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

a reply to: litterbaux

Does a car hitting something at high speed become basically invincible? Of course not. But they would be perfectly capable of causing the bolts holding the poles up to shear and the poles to fall.

a reply to: kittywrangler

Apparently speed makes things more structurally sound. An airliner flying at 20 feet off the ground at 500 mph is able to sheer off light poles with no damage to the wings.

I understand the energy aspect of the plane but the wings don't get added bonus to sheer strength at high speeds. The first light pole this plane encountered would have sheered off the wing and then spiraled to the ground almost immediately.

a reply to: kittywrangler

No it wouldn't. The pole is designed to fail if hit with enough force. The wing would have caused it to fail, and the pole would have gone over, exactly like it did. The wing wouldn't have instantly sheared off and fallen to the ground to lay on the lawn.

a reply to: litterbaux

You enjoy putting words in people's mouth don't you. I've never said that the wings wouldn't have been damaged. But claiming that a low speed impact where the pole remains standing, to a high speed impact where the plane hits higher on the pole, with more force is disingenuous at best.

The first light pole this plane encountered would have sheered off the wing and then spiraled to the ground almost immediately.

So now light poles don't get knocked down by something far lighter than a plane hitting them, and are indestructible? That's impressive.

Now I remember why I stopped getting into these discussions.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: litterbaux

Does a car hitting something at high speed become basically invincible? Of course not. But they would be perfectly capable of causing the bolts holding the poles up to shear and the poles to fall.

Even if the wings withstood the impact, the trajectory would be thrown so far off. The pole would sheer off but the impact of the wing would throw the plane into a different trajectory.

What's most likely is the plane didn't hit any light poles and the witnesses were just, wrong. Most likely scenario if this was a plane.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: kittywrangler

No it wouldn't. The pole is designed to fail if hit with enough force. The wing would have caused it to fail, and the pole would have gone over, exactly like it did. The wing wouldn't have instantly sheared off and fallen to the ground to lay on the lawn.

the pole is designed to fail? my money is on the steel, every time.

It can't be a plane because it crashed into the Pentagon horizontally. A plane would be coming from above. That can't be real...

a reply to: litterbaux
i don't trust the "witnesses" either, but i think i remember seeing a broken light pole or two. still, there wasn't any debris anywhere remotely close to substantiate an aircraft wing's impact

a reply to: Zaphod58

Good to see you here Zaphod. Thanks for the input.

That thing in the clip looked bigger than 2 feet in diameter.

Maybe something was developed for the "occasion"?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: litterbaux

Now I remember why I stopped getting into these discussions.

You stopped getting into these discusssions because your logic has failed you.

originally posted by: TheUniverse2
It can't be a plane because it crashed into the Pentagon horizontally. A plane would be coming from above. That can't be real...

Planes can fly horizontally you know.

It's how they go up and down slowly.

You can't be real.

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
An out of focus video of an out of focus security camera screen showing two or three frames on loop with a bonus of ear grating commentary? Groundbreaking!

Thanks for reminding me why I shouldn't bother with Bitchute videos, I guess.

Someone should be able to geolocate where that video was taken from. Looks like probably the highway interchange to the southwest of the Pentagon.

Glad I scanned this thread before watching the video. Your post saved me time. Thanks!

Bye

a reply to: kittywrangler

I know. If you believe the resident aircraft expert on this site you would believe these facts.

The light posts caused damage but did not ultimately cause the airliner to crash immediately. The potential energy of a standing, and still object, caused no inertial damage to a moving object. The laws of physics apparently do not apply here.

But, carry on.

a reply to: carewemust

Glad to help. I only made it about thirty seconds in. Couldn't take the dental drill to the ear drum much longer. You didn't miss much.

Which part in the video linked shows what this thread claims?

a reply to: opethPA

The video shows a white cylindrical object hitting the pentagon. Is it a plane? Maybe, it just looks like a white tube. Were the wings sheared off from hitting light poles on the way in? Maybe. Even Albert Einstien say if you move a brick fast enough it would fly.

I don't know what to make of this, it could go either way really.

There is no way whatever that white thing is, that it is an airliner. Cruise missle? Maybe not one of ours? Would be a different size so...

originally posted by: boredhere74
There is no way whatever that white thing is, that it is an airliner. Cruise missle? Maybe not one of ours? Would be a different size so...

my thought is that it could be something like a cruise missile, and is uniform in color so that something could be superimposed (holographically? i dunno) over it

originally posted by: nerbot

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: nerbot

I think time since and technology dont bode well for any "new" 9/11 photo/video evidence.

Happy to be wrong.

Works both ways. That same technology can be used for scrutiny aswell so we don't waste time missing the wood for the trees.

There is a reason these clips are a few seconds long, show me the complete film instead of a clip. this picture is so pixelated and quick, it could be easily digitally altered and posted as the "missing film".

originally posted by: litterbaux
I also found it funny, on day one, the CNN reporters said they didn't see any airliner debris. But many people said they saw knocked down street lights, the narrative at the time said, airline wings are so strong they could knock down street light poles.

Watch this.

That pole is leaning and would surely fall if it was hit harder and that leading edge is maybe not structurally strong across it's profile but the interior is where the main structure is left pushing the pole.

And that plane was taxiing and stopped, not flying at 500mph, so hardly evidence that shows wings would get ripped off I'm afraid but thanks for sharing.