New Flight 175 Footage: No Pod?

[FreedomAngel82]

Link: http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/new_flight_175_footage_no_pod.htm

Snip: <New found footage of Flight 175's impact on the south tower of the World Trade Center appears to contradict claims of a pod being on the underbelly of the plane. The 'flash' that many also assert is visible in several different frames of other footage is missing.

The footage is taken from ground level and is believed to be the only close-range port side video of Flight 175 to exist.

Click here to watch the video in QuickTime format. Click here to watch a substantially slowed-down version of the clip.

Since other websites and 9/11 truth organizations began talking about the pod, this website has attempted to be balanced and air the views of both sides.

It is a common tactic for the government media spin machine to misdirect people's attention by getting them excited about one aspect of an issue, then later bring out evidence to debunk that aspect and thus tarnish the credibility of the entire subject.

Many analysts fear this is the case with 9/11. >

[Sweet Pea]

1. Kick

No comments on this? None? Nada? No comments on the lack of any appearance of any pod-sort of thing? Can this be true?

[RedSock]

2. not that new

I have these two files on my hard drive, with sound (which Prison Planet does not have), dated December 12, 2004.

But I don't know the exact source. Anyone?


They are named ("detail" is the slow one):

911.wtc.2.hit.southwest.below.2 (divx 5.1)
911.wtc.2.hit.southwest.below.detail.1 (divx 5.1)

[Frederik]

3. The pod

was always a red herring. I never even saw the pod-looking thing which was supposed to be easy to see on some of those photos. Just like the "flash". Distractions.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frederik]

5. Airliners have these things there

I honestly don't see a "pod".

For what it's worth, according to Karl Schwarz, that picture you posted is supposedly fake. I have no idea if that is true or not (it sounds unlikely), but he claims that the plane hitting the tower in the new video (where there is no sign of a pod) is actually a 737, and that the video we have all seen may be a "made for TV" production. I'm eagerly awaiting some actual evidence for that before I believe it, though.

[demodewd]

6. different photos

Different photos from different photographers showing a pod?










If the orange flare phenomenon was caused by "friction" you would see the flare on all sides of the plane as well as the wings,would you not?

[hack89]

12. What is the purpose of the pod?

What does it add that required the plotters to go to such great effort and expense to hang a pod under a 767?

[spooked911]

7. The only reason I think there is something to the pod is because in one

piece of footage, you can see the POD make a separate mark, similar to the plane's engines, as the plane goes into the building-- i.e. the POD is not an illusion.

Look at the last picture on this page (at the bottom):

http://www.gallerize.com/Missiles%20on%20the%20Morning%20of%209-11-1.htm

The rest of that page is interesting and I need to look it over further. The part about people seeing missiles fired from the Woolworth building is absolutely true.

[demodewd]

8. the fuselage?

And that mark isn't made by the fuselage? (Just playing the devil's advocate here) I support the pod presense because of the four different photos(at least) from four different photographers that give evidence to it. Also the flash..

[spooked911]

9. Judge for yourself:

There is a hole in the wall that seems to be offset from the fuselage and lines up with where the pod was.

Ignore the arrows-- they are demonstrating a different point-- that the distance between wings and tail does not change as the plane goes into the wall. Which is weird because you might expect SOME crumpling of the plane as it hits the steel-beams of the wall as well as the concrete floors.

[spooked911]

10. That video isn't good enough quality to see the pod

moreover, the pod really only appears as the plane nears the tower, in my opinion.

The pod may be disinfo-- or it may NOT be. We don't really know. That's why we should be open to all evidence. The pod could be a planted hoax or it may show that there is something unusual about the plane that hit the south tower. My guess is the latter.

But the important thing is that one doesn't need the pod to disprove the official 9/11 story.

[spooked911]

11. Other interesting questions regarding this video are:

1) Who shot this video?

2) What happens to the wings? In some frames they disappear completely. The odd thing is that this is not unique to this particular video of flight 175-- which is one reason some people think flight 175 was really a hologram.

The really weird thing is that there WERE people who said on the morning of 9/11 that missiles were being fired from the Woolworth building:
http://www.gallerize.com/Missiles%20on%20the%20Morning%20of%209-11-1.htm

[Frederik]

13. Well, this would be

the video that Karl Schwarz suspects to be "made for TV". But in his video of Flight 175 (which is supposedly of a 737) the wings also disappear at times. But you clearly hear the noise of the jet engines there and elsewhere, so at least there was a plane there. The engines were also found (at least one - which Schwarz claims is further evidence that it was a 737).

So it was not a missile with a hologram around it. A smaller plane would also have wings which would show if the holographic wings temporarily disappeared, so I don't buy the hologram theory. I'm sure the wings disappear on the video because of the speed of the plane.

Schwarz's theory, that it was a smaller plane and that the 767 videos are fake - who knows?

[spooked911]

14. I agree- I have a lot of trouble with the hologram theory

but there are a few oddities about the flight 175 plane that tell us that the plane wasn't a normal 767.