Flight 175 "Missile Pod" Exposed as Nonsense: Photographic Evidence

[Bolo Boffin]

From the recent NIST interim report, I direct your attention to page 33 of Appendix F:

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixh.pdf

On this page you will see a series of pictures of Flight 175 as it hits the South Tower. This are excellent shots of the underside of the plane. The prints are very clear, due to the painstaking nature of the NIST process for copying the over 6,000 pictures they recieved during the course of their investigation.

The missile pod is non-existant. Neither is any missile being fired from the plane apparent. There's nothing but the plane.

We have been told by the proponents of this missile pod nonsense that every picture of 175 hitting the WTC contains this "pod". This is not true. Download the .pdf and take a look for yourself.

There is also a rather stunning picture of a complete section of the outer structure lying in Cedar Street at the West Street intersection. An airplane tire can be seen imbedded in this panel.

(Another mystery solved: the molten material that began pouring from WTC 2 around 9:51. Its behavior is consistent with molten aluminium. Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is constructed from two aluminium alloys. The temperature of the fire well exceeded the melting point of aluminium, and it's thought that the molten material was actually the melted structure of the plane.)

Happy Fourth of July.

[lapfog_1]

1. I have a stupid question...

In the report there is this clear picture of an aircraft
wheel embedded in a section of the outside of the WTC.

So, my question is, weren't the wheels retracted into the wheel
wells? And if so, isn't it unlikely that a wheel, thus retracted
and protected by the body of the airliner, would get stuck in
the exterior of the building as the plane slices into it?

Or were the wheels extended? Which would allow them to be sheared
off the plane (on like the floor below the nose impact floor), and
thus stuck in the structural beams of the exterior of the WTC.

Just a silly question, I'm sure there is a logical explanation.

[LARED]

2. It would appear that the wheel is

embedded in the inside of the panel as you cannot see any spandrels on the side with the wheel in it. Meaning as the plane passed though the building the wheel embedded itself on the inside of the opposite or adjacent wall to the impact wall.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Thanks, LARED n/t

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

78. More implausibility

The claim that this from the south tower does not seem credible.

Reason 1) There are no pictures (I have looked & found none) that show the South tower missing several floors of its outer beams from opposite or adjacent walls to the side Flt. 175 impacted before it collapsed.

Reason 2) What was the mechanism that 'put' this tire here? After all it was inside the body of a jet and attached to very solid landing gear, being subjected to an impact, an explosion, several hundred degrees of heat and a fall of almost 1,000 feet to an earth shattering impact and miraculously lands here, in an empty parking lot, for all the world to see. Would physics not dictate that it traveled in the direction of its original momentum, not back toward the direction from which it came?

Reason 3) How did this piece of outer wall "leap" over the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church from the South tower?
This picture shows this lot from overhead, it is connected to the crossway in the upper right. Note the distance from the South tower impact to the spot with the picture of the tire. The Church also sits in the middle of that block, Flt. 175 would have flown over to the right of the Church, yet this piece is on its left.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center.html/cid_manhattan_pan_si_01-clo.gbi

Reason 4) (insert sarcasm here) An empty parking lot in downtown Manhattan? On a weekday? After 7 a.m.? Highly implausible.

These little pieces of 'wreckage' remind me of that old U-boat tactic of dumping flotsam to fool pursurers into thinking that they had sunk the submarine. Seeing physcal evidence was 'proof' that the Allies had hit their target.

Gabriel: "Misdirection. What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes."

[Abe Linkman]

79. ATTN: bolo, merc , VV & other Cavepeople Did It Supporters

PY has raised some important points here.

What do supporters of the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY (Cavepeople Did It)
have to say about the points raised? SUBSTANTIVE responses, please. No dancin', slip-slidin', subject changing', or other evasions.

[vincent_vega_lives]

80. Frankly Abe

I think you should drop the 'Cavepeople' bit...it strikes me as a tiny bit bigoted.

[Abe Linkman]

83. One UP, One down. VV couldn't respond substantively. NEXT.

Told you.

[vincent_vega_lives]

84. From somone who has yet

to post ANYTHING of substance.

Yer out!

[vincent_vega_lives]

81. Implausible implausibility

Gabriel: "Misdirection. What the eyes see and the ears hear, the mind believes."

Vincent Vega: "The eyes sees what the mind believes"

If you seriously believe there was an army of "conspirators" dodging around the streets of NYC in white vans depositing fake debris...well I am speechless.

[seatnineb]

85. Vincent Vega sees what the F.B.I believes.........

To quote Vincent...

"If you seriously believe there was an army of "conspirators" dodging around the streets of NYC in white vans depositing fake debris...well I am speechless."

Well who's to say they didn't do dry runs.............

Ms. Terry added this: "Last week the FBI was all over the Trade Center. They were parked in our spot. They knew something was up."
http://www.timesreview.com/nr09-13-01/stories/news3.htm

[vincent_vega_lives]

86. I suppose Ms Terry

Is an expert on FBI ops? So now the FBI was in on it too?

[LARED]

87. There is an interesting paradox the CT'ers miss

The more information that comes out, the more people, agencies, organizations, etc need to be dragged into the so called "Official Story Conspiracy" to keep it afloat.

But the more people involved makes their conspiracy theories less and less tenable.

[objection]

90. Is there yet an estimate

of the number of people thus due to be charged with criminal conspiracy or perverting the course of justice?
For some of the more ridiculous theories to work how many thousands of participants would have to be knowingly involved?

[seatnineb]

91. F.B.I aka Fear Building Instigators..........

Vince,LARED Objection....
You guys practically wreak of fear........
And well you might........

In the context of a pre-9/11 counter-terrorism world......
We know that the F.B.I knew that Khalid Sheik Mohammed had threatened to destroy the World Trade Centre from as far back as 1995(for the failed attempt of 93').
Thats why the then F.B.I Director Louis J Freeh met with Quatari officials in the mid-90s to try and hatch a plan to catch Khalid.........

And hence the explanation for this.............

"I had a weird feeling all week."
"About a week before Sept. 11, there was a bomb threat I guess, because I remember around lunch time all these people from the towers were standing outside. It was a really sunny day, but I couldn't leave the restaurant. I used to get to work by taking the 1/9 which stopped at Corlandt St inside the WTC."
Raquel.
http://www.laurasmidiheaven.com/world-trade-center/index1.shtml.

Did the 9/11 commission address the observations of Raquel or Ms Terry?
Didnt think so.....
Well.
Who outside of the F.B.I knows what kind of Ops they do?

And I know the following is just music to your ears............
For in the words of Ms Terry........
"Last week the F.B.I was all over the Trade Centre."
"Last week the F.B.I was all over the Trade Centre."
"Last week the F.B.I was all over the Trade Centre."
"Last week the F.B.I was all over the Trade Centre."
"Last week the F.B.I was all over the Trade Centre."
"Last week the F.B.I was all over the Trade Centre."
"Last week the F.B.I was all over the Trade Centre."
"Last week the F.B.I was all over the Trade Centre."......

"THEY KNEW SOMETHING WAS UP."

[objection]

92. wreak?

Let's see...

Pulse normal.
Breathing normal.
Salivation normal.
Blood pressure slightly low.

You'll have to try harder than that.

[LARED]

3. I think there should be a contest

A some point someone will create a reason why these sequence of photos sans missle pods and spray guns have been fabricated, tampered with, etc, etc, etc, and why the only reliable images "clearly" (Webster would be rolling in his grave at the misuse of words by the L&MHOP crowd) show missile pods, sprays and fairies.

It could be a contest where the winner picks the date and type of explianation used to maintain the CT'er fantasy island.

[OudeVanDagen]

4. for me the important messages

in bolo's NIST offerings are: there is indeed a thorough investigative process ... something investigators usually call protocols ... and that there is public participation AND public access.

I've been to many foreign countries to investigate and consult on collapse events and can state this type of process is rare and that this level of public involvement and awareness is seldom enjoyed by the people of those lands.

[LARED]

6. I think you're right

The ironic part is that there is a core group of 9/11 revisionist that even with all the access available, really believe it's just disinformation.

[Abe Linkman]

7. Gov'ts in other countries know their citizens are harder to fool?

Americans are notoriously uninformed and ill-equipped to THINK thru the BS/Disinfo fog put out by those in power, whereas in many foreign countries, the public can't be so easily fooled and can't be counted on to go along with whatever the major media tells them?

[OudeVanDagen]

10. in far too many of the foreign lands I was

guest to, the media ... newspapers, TV, radio ... belonged to the government ... lock, stock and barrel. Historians even rewrote the past to government specs. Are these people really harder to fool when literacy and education are forced take back seats to civil war, starvation and one health crisis after another?

[demodewd]

11. Don't tell me ...

Don't tell me that you believe the Warren Commission too? The RFK official story? OK City? MLK? TWA800? etc etc.

[OudeVanDagen]

26. dewd, by now

you should know that I only comment on what I know ... collapse.

But, since you ask; in my 80 plus years I've learned not to believe government, any government. That said .... collapse is collapse, and WTC was not explosive induced .... I was there, I investigated and I'm may be crazy but I ain't stupid ... sorry, no bombs.

[demodewd]

27. no pods either...eh Oude?

[OudeVanDagen]

50. I dunno dewd

I don't know anything about aircraft and have said so many times before .... but I'd like to ask a favor of you and explore your expertise; back in the 60s when I was in Brazil we took some photos and home movies of some strange fast moving lights in the sky ... care to take a look and tell me what they were?

[demodewd]

51. come on...take a good hard look!

You're avoiding the question There damn well is a pod...these guys left nothing to chance.

[vincent_vega_lives]

68. Not like any "missile pod" I've ever seen.

No large Aircraft carried missiles are carried in "pods". No reason to. Only small rocket pods.


Only "pods" I can think of are targeting pods...but those would not be big enough.

[MercutioATC]

69. True, but that doesn't matter here...

:eyes:

I haven't had a chance to say "hi" yet. Welcome to the forum. Nice to see another voice of reason here...there's far too few.

[Bolo Boffin]

70. Vincent's been here before, Merc.

He's a long time friend back from wherever. Good to see ya back, VVL. As you can see, nothing's changed but the sheer depth of insanity. You missed all the missile pod falalalalala, and now we've got cutting charges blasting out a perfect cartoon imprint of the plane just a millisecond before Flight 175 sails into the imprint.

That's Flight 175, mind you, the airplane in the most documented event in human history. Missile pods shooting flamethrowing missiles and cutting charges providing a perfectly airplane-shaped hole, that the plane tilts its wings precisely so as to enter the building.

Well, of course it was all remote-controlled by a synchronized computer...what human being could fly precisely into the airplane-shaped hole at 500 mph?

Welcome back - it's only gotten wackier...

[MercutioATC]

71. I guess I'm the newbie then! Nice to meet you, Vincent :)

[Abe Linkman]

72. Disinfo agents come & go.

Some must work on more than one account.

[MercutioATC]

73. Yes, it takes a real loon to stay around here long-term, Abe.

:crazy:

[Abe Linkman]

77. May the FORCE farce be with you, merc.

Your credibility could use a lift.

[vincent_vega_lives]

82. I would LOVE to see any post of yours

containing anything of substance.

[vincent_vega_lives]

75. The pleasure is all mine.

Your posts have been very interesting, informative and displaying the height of patience in the face of outright looonicy.

[vincent_vega_lives]

74. Thanks Kindly

Been away gettin ready to go on a little trip...now not going. Good and bad news there.

I see things haven't changed much atoll. I pretty much the same cast of characters (minus perhaps Plaguepuppy and Anablep?) Its like a dimention where time and reason have no meaning.

If insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time...then we are all insane. Just the same I couldn't stay away. :crazy:

[Abe Linkman]

56. Starting a little early, aren't you?

You promised to purge the urge to medicate yourself until you got to a safe place on the beach, but now it sounds like you've jumped the gun (or bottle) and are "seeing" things way up in the sky.

[OudeVanDagen]

58. he, he, he

thanks Abe, I needed some good humor this morning ... but seriously; I don't know what I'm seeing when I look at the 9/11 WTC aircraft photos, and I am willing to admit it. I know zip, zero, ziltch about the issue. My only wish ... well I have a couple ... is that you and some of the other forum members were around during the Red Scare and McCarthy's romp through decency. Sometimes I wish that some of the CT efforts could be aimed at what has happened after 9/11 ... the loss of freedoms, sure .... but also how the government has without rhyme or reason muddled agencies and organizations together mixing, in some cases oil and water, duplicating services, and creating jobs and titles that are basically no show yet cripple and slow things down with oversight and needless paperwork. The aftermath of 9/11 ... the war on terror ... has created a dangerous machinery. Pods or peoples rights?

[Robb]

5. Smugly put, but nice

;)

Of course you realize these people are all in on it, and can't be trusted. :evilgrin:

That tire picture is really something. Happy Fourth back at you, :thumbsup:

[demodewd]

8. bolo..

bolo...having trouble bringing up NIST with my Acrobat. can you upload the photos onto the forum? Funny that with all the thousands of photos that would be in possesion of the public re: #175 entering WTC #2 that all of them would have been tampered with? Then again I guess we are to obey like grateful sheep and take the NIST analysis word for word as true..just like we were suppose to do with the Warren Commission. Or do you believe that one too?

[LARED]

9. Thousands of photos???

Where are there thousands of photos showing flt 175 entering the towers? All pod CT'er have ever shown is blurry images from one or two videos.

