re: Need AA Flight 77 Pentagon Crash Opinion

quote:

---

or else explain to me how NY has 100’s+ videos of the 2 planes hitting the towers

---

How many videos do you think there are of the 1st tower being hit by a plane?

Surely, you'd understand why there would be a shite ton hitting the 2nd, right?

Back to the 1st one, how many have you ever seen? Now remember that NYC is heavily populated, the WTC was a tourist hot spot in a city of tourists, so you'd expect cameras to be out, and again, how many videos have you actually seen?

Now compare that to the Pentagon. It seems you're comparing life in 2023 where everyone has a cell phone out at all times to life in 2001 when that didn't exist.

quote:

---

I just don’t see evidence of a massive amount of aviation fuel having burned up in that hole.

---

But how do you explain missing Flight 77, actual pieces of flight 77 strewn all about around the Pentagon, and actual pictures of body parts and dead bodies in seats of Flight 77 found at the Pentagon? I get your initial question, it's a fair question. But the 3 points I just mentioned would seemingly trump curiosity on how a whole burned logically speaking, no?

Different types of structures: structural steel versus concrete. They absorb impact, burn, and collapse in different ways.

I went on a deep dive of the 757 and air speed Never knew the max air speed at over 30,000' (580mph) can vary greatly compared to lower altitude or sea level. A 757 can't reach near that speed at low altitude due to higher air density/gravity etc. Plus something about VMO vs MMO. I'm done reading for the day.

quote:

---

VMO

---

max indicated operating airspeed

quote:

---

MMO

---

max operating mach


as altitude increases air density decreases(less drag,) at a crossover point indicated airspeed transitions to mach and the indicated airspeed decreases(fewer molecules,) and mach increases(less drag,) an oversimplification but that's sort of it in a nutshell

It doesn’t look like a commercial jet hit it imo. The one video that was put out that supposedly shows the nose cone of the plane just before impact doesn’t make sense when combined with all of the other evidence or lack thereof. The NBC reports about the wings folding in behind the “penetrating” nose cone really set off my bs alarm. Frickin propagandist media! There’s plenty of evidence on the web of planes hitting one thing or another & the engines “survive” mostly intact & the nose cone of a plane isn’t exactly a penetrator of anything. That being said….where’s the plethora of surveillance videos that should show a plane flying into the building? There can’t be just that one crappy video of a supposed nose cone & then an explosion that doesn’t come close to resembling the impact/explosions of the twin towers. Also, if that was the nose cone then the plane was in fact contacting the ground well before impact which would greatly reduce its “penetrating” impact on the building. Again, I’m not got any conspiracy theories but the original videos/images of that day never looked even remotely the same to me or others I was in contact with as the events were unfolding.

quote:

---

777 knows nothing about planes but is an excellent Googler.

---

busted!!!!

The ABC footage shows it heading south I guess for aways over the city before impact. They had a good roll correction going.

I would hit those towers regularly with the piper in Microsoft flightsim on my Atari computer.

them baws would have lost a lot of virgins if they’d have just clipped the tower with a wing

quote:

---

speeds of the tower planes well above possible MMO.

---

the 757 has a relatively low Vmo compared to most Boeing airliners but doesn’t mean they weren’t exceeding it when they hit it, I’ve seen the data before but it’s been years

ETA: mach number at that altitude would be low even though indicated airspeed would have been high

quote:

---

Is this really that hard to understand?

---

can you explain that in premium terminology?