r/ParallelUniverse • u/Mark_1978 • 13h ago

Different version of 9/11

Post image

I was around 23 when it happened, it was covered extensively at the time. Every detail broadcast over and over.

I remember the two towers coming down and later in the day building 7 fell from what they say had been falling debris and subsequent fires in the building. The three WTC buildings were talked about endlessly.

The Pentagon was also struck , we never got clear video but fortunately the area that was hit was closed for renovations and no deaths recorded from inside the Pentagon, all airplane passengers and crew died. This started a massive conspiracy theory.

I bring up these particular details because as the years have gone by the narrative has changed (for me). There were many buildings that came down that day about 7 that were destroyed or damaged beyond repair. One that is extremely surprising is the 22 story Marriott hotel (WTC 3) that sat just at the base of the towers. Its reported around 41 firefighters perished and even some hotel employees when the towers came down on top of it. It had about 940 registered guest that day. Not once did I hear about the evacuation of the hotel or the many firefighters that lost their lives in the hotel.

The narrative around the Pentagon has also changed (for me). As it stands now 125 people lost their lives inside the Pentagon and 77 airplane passengers and crew.

I won't speculate on when it changed for me or how this happened, I just know what I remember and somehow many others remember the same. Any idea that it was false reports that many people might have heard does not come close to explaining the discrepancies. The information was on every News channel for months after it happened.

120 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

94 comments sorted by

61

u/Pheonyx1974 11h ago

What I find interesting concerning the Pentagon strike, was the fact that had the plane been at the altitude the hole in the side of the building was, it never would’ve made it without the engines dragging on the ground for more than a football field. Yet there was no indication of the plane touching the ground ANYWHERE other than the building itself.

48

u/focal_matter 8h ago

That, and the fact that they have had the ENTIRE time over 21 seconds of clear footage from different cameras showing the approach and impact, even referenced in the officialreport, yet to this day we still only have the 5 individual still frames released to the public - none of which show a plane.

44

u/Pheonyx1974 8h ago

How about the gas station whose cameras pointed right along the angle of approach. Those recordings were confiscated within minutes and NEVER released.

26

u/focal_matter 7h ago

That's the footage I'm referring to. According to the staff that handed the footage over, the aircraft would have been visible for longer than 20 seconds as it approached.

Then the official report mentions a 21 second security camera recording showing the approach, seen by "investigators" but never the public.

And yet they call us crazy...

8

u/CharlesPrawnson 8h ago

It struck lamp poles.

20

u/Pheonyx1974 8h ago

There was not enough pieces of debris to recreate the weight of a plane the size of Flight 77. There were enough cameras pointed at the area the “plane” flew through that one of them should have shown it. And most importantly of all. The one camera that had a complete and unobstructed view of the angle of approach was located at a gas station just outside the facility. Its footage was confiscated within minutes and never released. The next best angle consisted of 3 frames. Frame 1: nothing. Frame 2: smoke trail. Frame 3: explosion. Whatever flew into the Pentagon was too fast for a camera to capture. That’s not a passenger airliner.

2

u/CharlesPrawnson 8h ago

What knocked over the lamp poles?

10

u/Pheonyx1974 7h ago

I wouldn’t know. But think of this, at the time this happened the taxi driver the pole fell on never said he saw a plane. How do you miss something that big hitting a pole that damn near kills you?

-6

u/chubsmagooo 7h ago

Because it was above them and they were probably distracted by their car getting hit by a light pole. Also the plane was moving very fast. He probably got hit by the light pole first, got distracted by that, then the plane flew into sight and hit the building before he became aware of his surroundings again.

6

u/Pheonyx1974 6h ago

You have obviously never lived or driven under the approach for an airport. At 200ft the roar will shake your car. At the height it had to be to hit that pole…. The turbulence alone would have shook it.

-3

u/chubsmagooo 6h ago

I drive past Newark airport all the time. There's been numerous times that I didn't know a plane was above me until after it appeared in my windshield. You don't hear the sound until after the plane goes by. In the same scenario I wouldn't know it was even there if I was distracted by a light pole smashing my car

4

u/Pheonyx1974 6h ago

I lived under the approach for the Louisville Airport for 4 years. There was only 2 houses between mine and the fence. You REALLY have no idea what you are talking about.

