Analysis of Flight 175 "Pod" and related claims

by Eric Salter
esalter1 [at] mindspring [dot] com
with contributions by Brian Salter

questionsquestions.net, 9 September 2004

sections:

The 767 wing fairing vs. the "pod"
The "bomb"
Head-on angle shows no evidence of the pod
A "missile"
Spanish cylinders
The "flash"
A cargo plane?
Conclusion

photography usage disclaimer

Letsroll911.org, run by Phil Jayhan, and others claim that there was a pod on the underside of Flight 175 that fired a missile as the plane entered World Trade Center 2. I have to admit that initially looking at the images of Flight 175, I was open minded about this claim. It certainly seems at first glance like there's a pod, and it doesn't suprise me that someone would come up with such a conjecture. But with further research, I have grown increasingly skeptical and believe there is a simpler explanation for these images.

The 767 wing fairing vs. the "pod"

The fuselage bulges out where the wings join it. This is called the wing fairing. The landing gear assembly folds into this area when it is retracted, which seems to be a problem if the alleged pod is a missile launcher:



As is clear in comparing the photos above, under the right lighting conditions the wing fairing can look more pronounced. Notice how the reflected sunlight (specular highlight) on the right side of the plane in the center photograph changes from the fuselage to the fairing. This will be important later.

The alleged pod appears in video footage from CNN, Evan Fairbanks, and Pavel Hlava, and in Carmen Taylor's digital photo.



There is another video of flight 175 from underneath the plane that is good quality and does not show anything that looks like a pod. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find it in full quality video. The only source I know for it is from the interim National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report on the impact in the form of a sequence of stills. As for the four images above, it's not unreasonable to say that it looks like there's a pod on the plane, but the question is, could this be an optical illusion? There are two possible culprits to examine: reflections and shadows on the plane. First, the possibility that the surface of the wing fairing is not illuminated, creating a dark area that could look like a pod.

In the following photo, the sunlight is weaker and more diffused than on the morning of 9/11 so the contrast between highlight and shadow is not as deliniated, but there are similarities to the Fairbanks footage. The entire right side of the fuselage is illuminated while the fairing on the right side of the plane is still dark. But the sunlight here appears to be shining from slightly behind the plane, instead of from slightly in front. There is one key difference: the right wing is dark here, and illuminated on Flight 175. So the question is, could the underside of the fairing remain in shadow while the wing is illuminated?. Looking at pictures of 767s on the ground, the angle of the wings appears to be roughly parallel to the undersides of the fairings and that would seem to make this impossible. However the angle of the wings, the wing dihedral, increases somewhat when the plane is airborne. And because the 767 was making a high speed turn, the wings would have bent up even further then is normal than in level flight. This might allow the underside of the wing to be illuminated while the underside of the fairing remains dark.

In the following photo of a 767 there is a difference in the angles of the wings and that of the innermost part of the wing fairings. However, the measurement of the angle of the fairing surfaces was made by looking at horizontal linear reflections on the fairings, so it should be considered a rough measurement. That said, I can't see any reason to argue against the assumption that, at a certain angle, it is possible for the wing to be illuminated while the fairing remains relatively shaded, especially if the wings were bent upwards even further than normal because of the high speed turn Flight 175 was making at the time.

Additionally, the size and location of the "pod" in the Fairbanks footage corresponds almost precisely with the flat bottom of the wing fairing, the part that could stay in shadow even if the rest of the fairing is illuminated. Notice that the front end of the fairing has a more gradual blending into the fuselage, which causes the flat area to end a distance back from the front of the wing. Another thing: if the shadow in the Fairbanks footage was caused by a raised, rounded pod, then the shadow should be half the width that we see. One side of the pod would be illuminated by sunlight, and the other would be in shadow. Instead, we see an area of shadow which is the full width of the fairing, indicating that the dark area seen in the Fairbanks video can be identified as the wing fairing, and not a pod, with a very high degree of certainty.

The source for the Hlava footage analyzed in this article is an MPEG4 found on the web, so I'm not sure what the quality of the original video is. In that MPEG4 movie, there is a video artifact called "ringing" affecting the image. This was present in the video before it was compressed for the web. It is a result of signal degradation through dubbing or broadcasting, although it may also be present to some extent in the original footage. Notice how on the vertical edges between light and dark areas, such as the right wing or the edge of the building, there is a sort of ghosting effect that adds a black halo. This is ringing. Also notice where the ringing happens, such as the edge of the smoke cloud, it appears to be somewhat rounded or raised. Ringing would be created by the transition from the shaded fairing to the illuminated wing, and may be causing the fairing area to take on the more of the raised appearance of a pod. One more note about the Hlava "pod": it looks thinner and straighter than the "pod" in the CNN or Taylor images, in which it appears more rounded. I don't think foreshortening due to perspective could cause this difference, because the angles of view of the plane are not that different. This should be factored in as supporting the optical illusion hypothesis.

Looking at the CNN and Taylor images, there are a couple things that might help create the illusion of a pod. The stripe-like reflection that runs down the left side of the fuselage is interrupted by the fairing on the left side. This might appear to some to be a shadow cast by the pod. Remember this reflection is caused by light coming up from below and could not be interrupted by any shadow from the pod. The second observation I would make about the CNN and Taylor images is that the innermost flap on the right wing is brightly illuminated. This may be helping to create what looks like the bright right edge of the pod. In each image there is a small portion of the bright area next to the fuselage which does not seem to be part of the flap. This could be part of the wing fairing catching the light. But there may be another explanation. The CCDs in video or digital still cameras react poorly to very bright highlights. Notice in the Taylor photo how bright highlights on the engines have flared out into round blobs. The highlight is "blooming", expanding beyond it's size in real life due to the nature of video technology. The highlight on the flap may also be blooming, causing it to overlap onto the fuselage.

Linear reflections on the fuselage are clearly visible in the CNN and Taylor images. These reflections could contribute to the pod, but before analyzing these images, there is another photograph which more clearly demonstrates how these reflections could be responsible for the appearance of a pod. Recently, Letsroll911 has posted a newly acquired black and white photograph of Flight 175:



Once again, the pod appears to be there. Not only does the right fairing appear to be more raised, the left fairing, on the bottom, appears to be shorter. But notice that the two linear reflections that run down the fuselage are not equidistant from the midline of the fuselage. The one on the side of the alleged pod, labeled "highlight 1" is further towards the top of the plane. Therefore these reflections intersect the wing fairings at different points, and when they intersect the fairings they change shape or disappear, as we would expect:



Highlight 2 is longer because it intersects the wing fairing further down the fuselage than highlight 1. I've outlined in yellow an estimation of the path of each reflection. That highlight 2 stops while 1 continues is a result of the angles of the reflecting surfaces in relation to the light and point of view of the camera. The shape of highlight 1 is very similar to the shape of the highlight in the center image at the top of this page. In the end, there is nothing anomalous in this photo that can't be explained by reflections of light on the fuselage.

Like the black and white photo, the asymmetry of the shapes of the left and right wing fairing areas in the CNN footage and Carmen Taylor's photo is also probably caused by the differing positions of the reflections:

Update:
See Addendum A for an alternative analysis of the highlights on the fuselage.

The "bomb"

One more note on the black and white photo. Jayhan claims that there is a bomb fixed to the left engine of the 767. This is an illusion created by the engine mount, the ridge-like part that goes over the flap (I don't know it's name) and a dark area of shadow between those two parts. Also, there is no sign of a bomb in the CNN footage.

Note-since this article was originally written, a better quality version of the above photo has surfaced which clearly shows that there is no bomb present.

Head-on angle shows no evidence of the pod

Another problem with the pod theory is that there isn't a pod visible in this piece of footage from CNN's DVD of 9/11:
CNN WTC2 strike looking south
For this movie I've zoomed in to the plane and stabilized it in the frame. The only thing that protrudes beneath the plane is the end of the fuselage, dipping down as the plane tilts up. However, the plane is rather small in the frame and not very well in focus, so this footage is not quite conclusive:

A "missile"

Letsroll911.org identifies a cylindrical white shape on the side of flight 175 as a missile. The source for this analysis is a movie taped off Spiegel TV of Germany. Overlaying the outline of the plane on the footage, it's clear that this shape is not making forward progress in relation to the plane, and in fact is remaining in the exact same position. It is a reflection of sunlight on the plane's fuselage.



Letsroll identifies a highlight on the plane in footage shot by Park Foreman as the same missile, even though it is a different length and in a different position on the fuselage:



At the beginning of the clip the sun's reflection is at the nose of the plane. It disappears while the plane is under the smoke cloud, then reappears in the middle of the fuselage because of the change in position of the plane in relation to the sun. The wing interrupts the reflection. Looking at the last 6 frames, which are from the half second before impact, the reflection stays in pretty much the same place, which should make it obvious that it's not a missile or missile exhaust. The difference in shape and position of this highlight between the Spiegal TV footage and Park Foreman footage is the key to identifying it as a reflection of sunlight. Here is another 767 with a specular highlight interrupted by the wing fairing:

One difference between professional file photos of 767s and the images of flight 175 are the reflections on the underside of the fuselage. Airport runways are a mostly a wide field of the same brightness, whereas flight 175 was reflecting a high contrast image from the city below, a mixture of light and shadows from the buildings in the morning sun. One of the reasons the underside of flight 175 seemed metallic instead of blue was because of the contrast of light and dark in these specular highlights, something that our mind normally associates with metallic surfaces. With a higher contrast in the reflections, there is more of a chance for the creation of an illusion of a protruding object on the plane. Letsroll and others have misidentified reflections as pipes or other cylindrical objects on the plane's surface.

Here are some examples of how reflective cylindrical objects reflect light:



The reason the linear reflections don't extend the full length of the plane's body as they do on these objects is because the ends of the fuselage are tapered, changing the angle of reflection. Otherwise, it should be obvious that the linear patterns on the 767 are the same sort of reflections of light and shade in the environment that we see here.

Spanish cylinders

A newspaper in Spain published a article that concluded that there were cylindrical objects on the underside of the fuselage, in addition to the pod. It referenced an image analysis done at a Spanish university. Although the analysis uses a lot of fancy terms, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. They identified images in which "cylindrical objects" are visible on the plane and applied filtering:



The objects are on the left side of the fuselage in the first shot, and on the right side on the second. We should see the right hand cylinders in profile in the first image but we don't. Nor do we see them on the plane at the beginning of the Park Foreman video. One would think that someone working at a university level would be able to figure this out. The study goes on to compare these images to other photos of 767s taken under totally different lighting conditions. Not surprisingly, no cylinders are found. This "university study" does not rise to the level of university research. The supposed cylinders on the fuselage of the plane are so obviously specular highlights that I'm inclined to think that this is either a practical joke or disinformation aimed at those who are not technically or visually astute.

The "flash"

A flash appears in 4 videos-the CNN, Spiegel TV, and Evan Fairbanks footage and an unidentified source from the In Plane Site DVD:



In the CNN footage the flash lasts for one field, or 1/60 of a second. In the Fairbanks and unidentified footage it extends over two fields. Judging by the Fairbanks footage, it looks as though it might be extending out from the surface of the building.

There have been some claims that the flashes occured just before the impacts. This is erroneous; the South Tower flash is clearly timed with the contact of the nose with the building, which can be verified by carefully following the movement of the nose of the plane leading up to impact. In the case of the North Tower flash, which is visible in the Naudet brothers' footage, There is very little, if any, space between the shadow and the nose of the plane in the frame before the flash, indicating a very short distance between the nose and the building. By the next frame, the one with the flash, contact would be occuring, given the continued forward movement of the plane:

In the case of the south tower, In Plane Site and others have claimed that there is a gap between the fuselage and the flash, using the Spiegel TV footage to support this. But keep in mind that the building casts a very slender shadow over the front part of the plane as it enters. The shadow can be seen over the front part of the nose when the flash occurs in the Fairbanks and Spiegel footage, and can also be seen on the wings and engines in the CNN footage. Notice in the CNN footage how the left engine loses it's highlight just before entering the building. The appearance of a gap was probably caused by the shadow of the building on the fuselage. As part of their analysis, In Plane Site argues that the reflection of the flash can be seen on the fuselage, but this may be the tail end of the reflection of sunlight seen in earlier frames (it's shape slightly changed from flexing in the skin of the airplane due to the impact.) Or it may be a combination of both, with the reflection of the flash (which would be less intense than sunlight) on the shaded part of the fuselage obscured by the intense ringing effect from the highlight (the ringing is the dark blob in between the highlight and the flash).

There have been some accusations made that the flashes have been added to the footage via digital manipulation. I do not agree with these accusations of forgery. The flashes show up in various versions of the footage from different sources, including mainstream commercial releases. The only versions of the footage that I have seen which do not have the flashes are conversions to digital files, in which the flashes can disappear due to de-interlacing (a normal part of the conversion process) in the case of footage where they only persist for one field (half of a frame). Keep in mind also that certain types of slow-motion and image enlargement processing can make it appear that the flashes have been enlarged or lengthened. The site oilempire.us, making an implied accusation of forgery, claims that there is no flash in the video "The Great Deception" released by Barrie Zwicker back in 2002, but I looked at the video and it was indeed there.

Letsroll identifies the flash as the exhaust of the missile entering the building. The problem is we don't see a missile and there is no smoke trail visible. If I had to speculate on what weaponry could cause this, I would be more inclined to propose some kind of energy weapon. JackBlood.com has an analysis by Mario Andrade that speculates that the flash is light and flame emitted by a general purpose bomb with a nose tip fuzing system equipped with a delayed timer:

http://www.jackblood.com/index/id31.html

I'm at a loss to analyze this as I don't have experience in relevant fields. I have several comments, however. My first would be that it doesn't appear to be a jet of flame shooting forward, so I wonder if this is really what the effect of the fuze would look like. The bomb shown in the diagram doesn't have it's own means of propulsion, so I'm curious how it would get from the pod to the front of the plane. Was it spring loaded in the pod? In any case, there is no bomb or moving weapon visible. The fact is, there is really no reliable visual evidence to directly support a connection between the flash and the existence of the alleged "pod". This is the really crucial point.

In Plane Site claims that the flash represents use of an explosive device which was required to act as like a match to ignite the fuel into the subsequent fireball — without offering any further explanation. The first question that came to my mind after hearing this was, since when do crashing airplanes need such assistance to cause their fuel to ignite?!! I suppose, then, that every other fiery airplane crash in history must also have featured the use of one of these secret devices.

Beyond this, many more speculations could be offered. Perhaps some explosive weapon was triggered from inside the cockpit, or was hidden in the nose cone. Perhaps, although this might be a stretch, the flash could be a result of a massive static discharge as the aircraft hits the conductive surface of the tower (metal-skinned airplanes of all types can build up very large electrical charges during flight; normally, these are dissipated gradually through special external attachments known as static wicks, but under the right circumstances, a sudden uncontrolled discharge can be as powerful as a small lightning bolt, and occurences of this kind are on record). Alternately, some people argue that the flash was just a shower of sparks as the plane collided, metal on metal, with the building. Neither of these hypotheses would seem to account for the especially large and bright North Tower flash, however. Eric Bart speculates that the North Tower flash might indicate the use of 'shaped charge' explosives:

http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/inv2.html

A simpler speculation might be that the impact twisted one of the WTC outer wall panels out of place in such way that it momentarily reflected a glint of sunlight off of the glass and/or aluminum facing. Admittedly, this would be a bit of a fluke, but can it be ruled out?

A couple of readers have pointed out that the radar in the nose of the plane operates with a large amount of electrical power, and that the discharge of that electricity on impacts could have caused the flash. Others feel that these flashes are a chemical reaction, a combustion of metal pulverized by the impact.

Another possibility is that the force of impact was sufficient to cause some aluminum in the fuselage to combust, which would cause a bright flash. However, we don't see any other flashes as the rest of the aluminum aircraft hits the wall.

Ultimately, there are only speculations at this point concerning the flashes, and I definitely do not claim to have the answer. Undoubtedly, any attempt to explain things further must be backed up with expert testimony from people with the right expertise in explosives, engineering, etc. Regardless, in the case of both flashes, the visual record is so limited that I seriously doubt that any definitive explanation will ever be found, so one must weigh the risks and benefits of delving into a potentially irresolvable are of speculation which may not be guaranteed to help break the overall case of 9/11. Still, the flashes could be a reason to be open minded about the potential that there was more going on with these two planes and the impacts than the official story admits.

A cargo plane?

Letsroll and In Plane Site claim that the 767 has no windows and is therefore might be a prototype KC767 fuel tanker. This is not a credible claim, being based on photos in which the windows are as small or smaller in size than the noise or grain in the image. The windows shouldn't be visible to begin with at this level of detail. Notice in the second photograph that the cockpit windows, which are twice the size of the passenger windows, are themselves barely visible. Also note that in the first photo in this article at the top left, the windows are not very visible despite the fact that it is a much sharper photo.



There have been claims that the two lines on the bottom of the fuselage in the photo above is fuel being purged from the KC767 tanks. The most obvious problem with this is that we don't see it in any of the other images. Also, the speed of the plane would have caused the fuel spray to be swept back at a much sharper angle. A much better explanation is put forward by Mark Hungerford, who identifies these as blade shaped antennas on the bottom of the fuselage. Because the antenna are flat, they would reflect sunlight only at just the right angle, which explains why they are clearly visible only in this photograph.

Seeming to back up the claim of no windows, In Plane Site features an apparent interview (audio only) with a Fox News reporter who claims that the airliner looked like a windowless cargo 767. He also claimes that it had markings clearly different than United Airlines, including an unfamiliar round symbol on the nose. This immediately presents a problem, because it is clear enough in the left photo above that the airliner is indeed painted in the UA color scheme -- even the narrow red stripe down the side of the fuselage can faintly be discerned. No errant large logos are visible, certainly not in either of the above two photos, nor in any other photos or footage I have seen. On top of this, this witness also happens to mention that he was in Brooklyn! This would put him at more than a mile away, or more, from the WTC. This leaves something to be desired concerning the reliability of this one-of-a-kind report, to put it mildly.

767 with United Airlines paint scheme:

A piece of fuselage wreckage at the WTC, with windows:

According to Eric Hufschmid, it is virtually impossible that this scrap on building 5 came from the plane that hit the North Tower because it would require the scrap make more than a 90 degree turn at 400 mph, so this confirms that the plane that hit the South Tower had windows.

The authors of the following claim that the size of the plane that hit the WTC is not the size of a 200 series 767, which flight 175 was, and instead is closer to a 300 series 767, which has a longer fuselage:
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html

This simply isn't true as the following graphic illustrates. I've overlaid the 767 schematics they provided on the Fairbanks footage. It is clear that the 200 series is a near perfect fit and the 300 series fuselage is too long.

