No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
I don't think the surface level observations of someone who has no clue what they're talking about overrides actual evidence.
Where did the wings and engines of the plane go? Did they neatly fold in to fit into the narrow hole, and then hide under the rubble?
I don't know what happens to the wings of that specific aircraft when they collide with that specific building under those specific conditions at 460 knots. That's a question for an expert on the subject, not random people on the internet.
I don't have much of an opinion on this topic, I haven't really looked into it.
But as soon as I saw this image, the El Al Flight 1862 which crashed in the Bijlmer in Amsterdam in 1992 immediately came to mind. The shape of the hole is very similar!
This image shows the likely position of the Bijlmer plane during the crash:
The image you posted of the Pentagon seems to me consistent with what I have seen of the Bijlmer accident, and so the shape of the hole and the absence of wings in the photo does not persuade me personally that no plane was involved.
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.
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.
You're right, I'm a nobody. I'm going off the videos from that day that I saved, which are no longer available. The full cctv coverage from the gas station, the news crew on the ground that was filming when the fire truck showed up(the burned one on the grass). Video shows the fire truck driving up and no fire anywhere, no wings or damage next the small hole. Video also of the portion of the wall collapsing, and when the fire starts. Haven't been able to find these videos anywhere since 9/12/01. I only believe this since i saved them as it was happening that day. I showed the videos to people over the years and compared them to the documentaries, videos all are edited or after these. Everyone that has seen them is, WTF that isn't a plane
Yes, you are a nobody when it comes to investigating plane crashes based off images and video of the wreckage. Saving footage doesn't make you an expert somehow.
You are correct. Just going off the live video from the day. There is no plane or wings in the videos, the explanation of the wings vaporizing doesn't really match the video.
Seems like a reasonable explanation might be the plane was moving pretty fast, so most of it either carried through the outer wall, or totally destroyed itself going through stone walls
Yeah, thay is a reasonable explanation but it doesn't add up with the videos. The hole was significantly smaller than the size of the plane and no damage where wings would be. The hard drive with the videos is sitting in my storage, haven't tried booting. It up in over a decade. What would I even do with these videos, as the other person said I'm a nobody