When Al-Qaeda themselves claimed responsibility, even with overwhelming evidence aside? Why were so many people still reluctant, I was researching about this stuff and was shocked to see people who I respect a lot believe in this

  • sanpedropeddler
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I don’t think the surface level observations of someone who has no clue what they’re talking about overrides actual evidence.

    • nutomic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Where did the wings and engines of the plane go? Did they neatly fold in to fit into the narrow hole, and then hide under the rubble?

      • sanpedropeddler
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I don’t know what happens to the wings of that specific aircraft when they collide with that specific building under those specific conditions at 460 knots. That’s a question for an expert on the subject, not random people on the internet.

      • Salamander@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I don’t have much of an opinion on this topic, I haven’t really looked into it.

        But as soon as I saw this image, the El Al Flight 1862 which crashed in the Bijlmer in Amsterdam in 1992 immediately came to mind. The shape of the hole is very similar!

        This image shows the likely position of the Bijlmer plane during the crash:

        The image you posted of the Pentagon seems to me consistent with what I have seen of the Bijlmer accident, and so the shape of the hole and the absence of wings in the photo does not persuade me personally that no plane was involved.

        • nutomic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Interesting. However in this case the plane came down vertically so the wings/engines would hit the ground beside the building. In case of the pentagon, the plane supposedly flew horizontally at ground level, so the wings should crash directly into the building.

          • Salamander@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Fair enough. I just looked it up and if the scale in this image is correct, I agree that the size of the hole looks small in comparison. I also looked at the security video of the crash itself and it is frustrating how little we can see from it.

            Since this was such an important event and there seems to be a lack of specific pieces of essential evidence - either because of bad luck or because of a cover-up - I understand the skepticism. And I am not a fan of blindly believing any official narrative. But, without any context, if I see that photo and someone tells me that a plane crashed into that building, I would find it probable simply because the shape is so similar to the photo of the Bijlmer accident that I’m familiar with. A plane crash seems to me like a very chaotic process, so I don’t have a good expectation of what the damage should look like.

            Maybe I’ll look for a pentagon crash documentary some time.

    • tim-clark@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      You’re right, I’m a nobody. I’m going off the videos from that day that I saved, which are no longer available. The full cctv coverage from the gas station, the news crew on the ground that was filming when the fire truck showed up(the burned one on the grass). Video shows the fire truck driving up and no fire anywhere, no wings or damage next the small hole. Video also of the portion of the wall collapsing, and when the fire starts. Haven’t been able to find these videos anywhere since 9/12/01. I only believe this since i saved them as it was happening that day. I showed the videos to people over the years and compared them to the documentaries, videos all are edited or after these. Everyone that has seen them is, WTF that isn’t a plane

      • sanpedropeddler
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yes, you are a nobody when it comes to investigating plane crashes based off images and video of the wreckage. Saving footage doesn’t make you an expert somehow.

        • tim-clark@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          You are correct. Just going off the live video from the day. There is no plane or wings in the videos, the explanation of the wings vaporizing doesn’t really match the video.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Seems like a reasonable explanation might be the plane was moving pretty fast, so most of it either carried through the outer wall, or totally destroyed itself going through stone walls

        • tim-clark@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yeah, thay is a reasonable explanation but it doesn’t add up with the videos. The hole was significantly smaller than the size of the plane and no damage where wings would be. The hard drive with the videos is sitting in my storage, haven’t tried booting. It up in over a decade. What would I even do with these videos, as the other person said I’m a nobody