Articles by Subject

9-11 Archive 2004

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."