video of plane with something attached to it

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 08:56 PM
i have to take the gifs off my webspace because of other things i need it for, i will try to set up a small webpage somewhere with the pics on there so they can still be viewed, it should take about half a day.

ok go here

then go to the page called conspiracy (use the menu at the side of the index page to get there)

[Edited on 4-26-2004 by ausconspiracies]

posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Esoterica
Well, fake images aside, a missile fired into the buildings wouldn't really make much sense. I'm pretty sure any ordnance small enough to ahv enot been immediately noticed outright would ahve ahd little to no impact on the damage, considering that a gigantic missile was flown into the building a split-second later.

But it's interesting that is falsifying images. I've seen that site brought up several times as 'proof' of a conspiracy. I guess it is, just not for the side people think it is.

I'm confused....where is the proof of faked images?
Anyway, these animated gifs presented do not show anything. They are too small and the framerate is too fast to be able to discern anything. I am not saying I support these theories outright, but I have not seen anything here to disprove them. In fact, what evidence I have seen in my own research as to the "missile pod" theory is far more convincing than anything I have seen here.
Additionally, I remember seeing something about members of a Spanish university using technology similar to NASA's image enhancement technology, analyzing photos of the purported pod, and finally concluding it was an actual object. This was subsequently supressed in the American media, purportedly. Now that I recount it, I think it sounds rather far-fetched, but I will make a better re-evaluation once I find a page/the page relating to it again. I searched for a few minutes to see if I could find a link to the story but it turned up no good.

EDIT to add to my post a few moments after I posted it

SECOND EDIT to add the word "purportedly"
[Edited on 26-4-2004 by spngsambigpants]

[Edited on 26-4-2004 by spngsambigpants]

posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 10:43 PM
I cant find any other sources that state that information, after having searched for over an hour, so I suppose it was either a total sham or I was imaining it or something.

posted on May, 2 2004 @ 03:11 PM
So, Esoterica, you don't think firing a missile into a building a split second before impact could have had any point? Well, think again. A plane would have exploded upon impact with the wall of the WTC tower, reducing the internal damage below what full penetration before explosion could have achieved. With much of the fireball confined to the outside of the tower, its eventual collapse would be far more implausible than if the plane had blown up INSIDE the building. As the conspirators behind 9-11 wanted to dupe the world into thinking that the fires caused the collapse of the tower (LOL), they could not permit a simple crash. So a missile was fired from the pod attached to the plane (that's what the 'bump' is) a split second before impact in order to punch a hole in the side of the building (that's the white flash) so that it entered cleanly (rather than crashed into) the building, allowing a full explosion INSIDE it and making the reason for its eventual collapse more credible. The plane we all saw had no passengers in it. That had either been landed at a secret base, where all the passengers were murdered, or flown out to crash into the Atlantic. A substitute plane with a missile pod attached to it was piloted into the tower using remote-control technology that has been available for years.

posted on May, 2 2004 @ 09:39 PM
What about this, though? I mean, it does look like there could be something on the underside of that plane.

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 08:21 PM
windows anyone? "The Emperor has no Clothes, and this Plane has no windows!"

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 09:17 PM
For those of you who think that you are seeing pictures of a 767 tanker, they don't exist yet. The Air Force is still attempting to get Congress to buy or lease them. There haven't been any funds even spent for a prototype yet so believing that you are seeing a AF tanker is a pure myth.

To think that there was a missle attached is also not feasable. You would have seen a rather large smoke plume when it ignited. Also, the plane was in a bank at the time and if a missle or rocket were fired, the flight path would have diverged from the one the jet was on. Even it fired just moments before impact. You would also expect that the missle would need to be airborne for a few seconds before arming. I doubt that anyone would design a missle that was fully armed while in flight, there would be to many risks involved.

As far as the windows the video the plane is banking rather steeply, and it has been enlarged several times. It's possible that the jet is rolled to far to the left to have the windows appear.

[edit on 21-6-2004 by simtek]

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 11:50 PM
I have to agree that that the missile theory is wild goose chase. I'm kind of sorry they've gone with it, because it obscures the basic issue. The real question is where did the odd shape on the bottom of the plane come from, and when was it put there? Both cameras who's film we are used to seeing show the added bulge. According to the website, it can be seen in all the films that caught that particular plane.

I've looked at nearly a hundred photos of commercial 767s and none of them have that strange shape. Given the lack of any physical evidence that this was in fact the plane it is reported to be, I find such a strange anomaly rather compelling.

posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 08:29 AM
yes what is the weird shape?.

posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 10:32 AM
here is something to checkout


posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 10:25 AM
Look closely at the other shadows on the jet. Look at the angles. It appears to me that whats being seen is the shadow of the engine on the right wing. Remember, these attacks happened well before noon, also the jet is in a definite left hand bank. I don't believe that the landing gear could be retracted if there was something covering the area that they extend from, which is why I believe it's only a shadow.

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 01:55 PM
micpsi: A missle would be basically useless... Based on your logic, if there was a missle, and it entered the building right in front of the plane, the wings would have been torn off of that fragile aircraft, as they didn't fit through the necessary premade-via-missle hole and they would have fallen to the ground (due to the near impenetrable walls of the towers or course). Plus I seem to recall one of the planes making a damn near perfect cut into the building (perfect outline of wings and everything, no extra damage to building around where the wings tore into it, so not a premade hole). Basically what i'm saying is that if you have roughly 100 tons of steal that is moving fast enough to be able to maintain flight through the air, chances are it can penetrate a non-fortified building w/o the help of a missle.


[edit on 6-23-2004 by ScislaC]

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 02:09 PM
that does look like something went off before the explosion.

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 02:10 PM
or it might be just an illusion by the bad image.

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 02:44 PM
Those who say the lets roll 9-11 images are fake need to do better research.

Go to the CNN memorial edition and view the images for yourself.
The flash is caught on camera and shown on their web site.

Any footage from that day, whether it be msnbc, abc, cnn, fox, or etc. will show you the same things that letsroll911 shows you.

If you have tivo or taped the news that day, go back and look for yourself.

You debunked NOTHING.

Face the facts. The government lied to us as they have many times in the past.
Here is a quote you all need to get familiar with...

"When tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of
fighting a foreign foe." --US President James Madison

I have heard it long ago and when reading an article on Rense today, it hit me as to how much sense it makes.

I backed Bush, I voted for him, and I'm extremely conservative.
However, voting for him is one mistake I will never make again.

Sadly, Kerry is one in the same and it makes no difference who wins

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 03:10 PM
You guys are nuts (some of you) there was no other planes, there was not a secret remote controlled tanker, there was no missile pod and you did not see something other than a 767 filled with civillians and terrorist crash into the towers.

The glint near the inner wing root is a trim flap, used to help bank the aircraft into the laeft hand bank moments before impact. The "pod" are shadows from the engine nacels and camera artifacts due to the aircraft approaching at over 500knotts. The small flash you see at the nose of the craft is impact fragmentation of the aircrafts nose at the first point of impact, similar to touching a spinning grinder on raw steel and seeing a shower of sparks, but in this case its a chunk of aluminum verses steel and concrete with an impact speed and kenetic energy in thousands of PSI.

Trust me, if you were to take a 1lb ball of aluminum and propel it at over 500knotts into solid concrete you will get an amazing light show as the aluminum basically vaporizes into thin air. Heck shoot a 1 inch thick piece of aluminum with a .223 at night and see what kind of sparks it generates.

There is no other event going on accept a plane crashing into a building killing 3,000 people.

posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 10:35 AM

I think this site does a good job of summarizing all the evidence against various explanations for several of the photographic anomolies, and it was created by a former conspiracy theorist too. It was linked to from and I was surprised to see them linking to a site contrary to articles they had posted on their own.

posted on Jul, 2 2004 @ 10:58 AM

I think this site does a good job of summarizing all the evidence against various explanations for several of the photographic anomolies, and it was created by a former conspiracy theorist too

The only fault I can find with his analysis is the tail object looks more like a skid protector in the event that the plane over rotates on takeoff. However, I don't think its present on a -200 model but I could be wrong. THe other statement that he made about the 200 could have been substituted for a 300 is sketchy. The serial number is of a 200 model. Also the airline would be missing a 300 not a 200 etc

new topics
top topics
<< 1   >>

log in