It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:06 AM
JTB2008: I've seen loose change several times too. The colour of the aircraft still does not look right in the video. The grey used in the livery of the aeroplane in the video is lighter than that of the photo, but still the wrong shade.

In addition I did notice that the dark blue underbelly of the aeroplane does not seem to come up the side of the fuselage as much as it "should" for a united aeroplane in the dark blue and grey livery....

Yet, as one news anchor put it "it did not belong in the area".

I also looked again at the second video you posted... is it just me, or does the port engine look to be 'out of place' on the wing? The starboard engine looks as it should, yet the port one looks almost as if it is not attached to the wing properly...

(the port engine is the one furthest away as you look at the aeroplane with the crafts nose on the right of the picture)

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:07 AM
reply to post by dampnickers

This link has United colors: Ye7qVzdlE5TvM:&tbnh=68&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3D767%2Bphoto%26um%3D1&start=2&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=2

I, also, do not see the United colors even though zooming in at 400%.

As a general note - I increased the size, of the picture, 200% in my photo editor. There are still two cylinderical looking somethings, under the right wing, in addition to the engine. It does not look as if the flaps are dropped, which could give a misleading image.

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:10 AM

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
reply to post by stikkinikki

sure thing

oh yeah and

Okay. Not arguing that whatsoever. One of the Marriotts at the Pentagon got it on tape. Residence Inn or Pentagon City. You were the one who questioned Marriott being at the Pentagon. I NEVER questioned Marriott being near the WTC. I never looked into that - hence I didn't comment on it.

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 04:08 AM
Do people still really think planes did not hit the twin towers!?


listen. the planes hit the twin towers.
Here is the conspiracy:
1) It was planned, and was a controlled demolition.
2) Building 9 (i think thats the one, or 7) also collapsed from fire of the debris, which has never ever happened to a steel structured building. (also that BBC announced the collapse well before it actually did).
3) Fire could not have made the building structure fail.
4) The PENTAGON was hit with something other than a plane. (there was only one camera footage released, and it does not even show a plane... seriously look it up for yourself, you wont find any pics of a plane hitting the pentagon... even though you see the building before and after it was hit).

There are many subdivisions of each of these theories and a few more.

Ill say it again:
it is so out there that anyone who heres about will think its so stupid that the whole conspiracy must be faked.

come on people, your smarter than this...

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 09:21 AM
I have made a pic with four different 767s at about the same angle, and sun etc. as flight 173 just before hiting the tower..(this new foto, by the way.. to me... looks pretty much like all the others I've seen so my opinion is that it is pretty much a Go as far as being representative of what "really" was "seen" on 9/11)..

To me... THERE IS DEFFINATELY SOMETHING "ADDED" or "EXTRA" on both sides of the plane, front and back..

Meaning there seems to be ...4... "extra" "things" attached... 2 front, 2 back to the 767...!!!

Check the link out and let me know what you think...

Holograph distorsions....

added explosives to add more flames to make the story of a fire "more convincingly" capable of taking the building down...

OBS:::: I have increased the resolution of the great shot of Flight 173 from 72 to 300 dpi (in the "clip" of flight 173)... I dont believe that this enhancement has distorted the "pic info" by doing this..

Any way here it is.......

Flight 173 Boeing 767... comparison



Or maybe...



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 09:33 AM
None of those are at the same angle as Flight 175, and one of them isn't even a 767. The top picture is a 737-700 or later. The one on the left is a CGI. The 767 tanker program only has three (IIRC) flying, and all three of them have a flying boom under the tail. The only two that are actual 767s are the El Al, and Canadian, and the El Al is way too blurry to compare, and both are at the wrong angle.

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Great a plane expert....

So you know more than a GOOGLE search!!!

I know "nothing about planes but if I do a search for boeing 767s.... and I look at the planes that to me look VERY MUCH ALIKE.. but to you who is experienced with looking at planes sees imediately the difference..


I just wonder... is the difference such that shadows and body lines differ to the extent that "protrusions" would NOT be see on the other planes whether the minute angle of the photo to plane to sun is slightly different..

Look we are not slicing hairs here...

But maybe you "BASHER" can bring some better shots to help "PROVE OR DISPROVE" what is "WRONG" with the "LOOK" of flight 173..

Bashing is great when accompanied by something concrete to add...

Just bashing..?????? seems contrary to searching cooperatively for a unified truth???

Any way hope to recieve some GREAT pics of 767s so we can compare better!!

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:06 AM
The image in the OP has actually been around quite some time. This isn't a recent release, which hopefully will dispell some of the suspicion surrounding it.

Here are two more good images of FL175. They can be found, together with the image in the OP and others, here.

This gallery has some very high res images. Several of them allow you to zoom in, as I did with the screen capture for the first image.

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:25 AM
[edit on 23-12-2007 by aussiespeeder]

[edit on 23-12-2007 by aussiespeeder]

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:30 AM
reply to post by HolyHell422

This is a reply to HH422's reply to Zaphod...sorry I do not know how to 'quote' text snippets...

HH422, your above photo link shows a Continental B737-800. An ElAl B777. As Zaphod mentioned, perhaps a B767 'tanker', but that pic looks pretty fake. Finally, the AirCanada ALMOST the same angle.

Look again at UA175. The glint of the sun on both nacelles is consistent. Consistent with the obvious angle of the Sun at the time, look at the shadows on the buildings, the shadow of the right wing on the fuselage...

BTW, your snide comment to Zaphod about being an 'airplane expert' aside, perhaps you will similarly try to discredit me. Of course, I've got several thousand hours in B737, B767, B757, MD-80, DC-10, B727 and the A-300. By several thousand hours, I mean cumulatively in those seven airliners, about 15,000...

Any comments?

Thanks for your post.

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by HolyHell422

Oh I'm sorry. YET AGAIN I forgot that someone that actually KNOWS WHAT THE PLANES WERE IS JUST HERE TO BASH PEOPLE.
SORRY for trying to keep your "research" accurate, I guess that's just stupid of me.

YES I DO know more than your google search. Try doing a search for "Boeing 767-200ER" if you want to be accurate.
If you had bothered to ACTUALLY compare the top picture to a 767 you would have seen that the tail didn't even look CLOSE. But of course Google Knows All doesn't it.

Those "protrusions" that you can see from so far away are normal parts of a 767. They are where the wing attaches to the fuselage. They look odd because of the way the light is hitting them and reflecting on the fuselage.

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:35 AM
Just in case no one has done it yet, here is a zoomed in version of the image linked to in the OP.

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:41 AM
cropped and resized...

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by coughymachine

Great pic, coughy.

For those playing along, you will see two small whitish spikes on the 'belly' of the fuselage. Those are VHF antennae. The three 'protrusions' on the right wing (not visible on the left because of shadow) are the flap jack screw fairings. Sometimes referred to as 'canoes', they are fibreglass/composite aerodynamic housings to smooth airflow over the mechanisms.

I realize few non-pilots get a chance to see an airplane from below, unless you like to hang out near an airport and watch them take-off and land. Perhaps that would be a good mission for an ATS member - get some pics and post them for comparison!

Thanks for all your contributions.

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:09 AM
So far in this thread several folks have stated their belief that the planes did hit the towers but that the planes were empty. Please help me out by poting links or explaining here where the passengers were and where are they now if they were not in fact in the planes when they struck the towers.

I can believe lots of things about our government and conspiracies but I fail to understand what was done with the passengers. did we just kill them somewhere else? Did we send them to our moon colony? Did we give them to the aliens? Did we sacrifice them to the gods?

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by spyder207

Good points, spyder,

So far, correct me if I missed something, there are competing theories regarding the WTC Towers (I won't even mention what happened later that day).

a) There were no airplanes, they were holograms,

b) There were no airplanes, they were missiles,

c) There were airplanes, but they were empty.

Each of those three scenarios require that something happened to all of the people who were seen boarding flights before departure. That beggars credulity. As to 'c)' up above, it is also exceedingly improbable that two B767s could be equipped to be remotely flown. Sure, the Military have UAVs, which are specifically designed for remote flying.

Let's invite some more scholarly, substantiated evidence be presented here regarding the plane or no plane controversy. The OP of this thread posted a very good, clearly evident photo of an airplane. That is the basis for this thread, and no one should allow it to be derailed.


posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:32 AM

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.

Because there was nothing to see. There is an elevated highway between
the pentagon (395) and the hotels/ businesses on the other side of the
highway. Pentagon is down low in a depression near the Potomac River.

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:51 AM
I'm sorry but that photo looks as real as kermit the frog plunkin miss piggy.

but thats coming from an untrained eye.

posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 12:07 PM
And how does it look fake? It looks exactly like the videos of Flight 175 hitting the tower, except it's higher resolution. If you enlarge it then it looks even more like the videos.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in