It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

The Pod Theory

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   
In several videos of the impact, extra equipment is clearly visible, and is attatched to the underside of the fuselage. Just before the plane hits, a flash seems to come from that attatchment, then after the impact explosion, a streak of bright light exits the building that is brighter than the rest of the explosion. This is hard evidence to suggest that Flight 175 was a military plane.

For a long time, this theory was seen as dead, but it has been revived in a new film by William Lewis and Dave Vonkleist, 9-11 Ripple Effect, which analyzes the inconsistencies with the official story of 9/11.

In 9-11 Ripple Effect, a number of mlitary and ex-military personell are presented in support of the pod theory. They say that there is, indeed, a pod on that plane. It also identifies what the pod probably was. A rocket pod. Rocket pods are attatched to the underside of the fuselage of planes, and are used to fire out projectiles from under the fuselage.

9-11 Ripple Effect also analyzes the 'bright streak', which I see as very compelling evidence of the rocket pod. After the flash and impact explosion, a bright streak which is brighter than the rest of the explosion exits the building.



A Spanish university was cited, who was given the task of analyzing the 'pod' image, and they confirmed the pod theory, by recognizing that it was an actual object attatched to the underside of the plane.

Let's discuss the pod theory. It's been a controversial theory in the movement, some think it's disinfo, and some think it's hard evidence. I do believe that there is a pod and that plane could not have been what we were told it was by the 9-11 Commission and other government sources.




posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
The POD theory is misinformation IMO.

There is no need for it to be there. To think the perps would put it in for the world to see.. its just to obvious and thus a stupid idea. There is also nothing to substantiate the idea of it being needed for missiles or remote control equipment.

Yes there was a flash, but that doesn't mean its from a missile. Why no one ever considered it being explosives on/in the towers themselves is beyond me.. thats what i believe it to be anyway.

The missile idea makes no sense itself.. and is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, designed to make you think that a plane was used, when infact none were; So, they used missiles to blow open a hole in the building for the plane to fit into... yet somehow the wings still managed to slice through the steel beams like a hot knife through butter... seems a bit pointless. If wings can make it through, then surely the fuselage would aswell..


Let me ask you this. If you consider for a moment that no missiles were used, and that a plane did hit the tower.. would you expect it to penetrate through in the way it did?



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 08:44 AM
link   
IMO the pod theory has a great deal more going for it than holograms, which if anything should be the first theory to be labeled disinfo.

I just watched Ripple Effect and it was a well-argued case for pods. You do have those flashes in both the Naudet video and the second plane's impact, and the photos and videos of the latter are disturbing. It looks as if something's there, but it's not conclusive.

In the end I'm a fence-sitter on the issue, as I can't really see what the pods would add to the equation. A missile seems farfetched when you have the planes themselves as missiles. You could have loaded them internally with explosives without a pod.

The only explanation that would seem to me convincing would be to house an RC homing apparatus, because there is so much testimony that hitting the towers at that speed was nearly impossible to guarantee otherwise. But then you have the same question about whether such equipment could also have been stored internally. Just don't know enough about all that, frankly.

Edit to add: If those planes were holograms, why include the pod? Glitch in the projection software?

[edit on 2-8-2007 by gottago]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
This is the site I originally saw the rockets/missles

Let's Roll



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Who said anything about holograms? Why does this always happen when someone mentions TV fakery... do you even understand what i mean by TV fakery??

www.oilempire.us...

Don't base your conclusions based upon grainy video. It is exactly like the "driver shot JFK" idea.. its based on nothing more than bad video quality, and people jumping the gun.

There was no "POD". There is nothing suspicious about the "bulge", it is merely a combination of the shape of the fuselage, lighting, and the film resolution.

Think logically. There isn't even a need for a missile POD. Its just another misinformation hoax to try and get you to look away from the simple facts, such as the plane melting into the building, and the nose-out error etc.

As i said before, why use missiles when the wings of the plane managed to slice through the steel box columns?? There is no need for missiles to be involved.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   
It is obvious that the flash its from the inside of the building its the easiest and the most plausible explanation of all.
Ohhh NOO sorry it was debunked before we actually discovered it was an electric discharge from the plane LOL. Or wait wait a missle from the POD, wait wait maybe the holy Mary light?

Its a freaking BOMB.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I second the POD theory being more credible then either holograms and tv fakery which has been refuted by Eric Salter and others.

There is something there, but it could be just the landing gear area bulge. But it looks interesting in the video footage.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
but it could be just the landing gear area bulge


Thats exactly what it is! Look at the webpage i posted, it shows you quite clearly how the POD theory came to be, by people jumping the gun when they tried to become digital film analyst experts..

The POD theory mite appear to make sense to you, but i guarantee you that your overall theory concerning 9/11 will have holes in it IF you choose to use the POD theory.

Think about the logisitics of the people carrying out the attacks. Im sure we both agree it wasn't Osama and his crew, and that it was most likely elements of the US government, military, intelligence services, and some outside specialist agents.

So.. you have a POD on the remote control plane which is going to crash into the towers.. just how exactly do you keep it all hush hush? Think about the number of people who would have to be involved.

Im struggling to put it into words, but i urge you to reconsider the POD theory.

Remember that "box shrouded in a blue tarp" that was in Loose Change? Remember how they said there was something to it, something being hidden... it turned out in the end to be nothing more than a tent for emergency operations..

If you take in anything i've said, just remember this one point; The true culprits have infiltrated the 9/11 truth movement from the day of 9/11 itself. They know people are smart, and will see through the lies in the end... all they can do is MISDIRECT you.

Smoke and mirrors. Divide and Conquer.

Please have a thorough look through the POD theory. Please



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
The spanish university in charge of the analysis used a 3d image mapping software, They say it could only have been possible if the oblect was really there and not just shadow. I've heared people talk about a specially equipted radar plane that has a simmilar appendage on its underside , almost identical to the object under the plane that impacted in the close up image. It has been documented that a second flash appears exactly on the object after the initial impact of the nose of the plane and the building



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Originally posted by shrunkensimon





The POD theory mite appear to make sense to you, but i guarantee you that your overall theory concerning 9/11 will have holes in it IF you choose to use the POD theory.


A true disinfo tactic. Take a damaging point and claim that belief in that point will discredit the whole effort. Nice.


Think about the logisitics of the people carrying out the attacks. Im sure we both agree it wasn't Osama and his crew, and that it was most likely elements of the US government, military, intelligence services, and some outside specialist agents.


More disinfo. Admit what you can't refute.


So.. you have a POD on the remote control plane which is going to crash into the towers.. just how exactly do you keep it all hush hush? Think about the number of people who would have to be involved.


This disinfo tactic has been used since the begiinning, "think about the number of poeple who would have to be involved."


Im struggling to put it into words, but i urge you to reconsider the POD theory.


"I'm struggling..." (please help me, I'm begging"), weak but effective for some.


Remember that "box shrouded in a blue tarp" that was in Loose Change? Remember how they said there was something to it, something being hidden... it turned out in the end to be nothing more than a tent for emergency operations..


"It turned out?" Says who?


If you take in anything i've said, just remember this one point; The true culprits have infiltrated the 9/11 truth movement from the day of 9/11 itself. They know people are smart, and will see through the lies in the end... all they can do is MISDIRECT you.


This is the 'double misdirect'. Use the 'people are smart' appeal, sometime its works.


Smoke and mirrors. Divide and Conquer.


Yes, thats what 911 is about.


Please have a thorough look through the POD theory. Please


More begging. Somebody is getting desparate here. :



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
You made no statements/opinions of your own, but you seem intent on doing much dividing.. can't believe you ever got invited to this board, you've done nothing but add useless ideas and promote confusion amoungst the members.

The difference between me and you, is that i have never served in the military, you have. So for you too be accusing me of disnfo is rich, to say the least..

Oh, and coming from someone who believes that there is a "soul catcher" on the Moon
I need not say anymore. You've destroyed your own credability already. I just hope the people in this thread know that.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I'm neither for or against the pod theory. I was one of those original members over there at letsroll911.org and I also have had my share of beefs and bannings there. Needless to say, I'm not a worshipper of the great Jayhan. However, I agree with the OP that the pod theory is MUCH more plausible than the hologram planes/tv fakery theory.

The main problem in the 9/11 truth movement right now is people within the movement arguing over whose 9/11 theory is the correct one. I would suggest that we move past all that b.s. and actually spend that extra energy trying to get the fact that 9/11 was an inside job out to the american public......one way or the other.

All in all.........ALL of the theories can help to get the word out....though some may hurt the movement in the long run...they do tend to get people thinking which is the most dangerous thing the U.S. guvment can ever face.

Spread the word and stop the infighting.


Jasn



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Originally posted by shrunkensimon




The difference between me and you, is that i have never served in the military, you have. So for you too be accusing me of disnfo is rich, to say the least.



Thanks for your post shrunkensimon. I never served in the military and never said I did. This is an example of your incomplete if not non-existant research. But thanks for the post anyway.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
The only reason for a pod in my view would be to make sure that a spectacular explosion took place and that more damage was done to the building than an airplane could do so the ' collapse ' would have some validity later.

Also, a missle could do what a mere bomb on board could not , create forward damage instead of localized at the impact zone. I am not sure either way on the pod theory; so many military people who should know seem very sure..and there WERE flashes of light from BOTH planes seen on many video's. those flashes are telling; only a very bright light source could spotlight effect like we see on BOTH planes just prior to hitting.

just a micro-second before the nose of the planes hits the buildings, we see a bright flash of light. On the 2nd plane hitting, with many views and video's, we see the same light flash and also a pod. the pod was to house the missle and the plane HAD to look like a 767 enough to pass casual muster. So a military plane was out, a regular plane was outfitted with a missle pod and the perps know that we will argue the points day and night and so they escape justice.

No matter WHAT was on the planes, the most telling facts about the 9-11 set up is the total lack of verification of serial numbers and the total lack of an FAA investigation as in ANY other plane event. they do not even TRY and verify the identity of the aircraft, for the first time in aviation history.

