You must log in or register to comment.
The funny thing is that the more you know about missiles, the less this looks like one. I'm sure some truther has already claimed to know the model of missile used, but I'll say if this isn't a plane, it would need to be a very bespoke missile.
missles don't hug the ground like this, is my wild guess. came in way too low unless it was coming in from like, the parking lot
Hey if Shinzo Abe got got by a doohickey instead of a gun, maybe the Pentagon was blown up by a thingamajig instead of a missile
A missle is nothing more than an object forcefully propelled at a target.
So it’s both true a plane hit the pentagon as well as a missle.
The important thing is the Pentagon blew up so a good thing happened
But they blew it up themselves probably to destroy files though
Net positive for them
Are you saying you do not support the pentagon blowing themselves up?
Probably would hurt their feelings to learn that tbh
they gotta have some nefarious shit going on to do something like that. so no
It hit the one face of the gon that had recently been reinforced against attack, so not nearly as much of it blew up as might have happened otherwise
This is some real conspiracioid shit here. Did America really need excuses to do absolutely horrid shit throughout it's history?
This is a trap just like JFK bullet trajectory minutae is a trap. CIA malfeasance is totally believable but the end results were: shooting a guy in the head and hitting buildings with planes.
yeah like we dropped a nuke on like 200k japanese civilians and came up with excuses after the fact, we dont really need a reason to do mass murder, we just do it
I feel like there's space to debate whether profit is a prerequisite for mass murder and cruelty
None of the countries the hijackers came from were invaded by the US. If anything, those countries are US allies. If the whole thing was completely made up by the US, wouldn't the US have fake Iranian/Afghani/Iraqi/Syrian/Libyan/Yemeni IDs instead of fake Saudi/UAE/Egyptian IDs?
i could see it being a cia fuckup of some kind, training terrorists and then
when they use their training to blow up your shit. but yeah, if it were a fake, why wouldnt they just cover up who these guys are?
I can believe that the plane got shot down in the fields and spinner into a heroic patriotic sob story because nobody was out there to really confirm anything. But the missile striking the pentagon is just silly.
Okay maybe, but like, why would they do that? The United States obviously doesn't care about it's own civilians and if it was to be that directly planned, why not just use a plane like the towers? There were people on the plane that's purported to hit the pentagon, don't they have families that can confirm they exist? Why would the US Military use this as an excuse to bomb itself, but only with a missile? What's the point and what was the benefit of a missile over just using a plane like all the other attacks that day?
Because it's easier to hit a building with a missile than it is to conduct a successful hijacking plot to strike a rather low-laying building with a passenger airplane at extremely high velocity.
The Pentagon is a pretty big ass building. Sure, hitting that specific point is hard, but he likely wasn't aiming at that specific point. He was aiming for the huge building.
It's similar to winning the lottery. The chances are really low that any particular person wins, but 100% that someone wins eventually. (Obviously this case was not 100%, but the huge building is an easy target.)
I'm sure the pilot didn't know, but the plane hit the most reinforced part of the building. Added to the fact the maneuver to strike that portion is not easy, and it makes you wonder why he didn't just nosedive into the top of it. Easier to do, and (unknown to him) would have caused significantly more damage.
I'm agnostic on what went down that day, but it is rather fortuitous for the Pentagon that the hijacker chose to do what he did there
why was one part of the 5 way symmetrical building stronger than the rest?
At the time of the attacks, the Pentagon was under renovation and many offices were unoccupied, resulting in fewer casualties. Only 800 of 4,500 people who would have been in the area were there because of the work. Furthermore, the area hit, on the side of the Heliport facade, was the section best prepared for such an attack. The renovation there, improvements which resulted from the Oklahoma City bombing, had nearly been completed.
It was the only area of the Pentagon with a sprinkler system, and it had been reconstructed with a web of steel columns and bars to withstand bomb blasts. The steel reinforcement, bolted together to form a continuous structure through all of the Pentagon's five floors, kept that section of the building from collapsing for 30 minutes—enough time for hundreds of people to crawl out to safety. The area struck by the plane also had blast-resistant windows—2 inches (5 cm) thick and 2,500 pounds (1,100 kg) each—that stayed intact during the crash and fire. It had fire doors that opened automatically and newly built exits that allowed people to get out.
From the Wikipedia article: https://web.archive.org/web/20150622032541/http://articles.latimes.com/2001/sep/16/news/mn-46435 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon#September_11,_2001,_attacks
I could teach you how to do that in 20 minutes in X-Plane 6.0
later recalling that "he could not fly at all."
The procedures and techniques necessary to safely and legally operate a commercial aircraft as well as to be considered "able to fly at all" by pilot instructors are far harder than flying into the twin towers
Yeah and the actual pilots got the hard parts out of the way, of starting up the plane, navigating the airport, communicating with ATC, and taking off. "he could not fly at all" means jack shit when the goal is to crash the plane
If anything, being unable to fly is exactly why the plane crashed
Hijackers flew skilfully to targets, experts say
"They almost had to hit the towers like they were threading the eye of a needle," said Michael Barr, director of aviation safety programs at the University of Southern California and a former Air Force fighter-bomber pilot.
Flight trainer flunked 2 9/11 hijackers
“It was like ‘Dumb and Dumber'."
Neither of his former students was ultimately able to obtain a pilot’s license and both ended up as two of the four muscle men aboard American Airlines Flight 77, threatening the crew and passengers with box cutters and knives, while another terrorist, Hani Hanjour, flew the Boeing into the Pentagon
another terrorist, Hani Hanjour, flew the Boeing into the Pentagon
And another would-be terrorist who was part of this plot decided to just abandon it and head back home because he got bored.
I'm not sure if there's any analysis of the proficiency of the terrorists who flew the planes into the buildings out there, nor how this was determined conclusively, because I haven't done a deep dive into the subject myself.
But what is important to understand is that this paints a picture of how professional, or rather how unprofessional, this operation was.
Other evidence that points in this direction is the movements of Mohammed Atta (and I believe one of his co-conspirators) on September 10th.
to be considered "able to fly at all" by pilot instructors are far harder than flying into the twin towers
But he didn't fly into the towers, he flew into the Pentagon.
A 5-story building, at ground level, while doing 850 kph in a civilian airliner, less than 20 ft above ground. On the first try.
After executing said corkscrew maneuver in an unfamiliar airplane.
Oh yeah thats the Pentagon guy, no that was easy too, give me 25 minutes I'm not even kidding. He just approximately landed on the building going full speed. The only hard part about actually landing is hitting a safe speed at the proper angle and not sliding off the end of the runway due to too much speed.
The Pentagon is (or at least for a time was) the largest office building in the world, too. It's enormous. Probably easier to hit than the Twin Towers.
I am a 9/11 radicalist, I don't believe there were any planes at all, not even holograms, and the towers and Pentagon just did that
Is the conspiracy that there were a bunch of poor African Americans living in the Pentagon so they shot a missile at it? I really don't see why they would shoot a missile at the Pentagon, and also have to fake a plane taking off with hundreds of passengers, staff, hijackers etc involved
The conspiracy is that the Pentagon was undergoing renovations in that wing so everyone was gone, and this was supposedly apart of the Pentagon that houses records for black ops projects that were being investigated in the audit of the missing, what was it, 2.3 trillion?
They don't need to fire a missile into the Pentagon to destroy records haha. They would also know that the response to this attack would kill whatever efforts there were to audit their budget.
I mean it kinda did so I guess your not wrong. They essentially just threw their shoulders up and " I dunno" and that was that. Then post 9/11 created an environment where if you cared about defense budget issues your not a patriot.
Yep. This was only a decade after the Gulf War, too, so the chances that whoever was concerned about an audit knew exactly what would happen to the budget during a war are 100%.
Ok, where'd the plane go? Surely the plane that they said hit the pentagon had to go somewhere? Or did aliens take it like mh370?
I have no idea, is there proof that the plane actually left and is a real passenger plane that was scheduled?
They might've also hijacked the plane and crashed it/shot it down into the ocean
I put as much research into 9/11 as I do with my preferred economic policies and geopolitics
lmao at a non hexbear user ratioing a native hexbear user on our home turf - its a rare site but its always funny
Comrade, I'm not saying this to dunk on you but when you reach these kinds of questions
is there proof that the plane actually left and is a real passenger plane that was scheduled?
you're delving into QAnon/Flat Earther-type thinking. Once you start with conspiracy first, explanations later, you're dangerously close to going off the deep end.
If all these very reasonable responses don't convince you that the US didn't bomb themselves with a missile, then I'd urge you to ask yourself if there is anything that would convince you. What would be enough proof for you to go "Ah, oh well, I guess it really was a plane that crashed into the pentagon"?
Because you can literally always say that evidence was faked by them but, well, then you've successfully made your theory unfalsifiable and have officially reached QAnon territory. I'm sorry if this sounds patronizing but I genuinely find this concerning.
I'm just 9/11 posting for fun I indulge in conspiracy theories as pure entertainment
I understand the only thing that matters is that the state used 9/11 as an excuse to pass sweeping surveillance changes on its citizens and wage wars in the middle east to strengthen its economy
Yeah like to me it seems believable that maybe the cia or someone else had something to do with that particular attack, but like if you are going to go through the effort of jacking a plane, why not just ram the plane into it, why go through the extra effort of sending a missile, and then what, paying off witnesses & airtraffic controllers, landing the plane at a blacksite and shooting everyone?
No missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11. It was a plane u dunce.
Yeah that's the big hole (lol) in the missile theory. There was a plane that took off and disappeared.
Either it hit the Pentagon or there was some large-scale coverup of disappearing a plane, passengers, and crew, plus a missile launch and whatever coverup was necessary for that.
I didnt bother looking but what makes u think this footage is even in any way related to the pentagon and 9/11?
That's one extremely fast moving, low-flying passenger plane to be able to strike a building like that and especially to completely destroy itself without any traces of plane left from the wreckage.
It must have been one hell of a bullseye.
Yeah, with the landing gear extended and when the plane has slowed, in a shallow descent over a long distance (at least for passenger planes.)
If this plane was descended too early then it would have run the risk of colliding with objects close to the ground. If the plane was going slowly it would have left a lot more debris and the collision wouldn't have been nearly as destructive. If the plane hit the ground it may have destroyed the plane before hitting the building.
There's a lot of reasons why this manoeuvre isn't the same thing as just landing a plane on an airstrip.
This is easier than landing on a strip. Reaching a specific point in space is a much looser constraint than reaching that same point with the correct velocity and acceleration to make a landing feasible beyond that point. There are way more unique trajectories (flying straight down into the point, approaching off-normal from the building face, sideways, upside down, relatively level, even skipping off the ground) that satisfy the first constraint that would not satisfy the second constraint.
At an estimated 850 km/h there is very little margin for error with regards to these unique trajectories however.
Ground effect would help: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_(aerodynamics)
the plane slows, because the point is to get the plane on the ground safely. when you are doing a terrorism, you're not concerned about such things, and can go very fast.
Don't forget that the plane crumpled in on itself to form a sphere before touching the Pentagon's facade. It's wings folded inward as a defense mechanism to mitigate collateral damage.
No photographic or video footage of a plane wreck near the site. All nearby footage confiscated except for this extremely grainy, 2 FPS video that the state released themselves (THAT STILL CLEARLY SHOWS A MISSILE)
CNN reports that no evidence of a plane crash near the Pentagon was found
Claimed flight path to the Pentagon has direct contradictions to the damage done
THAT STILL CLEARLY SHOWS A MISSILE
it shows a collection of white pixels roughly dildo-shaped, a characteristic shared by aircraft & missiles. i don't find this very compelling, or a guy expecting to find giant airplane pieces & not. if it directly hit, wouldn't the debris be inside the building? and on fire?
the expectations of a "normal" plane crash with lots of identifiable debris rests on how the vast majority of planes don't crash directly into solid objects, except the ground, which is easier to contrast from a building.
The big issue with that is the hole isn't wide enough to account for wings, and there's no wing or engine wreckage on the lawn. So where did the wings go?
anyway I think that's the part that raises the biggest questions for me
turned to ribbons by the concrete? planes are light and flamable
where are the wings in this crash? most they found was like a 2 meter span of a wingtipTo be fair, that seems to be a very muddy crash site, they're using an excavator to dig in some of the shots. The Pentagon lawn is basically bare, and I really can't imagine that jet engines wouldn't leave behind some kind of damage to the exterior wall and at least a bit of wreckage.
