Exposed !! Hidden Video Showing What Really Hit The Pentagon !!

I read through part of this thread and then just came across this video-short while watching some videos on youtube . . . hmmm



Interesting at the very least. Sorry if someone already added this.

Amusing how to this day.
Since 9/11 there are barely any vids of whatever hit the Pentagon.

The first and only vid of the object supposedly hitting the Pentagon.
You couldn't see very well what the object was clearly.



Due because in the area ironical somebody placed boxes right in front of the camera.

a reply to: Zaphod58
When it comes to the the Pentagon 9/11 story from the headlines.

I have a hard time imagining that newbie pilots supposedly were capable and able to pull off such impressive

"Warning low Ground" maneuvers.
Such a Boeing normal commercial plane would have already hit and burned down on the highway.

It would have being impossible for it to reach any buildings due to its massive size while impressively flying low to the ground.


Just somehow hitting a few poles and not hitting the ground and breaking up already?

a reply to: nerbot

One thing that no one seems to talk about ever.

Is wing in ground effect, I realise speed aerodynamics can limit an aircraft flying straight and level hitting the deck.

Though not considering a determined pilot to crash a plane, if some one wants to do it then they will.

Any ideas on how to calculate for the aircraft that supposedly hit the pentagon it’s altitide at the given speed and if it was possible to get if a couple of metres off the ground?


I probably will be corrected.

No matter what is officially said, when 9-11 happened and I heard the absolute horse sh(t coming from GW Bush about it, and then his pathetic speech about "conspiracy theories", I knew the official position was garbage. Actually as soon as the planes hit I knew it was planned with the help of the Bush CIA/NSA factions.

Official evidence riddled with anomalies and presented to the masses for consumption from really evil people.

Well.. if that was a missile, I want to know, where was it launched from?

The below vid is a series of pictures taken in the hours after the pentagon was hit.
Go to the pic on 0:28
and 0:19 for reference of the surrounding area




what baffles me is, how is that fence still standing up?
If it was a plane then wouldn't it have hit the fence?
If it was a missile, wouldn't it have to be fired from behind the fence? Since it hit almost on ground lvl

Even in the OP video, on 00:24, you can see that the fence with the black coverings is there. whatever hit the building seems to come from the constructions building, or from between the buildings


pic from 'after', fence intact


pic from 'before', OP vid, fence intact

Remember, a 124 foot wingspan plane COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED into a 60 foot hole in the pentagon wall.

Totally normal, nothing to see here.

Some things you just don’t need a video of to believe and know. If you pile enough crap up you know it’s crap. Now there are people that believe anything. A lot of them.

These lies remind me of someone in a relationship getting caught cheating. Very seldom would you have a video or a confession. The public is one spouse the government is another. We know they cheat and lie. We have caught them before. The “plane” hits the only section that hasn’t been reinforced, flown by complete and udder amateurs with military precision, on a completely clear day that a tactician would use hitting the precise point on the most sensitive military headquarters in the world in a spot with no cameras with multiple planes crashing with no debris because they incinerated but passports survive.

Just like Covid. I don’t have to be a biological scientist and have taped confessions to figure out I have been lied too. But there are some spouses that no matter the evidence will believe the lie because the alternative is too scary or too hard or too hurtful.

Why the video quality is super bad ? I agree that the official narrative is bs , but this video...i dont know, could be just someone making fun .

SCUD missiles don't look like that and don't fly like that


scuds are a BALASSTIC missile that means other than very small course adjustments it follows a set arc(a Ballistic trajectory) and does NOT have the ability to skim feet off the ground as they attack a target from the top as the missile is no longer under power(other than gravity).

It looks more like a large cruise missile, we(US) have decoys that can look like anything they want and carry a 2000+ pond penetrating warhead and can down SUPER low to the ground and the video if real looks exactly like a cruise missile attack.


here is a one min video that shows what I'm talking about and has real video of what the attack profiles for a ballistic missile and a cruise missiles final attack profile.

originally posted by: Kenzo

Why the video quality is super bad ? I agree that the official narrative is bs , but this video...i dont know, could be just someone making fun .

2001? Ever watched a 20 year old tape?

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
If this is actual footage that shows anything other than a plane hitting the pentagon, the next real frightening question should be, what did they do with the passengers on the plane?

Ever seen the show "manifesto"

a reply to: JinMI

That is a crap, blurry video as bad as all the others. You could not tell if that had wings or not, especially from that angle.
Means nothing.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: kittywrangler

originally posted by: putnam6


Most likely the actual jet and a 1 percent chance it was a remote-controlled mid-sized jet imho

Actual pilots say "no way" on the actual commercial jet option

when they start saying it was holograms instead of planes it's BS too. We can both be suspicious together, and still not have viable proof.

Thank you for your thoughtful response putnam. The only reason i throw the hologram possibility in there is bc if you watch original video of the second plane's WTC arrival, the left wing just disappears before it makes contact with the tower. How can it just disappear? THE WHOLE WING. I have since seen the video of the hologram dragon in the South Korean stadium. VERY realistic. Have you seen any of this?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: putnam6

Can We at Least All Agree that a American Airlines Boeing 757 Could Not have Hit the Pentagon as Claimed ? To this Day the Evidence of that is Still in Question IMO .

It seems that all evidence points to an airliner hitting the Pentagon and there is no reason why it couldn't have.

The pentagon aspect of this has always intrigued me the most. I remember making threads pointing out all the PTZ cameras on the walls of the pentagon, and being a person who designs and installs camera systems, it seemed very unlikely that there would be no video of this incident, other than the grainy two frame clip from the guard shack, which shows something pointy followed by an explosion. Then the lack of visible wreckage and the hole that seemed to be the same size through 6 walls just all seemed off. Official Story tellers have provided official answers to most of those, and like some other really obvious lies, this one will likely be hidden for a very long time.

a reply to: nerbot

This video isn't new. I've seen this video in 2002. A lot said it was fake, but I've shown many ppl the video over the years.

This debate could easily be ended by releasing more footage of a plane hitting the building, or even any of the inside security cameras footage. For the amount of cameras inside and outside the building it was always a sham showing those few clips.

Anyone have a reason why, after 20 years, they still haven’t shown more film of this historical attack? It’s obvious there was more footage per the amount of cameras, why can we not see it?

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
This debate could easily be ended by releasing more footage of a plane hitting the building, or even any of the inside security cameras footage. For the amount of cameras inside and outside the building it was always a sham showing those few clips.

Anyone have a reason why, after 20 years, they still haven’t shown more film of this historical attack? It’s obvious there was more footage per the amount of cameras, why can we not see it?

Because the story is false.