Its The Flash! – By Dave vonKleist

July 21, 2007

The controversies over the events of 9/11 have come to a full boil with the publication of the cover story “Debunking 9/11 LIES” in the March, 2005, edition of Popular Mechanics magazine (PM). The interview with editor in chief James Meigs on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper’s 360,” and the March 5th interview with Ben Chertoff on the Art Bell radio program, represent perfect examples for the continuing controversy. The fact that the mainstream media has completely ignored some of the most significant photos and video clips that irrefutably challenges the “official story” of 9/11 has simply added more fuel to the fire. The increase of support for “911 In Plane Site” has been overwhelming and Popular Mechanics is now being referred to as “Unpopular” Mechanics!

The “Pod”

Pod Slides

The pod issue has been a source of debate and division and received top billing in PM magazine. The blatant contradictions made by Ben Chertoff and the PM article should raise red flags with anyone with cognitive skills. For example, the PM article claims that the “pod” is nothing more that a reflection of the sun glistening off of the “fairing.” Yet Mr. Chertoff said on the Art Bell program that it was mostly caused by a shadow cast by the engine (the Rob Howard photo published in PM clearly shows the shadow moving toward the front of the plane and off the wing.) How can the “pod” be a reflection and a shadow at the same time? This textbook example of double speak designed to confuse the general public is the very reason why this issue will not go away, and will continue to escalate. However, the “pod” is secondary in importance to the “flash” issue, which has been completely ignored.

The “flash” is clearly seen in four video clips in the video “911 In Plane Site”. CNN’s video clip of the plane hitting the south tower is the most widely available and has not been addressed for reasons that will soon become obvious.

There should be no debate that there indeed was a flash that occurred before the plane burrowed into the building. Two questions are raised that alone challenge the official story. First, what does the “flash” have to do with a terrorist inside the cabin brandishing a plastic knife or a box-cutter? Answer: Obviously nothing, and that leads us to the second question. What caused the Flash? There are four possibilities that come to mind:

a.) A reflection
b.) Sparks from the fuselage striking the building.
c.) Static discharge
d.) Some type of incendiary (bomb or missile)

4 Angle Montage
The photos above have never been shown or discussed in the mainstream media.

Using logical deduction, (Occam’s Razor) let’s examine each possibility.

Reflection. There are two reasons that it could not have been a reflection. First, a reflection is only seen from one angle, not four. Secondly, the flash occurred on the shaded side of the building. Rule out the reflection.

Sparks. As seen in the video clips, the flash occurred to the right and below center of the contact point of the fuselage and is clearly seen in the Camera Planet footage. Rule out sparks.

Static discharge. A static discharge would have arced from the nose of the fuselage to the building at the point of impact. As mentioned above, the flash was seen 6 to ten feet away from the fuselage and in fact is reflected off the fuselage as seen in angle four (bottom right) of the above photos. Additionally, an electric spark travels at the speed of light and would not likely be captured on several frames on each of the four video clips. Rule out static discharge.

Incendiary (bomb or missile). It is not likely that a bomb could have been placed outside the building so close to the point of impact and timed to detonate at the exact time the plane struck the tower. That leaves a missile. If it was a missile, from where could it have been launched? The flash occurred to the right and below center of the fuselage, directly in line with the anomaly called the “pod”.

A flash is also seen in the video clip of the plane hitting the north tower, which indicates that there was indeed an event that could not in any way be consistent with a simple hijacking. The entire “hijacking” story comes into serious question and cannot stand when factoring the the flash.

Flight 11 Flash

It should be obvious to the casual observer that the flash issue is by itself devastating to the official story as it not only supports the “pod” issue, but indicates that there is yet another cover-up and a patsy story in place. Until the “flash” issue is acknowledged, honestly debated and explained, the controversy will continue to escalate.

The “flash” issue isn’t the only issue that has been ignored. The Pentagon issue also continues to boil and will continue to do so until the media addresses the photos taken before the collapse.


PM magazine and the networks have yet, to the best of my knowledge, published or broadcast any of the photos that are the entire reason for the controversy.

The video footage and series of photographs taken before the collapse clearly show no crater, no divot in the lawn, no recognizable wreckage (wings, engines, tail, fuselage, wheels, luggage, seats, etc.) and no hole large enough to accommodate a Boeing 757. “From my close up inspection, there is no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon…”Jamie McIntyre, September 11th, 2001.

The presentation of the “truth” on broadcasts like “Anderson Coopers 360” or “The Art Bell Show” is at best disingenuous but let’s call it what it is: A calculated and deliberate fabrication designed to deflect real issues while ridiculing anyone who dares to think outside their “cage”. Ben Chertoff stated, “The wing hit the ground and broke off…” If the engine hangs down from the wing, it would have hit the ground first but no mention of this fact was made and the above photo refutes his statement. He also stated that the plane “liquefied” as it entered the building. If that were the case, how would it have pierced three of the rings so cleanly? The PM report is rife with contradictions as are many of the mainstream media reports.

