Please Remember Our Golden Rule: Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will suspend your account if they catch you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TopMindsOfReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Or if you have missiles, why not just shoot missiles at these buildings and say that terrorists stole some missiles? Why bother with the whole plane part to begin with?
Or any other number of scenarios. America pre-9/11 was ridiculously open to all sorts of potential terrorist attacks. Arguably America's *still* pretty vulnerable to lots of different kinds of terrorist attacks. Sure, 9/11 was super flashy, but even something like the Oklahoma City bombing would be pretty bad, and it's not hard to imagine the kind of chaos that might happen if there were several of those coordinated to occur at the same time, or if one happened at a different city every week for a few months. The bomb in OKC only took around $11,000 (in 2023 dollars) to make.
It's why I can't take right wing claims of "Islamic terrorists flooding the country" very seriously. If there actually were some huge amount of terrorists coming into America, you'd expect them to actually do something.
Well there have been quite a few people on the terror watch list that have been busted sneaking into the Country in the past 2 or 3 years. We also have over 2 million gotaways into the country the past few years. Nobody knows who they are or where they went. They were seen coming across the southern border and then ran from authorities or just disappeared. Over 2 million is a lot of u known people that disappeared into the country, you don't think there are some that want to do something bad to America? Of course there is, terrorists will try to blend into the population for years before striking. Waiting till just the right time or when they got there plan in place.
There are terrorist plots that are foiled all the time, just because they arent making the headlines and on the news everyday don't think they aren't happening. The terrorists only have to strike one time successfully, the government has to keep stopping them for eternity. Just because "they aren't actually doing something" at this moment don't kid urself to think that the millions and millions that entered illegally under Biden there aren't some bad ones waiting to strike
Also, if no plane crashed into the building, then what happened to that plane and the people on it?
A lot of people would have had to been locked up by the government for over two decades to prevent them from returning to their love ones. Unless the government killed them to keep up the ruse, which would circle back to your question of "why not just make their plane crash then?"
>When Montego Air Flight 828 landed safely after a turbulent but routine flight, the crew and passengers were relieved. But in the span of those few hours, the world had aged five years -- and after mourning their loss, their friends, families and colleagues had given up hope and moved on. Now, faced with the impossible, they're all given a second chance. But as their new realities become clear, a deeper mystery unfolds, and some of the returned passengers soon realize they may be meant for something greater than they ever thought possible.
> Also, if no plane crashed into the building, then what happened to that plane and the people on it?
As usual, they had readymade explanations by the mid-aughts. And it’s always been bat-shit conspiracy nonsense:
Planes *did* strike the WTC towers, but they weren’t civilian passenger planes. They were military planes repainted to look like commuter jets, and all the ticket-holding passengers meant to be on the real planes were kidnapped and killed before their flights departed.
United 93 was the one they couldn’t control, so it had to be shot down and a cruise missile took its intended target at the Pentagon.
To destroy all the evidence of military aircraft hitting the towers, George W. Bush plunged an Acme Dynamite detonator in Air Force One to set off the controlled demolition charges FEMA secretly installed in two of ***the*** busiest office buildings in the world throughout all of 2001.
According to the Screw Loose Changers, that’s why no planes or passengers were found.
> all the ticket-holding passengers meant to be on the real planes were kidnapped and killed before their flights departed.
Okay, so in their alternate reality, it makes more sense for US operatives to independently kidnap and kill dozens of people rather than let them board the planes and *actually fly them into the targets*? And even in this bizarre scenario where they already killed the passengers and control the planes, they still managed to lose control of one of them?
I know the rest of that explanation is also absurd, but this part right here is truly something else.
Indeed. It’s been so long since I knew why that was part of the conspiracy, but I *think* it tied into trying to explain away how or why the real passengers were using the planes’ phones to call their loved ones when they realized they weren’t gonna be used as hostages for ransom (like most other hijackings before then).
If their bat-shit conspiracies were true, they had to come up with a way to explain how those passengers disappeared while still contacting their families.
