snowdog90 said:

---

Can anyone give me a reasonable explanation of what happens in this video from 911?

https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/dustification-north-tower-spire-turns-to-dust/

---

Can you give an explanation on how and why the super secret feds would somehow rig that to be anything other than normal steal beams?

Quote:

---

It does appear to be a missile from the lousy security camera.

Flying a commercial airliner so low to the ground is not easy, looks like just off the ground, but not impossible.

---

No. It doesn't. What missile digs a tunnel instead of exploding on contact or with a delay? What missile comes in at ground level.

No **** it's not easy to fly an airliner just off the ground. They freaking crashed. Are you serious with this?

Go watch the rendering of the flight data. They acquired the pentagon at 7000ft then did a wide easy turn to lose altitude and dove wings level fir the final 30 seconds to hit it.

snowdog90 said:

---

Can anyone give me a reasonable explanation of what happens in this video from 911?

https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/dustification-north-tower-spire-turns-to-dust/

---

Yeah, you desperately need a hobby.

Quote:

---

Visual scud running at low altitude looking for the Pentagon,

---

I recall the weather that day was CAVU

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Visual scud running at low altitude looking for the Pentagon,

---

I recall the weather that day was CAVU

---

It was but did they really make much altitude after take off?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Visual scud running at low altitude looking for the Pentagon,

---

I recall the weather that day was CAVU

---

Terrorists would not have picked a day with low clouds. Wouldn't have hit any of those targets. I know you know this but clearly others could stand to hear it.

yawny06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Wait, you expect a missile to knock over light poles and remain flying undeviated better than a 130 ton aircraft?

---

Not only that, it had to stop, change directions, and take out light poles in a manner in which to simulate an object with a wing span approximately equal to that of a 757 taking out the light poles, then revert to its original flight path into the Pentagon.

---

That is one magic loogie, I mean missile.

PA24 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Visual scud running at low altitude looking for the Pentagon,

---

I recall the weather that day was CAVU

---

It was but did they really make much altitude after take off?

---

35,000 feet

Maybe at least skim the wiki article before opining

aTmAg said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

yawny06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Wait, you expect a missile to knock over light poles and remain flying undeviated better than a 130 ton aircraft?

---

Not only that, it had to stop, change directions, and take out light poles in a manner in which to simulate an object with a wing span approximately equal to that of a 757 taking out the light poles, then revert to its original flight path into the Pentagon.

---

Or the light poles could have been knocked down in another fashion to seem like it was hit by a plane

---

In a way that witnesses would think they saw a 757 fly into the pentagon? How exactly?

---

How many witnesses saw an aircraft hit a light pole?

Quote:

---

Washington DC is heavy populated, finding the pentagon would not be as easy as you think,

---

Having flown commercial into DC several times, no it is not that hard to find.



Perhaps you've been looking at the GPS screen too much, and not doing it the old fashioned way of looking out the window.

There's the river, it's next to the river.

There's the airport, runway 33 is pointed straight at the Pentagon like an arrow.

Arlington National Cemetery, a huge sea of green, is just to the north.

Easy to spot.

p_bubel said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Can anyone give me a reasonable explanation of what happens in this video from 911?

https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/dustification-north-tower-spire-turns-to-dust/

---

Yeah, you desperately need a hobby.

---

Yep. You can't explain it, so I'm crazy. Do you not see how irrational that is? Are you not even curious what is happening in this video? How is it possible?

AggiEE said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

yawny06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Wait, you expect a missile to knock over light poles and remain flying undeviated better than a 130 ton aircraft?

---

Not only that, it had to stop, change directions, and take out light poles in a manner in which to simulate an object with a wing span approximately equal to that of a 757 taking out the light poles, then revert to its original flight path into the Pentagon.

---

Or the light poles could have been knocked down in another fashion to seem like it was hit by a plane

---

In a way that witnesses would think they saw a 757 fly into the pentagon? How exactly?

---

How many witnesses saw an aircraft hit a light pole?

---

Why would that matter? They saw a FREAKING 757 FLY INTO THE PENTAGON.

PA24 said:

---

I am an instrument pilot, complex airplanes. Also a certified mechanic. I currently own a PA24-260, PA23, and part owner of a pressurized Baron 58P. I have over 2000 hours as a PIC.

Getting a commercial pilot license is not that difficult, getting ratings to fly large aircraft is difficult, not for everyone.

I wish we could see some films of a plane hitting the pentagon. Seeing would be believing, no doubt the twin towers were airplane hits.

it does appear to be a missile from the lousy security camera.

Flying a commercial airliner so low to the ground is not easy, looks like just off the ground, but not impossible. Ever see that film clip of the airport lineman that stole a commercial airliner and did barrel rolls a few years ago? Dude flew it for about 45 minutes or so then crashed on purpose, suicidal all the way. Poor soul.

Washington DC is heavy populated, finding the pentagon would not be as easy as you think, especially with '90s navigation instruments. Visual scud running at low altitude looking for the Pentagon, crazy but not impossible. Feat would be more convincing if he had dive bombed into the building rather than skim the surface.

I am going with the official version until a stronger argument is presented but I do understand the questions.

---

My belief is that it's a missile as well, maybe fired from a smaller aircraft

The released footage does not look like a 757 to me either

PA24 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Visual scud running at low altitude looking for the Pentagon,

---

I recall the weather that day was CAVU

---

It was but did they really make much altitude after take off?

---

Yeah, they didn't hijack until it was at cruise altitude over PA or somewhere, took over, set the autopilot for DC, and came back.

PA24 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Visual scud running at low altitude looking for the Pentagon,

---

I recall the weather that day was CAVU

---

It was but did they really make much altitude after take off?

---

Like the other 3 hijackings, the terrorists took over after the airliner reached cruising altitude.

snowdog90 said:

---

p_bubel said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Can anyone give me a reasonable explanation of what happens in this video from 911?

https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/dustification-north-tower-spire-turns-to-dust/

---

Yeah, you desperately need a hobby.

---

Yep. You can't explain it, so I'm crazy. Do you not see how irrational that is? Are you not even curious what is happening in this video? How is it possible?

---

Did you not see the whole freaking building turned to dust on the way down? That's what happens to concrete under high stress. And you wonder how the corner also did it?

Do you think that the FBI replaced a steel and concrete building with one made of chalk overnight or something?

aTmAg said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Can anyone give me a reasonable explanation of what happens in this video from 911?

https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/dustification-north-tower-spire-turns-to-dust/

---

Can you give an explanation on how and why the super secret feds would somehow rig that to be anything other than normal steal beams?

---

I don't understand the question. It's a 700 foot high piece of the trade center, and then it goes away. Steel and concrete. How?

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Great link Thaddeus. Nice to have some actual evidence posted rather than speculation posted under the guise of evidence.

Snowdog, where is the AA77 757 that didn't hit the Pentagon? Where are the passengers and crew? These would seem to be pretty big questions that need answering if you're so sure of what didn't happen. What has your hundreds of hours of research led you to believe in this regard?

Also, engine debris from inside the building.

---

Where's the proof that this small part is from a 757 engine? Why is this literally the only component that resembles an engine part out of the entire alleged wreckage?

---

So instead, that's a missile part then? How many parts of a missile remain after it explodes and how large are those parts? Why does this part look conspicuously like a turbine?

aTmAg said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

yawny06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Wait, you expect a missile to knock over light poles and remain flying undeviated better than a 130 ton aircraft?

---

Not only that, it had to stop, change directions, and take out light poles in a manner in which to simulate an object with a wing span approximately equal to that of a 757 taking out the light poles, then revert to its original flight path into the Pentagon.

---

Or the light poles could have been knocked down in another fashion to seem like it was hit by a plane

---

In a way that witnesses would think they saw a 757 fly into the pentagon? How exactly?

---

How many witnesses saw an aircraft hit a light pole?

---

Why would that matter? They saw a FREAKING 757 FLY INTO THE PENTAGON.

---

The number of witnesses and conflict of their statements is an important thing to determine, how is it not?

Thaddeus Beauregard said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Great link Thaddeus. Nice to have some actual evidence posted rather than speculation posted under the guise of evidence.

Snowdog, where is the AA77 757 that didn't hit the Pentagon? Where are the passengers and crew? These would seem to be pretty big questions that need answering if you're so sure of what didn't happen. What has your hundreds of hours of research led you to believe in this regard?

Also, engine debris from inside the building.

---

Where's the proof that this small part is from a 757 engine? Why is this literally the only component that resembles an engine part out of the entire alleged wreckage?

---

So instead, that's a missile part then? How many parts of a missile remain after it explodes and how large are those parts? Why does this part look conspicuously like a turbine?

---

Not saying it's a missile part, but it could be part of a smaller aircraft and not a 757

AggiEE said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Great link Thaddeus. Nice to have some actual evidence posted rather than speculation posted under the guise of evidence.

Snowdog, where is the AA77 757 that didn't hit the Pentagon? Where are the passengers and crew? These would seem to be pretty big questions that need answering if you're so sure of what didn't happen. What has your hundreds of hours of research led you to believe in this regard?

Also, engine debris from inside the building.

---

Where's the proof that this small part is from a 757 engine? Why is this literally the only component that resembles an engine part out of the entire alleged wreckage?

---

Why do you think it's a small part? Looks like a part of an engine core to me. That's not a fragment.

I don't know, and neither do you, that this is the only piece of an engine that was discovered in the wreckage. I only know this is a pic I found that I could post. Neither you nor I combed through all of the Pentagon wreckage, so neither of us is qualified to say how much engine debris was or wasn't there.

I presented a photo evidencing engine debris in the Pentagon in response to Snowdog's claim that there wasn't any. Feel free to believe that's the only piece there.

snowdog90 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Can anyone give me a reasonable explanation of what happens in this video from 911?

https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/dustification-north-tower-spire-turns-to-dust/

---

Can you give an explanation on how and why the super secret feds would somehow rig that to be anything other than normal steal beams?

---

I don't understand the question. It's a 700 foot high piece of the trade center, and then it goes away. Steel and concrete. How?

---

The footage is grainy. I don't think it's turning to dust, it's just falling and has lots of dust around it not falling as fast

Quote:

---

How many witnesses saw an aircraft hit a light pole?

---

Quote:

---

Fourteen (14) witnesses saw one or more of the light poles struck.

---

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

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

How many witnesses saw an aircraft hit a light pole?

---

Quote:

---

Fourteen (14) witnesses saw one or more of the light poles struck.

---

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

---

Can't trust witness statements, especially a bunch of people seeing the same thing in broad daylight. What did the janitor in the basement hear? Probably a missile sound.

Quote:

---

My belief is that it's a missile as well, maybe fired from a smaller aircraft

---

How many eye witnesses saw a smaller plane fire zee missile into the Pentagon?

AggiEE said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Can anyone give me a reasonable explanation of what happens in this video from 911?

https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/dustification-north-tower-spire-turns-to-dust/

---

Can you give an explanation on how and why the super secret feds would somehow rig that to be anything other than normal steal beams?

---

I don't understand the question. It's a 700 foot high piece of the trade center, and then it goes away. Steel and concrete. How?

---

The footage is grainy. I don't think it's turning to dust, it's just falling and has lots of dust around it not falling as fast

---

Falling where? Into a 700 foot hole? What makes it fall? I could see it falling over, but it starts falling straight down and disappears into dust. How?

snowdog90 said:

---

Can anyone give me a reasonable explanation of what happens in this video from 911?

https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/dustification-north-tower-spire-turns-to-dust/

---

Since this is a thread about the Pentagon attack, how about you quit deflecting and answer my question:

Where is the AA77 757 that didn't hit the Pentagon? Where are the passengers and crew? These would seem to be pretty big questions that need answering if you're so sure of what didn't happen. What has your hundreds of hours of research led you to believe in this regard?

AggiEE said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

yawny06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Wait, you expect a missile to knock over light poles and remain flying undeviated better than a 130 ton aircraft?

---

Not only that, it had to stop, change directions, and take out light poles in a manner in which to simulate an object with a wing span approximately equal to that of a 757 taking out the light poles, then revert to its original flight path into the Pentagon.

---

Or the light poles could have been knocked down in another fashion to seem like it was hit by a plane

---

In a way that witnesses would think they saw a 757 fly into the pentagon? How exactly?

---

How many witnesses saw an aircraft hit a light pole?

---

Why would that matter? They saw a FREAKING 757 FLY INTO THE PENTAGON.

---

The number of witnesses and conflict of their statements is an important thing to determine, how is it not?

---

Have you read any of the non-truther stuff posted on here? At this point you're either a troll or willfully ignorant.

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

It does appear to be a missile from the lousy security camera.

Flying a commercial airliner so low to the ground is not easy, looks like just off the ground, but not impossible.

---

No. It doesn't. What missile digs a tunnel instead of exploding on contact or with a delay? What missile comes in at ground level.

No **** it's not easy to fly an airliner just off the ground. They freaking crashed. Are you serious with this?

Go watch the rendering of the flight data. They acquired the pentagon at 7000ft then did a wide easy turn to lose altitude and dove wings level fir the final 30 seconds to hit it.

---

From the camera it looks like a missile not a plane. The type of impact is a different subject all together.

They managed to crash into the building during a scud run rather than a dive bomb.

I didn't know they had reached an altitude of 7k which doesn't answer the question of why risk a crash before striking the building with a low altitude run when he could have dive bombed into the building. Why expose himself to a slow turn and descent with Fighter pilots on the way.

Nothing they did was impossible just didn't make a lot of sense but then they were on a suicidal ride which is crazy.

You have a condescending pitch, settle down ace.