Direct hit?

He bounced off the ground before hitting the side of the building

After what we just saw go down the past couple years, I'm surprised there's this much pushback on people asking questions.

Not enough people asked questions during covid, and where did that get us?

I don't see that in the video. I don't see where it hit the ground bounced and splayed wreckage that hit the building. Video shows a direct hit imo. But it's hard to tell what's going on in that video.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

After what we just saw go down the past couple years, I'm surprised there's this much pushback on people asking questions.

Not enough people asked questions during covid, and where did that get us?

---

This is a big part of the problem. You simply cannot trust our govt or any of it's institutions, and certainly not the media. If they didn't lie ALL THE TIME, and if more and more conspiracy theories weren't turning out to be true in hindsight, it would give the "truther" types a lot less ammunition.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

agracer said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

I don't know what idiot thought I was joking about how easy it is to fly the plane, and got my post deleted.

I'm 100% serious. All you people acting like this is some amazing feat of airmanship are talking out of your butt.

Trained pilots (they did have training) flying a modern aircraft into a building that covers 34 acres, isn't exactly Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier

---

One of the things the conspiracy nuts like to point out is the crazy, erratic flight path that Flight 77 took before it hit the pentagon. The flight path that not even the best pilot could follow but this low IQ terrorist who failed flight school was able to fly that 757 like Maverick. What they ignore is the flight path was so erratic and crazy because the terrorist was barely in control of the plane and just reacting to what was going on. It was not skill, it was dumb luck he even hit the pentagon to begin with (let alone find it).

If you've ever flown and instrument approach and suddenly start chasing the needles your path will look the same. My uncle got me into a Navy t-34 simulator in Corpus a long time ago and had me do an instrument approach. I got about 1/2 mile from the runway and was off a little bit and suddenly I was chasing the needles all over the place and the flight path was a zig zag mess and I crashed the plane...

---

I respect what Canyon and the rest are saying with how it's achievable.

But this is the other side of the coin on this deal.

How do you calculate the probability that the pilot was able to pull this off and get a direct hit on the side of the building just above ground level.

We ain't talking about an experienced pilot here with a ton of hours.

Dude flying like a bat out of hell then all of a sudden regains composure and gets a direct hit like he's flying in Top Gun 2.

Nevertheless, it doesn't sit right. That's all I'm saying.

---

So, what do you think happened? Multiple witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

---

As always, the 9/11 Truther will not have any type of logical explanation for what happened. It's always "I'm just asking questions". The answers to which are never satisfactory.

---

They also refuse to provide any alternative theory of what actually happened because they know anything they come up with will be too hilariously and insanely unrealistic. So they'll just leave it as "I don't know what happened but I don't trust the story, etc."

---

I think most 9/11 truthers believe firmly, and almost religiously, that 9/11 was orchestrated in order to justify war, and feed the "military industrial complex".

The only part of the whole deal I have ever thought was shady, as someone else mentioned, was the way building 7 went down. Just looked like a clean demolition to me. But assuming the other buildings falling had ruined the underground structural integrity or something.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

agracer said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

I don't know what idiot thought I was joking about how easy it is to fly the plane, and got my post deleted.

I'm 100% serious. All you people acting like this is some amazing feat of airmanship are talking out of your butt.

Trained pilots (they did have training) flying a modern aircraft into a building that covers 34 acres, isn't exactly Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier

---

One of the things the conspiracy nuts like to point out is the crazy, erratic flight path that Flight 77 took before it hit the pentagon. The flight path that not even the best pilot could follow but this low IQ terrorist who failed flight school was able to fly that 757 like Maverick. What they ignore is the flight path was so erratic and crazy because the terrorist was barely in control of the plane and just reacting to what was going on. It was not skill, it was dumb luck he even hit the pentagon to begin with (let alone find it).

If you've ever flown and instrument approach and suddenly start chasing the needles your path will look the same. My uncle got me into a Navy t-34 simulator in Corpus a long time ago and had me do an instrument approach. I got about 1/2 mile from the runway and was off a little bit and suddenly I was chasing the needles all over the place and the flight path was a zig zag mess and I crashed the plane...

---

I respect what Canyon and the rest are saying with how it's achievable.

But this is the other side of the coin on this deal.

How do you calculate the probability that the pilot was able to pull this off and get a direct hit on the side of the building just above ground level.

We ain't talking about an experienced pilot here with a ton of hours.

Dude flying like a bat out of hell then all of a sudden regains composure and gets a direct hit like he's flying in Top Gun 2.

Nevertheless, it doesn't sit right. That's all I'm saying.

---

So, what do you think happened? Multiple witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

---

I don't know. I don't have a viable theory. At the end of the day it seems like there was more to it though.

Gas station video footage hurts more than it helps though, IMO.

Is that the best we can do under the circumstances?

It's a certainty that some other footage exist. Why can't we see it?

And if we can't see it for some specific reason ... what is that reason?

---

Willing to entertain genuine mysteries and questions. But if pilots actually certified are saying its not that hard to fly the plane, then what is so odd about that? Its important not to see things as "odd" that actually are just unfamiliar. (Like flying an airliner---what really is "hard" or "easy" matters)

There are even indications that fit --- the plane circled the Pentagon more than once--- maybe he DID overshoot it, failed to see it, and had to line up again. It is an enormous building, every hard to miss once pointed at it. Personally I think it somewhat supports the idea the WH was never a target. The skill to even find it and line up fast enough wasn't there. (Try it on a map--its not at all where you expect in relation to the Capitol in "visual" terms.)

But once lined up on the Pentagon, this `chasing needles' phenomena may explain its wobbling. As well as the fact it clipped its starboard engine as it came to treetop level.

As indicated earlier -- questions may well be asked about the why/where it hit, if indeed entirely random, and why aftermath forensic study did not emerge and the formal inspection not permitted till well after.

But it does no good to not at least posit what suspicious of or wondering if could have happened--- its the minimum for really figuring out what even questioning. (Example: is an airliner "easy to fly" or not and what bearing does it have on the supposed pilot? Certainly a Corsair is not, so its not always true. )

Another thing---does one look at the Pentagon separate from the Twin Towers and Shankskville, or part of it. That is, is someone implying it was done "under the cover" of the first pair? (some seem to go that way)

What exactly doesn't "sit right"? (Not attacking, asking. We sure have been shown reason to doubt official stories in the 21st C, so no problem with that in theory per-se. But what?)

At the time of the incident the authorities came in and scooped up all the video from every possible source.

I remember reading about this at the time and in the years after.

Where is the remaining video footage?

Why can't we see it?

And what's the justification for why we cant see it?

Seems like this could all be put to bed once and for all.

Why hasn't that been done?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

At the time of the incident the authorities came in and scooped up all the video from every possible source.

I remember reading about this at the time and in the years after.

Where is the remaining video footage?

Why can't we see it?

And what's the justification for why we cant see it?

---

The theory is that it would expose weaknesses to our foreign adversaries I think. Which i don't completely understand. There HAS TO BE other footage. I realize it was back in 2001 and people didn't have cell phone cams, and camera quality wasn't what it is today...but no way a building like the Pentagon isn't surrounded by quality cameras for constant monitoring. That is just too hard to believe imo. That would be such a tremendous lapse in security it's tough to fathom. So some extremist group back then could have just run up and stormed the building back then, or defaced it, or lobbed an RPG at the exterior, and only a low res, low speed parking cam would have possibly been able to get any footage? No way. The video is buried for one reason or another.

Set that aside for just a second.

Allow for the governments tendency to jump for CYA and suppression of facts out of the gate about almost anything---one of their worst traits. The desire to control the narrative.

But imagine its an earlier time -- forget security cams and video. Does the ample eyewitness testimony, including posters here who know some of them, persuade that most did see a two engine jet slam into the building?

If you think about it like a detective, you subtract the evidence you having a hard time with affirming its value, and instead look at the remaining preponderance of evidence.

Assume you are unlucky enough to not have a first impact video. (We are one away from having none for WTC Tower 1 (North Tower). What does that tell you now if you just let the eyewitnesses speak?

This is why its important to say what do you think the video confiscation MAY be hiding, or could be? That would differ from the eyewitnesses, or indicate something otherwise?

I get that, and thats all good,

But show me the beef.

We shouldn't have to jump through a bunch of hoops and make inferences in this situation.

We are being asked to ... but we shouldn't have to.

agracer said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

I don't know what idiot thought I was joking about how easy it is to fly the plane, and got my post deleted.

I'm 100% serious. All you people acting like this is some amazing feat of airmanship are talking out of your butt.

Trained pilots (they did have training) flying a modern aircraft into a building that covers 34 acres, isn't exactly Chuck Yeager breaking the sound barrier

---

One of the things the conspiracy nuts like to point out is the crazy, erratic flight path that Flight 77 took before it hit the pentagon. The flight path that not even the best pilot could follow but this low IQ terrorist who failed flight school was able to fly that 757 like Maverick. What they ignore is the flight path was so erratic and crazy because the terrorist was barely in control of the plane and just reacting to what was going on. It was not skill, it was dumb luck he even hit the pentagon to begin with (let alone find it).

If you've ever flown and instrument approach and suddenly start chasing the needles your path will look the same. My uncle got me into a Navy t-34 simulator in Corpus a long time ago and had me do an instrument approach. I got about 1/2 mile from the runway and was off a little bit and suddenly I was chasing the needles all over the place and the flight path was a zig zag mess and I crashed the plane...

---

Can you enlarge on that a little? Just guessing, but what kind of movement does "chasing the needles" produce --- a rocking of wings, or more an erratic right and left course shifting like a ship without a rudder steering by propellers? What does it look like from the cockpit--- would the pilot be able to easily keep the Pentagon facade ahead of him? (Presumably yes) Especially since not having to deal with any distractions like anti-aircraft fire or fighters?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Seems like this could all be put to bed once and for all.

Why hasn't that been done?

---

It has been, but conspiracy freaks refuse to accept it

---

To be fair, at least a handful of conspiracies have turned out to be true in the last few years. Making a lot of very reasonable people on Texags, conspiracy freaks, at one point or another.

So much of this would not be enabled if you could just put an ounce of trust in our government.

There's a reason black people don't trust rushed experimental vaccines...we have done very bad things to them in your lifetime.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

We shouldn't have to jump through a bunch of hoops and make inferences in this situation.

We are being asked to ... but we shouldn't have to.

---

But that itself is a meme.

Making inferences to test actually makes the most sense. Even with very little evidence, some speculations on ruins in Istanbul have at last been confirmed by archeology. Some of the guesses wrong, others affirmed. But you need something to "test" -- if only in a mental sense.

I ask again, think about it-- let's just assumed the govt confiscated all the video because they are micro-managing a---holes, and not for any thought out Vulvan-level logic reason. Just reflexive CYA so they have room to cover-up specifics - maybe who was with a general at the time-- and lie (if they want.)

In this case though, WHAT could the video possibly reveal that you don't think the eyewitnesses reveal? This is the way to some clarity in these things.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Seems like this could all be put to bed once and for all.

Why hasn't that been done?

---

It has been, but conspiracy freaks refuse to accept it

---

To be fair, at least a handful of conspiracies have turned out to be true in the last few years. Making a lot of very reasonable people on Texags, conspiracy freaks, at one point or another.

So much of this would not be enabled if you could just put an ounce of trust in our government.

There's a reason black people don't trust rushed experimental vaccines...we have done very bad things to them in your lifetime.

---

That is ALSO true. Its mean-spirited and wrong to scoff so much at some skeptics. They are doing the work and the video examination many don't do. Who knows when is the time they actually find something rotten in Denmark as it were. And its especially suspect when $$ billions are being involved as a result of what occurred with a given incident or story.

'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.

I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.

I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.

---

Sure. If it it ever existed, or still exists.

Humor me then -- what might a video show that the eyewitnesses don't --- about a plane crash into the Pentagon that would matter outside forensic detail and importance? In other words---is it trajectory, angle of hit, size of fireball? type of plane? What is it "kind of wanting" to see revealed that you are convinced video would affirm?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.

I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.

---

Same. I don't understand how releasing video would expose any critical weaknesses or vulnerabilities at the Pentagon all this time later. Makes zero sense. It would shut a lot of people up...and I can't think of any risk or downside.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

I don't see that in the video. I don't see where it hit the ground bounced and splayed wreckage that hit the building. Video shows a direct hit imo. But it's hard to tell what's going on in that video.

---

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/911-pentagon-attack/

As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by the New York Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors:

The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building.

titan said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.

I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.

---

Sure. If it it ever existed, or still exists.

Humor me then -- what might a video show that the eyewitnesses don't --- about a plane crash into the Pentagon that would matter outside forensic detail and importance? In other words---is it trajectory, angle of hit, size of fireball? type of plane? What is it "kind of wanting" to see revealed that you are convinced video would affirm?

---

I'm not gonna rely on eyewitnesses if there is video available.

titan said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.

I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.

---

Sure. If it it ever existed, or still exists.

Humor me then -- what might a video show that the eyewitnesses don't --- about a plane crash into the Pentagon that would matter outside forensic detail and importance? In other words---is it trajectory, angle of hit, size of fireball? type of plane? What is it "kind of wanting" to see revealed that you are convinced video would affirm?

---

It would shut up a ton of people who do not believe it was a plane...not that the govt cares or has any incentive to do this I guess. I think the plane had compressed onto the ground just before building impact, making it look tiny (you'd expect a 757 to look huge and take up a chunk of the building), thus feeding the conspiracies of a guided missile or something of that nature. It really does not look like a huge aircraft in the one video we have...at all. But it seems that's because it is flattening on the ground at impact just before it hits the building.

I don't deserve to see any video or anything, but just out of personal curiosity and interest, i'd love if they eventually released better quality vid (which I am almost 100% sure they have).

43rd Street Posse said:

---

Maybe I have seen too many movies, that crash is NOTHING like how I would imagine a plane crashing into a building would be. When planes crash do they always completely incinerate and leave no wreckage behind?

---

YES, if they impact an impenetrable object at high enough speed, they absolutely do! They disintegrate into tiny shards of debris, practically turning into dust!

As demonstrated here:

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.

I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.

---

Same. I don't understand how releasing video would expose any critical weaknesses or vulnerabilities at the Pentagon all this time later. Makes zero sense. It would shut a lot of people up...and I can't think of any risk or downside.

---

So the only way you and other Truthers are going to believe an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon is to have clear video evidence? No other reasonable evidence is going to suffice, including multiple eyewitness accounts and actual wreckage onsite?

Things that make you go Hmmm

Duckhook said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.

I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.

---

Same. I don't understand how releasing video would expose any critical weaknesses or vulnerabilities at the Pentagon all this time later. Makes zero sense. It would shut a lot of people up...and I can't think of any risk or downside.

---

So the only way you and other Truthers are going to believe an American Airlines 757 hit the Pentagon is to have clear video evidence? No other reasonable evidence is going to suffice, including multiple eyewitness accounts and actual wreckage onsite?

---

I'm not a "truther". Aside from not understanding building 7's clean collapse. I just thought better video would eventually be released, all these years later.

AggiEE said:

---

Things that make you go Hmmm

---

1:24...it has always looked like a much smaller "executive" type airplane to me as well.

Pentagon is like 75 feet tall. A 757 is apparently 45 feet tall.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

titan said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.

I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.

---

Sure. If it it ever existed, or still exists.

Humor me then -- what might a video show that the eyewitnesses don't --- about a plane crash into the Pentagon that would matter outside forensic detail and importance? In other words---is it trajectory, angle of hit, size of fireball? type of plane? What is it "kind of wanting" to see revealed that you are convinced video would affirm?

---

It would shut up a ton of people who do not believe it was a plane...not that the govt cares or has any incentive to do this I guess. I think the plane had compressed onto the ground just before building impact, making it look tiny (you'd expect a 757 to look huge and take up a chunk of the building), thus feeding the conspiracies of a guided missile or something of that nature. It really does not look like a huge aircraft in the one video we have...at all. But it seems that's because it is flattening on the ground at impact just before it hits the building.

I don't deserve to see any video or anything, but just out of personal curiosity and interest, i'd love if they eventually released better quality vid (which I am almost 100% sure they have).

---

Why so sure of the last part? We are one away from having NONE of the first impact of North Tower in New York City.

Security cams in very laid back and peaceful 2001 were not scanning the skys like wartime London and Berlin --they were pointed where they expected mischief to be done or try to break in.

One of the weakest things about this part of the skeptics is this insistence that good footage would exist (as would today yes) of a 90 degree impact on the Pentagon by such a fast moving craft---especially with some non-operational. Could see even cams on both sides failing to catch if it depending on where in strobe and angle if it came between them.

I even share the doubts of Building 7 --- so its not some automatic dismissal of any `conspiracy'.

titan said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

titan said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.

I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.

---

Sure. If it it ever existed, or still exists.

Humor me then -- what might a video show that the eyewitnesses don't --- about a plane crash into the Pentagon that would matter outside forensic detail and importance? In other words---is it trajectory, angle of hit, size of fireball? type of plane? What is it "kind of wanting" to see revealed that you are convinced video would affirm?

---

It would shut up a ton of people who do not believe it was a plane...not that the govt cares or has any incentive to do this I guess. I think the plane had compressed onto the ground just before building impact, making it look tiny (you'd expect a 757 to look huge and take up a chunk of the building), thus feeding the conspiracies of a guided missile or something of that nature. It really does not look like a huge aircraft in the one video we have...at all. But it seems that's because it is flattening on the ground at impact just before it hits the building.

I don't deserve to see any video or anything, but just out of personal curiosity and interest, i'd love if they eventually released better quality vid (which I am almost 100% sure they have).

---

Why so sure of the last part? We are one away from having NONE of the first impact of North Tower in New York City.

---

Simply put, because it's one of the most important government buildings in the world, and not just a corporate high rise. For the same reason there have probably been high quality cameras surrounding the white house and capitol building for decades at least.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.

I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.

---

Same. I don't understand how releasing video would expose any critical weaknesses or vulnerabilities at the Pentagon all this time later. Makes zero sense. It would shut a lot of people up...and I can't think of any risk or downside.

---

I am not sure why people refuse to consider just some annoying explanations.

Its not that it would "expose weakenesses" -that's a BS mis-direct like you get from Karin all the time. It may not have a good reason.

Knowing the government, it was for default (not thought out) CYA reasons they confiscated everything and put it under a seal during the admin in question. Then, knowing their carelessness, certain records were mislabeled or lost track of in the time lapse. Probably still there, waiting to be rediscovered, but no one has an accurate tag to chase it down. Less likely, but also possible, they were destroyed by some jackanape doing CYA --but not for any stated reason or aim -- just to to eliminate anything to "latch onto." Perhaps something exotic like in the ONI offices was hidden files of a massive embezzling scheme by a Colonel with the mob in Reno, Nevada. Who knows. Use your imagination.

It may well be an entirely honest admin might, if asked, still be unable to produce the videos. Because so mishandled by FBI custody since 2001, or whoever had them.

Since no one seems willing to say why they would want it --- will volunteer one.

I wouldn't mind having absolute video proof it was the type of two-engine airliner alleged, let alone that number one. It would also be useful to know for sure it wasn't a missile (but that ignores the plethora of eyewitnesses, and we are back to why is the video wanted)

The concept that people with "Ag Tags", and a degree from one of the premier institutions of higher learning in the nation, believe an airliner did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11 is disturbing.