Gone off track 9/11 General debate spinoff

[LaArtist]

Oh come on.



Or you had a go and got lucky. It doesn't mean it didn't happen just because you think it was difficult. You also clearly haven't seen the Pentagon in real life. It's not small in height.

So, if it wasn't Hanjour, who was it? Was it even an aircraft?




I'm very surprised at you Asif. Very surprised. It really wouldn't leave a trail of destruction a "couple of km long". Not if it hits in the way it did. It DID demolish some street lamps, however when the wings hit them.


Popular Mechanics have an article which debunks the myths about AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

A Boeing 757 Really Did Hit the Pentagon. The Evidence Shatters Every Myth.

Conspiracy theorists who doubt the facts about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks didn’t stop with the World Trade Center. Here, we answer their claims about the attack on the Pentagon.

www.popularmechanics.com

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

First of all it’s Kashef not Asif.
I was called to tell my point of view as a pilot and I did.

The building is 22 m high...
And the track looks like it’s roughly 3-500m long or let’s say 1km.
So unless the 757 can hover like a harrier jump jet.. I’ll stick with my guns that it’s a damn tall order to fly it into the building in that manner. Especially for a punk ass pilot that never flew it before.

 

[David Brent]

First intelligent and honest question you've asked all discussion. Truth is, we may never know, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Not giving me an answer though are you? I have some questions:

1) If the WTC or a surrounding building was blown up in a controlled explosion, how were enough explosives placed there without anybody detecting them being put there? In New York, a very busy place.

2) Assuming it was a government plot to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, why go to so much trouble creating a hijacking scenario, involving multiple aircraft. Surely placing a bomb somewhere and detonating it would be FAR easier to undertake for an inside job, and you could still pin the blame on Al-Qaeda?

3) The U.S. and allies invaded Iraq in 2003 based on a false report which said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They don't need a big secret plot to commit mass murder in order to invade a country. History will tell you that. So why this?

4) Nixon couldn't even hide his involvement in Watergate, a simple break-in by a handful of people. How on Earth can the people allegedly part of some big plot to hijack four airliners, controlled explosions, missiles fired at the Pentagon keep THAT quiet?! For 20 years?!

5) If a missile hit the Pentagon and not a hijacked aircraft, then where did AA77 go? That flight departed Dulles 0820. Did it just disappear?

6) It's alleged the FBI stole CCTV tapes from a CITGO gas station over the road from the Pentagon in order to cover up evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon. Instead of going through with the missile attack and then confiscating the footage, surely it would have been easier to just do it at night, instead of during rush hour on a clear day, in broad daylight?

7) And why a missile? Surely there are easier ways to create an explosion. People could see the missile if there was one, so isn't that a massive risk? Again, why not do it at night when people wouldn't be able to see the missile so easily?

Do you think LaArtsit is a "conspiracy theorist" too?

He's saying he doesn't think Hanjour flew the aircraft into the Pentagon. That literally makes him a conspiracy theorist. Why he's saying that, I've no idea. Just typical that the one commercial pilot I know of on here is one of the few people who doesn't believe what happened, happened. They exist. Their views are very much in the minority.

Now try and debunk Building 7 next. I have several more if you're interested,Mr. 'Casual Observer'.

The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) investigated the collapse of Building 7 and found no evidence of a controlled explosion. They found no evidence to support conspiracy theories such as the collapse being the result of explosives; it found that a combination of factors including physical damage, fire, and the building's unusual construction set off a chain-reaction collapse. The North Tower of the WTC collapsed which damaged the south face of the building and started lots of small fires which continued to burn throughout the afternoon. It's all there in the NIST's report.

?
The organization Architects&Engineers for 9/11 truth alone consists of about 2000 engineers and architects, which exactly state this.
I just cite them from their website:

We provide the evidence that indicates that three World Trade Center buildings #1 (North Tower), #2 (South Tower), and #7 (the 47-story high-rise across Vesey St.) were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives and incendiaries.

They're a bunch of conspiracy theorists! Just because you call yourself something which sounds important, it doesn't mean you are! The REAL organization for architects (American Institute of Architects) want nothing to do with them!

Architects Shy From Trutherism

Even as the new World Trade Center buildings are preparing to come online, one architect still maintains that the original towers were brought down by explosives—and has tried in vain to find an audience in the AIA.

www.architectmagazine.com

"The AIA itself, however, is firm about its relationship with Gage. “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever,” Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA, told me.
The former employee of the Walnut Creek, Calif.-based architectural firm Akol & Yoshii is a full-time 9/11 conspiracy theorist, but Gage tries to maintain a façade of being a scientist asking scientific questions. He does his best to avoid the murkier political questions of who could have orchestrated a conspiracy theory and cover-up of the size and scope that the 9/11 conspiracy movement alleges, but his technical views are actually quite mainstream within the Truth movement."

First of all it’s Kashef not Asif.

Sorry. No idea why I thought otherwise, especially as we've chatted on Instagram. You do realise I'm Betty, don't you?

I was called to tell my point of view as a pilot and I did.

I've not questioned the fact that I drew you into this discussion. I was just rather hoping you wouldn't be a conspiracy theorist too.

The building is 22 m high...
And the track looks like it’s roughly 3-500m long or let’s say 1km.
So unless the 757 can hover like a harrier jump jet.. I’ll stick with my guns that it’s a damn tall order to fly it into the building in that manner. Especially for a punk ass pilot that never flew it before.

I have spoken to lots of other commerical pilot colleagues this afternoon at work, and they don't share your view. They can't understand why you think it would be so difficult. They find the whole idea that anything is being covered up. A guy hijacked AA77 and flew it into the Pentagon. Not particularly challenging.

 

[donkeykong]

1) If the WTC or a surrounding building was blown up in a controlled explosion, how were enough explosives placed there without anybody detecting them being put there? In New York, a very busy place.

Why is there so much testimony of explosion inside the buildings,why is there testimony of an explosion in building 2 even prior to the plane hitting?
Why was there active thermitic material discovered in the dust? Those explosive devices would have had to been in place way before the incident.
How you're disregarding the potential for a false flag is astonishingly dumb to me,but hey,that's just me.

2) Assuming it was a government plot to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, why go to so much trouble creating a hijacking scenario, involving multiple aircraft. Surely placing a bomb somewhere and detonating it would be FAR easier to undertake for an inside job, and you could still pin the blame on Al-Qaeda?

Hegelian dialectic through shock and horror. The trauma of those visuals is of course far more effective in creating a "problem,reaction,solution"based scenario,it's theater after all. It's wouldn't be the first time the US Government orchestrated a false flag attack as a pretext to war. Think about the draconian laws that were instilled under the guise of national security? I know you're not dumb you're just pretending to be at this point.

3) The U.S. and allies invaded Iraq in 2003 based on a false report which said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They don't need a big secret plot to commit mass murder in order to invade a country. History will tell you that. So why this?

Invading Afghanistan was the first stepping stone in trying to invade several countries in the middle east. General Wesley Clark stated it in 2007,what he was told shortly after the attacks of the Twin Towers. Don't forget the resources that Afghanistan is bountiful in,most notably opium producing poppies (plants). Remember how the opium epidemic began tearing through inner cities and rural America not long after the CIA took control of those poppy fields? I do,I saw the horrors first hand, big Pharma raked in billions BTW.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

He's saying he doesn't think Hanjour flew the aircraft into the Pentagon. That literally makes him a conspiracy theorist. Why he's saying that, I've no idea. Just typical that the one commercial pilot I know of on here is one of the few people who doesn't believe what happened, happened. They exist. Their views are very much in the minority.

No it does not,giving an opinion that differs from the official narrative does not make him a conspiracy theorist. He didn't even offer an alternative to the official narrative.
Why do you,and so many others struggle with what conspiracy theory actually means. It's essentially used as pejorative and so absurdly dismissive. Asking questions and being suspicious of your government is a rational thing to do.

The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) investigated the collapse of Building 7 and found no evidence of a controlled explosion. They found no evidence to support conspiracy theories such as the collapse being the result of explosives; it found that a combination of factors including physical damage, fire, and the building's unusual construction set off a chain-reaction collapse. The North Tower of the WTC collapsed which damaged the south face of the building and started lots of small fires which continued to burn throughout the afternoon. It's all there in the NIST's report.

