| Reader Comments |
Last Update: July 20th, 2004
|
This page will list some of the reader comments that I get. You may email me a private
message or one for the comment section here. Just let me know in the email if you would like your comment
posted, with or without your name/ID and/or email address. If no directions are given, then I may post
comments anonymously as long as I don't think the content will expose the person. My address link is setup to block
spam by adding extra characters. You MUST remove these extra characters manually, otherwise the email will
bounce! So, click on the email link here:
911_bust_spam_@911wideopen.com and then delete the
following from it: _bust_spam_ . Please
include the keyword 911 somewhere in the subject line to make sure I don't miss it! |
|
(7-2-04)
Good job of debunking the pod theory. However, a question:
It's always seemed odd to me that the fuel from the aircraft burst into
flames, as tho it were a bomb. Jet fuel as I understand it is close in
composition to kerosene, which will not explode like gasoline. Could
that
fuel have burned in a fireball as it did without a huge burst of energy
--
as from a bomb -- to detonate it?
Thanks for your time. |
| |
(7-2-04 - Reader recommended 9/11 sites)
Most credible 9/11 truth sites:
9/11 families for the truth
911forthetruth.com - 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani's RICO lawsuit against
Bush - an important effort for "regime change" that needs your
financial support
911independentcommission.org - family members have tough "unanswered
questions" for Bush, the official Commission, Giuliani and others
Most important research sites
cooperativeresearch.org - the Complete Timeline of 9/11, an amazing,
impeccable resource taken entirely from the mainstream media
fromthewilderness.com - Michael Ruppert's forthcoming book "The Truth
and Lies of 9/11: America's Descent into Fascism at the End of the
Age of Oil" - original reporting on 9/11 complicity, peak oil, drug
money corruption and much more
9/11 activism
911visibility.org - grassroots outreach in support of the families
911sharethetruth.com - bumperstickers, buttons, and other outreach
tools from the Peace Resource Project
911citizenswatch.org - monitoring the official "investigation"
911truth.org - 9/11 Truth Alliance
deceptiondollar.com - over four million in circulation, the outreach
tool of the 9/11 truth movement, bypassing the gatekeepers from the
corporate media and the foundation funded "liberal alternative" media
other information sites:
ny911truth.org - vigils every Saturday at the WTC site, organizes
public events, publisher of "A Citizens' Guide to the 9/11 Coverup"
globalresearch.ca - Center for Research on Globalization (in Canada),
publishes "Global Outlook," the magazine of the 9/11 truth movement
www.oilempire.us - election coups, 9/11 (the American Reichstag
Fire), fascism, World War IV and the peak of petroleum production -
"Bush's crime, not a failure"
www.questionsquestions.net - good material on "false flag" operations
(intelligence services that commit crimes to blame on others)
www.ratical.org - Crimes Against Humanity - 9/11, covert operations,
and alternative visions - one of the more amazing sites on the web
www.wanttoknow.info - short summaries of 9/11 scandal, very readable
www.wtc7.net - the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, a 47
story steel skyscraper that fell straight down at 5:20 pm on 9/11
even though it wasn't hit by a plane or the collapsing towers. The
video of this collapse is the 21st century equivalent of the Zapruder
film (the film that showed that President Kennedy was not killed by
Lee Harvey Oswald) |
| |
(7-2-04 - A 30+ year PhD in psychology
writes the following..............(yeah, right)....)
WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT TO
YOU TO 'DEBUNK' WHAT HAPPENED ON 9/11?
WHO IS PULLING YOUR STRINGS?
WHAT DO YOU PERSONALLY HAVE
TO GAIN FROM ALL OF THIS?
WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO BELIEVE
YOU???
YOU SAY IT YOURSELF, "YOU HAVE NO
CREDENTIALS, EXPERIENCE OR KNOWLEDGE OF SUCH MATTERS" AND YET YOU
TAKE IT UPON YOURSELF TO BE THE VOICE OF REASON FOR EVERYONE ELSE.
WHAT IS YOUR REAL MOTIVATION IN DOING
ALL THIS???
ARE YOU JUST ANOTHER IN A LONG LIST OF
NEW WORLD ORDER STOOGES OUT TO DISINFO AND PROPAGANDIZE THE
MASSES??
I THINK
SO!!!
I HAVE MORE THAN
THIRTY YEARS AS AN ANALYST AND INVESTIGATOR.
I HAVE A MASTERS DEGREE IN
PSYCHOLOGY AND A PH.D IN ASTROPHYSICS
I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW
THAT YOUR OBSERVATIONS ARE GARBAGE AND YOUR CONCLUSIONS ABOUT
9/11
ARE SHEAR
CONJECTURE.
YOUR LITTLE TRICK WITH THE
OPTICAL ILLUSION PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
YOU REALLY SHOULD GET YOUR
ACT TOGETHER BEFORE TRYING TO APPEAR INTELLIGENT!!!
Xxxxx X. Xxxxxx M.S.,
PH.D
WHO'S PULLING YOUR
STRINGS???? |
| |
(7-2-04)
The Chief of Safety for NYFD said there was a bomb on Flight 175
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/third.html
Find the discussed Spanish newspaper article that analyzes the bulges
on Flight 175 at: http://www.rense.com/general41/spain.htm
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=215
Albert Turi, the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire
Department.
Turi reported not only that there were numerous secondary explosions
within the towers but that there was also a bomb on one or both of the
planes that crashed into the towers
P.S. Example: http://www.the-movement.com/essays/fireball.htm |
| |
(7-2-04)
9/11 Nutshell: Measure the Boeing 737
IN PHOTOS OF THE BOTH CRASHES INTO THE WTC TOWERS the imprints were like 'two peas in a pod' so it is a safe
assumption that both airliners were identical 737s. Holes compared.jpg:
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html.
Each side of the WTC towers is 208 feet with 60 pillars on 3.5 feet centers. A Boeing 737 wingspan is 95 feet.
The measurement from the centerline of the 737 to the wingtip would be about 50 feet or 15 pillars on the wall
face. (In contrast, a 767 has wingspan of 156 feet or about 45 pillars, from centerline to wingtip 22 pillars).
Looking at the crash imprints count the number of pillars from the center of the large hole to the right wingtip.
The planes struck at an angle instead of straight-on so the left wing wall damage was caused by the wing coming
across it where the right wing wall damage would be more of a direct hit and a more accurate measurement.
A 737 would leave a 15 pillar right wing damage imprint.
FURTHER EVIDENCE that the '9/11' Boeing 767
airliners were switched with Boeing 737s:
http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/gallery/images/commercial/737-03.html
(1) Engines on 737 airliners are
mounted on PODS, 767 airliners aren't on
pods. The 767 has a longer snout or nose ahead of the wings along
with the engines closer to the wings than the 737.
Photos of the 767:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/461707/S/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/472516/L/
Photos of the 737:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/524356/S/
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/70087_boeing13.shtml
(2) Unlike a 767, a 737 is capable of 60-degree
banking maneuvers (on one
engine!) Notice the 737 making such a maneuver as it crashes into the South
Tower.
(3) In an interview with a retired United aeronautical engineer, he said the
engine part seen in the documentary
'9/11' on the street below the North
Tower after the first crash was not part of a 767 Platt & Whitney engine.
Attachment engine3.jpg
Thus ruling out a 767 airliner.
http://www.sftt.org/dwa/2002/12/18/3.html
(4) The
FBI issued a federal grand jury subpoena to an airline pilot for
purchasing a CD-ROM of 737 technical
information on EBAY. Trying to clean up
737 technical information on the Internet obviously.
The UA engineer also mentioned that fuel is loaded on an aircraft so 45
minutes of fuel is left at the end
of a flight for safety purposes. In normal
use a 737 is NOT capable of flying from Boston to San Francisco
ANYWAY but
including the safety fuel for an extra 45 minutes of flight it definitely
would not be
scheduled for a transcontinental trip. United Shuttle uses 737s
for short haul flights. The UA engineer
calculated a trip from Boston to New
York City would normally take about 20 minutes. On 9/11 we are told
it took
45 minutes. Where was the airliner that left Boston during the missing 25
minutes? Was there a
unscheduled change in aircraft? Also where are the bodies of the passengers of these flights?
http://www.rense.com/general41/spain.htm
A prominent Spanish newspaper scientifically analyzed the photos of the 737
airliner as it approached
the South WTC Tower AND FOUND:
(1) A bulge on the body under the right wing and
(2) two cylindrical
objects along the bottom of the
aircraft. Attachments: Mystery airliner.jpg; airlinerST.jpg
THE BULGE
ON THE BODY UNDER THE RIGHT WING is similar to the bulge on the
remote-controlled Predator used in military
operations. Attachment predator4.jpg The UA engineer said ON THE PREDATOR the bulge is a cover for the radar
antenna that receives signals from a control station for guidance.
FOR THE NORTH TOWER CRASH a Saab Jet (Attachment 1st.jpg) was the control
station, controlling the airliner
as the Saab Jet flow directly above the
airliner in tight formation on the approach to the North Tower but
separating moments before the crash by flying over the tower and leaving a sonic boom on the soundtrack of the
documentary, '9/11'.
FOR THE SOUTH TOWER CRASH a military helicopter (Attachment helplume2.jpg)
positioned in front of the South Tower but hidden from ground view in the
smoke plume remote-controlled
the airliner into the South Tower.
The Saab Jet function in this crash was to bring the airliner to
Manhattan
Island and then turn over remote control to the Military Helicoper.
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/okx/climate/data/cpk0109.txt (NW wind=315,N=0 or
360) 6/16, 8/13,9/11,10/8,10/17
are the only NW wind days from June 1st to
Nov.1,2001.
IN FACT, THE PLOTTERS WAITED FOR A CLEAR DAY
WITH A NORTHWEST WIND TO BLOW THE SMOKE PLUME ACROSS THE SOUTH TOWER FROM THE NORTH TOWER. ALL JUST TO HIDE THE
MILITARY HELICOPER!! 9/11 WAS THE ONLY DAY
IN 9/01 WITH SUCH CONDITIONS. However, both the Saab Jet and the
Military
helicopter were captured 'in the act' by the Naudet Brothers (Documentary '9/11', the firemen's video),
a NBC news helicopter, and numerous video cameras.
IN ADDITION,ACCORDING TO THE SPANISH NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, DURING THE 2ND CRASH TWO CYLINDRICAL OBJECTS were
observed along the bottom of the aircraft body. These bulges are incendiary bombs (IncBombs11.jpg)
(750 lbs; 90-100 US gal napalm) that caused the enormous flaming clouds with the crashes.
http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/715000/images/_716609_napalm300.jpg
Napalm in use. Notice the
flame color. Compare to WTC crash photos. Attachment Napalm ST.jpg
Specifications of Napalm Bombs (BLU-1/B):
http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/asetds/u-b.html
The smoking guns of 911 are the South Tower 737 and its remote-controllers, a Military helicopter and a Saab Jet.
http://www.rense.com/misslepod.JPG is a collage of
photos of the South Tower Boeing 737 smoking gun for your enjoyment.
HERE IS MORE DETAILED INFORMATION ON REMOTE CONTROL GROUND STATIONS. The 737,
757, and 767, being guided by
'fly by wire' instrumentation, which means
wires not hydraulic systems, could easily have their auto-pilot systems
compromised by a bolt-on remote control system such as the state-of-Art
Predator remote control system.
http://www.uav.com/home/index.html General Atomics 'Remotely Operated
Aircraft Systems' The Predator is
the prime example.
http://www.uav.com/products/gcs.html
The Control Stations are of 3 types:
1. GCS Ground
control station With satellite capability
2. High Mobility Ground control station
3. Portable GCS.
I quote:" A portable GCS is also available, providing mobile units the
ability to control the aircraft
and receive valuable intelligence from the
field." It is reasonable to believe that THE SAAB JET and the
MILITARY
HELICOPTER served as portable control stations on 9/11. |
| |
(7-2-04)
911 missile pod - U R extremely wrong I AM an expert
Dear Mark,
Looking for an expert are you? I spent six years in the Marines working on the FA-18 Hornet so I know what a missile pod is.
