Pod People hijack 9/11 Truth Movement

The "pod" claim was the initial argument used by the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics to suggest that the 9/11 truth movement was without merit, and they used a photo of the alleged pod from the 9/11 truth website questionsquestion.net (which was debunking the "pod" as nonsense). see also: jokes hidden in plain sight

TV Mind: photoshopped photos

COINTELPRO Boeing 757s and 767s have a structure between the wings that a few voices have pretended was an anomaly on Flight 175 (the second plane to hit the WTC).

"Pod Plane" at the South Tower

(the one that hit second, with lots of witnesses)

The "Pod Plane" instead of Flight 175 at the South Tower. This story got a bit more attention than the "webfairy theory" that planes did not hit the World Trade Center, but less than the Pentagon plane claims. This claim was first floated in 2003, but the "pod" was promoted more aggressively after the 9/11 International Inquiry in San Francisco (Marh 2004), presumably to distract from the "reality based" part of the 9/11 truth movement and to distract from more productive analysis as the Presidential Election drew closer.

The "pod" is the claim that Flight 175 (the second plane to hit the WTC) supposedly had an anomaly underneath it that "proves" the planes were substituted in mid-flight and therefore 9/11 was an inside job. This claim is based on blurry photos of an alleged "pod" underneath the wing that fired a missile, contained a bomb or remote control equipment (depending on which website you read). The "pod" it is easily exposed as a hoax comparing the photos of the plane with a normal photo of a Boeing 767 -- the mythical "pod" is just the normal connector between the wing and the fuselage, called a "fairing."

Any video footage from September 11, 2001 "suddenly" released years after the events should be considered doctored until proven authentic.

Any "evidence," especially that on anonymous websites or unsolicited email, needs to be considered unproven until triple checked as real -- especially if it is promoting disproved crap such as "pods."

The "pod" was the primary thesis of the "In Plane Site" film released in July 2004. No matter how many times this story is exposed as fake, its primary proponents continue on as if the Earth really is still flat, facts are obviously irrelevant for their campaign.

In 2005, the first version of the "Loose Change" film (a follow up to In Plane Site?) included the pod hoax, but it was removed from later versions, since the "pod" isn't very popular any more even among the more incompetent (and disingenuous) parts of the 9/11 truth movement, who have largely moved on to newer fantastical claims that aren't quite truthful.

www.oilempire.us/pod.html

"Pod People" hijack the 9/11 truth movement

www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html

Expert photographic analysis debunks "pod" claims

www.911review.com/errors/phantom/st_plane.html

Photo of a 767 showing the oval structure that connects the wings to the fuselage that the "pod" campaign claims is proof that 9/11 was an inside job. 9/11 was an inside job, but the "pod" is merely the normal structure of a plane.

"Pod People"

The film "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" was a science fiction story about alien invasion of the United States (thought by some to be a parable for anti-communist fears of subversives overtaking the country, or perhaps a parable about anti-communist paranoia). In that film, the aliens emerged from "pods" and then took over normal humans, who were then converted into aliens yet looked normal on the outside.

The "parallel 9/11 movement" that has emerged to challenge the "mainstream" 9/11 truth movement for control of the terms of debate parallels the "pod people" from the "Body Snatchers" film. This parallel effort appears to most people to be part of the same movement as the 9/11 truth movement the 9/11 Visibility Project, the writings of Paul Thompson, Michael Ruppert, and Nafeez Ahmed(to cite a few examples). However, this parallel effort avoids the primary issues raised 9/11 truth activists and writers in favor of speculations and photographic misinterpretations such as the "pod" (the fake claim that Flight 175 had something attached to its underside and therefore that "proves" 9/11 was an inside job).

Since the webfairy theory of "no plane at WTC" didn't fly (it was did not attract sufficient support among 9/11 skeptics nor enough attention to be useful in discrediting 9/11 skeptics), a subsequent effort was floated that has been somewhat more successful in attracting an audience. This newer campaign claims that the plane that hit the South Tower had an unusual "pod" underneath it. The claim that there was a is pod allegedly fired a missile at the tower one-third second before impact, carried a napalm bomb, or was the location for the remote control system (the promoters have developed a variety of ideas to explain the alleged pod). The pod theories claim that this anomaly proves that the plane that hit the South Tower wasn't actually Flight 175, and therefore 9/11 was an inside job. Many pod promoters urge the public to focus on this story (or the "no plane at Pentagon" claim), and worry about the other evidence at some point in the future.

However, the photographic "evidence" for the pod consists of blurry, low resolution photos. All that these photos reveal is the oval shaped structure that connects the wing to the fuselage, as conclusively shown by comparing a real photo of a 767 to the pod photos.

The staggering of the timing of the attacks of the twin towers resulted in maximum photographic coverage of the second crash. The idea that the plane had an extra pod makes no sense, since a single clear photo of this would instantly expose the conspiracy.

The idea that a missile was fired a split second before the South tower was hit is even more bizarre, since there was no "need" for this to happen (no tactical advantage for the attackers, since the towers were not anywhere as strong as the sector of the Pentagon that was hit - which had been strengthened against attack immediately prior to 9/11).

The "pod" is the primary thesis of the fake film "In Plane Site" - which uses a photo of a normal Boeing 757 on the front cover that disproves the "pod" nonsense (a bad joke "hidden in plain sight").

no missile fired at the South Tower in this collection of images ...

(right click to save - the image is displayed here in half size)

comment from a reader:

Thanks. I'd seen people try that line of reasoning and the people pushing pods and missiles don't seem to buy it. You can show that the existing planes would have a bulge but these people will say anything to turn that bulge into a missile pod. In fact, I've seen one article from Spain that references bulges all over the bottom, at least 3 or 4 of them.

There's a reason the pod-and-missile memes are coming out now - to discredit everyone else in the movement and turn away those who are first learning about it. It means we're making a real difference.

Unfortunately, lots of people will just get excited about the images and not have the capacity for critical thinking, then spread the meme without bad intentions.

That's why I'm taking the time to refute these sites and promoters in every possible way.

I've honed it down to a strictly logic approach. If I can take the pod idea apart with just words and ideas, all the better. The pod people want us to get drawn into duelling video and photo evidence where they can suck away everyone's time without ever having to talk about anything except fuzzy images.

And those who are not able to think critically will simply be trying to prove their point . . . endlessly. - Vic

LetsRoll911's "new proof" of the "pod" theory

(the claim that Flight 175 had an anomalous "pod"

underneath it and therefore the flights were substituted

and therefore 9/11 was an inside job) Actual photo of a Boeing 767 showing

the pod is merely a contrast altered

photo of the normal, oval shaped connector between the wing and fuselage It must be an amazing coincidence that video evidence that proves extreme claims (such as the pod planes suffer from the problem of very poor video quality. the alleged "missile pod" is merely the oval connector between the wings and the fuselage, and the alleged "explosive device" is merely the normal connector between the engine and the wing

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). www.911inplanesite.com/new_york_magazine.htm

The "power hour" website also shows a very small photo of a normal Boeing -- a more detailed photo clearly shows the "pod" claim is just another one of their hoaxes.

Yet another normal photo of a Boeing that proves the "pod" claim is a hoax.

More photos that show the "pod" is just a normal part of a Boeing

www.airliners.net/open.file/708274/L/

www.airliners.net/open.file/708036/L/

Photo of a 767 showing the oval structure that connects the wings to the fuselage

that the "pod" campaign claims is proof that 9/11 was an inside job.

9/11 was an inside job, but the "pod" is merely the normal structure of a plane.

The "pod" set up the 9/11 truth movement to be "debunked" by Popular Mechanics.

"Pod person" attempts to infiltrate a local 9/11 activist group ...

