×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
3

How does a "cruise missile" take out multiple light poles dozens of feet apart?

submitted by chrimony to USPolitics 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 15:17:56 ago (+6/-3)     (www.youtube.com)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

Answer: It doesn't. The wings of a plane do. Link is to a 3d simulation of the flight path of the plane, mixed with actual photo evidence. Peddling kooky theories about cruise missiles muddies the water from hard facts like the Dancing Israelis.


27 comments block


[ - ] lord_nougat 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 15:19:42 ago (+0/-0)

A proper warhead would have presumably done more impressive damage, as well.

[ - ] account deleted by user 2 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 15:28:22 ago (+2/-0)

account deleted by user

[ - ] lord_nougat 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 15:30:35 ago (+0/-0)

Humanitarian relief fissile payloads are the best.

[ - ] account deleted by user 1 point 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 15:34:58 ago (+1/-0)

account deleted by user

[ - ] account deleted by user 5 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 15:33:21 ago (+5/-0)

account deleted by user

[ - ] Rob3122 4 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 15:40:32 ago (+4/-0)*

Then why not show the video instead of 3d simulations?

[ - ] chrimony [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 16:33:04 ago (+1/-1)

If you either read my post fully or watched the linked video, you would see it includes the one video we have of the attack, from the security camera footage. It corroborates the simulation.

Oh, you want a video that shows a perfect view of the plane coming down and hitting the light poles. Of course. Even though we have videos of planes hitting the towers, and even though all the evidence lines up with a plane hitting the Pentagon, that's not enough. And that's where the kooks live, denying or ignoring the evidence we have, and demanding more, while inventing kook theories that don't match the evidence.

[ - ] Rob3122 3 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 17:10:34 ago (+3/-0)

Why is it just the one video from across the street? Why did the Pentagon not release a video from all the cameras all over the Pentagon? Why did they confiscate any security footage from local businesses around the Pentagon that have it on film?

[ - ] chrimony [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 19:55:57 ago (+0/-0)

Why does the evidence line up with a plane and not a cruise missile?

[ - ] Nosferatjew 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 6, 2022 00:14:04 ago (+0/-0)

Where is the physical evidence that a plane crashed occurred? What happened to the plane?

[ - ] chrimony [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 6, 2022 01:49:47 ago (+0/-0)

"And that's where the kooks live, denying or ignoring the evidence we have, and demanding more, while inventing kook theories that don't match the evidence."

The evidence has been given, but like the retard you are, you ignore it and ask where it is.

[ - ] ButtToucha9000 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 6, 2022 03:45:54 ago (+0/-0)

Where? What evidence? That light poles got busted? Where is the wreckage of the plane? Planes don't disintegrate they are giant metal birds that leave very specific debris. None of it was there because it wasn't a plane.

[ - ] Nosferatjew 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 6, 2022 12:23:16 ago (+0/-0)

The "evidence" that has been given does not prove the claim that a 757 commercial airliner crashed into the Pentagon.

[ - ] Rob3122 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 6, 2022 16:58:04 ago (+0/-0)

Why are we talking about "evidence" when they can simply just show the world the proof?

[ - ] BitterVeteran 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 18:09:12 ago (+1/-1)

So you're saying a plane DID hit the Pentagon? All your sarcastic comments are just coy bullshit.

What are you saying?

Say what you mean; and mean what you say.™

[ - ] Monica 0 points 1.9 yearsAug 6, 2023 16:04:09 ago (+0/-0)

He's scared people know that a missile hit the pentagon.

[ - ] BitterVeteran 0 points 1.9 yearsAug 8, 2023 00:59:34 ago (+0/-0)

This was from 1.3 years ago. Wow. No, don't feel bad, not making fun of you. I've also necroposted about this long ago. Just thought it was funny.

[ - ] SocksOnCats 2 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 21:56:29 ago (+2/-0)*

The leading edges of the blades of a turbofan are made of a very special titanium-based alloy. This substance is nearly indestructible. The entire plane could disintegrate in to dust, and those leading edges would still be there.

But they weren't.

Those pieces of the plane, which should have been pretty visible in pictures and to people on the ground, were nowhere.

QED: No plane.

[ - ] chrimony [op] -1 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 22:04:17 ago (+0/-1)

This is more retarded ignoring the evidence and insisting that the scene must be exactly as you had imagined it, including 100% documented and available to the public, and the physics and material science of a plane traveling hundreds of miles per hour into a concrete and steel building.

QED: You are retarded.

[ - ] SocksOnCats 2 points 3.1 yearsMay 5, 2022 23:24:55 ago (+2/-0)

Heh. I majored in aerospace. Funny, that.

[ - ] chrimony [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 6, 2022 01:50:54 ago (+1/-1)

And you're still retarded. That is pretty funny.

[ - ] ButtToucha9000 1 point 3.1 yearsMay 6, 2022 03:46:55 ago (+1/-0)

You sound like voice warrior.

[ - ] Nosferatjew 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 6, 2022 00:12:22 ago (+0/-0)*

Where is the wreckage of the plane? You know, like wings and fuselage and landing gear and engines and seats and bodies. Where is all that stuff? Did it just vaporize on impact? Is that how plane crashes work all of a sudden? And where's the rest of the security camera footage of the plane crashing into the building? Shouldn't there be multiple angles of this event captured by security cameras?

Not sure if you are aware, but there are frames missing from the ONLY security camera footage used to "prove" it was a plane. These frames would show what actually hit the building, but they are gone. Meanwhile, the frames that remain do not show a plane.

[ - ] chrimony [op] 0 points 3.1 yearsMay 6, 2022 01:57:17 ago (+0/-0)

Wreckage was found at the site. You ignore it. The video I linked includes some of the obvious pieces lying on the ground, as well as more shots from deep within the wreckage of the kinds of substantial pieces you're asking for.

You seem to forget the plane flew at hundreds of miles into a reinforced steel and concrete building, punching a hole through it and starting a massive fire. But you ignore the wreckage that's been documented, and then expect that there's just going to be an obvious plane in jigsaw pieces sitting in front of the building for you to gawk at, and determine in your ultimate wisdom, "Well, by golly, that shure is a plane!"

[ - ] Nosferatjew 1 point 3.1 yearsMay 6, 2022 12:21:25 ago (+1/-0)

The wreckage that was "documented" was not the wreckage of a 757 commercial airliner full of people.

[ - ] deleted 0 points 1.9 yearsAug 6, 2023 19:34:06 ago (+0/-0)

deleted

[ - ] chrimony [op] 0 points 1.9 yearsAug 6, 2023 20:04:42 ago (+0/-0)

Watch the linked video to the post you're commenting on.