One of them (Lestatdelc) called me "bat-shit insane." He also posted a pair of photos allegedly showing the pod to be the shadow of one of the jet engines. At least there, he made some kind of rational argument.
Much more on the flip.
My refuting of those pictures was deleted. But look at his pictures carefully.
- The pod extends outside his projection of the engine's shadow.
- The shadow of the engine starts on the wing, right where the engine is attached, and extends downward (vertically on the picture) off the wing and doesn't even approach the pod.
- The pod has not only a dark spot, but also light spots. The pod appears to cast its own shadow on the underside of the aircraft.
I could believe that the pod was a trick of light and color and shadow and the underside attachment of the wings, a mirage of some sort, if not for the following:
Two of the dots in the picture occur right at the jet engines, are about the same size as the jet engines, and appear right at the time the jet engines penetrate the wall. The third dot occurs right at the location of the apparent pod. No other similar dots appear. (Much smaller dots, which I call sparks, appear in the following freeze frames, but nothing like those three dots.)
The two dots associated with the engines are obviously caused by the engines. In order to believe that the pod is a mirage, one would have to believe that the third dot has no physical cause (beyond the surface of the airplane) yet somehow magically appeared right where the mirage was, and no similar dots appeared elsewhere around the plane. That belief is so unlikely as to be nonsensical.
The third (central) dot is similar to the two outer dots. A similar physical phenomenon must have caused it. The only hint of any object anywhere near that position to cause it is the pod. That means the pod has to be real, and something similar to the jet engines.
Conclusion: The pod is real, something similar to a jet engine.
Comment: The flames and cock-and-bull stories (about lone shooters, UFOs) and other bull-hockey that appeared in response to my post are the products of irrational know-nothings.
A further comment: I've also stepped through the firemen video, which is the only video I am aware of showing the plane hitting the North Tower. It was also on the CNN DVD. While you can't see anything clear about the plane that hit it, the impact gives a similar asymmetric three-dot pattern.
Update [2005-7-14 1:49:38 by Hot Young Lib]:Everyone here is simply denying the conclusion. I don't think they even read or looked at the pictures.
Let's see the evidence refuted. Somebody here try to refute the photographic evidence.
All I've seen are a bunch of idiocies:
1. Not knowing the motive refutes what's in the photographs.
2. Not knowing who put it there, or how it was put there refutes what's in the photographs.
3. Cock-and-bull stories about things plainly absurd refute what's in the photographs.
I did explain possibly why nobody saw it as it was taking off. The possible explanation was that it was in a compartment until the last minute, at which point the compartment opened and an arm extended it out.
Oh, bleep it all. The responders can't read and they can't think rationally.
Let's see a rational refutation, if you can do it!
Update [2005-7-14 2:49:21 by Hot Young Lib]:After reading all the insanity here, now I can imaging what happened in the jury room, when the Rodney King beaters were acquitted. I can imagine the bull-hockey occuring in the face of the video of the cops slamming Rodney King with their batons.
I hope that all of you encounter what I just encountered, the next time you try to present evidence and argue for something. I hope you get the ridicule and all the random crap that appeared here, while the basic facts are disregarded.
You all deserve another two years of George W. Bush, followed by eight years of his brother Jeb, etc. You all deserve another bloody aggressive war waged by your country.
Nobody has refuted the fact, obvious in the pictures, that the pod caused the third flash.