So why did they get it wrong? Notice in the graphic that they used, that the midline of their line diagram is on the side of the fuselage and not the center, allowing it to be scaled down smaller than it should be and still match up with the clearly visible right wingtip.

I should take a moment to note that some researchers have found other non-visual forms of evidence which might suggest that a plane "substitution" could have taken place in the 9/11 plot, such as discrepancies in official flight records, anomalies in the FAA and military response to the alleged hijackings, suspicious military war games occurring on the same morning, and so forth. I am not implying any opposition to these areas of inquiry; in fact, I believe they are quite worthy areas for continued investigation (and, for the record, the fact that I have been mentioning "flight 175" does not imply that I have ruled out these substitution possibilities). For now, I am just analyzing the visual record to determine what it can or cannot tell us reliably.

Conclusion

It should be clear that the pod is almost certainly a result of light and shade on the normal wing fairing. If there is any doubt at all, it is because the image quality we have is poor and the reflections and shadows causing the pod can't always be clearly seen. The only evidence presented so far for it's existence is that it simply looks like there is a pod there. The pod advocates, who overwhelmingly bear the burden of proof, have not systematically proven that it could not have been an optical illusion. So the question is, even if one still graciously allows for the remote theoretical possbility of a "pod" given the limitations of the visual record, should this be something that the 9/11 community embraces and presents to the public? Absolutely not, in my opinion. I'm not ideologically opposed to radical arguments like this, but if they're to be promoted they should be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. The pod advocates haven't come anywhere close to that.

It should not be surprising that the pod is an illusion, since there is much about the pod theory which is illogical. Was it really necessary to augment the impact of the plane with weaponry? The thin outer walls of the WTC would not have created any serious resistance that needed to be overcome. And if the WTC was demolished with explosives, as many believe, there was no need to maximize the internal damage caused by the impact. If more damage needed to be done to the building or the plane, why not put powerful explosives safely inside the plane that would be totally hidden and not prone to any mechanical failures that can befall missiles or any hatches that needed to open on a pod? And the notion that the fuel needed to be ignited by an external incendiary device is utterly ridiculous. If this was necessary, it could have been done more safely and secretly with bombs inside the fuel tanks. If there happened to be a better quality image of the impact, which theoretically could easily have happened, a pod or a missile fired from that pod could have been clearly visible, exposing the fraudulent nature of the attacks. Would the perpetrators have risked this? Even if weaponry was needed, and if it was a missile launcher, putting it at the juncture of the wing and fuselage would be a bizarre choice from an engineering perspective. The retracted landing gear would be sitting pretty much in the middle of the pod, which doesn't seem to me to leave much room for a missile!

At this point we have neither proof of the pod's existence nor any logical reason for the perpetrators to resort to its use. Until there is a more compelling argument presented, it will only serve as a distraction from other evidence for a 9/11 "inside job" that is genuinely credible and substantive, and worthy to be presented to the public.

More skeptical analysis on the pod can be found here, in an article by Mark Hungerford. He has very similar conclusions about the pod, although I'm not in complete agreement with all of his technical analyses. What he has to report about how skeptics are treated at the Letsroll911 forums is disturbing.

The views and opinions represented in this article do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the photographers of the images used.

Sources for the 767 images used in this article:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/623730/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/590504/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/547309/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/411795/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/308950/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/018256/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/588659/M/

Addendum A
18 October 2004

A reader has pointed out that United Airlines 767s have a light grey stripe down the bottom of the fuselage:



This raises the likelihood that I mistook the stripe for a reflected highlight. Thus the analysis of the black and white and Taylor photos would be as follows:





The identification of this shape as a stripe or highlight doesn't change the basic analysis. In either case, it can be argued that the pattern of light and dark on the fuselage causes an apparent asymmetry that creates the illusion of a pod.

Addendum B
23 October 2004

Michael Elliott's 911review.org has issued a partial rebuttal to this article:

http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Wtc2PlanePod.shtml

Conspicuously absent are any rebuttals to my analyses of the visual record. No attempt is made to point out any mistakes in the image analysis on my part or to show that the pod could not be a result of light and shade on the fuselage. Instead, their rebuttal is focused exclusively on the section about the Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia's article featuring image analysis of alleged cylinders on the 767s fuselage:

Instead of arguing why this university's research - no double quotes necessary - was flawed, the Salters simply opine

This "university study" does not rise to the level of university research.

which is an outright lie; if they wanted to argue against the conclusions of the technical report, they would have had to propose other edge detection techniques accepted in Computer Science, and do the hard work of the actual image analysis on the same images to show the absence of what they want to avoid. Instead, they adopt the CIA/CNN approach of the American McMedia whereby whoever does the most name-calling long enough carries the day:

The supposed cylinders on the fuselage of the plane are so obviously specular highlights that I'm inclined to think that this is either a practical joke or disinformation aimed at those who are not technically or visually astute.

