Flight 175 Photo, just before impact with the
WTC.
I have looked at this photo a lot since i noticed
it long ago. It never seemed quite right to me.
There are several thing which need to be addressed, since this is
perhaps the highest quality photo of any of the 9/11 planes from
that day.
The first thing that struck me as odd is the 2 bright spots, just
above the yellow circles on the bottom of the plane.
These have not been explained to my satisfaction, and do not fit
the normal UA paint job.
Photos of UA 767 craft are posted below for comparison.
There are 2 white stripes on in front , and one in back on the
bottom of the plane.
I go into more detail about the white lines here...
Flight 175 photo
analysis
Also,
Below, is from Mr. Grossmanns page....
www.cloakanddagger.ca/media/Grossmann/081%209-11%20Tests.htm
Now, on to the next problem I see.
This needs more work, and I am open to suggestions, but a quick
look at this photo tells me something is drastiacally wrong.
Look at the tail section of the photo.
The tail fin is sticking up in the air, giving one the imperession
that the plane is only slightly banking.
The rest of the tail, is showing the same thing. the horizontal
axis, makes it look like the plane is nearlty upright.
When you look at the bottom of the plane, and the wingspan, it
seems she is showing us her belly broadside.
The top wing is lit by the morning sun, on its underside. This one
wing looks to be broadside to the camera.
The rest of the plane does not.
The sun only lights the portion of the top of the plane leading to,
but not including the belly.
It strikes the 2 objects, which reflect, and cast shadows, giving
them a 3-D appearance.
#1
On the photo below, the yellow line on the tail
shows what one would expect on the photo above.
the rest of the tail section, is blocking the tail fin
and Logo.
One more point, is that the engines seem to hang differently.
While the engine on the left wing, seems to hang straight down from
the pylon, the engine on the right wing is facing the camera.
So, now we have to take into consideration the
angle of the camera when the shot was taken.
The photo below appears to be taken somewhat from behind the
jet.
It actually seems to be taken more from the rear,
than the photo of flight 175
This is the closest match I could find to the flight 175 photo.
#2 (Boeing 737)
For the UA logo to be seen, the photo would have
to have been taken so much from the rear, it would be apparent.
In looking at the engines on both photos, it seems that the engine
is flat to the camera in the 175 photo, while, in the 737 photo, we
see the back side of the engine.
#3
#4 (UA Boeing 767 Sim)
Trying to get a perfect match to the picture in
question,
I used a 3-D simulation and rotated the craft. I used a United
Boeing 767.
In order to see the logo poke out from behind the rest of the tail
section,
I had to turn it so much I got the image above.
To see if the 3-D sim was accurate, I compared it
to the photo below, and it seemed to match fairly well.
>For the camera to have seen the wing as flat as it appeared,
the verticle tail fin would have to be tilted much more than it was
in the photo.
The only other explanation is that either the wing
was broken, or bent to a large degree.
From what I understand, the wing can bend a bit during a hard bank,
but I think it unlikely it could have bent this much.
Given the above, this still does not explain the rest of the tail
section.
(see photo #1 red
line)
#5
Take into comaprison the photo above (UA plane)
and below (flight 175).
Imagine the plane above tilted so that the wing was broadside to
us.
The logo would NOT be visible, if it were,
it surely would NOT be seen in back of the rest
of the tail section as in the picture below.
#6
In the article below from Rense...
rense.com/general63/secnd.htm
Quote
* A planar antenna is a
flat plane antenna (like a pizza) and the one that I'm talking
about appears to be on the vertical stabilizer (vertical fin). It
could be a logo, but it doesn't look like a UA logo. I WISH =that
we had the technology to define the picture further, perhaps using
adaptive neural artificial technology..... way out on the bleeding
edge
- * The blades antennas
(circled in yellow) in the photos look too large to me to be a
standard VHF type aircraft blade. The size would indicate a
lower frequency... they could be high gain microwave
antennas.
- * Microwave is highly-directional but the
very short wavelength would make very fine control
possible.
Well, I have a hard time believing this is an
antenna, and not a UA logo.
I also wish we had a better photo.
Let me get to the point that i
have in bold.
The size would indicate a
lower frequency... they could be high gain microwave
antennas.
Microwave is not a lower frequecny,it is a VERY high frequency. I
am an R.F. engineer.
Also, these
antennas are what is called an omni-directional. This means they
have a 360 degree radius.
Microwaves are usually sent through a VERY directional antenna,
like a dish. An Omni, is the opposite.
Omni antennas are much lower gain bcuase they do not concentrate
the power in one narrow direction as a dish
would.
* Microwave is highly-directional but the
very short wavelength would make very fine control
possible.
Control for what ? sorry I dont understand the
point here.
If it is in reference to remote control, the wavelength doesnt
matter.
I am not opposed to remote cotrol of these aircraft by any
means, I support the idea, I just want to get the facts
correct.
Remote control would be done by a data stream. Frequency doesnt
matter, if you have a working link, you have control.
It either works or it doesnt.
A planar antenna would be very directional, though
a phased array could possibally give up to about 100 degrees
horizontal beamwidth, and the vertical beamwith would be inhibited
by the bottom tail fin.
Now, with a phased array, it is POSSIBLE to
manipulate the beam.
Above...
The planes tail in black.
The antenna panel in blue
The normal R.F. pattern in red.
The optimized R.F pattern in purple.
So, with a directional antenna downtilted through
the phased array, the signal could be picked up by someone within a
mile or so, with a reciever on top of a building and a joy stick
and controlls for the plane.
The plane would be giuded to the WTC by GPS, and
at some point close to the WTC, the person operating the joystick
would take over.
Personally, I would think it much easier to use
the existing onboard VHF anttennas and modify, or install a
transceiver on a different frequency, and pump a lot of power into
an omni antenna.
Another problem with microwave, is it is VERY line
of sight.
The higher in frequency you go, the easier it is to block the
signal if something is in between the 2 antennas.
Of course if the antennas were very large, and on
a rooftop, there would be no problem.
Also, with an omni, it could be controlled from a helicopter or
other aircraft.
It would take a certian amount of power to send a stable video
signal from a moving object,
and large antenna to recieve one.
Democratic Underground
has done a little homework, and it appears that
these antennas were NOT there, prior to, or just after 9/11. They
have also identified the building.
This is a bit curious, that would be no small expense to put cranes
on top of a building.
If anyone knows the details of these cranes, and the purpose that
the antennas were used for I would be interested in finding out. if
so, please email me at
peace4u4 at ml1.net
As for the "POD" i see it as a non-issue, the bigger picture is if
this is flight 175 or not.
Fake videos and photos mean to
me, that someone doesnt want us to know what it was.
Here Stephan stablizes the building in the
background of the video.
Planes dont bounce up and down at 500+ mph.
Brad M
-
-
- RELATED...
Wtc 2 Plane Pod - 9-11 Review
Flight 175 - 9/11 Review
Boeing
does not clear up the enigma of the second plane
Team 8 + Article - UA 175 A strangely mysterious
flight
- Also see...
Ghost gun 175
,a GREAT site, looking in detail to each of flight
175's photos and videos
