This isn't news. It's the same edited "security footage" that's been around for 21 years. Anyone who still thinks a 767 hit the Pentagon is an idiot. This is common knowledge.
How does a 767 smash horizontally into the side of a building and not leave damage to the face of the building from the wings?
It did. Notice in the picture how the facade to the left is damaged at an angle? Almost as if hit by a wing...
The five light poles are only speculated to be damaged by an airplane.
If it was a cruise missile, how did light poles dozens of feet apart get taken down? Also, why does other damage on the grounds match an airplane, as shown in the video analysis I linked to in my previous post? Why are there plane parts strewn around?
What makes more sense, that all the above evidence I listed which matches a plane, which matches what flew into the towers, and which matches the hijacked planes... or for the Pentagon, it was a cruise missile, which mysteriously managed to take down light poles dozens of feet apart.
It did. Notice in the picture how the facade to the left is damaged at an angle? Almost as if hit by a wing...
It does not. It shows no such damage "as if hit by a wing", especially a wing that's as strong as the body of the rest of the airplane. The facade should show at least some horizontal damage perpendicular to the vertical damage.
If it was a cruise missile, how did light poles dozens of feet apart get taken down? Also, why does other damage on the grounds match an airplane, as shown in the video analysis I linked to in my previous post? Why are there plane parts strewn around?
No idea how the light poles were taken down. You're using tautological reasoning by suggesting a cause, then saying it it IS the cause because there's no other way they could have been taken down.
Where did that footage come from? I don't trust a fucking thing about this. There are no time codes on the photographs or any kind of provenance such as who took the pictures, when, or any other damn thing. As far as airplane parts strewn around, I've also seen pictures of missile parts strewn around. So what? It doesn't prove anything, it just muddies the water. No one except the people who planned it or conducted it will ever know.
especially a wing that's as strong as the body of the rest of the airplane.
The center of mass is in the center, along with all the fuel.
The facade should show at least some horizontal damage perpendicular to the vertical damage.
It does. It goes diagonally left and down.
No idea how the light poles were taken down. You're using tautological reasoning by suggesting a cause, then saying it it IS the cause because there's no other way they could have been taken down.
No, I'm using all the evidence on the scene to suggest a cause, which matches a plane, while you're just ignoring it as unexplainable because it does not match the cruise missile theory. You just ignore multiple LIGHT POLES BEING TAKEN DOWN. Like what the fuck dude, your theory is complete dogshit. It was a plane, just like all the other attacks that day. You fell for a retard theory.
I've also seen pictures of missile parts strewn around.
I already said: "Where did that footage come from? *I don't trust a fucking thing about this. There are no time codes on the photographs or any kind of provenance such as who took the pictures, when, or any other damn thing. As far as airplane parts strewn around, I've also seen pictures of missile parts strewn around. So what? It doesn't prove anything, it just muddies the water. No one except the people who planned it or conducted it will ever know."
I already said I don't trust whatever "evidence" that's been released to the public. What little there is makes me think it was a missile, not a plane.
You're one step away from calling me a retard for not accepting your evidence as proof, which is what you did to other users in the post you linked to.
The evidence has been given, but like the retard you are, you ignore it and ask where it is.
This is more retarded ignoring the evidence and insisting that the scene must be exactly as you had imagined it, including 100% documented and available to the public, and the physics and material science of a plane traveling hundreds of miles per hour into a concrete and steel building.
QED: You are retarded.
And you're still retarded.* That is pretty funny.
People have a different opinion on the scant evidence that's been made available to the public, so you call them retards or retarded. You have an odd method of arguing your evidence and making that argument.
I don't want to discuss this with you, and I won't hesitate to downvote every time you insult people in your posts because you're too thin-skinned to accept a little criticism.
There are no time codes on the photographs or any kind of provenance such as who took the pictures
Some of it is obviously from the scene of the crash. There were hundreds of people milling about that day, along with a fuckton of news media. Don't give me this "no provenance" shit.
As far as airplane parts strewn around, I've also seen pictures of missile parts strewn around.
Which you refuse to show, but sure, buddy.
What little there is makes me think it was a missile, not a plane.
Yeah, like multiple light poles dozens of feet being taken apart.
People have a different opinion on the scant evidence that's been made available to the public, so you call them retards or retarded.
"Anyone who still thinks a 767 hit the Pentagon is an idiot."
That's you, 'tard. Not only are you retarded, you're a hypocrite.
[ + ] Lost_In_The_Thinking
[ - ] Lost_In_The_Thinking 0 points 2.2 yearsFeb 20, 2023 23:21:41 ago (+1/-1)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 1 point 2.2 yearsFeb 21, 2023 10:34:48 ago (+1/-0)
https://www.talk.lol/viewpost?postid=627422e45b757
[ + ] Lost_In_The_Thinking
[ - ] Lost_In_The_Thinking 2 points 2.2 yearsFeb 21, 2023 15:26:43 ago (+2/-0)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Aerial_view_of_the_Pentagon_during_rescue_operations_post-September_11_attack.JPEG
This is direct damage from the missile. The five light poles are only speculated to be damaged by an airplane.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 2.2 yearsFeb 21, 2023 15:38:00 ago (+0/-0)
It did. Notice in the picture how the facade to the left is damaged at an angle? Almost as if hit by a wing...
If it was a cruise missile, how did light poles dozens of feet apart get taken down? Also, why does other damage on the grounds match an airplane, as shown in the video analysis I linked to in my previous post? Why are there plane parts strewn around?
What makes more sense, that all the above evidence I listed which matches a plane, which matches what flew into the towers, and which matches the hijacked planes... or for the Pentagon, it was a cruise missile, which mysteriously managed to take down light poles dozens of feet apart.
[ + ] Lost_In_The_Thinking
[ - ] Lost_In_The_Thinking 1 point 2.2 yearsFeb 21, 2023 20:09:50 ago (+1/-0)
It does not. It shows no such damage "as if hit by a wing", especially a wing that's as strong as the body of the rest of the airplane. The facade should show at least some horizontal damage perpendicular to the vertical damage.
No idea how the light poles were taken down. You're using tautological reasoning by suggesting a cause, then saying it it IS the cause because there's no other way they could have been taken down.
Where did that footage come from? I don't trust a fucking thing about this. There are no time codes on the photographs or any kind of provenance such as who took the pictures, when, or any other damn thing. As far as airplane parts strewn around, I've also seen pictures of missile parts strewn around. So what? It doesn't prove anything, it just muddies the water. No one except the people who planned it or conducted it will ever know.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 2.2 yearsFeb 21, 2023 21:50:47 ago (+0/-0)
The center of mass is in the center, along with all the fuel.
It does. It goes diagonally left and down.
No, I'm using all the evidence on the scene to suggest a cause, which matches a plane, while you're just ignoring it as unexplainable because it does not match the cruise missile theory. You just ignore multiple LIGHT POLES BEING TAKEN DOWN. Like what the fuck dude, your theory is complete dogshit. It was a plane, just like all the other attacks that day. You fell for a retard theory.
Yes? Show them.
[ + ] Lost_In_The_Thinking
[ - ] Lost_In_The_Thinking 1 point 2.2 yearsFeb 21, 2023 22:04:54 ago (+1/-0)
I already said: "Where did that footage come from? *I don't trust a fucking thing about this. There are no time codes on the photographs or any kind of provenance such as who took the pictures, when, or any other damn thing. As far as airplane parts strewn around, I've also seen pictures of missile parts strewn around. So what? It doesn't prove anything, it just muddies the water. No one except the people who planned it or conducted it will ever know."
I already said I don't trust whatever "evidence" that's been released to the public. What little there is makes me think it was a missile, not a plane.
You're one step away from calling me a retard for not accepting your evidence as proof, which is what you did to other users in the post you linked to.
People have a different opinion on the scant evidence that's been made available to the public, so you call them retards or retarded. You have an odd method of arguing your evidence and making that argument.
I don't want to discuss this with you, and I won't hesitate to downvote every time you insult people in your posts because you're too thin-skinned to accept a little criticism.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony -1 points 2.2 yearsFeb 21, 2023 22:21:05 ago (+0/-1)
Some of it is obviously from the scene of the crash. There were hundreds of people milling about that day, along with a fuckton of news media. Don't give me this "no provenance" shit.
Which you refuse to show, but sure, buddy.
Yeah, like multiple light poles dozens of feet being taken apart.
"Anyone who still thinks a 767 hit the Pentagon is an idiot."
That's you, 'tard. Not only are you retarded, you're a hypocrite.
[ + ] 3Whuurs
[ - ] 3Whuurs 1 point 2.2 yearsFeb 20, 2023 22:38:05 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] SkullFuckerSupreme
[ - ] SkullFuckerSupreme -2 points 2.2 yearsFeb 20, 2023 22:33:26 ago (+0/-2)
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=0SL2PzzOiF8