Whatever hit the South Tower was definitely NOT a commercial aircraft!

[nebula]

Photo and video evidence makes clear whatever hit the South Tower could not have been AA Flight 175. It appears to be some kind of military aircraft. See video for demonstration. You can use the slider to fast forward to the 37:40 mark, where the guy starts talking about the plane that hit the South Tower. It is clear the aircraft that hit WTC2 was not a commercial airliner!




Google video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8585976043115686394&q=in+plane+site&hl=en

(The South Tower was the 2nd one hit. Video of the North Tower impact
is too far away to make out details of the plane that hit it).










Close-ups of the airplane moments before it hit the South Tower reveals strange pod-like attachments in the belly of the plane:


(New York magazine)


(Der Spiegel)





(From CNN) the same image taken from a different angle reveals the same odd, pod-like attachment underneath the plane:



http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/gallery/unimaginable.html






The underside of a 767 commerical airliner should be smooth:

















The airplane that hit the South Tower looked a lot more like this:







The E-8 J-Stars is used for airborne battle management, command and control, intelligence, surveillance and recon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-8_Joint_STARS




Or this!


Newer version of the E-8C called the E-10, based on a modified Boeing 767!


:wow:

[G Hawes]

1. OMG1111eleven!!one

[mirandapriestly]

2. Nebula

the only plane photos that "count" are the ones from newscasts on that day. Look at youtube in the "As it Happened" videos. Also CNN pipeline has video from 9-11 in their archives, you have to join, you can get free membership for 2 weeks. The above pictures are all made after (or maybe before) the fact and could have been anything, I don't think they were what really hit the wtc.
There is footage from 9-11 where you can see a "wescam" camera being used to take live action
from the wtc's. These cameras have the capability of adding things in real time. They are very, very sophisticated. (so why can't they get any details on any of the planes that day?) Look at the "plane" at 5:00 in this video. The surrounding area is a different color than the rest of the background for one thing. I think the plane bulge is a diversion from the phony footage from 9-11 itself that was televised live and to convince people that there was some kind of plane and get them to speculate about what it was.


Look at the "plane" at 5:00, this was supposedly live (notice how the reporter doesn't see it, he has to be told there is a plane, cuz the people in the studio were looking at in on their screen. (Later he says that he was on the wrong side to see it, but he was looking at the towers from the scene and didn't see the plane coming in and why would he even need to qualify that, did someone tell him to?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMucVeew8eg&mode=related&search=

[nebula]

4. What are you trying to say?

All images in the OP are original and unaltered. The original video clearly reveals the pod-like attachment as well.


For example, this image is hosted on the CNN website:




http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/gallery/unimaginable.html

[MervinFerd]

13. It was actually a.......VERY LARGE POTATO!

Nasty Spuds!

Damn those hyperpower Spud Guns!

[MervinFerd]

14. OOPS. Potato missed! Should have been beneath the OP.

Oh, well....

[MervinFerd]

15. Nasty, inaccurate Spud Guns.

Cythereian Disruptor Death rays are -so- much more accurate.

Even from space.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[mirandapriestly]

46. None of the pictures are the same.

none of the "planes" look the same. Yours is shown going down into the building like it was supposed to have, but the video I linked you to was the original LIVE (it was shown as the event occurred, yours was shown later) video (abc, I think)and it had the plane going in level. (and it's not because of the height of the camera).
FEMA was in NYC the day before. I think they could have or some part of the military/intelligence had a camera crew that was sending pictures to the networks' cable or working with them. You can see Wescam cameras in some of the footage and those are cameras that can insert live planes into videos, they are very very sophisticated.
Look at that footage, does it look the same? it was live, it was the only one that matters.
you have no reason to trust CNN, they put up pictures of Obama and put "Osama" on the photo, they've done it twice, they are propagandists.

I used to look at the "pods" too, but then I saw the footage as it happened (check out youtube) and realized that that is the only footage that matters, because it was done during the event and it is a different "plane" than your footage.

[nebula]

6. The Youtube video you linked doesn't show anything

Its just 10-minute video footage of smoke coming out of the towers. Doesn't show any planes hitting them.

What does it have to do with the discussion?

