9/11 Review
9/11 review banner september 11 Cia Visa application springman 9-11 hijacker


 

Web Site:
 Home Page
 Search
 Donations
 About
 911Review.Com

Top Topics:

 Front Page
           Conspiracy Of Silence
            Political Art
       Anthrax Attacks
            Inside Job
          Leahy Vs Ashcroft 2004/06
           McMedia
            Patriot Act
      Building 7 Collapse
           Guardian
           Muslims Suspend Physics
      Latest Headlines
       Ongoing Coverup
           AirForce Standdown
            Coverup By White House
            Flight 77 Black Boxes
           Flights
            InHis Own Words
           Insider Trading
            Open And Fair Trials
        Pentagon Attack Cctv Video
            Prior Knowledge
      Osama Bin Asset
            Bin Laden
           Bin Laden Confession
            Cia Visas For Patsies
           Experienced Skeptics
           Hijackers Alive And Well
            Hijackers Patsies
      Pentagon Attack
           Flight 77
            Flight77Sites
           Pentagon Attack Damage
           Pentagon Attack Debris
            Pentagon Attack Fire
           Pentagon Attack Legend
           Pentagon Mascal
           Pentagon Plane Rotor
      PentagonStrike
            Flight77Patsies
           Flight 77 Witnesses
           Killtown
            Pentagon Attack Hole
            Pentagon Attack Videos
            Pentagon Attack WitnessesBlast
      Sept 11 WebSites
            Grable,Rosalee
      Trusted News Sites
      Twin Towers
      Whats Next

 More topics...

News:
 9/11 Ommission TortureAct


Canadas Patriot Act3 September 11 fbi investigation Coverup 9-11

Chemtrails Over Ottawa September 11 fbi Agent Warned U.S. of Impending al-Qaida Attack 9-11

 Trusted News Sites

Essays:
 Bogus War On Terrorism


 Fema The Secret Government


 Truth Lies Legend of 9/11


 DU TrojanHorse

Viewpoints:
 Conspiracy Of Silence

 Fraudulent Legislation canada Agent Warned U.S. of Impending al-Qaida Attack

 WhatsNext

Stanley Hilton Lawsuit

Mirrors:
 geocities.com/killtown
 elitewatch.netfirms.com
 lightscion.com
 baltech.org/lederman
 angieon911.com


dec dollar poster September 11 fbi Agent Warned U.S. of Impending al-Qaida Attack 9-11

contribute September 11 fbi Omar Saeed Sheikh Zacarias Moussaoui Paymaster 9/11 ISI

 

 

WTC 2 Plane POD - Flight 175


september 11 plane pod flight 175 object image analysis 9/11 plane pod image analysis 9/11


In reviewing the tens of thousands images taken on 9/11 and available across the Internet, it is clear that the flight that struck the second of the Twin Towers 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.

What is so important about this evidence is that it clearly shows that 9/11 was an Inside Job: Ali Bin Laden and his 20 hijackers can't arrange for United Airlines planes to be swapped or outfitted with pods. It cannot be explained by the "They Let It Happen On Purpose" fall-back disinformation put out by the shills - see Fahrenheit 9/11 Disinfo.

In a landmark paper in October 2002, Leonard Spencer wrote of [WWW]The Incredible 9-11 Evidence We've All been Overlooking. He wrote:

For it is rather plain to see that the aircraft is carrying an anomalous device underneath its right wing, very close to the fuselage. It almost looks like a third engine and is connected by tubing to the tail section. It also has a nozzle sticking out at the front.

He concluded:

Not only is the anomalous device on the plane's underside clearly visible, it is clear too that, just as the plane's nose strikes the building, the nozzle of this device fires a jet of flame.

Eduardo Martin de Pozuelo and Xavier Mas de Xax�s reported these results in a series of articles entitled starting on June 22 2003 with "Los misteriosos reflejos del 11-S", in Barcelona's largest daily newspaper, the well-respected La Vanguardia in Spain:

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.

An English translation of the newspaper article subsequently appeared on september 11 plane 175 www.rense.com on September 14, 2003.

Before publishing, the newspaper commissioned a contour-detection digital september 11 plane pod flight 175 object image analysisanalysis of the stills by theEscola Universit�ria Polit�cnica de Matar�, which concluded 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."

La Vanguardia asked Boeing about these features, who claimed they were unable to respond for reasons of national security!

Since the early 9/11 research work, and the La Vanguardia article, a number of other sites have prominently featured this evidence:

[WWW]http://www.amics21.com/911/

Working with the researchers and journalists who did the La Vanguardia article in Spain, Luis and Sally highlight this evidence on one of the web's few bilingual (English/Spanish) Sept 11 WebSites. 1 For an overview of a slide presentation of the evidence, see ../Topics/TwinTowers/Wtc2Plane

Grable, Rosalee

Rosalee Grable, one of the best researchers on the Sept 11 Videos has done a number of september 11 plane pod flight 175 object image analysisframe-by-frame analyses of the WTC2 plane footage, with video image enhancement to highlight the details. Look for september 11 plane pod flight 175 object image analysisghostplane2.wmv and september 11 plane 911http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/ghostplane2

september 11 plane 9/11http://www.letsroll911.org

Phil Jayhan prominently features this evidence his website, and it has generated a huge amount of interest, often from within the government according to his site's logs. Phil did a lot of cold-calling to offices of congresscritters and senators to publicize these results, and was often met with honest surprise and interest by the staffers.

We note that the assumption on Phil's site and Rosalee's work is that the opening of the pod and subsequent emission of a flash is a missile launch:

#########


We are a little more cautious; there are other things besides a missile lauch that the flash could be from, as Leonard Spencer pointed out.

Questionsquestions.net tries to rebut the evidence in a long september 11 plane 9/11article where they write:

A newspaper in Spain published a article that concluded that there were cylindrical objects on the underside of the fuselage, in addition to the pod. It referenced an image analysis done at a Spanish university. Although the analysis uses a lot of fancy terms, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. They identified images in which "cylindrical objects" are visible on the plane and applied filtering:

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

Leaving aside the errors of fact namely that it was a series of articles, and of omission in that the newspaper was Barcelona's largest daily, and as such, was the biggest mainstream coverage in the world to date on any real 9/11 physical evidence, we note the general anti-intellectual line of reasoning that Americans seem to love. It was the same approach the George W. Bush used in the debates of the 2000 election - everything of a factual nature was "fuzzy arithmetic" - which almost got him elected. 2

The "fancy terms" the Salters so derisively refer to are the tried and tested techniques of image analysis in Computer Science. First and second derivative edge/contour detection are the standard algorithms commonly used in digital image processing because of their rigourous and fundamental mathematical basis. Anyone who has worked at a professional level in image analysis, as we have, knows that if the outline shows up using three of the most commonly used techniques like Sobel, it can be said to be confirmed as being there.

Instead of arguing why this university's research - no double quotes necessary - was flawed, the Salters simply opine

This "university study" does not rise to the level of university research.

which is an outright lie; if they wanted to argue against the conclusions of the technical report, they would have had to propose other edge detection techniques accepted in Computer Science, and do the hard work of the actual image analysis on the same images to show the absence of what they want to avoid.

Instead, they adopt the CIA/CNN approach of the American McMedia whereby whoever does the most name-calling long enough carries the day:

The supposed cylinders on the fuselage of the plane are so obviously specular highlights that I'm inclined to think that this is either a practical joke or disinformation aimed at those who are not technically or visually astute.

We are not only technically and visually astute, but we have worked doing university research in image analysis - including contour/edge detection - and find september 11 plane 9/11no flaw of substance in the university's research or report.

Because of the importance of this evidence in destroying the current The Saudis Did It disinformation campaigns, there has been strenuous attacks on http://www.letsroll911.org/ in Internet forums, and a set of Misinfo Sites - some well funded - have sprung up to attack these results.


recomended:
9/11 photo flight 175
Flight 175 Photo, just before impact with the WTC. This is perhaps the best photo of any of the 9/11 planes.  Is it a fake? or is it evidence of remote control ?

The Flying Elephant: Evidence for Involvement of a Third Jet in the WTC Attacks

Flight 175 - 9-11 Review

September 11 Videos FAKE ?

Planes comparisons flight 175 WTC 911 video

POD analysis (one of the first done, i performed this in 2003))

Media:

Links:


Related...
Ghost Gun UA175 Were some of the photos and videos from 911 fake ?
This is a very well done presentation, and well worth the reading.
It makes one wonder who and why someone would go through the trouble
 of faking media surrounding September 11th ?


This site goes into detail showing the difference in the paint job, which should have shown a bright white stripe down the middle of the bottom of this plane (for a standard 767UA plane). all of the pics that day seem to show something different.
http://www.cloakanddagger.ca/media/Grossmann/081%209-11%20Tests.htm



other links
http://www.911closeup.com/
http://www.gallerize.com/

 


Your Ad Here