It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Beware Official 9-11 Story Debunkers

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 01:56 AM

Originally posted by Mister_Narc
I am the farthest thing from disinfo.

Sorry but seeing as you support the pod/missile theory, then you either are a dis-info agent, or maybe you have not done much research.
It has been shown pretty clearly that the 'pod' is a wing fairing, not only that is there was a 'pod' there then it would interfere with the landing gear, so unless they fitted it mid-air too...

As for the flash, aircraft build up a significant static charge when flying, in all likelyhood the flash was the sudden discharge just prior to impact with the nearest earthed object, the WTC in this case.

Not only that, one would really have to ask themselves why on earth they would fire any missile from the aircraft anyway, considering they were sacrificing the aircraft for the mission. Any additional warhead that could be carried in any 'missile' would be easily placed within the nose of the aircraft which would arouse no suspicion as no-one would know.
I assume you realise a missile is nothing more than a vehicle designed to deliver it's warhead to a target?
Can you give a good reason why they would wish to risk leaving behind evidence to deliver a warhead to a target with a missle a split second before ramming the launching aircraft into the same target?
Not that there seems to be any useful purpose to it anyway, the damage that occured is consistant with an aircraft impact, the building did not collapse for a long time so the missile seems pretty useless. You certainly are not going to deliver precision charges with it.
Please, please tell me you're one of the people that believe it was to ignite the fuel, if not then what do you think it was for, what was worth the risk of leaving behind such 'evidence'?

You want to check out my myspace page? Listen to my tracks? I am a "rapper". Are they now training feds to be urban based hip hoppers who also double as internet disinfo agents?

A dis-info agent would have a background made for them to make them seem more genuine. I hope your not trying to imply that the Government are capable of wiring the WTC with explosives, fit pods to planes, make thousands of people lie but they are not capable of creating a phoney person with a phoney background for the process of dis-info?

Smells like someone is getting a bit hot under the coller here, getting to close for comfort are we?

[edit on 26-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 02:14 AM
I find it interesting Agent Smith that the 757-200 also happens to be the plane chosen to be used by the airforce, coincidence? And there is a version that has a POD like object under the nose.

I wish I could find the pic of it, it's out there somewhere I've seen it, I will keep looking.

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 02:29 AM
Plane used by the Air Force for what? VIP transport? If you're talking ABL it's not a 757. What mission are you talking about? Because the only USAF 757 I know or can find anything about is the VC-32A VIP transport.

VC-32A: Boeing 757-2G4. Four, with PW2040 engines, ordered 8 August 1996 as replacements for VC-137s of USAF's 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews AFB, Maryland. First aircraft (98-0001) flew 11 February 1998 and was delivered to 89th AW on 19 June. Further three followed on 23 June, 20 November and 25 November 1998. Post-production modifications, performed at Boeing's Wichita facility and completed on first aircraft on 2 April 1999, include installation of auxiliary fuel tanks, capacity 6,984 litres (1,845 US gallons; 1,536 Imp gallons) in forward and aft cargo holds, increasing range to 5,000 n miles (9,260 km; 5,753 miles); self-deploying forward airstair; crew ladder; satcom upgrade; and 378 litre (100 US gallon; 83.0 Imp gallon) potable water tank.

USAF 757

[edit on 1/26/2006 by Zaphod58]

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 03:11 AM

Originally posted by ANOK
I find it interesting Agent Smith that the 757-200 also happens to be the plane chosen to be used by the airforce, coincidence? And there is a version that has a POD like object under the nose.

I wish I could find the pic of it, it's out there somewhere I've seen it, I will keep looking.

Very good! Skating around the key points and bring up some trivial and quite possibly incorrect facts I see!

It doesn't change the fact the 'pod' in such programs as 'Loose Change' is, surprise, surprise, in the location of the wing fairing and would interfere with the landing gear. Nor does it change the fact the aircraft, like all, will have accumalated a static charge which will at the soonest possible oppurtunity discharge itself into the nearest earthed object.

Nor does it change the fact it makes no sense to have a warhead launched on a seperate vehicle (a missile) from an aircraft which is plowing into it's target a fraction of a second later anyway.

[edit on 26-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 03:13 AM
Let's not forget the fact that almost every missile launch video I've been able to find includes a smoke trail that can be seen for miles. Where's the smoke? The ones that don't leave smoke, have flame that is clearly visible. Here are a few pics of missile launches. Some from ships, some from planes.

More missiles
A2A launch
A2A missile part 2
Last Missile launch

[edit on 1/26/2006 by Zaphod58]

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 03:53 AM
I didn't say the pod was a missile, just speculating that planes used could have been miltary versions, maybe remote controled.

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 03:57 AM
I'm just curious about the 757 you said has a pod on the nose. I can't find anything like that, so I'm honestly curious about what it might be.

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 04:17 AM
I can't really see why they would have something as obivous as a 'pod' when it would not be necessary. It cannot be to contain any form of antenna or navigations system as the aircraft pretty much has all that fitted anyway. Besides, I'm sure there would be plenty of room to accomodate any addition equipment within the redundant space of the cabin and cargo hold.
If they wanted to remote control it, then they would have to rely on feeding commands to a computer, not the expected WYSIWYG type setup where someone yanks a stick around to make the plane fly. Even in the famous remote control video of the airliner in a crash test, the pilot controlling it remotely fluffs it up which is why the plane hits askew. I doubt they could perform anything remotely at such a high speed with so much precision in a manual way, if it was done using computers then it seems odd the aircraft would make corrections in it's final moments when the computer should be able to just glide it in.
I just don't see the need for any 'pod' under any circumstances, it's just more wishful thinking from a select group of people.


Check out this site here for more on the 'pod'

[edit on 26-1-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 03:22 PM
Smith, are you mocking us, or are you seriously suggesting that we're paid by the government to come here and convince people that the government perpetrated 9/11?

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 03:31 PM
From what I'm reading about remotely operated aircraft (and I'm not a "pod person" before I start gettin called names) There is usually an control area on the bottom or top (or "control pod") and additional antennae on remote aircraft to facilitate transmission between the controller and plane. The point being that when you get into buildings, canyons, mountains can get signal fade or lose the signal completely. So transmitting antennae and control pods need to be on an external area.
But not necessarily seperate from the plane (ie the Predator's control area is the bulbous nose with the antennae on the wings)
However, it's not inconceivable that on a commercial 757 you'd need to attach a control pod and additional antennae externally to ensure signal strength.
That being said I agree that the pod thing is diversionary and unless someone comes up with a clear picture of something attatched to the planes our energy is better spent elsewhere

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 03:34 PM
Actually the entire nose of any large jet aircraft id a "pod" - a hollow carbon fiber dome filled with instrumentation. I'm really hating the word pod now.

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Outriderdark
However, it's not inconceivable that on a commercial 757 you'd need to attach a control pod and additional antennae externally to ensure signal strength.

I know what you're saying and I considered it, but if we entertain the idea that anyone could pull anything off like this, of this magnitude, then it would be very simple and easy for them to prefit various repeater stations at certain points within the city, the surrounding area and even through high altitude (not easy spotting distance) aircraft.
It would be far more discrete with virtually no way of detetection to do it in that fashion. Don't forget that if it was an operation in a foreign country you do not get the easy access to the local and surrounding area. Anyone that allegedly could plant explosives in the WTC howvere, would easily be able to setup these repeater stations.

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 04:09 PM
Excellent point. I hadn't thought of that. It would have been much easier set up relays.

posted on Jan, 26 2006 @ 09:33 PM
Wow. This conversation's gotten way off track. Whre's the author?!!

Personally, I'm no pod person... and they're out there as we've seen on this thread...

I believe the aircrafts that were flown into the WTC were remote controlled. Its the only explanation for what happened that morning. With those aircrafts. What happned to the supposed Pentagon airplane, I have no idea. And as far as the PA crash is concerned, I think it was being flown by remote too, but somehow those folks on board were rushing the cabin. And the military shot them down. The debris pattern supports this theory.

See how clouded its all gotten? I guess whover started this post had a good idea of how easily it can be to distract people with petty arguments...
That's disinformation.

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 04:21 PM
Has it ever occurred to anyone on this thread that people who disagree with you post on these boards too? Does this mean that everybody who has a differing opinion or a different viewpoint is an agent of the government, trying to spread disinfo? Absolutely not.

