The pod is not where the wings and fuselage connect together!

[demodewd]

www.oilempire.us
the bulge..it's in the wrong place!! :cry:
Those who continue to insist that the bulge one sees on Flight 175 photographs is where the wings and fuselage connect are misconceived. Take note that the pod begins well below the wing's fore area and also exceeds in length the wing's aft area. It such a simple observation. But it also just simply refutes the pod detractors main explanation for the obvious bulge.

[DerBeppo]

1. yeah

still looks like a shadow.

[demodewd]

2. Yes

Yes, the pod casts a shadow.

[Uroboros]

6. Agreed

It's a shadow.

I mean come on. Look how small the plane is in that video image. And we're not talking film here; we're talking video. And not matter what you might have seen on CSI; if the limited resolution of the camera isn't enough to capture a detail, then it isn't there. You not going prove anything by taking something; blowing it up 1000%. The imaging software is going to interpolate from the available data and give you muck.

And I still don't understand why there needs to be a missile fired form a plane into a building when a that same plane is going to crash into the building anyway. No matter whom you believe to be behind 9/11; why would they bother?

[DulceDecorum]

45. And the plane that crashed

still maintains a VALID registration on the US Civil Aviation Registry which is administered by the FAA.

Do you have ANY idea of how many laws have been violated by that simple fact?

The insurance company might be really pissed
BUT
the insurance company did not have to part with one single solitary dime.

YOUR tax dollars were removed from your pocket by your friendly GOP operatives.
If you are in any way annoyed by this, file a lawsuit.
It may wind up in front of the Supreme Court and its five mavens.
:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

[RC]

7. It's a shadow?

Why for the high lights on this shadow? To me it looks to be about the same size as the engine on that side. But, there is no mate for it on the other side. There is obviously something three dimensional there.

[BAPhill]

3. I don't know....

But it seems like the engine could be casting a shadow.

[soothsayer]

4. kinda hard to see the pod, but the FLASHES (just before the planes hit

the towers) are very clear and pretty mysterious.

[tngledwebb]

5. podd is odd at least...

flashes strange, nothing definitive. How about how the plane, in thevideo taken from below, just glides thru wall without explosion or debris?

[Abe Linkman]

8. Excellent point about how the plane glides thru w/no explosion/debris

Isn't that one of the main reasons why more and more people are questioning whether the building was actually struck by a plane?

It looks so much like a cartoon or video game entry. Like buttuh. Like, why ISN'T there any resistance to its entry?

[tngledwebb]

9. wanted ...

anyone in the vicinity of lower Manhattan on 11/19/2001? Urgently seeking information and descriptions re two planes used as weapons in several thousand murders. Did you see actually see the first plane hit? What did it look like? Did you see the 2nd plane hit etc? No, not on CNN, and NOT just witnesses to explosions and fires, but witnesses who really did see these planes fly in and hit the WTC. Wonder how many replies a sign like that would get?

[Abe Linkman]

10. That sign would get tons of replies. Noo Yawkers wanting 2B on TV!

Lots of people would claim they saw the planes flying in and hitting the WTC. Problem is credibility of those folks. You're talking NYC, and the competition to be a celebrity (even for 15 minutes) is fierce - and many people will say anything if it means a little media exposure.

[tngledwebb]

11. Maybe

but they might crack under intense questioning, and a few would have to be legit. Any DU New Yorkers who were there on 9/11? I know some folks who were there, and know folks who know folks, and some of them died or almost died, but I don't know anyone who saw it ALL, and of course a lot of the key witnesses died that day in the collapse. Re Pod- if plane melted thru wall, ie possible hologram, why the pod?

[LARED]

12. This is why

There was an F-16 flying to the towers to blow them up. The F-16 had the hologram on top of it so no one on the the ground would see the F-16. The rest is history.

Seriously

I know a bunch of people that work across the Hudson from the WTC's about 4 miles away to the south west. There were on the roof of their building watching the first tower burn when the second flight flew almost directly over their heads. They watched that plane impact the second tower. They tracked if for at least four miles.

There were no holograms, no pods, no mystery planes, or trains, or flying truck bombs.

[demodewd]

14. half right

There were no holograms. There were no trains or flying truck bombs.There was a pod attached to the phantom 175. This is well documented by photographs released by CNN,CBS,ABC,NBC,FOX et al.

