Leaked: 911 Anniversary Pentagon Hit With Cruise Missle

Whether the video is real or not doesnt prove whether a missile hit the pentagon or not. The footage of the hole before the wall collapsed is the real footage, that alone proves a passenger plane did not hit the pentagon. I saw the footage soon after it happened.
And yes, because an official story(lie) even exists and has been perpetuated until now, that proves it was an inside job.

Well Crakeur... here's a good example of how labeling things as hoaxes will be seen more as taking sides than anything else.

People here are claiming a video to be a proven hoax but we are talking 9.11 here. Do we dare suspect that there is a move afoot to disrupt open dialogue on the subject? It is indeed a tender one... and insults are already being tossed at those being labeled as 'truthers'... they sure aren't compliments.

Or is everyone who questions anything anymore, subject to this?

ATS is one of the few places left where those who don't buy the official story of anything can come to talk about it openly... but the times, they are a-changing and daring to do so now can obviously get one attacked, even here.

jhn7537
Man, the Government sure did show up fast here... Instead of having a discussion lets just trash the thread after a single post... Spectacular idea!

And OtherSideOfTheCoin showed up!!! We almost have all our OS folks gathered in here.. Exciting stuff!

edit on 30-10-2013 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)

I think we could all debate or discuss if 9/11 was an inside job, no one denies that and their is compelling evidence to support either side.

The OP though posted a video has been linked before and proven to be a hoax, what is their to discuss about this specific video?

Redoubt
People here are claiming a video to be a proven hoax but we are talking 9.11 here.

Seems to me this thread is about the specific video mentioned in the title. Again I am all for a logical discussion on 9/11 but a thread that makes a statement on a known hoax is a bit of a rabbit hole.

reply to post by opethPA

Seems to me this thread is about the specific video mentioned in the title. Again I am all for a logical discussion on 9/11 but a thread that makes a statement on a known hoax is a bit of a rabbit hole.

The problem... for lack of a better word, is calling anything of this nature a 'hoax' because you have one side that believes that the hoax is the calling it a hoax. From that point, one is seen as taking sides and then... it erupts.

In my opinion, this or anything should not be judged in any official manner. It should be left for the individual to decide for him or herself. Whether we fell from trees and evolved or were created by deity... we all have brains and not a single one of 8+ billion are running the exact same OS.

I just see no reason to inspire a distrust that already exists.

no dought it was an inside job but what I don,t get is why there is no ball of fire from the missile hitting ptgn from the "new" footage and when you look at the drivethrough footage from the security gate which wa released from day one, that has a big fire ball, it was an inside job butall I see is a white triangel, or am I missing something? It is thare that your claim of "try and debunk this!!" falls flat on its arse.

Like I said for the record, I have no dought but that footage doesn,t addd up.

Peace.

Vasa Croe
Oh...and by the way...here is the debunk...it was previously shot footage with the missile and explosion added in. Here is the side by side of the original with the one above to show you...

This debunks NOTHING. Show me the video of a 767 crashing into the pentagon. That I might consider. If it happened that footage must exist right?

Urantia1111

Vasa Croe
Oh...and by the way...here is the debunk...it was previously shot footage with the missile and explosion added in. Here is the side by side of the original with the one above to show you...

This debunks NOTHING. Show me the video of a 767 crashing into the pentagon. That I might consider. If it happened that footage must exist right?

Ummm...actually it debunks the EXACT video in the OP.

Such great timing for this thread.......

anything that gets de-bucked in under 30 seconds,,well there must be a burr,, under that sadle.




anyone want too guess what the off color part of the cruise missle,,is???

reply to post by NONPOINT21


Just like there are people that will debunk everything there are those that turn everything into a conspiracy. There is enough surrounding 9/11 to make me curious but that's only when, and its a big when, you consider that the government would try to pull off something as asinine as crashing 4 planes and trying to keep it a secret.

Seriously, what benefit did they gain?

War in Iraq? Patriot Act? More intrusion on civil liberties?

They could of gotten all that by giving some arab man a dirty bomb and setting it off in NYC. Imagine if you were tasked with creating a false flag for Bush and Cheney and they sat you down to listen to your ideas and you bring up the idea of crashing 4 planes into buildings.

They would laugh you right out the door. You do not blow up your house to kill a fly when a squirt of raid works just as well.

the2ofusr1
reply to post by eso322

 

To bad they won't release all the other vid's surrounding the Pentagon but I would imagine the cat would really be out of the bag and maybe they may have to account for all the billions that went missing prior to 911 .

Billions? Try Trillions!

Spookybelle
reply to post by NONPOINT21

 

Just like there are people that will debunk everything there are those that turn everything into a conspiracy. There is enough surrounding 9/11 to make me curious but that's only when, and its a big when, you consider that the government would try to pull off something as asinine as crashing 4 planes and trying to keep it a secret.

Seriously, what benefit did they gain?

War in Iraq? Patriot Act? More intrusion on civil liberties?

They could of gotten all that by giving some arab man a dirty bomb and setting it off in NYC. Imagine if you were tasked with creating a false flag for Bush and Cheney and they sat you down to listen to your ideas and you bring up the idea of crashing 4 planes into buildings.

They would laugh you right out the door. You do not blow up your house to kill a fly when a squirt of raid works just as well.

What they stood to gain was all laid out in the PNAC(Project for a New American Century) document that they released before 911 stating their need for a new "pearl harbour type event" to speed up a grab of the worlds resources.

PNAC info link

Instead of being a little interested maybe you should actually study the subject before questioning whether the government would do it, because they did do it.

redoubt
Well Crakeur... here's a good example of how labeling things as hoaxes will be seen more as taking sides than anything else. Or is everyone who questions anything anymore, subject to this?

A hoax is a hoax. If people would pay closer attention to what they're watching, they would pick these videos apart very easily.

The "explosion" in the video is fake, CGI (computer-generated image). The "explosion" was overlayed on top of the video, but they did a very poor job of keeping the "explosion" moving at the same exact frame-rate of the video.

What you get is an "explosion" that can't keep up with the moving video, which you can visually see if you're paying attention. I've cropped and zoomed in on the "explosion" for a closer inspection.

In this first image, you can see the entire "explosion" sequence. Notice it has problems keeping up with the movement of the camera:


In this image, you can see the "explosion" jumping up and down instead of staying in place:


And this image, you can see the "explosion" moving from side-to-side instead of staying in place:




And that's why this video, and all of it's various iterations are HOAXes. A manufactured, computer-generated fake. There's not a better definition for the word "hoax".

_BoneZ_

redoubt
Well Crakeur... here's a good example of how labeling things as hoaxes will be seen more as taking sides than anything else. Or is everyone who questions anything anymore, subject to this?

A hoax is a hoax. If people would pay closer attention to what they're watching, they would pick these videos apart very easily.

The "explosion" in the video is fake, CGI (computer-generated image). The "explosion" was overlayed on top of the video, but they did a very poor job of keeping the "explosion" moving at the same exact frame-rate of the video.

What you get is an "explosion" that can't keep up with the moving video, which you can visually see if you're paying attention. I've cropped and zoomed in on the "explosion" for a closer inspection.

In this first image, you can see the entire "explosion" sequence. Notice it has problems keeping up with the movement of the camera:

In this image, you can see the "explosion" jumping up and down instead of staying in place:

And this image, you can see the "explosion" moving from side-to-side instead of staying in place:

And that's why this video, and all of it's various iterations are HOAXes. A manufactured, computer-generated fake. There's not a better definition for the word "hoax".

Lol, I hope the irony is not lost here.....

Next thing you know you have SO in here saying how the vid is compressed and has a low resolution and is therefore not to be used as evidence for CGI...........and then closes the thread..........

redoubt

NoRulesAllowed
Maybe it's time to start THINKING (!) why sites like 911"truth".org release such fake rubbish.

WHO HAS AN AGENDA, HU?

Opinion, my friend. Just because you (or anyone else) holds something to be 'rubbish' doesn't mean the rest of humanity does...

indeed - just because something is shown to be 100% fake doesn't mean you shouldn't believe it anyway if it fits with your preconceived ideas and inability to be wrong......

Just sayin'....

nor should it open them to attack simply because they disagree with anyone else.

why not? they attack me all eth time for daring to disagree with them - or is it only people who believe EVIDENCE are to be attacked, and those who believe fantasy should be immune??

Another example of our age of tolerance and hope?

no - an example of our age of gullibility and irrationality.

OneManArmy

Spookybelle
reply to post by NONPOINT21

 

Just like there are people that will debunk everything there are those that turn everything into a conspiracy. There is enough surrounding 9/11 to make me curious but that's only when, and its a big when, you consider that the government would try to pull off something as asinine as crashing 4 planes and trying to keep it a secret.

Seriously, what benefit did they gain?

War in Iraq? Patriot Act? More intrusion on civil liberties?

They could of gotten all that by giving some arab man a dirty bomb and setting it off in NYC. Imagine if you were tasked with creating a false flag for Bush and Cheney and they sat you down to listen to your ideas and you bring up the idea of crashing 4 planes into buildings.

They would laugh you right out the door. You do not blow up your house to kill a fly when a squirt of raid works just as well.

What they stood to gain was all laid out in the PNAC(Project for a New American Century) document that they released before 911 stating their need for a new "pearl harbour type event" to speed up a grab of the worlds resources.

PNAC info link

Instead of being a little interested maybe you should actually study the subject before questioning whether the government would do it, because they did do it.

Once again, why would they pull off something so extremely complicated with such an immense chance of discovery when there are hundreds of ways to get the same effect with very little risk?

I think your missing the point here.

Just look at the number of people that would have to be involved with this directly and the even larger that indirectly would notice something way out of the ordinary that would raise suspicion, especially after the towers dropped.

Now why would you take that risk when you could do something that would give you the same benefits but only involve maybe a handful of people at most?

Just because some things are mysterious or do not add up does not mean there is a conspiracy. I've seen tornadoes do some things that science can't explain but I do not declare the government is making false tornadoes because of it.

You have to establish the plausible before venturing into the conspiracy realm for it to have any validity. Especially when being found out would have the most disastrous consequences imaginable. Your not going to go with the most risky plan you can possibly dream up when a simple one would do just as well.

Urantia1111

Vasa Croe
Oh...and by the way...here is the debunk...it was previously shot footage with the missile and explosion added in. Here is the side by side of the original with the one above to show you...

This debunks NOTHING. Show me the video of a 767 crashing into the pentagon. That I might consider. If it happened that footage must exist right?

Except for the video being discussed in the OP.

Again this wasn't a thread so much about 9/11 overall being fake/inside job/whatever.
It was about a very specific video which is a known fake.

Spookybelle


Once again, why would they pull off something so extremely complicated with such an immense chance of discovery when there are hundreds of ways to get the same effect with very little risk?

The answer is simple, because they are a psychopathic bunch of narcissists that dont believe they are wrong in their grand scheme of global domination. They are trying to be gods. The ends justify the means to them. To paraphrase Hitler.."The bigger the lie, the easier it is believed"

NONPOINT21
of one of the most heavily guarded building in the United States

care to back up that claim with some facts? - it is made often here, but everyone making it is unable to back it up....

OneManArmy

Spookybelle


Once again, why would they pull off something so extremely complicated with such an immense chance of discovery when there are hundreds of ways to get the same effect with very little risk?

The answer is simple, because they are a psychopathic bunch of narcissists that dont believe they are wrong in their grand scheme of global domination. They are trying to be gods. The ends justify the means to them. To paraphrase Hitler.."The bigger the lie, the easier it is believed"

edit on 201310America/Chicago10pm10pmWed, 30 Oct 2013 17:23:49 -05001013 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)

I have no problem believing the government puts out false flags but you need to be realistic at some point. Nixon couldn't get away with a couple guys breaking into an office and Johnson couldn't put a lid on the release of the Pentagon Papers or the government couldn't keep hidden NSA spying but we are expected to believe that the most complicated false flag in history was pulled off with nothing going wrong and no Snowden's lurking about anywhere?

Add the unbelievable odds of this ever working to the fact that something much less detail orientated would have worked just as well and you have to come to the conclusion that it probably is crazy enough to be legit, even if we can't explain everything about it.

Do yourself a favor and put yourself in this scenario. Obama and cia approach you and ask you to devise a false flag that will allow him to institute martial law nationwide. Come up with your best plans and see how complicated they actually are.

Are you going to come up with a plan that is so complicated that hundreds of people need to be involved and the chances of something going wrong are enormous or are you going to go with the simplest method with as few people involved as possible?

Would you set up one large attack to give the perception that the US is being attacked and therefore martial law is required or would you find thousands of people and pay them all off to hold violent Tea Party rallies and constantly threaten the government forcing the president to declare martial law?