9/11 Ripple Effect & Ultimate Con

[cybe]

Two new, in my opinion pretty good documentaries are out now:

911 Ripple Effect:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9127706080717077488

The Ultimate Con:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-751298171535560228

[mason-free party]

isn't it a rehash of the old pod theory rubbish though...i thought von kliest would have seen through that fakery by now

[cybe]

There are many other parts of the movie too, not just about the pod. But how was the pod thing "debunked" please?

[egw]

[Zabooka]

I recall VonKleist retracting the Pod Theory. So... what reasons did he have to do that?

[ian neal]

[mason-free party]

Ian..i believe Phil Jayhan first started the rumour...this spanish university study is news to me...post the link if you can please

[Zabooka]

I have not completely watched the entire documentary in full as of yet. However, it seems the POD theory is discussed and laid open to discussion for the viewer.

There is lots of things in this that is nice and pretty new-ish, well atleast in its representation. I would advise people to actually watch the whole thing before passing judgement, otherwise its just blatant voiced prejudice.

[mason-free party]

[ian neal]

[egw]

[karlos]

But hold on a minute. We have all seen the news reels. There does appear to be something under the plane and the plane does look more like a military transport plane than a passenger plane.
These are legitamate points to raise. He is not saying there was no planes.

Most people accept that no plane hit the Pentagon. And most people accept that planes did hit the towers. But passenger planes is another story. No wreckage such as seating, suitcases, etc was found. There are things in a plane that are designed to withstand an impact. A steel attache case for example. So it is very possible military transport planes or cargo planes were used devoid of passengers.

Photos of the same planes built to military spec have dark pods underneath. I dont think pod theory is anything to be scared of. Missiles fired from the planes is however a bonkers theory and should be quoshed.

The reason incendaries were detonated was to open a hole for the plane to enter. In reality a plane that hit the steel and concrete building would have smashed and bits of it scattered all over the floor. But by making a hole the plane enterest the building and then debris does not fall down and give the game away. Explosions appear on all the news reel footage.

[egw]

I've heard it argued that the pod may be a mid-air refuelling jigger. Maybe. Maybe they weren't passenger jets. I don't think it matters much. But maybe it's just a shadow from the very real bulge that actually really is there on a normal boeing of that type. It's kind of funny that the hypothesised "pod" happens to be right in the spot that an actual bulge is at the base of the wing. And I find it strange how scarcely pod theorists make mention of this bulge that really is there at the base of the wing of a boeing of this type. If they know better than everyone else, then they should at least mention the bulge occasionally.

My take on all these claims about plane/no-planes/pods/missiles-from-planes and explosives blowing a hole for the plane to enter is that they attract our attention away from issues which really are a threat to the peoples who pulled of 911. (I think the planes were plenty strong enough to penetrate the walls of the towers like they did).

On the Spanish paper: I find it a little bit suspicious that an analysis by a formal body which has the effect of throwing the whole official 911 scenario into doubt like that would be ever be released for public consumption. More likely that it's disinformation.