This "pod" person showed up at one of our meetings with no connection to any other current member (this was public through meetup.org, mind you) and seemed intent on steering the subject of our meetings towards the "pod" issue and would speak of nothing but it. He insisted repeatedly that we incorporate video of the "pod" into a public presentation for all to see, and talked incessantly of "In Plane Site" and "letsroll911.org". Coincidentally, another more long term member of the group passed out references to your page about bogus websites, etc., at the same meeting this person showed up at. That evening I researched it, and sent out a letter later that week to our mailing list addressing "pod" person infiltration. Literally, within hours of sending that email (which was also sent to the potential infiltrator), he contacted one of our key members and said that he would be no longer be involved with the group, and that he had his own ideas about how he would like to approach this issue. I can't personally say that I know what his motives were but admittedly it was a strange, paranoia inducing experience.

primary sites promoting the pod hoax

In Plane Site a film by the "Power Hour"

www.amics21.com/911/flight175/third.html

The Pod story was floated to a website supposedly based in Spain, that was supposedly the result of analysis by expert engineers at a technical university (if not actually their creation on behalf of the Spanish intelligence services). This story was then "blown back" into the US after being floated in Spain. Many gullible skeptics in the US are more willing to believe this material since the fact that the story supposedly originated outside the US borders gives the illusion that it is more credible. Despite this being one of the first pod people sites (if not the first), all of the photos supposedly showing the "pod" are so lousy that all they prove is that the sponsors of the website understand how to post photos on line. The blurriness of the photo immediately below is typical of the ludicrous phony evidence on this site.

The underbelly of a 767 should be smooth and, when the sun shines on it, it should show a straight line, not what seems to be two clearly distinct tube-like objects, as it does here. ... What it is, of course, cannot be deduced from the photos. However, this plane, whatever it is, could not have taken off from Logan Airport in the condition we see here.

The "amics21.com" site is correct - this plane could not have taken off from Logan Airport in this condition. In the photo, the plane has been blurred through digital imaging to the point that it would not have been aerodynamic - or for that matter, even all that visible, even at very close range. Digital photographic editing software is a wonderful invention that can manipulate the historical record. This photo looks like it merely has a series of "compression artifacts" (extra features in the image created by changing the images' resolution).

The claim that the underside of the plane "should show a straight line" is blatant disinformation, since the 767 and 757 clearly have a structure under the wings that helps hold the plane together.

Some sites claim that amics21 was the first website to promote the pod (in 2003). Was this its test marketing campaign, cleverly floated via a "foreign" website to pretend it had more credibility?

www.thoughtcrimenews.com/wtc.htm

A site promoting the pod campaigns. This site also runs 911truthradio, a mix of some of the best analysts on the issues and some of the worst. It is hard to understand how a well-meaning advocate could simultaneously promote careful research and silly nonsense that is easily debunked. Thoughtcrimenews was apparently promoting the pod in 2003, before it was aggressively promoted (in the months before the election).

911review.org

(a rebuttal is www.911review.com, the best "9/11 physical evidence" website)

911review has copied this entire website and is "mirroring" it on that site, probably an effort to hijack web traffic and direct it to their site. That website has mirrored this effort yet also attacks oilempire (using very illogical arguments) along with many other 9/11 truth sites that don't buy into their "photoshopped evidence" claims. 911review.org has ignored several demands that they take down the oilempire site mirror from their server, which is one of many pieces of evidence of its insincerity.

911review.org is a supporter of the webfairy (no planes at the towers) and the "pod" disinformation campaigns

see http://911review.org/Wiki/Wtc2PlanePod.shtml, which claims

In reviewing the tens of thousands images taken on 9/11 and available across the Internet, it is clear that the flight that struck the second of the TwinTowers was not United Airlines Flight 175, because views from underneath the plane reveal a 20 m. long, 1/2 m. diameter, cylinder that opens just before impact. The pod appears in all photographs that clearly show that aspect of the plane, and can be seen in the frame-by-frame analysis of all videos of the impact, where there is sufficient contrast and resolution.

What is so important about this evidence is that it clearly shows that 9/11 was an InsideJob: Ali BinLaden and his 20 hijackers can't arrange for United Airlines planes to be swapped or outfitted with pods. It cannot be explained by the "They Let It Happen On Purpose" fall-back disinformation put out by the shills - see Fahrenheit911Disinfo.

However, if 911review.org has actually looked at "tens of thousands" of 9/11 images, how come they can't find a single high quality photo that documents their spectacular claims of an anomalous pod under the plane that hit the second tower - or explain why reasonably decent resolution photos merely show the structure that holds the wings together (under the body of the plane), not any extra "pod."

