January 23, 2002
7:52 AM   Subscribe

The real culprit behind the 9/11 attack.
posted by tiaka (25 comments total)
The first four pictures are all exactly identical except for the UFO in four different positions.

Odd that the smoke froze while the cameraman was able to take four shots, isn't it?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 7:58 AM on January 23, 2002

Is it a UFO? I can't read chinese. I thought it was evil Superman from Superman III.
posted by uftheory at 8:03 AM on January 23, 2002

its that new frozen smoke developed by arafat in his underground chemical death factories.
posted by quonsar at 8:03 AM on January 23, 2002

For the love of all that is sacred and pure...
posted by adampsyche at 8:09 AM on January 23, 2002

So the real culprit was Photoshop?
posted by Outlawyr at 8:12 AM on January 23, 2002

uftheory: can you read japanese though? maybe that would be more useful.
posted by jnthnjng at 8:19 AM on January 23, 2002

The animated gif right below those shows that the smoke is moving, but the thing is moving a lot faster.

It sure is curious, though. The fighter jets flying around over Manhattan at very high speeds should have seen *something*, right?
posted by whatnotever at 8:21 AM on January 23, 2002

Steven: the new Intergalactic T-4000 model moves about 18 times the speed of smoke. And the captain's bridge looks just like that Radio Shack car.
posted by LeLiLo at 8:27 AM on January 23, 2002

Japanese! It is Japanese not Chinese! :P
posted by gloege at 8:31 AM on January 23, 2002


It's the Riddler.

(no japanese fonts for me)
posted by zpousman at 8:50 AM on January 23, 2002

The thing in the animated gif looks an awful lot like a bird, about 50 to 100 feet from the camera.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 8:53 AM on January 23, 2002

UFO or hoax... Chinese or Japanese... how come people with some knowledge about some things but not enough about anything always find ways to be heard?
posted by slipperytoast at 9:00 AM on January 23, 2002

And all the other little specks at the bottom could well have been the news choppers buzzing about before they were all grounded. What crap.
posted by piskycritters at 9:06 AM on January 23, 2002

if it really was a UFO that crashed into the building then was the plane that hit the building immediately afterwards an incredibly well planned cover-up? does afghanistan know about UFO's and are covering them up? this is so stupid.
posted by suprfli at 9:22 AM on January 23, 2002

Besides, you'll all recall those photos showing the Little Devil in the smoke....unless he's working with the UFOs, too!!!!

Damn those evildoing evildoers!
posted by briank at 9:30 AM on January 23, 2002

Outlawyr: hehe. Thanks for the chuckle.
posted by Fofer at 9:34 AM on January 23, 2002

Who knew the Japanese had tabloids?!
posted by dness2 at 9:39 AM on January 23, 2002

What does this have to do with that tourist guy who was on the roof of the north tower?
posted by ZachsMind at 11:04 AM on January 23, 2002

These photos were around in September, I don't think they're photoshopped. The explanation was that matter was ejected from the building by the force of the crash. There was some talk of a rocket, but it wasn't credible. But, hey, there's always room for more conspiracy and/or UFO theories.
posted by theora55 at 11:31 AM on January 23, 2002

That's what I said: Chinese.
posted by uftheory at 2:44 PM on January 23, 2002

Time machines, my friend. Time machines. Lower manhattan is never that crowded at 8:45 a.m. Time traveling tourists, my friends. Time traveling tourists.
posted by Slagman at 3:41 PM on January 23, 2002

i knew the planes couldn't have done it.
posted by whoshotwho at 4:11 PM on January 23, 2002

We discussed the possibility that the US military narrowly missed shooting down the second WTC plane on 9/16. There has since been evidence that the PA plane was actually shot down (sorry no links). Now we see a fairly authentic looking second angle of what appears to be the same extremely fast moving object, and yet we still don't take this seriously? Just because the website is in Japanese and refers to UFOs doesn't mean we have to be dense. I'm not trying to be alarmist, but I think there's a very good chance the military shot at both planes, hit one of them, and understandably doesn't want to talk about it.
posted by Spork65 at 9:21 PM on January 23, 2002

I'll bite. If there was a rocket shot at the second plane, and it missed, then it must have gone somewhere. I would assume it would have landed pretty noisily, too.

While I lean heavily toward Flight 93 in Pennsylvania as having been shot down, I don't see how the lack of evidence of a rocket impact and better and more photographs can sustain a credible theory here.
posted by stevis at 11:03 PM on January 23, 2002

Not that anyone's reading this thread anymore....
I admit it seems a little far-fetched, and I don't know anything about missiles, but the trajectory on this video takes a sharp turn down after missing plane #2, and seems to land smack in the middle of a pretty wide section of harbor. It seems to me there may be some aspect of missile guidance systems that tell it what to do if it misses, this would come in handy in a war with lots of aerial combat - to avoid hitting your own guys. I would think that spectators would be a little too distracted by a jetliner smacking into a building to notice a missile (which is tiny by comparison) landing in water a mile away. For several days after the catastrophe, the harbor and skies were off-limits to civilians. The missile could easily have been recovered with no witnesses. Again, I'm not saying I believe this, but it seems a lot more credible than some other crackpot theories that get more discussion.
posted by Spork65 at 7:46 AM on January 25, 2002

« Older It looks like a Radio Shack exploded inside...   |   √©rrorplan Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments