plane was going so fast that the plane broke up to very small pieces.
Interesting. Is there any precedence to this phenomenon occurring? Or is 9/11 the first example of that?
also the reason for no one seeing that the plane was off coarse is because radar cannot see every part of America. there are several places in between radar towers that can not be detected.
Another interesting theory. Do you have any sources for that? Because I've been studying the 9/11 story for years, and that's the first time I've ever heard that as a reason for NORAD's failure to respond. The only other place I've ever seen the "places in between radar towers that can not be detected" was from the newest Fast and Furious movie with Charlize Theron.
Stop watching movies. Towers have a limited radar range. Outside of that they communicate with radio, and beyond that, they don't, they just use the transponder. This is no nationwide radar coverage. The US is huge.
When planes are between tower radar range, and if they have their transponders off, they are radar-invisible. The only way to know where the plane is is to look for it.
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"
Just for the record, that's literally the #1 result on Google when you type in 9/11 debunk.
Also, they are talking about Flight 77 which hit the Pentagon. The flight I was referring to was Flight 93, which crashed into the ground in Pennsylvania.
How did a plane disappear entirely into the ground, without any debris, into a relatively small impact hole?
This is what happens to planes, there are many cases of crashes doing the same thing when flying noise down into the ground.
How was a hijacked plane allowed to fly in the skies for over an hour without NORAD intercepting it?
This was just after the 90s when there was a lot of talk about "the end of history" and world peace. There were not any fighters on standby for years up to 9/11.
How come none of the black boxes were recovered from either WTC wreckage?
There are numerous cases of being unable to retrieve black boxes, they are not indestructible.
Wow, wrong wrong and wrong. What makes you think you have any qualifications or applicable knowledge to speak on this?
Please provide a single example of that happening elsewhere.
Not true at all. In fact, NORAD happened to be running drills about planes being hijacked and flown into buildings on the SAME DAY as 9/11. You can read about it here
The only documented cases of black boxes not being recovered are in deep sea crashes, and 9/11. That’s it. Those boxes are, by design, meant to survive virtually any amount of force that could be experienced in a plane crash.
Very few plane crashes nose dive into the ground, this is why there is so little to compare to. Planes are not impervious, if it crashes straight into the ground, its going to leave very little trace. Most crashes have some kind of forward movement, allowing the energy of the crash to dissipate forward in debris. Even MH17 had forward movement when it crashed. The closest approximate to that kind of crash would be this.
NORAD exercises have nothing to do with combat ready aircraft in New England. The US did not maintain combat ready interceptors in early 2000s.
MK Airlines Flight 1602 is an example, also destroyed by fire. Nothing humans can make is indestructible, its not true that they can survive every type of crash and are not designed to do that.
When has a hijacked plane been shot down by norad? Before 9/11 people would hijack planes and make them land in third world countries not allegedly fly them into buildings. Do you understand the unprecedented aspect of it? Now maybe they’d take the plane out.
How did a plane disappear entirely into the ground, without any debris
There was lots of debris. Generally, when a plane crashes, it does so under some minimal control. The pilots do everything that they can to prevent the crash, and so the plane is moving as slowly as possible when it hits the ground. This wasn't that. If you look at examples of plane crashes where a plane hit a mountainside at speed because they didn't know it was there.... in those crash sites, there's very little material left above a certain size.
In terms of the physics, this makes sense. In a low speed crash, the parts of the plane that take the initial impact absorb the kinetic energy and pass on only part of it, resulting in mostly intact fuselage and other parts while landing gear and the bottom of the plane will probably be completely destroyed.
But at higher velocities, the kinetic energy that is passed on by the parts that take the impact are still gigantic relative to the tensile and sheer strength of the rest of the parts of the plane. Essentially the ENTIRE plane acts as the impact point!
So what you expect to find are lots and lots of very small pieces strewn across a cone-shaped area as the motion of the parts become more and more an exercise in fluid dynamics, rather than something that approximates a simple newtonian point mass.
In other words, inside the pentagon, you expect to find a radiating cone of very small parts of that plane, passengers and cargo. :-/
Note: this comment is not meant as a pro-or-con statement with respect to any conspiracy theory. It is merely clarification on the physics of plane crashes.
How can a plane's fuselage, tail, and wings fully vaporize, the humans in the plane fully vaporize, but two passports are found FULLY LEGIBLE in the debris? How is that remotely possible?
Again, I'm not commenting on any conspiracy theory surrounding this, and I'm definitely not taking a side, here, but I also didn't say anything about anything vaporizing. Indeed, I was quite specific as to what one would expect to happen and what one would expect to find.
As to passports. Do you want me to get into why documents on someone's person might be intact? I assure you that it's not a description that is not without some ... unpleasant details. Suffice to say that water (which is basically all humans are in such a kinetic event) has some interesting properties related to its behavior, and while the chances of a document on someone's person being preserved are low, they're better than if that document were out in the open.
They didn't "vaporize" in a literal sense, ie. Turn into gas, its used colloquially to indicate that it fragmented into small pieces. Which is what they found lots of funnily enough.
I have a vague memory as well of hearing some interviews with key people (who were close to, but not in the line of decision making that day, since obviously any lawyer worth their salt told the people who were in that decision making chain to shut the hell up) saying that they would not have shot them down, even if they'd suspected the danger. A military attack on a US civilian aircraft over US territory would absolutely result in several court marshals pre-9/11 and might even have reached as high as impeachment hearings, had there been proof that the President was in the loop.
The fact that 9/11 weakened our national sense that the military should never be used against domestic targets is, IMHO, one of the strongest pieces of evidence that a coordinated conspiracy existed (regardless of who you think originally planned and executed the attacks).
To go even deeper into that rabbit hole, I would say that conspiracy theories about whether planes caused the towers to fall or whether there was a plane that hit the Pentagon are dangerous distractions from the real threat: that nearly instantaneous response from the intelligence and military apparatus that shifted the balance of power in the United States, resulting in the casual use of NSLs; the cementing of the notion that the President can engage wars wherever and whenever he likes and should inform the Congress more than engage it in an advise and consent role; the sharing of information between all intelligence agencies; the unifying of Homeland Security (a disturbingly totalitarian sounding phrase if ever I heard one); and the deep ties established between banking and intelligence agencies.
All of that happened very, very fast by government standards, and I don't think anyone really understands the extent of what happened or its full implications, outside the heads of those organizations.
I’m sorry, but this could not be more incorrect. In fact, one admitted reason for their lack of response, is that NORAD jus so happen to be running a drill about commercial planes being hijacked to be flown into the White House.
Your link says that norad had practiced drills for intercepting rogue passenger planes coming in from other countries.
That doesn't change anything I said in my post, other than maybe they had thought about the possibility.
Either way, there had still been dozens of plane hijackings, almost all hostage situations, most of which were handled successfully with few or no civilian deaths. There was no way norad was going to just shoot down a passenger plane full of U.S. citizens, that wasn't even part of the conversation back then.
I’m sorry, but that is very much incorrect about that not being part of the conversation. It absolutely was. The article I just posted has more info on the specific drills, and which ones were occurring on 9/11.
Images of the wreckage here. Given this was a high speed impact, moreso than the examples I gave, anything flammable or compactible was well, compacted and burned.
I'd grant you that, if you provided weights and velocities.
But you didn't. If I could throw marshmallows at relativistic velocities, I'd destroy entire cities. A 757 weighs several hundred tons: ram that at flight velocity into a support structure, it's going to apply thousands of tons of force.
not to mention the "plane" hit the one area of the pentagon that was under construction and had barely anyone there. I saw a gas station video of the "plane" a while back. Not sure if it is still out there...but it didn't look like a plane.
We were actually conducting war games that day. With guess what hijacked planes sounds alot like these mass shootings. This is not a joke we really were doing this B's that day.
Me and my dad bitch remember the new talking us that the Pennsylvania plane was being intercepted by fighter jets and was shot down by fight jets. It was reported on the news in the morning but then they never spoke of that again.
there was a TON of debris from flight 93, spread across a considerable distance. Have you seen images of other plane crashes? 93's "small impact hole" was entirely consistent with what one would expect given similar crashes in the past. Jesus H, there are legitimate, science-based responses to so many of these types of queries--the conspiracy here is why, despite rigorous and detailed explanations for much of the phenomena consistently recycled as evidence of some kind of grand cover-up or government collusion, otherwise intelligent people continue to debate these things ad nauseum instead of examining the questions and aspects of the event that are geopolitically imperative to discuss. The government, as a whole, is far too incompetent to orchestrate such an event; why intelligence regarding threats of such an attack were not responded to seriously, and adequate defense strategies against the threatened terrorism not implemented, are far more interesting avenues of query, as are the govt's subsequent response, war, and entirely overreaching legislation and programs that completely trample on citizens' rights with no oversight in the name of "security" that interest me. Saudi Arabia harbored terrorist groups with impunity, the Bin Ladens were quickly flown out of the US, but instead we go after Iraq and depose Saddam, an admittedly horrible man, but one who managed to keep factions somewhat in check in the region and had no culpability in the event. By doing so, we basically installed ISIS and created even more intense anti-US/westetn hosyiloyu. We supportrd the mujaheed with weapons and training when the RRussians invested Afghanistan, and those same US-sponsored groups suddenly became "terrorists" and enemies. Everythibg subsequeny to thre attacks, inclusing MSM's narrative reharding the Middle East, is criminal. But no, let's discuss thermite and "molten steel" that didnt exist and controlled detonation and the planes were actually holograms! bullshit. "Red pill" the "sheeple" with ridiculpus shit, becUse anything else actually requres some critical thinking and brainpower.
There is a video someone posted up above of what looks like it was filmed from an aircraft with an overhead view of what done not appear to be a 757. Could this be the same video your friend has?
Since I’ve seen the speed the MOD takes down photos of Russian planes flying over uk land space I highly doubt any upload would last more than minutes. Especially on a conspiracy sub on reddit
Hahaha yea i have a friend who was there when jfk was assassinated, he even got a tuft of hair with some brain on it that proves jfk was actually an alien. He offered to let me lick it but eh, you've tasted one brain you've tasted them all.
Pentagon got hit by a missile. Theyre covering it up
I have a lot of questions about the Pentagon, don't get me wrong, but let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment, why go to all the trouble to hit the twin towers with airplanes, then hijack an airplane to fly really close to the Pentagon but only to hit the building with a missile?
What's the thinking behind that? Why not just hit it with the plane?
They needed accuracy to hit the specific part of the Pentagon researching the missing 2.3 Trillion dollars. A missile would be far better than a plane you need to be skimming the ground with
By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The military's money managers last year made almost $7 trillion in adjustments to their financial ledgers in an attempt to make them add up, the Pentagon's inspector general said in a report released Friday.
The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.
2.
January 7, 2001
The Defense Department's inspector general recently identified $6.9 trillion in accounting entries, but $2.3 trillion was not supported by adequate audit trails or sufficient evidence to determine its validity.
3.
January 11, 2001
Senator Byrd: A recent article in the Los Angeles Times, written by a retired vice admiral and a civilian employee in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, accused the Department of Defense of being unable to account for the funds that Congress appropriates to it. The authors wrote, and I quote in part, quote, "The Pentagon's books are in such utter disarray that no one knows what America's military actually owns or spends." ...
That audit report found that out of $7.6 trillion in department-level accounting interest, 2.3 trillion in entries either did not contain adequate documentation or were improperly reconciled or were made to force buyer and seller data to agree. This DoD-IG report is very disturbing..
4.
ebruary 12th 2001
The inspector general of the Pentagon said there are 2.3 trillion dollars in items that they can't quite account for. That's not billion. That's trillion dollars. $2.3 trillion -- and the General Accounting Office said there are about $27 billion in inventory items that they can't find.
etc., etc., etc.
It was announced several months before, and had been discussed in the MSM circuit that entire time, and on multiple occasions.
Also everyone in the thread fails to understand that the pentagon is probably the strongest above ground facility in the world. The building was meant to withstand a direct nuclear attack. It's no surprise that a jetliner mostly only fucked up the facade of the building.
Again, the money was not missing. That's not debatable. And do you mean the 10th? The trillions were first announced way back in February of 2000, and were regularly discussed all the way up to (and following, obviously) the attacks.
There were no planes. Search "911 no planes" on YouTube for video breakdown. The only two live shots of the "planes" hitting we're obviously faked. How could aluminum wings completely cut through a steel facade?
How could aluminum wings completely cut through a steel facade?
That's so easy to test that I'm surprised no one has done it full-scale. The hard part would be making a rocket sled powerful enough to get a fuel-laden wing-section up to speed.
Quarter-scale tests would be a lot cheaper and fairly convincing too.
This is a common skeptic trap. Ask people to hypothesize about something outside of possible public knowledge. And then using the lack of any answer as "proof" the original argument doesn't hold water. Why don't you email Cheney and ask him?
I have a ridiculously hard time believing that anyone would see a 30ft cruise missile and confuse other for a 300ft passenger airliner.
It makes no sense to me. The object above one of the most congested freeways in the country. Hundreds and hundreds of people saw it, the vast majority identifying it as a plane.
Because it wasnt a cruise missile. More likely an A3 Skywarrior or other plane flew over the pentagon and a secondary missile hit. Like in WTC there were reports of multiple explosions. There were obvious demo charge explosions recorded and theyre all on youtube.
because it would have been impossible for a plane to hit as "it" did (the approach). all those light poles were in the way. no way they could have just simply knocked them over without it cutting off the wings which would have caused the plane to likely nosedive
So what about the countless witnesses that saw the plane? What happened to the plane that left the airport if it wasn't used in a terrorist plot? What about the plane debris recovered at the scene? What about the clean up crew who claim they were cleaning up a plane? What about the black box recovered at the scene?
lol I love a good conspiracy theory, but this one has always been hilariously flimsy. There is no evidence to support it was a missile, you just want to believe.
I love a good conspiracy too but pushing this bullshit while there are actual families out there that mourned the death of their loved ones, who died on AA Flight 77, is disgusting to me.
The photos of the uniformly round holes between layers of several Pentagon walls convinced me it was a missile. When you look into the debris, it appears to have been faked.
Those are solid questions but they are met with several other unanswered questions from the other side.
What about the countless people saying there were explosions in the WTC before and after impact? What happened to the plane debris from both WTC towers? What about the number of experienced pilots saying such a maneuver at the Pentagon is impossible? What about wtc7? What about the claims that the official report was not handled properly?
You can't see footage of the Pentagon being hit because in 2001 there were no cameras point at that side of the pentagon that were recording at a frame rate high enough to capture the plane entering the frame prior to being hit and it hitting the building in a subsequent frame. There is footage of the impact and explosion, but the frame rate is too low to capture the plane.
More specifically, because you would want to see the plane's identifying marks (the livery colors, the logo on the tail or side, etc),
you can calculate the necessary frame rate by determining the camera's optimum distance from the building, the camera's FOV necessary to capture all the detail you want, the length of the plane (or at least the length of the plane from the tip of the nose to the identifying mark), and the speed of the plane.
And when you do this math, you will find that for an ordinary camera at 60 FPS to capture that impact with all the detail necessary to dispel any suspicion of it being a missile, that camera would have to be so far away from the building that you'd all be suspicious of the fact that a camera that far away was pointed at that building at that time.
Building 7 fell in the evening because it had been on fire since the morning, and it was too unstable for fire crews to enter. Debris from the collapse of the other buildings made it impossible to get larger fire engines, cranes, etc to the scene.
In addition to the fires burning for over 8 hours, the collapse of each of the WTC towers was the seismic equivalent of two magnitude 2 earthquakes. And building 7 was right at the epicenter of both of those.
There is an unfathomable suspense of reason to believe even one of these arguments. Regardless of your explanation of frame rates that sound correct but aren't how could you possibly believe that the plane was flying fast enough and the walls of the pentagon being strong enough to DISINTEGRATE AN ENTIRE AIRLINER???
If a magnitude 2 earthquake could take down a huge building in New York City then there is a whole other set of questions that need to be asked.
I usually stay away from this subject because I lived through the aftermath and admittedly Im not well versed in the details but for god's sake. Things do not add up. There may be one or two explanations that sound reasonable but when you look at the whole of the disaster. There are way more questions than answers. Any reasonable person whether "tinfoil hatted" or not has to be able to see that.
You are cherry picking. I never said what you are claiming I said. I said fire + earthquakes could have brought the building down. Specifically, the building was on fire, then it was at the epicenter of a magnitude 2 surface level earthquake. Then it continued to burn, then it was at the epicenter of ANOTHER magnitude 2 earthquake, and then it continued to burn for 8 more hours. Then if finally collapsed.
Ask yourself this, how many times has a building already on fire been at the epicenter of 2 earthquakes, then continued to burn, but did not collapse? Has that ever happened?
Not a building that was on fire started by the earthquake, but the building had to be on fire first already, and then randomly and totally by coincidence endured two earthquakes centered 60 ft away? What are the survival statistics for this kind of building?
The Parthenon survived 2000 years through earthquakes and multiple explosions, but is now being completely destroyed by rain that happens to be a bit more acidic than usual.
Catastrophic failure is the result of multiple marginal failures in a cascade.
Im not cherry picking. I could see this POSSIBLY happening if the entire building was engulfed in flames and didn't have a STEEL structure. How would the steel collapse from a normal building fire? There couldn't have been jet fuel in that building because no planes hit it. A magnitude 2 earthquake is not much at all. Buildings are built to survive much stronger earthquakes. A 2 is a bit of shaking. The structure should have withstood all of this. Instead it collapsed in free fall??
The basis for your argument is mostly speculation. Yet you choose to believe that it makes sense to you. You believe what you want to believe but to me there are a lot of questions.
"So what you're saying is that no plane was ever captured in flight by a camera?"
He said that for a 60 fps camera to have non blurred frames of a plane, it needs to be at a great distance for the plane, and that it's not really strange tht no civilian camera was filming the pentagon from this thistance at that time.
And when you do this math, you will find that for an ordinary camera at 60 FPS to capture that impact with all the detail necessary to dispel any suspicion of it being a missile, that camera would have to be so far away from the building that you'd all be suspicious of the fact that a camera that far away was pointed at that building at that time.
And we're supposed to believe the most secure government building in the world is having their perimeter monitored by civilian video technology from Radio Shack? They could read your fucking license plate from space.
They can read your license plate from space, but only if they point the satellite where they know your license plate to be. They don't have millions of satellites providing real-time video coverage of ever square foot on the ground simultaneously.
They of course have security cameras watching for pedestrian and auto traffic around the perimeter of the building, and all of those are pointing where pedestrians and cars usually are, which is below and very close to the the camera.
And yes, they would use civilian commercial technology. Not what you would get from Radio Shack, but, yes, what you would get from seimens or Honeywell or GE. They would do this because they would have to buy donzes of these if not hundreds to monitor all of the doors and foyers and loading docks or whatever. Would they mount them on the building pointing up into the sky? No, because why would you do that?
Except they wouldn't need them to be pointed at the sky, because the official narrative has the plane flying 5 feet above the ground before slamming into the Pentagon. All I would need is 3 seconds of video where the object looks like a 757 and I can make out American Airlines' identifying markings. Instead we get 7 frames of a video that is shot with a Lite Brite.
That is note the official "narrative". The official story is that the plane few into the side of the building.
And no, if they gave you a video now, you (or others equally skeptical) would say the video is faked.
And think about it for a second: If they went to the trouble of launching a missile at the building and separately disappearing the actual Flight 77, wouldn't they have just faked a video? Especailly when this conspiracy would also mean that the planes flown into the WTC were also part of it, and there is video of them.
Yeah, of course if they gave us a video 17 years after it happened, we would be skeptical. The official narrative had the plane flying so low it was knocking over light poles.
And why can't the Pentagon be a missile, while the WTC had real planes? Those can exist in mutual exclusivity.
The entire length of a side of the pentagon around 930ft. If you want to capture a plane hitting the pentagon with this same low quality, then camera would need to be in Arlington Cemetery, or a random spot halfway deep into the parking lot, and again, they'd have to be this far away and pointed back at the building in order to capture a fov that is completely useless in every respect except on the odd chance an airliner crashes into it, at which point you have a video that proves a plane crashed into the building, as if the gaping hol and the fire and the debris wasn't proof of this.
Sorry but jet fuel doesnt melt steel beams and skyscrapers are all designed to withstand small earthquakes. They use fhe same tech iques and supplies they use in California.
Fact is this still remains the only tower to have ever fallen from fire damage.
It does, though. It doesn't have to melt the steel, it merely needs to heat it enough to make it structurally weaker. Which the burning point of jet fuel definitely achieves.
Yeah, maybe if the WHOLE building was weakened by fire, but it was only a few floors near the top. The rest of the building was as strong as it was designed to be.
No way in hell the top part comes crashing through the bottom *at the rate of freefall*.
Pretty sure we all learned this in highschool physics class...
I can't tell if you're trolluing or not so I'll take this seriously.
What makes this of some significance (though not the dominant factor) is that shallower quakes are much more damaging than quakes of the same magnitude at a different depth. See this article
These were two quakes, right at the surface, and immediately adjacent to wtc7, which had already been on fire.
So the question is neither "Did fire bring the tower down" nor is it "Did the seismic shocks from the collapse of the other buildings bring it down". Either of these separately may not have brought them down. The question is whether the combination of the two did.
"Fact is this still remains the only tower to have ever fallen from fire damage. "
No one has stated that it fell from fire damage. I haven't made that claim. I'm saying that there were multiple contributing factors, of which fire was one, and the combination of all of them brought it down.
I find it highly improbable, if not impossible, that there weren't other cameras pointed in the direction of the Pentagon. Not shitty gas station cameras either. You really think they didn't monitor the outside of the freaking Pentagon? Really? Come on...it's the Pentagon..I bet you there were 10+ cameras that caught this event...even in 2001.
Lol did you just make that up? Are you saying that WTC7 is 85ft high? Just watch a video of the collapse and look at the timer. It clearly takes about 6-7 seconds to fall.
That's not what free fall means. Free fall is when the only force acting on an object is gravity. The moment you drop something from your hand it is in free fall.
More importantly, a building isn't in free fall whether it's bombed, detonated or jsut collapses under it's own weight. Building, especially steel buildings are a lattice, and different parts of it can move at different times. So the entire building is not in free fall or not, but parts of it may be at different times.
It you want to believe that that building was felled in a controlled demolition, then you should be able to prove that using facts that don't also support a completely different theory.
For my part, I think the building collapsed due to a prolonged fire across multiple floors lasting over 8 hours which stressed the internal structure of the building, that stress being exacerbated by the seismic shock from the separate collapse of two of the tallest buildings in the world less than 3 blocks away and which sent additional debris into the building causing additional damage and fueling the fire. I can prove that (a) the buidling was on fire (b) the shock from the collapse of the WTC towers registered on seismographs as two separate magnitude 2.x earthquakes, and (c) I can show that the fire cause structural weakienng on at least two floors prior to the collapse as shown in videos where windows in rows and columns are shattered and the framing appears buckled (suggesting the floor above has partially collapsed).
You and the WTC7 theorists in general cannot provide a single shred of evidence. Not a single witness who will testify under oath, not a single shred of paperwork or other documentation. Nothing. You have the same amount of evidence to back up your theory as the theory that aliens zapped WTC7 from space.
Today is the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. Whereas the 19 9-11 hijackers killed almost 3000 people in 3 buildings, Timothy McVeigh was able to destroy 1/3 as many buildings and 5% that number of people all by himself with a rental van, fuel, and fertilizer. Now which is scarier to you: that there is some hidden conspiracy centrally planning, controlling, and executing all national events according to some plan to enrich themselves and extend their dominance, or that a small number of people can slaughter thousands whenever they want using only the items and materials we all have at hand.
You're to rational for this sub my friend. But I agree with everything you have posted. Mainly because, everything that you wrote has been proven as fact from various sources.
And why does clinton talk about pizza in her mails in a weird way? Why are there no stars visible in the picture of the tesla in space? Why can't we go back to the moon? Why did jfk get shot so quickly ?
I aint answerin the others but you cant see stars from space in daytime mate. Dont know why so many people just think that cos of movies like apollo 13 and interstellar but the sun is too bright to be able to make out relatively TINY twinkles in the distance. Its exactly the same to daylight on Earth.
I'm sure that in Fahrenheit 911 it was insinuated that the Pentagon showed signs of an explosion from inside to out rather than signs of a plane or some other projectile hitting it
Not sure if anyone posted this- speed post. There is a theory too that the plane meant for building 7 was flight 93. If you time up the trajectory, it would have hit the building just before its controlled demo. This also falls in line with the "pull it" thing, and why people saw an f-16 take down 93. This is my theory: the people on the plane DID try to stop what was happening, and thus, it was shot down. (Do you even know how great of a marketing campaign that is? Not only did they kill everyone on board flight 93, but they also made money off their death in the sense that a major motion picture was put out, dedicated to their heroism. It's fucked up) Then, the controlled demo went down on building 7, and the government figured the people would never think the wiser, despite the blaring contradiction of an event as building 7 was.
But there's also a conspiracy that 'they' warned the media ahead of time that they were going to blow up building 7, which doesn't make sense if it's an accident. But doing it on purpose doesn't make sense either, because then you're arguing they intentionally made things more complicated to understand...?
It never really made sense, since you can still see the building standing in their footage. Probably meant 'impending collapse' or something like that, otherwise the conspiracists are super-idiotic.
But seriously? Like look at the scope and the events put into place directly caused by the events of 9/11-like seriously one of the most significant historical events of America. I don’t disagree that there is definitely a conspiracy afoot, but I have to believe that “forgetting to turn off demo charges” during an event literally every person on earth saw and was effected by doesn’t mesh with the level of sophistication absolutely required to pull a thing like 9/11 off.
I think most people assume that building 7 had to come down for some reason or another, e.g., destruction of records, can't just leave it sitting there slightly damaged and wired with explosives.
There are numerous examples in history of buildings being destroyed for that purpose. Maybe not in such a spectacular fashion as Building 7 - usually it's simple arson. Records haven't always been backed up and stored digitally on remote servers you know.
That's the first I've heard this theory, thanks for sharing. And like the other poster said, when the plane gets taken out 20 min from DC that's easy to say oh they were aiming for the capitol
Forgot the guy's name, Ryan something. Did an AMAZING documentary on 9/11. Its honestly the best I've seen, most logical, and most compelling. He basically traced their intended route and it matched up perfectly with the building 7 collapse, I think by a few minutes. So if you can consider that 93 may have been meant for building 7, it paints a whole new picture on what may have happened with the two separate incidents. I think it makes way more sense that 93 actually an incident where people reacted correctly, and we shot it down. Why else wouldn't they want to show the second debris field? ;-)
I’ve heard that 93 was meant for a DC target. If you look at the route, it was heading straight for DC, not NY. The plane that hit the Pentagon was thought to have been targeting the Capitol Building but they changed their minds for some reason. Hitting 7 with a plane would be somewhat difficult as it was surrounded by skyscrapers.
"If you time up the trajectory, it would have hit the building just before its controlled demo."< what?? flight 93 crashed at 10:03 am in pennsylvania. building 7 came down at 5:20 pm. what trajectory from pennsylvania to nyc takes 7.5 hours??
I’m pretty sure the “jet” those people saw was a drone aircraft and it more than likely shot it down. They said it was white with a weird tale and no markings which sounds exactly like a drone.
The guy who allegedly said “let’s roll” went to my HS a few years before i started. So I’m kinda torn.
As much as i want to know why we can’t footage I’d like to really know why MORE people don’t question this whole narrative of the pentagon being hit by a “plane”
No time. Gotta get up for work tomorrow. Most people only get like 3 hours of free time per day. No-one questions anything because everyone is too preoccupied just surviving.
Yeah or they have a funny feeling about it, but they don't really want to know the truth. There are a lot of truths that are probably better left secret. The human misery that would be caused is just too catastrophic. Or there could be major societal upheaval which would cause even more human misery.
I think plenty of people do. It's just-what can you do about a gov't set on not letting you know? How many years can you keep up sustained outrage enough to make any difference?
Agreed. And in the end, what difference does it make. The powers that be will continue to exert themselves and the world keeps going on in its demented way.
Why? Why NOT use a plane? Planes hit the twin towers right? Why are you so adamant there wasn't a plane? What does that change? Whether it's a plane, a missle, a planted charge, who cares? Isn't the whole point of the conspiracy that the government either conducted or had a hand in it? The plane not hitting the Pentagon is the new "all planes we're holograms on 9/11." Anyone who even remotely believes the official story is going to immediately discount you as a delusional moron and go about their day, all over a detail that's not fucking important.
true, in a video I saw therebwas 2 floors with some fire, one intact floor inbetween and rest of the outside untouched also when it goes down the bottom floors collapse first compared to the top floors on the others.
Why was the hole in the pentagon so tiny compared to the wingspan on a 747? How did a terrorist shit bird, who was failing single engine flight school, navigate from the middle of the country to one specific building, circle around 270 degrees to the side that was mostly empty for renovations to slam into it?
I'm confused because I definitely remember seeing footage taken from a highway camera and gas station of a low flying object over the highway like 10 years ago about the Pentagon crash. The video was not HD and to me made it look more like a missile compared to a plane, but I definitely thought there was some footage. Has it been scrubbed?
True. I don't think I ever saw any actual collision footage, but I remember that there are camera limits around the Pentagon which seem somewhat logical and also somewhat BS. The Pentagon attack, like the Iraq invasion, never made any sense to me because it reeks of lies.
Here you're not gonna get a lot of answers trying to solve it.
Try asking it in r/history to see what they come up with there. The people that answer in that reddit think very highly of themselves regarding history. And I say it ask there cause that today is being written as a FACT in history books and is being taught to the new generations.
The explanation I've heard for Tower 7 kind of makes sense. I think the theory is that gigantic pieces of debris had fallen from Tower 1 or 2 through the roof of Tower 7, creating major damage to the frame of the building. That, combined with fire fed by tons of paperwork, ultimately resulted in the collapse.
Fire alone has never brought down a building, but dropping a few tons of concrete through the roof might.
So did you just discover what a thesaurus is or what? Your just saying logical fallacies without actually showing any clear understanding that you know what the hell you're talking about. You can't just sit back and claim unfair argumentative tactics and assume you're right. (You can but your not going to convince anyone) You still have to make a logical argument.
You and others cannot answer the question on how debris and fires can cause 8 floors (2.25 seconds) of a building to fall at free fall so you divert, use ad-hominems and state illogical things. How pathetic...
Hell you could have 100 towers hit by a plane in the exact way, and 50 fall and 50 are saved.
That wouldnt mean if 2 towers were hit 1 must fall while the other survives.
We have evidence of buildings collapsing due to fire only, due to structural failure, and similar buildings not failing under similar situations.
No not any of the wtc buildings, other buildings have collapsed due to fire alone of similar construction in nearly identical ways.
How the fire propogates, how it is starved or supplied oxygen, what structural columns are intact or not intact and hell pure luck(aka not all buildings of the same design are the same, corners being cut, some higher quality steel some lowe4 quality steel while both still meet minimum standards etc etc etc)
Not that i believe the NIST report anyways, but if you do it says that the fallen debris from the towers do not contribute to the collapse, and it was only from regular office fires.
University of Alaska Fairbanks found the NIST conclusion could only come from key stuctural elements nist left out and highly unlikely or unproven assumptions. Their model more in depth and using the same software as well as additional models shows that the building would not have fallen due to structural fire
There is plenty of video and photographic evidence that the North Tower debris did not fall on WTC7, but against its side at best – in the form of powder mostly.
The official report also states in no uncertain terms that the North Tower collapse did not contribute greatly to the demise of WTC7, so whatever your source, it is at odds with the "official" explanation.
The goal was not to take a bldg down for the purpose of new construction, it was meant for destruction. What are you saying? Bc debris hit other bldgs its not controlled? Do you have experience with demolition?
This is what I dont understand... how can people not see this? One can easily and clearly see wtc7 was a controlled demolition. It would have to have been rigged days in advance for that to happen. Clearly some fucked up shit was going down. Even first responders said they saw and heard cascading explosions when the twin towers fell.
How were passports of the hijackers found on the ground after the attack and the black boxes weren't? Shouldn't the paper be either torn or burned when the plane hit?
I’m not disagreeing with you, totally agree there’s loads of unanswered questions s etc... but the heat created was enough to cause the metal carrying the weight from up top buckle which would send the building crashing down. The found passports are total bollocks though
Long beans of steel, the area where the fire is, let’s says a meter of steel that gets really hot. Even with a slight tap from a blacksmiths hammer will bend it, now remember how many tonnes of building are on top. That will cause the metal to buckle, the weight on top with the collapsing building will then twist, snap and even pulverise the metal on the fall
Youre forgetting that jet fuel in an oxygen starved environment cant produce that kind of flame to get steel weakened. Even if it could, the structural redundancy would mean that floors could collapse, but the building would still stand. It was as if all the core columns ceased to exist, and there was an explosive collapse so fast it created a massive downdraft that sucked the smoke and dust down with it.
Depends on the alloy, load and amount of structural integrity it had to begin with. The WTC was overengineered to be a fortress. They didnt know asbestos was carcinogenic though so it would have bee billions to modernize them.
And the problem is, your question should be "how much damage could a few locally weakened or cut beams really cause to such a redundantly strong structure?".
Enough to make the top floors slide off? Break down ABOVE the fire? Maybe. Make the whole building symmetrically fall in on itself at freefall speeds? And not just two buildings, one that wasnt even hit by a plane.
I just asked about steel stregth for now..
I investigated myself.
At 1800F the stregth is reduced to about 10%.
At 1100F 50%.
Plane crashed and it cut some structures but the building could take it and didn't collapse. Seems that Jetfuel burned rather quickly(minutes) and the main heat source came from office interiors allowing supporting structures to weaken. Why did you mention only jetfuel burning when reports say it basicly just started the fires?
Knowing this I'd say there was enough heat for a few floors to collapse even on such a redundantly strong building.
Wikipedia confirms the top collapsed
From wikipedia:
After the South Tower collapsed, NYPD helicopters relayed information about the deteriorating conditions of the North Tower. At 10:20 am, the NYPD aviation unit reported that "the top of the tower might be leaning", and a minute later reported that the North Tower, "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south". At 10:28 am, the aviation unit reported that "the roof is going to come down very shortly".[26] The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 am, after burning for 102 minutes.
Let's ask more questions..
How much weight can one floor support?
When top falls and collapses like that can the floor below it support that? They are not designed to for sure.
Every floor below that has more crap to support. Easy to assume they come down like they did atleast.
Watch the videos. There was no visible buclking or leaning until it started to fall straight down into its own footprint.
And even if the jet fuel, which is kerosine, and not particularly hot burning in an open air deflagration, started fires in a steel, concrete and asbestos building... wtf burned? Some chairs, carpets and wood desks? The WTC wasnt some giant dry wood structure doused in gasoline. It was mostly nonflammable.
Also, people walked through the area that was supposedly a raging inferno, without any equipment, some of them multiple times. How? Fires didnt burn the stuff they said, thats the simplest explanation.
The point was it does not need to be raging inferno to weaken the structures..
I posted reports about it leaning from nypd. From videos i can see the top collapses as whole and then it just keeps coming down. Like i said i would assume what happens when top part of building falls like it did.
How do you explain the ejected material being tens of floors below the collapse, and traveling at 100mph, far ahead of the collapsing floors?
collapsing is slower than free fall. Cannot comment about speed..Where is it measured?
Or the huge steel columns being flung outward instead of avalanching downward?
What columns are you refering to? Walls? Why is that something needing explaining? Plenty of crap in middle and the columns on outer walls are pushed outwards?
What is the chance that a localized, asymmetric fire would cause the structure to weaken and break SIMULTANEOUSLY across the width of the entire structure? That's an insane claim.
cant remember all the details but has something to do with Rocker-fella or Morgan owned shipping line. I believe it was Morgan if i remember correctly. Two identical Titanics. An ignored distress signal after the crash. Maybe White star shipping.
The owner of the shipping lines was supposed to be on the Titanic when it left but changed plans last minute. Most of the wealthy guests were invited by Morgan specifically to be there to discuss the Federal reserve.
Killed off the opposition. Monster of Jekyll island.
Very true, but do you REALLY expect 3 steel skyscrapers, 2 of them designed to withstand plane impacts, to fall in almost the exact same way, completely to the ground as if their core columns were cut, within a few hours of each other?
I could understand one, but not 3, especially since its impossible for those jets to have been doing those speeds with that maneuverability and precision at that altitude. Especially when flown by guys who were so bad some of them werent allowed to solo a single engine Cessna.
Designed to do something and built to do something are completely different. For instance, the fireproofing on the structural columns was pretty spotty or poorly maintained. Steel loses ~60% of its strength at the temperatures expected in an office fire. In addition, strain hardening is reduced significantly at higher temperatures, leading to more brittle failures as seen on 9/11.
Ok so have we got pictures or any evidence that they cut corners in the fireproofing? And no i dont mean "well the buildings fell down because fire and flawed NIST simulations said so!" I mean like actual evidence of corner cutting.
There has been a multitude of evidence provided to back my claim both online and in documentaries. Even a small flaw in fireproofing can cripple the structural system.
It’s not quite as simple as that. It could technically be impossible to make a building survive a plane strike for all we know. Measures were put into place so that the structure of the building would be as strong as possible in the event of a plane crash. Similar to what someone said about the titanic. Engineers can only try there best to do this. There’s no way of knowing if it works until it happens because at no point did they build a practice building and fly a plane into it.
No, you can quite easily calculate the forces involved. Thats why airplanes dont just fall out of the sky very often, buildings can be built thousands of feet tall, vehicles can fly into space and survive re entry. Its because people can calculate the forces involved.
Do you realize what it takes to make a microchip? The amount of EDA verification to make sure features only 50 atoms wide dont get damaged from electromigration, with 20 billion transistors on a single chip?
Or how about the RS25 engine(Space Shuttle Main Engine) If you think humans cant create things designed to withstand extreme forces, with exacting precision look no further than the turbopumps, metallurgy, and design of the RS25 engine.
Yes, there are failures that can happen unexpectedly, but given the fact that all 3 WTC buildings that fell... within hours of each other... were designed with several times the strength needed for redundancy, its highly unlikely that they failed due to cool burning office fires.
Also WTC 1 and 2 used a construction technique where basically it was a skyscraper within a skyscraper. Most of the outer columns could be cut but the core columns would have been able to stand.
And where did the hat truss from both buildings go? Should be laying on top but its pulverized.
Actually as surprising as it seems it would. I mean when you think about it it make sense. The steel is holding all that weight above it. It weakens due to the heat, won’t take many beams to fail before all the weight then shifts to the other weakened beams and you’ll have full failure of that section. All that weight on top then comes crashing down and triggers a chain reaction. Steel is great for holding things in place, but any movement or sudden impact/shift in weight it will buckle and fail. - I work with steel. I’m not saying this wasn’t a set up, I’m just saying the steel beam melting argument doesn’t hold up. Plenty more do, you should Argue them instead
What you're saying is very true, except that i would argue in the scenario which you describe, the failure would surely be asymmetrical (from the weakest point and spreading out)?
And I'll even go as far as to say that there is always a chance in a million that you could get a perfectly symmetrical failure but that 'chance' increases astronomically when you add in the 2 other buildings also falling symmetrically on the same day, with 1 of those buildings being a completely different design from the other two (WTC 7).
I also have an issue with 'top section' theory, the one that crashes through the lower section. Aside from obvious problem with the physics of it (Newtons 3rd law).
And in relation to the 'top section' theory is also the question of the massive steel cross section 'hat truss frame' that sat on top of the towers [Figure 6]. As there was no weight above this, we would expect to see it somewhat intact on top of the pile. It was not.
The fourth major structural subsystem was located from the 107th floor to the roof of
each tower. It was a set of steel braces, collectively referred to as the “hat truss”. Its
primary purpose was to support a tall antenna atop each tower, although only WTC 1 had a tall
antenna installed. The hat truss provided additional connections among the core columns and
between the core and perimeter columns, providing additional means for load redistribution.
Learn some physics and study how the towers were erected. Dear god, that would actually take EFFORT and INTELLIGENCE. Much easier to say, "I personally, with no mathematic or basic understanding of how the buildings were erected, or how the steel support columns weakened by fire due to the way the building was designed, could possibly result in this...therefore, CONSPIRACY AND TO HELL WITH ALL THE EXPLANATIONS LAID OUT TIME AND TIME AGAIN BY EXPERTS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE FIELDS, RED PILL MUTHAFUCKA!!!!" Focus on some of the aspects that ARE disputed instead of the ridiculous, I beg of you.
It would send the floor that was weakened crashing down, and then avalanching out the side, since all the buildings that "collapsed" had several times the structural load carrying capacity redundantly built in... specifically so they would never collapse due to fire or one column(NIST explanation for 7) failing.
Also, there are the V cut i beams, the molten steel conglomerations with concrete mixed in, beams that were like Swiss cheese.
The fact that the official story even says that something like 90% of the fuel was consumed on impact, the WTC was full of fireproof asbestos, and not much to burn, plus the smoke was black... except for unexplained white smoke occassionally, then a stream of molten steel pours out, then it falls down, indicates that other than at very specific times the fires burned very cool and oxygen starved(like 700C cool).
I love like a mile away from the flight 93 crash site in Pa!
We went and saw it right after it happened...there was literally NOTHING. Kinda looked like the ground exploded from underneath if that makes sense? No grass in that area, just dirt, etc.
"Fun" fact: the Pentagon was build in a district called "hells bottom" which was home to many poor before. Why is this building called and shaped like a Pentagon? Why can you reach every place in this building in "7" minutes? What ideology is this based on? Start with some simple questions.
I see what your saying, as theories that involve any sort of otherworldly aspects are easy to deny and function as a great tool to degrade the “conspiracy theorist” label.
But I think theories like this are important, even if they are abstract, some of them are shockingly convincing.
I see your point, but I think there’s a lot of potential for it to be something totally different.
But like, he seems to be connecting it with satanic imagery, so he is even wrong on a theological level. The Pentagon in no way looks like a *pentagram (which I think he meant), and the number 7 can easily be considered holy in mainstream Christianity. The seven years of tribulation in the book of revelations, or the 7 days it took for god to create everything according to the book of genesis. I'm not religious, but anyone who reads the bible can easily see the flaws in this logic.
I happen to live in a location in the midwest that is close to "the devil's tower" and a beautiful pool deep in a canyon called "Devil's bathtub". These weren't named that due to some overarching satanic conspiracy, just like the pentagon sure as hell wasn't built to represent that.
The pentagon, as a shape and word, has been around since the time of the ancient greeks, far before the birth of Christianity. So basing any of his point in supposed satanic imagery is even more ridiculous.
Nowhere "satanic" as you think although luzifer is a symbol. Its pure Freemasonary/Kabbalism. Your whole country has been build and influencend by this brotherhood so im not suprised about places named like that. Believe it or not todays world was "build" by Masons and its on going.
All talk, but no real substance. I was responding to someone clearly referencing a "witchcraft"/satanic/literal-satanist-witchcraft-and-wizardy-cabal, sort of spin on on the whole shebang. You take that, jump the shark, and run it into me somehow commenting on completely unrelated conspiracy theories. Unsubstantiated claims, pointedly made under the assumed stereotype you set out for me. By the way your concluding response,
You are fucking ridiculous Bro. Your Arguments are pure shit. "This has existed before so there is no way some people praise human history and use this for they fucking planned country". Even some of your disgusting presidents openly admit to be Masons. Why do you defend them? You'll never be part of them. They look down on you being wealthy, having ancestors since xxxx i dont give a damn and who were far more intelligent then yours! What are you doing here? You are clearly blind as fuck. Probably a debt slave and defender of the free world. Lmao.
sort of reveals the merit of your own argument. All straw men and ad hominems. You simply cannot prove a point with your own imagined assumptions. Hope you come around one day, cheers!
LMAO. Mason symbolism is witchcraft? man, i feel bad for you and many others here. you are prisonates of logic and rationality and of course this system. Die in ignorance.
Clearly you need to brush up on reading comprehension before you actually debate someone. Again, you are conflating multiple conspiracy theories.
I responded to a comment that never included free masonry, and I never addressed it in my response. The person I responded to declared that the imagery in the Pentagon is witchcraft, and I told him it was a ridiculous claim. So you are literally agreeing with my point now.
Actually understanding what you are responding to is important! But I doubt you will learn that anytime soon given the venom in your responses.
You are fucking ridiculous Bro. Your Arguments are pure shit. "This has existed before so there is no way some people praise human history and use this for they fucking planned country". Even some of your disgusting presidents openly admit to be Masons. Why do you defend them? You'll never be part of them. They look down on you being wealthy, having ancestors since xxxx i dont give a damn and who were far more intelligent then yours! What are you doing here? You are clearly blind as fuck. Probably a debt slave and defender of the free world. Lmao.
Yeah that's bullshit. They somehow just happened to find all the passports of all the hijackers? Clearly they just wanted someone to blame for this hoax.
Four of the hijackers' passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania. These are the passports of Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al Ghamdi. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. A fourth passport was recovered from luggage that did not make it from a Portland flight to Boston on to the connecting flight which was American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Abdul Aziz al Omari.""In addition to these four, some digital copies of the hijackers passports were recovered in post-9/11 operations. Two of the passports that have survived, those of Satam al Suqami and Abdul Aziz al Omari, were clearly doctored. To avoid getting into classified detail, we will just state that these were manipulated in a fraudulent manner in ways that have been associated with al Qaeda."
3 of the 4 were reasonable imo. The one in NYC seems a tad ridiculous.
They found nuts and bolts, and pieces of fucilage about the size of a fist. If been there, I live an hour away. I remember seeing the plane fly over us we didn't know obviously but we remember seeing a commercial plane flying lower than usual. What is curious is about 15 minutes later we saw 3 jets following in the same direction and that leads me to believe it was shot down but who know. All I know is we never see military jets flying through our skies around here, that was unusual. Doesn't take a genius to connect the dots there. thanks
It's normal for a plane flying in airspace it shouldn't be in to attract military escorts out of that airspace. Here's some radio recordings including fighter jets and air traffic control when something like that happens, in this case a cessna flying too close to the super bowl.
Same thing happens if there's a bomb threat or a hijacking.
So seeing fighters following flight 93 doesn't necessarily mean it was shot down. Neither does the particularly sparse wreckage. You can look up photos of shot down aircraft that are surprisingly intact. Maybe they were shot down, but I think it's more likely they hit the ground at high speed (as opposed to a speed closer to that during an attempted landing) and were subsequently smashed into smithereens.
You really believe that? In all the wreckage they couldn't even find dead bodies. They could barely piece together papers from the destroyed buildings but you think 3 out 4 of the passports survived intact? Like they just flew out of the vest jackets of the "hijackers" and went blowing out a window safely landing to the ground with nary a scratch to be found in short order?
The one in NYC is the least ridiculous. Watch the impact footage, especially of the second plane (because by then the cameras are fixed and focused on the towers and the shots are clear).
When the second plane hits, you see debris exit the other side of the building. The passports were found blocks away.
It's possible (though I'm not convinced) that on impact the windows of the cockpit were blown out and the clothing of the people in the cockpit who were not wearing belts were flung forward through the building at 200+ miles an hour and were ejected out the side, escaping the fire.
The BBC reported in 2003 that the FBI obtained DNA from their hotel rooms and rental cars.
This page has a really interesting response to that, however - including quotes from one guy who said the pilots would have been vaporized, and that any matching DNA would more likely come from someone who was in the back of the airplane.
Families of the airplanes' passengers and crews and those who died within the Pentagon provided DNA samples, typically on toothbrushes or hairbrushes, to aid with identification. The remains that didn't match any of the samples were ruled to be the terrorists
Are we seriously saying we decided someone was a hijacker because some family in Saudi (or wherever) didn't have DNA to submit to the FBI? In the middle east even relatively poor families frequently have a housemaid, and the house is cleaned pretty meticulously every day. You wouldn't have a hairbrush sitting around dirty for months.
black boxes aren't indestructible, they're designed to survive things like fire and the impact of a regular crash. they're not designed to survive a dive into a reinforced concrete building. with an impact like that, consider that something like a plane is mostly empty space on the inside. at impact, shits getting crumpled.
You can put out a fire with gasoline if you have enough. It’s only flammable at a specific ratio. When I was in fire academy in the 90’s our instructor put out a cigarette by throwing it into a 50 gallon drum of diesel.
Also the fire that took down the tower had to build over time. The building didn’t fall the instant the plane hit. The building did survive a plane strike. It was the fire after the fact, that built over a period of time and across the spans of a bunch of floors and square footage that allowed enough heat to build up and weaken the steel. It’s not rocket science, just basic science.
Also there is debris like passports and magazines, news papers, photographs etcetera after almost all plane crashes.
People just want to assign conspiracy to normal science and scenarios. Not speaking towards who organized the attack or why. Just the basic things that are being doubted have very basic reasons behind them.
Let’s start by doing away with the passive aggressive nonsense ok? Your question would have been just as effective had it left off the “professor” comment. If you want to have an intellectual conversation with people who have something to add, the last thing you want to do is show your teeth. Ego and entitlement won’t win you a thing.
Secondly, contents burning from within the building added “fuel” to the fire and thermal expansion weakened the structure. I work in the construction field and have an understanding of how things are built. And furthermore due to my extensive training as a fire fighter, hazmat technician, as well as a flood and fire technician I have an understanding of how things burn and react. The idea that explosives brought down WTC 7 is popular theory and for all the evidence out there, it’s not hard to believe either. That said, structural reports from actual engineering firms spell a different outcome with a less than fantastic ending. As tragic as the events were that took part that day, unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, it’s science rather than fantasy that took that building down. (I responded to the Pentagon and worked for a very long time in support of that mission) and I’m from NYC, I am personally attached to both incident scenes and don’t take speaking to those events lightly. I’d love to be able to blame it on explosives set by our own government as a coverup. It’s just not so, at least at that level.
