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
fake flight 175 boeing tail fin wing engine fuselage angle plane 9/11 image analysis

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)

boeing 737 plane 9/11 image analysis

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
77 and 737 9/11 flight 175 fake photo image manipulations ? analysis september 11

#4 (UA Boeing 767 Sim)

boeing 767 simulation

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
767 plane 3-D simulations united airlines 9/11 image analysis


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
flight 175 untied airlines september 11 911

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.



boeing antenna logo radar RF pattern

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.



WTC antennas Twin Towers world trade center september 11 2001
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.

fake video gallerize september 11
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



Brad's 9/11 photo and video analysis september 11

911 review

Your Ad Here