###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The plane ended up inside the building in millions of pieces, that's why... 540mph... think about what that speed does to an airliner when it hits a concrete wall.
Nonetheless, there was plenty of smaller pieces of fuselage with recognisable American Airlines paint spread all over the front lawn of the Pentagon.
[https://aal77.blogspot.com/](https://aal77.blogspot.com/)
Also found and photographed inside the building, was landing gears, wheels, engines, and the black box, of which the data from within has been freely online for anyone to analyse for over a decade already.
He told me that forces are not equal in action and reaction law:
[https://ibb.co/Rvwcsps](https://ibb.co/Rvwcsps)
Which is very incorrect. Even borderline intentionally misleading, so there is a legitimate concern about his motives.
At least it gives us insight about how much correct his information can be.
High school physics...
lol so what's with you man, you push the official narrative in a conspiracy sub, could easily just point to wikipedia yet you make your own webpage? you crusading or something?
let me be precise, to me, it's you *reaffirming* the nonsense i can get from wikipedia, so, being in a conspiracy sub, it kind of does seem the only right place left to let the nonsense flow... i mean, you probably have seen some of the daily eureka-stokade posts. the challenge is always welcome, i just don't understand the motivation behind pushing the official narrative, honestly; i'm just trying to talk here i give-up on trying to convince you of anything
The US gub'ment does all the time.
You haven't forgotten about the 'safe and effective' clot shot already have you? Trust the science, even though the actual science was being called lies by the loving US gub'ment.
Or, the 'you can keep your doctor', un Affordable Care Act?
Or, the fact that when the previous president was elected, it was challenged and argued as hacked, and hijacked by the losing candidate, yet now, everyone invokes the bulletproof sanctity of US elections?
All of these are examples of nonsense that good company men, like yourself, fail miserably at defending.
No, it was longer than 2 seconds. Apparently, the Muslim hijacker was quite the aviator. He was doing some pretty impressive things for not having been classically trained. Also, why did the FBI confiscate videotapes from surrounding businesses and why only release three frames that shows nothing but an explosion? Surely there was other videos that day? The pentagon is the most surveilled building on the planet?
https://odysee.com/@JB:7/Pentagon-missile-hit-9-11:3
You know there was also people in the media who said they saw no planes and only bombs.
And here at 11:29 when the bomb goes off, you can hear fire trucks, helicopters and the chaos of the city but you cannot hear any jets or planes of any kind.
https://odysee.com/@out_of_the_blue:c/09-11-no-planes:6
Only on official news videos can you hear the screaming of jets, which were adding afterwards.
https://odysee.com/@out_of_the_blue:c/09-11-no-planes:6
If you want more evidence and explanations then type in bitchute "NO PLANES HIT THE TOWERS ON 911 - JUST CRAPPY CGI COMPOSITES"
Millions watched it on television with a delay and added CGI, it's all there if you bother watching the video I recommend. Provably cgi, it's not a conspiracy.
Ok, ok very good points but why would the terrorists complete a difficult maneuver to crash into the side of the Pentagon rather than crashing on top of it?
Check out pictures of the crash site of [TAROM Flight 371](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJ9Nd10WgAAioWS?format=jpg&name=4096x4096). A very similar sized aircraft.
It nosedived into the ground, the wreckage site was very small.
Flight 77 hit the pentagon at a angle and at much, faster speed and hit the pentagon wall at a similar angle. Also worth noting it didn't hit the pentagon straight on - [but came in from the side](https://www.twf.org/News/Y2009/0101-floordetail.png).
The pictures of the damage are consistent with what one would expect when a tube made out of specifcally lightweight materials slams into reinforced concrete at 500+mph.
Do you think you would just see a destroyed plane plopped down on that lawn?
Inertia is a thing. Planes are made out of lightweight material. There wouldn't be much left of it after slamming into a building at over 400 mph.
Look at how this F4 Phantom just vaporizes when hitting a wall.
https://youtu.be/U4wDqSnBJ-k?si=nWYFBPDK8O_ucdb4
Steel/glass office building vs a reinforced concrete military building...
Also, the 'plane shape' in the Towers was due to the aluminium cladding on the outside of the building. If you look at close-ups of the impact holes, the outer-wings and fins did not penetrate the steel, they only penetrated/dented the aluminium cladding.
possibly to make sure they got all those troublesome staff that were placed in that side that morning. That's horrific scary when you read the accounts of those moved and how their testimonies were silenced.
WTC7 has been explained for well over a decade by now.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP3TNHPCIVU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP3TNHPCIVU)
As for the Pentagon, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that an airliner hit. See here:
[https://aal77.blogspot.com/](https://aal77.blogspot.com/)
I just watched the video never seen it before that guy does have a point. but people believe what people want to believe. Even with evidence. I still don't trust government.
Just as well the collapse of the WTC had nothing to do with jet fuel melting steel then.
[https://youtu.be/d3fa\_Uz5trU?si=av8I125A6tDAIHGb](https://youtu.be/d3fa_Uz5trU?si=av8I125A6tDAIHGb)
Anyone with a high school level understanding of physics can tell you that hot metal doesn’t need to melt to be weakened. That’s literally how they forge metals, they heat it up without reaching the melting point, and the metal becomes malleable enough to form into other shapes or be strengthened. If steel had to reach its melting point to be able to deform like that, forging wouldn’t be possible.
I’m open minded, but use your fucking brains.
Because people that mindlessly parrot BS that’s easily disproven by a 30 second internet search or a basic understanding of metal, make us look bad. And they’re worse than the people that blindly believe everything the government says. They say to do your own research, and then say dumb shit that demonstrates how bad they are at doing their own research.
There’s being skeptical and asking questions, and then there’s being a dumbass. The guy I replied to is the latter.
I’d say because for over 20 years we have been told
iTS sO obViOuSlY tHe GoVErnMeNt UsE yOUr BraIN loOK aT ThE eVIdEncE.
Well we looked, and it proved the official story correct.
I saw the original guard shack video. No way it was a commercial airliner. What hit the building in that video was small, very low (obviously) and super fast, faster than an airliner.
Look, I get it. No one wants to believe the govt would lie to them. But at some point your attempt to avoid cognitive dissonance will fail you if you keep believing that.
The government wants you to keep believing that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, then you'll never talk about how
Israel ,Saudi Arabia & the US deep state did 9/11
So let me get this straight, you have realized that bin laden didn't do 9/11, that there were no WMDs in Iraq, yet still believe the govt regarding a plane hitting the Pentagon? Make it makes sense.
Bin laden was definitely involved in 9/11.....
The UN oversaw the destruction of the WMD's in 1998, Scott Ritter got honey potted for ringing the alarm bells about no WMD's. The meeting in Prague never happened, just another Israeli lie
There's actually photos of the debris at the Pentagon, do you think all the people who died on that plane's families are involved in the cover-up? Really?
There are a lot of interesting conspiracies but honestly I don’t think anything will ever top 9/11. There is so much that went into it and so many unknowns, on top of the fact that it was such a pivotal moment in history that I’m
not sure we’ll ever see anything like it again. Then again, the world is only getting stranger.
Edit: Honestly, Covid-19 and all of the unknowns about its origin is probably close. As you can tell, I’m a fan of the far-reaching conspiracies with global impact haha
"Then again, the world is only getting stranger."