[mirandapriestly]

47. It has a "plane" at 2:57

This is the plane that was taken "live". Don't you understand the significance of that? This is supposedly taken at the time of the impact at 2:57, ok?
*why is the "live" plane level when the plane was supposedly descending at 5000 feet a minute and the "plane" in your footage is angled down?
*why didn't the reporter on the scene know that there was a plane and had to be told by the anchor at the studio because it was on their screen ?(later he says he was on the wrong side but he would have known if a plane hit if he was on the scene, I think)
*why does a fireball come out of the far side of the the tower?
If they are using Wescam, which is used to tape football and sports and can focus on details at the 50 yard line, why is it such an un-detailed shot of the "plane"?
Later on they had time to make "better" ones like the ones you have, but don't you wonder why your plane doesn't have a tail? or one of the wings?

[nebula]

3. ...

[Bolo Boffin]

5. And it was an American Airlines jet that hit the South Tower, right? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

8. LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!

Whassamatta, nebula???

At least you could have had the courtesy to admit you were wrong.

[G Hawes]

43. Well, she deleted her post, so come on,

tell the rest of us what it said.

[Big Pappa]

7. The Air Force

plane on the bottom is a Joint Stars ground radar A/C. These are fairly new to the AF inventory. First used in Dessert Storm. There are not many (less than 30) in the world. I think if one or two just up and disappeared there would be cause for concern. Being stationed at Robins Air Force base in 2001 this is also where the J-stars are located, I cannot recall one missing.:tinfoilhat:

[hack89]

9. There are always hundreds of out of use airliners

available for modification - why use a easily recognizable military plane?

[MervinFerd]

18. Airliners don't have pods.

Silly.

[salvorhardin]

10. Coming this winter to a message board near you...

<cue foreboding music>
In a world where up is down and down is up,
Where low resolution video artifacts have deep meaning,
And specular reflections are not always what they seem...
There exists a terror that comes from the depths of your darkest, most paranoid fantasies
And is made manifest in the minds of thousands.
Cursed to endlessly type the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over...

It's...

RETURN OF THE POD PEOPLE!!!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

42. Truly terrifying!

[dailykoff]

11. I'm inclined to agree. (n/t)

[mirandapriestly]

48. I agree with the subject line.eom

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Another picture of the strange, pod-like attachment!

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1161609&WxsIERv=Obrvat%20767-233%2FRE&Wm=0&WdsYXMg=Nve%20Pnanqn&QtODMg=Zbagerny%20-%20Cvreer%20Ryyvbgg%20Gehqrnh%20Vagreangvbany%20%28Qbeiny%29%20%28LHY%20%2F%20PLHY%29&ERDLTkt=Pnanqn%20-%20Dhrorp&ktODMp=Wnahnel%202%2C%202007&BP=0&WNEb25u=Nyrk%20T.-Qravpbheg%20-%20Pbagenvyf%20Nivngvba%20Cubgbtencul&xsIERvdWdsY=P-SORZ&MgTUQtODMgKE=Pncgnva%20vf%20univat%20n%20ybbx%20gb%20gur%20ehajnl%20nurnq%20nf%20syvtug%20885%20vf%20nobhg%20gb%20raq%20vgf%20gevc%20sebz%20Cnevf.&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=1297&NEb25uZWxs=2007-01-09%2001%3A27%3A03&ODJ9dvCE=619&O89Dcjdg=24325%2F254&static=yes&width=1024&height=692&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg_trarevp%20%3D%20%27Obrvat%20767-200%27%29%20%20beqre%20ol%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=28&prev_id=1161760&next_id=1161474

It's called the undercarriage.

[MervinFerd]

16. Not an undercarriage! It's a Spud Gun!

Nasty things, Spud Guns.

Those buildings would -never- have fallen from just a little airplane. That required real firepower--

SPUD POWER!

[nebula]

22. Except the plane that (supposedly) hit the South Tower was a 767-222

Get your facts straight!

Flight 175:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175


A 767-222 in flight has a smooth underbody:

[Bolo Boffin]

32. No, the 767-222 does NOT have a smooth underbody!

Why don't you show us a picture where the undercarriage isn't in shadow, nebula?

Like maybe, this one???

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/560834/L/

Oh, my, what's that? It's a 767-222! The undercarriage is clearly seen!

Just like you were WRONG about an American Airlines jet hitting the South Tower, you are WRONG about this!

Get my facts straight, indeed.

[G Hawes]

44. Is it just me or

is there something innately hilarious about seeing the words, "get your facts straight" coming from someone like nebula who posits pod planes and every other looneytunes conspiracy theory that has been debunked long ago and that even the twoofers don't embrace anymore?

[LARED]

17. Just when you think it is safe

The pod people reappear.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[nebula]

20. When you have no way to explain something

Resort to insults.

Typical OCT behavior.

[greyl]

24. I think the majority of CTists agree that no-plane theories are dumb.nt

[nebula]

25. What no-plane theory?

If you think the OP is a no-plane theory, you should really learn how to read.

[greyl]

26. The one in the post you replied to.

I think pods and no-planes are pretty interchangeable, even though they are technically different.
Your pod theory asserts that it wasn't the planes, doesn't it?

[MervinFerd]

27. It's a Pod-Plane Theory!

But, where's the Jetliner, the one the passengers were riding on?

[nebula]

30. I don't know where it is

Bu the images make it clear that it wasn't the plane that hit the South Tower.

[MervinFerd]

28. I treated the OP with exactly the degree of seriousness....

that it deserved.

Maybe more.

[Kingshakabobo]

21. I thought the OP was a 'no planer'

I need a score-card or a program.

I thought the OP was a thermater......

So, they went through all that trouble to load the building up with thermate, crashed the 'obviously fake' airplanes, video taped it with 'trick cameras'.....but not tricky enough to hide 'the pods' and then paid off all of the conspirators and half the FDNY and threatened all the CE/MEs in the country to dummy-up????? Oh yeah, the lead engineer or the the towers has been in on it since the mid 1960s - obviously a mole.

did I miss anything?

[nebula]

23. I never heard of the no-plane theory

I must have seen hundreds of 9/11 documentaries and websites over the years. Not one has ever mentioned anything about no-planes hitting the towers.


The only place I've seen it raised is on this forum, and largely by the OCTers when they are in desperate need of a straw man. Which seems to be always.

[MervinFerd]

29. OK, generic term. For all theories that involve disappearing, invisible,.....

holographic, or pod-enhanced aircraft.

[nebula]

31. Fine, but you have still yet to provide an explanation

for the cylindrical object underneath the airplane that hit the south tower.

Ignoring it isn't going to make it go away.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. Brother, you are a piece of work.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/560834/L/

Dearie me, what's that?

[nebula]

37. Finally!

Something that could actually explain the 'object' under the plane.



That's all I was asking for!

[piobair]

41. What do you mean

thats all you were asking for! You made a definitive claim in the op that it couldn't have been a 767-222 that hit the towers and re-asserted that claim at least twice in follow up posts. It wasn't until your claims were shown to be foolish{not to mention sooo two years ago}that you claim to be just looking for information.

[greyl]

35. There is no cylindrical object. Why do you think that's a flawless image?

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

[Kingshakabobo]

36. I don't know.......

The people who think holograms hit those towers are just plain bat-shit crazy...

I wouldn't group them with the 'pod' folks. The pod people are just willfully ignorant and refuse to look at the evidence of other similar aircraft with similar 'pods'.....

The no-planers? Not so much. Bat.shit.crazy I did a search of one of our resident no planer's posts because there seemed to be a common theme in their complaining about, so called, OCTers - that complaint was we spend ALL of out time in the 9/11 forum 'nit-picking/disrupting' them. Mind you, I really don't give a shit where anyone spends their time. I don't think it's relavent.....considering how fun it can be debunking this crap. I've spent the bulk of my DU-time here in the last few weeks - I did the search to see just HOW hypocritical and divorced from reality they can be......


The search was for the last year - our resident no planer/serial ignore/blocker has 25 thread-pages that come up. Out of those, approximately 22.5 are in this forum. Her hench-woman was at, IIRC, 9 out of 10 in this forum. The results can be off as I only counted threads - not individual posts, but I think you get the idea.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Miranda is an OCTer???

Hey, Miranda, you gonna sit still while this fellow insults you like that?

[Kingshakabobo]

38. *snicker* n/t

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[greyl]

50. Unfortunately, people willingly do it for free. nt

[G Hawes]

45. .

.

[vincent_vega_lives]

52. I just wanted to add that post 49

is UNBELIEVABLE. :crazy:

Just one for the record.

[mirandapriestly]

49. The only thing noteworthy

about this picture


is that parts of it are see-through, and as you can see the tower has not been struck by the wing yet, but the wing isn't there. Where is the tail? On the video of this you can actually see the building through it. The "pod" diversion was started to make people look at what IS there rather than what is NOT there as a way to avoid questions that might arise because of the (fake)pictures.

[vincent_vega_lives]

51. You really think if the US Government, Military, CIA, FBI

Post Office, or whoever was supposed to have put together this plan, wanted to crash an aircraft into the WTC and have everyone belive it was a hijacked commercial airline, could not get their hands on an acutal 767????

[MervinFerd]

53. Not the Post Office. They have to use surplus 737s.

But, I like the idea of the Post Office as Perp.

One could do some entertaining satire along that direction.