Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

UA 175: the missile's purpose

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 04:57 PM
Original message
UA 175: the missile's purpose
This thread is NOT for people who deny that UA 175 fired a missile 1/3 a second before the impact. Anybody who violates this rule will be ignored. I don't mind if you make up a "engine shadow" thread or a "landing gear" thread somewhere other.

Here is a nice little movie:

www.letsroll.org

Note that even the weirdest Hard-Core-MIHOP theories don't need a missile. Everything can be explained without this thing.

There's just a little problem: it is visible on the footage. So what is its purpose?

My guess: The perpetrators wanted to make sure that the alleged plane (UA 175) completely vanished in the building. They knew that it couldn't break through the core columns without additional help. They feared that big parts of the rear would fall down and endanger the whole project.

Was the kinetic energy of the plane big enough to penetrate the building completely?






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. in other words
this thread is not for those of us in need of medication. a missile?? BOL!!!!!!!!!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not gullible Donating Member (88 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Even the SMOKE can be seen, the REAL SMOKING GUN!!!
Just before you see the flash from the missilepod (the bulge on the belly) when the missile is launched, you can see smoke coming out from the rear of the missilepod:

http://911hoax.com/ShowPage.asp?Page=BoeingButter&PageN...

http://www.rense.com/general41/inex.htm


Here is a still, where you can see the strong light to the left, exactly when the missile is launched, just BEFORE the plane hits the Tower:

http://physics911.org/net/modules/myalbum/photo.php?lid...


And here we can see how the pointed nose of the fighter is penetrating out on the other side of the building:

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.ph...


Boeing 767 ?

Out of question...


And here we have pictures and proofs that even the first plane was something else than a Boeing 767:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/091603dvd.html


http://wtc1.batcave.net/1.html

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11.htm

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer03.htm

http://users.adelphia.net/~earthwatch

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasterKey Donating Member (85 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
40. Missiles at the WTC, and Bombs, and a Controlled Demolition
If you check the links below, you will see many additions to the site;

But heres a picture taken from a video on 911;



And as for those who say there no extra equipment, the missile pod/canopy, call it what you will, heres a few pictures of it and a few also of what it does right before impact;



Is all one has to do is slow down the video of the day; Thats all.



Cheers-
Phil Jayhan
http://www.letsroll911.org

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-11-04 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. Thanx
We should disseminate your collage to as many public places as possible...libraries,McDonalds etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
79. Why oh why do you people fall for this stuff?
And I speak as MIHOP all the way.

Here is the new higher-resolution picture of UA175 presented as definitive evidence of a "pod" by Mr. Jayhan of Letsroll911:




Here is another Boeing 767 shot at a similar angle:



We see a complete match in the undercarriages of UA175 and the generic 767, to the last detail. Worse, Jayhan's curious method of showing the pod is to circle normal details of the undercarriage and label these as pods. (As if I could circling the nose on my face and call it a missile launcher.) This is so transparent as to suggest conscious fraud.

Here are articles by 9/11 skeptics who believe in inside-job but demonstrate that bad evidence is, um, bad evidence:

MUST READ:
Eric Salter deconstructs the Webfairy, Holmgren and other hologram "theorists" and presents a professional's introduction to assessment of video evidence.
http://questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html

"Frustrated 9/11 researchers may naturally wish for an instant smoking gun, a killer clue like the one invariably discovered by detectives on the TV show CSI, something to finish off the official story in a single blow. Unfortunately, this impulse provides an opening to those who would spread misinformation, spurious theories, or e-mail reports from fabricated whistleblowers. Many of these canards are packaged as bombshell revelations in the area of physical evidence."
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2004081007575...

Oil Empire: Bogus Theory Page
http://oilempire.us/bogus.html

Photo comparison from Salter demonstrates why Webfairy's "Whatzit" theory (arguing that it was something other than a 767 that caused the hole in WTC 1) is a lame joke:


SALTER:
Even setting all the technical issues aside, the no-plane analysis simply defies common sense. There were thousands of people on the ground and on rooftops, and none after the fact have complained that what is replayed on TV is not what they saw. In the age of the internet, we should have heard volumes about this if the planes on TV were not the planes in real life. It would be very simple for an ordinary person to write an email to a 9/11 investigator saying "that's not what I saw," or even to write their own online articles about it. New York produced half a million anti-war marchers, including many 9/11 Truth activists, but we're supposed to believe that after more than two years, NONE of the eyewitnesses would have taken the opportunity to speak out over this? The whole of New York must be in on the conspiracy!

SALTER:
I'm alarmed at the current situation. Many of the most important 9/11 sites rely on Holmgren's analysis of the Pentagon anomalies. If he persists in pushing this baseless theory (i.e., of no plane at Pentagon- JR), large portions of the 9/11 truth movement stand to be tainted through this association. The debunkers would approach it like this: "Within the community of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, broad support is given to a man that believes that no 767s hit the World Trade Center." Guilt by association may not be an honorable debating tactic, but the other side is anything but honorable. The anti-conspiracy article in the May 2004 issue of Vanity Fair ("Welcome to the Conspiracy") uses Paul Joseph Watson's analysis of the first hit at the WTC to illustrate how absurd 9/11 conspiracy theories are. Though Watson doesn't go as far as the no-planers, his claims about multiple missile firings and the different sizes of the plane and the hole are erroneous enough to give the debunkers plenty of ammunition. It goes to show how risky this kind of speculation can be. The WTC no-plane theories are a danger to the 9/11 truth movement and should be vigorously rejected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-04 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #79
81. re: "conscious fraud"


The pod photo you present us with is not the best to display the pod. Jayhan has other pod pics that show the pod in a much clearer light.If you are going to reject the pod explanation I suggest you use multiple photos to convince us of your claims. It is disingenuous to display this one photograph and then suggest that Jayhan is committing "conscious fraud". As you look at the photo to the right that I submit here(taken from letsroll) it is easy to see the anamolous bulge. The piping extends to the tail and the "pod" is located way too short of the wing's fore to be the normal protruberance of the wing-fuselage intersection you suggest it is...it cannot be. Further, you associate the pod example with other obvious spurious claims to further intentionally diminish its possible veracity. You are a part of a small persistant group of "alarmed" official theory debunkers. No theory however outrageous(holograms) truly endangers the 9-11 truth movement. In the end those theories that last will be those that hold water. Time will bring us closer to the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-04 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #79
82. way too short of the wing's fore
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #82
96. The shadow is short.

The edge of the part at the front in the light is not well defined.

The method of analysis is invalid. The proper question is not what a blurred photoshop enlargement looks like. The proper question is what would or would not give rise to the information in the original format.

General enlargement algorythms give rise to misleading impressions in particular circumstances. Anybody with a photoshop type of program may confirm this for themselves, simply by reducing any pictures to a small number of pixels and then enlarge them again. A correct method would take into account the fact that the plane was moving fast and the way the video recording scanned the raster over the period of time that it takes to do so. A video frame is not instantaneous, nor is an internet reproduction of a video frame unique and absolute with respect to frames adjacent to it. The reproduction method is complex, designed above all else to save disk and downlaod space, not to provide scientific evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. You must be kidding
Lets see. We have a plane weighing somewhere around 250,000 lbs traveling at somewhere around 600 feet per second and you are asking if the kinetic energy was enough to penetrate the building?

LOL

I was amazed the plane, or at least big chucks of it, didn't pass though the building and exit the other side.

Kinetic energy = 0.5 * mass * velocity^2. Do the math.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not gullible Donating Member (88 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-24-04 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. WTC-plane vs Boeing 767
Here is two photos of a Boeing 767-222, the alleged plane hitting the south tower:

http://www.unitedsvcs.com/html/pdfs/767-222_011204.pdf

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=159169&WxsIERv=Qm...


Does this Boeingplane have any resemblance at all with the WTC-plane:




Shouldnt the fin be bigger if it would have been a Boeing 767?

Somebody who knows?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. The fin is the right size.
You're looking at the fin from the bottom. It appears shorter in the picture, but only because of the angle of view. It's a 767.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not gullible Donating Member (88 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Is this the cockpit of the 767 penetrating on the other side?
Is it also the cockpit of a 767 which is penetrating out of the Tower on the other side like a rod?

Look here:

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.ph...


A really strange 767, we must conclude...


And what is all those strange things you see flying around the Tower here:

http://wtc7.batcave.net/7.html

http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject

http://www.81x.com/wtc-obj/projectiles

http://christianparty.net/wtcsmokinggun.htm


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OudeVanDagen Donating Member (256 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Cockpit or engine or ... ?
I admit I know nothing about airplanes, but it would appear to me that the only the heaviest components could penetrate through and also exit the other wall. Amazing link you offer; it's actually called "911 for dummies."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I know
Ive seen a gif which gave me the impression that the thing (whatever it is) that punches through, actually turns to dust/smoke in the next second.
Can anuone confirm?

(If so, we have something similar at the Pentagon: the big hole in that last wall, and then nothing there that one would think could have made such a hole.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Now you're starting to get it
People seem to think that airliners are big heavy objects.

Well, they are big, heavy objects, but not compared to their size. They're actually rather light and fragile. If they weren't they wouldn't be able to fly. Tanks can't fly. (Well, actually, they can fly if loaded on an airplane the size of an apartment building).

You also have to remember that you're looking at a TV picture taken a long ways away. At that distance, one pixel is the size of a suitcase. Hence, when the aircraft disintegrates, what looks like smoke is actually small pieces of aircraft scattered to the winds.

If you watch footage of the Pentagon crash, most of the aircraft disintegrates and goes up and over the buildling. Conspiracy theorists complain that there's no debris on the front of the building or inside. They're absolutely right. The majority of the debris ended up on the far side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaptainClark23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Footage?
I've tried to find decent footage of the Pentagon impact. This is the first I've heard of visual recording of impact debris going "up and over the building".

Frankly, I'm having trouble imagining the physics of that. Given the angle of impact, and the elevation of the point of impact, I don't see how debris might somehow fly upward, and over the building. I'm open to an impartial examination of the idea, however.

Can you show me where I haven't been looking? thanks in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. I haven't been able to find it online
I saw it on PBS a few weeks ago.

It may be later frames from the security camera.

The people who show frames from this camera tend to show the early frames only - the ones that support their F-16 theory. If they show the later frames, it would disprove their theory because the debris shown flying over the building is much larger than an F-16.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaptainClark23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Those are the only ones I've seen
I've not been able to find ANY of the later frames from the security camera which should exist unless someone turned the damn thing off manually.

Please let me know if you find the actual footage, or are able to recall the PBS broadcast, as one can order footage from PBS.

Until such time, I just can't buy the notion of debris flying at a 90 degree angle from point of impact, then taking a nice parabolic arc and cartwheeling over the pentagon to land in one of the inner rings.

I might have bought the rear of the plane rising slightly upward upon the nose's impact. But that scenario also directly contradicts the Official Story of the plane debris punching right through the outer ring of the building, complete with exit wound on the other side.

I don't know about a missile, but I do know that the whole thing stinks. Until we get something substantive (read: the US Government releases whatever physical and material evidence it has collected, if it hasn't been sold as scrap to China and India already), I do not believe anyone can have anything but a favored theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Same here
I have not seen any other footage, only the few pics that "everyone" has seen.
I would be curious to see it.
I know that Jean-Pierre Desmoulins at one point talked about some pics that showed pieces of debris on top of the roof.

(TrogL wrote) : "People seem to think that airliners are big heavy objects.(...)They're actually rather light and fragile."

Agreed. Here is a quote about this, in connection with the Pentagon "mystery hole":

"As the trajectory marked by the dotted line shows, this hole from the blast is after having gone through 3 consecutive rings of the Pentagon: 2 exterior brick and concrete walls, 10 rows of 40 cm. square steel-reinforced concrete load-bearing pillars, the poured concrete floor between the first and second story, and 84 m. of interior offices with perhaps 4 poured concrete walls. That's about 4 m. of reinforced concrete. The DoD legend is that this hole was caused by the fiberglass nose of a Boeing."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-27-04 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. Is this
the image youre talking of?


Ive only seen five images.
( http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/im-ori... )

Have you seen others?

From your description I thought you must have seen some other images.
("The majority of the debris ended up on the far side.")

But it seems very strange if there are other images showing that this happened, and these images have not been on the net...??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-27-04 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Look a the size of that one chunk
It alone is the size of an F-16.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-27-04 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. I take it
that this is the image you were talking about.

Yes, if what we see is really a piece of the plane it must be very big.
If you compare the size of it with the size the plane must have had
to be hidden behind that thing in the foreground in the first image, it seems to me that this chunk must be almost half the length of the plane. And the chunk seems to be almost the same length both ways.

Dont know what to make of this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-04 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. still thinking
Seems very strange that we havent seen any pics of this chunk. ( Alone the size of an F-16 )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troublemaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #20
28. The photo is too late.
To my eyes the progress of the explosion indicates that any parts of the plane continuing over the roofline should have been long out of the picture. The roiling smoke is pretty well developed in this pic and we know the plane was going aprx 500MPH.

The delayed "flip" from redirection of kinetic energy one sees in auto racing, where a fast moving object encounters resistance and flips straight into the air, wouldn't apply to far less sturdy large plane sections, which ought to come apart before changing direction dramatically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaptainClark23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Piece of building facade?
Blown off not from result of impact, but secondary explosion (fuel tanks or missile, depending on your bias)?

I've tried, but cannot see that shadow as a piece of aircraft, so the remaining explanation is that it is a severed part of the physical building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. You actually expect a recognizable piece of aircraft?
After an impact and explosion like that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaptainClark23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-30-04 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Recognizable
Edited on Tue Mar-30-04 07:26 PM by CaptainClark23
As a piece of aircraft, period. As opposed to a piece of tree, lamppost, building, missile, ice cream truck, etc. It would be ludicrous to expect to see an airline-branded cocktail napkin from first class caught on film. But the range of origins for that flying object is pretty limited. And among those options, "piece o' airplane" would seem to be a likely candidate. Because that IS an airplane making that big boom, right?

You brought up plane debris flying over the building. You spoke of "footage". The picture was presented, such as it is. There's something flying through the air. Trying to discern a connection between that object and airplane debris seemed to be a natural step.

Did you not look at that image and try to discern what precisely it was flying through the air? What are we talking about here, if not that object and what it might be?

Based on troublemaker's comments regarding the propogation of the explosion, which seemed reasonable to me, I do not believe that is a piece of the aircraft. Recognizable or not.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-31-04 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. I don't get it
Airplane hits buildling. Airplane goes boom. Pieces fly into air.

How in the world do you reach the conclusion that they are NOT aircraft pieces?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaptainClark23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-31-04 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Whats to get?
As someone posted above, given the speed of the impact and the fragility of airplane body (not counting engines and landing gear), it seems to me that the plane would either crumple (airframe, wings) or continue through into the building (engines).

I'll say it again as I stated much earlier - I do not see how a "F-16" sized piece large enough to survive that impact intact would then be able to fly perpendicular to the point of impact, then arc nicely over the roof line of the building. The point raised regarding the degree to which the fireball is evolved in that one picture seems to me to be valid as well.

But there is an object in the picture. If I dismiss it as not being part of the airplane due to the above argument, then I am compelled to explain what that "F-16 sized" object is. I submitted the idea that the object is a piece of the building facade, separated from the building as a result of impact and/or explosion.

Since you believe the object is a part of the aircraft, and could not possibly be anything else, then perhaps you can share your reasoning for a) what part of the aircraft it might possibly be and b) how did it get into that particular position at that point in time?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaptainClark23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-31-04 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Self-response
Another possibility which I've not seen brought up is that the object is not directly above or next to the fireball, but is actually BETWEEN the point of impact and the camera, flying laterally away from the explosion, moving toward the camera.

This would be feasible given the acute angle of impact offered by the "Official Story".

So the object would not have to be as large as it seems in relation to the building. This would also support the object as being part of the plane.

Too damn hard to tell from a still, though. Trogl, you mentioned footage again today. Have you seen more than the five frames discussed? Where?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-31-04 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. I think it's part of the tail
blown skyward by the wings exploding.

I suspect we're talking about the same footage. I saw it on PBS, don't remember when, but I distinctly remember at least two "frames" with sky-borne wreckage in it... and it looked like a lot of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-01-04 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. toward
> " that the object is (...) moving toward the camera."

Very true. So it neednt be the size of an F-16. Here is another reason to downscale the estimate of the size :
http://911review.org/Wiki/PentagonAttackCctvVideo.shtml (The pic at the bottom.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-31-04 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. "Sturdy, large plane sections"
That's a contradiction in terms.

The footage I saw looked like about one frame per second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
9. This missile?
Isn't photoshop fun?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-25-04 11:13 PM
Response to Original message
14. My take...
My take.. the missile's explosion immediately ignited the plane's jet fuel...thus absolutely insuring the fireball spectacle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-26-04 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. That seems overly complicated
Rather than having to strap on a missile, if you've got that much access to the airplane, just put a couple of squibs (remember the squibs? apparently they're lying around like loose change) under each wing and set off the fuel that way.

Apparently, slamming them into a building built like a brick shithouse and relying upon the hot engines and or sparks to set them off isn't enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #14
26. Ever seen a jet crash WITHOUT a fireball??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-27-04 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
18. The purpose of the missiles...
...on 767s is the same purpose as sharks with laser beams attached to their heads.

To please Dr. Evil and make those who know better laugh.

:D :+ :bounce: :loveya: :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-27-04 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
21. What's the point of a missle?
We're talking essentially glass wall's here. If there had been a missle, it should have gone streaking through the one face and out of the adjacent side of the building.

If this was a military ops, as you suggest, wouldn't that be a rather dumb thing for the conspiracists to do? Probably every camera in NYC was on the WTC. If you wanted to blow the operation, a missle would have been just the thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-04 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. That's what I'm asking

In the thread-starter I already wrote that the existence of a missile pod underneath UA 175 shooting at the WTC doesn't change any MIHOP theory.

We don't need it - neither to explain the collapse of the tower, nor the big fireball, nor something else (up to now).

But it's there. You can see it, on several footage from different perspectives. So it must have a purpose, especially, as you point out, because many cameras were directed on the tower.

Why did they take this risk?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-29-04 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. That poor photograph
They take a video signal that can't be more than about 50 pixels wide, then turn that into a digital image, which they compress using a lossy compression algorythm (JPEG), then run it through photoshop to expand it out again then run an algorythm against it designed for use on a film photograph and wonder why they get bizarre results.

There are no missiles there.

There is no pod.

Sophisticated, Western-trained terrorists, with the tacet permission of the Bush adminstration hijacked aircraft and crashed them into big targets. Get over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whipzz Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #27
38. The Pods are there all right.
"Sophisticated, Western-trained terrorists, with the tacet permission of the Bush adminstration hijacked aircraft and crashed them into big targets. Get over it."

Won't Get Over It so....

I agree on some of this however:

sophisticated. yes
Western-trained. yes
tacit permission. no wholehearted permission: needed "Pearl Harbour" like incident.

Will not get over this. It is the reason for the current war and the future wars they are trying to start. Everyone keeps saying Bremer is making mistakes. No he isn't. He is trying to start a civil war. That's the whole point. The more of a mess we have the more this bunch cheers and hollers. They want WW IV.

So we'd better stop this farce before we are all dust.

Check out

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

for pictures that have been analysed but are not video footage.
There are "pods" if you like to call them that. We don't know what they are, but they are confirmed to be objects not shadows. Please look and give us your comments.
thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaptainClark23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-06-04 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. bad link
pls repost
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whipzz Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-04 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #39
63. sorry, pasted again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 03:42 AM
Response to Reply #21
42. it's not like the building was all glass and nothing else
it was not a big empty space inside the building. think core columns. so it's *not* "essentially glass walls".
so a missile would not just streak right through.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gogu Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #21
59. well... i doubt about this

4 billion people still believe the WTCs fell because of fire and believe in the stupid terrorists story.
The same number of people never saw a slow-motion movie of the
planes on the TV , not even a critical view of the 9/11 things in a major media.
So they could have put 3 bombs under the plane and paint the plane in pink and still nobody would notice this except for the same people
that noticed this things now.

The bigger the lie, the easier is to make it come through.

If the media would spend only 0.01 percent of the time and money they
spend on David's Beckham, Lady Diana or some other then everybody would know what really happened.


GG


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-11-04 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #21
75. dupe deleted
Edited on Tue May-11-04 10:21 AM by rman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-28-04 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
25. OK, I remember reading this was a video artifact
...I have no link or anything, so feel free to disregard. I seem to recall someone explaining that video doesn't work like a film camera, that each "frame" doesn't exclusively contain information from that instant in time, that it's more of a blending to make the video seem smoother; obviously I have no solid argument here, hopefully this will jog someone's memory? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-14-04 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #25
43. that'd be one elaborate artifact;
one that looks like a missile pod, a missile, and a missile impact.

i rank that theory along side the theory that Bush* is incompetent, not mallicious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gogu Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-04 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. image analysis of the thing under the plane shows 3d object
The thing attached to the boeing is obvious from more then 2 different perspectives. There is no doubt about the presence of a big thing attached under the plane.

What it is doesn't matter, but that cannot be a passenger plane!
In my opinion cannot be other then a missile or bomb.
The videos shows clearly the smoke after firing it, then must be a missile.

There is a university in spain who did some analysis of the pictures of the alleged missile pod to see if it is a 3d object or not.

The answer is YES.
Checkt this:
http://www.amics21.com/911/report.html

Also check this link, the talk about the size of that boeing that doesn't match a 767-200 or 300.
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html


Also the stabilisators or what they are under the wings of the WTC2 boeing end at the edge of the wing, comparing to a real boeing 767-200 or 300.


IMHO they needed the missile to make sure that:

1. plane gets completly into the building to be conform with the collapsing theory of the WTC they posted afterwards
2. no big parts fall down showing maybe that no passengers were inside or black box is being found
3. bigger explosion cutting the stairways so no people form the upper stores escape, destroing the elevators.

No one can really figure out why exactlely, a lot of information about WTC, airplanes and airplain crashes, explosives and missiles are needed.

They must have and did run crash simulations in Pentagon ( in 2000 http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html )
and 2001 in WTC ( one of them was 9/11/01, a bit too late, there must have been more secret simulation though).

The hole of plane in the building is also too small and the contour way too perfect for a boeing 767 traveling at that speed. Take a look of the crash of a smaller plane in a building in Milano or the crash of a boeing in a building in Amsterdam.
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte....


GG
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-04 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. Very interesting & educational. Thanks, gogu.
Welcome to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-04 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. 
Edited on Fri Apr-16-04 09:00 AM by k-robjoe
> "Also the stabilisators or what they are under the wings of the WTC2 boeing end at the edge of the wing, comparing to a real boeing 767-200 or 300."

Could you tell me where to look?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gogu Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #46
57. Stabilisators

Take a look here, is a hompage I made to gather the material on the web. Is in english & german. There is a pic marked with the stabilisators and on the left side the WTC Boeing pic.

http://home.arcor.de/fakten911/boeing /


Regards to everybody

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-04 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. Congratulations

You are the first one who seems to notice my request not to talk about the existence of the missile pod. I was interested in its possible purpose. So your thoughts are going in the same directions as mine, obviously.

I know the pictures. Great pictures. Great work.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-16-04 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. reference to Spencer
Spencer on serendipity.com suggests that the "missile" actually shoots out a flame and that is what you see with the orange circle coloration near the point of impact on the building. He contends that it's(the flame missile's) purpose is to insure that the fuel will ignite with incredible voluminousity thus creating a Hollywood crash effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #48
88. So....
at the WTC a maximum visual effect was intended but at the Pentagon nobody bothered to warn the news crews and then they confiscated videos so that nobody could see what happened?

Is that supposed to be making some kind of sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #88
89. Are you making that up? What "news crews" videos were confiscated?
There must be something in the water over there (at least in your neighborhood).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #89
92. No. You're making it up.

That's not what I wrote.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #92
94. You do not communicate clearly, but I'm sure it's what you IMPLIED.
Go back & reread your own message and see if YOU can tell what it means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #94
97. Are you suffering from amnesia, Abe?

I implied nothing. I refer to previous discussions, persistent complaints to the effect for instance that a security video was confiscated from a gas station to prevent us from seeing it.

Do you not remember that or did you change your mind? Do you mean to imply that this was not the case?

It is otherwise difficult to appreciate any piont to your argument except as a one of your usual attempts to change the subject or resort to ad hominem attacks.

Do you have anything to say about the point, the inexplicable difference in the alleged strategies at the WTC and the Pentagon?

Or do you only ever have something of interest to say when somebody else has already supplied you with it?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #94
112. Abe, you've completely misunderstood what RH said.
His point was this:

According to umpteen wacky conspiracy theories, the people who attacked the Pentagon did so with a spectacular illusion, but didn't make sure any news crews were there to film it...

...and then went and confiscated what videos had been taken of the attack so that no one could see it.

That's clearly what he said and meant - you misunderstood and spouted off. An unbiased reader can understand what RH meant.

Now the rest of us aren't laboring under the premise that what happened is precisely what was meant to happen. So we can see the basic technique behind the timing of the attacks.

In both cities, an initial attack was to be followed by a second attack that would have been carried on all television networks. The North Tower was struck, and only a couple of videos exist of this event by chance. But after that attack, all eyes were turned to New York via satellite television, so that everyone could see the horror of the South Tower impact.

I suggest to you that the same technique was in play for the Washington attacks. First the Pentagon, which would serve to alert anyone with a camera to watch the skies in Washington. The second target in DC was intended to be the Capitol Building, and thanks to the brave passengers of Flight 93, the footage of that plane sailing over the Mall and taking out the Rotunda is only available in our imagination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-28-04 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #112
114. How do you know

that the target for Flight 77 was not the Capitol?

It was headed precisely toward the Capitol when it hit the Pentagon.

The first TV shots of smoke from the Pentagon came from cameras in place on rooftops nearer to the Capitol.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #88
101. makes a lot of sense
Yes it makes a lot of sense. After the first WTC crash all network camaras were on site for WTC 2 explosion. It was all set up perfectly for television viewership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #101
102. Set up perfectly?

So why not set up the Pentagon perfectly for television?

I have never seen anything to explain this. It would be a simple matter to tip off a camera crew that something was going to happen, or to contrive some other event in the vicinity, maybe a false alarm, to ensure that a camera crew would be there at the scene. Maybe that's why there was after all some film of the first WTC impact; who knows?

Anyway, the lack of such a perfect set up seems to me to have been a horrible waste of the opportunity for a supposedly well planned operation, no matter who you suppose was behind it.

If on the other hand you were to tell me that the Pentagon event was not previously intended, then you'd be making some kind of sense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #102
104. You expected the Pentagon to alert the media of an impending MISSILE?
The American public is enormously gullible, but even Joe & Mary Sexpack would be reluctant to believe that a caveman was able to acquire and fire a missile into the Pentagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #104
107. No. That's not what I wrote.

n/t


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #102
106. here's why
The spectacle set up itself by the first WTC1 crash. The cameras were already there in response to that event. Thus there is the appearance of happenstance as opposed to premeditation. Why would there be cameras already set up for the Pentagon crash? That would insinuate prior knowlege.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #106
108. That's not what I suggested.

I suggested to tip off a camera crew that something was going to happen, or to contrive some other event in the vicinity, maybe a false alarm, to ensure that a camera crew would be there at the scene.

I do not recall that it aroused any suspicion that Naudet was just down the road from the WTC with a camera.

If sufficiently empowered, how would you have arranged it? Bush was due to arrive at the Pentagon later that day. Why not, on whatever pretext, schedule a press conference at the Heliport, or wherever else? It would then be easy enough to suppose that the press conference was the target.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ramblin_dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
49. Is the animated image at LetsRoll911.org a fake?
I'm talking about the animated slo-motion of the plane impact on the home page of LetsRoll911.org which is labeled: Missile Launch 1/3 of a second before impact. Below that it says:

Notice, above and to the far left. That video is from ABC and CNN. All that was done, was to slow it down. Notice it shoots out an orange fireball from this 'undercarriage pod' on the 767 before it hits the 2nd Tower.


If it's a fake then this whole site is nonsense. If it's not a fake, then what is the explanation for the flash near impact?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. No fake

There is independent footage verifying the flash. If you're looking for an explanation, you have to keep up with the latest military high-tech, i.e. top secret area. We don't even know the purpose of the missile.

My guess: an ignition triggered by the impact.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. IMO it's a fake
I have the same footage form over a year ago that does not have any flash in it. (I'm not speaking about the red glow before impact) There is program called IrfanView http://www.irfanview.com / that will take a video and break it down into a GIF type file that is hundreds of discrete images long.

I did that with the video I have on file and there is no flash. There is nothing that you can't see in the video. One of the things you can do with IrFanView is take a few images and "enhance" them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Hehehe (nT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whipzz Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-04 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #52
64. No fake dearie
Lared, you have been coming here for time immemorial, I'm sure everyone knows by now you are paid to do this. To muck up everything, that is, by continually raking over the subject and claiming that everything was fine that 9/11 day. It wasn't fine. There was a gross crime committed that day and you are UN-American and unpatriotic to suggest the good folks on this board are inventing fake footage and the like. You are defending a nutcase theory: 19 arab hijackers pulled off this, in the face of the greatest military on the face of the earth. Now I know you need your job, we all need to eat, but doesn't Bush's latest "I feel better" speech embarrass you? Aren't you really rather ashamed at defending these murderers yet?

(sorry to get personal, it's the round and round the same old argument with the same old spook every day, that has got on my nerves this morning.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OudeVanDagen Donating Member (256 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-04 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. alarm bells
"... and you are UN-American and unpatriotic ..."

Sounds hauntingly familar.

Members of my generation will be quick to recall a 41 year old junior senator from Wisconsin, 'tail gunner Joe' sounding HIS alarm; " ... here in my hand are the names of 205 known communists in the State Department."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-04 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #64
68. Wow, a 14 post wonder
is admonishing me for being

Paid to do this

UN-American and unpatriotic

I suggest that the good folks on this board are inventing fake footage and the like. (Please try a reading comprehension class before you post again)

You are defending a nutcase theory: (The sweet irony; look it up)

Old spook ( Very non _PC)

Please ask you momma if you can get off of your grounding and go outside to play. You need some fresh air.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
51. Please answer this question:
Here's a picture of a 767 with its landing gear deployed:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/557150/L /

The "missile pod" is supposedly installed completely over the landing gear doors.

So how did the plane that crashed into the South Tower take off?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. S'il vous plait

It was not UA 175. The plane has been swapped with an unmanned prepared remote control plane. The preparation included the missile pod and the landing gear. We're not talking about a usual 767.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. Merci, mon ami
And so what happened to the passengers of Flight 175?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. Wherdy passengers of Flight 175 go? Why, bolo...they went...
to Jesus. All of 'em. Ascended on a cloud of stale cigar smoke and haven't been heard from since.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #56
93. That is not, of course, correct

There was an autopsy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #93
95. Of course it is correct. Saying there was an "autopsy" proves NOTHING.
Silly old goose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #95
103. It was not supposed to prove anything.

The hope was to refresh your memory, which would appear to be failing miserably.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #103
105. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
gogu Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #51
58. Landing gear and missile pod in different places. See proof
Kerry, this is at least a reasonable question from you.

The answer you can find here, given by a spanish university who made a image analysis of the boeing pictures.

Take a look here:

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

The landing gear and the misssile pod are not in the same place and doesnt bother each other. The military is not that stupid...

BTW, the missile lunch can be seen on the first plane in the northen
tower. To hide this, the television broadcast of the movie made by the two frenchmen has been changed comparing to the origina version taht can be ssen on DVD.
Take a look here for this:
http://www.guerrillanews.com/forum/showthreaded.pl?Cat=...


Some more pics of impact 2 here:
http://swallowplane.batcave.net /
http://investigate911.batcave.net/planebomb.html


gg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ramblin_dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-19-04 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #58
60. So which is real and which is fake?
Was the "flash" removed from the DVD version, or was it added to the alleged television version?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-04 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #58
61. About the landing gear
Yesterday I got this info from a friend :

" No, this is wrong about the landing gear. While the wing mounted gear mechanism is mostly within the wing, the pivot point is directly above the deployed position of the wheels. The tires and gear then fold inward such that the wheels reside within their cavities in the expanded spot between the wings. This is the only place the wheels can fit as they are too thick to fit inside the wings. What confuses many about this is that once the gear is deployed the fuselage wheel covers then close up again, I suppose so that they will not increase the plane's low speed instability. See the following 767 pic for proof:"


http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=107650


Hes right. And this does really complicate things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-22-04 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. I wonder if those spot's we've been seeing
are the landing gear deploying for who knows what reason.

It wouldn't make any sense to deploy the gear just before hitting the tower unless perhaps they were trying to slow the plane down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #61
87. "this does really complicate things"?

To the contrary, the conclusion is as obvious as it is simple: The pod story is preposterous.
Amen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #87
90. Occular relief IS available, but then you'd have to admit the truth.
In the case of a disruptor, seeing isn't always believing, is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #90
109. The truth is admitted.
There is no room for the supposed pod and an undercarriage.

Got something to show that's not true?

If you did you wouldn't have to be coming up with this "disruptor" crap, would you?.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-04 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
66. new piece
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-04 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #66
67. Informative, insightful, reasonable, and persuasive. Thank you. n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-04 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. You know how they make those big explosions you see on TV?
They use gasoline or kerocene - the same thing aircraft use for fuel.

Napalm is jellied gasoline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-04 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. I'm sure you're right as usual.
No way the explosion could have been enhanced.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-04 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. enhanced how?
With more gasoline? Where would you put it?

The incendiary bomb shown would probably be a thermite/phosphorous explosion, not gasoline and would be waaaaay more noticeable than any of the current kooky theories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-04 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #69
71. pics
Id be interested in seeing some pics (or gifs) of any planecrash that shows a fireball of comparable size (relative to the plane).

Here is two pics of a fighterjet just after a midair collision:
http://www.univers-cite.qc.ca/tucs/crash_picture/mig_as... /

It is ofcourse not comparable at all. But if I compare the fireball to the size of the plane, I get something like : the fireball seems to be like 6-8 times the size of the plane.

Whereas with the flight 175 crash, the fireball seems to be like 25-30 times the size of the plane. And that is whats squeezing out of the building. And still there was enough kerosine to cause huge explosions on the underground floors, after a ten(?)second fall (free fall)down the elevator shafts (whilst burning(?)), and still there was enough fuel left to weaken the steel so much that the tower came down...

(Again, the pics above are not comparable. I would like to see some that could be comparable...)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TrogL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-04 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. more fuel, bigger explosion
Teeny weeny fighter jets don't carry much fuel. They can't - they're not big enough and they need to be fast and manueuverable, impossible if you're got a heavy fuel load.

Passenger jets, on the other hand, are big and designed to travel long distances - hence they carry huge amounts of fuel.

Also, the steel was weakened by the building fire touched off by the initial explosion and the building structure severely damanged by the impact of the plane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-04 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. Another factor was the large area of the fire
Most fires start off in a single area and burn their way through a building. But the WTC fires were started on multiple floors simultaneously over a large area of each floor. The south tower had the additional aggravating factor of the plane slamming a lot of flammable material into the northeast corner of the building, making that corner an nasty hotbox.

A thought experiment: take a regular piece of firewood. If you use kitchen matches to ignite the wood, it will take forever, and when it finally does catch fire, the wood will burn slowly and unevenly.

But if you take a similar piece of wood, soak it in lighter fluid, and then fire a flamethrower at it, the wood will be consumed quite rapidly. The energy from the wood is released in a more concentrated way, pumping up the temperature much more rapidly than by the first piece of wood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DougFir Donating Member (12 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-04 06:34 AM
Response to Original message
76. Letsroll is disinformation to discredit exposing 9/11
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

Letsroll went online around the time that the "International Inquiry into 9/11" was held in San Francisco (March 2004). It is likely that the sponsors increased their promotion of bogus sites just at the time that the serious investigators of official complicity began to have more political impact at persuading larger numbers that 9/11 was not a surprise attack.

Letsroll is easily debunked nonsense - the "pod" is just the oval structure between the wings and the fuselage, with the contrast and lighting altered a little bit. That's all.

Letsroll and webfairy are basically the same operation. Webfairy does photo montage for letsroll (according to several pod promoting spams circulating on the web). Webfairy is a bizarre website that claims that no plane hit the north tower, something that no one anywhere really supports (ALL of the promoters of this meme seem very suspect, although perhaps there are a couple extremely gullible people on the web who genuinely think this). Since Webfairy didn't fly, the pod story was invented, posted on a Spanish website (it looks more credible if it first appears overseas) and then blown back into the US. But this elaborate planting of the evidence doesn't change the fact that the "pod" is merely a bad joke.

Creating fake "conspiracy" sites to discredit the real investigations is an old tactic, the internet merely makes this technique faster and more powerful. of course, the debunking of this official strategy is also faster and more powerful, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-04 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-10-04 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-04 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
80. Question about alleged plane crashes & damage to buildings
IF:

* Planes were nearly full of fuel when they allegedly crashed, then:

-- would it be MORE likely or LESS likely that their wings would have been sheared off upon contact with WTC & Pentagon buildings?

According to some reports I've read, the photos of WTC building impacts
which allegedly show the entry "hole" being roughly about the size of the aircraft are fake, because the wings would have sheared off & NOT penetrated the building, and I'm wondering if that would be the case regardless of how much weight the fuel in the wings would have added to the overall momentum of the planes as they hit the buildings.

Your comments, please. (NOTE: no responses wanted from bolo, merc, lared, dougfir, or VV)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tngledwebb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-04 05:15 AM
Response to Reply #80
83. wings sheared off..
depending on fuel, maybe, maybe not, speed, resistance of wall, many variables. In 1940's Empire State Bldg crash it appears wings and just half of plane went in, plane didn't disintegrate, they made em stronger then? Looking WTC 1st crash photos, shape of hole is plane-like, yet closer inspection reveals little sign of plane, ought to be a tail sticking out? but seems like walls or columns of bldg closed down over the wreckage. Re Pentagon crash- Plane coming in on the ground, hitting newly re-enforced wall, ought to be 1/2 a plane or more remaining outside, wings or heavy engines,tail,etc. Main problem is: no hole at all visible in photos, and ONLY wreckage a small wheel, smallish engine, a piece of bent metal, plus nearly invisible lawn damage. Btw, look at Purdue study w/diagram how the Pentagon interior columns sliced a Boeing like a boiled egg.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-22-04 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #80
84. I'm not sure, but this may help some
Edited on Sun Aug-22-04 11:24 PM by AZCat
This is a link to NASA's Dryden Space Center site: CID
They did this thing called a "Controlled Impact Demonstration" (CID) back in 1984 to test a jet-fuel additive.



Basically, they rigged a Boeing 727 with remote controls, filled it with crash test dummies and 76,000 lbs. of fuel, and crashed it in the desert. They even had wing shear devices planted to further destroy the plane. Even with those, they had difficulty ripping the wings off - although they didn't quite land on target.

The site has pictures and information, and if you go to the bottom of the page you see a link to here where you can download movies of the CID also.

Pretty crazy stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. Any opinions therefore

on what would happen if the wing of a B757 hits a lamp pole?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #85
86. I don't think a lamp pole would do much
Not that I've actually sat down and done any calculations, of course!

And it would depend on the point along the wing where the collision occurred (the moment changes). My reason for posting the CID link was to show that even with the wing cutters placed in the crash path of the B-727, the wings didn't shear easily or completely (hard to tell from video).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #85
91. Lamp poles would suffer far more damage than Pent. photos show
The most famous one being the one next to the taxi cab. IT most likely fell out of the back of a truck onto the freeway. It is barely crimpled, the base doesn't show injury characteristics of having been violently torn from its mounting, and if a plane had hit it, the plane would have to have been so low that it would have hit other cars etc.

Pentagon lamp poles story had a short life span. Does ANYONE still believe that old chestnut?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #91
98. People do believe it .

Many changed their minds, unable to refute the force of the evidence.

Ask Dick Eastman. Do you know why I put that site up? I did it to defend myself. Eastman had insisted that no lamp poles at all were affected. He asserted as usual that the very notion was a deliberate disinformation campaign. When I then took the trouble to prove him wrong he retracted.

Dozens of people were stood still in the traffic jam on the highway. There is no sign of anybody who saw any lorry with a pole.
They did say something about an airliner that hit some lamp poles.

If the pole on the highway came from anywhere else, what happened to the pole that had previously stood upright beside it? It is there in all previous photos of the vicinity.

You're making no sense. Do you seriously think that the driver of the taxi would not have known where the pole came from, or are you accusing him of something criminal? That is not a very sympathetic attitude, is it? The pole nearly hit him as it came through his windscreen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #98
99. Accidents happen. Ignoring substantive points is usually intentional.
If you decide you would like to respond to the substantive points, do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #99
100. A substantive point is
to my mind a point validated by some kind of evidence, expertise or analysis, as a opposed to an idle fantasy.

You say "lamp poles would suffer...."

So what substantiates that?
I see nothing but a bald assertion.
What else have you got to compare the incident with?
What experience do you have of lamp posts?
What do you know about their design and construction?

If you have some substantiation I am interested, willing even to publish reliable information. In the mean time I have a;ready heard this sort of "would" thing too many times before but rarely with any sort of substantiation.

:boring:

A substantive point would also be a point that stands up, hangs together and stays put.

Now they talk about a lamp pole on a lorry. They used to talk about poles being blown down by turbulence. Others imagine that explosive charges were planted. It is the fickle, mutually contradictory contrivances of the conspiracy argument that blow precariously in the wind, not the poles.

You say that "the plane would have to have been so low that it would have hit other cars etc."

As it happened it did. The plane clipped the aerial off a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Frank Probst had to dive to the ground literally to avoid it. The turbofan engines skimmed the tree tops. That would be why some pole parts did not fall forwards; the jet blast blew them backwards.

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/pole_rep...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #99
111. Abe, I need your definition of "substantive".
Every time one of your theories is refuted, you say it was just a "minor point" and encourage the poster to stick to "substantive points".

It would be helpful if you'd list (specifically) the points you feel are "substantive" so we can concentrate on debunking those.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-23-04 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #91
110. I see, the lamppost "fell out of a truck" right where an empty lamppost
base happened to be...

Now THAT'S coincidence!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-28-04 01:55 AM
Response to Original message
113. UA 175: the missile's purpose
Perhaps it was to insure that the extra fuel ignited? The "Whatsit" that hit the North Tower was nothing like the South!

http://www.policestate21.com/nowindows_video.wvx

I've found that just about everything that happened on 9/11 isn't what it seems.

Here's a couple of clips that you may never have heard before.

Listen closely to what is said.
http://www.blackopradio.com/black156a.ram

http://www.blackopradio.com/black156b.ram

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-28-04 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #113
115. A plane crash wouldn't be enough to ignite jet fuel?
All I'm asking for is a little common sense. If you want to believe you can see a missile in the videos, great. There's no reason that it would be needed to either ignite the jet fuel or breach the wall, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-28-04 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. Nothing would be left to chance
Nothing could be left to chance. A fireball big enough to absolutely insure that the entire plane would be engulfed by the fireball and incinerated must be guaranteed. The conspirators could not take the chance that part of the fuselage would be found blocks away revealing the true identity of the craft.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-28-04 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #116
117. What about the landing gear? The pod is where the gear goes...
By the way, I don't see how it's preferable to use something like a missile to assure the fuel ignited. The fuel was guaranteed to ignite and the missile would just draw attention.

Phy not something enclosed in the plane, like a bomb with a pressure fuse? Wouldn't that make a whole lot more sense?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul 23rd 2017, 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC