Another Pic of Plane Debris-- a Fuselage Piece, South of WTC2
(UPDATED below)
This picture came from a powerpoint presentation made by Steven Jones, and I always thought it looked odd:
From the Cryptome NIST files, which has better pics, I found this one with the same basic scene-- certainly the row of cars is the same, as is the car on fire in the background:
(click to enlarge)
I am still trying to figure out where the debris is in the lower pic-- if it is not there, or if it is out of the frame. Seems to me, the debris in the first shot is roughly where the truck is in the lower shot-- or slightly to the right. So it's a bit odd. Importantly, why didn't the person taking the lower pic actually take a picture of the debris? Or if they did, why is that pic being withheld? Also, it really looks to me like the background angle of WTC2 is very different between pic1 and pic2. Of course, the lower quality image and lack of color in the top image don't help matters.
What I will say is that the shading around the windows on the fuselage debris correlates with the blue paint scheme of an American airlines 767-- and this spot would be where AA11 debris would have landed. So they got that right, or photoshopped it right, anyway. One little oddity is that the windows on the AA 767 seem more round than the windows holes on this debris piece. Surprisingly, a United 767 has a different window scheme, with seemingly smaller, more rectangular windows.
UPDATE:
This appears to be the same debris piece, placed behind the truck (to the right in the second pic):
Via.
I still think the perspective is screwy in the top pic, and some things may have been moved around. Most oddly, the shading/coloring is quite different here-- there is no clearly painted area on the piece here, though there is some mottled blue.
This picture came from a powerpoint presentation made by Steven Jones, and I always thought it looked odd:
From the Cryptome NIST files, which has better pics, I found this one with the same basic scene-- certainly the row of cars is the same, as is the car on fire in the background:
(click to enlarge)
I am still trying to figure out where the debris is in the lower pic-- if it is not there, or if it is out of the frame. Seems to me, the debris in the first shot is roughly where the truck is in the lower shot-- or slightly to the right. So it's a bit odd. Importantly, why didn't the person taking the lower pic actually take a picture of the debris? Or if they did, why is that pic being withheld? Also, it really looks to me like the background angle of WTC2 is very different between pic1 and pic2. Of course, the lower quality image and lack of color in the top image don't help matters.
What I will say is that the shading around the windows on the fuselage debris correlates with the blue paint scheme of an American airlines 767-- and this spot would be where AA11 debris would have landed. So they got that right, or photoshopped it right, anyway. One little oddity is that the windows on the AA 767 seem more round than the windows holes on this debris piece. Surprisingly, a United 767 has a different window scheme, with seemingly smaller, more rectangular windows.
UPDATE:
This appears to be the same debris piece, placed behind the truck (to the right in the second pic):
Via.
I still think the perspective is screwy in the top pic, and some things may have been moved around. Most oddly, the shading/coloring is quite different here-- there is no clearly painted area on the piece here, though there is some mottled blue.
posted by spooked at 8:53 AM
5 Comments:
close up
Windows seem right.
Part jumped back out of building?
Why part with windows?
Part is behind truck, right?
JOHN YOUNG? Wherdy go?
Even though it's very likely that at 99% of visitors to this site have long known that no planes crashed at the WTC and the entire scope of the 9/11 operation was an inside job -
it's still a good idea to continue posting articles such those from yesterday and today because new visitors here need exposure to the truth in order to counter the lies and propaganda of Wurlitzer players who dominate discussions about 9/11.
I'm curious to know if Mr. Young's
presentation influenced anyone here?
"Professor Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph says that "false flag" operations have the advantage over truth: "research shows that people are far less willing to examine information that disputes, rather than confirms, their beliefs."
PC Roberts
all these photos are total crap.
we can all see by simply observing the foolish video fakery of the few videos of alleged ua175 supposedly impacting wtc2 that there were no actual 767s striking either wtc.
obviously every piece of a plane debris photographed at the wtc
is bogus.
frankly, i prefer your posts of performers of classical music to this nonsense.
that being said, nickname does have a valid point: because new visitors here need exposure to the truth.
probably i am just bored/jaded with trying to expose the 9/11 hoax.
ha.
There's no doubt, the dude is absolutely just.
Post a Comment
<< Home