Does this really look like a shadow under the right, (Starboard), side of the fuselage?

Close-up video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BN-0K7OhDzQ

Um, not, but this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCVwuf_AMFs&feature=related which appears to use the same source video, makes the same effect look like the result of the plane moving out from under a shadow (presumably of the smoke from WTC 1) and catching a reflection of the sun where the wing meets the fuselage.

The contrast has been stripped away so much from the image in the link you posted that the "bright light bloom" looks very much like an appendage. Now why would the poster of this clip not provide details of the source and additional processing undertaken to make the image look as it does?

Sounds like the swamp gas reflecting the light from Venus ploy to me. The light "bloom" looks identical to an object roughly the size of one of the engines, with matching shading.

The video clip was zoomed, losing resolution as well as contrast. Yet the anomaly remains. Just as it was in the original non-zoomed clip. Maybe I just have better eye sight than some. 1MOA.

Perhaps you do, but explain to me how it grows from one frame to the next, almost as if it's something being inflated, and what could it be? Perhaps you could re-read this analysis of the images, paying close attention to Appendix A that specifically covers them.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Maybe you could find us a picture that doesn't show the anomaly, but does show the planes belly.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Maybe you could find us a picture that doesn't show the anomaly, but does show the planes belly.


.

and maybe you could find a picture that looks like ANYTHING other than a plane slamming into a building.

...but that doesn't mean anything else happened.

---

and yeah I WILL openly question the patriotism of someone who thinks America perpetrated the 9/11 attacks against herself.

For the sake of debate (and I'm not reflecting my personal views in asking this).
Ok, I'm not an American and I'm not saying that America perpetrated the attacks BUT there are a lot of people out there who say that she did. What are your reasons for saying that she didn't?
If you look throughout history there are a lot of cases which show that "leaders" and others perpetrated attacks against it's own people, of ethical groups, to push forward their own interests. Why should America be different? Maybe not on a political level but for other reasons?

And please before anybody attacks me, these are not my personal beliefs on this topic, I just enjoyed debating at school even if I was totally against what was picked for me to debate about sometimnes I even won the debate!

---

http://www.therageclub.com

and yeah I WILL openly question the patriotism of someone who thinks America perpetrated the 9/11 attacks against herself.

For the sake of debate (and I'm not reflecting my personal views in asking this).
Ok, I'm not an American and I'm not saying that America perpetrated the attacks BUT there are a lot of people out there who say that she did. What are your reasons for saying that she didn't?
If you look throughout history there are a lot of cases which show that "leaders" and others perpetrated attacks against it's own people, of ethical groups, to push forward their own interests. Why should America be different? Maybe not on a political level but for other reasons?

And please before anybody attacks me, these are not my personal beliefs on this topic, I just enjoyed debating at school even if I was totally against what was picked for me to debate about sometimnes I even won the debate!

Well you know there was that whole Bin Laden confession thing...

and to the best of my knowledge, no evidence that he or Al Qaeda have denied involvement.

---

and yeah I WILL openly question the patriotism of someone who thinks America perpetrated the 9/11 attacks against herself.

For the sake of debate (and I'm not reflecting my personal views in asking this).
Ok, I'm not an American and I'm not saying that America perpetrated the attacks BUT there are a lot of people out there who say that she did. What are your reasons for saying that she didn't?
If you look throughout history there are a lot of cases which show that "leaders" and others perpetrated attacks against it's own people, of ethical groups, to push forward their own interests. Why should America be different? Maybe not on a political level but for other reasons?

And please before anybody attacks me, these are not my personal beliefs on this topic, I just enjoyed debating at school even if I was totally against what was picked for me to debate about sometimnes I even won the debate!

Well you know there was that whole Bin Laden confession thing...

and to the best of my knowledge, no evidence that he or Al Qaeda have denied involvement.

I know that. But I was trying to hear a convincing argument from someone who believed that America perpetrated the attacks!

---

http://www.therageclub.com

and yeah I WILL openly question the patriotism of someone who thinks America perpetrated the 9/11 attacks against herself.

For the sake of debate (and I'm not reflecting my personal views in asking this).
Ok, I'm not an American and I'm not saying that America perpetrated the attacks BUT there are a lot of people out there who say that she did. What are your reasons for saying that she didn't?
If you look throughout history there are a lot of cases which show that "leaders" and others perpetrated attacks against it's own people, of ethical groups, to push forward their own interests. Why should America be different? Maybe not on a political level but for other reasons?

And please before anybody attacks me, these are not my personal beliefs on this topic, I just enjoyed debating at school even if I was totally against what was picked for me to debate about sometimnes I even won the debate!

Well you know there was that whole Bin Laden confession thing...

and to the best of my knowledge, no evidence that he or Al Qaeda have denied involvement.

I know that. But I was trying to hear a convincing argument from someone who believed that America perpetrated the attacks!

That's just it....there are no "convincing arguments".

There's edited footage, and lot's of people who don't understand the physical properties of aluminum and carbon fiber slamming into concrete and steel at 500mph (or even half that speed) and lots of people who don't understand the consistency of metal after exposure to extremely high temperatures....but no convincing arguments.

---

Maybe you could find us a picture that doesn't show the anomaly, but does show the planes belly.


.

Still nothing?

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Maybe you could find us a picture that doesn't show the anomaly, but does show the planes belly.


.

Still nothing?

The comparison of the graining still photo and the close up of a similar jet (in Appendix A on the link provided earlier) suggests, to me at least, that there is no anomaly. There is a "bulge" where the wings on this type of plane meet the fuselage, to find a picture of one without such a bulge would be an anomaly. That the bulge appears to grow in the video you provided is a function of blooming (and flattening of contrast) mentioned earlier.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

So no picture? Not one? Just accusations the video has been tampered with?

Boo... Hiss...

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

So no picture? Not one? Just accusations the video has been tampered with?

Boo... Hiss...

Seems you're eye sight might not be that good afterall, I specifically mentioned the still photo, that does not show any anomaly. Doesn't that count as one?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

So no picture? Not one? Just accusations the video has been tampered with?

Boo... Hiss...

Seems you're eye sight might not be that good afterall, I specifically mentioned the still photo, that does not show any anomaly. Doesn't that count as one?

What's th message id?

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

"Pull" is a demo term for the moment you detonate when demoing a building.

Schematic of building 7

* Modified:

Better breakdown






It would take days for it to burn down, but it didn't. It collapsed in world record time. Perfectly into it's footprint.

*Modified:

Talk about obvious.

.

Talk about people running theirs mouths with nothing to say. I love it when people who know nothing about this talk as though they do.
Pull is also used by many different jobs. Fire fighters use the word to get their people out of danger. Shooter use it to launch targets.
I know, It's all Bushes fault. Bush also had MLK and JFK killed. Bush is also the cause of the Great Depression and the SF earthquake.

Interesting how the planes wings slice through the steel outer beams like butter while at the Pentagon they shatter into little bitty pieces. Magic!

Welcome to the discussion, Art Fracchia. Pull is also used in the phrase, "Pulling your leg." Or "Pulling the wool over one's eyes."

You did some scrolling to find that diagram. Any other data you'd like to contest?


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

So no picture? Not one? Just accusations the video has been tampered with?

Boo... Hiss...

Seems you're eye sight might not be that good afterall, I specifically mentioned the still photo, that does not show any anomaly. Doesn't that count as one?

What's th message id?

Message 794469, follow the "this" link, scroll down to Appendix A.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Can you link the picture? I've never heard of that site and don't trust who I don't know on the net.

So no picture? Not one? Just accusations the video has been tampered with?

Boo... Hiss...

Seems you're eye sight might not be that good afterall, I specifically mentioned the still photo, that does not show any anomaly. Doesn't that count as one?

What's th message id?

Message 794469, follow the "this" link, scroll down to Appendix A.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Can you link the picture? I've never heard of that site and don't trust who I don't know on the net.

So no picture? Not one? Just accusations the video has been tampered with?

Boo... Hiss...

Seems you're eye sight might not be that good afterall, I specifically mentioned the still photo, that does not show any anomaly. Doesn't that count as one?

What's th message id?

Message 794469, follow the "this" link, scroll down to Appendix A.

You can find a link to the page on one of your favorites http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Wtc2PlanePod.shtml.

A UA 767 with stripe down the center of its underbelly:



The grainy photo of UA 175 I mentioned earlier, next to a much clearer picture of 767:



A still from the video you posted:



And a higher quality version of the still:

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Nice work bobby,

I didn't remember those bulges when I used to refueled them.


BSmasher: It would only matter if your aluminum "shattering" theory wasn't accurate.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Interesting how the planes wings slice through the steel outer beams like butter while at the Pentagon they shatter into little bitty pieces. Magic!

No, not magic. Simple physics.

The WTC buildings were just skyscrapers, built to the normal construction specs for such things in the early 60s.

Conversely, the Pentagon was built as a military structure, designed and built to to be bomb-proof, with bomb-proof windows. That building was designed and built during WWII with the expectation that it may have to withstand direct, determined, and well-armed military attackers. So, of course the wings of a plane hitting such a thing would "shatter into little bitty pieces." Duh.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Nice work bobby,

I didn't remember those bulges when I used to refueled them.


BSmasher: It would only matter if your aluminum "shattering" theory wasn't accurate.

It wasn't my theory it was yours.

I just have enough sense to know what happens to moving object when they slam into concrete instead of glass.

---