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

a reply to: nerbot

You'd need pretty good flying skills to fly a big heavy airliner into a building at ground level, especially to manouver around all the ojects and obstacles in your way. Way more than a couple of months on a simulator

a reply to: nerbot

Ive seen this footage before .. it will be buried somewhere on ATS
Imo, its fake.

Wrong trajectory for a missile

a reply to: WhatItIs

They’re all excellent points. But they do completely side step my post, which was about the object appearing the fly low and parallel to the ground in those 2 frames of cctv.

Can you explain why it was flying that low on approach, instead of downwards at an oblique angle?

a reply to: nerbot

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if it were a missile, it would not have come in horizontally like that, it would have flew down onto the building.

Scud missiles were very primitive, and were not accurate enough to fly that kind of flight path.

I don't think there were many that could back then.

originally posted by: Brigadier
a reply to: nerbot

You'd need pretty good flying skills to fly a big heavy airliner into a building at ground level, especially to manouver around all the ojects and obstacles in your way. Way more than a couple of months on a simulator

The jet was still descending in the area of most objects, and clearing them. Like an overpass or highway it flew over. What objects did it maneuver around? The jet clipped tree tops just outside the Pentagon on its decent into the 900ft wide wall of the Pentagon.

I never cared what people thought of the towers, I know what happened but don’t disabuse others of their right to speculate themselves. However, when it came to the pentagon event, I have always just seen it as a litmus test for common sense, IQ, and gullibility. Since day one the story was that a small hole was put into one side of the building by the tip of the plane nose but that the concrete wall made the rest of the plane disintegrate on contact and bodies vaporized in the explosion. Furthermore, the damage was so mild when compared to the planes which hit the towers which caused the first three buildings made of steel in history collapse entirely from fire. I have always struggled not to judge those who believe a passenger super jet flew into the pentagon level with the ground just inches above it without scraping, hitting the building but totally disappearing from sheer force causing minimal damage and no body cleanup required. There is no probability to it. It is a case of possible or completely and utterly impossible by the laws of physics in this universe (as are all four when you think about it with any sense but this one especially...).

a reply to: Brigadier

You'd need pretty good flying skills to fly a big heavy airliner into a building at ground level,

You ever seen how jets land? Same thing, just there was no runway.

especially to manouver around all the ojects and obstacles in your way.

Maneuver around what objects? Not like there were a bunch a high rises to dodge.

originally posted by: Brigadier

You'd need pretty good flying skills to fly a big heavy airliner into a building at ground level, especially to manouver around all the ojects and obstacles in your way. Way more than a couple of months on a simulator

Are you a pilot I think not... I am though...

originally posted by: McGinty


They’re all excellent points. But they do completely side step my post, which was about the object appearing the fly low and parallel to the ground in those 2 frames of cctv.

Can you explain why it was flying that low on approach, instead of downwards at an oblique angle?

Once the plane got close to the ground it would enter ground effect that is about as long as one wing. What that does is allow the plane to float along easier on the air that is pushed between the two hard bodies of the ground and plane. Flying isn't hard... landing can be, but then they were not trying to land.

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat
Since day one the story was that a small hole was put into one side of the building by the tip of the plane nose but that the concrete wall made the rest of the plane disintegrate on contact and bodies vaporized in the explosion.

You understand this was the entry point into the Pentagon for the most outside ring of the Pentagon before the damage section collapsed? The ring labeled E ring.


therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com...

As the jet disintegrated passing through D ring and the C Ring this was the hole used by conspiracy sites as the implied entry point to push a false narrative..


therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com...

a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat

Agree...

9/11 pisses me off for a lot of reasons, the biggest one is that I was initially fooled. I toyed with the idea of signing up to go across the world and fight people who had nothing to do with it. Luckily, within a month or so, after looking at the pictures and the videos I started to feel something was really off with the whole thing.

As bizzare as a plane vaporizing from hitting a concrete building, a plane burying itself all the way in the ground is another one that I always thought may be even more so. Never in the history of air crashes has a plane hit the ground and "Sunk" in so far nothing was visible.

a reply to: WhatItIs
The ATS 9/11 newbies are out on this thread I see, I am not going to spend a lot of time rebutting, done it a million times.

I will just relate one comment from a pilot, "coming in at that speed flying just above the ground, like a missile is an incredibly difficult feat, top gun pilots would be challenged nevermind a novice, especially with a full-sized airliner.
Crashing isn't the problem, getting levelled out holding that incredible speed and not bounce crashing, and hitting dead on at max speed is."

So basically making a huge plane behave like a cruise missile, with novice pilot skills.

originally posted by: AlexandrosTheGreat
There is no probability to it. It is a case of possible or completely and utterly impossible by the laws of physics in this universe (as are all four when you think about it with any sense but this one especially...).

The problem is you are believing incorrect postings. There was tons of aircraft parts from a 757 and a lot human remains from the plane, but of course the remains would be micro. The force impact was like 1.2 million pounds of mass hitting the building and it didn't make just a small hole, and it wasn't a hole made by an explosion from the inside out. On top of such massive force there was about 70,000 pound of gas that was instantly ignited that burned just about anything that could burn or melt.

So in your professional laws of physics opinion what does all this do to a building, the people in the plane and anything that isn't hard metals to withstand such force and heat?

Is there any simulation showing the airplane crashing into the Pentagon?
I could not find one.
It seems like to me people who are trying to prove it's an airplane would have an easy time if they could show a simulation.
Unless it's physically impossible, and so no such simulation exists.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: WhatItIs
The ATS 9/11 newbies are out on this thread I see, I am not going to spend a lot of time rebutting, done it a million times.

False authority with no evidence that you refuted anything.

You

I will just relate one comment from a pilot, "coming in at that speed flying just above the ground, like a missile is an incredibly difficult feat, top gun pilots would be challenged nevermind a novice, especially with a full-sized airliner.
Crashing isn't the problem, getting levelled out holding that incredible speed and not bounce crashing, and hitting dead on at max speed is."


So basically making a huge plane behave like a cruise missile, with novice pilot skills.

Hello?

What does your quote have to do with the actual decent and crash into the Pentagon..

You know. This is how you actually cite and link to a source. Something like an old veteran like you should be able to do using the same old tired conspiracy lies..

Final 4 seconds of FDR data decoded - Proves AAL77 impacted the Pentagon;


Flight AAL77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon - .pdf
Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, ( B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)
January 2011


The "Maneuver" - AAL77's Final Turn and Dive:

Section Summary: It is a very common misconception that AAL77 performed some professional rated aerobatic stunt moments before impact. They claim AAL77's hijacker pilot performed a 360 degree spiral "cork-screw" turn at over 500 mph, leveling out to the ground just in time to hit the Pentagon. This is far from the truth. In reality the turn itself was closer to 300 degrees over about a 5 mile radius, with the speed fluctuating between 260 and 300 knots and the throttles at near idle. The total time of the turn took over 3 minutes, making it even less than the very gentle "rate-1-turn" (360 degrees in 2 minutes). The turn was very sloppy with the angle of bank fluctuating between 15 and 42 degrees. The pitch angle was even worse, with some parts of his "dive" gaining altitude. AAL77 finished its descending turn 6 miles from the Pentagon, at an altitude of 2,500ft. It is in this 6 mile leg that the pilot advanced the throttles to full, accelerating and diving the aircraft to over 500mph and aiming it as his 900ft wide target; the Pentagon wall.

The final part of this section has a Dutch conspiracy show which takes a novice pilot, with similar experience to the pilot hijacker, and shows him using a full motion flight simulator to impact the Pentagon wall, 3 out of 3 times.

therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.com...

So? What’s your explanation for the radar data that tracked flight 77 to the Pentagon, the Pentagon facade damage too big for a missile, no evidence of a missile exploding, the jet debris at the Pentagon, and how the crew and passengers ended up at the Pentagon?

originally posted by: WhatItIs
So? What’s your explanation for the radar data that tracked flight 77 to the Pentagon, the Pentagon facade damage too big for a missile, no evidence of a missile exploding, the jet debris at the Pentagon, and how the crew and passengers ended up at the Pentagon?

They tend to conveniently ignore anything that uncomfortably doesn't fit their narratives. Like a very large amount of 757 plane parts...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: WhatItIs
So? What’s your explanation for the radar data that tracked flight 77 to the Pentagon, the Pentagon facade damage too big for a missile, no evidence of a missile exploding, the jet debris at the Pentagon, and how the crew and passengers ended up at the Pentagon?

They tend to conveniently ignore anything that uncomfortably doesn't fit their narratives. Like a very large amount of 757 plane parts...

Strange how that works.

why only a few frames??..... if its leaked, just leak the whole thing!!! a reply to: nerbot

I suppose it would be wrong of me to laugh at the video which proves the opposite of what the author wants it to.

So I'll just say it gave me a little grin to brighten my evening.

lets not forget one fascinating aspect.

the cameras were all turned off, so there is no footage of whatever happened.