FREE TAPATALK APP

Ersby · 13th September 2006, 06:12 AM

Well, having discovered that most of my workmates seem to subscribe to the conspiracy theory, I was pretty much able to argue most of their points (they didn't change their minds, though) except one which I sort of remembered from ages ago.

Anyway, the pictures of "pods" on the underside of the planes. What were they? Any links to decent rebuttals.

The weird thing is, not even Loose Change gives it much credence, so it must have been debunked somehwere.

realitybites · 13th September 2006, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by Ersby

Well, having discovered that most of my workmates seem to subscribe to the conspiracy theory, I was pretty much able to argue most of their points (they didn't change their minds, though) except one which I sort of remembered from ages ago.

Anyway, the pictures of "pods" on the underside of the planes. What were they? Any links to decent rebuttals.

The weird thing is, not even Loose Change gives it much credence, so it must have been debunked somehwere.

I don't have a link, but the original version of Loose Change actually went into detail about the "pods". At the time Avery even stated it was their best piece of evidence for an inside job. Oddly enough, it disappeared from their 2nd edition.

The "pods" themselves are actually the part of the undercarriage of the plane where the center landing gear are stored. I believe the theory was these pods fired a missile a split second before the plane impact.

Be sure to ask your co-workers to explain the point of that.

MRC_Hans · 13th September 2006, 06:22 AM

You can see them in this picture, just at the wing roots.

Hans

Skibum · 13th September 2006, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Well, having discovered that most of my workmates seem to subscribe to the conspiracy theory

I'm glad to see that your company gives the mentally challenged an opportunity to work.

Ersby · 13th September 2006, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by realitybites

Be sure to ask your co-workers to explain the point of that.

They actually kind of mentioned that. They said something about the buildings exploding before the planes hit. It was quite easy to debunk that: "No they didn't."

Bell · 13th September 2006, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by Ersby

They actually kind of mentioned that. They said something about the buildings exploding before the planes hit. It was quite easy to debunk that: "No they didn't."

That would be the flashes observed in the videos of the planes crashing into a skyscraper at some 500+ mph.

A flash similar to when a jetfighter was crashed into a concrete wall to test te strenght (I believe) of the concrete for nuclear power plants.

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/...type=post&id=3

CurtC · 13th September 2006, 06:29 AM

I think the "missile just before" idea became popular because of a misinterpretation of the still from a video. One of those stills caught UAL175 just hitting the South Tower, from the East and slightly North. Since the Sun was to the South and East, then the North side of the tower was in the shade. In the blurry video still, you couldn't see the front ~1/4 part of the plane that was in the shade, because there was very little contrast with the North face of the building beyond it. But the rear 3/4 was still in the sunlight, so you could see that very well. Also, you could see the bright flash where the nose of the plane was starting to impact the building.

People interpreted the sunlit part of the plane as the whole plane, so to them it looked like the flash at the impact point was happening well in front of where the plane was. But it was pretty simple to confirm from other video stills how long the plane should have been, and then to confirm that the very front of the plane was just not apparent because of the shade.

realitybites · 13th September 2006, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by Ersby

They actually kind of mentioned that. They said something about the buildings exploding before the planes hit. It was quite easy to debunk that: "No they didn't."

They're probably referring to the "flash" that occurs as the plane hits the building. CTers will claim it's from a missile. But it's pretty clear it's from the plane striking the building.

Oddly enough, metal upon metal produces sparks. Especially when one is stationary and the other is traveling 500+ mph.

Ask them what the point would be of having the buildings explode before hand if you're going to fly a plane into them anyway.

Ersby · 13th September 2006, 06:36 AM

You know, I did see a video clip of one of the planes hitting the towers and there was a white streak of light that also hit the tower at exactly the same time. I was a bit gobstruck when I saw that until I realised that the white streak only went across one face of the building and were obviously not from (a) the plane or (b) anywhere else. It was a reflection from the sun.

Asking them about the point of using missiles when the plane was going to crash into them anyway may come in useful later. Especially against my friend who thinks that the passenger lists of the four planes are all fake. Bless him: he's only just turned twenty and likes heavy metal. Loose Change's target market!

Arkan_Wolfshade · 13th September 2006, 06:55 AM

The new PM book Debunking 9/11 has the video still that is referenced by the CTists along side a better lit picture of the same model plane, from about the same angle and you can clearly see what it is in the video still. For on $15 it's worth it.

Gravy · 13th September 2006, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Ersby

You know, I did see a video clip of one of the planes hitting the towers and there was a white streak of light that also hit the tower at exactly the same time. I was a bit gobstruck when I saw that until I realised that the white streak only went across one face of the building and were obviously not from (a) the plane or (b) anywhere else. It was a reflection from the sun.

Asking them about the point of using missiles when the plane was going to crash into them anyway may come in useful later. Especially against my friend who thinks that the passenger lists of the four planes are all fake. Bless him: he's only just turned twenty and likes heavy metal. Loose Change's target market!

There's pretty much only one prominent denier who promotes the "pod" or "premature flash" ideas. It's Dave Von Kliest, and here he is on Saturday: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...1&postcount=29

Even the looniest moonbats leave him alone. I had a chat with him about the problems with his theory, such as the level of detail that can be captured by videotaping a distant plane moving at 260 meters per second with a cheap handheld video camera shooting at 30 frames per second, then enlarging the image 8x. I made no impression on him, but he gets points for sort of listening to me and being relatively soft-spoken, as 9/11 deniers go.

Lisa Simpson · 13th September 2006, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

The new PM book Debunking 9/11 has the video still that is referenced by the CTists along side a better lit picture of the same model plane, from about the same angle and you can clearly see what it is in the video still. For on $15 it's worth it.

It is a very good book and written for the average person. You don't need a degree in physics or higher math to understand it.

Ersby, you could buy a copy and "casually" leave it on your desk for your cow-orkers to peruse.

Babylon Sister · 13th September 2006, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by realitybites

Ask them what the point would be of having the buildings explode before hand if you're going to fly a plane into them anyway.

Isn't it obvious? The missles were fired into the building to make an opening for the plane to get through. I thought every one knew that.

realitybites · 13th September 2006, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by Babylon Sister

Isn't it obvious? The missles were fired into the building to make an opening for the plane to get through. I thought every one knew that.

Right. I forgot. Missile fires. Makes hole. While flying through the building, plane engages hi-tech cloaking device. Flies out the other side unseen, undetected. Lands in Cleveland with the other 3 planes. Passengers are herded to near-by NASA facility and "disappeared".

Couldn't think of an easier, more plausible series of events.

Alareth · 13th September 2006, 03:20 PM

NASA! That's it!

All the missing passengers are on our covert moon base the government has kept secret from us! It all so obvious now.

They had to blow up the Columbia because some of them got onboard and tried to come back home. The sinister plot thickens...

Metullus · 13th September 2006, 03:27 PM

Except that as we all know the "top secret covert moon base" is a sound stage at Area 51 where the moon landings were faked.

The dressing room must be pretty crowded by now...

defaultdotxbe · 13th September 2006, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by realitybites

I don't have a link, but the original version of Loose Change actually went into detail about the "pods". At the time Avery even stated it was their best piece of evidence for an inside job. Oddly enough, it disappeared from their 2nd edition.

dylan says it was cut due to "time constraints" (time constraints imposed by the attention span of their target audience no doubt) and makes a point of noting it was not due to debunkers

however if you want to make a strong documentary youd want to cut your weaker arguments, not your "best evidence" so i would call this another lie from DylCo, Inc.

Quote:

The "pods" themselves are actually the part of the undercarriage of the plane where the center landing gear are stored. I believe the theory was these pods fired a missile a split second before the plane impact.

actually there are two "pod" theories i have seen, one points to the wing faring 9where the gear is stored) and another, obviously less researched version, points of a long white "pod" running down the middle of the fuselage, this, however, is part of the UA paint scheme

13th September 2006, 06:12 AM	#1
Ersby Fortean Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 1,840	9/11 - the pod theory Well, having discovered that most of my workmates seem to subscribe to the conspiracy theory, I was pretty much able to argue most of their points (they didn't change their minds, though) except one which I sort of remembered from ages ago. Anyway, the pictures of "pods" on the underside of the planes. What were they? Any links to decent rebuttals. The weird thing is, not even Loose Change gives it much credence, so it must have been debunked somehwere.
	__________________ "Once a man admits complete and unshakeable faith in his own integrity, he is in an excellent frame of mind to be approached by con men." David W. Maurer, "The Big Con" Updated: History of Psi in the Ganzfeld 1974-2010

13th September 2006, 06:18 AM	#2
realitybites Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Location: Harrisburg, PA Posts: 1,066	Originally Posted by Ersby Well, having discovered that most of my workmates seem to subscribe to the conspiracy theory, I was pretty much able to argue most of their points (they didn't change their minds, though) except one which I sort of remembered from ages ago. Anyway, the pictures of "pods" on the underside of the planes. What were they? Any links to decent rebuttals. The weird thing is, not even Loose Change gives it much credence, so it must have been debunked somehwere. I don't have a link, but the original version of Loose Change actually went into detail about the "pods". At the time Avery even stated it was their best piece of evidence for an inside job. Oddly enough, it disappeared from their 2nd edition. The "pods" themselves are actually the part of the undercarriage of the plane where the center landing gear are stored. I believe the theory was these pods fired a missile a split second before the plane impact. Be sure to ask your co-workers to explain the point of that.
	__________________ This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes. 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers. A Must Read.

