Absolute proof that 9/11 was MIHOP. No doubt it was treason now.

[reprobate]

If you haven't ordered "911 in Plane Site" yet you must do so now.

At the end there are several clips of closeups of the plane hitting the south tower. Stop the clip just before it hits the tower and go frame by frame from there. You will see three frames just before the collision. In the first you will see a flare just in front of the wing. The second will show the flare directly under the cockpit, and the third will show the flare just entering the building.

This, ladies and gentlemen is the unmistakable signature of a missle rocket motor. Speculation on the film is that the missle was used to set off an explosion to light the jet fuel on the aircraft.

You will also see the same flare on the only film to be taken of the first plane hitting the north tower.

By the way, did you know that in Oklahoma City the FBI found three bombs larger than the one that took out the front of the building? They did not go off and were defused. Never shown on network, but lots of coverage on the local stations as it was happening.

Now even by wife believes MIHOP. She was crying in disillusionment and frustration when it ended. Get this DVD.

Go to TvNewsLies.org.

[Bombtrack]

1. Thanks to you and everyone like you

for making this website less credible and more of a joke by association

[newsguyatl]

2. if you think this place is a joke

why don't you stop comin' here?

no one HERE is making you are they?

[Bombtrack]

4. I don't view it as a joke

but the writing is on the wall. The largest anti-Bush activism forum on the web and it's avoided like the plague by anyone with real connections, at least who are willing to reveal who they are. It's potential is stifled by the tin-foil hat blabber of your cadre. Sorry if I'd prefur you do it on the various forums that cater to the fringe and not to the vanguard of the democratic party on the internet or atleast what should be.

[newsguyatl]

5. "It's potential is stifled by the tin-foil hat blabber of your cadre. "

YOUR cadre?

you say that as if you're an outsider.

interesting.

[Pallas180]

11. NewsGuy - I haven't seen the video,, but have reached the same

conclusion by researching the geo-political benefit to certain parties. There is no question that it was arranged and has been
planned more recently 20 years ago, and as long ago as 40 years ago

See Szignew Brzinski's book about "The New Pearl Harbor"

See or google " The Northwoods Plan" by the US Military

and of course the infamous Project for The New American Century which
actually was prepared for Bush 1, attempted to be foisted on Clinton,
and finally came into full bloom when another Bush took the WH.

These are not "tin-foil" conspiracy theories.

These are FACTS.

If I have an opportunity I'd like to see that video.

[MercutioATC]

19. Have you also looked at the available evidence?

"Researching the geo-political benefit to certain parties" is well and good, but (call me old-fashioned) I also like to see evidence.

I believe in a watered-down version of LIHOP (Bush was told that there was a danger of planes being used as weapons but disregarded it) but I haven't seen any evidence that the government was directly involved in 9/11.

[Pallas180]

21. Merc - researching means gathering evidence. Did you not

read any of the 20 Plame threads?????

That's research that resulted in the evidence written up in American
Judas in Editorials.

The trouble here, certainly there is so much to read, but if it's not read people don't know there's evidence.

As a matter of fact, the evidence is fact, not conjecture and it is
based on Sibel Edmonds hints that sent us on the search.

The only ONLY conclusion is Made it happen.

I'll put the paper up shortly based on the research thread we made
on DU

[MercutioATC]

41. Yes, people should view the available evidence.

Without knowing exactly what you use as support for your "The only ONLY conclusion is Made it happen." stance, I can't rebut directly. However, I'd caution against following in the footsteps of people like Eastman and VonKleist. Fabrications, misrepresentations and selective inclusion of data doesn't educate. It misleads.

[demodewd]

113. Rove II

"People like Eastman and VonKleist". Von Kleist is LIKE Eastman? Two different men with two different takes. You consider Eastman misleading and then link VonKleist with him. Associate someone with a discredited source and therefore totally discredit him. VonKleist does not deserve to be totally discredited. You've taken a page out of the Karl Rove play book.

[MercutioATC]

114. Yes, VonKleist is LIKE Eastman...in the following way:

Both present a theory that can only be supported by ignoring the majority of the evidence. Had there been no pictures of debris consistent with commercial airliner parts or had the vast majority of the eyewitnesses not said they saw a large commercial plane or had the ASCE report been unable to support the idea that the damage to the Pentagon was caused by a 757, I might feel differently.

Eastman and VonKleist both use this deceptive tactic to peddle their pet theories.

I don't see how drawing a parallel between two like things is Rovian.

[demodewd]

115. re: misguided

Anyone involved in alternative conspiracy theory is bound to be led down some dead end streets. No doubt what I just said is applicable to Von Kleist. Be that as it may..he brings up a lot of pertinent points..more than a few quite valid. I don't doubt that some of my conjectures are off base. Sometimes I submit ideas to get a response.

I find much of your defense of the official Pentagon version quite deficient in valid explanations. You have no reasonable explanation of the lack of fire damage north of the entrance hole nor anything resembling cogent thought as an explanation of the nine foot high hole leading to the A-E drive. Confetti like debris is explained by you as result of kerosene fire blast? Interior plane objects are identified on the freeway but where are the body parts?

You have no accountability as to the apparent sonic waves identifiable in one of the video frames of the blast. You don't account for witnesses seeing a white flash. You don't account for those who smelled cordite. You have no explanation to account for how the plane was piloted into the building by an alleged poor pilot who had difficulty flying a Cessna.

You have no explained reason as to why this plane was not intercepted or shot down when you absolutely maintain that it was identifiable on radar the last 30 minutes. What is your explanation as to why the Pentagon and all other Federal buildings were not evacuated when it was known that two planes were heading in the direction of DC?

Shall I call your "misguided" Pentagon theory silly?

[RH]

116. what the hell do you think you're talking about?

Lack of fire damage north of the entrance hole?

I never heard of anybody who was there who complained of any sort of lack of damage. Did anybody say that or did you just make it up?

An explanation of the nine foot high hole leading to the A-E drive has been provided over and over and over and over and over and over and over again: Flight 77 hit the building. It caused a lot of damage.

The phantom jet in the Sandia test turned to confetti with no jet fuel involved. Please explain what difficulty there would then be about that.

The body parts were in the building. A diagram was released to show exactly where bodies were found.

