Can I ask a tinfoil hat question re: 9/11

[WilliamPitt]

What is that thing underneath the body of this plane? I am being told it is a missile.

The reason I ask is because this looks like a missile bring fired from the plane:



And this picture shows the cockpit coming through the building whole...as if something plowed the way for it:

[MisterP]

1. it might be the "box" joining plane body and wing

[alittlelark]

159. If you haven't swallowed the 'little blue pill' yet

This thread could help you choke it down. It tastes terrible, but afterwards you can see much more clearly.

Great thread!!!

edited for spelling lunacy

[Beetwasher]

2. What Could Possibly Be the Point of Firing a Missile?

I mean, what purpose would it serve? :shrug:

I'm not sure that's looks like a missile being fired or if just the initial contact of the plane...

Also, I'm not so sure that the fuselage coming through the other side and not the initial plume of debris being forced outward...

It's hard to tell from the pics...

The lump is interesting, but it's hard to tell what it is....

[nostamj]

7. to set off the bombs planted for the controlled demo?

<ducking>

[KansDem]

108. Perhaps the attackers wanted to make sure the building collapsed???

Missles? Hard to believe, but wasn’t it Timothy McVeigh who said something about a “high body count” and the need to get attention?

The B-25 that crashed into the Empire state building:

The Plane That Crashed Into the Empire State Building

Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building.

The plane crash killed 14 people (11 office workers and the three crewmen) plus injured 26 others. Though the integrity of the Empire State Building was not affected, the cost of the damage done by the crash was $1 million.
(more)

http://history1900s.about.com/library/misc/blempirecrash.htm

Other sites:

The last time a plane crashed into a New York City skyscraper was July 28, 1945. A U.S. bomber flying through thick fog at about 200 mph crashed into the Empire State Building, one of the most recognized structures in the world…

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/WTC_planecrash_empirestate010911.html

At 9:40 a.m., as workers went about their business in the Catholic War Relief Office on the 79th floor, the B-25 crashed into that office at 322 kilometers per hour. The impact reportedly tore off the bomber’s wings, leaving a five meter by six meter hole in the building. One engine was catapulted through the Empire State Building, emerging on the opposite side and crashing through the roof of a neighboring building. The second engine and part of the bomber’s landing gear fell through an elevator shaft. When the plane hit, its fuel tanks were reported to have exploded, engulfing the 79th floor in flames.

The 102-story building shook with the initial impact, according to witnesses, but within three months, the damage was repaired at a cost of about $1 million. Smith died in the crash, along with two other crew members. Eleven workers died in the Catholic War Relief Office, and at least two dozen people were injured...

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html

B-25


Granted the jets that crashed into the WTC were moving (3xs) faster and weighed more (the B-25 weighed 10 tons), but could one be certain they would bring down ALL seven of the WTC buildings???

[JackRiddler]

113. Perhaps only New Yorkers should make certain statements...

I am so sick of hearing this complete misconception!

" but could one be certain they would bring down ALL seven of the WTC buildings???"

"Seven" buildings did not come down on Sept. 11.

If you had ever visited the complex you might know:

WTC 1 & 2 were the Twin Towers.

WTC 7 is the other tall building (47 stories) in the group and came down in a very suspicious manner.

WTC 3-6 were four low-lying structures on the corners of the complex, each no more than 8 stories, directly below the Towers and surrounding them (WTC 7 was further set off). WTC 3-6 did not "come down." They were, in part, crushed by the Towers, which is not very surprising. The stories of additional explosions or demolitions in 3-6 are based on mistakes and misperceptions.

The open questions, and there are plenty, relate to WTC 1, 2 and 7. Period.

[Township75]

3. Looks like one of the jet engines to me.

.

[Wonk]

12. Both flight 11 and flight 175 were 767s, which have only two engines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_flight_175


Air Canada 767-200

[pmbryant]

4. I don't see anything like that at all

That first picture is so grainy it's hard to make out anything, and I certainly don't see anything resembling a missile.

As for the 2nd one, the cockpit was traveling, what, 600 mph(?). I'm sure it "plowed" its own way through the building.

:scared:

:-( :-(

--Peter

[MissB]

6. My thoughts exactly (nt)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

31. agreed - I don't see anything resembling a missle

I saw this happen with my own eyes - there was no missle, just a plane flying straight into the tower. All the conspiracy stories are just DISINFO designed to discredit people who ask questions. They try very hard to label anyone who asks questions about 911 as a "kook" and "tinfoiler".

[never cry wolf]

34. How tall is the cockpit???

I don't know what the WTC distance between floors was but in general the standard distance between floor structure would be between 12' and 15'. While the floors themselves were relatively thin poured concrete on metal deck the diaphragm action of the floor structures themselves with an imposed lateral load would have sliced the cockpit going at 600 MPH like a cheese slicer, for the most part.

Hold a piece of paper with the flat side horizontal, it flops down. Now, hold it with the flat side perpendicular and there is no deflection in the horizontal direction. Strength in structure comes from the depth of the material resisting the implied force.

A dynamic imposition of loads like this is WAY beyond my scope of structural engineering courses but unless the cockpit height, or the portion blowing through the opposite wall, was less than the floor to floor depth and hit parallel to the floor....

Y'know, as I am writing this I am imagining possibilities. I suppose that the nose would have had to miss the floor edge but the plane body itself was hitting parallel to it's strength. It could have also "wedged" and buckled the floors above and/or below in the horizontal direction, it's weakest direction.

waffle, waffle, waffle. Still, I doubt much of the cockpit could come thru the opposite side intact as the picture appears to show.

[Nlighten1]

5. Looks like an engine to me.

[BigBigBear]

Me too

...

[trumad]

8. i guess next you'll ask if the Patriots can when their 3rd SB?

[leftofthedial]

44. there is no engine at that location

in that model of plane.

[Minstrel Boy]

9. Different angle:

I started a thread a while ago on this very thingy here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=3649&mesg_id=3649

And after all that, I came to the conclusion I - well, I dunno. But I doubt there's a particularly sinister explanation. God knows there's already enough sinister for us to chew on.

It's definitely not an engine - there would be too many of those - and it casts a shadow, so it has mass. Is there a baggage door in that location? But if it's an open baggage door, where's the trailing baggage?

[JHB]

107. Bulge under wing, and engine shadow, most likely

An external object in that position would prevent the plane from raising its landing gear.

Note that for a plane with that heading and orientation at that time of day, the shadow of the right engine (and pylon) would fall pretty much where that "object" is. Also note that the 767 has a bit of a bulge at the wing base, which may be partly casting a shadow itself.

[Phil Jayhan]

127. That the wrong Plane JHB

This is the 767-323, the type used on the WTC that day;
notice the different landing gear configuration; Where as in your picture, the pod would block those doors, on this plane they would not.

This picture is also a clue as to the exact location of that pod; Notice how those who fitted this plane for the pod, had to work around even the wing based landing gear;

But the 767 you posted has fuselage mounted landing gear, whereas the plane they used, was wing mounted landing gear, thus giving clearance for this pod;

Problem solved;

Cheers~
pj :)

I drink to make Republicans more interesting! :)

[ThoughtCriminal]

131. However

On the picture on the left you can see that there is a bit of a bulge where the wing meets fuselage and it extends bihind the wing as well. In this photo, that structure is noticably brighter than the wing and fuelage.

I still recommend trying to look at an aircraft with similar paint scheme and lighting to see where bright spots and shadows fall.

[mn9driver]

191. Still calling a 757 picture a 767, I see. Sigh. nt

[Phil Jayhan]

206. 767 - 300 Picture & link

No, ms9,

This is a 767-300 series. So was my picture posted the first time;

&ZyXtCe=MDEwMjE4&id=509427&ViD=big

and another; http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=509090&WxsIERv=Qm9laW5nIDc2Ny0zM1AvRVI%3D&WdsYXMg=VXpiZWtpc3RhbiBBaXJ3YXlz&QtODMg=TG9uZG9uIC0gSGVhdGhyb3cgKExIUiAvIEVHTEwp&ERDLTkt=VUsgLSBFbmdsYW5k&ktODMp=RmVicnVhcnkgNywgMjAwNA%3D%3D&BP=0&WNEb25u=RGF2aWQgSmFtZXMgQ2xlbGZvcmQ%3D&xsIERvdWdsY=VlAtQlVB&MgTUQtODMgKE=T24gZmluYWxzIHRvIDI3TC4gQSBiZWF1dGlmdWwgY29sb3Vyc2NoZW1lIGluIGZhYnVsb3VzIGxpZ2h0LCBlbm91Z2ggc2FpZC4%3D&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=MjA0&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwNC0wMi0xMg%3D%3D&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=&static=yes&size=L


original link here; http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=509427&WxsIERv=Qm9laW5nIDc2Ny0zUzEvRVI%3D&WdsYXMg=QWlyIENhbmFkYQ%3D%3D&QtODMg=TG9uZG9uIC0gSGVhdGhyb3cgKExIUiAvIEVHTEwp&ERDLTkt=VUsgLSBFbmdsYW5k&ktODMp=RmVicnVhcnkgNywgMjAwNA%3D%3D&BP=1&WNEb25u=QWFyb24gTHVwdG9u&xsIERvdWdsY=Qy1HR0JJ&MgTUQtODMgKE=TG9va2luZyBnb29kISBDYW5vbiAzMDBEIElTTzEwMCAxMDAtNDAw&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=MzA%3D&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwNC0wMi0xNA%3D%3D&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=MjY2MDg%3D&static=yes&size=L

cheers~
pj :)

[mn9driver]

208. Funny, none of those 767 pictures look like the one

you originally posted. How come?

I'll tell you why.

Because it wasn't a 767. But what do I know. I only fly 'em.

Your link number 1 doesn't work.

Your link number two is a 767-------it's not the one you posted before.

Your link number three is a 767-----------it's not the one you posted before.

Y'all have fun now. I'll go back to just reading and shaking my head.

[Phil Jayhan]

209. So what, they are all 767's

They are all 767's with different land gear assemblies; I have proven this point.

cheers~
pj :)

[mn9driver]

211. (I TOLD myself I wouldn't do this!). In your world, Phil, I'm sure

you "proved" this point. Although I'm not sure what the point is, since it seems to shift from post to post.

Is the point that you can post pictures of 767's that don't show the gear doors (they are all the same, by the way) and claim that they have different landing gear configurations?

Or that you can post a picture of a 757 and a 767 side by side and claim that they are both variations of a 767---And that one has "fuselage mounted" gear while the other has "wing mounted gear" (when actually both models have wing mounted gear, which I have tried to explain in small easy-to-understand words before)??

I can only beat my head against a wall for so long. As I said before, have fun. :tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:

[DrWeird]

10. Yes, that's a common terrorist tactic.

Fire an enormously bulbous missle into a building a split second before you crash a jet liner into it.

I think it's from a verse in the Koran.

[cheezus]

13. +1, Funny

/reads too much slashdot

[PretzelWarrior]

25. you are right. hilarious.

I think we can expect now that the terrorists are going to infiltrate the US through hot air balloons and ultralights. From which they will drop incendiary bombs. On colorado and st. louis records offices.

[WillyT]

11. It Is Weird... The Shadows, And The Symmetry !!!

From top to bottom, you can see the sun lighting the top wing more than the bottom, the two engine 'pods' as well, but that 'third' anamoly (pod???) is lit the same way as the two engines, but seems to be located only on the 'top' side of the view of the fuselage.

IOW - You'd thinlk there would be a similarly 'lit' podlike form on BOTH sides of the fuselage.

Wouldn't ya??? :shrug:

Wassup Will??? You workin on someting new perhaps? :shrug:

:hi:

[xray s]

14. The shadow of the engine on the right wing cast onto the fuselage?

hard to tell

[WillyT]

24. But The Sun Appears To Be Casting It's Rays...

from up and to the left, to down towards the right.

And if it were a shadow from the 'upper' engine, wouldn't the shadow be further up (er, to the right) along the fuselage???

:shrug:

[GumboYaYa]

15. There is no question that the US military had planes in

NY airspace almost simultaneous with that impact. I have spoken to one of the pilots who was in the air that day.

I was introduced to this fellow by a Right Winger from my office who is friends with the guy. We started with casual conversation, but when I started slipping in questions about 9/11 he clammed up real fast. By the end all he said was we just barely missed getting there in time.

[leesa]

51. Yah. Kind wierd how they just "missed it" when they had a great deal

of time to get there. I read a comment somewhere that they didn't want a pilot to ID whoever was piloting the aircraft, which is a big part of why they put jet fighters up in the air after a highjacking. These guys weren't flying anywhere near top speed to get there.

To those who said "I saw it hit the building, it wasn't anything but a plane flying into a building" How do you know that, have you seen this before and was it slow enough to tell exactly what happened? Pretty much everyone agrees that there is no way that the burning jet fuel caused the steel girders to melt and collapse the building, simply not hot enough.

[ThoughtCriminal]

16. 757's have a bulge there

Where the wing meets fuselage. I think the asymetry is a result of lighting from the right side. I also think there is some king of housing for the flaps near that part of the wing that could cast a shadow.

On edit:
I think the landing gear is stored there

[RedSock]

18. i'm surprised to see that small fireball

i'm surprised to see that small fireball, because didn't the second plane go into the building clean -- like it vanished into the building -- and the first explosion was the plane coming out the other side?

paul thompson also started a loooong thread about this awhile back that had about 300 responses. i think it was LBN (because it linked to a foreign article asking similar questions) and not the 911 folder. maybe that thread is linked in minstrel boy's thread??

[WilliamPitt]

19. OK. That picture pretty much settles it for me

Thanks.

[bobbyboucher]

45. Still too big.

And no accounting for the bulge on the other side. IMO. Really lobsides.

[Phil Jayhan]

177. Not so quick William Pitt

Thats NOT the type of aircraft that hit the WTC on 911;

The type of aircraft that hit the Towers was a 767-323 class, which has wing mounted landing gear, NOT fuselage mounted gear like your plane shows;



Thats the type of aircraft used on the WTC on the left....
the on on the right is a 767, but a different class.

Both 767's, one with fuselage mounted landing gear, one with wing mounted landing gear; The one with the wing mounted gear is the one used on the 2nd Tower.

cheers~
pj :)

[Phil Jayhan]

190. The 2 767's models and differentiations;

the one on top is the plane used for the 2nd tower; Notice the different landing gear;

cheers~
pj :)

[mn9driver]

195. Oops. I meant to put my #191 post here.

That green and white baby is still a 757, Phil. YCLIU :)

[Phil Jayhan]

197. 767-200 takes off / 767-300 Smashes into the WTC - Ms9

ms9,

Im still not sure; But I'll take your word for it till I see otherwise.

But the problem is manifold; Check out this link, it shows a 767-200 taking off from Logan, and a 767-300 series crashing into the WTC with extra equipment.

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



cheers~
pj :)

[mn9driver]

199. Well, I must admit I can't see the characteristics

that convince you that this is a -300 series vs. the -222, in spite of the nifty dotted lines and everything.