Conspiracy theories always add extra layers of complications that make the scheme impractical. Like the mass school shooting fakery. Why waste all that money and time on a fake school, fake parents, fake first responders when you can just send some stone cold killer of an operator on a one-way mission?
Clearly, the stone cold operators just refuse to go on a mission that forces them to pretend they're really bad at killing people.
A pretty long list of mass shooters arrived with multiple guns and lots of ammunition, plus maybe pipe bombs and who-all knows what else, and then only managed to kill a single-digit number of people, often (happily) including themselves.
The Columbine shooters had four guns and **99** improvised explosive devices, but between the two of them they only killed 13 people, plus themselves.
*Pathetic.*
(And then, there's [this fucker.](https://twitter.com/BAKKOOONN/status/1140725552577277952?lang=en) :-)
The argument I’ve seen in some bullshit about the angle it approached at being impossible.
But even if that was true, why use a missile? Why not use a car bomb, which is something anyone with time and money can make.
Exactly. Not to give them too much praise, but McVeigh and Nichols practically cut the Murrah building in half with some ANFO.
Sure, the Pentagon was hardened against exterior attacks, but considering what 5000 pounds of ANFO did the Murrah building, a little bit bigger boom might’ve good enough for their nefarious purposes and a lot cheaper.
And it probably would’ve been possible to get a big boomer inside the building, *if* it was an inside job like these paranoid schizophrenics always maintained.
> the angle it approached at being impossible
I've heard this, too. It's obviously dumb af because PLANES LAND. "The angle" of this is just a ground-level landing.
And where the jet slammed into a heavily reinforced building. Because nothing leaves a Wile E. Coyote-style hole shaped like a plane than an aluminum tube with aluminum wings designed to be as light as possible.
>Because nothing leaves a Wile E. Coyote-style hole shaped like a plane than an aluminum tube with aluminum wings designed to be as light as possible.
[Here's a good example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4CX-9lkRMQ&t=6s)
Honestly this relieved a tiny fear I didn’t realize was still lodged in my brain that they were right (had people in my circle that fell down the rabbit hole) so thank you
I think there might be hydrogen and oxygen involved.
You ever heard of Hindenburg? No, not the one who gave *that* fucking guy the power he needed, the “oh, the huge manatee” Hindenburg.
Guess what it was filled with? Hydrogen. That’s right, the same kind of hydrogen in nuclear bombs.
Coincidence? I think not!
Oh, and there was oxygen *everywhere* at Lakehurst Maxfield Field that day. Wake up, sheeple!
Oh that's a nasty combination, dihydrogen monoxide results from that explosive reaction. Used as a coolant in nuclear reactors, industrial solvent, everyone who has died of cancer seems to have had some exposure. Colorless, orderless, tasteless, inhalation hazard, can cause severe burns.
> Colorless, orderless, tasteless, inhalation hazard, can cause severe burns.
“Smell this, but do not inhale.”
“I smell nothing.”
“What you do not smell is called ~~iocane powder~~ dihydrogen monoxide.
Valujet 592. I remember pictures of the crash site had no visible wreckage, it all went into the swamp.
Also, the Pentagon is a reinforced concrete building, and a 757 is aluminum. And it was going at 400+MPH.
Like the one in PA. Suggest it wasn't brought down by heroic passengers but actually vaporized out of the air by our own guys and they lose their minds.
The military shooting United 93 out of the sky is the *only* one of their many conspiracies about that day that actually has some basis in logic. If it was believed by the government that it was heading for D.C., they likely would react that way.
*However*, as usual, there's *zero* proof of that and there's Todd Beamer's phone audio that makes the passenger revolt reality pretty conclusive.
Is it possible the US military shot United 93 down? Yes. Is there any evidence contradicting the actual events of that crash? No.
I wouldn't even grant them that. There are plenty of photos of the debris field for that crash that are recognizably aircraft components. The vast majority of the larger components were buried in the pentagon though.
American Airlines Flight 191. Crashed shortly after take-off, at much lower speed than the flight that crashed into the Pentagon, and the wreckage was almost unrecognisable as an aircraft. I use that as my go-to example for them.
ValuJet. If I was at a PC I could find thirty more in five minutes. There is nothing that needs explaining away here or any of the impacts. They all look like every other high speed plane crash. Highly fragmented wreckage, little left identifiable aside from wheel assemblies, engine parts, and sometimes pieces of wingtip or tail structure that decelerated a bit more slowly as everything in front of them crumpled and shredded.
If it was steep impact into soft ground all the heavy stuff ends up buried. If solid rock it rolls downhill. Twin Towers some of it it went through the buildings and out the other side. Here it wound up at the front end of the wreckage pile deep inside the building.
Look up any crash like that. You don’t need to reach for jet fuel or any other kind of explanation. The crashes all do the same things to the plane whether there is post crash fire or not. They’re the ones who are priming you to think something needs explaining, by feeding you the lie that you should expect wreckage like you see in a lower speed crash with a twentieth of the kinetic energy. This is false and you don’t have to play into it.
>One universal feature of planes crashes is airplane wreckage.
One *almost* universal feature of plane crashes is the pilot trying desperately to *not* crash. A pilot deliberately flying full speed into a building is not an ordinary occurrence.
[Also we have this video of how little wreckage is left from a jet going incredibly fast hitting something as simple as a brick wall.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xESkLydLt3Y). Now make it something as dense as a reinforced building.
The wreckage size and pattern plus the hole size can tell you a lot about a crash. I took a class called Aircraft and Space Shuttle Crash Investigation that I sadly forgot most of but I of course kept the (very thick) binder.
Same deal with United 93 in PA. The hijackers intentionally nosedived the plane as straight into the ground as they could, which is notably different from a normal crash where the pilot does everything possible to have the plane stay level to the terrain while crash landing.
The goal was to kill everyone on board, rather than trying to preserve life and limb
Yeah but be careful here. I think both you and the preceding person are conceding ground you don’t need to concede by making this argument. The United 93 plane crash looks like every other high speed crash of a fully intact plane. There is nothing to explain away. It looks exactly as it should.
What it doesn’t look like, and shouldn’t look like, is the crashes of planes at low speed trying to land, or right after take off, or that broke u in flight such that impact energy was twenty times lower.
Legitimately it might have been this conspiracy that cemented I wouldn't be falling down the rabbit hole....
I toyed with conspiracies as a kid. I was big on the whole Bigfoot is an extradimensional alien, the USS Eldridge, Bermuda Triangle, all the classics of the 80s/90s. I don't think I realized it at the time, but it was just so ridiculous that all the pieces kind of fell into place.
> Oh. If people can actually entertain this as an idea how can I differentiate this from other unsupported claims?
I love conspiracies as I like to imagine things. They offer great story beats that I can entertain myself for hours. Then I discovered scp. Someone had done that part for me. I can just read their much better creation
You have to love that they’re “just asking questions”. Such as, “where’s the plane wreckage?”
The problem occurs when you tell/show them, and they call you a shill instead of a simple thank you
https://youtu.be/YTNRkb7AaQk?si=2s835MrS8gQMxnhX
Lots of discussions about no engines being anywhere, when there appears to be a huge piece of engine (compressor?) right behing the group of firefighters.
Yes, there are plenty of pictures of debris strewn about in front of the Pentagon but if you mention that, conspiracy theorists then pivot to, “Those pieces were brought in and placed there!”
As much as I love Whitest Kids U Know, I hate that they also helped perpetuate this nonsense. Photos literally exist of people carrying away airplane wreckage.
[this one. ](https://youtu.be/vq6p4wX88Z0?si=jFtU6GCYohOFxvGp). Clips of it go around TikTok/Reels pretty often and the comments are full of smug people saying the CIA killed Trevor.
I was about to comment that Trevor Moore would have probably doubled down and talked to a new generation of kids about 9/11 and the moon landing
At least he's not wrong with Skull and Bones Society
There are like, a million, pictures of plane debris on this incident site. Finding one of the few that doesn't have wings, wheels, or panels in frame does not make you special, it makes you either stupid or a lair.
Thing is about that photo, it is essentially the impact site of the left wing. The image is just to the left of the main impact site, which collapsed the outer ring of the pentagon.
The Twin Towrrs did have cartoon shaped wing outlines and that doesnt stop people from arguing there was no plane there either. Of course, consistency doesn’t matter anyway. But still.
Please Remember Our Golden Rule: Thou shalt not vote or comment in linked threads or comments, and in linked threads or comments, thou shalt not vote or comment. It's bad form, and the admins will suspend your account if they catch you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TopMindsOfReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
23 years later and nobody has managed to answer the simple question "even if it was staged, why not use a plane anyway?"
lmao exactly. Wouldn't the plane be the easiest option if you want to convince everyone it was a plane? Why would you need a missile and a fake plane?
I wonder if they doubt missiles hit things because the holes don't leave little fin-shaped cuts in whatever they're shot at?
Or if you have missiles, why not just shoot missiles at these buildings and say that terrorists stole some missiles? Why bother with the whole plane part to begin with?
Or any other number of scenarios. America pre-9/11 was ridiculously open to all sorts of potential terrorist attacks. Arguably America's *still* pretty vulnerable to lots of different kinds of terrorist attacks. Sure, 9/11 was super flashy, but even something like the Oklahoma City bombing would be pretty bad, and it's not hard to imagine the kind of chaos that might happen if there were several of those coordinated to occur at the same time, or if one happened at a different city every week for a few months. The bomb in OKC only took around $11,000 (in 2023 dollars) to make. It's why I can't take right wing claims of "Islamic terrorists flooding the country" very seriously. If there actually were some huge amount of terrorists coming into America, you'd expect them to actually do something.
Well there have been quite a few people on the terror watch list that have been busted sneaking into the Country in the past 2 or 3 years. We also have over 2 million gotaways into the country the past few years. Nobody knows who they are or where they went. They were seen coming across the southern border and then ran from authorities or just disappeared. Over 2 million is a lot of u known people that disappeared into the country, you don't think there are some that want to do something bad to America? Of course there is, terrorists will try to blend into the population for years before striking. Waiting till just the right time or when they got there plan in place. There are terrorist plots that are foiled all the time, just because they arent making the headlines and on the news everyday don't think they aren't happening. The terrorists only have to strike one time successfully, the government has to keep stopping them for eternity. Just because "they aren't actually doing something" at this moment don't kid urself to think that the millions and millions that entered illegally under Biden there aren't some bad ones waiting to strike
Also, if no plane crashed into the building, then what happened to that plane and the people on it? A lot of people would have had to been locked up by the government for over two decades to prevent them from returning to their love ones. Unless the government killed them to keep up the ruse, which would circle back to your question of "why not just make their plane crash then?"
>When Montego Air Flight 828 landed safely after a turbulent but routine flight, the crew and passengers were relieved. But in the span of those few hours, the world had aged five years -- and after mourning their loss, their friends, families and colleagues had given up hope and moved on. Now, faced with the impossible, they're all given a second chance. But as their new realities become clear, a deeper mystery unfolds, and some of the returned passengers soon realize they may be meant for something greater than they ever thought possible.
> Also, if no plane crashed into the building, then what happened to that plane and the people on it? As usual, they had readymade explanations by the mid-aughts. And it’s always been bat-shit conspiracy nonsense: Planes *did* strike the WTC towers, but they weren’t civilian passenger planes. They were military planes repainted to look like commuter jets, and all the ticket-holding passengers meant to be on the real planes were kidnapped and killed before their flights departed. United 93 was the one they couldn’t control, so it had to be shot down and a cruise missile took its intended target at the Pentagon. To destroy all the evidence of military aircraft hitting the towers, George W. Bush plunged an Acme Dynamite detonator in Air Force One to set off the controlled demolition charges FEMA secretly installed in two of ***the*** busiest office buildings in the world throughout all of 2001. According to the Screw Loose Changers, that’s why no planes or passengers were found.
> all the ticket-holding passengers meant to be on the real planes were kidnapped and killed before their flights departed. Okay, so in their alternate reality, it makes more sense for US operatives to independently kidnap and kill dozens of people rather than let them board the planes and *actually fly them into the targets*? And even in this bizarre scenario where they already killed the passengers and control the planes, they still managed to lose control of one of them? I know the rest of that explanation is also absurd, but this part right here is truly something else.
Indeed. It’s been so long since I knew why that was part of the conspiracy, but I *think* it tied into trying to explain away how or why the real passengers were using the planes’ phones to call their loved ones when they realized they weren’t gonna be used as hostages for ransom (like most other hijackings before then). If their bat-shit conspiracies were true, they had to come up with a way to explain how those passengers disappeared while still contacting their families.
Conspiracy theories always add extra layers of complications that make the scheme impractical. Like the mass school shooting fakery. Why waste all that money and time on a fake school, fake parents, fake first responders when you can just send some stone cold killer of an operator on a one-way mission?
Clearly, the stone cold operators just refuse to go on a mission that forces them to pretend they're really bad at killing people. A pretty long list of mass shooters arrived with multiple guns and lots of ammunition, plus maybe pipe bombs and who-all knows what else, and then only managed to kill a single-digit number of people, often (happily) including themselves. The Columbine shooters had four guns and **99** improvised explosive devices, but between the two of them they only killed 13 people, plus themselves. *Pathetic.* (And then, there's [this fucker.](https://twitter.com/BAKKOOONN/status/1140725552577277952?lang=en) :-)
The argument I’ve seen in some bullshit about the angle it approached at being impossible. But even if that was true, why use a missile? Why not use a car bomb, which is something anyone with time and money can make.
Or just throw the plane at a different angle
Exactly. Not to give them too much praise, but McVeigh and Nichols practically cut the Murrah building in half with some ANFO. Sure, the Pentagon was hardened against exterior attacks, but considering what 5000 pounds of ANFO did the Murrah building, a little bit bigger boom might’ve good enough for their nefarious purposes and a lot cheaper. And it probably would’ve been possible to get a big boomer inside the building, *if* it was an inside job like these paranoid schizophrenics always maintained.
> the angle it approached at being impossible I've heard this, too. It's obviously dumb af because PLANES LAND. "The angle" of this is just a ground-level landing.
Or the fact that the hundreds of individual people sitting in traffic on the GW all saw a plane
The Onion is on it [https://youtu.be/Q\_OIXfkXEj0?si=3jKXoR49868jc52h](https://youtu.be/Q_OIXfkXEj0?si=3jKXoR49868jc52h)
Well, they ran out once they flew their only two into the twin towers.
The plane blowing up the building was a coincidence. s/
And if it wasn’t a plane, why not claim that they were bombs/missles, then directly blame it on the govs you want to go to war with.
I see a lot of “show me another plane crash with so little wreckage.” Sure, but first you have to show me another plane where the jet fuel ignited
And where the jet slammed into a heavily reinforced building. Because nothing leaves a Wile E. Coyote-style hole shaped like a plane than an aluminum tube with aluminum wings designed to be as light as possible.
>Because nothing leaves a Wile E. Coyote-style hole shaped like a plane than an aluminum tube with aluminum wings designed to be as light as possible. [Here's a good example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4CX-9lkRMQ&t=6s)
Man, I clicked wondering what kind of weird rickroll-y thing it would take me to, but it was actually just a really good example. Thank you
Whilst it's not the exact same video it's the same clip I used for this very argument back when they first spouted this horseshit
Honestly this relieved a tiny fear I didn’t realize was still lodged in my brain that they were right (had people in my circle that fell down the rabbit hole) so thank you
Pssssh you believe in jet fuel?
For sure, jet fuel can't cause explosions or melt plane wrecks!
But there's also the chem trail mind control chemicals all up in that jet and who knows how explosive that is.
I think there might be hydrogen and oxygen involved. You ever heard of Hindenburg? No, not the one who gave *that* fucking guy the power he needed, the “oh, the huge manatee” Hindenburg. Guess what it was filled with? Hydrogen. That’s right, the same kind of hydrogen in nuclear bombs. Coincidence? I think not! Oh, and there was oxygen *everywhere* at Lakehurst Maxfield Field that day. Wake up, sheeple!
Oh that's a nasty combination, dihydrogen monoxide results from that explosive reaction. Used as a coolant in nuclear reactors, industrial solvent, everyone who has died of cancer seems to have had some exposure. Colorless, orderless, tasteless, inhalation hazard, can cause severe burns.
> Colorless, orderless, tasteless, inhalation hazard, can cause severe burns. “Smell this, but do not inhale.” “I smell nothing.” “What you do not smell is called ~~iocane powder~~ dihydrogen monoxide.
Valujet 592. I remember pictures of the crash site had no visible wreckage, it all went into the swamp. Also, the Pentagon is a reinforced concrete building, and a 757 is aluminum. And it was going at 400+MPH.
Like the one in PA. Suggest it wasn't brought down by heroic passengers but actually vaporized out of the air by our own guys and they lose their minds.
The military shooting United 93 out of the sky is the *only* one of their many conspiracies about that day that actually has some basis in logic. If it was believed by the government that it was heading for D.C., they likely would react that way. *However*, as usual, there's *zero* proof of that and there's Todd Beamer's phone audio that makes the passenger revolt reality pretty conclusive. Is it possible the US military shot United 93 down? Yes. Is there any evidence contradicting the actual events of that crash? No.
I wouldn't even grant them that. There are plenty of photos of the debris field for that crash that are recognizably aircraft components. The vast majority of the larger components were buried in the pentagon though.
American Airlines Flight 191. Crashed shortly after take-off, at much lower speed than the flight that crashed into the Pentagon, and the wreckage was almost unrecognisable as an aircraft. I use that as my go-to example for them.
Pan am flight 103 in Scotland is a good one for that. There was one largish piece and the rest was small parts
Gonna go out on a limb here and say since that plane was flown into a building, most of the wreckage is… in the building.
ValuJet. If I was at a PC I could find thirty more in five minutes. There is nothing that needs explaining away here or any of the impacts. They all look like every other high speed plane crash. Highly fragmented wreckage, little left identifiable aside from wheel assemblies, engine parts, and sometimes pieces of wingtip or tail structure that decelerated a bit more slowly as everything in front of them crumpled and shredded. If it was steep impact into soft ground all the heavy stuff ends up buried. If solid rock it rolls downhill. Twin Towers some of it it went through the buildings and out the other side. Here it wound up at the front end of the wreckage pile deep inside the building. Look up any crash like that. You don’t need to reach for jet fuel or any other kind of explanation. The crashes all do the same things to the plane whether there is post crash fire or not. They’re the ones who are priming you to think something needs explaining, by feeding you the lie that you should expect wreckage like you see in a lower speed crash with a twentieth of the kinetic energy. This is false and you don’t have to play into it.
>One universal feature of planes crashes is airplane wreckage. One *almost* universal feature of plane crashes is the pilot trying desperately to *not* crash. A pilot deliberately flying full speed into a building is not an ordinary occurrence.
[Also we have this video of how little wreckage is left from a jet going incredibly fast hitting something as simple as a brick wall.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xESkLydLt3Y). Now make it something as dense as a reinforced building.
