Odd 9/11 theory: please debunk/explain?

Factual Questions
1

Before anyone rolls their eyes at me for bringing up the 9/11 conspiracy stuff here … let me defend myself by saying I do NOT endorse or even believe the following theory. I just saw it posted on a forum I frequent, and – though some of the posters there are doing a pretty good job of debunking – I figured I might as well take it to the fact-finding experts at the Dope to give it the professional debunkers’ touch! :slight_smile:

So the basic gist of the theory claims that at least one of the planes that crashed into the WTC was sporting a missile that shot into the tower seconds before the plane impact. The alleged ‘proof’: a couple of pictures showing an unidentified blob near the plane’s undercarriage, plus a frame of video where there’s … erm, some kind of flame right before the point where the cockpit would have hit the building. This conspiracy’s main advocate suggests that the real passenger planes were diverted and “switched” for militarily-equipped jets.

My own comments, FWIW: Um … dubious in the extreme. While I do believe there are unanswered questions about 9/11 that make me wonder how much foreknowledge there was of this tragedy (aka the LIHOP/“They Let It Happen on Purpose” theory), this “missile” idea seems to reside squarely in tinfoil hat territory.

I mean, aside from the absurd complexity of the switched/diverted planes plot, WTF would be the point of firing a missile at a building milliseconds before slamming into it with a massive plane filled with jet fuel??? Geeze, talk about gilding the lily!

Okay, now it’s up to you guys. But before I share the link to the pictures and attendant discussion, I must beg you, please keep politics out of this thread and focus on the pictures and the facts! The reason I ask is that the link is from a discussion topic at Democratic Underground, a forum for rabid (but generally smart and mostly un-looney) lefties, like me. :slight_smile:

Background: as you’ll see, the thread starts with a genuine question from a skeptical writer asking the other DUers to explain the picture (much as I am doing here, except he asked with no bias or hinting as to why he’s asking the question). It’s only faaaaaar down the thread, when a guy named Phil Jayhan who has never posted on DU before pops in to espouse his pet theory, linking to eight kabillion images and films and documents, etc. etc. etc. Again, this Jayhan dude is NOT a regular Democratic Underground member, so pleeease don’t be lumping the rest of us with him. Unless it turns out he’s right, in which case … :wink:

Disclaimers over with, here’s the link.

Many thanks in advance. Remember, I don’t believe the theory, pleeease don’t mock me! :slight_smile:

2

BTW, the reason I’m putting it here in GQ is that I’m basically asking the following factual question: What is the blurry bump on the bottom of the plane? I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m just curious!

(However, if I chose wrong and this topic is more suitable for GD, my humble apologies to the mods!)

3

The evidence is just really poor; riddled with compression/enhancement artifacts, which, combined with the shadow of the wing upon the slight (and completely normal)bulge in the fuselage, pretty much fully account for the images.

It’s just hardly compelling, is all - a few blurry pixels can be made into just about anything you like - just ask SeeThruArt.

4

How about – The US miliary does not have a force of armed 767s to “switch in”. It makes no sense that they would build them for general purpose wars because the it’s a terrible design for an attack aircraft. It doesn’t have the structural strength for high speed maneuvering to, say, dodge a missile. It makes no sense that they would purpose-build them for the mission as they could just load explosives into the plane.

5

Another more plausible nutcase conspiracy: the jet was flying in close formation with a cruise missile fired by someone else.

OR

Someone fired a missile at the plane. The plane hit the WTC while trying to avoid the missile, and the missile, just about to hit the plane, followed it in.

6

The wneels are in fairings in the wing root, which with digital enhancement and shadows makes it look like there could be an attachment. The plane is shiny, with the morning sun shows a reflection on the building. I have never seen the plane coming thru the building, just a fireball, possible photo shop, but it could be possible because one of the innovations of the WTC was that there was no support beams except for the central core and the walls.

7

And then the EXACT same thing happened when the second plane it, too, right? :stuck_out_tongue:

8

The 767 just seems to be bulgey right there (the wing junction at the underbelly). Look:

http://www.zap16.com/civ%20fact/civ%20boeing%20767.htm

As for the “fire” shot–I guess I’d have to see every single frame in sequence. From that shot alone, I don’t think it’s clear enough that NONE of the plane has entered the building yet.

9

There are all sorts of angles and video at this site, and there is a definite bulge visible on all of the ones that are detailed enough to see. The wacked-out proprietor of this one implies that the bulge is because it isn’t a real plane. :rolleyes: Still, there’s a lot of stuff to look at to make up your own mind.

10

This image shows the 767 fuselage bulge really clearly; I was looking for a high-res image of another 767 with similar lighting and angle-of-view as the WTC photo (so that I could blur and reduce it down to a similar sort of image as the WTC image), but I can’t find one - this in itself is telling - we’'re looking at plane in a low-resolution image, from a highly unfamiliar angle, and it looks a bit odd, well, no shit, Sherlock.

11

I don’t know much about bulging airplane bodies, so I’ll stick to what I know…

Check out the lighting angles - there’s a good chance that what we’re seeing is the shadow cast by the engine on the right side of the plane.

  • OlPeculiar.
12

In the image of the flash of light, that looks like it’s ahead of where the plane is just about to hit the building…

I’ve figured out what this is. Notice these things:

  • The fuselage in front of the wing appears too short for a 767 (compare to the other photos)

  • The side of the building that’s almost square to the line of sight is in full sunlight, but the side where the plane hits is in shadow.

Here’s what’s really going on. That flash is the plane’s nose just beginning to hit the building. It looks like the fuselage stops just short of that point, but really the very front part of the plane is in the building’s shadow, so is not contrasty enough to show up. Take a look with this in mind and you’ll find that it becomes quite obvious.

13

[Here is a view from another angle. Note the sun’s reflection on only the right side fuselage bulge.

Uh, couldn’t that light on the tower be a [url=http://www.xs4all.nl/~mhamelnk/trips/sfo/photos/772ua_3.jpg]reflection of the plane’s landing lights](http://www.lausd.k12.ca.us/lausd/offices/di/Burleson/Lessons/PeaceQuest/plane-wtc.jpg)?

14

Here is a view from another angle. Note the sun’s reflection on only the right side fuselage bulge.

Uh, couldn’t that light on the tower be a reflection of the plane’s landing lights?

15

Thanks for the due dilligence so far, everyone! I really appreciate the info, pictures and reasonable speculations. Well, reasonable except for **Boyo Jim’s
** dry “plane hit WTC avoiding a missile” theory – though that was very clever! :wink: LOL to Apex Rogers also.

Quickie question to Mangetout: That picture from plane-spotting.de – is that definitely a 767? I only ask because the image name says “763,” but that could just be an internal reference number. Or maybe the Germans name their planes differently? (Oy, I probably sound reeeeally dumb and ignorant. And I am: I know nothing about airplanes!) Thanks so much for finding the image! Also thanks to Toadspittle for that pic of the 767. The bottom is mostly in shadow, but maybe I can brighten it up in my image editor.

jjimm, thanks for the link! Yeah, I think that site is mentioned in the OP at DU, but I didn’t check it out since it seemed to be yet another CT den.

I agree with you, CurtC: I think it’s the front part of the plane that we can’t see clearly. The image is SOOO fuzzy, I don’t know how this guy can hang his hat on it.

herman_and_bill, that info is helpful about the WTC! I didn’t know that about the lack of internal girders/columns (or if I did know it at one time, I’ve forgotten it). I vividly remember seeing the cockpit/nose of the plane pushing out through the other end, so that isn’t a photoshop or fake. But I don’t get why this conspiracy theorist uses this as evidence that “something HAD to clear the plane’s path.” Good grief, I would think the tremendous force of a huge body slamming into the building at 600MPH was more than enough to get the plane travelling through the other side of the tower!

BTW, I should mention that, if you’re interested in more of this Jayhan fella’s theory, in one of his posts there’s also a link to a massive thread in a site he moderate. I didn’t want to link directly to it here; when I visited that discussion, I found that Jayhan is boasting about having drawn a big crowd to his conspiracy party, and I’m just contrary enough to want to spite him. :smiley:

Thanks again to everyone for the help so far – please keep it coming if you have more info!

16

I think it is just an internal reference number; this is the page from whihc the image is linked (bottom right thumbnail) and it is labelled ‘Condor Boeing 767’.

If anyone happens upon an image of a brightly-lit 767 viewed from far below, please link to it and I’ll reduce it to the sort of clarity and resolution of the WTC image, for comparison.

17

It is probably a B767-300, B763 is the short hand way of denoting that it’s a 300 series 767. In the same way a B747-400 is a B744 and a B747-200 is a B742.

To the OP, I think CurtC and olpeculiar, together, have hit the nail on the head. I was thinking that the “bulge” was far too big to be a missile, much closer to the size of the engines (which are huge in comparison to a missile).

18

Here is a B767 from directly underneath with similar lighting as in the OP’s pics. Picture is from http://www.airliners.net which has an extensive range of photos of all types of aircraft. There are probably better pics if you care to look for them.
B767 from underneath.

19

Another one.

Here’s one that is about to be struck by 2 heat seeking missiles, note how the missiles are tracking directly for the hot exhaust of the jet engines :rolleyes:.