The apparent sonic waves identifiable in one of the video frames?

:shrug:

I'd thought that sonic waves were heard, not seen, but what do I know?

I have seen the white flash accounted for several times over. Where were you?

If you're worried about "cordite" why don't you ask those who spoke of it? I got a helpful email reply from Don Perkal.

You have nothing to show that any plane was deliberately piloted into the Pentagon, do you? Why assume that flight 77 was not shot down? Didn't know you were such an ardent proponent of the official version.

Do you have any proof that whoever was responsible for Pentagon security actually knew that two planes were heading in the direction of DC?

Shall you call a "misguided" Pentagon theory silly?

You may do better to wise up.

[MercutioATC]

112. Pallas180, it 'd help me immensely if you could point me toward

the specific arguments that led you to this conclusion. If you could provide links to the sites that convinced you re: the Plame stuff, I'd be able to form a more complete reply.

Thanks

[timtom]

39. I wouldn't count too much on evidence

at this stage of the game. We still don't have all the evidence from the Kennedy assassination, for example.

My commitment to MIHOP relies more on probability than evidence.

The constant refusal to show evidence, records, etc. is an incessant drumbeat with these criminals. In fact, they just refused to show requested information on possible links to the Swift Boat Vets against Kerry. From the sealing of presidential records to the withholding of WTC evidence it is apparent that they are not forthcoming with any of cooperation with those who have legitimate concerns.

Why?

Each instance (of which there are legions) raises the question, "What are they hiding?"

Since we may never see any hard evidence in our lifetimes, I have chosen to presume guilt. Of course, at any time, they are more than welcome to open up all records, release all evidence, be willing to testify to any committee under oath (singly -- not in teams of two), etc. But until they show any good faith, they are, in my mind, guilty. I am not so concerned with evidence, at this point.

[MercutioATC]

42. Hey, that's your right.

At least you're being honest about it. You may be right, but I'm more evidence-driven. Without more evidence, I look at the individual elements of the CTs and decide if they make sense to me. Most, so far, have been easily debunked.

I agree that the government hasn't been forthcoming at all with information. I'm still weighing the little evidence we do have, though.

:hi:

[merh]

10. You give the "real connections" very little credit don't you. Folks

don't reveal themselves because of the evil folks in the WH, not because of the contents of the posts. The "real connections" can discern for themselves which threads to review and which ones to ignore. I wish more DUers would take that approach, if the subject doesn't interest you, skip it, ignore it, move on. Don't insult the DUer that posts the thread, they are entitled to their opinions. This is General Discussion forum and not the GD Campaign 2004 forum.

More people than you know review these threads, for both parties. Actually, the argument can be made that "absurd" threads work to our advantage, the other side may not give the forum too much credence and will ignore us, thus allowing us to continue with our active analysis and debates.

Hi Agent Mike :hi:

[Swamp Rat]

30. I agree

I prefer taking the "good" with the "bad" than taking neither. Whatever the "truth" is, may perhaps reveal itself in an aluminum wasteland.

[shance]

14. Bomb, curious. When did you become the authority on 9/11?

If you are trying to save the *sanctity*, and what was it you said, the *vanguard* of the Democratic party, what would that entail?

Is your higher priority in life is to keep up appearances to maintain an *image*, if so, you aint a true Dem.

I don't like to become antagonistic, but I think looking for the truth and trying to be open minded is worth a growl or two.

Cowardice, denial, fear and that wonderful word, *diplomacy* aren't words I want to be driven by.

So all those people you are so concerned about with *real* connections, can kiss my arse. They are the ones who taking this party down by allowing questions to remain unanswered. That along with jeopardizing the safety of our nation.

But you can knock yourself out trying to make them like you.

[Bombtrack]

24. so, any democrats of any real prominence

are "the ones who taking this party down". Yeah that makes alot of sense.

[T Town Jake]

23. Well stated...

...I agree completely. :thumbsup:

[TheWatcher]

13. Even though I thoroughly disbelieve the "No Plane Hit The Pentagon" Stuff

I will still challenge anyone on this board to prove the Official Story beyond a reasonable doubt. There is not ONE single person who can. The "Official Story" is still the most laughable,improbable, unconscionable joke that has EVER been played on a Society.

At the very least, our Government let it happen, at the very worst, they MADE it happen.

This Site has not lost any credibility because there are people who are not willing to let the Truth or the revaling of the Truth slip through their fingers or Die.

Just because some people want to believe so badly that their Government had no involvment or was incompetent or corrupt enough to let it happen does not by default render all other attempts to get at the Truth, or all theories regarding what that Truth might be impotent or without credibility.

When the "Official Story" can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, believe me, the most rational and reasonable of us will "Shut Up and Accept it."

Until then, Bite Me. :)

What is so disturbing to me is how much the Truth itself is kept from the Masses because of their own willful ignorance. They are simply too afraid of it, or are so determined not to even consider it or face it.

Yes, this was perhaps the wrong thread to post this in, because of the subject matter, and it is a theory I too disagree with.

In order for this Nation or this Planet to EVER truly heal from 9/11 and the events of that awful day, and for us to EVER understand and grow as a people, the Truth about what happened MUST come out, and we MUST face it, no matter what it is. Even if it DID turn out to be the Official Version was correct. No closure can ever take place if that does not happen. Sorry if some cannot handle that, but that is the way it is.

But then again, how many other events of the past 40 years can you say that about.

Living In Denial Alone is going to rot this country into collapse.

[TrustingDog]

28. do you think the PNACers were willing to wait.....

for a bigger dumbass than George to fullfill their fillment, one of which is to get the world against the US in such few short years?
come on.
there are red lights and sirens all around this gang. This is not coinkydinky.

You, sir, are the joke.

[bobbyboucher]

31. The joke is you my fine ......friend.

Always right there with a "tin foil hat" or a "this makes us look bad" quip.

If you think for even one second that the truth about 9/11 has been told then you are exactly what I have thought since.....

[RH]

54. more than a quip

'makes us look bad' is a matter of demonstrable fact.

The main effct all along hads been to completely divorce those who supposedly want to know the truth from those who are best able to supply.

How was it ever going to help to suppose as a matter of sheer prejudice that everybody involved was either completely stupid or somehow a part of a criminal conspiracy?

:shrug:

[The Night Owl]

3. I'm confused.

Why would the jet fuel need to be lit if the plane was about to slam into the building anyway? Does anyone actually believe that an airplane full of fuel can fly into a building and not explode? Hello?

[MrSammo1]

105. Three reasons

Three reasons why a missile would be shot into the buildings. To insure that the jet fuel ignited, to help distort the size of the entry hole, and to insure a pyrotechnic display that would take your mind off any oddity that someone might have witnessed, as in there being no windows on the jet!

The pod was simply to obscure the missile from the audience! Slight of hand, just as a magician would do it. It basically worked. It's almost three years since 9/11 and people are just starting to raise this question. It shows just how little most people pay attention to details, and just how the brain of most people work.

[MercutioATC]

107. That's ridiculous for the following reasons:

1) The jet fuel was gonna ignite whether a missile was fired or not.

2) The entry hole didn't show evidence of a missile. In fact, the steel columns were bent inward, as they would be from something solid hitting them from the outside (a missile blast would have bent them outward).

3) The idea that a big fire would make people "forget" about a lack of windows is just too silly to comment on.

Since you're so married to this particular CT, allow me to ask you a question. If "windowless planes" did crash into the WTC towers, they were obviously not the same planes that people boarded, correct?

Leaving the fact that radar data does not support any "switching" of planes aside, why would you mount an exterior pod on a plane with no passengers (and a completely empty fuselage)? If you wanted to make a big bang, why not just place an incendiary device inside the plane (remember, it's just an empty shell) instead of mounting a noticeable "pod" on the exterior (a "pod" that eliminates the possibility of a starboard main landing gear)?


It's all just terribly silly.

[demodewd]

110. silly me silly you

1) The jet fuel was gonna(going to) ignite whether a missile was fired or not.
This fails to account for the absolute necessity that the explosion occur nearly instantaneously after the plane's entry.
2) The entry hole didn't show evidence of a missile. In fact, the steel columns were bent inward, as they would be from something solid hitting them from the outside (a missile blast would have bent them outward).
The entry hole didn't show any evidence of a fuel blast either that would have bent the columns outward also according to your theory.
3) The idea that a big fire would make people "forget" about a lack of windows is just too silly to comment on.
Absoluetly insuring a huge Hollywoodesque conflagration was the point of the NWO brainwash exercise. Bringing the plane in at 590 mph will also help people not witness the true identity and nature of the craft. Commercial airlines are not physically strong enough to endure such speeds and radical banking at sea level atmospheres.
Leaving the fact that radar data does not support any "switching" of planes aside, why would you mount an exterior pod on a plane with no passengers (and a completely empty fuselage)? If you wanted to make a big bang, why not just place an incendiary device inside the plane (remember, it's just an empty shell) instead of mounting a noticeable "pod" on the exterior (a "pod" that eliminates the possibility of a starboard main landing gear)?
I would surmise that the missile was an essential part of the plans to absolutely insure that the plane would enter the building with the least amount of resistance . A thorough and immediate disintegration of the faux airliner certainly would have been an absolute requisite. Thus the missile thus the pod. The fuselage would not have been "empty" but used as additional space for more fuel containers.The pod does not eliminate the possibility of starboard main landing gear as it was located 2-3 feet below the wing's fore connection and otherwise would have been retrofitted .

[Dont Hurt Me]

6. Ha ha ha.....?

oh you weren't joking. sorry have to agree with bombtrack on this one.

[RossMcLochNess]

7. I ordered it too...

and to be honest, I wasn't blown away by it. I agree that there are definately some questions surrounding the Pentagon attack but I was unmoved by the WTC theories. There are more holes in his theories than in the "offical story" of the WTC. Personally, the video clips he uses aren't clear enough for me to draw any conclusions (and yes, my GF and I did the whole frame by frame thing). Our eyes just didn't see what you saw when we watched it. Just my .02

[TrustingDog]

8. too many coinkydinky things. too many dark players. too much PNACering.

I will believe the worst, and if it's discredited, I will be pleasantly surprised.

make no mistake, no mistake was made.

[MrSammo1]

106. people

People have a problem with physical reality. They much prefer hearsay!

[reorg]

18. when you were watching the video frame by frame

did you notice that little white cloud, very similar to the two puffs emerging behind each of the engines of the second plane, when it hits the South Tower?

This little white cloud comes out right behind where the "pod" phenomenon is located. Under the fuselage, slightly right of center. Do you have an explanation for that cloud?

Why do these three distinct clouds appear first, even before the plane has entered the building completely, and only later dust and/or smoke is swelling from the entire width of the opening left by the plane?

Doesn't this little white cloud in the middle indicate a breach much like the one caused by the engines (somewhat smaller, however)? An opening left by something that could not be the fuselage itself? And what could possibly be the cause for this, any ideas?

[MercutioATC]

20. Do you realize that the "pod" covers the area taken by the landing gear?

How would the lending gear deploy if the "pod" is anything more than a shadow?

[reorg]

45. not sure what you are saying here

- is your explanation for the small white cloud the landing gear? Care to elaborate? It doesn't appear to be deployed at that point in time.

I'm not an airplane mechanic, so I am not the right person to tell you how the "pod" phenomenon, which may be a solid object, perhaps about a third of the diameter of an engine, judging from the size of the cloud, could have been mounted where it appears to be: where wing meets fuselage.

How about the landing gear itself? From this image it would appear to me to be possible to mount something directly on the landing gear, above the wheels:

[RH]

46. Try to tell that

to a Boeing engineer. Your comedic talent is wasted here.

That's a B757, btw, not a 767.

[reorg]

49. oh, sorry, but a 767

's landing gear does not appear to be much different:




Maybe the object could have been mounted before the landing gear, flush with the engines.

[MercutioATC]

51. How does the gear deploy with a "pod" there?

Wouldn't that, in itself, logically suggest that the "pod" is not a solid object?

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[reorg]

58. interesting

[reorg]

57. the gear appears to be well behind the engines

so it would boggle the mind -- at least of the impartial observer -- why you would repeat your unsubstantiated claim.

Look at this picture:

http://www.photovault.com/Link/Technology/Aviation_Commercial/show.asp?tg=TAFVolume11/TAFV11P15_19

How is it impossible to mount an object flush with the engines on the fuselage?

[MercutioATC]

66. The gear are immediately behind the engines...where the "pod" is.

Here's a better picture of the underside of a 767. Note that the gear doors are immediately behind the engines:

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


Here are numerous pictures of the "pod". Note that it extends from well behind the starboard engine to a little over halfway up the engine:

http://pod.batcave.net/appoach.html

"Unsubstainted claim"??

[reorg]

69. the landing gear is behind the wings

If you go by the blue picture, the frame from the ABC video, the "pod" would indeed appear to extend beyond the wings, that is true.

However, as astute oberservers have noted before, the outline of the "pod" phenomenon is less than clear, and the quality of this particular image not too good. Compare the silhouette of the plane with the one you linked to at photovault. There is obviously some distortion and loss with respect to the size of the wings.

So, even if the object's position is not flush with the engines at the front (as it appears to be the case in this blue image), and of similar length as the laquered, massive parts of the engines (the rest of which cannot be seen in the blue image), there would still be enough space for a "pod" to be mounted flush with the the back side of the engines, with their mounts (which are not seen in the blue image). That would still be well before the landing gear.

Plus, if maybe this "pod" phenomenon was in fact much thinner and lighter and maybe longer as it appears to be in the ABC video frame, maybe it could have been mounted somehow on the gear itself? Who knows.


I am grateful to Mr. von Kleist that he put together videos of better quality on his DVD, where you can clearly see THREE distinct clouds emerging from the building when the plane enters: one behind each engine, and one, somewhat smaller, where the "pod" phenomenon is located. I am describing this now for the fourth time or so, never receiving an explanation.

What could possibly be the origin of this third debris cloud, why does it emerge right where the "pod" enters the building, just like the clouds where the engines enter?

[MercutioATC]

70. That's kinda my point...even "pod believers" can't agree on its dimensions

...and most of the images I've seen put it where it would eliminate the landing gear.

I don't know where the clouds come from. To me, they seem to occur as the plane makes contact with the building, not before, which would just make them debris clouds from impact. I realize some people see them differently.

I still don't understand a need for a "pod" at all. Any pod scenario mandates a "replacement" situation (which isn't supported by radar data). If the plane WAS a replacement, why would ANYBODY use an external pod when they had an entire empty 767 fuselage to work with? Need to make sure the fuel ignites and having issues comprehending that a 400MPH+ crash into a building would do that? Put an incendiary device in the nose of the plane. No "pod" to be questioned and you get guaranteed ignition.

Given the facts that:

1) A pod requires that the plane was replaced midair by another aircraft and that isn't supported by radar data, and

2) the crash itself was sufficient to guarantee penetration into the building and ignition of the fuel, and

3) even if there was doubt about #2, a completely enclosed device would have worked just as well and would have had the benefit of not being detectable, and

4) the pod would eliminate the starboard landing gear, and

5) the belly of a 767's fuselage does have a bump where the "pod" is depicted as part of it's normal construction,

I don't see any reason there'd be a pod on that 767.

[demodewd]

71. no matter..

No matter how it doesn't seem feasible or necessary,the pod is there and it is not the bump where wing meets fuselage. It is not located in the proper place to be that. I keep saying that,I know but it is true. It's in the wrong place(besides the fact that it is far too large in circumferance). It's too low down the fuselage.

[MercutioATC]

72. Fine, just tell me where the landing gear went...

...and why you think a pod was at all necessary, given the questions in my last post.

[reorg]

73. whatever its dimensions, the "pod" is not where the landing gear is

I explained that to you, but maybe you don't read the messages to which you reply.

You don't know where the clouds come from? That's exactly what I thought.

They seem to occur not "as the plane makes contact with the building", though. And even less "before" (you probably confuse this with another issue, the "flash" in the Naudet video).

These clouds occur when the plane is about halfway into the building. The tail end sticks out, at least one third of the plane is still outside of the building when three distinct clouds appear as described in my previous messages. They seem to appear through the openings left by the engines -- and by something else located below where the starboard wing meets the fuselage.

[MercutioATC]

76. I posted some pretty clear pictures. The "pod" is where it is.

How can you say it's not where the landing gear would be after looking at those pictures. By your own statement, the landing gear deploys just aft of the back of the engines from almost the center of the fuselage to the wing root. That's exactly where the "pod" is shown to be. Are we working off different sets of pictures?

I did misunderstand what you meant about the "clouds". I'll have to look at the video again.

[reorg]

77. ok, I'll be holding my breath for your explanation of the dust clouds ...

Although we seem to have a serios communication problem.

First, I thank you for helping me out with the correct nautical terms for "right", "behind" etc, perhaps it will clear up what I am trying to say if I use them.

Second, I can see your point that it would not be possible for the landing gear to be deployed if it were blocked.


Now, if you take a closer look at your "clear" picture of the "pod", you may find two things. Some here have speculated, and they have a point, that due to its apparent location the "pod" may be identical with the wing root bulges.

However, as others have pointed out, there is more than just these bulges. This phenomenon extends further away from the fuselage, and it clearly is only on the starboard side, not on both sides of the fuselage.

Therefore, while its position is similar, this thing is not identical with the bulges, or one of them. Nevertheless, it may well be -- to me at least it is obvious -- that in your blue, blurred image the bulge merges with the "pod". It is very hard -- I think impossible -- to make out an exact outline of the latter.

The landing gear bay is in the very aftern part of these bulges. The gear deploy aft of the engine MOUNTS. Not just aft of the painted, big diameter parts that are visible in the blue image. Aft of the engine mounts, these thin structures that cannot be seen, because, obviously, the finer outlines in this image are blurred or just not visible at all (I already pointed out the striking difference of the short/thin wings in this picture from those in regular photographs of a 767).

Thus it would be perfectly possible for the "pod" to extend further aft than the visible, painted, big diameter part of the engines (which is what we see in the blue, blurred image) and it could still be mounted fore (? / opposite of aft) of the landing gear, flush with the engine mounts.


So -- regardless of whether you agree or not with my interpretation, did I make at least my point clear to you? As of yet I have the impression that you don't understand what I'm saying. Don't get me wrong, it is perfectly okay with me if you are not interested! But then I wonder why you would reply.


Position of landing gear:

http://www.photovault.com/Link/Technology/Aviation_Commercial/show.asp?tg=TAFVolume11/TAFV11P15_19


position of "pod":




enough space for the "pod" to the fore of landing gear bay:

[MercutioATC]

78. I just watched the video again...they look like debris clouds to me.

They occur as the engines enter the building. These engines were running. A jet engine takes air in the front of the engine and forces it out the back. Anything that enters the front of the engine (like smoke or debris) will be ejected from the back of the engine if it's running. My interpretation is that once the engines made contact with the building, debris from the crash entered the engines and was forced out, resulting in the "clouds".

I don't see where we have a communication problem. We just disagree on the location of the alleged pod. The pictures I've seen seem to clearly show the dark area extending from well behind the engine to 1/2 - 2/3 of the way up it. I really don't see where there'd be room forward of the landing gear bay. Rather than use the engine as a reference point, let's use the wing. The foremost edge of the landing gear bay is approximately halfway up the wing:

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

All of the pics of the "pod" that I've seen show the dark area extending well forward of this. If you have others that are different, I'd obviously re-evaluate my opinion.

[reorg]

83. perfect example of complete communication breakdown

It just happened again. You replied to a message where I meticulously make my point, step by step, supported by images, and instead of referring to this step-by-step analysis, you "just disagree".

Well, fine, I think I have nothing more to say then!


Let me just recapitulate and show how this "communication" process between the two of us works.

I asked someone else who watched the video "In Plane Sight" frame by frame if he has seen the three distinct clouds, two of which seem to be caused by the two engines and one by something located where the "pod" phenomenon is seen.

Then you jump in with another point, not directly relevant to this observation. I comment on your point, while continuing to point out what I saw in the vonKleist-Video and asking for explanations. But you manage to never even mention this particular third cloud I described, which seems to be caused by a third object, in all your 6 messages!


Imagine the following conversation:

-------------------------------------

I tell a friend: When I was going for a walk around town yesterday, I saw a red fox in a field right in front of me!

My friend: Hey, do you realize there are no fields anymore around town?

I: But, but, I saw this fox clearly in this field! And, yes, there are some fields left in between the sprawling housing areas around town.

My friend: But it is impossible that there are fields, look at this map! It clearly shows there are no fields left.

I: Well, you know, I saw this fox, and he was in a field. Right in front of me! And, yes, it depends a little what kind of map you are using, there are good high resolution maps showing that some fields are left around town. Look here, for instance, this map is showing fields. BTW, what is your comment on the fox? Did you ever see one around here?

My friend: I don't know what maps you have, all maps I have seen don't show any fields. Uh, and with regard to the dog thing, I forgot you mentioned it. I'll think about it.

I: But, but ... I just showed you this map where you can see the fields! And I'm quite sure I saw a red fox. It was right in front of me.

My friend: OK, just thought about that dog again. I think, it may have been a dachshund. And forget about fields around town. There are none. Obviously, I will change my opinion if you are able to show me a map which clearly shows some fields.


-------------------------------------

I guess in your opinion this conversation works perfectly well.

[MercutioATC]

84. Frankly, I don't see the issue...

I admitted that I misunderstood your first "cloud" reference.

I then posted an explanation for two of the "clouds". I don't have an immediate explanation for the third, smaller "cloud".

You do?

[reorg]

85. Yeah, nothing could be more obvious

[MercutioATC]

86. Care to elaborate?

If you have an explanation for the three "clouds", go for it.

[reorg]

87. Look at #18; further non-responsive replies will be ignored.

[MercutioATC]

88. You have my answer.

I have no idea what caused the "little cloud".

[vincent_vega_lives]

89. POD

I have yet to hear exactly what is supposedly in the "pod" or why it is slung where no hard point exists, or even why it is that big or that shape. Missiles, rockets? There is no missile launch signature.

The USAF has no "pod" of that size other than fuel tanks.

[Bolo Boffin]

90. And how about the impossible aerodynamics that would result?

We're taking it for granted that the plane could take off without landing gear (because the pod is obviously in the way of any landing gear).

Would it really be possible to fly any aircraft that fast (590 mph) with such an incredibly large bump on one side of the underbelly?

Maybe at slower speeds, but I can't imagine any plane staying airborne with the drag induced by such a large obstruction to airflow. The weight of the pod would have to be counterbalanced with a second pod on the other side - but no one claims there are two pods. If it could stay in the air, any banking manuever would tear the plane apart at those speeds.

More reasons why the pod is not plausible. What we're left with is an digital artifact due to video compression of a shadow, which doesn't even appear in the NIST photos, a pod out of a pixel. Give me a break...

[demodewd]

50. re: shadow

The pod is has a circumferance similar in size to one of the engines. An object is not a shadow. This object creates its own shadow. No matter what it is ,it is not a shadow.

[reorg]

53. I agree it does not look like a shadow

the object's diameter may be a bit smaller than the engine's, though, as the somewhat smaller white cloud (of column debris?) suggests that clearly emerges right where the object enters the building.

The corresponding white clouds behind the engines are considerably larger, but apparently caused by the same effect, presumably of a solid object crashing concrete and steel, and leaving behind an opening where dust can emerge.

[MercutioATC]

9. Ah, another plug for the "famous" Dave VonKleist rant.

Take a look at the 9/11 Forums here at DU. Most of his "proof" has been debunked.

VonKleist is a propagandist of the worst sort. He misrepresents facts, ignores contrary evidence and frequently just makes no sense.

Believe in MIHOP if you'd like, but PLEASE don't believe it because of tripe like this.

[Proud_Lefty]

12. I just saw a DVD called Truth & Lies About 911

Anyone heard of it? Has anyone seen it and still believe it wasn't MIHOP? A lot of my questions were answered in that documentary.

[WoodrowFan]

102. totally debunked

got any good creationist videos you care to plug as well?? They have the same "respect" for evidence...

[zmdem]

15. Elvis and I were discussing this just the other day

After he got off work from his job pumping gas in Longview, WA that is.

[kcr]

16. ooooooooooooookaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy

1)Speaking as an engineer -- you don't need a god damn missile to set off a fire under those conditions. See, the fucking plane flying into a steel and concrete structure at several hindered miles an hour has a certain tendency to explode.

