When Al-Qaeda themselves claimed responsibility, even with overwhelming evidence aside? Why were so many people still reluctant, I was researching about this stuff and was shocked to see people who I respect a lot believe in this

  • tim-clark
    link
    fedilink
    -111 months ago

    I watched live TV coverage (online) of the pentagon prior to the fire department showing up. There was a 10-15ft hole and NO wings, NO fire, a small hole only. Somewhere on an old drive I have all the videos available online that day. Have showed those to many people over the years, they all said WTF!!

    Watching these videos it was clear there was no plane that hit the pentagon

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      911 months ago

      I don’t think the surface level observations of someone who has no clue what they’re talking about overrides actual evidence.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 months ago

        Where did the wings and engines of the plane go? Did they neatly fold in to fit into the narrow hole, and then hide under the rubble?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          111 months ago

          I don’t know what happens to the wings of that specific aircraft when they collide with that specific building under those specific conditions at 460 knots. That’s a question for an expert on the subject, not random people on the internet.

        • Salamander
          link
          fedilink
          110 months ago

          I don’t have much of an opinion on this topic, I haven’t really looked into it.

          But as soon as I saw this image, the El Al Flight 1862 which crashed in the Bijlmer in Amsterdam in 1992 immediately came to mind. The shape of the hole is very similar!

          This image shows the likely position of the Bijlmer plane during the crash:

          The image you posted of the Pentagon seems to me consistent with what I have seen of the Bijlmer accident, and so the shape of the hole and the absence of wings in the photo does not persuade me personally that no plane was involved.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            210 months ago

            Interesting. However in this case the plane came down vertically so the wings/engines would hit the ground beside the building. In case of the pentagon, the plane supposedly flew horizontally at ground level, so the wings should crash directly into the building.

            • Salamander
              link
              fedilink
              210 months ago

              Fair enough. I just looked it up and if the scale in this image is correct, I agree that the size of the hole looks small in comparison. I also looked at the security video of the crash itself and it is frustrating how little we can see from it.

              Since this was such an important event and there seems to be a lack of specific pieces of essential evidence - either because of bad luck or because of a cover-up - I understand the skepticism. And I am not a fan of blindly believing any official narrative. But, without any context, if I see that photo and someone tells me that a plane crashed into that building, I would find it probable simply because the shape is so similar to the photo of the Bijlmer accident that I’m familiar with. A plane crash seems to me like a very chaotic process, so I don’t have a good expectation of what the damage should look like.

              Maybe I’ll look for a pentagon crash documentary some time.

      • tim-clark
        link
        fedilink
        011 months ago

        You’re right, I’m a nobody. I’m going off the videos from that day that I saved, which are no longer available. The full cctv coverage from the gas station, the news crew on the ground that was filming when the fire truck showed up(the burned one on the grass). Video shows the fire truck driving up and no fire anywhere, no wings or damage next the small hole. Video also of the portion of the wall collapsing, and when the fire starts. Haven’t been able to find these videos anywhere since 9/12/01. I only believe this since i saved them as it was happening that day. I showed the videos to people over the years and compared them to the documentaries, videos all are edited or after these. Everyone that has seen them is, WTF that isn’t a plane

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          311 months ago

          Yes, you are a nobody when it comes to investigating plane crashes based off images and video of the wreckage. Saving footage doesn’t make you an expert somehow.

          • tim-clark
            link
            fedilink
            -111 months ago

            You are correct. Just going off the live video from the day. There is no plane or wings in the videos, the explanation of the wings vaporizing doesn’t really match the video.

        • @AA5B
          link
          311 months ago

          Seems like a reasonable explanation might be the plane was moving pretty fast, so most of it either carried through the outer wall, or totally destroyed itself going through stone walls

          • tim-clark
            link
            fedilink
            -211 months ago

            Yeah, thay is a reasonable explanation but it doesn’t add up with the videos. The hole was significantly smaller than the size of the plane and no damage where wings would be. The hard drive with the videos is sitting in my storage, haven’t tried booting. It up in over a decade. What would I even do with these videos, as the other person said I’m a nobody

    • ElleChaise
      link
      fedilink
      -111 months ago

      Remember they said light poles on the highway were taken out by the plane’s wings too? That’s not even a remote possibility in my mind, cause those poles were like a few feet wide and made of reinforced steel, in theory a plane should just lose its wings and shake, or maybe bend the pole while leaving it standing. But that would explains the lack of any wing impact on the building. Also that wall (only that one wall weirdly enough) was reinforced in such a way as to withstand missile strikes I’ve read. This would explain either version of events, cause the wall would implode the wings on impact most likely leaving little trace aside from small debris, which… don’t even get me started on the debris, but would also be likely if there never were wings, like in a missile strike scenario which may have rendered those light poles destroyed by accident for all we know. Either way it’s suspicious as fuck we only ever got 2-3 frames of the security gate footage, and none from the gas station I believe it was across the street who caught the whole picture.

      • phillaholic
        link
        fedilink
        311 months ago

        There are pictures of plane debris, one of which is on the wikipedia article of the event.

      • TheRealKuni
        link
        English
        111 months ago

        Have you ever looked at the base of light poles?

        You’ll notice they’re bolted in place. These bolts sheer under significant impact to prevent more expensive damage to whatever they’re bolted to. You can see this happen in videos of car accidents on highways.

        The thickness of the light pole is irrelevant, that isn’t the failure point. The massive amount of energy in a large plane moving that quickly should pop off light poles like twigs.

        Similarly, a large plane moving that quickly into a reinforced building and instantly exploding should leave very small bits of debris. You can find images of crash sites of planes that have hit cliffs head on, or dove straight into the ground, and you’ll see similar scenes of what appears to be a surprisingly small amount of debris, which is really a plane’s worth of very small pieces. LOTS of energy involved in collisions like that. Especially given how full of fuel the plane was.