3 ms·

> It's that they dismiss better ones. OK but who is deciding that it's better? You are. Unfortunately, there's no objective source for this :( > But when you

> It's that they dismiss better ones. OK but who is deciding that it's better? You are. Unfortunately, there's no objective source for this :( > But when you dig into it, there's no support, while there's plenty of support for the airliner. But isn't support for the airliner relies on evidence that could easily have been staged or falsified post hoc? Also, why not use WTC 7 as your example? Similar buildings that caught fire didn't fall like they'd been demolitioned. IMO if you don't have any doubts about the official 9/11 story then you are not thinking about it enough.

mikeash 9y ago
No, support for the airliner includes things like tons of people seeing the thing fly over I-395 right before it hit the Pentagon. There's a taxi driver who nearly got impaled by a lamppost the plane knocked over. One thing I've noticed with 9/11 Pentagon conspiracy theories is that people don't seem to understand the geographical context of the building. They talk about it as if it's some isolated installation in the middle of the woods or something. It's actually spang in the middle of the #6 largest metropolitan area in the country. The path that AA77 flew took it right over one of the busiest highways in the region. Literally hundreds if not thousands of people would have seen a cruise missile if it had been one. I've thought about this and looked into it extensively. I have not seen one single reasonable piece of evidence to support any of the "alternative" theories. Every one I've seen is based on speculation or outright falsehoods.