@shavixmir said“A piece of aircraft”! Yes, I see that. But where’s all the rest of the supposed wreckage?? The seats, baggage, engines, wings, tail section, the fuel tanks, and God forbid the BODIES??? Where is the impact crater? I’m not saying I have an explanation or a theory what happened there. I just saying, the photographic evidence is not consistent with a ground-level impact of a very large passenger jet.
Alrernatively… if that plane didn’t hit the pentagon… where did it and all the passengers go?
Anything you can think of is far more complicated than that the plane went into the Pentagon. So what’s more likely? The photos taken aren’t good enough or that they disappeared a plane and passengers and launched something else into the building?
And that’s the sum of it all ...[text shortened]... into the building and then scattered some pieces of aircraft around for the photo oppertunity… uhuh…
The Pentagon reportedly released a video, showing “a thin white streak” impacting the Pentagon:
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna12818225
But where is the video?? A thin white streak is not necessarily a large passenger jet.
google "aerial images of passenger jet crashes" and you'll see what I mean. Such crash sites look different to what was on the lawn outside the Pentagon.
17 Sep 23
@shavixmir saidThis documentary suggested it was a cruise missile.
Alrernatively… if that plane didn’t hit the pentagon… where did it and all the passengers go?
Anything you can think of is far more complicated than that the plane went into the Pentagon. So what’s more likely? The photos taken aren’t good enough or that they disappeared a plane and passengers and launched something else into the building?
And that’s the sum of it all ...[text shortened]... into the building and then scattered some pieces of aircraft around for the photo oppertunity… uhuh…
https://www.bitchute.com/video/U9DIwiCp5I6B/
17 Sep 23
@moonbus saidWhere did the jet go otherwise with all the passengers.
“A piece of aircraft”! Yes, I see that. But where’s all the rest of the supposed wreckage?? The seats, baggage, engines, wings, tail section, the fuel tanks, and God forbid the BODIES??? Where is the impact crater? I’m not saying I have an explanation or a theory what happened there. I just saying, the photographic evidence is not consistent with a ground-level impact of a ve ...[text shortened]... ou'll see what I mean. Such crash sites look different to what was on the lawn outside the Pentagon.
I presume that velocity planted most of the plane in the buildings. Wings breaking off, and due to the speed, followed the fuselage into the building… and that’s probably where the bodies would be too.
But think. If it wasn’t that airliner… where did that airliner go… with all the passengers?
17 Sep 23
@shavixmir saidI don't know, shav, I just don't know where the jet went.
Where did the jet go otherwise with all the passengers.
I presume that velocity planted most of the plane in the buildings. Wings breaking off, and due to the speed, followed the fuselage into the building… and that’s probably where the bodies would be too.
But think. If it wasn’t that airliner… where did that airliner go… with all the passengers?
But look at aerial photos of the Lockerbie crash site, for example. The Clipper Maid went down in several pieces, and even so one piece left a crater big enough to swallow up two houses, and there were bits and pieces of fuselage and interior seats and baggage strewn all over the town of Lockerbie. Now look at photographs of the lawn outside the Pentagon on 9/11. Where's the wreckage ?? Where's the impact crater?? And where's the surveillance video allegedly showing "a thin white streak" impacting the Pentagon? Let's just stick to the photographic evidence which has been presented to us, instead of imagining hypotheticals. Don't overthink this; LOOK at the photographs. Is the wreckage on the ground consistent with what we know other crash sites look like when a big passenger jet hits the ground? Yes or no? I say, "no."
17 Sep 23
@moonbus saidDo you think an office fire is capable of bringing down a steel building?
One thing does strike me as insufficiently clarified about the events of 9/11. Look at the photos of the damage done to the Pentagon. Where is the jet debris ?? Where are the fuselage bits? Where are the engine bits? Where are the seats and baggage? And where is the trench the fuselage dug before it hit ?? Look at other photos of crash sites: a jet leaves a huge trail of debr ...[text shortened]... anything. I’m not saying I know what hit the Pentagon. I’m only saying, it’s not what we were told.
17 Sep 23
@wildgrass saidNot at all, wildgrass.
Do you think an office fire is capable of bringing down a steel building?
moonbus posed a tantalizing question which appears to have no answer, and shavix did, as well.
One thing I have learned in my debating experiences... an unanswerable question (where'd the plane and passengers go?) proves nothing.
17 Sep 23
On steel-structured buildings collapsing from fire:
Let's suppose that steel loses 30% of its strength when exposed to fire. You simply use enough steel to be of
desired strength after being exposed to fire. Where's the difficulty? A freshman in architect school would know that.
And to this day, the only steel-structured buildings to collapse due to fire were all at the same place and time, NYC, 911.
17 Sep 23
@earl-of-trumps saidSo you think this is a conspiracy? Inside job?
On steel-structured buildings collapsing from fire:
Let's suppose that steel loses 30% of its strength when exposed to fire. You simply use enough steel to be of
desired strength after being exposed to fire. Where's the difficulty? A freshman in architect school would know that.
And to this day, the only steel-structured buildings to collapse due to fire were all at the same place and time, NYC, 911.
17 Sep 23
@wildgrass said<smile>
So you think this is a conspiracy? Inside job?
Let us just say that there are a lot of unanswered questions.
... and unanswered questions don't prove a darn thing.
18 Sep 23
@moonbus saidI’m not overthinking it.
I don't know, shav, I just don't know where the jet went.
But look at aerial photos of the Lockerbie crash site, for example. The Clipper Maid went down in several pieces, and even so one piece left a crater big enough to swallow up two houses, and there were bits and pieces of fuselage and interior seats and baggage strewn all over the town of Lockerbie. Now look at photo ...[text shortened]... e know other crash sites look like when a big passenger jet hits the ground? Yes or no? I say, "no."
How much plane debris was outside the twin towers? Or was most of it in the building?
Lockerbie was outside, not hitting a building. I would think that’s the difference.
What you are suggesting, without overthinking at all, is that a whole aircraft and passengers was disappeared and something else shot at the pentagon.
Really?
@earl-of-trumps saidThis is categoriically untrue. I posted names of same structured buildings which have collapsed post 9-11 in the same fashion as the towers.
On steel-structured buildings collapsing from fire:
Let's suppose that steel loses 30% of its strength when exposed to fire. You simply use enough steel to be of
desired strength after being exposed to fire. Where's the difficulty? A freshman in architect school would know that.
And to this day, the only steel-structured buildings to collapse due to fire were all at the same place and time, NYC, 911.
See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse
It’s also logical for 2 reasons:
- the buildings are deliberately constructed to collapse, rather than topple (which would cause more damage to the surroundings).
- progressive (or pancake) collapse.
Steel, when heated, doesn’t melt until it’s very hot. But, as it heats it expands and gets much, much weaker. This causes the weight of the floor and the weaker, expanding steel structure to let the floor go. This crashes down onto the next floor, the weight causing the next floor to collapse, and so forward (as the weight gets ever more as more floors join the pancake).
This is what the report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded on the twin towers. And the conclusions and report have been peer reviewed, all coming to the same conclusion.
Anything else is imagined, fiction or, at the very least, not peer reviewed. So, ignorable.
@shavixmir saidI can verify this. An overhead rail span designed to carry X hundreds of tonnes, would be damaged by a something weighing (let's say) 1/5th of that weight if it were dropped a mere 150mm onto the span. Static versus Dynamic. This is an extremely simplified example because there are hundreds of variables to factor in.
This is categoriically untrue. I posted names of same structured buildings which have collapsed post 9-11 in the same fashion as the towers.
See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse
It’s also logical for 2 reasons:
- the buildings are deliberately constructed to collapse, rather than topple (which would cause more damage to the surroundings).
- progre ...[text shortened]... sion.
Anything else is imagined, fiction or, at the very least, not peer reviewed. So, ignorable.
Edit: To look at the twin towers, they looked the same from top to bottom but there's a lot going on inside. the 20th floor needs to support 90 floors above, it's designed to do that plus some, the 90th floor only has to support 20 floors above. So the steel work is less. This needs to be fed back into the calculations when designing the 20th floor. What man has achieved, how he has shaped the environment to his needs, everything that went into those twin towers came out of a hole in the ground, digging through rock, it's freaking awesome.
18 Sep 23
@shavixmir saidWhen it comes to controversial info wikipedia is full of disinformation. It is one of the most horrible sources in the world.
This is categoriically untrue. I posted names of same structured buildings which have collapsed post 9-11 in the same fashion as the towers.
See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_collapse
It’s also logical for 2 reasons:
- the buildings are deliberately constructed to collapse, rather than topple (which would cause more damage to the surroundings).
- progre ...[text shortened]... sion.
Anything else is imagined, fiction or, at the very least, not peer reviewed. So, ignorable.
https://rumble.com/v35n6ro-jimmy-dores-wikipedia-page-edited-by-cia.html
18 Sep 23
@shavixmir saidHow did the plane hit the target without bouncing off the ground first at that speed?
I’m not overthinking it.
How much plane debris was outside the twin towers? Or was most of it in the building?
Lockerbie was outside, not hitting a building. I would think that’s the difference.
What you are suggesting, without overthinking at all, is that a whole aircraft and passengers was disappeared and something else shot at the pentagon.
Really?
Better yet, how was a person with very limited flight experience able to hit the building at all? The pentagon is not a high rise skyscraper like the twin towers were. He could have easily went over the building and missed it completely by mistake at that speed.
Wasn't the inexperienced pilot just lucky he hit the building at all?