9/11 Ripple Effect & Ultimate Con

cybe · Post by **cybe** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:48 am

Two new, in my opinion pretty good documentaries are out now:

911 Ripple Effect:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0717077488

The Ultimate Con:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1535560228

mason-free party · Post by **mason-free party** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:19 pm

isn't it a rehash of the old pod theory rubbish though...i thought von kliest would have seen through that fakery by now

cybe · Post by **cybe** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:41 am

There are many other parts of the movie too, not just about the pod. But how was the pod thing "debunked" please?

egw · Post by **egw** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:36 am

cybe wrote: But how was the pod thing "debunked" please?

Well quite a few people never saw anything in it to begin with, so it's a bit hard to debunk nothing, if you know what I mean.

The planes come with a bulge right where the pod theorists say that there was a pod, so I for one was never very fussed with the idea. And if there were really something there, then what of it? It's a funny looking shadow on a video. Who you gonna drag to court over that? "Yes your honour, that's is indeed a real funny looking bulge, not a fake one..."

I'm sure it would be much more productive to concentrate on the CD aspect - at least experts willing to claim that the WTC buildings were demolished wouldn't be certain to look like idiots for doing so.

Zabooka · Post by **Zabooka** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:45 am

I recall VonKleist retracting the Pod Theory. So... what reasons did he have to do that?

ian neal · Post by **ian neal** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:38 am

mason-free party wrote:isn't it a rehash of the old pod theory rubbish though...i thought von kliest would have seen through that fakery by now

MFP how many times does it need to be pointed out that the original source for the pod theory was not DvK (as you regularly claim) but a spanish university study? There may well be an innocent explanation for what appears to be a 'pod' and IMO that is the case but there was no fakery involved in the original source of the theory.

No one has shown any evidence (that I'm aware of) for the photo-shopping that Mark Robinowitz claimed DvK had conducted in the original In plane site DVD at the time

mason-free party · Post by **mason-free party** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:08 pm

Ian..i believe Phil Jayhan first started the rumour...this spanish university study is news to me...post the link if you can please

Zabooka · Post by **Zabooka** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:41 pm

I have not completely watched the entire documentary in full as of yet. However, it seems the POD theory is discussed and laid open to discussion for the viewer.

There is lots of things in this that is nice and pretty new-ish, well atleast in its representation. I would advise people to actually watch the whole thing before passing judgement, otherwise its just blatant voiced prejudice.

mason-free party · Post by **mason-free party** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:32 pm

Zabooka wrote:I have not completely watched the entire documentary in full as of yet. However, it seems the POD theory is discussed and laid open to discussion for the viewer.

There is lots of things in this that is nice and pretty new-ish, well atleast in its representation. I would advise people to actually watch the whole thing before passing judgement, otherwise its just blatant voiced prejudice.

trouble is its blatant disinfo...the reason we had the pod theory was to negate/dilute the truth of the likely missile attack on the twin towers.There is strong video evidence of fragments of a missile emerging from one of the buildings so up they come with the plane, pod and missile bull-sh-it to cover their tracks

ian neal · Post by **ian neal** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:57 am

mason-free party wrote:Ian..i believe Phil Jayhan first started the rumour...this spanish university study is news to me...post the link if you can please

Here you are

http://www.amics21.com/911/mysterious.html

I met the Spanish campaigners who translated this article.

egw · Post by **egw** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:07 am

Zabooka wrote: I would advise people to actually watch the whole thing before passing judgement, otherwise its just blatant voiced prejudice.

In the old days, if people had new evidence or new views to contribute to a debate, they didn't have to go out and make a 90 minute documentary in order to express themselves. Call me old fashioned, but I figure if these particular geezers have anything new to contribute, I won't have to watch their documentaries - I'll soon enough hear about it via other means.

As it happens, I couldn't watch past the first 30 seconds of either doco, due solely to the woo woo music being played in the intros. If I want woo woo music, I'll go and see a horror movie. If reality is taking on the proportions of a horror movie, I don't want an accomplished multimedia production with woo woo music - I want facts, and only facts.

I'm sure I'll find out soon enough if these particular docos are anything more than realitytainment.

karlos · Post by **karlos** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:31 am

But hold on a minute. We have all seen the news reels. There does appear to be something under the plane and the plane does look more like a military transport plane than a passenger plane.
These are legitamate points to raise. He is not saying there was no planes.

Most people accept that no plane hit the Pentagon. And most people accept that planes did hit the towers. But passenger planes is another story. No wreckage such as seating, suitcases, etc was found. There are things in a plane that are designed to withstand an impact. A steel attache case for example. So it is very possible military transport planes or cargo planes were used devoid of passengers.

Photos of the same planes built to military spec have dark pods underneath. I dont think pod theory is anything to be scared of. Missiles fired from the planes is however a bonkers theory and should be quoshed.

The reason incendaries were detonated was to open a hole for the plane to enter. In reality a plane that hit the steel and concrete building would have smashed and bits of it scattered all over the floor. But by making a hole the plane enterest the building and then debris does not fall down and give the game away. Explosions appear on all the news reel footage.

egw · Post by **egw** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:27 am

I've heard it argued that the pod may be a mid-air refuelling jigger. Maybe. Maybe they weren't passenger jets. I don't think it matters much. But maybe it's just a shadow from the very real bulge that actually really is there on a normal boeing of that type. It's kind of funny that the hypothesised "pod" happens to be right in the spot that an actual bulge is at the base of the wing. And I find it strange how scarcely pod theorists make mention of this bulge that really is there at the base of the wing of a boeing of this type. If they know better than everyone else, then they should at least mention the bulge occasionally.

My take on all these claims about plane/no-planes/pods/missiles-from-planes and explosives blowing a hole for the plane to enter is that they attract our attention away from issues which really are a threat to the peoples who pulled of 911. (I think the planes were plenty strong enough to penetrate the walls of the towers like they did).

On the Spanish paper: I find it a little bit suspicious that an analysis by a formal body which has the effect of throwing the whole official 911 scenario into doubt like that would be ever be released for public consumption. More likely that it's disinformation.