portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

9.11 investigation

911: BOEING Claims "National Security" On WTC2 Plane, Refuses to Repond to Questions

Or is that just a transparent whitewashing attempt at saying: "I'm taking the 5th amendment" against self-incrimination?

Boycott Boeing! Tell them why. They are involved in mass murder to get Bush's deal of financial FEDERAL TAXPAYER kickbacks they received immediately after 9-11 which kept them from going bankrupt.

Why support piratical corrupt institutions? That are unable to even survive in the market? Why?
Boeing Claims National Security On WTC2 Plane
From 911Review.org

It is clear that the flight that struck the second of the TwinTowers on 9/11 was not United Airlines Flight 175, because views from underneath the plane reveal a 20 m. long, 1/2 m. diameter, cylinder that opens just before impact. The pod appears in all photographs that clearly show that aspect of the plane, and can be seen in the frame-by-frame analysis of all videos of the impact, where there is sufficient contrast and resolution.

See:  http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Wtc2PlanePod.shtml

The Barcelona daily La Vanguardia, which has run a series of articles based on a technical report on this pod, asked Boeing about these features, who claimed they were unable to respond for reasons of national security!

From Paul Higginbotham

Hello Jeff - This concerns the article about the anomaly on the 767 (sic) that struck the tower. I have worked on Boeing 767s as a licensed aircraft mechanic for fifteen years and I can tell you there is nothing that even remotely resembles what I see in the photographs on "normal" aircraft.

I know the 767 literally inside-out as I have overhauled them hundreds of times and that "pod" or device is NOT normal. But what strikes me the most - and sends chills up my spine - is the frame that shows the plane JUST hitting the building. Where in the HELL do the flames come from?? The fuel is stored in the WINGS!! The is NO fuel, not a DROP near the nose of the aircraft. It is held in the wings and pumped to the engines. That's it. The nose contains NOTHING that could cause a fire on impact.

I believe this was a deliberate act by our government.

Also, when I saw it live on TV my first thoughts when the buildings collapsed was "Hey! that looks EXACTLY like a professional demolition" to keep the debris in the same "footprint" as the building. It was too neat of a job.

If this is true, what kind of country are we living in now?

hmm... 11.Jul.2004 10:50

this thing here

... the point about flames/explosion appearing before the plane's fuel tanks impact into the side of the tower is certainly interesting. having seen countless slow-mo footage on the discovery channel/TLC of cruise missiles impacting concrete bunkers, there is a noticeable lag between impact and explosion. so the fact that there are flames, at all, before the entire plane has been engulfed into the tower's structure is unusual to say the least.

but, we all know that the bush admin.'s explaination of events on that day is "totally" trustworthy and unchallengable in every regard, now don't we. we must never ask questions. we must praise our dear leaders...

Ridiculous 11.Jul.2004 17:08

(can be anonymous or made up)

Ok, why the f*ck would anyone bother to "attach" a huge pod to outside of the airframe?
1. It changes the aerodynamics of the plane
2. Changes the center of gravity of the plane.
3. It would be far easier to load the cargo area with C4 or, better yet, SEMTEX.

Hehehe... 11.Jul.2004 19:54

Tony Blair's dog


Maybe not if you really want to make sure the plane fully enters the building and doesn't explode on the outside.

Looks like a reflection 12.Jul.2004 06:57

to me

Looks like a reflection to me...
United planes are either shiny gray or silver, as I recall, either would produce a reflection that spans the length of the fuselage, as seen above.

More Stupidity 12.Jul.2004 07:12

(can be anonymous or made up)

You actually think the aircraft would be stopped cold by the exterior of the building? Do the math.
Newton's second law force = mass x velocity
Dont forget that the energy (Force) is spread over a small area relative to the size of the building.

"More Stupidity" 12.Jul.2004 16:16

Tony Blair's dog


"You actually think the aircraft would be stopped cold by the exterior of the building?"

Nothing can't be left to chance, so giving it a little help to
make sure it happens as planned is of course something that
is plausible.

No, you need to make sure the plane really enters the building fully
and doesn't leave parts that people will find outside the building.

Which, by accident, actually happened to corner crashing jet.
Your homework this week will be to report back what
part happened to escape the building.

It's quite visible in some videos. Although a great effort
is put into making people look at "other" details
in the movie on some webpages(hint, hint).

You made me do this 14.Jul.2004 20:10

(can be anonymous or made up)

175,000 lbs x 300 mph = 52,500,000 lbs of force spread over an area of 119 sq ft, but actually smaller than that due to the taper of the fuselage, much like a bullet, tin-foil hat boy.

pod is just the oval connector between wings and fuselage 19.Aug.2004 02:01

Charles Spiesel

The "pod" is merely the oval connector between the wings and the fuselage. It is disinformation to stridently claim it is anything else.

Check out the clearest picture promoted by the "pod people" and a photo of a 767 at  http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#newproof

A similar campaign was waged to discredit the citizen investigations into the coup against President Kennedy -- people popped up claiming inside knowledge who turned out to be spreaders of disinformation. The most memorable occurrence was during Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw, a CIA agent who participated in the plot against Kennedy. This episode was nicely dramatized in Oliver Stone's film JFK. Garrison's legal team had found a witness who claimed to have participated in meetings with Shaw, Lee Harvey Oswald and others, but on the stand, the man's claims of participation were totally shredded by his claims that he had fingerprinted his daughter before and after she went to college to prove that she was the same person (and therefore, this obviously insane testimony was used to discredit the genuine evidence that Garrison had used to prosecute Shaw). Shaw was found innocent by the jury (even though subsequent research and official admissions revealed he was CIA), although that jury did admit that there had been a conspiracy to kill JFK, they merely didn't believe that Shaw was a participant.

How the Bogus Evidence tactic was used to sabotage the
only trial of a conspirator in the coup against President Kennedy

from Jim Garrison, "On the Trail of the Assassins,"(1988 original edition, reprinted by Warner Books 1991)

The bomb that shattered our case exploded quickly enough. His name was Charles Spiesel. The accountant from New York whom we had belatedly added to our witness list too the stand next. He said that on a trip to New Orleans he met David Ferrie at Lafitte's Blacksmith Shop in the French Quarter. Later they joined Clay Shaw in a building Spiesel recalled as being at "Dauphine and Espanade," which is approximately where Shaw's residence was located. After everyone relaxed and had a number of drinks, Spiesel said Ferrie and Shaw began discussing the possible assassination of John Kennedy. Although Spiesel was surprised when the subject first arose, everyone had been drinking heavily so the indiscretion of the conversation was understandable for him. He recalled the exchange of comments between Shaw and Ferrie in great detail, each explaining why Kennedy should be eliminated and how it should be done.
On cross-examination, the chief defense counsel uncannily seemed to know just what questions to ask Spiesel. First, Dymond asked if Spiesel had ever publicly complained about "hypnosis and psychological warfare" being used on him. Speisel replied that he indeed had been hypnotized in New York and New Jersey, and during several visits to New Orleans, in the period between 1948 and 1954.
Asked who hypnotized him, Spiesel said he did not always know He said he could tell that hypnosis was being tried "when someone tried to get your attention -- catch your eye. That's a clue right off."
Dymond then asked him what happened under hypnosis. Spiesel replied: "They plant certain thoughts in your mind and you are given the illusion that they are true." He added that he had become "rather an expert" at knowing when people were trying to hypnotize him.
Under further cross-examination, Dymond brought out Spiesel's belief that the New York City police had hypnotized him, tortured him mentally, and forced him to give up his practice as an accountant.
"Have you had trouble recently with a communist conspiracy," Dymond asked, "People following you, and tapping your phones?"
"Well," replied Spiesel hesitantly, "no particularly recently."
Then Dymond zeroed in for the kill. Was is not a fact, he asked, that when Spiesel's daughter left New York to go to school at Louisiana State University he customarily fingerprinted her? Spiesel replied in the affirmative.
Dymond then asked if it were not also a fact that he customarily fingerprinted his daughter again when she returned at the end of the semester. Again, the witness acknowledged that this was true.
Dymond then asked him why he fingerprinted her. Spiesel explained that he did this, in effect, to make sure the daughter who was returning from L.S.U. was the same one he had sent there.
For one very long moment, while I am sure that my face revealed no concern, I was swept by a feeling of nausea. I realized that the clandestine operation of the opposition was so cynical, so sophisticated, and, at the same time, so subtle, that destroying an old-fashioned state jury trial was very much like shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun.
Our only hope now was that our subsequent witnesses could drown out the memory of Spiesel .... (pp. 276-7)

"it was clear by now that no jury would find an eminently respectable, prominent, distinguished community leader guilty of conspiring to kill the President, especially following an unforgettable example of genuine lunatic testimony from a prosecution witness." (p. 293)