Those buildings like like falling debris damage not internal fires. But just an observation.

Has anyone provided a definitive proof and not some random guy on the street's observation of "molten steel"?

Predmid said:

---

Has anyone provided a definitive proof and not some random guy on the street's observation of "molten steel"?

---

He's going to point back to the little steel beads found all over the place.

This is the most comprehensive look of the whole event I have found recently. It is 5 hours that starts with Pearl Harbor and runs then through each high-jacker, plane, target and impending result. Every conclusion is then framed within the segment with questions.

Gets really interesting once they get into the structural analysis of the towers falling and the violations of the laws of physics.

I don't expect anyone who believes the official narrative to watch, but anyone who has any doubts, dig in!
Everyone who is calling names and eyerolling, keep carrying their water!
(Insert the "That's what they want you to think" Rusty Schakleford gif)



ETA: I don't know why it is age restricted, there is nothing other than questions of the story. It was difficult for me to watch initially in that the video would not play on without refreshing.
It's on rumble here: https://rumble.com/v12urxr-september-11-the-new-pearl-harbor.html

slimjimsims said:

---

This is the most comprehensive look of the whole event I have found recently. It is 5 hours that starts with Pearl Harbor and runs then through each high-jacker, plane, target and impending result. Every conclusion is then framed within the segment with questions.

Gets really interesting once they get into the structural analysis of the towers falling and the violations of the laws of physics.

I don't expect anyone who believes the official narrative to watch, but anyone who has any doubts, dig in!
Everyone who is calling names and eyerolling, keep carrying their water!
(Insert the "That's what they want you to think" Rusty Schakleford gif)



ETA: I don't know why it is age restricted, there is nothing other than questions of the story. It was difficult for me to watch initially in that the video would not play on without refreshing.
It's on rumble here: https://rumble.com/v12urxr-september-11-the-new-pearl-harbor.html

---

I've only watched about 5 minutes of this, but so far it looks good. I may have watched it years ago, but not sure yet.

One thing strikes me. The majority of people on here that believe the official story won't watch it. Many of these people typically claim, " if this was a conspiracy, there's no way they could keep everyone quiet". Yet, when people speak out and discredit the official story, those peolple are called wrong, crazy, confused or just liars.

This video through 5 minutes already has credible people discrediting the official story, but as I said, it will be ignored if watched..

There's a huge difference between someone advocating a theory and someone who was actually involved in the planning and execution of said conspiracy.

slimjimsims said:

---

This is the most comprehensive look of the whole event I have found recently. It is 5 hours that starts with Pearl Harbor and runs then through each high-jacker, plane, target and impending result. Every conclusion is then framed within the segment with questions.

Gets really interesting once they get into the structural analysis of the towers falling and the violations of the laws of physics.

I don't expect anyone who believes the official narrative to watch, but anyone who has any doubts, dig in!
Everyone who is calling names and eyerolling, keep carrying their water!
(Insert the "That's what they want you to think" Rusty Schakleford gif)



ETA: I don't know why it is age restricted, there is nothing other than questions of the story. It was difficult for me to watch initially in that the video would not play on without refreshing.
It's on rumble here: https://rumble.com/v12urxr-september-11-the-new-pearl-harbor.html

---

This was an excellent documentary.

It is very long, but it is very specific and thoroughly eviscerates the official story to shreds on every single questionable aspect of that day. It even introduces very compelling theories on the supposed "impossibility" of doing things like swapping planes, how the building could have been rigged with explosives, etc.

It's also very matter-of-fact and doesn't delve into anything that is completely unsupported such as new types of energy weapons being used, or the planes not actually hitting the towers, etc.

The only thing I wish they had included was mentioning of the evidence for thermate residue, but other than that it goes into detail of practically everything we've discussed on this thread with very compelling evidence. Of course, those that instantly dismiss the theories will not spend the time to actually watch any of it, choosing to ridicule and hand waive it all away in support of an official narrative that has an absurd amount of glaring holes.

Recovery-and-investigative-operations-at-pentagon. The FBI had this buried under unlisted. #9/11 pic.twitter.com/jLkjo2ltWN

— Aric Mattson (@aric71) October 4, 2022

Great video.

WTC 7 is the glaring anomaly IMO. But the pentagon is right behind it.

Hani Hanjour, the pilot who is claimed to have hit the pentagon, could not solo a single engine cessna. His private instructors said, "Hani Hanjour was someone who was not cut out to be a pilot. He had no motivation, poor understanding of basic principles of aviation and poor judgement, combined with poor technical skills." In 2002, it was reported that his skills were so shoddy and ability to fly so poor, instructors believed his license was a fake. The people at the flight school said he could not fly at all. He was unable to solo a cessna 150, but got behind the stick of a 757, completed a very difficult flight path at 500+ mph and flew the plane into a small strip of the pentagon.

A pilot of similar skills and certification was put in a 757 simulator that would replicate the conditions of the accident and the task at hand. He was asked to make the sweeping turns, rapid descents, then place the aircraft into the side of building. He failed miserably, over and over - the experienced pilot with him, said he couldn't do it.

We are being asked to believe an impossible feat.

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

Three witnesses to the September 11 attack at the Pentagon tell their stories

Sean Boger was one of the few people at the Pentagon who saw the plane coming in so low it took down a street light.

"I just looked up and, you know, a plane was flying directly at us," he said.

He said it was just 10 to 15 seconds before the plane hit the building.

"I just couldn't believe something that big could be flying that low and flying directly at us," he reiterated.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/september-11-pentagon-witnesses/


or are they all memvers if the conspiracy?

780 replies! The asylum is buzzing with activity. Hopefully we can keep the loonies confined to this thread. Looking back, this thread was awesome bait to keep the loonies occupied. It's like the card game in One Flew Over the ****oo's Nest. Keep up the good work and definitely watch the video of WTC 7 collapse in super slo-mo 20 more times. There is a clue there.

RWWilson said:

---

780 replies! The asylum is buzzing with activity. Hopefully we can keep the loonies confined to this thread. Looking back, this thread was awesome bait to keep the loonies occupied.

---

I don't consider guys like you to be loonies. You simply choose to believe in glaring lies rather than uncomfortable truths. You haven't read a single report or watched a single video, but you are providing great commentary to the legion of bootlickers that blue star your every childish post.

Old Army Ghost said:

---

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

Three witnesses to the September 11 attack at the Pentagon tell their stories

Sean Boger was one of the few people at the Pentagon who saw the plane coming in so low it took down a street light.

"I just looked up and, you know, a plane was flying directly at us," he said.

He said it was just 10 to 15 seconds before the plane hit the building.

"I just couldn't believe something that big could be flying that low and flying directly at us," he reiterated.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/september-11-pentagon-witnesses/


or are they all memvers if the conspiracy?

---

Watch the video posted above entitled "9/11 a New Pearl Harbor". All of it.

Then come back at us and start re-posting "Popular Mechanics" as a legitimate source.

Govt. lies??

Well, against my wishes at the time...I had to put on a uniform and serve my country during Viet Nam as did hundreds of thousands others. Some (+/- 55,000) didn't come home to express their thoughts on the subject, not to mention the untold SE Asians who died because of an outright LIE that profited the military industrial complex ONLY.

Being 76 yrs young, I'm not nearly as gullible as I was at 21 and have 'limited' faith in what DC wants us to believe. For one...the so called 'conspiracies' make more sense to this constituent than the 'official' versions and that goes for the world wide Chyna virus 'epidemic' as well.

That's my $0.02.

The other thread on `what if' reminded of something wanted to point out.

If one looks at all this fairly, there are certain grounds for questions and misgivings about certain particulars. But some of this can result from the extreme CYA tendency of the government to the point where it lies sometimes to cover up or obscure something by controlling evidence only to make it worse. That is, the response to questions cropping up in years later can be excessively evasive, or even fabricating to try to promote a way of seeing it, when the evidence is already in their favor.

For example, the Pentagon strike is exactly the kind of thing that if you were going by what people saw and witnesses reported very few would doubt a large plane crashed into it at high speed. If you had no other evidence. Turns out there are real odd questions about that video footage that only surfaced well later, that unnecessarily complicates the clear picture the eyewitnesses gave. In fact, the whole argument about whether a plane struck or not seems to distract from the fact that the other big charge or claim is that the strike somehow had a purpose, struck where it did for a reason. This is where the question of who is really flying 77 comes into play in that video.

As said considerably earlier in the thread, two things can be true at the same time if they are not exclusionary. The Twin Towers can be struck by hijacked planes and still something odd can be up with the Pentagon and Building 7. For Building 7 just want to point out that is not something to so ridicule, whatever else make of it. Napolitano and Geraldo were even questioning it in November 2010. Its not like these are experts--but the point is they are big wheels among the narrative and official story talking heads now having doubts.

With that in mind, watch this architectural forensic video just from 33 minute mark to end of 36 minute

Watch just that much and you will get an idea that this isn't discepancies of a bunch of quacks. Watch more like ten minutes up to the 45 minute mark and you will really get an idea.

Its an architectural critique of the NIST report on 7. The only point to make here is that in depth critical analyses are clashing in some areas, and this is not just Alex Jones stuff.

Popular mechanics? Wow - watching that video and seeing that link is eerie. Appears you've been psyop'd - like everyone else. What did they say about the jab - safe and effective?

I'll just go back to what I wrote. That you think hijackers, that can't solo single engine Cessna's, can maneuver a 120 ton passenger plane through an incredibly difficult flight path and into the narrowest portion of a target, is insane. Experienced pilots say 500 mph and low altitude, leave no room for altitude error. It's all coming too fast to negotiate. Yet, these guys that flunked flight school attained a flat trajectory after a radically steep descent and nailed it. Okay. Whatever.

willtackleforfood said:

---

Popular mechanics? Wow - watching that video and seeing that link is eerie. Appears you've been psyop'd - like everyone else. What did they say about the jab - safe and effective?

I'll just go back to what I wrote. That you think hijackers, that can't solo single engine Cessna's, can maneuver a 120 ton passenger plane through an incredibly difficult flight path and into the narrowest portion of a target, is insane. Experienced pilots say 500 mph and low altitude, leave no room for altitude error. It's all coming too fast to negotiate. Yet, these guys that flunked flight school attained a flat trajectory after a radically steep descent and nailed it. Okay. Whatever.

---

Not only that, but the government cannot provide any visual proof of what hit the pentagon, despite the fact that there has to be overwhelming security camera footage that they have not disclosed. And in fact, there is evidence that later releases of video footage have been doctored.

It shouldn't be so difficult - if a large aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon as the US government claims, why can they not show it?

Now hold on. Am even somewhat open to some of the questions about the Pentagon hit/why --- but the camera angle is not so straight forward. Those were security cams and by nature are pointing at points of concern. They are not scanning the skies. Think of them at any place you go to---where they happen to point. Its not even unusual for them to not be horizontally pointed. This is one area where inclined to not be as surprised that those cams -- which use time lapse and not stream usually -- wouldn't "catch it".

AggiEE said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Popular mechanics? Wow - watching that video and seeing that link is eerie. Appears you've been psyop'd - like everyone else. What did they say about the jab - safe and effective?

I'll just go back to what I wrote. That you think hijackers, that can't solo single engine Cessna's, can maneuver a 120 ton passenger plane through an incredibly difficult flight path and into the narrowest portion of a target, is insane. Experienced pilots say 500 mph and low altitude, leave no room for altitude error. It's all coming too fast to negotiate. Yet, these guys that flunked flight school attained a flat trajectory after a radically steep descent and nailed it. Okay. Whatever.

---

Not only that, but the government cannot provide any visual proof of what hit the pentagon, despite the fact that there has to be overwhelming security camera footage that they have not disclosed. And in fact, there is evidence that later releases of video footage have been doctored.

It shouldn't be so difficult - if a large aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon as the US government claims, why can they not show it?

---

I'm legitimately curious where you think the pieces of AA airplane wreckage around the Pentagon came from. Somebody just ran out there and started scattering it around after the "missile" hit? There are plenty of pics around the web, and some posted on page 2 of this thread.

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Popular mechanics? Wow - watching that video and seeing that link is eerie. Appears you've been psyop'd - like everyone else. What did they say about the jab - safe and effective?

I'll just go back to what I wrote. That you think hijackers, that can't solo single engine Cessna's, can maneuver a 120 ton passenger plane through an incredibly difficult flight path and into the narrowest portion of a target, is insane. Experienced pilots say 500 mph and low altitude, leave no room for altitude error. It's all coming too fast to negotiate. Yet, these guys that flunked flight school attained a flat trajectory after a radically steep descent and nailed it. Okay. Whatever.

---

Not only that, but the government cannot provide any visual proof of what hit the pentagon, despite the fact that there has to be overwhelming security camera footage that they have not disclosed. And in fact, there is evidence that later releases of video footage have been doctored.

It shouldn't be so difficult - if a large aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon as the US government claims, why can they not show it?

---

I'm legitimately curious where you think the pieces of AA airplane wreckage around the Pentagon came from. Somebody just ran out there and started scattering it around after the "missile" hit? There's plenty of pics around the web, and some posted on page 2 of this thread.

---

I definitely think SOMETHING hit the pentagon clearly, I am just not convinced that it was an AA plane. Another aircraft with AA-like paintings/markings is what I suspect given eye witness testimony. There is actually surprisingly little remaining from the aircraft with any sort of identifiable wreckage.

The fact that lightly trained hijackers were able to navigate that complicated flight path despite experienced veterans not being able to do so in a flight simulator suggests to me that it wasn't the AA flight we are being told, and the lack of visual evidence corroborates that. It should not be difficult for the Pentagon to have much better footage than what they released.

Some of that testimony pointing to another kind of twin engine plane is notable. But on the face of it, there is not much wrong with the claim that much of the wreckage had passed inside. We have almost no documentation of the interior damage. What is not well known is the Pentagon performance analysts doing the standard damage-after type work, to their great annoyance, were not allowed in till start of October. They found all the key debris had generally been removed --- in forensic terms, the site completely disturbed. So all that they could do is work with what still visible. So there could have been major portions inside and you wouldn't know. And the key part was also further crushed shortly after impact -- about 20 minutes after 9:37, or 10:10 by another mention.

The argument about who or what flying it comes into play in the strange choice of hitting that hardened side rather than an easier kamikaze style dive into the roof at an angle.

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Popular mechanics? Wow - watching that video and seeing that link is eerie. Appears you've been psyop'd - like everyone else. What did they say about the jab - safe and effective?

I'll just go back to what I wrote. That you think hijackers, that can't solo single engine Cessna's, can maneuver a 120 ton passenger plane through an incredibly difficult flight path and into the narrowest portion of a target, is insane. Experienced pilots say 500 mph and low altitude, leave no room for altitude error. It's all coming too fast to negotiate. Yet, these guys that flunked flight school attained a flat trajectory after a radically steep descent and nailed it. Okay. Whatever.

---

Not only that, but the government cannot provide any visual proof of what hit the pentagon, despite the fact that there has to be overwhelming security camera footage that they have not disclosed. And in fact, there is evidence that later releases of video footage have been doctored.

It shouldn't be so difficult - if a large aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon as the US government claims, why can they not show it?

---

I'm legitimately curious where you think the pieces of AA airplane wreckage around the Pentagon came from. Somebody just ran out there and started scattering it around after the "missile" hit? There's plenty of pics around the web, and some posted on page 2 of this thread.

---

I definitely think SOMETHING hit the pentagon clearly, I am just not convinced that it was an AA plane. Another aircraft with AA-like paintings/markings is what I suspect given eye witness testimony. There is actually surprisingly little remaining from the aircraft with any sort of identifiable wreckage.

---

So where did the real AA77 and all of its passengers go?

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Popular mechanics? Wow - watching that video and seeing that link is eerie. Appears you've been psyop'd - like everyone else. What did they say about the jab - safe and effective?

I'll just go back to what I wrote. That you think hijackers, that can't solo single engine Cessna's, can maneuver a 120 ton passenger plane through an incredibly difficult flight path and into the narrowest portion of a target, is insane. Experienced pilots say 500 mph and low altitude, leave no room for altitude error. It's all coming too fast to negotiate. Yet, these guys that flunked flight school attained a flat trajectory after a radically steep descent and nailed it. Okay. Whatever.

---

Not only that, but the government cannot provide any visual proof of what hit the pentagon, despite the fact that there has to be overwhelming security camera footage that they have not disclosed. And in fact, there is evidence that later releases of video footage have been doctored.

It shouldn't be so difficult - if a large aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon as the US government claims, why can they not show it?

---

I'm legitimately curious where you think the pieces of AA airplane wreckage around the Pentagon came from. Somebody just ran out there and started scattering it around after the "missile" hit? There's plenty of pics around the web, and some posted on page 2 of this thread.

---

I definitely think SOMETHING hit the pentagon clearly, I am just not convinced that it was an AA plane. Another aircraft with AA-like paintings/markings is what I suspect given eye witness testimony. There is actually surprisingly little remaining from the aircraft with any sort of identifiable wreckage.

---

So where did the real AA77 and all of its passengers go?

---

The planes' flight paths took them over the same airforce base at the same time. It is theorized that they were dropped off, replaced with military aircraft that then took them to their final destination. Another theory for Flight 93 is that it was a backup in case one of the planes intended for the towers was shot down.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

This article is worth reading.

I don't think the plane was remotely controlled but there is no doubt the AA plane hit the Pentagon.

redcrayon said:

---

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

This article is worth reading.

---

I've read this before and it is not convincing in the slightest. Again, something clearly hit the Pentagon, but there's nothing to suggest concretely it is what the government has stated. And they have evidence that should easily bolster their claims and yet it is not available to the public.

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Popular mechanics? Wow - watching that video and seeing that link is eerie. Appears you've been psyop'd - like everyone else. What did they say about the jab - safe and effective?

I'll just go back to what I wrote. That you think hijackers, that can't solo single engine Cessna's, can maneuver a 120 ton passenger plane through an incredibly difficult flight path and into the narrowest portion of a target, is insane. Experienced pilots say 500 mph and low altitude, leave no room for altitude error. It's all coming too fast to negotiate. Yet, these guys that flunked flight school attained a flat trajectory after a radically steep descent and nailed it. Okay. Whatever.

---

Not only that, but the government cannot provide any visual proof of what hit the pentagon, despite the fact that there has to be overwhelming security camera footage that they have not disclosed. And in fact, there is evidence that later releases of video footage have been doctored.

It shouldn't be so difficult - if a large aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon as the US government claims, why can they not show it?

---

I'm legitimately curious where you think the pieces of AA airplane wreckage around the Pentagon came from. Somebody just ran out there and started scattering it around after the "missile" hit? There's plenty of pics around the web, and some posted on page 2 of this thread.

---

I definitely think SOMETHING hit the pentagon clearly, I am just not convinced that it was an AA plane. Another aircraft with AA-like paintings/markings is what I suspect given eye witness testimony. There is actually surprisingly little remaining from the aircraft with any sort of identifiable wreckage.

---

So where did the real AA77 and all of its passengers go?

---

The planes' flight paths took them over the same airforce base at the same time. It is theorized that they were dropped off, replaced with military aircraft that then took them to their final destination. Another theory for Flight 93 is that it was a backup in case one of the planes intended for the towers was shot down.

---

So you're saying that the passengers on AA77 did not in fact die? You're saying a military aircraft dropped them all off at LAX? That they, and everybody who knows them, were/are part of the whole conspiracy as well?

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Popular mechanics? Wow - watching that video and seeing that link is eerie. Appears you've been psyop'd - like everyone else. What did they say about the jab - safe and effective?

I'll just go back to what I wrote. That you think hijackers, that can't solo single engine Cessna's, can maneuver a 120 ton passenger plane through an incredibly difficult flight path and into the narrowest portion of a target, is insane. Experienced pilots say 500 mph and low altitude, leave no room for altitude error. It's all coming too fast to negotiate. Yet, these guys that flunked flight school attained a flat trajectory after a radically steep descent and nailed it. Okay. Whatever.