We are not only technically and visually astute, but we have worked doing university research in image analysis - including contour/edge detection - and find no flaw of substance in the university's research or report.

First of all, an opinion cannot be characterized as a lie. Moreover, 911review.org completely misunderstands my sole technical argument against the study: that the "cylinders" on the 767 are obviously specular highlights from the sun and therefore any contour or edge detection processing is inappropriate. For example, take a photo of a mirror reflecting a person. Contour analysis of that image would reveal that the mirror had that contours of a person. Yet we know that a mirror is perfectly flat, so contour/edge detection would be misleading and inappropriate. The glossy surface of the plane that hit WTC2 was acting like a mirror in reflecting sunlight. Thus the analysis which showed the "cylinders" was misleading and inappropriate. You could even paint cylinders on the side of a plane and edge detection of a photo would show that they are really there. I found it reasonable to assume that someone so experienced in image analysis couldn't possibly fail to recognize this problem, unless they hadn't seen the full Park Foreman video, which clearly shows that these "cylinders" are in fact specular highlights. The other problem with the "cylinder" analysis is that we don't see the alleged cylinders in profile. For example, we don't see the alleged cylinders on the side of the plane protruding from the fuselage in the CNN footage or the black and white photo of the plane's belly. Perhaps someone expert in image analysis could lack basic spatial skills, but I doubt it. This "university study" stinks to high heaven. That it received the "biggest mainstream coverage in the world to date on any real 9/11 physical evidence" only gives more reason to believe that it is deliberate disinformation.

The remainder of the 911review.org rebuttal embraces the same false dialectic that we've seen from other researchers promoting questionable theories: that any skepticism of their ideas constitutes uncritical acceptance of the entire official story and is a propaganda assault on behalf of the establishment media. This is a transparent attempt to charge the debate with partisan rhetoric and avoid discussing the technical arguments on the table. The accusation of "anti-intellectualism" is applicable to their own paltry rebuttal that neglects nearly all of the objective analyses in my original article.

Addendum C
11 November 2004

A higher quality version of the photo of the belly of Flight 175 has appeared. It evidently was scanned from New York Magazine. Posts on Letsroll911 claim that a linear white shape that appears to be casting a shadow is a missile attached to or emerging from the pod. Even assuming the photo is genuine, the most obvious problem with this theory is that the tip of the alleged missile is bent towards the fuselage of the plane. One would be hard pressed to find a functioning missile in that condition. On closer examination, this anomaly proves to be a raised part of the wing adjacent to the wing fairing. In the following image, this raised strip is not only visible in the far right photo, it is illuminated in the same manner as seen in the photo of Flight 175.

The brighter bent portion of the white shape in the B&W photo is a reflection of sunlight off the curving section of the wing fairing.

It should also be noted that there clearly is no bomb next to the left engine as claimed earlier by Phil Jayhan and others.

Addendum D
8 February 2005

Marcus Icke has posted an article, with introductory notes from Stephan Grossman, that claims to prove that a specular highlight could not have created the illusion of a pod. He uses a consumer game called Flight Simulator and 3D models of a 767 and the WTC tower to simulate the impact of UA 175:
http://www.gallerize.com/2005-01-11_001_MI_SG_UA175.htm

Icke claims to have calculated the alignment of the plane down to an accuracy of one degree, yet it appears he has done this only by visually lining up the objects in comparison to the images. I have serious doubts that this kind of accuracy can be achieved with this method. I have my doubts about this, given his methodology in an earlier article he wrote about the other WTC impact.

Even if the alignment is accurate, and the highlights are landing in the right places, the simulation still falls far short of re-creating the lighting conditions of real life. Icke's main complaint is that the specular highlights in the images are not what Flight Simulator "predicted". Here's why. The images we have were captured by either video or film. These formats have a limited contrast range. With the aperture set to accurately expose a plane in front of sky or buildings, sunlight is far, far beyond the brightest value that can be recorded. Even reflected sunlight, which has lost a little of it's brightness, would still be massively overexposed. In Flight Simulator, however, the sun is set exactly at the brightest possible level to avoid overexposure. So in Icke's simulation, we see a gentle highlight with a smooth gradation on each side fading away. In real life almost all of the specular highlight would be overexposed, including the soft edges fading away to the side. Therefore, the entire specular highlight would show up as a solid white band, which is exactly what we see in the images we have.

