Have you seen this?

[chrisdfer]

This is shocking. Why isn't anyone bringing attention to this? http://www.letsroll911.org/

[MercutioATC]

1. Check out the 9/11 forum, Chrisdfer...TONS of posts on this.

Be sure to break out your :tinfoilhat: at times, though.

Here's a link to the forum:

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

[Speck Tater]

2. I still don't see it.

I think someone is suffering from an over active imagination. Frame buy frame, I don't see the missle and I don't see explosion before impact.

As for the windows, the angle of the fuselage makes it impossible to decide whether it has windows or not. The glare on the body could easily by hiding the windows.

These claims look very dubious to me.

[MercutioATC]

4. First, the plane's in a bank and the windows are above the camcorder's

line of sight (look at the angle of the horizontal stabilizer).

Second, there is obviously doubt if the dark spot on the belly of the 767 is a shadow or a real "bump". Calling it a "missile pod" is silly, though. Have you ever seen a "missile pod" that shape and size (that dark spot is BIG).

There are numerous other holes in the theory, but they're all in the 9/11 forum.

[donhakman]

6. At this point

America is more inclined to believe the testimony of a whistle blowing Lt. Col. than believe the pictures.

What is missing is often more incriminating than what clues are visible. For example there is NOT ONE picture of the huge airplane that hit the Pentagon.

[amber dog democrat]

3. How true is this>

Just wondering. Did the planes not have passenters on them?
Based on this reconstruction, were these planes being piloted?

It all seems kind of far fetched. Why is this story not more widely disseminated?

[MercutioATC]

5. See this forum:

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

[amber dog democrat]

9. Hmmmmm

I just don't buy it. But its funny, some years ago I went to Dealey Plaza in Dallas and worked out the tactical problems a trained sniper would have to solve to take out Kennedy, given the scenerio as laid out by the Warren Commission......

and after walking the street, checking line of site, computing for a car accellerating around a curve..using that crummy bolt action rifle with a poor scope....
I came away more than ever convinced that sometimes , YES there are conspiracies.

There is NO way a trained marksman, or even an expert sniper could have pulled that off today, or back then.. Try taking a poor bolt action rifle equipped with a cheap scope with poor eye relief and see if you can hit a moivng object from that far away.

I digress....

But .... the WCT attack. I am not buying that special un marked planes were used to deliberately take out the buildings. The Bush admin has made such a mess out of Iraq. Why do we think it could mount a operation like this and have it come off flawlessly.

[Minstrel Boy]

7. Yes I have, and it's

a bullshit distraction which discredits 9/11 skeptics.

I'm as MIHOP as they come, but this is a dead end. Purposefully so, I believe, because some people are sweating by how much truth is bubbling to the surface. (Witness the gagging of Sibel Edmonds, and read Mike Ruppert's latest bombshell on the lack of fighter response: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html)

The website is forever being spammed here by low-post count DUers. Why would that be?

[newyawker99]

8. Hi chrisdfer!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[John_H]

10. Nick berg designed the plane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[maggrwaggr]

11. gee, I love it when these dis-information people hit DU

in an attempt to make us all look like nut-balls.

Go to hell, Chrisdfer. Take it somewhere else.

[Kilroy003]

12. Why would a missile be nescessary

1/3rd of a second before impact? Wouldn't the giant, fuel filled airplane do enough damage?