Or if you have a basic understanding of things like angular size, perspective, etc. Oh, and actually watch the video.

Yes, ever so horrible that they want people to believe the facts. Poor you.

@mooneyes2k478 yeah I guess it's easier that way. Just keep believe. It's your choice. The government wish you all the best!

@@loneranger8343 Yeah, believing in the facts, as opposed to made-up nonsense, IS a lot easier. And, the government really have nothing to do with it. Unless, of course, you know you're wrong, and you desperately want something, ANYTHING, to blame that on so you can soothe your wounded ego.

@@mooneyes2k478 Why do you PLEAD? Yes, PLEAD, with random people, to beluiev this hilarious, synthetic garbage??? WHY? What do you care?

@@JohnWayne-w2g What was that about "copy-paste" again? Why do you literally LIE, yes LIE, to random people that there wasn't a plane. WHY? Why do you care? What do you gain? The evidence for a plane is OVERWHELMING. The video is entirely irrelevant to that. Making up things about "there was a missile", "it was an inside job", etc, is utterly nonsensical. Is it because you like the idea of terrorists killing random innocent people, and so you want to cover for them?

Instead of commenting without watching the video, I suggest you actually _watch_ it. That way, you won't say nonsense like you just did.

@@mooneyes2k478 Why do you PLEAD? Yes, PLEAD, with random people, to beluiev this hilarious, synthetic garbage??? WHY? What do you care?

@@JohnWayne-w2g What was that about "copy-paste" again? Why do you literally LIE, yes LIE, to random people that there wasn't a plane. WHY? Why do you care? What do you gain? The evidence for a plane is OVERWHELMING. The video is entirely irrelevant to that. Making up things about "there was a missile", "it was an inside job", etc, is utterly nonsensical. Is it because you like the idea of terrorists killing random innocent people, and so you want to cover for them?

What video were you watching?

I really like how you post 4 posts of unremitting nonsense, that couldn't POSSIBLY be because you know you have nothing and so think that spam will change reality in your favor.

@@mooneyes2k478 Why do you PLEAD? Yes, PLEAD, with random people, to beluiev this hilarious, synthetic garbage??? WHY? What do you care?

@@JohnWayne-w2g What was that about "copy-paste" again? Why do you literally LIE, yes LIE, to random people that there wasn't a plane. WHY? Why do you care? What do you gain? The evidence for a plane is OVERWHELMING. The video is entirely irrelevant to that. Making up things about "there was a missile", "it was an inside job", etc, is utterly nonsensical. Is it because you like the idea of terrorists killing random innocent people, and so you want to cover for them?

@@mooneyes2k478 IDENTIFY YOURSELF! WHO ARE YOU? WHY are you here? Wouldn't you and the other 77th BRIGADE, 9/11 DISinformation shills be better off just basically begging people like me not to spread the truth about what really happened on 9/11?, instead of abuse, flagging, f5, f5 vote up, vote down, switching YT names and repeating, changing the subject, twisting, abusing again, etc etc, you get my drift?? Wouldn't that be a better way to shut people up? We can't have the naive cattle that are the general public finding out what really happened on 9/11 can we??

I did. You could not be more wrong.

@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl Why do you PLEAD? Yes, PLEAD, with random people, to beluiev this hilarious, synthetic garbage??? WHY? What do you care?

@@JohnWayne-w2g What was that about "copy-paste" again? Why do you literally LIE, yes LIE, to random people that there wasn't a plane. WHY? Why do you care? What do you gain? The evidence for a plane is OVERWHELMING. The video is entirely irrelevant to that. Making up things about "there was a missile", "it was an inside job", etc, is utterly nonsensical. Is it because you like the idea of terrorists killing random innocent people, and so you want to cover for them?

Did you just claim the planes that struck the Twin Towers emerged out the other side and flew off? That is what happens when a hot knife slices through butter. The butter is cut, the knife unscathed and ready to use again. You might want to re-think (or think) your position.

No, because like all of your other claims, this one is also not true.

Distance. The farther away an object is, the smaller it appears. rocket science that ain't.

The same way your thumb blocks a whole silhouette of the moon. Or the nearest skyscraper. Or anything else. It's known as "perspective".

@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl

@@mooneyes2k478 TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl

Easiest way to hit the target and that is the goal - hitting the target. Have you ever reviewed the NTSB’s recreation of Flight 77 from the data recovered from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) found at the Pentagon crash site? kzbin.info/www/bejne/aafUdXeiiJ57r9k

He didnt! There were NO hijacked planes that day!

@@JohnWayne-w2g Other than the hijacked planes, that is. But, since that's your argument, where exactly are registered airplanes N334AA, N612UA, N633AA and N591UA?

Debating what? This es a description of what happened- a presentation of facts. There is no debate.

No, no-one is debating with you sheeple. Because you haven't managed debate once in 23+ years.

@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4flpretty much. This isn’t debatable. The plane crashed into the building and exploded. It was so low it knocked over light poles, but traveling so fast, it made no difference in resistance

What "low altitude"? What "heavily populated area"? What "maintain"? All of the capabilities of a 757-200, the flight path, the terrain, the abilities of Hani Hanjour are easily and publicly available information, and have been for the past 20+ years.

@mooneyes2k478 care to share a source so I can educate myself?

@@AlternateRealityTV123 Try Wikipedia, generally a good beginning. "Boeing 757-200 specifications". You could try Google maps, see what's around the general area of the Pentagon. Google search "Flight 77 flight path"

@@AlternateRealityTV123 - I'm a pilot. There is nothing that happened here that anyone with rudimentary flying skill couldn't do. Have you ever reviewed the NTSB’s recreation of Flight 77 from the data recovered from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) found at the Pentagon crash site? kzbin.info/www/bejne/aafUdXeiiJ57r9k You can easily skip to past the half-way point to begin. 1:10:00 should be a fine place to start. OK to speed it up a bit too. Pay careful attention to air speed, throttle input and altitude. Give it a watch and let us know how skilled you think Hanjour really was, or how skilled he really needed to be. There are no _Top Gun Maneuvers_ or epic feats of flying prowess. He isn’t skimming along the ground like Luke Skywalker for miles at 500 mph. There is nothing in that flight path that any pilot of rudimentary skill could not pull off with just as little precision and finesse. Note: he never even used the rudder. No one ever claimed Hani Hanjour was a great pilot, or even a good one. He didn’t have to be. But he had *earned his FAA Commercial Pilots Certificate* and was *grossly over-qualified to crash a plane* - the easiest thing any pilot can do. And he did.

The amount or lack of skill required to crash into the Pentagon like this depends on what the pilot was trying to do. If any crash into any part of the Pentagon was his goal, he accomplished it. Who knows---maybe he had intended to crash into an interior wall of the Pentagon, in which case his effort was just "close enough." The bias we have is that we assume the pilot crashed precisely the way he intended. Have you ever slipped and fallen in a weird way or dropped something and said, "I couldn't have done that if I tried." The pilot's mission was to crash into the Pentagon---perhaps ideally in a particular place, but any descent into any part of the Pentagon---a large target---would do.

Right. A pole that's designed to fall over at impact, and does so when struck by a car at 30 mph would "shear off" the wing of one hundred tons of aircraft at 500 mph. Also, not it wasn't and the hole was near exactly the distance from engine to engine. So, you concluded wrong, not that your conclusions are at all relevant.

It looked to low for that

"CAPS LOCK FOR TRUTH!" Or, in other words, "if I only scream loud enough, my stupid shit will magically not be stupid!" Didn't work.

It's 2 cameras genius. Some keen observation skills you have on display there. Probably why you have to SHOUT IN ALL CAPS

@@TheCriticalStinker-jw4fl BS. Only video showing “airplane “ hitting pentagon. And you being that naive to think there are only TWO cameras surrounding the pentagon is pretty funny. I bet you got the vaccine too didn’t you….

@@UNVACCINATED20 - The overwhelming majority of air crashes are _not_ captured on video. Doing so is in fact exceptionally rare. All the important stuff at the Pentagon is _inside the building_ so no real need to have cameras watching empty lawn or aimed at the sky. They are _inside the building_ where they can be useful. For the attack on the Pentagon two cameras captured _useful images_ of the aircraft. Local businesses (few in number and all a fair distance away) had cameras watching their own property, not the Pentagon. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZoSvY4Owr7ScfJo&ab_channel=APArchive The above video was shot on 2 identical low-res parking lot entry gate cameras with a fish-eye lens to widen the view at the short ranges the cameras were intended to capture and short focus. The plane won’t jump out at you. It takes a little effort to make out what you are seeing. Each camera was focused at about 10-15 feet and shooting at just 1 fps. *It is NOT continuous video* (which is shot at 60 fps or better) so don’t expect continuous video. The target is roughly 800 feet away and moving at 462 knots, which means it travels about 775 feet between frames. You can see the target by *pausing at **0:05** for the 1st camera and **1:32* for the 2nd. There is just one frame per camera, the target is far away and not in focus. At 0:05 the aircraft is partially obscured by the parking lot ticket post on the right side of the frame. The nose, top of the fuselage and vertical tail are visible around the obstacle, as is the spiral smoke trail from the damaged left engine behind the aircraft. At 1:32 the entire aircraft is visible, easiest to spot by following the smoke trail from left to right until it stops. That’s the airplane Personally, I always found it easier to watch for the doppler. Compare the frame before and look for what isn’t there. Have two tabs open and bounce back and forth between them. If you still can’t work it out then this video should help: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nprbgmawmJd1ntE&ab_channel=Doll1789MarshallDhody Then of course there is the mountain of other evidence,… which you seem to be ignoring. For,…. reasons…

The CIA is known to be able to get ahold of civilian planes to drop agents into enemy countries. Even if all of 9/11 was a government conspiracy, a plane hit the Pentagon, it's just a question of if terrorists were flying it or if the CIA was remote controlling it.

So the 136 witnesses who saw the plane hit, the 19 tons of aircraft wreckage recovered, the human remains and personal effects recovered from everyone aboard Flight 77 mean nothing???

And in what way your narrowmindedness in any way relevant or a problem for anyone else but you? Then again, you admit that you think Screw Loose is anything other than a joke, so that wasn't a surprise.

Don’t forget it’s still an ongoing case/investigation, maybe once the case is 100% finished MAYBE there will be more videos released

The guy who couldn't _rent_ a Cessna without an instructor you mean, who performed a sloppy left turn and Kamikaze'd into the largest office building in the world. A 9 year old could have done that.

No, most people actually think YOU'RE the kook, if they think about you at all. As evidenced by the fact that, they're not here to laugh at you.

Those photos are still easy to find by anyone who can master a Google search. That was the EXIT HOLE in the inner wall of C-Ring at the A-E drive, made by the nose landing gear. The ENTRY hole was in the outer wall of E-Ring. Flight 77 was in a dive. One engine struck a low garden wall just before the building, but none struck the ground or could have on that flight path. Where people get this fantasy that Hanjour was skimming just above the hedges boggles my mind. Try using real facts and stop guessing people! Why is there no clear video from local businesses? Because there are no "local" businesses. All are some considerable distance away and strangely, all of those that have cameras use them to watch their own property, not look at the sky or some government building a half-mile away. Seriously, this stuff isn't that hard.

@@MFitz12 You surely know this is only one pathetic part of the cover up. You surely know building 7 was not hit by a plane, you surely know aluminum plane wings cant slice through a building with STEEL WALLS BACKED BY CONCRETE FLOORS especially if you are able to do a simple youtube search of test crashes where wooden telephone poles (not much different from the alledged ones at the pentagon) will cut a wing in half as the whole flimsy plane crumbles into pieces like big egg shell.. FYI its designed to fly in air molecules not buildings thus it could never fly whole entirely inside, btw wings do not “vaporize either as officials claimed so explain which is it? Good luck with that and buildings do not free fall by fire and where is the stack of “100 floors of pancakes” Ace? What about the owner that just bought the towers and doubled his insurance ,had an appointment that day, said to “pull it” before bld 7 fell huh Ace? What about the Patriot act that was written BEFORE 9/11 and also “Project for a new American century” for regime change in the middle east ? I could go on and on all day but my advise to you is stop licking the governments anus and do research before you post, its all online if you can manage a simple search engine

​@@joedoe-sedoe7977- Please do not engage in deliberately evasive off topic derails and whataboutisms. Not a winning strategy.

@@joedoe-sedoe7977 So, when faced with a reality that ruined your fantasy, you devolved to "you surely know (wall of nonsense)".

@@MFitz12 Typical of a looser,one line no counter argument because you cant, just runs with his tail between his legs..maybe research operation Northwoods add that to your small brain, its the same playbook or how about operation Mockining Bird since you love the media

That didn't happen. Have you ever reviewed the NTSB’s recreation of Flight 77 from the data recovered from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) found at the Pentagon crash site? kzbin.info/www/bejne/aafUdXeiiJ57r9k Didn't think so. No one ever does. They just prefer to guess and assume. You can easily skip to past the half-way point to begin. 1:10:00 should be a fine place to start. OK to speed it up a bit too. Pay careful attention to air speed, throttle input and altitude. Give it a watch and let us know how skilled you think Hanjour really was, or how skilled he really needed to be. There are no _Top Gun Maneuvers_ or epic feats of flying prowess. He isn’t skimming along the ground like Luke Skywalker for miles at 500 mph. There is nothing in that flight path that any pilot of rudimentary skill could not pull off with just as little precision and finesse. Note: he never even used the rudder. Last 37 seconds of recorded flight after completing the descending turn at timestamp 1:21:30. Watch the EDT: 13:37:09 speed 302 kts altitude 2,199 ft. 13:37:29 speed 383 kts altitude 1,428 ft. 13:37:39 speed 442 kts altitude 560 ft. 13:37:44 speed 462 kts altitude 180 ft. (last data input recorded to the FDR, about 2 seconds before impact). Again, Hanjour dumped more than 2,000 ft. of altitude and picked up 159 knots in velocity,… in just 37 seconds No one ever claimed Hani Hanjour was a great pilot, or even a good one. He didn’t have to be. But he had *earned his FAA Commercial Pilots Certificate* and was *grossly over-qualified to crash a plane* - the easiest thing any pilot can do. And he did. Ever hear of Richard Russell? He was all over the news about 5 years ago. He never had a lesson. What did you think of his efforts? Nobody _ever_ claims what he did - which was far more spectacular in terms of flying than anything Hanjour did - was impossible. I suspect this is because he was white - and there are no political agendas which need to be satisfied.

"It's hard to believe that someone who was trained on a flight simulator could fly a commercial airliner " Ignoring the things that didn't happen, let's focus on the thing that did. How exactly do you think that pilots are trained to fly multi-engine jets?

The Pentagon was made of concrete, brick and mortar, not asbestos.

Perfectly adequate camera for monitoring cars passing through the gate, which was its job.

So are you saying that you don’t believe a plane hit the pentagon despite all the evidence provided?

I dare you to find any pilot who says they COULDN'T hit the worlds largest office building. That they WOULDN'T, because they're not suicidal fanatics, doesn't mean they couldn't. It means they're not brain-washed.

Lot’s of people are eager to opine on their fantastic notions of what Hanjour supposedly did and how good he was_without ever bothering to actually look at the data_. They just assume. Let’s replace assumption with fact. Have you ever reviewed the NTSB’s recreation of Flight 77 from the data recovered from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) found at the Pentagon crash site? kzbin.info/www/bejne/aafUdXeiiJ57r9k You can easily skip to past the half-way point to begin. 1:10:00 should be a fine place to start. OK to speed it up a bit too. Pay careful attention to air speed, throttle input and altitude. Give it a watch and let us know how skilled you think Hanjour really was, or how skilled he really needed to be. There are no _Top Gun Maneuvers_ or epic feats of flying prowess. He isn’t skimming along the ground like Luke Skywalker for miles at 500 mph. There is nothing in that flight path that any pilot of rudimentary skill could not pull off with just as little precision and finesse. Note: he never even used the rudder. No one ever claimed Hani Hanjour was a great pilot, or even a good one. He didn’t have to be. But he had *earned his FAA Commercial Pilots Certificate* and was *grossly over-qualified to crash a plane* - the easiest thing any pilot can do. And he did. Ever hear of Richard Russell? He was all over the news about 5 years ago. He never had a lesson. What did you think of his efforts? Nobody _ever_ claims what he did - which was far more spectacular in terms of flying than anything Hanjour did - was impossible. I suspect this is because he was white - and there are no political agendas which need to be satisfied. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z4C6pYKaqceIpdk

Ah, yes. "I heard something really cool-sounding that I didn't remotely understand and I thought that was an argument!

@mooneyes2k478 what's not to understand about it? Can you expound?

@@richardclancy4720 How about we try it the other way around. What does "Operation Northwood", according to you, mean? What with you trying to use it as an argument and all.

@mooneyes2k478 well I read the pdf that was released yo the library of congress. It's pretty straightforward.

@@richardclancy4720 No, you didn't. That you either make things up or don't understand what you saw doesn't change that, no, you really didn't. Meanwhile, that's not an answer to the question put to you. "What does "Operation Northwood", according to you, mean?"

About a second. If that.

Why would they not have managed. Planes fly "this low" all the time, it's called "landing". And, no. It shouldn't have.

Smartest republican

23 years later, you managed to not actually have an argument, or even something relevant, at all.

So, you don't actually know a thing of 9/11, then? Cool, you do you.

@mooneyes2k478 Did you blow them up? Or you're an "expert"?

@@LibtardsTears So, you don't actually know a thing of 9/11, then? Cool, you do you.

So, planes on your planet don't land?

So, what you're saying is, this ruined your fantasy and so you want to change the subject? Much shock...

@@mooneyes2k478 Not at all. I was always convinced it was a plane that hit the pentagon. I just wish they'd explain WTC7 because that situation is frankly the most insane to believe.

@@andrice42 So, in what way does "building 7" have to do with anything in this video? If you want to change the subject, find a video catering to that subject.

💯

Wow. You managed to get pretty much fuck-all right. Did you work on it?

Neveruary, 2099

Making up things that does not exist doesn't make for an argument. Not for you and not for your imaginary friend.

💯

Why would there be more? Why would there be ANY? Making up things and claiming that "you know" isn't an argument. Neither is making things up about "surrounding businesses" or tapes.

"through" would cause more damage than "from above". Not saying that that's the thought the terrorists had, but it IS possible.

Dont you find it strange, the pentagon, a highly secured area only has one camera catch this “plane?”

@@UNVACCINATED20 I'm certain there's footage they're withholding from the public. Valid point you make.

@@UNVACCINATED20 Don't you find it strange that people think cameras would be on the OUTSIDE in a "highly secured area"? But I'm sure random patches of lawn and sky are really important in the scheme of security.

Same here…. This plane was flying like a lawnmower.. make no sense.

Good thing that isn't what happened then. It makes more sense when we stick to what actually happened, not delusions about what happened. Have you ever reviewed the NTSB’s recreation of Flight 77 from the data recovered from the Flight Data Recorder (FDR) found at the Pentagon crash site? kzbin.info/www/bejne/aafUdXeiiJ57r9k&ab_channel=cjnewson88 You can easily skip to past the half-way point to begin. 1:10:00 should be a fine place to start. OK to speed it up a bit too. Pay careful attention to air speed, throttle input and altitude. Give it a watch and let us know how skilled you think Hanjour really was, or how skilled he really needed to be. There are no _Top Gun Maneuvers_ or epic feats of flying prowess. He isn’t skimming along the ground like Luke Skywalker for miles at 500 mph. There is nothing in that flight path that any pilot of rudimentary skill could not pull off with just as little precision and finesse. Note: he never even used the rudder. The prep for Hanjour’s “impossible Top Gun maneuver” starts from about 1:00:00 and the turn at 1:12:00. Note that at 1:00:00 Flight 77 is at 25,000 feet and 282 knots with the throttles at 75%. Over the next 12 minutes the altitude drops massively and he is up and down with the throttles desperately trying to manage speed. By the time Hanjour sets up for the “impossible” descending turn, Flight 77 is traveling at 322 knots and 9,900 feet with throttles at 30% as it sets up the turn. He drops to 6,950 feet before climbing back up to just a bit to just over 8,400 feet to scrub the speed down to 281 knots to start the turn, picks up a bit of speed back to around 320 knots as it starts to descend through 7,000 ft, dropping to 292 kts as it passes through 6,700 feet and enters the first part of the right hand descending turn. He is all over the place. Hanjour picks up altitude again to about 8,500 feet at 278 kts before entering the final 270-dg loop, dropping the throttles down to 25% and generally holding between 265-295 kts on his way around. Rate of descent like the speed is highly inconsistent. It was a roller coaster. Flight 77 starts to come out of the turn at 3,000 ft. and 290 kts still at 25% throttle. At 2,042 ft. and 316 kts Hanjour straightens out at the end of the turn and pins the throttles to 100%. Note that at no point during any of this does Hanjour apply any rudder. Over the next 4 miles Flight 77 descends in a shallow dive (picking up even more speed) from 2,000 ft to a last recorded altitude of 180 feet and velocity of 462 kts (531 mph) as it crosses over Washington Blvd moments before impact. Probably about 2 seconds prior to impact. Last 37 seconds of recorded flight after completing the descending turn at timestamp 1:21:30. Watch the EDT: 13:37:09 speed 302 kts altitude 2,199 ft. 13:37:29 speed 383 kts altitude 1,428 ft. 13:37:39 speed 442 kts altitude 560 ft. 13:37:44 speed 462 kts altitude 180 ft. (last data input recorded to the FDR, about 2 seconds before impact). Again, Hanjour dumped more than 2,000 ft. of altitude and picked up 159 knots in velocity,… in just 37 seconds The flight path supports the conclusion Hanjour accidentally arrived over his target about 6,000 feet too high and had too much speed to correct in time. In short, he didn’t plan properly. Therefore, Hanjour had to perform a fairly standard descending turn to scrub off speed and altitude. It is a routine procedure all pilots learn early on. This wasn’t a “precision” turn. Hanjour was up, down, to the sides, speed fluctuating the whole time. No Top Gun prowess in evidence. He (just) got it done with little skill in evidence. It actually worked out well for him, as he managed to roll out 6 miles from the Pentagon and had plenty of time to line up his 900 foot wide target and full power the engines. The reason it worked was because he reduced his throttles to reduce speed to make the turn. Among the conspiracy minded this simple, sloppily executed right hand descending turn is invariably characterized as an “impossible maneuver not even a Top Gun fighter pilot could pull off.” That assumption is invariably premised on the false starting assumption Hanjour did his turn at full tilt. Because Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 530+ mph the non-thinkers just assume the entire flight was at 530 mph, including the turn. Oh, and that Hanjour flew the entire final leg at treetop height too BECAUSE THEY DON’T CHECK BASIC FACTS!!! Such claims are obvious nonsense on the face of it yet I keep running into them. To claim Hanjour couldn't have done what he did is to admit ignorance. The facts are there, readily available from the radar and FDR data and witnesses. The turn was unplanned and sloppy, speed, course and altitude all over the place. Far from a Top Gun ace, Hanjour flew not even as well as Richard Russell. But it was just good enough to get the job done - he didn’t cock it up SO badly that he crashed before reaching his target.

Yet that guy in Seattle was able to start, taxi ,take off, fly , do acrobatic maneuvers with zero experience other than video games

Let's see. FAA-issued, _commercial_ , pilots license. Multiple hundred hours on multi-engine jet simulator. No "perfect downward spiral". No knowledge of the altitude. And of course, the "financial department" is, and was, located in Indianapolis, Indiana. You managed to get pretty much fuck and all right, didn't you?

Another dumb part about the missile theory is that they never mention the passenger's who died on the plane. Some even say their identities we're fake.

Honestly, virtually all of these conspiracy theorists just don't even take the time to actually do their research, listen to recordings, read documents. It's brainrotting.

@@bliaher1582 Which would be really impressive, what with one of them being a former congressional lawyer, published author, and CNN commentator....and that's just ONE of the people on board.

WHAT??? A 747 is 63 feet high( 6 stories ).The hole in the wall is about 15 ft high. There no dug up ground ( there would have to be ) in front of the hole in the wall! That's Mathematically IMPOSSIBLE! ALSO the light poles were sheared off ( I don't know of a light pole that's 60 ft. high), but the ground was UNTOUCHED??? The ground would HAVE to be dug up like a Crater... Another bit of impossible! And why would Bin Laden...Blah, Blah, Blah???.....HE DIDN'T!!!!! Don't you think the Pentagon would have the BEST video SECURITY IN THE WORLD???? There is no plane in this ( or any other ) because there wasn't one!!

WRONG!!!!

More like not crazy