Bravo to this brave woman! If look at the only video the FBI has released of the CC footage of the seconds leading up to impact and the impact itself frame by frame, you can clearly see it was a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. But this really doesn't matter because everyone involved will be dead before any of the truth of that day sees a courtroom. We are out 60 years from the JFK assassination and even Trump refused to disclose what we all know about that fateful day!
Not a cruise missile and the video is very blurry, due to exposure smear. Far too large for that. No cruise missile files that close to the ground. Wreckage was found, consistent with the airplane being a 757. The flight was tracked by radar from its origin at the airport. The collision was witnessed by a person who was flying above at the time. What you claim to know is only fantasy.
Not here to debate anyone, but of course I have questions...
There was round hole in the building, at ground level. Even with landing gear retracted a 757 couldn't get that low. So what could?
A round hole means 757 wings didn't penetrate the building, and no pieces of wings were outside the building, so where did they go?
The first reporter on the scene, minutes after the event, broadcast live and reported that there was no sign of a plane, or any plane wreckage. I'd imagine that video has been scrubbed from the Internet, but a lot of us here have seen it. Why would he report that, and then have his report scrubbed from the Internet?
Why did the FBI gather all surveillance camera footage from around the Pentagon area and keep it sealed to this day? Why can't we see it? It reminds me of how they still won't unseal the evidence of the JFK assassination. Or how they tried to seal the Pfizer data for 75 years. Hiding evidence makes you look guilty, just sayin'.
The 757 was in a shallow dive and impacted, seemingly, coming in on its belly. (The engines may have been torn off by ground encounter.)
The wings, along with the rest of the airplane, were torn to shreds by the collision. Apparently, the wings also folded aft upon encountering a drag load (concrete) over a thousand times their design limit.
I have been to Africa and haven't seen a zebra in the wild. Does that mean there are no zebras? I haven't seen any elephants, either, and they are claimed to be there. Just because someone fails to "see" something doesn't mean the something is not present. I come into my home and walk about, not seeing any intruder. Of course, I will not see the intruder in my bedroom closet. And someone new to the scene, nowhere near where the wreckage is located, not having any access to it, would report "I can't see anything." An old and valid principle of formal logic is "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (This is connected to the formal difficulty of proving a negative statement.) But there was evidence. It was all mingled with the building debris, as one might expect. It doesn't take much searching to find photos of, e.g., a fuselage panel with livery, and an engine turbine disk.
Hmmm....why would the FBI prevent the public from knowing where all the surveillance cameras are? Could it be that such information is classified, and is a matter of vulnerability for the Pentagon? Ask them. Just because you don't know the answer is no basis for dreaming up an answer. But you tell me: if the evidence is collected by classified means, do you expose the means to public knowledge? Generally, the answer is "no." (By the way, was it the FBI or one of the military security services? We tend to be sloppy and assume the former, but I have my doubts that the FBI would have clearance to obtain custody of the footage.)
And what are you to think it was a 747, when it was a 757? It wasn't "parallel" to the ground. The wings clipped the top off a streetlight. It was in a shallow dive. That sort of flying happens all the time; they are called take-offs and landings.
I am an aeronautical engineer with 40 years experience at the Boeing Company, and am familiar with its product line and product capabilities. Do you want to give me lessons?
You personally know the size of every cruise missile in existence? A missile couldn't be built to match the size of a Boeing? A Boeing cannot fly that close to the ground going that speed...a cruise missile for sure can! Did you see the radar signature? Were you there or did you just hear about that bit of fantasy on CNN? Did you personally interview the ONE person that saw the Boeing that hit? Knowing what I know about aircraft after having been in the industry for 40 years...there was no airplane that hit the Pentagon and it takes far more faith in your fantasy to believe that to believe we were lied to...
We're not talking about imaginary missiles. The largest operational cruise missile currently is the AGM-86, which were build at the plant where I worked. I saw inert fuselages in a transportation corridor in another building and became quite familiar with their size and shape. Far too small to do the trick---and I continue to repeat, there is POSITIVE eyewitness identification of the airliner. In effect, there was a "missile" built to match the size of a Boeing 757---but it was a Boeing 757. It is clear that you do not personally know the size of every cruise missile in existence.
There is nothing to prevent the airplane from flying that close to the ground, especially when it is in a shallow dive. Where did you get your aeronautical engineering degree? I have 3 of them from the University of Washington. The 757 crash speed was 550 mph (maximum specification speed is 571 mph, but that is under its own power only, not in a dive). The Land World Speed record (wheeled vehicle) is 760 mph. A cruise missile wouldn't fly that low because it would be in danger of hitting ground clutter before it got to the target.
The Wikipedia article on American Airlines Flight 77 has a map of the radar ground track. Or are you going full-paranoid-denialist and refuse any evidence that you haven't seen personally? And even evidence that you can see? Why would you even bother to argue over this? It indicates to me that you are flailing to find a case.
So, no witnesses means nothing happened? How many traffic accidents were you in a position to see and know what you were seeing. How do you know that it was only one person who saw anything? There were multiple witnesses, including one that was airborne.
My friend, what company were you in and what did you do? I worked for Boeing and was familiar with airplane size, construction, and performance, as well as with cruise missiles. You know less than you think you know.