"You can put out a fire with gasoline if you have enough. It’s only flammable at a specific ratio." Maybe?
"When I was in fire academy in the 90’s our instructor put out a cigarette by throwing it into a 50 gallon drum of diesel." You could throw a box of lit matches at the diesel and it won't ignite. Diesel is very safe in liquid form.
do you guys ever get tired of asking the same questions over and over since 2004 or whenever they were first formulated? either you understand that airplane crashes are not total booms where everything turns to ashes and some random shit is recovered OR you don't. objects being retrieved from plane crashes is not that rare of an occurrence. believe it or not if you'd like but why ask this "question"?
1) it’s a cover-up. Video would expose the cruise missile that hit then pentagon.
2) building 7 was wired for a controlled demolition, then they demolished it.
If you spend about a half hour searching, you’ll find enough circumstantial proof that you’ll find the arguments against an inside job are the tougher challenge. Right now, the only argument they have is “do you really think the government would do that to their own people? Nobody can keep a secret.”
It's "proving a negative." which is easy to do. Here are five simple questions that DESERVE answers and create a shit-ton more questions. 1) Why was there only ONE turbofan (that is too small for the aircraft) pictured @ the Pentagon on a twin-engine plane? 2) Why was all the non-Pentagon local security camera footage confiscated? 3) Why did the wings not shear off--unable to penetrate a concrete building, and the tail section? 4) How is it a violation of national security to release security camera footage of the exterior of the Pentagon--that is in clear view of anyone standing outside of the Pentagon, or Googling images? 5) If they released a few frames from a parking camera of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon, why can they not release full motion video? What about video of a similar angle? Bonus Question: Why did a CNN reporter claim a cruise missile hit the Pentagon? I saw this LIVE on Sept 11 as I watched the coverage on the CNN television broadcast. (Also there is a video of it floating around - find it.)
I don't know much about the conspiracy theory or information that debunks it, one way or another, so I can't speak to any of that. But it seems like you didn't really answer my core question, which is: if (presumably) hundreds of people had to have been in on this and co-ordinated it, how is it that no definitive proof has come out?
Hundreds of people were not involved. The Trade Centre buildings were the only ones wired by say, 3 small teams during the weekends. Tell everyone not involved they are doing "maintenance" or "Wiring a new fibre optic network" or something, and you don't attract attention. How often is maintenance done on a building people work in? Nobody ever cares, and if they ask, it's a simple "Maintenance" or whatever. Also the guy in charge of security @ WTC was GWB's cousin. As for the actual people who did the explosives wiring - they were probably not U.S. Citizens, and don't have any love for the US, or deep black ops or something like that. In terms of keeping a secret, good God! How much actually occurs in this world that nobody knows anything about?? A few examples: The F117 Stealth fighter before it was "presented" to the world. What about the "Stealth" Blackhawk helicopter from the Bin Laden raid? Shit, nobody even knows what that looks like! And we know it exists now, and have seen the tail section. Sure, there's theories about what it looks like, but no one has ever seen it in person and told us, or leaked a photo. Secrets, BIG secrets, are way easier to keep than you would think--especially if the penalty of talking is "death".
History has shown that it is entirely feasible to secretly do work on a skyscraper.
"We would have heard of a conspiracy because people can't keep secrets" is also a huge fallacy, because we only hear of conspiracy if people can't keep secrets. That allows us no prediction whatsoever about how many conspiracies there are if people do keep their secrets.
It's a matter of National Security. The missile had identifying marks so we can't show you any footage & for the Building 7, I'm just going to say gravity. Now get on with your day, you've been sufficiently informed citizen.
There were dozens of yard workers, police officers, parking enforcers etc... that all gave testimoney and their eye witness events hours after it happened saying the same thing. Light Poles were also knocked down, which all of them said they said the plane knock them down.
I don't believe it was a missile unless there was a missile inside of the plane, but it was indeed a plane.
Because in 2001 cameras were pretty garbage, especially cctv cameras that are meant to surveil a property and take a picture every several seconds instead of video. Apparently the feds may have seized a couple videos of the flight hitting from local businesses. This wasn't a time where everyone had an HD camera in the pocket.
Building 7 fell due to fire that burned from 10am till 5pm. This is an unprecedented amount of time to let a building burn. Everyone on the ground knew it would collapse especially after pulling everyone out of the area. They weren't about to lose dozens more fire fighters.
Watch the CBS footage and you can see that the interior collapsed before the shell. It makes sense that the shell would fall at speed when nothing was holding it up from inside and the bottom was compromised by thousands of tons of material impacting.
All 3 buildings that collapsed at the WTC were steel frame with absolutely no concrete core.
In building 7, the fire was fueled not by paper but all manner of materials in these fully occupied offices. Carpet, plastics, wood and various other synthetic materials. Not only that but I believe it was fueled by fuel reserves from a generator system in the building.
Never said it did have a concrete core? Dont know where the hell you pulled that from, just cause i mentioned concrete. i've literally seen a picture of the WTC being built from the inside, taken by one of the construction workers.
Psst, you might not know this, but concrete is used as the foundation for buildings most of the time.
As for 'office supplies' those would of burned up & been gone in a matter of minutes. You ever burn a plastic spoon with a torch? that fuckers gone faster than a deadbeat being asked for child support, and a fire of that magnitude is way hotter than a torch will reach.
Carpet would add a few minutes burn time, same as wood. not keep it going for hours.
And even if there were fuel reserves for generators, they would be ground level or below, First few floors would of been on fire, and we would of seen the fire slowly go up if that had been the case and there were 'fuel reserves' for the generators.
Never said it did have a concrete core? Dont know where the hell you pulled that from, just cause i mentioned concrete.
'Giant Concrete & Steel building collapsed from a paper fire.'
Why even mention it then? Concrete floors are meaningless.
As for 'office supplies' those would of burned up & been gone in a matter of minutes. You ever burn a plastic spoon with a torch? that fuckers gone faster than a deadbeat being asked for child support, and a fire of that magnitude is way hotter than a torch will reach. Carpet would add a few minutes burn time, same as wood, assuming this is flooring we're talking about and not chunks of logs, not keep it going for hours.
You are vastly underestimating just how much material is in an office building like this. You talk about a 3 gram spoon as if that is in any way relatable to the hundreds of tons of material in this building. You seem to be out of your depth here in all honesty.
And even if there were fuel reserves for generators, they would be ground level or below, First few floors would of been on fire, and we would of seen the fire slowly go up if that had been the case and there were 'fuel reserves' for the generators.
100% inaccurate. There were diesel tanks scattered throughout the building. The largest of the tanks were on the ground floor near the loading docks but several smaller tanks were on the 2nd and 7th floor as well as others I believe higher up in the building.
By the way, going forward...you don't say could of or would of. It's could've or would've as in could have or would have.
If you're going to oppose what the majority of experts, who have studied this, have concluded you better link the shit out of some strong sources. Otherwise, why even say it?
The Pentagon had a gazillion cameras around it. I think it’s safe to say they weren’t your standard run of the mill security cameras monitoring 7-11’s.
We have 1 example on Pentagon property and it's terrible. It captures an image every 1-2 seconds. It's reasonable to believe that most of the cameras on site were like this.
You need to remember that 2001 is a long time ago especially when it comes to technology. 1 TB hard drives weren't even on the market. The average hard drive size in 2001 was 40 GB. I say this just to keep things in perspective.
I wouldn't be surprised if the footage they did release (linked above) is one of the better shots available of the crash.
—Mods,Few weeks ago when I pointed out there were fucking UFOs circling the sunthat everyone could see.
But yeah totally, actual fucking swarms of UFOs are a waste of space but we can do the same thing with fucking Conspiracy Theorist 101 bullshit obvious topics that everyone fucking knows already.
Is 9/11 just a fucking distraction for the conspiracy community now?
2018 and fools are still entertaining stupid questions with obvious answers.
Why can't we see footage of the pentagon being hit? Because Feds/CIA/NSA don't want you too.
Why did building 7 fall?
Because it was a controlled demo. The engineers of 9/11 prob thought "ehh, if the towers are coming down, might as well seize the opportunity and bring down 7 as well. We'll fit it into the story somehow."
There was a post on ask Reddit about a week ago that asked what conspiracy theories we believe. I said 9/11 was an inside job and was downvoted into oblivion. People suck.
I think it's more the term you're using. That's like saying Bush did 9/11. That'll get easily dismissed. I usually just say it's a conspiracy and point out the free fall speed all three buildings fell at. Sometimes I say that the official story is the biggest conspiracy theory of them all. Plus the speed the planes allegedly flew above sea level.
Yeah Bldg 7 was hit by falling debris. I used to believe that controlled demo was a likelihood, but after the 85 collapse in Atlanta, I now see how plastic can burn so hot it causes structural failure.
The Pentagon crash was caught on several different cameras; a few minutes afterwards the FBI was there to collect the tapes. That short clip was the only thing released; years later.
The "plane" also happened to hit the offices at the Pentagon that were investigating a large amount of money that went missing (trillions of dollars) That investigation was stopped on 9/11.
Yet there have been statements from them talking about missing money. Rumsfeld talked about it in a speech a day before to the tune of 1.3 trillion THEN.
Cognitive dissonance sadly. 60% of the time it works every time. If enough people yell "no way that couldn't happen" then people could be presented with hand written evidence from the deity of their choice and still give it an "oh pshaw"
They didn't. The missing was an accounting issue, they were trying to determine the flow of the funds. It was spent on something. I know that's not much better but it's quite different from literal piles of cash going missing from a vault.
Not an answer but I remember the original footage agents didn't recover from surrounding areas. It was from a building across the street. It clearly showed a white missile before the explosion.
Several days later I went back to show a friend and it was gone. In its place was a crappy doctored version showing a glob meant to look like a plane. Early video editing sucked. I'll never forget.
Building 7 was a controlled demo. They had to yank the foundation support members, because collapsing towers' debris smashed into 7 and it imposed a direct risk to recovery efforts at ground zero.
The Pentagon stuff I assumed was because aliens or some bullshit excuse about national security, so secret service collected all the security camera footage from everyone in a few block radius. Not so sure, but shouldn't that stuff be accessible now thru FOIA ?
I dunno. National security and stuff seems to hold precedent over certain issues.
This is a crazy comment... You are trying to say the government rigged a 47 story building for demo with zero preparation and about six hours from start to the building on the ground....
No, I am saying I have several degrees, and many many years in the construction industry, namely high rise buildings.
I do very in-depth research into these types of occurrences because it is my job. I even considering things, like facts, that may go against my own personal hypothetical idea of what may have happened.
What the fuck is it with you people and thinking it takes explosives to bring down a building like that? That, in itself, shows what little you know about how these buildings are constructed. Seriously, go look it up. By look it up, I do actual fucking research on your own. Credited resources, factual information. Physics, materials and methods, industry standards, and you can probably just graze over demolition techniques because at this point you are probably just going to recite your echo chamber bullshit, that has no actual foothold into science outside the internet infrastructure you watch a few YouTube videos on.
You sound like a pissed off child...
Were you trying to say that building 7 was damaged during the morning of September 11th 2001, therefore, the decision was made to demolish the building by 5pm that same day?
You sound like one of those people who have nothing of any value to add to an intelligent conversation, so you pick apart the other person's grammar, spelling, or enunciation.
Yes, the decision was made by that time, and if you had any idea of how construction work goes in NYC, the equipment was already on hand to take care of it.
Probably all concepts that are completely lost on you. By all means though, please do go on. Explain to me more about how keen your internet knowledge.
This is rich, you are claiming that a 47 story building can be completely rigged for a text book perfect demolition in six hours on the most hectic day NYC has seen ever. Please elaborate on how you think that is possible because it is not possible. You are spouting bullshit.
Lol, I don't need to elaborate. That is the idea of adding extra information to further define a point being made. The proof is in the pudding.
You have key structural members in any type of building. Just as you would desire the building to collapse in on itself, in the event it was to ever need to be brought down, ripping out, destroying, However you want to call it, enough structural members will cause the building to collapse in on itself. You do not need explosives to do it either. It's like dominos. Pull enough of them in particular spot it causes a chain reaction.
The back end of 7 was seriously damaged, there are plenty of photos of it too. They are either ignored or pandered as some other conspiracy involved with another building, and it was going to be coming down either way. Not an if it comes down, but when it comes down.
They used heavy machinery, "pulled" the mainframe members, and building was demoed after they insured it was evacuated. Yes, this was a hasty decision. Yes, it could have gone very wrong and endangered even more people. Fortunately it did not. Unfortunately, that little bit of history and engineer mastering gets over looked in the search for bombs and holographic airplanes.
You claim a lot... Can you provide even a tiny scrap of evidence for your completely bogus claims? What company did this demo work with heavy machinery? How was this machinery moved into position on this day at that time? Are there photos of this?
You know what was found in all the dust after the towers were fell? Thermite.
LoL..yeah. Your questions/response is exactly why I don't provide that info anymore. I am just off work, tired, got my kids, and not willing to dig up old case studies, college research papers, or even suggest more than the idea of using Google to look up "debunk 911 conspiracy theories". I know your head may explode with you trying to disprove legitimate facts and science, but that works out better for me.
I am just not that emotionally involved with this debate anymore. I did my homework, got the grade, the degrees and I moved the fuck on. I am over trying to piss in the wind with people who think they know what they are talking about when it comes to this topic.
All the buildings fell exactly how they are being told they fell. Stop detracting from all the actual experts who posses legitimate credibility, and professional opinions. Shut the fuck up and follow the money. That is where the real evil and nefarious actions transpired. Greedy rich people allowed fucked up things to happen, so they could better their social economic status.
There was no need for bombs, fake plane, cruiser missles, or anything else. An ex CIA operative left over from cold war times had a vendetta to fuck shit up, and the current American establishment was to busy sucking it's own cock to even consider the idea of a cave dwelling, black sheep, Saudi Royal was capable of pulling off the next Pearl harbor. With the help of some pesky rich Saudi friends.
When certain members found out about the terror plot is yet tbd if ever. If that timeline could be proven, what motive would they have to not disclose it soon enough, and with the sense of urgency we all know it truely needed?
It's all good though. Please try to take some college class construction engineering courses though. Even if it's just the basics like an introduction to construction management, or something similar. It might help you understand a little bit more in detail.
I do not believe the pentagon was hit by a plane. Never understood why the only photos released were from a guard shack. It the pentagon for gawd sake. That place is blanketed by video coverage from the ground and space 24/7/365.
That being said, it is astounding that this government can orchestrate a conspiracy of this scope without any leaks.
When the conspirators have too much to lose then they stay quiet. It is also made easier by having as few people involved as possible. Unwitting actors, such as the head of (forgot what it's called off the top of my head) the command on the east coast that had all its fighters out on maneuvers are pawns to be played.
It could come down to ten or fewer people, with the rest being unwitting participants. Remember how long it took to find out that MLK was killed not by the assassins (plural) bullet but by suffocation in his hospital bed?
By the time the truth of 9/11 is made known, the people involved will be dead. This is why the truth about JFK will most likely never be known: small amount of conspirators, unwitting participants, a patsy and they are most likely all dead by now.
Well if you know that Op. Northwoods was close to being rolled out, 9/11 doesn’t seem so far fetched. It’s almost too insane to be true, but once I learned about Northwoods, I knew the government could pull off just about anything and they’re insane enough to do it.
The official narrative is that Russian and Syrian forces "cleansed" the area, and that they instructed Syrian troops to cart evidence out of the location before inspectors could arrive"
More of the Russia-phobia that's been going on since.. well practically forever.
Those same inspectors arrived shortly before the coalition bombed three buildings already cleared of any chemical weapons and chemical weapons manufacturing tools, but the strikes made a delay for any inspection into the douma area which creates the time where the coalition can then use to say Russia destroyed evidence.
Mark my words, just like the "babies out of incubators" and "weapons of mass destruction" and even the "Syrian rebels did not do a chemical attack then blame it on assad" bullshit, this will be proven as lies for justification of war.
And the media takes a big bite every single damn time.
Why would the US government release footage of the Pentagon strike? What good could possibly be achieved by sharing footage of the most symbolically embarrassing strike the country has ever suffered?
“A bunch of terrorists launched a successful attack against the single most globally recognised symbol of American military might. Here’s some footage of it. Just please, if you’re an enemy of America, we’d really appreciate it if you didn’t use it for propaganda or recruitment purposes. It would be pretty powerful in those instances and could realistically result in the loss of American lives. K. Thx.”
Yeah man, that’s a tough one. On the one hand, it might directly lead to the deaths of Americans and undermine the image of military invincibility that the US works so hard to cultivate but, on the other hand, it would silence a very vocal minority who most people don’t take seriously. Glad I don’t have to make that call!
As for your other point, Pearl harbour was over half a century ago, occurred under a different government and has zero value as a propaganda or recruitment tool. Not really the same thing.
9/11 led to the deaths of 1000’s of American citizens in the military (combat deaths and suicides), 100,000’s of thousands of people in the Middle East (which we do not care about), and made this country more enemies than it has ever had. All this to satisfy the economic interests of those who put the “elected leaders” in their positions.
It also led to the paranoid government taking advantage of a tragedy in order to enact laws that violate our constitutional rights. So, the people that question the government, which should be encouraged (accountability is critical in a democratic system) can be silenced. It is too bad that you believe that we are an insignificant minority. It is your (and people like you) blind faith that put us in the position we are in.
The American military might is a myth. Technology has eliminated the need for a massive military. From a raw numbers standpoint, and the fact that we have stretched our military out over such a large area (far away from home), we are even more at risk.
We are now the bully country in the world today, and bullies eventually get taught a lesson.
Showing a plane hitting the Pentagon would strengthen your position on the need to continue to monitor us all in order to prevent it or something like it from happening again, and would actually encourage more people to trust a more transparent government.
The early photos from the Pentagon show that the hole is much smaller and perfectly round with no wing marks and windows right next to impact were intact
That’s because the part of the pentagon it hit, wedge one, was the only part of the pentagon that had been fortified against possible attacks at the time. The fortifications included thicker walls, blast proof windows, etc.
You think this is like a cartoon where it will leave a whole the same shape of the plane? the wings got crushed, it was only the nose and all the inertia force from the whole plane that made it into a big hole, its quite simple if you really want to think of it, but eh, people in this sub are eager to believe anything but that they were wrong...
idk if i get your question A direct hit from a jet into a pure window? Sure not, but if the windows have frames duh, then you need to see the structural integrity of the thing as a whole, a window at a certain size can be as impenetrable and sturdy as a reinforce wall, and im sure they didn't use the windows your house use... But i mean what do i know, but if you can tell me, with proof that a jet crash into a window and it didnt shatter, ill buy it, but if you know exactly how the force of the impact was concealed, because obviously the start impact isn't with the wings, its with the nose, that in itself makes most of the force in the initial crash, then inertia from the crash would do a lot of damage to the wings, depending on how much structural damage was done from the waves of the impact, id like to know what was the amount of force and how it spread on the windows, was it directly to windows? was it mostly toward wall? most people act like they are experts on how plane crashing into buildings would behave, but im sure they don't know half of what they imagine it would be like
I shared a picture and you're asking questions about structural engineering of the Pentagon like I could provide you with data. Does the picture not provide its own questions?
Im not asking you about that data, im saying that without that data, pictures like that, make really no sense, i don't know what you're pointing out, what window, and what was the leveling of the plane when hit, what was the direction the wings went after the initial hit, without much data, these questions are not very much more than, Oi, how that person survive a crash when all others died? Eh i call bullshit, plane didnt crash... Uhm there are circumstances in which, unlikely things happen, hell, miracles are quite common when you put things into perspective, but if you have barely seen a small frame of how the plane hit the building, why you so aeger to discredit the main story?
There needs to be a point in which, theories are justifiable, and when theories, are just, looking for any thing that might not make sense, without context... and if people fail to prove how it happen with 100% evidence, then the theory gets credit lol, first nothing ever happened, it was all fake videos, then the videos were real, but they were actually missles, then no they were planes, but the terrorists were americans, then oh my god, when did conspiracy theories went from, proving facts as wrong, to prove this theory wrong, or else it is valid.
Also look into why the media was reporting the collapse of tower 7 before it even happened... on some channels it's even visible still standing in the background!
I thought only the BBC did that? The only excuse I can think of is the reporter, working for a foreign country, doesn't know much about the city and all of its buildings.
Official narrative: "the plane was moving so fast that even with the state of the art cameras securing the Pentagon, only a few frames show the plane in question. High speed cameras are not installed nor are needed. The cameras, perhaps Ill placed as they were; are merely a single tool in the defensive screen that protects the Pentagon. Building 7 was impacted by falling debris from the towers and the additional weight, as well as the temperatures of the debris caused the collapse of the building."
And to the average person this sounds completely logical, hell even on the day I'm sure most of us believed what we saw until we looked deeper.
There are too many unanswered questions, coincidences and falsities regarding 9/11 for even the most braindead loyalist to disregard.
But are there not hotels, gas stations, and other things in the path of the flight of the plane that hit the Pentagon? Why show the WTC explosions over and over and not show the Pentagon crash, or at least the plane flying over headed towards it? That alone allows for suspicion.
As far as the video of WTCs, I guess people are always filming the buildings (tourists?), and got the angles and clarity of video perfect when that first plane hit?
Why is it that the "live" video and news reporting was only played during the events... But all records of anyone who said anything that didn't fit the narrative was scrubbed from any future replays of the videos? You only see one angle of the impacts... When broadcast live there was at least 10 different videos circulating from multiple different angles. There was also many videos taken during the collapse, also scrubbed was the videos from angles that showed anything that would be questionable such as the rejecting molten metal as it collapsed into it's footprint. (Which supposedly that was a "safety" feature that was designed into the building... Why does no other building have this feature from the era that the WTC buildings were made...I mean a fire breaks out and the building completely collapses, not topples as physics would suggest.)
Add in the “heat” argument. People were standing in the gaping holes soon after the planes hit. I don’t disbelieve that there was a small window of time of extreme heat, but that was temporary.
People just don’t want to hear the truth and be forced to understand that they were led to believe something false. It is not easy to sleep at night when you have to question why your government turned on you, and have to acknowledge that the government was designed to aid the rich and protect their interests. The Project For the New American Century actually stated that we might need to create a disaster in order to justify using force in order to protect our economic interests, and get the American people to “buy in”.
I believe that it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon I know it may sound crazy but it just doesn't add up. No plane engine removed from the wreckage etc.
Also, the planes that hit the towers in NY appeared to have no side windows with cargo at the bottom of the nose of the plane, exploding on IMPACT???? Interesting how the tip of the nose can cause an immediate explosion on glass and stone. Bomb maybe? followed by demolition.
I know this may sound like total B.S... so feel free to ignore it.
The evening of September 11th, my girlfriend (now wife) got a call on the cell phone she was borrowing from her father. On the other end was a gentleman from the F.B.I., which was odd... since we're not even American. They were trying to contact him because he owned a company that specialized in shoring equipment... the type that keeps buildings up after disasters.
The next day he was in the Pentagon with his equipment, and he took pictures... over 150. I'm no aviation enthusiast, but there are many that show parts that almost certainly came from a plane. And I mean 'almost certainly' in the way that your fingers are almost certainly connected to your hand, unless we discover evidence that says otherwise.
I've long wanted to release the pictures somewhere, but have been concerned about the legality of him having taken them in the first place. He's always said nobody questioned him about it or told him not to.
My plan has been to wait until he dies, and then upload them somewhere... and from what we hear, that could very well be this year.
Either way, I have pictures... many of them. There was definitely a plane.
Suppose you're Dick Cheney at the secret 9/11 planning meeting. You've already arranged for two real planes to hit the tallest buildings in NY in broad daylight. Why would you propose also launching a missile to hit the Pentagon? Even if you want to hit the Pentagon as part of your conspiracy why wouldn't it just be another plane? You're anyways hijacking planes
Because a plane won’t do the damage needed to destroy that section of the Pentagon they were trying to wipe out.
Yeah so a missile was totally the way to go. Because there aren't a billion other ways to destroy documents/computers/whatever without flying shit into the pentagon, right?
we're still in the middle East, we went there because of 9/11. also it seems that a lot of stuff got destroyed and they don't want to tell the world what's missing.
harmonic resonance. the whole building, or at least the important parts shook at the right rate from the twin towers dropping. this caused something important to break.
I'll happily be disproved with an article. I'm not able to prove any of it.
Does anyone find flight 587 suspicious? It crashed two months and a day after 9/11 and between the crew, passengers, and people on the ground, the fatalities match up with those onboard the 9/11 flights.
Flight 587: 265 lives lost (260 on aircraft / 5 on ground)
9/11 Flight
Manifest (passengers + crew + hijackers)
Flight 11
92
Flight 175
65
Flight 77
64
Flight 93
44
92 + 65 + 64 + 44 = 265.
According to the NTSB, flight 587 crashed because the vertical stabilizer ripped off due to the first officer's "unnecessary and excessive" rudder inputs in trying to stabilize the plane after encountering jet wash. The NTSB concluded that if he had stopped moving the rudders at any time before the stabilizer failed, the plane would have leveled out on its own, and the accident would have been avoided.
Yeah, I thought same thing when I first discovered the correlation. I've since been looking into the crash but haven't really gotten anywhere in my research.
Was hoping someone here may know something that I could work off of but I guess not.
I try to accept the official story. I believe many conspiracies but the idea of 911 being an inside job or a controlled demo seems too far fetched.
But I admit I have questions too.
Why didn't they shoot down the plane when it came into the air space surrounding the Pentagon?
Why is it always referred to as the collapse of the twin towers when it was three buildings?
Why has the media been so quiet about building 7, to the point that less than half of the population even knows that the building collapsed?
Why did it take so long for a building so far away to collapse?
Why did a plane strike cause a building (built with a latice of steel meant to withstand the impact of a plane) to collapse into its own footprint for the first time in history? Twice in row?
And with such a catastrophic result, why didn't the file a suit against the builders of the WTC?
If my heater leaks kerosene, why doesn't isn't there a puddle of liquid steel in my kitchen?
Because a cruise missile hit the Pentagon -- a Soviet P-700 "Granit" stolen or salvaged from the Kursk. Guess who was in charge of the Kursk salvage operation? Vladimir Putin. All the world's a stage.
Because a thermonuclear demolition charge was placed underneath it.
You can see the footage. Just the moment of impact is conveniently missing.
Also, they discovered who the hijackers were because one of the hijackers wrote a suicide note, which he placed into his luggage to get on the plane he was about to fly into a building. (Why write the note) and just luckily his luggage was the only one that didn't make it on the plane.
Also no plane debris was found...Just a few passports which happen to conveniently pin point the hijackers.
Also several of the accused were found to be alive and well.
Not to mention building 7..
It seems that the only conspiracy theorist about 9/11 are those of us who have studied it.
I wonder if Building 7 fell because New York construction workers are criminals who skimp on every expense and put up half the materials they said they did. So the next building collapse will be in our lifetime and probably won't involve any planes.
Mary and Joseph! "Subcontractors" is not really a synonym of construction worker. I used to be a construction worker and the subcontractors were the bosses who hired the construction workers, wanker. :D
It doesn't matter, all that matters is:
1) whether or not Trump has small hands
2) and whether or not the same guy who camped out at Bohemian Grove and Bilderberg meetings is found guilty of defamation
3) we can change the definition of 'woman' or 'man' to include 'non gender binaries'
4) when the next Kardashian will shit out another kid
Theres interviews of the owner of wtc saying building 7 was a controlled demo. He backtracks later on it..biggest piece of undeniably suspicious evidence imo
The same reason we cannot see hallway footage of outside Stephen Paddock's room. Or the same reason we cannot see Adam Lanza at anytime anywhere near Sandy Hook..or the same reason it takes about 30-40 years and the deaths of most involved before the government begins acknowledging conspiracy, aka JFK or the Vietnam War/Gulf of Tonkin incident.
We're lied to on a daily basis by people getting rich off of propelling a bullshit agenda. We are numbers and bodies to them as they take over the world through political correctness and globalism.
The biggest fuckery for me was shipping the debris to China immediately after. That just reeks of cover-up. They didn't even do that with Pearl Harbor.
And because Larry Silverstein bought the Twin Towers just before the attacks, including building 7, which at the time were uninsured for Terrorist attacks via hijacked airplanes.
Larry then made his insurance company come up with a plan to insure his buildings against them, then 9/11 happens. The Twin towers FREE FALL into their own footprint, along with No.7 exploding. (By standers and fire fighters both report explosions) even though the building was physically untouched. Mind you, a steel building HAS NEVER once in the history of human kind fallen to any fire ever. It’s not hot enough. It happened 3 times on that morning.
Larry made billions that morning, and guess what? He made them pay out x3, 1 for each building.
As for the Pentagon, 2 billions dollars worth of gold went missing from the basement that day.
And the Twin Towers has countless records that many elite wanted gone. Back then, not everything was digital, lots was permanently destroyed.
Finally, it was our excuse to get in the war, we did the same exact thing for WWII with Peal Harbor.
cut of Japan from supply trade
move our entire west coast fleet as close as we can to Japan (Hawaii).
Japan counter attacks due to fear of US invasion, I don’t blame them.
How did the dude complete that impossible downward spiral? Also, no wreckage? Did they blow up the plane as it was colliding with the Pentagon? A plane alone would not have caused that kind of damage, a mission would have, I’m also not being an asshole- I’ve just never heard this version of it, and can’t picture the plane being blown up whilst hitting the Pentagon.
There would still be pieces left of it. Look at other planes shot down.
There was no dude. There was no terrorist who couldn't fly. He clearly couldn't get that done. My view is that they had a computer control that plane.
If you wat h CIT's work on the event, it should be pretty clear the plane never crashed there. It flew over. They had just recently renovated that exact side to protect it from bomb blasts specifically. Perfect cover to rig the place to blow.
Thats why you dont see plane wreckage. Click on my history and find my linked post with videos. I am not making this up and I am also not being the asshole. I simply know who was interviewed that day and what they said. The witnesses to that event at the pentagon prove a plane flew by but were all fooled into thinking it impacted.
Again, the gov confiscated 84 videos from the area that day. Don't you think there would all be available to the public if they all showed and confirmed their side of the story? Or are they with holding them because they would show something completely contrary to the story they sold the public?
1.) yours is true
2.) paid witnesses?
3.) or was it a modified plane, built to perform that kind of maneuver? Possibly designed to impact and deal that damage yet leave almost no trace?
Well how about this one to throw into the mix. There is a lot more evidence that the loop the plane did was different than the one we are told about via the NTSB. The loop that is provided by the NTSB shows a fairly tight loop going into the building and also at a very high rate of speed. The catch being, all this data came from the potential culprits, the Gov't or intelligence agencies. So, a question to ask yourself is, do you trust that data?
This is one of my favorite 9-11 documentaries, I watch it every year on the anniversary. It is extremely long but it’s a very thorough non biased video that goes through moment by moment, and asks the questions that have yet to be answered. https://youtu.be/8DOnAn_PX6M
If you look at the pictures of the Pentagon right after the incident, there is no way an airliner did it. No large hole for the cockpit to make. No parts of the large engines no tail debris. A missile maybe, not a plane.
Then again, they confiscated all the video tapes from the area, 84 in all. One would think that if those 84 videos supported the official story, you would see them posted everywhere as support to their version of the events.
[If you need more, watch the whole documentary put together by CIT. They paid their own way out there and expected to see and get multiple witnesses to the event confirming the Gov't theory. As you can see from Lloyds testimony in the car, they got entirely the opposite.
Mossad and its American associates are the obvious culprits behind 9/11. Who benefits from the crime? The attacks against the twin towers started at 8:45 a.m. and four flights are diverted from their assigned air space and no air traffic controller sounds the alarm. And no Air Force jets scramble until 10 a.m. That also smacks of a small scale Air Force rebellion, a coup against the Pentagon perhaps? Radars are jammed, transponders fail. No IFF -- friend or foe identification -- challenge. Even in Pakistan, if there is no response to IFF, jets are instantly scrambled and the aircraft is shot down with no further questions asked. This was clearly an inside job. Bush was afraid and rushed to the shelter of a nuclear bunker. He clearly feared a nuclear situation. Who could that have been? Will that also be hushed up in the investigation, like the Warren report after the Kennedy assassination?
The whole world already knows this. This is a simple restatement of what everybody already knows.
Everywhere except in America, where Jewish dominated media envelops everyone in a poisoned darkness, everybody knows that Jewish kingpins pulled off 9/11 as an excuse for making war on every obstacle to their world financial hegemony, and killing as many non-Jews as possible in the process to further consolidate their domination of the whole world.
This widening war on the Islamic world, already responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths, is a direct result of the 9/11 hoax, everything based on false spin concocted by Jewish strategists not for U.S. best interests, but for the demonic master plan of the Jewish Sanhedrin, which rules the Jewish moneymen who buy the presidents and the generals, to kill or enslave the rest of the world. They control you, whether you want to admit or not. They control your bank account. And they make you support their insane war program by all this wall-to-wall patriotic spin.
The totally Jewish-controlled U.S. media have long ago suspended their journalistic capabilities in favor of blatant cheerleading about their favorite subject - Muslim terrorists. Every day they urge you to kill them. If there ever was a systemic hate crime, this is it.
Yet, as the infamous list of the 19 hijackers was released by the FBI two days after the infamous event, and except for two feeble-minded patsies, no other perpetrator has ever been arrested for the greatest crime in American history, what kind of conclusions are we to draw from the fact that all of the people who were in charge of America when this dark day happened, instead of being fired for incompetence, were promoted and allowed to continue their criminal activity?
What does all this say about the American mind?
It is not functioning, thanks to the poisoned blanket of U.S. media, and a deliberately twisted educational system that has produced killer Jewish robots instead of fully invested philosophically clean humans.
Every cop in the world should be brought up on charges of willful obstruction of justice for not blowing the whistle on President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and all their Jewish handlers - in the White House, in the Congress, in the media, and most especially in the banks) for their stunningly criminal behavior in both lying about the events and implementing a totally illegal coverup of the crime scenes.
But the Jewish judges atop the U.S. legal system said it was all OK, and the media, led by the New York Times and CNN, never mentioned all those Jewish fingerprints visible in the pyroclastic dust covering the disintegrated corpses in the rubble of the Twin Towers.
In an interview only a mere weeks after 9/11, Hamid Gul - former head of Pakistani intelligence (ISI) from 1987-1989 - told Arnaud de Borchgrave, United Press International, of who he thinks was behind the attacks. Here are a few exceprts from the transcript:
De Borchgrave: So who did Black Sept. 11?
Gul: Mossad and its accomplices. The U.S. spends $40 billion a year on its 11 intelligence agencies. That's $400 billion in 10 years. Yet the Bush Administration says it was taken by surprise. I don't believe it. Within 10 minutes of the second twin tower being hit in the World Trade Center CNN said Osama bin Laden had done it. That was a planned piece of disinformation by the real perpetrators. It created an instant mindset and put public opinion into a trance, which prevented even intelligent people from thinking for themselves.
Immediately after the attacks Bin Laden was interviewed by Pakistani newspaper Ummat. When asked if he was involved in the attacks he stated:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
He went on to say:
"In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other U.S. President, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United States? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks."
He further goes on to state:
"I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the [U.S. Government] system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in the control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid down by them. So the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word."
You know all this is true. You know you are living a lie every day, by accepting what the TV robots tell you is true.
Yet you wring your hands and kvetch that you don't know what to do, when in fact you do. You just don't have the courage to do it, because you're a robotized American dreckdroid, who goes out and kills other people for reasons simply because you have been ordered to by those who control you. Despicable. You are despicable, because you don't have the courage to say what you clearly know, even though you about to lose everything you ever loved because of your failure to say what you know and confront the beast. And now it's too big to stop.
There is a conspiracy to not tell the american people the whole truth. A clear example of this "blanket over the american mind" you speak of occurs in the show the looming tower (amazon/bezos), that I think is quite blatant. It didn't take 15 minutes through the first episode to find a key misrepresentation of what Osama bin Laden said was the reason for the US being a legit target.
In the 1998 ABC interview of Bin Laden shown early on they cut around the previous and last sentences where he says exactly why a fatwa had been declared.
what they aired in subtitles:
"...We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says..."
The middle eastern FBI character is shown transcribing the interview in arabic, presumably showing the full text of what they cut out. Why arabic? Because they don't want the majority of the audience to know what he actually said before and after.
Further, immediately next scene the characters have a discussion about WHY Osama is angry with America, is warning them, and conclude that it is because they are in the middle east and Saudi Arabia specifically. Had they included what he fully said they'd know the main reason, and the reason which 20 years later Americans are just beginning to understand.
what OBL actually said:
" Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says ... . The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims.
In a network TV show that purports to be telling the public the truth about why 9/11 happened they do a pretty good job of selecting the basic facts to totally misrepresent it.
What tape? Lol
Oh
The one that got deleted by the same govt that caused the catastropheis?
Good luck with that.
They are in the same place as the videos on Vegas shooting etc
0:25, you see the plane for 1 frame on the far right.
The next frame, the explosion from all of the jet fuel (similar to kerosene) in a big fireball.
Building 7 fell from a cracked foundation, an earthquake next door, a fire burning out of control for 8 hours. They knew as early as 5 hours in that the building was going to collapse because they could see the structural damage from the raging fires inside.
How dare you provide actual provable information?!?! Don’t you know that you’re supposed to quote the hilariously wrong and poorly researched Zeitgeist movie to discuss this?!?! You make me sick.
heavy sigh
THIS is what happens to a much m ore durable Phantom F4 when hitting a reinforced concrete wall during a durability test of French Nuclear reactors... nothing left but the wing tips
add to that ridiculously low capture frame rates at the pentagon.. you got cameras missing the action and virtually no plane remaining (much lighter aluminium instead of the Phantoms Titanium construction. If you have ever watched a few eps of aircrash investigations, it is also clear how a plane at speed smashing into the ground leave s litte behind and a no too big crater. I really really wish we could move past these points as part of the 911 conspiracy, cause there are other VERY good questions still remaining.... ie wheres the other Pentagon footage from local cameras... why the change of building insurance... Building 7, Building 7 and of course Building 7 which I really struggle to come up with even a ridiculous scenario that could rationally explain it's collaps. Why were the Sauds allowed to fly while Busch was grounded, why is the molten aluminium multiple expolosion hypotheseis totally ignored (and very likely)... why did an enquiry by Catherine Austin Fitts YET AGAIN result in federal records being lost in a building expolosion during an investigation into TRILLIONS missing from the budget (Rumsfeld made mention of this in the days before)
VERY VERY VERY worth watching.... dry, but extremely enlightening for those who 'follow the money' - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0mimIp8mr8
something every ufo, 911 and black ops conspiracy theorist should see (she avoids all conspiracy topics and JUST talks about the money trail and her tendency to organise audits in building just about to blow up... including Oklahoma)
While were on the subject, can someone explain what the political strategy behind the 9/11 conspiracy theories would have been on the part of people coordinating? Would Bush have known? If it was government coordinated, wouldn't the next democratic administration have leaked/blown the whistle on it all?
How does anyone trust the fbi? Why are the Pentagon tapes still classified? I never trusted anything the government ever said after 9/11. It was my red pill.
What happened to all the people on that missing flight?
And
How is it that a conspiracy of this magnitude involving the murder of three thousand plus Americans goes on without the perpetrators being found out?
I understand this is the hole point of this subreddit, but it’s mind boggling to me that anyone believes the American government is behind 9/11 on any grand scale. Really? Like, nobody would talk? Nobody involved in this giant undertaking found out (except for of course the fucking terrorists who did it) and no leaks?
Let’s find some better conspiracies. Like the ones right in front of our eyes today under our current administration.
There could have been only two people on board and I find it incredibly hard to believe that now only would they never talk, but the family of the victims, friends, acquainted, or passerby’s wouldn’t talk...
Or more unconvincingly, that all of them are all actors in an even larger, more complex covert op.
I have heard that the Pentagon recovered footage from a nearby gas station. I don't know why it was never released. Perhaps it cut in and out or didn't work at all.
More likely though I think they were embarrassed because the hit proved that they didn't have the right defenses in place.
Building 7 has always perplexed me. We know it sustained damaged from debris from the collapsing towers striking it and it did have some fires inside. But nothing suggests it should spontaneously collapse like it did. It went down very neatly too, at least the footage makes it seem so. Instead of the whole building experiencing structural failure simultaneously throughout the entire building I would instead expect parts of the building to sag or collapse(if at all) depending on where the shrapnel from the other buildings struck it. I know its not a perfect comparison but still to make a point here; consider the Murrah building which was bombed in 1995. The whole front of that building was blown apart and yet the remainder of the building still stood. So how could pockets of damage here and there cause Building 7 to collapse completely as it did?
Woah, woah, your sounding a lot like a conspiracy theorist. Oh and on a side note, because a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, and building 7 was a controlled demolition.
Problem is, you aren’t going to accept any answer that is given to you that doesn’t fit your narrative. While it’s unlikey the “official” story is true, it very well may be. Crazy, unlikely things happen.
My questions are , why are people after over 15 years, with no real evidence or anyone credible have come forward and dismantle the biggest conspiracy, cause, the media was on it (fake videos) the pentagon was on it, the president was on it, everyone was on it, cause they wanted to attack iraq right, yet no one credible has come out and pull the mask from the monster, why after 15 years have people not say, well you know what? Maybe the questions we are asking, are the problem, if you see a guy surviving a fall from 5 stories building, and he is a one in a million guy who survive such fall, and then after it happens you're like, WAIT, how did that happen?? Knee caps can't stand that force, and then dismantle every video about it into saying it can't possibly be truth, and you know no one can't prove you wrong, cause who is gonna jump 5 stories just to prove you wrong? Right? Who is gonna redo the towers or crash a plane on the pentagon without the upgrades that have come from last decade, its impossible, and its so easy to question everything that isn't self explanatory, but no matter what answer you get, you'll just brush it off and say, its not, cause you want to believe that you are part of something unique, in on the secret, the few ones who really know what happen that day. And that's an issue within yourself. But eh, im not even sure why im looking at this sub, i prob shouldn't cause it makes me sad to read people so out of touch with reality, pure skepticism and full on paranoid minds, with a little touch of wanting to be smarter than everyone else. Just trying so hard and the problem is that, 1 time they get it right, and it validates all the other million bad conspiracies that hurt real people and when they are proven wrong, they just pretend like they never supported said conspiracy, but oh give them 1 right, all their unproven conspiracies are facts.
While I agree with you that too many people have predetermined "truths" when approaching 9/11 there are still tons of odd circumstances around it that (I believe) are so unlikely without foreknowledge that it exceeds the natural incredulity of something like your example: "surviving a free fall from an airplane" into "surviving a free fall because it just so happened there was a mile wide pile of marshmallows where you landed".
It's well known that there were [multiple simulations happening]( www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608/amp) involving fake radar blips for simulated rogue planes that morning and throughout the attacks. Additionally several other practice missions for the airforce ultimately meant no jets could be scrambled for the entirety of the 3 attacks. It was only until after the Pentagon was hit that NORAD finally shut down every training radar blip being piped into all of the ground controller's radar.
Why did Silverstein buy the WTC at a huge loss when it needed almost a billion dollar asbestos removal project? It just happened that he didn't come to work that day and neither did his daughter (if I remember correctly). This is very similar to how the ATF office was completely empty at the time of the OKC bombing.
Of course there's always uncertainty in circumstantial evidence and to me all of the frame by frame "that can't happen" WTC analysis is simply people thinking they know far more than they do much like all those flat earth "proofs".
I also agree we really have no way of ever solidly understanding the mechanical process of collapse because of how unique the circumstances were, I'm not satisfied with balsa wood recreations proving it was a controlled demolition and conversely I'm not convinced the terrorists did 9\11 by themselves because a guy bent a heated steel beam on youtube.
I don't really focus on how they came down because it's essentially futile, even engineers working years constructing a model still only have a big ole' system of differential equations and nothing more. To me the only reasonable evidence we have is that the circumstances of the day it happened were so serendipitous for the attackers it approaches absurdity.
Again no proof, just heavy circumstantial weirdness suggesting someone on the inside knew something involving a plane hijacking was going to occur.
Not to beat a dead horse but we should never forget the Council on Foreign Relations and what they had to say about the necessary conditions to start this series of regime changes in the middle east:
"Further, the process of transformation (comment: meaning the Balkanization of the middle East), even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
The problem of analizing a single day in history and trying to find how much the odds are of what happend that day, is by not analazing that day only, but history as a whole, while you might see everything after 9/11 as , wow that would never happen together at the same time, what are the odds, first of all, it wasn't just some junkies randomly stealing a plane and deciding to crash it at the towers, it was a long plan, where sure, some people knew of it, ofcourse, there were people who had to know, but why don't you see how often were sumilated missions done? Was it a known thing that simulated missions were going to be done? I mean, they had to select the day in particular, with particular circumstances that allowed them to fly undetected for as long as they did until they crashed, they needed chaos, and they found a loophole on the air traffic system, in which, it was certain times were it oversaturated with missions simulations and stuff, the problem with people is that they see "a" and "c" and they say OH A HAPPEN CAUSE OF C, when they forget that C happen because of A, or that A happen cause of B, which no one even knows what B is, and b was affected by C but not entirely....
I'll tell you a random personal story without much details just to make a point, my dad was arrested falsely for fraud because he pissed off the wrong corrupt people and they pulled strings, our neighbor was the mayor of our city, and our friend, we had no money, no idea of what to do, except call our neighbor, the mayor, he was in an accident and was suppose to be on a plane to a different place in the country and was not going to be able to be in contact until next week, but luckily he got into an accident, the plane was delayed literally few minutes, and he miracluesly answer my mom's call, she told him what happen and he told his personal lawyer to stay behind and help us, 2 days later dad was back on and we were sue'ing the city and the officials that falsely arrested him, but not before being blackmailed/and life threatened while my dad was in jail, bad people were exthorting people inside it and had it not been because the neighbors lawyer told us what to do, we would have lost everything to try get our dad back safely, and who knows what would of happen, but it didn't because some randomy thing happen and we were lucky that we catch neighbor literally minutes before he got on a plane. So if you look back to that day, you're like, Wait what? so he happens to get into an accident and then plane gets delayed just enough to get your call? that's shady, and if i break out the day, there is a million little things that add up making it a surreal day, but it happen, it wasn't prescripted, it was a random day on a very very normal family that just got into a random issue that we never expected.
My point is that, why do you have to see things as being s causation when they might of been motive? How much pattern have you studied pre-9/11? You refuse to believe the most believable story because, you already put too much effort into finding alternatiive possibilities? , cause its not fun to being proven wrong?
You see silverstain buying WTC at huge loss as shady, but he bought world trade center 7 back in 1980? and he wanted buy the whole complex back then, just it wasn't for sale until 2000.... So he been planning this attack for 30 years? LOL or what? just for insurance fraud? Dayum, what a scam... I mean most of your shady things, are basically seeing things from 1 point of view, without seeing well... the WTC were put for sale on 2000... so it took 1 year to finish the sale to silverstain, instead of saying holy shit that is some bad luck , now he is somehow complicit, again, how many times did silverstain and daugher went to the WTC, do you have a check in where it shows, how they went every day before and the day the attack , they dont? cause without that proof is like saying, You "Trumpetspieler" were not at the towers when they were hit, coincidence? I THINK NOT, you know beforehand what was gonna happen, TRAITOR; BURN WITCH.
The problem with late conspiracy theories is that, you find a weak spot, you attack it, and then you're done, when you should see, wait, why was this spot weak? IF you really care about the truth, then try find it sure, but if you are satisfied by half assing and just making random questions that are hard enough to answer but not good enough to actual hold up then, you are just trying to be hipster, pretend to know more, or be more smart than others, when you don't really care for the truth. just to win the arguement.
Wow... OK that was quite the finisher. Do you berate everyone you disagree with or is it a strictly online hobby?
What made you think I'm trying to sound smart? Why do you think I'm trying to be a hipster? Why do you think I don't care about the truth? When was I arguing with you?
Also you said there are problems with "late conspiracy theories" (which I'm assuming means theories developed well after the event as opposed to conspiracy theories as of lately), so what are some reasonable conspiracy theories that wouldn't lead you to berating a well meaning stranger for believing it?
Im sorry if i offended you, i wasn't specifically talking to you, was just making a generalization of all of it. With a few personal examples, anyway, I meant later as in lately, sorry. Sure there always been random theories, but lately, there are some heavy theories heavily supported with 0 evidence and people just go with it, and go "redpilling" people with by giving questions they can't answer and forcing people on a suggestive state.
Again, i wasn't trying to be harmful to you, just on the whole idea of people making questions that, sure maybe can't be answered easily, but that maybe are not worth being a question to begin with, not everything is a conspiracy, but surely, there are real conspiracys around, so thats why its annoying that people just put them all together, 1 people just think conspiracy theorists are nutjobs nowdays, and conspiracy theoriest feel like, the world is all a conspiracy, But was talking in general as a whole.
Oh yeah it's all good, I'm just happy we managed to break through the usual internet argument trench and have a normal conversation.
I do completely understand what you mean about giving events significance after the fact (that Damn strobe light on the Mandalay is a good example, the audio professionals analysing the audio, on and on...) and how literally everything can be NWO staged these days, I liked the anecdote.
Also I have no problem admitting it was half assed as a paper written to show someone the odd events on 9/11 but the forum we're in kinda prevents that in most cases. Of the two links I put up there I'd say the first is rock solid as far as reporting goes so if it was poor planning or even negligence it is a pretty disturbing thing to listen to the people (they have the tapes of the radar operators) frantically trying to figure out which of the 4 or 5 suspicous aircraft on their screen is real, it's a wild perspective of 9/11 that isn't very well known compared to some of the really wacko shit out there.
Well yeah, i think there was a lot of poor planning and even negligence which is why things changed drastically after 9/11, TSA and aircraft security went skyrocket, and sadly, every tragedy or terrorism, happens when someone exploits a weak link, like in niece paris where a truck ran over a bunch of people, you think that will happen again? Nope, same with a bunch of other things that have happen, both domestic and international, i do not belive the plane attacks were staged or even an inside job, i think, it was very possibly just terrorism, it feels like even the fact that USA invaded iraq with the excuse of the terror attack, feels just too unrealistic, basically just because, if they had the audacity, intelligence and the means to do such a high quality job, collapsing the towers, and all the coverups that come with it, how did they not manage to fabricate a simple sheer of nuclear evidence on iraq to justify the war there? LIke if they had found a nuclear warhead there, suddendly, the war would be justfiied and GG, bush be a hero not a war criminal as much ppl claim he is, Now did USA make mistakes oversea that eventually led to terrorism, yes for sure, lots of mistakes everywhere from almost every country, humans are flawed, but i feel like, this huge event, was just a terror attack that was just too hard to explain for the sheer work it took to accomplish, it feels unreal, and the amount of people that were damaged, its hard to say, oh well it was just a terror attack, you look at the other people who didnt stop it in time, and think, they obviously did something wrong, but when something like this happens, sadly, normally is a new different way each time, sometimes a bomb, a shooting, a suicide vest, a vehicle, sadly sometimes you just can't do anything, and the only way to stop terrorism is to give up your privacy, but people can't deal with that anymore, facebook and amazon and so many ppl in troubles for data collecting, obama for agreeing to surveillance , when honestly, how can you prevent terrorism where you don't even know how it will strike next? With people, and you can't just select, oh, this person looks like a terrorist, you gotta check all, or none and be okay with the domestic and or international terror attacks.
Anyway, sorry again if i offended you, and im all in for stuff not being what it is, but this, i feel like, there is too much material proving it is what the history says it was, and it feels like occam's razors, there isn't a need for such a deep explication when there are several ways to have achieve the same stuff without making it seem like a terror attack, and hell not even needed to be on the US
But you have seen the "footage". Didn't you find it convincing ? all fuckery aside. I still remember the story of that FBI team going to that gas station across the street collecting the camera tapes. Now those i would be interested in.
Not an answer but I remember the original footage agents didn't recover from surrounding areas. It was from a building across the street. It clearly showed a white missile before the explosion.
Several days later I went back to show a friend and it was gone. In its place was a crappy doctored version showing a glob meant to look like a plane. Early video editing sucked. I'll never forget.
You can see the footage of the Pentagon being hit. It's called the parking lot footage and it was leaked in 2002. It's been available for years. The only tapes that were confiscated by the FBI , from Citgo gas station and Doubletree hotel, were released years ago.
For a detailed explanation, read below:
There is no proof that more than three tapes around the Pentagon's vicinity were seized by the FBI.
There is no proof that other tapes apart from the parking lot footage depict a Boeing 757 impact.
The rest of the claimed "85 confiscated videotapes" were voluntarily sent in from private individuals to the FBI's field offices, and are privately held footage. Thus, in order to release them publicly, permission would need to be secured from the individual who owns that footage. The majority of the tapes sent in have no relation to the Pentagon crash at all.
Neither the DoD nor the FBI ever claimed to have eighty-five tapes depicting a Boeing 757 crash into the Pentagon, if that's what you're referring to.
A 2004 FOIA request asked for footage depicting the crash of Flight 77. The agent who replied to the FOIA request determined that the FBI "was in possession of eighty-five videotapes related to 9/11". It then went on to categorize what was contained on 29 of the tapes she reviewed personally. (The other 56 cropped up in an initial database search and didn't even show the Pentagon building).
16 of those 29 tapes showed the Pentagon, but "did not show the Pentagon crash site nor the impact into the Pentagon." Of the remaining 13 videos, 12 showed the Pentagon only after the impact. That leaves just one tape: the parking lot footage. Which was released. 14 years ago.
The other videos weren't released, because those did not fulfill the claimant's request. The person asked for footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, and the closest tapes to that request that the agent could find were the Doubletree and Citgo tapes (i.e. it captured when the impact happened, but not directly).
In other words, the agent was simply itemizing the tapes she thought the FBI had, and excluded the ones which weren't relevant to the person's request.
Somehow, no-planers read the quotation above, and got the idea that the FBI confiscated 85 tapes that showed clear footage of the impact. This is how the "confiscated tapes" claim got started: from a misreading of a reply to a FOIA request.
In complying with the FOIA request, the FBI released the relevant footage it had. This is how we got the Doubletree and Citgo videos. Up until 2006 we only had the five-frame Pentagon video (which is the only tape the Pentagon has which clearly depicts the crash).
The seized footage has been publicly released and is available on YouTube.
1 This is based on the assumption that the radio hijacker plane was first flying in the radar shadow of Delta 1989, i.e., it flew along the same path. USA Today relates details of the Delta 1989 path. When UA 93 made his turn at 9:36, Delta 1989 was told to stay away from it. It was just 15 miles away at that moment.
2 Kean, Thomas H, and Lee Hamilton. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, 2004. Print, p. 41
3 "The Cleveland Airport Mystery". (2004, August 17). 9/11 Review: Web Archive. Retrieved from http://archive.is/qiXzQ
Watching something hit something else gives you tons of information on the structure of both targets. The pentagon obviously has a classified structure, to make it harder to attack. They don't want to release this footage because.
I think that there probably aren't many security cameras pointed at the sky. Given one camera in a parking lot pointed at the building, and the easily obtainable speed of 500 mph, a 20 frame per second camera might not even see the plane before it hit. An object at 500 mph takes .13 seconds to travel 100 feet.
2: Because it sustained a large ammount of structual damage.
I was active duty Army during 9/11 and initially believed the entire story. As time went on and more details surfaced, it didn’t make any sense. I swallowed the red pill about 3 years later and have never looked back. I spot the false flags immediately. It’s no use trying to convince a non-believer because their idea of “The Truth” has been warped for so long. I’m not bitter at my country. I love America and feel blessed to live here. I’m angry at Deep State and all the bullshit that has been fed to Americans for past 50 years.
Building 7 fell because the vibrations from the two towers collapsing damaged the foundations, surprisingly they left all the other buildings around them intact but this is the government approved story and who are we to question it!
ITT: Fucking shills everywhere... it's massive. If you don't use RES get the add-on now and then tag every one of these bitches as shills so when you see them later you know.
I use the following system:
First offense I color code them yellow and tag them as "1x Possible Shill".
Second offense I change it to "2x Possible Shill".
After the third offense I color code them red as shills.
I think a lot of people do not trust the official narrative but won't show their beliefs in fear of being alienated, or have so much else going on in their lives to care about something they have no control over.
Why can't we see footage of the attack on the Pentagon?
Answer
Because no plane hit the building.
The answers are right in your face...
No plane hit the Pentagon...
No plane went down in Shanksville
And WTC7 was a pre planned implosion.
Look at the so called crash site in PA...
There is not one piece of metal in that hole.
WTC7
Just miraculously fell with only office fires bringing it down.
A third grader could understand a building wouldn't free fall due to office furniture on fire.
The people trying to convince you building 7 fell without the help of explosives are the same people who want you to believe a man in a cave brought the US to its knees ..when No one could find him CNN waltzed in their and interviewed him with no problem.
It still dumbfounds me to this day people are still ignorant to the fact 911 was planned by the US and Israeli government
I think a little under 200? Like 185? But because every other thing told that day was a complete fabrication NONE of the official story can be trusted.
A missile probably entered the unoccupied portion of the building (wiping out the alleged missing 2.7 trillion dollar trail/paperwork) and no one was killed.
No jetliner is capable of flying at such a low altitude, parallel to the ground for the distance required (whilst having avoided other buildings/trees etc), at such a speed as would be necessary for it not to appear in a frame on this video and without it leaving any debris reminiscent of a plane. Instead; if you stop the video at 0:25 seconds you see an exhaust trail of what is likely to be cruise missile. How this is not more widely known I'll never know.
LOL. No. People demanding footage of the Pentagon strike to challenge the official narrative ARE the minority. Belief has nothing to do with it. It’s woefully naive to believe that the positive benefits of appeasing that minority outweigh the negatives. When has any government in history suffered a successful strike against a military target and then handed over footage of it to the enemy while still engaged? That’s plain stupid.
You are cherry picking. I never said what you are claiming I said. I said fire + earthquakes could have brought the building down. Specifically, the building was on fire, then it was at the epicenter of a magnitude 2 surface level earthquake. Then it continued to burn, then it was at the epicenter of ANOTHER magnitude 2 earthquake, and then it continued to burn for 8 more hours. Then if finally collapsed.
Ask yourself this, how many times has a building already on fire been at the epicenter of 2 earthquakes, then continued to burn, but did not collapse? Has that ever happened?
Not a building that was on fire started by the earthquake, but the building had to be on fire first already, and then randomly and totally by coincidence endured two earthquakes centered 60 ft away? What are the survival statistics for this kind of building?
The Parthenon survived 2000 years through earthquakes and multiple explosions, but is now being completely destroyed by rain that happens to be a bit more acidic than usual.
Catastrophic failure is the result of multiple marginal failures in a cascade.
Yeah it was flying really low and knocked down many poles. It was in broad view of everyone driving to/from the Pentagon so there are vast witnesses. I'm also pretty sure someone would say something if they were pre knocking the poles by a main road. I'm on board with a false flag but I don't believe the no planes story. Likewise I have friends in New York who saw the second plane quite clearly as they were looking at the first plane incident.
Yes a paper passport soaked in jet fuel is likely to survive a massive fireball impact, while the black boxes specifically designed to withstand plane crashes wouldnt.
Makes sense. About as much sense as an aluminum airplane punching through a building that was designed to survive a jet airliner that size impacting it.
As much sense as it not only slicing through the outer steel superstructure, but also the massive core columns that most people forgot existed, which would have remained standing if the outer building partially collapsed...
The fact that three steel buildings fell within hours of being hit, directly down into their own basements.
The nanothermite residue. The fact that wtc7 didnt even get hit, yet fell into its own basement from "office fires". The fact that the NIST models are garbage. Even though they dido say most of the fuel on the planes was instantly consumed, meaning the fire weakened the beams is bullshit.
But anyone with basic metallurgical or structural engineering knowledge knows the official story is a lie.
I remember when the msm started reporting that they found the pilots body in the cockpit with his hands tied. We are so dumb as a population that people are still repeated the fake fact that the pilots had their hands tied.
I can understand the thought that the black box is too heavy to fly off in the same way that a passport can. I realise it wasn't a part of the investigation but it's part of the official story and seems pretty obviously fake - if we can establish the official story is untrue in any part then it draws the entire thing into question.
The part I really don't understand is how the passport would have gotten there, surely it would have been either in the terrorist's bag or in his pocket? How would it come to be lying on the ground on its own?
Perhaps it wasn't a piece of the investigation in a legal sense, but that passport was very much part of the sales pitch (if you will) to the American public.
True. I don't think I ever saw any actual collision footage, but I remember that there are camera limits around the Pentagon which seem somewhat logical and also somewhat BS. The Pentagon attack, like the Iraq invasion, never made any sense to me because it reeks of lies.
I saw the interview with the taxi driver too! It’s wild how he says such drastically conflicting things and slips up when he didn’t realize he was being recorded.
I remember this, I’m like positive you’re right. I’m pretty sure I saw a clip of the gas station owner describing the shadiness surrounding it being seized
The Pentagon had a gazillion cameras around it. I think it’s safe to say they weren’t your standard run of the mill security cameras monitoring 7-11’s.
How did the dude complete that impossible downward spiral? Also, no wreckage? Did they blow up the plane as it was colliding with the Pentagon? A plane alone would not have caused that kind of damage, a mission would have, I’m also not being an asshole- I’ve just never heard this version of it, and can’t picture the plane being blown up whilst hitting the Pentagon.
There would still be pieces left of it. Look at other planes shot down.
I love a good conspiracy too but pushing this bullshit while there are actual families out there that mourned the death of their loved ones, who died on AA Flight 77, is disgusting to me.
I don't think there's anything wrong with finding the passport I guess.
Seriously? 3 modern day skyscrapers were completely flattened, and you "guess" there's nothing wrong with finding multiple passports that were in the god damn cockpits of the very planes that demolished said buildings? Literally one of the buildings wasn't even touched by a plane, yet it was completely demolished. A 47 story steel building that wasn't even hit by a plane collapsed, and yet the god damn passports of the people in the planes themselves survived???? Well let's just agree to disagree, to say the fucking least...
The photos of the uniformly round holes between layers of several Pentagon walls convinced me it was a missile. When you look into the debris, it appears to have been faked.
Those are solid questions but they are met with several other unanswered questions from the other side.
What about the countless people saying there were explosions in the WTC before and after impact? What happened to the plane debris from both WTC towers? What about the number of experienced pilots saying such a maneuver at the Pentagon is impossible? What about wtc7? What about the claims that the official report was not handled properly?
I am a firm believer in the idea that there are organizations that literally do not exist, that are handsomely funded, and operate outside of any judicial or moral background. It would not be “the government” who fostered or perpetrated 9/11. It’d be organizations like these.
They found nuts and bolts, and pieces of fucilage about the size of a fist. If been there, I live an hour away. I remember seeing the plane fly over us we didn't know obviously but we remember seeing a commercial plane flying lower than usual. What is curious is about 15 minutes later we saw 3 jets following in the same direction and that leads me to believe it was shot down but who know. All I know is we never see military jets flying through our skies around here, that was unusual. Doesn't take a genius to connect the dots there. thanks
You really believe that? In all the wreckage they couldn't even find dead bodies. They could barely piece together papers from the destroyed buildings but you think 3 out 4 of the passports survived intact? Like they just flew out of the vest jackets of the "hijackers" and went blowing out a window safely landing to the ground with nary a scratch to be found in short order?
you believe in natural iteration, i believe in hierarchy and provisioning, to each his own. if a snake is in the business of snake skin wallets and waits for shed skins then he might be human in the sense that raw direct cannibalism is a baser instinct, reusable cannibalism is where humans are at. if a is able to eat b over and over, then it must be shed skin AND media cover (the reason b never sells wallets) and both these require brand management ie active management so if instances of b are likely to get into wallets they're taken care of (not killed, just derailed)
They would have confiscated all footage of 9/11, that was impossible in new york. To many people, to many angles.
The pentagon was easier.
And as for why? Only takes someone high up saying the heart of the military was hit, footage could show the US to be weak and maybe lead to other attempts if it was that easy. Also for the investigation.
Only really takes one paranoid person in a highish position.
But in the end footage doesnt matter. Hundreds of eye witnesses seen a plane, and there were parts of the plane in photos all over the place, lawn and found in building.
People will just deny that exists and aay because footage wasnt released it didnt happen which means nothing, because even if that footage was out theyd be arguing it was doctored, fake or a missle shaped like a plane.
The one in NYC is the least ridiculous. Watch the impact footage, especially of the second plane (because by then the cameras are fixed and focused on the towers and the shots are clear).
When the second plane hits, you see debris exit the other side of the building. The passports were found blocks away.
It's possible (though I'm not convinced) that on impact the windows of the cockpit were blown out and the clothing of the people in the cockpit who were not wearing belts were flung forward through the building at 200+ miles an hour and were ejected out the side, escaping the fire.
Well first of all there is the physical evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon. There is also the fact that AA77 and all it's passengers are missing but their remains were found at the Pentagon so...
I'm not sure how you draw some other conclusion unless, you are specifically wanting to draw another conclusion...
but I find it is impossible on many accounts.
Cool you might find it impossible but you have already shown to believe in some funky cartoon physics.
If it's impossible
Nothing suggest it is impossible.
not backed by convincing expected evidence
You mean you are again rejecting the actual evidence because it doesn't support your fantasy?
You ever stop and try to objectively look at the facts instead of trying to fit the facts into your theory?
then what else remains?
Well there is no evidence of anything having hit the building so....
but there is no debris to make a claim about without your original extraordinary claim that such debris came from that passenger plane..
You seem to have some problems with your logic.
Lets start again.
Debris that clearly resembles parts from an AA passenger jetliner were found all around the point of impact. You don't dispute this right?
It is your claim, that this debris did not come from an AA airliner. You need to offer proof of that.
I told you something recognizable from that plane would do
No you didn't. You told me what you think the plane should do but what your knowledge is based on, I don't know. So far you have shown that you believe in "cartoon" physics where the plane should have stripped off its wings and tail intact when it hit the building or it should have flattened against it like a can getting smashed. Both of those are wrong.
1163 comments
1 Mecanatron 2018-04-19
1 dbcaliman 2018-04-19
In what way is national security comprised by showing a plane slam into the Pentagon?
I await your rebuttal.
1 Mecanatron 2018-04-19
You'll be waiting a long time for my butt, cause i have no clue how it compromises anything other than the truth.
I had assumed i didnt need an /s... But we all know that assumption is the mother of all fuck ups.
1 dbcaliman 2018-04-19
Sorry. Unfortunately I know people who are highly intelligent, but still just go along.
1 Mecanatron 2018-04-19
Not a problem dude, I'm off work for the day and high as fuck right now.
So there's every chance I'm making no sense :D
1 dbcaliman 2018-04-19
All good. I woke up at 3 and continued my pirate.
1 StopHAARPingOnMe 2018-04-19
My dealz on wheelz is popping over on his lunch break with my delivery of one ounce of some fine product grown by a guy thats been growing it since he was 15 (hes now 62) he produces the best stuff. Very very best. You should see it you wouldnt believe it. Great great stuff. And i am winning and will keep winning. Great great stuff oh my hands
1 Mecanatron 2018-04-19
I just had my own farmer friend drop me over some Cali kush (the Dutch strain) last week.
I've been smiling ever since :)
1 toomuchpork 2018-04-19
They might be highly intelligent and have zero physics education.
The twin towers could not have collapsed the easy they did without the internal 47 support (in each one) columns getting out of the way.
Or Newton was wrong. At least on that fateful day.
1 solidstatemasterrace 2018-04-19
*NASA accidentally erased the footage
*it's made in China
1 Mecanatron 2018-04-19
I like your train of thought.
Perhaps WTC7 was made in China and was also drunk?
1 NotWhatYouThink89 2018-04-19
It was asking for it! Just look at how it was dressed! Concrete HUSSIE!
1 dbcaliman 2018-04-19
Well that is true with the Eraser of the moon landing that is not what has been stated but federal government when it comes to a plane slamming into the Pentagon. And in what way does that compromise National Security, for the public to see that video?
1 StopHAARPingOnMe 2018-04-19
The moon landing thing is interesting bc I understand having a shortage of tapes but like...pf all the things we didnt keep there was the no on landing?
I'm of the belief we faked it to win and went there in the 70s. I think weve been there (we can shine lasers and see) I just dont think it went down exactly like they said.
I think joe Rogan has a lot of good discussion over the landing
1 Waiting4AM8 2018-04-19
Any idea which podcast or who he was talking to? Would be interested to listen to it
1 DesignGhost 2018-04-19
The JRE with Eddie Bravo and Alex Jones goes into it a lot.
1 DerbyHC2 2018-04-19
"Wagging the moon doggie" is a great resource if you're interested in the Apollo hoax. The audio is pretty entertaining.
1 StopHAARPingOnMe 2018-04-19
Go on youtube and look up Joe Rogan and alex jones and joe Rogan and Neil degrade Tyson. Theres some 15-20 minute videos where he goes into it
1 talleyhooo 2018-04-19
There is some footage of the pentagon being hit, but its really shitty.
1 3hounddogs 2018-04-19
and...if you think that's an airplane, I've got some ocean front property in (nevermind)
1 Mecanatron 2018-04-19
I have a few friends interested in your property.
Does it come with a sandbox for burying their heads in?
1 NotWhatYouThink89 2018-04-19
Ha!
1 kummybears 2018-04-19
The densest part of the plane are the engines. When the planes hit the WTC, the engines cut right through and were found in the streets below. There was no facade damage on the limestone where the engines were supposed to hit the Pentagon. Some have suggested that they sheared off on the lawn but the lawn wasn’t gouged. It’s all really strange.
1 Ranlove 2018-04-19
The engine that was found was the wrong engine type for the “planes” that crashed into the towers. Whomever placed the wreckage got it wrong.
1 Bucky1965 2018-04-19
it's from a security camera at the guard shack
I've seen it
1 NotWhatYouThink89 2018-04-19
I, too, saw that 4-frame blur of... not a plane haha
1 NotWhatYouThink89 2018-04-19
7, my bad.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
What makes you think it wasn’t a plane? We have a plane missing and debris from a plane.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
What makes you think it wasn't a missile? There is no luggage, seats or tail section seen, only
what debris is seen is easily planted, much like the lampposts.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Well first of all a missile doesn’t really make sense with all of the visible evidence.
Secondly there is evidence of a 757. We have engine pieces, pieces of the landing gear, and chunks of the airframe all over the place. I don’t know why you think the tail would be intact. The fire from the impact was intense. That being said remains were found and identified as well as the “black box”. The Flight Data Recorder was intact but the cockpit voice recorder (which used tape) was damaged. There is no evidence of anything being planted so...
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
pieces easy to plant, but no big section of tail, no luggage, no block of seats.. and penetrated a series of walls like a bunker buster.
the data recorder shows a flight path that would be difficult for even a pro.. the supposed pilot couldn't fly a cessna. the flight path also makes no sense, choosing to corkscrew 180 and fly impossibly low to the ground into the most reinforced wall.. when instead it could do a simple dive right into the middle of the building to do the most damage..
surely the expected evidence isn't present, and what is there, is very suspicious..
there is evidence from the cabbie Lloyd England that the lamp posts scene was staged.
you ever see what a bird does to a plane? how does this aluminum plane penetrate dense reinforced bunker wall like a bunker buster? the physics is impossible.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Are you saying it's easy to plant a large chunk of airplane engine into the middle of a building that's on fire? Is there any evidence that suggest the pieces were planted?
Why would there be a big piece of tail section? This isn't a cartoon where the plane would only bury itself halfway into the building with the tail sticking out.
Well the fire burned and melted a lot of shit. Why would you expect to find luggage? Do you actually know for sure that none was found or are you just assuming that none was found based on your "research".
I'm pretty sure a bunker buster would have went through more of the building. Are you saying that cinder-block construction should have withstood the force of a fully loaded 757 flying in at full throttle? Whats with you guys and cartoon physics?
But not impossible
There is a big difference between legally piloting an aircraft from take off to landing to flying a plane into a building. I really hope you can understand this.
Well it's debatable if flying straight down could do the most damage but it's certainly not easier. It's actually pretty simple, so hopefully you can follow along. He flew the plane until he had a visual of the target, then he dropped altitude and turned around to actually be able to hit the target. If he had simply tipped the stick when he saw the Pentagon, then he probably would have overshot the building when the plane would exceed it's VNE and lose control.
No the evidence is there, you are just choosing to ignore it because it doesn't fit your fantasy.
I'd love to see this.
Oh you don't understand planes or bunker busters or buildings. I don't know if I can hold your hand long enough to explain all of this to you.
Were they for sure pointing at the impact area?
Of what looks like a silver airliner. Then we couple that with the actual evidence, the missing plane itself, and the remains of people who were on the plane but now in the debris in the building.
Put all of that together and we get evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon.
Now, is there any actual evidence of a missile or anything other then a 757 hitting the Pentagon? No. Hmmmmmmm
1 alienbaconhybrid 2018-04-19
The plane was moving at hundreds of miles per hour. The field of view was maybe a few hundred yards. Under these conditions, a security camera will naturally show only a few frames, and it’s going to look nothing like an action movie.
I think this is the problem, they’ve seen too many movies and think they know what an airplane crash looks like.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Yeah action movies and cartoons.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
are you saying that it's impossible to have been planted before?
go look up Lloyd England the cabbie. his confession is on youtube.
there is good evidence of a missile, you just ignore it because it doesn't fit your fantasy..
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Do you have evidence that debris was planted? No? Then you are just ignoring actual evidence in favor of your fantasy.
Look you are the one making incredible claims here. You can't back em up then shut up.
I'd love to see it.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
how would you have me go about obtaining such evidence? are you going to appoint me a special prosecutor with subpoena powers? waterboarding? lol.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Oh so you don’t have any evidence to support your wild claims.
That means you are ignoring real evidence in favor of non-existent evidence that you think exist?
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
I didn't make the original extraordinary claim of a passenger jet that was hijacked and flown into the reinforced side of the pentagon.
The onus is not on me to prove the negative.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Well you see, we have evidence of hijacked passenger jets that were flown into multiple buildings. You are choosing to ignore that evidence.
No one is asking to prove a negative. We are asking you to support your own claims with evidence.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
there is not one photo or video of any of the supposed 19 hijackers in any of those airports on that day. all I can find is one undated video of two in Dulles, and another still shot of another two from Portland, the wrong airport.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Remains were found as well as at least one passport.
Any actual evidece of something other then a 757 hitting the Pentagon?
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
What remains convinced you? I was not convinced by what we were shown at all. So much expected evidence at this and the other supposed passenger jet crashes is missing, and even hidden under big blue tarps.
As I said, the onus is on you to prove the jet. So far we have a notable lack of expected evidence, and even a guy who claims the lamppost scene with his cab was staged.
Then there's the fact of Operation Northwoods, that prescribes pretty much this scenario that played out...
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Obviously you aren't convinced. No matter how many times you have been shown evidence of a plane hitting the building you still seem to ignore it. You seem to have trouble objectively analyzing information.
I did prove a jet. Do I need to show you more pictures of jet debris at the Pentagon.
Oh so all of this hinges on what you expected to see. Well you seem to believe in cartoon physics so I'm not sure what you really are expecting.
Still waiting for this. Does he have evidence that the lamppost were staged? Lots of claims but no proof. Yawn...
Cool got some of that proof? No? Why am I not surprised...
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
what specifically should convince me? really, you are convinced of the official narrative, but I find it is impossible on many accounts.
If it's impossible and not backed by convincing expected evidence that a hijacked plane was flown into that building, then what else remains?
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Well first of all there is the physical evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon. There is also the fact that AA77 and all it's passengers are missing but their remains were found at the Pentagon so...
I'm not sure how you draw some other conclusion unless, you are specifically wanting to draw another conclusion...
Cool you might find it impossible but you have already shown to believe in some funky cartoon physics.
Nothing suggest it is impossible.
You mean you are again rejecting the actual evidence because it doesn't support your fantasy?
You ever stop and try to objectively look at the facts instead of trying to fit the facts into your theory?
Well there is no evidence of anything having hit the building so....
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
sure
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
That's just you denying reality.
That's just like, your opinion man.
ditto
Provide some proof.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
the onus isn't on me to prove anything. I didn't make the claim there is a passenger jet crashed into the pentagon. what specifically should convince me? I am very unconvinced. You seem to have a lot of faith in the official narrative. Keep the faith, faither.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
uhh you are making the wild claims remember? You are the one claiming that it wasn't AA77 when all the evidence points to it being AA77.
I have faith in the evidence that exist. You seem to have a problem with the evidence that exist but offer no evidence of anything else.
I get it, most of your conspiracy tools realized that when you make wild claims, people will call you out on it and then you find yourself on the defense with nothing to back you up. So you play this game of "I'm just asking questions, not making claims." while posing loaded questions and making bullshit claims.
In the end you are still making accusations but you aren't actually backing them up with any proof.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
how could I possibly make such a claim if there was no original claim of AA77 being hijacked and flown perfectly into the reinforced side of the pentagon, as if it were a bunker buster missile on a test run.
again, the onus is not on me, and you seem to profer nothing that has convinced me of your conspiracy theory..f this sub!
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Oh man how many times does this have to be explained to you.
You are the one who is rejecting the overwhelming evidence that AA77, a Boeing 757 flew into the Pentagon. It is no longer a theory that AA77 hit the Pentagon, it is a fact. This isn't a scientific proof.
You are rejecting the overwhelming evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon. At this point, it is on you, to provide the evidence of something other then AA77 hitting the Pentagon. You are the one making the claims that the evidence that exist doesn't make sense. That means you need to back up those claims with evidence. Get it?
By the way, if you want people to take you seriously you need to stop spouting words you don't understand. You don't seem to understand what the effect of an actual bunker buster type munition would have on an office building like the pentagon. Because in the real world (not the cartoon physics world you believe in) a bunker buster would go through the office building upper levels of the pentagon, through a good chunk of the basement and blow up, underground in whatever is under the Pentagon. It would not, pierce only a few walls, doing less and less damage as it went into the building.
Also it would not leave behind the debris of a AA 757 but I take it, it might take you a while to figure that one out.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
again you can't even provide anything convincing that I have asked for. only speculations.
because you say so. sure. like I said, keep the faith, faither.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
You’ve been provided plenty of evidence. You are ignoring it. Why are you ignoring evidence?
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
such as? show me already...
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
I already showed you pictures of 757 debris. I shouldn’t have to repost things because you won’t click on any links that might challenge your preconceptions.
What are you afraid of? I thought skeptics are supposed to have an open mind.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
none of that debris has any forensic connection proven to that flight, and nor does it need to. it will never be reconstructed and much debris was carried away hidden under a big tarp
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Why because you personally didn’t see it come from the plane smashing into the building? Do you have anything that suggest the debris didn’t come from the the plane hitting the building? You are making claims again. You need to support them.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
you ask me to prove the negative. how many times do I need to repeat that the onus is on you to prove your conspiracy theory of 19 arab hijackers flying planes like aces into buildings, while evading all security cameras everywhere... go on..
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
No one is asking you to prove a negative. I’m asking you for proof that the debris of AA77 was planted somehow.
I’m not sure if I can make this any more simple for you.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
but there is no debris to make a claim about without your original extraordinary claim that such debris came from that passenger plane..
I told you something recognizable from that plane would do.. anything convincing really. please show me already.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
You seem to have some problems with your logic.
Lets start again.
Debris that clearly resembles parts from an AA passenger jetliner were found all around the point of impact. You don't dispute this right?
It is your claim, that this debris did not come from an AA airliner. You need to offer proof of that.
No you didn't. You told me what you think the plane should do but what your knowledge is based on, I don't know. So far you have shown that you believe in "cartoon" physics where the plane should have stripped off its wings and tail intact when it hit the building or it should have flattened against it like a can getting smashed. Both of those are wrong.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
I agree a lot with this guy's analysis. some things appear legit, but when taken in context and considering what is missing and how/why anyone with sense would conclude that there is no proof of your purported conspiracy plane.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Hey if you are willing to read with an open mind, here is a great piece on the Pentagon and AA77.
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
and you shouldn't be left off the hook without an in depth analysis of the purported flight path of these inept pilot, 'ghost' hijackers.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Meh I'll put much more weight behind the even more pilots who have stated that the flight path wasn't impossible. Hell it wasn't even that well flown.
By the way, the link you sent me to doesn't seem to support your conclusions on it not being a 757. Did you actually read the whole thing?
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
it says no proof, like I said
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
How does that say no proof? That says that all the evidence points to it being a 757. He's saying it's not conclusive, which based on his evaluation it might not be, but he isn't saying It's not a 757 either.
I linked you a much better article by the way. Make sure you take the time to read it.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
he says it does not prove the conspiracy theory.. and really it should if it were flight 77.. it should be easy to prove with expected evidence, but instead is covered up and obfuscated
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
So he evidence fits with a 757. The witness saw an AA airliner, so that fits with a 757. We have a radar track of AA77 leaving the airport and then crashing into the Pentagon. We have the remains of passengers who were on AA77 found in the crash at the Pentagon. But you, for some reason, even though you don’t have any evidence to support your theory, think it was something other then AA77?
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
your conspiracy theory that flight 77 was hijacked by arabs and flown into the pentagon does not stand up to scrutiny.
what evidence convinced you?
I don't see anything much different than Operation Northwoods prescribes, and that's fact, not theory.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
It stands up to the scrutiny in the article you yourself posted! Did you read the article I sent you? It stands up to scrutiny every time you actually apply the scientific method and analyze the actual facts and not all the misinformation that conspiracy theorist like to push around. There is a mountain of evidence that flight 77 hit the Pentagon. There is zero evidence that something else hit the Pentagon. I’ve been following these conspiracy theories for over 10 years and to date there is still no evidence of a “missile” or anything other then flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.
There is not one thing that convinced me but all of he actual evidence is what convinced me.
That’s you changing the subject and making a claim without offering any evidence.
Let’s stick to one thing at a time.
So right now, all the evidence points to AA77 hitting the Pentagon, there is no evidence that supports the claim that something other then AA77 hit the Pentagon.
So why are you still claiming it wasn’t AA77?
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
what isn't there and what is covered up is more telling. it's easy to plant evidence before and after the fact when you control everything.
how do you want me to gather evidence? appoint me a special prosecutor and give me subpoena powers? waterboarding? lol
the original conspiracy theory claim of hijackers flying planes into buildings is far from assumed fact.. it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Oh so now your “evidence” is actually evidence that you don’t have evidence of? Now who’s trying to prove a negative?
Got any evidence of anyone planting anything? No?
You asked for evidence and it was given to you. It was given to you even in the link you posted. Why are you still trying to deny evidence?
It’s assumed fact, supported by physical evidence. You just keep ignoring the evidence that exist. Like I don’t know how to make this any more simple for you.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
pedantic aren't we. I have a good background in science (check my xkeyscore) and there is experimental evidence of numerous bird strikes.
no tail section, no luggage no seats, but something hidden under a big tarp... there's no good evidence that the purported flight was hijacked and flown into that building as purported by officials.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Cool, do I need to explain to you the difference between a bird strike and an airplane flying into a building?
Why are you so hung up on this tail section? Are you trying to suggest that the tail section should have survived the impact? In your world should the last third of the aircraft have magically stopped and not crashed into the building with the rest of the plane?
Ohhh there you go ignoring reality.
I doubt that. Otherwise you would have a better understanding of the scientific method. You aren't following the facts. You are picking the ones that guide you to your preconceived conclusions.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
that's your bias talking to you. clearly you are indoctrinated and cannot question the official narrative, and project preconceived conclusions on those who do.
lets do an experiment. take a stationary plane and slam a reinforced bunker into it at 450mph. what do you think happens... does the plane pass right through the wall (3 of them even) with nice neat holes? even the tail section?
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Who’s talking about a reinforced bunker here? The Pentagon is an office building.
In your scenario does the tail section of the plane somehow stay intact?
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
'American Airlines Flight 77 struck the portion of the building that had already been renovated. It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes--enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety.
The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows--2 inches thick and 2,500 pounds each--that stayed intact during the crash and fire.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
and?
That doesn't really sound like a bunker. That sounds like a steel reinforced building. Were you expecting the 757 to crumple into a beer can on the side of the building? You watch too many cartoons.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
What do you expect? In one case the wings and tail appear to penetrate the steel framed World Trade center building, but in the case of the pentagon, the wings don't penetrate.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
It's almost as if they were three different buildings being hit by two different airplanes! Gasp!
I'm still waiting for you evidence that disproves that AA77 hit the Pentagon. I have a feeling I'll be waiting for a while...
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
I'm waiting for all that expected evidence since the onus is on those that made the original extraordinary claim.
so what convinced you? was it CNN, or a photo of an official looking guy tampering with supposed evidence?
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
See that's the problem. You wanted evidence, you were given it but you are ignoring it because "it's not the expected evidence".
Meanwhile you have a complete lack of evidence (Expected or otherwise) to support your claims.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
show me this convincing evidence?
I already mentioned what would convince me.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Do I really have to go back and relink the images of 757 debris in the middle of the Pentagon?
What seeing something unrealistic like the plane tail sticking out of the building or luggage surviving the fire? You do understand basic physics right? Just because the plane hit the building doesn't mean everything else on it should stop instantly from 400 miles an hour and land on the grass, away from the fire. You do understand that right?
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
I've seen them.. point out the features that you found convincing please.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Look who's trying to prove a negative now. Point out what you don't seem to understand.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
Personal attack noted.
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Only if you take it personally. You seem to believe in some sort of cartoon physics where the plane should have hit the building but half of it should be left undamaged?
The debate isn't lost because there never was a debate. You ignore evidence for no real reason then offer nothing to support your own conclusions. That's not a debate, that's you trolling, badly.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
you can backpedal all you like.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Lol I'm not back pedaling.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
does the official narrative claim that it disintegrated? where is the reconstruction?
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Are you expecting the plane that crashed into a building and then burned for hours to be, what, more intact?
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
didn't you see the wings slice right through in videos? so what is it? we can't have it both ways. lets do the experiment. stationary flimsy aluminum tube passenger plane vs thick steel frame at 450mph. who wins?
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Ohhh another problem with your understanding. You think planes are just flimsy tubes. I keep seeing more and more of your cartoon logic every time you post.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
lets do the experiment... it has been done similarly on occasions, but lets do it again. it can be simulated using accurate models for airplane, and building.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Well if a bunch have already been done....
What are you trying to prove again?
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
What happened to the wings, tail section, engines luggage and seats from the pentagon for one.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Smashed into the building and burned mostly.
Followed the fuselage.
I actually linked you a picture of engine debris.
You know that shit burns right?
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
show me what you mean.. you are simply speculating.
tail is not the same shape and should not penetrate, it left no mark.. show me the evidence of the tail, again you speculate
to unrecognizable ashes? all of them? hard to believe, and again, speculation. where is the evidence? where is the reconstruction?
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
No I'm not speculating. I'm telling you what happened. You are speculating that the impact site should look differently, not me.
You mean the horizontal and vertical stabilizers then. The tail would refer to the whole aft structure. The stabilizers were obliterated during the impact. They are not nearly as strong as the wing structures. Only an idiot would expect the plane to leave a perfect silhouette. Remember, this isn't a cartoon.
Into small hard lumps of plastic. Have you ever dug through the ashes of a house fire? You can usually only pick out large chunks of steel and stone.
Whole suitcases? Sure. Small personal effects of passengers were found throughout the wreckage.
Yes, speculation on your part. Why do you keep speculating that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon when all the evidence points to a 757 hitting the Pentagon? Do you have evidence of something else hitting the Pentagon?
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
That’s actually not what we see at the WTC and as I’ve explained it to you before, those were different planes hitting a different building.
Maybe I should take some consolidation in the fact that you aren’t one of the “no planes” idiots. Of course that would make me wonder why you believe an airliner hit the towers but one didn’t hit the Pentagon.
All of this ignoring the fact that around 70 witnesses said they saw a large passenger plane hit the Pentagon...
1 jiveturkeysammich 2018-04-19
What about this?
https://youtu.be/p5O1fGmscMc
1 pupomin 2018-04-19
Was that one of those bombs that is designed to skip along the ground?
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Thats a re enactment bullshit video. That wasnt taken on the day and its obviously fake.
1 jiveturkeysammich 2018-04-19
Do you know the original source for it? Specifically that first aerial shot.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
No. Probably a newscast or random video from a plane. No videos of the impact have ever been released other than the doctored one from the guard house.
1 bradok 2018-04-19
No, it's even worse, it's from a security camera at a guard shack looking at a mirror...
1 LifeAndReality85 2018-04-19
Can you find a link to this?
1 Faux-Mulder 2018-04-19
There are actually 2 videos, and their perspectives don't match up, indicates forgery. Check my other comment in this thread for the link.
1 dbcaliman 2018-04-19
The fact that it is only 7 frames, while there were other recordings from the area that were confiscated, and repressed makes it feel shady.
1 MalikTauss 2018-04-19
If you know about the footage, why are you asking this question?
1 dbcaliman 2018-04-19
I understand that I'm in a bubble right now, but if this gets enough traction then maybe people who have a different point-of-view can try to explain there point of view to me in a rational manner.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
So you actually aren’t asking the question then?
We know that a plane hit the Pentagon, we have debris of a plane, we have a plane missing and we even have some shitty footage from a security camera that looks like a plane. Do we have any evidence of anything other then a plane hitting the Pentagon?
As for building 7, why it failed is a bigger discussion that took many actual engineers time to figure out. Conspiracy theorist were screaming “where is the report on building 7?” Over and over again and the. When the report on it was finally released, they ignored it.
My understanding of the report was that the fire protection failed at a much lower temperature and a much shorter duration then it was designed to. WTC7 like WTC1 and 2 relied on a lighter construction method that meant that the floors were spanning over relatively large distance. When the trusses supporting those floors failed in the fire, they pulled in on the vertical columns. This caused the sagging and leaning that people, including the FDNY saw, before the fire crews were pulled out of the building.
It’s one thing to have actual questions, it’s another when you are attempting some bullshit “redpill” strategy to get people to follow you down your rabbit hole and maybe buy some merch on the way.
1 hookahhoes 2018-04-19
What debris of a plane? I never saw anything but random scraps. We don't know what hit the pentagon, because nobody has any pictures or video except the government. Watch the tapes they released and tell me again that's American Airlines Flight 77. all i see is a fuckin' blur. Curiously, both cameras show an identical blur, like it was photoshopped. hmmmmmmmmmm.
You obviously haven't read the NIST report on WTC7. People didn't ignore it, it's just ridiculous and wrong.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
You mean plane debris? I'm sorry a 757 flying into a building didn't leave the amount of debris you were hoping for.
If you were honestly asking the question 'what debris of a plane' well then you should know, that question has been answered already.
So we know for a fact that there was debris of an AA 757 found at the pentagon. So much for that "question".
As for the NIST report on building 7, my point was that people like you, desperately looked for something wrong in the report, couldn't find it on your own, so you cling on to some vaguely smart sounding person who disagrees with the report. Mind you, before the report came out, the talk of conspiracy theorist was that the reason the report hadn't come out, was because NIST found out something they shouldn't have, and the report would clear it all up. When the report was released, those same people dug their heads in the sand and screamed that it was wrong.
For example, the report is 137 pages and I've seen nothing in it that was redacted or classified. They list their sources and it wouldn't surprise me if not all of the publications were free to view though.
It really seems like you didn't actually read the report or at least unbiased summaries on it. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
1 phattracker 2018-04-19
He means the plane debris that they had office stiffs out combing the area for. Cause that's how you work one of the biggest crime scenes in American history.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Oh you are answering for him? Does that mean we can agree that Boeing 757 debris was found at the Pentagon then?
1 hookahhoes 2018-04-19
Orly?
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Cool I'm glad we can establish that there was debris and evidence of a 757 hitting the Pentagon.
Where in the NIST report is this information classified and how does it negate the results of the NIST report?
1 hookahhoes 2018-04-19
Somethin' hit the pentagon, yeah we agree. Was it American Airlines Flight 77? Yeah i'm doubtful.
It's not in the report, because it's classified. What is the information that is classified related to?
All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
You know those conclusions in the report? This data is how they got them. And it's classified.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Well the evidence only suggest that AA77 hit the Pentagon. There isn't evidence of anything else hitting the Pentagon. Yes, there is speculation, but no evidence.
The data from two models is classified. Not the output, nor the rest of the report. That doesn't negate the information in the report. It's just a easy excuse for you, and others like you, to ignore the report that you CTs previously were asking for.
You have this habit of ignoring anything that contradicts your "theory" but you avoid defending your accusations by claiming that you just have "questions".
The annoying part about all this isn't that you have some questions. That's fine. The annoying part is that you've already been given the answers to those questions but since they don't fit your world view, you pretend that you never had them and go on asking "questions"
How about this, show me actual evidence that something other then AA77 hit the Pentagon, or something other then the fire and damage caused by the collapse of WTC1&2 caused WTC7 to fall.
1 hookahhoes 2018-04-19
Yes, because that's what the evidence was supposed to suggest. And I disagree with that evidence, because it amounts to:
The most compelling argument you have is the plane parts, which could've as easily been on drone or planted.
You need to realize something pal, you and I are in the same boat, just different sides. You want actual evidence of my claims, and guess what? I want actual evidence that AA77 hit the pentagon, or that fires brought down three steel buildings! What actual evidence is there for any of it? ALL of it is speculation, even the official government reports. They obviously had to assume conditions for the reports. They assumed the now classified inputs. It's not science, because nobody else can repeat it with the same data. We haven't been given real empirical "answers"
It's too bad they shipped all the real evidence to china so damned quick, a real travesty.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Oh so now you are making more unsubstantiated claims! Do you have evidence that the debris of an AA757 was planted or just more shitty conjecture?
You don't have evidence of it not being AA77 that crashed into the Pentagon, you just have evidence of AA77 but you don't like the evidence (because it doesn't fit your views).
Which you have been given but you keep dismissing. No we aren't in the same boat. I'm not the one making wild claims here. You are.
There is actually quite a bit of evidence. Engineers want to know what went wrong with the systems that were designed to withstand these fires. We understand that WTC1&2 had tremendous structural damage, and the fires burned without any attempt at containment. WTC7 showed us that fire protection systems that were thought to be able to contain a fire for a longer duration of time in fact didn't.
That's why we have studies and reports that look into this.
What we don't have evidence of is explosives or missiles or whatever nonsense that Avery stirred up when they were making Loose Change (They actually made it as a joke but realized that conspiracy theorist were eating it up).
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you think things only get classified because of some national security reason. I wouldn't be surprised if the some parts of the models were classified so that the company that provided the modeling software wouldn't have to release their (very expensive) software to the public as part of a public records request.
Who says they can't?
No you've been given the answers. The problem is, you don't like them. They don't support your fantasy. And no matter what, you will never find the answer you are looking for because in the end, you aren't actually looking for answers. The good news is, you will most likely grow out of this.
You mean it's too bad that of the evidence that exist, you guys couldn't find anything to support your claims. The steel sat in multiple yards for years. You can even find chunks of it all over the country now. Hell it wasn't even all removed from Ground Zero until spring of 02. Yet not a single person found any evidence of explosives. But don't let that complete lack of evidence stop your imagination!
1 sux2urAssmar 2018-04-19
why are you trying to stifle conversation?
1 MalikTauss 2018-04-19
i am not trying to do that at all.
1 TheBongzilla 2018-04-19
Your history tells that you always try to do exactly that.
1 Crazymage321 2018-04-19
The US would not want footage of the pentagon being hit because that footage can be used by its enemies to undermine their military power and persuade more people to join radical groups in the middle east.
If they could have confiscated all the footage of the twin towers being hit, they probably would have as well for the same reason, but seeing as that would be impossible they didnt even try.
Footage of the pentagon being hit also shows how the defenses of the pentagon (if any) reacted to the plane and other foreign nations could use that information to plan on attack on the US in the future in the case of a land invasion that could (but most likely wont) happen in the future.
I think it comes down to the fact that the heart of the US Military was hit so easily with a regular passenger plane is just something that the US Military would want everyone to conveniently forget about because it shows a weakness to fucking passenger planes from the most powerful military on the planet.
1 philogos0 2018-04-19
This is not a very solid argument. There's a ton of footage from that day already.
Our military response that day was somehow disabled. I heard it was in part because of the training that was going on at the time. We've since upgraded our response techniques. Your points are not strong enough to warrant refusal to comply with massive public calls for the release of the confiscated footage.
1 Crazymage321 2018-04-19
If you want to believe that then thats your prerogative.
1 Charleybucket 2018-04-19
So it's ok to show the smoldering wreckage of the Pentagon after it was hit, but God forbid anyone see it actually happen. And don't forget, the YouTube video recruitment tactic and the war on terror didn't start until a while after 9/11.
1 Wheels8811 2018-04-19
Footage can be created nowadays. Also, If they didn't want any footage released of the pentagon being hit they wouldn't have released the 7 frame potato quality GIF that they have released.
1 odd-meter 2018-04-19
Does it show a 737? Or does it show a vapor trail followed by a small explosion? I mean, WHAT DO YOUR EYES ACTUALLY SEE? Pretend someone just shows you this clip, out of the blue with no pretext whatsoever, and you have zero knowledge of anything related to 9/11, and this person says “please explain to me what you see happening in this little video clip?” What can you truthfully say?
1 but_wye_Tho 2018-04-19
well it happened 17 years ago...
1 Digglord 2018-04-19
On a building with supposedly the highest security in the country, and that's the best footage they could get?
1 XrayTay 2018-04-19
Does anyone know what dept or area the plane/mission hit? Why hit that part of the pentagon?
1 Fhqwghads 2018-04-19
IIRC, it was a section that was being "renovated", and had no employees occupying it.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
https://youtu.be/4fvJ8nFa5Qk
1 HarryandWinston 2018-04-19
Defense Intelligence Agency, Navy Operations Center, Army Office of Administrative Assistant.
https://i.imgur.com/t2BSSJF.jpg
1 ssiinneerrss 2018-04-19
I mean, it's only our Department of Defense, not like we would need CCTV covering every square inch it touches.
1 chappaquiditch 2018-04-19
Remeber this was 2001. Dvds were just starting to become mainstream. Tech has improved leaps and bounds since then.
1 Putnum 2018-04-19
The Matrix was 1999, camera/cctv tech was fine.
1 chappaquiditch 2018-04-19
Ya in hollywood
1 kummybears 2018-04-19
And it skips the frame with the plane.
1 604MAXXiMUS 2018-04-19
Wasn't't CCTV footage seized from a gas station but was never publicly released?
1 OneEyed81 2018-04-19
Correct. There was a lot camera footage in that area.
1 saudade_xo 2018-04-19
I remember this, I’m like positive you’re right. I’m pretty sure I saw a clip of the gas station owner describing the shadiness surrounding it being seized
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
And was proven to be doctored.
1 Thompson_S_Sweetback 2018-04-19
That video footage release seemed like a big old middle-finger to conspiracy theorists.
"We have footage that proves this was an airplane, not a missile! See, the first frame is an empty parking lot, the third frame is a cloud of smoke, and the second frame is a white cylindrical shape moving sideways into the Pentagon! Exactly like the cross section of the middle portion of an airplane!"
1 talleyhooo 2018-04-19
If it was not a plane, what happened to American flight 77 and it's crew and passengers? That's the flight Barbara Olson was on
1 Thompson_S_Sweetback 2018-04-19
I don't know. That's the part that seems absolutely impossible, as opposed to just out there. I can imagine there might be people in the government who would follow orders and just kidnap and murder 250 people, but I can't imagine the logistics of any of it.
1 talleyhooo 2018-04-19
Yeah I believe 911 was a Cheney operation. But I also think that four planes filled with people crashed that day
1 vertigounconscious 2018-04-19
3 frames. doesn’t show a plane
1 Impetus37 2018-04-19
Yeah here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SL2PzzOiF8
1 docmongre 2018-04-19
I remember the original footage agents didn't recover from surrounding areas. It was from a building across the street. It clearly showed a white missile before the explosion.
Several days later I went back to show a friend and it was gone. In its place was a crappy doctored version showing a glob meant to look like a plane. Early video editing sucked. I'll never forget.
1 Faux-Mulder 2018-04-19
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7xawck/_/
1 LifeAndReality85 2018-04-19
That YouTube account just got deleted.... mirror anywhere?
1 Faux-Mulder 2018-04-19
Well that's pretty fucking crazy, if you ask me. Just more YouTube censorship of alternative facts.
Unfortunately, I am not sure of another source for the 2nd parking booth footage. But the video on the now "terminated" account was pretty interesting...
1 LifeAndReality85 2018-04-19
I thought it was crazy myself....
1 Caz6000 2018-04-19
Who the hell could fly a plane a couple of metres off the ground moving at cruise speed and hold control against all the various factors that make it near impossible for airliners to maintain altitude a couple metres above ground. This was a jetliner not some small cessena and they were able to do that?
1 dbcaliman 2018-04-19
I agree. It had the velocity, and maneuverability of a missile.
1 FuZhongwen 2018-04-19
To be fair, the plane was only going at 350 knots, 100 knots above landing speed. Not at cruise speed, closer to 500 knots. There is no reason it wouldn't survive that speed at that low of an attitude for the few seconds it was that low.
1 made-me-login 2018-04-19
Did you miss the part where it hits a building?
1 FuZhongwen 2018-04-19
Well obviously the building destroyed the plane. That's the point. People are saying the plane would have been torn apart or unmanageable before it could have hit the building because they assume it was flying at 500 knots. But flight data says it was only flying at at 350.
1 made-me-login 2018-04-19
Oh yes, that is correct.
1 mehatliving 2018-04-19
No commercial airliner lands at 250 knots. They don’t even land above 180 knots and a plane that size would land around the 140-160 range depending on weight and other variables. Furthermore 350 knots is well too fast for their near sea level altitude. Planes fly faster as they go higher because air density begins to decline, thus they need a higher air speed to avoid stalling.
Don’t talk like you know what you’re talking about when you don’t. 9/11 was not the event that the Bush administration said and we all know that. It’s better to spend your time researching and doing something to try and work together to bring the truth out than spread garbage information.
1 zzrotisbestrot 2018-04-19
If you are saying the plane was going well above landing speed, wouldn’t that mean that it had more than enough lift to maintain altitude close to the ground?
1 mehatliving 2018-04-19
Yes it had more than enough lift but that was never a question. At those speeds that low it would be stressing the airframe an immense amount and require a large amount of skill to be flown the way it was and complete the maneuvers it did. The question is was it really a 757? And to further that was it really piloted by who they said it was? The first no one can answer till more information is available but the latter most people with a working knowledge of aviation would cast very large doubts that it could be flown with that success rate by someone as untrained as the supposed terrorists.
1 zzrotisbestrot 2018-04-19
I see your point; however, I do not think that proves that the building was not hit by an airplane.
1 Wheels8811 2018-04-19
It was flying at 460 knots.
1 FuZhongwen 2018-04-19
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hunt-the-boeing/
Snopes says 350
1 Wheels8811 2018-04-19
I was just quoting the person above. I am not sure their source. But I do know not to trust snopes when it comes to things like this.
1 FuZhongwen 2018-04-19
Hey no worries I take anything I read online with a grain of salt. But I have to ask, Snopes is in the business of proving and disproving claims. I feel like if someone presented their writers with evidence they were incorrect, then they would have to confront that right?
1 Spaceneedle420 2018-04-19
I believe no street lights were damaged at this extremely near parallel angle of descent
1 sandman533 2018-04-19
Fake news
1 DonBB 2018-04-19
Doesnt every pilot fly a few meters off the ground every single time they land their plane?
1 toomuchpork 2018-04-19
Not at top speed.
1 DonBB 2018-04-19
Is there evidence that the plane was flying at top speed?
1 xCRYPToKEEPERx 2018-04-19
No, cause it wasn't.
1 IBFT 2018-04-19
It was.
1 HackQuack 2018-04-19
For facts sake!
1 CoolLikeAFoolinaPool 2018-04-19
The 330 degree turn is so fucked. Not many airline pilots could even handle a move like that let alone a terrorist.
1 Yoduh99 2018-04-19
actually a real airline pilot would've done it better, the hijacker was kind of sloppy. it was certainly not undoable.
http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf
1 toomuchpork 2018-04-19
Evidence? Like footage where the speed can be calculated off of?
I think there is some somewhere.
Length of the plane divided by the time to go nose to tail across the same position can be quickly transposed to miles per hour.
Just need to know the frame rate of the footage.
1 DonBB 2018-04-19
So if you have no idea whether it was flying full-speed, why did you seem to imply that you knew it was?
1 mehatliving 2018-04-19
Well you imply that it was piloted by terrorists who have never flown a 757. How do you suppose they flew it a few metres off the ground with only training in small GA planes prior?
1 toomuchpork 2018-04-19
The reported speeds were above safe flying speed for these craft. I don't know what to are skirting at here. Why not say it?
The internets is full of "official" and unofficial speeds. Take your pick.
I was stating how it could be simply calculated by a layman.
I imagine you are in the "no plane" camp by your insinuations.
1 DonBB 2018-04-19
I believe a plabe hit the Pentagon and planes hit the WTC and they were flown by terrorists from mostly Saudi Arabia. I think the real conspiracy is how we knew (before and after) Saudi Arabia's involvement but did nothing and have done nothing. I think the whole "9/11 was an inside job/the planes were holograms" stuff is mainlu to discredit the real unanswered questions about 9/11
1 toomuchpork 2018-04-19
Yes. Stir up the pot so the average joe thinks even the truth is a lie.
The lack of airport security footage of the highjackers makes me question if they even existed. The bits we have are altered with no time stamps. When was the last time you saw security camera footage without date and time on it?
The four emptiest planes in the air that day. Convenient way to get rid of dead spies or make new ones.
Both WTC planes flying over the Airforce Base on their way to the attack is strikingly odd too.
1 Eman_Elddim_Tsal 2018-04-19
If it was flying at landing speeds then there would be more debris and larger pieces. They had to make the official narrative full throttle (which it is) to explain the empty yard in the first photo
1 TokeyWakenbaker 2018-04-19
Landing speed is generally between 150 and 200 miles per hour. Cruising speed would be about 525. At 525 miles an hour, an airliner would break up because of the wind shear.
1 minusidea 2018-04-19
LOL No it wouldn't.
1 7palms 2018-04-19
Yes it would
1 minusidea 2018-04-19
The top speed of a 757-200 is 618mph. It's not going to have an issue doing 525.
You 757 can do a barrel roll for fucks sake.
You are grossly under estimating the technicalities and durability of aircraft.
1 7palms 2018-04-19
Not at sea level - watch the video. John Lear says the exact same thing. Perhaps you know something he doesn’t? The top speeds of these aircraft are at ALTITUDE, where the air is thinner and there is much less resistance.
1 minusidea 2018-04-19
Firstly.... They we're at sea level. Both planes decended from their cruising altitude and turned on the speed after they we're lined up with the building while coming down at a downward angle.
When people do these bullshit conspiracy theories about the planes breaking apart half of them don't realize most planes are rated much higher when it comes to speed, thrust, and what it can actually do opposed of just reading shit on a forum and saying "hey I did some quasi math, it's the government!"
1 bobewalton 2018-04-19
Sir, the Pentagon's elevation is 40ft above sea level, according to the army's heliport. It's as close to sealevel as you are going to find. The previous poster is indeed correct. The airframe can not handle the stress of the max speed at lower altitudes. The wings will quite literally shear off.
1 zzrotisbestrot 2018-04-19
Is there a statistic from the actual manufacturers on safe speed for airplanes at different altitudes? Most of the time safety ratings are put much lower than the actual maximum limits.
1 FictionalNameWasTake 2018-04-19
You said cruising speed is 525 mph, then immediately you say that it would break up at 525 mph from wind shear. This doesn't make sense. This is the sort of comment that discredits this entire sub.
1 CraftyPancake 2018-04-19
He said it would break up at ground level at 525 mph. Not at altitude where the air is less dense.
1 FictionalNameWasTake 2018-04-19
I'd have to see proof of that because it sounds completely made up.
1 CraftyPancake 2018-04-19
No idea! It kinda makes sense but I was just clarifying what he said. Couldn't comment.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Approach and landing are not the same as flying an aircraft on the deck at high speed. Guess you should google ground effect.
1 th3allyK4t 2018-04-19
Well not the pilot that had flown the plane before as he admitted on camera he couldn’t have made those manoeuvres.
1 UnusualGod 2018-04-19
Answer: It was more than likely a drone
1 CorvusTrishula 2018-04-19
And the jet wash didn't move a car or blow one over like it probably should have.
1 Reasonable_Cut 2018-04-19
You're stretching pretty far here. According to your apparently calculations, what is the surface area of the car normal to the backwash velocity? What was the diffusion coefficient of the wake comping from the jet engines? What was the backwash velocity angle to the ground? What force would be necessary to overcome static friction of a 2 ton vehicle with contacting rubber to concrete?
I'm assume you haven't done these calculations, so "it probably should have" is frivolous and wrong. I'm assuming you have absolutely no credentials to make such a conclusions, so maybe you should be more careful in the future.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
The guy flying could barely fly a small Cessna too!
https://youtu.be/-bR-k96laOI
1 Eurotrashie 2018-04-19
Ground effect alone would make this impossible.
1 CosmicWy 2018-04-19
what is the ground effect?
1 Thompson_S_Sweetback 2018-04-19
Pilots, for one. At least long enough for them to land.
1 tripplethrendo 2018-04-19
And why weren't there TONS of eyewitness accounts of an airliner flying towards the Pentagon?
1 yourmomlovesanal 2018-04-19
https://youtu.be/BoUF9_bB4VI
Bunch of planes doing just that
1 outlawbruce 2018-04-19
I've seen an interview of a pilot saying he would need at least 2 attempts to hit such a small target and this guy was flying with 20 years
1 rodental 2018-04-19
Missle.
Controlled Demo.
1 dbcaliman 2018-04-19
While I completely agree with this, it blows my mind that I know people who are highly intelligent, that still buy into the story
1 NotWhatYouThink89 2018-04-19
Intellect <> (not equal to) Mental Fortitude
1 Derk_cone 2018-04-19
intellect v wisdom
1 StopHAARPingOnMe 2018-04-19
My dad is a 22 year veteran pf the army (most national guard but hes been to all the major stuff since the 80s). Hes a science teacher for middle school turned 5th grade teacher. He is about to complete a 2nd masters (has one in education this one is for education leadership/administration so he can be a principal)
I asked him why I cant see the footage and he said because I dont need to :/
I asked him why the pentagon looks like a missile strike just like the picture of the building in iraq I sent him when I was there in 06. He said because the plane behaves like a missile.
I asked him where all the debris is and he said it was vaporized
I asked him why they hit the only section of tge pentagon reinforced to withstand a bomb. He said bad luck.
I asked him how building 7 fell and he said what the he'll is building 7 I yold him and he said it must have been fire.
I asked him how come america has the only towers in modern history to fall due to fire and he said because god is pubishing us
So...I dont think intellect has much to do with it
1 dbcaliman 2018-04-19
I can understand I was in the 82nd Airborne in 2003 and I have tried to understand why I was sent there. Unfortunately there is no good answer and unfortunately I feel your father has a similar problem.
1 StopHAARPingOnMe 2018-04-19
I had a rough patch after I opened my eyes. I was super super mad because I watched a good friend get blown to pieces in iraq and I couldnt shake he died for lies
I am surprised veterans havent made some major terrorist attack honestly
1 dbcaliman 2018-04-19
I am an Iraq veteran who signed up to stop little girls from getting acid thrown in there faces for going to school. I ended up i Fallujah, and this video helps explain how I feel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlrPp6w3Wys
1 west_coastG 2018-04-19
did you see any of white phosphorus attacks we did? or the aftermath?
1 owowhatsthis123 2018-04-19
I think he is just trying to reason with himself. I think deep down he knows.
1 StopHAARPingOnMe 2018-04-19
Yeah hes pretty old nothing hes just trying to not have his life shattered lol
1 owowhatsthis123 2018-04-19
“Ah man you mean that thing that I risked my life and mental health for lied to me about the deadliest terror attack in American history for monetary purposes?”
1 StopHAARPingOnMe 2018-04-19
Exactly how I felt when realized it. I mentioned to someone else I am surprised more veterans havent committed a terrorist attack against the government.
1 owowhatsthis123 2018-04-19
Maybe they have and you wouldn’t know it
1 Everythings 2018-04-19
I bet those are the successful stories of the nsa spy ring
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Illusions*
1 is_that_a_question 2018-04-19
My problem explaining this to my dad is he says “well where is the plane then? They had two hit the towers, one hit the pentagon, and one go down in the field. They can’t make a plane disappear.”
1 Malak77 2018-04-19
"Malaysia"
1 thesaxonq 2018-04-19
Or: you can get two master’s degrees without much intellect
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Ask him "why would a novice oilot who could barely fly his single engine Cessna do an aerobatic maneuver before hitting the side of the target, giving him the worst chance of causing mass destruction, instead of simply slamming it into the giant bullseye that the rings of the Pentagon present to you... if youre in the air... in a plane?"
1 OneEyed81 2018-04-19
I can understand older people buying into all this probably because they grew up believing the news, media and politicians. Back in the good old days when the President came to town he was like a super hero, now as we all know that has changed. I think the older generation just doesn't want to admit that their whole life has been based on lies. Time will change opinions though, just look at JFK, it took a while but the majority now believes that it was a conspiracy.
1 aahdin 2018-04-19
This gets repeated a lot but it's not actually true. A 17 story steel skyscraper fully collapsed due to uncontrolled fire just last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasco_Building
In 2005 another 32 story skyscraper had a partial collapse due to fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower_(Madrid)
These are obviously pretty uncommon because fires tend to be put out before they get this out of control, but for obvious reasons firefighters were a bit spread thin on 9/11.
1 pasta_fire 2018-04-19
Publishing us, huh? Wow that is quite the feat.
1 jessicarae28382 2018-04-19
Most people choose not to think about it. They agree with the main story bc it’s just easier too.
1 KnotNotNaught 2018-04-19
I was skeptical like you, then I actually read the entire NIST report on building 7. The building was shaped like an extruded trapezoid with the weakest part being the main beam in the middle. This beam had many other beams attached to it perpendicularly. The heat from the fire expanded those beams which in turn pushed laterally on the main beam, forcing it off its bolts. The rest was a domino effect. Part of the reason it falls so fast is the core of the building collapses before the outside. In the video you can see the roof fall into the core seconds before the rest fall.
I consider myself highly intelligent and these facts make me buy the story more. Yes, it's surprising an undamaged building could collapse at freefall, but the series of events they released do fit with the laws of physics.
1 -Teekey- 2018-04-19
Isn't there photo proof that the building was damaged by debris from the other buildings?
1 KnotNotNaught 2018-04-19
Yes, and it had a HOT, jet-fuel fire weakening and expanding the steel unabated for HOURS
1 Thanatomania 2018-04-19
7 had a jet fuel fire?
1 Rudy_Bear83 2018-04-19
Nah, NIST says WTC7 collapsed at free-fall speed due to "normal office fires", meaning paper and desks and chairs, carpets etc. They don't even try to blame jet fuel for building seven. Building 7 is the absolute Achilles heel of the official story for 9/11. Which is why they tried to hold off on even mentioning it in the 9-11 Omission
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
They concluded that the vast majority of fuel was consumed instantly in the deflagration fireball you see when the planes impacted.
There was not enough jet fuel left to burn hot enough or widespread enough to bring down any of those buildings that day.
1 maliciousgnome 2018-04-19
No. They don’t
1 BrickNtheWall 2018-04-19
You need to watch the presentation done by The University of Alaska Fairbanks about this. The NIST leaves out very important factors that are easily refuted just by looking at the original blueprints. The NIST report is tailored in such a way to make you believe it. This is the presentation... https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_rxmrybkv
1 west_coastG 2018-04-19
not a chance. the pictures of the fire show it only burning on like 2 floors. and it basically burnt itself out before the building came down.
1 PenguinSunday 2018-04-19
No it didn't, it burned unabated the whole time because the firefighters didn't have the water pressure to run their hoses up to put them out and the sprinklers in the building were shit.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
People who say things like "i consider myself 'highly intelligent'" are usually anything but. What is your measured IQ?
And literally everything you just said has been debunked along with the NIST sham.
1 mcfliiii 2018-04-19
He's a nice guy
1 deytookerjaabs 2018-04-19
If building 7 was brought down by a few hours of an office fire then those who designed & approved it being built need to be brought to trial as that's a massive oversight. Office fires happen in skyscrapers every year and they are 100% expected to stay upright in any fire beyond one that's all encompassing.
1 Akareyon 2018-04-19
Accidental domino effects manage only a few iterations. A perfect domino chain reaction needs to be set up.
1 s50cal 2018-04-19
It wasn't a perfect domino chain, you can see the building fall off to the side in the videos. It even hit the building next to it while falling.
1 Akareyon 2018-04-19
Show us a controlled demolition that is objectively better than the collapse of WTC7.
Oh, which one?
1 s50cal 2018-04-19
Here watch this video that explains what happens. It breaks down the fall frame by frame.
https://youtu.be/4LUDXpMhkNk
1 s50cal 2018-04-19
Here watch this video that explains what happens. It breaks down the fall frame by frame.
https://youtu.be/4LUDXpMhkNk
1 Akareyon 2018-04-19
You aren't addressing my argument. You aren't anwering my question. You are responding with a silly YouTube video that regurgitates one unfounded claim after another.
1 heyyalldontsaythat 2018-04-19
I had read that the plane was moving too fast to be caught in the cameras frame rate (simple math), and saw pictures of airplane debris in the pentagon lawn.
I have a 'soft' opinion that the pentagon was actually hit by a plane (personal research not extensive, open to being wrong).
"Where is the black box" "It was a missile" "it looks like a controlled demolition". If the pentagon was not hit by a plane, why is that the narrative 'they' came up with?
Wouldn't it be much simpler to car bomb / suitcase bomb / missile strike the pentagon, and then just say the terrorists did exactly that?
1 DigitalJealousy 2018-04-19
It's because believing something besides the "mainstream story" completely wrecks people's view of the world and the government, lots of people can't handle that.
1 OVERGROUND7 2018-04-19
"And it's gonna go BOOOOOM"
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170118121644-06-gw-bush-restricted-exlarge-169.jpg
1 -Teekey- 2018-04-19
Too many people saw a plane for a missile to be used. I have a hard get believing hundreds of people misidentified a 30ft cruise missile for a 300ft airplane.
1 rodental 2018-04-19
Links?
1 -Teekey- 2018-04-19
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
Each account is individually sourced.
1 DigitalJealousy 2018-04-19
That's ridiculous... if it was a plane they wouldn't have confiscated footage from every place near the pentagon and would have shown some kind of video of a plane crashing, it would be that simple to disprove it. There would be debris from a gigantic plane as well, which there was none.
1 -Teekey- 2018-04-19
There was plenty of large airplane debris at the Pentagon.
https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pentagondebris2.jpg
https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/landing_gear_complete.jpg
1 MsDrMedic 2018-04-19
Why not?
1 SlammingPussy420 2018-04-19
I think the question is why would they? What purpose does it serve?
1 Cizuz 2018-04-19
They would have confiscated all footage of 9/11, that was impossible in new york. To many people, to many angles.
The pentagon was easier.
And as for why? Only takes someone high up saying the heart of the military was hit, footage could show the US to be weak and maybe lead to other attempts if it was that easy. Also for the investigation.
Only really takes one paranoid person in a highish position.
But in the end footage doesnt matter. Hundreds of eye witnesses seen a plane, and there were parts of the plane in photos all over the place, lawn and found in building.
People will just deny that exists and aay because footage wasnt released it didnt happen which means nothing, because even if that footage was out theyd be arguing it was doctored, fake or a missle shaped like a plane.
1 DigitalJealousy 2018-04-19
let me rephrase, why confiscate all the footage and then keep it completely secret only to release a tiny little 7 frame video that shows absolutely nothing?
1 Cizuz 2018-04-19
They would have confiscated all footage of 9/11, that was impossible in new york. To many people, to many angles.
The pentagon was easier.
And as for why? Only takes someone high up saying the heart of the military was hit, footage could show the US to be weak and maybe lead to other attempts if it was that easy. Also for the investigation.
Only really takes one paranoid person in a highish position.
But in the end footage doesnt matter. Hundreds of eye witnesses seen a plane, and there were parts of the plane in photos all over the place, lawn and found in building.
People will just deny that exists and aay because footage wasnt released it didnt happen which means nothing, because even if that footage was out theyd be arguing it was doctored, fake or a missle shaped like a plane.
1 DigitalJealousy 2018-04-19
I'm not even talking about NY, im talking about the "plane" that hit the pentagon. You're just making up bullshit reasons that dont even make sense. They werent released because of the "investigation"? (which was a god damn farce by the way). Right.... which is why nothing has been released to this day even with freedom of information requests. Where are these eye witnesses? All of your excuses are silly strawman arguments that honestly don't even make sense.
The facts are the facts and there was no wreckage.
This is the pentagon on 9/11
This is actual plane wreckage
here
here
and here
show me 1 photo with wreckage of a plane at the pentagon.... it doesn't exist. There's no engines, no seats, no people, no luggage, no fuselage, no wings....
have you seen footage of an actual plane wreck? They don't even compare to the pentagon "plane"
1 julianthepagan 2018-04-19
Yup...I’m a native to the area - lots of folks saw the plane. It’s a very densely populated area.
1 Correctthereddit 2018-04-19
What about a plane that shot a missile? This would explain some of the other anomalies in eyewitness testimony.
1 mattmassakure 2018-04-19
The missile would have been visible, even the military planes had to carry ordinance under the wing.
1 outlawbruce 2018-04-19
It was definitely a plane but was it controlled by terrorists, not likely, probably guided in from ground control somewhere. They can land rovers on Mars so this is not a huge task.
1 Malak77 2018-04-19
Yes, but witnesses are always notoriously inaccurate. You see something and then you hear the media say it was a plane and you figure that must have been what it was. Also, they could have painted the missile to match a plane and added small wings on the side, etc
1 -Teekey- 2018-04-19
Sorry, but assuming you get a decent look at it, there's no way you confuse a 30ft object for a 300ft object.
1 Malak77 2018-04-19
Like your car mirror. "Objects are closer than they appear" kind of effect. You hold your finger in front of your eye and it looks like a bus so they could have been mistaken about how close it was.
1 -Teekey- 2018-04-19
Interesting considering It flew right over the freeway, with it's wings hitting light poles.
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/
1 flyPeterfly 2018-04-19
I'm sorry but lol at your link. "foreignpolicyjournal.com bringing closure to the 911 pentagon debate"
Release the tapes! That would bring instant actual closure.
1 -Teekey- 2018-04-19
Yep. Such a biased author...oh wait...
John D. Wyndham, PhD Physics, Cambridge University. One of the founding members of Scientists for 9/11 Truth, a group of scientific professionals who are calling for new, independent, and scientific investigations of the events of September 11, 2001.
Dismissing a website outright without even checking the sources is LOL.
1 flyPeterfly 2018-04-19
First I've heard and lmao, thanks man
1 Joe_Sapien 2018-04-19
That's been my thought since that day.
1 other_self 2018-04-19
unconfirmed theory but possible
the obvious
1 rodental 2018-04-19
Yeah, that's more or less my assessment. Missile because I don't believe it could have been a plane given the damage and the necessary approach trajectory., and missile is the next most likely option imo.
The fact that the WTC buildings collapsed symmetrically on their own footprints at freefall speeds is to me 99.99% percent confirmation they were controlled demos.
1 other_self 2018-04-19
absolutely, and despite the proper logic, there are still idiots who refute their own rationale, all so that they can believe the 'official narrative'. Ridiculous.
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
How did a plane disappear entirely into the ground, without any debris, into a relatively small impact hole?
1 dbcaliman 2018-04-19
While I agree with all of the points you bring up, I try to simplifying my questions to try and get the people who play into the narrative to answer some basic questions.
1 realopticsguy 2018-04-19
The engines survived both WTC hits and were found on the streets. Yet there are no holes or leftover engines in the debris. Titanium doesn't melt like the other stuff.
1 Rawrination 2018-04-19
I've been aware of a lot of 9/11 stuff from day one but that is another new one for me. Thanks for the info! Don't let the shills get ya down.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Engines confirmed not to have been used on the planes that supposedly hit the wtc no less!
1 springinslicht 2018-04-19
Source on that?
1 pharaodox 2018-04-19
I'm no expert but check into the Murray street engine that was found. Apparently it was too small and should not have been on either plane. I saw it on some YouTube video years ago.
1 realopticsguy 2018-04-19
so after all the blades had been sheared off, it was too "small". I guess a Gulfstream lost an engine at the same time and same place.
1 pharaodox 2018-04-19
Maybe, I'm still not an expert.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Has nothing to do with the blades. The cooling duct is a radically different shape than the one that should have been on the engines of the planes supposedly involved.
1 TehSavior 2018-04-19
the wtc was mostly empty space on the inside, the pentagon was multiple layers of steel reinforced concrete
crashing a plane into the wtc is like dropping a model onto a carpet floor, it'll be fucked, pieces will break off, but they'll be mostly intact.
hitting the pentagon was like throwing that same model at a concrete floor as hard as you possibly can.
ain't no fixing that.
1 MBG80 2018-04-19
How the fuck are those questions not simplified??? GTFO
1 neurofluxation 2018-04-19
You're preaching to the converted, go else where - we all know.
1 sux2urAssmar 2018-04-19
yeah man, get out of here with your discussion of conspiracy! /s
1 neurofluxation 2018-04-19
It brings nothing new to the table what-so-ever. It's not like there aren't 9/11 posts every-other-day. Get out of here with your useless fucking comment
/s1 WhydoesNASAlie 2018-04-19
The battle with the shills is a daily battle. They are here so that new authentic users don’t learn anything. We should be reposting this daily until there is not a single organic user left that doesn’t understand just what our government truly is. I mean think about it, we are literally run by organized crime, people who need us to die, and there are users on this sub that somehow are missing this point
1 dbcaliman 2018-04-19
I find it important to look at the user's history and see whether it's a an account that is a few days old, or an account that is multiple years old without any kind of posts, or comments.
1 WhydoesNASAlie 2018-04-19
I agree but it’s typically even easier than that. The snarky cocksucker “nothing to see here” replies are the dead give away. Remember they want us to stop asking questions. They want us to not give a fuck. Any user adopting this attitude is suspect
1 th3allyK4t 2018-04-19
The Russians are run by organised crime. They are just a little more open about it.
1 WhydoesNASAlie 2018-04-19
Stop thinking in terms of borders.
1 th3allyK4t 2018-04-19
I don’t. Just responding to the Comment America is run by organised crime. I still hold on to some hope there is still a political establishment in the U.K. that works for the uk. But that hope is gradually fading.
1 Drew1904 2018-04-19
The UK is more far gone than the US IMO. At least we have too much area to be fully CCTV surveilled and still have our guns (check, for now).
1 th3allyK4t 2018-04-19
You’re not wrong about the CCTV. I’m sick of it can’t even have a piss in a bush without it being seen, it feels like we are naughty children being monitored by our parents. I hate it.
1 Conspirawolfe47 2018-04-19
The nasa guy is right.. there could be a new person questioning reality at any given moment and talking about it all the time helps everyone catch wind of truth bombs
1 _SHUTTHEFUCKUP_DONNY 2018-04-19
How about you go fuck yourself asshole.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
You also need to remember that in 2001 people did not routinely have cameras on them.
Considered how many photos and videos we ahve of the flight with engine failure that landed in PA a couple days ago. We have simultaneous video from multiple camers throughout the cabin, shots of the engine at multiple times, etc.
In 10 years we will probably have full-time and real-time live video in lapel pins and eyeglasses that stream to cloudservices.
1 jessicarae28382 2018-04-19
Oh but they found passports, just not the substantially stronger, larger black boxes.
1 idontmindglee 2018-04-19
Yeah that’s clearly bullshit. But for me a simple explanation for that would be that the investigators knew it was him because of previous tips and information that they did not act on. So instead of saying “we know who did this because we were warned here here and here”, they save face and say they found their passports at the scene.
I’m not positive that’s the case. But at least that one has a simple possible explanation that points to cover up rather than conspiracy.
1 Lezzles 2018-04-19
It is NEVER stated that they used the passports to identify the terrorists on the flights. It's completely irrelevant. It's just a crazy thing that happened. It's not like that was the hot tip they used to crack the case.
1 Waiting4AM8 2018-04-19
So do you believe that they found the passport on the ground as they said they did? Why would the black boxes be destroyed in the fire and not the passports?
Not attacking you I'm genuinely curious
1 Lezzles 2018-04-19
Blackboxes are largeish and heavy. A passport is a small and light. Most if the surviving debris is small stuff that won't get destroyed immediately on impact. A black box is basically too big for its own good in this situation. I don't think there's anything wrong with finding the passport I guess. It's a weird point to latch onto since it was ultimately not really a piece in the investigation. 9/11 had a lot of weird difficult to explain situations, but the passport thing is just a red herring that people are stuck on.
1 th3allyK4t 2018-04-19
All four black boxes ? No sorry too convenient.
1 MemphisMax 2018-04-19
They were found actually https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/02/13/why-wasnt-one-single-black-box-recovered-from-any-of-the-crashes-on-911/amp/
1 th3allyK4t 2018-04-19
Shame they didn’t release the recordings.
1 MemphisMax 2018-04-19
Why would you want to hear the sound of panicked people who knew they were about to die?
1 th3allyK4t 2018-04-19
There would have been recordings of pilots conversations that they could have cut off. Why would it have recorded the passengers voices ?
1 FuckThaThoughtPolice 2018-04-19
The only voice recording that survived was from flight 93, and it was was played in court. Here's a summary of most of it.
1 sandman533 2018-04-19
So, hypothetically, a passport or other piece of small debris could be blown away while the black box is incinerated.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
The black boxes could have burned for a while and been fine. Theyre designed to take it. That assumes that whatever hit the wtc had black boxes. Same with the pentagon.
1 bumbleklot 2018-04-19
And also the titanium and aluminum turbines. I’m quite certain , are made to have a pretty high temper. That is my main hiccup. I need someone to til5 me how the hell those engines were incinerated, if they indeed were
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Actually the blades of several stages in modern jet engines are single crystal nickel superalloys, which are only meltable with things like arc furnaces or induction furnaces.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Yes a paper passport soaked in jet fuel is likely to survive a massive fireball impact, while the black boxes specifically designed to withstand plane crashes wouldnt.
Makes sense. About as much sense as an aluminum airplane punching through a building that was designed to survive a jet airliner that size impacting it.
As much sense as it not only slicing through the outer steel superstructure, but also the massive core columns that most people forgot existed, which would have remained standing if the outer building partially collapsed...
The fact that three steel buildings fell within hours of being hit, directly down into their own basements.
The nanothermite residue. The fact that wtc7 didnt even get hit, yet fell into its own basement from "office fires". The fact that the NIST models are garbage. Even though they dido say most of the fuel on the planes was instantly consumed, meaning the fire weakened the beams is bullshit.
But anyone with basic metallurgical or structural engineering knowledge knows the official story is a lie.
1 MysticalSock 2018-04-19
What is nano thermite?
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Thermite made with nano(billionth) of a meters scale powders that are military grade.
https://youtu.be/5d5iIoCiI8g
Thats what a guy can do in his back yard with crude tools. Imagine military grade stuff.
1 Todos1881 2018-04-19
I remember when the msm started reporting that they found the pilots body in the cockpit with his hands tied. We are so dumb as a population that people are still repeated the fake fact that the pilots had their hands tied.
https://youtu.be/X1wJiffgBFo
1 Waiting4AM8 2018-04-19
I can understand the thought that the black box is too heavy to fly off in the same way that a passport can. I realise it wasn't a part of the investigation but it's part of the official story and seems pretty obviously fake - if we can establish the official story is untrue in any part then it draws the entire thing into question.
The part I really don't understand is how the passport would have gotten there, surely it would have been either in the terrorist's bag or in his pocket? How would it come to be lying on the ground on its own?
1 jasron_sarlat 2018-04-19
Perhaps it wasn't a piece of the investigation in a legal sense, but that passport was very much part of the sales pitch (if you will) to the American public.
1 SoberKid420 2018-04-19
Seriously? 3 modern day skyscrapers were completely flattened, and you "guess" there's nothing wrong with finding multiple passports that were in the god damn cockpits of the very planes that demolished said buildings? Literally one of the buildings wasn't even touched by a plane, yet it was completely demolished. A 47 story steel building that wasn't even hit by a plane collapsed, and yet the god damn passports of the people in the planes themselves survived???? Well let's just agree to disagree, to say the fucking least...
1 MysticalSock 2018-04-19
They recovered the black box from flight 93, you can listen to it, they released it publically, the others were too damaged to be of use.
1 SoberKid420 2018-04-19
How wrong you are...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/six-passports-salvaged-911-hijackers-janice-kephart
1 sandman533 2018-04-19
Yes, these could be investigative shortcuts. Evidence gets planted when the truth is found through illegal means.
1 bumbleklot 2018-04-19
Evidence gets planted when the truth is found through illegal means Well put Obviously necessary to question the ethics of this to uphold any libertarian ideals; but a good serious question would be “is this ever acceptable ?” & “at what point in the chain of command do you place the responsibility?”
1 Drew1904 2018-04-19
Valid point.
1 Waiting4AM8 2018-04-19
When I raise this point multiple people have replied: "If they were lying about the passports why would they make it so obviously fake?" How would you go about replying to this?
1 jessicarae28382 2018-04-19
People have to red pill themselves. If you throw too much info at them at one time, they will ignore it all. give them a snippet of info that they can research themselves or that makes them think and leave it at that... that way when they eventually put two and two together they think they did it on their own. It’s really about pride. People don’t want to be wrong, so they deny and ignore, even when evidence is overwhelming.
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
Fucking THIS. Well said, I've red pilled many people with this method. Just have to plant some seeds, and usually they will be back with some more questions for you.
1 PrivilegeCheckmate 2018-04-19
I like to start with the 'Who would win?' meme.
Who would win, no planes or WTC 7?
1 Sky_Burner 2018-04-19
That's cognitive dissonance.
1 SoberKid420 2018-04-19
Yup. Kinda like when someone is given obvious evidence of a crime, and that person is so in defense of the suspect that their only reaction is, "well if it's true, why would they make it so obvious?"
1 west_coastG 2018-04-19
as debbie sane progressive said lately: gotta start with conspiracy 101; can't jump straight into 301
1 skepticalbob 2018-04-19
You didn’t answer his question, tbh. If the goal is to get someone to believe bullshit, why have such extraordinary coincidences as part of the deliberate narrative?
1 jessicarae28382 2018-04-19
I don’t think it’s bullshit... most normal people just accept things the way they are and the way they are taught. If you don’t believe the narrative, your crazy or a conspiracy theorist... being afraid of being called crazy weeds out most people, so basically the one calling the narrative can put anything crazy out there and most will just accept it as it is.
1 skepticalbob 2018-04-19
You didn’t answer me either.
1 Waiting4AM8 2018-04-19
My initial question was that if the passports being found on the ground is a lie, why would they lie in a way that seems so obviously fake?
1 WhirlingDeath 2018-04-19
It's a stupid question. It's like seeing someone murder someone in broad daylight in a public venue, and then thinking, "hmm... well I guess he didn't kill that guy because he made it too obvious that he did it."
1 panjwani_ajay 2018-04-19
precisely, we all expect drama in a band based on our outlook in life and sometimes even ground reality can stand outside that band
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Its not obviously fake to brainwashed, indoctrinated people who think "the government has their best interests in mind".
1 laurelei79 2018-04-19
Because they had to come up with a narrative that allows them to have quickly "identified " the perpetrators.
1 SoberKid420 2018-04-19
Because people like you and most of the population will still believe it anyway. I mean, just take a look at your reality.
1 Drew1904 2018-04-19
What was (or would be) the lie again? Lost in all the clutter. I’ll try and give a clear and concise answer.
1 other_self 2018-04-19
you worded it wrong. If you believe the official narrative, then you're considered normal. If you question or go against it the narrative, then you are a 'crazy conspiracy theorist'.
1 jessicarae28382 2018-04-19
Ok, yes you got me there 😋.
1 Waiting4AM8 2018-04-19
Honestly I'm confused, about 5 people replied to me and none of them answered the question lol
1 skepticalbob 2018-04-19
Its a tough one to answer. "They planned it all!" "They deliberated created unbelievable parts of the story!"
1 Fun_Stick 2018-04-19
If you're interested in knowing who they are, simply look at who gained obscene amount of money in the days leading up to and after 9/11 a lot of Pakistani families profited hugely, including the owner of the WTC. The paper trail is more telling than the lies we're fed
1 woodmoon 2018-04-19
"follow the money"
Essentially the same thing police do when investigating. Who benefits from it? They should be the first suspects.
1 Fun_Stick 2018-04-19
And the government says don't look twice look at your Facebook and be good little peons
1 timstolt78 2018-04-19
read the first 12 pages of Culture of Critique -Macdonald, for a setting for these last 70ish years.
1 musicmaker 2018-04-19
Larry Silverstein is Pakistani? No, he is not. I think you are a bit confused.
1 Fun_Stick 2018-04-19
I didn't say he was. He's obviously Jewish. Read my comment again.
1 musicmaker 2018-04-19
Sorry, I'm lost. It sounds to me like you are saying that the owner of the WTC (Larry Silverstein) is Pakistani. Am I missing something?
1 Fun_Stick 2018-04-19
I shouldn't have grouped them together that way my bad. I meant, among those who profited were Pakistani royalty families and the owner of the WTC. I hope that sounds better sorry for not putting it there way I meant it
1 imboomshesaid 2018-04-19
The owner of the WTC received an insurance payout that was nowhere near what the buildings were actually worth. The whole "insurance scam!" angle is a head scratcher.
1 Fun_Stick 2018-04-19
If somebody is going to destroy something you own regardless of what it's worth and your only option is to take what you can get for it before they destroy it, you're going to listen to them and take out that shit insurance policy on it because millions are better than zero. The telling sign was that he took it out just days before the towers came down. There's nothing head scratchy about this.
1 toybrandon 2018-04-19
Ok, check this out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie#Hitler's_use_of_the_expression
Essentially, they know that the majority of people are too honest, naive and trusting to ever believe that someone could tell such a huge and obvious lie. Then they repeat it, over and over and over until everyone hears it and shout down the few who call BS.
1 skepticalbob 2018-04-19
That's not really what that means. This is just some bread crumbs. The context of the big lie is when you claim entirely obvious falsehoods that are on the fact of untrue. Its not entirely obvious that anyone buy Bin Laden planned those attacks. Nibbling at the corners of something isn't what that means at all.
1 toybrandon 2018-04-19
I was specifically addressing this part of your question, which I correlated with "the Big Lie."
1 pullandpray 2018-04-19
I'm pretty sure you misunderstood the concept of the Big Lie because you seem to be falling for it. Why do you believe that it's obvious that only Bin Laden planned 9/11? The FBI had Bin Laden on their Most Wanted list for other terrorist attacks i.e. the USS Cole Bombing & the Embassy bombing in Nairobi but it makes no connection between 9/11 and Bin Laden. Mueller has been on record stating that in all (a treasure trove) of the evidence that they recovered, not one single piece of paper mentions 9/11. Bin Laden has been on record, more than once, emphatically denying any involvement with 9/11.... then, right before the '04 elections, a new video magically appears in which Bin Laden does take credit for 9/11.... keep in mind that the authenticity of that particular video has been discussed ad nauseam.
Certainly your claim that "obviously Bin Laden panned those attacks" is dubious at best and hearkens back to Hitler's definition of creating a Big Lie that regardless of facts, people will continue to believe that there must be some other explanation.
1 skepticalbob 2018-04-19
Saying there are big lies doesn’t justify whatever you want to say they are lying about.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Atlas Shrugged and Brave New World are good fictional portrayals of that.
1 Eurotrashie 2018-04-19
WTC7 collapsing on its own footprint and free fall speed with no structural damage is such an 'extraordinary coincidence' (read: impossibility). Most people just don't ask questions - they are conditioned what they are told.
1 skepticalbob 2018-04-19
Why plant a passport on the streets of NYC. That's not really believable to happen, right? It would have been possible to plan it to look more like a collapse to you. Wouldn't you agree?
1 YourHeadWillCollapse 2018-04-19
It must be, skepticalbob.
Most people believe exactly that, and here you are defending it.
1 skepticalbob 2018-04-19
Why do it?
1 YourHeadWillCollapse 2018-04-19
You're asking the wrong guy. I wasn't there.
1 SoberKid420 2018-04-19
Look what happened as a result. We got the NSA, the TSA, and the whole country to go full support into the Iraq war.
1 skepticalbob 2018-04-19
Why do the sloppy bullshit that doesn’t look right?
1 YourHeadWillCollapse 2018-04-19
You keep saying it "doesn't look right," while simultaneously defending the scenario as true.
r/rickandmorty is probably more your speed.
1 skepticalbob 2018-04-19
I didn’t defend it as true. You want me to, but I didn’t. If it’s unlikely to happen, then they might be unlikely to plant it. Or weird shit happens in crashes and weird shit survives. Those are literally unconsidered. I’m suggesting that people be more open-minded to it. In complex events, weird outlier shit happens.
1 SoberKid420 2018-04-19
Good question. I don’t know the answer for sure. Maybe it’s just that: sloppy bullshit that wasn’t meant to happen. Maybe it’s just as normal for the passport to survive as it would have been for the buildings to have survived too, if you get what I’m saying. After all, the passport was found a block away from the WTC before the towers collapsed. Sounds like a really convenient and somewhat believable story/reason for finding the passport. People do believe it after all anyways. But I’m also skeptical of the passport being able to make it that far away from the site only from the initial impact of the plane itself. But like I said maybe it is true. What do you think, it’s fishy if you ask me but not completely unbelievable, which maybe makes it the perfect lie. But maybe the passport really was found the way it was, but if you ask me, it’s not normal for a paper passport that was in one of the planes itself to survive something that 3 skyscrapers were completely flattened by in a matter of seconds, one of which was completely untouched by a plane. I think either the passport was a lie, or if it wasn’t a lie, then those buildings should have survived just as the passport did, but they didn’t. Why lie if it’s untrue, and if it’s true, why did the buildings demolish in free fall fashion while a paper passport was left to survive?
1 ShinigamiSirius 2018-04-19
Dude, I have yet to see you make a coherent argument that doesn't use a logical fallacy.
I mean, right here, this is an entire argument from incredulity:
You are refusing to look at what we actually know, but base truth on what you deem is "believable."
This is what is known as a priori reasoning:
This is similar to the argument, "If this conspiracy were true, MSM reporters would be all over it!"
The fact is, 9/11 was a sloppy job. Like, really sloppy. We have a mountain of evidence in multiple fronts, including a money trail and clear-as-day motive. These people know that there will be enough people who will refuse such a thing is possible. All they have to do, as the poster above said, is use the Big Lie method in conjunction with CIA's vast Mockingbird-influenced outlets in order to cement the narrative and quickly label those who question it as crazy "conspiracy theorists."
This is the literal approach they used for JFK, and it worked. This is what they used for the MLK assassination, and it worked.
1 skepticalbob 2018-04-19
Your reasoning relies on motives, does it not? Well so does mine.
1 SoberKid420 2018-04-19
Good question. Why would someone who's shown obvious evidence to a crime defend the suspect with the question, "if it were true, why would they make it so obvious?"
1 imboomshesaid 2018-04-19
WTC 7 sustained an enormous amount of structural damage, actually. There are valid questions regarding the official narrative, but so much misinformation regarding topics that have been thoroughly debunked by independent experts completely overshadows inquiry that is actually relevant.
1 SoberKid420 2018-04-19
Good question. Why would someone who's shown obvious evidence to a crime defend the suspect with the question, "if it were true, why would they make it so obvious?"
1 lalalola89 2018-04-19
That is a good point that I don’t think I’ve ever been able to put into words in any decent fashion lol thank you
1 jasron_sarlat 2018-04-19
Very true - it is frequently about pride. That and the fact that the mind naturally rejects a wholesale shift in what it perceives to be reality.
1 Rocko9999 2018-04-19
It's about pride and sleeping at night. Most people don't want to believe their government is evil or can be evil. It's easier to live a naive fairy tell life than know the real truth.
1 musicmaker 2018-04-19
I wonder if they would find it easier to swallow if they knew that their government did it in conjunction with another country, which completely controls their country?
1 Ohshitwadddup 2018-04-19
Spoiler.....
the US government is evil.
1 chem_equals 2018-04-19
I believe the term we're seeking here is "cognitive dissonance"
Throw in a bit of confirmation bias and Bam! Willful ignorance
1 CarLucSteeve 2018-04-19
"We threw his body in the water at and undisclosed offshore location before telling you about it"
1 ESP7 2018-04-19
Spot on. They will just give you the "fluoride" stare. Sheeple...
1 Rocko9999 2018-04-19
This is why I point to the videos showing the flashes and windows blowing out before the floors above it collapse.
1 Glassclose 2018-04-19
you can't force anyone to swallow.. unless you hold their nose closed...
1 SarahDezelin 2018-04-19
Id give this gold if it went straight to you
1 AppleSauceCereal 2018-04-19
I hate it when people comment this!, but ... A million times this .
My friend in the military told me there's no way it was an inside job because the government isn't that organized, they would have slipped up somewhere and there would evidence.
... the evidence is the stuff I just told you. How can you say there's no need to look into any evidence, because if it was true, there would be evidence?
So weird that people think like this, it's just them being too close minded. My personal theory, most people think they live in a "what you see is what you get" world, and dont believe close door conspiracies happen (like MKUltra, the list goes on and on obviously, but I dont have to tell you all) so to get them to look at something one way, when the TV is telling them it was a different way, would shake their world view, and it's hard to shake someones world view.
Most people believe that the source of truth is the TV, so it takes someone like Edward Snowden to get on TV and tell them about something before they believe it. TV knows all
1 DerkDerkinson 2018-04-19
I agree with many of your points. It blows my mind that people don’t understand the concept that mainstream news media (mainly the stuff of TV) exists for the sole purpose of selling advertisements and telling the general populace exactly what the powers that be want you think. They could give two shits about the truth or honest reporting.
1 hivemindzero 2018-04-19
I think the truth falls in the "fake news" category for most people. Another keyphrase used to adjust the psyche of the population
1 DerkDerkinson 2018-04-19
Yep. And they just eat that shit up. It’s pretty ironic if you think about it.
1 -10001 2018-04-19
Also apparently they are pushing/have pushed "anti fake-news" laws where the government can now decide what's fake and what's not. Richard Dolan talks a lot about this. Freedom of Speech is at risk if that is true
1 Drew1904 2018-04-19
Fucking preach.
1 UnknownPerson69 2018-04-19
I hold both positions to be true.
And
I see both side & can argue both competently. Hopefully Time & History will tell. But just nor me.
1 swiftexistence 2018-04-19
the thing is, the tv does tell us the truth - if we know where to look for it. all kinds of movies and shows have story lines with conspiracies in the government, elite circles, the mob, the military, etc, etc, that allude to these kinds of things happening in real life, behind the scenes. in these stories, the news media conspires to hide the evidence and tamper with the story for reasons either alluded to or unknown. there are often a lot of gaps in these stories, but they occur so often that we must recognize that there is truth to them. and the reason that these stories are allowed to be made over and over again is because if the uninitiated see these "made up" stories first, they will refuse to believe that the news stories that they watch can be similar to the fiction that they watch on other channels. it's called hiding things out in the open.
1 kbxads 2018-04-19
the only truth on news channels is ironically the ads, they put a logo at the end and declare who paid for the message.
1 Drew1904 2018-04-19
You need to be able to read between the lines. Most news stories are fluff, or filler now adays. Most are trying to push a narrative. BUT there is always a morsel of truth in these articles and stories that is not only invaluable to the story, but to the truth seeker as well. You just have to be able to identify this morsel of truth when 90% of an article is bullshit. You cross reference this with all types of different information; social media, MSM, alt media, and so on and take the morsels of truth out of those if there are any, mash them together and form the bigger picture, or your own opinion. Much of this can unmask currently stories to do with foreign policy.
1 Eurotrashie 2018-04-19
These are elements that overthrow governments and start wars - not the post office.
1 MysticalSock 2018-04-19
So are there like secret black ops janitors for those government offices?
1 Drew1904 2018-04-19
I am a firm believer in the idea that there are organizations that literally do not exist, that are handsomely funded, and operate outside of any judicial or moral background. It would not be “the government” who fostered or perpetrated 9/11. It’d be organizations like these.
1 musicmaker 2018-04-19
All you have to do is research all of the numerous false flag events that have been exposed to realize that this statement untenable.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Have you interacted with many adults recently? Its like 90% of the adult population has had a lobotomy between all the shit food they eat and mind numbing prescriptions they take.
You really think most brainwashed people are capable of questioning the mainstream narrative once theyve been through 18 years of shit food, public "school" indoctrination?
Then maybe 4 more years of white guilt, gender studies, pro refugee studies, how Amazon is capitalism bullshit socialist "economics" propaganda and all the other garbage the Antifa fascist qualified on paper but completely useless and incompetent college types with their toilet paper degrees... Yeah by the time most people are 20 their brain has been successfully programmed not to critically think at all or to literally prefer death to being politically incorrect(UK, Germany, Sweden rape capital of Europe).
1 god_hates_figs_ 2018-04-19
I.... I don't think Gen Z's being concerned because their peers work in an actual sweat shop and have to piss in bottles are the brainwashed ones....... you were so great until that whole last paragraph, and then I did like three double-takes. There's too much to unpack here so I just went with an obvious strawman.
1 missbteh 2018-04-19
I'm so glad you commented. I literally read that last paragraph three times because it was so off from the rest of the comment I was sure I'd missed something.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
How is it off from the rest in any way? Genuinely curious.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
What was unclear? I just specifically said people over 20 or so(is Gen Z over 20 now? They keep reclassifying when this generation began and the last ended.) tend to be the brainwashed ones.
If they are concerned about that, hate Amazon, etc then they arent the brainwashed ones. The millenials and older are the ones who are mostly brainwashed.
Im pretty sure this upcoming generation is pretty redpilled, woke, based, whatever you want to call it. They're also the most conservative generation since WW2.
Its like an oscillating system. The last few generations got progressively more and more socialistic, leftist, politically correct, decadent, dim witted, and now the i believe the tipping point in the sysyem has been reached(self organized critical point) and the generation currently growing up is going to be better because they will reject the culture of apathy that the idiots of my generation took to its most extreme.
Sorry if i worded it confusingly.
1 god_hates_figs_ 2018-04-19
Okay, but millenials are the generation that is actively, statistically fighting for dramatic social changes, though. They could even be credited for sparking this new zeitgeist. I feel you are mixing up perceptions of generations. Generation X is absolutely the generation you must be referring to, otherwise we are living in separate universes. Think 28+.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
I dont think most millenials(currently 28 plus) are. In fact, socialism is on the rise in popularity among that age group, plenty of SJWs and biology deniers in that range too.
I think millenials ideologically aligned with Gen Z are the exception, not the rule. I mean, just look at most college campuses. A lot of them are trying to turn the USA, Canada Australia, UK and much of the EU into some socialist failed state. Bernie, a literal socialist candidate, was popular among the millenials too...
1 god_hates_figs_ 2018-04-19
I don't think you understand which aged go in which generations. Millenials are people ages 20ish to 20ish. Again, I am pretty sure you are not referring to millenials. I am also a bit confused/concerned that you seemed to lump people who deny science with a dog whistle stereotype buzzword term used to shut down those who are concerned that people are treated kindly and fairly.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Socialist is a dog whistle term designed to shut people who belive in what up??? Socialism is preaching the virtues of slavery, not fairness.
And no, people in their 20s and 30s are the demographic of largely socialist indoctrinated people im talking about. The only change most of them want is to turn the USA into a looter failed state.
Are you concerned 😂😂😂😂😂😂
1 god_hates_figs_ 2018-04-19
SJW is the key term I am speaking of. It is designed to shut down someone when the other party is concerned primarily with social welfare. If you believe that socialism is slavery, then how do you feel about capitalism? It is common knowledge that capitalism is far more like slavery than socialism ever has been. Millenials seem to be concerned about the fact that CEO to worker ratios have gone up from 25x in the 50's to 300x now. They are concerned that inflation has risen 300% but wages have remained stagnant. They are concerned that the vast majority of taxes go to a military industrial complex in a war most if the country disagrees with and yet social services that we pay into get slashed. That's the blame of the GOP, not people wanting a safety net for a failing economy. On average you must make at least $24 an hour full-time in the cheapest state in order to afford adequate living conditions. In the 50's you could support an entire family, buy a car, and pay your mortgage on one salary alone.
You are wrong, just plain and simple, you are wrong. There have been many, many studies done that show how the generation of millenials has had to work harder for what they have more than any other modern generation. Would you like some links or do you know how to use Google Scholar?
Yes, I am greatly concerned that there are individuals out there in the wild that hold wildly and factually wrong, unfortunate opinions towards an entire generation. That's a pretty shitty attitude, even if it was founded in reality, but it's not. Have fun with your whole lack-of-empathy thing you've got going on though.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
I agree about the issues you speak of, yet you have the typical misconception about capitalism and socialism that i wanted you to spell out by baiting you with trigger words, and you revealed exactly what i suspected.
How is the exchange of value for value, the core principle of capitalism, which is completely voluntary, like slavery? It is diametrically opposed to slavery.
Socialism and communism are essentially legalized theft. If you make more money than me, a greater portion of your money goes to taxes. Its a perverse incentive that makes people either become welfare queens or shelter their money where it cant be taxed(Panama papers style).
To me, its much less compassionate and empathetic to say "well you are forced to work harder because more of your money will be going to other people and their families, many of whom dont even work than the voluntarism of capitalism.
Forcing people to work and then taking the products or profits of their labour is basically slavery in a nutshell, and socialism too.
You think taxing the ultra rich cunts who did a bunch of unethical shit to get rich, and should never have gotten rich to begin with is going to fix the system that made them rich and the middle class poor?
All that mentality has done so far is lead to economic collapse in socialist failed states, and the rise of mega corporations and monopolies which are antithetical to the free market of a capitalist system.
What you call the evils of capitalism are the evils of a corrupt socialist elite, who does not play by the rules they make for the middle class, who they enslave through socialist tax schemes.
1 god_hates_figs_ 2018-04-19
Yikes, there's a lot to unpack here. I am not wanting to start an argument, but I would like to address every point that I can. I would also like to be very clear that you are speaking in a lot of broad terms about what people other than yourself believe and are mispresenting it dramatically, as well as making sweeping assumptions about my viewpoint when I merely pointed out obscene inflation. If we cannot agree on that basic point, then I don't see how we have enough common ground to continue this discussion, but I will bite.
I also would like to add that I absolutely do not tolerate manipulation tactics in conversations and if there cannot be mutual respect going forward then there is no use continuing. I am not sure why I even have to tell you how inappropriate it is to try and "bait" someone to try and validate misconceptions you hold about them. That is incredibly off-putting and disconcerting. Moving on.
The system of capitalism is not voluntary. To suggest so is a logical fallacy. That implies choice. You have no choice but to participate in capitalism. If not, you are homeless, which I have been, as I am disabled and am largely socioeconomically worthless. You do not have a choice but to participate in society.
Taxes work as ratios. If I make more then you, I pay more taxes. It is basic math. Right now, however, if I make more than you, I pay significantly less taxes. How does that work out? That makes zero sense. Absolutely nutty.
Right now, the large portion of my taxes go towards a military industrial system I do not morally support and a federal debt that is designed to keep growing. I would much rather my contribution go towards infrastructure, schools, healthcare, etc. I do not consent to where my taxes go, and yet I involuntarily pay them in order to justify a roof over my head.
You seem to think that people like being on welfare and other various social services. That's a misconception I don't even know how to address except for. I am not sure if you are aware how social services work, what requirements you have to meet, or how payments are distributed. I would love to share recourses with you if it matters towards your general feelings. As for sheltered taxes, that would be in offshore tax havens so the people who pay less taxes than they should, pay even less than that.
To clarify welfare, I have never known a single person in my entire life that solely lived off of social services unless they were disabled and were unable to work. I know many people on food stamps and medicaid, myself included, because it is physically impossible to make ends meet while still working beyond our means. What you are speaking of is a non-issue and social safety nets would not be needed, had wages rose with inflation.
We have a system right now where people are forced to work, whether they like to or not, whether they physically/mentally can or should not. Unless you are diagnosed with a severe mental or physical disability, you absolutely must either have a job or live off of someone else who has one. Period. Nobody has a choice to opt out of this system. No family lives for free.
To answer your question if taxing the ultra rich cunts would fix everything, no, I don't think it would, but I think that having them proportionately taxed to the rest of us would be a great start, don't you think?
Are you suggesting that we do not currently have a system of mega-corporations and monopolies? Wild.
I appreciate you trying to split this into capitalism VS socialism, but you must know that I hold neither and none of those or any political ideologies. I just see things that are obviously unfair or don't make any sense, and I see things that obviously need to be fixed. I am unconcerned about other so-called socialist nations as they are not examples of perfectly executed socialism and as such, I am again not a socialist but believe in what is clearly fair and just. If some of those things are what a socialist would believe, cool coincidence, but I am not a socialist.
There is no need for ad homing and creative assumptions about my life. I have no doubt you display very kind attributes. I am simply unimpressed and disappointed by the viewpoints expressed within our dialogue and as most of them are largely just generalizations against me and my peers as people, you could understand why that might make me feel a lack of empathy from you. Especially given that I have spent four years of my life living on the street, am disabled, have earned two degrees and have devoted nine years of my life to service work. How about we both agree we do not know what each other has gone with and at least agree to not make assumptions about each other based upon little to no info? It will help me feel like you are less uncompassionate with the way you communicate your feelings.
Again, it is severely offensive to make some of these assumptions. Beat you and steal your wallet? Are you fucking lost? I can't even watch anything but kids cartoons because I am such a pacifist marshmallow. Our government holds no empathy for me, or for you, for that matter. I am wholeheartedly against our current political and social structure. I don't need a government to tell me to be a decent human being. It's called having a moral compass and caring about other people and having empathy.
Do you need the government to tell you not to steal and cheat? If not, why would you assume I do? Because I expressed that I wished the super-wealthy was held to the same fiscal and moral standards?
Government corruption is possible because of capitalism. Politicians are bought like products. Regulations are controlled by whoever holds the cash flow. Whoever holds the cash flow controls the laws and whoever controls the laws controls where the money goes. Our system isn't even capitalism anymore; it's capitalism gone rogue.
And, uh, you just listed several incredibly recent events that have literally nothing to do with the steady nosedive from the 50's till now that I addressed multiple times. Each bullet point was also a dramatic oversimplification that has absolutely nothing to do with staggering CEO/worker wage inflation, housing crisis, education debt, I could go on. Would you like me to go on?
When I think SJW, I think of someone like me and my peers, who are graduates and can't afford to live anywhere but squeezed in apartments with multiple strangers, who has to pay for gas in quarters or ride the bus, who will be paying for their education into their retirement, who can't find a job paying a living wage or benefits even though they obtained a degree in a competitive field, who has to choose between their phone bill and food for that week, or has a cavity and can't get it filled so they just deal with pain for months, or works even if they are on the verge of vomiting and because they cannot afford even a day's worth of missed hours... I think of people like myself and my peers, who spend every ounce of their energy justifying their existence when they grew up raised by parents who walked right out of college or even high school and got to play house with a wife and cars and a normal life and who told them they could be anything they wanted to be.
But again, I would love to share with you dozens upon dozens of articles, studies, forums, etc if someone living life in a certain demographic telling you what life in that demographic is an unreliable primary source. At the end of the day, I may not help your perceptions. However, the official consensus is certainly unanimous on this matter, whether you like it or not. It just sucks that you have to be so loud about your unfortunate opinions, because they are literally, factually just straight wrong, and it can really bum out people like me who have really, really big hearts. Have a good night🐵!
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
"Taxes work as ratios. If I make more then you, I pay more taxes. It is basic math. Right now, however, if I make more than you, I pay significantly less taxes."
Im not sure where you live that taxes are set up that way. Progressive taxes mean the more you make, a larger % of your money goes to taxes.
Its basic math that's the opposite of an equitable system too. If it was "fair" high earners would pay a smaller percent since their smaller percent is more money than a lower earners actual amount put into the tax system.
Or a truly "fair" tax would be a flat tax. But we cant have nice things like a flat tax because people who get into positions of power are often dickheads who shelter all their money like Jeff Bezos and his ilk.
And actually, government corruption is incentivized by feeding the government more money and making it larger, something capitalism doesnt have much room for, but socialism is the epitome of.
I also didnt list recent events. Getting off the gold standard was something the Roman empire did before it collapsed, when they used base metal coins instead of gold and silver, and in the USA they started in the early 20th century(1913 i believe) and finished abolishing the standard in the 70s. Now your money is worth less than the denim its printed on. So a lot of whats wrong started long before the 50s.
Inflation because of outsourcing to slave labour countries isnt new either. Its been a slow slide into a new dark age where everything is made in a communist shithole, which makes a few CEOs wealthy while obliterating the middle class.
You wouldnt personally hold me at gunpoint to take "your" slice of my money. You have the government to do that on your behalf. Thats what socialism is: forced wealth redistribution to accomplish equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.
And in a capitalist system, despite your accusation that it leaves people to starve if theyre unable to work because of disability, there is no reason not to have a safety net for stability. The Golden Rule applies there. Which is where the rationally selfish aspect of capitalism works wonders.
If i am able to work, but i get sick or hurt and cant work, obviously i would want some kind of safety net. So its in everyones best interest to have a system like that in place. Only its not pretending to be something it isnt, like in a socialist system.
In a socialist system, the government takes your money disproportionately and wastes it, lining the pockets of politicians and bureaucrats under the guise of social welfare.
The college debt thing isnt new either. Its a symptom of a paper pushing debt backed fake economy, where many people who "make a living" do so by doing something either completely useless or actually detrimental to others(think pricks like Bezos who exploit the system to get rich).
Failing to make your point means you have to fall back on the "false consensus" logical fallacy? Really?
So you cant defend socialism well enough with facts and reason, that you literally resort to "However, the official consensus is certainly unanimous on this matter, whether you like it or not."
Official consensus amongst who?
1 god_hates_figs_ 2018-04-19
There is a fractal misunderstanding that you have on this subject that, on mobile, would take my tiny fingers far too long to tap out. You are genuinely out of touch, my friend. I am not going to spend my day teaching somebody how the sky is blue when they keep insisting it is green. Have fun
1 senseiberia 2018-04-19
I actually agree with most of what you said. I’ve lost many dear friends growing up because we just became incompatible over time. Most people just want to “conform”. They want the “cookie cutter” life. They want to “fit in” and be “normal” so bad they are willing to smother the part of their mind that begs for critical thinking and fearless individualism.
Then, on the other hand, I am also a skeptic. To me, 9/11 as an inside job has always been too far-fetched. But I’m always willing to change my mind, if I can see facts and logic. Just like I once did with the Mandela effect, for example.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
I just call that kind of conformity "selling out".
To me, there is too much compelling evidence to believe 911 was anything but pre planned. If you arent familiar with the Project for A New American Century, you should look into it. The Dancing Israelis who failed polygraphs and hundreds of Israeli spies who were "deported"(sent home safe with no consequences), the Israeli "art students" who had unlimited construction access to the WTC and did two "art projects" in the sections of the buildings that got hit.
1 panjwani_ajay 2018-04-19
i wouldn't put most ppl in that basket, think about it from a provisioning angle (the all time greatest theory), if 40% of youth under x years have y hours of wonder time then what should they wonder about. actually my greatest theory of all time is hierarchy but if we talk about that then i would get banned
so let's just say hierarchy is based on various shades of cannibalism, all shades require provisioning, so a 10 pounder goes to a 10 pounder eater and so on. in this case specifically, we would need roadmap knowledge, for instance this incident is part of a build up for west muslim 4th world war, we also need design knowledge specifically opportunity cost minimization, what all can be achieved by a single event and its msm portrayal
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Youre being too vague and im too hung over to know what cannibalism has to do with self organized emergent phenomena like a person's psychological development or how societal hierarchies form.
1 panjwani_ajay 2018-04-19
social hierarchies do not just quote unquote form, they are forced, hence the idea of cannibalism. if a must quote unquote eat b then a forced hierarchy needs to be in place
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Ever heard of self organized criticality or emergent phenomena? Im not saying people dont have agency, but its not as straightforward as "ok im going to make everyone follow my rules". Its a systemic flaw, and an error that gets "amplified" over an iterative, self organizing process.
1 panjwani_ajay 2018-04-19
you believe in natural iteration, i believe in hierarchy and provisioning, to each his own. if a snake is in the business of snake skin wallets and waits for shed skins then he might be human in the sense that raw direct cannibalism is a baser instinct, reusable cannibalism is where humans are at. if a is able to eat b over and over, then it must be shed skin AND media cover (the reason b never sells wallets) and both these require brand management ie active management so if instances of b are likely to get into wallets they're taken care of (not killed, just derailed)
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Dude just speak English. The NSA has bigger fish to fry.
1 panjwani_ajay 2018-04-19
true that
1 HairyButtle 2018-04-19
"Because it still fools all the braindead idiots like you."
1 TibetanBowlHealing 2018-04-19
Nobody who believes the official story has taken the time to authenticate the passports. It's such a small unimportant detail that I don't think anyone ever really took the time to confirm the story.
1 CollectiveHoney 2018-04-19
Like a boyfriend who is so obviously cheating and the girlfriend just blindly trusts him no matter what, when he comes home with a girls perfume smell on his coat and lipstick in his collar he can make up a ridiculous story about how he gave a dying girl CPR and got her smell and makeup on him in the process of saving her life! And how dare u, crazy woman, ever even DOUBT me!! And over time, the lying story teller knows that no matter what he says, the Too-Trusting Fool will believe him.
1 dea20421 2018-04-19
Gas lighting.
1 Didymos_Black 2018-04-19
Textbook.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
First, only 4 passports were recovered. Two were from UA93 which crashed in PA. A third was found on the ground in NYC after the planes hit but before the crash. The fourth was not recovered at the crash, but was found in the hijackers luggage which didn't make it onto his connecting flight (AA11).
But the passports are--by far-- the single weirdest part of this whole affair. Are wallets and passports commonly recovered from crashes?
1 MysticalSock 2018-04-19
Given that only 3 were recovered from the planes it's clearly not that common...
1 Naluthar 2018-04-19
Even three is still too many to be realistic in that situation. The best deception is to make it not too obvious--like recovering all the passports--but just enough...they "found" enough passports to make the story plausible but not so many to make it ludicrous. It is, however, still ludicrous.
1 Drew1904 2018-04-19
That’s a solid question.
1 Iswallowedafly 2018-04-19
Depends on the crash, but personal effects do survive. Things get ejected from the plane.
1 Philosophyoffreehood 2018-04-19
Walk away
1 johnydolittle 2018-04-19
That argument could be used for just about everything that happened on that day. Building 7, the crash site in Shankville, the molten metal in the rubble, the BBC reporting building 7 fell, oh an don't forget the anthrax letters that were linked to 911 but only could have come from a state power.
The answer is: It was a fucking government operation that was very poorly planned and executed, and we fell for it. (at least I did at the time.) Most previous false flags (pearl harbor, gulf of Tonkin, the Maine) were at sea where a real investigation is impossible.
1 Drew1904 2018-04-19
We all fell for it. And we also need to be more specific when we say “the government”.
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
targets were notable opponents of the patriot act
1 samout 2018-04-19
Show them how they always find the passports of nearly all terror attack perpetrators at the scene (seriously, it still happens every time whether it's a bombing, shooting or a truck attack), either on the ground or placed on a chair etc. Go look it up. Show them what you'll find by doing that.
1 LewdRudeJude 2018-04-19
You don't. You have to choose your battles and do not cast pearls before swine.
Some people refuse to be convinced and it's not your job to force them.
1 millymills0804 2018-04-19
The worst is when they claim it would involve too many people to cover up
1 1_point_1_day_ago 2018-04-19
There is a phrase I used to see a lot on this sub. Never see it anymore.
It goes something like this: "There are no conspiracies. There is only what people are willing to believe and what they are willing to not believe."
TPTB can basically do whatever they want, as openly as they want, as long as people believe they'd never do it.
1 musicmaker 2018-04-19
The powers that be love to rub our faces in it, just in case we aren't fully aware of their power. Hell, they originally named the invasion of Iraq Operation Iraqi Liberation . Some adviser made them rename it. You can't make this stuff up if you tried.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Passport soaked in jet fuel*
1 allenahansen 2018-04-19
Not so. ABC reported on 9/14 that both the Pentagon and Pennsylvania flight data recorders had been recovered-- although the voice recorder from the Pentagon was to damaged to be used.
Here's more.
1 Malek061 2018-04-19
Get out of here with your facts and evidence that dont fit the narrative I desperately want to believe!
1 Correctthereddit 2018-04-19
OP you're replying to very clearly stated the black box question is in reference to the WTC, not Pentagon or PA.
1 bpooqd 2018-04-19
They find passports and other identifying information left behind terrorist attacks all the time, it does not necessary mean government conspiracy. In fact terrorists are encouraged to ensure they are quickly identified. Also when the airplane hit there was massive ball of debris raining down the streets, its not like the passports were the only thing that survived its just that this is the most talked about and most well documented debris found. If something is incredibly unlikely and the odds are really low, it does not mean that its impossible, that is a logical fallacy. In reality, either they actually survived or were planted at the location by co-conspirators.
1 mirziemlichegal 2018-04-19
I almost forgot that part. I remember back then, when hours after the impacts they said they found a passport and that it belongs to one of the hijackers. I couldn't believe what i just heard. Ignore everything else, just this little thing is so strangely unbelievable. And i wonder why it was produced, it's like they said "Let's tell them some ridiculous lie to show all the conspiracy nerds out there that we can get away with ANY lie"
1 DonBB 2018-04-19
How many passports did they find?
1 Dzugavili 2018-04-19
That's the important question, statistically.
If 50 passports survived the crash, somehow, finding one that belonged to a hijacker wouldn't be that notable.
1 gameoverplayer1 2018-04-19
And how did they know it was a hijacker? No airport video. No idea who they were at that point in the game. Too early.
1 Dzugavili 2018-04-19
I suggest data mining.
Once a flight has been hijacked, I suggest it would be fairly easy to identify the hijackers based on specific patterns: they likely worked in a group; you can probably eliminate families, regular business travelers. The FBI claims that they made very few attempts to conceal their identity, which would help quite a bit.
Then according to Wikipedia, the flight crew on one flight told them:
At that point, it's probably trivial to figure out who was a hijacker and who wasn't, based on their connections to this group.
1 SoberKid420 2018-04-19
Here's a quote from this source if you would like to know more, "The investigators were quickly able to link the 19 men to the terrorist organization al Qaeda, by accessing their intelligence agency files."
1 gtalley10 2018-04-19
They were all domestic flights, so any us citizens generally aren't going to have passports.
1 Dzugavili 2018-04-19
So, if any passport were to survive the crash, it's more likely to be a hijacker's.
I don't think it's significant. Small, light objects are more likely to survive an impact intact, so passports are a candidate, assuming they escape the burn area. Given the momentum, there's a decent chance a passport could escape the immediate crash site.
Not really a strong indicator for conspiracy.
1 Drew1904 2018-04-19
Were the passports not kn their persons tho?
1 Dzugavili 2018-04-19
Debris flying around, bags would be torn open by the dense objects inside, there's any number of ways they could come loose: a plane was disintegrating all around them.
Sources suggest 4 were found: 1 in New York, 2 in Virginia, one in luggage that didn't make it on the flight. The two in Virginia, they don't explicitly mention they weren't found with their bodies, but it was a plane crash.
1 Homegrone18 2018-04-19
Regarding hijacker passports and the process of id'ing them, I think it was just the one. But honestly ive never come across info regarding what other stuff or docs from the plane was recovered on the streets below. Remember within a short while the whole place was shrowded in the dusty smoke cloud. Hard even to imagine they found the one passport at all. And in good time. But then again, and I know this is one of the hotter topics discussed about 911, I just dont see why they would even lie about finding this. It wasnt very significant in helping to id, meaning they found out their id's through many other ways. And basically the entireity of the intellegence community was working on it post haste. Its a conundrum.
1 SoberKid420 2018-04-19
It was 4 passports used to help confirm identification of those 4 high-jackers. 3 of the 4 passports were found in or around the debris in NYC, the 4th was in luggage on a seperate, connecting flight. [Source](Authorities said they had also identified accomplices in several cities who had helped plan and execute Tuesday's attacks. Officials said they knew who these people were and important biographical details about many of them.)
1 SoberKid420 2018-04-19
According to this 4 of the high-jacker's passports were found, one of which was not on the planes, it was in luggage on a connecting flight. The other 3 were found in or around the debris in NYC. No info on passenger passports but I haven't looked it up myself yet.
1 17954699 2018-04-19
They found the black boxes from the Pentagon and the Pennsylvania crashes. Only the ones' from the Twin Towers weren't found because the ratio of black box to debris field was too high.
1 Malek061 2018-04-19
Those were domestic flights. No need for passports. Just saying.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
The Black box from UA93 was recovered and has since been released. Unless you want to hear people being killed, it isn't of much use.
1 trevmon 2018-04-19
false
1 KPX23 2018-04-19
If we just made everything from passports death from unnatural causes would be a thing of the past.
1 hnybnny 2018-04-19
I feel like they could have possibly found them, but lied about /not/ finding them? Because yeah, they should have at least found parts of the black boxes, if not the whole damn thing. If that makes sense.... //shrugs
1 BONER--CHAMPION 2018-04-19
If they were willing to fake everything else, they would have planted black boxes as well.
1 shmusko01 2018-04-19
also heavier, denser.
1 johnydolittle 2018-04-19
Didn't the "plane" supposedly knock down some light poles before hitting the building. But at its speed, the poles should have sheared off the "plane"'s wings.
Then one of the poles supposedly landed on a taxi. There is audio of the taxi driver admitting it was bullshit when he thought he was off camera.
Oh yea, the trajectory data for the "plane" had it moving at a speed that made it impossible for the "plane" to get close to the ground because of ground effect.
Man... the list goes on and on.
1 ZiggyAnimals 2018-04-19
Yeah it was flying really low and knocked down many poles. It was in broad view of everyone driving to/from the Pentagon so there are vast witnesses. I'm also pretty sure someone would say something if they were pre knocking the poles by a main road. I'm on board with a false flag but I don't believe the no planes story. Likewise I have friends in New York who saw the second plane quite clearly as they were looking at the first plane incident.
1 bradok 2018-04-19
I don't believe the no planes story except for the Pentagon. That shit is definitely fucked, and most likely was a missile.
1 Ieuan1996 2018-04-19
Bingo!
1 Casehead 2018-04-19
Except people saw it?
1 Grundelwald 2018-04-19
There is a video out there where they interview a bunch of eye witnesses (including the taxi driver mentioned in the previous comment). Something like a dozen eye witnesses reported seeing a low flying plane but it was on a different path than the official reports say (iirc stuff like it was seen north rather than south of a particular building, it was banking in a different direction, different altitude, etc) and several eye witnesses claimed to have seen the plane flying from an opposite side of the pentagon, which would have been impossible if it had truly struck where they said it did.
1 broff 2018-04-19
Eye witness testimony is literally the least reliable.
1 Grundelwald 2018-04-19
Agreed that it is not an ideal source of info and I would not doubt the official narrative if eyewitnesses were the only evidence (they aren’t though).
People always point out that many witnesses saw a plane near the pentagon (such as the comment I replied to), I was merely adding that “eyewitnesses saw the plane” doesn’t confirm the official narrative at all, and in fact many of these eyewitness’s accounts cause more doubt.
I think I found the documentary I was referencing, if you are interested in checking it out. https://youtu.be/_HlUmmPBoLg
1 broff 2018-04-19
Ah I see that we’re really just agreeing with each other.
1 skepticalbob 2018-04-19
Lots of people saw it.
1 Malak77 2018-04-19
Couldn't a plane have flown over and the missile timed to impact as it flew over? You have to think outside the box. It may not be either/or.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
A plane flew OVER the pentagon according to people who worked there. There are many conflictibg reports on what hit it and when the explosions occurred.
1 hnybnny 2018-04-19
Most reports i’ve read (which, tbh, aren’t many- depressing shit gets to me easy) of firsthand accounts mention that it felt/sounded much more like a missile- at least, not like a goddamn PLANE CRASH.
1 MysticalSock 2018-04-19
Or a missile attack for that matter, I mean I get DC has some rough areas and all...
1 -Teekey- 2018-04-19
As far as I know, only ONE witness claims a plane flew over the Pentagon. The large majority of eyewitnesses say they saw an airliner impacted the Pentagon.
Would love some sources if you have more eye witnesses claiming that.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
https://youtu.be/x779N003mHA
1 Werewolf35b 2018-04-19
It wasn't in broad view.
For some "unknown" reason, nearing 9/11, "they" decided to use bulldozers to build these big hills all the way around the Pentagon. They essentially built dirt walls to block the view.
1 ZiggyAnimals 2018-04-19
It's almost like there is an interstate, numbered 395, right next to the Pentagon where the plane through over. Strangely witnesses on the interstate saw the plane and the fireball from the Pentagon. Yep totally fishy for people busy driving on the interstate to all witness a plane.
1 MysticalSock 2018-04-19
Clearly all paid members of the Illuminati
1 JusticeByZig 2018-04-19
You think Terrence Kean knows what a portico is??
1 ZiggyAnimals 2018-04-19
I know what a portico is, why wouldn't he? Do the local schools offer subpar education?
1 Werewolf35b 2018-04-19
Surely someone near a historical event wouldn't later lie or exaggerates thier involvement if said event either.
1 ZiggyAnimals 2018-04-19
Most definitely. However there is no lack of witnesses. It was on a tuesday with a packed interstate. Given the sample size you could weed out irregularities.
1 ozymandias21 2018-04-19
Cruise missile, amirite? But why?
1 saudade_xo 2018-04-19
I saw the interview with the taxi driver too! It’s wild how he says such drastically conflicting things and slips up when he didn’t realize he was being recorded.
1 MysticalSock 2018-04-19
Fun fact, most street lamps in the us are designed to fall over in an impact to lessen damage to cars that hit them
1 Groewaz 2018-04-19
Whats the pentagon made of? If its mostly steel and stone the hole would maybe just be that big naturally. I mean you seem to care so I guess you studied a little bit about the forces colliding etc.
1 bradok 2018-04-19
They never recovered and parts of the fucking titanium Rolls Royce twin engines from the Pentagon. Don't care if it is concrete and steel- something would have survived other than the little bit of "debris" seen being collected on the lawn- which was then plowed over with fresh dirt just a few days later.
Also- the pentagon hole is quite small for what you would expect- especially when looking at the holes in the Twin Towers. And one of the most armed, important military bases in the world, had only one camera, that couldn't even catch the plane live but in a reflection?
Just think about it man.
1 smoozer 2018-04-19
Titanium is actually softer than steel, it just has a somewhat higher melting point
1 bradok 2018-04-19
And there should have been something left- they wouldn't have disintegrated.
1 Groewaz 2018-04-19
Ok Thought you'd have some numbers or sources, sorry
1 Casehead 2018-04-19
How do we know they didn't just collect any debris?
1 Think_Once 2018-04-19
They did.
https://i.imgur.com/1RH0vcV.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/60OnCUe.jpg
1 skepticalbob 2018-04-19
As the guy said (and you ignored his evidence), they did. If they can somehow knock over a bunch of light poles on broad daylight with no one seeing it, surely they can plant some engines.
1 truckerdadpunk 2018-04-19
That fucks with me even more than tower 7.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
The specific part of the pentagon that got "hit" wiped out important records you should look into.
It also required a manouver that veteran fighter and airline pilots said was impossibleo for them, much less a first time flier who basically was so bad he wasnt allowed to solo fly a small single engine plane.
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
I was referring to flight 93 which crashed in Pennsylvania.
1 petedacook 2018-04-19
They found that terrorist passport in the debris from the buildings collapse, though.
This is how gullible people are.
1 Todos1881 2018-04-19
Remember when Rumsfeld said it was shot down?
Well here is the vid: https://youtu.be/NNuosBnlw5s
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
I've seen videos of people in Somerset County claiming that something crashed into the trees a little ways away from where the "officail" crash site is. Them shooting it down and saying it crashed doesn't sound that far-fetched to me.
The fact that Hollywood made a movie about it was reason enough for me to be suspicious about the true story behind United 93.
1 hnybnny 2018-04-19
That... that makes a lot of sense.
Plus, having a heroic story of passengers fighting back and sacrificing themselves is probably a better, more reassuring story (especially in the wake of tragedy) than the government shot down a plane of people- even if absolutely necessary, because it was hijacked. That would turn a lot of people against the government, tbh. At least I would think so.
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
Yea I don’t necessarily blame them for doing that if that is what happened.
1 mn2n77 2018-04-19
I have family who live a few miles from the crash site. They say paper/debris landed in their yard and others in their neighborhood.
I always thought it was strange that a crash on the ground would send things that far, but I also don't know much about the physics of it. Maybe that much force could send stuff flying that far.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
There is no reason to lie about this as on 9-11 during the early morning chaos people were actively calling for fighters to shoot down planes. The public would have totally understood why this was necessary after the planes hit the WTC.
You have to understand that hijackers crashing planes into buildings never happened before 9-11. Prior to that day, hijacking meant someone stormed the cockpit, and flew the plane to another country, taking the passengers hostage as part of some political ransom. The PLO did this in the 70's and 80's, and communists tried to hijack planes and take them to Cuba in the 50's and 60's.
If you listen to the ATC tapes on 9-11, the hijackers come on the radio, explain that they have a bomb, and that they will issue their demands shortly. They say this because this is exactly what happened with every single hijacking before this.
No one ever expected people to crash planes into buildings. The moment people saw it happen in New York, people in the streets were demanding that other hijacked planes be shot down.
So the government wouldn't hav to lie about this because the public would not have been outraged. It would have been the opposite.
What did outrage the public was the fact taht the fighters that were scramble over Northeast US airspace were all unarmed. There was no protocol for scrambling fighters with live ammo in response to a commercial hijacking. Because again, hijackings usually ended with he passengers surviving, and scrambled a fighter in pursuit raises the risk of the terrorist setting off a bomb if they have one or an accident or malfunction causing the jet to be shot down.
So suffice it to say, if commercial aircraft are intercepted in restricted airspace zones in the US, they are now intercepted by fighters with live ammo and a rigid engagement protocol that has the possibility of ending in an authorized shooting down of the plane.
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
I stopped reading after your “no one ever imagined this could happen back then!” argument, because you obviously haven’t done any research yourself or read any of the conversations below.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
I've been doing the research on hijackings since before 9-11.
Here is a list of hijackings from the entire history of commercial aviation.
How many of those ended with the hijacked airplane deliberately crashing into a building. Not accidentally crashing, not a thwarted attempt to crash or a stated intent to do so, how many actually ended that way?
Not count how many ended with the hijackers surrender. The usual conclusion to a hijacking was passengers survival and the hijackers surrender.
Maybe you should get yourself out of the habit where you "stop reading" things you disagree with. I for one did read the rest of the thread. The people in the thread below me are wrong. It's that simple.
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
It’s the same cookie cutter answer I’ve responded to at least 5 times already in this thread alone. Are you aware at all of the drills that NORAD was running both in the months leading up to and including the day of 9/11? If you haven’t, check out one of the 5 places below where I posted the link. Your entire schtick about previous hijackings is completely irrelevant to the idea that what happened on 9/11 was “unfathomable” before 9/11.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
Did I say unfathomable? I said they didn't have any fighters with live ammo, which is true.
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
According to who? If you have a source that states as much then that would be compelling.
1 Bensongumballman 2018-04-19
Wait there wasn't a single bit of plane wreckage? I never knew that.
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
Check out the link I posted below with pictures from the day of the crash. There's some minor debris, but not nearly enough to look like a plane crashed there (compared to every other picture of a 747 crashing that you can find anyway).
1 MysticalSock 2018-04-19
There was a shitload of debris, it was just small. Most planes that crash the pilots are attempting to mitigate it, this was full force into the ground
1 Ordchase20 2018-04-19
The reason the plane left almost no debris is because the plane was going so fast that the plane broke up to very small pieces. also the reason for no one seeing that the plane was off coarse is because radar cannot see every part of America. there are several places in between radar towers that can not be detected.
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
Interesting. Is there any precedence to this phenomenon occurring? Or is 9/11 the first example of that?
Another interesting theory. Do you have any sources for that? Because I've been studying the 9/11 story for years, and that's the first time I've ever heard that as a reason for NORAD's failure to respond. The only other place I've ever seen the "places in between radar towers that can not be detected" was from the newest Fast and Furious movie with Charlize Theron.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
Stop watching movies. Towers have a limited radar range. Outside of that they communicate with radio, and beyond that, they don't, they just use the transponder. This is no nationwide radar coverage. The US is huge.
When planes are between tower radar range, and if they have their transponders off, they are radar-invisible. The only way to know where the plane is is to look for it.
1 Ordchase20 2018-04-19
There is a show I watched called mayday that was about the NTSB investigating the planes.
1 ImSpurticus 2018-04-19
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
Surprised you didn't list Snopes...
Just for the record, that's literally the #1 result on Google when you type in 9/11 debunk.
Also, they are talking about Flight 77 which hit the Pentagon. The flight I was referring to was Flight 93, which crashed into the ground in Pennsylvania.
1 ImSpurticus 2018-04-19
Sorry, my bad, I assumed you were talking about the Pentagon. Snopes did indeed have a decent article but no pics.
1 Zenblend 2018-04-19
You see, that's because they built the black boxes out of puny metal when they should have built them out of US passports.
1 DonBB 2018-04-19
There was debris. I have definitely seen pictures of parts of an airplane on the Pentagon lawn
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
Talking about flight 93, not 77.
1 Aurailious 2018-04-19
This is what happens to planes, there are many cases of crashes doing the same thing when flying noise down into the ground.
This was just after the 90s when there was a lot of talk about "the end of history" and world peace. There were not any fighters on standby for years up to 9/11.
There are numerous cases of being unable to retrieve black boxes, they are not indestructible.
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
Wow, wrong wrong and wrong. What makes you think you have any qualifications or applicable knowledge to speak on this?
Please provide a single example of that happening elsewhere.
Not true at all. In fact, NORAD happened to be running drills about planes being hijacked and flown into buildings on the SAME DAY as 9/11. You can read about it here
The only documented cases of black boxes not being recovered are in deep sea crashes, and 9/11. That’s it. Those boxes are, by design, meant to survive virtually any amount of force that could be experienced in a plane crash.
1 Aurailious 2018-04-19
Very few plane crashes nose dive into the ground, this is why there is so little to compare to. Planes are not impervious, if it crashes straight into the ground, its going to leave very little trace. Most crashes have some kind of forward movement, allowing the energy of the crash to dissipate forward in debris. Even MH17 had forward movement when it crashed. The closest approximate to that kind of crash would be this.
NORAD exercises have nothing to do with combat ready aircraft in New England. The US did not maintain combat ready interceptors in early 2000s.
MK Airlines Flight 1602 is an example, also destroyed by fire. Nothing humans can make is indestructible, its not true that they can survive every type of crash and are not designed to do that.
1 broff 2018-04-19
When has a hijacked plane been shot down by norad? Before 9/11 people would hijack planes and make them land in third world countries not allegedly fly them into buildings. Do you understand the unprecedented aspect of it? Now maybe they’d take the plane out.
1 Tyler_Zoro 2018-04-19
There was lots of debris. Generally, when a plane crashes, it does so under some minimal control. The pilots do everything that they can to prevent the crash, and so the plane is moving as slowly as possible when it hits the ground. This wasn't that. If you look at examples of plane crashes where a plane hit a mountainside at speed because they didn't know it was there.... in those crash sites, there's very little material left above a certain size.
In terms of the physics, this makes sense. In a low speed crash, the parts of the plane that take the initial impact absorb the kinetic energy and pass on only part of it, resulting in mostly intact fuselage and other parts while landing gear and the bottom of the plane will probably be completely destroyed.
But at higher velocities, the kinetic energy that is passed on by the parts that take the impact are still gigantic relative to the tensile and sheer strength of the rest of the parts of the plane. Essentially the ENTIRE plane acts as the impact point!
So what you expect to find are lots and lots of very small pieces strewn across a cone-shaped area as the motion of the parts become more and more an exercise in fluid dynamics, rather than something that approximates a simple newtonian point mass.
In other words, inside the pentagon, you expect to find a radiating cone of very small parts of that plane, passengers and cargo. :-/
Note: this comment is not meant as a pro-or-con statement with respect to any conspiracy theory. It is merely clarification on the physics of plane crashes.
1 Vladimus44 2018-04-19
How can a plane's fuselage, tail, and wings fully vaporize, the humans in the plane fully vaporize, but two passports are found FULLY LEGIBLE in the debris? How is that remotely possible?
1 Tyler_Zoro 2018-04-19
Again, I'm not commenting on any conspiracy theory surrounding this, and I'm definitely not taking a side, here, but I also didn't say anything about anything vaporizing. Indeed, I was quite specific as to what one would expect to happen and what one would expect to find.
As to passports. Do you want me to get into why documents on someone's person might be intact? I assure you that it's not a description that is not without some ... unpleasant details. Suffice to say that water (which is basically all humans are in such a kinetic event) has some interesting properties related to its behavior, and while the chances of a document on someone's person being preserved are low, they're better than if that document were out in the open.
1 Drew1904 2018-04-19
I would be interested actually.
1 MysticalSock 2018-04-19
They didn't "vaporize" in a literal sense, ie. Turn into gas, its used colloquially to indicate that it fragmented into small pieces. Which is what they found lots of funnily enough.
1 aahdin 2018-04-19
Since we're explaining things I figured I'd also chime in to
Pre-9/11 there had been dozens of plane hijackings, but they were all hostage situations. you can check a full list here.
Shooting the planes out of the air was the last thing on people's minds. They assumed it was just another hostage situation.
1 Tyler_Zoro 2018-04-19
I have a vague memory as well of hearing some interviews with key people (who were close to, but not in the line of decision making that day, since obviously any lawyer worth their salt told the people who were in that decision making chain to shut the hell up) saying that they would not have shot them down, even if they'd suspected the danger. A military attack on a US civilian aircraft over US territory would absolutely result in several court marshals pre-9/11 and might even have reached as high as impeachment hearings, had there been proof that the President was in the loop.
The fact that 9/11 weakened our national sense that the military should never be used against domestic targets is, IMHO, one of the strongest pieces of evidence that a coordinated conspiracy existed (regardless of who you think originally planned and executed the attacks).
To go even deeper into that rabbit hole, I would say that conspiracy theories about whether planes caused the towers to fall or whether there was a plane that hit the Pentagon are dangerous distractions from the real threat: that nearly instantaneous response from the intelligence and military apparatus that shifted the balance of power in the United States, resulting in the casual use of NSLs; the cementing of the notion that the President can engage wars wherever and whenever he likes and should inform the Congress more than engage it in an advise and consent role; the sharing of information between all intelligence agencies; the unifying of Homeland Security (a disturbingly totalitarian sounding phrase if ever I heard one); and the deep ties established between banking and intelligence agencies.
All of that happened very, very fast by government standards, and I don't think anyone really understands the extent of what happened or its full implications, outside the heads of those organizations.
1 Drew1904 2018-04-19
Fucking preach. Just the term “homeland” has eery implications reminiscent of nazi germany’s “the fatherland”
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
I’m sorry, but this could not be more incorrect. In fact, one admitted reason for their lack of response, is that NORAD jus so happen to be running a drill about commercial planes being hijacked to be flown into the White House.
https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm
1 aahdin 2018-04-19
Your link says that norad had practiced drills for intercepting rogue passenger planes coming in from other countries.
That doesn't change anything I said in my post, other than maybe they had thought about the possibility.
Either way, there had still been dozens of plane hijackings, almost all hostage situations, most of which were handled successfully with few or no civilian deaths. There was no way norad was going to just shoot down a passenger plane full of U.S. citizens, that wasn't even part of the conversation back then.
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
https://digwithin.net/2017/07/30/norad-exercises-911/
I’m sorry, but that is very much incorrect about that not being part of the conversation. It absolutely was. The article I just posted has more info on the specific drills, and which ones were occurring on 9/11.
1 LurkPro3000 2018-04-19
Or they assumed it was one of the "drill" hijacking planes they had from the military drill that day.
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
Not talking about the plane that hit the Pentagon.
1 Drew1904 2018-04-19
What about the PA crash site and the seemingly small debris field?
1 The_Music 2018-04-19
Planes are mostly empty space and fuel that burns up.
Unprecendented situation caused confusion, nobody quite sure how to proceed.
idk I actually don't know much about this particular issue.
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
Where’s all the passenger seats, luggage, literally anything? It’s hardly just “empty space and fuel”.
1 The_Music 2018-04-19
https://www.nps.gov/media/photo/gallery.htm?id=C7A45234-155D-451F-67A019C294E6A905
Images of the wreckage here. Given this was a high speed impact, moreso than the examples I gave, anything flammable or compactible was well, compacted and burned.
1 Micro-Naut 2018-04-19
So how does empty space drop a skyscraper?
1 Dzugavili 2018-04-19
Skyscrapers are also mostly empty space, empty being relative to solid ground. Maybe even more empty than an airplane.
1 Micro-Naut 2018-04-19
Cement > aluminum Regardless of empty space.
1 Dzugavili 2018-04-19
I'd grant you that, if you provided weights and velocities.
But you didn't. If I could throw marshmallows at relativistic velocities, I'd destroy entire cities. A 757 weighs several hundred tons: ram that at flight velocity into a support structure, it's going to apply thousands of tons of force.
Physics isn't as simple as the material.
1 FuZhongwen 2018-04-19
Black boxes aren't indestructible. They aren't meant to survive a prolonged fire or being ground down through 100 floors of concrete and steel.
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
Absolutely false. Seriously?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/11/289189214/what-would-it-take-to-destroy-a-black-box
1 rowdybme 2018-04-19
not to mention the "plane" hit the one area of the pentagon that was under construction and had barely anyone there. I saw a gas station video of the "plane" a while back. Not sure if it is still out there...but it didn't look like a plane.
1 unexpected-lobster 2018-04-19
Really? You greatly overestimate the strength of black boxes
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/03/11/289189214/what-would-it-take-to-destroy-a-black-box
You greatly underestimate the strength of black boxes.
1 loveskoalas 2018-04-19
And don't forget, Payne Stewart's flight was awol for only 21 minutes and they scrambled fighters.
1 xStaabOnMyKnobx 2018-04-19
It just so happens that there was a major drilling period during this time for...ARMED HIJACKINGS. Awful fucking conveneint huh?
1 truckerdadpunk 2018-04-19
I never knew they didn’t find the black box. Fuck, this just gets sketchier as time goes on.
1 Blunt4words20 2018-04-19
We were actually conducting war games that day. With guess what hijacked planes sounds alot like these mass shootings. This is not a joke we really were doing this B's that day.
1 SpeakTruthtoStupid 2018-04-19
It didn't, literally just google.
Because plan hijackings had never resulted in an attack like this before and "intercepting" a plane filled with civilians is a bad idea.
Because the WTC is an incredibly large pair of buildings with many tons of steel and wreckage? Is this even a real question?
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
That photo turned up way after the fact. Just compare that to the link I posted below of the first photos taken at the scene.
1 Bagofmixedvegetables 2018-04-19
Me and my dad bitch remember the new talking us that the Pennsylvania plane was being intercepted by fighter jets and was shot down by fight jets. It was reported on the news in the morning but then they never spoke of that again.
1 imboomshesaid 2018-04-19
there was a TON of debris from flight 93, spread across a considerable distance. Have you seen images of other plane crashes? 93's "small impact hole" was entirely consistent with what one would expect given similar crashes in the past. Jesus H, there are legitimate, science-based responses to so many of these types of queries--the conspiracy here is why, despite rigorous and detailed explanations for much of the phenomena consistently recycled as evidence of some kind of grand cover-up or government collusion, otherwise intelligent people continue to debate these things ad nauseum instead of examining the questions and aspects of the event that are geopolitically imperative to discuss. The government, as a whole, is far too incompetent to orchestrate such an event; why intelligence regarding threats of such an attack were not responded to seriously, and adequate defense strategies against the threatened terrorism not implemented, are far more interesting avenues of query, as are the govt's subsequent response, war, and entirely overreaching legislation and programs that completely trample on citizens' rights with no oversight in the name of "security" that interest me. Saudi Arabia harbored terrorist groups with impunity, the Bin Ladens were quickly flown out of the US, but instead we go after Iraq and depose Saddam, an admittedly horrible man, but one who managed to keep factions somewhat in check in the region and had no culpability in the event. By doing so, we basically installed ISIS and created even more intense anti-US/westetn hosyiloyu. We supportrd the mujaheed with weapons and training when the RRussians invested Afghanistan, and those same US-sponsored groups suddenly became "terrorists" and enemies. Everythibg subsequeny to thre attacks, inclusing MSM's narrative reharding the Middle East, is criminal. But no, let's discuss thermite and "molten steel" that didnt exist and controlled detonation and the planes were actually holograms! bullshit. "Red pill" the "sheeple" with ridiculpus shit, becUse anything else actually requres some critical thinking and brainpower.
1 tommy-ftilas 2018-04-19
Friend of mine who served our country saw the footage (said I could get a copy if I wanted); it was a missile.
1 Stranger2Langley 2018-04-19
Then get a copy, buy a one way ticket to russia and upload it.
1 russianbot01 2018-04-19
Put that sucker on 50 zip drives and mail it to 50 independent journalist.
1 PID1_ 2018-04-19
Nobody uses Zip drives anymore...
1 russianbot01 2018-04-19
If you don't want to be suicided you do.
1 zilla0100 2018-04-19
Upload that fucker on here, I'd love to see it
1 miloemonkeyrod 2018-04-19
We will all hold our breath for that.
1 TokeyWakenbaker 2018-04-19
And you didn't want?
1 tommy-ftilas 2018-04-19
Why? It confirms what I already know.
1 TokeyWakenbaker 2018-04-19
Because we'd all like to know for sure.
1 tommy-ftilas 2018-04-19
Asked my friend for a copy; should know more a bit later this evening.
1 TokeyWakenbaker 2018-04-19
Cool. Let's bust this wide open. You get me the video, and I'll get it to every reporter in the country.
1 legosexual 2018-04-19
Cool, how about that fake news then bro? It’s been 8 hours. Unless you’re full of shit...but that can’t be...this is reddit
1 footlonglayingdown 2018-04-19
There is a video someone posted up above of what looks like it was filmed from an aircraft with an overhead view of what done not appear to be a 757. Could this be the same video your friend has?
1 th3allyK4t 2018-04-19
Since I’ve seen the speed the MOD takes down photos of Russian planes flying over uk land space I highly doubt any upload would last more than minutes. Especially on a conspiracy sub on reddit
1 Tookmyprawns 2018-04-19
People in this thread actually believe you. Interesting.
1 rex_dart_eskimo_spy 2018-04-19
"A friend of mine totally has footage! I could see it! I just...chose not to!"
1 legosexual 2018-04-19
This subreddit has the intellectual equivalent of kids telling stories on the playground.
1 workwork_workwork 2018-04-19
"I have a girlfriend, she lives in Canada"
1 SnakeInABox7 2018-04-19
Her name is alberta, she lives in vancouver
1 SnakeInABox7 2018-04-19
Well they should, his dad also works for nintendo
1 SnakeInABox7 2018-04-19
Hahaha yea i have a friend who was there when jfk was assassinated, he even got a tuft of hair with some brain on it that proves jfk was actually an alien. He offered to let me lick it but eh, you've tasted one brain you've tasted them all.
1 n02_ 2018-04-19
1 JamesVanDaFreek 2018-04-19
I have a lot of questions about the Pentagon, don't get me wrong, but let me play Devil's Advocate for a moment, why go to all the trouble to hit the twin towers with airplanes, then hijack an airplane to fly really close to the Pentagon but only to hit the building with a missile?
What's the thinking behind that? Why not just hit it with the plane?
1 n02_ 2018-04-19
They needed accuracy to hit the specific part of the Pentagon researching the missing 2.3 Trillion dollars. A missile would be far better than a plane you need to be skimming the ground with
1 anothername787 2018-04-19
The money was not missing
It was not announced the day before, but rather months
We have these things called "fire" and "paper shredders."
1 ismokefakenews 2018-04-19
Haven't had a good post about a suspicious fire in a gov building here for too long
1 The-B-sharps 2018-04-19
It was announced the day before though...
1 In_the_heat 2018-04-19
Why even announce it then?
1 anothername787 2018-04-19
1.
2.
3.
4.
etc., etc., etc.
It was announced several months before, and had been discussed in the MSM circuit that entire time, and on multiple occasions.
1 DaciaWhippin 2018-04-19
Also everyone in the thread fails to understand that the pentagon is probably the strongest above ground facility in the world. The building was meant to withstand a direct nuclear attack. It's no surprise that a jetliner mostly only fucked up the facade of the building.
1 n02_ 2018-04-19
Feel free to believe the official story though :)
1 anothername787 2018-04-19
Again, the money was not missing. That's not debatable. And do you mean the 10th? The trillions were first announced way back in February of 2000, and were regularly discussed all the way up to (and following, obviously) the attacks.
1 KuriTokyo 2018-04-19
I feel the Pentagon and building 7 was all about destroying evidence. Don't ask me how, just look at what information was held in these places.
1 forgottenbutnotgone 2018-04-19
There were no planes. Search "911 no planes" on YouTube for video breakdown. The only two live shots of the "planes" hitting we're obviously faked. How could aluminum wings completely cut through a steel facade?
1 pupomin 2018-04-19
That's so easy to test that I'm surprised no one has done it full-scale. The hard part would be making a rocket sled powerful enough to get a fuel-laden wing-section up to speed.
Quarter-scale tests would be a lot cheaper and fairly convincing too.
1 Cizuz 2018-04-19
How does a lead bullet go through steel since we are assuming a materials strength is the only factor.
Why arent police wearing a paper thin steel clothing. Itll stop everything that is not as strong as steel!
You're using the same logic as above.
1 hidflect1 2018-04-19
This is a common skeptic trap. Ask people to hypothesize about something outside of possible public knowledge. And then using the lack of any answer as "proof" the original argument doesn't hold water. Why don't you email Cheney and ask him?
1 -Teekey- 2018-04-19
I have a ridiculously hard time believing that anyone would see a 30ft cruise missile and confuse other for a 300ft passenger airliner.
It makes no sense to me. The object above one of the most congested freeways in the country. Hundreds and hundreds of people saw it, the vast majority identifying it as a plane.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Because it wasnt a cruise missile. More likely an A3 Skywarrior or other plane flew over the pentagon and a secondary missile hit. Like in WTC there were reports of multiple explosions. There were obvious demo charge explosions recorded and theyre all on youtube.
1 Correctthereddit 2018-04-19
How about if the plane shot a missile?
1 west_coastG 2018-04-19
because it would have been impossible for a plane to hit as "it" did (the approach). all those light poles were in the way. no way they could have just simply knocked them over without it cutting off the wings which would have caused the plane to likely nosedive
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Because they flew over it in a plane. Explosives were preplanted according to some.
1 ChocolateMorsels 2018-04-19
So what about the countless witnesses that saw the plane? What happened to the plane that left the airport if it wasn't used in a terrorist plot? What about the plane debris recovered at the scene? What about the clean up crew who claim they were cleaning up a plane? What about the black box recovered at the scene?
lol I love a good conspiracy theory, but this one has always been hilariously flimsy. There is no evidence to support it was a missile, you just want to believe.
1 DankingtonMemesworth 2018-04-19
I love a good conspiracy too but pushing this bullshit while there are actual families out there that mourned the death of their loved ones, who died on AA Flight 77, is disgusting to me.
1 Correctthereddit 2018-04-19
The photos of the uniformly round holes between layers of several Pentagon walls convinced me it was a missile. When you look into the debris, it appears to have been faked.
1 Cizuz 2018-04-19
Ahh yes, your uneducated view of how something looked convinced you when experts and engineers specialized in it dont see it that way.
1 SlammingPussy420 2018-04-19
Those are solid questions but they are met with several other unanswered questions from the other side.
What about the countless people saying there were explosions in the WTC before and after impact? What happened to the plane debris from both WTC towers? What about the number of experienced pilots saying such a maneuver at the Pentagon is impossible? What about wtc7? What about the claims that the official report was not handled properly?
1 Toboratonmi2 2018-04-19
Where was that missle launched from?
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
You can't see footage of the Pentagon being hit because in 2001 there were no cameras point at that side of the pentagon that were recording at a frame rate high enough to capture the plane entering the frame prior to being hit and it hitting the building in a subsequent frame. There is footage of the impact and explosion, but the frame rate is too low to capture the plane.
More specifically, because you would want to see the plane's identifying marks (the livery colors, the logo on the tail or side, etc), you can calculate the necessary frame rate by determining the camera's optimum distance from the building, the camera's FOV necessary to capture all the detail you want, the length of the plane (or at least the length of the plane from the tip of the nose to the identifying mark), and the speed of the plane.
And when you do this math, you will find that for an ordinary camera at 60 FPS to capture that impact with all the detail necessary to dispel any suspicion of it being a missile, that camera would have to be so far away from the building that you'd all be suspicious of the fact that a camera that far away was pointed at that building at that time.
Building 7 fell in the evening because it had been on fire since the morning, and it was too unstable for fire crews to enter. Debris from the collapse of the other buildings made it impossible to get larger fire engines, cranes, etc to the scene.
In addition to the fires burning for over 8 hours, the collapse of each of the WTC towers was the seismic equivalent of two magnitude 2 earthquakes. And building 7 was right at the epicenter of both of those.
1 Lord_Mordey 2018-04-19
Dick Cheney is in da house!
1 dbcaliman 2018-04-19
Thank you for your well-reasoned response.
1 Deesnuts77 2018-04-19
There is an unfathomable suspense of reason to believe even one of these arguments. Regardless of your explanation of frame rates that sound correct but aren't how could you possibly believe that the plane was flying fast enough and the walls of the pentagon being strong enough to DISINTEGRATE AN ENTIRE AIRLINER???
If a magnitude 2 earthquake could take down a huge building in New York City then there is a whole other set of questions that need to be asked.
I usually stay away from this subject because I lived through the aftermath and admittedly Im not well versed in the details but for god's sake. Things do not add up. There may be one or two explanations that sound reasonable but when you look at the whole of the disaster. There are way more questions than answers. Any reasonable person whether "tinfoil hatted" or not has to be able to see that.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
You are cherry picking. I never said what you are claiming I said. I said fire + earthquakes could have brought the building down. Specifically, the building was on fire, then it was at the epicenter of a magnitude 2 surface level earthquake. Then it continued to burn, then it was at the epicenter of ANOTHER magnitude 2 earthquake, and then it continued to burn for 8 more hours. Then if finally collapsed.
Ask yourself this, how many times has a building already on fire been at the epicenter of 2 earthquakes, then continued to burn, but did not collapse? Has that ever happened?
Not a building that was on fire started by the earthquake, but the building had to be on fire first already, and then randomly and totally by coincidence endured two earthquakes centered 60 ft away? What are the survival statistics for this kind of building?
The Parthenon survived 2000 years through earthquakes and multiple explosions, but is now being completely destroyed by rain that happens to be a bit more acidic than usual.
Catastrophic failure is the result of multiple marginal failures in a cascade.
1 Deesnuts77 2018-04-19
Im not cherry picking. I could see this POSSIBLY happening if the entire building was engulfed in flames and didn't have a STEEL structure. How would the steel collapse from a normal building fire? There couldn't have been jet fuel in that building because no planes hit it. A magnitude 2 earthquake is not much at all. Buildings are built to survive much stronger earthquakes. A 2 is a bit of shaking. The structure should have withstood all of this. Instead it collapsed in free fall??
The basis for your argument is mostly speculation. Yet you choose to believe that it makes sense to you. You believe what you want to believe but to me there are a lot of questions.
1 anothername787 2018-04-19
How did it disentigrate? There were parts found all over the building and lawn.
1 -Teekey- 2018-04-19
There was quite a lot of aircraft debris found at the Pentagon.
https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pentagondebris2.jpg
https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/landing_gear_complete.jpg
1 a1reddit 2018-04-19
Could you zoom in a little more on those images so we can see the Pentagon in them?
1 rednaskal 2018-04-19
https://imgur.com/gallery/uHBvd
1 russianbot01 2018-04-19
TiL no plane was ever captured in flight by a camera
1 bIGdICKmIGtICK 2018-04-19
"So what you're saying is that no plane was ever captured in flight by a camera?"
He said that for a 60 fps camera to have non blurred frames of a plane, it needs to be at a great distance for the plane, and that it's not really strange tht no civilian camera was filming the pentagon from this thistance at that time.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
Is that really what you got from what I wrote? What are your SAT verbal scores?
1 elxbarto 2018-04-19
I mean that's pretty much what you said?
1 elxbarto 2018-04-19
Whoa whoa I'm so sorry I didn't realize which comment you were replying to wow now I understand
1 dj10show 2018-04-19
And we're supposed to believe the most secure government building in the world is having their perimeter monitored by civilian video technology from Radio Shack? They could read your fucking license plate from space.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
They can read your license plate from space, but only if they point the satellite where they know your license plate to be. They don't have millions of satellites providing real-time video coverage of ever square foot on the ground simultaneously.
They of course have security cameras watching for pedestrian and auto traffic around the perimeter of the building, and all of those are pointing where pedestrians and cars usually are, which is below and very close to the the camera.
And yes, they would use civilian commercial technology. Not what you would get from Radio Shack, but, yes, what you would get from seimens or Honeywell or GE. They would do this because they would have to buy donzes of these if not hundreds to monitor all of the doors and foyers and loading docks or whatever. Would they mount them on the building pointing up into the sky? No, because why would you do that?
1 dj10show 2018-04-19
Except they wouldn't need them to be pointed at the sky, because the official narrative has the plane flying 5 feet above the ground before slamming into the Pentagon. All I would need is 3 seconds of video where the object looks like a 757 and I can make out American Airlines' identifying markings. Instead we get 7 frames of a video that is shot with a Lite Brite.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
That is note the official "narrative". The official story is that the plane few into the side of the building.
And no, if they gave you a video now, you (or others equally skeptical) would say the video is faked.
And think about it for a second: If they went to the trouble of launching a missile at the building and separately disappearing the actual Flight 77, wouldn't they have just faked a video? Especailly when this conspiracy would also mean that the planes flown into the WTC were also part of it, and there is video of them.
1 dj10show 2018-04-19
Yeah, of course if they gave us a video 17 years after it happened, we would be skeptical. The official narrative had the plane flying so low it was knocking over light poles.
And why can't the Pentagon be a missile, while the WTC had real planes? Those can exist in mutual exclusivity.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
There are pictures of the light poles down, and there are 911 calls into arlington from police about the poles and the crash.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
Ok, here is a video of the impact of the second plane into the WTC. The video is shot from about 900ft below and at least 200 feet away, so call it 800 feet away. Look at how fast the plane comes in from the left, and how few frames you get of it.
The entire length of a side of the pentagon around 930ft. If you want to capture a plane hitting the pentagon with this same low quality, then camera would need to be in Arlington Cemetery, or a random spot halfway deep into the parking lot, and again, they'd have to be this far away and pointed back at the building in order to capture a fov that is completely useless in every respect except on the odd chance an airliner crashes into it, at which point you have a video that proves a plane crashed into the building, as if the gaping hol and the fire and the debris wasn't proof of this.
1 ismokefakenews 2018-04-19
What about a camera on the pentagon pointed at the direction the plane is coming from. That could be fast enough
1 rex_dart_eskimo_spy 2018-04-19
Is there a source for the claim that they could read your license plate from space in 2001?
1 StopHAARPingOnMe 2018-04-19
Sorry but jet fuel doesnt melt steel beams and skyscrapers are all designed to withstand small earthquakes. They use fhe same tech iques and supplies they use in California.
Fact is this still remains the only tower to have ever fallen from fire damage.
1 zilla0100 2018-04-19
Thank you. Steel buildings don't collapse from fire damage.
1 mittromniknight 2018-04-19
It does, though. It doesn't have to melt the steel, it merely needs to heat it enough to make it structurally weaker. Which the burning point of jet fuel definitely achieves.
1 eleminnop 2018-04-19
Yeah, maybe if the WHOLE building was weakened by fire, but it was only a few floors near the top. The rest of the building was as strong as it was designed to be.
No way in hell the top part comes crashing through the bottom *at the rate of freefall*.
Pretty sure we all learned this in highschool physics class...
1 Max_Fenig 2018-04-19
Get out of here, with your rational thought process!
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
I can't tell if you're trolluing or not so I'll take this seriously.
What makes this of some significance (though not the dominant factor) is that shallower quakes are much more damaging than quakes of the same magnitude at a different depth. See this article
These were two quakes, right at the surface, and immediately adjacent to wtc7, which had already been on fire.
So the question is neither "Did fire bring the tower down" nor is it "Did the seismic shocks from the collapse of the other buildings bring it down". Either of these separately may not have brought them down. The question is whether the combination of the two did.
No one has stated that it fell from fire damage. I haven't made that claim. I'm saying that there were multiple contributing factors, of which fire was one, and the combination of all of them brought it down.
1 Max_Fenig 2018-04-19
lalalalalala... I can't hear you... lalalalala
1 Casehead 2018-04-19
The beams didn't need to melt. They just needed to be weakened
1 wowitslate 2018-04-19
I find it highly improbable, if not impossible, that there weren't other cameras pointed in the direction of the Pentagon. Not shitty gas station cameras either. You really think they didn't monitor the outside of the freaking Pentagon? Really? Come on...it's the Pentagon..I bet you there were 10+ cameras that caught this event...even in 2001.
1 Anandamidee 2018-04-19
WTC 7 fell at free fall speed for 2.3 seconds (admitted by NIST)
If you think fire can accomplish that you need to re-evaluate your understandings of physics.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
Lol did you just make that up? Are you saying that WTC7 is 85ft high? Just watch a video of the collapse and look at the timer. It clearly takes about 6-7 seconds to fall.
1 Anandamidee 2018-04-19
It reached gravitational free fall for 2.3 seconds of the 6-7 total elapsed time of the collapse.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
That's not what free fall means. Free fall is when the only force acting on an object is gravity. The moment you drop something from your hand it is in free fall.
More importantly, a building isn't in free fall whether it's bombed, detonated or jsut collapses under it's own weight. Building, especially steel buildings are a lattice, and different parts of it can move at different times. So the entire building is not in free fall or not, but parts of it may be at different times.
It you want to believe that that building was felled in a controlled demolition, then you should be able to prove that using facts that don't also support a completely different theory.
For my part, I think the building collapsed due to a prolonged fire across multiple floors lasting over 8 hours which stressed the internal structure of the building, that stress being exacerbated by the seismic shock from the separate collapse of two of the tallest buildings in the world less than 3 blocks away and which sent additional debris into the building causing additional damage and fueling the fire. I can prove that (a) the buidling was on fire (b) the shock from the collapse of the WTC towers registered on seismographs as two separate magnitude 2.x earthquakes, and (c) I can show that the fire cause structural weakienng on at least two floors prior to the collapse as shown in videos where windows in rows and columns are shattered and the framing appears buckled (suggesting the floor above has partially collapsed).
You and the WTC7 theorists in general cannot provide a single shred of evidence. Not a single witness who will testify under oath, not a single shred of paperwork or other documentation. Nothing. You have the same amount of evidence to back up your theory as the theory that aliens zapped WTC7 from space.
Today is the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. Whereas the 19 9-11 hijackers killed almost 3000 people in 3 buildings, Timothy McVeigh was able to destroy 1/3 as many buildings and 5% that number of people all by himself with a rental van, fuel, and fertilizer. Now which is scarier to you: that there is some hidden conspiracy centrally planning, controlling, and executing all national events according to some plan to enrich themselves and extend their dominance, or that a small number of people can slaughter thousands whenever they want using only the items and materials we all have at hand.
1 Anandamidee 2018-04-19
Long windedness is the soul of wit
1 minusidea 2018-04-19
You're to rational for this sub my friend. But I agree with everything you have posted. Mainly because, everything that you wrote has been proven as fact from various sources.
1 Antin0de 2018-04-19
It was the Russians.
It was the Russians.
/s
1 i_did_not_hit_her_ 2018-04-19
And why does clinton talk about pizza in her mails in a weird way? Why are there no stars visible in the picture of the tesla in space? Why can't we go back to the moon? Why did jfk get shot so quickly ?
1 catsareownage 2018-04-19
I aint answerin the others but you cant see stars from space in daytime mate. Dont know why so many people just think that cos of movies like apollo 13 and interstellar but the sun is too bright to be able to make out relatively TINY twinkles in the distance. Its exactly the same to daylight on Earth.
1 mgt2015 2018-04-19
you cant see stars in space cause theyre really far away like 4.3 light years to alpha centauri which is 2.498 × 1013 miles away.
1 sopranocross 2018-04-19
I'm sure that in Fahrenheit 911 it was insinuated that the Pentagon showed signs of an explosion from inside to out rather than signs of a plane or some other projectile hitting it
1 20060578 2018-04-19
Projectile hit. Exploded out.
1 Cesarek13 2018-04-19
Not sure if anyone posted this- speed post. There is a theory too that the plane meant for building 7 was flight 93. If you time up the trajectory, it would have hit the building just before its controlled demo. This also falls in line with the "pull it" thing, and why people saw an f-16 take down 93. This is my theory: the people on the plane DID try to stop what was happening, and thus, it was shot down. (Do you even know how great of a marketing campaign that is? Not only did they kill everyone on board flight 93, but they also made money off their death in the sense that a major motion picture was put out, dedicated to their heroism. It's fucked up) Then, the controlled demo went down on building 7, and the government figured the people would never think the wiser, despite the blaring contradiction of an event as building 7 was.
1 zilla0100 2018-04-19
To me the fact that the building 7 still came down is a fuck up. They forgot to turn off the demo charges when they had to shoot down the plane.
1 Roarian 2018-04-19
But there's also a conspiracy that 'they' warned the media ahead of time that they were going to blow up building 7, which doesn't make sense if it's an accident. But doing it on purpose doesn't make sense either, because then you're arguing they intentionally made things more complicated to understand...?
1 Aphix 2018-04-19
The media warned conspiracy comes fron the BBC reporting 7's collapse 20 minutes before it happened, IIRC.
1 Roarian 2018-04-19
It never really made sense, since you can still see the building standing in their footage. Probably meant 'impending collapse' or something like that, otherwise the conspiracists are super-idiotic.
1 SemiColonHorror 2018-04-19
hey can you get me a job
1 crabsneverdie 2018-04-19
Don't forget about building 6
1 Drewbieee 2018-04-19
But seriously? Like look at the scope and the events put into place directly caused by the events of 9/11-like seriously one of the most significant historical events of America. I don’t disagree that there is definitely a conspiracy afoot, but I have to believe that “forgetting to turn off demo charges” during an event literally every person on earth saw and was effected by doesn’t mesh with the level of sophistication absolutely required to pull a thing like 9/11 off.
1 OneEyed81 2018-04-19
Im sure a lot of people have died just the same as if you look at the number of deaths around the JFK assassination.
1 zilla0100 2018-04-19
Yea I guess it was coming down one way or another, whether or not the "cover" event of anther plane crash got blown.
1 outlawbruce 2018-04-19
Ya.. pull it. Screw the plain.
1 slippery_people 2018-04-19
I think most people assume that building 7 had to come down for some reason or another, e.g., destruction of records, can't just leave it sitting there slightly damaged and wired with explosives.
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
Asbestos remediation.
1 Tookmyprawns 2018-04-19
Destroying an entire building to destroy records makes no sense.
1 slippery_people 2018-04-19
There are numerous examples in history of buildings being destroyed for that purpose. Maybe not in such a spectacular fashion as Building 7 - usually it's simple arson. Records haven't always been backed up and stored digitally on remote servers you know.
1 originaltransvaginal 2018-04-19
Good thing you have access to these "numerous examples". Where would we be without this comment (bustin on ya ;P)
1 Chance_Coal_Bear 2018-04-19
Destroying records AND Larry Silverstein collecting insurance checks.*
1 outlawbruce 2018-04-19
Why not.. if anyone spotted the inside of the building laced with explosives their jig was up.
1 QanonMilf 2018-04-19
Something missing? https://www.wanttoknow.info/050310pentagontrillionslost
1 jasron_sarlat 2018-04-19
There were a lot of potential strategic targets in building 7. I think it was going to come down one way or another that day.
1 spiderjizzz 2018-04-19
The flight 93 trajectory times with NY? They moved really far from NY and headed toward DC.
I always thought the obvious target was DC.
1 HelperBot_ 2018-04-19
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93#/media/File%3AA439%2C_Flight_93_National_Memorial%2C_Stonycreek_Township%2C_Pennsylvania%2C_USA%2C_memorial_sign%2C_flight_path.jpg
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 172504
1 Casehead 2018-04-19
It was.
1 minusidea 2018-04-19
It was.
1 Casehead 2018-04-19
It was
1 7palms 2018-04-19
Camp David
1 ismokefakenews 2018-04-19
That's the first I've heard this theory, thanks for sharing. And like the other poster said, when the plane gets taken out 20 min from DC that's easy to say oh they were aiming for the capitol
1 Cesarek13 2018-04-19
Forgot the guy's name, Ryan something. Did an AMAZING documentary on 9/11. Its honestly the best I've seen, most logical, and most compelling. He basically traced their intended route and it matched up perfectly with the building 7 collapse, I think by a few minutes. So if you can consider that 93 may have been meant for building 7, it paints a whole new picture on what may have happened with the two separate incidents. I think it makes way more sense that 93 actually an incident where people reacted correctly, and we shot it down. Why else wouldn't they want to show the second debris field? ;-)
1 tripplethrendo 2018-04-19
Ryan Dawson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK6VLFdWJ4I
This is THE best 9/11 documentary.
1 Di-eEier_von_Satan 2018-04-19
hmmm. Building collpased at 5:20 pm and the plane crashed at 10:03. Thas 7 hours and 17 minutes. NY to LA is a 6.25 hour flight.
1 7palms 2018-04-19
Camp David
1 kummybears 2018-04-19
I’ve heard that 93 was meant for a DC target. If you look at the route, it was heading straight for DC, not NY. The plane that hit the Pentagon was thought to have been targeting the Capitol Building but they changed their minds for some reason. Hitting 7 with a plane would be somewhat difficult as it was surrounded by skyscrapers.
1 7palms 2018-04-19
Camp David
1 larkinner 2018-04-19
1 DontTreadOnMe16 2018-04-19
The one where you have a connection in Atlanta.
1 FucksHisHand 2018-04-19
That's a hell of a layover.
1 outlawbruce 2018-04-19
Obviously the demolition wouldn't have taken place straight after the proposed impact, it would have to burn for hours before collapsing.
1 KingClam2 2018-04-19
Are you saying that whoever made said movie ("they") was involved in the conspiracy..?
1 HereIsAnotherMess 2018-04-19
If a jet shot down the plane then why was there no plane “wreckage” of F93?
1 bammc 2018-04-19
I’m pretty sure the “jet” those people saw was a drone aircraft and it more than likely shot it down. They said it was white with a weird tale and no markings which sounds exactly like a drone.
The guy who allegedly said “let’s roll” went to my HS a few years before i started. So I’m kinda torn.
1 LurkPro3000 2018-04-19
Mark Passio does an excellent presentation that basically describes your proposition but in much greater detail.
1 cmrizzle 2018-04-19
As much as i want to know why we can’t footage I’d like to really know why MORE people don’t question this whole narrative of the pentagon being hit by a “plane”
1 Hot_Beef_Injection 2018-04-19
No time. Gotta get up for work tomorrow. Most people only get like 3 hours of free time per day. No-one questions anything because everyone is too preoccupied just surviving.
1 cmrizzle 2018-04-19
Exactly this!
1 purplegreenredblue 2018-04-19
Yeah man my content time is precious and I fill it with dragons and tiddies
1 tripplethrendo 2018-04-19
Yeah or they have a funny feeling about it, but they don't really want to know the truth. There are a lot of truths that are probably better left secret. The human misery that would be caused is just too catastrophic. Or there could be major societal upheaval which would cause even more human misery.
1 GiveMeABreak25 2018-04-19
I think plenty of people do. It's just-what can you do about a gov't set on not letting you know? How many years can you keep up sustained outrage enough to make any difference?
1 maxfederle 2018-04-19
Agreed. And in the end, what difference does it make. The powers that be will continue to exert themselves and the world keeps going on in its demented way.
1 Casehead 2018-04-19
Lots of people saw a plane
1 west_coastG 2018-04-19
can't have that shattered worldview!
1 Talon550 2018-04-19
Why? Why NOT use a plane? Planes hit the twin towers right? Why are you so adamant there wasn't a plane? What does that change? Whether it's a plane, a missle, a planted charge, who cares? Isn't the whole point of the conspiracy that the government either conducted or had a hand in it? The plane not hitting the Pentagon is the new "all planes we're holograms on 9/11." Anyone who even remotely believes the official story is going to immediately discount you as a delusional moron and go about their day, all over a detail that's not fucking important.
1 rbsanford 2018-04-19
I'm sure a lot of people do, but they're afraid to talk about it, for fear of being ridiculed.
1 JamesVanDaFreek 2018-04-19
How did the fires even start in Building 7?
1 anothername787 2018-04-19
Debris fell onto the building from the other buildings.
1 1980sumthing 2018-04-19
true, in a video I saw therebwas 2 floors with some fire, one intact floor inbetween and rest of the outside untouched also when it goes down the bottom floors collapse first compared to the top floors on the others.
1 Swan_in_a_Cage 2018-04-19
Must have been a burning passport that fell from the plane
1 wowitslate 2018-04-19
Nah man those were fireproof...
1 Swan_in_a_Cage 2018-04-19
It was fireproof but it was able to lit everything else on fire.
1 wowitslate 2018-04-19
Bingo
1 maliciousgnome 2018-04-19
Explosions. Search Barry Jennings
1 zilla0100 2018-04-19
Why was the hole in the pentagon so tiny compared to the wingspan on a 747? How did a terrorist shit bird, who was failing single engine flight school, navigate from the middle of the country to one specific building, circle around 270 degrees to the side that was mostly empty for renovations to slam into it?
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
It was supposedly a 757, not 747 which is much larger.
1 Thoth2017 2018-04-19
First answer is because they don’t want you too. Second is easy, gravity.
1 tmartillo 2018-04-19
I'm confused because I definitely remember seeing footage taken from a highway camera and gas station of a low flying object over the highway like 10 years ago about the Pentagon crash. The video was not HD and to me made it look more like a missile compared to a plane, but I definitely thought there was some footage. Has it been scrubbed?
1 elxbarto 2018-04-19
I know what you're talking about but if I remember correctly the videos don't show impact, only some moments beforehand which are thus inconclusive
1 tmartillo 2018-04-19
True. I don't think I ever saw any actual collision footage, but I remember that there are camera limits around the Pentagon which seem somewhat logical and also somewhat BS. The Pentagon attack, like the Iraq invasion, never made any sense to me because it reeks of lies.
1 Tha_Yza 2018-04-19
By asking these questions, Something tells me you already know the answers...
1 jefffffffff 2018-04-19
missile.
they pulled it of course
1 Postal2Dude 2018-04-19
Jews
1 Dieghoul 2018-04-19
Here you're not gonna get a lot of answers trying to solve it.
Try asking it in r/history to see what they come up with there. The people that answer in that reddit think very highly of themselves regarding history. And I say it ask there cause that today is being written as a FACT in history books and is being taught to the new generations.
1 xRyNo 2018-04-19
The explanation I've heard for Tower 7 kind of makes sense. I think the theory is that gigantic pieces of debris had fallen from Tower 1 or 2 through the roof of Tower 7, creating major damage to the frame of the building. That, combined with fire fed by tons of paperwork, ultimately resulted in the collapse.
Fire alone has never brought down a building, but dropping a few tons of concrete through the roof might.
1 maliciousgnome 2018-04-19
Nah
1 Claypot 2018-04-19
For approximately 8 stories the building fell at free fall which means 8 stories had the same resistance as air.
The debris and fire that caused WTC7 collapse must be magical to cause those 8 floors to just disappear creating no resistance at all.
1 xRyNo 2018-04-19
This did a pretty good job of explaining it to me.
1 Claypot 2018-04-19
Yet nothing in that video explains how fire and debris can cause 8 floors to just disappear.
A high school physics teacher had NIST admit that free fall occurred for WTC 7.
1 xRyNo 2018-04-19
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4085
1 Claypot 2018-04-19
This article/blog does not address the issue of free fall. Try again.
1 DaciaWhippin 2018-04-19
You seem to be really hung up on what is essentially a buzzword.
1 Claypot 2018-04-19
Diversion level: Novice
1 themasterm 2018-04-19
Dissonance level: reee
1 Claypot 2018-04-19
Divert and Ad-Hominem. Beautiful.
1 DaciaWhippin 2018-04-19
So did you just discover what a thesaurus is or what? Your just saying logical fallacies without actually showing any clear understanding that you know what the hell you're talking about. You can't just sit back and claim unfair argumentative tactics and assume you're right. (You can but your not going to convince anyone) You still have to make a logical argument.
1 Claypot 2018-04-19
You and others cannot answer the question on how debris and fires can cause 8 floors (2.25 seconds) of a building to fall at free fall so you divert, use ad-hominems and state illogical things. How pathetic...
1 Casehead 2018-04-19
Exactly this.
1 ll_Atlanta_ll 2018-04-19
How do you explain tower 6 still standing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_World_Trade_Center
1 Cizuz 2018-04-19
Because every situation isnt identical.
Hell you could have 100 towers hit by a plane in the exact way, and 50 fall and 50 are saved.
That wouldnt mean if 2 towers were hit 1 must fall while the other survives.
We have evidence of buildings collapsing due to fire only, due to structural failure, and similar buildings not failing under similar situations.
No not any of the wtc buildings, other buildings have collapsed due to fire alone of similar construction in nearly identical ways.
How the fire propogates, how it is starved or supplied oxygen, what structural columns are intact or not intact and hell pure luck(aka not all buildings of the same design are the same, corners being cut, some higher quality steel some lowe4 quality steel while both still meet minimum standards etc etc etc)
1 hookahhoes 2018-04-19
Not that i believe the NIST report anyways, but if you do it says that the fallen debris from the towers do not contribute to the collapse, and it was only from regular office fires.
1 Eman_Elddim_Tsal 2018-04-19
University of Alaska Fairbanks found the NIST conclusion could only come from key stuctural elements nist left out and highly unlikely or unproven assumptions. Their model more in depth and using the same software as well as additional models shows that the building would not have fallen due to structural fire
1 Akareyon 2018-04-19
There is plenty of video and photographic evidence that the North Tower debris did not fall on WTC7, but against its side at best – in the form of powder mostly.
The official report also states in no uncertain terms that the North Tower collapse did not contribute greatly to the demise of WTC7, so whatever your source, it is at odds with the "official" explanation.
1 Odor_punchout_16 2018-04-19
I subcontract with demolition companies all the time, I've seen many many controlled demos, wt7 was a controlled demo with out any doubt.
1 BennyHarassi 2018-04-19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p34XrI2Fm6I
1 omw_to_fuck_ur_bitch 2018-04-19
How is this not the accepted story? He couldn't be more clear about the demo of building 7.
1 PanningForSalt 2018-04-19
How many accidental plane-crash demolitions have you seen in those years?
1 serviceenginesoon 2018-04-19
Dont forget the part of the pentagon hit was people investigating the missing trillions of dollars announced the day before
1 Cizuz 2018-04-19
Not true actually.
1 Odor_punchout_16 2018-04-19
Zero. Buy I have seen many controlled demos to know what I am looking at. Experience and eye test pal.
1 s50cal 2018-04-19
Controlled demos that failed so spectacularly that the debris from the building hit the next building over?
1 Odor_punchout_16 2018-04-19
The goal was not to take a bldg down for the purpose of new construction, it was meant for destruction. What are you saying? Bc debris hit other bldgs its not controlled? Do you have experience with demolition?
1 DigitalJealousy 2018-04-19
This is what I dont understand... how can people not see this? One can easily and clearly see wtc7 was a controlled demolition. It would have to have been rigged days in advance for that to happen. Clearly some fucked up shit was going down. Even first responders said they saw and heard cascading explosions when the twin towers fell.
1 DaciaWhippin 2018-04-19
Bruh you were on here trying to convince people Tom Brady was an A.I. I wouldn't trust anything that this man claims lmao.
1 skwerlee 2018-04-19
a superbowl winning MACHINE!
1 smoking_greens 2018-04-19
Bahahahaha. Thank you for your investigative findings.
1 Odor_punchout_16 2018-04-19
Talking about a possible theory doesn't mean I believe it myself, it was fun and relevant at the time. Dont hate
1 LeBrons_Mom 2018-04-19
1 TokeyWakenbaker 2018-04-19
Yes. It's happens in... well, we observed it, directly when... come on, man!
1 1deafvet 2018-04-19
Exactly.
and more.
1 Flemtron 2018-04-19
How were passports of the hijackers found on the ground after the attack and the black boxes weren't? Shouldn't the paper be either torn or burned when the plane hit?
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
They found jet fuel soaked passports after the fireball that supposesly causes the core columns to collapse like butter.
1 Rawc90 2018-04-19
I’m not disagreeing with you, totally agree there’s loads of unanswered questions s etc... but the heat created was enough to cause the metal carrying the weight from up top buckle which would send the building crashing down. The found passports are total bollocks though
1 ThunderPreacha 2018-04-19
It didn't buckle, which could maybe make some sense, but pulverize!
1 Rawc90 2018-04-19
Long beans of steel, the area where the fire is, let’s says a meter of steel that gets really hot. Even with a slight tap from a blacksmiths hammer will bend it, now remember how many tonnes of building are on top. That will cause the metal to buckle, the weight on top with the collapsing building will then twist, snap and even pulverise the metal on the fall
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Youre forgetting that jet fuel in an oxygen starved environment cant produce that kind of flame to get steel weakened. Even if it could, the structural redundancy would mean that floors could collapse, but the building would still stand. It was as if all the core columns ceased to exist, and there was an explosive collapse so fast it created a massive downdraft that sucked the smoke and dust down with it.
1 rednaskal 2018-04-19
How much steel weakens then? A quick google search said normal house fire can reach 1800F. How much of stregth would you say is left at ~1000F?
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Depends on the alloy, load and amount of structural integrity it had to begin with. The WTC was overengineered to be a fortress. They didnt know asbestos was carcinogenic though so it would have bee billions to modernize them.
And the problem is, your question should be "how much damage could a few locally weakened or cut beams really cause to such a redundantly strong structure?".
Enough to make the top floors slide off? Break down ABOVE the fire? Maybe. Make the whole building symmetrically fall in on itself at freefall speeds? And not just two buildings, one that wasnt even hit by a plane.
1 rednaskal 2018-04-19
I just asked about steel stregth for now.. I investigated myself. At 1800F the stregth is reduced to about 10%. At 1100F 50%. Plane crashed and it cut some structures but the building could take it and didn't collapse. Seems that Jetfuel burned rather quickly(minutes) and the main heat source came from office interiors allowing supporting structures to weaken. Why did you mention only jetfuel burning when reports say it basicly just started the fires?
Knowing this I'd say there was enough heat for a few floors to collapse even on such a redundantly strong building.
Wikipedia confirms the top collapsed From wikipedia:
Let's ask more questions.. How much weight can one floor support? When top falls and collapses like that can the floor below it support that? They are not designed to for sure. Every floor below that has more crap to support. Easy to assume they come down like they did atleast.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Watch the videos. There was no visible buclking or leaning until it started to fall straight down into its own footprint.
And even if the jet fuel, which is kerosine, and not particularly hot burning in an open air deflagration, started fires in a steel, concrete and asbestos building... wtf burned? Some chairs, carpets and wood desks? The WTC wasnt some giant dry wood structure doused in gasoline. It was mostly nonflammable.
Also, people walked through the area that was supposedly a raging inferno, without any equipment, some of them multiple times. How? Fires didnt burn the stuff they said, thats the simplest explanation.
1 rednaskal 2018-04-19
The point was it does not need to be raging inferno to weaken the structures.. I posted reports about it leaning from nypd. From videos i can see the top collapses as whole and then it just keeps coming down. Like i said i would assume what happens when top part of building falls like it did.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
How do you explain the ejected material being tens of floors below the collapse, and traveling at 100mph, far ahead of the collapsing floors?
1 rednaskal 2018-04-19
collapsing is slower than free fall. Cannot comment about speed..Where is it measured?
What columns are you refering to? Walls? Why is that something needing explaining? Plenty of crap in middle and the columns on outer walls are pushed outwards?
1 dystopian_love 2018-04-19
What is the chance that a localized, asymmetric fire would cause the structure to weaken and break SIMULTANEOUSLY across the width of the entire structure? That's an insane claim.
1 johnnydangerjt 2018-04-19
We are forgetting the little issue that the building were built TO SURVIVE A PLANE STRIKE....
1 dystopian_love 2018-04-19
Right. So it makes the claim that it did fall due to fire even more astronomically insane.
1 Kushisadog 2018-04-19
Hey, the Titanic was supposed to be built to be unsinkable but look what happened to that
1 Bone-Marrow 2018-04-19
Dont you know that the titanic intentionally sunk because the some of the richest people on it opposed the federal reserve?
1 MrRedTRex 2018-04-19
tell me more
1 Babble610 2018-04-19
cant remember all the details but has something to do with Rocker-fella or Morgan owned shipping line. I believe it was Morgan if i remember correctly. Two identical Titanics. An ignored distress signal after the crash. Maybe White star shipping.
The owner of the shipping lines was supposed to be on the Titanic when it left but changed plans last minute. Most of the wealthy guests were invited by Morgan specifically to be there to discuss the Federal reserve.
Killed off the opposition. Monster of Jekyll island.
1 jamesois 2018-04-19
but Cal said the Better Half made it off on lifeboats
1 trevorjbarry 2018-04-19
mate I don’t think it was made to survive a plane of that size...
1 AsteroidsOnSteroids 2018-04-19
You're right. Funny how misinformation can be spread through half truths like that.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Designed to withstand a Boeing 707, which is a quad engine passenger jet plane almost the same size as the 767s that hit it... yes it was.
1 trevorjbarry 2018-04-19
I mean a lot of things are built to survive a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean they always work.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Very true, but do you REALLY expect 3 steel skyscrapers, 2 of them designed to withstand plane impacts, to fall in almost the exact same way, completely to the ground as if their core columns were cut, within a few hours of each other?
I could understand one, but not 3, especially since its impossible for those jets to have been doing those speeds with that maneuverability and precision at that altitude. Especially when flown by guys who were so bad some of them werent allowed to solo a single engine Cessna.
1 Dave_the_lighting_gu 2018-04-19
Designed to do something and built to do something are completely different. For instance, the fireproofing on the structural columns was pretty spotty or poorly maintained. Steel loses ~60% of its strength at the temperatures expected in an office fire. In addition, strain hardening is reduced significantly at higher temperatures, leading to more brittle failures as seen on 9/11.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
What do you mean... it was built to withstand the impact after they designed it. You implying that corners were cut?
1 Dave_the_lighting_gu 2018-04-19
Yes. That is obvious in the fireproofing
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Ok so have we got pictures or any evidence that they cut corners in the fireproofing? And no i dont mean "well the buildings fell down because fire and flawed NIST simulations said so!" I mean like actual evidence of corner cutting.
1 Dave_the_lighting_gu 2018-04-19
There has been a multitude of evidence provided to back my claim both online and in documentaries. Even a small flaw in fireproofing can cripple the structural system.
1 Rawc90 2018-04-19
It’s not quite as simple as that. It could technically be impossible to make a building survive a plane strike for all we know. Measures were put into place so that the structure of the building would be as strong as possible in the event of a plane crash. Similar to what someone said about the titanic. Engineers can only try there best to do this. There’s no way of knowing if it works until it happens because at no point did they build a practice building and fly a plane into it.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
No, you can quite easily calculate the forces involved. Thats why airplanes dont just fall out of the sky very often, buildings can be built thousands of feet tall, vehicles can fly into space and survive re entry. Its because people can calculate the forces involved.
Do you realize what it takes to make a microchip? The amount of EDA verification to make sure features only 50 atoms wide dont get damaged from electromigration, with 20 billion transistors on a single chip?
Or how about the RS25 engine(Space Shuttle Main Engine) If you think humans cant create things designed to withstand extreme forces, with exacting precision look no further than the turbopumps, metallurgy, and design of the RS25 engine.
Yes, there are failures that can happen unexpectedly, but given the fact that all 3 WTC buildings that fell... within hours of each other... were designed with several times the strength needed for redundancy, its highly unlikely that they failed due to cool burning office fires.
Also WTC 1 and 2 used a construction technique where basically it was a skyscraper within a skyscraper. Most of the outer columns could be cut but the core columns would have been able to stand.
And where did the hat truss from both buildings go? Should be laying on top but its pulverized.
1 Rawc90 2018-04-19
Actually as surprising as it seems it would. I mean when you think about it it make sense. The steel is holding all that weight above it. It weakens due to the heat, won’t take many beams to fail before all the weight then shifts to the other weakened beams and you’ll have full failure of that section. All that weight on top then comes crashing down and triggers a chain reaction. Steel is great for holding things in place, but any movement or sudden impact/shift in weight it will buckle and fail. - I work with steel. I’m not saying this wasn’t a set up, I’m just saying the steel beam melting argument doesn’t hold up. Plenty more do, you should Argue them instead
1 Mecanatron 2018-04-19
What you're saying is very true, except that i would argue in the scenario which you describe, the failure would surely be asymmetrical (from the weakest point and spreading out)?
And I'll even go as far as to say that there is always a chance in a million that you could get a perfectly symmetrical failure but that 'chance' increases astronomically when you add in the 2 other buildings also falling symmetrically on the same day, with 1 of those buildings being a completely different design from the other two (WTC 7).
I also have an issue with 'top section' theory, the one that crashes through the lower section. Aside from obvious problem with the physics of it (Newtons 3rd law).
And in relation to the 'top section' theory is also the question of the massive steel cross section 'hat truss frame' that sat on top of the towers [Figure 6]. As there was no weight above this, we would expect to see it somewhat intact on top of the pile. It was not.
1 Allaboutplastic 2018-04-19
Take those statistics and remember,it wasn’t 1 tower that fell, 3 towers fell the exact same way
1 imboomshesaid 2018-04-19
Learn some physics and study how the towers were erected. Dear god, that would actually take EFFORT and INTELLIGENCE. Much easier to say, "I personally, with no mathematic or basic understanding of how the buildings were erected, or how the steel support columns weakened by fire due to the way the building was designed, could possibly result in this...therefore, CONSPIRACY AND TO HELL WITH ALL THE EXPLANATIONS LAID OUT TIME AND TIME AGAIN BY EXPERTS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE FIELDS, RED PILL MUTHAFUCKA!!!!" Focus on some of the aspects that ARE disputed instead of the ridiculous, I beg of you.
1 dystopian_love 2018-04-19
So are you going to make an actual counterargument to the argument I presented or are you just going babble on?
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
It would send the floor that was weakened crashing down, and then avalanching out the side, since all the buildings that "collapsed" had several times the structural load carrying capacity redundantly built in... specifically so they would never collapse due to fire or one column(NIST explanation for 7) failing.
Also, there are the V cut i beams, the molten steel conglomerations with concrete mixed in, beams that were like Swiss cheese.
The fact that the official story even says that something like 90% of the fuel was consumed on impact, the WTC was full of fireproof asbestos, and not much to burn, plus the smoke was black... except for unexplained white smoke occassionally, then a stream of molten steel pours out, then it falls down, indicates that other than at very specific times the fires burned very cool and oxygen starved(like 700C cool).
1 Malak77 2018-04-19
Most convincing to me is every other crash has luggage, seats, etc and none of that at the Pentagon or Pennsylvania.
1 MimiMoondust 2018-04-19
I love like a mile away from the flight 93 crash site in Pa!
We went and saw it right after it happened...there was literally NOTHING. Kinda looked like the ground exploded from underneath if that makes sense? No grass in that area, just dirt, etc.
1 superiorpanda 2018-04-19
Most convincing is the stock sell from the airlines the day before, or the missing gold, or the location of the impacts.
1 ajhvq 2018-04-19
"Fun" fact: the Pentagon was build in a district called "hells bottom" which was home to many poor before. Why is this building called and shaped like a Pentagon? Why can you reach every place in this building in "7" minutes? What ideology is this based on? Start with some simple questions.
1 NimbaNineNine 2018-04-19
Lol clearly it is witchcraft wake up
1 solvitNOW 2018-04-19
Haha..”yeah yeah fellow conspiracy theorist I’m with you man, speak the truth....waitwhut??”
1 ajhvq 2018-04-19
Suck my dick Pussy Ass boi id Love to smash your Shell in real life
1 NimbaNineNine 2018-04-19
If you are suggesting I am a teenage mutant Nina turtle I will be forced to agree.
1 ajhvq 2018-04-19
Funny dude you old Ass cuckold wipe that cum of your face
1 NimbaNineNine 2018-04-19
Why are you so triggered
1 ajhvq 2018-04-19
i understand you making jokes n'all because there is not much hope left little goy. Now go watch some Netflix
1 zagbag 2018-04-19
Shit like this harms the movement more than anything else.
1 JigabooFriday 2018-04-19
I see what your saying, as theories that involve any sort of otherworldly aspects are easy to deny and function as a great tool to degrade the “conspiracy theorist” label.
But I think theories like this are important, even if they are abstract, some of them are shockingly convincing.
I see your point, but I think there’s a lot of potential for it to be something totally different.
1 DrakeRome 2018-04-19
But like, he seems to be connecting it with satanic imagery, so he is even wrong on a theological level. The Pentagon in no way looks like a *pentagram (which I think he meant), and the number 7 can easily be considered holy in mainstream Christianity. The seven years of tribulation in the book of revelations, or the 7 days it took for god to create everything according to the book of genesis. I'm not religious, but anyone who reads the bible can easily see the flaws in this logic.
I happen to live in a location in the midwest that is close to "the devil's tower" and a beautiful pool deep in a canyon called "Devil's bathtub". These weren't named that due to some overarching satanic conspiracy, just like the pentagon sure as hell wasn't built to represent that.
The pentagon, as a shape and word, has been around since the time of the ancient greeks, far before the birth of Christianity. So basing any of his point in supposed satanic imagery is even more ridiculous.
1 ajhvq 2018-04-19
Nowhere "satanic" as you think although luzifer is a symbol. Its pure Freemasonary/Kabbalism. Your whole country has been build and influencend by this brotherhood so im not suprised about places named like that. Believe it or not todays world was "build" by Masons and its on going.
1 DrakeRome 2018-04-19
All talk, but no real substance. I was responding to someone clearly referencing a "witchcraft"/satanic/literal-satanist-witchcraft-and-wizardy-cabal, sort of spin on on the whole shebang. You take that, jump the shark, and run it into me somehow commenting on completely unrelated conspiracy theories. Unsubstantiated claims, pointedly made under the assumed stereotype you set out for me. By the way your concluding response,
sort of reveals the merit of your own argument. All straw men and ad hominems. You simply cannot prove a point with your own imagined assumptions. Hope you come around one day, cheers!
1 ajhvq 2018-04-19
LMAO. Mason symbolism is witchcraft? man, i feel bad for you and many others here. you are prisonates of logic and rationality and of course this system. Die in ignorance.
1 DrakeRome 2018-04-19
Clearly you need to brush up on reading comprehension before you actually debate someone. Again, you are conflating multiple conspiracy theories.
I responded to a comment that never included free masonry, and I never addressed it in my response. The person I responded to declared that the imagery in the Pentagon is witchcraft, and I told him it was a ridiculous claim. So you are literally agreeing with my point now.
Actually understanding what you are responding to is important! But I doubt you will learn that anytime soon given the venom in your responses.
1 ajhvq 2018-04-19
You are fucking ridiculous Bro. Your Arguments are pure shit. "This has existed before so there is no way some people praise human history and use this for they fucking planned country". Even some of your disgusting presidents openly admit to be Masons. Why do you defend them? You'll never be part of them. They look down on you being wealthy, having ancestors since xxxx i dont give a damn and who were far more intelligent then yours! What are you doing here? You are clearly blind as fuck. Probably a debt slave and defender of the free world. Lmao.
1 ImGeoX 2018-04-19
Yeah that's bullshit. They somehow just happened to find all the passports of all the hijackers? Clearly they just wanted someone to blame for this hoax.
1 Space_Pecs 2018-04-19
They claim to have found one, not all.
1 HHorror 2018-04-19
Can you point to the source where they say all? Because you are on some Bush shit right about now.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
They only found 4, there were 19 hijackers. ! of those 4 was in lost luggage that never made it onto the AA11 connecting flight.
1 chappaquiditch 2018-04-19
Four of the hijackers' passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania. These are the passports of Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al Ghamdi. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. A fourth passport was recovered from luggage that did not make it from a Portland flight to Boston on to the connecting flight which was American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Abdul Aziz al Omari.""In addition to these four, some digital copies of the hijackers passports were recovered in post-9/11 operations. Two of the passports that have survived, those of Satam al Suqami and Abdul Aziz al Omari, were clearly doctored. To avoid getting into classified detail, we will just state that these were manipulated in a fraudulent manner in ways that have been associated with al Qaeda."
3 of the 4 were reasonable imo. The one in NYC seems a tad ridiculous.
1 jubale 2018-04-19
You can't board an airplane without a passport. How did the guy check it in luggage and then go through security?
1 acceptabledegenerate 2018-04-19
Why would a passport be inside luggage?
1 chappaquiditch 2018-04-19
You don't need it to fly domestically.
1 HAESisAMyth 2018-04-19
Then why bring it?
1 chappaquiditch 2018-04-19
Idk. Mb bring it with you and hope it gets destroyed. Force of habit. Who knows.
1 A-wild-comment 2018-04-19
Wouldn't they need the passports to enter the country initially?
1 Halalocaust 2018-04-19
When I lived in Australia I usually just carried it on me
1 Drew1904 2018-04-19
Even the ones from PA? There was almost no wreckage.
1 chappaquiditch 2018-04-19
My only point was that it's easier to find something in a field then lower Manhattan.
1 Drew1904 2018-04-19
And mine is it doesn’t look like nearly anything survived in PA. Like, just the tail section. Why would passports?
1 chappaquiditch 2018-04-19
I have no idea. It would be interesting to know if other passports were found.
1 peacefulsnowman 2018-04-19
They found nuts and bolts, and pieces of fucilage about the size of a fist. If been there, I live an hour away. I remember seeing the plane fly over us we didn't know obviously but we remember seeing a commercial plane flying lower than usual. What is curious is about 15 minutes later we saw 3 jets following in the same direction and that leads me to believe it was shot down but who know. All I know is we never see military jets flying through our skies around here, that was unusual. Doesn't take a genius to connect the dots there. thanks
1 AsteroidsOnSteroids 2018-04-19
It's normal for a plane flying in airspace it shouldn't be in to attract military escorts out of that airspace. Here's some radio recordings including fighter jets and air traffic control when something like that happens, in this case a cessna flying too close to the super bowl.
Same thing happens if there's a bomb threat or a hijacking.
So seeing fighters following flight 93 doesn't necessarily mean it was shot down. Neither does the particularly sparse wreckage. You can look up photos of shot down aircraft that are surprisingly intact. Maybe they were shot down, but I think it's more likely they hit the ground at high speed (as opposed to a speed closer to that during an attempted landing) and were subsequently smashed into smithereens.
1 RobotCaesar 2018-04-19
Yeah I am pretty sure even the official story says that Bush was very close to having Flight 93 shot down when it crashed.
1 peacefulsnowman 2018-04-19
They found the planes engine in a like within a few miles away from where the plane crashed
1 ILoveJuices 2018-04-19
There was no luggage or people on the ground at Pennsylvania.
1 chappaquiditch 2018-04-19
What's your point?
1 jasenlee 2018-04-19
You really believe that? In all the wreckage they couldn't even find dead bodies. They could barely piece together papers from the destroyed buildings but you think 3 out 4 of the passports survived intact? Like they just flew out of the vest jackets of the "hijackers" and went blowing out a window safely landing to the ground with nary a scratch to be found in short order?
1 chappaquiditch 2018-04-19
One was in luggage that never crashed. 2 were in the crash zone of the most analyzed field of all time I d9nt think that's a stretch.
1 r34xL 2018-04-19
There is also a big question regarding the impact zone in PA for U93.
1 chappaquiditch 2018-04-19
Don't keep me in suspense bruh
1 r34xL 2018-04-19
Many others in this thread have already spoken in depth regarding 93, so there's no need to rehash what's already been said.
I have no doubt that 93 crashed. But most definitely not at the location we are told. Shot down makes the most sense and fits the evidence.
1 devils_advocaat 2018-04-19
Do you know if passports of other passengers were found?
1 chappaquiditch 2018-04-19
Can't find any info on it right now.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
The one in NYC is the least ridiculous. Watch the impact footage, especially of the second plane (because by then the cameras are fixed and focused on the towers and the shots are clear).
When the second plane hits, you see debris exit the other side of the building. The passports were found blocks away.
It's possible (though I'm not convinced) that on impact the windows of the cockpit were blown out and the clothing of the people in the cockpit who were not wearing belts were flung forward through the building at 200+ miles an hour and were ejected out the side, escaping the fire.
1 chappaquiditch 2018-04-19
That's actually a solid theory, hadn't thought of it.
1 Un1c0rnTears 2018-04-19
Read too fast and was like, why would the people on the plane not be wearing clothes?
1 shmusko01 2018-04-19
light materials ejected.
1 Qrbrbl 2018-04-19
Wait, was this really o e of their ways for identifying the hijackers!?
1 amgoingtohell 2018-04-19
How are some of the 'hijackers" still alive?
Here's one report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
Pretty sure there were others.
Also this from u/Schkeptick
The BBC reported in 2003 that the FBI obtained DNA from their hotel rooms and rental cars.
This page has a really interesting response to that, however - including quotes from one guy who said the pilots would have been vaporized, and that any matching DNA would more likely come from someone who was in the back of the airplane.
And I find THIS to be really disturbing:
Are we seriously saying we decided someone was a hijacker because some family in Saudi (or wherever) didn't have DNA to submit to the FBI? In the middle east even relatively poor families frequently have a housemaid, and the house is cleaned pretty meticulously every day. You wouldn't have a hairbrush sitting around dirty for months.
1 Englishman6465 2018-04-19
So what does everyone here think happened if not what we were told?
1 TehSavior 2018-04-19
black boxes aren't indestructible, they're designed to survive things like fire and the impact of a regular crash. they're not designed to survive a dive into a reinforced concrete building. with an impact like that, consider that something like a plane is mostly empty space on the inside. at impact, shits getting crumpled.
source: am career structural engineer
1 FatherMurder 2018-04-19
You can put out a fire with gasoline if you have enough. It’s only flammable at a specific ratio. When I was in fire academy in the 90’s our instructor put out a cigarette by throwing it into a 50 gallon drum of diesel.
Also the fire that took down the tower had to build over time. The building didn’t fall the instant the plane hit. The building did survive a plane strike. It was the fire after the fact, that built over a period of time and across the spans of a bunch of floors and square footage that allowed enough heat to build up and weaken the steel. It’s not rocket science, just basic science.
Also there is debris like passports and magazines, news papers, photographs etcetera after almost all plane crashes.
People just want to assign conspiracy to normal science and scenarios. Not speaking towards who organized the attack or why. Just the basic things that are being doubted have very basic reasons behind them.
1 whiskytango74 2018-04-19
Explain the "science" of building 7 then professor.
1 FatherMurder 2018-04-19
Let’s start by doing away with the passive aggressive nonsense ok? Your question would have been just as effective had it left off the “professor” comment. If you want to have an intellectual conversation with people who have something to add, the last thing you want to do is show your teeth. Ego and entitlement won’t win you a thing.
Secondly, contents burning from within the building added “fuel” to the fire and thermal expansion weakened the structure. I work in the construction field and have an understanding of how things are built. And furthermore due to my extensive training as a fire fighter, hazmat technician, as well as a flood and fire technician I have an understanding of how things burn and react. The idea that explosives brought down WTC 7 is popular theory and for all the evidence out there, it’s not hard to believe either. That said, structural reports from actual engineering firms spell a different outcome with a less than fantastic ending. As tragic as the events were that took part that day, unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, it’s science rather than fantasy that took that building down. (I responded to the Pentagon and worked for a very long time in support of that mission) and I’m from NYC, I am personally attached to both incident scenes and don’t take speaking to those events lightly. I’d love to be able to blame it on explosives set by our own government as a coverup. It’s just not so, at least at that level.
1 Jollyyy_frs 2018-04-19
1 FatherMurder 2018-04-19
And jet fuel is very similar to diesel.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Which flight were the black boxes missing from?
1 mark4500 2018-04-19
I thought the same thing that day!
1 Bernie_Sanders_2020 2018-04-19
no those passports were in the cabin the strongest point of the plane (everyone knows that) s/
1 reedemerofsouls 2018-04-19
do you guys ever get tired of asking the same questions over and over since 2004 or whenever they were first formulated? either you understand that airplane crashes are not total booms where everything turns to ashes and some random shit is recovered OR you don't. objects being retrieved from plane crashes is not that rare of an occurrence. believe it or not if you'd like but why ask this "question"?
1 Obnoxiousjimmyjames 2018-04-19
1) it’s a cover-up. Video would expose the cruise missile that hit then pentagon.
2) building 7 was wired for a controlled demolition, then they demolished it.
If you spend about a half hour searching, you’ll find enough circumstantial proof that you’ll find the arguments against an inside job are the tougher challenge. Right now, the only argument they have is “do you really think the government would do that to their own people? Nobody can keep a secret.”
1 zensational 2018-04-19
Just here browsing, but how is the logistics / keeping a secret not a valid argument?
1 Obnoxiousjimmyjames 2018-04-19
It's "proving a negative." which is easy to do. Here are five simple questions that DESERVE answers and create a shit-ton more questions. 1) Why was there only ONE turbofan (that is too small for the aircraft) pictured @ the Pentagon on a twin-engine plane? 2) Why was all the non-Pentagon local security camera footage confiscated? 3) Why did the wings not shear off--unable to penetrate a concrete building, and the tail section? 4) How is it a violation of national security to release security camera footage of the exterior of the Pentagon--that is in clear view of anyone standing outside of the Pentagon, or Googling images? 5) If they released a few frames from a parking camera of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon, why can they not release full motion video? What about video of a similar angle? Bonus Question: Why did a CNN reporter claim a cruise missile hit the Pentagon? I saw this LIVE on Sept 11 as I watched the coverage on the CNN television broadcast. (Also there is a video of it floating around - find it.)
1 zensational 2018-04-19
I don't know much about the conspiracy theory or information that debunks it, one way or another, so I can't speak to any of that. But it seems like you didn't really answer my core question, which is: if (presumably) hundreds of people had to have been in on this and co-ordinated it, how is it that no definitive proof has come out?
1 Obnoxiousjimmyjames 2018-04-19
Hundreds of people were not involved. The Trade Centre buildings were the only ones wired by say, 3 small teams during the weekends. Tell everyone not involved they are doing "maintenance" or "Wiring a new fibre optic network" or something, and you don't attract attention. How often is maintenance done on a building people work in? Nobody ever cares, and if they ask, it's a simple "Maintenance" or whatever. Also the guy in charge of security @ WTC was GWB's cousin. As for the actual people who did the explosives wiring - they were probably not U.S. Citizens, and don't have any love for the US, or deep black ops or something like that. In terms of keeping a secret, good God! How much actually occurs in this world that nobody knows anything about?? A few examples: The F117 Stealth fighter before it was "presented" to the world. What about the "Stealth" Blackhawk helicopter from the Bin Laden raid? Shit, nobody even knows what that looks like! And we know it exists now, and have seen the tail section. Sure, there's theories about what it looks like, but no one has ever seen it in person and told us, or leaked a photo. Secrets, BIG secrets, are way easier to keep than you would think--especially if the penalty of talking is "death".
1 Akareyon 2018-04-19
It's an argument from incredulity.
History has shown that it is entirely feasible to secretly do work on a skyscraper.
"We would have heard of a conspiracy because people can't keep secrets" is also a huge fallacy, because we only hear of conspiracy if people can't keep secrets. That allows us no prediction whatsoever about how many conspiracies there are if people do keep their secrets.
1 LSU_BAW_89 2018-04-19
Steel under a stress + heat = more deformation = collapse
I know you guys love the 7 collapse but that's really not out of the question and the flight 93 is more of a question mark than anything else.
1 zxanthion 2018-04-19
It's a matter of National Security. The missile had identifying marks so we can't show you any footage & for the Building 7, I'm just going to say gravity. Now get on with your day, you've been sufficiently informed citizen.
1 JB_XYZ 2018-04-19
I don't need to see pentagon footage.
There were dozens of yard workers, police officers, parking enforcers etc... that all gave testimoney and their eye witness events hours after it happened saying the same thing. Light Poles were also knocked down, which all of them said they said the plane knock them down.
I don't believe it was a missile unless there was a missile inside of the plane, but it was indeed a plane.
1 Casehead 2018-04-19
yep
1 lilguccibar 2018-04-19
Cuz it’s all fake . Can we move on from 911 !!??
1 cgeezy22 2018-04-19
Because in 2001 cameras were pretty garbage, especially cctv cameras that are meant to surveil a property and take a picture every several seconds instead of video. Apparently the feds may have seized a couple videos of the flight hitting from local businesses. This wasn't a time where everyone had an HD camera in the pocket.
Building 7 fell due to fire that burned from 10am till 5pm. This is an unprecedented amount of time to let a building burn. Everyone on the ground knew it would collapse especially after pulling everyone out of the area. They weren't about to lose dozens more fire fighters.
1 theHawkmooner 2018-04-19
The first and only time an industrial building has collapsed from fire
1 cgeezy22 2018-04-19
The first and only time a modern building burned out of control for 7 hours.
1 NetSpectre 2018-04-19
And at free-fall speed.
1 zensational 2018-04-19
Watch the CBS footage and you can see that the interior collapsed before the shell. It makes sense that the shell would fall at speed when nothing was holding it up from inside and the bottom was compromised by thousands of tons of material impacting.
1 xJokerzWild 2018-04-19
'Giant Concrete & Steel building collapsed from a paper fire.'
Man, ive never heard a more convincing argument. /s
1 cgeezy22 2018-04-19
What?
All 3 buildings that collapsed at the WTC were steel frame with absolutely no concrete core.
In building 7, the fire was fueled not by paper but all manner of materials in these fully occupied offices. Carpet, plastics, wood and various other synthetic materials. Not only that but I believe it was fueled by fuel reserves from a generator system in the building.
1 xJokerzWild 2018-04-19
Never said it did have a concrete core? Dont know where the hell you pulled that from, just cause i mentioned concrete. i've literally seen a picture of the WTC being built from the inside, taken by one of the construction workers. Psst, you might not know this, but concrete is used as the foundation for buildings most of the time.
As for 'office supplies' those would of burned up & been gone in a matter of minutes. You ever burn a plastic spoon with a torch? that fuckers gone faster than a deadbeat being asked for child support, and a fire of that magnitude is way hotter than a torch will reach. Carpet would add a few minutes burn time, same as wood. not keep it going for hours.
And even if there were fuel reserves for generators, they would be ground level or below, First few floors would of been on fire, and we would of seen the fire slowly go up if that had been the case and there were 'fuel reserves' for the generators.
1 cgeezy22 2018-04-19
'Giant Concrete & Steel building collapsed from a paper fire.'
Why even mention it then? Concrete floors are meaningless.
You are vastly underestimating just how much material is in an office building like this. You talk about a 3 gram spoon as if that is in any way relatable to the hundreds of tons of material in this building. You seem to be out of your depth here in all honesty.
100% inaccurate. There were diesel tanks scattered throughout the building. The largest of the tanks were on the ground floor near the loading docks but several smaller tanks were on the 2nd and 7th floor as well as others I believe higher up in the building.
By the way, going forward...you don't say could of or would of. It's could've or would've as in could have or would have.
1 DankingtonMemesworth 2018-04-19
Should read 'Giant Concrete & Steel building collapses from a fire the last for over 7 hours.'
If you're going to try to discredit that, you better have some serious credentials to back up your claim. Are you a structural engineer of sorts?
1 vivek31 2018-04-19
Seven hours? That shit burned for two hours at most.
1 DankingtonMemesworth 2018-04-19
If you're going to oppose what the majority of experts, who have studied this, have concluded you better link the shit out of some strong sources. Otherwise, why even say it?
1 alienrefugee51 2018-04-19
The Pentagon had a gazillion cameras around it. I think it’s safe to say they weren’t your standard run of the mill security cameras monitoring 7-11’s.
1 cgeezy22 2018-04-19
We have 1 example on Pentagon property and it's terrible. It captures an image every 1-2 seconds. It's reasonable to believe that most of the cameras on site were like this.
You need to remember that 2001 is a long time ago especially when it comes to technology. 1 TB hard drives weren't even on the market. The average hard drive size in 2001 was 40 GB. I say this just to keep things in perspective.
I wouldn't be surprised if the footage they did release (linked above) is one of the better shots available of the crash.
1 ziplock9000 2018-04-19
Lol. You're a bit late to the party asking those questions. Try Googling for a start.
1 bri9and 2018-04-19
Conspiracy theorist! Burn her! Stop thinking just accept what you are told!
1 TitanicMan 2018-04-19
"HURR DURR YOU CAN'T HAVE TITLE-ONLY POSTS"
—Mods, Few weeks ago when I pointed out there were fucking UFOs circling the sun that everyone could see.
But yeah totally, actual fucking swarms of UFOs are a waste of space but we can do the same thing with fucking Conspiracy Theorist 101 bullshit obvious topics that everyone fucking knows already.
Is 9/11 just a fucking distraction for the conspiracy community now?
1 Casehead 2018-04-19
UFO's?
1 other_self 2018-04-19
2018 and fools are still entertaining stupid questions with obvious answers.
Because it was a controlled demo. The engineers of 9/11 prob thought "ehh, if the towers are coming down, might as well seize the opportunity and bring down 7 as well. We'll fit it into the story somehow."
1 skrimpstaxx 2018-04-19
There was a post on ask Reddit about a week ago that asked what conspiracy theories we believe. I said 9/11 was an inside job and was downvoted into oblivion. People suck.
1 vivek31 2018-04-19
I think it's more the term you're using. That's like saying Bush did 9/11. That'll get easily dismissed. I usually just say it's a conspiracy and point out the free fall speed all three buildings fell at. Sometimes I say that the official story is the biggest conspiracy theory of them all. Plus the speed the planes allegedly flew above sea level.
1 Chredditis 2018-04-19
N A T I O N A L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 boostarhehmes 2018-04-19
S E C U R I T Y
1 CollectiveHoney 2018-04-19
INTO ANAL.
Oh, we aren’t doing anagrams?
1 toneii 2018-04-19
Yeah Bldg 7 was hit by falling debris. I used to believe that controlled demo was a likelihood, but after the 85 collapse in Atlanta, I now see how plastic can burn so hot it causes structural failure.
1 InvisibleCarThief 2018-04-19
The Pentagon crash was caught on several different cameras; a few minutes afterwards the FBI was there to collect the tapes. That short clip was the only thing released; years later.
1 r34xL 2018-04-19
The "plane" also happened to hit the offices at the Pentagon that were investigating a large amount of money that went missing (trillions of dollars) That investigation was stopped on 9/11.
1 ContentFarmer 2018-04-19
Any source where I can read up on this?
1 letsgetsomenudes 2018-04-19
You cant because its not true. Trillions of dollars goes missing you bet your ass it would be knowledgeable no matter what.
1 personalcheesecake 2018-04-19
Yet there have been statements from them talking about missing money. Rumsfeld talked about it in a speech a day before to the tune of 1.3 trillion THEN.
1 r34xL 2018-04-19
That's cute! I miss having that innocence.
1 Absh4x0r 2018-04-19
Thanks, I had a good laugh at your cognitive dissonance. Please, please, just open your eyes.
I notice if I lose $10 they for sure would notice trillions...
1 RobotCaesar 2018-04-19
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG
It is common knowledge. Do some googling, there are countless stories like this one. The Army, the DOD, the pentagon. All cooking the books.
1 Yoduh99 2018-04-19
they do it every year, with billions and trillions of dollars. why one year, 2001, did they decide they needed to blow up part of the pentagon?
1 TheGodOgun 2018-04-19
https://youtu.be/xU4GdHLUHwU this video is a nice little start.
1 r34xL 2018-04-19
Yes. Both video and transcripts available here
1 TheGodOgun 2018-04-19
Interesting we both got - votes for proof. I evened yours out
1 r34xL 2018-04-19
Cognitive dissonance sadly. 60% of the time it works every time. If enough people yell "no way that couldn't happen" then people could be presented with hand written evidence from the deity of their choice and still give it an "oh pshaw"
1 AlvinItchyCock 2018-04-19
How the fuck does trillions of dollars go missing?
1 ArchonLol 2018-04-19
They didn't. The missing was an accounting issue, they were trying to determine the flow of the funds. It was spent on something. I know that's not much better but it's quite different from literal piles of cash going missing from a vault.
1 JU5TIN_HERGINA 2018-04-19
source?
1 r34xL 2018-04-19
Quite easily over time sadly.
1 docmongre 2018-04-19
Not an answer but I remember the original footage agents didn't recover from surrounding areas. It was from a building across the street. It clearly showed a white missile before the explosion.
Several days later I went back to show a friend and it was gone. In its place was a crappy doctored version showing a glob meant to look like a plane. Early video editing sucked. I'll never forget.
1 Tunderbar1 2018-04-19
You can't see footage of the Pentagon being hit because it was a bomb.
Building 7 fell was a controlled demolition. It was "pulled".
1 Nick246 2018-04-19
Google.
Building 7 was a controlled demo. They had to yank the foundation support members, because collapsing towers' debris smashed into 7 and it imposed a direct risk to recovery efforts at ground zero.
The Pentagon stuff I assumed was because aliens or some bullshit excuse about national security, so secret service collected all the security camera footage from everyone in a few block radius. Not so sure, but shouldn't that stuff be accessible now thru FOIA ?
I dunno. National security and stuff seems to hold precedent over certain issues.
1 kickercvr_01 2018-04-19
This is a crazy comment... You are trying to say the government rigged a 47 story building for demo with zero preparation and about six hours from start to the building on the ground....
1 Nick246 2018-04-19
No, I am saying I have several degrees, and many many years in the construction industry, namely high rise buildings.
I do very in-depth research into these types of occurrences because it is my job. I even considering things, like facts, that may go against my own personal hypothetical idea of what may have happened.
What the fuck is it with you people and thinking it takes explosives to bring down a building like that? That, in itself, shows what little you know about how these buildings are constructed. Seriously, go look it up. By look it up, I do actual fucking research on your own. Credited resources, factual information. Physics, materials and methods, industry standards, and you can probably just graze over demolition techniques because at this point you are probably just going to recite your echo chamber bullshit, that has no actual foothold into science outside the internet infrastructure you watch a few YouTube videos on.
1 kickercvr_01 2018-04-19
You sound like a pissed off child... Were you trying to say that building 7 was damaged during the morning of September 11th 2001, therefore, the decision was made to demolish the building by 5pm that same day?
1 Nick246 2018-04-19
You sound like one of those people who have nothing of any value to add to an intelligent conversation, so you pick apart the other person's grammar, spelling, or enunciation.
Yes, the decision was made by that time, and if you had any idea of how construction work goes in NYC, the equipment was already on hand to take care of it.
Probably all concepts that are completely lost on you. By all means though, please do go on. Explain to me more about how keen your internet knowledge.
1 kickercvr_01 2018-04-19
This is rich, you are claiming that a 47 story building can be completely rigged for a text book perfect demolition in six hours on the most hectic day NYC has seen ever. Please elaborate on how you think that is possible because it is not possible. You are spouting bullshit.
1 Nick246 2018-04-19
Lol, I don't need to elaborate. That is the idea of adding extra information to further define a point being made. The proof is in the pudding.
You have key structural members in any type of building. Just as you would desire the building to collapse in on itself, in the event it was to ever need to be brought down, ripping out, destroying, However you want to call it, enough structural members will cause the building to collapse in on itself. You do not need explosives to do it either. It's like dominos. Pull enough of them in particular spot it causes a chain reaction.
The back end of 7 was seriously damaged, there are plenty of photos of it too. They are either ignored or pandered as some other conspiracy involved with another building, and it was going to be coming down either way. Not an if it comes down, but when it comes down.
They used heavy machinery, "pulled" the mainframe members, and building was demoed after they insured it was evacuated. Yes, this was a hasty decision. Yes, it could have gone very wrong and endangered even more people. Fortunately it did not. Unfortunately, that little bit of history and engineer mastering gets over looked in the search for bombs and holographic airplanes.
1 kickercvr_01 2018-04-19
You claim a lot... Can you provide even a tiny scrap of evidence for your completely bogus claims? What company did this demo work with heavy machinery? How was this machinery moved into position on this day at that time? Are there photos of this?
You know what was found in all the dust after the towers were fell? Thermite.
1 Nick246 2018-04-19
LoL..yeah. Your questions/response is exactly why I don't provide that info anymore. I am just off work, tired, got my kids, and not willing to dig up old case studies, college research papers, or even suggest more than the idea of using Google to look up "debunk 911 conspiracy theories". I know your head may explode with you trying to disprove legitimate facts and science, but that works out better for me.
I am just not that emotionally involved with this debate anymore. I did my homework, got the grade, the degrees and I moved the fuck on. I am over trying to piss in the wind with people who think they know what they are talking about when it comes to this topic.
All the buildings fell exactly how they are being told they fell. Stop detracting from all the actual experts who posses legitimate credibility, and professional opinions. Shut the fuck up and follow the money. That is where the real evil and nefarious actions transpired. Greedy rich people allowed fucked up things to happen, so they could better their social economic status.
There was no need for bombs, fake plane, cruiser missles, or anything else. An ex CIA operative left over from cold war times had a vendetta to fuck shit up, and the current American establishment was to busy sucking it's own cock to even consider the idea of a cave dwelling, black sheep, Saudi Royal was capable of pulling off the next Pearl harbor. With the help of some pesky rich Saudi friends.
When certain members found out about the terror plot is yet tbd if ever. If that timeline could be proven, what motive would they have to not disclose it soon enough, and with the sense of urgency we all know it truely needed?
It's all good though. Please try to take some college class construction engineering courses though. Even if it's just the basics like an introduction to construction management, or something similar. It might help you understand a little bit more in detail.
1 kickercvr_01 2018-04-19
Pretty sad...
1 kjvlv 2018-04-19
I do not believe the pentagon was hit by a plane. Never understood why the only photos released were from a guard shack. It the pentagon for gawd sake. That place is blanketed by video coverage from the ground and space 24/7/365.
That being said, it is astounding that this government can orchestrate a conspiracy of this scope without any leaks.
1 r34xL 2018-04-19
When the conspirators have too much to lose then they stay quiet. It is also made easier by having as few people involved as possible. Unwitting actors, such as the head of (forgot what it's called off the top of my head) the command on the east coast that had all its fighters out on maneuvers are pawns to be played.
It could come down to ten or fewer people, with the rest being unwitting participants. Remember how long it took to find out that MLK was killed not by the assassins (plural) bullet but by suffocation in his hospital bed?
By the time the truth of 9/11 is made known, the people involved will be dead. This is why the truth about JFK will most likely never be known: small amount of conspirators, unwitting participants, a patsy and they are most likely all dead by now.
1 mrguyfawkes 2018-04-19
you blew my mind brother.
1 bammc 2018-04-19
Well if you know that Op. Northwoods was close to being rolled out, 9/11 doesn’t seem so far fetched. It’s almost too insane to be true, but once I learned about Northwoods, I knew the government could pull off just about anything and they’re insane enough to do it.
1 kjvlv 2018-04-19
sorry for my ignorance but what is op northwoods
1 bammc 2018-04-19
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
This shit is gonna blow your fucking mind.
1 HelperBot_ 2018-04-19
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 172658
1 baladeplata 2018-04-19
They probably just don't want to commit suicide by two bullets to the back of the head or by speeding and then braking into a tree.
1 ZionistKhazarsDid911 2018-04-19
Stupid is the new smart. And smart is the new stupid. So stop asking stupid questions, LOL
1 boostarhehmes 2018-04-19
and if there was no plane what happened to the passengers on said hijacked plane?
1 vivek31 2018-04-19
A lot of them were military personnel. Most of the flights weren't full. Former Bush lawyer Ted Olson lost his wife on one of the planes.
1 soljah15 2018-04-19
Here’s a more recent false flag: where is the evidence that Syria used chemical weapons on its own people?
1 r34xL 2018-04-19
The official narrative is that Russian and Syrian forces "cleansed" the area, and that they instructed Syrian troops to cart evidence out of the location before inspectors could arrive"
More of the Russia-phobia that's been going on since.. well practically forever.
Those same inspectors arrived shortly before the coalition bombed three buildings already cleared of any chemical weapons and chemical weapons manufacturing tools, but the strikes made a delay for any inspection into the douma area which creates the time where the coalition can then use to say Russia destroyed evidence.
Mark my words, just like the "babies out of incubators" and "weapons of mass destruction" and even the "Syrian rebels did not do a chemical attack then blame it on assad" bullshit, this will be proven as lies for justification of war.
And the media takes a big bite every single damn time.
1 Corbotron_5 2018-04-19
Why would the US government release footage of the Pentagon strike? What good could possibly be achieved by sharing footage of the most symbolically embarrassing strike the country has ever suffered?
“A bunch of terrorists launched a successful attack against the single most globally recognised symbol of American military might. Here’s some footage of it. Just please, if you’re an enemy of America, we’d really appreciate it if you didn’t use it for propaganda or recruitment purposes. It would be pretty powerful in those instances and could realistically result in the loss of American lives. K. Thx.”
1 Ajax444 2018-04-19
You release it to prove the doubters are wrong. They show Pearl Harbor stuff, the USS Cole, etc. How can the Pentagon film be any more embarrassing?
1 Corbotron_5 2018-04-19
Yeah man, that’s a tough one. On the one hand, it might directly lead to the deaths of Americans and undermine the image of military invincibility that the US works so hard to cultivate but, on the other hand, it would silence a very vocal minority who most people don’t take seriously. Glad I don’t have to make that call!
As for your other point, Pearl harbour was over half a century ago, occurred under a different government and has zero value as a propaganda or recruitment tool. Not really the same thing.
1 Ajax444 2018-04-19
9/11 led to the deaths of 1000’s of American citizens in the military (combat deaths and suicides), 100,000’s of thousands of people in the Middle East (which we do not care about), and made this country more enemies than it has ever had. All this to satisfy the economic interests of those who put the “elected leaders” in their positions.
It also led to the paranoid government taking advantage of a tragedy in order to enact laws that violate our constitutional rights. So, the people that question the government, which should be encouraged (accountability is critical in a democratic system) can be silenced. It is too bad that you believe that we are an insignificant minority. It is your (and people like you) blind faith that put us in the position we are in.
The American military might is a myth. Technology has eliminated the need for a massive military. From a raw numbers standpoint, and the fact that we have stretched our military out over such a large area (far away from home), we are even more at risk.
We are now the bully country in the world today, and bullies eventually get taught a lesson.
Showing a plane hitting the Pentagon would strengthen your position on the need to continue to monitor us all in order to prevent it or something like it from happening again, and would actually encourage more people to trust a more transparent government.
But it will never happen.
1 sphinx_13 2018-04-19
The early photos from the Pentagon show that the hole is much smaller and perfectly round with no wing marks and windows right next to impact were intact
1 MochaPaws 2018-04-19
That’s because the part of the pentagon it hit, wedge one, was the only part of the pentagon that had been fortified against possible attacks at the time. The fortifications included thicker walls, blast proof windows, etc.
1 tyrannicalblade 2018-04-19
You think this is like a cartoon where it will leave a whole the same shape of the plane? the wings got crushed, it was only the nose and all the inertia force from the whole plane that made it into a big hole, its quite simple if you really want to think of it, but eh, people in this sub are eager to believe anything but that they were wrong...
1 sphinx_13 2018-04-19
So the windows on the pentagon can withstand a jet crash?
1 tyrannicalblade 2018-04-19
idk if i get your question A direct hit from a jet into a pure window? Sure not, but if the windows have frames duh, then you need to see the structural integrity of the thing as a whole, a window at a certain size can be as impenetrable and sturdy as a reinforce wall, and im sure they didn't use the windows your house use... But i mean what do i know, but if you can tell me, with proof that a jet crash into a window and it didnt shatter, ill buy it, but if you know exactly how the force of the impact was concealed, because obviously the start impact isn't with the wings, its with the nose, that in itself makes most of the force in the initial crash, then inertia from the crash would do a lot of damage to the wings, depending on how much structural damage was done from the waves of the impact, id like to know what was the amount of force and how it spread on the windows, was it directly to windows? was it mostly toward wall? most people act like they are experts on how plane crashing into buildings would behave, but im sure they don't know half of what they imagine it would be like
1 sphinx_13 2018-04-19
I shared a picture and you're asking questions about structural engineering of the Pentagon like I could provide you with data. Does the picture not provide its own questions?
1 tyrannicalblade 2018-04-19
Im not asking you about that data, im saying that without that data, pictures like that, make really no sense, i don't know what you're pointing out, what window, and what was the leveling of the plane when hit, what was the direction the wings went after the initial hit, without much data, these questions are not very much more than, Oi, how that person survive a crash when all others died? Eh i call bullshit, plane didnt crash... Uhm there are circumstances in which, unlikely things happen, hell, miracles are quite common when you put things into perspective, but if you have barely seen a small frame of how the plane hit the building, why you so aeger to discredit the main story?
There needs to be a point in which, theories are justifiable, and when theories, are just, looking for any thing that might not make sense, without context... and if people fail to prove how it happen with 100% evidence, then the theory gets credit lol, first nothing ever happened, it was all fake videos, then the videos were real, but they were actually missles, then no they were planes, but the terrorists were americans, then oh my god, when did conspiracy theories went from, proving facts as wrong, to prove this theory wrong, or else it is valid.
1 sphinx_13 2018-04-19
It was two sentences, I don't know how to make it easier as to what I was pointing out as a simple query as to the impact damage.
1 k21291 2018-04-19
Also look into why the media was reporting the collapse of tower 7 before it even happened... on some channels it's even visible still standing in the background!
1 vivek31 2018-04-19
I thought only the BBC did that? The only excuse I can think of is the reporter, working for a foreign country, doesn't know much about the city and all of its buildings.
1 r34xL 2018-04-19
Official narrative: "the plane was moving so fast that even with the state of the art cameras securing the Pentagon, only a few frames show the plane in question. High speed cameras are not installed nor are needed. The cameras, perhaps Ill placed as they were; are merely a single tool in the defensive screen that protects the Pentagon. Building 7 was impacted by falling debris from the towers and the additional weight, as well as the temperatures of the debris caused the collapse of the building."
And to the average person this sounds completely logical, hell even on the day I'm sure most of us believed what we saw until we looked deeper.
There are too many unanswered questions, coincidences and falsities regarding 9/11 for even the most braindead loyalist to disregard.
1 Ajax444 2018-04-19
But are there not hotels, gas stations, and other things in the path of the flight of the plane that hit the Pentagon? Why show the WTC explosions over and over and not show the Pentagon crash, or at least the plane flying over headed towards it? That alone allows for suspicion.
As far as the video of WTCs, I guess people are always filming the buildings (tourists?), and got the angles and clarity of video perfect when that first plane hit?
1 khast 2018-04-19
Why is it that the "live" video and news reporting was only played during the events... But all records of anyone who said anything that didn't fit the narrative was scrubbed from any future replays of the videos? You only see one angle of the impacts... When broadcast live there was at least 10 different videos circulating from multiple different angles. There was also many videos taken during the collapse, also scrubbed was the videos from angles that showed anything that would be questionable such as the rejecting molten metal as it collapsed into it's footprint. (Which supposedly that was a "safety" feature that was designed into the building... Why does no other building have this feature from the era that the WTC buildings were made...I mean a fire breaks out and the building completely collapses, not topples as physics would suggest.)
1 Ajax444 2018-04-19
Add in the “heat” argument. People were standing in the gaping holes soon after the planes hit. I don’t disbelieve that there was a small window of time of extreme heat, but that was temporary.
People just don’t want to hear the truth and be forced to understand that they were led to believe something false. It is not easy to sleep at night when you have to question why your government turned on you, and have to acknowledge that the government was designed to aid the rich and protect their interests. The Project For the New American Century actually stated that we might need to create a disaster in order to justify using force in order to protect our economic interests, and get the American people to “buy in”.
1 Crummville 2018-04-19
I believe that it was not a plane that hit the Pentagon I know it may sound crazy but it just doesn't add up. No plane engine removed from the wreckage etc. Also, the planes that hit the towers in NY appeared to have no side windows with cargo at the bottom of the nose of the plane, exploding on IMPACT???? Interesting how the tip of the nose can cause an immediate explosion on glass and stone. Bomb maybe? followed by demolition.
1 M4sterCheifer 2018-04-19
It only sounds crazy when you drink the cool-aid of benevolent government.
1 skyderper13 2018-04-19
another 9/11 thread ah
1 Turkmenbashy 2018-04-19
I know this may sound like total B.S... so feel free to ignore it.
The evening of September 11th, my girlfriend (now wife) got a call on the cell phone she was borrowing from her father. On the other end was a gentleman from the F.B.I., which was odd... since we're not even American. They were trying to contact him because he owned a company that specialized in shoring equipment... the type that keeps buildings up after disasters.
The next day he was in the Pentagon with his equipment, and he took pictures... over 150. I'm no aviation enthusiast, but there are many that show parts that almost certainly came from a plane. And I mean 'almost certainly' in the way that your fingers are almost certainly connected to your hand, unless we discover evidence that says otherwise.
I've long wanted to release the pictures somewhere, but have been concerned about the legality of him having taken them in the first place. He's always said nobody questioned him about it or told him not to.
My plan has been to wait until he dies, and then upload them somewhere... and from what we hear, that could very well be this year.
Either way, I have pictures... many of them. There was definitely a plane.
1 sweetholymosiah 2018-04-19
Upload or quit larping around.
1 Turkmenbashy 2018-04-19
Fair enough... I'll delete it.
But sometimes, the pyrite is actually gold.
1 sweetholymosiah 2018-04-19
Lol silly
1 PraiseCanada 2018-04-19
The Pentagon missile theory makes no sense to me.
Suppose you're Dick Cheney at the secret 9/11 planning meeting. You've already arranged for two real planes to hit the tallest buildings in NY in broad daylight. Why would you propose also launching a missile to hit the Pentagon? Even if you want to hit the Pentagon as part of your conspiracy why wouldn't it just be another plane? You're anyways hijacking planes
1 vivek31 2018-04-19
The ridiculous flight path maybe?
1 yourmomlovesanal 2018-04-19
Watch the airbus in the first 10 seconds
1 alienrefugee51 2018-04-19
I’m guessing those are professional pilots with years of experience and not some guys that went to flight school learning on Cessna’s?
1 alienrefugee51 2018-04-19
Because a plane won’t do the damage needed to destroy that section of the Pentagon they were trying to wipe out.
1 DankingtonMemesworth 2018-04-19
Yeah so a missile was totally the way to go. Because there aren't a billion other ways to destroy documents/computers/whatever without flying shit into the pentagon, right?
1 alienrefugee51 2018-04-19
Yes, but the narrative they wanted us to believe was that 19 cavemen hijacked airplanes and somehow flew them into targets.
1 PraiseCanada 2018-04-19
cavemen? Racist much? There's irrefutable evidence that they were educated and completed flight school
1 CollectiveHoney 2018-04-19
Since NO plane flew into ANY building on 9/11/01, a lot of this conversation is moot.
1 sethcarlson12 2018-04-19
😂
1 MonkeyPunchBaby 2018-04-19
This is the weirdest joke I’ve ever seen.
1 DoingItLeft 2018-04-19
we're still in the middle East, we went there because of 9/11. also it seems that a lot of stuff got destroyed and they don't want to tell the world what's missing.
harmonic resonance. the whole building, or at least the important parts shook at the right rate from the twin towers dropping. this caused something important to break.
I'll happily be disproved with an article. I'm not able to prove any of it.
1 ajutar 2018-04-19
Does anyone find flight 587 suspicious? It crashed two months and a day after 9/11 and between the crew, passengers, and people on the ground, the fatalities match up with those onboard the 9/11 flights.
Flight 587: 265 lives lost (260 on aircraft / 5 on ground)
92 + 65 + 64 + 44 = 265.
According to the NTSB, flight 587 crashed because the vertical stabilizer ripped off due to the first officer's "unnecessary and excessive" rudder inputs in trying to stabilize the plane after encountering jet wash. The NTSB concluded that if he had stopped moving the rudders at any time before the stabilizer failed, the plane would have leveled out on its own, and the accident would have been avoided.
1 vivek31 2018-04-19
Was that the one over Rockaway? Heading for the DR?
1 ajutar 2018-04-19
Yeah, that's the one.
1 Entropick 2018-04-19
I've never seen/read/heard this, holy shits that fishy.
1 ajutar 2018-04-19
Yeah, I thought same thing when I first discovered the correlation. I've since been looking into the crash but haven't really gotten anywhere in my research.
Was hoping someone here may know something that I could work off of but I guess not.
1 Entropick 2018-04-19
I wish I could help more but absolutely the idea is worth investigation and consideration.
1 Mianro9 2018-04-19
I try to accept the official story. I believe many conspiracies but the idea of 911 being an inside job or a controlled demo seems too far fetched.
But I admit I have questions too. Why didn't they shoot down the plane when it came into the air space surrounding the Pentagon?
Why is it always referred to as the collapse of the twin towers when it was three buildings? Why has the media been so quiet about building 7, to the point that less than half of the population even knows that the building collapsed?
Why did it take so long for a building so far away to collapse?
Why did a plane strike cause a building (built with a latice of steel meant to withstand the impact of a plane) to collapse into its own footprint for the first time in history? Twice in row?
And with such a catastrophic result, why didn't the file a suit against the builders of the WTC?
If my heater leaks kerosene, why doesn't isn't there a puddle of liquid steel in my kitchen?
You know, just a few questions....
1 Someoneoldbutnew 2018-04-19
For the same reason we defund schools and give chemical companies a free pass on pollution and public health impacts.
1 wile_e_chicken 2018-04-19
Because a cruise missile hit the Pentagon -- a Soviet P-700 "Granit" stolen or salvaged from the Kursk. Guess who was in charge of the Kursk salvage operation? Vladimir Putin. All the world's a stage.
Because a thermonuclear demolition charge was placed underneath it.
It's bad enough that people know Israel was largely behind 9/11, but if people knew that Israel nuked NYC??? Whew.
Also, the derp state uses nuclear weapons and devices much more commonly than we're lead to believe. They want to keep that quiet.
1 tamifromcali 2018-04-19
You all are stupid!
1 vivek31 2018-04-19
Oh, you solved the case? Bravo!
1 M4sterCheifer 2018-04-19
You can see the footage. Just the moment of impact is conveniently missing.
Also, they discovered who the hijackers were because one of the hijackers wrote a suicide note, which he placed into his luggage to get on the plane he was about to fly into a building. (Why write the note) and just luckily his luggage was the only one that didn't make it on the plane.
Also no plane debris was found...Just a few passports which happen to conveniently pin point the hijackers.
Also several of the accused were found to be alive and well.
Not to mention building 7..
It seems that the only conspiracy theorist about 9/11 are those of us who have studied it.
1 Thompson_S_Sweetback 2018-04-19
I wonder if Building 7 fell because New York construction workers are criminals who skimp on every expense and put up half the materials they said they did. So the next building collapse will be in our lifetime and probably won't involve any planes.
1 freethinker78 2018-04-19
construction workers don't buy the building materials...
1 Thompson_S_Sweetback 2018-04-19
I don't know how it works exactly. Kinda like the Sopranos.
1 freethinker78 2018-04-19
lol. Do you think the guy who flips the burgers at McDonald's also buys the meat and the kitchen equipment?
1 Thompson_S_Sweetback 2018-04-19
Jesus Christ, construction subcontractors, wanker.
1 freethinker78 2018-04-19
Mary and Joseph! "Subcontractors" is not really a synonym of construction worker. I used to be a construction worker and the subcontractors were the bosses who hired the construction workers, wanker. :D
1 vivek31 2018-04-19
Some floors in the building were bomb proof for the various agencies that had offices there. CIA, NSA, NYPD OEM, etc..
1 YokedHipsterDouche 2018-04-19
It doesn't matter, all that matters is: 1) whether or not Trump has small hands
2) and whether or not the same guy who camped out at Bohemian Grove and Bilderberg meetings is found guilty of defamation
3) we can change the definition of 'woman' or 'man' to include 'non gender binaries' 4) when the next Kardashian will shit out another kid
Ask no questions. Go back to sleep.
1 Kablam1ty 2018-04-19
Theres interviews of the owner of wtc saying building 7 was a controlled demo. He backtracks later on it..biggest piece of undeniably suspicious evidence imo
1 hoipalloi52 2018-04-19
Best explanation
1 GodEmperorScorch 2018-04-19
The same reason we cannot see hallway footage of outside Stephen Paddock's room. Or the same reason we cannot see Adam Lanza at anytime anywhere near Sandy Hook..or the same reason it takes about 30-40 years and the deaths of most involved before the government begins acknowledging conspiracy, aka JFK or the Vietnam War/Gulf of Tonkin incident.
We're lied to on a daily basis by people getting rich off of propelling a bullshit agenda. We are numbers and bodies to them as they take over the world through political correctness and globalism.
1 vivek31 2018-04-19
The biggest fuckery for me was shipping the debris to China immediately after. That just reeks of cover-up. They didn't even do that with Pearl Harbor.
1 wagsman 2018-04-19
Or OK city, and that was an inside job.
1 tehreal 2018-04-19
There is an excellent Wikipedia article about building 7:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
1 HelperBot_ 2018-04-19
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 172607
1 kbxads 2018-04-19
until absolute truth and correct punishment for 9/11 happens, there is no hope for the world, keep talking about this.
1 vivek31 2018-04-19
Why were they removing evidence so quickly?
1 alienrefugee51 2018-04-19
The FBI confiscated the Pentagon surveillance camera tapes. Building 7 was wired for demolition.
1 MutatedSerum 2018-04-19
Can someone fill me in here?
1 Trollzek 2018-04-19
Because there was no plane, it was a missile.
And because Larry Silverstein bought the Twin Towers just before the attacks, including building 7, which at the time were uninsured for Terrorist attacks via hijacked airplanes.
Larry then made his insurance company come up with a plan to insure his buildings against them, then 9/11 happens. The Twin towers FREE FALL into their own footprint, along with No.7 exploding. (By standers and fire fighters both report explosions) even though the building was physically untouched. Mind you, a steel building HAS NEVER once in the history of human kind fallen to any fire ever. It’s not hot enough. It happened 3 times on that morning.
Larry made billions that morning, and guess what? He made them pay out x3, 1 for each building.
As for the Pentagon, 2 billions dollars worth of gold went missing from the basement that day.
And the Twin Towers has countless records that many elite wanted gone. Back then, not everything was digital, lots was permanently destroyed.
Finally, it was our excuse to get in the war, we did the same exact thing for WWII with Peal Harbor.
1 bittermanscolon 2018-04-19
It wasn't a missile, it was a plane but it didn't hit the building, they just blew it up.
1 Trollzek 2018-04-19
How did the dude complete that impossible downward spiral? Also, no wreckage? Did they blow up the plane as it was colliding with the Pentagon? A plane alone would not have caused that kind of damage, a mission would have, I’m also not being an asshole- I’ve just never heard this version of it, and can’t picture the plane being blown up whilst hitting the Pentagon.
There would still be pieces left of it. Look at other planes shot down.
1 bittermanscolon 2018-04-19
There was no dude. There was no terrorist who couldn't fly. He clearly couldn't get that done. My view is that they had a computer control that plane.