[LARED]

16. Demodewd

There is no pod documented in anything. All you have is a grainy image that show some shadows where the wing meets the fuselage.

The image is so poor you cannot even make out the rudder or elevators, yet you choose to believe a phantom 175 with a pod is documented based on this.

Seriously get real.

[RC]

23. If that 'pod' is a shadow, then why

does it have the same detail as the engine on that side? Another question; Shadow from what?

[LARED]

26. same detail as the engine ????????

Huh

You can see details?????????????

You can see details well enough to distinguish that the "pod" and the engine have the same details? Please explain.

Watch the video's and you will see the "pod" becomes visible as the aircraft banks hard and the undercarriage is hit by sunlight. It is not visible as the aircraft approaches the WTC.

If is probably more accurate to state that the "pod" is video artifact or anomaly caused a lack of shadow or an abrupt change in light intensity as the undercarriage is turned into direct sunlight. The pod is the sun hitting one of the rounded sections under the wings.

[BassettWilliams]

19. ... and still very seriously

I have stated in DU threads exactly what I saw in here in my City on September 11, 2001 and have often commented on how the CT crowd carefully selects photos and excerpts from interviews in attempts to prove their theories. One example is how the same photos of WTC #7 are used and reused over and over by the CT crowd to show "limited damage and small fires" when those photos are actually from very early in the day and taken just seconds after the attack and long, long before the fires spread and long before the buildings collapsed several hours later. The same twisted method is used by the "pod people" posting a few crappy pictures showing a shadow, something anyone who has ever seen these planes circling waiting to land at busy airports will see everyday. Local newspapers, radio and television all had interviews with New Yorkers. Many are still available in the archives of their web pages. No pods.

[Abe Linkman]

21. Then, why don't YOU post your own "crappy" pictures showing fires?

You got photos of roaring fires in Larry's building 7? Postem, BW.
I know they won't disprove why Larry said "pull it", but some of us would be interested in the benefits of your unique evidence.

[BassettWilliams]

22. Abe ....

Unlike some others of DU I will not debate you, and I have no photos of my own to post. I was too busy to take pictures; like scores of other New Yorkers that day I helped directing people away, provided water, offered first aid and selter. Truth is truth, and those photos of #7 posted here by CT 911 experts were from very early in the day --- long before the fires raged out of control. That's the 411 from this New Yorker.

[Abe Linkman]

25. Thanks for acknowledging that you don't have any evidence.

It's okay to say you have an opinion - even if it's not an informed one.
However; it's very impolite to make wild claims and disparage others if all you've got to back it up is a "tea and sympathy" Boy Scout story.

What other baseless claims do you have to make about 9/11, BW? Let's get the rest of 'em out now, so we'll know how seriously to take you.

[BassettWilliams]

28. It's NOT an opinion ....

Abe, it is anything but an opinion ---- it's what I, and what thousands of other New Yorkers saw --- anything but baseless. Question Abe; just how serious do you think anyone is taking you?
Another question Abe; #7 collapsed nearly as night fell, so why are all photos used by the CT crowd those taken in broad sunny daylight?

[Abe Linkman]

32. You SAW the building collapse from the controlled demolition?

I agree that's not an opinion; it's an acknowledged fact. Larry Silverstein himself, said so.

Regarding your interest in photos: if there were raging fires in WTC 7, why is it that there aren't any photographs of WTC 7 that show anything more than minor office fires?

Regarding your interest in people taking other people seriously: how can you expect anyone to take you seriously whenever you make claims about non-existent raging fires in WTC 7, and ignore the evidence of a controlled demolition being the cause of the building's collapse into its own footprint?

Maybe you were too busy to have seen it happen?

[LARED]

33. the evidence of a controlled demolition???

What evidence would that be? Are you holding out on me? I've never seen any evidence of a controlled demolition.

[BassettWilliams]

34. Raging fires

.... is an understatement. I don't have any problem with your criticism --- you've repeatedly ststed you don't accept eyewitness accounts, and that's a shame; you might learn something. Still on that "footprint" rant, huh? Still selecting terms (and photos) that will only fit your beliefs and still ignoring all the others that prove otherwise.

