In defense of "Pod People"

[demodewd]

From:http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1609

"Notice how the pod "debunker" says that photoshop was used...easy for any casual observer to buy except for one problem:
The news footage was broadcast immediately on CNN, ABC, FOX, MSNBC, and others - you watched those pictures along with millions of other viewers showing the pod under psuedo flight 175. These same videos later revealed the missile on closer examination.
These videos perfectly matched photos released later showing the pod.

So how exactly were these different angles from different sources all photoshopped in a time frame of just a few minutes? And how would these alleged "superdoctors" have known about the Chinese street vendors photo available near the wtc? (...it also shows the pod)??

The debunkers always use the lowest quality still from the poorest quality copy of the Evan Fairbanks video - it's the only way to try to not show the pod...(and it still shows the pod!).

By changing other people's focus away from the most damming evidence anyone is ever going to find, well-intentioned people are sent looking for things like proof of demolitions used in the towers (video proof is from a great distance, eyewitnesses have all been "handled", and all the physical evidence has long-since been sent to China or somewhere overseas, and the hole in the ground has been re-built with thousands of cubic yards of concrete and dirt)...
...or looking for some whistleblower to step forward (that would be nice, but don't hold your breath...)
...or hoping for some investigator to untangle the web of complicity in the Bush admin, CIA, Mossad, FBI, FAA, and corporate interests...

All that's needed is to simply show the news footage of the "pod" to people. It's pretty simple!"

[NMDemDist2]

1. i only have one question for the pod people

why bother to shoot a missle into a building you are going to ram with a fully loaded aircraft 3 seconds later?

never could figure out the point of that.

[demodewd]

4. re:question

To insure that the fuel laden phantom 767 explodes in a timely and super voluminous fashion.

[NMDemDist2]

6. oh! silly me......... EOM

[LARED]

11. Exactly how does a

"the fuel laden phantom 767 explodes in a timely and super voluminous fashion?"

A phantom 767 ??????

[Bolo Boffin]

16. How do phantom 767s shoot real missiles from their phantom missile pods?

I'm probably going to regret asking that question.

[LARED]

18. Quite simple

All you need to do is create a hologram of the 767 in flight with the missle pods shown. Superimposed this hologram over the F-16 with said missile that was flown by remote control with a joystick in Dick Cheney's undisclosed location.

[vincent_vega_lives]

21. Explain to me how a fuel laden 767,

phantom or other wise, WOULD NOT explode in a "voluminous" fashion when it hits a building????

[MercutioATC]

22. That IS the question, isn't it?

And a "voluminous" explosion guaranteed, what sense does it make to attach a "pod", altering the appearance of the plane, if you're trying to present the appearance of an unaltered plane crashing?

...of course, a "pod" means the plane was a "replacement", not the original and that would necessitate the existance of:

1) primary targets that didn't exist and,

2) a disposition of the real 767 and its passengers and crew.

[demodewd]

23. the real question

The question really is does the "pod" exist or not and does the flame(flare) exist just prior to its entry into WTC2? The answer to both of those is yes. Of course there is room for conjecture as to what the function of the pod was and what the flare represents. One can also speculate as to the whereabouts of the real passengers and crew.But these are all predicated on the pod and not the other way around. You can't see the pod? You can't see the piping extention that trails to the end of the fuselage and increases its circumferance remarkably? You don't see the flare? You don't notice that the flare appears PRIOR to the planes entrance into the building? If so...I can't really help you. I believe that you are in denial but that's just my opinion.

[MercutioATC]

24. Just tell me where the right main gear went if your "pod" does exist.

Your supposed "pod" is right where the right main gear deploys/retracts.

Of course I see a discoloration where you do. I just don't believe it's a "pod". Aside from the fact that it would eliminate the existance of one of the plane's 3 landing gear assemblies, too many other things must also be true if that really is a pod...things that are either unlikely or impossible.

[demodewd]

28. re: landing gear

Why would the plane need a landing gear assembly? Hmmmm? Too bad I interupt your hardened set of reality principles.Maybe someday you'll have the capacity to step away from your present day vapidity and see things more sharply. I'll always have hope that you'll see the light and become podified!



Boy..sure looks like the fuselage trailing to the tail is a bit widened in circumferance. What's that crease apparently separating the main fuselage from another elongated part? Must be normal. Look class...there's the landing gear. Boy that's easy to see. Must be pregnant or growing a tumor. Thats normal though...it must be...how else can you explain it and be a normal brainwashed American zombie? Don't let those CTers get the best of you no matter what you see. Its better to have cognitive dissonance than forfeit your position.

[MercutioATC]

29. Why would it need a landing gear? To take off, perhaps?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize a really big slingshot was part of the scenario, too...

I'm not denying the light and dark areas. They're clear enough. I'm just taking issue with what they really represent. An actual "pod" where it appears would eliminate the right main gear. Without that gear, the plane couldn't have taken off in the first place.

[demodewd]

36. space enough

The landing gear?...atight fit but I'm sure it was accounted for. The obvious bulbous projection doesn't exist because it would be where the landing gear is?....you do see it then? Ha!

[MercutioATC]

37. Oh, so the "pod" ISN'T where it appears to be, now?

I call it a shadow. You call it a pod. Regardless, it extends from where the wing meets the fuselage to approximately the midpoint of the belly of the fuselage.

That's where the landing gear goes...

[demodewd]

39. re:regardless

It's not regardless. The pod creates its own shadow or obviously there wouldn't even be a shadow at that position. There is a line of shadow across the anamolous piping fore and aft too.

[MercutioATC]

40. I don't see it that way, but that still begs the question:

Where's the landing gear supposed to go?

[demodewd]

41. that ain't no wing root shadow

Why don't you see it that way? Too scientific and logical for you? That shadow is not caused by the wing roots. Its too long and too concentric and dimensional in the pod area. The "pod" is suspended away from the fuselage..perhaps the landing gear could squeeze by...or it was retrofitted. You may "not see it that way" but give me a logical explanation. What caused the shadowing?

[MercutioATC]

42. I believe it IS a shadow. If not, where'd the landing gear go?

It HAS to be a shadow because that plane needed all three landing gears to take off. If you can tell me how a 767 takes off without the starboard main gear, I'll reconsider.

[demodewd]

45. from what?

A shadow from what?????

[MercutioATC]

46. The thicker part of the fuselage between the wings.

There IS a bulge there, it's on every 767.

The real issue is that if it WERE actually a "pod" the plane never would have been able to take off.

Here's a pic that might help:

http://www.photovault.com/Link/Technology/Aviation_Commercial/show.asp?tg=TAFVolume16/TAFV16P09_09

[demodewd]

49. Wrong place

You always presuppose things from the conventional sense. Adjustments could and would be made. The bulge of the pod is too concentric and dimensional and too BIG to be your fuselage meets wings theory. And if you take a look at the location of the "pod",it is situated below the aft end of the wing by more than a few feet. It is not located in the proper place to substantiate your claim. This is basic arithmetic,visually provable. Your theory cannot be true.

[demodewd]

51. check it out

[MercutioATC]

58. Check THIS out:

http://www.photovault.com/Link/Technology/Aviation_Commercial/show.asp?tg=TAFVolume16/TAFV16P09_09

Your "pod" is exactly where the landing gear doors are (just aft of the centerline of the wing where the wing and fuselage meet).

So your point was???

[demodewd]

64. again...what is it?

Merc think-"It's where the landing gear door should be so it doesn't exist."I've already stated that the plane was obviously retrofitted. Maybe the landing gear was disengaged after takeoff. Who knows. You say that the "pod" is actually the convergence of the wing and fuselage. BUT IT ISN'T. No matter what you say the pod is it is not that. It does not fulfill the required space and measurement.That is a fact!!So tell me what it is...you haven't yet.

[MercutioATC]

66. I believe it's the shadow of the wing root.

It's certainly not a physical object - at least not of the apparent dimensions. The need to have a landing gear there simply makes it impossible.

[vincent_vega_lives]

83. Why would it need landing gear?

It wasn't going to land! ;)

[MercutioATC]

85. Amazing how some people miss the obvious, isn't it?

My 13-year-old son took about 3 seconds to say "It had to take off, didn't it?"

Maybe if I had called it a "take-off gear"....

:crazy:

[Abe Linkman]

25. Something about softening the target for easier entry into the bldgs.

Same reasoning as with the missile at the Pentagon. But, apologist for "Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy Theory that you are, you KNEW that already.

I'm using the word "apologist" in lieu of something stronger that might even be more accurate.

I've also become aware of some other people (or at least different User Names) who claim to work at the airport in Cleveland, and for ATC there.
Interesting. You know those people?

[MercutioATC]

26. The Pentagon was a hardened target. The WTC towers weren't.

A missile wasn't needed to breach a reinforced outer wall of the Pentagon (whether you believe one was fired or not, that ASCE report you dislike so much affirms that a 757 could have caused that damage by itself).

A missile certainly wouldn't have been needed to breach an unreinforced outer wall of a commercial office tower. The plane itself would be more than adequate.

I haven't seen anybody else here that claims to be an ATC from Cleveland (I work at Cleveland Center, not the airport). If you'd link to their posts, I'd probably be able to tell you if I know them (or at least PM them and see).

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Abe Linkman]

30. The Pentagon was hit by a fighter jet & missile. WTC ? Missile, too?

Using a missile had several obvious benefits and maybe a few we haven't thought of, yet.

You must have a fragile ego, if that bothers you.

[MercutioATC]

31. I don't believe it was. Regardless, a 757 would have been sufficient.

The ASCE report explains that the damage to the Pentagon was consistent with a 757 crash. No, it doesn't explore the possibility of your "fighter and missile" crash, but it DOES explain how a 757 would have caused the damage.

Since a 757 was sufficient to penetrate a hardened target like the Pentagon, why wouldn't a 767 be expected to sufficiently penetrate the WTC towers?

As far as my "ego", I'm not the one alerting on your posts. You know the rules as well as I, and most others do, too. Seems there are others who find some of your posts over the top.

Your reply to my question about the "other people (or at least different User Names) who claim to work at the airport in Cleveland, and for ATC there." must have been deleted in that post. If you have a link to one of their posts, I'd be interested in seeing it.

[Abe Linkman]

32. A 757 may have been sufficient, but no 757 was used at the Pentagon.

The ASCE report is thinly-veiled propaganda, designed to give people like you something you can cite whenever you desperately try to explain the unexplainable.

The ONLY real proof of what crashed at the Pentagon is the video evidence, and it shows a small jet, not a 757. So, why do you continue to say otherwise? You've boasted that you only post "facts", and so by continuing to say a 757 crashed at the Pentagon, you are posting something that is contradicted by the facts. I'm afraid my free speech rights here don't permit me to point out the obvious conclusion of what you are doing whenever you claim something that is patently false.

[MercutioATC]

33. Abe, that's ONE frame of a blurry video. It doesn't "show a small jet".

It shows a blur. It shows a blur in ONE FRAME. Even it it meets your standards of "real proof", it's hardly conclusive.

Actually, the "real proof" of what crashed into the Pentagon would be the DNA of AAL77 passengers that was recovered.


That's all beside the point, anyway. If a 757 was sufficient to breach a reinforced wall of the Pentagon, wouldn't a 767 be sufficient to breach the wall of a commercial office building?


Oh, and I'm still waiting for the other "Cleveland ATCs" you promised me...

