The Pod Theory

Originally posted by defcon5

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!!!

The pod comes in three section as all aircraft pods in that area. Usually the payload is in the front, the portion that is over the landing gear door is just fairing and has nothing in it. when the gear extends that portion of the pod, which is empty goes with it. It is actually a part of the door itself.The aft portion can have electronics or can be empty. To minimize the drag on any type of pod it has to extend the length of the wing root otherwise it would create unwanted turbulence.

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.

All aircraft have extrremely efficient static wicks which eliminate all electrical charge instantly unless in clouds. And there were no clouds.

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).

It was a clear day, there would have been no reason to turn the radar on.

But hey, thanks for the input. We always appreciate the latest scuttlebutt from the ramp coffee shop.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon

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.

Oh, so you're the expert now....

The pod comes in three section as all aircraft pods in that area.

Show me such a pod, especially one connected to a commercial aircraft.
The thing you're referring too sounds exactly like the wing root fairing…

All aircraft have extrremely efficient static wicks which eliminate all electrical charge instantly unless in clouds.

Funny that folks have been shocked by aircraft even after the gear grounds have touched solid surfaces. This is why aircraft are required to be grounded before fueling, and why some airlines such as AC or BA require a grounding cable attached as part of the "marshalling in" sequence.

It was a clear day, there would have been no reason to turn the radar on.

I have seen one turned on accidentally by maintenance while sitting at the gate. Supposedly, though I cannot prove this, the radar is in some way connected to the gear retract, and in order for maintenance to work on them it is required that they pin the gears and throw the retract lever. They did this because they could not trust the pilots to turn them off on landing, and it can make the ramp crews ill working in front of the dish. If the original pilots had it turned on then there is no reason to suspect that the guys behind the wheel at the end had turned it back off again. Why would they bother with it anyway?

That is if its even possible to turn it on and off, as again its supposedly turned on/off when the gear retract.

BTW I mean the dish itself john not the instrument in the cockpit.

We always appreciate the latest scuttlebutt from the ramp coffee shop.

At least I can prove that I worked on aircraft, unlike someone I know who could not tell me the hand signal for “emergency cut engines” or “engine on fire”. Maybe you should have had more coffee with the ramp/maintenance department, then you’d know some of this stuff that a even a flight engineer is required to know.

Heck i'd even buy you a coffee john...

[edit on 8/3/2007 by defcon5]

I did a bit of searching on the topic of static electricity in aircraft, because I know John is correct about the “Static Wicks”, and yet I am correct about aircraft retaining a charge after landing. I could not figure out how both of these things could be correct, and in finding the answer, I realized just how complex this subject is. This is something that should be taken as a serious note to the “Truth Movement” Researchers out there, especially those who have never worked on aircraft. Because if the engineers who design these things cannot figure out every single detail, then how can we expect some homegrown 911 hobbyist too.

It seems that each individual exterior component of an aircraft builds up its own individual static charge, depending on what it is made of. If that piece is not specifically grounded to the chassis, or if that ground wire is broken (or a mechanic forgot to put it back after servicing that area), then it will retain that charge until it dissipates, or encounters something that grounds it. I found one instance of an aircraft whose manufacturer did not consider this while installing the windows. The windows would build up such a significant electrical charge that they would overpower the radio, and a special kit had to be installed on the aircrafts to dissipate each individual window.


[edit on 8/3/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by Klaxmexalix
Oh, so you're the expert now....

No. But the POD theory is disinformation, and was busted open quite some time ago. And if you think about everything logically, the whole idea that missiles would have been needed is, well, silly, too say the least..

The POD theory is something out of nothing. It was put there to misdirect you from things you can see in the same videos, like, the plane melting into the building, and the flash not lining up with the aircraft nose properly (suggesting it was something else, not static).

Its not the only theory put out there to misdirect you..

Take the Shanksville crash for example.. Rumsfeld had a "slip of the tongue" and said that the plane was shot down.. you think that was an accident? Immediately everyone jumped on that piece of information and took it to be true, instead of considering the other option, which is that it is intentional misdirection. There was nothing to substantiate a plane even having been blown out of the sky, yet people took what he said to be true.. and then they get caught up in their own theories until they come to realise they have been sent on a wild goose chase.

Google is your friend. You are not being honest to yourself if you haven't looked at BOTH sides of the POD theory. Its not just about you, and what you believe. If you want teh truth, you must look at ALL the information.

Originally posted by defcon5

The pod comes in three section as all aircraft pods in that area.
Show me such a pod, especially one connected to a commercial aircraft.
The thing you're referring too sounds exactly like the wing root fairing…

Commercial aircraft? Are you trying to tell us that the airplane that allegedly hit the WTC was a passenger aircraft? Maybe it had passengers in it? Try a 767-300 that was remotely guided.

