Did Large Airliners Really Hit the Buildings on 9/11?

Originally posted by PookztA
thanks for discussing this folks, this is a very important issue. i only recently started doubting the official airliner story after seeing all this evidence so it is cool to hear people from both sides of the story. gotta work together to find the truth.

-Abe

Here's a thought- More than once, I've seen the "Controlled Demolitions" supporters cop an attitude and claim that you "planes hit the Towers" doubters were in fact secret disinformation agents who are deliberately introducing rubbish to discredit the rest of them. Of course, it's easy to make such a claim when they're referring to anonymous third party persons they've never met, but it's another thing entirely for them to call you a disinformation agent to your face when you're actually here to defend yourself.

Do you think it's possible that the reverse is actually true, and that the "Controlled demolitions" supporters are in fact the disinformation agents who are working to suppress your statements? The reason I say this is that when people genuinely interested in the truth like myself see your claims, I simply roll my eyes and say, "jeez, not another one!", but when THEY hear your claims they go all out to squash your claims in what's tantamount to outright censorship.

The point here is, I'm certainly not afraid of your claims, so why are they? The truth never has to run and hide from falsehoods. It's always falsehoods that have to run and hide from the truth.

Originally posted by GoodOlDaveA flight of F-15s came out of Otis air force base and arrived over NYC some five minutes after the second strike.

Try more like 20 minutes, so the fighters were not there duing the time the planes were hitting the buildings.

www.historycommons.org.../11=complete_911_timeline_world_trade_center

9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001: Flight 175 Crashes into WTC South Tower; Millions Watch Live on Television

9:25 a.m. September 11, 2001: Otis Fighters Arrive over New York, According to Later Report by 9/11 Commission.



[edit on 1-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Another reason I question whether or not large airliners hit the WTC buildings is because many witnesses and many reporters did not seem to think it was a plane.

On-Site 9/11 News Reporter Gives Eye Witness Testimony:




for more videos related to 9/11 and The Hutchison Effect, please see my YouTube channel: www.youtube.com...

reply to post by PookztA


When I was in Florida, sharing 9/11 with people anywhere and everywhere, I ran into this man who was "crabbing" at the beach, and went into my spiel with him, showing him pics and recording it on camera. This person was a little more unusual then most, because he happened to have lived in New york when it happened, and witnessed everything after the first strike.

And without writing a book here, his testimony was simple. He saw the 2nd plane hit the world trade center. He saw it with his own eyes. And he gave me a very slow and insightful story. Along with many other things he saw that day. And he had no bone in the matter. He was simply telling us his story and only because I bumped into him a little north of Tampa on the beach while he was crabbing.

There is a ton of really great evidence out there that turns unbelievers into believers. But this isn't it.

Just my opinion,

Peace-
Phil

Originally posted by PookztA
Another reason I question whether or not large airliners hit the WTC buildings is because many witnesses and many reporters did not seem to think it was a plane.

And the purposeful, blatant disinformation continues. You claim "many reporters and witnesses", when, in fact, it was only a couple. Then you only post one and she didn't even see the impact because she wasn't staring up at the towers. All she heard was the impact.

How, in the logical, intelligent universe, does this have anything to do with proving the planes were fake?

There are no words to describe the unbelievable ridiculousness of these claims.

"Pods" and "NPT/tv fakery" and "DEW", oh my! Such blatant disinformation, every single one.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


as a witness and ATS member....

what I saw, WAS a plane!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yea... shove it no planers!

[edit on 4/3/2010 by ugie1028]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
"Pods" Such blatant disinformation, every single one.

Well you do know that civilain planes can carry pods?

Originally posted by REMISNE
Well you do know that civilain planes can carry pods?

Show us some images of jetliners carrying pods. I asked you to post them before and you never did, so I'm still waiting. Don't make claims without backing your claims up.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Show us some images of jetliners carrying pods. I asked you to post them before and you never did, so I'm still waiting. Don't make claims without backing your claims up.

So easy to post things when asked, i wish others would try it.

reply to post by REMISNE


The TU-154 M/D version is the military version of the TU-154 passenger jet. The pod is for the ELINT (ELectronic INTelligence) system. The pod is only radars.

The pod in the second image is simply an extra fuel tank.

Neither pod is anywhere near location of the "pod" that was allegedly on FL.175.

I was also looking for an image that was a little more current and on a 757, 767 (which I know there are none). A pod with radars on a plane from 1964 is hardly proof of a "pod" on FL.175. Furthermore, see how low that pod hangs on the TU-154? Yep, no such thing on the belly of FL.175 when the plane is viewed coming towards the camera.

Nice try though.

reply to post by REMISNE


Umm..."REMISNE", _BoneZ_ is correct about the Tupelov.

However, your second photo? First, it's a Learjet (naturally I recognized it right away...).

It was owned by Northern Executive Aviation, based in Manchester, UK.

Not sure what the pod is, but it doesn't look like a fuel tank, to me. Looks more like an atmospheric collection device, for air quality testing purposes.


Anyway, thought everyone would like to see more images of the SAME Learjet:



That's from the Farnborough Airshow, 1988!!!

Now, let's follow it through the years....

Manchester Airport (EGCC), 2002:



AND, a "beauty shot", from below (no hard points visible, nothing attached to underside of wing), from 2003:



Finally, was sold to buyer in Abu Dhabi ( Gentlemen, start your 'conspiracy' engines! ) in May 2004:




Now, if we can just find out what the heck NEA was experimenting with, back for the Airshow in 1988?

Maybe for the Sultan who has everything?

Anyway, neither the American Airlines flight 11,, nor the United Airlines flight 175 (both B-767s) had any "pods" attached to them.

The only claim made in that regard is fromteh grainy, and blurry photos of UAL 175's belly, and anyone with any experience around the equipment type knows that those are just the wheel-well fairing, and wing-to-fuselage fairing bumps.

Here, the lighting in this photo makes them very obvious:



Now, imagine them painted dark blue (in United's scheme) with sunlight glinting of of them.....

edit for this, because here is the United scheme:



It is a -300, so fuselage is longer than the -200, but same landing gear/wing configuration...





[edit on 4 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
However, your second photo? First, it's a Learjet (naturally I recognized it right away...)

Yeah, because the word "Lear" on the tail wasn't the first giveaway.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Not sure what the pod is, but it doesn't look like a fuel tank, to me. Looks more like an atmospheric collection device, for air quality testing purposes.

You appear to be correct on this point. The Learjet 36 (LJ36) was the LJ35 with an added fuel tank, but it was internal after taking out two seats. This pod appears to be for external equipment purposes.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Yeah, because the word "Lear" on the tail wasn't the first giveaway.

No, saw that second or third....the engine cowling shape, and the distinctive ventral fins were the clues.

THEN, because of the UK registration, was easy to find other photo examples of the same airframe.

BTW, just as in the USA, registrations can be 'personalized', much like automobile license plates. In US, though, MUST have at least one numeral. Other countries, varies. UK is ALWAYS all letters, with the leading 'G'...

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
The TU-154 M/D version is the military version of the TU-154 passenger jet. The pod is for the ELINT (ELectronic INTelligence) system. The pod is only radars.

You asked for photos of civilain planes that carry pods, i showed them.

Why can't you admit when facts and evidence are shown?

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Umm..."REMISNE", _BoneZ_ is correct about the Tupelov.

However, your second photo? First, it's a Learjet (naturally I recognized it right away...).

Well sorry but BoneZ asked for photos of civilain planes carrying pods. I showed them and can show more.

Thanks for showing neither of you can accept or admit to facts and evidence shown.

ALSO THE FACT IS THAT YOU WERE BOTH WRONG ABOUT THE LEARJET HAVING A FUEL TANK, IF YOU LOOK AT THE POD CLOSELY AND DO A SMALL AMOUNT OF RESEARCH YOU WILL SEE THAT IT IS A ECM POD.



[edit on 5-4-2010 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE
Well sorry but BoneZ asked for photos of civilain planes carrying pods.

Sorry, but the TU-154 with the pod on the bottom is not a civilian plane.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Sorry, but the TU-154 with the pod on the bottom is not a civilian plane.

Yes it is, it is a military version of a CIVILIAN plane.

As stated a civilian plane can carry or have a pod mounted.

reply to post by Leo Strauss


Exactly. Ramzi Youssef said after the '93 bombing, that their plan was to knock one building into the other.

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by Leo Strauss

 

Exactly. Ramzi Youssef said after the '93 bombing, that their plan was to knock one building into the other.

And this man was also shown to have been a FBI plant. The FBI used this man to do their own evil works. If anyone uses this man to make their point for the official story being true, they are only bolstering the truth that 911 was a conspiracy. Because the records show that in 1993, the FBI directed and orchestrated the bombing of the WTC.

Make them prove otherwise or let them shut up.

Cheers-
phil

reply to post by Phil Jayhan


Of course 9/11 was a conspiracy, but where is the evidence Youseff was a plant?