What stands out to me is the only piece of debris that looks like it resembles an AA part, very small with the characteristic colors. Beyond that almost nothing you could easily identify as an AA aircraft

There should be an enormous amount of engine debris but we have very little

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

That's a 757? Probably the best flying ever. You know how difficult that would be?

---

This is also where I get hung up on all this.

I don't know **** about flying, but that seems like extremely difficult maneuver in a 757.

I don't see where you get anywhere that low with out crashing first.

It was a 100% direct hit.

With no formal training, no practice runs,

This is like some HS player throwing a no hitter in the World Series.

---

So you are saying that essentially landing a plane is near impossible?

Because that is what the Saudi hijacker did - and he did have training on flying. Comparing pointing the nose of a plane at the base of a building with no obstructions around it to a HS player throwing a no hitter in the world series is just dumb.

I'm as anti-government as anybody, but the bending and twisting and turning verifiable facts into pretzels in an attempt to make it into something it isn't with regards to 9/11 is just not something I am capable of understanding.

Sometimes the truth is exactly what every single bit of data, video, eye witness reports, etc. tells you it is. In this case, it was a bunch of crazy muslim hijackers that flew 3 planes into buildings and killed a whole lot of people in the process. Would have been 4 had it not been for the fact that a handful of heroes on the plane that went down in Pennsylvania fought back and at least kept the hijackers from completing their goal on that plane.

They put the real AA plane in a warehouse with the Ark of the Covenant

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

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.

---

Oh Lort...you are one of those huh?

AgBandsman said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

AgBandsman said:

---

Wow, the amount of people on here blindly trusting our government is insane. There's nothing wrong with questioning and it isn't a sign of low IQ.

---

Exactly what do you question about the Pentagon and 9/11?

---

SInce you obviously didn't read my other reply directly above this one, I'll share it. 9/11 Pentagon Attack Question - Page 2 | TexAgs "Thank you for confirming the plane crash."

Just this week, we've seen evidence that the CIA killed JFK and still we have sheep on here saying only low IQ individuals question the government. Completely idiotic.

You get the government you deserve.

---

Whoa. Chill. I did read your reply but it doesn't answer my question.

You seem a bit...touchy...so I'll let others engage. I've been the target of an unhinged person on here so I'm moving on.

schmellba99 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

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.

---

Oh Lort...you are one of those huh?

---

No, I am assuming the underground structural integrity was compromised by the collapse of the nearby buildings. Just crazy how clean it came down on itself, rather than toppling over at more of an angle. Again, I am not an engineer or an architect, nor a physicist. I am just saying, I can see how there was suspicion about that one to the layperson, just because of how it transpired.

Would love for an engineer or someone with construction knowledge to explain to me why it came down so cleanly, like an outdated Vegas casino, 7 hrs after the attack. That may very well be normal.

Someone's just trolling at this point.

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

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.

---

Building 7 wasn't anything close to a clean collapse. It burned, uncontrolled, for over 7 hours. The building had a very unique structural design due to the fact that it had to straddle a power generating station on the lower 3 floors of the structure.

When it collapsed, that "clean" collapse you speak of damaged several buildings adjacent to it. Why? Because it wasn't anything close to a "clean" collapse, which isn't surprising given that the building bulged on one side due to internal structural steel failure as a result of uncontrolled fires for 7 hours, a huge crack appeared on the facade prior to that "clean" collapse and that the nature of building designs is that when one of the main supporting column structures loses its ability to support the weight of millions of pounds of materials, daisy chain reactions occur and the building falls in a very unclean and very uncontrolled manner.

AggiEE said:

---

No, I understand all of it.

There was never a full investigation of the WTC steel as it was shipped off to China… and you expect them to uniquely match parts on the wreckage of the pentagon? Due to the collision and damage, a significant portion would not be able to be uniquely matched, for one.

Two, there wasn't much of any wreckage to begin with, and what was looks to be planted and most certainly could be made with markings tied to the aircraft they intended to be used for the narrative. Question - where are the vast majority of the engine parts? They are not there

---

Sorry man, this is Sofa King levels of stupid. Ignoring reality to the degree that it makes as much sense as claiming it was done by Team Rocket because they were trying to wake up a Snorlax inside.

We're talking the Pentagon not the WTC, and yes I do. Even with something like the China Eastern crash earlier this year that looks like CFIT at a sharp angle to a mountainside, at a speed beyond what a 737 is designed for you can do exactly that. As you can in this case, using parts shown in actual pictures and by means of the processes outlined to you earlier and agreed upon by people with more than half a century of experience in this specific field. How much hands on experience do you have in civil or military aviation? I'll hang up and listen as you explain how WBT and I should do our jobs.

I dont really get the conclusive opinions either way.

I've never studied any of this but there are a whole lot of seemingly odd things around 9/11

Then again i have not seen or heard of any particular 'conspiracy theory' that was fully persuasive


But one thing is for sure - there remain a lot of secrets or mysteries about this event.

Thank you for replying.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What gets people madder than questioning 9-11?

---

I don't think it's specific to 9/11. I think it's just dealing with idiots in general.

cbr said:

---

I dont really get the conclusive opinions either way.

I've never studied any of this but there are a whole lot of seemingly odd things around 9/11

Then again i have not seen or heard of any particular 'conspiracy theory' that was fully persuasive


But one thing is for sure - there remain a lot of secrets or mysteries about this event.

---

Our reaction to it was even more bizarre imo. It seems like a "never let a good crisis go to waste" kind of response.

Duckhook said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What gets people madder than questioning 9-11?

---

I don't think it's specific to 9/11. I think it's just dealing with idiots in general.

---

Yep, when we said certain things about Covid and it's origins or the effectiveness of the vaccines etc., people like you treated us like we were crazy. Same with fed agencies colluding with certain companies to rig/interfere with an election. People like you tried to make others feel crazy.

These were all very big conspiracies that turned out to be true, among others in recent years. That kind of break in trust fuels revitalization of "truther" and "who shot JFK" movements.

All I can say emphatically, is that ANYONE who trusts the government in any way to care for us, not partake in evil activity, and do what's best for our country, is an absolute loon or an idiot. Every bit as much as a 9/11 Truther, if not moreso. And a person who trusts the government is far more dangerous to me than some wackjob who thinks the moon landing was faked or 9/11 was some crazy plot to get us into war.

Again, it didn't come down clean by any stretch. You have one video that doesn't show much and you are trying to make something out of nothing.

It came down after 7+ hours of burning because the girders and columns that supported the building could not take that much heat for that long of a time period with that much load on them. Steel is extremely strong, but it has limitations - and heat does a number on limiting the structural integrity of steel. Doesn't even take all that much, but a fire burning at 1200+ degrees uncontrolled for 7 hours is more than enough to get the A-36 steel to a plastic state where they deform under load.

Mix that in with the rather unique design of the building and you get a surprisingly small number of columns that support the load of the entire building. One of those columns finally gave way and the result is a daisy chain reaction of failures that lead to the building collapse.

WTC7 didn't collapse as a single unit in one fail swoop either - there was a series of failures on lower floors internally that eventually led to what your video of half a building shows as a singular event, starting on the east side of the building. But like anything else, a little research and understanding that one view that supports your theories doesn't even come close to telling the entire story and with even a little scrutiny the idea that it was some "clean" collapse proves to be garbage.

Like the theories that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon (despite the fact that there is video footage showing it was exactly that) or the even dumber theories that all of the WTC towers were pre-wired by the CIA and George Bush himself to be imploded and the planes hitting were a decoy or whatever other nonsense gets brought up.

And when it collapsed uncontrolled like it did, it damaged every building around it, some pretty significantly. Fiterman Hall had significant damage done to it as a result of WTC7 collapsing. Because it wasn't controlled, it wasn't clean and it wasn't a prepared demolition.

cbr said:

---

I've never studied any of this but there are a whole lot of seemingly odd things around 9/11

---

We so often see this same exact phrase which essentially says "I don't possess the knowledge required to explain xyz, BUT..."

You could just stop before "but". And when we explain the "but", there's no mental framework in place for the information to roost.

schmellba99 said:

---

Again, it didn't come down clean by any stretch. You have one video that doesn't show much and you are trying to make something out of nothing.

