| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| The 'Pod' | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 25 2008, 02:48 PM (1,489 Views) | |
| Popesture | Mar 25 2008, 02:48 PM Post #1 |
A No-Brainer No-Planer
|
In the Extra Footage of LC:2 it says at the end that the 'Pod' was cut. What is the Pod? Could someone describe or provide me with information about this evidence? |
 |
 
|
| JFK | Mar 25 2008, 03:59 PM Post #2 |
|
http://www.letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=14 |
|
|
| Popesture | Mar 25 2008, 04:02 PM Post #3 |
|
A No-Brainer No-Planer
|
Thank you very much! |
|
|
|
| JFK | Mar 25 2008, 04:06 PM Post #4 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Killtown | Apr 6 2008, 02:38 PM Post #5 |
Childish Hypocrite
|
The "pod" is not a "pod". Go look at the Michael Hezarkhani video and you'll notice that when the plane first appears in the video in front of the blue sky, there is no "pod" visible underneath it. However, as soon as the plane passes in front of the smoke and South Tower, the "pod" magically appears to form underneath it like a Transformer. |
|
|
|
| A.L.Ex - N.E.T.A | Sep 18 2008, 07:09 AM Post #6 |
|
Sorry Killswitch but you are just dead wrong. POD EXPLAINED: (please bear in mind when watching that I am NOT saying everything in the video is right, JUST the POD and frontal-right flash ONLY): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j_c1tPMiG0 |
|
|
|
| skunkrider | Feb 7 2009, 12:31 AM Post #7 |
|
The video you posted is partially sloppy in its video analysis. What I mean is that the plane that hit North tower produced a flash fractions of a second before it touched the building. If I remember correctly, it's either in Loose Change (original version) or 9/11 Eyewitness that a frame by frame analysis is done that shows that the shadow of the plane on the tower does not visibly "touch" the plane until after the flash has occurred. Furthermore the picture of the second plane enterting the South tower (the black/white one) still shows a missile-like object. The image is simply too detailed to make this explicable a weird-looking housing for the tire gear. In the end, it doesn't matter, because simple science forbids the fashion in which the towers and WTC7 came down, but we want to know the whole picture, don't we all... |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Feb 7 2009, 07:10 AM Post #8 |
|
One of the very first things I researched when I got turned on to 9/11 truth several years ago, was the "pod" due to 9/11 In Plane Site making a big deal out of it. Just like the no-plane at the WTC "theory", the "pod theory" is also disinfo and very well explained here: http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html#fairing |
|
|
|
| m0n3yman | Feb 8 2009, 02:33 AM Post #9 |
|
What's the most conclusive answer we have on the flash seen on almost every camera footage? |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Feb 8 2009, 10:14 AM Post #10 |
|
There has never been anything conclusive on the flash that I've seen. My best guess is that some sort of explosive was inserted into both planes' noses to help open up the buildings, allowing the planes to fully enter and become destroyed when the buildings collapsed. |
|
|
|
| skunkrider | Feb 8 2009, 12:49 PM Post #11 |
|
BoneZ, thank you for your insight, but I don't care if it's you, Dylan Avery, Dick Cheney or Princess Diana herself telling me something is 'disinfo". I'm sick of megalomaniac people telling others what to think. I actually trust my mind so far to be able to differ between real info and "disinfo". I didn't need anybody to tell me that holograms and energy beams were false. I didn't need anybody to tell me that the new and final NIST report is false. Just because some people chose not to stick to a certain itching-point of the story, why would I blindly follow them? Louder Than Words had their reasons to stick to the most convincing, most visible evidence. After all, I think I can say with some certainty (?) that Loose Change was never intended to be shown to experts on 9/11 only, but rather to many people who could not remember something from less than 5 years ago... I consider a a pod realistic. Whether it was a device somehow implemented in the remote control towards a certain point of the towers (homing device?), or whether it was just a big missile/bombload/rocket, I don't know. Nobody knows. But asking questions cannot be wrong. No matter how small this piece of evidence is regarding the massive snowball that is growing and running towards 9/11 sceptics - it deserves to be talked about, and it does not deserve to be generally dismissed by some random 9/11 truther, no offense meant. Same goes for people on the board claiming Europe lives in pure socialism, being on the brink of communism. Most of you people have never seen more from Europe than the tourist pouring into your country. Talking crap like the stuff above is just about as stupid as saying 'Bush did 9/11'. Damn. Edited by skunkrider, Feb 8 2009, 12:51 PM.
|
|
|
|
| JFK | Feb 8 2009, 03:06 PM Post #12 |
|
Yes, that is in Loose Change 1 at the beginning. Note that in Loose Change 2nd edition > Extras > Deleted > Missiles This is what Dylan and crew have to say.   As for myself, I do see something under the right wing of that plane which does not belong. And it is not a wing faring. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Feb 8 2009, 05:19 PM Post #13 |
|
That's also what the no-planers say and what the debunkers say. Everyone trusts their mind/common sense and they know they're right, no matter how wrong they may be. I was just trying to help you out in showing you a well-researched link. You act as though you don't even care to look at the link. If the fake "pod" had any evidence of existing at all, everyone would be all over it and advertising it as another smoking gun. But we don't see any organization advertising it, do we? Not A/E, not Pilots, not Scholars. When you look at other angles of the plane, especially head-on, there's nothing on the bottom. You can start discussing the "pod" all you want, but it was discussed years ago, debunked years ago, and most of us have moved on. You joined the original LC forums only 2 months before I did. I'm hardly a "random truther". Especially being an active member of Scholars and A/E. Edited by BoneZ, Apr 25 2009, 09:51 AM.
|
|
|
|
| skunkrider | Feb 8 2009, 11:03 PM Post #14 |
|
I didn't mean to disrespect you by calling you a random truther. I was maybe not communicating enough the picture of the 9/11 truth movement that I have in mind. Everybody is just a single piece. I like to see it leader-less. We are bound to stick to science, circumstantial evidence may get us nowhere considering the weapons the elites have shown and are showing. Therefore declaring Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, Rieg Siegel (lol!) or Webster Tarpley (!lol!) "leaders" of the truth movement is certainly something only media people would do to have a focus to hit on. Certainly you didn't even allude to what I just mentioned, and I mentioned this only because it is the background of why I did not like or appreciate your attitude. Don't preach, inform. Your statement that the pod-theory has been debunked carries about as much credence as the statement of a debunker that WTC7 has been debunked long ago. It's your opinion, nothing more, and definitely nothing less. For all we know, all the evidence that we have seen could've been planted for some even more ingenious plan leading far into the future, meaning that the elites planned to create a chasm between "normal" people and a certain part of critical thinkers, only to be able to seperate the dissenters more easy, to wipe out opposition easier. Pretty drastic and depressing, but we cannot know! Remember Platon and Descartes: "I know that I know nothing" (mistranslation of "I know by not knowing", aiming at all blindly accepted truths we never question) "I think, thus I am" (the only certainty of a being comes from knowing that nothing is certain but the being's very existence) I don't care if any organization helping in the name of 9/11 truth advertizes something or not. The truth is not a popularity contest. As a "truther" you of all should know that an unpopular stand is not necessarily wrong. I looked at your links yesterday already, so please don't make me look like an ignorant dogmatist. I know I am, but I still read what others have to say and look at their links. If I didn't, I had never discovered 9/11 truth for myself. |
|
|
|
| BoneZ | Feb 9 2009, 04:55 PM Post #15 |
|
Fair enough Skunk and some good points made. 
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · 2nd Edition · Next Topic » |
11:31 PM Nov 29
