An open letter to James Randi and the rest of the world: PDF Version, HTML Version, Text Version.
In my old article, I argued that the pod had to be real and something similar to a jet engine, because the pod and the jet engines each produced a burst of light when hitting the South Tower. Nothing else did during the first tenth of a second. However, my conclusion has to be revised. Boeing 767s have a reserve of hydraulic fluid in their right wheel wells. This may have ignited to produce the middle bright light.South-Tower-Airplane.html
This discovery in no way validates the malicious incompetence and pathological illiteracy I encountered when trying to present the evidence.
I have put the sequence of redone freeze-frames on this page, along with several attempts to animate the frames. The frames were recropped to align them properly, and eliminate the pictures jumping around. Also, the first frame is shortly after the plane appears in on the screen. Every frame is shown until a time after the crash. The numbering system is chosen so that the frames during the crash have the same number as in the old photos. The various animation attempts hopefully allow you to see the jet engines and the pod as they plunge into the South Tower wall and leave the bursts of light in their wake.
Showing that 9/11 must have been an inside job, committed by the Bush Administration, is trivial. Unfortunately, the difficult issue is getting people to see and observe the obvious. The post-9/11 era is biggest evidence I've seen of demonic possession or mass mesmerism of a large part of the United States.
A case in point is the blogospheric nightmare I encountered upon presenting the photographs linked-to above, at The Daily Kos. I may tell that story one of these days. But the vast majority of people there didn't even read the case I made (with comprehension, at least) or look at the photographs, but savaged me for presenting the case. They followed one of the standard pseudoscience responses: ignore the content while responding with insults.
Twenty-One-Cannon Salutes (a term invented regarding Panama's former leader Manuel Noriega and drug dealing evidence, a combination of a smoking gun and an elephant in the living room, or maybe a Bengal tiger):
Update: The recent case of Northwest Flight 188 from San Diego to Minneapolis leads one to consider the 9/11 security paralysis. Fighter jets were ready to take off, but none actually took off to intercept the wayward aircraft, even though the aircraft was out of contact for over an hour.
I am not sure what to make of this incident. They say that the plane overshot Minneapolis by 150 miles. The fact was worse; they overshot the spot where they begin their descent by perhaps 300 miles. Also, did the pilots not receive communications? Or did they persistantly ignore loud (perhaps profanity-laden) demands for response?
Both pilots had 10,000 or more hours logged of commercial piloting. Even if experience breeds complacency (rather than expertise), such major recklessness doesn't appear out of the blue. Things grow step by little step, before they reach the point of utter absurdity.
Overall, the story of AA Flight 77 and the Pentagon is ridiculous.
Query: Did the Commission even look at the photograph when putting it in the report?
I list this as a suspicious issue rather than a smoking gun because it's possible for databases to be edited later. The web page that led me to the database did mention changes. But I can't imagine why anyone would change the entry.
I don't know the credibility of Sammon in in this case. He was there at the time. He appears to be a conservative Bush Administration supporter. If the story is true, what is the most likely explanation?
The only innocent explanation I can think of is to give the speech-writers time to rewrite Bush's speech to reflect the news. However, many in the secret service wanted to get President Bush out of there because he was in a known location and could be a target as part of the terrorist attacks. If they had got him back to Air Force I and into the air, that would have given the speechwriters time to write.
I find Mike Ruppert's explanation in Crossing the Rubicon far more plausible. They were waiting for Vice President Cheney to get into position to take control before Bush could do anything. If Bush had acted then, he suggests that either standard procedure would have worked as it was supposed to, or the world would gone up in a thermonuclear blast.
In any case, I can't think of any reasonable innocent explanation for Bush staying at the school, and continuing to read "The Pet Goat." The official explanation (in the 9/11 Commission Report and elsewhere), is that they didn't want to disturb and frighten the children. That doesn't explain why Bush made his first 9/11 speech there.
David Griffin, in 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press tells us that the last two weren't different events, but alternate discoveries of Mohammed Atta's material. If so, we have another smoking gun of flagrant lies.
The last three items are rather unlikely, and sound much more like attempts to direct attention to Arabs. In other words, we know who they want us to think did it, not who did it.
Demonic Possession or Mass Mesmerism:
I may give a list of persons and organizations who I determine have presented propaganda or otherwise supported the 9/11 attacks. They may have the freedom to say what they choose, but so do I. I have the freedom to denounce them as utter fools or conspirators supporting the 9/11 attacks.
Their section on the "pod" led me to create the South Tower Photograph section of this web site. They used the one of the worst photographs to refute the pod, without looking at better photos or videos. Their section on the paralysis of NORAD and our air security in general was pure propaganda. (Now was golfer Payne Stewart's lear-jet really the only interception of civilian aircraft by NORAD in the previous decade? And 4500 identical radar blips must be searched if an aircraft turns off its transponder?)