At any rate here's the image you requested. Don't disappoint me, so make sure you come up with a good reason why these images change nothing. Or better yet try and come up with some story as to how these images support the pod theory.




demodewd, I know you are wrapped up tight in your belief in "the pod," but you must realize that there are hundreds of people working together to publish these NIST documents. Do you believe they all are in on the conspiracy? All these professional people from well known government, and private institutions and businesses are in on the pod and demolition conspiracy. ??????

[demodewd]

13. The crease...

The crease from the retrofitted piping does appear on this photo. The pod itself is blanketed by shadow and or tampering. No wonder these Bushco foot soldiers selected this one exclusively for their presentation. Other photos should be shown. It's misleading by selective presentation. Poor. But this is same lying government that brought us the Warren Commission and the proposed Operation Northwoods. I've learned to expect nothing less from these government lap dogs.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. You know, you could have saved some time

...by just posting that to begin with. It's what you would have said anyway, whether you actually saw the pictures or not.

[MercutioATC]

30. If it was a decoy plane, why put the "piping" on the outside?

They would have had an entire empty fuselage to work with. Why a "missile pod"? Why not just pack the fuselage full of explosives?

See, it just doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense...

[demodewd]

32. You start with what you see.

You have to start with what you SEE and then make sense of it.The missile creates a preliminary explosion thus insuring that the plane will erupt nearly simultaneously upon impact. There very well could have been a bomb(bombs) inside the fuselage.


I see a double shadow on the undercarraige of the fuselage because of the piping relief. I obviously see the pod.

[MercutioATC]

33. Yes, and what you see are dark and light patches on a grainy video.

Why infer a "missile" (which doesn't make sense as the plane was going to hit a big building anyway) and "piping" for "spray" (again, unnecessary...plus, the pictures of the "spray" violate the laws of physics (a hint: the 767 has blade antennas exactly where the "sprays" are in the picture))?

[demodewd]

35. well..

I didn't infer piping for spray.The piping is discernable by the shadow it casts and because of its obvious extention from the fuselage. Graininous DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH THIS PERSPECTIVE! Grainy video or not,one can still recognize irregularities. I don't wish to disparage your comments,I just want you to see it.

[MercutioATC]

37. I truly don't see "piping". Are you talking about the two large bulges

that run fore to aft or the shadow created between them? Those are part of the fuselage. The 767 fuselage is not round, the belly has two bulges that run the length of the plane.

If the piping isn't for spray, what is its alleged purpose?

[demodewd]

43. beg pardon?

&ZyXtCe=MDE0NTE4&id

[demodewd]

44. Just the facts...maam

Well that didn't come up...sorry... re:"beg pardon" post. Jet airliners have noticable bulges from the fore to the aft at the intersections of the wings to the fuselage. The rest of the fuselage is essentually cylindrical. Get the facts straight..dude.

[MercutioATC]

45. Of course it's "essentially cylindrical". I was pointing out that it's

not a perfectly curved bottom, which may well be the source of the "piping" you see.

Lousy pic...I'll try to find a better one that illustrates this:

[LARED]

49. Based on these images, it seems pods and spray nozzles are

standard on the boeing 767.

[vincent_vega_lives]

76. Yup, better known as...

Wingroots!

[demodewd]

88. re:wingroots

they must grow out of your ears and eyes...I take pity.

[objection]

89. Pity?

How much do you know about image file compression techniques?
Nothing at all or less than that?

[carlvs]

95. One answer

Considering what is being shown as "proof" by the other side, I would have to say the latter...:puke:

[demodewd]

96. girth

How much do you know about the girth of the lower half of the fuselage being at least a third larger than normal? Its easy to see. You don't even need to use image file compression. And you are assuming of course that ALL the photos were image file compressed? Every different one and every copy? Thats why we see no photo rebuttals that effectually debunk the "Pod" appraisal?

[objection]

97. No, I am not at all assuming anything.

The file sizes of all internet images are perfectly evident to any browser required to display them. If you have Internet Explorer right click on 'properties'. Do you have any idea at all of the space that a high resolution uncompressed video sequence takes up? You'd be talking giga. In terms of valid evidence you may as well examine tea leaves or the entrails of dead goats.

Regardless of any photo rebuttal your pod notion is self evidently preposterous beyond belief. If an extra pod sits where the undercarriage would otherwise extend how then did the plane take off?

[demodewd]

98. FTS

I see no photographic irregularities other than the obvious pod and piping retrofit. Refitted 767 tankers fly with the FTS all the time. I assume that they took off.

[objection]

99. So how come then

that I don't see any pod, nor any piping rotofit?

Perhaps this may help:

http://www.google.com/search?lr=lang_en&as_epq=&as_qdr=all&num=48&as_q=Rosarch+test&btnG=+Google+++Search+&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ft=i&safe=images

[objection]

100. "assume that they took off"?

First you accuse me of assuming and then that's all you've got by way of an explanation of how the undercarriage would work?

That's pathetic.

[objection]

103. Come on now, this is not amateur hour.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/295487/L/

How does your pod fit in with the wheels?

[demodewd]

52. Its all there..you have to want to see it..

Its all quite visible. You see what you believe.You don't believe the pod explanation...you don't want to believe it..

[LARED]

59. I now believe

It seems Boeing puts pods and nozzles on all their 767's

&ZyXtCe=MTgyNjQ1&id=614276&ViD=big

[Abe Linkman]

60. Not surprising

Someone who says they believe a cave-dwelling CIA asset could pull off the "Pearl Harbor" of the 21st Century may well be suspected of believing anything.

[Abe Linkman]

34. merc: The "why a missile" ? has been answered many times. READ.

If you wanted to ensure a "smooth" entry into a building, that would be a pretty good reason to use a missile, in order to make an opening.
That's how it was done at the Pentagon. Why is it so hard for you to understand that it is also the same reason why it was used at the WTC?

Doesn't make a lot of sense that you would keep asking the same question over and over -- unless you have some other motive than that you simply have a short-term memory problem. Wait. You work at Cleveland? That sure was an important part of the country on 9-11, wasn't it? Wait. You're 1000% civilian, though. Right? Never mind. Wait a few days, and make your statement (disguised as a question) again. Thank you.

[MercutioATC]

36. Like a 767 at 400+ knots would have trouble with a "smooth" entry?

Please...it doesn't make sense.

The question hasn't changed because I'm still looking for an answer that has the slightest bit of reason associated with it.

Care to take a stab at the "spray" issue?

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

40. Again with the rhetoric and refusal to answer simple questions...

Abe, I thought we were past this.

Just to be perfectly clear, I'm asking you why you think a plane traveling at over 400 knots would need a missile to penetrate an unhardened target.

I await your reply with bated breath.....

