My Take On 9/11 + "Loose Change" video

alrighty.....
i would first like to say that i wont explain the evidence i have based my theory on because it can all be gathered here. It is a video by Loose Change, you may be familiar with.

I believe that the trade centers were hit with the airliners. The underneath of the planes look like boeing planes, but they contain an extra piece (watch video) which could hold a cruise missle. Here was my only problem...if the goernment did this, where the hell would they get agents who would volunteer to give their own lives? Then i thought, "how would i do this if i was the government."

Simple.

You fool religious fanatics into thinking they are working for a terrorist organization and help them commit these acts of terror. If the government helped the terrorists, they could easily have loaded extra pieces onto the plane without being disturbed and they could have even had weapons on the plane before they got on it! It makes sense logically, everything would appear the way you said it happened, because actual terrorists did it. I also believe that there were bombs in the towers (watch video).

Finally, I believe that the pentagon was struck with a cruise missle (watch video) and that the very very very few bits of debris that could be from a plane (all three pieces) were planted there because there is no way they could fit the plane that was descibed to have hit the towers.

Your feedback into my theory would be great!

_-Puppeteer-_

Oh good god. Not the pods again. Do you know how big and heavy a cruise missile is?

Why would they carry one if they didn't fire it?

How could they fire it without a smoke trail you could see for miles? Ever seen a missile launch? It leaves a HUGE smoke trail when it fires.

How would the landing gear function with the "pods" or missiles mounted by them? That entire area is taken up by the gear, gear mechanisms, fuel tanks, etc.

If you could see them on the video, HOW DID THE PILOTS MISS THEM ON THE WALKAROUND? Pilots do a walkaround inspection before boarding passengers. They know every part of that plane. What, did they look at it and say "Oh this must be some new doohickey to give us better fuel consumption."? HOW could they not notice this giant cruise missile attached to the plane, but you could see it on a video taken from hundreds of feet away?

[edit on 4/15/2006 by Zaphod58]

Have a look at Loose Change 2nd Ed. The 'flash' on the nosecone area just as each plane hits a tower is very odd, I have to say, but I don't see why a cruise missile is necessary when you've got a whacking great airplane to hit the building with.

There's some great stuff in the video, though. I personally like the revelation that the guy who allegedly piloted the plane that was hijacked and struck the Pentagon originally worked IN the Pentagon and a year before had been running exercises in which a hijacked plane crashes into the building.

He then 'retires' (right...) and, rather than go into a nice, well-paid job to capitalise on his connections, takes what one can only assume is something of a pay cut to become an airline pilot... and draws the ultimate short straw by piloting a plane that crashes into his old workplace. Stretching the limits of coincidence, one feels.

I for one dont think there were PODS.I just cant see them.
Something went off before it hit, but I cant say what.Perhaps a missile.But why? Not really sure.I dont think they needed an 'pre' hole to get the plane in.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How could they fire it without a smoke trail you could see for miles?

Just a few minutes ago you told me you could barely see a 747 from 5 miles but you are saying you can notice smoke from miles away

Have you LOOKED at the smoke trail from a cruise missile launch? Here are a few pictures of ship launched cruise missiles.

And it's one thing to look for a tiny speck of a plane at 5 miles, and another to see a cloud suddenly form with a tail that leads DIRECTLY to the missile.






[edit on 4/15/2006 by Zaphod58]

Something else to think about. An Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) is launched by dropping it from the plane. It's not like an air to air missile that fires the motor, then shoots off the rail. It starts the motor, and then drops free from the plane, and after freefalling, the wings snap out, and it begins flying on its own. If the missile was carried in the fuselage, how were they going to drop it? They'd have to modify the fuselage to have a bomb bay, and if they did that on the bottom of the 767, they'd have to take the landing gear off, take out the center wing fuel tanks, and reinforce all the structure around it.

A missile is a vehicle for deliveraing a warhead to it's target, bearing in mind that one usually does not usually want the firing vehicle to be damaged/destroyed.
Why would they fire a missile a split second before the plane hits anyway? The plane was the missile..

Remember:

missile = vehicle to deliver warhead

why would they want to use a missle a split second before impact?
perhaps to ensure that the plane would go through the tower? remember, this was all hypothetical because no one actually drove a plane through a WTC tower before, and they had to make sure it would work. So maybe it was just like a guarantee?

EDIT: also, perhaps it was to trigger some of the bombs in the tower? mainly the one at the base?

_-Puppeteer-_

[edit on 15-4-2006 by Puppeteer]

How about the questions I asked? How is a pilot NOT going to notice a massive structural modification to his plane during the walkaround inspection? It would take a HUGE mod to mount a cruise mssile on a 767. So how is it that he didn't notice?

to that i am not sure.
the only thing i could think of would be relating back to my theory n the terrorists being helped by the government. A government official could use any excuse in the book to tell the piolet to not check the plane out, he is a high ranking official and everyone should believe the government

_-Puppeteer-_

That would NEVER happen. NO pilot in the US would EVER fly a plane without double checking that everything was where it should be, and there were no leaks, or anything else like that. ESPECIALLY a commercial plane. The pilots are ultimately responsible for that plane, and everyone on it. If some government person came up to them and said "Don't do a walkaround inspection of your plane." That pilot would say "Yeah right." and run directly to the FAA, and refuse to fly that plane. And any other pilot that came along behind him would do the same thing.

The 'flash' on the nosecone area just as each plane hits a tower is very odd

It seems odd compared to what ... all the other instances of commercial airliners flying into steel buildings, when there is no flash?

I'm not directing this at you alone ... I simply don't understand the business with the 'flashes'. In all the videos it’s quite obvious the flash coincides with impact, and also occurs around the nose of the aircraft.

If a cruise missile was fired off the base of the fuselage, wouldn't one expect to see something enter the building below the level of the aircraft?

If the missile had to navigate itself level to and ahead of the aircraft (to make it coincide with the nose-cone impact) ... it would need some power, some thrust ... why do we not see that??

There is a much more simple explanation here:

Would you not expect some heat & light energy to be released from the force of metal impacting metal at 600-800 km/h?

Here is a good look at all the 'pod' stuff.Again, I never really saw a 'pod' but I know I can see a flash from both planes.What it is, I cant say for sure and wont commit to anything until something else comes along.If it ever does.
SOURCE

As someone brought up in another thread, an airplane builds up a static charge as it flies. You're taking an airplane with probably a huge static charge, and putting it near what's basically a giant grounding rod. The flash is almost definately the result of that static discharging. However, unless we go out and fly other planes into other steel buildings, we'll never be able to prove it one way or the other.

doh!! zaphod you beat me to it.had to be static charge."no fire without smoke" to mangle a phrase... and yes if i was to go miss a walkround on a pre flight inspection i,d get screwed by faa cos you are the "pilot in command" ie responsible for the lives and safety of your passengers EVERYTIME you leave the ground.. remember the pilot who missed out cos one of the maintenance guys left duct tape on the pitot tube.. so they lost all reference to air speed etc hence a large splashdown and lots of dead people. even if the president was on board the p="pilot in command" is exactly that

Thank you Zaphod. I think static charge probably does it for me. I'm not looking for weird stuff where there isn't any - goodness knows there's more than enough in the events of that day.

i have the loose change dvd and u guys have answered some of the questions that i have asked myself about it on occassion thank you. on another note i think that loose change is an awsome movie and has things in it that in plane site dosent have i really enjoyed watching it.

Omega

[edit on 19-4-2006 by Omega85]

Hi guys

It seems to me that everyone who talks about this pod thinks it must be a cruse missile, which from video etc quite clearly isn't. no one seems to think it could be anything else such as a bomb or maybe a new design etc.

Also in relation to the pilots walking around the plane. If the attacks were planned by the government which is suggested in the video, the pilots would also have been working for the government therefore not worry about a huge extra bit on the plane.

Most replys seem to be about cruise missiles rather than talking about the facts presented in the video

I do agree that some ideas seem a little nuts and could have a good reason behind them such as the static charge.

However some things don't seem to add up.

AS to the pilot walkarounds....remember Operation Northwoods?
Part of that plan was to have planes "hijacked" from a company that was essentially a CIA front company.
Not to mention the fact that in the video "Loose change: 2nd edition" it clearly gives the theory that the planes may actually have been drones. Watch the video if you haven't, you can see it on google video for nothing and its only an hour and twenty minutes.
It made me do some serious thinking.

Hi. i noticed many of you are new to this conspiracy subject. I do beleive the flash concides with the impact. The pod image shown is too blury to be able to tell distinctively what it is. So I at least will not conclude anything in definite from that frame. For those of you interested I have found a site where it lists all the evidence against the official 9/11 story. Anyone, (beleivers and nonbeleivers) should take a look at the site. You don't have to agree with everything, but it does bring up very serious questions. This is the only site I found on the internet to summarize ALL of the info against the official story. The link is in my signature. If anyone here knows a better site that can summarize all the data better please inform me, for I am a high conspiracy theorist.