Numerous times the American Society of Civil Engineers video analysis was cited as the authority when it came to the of the Pentagon’s collapse. However, the computer-generated video has three glaring errors or omissions. First, they forgot to factor in the 18 ½” steel re-enforced exterior wall of the outer ring. Secondly, the tail section remains intact as it enters the building despite numerous photos that show no entry hole. And thirdly, the computer analysis omitted the heaviest, densest and hardest pieces of the aircraft- the engines! With “expert” analysis like this is there any wonder that the “official” story is being questioned at almost every turn?

What is truly a shame is that there are those in the broadcast media that for whatever reason, continue the farce by labeling those asking these questions as “wingnuts” and hide behind a false veil of fairness while citing these “authorities” as the be all and end all of the “truth.” Why is an open debate and a presentation of this suppressed evidence not an option for those claiming a righteous demonstration of “freedom of the press?” I would have welcomed anyone with an opposing viewpoint when I was a guest on the George Noorey program and would do so today. In fact, I would challenge James Meigs, Ben Chertoff or anyone else recognized as an “authority” to debate these issues live on the air on any radio or television program of their choosing. I commend George Noory for having the courage to bring me on the air to bring these issues to the attention of the American people and if invited again, would certainly not oppose debate with any “authority.” It’s not only good radio, it’s a way for the people to judge for themselves who is telling the truth and who is not. Art, do you hear me?

America and the world are not as dumb as these people apparently think. The stakes are the highest imaginable and this game is for keeps. Unless this subterfuge ceases immediately the rest of the world will no doubt see the United States as the most manipulated, controlled and dangerous country on earth. God help us.

The issues raised in this article are barely a scratch in the surface of the many inconsistencies in the official story of 9/11.

Until these photographs and video clips are presented to the American people and discussed openly and honestly, the controversy will continue to grow! CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC and all news agencies must deal with these issues! They will not go away and neither will those of us demanding honesty from the news networks that claim they can be trusted! It is their integrity that is now in serious question, not those of us asking legitimate questions!

Dave vonKleist


9/11 Flight Paths & Stewart Air Base

June 20, 2007

Contributed by Adam Letalik,

What happened at 8:36am on 9/11/01?
American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 were the two airplanes that hit the World Trade Center Towers, on September 11th, 2001. The 9/11 Commission Report published the flight paths of both airplanes. The flight paths originate from Boston, and cross paths once before their paths meet again in New York City.

AA11 Flight PathUA175 Flight Path
Click for enlarged images

When comparing the flight paths, it shows the unique location both planes passed on their way to New York City.
9/11 Flight Paths9/11 Flight Path Overlay9/11 Flight Path Overlay
Click for enlarged images

Point A is the approximate location of the overlap. Point A is the location of New Windsor, New York. This also happens to be the location of the Stewart Air National Guard Base (aka Stewart Air Force Base, aka Stewart International Airport).

Not only did AA 11 and UA 175 both fly over New Windsor, NY, but they both flew over it at the same time, supposedly almost crashing into each other. This is an unlikely coincidence, since it would be far more likely that if the paths taken from Boston to New York crossed, that the planes would not cross paths at the same time. This occurred at approximately 8:36 am.

Directly From USA Today:
The two hijacked jets that demolished the World Trade Center nearly crashed into each other while heading to their target, according to a Federal Aviation Administration employee at a regional control center. “The two aircraft got too close to each other down by Stewart” International Airport in New Windsor, N.Y., about 55 miles north of New York City, the employee told The Telegraph of Nashua.

USA Today: FAA Employee: Hijacked jets almost collided

At 8.37:08, UA 175 is asked to look for a lost American Airlines plane: “Do you have traffic look at uh your 12 to 1o’clock at about, uh, 10 miles southbound to see if you can see an American seventy six seven out there please.” UA 175 replies: “Affirmative we have him, uh, he looks, uh, about 20, yeah, about 29, 28,000.”


9/11 Flight Path GIF9/11 Flight Path Animation
Click for enlarged images

The map below, published by USA Today, shows the planes’ scheduled flight path and the actual route taken. This diagram also illustrates the strange path taken by AA 11 since when it deviated from its flight path, it headed away from New York City. Had AA 11 not taken the detour, the planes would not have crossed paths over New Windsor at the same time. Also note that UA 175’s scheduled flight path takes it directly over New Windsor and that it was not even supposedly hijacked until around the time AA 11 hit the North Tower. After UA 175 is hijacked, it does not fly directly to New York City. UA 175 hit the South Tower, 17 minutes later, leaving enough time for news crews to have their cameras set up, pointed up at the Twin Towers.

9/11 Flight Tracker
Click for enlarged image

· USA Today Flight Path Animation (animation not to scale with respect to time)

Amy Sweeney, a flight attendant on board AA 11, made a phone call(s) to American Airlines Flight service manager Michael Woodward. Sweeney first called at 8:22. At approximately 8:36, Sweeney reported that the plane began a rapid descent.

· Complete 9/11 Timeline

Directly from ABC News:

About 15 minutes after the women first called, the plane suddenly lurched, tilting all the way to one side, then becoming horizontal again. Ong said the plane was flying erratically, and Sweeney said it had begun a rapid descent. “For a flight attendant to say rapid descent, it’s rapid and it’s quick. We don’t use those terms very loosely,” said Woodward.

· ABC News. Calm Before the Crash. August 2nd 2002.

The transponder on AA 11 was turned off at 8:21 and as a result, the altitude of the plane from this time on, is never officially known.

This analysis of the flight paths suggests that it was necessary for AA 11 and UA 175 to both pass over Stewart AFB in New Windsor, NY at the same time. The reason why this was necessary is unclear. This occurred at approximately 8:36am.

At this same time, 8:36am, AA 77 (the flight that hit the pentagon) had deviated from its flight path and changed altitude. AA 77 was instructed by ATC to make two, 20 degree, turns and change altitude before returning to its scheduled flight path. This is routene procedure to aviod other aircrafts (traffic).

8:34:17 — Controller 3: American 77 turn twenty degrees right vector for your climb.
8:39:30 — Controller 3: American 77 amend your altitude maintain flight level three three zero for traffic.

· Full Transcript

Routine radio communication was made with the pilot of AA 77 at 8:51. Shortly thereafter, the plane was suspected to have been hijacked since it made an unauthorized turn at 8:54 and then the transponder wass turned off at 8:56. Once the transponder was turned off, the flight path taken towards the Pentagon cannot be determined because ATC could not track the plane with primary surveillance radar (PSR). PSR operates totally independently of the target aircraft – that is, no action from the aircraft is required for it to provide a radar return. Since ATC could not track AA 77 with PSR like they had done with the other three hijacked planes when their transponders were turned off, ATC assumed it crashed. This reasonable assumption allowed AA 77 to hit the pentagon at 9:37 without being intercepted by the military.

AA77 Flight Path
Click for enlarged image

The fact that AA 11 and UA 175 crossed paths at the same time is too improbable to be regarded as a coincidence, implying that this was necessary for the attack. Further research needs to be done on this topic to determine what happened to AA 11 and UA 175 over Stewart AFB in New Windsor, N.Y. at 8:36am when AA 11 began a rapid decent. What happened at 8:36am on 9/11/01?

Special thanks to Adam Letalik for this research piece.

South Tower Aircraft – The Evidence Revealed

June 18, 2007

Compiled and Written by Robert Rice

Darleen Druyun, Person Of Interest

Darleen Druyun

Darleen Druyun on Wikipedia

Darleen Druyun, former No. 2 acquisition executive for the Air Force and future Boeing vice president, was sentenced to 9 months for treason – re: modified Boeing aircraft.

News Source:
Former Air Force buyer jailed over Boeing deal

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia (Reuters) — The U.S. Air Force’s former No. 2 weapons buyer was sentenced to nine months in prison on Friday after telling the court she had given Boeing Co. a rival’s secret data and inflated weapons deals to ingratiate herself with the company, her future employer.

The disclosure of Darleen Druyun’s efforts on behalf of Boeing could spark a new round of ethical, legal and business headaches for the Chicago-based aerospace giant, the Pentagon’s No. 2 supplier after Lockheed Martin Corp.

Druyun, 56, tearfully acknowledged before Federal District Judge T.S. Ellis she had agreed to a higher price than she thought was appropriate for what became a $23.5 billion plan to acquire modified Boeing 767 aircraft as refueling tankers.

Ex-Pentagon procurement executive gets jail time

Now, interestingly enough, on 9/11, she chaired the NATO E-3A Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) program which co-ordinated the ‘red team’ attack using the Boeing controlled Iridium satellite network.

Google Search on Darleen Druyun and AWACS
Iridium Aviation Security Communications System
David Hawkins on 9/11 War Games (Cached)

Let’s be clear about one thing. The plane which hit the south tower was not and could not possibly have been Flight 175 piloted by Arab Islamic extremist terrorists. That’s established fact, based on first hand, recorded in real time, physical reality. The plane that hit the south tower was not Flight 175.

Aircraft Measurements
Aircraft Scale
As we saw in “The Wrong Plane”, the nose section of a 200 series, A, is shorter than the wing assembly, B. Whereas for the 300 series A is longer than B.
767-200 => A:B = 190:200 = 0.95:1, i.e. A is less than B
767-300 => A:B = 221:200 = 1.105:1, i.e. A is greater than B

While the NIST frames give us A:B = 20.76:19.91 = 1.04:1
(remember that these are Lower Limit Values, see Tech Notes),
in other words, A is greater than B

Therefore: This plane’s fuselage is too long to be a Boeing 767-200.

Ergo: The plane that hit the South Tower was not N612UA. It was not Flight 175!

Here’s the same comparison yet again, from yet another perspective.
South Tower Aircraft
Aircraft Scale
Actual Flight 175
Medium –
Large –
United Airlines
Boeing 767-222
New York – John F. Kennedy International (Idlewild) (JFK / KJFK)
USA – New York, April 28, 2001

Tech Notes:
Of course, doing a dimensional analysis like this is like walking into a minefield. A thousand people could repeat the process and you’d be lucky to get two sets of matching figures. “The World is Wide”, says my friend Walter paraphrasing the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. So to prevent any quibbling, the figures shown represent the lower limit values for the ratio A:B. In other words, we’ve been as generous as is reasonably possible in defining the distance B (the left-hand line barely touches the rear wing-tips, while the middle line has been set just past where the leading edge of the wing meets the fuselage) and strict in defining A (the right-hand line is set where the nose touches the building, though it clearly goes beyond this point). Nevertheless, this still gives us a value for A that is greater than B.

