UA 175: Who created this fake footage from this rare south view?

THE RIGHT WING IS NOT DISCERNABLE and not aligned with the sagging left wing. It's an obvious and easily proven fake. Every video and picture can be proven frauds in the same way. Garbage in, garbage out.

Notice the white area anterior to the right engine. The fake engine is behind that and far too rear of the left sagging engine. It is simply a fake image with numerous impossibilities.

The shark fin does not have that fancy angle backward of the boeing. The horizontal stabilizer should be more centered (forward of) with the fin. The right boeing wing is anterior to the fin, while the fake wing is oddly pointing up and far too rear at this angle. The fake image is missing that distinct point at the nose and clearly smaller than it has to appear, if it was real.

 

So we're suppose to ignore the fact the picture of flight 175 is at a different angle? Maybe you should read up on something called perspective.

 

How can it be live footage? Once it is "footage" -- recorded -- it is not live anymore. How can we be sure your footage has not been modified?

Which is why no one believes the whole "orb" story. The gifs presented as evidence are not sharp enough to draw any conclusions.

 

Phil Jayhan of Let's Roll spent 387 hours on airliners dot net trying to find a real plane with those unexplained, elongated patterns on the bottom of the fuselage, but was unsuccessful because all images on film and video were faked, with the exception of the drone coming from west of the towers. The fake right wing is too close to the fuselage, revealing yet another look and see, it's image and video fakery on 911. The fake fuselage looks more flat than rounded.

 

Not only that, you're supposed to ignore the image compression, the difference in lighting, the difference in scale, and the obvious ignorance of plane construction.

Which part of the airframe is "the shark fin?"

Once again 7forever goes back to using images that he completely misinterpreted earlier. He posted the two side by side undercarriages above and claimed "obvious fakery" because the wings on the image on the right did not contain "notches" like the wings on the image on the left.

I explained to him that one aircraft has its flaps extended. The other aircraft has its flaps retracted. One aircraft is moving slowly during a take off or landing. The other aircraft is moving quickly. He refused to retract his statement despite sending me a private message in which he stated: "So, I didn't know about the flaps. It changes nothing."

Clearly we're dealing with one of two things. Either 7forever knows he's wrong and is simply repeating previously debunked garbage in the hopes he'll persuade someone unfamiliar with the topic, or 7forever is incapable of arguing or understanding a rational argument.

 

Plus he's relying on Phil Jayhan for his 'facts'.....I wouldn't trust anything he says about 9/11

 

Seven also makes the claim that 'the fake right wing is too close to the fuselage'




Has aircraft building changed?....Seems to me wings always connected to the fuselage

 

THE PLANE IN THIS PICTURE HAS NO DISCERNABLE LEFT WING. It must not be a real plane.

</trutherlogic>

 

How can a plane hit a tower if it can only fly in circles?

Yet another uncomfortable fact that needs answering.

 

THE FAKE PLANE IN THIS PICTURE HAS NO DISCERNABLE RIGHT ENGINE AND IS NOT ALIGNED WITH ITS FAKE LEFT ENGINE COUNTERPART. It CANNOT be a real plane.

 

It changes nothing because the elongated patterns do not appear on any plane known-to-man and certainly has nothing to do with a real boeing 767. The flaps...puleeeeeze.

 

The fake left engine does not overlap the wing and is attached to air, to its left and rear. What a disasterous failure.

 

The only glaring mistakes are those made by folks who've apparently never seen an aircraft in their life.

(I'm looking at you shark fin)

 

The right engine must be in between the first and second slat. The fake image shows the first slat too close to the fuselage, therefore that one fact proves it's fake. The fake engine's in front of the first slat that is too close to the fuselage.

 

You really need to start opening your eyes the first 'stat' is right where it should be

 

THE PLANE IN THIS PICTURE HAS NO DISCERNIBLE LEFT WING. It must not be a real plane.

</trutherlogic>

 

I think I've solved the riddle. 7Forever lives in a 2 dimensional universe. As such, he's unable to perceive the 3rd dimension in 2 dimensional graphic. It all makes perfect sense now.

This explains why he thinks one engine is closer to the fuselage then the other.

This explains why he thinks one wing is longer then the other.

This explains why he thinks the vertical stabilizer (shark fin?) is swept back at a different angle.

This explains why he thinks the fuselage is flat on the bottom.

This explains why he thinks "orbs" circled around the towers.

It's because he doesn't understand how the objects are able to occupy the 3rd dimension and how that affects their 2 dimensional cross sectional profile.

 

You really need to start opening your eyes the first 'stat' is not where it has to be.

 

THE PLANE IN THIS PICTURE HAS NO DISCERNIBLE LEFT WING.

 

Four flying bombs were captured on film and survived without alteration. The only inconsistency is chopper 4 disappears behind the top of tower 1, while the other three are lower but at the same level. Here they are in this order; NY1, WB11, CBS, and Chopper 4, aka WNBC. Only the CBS orb did not air live. The Today Show aired the orb but changed camera angles before it could complete its path to explosion. CBS was left out.

The final 14 seconds of approach by nist was south to north, not west to east. The drone/orb cannot visually be a chopper or plane and its float path would have crashed into the west side of T2, not southeast corner. The drone literally circled the towers just like Matt Lauer said after he saw it.

 

What on Earth is a flying bomb? Do you mean a missile?

What exactly is it specifically that you think collided with the towers?

 

After accounting for foreshortening, where does the slat have to be in the referenced image?

 

I know you cannot find the underside of a boeing with the complete nonsense this out of wack fake image shows. If you could, then you would produce one. The image is a blatant and obvious fake.

The inboard flap track on the right wing of fake 175 clearly has the inboard flap not between it and the fuselage (YOU can see it, clear as day), thus it's too close as the faked image shows. The left engine nacelle also does not connect to the underside of the wing at a point outboard of the flap track, exactly as it can't be. The rearmost point of the nacelle attachment footprint is clearly not abaft of the leading tip of the flap track fairing, also impossible and fake.

 

I don't know if you think we just fell off the turnip truck,or what, but NONE of your 'images' are clear enough to see ANYTHING 'clear as day'',much less bolster your claim that the planes are 'fake'.

You need to seriously start taking stock of your spam and decide if it stands up to scrutiny....because it really,REALLY doesn't.