68
Footage of the missile hitting Pentagon on 9/11
(video.twimg.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
68 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13460 readers
939 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
No missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11. It was a plane u dunce.
Where is the plane then?
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.
planes land every day
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.
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.
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.
I agree, safely landing at 850 kph sounds tough
Ground effect would help: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_(aerodynamics)
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.
Flight simulator really pays for itself
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
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 wingtip
To 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