There may also be a difference in dimensions depending on how the images have been obtained. Though irrespective of the method employed you’ll still get a value for the ratio A:B that is greater than 1.
Flash Seen Prior to Impact of Second Plane

4 Angle Footage
Flash Sequence

Split Images of 2nd Aircraft

Flash Frame (two separate cameras and angles, though it was recorded from 4 total)
9/11 Aircraft Impact Video
9/11 Aircraft Impact with Closeup

Context and framing is everything.
Two Images of Mystery
Flight 175 Odd Anomalies

Most definitely, “There Is An Incendiary Device On The 2nd Plane”.

It’s conclusive.
If controlled demolition of the twin towers is firmly established, which it has been, once again based on first hand, recorded in real time physical reality – and, if it can be conclusively shown that this plane was something other than flight 175, which it has also, then the purpose of this aircraft becomes clear, by rational, logical, deductive reasoning.

South Tower Fireball

The plane was not flown by poorly trained Arabs on a mission from Osama bin Laden because they “hate our freedoms”. In fact, there was nobody on board that plane at all.

Quotes from Flight Instructors:
Mohammed Atta: “His attention span was zero.”
Khalid Al-Mihdhar: “We didn’t kick him out, but he didn’t live up to our standards.”
Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”
Salem Al-Hazmi: “We advised him to quit after two lessons.”
Hani Hanjour: “His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

CNN Footage of Aircraft Impact
Speed of Aircraft (575 MPH) Long Approach
Oil Wars and Oil Hegemony

Split Images of 2nd Aircraft

Flight 175 Montage

Approaching Aircraft

Flight 175 Photo

NY Times Image

Evan Fairbanks ABC Video frame (yet another camera and angle)
CNN/ABC video slow motion (present through all the frames)
Incoming Aircraft Approaching Tower (CameraPlanet)

For a response to “debunking” efforts, please read this article.
Upon careful examination, Boeing refuses to clarify, citing “National Security”

One morning last February a young reader came into the head offices of with an idea in his head that had occurred to him as he was looking attentively at the videos and photos on 9/11.

There are reader/discoverers. They’re readers who get a chance to bring news out—provide their newspapers with an exclusive story. It is initiative which is gratefully received. These readers are efficient spontaneous reporters. That’s what’s happened in the case of the mystery of the plane which crashed into the WTC in new York on 11 September 2001.

The reader who walked into the editing room of that winter’s morning with photos under his arm was attended to by Josep Maria Calvet. The reader, who has asked to remain anonymously as R.R., asked the journalist to look hard at some of the details in the photos: two strange shapes which appeared below the aircraft.

This is how the reporters’ work started off the results of which were published in articles in “La Vanguardia” on 22 June and 13 July 2003, and as I commented at the request of a reader, in the last article before the summer holiday season, published on 27 July 2003.

One function of the readers’ ombudsman explained in La Vanguardia statutes is to describe the procedure the journalist follows in preparing, elaborating and publishing the story he takes up. The circumstances of this case beg telling the inside story of these reports.

Did “La Vanguardia” come up with this? How did the reporters find out about the mystery of the plane?

Two days after R.R.’s visit, the editorial office contacted Eduardo Martín de Pozuelo to ask him have a look and give his opinion on the shapes or bumps to be seen in the images of the plane seconds before it crashed into the skyscaper.

The office checked that the photos had not been manipulated in any way and that they coincided with the ones held in the newspaper’s archives. It was true. There were strange “shapes” or “bumps”.

Martín de Pozuelo set to work. He had a meeting with R.R. and Calvet at La head office. They spent two long afternoons poring over the photos, videos and all the visual material they could get together on the attack on the twin towers in New York. What conclusion did they come to?

They noticed evidence of shapes present on the fuselage of the plane. They couldn’t tell what on earth it was.

Martín de Pozeulo has told the ombudsman that he did not think it was opportune to publish anything as yet on the subject. Data and reliable sources were missing. He says about these “shapes”:

“It looked like an optical effect but as that was a totally subjective opinion I showed the photos to fellow photographers and asked them to give their opinion as image experts. They swung between the hypothesis of an optical effect or an added object, as I did. The reporters persevered.

They consulted another expert, Amparo Sacristán, an image and microelectronics specialist at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Her first appraisal encouraged them to go on in their investigation. Doctor Sacristán performed a digital analysis of the photos and concluded that they were shapes not reflections brilliance. The results of this new stage were surprising and disconcerting.

Xavier Mas de Xaxàs, who was working as a correspondent for the “La Vanguardia” in the United States on the 11 September 2001, searched for news, published or unpublished, which could throw some light on the matter. He was gathering information on the poor security at Logan airport (Washington).

Meanwhile Martín de Pozuelo consulted aviation experts—among them an aeronautical engineer who asked not to be identified, due to his rank. He spent all one morning analising the photos in the “La Vanguardia”. His pronouncement reinforced the hypothesis of something added to the fuselage.

