Clear Image of Flight 175

reply to post by SteveR


I don't know if you believe the official story or not but if you don't and you think it was an inside job, then whats so unbelievable to think the passengers where killed before hand? Or even they used missiles that day instead of planes then doctored the footage that we see? Or even the hologram theory?

It seems people here only believe the American government when it fits in with their theories concerning 9/11.

Speaking for myself, I know something in a plane shape flew toward buildings. I do not believe the external explosion was a hologram nor the holes in the external walls of the buildings. The photo originally presented appears devoid of any UA colors. It looks primarily silvery aluminum with some shade of blue on various parts. Most obvious for blue on the engines and tail.

I question everything else. Such as how two 159'2" planes managed to be completely inhaled at a floor length of 35' on one side of those massive core supports, 59' on the other side, and not be seen at all looking into the holes.

The core measured 87' by 135'(at least one reported 133'). The buildings were reported to be 204' x 204'. There is no way I see any 767 in and of itself symmetrically slicing all strategic cores so gravity could bring that weight and mass straight down into its own footprint. It completely defies the laws of physics, particularly gravity of the direction in which way something is going to fall.

Shift the center of gravity (core structure was the heart of gravitational load bearing), and something is going to topple, not fall straight down in a path of least resistance. Least resistance determines the speed of fall, which is determined on exactly how the center core supports were sliced to allow dropping straight down rather than toppling.

I have questioned all of that since the day it happened. Still the US bureaucrats have supplied no logical scientific answers. All of that was completely avoided during the 9/11 Commission hearings. That was publicly verified by the co-chairs of the commission, to the media and in their book.

sorry but I have no evidence.
its just that when I look at that pic....something seems wrong.

the engines look....um....funny... almost like they were drawn/edited in to the picture.

img502.imageshack.us...

but I`m no expert...not by a long shot...

reply to post by weedwhacker


Sorry, I did not intend to do that....I though I was saving it as a 'draft'...

I just cannot grasp how to pull selected quotes....

reply to post by OrionStars


"Devoid of any UA colors"?? Uh, what?










I'd say the colors in the picture match up NICELY with the way United Airlines had their planes painted on 9/11.

As for the engines looking added, they look perfectly normal to me in this picture, and in the videos of the impact.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Thanks, Zaphod, very good images.

Perhaps some can be slightly confused as to what a United Airlines airplane should look like because they had in 2001 about three different looks, as they were gradually re-painting older airplanes into the newest 'livery' as proscribed by the Chairman and CEO at the time.

The Gray upper and Dark Blue lower fuselage look, with a red and orange stripe between (an homage to the 'old' colors) included the horizontal stripes on the tail, with the "UA" logo, in red and blue, outlined in white. The white outline could explain another point of contention, in an earlier post...the angle of the sun glinted off of the white portion to the exclusion of the rest because of the angle relative to the sun and the camera in that instant.

Listen, we now have 1000 feet vertical separation on the North Atlantic Track System. ON a bright day, when you are 'neck and neck', so to speak, with another airplane, you get a very good visual idea of what it looks like in flight, with varying angles of light. At altitude, in fact, in very bright light the colors tend to wash out. In the example posted by the OP, you are looking at a glimpse of an airplane being photographed at low altitude at an oblique angle, with the Sun still fairly low on the horizon. It was about 0900 Local Time in September! At Latitude 41 degrees North, give or take...

Picking apart a photo that was accidentally, and now, tragically captured makes no sense, unless you have absolute proof that the photo in question has been faked. If so, present it.

Human beings have an inordinate capacity to see things that aren't there on occasion. Point in fact: Repeated sightings of deities in pizzas, or on trees, or on rocks. Eye of the beholder, mates!

Thanks for the lively discussions.

I don't think there is any photo you can show me at this point that would convince me that 9-11 was NOT an inside job.


I just think the people can do so much with photoshop (me included) crop and filter in Bin Laden in the cockpit.

There is just too many coincidences that are not explained.

I am not saying you screwed with the picture and I can see what a good job you did in making the photo clear with color analysis and you did a pretty good job.

It's not the stories that convince me that 911 was an inside job, but only parts of the 911 commission report that has been hidden or taken about by executive order.

Or how there is only one web cam that does not show how the plane hit the Pentagon. Out of all the cameras on top of the Pentagon, we get one photo for a check point that does not show anything.

It's a sad day when the DOD only has 1 security camera on one side of the building.

That's my two cents.

Good color analysis though.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by OrionStars

 

"Devoid of any UA colors"?? Uh, what?

I thought I made it clear I was specifically referring to the original image posted to start this discussion. If I did not, I will qualify now. I did not see any UA colors or paint design, on the original image, used to start this discussion. I zoomed in on that image at 400%. Still no paint design, and definitely no white on the top at it should have been. White is a highly easily identifiable color and one difficult to mistake for any other.

reply to post by OrionStars


Orion...were you paying attention? The top of the airplane was Gray, not White. The bottom was Dark Blue. GO out to the airport and look, most of United's airplanes have been painted by now. OH, guess what? In the last few years (Post 2001) United is AGAIN changing its color scheme.

They started the 'TED' experiment, then began to re-design once more the 'Mainline' paint schemes. Really, go to airliners.com for more research info...

Thanks

[edit spelling]

[edit on 23-12-2007 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by OrionStars
I did not see any UA colors or paint design, on the original image, used to start this discussion. I zoomed in on that image at 400%.

Maybe you didn't see the high res version of the pic in the OP. Here it is again.



The tail clearly shows a UA logo against a dark blue background; the undercarriage is clearly dark blue; and there is a red strip seperating the upper grey from the dark blue.

Originally posted by Zaphod58

With all due respect, I saw nothing on the original image looking like any of the pictures you presented and not scheduled as Flight 175, except highly remotely.

Perhaps doing a block of photo comparisons in one block would assist in a more fair comparison? I leave that up to experts doing that and then embedding them into the post.

Jumping back and forth between images is not a fair comparison. It is still an unfair comparison when something at a long distance is compared with something quite close up.

Then, as someone else mentioned, location of the sun can indeed make a great deal of difference in comparions if comparisons are not substantially equal as pictured.

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by OrionStars
I did not see any UA colors or paint design, on the original image, used to start this discussion. I zoomed in on that image at 400%.

Maybe you didn't see the high res version of the pic in the OP. Here it is again.



The tail clearly shows a UA logo against a dark blue background; the undercarriage is clearly dark blue; and there is a red strip seperating the upper grey from the dark blue.

I do not see a clearly shown UA logo. I see something resembling a red UA logo on the tail but still blurred. I see white dots in the blue on both engines. I see a red streak running immediately over what looks to be a dark belly of the plane. Then I see some broken silvery lines where it looks like they forgot to paint those areas, or a couple of somethings are attached. That is what I see with what you present for enlargement.

The information on the flaps was explained as to why those protrusions are under the wings. Thank you to the poster explaining what I knew I had seen was there.

reply to post by coughymachine


coughy, upon a closer 'look' at your photo, I'm beginning to wonder if UA175 wasn't a B767-300ER? That is my observation, based on the proportions I see. Admittedly, I could be thrown off because of the angle of bank. I've mentioned in other threads that when on autopilot there is a 'Bank Angle Limiter' that has a maximum of 30 degrees. However, in a particular horizontal mode called 'LNAV' the autopilot will attempt to maintain a programmed course to the exclusion of the Bank Limiter setting. But, only to a point, depends on speed and configuration.

In any event, to settle a point before it gets started...no, it is highly, darned near impossibly, likely that the airplanes were on autopilot. They were being hand flown because the terrorists had no concern for smoothness nor comfort, nor airframe structural requirements.

reply to post by weedwhacker


A quick search on Wiki confirmed that UA175 was a B767-222 (that means it was a -200 series, the extra two numbers refer to airline-specific equipment, options if you will, for Boeing's internal records). The airframe's N-number was N612UA.

Originally posted by dampnickers
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...

Its not just you, I noticed it too. Also, whats a livery?

Originally posted by OrionStars
I do not see a clearly shown UA logo.

I accept this - perhaps it isn't 'clear'. Nonetheless, I'm satisfied that's what it is.

As for the rest, I was just responding to your earlier post, which suggested there was no UA livery visible in the OP's photograph. Well, there is. It's up to you whether you believe it's been manipulated.

I do not. This is a UA plane as far as I'm concerned, and I wonder whether anything, short of you having been aboard, could persuade you otherwise.

I believe thats a video still of the "Park Foreman" video.

killtown.911review.org...

He was quite further away than the original picture suggest, but the angle, and everything else seems to line up.

On a side note I find it ironic that on a no-planers site , I find more the most abundant collection of pictures and videos from different areas taken by civilians and media of planes crashing into the towers, *shrugs*.

(edit) I read a bit of the excerpt to the right, and I see why he has these collections, and where he is heading with it now. That's a tough sell, but the man sure does try, and has done alot of work, and collected a mass of resources).

But yea, looks like the Park forman footage, dunno if that was his actual name or job title.

Sorry if someone brought this up already.

I'm no expert on shadows, but in the first post, do the shadows on the plane look correct? I'm not saying they don't, just wondering if we can get an expert to look at it.

[edit on 23-12-2007 by Nola213]

reply to post by jtb2008


jtb2008, you asked, "What's a livery?"

A livery is a specific paint scheme or sticker design used on various vehicles, whether in Sport or in commerce, to attract attention and promote one's company. Think of it as a 'Logo', if that helps.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Ok thanks a lot. I've never heard of a livery before.

reply to post by Nola213


Nola, thanks for your post.

I'm not an expert on shadows, just an expert at seeing airplanes in flight in many attitudes for over 20 years. I can look at the picture posted by the OP and the shadows on the buildings and the airplane correlate to my satisfaction.

I have mentioned above that the two nacelles are in sunlight, and the bright glint on both is a reflection of the Sun's disc. You can see the shadow of the right wing is consistent with the angle of bank of the airplane, and the source of the light (the Sun). You can confirm this by looking at the other shadows of buildings in right, left, and foreground of the frame.

People may try to see something else, but before you do, make sure you put your 'critical thinking' hats on first!!

Thanks for your post.