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

a reply to: McGinty

Bingo. Missile.

a reply to: anonymous1legion

Certainly looks fake in that vid. Good catch!

originally posted by: nerbot
www.bitchute.com...EXPOSED !! HIDDEN VIDEO SHOWING WHAT REALLY HIT THE PENTAGON !!

Well, some of us have been waiting a LONG time to see SOMETHING as opposed to a single frame from the only functioning camera around the whole of The Pentagon.

Make of this what you will and bear in mind some of the comments that point to the fact that the (possible) missile isn't a "Scud". That said, it all may tie in with this thread:

Putin Say He Has 9/11 Information

Let's see how this unfords and what sources are originally responsible for the clip. What was flying around there to take the video....or could this actually be a satellite image?

What do you think peeps?

ps...great timing on the clip release.

I stopped. Reminded me of those computer narrated YouTube videos.

Good luck propagandizing! I had about the same quality back in 1990s over 56K modems.

originally posted by: face23785

So here is an extreme blowup of one of the frames of the original video that "doesn't show anything."

It is quite clearly a plane. You can see the tail. If you look really closely you can even see the distinct droop-nose of a 757.

And again, if you do a size comparison using the building for scale, the object is much too big to be a missile. If you discount the original video, this size point holds for the "new" video as well.

It's like pointing at a tank and demanding people believe it's a bicycle. Even someone with extremely blurry vision could tell, just by the size, it is not the object you're claiming it is.

It's not just not a missile, it's extraordinarily obvious it's not a missile.

Take the red off and look, somebody circle a ufo for me.

originally posted by: McGinty


Something more likely to take that trajectory is a surface to air missile

What trajectory? The one that crashed into a building roughly 24 acres of office space?


What surface to air missile has these dimensions?

What missile used as a kinetic energy weapon would have made a hole as big as a Boeing 757?

Boeing 757 having two engines about the same diameter as a cruise missile each, probably bigger in diameter, adjacent to a fuselage bigger in diameter than a cruise missiles, with the two engines being about 40 feet apart from each other.

The Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM) and the Tomahawk ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) had a length of 6.4 m (21 feet), a diameter of 53 cm (21 inches), and a range of 2,500 km (1,550 miles).

www.britannica.com...

Cruise missile whose diameter is 21 inches in diameter vs a jet well over 100,000 lbs, fuselage of about 10 foot in diameter, and a wing span of 124 feet.

And the damage is all wrong at the pentagon for a cruise missile explosion. The damage is from the outside in. And directional. An exploded cruise missile would have pushed the insides of the building out.


The size of the hole on the Pentagon?

The Impact Hole and Façade Damage: Many claims have been made that the impact hole was too small for a plane the size of a Boeing 757 to have entered the building. None of these claims have merit. The fuselage of a Boeing 757 is 12.33 feet wide and 13.5 feet high and the corresponding hole was about 18 feet wide. Early photographs were obscured by spray from fire hoses and hid a long gash of about 96 feet in the first floor façade. There were many missing outer support columns. Thus the plane’s fuselage, both engines, and the heavier, inner parts of the wings had sufficient room to penetrate the building.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

The hole the fuselage made was about 18 feet wide, the wings made a gash about 90 wide.

What surface to air missile would fit the evidence?

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: nerbot

Ive read through this...and after 20 years, can we not let these people rest?

Which ones have we awaken? I would imagine I would rest better knowing the truth was told.

originally posted by: WhatItIs

originally posted by: McGinty


Something more likely to take that trajectory is a surface to air missile

What trajectory? The one that crashed into a building roughly 24 acres of office space?


What surface to air missile has these dimensions?

What missile used as a kinetic energy weapon would have made a hole as big as a Boeing 757?

Boeing 757 having two engines about the same diameter as a cruise missile each, probably bigger in diameter, adjacent to a fuselage bigger in diameter than a cruise missiles, with the two engines being about 40 feet apart from each other.

The Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM) and the Tomahawk ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) had a length of 6.4 m (21 feet), a diameter of 53 cm (21 inches), and a range of 2,500 km (1,550 miles).

www.britannica.com...

Cruise missile whose diameter is 21 inches in diameter vs a jet well over 100,000 lbs, fuselage of about 10 foot in diameter, and a wing span of 124 feet.

And the damage is all wrong at the pentagon for a cruise missile explosion. The damage is from the outside in. And directional. An exploded cruise missile would have pushed the insides of the building out.


The size of the hole on the Pentagon?

The Impact Hole and Façade Damage: Many claims have been made that the impact hole was too small for a plane the size of a Boeing 757 to have entered the building. None of these claims have merit. The fuselage of a Boeing 757 is 12.33 feet wide and 13.5 feet high and the corresponding hole was about 18 feet wide. Early photographs were obscured by spray from fire hoses and hid a long gash of about 96 feet in the first floor façade. There were many missing outer support columns. Thus the plane’s fuselage, both engines, and the heavier, inner parts of the wings had sufficient room to penetrate the building.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

The hole the fuselage made was about 18 feet wide, the wings made a gash about 90 wide.

What surface to air model would fit the evidence?

Are you discounting anything classified? Do you have access to cia/military secrets?

They announced the existence of the blackbird when they retired it. They knew ufos were real and have been investigating since 48 but yea, they can’t keep secrets. They just blew up a Russian pipeline and hid it. Your entire theory depends on your ability to know their capabilities. So what are your credentials?

a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

They announced it's existence when the Blackbird retired?

Lyndon Johnson revealed the SR-71 during a speech in the 1960s.

I saw one at an air show years ago.

originally posted by: iwanttobelieve70

originally posted by: WhatItIs

originally posted by: McGinty


Something more likely to take that trajectory is a surface to air missile

What trajectory? The one that crashed into a building roughly 24 acres of office space?


What surface to air missile has these dimensions?

What missile used as a kinetic energy weapon would have made a hole as big as a Boeing 757?

Boeing 757 having two engines about the same diameter as a cruise missile each, probably bigger in diameter, adjacent to a fuselage bigger in diameter than a cruise missiles, with the two engines being about 40 feet apart from each other.

The Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM) and the Tomahawk ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) had a length of 6.4 m (21 feet), a diameter of 53 cm (21 inches), and a range of 2,500 km (1,550 miles).

www.britannica.com...

Cruise missile whose diameter is 21 inches in diameter vs a jet well over 100,000 lbs, fuselage of about 10 foot in diameter, and a wing span of 124 feet.

And the damage is all wrong at the pentagon for a cruise missile explosion. The damage is from the outside in. And directional. An exploded cruise missile would have pushed the insides of the building out.


The size of the hole on the Pentagon?

The Impact Hole and Façade Damage: Many claims have been made that the impact hole was too small for a plane the size of a Boeing 757 to have entered the building. None of these claims have merit. The fuselage of a Boeing 757 is 12.33 feet wide and 13.5 feet high and the corresponding hole was about 18 feet wide. Early photographs were obscured by spray from fire hoses and hid a long gash of about 96 feet in the first floor façade. There were many missing outer support columns. Thus the plane’s fuselage, both engines, and the heavier, inner parts of the wings had sufficient room to penetrate the building.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

The hole the fuselage made was about 18 feet wide, the wings made a gash about 90 wide.

What surface to air model would fit the evidence?

Are you discounting anything classified? Do you have access to cia/military secrets?

They announced the existence of the blackbird when they retired it. They knew ufos were real and have been investigating since 48 but yea, they can’t keep secrets. They just blew up a Russian pipeline and hid it. Your entire theory depends on your ability to know their capabilities. So what are your credentials?

The Boeing F-99/IM-69/IM-99/CIM-10 Bomarc variants had a diameter of 35 inches. A wingspan around 20 foot. Weight of 16000 lbs. The last missile was phased out / decommissioned in the April 1972.
www.designation-systems.net...

It seemed the largest surface to air missile from this list for the USA.
List of surface-to-air missiles
en.m.wikipedia.org...

Modern surface to air missiles are around 15 inches in diameter. The whole lighter, faster, better thing?

What modern USA platform has the capability of launching a surface to air missile the size required to make the hole in the Pentagon, and as much damage as a jet the can weight up to 230,000 lbs fully loaded?

Where was it fired from. And why is the vast majority of the accounts of a passenger jet which was backed by the radar data? And you still have to explain how the passengers and crew ended up at the pentagon.

a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

That’s a very common misconception about the SR-71. Lyndon Johnson announced the SR-71 several months before it actually flew. There is another common myth, also wrong, that he misspoke and said SR-71, and not RS-71, which was supposed to be its designation, so everything had to be changed to keep from embarrassing him.

a reply to: WhatItIs



" radar data "

Radar Data Provided by a Government Agency Can be Faked . You just Don't Get It .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: WhatItIs



" radar data "

Radar Data Provided by a Government Agency Can be Faked . You just Don't Get It .

Then how would it be faked, and show evidence it was faked. Then explain why flight 77’s flight path is backed by eyewitness accounts. Why the damaged at the pentagon was consistent with a large jet. And how the crew and passengers ended up at the Pentagon.

It’s easier for groups like pilots for 9/11 truth to lie about 9/11 for gain than it is to fake radar data of a large passenger jet from radar sites with scores of civilian counterparts, or civilian involvement.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Agreed, touche'. Thnx..👍

a reply to: iwanttobelieve70

You are right, tho I stand by my statements. Thnx, Best

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nerbot

IF that was a missile, it was a cruise missile. Something like a Scud would come down on the target in an arc. Cruise missiles are not big. The Tomahawk, the only cruise missile in service in 2001, is 18 feet long without the launch booster. With the booster, it's only like 24 feet long. And it's less than two feet in diameter. Cruise missiles are designed to be launched from aircraft and ships, which means they can't be big. And long range ballistic missiles don't hit the target in one piece. The warhead separates from the missile before diving on the target.

That would be one BIG cruise missiles at about 150 feet long, and it didn't blow up..

a reply to: LaBTop

Well first that isn't hypersonic. We can see it on multiple frames Very fast but not Mach 5 fast, and not even Mach fast. Also we are just now testing them, so how did we get a workable one in 2001? The ones tested are about 20 feet or less and that hitting the pentagon was 150+ feet... It didn't explode as a bomb, and lastly there was a huge amount of 757 aircraft parts in the rubble. Aluminium level metal basically disintegrated but heavy metals didn't, so yes the plane disintegrate as most of it was aluminium, but there was tons to parts like wheels engine part and other hard metals. To add 59 people were on that flight, so that flight disappeared as we know by ATC records.

a reply to: LaBTop

Except. You have no means to recreate the actual witnessed facade damage and directional damage of columns impacted by a 200,00 lbs jet, and the fire ball of a large passenger jet loaded with liquid fuel on initial impact.



Oopsy on your part…

a reply to: LaBTop

Just trying to make foot traffic for your bitchute account, huh….

originally posted by: WhatItIs

Except. You have no means to recreate the actual witnessed facade damage and directional damage of columns impacted by a 200,00 lbs jet, and the fire ball of a large passenger jet loaded with liquid fuel on initial impact.

Oopsy on your part…

The only explosion was the energy of the plane hitting the building, no actual explosives involved as we can see on the entrance. The rest was fire damage from 150,000 pounds of fuel.