When Al-Qaeda themselves claimed responsibility, even with overwhelming evidence aside? Why were so many people still reluctant, I was researching about this stuff and was shocked to see people who I respect a lot believe in this

  • nutomicA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Interesting. However in this case the plane came down vertically so the wings/engines would hit the ground beside the building. In case of the pentagon, the plane supposedly flew horizontally at ground level, so the wings should crash directly into the building.

    • Salamander@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Fair enough. I just looked it up and if the scale in this image is correct, I agree that the size of the hole looks small in comparison. I also looked at the security video of the crash itself and it is frustrating how little we can see from it.

      Since this was such an important event and there seems to be a lack of specific pieces of essential evidence - either because of bad luck or because of a cover-up - I understand the skepticism. And I am not a fan of blindly believing any official narrative. But, without any context, if I see that photo and someone tells me that a plane crashed into that building, I would find it probable simply because the shape is so similar to the photo of the Bijlmer accident that I’m familiar with. A plane crash seems to me like a very chaotic process, so I don’t have a good expectation of what the damage should look like.

      Maybe I’ll look for a pentagon crash documentary some time.