I Don't Know What Kind of Planes These Photos Show, But Neither Image Shows a Normal 767-200
The second plane to strike the WTC, UA175, was officially a 767-200.
Picture 1:
Magnification of the plane:
(source)
Here, the wing angle cannot be reconciled with the tail angle. The wing angle also does not match the apparent trajectory of the plane. Additionally, the port wing is distorted--it is abnormally elongated. Also, the fuselage ahead of the wings is too short, and the empennage is far too skinny for the angle.
Finally, I can see color abnormalities around the rear of the fuselage and some funny blue tones around the plane, suggesting manipulation in Photoshop. Double click on the picture to enlarge it and you will see clearly there is major funny business with the plane image-- I have not altered this image in any way except to enlarge it.
Picture 2:
Magnification of the plane:
(source)
In this image, again the wing angle cannot be reconciled with the tail angle. The wing angle also does not match the apparent trajectory of the plane. Again, the port wing is distorted. Here, the port wing has an abnormal bend.
For comparison with the plane in these photos, I used a 1:200 scale model 767-200 purchased from a hobby store. This model shows an identical shaped plane to the 767-200 model in the Flight Simulator software, suggesting conformity with a standard model 767-200.
I invite anyone to show that the planes in these photos are bona fide 767-200s.
My strong guess is these photos show fake plane images.
The really interesting question is: why did the forgers create such misshapen and abnormal planes? Was this on purpose for people to find, or were they just sloppy? Perhaps, the forgers used a model 767-200 for comparison, and then hand-drew the plane, which created the abnormalities I've observed?
UPDATE-- I didn't link to his "Ghostgun" article when I wrote this up this morning, because the page was not functioning, but Marcus Icke started documenting these plane abnormalities much earlier than I did. He has previously analyzed the lower picture, but has not analyzed the upper picture that I know of. Perhaps because the upper "window" picture is such an obvious fake.
In any case, Marcus Icke's "Ghostgun" article is up again.
Picture 1:
Magnification of the plane:
(source)
Here, the wing angle cannot be reconciled with the tail angle. The wing angle also does not match the apparent trajectory of the plane. Additionally, the port wing is distorted--it is abnormally elongated. Also, the fuselage ahead of the wings is too short, and the empennage is far too skinny for the angle.
Finally, I can see color abnormalities around the rear of the fuselage and some funny blue tones around the plane, suggesting manipulation in Photoshop. Double click on the picture to enlarge it and you will see clearly there is major funny business with the plane image-- I have not altered this image in any way except to enlarge it.
Picture 2:
Magnification of the plane:
(source)
In this image, again the wing angle cannot be reconciled with the tail angle. The wing angle also does not match the apparent trajectory of the plane. Again, the port wing is distorted. Here, the port wing has an abnormal bend.
For comparison with the plane in these photos, I used a 1:200 scale model 767-200 purchased from a hobby store. This model shows an identical shaped plane to the 767-200 model in the Flight Simulator software, suggesting conformity with a standard model 767-200.
I invite anyone to show that the planes in these photos are bona fide 767-200s.
My strong guess is these photos show fake plane images.
The really interesting question is: why did the forgers create such misshapen and abnormal planes? Was this on purpose for people to find, or were they just sloppy? Perhaps, the forgers used a model 767-200 for comparison, and then hand-drew the plane, which created the abnormalities I've observed?
UPDATE-- I didn't link to his "Ghostgun" article when I wrote this up this morning, because the page was not functioning, but Marcus Icke started documenting these plane abnormalities much earlier than I did. He has previously analyzed the lower picture, but has not analyzed the upper picture that I know of. Perhaps because the upper "window" picture is such an obvious fake.
In any case, Marcus Icke's "Ghostgun" article is up again.
posted by spooked at 8:34 AM
9 Comments:
So all the folks who actually saw the second plane hit (like the dude in the top photo) are gubmint shills? Amazing that EVERYONE'S photos from that moment have been photoshopped...
Eh... it's only the most documented event in the history of the world.
How hard could it be to alter all the evidence....?
so did that dude in the top photo say that he actually saw that plane with those weird anomalies?
the anomalies are undeniable. and there are many other anomalies in other images as well.
it doesn't matter how many people say that they saw whatever they saw because we have dozens of images and vids such as these two that were presented to us by the govt/media and everyone of them shows such anomalies.
So all the folks who actually saw the second plane hit...
look at what some of these folks who actually saw the second plane hit had to say:
----
I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane, no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane, small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane,....
sure enough there it was, another plane. The plane wasn't no er... airliner or anything, it was a twin engine, big grey plane...
it definitely did not look like a commercial plane, I didn't see any windows on the sides and definitely was very low... it was not a normal flight that I've ever seen at an airport...
...we saw the, this blue and red plane coming by and er... smash into the, er... south tower...
as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west. And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the centre, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not
watched him turn and crash right into the south tower. I said thought that that second plane that went into the south tower was military plane like transport or small cargo military.
...so many people saw it. They actually described the plane as it came in. They said it was a military-type plane and it was green
----
so. do these officially documented testimonies coincide with the images that have been recorded for posterity? no. are these eyewitlesses liars? it is easy to believe that they are indeed liars but when the images that have been recorded for posterity all seem to show such obvious anomalies what are we supposed to do? bury our collective heads in the sand and pretend that the myriad anomalies and discrepancies are not really there?
spooked at least is not afraid to address these issues. however, he seems to have better manners than to just tell the whole lot of you to fuck off so i will do it for him.
all of you detractors and ridiculers are full of shit.
Many people were not able to watch the news that morning. I think many more who watched have forgotten what they saw and heard. People on the street thinking the building just exploded. People in the studios assuring them it was an airplane. Not just on ABC and Fox.
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/itsabomb.htm
i remember that i watched the various cablenews all that day - i remember seeing a view of 175 hitting wtc2 filmed from the east somewhere. it didn't occur to me at the time to wonder why there would be a camera mounted steadily on a stand focused on the south tower when the north tower was the one burning.
but what i remember the most is when everyone was freaking out about missiles being fired from the woolworth building - funny how that just sort of got lost in the shuffle.
I still don't know what to make of the missiles from the Woolworth building story. I suspect the reports were real and maybe even missiles were fired in the south tower-- as a nice distraction from the "plane" and also there were reports that an FBI office on the lower floors (23rd? -- no time to look it up) of one of the towers was destroyed well when people were still moving around the towers early on.
Do you clowns actually believe this stuff or is this a college prank to make people believe that you're as stupid as you appear?
Do you clowns actually believe this stuff or
do us clowns actually believe what stuff?
i watched cnn and msnbc all day on 9/11 - they made a big fuckin deal about missiles being launched from the woolworth building. the next day there was not a single word about it.
at this point, i personally think the South Tower was hit by a missile (or planted explosives), and the cartoon "plane" was part of the Psy-Op/Black-Op...
Gerard Holmgren's work/research delves much deeper into this idea...why WOULD the Perps use planes? it's risky, if the jetliner misses its' target, they have an even bigger mess on their hands to clean-up/cover-up...
Post a Comment
<< Home