I’m pretty sure your reply will be one of exasperation and disbelief that I would buy the official story hook, line, and sinker. But you know what? Sometimes the official story is true. Not always, certainly. But sometimes yes, and the confidence level can be quite high when we’re talking about an event that was personally witnessed by so many and documented more than possibly any other event in history. And especially when we’re not talking about nebulous ideas like motivation, but about concrete events such as a plane making impact with a building.
The problem seems to be that you’re starting from the premise that the official story is bunk. That it just is, because… well, obviously, right? You wouldn’t want to be one of those naive, uninformed people who just take the story from the media and the government, would you? Then you’re trying to work your way backwards to “evidence” that proves it. What happens when a plane hits a building at high speed seems to be not exactly what you would have imagined, so you’re seizing on that.
Questions are good. But you have to be open to having them answered. I don’t understand the physics of all this one bit, because that’s not my educational background or talent. So when I think about events like this, I have questions about things I would have expected to happen one way but didn’t. How does an aluminum airplane fly right into a building that seems to offer little resistance, even though it’s strong enough to support itself? Hmm, an interesting point to ponder. But it happened. I know it happened because I saw it on live television and it was documented so many ways. So if I thought it would happen X way, but the video shows it happening Y way, my question would not be, “How are they lying to me and faking all this evidence?” No, it would be, “Why did it happen Y way and not how I might have expected?”
And when that question is answered – thoroughly, patiently, with plenty of citations – I come away feeling like I learned something, and quite often I marvel at how the world works. I can’t just keep insisting that I expected X and therefore everyone who witnessed Y is lying.
This is so much fun. 17 pages in a couple of days? I think there is a lot of pent-up conspiracy-nut debunking energy that simply doesn’t get so much of an outlet these days. Good to stretch those muscles eh?
Before it’s brought up: there is no clear footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon because its cameras have always been more concerned with pedestrian and slow-speed surface traffic so were set up to keep tabs on them rather than anything dropping out of the sky at over 500MPH.
The fact there there’s any footage at all is because the plane happened to cross two parking gate cameras’ field of view. Not much for them to record at 3½ frames per second.
all you know for certain is that your friend who took FLT93
is no longer around however you have only the word of other individuals
( who may be acting on an agenda ) to tell you that he perished in the crash.
can you at least try to separate emotion from analysis ?
Yes, I deny this has been documented…it didn’t descend ‘at free fall acceleration’ and NIST doesn’t say it did. If you think they did, then cite? Nor do the films used show it did. This is perpetuating ignorance. Since you like videos, here is a YouTube video that discusses it. Feel free to watch and listen.
