NEW 9 11 VIDEO MISSILE STRIKE PENTAGON Video is it real?

TMoreno

Could somebody identify this video? Is it real?
Click on the GIF attachment

Abelloid

I'm going to say no.

iPlop

It looks like adobe after effects or sony vegas pro was used ,although I have no way of checking here

RGDATA!

would be interesting to know the source/where it was shot from. I'm assuming it was supposedly shot hand held because there is camera movement?

Duiske

I would say fake as well. BUT.....

If this did turn out to be real, that could actually be the plane. Just looks too big to be a missile.

And if it was real, and if it was the plane, then the official story has a problem.

Unfortunately, that gif image posted by TMoreno can't be paused, but have a look at the road. Whatever that is pass's in front of a row of signs over the road, and appears to hit the building straight on.

Now, notice the road again just at the moment of impact where you see the start of the explosion. Notice the other set of signs across the road ? (extreme right of shot, top of the road).

According to the official story, the planes flight path took it over the right hand edge of this second set of signs, crossing the lawns at roughly a 20 or 25 degree angle in relation to the road.

Remember the police officers who swear that the plane passed to the north of the Citgo station, and not to the south as in the official story ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRwfbqihyQ8

In the image below, the first set of signs is obscured by the "north side flight path" text. The blue line was put in to show the flight path of a plane which veered off at the last moment and did not hit the building, but if you assume the plane did follow this flight path,and hit the building, it would coorelate nicely to the image in the OP.




Hmmm.... Interesting.

But like I said, its almost certainly a fake. Bedridden today and have too much time on my hands.

Divorce Referendum

Not sure what that gif is, it looks backwards. This one on youtube right way around. It is quite obviously fake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vnu_yiUzls

uprising2

Here's a video that shows an explosion but no aircraft, frame rate is ok and should show an aircraft if there were one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAgYVJ1jKZ0

This reporter describes a cruise missile hitting the pentagon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWj-dUOWNzI

Here's an interview that was cut short.

Do you think Senator, from what you have learned so far, have you been able to determine whether eh, This could heve been prevented?

Well Bob this is hindsight, eh, I believe some of it, if it hadn't of been, maybe we couldn't have prevented it all, but I believe we could have mitigated it, if, you know if your privvy to the pheonix memo, to the Moussaoui case, ahh,emm, I'm sure there are other things that we don't know about yet that will come out had, had this information........

Senator I'm very sorry I'm told we gotta wrap this up....

The senator let slip that his govt are a pack of lying scumbags as this video shows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6KbUpGNBts

During the early aftermath of September 11th, when I happened to be recounting the pre-September 11th events concerning the Moussaoui investigation to other FBI personnel in other divisions or in FBIHQ, almost everyone's first question was "Why?--Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case? (I know I shouldn't be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBI HQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like [Robert Hanssen], who were actually working for Osama Bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis' effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleen_Rowley#FBI_career

2001 Memo Warned Of Bin Laden Aviation Cadre

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/2001-memo-warned-bin-laden-aviation-cadre

So taking all of the above at face value, I ask the same question I've always asked,

Why was the FIRST plane not intercepted?

The US had the capacity to stop/intercept ALL of the "hijacked" flights that day.

The Pentagon actually being hit is much more far fetched than any CT, it simply was impossible, yet happened(supposedly) , all the while the USAF were having an extended coffee break.

Duiske

uprising2 wrote: »

The senator let slip that his govt are a pack of lying scumbags as this video shows.

The US intelligence services knew 6 years prior to 9/11 that there was a plan to fly Aircraft into US buildings.

Bojinka Plot

The Bojinka plot mainly revolved around a plot to blow up multiple US airlines at the same time, but also included a plot to fly commercial airliners into the Pentagon, CIA HQ, the White house, WTC, and other buildings.
Abdul Hakim Murad was to be one of the hijackers.

Abdul Hakim Murad

In his confession, Murad named Ramzi Yosef as leader of the Bojinka Plot.

Ramzi Yousef

Ramzi Yosef was also one of the planners of the WTC bombing in 1993, and is the nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is widely believed to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

Just a brief look into these people makes it clear that G.W Bush's claim that "no-one could have envisaged that hijacked planes would be used as missiles and flown into buildings" is absolute horse****.

They knew it was coming and did nothing. Pure and simple.

Boo Radley

Looks like a plane. If that is a missile it must have been a nuclear warhead, it's huge. Ho-hum.

me-skywalker

Whats the offical line n why F16's werent deployed to intercept?

uprising2

me-skywalker wrote: »

Whats the offical line n why F16's werent deployed to intercept?

The Commission Report chose to place blame for failure to notify the military squarely upon the FAA. Ben Sliney, FAA operations manager at Herndon, Virginia, and Monte Belger, FAA Acting Deputy Administrator on 9/11 both stated to the Commission that military liaisons were present and participating in Herndon's response as the events of 9/11 unfolded. Sliney stated that everyone who needed to be notified, including the military, was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report#Findings

Which is a load of bollox really, CLICK THIS and it might help explain what happened.
EDIT: AND THIS

"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there
was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got
down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice
President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned
and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand.
Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

stuff.hunter

uprising2 : +1 mate, I do believe 9/11 was a big us goverment plot to have a reason for next 'private' war .... just too many strange things happened in a such short time, eg NORAD ops were 'confused' as well as air traffic controllers etc... saw Loose Change 9/11 and thier story looks more real for me than all this official crap ... what about 'plane' which hit pentagon .. just vaporized, no video evidence but some of pentagons personnel smelt cordite ..lol .. explosives in the civil jet ..no f*****g way ....

Boo Radley

I don't think a missile was responsible for the pentagon explosion. It was a plane. It dismays me to see people citing 'loose change' as a source for their beliefs.

I watched it with an open mind and was initially intrigued by some claims. However, once I did a bit of digging and reading of other sources, basically everything the 'documentary' claims has been disproved. I mean really, there is a wealth of information, complete information, on most events of that day. What “documentaries” like 'loose change' do is only give one, very fuzzy perspective on things.

You have to ask yourself why people behind 9/11 CTs don't show, for example, the footage of WTC 7 that clearly shows it was badly damaged by chunks of the tower and was ablaze. Also there is countless misquotes being used. We have to question the motives of the people behind the CTs too.

I'm sure the dude behind 'loose change' has a pretty comfortable life as a result, and really it is a half-assed piece of so called work. The CTs associated with the events of that day are ever expanding. If it is all true then it is simply put the most impressive feet of human organisation and execution of a plan in the history of the world. Not to mention that everyone involved is REALLY good at keeping secrets. The whole simple (in comparison to this epic conspiracy) attempt at robbing and bugging in relation to Watergate didn't fare so well. You have to ask yourself, does any of this really and truly seem plausible on this scale?

seannash

stuff.hunter wrote: »

uprising2 : +1 mate, I do believe 9/11 was a big us goverment plot to have a reason for next 'private' war .... just too many strange things happened in a such short time, eg NORAD ops were 'confused' as well as air traffic controllers etc... saw Loose Change 9/11 and thier story looks more real for me than all this official crap ... what about 'plane' which hit pentagon .. just vaporized, no video evidence but some of pentagons personnel smelt cordite ..lol .. explosives in the civil jet ..no f*****g way ....

You do realise that Loose Change is considered a highly inaccurate piece of eveidence by alot of the supporters of the CT.
Its laced with blatant lies.
If Loose Change is your only source of evidence you are very easily lead(IMO)

If you want to hear the counter evidence to Loose Change and are genuinely interested in looking at all the facts check this video out
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#

enno99

seannash wrote: »

You do realise that Loose Change is considered a highly inaccurate piece of eveidence by alot of the supporters of the CT.
Its laced with blatant lies.
If Loose Change is your only source of evidence you are very easily lead(IMO)

If you want to hear the counter evidence to Loose Change and are genuinely interested in looking at all the facts check this video out
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#

Sorry but I wouldent put much faith in that one either

heres a bit of info on the blogger
James B
http://www.blogger.com/profile/01475924582753322002

Chief is a combination software geek from Washington State and part-time Chief Warrant Officer in the Army National Guard (thus the clever name). A recipient of a BA in Russian and East European studies and an MBA from the University of Washington, his interests include foreign affairs, economics, politics, technology and languages

dont think they would put him in catering do you


not much about the film maker markyx

but I will keep looking

seannash

enno99 wrote: »

Sorry but I wouldent put much faith in that one either

heres a bit of info on the blogger
James B
http://www.blogger.com/profile/01475924582753322002

Chief is a combination software geek from Washington State and part-time Chief Warrant Officer in the Army National Guard (thus the clever name). A recipient of a BA in Russian and East European studies and an MBA from the University of Washington, his interests include foreign affairs, economics, politics, technology and languages

dont think they would put him in catering do you


not much about the film maker markyx

but I will keep looking

Eh okay,maybe take a look at it.it goes through Loose Change and takes its points and examines its sources.

Im actually a bit miffed as to why the blogger has anything to do with it and also the catering comment

Divorce Referendum

enno99 wrote: »

Sorry but I wouldent put much faith in that one either

heres a bit of info on the blogger
James B
http://www.blogger.com/profile/01475924582753322002

Chief is a combination software geek from Washington State and part-time Chief Warrant Officer in the Army National Guard (thus the clever name). A recipient of a BA in Russian and East European studies and an MBA from the University of Washington, his interests include foreign affairs, economics, politics, technology and languages

dont think they would put him in catering do you


not much about the film maker markyx

but I will keep looking

It doesnt matter who made the video. Loose change ommits vital information and is inaccurate. It doesnt take a 'qualified' person to detect or point out this just analysis. Have you looked at the video seannash posted?

enno99

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

It doesnt matter who made the video. Loose change ommits vital information and is inaccurate. It doesnt take a 'qualified' person to detect or point out this just analysis. Have you looked at the video seannash posted?

Yea the first ten minutes where they try to brush aside operation norhwoods
after that it seemed pointless

I know loose change is not perfect but it got people thinking
That cant be a bad thing

seannash

enno99 wrote: »

Yea the first ten minutes where they try to brush aside operation norhwoods
after that it seemed pointless

I know loose change is not perfect but it got people thinking
That cant be a bad thing

They dont brush it aside they show how its been totally taken out of context and used to form a link to there theory

And yes it is a bad thing if you base alot of your "facts" around quoting out of context and lies.

Divorce Referendum

enno99 wrote: »

Yea the first ten minutes where they try to brush aside operation norhwoods
after that it seemed pointless

I know loose change is not perfect but it got people thinking
That cant be a bad thing

Loose change actually is pointless because it is so wrong. To be honest operation northwoods is a different conspiracy or would you not agree?

enno99

seannash wrote: »

They dont brush it aside they show how its been totally taken out of context and used to form a link to there theory

And yes it is a bad thing if you base alot of your "facts" around quoting out of context and lies.

I think it was there to show precedent that people in government can and do come up with this type of scheme

enno99

seannash wrote: »

Eh okay,maybe take a look at it.it goes through Loose Change and takes its points and examines its sources.

Im actually a bit miffed as to why the blogger has anything to do with it and also the catering comment

have you looked at the blog site

uprising2

seannash wrote: »

You do realise that Loose Change is considered a highly inaccurate piece of eveidence by alot of the supporters of the CT.
Its laced with blatant lies.
If Loose Change is your only source of evidence you are very easily lead(IMO)

If you want to hear the counter evidence to Loose Change and are genuinely interested in looking at all the facts check this video out
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561#

Please OH please can you please tell me WTF this video disproves?, I don't have 3 hrs to watch it, but jumping through it, well its bollox, some tool giving his opinion and quoting bullsh1t from the commission report.

56:15...."This is what the 9/11 commission report stated:
"Reagan national controllers then vectored an unarmed national guard c130h cargo aircraft, which had just taken off en route to minnesota, to identify and follow the suspicious aircraft.

"The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:38, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower:"looks like that aircraft crashed into the pentagon sir"

"Might not have been a bad idea to read that report, eh, guys?"

Now pardon my ignorance, but what the fukk is that about?

At 1:42:57 the video states:

Controlled demolitions come from the bottom, not the top

Erm, thats more bollox, it depends on the sequence of explosive, if the sequence starts at the bottom, yes the demolition will start from the bottom, it the explosive sequence starts at the top, guess what, the fukking demolition will start from the top.

I can't be bothered quoting any more crap from this sad attempt at debunking loose change, if there is a video to discredit loose change, this certainly ain't it.

Please somebody, anybody, guide me to something in this video that disproves anything, I can't find it.

seannash

enno99 wrote: »

have you looked at the blog site

Just looked there.
He simply posted a link to a video that someone else made.

Take the blogger out of the equation and lets say i posted the video(you can do a background check on me if you'd like)

The information is still relevent.in the video it has external links to all the counter claims it makes so if you doubt there proof you can check it out.

For someone who takes loose change as gospel(not you) its good to look at the other side.
Unfortunately alot of people dont want to look at the other side to the argument no matter how much evidence there is

seannash

Please OH please can you please tell me WTF this video disproves?, I don't have 3 hrs to watch it, but jumping through it, well its bollox, some tool giving his opinion and quoting bullsh1t from the commission report.

Just to clarify you consider it bull****,most people dont.
and how is loose change not(to quote you)"some tool giving his opinion.

So this video goes through the points Loose change brings up and shows how they are either wrong based on there evidence(they include urls so you can check out there evidence themseles)or how they have misquoted people or just how they simply lied.

I took the time to watch many CT videos but you just flat out dont want to look at anything that might go against wha you believe

Erm, thats more bollox, it depends on the sequence of explosive, if the sequence starts at the bottom, yes the demolition will start from the bottom, it the explosive sequence starts at the top, guess what, the fukking demolition will start from the top.

Yes that would be true but hang on a minute,no controlled demolition is ever done from the top down.thats the point.

But lets not worry about that eh,or never mind about how long it takes to wire a building for demolition:rolleyes:

I can't be bothered quoting any more crap from this sad attempt at debunking loose change, if there is a video to discredit loose change, this certainly ain't it.

Please somebody, anybody, guide me to something in this video that disproves anything, I can't find it.

You cant find it because you have said yourself you havent watched it.
That really is laughable man

seannash

Just to go back to this.
Because you skimmed through it he is using this report to show why there was a white aircraft spotted in the air after the crash at the pentagon

He then says "might have been a god idea to look at that report" because this explains the "unidentified airplane" that Loose Change says the goverment never explained

But you know the whole skimming over it probably meant that you missed that

Quote:
56:15...."This is what the 9/11 commission report stated:
"Reagan national controllers then vectored an unarmed national guard c130h cargo aircraft, which had just taken off en route to minnesota, to identify and follow the suspicious aircraft.

"The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:38, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower:"looks like that aircraft crashed into the pentagon sir"

"Might not have been a bad idea to read that report, eh, guys?"
Now pardon my ignorance, but what the fukk is that about?

enno99

seannash wrote: »

Just looked there.
He simply posted a link to a video that someone else made.

Take the blogger out of the equation and lets say i posted the video(you can do a background check on me if you'd like)

The information is still relevent.in the video it has external links to all the counter claims it makes so if you doubt there proof you can check it out.

For someone who takes loose change as gospel(not you) its good to look at the other side.
Unfortunately alot of people dont want to look at the other side to the argument no matter how much evidence there is

Have a read of this

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message290220/pg1

did I read in an earlier post of yours that you were not sure and this film changed your mind

Sorry I dont agree with this guys name calling just the points he makes about the video

uprising2

seannash wrote: »

Just to clarify you consider it bull****,most people dont.
and how is loose change not(to quote you)"some tool giving his opinion.

So this video goes through the points Loose change brings up and shows how they are either wrong based on there evidence(they include urls so you can check out there evidence themseles)or how they have misquoted people or just how they simply lied.

I took the time to watch many CT videos but you just flat out dont want to look at anything that might go against wha you believe


Yes that would be true but hang on a minute,no controlled demolition is ever done from the top down.thats the point.

But lets not worry about that eh,or never mind about how long it takes to wire a building for demolition:rolleyes:


You cant find it because you have said yourself you havent watched it.
That really is laughable man

Yes it is laughable, you havent shown 1 point, please take 1 that you think it debunks and I'll do my best to show you it doesn't.

What I bolded is "your" opinion I take it?

seannash

enno99 wrote: »

Have a read of this

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message290220/pg1

did I read in an earlier post of yours that you were not sure and this film changed your mind

Nope i never said this specific video was the one that changed my mind i said doing my own research on the subject helped change my mind.

just looking at the site now,its gonna take me a while to check all the counterclaims but ill get back to you on it

but seriously im not holding out much hope with people shouting how obvious it is that it was an inside job on the same thread.

But ill let you know what i think

uprising2

seannash wrote: »

Just to go back to this.
Because you skimmed through it he is using this report to show why there was a white aircraft spotted in the air after the crash at the pentagon

He then says "might have been a god idea to look at that report" because this explains the "unidentified airplane" that Loose Change says the goverment never explained

But you know the whole skimming over it probably meant that you missed that

Where were the USAF?, the people who fly these, this is almost 1 hour after the first hit after all, and they knew there was an attack on the US, why didn't they intercept the first WTC hit after knowing for almost 30mins before hand that it was hijacked???

seannash

uprising2 wrote: »

Yes it is laughable, you havent shown 1 point, please take 1 that you think it debunks and I'll do my best to show you it doesn't.

What I bolded is "your" opinion I take it?

Look at the pentagon/no plane theory put forward by Loose change and then look at the debunking of it.

that'll do for now