It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Clear Image of Flight 175

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   
img502.imageshack.us...

Perhaps the highest quality image of an aircraft on 9/11.

Usually the reasoning for a missile or hologram theory is a blurry image barely resembling the shape of a plane. This shoud allay most concerns.

Comments?




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
We need more posts like this!
Starred and flagged!



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


Just some observations, comparisons, and questions.

Are there a couple of what look to be some type of protrusions on the outside of the engine, under the wing, that are not in the photos of other 767s such as those at the website below:

images.google.com...://widebodyaircraft.nl/b767mart.jpg&imgrefurl=http://widebodyaircraft.nl/b767.htm&h=303&w=600&sz=43&tbnid=I Ye7qVzdlE5TvM:&tbnh=68&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3D767%2Bphoto%26um%3D1&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2

Does that plane, in your photo, seem to be too low compared to the floor we were told was impacted on the South Tower? Maybe it is just the angle but is seems too low the way it is pictured, and in comparison to the tower on the right.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I apologize for the double post. I have no idea what I did wrong to end up with a double post.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   


Are there a couple of what look to be some type of protrusions on the outside of the engine, under the wing, that are not in the photos of other 767s such as those at the website below


No, there are no unusual protrusions of any kind on that airliner.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Well, it is a good picture: nice, clear and sharp. I'll give you a star for that.

To OrionStars: It looks normal to me, but at the same time, the engine on the left side of the plane looks to be further ahead than it should be. It looks like it is floating alongside the plane, ahead of where the right engine is.

To the OP: To me there has never been any doubt that two plane hit both towers. I don't think that there was anyone in them, but they were planes none the less.
I have seen some good videos of the/a plane hitting the tower. (can't remember which tower.) They clearly show a plane hitting the tower. If you play it back, you can see wings as plain as the nose on your face. But that is a very good photo. It looks like it was taken from a video?
Good post, I'll give you that star now.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtb2008
To me there has never been any doubt that two plane hit both towers. I don't think that there was anyone in them, but they were planes none the less.



I think you are right on that point. I too conclude the planes were empty.

To the previous poster, I see no aberrations or unusual structures on the plane.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Personally I dont doubt that planes hit the buildings, but I do have to point out that with photoshop I could do a convincing job at making it seem like giant tacos hit the buildings. I dont know when this image first surfaced but anything 'new' at this stage of the game would need to be taken with a grain of salt. Not to be too much of a wet blanket, cos its probably legit. Thanks for sharing.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Can anyone work out where the photographer would have to be to take this image?

As "Shar_Chi" said anything new would be dubious at best. This photo would have been worth $1,000s of dollars in the days after 9/11.

So where was it and why wasn't it released?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Maybe it was just in someones collection, and it took time to make it online??



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
These are not the droids you are looking for.


Mod Edit - These are not the types of posts we're looking for.



Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 23-12-2007 by elevatedone]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by puzzled2
 

According to wikepedia, Flight 175 struck the southern facade of the building. And from the first pic from the OP, it appears the photographer was to the southeast of the tower.
I don't think it is possible to discern distance, unless you contact the guy who shot the video. I dont know New York at all, maybe someone who does could make a guesstimate at distance?

The wikepedia article makes mention of a photographer who took a photo of the plane traveling at 750 feet per second. It doesn't show it, but it gives a lot of camera men and photographers. Good place to start.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   
The official line just stinks worse with each passing year.

BTW... there are still those video tapes from various business security cameras from around the Pentagon that were collected by (presumably) the FBI within 15 minutes of the event.

What possible security risk could they pose?



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:23 AM
link   
One was from a Marriot Hotel. They watched it over and over until it was taken.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 

Besides the fact that a cruise missle hit the pentagon, and not a plane?
FBI responded awful quickly, also. Maybe they expected it?
(Can you sense the sarcasm? It's there, its just harded to get in text.:lol


Of all of the businesses around the pentagon, and the highway department mind you, they only released three frames from the pentagon parking lot, or whatever it was.

If it was a plane, whats there to hide?



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Two things:

1) As has been previously stated, I am highly suspicious of any sort of "clear" image being produced so long after the event has taken place. Please do not try to tell me that someone knowingly, or unknowingly had this photo hidden away, and did not realise it/cash in on it in the days after the attrocity.

2) If this is a United aeroplane as we are asked to believe, why is it that despite the fact that the sun is directly illuminating the fuselage, the grey upper half of the livery, is a much darker shade of grey than would be expected. Also, the logo on the tail fin of the aircraft seems to be very bright. I might be mistaken, but I have never seen a bright (almost looks white) logo on a dark blue background on United aeroplanes... I've seen white logos on light blue... but never white on dark blue. Their logo on the dark blue tail fins is usually another shade of blue (normally dark) and red... so it would not appear to be quite so bright.

Either way, this does not "feel" like this photgraph is entirely genuine to me.



Edited for spelling mistakes.

[edit on 23-12-2007 by dampnickers]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
i think it was the Sheraton Hotel, but I could be wrong. The Marriot was the one that was practically detroyed next to the twin towers. you know the one that had significantly more damage than WTC 7 yet DID NOT collapse.

That pic is fantastic.....where did it come from??



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Something else...

All of the "photographs" of the aircraft on that day are relatively clear. If we are to assume that these aeroplanes were travelling at hundreds of feet per second, and the "photographers" were using standard, unzoomed, cameras why is it that none of the photos of that day show a "plane shaped blur"?

I would have expected that in the confusion, and especially on the blogs of witnesses to the event, any and all shots would be put out there... If I'd certainly managed to get a shot of an aircraft heading for a WTC tower (no matter how blury) I would get it out there for all the world to see. Yet, I haven't managed to find a single photo that is not "clear".

I would have expected at least one or maybe two pictures to have slipped through the net that were taken on cameras with slow shutter speeds that allowed the planes to become a blur, whilst the rest of the image (towers burning, etc) remained in focus.

Any thoughts on this idea ladies and gents? Or better yet, can anyone show me a link to a photo that was released on or around the event with a "blurry" image of a plane about to hit the towers.

I will conceed that I might well have been wrapped up in too much cotton wool and simply missed these blurry images, but would love to know.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
For dampnickers: I found a video on youtube showing 175 hitting the tower. Its shows to an extent the color variation you mentioned earlier. It shows it hitting and "going into" the tower. Its cool and interesting in a perverted way.
It just melts into the tower.

Video

youtube

The second video is an excerpt from loose change. I have seen loose change several times but dont remember this one. Watch the second plane hit the second tower.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
i think it was the Sheraton Hotel, but I could be wrong. The Marriot was the one that was practically detroyed next to the twin towers. you know the one that had significantly more damage than WTC 7 yet DID NOT collapse.

That pic is fantastic.....where did it come from??


due dilligence:www.marriott.com...



[edit on 23-12-2007 by stikkinikki]



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join