9/11 aircraft - armed with exposives?

 
Video of 9/11 airliner hitting the WTC, showing what appears to be a missile, fired from a "pod" underneath the aircraft, before hitting the tower.


Video of 9/11 airliner hitting the WTC, it fired a missile before hitting the tower.
 http://www.letsroll911.org/


After reviewing the video from www.letsroll911.org , JackBlood.com has analyzed the flash emitted by the tip of the ‘pod’ located below the airliner. Webmaster Mario Andrade, a Gulf War veteran an explosive ordinance specialist, has noticed remarkable similarities between the ‘pod’ and a military-type general purpose (GP) bomb, such as the commonly used Mark 84 (MK-84).

A delayed fuzing system allows a GP Bomb, such as a MK-84, to penetrate a building before the actual explosion occurs, causing greater damage than if it would explode outside. This method is used by the military when bombing high profile targets, such as multiple-storied buildings. Rather than exploding instantaneously, a bomb with a delayed fuzing system is allowed to penetrate the target, in this case the WTC towers, taking advantage of the building’s confinement inside its walls and floors in order to increase its destructive effect. The inside of the building adds pressure to the explosion. - entire article -  http://www.jackblood.com/index/id31.html


Here's a 2003 article from La Vanguaria, Spain:

The Plane that Crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center
Shows Forms of an Unknown Origin

The mysterious reflections of 9/11

by Eduardo Martín de Pozuelo
La Vanguardia
June 22, 2003



Barcelona - Two and a half years after 9/11 many questions remain as
to the circumstances surrounding the attacks on the Twin Towers. One
of these unknowns is the nature of certain forms or marks which can be
seen on the fuselage of the plane which crashed into the south tower
of the World Trade Center. "La Vanguardia" asked Boeing about these
marks, who claimed they were unable to respond for reasons of national
security and referred it to the independent commission which has been
conducting an inquiry since 31 March into what happened.

In the frozen images of various film shots of the final run of United
Airlines flight 175, there are three strange shapes discernible, which
the aeronautical experts consulted find difficult to explain. They
consist of two long shapes located underneath the fuselage, one
towards the bow and the other towards the stern of the plane. There is
a third, seemingly pyramidal in shape, on the underbelly, almost in
the center of the plane. Boeing's department of commercial aviation,
with headquarters in Seattle, examined the photographs for ten days
and, having announced an explanation for the phenomenon, declined to
make a statement on what it saw. Finally a spokesman stated that
Boeing was unable to offer an opinion "for security reasons" and
because it had not officially participated in the investigation of the
attacks.

Various aeronautical engineers at official Spanish centers have found
no clear explanation for the reflections or shapes which can be
observed on the hijacked plane. However, a contour-detection digital
analysis of the stills, carried out at the Escola Universitària
Politècnica de Mataró, concludes that the "objects discerned cannot be
due to shadows caused by the angle of incidence of the sun upon the
plane as they always appear as the same shape and size, although their
luminosity varies." This result was reached having subjected the
photographs to a digital image process "which would respond to changes
in luminance" which can be seen with the naked eye and which, in
principle, would make no sense, given that the fuselage of commercial
airplanes is cylindrical and flat, according to the cited technical
report.

The author, who has had extensive professional experience in digital
image processing, artificial neuronal networks and biometry, says in
the report that "the same treatment" was applied to each of the
photographs "using three standard digital image processing
algorithms", the technical data of which are detailed at length in the
dossier. Having clarified that "the images studied are taken from
different angles of observation", it establishes that the "objects
detected present distinct luminosity as they are in relief" and adds
that "this is the only possible explanation", finally pointing out
that "the objects detected can be clearly distinguished from the
landing gear."

 http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2003/lavanguardia062203.html



 http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=692

I work as a F.A.A. licensed airframe & powerplant mechanic for a major U.S. commercial air carrier.

The photos/film footage you see on this website of that Boeing 767 deliberately being plunged into one of the Twin Towers of the WTC in New York City on September 11, 2001 reveal a distinct 'Pod' on the bottom of that Boeing 767's fuselage.

The location of that 'Pod' corresponds with the bottom fuselage panel covering 'Zone 194RL' (to use Boeing's own designation terminology). It is within the space covered by zone 194RL's panel that the aircraft right Environmental Control System (ECS) bay is located. Any other A&P mechanic(s) working for US commercial air carriers using Boeing 767 equipment can verify what I've shared with you. One quick reference from the Boeing Maintenance Manual series would be Boeing's "Fault Isolation/Maintenance Manual", ATA (Airline Transport Association) Chapter 21-51-00, page 104, figure 102.

By removing the AIRCONDITIONING PACK from within the ECS bay covered by zone 194RL's panel, sealing any open air ducts with blanking plates & clamps, and by manufacturing a replacement zone 194RL panel with the necessary aerodynamic bulge, one could easily install a missile launching pylon and missile within the confines of this ECS bay.

Selection of a missile launcher might be of this type:
"...a missile launcher that could demonstrate the launch of an AMRAAM missile from the internal bay of the 'YF-22' prototype...et al" - quoting:
 http://www.edocorp.com/marine/missile.html

Selection of a missile might be of this type:
"...the low smoke, high impulse rocket motor reduces the chances of an enemy sighting either the launch or the oncoming missile...et al" quoting:
 http://www.raytheon.com/products/amraam/

Then there is the Boeing 767's "Satellite Communications (SATCOM) System whereby a ground controller in possession of the proper aircraft id 'password' can lock out the human pilot/co-pilot's yoke/rudder/throttle inputs from their cockpit and take over the flight controls of the 767 in question via satellite link up.

The SATCOM system, and its 'command/control' over a wide range of the Boeing's 767 on-board computers can be found in the Boeing 767 Aircraft Maintenance Manual series - ATA chapters 23-25-00 for "Satellite Communications (SATCOM) - Description and Operation", ATA chapter 34-61-00 for "Flight Management Computer System - Description and Operation", ATA chapter 22-00-00 for "Autoflight - General - Description and Operation", ATA chapter 22-11-00 for "Autopilot/Flight Director Power - Description and Operation", ATA chapter 22-15-00 for "Autopilot/Flight Director Interchannel Data - Description and Operation".

There is very little likelihood that the Boeing 767 you see in the video sequence had any Flight Crew or Passangers on it. The "Pod" would have have been noticed by the Airliner's Station Line A&P mechanic entrusted to do the previous night's "Remain Over Night (RON)" servicing and inspection. No A&P mechanic would have signed that particular aircraft's log book off as being "Airworthy" after having viewed such a strange configuration on the bottom of the fuselage.

If by some chance the A&P mechanic did "pencil whip" his or her RON check (not very likely, however), just prior to departure of that Boeing 767 from it's gate at its originating airport, the Flight Crew (either Pilot or Co-Pilot) would have performed their mandatory "Pre-Flight Walk Around Inspection". No Pilot or Co-Pilot certified of fly a Boeing 767 would have missed seeing such a strange 'pod' configuration underneath the Boeing 767 that they would be flying for that day. Rest assured, there would have been plenty of yelling/screaming, phone calls to the Maintenance Control folk at that Airliner's HQ, calls to the Chief Pilot of the Airline, phonecalls to the Director of Maintenace - and very likely, phone calls to the CEO of the Airline itself as well as to the local F.A.A. field office as well as to the F.A.A. HQ offices! You can "Bank" on what I've just shared with you!

The Boeing 767 featured in LetsRoll911.org's video footage clip must have surely been a 'duplicate' - with the appropriate paint job and markings. It was probably flown from 'Airport/Base X' using the SATCOM system (much like you would fly a hobby sized radio controlled airplane) to its 'Target Zero' which was one of two Twin Towers in NYC on 9/11/2001.

[article.email.prefix]: johnnyasia@mybizz.net [article.homepage.prefix]: http://www.angelfire.com/co/COMMONSENSE/wakeup.html

add a comment on this article