Furthermore, there is the issue of blooming which I have discussed earlier. Video CCD chips react badly to severe overexposure, especially reflected sunlight. These overexposed regions bloom or expand a variable amount of pixels from their actual size, depending on the quality of the chip. This effect can best be seen in the Park Foreman video because the plane is so small. Only a few pixels of expansion has caused the specular highlights to look absolutely huge in relation to the fuselage. The phenomenon of blooming could be contributing to a thickening of the specular highlights in the video images.

Not even professional 3D software is normally set up to simulate overexposure or blooming, which are undesirable artifacts (the width of the specular highlight can be changed manually but that would not count as a photo-realistic simulation). And since the position of a specular highlight in some cases can vary significantly with a change of just a degree or two in the plane;s alignment, the alignment of the plane is absolutely crucial. As we'll see shortly (and because of his previous mistakes) there's a lot to be skeptical about in his alignment of the model. Overall, Icke's effort using a consumer game application is a decidedly amateur affair. The entirety of his analysis regarding the appearance of the specular highlight is very easily dismissed.

Here's a real life image of a different 767 with similar lighting to flight 175 in which the specular highlight is far more intense than what Flight Simulator creates. And this is a photo without blooming issues.

Icke claims the the shadow of the engine would have interrupted the highlights from the sun on the wing fairing. While this might be true it does not mean that the fairing would not be illuminated on the edges facing the sun. In addtion to the direct sunlight, there could have been haze surrounding the sun which would have would have cast light of it's own, although it would not be as bright as direct sunlight. The lighting on the fairing could be illumination from this haze. To analyze this effectively, one would need a simulation that would render all the lighting phenomena of real life, and precisely position the plane and the sun. Icke's simulation does not meet these criteria. Also, it should be noted that the shape and position of the highlights in the videos and photos is precisely what one would expect with the shape of the standard wing fairing. Lastly, I would point out that we don't know how accurately Microsoft Flight Simulator, meant for educational and entertainment purposes, calculates the position of the sun and the buildings on the ground. It's doubtful it was intended for the kind of forensic investigations Icke is pursuing.

A claim repeated throughout the article is that the angle of the port wing is anomalous, that it is swept back too far. Once again, as in his previous article, Icke has failed to account for the upward flex of the wings due to aerodynamic lift. Icke provides the following image to illustrate the "anomaly":

First of all, judging by the variation in the thinckness of the fuselage, the photo and computer images are clearly not matched. Either the photo is stretched horizontally or the foreshortening due to perspective is different between the photo and the simulation. It looks to me as if the problem is a difference in aspect ratio between the images. Notice how the fuselage in Icke's graphic is too thick, an indication that the aspect ratio is incorrect. Icke has matched just the top line of the fuselage, and rotated the model too far to match the right wing, which in real life is bent upwards to due aerodynamic lift. Notice how the outer part of the left wing of the real plane clearly curves upwards due the aerodynamic lift (maximize from the hard, fast turn the plane was making). The key thing is to watch the graphic carfully and observe how the 3D model plane is clearly rotated down (clockwise) too far. Notice how the base of the left wing is lower in the 3D model. So why then does the the tail match? Because the incorrect aspect ratio has made the tail appear more vertical than it should be. Correctly matching the two would narrow the the computer image vertically, thinning the fuselage and bringing the left engine up. With the engine and base of the left wing matched correctly, this would be the only difference in alignment besides the tail.

Here I've scaled the 3D model vertically to correct for differing aspect ratios. It's not perfectly matched, but I would need a full 3D simulation to do that. The model plane still needs to be slightly rotated counter-clockwise and turned very slightly towards the viewer. Nevertheless, it should be crystal clear how far off Icke's simulation is. The upwards flex of the wings should also be apparent:

The distortion of the upper left wing next to the fuselage is probably condensation from the airflow above the wing. This phenomenon can be clearly seen in the CNN footage above the right wing, as a cloud of vapor intermittently forms. I'm not sure what causes this but recently during at an airport during a rainstorm I saw almost the entire upper side of the wing of landing airplanes temporarily obscured by this effect. Icke is aware that condensation that can appear on the upper edge of the wing, but chose not to even mention that possibility because he felt it looked too smooth and even. He doesn't offer any scientific analysis to support this rejection.

Icke makes the same deceptive placement of the model with this image:

Notice that the left rear tail fin is also misaligned with the model. What's wrong here is a failure to match the angle and foreshortening due to perspective and maybe the same aspect ratio issue. Observe the tail: all three fins appear to be stretched back. This is a dead giveaway for an aspect ratio problem. The vertical scale of the real image is shorter than the 3D model. Another problem in matching images is the length of the lens. The convergence of perspective lines will be different for different lengths of lenses. That doesn't seem to have been accounted for in Icke's simulation. It looks like the camera should be slightly farther behind the plane and the plane should be rotated slightly clockwise. Do this and the tail and wings cease to look swept back, but the left wing and to a lesser extent the right wing will look slightly more swept back because of the upwards flex due to aerodynamic lift.

There is no logical reason for a hologram to create such a consistent, stable error in the shape of the plane. The holographic projection would be based on a digital model, so that model would have to have had a bent wing, and that's an absurd suggestion. If this was a holographic image, it created a perfect photorealistic image of condensation above the wings and also accurately depicted the upwards flex of the wings due to aerodynamic lift (a detail not lost on this experienced pilot). Yet we are to believe at the same time that it failed to accurately model the basic shape of the airplane and that this error remained stable and consistent throughout the flight? The explanation here is very simple: Icke has failed to accurately match his 3D model to the real-life images.

Icke complains that the pod appears to be too large in the Fairbanks footage, but I've already shown that it is exactly the same size as the flat bottom portion of the fairing which could have remained dark, given that the sunlight was coming from the right.

A great deal of the rest of the article deals with hologram and plane substitution theories. It would be a waste of time to revisit these discredited theories at length, but a few points are in order.

Icke claims that the plane couldn't have flown through the shadow of the smoke cloud and that the presence of a shadow indicates forgery. Here's a still from the Park Foreman video that shows the cloud extending down almost to the level of the plane. In fact, given the perspective of the camera, it might be right at the plane's altitude:

Icke never explains why the perpetrators of 9/11 would program a shadow into either their 3D media overlay or hologram. Either method would use digital means to model the object, and lights in the digital world don't have faulty wiring, so the shadow would not happen accidentally!! Icke's argument about the shadow, which we've heard before, is utterly silly.

Icke makes this observation about flight 175:

Despite that fact that the proposed UA175 aircraft was in shadow when it impacted against the outer wall of WTC2 the airframe shined up luminescent as if it were being lit from within.

I fail to see any luminescence in the airframe or glowing from within at all. I invite the readers to step through it frame by frame themselves. One can observe the sliver of shadow from the building on the leading edge of the right wing. It's very thin due to foreshortening from perspective. The only illumination visible is that of the airplane still in the sunlight.

Icke's argument about "flickering wings" is completely bogus. In none of the high quality videos (here, here, here and here) do we see any flickering at all. What Icke shows is a collection of stills from degraded copies of the videos from 9/11. And the top left image, from the Fairbanks video, clearly shows the left wing. If you watch that footage the wing is consistant all the way through, though it is slightly faint because of motion blurring and the similarity in tonal value to the sky. If the wing is the same tonal level as the sky, the noise or blurring in low quality videos will obscure or eliminate any edge details, effectively making the wing disappear. Once again Icke's argument is based on severely faulty logic. If the real life hologram were flickering, why don't we see that in the good quality videos? And if these images were overlaid on the media afterwards, this kind of error would not have been allowed to leave the editing room.

Icke occasionally speculates that some of the images may be fraudulent. I would agree that it is very possible that some images are not authentic. I would speculate further that the reason for fraudulent images could be to encourage wild goose chases into illogical and discrediting theories about the planes that hit the WTC.

In 1991 I walked around the WTC complex with a camera, taking pictures of the towers and other downtown buildings for an art project. There were innumerable locations from which I could have easily captured Flight 175. And indeed, we have a plethura of images of flight 175 from various angles. To suggest that the perpetrators of 9/11 would have risked everything by flighing even a slightly modified plane, leaving their calling card for all to see, is a crackpot notion. For good reasons, the fringe theories that Icke is advocating have been rejected by the majority of those who have accepted that 9/11 was an inside job. Among the skeptical wider public, these theories are a laughable, discrediting joke. We have never heard a compelling reason why the perpetrators would have needed to resort to flying something other than airliners into the WTC. We never see the alleged pod doing anything that couldn't be accomplished by other more hidden means (let alone any reason for additional missiles or explosives). Stephan Grossman, in his introduction to Icke's article, makes the assertion that official studies contradict the ability of the planes to penetrate the thin outer walls of the buildings. Tellingly, he fails to quote these sections and doesn't even provide an online link to the studies.

Icke in the article touches on all of the fringe theories we've heard about the WTC planes: the hologram theory, the pod theory, the small plane/media substitution theory. The obvious problem is that these theories are condradictory: a hologram or overlaid 3D model would not be programmed with an anomalous pod, let alone any of the other deformations of the plane. His attempt to synthesize a cumulative argument out of these contradictory theories is ridiculous. He posits that the pod might be the actual holographic generator, as if it could throw up a hologram around a missile but not around itself!! It's clear that some will never abandon their ideological imperative for and personal attachment to finding something amiss with the planes that hit the towers. Whether deliberate or not this is disinformation-it muddies the waters, poisons the atmosphere (Icke is quite fond of throwing around insults and personal attacks) and wastes the time and energy of dedicated researchers.