Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

version · Feb 7, 2004, 10:58 AM

This is just coming to light now, seems like the flights weren't simple planes.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/020404my...flections.html

http://www.rense.com/general41/fus.htm

dillerX · Feb 7, 2004, 11:06 AM

The door is over there --------->

version · Feb 7, 2004, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by dillerX:
The door is over there --------->

yeah, i forgot i was in the lounge, but cheers, glad someone is awake today

d4nth3m4n · Feb 7, 2004, 11:10 AM

what the crap are you posting here man?

Zimphire · Feb 7, 2004, 11:14 AM

adamk · Feb 7, 2004, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by version:
This is just coming to light now, seems like the flights weren't simple planes.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/020404my...flections.html

http://www.rense.com/general41/fus.htm

no, this is not just coming to light. this theory was claimed mere months after 9/11. nonetheless, i still fail to see how the presence of a some sort of external bulge (as the theory goes) or shadows (which i believe they are) makes this a remotely controlled plane. i see strange shadows all the time... hopefully these guys got stronger lines of reasoning?

on the prison planet site, the two shapes described appear to be a break in color produced by the engine nacelle, with the shadow described as the third object. the other site appears to be the same though the pictures are too damn lo-res to say anything concrete about them.

also, if i remember correctly, there are normally slight bulges underneath the wings of commercial aircraft to accomodate the bulky landing gear? so this may not be unusual at all.

yeah, it's a theory but a pretty poor one at that.

philzilla · Feb 7, 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by version:
glad someone is awake today

fire ThinkInsane... vote dillerX for mod!

chabig · Feb 7, 2004, 12:05 PM

Hey, I fly these things for a living--at United Airlines even! In the first picture, the long things on the bottom of the fuselage are unpainted areas of the airplane that just happen to stand out against the dark blue bottom of the jet. In the second picture, that's just the shape of the airplane in the area where the main landing are stored, as adamk said.

Anyone who suggests that something is amiss is clearly being misled.

Chris

macvillage.net · Feb 7, 2004, 12:05 PM

The bulge pointed out is a shaddow of the right engine being projected at the lower fusalage right by the landing gear.

There's no question about it. Look at where the light source is coming from (if you know the city, you know where it's coming from), and it's very obvious.

Yet another stupid hoax.

Millennium · Feb 7, 2004, 12:08 PM

The image on the prisonplanet site appears to be nothing more than a trick of the light; no reason whatsoever to believe that there was anything unusual.

The rense picture is more intriguing; at the very least, there is a semi-plausible hint of some sort of bulge. However, this too may be nothing but a shadow.

Either way, it seems very doubtful that we're actually looking at a control device, for one simple reason: they're too large. Scale it properly, and it would be almost as large as a full-grown person. There is no reason that a control device would need to be as big as these photos would suggest, and plenty of reasons to make it smaller:

Portability. A human-sized contraption like that would be extremely heavy. Attaching it to the plane in any reasonable amount of time wouldn't be possible.
Concealability. You're telling me that no one would have noticed a bulge that large on the plane, decided something was wrong, and grounded the flight? While most people don't know the technical specifications of these planes very well, they know enough to know that a human-sized bulge in the fuselage is not normal. Also, it would be impossible to attach it surreptitiously to the plane in the first place.
Aerodynamics. Something that big, even with the best design team in the world working on it, would create considerable drag. This wouldn't be so bad, except that these theories note one or three devices: the plane would be lopsided. This would make it nearly impossible to fly with the amount of precision needed to actually hit the buildings. Don't laugh; the buildings were large, but the plane was moving very fast; it would be harder to hit than you might think. Unless the plane were extremely well-balanced -which most planes are, but a large control device would throw that off- being assured of hitting the WTC would have been nearly impossible.

In other words, I think we're dealing with a conspiracy nut, nothing more. Although a control device could have been theoretically attached to the planes, it couldn't have been done in the way these people suggest.

Zimphire · Feb 7, 2004, 12:11 PM

And this goes to show version will believe anything that is anti-Bush.

chabig · Feb 7, 2004, 12:11 PM

there is a semi-plausible hint of some sort of bulge

Of course it's a bulge! The landing gear has to go somewhere. Repeat after me...

The landing gear is stored in a bulge in the fuselage.
The landing gear is stored in a bulge in the fuselage.
The landing gear is stored in a bulge in the fuselage.

Don't even try to make sane arguments against an insane proposition.

Chris

Face Ache · Feb 7, 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by version:
This is just coming to light now, seems like the flights weren't simple planes.

I think aliens are controlling your brain dude.

chabig · Feb 7, 2004, 12:16 PM

Here's a pretty good picture showing all three bulges--one round bulge under each wing, and a bulge in the center of the fuselage.

http://www.lenta.ru:8000/world/2003/...ng/picture.jpg

Chris

gadster · Feb 7, 2004, 01:08 PM

Planes with - wait for it - BULGES! C'est n'est possible �a! That right there is some freaky stuff. I'll be checking my car for bulges now. Bah!

Donuts, I'm checkin' donuts too, now. You just never know when a bulge is going to bugger up yer day.

And you can never be too careful with a 'bulge'.

'Bulges'? No sir, I don't like 'em.

They are unseemly.

ghost_flash · Feb 7, 2004, 01:12 PM

I'm sueing because that bulge was indecent and I am offended.
Oh, wrong thread.

What are you smoking man? Pass it around you selfish B(i)tch.

version · Feb 7, 2004, 01:27 PM

ytoo many posts thinking I'm smoking something, but none really loking at the evidence. It is not shadows, they have been dismissed, by Boeng themselves. So we'll just let them reveal to us in time what it was.

It's funny how people love to cling onto the official story, and yet it's been torn apart in every way. True, just because trhe official one has absolutely no merit, it doesn't instantly make all the conspiracy theories right, but it certainly begs the question of what happened.

macvillage.net · Feb 7, 2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I'm sueing because that bulge was indecent and I am offended.
Oh, wrong thread.

What are you smoking man? Pass it around you selfish B(i)tch.

Yes, there are 13 year olds on this forum.

Mods, please sensor the links to these inappropriate images.

Saddam H. · Feb 7, 2004, 01:44 PM

Someone move this to my polwar lounge. We know how to treat version over there. Don't let him pollute the regular Lounge with his pathetic conspiracy theories.

adamk · Feb 7, 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by version:
ytoo many posts thinking I'm smoking something, but none really loking at the evidence. It is not shadows, they have been dismissed, by Boeng themselves. So we'll just let them reveal to us in time what it was.

and i quote

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.

unless you are reading something that is not posted in your post, it says nothing about anything being dismissed. "no comment" simply means that. is there a compelling reason that you think those bulges could not cause a trick of light? there is a gov't investigation(s) going on and boeing is not going to respond to any average guy off the street.

Originally posted by version:
It's funny how people love to cling onto the official story, and yet it's been torn apart in every way. True, just because trhe official one has absolutely no merit, it doesn't instantly make all the conspiracy theories right, but it certainly begs the question of what happened.

i believe that there were many, gross mistakes committed on 9/11, specifically with the apparent ineptitude of not launching USAF interceptors, and even after being launched, they flew only barely faster than the aircraft they were sent to intercept (and this after they knew multiple planes were hijacked). however, taking one photo and making a large, convoluted conspiracy theory out of it, when simpler explanations are made, ie sunlight, does not a good conspiracy theory make.

also, in your opinion, what does it matter if the planes were remotely controlled or guided by humans? does this prove government involvement and the other scenario doesn't? and why does it require remote-control when a human can more easily carry out the same mission?

Steb Mad · Feb 7, 2004, 02:01 PM

There was some interesting conspiracy theories about 9/11 but this one is easily the worst.

Eriamjh · Feb 7, 2004, 02:17 PM

It's obvious.

UFOs were guiding the planes.

ghost_flash · Feb 7, 2004, 03:17 PM

Dude, where's my ... keyboard.

gadster · Feb 7, 2004, 03:35 PM

Then again, I'd be surprised if al Qaeda could organise a bloody chook raffle.

To be honest, at the time, I thought it may have been the Serbs, what with Milosevic in the dock, and all.

chabig · Feb 7, 2004, 03:39 PM

UFOs were guiding the planes.

Yes. With tractor beams, no doubt.

TheMosco · Feb 7, 2004, 03:50 PM

version, who old are you? just wondering...

FeLiZeCaT · Feb 7, 2004, 03:57 PM

Everytime I look at myself in the mirror I see a bulge over my shoulders...

I wish I knew what that is...

Please someone tell me before I lose it!

gadster · Feb 7, 2004, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by FeLiZeCaT:
Everytime I look at myself in the mirror I see a bulge over my shoulders...

I wish I knew what that is...

Please someone tell me before I lose it!

I've seen this kind of thing before . . .

Firstly, check that you have removed your back-pack.

If not, get thee hence to a doctor smartly. Hang the expense. It could be a Muslim BOMB!

MacGorilla · Feb 7, 2004, 07:49 PM

Glory, glory, glory para-noi-ya!

wataru · Feb 7, 2004, 08:11 PM

I've got a bulge. Does that mean I'm controlled by terrorists?

Face Ache · Feb 7, 2004, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by FeLiZeCaT:
Everytime I look at myself in the mirror I see a bulge over my shoulders...

I wish I knew what that is...

Please someone tell me before I lose it!

The bells! The bells!

MacGorilla · Feb 7, 2004, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by wataru:
I've got a bulge. Does that mean I'm controlled by terrorists?

Yes

Too Artificial · Feb 7, 2004, 11:55 PM

The plane that hit the Pentagon was tracked and it was decided NOT to shoot that plane down. The plane over PA WAS shot down. Belee' dat.

Spheric Harlot · Feb 7, 2004, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Saddam H.:
Someone move this to my polwar lounge. We know how to treat version over there. Don't let him pollute the regular Lounge with his pathetic conspiracy theories.

Yep.

Somebody brings the Pringles, somebody the Mecca, Coca, and of course iCola, and we play air hockey until normality is re-attained.

At some point theo and the kitten start emptying drinks on to one another.

-s*

mitchell_pgh · Feb 8, 2004, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by Too Artificial:
The plane that hit the Pentagon was tracked and it was decided NOT to shoot that plane down. The plane over PA WAS shot down. Belee' dat.

Ugh, you people... I'm from PA, and I've heard the stories... and consider the PA plain as "potentially" shot down... but the Pentagon one you must be joking... They would have made that airplane a flying firecracker if they would have had the chance. 4 minutes earlier, and they would have been flying over FARMLAND!!!

P.S. Having grown up in PA, if you ask enough people, you will get whatever answer you are looking for...

rjenkinson · Feb 8, 2004, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by wataru:
I've got a bulge. Does that mean I'm controlled by terrorists?

if the terrorists are in your pants, yes.

-r.

Saddam H. · Feb 8, 2004, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by rjenkinson:
if the terrorists are in your pants, yes.

-r.

Is that an Osama bin Stiffy in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?

Cadaver · Feb 8, 2004, 03:10 AM

Big tin-foil hat time...!

gadster · Feb 8, 2004, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by Cadaver:
Big tin-foil hat time...!

Cadaver. Ooh Ha Ha!

Too Artificial · Feb 9, 2004, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Ugh, you people... I'm from PA, and I've heard the stories... and consider the PA plain as "potentially" shot down... but the Pentagon one you must be joking... They would have made that airplane a flying firecracker if they would have had the chance. 4 minutes earlier, and they would have been flying over FARMLAND!!!

P.S. Having grown up in PA, if you ask enough people, you will get whatever answer you are looking for...

You're partially right about the farmland. The plane headed to North Carolina and circled back. By the time it was intercepted it was over heavily populated areas, from what I've been told.

Oh, the red "Too" in your reply was good, made me chuckle. Anyway, just adding what I've heard (can't say from where) to what was already a not so serious thread.

John C. Smith · Feb 9, 2004, 10:08 PM

this holds about as much water as that ridiculous moon conspiracy theory

chabig · Feb 9, 2004, 10:46 PM

I don't believe in elevators. I think that when the doors close, people rearrange the furniture to make it look like you're getting out on a different floor.