911review's muddying of the truth of 9/11 is sneaky. It makes the claim that 9/11 was an inside job dependent on the "pod plane" theory - which is extremely easy to discredit given the crappy photos used to pretend that this is true.

911review promotes the most bogus 9/11 sites - the webfairy, letsroll911, and the "batcave" site, while ignoring most of the accurate 9/11 sites. To maintain the illusion of credibility, however, it does link to the cooperativeresearch timeline and From the Wilderness, since no 9/11 "conspiracy" site is credible without mentioning these two resources. Unfortunately, linking cooperativeresearch and FTW with the Webfairy and the pod people theories is a great way to discredit the careful research that the good sites have done.

911review also misleads by claiming that the "let it happen on purpose" theory is fall-back disinformation. In reality, the Bush regime has fought this meme quite vigorously, since even a "LIHOP" scenario still implies a conscious decision to kill thousands of citizens.

serendipity.li

The "serendipity" site hosts hateful attacks on some of the hardest working 9/11 activists (see http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/fake_opposition.htm for a particularly ugly example), and promotes the webfairy / pod campaign.

Their page http://www.serendipity.li/wtc_other_sites.htm purports to be a comprehensive list of 9/11 pages, yet it is a mix of accurate information and suspect claims. The Serendipity comments about Mike Ruppert's site blatantly misleads:

This has long been regarded as one of the most perceptive sites concerning both 9/11 and peak oil. That Ruppert supports the official lie that 9/11 was an "Al Qaeda" operation should make one wonder.

A simple review of virtually any article at www.fromthewilderness.com quickly exposes Serendipity's claims as false. Why does "Serendipity" promote disinformation about Ruppert's work -- it should make one wonder. Perhaps Serendipity is trying to discourage people from reading Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon," which details Cheney's complicity in 9/11. Who benefits from that outcome?

One article on serendipity that cleverly promotes the pod plane idea (What Hit WTC2? Another Look at the Second Plane, http://www.serendipity.li/wot/spencer06.htm) has this clue:

The third objection of which I am aware is that the objects are in fact standard features of a Boeing 767. Anyone tempted to pursue this line might be advised carefully to ponder the significance of the Boeing Corporation's response when asked by Spain's La Vanguardia newspaper for its comments on the objects. La Vanguardia's edition of 22nd June 2003 (English translation available here) reports that:

"...a spokesman stated that Boeing was unable to offer an opinion "for security reasons" and because it had not officially participated in the investigation of the attacks".

A rather curious response for a company that believed it was looking at regular and identifiable items of its own equipment.

In reality, the photos of the so-called pod are definitely standard features of a Boeing 767 -- the "pod" claim is based on slightly blurred photos of the normal oval shaped wing to fuselage connector. Even the author of the "second plane" article hints at this by noting:

The details have been sharpened a little and the brightness and contrast increased to aid clarity.

Changing these photographic attributes (brightness and contrast) suddenly "reveals" the wing to fuselage connector to be an anomaly -- if you do not look at an actual photo of a 767.

As for why Boeing representatives supposedly did not reply to the "pod" claims, there are two possible explanations. One is that they could have been shocked at the utter stupidity involved, and did not want to waste their time. A second possibility, assuming that Boeing really was asked, is that as a major military contractor, they are happy to have government critics trapped in pointless debates and their non-response was calculated to provide "bona fides" to the pod promoters that they actually have a government secret, when the "pod" is just a bad joke that is impervious to facts.

A posting on the letsroll website messageboard:

"this is it? this is the main attraction? hmm, as far as showing the pod, that greyish pic does the best job of that. This pic doesn't show any pod, just the bottom of the wing connections. And the bomb? You mean that dark strip next to the engine? Thats the engine mount, not a bomb. It's just that the engine mount is both dark blue and in shadow and the sun reflecting off of the engine itself is lighting up the bottom of the wing a lil bit. The bomb is just the shadowed engine mount meeting the unpainted wing."

---lotr9099, June 8th, 2004

letsroll911.org

911uncovered (a recycling of "lets roll"?)

(contains altered image of South Tower crash with a bright dot added to the video footage in support of the theory that an added "pod" was underneath the plane, other footage does not show this added dot. The Bush regime's 9/11 complicity is proven in many ways without the need to make up phony evidence such as this.) Letsroll claims that they are going to Congressional offices and foreign embassies in Washington to persuade them that the "pod" is the central claim of the 9/11 movement, which glosses over a huge amount of proven evidence that actually does show official complicity.

the "911uncovered" site blatantly misleads with claims such as

"A piece of a 767 could have easily shot through one of the Towers, and then fallen to the street for everyone to see; and that would have been beyond embarrassing. But, nothing like that ever happened on 911." http://www.911uncovered.com/missiles.html In reality, unambiguous jet parts WERE found on the streets of Manhattan - see www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html for photos.

This montage was made by the "webfairy" video editing operation. Note that all of the photos pretending to have a closeup of the plane are low resolution and blurry. It is probably a subtle clue that this montage includes the word "contrast" at the top center and has a color changed photo on the bottom left that the whole "pod" campaign is based on subtly shifted images. The "pod" is just a picture of the oval structure connecting the wing to the fuselageof changing the shading and contrast of a picture of the underside of the plane

After numerous sites posted articles stating that "letsroll" did not have any actual evidence for the "pod" claims, Letsroll suddenly claimed to have discovered the identity of the military pilot who shot down Flight 93. Whether this discovery is genuine or not is impossible to say, and it not the point. It is possible that "letsroll" was leaked the information to establish "bona fides" as an investigative website.

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 at:

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1185

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 "new photo" is posted at the top of this pod.html page -- and shows clearly the "pod" is just a bad joke -- the pod is merely the oval shaped connector between the wing and the fuselage. That's it.

911batcave (has probably the lowest quality photos that try to prove a "pod" under a plane of any of these sites)

This site seems to be mostly a fan of the pod story, not a primary source for it. It's strangeness is mirrored at several domains (the author is "Brad M," whoever that is, it is a person with the ability to register domain names, but without the ability to differentiate strong evidence from photoshopped fakery).

These photos from the 911batcave website are supposed forensic evidence for the "theory" that the plane that hit the second tower had a pod under the plane that proves it was not the passenger jet it was supposed to be. The photo on the left has a number of attributes that show it has been dramatically altered, and the photo on the right looks like an image on a tie dye t-shirt, not evidence that proves anything other than certain peoples' gullibility.

These photos supposedly shows something about the second tower being hit, but they are of such poor quality that all it proves is that the person who hosts this website understands how to post graphic files on the internet.

911 Nutshell

An effort promoting some photos that only prove there is a problem of excessive gullibility among a faction of the 9/11 truth movement (the "missilepod" photo is a montage of very low resolution images that prove nothing other than someone knows how to paste blurry photos together and post them on a website)

xnapalm26.jpg is an 8 kilobyte file -- it is amazing that the "pod people" claims are based on extremely low resolution video clips. One would think that cheap Japanese video cameras were not available to the people in New York on 9/11 -- since part of the point of hitting both towers was to have as much attention as possible paid to the second crash. How come none of the "pod people" can show a SINGLE decent photo to document their wild claims (and why do they ignore virtually all of the high quality evidence?)

the clue for debunking this (as if it really is needed) is the thanking of "Rosalee Grable," the alleged webfairy for "her magic touch" -- ie. digital editing. Any digital "editing" done three years after the crash is probably not being done for any purpose other than making up nonsense that is not there. The only people still "making video clips" of the WTC crash are probably those who are doctoring the footage - since the event is IN THE PAST, there's no way to still take original photos of it.

It is interesting that this flood of "new video evidence" has almost all come since the successful San Francisco International Inquiry into 9/11 in March 2004. Evidently, someone is trying to hide the real evidence among a flood of nonsense.

Note also the ultra-violent language used in this email (toward the bottom), which is the type of language that can be used to entrap political dissidents. Similar tactics were used during the COINTELPRO era in the late 1960s. For the record, oilempire.us supports impeachment and removal from office, followed by criminal prosecution of the perpetrators.

From: "Jon Carlson" <carlson.jon@att.net>

To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>

Subject: 911 Nutshell: Shadows on the Walls

Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 00:24:00 -0500