[Abe Linkman]

35. You want us to just take your word for it, right?

Why should we take your word that there were "raging fires" in WTC 7
You're probably a very nice, well-intentioned person, but can you understand why people are skeptical of your reasoning and conclusion on this matter?

[LARED]

36. Abe, you are a wonder

You what us to take your word that WTC 7 was demolished? your word is the only reasoning you have provided to date. You have yet to provide an iota of evidence that that tower was destroyed by some means other than the official story.

BTW, I think it would be a misnomer to say people are skeptical of your reasoning. It would far more accurate to state people (at least me) are incredulous that as a obviously intelligent individual you continue with the sophomoric sophistry inherent in your tales.

[BassettWilliams]

38. Okay

don't take MY word for it --- just check the archives of ANY New York or New Jersey newspaper. All I can tell you is that the place was blazing --- AFTER those photos that you and the myopic others in the tiny CT crowd are worshipping were taken.

[Abe Linkman]

39. Where are those photos showing "the place was blazing"?

Do you have any? Can you provide a link to where any are? You aren't real sure about what you're saying now, are you?

[BassettWilliams]

40. I'll repeat what many

other forum members have already told you: "I'm not doing your homework." Just check those newspapers --- it's real easy too. If you want you can see a video too --- WCBS's from the ferry. But you know all about them don't you Abe --- you just ignore whatever pieces will not fit your "puzzle." Come clean and be honest why don't you?

[Abe Linkman]

41. "Where's The BEEF?" C'mon Basset: Here's your chance.

Why can't you provide photographs to corroborate your claim that WTC 7 came down as the result of "raging fires"?

Why did Larry Silverstein tell the Fire Dept. Commander to "pull it" when there was only a few minor office fires in WTC 7?

Why are you so adamant about something that the evidence doesn't support?

[BassettWilliams]

44. Why

are you and the other CTers still using the same worn out tired old rants?? Wasn't Larry and the "pull" explained away long ago? Got nothing fresh, huh Abe? 0r is it that you simply got nothing at all? Evidence is there Abe, TONS of it, you're just not one to look and not one to accept anything contrary to your ahem, "whacky above ground" beliefs. It's a shame you refuse to look too, because that's a very good ferry video of #7. It's really a shame too that you are an unfriendly and abrasive person; I'd like to tell you about all the airplane parts that fell on our roof and about the airplane parts down in the street that we had to lift people over --- but your Boy Scout comment eliminated any chance of that. Evidence? What do you know about evidence?

[Abe Linkman]

47. You don't have any. That's painfully obvious.

"Evidence? What do you know about evidence?"

[BassettWilliams]

49. Abe,

I was there, so unlike you I don't need "links" to know what happened; but just how do you CTers explain all that friggin smoke coming out of #7 all day long?

[DulceDecorum]

50. You were there?

WOW.

Did you ACTUALLY SEE any plane crash into any building?
In real life?

[BassettWilliams]

52. I heard it first Abe,

and what a roar; and then I saw the friggin thing ..... why, you got some questions? I thought you always discount witnesses, after all you've said so several times; but I guess you're not going to ask questions, after all, in your obvious tired worthless opinion I'm just one of the thousands in NYC that's part of the big scam.

[reorg]

58. maybe he did

Just read through this thread: what your correspondent BassetWilliams seems to say is that he heard a roar and then saw a "friggin thing" (plane?), and saw it crash into the tower.

Also, he seems to claim that he saw that "fires raged out of control" ("Raging fires .... is an understatement", "the place was blazing") in WTC7 before it collapsed and he seems to think that some people always refer to images taken long before the collapse when claiming there were only isolated, smaller fires.

In the videos of the collapse (taken from the north, I guess) I cannot see any fire above what I think may be floors 11 or 12 or so. There is a big cloud emerging from the building, but it seems to originate from this area, in the lower third of the building.

The NIST report "Project 6: WTC 7 Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis" mentions "multiple" fires on floors 21 and above were seen from the south -- but these must have been smaller, isolated ones, since the north face does not appear to have been affected right before the collapse.

