Reply #23: Show me some evidence that the evidence is false

[dlaliberte]

I seem to have missed any legitimate argument against the apparent extra equipment other than giggles and aspersions of foolishness. The dismissive "it's just shadows" argument is a faint attempt, but doesn't really do more than hand wave, hoping you will buy the illusion.

If your idea of debunking is, as you have shown in this forum, twisting and obfuscating, then I'm sure there was plenty of that.

Maybe you are a little behind the curve in the debunking of debunkers. Please see the following page, from which I quote a few passages.

http://911anomalies.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/debunking-the-debunkers-appendage-on-flight-175/

"The pod “debunkers” nearly always reference the pod evidence with the ridiculous no-plane or TV fakery theories." -- hmm, sounds familiar

"The pod is actually a wing fairing or reflection" - saw that, debunked that.

How about, "It couldn't have been a pod because why would it be there? Pay no attention to that flash before impact because: The flash is a static discharge, sparks or reflection" Um, the flash is before impact, and on the right side directly in front of that pod thing.

"Conclusion

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."