The two reporters conducting the investigation were not convinced, of course. They were sceptical. They decided to take it one step further to dispel all doubt. They turned to US sources. The Boeing company in Seattle agreed to have a look at the photos and give their conclusions. The photographs were sent electronically from “La Vanguardia”.

For ten days, by telephone and electronic mail, the company responded whenever called by the two “La Vanguardia” newsmen, as the photos were studied by various departments at the company. Finally, from Seattle, back came a surprising, enigmatic reply: “We are not able to tell you what it is. Security reasons.”

It was then that the newsmen decided there was enough to report to “La Vanguardia” readers. The text and photos were handed in to the newspaper’s editorial office to assess whether to publish a first report. It was released in the June 22 issue. It caused an impact, even in the United States, where the translation of the “La Vanguardia” article was hung on a web site dedicated to 9/11.

The two reporters then asked Boeing once more: “Is there any further news?” Answer: “No answer for security reasons”. A negative reply which does not clear up the mystery. And so they continue to investigate.
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft without Training
21 Feb 2006, Nila Sagadevan
Scholars for 9/11 Truth Article


Did the Bush Administration Lie to Congress and the 9/11 Commission?
9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI


One of the more puzzling mysteries of 9-11 is what ever happened to the flight recorders of the two planes that hit the World Trade Center towers. Now it appears that they may not be missing at all.

Counterpunch has learned that the FBI has them.

Flight recorders (commonly known as black boxes, though these days they are generally bright orange) are required on all passenger planes. There are always two-a flight data recorder that keeps track of a plane’s speed, altitude, course and maneuvers, and a cockpit voice recorder which keeps a continuous record of the last 30 minutes of conversation inside a plane’s cockpit. These devices are constructed to be extremely durable, and are installed in a plane’s tail section, where they are least likely suffer damaged on impact. They are designed to withstand up to 30 minutes of 1800-degree heat (more than they would have faced in the twin towers crashes), and to survive a crash at full speed into the ground.

All four of the devices were recovered from the two planes that hit the Pentagon and that crashed in rural Pennsylvania. In the case of American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, the FBI reports that the flight data recorder survived and had recoverable information, but the voice recorder was allegedly too damaged to provide any record. In the case of United Airlines Flight 93, which hit the ground at 500 mph in Pennsylvania, the situation was reversed: the voice recorder survived but the flight data box was allegedly damaged beyond recovery.

But the FBI states, and also reported to the 9-11 Commission, that none of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered.

There has always been some skepticism about this assertion, particularly as two N.Y. City firefighters, Mike Bellone and Nicholas De Masi, claimed in 2004 that they had found three of the four boxes, and that Federal agents took them and told the two men not to mention having found them. (The FBI denies the whole story.) Moreover, these devices are almost always located after crashes, even if not in useable condition (and the cleanup of the World Trade Center was meticulous, with even tiny bone fragments and bits of human tissue being discovered so that almost all the victims were ultimately identified). As Ted Lopatkiewicz, director of public affairs at the National Transportation Safety Agency which has the job of analyzing the boxes’ data, says, “It’s very unusual not to find a recorder after a crash, although it’s also very unusual to have jets flying into buildings.”

Now there is stronger evidence that something is amiss than simply the alleged non-recovery of all four of those boxes. A source at the National Transportation Safety Board, the agency that has the task of deciphering the date from the black boxes retrieved from crash sites-including those that are being handled as crimes and fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI-says the boxes were in fact recovered and were analyzed by the NTSB.

“Off the record, we had the boxes,” the source says. “You’d have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here.”

The official word from the NTSB is that the WTC crash site black boxes never turned up. “No recorders were recovered from the World Trade Center,” says the NTSB’s Lopatkiewicz. “At least none were delivered to us by the FBI.” He adds that the agency has “always had a good relationship’ with the FBI and that in all prior crime-related crashes or flight incidents, they have brought the boxes to the NTSB for analysis.

For its part, the FBI is still denying everything, though with curious bit of linguistic wiggle room. “To the best of my knowledge, the flight recording devices from the World Trade Center crashes were never recovered. At least we never had them,” says FBI spokesman Stephen Kodak.

What the apparent existence of the black boxes in government hands means is unclear.

If the information in those boxes is recoverable, or if, as is likely, it has been recovered already, it could give crucial evidence regarding the skill of the hijacker/pilots, perhaps of their strategy, of whether they were getting outside help in guiding them to their targets, of how fast they were flying and a host of other things.

Why would the main intelligence and law enforcement arm of the U.S. government want to hide from the public not just the available information about the two hijacked flights that provided the motivation and justification for the nation’s “War on Terror” and for its two wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, but even the fact that it has the devices which could contain that information? Conspiracy theories abound, with some claiming the planes were actually pilotless military aircraft, or that they had little or nothing to do with the building collapses. The easiest way to quash such rumors and such fevered thinking would be openness.

Instead we have the opposite: a dark secrecy that invites many questions regarding the potentially embarrassing or perhaps even sinister information that might be on those tapes.
Most probable culprit, based on the entire record of all observed phenomenon and information:
Boeing 767 Tanker

AirForce Technology Data Page
Global Security Data Page
The Boeing 767 tanker transport aircraft, designated KC-767 for the US Air Force, is a high performance version of the Boeing 767-200ER twin aisle jetliner equipped for fully integrated tanker operations. It is fitted with either boom and receptacle refuelling, hose and drogue refuelling or both. The commercial 767 first entered service in 1982 and more than 880 aircraft have been delivered. The cabin of the tanker can be configured for passenger transport, as a freighter, convertible (passenger or freighter) or Combi (passenger and freighter).

The structure incorporates new materials such as improved aluminium alloys, graphite composites and hybrid Kevlar graphite composites, which give enhanced strength, durability and longevity.

The configuration of a commercial 767 for the tanker transport role involves the installation of additional pumps and auxiliary fuel tanks together with the fuel distribution lines below the floor of the main cabin, leaving the main cabin free for cargo, passenger or both cargo and passenger transportation. The concept allows simultaneous refuelling and airlift operations or successive refuelling and airlift missions.

In the cargo configuration, the aircraft can transport 19 standard military 463-L pallets; in the passenger configuration, 200 passengers can be accommodated; and in the Combi configuration ten cargo pallets and 100 passengers can be carried.

The 767 Tanker Transport aircraft has an advanced two person all-digital flight deck.
Dark Circle under Tail (Refueling Boom Removed?)
Note that there is no such mark, tail skid, or avionics blade antenna at that location for a normal Boeing 767-200, and therefore nothing else to account for this perfectly circular blemish visible in both the still photo and the CNN freeze frame.

Flight 175 Closeup
German Engineers Fireball and Kerosene (Jet Fuel) Smoke Cloud Magnitude Analysis
(note that they came to the conclusion that a 767-200 fully fueled for a cross-continental trip to LA could NOT have contained a sufficient amount of fuel to account for the fireball and smoke cloud observed – without knowledge of the Tanker Transport or of of the extra equipment [pod and pipe structure] retrofitted to it.

Click for enlarged photos
German Research

German Research


Standard Military 463-L Fuel Cargo Pallet
“In the cargo configuration, the aircraft can transport 19 standard military 463-L pallets; in the passenger configuration, 200 passengers can be accommodated; and in the Combi configuration ten cargo pallets and 100 passengers can be carried.”

Pallet Dimensions
Width: 108 inches. Length: 88 inches.
Height: 2 1/4 inches.

Pallet Usable Dimensions
Width: 104 inches. Length: 84 inches.

Pallet Weight, Empty 290 lbs
Weight of Nets (side and top) 65 lbs
Maximum Cargo Weight 10,000 lbs
Desired Load Capacity 7,500 lbs
Maximum Gross Weight 10,355 lbs

Cargo System Data Page

The structure incorporates new materials such as improved aluminium alloys, graphite composites and hybrid Kevlar graphite composites, which give enhanced strength, durability and longevity.

The configuration of a commercial 767 for the tanker transport role involves the installation of additional pumps and auxiliary fuel tanks together with the fuel distribution lines below the floor of the main cabin, leaving the main cabin free for cargo, passenger or both cargo and passenger transportation. The concept allows simultaneous refuelling and airlift operations or successive refuelling and airlift missions.

In the cargo configuration, the aircraft can transport 19 standard military 463-L pallets; in the passenger configuration, 200 passengers can be accommodated; and in the Combi configuration ten cargo pallets and 100 passengers can be carried.

Dov Zakheim
In a document called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century” published by The American Enterprise’s “Project for a New American Century”(1), System Planning Corporation (SPC) International executive, Dov Zakheim, called for “some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor” being necessary to foster the frame of mind needed for the American public to support a war in the Middle East that would politically and culturally reshape the region. A respected and established voice in the intelligence community, his views were eagerly accepted, and Dov went from his position at Systems Planning Corporation to become the Comptroller of the Pentagon in May 2001. (2) Perhaps not so coincidentally, it was an SPC subsidiary, TRIDATA CORPORATION, that oversaw the investigation after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.

SPC, according to their official website, specializes in many areas of defense technology production and manufacture, including a system developed by their Radar Physics Group called the Flight Termination System, or FTS.(3) This is a system used to destroy target drones (craft that would be fired on by test aircraft or weaponry) in the event of malfunction or “misses”. This highly sophisticated war-game technology allows the control of several ‘drones’ from a remote location, on varying frequencies, and has a range of several hundred miles. This technology can be used on many different types of aircraft, including large passenger jets.

According to the SPC website (4), a recent customer at that time was Eglin AFB, located in Florida. Eglin is very near another Air Force base in Florida-MacDill AFB, where Dov Zakheim contracted to send at least 32 Boeing 767 aircraft, as part of the Boeing /Pentagon tanker lease agreement.(5)

As the events of September 11, 2001 occurred, little was mentioned about these strange connections, and the possible motives and proximity of Dov Zakheim and his group. Since there was little physical evidence remaining after the events, investigators were left only with photographic and anecdotal evidence.

This is a photograph of the Flight Termination System module, from their site.(5). Note it has a cylindrical shape, and is consistent with the size and shape of the object observed under the fuselage of flight 175.

The Boeing lease deal involved the replacement of the aging KC-135 tanker fleet with these smaller, more efficient Boeing 767s that were to be leased by Dov Zakheim’s group. The planes were to be refitted with refueling equipment, including lines and nozzle assemblies.

In this enlargement of flight 175, we can clearly see a cylindrical object under the fuselage, and a structure that appears to be attached to the right underside of the rear fuselage section.

When seen in comparison, it is obvious that the plane approaching the Trade Center has both of these structures-the FTS module and the midair refueling equipment, as configured on the modified Boeing 767 tankers. Of particular interest is the long tube-like anomalous structure under the rear fuselage area of flight 175-this structure runs along the right rear bottom of the plane, as it also does on the Boeing 767 refueling tanker pictured.

As the above diagram shows, all flights involved in the events traveled very near many military installations, and appear to have traveled in a manner suggesting guidance and possible transfer of the control of the planes among the bases during the command and control War Games Operations led by Dick Cheney.

Since the evidence from the World Trade Center site was quickly removed, there is little concrete evidence of the involvement of Dov Zakheim, who has since left his position at the Pentagon. However, the proximity of Eglin AFB to MacDill AFB in Florida and Dov Zakheim’s work via SPC contracts and the Pentagon leasing agreement on both of these installations, combined with SPC’s access to World Trade Center structural and security information from their Tridata investigation in 1993, is highly suspicious. Considering his access to Boeing 767 tankers, remote control flight systems, and his published views in the PNAC document, it seems very likely he is in fact a key figure in the alleged terrorist attacks in New York City on September 11, 2001.

SPC Logo
Systems Planning Corporation

According to their site, the system is run in one of two configurations, both centered around this, the CTS transmitter:CTS Panel
Command Transmitter System

Radar Control (FTS)
FTS Panel
Special thanks to Robert Rice for article reproduction permission.

Debunking the Debunkers – Appendage on Flight 175

June 17, 2007

A Short History on Pod “Debunkers”

Ever since Phil Jayhan broke the case on the obvious appendage on the bottom on the aircraft that struck the South Tower, criticism from all corners has hit his research and himself. The main source of this criticism is from peak oil advocates such as Peak oil advocates have always been 9/11 skeptics, however they do not stray far into the tremendous amount of evidence for an inside job, and sometimes only advocate the “let it happen on purpose” theory. is usually credited as the top website to “debunk” and “expose” the pod evidence. This website won an award from Digital Style Designs for the “Best Analysis of Disinformation”. This website, a major advocate for the peak oil theory, is a confusing and badly-written website. The website often features cluttered pages, horrible grammar and spelling, and sometimes strays off topic. This website also considers the slam dunk evidence for controlled demolition disinformation. This website criticizes almost every piece of evidence that points towards an inside job – everything from the controlled demolition to the WTC to the Pentagon mystery is claimed to be “debunked” and “disinformation”. Keep this in mind while we examine these claims.

Although is the most referenced on supposed pod “debunking”, it is not the only website that attempts to debunk it. Jim Hoffman’s website features an article named “ERROR: A Pod Was Attached to the South Tower Plane” and Michael Rivero’s website features an article named “The Pod People and the Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon”. Eric Salter along with his brother Brian Salter released their article “Analysis of Flight 175 “Pod” and related claims” which is also heavily referenced. More recently the New York activist group has published an article named “Disinformation: Infiltration, Misinformation, Disruption” which highlights the documentary “9/11 In Plane Site”.

Techniques used by “debunkers”

The pod “debunkers” nearly always reference the pod evidence with the ridiculous no-plane or TV fakery theories. Phil Jayhan, the leading authority of South Tower aircraft anomalies, agrees that the no-plane and/or the TV fakery theories are nonsense and disinformation.

Using this technique, debunkers include the pod evidence along with the fantasy claims of TV fakery alongside each other. This poisons the well, and attributes both the pod evidence and no-plane theories as being the same. references the pod evidence under the “no-plane hoaxes” section, and Jim Hoffman attempts to debunk the pod evidence and then introduces the TV fakery theories in the next paragraph. This directly mixes the two together, while one is legit and the other is nonsense.

Debunking the claims

Now it is time to rebuke the most popular attempts to debunk the pod evidence.

1. The pod is actually a wing fairing or reflection

Many websites use this as the primary “debunking” effort against the pod.

Wing Fairing Claim Image

This image shows three examples of aircraft and their wing fairings. The first two images show the bulge on both sides, while the third is rather confusing considering its landing gear flaps are down. This image is widely used to “debunk” the pod evidence.

Lets examine the Flight 175 photo taken by Rob Howard and discovered by Phil Jayhan and Deb Simon while at Ground Zero.

Flight 175 Pod

You will notice that the “pod” is only on the starboard side of the aircraft. A pod is not visible on the port side of the underbelly. Wing fairings are present on both sides as shown on the image above that is used so much by “debunkers” themselves.

In fact, this pod is not seen on both sides of the aircraft in any image. This photo was featured in the New York Times.

NY Times Image

Once again the appendage is only seen on one side of the aircraft.

On this image as well, which equally shows both sides of the aircraft from a lower vantage point, only shows this bulge on the starboard side.

Flight 175 Montage

Aircraft are symmetrical on both sides, as with wing fairings you can see that they are present on both sides, not one.

