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

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

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Another Pod Under "flight 175", another pod

thorshammer1999
post Aug 17 2012, 10:09 PM
Post #1





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 33
Joined: 25-July 12
Member No.: 6,945



Can't remember where I saw it the other day, maybe Rense, but I found a closeup somewhere else to show it. Someone spotted another pod underneath. The pod is under the left wing, directly adjacent to the engine. It's tough to see but it is there. It's dark and covering the engine mount and is elongated; perhaps a counterbalance to the pods slung on the right side?



This post has been edited by thorshammer1999: Aug 17 2012, 10:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Aug 18 2012, 01:12 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



It would not surprise me if there were another pod, though at this point in time it doesn't much matter.

I does look like something is there.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Nov 28 2013, 09:50 PM
Post #3





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



Perhaps I'm completely wrong, but I may have the answer for this pod mystery:

If one accepts the popular theory, that speech-audio was extracted from several of Flight 175's would-be passengers and maybe crew, by way of hijack response exercises in Logan airport. Then in order to at least somewhat convincingly fake their cell phone calls, the conspirators would have needed to sieze the participants' cell phone SIM cards:



If one also accepts the widely-held belief among sceptics of these purported attacks, that beyond approx. 6000ft, cell phones are seldom or never able to make nor receive calls,: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk @ 1:39:24

Plus, expects that the phone companies may detect the cards' general location; then I suppose that theoretically: both these implausible tasks could be feigned by a USAF Hercules C-130H crew, flying at a low altitude, below a slow-cruising (Drone) Flight 175.




As hypothetically: the SIM cards were stolen from the victims in the airport, and presuming that the Hercules would have had to take off from an insurmountable distance (perhaps only a relatively nearby U.S. airforce base); the booty has to be passed from the 767 to the C-130H crew, within a small window of time, as the former has a second tower to hit, without being dutifully shot down.

I suspect that they were to acomplish this transfer, with the aid of a remotely-controlled, motorized winch; installed on the aircraft's belly.
Hence the controversial "pod"'s existance:



By opening their plane's rear door, and using a long pole with a hook at the end: the crew were to perhaps pull in a box, which was tethered to the 767's appendage, containing the cache of SIM cards, installed within handsets:



I imagine the box to be remotely: detachable and detonatable, at the crash site; so as to destroy the profoundly incriminating evidence in the event of failure.

And looking at the available evidence, it appears that they perhaps did fail.

"Hijacked" Flight 175, emitted not a single mobile phone call: http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00216.pdf (this report alludes to some of the flight-occupants, as being possessors of cellular phones).

And here I hope, is the (rare footage? Of the) embarrassingly-dangling box:

'WTC-2 POD Ejection Prior to Aircraft Impact'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro3_qLFcV-c

[N.B. There at least was a much clearer version of the above, also via YouTube; but alas, at the time of writing this post - I'm unable to find it.]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Nov 29 2013, 02:23 AM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



It could be, that one can see this operation being performed successfully on United Flight 93, in the ACARS video @ 11:00:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz8cdXyRnlY

Note: the hijacking is said to have started a just few minutes later.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 1 2013, 10:48 AM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I have long thought that some of the C-130 electronic ships based at Hurlburt Field were involved in the "cellphone calls" somehow or other, but I doubt very much the scenario above, passing boxes in flight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Dec 3 2013, 05:39 PM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



QUOTE (amazed! @ Dec 1 2013, 03:48 PM) *
...I doubt very much the scenario above, passing boxes in flight.


Pourquoi?

'Hanscom Air Force Base [which appears to be nearest to Logan], Massachusetts is approximately 20 miles northwest of Boston...'

http://www.airforce.com/contact-us/base-locator/

Just out of interest, this is what YouTubers are saying:

Jay Holtslander
Jason Bourne clones a SIM card in seconds. In reality it takes much longer than this as IMSI and Ki codes must be scanned for which is time intensive.)


GlitchAttack
4 years ago
of course this is fiction! the only working technique is to exploite the Ki using A3/A5/SRES algorithms which makes sim cloning needs long hours to be done .. and it is not about equipment cz the max stable synch. clock for sim cards is 6Mhz


Arabhacks
1 year ago
The way it is done now is with a device called a "Kopy Kat" that connects between a cellphone and the SIM card and simply monitors the flow of data. This may take DAYS! Normally a cellphone that can take a larger battery is used and this is placed inside the handset with the smaller battery. Normally a weekend of use is enough.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_eYMfggkq0

Citizen Engineer - Volume 1 - Phones
"Now let's say you wanted to clone a SIM card. Well there's no way the SIM card is gonna give up the unique identifier, and the secret key..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ikOgzOApIc @ 10:22


Couldn't this be the pre-emptive explanation?

'A team of scientists from NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, has flown to Cleveland to conduct microgravity experiments on the KC-135. [Cleveland Free Times, 9/6/2006] Dominic Del Rosso, the test director on the plane, will later recall that the team is flying over western New York State when the terrorist attacks occur. During the routine mission, the KC-135 cruises back and forth along the New York shore of Lake Ontario, climbing and descending to create a freefall condition to simulate microgravity. Del Rosso will comment, “To think that this type of maneuver might ever seem threatening never crossed my mind until [September 11].” The plane’s crew members are notified at some point that a large plane is intersecting their flight path less than 1,000 feet below them, instead of the usual 2,000-foot minimum distance. They will later learn that this aircraft is the hijacked Flight 93,...