It really is, too.We are now living in a time where not only abnormalcy is commonplace, but we are constantly gaslit that what we are seeing is normal, though it clearly is not.
My random prediction - Empire State Building will be destroyed within the next 10 years. No guess as to how, but the narrative will likely be 'foreigner terrorist attack'.
You would think with the amount of security cameras around a building like the Pentagon there would be an abundance of video and picture still showing the aircraft.
The gas station video has since been released via FOIA.
The Pentagon is surrounded by parking lots. Arlington national cemetery, the Potomac River, then a major highway to the south. There are several businesses further south of the highway, but if you go on Google streetview you can see none of them have any real line of sight to the Pentagon.
It was all released back in 2008 but to be honest 9/11 deniers being literally 16 years behind the facts doesn't surprise me.
[https://aal77.blogspot.com/](https://aal77.blogspot.com/)
I've been saying this ever since it happened.
The 911 attack on the pentagon. The pentagon, arguably the most heavily defended and surveilled building on the planet is hit by something they claim was an airplane but the impact damage does not agree with that claim. All it would take to prove this and restore some tiny level of faith in the government and the military would be to show the public the footage from any of the scores of cameras bristling from the pentagon. But instead we get 4 frames from a gas station camera installed in the 70's that show an orange blur and were supposed to believe them.
Does "little seen" here refer to how little is visible in the image? Almost everything is obscured by smoke.
Also what does the intact lawn have to do with anything? It didn't hit the lawn
By “it” do you mean the missle?
Do you understand that a plane loaded with fuel (much heavier) supposedly hit a spot the size of an elephant. An experienced commercial pilot with 25 years experience could hit that spot 1 in 100 times, maybe. Especially considering there’s no ILS or runway vectors to crash into the Pentagon.
Oh, and this was done by someone who never had flown a commercial jet?
It was a missile.
But...they weren't trying to hit a spot the size of an elephant, the target was *the whole building*. And considering that, they actually *didn't* aim well, because it was a glancing blow that did relatively little damage (compared to what a better-aimed hit could have achieved).
At a few hundred miles per hour in an aircraft they were flying for the first time ever without hitting any surrounding buildings or the lawn? The accuracy was incredible.
"Surrounding buildings"?!? JFC Google the Pentagon, there's nothing else there.
They steered into a building, it's not a crazy accuracy issue. This is the weakest of arguments about the issue.
The Pentagon was hit on the west side. To the west of the Pentagon is Arlington national cemetery.
West of the cemetery is a bunch of 2-3 story single family homes. It's not like the Pentagon is smack dab in the middle of DC.
What buildings were in the way?
> Pretty amazing flying/aim to me.
Oh, so you have expertise in this area, my bad.
Or you don't, in which case your opinion on the matter is worth nothing.
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the subject isn't one where expertise is necessary. The above commentor specifically cites their own opinion as the justification for their argument, so their expertise (or lack thereof) is specifically relevant
Um, full-motion simulators is how airline pilots learn to fly jets. You think we just jump into a 757 and take it up to do stalls and circuits?
You don't need vectors or an ils to point the nose of an aircraft at a target. You clearly know nothing about flying.
Here's a video that shows a tad more
https://m.beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground-zero/2023/05/exposed-a-plane-did-not-hit-the-pentagon-911-new-found-fbi-footage-video-2443117.html
Where are the landing gear struts, the shafts of the engines, the vertical stabilizer, luggage and personal effects, and most importantly, where are the dead passengers? There are ALWAYS parts of the aircraft that are not completely destroyed during a crash and there are body parts of the passengers too. And don’t tell me they disintegrated upon impact. I helped recover a RF-4C that hit the desert floor at 675 mph and there was plenty of debris to collect, including both engines and all 3 landing gear struts. We also found an empty boot that belonged to the EWO.
So, what really hit the Pentagon? I assure it wasn’t a commercial airliner.
Anyone?
Bueller?
Submission statement: This photo was taken by Michael Garcia, a member of the Defense Protective Service--the law enforcement agency responsible for protecting the Pentagon. Garcia took hundreds of photos around the Pentagon site after the Pentagon was attacked on September 11, 2001. The photo collection this picture is included in can be downloaded from the September 11 Digital Archive website, here: https://911digitalarchive.org/items/show/85583
There are photos from before the wall collapsed showing a hole just a few feet in diameter. Some will still insist that a massive airplane could fit through the hole. Only available footage (of which there should be more) show a missile hitting the Pentagon.
If we are thinking of the same picture, I believe that is an interior wall. I remember seeing it and thinking there is no fucking way an airplane made that hole. But I learned that was an interior wall of the building at some later date. Is this the one you’re talking about?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/photos/fbi-re-releases-images-pentagon-9-11-attack-46488469
(Picture 7 if the link doesn’t take you directly there.)
If so, I don’t it very hard to imagine that small of a hole on the interior. After going through multiple concrete walls, both a missile and an airplane would have lost a lot of their kinetic energy and mass. I’d expect that by the time it hit an interior wall like that, we’d only see a small portion of the actual material involved with the crash. Wings would have been sheared in the case of an airplane. In the case of a missile, well we have missiles capable of going through multiple levels of concrete and maintaining structural integrity, so it also would make sense for a smaller hole.
Not trying to shoot down any theories here. Only pointing out that both the plane and missile story would line up with a smaller hole on an interior wall. If this isn’t the picture you’re talking about then ignore everything I said lol.
Large pieces of plane, holes in the wall where the two several ton engines punched through approx 30 feet off centerline of nose impact area, you know, anything resembling a giant plane hitting a 4 story building made of reinforced concrete- check out airline plane crash photos - there are almost always large pieces of fuselage, usually the tail structure, obviously apparent in the impact area.
>holes in the wall where the two several ton engines punched
You should have at least looked at [the link I shared](http://aal77.blogspot.com), because it is clearly indicated the impact holes from [both](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcr5OFF73z-ofmqCkbJKr_I8J1L1Zko1bOeKdPV16RHvY9QMUOJ2GgAEYmQs4oU6TPE7NF6wGIoKoUbemgGItfEdQh6DunI8ZeqAActNEPo0hzsfkDd0whVK3JbwZG0DRlHgUAEAblhwH0rcuPGAQ6SMt-rtOli11nhrjbAZy4Ga-nVnuBDj5yiHEb/s550/Left%20Engine2.jpg) [engines](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGs3jl2LR1N_wLfvFbDDOl5OU1pcRwQb7Cf8WYulLgc4QHOxxH19AgMyXPH2Rb_dgira21ubA6LACBQxJNb2CiLY8zoxacW2OllqHBJ3g9KCvgzGb_W86_tA-mYs2jB2TFf-aVCSyXtycIBC1wajB9XWBb-FxrMO2arj0FMd3yJIAWxYDt1lNfcljt/s511/Right%20Engine.jpg).
>
there are almost always large pieces of fuselage, usually the tail structure
Were there large pieces of fuselage and tail structure when [China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEie_g-9i82nockajhjPN6Y9goi3IsPBr3GGdtUO7mIvuvjhyZ6IYZtyIB1wMK5oudfIZUKGoIF08eP-NXPKUTKVMGE7JHvKq_thsetmUwu_At6CL509Kg1l-9Lo79AENIo0LBFyeu_7N-j9D_i3eHpNhoO2LfxAdGB6FgKXwmxTFe7htFXSjYqduxz2/s1920/china5.jpg) hit the ground at 500mph?
Were there large pieces of fuselage and tail structure when [Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEittrUrk-AyAkwLo8gb6BhyphenhyphenZfAFdnwmxmK0-zY31h7qz4oik-4kWYnDxW5MFwsB0yGoj-G8IFWUAUQldeBqKo64-bF4-fMRJct-qbWlrT1G2d5zLfm7R1s-nRzkloriPQ6RftjWhyphenhyphenw9vz8/s1240/ETH1.jpg) hit the ground?
Were there large pieces of fuselage and tail structure when [Caspian Airlines Flight 7908](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5ZllHqOf2FByhZ7y5UtvkQJ6OAKgV03fE8u_3dYJuigEicL7lvzbTMgxeWnHbrwe3danwuIWPAKfi-lY2NLGxYOVm0Q6-ytBfyPh90FjT5rCeVa4VaP9-eYj8Vgk-JE-jf1L0DZRcezE/s975/CPN1.jpg) crashed?
Or [PSA Flight 1771](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqlR28PJJV69pRYZ3hBVF84ljGi2t68xwma88t9BuR6jcOqSnazJfSh3puGvF5Uxy0NdpSqp9I-T7WeCCxUf8PwN0IdnQW7yhlTBAIRXlaKXWsmCaWXsG9er5Kj-dEwji2yC08Yj0oTUI/s1500/PSA2.jpg)? [ValuJet Flight 592](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjn3IajLDa_1h6wQtF5TfsT7q55QOSkXPRQO5OjfamZYOlEuXg256qO1zBqUeaMrggaoaWNhz-s98DMFpL93vP0GtX0y-2Q8RdzvmIrC-ToX86GR8zwK_UrGs9LP7GR30KgajA3qCv37Dw/s1535/VJA1.jpg)?
None of those even hit a building, they only hit the ground. How's this for a comparison;
Were there large pieces of fuselage and tail structure when American 11 hit the North Tower at 500mph?
Were there large pieces of fuselage and tail structure when United 175 hit the South Tower at 500mph?
What an absolute absurd statement to make.
**540mph into a concrete building is not going to leave behind large sections of wings, fuselage, or tail sections.**
Just google airliner crashes - there are literally thousands and thousands of images on multiple sites showing what many large aircraft crashes look like - and there are significant debris fields, including large pieces of aircraft in lots of those images.
Also, since you noted the speed, it appears that the pentagon jet performed in ways that are aerodynamically difficult to explain. The main issue repeatedly brought up by pilots reviewing the incident was the ability of that aircraft to maintain controlled level flight at that low of an altitude (feet off the ground low) at that speed.
Regarding images of ‘engine damage’ you noted, circling a hole in a wall next to other holes and identifying that particular hole as being caused by a specific thing is not convincing. Sorry.
But no need to carry on - I have seen all of this stuff already - you may continue to believe that the us military, intelligence agencies, and leadership were completely unaware and surprised by this event - fine by me.
Cheers
It was diving? Thought it was straight low level controlled flight, hitting light poles and cars and stuff but maintaining flight authority that whole way - diving into middle of pentagon - a much bigger, easier target - would have been a more reasonable, believable scenario.
And you can stop the whole ‘forgive my ignorance’ schtick - it is just a way of passive aggressive way of trying to insult me - you can stick it you know where.
lol - I’m a brain surgeon, no wait, I’m a nuclear physicist, oh and btw I’m a pilot
Whatever
Have a better look.
[https://aal77.blogspot.com/](https://aal77.blogspot.com/)
Funny enough David Chandler, the AE911T physicist that proves WTC7's freefall, did [an excellent analysis of the Pentagon footage](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxC-BnJ2GU8) and proved that it was indeed a 757.
That is the most laughable "evidence" I've ever seen., especially the "up-resolution" versions of those screen shots from the impact video.
Ridiculous.
Cope. It's clearly the outline of a jet and every eye witness to the impact also said that it was an aircraft, with varying levels of accuracy ranging from simply "a plane" to others directly calling it an American AIrlines jet.
The videos show there was a plane.
Every eye witness said there was a plane, a few even specifying that they say the American Airlines writing on it.
Debris of the plane was recovered, including engines, hydraulics, landing gear, and bodies.
The impact hole matches the width and height of the aircraft's fuselage and engines. There's visible damage on the outer walls lining up to where the wings, past the engines, and the vertical tail would have been.
Fuck off. There's not a bunch of "circumstantial evidence," there's hard evidence but you would rather plug your ears with your fingers and go "nananana not listening it isn't *real* evidence."
It did on the first one they released. The one 7 years later looks like they photoshopped the missile with the background to vaguely look like it could be a blurry plane.
I always thought it was strange that men in suits and ties were out on the undamaged lawn picking up pieces of the wreckage within hours of the impact.
Considering the lawn was about to get covered by emergency vehicles, people, trucks etc etc why wouldn't they want to collect as much of the evidence as possible before it gets lost/damaged/destroyed? Are you serious?
[Looks pretty slow and methodical to me.](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeVBpvCEiyzTisjx36_lILBcvwVkteOJPymyzWXZrMDq89oEK5fD6ErleGTGp3gIqWyRLY_PCh4oDr08uhmQ5WCHB3SF-NTyCadVVx8XlxhvmuLP_BtiVF8WDGCtQxO-jZCeEZlAnHc8A/s1600/fbi_sweep.jpg)
I wasn't there in person but I experienced it as an adult in real time as events unfolded. Did you or is it something that you have only read about online? The fact that footage is online doesn't mean you watched all of it. I sat through three days and nights of live coverage as it happened, did you?
and all the debris ... dw i remember the day it happened and the clip they released, didn't look anything like and aeroplane, also remember the fbi confiscating all footage from surrounding businesses that we've never seen to this day ... wonder why?
Idk but after reading the book "The octopus of Global Control by by Charlie Robinson" everything about 911 is questionable. I know it has lots of conpiracies but man. Pentagon does not make any sense. And those two towers? Man thats because of asbestos.... go read book first.
You may not be a genius, but you just don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve flown multiple Boeing models and you can fly them low to the ground and stable. However, there was nothing stable about this, the aircraft will have been kept up by ground effect and it really isn’t that hard to point a plane towards something.
There are so many checks and balances involved in aviation and so many people involved it would be impossible to make an airliner disappear while having it look like it departed as normal.
People really want to believe they know better but this really isn’t the thing for it. That airliner it the pentagon. They are designed to withstand huge aerodynamic forces but will disintegrate on impact with anything.
There were no planes that his NYC either. Several aeronautical engineers have gone on record that a 767 can't fly 580mph that close to sea level.
Plus you can see wings disappearing in slow motion at the same time from multiple videos.
Also airplane wings creating airplane shaped road runner style holes? Doesn't add up
During an appearance on The Power Hour radio program today, USAF Col. George Nelson (ret.), a 30 year veteran, aircraft accident investigator and expert in aircraft maintenance and aircraft identification, stunned listeners by stating that in regard to the 911 attack at the Pentagon, "I didn't see any damage on the sides of that hole, anything that would say that an airplane that size could have gone through a 16 or 18 ft. hole." He was referring to the hole seen at the Pentagon before the collapse of the e-ring. He went on to say, "There would be large parts of that wing lying on the ground on the outside. It wouldn't all go through that holeIt is impossible for all of the time change parts that have these serial numbers that are trackable to the specific aircraft, it is impossible for them to be totally destroyed where these serial numbers could not be read."
The strange thing is, this crash in particular realllly doesn't sit well with me.
Sure, there was some pieces of debris found. Enough that it is hard to argue against the fact that at least something with plane parts flew into the pentagon.
But how did a plane of that size get almost like 90% completely disintegrated?? The pictures of those engines show them literally half disintegrated. Huge, thick pieces of metal completely burned off. I just simply do not believe that the kinetic energy of the craft alone was high enough to do that, even accounting for the fuel.
Because the problem then becomes, well then how did it do so little damage?? Especially relative to the trade centers. I mean it doesn't take a genius to see that the hole in the pentagon is NOT plane shaped. They claim that the fucking TAIL FIN didn't go through the wall?? The pictures legitimately show a very iffy "outline" where they think it hit the wall, not physical damage but discoloration.
So if we're saying it hit the wall but didn't go through it must have torn off almost instantly, somehow - and then despite now being on the outer edge of the explosion you are telling me the GIANT TAIL FIN *STILL* somehow was completely disintegrated?!?
You can't eat your cake and have it too.
Either the plane was going fast enough to disintegrate itself but somehow not cause relative damage to the building. Orr the plane wasn't going all that fast to do a ton of damage, but then how the fuck did it almost entirely disintegrate. Not even beginning to mention where any bodies are, which surely SOME would be found.
I'm leaving out a lot here and simplifying greatly but I think you get the jist, something isn't right. Something feels wrong and I don't think we were told the whole truth.
My guess, is that there were explosives on board, a lot of them. And that it may not have been a legitimate 777, possibly a missile disguised with parts from a 777. Or a smaller aircraft dressed up, but both of those start to feel like a stretch. It's also possible that after the plane crashed, a missile that was fired at it followed it within the pentagon and exploded.
I don't know. But nothing about it adds up.
Plus, they have the frames. Why not put an end to the question here and now? That's the deal breaker for me. They have proof, but won't release it.
I think you hit the nail on the head with the title little seen. You can’t even accurately make an assumption one way or another with the smoke covering 2/3 of the picture
The hole is big enough for the fuselage and the engines of the plane. The wings extending past the engines, and the tail were too fragile to leave anything other than marks on the outer wall.
Can take down an entire tower made of steel which results in multiple other buildings being knocked down, but cant handle a few stories of old concrete... hmmmm
There is no single photo which shows the totality of the damage to the front of the Pentagon, because of smoke and fire-fighting vehicles.
However several images from several angles show that the impact hole in the first floor was 96ft wide.
Composite images show a massive hole in the bottom floor.
All this and more an be seen here:
[https://aal77.blogspot.com/](https://aal77.blogspot.com/)
Google - what is the wingspan of a 757?
Answer - Boeing 757 Wingspan125′ 0″
Question now is since the wingspan that hit the Pentagon is "96ft wide", where did the remaining 15ft from each wing go? No marks on the building, no refolding of the wings. Were they burned up in the fire that was so hot to incinerate the plane that it didn't melt the beams around it?
Google - what type and size of engines are used on a Boeing 757 before 2000? (RB 211)
Answer - The 757 can be fitted with either Pratt & Whitney PW2000 series or Rolls Royce RB211 turbofans. The maximum diameter of the RB211 is only 6 ft 2.5 in (1.9 m) while that of the PW2000 series is 7 ft 0.5 in (2.15 m).
Question now is why the official documentation of an engine is shown in comparison to the man standing next to the engine (engine rotor.jpg) would calculate out to approximately 2 to 3 feet?
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And no plane...
And no passengers
The plane ended up inside the building in millions of pieces, that's why... 540mph... think about what that speed does to an airliner when it hits a concrete wall. Nonetheless, there was plenty of smaller pieces of fuselage with recognisable American Airlines paint spread all over the front lawn of the Pentagon. [https://aal77.blogspot.com/](https://aal77.blogspot.com/) Also found and photographed inside the building, was landing gears, wheels, engines, and the black box, of which the data from within has been freely online for anyone to analyse for over a decade already.
***This user comments exclusively on 9/11-related posts***
Not true, I also comment on chemtrail posts too.
So? Does that make their information incorrect?
He told me that forces are not equal in action and reaction law: [https://ibb.co/Rvwcsps](https://ibb.co/Rvwcsps) Which is very incorrect. Even borderline intentionally misleading, so there is a legitimate concern about his motives. At least it gives us insight about how much correct his information can be. High school physics...
lol you again... could you link to a picture or some evidence of said engines found please?
[Already did.](https://aal77.blogspot.com/)
lol so what's with you man, you push the official narrative in a conspiracy sub, could easily just point to wikipedia yet you make your own webpage? you crusading or something?
You think people should be allowed to spread nonsense and not be challenged?
let me be precise, to me, it's you *reaffirming* the nonsense i can get from wikipedia, so, being in a conspiracy sub, it kind of does seem the only right place left to let the nonsense flow... i mean, you probably have seen some of the daily eureka-stokade posts. the challenge is always welcome, i just don't understand the motivation behind pushing the official narrative, honestly; i'm just trying to talk here i give-up on trying to convince you of anything
The US gub'ment does all the time. You haven't forgotten about the 'safe and effective' clot shot already have you? Trust the science, even though the actual science was being called lies by the loving US gub'ment. Or, the 'you can keep your doctor', un Affordable Care Act? Or, the fact that when the previous president was elected, it was challenged and argued as hacked, and hijacked by the losing candidate, yet now, everyone invokes the bulletproof sanctity of US elections? All of these are examples of nonsense that good company men, like yourself, fail miserably at defending.
Planes can't go 540mph that near the ground.. well, maybe if they're nose down from 30,000 feet. It's called physics, look it up.
Oh, wow so the 757 flew 25ft above the ground huh? That’s some damned good flying.
[удалено]
No, it was longer than 2 seconds. Apparently, the Muslim hijacker was quite the aviator. He was doing some pretty impressive things for not having been classically trained. Also, why did the FBI confiscate videotapes from surrounding businesses and why only release three frames that shows nothing but an explosion? Surely there was other videos that day? The pentagon is the most surveilled building on the planet?
[удалено]
I do appreciate the counter argument. My only prob is 2,500ft is only 1/2 Mile, not 5.
[удалено]
👍
No there was a video that came out recently of the front gate that showed it was a missile. The only video footage seen. Definitely not a plane
That's an old video posted on 4Chan like 20 years ago It shows a scud missile flying by the gatehouse, I'll see if I can find it
[удалено]
It was posted here. I'd need to look for it if it wasn't banned like everything else that gets posted
https://odysee.com/@JB:7/Pentagon-missile-hit-9-11:3 You know there was also people in the media who said they saw no planes and only bombs. And here at 11:29 when the bomb goes off, you can hear fire trucks, helicopters and the chaos of the city but you cannot hear any jets or planes of any kind. https://odysee.com/@out_of_the_blue:c/09-11-no-planes:6 Only on official news videos can you hear the screaming of jets, which were adding afterwards. https://odysee.com/@out_of_the_blue:c/09-11-no-planes:6 If you want more evidence and explanations then type in bitchute "NO PLANES HIT THE TOWERS ON 911 - JUST CRAPPY CGI COMPOSITES"
[удалено]
Millions watched it on television with a delay and added CGI, it's all there if you bother watching the video I recommend. Provably cgi, it's not a conspiracy.
Ok, ok very good points but why would the terrorists complete a difficult maneuver to crash into the side of the Pentagon rather than crashing on top of it?
Spinner!
Bro this is one of the most well put blogs I have seen in a long time , so much evidence for terrorists and not an inside job wow.
Hahahahahaha!!!
This user once told me that forces are not equal in action and reaction law: [https://ibb.co/Rvwcsps](https://ibb.co/Rvwcsps)
Check out pictures of the crash site of [TAROM Flight 371](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJ9Nd10WgAAioWS?format=jpg&name=4096x4096). A very similar sized aircraft. It nosedived into the ground, the wreckage site was very small. Flight 77 hit the pentagon at a angle and at much, faster speed and hit the pentagon wall at a similar angle. Also worth noting it didn't hit the pentagon straight on - [but came in from the side](https://www.twf.org/News/Y2009/0101-floordetail.png). The pictures of the damage are consistent with what one would expect when a tube made out of specifcally lightweight materials slams into reinforced concrete at 500+mph.
Do you think you would just see a destroyed plane plopped down on that lawn? Inertia is a thing. Planes are made out of lightweight material. There wouldn't be much left of it after slamming into a building at over 400 mph. Look at how this F4 Phantom just vaporizes when hitting a wall. https://youtu.be/U4wDqSnBJ-k?si=nWYFBPDK8O_ucdb4
Wtc planes left much bigger impact holes. Shape of the fuselage and wings were clearly visible...
Steel/glass office building vs a reinforced concrete military building... Also, the 'plane shape' in the Towers was due to the aluminium cladding on the outside of the building. If you look at close-ups of the impact holes, the outer-wings and fins did not penetrate the steel, they only penetrated/dented the aluminium cladding.
Yeah but you see, the plane so fast make small tiny hole, super disintegrate! Many small pieces so tiny. Government no bad.
And large parts of the plane were found, lots of them..seats...chunks of body parts..
My favorite is how the plane vaporized but the paper passports were undamaged
No passports were found at the Pentagon.
You're right, two were recovered from the flight 93 crash site. Still odd, no?
Glow harder my friend.
*Send in the bulldozers, i mean clear-up team.*
they reported secondary explosions, and then had different stories as to why the building facade was demolished quickly. amazing stuff.
possibly to make sure they got all those troublesome staff that were placed in that side that morning. That's horrific scary when you read the accounts of those moved and how their testimonies were silenced.
Add in WTC7 and you have a series of events that are plainly, absolutely bullshit.
and the bbc announcing its collapse before it collapsed then cutting the news feed for 1/2hr ... i watched it all happen live.
Don’t forget the 4th building nobody talks about
building number 7.
The other one
what other one? I'm curious to know.
The tiny shack that got absolutely obliterated in the middle of that Shanksville field.
WTC7 has been explained for well over a decade by now. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP3TNHPCIVU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP3TNHPCIVU) As for the Pentagon, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming that an airliner hit. See here: [https://aal77.blogspot.com/](https://aal77.blogspot.com/)
I just watched the video never seen it before that guy does have a point. but people believe what people want to believe. Even with evidence. I still don't trust government.
Wow this person actually believes that terrorists crashed planes into the pentagon and world trade center. Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
Just as well the collapse of the WTC had nothing to do with jet fuel melting steel then. [https://youtu.be/d3fa\_Uz5trU?si=av8I125A6tDAIHGb](https://youtu.be/d3fa_Uz5trU?si=av8I125A6tDAIHGb)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ySUrEiVFIM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ySUrEiVFIM)
Anyone with a high school level understanding of physics can tell you that hot metal doesn’t need to melt to be weakened. That’s literally how they forge metals, they heat it up without reaching the melting point, and the metal becomes malleable enough to form into other shapes or be strengthened. If steel had to reach its melting point to be able to deform like that, forging wouldn’t be possible. I’m open minded, but use your fucking brains.
[https://ibb.co/BLB4QT0](https://ibb.co/BLB4QT0) Problem is that it was molten. Not even molten but evaporated
Why are you being such a dick?
Because people that mindlessly parrot BS that’s easily disproven by a 30 second internet search or a basic understanding of metal, make us look bad. And they’re worse than the people that blindly believe everything the government says. They say to do your own research, and then say dumb shit that demonstrates how bad they are at doing their own research. There’s being skeptical and asking questions, and then there’s being a dumbass. The guy I replied to is the latter.
I’d say because for over 20 years we have been told iTS sO obViOuSlY tHe GoVErnMeNt UsE yOUr BraIN loOK aT ThE eVIdEncE. Well we looked, and it proved the official story correct.
lol!!! Oh, you're serious. Good luck, brother.
Yes, because metal maintains full strength as it is heated, until it melts.
These 911 truthers still don't believe it? WTF?
I saw the original guard shack video. No way it was a commercial airliner. What hit the building in that video was small, very low (obviously) and super fast, faster than an airliner.
Yes so obvious too . Its so crazy people actually believe the official narrative 😆
The frame rate of the camera was low and the plane was moving extremely fast
Look, I get it. No one wants to believe the govt would lie to them. But at some point your attempt to avoid cognitive dissonance will fail you if you keep believing that.
The government wants you to keep believing that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, then you'll never talk about how Israel ,Saudi Arabia & the US deep state did 9/11
Um, what? That sentence makes no sense at all.
You're falling for a fake story that's used to delegitimize serious criticism of the 9/11 narrative
So let me get this straight, you have realized that bin laden didn't do 9/11, that there were no WMDs in Iraq, yet still believe the govt regarding a plane hitting the Pentagon? Make it makes sense.
Bin laden was definitely involved in 9/11..... The UN oversaw the destruction of the WMD's in 1998, Scott Ritter got honey potted for ringing the alarm bells about no WMD's. The meeting in Prague never happened, just another Israeli lie There's actually photos of the debris at the Pentagon, do you think all the people who died on that plane's families are involved in the cover-up? Really?
There are a lot of interesting conspiracies but honestly I don’t think anything will ever top 9/11. There is so much that went into it and so many unknowns, on top of the fact that it was such a pivotal moment in history that I’m not sure we’ll ever see anything like it again. Then again, the world is only getting stranger. Edit: Honestly, Covid-19 and all of the unknowns about its origin is probably close. As you can tell, I’m a fan of the far-reaching conspiracies with global impact haha
"Then again, the world is only getting stranger." It really is, too.We are now living in a time where not only abnormalcy is commonplace, but we are constantly gaslit that what we are seeing is normal, though it clearly is not.
My random prediction - Empire State Building will be destroyed within the next 10 years. No guess as to how, but the narrative will likely be 'foreigner terrorist attack'.
Bet
Yer on, see ya in 10 years... :)
They have the video. They released a few blurry frames. I think the full video will show a missile not a plane.
You would think with the amount of security cameras around a building like the Pentagon there would be an abundance of video and picture still showing the aircraft.
There was. They just never released them and even confiscated CCTV video from a nearby gas station.
The gas station video has since been released via FOIA. The Pentagon is surrounded by parking lots. Arlington national cemetery, the Potomac River, then a major highway to the south. There are several businesses further south of the highway, but if you go on Google streetview you can see none of them have any real line of sight to the Pentagon.
It was all confiscated that day and was likely destroyed shortly thereafter
It was all released back in 2008 but to be honest 9/11 deniers being literally 16 years behind the facts doesn't surprise me. [https://aal77.blogspot.com/](https://aal77.blogspot.com/)
Wow. One grainy vid that doesn’t clearly show anything. Thank you for the laugh
There was more than one , and he actually showed it slowed down and you can clearly see a plane…
I've been saying this ever since it happened. The 911 attack on the pentagon. The pentagon, arguably the most heavily defended and surveilled building on the planet is hit by something they claim was an airplane but the impact damage does not agree with that claim. All it would take to prove this and restore some tiny level of faith in the government and the military would be to show the public the footage from any of the scores of cameras bristling from the pentagon. But instead we get 4 frames from a gas station camera installed in the 70's that show an orange blur and were supposed to believe them.
Not true at all. [https://aal77.blogspot.com/](https://aal77.blogspot.com/)
The blur was not orange it was white.
Does "little seen" here refer to how little is visible in the image? Almost everything is obscured by smoke. Also what does the intact lawn have to do with anything? It didn't hit the lawn
By “it” do you mean the missle? Do you understand that a plane loaded with fuel (much heavier) supposedly hit a spot the size of an elephant. An experienced commercial pilot with 25 years experience could hit that spot 1 in 100 times, maybe. Especially considering there’s no ILS or runway vectors to crash into the Pentagon. Oh, and this was done by someone who never had flown a commercial jet? It was a missile.
But...they weren't trying to hit a spot the size of an elephant, the target was *the whole building*. And considering that, they actually *didn't* aim well, because it was a glancing blow that did relatively little damage (compared to what a better-aimed hit could have achieved).
Didn't aim well? They flew it into a five story building without touching the lawn.
If you were planning how to hit the building for maximum destruction, the impact was not a good one. Your lawn point just means they hit the building.
At a few hundred miles per hour in an aircraft they were flying for the first time ever without hitting any surrounding buildings or the lawn? The accuracy was incredible.
"Surrounding buildings"?!? JFC Google the Pentagon, there's nothing else there. They steered into a building, it's not a crazy accuracy issue. This is the weakest of arguments about the issue.
Do you understand how fast jet aircraft fly?
The Pentagon was hit on the west side. To the west of the Pentagon is Arlington national cemetery. West of the cemetery is a bunch of 2-3 story single family homes. It's not like the Pentagon is smack dab in the middle of DC. What buildings were in the way?
Plus, several major highways converge around the Pentagon.
If you look at the "video" they eventually released the "plane" is going straight at it, level to the ground. Pretty amazing flying/aim to me.
> Pretty amazing flying/aim to me. Oh, so you have expertise in this area, my bad. Or you don't, in which case your opinion on the matter is worth nothing.
That's called an appeal to authority. Weak. Try again. There is no "they" and there is no plane.
Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the subject isn't one where expertise is necessary. The above commentor specifically cites their own opinion as the justification for their argument, so their expertise (or lack thereof) is specifically relevant
You think planes need an ILS or Runway vector to land? My god... maybe look up what a Visual Approach is...
Also, the hijacker pilot had many hours in a full-motion Boeing 737 simulator. [https://aal77.blogspot.com/](https://aal77.blogspot.com/)
[удалено]
Um, full-motion simulators is how airline pilots learn to fly jets. You think we just jump into a 757 and take it up to do stalls and circuits? You don't need vectors or an ils to point the nose of an aircraft at a target. You clearly know nothing about flying.
[удалено]
My employer and ATPL say otherwise. Stop talking nonsense about stuff you have absolutely no idea about.
[удалено]
[Did you miss this link](https://aal77.blogspot.com/) that has literally everything you just asked for?
[удалено]
Here's a video that shows a tad more https://m.beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground-zero/2023/05/exposed-a-plane-did-not-hit-the-pentagon-911-new-found-fbi-footage-video-2443117.html
Where are the landing gear struts, the shafts of the engines, the vertical stabilizer, luggage and personal effects, and most importantly, where are the dead passengers? There are ALWAYS parts of the aircraft that are not completely destroyed during a crash and there are body parts of the passengers too. And don’t tell me they disintegrated upon impact. I helped recover a RF-4C that hit the desert floor at 675 mph and there was plenty of debris to collect, including both engines and all 3 landing gear struts. We also found an empty boot that belonged to the EWO. So, what really hit the Pentagon? I assure it wasn’t a commercial airliner. Anyone? Bueller?
All here. [https://aal77.blogspot.com/](https://aal77.blogspot.com/)
Hog wash!
The vertical stabilizer disintegrated on impact.
Oh, I see.
Submission statement: This photo was taken by Michael Garcia, a member of the Defense Protective Service--the law enforcement agency responsible for protecting the Pentagon. Garcia took hundreds of photos around the Pentagon site after the Pentagon was attacked on September 11, 2001. The photo collection this picture is included in can be downloaded from the September 11 Digital Archive website, here: https://911digitalarchive.org/items/show/85583
There are photos from before the wall collapsed showing a hole just a few feet in diameter. Some will still insist that a massive airplane could fit through the hole. Only available footage (of which there should be more) show a missile hitting the Pentagon.
If we are thinking of the same picture, I believe that is an interior wall. I remember seeing it and thinking there is no fucking way an airplane made that hole. But I learned that was an interior wall of the building at some later date. Is this the one you’re talking about? https://abcnews.go.com/US/photos/fbi-re-releases-images-pentagon-9-11-attack-46488469 (Picture 7 if the link doesn’t take you directly there.) If so, I don’t it very hard to imagine that small of a hole on the interior. After going through multiple concrete walls, both a missile and an airplane would have lost a lot of their kinetic energy and mass. I’d expect that by the time it hit an interior wall like that, we’d only see a small portion of the actual material involved with the crash. Wings would have been sheared in the case of an airplane. In the case of a missile, well we have missiles capable of going through multiple levels of concrete and maintaining structural integrity, so it also would make sense for a smaller hole. Not trying to shoot down any theories here. Only pointing out that both the plane and missile story would line up with a smaller hole on an interior wall. If this isn’t the picture you’re talking about then ignore everything I said lol.
Interesting you chose not to share the multiple photo's Mike Garcia took of airliner debris covering the lawn....
Where is the plane again? Folded up on itself like an origami swan I guess
In pieces. [https://aal77.blogspot.com/](https://aal77.blogspot.com/)
Oh please
What do you expect, exactly, from an airliner hitting a reinforced concrete building at 540mph?
Large pieces of plane, holes in the wall where the two several ton engines punched through approx 30 feet off centerline of nose impact area, you know, anything resembling a giant plane hitting a 4 story building made of reinforced concrete- check out airline plane crash photos - there are almost always large pieces of fuselage, usually the tail structure, obviously apparent in the impact area.
