HIDDEN VIDEO SHOWING WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON
(www.bitchute.com)
Comments (147)
sorted by:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQDv-sbExGyUlhn_ir15tet5HAGM_eCBA
Maybe watch every video in this playlist before making comments that don't hold water.
Maybe not make assumptions based on a video of a video in a period when video recordings were sub 500 lines of interlaced garbage.
Maybe ask the question why someone would want people to believe it was thermite and a missile and not foreign born hijackers.
Like where did they come from and who green lighted their visa's when they otherwise couldn't have gotten them...
People say what they know. "Scud" missile. No.
It WAS, however, a cruise missile. My background has many things and many hats I wore while serving in the Military. One of these hats was an Aircraft Mishap Investigator. What significance is that? Glad you asked and I'll be as brief as possible to get the point across.
As an Investigator, you are trained in all sorts of "tells" so you can identify what went wrong by looking at a heap of metal confetti and a smoking hole. This ranges in everything of flight characteristics of all types of aircraft, to what systems it carries/uses. In this particular context, there is absolutely NO commercial pilot good enough to fly 4-5 feet off the ground over varied terrain, through telephone poles and streetlights, to hit the exact spot where auditing was taking place by internal investigations in the disappearance of 3.2 trillion dollars (remember rumsfeld on live TV talking about it?).
Added to that, I served almost 7 yrs in Special Ops during the 90's and have seen up close what a cruise missile does, as well its aftermath. "Up close" being relative to not being part of the blast for any pedants out there.
Fact: There is ZERO chance any aircraft built, or the parts that make it up, can punch thru 5 layers of spaced reinforced concrete plus internal beams and walls of someplace like the Pentagon. It would absolutely disintegrate within the first "ring", mostly upon smashing the first outer wall.
Fact: A cruise missile can punch thru 5 layers/walls; that IS what it is made to do.
The hole size of the Pentagon does NOT match up with the airframe size, nor does it have ANY of the traits associated with an aircraft hitting the site...but a cruise missile does.
Questions:
There was a hole for a "fuselage" which is the lightest and most destructible part of any aircraft, but there were NOT any holes punched for the engines which are the heaviest and most dense metal content?
If you view the photos of the up close aftermath, it shows floors of the building sheared away from the blast. Ok, by why are there wooden desks, chairs, pictures on walls still, and unburnt papers on those floors? Aren't aircraft full of fuel that would have incinerated all of that? Would a quick flash-blast of an explosive warhead leave some things untouched as they were shielded from the blast by a lower floor?
Why wasn't the grass burnt to the dirt by spilled jet fuel? Why wasn't the asphalt burnt the same? Why were walls not charred black by burning JP8 fuel?
Hint: these questions are called rhetorical.
I said it the day it happened and I've been saying it ever since: That was not a plane that hit the Pentagon, it was a cruise missile.
100%
ok so where would this missile have come from then? what was within the vicinity of the pentagon capable of launching a missile? I do not believe ANYTHING we were told by the way.
Probably a shipping container somewhere lol
any evidence of that
All of the evidence is with the FBI, or probably by now, long since shredded, digital copies wiped (like with a cloth? cackles), and any hope of filing together REAL evidence is long gone. Hopefully, some FBI was dumb enough and cocky enough, to keep a copy for whatever egotistical reason he has, and the white hats have that, OR, they may have it all along, and they're waiting to release it. These are the options, I tend to believe the first is true :(
true. these people are evil
why would there be evidence? I'd love to have evidence of it but it really wouldn't be hard to prevent that especially in the days before everyone had a camera in their pocket.
to back up your idea.
And where was the video shot from?
We, The US, have shipping containers hiding missiles/launch systems that can be moved into your neighborhood and you'd never know what it was.
Currently, these systems are positioned all over the US and moved regularly.
Now you know.
A cruise missile has a range of 1,000 miles. DC is only 125 miles to the Atlantic Ocean and less than 200 from Norfolk Naval Base. One could even hit DC from the Gulf of Mexico.
Wouldn't it be taking out everything in it's path though?
?
No, what do you mean take out everything in its path. It's a missile. It only hits the designated target. It flies well out of line of sight of the target, then approaches the target as programmed. Probably flew in low to avoid any anti-air weaponry that might blow it up.
It's convenient for the DS I'm sure, to set up the missile defense, then send a missile at it, themselves. They knew exactly how to defend from it, yet they exploited its weakness.
