Jump to content
The Education Forum

The plane that hit wt2


Recommended Posts

This is a picture of the plane that hit ww2, the red arrows show the length of the engine mounting fin and the black shows the distance between the fuselage and engine: as you can see from this photo the plane appears to have 2 left handed engines attached.

Is this normal practice at AA?

There is also a bulge on the fuselage.....could this be a missile pop as others believe?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What is a "left handed engine"?

That is how non-aviation people might describe the powerplant (engine).

Jet engines are not left or right (until installed). They are simply an engine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evan-

I know all that.

What I really want to know, is what Steven was talking about or and why it was important. Does he think there is a difference in the actual engines (manufactured for left or right), or that the photo is a cut and paste job.

Sorry that my post was so cryptic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a picture of the plane that hit ww2, the red arrows show the length of the engine mounting fin and the black shows the distance between the fuselage and engine: as you can see from this photo the plane appears to have 2 left handed engines attached.

Is this normal practice at AA?

There is also a bulge on the fuselage.....could this be a missile pop as others believe?

Steven...the plane yous show is the United Airlines plane from the second hit, if I recall right.

The AA plane Flight 11, was first to hit and was not clearly photographed. Though both were

Boeings, the underside configuration was different.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this site explains it quite well:

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

Evan! I dont think that link explains anything; it tries to make it all sound so plausible but fails misserably; where it says that the head on view shows no pod, what has actually happened is that the view is casting too much shadow to make out anything really, but he has pointed out a bulge that clearly must be the pod when juxtaposed with the other views; pointing an arrow at it and calling it `end of fuselage`doesnt make it not a pod.

When John Gotti went to court during his criminal career he had a very good lawyer who convinced the dury that he was somebody`s missunderstood favourite uncle and wasnt really the nasty murdering criminal that he actually was. Time and time again John Gotti was painted lilly white by his layer and the dury sucked it up.

And thats exactly what is going on here with the 911 evidence, some cleaver lawyers are trying to convince the heard that what we are seeing is not really what we are seeing: theres no pod because because the guys who did the 911 white-wash have got a picture of a plane in there files with no pod..........but the picture is temporarily mislaid at the moment, but it does exist because the guys at nist say so, but we cant see it.......because its mislaid..........in a file........somwhere.......out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven...the plane yous show is the United Airlines plane from the second hit, if I recall right.

The AA plane Flight 11, was first to hit and was not clearly photographed. Though both were

Boeings, the underside configuration was different.

Jack

Its all so confusing Jack, I mean the second plane to hit the towers, I cant tell one from the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this site explains it quite well:

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

Evan! I dont think that link explains anything; it tries to make it all sound so plausible but fails misserably; where it says that the head on view shows no pod, what has actually happened is that the view is casting too much shadow to make out anything really, but he has pointed out a bulge that clearly must be the pod when juxtaposed with the other views; pointing an arrow at it and calling it `end of fuselage`doesnt make it not a pod.

Oh God! Not the "pod plane" crap that even most of the truth movement seems to no longer believe in (it was dropped from Loose Change). Analyzing low resolution images like those is like a Rorschach test people see in them what they want. If something appears only in low quality images the most likely explanation is that the “something” is merely an optical illusion. The “pod” not coincidentally is on the same side of the plane as the other highlights. Not even the “pod planers” AFAIK have turned up images of the pod/missile being “fired”.

theres no pod because because the guys who did the 911 white-wash have got a picture of a plane in there files with no pod..........but the picture is temporarily mislaid at the moment, but it does exist because the guys at nist say so, but we cant see it.......because its mislaid..........in a file........somwhere.......out there.
What are you talking about?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even many of the hard-core 9/11 CTists distance themselves from the 'pod people'. I believe that is what got killtown alienated from there for some time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...