[Abe Linkman]

47. "The Chutzpah Of An Amateur Disinfo Agent"

Please refer to the post(s) where someone has claimed that a missile was needed "to penetrate an unhardened target."

Thank you. I'll be waiting.

[MercutioATC]

61. Do you mean YOUR post claiming that as a possible explanation? Here:

(besides Post #31 in this very thread)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=9779

Post #24 reads:

Abe Linkman (1000+ posts) Sun Mar-28-04 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #23

24. Opening the door to speculation


" First, assuming it IS a missile pod (and it certainly looks like that's what it might be)... how do you know that "they" thought they WERE taking a risk?

And since you've invited speculation about the reason for having a missile - or at least a pod: maybe the purpose was to serve as a distraction. A smart disinfo agent (or even an amateur who simply doesn't believe anything but the "Cavemman & Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy)
could use the existence (or alleged existence) to lead you down any number of false trails.

If an actual missile was used, isn't it reasonable that its purpose may have been as simple as the one used at the Pentagon? That is, to open a hole for "easier" entry into the building. It could also assist in the all-important "shock and awe" psychological aspect of the conspiracy. "

Read that last paragraph....


...any other questions?

[Abe Linkman]

63. mercut: NOW, will you answer the questions about OBL & CIA training

Still waiting for you to tell us about the training that Osama received, courtesy of the CIA.

Thanks.

P.S. Just out of curiousity, would you also tell us how YOU happen to know that Osama actually did receive CIA-sponsored training.

[MercutioATC]

64. Sure, look here:

http://www.geocities.com/libertystrikesback/afghans.html

You can pull up all the pages you'd like...just Google "Operation Cyclone".

I "happen to know" because I read.

[Abe Linkman]

65. Nothing there about any training related to 9/11.

Are you SURE you read it?

[MercutioATC]

67. Yes, I read it...and several other articles. Look here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x13982#14103

I'm not addressing this topic here any more because the double-posting is annoying. Anybody who's interested can follow the "discussion" at the link above.

[AZCat]

109. A 767 packs a whopping lot of kinetic energy, that's for sure

I was curious how much kinetic energy a 767 travelling at 400 kts had, so I did a quick calculation.

Assumptions:
1) Weight of 767 drawn from this site. I used the lightest gross weight and chopped off 10% for fuel use, giving 143,000 kg as the estimated weight

2) Speed of 400 kts

Formulas and conversions:
Kinetic energy = 0.5*weight*(velocity^2)
1 kt = 0.514 m/s
1 lb TNT = 2.1 MJ

Calculations:
KE = 0.5*(143,000)*(400*0.514)^2 = 3.02*10^9 Joules

This is equivalent to: (3.02*10^9)/(2.1*10^6) = 1440 lbs TNT

That's a pretty big explosion just right there, although I don't think all the kinetic energy would be released at once.

This is about 14 cubic feet of explosive (TNT is about 100 lbs/ft^3) for reference.

As a comparison to missiles, the AGM-84 Harpoon packs 215 pounds of high explosive (DESTEX) for a warhead. I was unable to find the specific combustion energy for DESTEX, but I suspect it is higher than TNT.

[DulceDecorum]

16. Smooth Entry

No parts left behind.

That is exactly how it would look
if the plane had flown ABOVE the building
and not INTO it.

One question LARED.
Is that underside painted or not?

[demodewd]

17. "Above the building." Looks like it to me

Nice take Dulce. I thought there was something artificial about that photo.

[demodewd]

19. Mistake...sorry.

Well I take back post 17. Upon further review..I was mistaken.

[demodewd]

28. The pod is there larad

The pod is there larad. It is located by the silvery gleam reflection starting just above the intersection of the upper wing and fuselage. Unfortunately NIST has presented us with probably the worst photograph to easily discern the pod's presence. And the crease extending nearly to the nose of the plane exposes the existence of the piping that permitted the projectile to engage the building without observation.

[demodewd]

29. shadow casting

And also as you can see by this other photo,the piping casts a shadow on its right that clearly proves that it projects in relief from the fuselage.

[GZed]

114. These photos are simply more proof of the pod's existence.

I find it hilarious that people are using this photo in an attempt to claim that the pod is not there.

Look at the reflection of the sun in the planes nose. Now, look at the second reflection on the fuselage, right where the front of the pod would be. This area must have the same curvature as the aircrafts nose to produce the same relection. A "normal" 767 fuselage is clearly not going to produce this second reflection, but if the pod was there it would certainly produce it.

The pod is there people, and these photo's are simple the forth different angle that prove it.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Lared posted the pictures

The trouble with your claim of thousands of pictures is that only three or four badly compressed video feeds/pictures are ever shown to us as evidence. Now this much better series of pictures appears, and it directly contests the idea that there's a missile pod on 175.

Then again I guess we are to obey like grateful sheep and take the NIST analysis word for word as true

No, you're expected to act like an adult and deal with the evidence and methods of the NIST study, instead of dismissing it with more rhetoric about the Warren Commission. New versions of Acrobat are available all the time - download the latest copy and see if it works better for you. There's a whole world out there you're missing.

Sorry to get smug, but honestly...

We've had forty years to improve the scientific analysis of forensic evidence since the Warren Commission, and a congressional commission staffed with politicos can't be compared to the comprehensive peer-vetted investigation that NIST is conducting. There are two entirely different processes going on.

[demodewd]

18. Paging all "adults"

Where's the rest of the fricken building,Mr Adult?

[demodewd]

20. Taking back #18

Taking back post18. Sorry. Miscunstrued plane positioning. But attn: bolo...I'm an adult..I'm not sure about you. Maybe you're an a*******.

[demodewd]

21. a clearer shot

Here's a much clearer undercarraige shot that distinctly shows the bulge.

[demodewd]

22. spray from undercarraige

"The plane sprays out fuel from it's undercarriage, to the tune of hundreds of gallons a second for the last few seconds of it's Journey." http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1349&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

[LARED]

23. hundreds of gallons a second

LOL.

That is preposterous.

To give you a clue, using 200 gallons per second equates to roughly 720,000 gals per hour. To move that much material you would need a pipe measured in feet. I guess a ten foot diameter pipe is about the right size.

I'm guessing maybe the so called sprays could not handle hundreds of gallons per second.

[demodewd]

24. Did youlook?

`Its not preposterous that the spray is visible. Did you look?

[MercutioATC]

25. Did YOU look?

The "spray" that's claimed in the pictures (light areas extending from the underside of the plane) are exactly where the two "fins" are on the belly of the aircraft (I'm not a mechanic, I don't know if they're pitot tubes or what).

Any engineers out there that can estimate what the pressure would have to be for a stream of fluid to come out at 90 degrees from a jet travelling over 400mph? I'm betting one hell of a lot.

[MercutioATC]

31. Upon further research, I believe they're blade antennas.

(the "fins" on the belly of the fuselage)

Not only are they a simpler explanation than "spray" because they're in the right place in the picture in question, but, additionally, blade antennas don't violate any laws of physics.

[LARED]

38. Of course I looked

The whole pod fantasy is preposterous.

The notion that "they" needed a more Hollywood looking crash so "they" installed pods and fuel spraying equipment on a mystery jet is preposterous. As if the second crash needed some sort of help to be a singular event etched in the mind of sheeple or some nonsense.

The idea that "they" needed to make a hole in the facade of the world trade center for a jet traveling 500 miles per hour is preposterous.

The notion that hundreds of gallon per second of fuel was sprayed out perpendicular to an aircraft flying around 500 miles per hour is preposterous. Even assuming you could pump that much material forming a spray either way you look at it it's preposterous.

The sequence in the FEMA images takes place over about 1/10 of a second. At 200 gallons per second, you get 20 gallons of fuel. I'm guessing here but 20 gallons ain't making much of a show 1000 feet in the air against a 200' by 200' building.

I'll not even get into the impractically of getting fuel at the equivalent of 7200 gallons per minute through whatever it is you think are the nozzles.

Even if you it is possible to more that much mass through the nozzles, it is not possible to create a spray that is perpendicular to the nozzles going into a wind at 750 feet per sec. Get real!!!! A spray mean the liquid leaving the nozzle is in droplet or smaller size. If you want to make a Hollywoodish effect the fuel must be atomized. If you can figure out how to atomize fuel and ignite it under the conditions in your fantasy let me know.

The notion that the images provided by the pod theorist are clear or provide distinctive evidence for pods or nozzles or anything for that matter is preposterous.

Get real.

[Abe Linkman]

41. That's nothing. The whole "Wacky Cavepeople" BS is a fairy tale

You want preposterous - try the Official Conspiracy Theory that three or four people here claim to support. Not a shred of evidence for the preposterous notion that Osama bin Oswald had anything to do with 9-11.

You want preposterous - try explaining to us why neither the bush regime nor "lared/bolo/mercut" has ever produced the slightest evidence in support of the big fairy tale.

You want preposterous - try explaining why Ted Olson's lies were accepted for so long by your side, then suddenly, when it became clear that supporting THAT liar makes people look suspiciously like PR spinners; kaboom! -- Ted's lies are no longer important to the Big fairy tale.

You want preposterous? Try to make sense of the Official Conspiracy Theory -- the biggest bunch of crappola to come out of the White House since Iran-Contra.

Get off the block, Johnny. You ain't foolin' nobody. Demand a raise.

[MercutioATC]

42. Abe, give me a piece of credible evidence and I'll reexamine my statements

I've always made that offer. I've yet to see one.

Inferences are subjective. Give me objective, credible evidence, not "missile pods" and phantom planes.

[Abe Linkman]

48. Nice try. YOU & YOURS are here promoting a claim of what happened.

So, if's up to you spinners to provide the evidence that your leader promised nearly three years ago.

Go ahead, make your day. Wherdy evidence, ATCer?

[MercutioATC]

62. Once again, I'm not "promoting" anything...Besides,

if I'm not mistaken, it's the job of the naysayers to prove the generally accepted version wrong, not the other way around.

[LARED]

46. Abe. This thread is about the pod nonsense, not OBL

Do you believe there was a pod with spray nozzles pumping fuel at a few hundred gallons per second?

[MrSammo1]

117. Amazing!

They (BushCo) had to know just how ignorant the sheeple are. These empty headed, flag waving patriotic fools will believe anything. The bigger the lie..........the more they lap it up! The American people absolutely love to be lied to! The more inconsistencies the better! The stronger the patriotism gets! Throw rational thinking out the window.

Expect more and more video clips to appear. Little things that don't quite throw light on the subject, but actually cloud it even more. Just as the sudden Pentagon pictures of debris appeared months after the fact. Don't forget the five frame folly! (we can read the warning on a pack of cigarettes from space....but we can't record a 757 crashing into one of the most secure buildings in the world)) or the out of focus airport security video with no date on it of terrorist hijackers and a radiation detection machine. (which wasn't used till after 9/11)

BushCo literally spits in our face........and the sheeple will just wipe it off.....and wave the flag even harder.

[Make7]

53. You all realize this is pretty much a waste of time, don't you?

Aside from being mildly entertaining, that is.

:) Make7

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Mildly entertaining?

Try a shot of Chinaco while you read - the entertainment never ends here.

;-)

Seriously, when people are here saying that Osama bin Laden plotted and carried out the 9/11 attacks, and these very people are then called spinners FOR Osama? It doesn't get any better than that!

[Make7]

55. Okay, I'll admit it is pretty damn funny sometimes.

This subject line is my favorite from this thread: (so far)

"Its all there..you have to want to see it.." - demodewd

:) Make7

P.S. I must admit sometimes when I get insomnia I like to read 911 conspiracy stuff. In fact that's how I stumbled onto DU in the first place. It was really fascinating at first, but I guess it tends to lose its entertainment value after a while. Maybe it would help if I didn't get any sleep for a couple of days.

P.P.S. I can't even look at tequila. Bad experience. But I'm sure you're right that it would help.

[Abe Linkman]

57. Put that bottle down, bolo. You've had too much.

When it's said that certain people here are "spinners" for Osama - you know that what they mean is "spinners for the fairy tale that OBL had anything to do with 9-11 aside from being it's biggest Patsy".

You support that conspiracy theory, so why are you trying to be so coy?

[DulceDecorum]

66. Ignorant nonsense

As might be expected, the author of 911review.Com uses Jim Hoffman's Dust Clouds paper in lieu of research: we begin see an interlock between the sites. 911review.Com is in turn cited by another website that recently sprang up, 911wideopen.com, which is a part of a concerted campaign to discredit the Wtc2PlanePod evidence. WE FIND on http://911wideopen.com/pod-exam.htm

Unfortunately, we have yet to see even one single expert provide technical analysis that proves any aspect of the pod theory. Zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Not a single self proclaimed, anonymous expert has attempted to validate the pod theory, let alone anyone with a name and a title.

which is IGNORANT NONSENSE, especially given that the site's author THE SITE'S AUTHOR lists serendipity.li in the sidebar, the site that first presented the pod evidence, and LINKS TO THE REFUTATION OF HIS NONSENSE.
http://www.911review.org/Wiki/911Review.Com.shtml

Shakespeare said: kill the lawyers.
DulceDecrorum says: take aim at the PR flacks instead.
Especially the dumb ones.

[Blue Member]

105. Really? No one? Are you sure?

You people better not bet against it....

http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/index.html

[objection]

106. It is the most common mistake around here.

The arrogant presumption of omnipotence.

In the real World none but the most foolish dare to suppose that because something is not yet seen it cannot possibly exist. With no hesitation any intelligent mind rejects the proposition as a logical fallacy. Around 80 percent of everybody purport to believe in the existence something paranormal.

On the Internet it seems to be the other way around; without the pixels before us to prove it nothing possibly exists.

The same would go of course with this:

http://www.amics21.com/911/report.html

With the obvious need for more information, the first thing they do is to eradicate color information? And thus they hope to be taken seriously?

:eyes:

[Blue Member]

107. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&foru

Uhhhhhh...yeah...well said...well spoken...NOT

[mellson]

93. Bush says..

Bush says you are right... end of your brainstrom...



Newsday and dozens more must add that pod on that pictures.



ABC news added that pod into its news program too...



New York Time must did the same...

Most media are using photoshop I guess....

[objection]

94. Tell me. How does

a B757 with a "pod" take off, when the undercarriage extends exactly where the pod is?

[mellson]

101. because

...because it doesn't... The undercarriage retracts or extends on the side of the pod... Landing gears are in the wings of 767, not on the place where the pot is...

try to do a research about it and look up some pictures of the undercarrage you mentioned...

[objection]

102. So

you'd say that your "pod" extends no further than the ordinary wing fairing? I'd thought that the very thesis was that your "pod" is larger than that!

Here's a photo of a 767's gear retracting:



http://www.airliners.net/open.file/295487/L

Still want to tell us that your pod wont get in the way of the gear?

:eyes:

[MercutioATC]

104. The landing gear are NOT in the wings (look at any picture)

They're on the fuselage and retract/extend into doors that reach almost to the center of the fuselage.

[DougFir]

108. 1000% proof "Pod" is a bad joke from the "webfairy" operation

The "pod" campaign is a deliberate effort to discredit the legitimate investigations into official complicity in 9/11. It is an old tactic to "muddy the waters" with nonsense.

A history of disinformation masquerading as "9/11 Truth"


Much of the bogus evidence about 9/11 was manufactured to support the official conspiracy theory -- 19 guys directed by a dialysis patient in a cave of Afghanistan managed to outwit the largest military and intelligence system in history, a system so incompetent that it needs a massive budget increase.

A different kind of bogus evidence -- which makes wild claims about complicity based on poor quality, doctored images -- has been increasingly prominent as the 9/11 Truth Movement has begun to experience long overdue political successes.

This material pretends to be investigative journalism but does not present a scintilla of credible evidence.


Webfairy

The most ridiculous fringe 9/11 websites claim that there wasn't a plane at the World Trade Center north tower, and that a missile was fired at the tower that was masked by giant holograms. The fairy godmother of this modus operandi is an internet persona called "webfairy," who claims to be an elderly, poor grandmother in Chicago who somehow has learned how to do sophisticated video analysis and host a very high bandwidth expensive website that hosts more video clips of the 9/11 attacks than any other website. Webfairy has spent years creating "new footage" of the 9/11 attacks, even though all of the authenticated video clips were taken that day.

The webfairy's "no planes at the North Tower" claim took advantage of the fact that there is really only one, low quality video publicly available of the North Tower attack. However, the webfairy is easily disproved by the most obvious "physical evidence" - the hole in the side of the North tower is the size of a 767 (see the photo below) Fortunately, the "webfairy" thesis only found a couple supporters, and has been of limited utility in discrediting the 9/11 truth movement.
 
Pod plane

Since the webfairy didn't fly, a subsequent disinformation effort was floated that has been somewhat more successful in attracting an audience. This new campaign claims that the plane that hit the South Tower had an unusual "pod" underneath it. This pod allegedly fired a missile at the tower one-third second before impact, carried a napalm bomb, or was the location for the remote control system (the promoters have developed a variety of fanciful fictions to explain the alleged pod). The pod theories claim that this anomaly proves that the plane that hit the South Tower wasn't actually Flight 175, and therefore 9/11 was an inside job. The primary pod promoters urge the public to focus on this story, and worry about the other evidence at some point in the future.

However, the photographic evidence for the pod consists of blurry, low resolution photos that have been digitally altered. All that these photos reveal is the oval shaped structure that connects the wing to the fuselage, as conclusively shown by comparing a real photo of a 767 to the pod photos.

A major point of the staggering of the timing of the attacks of the twin towers was to ensure maximum photographic coverage of the second crash. The idea that the plane had an extra pod is especially ridiculous, since a single clear photo of this would instantly expose the conspiracy.

The idea that a missile was fired a split second before the South tower was hit is even more bizarre, since there was no "need" for this to happen (no tactical advantage for the attackers, since the towers were not anywhere as strong as the sector of the Pentagon that was hit - which had been strengthened against attack immediately prior to 9/11).

Blurry low resolution photos that magically appear two years later, just as the 9/11 truth movement grows in popularity and political influence, are not evidence of alternative views of what happened, they are only evidence of people's unfamiliarity with photo editing software and their gullibility. Just because someone says "inside job" does not mean that their theories of what happened, whether well-intentioned or malicious, are proven or even provable. Indeed, a major component of the "inside job" thesis is that 9/11 was at least in part a "false flag" operation, staged by the US government to discredit its opponents in the Middle East in order to provide the pretext to seize the oil fields and impose the "Homeland Security" police state. It would be naive to assume that the "inside job" conspirators were not also conducting false flag operations to persuade the public that 9/11 skeptics were easily debunked in order to hide the actual evidence for complicity.


Webfairy and Letsroll

At the very least, the Webfairy and Letsroll sites are closely allied, and may be part of the same operation. Recent spam on the web from the pod theorists has admitted that the webfairy has done photographic alteration for the letsroll site. Webfairy and Letsroll are both located in the same community (Chicago), a city without much 9/11 skeptic organizing. Letsroll hosts webfairy's video alteration work on their website. And the newest promotion of these themes -- a film called "In Plane Site" -- only directs viewers to the Letsroll website, bypassing the credible investigations based on verifiable evidence.

Webfairy and Letsroll base their material on claims that have been conclusively debunked, and resort to abuse when challenged on the misinformation that their websites are based upon. If they have any legitimacy and truly want to help expose official complicity in 9/11, they will remove the "no plane at the tower" and "pod plane" material, and refocus upon the actual evidence.

"Webfairy and Letsroll" is a sign that our political efforts are having an effect, and therefore these "theories" must be distributed to "muddy the waters" to make those who seek to expose the lies of 9/11 as crackpots who have no idea what we are talking about.

A similar campaign was waged to discredit the citizen investigations into the coup against President Kennedy -- people popped up claiming inside knowledge who turned out to be spreaders of deliberate disinformation. The most memorable occurrence was during Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw, a CIA agent who participated in the plot against Kennedy. This episode was nicely dramatized in Oliver Stone's film JFK. Garrison's legal team had found a witness who claimed to have participated in meetings with Shaw, Lee Harvey Oswald and others, but on the stand, the man's claims of participation were totally shredded by his claims that he had fingerprinted his daughter before and after she went to college to prove that she was the same person (and therefore, this obviously insane testimony was used to discredit the genuine evidence that Garrison had used to prosecute Shaw). Shaw was found innocent by the jury (even though subsequent research and official admissions revealed he was CIA), although that jury did admit that there had been a conspiracy to kill JFK, they merely didn't believe that Shaw was a participant.


http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#letsroll

is "lets roll" really a FEMA disinformation campaign?
http://empirewatch.org/pages/_archives/911/3_post_911_data/2004.06.17-Lets_Roll_911/index.html


Shortly the article alleging that "letsroll" was official disinformation was posted to lots of list serves and websites, along with a critique that Letsroll had not provided high quality photographic evidence for its claims, Letsroll suddenly claimed to have discovered the identity of the military pilot who shot down Flight 93. It is possible that their discovery is genuine, but it is not possible (at this time) to prove or disprove it. If it is genuine, then it is probable that "letsroll" was leaked the information to establish "bona fides" as a real investigative website.

A further development came during the posting of this "Bogus site" report -- Let's Roll made the following dramatic announcement:



LetsRoll911.org discovers New Proof! At ground zero, first clear picture found of far side of Pseudo flight 175 found.
Shows more Military Ordinance tucked between engine and pylon. Click here for picture!



One prominent 9/11 activist who has been trying to convince this webmaster that there could be some reality behind the "pod" claim recommended that this new photo be examined -- it is posted in the LetsRoll forum at


http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1185


Before looking at the photo, the question -- as always -- is why any photos allegedly showing an anomaly would not surface until nearly three years later, and after the "letsroll" site was challenged harshly as a disinformation website. Looking at the actual photos posted as the "new proof" shows that the whole "pod" campaign is really just a bad joke.

[graphixtech]

110. Thank you

for posting that important information DougFir.
And welcome to DU!

Tabloid sized (11x17) downloads are now available
for the public and activists here:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/downloads.php

[DulceDecorum]

113. Question for graphixtech.

While many have suggested that the Bush Administration and elements within the US Military and Intelligence Agencies were complicit in the attacks, our goal is not to prove what did or did not happen on September 11th, 2001. We simply demand a rational explanation and full government accountability for the unprecedented and highly suspicious intelligence and air defense failures that took place that day and during the weeks and months prior.
http://www.septembereleventh.org/about.php

If you are NOT interested
in what did or did not happen on September 11th, 2001
then why do you care one whit about a pod?

[Abe Linkman]

111. Then, why aren't there more "clear" photos of FL 175?

You said that a single clear photo of the FL 175 plane would debunk the pod theory and you also said that photographers were waiting for a possible hit on the South Tower.

I've only seen one reasonably clear photo of that plane, and its authenticity has been questioned. You seem to be implying that there would be lots of photos of FL 175, all of which would dispute the notion of a pod. If so, where are they?

[DulceDecorum]

112. 1000% proof that neocons are feeling the heat

It would apppear that we,
of the Democratic Underground,
are in dire need of redirection from the public relations officers.

EmpireWatch.org was established in March of 2003 by Eric Festo (an advertising, design + marketing professional) and is made possible via a community of individuals who seek truth and justice for "we the people.
http://empirewatch.org/pages/_other/about.html
EmpireWatch.org Operates Under the Policy of Full Disclosure.
"We have nothing to hide"
— Eric Festo Bochene

What makes it all the more ironic is the notice he has on the contact page of his website:
Unfortunatly we can not provide a mailing addres or phone number due to the number of hateful people out there that seem to become violent toward anyone with different views
http://www.sicmuse.com/weblog/archives/000351.htm
Actually, things have changed since that was published.
But the basic premise remains the same.
http://empirewatch.org/pages/_other/contact_a.html

Due to the Overwhelming Interest that government and military agencies have shown for our website and facilities,
(Department of Justice, FEMA, Department of Energy, FBI, NSA, Library of Congress and numerous military installations)
We are offering a special research package for all U.S. government and military agencies: We have a wealth of information that is available for free to the public in HTML format but are offering a compiled PDF format for institutions.
http://empirewatch.org/pages/_other/full_disclosure/index.html

Special discounts for government and military agencies?
Not bad for a website that touts itself as being
anti-U.S.A.
anti-Federal Government
anti-Military
anti-Police
http://empirewatch.org/pages/_other/about.html
A website that is run by a person who has ties to the US military.

I looked at the tradition in my family of serving in the U.S. Marine Corps. Yes. I went with tradition, bought into the lies of obtaining money for my future education, seeing the world and serving my country. So, I accelerated through high school skipping over 11th grade and entered into the Marine Corps at 17.
http://empirewatch.org/pages/_other/bios/EF/EF.html

What am I missing here?
Oh yes, Vreeland.
Jonathon Vreeland.
A familiar last name, Vreeland.
I wonder if he is any relation to Delmart.

DougFir says:
Before looking at the photo, the question -- as always -- is why any photos allegedly showing an anomaly would not surface until nearly three years later, and after the "letsroll" site was challenged harshly as a disinformation website. Looking at the actual photos posted as the "new proof" shows that the whole "pod" campaign is really just a bad joke.
That bad joke caused the neocons go from :evilgrin: to :evilfrown:

One of the editors at KPFK that I talked to yesterday realizes that they have probably made an enormous mistake, and said that if the film could be proven to be official disinformation, he would fight hard to keep KPFK from showing it, and would quit his job if they do this. Please take a minute to email and / or call KPFK to urge them to come to their senses, and to work to promote the best material on 9/11 complicity, not the worst.
Posted by MARK (Rabinowitz??)