[Abe Linkman]

35. Murky: That frame sure as Hell doesn't show a 757, and you know it, too.

The only possible aircraft that could fit what is visible in that video is way too small to be a 757. Why don't you stop this sham of pretending like you can ignore evidence that came directly from the U.S. Gov't. DU should have a rule about THAT, but sadly, you can come on here and make factual claims that the whole world knows are false, but if anybody has the stones to point that fact out, then you or one of your cohorts hits the alert button, and the rest is blank history.

No 757 hit the Pentagon, so no 757 DNA could have been found at the Pentagon unless it was taken there. Claiming otherwise is beneath (or should be beneath) the boundaries of what is allowed to be posted on DU.
How you get away it, is beyond me. Why you would WANT to is a subject that cries out for discussion, but is forbidden.

[MercutioATC]

38. You're working backwards again, Abe.

(notice I'm still using your handle and not some juvenile nickname)

Rather than take the single frame of a hopelessly blurry video and admit it doesn't show anything identifiable, you START with the erroneous assumption that a fighter was involved and attribute the "blur" to a fighter. The video doesn't show any fighter I've ever seen. In fact, it just shows a blur.

From this blur, you conclude that documented physical evidence like DNA samples of AAL77 passengers and parts of a 757 found at the scene were "planted"...and the large commercial plane seen by numerous people was actually a second plane, not the plane that hit the Pentagon.

...all because you think the blur is a fighter...

If that's not enough, you suggest that anybody who doesn't see the "fighter" in the blur is a paid "PR flack" and tell them to leave the forum.

Abe, I'm not the Antichrist. I'm not a Republican. I'm not being paid to post here. I'm an ATC who may have some insights into aviation that some other people don't. Simply having a different opinion doesn't make me any less interested in knowing what really happened.

[Abe Linkman]

43. I'm working from the known evidence. You are working from SpinCity.

The video images from the Gov't that shows the Pentagon attack jet cannot possibly be a large airliner. You don't have to be able to read what's written on the side of the jet -- which I happen to know says: "this is a fighter jet, no matter what the PR people try to tell you"
to know it cannot possibly be a large airliner like a 757.

It's very basic logic, murky. I know you don't get paid to think, but holy matzencratz, boy - you should be able to follow very simple logic.

Video proves a 757 didn't crash at the Pentagon, so any DNA from FL 77 that was found there (and there's NO PROOF of that, either, so don't bother citing a newspaper account that talks about DNA - because the issue ISN'T whether or not DNA was recovered from people on FL 77. the issue is WHERE that DNA was recovered FROM) --- and any DNA from 77 that was
"found" at the Pentagon HAD to have been planted there.

That's very basic logic. Even an ATCer should be able to follow that.
Why can't YOU?

[MercutioATC]

44. Again, working backwards...

You've taken your belief that the image in that one frame was too small to be a 757 and morphed that into evidence of a fighter. You're trying to tell me that you actually see that blur as any recognizable aircraft?

To expand this into "proof" of the planting of evidence is just silly. A rescue worker in the building shortly after the crash found a child's hand. Was that planted? A motorist on the highway found an oxygen bottle marked "for airline use". Was that planted? With scores of people looking at the aftermath of the crash, how was the debris planted on the Pentagon lawn?

It's not "logical" to base an entire theory on a single frame of blurry video, especially when it necessitates discounting other, more tangible, physical evidence.

[Abe Linkman]

48. You realize you're disputing the U.S. Gov't AND bolobluffin, too?

The U.S. Gov't claims a 757 crashed at the Pentagon. As proof, it released video images taken from a camera in the Pentagon parking lot.

bolo says the video shows a 757.

murky says it isn't possible to tell what the video shows.

Now, boys and girls of all ages: CHECK THIS murky Logic out.
Mr. Murky supports the Official "Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy Theory ...
BY arguing AGAINST the Official Evidence released by the Gov't in support of it's "Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy Theory!

And if that isn't enough to baffle the curious -- while doing all that, he simultaneously manages to CONTRADICT the biggest Official Conspiracy Apologist of all: BOLO!

But WAIT, YES. YES, there IS more! Mr. Murky AND bolo try to argue against the reality that what is shown in the video CANNOT POSSIBLY be a 757! As any fool can plainly see: the airplane image in the video is way too small to be a B757.

Whoaaaaaaaa, Nellie. As the lady from the "House of Ill Refute" once said: "some days - for me, it just doesn't pay to get out of bed."

[MercutioATC]

57. I've told you before, I don't blindly support ANY theory.

We've had this discussion, Abe. Despite your need to find a label for me, I don't support the entire official story.

I don't believe that one blurry frame shows anything recognizable. Frankly, I don't care what theory that's in conflict with. It's still my position.

The broad brush you insist on using to paint anybody who doesn't agree with you is the reason for your being "baffle" by the fact that Bolo and I might have a different opinion about something. We're two different people with our own opinions. We're not always going to have the same views.

Your analyses seem to be regressing, Abe. You're down to attacking dissimilarities between others' opinions now.

Kinda sad...

[Abe Linkman]

62. MERC: You dance better than James Brown!

I'm not just kidding.

murky position is in conflict with the evidence? LOOK--right over there! No pod.

murky takes a position in oppostion to the U.S. Gov't position: NO problemo. He doesn't "support the entire official story."

BOLO says the video DOES show a 757. murky says otherwise. Contradition? Not at all. According to murky, he's a different person than bolo! (clears that up, I guess)

Bottom Line: What some might say is a pastiche of contradictions, assertions that have no basis in fact, or that are in conflict WITH known facts, logic that would make a sailor blush, and other demonstrations of a logic-challenged bushco apologist...merc just dismisses it all and goes on his merry go round way.

What does it take to get a job with ATC?

[MercutioATC]

63. Do YOU agree with every other CTist here on all of the issues?

I have no idea what your rant was really about. I'm now "dancing" because I don't agree with Bolo on every issue?

As far as an ATC job, it requires the ability to problem-solve. I'm thinking you might be more comfortable doing something else...

[tngledwebb]

47. To repeat...

No photos/videos are available that show a 757, or any object that size. Now, maybe it was one of the new fangled 'melting' 757's designed for minimal crash damage, or maybe something smaller, even a missile, as Rummy guessed early on, and he ought to know. Photos show fire, smoke, hole on the inside, some kind of engine and wheel, but no wings, fuselage, tail, bodies, seats, signs of crash on lawn, even a hole in outer wall. Re pod. Pod carried explosives for big photogenic explosion & perhaps as cover for missile blast used to make hole. Hole thru wall was needed so entire plane went straight in and wdnt didnt crash to the ground leaving evidence of no passengers etc. Big explosion also needed for PR/frontpage/tv pics needed to ensure plausibility of planes bringing down skyscrapers. Of course WTC had to come down to hide all that evidence, or lack of it, and the wreckage removed asap.

[Abe Linkman]

50. Thanks, "tngledwebb". IMO - your explanations are clear & logical.

Mr. Rumsfeld has been around the block a few times. I think he was speaking the truth when he referred to the missile. < also allows inoculates the Gov't for whenever the day comes it has to admit the truth. "Sec. Rumsfeld himself said it was missile." >

[tngledwebb]

52. if that day ever comes

Here's Rummy on Flt 77: 'We had to shoot it down somewhere over Virginia, where the radar lost it. No no, the only we we could lose a plane on radar is thru a crash or a landing, this is the 21st century man!- we've got radar tracking mosquitoes. The Pentagon's new wall exercise happening on the same day actually helped us, as we were able to pretend the plane casualties occurred at the Pentagon. Oh, of course it was just an exercise, look at the photos, do you see a plane? You see, we thought at the time that admitting that we had to shoot down one of our own passenger planes would be even bigger psychological victory for the terrorists. And the public wasn't ready to hear about that option. So yes, it was missile, a bunker buster in fact, you can tell by the exit hole, and there were NO casualties THERE, I mean look at our DOD website for the day, does it look real...would I be walking around outside if there were any danger? And these terrorists knew about the exercise and used it to slip past the usual safeguards... We couldn't admit that publicly and that's why we had to really stall on all these damn investigations, unfortunately. There are the known knowns and the known unknowns as I may have mentioned before...'

[Abe Linkman]

54. Bingo!

Maybe Mr. Rumsfeld will do a McNamara-like apologia, after he is no longer in the business of lying and signifying for PNAC.

[LARED]

2. Speaking for this pod debunker

There is no reason to say the "pods" were photo-shopped into any images, as the images never showed a "pod."

Now here's a pod

[MikeG]

3. Resistance is futile -Prepare to be assimilated!!!

[demodewd]

5. re:resistance

Never.

[MikeG]

8. All your base are belong to us. Make your peace.

[demodewd]

10. When?

When does the spaceship leave?

[MikeG]

13. This is not information you need to know. Resign yourself to the Borg.

[demodewd]

14. Liberate

Liberate yourself. Know the pod.

[vincent_vega_lives]

7. I see the pods!

YES YES YES, two right at the wingroots, where the landing gear retracts into the fuselage.
&ZyXtCe=MDE0MjA4&id=627039&ViD=middle

&ZyXtCe=MDE0ODA1&id=000145&ViD=middle

&ZyXtCe=MDE1MjUx&id=624026&ViD=middle

[demodewd]

9. too large and in the wrong place

The pod is too large in circumferance and length for your landing gear retract proposal. Also you will notice that the pod runs beyond the wingroot at least three maybe four feet. You also don't account for the orange flash(possibly fuse)appearing just prior to the nose entry.Prior to the nose entry.

[LARED]

12. The mother of all pods

[demodewd]

15. Soon

It soon will spawn. Then it dies.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. That's not a pod - that's Keiki!

Free Willy!

[demodewd]

19. Someday...

Someday I trust that you will become podified.

[vincent_vega_lives]

20. I have to hand it to you demodewd

At least you have a sense of humor about it. Some people around here take themselves far to seriously.

:toast:

[NecessaryOnslaught]

34. Did someone say pod?

I'll throw this out there before I go to bed. The MQM-107 target drone. This was one of the drones used in Amalgam Virgo 01'. Yes, the wingspan is only 10', but hey, theres a pod and a missile :evilgrin:

[DulceDecorum]

53. See it for yourself

Is there some sort of “pod” attached to the bottom of “Flight 175” ? If so, what purpose did it serve in the attacks? Full-screen television blow-ups directly from CNN reveals the details of this strange anomaly.
We ask the questions, you draw the conclusions...

POWER HOUR PRODUCTIONS PRESENT
911 IN PLANE SITE
Video & Photographic Evidence of
the Largest Cover-Up In Modern Day History

From Dave vonKleist, co-host of "The Power Hour" radio program and writer/producer of the album "Will Someone Listen" & William Lewis, producer/director of "American Freedom News" and "TruNews" comes a full length documentary exposing one of the largest conspiracies ever uncovered. With the pounding force of a sledgehammer you will find yourself horrified and astonished at the shear scope of the largest transgressions ever carried out against the people of the United States and indeed... of the entire world.
View the actual footage from CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX and others.
Powerful and convincing footage, shown only once,
and never seen again. . . Until Now
http://www.policestate21.com/

POD UPDATE:
Newly discovered photo of "United Airlines Flight 175" reveals even more details of the "pod" attached to the bottom of this aircraft. Tune into ThePowerHour radio program for new information as it becomes available.
Also check out the CNN footage.
http://www.policestate21.com/cnn.html

This CNN DVD "America Remembers" is not only one of the sources for the digital footage of the "pod" on the bottom of United Airlines Flight #175, but it is also one of the five sources for the flash that appears right before U.A. Flight 175 makes contact with the second tower and an even larger explosive flash before A.A. Flight #11 makes contact with the first tower. If you have this DVD in your video library, please watch it for yourself or use the link located below to order your copy directly from CNN. A search on Amazon.com will also provide a good source of first edition used copies. Get one. Confirm the evidence for yourself.
DIRECT LINK TO CNN: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/america.remembers/

[Abe Linkman]

55. "No Windows" on the plane. Don't most UA planes have windows?

Maybe mercATC can explain to us what his experience is with commercial airliners that don't have windows. No wait, he'll have to either:

* Claim that even though reporters are trained to observe and remember details...the CNN reporter obviously was mistaken. (unlike those eyewitnesses who claimed they saw "the plane" at the Pentagon, the CNN reporter's eyewitness is just not credible, and please don't ask why.)

* He's an ATC employee who's just here to state facts and comment about his particular area of expertise (ATC stuff)..."don't know nuthin' bout no damn winderless airplanes...ask bolo.")

* "FL 175 DID SO have windows, and if you have any evidence it didn't, bring it to me."

AND, the best one of all:

* "FL 175 crashed into the WTC."

[seatnineb]

56. Looks like someone was watching that Fox News Employee...........

The stuff on that DVD regarding the windowless flight 175 is backed up by this web page........

Terrorist Attack News
Calisuri @ 9:45 am EST

Red Cross appeals for blood: 1-800-448-3543
9:41am PT

Hello everyone. I am in horror this morning. I realize that the news sites are all very slow at the moment so I'm going to provide this page which I'll try to update with the latest news. I will do this for as long as I can stand it. I am literally feeling ill at the horror of this event.

Unconfirmed........
The second flight was not a regular plane, but there were no windows on the side, which means it was not a passanger jet.
- United Flight 175 is missing (Boston to LA)

http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1000215900

[MercutioATC]

59. If it's the picture I've seen here before:

You don't see the windows because the plane is banked so far left that the windows are above the videographer's line of sight from the ground. No big mystery.

[seatnineb]

60. Not so fast Mercutio.......

The picture(below left) that you are holding onto for dear life Merc.....



Was published sometime AFTER 9/11.......

But the following statement(below) was given on the morning of 9/11 itself......

Terrorist Attack News
Calisuri @ 9:45 am EST

Red Cross appeals for blood: 1-800-448-3543
9:41am PT

Unconfirmed........
The second flight was not a regular plane, but there were no windows on the side, which means it was not a passanger jet.
- United Flight 175 is missing (Boston to LA)
http://www.theonering.net/perl/newsview/8/1000215900

[MercutioATC]

61. I hadn't seen that quote. Obviously, I was commenting on the picture.

My apologies, I thought the post was speaking of the picture.

[Abe Linkman]

65. Now that you've apologized - got any rebuttal for the report of no windows

Another dance move, but it didn't work. I know, I know. You just weren't paying careful attention to the substance of the message, BUT HONESTLY, it's the only time that's ever happened.

The Official Conspiracy Theory is a total lie. The evidence continues to pile up.

[MercutioATC]

67. You want me to rebut an uncredited statement?

How am I supposed to know what the person saw? Maybe they, too, saw the plane in a turn which put the windows out of their line of sight. Without any additional information, it's impossible to say.

[Abe Linkman]

68. The reporter didn't say he couldn't SEE where the windows should be.

The reporter said the plane was very low and he could see that it didn't have any windows. Then, either he or the news anchor suggested it might be some kind of freight plane.

So, more evidence is piling up. No 757 at the Pentagon, and "FL 175" had no windows. No wonder they had to use missiles. Can't have the public see that there were no passengers on "FL 175". No Mush. No wonder. No windows. No truth to the "Cavemen Did It" Official Conspiracy Theory.

btw - You didn't fool ME. I know someone in your position simply cannot concede that no 757 hit the Pentagon, and "FL 175" wasn't FL 175. The real FL 175 DID have windows and DID NOT have a pod.

So, you don't need to do your James Brown thang, murky. We know there's a reason why you HAVE to support the Official Conspiracy Theory...NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS TO THE CONTRARY, AND NO MATTER that there's not a bit of evidence that supports ANY aspect of it.

Don't feel like you have to respond to this. If somebody is pressuring you, tell 'em we've given you a pass for the rest of the evening. You can get back on YOUR Spinning Wheel tomorrow. Take the rest of this night off.

[MercutioATC]

69. The plane was "very low"? It wasn't THAT low, judging by where it hit.

I appreciate your synopsis of the reporter's statement, but I'd be much more interested in the original quote. Regardless, how do you justify ignoring dozens of Pentagon witnesses (whose actual quotes I've provided) while placing this degree of faith in the statement of one observer (when you don't even know exactly what he said)?

I don't believe there were no windows on the plane. I don't believe there was a pod or "fuel sprayers" either. I DO believe that DNA evidence of the passengers and crew was found at the crash sites. I also believe that the four planes were hijacked and flown into the buldings (without the aid of replacement planes or missiles or fighters or any number of other unnecessary additions).

As far as your belief of what I can and cannot "concede", I'm a civilian government employee and I'm free to state whatever opinion I choose. If I post something it's because I believe it, not because of any threat against my person or my job.

Abe, I've seen your "evidence" and it doesn't meet my standards. I understand that mine may not meet yours. It's juvenile, though, to insist that I don't believe what I say or that I have some agenda.

[Abe Linkman]

77. When it all begins to fall apart -- hang on, DANCE, deny, and SIGNIFY.

Mr. murky: You have your beliefs...in abundance. Can you say cognitive dissonance?

You can "believe" in gw's Conspiracy theory all you want. Do you also worship that which you say you believe?

You don't have any LOGICAL standards TO meet. You simply spout the same propaganda that you must hear on FOX or Limbaugh...or in the snack area there at the ATC building.

[MercutioATC]

78. Just get me an actual quote from the reporter...preferably one that also

describes his field of view in relation to the plane and I'll be happy to tell you what I think. As it is, there simply isn't enough data to make a determination.

We obviously view logic differently. I prefer to look at the available data before making a conclusion. Some prefer to start with a theory and then find evidence to support it. To each his own, I guess...

[Abe Linkman]

79. I don't really CARE what YOU think

Some people don't know any better.

Some people are paid to not know any better.

Some people have jobs where it's best to not know better.

Some people are simply willing enablers.

Some people have very poor reasoning skills.

Most people use "if this, then this" decision making, but call it logic.

[MercutioATC]

80. Then why did you ask me the question?

Hey, YOU asked...

You feeling O.K., Abe?

[Abe Linkman]

81. You can't possibly know what the reporter saw. That's a dumb excuse...

for not rebutting the story. The reporter said that the plane (FL 175) had no windows. Since you can't rebut his claim by directly calling him a liar, you try to do so by suggesting he wasn't in a position to see what he saw.

FL 175 = no windows

FL 77 = Wherdy go

Official Conspiracy Theory = no evidence

Have you ever started a thread? If so, was it one that had anything in it that would support your "belief" in the Official "Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy Theory? Does your claimed employment in ATC have anything to do with why you are trying to undermine the truth?

Why would FL 175 not have any windows, murky? A news reporter who saw it, said it didn't. Do you have any evidence that the reporter is lying? I believe the reporter is actually from your groups' source of propaganda: Fox news.

[MercutioATC]

82. Neither can you.

Without knowing what he saw (or even exactly what he said) I don't see how anybody could rebut (or support) his statement.

I had no intention of calling anybody a "liar". I just asked you to provide the actual quote and, if available, some information as to his view of the plane.

Since I have no interest in the "Official Conspiracy Theory", I don't care if there's evidence to support it or not. I'm posting the facts I know to be true (from my understanding of ATC) and my views on individual aspects of 9/11. I've made that clear from when I first began posting here.

Search my name. Yes, I've started threads. Had you looked, you'd have seen that I'm no friend of the current administration. That doesn't change the facts and the way I interpret them. You're one of about a half a dozen people who seem threatened by what I have to say. Some people agree with me - some don't. Very few retreat to the level of paranoia it takes to suggest that I'm somehow compensated to post here or that I'm posting anything other than what I really believe.

[Abe Linkman]

84. The problem with apologists for the Official Conspiracy Theory

Apologists for the "Cavemen Did It" theory use every excuse in the book to try and explain away evidence and defend the indefensible.

YOUR problem is that you are quick to say something "might" have been -- but the ONLY "might be" that you won't concede, is the strong one that says YOU "might be" wrong...YOU "might be" intentionally or unintentionally helping to perpetuate the lies about what really happened on 9/11.

For most of us here, regarding Official C. T. apologists -- it isn't even that you "might be" doing that --- it is a fact.

[MercutioATC]

86. Interesting quote.....

"Apologists for the "Cavemen Did It" theory use every excuse in the book to try and explain away evidence and defend the indefensible."

Replace ""Apologists for the "Cavemen Did It" theory" with "a few of the CTists here":

1) ASCE report of the Pentagon damage

2) Eyewitness reports of a large commercial plane at the Pentagon

3) DNA of passengers found at every "alleged" 9/11 crash site

4) The wheel, gear strut, high-pressure rotor assembly, and oxygen bottle found at the Pentagon crash site

5) The child's hand found at the Pentagon crash site

6) The large piece of fuselage with a partial letter (in American Airline livery colors) found at the Pentagon crash site.

...that's just the Pentagon.

VERSUS:

1) One frame of a blurry video

WHO'S trying to "explain away evidence and defend the indefensible"?

We may see things differently, but there is plenty of evidence of AAL77 crashing at the Pentagon. There's equally compelling evidence of the three other crashes having occurred essentially as presented by the government.

I don't like this administration. I don't trust this administration. However, I'm not willing to disbelieve everything they say just because they said it. I look at the evidence and reach conclusions, much as I hope you do. We don't interpret things the same way. It's that simple.

[Abe Linkman]

87. The answer is YOU.

"WHO'S trying to "explain away evidence and defend the indefensible"?"


Even worse, you didn't deny that you might be helping bushco promote the BIG LIE that OBL is responsible for 9/11. Is it intentional, or do you just not realize it that is what you're doing?

[MercutioATC]

88. I'm not going to stop believing what I believe just because somebody else

does, too. If Bush said "The sun will rise in the east tomorrow." I'd probably agree. That makes me an "apologist"?

Somebody isn't a crusader for truth simply because they disagree with the establishment.

[Abe Linkman]

93. Do you own a dictionary?

Look up "crusader" and "seeker". They mean different things. Just because you support the Official Conspiracy Theory doesn't mean you are necessarily a seeker of truth. In fact, I'd argue that since you only look at 9-11 propaganda and dismiss any evidence that conflicts with it, you could reasonably be called a crusader for the "Wacky, Evil-doers Cavemen Did It" Official Conspiracy Theory.

[MercutioATC]

95. I'm not "dismissing" any evidence (unlike some here)

I've weighed the evidence I've seen, listened to others' theories, and arrived at my own conclusions. Frankly, most of the "evidence" I've seen for most of the conspiracy theories ranges from debatable to downright laughable.

I may yet find some evidence of a conspiracy that seems reasonable to me, but I haven't so far.

[Abe Linkman]

97. I'm not dismissing any evidence of the OCT. How could anyone?

No credible evidence has been offered in support of the Official "Evildoers Cavemen Did It" Official Conspiracy Theory, and the efforts of the sales reps for it ranges from disingenuous to downright laugbable.

[MercutioATC]

98. No credible evidence?

Radar evidence of the planes' flights. DNA evidence at all four sites. Pieces of a commercial airliner at the Pentagon. A videotaped confession from OBL (with corroborating statements from other Al-Queda members who have since been captured).

I have never dismissed contrary "evidence". I just believe that quite a bit of it is either too bizarre to be credible (almost everything Eastman says), open to multiple interpretations (the engine part found at the Pentagon could be either be from a 757 engine or a smaller engine depending on whether it was the main fan or a high-pressure rotor), or based on an abyssmal lack of understanding of the way things work (the "plane replacement" theory or the notion that AAL77 could have landed at Reagan).

We may not agree on what happened, but I've never dismissed evidence. That would entail asserting something like physical evidence is invalid because it was "planted".

[Abe Linkman]

99. That's right. Zero CREDIBLE evidence. We know that u know it, too.

What you cited as evidence is not credible at all. None of it. As you know (but, for some reason won't admit), it was ALL found to be NOT credible...as far back as shortly after the self-attacks happened.

[MercutioATC]

100. "found to be NOT credible" by whom?

I've gotta see this...

[Abe Linkman]

102. Continue to ignore the findings of others & YOUR credibility suffers more.

You are being disruptive, not helpful. You need to rebut the findings and conclusions that conflict with your position if you want to be taken seriously. YOUR arguments (such as they are) are inconsistent with the notion that a 757 crashed at the Pentagon.

[MercutioATC]

103. Thanks for the concern, Abe, but I haven't "ignored" anything.

Show me ANYTHING that qualifies as physical proof that something other than a 757 hit the Pentagon. Yes, I know you'll dredge up that single frame of the blurry parking lot video (which could be damn near anything) and. Anything else? ANYTHING? Gimme some physical proof.

[DulceDecorum]

94. "There Are None So Blind

As Those Who Will Nazi".
-- Betty Bowers

http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/randy/swas5.htm

As for the sun rising in the East:
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/11/ana03302.html

[MercutioATC]

96. What do either of those have to do with the subject?

[AngryAmish]

70. Pod haiku

Missle seen by some
Unknown cause of destruction
We will never know

[Blue Member]

71. Line in the Sand

There is a revolution coming in America...one like the world has never seen...will you be aware and informed...or asleep and hypnotized? The "official story" of the attacks on 09-11-01 is false. It is a lie...it is fiction...nothing but ghosts of reality...now many of you see through a glass darkly...it takes courage and fortitude to clean off the glass and see the truth...it will make you fearful, it will produce anxiety...many will reject the evidence and proof...many others will be very abusive and hateful at seeing the evidence and proof...others will review the evidence and conduct their own investigation...and make their own conclusions and findings of fact. If you have moderate intelligence, if you are not blinded by false patriotism, if you are awake and not controlled by the mass media, if you pledge allegiance to this Country, and not to the Flag...if you believe in protecting this country against all enemies. foreign or DOMESTIC...then you have a choice to make. Wake up...or stay asleep...Where will you draw your line in the sand?


This video will change history...
http://www.policestate21.com/

This site changed my life...
http://letsroll911.org/

This site allows you to investigate....
http://911research.wtc7.net/

[Blue Member]

72. Continued

http://www.nypress.com/17/30/news%26columns/AlanCabal.cfm

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2004/090704nationalsecurity.htm


The Barcelona daily La Vanguardia, which has run a series of articles based on a technical report on this pod, asked Boeing about these features, who claimed they were unable to respond. See for original reference: http://www.amics21.com/911/enigma.html


Also See:
http://www.amics21.com/911/mysterious.html


In re. to the oft vetted "pod/cylinder/missile/projectile/ignition/flash" combo on Flight-175, Boeing was contacted and provided with pictures of this anomoly. After some time, Boeing staff and engineers having had the opportunity to examine and analyze the anomoly, and Boeing's response was when asked to comment on these anomalies, none of these:

A. "We don't see anything - there is nothing there"

B. "That a normal part of the plane - a wing mount or pylon"

C. "Thats really strange - we have no idea what that is."

But rather:

D. "We cannot comment due to national security."

That should tell you something….does that fallback phrase sound familiar at all??????





http://www.newsmakingnews.com/911automaticpilot.htm
http://www.public-action.com/911/4flights.html#shockwave%20version

DVD quality Capture from NOVA - Why the Towers Fell
http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/letsroll911/Web/Pip%20Low.wmv

[Blue Member]

73. Continued

http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/wtc_ch2/fig-2-15.jpe

Those beams were not cut by a missile because there is more than one of them, and they are glowing red hot, my friends those beams were raised to an extremely high temperature and blasted out one millisecond, i.e. just as the wings were entering the external wall of WTC-#2. In another video where Flight-175 flies right overhead, you can see the expansion of the cutting blast vapor right along the top of the wings of Flight-175 right as the wings enter the external wall. It looks like a sharp thin lateral blast of blast white fog; I had always wondered what that odd blast of vapor was, now I know.

These beams were blasted / cut one millisecond before the wings reached them, and in the exact place and rough geometric shape of the wings and plane body. That sudden banking movement that Flight-175 makes right before impact was no accident, it was made to acquire the exact spot that it was supposed to impact so that the wings a body would enter like a hot knife into butter. The cutting charges were set to detonate all together, creating an access hole for the wings. The missile projectile blasted a hole through the external wall, and any other obstacle in its path, allow for the access of the nose/cabin of the plane, however, I submit that there was no solid steel beam in the way of the nose of the plane, because it entered in an area of space between two such beams, however, even though there was no steel beam blocking the nose's path, the missile still was needed to open a hole to allow the nose to enter completely.

Remember, the entire plane had to enter the inside of the building. The tail would enter through the hole created by the nose and body of the plane. One millisecond after the entire plane had entered the inside of the building, an externally mounted explosive detonated the rupturing fuel cells. Placing the explosive on the outside of the plane body rather than inside helped insure the proper ignition in that there was less chance the device would be damaged, crushed, burned, etc. Having the device at the perimeter of the roiling cluster of fuel as opposed to inside the center, would be analogous to igniting a match in a bucket of kerosene, or igniting a match at the edge of kerosene mist cloud.

The missile also served to open an oxygen channel just ahead of the plane, to help in the creation of good mixture of fuel to air ratio for the proper combustion and explosion of the fuel mixture so that the ignition could occur from the inside of the building, to the outside of the building. In the slow-motion video, one can see something digging a path just inside the external wall of WTC-#2, opening it up like a can opener from the inside out, in order to allow the detonating fuel/air mixture to eject out into the outside world along this gash. A pinkish / white high explosive based blast bursts forth from the gash, followed by an enormous high pressure cloud of misted kerosene jet fuel that is igniting and expanding.

Further, there were secondary explosives rigged inside the plane, from the tail to the nose. If you look at the real time video of Flight-175, which shows it from a distance, that plane was hauling full bore when it hit that relatively little corner of WTC-#2. They had to make sure that the no substantial part of the main plane body exited the building intact. Indeed, if not for the secondary explosives on-board, this would have occurred, as evidenced by the clear video of the intact nose, cabin, actually exiting and clearing the WTC-#2 structure. Then one clearly observes the on-board explosives detonating, and the resulting explosions "catching" up with the exiting nose, cabin, etc, and explosions then consuming the exiting plane structure. The igniting jet fuel fireball is right behind and it then catches up with and consumes the exiting and exploding plane structure.

When observed in real time, the impact of Flight-175 appears to be one continuous event; it is actually a series of highly timed and coordinated events, all measured in milliseconds. Analogous to the old style cartoons, which when viewed at high speed appear as animated media, yet when slowed down enough, it becomes apparent that it is composed separately of many single frames or events. So it is with not only the Flight-175 impact on WTC#2, but with the entire 911 attack in general.

When one slows down the videos, slows down the events, and looking closely, one clearly observes a highly coordinated, extensively planned, and high tech military operation carried out with the assistance of split second computerized timing and synchronization. Like the "wizard" in the Wizard of Oz, when one pulls aside the curtain, one sees the true machinations behind the facade, and one also hears not one, but many voices saying "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

"It is most fortunate for leaders that the people will believe a small lie, but not a big lie." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

[MercutioATC]

74. "One MILLISECOND"?? Damn! That's precise!

If anybody claims that a plane crash was timed with explosive charges to the millisecond, run the other way. They're obviously missing a few marbles.

[Blue Member]

75. Run Like Hell

Of course, no way advanced data /computer systems, electronics, and techonolgy could work in milliseconds...there is no such thing as the space shuttle, or satellites, or laser communications. The world is flat, we are the center of the universe, and 640k is enough memory for anyone.

[MercutioATC]

76. We're not talking about the internal workings of a computer...

We're talking about synchronizing the crash of an airplane with explosive charges already inside the building within 1/1000th of a second of each other.

There's a big difference between keeping time to the millisecond and synchronizing two (or more) completely separate systems to work within a millisecond of each other, especially when one of those systems has a large number of variables (like a plane in flight).

[DulceDecorum]

89. You have to forgive MercutioATC

who has been known to claim that clocks at his office do not work.

Apparently, in the ATC universe,
a millisecond is the sixtieth part of
a milliminute, which is itself, the sixtieth part of
a millihour.

This is one of the reasons why we, who see things differntly,
often claim that our planes are late
when they are actually right on millitime.

[Abe Linkman]

90. Speaking of Millitime:

"Was it Oscar Wilde, who said: "In all the lexicon of taste, no truth's so pure, so stark, so clear as this so elegantly phrased - 'When You're Out Of Schlitz, You're Out Of Beer'"?

No. It must have been somebody else. Mr. Murky?

[MercutioATC]

101. Ooooh! I'm smarting from that one...

What are you trying to say, that a millisecond isn't 1/1000th of a second? It takes the average person between 300 and 400 milliseconds to blink. It's unreasonable to question that stationary explosive charges could be synchronized with a plane crash within 1/300th of a blink of an eye?

[Dancing_Dave]

92. Brother, I can feel right where you're coming from!

There is a kind of cultural revolution involved in unravelling such widespread deception. I think the closest parallel we can find is the '60's and '70's, but this is going to be a deeper shock than Vietnam or Watergate. Actually, more people died in Vietnam than on 9/11, and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars combined (so far, at least). We shouldn't feel like we're the worst victims ever, but the shear degree of public mass-deception after 9/11 is more extreme than any other propaganda event I can think of. So we will go through a dark passage of dissillusion, alienation and anger, and I hope we have some great musicians to help us through again!

[Dancing_Dave]

91. Well, I don't know if 9/11 CAN be made simple....

But in their own way the "pod people" do open a door for a general audience of people to start developing a more critical attitude toward an event which occassioned so much mass-deception. As did Michael Moore with "Fahrenheit 9/1".

I like this nicely constructed visual evidence site from a "pod person"
http://www.911uncovered.com/

But you get a better-rounded summery of the key 9/11 evidence at:
http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html

I hope people who first get intereted due to anomalies in the photos, videos and films of the evens will progress on to some of the more thorough scientific sites.

[DougFir]

104. the Pod is just a bad joke - just the connector btwn wing and fuselage

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
Bogus 9/11 Truth Sites
Muddying the waters with easily disproved phony claims
a COINTELPRO effort to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement?

a history of disinformation masquerading as 9/11 truth

The three biggest stories used to alienate the public from 9/11 truth

debunking the "webfairy" - the most ridiculous bogus site

Pod people try to hijack the 9/11 truth movement
(the most popular tactic, since "webfairy" didn't catch on)

LetsRoll911.org posts "new proof" for pod claim -- the "pod" is only a bad joke

Idiot Savant -- sites that are a mix of good and bad

9/11: in plane site -- the worst film on the topic
is this grotesque incompetence, deliberate disinformation or a case of useful idiots used by covert operatives?

KPFK Pacifica promotes "plane site"

911nutshell admits pod images are doctored by webfairy
webfairy and pod people are the same campaign!