What I meant was, it's coming in so low. Now maybe they can swoop down at the last second and fly low like that. But what I was thinking about was all the 'stuff' around in a typical city. Mailboxes, street signs, bus stops, all kinds of things that could get in the way. In a short span of space, could a missile avoid all that stuff. But I suppose it would make a difference depending on where it was launched from. It's hard to imagine a place with the capability of launching a missile like that, already located so close to the building. But the alternative is that it came from farther away and that's just as hard to imagine. I hope we know the truth some day. It definitely wasn't a plane. I'd just like to understand the logistics of a missile traveling in that space.
No. A modern Cruise missile is synonymous with a drone being flown by a computer, GPS, and visual markers to ensure it's path is obstruction-free. Much more agile and precise than a human can do. So, yes, they can dip and bob in a microsecond to hit a target...albeit mostly in a forward momentum flight path.
Thanks for the info.
Gotcha. We'd have to ask the Afhanis how the missiles work. I'm sure theyre too familiar with it. Or Iraqis.
it went through traffic. it stopped at all stop signs and red lights to go undetected.
OBJECTION your honor! There was an engine found at the site. Strange since it wasnt the same make nor model of the engine that said plane would have been fitted with!
That is correct, it was junk debris they trucked in and scattered. The original vids and pictures show no plane parts, much less engines, anywhere in sight.
I mean, was it also clean and not mangled?
Since it's a Q board, here's Q's answer:
Drop 2221:
Question: Was the Pentagon hit by plane on 911
Answer: Yes
From Merriam-Webster:
airplane noun air·plane ˈer-ˌplān : a powered heavier-than-air aircraft with fixed wings from which it derives most of its lift
Cruise Missiles are defined as aircraft.
Q would not answer to directly implicate such an atrocity. Q WOULD answer in a general manner that could be taken however a predetermined group conscious bias has already been accepted. Many drops are proof of this. Additionally, it was said more than once, that drops were not necessarily meant for us and had additional meanings. Q also said some drops were disinformation. That can go two ways.
I'm telling you what I know from years of experience investigating such things, not as some basement dwelling wanna-be who read a wiki page wanting internet clout.
I'll say it again: It was a cruise missile.
Discussed to death on voat when this dropped -
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=airplane+definition&ia=definition
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/AGM-86_ALCM.JPEG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-86_ALCM
Doesn't the term 'plane' infer that it is manned though?
You mean like a paper airPLANE? 🤭🤣
I see what you mean, fair enough.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/5p8JjDyT5F4/maxresdefault.jpg
THIS!! 👆
Scud missiles are ballistic and this woman is retarded.
If it's showing a missile then It's a cruise missile, they are programmed and fly nape of the earth. they can hit with pin point accuracy.
Yes.
No just mistaken not everyone is going to know what the difference is, from the video if its real it looks like a cruise missile but to the average person they would think they are the same and i would guess a older person would think scud as they were always talking about them on the news back in the day.
The important part is if this video is legit it shows not a plane but a cruise missile which is a big deal.
The fact that the gov never showed any decent footage of the attack against the pentagon was a big reason people looked into it as it was obvious they were covering something up
Scuds were an Iraqi original.
And they're all ultimately based on the German V2.
Don't you mean the v1?
Iraqi scuds are inaccurate because they fall out of the sky when they run out of fuel, like a v1 bombs did.
I can't remember if the v2 operated like that as well or if they were actually aimed (being ballistic missiles) - happy to be corrected.
I think the V1 was not ballistic. It was kind of a primitive cruise missile. The RAF actually had some success with shooting the V1 down. The scuds were ballistic, though certainly inaccurate. I think all ballistic missiles essentially fall from the sky when their fuel runs out. The sophisticated targeting comes into play both during ascent and descent through the manipulation of the fins. Probably the scuds were just aimed at launch with no in flight adjustment.
Probably.
explain further, please? I do see something like a missile, not plane here, and in the other vid ( Ground shot) also
A ballistic missile follows a ballistic arc. Whatever that thing is, it's not following a ballistic arc.
correct, not ballistic, but missile, right?
I can't tell what that is. It appears to have been filmed on a potato. Whole video could be pure fakery as far as I can tell.
Yeh, well... it's what we do have... as not ONE surv. cams recordings availiable... after all this time.
It appears to be a missile of some sorts. Th video quality is suspect. However the blast is consistent with a missile and inconsistent with a plane.
Right!
Mobile missile launcher? Moved just after impact?
Phones were potatoes back then. Probably CCTV's too. compressed 480p at most. But yes, difficult to trust any digital media at this point.
Filmed on a flying potato, at that.
lol I mean she does believe you can tell anything from this video
Scud Missiles do not move horizontally.
That looks like a cruise missile.
That’s what my theory is, And after watching the beginning scene of tomorrow never dies I firmly believe it
A cruise missile the size of a 757 fuselage? With the resolution of that video, a 20 foot long, 2 foot diameter ALCM or Tomahawk would not even been visible within the blur.
Also keep in mind dust being kicked up behind it. It's hard to say what it is from the high quality 4K 60FPS film put out back in 2001.
Yes share us a video with 14 pixels and a crazy 60+ bitty ranting about "SCUD" missiles, which were soviet ballistic missiles, as in they come down from very high up, and wouldn't be available to Dick Chaney in 2001.
Sorry but I can't tell what is going on, only that a blur of 2 potato pixels hit the building.
Not to fucking mention that the speed at which this object would be moving wouldn't result in it showing up in so many separate frames of this, "video".
Obviously 9/11 wasn't as reported by MSM but it sure as heck wasn't a, "SCUD Missile" either.
Just a cruise missile.
OMG...you guys are picking this to death...THE woman is JUST trying to explain what the damn thing is...that is all. Since that time EVERYONE in their damn dog has said we were attacked by Middle Eastern guys. Who has SCUD MISSILES? YES...THE MIDDLE EAST...
I know it's a damn cruise missile and took the damn frame apart pixel by pixel...so it is a damn cruise missile. MorganGeist is quite correct AND to back him up...30 yr RETIRED Air Force and last duty station...bombs AND MISSILES!!!!!
Stop the berating of this poor woman...AND BEATING THIS TOPIC TO DEATH!!!!
Woah, take a breather. I think we're getting wrapped around the wheels on this. I think we all agree on this board that 9/11/2001 was an inside job. Especially the Pentagon story seems incredibly fabricated.
The specifics are important, especially to the newbies, for red/black pilling. We, however, should not be trying to kill each other over the HOW it was done. We're all here to learn and / or share. No one should be easily convinced one way or the other, but we all need to have open minds. Anything's poss[ible].
I agree with you. I am not berating the woman. I'm just saying it's a cruise missile. You are taking your accumulated frustration on the wrong fren lol.
This is the only comment in this thread that makes any sense. Thanks.
Of the few photos we have from back then I have looked for the impact of two 3 ton General Electric jet engines...no engine impacts can be seen or found on the wall of Pentagon they should have been about 20 feet on either side of the impact zone....no parts resembling the engines or a 1 ton turbo fan which is the central part of the engine...I concluded missle then, the video is another piece in the puzzle to be sure.
No 757 has ever flown with GE engines -- GE didn't have an engine in that thrust class, (and still doesn't). However, debris consistent with RR RB-211 engines was found at the crash site, as were 757 landing gear parts. This is consistent with "splash -in" crashes, where only the bulkiest parts survive and the rest is converted into confetti.
I know...it is always the first point to that gets jumped on...so...the distance is the same...the mass is different...and no...no part resembling the 3/4 ton turbo fan of Rolls Royce engines can be found either...the engines you say are there...just aren't there and still there is still no evidence of damage near the impact from a engine either way you look at it. Even if the wings folded...Newton says the object that is motion....remains in motion...its mass dictates the engines if present would have continued forward in a straight line yet they missed the walls of the Pentagon entirely. Imagine that. You are welcome to think anyway you like, it's okay. I think differently but I'm not sorry I misidentified the engine, as it doesn't change the physic's of the event.
Wasn't there a gnarled up engine found near the World Trade Center, but it turned out to be the wrong type for those planes?
https://www.startpage.com/av/proxy-image?piurl=https%3A%2F%2Fassets3.cbsnewsstatic.com%2Fhub%2Fi%2Fr%2F2011%2F09%2F05%2Fea8300b7-a644-11e2-a3f0-029118418759%2Fthumbnail%2F640x480%2Fe37c9e986f2617b3daad7d42ad0c6684%2Fwtc_then_now_engine.jpg&sp=1663581352T20ef3851b34963ca44a149a011c31e7e62b15e34afcdba520af339651ebc360b
You're fucking delusional. There are plenty of pictures of engine and landing gear debris at the Pentagon impact site. Your middle school grasp of physics does not change the reality of the situation that a Boeing 757 fly into the Pentagon on 9/11.
Where are the pictures and proof?
you forgot to say "ACCKTUUUAALLYYY"
I mean if that's the case, why don't we get 5 or 10 planes and do it again? 1-2 planes per side should do the trick, aye? /s (sarcasm)
SMH my head.
There's the other video from the gas station camera clearly showing it was missile.
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/skh09m/still_not_a_plane/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Then there is this one. Very fast but still not a plane !
And it matches the speed of the video the woman shows!
I believe it was a missile. But where’s our missing airplane ?
“They” took them somewhere and murdered all the passengers
Yes. I saw a video years ago that said the outbound planes beacons were switched with the incoming missiles. Air traffic controllers believed the planes were turning back towards DC, but it was no longer the planes they were tracking on radar but the actual missiles. The planes continued to fly and landed at some some abandon airfield and the passengers were killed.
Keep smoking that crack, fren.
The “passengers” didnt exist.
Fake names, personas, crisis actors.
There was no plane debris at the Pentagon.
I seem to remember a picture of Dick Cheney (Rumsfeld?) walking through the yard carrying a piece of "plane" wreckage, for the realism you know.
I believe I saw it, but it may have been scrubbed since then. Here's the closest I could get to finding that image.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-fbi-pentagon-on-911-2017-5
https://www.startpage.com/av/proxy-image?piurl=https%3A%2F%2Fencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSpagMLPbAWrPsZjlqUfSTB03PSK3RPUpHXy4ROFSdiP4PWa32O%26s&sp=1663580731Tfc3673e78b28a9daf2b5ce9bb181a464f0a8166e74a3cfad93af8d190e631e99
That last photo illustrates how far the pieces flew. Most of them probably flew into the next state, which is why you can't find them anymore.
I remember an eyewitness saying they was no plane debris. Maybe they brought it with them on the firetruck.
Sup Alex? How did that work out for you at Sandy Hook?
Sandy Hook is obviously a fake shooting.
Alex Jones (Bill Hicks) is obviously a Mossad asset.
Keep talking, i love exposing this stuff :)
"What happened to our passengers":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGB9A4ODmFo
It covers how the cellphone calls were impossible and suggest the plane was swapped out mid air(Like bane in batman) for something else. This was apart of Operation:Northwoods plan. Swapping the plane out mid air to make ATC think the new device is the original plane. From their you can land the original plane and kill the witnesses or get them to say whatever you want them too.
It's also a possibility the planes and/or passengers never existed. The government can create fake people all day.
The possibilities are endless. Flown into the ocean? Who knows.
Flown out to the DARMA island from Lost.
Kracalaktica said he drove by the week after 9eleven and his theory is it came from a storage /shipping container across the street. The road was blocked off. He said this in his rumble donation on a salty cracker live stream when this footage was played a few days ago. It was new to me as I saw it !
Maybe No Name wet started his plain again?
So a Club K launcher back in 2001?
Another view? https://www.bitchute.com/video/G16omcs7jxlW/
Yep. You can clearly see there is no plane debris in front of the imact spot, and since there aren't any 'wing' holes in the building it's impossible for it to be an aeroplane.
I'd love someone to take the perspective and scale into account from this video and paste in the kind of plane the official account says hit the pentagon
I have a strong feeling it would look a good deal larger than the slim profile we see in this video.
The wings would have fallen off on the steel light poles before even reaching it. The wings and the plane are aluminum.
Haha, for real?
Please tell me how a plane without wings managed to continue to fly into a building without ploughing into the ground first, this should be fascinating.
I was agrreing with you.
I guess you didn't figure out the wings would have been in the yard if it was a plane. It's why I mentioned the STEEL poles
I obviously read your post in a hurry, sorry fren.
Someone needs to redo this video without the stupid woman's voice.
Hkw did she get it anyhow??
Anyone got the vid without this dumb hoe squawking???
Just hit mute.
I remember wondering how two planes took down two towers, in a huge ball of fire. Meanwhile, at the pentagon, computers and desks that were next to where the "plane" hit weren't even touched. They were still sitting there, ready to be used. Where's the big ball of steel melting fire there? I am amazed there are still people out there that believe the narrative.
does anyone know what Filmed this? it looks like a very far, zoomed shot, and it looks like the camera is moving at a high rate of speed (but only towards the end), is this a satellite shot?
A jumbo jet would have been dragging its engines across the ground to hit as low as it appears. A jumbo jet cannot possibly be flown anywhere near that close to the ground. And it would have had to drop down to ground level pretty near because of all the surrounding terrain.
The only surveillance video I've seen in the past shows a cruise missile flying level with the ground and very low.
Agreed. Anon above remembered the old gas station security video as well.
You're right about the plane having to drop last second before impact. There's simply no other way. That type of shift in trajectory would be incredibly noticable in what little video we've seen regardless of potato quality.
Potato it is!
Can someone rotoscope this please? I don't have the technology or the know how.
Can someone post a video of a cruise missile hitting a building so we can compare
The height of the Pentagon is a little over 75' so if that's a missile, it looks to be ~ the same or slightly longer. It definitely doesn't look like a 757 to me. Without ever finding clear video, it'll always remain questionable.
Shot from under that bridge
Scud. Huh? No.
it hit the bechtel wall in the accounting department
I remember seeing another low res film from another angle where you can make it a dark object, nowhere near the size of a plane, hitting the pentagon.
https://youtu.be/annM0sQftdw
Looks similar to this.
Scud?
The camera view of this video is high up, possibly from an apartment building across the highway. (scenic webcams were popular back then) This could help explain the low quality. Probably 320x240 or lower resolution. Not sure what the 0208 means.
A few months after 9/11 i saw another clip a few frames of video from a parking lot camera that showed a missile going past before it hit the Pentagon, never saw clip again. the camera would have been at about 8 o'clock in this clip pointing to 3 or 4... i also saw a badly make clip that showed a plane but the size was all wrong from the same perspective, maybe a editing job..
Why would a camera jolt on the collision of a distant object?
At a bare minimum, this is a deceptively edited video. There's no reason the camera would suddenly budge on collision unless someone edited that in.
Tbh it looks like the plane
I think it might've been a bomb instead of a missile. The missile is probably CGI, same as the CGI planes hitting the towers.
Assuming it's real though the "missile" is coming in so low I doubt they could shoot it almost along the ground like that, even if it could be done it wouldn't be very safe to do and it is probably against protocol.
Here's a good video showing the CGI fakery of the towers, it's the same video as the one I posted in the replies below this comment but slightly better quality. https://www.septclues.com/SEPTEMBER%20CLUES%20COMPLETE%201.mp4
You legit think the planes were CGI'ed?
holy shit... lol
No way a jumbo jet nosecone could penetrate a steel frame building, let alone project out the other side still with its original profile.
what don't you understand? how much did the plane weigh? how fast was it going?
mass + momentum
ever see that picture of a piece of straw through a stop sign after a tornado... yeah that about this.
it's funny you people who claim the buildings were taken down with shaped/cutting charges yet don't seem to understand that the exact same concept is in play inside those devices...
the explosion sends a tiny metal V through solid steel like a hot knife through butter.
but a fully loaded jumbo jet flying 600 mph into a steel mesh facade is just impossible to fathom for you?
if you know anything you'd know that the facade was engineered to take lateral stresses (hold shit up/stop shit from falling) it resists compression... not designed for horizontal sheering forces (aka slamming a jet into them at 600mph)?
their sole purpose was to transfer the load down the outside of the building... it wasn't armor plating designed to stop projectiles.
you really need to take your gloves off and get a better grip on reality.
The plane was moving about 100 mph over it's max. It would have ripped apart at the rate of speed it was going at. There also was no holes in the steel framing of the building.
lol, so you think a modern aircraft, even one back then, is capable of being throttled up beyond a safe operating speed?
literally first result in google... Boeing 767 max operating speed:
Boeing 767-200 - Max cruising speed 914km/h (493kt), economical cruising speed 854km/h (461kt). Range of basic aircraft with JT9Ds 5855km (3160nm), medium range version with CF6s 7135km (3850nm).
the fastest plane was flying at 600 MPH.
the buildings facade was vertical slats, it's literally half holes and it was easily punched through by those planes.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/8d/3b/bd/8d3bbdbe7276db27898fa0ba809d84c0--twin-towers-world-trade-center.jpg
stop lying, at least stop lying to yourself, you look ridiculous.
You legit think the "planes" took the towers down?
holy shit... lol
yeah like almost every single person on the planet that hasn't allowed COINTELPRO to fuck their heads up with dumb impossible bullshit
I'm not saying that the towers falling were CGI, but they were taken down with controlled demolitions.
Here's a good video showing how the towers were taken down with controlled demolitions. I couldn't find one without subtitles or with english ones so here's one with french subtitles, not that you'll actually watch it though. https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/videos/video/30-9-11-experts-speak-out-french-subtitles
i've already explained this to other people, so look at my long responses to the subject in my post history (you won't).
i'm not wasting anytime talking to "the_earth_is_flat" COINTELPRO fedposter.
Are you slow? Why would the feds rat on themselves by making these videos? You're the obvious shill here LOL.
you're clearly far too profoundly retarded to understand any of this but lets give it a try...
don't you think it's in the governments best interest to come here and pretend to believe that the earth is flat and 9/11 was a controlled demolition so that they can associate crazy bullshit nonsense ideas to the people who question official narratives?
you look like a fucking fool, and you are here, you're accomplishing their goals.
you sound like a complete retard and you're doing it on purpose.
we see you fedophile.
Yep this video explains it well. https://fakeotube.com/v/31
Keep going.