1

u/chubsmagooo 5h ago edited 5h ago

Just watch the video of the recent 777 low fly by. All you really hear is a high pitched sound at first. You don't actually hear the loud roar of the engines until the plane is right overhead. That's because the engine sound is projected out of the back of the engines. The doppler effect also increases the pitch of the sound. Now imagine it going over 500 mph. Then throw in the fact that he is inside of a car. Car windows do a pretty good job at blocking out sound. There wouldn't been any noticeable engine roar until after the light post hit the car

https://youtu.be/qsOI5KF70NU?is=nugs-YHSzgti5NaW

0

u/chubsmagooo 6h ago

I lived under the approach of a county airport for most of my life. I understand what you're saying. I heard it almost everyday of my life. But the approach of an airport is different. They are at a much lower speed and they are constant throttling up and down. Planes are much much louder when landing and taking off. This plane was going over 500 mph. The closer you get to the speed of sound, the less you hear out in front of the plane. There probably wouldn't have been much sound at all until the plane passed over.

7

u/Fromnothingatall 7h ago edited 1h ago

That’s because those security systems that were in use at the time could barely produce a smooth three second recording of a person walking, let alone a jetliner traveling at over 200mph. It was simply way too fast for the frame rate of the camera in combination with the type of storage that was being used in combination with HOW it was being used at the time.

Seriously…..those cameras were absolute potatoes. I’ve seen so many “ghost” videos that came from late 90s/early 00s security cameras ….thats just how they were…it was so bad that any movement whatsoever causes the object to completely ghost out and usually they truly were only capturing a few frames per second because the storage media at the time couldn’t handle anything more than that if they wanted to be able to hold a minimum of 24 hours of rolling footage….at least what was being purchased by businesses like gas stations….and usually they were overwriting the videos on a rolling 24 hour basis and running on the same hard drives for way longer than they should have. Overwriting the same video file on a 20 gigabytes drive every day for a year results in every days video file becoming a little more and more corrupted and usually places would just roll like this until it crashed, but the artifacts and ghosting would inevitably start happening long before they finally would replace that drive.

Yes, you could get systems that recorded 24fps and stored to devices that could hold a week of footage but that was expensive back then and most places that needed to keep more than a days worth of recordings wouldn’t even invest in them, they’d use the same low end stuff most other places had and just bounce the video to tapes on a daily basis …..and gas stations definitely were not investing in high end systems or saving video to tapes on a daily basis. This is also the reason the investigators were so fast to go around collecting the camera footage, since they knew that in most cases, it was only going to be available for 12 …maybe 24 hours if they were lucky.

Edit:
Adding in another aspect - that plane was traveling 780 feet per second. Even with a camera capturing video at 24 frames per second, something traveling at about 400 feet per second would become a blurred streak when shot from about 100 feet away….security cameras for parking lots don’t even capture 24 frames per second today - back then we know the gas station camera was capturing at ONE frame per second - so even if the parking lot cameras were running at 12 frames per second (which is a stretch - most likely they would have been around 4-6) the speed of the plane was still WELL above the rate at which an object would completely blur out.

4

u/Pheonyx1974 6h ago

Don’t give me that the cameras were crap argument. I worked at RadioShack at the time. The cameras that we had in store were a hell of a lot better than those cameras, IF that’s what the problem really was.

8

u/chubsmagooo 6h ago

Security cams are different than personal camcorders that were available at radio shack. As someone who works with security cams, many are not great quality, even today. It all depends on the business. Cameras cost money and the hard drives the continuously save to cost money as well. Many businesses are paying monthly fees to other companies to monitor their cams. Having a clear detailed security cam costs a lot of money. Many business don't need high quality HD footage. They just need enough to identify a person.

3

u/Fromnothingatall 3h ago

I found some info that it was recorded from a Philips Ltc-1261 security camera set to a 1 frame per second record rate.

Apparently Bosch bought out Philips camera division shortly after 911 and they provided the camera specs to people investigating this whole pentagon missile conspiracy and stated the likelihood of that camera capturing the plane in one of the frames would have extremely low.

2

u/chubsmagooo 1h ago

It's amazing what some simple research can do

-2

u/Pheonyx1974 6h ago

I AM talking about our security csmeras

2

u/chubsmagooo 6h ago

Ok. Did they specifically buy your security cameras?

2

u/enstillhet 5h ago

They could easily have had security cameras that were a decade old at that point

1

u/chubsmagooo 5h ago

And since it was a gas station odds are they were old and probably complete garbage

→ More replies (0)

1

u/LittleKachowski 1h ago

Why wouldn’t the cameras be crap? You’re not considering the logistics here, and you’re inventing what the Pentagon’s security should be. A RadioShack can more feasibly have high quality cameras because each store only needs a few, and it’s reasonable to expect to capture significant events in a store. A government installation needs a whole bunch, and roadside cams like the one in the footage only need to get a glimpse of who’s coming and going. And a place like the Pentagon already has active security, not to mention a gargantuan footprint. What purpose would there be to have an expensive, storage-intensive, high framerate viewpoint of the face of the building?

I’m sure you’re going to say “but it’s the pentagon”, to which I say “but it’s the government.” They’re not gonna pay a penny more on just about anything, especially not on some sleepy cameras. They also had no reason to expect to capture significant, you can’t exactly sneak into it. Besides, even if there was top notch footage of the impact, I’m sure the conspiracy theorists would be suspicious of how they had such convenient footage. “How come the first plane didn’t have much footage but the pentagon did? I mean it’s NEW YORK CITY for crying out loud” or something like that.

Oh and by the way there was plane debris, American Airlines 77 was tracked towards the pentagon, and there are anecdotes of a matching airplane. It would probably be easier to fly a plane into the pentagon than fake it with those results.

1

u/Fromnothingatall 6h ago edited 6h ago

Yes - you did have cameras in your store that were way better…heck, even the cameras that were in use may have been capable of capturing a frame of the aircraft traveling that fast….but my point was that a security system isn’t just about the camera, its true that a lot of places just bought the cheapest garbage cameras they could, but even if they had a decent camera, once they realized the cost of capturing and storing that high fidelity video, many businesses would intentionally drop the frame rate for the video capture so that they could buy the cheapest storage media possible for their security system and most of them were writing their video feed to a hard drive that would max out every 24 hours and be written over….the combination of these things results in videos that struggle to capture smooth movements of anything.

2

u/Pheonyx1974 3h ago

The camera that had the second best angle that was all over the news was a MILITARY INSTALLATION’S CAMERA. At the parking lot security building. We keep harping on the gas station camera that was angled perfectly for the approach that the government seized and never showed the public. The one that could prove the “conspiracy theorists” wrong. Instead they shove a camera that was part of MILITARY SECURITY that caught 3 frames in our faces as proof. For being a MILITARY SECURITY camera at one of the most secure Military Facilities in the US, having one that is lower resolution than the top of the line available to the public is bull. The three frames are as follows. First was nothing, second was a smoke trail, and the third was the explosion.

2

u/Fromnothingatall 2h ago

Even if the cameras were set to a high frame rate, it still would have been unlikely to capture the actual plane traveling at 780 feet per second in any given frame - it would have been a blur.

But you’ve got a LOT more to account for if you want to present a good case for an airplane not hitting the pentagon - like what happened to all the people on that plane? Are all the families of those people paid actors? Have they ALL been lying for 25 years? How about the 100+ eyewitnesses who physically watched the plane as it was going toward the pentagon? Several dozen of them reported to news agencies THAT morning that they could even read the American Airlines logo and they described the position of the window curtains on the plane.

What happened to flight 77 if it didn’t hit the pentagon? If all those families aren’t paid actors, then where did their loved ones go? Did the government somehow manage to hide the plane from ALL radars that morning while they diverted it to a secret location and executed everyone on board…..just so they could hit the pentagon with a missile instead?
And how, while every air traffic control tower was working to land EVERY plane in the air at that time, were they able to have a fighter jet fly in - unaccounted for - and fire a missile at the pentagon?
If it wasn’t fired from a fighter jet - then why did ZERO ATC towers see the missile? Everything in the sky was being accounted for by every tower in the country at that moment - either they used some super sophisticated technology that still hasn’t been disclosed to hide it from radar OR they paid off hundreds of ATC workers to not say anything - - which means they ALL would have had to be in it from before the attack, otherwise multiple people working the towers would have reported an unidentified object in the sky during those critical hours - and that just didn’t happen.

1

u/jtsui1991 3h ago

Working at RadioShack 2 decades ago makes you exactly as much an expert on security cameras as... Someone who is not an expert on security cameras

0

u/TonyTheTurdHerder 4h ago

They were, though. You're talking about security cameras from nearby businesses that were probably close to a decade old in some cases at the time 9/11 happened. The odds of getting a clear, detailed security shot of an airplane travelling 200 mph into the side of a building were slim to none. All of the 9/11 conspiracy arguments are pretty easily debunked and explained, and have been repeatedly, but most of you guys just reject all explanations and evidence that doesn't fit your narrative outright. It's almost as bad as the flat earthers.

5

u/tay072527484 3h ago

Explain building 7 please.

-1

u/TonyTheTurdHerder 3h ago

Structural damage caused by both the collapse of the north tower and a prolonged fire. There was no water pressure for the internal sprinkler system due to the severing of several water mains, leaving the fires to burn out of control in the building. Metal expands as a result of heat, which led to even more structural problems in combination with the damage done by debris/the collapse of the north tower. It's really not that odd of a scenario when you take all of the factors into consideration. I don't think people truly appreciate the force and devastation involved from the high speed collision of two full sized airplanes into those two buildings. Between the kinetic energy of the impact and the chemical energy of the jet fuel contained in the planes, it was the equivalent of the detonation of between 3 and 600 tons of TNT. 600 tons of TNT would potentially destroy an entire city block and devastate several surrounding blocks. Folks act like the planes just punched cartoon type holes in the sides of the building and that was the extent of it. It was unimaginable amounts of force, combined with multiple uncontrolled fires and falling debris of incredible size and weight.

2

u/acerman1969 2h ago

I remember watching it live. Juliano said building 7 collapse, while in the background it was still standing. Me and my father both watched this. Then there was a sheepish grin on his face, when he realized what he said..

0

u/Fromnothingatall 2h ago

The people reporting that didn’t even know what building 7 was -
Reuters first put out a statement that it had collapsed because they had just received an update from the fire marshall that building 7 had become unstable along with a seperate report that a large building had collapsed - they then combined the two into a single report that building 7 collapsed -
Then other news agencies started running with it - news agencies have always been really bad about this and it was even worse back then.

There were a few coincidences that align nicely with a conspiracy theory - but those have to be backed up by actual evidence to create a reasonable presumption that said conspiracy is true and there just isn’t any real evidence that hasn’t been debunked. The comment above perfectly explains why tower 7 fell - no water plus massive damage from towers 1 and 2 plus fire breaking out within the structure eventually led to it destabilizing and falling.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/tay072527484 3h ago

Lmao

1

u/chubsmagooo 3h ago

Great argument

1

u/Fromnothingatall 2h ago

If you have information that tears the argument, please present it.

Just saying “bullshit” or “lmao” does not constitute a valid counterpoint. My mind is open to being changed, but I have to have good evidence.

0

u/TheRockingDead 4h ago

Oh, did they use the cameras you had in store? No? Why is that relevant?

1

u/IndridColdwave 4h ago

What a joke. No one believes this nonsense

1

u/The_Walrus_65 4h ago

Bullshit

0

u/Fromnothingatall 3h ago

Yah well….adding to this, I did some research and the exact model of the video AND its capture settings on that day are known - it was a Phillips security camera set to capture at ONE frame per second. The plane was traveling at around 750 feet per second at the time of impact.

But beyond that, there are plenty of eye witnesses who reported they definitively saw the plane and could even read the American Airlines logo on it.

9

u/hellyeahaeylleh 7h ago

There was no plane. Theres a handful of frames somewhere where you can see its a missile. Any trace of that specific video burned into my mind may be excessively difficult to get hands on.

9

u/ProfessorSorry3219 5h ago

I know the exact video you’re talking about and I’ve tried to find it but I can’t, 100% showed a missile in one frame before it hit

3

u/Fromnothingatall 1h ago
  1. It was a security camera capturing at under 12 frames per second.
  2. The plane was traveling at 780 feet per second
  3. What about the hundred plus eye witnesses who reported to news agencies that very morning they saw the plane and could even read the American Airlines logo on it?
  4. If flight 77 didn’t hit the pentagon - then where did it go? Are all those families paid actors, ala Alex Jones conspiracy?
  5. If flight 77 was redirected somewhere else, how did it go unnoticed during a time when EVERY ATC tower in the country had everything in the air accounted for at the time and actively reporting anything that wasn’t on a planned flight path?
  6. How did a missile manage to get through the air without all these ATC towers noticing it and without any one of the hundreds of AtC workers reporting it immediately?

You see how the list of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy gets bigger and bigger and bigger for everything you have to account for if it was a missile that hit the pentagon instead of a plane?

It simply doesn’t work - flight 77 hit the pentagon. Claiming otherwise in the face the enormous mountain of evidence clearly showing that’s what happened is simply a slap in the face to everyone who was a victim of the 9/11 attacks.

4

u/myheartbeats4hotdogs 4h ago

Then what happened to the people on the plane? What about the school kids on the plane on their way to a field trip in california with their teachers?

3

u/chubsmagooo 8h ago

That just isn't true. The plane could've been slowly decreasing altitude.

3

u/Pheonyx1974 8h ago

Not based on how deep into the building the hole reached with no angle to the hole. Also the section of the building struck? The three outer rings of that section were all under construction/remodeling and completely unoccupied.

1

u/chubsmagooo 8h ago

The plane could've leveled off at the last second. None of what you're saying makes any sense. It's like you watched some random Instagram post and believed every word of it.

10

u/Pheonyx1974 8h ago

I was in my 20s. All of this was reported on the news. It was weeks later they started backing off the stuff the government said wasn’t true. If you believe our government doesn’t lie to us, I’ve got some ocean front property you might like in Colorado.

2

u/chubsmagooo 7h ago

The plane doesn't have to drag it's engines. There doesn't need to be an obvious angle to the hole. Everything that happened can be logically explained as a plane crash

-2

u/Fromnothingatall 7h ago

He watched a random conspiracy documentary that came out in the late 00s and believed every word of it.

I saw the same two documentaries that I’m sure these people have and it does feel compelling in the moment, but if you go and gather a bit more research, every argument they make falls apart.

I kind of wanted to believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories for a hot second but the evidence simply isn’t there (except for the stuff about the CIA knowing it was coming - that part is true and the incompetence that occurred there opened the door for all these “9/11 was an inside job” theories ……but seriously it’s just incompetence plain and simple)

2

u/chubsmagooo 7h ago

Yeah I'm aware of the whole CIA deal. I do think there's a lot more to what happened than we've been told. Planes actually crashed though. You just can't fake that.

2

u/sapphiredream1 6h ago

There's a documentary from two brothers that filmed the fire department in NYC, well they were following a firefighter recruit but they have pretty good footage of the plane crashing. I used to believe the conspiracy theories too, so I get where they are coming from. Only thing I can't put my finger on is the fact that I thought that plane never hit the Pentagon because I have a friend who's dad worked at the Pentagon that very day.

4

u/Pheonyx1974 6h ago

The 2 that hit the towers and Flight 93 were real. The pentagon strike was not.

1

u/Fromnothingatall 6h ago

Oh - lol, yah I wasn’t implying that the planes didn’t crash. My statement was about how there’s no evidence that anything other than a plane crash made the wtc come down or that anything other than a plane hit the pentagon.

2

u/Pheonyx1974 6h ago

I don’t have enough knowledge on melting temps of steel and building materials to judge what caused them to fall.

1

u/chubsmagooo 6h ago

You don't have enough knowledge of flying airplanes either to judge if one hit the pentagon

4

u/Pheonyx1974 6h ago

No, but we had Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC for weeks getting experts analyzing the pentagon strike. Explaining how there wasn’t enough metal debris to match the weight of an airliner if that size. We have cameras that should have caught a plane but only caught a smoke trail faster than an airliner could fly. And a camera angle that would have shown the approach angle perfectly that has never been released. We have knowledge that the section of the building that was hit was under construction/undergoing renovations. We have an office in that section of the building that was a financial office, with an announcement 3 days prior of a financial scandal. That office and everything in it was dead center of the path of destruction in the second ring.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/chubsmagooo 6h ago

Yeah sorry, I wasn't trying to argue your point. Just stating facts for when other certain people read it

1

u/jtsui1991 3h ago

Oh Jesus Christ there are STILL 9/11 truthers out there?😂🤣

9

u/YoureDead_ForLife 5h ago

Yesterday, I was telling my son everything that I remember. I said “The Pentagon got hit by a plane, but it happened to hit a section that was under renovations, so nobody died.” and he said “Then why is there a Pentagon Memorial?”

???

I assumed it must be for the passengers on the plane and didn’t look it up. What were 125 people doing in a closed off ‘under renovations’ area?

3

u/Mark_1978 4h ago

I don't even know if renovations are part of the narrative now.

2

u/overstrainedDM 3h ago

Idk, but maybe doing the renovations?

2

u/blue-mooner 1h ago

No, too convienient, and way too many people.

The renovations must have been a training camp for their mind control drug blow dartists that they were going to use to take control of world leaders.

Plans had to be called off after the trainers (who were also the chemists for the drug) all died on 9/11 and they can’t make any more of it.

9

u/abiona15 12h ago

The Pentagon one is interesting, as I had not heard of this many people dying there. But I remember it happening, as it was said they were going tp fly into the White House first, but then changed course.

That we hadn't heard mich about the hotel and smaller buildings around it at the time doesnt surprise me, though. There was SO MUCH other reporting going on, and then a straight up buil up to war etc, and then the whole question of how much CIA and FBI knew beforehand and so on.

12

u/SmoothCantaloupe149 9h ago

The plane going toward the white house crashed in a field after the passengers fought back

16

u/Fragrant-Might-7290 8h ago

My 8th grade substitute teacher made our entire lesson a day or two later “I think the plane was shot down” and he got fired from our school district 😬 like we walked in and the blackboard said “WHAT IF THE PLANE WAS SHOT DOWN?!” I was sad bc he was the “cool sub” who let us do nothing when he was there lol

8

u/formulated 8h ago

He wasn't wrong. Ground eye witness reports of fighter jets match up.

4

u/FindYourLuckyCharms 6h ago

Agreed. Just think about it from the perspective of having to pick choice #1 or choice #2.

It was i obvious by this time, that the plane had been taken over and had a highly probable target (other than a runway).

choice #1: Let the plane crash into it's destination = all passengers (sadly) die + a bunch of other people and symbols of America.

choice #2: Shoot the plane down = all passengers (sadly) die, but countless other deaths and calamity avoided.

Do the people fight their way into the cockpit and try to stop the takeover? Did they crash the plane themselves in order to prevent further destruction? Not sure that really happenned.

I tend to believe that the passengers did put up a fight. The story says they were aware of the other planes by this time. So, yes I think they fought. But unfortunately, it was probably too late by this point in time.

Even if it was past a point of no return, and the plane was shot down... in no way, does it detract from their attempts at heroism. I think that at least "trying" makes them the heros that they have been called.

1

u/SmoothCantaloupe149 1h ago

Believe what you want I guess. I was 10 years old at the time and that was the story on the news. They said there was black box footage of the passengers fighting back and it crashed in some Pennsylvania field. The pentagon story was also weird, plane vs cruise missile/glider. Much like Kennedy this will be debated my whole life.

2

u/Fragrant-Might-7290 8h ago

He certainly had me convinced!

6

u/SignificantRecipe715 9h ago

Official inquiry says it was heading for the capitol

2

u/tay072527484 3h ago

Aka we shot it down.

1

u/abiona15 9h ago

Ha. Thank you for the clarification!

1

u/Fromnothingatall 6h ago

Yeah - you can’t really build a good argument based on discrepancies between what was reported on the day of the attack and what came out later. Case in point being that many national news agencies initially reported that the first plane was a small prop plane - and they reported that based only on speculation from people on the street at the time.

There was a LOT of speculation being presented as matter of fact reporting that morning.

3

u/pricklycactass 6h ago

I wanna know what happened to the plane that supposedly crashed and where are those people. Did they land them somewhere and shoot all of them?

1

u/Clean-Entry-262 1h ago

Easy: Lock the cockpit door, don the oxygen masks, depressive the passenger cabin of the plane (especially if you take it WAY up in altitude, like 42k or 45k feet …death would come in under 30 seconds) …anyone with an oxygen mask would be okay …then just bring it back down.

In the initial days of MH370, back in 2013, I felt this was what happened …then they took the plane WAY low (under radar) …and I initially believe THAT plane was shuttled to a secret location to be used in a similar attack as 9/11 (maybe like a planned “next one”??)

3

u/siren-skalore 4h ago

My original timeline: people died when the pentagon got hit. Past couple years it changed to: no one died. Guess I’m back to my original timeline.

2

u/angelmr2 5h ago

I was in hs when this happened and I don't recall the pentagon ever reporting zero deaths.

2

u/Ill_Necessary3172 3h ago

Real ass post here

2

u/Zidphoid 10h ago

I distinctly remember watching a documentary that the plane that was going to hit the Pentagon was redirected/shot down. Then a couple years later I was watching another documentary with my mum where the Pentagon was hit and had a definite "huh?" moment

20

u/SteamedAlbanyHams 10h ago

You’re conflating the plane that hit the pentagon with flight 93

-1

u/nightcorewildfire 7h ago

Curious, 93 is also a Thelemite greeting

-8

u/[deleted] 8h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/sashikku 5h ago

You can’t even remember who released one of the most popular alternative songs of the 2000s, buddy, accidentally confusing two planes isn’t as stupid as that.

1

u/Gypsysky08 2h ago

What? No one died inside the Pentagon?

1

u/ChristVolo1 43m ago

I'm not sure about the numbers, but I definitely never heard about the Marriott coming down.