If you see it, great. I don't.

What I see is a really fuzzy, grainy picture where the forward/aft measurements are impossible to determine directly with "dotted lines" because of the speed of the aircraft and the length of the video frame.

At these speeds with a standard 30fps video you end up with a smear-possibly as much as 25 feet, depending on the camera and the conditions. The image looks solid, but it's not-it's smeared along the travel axis.

Pesky old physics again, I'm afraid. All that being said, it looks more like a -200 to me.

Sorry, not buying the -200 turning into a -300 idea.

[JackRiddler]

23. Correct, I believe

It is the bulge where the wing meets the fuselage. At the angle, one of the two bulges appears more prominent and has a shadow. The apparent extensions forward in some of the pictures are video artefacts. Recall we are seeing video of fast-moving distant objects, usually shot hurriedly. That for me adequately explains other seeming anomalies, for example why the first crash-object (AA11 in the firemen's video) looks less massive than a 767. Even if "bumbleplanes" are used (the idea that the flights were replaced with drones somewhere along their routes), the planners would want to assure the replacement drones look like the actual flights. They would want perfect replicas of AA11 and UA175 crashing into the towers. There would be no reason for extra missiles, laser beams, small commercial planes or the other phenomena people claim to see. As for demolition scenarios, if the towers were demolished, it would have been prepared and accomplished separately from the planes. It would be foolhardy to want to set off the demolition using a plane itself. Rather, once the crashes had succeeded there would be a waiting period. Then a switch is thrown to set off (wireless) charges.

I don't know what I believe about that, except a) the collapses look very much like they result from explosions (with much more explosive used than in a conventional demolition), b) this is not an "unthinkable" or "impossible" scenario that should be dismissed out of hand, and should be investigated seriously alongside collapse scenarios, c) satisfactory explanations must account for the progression of the actual collapses as recorded, and not just presumed structural failures, and d) the bizarre WTC 7 collapse really puts the pressure on those who support pure-collapse theory.

[demodewd]

165. too far...

The bulge is located too far to the back of the underside of the plane to be where the wing meets the fuselage.



"For it is rather plain to see that the aircraft is carrying an anomalous device underneath its right wing, very close to the fuselage. It almost looks like a third engine and is connected by tubing to the tail section. It also has a nozzle sticking out at the front. The picture below may assist in clarifying what I am describing.

The dark stripe down the side is not part of the paintwork (check out the United Airlines livery) but the shadow of the device and its pipework. Remember, we are looking at the plane's underside here, not its flank. The one fully-visible tail fin is not the main vertical fin but the right-hand horizontal tailpiece. In the last second or two the plane banks so much to the left that the sun (to the right of the picture) catches the plane's underside and the mystery objects cast shadows. Start perhaps with the silvery 'lump' tucked, so to speak, in the plane's right 'armpit'. What is that? Note the angled pipework that leads back to the tail-section. Note too that if you look closely, what I call the nozzle is not part of the plane's own outline but is separate from it.

There is one famous piece of video footage of the second plane that was taken from almost exactly the same position as the photograph above. Taken by CNN, it captures in horrifying detail the final seconds before impact and shows the plane actually penetrating the building. Although well-known, I am not aware of the sequence being available on DVD. Also, until very recently, compressed digital versions suitable for downloading were spoiled by on-screen logos and other features that obscured some of the most important details and action. However, thanks to WebFairy (see below) this situation has now been rectified. The file ghostplane2.wmv (129 Kb, opens in Windows Media Player) provides a superb slow motion (and unobscured) rendition of this clip." http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11.htm

[Phil Jayhan]

176. The purpose of the Mystery Pod

Heres the only purpose I could find for having a pod which could be seen and possibly picked up by cameras;

First of all, lets remember, that their smoke and mirrors show of 911 is still a secret and they have in fact 'gotten' away with it; Thus far; So their plan worked in the short term, yet...

The pod performs no function I believe than to simple hide the missile, and most of its ignition and launch; And it did well; It obscurred the missile exhaust and plumes so they weren't immedietly noticed, especially for those who only saw what their eyes saw;

The pod didn't hold the missile, just hid it; You don't need one of those things to attach a missile harness to an airplane along with a missile; Therefore it must be cosmetic, to hide the missile launch, as well as most of the flight of the missile;

It looks like it was timed perfectly; The missiles take off time and lauch sequence having been known, the airplane was programmed to travel at the same speed as the missile in the final 400 feet of it's journey, so that they would stay side by side;

All in all it performed its task well, but not perfectly; Had that pod not been there we would already have hanged Bush from a tree.

It wasn't this clean in the first video where 2 missiles shoot out into the WTC;

http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/firsthit.detail.mov

This is a lot less smooth as one can STILL see the 2 missile firing from the plane;

and another with video frame controller; Flash;

http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/taner/

cheers~
pj :P

[Phil Jayhan]

186. Oh Contraire

You have no idea how these things are laid out and planned; For every conspiracy hatched, there are a hundred or more things to go wrong;

And they are planned for; And exigencies made; Thus the missile, thus the pod, thus the controlled demolitions; They simply never thought a video from 1100 feet away, might possibly catch their dirtywerk;

Yet it did; And this is also consistent with large conspiracys; Theres always a lot that can and will go wrong; For some reason people think since this is being called a conspiracy that everything worked better than anywhere else;

Yet their plans were both accomplished and exposed; The time bomb was the calendar; How many days can they go without this maing it to the surface..?

cheers~
pj :P

[OudeVanDagen]

187. " thus ...

... the controlled demolitions"

Is your offer of proof for "controlled demolitions" just limited your submissions in post #46? If you have "additional" info please post or PM ...

[Taeger]

17. Not a missle

If it look like anything, it looks like an external fuel tank.

But I think that it is just the shape of the aircraft where the fuselage joins the wing. It's asymmetric because the corresponding structure on the other wing is hidden from view due to the viewing angle.

We should all be skeptical about the events on Sep 11. Things don't quite add up all the way.

But I'm pretty skeptical about claims of controlled demolition. Smashing planes into the WTC would be quite enough to generate public outrage even if the didn't collapse.

[Toby109]

20. Ahh, to the real question, Mr Pitt

"I am being told it is a missile".

Being told by whom?

[TNOE]

21. You might find this site of interest

http://thewebfairy.com/911/index.htm

[mopaul]

22. something funny about THIS photo too...

it was about a decade before anyone caught onto it, but it's a total cheap fake. the shadows don't line up, his head is pasted on someone else's body. this was 30 years before photoshop. but it proves that many things can be easily faked. only half the people need to be fooled, the other half will be ridiculed. ridicule is a powerful tool for argument. nazis did it all the time. ridicule your opponent, ridicule his opinions and statements. ridicule anyone who suggests 9-11 may have been an inside job. it's fun and effective too.

[maggrwaggr]

29. I see nothing wrong with those shadows

and I make my living doing lighting for commercials and motion pictures.

You got a higher res version of that? And would you like to point out exactly how it's faked?

[mopaul]

33. this story is about 30 years old

but the popular story, mythology or otherwise, is that the shadows on oswalds face don't match those he's casting on the ground. this photo was widely regarded as 'touched-up', but only a decade or so after the magazine was published. i don't know the actual facts, and neither does anyone else, despite 40 years of investigation and discussion.

[thebigidea]

35. ya know, I read these posts without even noticing the name...

mopaul! Great to see you back.

[politick]

69. have you seen the OTHER photos

where Oswald is posing with the same folded up piece of paper in different positions? Also, I think his wife has said she took the photos herself.

That said, I'm still a conspiracy believer, from JFK to 911...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

40. Here's a site you may want to visit...

<http://www.pimall.com/nais/news/backyard.html>.

Maybe you could tell us how the photos are not faked.

[maggrwaggr]

73. very interesting. Nonetheless, in the single Life photo

the shadows are consistent.

Seeing the two photos together in the link you provided, however, well, that all looks pretty fishy. Especially the relationship between the person and the staircase. That's all wrong.

gotta love it, the day afterward, they find a picture where he's holding a communist paper and a rifle? Yeah, like anybody would do that. That's about as bad as Atta's passport found in the rubble.

Don't get me wrong, 9/11 stinks to high heaven and so does the Kennedy assassination, but at the same time I see a lot of wild claims that don't (ahem) show much knowledge of, say, photography.

It's like people who swear to God the moon landing was faked.

[Phil_Jayhan]

74. fast forward 40 years please

Guys,

This is your dream come true; My 1st coming that is;

Lets forget about Oswald, which was 40 years ago; And concentrate on todays problems;

Seriously, I have given the democraticunderground everything they need to unseat Bush, and hang him from a tree;

lets look at that stuff, shall we and keep this thread relevant, to like the last 3 years or so;

cheers~
pj :)

[Terwilliger]

55. hey mopaul!

:hi:

[MacCovern]

26. Underside bulge is the wheel well area.....

being pulled down on that side of the plane due to the violent bank
that was made just before it slammed into the WTC.

I'm the sure the other picture has a logical explanation also, but I need to go get some dinner right now.

[tom_paine]

27. Perhaps a Global Hawk-style sat antenna for remote guidance?

http://www.afa.org/magazine/nov2003/1103eyes.pdf

upper right hand corner of page 2 under the caption "No Joystick here":

It has a bulbous nose that houses a large, steerable satellite antenna.

I'm not saying that is what I believe because no one will ever klnow the truth about 9-11 and the only thing certain is that the Imperial Pravda regarding what happened that day is most decidedly NOT the truth, whatever that is.

But an aymmetric bulbous protrusion?

It does sound like a modern antenna housing.

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[Minstrel Boy]

48. If it's of suspicious origion, this is my candidate.

I don't see what would have been gained by a missile. Surely airliners travelling at excessive speed are fully capable of punching their own holes. I see no rationale for it.

Remote guidance, now that's something else. What I don't know is how much hardware an airliner would need. My suspicion is not much.

Here's a pic of a FedEx cargo plane landing at a New Mexico air force base in August of 2001, without aid of a pilot, which was flown using Raytheon remote control technology:


Story here:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techreviews/2001/10/2/remote-pilot.htm

BTW, it's interesting that four Raytheon personnel were aboard the four flights that morning, including Stan Hall on Flight 77 which hit the Pentagon. Hall was regarded as a leading expert in electronic warfare systems.

[Phil_Jayhan]

50. We don't have all the answers

I know it sounds crazy cause it is.

but this plane has both a missile pod, and a missile; The question shouldn't be, at least yet, what good would this do, or to what purpose...?



The question we should be asking is is it a pod, is it a missile, is that a missile punching through the Tower...?



And it is, just as 2 missiles can be seen hitting the building ahead of the plane in the firemans video's; Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Just because they did something that is unorthodox, doesn't mean they didn't do it;

The Missile was to soften the building, to guarantee that the plane went in; It wasn't the same airplane that took off from Logan International airport that morning;

The Missile was also used for; The total destruction of the aircraft, To ignite all the Jet Fuel to make a bigger fire, and the after effects were seen as eye candy; They did after all know they were going to take the towers down; And this was part of their made for TV show.

cheers~
pj :)

Look at my other posts; I have posted tons of pics and video.

[Minstrel Boy]

52. I'm not convinced yet it's a missile, but I am convinced

I appreciate your posts. Glad you turned up here - welcome to DU! :toast:

[Phil_Jayhan]

53. Full 911 Thread

Minstrel,

Thanks. A friend told me to stop by. I have been working on this now for 40 months; Have had the pictures and videos of the missile for about 1/2 that time;

This is proof; It's so beyond evidence. I have never in my wildest dreams thought that someone could pull something of thi magnitude off and leave behind a smoking gun that they cannot hide;

All this stuff even shows up on TV VCR recordings of that morning;

I have put this thread together with the hopes of being able to convince just about anyone about 911 in 45 minutes or less;

Original thread;

http://www.kirupaforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33834

I have tons more than posted there; oodles;

What do you think thus far?

cheers~
phil :)

[RBHam]

54. Important stuff - disseminate far and wide.

I have a web site http://www.rbham.com, with the 9-11 links section constantly being constructed.

Anyway, go to the site, click on the Contact Webmaster, and send your link to that address. I want her to add it in. If you have a graphic it'll rotate with other sites at the bottom of the page. Zsu Zsu will fill you in on the details. Just tell her RB sent you.

Please contact Paul Thompson and his group at

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/information/join.html

and submit your research. The truth continues to pile up!

on edits: i don't need to explain no stinkin' edits!

[MasterKey]

226. Thanks RB, I submitted to Cooperative Research

The RB site was down for the monet but I submitted it to the cooperative research site;

I have put together a site and am cocentrating on the WTC plane strikes alone for the most part but will have more; Paul Thompson told me to sumbit this to you and told me to tell you RB sent you;

My links are;

http://www.letsroll911.org

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/index.php

& for the forums.

I also have set up a private room for 911 reseachers and investigators, and once you tell me the name you logged in under will grant permissions to the private, non public room.

cheers~
pj :)

Does it have to go to the rbham site? As it is not accesiable at the moment;

cheers~
pj :)

[Minstrel Boy]

59. Thanks for the link, you pulled together a lot of

interesting stuff.

What do I think thus far? Well, I certainly need no persuading of the Administration's culpability. They not only wished for it, they not only knew, but they helped make it happen. But as for the bulge harboring a missile - well, I see something, but I don't see anything clearly enough to say yes, that's a missile. It remains for me a question mark.

[MissB]

56. It wasn't the same plane that took off from Logan?

What are you saying here?

[Phil_Jayhan]

60. Hunh?

:)

I said it; I thought I made myself plain; This is not, and could not have been the same 767-323 aka as Flight 175, that took off from Logan International Airport;

Why?

The missile pod;
Would have been noticed by ground crews;

Windshield. check.
Tire Pressure. Check.
Wing De-Icer. Check.
Missile pod with missile; Hunh?

So the plane was switched; It happened at the time the transponder was shut off.

cheers~
pj :P

[MissB]

61. Followup question

I just wanted to make sure I was reading that right.

So what happened to all the people? Weren't there phone calls being made off the airplane as it approached the tower?

I'm really trying to wrap my head around what you're saying, but some things don't quite make sense. Like... what happened to all the people if this wasn't Flight 175?

[Phil_Jayhan]

63. Bumble Planes

The phone calls were faked; In on of my larger posts; Look for voice morphing; In the larry silverstein post;

Im sure you already heard this but its a great analogy; Imagine beeing near a bee hive, and trying to keep your eye on one bee in the swarm; Impossible. It easily gets lost;

now try it with 4 bees; Ya, your mind rebels at even the thought.
4 planes, 4 different flight numbers, 2 different makes, from 2 airlines, taking off from 3 airports, and supposed to hit 4 targets all in the space of an hour;

To demonstrate in a powerfull way how confusing they made it, answer me these questions and see how you do;

What type of aircraft hit the Twin Towers?
What were their flight numbers?
And which airport did they take off from?

What type of aircraft hit the pentagon, and crashed in Pennsylvania?
What were their flight numbers?
What airport did they take off from?






Answers;

Twin Towers; Flight 11, the North Tower both 767's
Flight 175 the south Tower both took off from Bostons Logan International;

Pentagon; flight 77. 757 Dulles/Pentagon
Peensylvania. flight 93. 757. Laguardia

See how much info there is; It's been 3 years and 40 months of study and I just now memorized those facts;

cheers~
pj :P

[stopthegop]

119. ummm...it hasn't been three years...not yet

[hedgetrimmer]

62. where is flight 175? where are the people?

i know the answers are all well hidden or attempted to be so...

what is going on with the families of the people on the planes ... there was media on the wtc families but not about the people on the planes or their families... what is going on with the planes?

"victim's families" of the wtc are in court battles, fighting for answers in washington but what about the "victim's families" for the passengers?

further... you have an amazing compilation of data... there have been others who have trapsed accross the threshold of du with amazing 911 data... some of whom i admire a great deal... i wonder if you've been here before under another name?

[Phil_Jayhan]

64. Im new

No a friend told me to check this thread out; Never once been here;

The people from all 4 airplanes ended up on flight 93, which was shot down in Pennsylvania; (A 6 ton titanium engine was found 6 miles from the crash site, they claim it bounced)

cheers~
pj :P

[maggrwaggr]

28. the bright spot is probably drop-out on the videotape

a tiny place on the videotape where the metal recording material has fallen away.

The bulge on the bottom of the plane is probably the landing gear. Maybe it was partially open when the plane hit.

Oh, and by the way, the moon landing was faked, too.

:eyes:

C'mon, Will, I expected more from you.

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[frank frankly]

32. grovelbot!

yes!

[masshole]

36. Wouldn't someone notice

if the plane did have some sort of external apparatus attached, whether it was a missle, an external fuel tank, or whatever?

It just seems to me that it would sure get some attention by the ground crews, tower personnel, and anyone else in the airport who happened to glance out a window and see the plane on the tarmac before take-off.

[MacCovern]

38. You are correct Masshole

Airplanes don't leave the tarmac and take off in just one second.
Someone, actually dozens of people, would have certainly noticed a gigantic bulge like that and stopped the plane from taking off. It is proposterous that something like a "global hawk" drone was attached to the underside of that 767.

Good thing for DU that I have explained the bulge in post #26.

[bobbyboucher]

42. Post #26 isn't even close.

I could see doctoring the picture or whatever, but pulling the doors open with a sharp turn? Not. It doesn't even look like that. The doors aren't that big. That bulge is huge. Give something more technical regarding the plane to back up your post. You just saying it doesn't make it even close the correct.

I have no idea, but it does look real lobsided. Way more than the symmetrical protuberances where the wings connect. I would believe a doctored photo perhaps. All of them could be suspect. But I'm not saying that for certain either.

I just don't know.

[demodewd]

167. theory

The original flight 175 was possibly landed and replaced by another.

[Phil Jayhan]

188. This plane, Flight 175 was Switched; The Plane that Plows

into the 2nd WTC, is NOT the same plane that took off from Logan International;



this picture says so; No plane with non standard, non boeing equipment as large as an engine is going to go unnoticed;

http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html

Examine the above link for all the filled in holes of 911, its actually pretty good;

sincerely,
phil :)

[Indiana Democrat]

37. Have you checked-out some other pics from that host?

http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/

Some...Questionable stuff.


And ironically enough, if you want to see a good real time video of the plane in question, be sure to check this one out: http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/GHOSTPLANE_FULL.CINEPAK.AVI (I think it will answer your questions for sure...No conspiracy here).

[TomNickell]

39. It's the EarthQuake machine.....

Will Pitt, My Dear Man,
HAVE YOU LOST YOUR WITS?

The plane carries a big heavy missile (which nobody noticed on the ground) in order to make a big hole in the skyscraper milliseconds before the enormous jetliner plows into it?

And the evidence for this is some grainy frame from a video?

I am working on my own EarthQuake machine--I can get you a good deal on the Mark IA model. Send cash to my PO box.

And that ocean front property in W. KY is still for sale.

[Phil_Jayhan]

41. A Missile Pod is the Answer William

William,

That is an extra peice of equipment on the belly of the aircraft;
Boeing was asked to identify it and couldn't. It's not standard boeing issue equipment.





It is not landing gear or the doors; First off the picture posted above of that 767 was the wrong model; Our 767 was a 767-323 which has wing mounted landing gear; Also landing gear comes down together, and doesn't just get stuck; This visible appendage is viewable in every single video sequence, regardless of the news affiliatte recording; It is visible from beginning to end; CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX, MSNBC, SCITV, etc...

It is almost as large as an engine, and a little longer; Its not landing gear or gear doors;

It is a missile pod. It's intention was to hide the missile which is inside of it, which shoots out about 4/10ths of a second before it hits the Tower;

Now the ghostplane video above does indeed show a few odd things for the ones with sharp eyes; The ghostplane video above shows not only this missile pod, but the missile itself shooting out of the plane in the last fractions of a second before it hit; And both the airplane and the missile enter the building at the same time, albeit about 10-15 feet apart; The missile hits the Tower about 10+ feet to the right of the cockpit; It's red hot bright orange plume flush with the building is clearly visible in what your about to see, all brought to you by your gracious 911 host, Phil. :)

Check out this flash video controller;

Flash Video of the CNN/ABC Video with Frame controller

CNN Video Slowed Down


Now here below, courtesy of the LA Times, (still running off their server)we have a perfect picture of the missile ignition happening in frame 3;



Here below, you will see the picture I spoke of, showing the missile punching through the building;



http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/ghostplane.closeup.wmv">Best Video Proof showing Missile

Want a picture of the missile? Now mind you, I can't tell what the serial numbers are, but its still something I thought would never be possible on such a large scale false flag operation; A smoking gun.



See it on the video;
http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/ghostplane.closeup.wmv">Best Video Proof showing Missile


A friend told me about this place and told me you guys needed some help with getting rid of Bush. Im here to help you. It only gets better than this.

Cheers~
pj :P

[ThoughtCriminal]

43. Try this

Quite correct - the picture I posted above was in fact a 757, not a 767-323.

I suggest rotating the model and trying to match the lighting to match the video. See where the starboard engine shadow falls, etc.

Also:


Anybody know where a higher res image from this angle is?

[whipzz]

166. higher res image

Watcher Phil,
It's an uphill struggle to get people to see things they don't want to see. The "official story" has no difficulty persuading otherwise rational people, but come up with some questions and they suddenly can't see or hear.

Go to

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

These photos were analysed by the University of Mataró here in Barcelona. They used super computers (whatever that means) normally used to detect invisible objects such as tumours. The report is conclusive. (see the site)

Also, the Boeing 767-323 (flight 175) is not. According to the technical specifications (check it out on the site above) this flight was a 200 series. This, according to our source, is part of the disinformation that is causing us problems. See the Aviation Safety Network, Accident Description database:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/2001/010911-1.htm

and the FAA registry
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=612UA

I guess the confusion comes in because a 767-222 left Logan airport, and a 767-300 hit the Towers, as the 300 series carries a much greater payload.

Yes they were switched, but not just that. You don't just stick all those "pods" on with chewing gum. Military planes have "hard points" for attaching all the extra missiles, fuel tanks etc. So this plane was adapted. Which would take a lot longer than one morning.

Who would have the time to do all that I wonder?

[Phil_Jayhan]

46. Video Library

911 Video Archive

http://www.loftninjas.org/projects/20010911/">Large Unedited Master Copies of 911 from CNN,ABC,MSNBC


**A note on these video's. There's enough evidence on these video's when viewed as a Mosaic to constitute proof of missiles on both planes that hit the WTC. There is enough in one to constitute proof all by itself, without the others. But understand, the missiles shoot out in what I estimate at a fraction of a second before they strike the North and the South Tower. So it is extremely hard to see and brief. Nonetheless it's there, in each video; As well as the pod which hides and carries the missile.

I am sorry that these are in such a variety of video formats, but theres nothing I can do about that; You might have to download the appropriatte players; I, personally had them all and could just view;

Pretend for a moment that you are the expert; What do your eyes tell you?

Use the Start/Stop/Pause function on the video controller to play and capture these images...

Now this video below, also known as the firemans video is of poor quality. It catches the first plane coming in at an unbelievable approach angle for a 767. It almost looks like the plane is coming in from straight above like a Kamikazee pilot, a rather curious maneuver for a 767. Right before the plane hits the building, it shoots out what is 1 or 2 missiles into the building. Theres nothing else that can explain those 'projectiles' shooting out ahead of, and beating, the plane to the 1st World Trade Center. Watch it over and over; You will notice that what shoots out ahead of the plane, first strikes the buildings roof and makes a poof, a smoking blemish on the rooftop of the tower, right before it crashes into the side of the building, at again, an extremely curious angle for a 767.


http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/firsthit.detail.mov">First Video - Firemans Video

http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/taner/">1st Plane Crash with Variable Speed Controller - By Tanner

Now in this video below of the 2nd plane, you can easily see a bright 'orange' projectile shooting out of the 767 in what must be fractions of a second before it strikes the tower. Notice in this video that before the plane even touches the building, that projectile that shot out of the 767 has raced ahead and beat the plane to the tower. And about 10-15 feet to the right of the cockpit, you can see the bright orange spot penetrating the 2nd WTC. At the time it is penetrating the tower, notice that the only part of the plane touching the building is the cockpit. The planes and engines have not struck at this point.


2nd Video - 2nd Tower - CNN


Now in this video below, it has been slowed down so it's even easier to see; Use the stop start function on the video's to capture and study these images.


2nd Video - 2nd Tower - Slowed Down ABC/CNN

Now this video below, courtesy of CNN News shows the same thing once again. Notice also that the pod on the undercarriage of the aircraft is visible in every frame. It is not a lighting/shadow problem. It is an extra piece of equipment.

CNN Slowed down for Easier viewing

The file below is 40 megabytes; It is the unedited source file for the video's above.


40 Megabyte Source file for the Video's above


This is an excellent resource of the above video slowed down with a flash controller. Play around with the controls.


Flash Video with frame Controller

And to see just how easy this is to miss in Real time. It happens fast.


Real Time 66 Meg Video of above - Not Slowed down at all, with sound


The animated Gif below is from the LA Times Video Archive. Notice that these anomalies are in all the pictures and video's regardless of the source. In the animated gif, courtesy of the LA Times, there is nothing discernable in the first frame. In the 2nd frame of the gif, watch just in front of the wing, and you will notice it is just starting to light up and illuminate from the ignition of the missile; Barely visible.



In the 3rd frame, you can see the whole side of the plane 'light up' behind the wing, as well as in front of it, as the missile starts to launch from the 767 from the pod on it's undercarriage. Remember, this is the final last fraction of a second before the plane's impact.

The plane is traveling at around 500 mph in the unslowed video thus making it almost impossible to spot without slowing it down.

Original link here;




The Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center





Now here below is a single frame from one of the demolition video's of the World Trade Center. The arrow is pointing to only one of what were many shaped charges exploding outwards from the building; Many more of these can be seen in the video's;



This is consistent with a controlled demolition. Notice how all the charges/explosions going off are exactly the same size and shape as you watch the video's. They also go off in tandem; Synchronized. They explode outwards on the corners of the World Trade Center about every 8-10 stories below the falling structure; This is also part of what allowed the building to fall as if there were no resistance. Some controlled demolitions work this way with taller, larger structures; They start at the top, and when downward momentum is reached, they blow the foundation, so it all pancakes nicely to the ground without tipping over.

Link for Underground Explosions

Link for Underground Explosions

Huge Complete Video Archive of 911 - Excellent Resource




Larry Silverstein Admits he & the NYFD agreed to Demolish WTC 7 using controlled demolitons on 911

Now everyone heard explosions right before and during each buildings collapse and swear they heard bombs going off, many, many, Fireman as well. This was the testimony of those who were present with the collapse of tower 1, 2, 7 and any other buildings damaged or collapsed on 911. To this day these people still believe and testify there were explosions. For evidence, I offer the following proof, and it's not often I can use the word proof, but this goes beyond evidence; But it is an audio clip, amazingly made on a PBS documentry by Larry Silverstein, the owner of the World Trade Center.

He is talking about how a decision was made between him and the New York Fire Department to 'Pull' the building. And there is no doubt the meanings of his words, captured in context. He is admitting on public TV that a decision was made between him and the NYFD to use a controlled demolition to fell WTC 7 on 911. I have the video of it as well, but it's a hefty 110 megs or so. And all of this AFTER the official FEMA report, costing millions said otherwise, and they had all the experts.

The official story to this day is Tower 7 fell because of fire;

by Jeremy Baker
Copyright August, 2003 by Darkprints

[OudeVanDagen]

170. Controlled Demolition

1). " ... consistent with a controlled demolition ... all the charges/explosions going off are exactly the same size and shape ... explode outwards ... about every 8-10 stories below the falling structure ... "

Accept controlled demo if you want ... your choice - your right ... but your narrative and videos display normal 'cause-effect' collapse sequences.

The leading edge of collapse sequence is actually 8-10 floors below your "charges/explosions" ... much lower where columns and collateral framing can not dampen weight, motion, oscillation and destructive tension-compression loads. That is 'cause.'

The 'effects' follow behind that leading edge ... first visible 'effects' are the venting of collapse debris 8 - 10 behind leading edge ... next visible 'effect' is the falling structure 8 -10 behind venting ... a normal 'cause-effect' sequence.

2). No patterns present in WTC debris grids to support " ... Synchronized ... " demo. Sizing of steel too varied.

3). No fingerprint of explosives found on steel .... no tearout, no rapid delamination. No chemical residues found.

Your choice ... but absolutely no evidence of controlled demolition found.

[moderate_hero]

106. Where's the missile?

I'm watching the video, but I don't actually see a missile being fired. Did it stay in the "pod"? You're right about this being tinfoil hat stuff and should give the freepers a field day.

[Phil_Jayhan]

47. More pod pics

Definately real; Not doctored; It's part of the verifiable and historical video record of 911!


Heres some more pics guys!
cheers~
Phil :)

[RBHam]

49. You rule dude!

I've bookmarked this thread.

Wow.

So when does CNN run the expose?

[Phil_Jayhan]

57. Larry Silverstein, Owner of WTC, Says he decided to Pull the building, #7

In a stunning and belated development concerning the attacks of
9/11, Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC
complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.


This admission appeared in a PBS documentary originally aired in Sept. of 2002 entitled "Rebuilding America, A Year at Ground Zero". Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive and costly investigation into the curious collapse of WTC7. The study specifically concluded that the building had collapsed as a result of the inferno within, sparked, apparently, by debris falling from the crumbling North Tower. Cont'd next page

cont'd from previous page

In the documentary Silverstein makes the following statement;

"...I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire...and I said, 'Well, you know, we've had such
terrible loss of life...maybe the smartest thing to do is, is 'pull' it...and they made that decision to 'pull'...uh, and we watched the building collapse."

http://vestigialconscience.com/Pullit.html">Pull it...

Here is the first MP3 of Silverstein.

DCScripts
http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/PullIt.mp3>Pull It.mp3 by Larry Silverstein

This second sound clip is here only for reference. This 2nd clip is made long after 911 when workers were talking about which buildings to 'pull' It is to show you what exactly Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC meant when he used the word 'Pull'

http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/PullIt2.mp3">Pull It.mp3 Made after 911 - Workers talking about 'Pulling' the buildings.[/b>]

http://vestigialconscience.com/PullItAVI.zip">Right Click/Save as to Download the Videos these sound clips are taken from - Warning over 200 meg file[/b>]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WTC7_Collapse.mpg">The Controlled Demolition Video of World Trade Center 7[/b>]

http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/squibview.7_a.mpeg">World Trade Center 7 - Explosions of a Controlled Demolition going off - 2nd Video Proof[/b>]


This shows FEMA was so well prepared for 911, they showed up a day early, on September 10th!

http://www.geocities.com/vonchloride/fema.ram">Audio Link showing FEMA arrived in NCY on September 10th[/b>]


The best link I have found so far, being much better and far more detailed and referenced than my own. Its from

http://physics911.org/">Operation Pearl


http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2">Operation Pearl,[/b>



http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/demolition.squibs.wtc1.wmv">4th Video/Controlled Demolition (movie)[/b>]

http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/slow.demolition.1.wmv">Slow Demolition(movie)[/b>]

http://thewebfairy.com/911/shockwave.wmv">Czech Helicopter Crew experience severe shockwave from the explosion of the WTC 2 (movie)[/b>]

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/wheres_the_inferno">Wheres the Inferno's & the 800oF Temperatures? (link)[/b>]

All about the Planes, Transponders, Passengers,





http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/flight77.html">Timeline for 911 - in Detail - Center of Cooperative Research[/b>]

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html">Flight 11 Passenger List - No Hijackers - [U>Courtesy of CNN News]


http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html">Flight 77 Passenger List - No Hijackers - [U>Courtesy of CNN News]



http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html">Flight 175 Passenger List - No Hijackers - [U>Courtesy of CNN News]

[Phil_Jayhan]

58. Larry Silverstein cont'd

Where the switch of flight 175 occurred and when;

(8:46 a.m.) Flight 175 stops transmitting its transponder signal, according to some reports. It is 50 miles north of New York City, headed toward Baltimore. <8:46:18, Guardian, 10/17/01, "about the same time" as Flight 11 crash, Newsday, 9/10/02> Another lie? Note that at 8:42, a flight controller said, "There's no transponder no nothing." However, the transponder is turned off for only about 30 seconds, then changed to a signal that is not designated for any plane on that day. This "allow controllers to track the intruder easily, though they couldn't identify it."

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/flight175.html">Timeline - Excellent Resource

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html">=Flight 93 Passenger List - No Hijackers - Courtesy of CNN News

http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/passengers.html">Full unedited list of Passengers on all 4 Flights - No Hijackers

The link to the company that cleaned up WTC, as well as the Oklahoma City Bombing, a seismic event log for the day, and an excellent comprehensive timeline for 911.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/">Controlled Demolition

http://www.rense.com/general28/ioff.htm">Seismic Data Event History for 911

">=Seismic Data Event History for 911 - 2]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/">=Excellent 5 Star Comprehensive Timeline - 911]



"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.

At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.

But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.

http://public-action.com/911/voice-simulation/index.html">=Voice Morphing Technology Link]

This is how the few phone calls made that day to loved ones from 'alleged' passengers was done. To establish that Arab Terrorist's were responsible in the immediate aftermath.


Go to the link below and see; Mission Termination Authority. This FAA government website shows that President Bush and Vice President Cheney lied when they said the Pilots couldn't shoot down the Aircraft without White House approval. These are not new guidelines but were in place long before 911. Pilots did have authority to shoot down aircraft that morning following these procedures, listed below, without White House approval. Scroll down to section 5 (7-5-1)

http://www2.faa.gov/Atpubs/MIL/Ch7/chp7.htm">FAA Government Website - Guidelines for Hijacked Aircraft


It is unlikely, as so many have openly alleged, that there was an order from President Bush to 'Stand Down' the Air Force. This would be a red flag and not be hideable. The 'Bottleneck' of the Air Force was rather simply done through one man, (Army Brigadier General Montague Winfield) and together with the two links below one can see how the Air Force was 'incapacitated' by willfull misdirects and false intelligence from the inside.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/911failure.html">A Must read link with more information about General Winfield - (scroll down to #7

http://www.public-action.com/911/noradresponse/">NORAD Official Response Times - Copy from .MIL page

This link is excellent; A must read! The name speaks for itself.

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html">Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics on 911 - Expose


The Debris Field of World Trade Center 1-7 Complex

Five days after 911, the thermal debris field was still over 1377 F. (Later during cleanup 3 large hardened pools of molten steel were also found in the sub-basements of 1-2-7.) Remember the above picture of the fuel pattern spray, where most of it went out the side of the building in a giant magnificant fireball, consuming a huge portion of the total fuel. Also note that by the time each of the Towers collapsed, most of the fires had gone out in both Towers. People were seen waving from some of the openings, and Fireman also were able to reach the burning floors and, according to their radio transmissions recently released were in the process of putting out the spotted fires that remained.

[JHB]

118. He was talking about fire fighting efforts...

"Pulling" the fire fighting efforts (or effort, for the singular "it") and letting it burn.

[Microwave Burrito]

149. What did LS mean when he said 'pull it'?

"Pulling" the fire fighting efforts (or effort, for the singular "it") and letting it burn."

Well, thats one way of interpreting what you think he might have meant, but why not listen to another audio file which puts it into the proper context before you draw your conclusion..

http://members.aol.com/microwaveburrito/pullit2.swf

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

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

[JHB]

161. Yes it's a way of interpreting it...

...just as your "proper context" soundfile shows a different way of interpreting it.

However, given that Silverstein was relating his exchange with the NYC Fire Department on 9/11 and not with demolition crewmembers on a later date, I'm inclined to think that I am the one taking the statement in its "proper context", not you.

[Phil_Jayhan]

65. Seismic Evidences

So when the founder, (Jack Loizeuax), of Controlled Demolition, Inc, says to just "Think Jet Fuel" it defies all logic. The Jet Fuel was mostly gone, and more than likely it was mostly debris still burning, according to the Firemans transmissions. People were seen waving from the openings! (More than likely thinking they would be saved). Now add that together with the implosion of the buildings, and the gargantuan dust cloud and debris cloud that would have coated all remaining Jet Fuel into unburnable dustballs on the way down. And by now, there is no Jet Fuel left at all. Impossible.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html">Molten Pools of Steel in WTC 1,2 & 7's sub-basements

The Jet Fuel could not have been responsible for the molten steel pools, even if there was 10x as much fuel involved. The sheer amount of fine dust and debris, hundreds of thousands of tons of it imploding would have rendered any fuel from the planes useless as a fuel any longer by the time it finally mixxed with the debris on its way down 110 floors, some 1000 feet.

The logical explanation is that it is because something that burned far, far hotter than Jet Fuel was responsible for those pools of molten steel in WTC, 1,2 & 7. And is also the same culprit responsible for felling the Towers, each in her own turn. The High Energy Explosives that were pre-planted in the sub-basement along with the controlled demolition charges pre-planted throughout the building, are the key. They are the only thing that can answer all of these 'Physic's Desrepencies' and 'Anomalies' of the day.




AVIRIS records the near-infrared signature of heat remotely. The accompanying maps are false color images that show the core affected area around the World Trade Center. Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800oF. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16 (Thermal Figure 1).

Original Link:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html">Thermal Heat Spots

The normal mind about now would be asking;"Well, what about the noise of the explosions, someone surely would have heard it.' And I have never heard about any explosions....." There were dozens if not hundreds of eye and ear-witnesses to bombs going off all over the place. Is all you do is have to search.

Reasonably, because of their larger than normal presence at WTC, a large number of Fireman to this day say the know they heard explosions going off all over the place, right before and as each building started to falter. These are professional Fireman and witness's of the scene. And they said they were unmistakably explosions and not the noise of the Tower starting to crumble. And the Gas to all the buildings was turned off early on in the crisis. So, it couldn't have been gas explosions.

I will post a link to a Yahoo Search; In it you can search through all the pages, most content which I don't agree with, yet are good to find the hundreds and hundreds of witnesses and their testimony if you doubt that there were bombs, many of them, and that many people, hundreds, reported it. And these sights scooped them up and archived them along the way.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=fireman+bombs+wtc&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-web-t&n=20&fl=0&x=wrt">Fireman, Bombs Testimony

Here is a single surviving witness;

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm">Witness

The Seismograph Anomalies

Again, evidence supports everything laid out thus far. The Seismograph station in Manhattan picks up both the aircraft as well as the Towers collapse and fall. The strange thing is (another anomaly) it's picks up the largest concentration of seismic activity just as each building is beginning to fall and not when it's great mass pancakes to the ground, as would be expected. And not surprisingly, it still baffles them today.

What that seismograph was picking up, were the extremely high energy explosions taking place in the sub - basements, a few seconds after the shaped charges pre-placed throughout the building started to go off. Once they had started their tandem explosions neccessary for their controlled demolition, and the Top was decaptiated, the charges in the basement were leveled, completely melting a good portion of the 47 steel foundational support columns. This is what caused the helicopter to catch the shock wave, and also responsible for the pools of molten steel as well as the 800oF temperatures 5 days after 911.





Now heres where we can start putting some facts together and it gets interesting;

1. These Seismic events show the largest seismic spike right at the beginning of each Towers collapse; (An unexplained anomaly)

2. It can be shown also that the helicopter crew (see Video) that felt the shockwave and severe turbulence at the beginning of the Towers collapse experienced exactly what was registered as the largest spike. i.e. The Helicopters turbulence and the seismic event are married together through cause and effect;

3. That the pools of molten steel in the sub-basements of WTC, 1, 2 & 7 are also tied together with these seismic events as are the 800oF temperatures recorded on September 16th.

4. That the Firemans testimony of bomb blasts, many of them going off and during the collapse and fall of each building, the seismic events anomalies, the helicopters turbulence from the shockwave right at the beginning of the Towers collapse, the large pools of hardened molten steel found in the sub-basements and the 800oF temperatures recorded on the 16th, are all the result of cause and effect of one single event; The deliberate demolition of the sub foundational support columns of WTC 1, 2 & 7 just seconds after a controlled demolition decaptiated the Tops of the Towers.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html">Marvin Bush, the Presidents brother, in charge of World Trade Center security, United airlines Security, and security for Dulles National Airport on 911 - Coincidence?

http://whatreallyhappened.com/ICTS.html">One single Israeli Company responsible for security at 'all' 3 airports on 911

Cheers~
phil :)

[Phil_Jayhan]

66. Whats wrong with this picture folks?

As it should look on the video if Bush isn't a bug fat liarhead;




and how it does look;



this is for cheap demo purposes only;

cheers~
pj :)

[maggrwaggr]

67. Do you know what videotape "dropout" is?

that looks an awful lot to me like a bit of dropout on the tape.

Listen, nobody has ever flown a 767 full of jet fuel into a WTC before or since. There aren't exactly any test cases to compare any of this to.

9/11 stinks to high heaven, but frankly I think conspiracy theories like this just make the lies we've been told even stronger.

[Phil_Jayhan]

68. Don't look a gift horse in the Mouth - Original 911 Research Thread

It may not be what you wanted, but its a smoking gun nonetheless;

Check here for the entire thread;

http://www.kirupaforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33834

cheers~
pj :)

This single event was picked up by every single major netwerks cameras on 911, just not people. It happened to quickly. Check the archives and see for yourself! :)

http://www.loftninjas.org/projects/20010911/">The Extremely Large Video Archive of all the following Videos in this post is taken from here: There are great additional video archive links at the bottom of this link as well

[RedEagle]

105. Yes, I know what a drop out looks like

It's either a glitch, which looks like a line across the whole sceen, or a speck. The specks usually look like they are flashing or dancing. Also, if there are enough, the video is going to look unstabilized.

I've never seen them any other color- they are usually kind of white.

A big enough glitch will cause the picture to jump or roll a bit.

Keep in mind that new technology makes the liklihood less.

And if these are from news cameras, they wouldn't be using old tape likely to have problems, because it makes them look bad on the air.

Digital technology has virtually eliminated this problem.

But drop outs and glitches don't have color and don't appear to "glow."

(Unless I've been color blind all these years)

25 years of recording and running tape.

If we were talking film, you might have a case.

[RapidCreek]

70. If you look closely at the picture

you will see it has been taken with the photographers back to the sun. The sun is shining on the starboard side of the aircraft and it will cast shadows toward the port side. What the "thing" is you see, is a shadow being cast by the starboard engine onto the starboard underside of the fuselage.

As to the fuselage going through the building..... The fuselage of the airplane is sealed as it hits the building much like the drinking straw in the "Strength of a Tornado" demonstration found here: http://www.yougottareadthis.com/the-secrets-to-feats-of-strength.html
To save me some writing time go to the link and read up on how you can drive a drinking straw through a potato, with your bare hands.

RC

[Phil_Jayhan]

72. Not shadows, but a missile;

See this pic; notice the bright flash in front of and behind the missile pod; Notice how the orange fire streaks come out the back, and the front of the pod, resepctively? also in that order;

your wrong, this is a missile pod created to hide the harnessed missile, and most of it's ignition sequence;

[Valerie5555]

71. What can I say? but I noticed those "odd plane" pictures on

http://www.rense.com

[tobius]

75. yes, it's a missle

they just wanted to "make sure"

[Phil_Jayhan]

76. Finally

Some consensus;

Thanx---

and yes it was a missile, and 2 shot out before the 1st plane crash;

http://www.kirupaforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33834

cheers~
pj :)

[maggrwaggr]

77. just because you think it's a missle doesn't make it a missle

sorry, that's not exactly a pragmatic way to go about things.

I agree 9/11 stinks to high heaven, but videotape is notoriously unreliable as a recording medium, and nobody here really "knows" anything about this stuff.

Which is why it's so frustrating.

[Phil_Jayhan]

78. Thats because...

All the Conspiracy Theorists who pick apart the government for a hobby are all republicans; Something I have noticed while spreading my gospel;


HELLO McFLY!!

Check out this thread for the unedited version;

http://www.kirupaforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33834

cheers~
pj :P

[maggrwaggr]

79. I checked it. It's got some real problems

Your "frame 3" looks completely faked to me, looks like a photoshopped streak. Furthermore, this streak doesn't appear in any of the other videos.

The bright spot appearing on the building as the plane enters it doesn't show any evidence of any missiles whatsoever, it is the explosion as this massive airplane hits a glass building and the glass vaporizes.

What's intriguing about the info you present is

The odd shape on the bottom of the plane.

The Pentagon plane hit (if in fact it is true, which I sorta doubt, again we don't have many studies covering passenger jets crashing into buildings)

The controlled demolition theory is utter nonsense. The windows blew out as the building started to collapse.

The "bright glow" is 100% bogus, if you look at the sky, it glows too, in fact everything on the tape "glows" because the video camera was adjusting its iris at the time (and if you don't know what that means you shouldn't be doing this kind of speculation)

Again, interesting stuff, but about 75% of it is pure hogwash.

[Phil_Jayhan]

80. Hmmm, Funny if it's faked, that means the LA Times faked it.

Because this animated gif, as fake as it looks is still to this day running off the LA Times server;

So did I hack their server, replace their animated gif with my own fake...?

gime a break;

orignial link here;

http://www.kirupaforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33834

So how fake does it look now that you know its running off the LA Times server, in all of it's original form...? And glory...?

This animated gif has been running off my thread since it started, and its off their own server; This is an original; Check the properties if you doubt me; Right click, properties; And see whos powering this animated gif...! :)



The fact you think it was so faked shows simply you are starting to see whats really taking place and want to explain it away;

Take the blue pill neo;

cheers~
pj :)

[Guaranteed]

122. So they equipped the plane...planeS....with missiles, before they took

off?

That's "playing it safe?" Doesn't that seem downright stupid, considering that the planes themselves are going to be doing most of the job? Equipping the planes with missiles seems like it would recklessly jeopardize the mission for very little return.

[RBHam]

123. Flight Of The Bumblebee theory

There was a mid air switch, another plane replaced the original on radar. The replacement plane hit the WTC.

That's what Jaman's research and Carol Valentine's suggests...

Just at theory...

9-11: The Flight of the Bumble Planes
by Snake Plissken as told to Carol A. Valentine
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/plissken.htm
March 10, 2002 — Eureka! One of my readers, who calls himself "Snake Plissken," has put it together. He tells us why the passenger lists of the four September 11 "suicide" jets were so small, how remote control was used, why the transponders were turned off, why the radar tracks of the four planes were confused, why there was no Boeing 757 debris at the Pentagon ...

By George, I think he's got it!

My e-mail exchanges with Snake took place over a series of days. With Snake's agreement, I have consolidated the exchanges, inserted some reference URLs, and made minor edits. My comments and additions will be bracketed thus <...>. As you read what Snake has to say, keep the following in mind:


"Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be done. The success of a magician's simulation of doing the impossible depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences. This, in the main, is done by adding, to a performance, details of which the spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which they believe you have not left out. In short a performance of magic is largely a demonstration of the universal reliability of certain facts of psychology." (John Mulholland, The Art of Illusion, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1944.)
In what follows, Snake unravels the illusions of the 9-11 magicians.

more...



The 911 Terror Frame Up
http://www.commonlawvenue.com/AmericanTragedy/911_terror_frame_up.htm
The time has come for clarification. Toward that end I present what two remarkable men, Snake Plissken and Thomas Paine (and some others) have contributed to our understanding of the 911 terror frame-up.

---------------------
I have been told by a Greg Palast Associate that they CAN NOT write about 9/11 in US for the media. Why do you think that we do not have the book "Bin Lade: The Forbidden Truth"---available in France is not here by now? It details US involvement and has been on the popular market 5 months there!! Journalists and book writers are being censored in the US and Canada. He & Most Journalists Know that the Whitehouse is behind 9/11. I wrote to 15 censorship organizations with 9/11-Whitehouse documentation. Not one responded. (NO RESPONSE)!! Not even a 'we'll look into it.' This IS A CLUE: They have been told not to respond in any way. They have been WARNED not even to say they are being censored. People have a way of turning up dead lately. The author of The Bush Unauthorized Biography was found dead one month ago of "Suicide".
-------------------------

Tom Paine, above, is very well named and his kind is as much needed in this hour as the original champion of the 1776 U.S. Revolution by that name who said:

"Time makes more converts than reason."

"The cause of America is, in great measure, the cause of all mankind."

"Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness."

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."

"When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professing belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. . . Infidelity does not consist in professing to believe what does not believe."

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice."

"The more perfect a civilization is, the less occasion has it for government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself."

"It is wrong to say that God made rich and poor; He made only male and female; and He gave them the earth for their inheritance. . . . The earth, in its natural uncultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race."

Now let's get down to business:

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[Phil_Jayhan]

81. Will check this out;

Now, I consider some of what follows to achieve my own threshold for proof. As far as I am concerned there is only one smoking gun among hundreds of strong evidences, to show 911 wasn't done by Arab terrorist's. This proof is in the video's in my opinion. And this isn't something that can be studied for a few moments, then a determination made; Some real investment in time will be required for you to see whats there. It would be no different for investigators. I myself have concluded, and you will see it in my language throughout, that this was indeed a missile shot out, not just from one, but both planes that hit the WTC that day. I have ruled out every other concievable possibility, as you will see below.

http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/ghostplane.closeup.wmv">Best Video Proof showing Missile



http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/ghostplane2.swf">Flash Video with frame Controller



http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/ghostplane2.wmv">2nd Video - 2nd Tower - Slowed Down/Courtesy of CNN and ABC


This following pic I captured with my camera off my monitor. I stopped the above video and took this cause screenshots won't work. Hit Play/Pause until you see this image; This is what shoots out of the pod and is also the same 'bright white spot' on the photos below. Only here its orange. Notice that the wings have not yet touched the building. Notice also that this orange fireball that shoots out the plane, and is captured here, is about 10-15 feet to the right of the cockpit. The only part of the plane penetrating the building is the cockpit, and the orange fireball, which had just shot out from the pod. Notice the pic of the plane just before the fireball in the following picture;



This picture below is the same as the one above, with 0 brightness and 100 % contrast. Norice how the plane disappears and only the bright, white/orange spot remainsl


This picture below is the same as the one above, with 180 hue/100% saturation, 12 lightness. This image is both bright and hot. Also notice the bright white/orange glare from the missile, on right hand side of the aircraft, as it enters the building.


Did I do good for my first 25 posts...?

come on people, wake up please and smell these pictures and video's;

original link here;

http://www.kirupaforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33834

cheers~
pj :)

[_Jumper_]

83. The additonal piece of equipment

Is there any possibility that it could have been something other than a missile launcher? What is your theory about an alleged plane switch? Where did the real planes go and who was on the military planes?

[Phil_Jayhan]

87. All the people ended up on flight 93

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=flight+of+the+bumble+planes/v=2/SID=e/l=WS1/R=1/H=0/*-http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html

The above link should satisfy you until tomorrow after I get off work;

In case that ones not werking;

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=flight+of+the+bumble+planes/v=2/SID=e/l=WS1/R=2/H=0/*-http://www.serendipity.li/wot/plissken.htm

only 9 months to go, lets pick up the pace people!!

cheers!
phil :)

original link here;

http://www.kirupaforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33834&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

reference; http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=flight+of+the+bumble+planes&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=

[maggrwaggr]

146. that's just silly

next thing you'll be telling us is that they have a big secret hangar under the ocean off the east coast where these secretly modified planes fly into the water using alien technology.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

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

[moderate_hero]

112. If true

there should be a missile trail originating from the "pod". You show where it hits and have slowed down shots of the plane hitting, if a missile were fired at the last moment we would have seen a missile trail. There is none.

[Cat Atomic]

82. That's just the shadow of the wing on the fuselage.

Look at the light on the building. It's coming from behind the photographer.

The plane is banking to the left, and the you can see that there's sunlight on the bottom of the wing. The wing is casting a shadow on the fuselage.

[Phil_Jayhan]

84. The light on the building proves your theory impossible

the plane is in the dark shadow when it finally hits the Tower;
In the dark shadowy side of the WTC;

From whence cometh your light, marlin?

cheers~
pj :)

original link here;

http://www.kirupaforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33834

Don't look a gift war in the mouth, especially when you hold the smoking guns; ;)

[Cat Atomic]

85. It's not in the shadow of the building.

If it were, there wouldn't be sunlight on the bottom of the wing, and all along the right side of the plane. The plane is in the sunlight.

[Phil_Jayhan]

88. Really, the plane is in sun light, on the DARK side of the building...?

Hello McFly!!



Wheres your sunlight?



oh, there it is, on the BRIGHT side of the building; Yet it somehow isn't nearly as bright as when on the DARK side of the building where there is no direct sunlight;



cheers-
pj :)

[Cat Atomic]

90. That *isn't* the dark side of the building.

The sun is behind the photographer. The dark side of the building isn't visible to the camera in that shot. It would be opposite the side that's facing the camera.

The side of the building that's facing the camera is directly lit, so why do you say the connecting wall is in the dark? It isn't. The face that appears darker is almost parallel to the direction of the light.

You can be a smart ass if you like, Biff, but it doesn't help sell your point.

[Phil_Jayhan]

91. Then why is the entire side of the building in a deep shadow?

Enough of you and your silly photographer;

Whats all that dark stuff on the dark side of the building? Sunlight? :)




Wheres the shadows..? And wheres the light? Come on, everyone but you can see this; You keep bringing up this silly nonsense about some stupid photographer and over his back crap; Gimme a fricking break!



So, wheres the light side of the building, and that something or another about some silly photographer and over his back type nonesense?



So, if these two sides of the building are light, and bright as a 9am sun, tell me, what do you other two sides of these buildings look like?

Looks dark to me; Lets take a poll;






So wheres all that nonsense about some silly photographer and something or another over his back and a...? Ya, its sounds silly to me to, and everyone else who has functioning eyes; Open your eyes; and take off your rose colored glasses, and thank God phil came in here with this smoking gun, which somehow everyones missed thus far, except a small number of xmen. :)

Wake up; Look at the gift horse Im supplying you all; Look who started this thread; check his pictures and where he drew them from; And add 2+2.

Read between the fricking lines! Theres some things some people just can't say at certain times; (hint hint) But they nonetheless make sure this kind of stuff gets funneled and finally made public; (hint hint)

You guys think this thread is just a fluke, or an accident? Nuff said.
Read between the lines; Look at the proof before your fricking eyes, and stop looking a gift war in the mouth; This is your SMOKING gun.

Now go and use this wisely; Geeesh, do I have to spell out everything for you guys?

cheers~
pj :P

http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/ghostplane.closeup.wmv">Best Video Proof showing Missile


http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/ghostplane2.swf">Flash Video with frame Controller


http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/ghostplane2.wmv">2nd Video - 2nd Tower - Slowed Down/Courtesy of CNN and ABC


Ok, somethings certain people CANT say during an ELECTION cycle; But they find things out which need to be LEAKED to the press; (hint hint)

http://www.kirupaforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33834

wink, wink :)

Things the grass roots NEED to SPREAD EVERYWHERE, much like the california fires.... (hint hint)

Because somethings when the truth is known are too HOT for anyone to touch but the PUBLIC. wink wink

Nuff said;
enjoy! :)

pj :):)

A sleepfull and lazy Democratic Party waits for sign, and none will be given it, save THESE FRICKING SMOKING GUN PICS ABD VIDEO'S.



You are the ones who wished you has something to bust dubyas balls over; Now it's been given to you; Read between all the lines; Now go ye therefore, and spread these pics and video's all over the internet ASA FRICKING P.

These are kind of like marching orders;

Now open your eyes, and Go spread the good news! Dubya is a traitor and you all can PROVE it!

Who's the first one of you who can get this in Larry King Live? hint hint

cheers~
phil :)

Philman, the Democratic party's gift from God. And all of this with 1/2 my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair;

Original link here;

http://www.kirupaforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33834

[Cat Atomic]

116. Go outside and hold a box in the sunlight.

The side facing the sun will be brightly lit. The opposite side will be in shadow. Sides that are parallel to the angle of the light are not directly lit, but they're not in shadow, either.

[Phil_Jayhan]

86. Why then does the brightness dim after the plane hits Sunlight?

Why does the plane glow a red hot, before and after where the pod is?
And why does it do this on the dark side of the building?

And why does this picture show a picture of the missiles white hot plume, if there is no missile..?



this is what it should look like if your correct...



by phil



Here is what the film and video should show Kirupa;

But below is what they instead picked up;



Again your simply wrong Kirupa; Need to remove those permanent MIT rose colored glasses you seem to wear by habit;

pj



Now look at the same picture above, with 0 brightness and 10 % contrast; Notice the only bright part of the plane on the DARK side of the building is this missile plume;

Im teling al of you, don't look a gift war in the mouth; We only have 9 months; So open your eyes;

Original link here;

http://www.kirupaforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33834&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

cheers-
pj :)

[DS1]

97. uh, no it doesn't

That's the shadow of the engine against the fuselage.

[Phil_Jayhan]

89. William, A Smoking gun Nitecap to ya!

What it should look like if King George didn't ENGINEER 911;



What it should look like if King George DID ENGINEER 911;



And in closing with my nitecap; Since when do arab terrorist's have the capability to add on additonal vestigal equipment, as they did on 911...?

Did they land the planes and put this extra equipment on, then takeoff with the passengers, and still keep their hard schedule?

Come on people; Wake up.

Original research here;
http://www.kirupaforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33834

cheers~
pj :)





I drink to make Republicans more interesting....

[Phil_Jayhan]

92. Go to this link for the videos

For some reason some of my links don't work and I can't ecit them any longer;

The 2nd post of this thread has all the videos I posted, and all the ones you guys need;

http://www.kirupaforum.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33834

nite,

pj :)

does anyone like me yet...?
I should be the instant fave;

[MacCovern]

93. Wake up people, that's no smoking gun!

There was no missile fired into the WTC towers. That "light" you see is
when the plane first collides with the building.

Doesn't common sense tell you that dozens of people on the ground would have seen a large object on the underside of the plane before takeoff?
Do you think the luggage handlers installed a "missile pod" to the plane?
Do you think anything else was needed like a missle anyway?

The object is the wheel well cover - plain and simple, and to suggest
anything else borders on the moronic! Giant missile pod my arrrrse!

[rman]

94. that light

implies an explosion. why would there be an explosion whe the nose of the plane hits the building? there's no fuel in the nose of the plane.
it may or may not be related to the bulg underneath the fuselage, but the explosion does seem out of place.

[MacCovern]

95. Spark of metal on metal!

The spark of light you see is from the friction created by a plane
flying at hundreds of miles an hour crashing into the building.

Try this simple experiment: stand up, rub your feet against carpeting,
and then touch a metal object, WOW, you see a spark. You didn't have any jet fuel in your finger tip did you?

[Q]

96. We'll simply never know...

...and for every theory there is an alternative theory.

- This type of speculation is caused by a secretive government that actually went out of their way to obstruct any and all investigations before and after 9-11. The situation becomes even more suspicious given the fact that the Bushies were 'too confused' to respond to hijacked commerical planes lumbering across the skies.

- Lack of investigations will always lead to the type of speculation we're seeing right now. Those who actually want to know the whole truth and can't quite stomach the 'official version' look to the videos for any clues they can find.

- But...a close inspection of the 'ghost' video shows...not simply a 'spark'...but a plume of (smoke or exhaust) on the opposite end of the object from which the 'flame' appears. This gives one the impression of some kind of missile being fired off just before impact.

- Other videos show what appears to be small, incremental 'explosions' below the collapsing floors...suggesting some kind of 'controlled' demolitiion.

- But again...we'll simply never know. Why? Because our government is under the control of those who would be called 'fascists' in any other time in history.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

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

[Solomon]

143. Whoa there Phil. Hold On Now. Don't get carried away. You can't be

dissing Q like that, or anybody else really, especially with that low count number. I gotta come to Q's defense. Q's a well respected and greatly appreciated contributor to DU. We all enjoy his posts, so back off with the insults. You made some good points here, but now you make us wonder.

[Phil Jayhan]

153. Wake up-

Look at who started this thread; check his hotlinks;

This isn't about Q's feelings; Kind of way a lot beyond that;
And post counts don't matter when you have information that can sink Bush; Or because I have a low post count, you wish to diregard my posts to you...

I'll go elsewhere; If you don't want me here, theres lots of places that do, and would like me there;

let me know, I'll leave.

I have already supplied you all with enough information to put dubya on a horse with his head in a noose and kink the assend of the horse.

But your all a bunch of wussies who want to protect Bush and his agenda. Thats why you will lose in November; Cause your ticket is full of losers, who won't even attack bush on his easiest front, that he not only knew of 911, but planned and engineered it;

You all seem to be blind-
pj :P

[RBHam]

155. We love the info

Your onto something, you should send this stuff to [e-mail]

Check it out:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/

By the way, most of the people posting here have no real power to get the DLC to wake up. Some might, but they don't want to rock the boat.

Scared.

Anthrax/Ricin/plane crashes awaits HE who don't get with the program.

This is heavy shit, man.

[Phil Jayhan]

157. You wrong

I have contacted ove 60 people who ae VIP's regading this info; And 3 of them are congresman and 1 is a senator; i will meet with them all within the month;

So your wrong, quite wrong when you say most people have NO power to get the DNC to do this or that;

You are the DNC; Now wake up and steer your ship...

cheers~
pj :)

[Solomon]

156. First of all, you haven't provided anything that people here have not

already done. In fact, you are rather late. So you can get off that high horse.

Secondly, surely you don't really believe anyone gives a rat's ass whether you stay or go, do you?

Wake up! Your insults damage whatever credibility you may have is what I'm trying to tell you. You don't have to believe that, but let's see how long you hang around here insulting people.

[maggrwaggr]

144. Phil, little dicator, casher of checks, listen up:

there are plenty of people here who believe that our own government caused 9/11.

But coming on the board and calling people morons won't get you very far.

Nor will making wild accusations about "controlled demolitions" and seeing things that just aren't there.

You need to calm down, relax, and get real. Stick with the evidence that actually makes sense.

There are a lot of people here who are much smarter than you. And older, and more experienced.

Let what you've presented speak for itself.

[Phil Jayhan]

148. Get a grip and look at the evidence and proOF!

Smarter? Wat does that mean?

Older, you have no idea of my age; Not a fricking clue.

What I have presented thus far DOES speak for itself, as this link/thread would have died ages ago unless there was something to the tin foil question by my pitt.

cheers~
pj :)





I drink to make republicans more interesting; :)

[RBHam]

152. IT's not about Dems or Repugs, Phil

It's about the truth. Many establishment Democrats (Lee Hamilton, take a bow) are in the BFEE network and there has been a bi-partisan cover up of the excesses of the Military/Industrial/Corporate/Security complex ever since they offed JFK.

Doesn't matter how much evidence you have. It must first be acknowledged by the established media. And they're profiting under BushCo...

By the way, I was watching that weird Congressional hearing on Janet's breasts...is Michael Powell "passing" like J. Edgar Hoover did?

on edit: ahhh....f%ck !t.

[Phil Jayhan]

154. Thorougly enjoy that nipple

Great nipple, and how can a nipple like tnat not take the news for a few weeks...? :)

Ya, the military industrialists are covering up their tracks; Nothing new; Been doing it for 45 years now.

pj :)

[starroute]

132. You only get a spark when you're grounded

When you rub your feet on the carpet and then touch metal, you get a shock because you're grounded and that completes the circuit. Birds, on the other hand, can sit on electric wires without being without being electrocuted because they aren't grounded.

A plane would be in the same situation as a bird. Just touching a building isn't going to release an electric charge, because there's nowhere for the charge to flow.

[Phil Jayhan]

138. Great observation!!

It couldn't be an electrical static shock for many reason, but alos ceause of the one you just mentioned;

good eye m8-

pj :)

[maggrwaggr]

145. duh. The building is one big ground. It's not a spark anyway

it's a freaking explosion as a metal object slams into a big glass-and-metal object at 600 miles an hour.

Remember you can rub two freaking sticks together and make fire.

This little thing called "friction"

[Phil Jayhan]

194. But why the explosion 10 feet away from the cockpit..?

Sure you can rub two sticks together and make fire. But if you hypothesis is correct, the fire from the two sticks rubbing together will start 10 feet away from the sticks..? Not likely.



No, thats the exhaust of the missile punching through the building.
Also check out this little report from Spain..

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

cheers~
pj :)

[Phil Jayhan]

136. Really, then why does the cokpit make it through the Tower UNSCATHED????

your theory hold no wight or substance; the orange fireball is a MISSILE;

Talk about Democrats looking a gift horse in the mouth.

cheers~
pj :)

[BassettWilliams]

207. It's not the cockpit

Longtime family friend worked at WTC collapse site and was informed that only the heaviest part of the airplane would be able to find a path through the structure, and that part would be one of the engines, in this scenario the starboard one. Friend informed me that all aircraft fragments found in collapse site were GPS'ed and given grid ID#s before being transported where manufacturers and Boeing vendors were asked to identify.

[plaguepuppy]

212. Airplane parts

"The effort to better understand the events of the day isn’t being made easier by the fact that the voice and data recorders aboard the two hijacked jetliners that hit the twin towers haven’t been recovered.

The four devices - and all the clues they would hold - have failed to turn up in the 1.25 million tons of steel, concrete and other material taken from ground zero.

“It's extremely rare that we don't get the recorders back. I can't recall another domestic case in which we did not recover the recorders,” said Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board.

FBI investigators would be particularly interested in the voice recorders, containing the cockpit noise after American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 left Boston's Logan International Airport.

Engineers studying how the towers collapsed culd also draw crucial information from the data recorders, which show the plane's speed and altitude.

The size of a shoe box and painted bright orange, the recorders are built to withstand fire, water and blunt-force impact, and are located in the tail for maximum protection.

But the attacks were an unprecedented survival test for the misnamed “black boxes.” The two wide-bodied jets, carrying a total of 157 people including 10 hijackers, were mostly destroyed by the fires and collapsing towers.

“So little (airplane) debris has been recovered that there's really no way to quantify it,” FBI spokesman Joseph Valiquette said. The only pieces on display at the landfill were a piece of United 175's fuselage and several pieces of landing gear."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/25/attack/main501989.shtml

How does finding pieces at the landfill jibe with "GPS'ed and given grid ID#s before being transported where manufacturers and Boeing vendors were asked to identify." Did they take them back to the landfill after ID'ing them?

[BassettWilliams]

215. Problems

I see 2 problems. The 1st is the date of the article you're using. Workers, including my friend were at the collapse site well after that 2-23-02 article still recovering all sorts of items. 2nd is that I didn't say, and I don't think I suggested that the aircraft parts were found at the landfill. The parts I was talking about were found at the collapse site, and those were the ones that were GSP'ed and given ID#s. I was also told that investigators stated they were engine parts and that they were bagged and boxed and guarded to maintain the chain of custody needed for evidence. I would imagine it's difficult to evaluate eyewitness reports and hearsay, however our family friend is very reliable.

[plaguepuppy]

216. Didn't mean to imply...

that these were the only parts that were found, just that it seemed odd to me that anything from the planes would have been taken to a landfill in the first place. It sounds as if some of the evidence was handled properly, bagged and tagged and all that, while some of it was being carted out to Fresh Kills. It makes no sense for any pieces of the plane not to have been treated as precious pieces of evidence. But then I have a problem with the fact that the great majority of the WTC wreckage was treated like junk and shipped off for recycling. Why the hell didn't they save every scrap and do a full-scale forensic reconstruction? They did as much for Flt. 800, what possible legitimate reason was there not to take every piece of the towers and WTC-7 out to a big field in Jersey and reassemble them?

[Phil Jayhan]

135. Finally somoen with good eyes and a great pint to make; Everyone listen!

Right, also notice that the cockpit plows through the building undamaged, and basically intact;

So, then why is that red/orange fireball there at all..?

Much less 5-10 feet away from the cockpit;

It obviously it is NOT the plane causing this orange fireball on the side of the building;

cheers~

pj :)

'I drink to make Republicans more interesting'

[Phil Jayhan]

134. Nope, 1/3rd of a second is too short a time for people to notice

Nope;

The reason this was all missed is because it happens in the last 3/10ths of a second;

1000 feet away;

see how that werks?

pj :)

[whipzz]

168. Moronic? thanks but waaitaaaminute

"There was no missile fired into the WTC towers. That "light" you see is
when the plane first collides with the building.
Doesn't common sense tell you that dozens of people on the ground would have seen a large object on the underside of the plane before takeoff?
Do you think the luggage handlers installed a "missile pod" to the plane?
Do you think anything else was needed like a missle anyway?
The object is the wheel well cover - plain and simple, and to suggest
anything else borders on the moronic! Giant missile pod my arrrrse!"

I totally agree with you. Common sense. If this plane took off from a civilian airfield someone would have noticed.

So this plane didn't take off from an ordinary civilian airfield, did it. This is obviously a different plane. The "object" is there. Conclusive proof of this has been established by the digital analysis performed at the University of Mataró, (see http://www.amics21.com/911). La Vanguardia (highly reputable Spanish newspaper) had no intention of publishing anything that was not 100% reliable. Go and read the articles which we carefully translated into English for you all. These "pods" as you call them, are real. No imagination. Now WHAT they are is another question. That's speculation, not evidence. What is on the above site is EVIDENCE, otherwise the newspaper wouldn't have published it.

Read about it. Read the newspaper's ombudsman's article explaining how the story was published and under what conditions. REad our site with the things they couldn't risk publishing.

One other thing: these newspapermen have been very brave. But they live in a country which has seen fascism before and know how to read between lines and identify fishy stuff. They also know what they can say and what they can't say.

Only the public can say it. The media can't help us here. Only the people can get this stuff around. So I suggest we follow Phil's very good advice which is to paste this stuff around every tiny corner of the internet, go to every demo or local meeting and hand out leaflets on this. Start photocopying and start talking.

AND PLEASE READ, READ, READ. Democracy cannot survive if people are ignorant of the facts.

best wishes from spain

[Solomon]

98. Thanks for posting the pics and starting this thread Will.

You know where I stand. I've got the biggest and best tinfoil hat there is. (Yes, I fell off the wagon, got myself a new latest model tinfoil).

It's amusing to once again see people question their eyes. There is clearly something there that shouldn't be. It's too big to be the landing gear housing.

No one will ever get me to believe that a 757 hit the pentagon, at least not without something other than the wall pulverizing the plane into teentsy weentsy little bits.

I was not prepared for these pictures of the WTC though. I was an early subscriber to the "Flight of the Bumble Bees" and I got quiet on it because you can't explain that to people who haven't bothered to study 9-11 in detail. I have to admit, these pictures take me back again to the bumble bee theory.

If the planes were substituted, that would explain why "dozens" of ground crew etc., didn't notice the bulge protruding from the underside of the planes.

Gotta bookmark this thread. The mystery deepens.

[Phil_Jayhan]

99. Good eye!

But what will the Dems do with this...?

Throw it around and argue unitl they lose the election...?

Ya, agreed Will, great thread!
cheers~
pj :)

[Solomon]

100. Hah!! Are you kidding Phil? Democrats won't do diddly with this.

This stuff is strictly for us tinfoil hatters. This kind of stuff has to wait until the more obvious threads get pulled, which means, it may never actually become the subject of public discourse. People can't even wrap their minds around the fact that the government has not produced one iota of evidence that Bin Laden had anything to do with 9-11, much less deal with government complicity.

The public is totally unaware of the fact that people can be unknowing and unwitting accomplices in a conspiracy, so you will forever hear the retort that "so many people in on it could not keep so quiet about it".

I'll give the perpetrators one thing. They have committed the world's alltime greatest mystery. A feat David Cooperfield would be jealous of. It tops for sure the JFK thing. And I can't wait to find out what happened. Somehow I think this one will be unraveled, and won't stay in a cocoon for 40 years like JFK.

[Phil Jayhan]

172. This Crime will come out

Solomon,

I agree; The thing about this is most people will eventually hear this, and see it, and most of those eventually will believe it; The planes carried missiles;

Heres how easy it is; Last night I went to circuit city to get a printer, opened up the other thread, and asked 2 17 year olds what they saw; They both saw the pod, and then after watching the video only 3x, they were both convinced they saw a missile shoot out;

So this might involve rockets, but it isn't rocket science; It's easy stuff; I showed two more people this thread today at lunch; Told them to open it and tell me what they saw in te blue picture; Answer; Something large and strange;

showed them the flash video; They both saw the missile the first time;

Flash Video/Frame Controller

CNN/ABC Video Slowed Down

CNN Slowed down, longer run time

http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/taner/">Flash Slideshow with Frame Controller by Tanner

Best video showing Missile

http://www.loftninjas.org/projects/20010911/
">Very Large Original Unedited Footage of 911 from CNN, ABC, MSNBC


Solomon-

Im not sure. I think we honestly have a shot with 911 because of these videos; Is what needs to happen is fellow believers need to carry this torch and make sure we get appointments with them showing them all these things as well as giving them all our research data;

If enough congressman and senators hear of this and see it, Bush will be doomed; Seriously, it's doable.

And all of this coming from a conservative who voted for Bush;

cheers~
pj :)

And could you guys if you go to where I have my original link at kirupa.com not hotlink it to here...? I did that and Kirupa asked me not to. Fell free to go there, but just don't post that link over here. thanx-

so who wants to help?

[TomNickell]

101. Gee, Thanks Will!

You've brought out -all- the....ahhhhh.....

....ummmmmmmm.................

--more imaginative folk.

Why? We're making progress with -serious- questions about the regime.

-WHY- bring up foolish questions that serve no purpose except to discredit the left and provide cover for Rove & co?

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

102. Not to mention giving the grim freepers

something to ridicule DUers about

[Q]

103. It's just so CUTE how some of you fret so much...

...about what FReepers will think of 'us'.

- The Right hates freedom of speech because it allows the free exchange of ideas...that tend to expose the criminality of their ruling class. It seems that 'some' on the Left hate it because it looks 'silly' to discuss things not accepted by the mainstream.

[TomNickell]

128. And the damage to ...

the esteemed Mr. Pitt's journalistic reputation.

[Solomon]

130. Hey. You lose one fan but gain another.

Pitt's reputation just went up in my opinion. I don't need people who are scared of what others might think if they examine a question.

[Phil Jayhan]

142. Nothing to fear but fear itself;

yup;

A wise man must consider all possibilities;

pj :)

[RBHam]

140. Is that an observation?

Or a veiled threat?

Toe the line, Will!!! Keep the tinfoil in the drawer!

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

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

[masshole]

104. what about video of 1st plane?

The "Firemen" video... it clearly shows a large commercial jet hitting the first tower... but I keep reading in these links about a "small, explosive-laden private jet", per some eyewitness referenced as hitting the First tower.

I dunno. The Pentagon explosion is a bit mystifying however. I cannot reconcile a plane hit that building.

[moderate_hero]

109. Wrong on the Pentagon

I have friends who heard the plane fly over them, another who saw it happen, and another who was in the Pentagon at the time, a Navy corpsman, who went out to helpt the victims.

[Phil Jayhan]

185. So what???

so you know people who heard a plane and a plane crash; Bravo; You should get a medal, cause this proves absolutely nothing, as plane definately crashed into both buildings; The question is, what kind of planes, and what extra equipment were they carrying to perform their extra duties of the day..?

cheers~
pj :)

[Phil Jayhan]

204. Here are 2 Firemans Videos

This video lnown as the firemans video records two projectiles (missiles) being shot at the first WTC before actually touching the building and crashing. In it you will see a bright flash from the plane, then a 'hit' towards the very top of the building, when the plane appears higher than the building itself. Then as it dips below it shoots out one more missile before penetrating the building. Watch for the bright flashes, as well as the smoke that occurs when the first missile strikes near the top of the building.

http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/911videos/firsthit.detail.mov">The Firemans Video

Here also is a picture of the 1st tower strike after the smoke starts to clear; Notice that right where the video shows a missile flying out ahead of and hitting the top of the Tower, is a huge hole from that missile; If the plane struck 25 stories below, what would have caused this hole to the upper right..? My analysis of the videos are correct;



This one allows you to go through this frame by frame; Hint, start around frame 60. Also frame 124,125,126 is the 2nd missile impact before the plane strikes the tower.

http://thewebfairy.com/911/slideshow/taner/

It would seem reasonable if this plane was a smaller aircraft and not a 767, that they might employ one more missile to make up the difference; But they are indeed consistent; Missiles used on both Towers; 2 of the first, 1 on the second.

cheers~
pj :)

[Bushknew]

110. Phil_Jayhan

Hi Phil, love your sprit.

We need more out of the box thinkers like you.

The 911 forum is where we discuss issues like this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=719

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=2001#2025

Welcome to DU!!!

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

111. can some one explain

a video i saw on msnbc shortly after 9-11 that showed a small fireball that followed the second plane into the tower? it was taken by a man from his balcony. it came in a few seconds after the plane hit. i remember drudge had a question about this before i saw the video and i thought drudge was talking about the engine coming out the other side.

[bubba_fett]

160. It was in the link in post #37

video of the second crash

You can see the flare, I don't know what that is, that's the first time I've seen that video. Interesting to see the flare from a different angle.

By the way, someone posted in another thread, earlier today about the Amy Sweeney call:

"My wife’s call was the first specific information the airline and the government got that day," said Mike Sweeney, the widowed husband of Amy Sweeney, who went face to face with the hijackers on Flight 11. She gave seat locations and physical descriptions of the hijackers, which allowed officials to identify them as Middle Eastern men—by name—even before the first crash. She gave officials key clues to the fact that this was not a traditional hijacking. And she gave the first and only eyewitness account of a bomb on board.

"How do you know it’s a bomb?" asked her phone contact.

"Because the hijackers showed me a bomb," Sweeney said, describing its yellow and red wires.
http://www.observer.com/pages/frontpage1.asp

One more tidbit you never heard about. Although if you believe in the missile/remote control theory, then this is moot, I guess. But, it is interesting considering many people aren't convinced that jet fuel alone could take out those buildings.

[RBHam]

114. The Reichstag Fire and 9-11

Pretexts for Dictatorship and the Fourth Reich

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

"History doesn't repeat, but sometimes it rhymes"
- paraphrase of comments made by Mark Twain (American patriot and anti-imperialist)

"It also gives us a very special, secret pleasure to see how unaware the people around us are of what is really happening to them." -- Adolf Hitler http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0304/S00116.htm

The biggest danger in the US now are the "Not See's" -- to paraphrase journalist Michael Ruppert (fromthewilderness.com), conspiracies against democracy don't need lots of people to participate in them, they need millions, however, to stay silent to ensure their success.

more...
http://www.oilempire.us/reichstag-fire.html

[RBHam]

115. Something fishy...

When you’re watching a news report, have you ever had the feeling that something’s fishy? That the event is not as it appears, and not as reported? I get that feeling fairly often. Sometimes I’m just being paranoid. Hey, nobody’s perfect. But other times that skeptical light bulb goes off for a good reason.

more...

http://www.visiontv.ca/Archive/BZ14.html

Important 9-11 archive page
http://www.visiontv.ca/Archive/Archive.html

[uncle ray]

117. something i haven't seen mentioned...re the "missle entering pic"

airplanes have headlights. landing lights, fog lights, whatever. they got em.

the plane was approaching the dark side of the wtc, at some kind of arc i have been told, it seems perfectly logical that some of the planes lights may have been on, and the arc of the approach would explain why you don't see it till near impact.

thats what i see. though i haven't taken the time on my dialup connection to review the videos.




and i am sick of the "jet fuel experts" who say the fire could not be hot enought to "melt steel" take a field trip to, say a renniasance fair, pioneer days, etc. and see a blacksmith do his thing. see that stuff he stokes his fire with? WOOD. he melts steel with WOOD. what do we make paper from? yep smart guy, WOOD! pop a few holes in that building and you have your bellows adding plenty of fresh air to the fire. and i can't begin to imagine the nasty chemicals in all of the plastics and synthetic "things" inside a typical office area, to feed the fire.

i am a machinist, and though i probably slept through most of my metallurgy classes years ago in school, i know a little. i'm not going to bother myself finding exact numbers to make my point, because it will not convince the controlled demolition zealots...but steel does not have to "melt" or get anywhere NEAR MELTING to be greatly WEAKENED! it doesn't even need to get hot enought to change color to be weakend! there is a hell of a lot to know about alloys of steel, the heat treating of them, not to mention the tighter margins of safety these building were built with in the first place. it really should not shock anybody that they simply fell down. convienient? sure. but totally possible.

[Ripley]

121. I like that explanation.

Makes more sense. I think the "missile" is just a case of "Face on Mars." People see what they want to see in poor quality frames of film that have awkward shadows in them.

I saw the architects of WTC on the Discovery channel or one of those channels and they said the WTC should have been expected to come down from that intensity of heat. Are they in on it too?

[maggrwaggr]

147. thank you for a little rational thought on this thread

the "explosions" one sees as the building collapses is

(sigh, why do I even need to explain this ...?)

The air inside the floors below being blasted out through the path of least resistence, i.e. the windows.

What happens when you squeeze a cell of bubble wrap? It pops.

The building collapses, the air in the floors explodes out the windows as the building squishes to almost nothing.

It's VERY VERY simple.

[On the Road]

120. I Am Deeply Impressed with That Bulge

There's definitely something solid there. I suppose the video could be a doctored version of what's on the LA Times site, but I suppose that's easy to check for anyone with the right video program.

Don't know what it means. Don't know whether it's a missile. Maybe there was some legitimate reason that an unusually shaped 757 took off that morning.

But as fas as I'm concerned, it's an anomaly without a reasonable explanation.

To me, the other things are suggestive, not incontrovertible, partly because I don't have the knowledge to assess them: the flash before the contact, the nose of the plane emerging, whether the jet fuel could melt the steel, the seismic evidence, etc.

Changes in the paradigm come about through an accumulation of anomalies. They are definitely accumulating.

[MissB]

124. Another question for Phil Jayhan

If you are going from LIHOP to MIHOP, then you should explain what you think our government has done with the bodies. You are suggesting that the plane pictured above is not the one that took off that morning. By extension, the passengers wouldn't be on that plane if the plane was switched, right?

So what happened to the people on that plane. Are you willing to say that the people were taken out back and shot? Hmmm??? They certainly aren't alive anymore.... so do tell us what your theory is on this.

[Ripley]

125. He says above that they all were put on flight 93...PA plane.

The problem I have with all of this is that you can't have an open-ended number of people involved and expect no one to squeal or at least make a peep. Lots of people spoke to the people on those airplanes on their cell phones. That diverse of a group could not be contained.

[RBHam]

126. see post 123

nt

[Phil Jayhan]

184. What happened to the People?

The best and most accurate (close) link to what happened that day in my opinion is this;

It's called 'Flight of the Bumble Planes'

http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html


cheers~
pj :)

thats what happened to the people;

[number6]

129. Very interesting William

thanx for the pix

[peacetalksforall]

158. I want to know more about the switching of the passengers theory...

(I nearly wrote switching of the bodies).

I've never believed that a commercial a/c hit the Pentagon.
The minute I saw the towers fall, I thought explosives.

I don't believe that the photos released by newspapers can be trusted.

So here's my question...

If the passengers were loaded on one a/c or even if it were only the passengers from the Pentagon flight that were loaded on the PA a/c....where could it have occurred? Was there time to do this? Was the flight path of the a/c going west, turning, looping, then moving east a lie?

Can the facts support a rendezvous of all the passengers?

When you are lied to everyday about extremely important issues, why not believe the worst of this admin? They have billions involved in long and short term motives starting with making a hero of an idiot who makes the word statesman foreign to us.

I really get ticked when people ridicule those who are exploring theories.

And I really get ticked when others say that we'll never know the answer. There isn't any reason not to know if you chip away. You gotta give it to our government that we pay for - they seem to be expert at shutting people up and imposing their version of citizen rights on us. Why bother rewriting the constitution as they have been trying to - just do it, right?

Someone should start keeping a diary of all suicides, killings, natural deaths, mysterious deaths of everyone remotely connected with air transportation, WTC, clean-up, storage, stock market, and citizen paid employees of what once our government.

[althecat]

162. This thread rocks....

DU... a place where tinfoil is a fashion accessory.

:)

[Phil Jayhan]

163. Come on Poeple please....

werk with me, will ya..?

Look at this picture. It shouldn't look like this and you and I both know it; There is something extra on this aircraft that is both troubling and disturbing to the eye; And also obvious when taken out of the 500mph dive it was in;

Something that shouldn't be there; something so obvious that when this is slowed down frame by frame our eyes register it, for the very first time.

and when seen in a still picture, we are disturbed by what we see, cause its obvious to anyone who doesn't go to MIT, that this aircraft has something extra attached to it.



Please take a good look at this picture; As if whatI declare was wrong, this wouldn't be there. But the perps of this plot were counting on 500mph planes and video with a script that named the perps of 911 in 10 hours!

think about it for just a minute.

In my plot, it now makes sense why Bush would continue on with the goat story even after the 2nd WTC crash, as he knew the rest of the plot and kew it needed more time;

I hope you will all consider my theory more stringently, as I have now been well recieved by many congressional staffer as well as campaign staffers by the dems.

cheers~
pj :)

[TrogL]

171. when in doubt, repost

(spelling)

If you say it enough times maybe it will become true.

What I tell you three times is true - Lewis, Caroll - the Hunting of the Snark

[Phil Jayhan]

164. Will, thats because it is a missile

Check these out;

Flash Movie with frames controller Original from ABC/CNN


Slowed Down CNN/ABC



And whats that orange fireball doing 10 feet to the right of the cockpit? Shouldn't be there. Watch the videos and you see that same orange fireball came out of that pod on the bottom of the aircrafts belly;

cheers~
pj :)


"I drink to make republicans more interesting~" :)

[MacCovern]

169. fireball is from airplane & building contacting

The fireball is a spark created by a plane flying at
hundreds of miles an hour contacting a building.

In the first video list that you link, I went frame by
frame and when you look at the underside of that 767
at the start of the clip it's obvious there is nothing
suspicious underneath. Only when the plane goes into
a steep bank does any bulge appear, and that bulge
is most likely the wheel well housing.

[Phil Jayhan]

173. #57, #75, #82, #90 Four pictures spanning 33 frames;

Heres # 57


Heres # 75


Heres #82


Heres #90


now notice that resolution changes from still to still because of camera movement, and also the speed of the aircraft;

Yet here, spanning 33 frames the pod is consistent, and always visible, never changes or disapears; It is a very real peice of equipment attached to the undercarriage of the plane; It is the same in the frames before this and after this;

and no, that orange fireball couldn't be a spark from the aircraft for several reasons;

First it is implausible to begin with; Second it is 5-10 feet from the cockpit; No other part of the plane is touching;
Thirdly, there is not building material or windows or glass showing through that orange fireball; Because it is punching a hole right into the WTC;



This is the same pic as the one above with 0% brightness and 1oo% contrast;



Look at it here with; 180 hue, 100% saturation and 12% light;



First notice how the airplane disappears and the only thing really visible is this orange fireball; And 10 feet away from the cockpit; Also notice 'no sparks' or anything that shows up as light anywhere near the cockpit; Thats because it wasn't all that terribly damaged during the crash, considering. See below.





and here is that gif still running from the LA Times showing that missile ignition and missile launch taking place from 'yet' another angle still;



The plane is travelling at 733 feet per second, and I estimate this missile launch to be about 350 feet or so from the Tower, which would leave this all taking place in .04 of a second or 4/10th's of a second; Thats why every video shows another aspect which another camera might not have picked up;

And here a race is taking place between the 767 and the missile just shot out from it; That white thing next to the plane, is not the missile itself. The missile is more than likely just ahead of it, unless the case could get that hot that quick, and more than likely it could, so either way; It is a picture of either the missile, or it's plume;

But because of this picture below, I believe it is the exhaust of the missile;

0% brightness, 100% contrast;



Notice again how the only thing thats visible in the picture when the brightness is removed, are all the things which are extremly bright, and extremely hot; i.e. The missile

[mn9driver]

174. You are correct, sir!

This guy almost missed the tower; you can see the extremely violent pull up just before impact when he realized he was going to be off to the side (hint: watch the wing tips flex upward as the plane nears the building). This over-g condition caused one of the landing gear doors to pop open (they are held closed by mechanical latches in flight, and the exremely heavy landing gear rest on them) and the gear began to free-fall extend an instant before impact.

In fact, in spite of this manuever, he was still off. This was the impact that left the building core partially unpenetrated, and a very few people managed to escape down the stairs from above the impact level.

As to the "explosion", it's just a mammoth amount of kinetic energy (K=MVsquared) beginning to be converted into heat: 500,000 pounds of airplane going from 600mph to a stop in around a half second; where does the energy go? Answer: mostly heat.

[Phil Jayhan]

175. Cockpit made it out the other side along with about 1/6th the aircraft

mn9-

No thats kinetic energy alright, but not from the plane;



Now notice the orange fireball hasn't occured yet; Thats because the missile hasn't hit the buildings exterior yet;

When 0% brightness is applied everything that isn't emitting light goes dark; See? The only things thats really bright, is the missile and its plume;



And the landing gear for this aircraft isn't located there;
This is a 767-323 class which has wing mounted landing gear; The landing gear on this plane is right in front of that pod; Even if what your saying is correct, the image would show up in front of where the pod is, and stop where it starts; This also shows you it was extra equipment on the undercarriage;

See the difference between the same aircraft, different class?



Both 767's; But the one on the left is the kind used on the WTC; The one on the right is showing what your speaking of, but its just not the right airplane.

cheers~
pj :)

"I drink to make Republicans more Interesting"

[mn9driver]

178. I stand by my shirt-sleeve analysis. By the way,

your photo of that green and white 767 is actually a 757. How do I know?

I've got about 4000 hours as copilot in it. Feel free to compare it with other 757 pictures, if you like. Your picture is of a 757-232 with Pratt and Whitney engines, painted in the colors of Song airlines. A high resolution version of this identical picture can be found at www.airliners.net, specifically at this link. Warning, it's about 300kb.

The 757 has belly doors for the gear, similar to the 767. They're clearly visible in the large image I linked to, but not as much in the photo you posted. They open as the gear extend and then close again after full extension.

Your 767 (Delta, I believe) operates in generally the same way (as do many large jets) and the photo you posted shows that.

[Phil Jayhan]

181. mn9--

Perhaps you can help me then; How many types of 767's are there, and which ones have fuselage monuted gear and which one wing mounted gear; Cause I am going to doublecheck, but this originally came off a 767 only website, showing all the 767's in all the nations taking off or landing;

I copied and pasted it from that 767 link which showed only 767's;

But then perhaps the photographer was a dweeb;

anyways, which 767's have fueslage mounted landing gear and which ones wing mounted...?

cheers~
pj :)

[mn9driver]

189. ALL 767's and 757's have wing mounted gear which,

upon retraction, use some space in the "belly" for stowage. Hence, all 757's and 767's have both "belly doors" and "wing doors". Some larger aircraft, such as some models of DC10 and 747 have center gear mounted on the fuselage, as well as the standard wing-mounted gear. This group does not include the 757/767's.


Check all you want on identifying that Song 757. They don't fly anything else. This link will tell you about them.

Good luck with your theories, it's been fun....

[plaguepuppy]

179. Nope, that aint landing gear, and the flash sure isn't kinetic energy

Let me get this right, an aluminum plane hitting a steel building will create a bright localized flash? This isn't flint and steel - and it's hitting almost at right angles. How exactly do you get such a bright flash out of that, when the plane itself seems to melt into the building like cheese through a grater?

[mn9driver]

180. Gear DOOR. And if I took a 500,000 pound block of cheese

and threw it at a building at 600mph, it would make a flash, too.

Physics.

[Phil Jayhan]

183. Cheese @ 600mph; It wouldn't make a flash like this

Maybe cheese would make a flash, but think your just way out in martian fields, wearing only a tin foil hat to protect you;

But something else which would make even a bigger flash than cheese @ 600mph, (Still wouldn't make a flash) is a missile shot out from the airplane;

See how that works..?

Apply occums razor and shave off some of your purposeful stubble;

Then the truth is easier to see;

Show me ONE single picture of cheese @ 600mph making a flash; I;ll bet you just made that up; Sorry, didn't werk.

cheers~
pj :P

[k-robjoe]

202. landing gear door

I don´t know.
But if it´s as simple as that, it seems strange that Boeing didn´t just say so :
"Boeing's department of commercial aviation, with headquarters in Seattle, examined the photographs for ten days and, having announced an explanation for the phenomenon, declined to make a statement on what it saw. Finally a spokesman stated that Boeing was unable to offer an opinion "for security reasons" and because it had not officially participated in the investigation of the attacks."
http://www.amics21.com/911/mysterious.html

[mn9driver]

214. Sorry, fried out on this thread. Believe what you want.

It's ever so much more logical to see a magically appearing "mysterious missile pod" that emerges only an instant before impact, than to try to comprehend the complex interplay between the aircraft structure and the high flight loads that occurred during that last wild manuever.

Sheesh. :tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:

[Phil Jayhan]

182. Thats correct; Looks at these pics;

missile in;



plane out;



cheers-
pj :)

[plaguepuppy]

192. Cheese in, cheese out...

Ah, but if the cheese contained high enough concentrations of plutonium, and you could compress it enough. Or maybe using new improved Brie with C4 - but even then it might not detonate.

As for what's coming out of the building in the above pic, it's clearly not an engine (it seems to "burn out" very soon after this, almost like a little lump of DU) and for sure not the nose of the plane. A word about plane noses: I spent a major chunk of my misspent youth building and flying various kinds of model planes. The first thing you learn is to keep the nose as light as possible: the CG of the plane is somewhere under the wing, and any weight forward of that has to be balanced with more weight behind the CG to keep the proper trim, making the whole plane a lot heavier. That means that the nose of a plane will be built as light as possible consistent with reasonable strength. "Reasonable" in this case would not include the ability to survive a flight clear through a building. Notice too that there's almost no "exit wound" on the north side after this thing emerges.

A missile would also helps explain the odd distribution of plane wreckage through the south tower. The lateral distribution of the debris actually converges as it passed through the towers, converging almost to a point. From normal stochastic scattering you would expect the pattern to fan out, but if a pre-existing channel had been carved through the wreckage a converging pattern would make sense.

[OudeVanDagen]

193. normal stochastic?

stochastic - some synonyms .... academic, assumed, assumptive, casual, concocted, conditional, conjecturable, conjectural, contestable, contingent, debatable, disputable, doubtful, equivocal, imaginary, imagined, indefinite, indeterminate, postulated, presumptive, presupposed, pretending, problematic, provisory, putative, questionable, refutable, speculative, stochastic, supposed, suppositional, suppositious, suspect, theoretic, theoretical, uncertain, unconfirmed, vague. Pick one ... I'll choose problematic or questionable ...

Okaaaaaay ..... from the photos ... videos ... narratives posted here ... was the path of wreckage through the core of the building ... or did the path miss the core? Why would scattering .... fan out ... non-convergence ... be expected in high speed collison?

[Lavachequirit]

196. You forgot "spastic"

Never done any mathematical modelling I see. But lacking a grasp of the technical meaning you might be safer with "random", as in "find a thesaurus and cut and paste some random shit to make fun of a word you don't understand."

[OudeVanDagen]

200. expected ...

... plaguepuppy to answer for himself ... maybe even to have some more fun with our tech terms ... but I welcome other comments from CT posse

[Lavachequirit]

198. Oh, were you asking a question?

"Why would scattering .... fan out ... non-convergence ... be expected in high speed collison?"

The diagrams that I saw (from an official analysis, I think from NIST) showed that the debris grazed the core but was mostly confined to the space between the core and the east outer wall. Despite the huge plume of flames that came out of the east wall there was essentially no exit wound there either. Some aluminum facing was blown off close to the southeast corner, but even there the steel columns seem to be intact.

As for the fan pattern, it's a little like the old toy/game/probability demonstration with an array of pins and little steel balls falling down in the middle: each collision is "random" in the sense that there is an equal chance of the bouncing right or left. Adding together all these random walks together creates a pattern that widens the further it goes through the dispersing mmatrix, and creates the familiar bell-shaped curve. The plane and building situation is obviously "lumpier" that the simple pins and balls model, but the same principles apply.

[OudeVanDagen]

201. was expecting ...

... hoping ... for some references to .... arguments against ... support for ... Weidlinger ... OVD disappointed as usual ...

[plaguepuppy]

203. OVD inscrutable as usual ...

Sort of like arguing with Yoda on smack, or trying to nail jelly to the wall. Messy, frustrating and ultimately not very interesting.

[OudeVanDagen]

205. I know ... I know ...

but I heard it all before.

But what about it ... got any answers ... comments? Didn't Weidlinger Report address some of your issues ... didn't NASA? What's wrong - right with these reports?

[plaguepuppy]

210. Been there, misunderstood that...

You mean the study that Silverstein paid Weidlinger Associates to do to promote their interests in the insurance settlement, http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021025.asp ?

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt:

What Weidlinger got right was that failure of the floor trusses wasn't the cause of the tower collapses. What they got wrong was the idea that, lacking a truss collapse, it made sense to propose that the columns or the core could get hot enough to simultaneously and completely fail. There is not even a preliminary attempt to estimate real temperatures in various parts of the towers, just a blanket assertion that the columns must have failed. The cores are the poorest areas in terms of fuel, and would conduct heat away very quickly from any area of high temperature. Also the oxygen must come from the outside, making the area around the core the poorest prospect for a hot fire (and no, the cores did not act as chimneys).


NASA report, OK, enlighten me... what has NASA got to do with the WTC?

[OudeVanDagen]

213. refreshing

to finally see someone from the CT camp acknowledge that OTHER reports DO exist .... see, there's much more to life than those reports from the toilet paper and plywood yes men at FEMA.

NASA .... brought aboard to evaluate videos: determine speed of aircraft at collision ... egressing fragments ... fuel burn speeds ... measure oscillations in structures ... estimate collapse venting pressures - your squibs ........ audio analysis ... sound isolations - scrubs ... busy boys .... fat papers.

[plaguepuppy]

217. Sorry, wasn't meant to be

What say old soul, this thread is getting long and unwieldy - shall we start a new one? Their is more to be said about the Weidlinger study, for starters.

[asinton]

223. The flash could be static discharge

The plane could build up a charge then show a flash before it touched the building as the charge arcs to ground.

Just a thought.

[TrogL]

218. They are video artifacts

(added 2nd example)

These are TV pictures run through video editing, screen capture and digitizing software. They've also been blown up beyond all belief.

Here's what I did with a picture of an airplane. I know the airplane. I've flown on it. It doesn't have any wing pods or external fuel tanks.

Here's the original (cropped).



I saw something suspicious on the wing, so I blew it up and put a box around the thing I saw.



Look, it's a man! It's holding something!! So I blew it up really big.



There. It clearly shows a man holding a futuristic weapon standing on the wing of the airplane.

Here's a second example (added on edit).

The original appears on a thread about the president's plane buzzing the Daytona 500.

Here's the original, cropped.



Now it's been expanded to show "detail".



Look!! There's three UFO's following Air Force One!

[plaguepuppy]

219. New hope for the lame !!!

No, those are flying ghost monkeys flying out of Troll's butt, I'd recognize them anywhere!

And sadly Troll actually thinks this is a clever send-up. Sorry, details do count, and things close to the limits of resolution can sometimes be decisive - look at all that's been made of slight variations in the background cosmic radiation as reflecting major structural features of the early universe. Pretending that it's all just background noise or "video artifact" won't make those troublesome anomalies vanish unless you have a very low standard for discarding evidence you don't like.

[Pay-per-Ballot]

220. About our 'reverse' engineering...

Hi Folks; Sorry, I'm so late coming to the party. It troubles me greatly that nobody has posted any info from the architect's original sets of plans. There are many people who must have had them. As I have commented at length, the REAL COVER-UP began with the removal of the engineering office's files in 1989!

(see:rense.com- WTC7-"Were Towers 'pulled'-too?")

Yesterday, I made mention to plaguepuppy that the drawing of the trusses is not correct. Let me preface this comment. At the time I did this job, I was at my peak abilities at reading a set of plans. Following that episode I have only read interior plans, no structural plans of any kind. I am a photographer/illustrator, not an engineer.

Most people are missing the point: The buildings HAD to be demolished. I can't even speculate on the inner-NYC/Wash. politics, or the MLS-real estate angles, but you will find FACTUAL info if you dig in the pile labled: "Michael Milken, SEC-1988, et. al." For example: Who was the building 'owner' at that time? If you say: "P.A." -Then who was in charge? -Learn all you can. It's critical!!!

"NO COMMERCIAL VALUE" -remember that statement? I sure do.

Here's the catch: Aluminum castings were bolted together as they were set in place. (not shown) Big bolts. ( Almost Half the size of those on the Brooklyn Bridge!)

These bolts became 'loose,' because NOBODY from ALCOA was asked to verify the use in application. You cannot attach steel to aluminum, but it was assumed that the collums were to be substantially increased in their strength by "welding the seams." As stated on the original docs.

You could not 'weld' these seams.

The outside surface had a silicon/rubber-like seal between each vertical section. On the inside, and ONLY on the inside, they used spot-welded tabs along the inner profile. Along the flat inner portions the seams ran contiguously, meaning they would not fall outward, but they could readily fall inward, like a door-hinge.

> __/ \__

There was a large steel plate attached to these cast members. These bolts (not shown) were covered by the concrete risers. So, none of these points could be maintained without drilling the concrete out.

>__/ . . \

They opted to sandwich another steel plate and steel bolt assy. through that mass. This would allow subsequent 'tightening' as the electralytic-exchange continued its process. It looked like a good idea at $100M.! -That is, until the Wintergarden was built.

I urge you to focus on the WHY? question, since I am sure that we have faithfully covered the "How" issues on the day of the show. I am perplexed by the chemical reactions that will pulverize both THAT concrete, and the ultra-fragile decomposing aluminum.

We have about 75 Days left to implicate those within our government who could have done this. That single, and critical catagory seems to have been completely overlooked in our naratives: "Black-Ops" is neither sufficient, nor acceptable in the eyes of a judge. There are always people in charge.

[Pay-per-Ballot]

221. Ps: Just ask GumboYaYa!

(I saw him at that time on 7th St. between 1st and Lafayette)

[donquixote]

222. Shadows and Light

The first is definitely the shadow of the starboard engine. (Or a big gremlin!)

The second - looks like the end of a flashlight beam. Maybe the forward running light of the jet, located in the nose cone?

I don't think that nose cone would need much help at that airpseed getting through a few walls of conrete, dry wall and glass.

[Phil_Jayhan]

224. Heres another pic from a different angle of the undercarriage equipment

Definately not a shadow, or a gremlin;

cheers~
pj :)

[greenman62]

225. did someone say missle?

comparisons of real planes, vs the ones that struck the WTC.
(real planes?)

http://767.batcave.net/

projectiles exiting the wtc.
http://investigate911missle.batcave.net/missle.html

projectiles exiting the wtc.
http://wtc7.batcave.net/7.html

several pics before hit in one page...
http://wtc1.batcave.net/2.html

Brad
http://911index.batcave.net/