~ http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp...te_911_timeline


I envisage something like the victims being assigned a number (say 1-5); which was saved in each deactivated handset's directory. To be later checked against a poster, at each soundboard terminal.

E.g.
Victim #1: Mr. Mark Bingham,
Card PIN: xxxx
Emergency Contact: Ms. Alice Hoglan (Mother) Tel: xxxx xxx-xxx
Things to bear in mind: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

This post has been edited by poppyburner: Dec 3 2013, 05:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 4 2013, 08:47 AM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Poppy

I think Occam's Razor applies here.

Why go through all the aggravation of transferring sim cards from airplane to airplane WHILE FLYING, when there are much easier methods?

Have you any evidence at all that suggests you scenario, or is it sheer speculation?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Dec 4 2013, 07:48 PM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



It's self-evidently, an informed judgement. And you seem convinced that there is a pod; with only a blurry photograph presented as evidence.

Re the Razor: Where's the competing hypothesis? What are the much easier methods?

As I see it: they had a short time to transport incriminating, non-duplicable, technology; a significant distance, through unknown traffic.

Pretty formidable.

Or is the/my mobile call-faking premise, flawed?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 5 2013, 09:56 AM
Post #9





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (poppyburner @ Dec 4 2013, 08:48 PM) *
It's self-evidently, an informed judgement. And you seem convinced that there is a pod; with only a blurry photograph presented as evidence.

Re the Razor: Where's the competing hypothesis? What are the much easier methods?

As I see it: they had a short time to transport incriminating, non-duplicable, technology; a significant distance, through unknown traffic.

Pretty formidable.

Or is the/my mobile call-faking premise, flawed?



No, clearly the calls are fake, no doubt.

My point is that I think it could be done in ways OTHER THAN your hypothesis, which sounds like something out of an old James Bond movie. With the equipment that is on those C-130's bristling with antennae, I doubt the sim cards are necessary to fake the calls.

The other distinct possibility, probability IMO, is that Lyles and others were willing participants. Perhaps deceived as to what was actually happening, but willing participants nonetheless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Dec 5 2013, 09:07 PM
Post #10





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



Style aside, is it not a feasible method?


The "9/11" attacks, look like something from Die Hard/True Lies (bodies and papers falling from exploding buildings, with emergency services and news crews below; USAF fighter jets and Islamic terrorists).



I believe that two of Flight 93's Thomas Burnett's cell calls, were luck-pushingly faked without a SIM card. Hence their inexplicable absence in his phone bill.

'How To Use Caller ID Faker'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAcwI1OiBpk

And that some of the plane-occupants' calls (e.g. Flight 11's/12's Ong and Sweeney) were live (there were news reports that one of the U.S. government's four E-4Bs, was seen above the Whitehouse that day, characteristically-equipped with a satellite communication system).

But given: the suspects' apparent willingness to murder, the confirmation from FA Sara Low's father, that she had had anti-terrorist training with American Airlines, the obvious soundboarding of Betty Ong ("Flight 12. ...Yes."), framing of Ziad Jarrah, with that phoney, mis-transcribed, cockpit message; the ease of thorough SIM card interchangeability between cellular phones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDWhkc-58_g , the spotting of several mystery planes and specifically a C-130H by The Pentagon; plus perhaps my favourite of all: 'Mitt Romney Arnold Schwarzenegger SoundBoard Prank.'

I see a fairly strong case emerging.

Even if the Hercules are bristling with antennae; without insiders in the phone companies involved, I do not comprehend how: with the immensely high stakes, the criminals could have had peace of mind, regarding the satisfaction of possibly numerous esoteric verification measures, which may have changed since their last reconnaissance.

This post has been edited by poppyburner: Dec 5 2013, 09:10 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 9 2013, 10:19 AM
Post #11





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,163
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Poppy

Considering that there was no plane at Shanksville or the Pentagon, and that it was not AA11 and UA175 that struck the towers, the need to pass physical objects between two aircraft flying is not there.

The C130 part is fine with the open ramp, but how is an airliner going to do this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
poppyburner
post Dec 9 2013, 11:25 PM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 194
Joined: 10-October 13
From: South West London, UK
Member No.: 7,552



In this discussion, I've only suggested such an enterprise for: Drone 175 and Flight 93 (the latter headed for Cleveland).

If the winch's operation is remotely-controlled from the nearby C-130; then the airliner which it's attached to, need not do anything.

The co-operation's primarily between the Hercules' pilot and the safety-harnessed pole-holder.

I'd just like to chip in:

'She [A redacted American Airlines employee] described this flight as normal because there were no problems except for one passenger who was running late. This passenger was RICHARD ROSS. ROSS told [REDACTED] that this was the worse day of his life as he had encountered so much traffic en route to Logan Airport.'

~ http://www.911myths.com/images/7/74/Team7-...es-and-302s.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: 13th December 2017 - 09:58 AM