Add to that the FACT that not ONE of the pilots was able to flip a switch and give a highjack code; it takes a second, and yet you are asked to believe that both pilots, in all 4 planes, were taken out of their seats by skinny boxcutter weilding men in the crampled confines of a cockpit, were unable to flip the switch. Do you believe that? does ANY rational person? No, no way. it is impossible. At least ONE pilot among 8 would have flipped the switch and indicated a highjacking or disturbance or cockpit intrusion. NOT ONE managed to do so; just listen to the tape of the Cleveland Tower talking to flight 93..they have normal conversation and then a fgew secons later, they are gone forever.

No indication of anything; someone flipped a switch and remotely took over those flights and steered them to the targets; whether or not the original planes were switched and passengers dis and re embarked is not settled. But what IS settled is that the odds of those two ' anomalies ' above alone are so far out of range that no person could believe the official story.

To do so is to deny odds so staggering that the mind can scarcely handle it. In combo, the facts all support the assumption that the entire thing was staged and set by the USA, at least in shadow.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for your post shrunkensimon. I never served in the military and never said I did. This is an example of your incomplete if not non-existant research. But thanks for the post anyway.


Get over yourself. Why should i waste my energy researching someone who i know is a disinfo troll, who is looking for nothing other than attention and to self-promote. I assumed you were in the military because you never denied it when people asked, including myself. Thats your fault, not mine.

No proof is needed when it comes to you however. The fact that you got invited here to ATS, and then the stuff you spout, comes as no suprise to me. Your probably wandering why i post here if i know this... to counter soulless drones like yourself, who do not have humanities best interests at heart.

You pray on the sci-fi nerds who can not take things with a grain of salt. You promote ludicrous theories with nothing to substantiate it. Most people here recognise that in the field of UFOlogy, you are a complete and utter joke.

Your only purpose here is too stir the pot, and you know it.

admin edit: removed childish attempt at circumventing the foul language censor.

I suggest civility IMMEDIATELY or posting privileges will be lost.

[edit on 8-2-2007 by Springer]



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by newyorkee
I've heared people talk about a specially equipped radar plane that has a similar appendage on its underside , almost identical to the object under the plane that impacted in the close up image.


NYee,

Do you recall anything about that plane you mention? I've seen photos of various military planes with pods, but they're incredibly obvious.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   
eyewitness, great post ... you said what I was thinking.

It is obvious that the missle/rocket wouldn't be to just pierce the building to make the plane go in easier ... it would be for structural damage to the core and infrastructure just prior to the plane, fuel, and possible bomb on plane. Remember, it had to be a spectacle and cause more damage than a plane could. I recently saw a video where they claimed it was designed to take MULTIPLE hits from a 747 ... this eliminates the whole disinfo act of these planes being slightly bigger.

I know you are not arguing whether it was false flag ... but to discount it in spite of the video evidence ... if you really look at it. No, it is not 100%, but it is not 100% that there wasn't a puff of smoke, an explosion before hitting, nor a pod. I fully believe they never thought so much video would have been taken. Look at where and how the second plane hit ... they would have expected all to be focused on that building.

I think most of us agree on it being an inside job ... and most that are intelligent and think for themselves will come around without the full facts stated. but ... I also think that discussion about all the possibilities needs to continue until we do find the whole story out, can piece it together, and show it to those who need to be led by the hand, clearly without any doubts, step by step, how that day went down. Most of the evidence is there. We have it. They could only suppress the blatantly obvious info, but we do have enough to win a civil case, if not a criminal one. One day we will, or it will be admitted/disclosed/leaked ... want to talk about shock and awe ... or revolution ... that would be the real wake up call to the people.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
The pod thing is total nonsense if you know absolutely anything about aircraft.
The location of this supposed pod is the wing root fairing, which exists on all aircraft. On the 757 in the photo, the way that the light caught it made it appear like a separate pod, but I can prove that this is not the case.

How can I prove it? Very simply…
Are the landing gear up or down?

If the gear were up then there is no pod in the fairing area. If there was a pod attached to that area of the aircraft then the landing gear would not have been able to retract as the pod would have been in the way. So if the gear was up, there is absolutely no way that any pod was attached to the wing root fairing area of the aircraft. Period!!!

As to the flash…
First off you have a small point of impact for a lot of energy, correct?
What ways are some methods of radiated energy?

How about: Heat, Noise, light

That is not to mention that an aircraft builds up a electrical charge when flying, as its completed insolated from the ground.
Oh, also guess what is in the nose of that aircraft?
Something like this:

You have any idea how much microwave radiation that thing is putting out?
Ever see what happens to tinfoil when you put it in a microwave?
(For the kiddies at home, don’t try it)…


[edit on 8/2/2007 by defcon5]



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
to take MULTIPLE hits from a 747 ...


a single hit from a 707-120 thru a 707-320 seeing as those were built before the ground breaking of the WTC in 1966, which means they had to have plans before the ground breaking....

and development of the 747 that old people know and loved back in the day...was planned on in '66..and not first flown until 1970...(commercially)

en.wikipedia.org...

However, concern over evacuation routes and limited cargo carrying capability caused this idea to be scrapped in early 1966 in favor of wider single deck, becoming the first wide-body airliner




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join