sitting in a schoolroom watching a reading lesson in the midst of a "surprise attack?" How's that for "irregular?" And still it is accepted.

We need an exorcist or a medicine man or a shaman to break this psychosis.

[Actually we ARE the medicine men (and women). We are very good at what we do - but we are not exactly speedy at getting results]

"The mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small." Greek philosopher Sextus Empiricus

The president of the United States upon being informed that at second plane had struck the World Trade Center and "America is under attack" picked up a book and began to read about a pet goat.

After having known that the first plane struck the World Trade Center before entering the classroom in the first place! (Which meant that he would have also known that hijackings were being reported as well. )

After having ignored roughly 20 PDBs and other warnings. Why would he have ignored the warnings? For the same reason that he ignored the attacks.

There's no way these aircraft would just be standing around on the tarmac not being utilized for that long unless they were damaged. What are the odds that all these aircraft were down for repairs for the year and 9/11 just happened to be their first day back? For all 4. Where are the repair or maintenance records? (perhaps a new commission could subpoena the airlines themselves to get this information).

I was working for an airline in 2001 at RDU in NC. Boeings that were functional did not just sit around the tarmac. I can also say that the FAA rountinely checked airport security to make sure that metal was not taken through. Once the FAA person at RDU put a small knife in a cup of Coke and handed it to the screener before walking through and picked it back up--- and there was hell to pay. This was summer of 01. There's also a small chance that a very tiny pocket knife could have been dropped into the coin tray among keys and coins and gotten through, but even the coin tray was looked at. To think that the success of this operation required 19 out of 19 people to successfully take metal through metal detectors is almost beyond belief. What if only 2 or 3 of them got boxcutters through? (Which is a liberal guess). And if they had accomplices at the airports with SIDA badges to hook them up at the gate, then why in the hell would they bring them boxcutters?????????

It doesn't add up.

my comment above listing the four flights spotted at various airports in 2001, up to 9/11?

Thanks for the additional context about the metal detectors. I wonder if airport security is ever a proper topic over at Pilots for 911 Truth. (I always think it should be Aviation Professionals for 9/11 Truth, as this is much more inclusive, so that ATC's, airport personnel, etc.. feel drawn there too)

how you can tell from those tiny pictures the difference between a commercial aircraft and an aircraft made for the military; which is not present in the "digital analysis"...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infowar Relay Stations:

truthgonewild.blogspot.com
zombieamerica.blogspot.com

TruthgoneWild,

The picture below shows the early 767 military prototype:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc767/kc7671.html

As you can clearly see, the relief in the rear area of the undercarriage (extra fuel tank) matches that of the digital analysis.

The long cylindrical object in relief under the upper area of the fuselage looks like a JSTARS attachment:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jstars/jstars1.html

Of course, the POD is also identified on the digital analysis, though I have no idea what it could be.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief www.DNotice.org
Washington, DC

(1)

(2)

(3)

I think I see a logo and a window in (2), it looks like (3).

See the additional stabilizer on the wing tip for the tanker plane in (1)?

Can you find it?

It's not a tanker. Why use a military 767 without windows if you can use the real deal commercial 767? So you can blow your operation the moment somebody snaps a good picture?

I'll grant you this though: some say the "pod" also left an impact hole in WTC 2's facade. This I cannot explain.

There was no "pod".

What impact hole are you refering to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infowar Relay Stations:

truthgonewild.blogspot.com
zombieamerica.blogspot.com

Once upon a time, I also entertained possible alternatives like swaps, etc. But the NYC medical examiners office transparently conducted a collection and ID of passenger forensic evidence (unlike UA 93 and AA 77 performed by the U.S. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology)

And the avionics packages available for Boeing 757 and 767 planes pre-9/11 and enhanced GPS signals seem sufficient for non-pilot control of standard commercial planes into targets.

As for alleged "pods", not sure what practical purpose they would even serve.

Aiden,

the digital analysis of Flight 175 confirms that a commercial airliner did not impact the south tower.

As for the NYC medical examiner's office, I wasn't there to supervise the forensics, and I have NO faith in the NYC government or the Federal government.

I don't know what the POD is for either, but it is there!

Look at Carmen Taylors' CNN Photograph in the link below. Those long reliefs are not the white stripes that AA aircraft have painted on the undersides, and what are those two holes near the tail? They are not a part of a civilian 767 airliner:

http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/the-strange-anomalies-pod-and...

The media made not one interview of airport personnel at the three airports (Logan, Newark, and Dulles), which tells me that those 19 hijackers were NOT at the aiports on 9/11. If no hijackers were at the airports, then what does that tell you about Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief www.DNotice.org
Washington, DC

I know exactly what you're saying Aidan, I've looked at it, decided to move on. Switching planes adds further complexity. It makes more sense the aircraft and people went down in one throw of a stone. Then creating false theories for the public to bite on and fight over like animals.

I'm not saying switching planes couldn't be possible, because it is possible. Or it wouldn't have been an option in the Northwoods document. But the aircraft weren't high tech back in those days, so it was a practical idea. In this day in age, they fly themselves.

I have a feeling the people who modified the aircraft most likely died on 911. Thousands of birds were killed that day, with four stones.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infowar Relay Stations:

truthgonewild.blogspot.com
zombieamerica.blogspot.com

TruthgoneWild,

as I said to Aiden (below):

If Flight 175 had really been hijacked at Logan (and this point goes for the other three 9/11 aircraft), then if the aircraft was capable of being remote piloted, then the perpetrators would have to worry that the aircraft's remote navigation capabilities might be overridden by another entity in the government, and the aircraft landed safely. So the perpetrators had Boeing construct special models for the tasks needed on 9/11. Just a thought.

Also, while the perpetrators used the 19 hijackers, whose to say the perpetrators trusted the 19? The 19 (or some of them) could be working for that part of the government that was trying to prevent the 9/11 attacks. If so, then the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks wouldn't want to trust any of those 19 on the aircraft.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief www.DNotice.org
Washington, DC

SnowCrash,

I see window too.

What do windows and the odd undercarriage configurations suggest?

One would use a military aircraft (specially constructed) for 9/11 to insure the mission's success.

Look at Carmen Taylors' CNN Photograph in the link below. Those long reliefs are not the white stripes that AA aircraft have painted on the undersides, and what are those two holes near the tail? They are not a part of a civilian 767 airliner:

http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/the-strange-anomalies-pod-and...

The media made not one interview of airport personnel at the three airports (Logan, Newark, and Dulles), which tells me that those 19 hijackers were NOT at the aiports on 9/11. If no hijackers were at the airports, then what does that tell you about Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93?

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief www.DNotice.org
Washington, DC

If there even was an attachment, what role would it play in delivering an aircraft to its target?

UA 175

UA 767-200

UA 175 (no apparent underside attachment profile)

Boeing 707 JSTARS (with obvious attachment)

Quote:

"One would use a military aircraft (specially constructed) for 9/11 to insure the mission's success."

What superior method of navigation would be provided by a "military" jet over a commercial jet?

Aiden,

paint jobs don't mimic reliefs, and the digital analysis of Flight 175 shows reliefs. The University School also did a digital analysis on another 767 -- 300, and no reliefs:

http://www.amics21.com/911/report.html

Also, the rear anomaly on Flight 175 looks nothing like the paint job of a 767.

The first picture you have up above certainly looks like a civilian 767 (except one can still make out the POD attached to where the port side wing meets the fuselage). However, the CNN picture obviously shows three objects in relief, not to mention those two odd holes near the tail of the airliner (see Carmen Taylors CNN photo in the link below):

http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/the-strange-anomalies-pod-and...

If Flight 175 had really been hijacked at Logan (and this point goes for the other three 9/11 aircraft), then if the aircraft was capable of being remote piloted, then the perpetrators would have to worry that the aircraft's remote navigation capabilities might be overridden by another entity in the government, and the aircraft landed safely. So the perpetrators had Boeing construct special models for the tasks needed on 9/11. Just a thought.

Also, while the perpetrators used the 19 hijackers, whose to say the perpetrators trusted the 19? The 19 (or some of them) could be working for that part of the government that was trying to prevent the 9/11 attacks. If so, then the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks wouldn't want to trust any of those 19 on the aircraft.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief www.DNotice.org
Washington, DC

Please circle this extra fuel tank. UA175 has every characteristic of a United Airlines, Boeing 767-222.

From distance, you're seeing the bottom of the aircraft: http://tinyurl.com/q8m2za

There is no need to have a protruding object on the aircraft, visible to everyone with a camera, it's just a dead give away.

Your JSTARS link proves my point that you're not seeing a bulky object hanging from the aircraft. Its a white(ish) broken stripe on a shiny surface, in the shade of the smoke, at maybe a mile's distance (not too sure just guesstimating) in the photo provided.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infowar Relay Stations:

truthgonewild.blogspot.com
zombieamerica.blogspot.com

TruthgoneWild,

paint jobs are not associated with reliefs. Mosaics are, however.

The three anomalies under Flight 175 are obviously in relief, and those two holes near the tail of the aircraft only add to the mystery of Flight 175.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief www.DNotice.org
Washington, DC