It came down after 7+ hours of burning because the girders and columns that supported the building could not take that much heat for that long of a time period with that much load on them. Steel is extremely strong, but it has limitations - and heat does a number on limiting the structural integrity of steel. Doesn't even take all that much, but a fire burning at 1200+ degrees uncontrolled for 7 hours is more than enough to get the A-36 steel to a plastic state where they deform under load.

Mix that in with the rather unique design of the building and you get a surprisingly small number of columns that support the load of the entire building. One of those columns finally gave way and the result is a daisy chain reaction of failures that lead to the building collapse.

WTC7 didn't collapse as a single unit in one fail swoop either - there was a series of failures on lower floors internally that eventually led to what your video of half a building shows as a singular event, starting on the east side of the building. But like anything else, a little research and understanding that one view that supports your theories doesn't even come close to telling the entire story and with even a little scrutiny the idea that it was some "clean" collapse proves to be garbage.

Like the theories that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon (despite the fact that there is video footage showing it was exactly that) or the even dumber theories that all of the WTC towers were pre-wired by the CIA and George Bush himself to be imploded and the planes hitting were a decoy or whatever other nonsense gets brought up.

And when it collapsed uncontrolled like it did, it damaged every building around it, some pretty significantly. Fiterman Hall had significant damage done to it as a result of WTC7 collapsing. Because it wasn't controlled, it wasn't clean and it wasn't a prepared demolition.

---

I starred your other post for the solid info. Part of what raised suspicion, in addition to my lack of any knowledge on the subject, was that I remember seeing a NYC fire marshall (I believe) who was saying that he didn't think there was any way building 7 came down on it's own like that. And that it resembled a demolition. This was back closer to when it happened and I was younger and more naive, but I guess that part always stuck with me.

cbr said:

---

I dont really get the conclusive opinions either way.

I've never studied any of this but there are a whole lot of seemingly odd things around 9/11

Then again i have not seen or heard of any particular 'conspiracy theory' that was fully persuasive


But one thing is for sure - there remain a lot of secrets or mysteries about this event.

---

lol

so you bury your head in the sand and dont know anything

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What gets people madder than questioning 9-11?

---

I don't think it's specific to 9/11. I think it's just dealing with idiots in general.

---

Yep, when we said certain things about Covid and it's origins or the effectiveness of the vaccines etc., people like you treated us like we were crazy. Same with fed agencies colluding with certain companies to rig/interfere with an election. People like you tried to make others feel crazy.

These were all very big conspiracies that turned out to be true, among others in recent years. That kind of break in trust fuels revitalization of "truther" and "who shot JFK" movements.

All I can say emphatically, is that ANYONE who trusts the government in any way to care for us, not partake in evil activity, and do what's best for our country, is an absolute loon or an idiot. Every bit as much as a 9/11 Truther, if not moreso. And a person who trusts the government is far more dangerous to me than some wackjob who thinks the moon landing was faked or 9/11 was some crazy plot to get us into war.

---

So what's your theory on what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11? Or you have no lucid theory but are "just asking questions"?

titan said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

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.

---

That's a form of censorship too, if pressed too far. If they have reasonable questions, why not attempt to answer them or get them to re-think the question they are asking? Many "skeptics" start out from honest doubt because something seems "off" or fishy -- exhibit A the 2020 November election.

---

1. None of the questions have been reasonable from anything approaching a logical perspective
2. They are answered, you don't like the answer though and keep asking the same dumb questions over and over thinking maybe you'll get the answer you want to hear.
3. Getting 9/11 conspiracy theorists to re-think the question is impossible. That old saying of "you can lead a horse to water but cannot make them drink" rings true here, because no matter how much logic and actual evidence is shown...those that refuse to believe simply won't believe and will continue with the fallacy that is their fantasy world with regard to the events on that day.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What gets people madder than questioning 9-11?

---

Eh, at this point it's more fun just to laugh at how incredibly dumb truthers are, or at least the ones who aren't solely doing it for the grift. It honestly makes me curious how they can function in society on a day to day basis.

Duckhook said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What gets people madder than questioning 9-11?

---

I don't think it's specific to 9/11. I think it's just dealing with idiots in general.

---

Yep, when we said certain things about Covid and it's origins or the effectiveness of the vaccines etc., people like you treated us like we were crazy. Same with fed agencies colluding with certain companies to rig/interfere with an election. People like you tried to make others feel crazy.

These were all very big conspiracies that turned out to be true, among others in recent years. That kind of break in trust fuels revitalization of "truther" and "who shot JFK" movements.

All I can say emphatically, is that ANYONE who trusts the government in any way to care for us, not partake in evil activity, and do what's best for our country, is an absolute loon or an idiot. Every bit as much as a 9/11 Truther, if not moreso. And a person who trusts the government is far more dangerous to me than some wackjob who thinks the moon landing was faked or 9/11 was some crazy plot to get us into war.

---

So what's your theory on what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11? Or you have no lucid theory but are "just asking questions"?

---

My theory is that it was Islamic extremists and we used it as the justification to launch a very long war, which always enriches certain groups. I also genuinely wonder if our government knew about it and let it happen. I don't think that is crazy...I think it's crazy to not acknowledge that as at least an outside possibility. Seems like with many school/mass shooters, they were known to the evil and corrupt FBI beforehand....and still able to mow down innocent helpless children. And our FBI has confirmed that they are in bed with the left and will do whatever it takes to advance their agendas.

schmellba99 said:

---

titan said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

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.

---

That's a form of censorship too, if pressed too far. If they have reasonable questions, why not attempt to answer them or get them to re-think the question they are asking? Many "skeptics" start out from honest doubt because something seems "off" or fishy -- exhibit A the 2020 November election.

---

1. None of the questions have been reasonable from anything approaching a logical perspective
2. They are answered, you don't like the answer though and keep asking the same dumb questions over and over thinking maybe you'll get the answer you want to hear.
3. Getting 9/11 conspiracy theorists to re-think the question is impossible. That old saying of "you can lead a horse to water but cannot make them drink" rings true here, because no matter how much logic and actual evidence is shown...those that refuse to believe simply won't believe and will continue with the fallacy that is their fantasy world with regard to the events on that day.

---

Can we all agree that our response to 9/11 couldn't have been more jacked up? And I was an idiot in college rooting us on at the time. "Hellya, bomb all those MF'ers!"..."We killed Uday and Qusay!" LOL.

So why wasn't it done on the large engine parts that should have been there?

I am not arguing that you can do a thorough investigation, as you have described. But as with everything 9/11 related, a thorough investigation was not performed

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

I also genuinely wonder if our government knew about it and let it happen. I don't think that is crazy.

---

I do - think it's crazy, that is.

The US government did not stand idly by and allow many thousands of Americans to be slaughtered.

schmellba99 said:

---

titan said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

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.

---

That's a form of censorship too, if pressed too far. If they have reasonable questions, why not attempt to answer them or get them to re-think the question they are asking? Many "skeptics" start out from honest doubt because something seems "off" or fishy -- exhibit A the 2020 November election.

---

1. None of the questions have been reasonable from anything approaching a logical perspective
2. They are answered, you don't like the answer though and keep asking the same dumb questions over and over thinking maybe you'll get the answer you want to hear.
3. Getting 9/11 conspiracy theorists to re-think the question is impossible. That old saying of "you can lead a horse to water but cannot make them drink" rings true here, because no matter how much logic and actual evidence is shown...those that refuse to believe simply won't believe and will continue with the fallacy that is their fantasy world with regard to the events on that day.

---

That's true for some, but not all. I answered some of the questions in hopes of heading off a few from going too deep. For example, that wreckage appears to be clearly present in real-time on 9/11, not something after the fact. People stopped cars and hurried over toward the burning facade, some filming as they did. Others took images from long range, and if you know where to look you see some items.

You are thinking about the die-hard believers, and not allowing for those just dipping their toes in. Those are ones that may be pointed to the fact that the visual evidence is not as flaky or tentative as some of the claims make it to be. Problem is, once you start piling one thing after another, they just become a doubter for doubt's sake and that's when out of reasoning.

In any case my main point is just scoffing at any doubters out of the gate is not a useful response either, because sometimes something is really bugging them. The entire drama of covid shows this.

You are right about the saying --- -so realize, sometimes some of the horses do drink. You just can't make them, not the zealots, but that's ok. For example I think agracer made an important contribution with "chasing the needles."

wbt5845 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

I also genuinely wonder if our government knew about it and let it happen. I don't think that is crazy.

---

I do - think it's crazy, that is.

The US government did not stand idly by and allow many thousands of Americans to be slaughtered.

---

They have done so with hundreds...why not thousands? And just decades ago we were performing warped experiments, knowingly killing unsuspecting southern black men. And that was the CDC.

Do you think the feds would collude with certain parties to rig/influence an election? I mean, we know we did now. But did you think this was the case just a month ago?

If the FBI and CDC are that insanely vile and corrupt, who knows WTH the CIA is up to?

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What gets people madder than questioning 9-11?

---

I don't think it's specific to 9/11. I think it's just dealing with idiots in general.

---

Yep, when we said certain things about Covid and it's origins or the effectiveness of the vaccines etc., people like you treated us like we were crazy. Same with fed agencies colluding with certain companies to rig/interfere with an election. People like you tried to make others feel crazy.

These were all very big conspiracies that turned out to be true, among others in recent years. That kind of break in trust fuels revitalization of "truther" and "who shot JFK" movements.

All I can say emphatically, is that ANYONE who trusts the government in any way to care for us, not partake in evil activity, and do what's best for our country, is an absolute loon or an idiot. Every bit as much as a 9/11 Truther, if not moreso. And a person who trusts the government is far more dangerous to me than some wackjob who thinks the moon landing was faked or 9/11 was some crazy plot to get us into war.

---

So what's your theory on what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11? Or you have no lucid theory but are "just asking questions"?

---

My theory is that it was Islamic extremists and we used it as the justification to launch a very long war, which always enriches certain groups. I also genuinely wonder if our government knew about it and let it happen. I don't think that is crazy...I think it's crazy to not acknowledge that as at least an outside possibility. Seems like with many school/mass shooters, they were known to the evil and corrupt FBI beforehand....and still able to mow down innocent helpless children. And our FBI has confirmed that they are in bed with the left and will do whatever it takes to advance their agendas.

---

So, absent the proselytizing, you agree with most of the posters on here that AA77 was flown into the Pentagon by hijackers. Thanks.

Duckhook said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What gets people madder than questioning 9-11?

---

I don't think it's specific to 9/11. I think it's just dealing with idiots in general.

---

Yep, when we said certain things about Covid and it's origins or the effectiveness of the vaccines etc., people like you treated us like we were crazy. Same with fed agencies colluding with certain companies to rig/interfere with an election. People like you tried to make others feel crazy.

These were all very big conspiracies that turned out to be true, among others in recent years. That kind of break in trust fuels revitalization of "truther" and "who shot JFK" movements.

All I can say emphatically, is that ANYONE who trusts the government in any way to care for us, not partake in evil activity, and do what's best for our country, is an absolute loon or an idiot. Every bit as much as a 9/11 Truther, if not moreso. And a person who trusts the government is far more dangerous to me than some wackjob who thinks the moon landing was faked or 9/11 was some crazy plot to get us into war.

---

So what's your theory on what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11? Or you have no lucid theory but are "just asking questions"?

---

My theory is that it was Islamic extremists and we used it as the justification to launch a very long war, which always enriches certain groups. I also genuinely wonder if our government knew about it and let it happen. I don't think that is crazy...I think it's crazy to not acknowledge that as at least an outside possibility. Seems like with many school/mass shooters, they were known to the evil and corrupt FBI beforehand....and still able to mow down innocent helpless children. And our FBI has confirmed that they are in bed with the left and will do whatever it takes to advance their agendas.

---

So, absent the proselytizing, you agree with most of the posters on here that AA77 was flown into the Pentagon by hijackers. Thanks.

---

Yes, I am almost 100% certain that is what happened in exactly that manner. My only argument is that our government has participated in some pretty massive and diabolical conspiracies (some are just being revealed), so I kind of "get it" with regards to the sentiment held my some truthers (to a certain extent). I am a little sympathetic to them.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Brittmoore Car Club said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

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?

---

No, not at all. Three 4K videos of the plane impacting could be released tomorrow and the truthers would question how there just so happened to be so many high quality cameras recording the exact place of impact.

Someone touched on it earlier but too many people look at the recording from today's perspective. Today I carry 4 cameras with a combined 121 megapixels and 4x optical zoom in my pocket any time I leave the house. Those 4 cameras are connected to 512 gigabytes of storage and 200 more on the cloud.

The first camera phone was the SCH-V200 which was released in 2000 and boasted 0.35 megapixels. The first camera phone released in the US came in late 2002, also with 0.35 megapixel and the ability to store 500 - count 'em, FIVE ZERO ZERO - phone numbers. The first iPhone launched in 2007 with 16 GB of storage and a 2 megapixel camera.

It should shock no one that the video we have is the best that we have.

---

So if something catastrophic happened at the white house or capitol building on that day instead, we would not have solid footage because they didn't have high tech enough cameras to monitor the most important government buildings in the world? Sorry, not buying it, this was 2001, not 1960. These types of buildings are under constant video surveillance, I can assure you.

No one is talking about lack of cell phone video. Maybe I am way off base, but I would imagine that the Pentagon, White House and Capitol had numerous security cameras monitoring the exterior back in the 80's.

---

If you can assure me, then tell me how many cameras the Pentagon had on 9/11/2001. Tell me the most common type of camera employed at the Pentagon on that day. How much storage was available to these cameras? What form was this storage? Oh you can't? Well I'm real assured.

---

It's common sense to have surveillance out the ass at the most critical and most targeted government and military buildings in the world imo. You're right, I spoke in absolute terms, I could only assure you if I had proof. Should have said "you can bet your ass".

If we didn't have them, and don't have much better footage than the one horrible video we released, we were very sloppy and reckless….if it took something like this to finally monitor the pentagon from the outside, that's crazy.

Do y'all really believe we're not sitting on footage? Possibly for a valid and ethical reason?

---

And with the ubiquity of cameras today, I would agree that the Pentagon is highly surveilled. Not so much 21 years ago. It would have been much cheaper and easier to pay guards to watch the Pentagon. Any cameras used would have been so a guard could watch a screen of 10 cameras at once and send someone to check out anything suspicious, not to document in great detail.

Could there be unreleased footage that is withheld for some reason? Of course there could be but I can't come up with any reason to withhold it that makes sense. Does it show classified info? Then it would be from inside and not show the plane approaching. Is it 4k footage and we don't want our enemies to know that 21 years ago we actually had really great security cameras? Does it show a bunch of gore? Then blur it.

---

You have obviously never been on a military base. To this day there are still very strict limitations on what can and cannot be photographed on a military base, including things as innocuous as runways or hangar buildings. Because it is truly amazing what information can be gleaned by those that have the training to do so from what seems to be very benign and harmless photographs. How do I know this? I've had to turn over my camera and phone more than once to base security to review and approve photos I've had to take for projects I was bidding - and more than once I had several pictures erased because they showed something in the background that was deemed verboten. Half the time what was in the background wasn't even in focus and you could only see parts of things, but they removed the pictures just the same.

So the idea that footage from inside or outside the Pentagon not being released to the public isn't anything close to a surprise at all. While you and I may look at it and see nothing, rest assured that the Chinese or Russians or Iranians or Pakis have the ability to glean a lot of information that we probably don't want them to glean from any such footage. I mean, the Pentagon is only THE central headquarters for the entire US military, nothing major or anything like that.

Why is it hard to accept that 22+ years go the technology and the entire approach to security was completely different than it is today? A whole lot of how we view security today is a direct result of 9/11 and what we didn't do or have at that time. Major events are generally what shape how we operate day to day, and how we operate is almost always a reaction instead of anticipation. In 2001 the thought of hijackers commandeering commercial planes and using them as human guided missiles into both civilian and military buildings wasn't on the forefront of what anybody thought to defend against and prepare for. Most of the hardening was geared towards vehicular assaults, not commercial 757 airliner assaults. You cannot apply modern technology and thought processes to 20 years ago when neither existed and only exist today because of something that happened 20 years ago to initiate the advancements and changes in technology and thought processes and procedure.

Closer to 100 years ago on the Tuskegee experiments.

And there was no election rigging in 2020.

Once again - the idea that the US government allowed many thousands of Americans to be slaughtered is borderline insanity.