---

Not only that, but the government cannot provide any visual proof of what hit the pentagon, despite the fact that there has to be overwhelming security camera footage that they have not disclosed. And in fact, there is evidence that later releases of video footage have been doctored.

It shouldn't be so difficult - if a large aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon as the US government claims, why can they not show it?

---

I'm legitimately curious where you think the pieces of AA airplane wreckage around the Pentagon came from. Somebody just ran out there and started scattering it around after the "missile" hit? There's plenty of pics around the web, and some posted on page 2 of this thread.

---

I definitely think SOMETHING hit the pentagon clearly, I am just not convinced that it was an AA plane. Another aircraft with AA-like paintings/markings is what I suspect given eye witness testimony. There is actually surprisingly little remaining from the aircraft with any sort of identifiable wreckage.

---

So where did the real AA77 and all of its passengers go?

---

The planes' flight paths took them over the same airforce base at the same time. It is theorized that they were dropped off, replaced with military aircraft that then took them to their final destination. Another theory for Flight 93 is that it was a backup in case one of the planes intended for the towers was shot down.

---

So you're saying that the passengers on AA77 did not in fact die? That they, and everybody who knows them, were/are part of the whole conspiracy as well?

---

They may have died later after swapping the planes. I don't think everyone and their family were in on it. Though the backgrounds of some people on board those aircraft is quite a bit peculiar.

That's one of the more disabling and crazier things about it. It seems utterly untenable even granting all the odd questions about the incident and where struck. The one that seems to have some possible legs is the pilot/culprit was someone else--- capable of flying it that skillfully and with an specific impact intent on the Pentagon. With everything that implies. That would still make everyone else killed the same and so on.

Compare to the Tower 2 plane--- barely in control, almost misses outright. Very believable its one of the terrorists.

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Popular mechanics? Wow - watching that video and seeing that link is eerie. Appears you've been psyop'd - like everyone else. What did they say about the jab - safe and effective?

I'll just go back to what I wrote. That you think hijackers, that can't solo single engine Cessna's, can maneuver a 120 ton passenger plane through an incredibly difficult flight path and into the narrowest portion of a target, is insane. Experienced pilots say 500 mph and low altitude, leave no room for altitude error. It's all coming too fast to negotiate. Yet, these guys that flunked flight school attained a flat trajectory after a radically steep descent and nailed it. Okay. Whatever.

---

Not only that, but the government cannot provide any visual proof of what hit the pentagon, despite the fact that there has to be overwhelming security camera footage that they have not disclosed. And in fact, there is evidence that later releases of video footage have been doctored.

It shouldn't be so difficult - if a large aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon as the US government claims, why can they not show it?

---

I'm legitimately curious where you think the pieces of AA airplane wreckage around the Pentagon came from. Somebody just ran out there and started scattering it around after the "missile" hit? There's plenty of pics around the web, and some posted on page 2 of this thread.

---

I definitely think SOMETHING hit the pentagon clearly, I am just not convinced that it was an AA plane. Another aircraft with AA-like paintings/markings is what I suspect given eye witness testimony. There is actually surprisingly little remaining from the aircraft with any sort of identifiable wreckage.

---

So where did the real AA77 and all of its passengers go?

---

The planes' flight paths took them over the same airforce base at the same time. It is theorized that they were dropped off, replaced with military aircraft that then took them to their final destination. Another theory for Flight 93 is that it was a backup in case one of the planes intended for the towers was shot down.

---

Wow.

titan said:

---

That's one of the more disabling and crazier things about it. It seems utterly untenable even granting all the odd questions about the incident and where struck. The one that seems to have some possible legs is the pilot/culprit was someone else--- capable of flying it that skillfully and with an specific impact intent on the Pentagon. With everything that implies. That would still make everyone else killed the same and so on.

Compare to the Tower 2 plane--- barely in control, almost misses outright. Very believable its one of the terrorists.

---

Not sure what you mean by Tower 2 plane barely in control. It made a last minute correction that actually seems more likely to be something a computer would perform than someone actually in control.