Subject: RE: KPFK promotion of "In Plane Site," a disinformation "documentary" that distracts and discredits the 9/11 Truth Movement
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 11:40:57 -0700
From: "Eva Georgia" <[email protected]>
To: "Mark Robinowitz"
Thanks for your comments.
I believe our listeners can decide for themselves what the truth is.
We don't always have to agree but that shouldn't stop us from making
information available.
http://www.septembereleventh.org/forum/printthread.php?Board=research&main=1284&type=post

www.911inplanesite.org, by "the power hour" website.
"9/11: In Plane Site"
blatantly bogus bullshit
the worst film on the subject of 9/11
an effort to drown out truth with distraction and disinformation.
is "Plane Site" the most incompetent documentary ever produced,
deliberate disinformation to discredit the 9/11 truth movement,
or are the producers merely gullible "useful idiots" used by covert operators to cover the real evidence behind a smoke screen of bogus material?
"I guess it is painfully clear that I am a film director, not a private investigator."
- William Lewis, director, "In Plane Sight," July 17, 2004, admitting one of the many mistakes surrounding this phony film
after threatening to sue the webmaster of oilempire.us for pointing out the film's flaws This film claims it will change the way people think about September 11 (that it was an "inside job").
However, the biggest impact this film will probably have is to think that 9/11 skeptics are nuts who hallucinate things that do not exist.
It is possible that this film can be used as a teaching opportunity to see how efforts are made to hide provable evidence of official complicity behind a smoke screen of bogus material that most people find difficult to unravel.
<snip>
Any video evidence magically appearing nearly three years later, especially if given to a right-wing Christian fundamentalist film maker by military sources, must be considered somewhat suspect. It is probably not a coincidence that the "pod people" campaign has been stepped up in intensity since the International Inquiry in March, since the 9/11 truth movement is being more successful politically and the culprits benefit if the genuine evidence for official complicity is buried in a blizzard of disinformation masquerading as 9/11 conspiracy exposure.
<snip>
William Lewis (the film producer) admitted to Jamey Hecht that he's a film producer, not an investigator.
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#planesite

Again, this is the opinion of one man - Mark Robinowitz. He has admitted to at least one other person in the 911 truth movement that he has no intention of trying to verify the footage that was used in this documentary.
As a reporter, it is his obligation to search out the facts.
He has not done this.
WHO IS MARK ROBINOWITZ?
FOR WHOM DOES HE WORK?
Sincerely,
William Lewis
http://www.policestate21.com/robinowitz

911 In Plane Site Review Purportedly Written by Mark Rabinowitz
Revealed As Fraudulent, According to Rabinowitz
Almost three weeks ago, an article of voluminous proportions began to circulate on the Internet. Is was a scathing review of "911 In Plane Site" ostensibly written by Mark Rabinowitz and posted on numerous web sites three weeks before any review copies had even been mailed to press agents or media reviewers.
The review raised serious questions as to the integrity of the documentary and immediately began to disassemble two years of research into what really happened on September 11, 2001. The reviewer made unsupported accusations that the video footage was of poor quality and had somehow been manipulated using Photoshop. Nothing could have been further from the truth. The entire mission of the production was to take footage directly from CNN, FOX, ABC and all of the other independent networks and present them in their original form in order to show incipient duplicity on the part of the very networks entrusted with safeguarding the American people through the transmission of fundamental truth.
Immediately, we began to scratch our heads in wonderment. How could someone have written a review of a film which they had never seen? Furthermore... Why would they do it? I suspect that you already know the answer to these questions, but please read further.
Over the past few weeks, I had made several attempts to contact Mr. Rabinowitz with the intension of offering him a preview copy of the video so that he could at least watch the film and write a genuine review article. I was convinced that if he were to simply make an inspection of the evidence contained therein, he would presumably change his mind. I also wanted an explanation for the unfounded attack.
At roughly 7:50 P.M. on Wednesday, July 14, 2004, the phone rang. It was Mark Rabinowitz returning my phone call. He first questioned me as to how I was able to obtain his cell number here in the states. I explained that I had been a radio producer for a number of years and in that occupation it is essential to be able to track down, locate and contact people.
Now it was my turn to needle in a question. I described the article that was circulating on the Internet and ask him why he had felt so inclined to write such a distortion of the facts. To my surprise, he immediately plead his innocence. According to Mr. Rabinowitz, he has never written any such article nor would he ever write a review of a film that he has never seen. He turned out to be quite knowledgeable on the topic of "911" and we ended up having a very pleasant, albeit brief, conversation. I tend to believe Mr. Rabinowitz and I take him at his word.
Yes, indeed, ladies and gentlemen - the disinformation blitzkrieg has begun, and I suspect that it's only going to get worse as the news of this documentary begins to reach the masses of people who will no doubt be stunned and infuriated after learning the truth behind the 911 mask of beguilement and obfuscation. There will, no doubt, be masses of people who will finally discover that they were not told the truth and will demand straightforward answers and command in unity, with a single voice, "We want justice..."
So when you're out there surfing the Internet and come across an article entitled "Bogus 9/11 Sites," keep in mind that the only thing bogus, is the article that you are reading.
Sincerely,
William Lewis
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#planesite

Mark claims that Photoshop is a great tool. While this may work for still images, it does not work for moving video. Some of the tower footage on "911 In Plane Site" comes directly from the CNN video "America Remembers." Upon examining the CNN footage, one will note that the North and South tower flashes appear on the original CNN footage and on the Naudet Brothers video which is a documentary about the N.Y. City firefighters. These flashes are also visible on footage obtained from CameraPlanet.com, a video library in N.Y. who cataloged at least 2 other shot of the 2nd tower strike, which shows the strange flash. The flash is also visible on the WABC footage of the 2nd tower strike. (Four separate sources that all show the same anomaly on tower two.)
should also point out that the CNN footage is the source for the "pod," as well as, half a dozen magazine publications from PEOPLE to TIME MAGAZINE that all show still images. Each one contains the "pod." As Dave vonKleist points out in the video, "Sometimes the best place to hide something is IN PLANE SIGHT."
http://www.policestate21.com/rabinowitz.html

In Plane Sight:
http://www.thepowermall.com/

[Endangered Specie]

115. I have several problems with the whole missile theory...

(go figure)

a- why use external missiles, be easier to load them inside, plus, it would avoid getting spotted

b- How does thy go about affixing such a large and heavy structure on the bottom of a aircraft, you just dont throw on something that large onto the bottom of what is basically a big aluminum can. It doesnt work from a structural point of view, the planes arent designed for that.

c- No one on the ground noticed it (like, say, at the airport), and the pilots who always manually inspect the damn thing.

d- I could think of much wiser and more concealable things to put on an aircraft, why put a missile on a missile?

Its just a crock of shit.

[latitude]

116. Something so obvious yet hasnt been put into account

As a professional pilot, i do not fly 767's but have flown on plenty as a lot of you. Wings.... Wings arent the strongest things in the world. Wind bounces them.

I believe, from my own ideas, that to pull a turn like that involves sudden change of direction and G-forces. Look at the photos that claim that there is a pod... especially demodewd's "22. spray from undercarraige" post. The perspective is all wrong in the first picture, and you find out WHY it is wrong in the second picture. The right wing has been pushed upwards, therefor making the right engine look like its in the wrong place in the first photo. Which in turn, explains the reason why the "pod" is there. To put it simply, the wing is being pressured up with such a force and so suddenly, that the pressure pushes the joint outwards where the wing meets the fuselage. And there you have, "the pod".

Which also explains why the photos that claim there is NOT the pod, is because the aircraft hasnt performed that last second turn.

[tngledwebb]

118. Wings pushing pods out on 767's ?????

PUT ON THESE PLEASE:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: