Asiana crash photo anomaly

I'll make this short and to the point...
The first image shows the airplane as seen from above.
Notice how the interior is black and chard.



Then how is it possible that in this picture, nothing looks damaged, much less burned?



Note: Using Google image search, both images cannot be found preceding Saturday.

The back of the plane?

In your first photo only half of the fuselage is visible.
Is there a wider shot available that shows the full plane for comparison?

Good catch and question. The paper thin oxygen circulation bags for the masks don't show heat damage and the interior seems to show no smoke fire damage/smudging.

Different planes where someone used a file photo on #2? Anyone have a pre-fire shot of this plane or one like it to see interior colors and config?

As already said......interior shot is from the rear of the plane

whats the timing of the photos?
was one taken by someone leaving the plane ?
or are you trying to start this was a false flag op since it's been awhile since we had one of those.

I think what has happened is that the craft landed, people were evacuated safely and then the plane caught alight.

That pretty much aligns with the story given ton us.

Photos show that the rear section is in much better condition. A very good chance those seats were in the rear area of the plane.

edit:

Look at all the light toward the rear of the picture. Might be the door and toward the tail.

reply to post by Argyll


There still would be visible heat damage- look at how intense the heat must have been to do that to the craft!

I believe the plane landed then it caught fire- otherwise I'm pretty sure there would be more casualties!

reply to post by samuel1990

There still would be visible heat damage- look at how intense the heat must have been to do that to the craft!

I think it's obvious that people were evacuated before the plane caught fire....stands to reason that the interior shot was taken before the fire started............. possibly by an evacuating passenger?

I don't even think that the picture need be taken beforehand, I mean the plane is completely empty in the picture. It's more like a picture of the rear, and there does seem to be more damage on the right hand side rear from other pictures, hence the daylight as well.

I now see that the picture is likely off an NTSB video. Looking at it, you can safely say there is not much plane left below the seats. The daylight is not that significant. Link,

www.nbcwashington.com...

I have a feeling that it was reported that one of the engines, which you can not see in the overhead photo, came adrift and lies alongside the fuselage, and that is what caused the fire. igniting leaking fuel, hydraulics etc.

The overhead was the first photo I saw, and I could not believe many could have escaped or how that could have occurred. Seems incredible.

Is it just me or do planes seem flimsy as hell?

Originally posted by samuel1990
I think what has happened is that the craft landed, people were evacuated safely and then the plane caught alight.

That pretty much aligns with the story given ton us.

This has been my thinking as well, that everyone got out before the fire spread to the fuselage.

The fire didn't burn through the entire cabin. It started forward of the wings, after the firefighters were already on scene. They were able to control it fairly quickly. They had enough time to throw knives up to people on the plane, so they could cut seatbelts and free trapped passengers before the fire started. They were in the process of dousing the fuselage with foam as well as they were freeing passengers.

reply to post by Signals


They're anything but. Aviation aluminum has a stronger tensile strength than a lot of steels used in building. It has to be thin enough to be light, but strong enough to be able to flex, both from pressurization, and from flying through storms and turbulence.

I believe the top photo is after and the bottom photo is before.

I'm guessing engine failure, hard landing, people are evaluating while the plane is burning rapidly.

I'm guessing engine failure

NTSB stated engine failure is probably not an issue.

From NTSB

The throttles were advanced a few seconds prior to impact and the engines appear to respond normally.

reply to post by sylent6


It's pointing towards pilot error. New pilot to the 777 (lots of experience in other aircraft), new instructor pilot (lots of experience in the 777), came in too steep, and tried to abort the landing too late.

I'm not buying that. Even if he was inexperience, he manage and somehow to land the aircraft with minimum casualties.

Something happen to that plane right before it landed and maybe the plane is faulty. Is there any prior mechanical problems or some recalls with that particular model plane?

Anyone knows of any passengers making any statements on what they seaward?