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.

 

pic of 2nd plane that crash into WTC

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Im not sure if I post it in the right forum. This is a picture of the 2nd plane that crased into the WTC. The right engine is not parallel to the left one. Is this normal? There's also a strange bubble on the right wing.

www.mistakesweremade.com...

[edit on 23/7/2004 by rai76]




posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Look closer, you can clearly see that the plane is tilted.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I think its jus the angle the picture was taken at, im no expert though so dont hold it to me



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Yeah, it looks like someone would have had to have been standing very closer to the towers, and pointing the camera almost straight up.

It also looks like this image was scanned from a newspaper. I am assuming this because of the lack of color, the grey "spot" in it, and the grainy-ness of it.

It's interesting though, where/how did you find it?



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I've got it from a friend. He gathered all different kinds of info concerning 9/11.

[edit on 23/7/2004 by rai76]



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 04:39 PM
link   
but does anyone have an idea why the engines are not simular. And what about the strange hubble on the right wing?



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   
When the second plane hit the tower, it went in at a tilt. That is why the engines look different. Dredge up any 9/11 videos showing the second hit, and youll see the plane went at a good tilt sideways when it hit, maximizing the damage.

I dunno about nany bubble though, i couldnt tell anything in that picture, it was too fuzzy.


jra

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 04:59 PM
link   
It looks better and clearer if you save the image to your computer and then rotate it 90 Deg clockwise. Then zoom out so you can see the whole pic at once.

The engines are the same, like others have said, it's just the tilt of the aircraft and also the angle we're seeing it from. It's the effect of perspective.

I have no idea what you're talking about on the right wing. I see nothing strange on it.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I also don't know what im talking about. but you have to admitt that both wings don't look the same. It looks like a bubble to me, I don't know. Maybe I just seeing nothing.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I agree, it does look weird, could just be a bad picture or something.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   
It is in a severe bank. This causes the engines to look out of line. That same severe bank causes the lighting issues which you refer to as a "bubble". There is no bubble...just sun-glare.


jra

posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Tried looking for the same photo, but a high quality version. I think this poor quality scan of a newspaper or whatever doesn't help. Here is one of the same plane, but from a differnt angle... nothing weird in it.

www.baltimoresun.com...

I really don't see the whole "bubble" thing in the origonal photo.

[edit on 23-7-2004 by jra]



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   
But the picture that im refering to is take from the ground



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   
What is the point? Are you trying to say there's a conspiracy on whether it was a real plane or not? I don't get it. It's just a distorted picture, no real news there.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I believe that the bulge he is refering to is located on the right side of the fuselage under the wing. It looks like that becuase of the angle the sun is hitting it. The photo is indeed grainy and one I have not seen before.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   
The engines look like that b/c the aircraft is in a steep bank - or the start of one. Normal. The bubble however is very interesting and not normal regardless of sun or shadow. I've seen the bubble from another angle as well.



posted on Jul, 23 2004 @ 09:13 PM
link   
What you are looking at is the bulge of the fuselage at the wing root. Tilt of the plane and the light and shadow make it look out of proportion, but it is not.

check out the pictures below of the same type of plane (a Boeing 767)

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...

www.airliners.net...



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 07:39 AM
link   
The bulge under the plane is NOT a trick of light and shadows. Instead, it is a missile pod. Just before Flight 175 vanishes into the South Tower, various videos reveal a flash of light. This is the missile being fired to weaken the impact area sufficiently for the plane to enter and explode INSIDE the building. If it had not been fired, there was a chance that the plane would just have crumbled and exploded as it hit, without much penetration. This would not have caused such a massive building to collapse. As this was the plan, sufficient damage had to be created inside the skyscraper to be able to explain why the building subsequently collapsed. Without the softing up of the impact area by a missile, the complete entry of the plane could not have been guaranteed and it would have been immediately realised that a superficial impact could not possibly have caused such total collapse. There are some websites with video footage that show very clear differences in the underbelly shape of Flight 175 and similar planes that cannot be just an optical illusion. The slight bulge of the fuselage shown in the Boeing 767 photos at the URLs posted by HowardRoark looks nothing like that of Flight 175. Instead, it's a huge bubble that could not possibly be a trick of light reflecting off so relatively slight a bulge!!! So get real, some of you. This plane is NOT the real Flight 175. That was diverted. The plane that hit the South Tower was a modifed plane masqerading as the one carrying passengers and remotely piloted using SkyHawk technology.



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
This plane is NOT the real Flight 175. That was diverted. The plane that hit the South Tower was a modifed plane masqerading as the one carrying passengers and remotely piloted using SkyHawk technology.


Just curious and must ask. So exactly what happened to the real passengers who were on the real Flight 175? Are they still alive? Are they bing hidden somewhere? Did they not exist in the first place?



posted on Jul, 25 2004 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
The bulge under the plane is NOT a trick of light and shadows. Instead, it is a missile pod.

The plane that hit the South Tower was a modifed plane masqerading as the one carrying passengers and remotely piloted using SkyHawk technology.



erm. do you have any sort of evidence to back this up?

Where are the original passengers from the flight?

Just curious

Peace,
BG



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join