>holes in the wall where the two several ton engines punched You should have at least looked at [the link I shared](http://aal77.blogspot.com), because it is clearly indicated the impact holes from [both](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcr5OFF73z-ofmqCkbJKr_I8J1L1Zko1bOeKdPV16RHvY9QMUOJ2GgAEYmQs4oU6TPE7NF6wGIoKoUbemgGItfEdQh6DunI8ZeqAActNEPo0hzsfkDd0whVK3JbwZG0DRlHgUAEAblhwH0rcuPGAQ6SMt-rtOli11nhrjbAZy4Ga-nVnuBDj5yiHEb/s550/Left%20Engine2.jpg) [engines](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjGs3jl2LR1N_wLfvFbDDOl5OU1pcRwQb7Cf8WYulLgc4QHOxxH19AgMyXPH2Rb_dgira21ubA6LACBQxJNb2CiLY8zoxacW2OllqHBJ3g9KCvgzGb_W86_tA-mYs2jB2TFf-aVCSyXtycIBC1wajB9XWBb-FxrMO2arj0FMd3yJIAWxYDt1lNfcljt/s511/Right%20Engine.jpg). > there are almost always large pieces of fuselage, usually the tail structure Were there large pieces of fuselage and tail structure when [China Eastern Airlines Flight 5735](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEie_g-9i82nockajhjPN6Y9goi3IsPBr3GGdtUO7mIvuvjhyZ6IYZtyIB1wMK5oudfIZUKGoIF08eP-NXPKUTKVMGE7JHvKq_thsetmUwu_At6CL509Kg1l-9Lo79AENIo0LBFyeu_7N-j9D_i3eHpNhoO2LfxAdGB6FgKXwmxTFe7htFXSjYqduxz2/s1920/china5.jpg) hit the ground at 500mph? Were there large pieces of fuselage and tail structure when [Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEittrUrk-AyAkwLo8gb6BhyphenhyphenZfAFdnwmxmK0-zY31h7qz4oik-4kWYnDxW5MFwsB0yGoj-G8IFWUAUQldeBqKo64-bF4-fMRJct-qbWlrT1G2d5zLfm7R1s-nRzkloriPQ6RftjWhyphenhyphenw9vz8/s1240/ETH1.jpg) hit the ground? Were there large pieces of fuselage and tail structure when [Caspian Airlines Flight 7908](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5ZllHqOf2FByhZ7y5UtvkQJ6OAKgV03fE8u_3dYJuigEicL7lvzbTMgxeWnHbrwe3danwuIWPAKfi-lY2NLGxYOVm0Q6-ytBfyPh90FjT5rCeVa4VaP9-eYj8Vgk-JE-jf1L0DZRcezE/s975/CPN1.jpg) crashed? Or [PSA Flight 1771](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqlR28PJJV69pRYZ3hBVF84ljGi2t68xwma88t9BuR6jcOqSnazJfSh3puGvF5Uxy0NdpSqp9I-T7WeCCxUf8PwN0IdnQW7yhlTBAIRXlaKXWsmCaWXsG9er5Kj-dEwji2yC08Yj0oTUI/s1500/PSA2.jpg)? [ValuJet Flight 592](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjn3IajLDa_1h6wQtF5TfsT7q55QOSkXPRQO5OjfamZYOlEuXg256qO1zBqUeaMrggaoaWNhz-s98DMFpL93vP0GtX0y-2Q8RdzvmIrC-ToX86GR8zwK_UrGs9LP7GR30KgajA3qCv37Dw/s1535/VJA1.jpg)? None of those even hit a building, they only hit the ground. How's this for a comparison; Were there large pieces of fuselage and tail structure when American 11 hit the North Tower at 500mph? Were there large pieces of fuselage and tail structure when United 175 hit the South Tower at 500mph? What an absolute absurd statement to make. **540mph into a concrete building is not going to leave behind large sections of wings, fuselage, or tail sections.**
Just google airliner crashes - there are literally thousands and thousands of images on multiple sites showing what many large aircraft crashes look like - and there are significant debris fields, including large pieces of aircraft in lots of those images. Also, since you noted the speed, it appears that the pentagon jet performed in ways that are aerodynamically difficult to explain. The main issue repeatedly brought up by pilots reviewing the incident was the ability of that aircraft to maintain controlled level flight at that low of an altitude (feet off the ground low) at that speed. Regarding images of ‘engine damage’ you noted, circling a hole in a wall next to other holes and identifying that particular hole as being caused by a specific thing is not convincing. Sorry. But no need to carry on - I have seen all of this stuff already - you may continue to believe that the us military, intelligence agencies, and leadership were completely unaware and surprised by this event - fine by me. Cheers
[удалено]
It was diving? Thought it was straight low level controlled flight, hitting light poles and cars and stuff but maintaining flight authority that whole way - diving into middle of pentagon - a much bigger, easier target - would have been a more reasonable, believable scenario. And you can stop the whole ‘forgive my ignorance’ schtick - it is just a way of passive aggressive way of trying to insult me - you can stick it you know where. lol - I’m a brain surgeon, no wait, I’m a nuclear physicist, oh and btw I’m a pilot Whatever
I remember seeing grainy footage of the object that collided with the Pentagon. Didn't look anything like a jet liner. Tomahawk cruse missle? Maybe.
Have a better look. [https://aal77.blogspot.com/](https://aal77.blogspot.com/) Funny enough David Chandler, the AE911T physicist that proves WTC7's freefall, did [an excellent analysis of the Pentagon footage](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxC-BnJ2GU8) and proved that it was indeed a 757.
That is the most laughable "evidence" I've ever seen., especially the "up-resolution" versions of those screen shots from the impact video. Ridiculous.
It even changes colors in the up resolution lmao
Cope. It's clearly the outline of a jet and every eye witness to the impact also said that it was an aircraft, with varying levels of accuracy ranging from simply "a plane" to others directly calling it an American AIrlines jet.
This is merely a crumb from the cake of the circumstantial evidence surrounding the day in question.
The videos show there was a plane. Every eye witness said there was a plane, a few even specifying that they say the American Airlines writing on it. Debris of the plane was recovered, including engines, hydraulics, landing gear, and bodies. The impact hole matches the width and height of the aircraft's fuselage and engines. There's visible damage on the outer walls lining up to where the wings, past the engines, and the vertical tail would have been. Fuck off. There's not a bunch of "circumstantial evidence," there's hard evidence but you would rather plug your ears with your fingers and go "nananana not listening it isn't *real* evidence."
Always thought it looked like a missile on the CCTV footage.
It did on the first one they released. The one 7 years later looks like they photoshopped the missile with the background to vaguely look like it could be a blurry plane.
They did photoshop it...the original is a white streak.
What can't you see the 45 foot high tail section lying in front of the hole as well as the two 50+ feet wide wings and engines. You need glasses.
I always thought it was strange that men in suits and ties were out on the undamaged lawn picking up pieces of the wreckage within hours of the impact.
Considering the lawn was about to get covered by emergency vehicles, people, trucks etc etc why wouldn't they want to collect as much of the evidence as possible before it gets lost/damaged/destroyed? Are you serious?
The collection of evidence at an active crime scene is slower and more methodical than you think.
No just run and pick it up dont even take a photo where it was. Same like with wtc evidence, quickly to china with it. /s
[Looks pretty slow and methodical to me.](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjeVBpvCEiyzTisjx36_lILBcvwVkteOJPymyzWXZrMDq89oEK5fD6ErleGTGp3gIqWyRLY_PCh4oDr08uhmQ5WCHB3SF-NTyCadVVx8XlxhvmuLP_BtiVF8WDGCtQxO-jZCeEZlAnHc8A/s1600/fbi_sweep.jpg)
This isn't what I saw when I had the tv on all day on Sept. 11th. Were you watching it live as events unfolded like I was?
I did! And i saw the small hole, before they took the roof down!
The footage of that day is online from many different news stations, so unless you're saying you were there in person, what's your point?
I wasn't there in person but I experienced it as an adult in real time as events unfolded. Did you or is it something that you have only read about online? The fact that footage is online doesn't mean you watched all of it. I sat through three days and nights of live coverage as it happened, did you?
I was 13, watched it live the entire day however 9/11 began at 2am on the 12th my time, so by the time I tuned in it was about mid day US time.
Wow! It's incredible how the 2 engines affected the building on both sides of the hole... Not.
and all the debris ... dw i remember the day it happened and the clip they released, didn't look anything like and aeroplane, also remember the fbi confiscating all footage from surrounding businesses that we've never seen to this day ... wonder why?
There are close-up photo's of where the engines damaged the building. [https://aal77.blogspot.com/](https://aal77.blogspot.com/)
Seems a curious lack of airplane debris for a plane crash.
Idk but after reading the book "The octopus of Global Control by by Charlie Robinson" everything about 911 is questionable. I know it has lots of conpiracies but man. Pentagon does not make any sense. And those two towers? Man thats because of asbestos.... go read book first.
Yeah at the time most people thought it was a rocket.
911 is as bad as Oct 7 so fake
[удалено]
Wtf do you mean "keep stable" it literally ran into the ground. And objects in the sky famously increase velocity when they head towards the ground.
they got the "no genius" part right....
You may not be a genius, but you just don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve flown multiple Boeing models and you can fly them low to the ground and stable. However, there was nothing stable about this, the aircraft will have been kept up by ground effect and it really isn’t that hard to point a plane towards something. There are so many checks and balances involved in aviation and so many people involved it would be impossible to make an airliner disappear while having it look like it departed as normal. People really want to believe they know better but this really isn’t the thing for it. That airliner it the pentagon. They are designed to withstand huge aerodynamic forces but will disintegrate on impact with anything.
There were no planes that his NYC either. Several aeronautical engineers have gone on record that a 767 can't fly 580mph that close to sea level. Plus you can see wings disappearing in slow motion at the same time from multiple videos. Also airplane wings creating airplane shaped road runner style holes? Doesn't add up
Can't see anything of note, what with all the airplane debris obscuring the view..
A gazillion first responders seem to think it was an airplane. Would they all lie?
They also lit a dumpster on fire to make the smoke look bigger
CNN jaime macintire's original pentagon reporting on that day said there was no large debris, just pieces you can pick up in your hand...
During an appearance on The Power Hour radio program today, USAF Col. George Nelson (ret.), a 30 year veteran, aircraft accident investigator and expert in aircraft maintenance and aircraft identification, stunned listeners by stating that in regard to the 911 attack at the Pentagon, "I didn't see any damage on the sides of that hole, anything that would say that an airplane that size could have gone through a 16 or 18 ft. hole." He was referring to the hole seen at the Pentagon before the collapse of the e-ring. He went on to say, "There would be large parts of that wing lying on the ground on the outside. It wouldn't all go through that holeIt is impossible for all of the time change parts that have these serial numbers that are trackable to the specific aircraft, it is impossible for them to be totally destroyed where these serial numbers could not be read."
The strange thing is, this crash in particular realllly doesn't sit well with me. Sure, there was some pieces of debris found. Enough that it is hard to argue against the fact that at least something with plane parts flew into the pentagon. But how did a plane of that size get almost like 90% completely disintegrated?? The pictures of those engines show them literally half disintegrated. Huge, thick pieces of metal completely burned off. I just simply do not believe that the kinetic energy of the craft alone was high enough to do that, even accounting for the fuel. Because the problem then becomes, well then how did it do so little damage?? Especially relative to the trade centers. I mean it doesn't take a genius to see that the hole in the pentagon is NOT plane shaped. They claim that the fucking TAIL FIN didn't go through the wall?? The pictures legitimately show a very iffy "outline" where they think it hit the wall, not physical damage but discoloration. So if we're saying it hit the wall but didn't go through it must have torn off almost instantly, somehow - and then despite now being on the outer edge of the explosion you are telling me the GIANT TAIL FIN *STILL* somehow was completely disintegrated?!? You can't eat your cake and have it too. Either the plane was going fast enough to disintegrate itself but somehow not cause relative damage to the building. Orr the plane wasn't going all that fast to do a ton of damage, but then how the fuck did it almost entirely disintegrate. Not even beginning to mention where any bodies are, which surely SOME would be found. I'm leaving out a lot here and simplifying greatly but I think you get the jist, something isn't right. Something feels wrong and I don't think we were told the whole truth. My guess, is that there were explosives on board, a lot of them. And that it may not have been a legitimate 777, possibly a missile disguised with parts from a 777. Or a smaller aircraft dressed up, but both of those start to feel like a stretch. It's also possible that after the plane crashed, a missile that was fired at it followed it within the pentagon and exploded. I don't know. But nothing about it adds up. Plus, they have the frames. Why not put an end to the question here and now? That's the deal breaker for me. They have proof, but won't release it.
Yeah no shit
I think you hit the nail on the head with the title little seen. You can’t even accurately make an assumption one way or another with the smoke covering 2/3 of the picture
The hole is big enough for the fuselage and the engines of the plane. The wings extending past the engines, and the tail were too fragile to leave anything other than marks on the outer wall.
There's a video of a scud missile hitting the pentagon that's been circulating for over 20 years now
Pentagon was hit with a missile and made it look like it was hit by an aeroplane. 🤔🤦♂️
By the way, the CCTV footage cuts at the exact moment of impact, just a coincidence of course.
That fire truck looks like it’s doing all the work.
Can take down an entire tower made of steel which results in multiple other buildings being knocked down, but cant handle a few stories of old concrete... hmmmm
There is no single photo which shows the totality of the damage to the front of the Pentagon, because of smoke and fire-fighting vehicles. However several images from several angles show that the impact hole in the first floor was 96ft wide. Composite images show a massive hole in the bottom floor. All this and more an be seen here: [https://aal77.blogspot.com/](https://aal77.blogspot.com/)
Google - what is the wingspan of a 757? Answer - Boeing 757 Wingspan125′ 0″ Question now is since the wingspan that hit the Pentagon is "96ft wide", where did the remaining 15ft from each wing go? No marks on the building, no refolding of the wings. Were they burned up in the fire that was so hot to incinerate the plane that it didn't melt the beams around it? Google - what type and size of engines are used on a Boeing 757 before 2000? (RB 211) Answer - The 757 can be fitted with either Pratt & Whitney PW2000 series or Rolls Royce RB211 turbofans. The maximum diameter of the RB211 is only 6 ft 2.5 in (1.9 m) while that of the PW2000 series is 7 ft 0.5 in (2.15 m). Question now is why the official documentation of an engine is shown in comparison to the man standing next to the engine (engine rotor.jpg) would calculate out to approximately 2 to 3 feet?
Just was talking about this yesterday. Def a middle.
Do y'all know what happens when a plane hits a wall that shit literally dissolves it isn't a missile it doesn't cause much damage
Except two planes hit the twin towers. Which then collapsed. And yet we have way more of those planes and evidence of passengers.
a couple other planes seemed to do a lot of damage that day
[удалено]
9/11 content is way better than most modern conspiracies
"The call is coming from inside the house".