13th September 2006, 06:24 AM	#5
Ersby Fortean Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 1,840	Originally Posted by realitybites Be sure to ask your co-workers to explain the point of that. They actually kind of mentioned that. They said something about the buildings exploding before the planes hit. It was quite easy to debunk that: "No they didn't."
	__________________ "Once a man admits complete and unshakeable faith in his own integrity, he is in an excellent frame of mind to be approached by con men." David W. Maurer, "The Big Con" Updated: History of Psi in the Ganzfeld 1974-2010

13th September 2006, 06:28 AM	#6
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 20,605	Originally Posted by Ersby They actually kind of mentioned that. They said something about the buildings exploding before the planes hit. It was quite easy to debunk that: "No they didn't." That would be the flashes observed in the videos of the planes crashing into a skyscraper at some 500+ mph. A flash similar to when a jetfighter was crashed into a concrete wall to test te strenght (I believe) of the concrete for nuclear power plants. http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/...type=post&id=3
	__________________ Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life. I♥NY You gotta love cops.

13th September 2006, 06:31 AM	#8
realitybites Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Location: Harrisburg, PA Posts: 1,066	Originally Posted by Ersby They actually kind of mentioned that. They said something about the buildings exploding before the planes hit. It was quite easy to debunk that: "No they didn't." They're probably referring to the "flash" that occurs as the plane hits the building. CTers will claim it's from a missile. But it's pretty clear it's from the plane striking the building. Oddly enough, metal upon metal produces sparks. Especially when one is stationary and the other is traveling 500+ mph. Ask them what the point would be of having the buildings explode before hand if you're going to fly a plane into them anyway.
	__________________ This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes. 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers. A Must Read.

13th September 2006, 06:23 AM	#4
Skibum Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia Posts: 1,271	Quote: Well, having discovered that most of my workmates seem to subscribe to the conspiracy theory I'm glad to see that your company gives the mentally challenged an opportunity to work.

13th September 2006, 06:29 AM	#7
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,761	I think the "missile just before" idea became popular because of a misinterpretation of the still from a video. One of those stills caught UAL175 just hitting the South Tower, from the East and slightly North. Since the Sun was to the South and East, then the North side of the tower was in the shade. In the blurry video still, you couldn't see the front ~1/4 part of the plane that was in the shade, because there was very little contrast with the North face of the building beyond it. But the rear 3/4 was still in the sunlight, so you could see that very well. Also, you could see the bright flash where the nose of the plane was starting to impact the building. People interpreted the sunlit part of the plane as the whole plane, so to them it looked like the flash at the impact point was happening well in front of where the plane was. But it was pretty simple to confirm from other video stills how long the plane should have been, and then to confirm that the very front of the plane was just not apparent because of the shade.

13th September 2006, 06:36 AM	#9
Ersby Fortean Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bristol, UK Posts: 1,840	You know, I did see a video clip of one of the planes hitting the towers and there was a white streak of light that also hit the tower at exactly the same time. I was a bit gobstruck when I saw that until I realised that the white streak only went across one face of the building and were obviously not from (a) the plane or (b) anywhere else. It was a reflection from the sun. Asking them about the point of using missiles when the plane was going to crash into them anyway may come in useful later. Especially against my friend who thinks that the passenger lists of the four planes are all fake. Bless him: he's only just turned twenty and likes heavy metal. Loose Change's target market!
	__________________ "Once a man admits complete and unshakeable faith in his own integrity, he is in an excellent frame of mind to be approached by con men." David W. Maurer, "The Big Con" Updated: History of Psi in the Ganzfeld 1974-2010

13th September 2006, 06:55 AM	#10
Arkan_Wolfshade Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Making Mytheon come to life Posts: 7,158	The new PM book Debunking 9/11 has the video still that is referenced by the CTists along side a better lit picture of the same model plane, from about the same angle and you can clearly see what it is in the video still. For on $15 it's worth it.
	__________________ Amy: You should try homeopathic medicine, Bender. Try some zinc. Bender: I am forty percent zinc. Amy: Then take some echinacea, or St. John's Wort. Professor: Or a big fat placebo. It's all the same crap.