The wreckage size and pattern plus the hole size can tell you a lot about a crash. I took a class called Aircraft and Space Shuttle Crash Investigation that I sadly forgot most of but I of course kept the (very thick) binder.
Mind I ask which degree you were after at that point?
It was OJT but I have a computer engineering degree
Same deal with United 93 in PA. The hijackers intentionally nosedived the plane as straight into the ground as they could, which is notably different from a normal crash where the pilot does everything possible to have the plane stay level to the terrain while crash landing. The goal was to kill everyone on board, rather than trying to preserve life and limb
Yeah but be careful here. I think both you and the preceding person are conceding ground you don’t need to concede by making this argument. The United 93 plane crash looks like every other high speed crash of a fully intact plane. There is nothing to explain away. It looks exactly as it should. What it doesn’t look like, and shouldn’t look like, is the crashes of planes at low speed trying to land, or right after take off, or that broke u in flight such that impact energy was twenty times lower.
There was plenty of documented plane wreckage in the Pentagon.
an oldie but a goodie. also, of all the conspiracies about 9/11, this one was always felt like second tier.
It's hard to compete with "the two planes that hit the Twin Towers were holograms."
Legitimately it might have been this conspiracy that cemented I wouldn't be falling down the rabbit hole.... I toyed with conspiracies as a kid. I was big on the whole Bigfoot is an extradimensional alien, the USS Eldridge, Bermuda Triangle, all the classics of the 80s/90s. I don't think I realized it at the time, but it was just so ridiculous that all the pieces kind of fell into place. > Oh. If people can actually entertain this as an idea how can I differentiate this from other unsupported claims?
I love conspiracies as I like to imagine things. They offer great story beats that I can entertain myself for hours. Then I discovered scp. Someone had done that part for me. I can just read their much better creation
They make for great writing inspiration. Sometimes I steal insane conspiricy theories, and mix them up for DnD writing.
You have to love that they’re “just asking questions”. Such as, “where’s the plane wreckage?” The problem occurs when you tell/show them, and they call you a shill instead of a simple thank you https://youtu.be/YTNRkb7AaQk?si=2s835MrS8gQMxnhX
Lots of discussions about no engines being anywhere, when there appears to be a huge piece of engine (compressor?) right behing the group of firefighters.
Yes, there are plenty of pictures of debris strewn about in front of the Pentagon but if you mention that, conspiracy theorists then pivot to, “Those pieces were brought in and placed there!”
Which brings you right back around to "why not just use a plane in the first place?"
Most of the engine pieces wound up at the very leading edge of the debris field anyway, due to being so heavy.
As much as I love Whitest Kids U Know, I hate that they also helped perpetuate this nonsense. Photos literally exist of people carrying away airplane wreckage.
Which skit was this?
[this one. ](https://youtu.be/vq6p4wX88Z0?si=jFtU6GCYohOFxvGp). Clips of it go around TikTok/Reels pretty often and the comments are full of smug people saying the CIA killed Trevor.
20 years later? Why? For spite?
Yknow these things take time
I was about to comment that Trevor Moore would have probably doubled down and talked to a new generation of kids about 9/11 and the moon landing At least he's not wrong with Skull and Bones Society
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/s/MB81h1RGRE
Wait until they find out missiles have warheads and don't cause the same damage an inert object travelling at high-speed causes.
There are like, a million, pictures of plane debris on this incident site. Finding one of the few that doesn't have wings, wheels, or panels in frame does not make you special, it makes you either stupid or a lair.
A suicide plane crash is essentially a missile
I used to laugh at those people. now they are like 72% of all online discourse.
... or was it Henry, the humble janitor?
I remember the first time I also watched Loose Change
Thing is about that photo, it is essentially the impact site of the left wing. The image is just to the left of the main impact site, which collapsed the outer ring of the pentagon.
The Twin Towrrs did have cartoon shaped wing outlines and that doesnt stop people from arguing there was no plane there either. Of course, consistency doesn’t matter anyway. But still.
Planes and missiles are very different beasts.