the internet ropes you in...

@metal-brain said
How did the plane hit the target without bouncing off the ground first at that speed?
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?

Air traffic control can follow the path of the plane until a certain height.
The trajectory matches the route towards the pentagon.

Then the plane dips below the radar limitation (something like 500m or so)... which at the speed it was travelling is quite close. Then it's gone.
So, basically, the trajectory of the plane, the speed, etc. are all known.

Now, if it didn't go into the pentagon, and it certainly didn't come back up on radar... where the hell did it go to then?

And see. If you can't answer that question, the basic conclusion can only be, no matter what you think you see, it went into the pentagon.

@shavixmir said
Air traffic control can follow the path of the plane until a certain height.
The trajectory matches the route towards the pentagon.

Then the plane dips below the radar limitation (something like 500m or so)... which at the speed it was travelling is quite close. Then it's gone.
So, basically, the trajectory of the plane, the speed, etc. are all known.

Now, if it ...[text shortened]... tion, the basic conclusion can only be, no matter what you think you see, it went into the pentagon.

You keep assuming it was a plane. How do you know it was not a cruise missile?

@metal-brain said
You keep assuming it was a plane. How do you know it was not a cruise missile?

What the hell are you jibbering on about?

There was an airliner full of passengers. If it didn’t fly into the pentagon, where the fukk did it go then?

And then read my post you answered to.

@shavixmir said
What the hell are you jibbering on about?

There was an airliner full of passengers. If it didn’t fly into the pentagon, where the fukk did it go then?

And then read my post you answered to.

There were passengers found in the Pentagon? Where are all the pictures of all the dead bodies in body bags being hauled out? United Airlines Flight 93 didn't make it there. Remember?

@metal-brain said
There were passengers found in the Pentagon? Where are all the pictures of all the dead bodies in body bags being hauled out? United Airlines Flight 93 didn't make it there. Remember?

You really are thick, aren’t you?

@shavixmir said
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.

your wiki link had 19 examples but only two were collapses due to fire

I'm not convinced. at WTC you had 3 at once. BTW, do you know the cause of the fire in building 7?
They couldn't tell us for years. Amazing, huh?

EDIT TO ADD:


1945 Empire State Building B-25 crash
... the Empire State Building in New York City while flying in thick fog. The accident killed fourteen people (three crewmen and eleven people in the building), and an estimated twenty-four others were injured. Damage caused by the crash estimated at US$1 million (equivalent to about $16 million in 2022), although the building's structural integrity was not compromised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash

@shavixmir said
You really are thick, aren’t you?

Show me film of all the body bags leaving the pentagon. Show me a film of the big jet engines being pulled out of the wreckage. In fact, look at mere pictures of the hole in the Pentagon and how very little was burned relative with what you would expect from a big plane with fuel. It isn't like the bodies burned up.

Stop being stupid. You are being thick.

@shavixmir said
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?

There's a James bond movie where the bad guy launches rockets that eat Russian rockets in space, thereby provoking nuclear war.

Maybe that's what happened. The plane was swallowed by another larger object before it reached the Pentagon and it was replaced by a similar sized object traveling at similar speed and that hit the Pentagon?

The internet wins all the space in all our heads.

@earl-of-trumps said
your wiki link had 19 examples but only two were collapses due to fire

I'm not convinced. at WTC you had 3 at once. BTW, do you know the cause of the fire in building 7?
They couldn't tell us for years. Amazing, huh?

EDIT TO ADD:


1945 Empire State Building B-25 crash
... the Empire State Building in New York City while flying in thick fog. T ...[text shortened]... was not compromised.[/u][/b]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_Empire_State_Building_B-25_crash

I don’t know what sort of structure the Empire State Building is (well, besides it’s quite tall with a stunning view… I went up it. I think. Long time ago).

And a B-25 is waaaaaay smaller, slower, less fuel on board, etc. than a jumbo jet.

The official report has been peer reviewed. And the conclusions accepted by experts. That’s enough for me.

@metal-brain said
Show me film of all the body bags leaving the pentagon. Show me a film of the big jet engines being pulled out of the wreckage. In fact, look at mere pictures of the hole in the Pentagon and how very little was burned relative with what you would expect from a big plane with fuel. It isn't like the bodies burned up.

Stop being stupid. You are being thick.

Where the fukk did the jumbo jet with all the passengers go otherwise?

What you are suggesting is the following:
- flight 77 with 64 folk onboard (verifiably true)
- flight path recorded (verifiably true)
- course tagged and followed by radar (verifiably true)
- disappeared at very low altitude near the pentagon
- somebody shot something else at the pentagon
- eyewitnesses saw a plane were planted there by someone
- someone scattered some airplane parts around the area
- someone planted the black box
- plane, crew and passengers were never heard from again.

That’s what you are suggesting?

Or, back in reality, just because you don’t see what you think you should see, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen: that plane flew into the building.

@shavixmir said
Where the fukk did the jumbo jet with all the passengers go otherwise?

What you are suggesting is the following:
- flight 77 with 64 folk onboard (verifiably true)
- flight path recorded (verifiably true)
- course tagged and followed by radar (verifiably true)
- disappeared at very low altitude near the pentagon
- somebody shot something else at the pentagon
- eyew ...[text shortened]... see what you think you should see, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen: that plane flew into the building.

Learn to read. I said Airlines Flight 93. Where do you think that plane was headed before it crashed near Indian Lake and Shanksville, Pennsylvania?

@shavixmir said
Okay, shyt for brains...
Google:
- Plasco Building progressive collapse
or
- Windsor Tower (Madrid) collapse
or
- Surfside condominium collapse
Or
- Edificio Wilton Paes de Almeida collapse

Dude, not only has the internet roped you in, it's stangled you after dragging you through the streets naked.

Windsor Tower was still left standing.

https://documentaryheaven.com/zero-an-investigation-into-911/

@wildgrass said
Do you think an office fire is capable of bringing down a steel building?

Yes, given a full planeload of fuel. The architect of the Twin Towers weighed in on the issue. He claimed the building was not designed to withstand an aircraft impact.

Jet fuel burns at up to 2000 degrees c. Steel melts at below 1500.


https://www.utilitysmarts.com/automobile/gasoline/does-jet-fuel-burn-hotter-than-gasoline/

https://www.engineersedge.com/materials/metal_melting_temperatures_13214.htm

It is entirely plausible that once the floors which burned could no longer support the weight of the floors above, the building sank into itself vertically, collapsing like a stack of pancakes.

@shavixmir said
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?

What I am suggesting is that we have not been told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, regarding the events of that day.

For example: when the second plane struck the TT it became clear that it was no accident, and with two more hijacked planes still aloft with unknown targets, it must have occurred to President Bush and his advisors that the remaining planes might have to be shot down to prevent them striking the WH or the Capital or the Pentagon. I would very much like to know whether an order was given to shoot down the remaining planes.

I think it is suspicious that the military resisted releasing its video footage of whatever “thin white streak” hit the Pentagon, until forced to do so by lawsuit, and that a cursory search of the Internet does not provide a link to it.

Not at all like the Zapruder film, for example, which is on YouTube.

@moonbus said
Yes, given a full planeload of fuel. The architect of the Twin Towers weighed in on the issue. He claimed the building was not designed to withstand an aircraft impact.

Jet fuel burns at up to 2000 degrees c. Steel melts at below 1500.


https://www.utilitysmarts.com/automobile/gasoline/does-jet-fuel-burn-hotter-than-gasoline/

https://www.engineersedge.com/materials ...[text shortened]... of the floors above, the building sank into itself vertically, collapsing like a stack of pancakes.

"Jet fuel burns at up to 2000 degrees c"

Is that in a jet engine or an oxygen starved fire inside a building? Notice the smoke is black. That is a sign of an oxygen starved fire. It was not getting enough oxygen to burn nearly that hot. Hence the words "at up to".

Since Jet engines are made of Titanium alloy they cannot burn up in a fire that is hot enough to melt steel. So where are the jet engines from the Pentagon? Do they still have them or did they destroy the evidence?

https://documentaryheaven.com/zero-an-investigation-into-911/