Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
pods; pods
Topic Started: Sep 27 2008, 12:02 PM (1,329 Views)
mjd1982

Hi there,

I have just watched the film "In Plane site". I understand that this film doesnt have much credibility in the community, but I have a fe questions regarding the qualms tht have been raised about it.

The main issue is the "pod" theory, i.e. that there was something attached to the bottom of the plane that hit the S Tower. Now, this has been debunked on the basis that this is in fact a "fairing", i.e. a standard piece of equipmennt attached to the base of planes to join the wings and the fuselage. But there is something that doesnt stick. Here is the pic from IPS:

Posted Image

And here is an image of a fairing:

Posted Image

There is a clear issue, namely that the fairing is located solely between the wings, not extending further up the fuselage, whereas the "pod" extends all the way up the fuselage from the fairing to the front of the base of the plane, and back from the fairing to the back of the base of the plane. So it would appear to me that what pod proponents are calling a pod, and what pod debunkers are calling a "fairing" are 2 different things.

That being said, I may be missing something. Can someone help me if so?

thanks

M
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mjd1982

Problem with posting images here it seems. Heres #1:

Posted Image

and #2:

http://tinyurl.com/45u57m

Edit by JFK - embed image and http://tinyurl.com
Edited by JFK, Sep 27 2008, 12:09 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

I see you have neglected this analysis.

http://www.amics21.com/911/report.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mjd1982

Right, and that analysis serves to further undeline the point, right?

Quote:
 

The detected objects have varying luminosity around them because they are in relief (this is the only possible explanation).

The detected objects are clearly distinct from the landing gear


Which only adds further to the confusion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
GEORGE DORN


American airlines flight 11 was a boeing 767-200ER extended range

767-200ER


The 767-200ER was the first extended-range model and entered service with El Al in 1984. The type's increased range is due to an additional center fuel tank and a higher maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of up to 395,000 pounds (179,000 kg). The type was originally offered with the same engines as the 767-200, while more powerful Pratt & Whitney PW4000 and General Electric CF6 engines later became available. (62,100 lbs)


PS :- the 767-200ER has an additional center fuel tank , this is what most people claim was UNUSUAL and postule as to there being a missile or something added ....

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Michal

ok, have you got anu photos showing that?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BoneZ
Member Avatar

GEORGE DORN
Jul 30 2012, 08:57 PM
PS :- the 767-200ER has an additional center fuel tank , this is what most people claim was UNUSUAL and postule as to there being a missile or something added ....

Not accurate. The 767-200ER, 300ER, and 400ER, actually NO 767 that I can quickly find has an extra appendage on the bottom of the fuselage.


Here's a 767-200ER:

Posted Image



Furthermore, when looking at the videos (there are at least 2) of the plane coming at the camera, there is no appendage on the bottom of FL.175 that hit the second tower. There's also a great analysis at the link below discussing how the "appendage" was the highlighting of the wing fairings by the sun and shadows:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/salter/pod.html


The above link also briefly discusses and debunks the link posted earlier in the thread on the analysis from a Spanish university.






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · United Flight 175 · Next Topic »
Add Reply