The 9/11 Forum

Photo #1

Plane impacting WTC 2 at 9:03, 2001-09-11:



Photo by ?

Photo #2

Same United Airlines Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, spotted at San Francisco International Airport on December 8, 1999:



Photo by Konstantin von Wedelstaedt.

As an aside: if anybody knows the author/photographer for photo #1, let me know.

Photographer of #1 appears to be Aaron C. Traub:

http://web.archive.org/web/200412040811 ... index2.asp

SnowCrash wrote:Photographer of #1 appears to be Aaron C. Traub:

http://web.archive.org/web/200412040811 ... index2.asp

According Matt's website: "Officer L. Perez".

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html

911conspiracy.tv wrote:NOTE: This photo has for some reason been mistakenly attributed to "Aaorn C. Traub" -- for example, at the 911myths.com UA Flight 175 Crash Evidence page. Regarding the point of perspective: "I think it's from along Grace Ct, NW of Hicks St in Brooklyn Heights. About: 40d 41m 39.02s N, 73d 59m 52.65s W. Ground elevation is about 50 feet." (YougeneDebs)

Thank you!

I had suspicions it might be wrong, because Traub runs hereisnewyork.org, although he's also listed as a photographer there.

This photo suggests that they are different airplanes, no?

If true, it's more evidence that the airplane that struck the building was different than a standard airliner of the 767 type.

Heretic76 wrote:This photo suggests that they are different airplanes, no?

Quite the opposite: the photos suggest the airplanes are identical.

I'm sure this is a hard pill to swallow.

If it's the same airplane, where are the appendages shown in other pictures?

Heretic76 wrote:If it's the same airplane, where are the appendages shown in other pictures?

Can you show us the other pictures that you are thinking of?
(Think "What are the appendages in your wife's face in other pictures?")

The one at the top of this page, Oystein. The one of the airplane just before it struck the tower.

Heretic76 wrote:The one at the top of this page, Oystein. The one of the airplane just before it struck the tower.

Oh- You wrote "other pictures". Plural. You mean only 1.

Hm okay I have no idea what appendages you are missing. Can you point them out for us? Maybe download both photos, draw little red arrows where you think you see appendages in on picture but none in the other? I am not missing any.

I'm unable to draw pictures here, but the appendages I'm talking about are attached to the fuselage close to the belly, starboard side, oriented fore & aft, one forward of the wing, the other aft. In the picture they appear to be shiny, probably just the light reflecting off of them. They appear to be several feet long.

Those are not on the airplane in the other picture posted by Snow.

Heretic76 wrote:I'm unable to draw pictures here, but the appendages I'm talking about are attached to the fuselage close to the belly, starboard side, oriented fore & aft, one forward of the wing, the other aft. In the picture they appear to be shiny, probably just the light reflecting off of them. They appear to be several feet long.

Those are not on the airplane in the other picture posted by Snow.

Because they aren't really there, as explained quite elaborately by Eric Salter.

Please read the link in its entirety. This is the second time I'm posting it, apparently you simply ignored the first one. "Pod" claims aren't just erratic: they are old, outdated, and very seriously frowned upon given the effluvium of disinformation encircling them.

However you want it to be Snow, is fine with me. Brian and Eric Salter's work illustrate again that so many photos and videos from that day were manipulated that all photographic evidence is meaningless, including the photo at the beginning of this thread.

Heretic,
You're on a slippery slope with that position. If we can't accept any evidence then 911 is a black box... we know the situation before 9/11 and on 9/12 but how it things happened becomes a complete mystery / black box.

So there was some fakery, unreliable evidence, poor observations, withholding of evidence, false and unreliable testimony...and so forth. But we have to work with what we have and try to reconstruct the events using sound forensic methods and science (scientific method).

It's certainly possible to make up a coherent account and more so if you stretch the truth or even the science... and see what you want to see in the visual record.

On the other hand what is the alternative? ...accept the narrative which clearly has huge holes in it? I don't think so.

From the NY State Museum:

The Recovery section begins at Ground Zero with a dramatically damaged 20-foot high; 10-ton steel column from floors 71-73 of the WTC North Tower. The stories of the recovery operation at Fresh Kills are told through the many objects found in the mountains of debris, including material from the everyday life of the buildings, the steering wheel from a car, Observation Deck souvenirs, melted floppy discs, keys, and a crushed payphone. A large collection of firearms from WTC Building 6 are on exhibition along with several destroyed street lampposts, fire hydrants, and a destroyed elevator door from one of the World Trade Center towers.

The exhibition includes pieces of the airplanes that crashed into the WTC. The details of the crashes are shown through graphics and brought to stark reality by a portion of the wheel assembly from one of the planes, a piece of fuselage, and a steel beam with an embedded airplane piece.

Source (Snapshots from panorama view mine, so pray I'm right)





Overview of both:



From National Geographic, also from the NY State Museum:

This fragment from one of the airplanes that struck the World Trade Center in 2001 was recovered in lower Manhattan. (Courtesy New York State Museum)

Source

A window frame of a B-767 that was recovered from the WTC wreckage. Notice the rivets in the lower portion of the window frame and the hi-shear hilocks surrounding the frame. Proof, the aircraft was a B-767 and the photo and videos depict an intact B-767, so once again, proof that the aircraft remained in one piece just before it struck the WTC building.

Source

(I suspect that this is our beloved Beachnut talking under another alias)