It is also safe to say that if it was a wing fairing, the bulge would not be as large nor clearly seen on the images. And if they were, the bulge would appear on both sides of the aircraft.

The pod could not be a reflection either, considering that concrete is pushed out from the location of the pod as the plane enters the building. Also note that their is no concrete damage on the port side.

Flight 175 Pod

NIST’s impact scar diagrams also show a large hole where the pod would have been.

NIST Diagram

Along with this evidence, the pod casts its own shadow as well as the engines. This proves the pod is not merely a reflection or trick of light.

2. The flash is a static discharge, sparks or reflection

The flash is present in every video of the second plane impact.

4 Angle Montage

A video made by Dylan Avery shows four videos showing the flash. It can be seen here:

The three most common “debunking” explanations for the flash are:
1) Static Discharge
2) Reflection
3) Sparks

A static discharge would be arched from the planes fuselage to the building itself. It would not be a round bright orange flash and would most likely not be seen in daylight. The flash is seen 5-10 feet away from the plane itself, so static discharge is highly unlikely.

A reflection can only be seen from one angle, while the flash can be seen from many vantage points as demonstrated above. Also reflections would not appear orange nor as bright as the flash. Reflection is highly unlikely to nearly impossible.

Another explanation is that the flash were sparks from the plane colliding with the building. Sparks look like streaks and usually have several of the streaks at a time, as demonstrated here.


However the flash seen here is round, bright orange, and solid unlike the sparks. Also the flash is to the right of the aircraft and cannot be seen anywhere else.


Sparks would also be very hard to see in broad daylight from where most of the footage was taken and would not be clearly seen in the footage.

The flash not only be seen on Flight 175’s impact but also the Naudet Flight 11 footage.

Flight 175 Flash
Flash Sequence

Flight 11 Flash
1st Hit GIF

This flash is not seen on one impact, but two impacts.

It is also important to note that the flash is directly in line with the pod device seen on the starboard side.

4 Angle Footage

This directly relates the pod and flash together.

3. Phil Jayhan and other Flight 175 researchers edited the photos and videos to show pods and flashes

This outrageous claim has been the fall-back answer to the anomalies on the aircraft.

These quotes were taken from “debunking” websites:
This bogus “pod” evidence is spun a different way by the “power hour” christian fundamentalist radio show, producers of the fake film “911 in plane site.” The Letsroll site told an elaborate story about how this photo was acquired, but it is the same photo as this one below — and also shows the “pod” is just a bad joke “hidden in plain sight.” Letsroll911 and 911inplanesite are basically the same effort, with the “video editing” for the key clips probably done by the “webfairy” site (which offers the “theory” that the WTC North Tower was only hit by a missile, no planes involved).

While Phil Jayhan as well as others have distanced themselves away from Webfairy’s bogus no-plane claims, Oil Empire asserts that Phil Jayhan and the producers of 9/11 In Plane Site hired the works of Webfairy to edit flashes into the footage.

A further development came during the posting of this “Bogus site” report — Let’s Roll made the following dramatic announcement: discovers New Proof! At ground zero, first clear picture found of far side of Pseudo flight 175 found.
Shows more Military Ordinance tucked between engine and pylon. Click here for picture!

This new photo was posted in the LetsRoll forum…(outdated link to LetsRoll Forums followed)

Before looking at the photo, the question — as always — is why any photos allegedly showing an anomaly would not surface until nearly three years later, and after the “letsroll” site was challenged harshly as a disinformation website.

This claims that Phil Jayhan, because of harsh criticism, suddenly found a new photo showing the pod. This quote also hints that Phil Jayhan edited the photo, thus that is why it took so long for it to surface.

It then goes on to say this:

The Letsroll site told an elaborate story about how this photo was acquired

Actually, the story was not elaborate at all. Phil Jayhan has told the story of how they acquired this photo many times. Phil Jayhan and Deb Simon went down to Ground Zero looking for more evidence and encountered one of the illegal photo vendors present at Ground Zero. They were looking through their catalog of photos and found Rob Howard’s photo shown above. This was the clearest image Phil Jayhan had seen to date. Phil Jayhan restated this in an interview with Dave vonKleist for his new film “9/11 Ripple Effect” from which he tells the story on how he acquired this photo:

From personal experience, I can also relate to his story from my own presence at Ground Zero. Asian vendors are abundantly present and this story is not elaborate by no means whatsoever.

This claim can also be completely debunked by the fact that CNN themselves presents a photo with both the pod and flash present on their website. Below is a diagram proving this.

CNN Website
Click for enlarged photo.

This clearly shows Phil Jayhan is innocent of any editing charges.


The pod and flash evidence are strong evidence for a 9/11 inside job. The “debunking” efforts are unmerited and can easily be debunked themselves. They also demonstrated the smear campaigns against the researchers themselves as demonstrated by the charges that Phil Jayhan edited the footage which we completely debunked.

We hope you keep an open mind on this subject and take a look at the aircraft evidence for yourself.

9/11 Ripple Effect – Coming Soon

June 16, 2007

DVD Cover of 9/11 Ripple Effect

Here is a new preview clip from the movie covering the 9/11 aircraft anomalies.

Look forward to this production mid-July 2007.