http://911oddities.blogspot.com/


By Glen Stanish, Co-Founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth

My name is Glen Stanish. I am a Pilot and Co-Founder of this Pilots For Truth Forum, and Co-Founded this website along with Johndoex. I received my commercial in 87. I am rated on the B-737, DO-328, Ba3100, and qualified on the MD-80. I have been been flying for about 25 years, for the airlines since 91.

I was checking out some of the new areas of the forums and found a thread which was kind of upsetting to me. It is the one titled "BYE, BYE UAL175 "POD" THEORY!, Proof POD doesn't exist!!!" It wasn't the photos which disturbed me the most. It was how quickly so many people dismissed not just the pod, but all the issues dealing with Flight 175.

And the logic of it all is what I am seeking. I thought I might be missing something, so I tried to get aboard the logic train of those who responded in the thread, and it got me thinking. I am fairly certain everyone here agrees that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition, or bombs if you prefer that term. Which brings me to my first stop on the logic train and a few questions as well. If they brought down the World Trade Center with bombs which had to have been pre-planted, then why the planes?

Why even use planes? And for the life of me I cannot get into the minds of those replying in this thread, so I was forced to ask myself some more questions. Do these people think that that plane was Flight 175? And if so, do they believe that Hijackers were at the controls? You see this doesn't make sense to me at all. Do they believe the people were gassed and the planes taken over by remote control and flown into the WTC? Or do they perhaps believe there were "no planes" on 911? A carefully crafted media hoax?

I know better than to believe you guys here buy into the "no planes" routine. So I scratched that off my list. Which left more questions. Do they believe that this was Flight 175? Or perhaps a Military Drone? I guess it could be either, as the only thing I was able to perceive is a disdain for the 'pod.' So I followed a train of logic. I know they brought down the buildings by explosives, and it is apparent they did it from the Top down. And not coincidently, right about the area where the planes struck, is where the WTC started to crumble first. On each tower.

Which brings us back to the first question. Why did they use the planes? I am confident most people here already assume that the planes had nothing to do with the demise of the World Trade Center. But I could be wrong on this. Maybe some here believe that the jet fuel fires created by the planes actually had something to do with the towers demise. But I doubt this as well.

Now after reading many posts here I can see most people do not believe that Hijackers hijacked any of the four planes on 911. I have yet to find a post which subscribe to the Hijacker theory as being a sound piece of evidence. But lets say for argument sake that there was Hijackers, and that they pulled off what we would consider the impossible, simultaneously hijacking 4 aircraft at roughly the same time.

Do the people who have so much disdain for the pod believe that the hijackers piloted the aircraft into the World Trade Center? Maybe I missed it, but haven't found a single post to suggest that any here believe such a thing. But lets say that the Hijackers were at the controls. Could they have piloted the aircraft into the World Trade Center in the exact place where bombs had been placed to take down the towers? And if so, who planted the bombs?

You see, the logic train here just doesn't work and something has to give. But following the previous train of logic, are we to expect that the 19 hijackers gave themselves up and killed themselves for what is basically an American government plot? And that though they had no piloting abilities, were able to not just simply hit the World Trade Center, but hit it in the exact place where the explosives would so soon take it down?

As well as be willing to expend their lives for an American inside job? It sounds absurd when written down like this, does it not? So I then checked the forums to see if I could find anyone who believes that the Hijackers were working together with the U.S. Government in this plot, and I came up dry. For the most part all I saw is that most of you believe they were patsies in some manner or another.

I guess this leads us back to question #1. Why did they use the planes? We all know that the buildings started to fall from the top down. Was it because of the raging Jet Fuel fires? Or from Explosives? Or even a combination of the two? Again, I couldn't find anyone here on the forums, not even one single person who believes the Trade Centers came down because of raging jet fuel fires. Rather everyone here subscribes to the 'Explosives' theory, as do I.

Which again brings us back to that pesky question. Why did they use planes? Apparently they used aircraft for a cover story and plausible deniability for why the Towers fell. Looking backwards we can see they had a 'cover story' all ready to go, and it is the 'Jet Fuel' theory. That the Jet Fuel caused such raging fires that it weakened the steel columns, and the Buildings could no longer bear their load, and hence the collapse. That of course combined with damage done to the buildings by the planes impacts themselves. And we all know this to be true in hindsight, as thats the explanation were we all given, even before "experts" could weigh in on the matter.

So we have an answer now on why they used the planes. They used them for a cover story and a plausible reason to give the public on why the towers fell. But this leaves us with the other questions still unanswered. Who piloted the planes? Was it the Hijackers? Or perhaps you believe the people were all gassed and the planes flown remotely. As a pilot and knowing how tricky these larger commercial aircraft are to handle and steer, I think we can safely rule out they were flown by the Hijackers.

I also think it is safe to assume that these aircraft weren't piloted by the actual pilots themselves. Which leaves us with only two possibilities on these questions. That the people were gassed and the planes taken over remotely, thus basically a drone aircraft, or that a simple Military Drone was the actual plane which slammed into the world Trade Center. Thats all that left on the table at this point. It is either one or the other. And it cannot be both. Thus either way, in essence, we are stuck with, as the only possibility being these planes were drones. But what kind of Drones were they? Lets examine the two possibilities.

1. The People were gassed, along with the Pilots and Flight crew. And once dead, the planes were remotely flown into each tower. The problem with this scenario is that all of the people wouldn't fall unconscious at the same time. And a remote possibility that one of the passengers, having a medical condition might have their own air supply, and thus be able to use the airphones and alert authorities. An alert Stewardess might see whats happening and drop the air supply down, thus ruining the whole operation. Far too risky. And option #2 over rules this out as a possibility as well.

Now we must ask ourselves, if we are, by logic, down to a single scenario, this question:

Is there any evidence to suggest this was a Military Drone, or anything which might lead us to the conclusion that this was not Flight 175? Or that perhaps Flight 11 was a Military Drone? Well, lets examine the evidence and see.

Just before Flight 11 smashed into the North Tower, there is a bright explosive event. The important thing here is it happens BEFORE impact.




Picture 1A

This can only be one of 3 things.

1. Explosives going off in the WTC before impact
2. Explosives going off because the 'Hijackers' are pressing the button too soon
3. A missile or incendiary device being ejected from the Plane. (This is what Paul Joseph Watson believes it is)

Before I continue, I want to point out that this is prime evidence or proof of a 911 conspiracy. We could stop right here, if it is proof we are looking for. It does not matter which of the three you choose. They all spell conspiracy. But let's see if there is more evidence on Flight 175 which might suggest it is a Military Drone, as we have far more footage to examine than with Flight 11.


Picture 1B

What is that white plug that is flying nose to nose with this aircraft? And just what causes that flash? Take a look yourselves, the flash is at least 8-10 feet away from the plane, and is so bright it illuminates the entire side of the aircraft. Notice how the bright orange flash is not present until that white plug disappears. The best counter argument to date on what this is, is that it is a 'static discharge.' As a Pilot myself, all I can say is that it is not a 'Static Discharge'. Now read this quote I got from the front page of letsroll911.org. Phil called a lot of Congressmans offices, and spoke to many people. Here is a quote which says it all in a nice short sentence or so.

When I called Congressman Wellers office, I was put through to Sandra, who took my call. I got her to log onto 'LetsRoll911.org' and open the Cameraplanet footage; She didn't have any time to even read my website, nor did I tell her what was coming. And without any prompting nor guidance, she, all on her own, exclaimed; "My God, that looks like a Wire Guided Missile, that just can't be..."

As a Pilot, I am not sure what it is, as I cannot touch it or examine it apart from this video. But I am with Sandy, Wellers secretary on this one. It sure as hell looks like a missile to me and would be my first guess as well. Perhaps you don't like this evidence, even though it looks conclusive to me. Perhaps this is too explosive for you? OK, lets see if there is anything else wrong with this aircraft.






Picture 1C
Picture 1D

A 2nd piece of equipment has been added to this plane. Right next to the Port Wing. As a Pilot of Commercial Heavies, I can say this. This is supposed to be a scheduled part FAA 121 commercial heavy aircraft. And in no way would a piece of equipment such as this ever be added to a commercial airliner. Nor would it ever be missed in "walk around" or "preflight inspection." And it doesn't matter whether you believe it is a bomb, a container, a remote control pod, or whatever. Just the fact it is there proves beyond any doubt that this was not Flight 175. Still not convinced? Lets look at some more evidence then.

Aaron C. Traub (Left photo) - CNN Footage (Right photo)



Picture 1E

Now people have tried to debunk this photo as well. It isn't surprising to me, as they try and debunk everything that shows 911 is a conspiracy, whether it is with Flight 175, Flight 11, or Bombs in the Towers. The best explanation I have heard regarding what this is, is that it is the VHF and UHF antenna which are attached at about those same areas. Now as a Pilot of Commercial Heavies, I can say right off the bat that that is a far "stretch." With the airplane banking as it is, the blade antenna would not even show up in this photo, and with the resolution, probably wouldn't show up even if the plane were level. And these are far too large to be Blade Antenna. They are about 10 feet long, and can be measured to be this long by comparing them to the size of the Engines, which are about 10 foot in diameter. If you will pardon my French, Blade Antenna my ass! I see the underside of all the planes I pilot, and have seen these Antenna many times. They are only about 12-14 inches, give or take. They are small and tiny. These are a minimum of 10 feet long and probably longer. And I agree these show that something is being sprayed out of the aircraft at a very high velocity. So much so that the wind sheer is hardly even allowing these to bend. And these aircraft do not drop fuel in this manner anyways. If a fuel drop is necessary, the fuel is released at the wings end, and it gurgles out, slowly. It is not even a remote possibility that a 767-200 can release fuel from these sections of the aircraft frame.

Photo by Aaorn C. Traub




Picture 1F

Mark Burnback, a FOX News Employee, was an eyewitness of the 2nd Plane at the 2nd Tower, and while still fresh in his mind, only moments after impact said he saw no passenger windows on this aircraft. Listen for yourself.

This was aired on the Fox Network Live only moments after the 2nd Impact:
Click Here
Audio 1G

And to date, not a single picture has ever emerged showing this plane to have any passenger windows. Not a single one. Odd isn't it, the plane which we have so much footage of, not a single picture shows windows on this plane? Now take a look at this footage below, which shows what appears to be a white laser light painting the side of the world trade center. The best explanation I have heard for this says it is a piece of paper. I think this explanation is nonsense. But if your not convinced, then consider this must be the most resilient piece of paper to ever have been made, because right after the plane hits underneath it, it jumps onto the fireball, and then onto the face of a building a few miles away.

Top - Camera Planet Footage
Bottom Copy - Same Material Ran on MSNBC on 9/11
Click Here
Click Here
Video 1H

Now lets move along to the pod. And make some commentary here before delving into this area. People make the argument that we need to drop this, or that, and just settle on what we all can agree on. The Controlled Demolition of the Towers. And they say this for 'credibility' sake. Which leads me to some questions for all of you to thoughtfully consider. Do you really honestly believe that if you drop everything, all evidence of anything but the controlled demolition, that the FBI will magically appear out of nowhere and run with the obvious? Don't you think if we can figure out this was a controlled Demo deal, that the FBI more than likely beat us to the punch? Or are you of the mindset that if we just dropped the pod, then the FBI will jump on the controlled demolition bandwagon? That the FBI was in hot pursuit of the truth that explosives brought down the World Trade Center, but then this stupid pod came along and paralyzed them into inaction? Is this really what you think? This would not stop the FBI from prosecuting the case. Any more than they would drop the OJ Simpson case if someone said it was aliens who did it. They would drop what is irrelevant and go with what they knew was a crime.

I guess I cannot see the logic train for those who wish to so easily dismiss this key piece of evidence. I actually think it is proof and about as good as it gets. I do not think this is a theory. Even though all we have to work with is pictures, as the physical proof is long gone. But the pictures do show an obvious appendage on this Scheduled Part FAA 121 commercial airliner, as the pictures below will show. And just because some anonymous person, who is now banned, can do a trick and try to persuade people that this is all a creation of light and shadows with a model no larger than his hand, doesn't mean squat to me. We don't even know if that person added something either onto the plane or photoshopped it for this effect. We don't know his name. We don't know where the light was. And he failed to show what it looks like from the same angle from pictures below it. We do know he came here with an agenda. No pod. And it was a clever trick however he did it. But I am surprised how easily so many here were fooled by this. As I have shown all of you from the above pictures, even if there is no pod, it can still be proven that this was not Flight 175 with all the other anomalies on it. There are just too many of them to dismiss. It was not Flight 175.

But there was an appendage on this aircraft which does not belong there. Actually there are two. But I am now going to speak about the 'pod.' Not the appendage which clearly is on the Port Wing. But a few things they both have in common is this:

*1. They should not be there. They have been added onto this aircrafts bottom.
*2. They both Cast their own shadows
*3. They both have their own reflections, just like the engines
*4. It is impossible that these could have ever been missed by the ground crews, and the Pilot, who is required to do a "walk around" or "preflight inspection."
*5. They both show that this Plane never took off from Boston Logan International Airport
*6. They both prove beyond any reasonable doubt that this was a U.S. Military Drone, and not Flight 175
*7. They show up in nearly 98% of all the video footage and pictures.

Now I want to first of all address a common complaint which isn't even a fair shot at debunking any of this material. And that is that the pod would block the Gear Well Doors. Not so. First take a good look at the bottom of this 767-200.




Picture 1H

And notice how though not shown, that the landing gear folds up into the wing root of the aircraft, which is the flat underside of the planes fuselage centerline.
Now in the photograph below, the gear well doors do indeed appear to be blocked. But then, the port engine also appears to be about 8 feet too long and forward of its real positioning. This could be the result of either video artifacting, or a result of the jet fuel being sprayed from this planes fuselage. When you get gas in your car, and the fumes come up from the tank nozzle, everything is blurry and convoluted. That is more than likely what is occurring here. But it could be video artifacting as well.



Picture 1I

Now notice in this picture that we know did not come from a video camera, that the 'pod' is forward of the gear well doors.





Picture 1K

The reason the above picture is so grainy is that William Lewis took it from the actual New York Magazine with his camera. In this picture below, which I am sure is the same shot, only clearer, and from a 35MM, it can be seen clearly that the pod is forward of the gear well doors


Picture 1L

So, with that out of the way and addressed, now take a look at the appendage on Flight 175.

Picture 1M

Clear as a bell! A very large appendage on the planes fuselage. It is not a Wing Faring either. Wing Fairing's are symmetrical and even and balanced. This is quite obviously asymmetrical, off centered, and only on 1/2 the Wing Root. Thus it is not a Wing Faring. It casts its own shadow and has its own reflection, just as the engines do. Shadows do not cast shadows, and reflections do not cast reflections. It is a 3D object. A Spanish University did an analysis which showed this to be a 3D object, which we don't need experts for as it is obvious by looking at it.

More Information:
Amics 21

Also this quote from Amics21:
P.S. Spanish Intelligence?
Obviously the investigative report by La Vanguardia journalists has been having its effect. The people (one man and his fax machine?) at OilEmpire.us have been having a good old time slagging off sites such as this one and WebFairy, Physics911.org, Let'sRoll911.org, 911Review.org, etc., for passing off fuzzy adulterated pictures. We're now called "Pod people". Looks like we're down on this black list as purportedly being in cahoots with "Spanish intelligence services". Wrong country Mark, "Sali al-Ioli and Luigi bin Liner [formerly of MI6] working the Kasbah for You".

In any case, the investigative reports by La Vanguardia journalists were published in June and July of 2003, when Spain was part of the Coalition of the Bribed, I doubt that "Spanish intelligence services" would work against their own government.

It in clearly on the front cover of the New York Times, below. This ran on the September 12th, 2001 front cover.








Picture 1P

It is in virtually all of the CNN footage, a bit fuzzy in about 3 out of 100 frames or so, but only in those 3 frames, and it was after all supposed to be concealed, so we shouldn't be surprised if there are some photos where it is hard to see. It is in the Evan Fairbanks footage. The other CNN footage as well. Now the only other argument I have heard is that "Wouldn't an extra piece of Equipment" like this throw off the planes balance? This is a ridiculous argument made by people who simply do not know the dynamics of flying. I have seen entire, fully intact engines, placed in their own pod alongside another working engine when an airline needs to replace an engine that went down, say, in the Fiji Islands. The pictures below say the whole story. Yes, it is easy to place extra equipment on the bottom of a plane. It can easily be offset by changing the thrust of each engine to account for imbalance.





Now a while back Ethan Stroschein asked about the pod. And JohnDoeX (co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth) deferred it to me, and am sorry now that I didn't take the time earlier and address this important piece of 911 evidence. I have looked into this extensively. And it is there. There is an appendage on this aircrafts fuselage. No ifs, ands or buts about it. As Colonel George Nelson once said:
"Anyone who says otherwise, or says that there is no pod, or it is a wing fairing, is spreading disinformation, either intentionally or otherwise...."

There are two appendages on this aircrafts bottom. One on the fuselage, and one next to the Port Wing. It is spraying out something from it's fuselage and my best guess is that since these aircraft aren't water tankers, that it is Jet Fuel being atomized to mask everything wrong with this plane from the ground cameras. Call it a fuel blur between the plane and the ground. I can come to no better theory than that the plane is also firing a missile, rocket or incendiary device of some kind to act as a match for the fuel. And it sure looks like a laser painting the side of the building to me., as I pointed out earlier, it sure isn't paper.

It is easy to dismiss the pod, especially if you haven't looked into it. Nobody wants to be called 'pod people' after all. But they are going to make fun of us no matter what we finally end up believing and adhering to, so it might as well be the whole entire truth as best as we can see it and prove it. If you don't want to be made fun of, then 911 simply isn't for you. So if believing the visual photo's and videos show appendages on the bottom of Flight 175, and by so believing they want to call me a pod person, then so be it. I am good with that. Because it is undeniable that there are all sorts of issues with this plane, the pod being only one of several of them. And when I saw the pod getting treated as it was on this forum, I wanted to step in as the Co-Founder and try to enlighten some people to the obvious. Many of you might simply have been poisoned by Killtown and his incessant trashing of the Pod. And let me shed some light on what might be his motivation in doing so, and am surprised none of you have ever thought of this. All these issues are the death knell to Killtown and the Webfairies reign of Error. For crying out loud, can't you see that? If there is a pod, then there is obviously a plane! If it fires out a missile or rocket, then obviously there is a plane. If it has another piece of equipment on the Port wing, there is obviously a plane. Thats why they hate this so much and never miss an opportunity to trash this evidence. Because it, all by itself, completely and totally debunks their long reign of error. I would bet that that clever picture with the pod on the model plane was more than likely made by them. They will do anything to disprove this, not because they love truth, but because it shows that they have yet one more red herring. From Holograms to CGI. And these people haven't ever accepted proper rebuke for all of their holographic nonsense and disinformation they spread around the internet with so much hatred and contempt for any who disbelieved them. They then move from one totally discredited theory, to a more reasonable, but equally discredited theory, that these planes were CGI, which is nothing more than a bunch of carefully crafted cow cookies, to put it nicely. And anyone who spreads this nonsense is spreading disinformation, whether it be Jimmy Walters, or Morgan Reynolds. They reject the simple proofs, and exchange them with carefully crafted lies. I would call this obfuscation if not an all out assault on the simple truths.

I often wonder what their true motives are, as they are the loudest and most vociferous force on the net against this evidence. But won't go there for now.

To close, I offer you some more logic. Everyone who believes that the World Trade Center was brought down by Controlled Demolitions, actually is a proponent of these aircraft being Military Drones, whether or not they even realize it. Because none of us believe there were hijackers. We know they weren't piloted by the Pilots themselves who allegedly took off in these aircraft. And the WTC started it's collapse right where these planes hit. And none of us believe the bogus jet fuel melodrama hooey. So what does this leave us with guys? Thats right! Drones! They had to be Drones. Logic dictates they were Drones. The photographic and video evidence says "Drones.."

The Drones hit the towers where they were programmed to hit them. And then they provided a literal smokescreen to hide the initiation of the collapse as well as to give reason why they collapsed. I am sorry if this upset anyone here, but I just couldn't sit tight while yet another forum trashes absolutely great evidence and proof. And as a Co-Founder of this forum and website, felt an obligation to speak up on these issues and clear the air. I would prefer this evidence to not be relegated to Alternate Theories, as it truly isn't a theory with as much overwhelming proof that there is available through pictures and video. This is every bit as good as the controlled demolitions of the Towers, and to be honest, easier to prove. Although both are easy to prove.

Very Truly Yours,
Glen Stanish
Co-Founder of Pilots for Truth

Jag är bara undrade hur denna gamla idé dyker upp igen där länken visar att den var upplagd 3 januari 2007.

Alla bilder och argument har varit på tapeten tidigare.

Det är flera år sedan jag såg dessa bilder med samma motiveringar som tas upp. Även idén om att de var militärflygplan som flög in i WTC 1 och 2 är gammal.

Kollar inte de med alternativa teorier inte ens upp sina egna uppgifter?

zink <-- Kan jag få höra en bortförklaring till varför denna Glen Stanish skulle skriva nåt sådant här, du kan ju inte komma och säga att han inte är kvalificerad, han tjänar nog heller inte några miljoner
på detta påstående, så varför skulle han skriva nåt sånt här, kan det vara så att det ligger nåt bakom alla dessa ifrågasättanden??

Han är ju inte den första som tar upp detta med avvikelserna på dessa flygplan..

Det är dax för dig att lyfta blicken lite...

Så vad är det vi ser under planet egentligen zink? Är det någonting som borde vara där? Är det normalt att det ser ut sådär under ett boeingplan?

Borde det inte se ut


så här

Precis .

Så borde det sett ut. Det vet alla Piloter som tittat på detta.

Quote:

Detta har ju redan gåtts igenom. Att planen på stillbilderna är uppförstora och därför i den dåliga upplösningen ger fenomen som egentligen inte finns.

Om man kör video så syns det tydligt att alla fenomen handlar om skuggor och blänk.

Man kan ställa sig vid en flygplats och försöka fotografera planen i samma ljus och på samma avstånd. Har man då tur kan man få bilder man kan jämföra med.

Quote:
Att du ljuger för andra är en sak, men att du sitter och ljuger för dej själv är intet annat än ett tecken på att hissen inte går ända upp, nu blev jag dj........igt besviken på dej zink, där sjönk mitt omdömme om dej som en sten ända ner i det bottenlösa, skäms på vuxna människan.