My current roommate, also a Marine, worked in ordnance loading bombs for her MOS and she knows what a missille pod is.
We both WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE, what you are looking at IN BOTH tower crashes IS A TIMED MISSILE firing about a split second
before impact. These can only be seen slown down frame by frame. In the first tower hit it is easily seen firing and
impacting the building before the plane hits the building. In the second tower hit there are three different views caught
by three different cameras. In addition to having worked with aircraft in my Marine Corps days I am now a graphic artist
who works with 3D programs and after working in 3D for so long it is easy for me to see things you would miss. When the
missile fires it lights up the side of the aircraft. When the missile penetrates the building it is not dead center and
impacts before the plane hits as it should. This can be triangulated from the three videotaped recordings. Further,
there is evidence from the flight records and video that one type of plane took off with passengers but ANOTHER type of
plane hit the buildings. You need to do your homework before you spout off on this type of matter because what you are
doing by calling people "conspiracy theorists" is sheltering serial killers. What you need to do is POST a retraction
because you are leading people astray. POST this letter! Make amends and get back to the truth of the matter: that the
U.S. Government killed their own citizens, blamed the Afghans, Iraqis, and Bin Laden in order to grab that $$$ oil and
secure Israel's position in the middle east. Debunked missile pod??? No way in hell buddy. |
| |
(7-2-04)
Many thanks for some practical nutz'n boltz work on those UA 175 pix.
Although it does look as though there was a large bump on the starboard side, still that could be part of the undercarriage stowage.
As a Brit I have plenty to think about just now. I'm old enough to know about the Reichstag fire, well enough informed to spot on 9/11
that it was a replay of Pearl Harbour.
Just now my country has been put into the same position as Italy in 1940, a hanger-on-to the coat-tails of a new Nazi state.
Now don't get me wrong, I know a lot of good Yanks just as there always were "Good Germans", but in both cases the general
public went along and along with worse and worse state directed actions.
Operation Phoenix in Vietnam, ( remember My Lai?) Colombia and now in Iraq; tactics like these have ruined the American
reputation beyond redemption and we in the UK are now being tarred and feathered by association.
About 9/11, go for it as hard as you can. The FBI will break a lot of heads to keep it quiet, but what choice have you got?
Go on being subservient, right into the world of TIA and total silence; or like the best of the Germans such as Pastor
Niemoller, say your piece even if you have to die for it (as he did).
Niemoller was the man who said [ this is an approximation of his words] "When the nazis came for the communists I did
nothing since I'm not a communist. When they came for the jews ditto (and so on for all the other outsiders.) Now they
have come for me and there is no-one left to protest"
I say my piece here in the UK and no-one listens. Too bad. I have a printed archive of the whole story since 9/11,
( mebbe 150,000 A4 pages). There must be an accounting of these times, and the worst is yet to come.
Your questionaire:
1 Yes because ignorance is worse.
2 No government ever voluntarily hands out the truth.
If I worked in a high-rise building I'd practice abseiling
No steel framed building has ever collapsed from a fire, except that some of the buildings bombed by the Germans in the
blitz, and likewise some German buildings that we bombed did come down after almost total combustion. Never after such
fires as those we saw on 9/11.
Best wishes and keep at it, |
| |
(7-2-04)
Hi Milkydoo,
Just saw your web site. Good stuff. I too am a lay conspiracy
theorist.
I think the problem of disinfo is greater than most "conspiracy
theorists" realize. Apparently including you. For example, it appears to me
that serendipity.li and Carol Valentine are fake opposition. The
"Bumble Planes" theory is absurd, and a much simpler explanation is
possible, and likely. For example, see Professor Dewdney's OLD theory, still
posted at www.feralnews.com |
| |
(7-2-04)
Hi, XXXXXX:
Re: Pod as Shadow?, http://911wideopen.com/pod-exam.htm
No, no, no!
That photo that I saw on 60 Minutes II was like
none other that I've seen. It's nowhere to be
found! And 60 Minutes does not respond to my
queries on the matter.
That photo displayed, as clear as the noonday
sun, a device, near-cylindrical in shape, and
attached to the underbelly of that airbus.
There were not any plays of shadow and
light to fool the viewer. It was as plain as
day!
I applaud the guy for digging deeply, but HE'S
ABSOLUTELY MISTAKEN. There was a pod
attached to that airbus (( recall my previous
mailings on the matter, pasted below )).
Best,
-XXXXXXXX
P.S. There is no doubt that 60 Minutes
has gotten rid of that photo, which
I believe was a mistake made by some
unobservant go-for kid, hunting for some
picture to throw up during that segment.
Again, there was a cylindrical device
attached to the right-side underbelly,
and none on the left side.
|
| |
(7-3-04)
Hollow Face Illusion: Reflection and Perception
Perhaps this may shed some light on what's going on here, further elaborating on ideas you established in the debunking
of the Missle Pod Theory:
http://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/staff/colinc/HTML/hollow.htm
The fuselage of the plane is not quite purely convex, but the angle of the sun (which is fair to say is about 45 degrees)
combined with the angle of approach creates a surface where a shadow is cast on the area adjacent to the illuminated
portion, much like a convex surface does (see Figure 2 and the text that immediately precedes and follows it on the above
link). In fact, noting the shape of the plane's fuselage (oval), the effects might be even more exaggerated (due to
the angle of reflection of the light) than a plane whose fuselage was a perfect circle and thus a purely convex surface.
The end result, based on reflection and perception, is the appearance of a sunken shadow (the so-called anomalies are
actually just the illuminated portions of the fuselage as you pointed out). This is how human beings perceive light and
shadow radiated from an angle across a convex (or close to it!) surface.
Regarding the "no windows" theory, a Fox News reporter that was on the ground in NY that day said in reference to Flight 11,
"It definitely did not look like a commercial plane--I didn't see any windows on the sides."
In fact, Karl Rove initially told George Bush the plane was non-commercial, probably because he got that from initial news
reports. Not that this discredits your analysis of 175. It's just another peculiarity.
Anyways, thanks for putting alot of brain power into the real investigation. All journalists turn up false leads.
When they are encountered, someone has to call a spade a spade. It's important for everyone involved to not adhere to
some dogmatic ideology, and I think that's what is going on some of the 9/11 websites. Well, in case no one's noticed
throughout the course of history, ideology kills.
Thanks,
Ray, from Illinois.
|
| |
(7-3-04)
911 - comments about your missile pod debunking theory
Hi there. I too have been seeking the truth about 911 for sometime now. I just visited your site and read through the
section where you claim to debunk that there is a pod under the plane which hit tower 2. I am glad to finally see
that someone has come forward to present a possible alternative explanation for what we call "the pod." However,
I believe your theory is flawed for several reasons.
1. Although I had a very difficult time finding it, I finally found a 911 documentary which has the video footage of
one of two angles in which the pod can be seen. It's HBO's "In Memoriam 9/11/01". Get this DVD and go to 3 minutes
into the documentary. You will see a scene where the camera is looking almost directly upwards and the plane quickly
zooms from left to right into the building followed by a big explosion. Use your remote to slow down the footage from
the beginning and advance it frame by frame. You will clearly see that the pod or whatever it is, is in fact there
and is not a shadow. It's very clear on the DVD and I've watched it several times.
2. Ok, I do not know what the angle of the sun was and that was a very valid question you had, but here's why IMO,
the pod is not a shadow (keep in mind I'm no expert, but this seems pretty obvious to me). There is a second,
completely different angle of this plane hitting tower two. The second angle is shot from behind the plane rather than
from directly below it which I had mentioned in point number 1 above. In this second angle, the pod is also
clearly seen. This IMO proves that it's definitely not a shadow that we are seeing. Unfortunately I have not yet
been able to locate footage of the second angle on DVD or otherwise, but obviously it exists because not only does
letsroll911.org have it on their site (in somewhat poor quality unfortunately) but it was also on the front cover
of the Daily News or a similar paper about a month ago. If I were you, I'd try to find this second angle and view
it for yourself, but I can tell from the photo alone that it shows the same object as the other footage I mentioned.
3. And this is not nearly as strong a point as the 2 points above, I viewed all the photos you have of UA Boeing 767's
on your site, and I do not see anything in the photos that you have that looks anything remotely like the "pod".
I think you'll agree when you carefully watch the DVD I mentioned above.
In summary, I must say that I have no idea what the "pod" shaped object is and I don't plan to speculate about what it
might be. I am simply here to point out what I believe are clearly the facts - that the "pod" does in fact exist and
that it is not a shadow. I am also here to suggest that if the pod does in fact exist as I believe it does, then
that means that the plane that struck tower 2 was not the same UA175 which left the Boston airport on 9/11/01.
That in effect means that a major piece of the official story is a blatent lie.
By the way, I don't subscribe to the pipe, refueling boom port, missing windows, jet fuel spray, and port wing bomb
theories so I have no comments on those. I simply do not see any of those things. What I do see is a "pod" shaped
object protruding from the bottom of the 767.
And before I go I have one more thing for you to look at which gives another reason for why this can't be the same plane
as UA175 which left Boston airport http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html. According to what this person
is saying, the plane that hit tower 2 is not a Boeing 767-200 but is probably a Boeing 767-300. If that is true,
then it's not even the same model of plane as the one that left Boston airport. When you are done looking at
that size comparison, check out the rest of this site as well because it is excellent.
- A concerned truthseeker
|
| |
(7-3-04)
The pod was reportedly observed by people on the ground at Logan airport before the plane took off. The airplane
manufacturer implicitly acknowleged the existence of the pod when it stated "those were not our modifications"
when asked about them by an experienced pilot.
|
| |
(7-4-04)
Hi! I had a look at your essay re the pod, shadows, etc., and I must say I completely agree with you.
(I'd never held to that theory before, anyway, and our analysis helps to confirm my view!) By the way,
the infamous POD, looks to me to be the shadow of the starboard engine falling on about the inside half of
the wing fairing.., presuming the sun is at approximaely 9:45 and on the starboard side of the plane. What do you think?
Happy Hunting!
|
| |
(7-10-04 - Lead-in comments snipped for anonymity)
I suspect this theory could
be demonstrated in a convincing way with the newly published National
Institute of Standards and Technology (nist.gov) photos http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixh.pdf (pg
33) by darkening these images and increasing the contrast (probably by a
lot). These photos have been separated from the .pdf format and are
available on the LR911 forum.
Another approach might be to
shoot new photos in a studio using a model 767 but this would be much more
work. A third idea might be to use photos from airliners.net - darken and
add contrast.
I started looking into this
and sorted through many photos. Here are the better
ones:
Best engine shadow:
Other engine shadow:
Interesting belly shadow:
|
| |
(7-12-04)
Hi,
I see you've gotten some grief for being critical of certain '911' commentary and theories. What needs to be
emphasized is that such self-criticism and debate is necessary to weed out faulty or poorly supported information.
Let's face it, the stakes are extremely high and the guilty parties in a conspiracy like this will obscure the truth
at all costs. This debate is taking place on the modern day "Wild West" of the Internet; so expect the civility with
the hostility. What is filtering out is the evident truth of joint US/Israeli complicity plus numerous ancillary
dirty hands. The details will ever be obscured. Eg.: pod or no pod.
Keep up the good work, 'disinfo' agent or not. If not, you might be interested in a little personal Yahoo! group site
I started awhile back: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/disinforoster/
|
| |
(7-13-04)
WHY 93 is shot down WHY pentagon wasnt really hit?
It can all be summed up by the need to have no survivors, imgine that indeed it was all staged, how do you make
sure nobody walks of those planes to say the hijackers werent really there? SHOOT DOWN 93 a mile high hit the
penty with something other then a 757 loaded with people!
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
