Direct hit?
He bounced off the ground before hitting the side of the building
He bounced off the ground before hitting the side of the building
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.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?
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?
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".J. Walter Weatherman said:Duckhook said:redcrayon said:So, what do you think happened? Multiple witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon.Stat Monitor Repairman said:I respect what Canyon and the rest are saying with how it's achievable.agracer said: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).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
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...
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.
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."
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)Stat Monitor Repairman said: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.redcrayon said:So, what do you think happened? Multiple witnesses saw the plane hit the Pentagon.Stat Monitor Repairman said:I respect what Canyon and the rest are saying with how it's achievable.agracer said: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).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
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...
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.
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?
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.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?
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Seems like this could all be put to bed once and for all.
Why hasn't that been done?
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?agracer said: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).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
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...
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.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
But that itself is a meme.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.
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.Brittmoore Car Club said: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.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
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.
Sure. If it it ever existed, or still exists.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:
'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:
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.
I'm not gonna rely on eyewitnesses if there is video available.titan said:Sure. If it it ever existed, or still exists.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.
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.titan said:Sure. If it it ever existed, or still exists.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.
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?
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?
Brittmoore Car Club said: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:
'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.
I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.
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.Duckhook said:Brittmoore Car Club said: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:
'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.
I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.
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?
1:24...it has always looked like a much smaller "executive" type airplane to me as well.AggiEE said:
Things that make you go Hmmm
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.Brittmoore Car Club said: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.titan said:Sure. If it it ever existed, or still exists.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.
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 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).
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.titan said: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.Brittmoore Car Club said: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.titan said:Sure. If it it ever existed, or still exists.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.
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 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).
I am not sure why people refuse to consider just some annoying explanations.Brittmoore Car Club said: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:
'Trust but verify' is a meme as well.
I hear what you are saying ... but ... I sure would like a look at that video.