Video Indicates Planes Were Not Passenger Jets
October 7, 2004
Despite a media blackout by the controlled press of all information that
contradicts the official version, there is a growing number of Americans who
have come to the realization that the events of 9-11 were an "inside job."
Supported by evidence brought forth by independent researchers in the
alternative media, the public is becoming increasingly aware of the "fairy tale"
quality of the official explanation of 9-11.
"It is clear that whoever was behind the attacks had information, if not help,
from inside the government," Jim Marrs wrote in his recently published book
Inside Job. "The totality of the information available today can only lead to
two inescapable conclusions," Marrs wrote, "either the highest leadership of the
United States is composed of imbeciles and incompetent blunderers or they are
criminally negligent accessories to the crimes, if not worse."
The questions raised by the evidence bring only more questions. "The greatest of
these questions concerns what the American people intend to do about all this,"
Marrs wrote. "Will they continue to be led by corporate mass media that deceive
by omission?"
A MILITARY OPERATION
Examination of the videos of the planes striking the twin towers in slow motion
suggests that the kamikaze attacks were a military operation. Careful analysis
of the video footage indicates that the planes appear to be military aircraft
with missile pods attached to their undersides from which incendiary missiles
were fired immediately before plunging into the buildings. The video evidence
is readily available to most Americans and is found in the images broadcast by
the news networks on 9-11. Although the mainstream media has had these images
since 9-11, it has failed to discuss their significance.
The photographs from the Pentagon and the World Trade Center are analyzed in a
recently released video entitled 9-11: In Plane Site, produced by Dave vonKleist
of the radio program The Power Hour based in Versailles, Mo. While the
photographs from the Pentagon indicate something much smaller and more explosive
than a Boeing passenger jet crashed on 9-11, the public has not seen any photos
of the passenger plane that allegedly hit the building. The vonKleist video of
the Pentagon analyzes images taken shortly after the attack, before the collapse
of the upper floors. These photos reveal a 16-foot hole into which a Boeing 757,
with a 125-foot wingspan and two jet engines is said to have disappeared leaving
no visible debris.
The most compelling images from the vonKleist video are of the plane that is
said to be United Airlines (UA) Flight 175 as it crashes into the South Tower.
These photographs, taken from four different angles, suggest that the plane is
not a Boeing 767-200 but rather a longer Boeing 767-300 military tanker with a
missile pod attached to its underside between the wings. This evidence could
support the theory that UA 175 and AA 11 landed at Stewart International
Airport/Air Force Base, where they crossed as they approached New York City, and
that weaponized drones replaced them and continued their flights to the twin
towers.
As television cameras broadcast live images, millions of viewers watched the
second plane strike the South Tower at about 9:03 a.m. The second plane is said
to be UA 175, hijacked by Arab terrorists with box cutters. The video images,
however, do not support this version. As vonKleist's video makes clear, there
are a number of anomalies, which indicate that the plane that struck the South
Tower was not a passenger jet. These images can be seen on videos of the WTC
attacks, such as CNN's America Remembers. In this DVD, the crash of the first
plane is at 3' 30" and the second at 7' 35." A slow motion viewing of these
images will reveal these anomalies.
THE MISSILE POD
The first anomaly is seen as the plane banks to the left before striking the
South Tower. Mounted on the underside of the plane, between the wings, a
cylindrical object can be seen. This object, seen in at least four different
videos, is described as a missile pod. An expert examination of the video
images has concluded that the object seen on the plane's underside is a
three-dimensional object. I spoke with a former pilot with United Airlines who
has flown the Boeing 767-200, which was UA 175 on 9-11. He said the cylindrical
object is not a normal part of the aircraft. The official version, he added, is
a "fairy tale" and "pure Hollywood."
THE FLASH
Slow motion viewing reveals that immediately before plunging into the tower, the
pod on the bottom of the plane releases a white object that enters the building
with a white flash immediately before the nose of the plane pierces the facade.
The flash is reflected on the plane's fuselage indicating it is a separate
event. A similar flash is seen in the video of the plane striking the North
Tower. In this case the flash occurs before the plane meets its own shadow
indicating the flash occurred before the plane hit.
The flashes are thought to be evidence that the planes were military drones that
carried incendiary high-explosive missiles to cause the huge explosions. The
massive explosions were intended to destroy evidence of the planes and create
the spectacle and logical pretext for the demolition of the towers that
followed.
BOOM PORT?
There are other indications that the plane was not UA 175. A hole is seen on the
underside of the plane near the tail. As vonKleist says, this appears to be the
boom port for the refueling line of a Boeing 767 military tanker. VonKleist said
that two independent sources had identified one of the pieces of debris from the
plane that hit the South Tower (clearly seen in the video) as a "static line
roller," a piece of a tension roller that would be found on a tanker but not on
a passenger jet.
Eyewitnesses, including a reporter from Fox News, who saw the planes, reported
having seen a windowless plane that did not look like a commercial jet. The FOX
reporter said the plane had a round blue logo painted near the front. I asked
both United and American Airlines and the U.S. Air Force about the images.
Jeffrey Green, a spokesman for United, refused to view the images and said that
any suggestion that UA 175 did not hit the South Tower was "offensive."
"Neither I, nor any of my colleagues or UAL executives wishes to see the video,"
Green wrote. "I think you and I have discussed the events of 9-11 enough," Green
added. "Please do not contact United Airlines again in the future." American
Airlines had not yet received the video.
I asked the office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. James Roche, about the
video's allegations that military tankers were involved in the attack. Capt.
Kristen Lesperance at the Secretary's office told me that any questions about
the aircraft seen in the videos are "outside the Air Force's purview."
Lesperance told me to contact the Dept. of Homeland Security. Darrin Kayser at
Homeland Security said the department is focused on the future and questions
about the attacks should be directed to the 9-11 Commission.
Earlier the commission's Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said: "The focus of the
commission will be on the future. We're not interested in trying to assess
blame; we do not consider that part of the commission's responsibility."