Funny that folks have been shocked by aircraft even after the gear grounds have touched solid surfaces.

And that created the glow on the WTC? Thats really a stretch. But hey, if you can find somebody to buy it, go for it.

At least I can prove that I worked on aircraft, unlike someone I know who could not tell me the hand signal for “emergency cut engines” or “engine on fire”.

Well I still say thats the exact same hand signal that the marshall uses to tell you your girlfriend is on the phone.

and down comes john from the top rope, with an elbow to the face!!

if it was remote controlled it prolly wasnt a USAF remote "pilot" behind it.... to my knowledge the send the worst of the worst there......

there was a pilot here that went by the name of "crazy kate"...(well she didnt know she went by that name)....but nobody wanted to fly with her...
and if you sit around and listen to the older pilots talk...all the people who went there were horrible....

I have to admit that the flashes are a bit strange. They occur in the Naudet film and in other footage of the WTC-2 being struck. I am not sure what it is. Because it happens before the explosion. At first I thought it might be sunlight reflecting, but after viewing it I really am not so sure.

I also don't subsribe to the 'POD' but there does seem to be something there that goes beyond the normal buldge one would see. It indeed looks odd. This is why getting good quality film and pictures are important.

And that created the glow on the WTC? Thats really a stretch. But hey, if you can find somebody to buy it, go for it.

Personally I think its from the microwave radiation in the radome dish, but you did not like that answer much. As a matter of fact you don’t seem to like any answers unless they involve holograms, UFO’s, or something equally far fetched.

Well I still say thats the exact same hand signal that the marshall uses to tell you your girlfriend is on the phone.

I am surprised you remember that answer, sometimes I swear you are two different people on the same account. One seems to know some stuff about aviation, and the other is into all kinds of wackiness that simply defies logic. I have yet to figure that one out.

Anyway, you started the insults, but I am going to let them die with you having the last word, cause as much fun as it may become, its not worth the trouble.

The "Pod" is not a theory. It's a truth. Watch this video called "The Hidden Truth Behind 911" and go to 36:53 and you will see without a doubt there is an attachment underneath the plane. Not only is it seen from 1 news source, this video is from ALL major news sources including CNN. Watch it!
video.google.com...

[edit on 3-8-2007 by wtc7demolition]

Originally posted by defcon5
I did a bit of searching on the topic of static electricity in aircraft, because I know John is correct about the “Static Wicks”, and yet I am correct about aircraft retaining a charge after landing

Did you do any researchn on the following.

www.faa.gov...

7-5-11. Precipitation Static

a. Precipitation static is caused by aircraft in flight coming in contact with uncharged particles. These particles can be rain, snow, fog, sleet, hail, volcanic ash, dust; any solid or liquid particles. When the aircraft strikes these neutral particles the positive element of the particle is reflected away from the aircraft and the negative particle adheres to the skin of the aircraft. In a very short period of time a substantial negative charge will develop on the skin of the aircraft. If the aircraft is not equipped with static dischargers, or has an ineffective static discharger system, when a sufficient negative voltage level is reached, the aircraft may go into "CORONA." That is, it will discharge the static electricity from the extremities of the aircraft, such as the wing tips, horizontal stabilizer, vertical stabilizer, antenna, propeller tips, etc. This discharge of static electricity is what you will hear in your headphones and is what we call P-static.

b. A review of pilot reports often shows different symptoms with each problem that is encountered. The following list of problems is a summary of many pilot reports from many different aircraft. Each problem was caused by P-static:

1. Complete loss of VHF communications.

2. Erroneous magnetic compass readings (30 percent in error).

3. High pitched squeal on audio.

4. Motor boat sound on audio.

5. Loss of all avionics in clouds.

6. VLF navigation system inoperative most of the time.

7. Erratic instrument readouts.

8. Weak transmissions and poor receptivity of radios.

9. "St. Elmo's Fire" on windshield.

c. Each of these symptoms is caused by one general problem on the airframe. This problem is the inability of the accumulated charge to flow easily to the wing tips and tail of the airframe, and properly discharge to the airstream.

d. Static dischargers work on the principal of creating a relatively easy path for discharging negative charges that develop on the aircraft by using a discharger with fine metal points, carbon coated rods, or carbon wicks rather than wait until a large charge is developed and discharged off the trailing edges of the aircraft that will interfere with avionics equipment. This process offers approximately 50 decibels (dB) static noise reduction which is adequate in most cases to be below the threshold of noise that would cause interference in avionics equipment.

e. It is important to remember that precipitation static problems can only be corrected with the proper number of quality static dischargers, properly installed on a properly bonded aircraft. P-static is indeed a problem in the all weather operation of the aircraft, but there are effective ways to combat it. All possible methods of reducing the effects of P-static should be considered so as to provide the best possible performance in the flight environment.

f. A wide variety of discharger designs is available on the commercial market. The inclusion of well-designed dischargers may be expected to improve airframe noise in P-static conditions by as much as 50 dB. Essentially, the discharger provides a path by which accumulated charge may leave the airframe quietly. This is generally accomplished by providing a group of tiny corona points to permit onset of corona-current flow at a low aircraft potential. Additionally, aerodynamic design of dischargers to permit corona to occur at the lowest possible atmospheric pressure also lowers the corona threshold. In addition to permitting a low-potential discharge, the discharger will minimize the radiation of radio frequency (RF) energy which accompanies the corona discharge, in order to minimize effects of RF components at communications and navigation frequencies on avionics performance. These effects are reduced through resistive attachment of the corona point(s) to the airframe, preserving direct current connection but attenuating the higher-frequency components of the discharge.

g. Each manufacturer of static dischargers offers information concerning appropriate discharger location on specific airframes. Such locations emphasize the trailing outboard surfaces of wings and horizontal tail surfaces, plus the tip of the vertical stabilizer, where charge tends to accumulate on the airframe. Sufficient dischargers must be provided to allow for current-carrying capacity which will maintain airframe potential below the corona threshold of the trailing edges.

h. In order to achieve full performance of avionic equipment, the static discharge system will require periodic maintenance. A pilot knowledgeable of P-static causes and effects is an important element in assuring optimum performance by early recognition of these types of problems.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Did you do any researchn on the following.

www.faa.gov...

7-5-11. Precipitation Static

Thanks ULTIMA1. Didn't have to. Military airplanes are inspected twice a day and 3 times on Sunday. Particularly a Boeing 767-300 that was about to be used for an important mission.

But even if it wasn't, 50 decibels of static electricity does not translate to a bright flash to the right side of the nose of the airplane onto the World Trade Center.

Thanks for the post.

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.

thats the thing that bothers me about 911 in general.

its not really my burden to prove that an overall event happened. If the official story is in fact incorrect we the people (remember us?) have the right to know what happened., but moreso hold the responsible parties liable.

in other words if it ever came to surface that an individual or group knew about the attacks beforehand they would be held liable for several thousand murders.

to my knowledge, the fbi was never charged with anything related to the death of the 6 people or injuries of the 1000 people hurt in the '93 trade center bombing.....but they had specific knowledge it was going to happen

Originally posted by johnlear

Thanks ULTIMA1. Didn't have to. Military airplanes are inspected twice a day and 3 times on Sunday. Particularly a Boeing 767-300 that was about to be used for an important mission.

But even if it wasn't, 50 decibels of static electricity does not translate to a bright flash to the right side of the nose of the airplane onto the World Trade Center.

Thanks for the post.

I was a Crew Chief in the Air Force. Military planes are inspected before the first flight (preflight) and then inspected after each flight (thruflight)and then inspected again at the end of the day (postflight).

I worked on the old RF-4, recon F-4. It was a older plane mostly made of steel, with some aluminum and compostites. It would build up quite a bit of static electricity but it had dischargers on the trailing edge of the wings. Upon landing the plane is grounding with a cable to discharge any static built up during flight.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

I was a Crew Chief in the Air Force. Military planes are inspected before the first flight (preflight) and then inspected after each flight (thruflight)and then inspected again at the end of the day (postflight).

I worked on the old RF-4, recon F-4. It was a older plane mostly made of steel, with some aluminum and compostites. It would build up quite a bit of static electricity but it had dischargers on the trailing edge of the wings. Upon landing the plane is grounding with a cable to discharge any static built up during flight.

Thanks for the post ULTIMA1. And thanks for the service to your country. Your information about inspecting airplanes and the grounding cable on the F-4 was very informative. Thanks again.

Originally posted by johnlear
Thanks for the post ULTIMA1. And thanks for the service to your country. Your information about inspecting airplanes and the grounding cable on the F-4 was very informative. Thanks again.

You are welcome.

(A little off topic)
I appreciate you writting back to me about you coming out talking about UFOs. Did you see the clip of the British pilot who spoke out about a UFO he saw.

Also if you are interested i have information on the National Vigilance Park. Its a memorial for recon pilots and aircrews that were shot down during the cold war and thier names and how they died were not released untill recently.