>> slide 20

(...)
Looking from southwest corner to the south face
- Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11
- Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
- Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s
- Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed

Looking from southeast corner to the south face
- Fire on floor 12; (1) area above covered with smoke
- Fire on floors 11-12 (1) moved to east face and progressed to the north

(1) fires reported on floor 14, but photographs showed east face fires on floor 12

(...) <<

See also images of fires on slide 21: North Face Fires on Floors 7 and 12 near 3 PM; East Face Fires on Floors 11-12 near 2 PM.


edit: correction


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf

[BassettWilliams]

60. Sections of #7's

face were ripped off when burning crash and building debris rained down which set the building ablaze. Debris fell for blocks, well past Reade Street where my store is; some landed on our roof. My street and I suddenly became inudated with showers of scraps of burning and burnt file papers. The overall situation oviously became worse when the towers swung and swayed and shook and moaned and growled and then collapsed sending debris for hundreds of yards in every direction --- anything but a 'footprint' --- and then #7 burned, it raged for hours and hours. But these observations of mine don't matter because eyewitness accounts have no weight among the CT crowd. I guess that group also believes those jumpers weren't real people, just some clever superimposed video images; after all, according to them, everything was staged and thousands and thousands of New Yorkers who witnessed the events and who volunteered in rescue and recovery efforts are ALL part of the plot, nodding sheep willing to lie. If the CT crowd is right thousands and thousands of New Yorkers are all willing and silent lips zipped parteners in some sick plan. Anyone with first hand knowledge and experience of NYC on 911 who has disagreed with the bizzare CT theories posted here is attacked, not with facts, just with insults and childlike responses.

[demodewd]

61. re:debris

Your WTC7 falling debris theory is a theory and nothing more. And not a particularly good one at that. No one on the site that day had the capacity to slow down the event frame by frame to gain further insight into the proceedings. To discount the innumerable photographs and video as pure folly in its search for the truth is just plain narrowness on your part.

[LARED]

63. Facts have a way of narrowing

the issue.

[demodewd]

68. Maybe...huh?

That the building collapsed due to fire is a theory not a fact in anybody's logic class. Unless you believe govenment issue explanations to be factual. Maybe...huh?

[LARED]

72. You could not be more wrong

The issue is why did the building collapse due to a fire. Not did the fire cause the collapse.

You must face the known facts.

The building was damaged by WTC 1 and 2 collapsing.

Fires were started.

The fire burned out of control for something like seven hours. There was no intervention, no response, nothing was done to mitigate the fire.

The building was a unique design.

Significant fire damage was reported by people outside of the building

There is zero, repeat zero evidence, that anything else caused the collapse.

As a side issue do you believe anything the government says, or is all of it to be discounted as disinfomation.

[BassettWilliams]

65. How can it

be "theory" when burning building parts from the towers are stuck in the face of #7? How is that theory? You have have and keep your "frame by frame" but me, I'll stick with my eyes. Sorry to read that you believe eyewitnesses simply have "narrowness" --- seems the other way around to me. "Folly" is claiming that thousands and thousands of New Yorkers are zip lipped and willfull pawns in this scam.

[demodewd]

67. don't misrepresent

You have no proof irregardless how much burning was going on...its just an assumption. I didn't say eyewitnesses have narrowness of interpretation, I said you do.You are the one making the deduction that the building fell down because of "burning". I haven't talked to other eyewitnesses. I have no idea what their deductions are. Please don't misrepresent my statements.

[demodewd]

24. re: "no pod"

You saw the plane plow into WTC2 at 400 plus mph. Slow it down ..frame by frame and there is a pod on video taken by CNN CBS NBC ABC etc. No one saw the pod that day. No matter where one was at the time. Yes there is a shadow not of the small bulge where wing meets fuselage. One can OBVIOUSLY see that the pod is located below that area on the fuselage itself.

[BassettWilliams]

29. go to an airport ....

and look at all the planes up in the sky corkscrewing for miles waiting their turn to land and count the "pods " --- get with reality.

[demodewd]

30. observe please

Observe the pod and its location on the plane that hit WTC2. The pod is not located in the place required for it to qualify as to what you state it is. Its simply located too far down the fuselage!! And the circumferance of the bulge...its too big for what you suppose it to be.Also on some shots you can clearly see the piping that extends from the pod to the tail.

[demodewd]

31. easy discernment

Both pod and piping can easily be discerned.

[Must_B_Free]

53. Clearly, the "pod" is a shadow

look the picture on the right, above.

Note where the bright spots are due to the direction of the sunlight.

The engine is casting the shadow that appears to be the "pod".

Thanks for clearing that up!

[demodewd]

56. engine??

The engine????? Nonsense.The object is located on the fuselage and is clearly casting its own shadow no matter what you think it is.

[LARED]

27. Yesterday at work I

saw a 767 fly directly overhead approaching the Philly Airport. I'd guess it was 400 feet overhead. They recently changed flight paths so now I see them on a regular basis while at work.

As I watched I noticed the same so called pods and spray nozzles that the CT crowd thinks was installed on a phantom 767 hitting the WTC. I can only assume pods and spray nozzles are now standard equipment on 767's.

[whipzz]

54. a few crappy pictures?

Hi Bassettwilliams,

My my, you say:

The same twisted method is used by the "pod people" posting a few crappy pictures showing a shadow,

(my bold)

However the main photo by Carmen Taylor has won international photography awards!!

http://www.swtimes.com/archive/2002/September/08/Insight/PhotoMoment.html

I think, if you don't mind my saying, you are not speaking the truth, but muddying already murky waters.

I am one of the "pod people" so named by people intending to suggest we are from outer space. For all others present here, have a look at:

http://www.amics21.com/911

Guys like BassettWilliams have a lot of trouble covering this little lot up, so I hope they get paid properly to do it. What's the salary like BW? Worth it? To ruin your country? With all this talk about UnAmerican activities and patriotism, I wonder who is the traitor here?

[BassettWilliams]

55. No salary

and all I get is greif from nitwits, and nightmares from what I saw.

Just think for one minute about hearing the roar of a speeding plane and then seeing it crash into a building where friends and customers worked and then seeing flames, fire and plane and building parts shower down. Sorry, no one can offer any amount of salary for "covering this little lot up" and I especially don't belive that helping people to safety, giving them directions, water first aid and shelter is being a traitor.

Then, after you've given that some thought think about the video and photos in question and tell me where and why there'a a "pod", and then why the CT crowd uses those same tired photos of #7 from early in the day and from just minutes after the attack to scream 'minimum damage' when in fact the building burned for hours well into dusk. Very selective crowd those CTers --- rewriting history. Thanks for showing your true colors.

[Abe Linkman]

57. Is that all you have to say about it?

Many of us HAVE given a lot of thought to the same tired lines used by the bushco apologists, and you know what? I think some of the buschco
apologists are too lazy to learn the facts. People who have actually studied the events of 9/11, by and large, know that the Official Conspiracy Theory ("Cavemen Did It") is a fairy tale.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[Abe Linkman]

64. Then, can we expect something constructive?

That would be nice. We have enough bushco apologists & disruptors. And, sometimes they seem to have more influence than they deserve -- if you get my drift, and I'm sure everyone does.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

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

[Abe Linkman]

13. If pod, then maybe no hologram. If hologram, then maybe no pod.

"Re Pod- if plane melted thru wall, ie possible hologram, why the pod?"

Since the bushco perps of 9/11 are afraid of the public knowing the truth, evidence which might prove what really happened is being suppressed. (some, as in the WTC debris was hurriedly destroyed and/or
sent to China)

Your query could also apply to the Pentagon: if a 757 crashed there, then why doesn't the Gov't release video proof of it? If a fighter jet crashed there, why the need to claim a 757 did? If a 757 crashed there, why is a missile vapor trail seen in the video image?

[tngledwebb]

17. heaven knows this gov't knows best...

that the general public won't ever get close to asking any really tough questions , F/911 notwithstanding, when to date most 'liberal' Dems still have trouble with LIHOP, never mind LIHOP. (Could still be one myself, if I hadnt had time to look into this on my own.) The scandal is that even w/o 9/11, there's enough out there to impeach present admin 10x over. Instead, there is silence, entropy, impotence. A bad dream..

[Abe Linkman]

18. Ever hear of the book titled "Hitler's Willing Executioners"?

The masses in Germany never rose up in opposition to Hitler and his particular brand of Fascism, did they? They "went along to get along."

In my opinion, the masses here will continue to support bushco and his own brand of neo-Fascism.

It's only been recently that one parent's income wasn't enough to support a middle-class lifestyle for most Americans. Now, it takes both parents working (full-time), and most people are maxxed out on their credit cards, have zero savings, and are one paycheck away from being homeless. Yet, the public, by and large, continues to support politicians and political parties that are responsible for our declining
standard of living, and the broad, rapid erosion of our civil liberties.

It's only human nature for people to avoid hard work, and THINKING is the hardest work most people ever do (which is why so little of it ever gets done). Unfortunately, the bushcos & their ilk do not want educators to teach students how to THINK or reason logically. They prefer that our "educated" graduates (high school AND college) use only the primitive form of reasoning known as "if this, then this".

If bush is reinstalled in the WH, the march towards ever more repressive government will gain speed and the public will go along with it. Guaranteed. History repeats itself, and the public alwasy prefers nonsense to sense.

[Abe Linkman]

42. Request to revise and extend my remarks re: HOLOGRAM + pod

I think it's very possible that the pod contained the equipment needed to project the image of a 767 over the body of a cruise missile.

After all, a hologram would explain how the "plane" could enter the building (WTC South) as though a knife entering soft butter. It would also explain why the hole in the building where the wings would fit, is only approximately 99 feet, though a 767's wings are about 150 feet (plus or minus).

[demodewd]

43. questions por Senior Linkman

Would there still be a hologram as the phantom plane exited the building? If not how would you account for the appearance of the nose and the front fourth or so of the fuselage still intact as it exited the building? Also how would you account for the massive fuel fire ball?

[Abe Linkman]

48. Good questions. I've wondered the same things about both of them!

Nose still intact: Looks to me more like the nose of a missile, rather than one of an airplane -- as in the exit hole at the Pentagon.

Massive fuel fire ball: I don't have a good answer for that one, and I realize that without a good one, the hologram theory may be too speculative. However; I'm not ready to concede just yet that there isn't a good answer. I just don't have one.

[tngledwebb]

51. Maybe a missile, but why a pod?

And wing-span shape of entry holes very suspicious, too small, too definite, as if cut-out by internal explosives to allow small plane/missile easy entry. RE pod options: 1. Pod real, plane real, but why risk exposure, why not put pod 'stuff' inside plane? Not enough room, or holo generating pod has to be external? 2. Plane real, pod fake, ie photoshop, but why? Just to confuse/distract crazy CT types, make 'em look even crazier? And photoshop makes better images. 3. Pod-plane fake, all CGI. IE pod-plane image comes from CIA Psy0ps CGI tape demonstrating how planes can be used to blow up bldgs, but PsyOPS never updated their tape and/or it was leaked, or used by mistake primarily and not unexpectedly on CNN. So, we need real first hand witnesses to entire event, not just to explosions, fires, collapses. How many photographers, video-tapers would be out on street after 1st hit? 10, 20, 100? In video-art center of universe btw? Were any tapes or photos confiscated by Gov't? Well, if I had a no-plane-at-all, or missle-only videotape, I would be very afraid to tell anyone. So real witnessess won't be forthcoming, just publicity seekers.

[Abe Linkman]

69. Point and question for DEMODEWD

The hologram theory that seems plausible to me could INCLUDE a plane ( or missile ). In other words, I'm not conjecturing a "phantom plane".
As I understand it, the hologram is projected around the body of the object (plane/missile) that carried it, thus simultaneously camoufloging
the plane or missile, and making it (the plane or missile) appear to be larger (and different) than it was.

Let me now ask you how a large commercial airliner was able to enter the building without encountering any (apparent) resistance. How could it go in so smoothly (like "buttuh")? Isn't that what it looks like to you, too?

[demodewd]

70. and...the answer is..I think...

If it were a hologram then why would the pod be exposed? I also believe that the massive fire would require a plane full of fuel in the cabin..probably a large commercial jet.

As for the smooth entry...I copied a reference from a previous post of mine.
Cutting blasts cut WTC2 beams Contribution by "Locutus"


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

"Those beams were not cut by a missile because there is more than one of them, and they are glowing 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, you can see the expansion of the cutting blasts right along the top of the wings of Flight-175 right as the wings enter the external wall. 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 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 and 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

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. In the slow-motion video, one can see the missile 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.

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 ass 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!"

[Abe Linkman]

71. Regarding the hologram & necessity of a pod

As I understand it, the pod was where the equipment (means) for projecting a hologram (around the aircraft or missile) were kept.

If the planes were somehow programmed to hit a perfectly exact target, why was the sudden sharp banking maneuver necessary & why did the plane barely even hit the South tower?

[demodewd]

73. my guess

My guess is the plane banked sharply as it was honing in on a specific point. By hittIng the building at the corner,it guaranteed a massive fireball visible to the viewing public by enabling the fireball to be predominantly outside the building?

Why would the pod necessarily remain exposed with your scenario?

[Abe Linkman]

74. Answer (such as it is) to your query re: why pod is exposed.

"Why would the pod necessarily remain exposed with your scenario?"

All I can tell you at this point is that I read that the pod contained the equipment needed to project a hologram which would envelope the plane, thus giving the appearance of a larger aircraft. The article I read (sorry, I don't remember where I read it) didn't speak to the issue of whether or WHY the pod needed to be outside the plane.

There must be lots of possibilities. Maybe the pod had nothing to do with the hologram. Maybe the pod's function was to conceal and hold the missile. Maybe whatever equipment that may have been needed to project a hologram was all inside the plane. Or, maybe it shared the pod with the missile.

It's also very possible that none of the above is accurate.

You think that hitting the plane on the building's corner was intentional? Wasn't that risky, since the public was going to be told that a big reason for why the buildings collapsed was due to being struck by large airliners?

[tngledwebb]

75. Plane may have hit corner of WTC

due to mistake in radar control op? 'Likely' scenario is pod and plane are real, pod held explosives for big photo-op since normal fuel load wouldn't guarantee visuals, and explosion covered missile's entry. Missile opened hole to ensure plane went in w/o problems, external beam construction of WTC being very resistant. What came out other side might have been missile or part of plane. The public still accepts most of official story re collapse, as I did after Nova show, until I had time to investigate further. It takes lots of time to use internet, look at photos, j.pegs, physics. Most people don't have that luxury.

[LARED]

15. Expecting you to answer a question is pointless, but let me

try one more time

Isn't that one of the main reasons why more and more people are questioning whether the building was actually struck by a plane?

I guess if BS is repeated long enough no one notices the smell. Or do you have anything to back that up?

[BassettWilliams]

20. More and more people?

Where are all these people? ".... more and more people are questioning ...." Where are they?

Fellow New Yorker Jane Jacobs, author of The Death And Life Of Great American Cities said it best, "We discard, or tuck away into some secondary awareness, the impressions that do not make sense for our purposes of the moment - "

[tngledwebb]

37. more people than ever....

For example- F/911 got more and more people to ask about Saudi fly-out, Bush sitting round in Fla. school when a major catastrophe was well underway in NYC,... that's more and more people. If Moore had shown Pentagon crash photos there would be even more questions, whether one believes Flt 77 crashed there or not.

[DulceDecorum]

46. oilempire.us is a disinfo site.

Better you should enter a Sanican or PortaPotty.
Abandon the poop.
Then you too can step large and laugh easy.


IN PLANE SIGHT
the video that has neocons calling lawyers and judges
while demanding extreme makeovers from Michael Jackson's surgeons.

What is the bright flash on the right side of the Boeing 767, seen just before impact on both the North Tower & the South Tower, captured on video by 5 separate cameramen including CNN and ABC? Slow motion analysis reveals startling verification of this extraordinary event and begs the question, "What is it?"
Find out what former military personnel think this could be.

Why were there numerous reports of bombs & explosions going off in and around the WTC before any buildings had collapsed? Hear & see the testimony of the reporters, rescue teams and eyewitnesses who tell a different story than what we have all been lead to believe

Why did a FOX News employee, who witnessed the second tower attack, report seeing no windows on “Flight 175” a commercial United Airlines jetliner?
(THIS PLANE IS STILL REGISTERED BY THE FAA.)

Is there some sort of exterior swelling protruding from the undercarriage of “Flight 175” ? If so, when and where was it attached? How could it have departed from a commercial airport without being noticed? What purpose did it serve in the attacks? Full-screen television blow-ups directly from CNN reveals the intricate details of this strange anomaly.
http://www.policestate21.com/

[Abe Linkman]

76. Questions about FL 175, sounds of WTC "attacks" & man on the street

You know that piece of debris that was allegedly from FL 175? The one that supposedly fell to the roof of WTC 5 and was found there. Why doesn't it appear to be smoke damaged? Why is it the wrong colors for UA?

Did you HEAR the WTC "attacks"? No? Did ANYBODY? The alleged attackers were very heavy commercial airliners traveling at a high rate of airspeed whenever they supposedly crashed into the buildings. Do you know of anyone who claims they heard the actual crashes? Didn't anyone in NYC record the sounds of all that mass striking the WTC buildings? That should have been one LOUD, long CABOOOM CRUNCH CRUNCH.
Wouldn't the media's video equipment capture the sounds? Is it suspicious that apparently those "planes" made silent entries into the WTC buildings? WHAT planes, you ask? THAT'S a good question, too.

In the famous video that demodewd has included frames of in the original
message of this thread, the "man on the street" does NOT react to the alleged crash of FL 175 into the WTC. When you watch the video, you see that he doesn't look uP UNTIL the big fireball appears. Is that suspicious to you? Didn't he HEAR a big jet coming in low? Didn't he hear the plane crashing into the building? OH. I agree. MORE than passing strange. Unless he's deaf.

Thanks for the info, Scott.

[MercutioATC]

77. Have you experienced the ambient noise level in NYC?

Try it sometime. I'll bet your opinion will change.

[Abe Linkman]

79. Have you experienced the noise of a 757 crashing into steel?

Try it sometime. I'll bet your opinion will change.

[RH]

82. Really?

So the first hand opinion of an eye witness is now thought to be especially significant, is it?

That's interesting.

:toast:

Maybe we're finally getting somewhere.

[Abe Linkman]

83. Interesting comment, maybe - but it's not what we're talking about here

The issue is whether or not it is suspicious that no one has come forward with a recording of either of the two alleged "crashes" at the WTC. Do you have any information about that?

We can get YOUR special interest in the appropriate thread. Thank you.

[RH]

85. You asked

"Did you HEAR the WTC "attacks"? No? Did ANYBODY?"

The reasonable concern, in view of your notorious ignorance of eye witness reports, Mr. Linkman, would thus be whether or not your question was seriously intended.

How come, for instance, after all this time, you are not aware that the Naudet Film has a sound track?

[MercutioATC]

86. A crash a couple of blocks away and hundreds of feet up compared

to engine and horn noise right next to me during rush hour? You're right, I'd have to experience it to know, but I don't believe the crash would stand out as much as you think.

[RH]

87. I hear a lot of airliners.

When the wind blows from the east they fly straight over the top of us, taking off from Heathrow, and at about the same height as the WTC events. We used to have to cope with Concorde, twice a day. The noise was deafening but not for too long. We'd hear it only just in time to get to a window to see it go by. When a plane travels at half the speed of sound, or more, it makes a difference. The doppler effect is also significant. Bypass turbofans are recognisable because of their mechanical sound; the noise exhibits a characteristic pitch and the way the sound disperses varies according to the apparent pitch.

[Abe Linkman]

88. Are most ATC employees hearing-impaired?

Maybe you've been around too many planes taking off and landing.

Now, back to the "man on the street" -- he obviously didn't hear the Big Crash, either. In your case, I understand that you have a hearing problem. But, unless the gentleman in question is also hearing impaired, it's very reasonable to infer that he didn't hear the Big Crash, because there WAS NO "big crash."

Can u heuh that?

[MercutioATC]

89. Thanks for the concern. My hearing is fine.

(I have to get it checked every ywo years for my medical certificate, as do we all)

[RH]

78. Did anybody ever tell you

that light travels faster than sound?

Maybe in your cave in Afghanistan you don't have to worry too much about that sort of thing.

[Abe Linkman]

80. HEADS uP, Romey: It's on the way

Maybe in your danky cave in Wales, you don't have to worry too much about that sort of thing, but hear it comes. You've seen it on your TV, and now it's almost at the front door of your dark, dankyskanky Walescave. Listen UP.

[RH]

81. On the way?

Just can't wait.

For a long time now they've tried in vain to get Abe Linkman to answer a number of perfectly pertinent, straight forward questions, and what do they get instead? Perpetual proof positive that respectful attempts to argue on a rational basis are futile in view of his incessant willingness to duck and dodge.

Don't expect me to to be dragged into the subterfuge again. Once bitten twice wise. Better things to do.

[Abe Linkman]

84. Bye, bye, Romey.

Have another day. Do write, if you find work, and in the meantime, hang by your thumbs.