Tuesday, February 1, 2011

What Is The Piece of Equipment on the Bottom of Flight 175?


    Thanks for posting this.

    The "flash" itself I do not necessarily find overly compelling. I'm certainly no scientist nor crime scene investigator, but just thinking rationally, I believe I might expect a flash of some sort when a mass of metal such as an airplane, traveling at that kind of speed, makes sudden contact with another mass of metal. I mean, we can sometimes get a "spark" just by banging a screwdriver against a chunk of metal in the dark.

    So, to my mind, the "flash" might or might not be meaningful. But the "POD" underneath the airplane, now THAT I find very intriguing!

    Based on the books I've read and the documentaries I've viewed pertaining to 9/11, I believe that most likely the planes that struck the World Trade Center towers were being remotely controlled. They may or may not have been the actual commercial flights we've been told they were, and they may or may not have contained the "terrorists" that we've been told they did, but either way, I am inclined to strongly suspect that no Middle Eastern terrorists were actually piloting those flights.

    I can almost imagine the surprise of the terrorists discovering, after they had taken control of the planes, that they in fact suddenly DID NOT have control over the planes! Uncle Sam couldn't have trusted those piss-poor (terrorist) pilots to actually strike the intended targets and get the desired and necessary effect required to justify an invasion of the Middle East. So Uncle Sam might have allowed the terrorists to make their flights and gain control of the pilots and passengers, and then Uncle Sam would have said, "Thanks, guys, but we'll take it from here!" and remotely flown those planes into the towers.

    Another theory I developed years ago is that according to the original plan, maybe Tower #7 was also supposed to be struck and brought down by an "airplane". But something went wrong, and when the plane didn't get there (went down in Pennsylvania, maybe?) Uncle Sam decided to detonate all the explosives previously set in Tower Seven, and brought it down anyway, just like Towers One and Two only without an airplane to blame it on.

    So how did Tower Seven come down without the "supposed" airline fuel burning down the building and undermining the structure? Uncle Sam doesn't say, but just ignores the question altogether. And most of the American people, of course, are too busy watching American Idol to even ask the question and demand a reasonable answer.

    BARQUEDUST, what are YOUR general beliefs about 9/11? Were they commercial airlines? Did they contain terrorists? Why did they bring Tower #7 down without a plane to blame it on? What say you, Brother?

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  2. You've got some good points. In a nutshell, I think that it is a potentially dangerous road to go down in coming up with explanations, motives and culprits relating to 9/11. So often the argument proffered by th NIST report supporters and those who buy the story sold to them is that of a question..."Then who did it?" they ask. Or, "Why would we do that to our own people?" "How could a demolition crew get that much explosives inside the buildings without being detected?" They place the burden of explanation on the "truthers". MY point is that the evidence that lies before us all simply DOES NOT SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL STORY. The next step is to list all of the "questionable" points. Building 7 being, by far, the most obviously enormous question mark and the weakest link in the chain of the story. The pentagon trajectories and eyewitness accounts, the physics involved in the collapse of the buildings, Larry Silversteins insurance actions prior to the attack, the lack of U.S. military action immediately following the news that planes had been 'hijacked', the mysterious equipment attached to the bottom of the planes...etc. etc. The questions without answers begin to pile up so quickly to anybody willing to take a little time to investigate that it becomes obvious that something is seriously amiss. However, I don't have those answers, and I'm afraid that very very few do. This is precisely why we've GOT to keep digging. Keep asking questions. Keep informing people of what is going on. Keep sharing information.
    I have a few of my own opinions about a few things, but they're just my opinions based on what I've seen so far and I try to keep an open mind if someone wants to propose any compelling evidence in either direction. But, having said that, I do believe that I've seen enough so far to be absolutely convinced that the U.S. government, at the very least, had a hand in the attack.
    Building 7 was home to a massive amount of government and corporate intelligence. There are theories that it was likely to have been the HQ of the remotely controlled planes.
    National Geographic recently ran a string of 9/11 shows again as part of an ongoing propaganda campaign wherein they advertise themselves to be objective. Purdue University did a study of the physics involved in the strikes and concluded that it was, in fact, the jets that brought the towers down. These shows are quite clever. Purdue sounds to most people to be a pretty credible source, and National Geographic has been a century-long traditional institution beloved by Americans...So, for most people, that's good enough. I had a number of issues with the studies they presented though. It was anything but objective. Prior to the very expensive tests run by Purdue, they received a very sizable government grant funding their science department. Once again, we need to dig a little and find out who stands to gain what in these studies.
    I could go on and on...
    I don't know how many of my links, videos and postings here on my blog that you've seen, but there are a few, very interesting ones to consider regarding Building 7.
    Thanks for your comments and participation. Keep passing the information on. The truth movement needs every motivated patriot it can get!

  3. Oh, I forgot to mention in my above comment that the National Geographic presentation completely omitted Building 7. Instead, they focused on "can jet fuel fire reach temperatures hot enough to contort steel"? Their test was on a much much smaller steel beam that was independent rather than interlocked to a framework. All of this is irrelavent anyway in light of Purdue giving the explanation that once the support of the floor of impact was removed by the jet, the tremendous weight above it would now be unsupported and would collapse. Good enough, but wait...what about all of the support below that point? Wasn't that all designed to support ALL OF THE WEIGHT ABOVE IT? And why would all 3 buildings fall directly into their own footprint? And why would they fall at near freefall speeds as if the vast majority of resistance below it was removed? Again, the questions pile up and "Nat Geo" is full of BS - they clearly have an agenda!

  4. We need to stand together as a world of humans beings, whatever culture whatever creed. To rid the world of global financial tyranny and become one. A new world order YES! but not the one that our governments are planning. We need a world order of people power, that's where our future lies as we reach the age of Aquarius.

    Join me and others like you and join the biggest event this world will ever see, one that will stop the world and stop those who control it


  5. >>.....So often the argument proffered by the NIST report supporters and those who buy the story sold to them is that of a question..."Then who did it?" they ask. Or, "Why would we do that to our own people?" "How could a demolition crew get that much explosives inside the buildings without being detected?" They place the burden of explanation on the "truthers".

    Yes, that's true. But if someone requests that I speculate on answers to the above questions, I am always willing do do so because I can offer speculative answers to all of these questions that are rational and which fit the scenario.

    I think a lot of times when someone asks questions such as those, they are challenging the "conspiracy wacko" whom they do not believe can respond in a logical fashion with sound replies that do conceivably answer the questions.

    I never frame my responses as "definitive answers" or as "absolute facts"; I always make it clear that my responses are "possible" answers based on the evidence at hand and the information I have come across.

    If presented in this way, I think there can be some value in replying to those who challenge us to provide "reasons" for why our own government might be involved in mass murder such as we saw on 9/11.

    However, I do agree with you that always the main and concluding point should be that a SERIOUS, SCIENTIFIC study needs to be conducted into 9/11.

    >>.....Building 7 was home to a massive amount of government and corporate intelligence.

    Right! And to my way of thinking, its destruction could have served two purposes: 1) The elimination of "paper trail" and digital evidence, and 2) as a way of further intensifying the damage, and thus the shock to the American people, hence strengthening the mandate from We The People to "go get those terrorists!" All the justification Uncle Sam needed to invade the Middle East and install "friendlier" regimes to guarantee the flow of oil at acceptable prices, etc., etc., etc. You know the gig!

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'