Hello everyone, I recently was watching a clip of the the second plane hitting one of the trade towers, I just so happen to be watching it inside of an editing program which allowed me to slow down the video into frames. And simply put, what I saw made me start to think twice about what exactly hit the trade centers. It's already known that the makers of Loose Change pointed out that there were brief "flashes" of light before the planes actually hit each tower. Thats already understood. But where the flashes came from is a bit of a mystery, and some people point to it as coming from "Pod Missles" from underneath the plane before impact. Now I didnt believe that claim because I had no evidence for it, but after you see what I have to show to you, you may not hold heartly believe the planes had pod missles but it just makes you as yourself, is that exactly what I think Im seeing??

Now, the clip I obtained my pictures from was from Loose Change 1st Edition at 22min,36sec,24 frames. The clip only last 8 frames where phenomenon occurs before and to impact, and because of thus I broke the short clip down into frames I made images of the frames which I am about to present to you. All I ask of you while viewing the pictures is to be objective. Whatever Im seeing within these pictures had to have been there because these are unaltered in anyway, and you yourself can view the same clip by frames if you obtain a copy of Loose Change 1st Edition and fast forward to the time above I presented; 22min,36sec,24frames. Note, when viewed from this time, at the slowest possible speed the video will only change 6 times before and to impact, because your viewing it in frames. There can be 8 frames but picture will only change 6 times, the other two times the picture will remain the same. Now, let me begin..........

*Picture One*Shows the second plane heading towards the building at just feet away. Nothing out of the ordinary........yet. Watch the front belly.


*Picture Two*Shows a slight expansion of the front under belly of the plane. Shown by the arrows. Look twice at the first and second picture, it does expand slightly. Look carefully, this wasnt visible in the first picture.

*Picture Three*Watch the lined arrow. Something begins to decend from underneath of the plane's front under belly even more.

*Picture Four*CLEARLY, something appears to be decending further from underneath the plane! Orange in color. Show by the lined arrow.

*Picture Five*Clear as the light of day. Somethings definately decending........

*Picture Six*The present flash as the plane impacts the building.

Now, look at those photos, and look at them again again and again. You cannot tell me, debunker or not, that something from under the belly of that plane isnt decending. Note I did not alter the pictures in any way besides the lined arrows. You can view the same video clip in frames from Loose Change 1st Edition as I did. Slow it down to frames yourself and look as something decends from underneath. Now, what exactly can that be decending? Whatever it is, could it have caused the brief flash before impact? Deside for yourself..........

-An Urban Legend

I am not familiar with a brief flash of light before impact, where is it in those frames? i see the flash from impact of the plane with the building in the last picture, but i am not understanding what you refer to. Also, if there is infact something coming from the bottom of the plane, we must ask ourselves what are the possible things that COULD be coming from the bottom of the plane? How could it be a missle of some sort if the plane was of a commercial airline? I'm interested to see what someone more familiar with planes and their different parts might have to say about this. Quite frankly, until reading this post, I have heard nothing about a flash of light or an item bulging from the bottom of the plane.

AUL, have you considered just how fast that "missile" would have to be decending from the belly of the plane?

I don't know off the top of my head just how fast the plane was moving, but looking at the frames you've isolated, I'm guessing that there couldn't possibly have been a span of more than a half a second between the first frame to the last.

This doesn't seem like a reasonable amount of time to descend a missile and fire it.

id have to agree with that

I didnt positively say it was a missle, I asked "could it be". But you are right Tk, for it to show up in the frames I just isolated its something that would have had to decend incredibly fast before initial impact to only be caught in frames. It shows up just like I said in 8 frames before impact. Just watching the clip at normal speed having never seen the pictures you wouldnt catch it appearing until after you slow it down in the frames and know what to look for. Im not saying its absolutely a missle but its definately not suppose to be there and it is. And if it was a missle, it doesnt nessisary have to decend to be effective, yet in the pictures I see something decending, decending or not if it was a missle it would contribute to the explosion and damage of the building.

All Im trying to figure out is what exactly is that under the plane. Period.......

I think it's nothing but a reflection. We could probably get a good idea how fast the anomaly was if we knew the frames per second rating of the camera and roughly how fast the plane was going. I'm thinking the span covered by 8 frames is nowhere near enough time for it to be anything but a reflection.

I think the flash at the end is the first instant the plane made contact with the building.

Nothing but a reflection!? Tk, you see NO "reflection:" within the first picture then as you move on to picture 2-5 you see this so called reflection expands lower from underneath the plane as if something is lowering before impact. And why would a reflection lower from underneath the plane before impact only?Why would this reflection occur underneath where there is no bright light present instead of on top the plane from above where the is sun light?

My reason for thinking it's only a reflection is twofold:

1. It looks like a reflection

2. I don't think there was time for it to be anything else


Also, it is possible for light to reflect more than once.

let us address this question:
What could possibly be bulging from the bottom of an airliner?

landing gear perhaps? maybe the dude hit the landing gear button and the compartment started to open so slightly that it would catch light reflected from below that was not previously represented on the craft and that could very well be why it is barely visible at all?

i am simply speculating. any other ideas?
what else would be projecting from the bottom of a commercial airliner?

Thierry Meyssan, In Plane Site

This man was the first one to actually also come up with the same conclusion that you have AUL, in his dvd and at his site and others there are many many clear shots of the crash scene you have depicted. Mr. meyssan has been saying almost since day one, that there were flashes of light, just as you have witnessed elsewhere. Mr Meyssan also did a frame by frame analysis, and showed the underside of the aircraft ,and some mysterious bulges that would NOT be present in the Boeing craft that supposedly struck the towers..
he also is a believer in the missle theory

He garnered so Much support and Ire that the US GOVT itself attacked meyssan!!! as a whackjob conspiracist, and to this day mantains a website completly devoted to de-Bunking Mr Meyssans theory.He also believes as i do, that it was in fact a missle that struck the pentagon, I have read recently that some other's here share this view and yet other's do NOT share the views ..I find it striking that the govt actually maintains a webpage, with the sole purpose of attacking the frenchmans theory.. they also elude many times to the fact that he is "French" which i find interesting also.