The NIST didn't even test for explosions,it's in the video I posted,their report along with 9/11 commission's report was a sham,a farce,a complete cover up of the facts. This has been pointed out by several researches ,whistle blowers,and those on the ground for years now. Wake up already.

 

[manuelf]

They're a bunch of conspiracy theorists! Just because you call yourself something which sounds important, it doesn't mean you are! The REAL organization for architects (American Institute of Architects) want nothing to do with them!

Fine, that you (or others, which disagree with them) call those 2000 academic people conspiracy theorists. Then we are at the beginning again: If you don't want to discuss with your "oponent", the new way of handling this is denying them as conspiracy theorists.

And what do you mean with REAL? The organization, which I'm talking of is named "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" and not American Institute of Architects. Yes, in both names the word "architect" comes up. Thats it. To confuse both, you have to be brain dead or superficial as possible. So what are you supposing here?

 

[LaArtist]

Not giving me an answer though are you? I have some questions:

1) If the WTC or a surrounding building was blown up in a controlled explosion, how were enough explosives placed there without anybody detecting them being put there? In New York, a very busy place.

2) Assuming it was a government plot to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, why go to so much trouble creating a hijacking scenario, involving multiple aircraft. Surely placing a bomb somewhere and detonating it would be FAR easier to undertake for an inside job, and you could still pin the blame on Al-Qaeda?

3) The U.S. and allies invaded Iraq in 2003 based on a false report which said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They don't need a big secret plot to commit mass murder in order to invade a country. History will tell you that. So why this?

4) Nixon couldn't even hide his involvement in Watergate, a simple break-in by a handful of people. How on Earth can the people allegedly part of some big plot to hijack four airliners, controlled explosions, missiles fired at the Pentagon keep THAT quiet?! For 20 years?!

5) If a missile hit the Pentagon and not a hijacked aircraft, then where did AA77 go? That flight departed Dulles 0820. Did it just disappear?

6) It's alleged the FBI stole CCTV tapes from a CITGO gas station over the road from the Pentagon in order to cover up evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon. Instead of going through with the missile attack and then confiscating the footage, surely it would have been easier to just do it at night, instead of during rush hour on a clear day, in broad daylight?

7) And why a missile? Surely there are easier ways to create an explosion. People could see the missile if there was one, so isn't that a massive risk? Again, why not do it at night when people wouldn't be able to see the missile so easily?





He's saying he doesn't think Hanjour flew the aircraft into the Pentagon. That literally makes him a conspiracy theorist. Why he's saying that, I've no idea. Just typical that the one commercial pilot I know of on here is one of the few people who doesn't believe what happened, happened. They exist. Their views are very much in the minority.




The NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) investigated the collapse of Building 7 and found no evidence of a controlled explosion. They found no evidence to support conspiracy theories such as the collapse being the result of explosives; it found that a combination of factors including physical damage, fire, and the building's unusual construction set off a chain-reaction collapse. The North Tower of the WTC collapsed which damaged the south face of the building and started lots of small fires which continued to burn throughout the afternoon. It's all there in the NIST's report.




They're a bunch of conspiracy theorists! Just because you call yourself something which sounds important, it doesn't mean you are! The REAL organization for architects (American Institute of Architects) want nothing to do with them!

Architects Shy From Trutherism

Even as the new World Trade Center buildings are preparing to come online, one architect still maintains that the original towers were brought down by explosives—and has tried in vain to find an audience in the AIA.

www.architectmagazine.com

"The AIA itself, however, is firm about its relationship with Gage. “We don’t have any relationship with his organization whatsoever,” Scott Frank, head of media relations for the AIA, told me.
The former employee of the Walnut Creek, Calif.-based architectural firm Akol & Yoshii is a full-time 9/11 conspiracy theorist, but Gage tries to maintain a façade of being a scientist asking scientific questions. He does his best to avoid the murkier political questions of who could have orchestrated a conspiracy theory and cover-up of the size and scope that the 9/11 conspiracy movement alleges, but his technical views are actually quite mainstream within the Truth movement."




Sorry. No idea why I thought otherwise, especially as we've chatted on Instagram. You do realise I'm Betty, don't you?




I've not questioned the fact that I drew you into this discussion. I was just rather hoping you wouldn't be a conspiracy theorist too.





I have spoken to lots of other commerical pilot colleagues this afternoon at work, and they don't share your view. They can't understand why you think it would be so difficult. They find the whole idea that anything is being covered up. A guy hijacked AA77 and flew it into the Pentagon. Not particularly challenging.

Yeah I realize that it’s Betty.

Well that has to stand for them, I’ve flown the 75 and I would be hard pressed to do what that dude did. And maybe your other airline pilot friends are better than me.

 

[David Brent]

Why is there so much testimony of explosion inside the buildings,why is there testimony of an explosion in building 2 even prior to the plane hitting?

Because people have incredibly unreliable memories during times of trauma or stress. It's very common to hear eyewitnesses describe "flames" coming from aircraft which are about to crash, yet there are numerous examples over the years of MANY witnesses to air crashes seeing fire that it turns out just wasn't there.

Why was there active thermitic material discovered in the dust?

There wasn't.

And what I don't understand is, why would there be a need for an explosion? What would be the point of rigging up the Twin Towers and the adjacent buildings with explosives, and all the risk that carries? Wasn't hijacking four aircraft and crashing them into buildings enough to justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq? Why blow up the buildings as well?

Fine, that you (or others, which disagree with them) call those 2000 academic people conspiracy theorists. Then we are at the beginning again: If you don't want to discuss with your "oponent", the new way of handling this is denying them as conspiracy theorists.

And what do you mean with REAL? The organization, which I'm talking of is named "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" and not American Institute of Architects. Yes, in both names the word "architect" comes up. Thats it. To confuse both, you have to be brain dead or superficial as possible. So what are you supposing here?

They can call themselves whatever they want. It doesn't mean anybody has to take them seriously. Oh, they've called themselves something with "architect" in their name? Well they're hardly going to call themselves "9/11 nutjobs" are they? As it stands, "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" hardly sounds reasonable as it is. Imagine calling yourself that and expecting to be taken seriously.

No, the American Institue of Architects is the respected body.

 

[donkeykong]

Because people have incredibly unreliable memories during times of trauma or stress. It's very common to hear eyewitnesses describe "flames" coming from aircraft which are about to crash, yet there are numerous examples over the years of MANY witnesses to air crashes seeing fire that it turns out just wasn't there.

No,you're just full of shit,Betty. You're just free styling these weak excuses now! Give it a rest,it's really sad.

There wasn't.

And what I don't understand is, why would there be a need for an explosion? What would be the point of rigging up the Twin Towers and the adjacent buildings with explosives, and all the risk that carries? Wasn't hijacking four aircraft and crashing them into buildings enough to justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq? Why blow up the buildings as well?

Yes there was,it was in the video I posted. Don't you tire of being wrong all the time? The rest of your questions proves the lack of understanding you hold still. Go back to the questions I asked you previously and do a deep dive outside of the bullshit official narrative already.

 

[David Brent]

No,you're just full of shit,Betty. You're just free styling these weak excuses now! Give it a rest,it's really sad.

Psychologists call it "false memory". It's a phenomenon which was studied and investigated by Loftus and Palmer in the 70s. It's commonly associated with recalling disasters. For example, there was a terrorist explosion in Bologna in 1980, and in a study 92% of respondants said the station clock had stopped ever since the attack, yet it was in fact repaired shortly after. The reason so many people thought it hadn't operated since the explosion is due to a well-publicised rememberance event where the clock WAS stopped briefly in order to commemorate the people who'd died. That image was stronger than the terrorist event itself and therefore the brain created a false memory.

There's plenty to read if you're interested.

BBC NEWS | UK | The problem with eyewitnesses

Mr Roberts cited a study of Amsterdam residents who lived near the site of a 1992 plane crash that claimed 43 lives after a cargo jet smashed into an apartment block. "The crash was never filmed. But quite a large proportion were adamant they had seen footage on TV and could recall images that were very graphic. "They had got all this information from various sources but remembered it as an image they had seen on TV." And setting aside all these factors, eyewitnesses can get things wrong because of interpretation.


This is a common feature of many accidents and eye witness reports, such as for air crashes. The brain fills in blanks, basically.

I know what I'm talking about. We study human factors A LOT in my profession. I'm an instructor as well as an air traffic controller. You keep calling me "dummy", yet I could wipe the floor with you, intellectually.

 

[donkeykong]

Psychologists call it "false memory". It's a phenomenon which was studied and investigated by Loftus and Palmer in the 70s. It's commonly associated with recalling disasters. For example, there was a terrorist explosion in Bologna in 1980, and in a study 92% of respondants said the station clock had stopped ever since the attack, yet it was in fact repaired shortly after. The reason so many people thought it hadn't operated since the explosion is due to a well-publicised rememberance event where the clock WAS stopped briefly in order to commemorate the people who'd died. That image was stronger than the terrorist event itself and therefore the brain created a false memory.

This is a common feature of many accidents and eye witness reports, such as for air crashes. The brain fills in blanks, basically.

I know what I'm talking about. We study human factors A LOT in my profession. I'm an instructor as well as an air traffic controller. You keep calling me "dummy", yet I could wipe the floor with you, intellectually.

Wipe the floor with me huh like you did in the other thread? You've been proven wrong several times already. You couldn't wipe the floor with a mop it seems.

 

[David Brent]

Wipe the floor with me huh like you did in the other thread? You've been proven wrong several times already. You couldn't wipe the floor with a mop it seems.

You're ranting on an internet forum about 9/11 being faked, and yet I'm the one who's wrong.

Get some help, you utter fruit-loop.

 

[donkeykong]

You're ranting on an internet forum about 9/11 being faked, and yet I'm the one who's wrong.

Get some help, you utter fruit-loop.

You're ranting on it being real,that's irony in all this. Anyway,perhaps not engaging me is a better option. You're poor interlocutor anyhow. Waste of my time dealing with you.

 

[manuelf]

They can call themselves whatever they want. It doesn't mean anybody has to take them seriously. Oh, they've called themselves something with "architect" in their name? Well they're hardly going to call themselves "9/11 nutjobs" are they? As it stands, "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" hardly sounds reasonable as it is. Imagine calling yourself that and expecting to be taken seriously.

No, the American Institue of Architects is the respected body.

Ok, Betty. Now I lost you!
There are around 2000 people, which happen to be engineers and architects.
They all are convinced, that the official narrative, what happened 9/11, is NOT true.
Then they name themselves "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth". This very straightforward for me!
Please stop with your reference to AIA! Those are totally different organizations. They just happen to have both "architect" in their name. That "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" want to get confused with AIA is just your wild theory backed by nothing.

 

[Matski]

Now flying a 757 into the pentagon which is a low building and also not fly into the top of it rather hit it from the side.
....
A clean flight into the side of the pentagon.. lol you might as well believe any odd shit then.

I'm certainly no expert on flying, or building demolition, or the attack on the Pentagon... but I have to ask, if the task is merely to hit the Pentagon, rather than specifically hit the side of it, is it still as tough of a task?

Looking on Google maps at the Pentagon, and the Ronald Reagan Airport next door (1.8km away), surely any pilot that can put a plane down in the right spot on a runway that size, could also have put an aircraft down on the Pentagon? It's not like it needed to be a smooth landing afterall.

Just curious.

 

[martinbo]

... but I have to ask, if the task is merely to hit the Pentagon, rather than specifically hit the side of it, is it still as tough of a task?

The issue is the purported impact speed of circa 800 km/h. Much higher than the average approach speed of around 250 km/h.

 

[Matski]

The issue is the purported impact speed of circa 800 km/h. Much higher than the average approach speed of around 250 km/h.

Fair enough, like I say, I'm no expert on flying, so I'll assume that it is to some degree harder at higher speed, but the question still stands, with none of the finesse of keeping an aircraft in it's landing orientation, at near stall speed, that a comfortable, safe, 250km/h landing requires - and a 120,000ish m² target to hit - how hard would it actually be? I'm just surprised fully trained, proven, capable pilots don't think it's possible, given what such a pilot can actually do, that's all.

 

[martinbo]

I'm just surprised fully trained, proven, capable pilots don't think it's possible, given what such a pilot can actually do, that's all.

Yeah mate, I'm of the same impression as you. Just trying to figure out how people could deem otherwise.

 

[LaArtist]

I'm certainly no expert on flying, or building demolition, or the attack on the Pentagon... but I have to ask, if the task is merely to hit the Pentagon, rather than specifically hit the side of it, is it still as tough of a task?

Looking on Google maps at the Pentagon, and the Ronald Reagan Airport next door (1.8km away), surely any pilot that can put a plane down in the right spot on a runway that size, could also have put an aircraft down on the Pentagon? It's not like it needed to be a smooth landing afterall.

Just curious.

View attachment 518412

Right so the air traveling over the wind and the speed of it simply speaking generates lift. At normal touchdown speeds there is less lift produced than at 800 km/h. Issue that happens is that it hit the side of the building at 800km/h meaning as it descended and flared ( went level ) speed reduces. Now if you hit wings level at 800 you probably descend way above in speed, let’s say 1000-1200 km/h .
So from that speed to level out without hitting the ground and drifting km’s before hitting the building is highly unlikely.
As the elevator does not have the authority ( size ) to stop such a high speed rate of descent you will “fall through”. Either crashing at the spot or going into pieces drifting into the building.
There is one way though that you level off waaaay outside the building speed up and fly level. That would certainly leave destruction along the path and for sure someone would have seen this and put it on tape. The pentagon is not in the middle of nowhere exactly.
hope this helps

 

[David Brent]

I'm certainly no expert on flying, or building demolition, or the attack on the Pentagon... but I have to ask, if the task is merely to hit the Pentagon, rather than specifically hit the side of it, is it still as tough of a task?

The sceptics are saying "even a very skilled pilot wouldn't be able to place that aircraft where it hit the Pentagon, yet the hijacker did". But the thing to remember here is that the hijacker wasn't necessarily aiming to do that either. He may have been aiming elsewhere and only ended up hitting the side of the building by accident. A lot of luck may have been involved.

On 19th July 1989, UA232, a DC-10 flying from Denver to Chicago, crashed after an undetected fatigue crack in the number 2 engine caused the fan turbine to have an uncontained engine failure and shatter. This severed all hydraulic lines and the pilots were only able to control the aircraft via the use of the thrust levers on number 1 and 3 engines. They managed to bring the aircraft down on the runway at Sioux City airport, albeit hard and fast, which resulted in the aircraft cartwheeling into a nearby field. However, 184 people survived the crash.

The NTSB investigation requested several crews attempt to land a DC-10 in the simulator under similar conditions. While some level of control was possible, no precision could be achieved, and a landing under these conditions was stated to be "a highly random event". Pilots were unable to reproduce a survivable landing; according to a United pilot at the time, "most of the simulations never even made it close to the ground".

The point being, just because something seems difficult to achieve, it doesn't mean it's impossible, if only through luck.

Fair enough, like I say, I'm no expert on flying, so I'll assume that it is to some degree harder at higher speed, but the question still stands, with none of the finesse of keeping an aircraft in it's landing orientation, at near stall speed, that a comfortable, safe, 250km/h landing requires - and a 120,000ish m² target to hit - how hard would it actually be? I'm just surprised fully trained, proven, capable pilots don't think it's possible, given what such a pilot can actually do, that's all.

I know many qualified commercial pilots, I work with several, and I've spoken to them directly, and they say there's no reason to think AA77 wasn't crashed into the side of the Pentagon exactly as in the official report. That's just their opinion, but conspiracy theorists only care about the opinions that fit their own narrative, not the ones that completely contradict what they think.

If it didn't happen, it also opens up a whole load of questions as to what DID happen, and nobody seems to be able to provide answers.

Who was flying AA77?
If it was a missle, then where did AA77 go when it departed Dulles airport half an hour earlier? It didn't just disappear.
If it was a missile, why would it be fired in broad daylight during rush hour? Why not at night?

Yeah mate, I'm of the same impression as you. Just trying to figure out how people could deem otherwise.

It genuinely baffles me. I said it earlier in this thread. A conspiracy provides comfort for those unable to cope with reality.

I have a colleague (a qualified ATCO of nearly 20 years, like myself) who adamantly believes MH370 was hijacked on its way from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing by the Americans, and is still on the island of Socotra in the Indian Ocean. Even when you point out the evidence which proves that isn't true, and knowing what she knows as an ATCO which proves her theory cannot be true, she still refuses to change her mind. She just says the official evidence is fake. I'm hearing a lot of that in this thread. Conspiracy theorists don't have the burden of proof to worry about they just say it's "fake". When you ask them, so what do YOU think happened, and how do you explain "xyz", you just get the response "it's not my job to know". The first assertion by donkeykong I responded to was the idea that the four hijackers had "virtually no flying experience", yet that is demonstrably untrue. They had LOTS of flying experience, and even Commercial Pilots Licenses issued by the FAA, and many hours training in jet flight simulators. So when this same person is saying they found explosive material in the rubble of the Twin Towers, why should anybody take any notice?

The internet is a great invention, but it also has its downsides. Thirty years ago, people with these views would be laughed at as they ranted in Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, London. Nowadays, they can find like-minded people all over the world with a click of a mouse and call themselves "independent thinkers", just because they pick and choose what "evidence" they want to believe.

 

[David Brent]

Right so the air traveling over the wind and the speed of it simply speaking generates lift. At normal touchdown speeds there is less lift produced than at 800 km/h. Issue that happens is that it hit the side of the building at 800km/h meaning as it descended and flared ( went level ) speed reduces. Now if you hit wings level at 800 you probably descend way above in speed, let’s say 1000-1200 km/h .

It wasn't travelling at 800km/h though. It was estimated to be travelling at 560km/h.

So from that speed to level out without hitting the ground and drifting km’s before hitting the building is highly unlikely.

1) It DID hit the ground first.

2) It came in largely in level flight before banking right. It clipped several lamp posts, hit a helipad, which dissipated a lot of the energy, before bouncing up and hitting the side of the Pentagon between the 1st and 2nd floors.

As the elevator does not have the authority ( size ) to stop such a high speed rate of descent you will “fall through”. Either crashing at the spot or going into pieces drifting into the building.

But it wasn't descending. It was largely in level flight before it hit, and if you've ever been to the Pentagon, you'll know the location allows this.

There is one way though that you level off waaaay outside the building speed up and fly level. That would certainly leave destruction along the path and for sure someone would have seen this and put it on tape. The pentagon is not in the middle of nowhere exactly.
hope this helps

But it WAS captured on camera. The footage from the security guard house caught the moment of impact, but due to the low quality of the camera and the frame rate not being high enough, the aircraft only appears as a white streak. This of course led to conspiracy theorists pushing the "missile" narrative. There was also a camera at the CITGO petrol station, but that was useless because the camera was pointing away from the crash site. A third camera was located at a nearby Doubletree hotel, but that also was of poor quality. You have to remember, this was nearly 20 years ago where cameras used in CCTV were not of particularly high quality, and also not as prevalent.

There were LOTS of eyewitness reports of the aircraft flying into the side of the Pentagon. Firefighters also confirmed an aircraft flew into the Pentagon.


For people who want to know facts rather than inaccuracies thatpeople are pushing, the link below debunks the myths about AA77 (I know the conspiracy theorists won't be interested):

The notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud. Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that “the American government is lying.”

FACT CHECK: Was the 9/11 Pentagon Attack Faked?

A Boeing 757, and not a cruise missile or anything else, caused damage to the Pentagon on 9/11.

www.snopes.com

 

[donkeykong]

Remember the BBC reporter talking about the collapse of building 7 while it was still standing over her left shoulder? A full 20 minutes before it's collapse. What logical explanation does anyone have on reporting the collapsed of a building that is still visibly standing?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Betty is pulling his "facts" from Snopes now? HAHAHAHAHA! That's hilarious,this is the kind of media he relies on for determining "facts". Makes perfect sense now.