Gotta confess, 9/11 is one of those disasters that I don’t fully comprehend, from how did WTC7 collapse, to where’s was the wreckage of TWO airliners, both in Shanksville and the Pentagon?
Seriously? 
The Pentagon is made of concrete. Airplanes are made of aluminum.
If you don’t get how this,
tells you everything you need to know there’s no hope for you.
Theres a lot more that doesn’t add up but no one wants to believe people would do something like that so no reason to question the government. They wouldn’t lie.
The only thing that doesn’t add up is how many people are convinced things don’t add up. One of my students tried to convince me that the government was behind 9/11. Yeah, because Al Qaeda is a swell group o’ guys with no history whatsoever of terrorism. ´
As to where the plane parts went, here you go:
WTC: The planes that hit the WTC towers mostly but not completely disintegrated. Stanley Praimnath, who was the only survivor on the 81st floor of the south tower, screamed and threw himself under his desk when he saw a plane with the letter “U” flying directly toward his office. The wing of United Flight 175 struck and stuck in a door 20 feet from where he hid. (Source: Dwyer, Jim and Kevin Flynn. 102 Minutes. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 2005.)
Of course, a lot of what remained of the planes were further damaged when the buildings collapsed, but a portion of the fuselage from 175 was found at Ground Zero.
The Pentagon: This footage from a security camera at the Pentagon clearly shows parts of the plane flying out from the crash. The claim, widely circulated among CT’s, that there was no security footage of the plane crash was obviously a lie.
Shanksville: Flight 93 hit the ground at 530-580 mph. It had between 5,500 and 7,000 gallons of fuel aboard. You’re not going to get a lot of big pieces of fuselage in those conditions. Nevertheless,
Far-flung debris that made up a third of the aircraft, including the cockpit, continued into the woods, demolishing trees on 163 acres (66 ha) owned by the Lambert family,[89] and damaging the nearby residence of Barry Hoover.[90] The rest of the aircraft buried itself in dirt that had been transported to the abandoned strip mine for reclamation efforts in the 1990s.[90] The fuselage and wings shattered as they burrowed into the earth.[90] One of the engines ultimately ended up in a catchment pond just 2,000 feet (670 yd; 610 m) away from the main impact site.
Obviously there’s a lot more evidence than this, but it’s a start.
I think the problem a lot of people have is that they know nothing about airplanes. They’re familiar with car crashes, truck crashes, and train wrecks. I think they might expect a crashed plane to look like a crashed car. But aircraft are not built to survive crashes. They’re built not to crash. The image of the Coca-Cola can is apt. Actually, I think it’s more structurally sound than airplanes. I was in the Civil Air Patrol, and part of the Scanner training was showing different kinds of crashes. Most of them didn’t look much like airplanes. I recall one crash in particular, that was illustrative of the ‘Four Winds’ type of accident, looked like a field after a large concert. Trash everywhere, but nothing that would make you suspect it was an aircraft.
As shown by the F-4 vs. Concrete Wall, even fighter aircraft that are meant to withstand damage sustained in combat are no match for simple physics. People unfamiliar with aircraft seem to just not be able to conceive of the concept. To them, it’s ‘impossible’ for a multi-ton airplane to simply disappear just because it ran into a building. Cars hit buildings all the time, and they don’t disintegrate!
That may well be, but plane crashes tend to look a lot like other plane crashes. Body, wings, seats, luggage, bodies, all tend to the things one would find. I’m not promoting conspiracy theories, but I do find it awfully strange how there was no wreckage in either Shanksville or DC, that little shitty squashed Coke can picture notwithstanding. If someone not understanding gets your panties in a bunch, that’s your problem, not mine.
There was wreckage at both locations.
Fuck off.
Right back at ya. Just because someone doesn’t find an explanation believable does not make them a CP FFS. A little touchy there.
Got a link to pics? I’ve never seen any, and in Shanksville just a smallish area of dishevelled dirt. And no plane wreckage.
I included a link to a short videotape from a Pentagon security camera. Did you watch it? Or couldn’t you be bothered?
Photos of wreckage debris are easy to find. Did you bother to look?
Shanksville:
Debris: On 9/11, part of Flight 93 crashed on his land in Shanksville, Pa. : The NPR Politics Podcast : NPR Scroll down.
Debris, including the flight data recorder: Flight Data Recorder - Flight 93 National Memorial (U.S. National Park Service)
Pentagon: https://www.military.com/history/25-intense-photos-pentagon-9-11.html
FBI re-releases 9/11 Pentagon photos - ABC News (5th photo)
There are plenty of others.
Thanks, I’ll take a look. I’ve also looked many times over the years and found very little.
Well, if you’re continuing to insist after nearly 25 years that the vast quantities of reportage and data and scientific explanation published on this subject still strike you as suspiciously inadequate and not “believable”, then the credibility of your claim to be “not promoting conspiracy theories” takes a serious hit.
The average plane crash involves a general-aviation-type plane or airliner malfunctioning on takeoff or landing—so, comparatively close to the ground—and remaining at least partially under pilot control and in flying position. That’s not at all the same thing, physics-wise, as an out-of-control airliner dropping from thousands of feet to smash into the ground at 500+ mph, so we wouldn’t expect the wreckage to look similar.
Try knocking a glass bottle off a kitchen table onto a tile floor. Then try slingshotting a glass bottle onto a concrete sidewalk from the top of a 20-story building, and notice the dissimilarity in the characteristics of the debris. Nothing “awfully strange”, or even a little bit strange, about it.
At this point, anybody who has really examined even a small fraction of the available evidence about the 9/11 crashes, and still believes there’s anything mysterious or unsatisfactory about the generally accepted description of them, is believing that because they like believing it, not because they’ve got a rational counterargument to the generally accepted description.
All the naive objections like “where’s the wreckage” have been patiently answered, with full explanatory details, in hundreds of venues thousands of times. The objectors still don’t buy it, because they don’t want to buy it. There is no physically realistic explanation that could convince them. They have a mental image in their minds of the smushed and battered and broken but still recognizable airplane fuselage that they assume ought to have resulted from the crash, and no amount of fact-based physics talk will get them to give up that picture.
There’s also the matter of understanding that there are reasons other than malign conspiracy to explain why the authorities might not want to publicly release photos of a crash scene covered in the mashed and mangled remains of a hundred or so people.
Hey - remember when this thread was about Trump? Are we now saying Trump was responsible for 9/11? I know this is the Pit but - any chance of dropping this hijack now?
Look up Green Ramp disaster and remember that plane did not fly into a building.
How did you manage that? You must really stink at looking for stuff. It’s arguably the most investigated incident in history with plenty of video and still photography showing the incident and its immediate aftermath. But, hey, if your intent is to “disprove the official narrative” then there’s not a damn thing on Earth that will convince you.
Heh, hijack. I see what you did.
I think it’s also that most of the images of plane crashes people have seen are crashes in or near airports, either upon landing or takeoff - which are usually at much lower speeds and altitudes than other crashes, and at safer angles of approach, and thus more of the plane is preserved.
For fucks’ sake, I used 9/11 conspiracies as an obvious example of something not to be an advocate of. I did not expect people to then dive right into them.
Sorry if I opened a can of worms with that, I thought that wouldn’t be a danger on this board.