On the WTC, the impact of the wings is clearly visible on the building. There is literally no indication whatsoever the Pentagon was hit by a winged aircraft.
they're different buildings. there isnt a huge corpus of airliner impacts in the side of building-holes to reasonably assume all kinds of buildings would leave wing-marks
people talking about it like planes just crash every day and every knows what multiple different kinds of crashes "should" look like. like just say you're going off vibes and leave it there.
From reading other parts of this thread, as it happens, I just found out that said corpus is larger than you might think
weird how the bomber did the no-wing hole while the tiny SR20 made one more plane-shaped.
The outer walls of the WTC buildings were pretty much mostly glass, right? Whereas the Pentagon is supposed to be fortified.
If you look at the damage to the Pentagon wall and conclude a plane hit it, you will believe literally anything. It looks exactly like a missile struck the wall. The blast hole has zero characteristics of an entire plane smashing into the damn building.
On the contrary you've got to be credulous to believe that.
The wings carry fuel and they're made of carbon fiber and aluminum, lightweight materials. They have to be light relative to the overall mass of the plane to minimize wing loading.
The fuselage contains landing gear, bulkheads, cargo, fuel, APU, and so on, which are not lightweight and not made of cardboard and the body is oriented longitudinally so it drives all that mass into a smaller cross section, whereas the wings distribute their impact over a wider area.
Also, there were conspicuous scorch marks on the wall in the shape of the wings, with a bigger, deeper mark where the engines were, which you'd expect if the fuel in the wings exploded and the entire wing assemblies disintegrated. Jet engine components were found on the Pentagon grounds, further proof.
Also, it doesn't really make sense that the Pentagon would attack itself with a missile. If they want to assassinate people they'll just kill them through covert means. If they need to destroy evidence they'll burn it.
The more incredible story is the missile one, you have to suspend critical thinking and ignore important facts to believe it.
my favorite conspiracy theory arguments are the ones that are like "you'd have to be stupid to deny the evidence of your eyes! obviously it looks like [thing you've never seen before] and not like [other thing you've never seen before]." Same goes for the "no steel frame building has ever collapsed from a fire" meme, where you're just substituting a confident tone for evidence.
ngl i dont really have a horse in this race since im too dumb and head empty to way up either sides evidence, so i'll just stay
I think the biggest problem with 9/11 conspiracies is how much less cooler they make it
i support this one just because the idea that the pentagon needed to blow itself up to get rid of evidence or something when they have at least one paper shredder in that building is hilarious
it's like some sort of liberal brainworm that the dod can't normally destroy evidence and instead needed a few bad actors to set up an elaborate rube goldberg machine including disappearing an entire plane just to destroy three pieces of paper
I think the idea that it served any other purpose but to "show the scope of the attack against our freedom" is a stretch for exactly that reason. How can you even be sure every piece of evidence is destroyed
There is no official footage of this? I haven't checked because I am unamerican but I thought it would have news-tier footage like that of the Twin Towers. Since it is the Pentagon I thought there would have been cameras there especially if (not sure if this was the case) they knew planes were headed there.
This is the only official footage released many years after 2001
They confiscated all the footage from surrounding civilian cameras
yes the oentagon really would like to release a video of 100+ people in the pentagon getting owned.
WTC7 will never make sense to me, motherfucker just crumbles because of a bunch of fires and debris. Come on, I just don't buy it. That and the people who supposedly heard explosions on the towers, eh let me doubt. As for the Pentagon I don't think a cruise missile did the job but the available footage is dogshit and there's no other angles at all, still I have no doubts it was an airplane.
Regardless, I remember people back then saying that 9/11 would spawn a new era of reduced civil liberties, increased militarism, surveillance state and so on, these people were mostly leftists and disregarded as crazy. Well these "conspiracies" turned out to be true.
So this is footage of a missile at ground level going directly into the side of the Pentagon - why would the missile be at ground level when it struck? It'd need to have launched and then dived down to ground level.