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

willtackleforfood said:

---

Popular mechanics? Wow - watching that video and seeing that link is eerie. Appears you've been psyop'd - like everyone else. What did they say about the jab - safe and effective?

I'll just go back to what I wrote. That you think hijackers, that can't solo single engine Cessna's, can maneuver a 120 ton passenger plane through an incredibly difficult flight path and into the narrowest portion of a target, is insane. Experienced pilots say 500 mph and low altitude, leave no room for altitude error. It's all coming too fast to negotiate. Yet, these guys that flunked flight school attained a flat trajectory after a radically steep descent and nailed it. Okay. Whatever.

---

Not only that, but the government cannot provide any visual proof of what hit the pentagon, despite the fact that there has to be overwhelming security camera footage that they have not disclosed. And in fact, there is evidence that later releases of video footage have been doctored.

It shouldn't be so difficult - if a large aircraft did indeed hit the Pentagon as the US government claims, why can they not show it?

---

I'm legitimately curious where you think the pieces of AA airplane wreckage around the Pentagon came from. Somebody just ran out there and started scattering it around after the "missile" hit? There's plenty of pics around the web, and some posted on page 2 of this thread.

---

I definitely think SOMETHING hit the pentagon clearly, I am just not convinced that it was an AA plane. Another aircraft with AA-like paintings/markings is what I suspect given eye witness testimony. There is actually surprisingly little remaining from the aircraft with any sort of identifiable wreckage.

---

So where did the real AA77 and all of its passengers go?

---

The planes' flight paths took them over the same airforce base at the same time. It is theorized that they were dropped off, replaced with military aircraft that then took them to their final destination. Another theory for Flight 93 is that it was a backup in case one of the planes intended for the towers was shot down.

---

So you're saying that the passengers on AA77 did not in fact die? That they, and everybody who knows them, were/are part of the whole conspiracy as well?

---

They may have died later after swapping the planes. I don't think everyone and their family were in on it. Though the backgrounds of some people on board those aircraft is quite a bit peculiar.

---

They "might" have died later? I mean, if you have questions about the physical evidence then that's okay. But give me a real good theory on what happened to the 64 passengers and crew.

They died or not? If they did die, who was responsible for their deaths and how was that carried out? You said they "might" have died later. If they didn't in fact die, where are they?

AggiEE said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

This article is worth reading.

---

I've read this before and it is not convincing in the slightest. Again, something clearly hit the Pentagon, but there's nothing to suggest concretely it is what the government has stated. And they have evidence that should easily bolster their claims and yet it is not available to the public.

---

There are tons of eye witnesses that told their stories immediately. My old landlord in NoVa was on his way to work and literally saw the plane fly extremely low over the interstate. He is an honorable man and has absolutely no reason to lie. His name can easily be found on the internet. It happened.

redcrayon said:

---

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

This article is worth reading.

I don't think the plane was remotely controlled but there is no doubt the AA plane hit the Pentagon.

---

They conclude that strongly, but did you notice this on your link?

Quote:

---

As an organization, Scientists for 9/11 Truth has stood virtually alone in maintaining large plane impact at the Pentagon together with controlled demolition of the buildings in New York City.

---

titan said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

This article is worth reading.

I don't think the plane was remotely controlled but there is no doubt the AA plane hit the Pentagon.

---

They conclude that strongly, but did you notice this on your link?

Quote:

---

As an organization, Scientists for 9/11 Truth has stood virtually alone in maintaining large plane impact at the Pentagon together with controlled demolition of the buildings in New York City.

---

---

Yes.

redcrayon said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

This article is worth reading.

---

I've read this before and it is not convincing in the slightest. Again, something clearly hit the Pentagon, but there's nothing to suggest concretely it is what the government has stated. And they have evidence that should easily bolster their claims and yet it is not available to the public.

---

There are tons of eye witnesses that told their stories immediately. My old landlord in NoVa was on his way to work and literally saw the plane fly extremely low over the interstate. He is an honorable man and has absolutely no reason to lie. His name can easily be found on the internet. It happened.

---

There were many witnesses, yes. Do you remember if your landlord mentioned two engines?