re: Full French filmmaker footage from 9/11 posted on Youtube

quote:

---

Wait, so you admit it hits the ground and the building at the same time, yet came at me because I said they flew it into the ground?

---

Come on, don't be childish. That's a successful strike, no matter what flew into it.

quote:

---

And I generally hate conspiracies, so I don't buy into any of the dumb shite. But I remember my biggest WTF about the Pentagon incident was that there was no actual camera footage of that crash. I remember all we got was the shite quality video frames showing a big metal thing and then fire or whatever. I always thought it was weird that we didn't have at least one decent video of that one.

---

I'm a huge sucker for em. Rabbit holes for days, but I understand Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is we were lax on security, had overlapping exercises, and we got...got. 9/11 is like tinfoil hat crack. There are so many convenient instances you have to unplug your brain for to just blindly accept that we got...got. The Pentagon is a huge one. These guys were terrible pilots, but the Twin Towers I can accept they just lined it up and prayed to Allah. Pentagon, that turn is crazy and has SO much margin for error for awful pilots. Then you go down the rabbit hole of what hit it then? The Flight was real and they didn't just make it up. If it was a cruise missile (talk about precision) what happened to the flight? I just absolutely love debating these topics because you have to make some leaps to justify BOTH sides of the argument.

[img]I know the Pentagon is top secret shite, but it also seems like an area that would be fairly heavily videoed.[/img]

You would think. But that just adds to the allure of the mystery. Those cameras probably don't show anything of any substance, but what if they could?

quote:

---

Come on, don't be childish. That's a successful strike, no matter what flew into it.

---

Childish? What the frick are you talking about?

I was confused that you were confused by my initial comments that they essentially crashed the plane into the ground/Pentagon (because that's what they did). It feels like are both agreeing with me and disagreeing with me, and you are confusing the frick out of me in that regard.

quote:

---

I just absolutely love debating these topics because you have to make some leaps to justify BOTH sides of the argument.

---

CT shite can be fun, sure. But this is where you lose me though. It only takes leaps to justify one side of the argument. It's like the people who refuse to believe that a gigantic plane weighing who knows how many tons, FULL of jet fuel, slamming into a tall/slim building is enough to topple them. Any rational person would know and understand how that would be easily feasible. But then you have the stupid mouthbreathers shouting about "jet fuel can't melt steel!!" and dumb shite like that, even though it wouldn't have to melt anything. Just cause it enough damage to break the structural integrity of something that is basically thousands of feet tall.

quote:

---

Do you conspiracy nut jobs seriously think that every engineer on earth has been silenced by some inner government illuminati group to cover something up here? You can debate the governments culpability in failing to stop it all day, but what happened when the planes hit the buildings and after is pure physics and architectural engineering and it all tracks. They got smoked by big arse planes

---

Can you read? Im talking about tower 7. It fell as well. It did not get hit by any plane.

And plenty of engineers disputed the official government story. If you think every engineer on earth agreed on it you clearly have been misled.