Monday, March 12, 2007

9/11 Discrepencies

Well, first off, I made a mistake. Flight 175 was a United Airlines 767-222, not an American Airlines 757. (not much difference in planes tho)

Photograph of the plane just before it hit the WTC.
The bottom of this fuselage is not smooth like the ones in the photographs of the 767s at the bottom of this posting.



I've made an arrow pointing at the bulge on the bottom of the plane that is inconsistent with the bottom of the United Airlines 767 in the below photograph.


Here is a photograph of a United Airlines 767:

The bottom of the fuselage is smooth.

Bottom of another 767. Again, notice that it's smooth and without bulges.


Basically what all this boils down to... what I'm essentially trying to say is... blame Canada.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I dont get it, what are you trying to show us?

Steve said...

Jake, when I saw the first blurry photo, I thought, "those differences on the bottom of the plane could just be the light reflecting differently because the bottom is not perfectly smooth where the wings attach."

Then, you post two photos that show clearly the bottom is lumpy and bulgy where the wings come in, very probably due to extra framing for holding the plane onto the wings. As the first comment says ...

The Intrepid Dr. Root said...

extra framing for holding the wings? But the other photos don't have this extra framing. I'm asking why the discrepency from the blurry photos of the planes going into th towers and the two clear photos of the "same" airliner. What you're saying isn't making sense to me.

The Intrepid Dr. Root said...

Here is an email I sent to someone who was trying to counter claims that the plane might have been other than Flight 175.

Hey there. First of all I don't think anyone should fling anrgy remarks back and forth as seems often the case with internet debate on 9/11 (not that you will, I just don't want to be yelled at for being stupid). I was looking at your web page "Analysis of the Flight 175 "Pod" and related claims.

Near the bottom, Addendum C 11 November 2004
The middle photo compared to the right photo. The "pod" in the middle photo is protruding farther forward than where the light is hitting in the right photo, You can also see the wing size is much bigger in the middle photo. Surely it's at least resonable to question that these might not be the same plane? Also, what is the shadow creating the appearance of a groove going down the middle of the plane in the middle photo? This groove is in other photos of this plane on that day from different angles (for example, the often cited photo of the plane just before it hit the tower) This is not apparent in any 767 photo I have seen on your website or anywhere else, although one photo of a 767 comes sort of close to having this effect on your page, but doesn't. In other words, this discrepency is always there in all photos of the plane that hit the WTC and other photos of 767s.

As far as making *specific" claims of what is attached to the bottom of the plane in the middle photo-- the point for me is, that there is consistently a discrepency between photos of 767s and of photos of the plane hitting the WTC. Bombs? Missiles? whose to say.

Now if this was the only discrepency between what we were told and what we saw and what eyewitnesses reportedly saw and heard on 9/11, than that would be one thing. But when you take this issue in light of all the other discrepencies of the official story, that's when you have to at least say.. hey, this deserves an >>independent<< investigation, which is all the 9/11 truth movement people want. What the victims of the families did NOT deserve was the physical evidence being wisked away as quickly as possible from Ground Zero and destroyed by Mayor Gulliani. I mean, that's crazy. I guess no one wanted to know difinitively why the towers failed. (!!!) Why didn't the administration not want to know this? Because, as all the evidence available to us indicates, the towers didn't fall due to airliners hitting them, but rather as a very sophisticated method of control demoltion. One interesting thing to mention is, 9/11 Truthers never seem to point out that the control demolitions on 9/11 were NOT typical demolitions. I mean, they were executed to be as inconspicuous as possible. How did they do that? Molten pools of steel in the foundations could be an indicator, but since all the physical evidence has been whisked away we'll never know......................... The point here is, why and how can the physical evidence for the biggest crime scene in history be ... removed and shipped off to China? Sorry, that was a bit of a tangent. But I guess you see my point.


Very thorough page you have put together though. Makes for a nice resource.