I sent the following letter regarding their supposed debunking of the pod on the plane hitting the South Tower. I included five small versions of photographs I have of freeze-frames of the plane hitting the South Tower. I CCed the letter two the two professors cited in their supposed debunking.
I might point out that knowingly publishing propaganda and denegrating the evidence in 9/11 is treason -- adhering to the attackers, giving them aid and comfort. Recklessly denegrating the evidence and promoting propaganda is a lesser crime, but still a crime comparable to manslaughter. Although I believe they were only wrong regarding the pod originally, it becomes recklessness or intentional once they disregard the evidence submitted in reply.
Additionally, their next "debunking" (of the paralysis of NORAD during 9/11) was not merely wrong, but consisted of absurd propaganda. In that case, they have already committed the crime.
We are fighting an extremely tough battle, precisely because of our media's willful blindness and disregard for even the most blatantly obvious. We should go after our false friends who intentionally or recklessly cover up the crimes of the villains.
So far, I've been ignored as far as I can tell. It's approaching time for me to send the 11.7-Meg dump.
Dear Sirs
I am replying to an alleged conspiracy-theory debunking in Popular Mechanics, that I found just recently on the web. In particular, I'm discussing the "pod" underneath the plane hitting the South Tower. Both Professors Fred Culick of Caltech and Ronald Greeley of Arizona State University were quoted in that article as part of the debunking.
Sure, hypothetically, the pod could be a mirage (optical illusion, digital artifact, etc.). But no mirage ever caused a bright dot to appear as it penetrates a wall. The pod produces a bright dot very similar to the ones produced by the jet engines as they penetrated the wall.
In one paragraph, Prof. Culick either missunderstood or was misled regarding the pod:
> When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft,
> Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the
> California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter
> response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."
Of course pods aren't attached to civilian aircraft. That means that the aircraft wasn't a civilian aircraft. I don't believe that the pod is actually an attachment. More likely, a compartment opened and the object was extended outward the last minute before the collision.
I challenge you. Find a copy of the video of the plane approaching and hitting the South Tower. I think Carmon Taylor videoed it. (Try CNN's "America Remembers" 2002 Edition. You probably don't trust "911 in Plane Site.") Step through it frame by frame. I'm sending you small sample photographs of freeze frames.
I may reply to some of the other debunkings in the article. Normally, when I send informative email, I am disregarded, even when the email is about something obvious and critical. However, here I can perhaps motivate someone to pay attention. I'm sending small versions of five photographs out of many that I took of freeze frames from that clip. If I am ignored, I could be persuaded to send you a whole 11.7-Meg dump of over forty
photographs.
Sincerely,
[Name Removed]
PS. Here's another 9/11 factoid: Go to www.fbi.gov. Their Osama ("Usama") bin Laden page in the list of most-wanted terrorists doesn't mention 9/11.
Update [2005-7-12 4:46:8 by Hot Young Lib]:It's pretty clear that many of the commentators here can't read, and they've bought the official story.
Is there some way I can actually post the pictures here? The third dot right at the pod is plainly visible in the final picture.
I never said anything about a pod "controlling the plane." I also said that the pod was probably extended from a compartment in the plane right at the last minute.
Finally, you disregard this at your peril: Supporting the attacks by attacking those who present evidence is treason.
Update [2005-7-12 6:34:33 by Hot Young Lib]:Okay, I finally took the plunge and updated my old web site, and added the five photos that I sent to Popular Mechanics.
South Tower Photos
Now, if only people would actually look at them.
Update [2005-7-12 6:55:18 by Hot Young Lib]:I somehow saved the poll with only the first three choices as answers. I can't seem to edit it to include the fourth and fifth answers.
Update [2005-7-13 4:32:39 by Hot Young Lib]:I seem to have flushed out a number of idiots who can't seem to follow the simplest logical argument. For example:
Optical illusions (shadows, etc.) *DO NOT PRODUCE BRIGHT DOTS!* The thing produced a bright dot. Therefore the thing isn't an optical illusion.
Also, a number of my own replies have been deleted, which address the idiocies posted.
To believe that the pod isn't real, you have believe one of the following:
1. You don't see the image there (even as a potential optical illusion).
2. The third bright dot is unrelated to the two caused by jet engines, and has no physical cause, yet by freak accident just happened to appear right at the image, and nowhere else.
3. All three dots have no physical cause, yet just happen to appear (again, as a freak accident) right at the jet engines and the image.
4. The pictures are fraudulent.
The first is blindness. The next two are idiocy. More than extraordinary claims, they are outright idiotic.
As for the fourth claim. I challenge you to go and find the video clip, and show that the pictures are fraudulent.
Update [2005-7-13 21:11:38 by Hot Young Lib]:Why the hell have my replies been deleted -- especially the replies that refute name-calling and accusations of idiocy?
Why the hell was my reply to the guy who called me "bat-shit insane" deleted, but his wasn't?
Why can they flame me, but I can't respond even rationally?