IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
BYE, BYE UAL175 "POD" THEORY!, Proof POD doesn't exist!!!

GroundControl
post Nov 14 2006, 11:27 PM
Post #1





Group: Banned
Posts: 64
Joined: 7-November 06
Member No.: 212



Since I can't explain it well apparently, I will show you an experiment. Using a very accurate B767-222 model made by "DRAGON WINGS" model company. I will show you with the help of a lamp, why a "POD" appeared on UAL175 belly.


EXHIBIT "A":
No POD, clear model aircraft belly


EXHIBIT "B":
"POD" appears on model just like in photograph, using similar lighting conditions.


EXHIBIT "C":
Nothing is actually along the side of the wing fairing. This is a whitish glare across the blue livery.


This topic bothers me so much because it has been an ongoing thing for such a long time and it in actuality a waste of time, and if we hope to move forward and find the actual proof or events of 911, we should stop wasting our time with the bogus claims that can discredit us. pilotfly.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
O&A_Virus_XM202
post Nov 15 2006, 02:31 AM
Post #2


"Strategery"


Group: Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 103



Your demonstration does seem to disprove the pod, however, how do you explain the fact that when Flt. 175 enters the south tower, there is a distinct puff in the location of said pod. The engines both make puffs, as does the fuselage, but to the right and bottom of the fuselage, there is a distinct puff of something solid that enters the building that IS NOT on the left side of the fuselage. Also, where is your light source located in relation to the plane in your example? Is it positioned as the sun was on 9-11 and did you factor in the buildings and smoke that would have obscured that sun light somewhat?

I know the pod is a source of some contention, however, it cannot be easily dismissed. I'm not saying it fires a missle or whatever, but it does make a mark when the plane enters the building, a puff of smoke, that is not on the left side of the plane. It is something. What it is.... well, who knows? It is definately not a major point in the truth movement, though some would like it to be. I believe there was a pod, but I have no idea why it was there or what it did. That is not the proof of government involvement though in my opinion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundControl
post Nov 15 2006, 03:02 AM
Post #3





Group: Banned
Posts: 64
Joined: 7-November 06
Member No.: 212



The lamp was positioned in a similar spot to the sun on the morning of 911. I cannot exactly explain the extra little puff of smoke because I have to look at the video again, haven't watched it in a while. But I will try to help explain that. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Nov 15 2006, 07:09 AM
Post #4





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



Thank you GroundControl for finally putting the "pod" theory to bed! cheers.gif As intriguing as the concept may have been, there is no way such a device could have been mounted in that position without obstructing the landing gear. The idea of the "pod" was clearly disinfo; introduced to mar the credibility of the truth movement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
O&A_Virus_XM202
post Nov 15 2006, 11:29 AM
Post #5


"Strategery"


Group: Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 103



QUOTE (Beached @ Nov 15 2006, 11:09 AM)
Thank you GroundControl for finally putting the "pod" theory to bed! cheers.gif As intriguing as the concept may have been, there is no way such a device could have been mounted in that position without obstructing the landing gear. The idea of the "pod" was clearly disinfo; introduced to mar the credibility of the truth movement.

Please explain the "puff" that the pod that you say is not there makes when it enters the south tower....

It can be seen clear as day.

Again we don't know what the "pod's" purpose was, but it makes a mark as it enters the building.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
George Hayduke
post Nov 15 2006, 11:50 AM
Post #6


Got aliens?


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,052
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 120



The puff is further evidence that the videos were fudged. Same goes for the laser beam that shoots from the nose of the plane onto the tower just prior to impact. The videos are fake.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Nov 15 2006, 03:32 PM
Post #7





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



QUOTE (O&A_Virus_XM202 @ Nov 15 2006, 03:29 PM)
QUOTE (Beached @ Nov 15 2006, 11:09 AM)
Thank you GroundControl for finally putting the "pod" theory to bed!  cheers.gif  As intriguing as the concept may have been, there is no way such a device could have been mounted in that position without obstructing the landing gear. The idea of the "pod" was clearly disinfo; introduced to mar the credibility of the truth movement.

Please explain the "puff" that the pod that you say is not there makes when it enters the south tower....

It can be seen clear as day.

Again we don't know what the "pod's" purpose was, but it makes a mark as it enters the building.

I believe the "puff" was most likely an explosive(s) within the tower being set off by the impact. Seriously though, an object could not have been mounted in that position without affecting the landing gear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
O&A_Virus_XM202
post Nov 15 2006, 03:53 PM
Post #8


"Strategery"


Group: Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 103



The videos are fake... hmmm. don't know what to think about that. It can be seen in multiple videos. This sounds like a no plane theory. I can't imagine that all the videos would be fake. I guess it's possible... anything is possible. It just seems that faking multiple videos is a bit of a stretch. I know an extra piece of equipmment on the plane seems like a stretch too, but less of a stretch than faking multiple videos. The pod is definately something that can be considered disinfo, but I don't think it can be easily dismissed as fake videos. What evidence do you have that the videos we indeed faked? I'm not trying to be a hardass or anything, I'm just saying that there is photo and video evidence of an anomoly on the plane. That anomoly leaves a mark as it enters the south tower.

And I feel you on the landing gear aspect. It should not be there. If it is, then some serious modifications went on... and that means it was not just 5 terrorists with box-cutters.

This post has been edited by O&A_Virus_XM202: Nov 15 2006, 04:00 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundControl
post Nov 15 2006, 05:16 PM
Post #9





Group: Banned
Posts: 64
Joined: 7-November 06
Member No.: 212



Guys forget the POD and realize that the only thing we can do now is get as many people to back us as possible. So our claims have to be solid, legit and or believable. We may never be able to prove exactly what happened and should be more concerned with trying to get everyone to believe that what happened is not what the GOVNT. said.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
O&A_Virus_XM202
post Nov 15 2006, 05:31 PM
Post #10


"Strategery"


Group: Newbie
Posts: 26
Joined: 17-October 06
Member No.: 103



I absolutely agree wit you on that... it should not be the main focus of the 9-11 Truth movement... I'm just trying to say it can't be dismissed that easily... I never mention it when telling "first-timers" about what happened. There are many more glaringly obvious things to point out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
George Hayduke
post Nov 15 2006, 06:02 PM
Post #11


Got aliens?


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,052
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 120



QUOTE (O&A_Virus_XM202 @ Nov 15 2006, 09:31 PM)
I absolutely agree wit you on that... it should not be the main focus of the 9-11 Truth movement... I'm just trying to say it can't be dismissed that easily... I never mention it when telling "first-timers" about what happened. There are many more glaringly obvious things to point out.

Exactly. Never do I discuss the planes with novices. That's advanced stuff. It's best I found to start discussing the controlled demolition of bldg. 7, then move to the demolition of the towers, then talk about war games and such.

I think we can all agree that bldg. 7 came down in what appears to be controlled demolition. The collapse of the twin towers bears 11 halmarks of controlled demolition. These talking points will further the solidarity of truthers. Agreed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Beached
post Nov 15 2006, 06:39 PM
Post #12





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 802
Joined: 20-October 06
Member No.: 117



QUOTE (O&A_Virus_XM202 @ Nov 15 2006, 07:53 PM)
The videos are fake... hmmm. don't know what to think about that. It can be seen in multiple videos. This sounds like a no plane theory. I can't imagine that all the videos would be fake. I guess it's possible... anything is possible. It just seems that faking multiple videos is a bit of a stretch. I know an extra piece of equipmment on the plane seems like a stretch too, but less of a stretch than faking multiple videos. The pod is definately something that can be considered disinfo, but I don't think it can be easily dismissed as fake videos. What evidence do you have that the videos we indeed faked? I'm not trying to be a hardass or anything, I'm just saying that there is photo and video evidence of an anomoly on the plane. That anomoly leaves a mark as it enters the south tower.

And I feel you on the landing gear aspect. It should not be there. If it is, then some serious modifications went on... and that means it was not just 5 terrorists with box-cutters.

You also have to bear in mind that the "pod" theory was introduced by Phil Jayhan back in 2004. Jayhan, like Tom Flocco and many others is clearly a disinformation artist.

The theory is based on grainy footage which lacks the necessary resolution to see such an object clearly. It was deliberately introduced to be ridiculed. Even Von Kleist removed the "pod" theory from his second edition of "In Plane Site".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundControl
post Nov 15 2006, 10:55 PM
Post #13





Group: Banned
Posts: 64
Joined: 7-November 06
Member No.: 212



Keep in mind, alot of people who don't back us are not backing us because of these types of suggestions.

It is clear that their is no object on the bottom of whatever hit the WTC in that video, unless it is really, really small. I am much more convinced that images of a lack of wreckage at the PENT of SHANKSVILLE, is much more believable and can back our case. Not to mention the Flight tracker anomalies and Tower demolishions. But these "PODS" got to go. I now am looking into a mix of "aircraft swapping" and "remote controlling".

We have to start facing the facts that unfortunately we probably will never find out exactly what happened. But we can atleast convince everyoneelse that something (strange) has.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
George Hayduke
post Nov 16 2006, 08:21 AM
Post #14


Got aliens?


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,052
Joined: 21-October 06
Member No.: 120



QUOTE (GroundControl @ Nov 16 2006, 02:55 AM)
Keep in mind, alot of people who don't back us are not backing us because of these types of suggestions.

bullshit. I've never once heard anyone say that they couldn't buy into the Truth Movement because of the findings of some of the research on the planes. Not once. So don't play that card.

Matter of fact, I have about a 100 percent conversion rate. That means when you meet me on the street, if you give me a moment of your time and read the handouts I give you and watch the movie I give you you will likely end up supporting the Truth Movement.

That said, of the people I've converted, almost none are interested in my findings on the planes. And I'm cool with that. I don't pressure them. I don't argue with them. I let them support the Movement in their own way and research what they want to research and believe what they want to believe.

With the controlled demolition of the WTC complex we've enough to indict scores of politicos and military folk. CD is the common ground on which we can all meet and agree on. So let's all hold hands and be happy.

But if you think you can play the "your research hurts the movement" card, then you, not I, should be viewed suspiciously as a possible mole or troll.

We got here by thinking outside of the box and further important revelations will come from thinking outside the box.

Check out my posts on this thread and if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...wtopic=1770&hl=

This post has been edited by George Hayduke: Nov 16 2006, 08:25 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Nov 16 2006, 10:23 AM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (George Hayduke @ Nov 15 2006, 03:50 PM)
The puff is further evidence that the videos were fudged. Same goes for the laser beam that shoots from the nose of the plane onto the tower just prior to impact. The videos are fake.

Congrats for apparently clearing up the "pod thing". How'd you figure that out?? Impressive.

(I fear some more controversy however on the "faked video" thing doh1.gif )


Hey, wherever the evidence takes us
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HotDogBun
post Nov 19 2006, 06:05 PM
Post #16





Group: Guest
Posts: 70
Joined: 25-August 06
Member No.: 15



Nice work GC on adding picture to what many of us already knew, that there was no pod, but merely a trick of light. Those 2 pics are airtight confirmation that there was no pod or missile or extra equipment on the plane. Definitely the last nail in the pod coffin.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GroundControl
post Nov 19 2006, 06:23 PM
Post #17





Group: Banned
Posts: 64
Joined: 7-November 06
Member No.: 212



QUOTE
QUOTE (GroundControl @ Nov 16 2006, 02:55 AM)
Keep in mind, alot of people who don't back us are not backing us because of these types of suggestions.

bullshit. I've never once heard anyone say that they couldn't buy into the Truth Movement because of the findings of some of the research on the planes. Not once. So don't play that card.

Matter of fact, I have about a 100 percent conversion rate. That means when you meet me on the street, if you give me a moment of your time and read the handouts I give you and watch the movie I give you you will likely end up supporting the Truth Movement.

That said, of the people I've converted, almost none are interested in my findings on the planes. And I'm cool with that. I don't pressure them. I don't argue with them. I let them support the Movement in their own way and research what they want to research and believe what they want to believe.

With the controlled demolition of the WTC complex we've enough to indict scores of politicos and military folk. CD is the common ground on which we can all meet and agree on. So let's all hold hands and be happy.

But if you think you can play the "your research hurts the movement" card, then you, not I, should be viewed suspiciously as a possible mole or troll.

We got here by thinking outside of the box and further important revelations will come from thinking outside the box.

Check out my posts on this thread and if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...wtopic=1770&hl=


Well, may I say that I DID believe in the "POD" theory originally. Then after realizing that it was just a grainy optical illusion due to the sun and United's livery combined, I moved on and so did many others. Now everytime I see this brought up again it bugs me because it is a waste of time. When you are investigating something, once you have evidence that favours a side completely you move on. I have offered evidence that proves what other sites have offered in opposition of the "POD" theory. But if you think it is an efficient way to solve the 9/11 mystery by arguing points that are ALREADY SOLVED then go ahead.

What I mean by all this is unlike the whereabouts of AA77 or UA93, there is CLEAR EVIDENCE that shows NO "POD" on the belly of UAL175.

I will tell you though, if you told me on the street that the 767 HAS a "POD" on it and then I researched and found evidence that it DIDN'T, then you would lose your credibility really fast if you still backed up that it did have a "POD" on it. That is what I meant by people will stop backing up the truthseekers. The "POD" is finished, so when someone asks about, then it should be said that it was solved and doesn't exist. Instead everytime it gets brought up people start conversing about it again. But to each their own.

And when I stumbled on to this page PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG I thought great, I can discuss the aviation related anomalies with other aviation fans who discuss the REAL anomalies that are unsolved (like FDR info, schedules, aircraft capabilities, etc.), not the already solved outrageous claims of "PODS" on airplanes that clearly show no "PODS".

And please don't make any "troll" assumptions on me, I never once made that on anyoneelse and incase you havent notices my posts are 90% against the OFFICIAL STORY. angry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Nov 19 2006, 06:41 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,745
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Nice work GC.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
grizz
post Nov 19 2006, 07:18 PM
Post #19


aka Oceans Flow


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,211
Joined: 19-October 06
From: Oregon
Member No.: 108



I never thought about the pod much, but I like your argument, GC. I try to stick to the irrefutable puzzle pieces. There are enough of them to form a good picture of what happened.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MichaelMR
post Nov 26 2006, 05:10 PM
Post #20


Veteran


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 737
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 46



Great job, GC.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th February 2020 - 12:03 AM