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 OilEmpire.us. 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.
OilEmpire.us 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 OilEmpire.us is the most referenced on supposed pod “debunking”, it is not the only website that attempts to debunk it. Jim Hoffman’s website 911Research.WTC7.net features an article named “ERROR: A Pod Was Attached to the South Tower Plane” and Michael Rivero’s website WhatReallyHappened.com 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 TruthMove.org 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. OilEmpire.us 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
NIST’s impact scar diagrams also show a large hole where the pod would have been.
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.
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
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
Flight 11 Flash
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.
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:
LetsRoll911.org 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.
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.