Clear Image of Flight 175

If your wondering where the picture was taken it was taken near Park Row and Peace Plaza/Nassau Street.

The Google Earth cords are 40o 42'41.89"N 74o 00"22.37"W elev: about 30-34 ft.

Just FYI.

reply to post by Harvestfreak


Harvest, excellent info!

Ummm...anyone in Manhattan with a GPS hand-held care to chimne in? Believe me, next time I'm in NYC I'll buy a Magellan jsut to check this out.

Originally posted by coughymachine

I accept this - perhaps it isn't 'clear'. Nonetheless, I'm satisfied that's what it is.

As for the rest, I was just responding to your earlier post, which suggested there was no UA livery visible in the OP's photograph. Well, there is. It's up to you whether you believe it's been manipulated.

I do not. This is a UA plane as far as I'm concerned, and I wonder whether anything, short of you having been aboard, could persuade you otherwise.

I take the view that if I cannot clearly identify something, I cannot attest to what I cannot clearly ID. That would be like me attesting to something in court, when I have no clear valid evidence to support my testimony. I cannot do that.

reply to post by thedman


apparently there were other videos as well that the FBI or CIA confiscated from hotels and other security cameras. The one we saw on the news and that was released to the general public is the only footage that was EVER released, even though there were other cameras that captured the event. That is another factor that makes the whole thing shady.

coughymachine
i`m kinda with you on this for one
that picture just looks not right for some reason and
two- I haven`t compared it to the other 911 shots yet but
in my memory they did not look like this almost crystal clear pic.
hhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I`m gonna go compare...........

Originally posted by dampnickers
1) As has been previously stated, I am highly suspicious of any sort of "clear" image being produced so long after the event has taken place. Please do not try to tell me that someone knowingly, or unknowingly had this photo hidden away, and did not realise it/cash in on it in the days after the attrocity.

The photo has been around for a while. I thought it was pertinent to shine a light on it here for all hologram and missile 'theorists'. Ofcouse there are other 9/11 images and tapes that were released months and years after the event.

Originally posted by dampnickers
2) If this is a United aeroplane as we are asked to believe, why is it that despite the fact that the sun is directly illuminating the fuselage, the grey upper half of the livery, is a much darker shade of grey than would be expected.

I haven't asked you to 'believe' anything. The shade of grey is enhanced by the contrast of the image. Examine other colors and objects in the shot.

Originally posted by dampnickers
Also, the logo on the tail fin of the aircraft seems to be very bright. I might be mistaken, but I have never seen a bright (almost looks white) logo on a dark blue background on United aeroplanes...

The angle of the metal allows for a reflection of the morning sun. This will seem white in an image exposed for the rest of the scene.

Originally posted by dampnickers
Either way, this does not "feel" like this photgraph is entirely genuine to me.

I'm sorry you 'feel' that way.

Originally posted by thesneakiod
I don't know if you believe the official story or not but if you don't and you think it was an inside job, then whats so unbelievable to think the passengers where killed before hand?

Did I say it was unbeleiveable? Have you read the thread? I supported that theory.

Originally posted by thesneakiod
It seems people here only believe the American government when it fits in with their theories concerning 9/11.

And your irrelevant diatribe contributes what? Really, I'm confused.

Originally posted by OrionStars
I take the view that if I cannot clearly identify something, I cannot attest to what I cannot clearly ID.

So you accept that a plane hit the tower, but not necessarily that it was a UA plane?

And, if there are no ultra-high res images available, is there anything that would satisfy you that it was a UA plane?

ETA: clarification

[edit on 23-12-2007 by coughymachine]

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by OrionStars
I take the view that if I cannot clearly identify something, I cannot attest to what I cannot clearly ID.

So you accept that a plane hit the tower, but not necessarily that it was a UA plane?

I saw two plane shapes flying toward two twin towers. Then my visibility was blocked by a massive round ball of orange flame and dense black smoke. I saw no plane actually hit or penetrate, but then I had no millisecond slo-mo videos to view. Circumstantial evidence makes it entirely plausible the plane shape did impact, but nothing is clear after any impact. That is to all I can attest to seeing.

And, if there are no ultra-high res images available, is there anything that would satisfy you that it was a UA plane?

If it was as clear, or almost as clear, as those grounded UA planes for identification. Then I would need an affidavit from the photographer, that plane in that picture designated as a UA or UA Flight 175, was indeed UA Flight 175, as evidenced by the clear ID numbers painted on the plane.

That means the photographer is swearing before a notary public, that what is pictured in the photograph is valid. That does not necessarily mean any and all parts of the photo are valid. It simply means the photographer, under penalty of false testimony, has signed an affidavit attesting everything in the photo is valid.

I see various people complained about others following like sheep. When others do not, such as I am not doing, we get hit with something akin to prosecutorial cross examiniation. What is the purpose? Do you desire I see what you see when I cannot in good conscience do that? Otherwise, I do not understand.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Do you desire I see what you see when I cannot in good conscience do that? Otherwise, I do not understand.

You and I see the same thing. We interpret what we see differently, that's all.

I do not believe you're ever going to get the sort of information you require to prove the plane in the photograph was UAFL175.

The problem you have is that all images of the plane that is seen approaching the tower have been cropped from much larger images. Not even the best of them, such as Rob Howard's below, will offer the same level of detail as that found, for example, in an image of a jumbo sitting on a runway.



So, for me, I'm satisfied a plane flew into the building. Was it UAFL175? I don't know. I do believe it was a UA plane, however, or at the very least, one made to look like a UA plane.

Here's something else to consider.

Every time I see a documentary about theater or filmmaking there is one common theme...rehearse, rehearse, rehearse.

In order to carry out a HUGE conspiracy such as 9/11 it either had to be rehearsed somewhere, or it actually happened, as horrible as it is to consider, just as it played out...live on September 11, 2001.

I clearly remember that morning. I have flown B767s. I have no doubt that IF pilots, even if they were relatively inexperienced, but had knowledge of the cockpit layout (possibly by having time in a simulator?) could have flown those airplanes.

How many ATS members here have the MS Flight Simulator program?

SO...assuming a terrorist, who had a desire, and knowledge, got into a cockpit, that terrorist could accomplish the suicide attacks we saw on 9/11.

By the way, simulators exist all over the world, not just in the United States. Could you not suppose that a determined criminal would not take time to learn to fly, then use enough money, money at their disposal, to get access to simulators? IN Europe? IN Australia? or, even, IN the MidEast?

The debunking or promotion of holograms at the WTC site is a waste of people's time and a distraction from the real use of holograms.

If you want a hologram plane, look into the Pentagon and where flight 77 really went and who was on board it...

The pictures presented in court as evidence is basically a movie set and a bunch of props.

reply to post by Spoodily


Spoodily, if you would pay attention to SteveR and the original point of this thread, since that is the original point, it has nothing to do with the Pentagon and AA77.

If you follow my posts, you will see I plainly and pointedly did not mention what happened 'later that day'. I did that for a reason...it is not germain to this thread.

Please start your own 'Pentagon Thread'....oh, I see, it's already been done...well, if you don't like the way that one is going, start your own, by all means.

IN the meantime, please continue to offer your scientific links to support your views regarding the WTC attacks.

Thanks for your posts....

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Here's something else to consider.

Every time I see a documentary about theater or filmmaking there is one common theme...rehearse, rehearse, rehearse.

In order to carry out a HUGE conspiracy such as 9/11 it either had to be rehearsed somewhere, or it actually happened, as horrible as it is to consider, just as it played out...live on September 11, 2001.

No one has to accept the following but investigation to validate could be an option. I found it quite convincing all considered for so much lack of solid evidence from 9/11, when placed in context to a detailed analysis of what may well have transpired at the Pentagon. The author of the book is an physician and ex-USAF officer, whose duties were to forensically investigate military aircraft crashes.

Your comment gave me the perfect opening to state rehearsals are reported to have been going on and a lot of them. Copyright law prohibits me from doing anything, but minimally, for educational purposes only, citing Peter Tiradera's 9-11 Coup Against America! The Pentagon Analysis. I will give a brief list of dates, brief details and some people involved , plus, a quote or two, of what was reported in the book:

In a chapter entitled "Military & Government Agencies Rehearse for 9/11:

"We couldn't possibly have known this. We didn't know that airliners are subject to this kind of work." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. (Odd a man in his position did not know that. Since successful UAV testing, using commercial passenger jets, dates back as far as 1984 at NASA test facilities.)

"Ten months prior to 9/11, Office of Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld) holds exercise of an airliner crash into the Pentagon!!

"This is a list of most of the known exercises leading up to 9/11:

22 January 2000 - the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) runs a command and control type war simulation at its Manhattan headquarters. The CFR enlisted 75 people, including bankers, former Treasury Secretaries, and former State Department officials. Including James Woolsey, ex-CIA director.

May 2000 - start of "TOPOFF" terrorism exercises at Andrews Air Force Base. (Lists participants among them ex-CIA director James Woolsey and FBI Director William Sessions)

June and July 2000 - Dr. Thomas Inglesby of Johns Hopkins Institute organized bioterrorism scenarios in Atlanta and St. Louis. The bio agent was Yersinia pestis (the black plague).

12 July 2000 - Woolsey was part of yet another CFR "conference” called The Next Financial Crisis" Warning Signs, Damage Control, and Impact.......

3 November 2000 - Command Emergency Response Training. Don Abbott organized a simulated crash on the Pentagon with a model of the Pentagon and miniature planes (See beginning of the chapter).

28 November 2000 - Second National Symposium on Bioterrorism. Notable participants included Dr. Inglesby and Jerry Hauer.

1 June 2001 - Amalgam Virgo terrorist exercise at Tyndall AFB., FL. The multi-service exercise tested the defense and response capabilities to a terrorist cruise missile, suicide plane, and UAV (drone) attack on Panama city, FL (See more below).

18 June 2001 - Navy Gulf of Mexico Exercise (GOMEX) terrorist preparedness exercise designed to test "Force Protection Readiness:"

22 June 2001 - Dark Winter, the US government’s last big exercise before September 11th, focusing on a smallpox attack and facilitator of this bioterror exercise. Among the active participants were:

James Woolsey - ex-CIA director.
Jerome Hauer - ex-OEM
Sam Nunn
Thomas Inglesby - Senior Fellow at the Johns Hopkins Institute.”

“Exercises show that numerous preparations were done in dealing with hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.”

I emphasized only the words the author emphasized.

[edit on 23-12-2007 by OrionStars]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
... upon a closer 'look' at your photo, I'm beginning to wonder if UA175 wasn't a B767-300ER? That is my observation, based on the proportions I see. Admittedly, I could be thrown off because of the angle of bank.

There's an old article about these allegedly wrong proportions based on blurry pictures. Hard to be sure with perspective.

reply to post by nablator


nablator, thanks

I've looked up the Wikipedia reference, and it was a B767-222. Sometimes the picture can be slightly deceptive...hmmmm?

Thanks, nablator

reply to post by OrionStars


Thanks Orion,

I haven't read, nor have I heard of Peter Tiradera's book.

Is there anyone else who knows of this author and can give insight as to his qualifications?

BTW, Orion, is his book about the WTC only, or the entire day in general? Because I think SteverR, the OP, would appreciate it if this stayed on topic, that is, plane or no plane at the WTC.

Thank you...this is a touchy, and emotional subject.

This is an excellent picture considering the circumstances
It's difficult to get a sharp picture of an object moving so fast and if this is a frame from a CCD video camera a 'shimmer' is to be expected due to the rate at which the CCD is scanned IE the object has moved a few pixels between the start and end of the scan. The equivalent for a film camera is blurring.

It's become apparent that no amount of evidence will ever be good enough for everyone to agree that it's even a real plane let alone make and model.
Even if there were high resolution slo-mo cameras set up everywhere to capture detail as fine as passengers at the windows there'd still be a cry of foul and, in fact, I'd be one crying foul then as well because that would have shown an obvious pre-knowledge of exactly what was going to happen and where to get the best view of it.


[edit on 23/12/2007 by Pilgrum]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Weedwhacker, you are welcome. Dr. Tiradera's book is dedicated to detailing the Pentagon. It is full of photographic presentation, including at least one photo of a WTC tower collapsing. He does briefly touch on both WTC and PA, and how highly suspicious those events were.

I only posted those citations, because it was brought up by a poster, possibly yourself?, of surprise there were no rehersals. As detailed in the book, there were more than a few rehersals, including the rehersal taking place in Manhattan.

Since I am not certain what the plane was in the photo, in the post starting this discussion, I provided information pertaining to what we were told was UA Flight 175 Boeing 767 civilian commercial jetliner. It may have been a drone, i.e KC-767, in what may also be incorrectly? painted UA colors, being passed off as a civilian jetliner.

At a distance, it is nearly, if not impossible, to be certain what has been alleged to be UA 175 Boeing 767 commercial passenger jetliner, is indeed a UA Flight 175 Boeing 767 civilian passenger jetliner, not a UAV drone made to pass, at a distance, as a civilian commercial jetliner.

For me, it is not a question of whether it is a "real plane" I can see it is a real plane. I cannot tell if it is actually a UA owned plane from the photo in the first post of this discussion.

I tried to zoom in at 400% to make out more detail, and got nothing more than I had at 200%. At 400%, it was appearing highly blurry. Even at high resolution a poster was kind enough to present, I still could not clearly make out a definite logo (aside from red paint in some pattern).

I cannot prove it was UA Flight 175. I see no ID numbers on the plane to match to the data bank of scheduled flights on 9/11.

reply to post by OrionStars


Thanks, Orion,

No, I do not think there has been, or are now, B767 'drones'. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one. If you think they exist, and can point to clear and concise evidence of such, then by all means fill us in.

If, on the other hand, it is only your opinion that such 'drones' exist, then welcome to the forum of opinion!

Of course, when you look at the first sentence of MY post, I am stating an opinion as well. However, MY opinion is based on experience, years of experience, operating the airplanes in question. I cannot, certainly, speak to what the Military may be able to do, except as to what I have seen in the Press.

So I will fall back to my initial points: B767 unmanned drones? Implausible. Incredible, very realistic Holograms? That, I have no knowledge of, one way or the other. But, I hold to my earlier post in this regard...IF an unmanned 'drone' or a 'Hologram'....where are the people? These people who were seen to board these airplanes, in Boston specifically, in the case of UA175. AA11 was dispatched from JFK, correct? Same question---where are the people?

Not only the passengers, who were manifested in the Sabre computer system (in the case of American Airlines) but also in the system United Airlines used. Oh, and, the crew info was certainly in a computer system as well...every major airline had a huge crew scheduling database then, as they do now...

At American Airlines, I daresay the crewmembers names were also in the Sabre System. Why is it that no one, here at ATS, those who purport to know the 'whole truth', ever respond to critical examination of records such as these?

Am I, and John Lear, the only people who have ever worked in the Airline Industry? I know, Capt Lear has other opinions, and I won't debate those here...I'm just asking if there is anyone else on ATS who is now, or has been, involved in Airline Operations. Your contributions would be most welcomed!

Thanks for your posts...