So if you look into the Original theories by him, In Plane site you can also see what AUL is discussing here in this thread..

Heres a link to the official Govt site, dedicated to de-bunking Meyssan .

it is the ONLY time i Believe that the federal govt has gone to these measures. I also re-call that the sale of his book ,and DVD, was banned here in the United States. I do not know if the Ban is still currently in force, or not ?I know amazon took it off of theyre site also. heres the Govt link

U.S.INFO.State.Gov....................International Information program-----------------------sounds like the spin machine to me what a name for a program how obvious!!!!


http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005.../28-581634.html

Absolutely!! Thats incredible. If there is nothing to this "crack pots" theory why create an entire website to "debunk" it?! Seems as if they're giving it some credibility now, why dont we see government website for debunking aliens taking Elvis or other conspiracys?

People can call me what they will, but I think Im leaning towards believing the missle theory, because when I look at those frames thats exactly what it looks like lowering from underneath the front of the plane.

And thanks for the info Hungrii

Any Time friend

always willing to help people see things for what they truly are .Keep up the good work

My $0.02 for what it's worth.

I've never been a fan of the 'missile' theory for the simple reason that I can't see the point. If you're going to fly a plane into a building, why bother with a missle? It's rather like the Pentagon 'missile' theory. Why fly the damn plane to within a gnat's **** of the Pentagon building only to over-complicate things by executing a fly-over whilst simultaneously launching a missile? Why not simply fly the thing into the building since it's there?

As for the phenomena you're witnessing, I think (and I'm not an expert) that this could well be down to the fact that the plane is banking as it approaches the point of impact. In other words, its angle, relative to the light is changing with each frame. You can see the effect of this on the upper wing. It is quite dark in the first frame. However in frames two through five, it lightens up. Whatever lighting effect is causing this is also probably responsible for the appearance of a 'pod' on the underbelly.

I know that this is not what it is but, doesn't it almost look a little like the nose gear coming down? Of course, it would have to be coming down fast enough to rip it clean off but, in still frames with no time count, that is what it looks like to me.

Most likely, what we are seeing here is a trick of light. Airplane body surfaces are not perfectly smooth. As it banked, it's angle toward the sun and the observer changes exagerating the movement of the reflections. Imagine walking up to the front of an highly waxed volkswagon beetle. At first your reflection might only be near the bumper but, as you get closer, your reflection may appear to stretch towards the windshield (wind screen). This distortion can give the impression that you are growing very fast!

Granted, it's not the exact same thing but, it's similar enough for me to accept it as an reasonable analogy.

Mmmm, pretty good insight in some post; thanks guys. I appreciate all of the information given therein. I will take into consideration all possible causes and theories. Just alot to think about when looking at those frames.

Here is a different view that clearly (IMO) shows that it's a reflection:

Or the landing gear. The position looks right.

i think there were demo charges placed in the towers, because before they fell you could see small explosions coming out of the towers. there is an underground video that shows things like this, i don't know the name. google it if you have spare time...

I think you're just seeing a pixellated, distorted view of the light gray stripe which runs down the belly of the aircraft. Keep in mind that the video frame grabs you're showing have been horribly compressed and then enlarged. Look at the Trade Center tower. It looks like a solid box. None of the exterior columns or windows are visible. It's just one big blur full of colored splotches of video artifacts. Also note the pinkish color bleeding out from under the aft fuselage of the plane and the dark lines in front of the upper wing. These shots are full of video and compression artifacts, and there is very little real detail visible.

Here's a still photo taken just a fraction of a second earlier than your video frame grabs. The gray stripe is clearly seen, and no missiles or unusual pods are visible. Just the belly of a doomed United Airlines 767.

Now you see, this sounds a little more plausible. mmm hmm. But I havent enlarged anything within the picture, I captured it as it, uncompressed yes, enlarged no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I...ted&search=

Oh please, why did you post that ignorant waste of video? The entire video doesnt "debunk" anything, the entire video just engages in adhominem attacks on the person in an attempt to discredit what they're saying. And might I add, some of the insults were funny but thats all it was, insults not arguments. Id love to see Pen and Teller produce a video of some of these FBI/Cia whistle blowers on 9/11 calling them idiots and kooks, might even make it to the daily show.

But this is what Pen and Teller does

Person: 9/11 was an inside job. Government officials(present and former) have went public stating the official story of 9/11 is pure fantasy. There were also witnesses present at the trade centers who heard,seen,and felt explosion in and around the towers, with brief flashes of orange light before and during the collapse, not to mention the janitor who heard/felt a large explosion before the 1st plane even hit! These characteristics fit the description of a control demolition and support the hypothesis of 9/11 being an inside job.

Pen and Teller: Ah, dont believe this IDIOT! A steaming pile of cow ****! He is got his information straight from his *a double s*

---

Yea, that sounds like good debunking.

I'm sorry if it seemed I was implying that you had altered the screen captures. That's not at all what I meant. I assumed you had posted them directly from the source video, but we don't know how many generations of copying, resizing, etc. that raw video has been through before it made it into Loose Change. My point was only that the clip, as it exists now, doesn't have a lot of fine detail left in it.

Regards,

Pericynthion

I agree, and when I look at it, it could be the color bleeding which seems to be the most plausible. But then again, I still have my doubts.

yea....dream on