13th September 2006, 06:57 AM	#11
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136	Originally Posted by Ersby You know, I did see a video clip of one of the planes hitting the towers and there was a white streak of light that also hit the tower at exactly the same time. I was a bit gobstruck when I saw that until I realised that the white streak only went across one face of the building and were obviously not from (a) the plane or (b) anywhere else. It was a reflection from the sun. Asking them about the point of using missiles when the plane was going to crash into them anyway may come in useful later. Especially against my friend who thinks that the passenger lists of the four planes are all fake. Bless him: he's only just turned twenty and likes heavy metal. Loose Change's target market! There's pretty much only one prominent denier who promotes the "pod" or "premature flash" ideas. It's Dave Von Kliest, and here he is on Saturday: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...1&postcount=29 Even the looniest moonbats leave him alone. I had a chat with him about the problems with his theory, such as the level of detail that can be captured by videotaping a distant plane moving at 260 meters per second with a cheap handheld video camera shooting at 30 frames per second, then enlarging the image 8x. I made no impression on him, but he gets points for sort of listening to me and being relatively soft-spoken, as 9/11 deniers go.
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

13th September 2006, 07:01 AM	#12
Lisa Simpson THE Lisa Simpson Administrator Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: 123 Fake Street Posts: 20,111	Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade The new PM book Debunking 9/11 has the video still that is referenced by the CTists along side a better lit picture of the same model plane, from about the same angle and you can clearly see what it is in the video still. For on $15 it's worth it. It is a very good book and written for the average person. You don't need a degree in physics or higher math to understand it. Ersby, you could buy a copy and "casually" leave it on your desk for your cow-orkers to peruse.
	__________________ That's what the Internet does -- you get a free bonus prize of Stupid Lies with every box of Delicious Facts. - cracked.com Facts are satanic litter on the heavenly highway to blind faith! - Betty Bowers

13th September 2006, 07:34 AM	#13
Babylon Sister Muse Join Date: May 2003 Location: In the Darkness on the edge of Town Posts: 659	Originally Posted by realitybites Ask them what the point would be of having the buildings explode before hand if you're going to fly a plane into them anyway. Isn't it obvious? The missles were fired into the building to make an opening for the plane to get through. I thought every one knew that.

13th September 2006, 07:39 AM	#14
realitybites Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Location: Harrisburg, PA Posts: 1,066	Originally Posted by Babylon Sister Isn't it obvious? The missles were fired into the building to make an opening for the plane to get through. I thought every one knew that. Right. I forgot. Missile fires. Makes hole. While flying through the building, plane engages hi-tech cloaking device. Flies out the other side unseen, undetected. Lands in Cleveland with the other 3 planes. Passengers are herded to near-by NASA facility and "disappeared". Couldn't think of an easier, more plausible series of events.
	__________________ This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes. 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive Inside the Twin Towers. A Must Read.

13th September 2006, 03:20 PM	#15
Alareth Expert Expertologist Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 6,809	NASA! That's it! All the missing passengers are on our covert moon base the government has kept secret from us! It all so obvious now. They had to blow up the Columbia because some of them got onboard and tried to come back home. The sinister plot thickens...
	__________________ Pixelated Reality \| Alareth Does Art! Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak

13th September 2006, 03:27 PM	#16
Metullus Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Waldo's Pond Posts: 4,016	Except that as we all know the "top secret covert moon base" is a sound stage at Area 51 where the moon landings were faked. The dressing room must be pretty crowded by now...
	__________________ I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy

13th September 2006, 03:32 PM	#17
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	Originally Posted by realitybites I don't have a link, but the original version of Loose Change actually went into detail about the "pods". At the time Avery even stated it was their best piece of evidence for an inside job. Oddly enough, it disappeared from their 2nd edition. dylan says it was cut due to "time constraints" (time constraints imposed by the attention span of their target audience no doubt) and makes a point of noting it was not due to debunkers however if you want to make a strong documentary youd want to cut your weaker arguments, not your "best evidence" so i would call this another lie from DylCo, Inc. Quote: The "pods" themselves are actually the part of the undercarriage of the plane where the center landing gear are stored. I believe the theory was these pods fired a missile a split second before the plane impact. actually there are two "pod" theories i have seen, one points to the wing faring 9where the gear is stored) and another, obviously less researched version, points of a long white "pod" running down the middle of the fuselage, this, however, is part of the UA paint scheme
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein