An Analysis Of The Aircraft Which Hit The WTC Towers

911physics.atspace.com...

What do you guys think of my article?
I was skeptical of the so called pod and missile for a while, until I investigated it...

Good job on the info.

I think most sane people that look at this stuff are usually always convinced.

Then again some are convinced that bush is a good president.

I think it's one of those things that we'll realise in years time. Like the Kennedy assassination.

I here of massive court cases prosecuting bush and rice but this stuff never gets out to the majority because of corporate owned media.

Thus we need more people like you

No real comments on the pod stuff, but in regards to the "uranium penetrator," an alternate to that may be that it was launched from within the building, ie an office previously rented out, judging by the amount of debris that made it through and the directions of the ejected concrete/gypsum/etc. powder (though these may have been charges detonating prematurely as a result of the impacts). In fact, I would really like to see who owned the offices around the impacted regions of the buildings, if that information is at all available. Ultimately it wouldn't matter though, I suppose, unless there are logical problems with either or both of those ideas.

I here of massive court cases prosecuting bush and rice but this stuff never gets out to the majority because of corporate owned media.

Off Topic:

That isn't true, their puppet masters are protecting them.

From your site:
external image

This video is quite poor because it was filmed far away from the WTC Towers and the camera had to zoom in on the aircraft. As you can see you can barely see the aircraft. The flash however is very visible. The flash itself is definitely not a reflection of light (it is just too large to be.) Some skeptics would claim this is nothing extra-ordinary and this is just the fuselage colliding with the WTC North Tower, however if you get a copy of this video you can see that the flash actually occurs before the shadow of the fuselage even makes contact with the building.

No flash is seen here (animated GIF of the Naudet film.

Well that GIF is probably missing a few frames, either that or it's been altered.
I mean there are tons of those holograms hit the WTC freaks out there that would do something like that (no offence to some people.)

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
Well that GIF is probably missing a few frames, either that or it's been altered.

The URL of the GIF is thunderbay.indymedia.org... and has been used in their articles on the event.

Are you suggesting that one of the more popular alternative news sources is altering these images?

I didn't know it was from indymedia.

I think they just screwed up converting it from a wmv to a gif or what ever.

The flash does exist on the North Tower though, just go and watch the Naudet brothers documentary "9/11" and see for yourself.

Here's some reading for you. This is probably the best analysis of the 767s at the WTC that day. I'm not gonna go into a big discussion about it, but the "pods" were wheel well fairings where they join the wing.

www.questionsquestions.net...
www.questionsquestions.net...
www.questionsquestions.net...

Well we could discuss all day about how it's supposedly a reflection of light.

But.

1. How come the pod makes an ident in the WTC.

2. How come the pod has a shadow on the Evan Fairbanks video?

I want answers....

The only way it can be a "pod" is if the planes were already flying before they flew into the towers. Look at the location of them, they're right next to where the wheels of the planes are!! How are you going to get a pod there, AND landing gear? There simply isn't enough room for both under there. Planes are built so that there is just enough room in the outside structure for essential items, without taking so much room on the INTERNAL structure they can't put seats, and cargo. Not to mention that the pods would add a lot more weight to the plane, and make it even harder to control, and MAYBE even too heavy to take off.

Ever seen a missile fire? It doesn't look ANYTHING like that flash in the video. In most cases there is a HUGE smoke trail behind the missile. When there's NOT a smoke trail, there's a huge flame trail that's noticeable for a long way away.

[edit on 1/31/2006 by Zaphod58]

Well we don't know what type of missile it is or what, I am sure it was specially designed for it's purpose.

It doesn't matter. It's a rocket. A rocket means flame, and smoke. Whether it was specially designed for its purpose or not, it's a rocket. That's all a missile is, it's a rocket motor, with some kind of seeker, and a warhead.

And another question, WHY? The weight of the plane would be MORE than enough to punch a giant hole in the building. WHY add a missile to the equation, and risk it being seen and blowing a hole in the cover up?

No skeptic would ever understand it.

I assume you believe 9/11 was the work of Arab Terrorists?

The people behind this are masters at what they do, the purpose of the missile was to create a larger fireball and put on a show for the media...well the American people.

Alot of things in the world don't make sense, doesn't mean there not real.

So if I use LOGIC to analyze things, and EXPERIENCE that I have, that means I'm a sheeple that believes the Arabs did it? Give me a break.

Do you know what would happen if a missile went off in the middle of an exploding plane? NOTHING! The explosion from the fuel in the plane would be so huge, it would simply absorb the explosion from your "missile" that the plane is somehow carrying in a pod that keeps it from having wheels. You can't put a tiny explosion into a bigger explosion and suddenly have a huge explosion.

Seems to me all your trying to do is stray from the subject ...whether or not the missile exists.

screw it. I'm getting out while I can.

[edit on 1/31/2006 by Zaphod58]

It is obvious your government has higher priorities than protecting and serving its people.
seem they would rather control the fate of the would by creating scenario's, like 9/11 and iraq and now iran, to keep a flow of events that seem to be either preventing catastrophes or creating them.

Has this not been done to death already?

1) The Pod is a refraction of light from the curved covers over the landing gear doors.
2) The strip in the center is part of the paint scheme used by United in its 767’s.
3) You cannot fit a pod between the landing gear doors and still have them open to retract the gear.
4) The spark at the front of the plane is either the Radome, the electronics box that is below the cockpit, static electric discharge, or the petit tubes and static air ports, or a combination of these high voltage elements exploding or "arching to" the building.

Now how can you ask about shadows, yet not wish to discuss the light?

Why is it that your side is always putting stipulations on the other side to keep them from explaining away your theories?

We don’t seem to need to do that to you guys, but maybe that is because we have logic, science, some experience, and precedent from other crashes on our side...



[edit on 1/31/2006 by defcon5]

Originally posted by aelphaeis_mangarae
No skeptic would ever understand it.

I assume you believe 9/11 was the work of Arab Terrorists?

Ah, here we go again.

Because a conspiracy theorists sides with a small part of popularized conspiracy theories, he is suddenly believing the entire story.

Why must it be an all-or-nothing proposition.

There are no pods.

Also, aircraft build static electricity as a function of their flying. When something that has a static charge (aircraft) touches something that is grounded (building) you will see a flash of a static discharge. Combine this with the obvious exchange of kinetic energy, and you have your flash visible in the south tower impact.