2)Second, what is the fucking point of shooting a missile into a building your a going to crash a plane into? That is like stabbing someone with a toothpick the instant before you shove them into a woodchopper.

3)Where would the missle come from? I wasn't aware that the US military had fairy fighters that were completely and totally invisible to radar, film, and people on the ground. Also, how fucking stupid do you think the people at the airport -- i.e. the baggage handlers and the maintenance people and the bloody pilots -- would have to be to to notice that their airplane had grown a missile launcher overnight?

Life is not a Tom Clancy novel.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[bobbyboucher]

33. Show me some proof,

smart guy. Give me a photo, or maybe some conclusive plane wreckage, or anything that cannot be manipulated or controlled. ONE single peice of conclusive evidence.

Your percentages prove nothing other than the fact that you are trying to convince people by using what........popularity?

[Bombtrack]

59. The burden of proof lies with you dude

Sorry, but there aren't too many beliefs in this country that are so outlandish that not one elected official or one prominent hard-news journalist of any note serving or retired has echoed.

Well I'm proving that George Bush and Dick Cheney didn't collaborate with Muslim extremists in a cave and have a missle launcher bolted onto a 747 I'll also be disproving the existence of the Lockness monster and Elvis being alive.

[reorg]

61. Michael Meacher, Andreas von Bülow

Both former high level government members, and social democrats to boot, no "extremism" whatsoever. Many times elected, one from Britain, the other from Germany, they have more than just "echoed" 9/11 skepticism, but written publicly and approvingly about it.

[Bombtrack]

62. I was talking about the United States

[reorg]

63. why limit the horizon

[Bombtrack]

64. Because you can basically say anything you want about the US or Israel

in most of Western Europe with zero consequence or critism, particulary France where that rediculous "big lie" book, or somthing like that title, was the number one bestseller for months. Were freedom fries warrented? No. Was the whole "France sucks" movement surrounding the war in anything close to good taste or having the right motivations? No. But that doesn't mean that the French population doesn't view the US through any kind of justified filter or with anything close to a fair attitude. The success of that rediculous book does show that, and the fact that some foreign officials .0001 percent of the US(or non-French for that matter) population has heard of buys into the theory that the US executive branch decided to murder thousands of it's citizens means diddly squat in terms of this argument.

[reorg]

67. the implied anti-American bias is nonsense

Michael Meacher is not French, he was until recently member of the Blair government. It is this direct experience with policies following 9/11 that made him suspicious, or rather convinced him that there may indeed be ulterior motives for certain factions in the US government to accept a significant number of civilian casualties.

Andreas von Bülow is also not French, nor anti-American, he studied in the US and is very much outspoken about his friendly ties to your country. One would also be very much mistaken to imply "anti-semitism" on his part. Quite to the contrary, he is outspoken in his support for the state of Israel (as is everyone in Germany, particularly politicians). It was his direct experience with overseeing (German) secret services that led him to be wary of covert operations, also of other countries' agencies.

I know it must be hard to swallow for some US citizens that their government may have a permissive attitude towards risking life and health of the civilian population, not only in other countries, but in their "own", too. While it may seem acceptable, or at least not worth mentioning to such citizens that civilians all over the world are being slaughtered, directly by US soldiers, or with support of US agencies in the course of pursuing geostrategical objectives, the thought of US citizens being murdered with approval of some sort from interested parties in the US government frightens them a lot. Maybe because such a thought is not unreasonable at all?

[Bombtrack]

68. I know I'm talking to a more informed person when "geostrategical" is a

word thrown into the mix. If you think that the adminsistration could have had a missle launcher bolted onto a 747 while coordinating with Muslim extrememists to help them perform genocide on 3000 Americans then you continue to believe that and 99.9 percent of people are going to continue to find you completely daffy.

[reorg]

74. well, then try and understand: oil, big business, war over resources

I once wrote in a reply that "it would be a bit dishonest to claim" something which my correspondent may or may not have implied in his messages.

This message got deleted out of concern, probably, that my opponent may have felt hurt because he indeed implied what I suspected.

Following from that experience I would advise you to be more careful with your wording ... some overly concerned moderator may feel that I can feel hurt, too :-) Never mind, just kidding.

To tell you the truth, I couldn't care less about what 99.9 percent of Americans think of me. That will leave more than enough (300,000?) for me to meet and talk to. I'm more concerned with the effects of the majority's NOT thinking at all, and drawing the entire world into a messy conflagration. You do not seem to realize that we (all) are already right into this, and some people, who are really "out there" (to quote Seymor Hersh), are already advocating further steps.

[reorg]

65. Cynthia McKinney

of course, never said anything stupid like "Bush knew" and never implied that Cheney plotted the attacks with Arab students in their Hamburg flat. However, reports Greg Palast:

>>... FBI and CIA/DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) insiders told us at BBC, of a block placed on investigations of Saudi Arabian financing of terror. We even showed on-screen a copy of a top-secret document passed to us by disgruntled FBI agents, directing that the agency would not investigate a “suspected terrorist organization” headed in the US by a member of the bin Laden family. The FBI knew about these guys before September 11 (with their office down the street from the hijackers’ address).

The CIA also knew about a meeting in Paris, prior to September 11, involving a Saudi prince, arms dealers, and al Qaeda. Although the information was in hand, the investigation was stymied by Bush’s intelligence chiefs. This is what McKinney wanted investigated.

Why were the Saudis, the bin Ladens (except Osama), and this organization (the World Assembly of Muslim Youth) off the investigation list prior to September 11, despite evidence that they were reasonable targets for inquiry? The BBC thought it worth asking; the Guardian thought it worth asking -- and so did Congresswoman McKinney. Why no pre-September 11 investigations of these characters?

And what was the reason for the block? According to the experts we broadcast on British television, it was the Bush Administration’s fanatic desire to protect their relations with Saudi Arabia -- a deadly policy prejudice which, according to the respected Center for Public Integrity of Washington, DC, seems influenced by the Bush family ties, and Republican donors’ ties, to Saudi royalty. McKinney, a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, thought the BBC/Guardian/Observer investigation worth a follow-up Congressional review. (

...)<<

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=229&row=1
http://www.cynthiaforcongress.com/

[reorg]

47. would appear to be a fair estimate

of the percentage of insane people as a whole, maybe.

An indication for such insanity, in my experience, is the unwillingness or rather incapability to engage in rational and well reasoned discourse.

[makhno]

27. Be wary

Outrageous disinformation used to discredit plausible theories: "sure, they knew about it and didn't do anything; next thing you'll be telling me the plane fired missiles into the building!"

A friend of mine was a couple of floors below where the plane hit the North Tower. He watched the 767 make a 180 over Central Park and fly into the building. He sure as hell never mentioned anything about missiles.

[bobbyboucher]

35. Right back at you.

Got anything? Like proof.

[LARED]

75. No proof ever seems good enough

How about this

I know 12+ people that work across the Hudson in NJ about 4 to 5 miles away from the WTC. After the first impact, they went to the roof of a five story building to watch the fire. Flight 175 flew directly over their heads on it way to the South tower. They got a close up look at the aircraft and tracked it all the way to impact.

None of them mentioned pods, spray nozzles, missiles or any such nonsense.

[bobbyboucher]

32. Got any photos smart guy?

Why the fuck not?

Blow me... away with your photos of the plane hitting the Pentagon will ya? I cannot wait any longer.

[Bombtrack]

60. Everything in Washington isn't being photographed at every second of

the day. There aren't any photos of Lincoln being shot either but I'm pretty sure that he didn't stage his assassination and move to Jamaica

[impe]

79. Huh?!

There are literally hundreds of cameras in the pentagon parking lot alone, not to mention those on
interstate 395 as well as the gas station and hotel's video.

Surely, one of those camera's caught a clip of that jumbo airliner smashing into the pentagon?

There are no scorch marks on the lawn, highway, cars, light poles, etc., I know I know, you'll have a
scientific explanation for this as well...

[MercutioATC]

81. Then you should have no problem providing a clip of something else hitting

the Pentagon, right? After all, there are "literally hundreds of cameras"...

[RH]

92. There were

scorch marks on the lawn. Why would there be scorch marks on the highway?

It was abundantly clear that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. It swooped in broad daylight with hundreds of people around.

[Kanary]

17. Has anyone seen "9/11: The Great Illusion"?

It's by George Humphrey.

I haven't heard anyone ever mention it.

Kanary

[mark414]

22. i don't belive in MIHOP

but i definitely believe in LIHOP

PNAC is all the evidence i need

[MadProphetMargin]

26. Oh, for the love of God. What a load of crap.

This, ladies and gentlemen is the unmistakable signature of a missle rocket motor. Speculation on the film is that the missle was used to set off an explosion to light the jet fuel on the aircraft.


Since WHEN does jet fuel need any help exploding during a high-speed crash?

For Pete's sake.

Shiny side OUT, people!

[TrustingDog]

34. lol, shiny side OUt.... AHAHAHAHAHHA!

BUT...

look at whats on your throne,

no shiny sides at all.

[0rganism]

37. Real pros use a double layer: one shiny side out, one shiny side in

The outward reflective surface prevents mind control, the inner reflective surface keeps your thoughts private. See this informative site for further instructions:

http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

:tinfoilhat:

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[tngledwebb]

96. Respect your fellow DU'ers....

Are you an expert in jet fuel combustion? You believe the OCT w/o reservations? You wear a shiny hat too.

[The Night Owl]

29. This MIHOP stuff reminds of those kooks who claim Moon landing was faked.

[Nordic]

38. it's pure disinformation to make MIHOPers look like KOOKS

And it's disgusting to me.

What pisses me off is somebody starts a thread identical to this about every two days on DU. And it doesn't get locked. It's the same old crap over and over.

And we accuse republicans of being dumb. I'm just astounded that anybody with half a brain would fall for this crap.

[chefgirl]

40. I saw the video

I can unequivocally say....that I still haven't come to ANY conclusions. I think what I believe falls somewhere between MIHOP, LIHOP and the official story. Probably a little bit of all three, actually.

That is only my personal opinion, mind you, to which I have an inalienable right.

I would just like to point out, though, that there were MANY people who swallowed the magic bullet theory for a very long time. The people (Jim Garrison comes to mind) who were brave enough to question it were considered 'kooks' too.

I wonder how many people in this country actually believe that magic bullet theory 41 years later. :shrug:

-chef-

[Nordic]

55. Well I am a MIHOP'er, but that doesn't mean I believe this SHIT

This shit is shit.

MIHOP is the real deal.

This is disinformation because MIHOP is real and this has been put out to make the connection between this SHIT and MIHOP.

It's like the "connection" between Saddam and 9/11.

[WoodrowFan]

104. single bullet

41 years later it's only believed by people who actually look at the evidence.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm


bye bye

[The Night Owl]

43. Sorry, I don't buy any MIHOP theories...

If our government had planned the 9-11 attacks, then why did Smirk sit in that classroom transfixed and not knowing what to do? If President Bush knew exactly what was happening on 9-11, he would have pretended to appear large and in charge. Instead, he came off as the retard he usually is.

A more plausible scenario is that our government, shortly before 9-11, knew that some kind of attack was about to take place, but did not realize how severe those attacks would be. That would explain why, on 9-11, Bush looked like he got caught with his pants down

[Nordic]

56. Bush sat there with that look on his face because

he had been warned this would happen and he thought they were just kidding.

They weren't kidding.

He knew he couldn't just fart around and play golf and crack bad jokes anymore.

He knew if he said anything, he'd be "disappeared".

And the BIG BIG reason he didn't get the hell out of that school RIGHT THAT MINUTE is because he, and the rest of them KNEW that GWB was NOT a target.

The country was under attack. Everybody KNEW where the president was that day because it was a big PR event.

If we were really under an "attack", the president would obviously be a target. Therefore, a school full of children would be a target.

He/they would have gotten the fuck out of there pronto. But no, they sat around and took photos and even did a fucking press announcement in front of the schoool!!!!!!!

This is the kind of dots that, when connected, paint an obvious picture of MIHOP. Not stupid "missiles on planes" hallucinations.

[impe]

80. Bunch of numb nuts

why does anyone think a military coup couldn't happen in this country! Anyone who thinks the
prez is running things post 9-11 deserves what their going to get.

[MercutioATC]

82. There's a difference between "couldn't" and "didn't"...

Sure, it COULD have been a MIHOP event, but the only "evidence" I've seen of it is pure conjecture. I need more than that before I start making wild claims.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[reprobate]

48. OK, some believe, some don't. Here's my questions.

First, as to the purpose of 'missiles', I was repeating the speculation of the narrator. True or not I don't know.

I will say that we viewed the dvd on a progressive scan player feeding a 55" HD capable monitor. With this set up the three frames in question clearly showed what I described above. Of course this is open to question by those who haven't seen it.

Let me suggest that it is a question that could be answered by someone with more math talent than I. There are several 'known' quantities in the pictures: the time between frames is known, the dimensions of the aircraft are known, therefore it should be fairly easy to come up with a velocity of the flare. If this velocity is compared with known(?) launch velocity of standard air force issue missiles, we would then know if this was a pure artifact of relected light, a missile, or something just unknown.

Anyone have the knowledge to determine this?

There are several other questions brought up by this dvd. One of which is the fact that at about the same time (IIRC)as the second tower was hit there was an explosion that seemed to come from ground level the plume of which rose quite high. I've not seen this in any other coverage, but looking at the footage it seemed to come from the northeast of the towers. Anyone know what building occupied that place before? And why it would explode just as the second tower was struck?

This dvd also shows what it claims to be the only video of the first tower being struck. There was a french video team doing a documentary of the NYFD at the time. The clip shows an interview interupted by the sound of a low flying aircraft. It pans up to show the plane approaching and then hitting the tower. It also shows the same flare hitting the tower just before the plane collided with it. What are these flares? Inquiring minds want to know.

And why were most of the video clips on this dvd never seen after the first live broadcast. Secrecy is the hallmark of this administration. Is this more of it?.

I don't know for sure, but what i do know is that there is nothing that has been done that I would not put past them.

[Endangered Specie]

98. Perhaps you could post pictures of the frames in question?

[WarIsPeace]

91. Some incredible must see videos for free here:

I recommend Money Masters, 911 The Road to Tyranny and Police State 3. Additionally the last link is an incredibly informative class on the constitution taught by Micheal Badnarik. All of them together will drastically change the way you view the geopolitical structures of the world.

http://www.lastingnetworks.com/alex/
http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video.htm
http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=election_2004&collectionid=Michael_Badnarik

[stickdog]

93. My opinion of the video? Custom made for the debunking/ridicule crew.

Os what significance is this supposed groundbreaking (but obviously quite questionable and blurry) video evidence?

As in, what the fuck is it supposed to prove? What purpose did this "missile" serve?

Now if there were some evidence that this "missile" was used to weaken the internal supports or something like that, then you might have something. As it is, you've got a grainy video image showing God knows what.

[AZCat]

111. That's my question...

Why the missile? What purpose would it serve?

If the plane swapping stuff is true - a must for the pod/missile theory (IMHO) - then if the perpetrators were so worried about damage from the attacks, why didn't they just pack the plane with explosives? Lots more room inside, and not a problem with external evidence (video and photographs).

It just doesn't make sense to me (although that's never a reason to believe something can't be true). Would they go to this much trouble just to blow a detail like that?

[Endangered Specie]

94. My oh my oh my...

Ignorance is abound in this forum apparently...

How the hell would you know what a missle rocket motor looks like? And further more, what is the point? Jet fuel dont need help exploding in a 500mph crash into a steel behemoth.

[tngledwebb]

95. Not here long enough to pass judgment 'es'

Don't insult fellow DU'ers intelligence. How do you know about missiles and jet fuel?

[Endangered Specie]

97. I happen to know that you just dont attatch

A missile system + missle on a commercial aircraft, and even if you did, I think it would be quite noticable to, say, the ground crew and pilots. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that jet fuel burns and if you dont believe me, go buy yourself a single seat sestna, fill it with aviation fuel, get in, take off and go crash it into a remote desert at full throttle and see what happens.

"Not here long enough to pass judgment 'es'".. this coming from someone with 85 posts??? tee-hee. Ive read quite a few of these threads.

[impe]

99. dID Yoy Mean

Cessna?

[Endangered Specie]

100. yes.

[tngledwebb]

108. It's not the number of posts....

It's that you haven't been seen on this thread too often. And perhaps you have been reading the threads as long as I have, or longer, or perhaps not. I would strongly suggest you show some respect and courtesy for DU'ers whose views conflict with your own. We all know jet fuel burns, but the question is for how long, and how did that type of fire melt or weaken steel enough to bring down both WTC buildings?

[Endangered Specie]

101. Anyone who thinks "Absolute Proof" of a government conspiracy

comes in the form of a "flare" visible only in slow motion on a few frames of DVD, which could have many other explinations. Not to mention someone who is able to conclude "the unmistakable signature of a missle rocket motor" from same vieeo needs a lesson in critical thinking.

[MercutioATC]

109. Just a thought, but wouldn't an engine fly to pieces (causing a "flare")

if it ingested debris?

I really don't now...I'm no mechanic. I'm just asking.

[Endangered Specie]

117. Commercial engines are designed to withstand ingesting good sized birds.

Of course, birds are much less "solid" that metal debris, but, nevertheless, it could also be from the sun, glare and reflection.

[MercutioATC]

118. That's true, but sometimes even birds will destroy an engine.

And, as you point out, metal and concrete is a bit more "solid" than a bird.

As I said, I don't know. The "flashes" just come immediately before the "puffs of smoke" by the engines. One possibility might be that the "flash" is the catastrophic failure of the engine and the "smoke" is the debris being ejected out of the back of the engine. I don't have the technical training to comment on this in an informed manner, though.

[Endangered Specie]

119. Whatever it is...

It sure as hell aint a missle rack, missile or anything of the like.

[WoodrowFan]

103. more like

more like absolute proof certain folks are REALLLYYYYYY gulliable.


bye bye

[Satchel]

121. speaking of gullible

Only the gullible trust everything our government tells them. The motives are clear, the evidence is clear. I think it's shameful that in an effort to avoid "scaring off" people you guys are shunning the truth. Closing your minds to what really happened. How sad. Thank goodness some people don't stop questioning due to affiliations with certain parties.

[Blue Member]

120. The Real 911 Terrorists - The New Pearl Harbor