Take a look at yourself. You are simply denying all the evidence---period. Anyone doing careful metrology of the image will see that the shape was far too large to be a missile---and a missile could never have produced so much damage with no explosion. The tip-off is your pathetic appeal to imagination ("a missile couldn't be built to match the size of a Boeing?"). This is the real world and we have to cope with what is real in this world. Not invoke imaginary worlds. (The largest cruise missile we have ever built was the SM-62 "Snark," but it was pulled out of service in 1961 because it was less accurate than an ICBM and only 5 museum examples exist today.)
It's obvious that you are buying into the government narrative about what happened that day. Sometimes people can have too much education and not enough real life experience and this produces overeducated fools like yourself.
Assuming you are drinking the entirety of the governments Koolaid, how do you explain the unconventionally unexplainable collapse of WTC7? And with regard to WTC7, if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you DON'T believe the ridiculous government/NIST conclusion that the freefall collapse of WTC7 occurred due to a few isolated fires created by WTC1 and WTC2, my reasoned question is if the insider culprits responsible for WTC7 controlled demolition were willing to go to those lengths to bring that building down as well as WTC1 and WTC2, how in the world can you not imagine the lengths they would go to fake a Boeing hitting the Pentagon? With unlimited resources what lengths could our government go to. Additional questions arise as well. For instance, why are you discounting the testimony of the individuals who said they saw NO airplane parts, luggage, bodies or passenger seating (which pairs exactly with any and all photos I have ever seen of the aftermath)? This contradicts the testimony of those people you harken to. How do you explain no landing gear or core engine parts, no tail, etc. I have never seen a large jet aircraft crash...no matter how destroyed on impact that didn't leave some recognizable part identifying it as indeed a large airliner! How do you explain the video recording that started our dialogue is the only video of that incident the government has allowed to be seen? The Pentagon is the most secure structure in the United States and every square inch of that building is surveilled. How is it that the FBI confiscated all the videos and will not release them? Why is this?
I have 35 years experience flying jet aircraft. Based on the one video released, I can 100% guarantee you that there isn't a pilot alive that could have centerpunched the building at that speed and mere feet from the ground over a distance of what looked like at least several hundred yards to impact. And assuming there is a skilled pilot who could fly that distance just feet off the ground at close to the speed of sound, to keep the aircraft from hitting the ground before it reached the Pentagon would have been nothing shy of amazing! I ask you personally, have you ever tried to fly a small Cessna at altitude, by hand and maintain said altitude within just a few feet for any period of time? I have many hours of instructing under my belt as well and I know how impossible this is for any pilot especially for an individual with no real world piloting experience like the so called "terrorists!" Those individuals supposedly had NO real world experience hand flying a large Boeing! Dude the whole narrative is absurd to say the least and it just shows how gullible some people are and the lack of critical thinking when it comes to twisting their own natural logic into making it fit the most suspect government/media narrative!
But why stop here? If you are such an expert on the Boeing aircraft, then you know what is in the nose of a Boeing airplane right? First off, it houses the radome and avionics equipment and the nose itself is made of lightweight composite material so as to not affect the operation of the weather radar system. After that it's basically a hollow metal tube. Now from what I understand, the walls of the Pentagon were made of at least 3 feet of rebar reinforced concrete. Of course coming from our government, who knows if this is even the case, but assuming it is, how could a basically hollow aircraft tube structure made of composite and lightweight aluminum material center punch a perfect 12' diameter hole in solid concrete? And then we are to believe that the actual parts of the plane (i.e. the engines) that could have done this kind of damage...DIDN'T? There was no indication that the engines hit the building at all...in fact there was no evidence that there were any jet engines at all!
I could go on, but you might be an AI bot for all I know. In any case, it definitely takes more faith to believe in your fantasy world than it does to believe that we have actually been severely lied to about the worst terrorist attack (pre Covid of course) ever to occur on US soil. As long as people like you keep spreading the government lies, we will never get to the truth and the families of the victims will continue to suffer not knowing the truth...shame on you!
You think in terms of package deals, not event by event. Everything must be explained to your satisfaction. Well, WTC7 caught fire, burned for a prolonged time in the core, which first collapsed, and then the outer walls followed suit. It's explainable, but you seem to think you know better than the experts (if we are to point to experts). And then you get off into fantasy land about non-existent airplanes and unlimited resources. I work in the aerospace industry; there are no "unlimited" resources (as Ukraine is finding out the hard way).
You also have no skills in logic. I've been to Africa. I haven't seen zebras or elephants. By your logic, they don't exist and are only narrative creations. The people who don't see things---haven't seen things. It does not refute the existence of things that are uncovered after the debris is sifted, including such things as you mentioned (specifically an engine turbine disk), which can be easily found after a few minutes of internet searching. The people who see nothing have no evidence of anything. The people who have seen something have evidence. This is a very elementary point about logical proof, yet you seem to be not only ignorant of it, but hostile to it. It is the basis of the scientific method (and yet you call me a fool).
You also seem to think that posing challenge questions are a method of refutation ("How do you explain...?"). Questions are only proof of ignorance. If there is an alternative explanation, you get to come up with the evidence that it is true and credible. If you are so concerned about the answer, ask the government. Maybe they will give you an answer, maybe not. But as someone who worked at a government-certified secure facility, I can tell you with some confidence that the location, nature, and capability of surveillance equipment is not exposed to the public. I would venture to say that ALL video surveillance records are kept as classified material. 9/11 simply fits into this standard.
Your experience flying jet aircraft does not seem to acquaint you with the extremes of aircraft performance. There was, for example, the 1979 flight of TWA Flight 841 over Michigan, which got into a spiral dive that exceeded the Mach limit of the airframe. The aircraft survived, albeit with permanent structural deformation. A 757 at 550 mph is nowhere near the speed of sound at 767 mph. I don't read that image as showing the distance covered in the frame to be much more than the aircraft length of 155 feet. There is every indication it was in a shallow dive, as the wing would have been at least 10 feet above ground level to clip the streetlight. There is also the presence of the ground effect, which becomes stronger as the aircraft nears the ground. (So strong, in fact, the the first flight of the U-2 had an interesting dilemma because it couldn't land. The ground effect prevented the plane from touching ground. They had to kill the lift by manipulating the control surfaces.) If you are flying into a ground effect environment that will buffer the effect of a dive, the event becomes understandable. 550 mph is 897 feet per second, which is 300 yards in one second. If the pilot set up a reasonable glide path (point the nose), he would have had essentially no time to make an error. And we don't know that these terrorists were not ex-military pilots that may have trained in fighters or transport aircraft, and only needed classwork in the U.S. to spruce up their familiarization. But don't lecture me about letting my imagination carry me away---you are the shining example of that. I tell you who I believe...I believe the pilots that fly 757s and the feedback that filters through the manufacturing and ex-military community at Boeing. Since 9/11, I have never heard of the pilots' union saying Flight 77 was impossible, nor have I heard any scuttlebutt within Boeing that it was technically impossible. Not for the 15 years prior to my retirement. So, I think you are talking outside your expertise.
There's more to an airplane than a tube (e.g., the main deck) and more to forcing structure than dimensions alone. The airplane was fully loaded, and amounted to a projectile weighing 84,000 pounds at a speed of 550 mph, with a cross-sectional area of, say, 144 square feet. So imagine a weight having the frontal area of a small kitchen, weighing 42 tons, falling from a height of 2 1/3 miles. Yeah, I think it would smash through concrete curtain walls and some interior columns. Not and stay together, of course, which is where people go wrong in their thinking. High winds or rushing flood currents can rapidly destroy major structure, and there is nothing solid about air or water. It is about momentum, more than about material strength. As for the engines, they were most likely ripped off the wings by the ground and/or the Pentagon foundation in the final approach (they were about 6 feet lower than the ventral line of the fuselage), and then covered and crushed by the building debris. Parts of them were found.
You could go on---but then I would have to go on---and on---clearing up your misunderstandings. If you think an AI/bot could write like me, prove it. Just one more fanciful idea. I "believe" in facts, and so far the facts are clear. You are the one who refuses to accept facts---because they are discordant with your premise that the government only lies. You don't know this at all. You assume it, and you construct fantasies about it. You don't have any positive evidence of an alternative truth, and you ignore the evidence that exists, or misinterpret it in order to have your fantasy. It is tiresome. And bizarre, because it seems you think it is WORSE for the government to have created a hoax in which no one was killed---than there to have been an air piracy that killed 189 people.
You guys are grasping at straws. He says "a missile, a plane..." That is not recovery from a fatal misidentification, it is the recollection of someone on the scene who did not at that moment know what he saw---which was a plane that had been repurposed to be a missile. He could have said "a something..." and that would have had the same significance.
Is it that you find the truth (airplane full of passengers destroyed in a moment) so terrible, you have to dream up an alternate reality where it didn't happen...and then somehow interpret that "no kill" fantasy as being more terrible than the reality? You are turning your minds into pretzels.
Amazing. Have you seen an okapi? I haven't seen any okapis. Ergo, by your logic, they must not exist. (That was once the official position on okapis.) Please don't bother people with logical fallacies. Nothing more common in courts of law than persons present who didn't see anything. Caught on video. Witnessed by many bystanders and at least one person in flight. Clipped a light pole. Examples of wreckage. The problem is that you don't want to accept what is real. Your conspiracy bias is more important to you than the truth, which means you are dedicated to dishonesty. And you have a strange desire to trivialize the deaths of the passengers (in-flight hostages) as never having happened.
I walked through the memorial set up near the pentagon years ago. At that time, I had bought into the lie that a plane hit the pentagon. Knowing now that it was a lie, so many thoughts race through my head. Great time to pray to God….
God, thank you for giving me the mindset to know it is not right to lie, deceive, cheat, etc. Also, thank you for giving me the mindset to know how to apologize, ask for forgiveness, and learn from my mistakes when I do wrong. God be with those who let power, greed, fear, jealousy, etc. overrule their judgement to be kind and truthful to one another.
from the video from the near by ATM it looked like missile painted in American Airline corporate colors to me...and the walls of the Pentagon are missing the impact markers where a couple 3 ton plus engines should be. Should be 3 holes in the wall not one.
It was the 757 in AA livery. A cruise missile would have been much smaller. The recovered engine turbine disk was much larger than that in a cruise missile. People on the scene identified the aircraft as a plane. A cruise missile would have been hard to see.
You are plugging in your expectation bias instead of objective analysis.
It was smaller then the plane claimed to be involved...damage on the pentagon suggests missile. The ATM video maybe low grade and only about 20-30 frames max...but what is there is no passenger jet. Newton's law of motion being the guide....kind of impossible that there is no engine nacelle damage on the wall. Just the facts as I know them. 3.5 tons x 2 traveling at high speed comes to a sudden stop, not so much as nick on the wall where engines should have impacted which is about 10 to 12 foot away from the main passenger fuselage itself, the claim that the wings folded is bullshit as the leading edge of a modern wing is the strongest part of the airframe followed by the landing gear but that's a subsystem of the aircraft. I don't expect anything.
Given your multiple objections and statements to the nature of our collective findings you of course are free to think otherwise but in the meantime here is a link to a good read:
Your problem is that you don't know what you are talking about. The ATM video that I saw had maybe one frame available of the full airplane, but what there was had the American Airlines livery...and it was the right size compared to the height of the Pentagon. The final hole was much larger than the fuselage diameter. Since they found components of the engines, the facts are more important than your imagination. The wings folding is quite reasonable, as they were designed to withstand the drag force of air, not the drag force of concrete, which is over a thousand times denser. The leading edge of the wing is NOT the strongest part of the airframe. The strong parts are the wing box beam that is in the fuselage, and the wing beams themselves, which are all designed to support lift and gravity loads---not crashing into concrete. This is consistent with the mid-air crash of a B-25 into the Empire State Building in 1945.
The objections are: the video captured an American Airlines airplane; multiple ground and aloft witnesses saw the airplane, the airplane wing clipped off a streetlamp (which would have fatally damaged a cruise missile); there was no explosion, just a fireball from ignited jet fuel; the AA flight was tracked by radar from takeoff to collision; the passengers are dead and gone; there was aircraft wreckage found in the debris. All of these are facts.
Your "findings" are all imaginary. You misconstrue an airplane to be some unspecified "cruise missile" on the strength of a blurry image. You ignore the fact that had a cruise missile clipped a streetlight, it would have been fatally deflected from its path (cruise missile wings are strong for their size, but not much bigger than a surfboard). You ignore the fact that even terrain-following cruise missiles do not fly so low---because they would encounter fatal obstacles. You ignore the fact that precision attack cruise missiles dive at their target (in order to minimize the effect of height error on miss distance). So, your "findings" are a mixture of wishful thinking and ignorance.
And the Pentagon was not melted, so what are you trying to say? You need to get a grip on logical thinking.
By the way, jet fuel can melt aluminum easily, and also steel. Do your research on adiabatic flame temperature and melting points. Stop repeating ignorance. But nothing was melted in this event.
Wow. "I didn't see anything to show what the cause was---but obviously the official explanation is all made up." She goes directly from an experience where she observed nothing, to a package-deal conclusion based on having observed nothing. How can observing nothing mean that anything else is "obvious"? Can no one see the ideological motive driving her account?
It makes one think that her only concern was for the lives of the people in the Pentagon, and not for any passengers obliterated in the collision. Easy to erase the passengers from concern by inventing the fantasy that they never existed.
It is a commonplace in accidents of all kinds that the direct participants can have widely varying accounts of what happened. This has been demonstrated over and over again in psychological experiments. In this case, evidence had to be sifted and sorted from the mass of building wreckage that was created. It was not just lying around, in large intact pieces.
As for jet fuel, the fact that one was not doused in it is not evidence against there being any. The impact fireball is pretty definite evidence of jet fuel being ignited by the collision. Why didn't it then burn more? Because it was extinguished by the building mass coming down on it. Got a puddle of burning gasoline? Just put it out with a few shovelfuls of dirt or sand---or pulverized concrete. Same principle.
Advice to her: Stay away from windows, don’t start your car, eat only out of coin op vending machines, don’t fly, don’t get a tattoo $whackd, stay out of MCC New York METROPOLITAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER 150 PARK ROW NEW YORK, NY 10007 jail system ask Epstein. Don’t go to a Clinton, Obama, Bush, Biden house party, stay away from any offices that have plastic visqueen as a floor covering. Don’t get into any government cars, especially if it’s the D.O.J, C.I.A., F.B.I.!
I drove past the hole in the Pentagon on Washington Blvd and hour after the strike. I saw nothing resembling plane wreckage.
Bravo to this brave woman! If look at the only video the FBI has released of the CC footage of the seconds leading up to impact and the impact itself frame by frame, you can clearly see it was a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. But this really doesn't matter because everyone involved will be dead before any of the truth of that day sees a courtroom. We are out 60 years from the JFK assassination and even Trump refused to disclose what we all know about that fateful day!
Not a cruise missile and the video is very blurry, due to exposure smear. Far too large for that. No cruise missile files that close to the ground. Wreckage was found, consistent with the airplane being a 757. The flight was tracked by radar from its origin at the airport. The collision was witnessed by a person who was flying above at the time. What you claim to know is only fantasy.
Not here to debate anyone, but of course I have questions...
There was round hole in the building, at ground level. Even with landing gear retracted a 757 couldn't get that low. So what could?
A round hole means 757 wings didn't penetrate the building, and no pieces of wings were outside the building, so where did they go?
The first reporter on the scene, minutes after the event, broadcast live and reported that there was no sign of a plane, or any plane wreckage. I'd imagine that video has been scrubbed from the Internet, but a lot of us here have seen it. Why would he report that, and then have his report scrubbed from the Internet?
Why did the FBI gather all surveillance camera footage from around the Pentagon area and keep it sealed to this day? Why can't we see it? It reminds me of how they still won't unseal the evidence of the JFK assassination. Or how they tried to seal the Pfizer data for 75 years. Hiding evidence makes you look guilty, just sayin'.
The 757 was in a shallow dive and impacted, seemingly, coming in on its belly. (The engines may have been torn off by ground encounter.)
The wings, along with the rest of the airplane, were torn to shreds by the collision. Apparently, the wings also folded aft upon encountering a drag load (concrete) over a thousand times their design limit.
I have been to Africa and haven't seen a zebra in the wild. Does that mean there are no zebras? I haven't seen any elephants, either, and they are claimed to be there. Just because someone fails to "see" something doesn't mean the something is not present. I come into my home and walk about, not seeing any intruder. Of course, I will not see the intruder in my bedroom closet. And someone new to the scene, nowhere near where the wreckage is located, not having any access to it, would report "I can't see anything." An old and valid principle of formal logic is "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (This is connected to the formal difficulty of proving a negative statement.) But there was evidence. It was all mingled with the building debris, as one might expect. It doesn't take much searching to find photos of, e.g., a fuselage panel with livery, and an engine turbine disk.
Hmmm....why would the FBI prevent the public from knowing where all the surveillance cameras are? Could it be that such information is classified, and is a matter of vulnerability for the Pentagon? Ask them. Just because you don't know the answer is no basis for dreaming up an answer. But you tell me: if the evidence is collected by classified means, do you expose the means to public knowledge? Generally, the answer is "no." (By the way, was it the FBI or one of the military security services? We tend to be sloppy and assume the former, but I have my doubts that the FBI would have clearance to obtain custody of the footage.)
You're an idiot if you believe a 747 could fly parallel to the ground like that at those speeds they said it was flying at.
And what are you to think it was a 747, when it was a 757? It wasn't "parallel" to the ground. The wings clipped the top off a streetlight. It was in a shallow dive. That sort of flying happens all the time; they are called take-offs and landings.
I am an aeronautical engineer with 40 years experience at the Boeing Company, and am familiar with its product line and product capabilities. Do you want to give me lessons?
You personally know the size of every cruise missile in existence? A missile couldn't be built to match the size of a Boeing? A Boeing cannot fly that close to the ground going that speed...a cruise missile for sure can! Did you see the radar signature? Were you there or did you just hear about that bit of fantasy on CNN? Did you personally interview the ONE person that saw the Boeing that hit? Knowing what I know about aircraft after having been in the industry for 40 years...there was no airplane that hit the Pentagon and it takes far more faith in your fantasy to believe that to believe we were lied to...
We're not talking about imaginary missiles. The largest operational cruise missile currently is the AGM-86, which were build at the plant where I worked. I saw inert fuselages in a transportation corridor in another building and became quite familiar with their size and shape. Far too small to do the trick---and I continue to repeat, there is POSITIVE eyewitness identification of the airliner. In effect, there was a "missile" built to match the size of a Boeing 757---but it was a Boeing 757. It is clear that you do not personally know the size of every cruise missile in existence.
There is nothing to prevent the airplane from flying that close to the ground, especially when it is in a shallow dive. Where did you get your aeronautical engineering degree? I have 3 of them from the University of Washington. The 757 crash speed was 550 mph (maximum specification speed is 571 mph, but that is under its own power only, not in a dive). The Land World Speed record (wheeled vehicle) is 760 mph. A cruise missile wouldn't fly that low because it would be in danger of hitting ground clutter before it got to the target.
The Wikipedia article on American Airlines Flight 77 has a map of the radar ground track. Or are you going full-paranoid-denialist and refuse any evidence that you haven't seen personally? And even evidence that you can see? Why would you even bother to argue over this? It indicates to me that you are flailing to find a case.
So, no witnesses means nothing happened? How many traffic accidents were you in a position to see and know what you were seeing. How do you know that it was only one person who saw anything? There were multiple witnesses, including one that was airborne.
My friend, what company were you in and what did you do? I worked for Boeing and was familiar with airplane size, construction, and performance, as well as with cruise missiles. You know less than you think you know.
Take a look at yourself. You are simply denying all the evidence---period. Anyone doing careful metrology of the image will see that the shape was far too large to be a missile---and a missile could never have produced so much damage with no explosion. The tip-off is your pathetic appeal to imagination ("a missile couldn't be built to match the size of a Boeing?"). This is the real world and we have to cope with what is real in this world. Not invoke imaginary worlds. (The largest cruise missile we have ever built was the SM-62 "Snark," but it was pulled out of service in 1961 because it was less accurate than an ICBM and only 5 museum examples exist today.)
It's obvious that you are buying into the government narrative about what happened that day. Sometimes people can have too much education and not enough real life experience and this produces overeducated fools like yourself.
Assuming you are drinking the entirety of the governments Koolaid, how do you explain the unconventionally unexplainable collapse of WTC7? And with regard to WTC7, if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you DON'T believe the ridiculous government/NIST conclusion that the freefall collapse of WTC7 occurred due to a few isolated fires created by WTC1 and WTC2, my reasoned question is if the insider culprits responsible for WTC7 controlled demolition were willing to go to those lengths to bring that building down as well as WTC1 and WTC2, how in the world can you not imagine the lengths they would go to fake a Boeing hitting the Pentagon? With unlimited resources what lengths could our government go to. Additional questions arise as well. For instance, why are you discounting the testimony of the individuals who said they saw NO airplane parts, luggage, bodies or passenger seating (which pairs exactly with any and all photos I have ever seen of the aftermath)? This contradicts the testimony of those people you harken to. How do you explain no landing gear or core engine parts, no tail, etc. I have never seen a large jet aircraft crash...no matter how destroyed on impact that didn't leave some recognizable part identifying it as indeed a large airliner! How do you explain the video recording that started our dialogue is the only video of that incident the government has allowed to be seen? The Pentagon is the most secure structure in the United States and every square inch of that building is surveilled. How is it that the FBI confiscated all the videos and will not release them? Why is this?
I have 35 years experience flying jet aircraft. Based on the one video released, I can 100% guarantee you that there isn't a pilot alive that could have centerpunched the building at that speed and mere feet from the ground over a distance of what looked like at least several hundred yards to impact. And assuming there is a skilled pilot who could fly that distance just feet off the ground at close to the speed of sound, to keep the aircraft from hitting the ground before it reached the Pentagon would have been nothing shy of amazing! I ask you personally, have you ever tried to fly a small Cessna at altitude, by hand and maintain said altitude within just a few feet for any period of time? I have many hours of instructing under my belt as well and I know how impossible this is for any pilot especially for an individual with no real world piloting experience like the so called "terrorists!" Those individuals supposedly had NO real world experience hand flying a large Boeing! Dude the whole narrative is absurd to say the least and it just shows how gullible some people are and the lack of critical thinking when it comes to twisting their own natural logic into making it fit the most suspect government/media narrative!
But why stop here? If you are such an expert on the Boeing aircraft, then you know what is in the nose of a Boeing airplane right? First off, it houses the radome and avionics equipment and the nose itself is made of lightweight composite material so as to not affect the operation of the weather radar system. After that it's basically a hollow metal tube. Now from what I understand, the walls of the Pentagon were made of at least 3 feet of rebar reinforced concrete. Of course coming from our government, who knows if this is even the case, but assuming it is, how could a basically hollow aircraft tube structure made of composite and lightweight aluminum material center punch a perfect 12' diameter hole in solid concrete? And then we are to believe that the actual parts of the plane (i.e. the engines) that could have done this kind of damage...DIDN'T? There was no indication that the engines hit the building at all...in fact there was no evidence that there were any jet engines at all!
I could go on, but you might be an AI bot for all I know. In any case, it definitely takes more faith to believe in your fantasy world than it does to believe that we have actually been severely lied to about the worst terrorist attack (pre Covid of course) ever to occur on US soil. As long as people like you keep spreading the government lies, we will never get to the truth and the families of the victims will continue to suffer not knowing the truth...shame on you!
You think in terms of package deals, not event by event. Everything must be explained to your satisfaction. Well, WTC7 caught fire, burned for a prolonged time in the core, which first collapsed, and then the outer walls followed suit. It's explainable, but you seem to think you know better than the experts (if we are to point to experts). And then you get off into fantasy land about non-existent airplanes and unlimited resources. I work in the aerospace industry; there are no "unlimited" resources (as Ukraine is finding out the hard way).
You also have no skills in logic. I've been to Africa. I haven't seen zebras or elephants. By your logic, they don't exist and are only narrative creations. The people who don't see things---haven't seen things. It does not refute the existence of things that are uncovered after the debris is sifted, including such things as you mentioned (specifically an engine turbine disk), which can be easily found after a few minutes of internet searching. The people who see nothing have no evidence of anything. The people who have seen something have evidence. This is a very elementary point about logical proof, yet you seem to be not only ignorant of it, but hostile to it. It is the basis of the scientific method (and yet you call me a fool).
You also seem to think that posing challenge questions are a method of refutation ("How do you explain...?"). Questions are only proof of ignorance. If there is an alternative explanation, you get to come up with the evidence that it is true and credible. If you are so concerned about the answer, ask the government. Maybe they will give you an answer, maybe not. But as someone who worked at a government-certified secure facility, I can tell you with some confidence that the location, nature, and capability of surveillance equipment is not exposed to the public. I would venture to say that ALL video surveillance records are kept as classified material. 9/11 simply fits into this standard.
Your experience flying jet aircraft does not seem to acquaint you with the extremes of aircraft performance. There was, for example, the 1979 flight of TWA Flight 841 over Michigan, which got into a spiral dive that exceeded the Mach limit of the airframe. The aircraft survived, albeit with permanent structural deformation. A 757 at 550 mph is nowhere near the speed of sound at 767 mph. I don't read that image as showing the distance covered in the frame to be much more than the aircraft length of 155 feet. There is every indication it was in a shallow dive, as the wing would have been at least 10 feet above ground level to clip the streetlight. There is also the presence of the ground effect, which becomes stronger as the aircraft nears the ground. (So strong, in fact, the the first flight of the U-2 had an interesting dilemma because it couldn't land. The ground effect prevented the plane from touching ground. They had to kill the lift by manipulating the control surfaces.) If you are flying into a ground effect environment that will buffer the effect of a dive, the event becomes understandable. 550 mph is 897 feet per second, which is 300 yards in one second. If the pilot set up a reasonable glide path (point the nose), he would have had essentially no time to make an error. And we don't know that these terrorists were not ex-military pilots that may have trained in fighters or transport aircraft, and only needed classwork in the U.S. to spruce up their familiarization. But don't lecture me about letting my imagination carry me away---you are the shining example of that. I tell you who I believe...I believe the pilots that fly 757s and the feedback that filters through the manufacturing and ex-military community at Boeing. Since 9/11, I have never heard of the pilots' union saying Flight 77 was impossible, nor have I heard any scuttlebutt within Boeing that it was technically impossible. Not for the 15 years prior to my retirement. So, I think you are talking outside your expertise.
There's more to an airplane than a tube (e.g., the main deck) and more to forcing structure than dimensions alone. The airplane was fully loaded, and amounted to a projectile weighing 84,000 pounds at a speed of 550 mph, with a cross-sectional area of, say, 144 square feet. So imagine a weight having the frontal area of a small kitchen, weighing 42 tons, falling from a height of 2 1/3 miles. Yeah, I think it would smash through concrete curtain walls and some interior columns. Not and stay together, of course, which is where people go wrong in their thinking. High winds or rushing flood currents can rapidly destroy major structure, and there is nothing solid about air or water. It is about momentum, more than about material strength. As for the engines, they were most likely ripped off the wings by the ground and/or the Pentagon foundation in the final approach (they were about 6 feet lower than the ventral line of the fuselage), and then covered and crushed by the building debris. Parts of them were found.
You could go on---but then I would have to go on---and on---clearing up your misunderstandings. If you think an AI/bot could write like me, prove it. Just one more fanciful idea. I "believe" in facts, and so far the facts are clear. You are the one who refuses to accept facts---because they are discordant with your premise that the government only lies. You don't know this at all. You assume it, and you construct fantasies about it. You don't have any positive evidence of an alternative truth, and you ignore the evidence that exists, or misinterpret it in order to have your fantasy. It is tiresome. And bizarre, because it seems you think it is WORSE for the government to have created a hoax in which no one was killed---than there to have been an air piracy that killed 189 people.
Former 9/11 Commissioner admits missile hit the Pentagon (2009)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUmr9dFbf2c
I saw Rumsfeld slip in a conference and say a missile hit the Pentagon. I cannot find that video today.
You guys are grasping at straws. He says "a missile, a plane..." That is not recovery from a fatal misidentification, it is the recollection of someone on the scene who did not at that moment know what he saw---which was a plane that had been repurposed to be a missile. He could have said "a something..." and that would have had the same significance.
Is it that you find the truth (airplane full of passengers destroyed in a moment) so terrible, you have to dream up an alternate reality where it didn't happen...and then somehow interpret that "no kill" fantasy as being more terrible than the reality? You are turning your minds into pretzels.
Troll
You realize, of course, that you only confirm my conviction that you are wrong, by resorting to name-calling. The ultimate in impotent objection.
^^^FED^^^
Amazing. Have you seen an okapi? I haven't seen any okapis. Ergo, by your logic, they must not exist. (That was once the official position on okapis.) Please don't bother people with logical fallacies. Nothing more common in courts of law than persons present who didn't see anything. Caught on video. Witnessed by many bystanders and at least one person in flight. Clipped a light pole. Examples of wreckage. The problem is that you don't want to accept what is real. Your conspiracy bias is more important to you than the truth, which means you are dedicated to dishonesty. And you have a strange desire to trivialize the deaths of the passengers (in-flight hostages) as never having happened.
I walked through the memorial set up near the pentagon years ago. At that time, I had bought into the lie that a plane hit the pentagon. Knowing now that it was a lie, so many thoughts race through my head. Great time to pray to God….
God, thank you for giving me the mindset to know it is not right to lie, deceive, cheat, etc. Also, thank you for giving me the mindset to know how to apologize, ask for forgiveness, and learn from my mistakes when I do wrong. God be with those who let power, greed, fear, jealousy, etc. overrule their judgement to be kind and truthful to one another.
But we saw the chain of people scouring the lawn in search of the 40 foot tail...
... and the missing 2.3 trillion dollars Rumsfeld mentioned, where's the paperwork
it was a modified plane (no seats ) and it came in so fast noting remained.
from the video from the near by ATM it looked like missile painted in American Airline corporate colors to me...and the walls of the Pentagon are missing the impact markers where a couple 3 ton plus engines should be. Should be 3 holes in the wall not one.
This is a very good point.
and then there's the question: wtf did they do with the passengers of the original, 'disappeared' planes
Well, nothing. Because they weren't real flights. There were no passengers.
on these flights, yeah, but some planes with real passengers got to pass for the crashed ones, and these passengers actually disappeared.
It was the 757 in AA livery. A cruise missile would have been much smaller. The recovered engine turbine disk was much larger than that in a cruise missile. People on the scene identified the aircraft as a plane. A cruise missile would have been hard to see.
You are plugging in your expectation bias instead of objective analysis.
It was smaller then the plane claimed to be involved...damage on the pentagon suggests missile. The ATM video maybe low grade and only about 20-30 frames max...but what is there is no passenger jet. Newton's law of motion being the guide....kind of impossible that there is no engine nacelle damage on the wall. Just the facts as I know them. 3.5 tons x 2 traveling at high speed comes to a sudden stop, not so much as nick on the wall where engines should have impacted which is about 10 to 12 foot away from the main passenger fuselage itself, the claim that the wings folded is bullshit as the leading edge of a modern wing is the strongest part of the airframe followed by the landing gear but that's a subsystem of the aircraft. I don't expect anything.
Given your multiple objections and statements to the nature of our collective findings you of course are free to think otherwise but in the meantime here is a link to a good read:
https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Class/intro_physics_1/intro_physics_1.pdf
Your problem is that you don't know what you are talking about. The ATM video that I saw had maybe one frame available of the full airplane, but what there was had the American Airlines livery...and it was the right size compared to the height of the Pentagon. The final hole was much larger than the fuselage diameter. Since they found components of the engines, the facts are more important than your imagination. The wings folding is quite reasonable, as they were designed to withstand the drag force of air, not the drag force of concrete, which is over a thousand times denser. The leading edge of the wing is NOT the strongest part of the airframe. The strong parts are the wing box beam that is in the fuselage, and the wing beams themselves, which are all designed to support lift and gravity loads---not crashing into concrete. This is consistent with the mid-air crash of a B-25 into the Empire State Building in 1945.
The objections are: the video captured an American Airlines airplane; multiple ground and aloft witnesses saw the airplane, the airplane wing clipped off a streetlamp (which would have fatally damaged a cruise missile); there was no explosion, just a fireball from ignited jet fuel; the AA flight was tracked by radar from takeoff to collision; the passengers are dead and gone; there was aircraft wreckage found in the debris. All of these are facts.
Your "findings" are all imaginary. You misconstrue an airplane to be some unspecified "cruise missile" on the strength of a blurry image. You ignore the fact that had a cruise missile clipped a streetlight, it would have been fatally deflected from its path (cruise missile wings are strong for their size, but not much bigger than a surfboard). You ignore the fact that even terrain-following cruise missiles do not fly so low---because they would encounter fatal obstacles. You ignore the fact that precision attack cruise missiles dive at their target (in order to minimize the effect of height error on miss distance). So, your "findings" are a mixture of wishful thinking and ignorance.
jet fuel can't melt the Pentagon
And the Pentagon was not melted, so what are you trying to say? You need to get a grip on logical thinking.
By the way, jet fuel can melt aluminum easily, and also steel. Do your research on adiabatic flame temperature and melting points. Stop repeating ignorance. But nothing was melted in this event.
repeating ignorance??? did I miss the Pentagon melting from a plane crash?
Everybody did. Including the Pentagon.
April Gallop: Survivor Of 9/11 Pentagon Attack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgzEnpOETso
APRIL GALLUP
APRIL GALLUP FORMER MILITARY THAT CAME OUT THE HOLE AT THE PENTAGON ON 911 https://www.bitchute.com/video/iQy3EbHPUy0C/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/iQy3EbHPUy0C/
She makes a solid point about the lack of jet fuel.
Wow. "I didn't see anything to show what the cause was---but obviously the official explanation is all made up." She goes directly from an experience where she observed nothing, to a package-deal conclusion based on having observed nothing. How can observing nothing mean that anything else is "obvious"? Can no one see the ideological motive driving her account?
It makes one think that her only concern was for the lives of the people in the Pentagon, and not for any passengers obliterated in the collision. Easy to erase the passengers from concern by inventing the fantasy that they never existed.
It is a commonplace in accidents of all kinds that the direct participants can have widely varying accounts of what happened. This has been demonstrated over and over again in psychological experiments. In this case, evidence had to be sifted and sorted from the mass of building wreckage that was created. It was not just lying around, in large intact pieces.
As for jet fuel, the fact that one was not doused in it is not evidence against there being any. The impact fireball is pretty definite evidence of jet fuel being ignited by the collision. Why didn't it then burn more? Because it was extinguished by the building mass coming down on it. Got a puddle of burning gasoline? Just put it out with a few shovelfuls of dirt or sand---or pulverized concrete. Same principle.
Anybody know her name, to vet her?
That's because there was no plane!
Advice to her: Stay away from windows, don’t start your car, eat only out of coin op vending machines, don’t fly, don’t get a tattoo $whackd, stay out of MCC New York METROPOLITAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER 150 PARK ROW NEW YORK, NY 10007 jail system ask Epstein. Don’t go to a Clinton, Obama, Bush, Biden house party, stay away from any offices that have plastic visqueen as a floor covering. Don’t get into any government cars, especially if it’s the D.O.J, C.I.A., F.B.I.!