If you wat h CIT's work on the event, it should be pretty clear the plane never crashed there. It flew over. They had just recently renovated that exact side to protect it from bomb blasts specifically. Perfect cover to rig the place to blow.
Thats why you dont see plane wreckage. Click on my history and find my linked post with videos. I am not making this up and I am also not being the asshole. I simply know who was interviewed that day and what they said. The witnesses to that event at the pentagon prove a plane flew by but were all fooled into thinking it impacted.
Again, the gov confiscated 84 videos from the area that day. Don't you think there would all be available to the public if they all showed and confirmed their side of the story? Or are they with holding them because they would show something completely contrary to the story they sold the public?
1 bittermanscolon 2018-04-19
Just checking in, but did you happen to watch the videos I mentioned? Consider a different angle to this whole thing?
1 Trollzek 2018-04-19
It got me thinking.
1.) yours is true 2.) paid witnesses? 3.) or was it a modified plane, built to perform that kind of maneuver? Possibly designed to impact and deal that damage yet leave almost no trace?
1 bittermanscolon 2018-04-19
Well how about this one to throw into the mix. There is a lot more evidence that the loop the plane did was different than the one we are told about via the NTSB. The loop that is provided by the NTSB shows a fairly tight loop going into the building and also at a very high rate of speed. The catch being, all this data came from the potential culprits, the Gov't or intelligence agencies. So, a question to ask yourself is, do you trust that data?
Either way, Steve Chaconas is another witness to the plane, though he was way down the river and saw it pass over the river showing a different flight path than is provided to us. He is a fisherman who was taking some people out on the river to fish for the day. He saw something quite different that the provided info. The flight path provided by the NTSB did not at all have it pass over the river, the plane that hit the Pentagon (according to the NTSB has it coming from the east. The video shows this. Please watch it or at least glaze over it as well?
1 travinyle1 2018-04-19
April Gallup, Was there a bomb inside the Pentagon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88JQL4esHFg
1 hjonsey 2018-04-19
This is one of my favorite 9-11 documentaries, I watch it every year on the anniversary. It is extremely long but it’s a very thorough non biased video that goes through moment by moment, and asks the questions that have yet to be answered. https://youtu.be/8DOnAn_PX6M
1 ihatestupidity2 2018-04-19
If you look at the pictures of the Pentagon right after the incident, there is no way an airliner did it. No large hole for the cockpit to make. No parts of the large engines no tail debris. A missile maybe, not a plane.
1 Yakerrrrr 2018-04-19
are there no eyewitnesses for seeing it happen?
1 bittermanscolon 2018-04-19
They don't really have witnesses to the event. More like bought and paid for accomplices.
[I suppose you could trust the word of USA today employee's all in a line and all support the official theory.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4PcqTrw3V4
Then again, they confiscated all the video tapes from the area, 84 in all. One would think that if those 84 videos supported the official story, you would see them posted everywhere as support to their version of the events.
[If you need more, watch the whole documentary put together by CIT. They paid their own way out there and expected to see and get multiple witnesses to the event confirming the Gov't theory. As you can see from Lloyds testimony in the car, they got entirely the opposite.
1 juliettetoma 2018-04-19
Mossad and its American associates are the obvious culprits behind 9/11. Who benefits from the crime? The attacks against the twin towers started at 8:45 a.m. and four flights are diverted from their assigned air space and no air traffic controller sounds the alarm. And no Air Force jets scramble until 10 a.m. That also smacks of a small scale Air Force rebellion, a coup against the Pentagon perhaps? Radars are jammed, transponders fail. No IFF -- friend or foe identification -- challenge. Even in Pakistan, if there is no response to IFF, jets are instantly scrambled and the aircraft is shot down with no further questions asked. This was clearly an inside job. Bush was afraid and rushed to the shelter of a nuclear bunker. He clearly feared a nuclear situation. Who could that have been? Will that also be hushed up in the investigation, like the Warren report after the Kennedy assassination?
The whole world already knows this. This is a simple restatement of what everybody already knows.
Everywhere except in America, where Jewish dominated media envelops everyone in a poisoned darkness, everybody knows that Jewish kingpins pulled off 9/11 as an excuse for making war on every obstacle to their world financial hegemony, and killing as many non-Jews as possible in the process to further consolidate their domination of the whole world.
This widening war on the Islamic world, already responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths, is a direct result of the 9/11 hoax, everything based on false spin concocted by Jewish strategists not for U.S. best interests, but for the demonic master plan of the Jewish Sanhedrin, which rules the Jewish moneymen who buy the presidents and the generals, to kill or enslave the rest of the world. They control you, whether you want to admit or not. They control your bank account. And they make you support their insane war program by all this wall-to-wall patriotic spin.
The totally Jewish-controlled U.S. media have long ago suspended their journalistic capabilities in favor of blatant cheerleading about their favorite subject - Muslim terrorists. Every day they urge you to kill them. If there ever was a systemic hate crime, this is it.
Yet, as the infamous list of the 19 hijackers was released by the FBI two days after the infamous event, and except for two feeble-minded patsies, no other perpetrator has ever been arrested for the greatest crime in American history, what kind of conclusions are we to draw from the fact that all of the people who were in charge of America when this dark day happened, instead of being fired for incompetence, were promoted and allowed to continue their criminal activity?
What does all this say about the American mind?
It is not functioning, thanks to the poisoned blanket of U.S. media, and a deliberately twisted educational system that has produced killer Jewish robots instead of fully invested philosophically clean humans.
Every cop in the world should be brought up on charges of willful obstruction of justice for not blowing the whistle on President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and all their Jewish handlers - in the White House, in the Congress, in the media, and most especially in the banks) for their stunningly criminal behavior in both lying about the events and implementing a totally illegal coverup of the crime scenes.
But the Jewish judges atop the U.S. legal system said it was all OK, and the media, led by the New York Times and CNN, never mentioned all those Jewish fingerprints visible in the pyroclastic dust covering the disintegrated corpses in the rubble of the Twin Towers.
In an interview only a mere weeks after 9/11, Hamid Gul - former head of Pakistani intelligence (ISI) from 1987-1989 - told Arnaud de Borchgrave, United Press International, of who he thinks was behind the attacks. Here are a few exceprts from the transcript:
De Borchgrave: So who did Black Sept. 11?
Gul: Mossad and its accomplices. The U.S. spends $40 billion a year on its 11 intelligence agencies. That's $400 billion in 10 years. Yet the Bush Administration says it was taken by surprise. I don't believe it. Within 10 minutes of the second twin tower being hit in the World Trade Center CNN said Osama bin Laden had done it. That was a planned piece of disinformation by the real perpetrators. It created an instant mindset and put public opinion into a trance, which prevented even intelligent people from thinking for themselves.
https://www.upi.com/UPI-interview-with-Hamid-Gul/60031280349846/
Immediately after the attacks Bin Laden was interviewed by Pakistani newspaper Ummat. When asked if he was involved in the attacks he stated:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle."
He went on to say:
"In the same way, whether it is President Bush or any other U.S. President, they cannot bring Israel to justice for its human rights abuses or to hold it accountable for such crimes. What is this? Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United States? That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks."
He further goes on to state:
"I have already said that we are not hostile to the United States. We are against the [U.S. Government] system, which makes other nations slaves of the United States, or forces them to mortgage their political and economic freedom. This system is totally in the control of the American Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid down by them. So the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word."
You know all this is true. You know you are living a lie every day, by accepting what the TV robots tell you is true.
Yet you wring your hands and kvetch that you don't know what to do, when in fact you do. You just don't have the courage to do it, because you're a robotized American dreckdroid, who goes out and kills other people for reasons simply because you have been ordered to by those who control you. Despicable. You are despicable, because you don't have the courage to say what you clearly know, even though you about to lose everything you ever loved because of your failure to say what you know and confront the beast. And now it's too big to stop.
1 overthehilltotheleft 2018-04-19
There is a conspiracy to not tell the american people the whole truth. A clear example of this "blanket over the american mind" you speak of occurs in the show the looming tower (amazon/bezos), that I think is quite blatant. It didn't take 15 minutes through the first episode to find a key misrepresentation of what Osama bin Laden said was the reason for the US being a legit target.
In the 1998 ABC interview of Bin Laden shown early on they cut around the previous and last sentences where he says exactly why a fatwa had been declared.
what they aired in subtitles:
The middle eastern FBI character is shown transcribing the interview in arabic, presumably showing the full text of what they cut out. Why arabic? Because they don't want the majority of the audience to know what he actually said before and after.
Further, immediately next scene the characters have a discussion about WHY Osama is angry with America, is warning them, and conclude that it is because they are in the middle east and Saudi Arabia specifically. Had they included what he fully said they'd know the main reason, and the reason which 20 years later Americans are just beginning to understand.
what OBL actually said:
In a network TV show that purports to be telling the public the truth about why 9/11 happened they do a pretty good job of selecting the basic facts to totally misrepresent it.
Full-text of 1998 bin Laden interview with ABC
1 warriorcoach 2018-04-19
What tape? Lol Oh The one that got deleted by the same govt that caused the catastropheis? Good luck with that. They are in the same place as the videos on Vegas shooting etc
1 wolf_and_blade 2018-04-19
What makes you think that the most public and exposed military building we have would have any cameras around it? That's just silly.
1 BoldFutura_Tagruato 2018-04-19
Der[
1 Brookklyn 2018-04-19
9/11 was a inside job I was there
1 king_downvote_III 2018-04-19
Those are two excellent questions.
1 HotBananaa 2018-04-19
1 It doesnt exist because it didnt get hit
2 Because someone blew it up
1 InterstellarPelican 2018-04-19
Here's the answer to one of your questions. Or does that go too much against the narrative for you?
1 Trollygag 2018-04-19
Pentagon.
0:24, scene is empty.
0:25, you see the plane for 1 frame on the far right.
The next frame, the explosion from all of the jet fuel (similar to kerosene) in a big fireball.
Building 7 fell from a cracked foundation, an earthquake next door, a fire burning out of control for 8 hours. They knew as early as 5 hours in that the building was going to collapse because they could see the structural damage from the raging fires inside.
1 MonkeyPunchBaby 2018-04-19
How dare you provide actual provable information?!?! Don’t you know that you’re supposed to quote the hilariously wrong and poorly researched Zeitgeist movie to discuss this?!?! You make me sick.
1 OVERGROUND7 2018-04-19
BOOOOOM
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170118121644-06-gw-bush-restricted-exlarge-169.jpg
1 OVERGROUND7 2018-04-19
"And it's gonna go BOOOOOM"
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170118121644-06-gw-bush-restricted-exlarge-169.jpg
1 da_clig 2018-04-19
heavy sigh THIS is what happens to a much m ore durable Phantom F4 when hitting a reinforced concrete wall during a durability test of French Nuclear reactors... nothing left but the wing tips
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FXIGCEiD7U
add to that ridiculously low capture frame rates at the pentagon.. you got cameras missing the action and virtually no plane remaining (much lighter aluminium instead of the Phantoms Titanium construction. If you have ever watched a few eps of aircrash investigations, it is also clear how a plane at speed smashing into the ground leave s litte behind and a no too big crater. I really really wish we could move past these points as part of the 911 conspiracy, cause there are other VERY good questions still remaining.... ie wheres the other Pentagon footage from local cameras... why the change of building insurance... Building 7, Building 7 and of course Building 7 which I really struggle to come up with even a ridiculous scenario that could rationally explain it's collaps. Why were the Sauds allowed to fly while Busch was grounded, why is the molten aluminium multiple expolosion hypotheseis totally ignored (and very likely)... why did an enquiry by Catherine Austin Fitts YET AGAIN result in federal records being lost in a building expolosion during an investigation into TRILLIONS missing from the budget (Rumsfeld made mention of this in the days before)
VERY VERY VERY worth watching.... dry, but extremely enlightening for those who 'follow the money' - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0mimIp8mr8 something every ufo, 911 and black ops conspiracy theorist should see (she avoids all conspiracy topics and JUST talks about the money trail and her tendency to organise audits in building just about to blow up... including Oklahoma)
1 parsnip92 2018-04-19
I have 2 answers - 1) Hillary flew a drone into the Pentagon, and 2) her email server brought down building 7
1 DankingtonMemesworth 2018-04-19
While were on the subject, can someone explain what the political strategy behind the 9/11 conspiracy theories would have been on the part of people coordinating? Would Bush have known? If it was government coordinated, wouldn't the next democratic administration have leaked/blown the whistle on it all?
1 MochaPaws 2018-04-19
I agree that WTC 7 falling wasn’t an accident but why did they make it fall too, weren’t the twin towers enough?
1 SG_StrayKat 2018-04-19
Because of what was housed inside the building... the records of who may have worked on the towers, and what was beneath the buildings.
1 luke73tnt 2018-04-19
1: government won’t release it because they’re mega gay 2: they pulled it AKA controlled demolition
1 Kylebeast420 2018-04-19
Two questions sir/ma'am that will never be answered, at least not until all involved have been dead and buried for 50 years.
1 politicalreefer 2018-04-19
How does anyone trust the fbi? Why are the Pentagon tapes still classified? I never trusted anything the government ever said after 9/11. It was my red pill.
1 CooneyKinte 2018-04-19
I’ve also got two questions:
What happened to all the people on that missing flight?
And
How is it that a conspiracy of this magnitude involving the murder of three thousand plus Americans goes on without the perpetrators being found out?
I understand this is the hole point of this subreddit, but it’s mind boggling to me that anyone believes the American government is behind 9/11 on any grand scale. Really? Like, nobody would talk? Nobody involved in this giant undertaking found out (except for of course the fucking terrorists who did it) and no leaks?
Let’s find some better conspiracies. Like the ones right in front of our eyes today under our current administration.
1 trevmon 2018-04-19
the flights all curiously had less people than a full plane. the few people likely went into witness protection somewhere.
1 CooneyKinte 2018-04-19
There could have been only two people on board and I find it incredibly hard to believe that now only would they never talk, but the family of the victims, friends, acquainted, or passerby’s wouldn’t talk...
Or more unconvincingly, that all of them are all actors in an even larger, more complex covert op.
It’s just silly.
1 StWalt 2018-04-19
Do we know that footage of the Pentagon being hit exists?
Building 7 burned when materials from the twin towers hit it, causing i to catch fire
1 SG_StrayKat 2018-04-19
Name any other skyscraper in history that has collapsed into its own footprint from a "fire"... OTHER THAN WTC 1, and WTC 2....
You won't be able to.
1 Grandpa_Nug 2018-04-19
What can we do about it?
1 Firebird117 2018-04-19
Holy yikes this thread is nuts.
1 Sheer10 2018-04-19
Building 7 is the thing that gets me. I dont know what to rhink about it tbh
1 therankin 2018-04-19
I have heard that the Pentagon recovered footage from a nearby gas station. I don't know why it was never released. Perhaps it cut in and out or didn't work at all.
More likely though I think they were embarrassed because the hit proved that they didn't have the right defenses in place.
1 HiFiveGhost 2018-04-19
Watch the debate between popular mechanics and the creators of loose change.
Answered a lot of questions for me
1 Satanscreation666 2018-04-19
When asking a question you use a question mark and not a period.
1 nesiguess 2018-04-19
I love that this is still being questioned 17 yrs later.. the whole thing reeks.
1 EviX 2018-04-19
https://youtu.be/zze32ZEjt30
1 Jeremiah_Steele 2018-04-19
Building 7 has always perplexed me. We know it sustained damaged from debris from the collapsing towers striking it and it did have some fires inside. But nothing suggests it should spontaneously collapse like it did. It went down very neatly too, at least the footage makes it seem so. Instead of the whole building experiencing structural failure simultaneously throughout the entire building I would instead expect parts of the building to sag or collapse(if at all) depending on where the shrapnel from the other buildings struck it. I know its not a perfect comparison but still to make a point here; consider the Murrah building which was bombed in 1995. The whole front of that building was blown apart and yet the remainder of the building still stood. So how could pockets of damage here and there cause Building 7 to collapse completely as it did?
1 EvanGooch 2018-04-19
Questions that smart people have been asking for almost 17 years now.
1 Aquarajia 2018-04-19
What never seems to get asked is how where they one day going to take down those 2 antiquated buildings without destroying Manhattan.
1 XoTerry 2018-04-19
Why is nobody talking about the passengers. Who were they? Do they have family? Were they even on the plane. Where did they bury them?
1 BlackKidGreg 2018-04-19
My priests brother died on one of the NYC planes. I was in 4th grade at the time.
1 trevmon 2018-04-19
show proof
1 BlackKidGreg 2018-04-19
Prove I'm lying.
1 Tedskis 2018-04-19
Woah, woah, your sounding a lot like a conspiracy theorist. Oh and on a side note, because a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, and building 7 was a controlled demolition.
1 Stoneriley 2018-04-19
Because, Bush did 9/11
1 BONER--CHAMPION 2018-04-19
Problem is, you aren’t going to accept any answer that is given to you that doesn’t fit your narrative. While it’s unlikey the “official” story is true, it very well may be. Crazy, unlikely things happen.
1 DullPorcupine 2018-04-19
Very good questions. I think they want it this way
1 tyrannicalblade 2018-04-19
My questions are , why are people after over 15 years, with no real evidence or anyone credible have come forward and dismantle the biggest conspiracy, cause, the media was on it (fake videos) the pentagon was on it, the president was on it, everyone was on it, cause they wanted to attack iraq right, yet no one credible has come out and pull the mask from the monster, why after 15 years have people not say, well you know what? Maybe the questions we are asking, are the problem, if you see a guy surviving a fall from 5 stories building, and he is a one in a million guy who survive such fall, and then after it happens you're like, WAIT, how did that happen?? Knee caps can't stand that force, and then dismantle every video about it into saying it can't possibly be truth, and you know no one can't prove you wrong, cause who is gonna jump 5 stories just to prove you wrong? Right? Who is gonna redo the towers or crash a plane on the pentagon without the upgrades that have come from last decade, its impossible, and its so easy to question everything that isn't self explanatory, but no matter what answer you get, you'll just brush it off and say, its not, cause you want to believe that you are part of something unique, in on the secret, the few ones who really know what happen that day. And that's an issue within yourself. But eh, im not even sure why im looking at this sub, i prob shouldn't cause it makes me sad to read people so out of touch with reality, pure skepticism and full on paranoid minds, with a little touch of wanting to be smarter than everyone else. Just trying so hard and the problem is that, 1 time they get it right, and it validates all the other million bad conspiracies that hurt real people and when they are proven wrong, they just pretend like they never supported said conspiracy, but oh give them 1 right, all their unproven conspiracies are facts.
1 trumpetspieler 2018-04-19
While I agree with you that too many people have predetermined "truths" when approaching 9/11 there are still tons of odd circumstances around it that (I believe) are so unlikely without foreknowledge that it exceeds the natural incredulity of something like your example: "surviving a free fall from an airplane" into "surviving a free fall because it just so happened there was a mile wide pile of marshmallows where you landed".
It's well known that there were [multiple simulations happening]( www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608/amp) involving fake radar blips for simulated rogue planes that morning and throughout the attacks. Additionally several other practice missions for the airforce ultimately meant no jets could be scrambled for the entirety of the 3 attacks. It was only until after the Pentagon was hit that NORAD finally shut down every training radar blip being piped into all of the ground controller's radar.
Why did Silverstein buy the WTC at a huge loss when it needed almost a billion dollar asbestos removal project? It just happened that he didn't come to work that day and neither did his daughter (if I remember correctly). This is very similar to how the ATF office was completely empty at the time of the OKC bombing.
Of course there's always uncertainty in circumstantial evidence and to me all of the frame by frame "that can't happen" WTC analysis is simply people thinking they know far more than they do much like all those flat earth "proofs".
I also agree we really have no way of ever solidly understanding the mechanical process of collapse because of how unique the circumstances were, I'm not satisfied with balsa wood recreations proving it was a controlled demolition and conversely I'm not convinced the terrorists did 9\11 by themselves because a guy bent a heated steel beam on youtube.
I don't really focus on how they came down because it's essentially futile, even engineers working years constructing a model still only have a big ole' system of differential equations and nothing more. To me the only reasonable evidence we have is that the circumstances of the day it happened were so serendipitous for the attackers it approaches absurdity.
Again no proof, just heavy circumstantial weirdness suggesting someone on the inside knew something involving a plane hijacking was going to occur.
Not to beat a dead horse but we should never forget the Council on Foreign Relations and what they had to say about the necessary conditions to start this series of regime changes in the middle east:
1 tyrannicalblade 2018-04-19
The problem of analizing a single day in history and trying to find how much the odds are of what happend that day, is by not analazing that day only, but history as a whole, while you might see everything after 9/11 as , wow that would never happen together at the same time, what are the odds, first of all, it wasn't just some junkies randomly stealing a plane and deciding to crash it at the towers, it was a long plan, where sure, some people knew of it, ofcourse, there were people who had to know, but why don't you see how often were sumilated missions done? Was it a known thing that simulated missions were going to be done? I mean, they had to select the day in particular, with particular circumstances that allowed them to fly undetected for as long as they did until they crashed, they needed chaos, and they found a loophole on the air traffic system, in which, it was certain times were it oversaturated with missions simulations and stuff, the problem with people is that they see "a" and "c" and they say OH A HAPPEN CAUSE OF C, when they forget that C happen because of A, or that A happen cause of B, which no one even knows what B is, and b was affected by C but not entirely....
I'll tell you a random personal story without much details just to make a point, my dad was arrested falsely for fraud because he pissed off the wrong corrupt people and they pulled strings, our neighbor was the mayor of our city, and our friend, we had no money, no idea of what to do, except call our neighbor, the mayor, he was in an accident and was suppose to be on a plane to a different place in the country and was not going to be able to be in contact until next week, but luckily he got into an accident, the plane was delayed literally few minutes, and he miracluesly answer my mom's call, she told him what happen and he told his personal lawyer to stay behind and help us, 2 days later dad was back on and we were sue'ing the city and the officials that falsely arrested him, but not before being blackmailed/and life threatened while my dad was in jail, bad people were exthorting people inside it and had it not been because the neighbors lawyer told us what to do, we would have lost everything to try get our dad back safely, and who knows what would of happen, but it didn't because some randomy thing happen and we were lucky that we catch neighbor literally minutes before he got on a plane. So if you look back to that day, you're like, Wait what? so he happens to get into an accident and then plane gets delayed just enough to get your call? that's shady, and if i break out the day, there is a million little things that add up making it a surreal day, but it happen, it wasn't prescripted, it was a random day on a very very normal family that just got into a random issue that we never expected.
My point is that, why do you have to see things as being s causation when they might of been motive? How much pattern have you studied pre-9/11? You refuse to believe the most believable story because, you already put too much effort into finding alternatiive possibilities? , cause its not fun to being proven wrong?
You see silverstain buying WTC at huge loss as shady, but he bought world trade center 7 back in 1980? and he wanted buy the whole complex back then, just it wasn't for sale until 2000.... So he been planning this attack for 30 years? LOL or what? just for insurance fraud? Dayum, what a scam... I mean most of your shady things, are basically seeing things from 1 point of view, without seeing well... the WTC were put for sale on 2000... so it took 1 year to finish the sale to silverstain, instead of saying holy shit that is some bad luck , now he is somehow complicit, again, how many times did silverstain and daugher went to the WTC, do you have a check in where it shows, how they went every day before and the day the attack , they dont? cause without that proof is like saying, You "Trumpetspieler" were not at the towers when they were hit, coincidence? I THINK NOT, you know beforehand what was gonna happen, TRAITOR; BURN WITCH.
The problem with late conspiracy theories is that, you find a weak spot, you attack it, and then you're done, when you should see, wait, why was this spot weak? IF you really care about the truth, then try find it sure, but if you are satisfied by half assing and just making random questions that are hard enough to answer but not good enough to actual hold up then, you are just trying to be hipster, pretend to know more, or be more smart than others, when you don't really care for the truth. just to win the arguement.
1 trumpetspieler 2018-04-19
Wow... OK that was quite the finisher. Do you berate everyone you disagree with or is it a strictly online hobby?
What made you think I'm trying to sound smart? Why do you think I'm trying to be a hipster? Why do you think I don't care about the truth? When was I arguing with you?
Also you said there are problems with "late conspiracy theories" (which I'm assuming means theories developed well after the event as opposed to conspiracy theories as of lately), so what are some reasonable conspiracy theories that wouldn't lead you to berating a well meaning stranger for believing it?
1 tyrannicalblade 2018-04-19
Im sorry if i offended you, i wasn't specifically talking to you, was just making a generalization of all of it. With a few personal examples, anyway, I meant later as in lately, sorry. Sure there always been random theories, but lately, there are some heavy theories heavily supported with 0 evidence and people just go with it, and go "redpilling" people with by giving questions they can't answer and forcing people on a suggestive state.
Again, i wasn't trying to be harmful to you, just on the whole idea of people making questions that, sure maybe can't be answered easily, but that maybe are not worth being a question to begin with, not everything is a conspiracy, but surely, there are real conspiracys around, so thats why its annoying that people just put them all together, 1 people just think conspiracy theorists are nutjobs nowdays, and conspiracy theoriest feel like, the world is all a conspiracy, But was talking in general as a whole.
1 trumpetspieler 2018-04-19
Oh yeah it's all good, I'm just happy we managed to break through the usual internet argument trench and have a normal conversation.
I do completely understand what you mean about giving events significance after the fact (that Damn strobe light on the Mandalay is a good example, the audio professionals analysing the audio, on and on...) and how literally everything can be NWO staged these days, I liked the anecdote.
Also I have no problem admitting it was half assed as a paper written to show someone the odd events on 9/11 but the forum we're in kinda prevents that in most cases. Of the two links I put up there I'd say the first is rock solid as far as reporting goes so if it was poor planning or even negligence it is a pretty disturbing thing to listen to the people (they have the tapes of the radar operators) frantically trying to figure out which of the 4 or 5 suspicous aircraft on their screen is real, it's a wild perspective of 9/11 that isn't very well known compared to some of the really wacko shit out there.
1 tyrannicalblade 2018-04-19
Well yeah, i think there was a lot of poor planning and even negligence which is why things changed drastically after 9/11, TSA and aircraft security went skyrocket, and sadly, every tragedy or terrorism, happens when someone exploits a weak link, like in niece paris where a truck ran over a bunch of people, you think that will happen again? Nope, same with a bunch of other things that have happen, both domestic and international, i do not belive the plane attacks were staged or even an inside job, i think, it was very possibly just terrorism, it feels like even the fact that USA invaded iraq with the excuse of the terror attack, feels just too unrealistic, basically just because, if they had the audacity, intelligence and the means to do such a high quality job, collapsing the towers, and all the coverups that come with it, how did they not manage to fabricate a simple sheer of nuclear evidence on iraq to justify the war there? LIke if they had found a nuclear warhead there, suddendly, the war would be justfiied and GG, bush be a hero not a war criminal as much ppl claim he is, Now did USA make mistakes oversea that eventually led to terrorism, yes for sure, lots of mistakes everywhere from almost every country, humans are flawed, but i feel like, this huge event, was just a terror attack that was just too hard to explain for the sheer work it took to accomplish, it feels unreal, and the amount of people that were damaged, its hard to say, oh well it was just a terror attack, you look at the other people who didnt stop it in time, and think, they obviously did something wrong, but when something like this happens, sadly, normally is a new different way each time, sometimes a bomb, a shooting, a suicide vest, a vehicle, sadly sometimes you just can't do anything, and the only way to stop terrorism is to give up your privacy, but people can't deal with that anymore, facebook and amazon and so many ppl in troubles for data collecting, obama for agreeing to surveillance , when honestly, how can you prevent terrorism where you don't even know how it will strike next? With people, and you can't just select, oh, this person looks like a terrorist, you gotta check all, or none and be okay with the domestic and or international terror attacks.
Anyway, sorry again if i offended you, and im all in for stuff not being what it is, but this, i feel like, there is too much material proving it is what the history says it was, and it feels like occam's razors, there isn't a need for such a deep explication when there are several ways to have achieve the same stuff without making it seem like a terror attack, and hell not even needed to be on the US
1 LSPACEY 2018-04-19
But you have seen the "footage". Didn't you find it convincing ? all fuckery aside. I still remember the story of that FBI team going to that gas station across the street collecting the camera tapes. Now those i would be interested in.
1 AngryD09 2018-04-19
The answers to those questions are classified son, for the sake of national security, because you're either with us or you're against us.
1 ILoveJuices 2018-04-19
Why did the CIA tell Michael Springman to grant the "hijackers" visas after he declined them?
Also, CIA gent Susan Lindauer got fired and locked in a mental institution for whisteblowing.
1 thinker43 2018-04-19
Racist!!!
1 docmongre 2018-04-19
Not an answer but I remember the original footage agents didn't recover from surrounding areas. It was from a building across the street. It clearly showed a white missile before the explosion.
Several days later I went back to show a friend and it was gone. In its place was a crappy doctored version showing a glob meant to look like a plane. Early video editing sucked. I'll never forget.
1 SpeakTruthtoStupid 2018-04-19
Can nobody on this subreddit use google?
This subreddit is an intellectual disaster, seriously just google.
1 VerifiedMadgod 2018-04-19
asks questions
Entire thread circle jerks
Don't give them any plausible explanation for the two answers though. Then you're just brainwashed.
This subreddit I swear
1 11-22-1963 2018-04-19
You can see the footage of the Pentagon being hit. It's called the parking lot footage and it was leaked in 2002. It's been available for years. The only tapes that were confiscated by the FBI , from Citgo gas station and Doubletree hotel, were released years ago.
For a detailed explanation, read below:
There is no proof that more than three tapes around the Pentagon's vicinity were seized by the FBI.
There is no proof that other tapes apart from the parking lot footage depict a Boeing 757 impact.
The rest of the claimed "85 confiscated videotapes" were voluntarily sent in from private individuals to the FBI's field offices, and are privately held footage. Thus, in order to release them publicly, permission would need to be secured from the individual who owns that footage. The majority of the tapes sent in have no relation to the Pentagon crash at all.
Neither the DoD nor the FBI ever claimed to have eighty-five tapes depicting a Boeing 757 crash into the Pentagon, if that's what you're referring to.
A 2004 FOIA request asked for footage depicting the crash of Flight 77. The agent who replied to the FOIA request determined that the FBI "was in possession of eighty-five videotapes related to 9/11". It then went on to categorize what was contained on 29 of the tapes she reviewed personally. (The other 56 cropped up in an initial database search and didn't even show the Pentagon building).
16 of those 29 tapes showed the Pentagon, but "did not show the Pentagon crash site nor the impact into the Pentagon." Of the remaining 13 videos, 12 showed the Pentagon only after the impact. That leaves just one tape: the parking lot footage. Which was released. 14 years ago. The other videos weren't released, because those did not fulfill the claimant's request. The person asked for footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, and the closest tapes to that request that the agent could find were the Doubletree and Citgo tapes (i.e. it captured when the impact happened, but not directly).
In other words, the agent was simply itemizing the tapes she thought the FBI had, and excluded the ones which weren't relevant to the person's request.
Somehow, no-planers read the quotation above, and got the idea that the FBI confiscated 85 tapes that showed clear footage of the impact. This is how the "confiscated tapes" claim got started: from a misreading of a reply to a FOIA request.
In complying with the FOIA request, the FBI released the relevant footage it had. This is how we got the Doubletree and Citgo videos. Up until 2006 we only had the five-frame Pentagon video (which is the only tape the Pentagon has which clearly depicts the crash).
The seized footage has been publicly released and is available on YouTube.
Doubletree Hotel footage Note the upload date.
Citgo station. Note the upload date.
Parking lot footage of impact. Released 2002.
Here is an analysis of the Boeing 757 impact from the Pentagon camera footage.
1 11-22-1963 2018-04-19
1 This is based on the assumption that the radio hijacker plane was first flying in the radar shadow of Delta 1989, i.e., it flew along the same path. USA Today relates details of the Delta 1989 path. When UA 93 made his turn at 9:36, Delta 1989 was told to stay away from it. It was just 15 miles away at that moment.
2 Kean, Thomas H, and Lee Hamilton. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, 2004. Print, p. 41
3 "The Cleveland Airport Mystery". (2004, August 17). 9/11 Review: Web Archive. Retrieved from http://archive.is/qiXzQ
1 atworkposting 2018-04-19
1: Several reason:
Watching something hit something else gives you tons of information on the structure of both targets. The pentagon obviously has a classified structure, to make it harder to attack. They don't want to release this footage because.
I think that there probably aren't many security cameras pointed at the sky. Given one camera in a parking lot pointed at the building, and the easily obtainable speed of 500 mph, a 20 frame per second camera might not even see the plane before it hit. An object at 500 mph takes .13 seconds to travel 100 feet.
2: Because it sustained a large ammount of structual damage.
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Corner.jpg
1 LisDawgTruth 2018-04-19
I was active duty Army during 9/11 and initially believed the entire story. As time went on and more details surfaced, it didn’t make any sense. I swallowed the red pill about 3 years later and have never looked back. I spot the false flags immediately. It’s no use trying to convince a non-believer because their idea of “The Truth” has been warped for so long. I’m not bitter at my country. I love America and feel blessed to live here. I’m angry at Deep State and all the bullshit that has been fed to Americans for past 50 years.
1 sailorjasm 2018-04-19
You can't see the footage because of reasons,
1 BananaWilly 2018-04-19
I guess you missed the memo: Minions can't handle the truth.
1 rigorousintuition 2018-04-19
Building 7 fell because the vibrations from the two towers collapsing damaged the foundations, surprisingly they left all the other buildings around them intact but this is the government approved story and who are we to question it!
1 cleanindustry 2018-04-19
Tower 7 had an internal fire started form falling debris. Metabunk has an entire thread about this.
https://www.metabunk.org/wtc-7-building-7.t1094/
There is also video of the top of tower 7 collapsing in that thread.
1 RWaggs81 2018-04-19
That's two of about 25 questions I have.
I've asked friends before, after reviewing the whole official story and the footage available:
If you had to wager your next 4 paychecks on...
A. The official account is true B. The official account has significant falsehoods
... Which you would wager on?
1 RWaggs81 2018-04-19
Also...
https://youtu.be/2UHhBcZxYqY
1 jasenlee 2018-04-19
ITT: Fucking shills everywhere... it's massive. If you don't use RES get the add-on now and then tag every one of these bitches as shills so when you see them later you know.
I use the following system:
First offense I color code them yellow and tag them as "1x Possible Shill".
Second offense I change it to "2x Possible Shill".
After the third offense I color code them red as shills.
1 9877654432110 2018-04-19
Building 7 was burning for a half a day straight.
1 6foot3dad 2018-04-19
I think a lot of people do not trust the official narrative but won't show their beliefs in fear of being alienated, or have so much else going on in their lives to care about something they have no control over.
1 Madrenoche 2018-04-19
Why can't we see footage of the attack on the Pentagon?
Answer Because no plane hit the building.
The answers are right in your face... No plane hit the Pentagon... No plane went down in Shanksville
And WTC7 was a pre planned implosion.
Look at the so called crash site in PA... There is not one piece of metal in that hole. WTC7 Just miraculously fell with only office fires bringing it down. A third grader could understand a building wouldn't free fall due to office furniture on fire.
The people trying to convince you building 7 fell without the help of explosives are the same people who want you to believe a man in a cave brought the US to its knees ..when No one could find him CNN waltzed in their and interviewed him with no problem. It still dumbfounds me to this day people are still ignorant to the fact 911 was planned by the US and Israeli government
1 CptFizz 2018-04-19
Because the big guys in Tel Aviv said so.
1 gryphon_844 2018-04-19
without looking it up... how many people in the pentagon died that day from the "plane" that hit it?
1 LisaDawnn 2018-04-19
I think a little under 200? Like 185? But because every other thing told that day was a complete fabrication NONE of the official story can be trusted. A missile probably entered the unoccupied portion of the building (wiping out the alleged missing 2.7 trillion dollar trail/paperwork) and no one was killed.
1 Max_Fenig 2018-04-19
WTC7
1 BooPiBooPi 2018-04-19
You mean this /u/dbcaliman ?
1 Aconite_Eagle 2018-04-19
This video tells it all; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zze32ZEjt30
No jetliner is capable of flying at such a low altitude, parallel to the ground for the distance required (whilst having avoided other buildings/trees etc), at such a speed as would be necessary for it not to appear in a frame on this video and without it leaving any debris reminiscent of a plane. Instead; if you stop the video at 0:25 seconds you see an exhaust trail of what is likely to be cruise missile. How this is not more widely known I'll never know.
1 theBullshitFlag 2018-04-19
Because that video is classified. It was pulled.
1 Corbotron_5 2018-04-19
LOL. No. People demanding footage of the Pentagon strike to challenge the official narrative ARE the minority. Belief has nothing to do with it. It’s woefully naive to believe that the positive benefits of appeasing that minority outweigh the negatives. When has any government in history suffered a successful strike against a military target and then handed over footage of it to the enemy while still engaged? That’s plain stupid.
1 NotWhatYouThink89 2018-04-19
It was asking for it! Just look at how it was dressed! Concrete HUSSIE!
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
You are cherry picking. I never said what you are claiming I said. I said fire + earthquakes could have brought the building down. Specifically, the building was on fire, then it was at the epicenter of a magnitude 2 surface level earthquake. Then it continued to burn, then it was at the epicenter of ANOTHER magnitude 2 earthquake, and then it continued to burn for 8 more hours. Then if finally collapsed.
Ask yourself this, how many times has a building already on fire been at the epicenter of 2 earthquakes, then continued to burn, but did not collapse? Has that ever happened?
Not a building that was on fire started by the earthquake, but the building had to be on fire first already, and then randomly and totally by coincidence endured two earthquakes centered 60 ft away? What are the survival statistics for this kind of building?
The Parthenon survived 2000 years through earthquakes and multiple explosions, but is now being completely destroyed by rain that happens to be a bit more acidic than usual.
Catastrophic failure is the result of multiple marginal failures in a cascade.
1 anothername787 2018-04-19
How did it disentigrate? There were parts found all over the building and lawn.
1 -Teekey- 2018-04-19
There was quite a lot of aircraft debris found at the Pentagon.
https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pentagondebris2.jpg
https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/landing_gear_complete.jpg
1 ZiggyAnimals 2018-04-19
Yeah it was flying really low and knocked down many poles. It was in broad view of everyone driving to/from the Pentagon so there are vast witnesses. I'm also pretty sure someone would say something if they were pre knocking the poles by a main road. I'm on board with a false flag but I don't believe the no planes story. Likewise I have friends in New York who saw the second plane quite clearly as they were looking at the first plane incident.
1 ozymandias21 2018-04-19
Cruise missile, amirite? But why?
1 th3allyK4t 2018-04-19
All four black boxes ? No sorry too convenient.
1 sandman533 2018-04-19
So, hypothetically, a passport or other piece of small debris could be blown away while the black box is incinerated.
1 theHawkmooner 2018-04-19
The first and only time an industrial building has collapsed from fire
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Yes a paper passport soaked in jet fuel is likely to survive a massive fireball impact, while the black boxes specifically designed to withstand plane crashes wouldnt.
Makes sense. About as much sense as an aluminum airplane punching through a building that was designed to survive a jet airliner that size impacting it.
As much sense as it not only slicing through the outer steel superstructure, but also the massive core columns that most people forgot existed, which would have remained standing if the outer building partially collapsed...
The fact that three steel buildings fell within hours of being hit, directly down into their own basements.
The nanothermite residue. The fact that wtc7 didnt even get hit, yet fell into its own basement from "office fires". The fact that the NIST models are garbage. Even though they dido say most of the fuel on the planes was instantly consumed, meaning the fire weakened the beams is bullshit.
But anyone with basic metallurgical or structural engineering knowledge knows the official story is a lie.
1 xJokerzWild 2018-04-19
'Giant Concrete & Steel building collapsed from a paper fire.'
Man, ive never heard a more convincing argument. /s
1 Aphix 2018-04-19
The media warned conspiracy comes fron the BBC reporting 7's collapse 20 minutes before it happened, IIRC.
1 Todos1881 2018-04-19
I remember when the msm started reporting that they found the pilots body in the cockpit with his hands tied. We are so dumb as a population that people are still repeated the fake fact that the pilots had their hands tied.
https://youtu.be/X1wJiffgBFo
1 OneEyed81 2018-04-19
Correct. There was a lot camera footage in that area.
1 Waiting4AM8 2018-04-19
I can understand the thought that the black box is too heavy to fly off in the same way that a passport can. I realise it wasn't a part of the investigation but it's part of the official story and seems pretty obviously fake - if we can establish the official story is untrue in any part then it draws the entire thing into question.
The part I really don't understand is how the passport would have gotten there, surely it would have been either in the terrorist's bag or in his pocket? How would it come to be lying on the ground on its own?
1 jasron_sarlat 2018-04-19
Perhaps it wasn't a piece of the investigation in a legal sense, but that passport was very much part of the sales pitch (if you will) to the American public.
1 tmartillo 2018-04-19
True. I don't think I ever saw any actual collision footage, but I remember that there are camera limits around the Pentagon which seem somewhat logical and also somewhat BS. The Pentagon attack, like the Iraq invasion, never made any sense to me because it reeks of lies.
1 -Teekey- 2018-04-19
Sorry, but assuming you get a decent look at it, there's no way you confuse a 30ft object for a 300ft object.
1 serviceenginesoon 2018-04-19
Dont forget the part of the pentagon hit was people investigating the missing trillions of dollars announced the day before
1 DonBB 2018-04-19
So if you have no idea whether it was flying full-speed, why did you seem to imply that you knew it was?
1 saudade_xo 2018-04-19
I saw the interview with the taxi driver too! It’s wild how he says such drastically conflicting things and slips up when he didn’t realize he was being recorded.
1 saudade_xo 2018-04-19
I remember this, I’m like positive you’re right. I’m pretty sure I saw a clip of the gas station owner describing the shadiness surrounding it being seized
1 alienrefugee51 2018-04-19
The Pentagon had a gazillion cameras around it. I think it’s safe to say they weren’t your standard run of the mill security cameras monitoring 7-11’s.
1 bittermanscolon 2018-04-19
It wasn't a missile, it was a plane but it didn't hit the building, they just blew it up.
1 Trollzek 2018-04-19
How did the dude complete that impossible downward spiral? Also, no wreckage? Did they blow up the plane as it was colliding with the Pentagon? A plane alone would not have caused that kind of damage, a mission would have, I’m also not being an asshole- I’ve just never heard this version of it, and can’t picture the plane being blown up whilst hitting the Pentagon.
There would still be pieces left of it. Look at other planes shot down.
1 DankingtonMemesworth 2018-04-19
I love a good conspiracy too but pushing this bullshit while there are actual families out there that mourned the death of their loved ones, who died on AA Flight 77, is disgusting to me.
1 jubale 2018-04-19
You can't board an airplane without a passport. How did the guy check it in luggage and then go through security?
1 MysticalSock 2018-04-19
So are there like secret black ops janitors for those government offices?
1 MysticalSock 2018-04-19
What is nano thermite?
1 SoberKid420 2018-04-19
Seriously? 3 modern day skyscrapers were completely flattened, and you "guess" there's nothing wrong with finding multiple passports that were in the god damn cockpits of the very planes that demolished said buildings? Literally one of the buildings wasn't even touched by a plane, yet it was completely demolished. A 47 story steel building that wasn't even hit by a plane collapsed, and yet the god damn passports of the people in the planes themselves survived???? Well let's just agree to disagree, to say the fucking least...
1 Correctthereddit 2018-04-19
The photos of the uniformly round holes between layers of several Pentagon walls convinced me it was a missile. When you look into the debris, it appears to have been faked.
1 MysticalSock 2018-04-19
Fun fact, most street lamps in the us are designed to fall over in an impact to lessen damage to cars that hit them
1 MysticalSock 2018-04-19
Or a missile attack for that matter, I mean I get DC has some rough areas and all...
1 acceptabledegenerate 2018-04-19
Why would a passport be inside luggage?
1 SlammingPussy420 2018-04-19
Those are solid questions but they are met with several other unanswered questions from the other side.
What about the countless people saying there were explosions in the WTC before and after impact? What happened to the plane debris from both WTC towers? What about the number of experienced pilots saying such a maneuver at the Pentagon is impossible? What about wtc7? What about the claims that the official report was not handled properly?
1 Odor_punchout_16 2018-04-19
Zero. Buy I have seen many controlled demos to know what I am looking at. Experience and eye test pal.
1 20060578 2018-04-19
Projectile hit. Exploded out.
1 Drew1904 2018-04-19
Even the ones from PA? There was almost no wreckage.
1 Drew1904 2018-04-19
I am a firm believer in the idea that there are organizations that literally do not exist, that are handsomely funded, and operate outside of any judicial or moral background. It would not be “the government” who fostered or perpetrated 9/11. It’d be organizations like these.
1 ILoveJuices 2018-04-19
There was no luggage or people on the ground at Pennsylvania.
1 Bone-Marrow 2018-04-19
Dont you know that the titanic intentionally sunk because the some of the richest people on it opposed the federal reserve?
1 chappaquiditch 2018-04-19
I have no idea. It would be interesting to know if other passports were found.
1 skepticalbob 2018-04-19
Why do the sloppy bullshit that doesn’t look right?
1 peacefulsnowman 2018-04-19
They found nuts and bolts, and pieces of fucilage about the size of a fist. If been there, I live an hour away. I remember seeing the plane fly over us we didn't know obviously but we remember seeing a commercial plane flying lower than usual. What is curious is about 15 minutes later we saw 3 jets following in the same direction and that leads me to believe it was shot down but who know. All I know is we never see military jets flying through our skies around here, that was unusual. Doesn't take a genius to connect the dots there. thanks
1 jasenlee 2018-04-19
You really believe that? In all the wreckage they couldn't even find dead bodies. They could barely piece together papers from the destroyed buildings but you think 3 out 4 of the passports survived intact? Like they just flew out of the vest jackets of the "hijackers" and went blowing out a window safely landing to the ground with nary a scratch to be found in short order?
1 r34xL 2018-04-19
There is also a big question regarding the impact zone in PA for U93.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Do you have evidence that debris was planted? No? Then you are just ignoring actual evidence in favor of your fantasy.
Look you are the one making incredible claims here. You can't back em up then shut up.
I'd love to see it.
1 devils_advocaat 2018-04-19
Do you know if passports of other passengers were found?
1 ajhvq 2018-04-19
Funny dude you old Ass cuckold wipe that cum of your face
1 rednaskal 2018-04-19
How much steel weakens then? A quick google search said normal house fire can reach 1800F. How much of stregth would you say is left at ~1000F?
1 panjwani_ajay 2018-04-19
you believe in natural iteration, i believe in hierarchy and provisioning, to each his own. if a snake is in the business of snake skin wallets and waits for shed skins then he might be human in the sense that raw direct cannibalism is a baser instinct, reusable cannibalism is where humans are at. if a is able to eat b over and over, then it must be shed skin AND media cover (the reason b never sells wallets) and both these require brand management ie active management so if instances of b are likely to get into wallets they're taken care of (not killed, just derailed)
1 Cizuz 2018-04-19
They would have confiscated all footage of 9/11, that was impossible in new york. To many people, to many angles.
The pentagon was easier.
And as for why? Only takes someone high up saying the heart of the military was hit, footage could show the US to be weak and maybe lead to other attempts if it was that easy. Also for the investigation.
Only really takes one paranoid person in a highish position.
But in the end footage doesnt matter. Hundreds of eye witnesses seen a plane, and there were parts of the plane in photos all over the place, lawn and found in building.
People will just deny that exists and aay because footage wasnt released it didnt happen which means nothing, because even if that footage was out theyd be arguing it was doctored, fake or a missle shaped like a plane.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-04-19
Dude just speak English. The NSA has bigger fish to fry.
1 zbufferz 2018-04-19
The one in NYC is the least ridiculous. Watch the impact footage, especially of the second plane (because by then the cameras are fixed and focused on the towers and the shots are clear).
When the second plane hits, you see debris exit the other side of the building. The passports were found blocks away.
It's possible (though I'm not convinced) that on impact the windows of the cockpit were blown out and the clothing of the people in the cockpit who were not wearing belts were flung forward through the building at 200+ miles an hour and were ejected out the side, escaping the fire.
1 panjwani_ajay 2018-04-19
true that
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
See that's the problem. You wanted evidence, you were given it but you are ignoring it because "it's not the expected evidence".
Meanwhile you have a complete lack of evidence (Expected or otherwise) to support your claims.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
Well first of all there is the physical evidence of AA77 hitting the Pentagon. There is also the fact that AA77 and all it's passengers are missing but their remains were found at the Pentagon so...
I'm not sure how you draw some other conclusion unless, you are specifically wanting to draw another conclusion...
Cool you might find it impossible but you have already shown to believe in some funky cartoon physics.
Nothing suggest it is impossible.
You mean you are again rejecting the actual evidence because it doesn't support your fantasy?
You ever stop and try to objectively look at the facts instead of trying to fit the facts into your theory?
Well there is no evidence of anything having hit the building so....
1 reputable_opinion 2018-04-19
sure
1 FatherMurder 2018-04-19
And jet fuel is very similar to diesel.
1 ReallyBigDeal 2018-04-19
You seem to have some problems with your logic.
Lets start again.
Debris that clearly resembles parts from an AA passenger jetliner were found all around the point of impact. You don't dispute this right?
It is your claim, that this debris did not come from an AA airliner. You need to offer proof of that.
No you didn't. You told me what you think the plane should do but what your knowledge is based on, I don't know. So far you have shown that you believe in "cartoon" physics where the plane should have stripped off its wings and tail intact when it hit the building or it should have flattened against it like a can getting smashed. Both of those are wrong.