Especially on these boards, you would think that people would recognize other people's beliefs (albeit with a grain of salt). I am not a "pod person", and I do agree with AgentSmith and the others about the missile thing, but still...why does everybody who disagrees on this issue have to be automatically labeled as a disinformation agent?

Apparently all the UFO skeptics, all the Bush supporters, all the extreme liberals, all the Masons, all the tin-foil hat wearing people, all the illuminati-haters, heck...even all the people who work at WalMart or KFC are disinfo agents, because somebody somewhere, for whatever reason, has a different opinion than them.

Disinfo is a bad thing, but without some better proof besides "well they believe a different angle on this issue than me", it's moronic to automatically label somebody as an agent.

Some people will always pick a side and stick with it to the death, even if it means blatantly ignoring fact. No different here.

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 07:43 PM
Regarding this thread.
I feel that the debunkers of 911 have a point of view that shows some aspects but how ever you cut it in a procentage it does not bring the conspiracy down simply because the conspiracy is better in detail and makes better sence in evidence.
Has a result there was a opinion pole here on ats bashing the debunk story
and showing the reality of how things are.
People that try to debunk 911 debunk it always half way and i have one more argument they dont go by the oficial story.
If you are going to say that 911 hapend just like the goverment says it then you should stick to the official story and not make up other things.
The only problem is that the official story does not hold water.

[edit on 27-1-2006 by pepsi78]

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 08:21 PM

Originally posted by BigEasy
They grab you by the nose waving enuff truth at you that you follow, then they lead you down the crazy path into the wilderness of nothingness.

I read this and thought of this thread.

Bingo was his name-o.

Perhaps the real end game of Bush propaganda forces is the creation of rifts and the sowing of even more dissension within the antiwar/anti-imperialist ranks, rendering the establishment of a massive and powerful antiwar movement impossible.

posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:03 PM

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Mister_Narc, what are your sources? Photos/film can be easily manipulated, you know.

Which are you referring to? The "pod" or "Flight 11"?

links to information backing up your claims.

[edit on 1/26/06 by EastCoastKid]

Well what do you want to start with first, the A & P mechanic who did a thorough examination of the plane? Or the digital analysis by a Spanish University and story by a mainstream Spanish newspaper, where the reporter asked Boeing to identify the "pod" and they couldn't due to national security?

As for Flight 11, all you have to do is look at the Naudet footage(look closely), to know two missiles fire off the wings, then there is a flash, well before the plane impacts the building. This plane was NOT supposed to caught on video.

Plus the eyewitnesses, all say it was a "smaller plane". Some even making references to "missiles" and "bombs"...and "never seeing a plane like that before". We even have one on a particular 9/11 research/discussion forum, who recently came aboard and has been echoing the same info. The second plane was "WAY BIGGER" than the first.

Here's a few...

Audio of Eyewitnesses:

Karim Arraki:

“I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane….no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane, small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane….yes, going into the building, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they work with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!”

--From an ABC News Special Report at 9:08 am on Tuesday 11 September 2001.


"I was waiting a table and I literally saw a, it seemed to be a small plane. I just heard a couple of noises, it looked like it like ‘bounced’ of the building and then I heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down….it just seemed like a smaller plane, II don’t think it was anything commercial…”

--From a Bryant Gumble CBS News Special Report at 8:52 am on Tuesday 11th September 2001.

“Dog Walking Woman”:

“We’re walking the dogs and we saw a plane flying really low, a jet, a small jet, and it flew directly into the World Trade Centre. And then all the pieces fell to the bottom…in seconds.”

--From Fox News.

Narrator On The Mi Kyung Heller Video:

"Hey Grandpa, I'll tell you what woke me up. They bombed the World Trade Centre. I'm looking at it and Mi-Kyung's video taping it. Terrible. I heard, Grandpa, I saw it. It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb...a could be world war three."

--From “In Memoriam: New York City 9/11/01”. Produced by Brad Gray and HBO for Brad Gray Pictures. 2002 Home Box Office. Video image above implies recording was made between the times of 8:46am and 9:03am on Tuesday 11th September 2001

posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:23 PM
Hey Mister Narc,

That's interesting that you are a rapper. I am as well and love to touch on the conspiracy side of things. There aren't enough of us out there. What is your myspace?

posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 12:09 AM
Didn't read the whole thread but a phrase does come to mind. "Divide and Conquor"

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in