• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

So did they attach this "pod" after the plane was airborne. The "pod" is right where the main landing gear has to be on any tricycle gear aircraft. Just aft of the center of gravity It would imposable for gear to cycle up or down with a pod there.

Also John Cole never added any Hudson River water to his experiment. So salt water and god knows what else is missing from his conclusion.
 
They had awful lot of people look at it, and made a good determination that it was not a reflection or shadow.

Actually the article says they had a good number of people look at it and "They swung between the hypothesis of an optical effect or an added object". IOW, they were essentially split as to what it could be.
 
Well we weren't talking about experiments in the forms of PODS. But you see it's already been done. I pasted this article already. Keep in mind this is all mainstream, this is Barcelona's largest newspaper. Very much mainstream.

And that doesn't prove anything other then someone can write an article. And, no, writing an article doesn't equate to an experiment. But in any case, what "experiments" were you referring to then?
 
Martín de Pozuelo set to work. He had a meeting with R.R. and Calvet at La Vanguardia.es head office. They spent two long afternoons poring over the photos, videos and all the visual material they could get together on the attack on the twin towers in New York. What conclusion did they come to?
..........
They noticed evidence of shapes present on the fuselage of the plane. They couldn’t tell what on earth it was.
Meanwhile Martín de Pozuelo consulted aviation experts—among them an aeronautical engineer who asked not to be identified, due to his rank. He spent all one morning analising the photos in the “La Vanguardia”. His pronouncement reinforced the hypothesis of something added to the fuselage.
........
The two reporters conducting the investigation were not convinced, of course. They were sceptical. They decided to take it one step further to dispel all doubt. They turned to US sources. The Boeing company in Seattle agreed to have a look at the photos and give their conclusions. The photographs were sent electronically from “La Vanguardia”.

For ten days, by telephone and electronic mail, the company responded whenever called by the two “La Vanguardia” newsmen, as the photos were studied by various departments at the company. Finally, from Seattle, back came a surprising, enigmatic reply: “We are not able to tell you what it is. Security reasons.”

It was then that the newsmen decided there was enough to report to “La Vanguardia” readers. The text and photos were handed in to the newspaper’s editorial office to assess whether to publish a first report. It was released in the June 22 issue. It caused an impact, even in the United States, where the translation of the “La Vanguardia” article was hung on a web site dedicated to 9/11.

The two reporters then asked Boeing once more: “Is there any further news?” Answer: “No answer for security reasons”. A negative reply which does not clear up the mystery. And so they continue to investigate."

At no time did anyone ever say that they compared the photos of the plane over Manhattan to the dozens of photos available on the internet of other Boeing 767s.

These guys may want to go back and take Journalism 101 again.

So, tmd after viewing the many pics that have now been shown and perhaps actually doing some research of your own, do you not conclude that the 'pods' are the wing farings?
 
Actually the article says they had a good number of people look at it and "They swung between the hypothesis of an optical effect or an added object". IOW, they were essentially split as to what it could be.

How they could conclude 'added object' when the article does not state that they compared it to other pics of other 767s is rather odd.

Yes in fact it is an object added to the fuselage,,,,,, of every single Boeing 767 in existance.
 
At no time did anyone ever say that they compared the photos of the plane over Manhattan to the dozens of photos available on the internet of other Boeing 767s.

These guys may want to go back and take Journalism 101 again.

So, tmd after viewing the many pics that have now been shown and perhaps actually doing some research of your own, do you not conclude that the 'pods' are the wing farings?

Nope not at all. I don't know what that is. It could be. In your comment is the insinuation that the manufacturer does not know their own A/C. Reasonable conclusion for sure? Yeah they failed journalism 101, it's not like they went to the best source for clarification, and received a puzzling answer or anything. Again I want to be clear because I know how you guys are..absolutely no implication is given. It shows the company has integrity by giving the answer it did.
 
Actually the article says they had a good number of people look at it and "They swung between the hypothesis of an optical effect or an added object". IOW, they were essentially split as to what it could be.

“We are not able to tell you what it is. Security reasons.” Is a very telling quote.
 
And that doesn't prove anything other then someone can write an article. And, no, writing an article doesn't equate to an experiment. But in any case, what "experiments" were you referring to then?

These two (among others he did) really try to keep an open mind. I suggesting looking else where besides here as well. Not saying not to go here, but get as many perspectives as you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=channel_video_title

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g&feature=relmfu
 
TMD

You said earlier that Boeing were not involved, yet over the last two[pages you have implicated Boeing in this massive plot, even their public representatives are involved.

Strangely other than this article and a few nutters on the internet (even other nutters think they are nutters) think there is any issue here.

Therefore, like the rest of your claims, everyone else is either in on it, or they are too stupid. Why is that less rational than YOU are the one who is in error?
 
Last edited:
“We are not able to tell you what it is. Security reasons.” Is a very telling quote.
No, it's really not. The article was written June 2003, basically the middle of the 9/11 commission report. It would not be surprising if they asked Boeing to not make any statements in regards to anything related to 9/11. Perhaps you should contact Boeing now, 7 years after the Commission's report, to see what they say.

http://www.boeing.com/contactus.html
These two (among others he did) really try to keep an open mind. I suggesting looking else where besides here as well. Not saying not to go here, but get as many perspectives as you can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=channel_video_title

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g&feature=relmfu

So your response to images debunking the whole POD issue is to bring up completely unrelated "experiments"? :boggled:
 
Last edited:
Did you read this part? Finally, from Seattle, back came a surprising, enigmatic reply: “We are not able to tell you what it is. Security reasons.”
Implied in that is the fact that "it" is something.
So Boeing is definitely on the list. Remember when you objected to them being on the huge and growing list of conspirators? :rolleyes:
 
Well we weren't talking about experiments in the forms of PODS. But you see it's already been done. I pasted this article already. Keep in mind this is all mainstream, this is Barcelona's largest newspaper. Very much mainstream.
It doesn't matter what any newspaper said, you were shown pics of standard 767s that show there were no pods, the bulges on 9/11 video and photos are on every 767 made. No pods.

It really doesn't get any more conclusive than that, you really are clinging to truther dogma like it's your religion. No amount of evidence you are wrong will convince you, perhaps you have suffered a brain injury or mental illness that prevents you from thinking rationally.

You don't appear to be able to draw rational implications inherent in your assertions. For example, a few pages back you objected to Boeing being on the list of conspirators. And now here you are directly implicating Boeing with this pod nonsense. And for whatever reason, you are unable to understand why you can't simultaneously claim that Boeing is both in on it and not in on it.
 
“We are not able to tell you what it is. Security reasons.” Is a very telling quote.
.......

......if you want to read into anything you want. Beyond that, it's proof of nothing.

As with the rest of your so called "evidence". Could there have been molten steel at GZ produced by Thermite? Sure there could, in the grand scheme of anything is possible in the universe. But have you done anything to disprove the dozen or so other more logical probabilities?

No you have not.

No proof.

Could the FBI simply have "no evidence" to charge OBL? Doubtful, but possible. But have you done anything to investigate the more reasonable explanations of why he was not?

No you have not.

No proof.

Could the Appendix C steel sample be caused by thermite?
No. The sample itself tells us it did not reach temperatures above 1000C. But have you actually read the reports where the sample was analyzed and shown this?

No you have not.

No proof.

You are chasing a false idol and trying to make it into a conspiracy theory. You are simply regurgitating old wish lists of truther fanatics, and ignoring rebuttals which show them, if not absolutely false, at least so implausible it borders on impossible. You have...

Holy crap, I've wasted enough time typing in this thread! Sorry. There's no hope for you. Enjoy your 10 years of failure.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom