I know the image is from Rense.com.
But does anyone have any idea what it is?
It’s not an object, it’s the shape of the fuselage at the wing attachment location of the 767. You can kind of make it out here if you know where to look. I’ll see if I can find a better photo of the underside of a 767.
This site claims it’s a missile that the jet fired at the WTC tower just prior to crashing into it. :rolleyes.
Ah, here you go. You can clearly see the shape of the fueselage under the wings in this photo. Because of the lighting in the photo you linked to, only one of the fuselage bulges is clearly visible.
I’m not sure what the Rense.com agenda is but let’s review the bidding here. This airplane, assuming it is one of the WTC planes, made a normal takeoff from an ordinary US airport, Boston was one of them and I forget the other, with no reported anomalies. If there had been any “object under the fuselage” it could not have gone unnoticed on takeoff.
No out-of-focus picture of something that purports to be one of the hijacked planes is going to change that. The “object” is obviously an artifact of a lousy picture, which might even have been fuzzed and hokeyed up on purpose by someone.
I tend to agree…in this pic you can see the bulge.
http://www.photovault.com/Link/Technology/Aviation_Commercial/show.asp?tg=Volume07/TAFV07P03_12
Q.E.D, David Simmons and Reeder are all correct in my view. The planes themselves were the weapon. Why would anyone even speculate that terrorists went to the incredibly greater trouble of mounting something sinister on the outside of the plane? Their likelihood of success woud dwindle to nothingness if they tried. Besides…commercial jets aren’t fitted out with external mounting brackets for anything…getting something nasty to hang off of the fuselage of one would be near impossible without major modifications to the aircraft and doubtless someone would notice LONG before the plane ever got off the ground.
“Hey George. What’s that thing that looks like a missile hanging from the bottom of the plane?”
“Who knows…just get that last load of luggage in and let’s get outta here.” ::rollseyes::
http://www.scramble.nl/combined/sb/gfx/photos/767-bird5.jpg
This is a picture of some (messy) birdstrikes on the wing root of a 767. If you look to the right where the wing meets the fuselage, you see that the 767 has a flatter area that bulges slightly down. Further aft it merges back into the cylindrical shape of the fuselage. It’s kinda shaped like a duck’s breast.
It’s not something on the bottom of the plane, it is the bottom of the plane.
I’m going to use my amazing paranormal precognitive ablities and predict that someone, somewhere, is going to release an “improved” version of this picture that shows that this is a bomb or a face or something.
BBZZZZ!!! Wrong, thanks for participating 
Some comercial planes have strongpoints under the wings to carry a spare engine, like the 747 or the less known VC10 I´m not sure if the Lockheed Tristar or the MD-10 can do that too…
Oh, yeah; that 767 was not hauling any spare engine, surveillance pod or 1920s style death ray…
Why would a 747 have a strongpoint for another engine? It already has four…are you saying they built the thing to take six engines in a pinch? Six engines that no one has ever used that I have ever seen…ever? Also your link on the 747 seems broken and the picture of the VC10 doesn’t show anything useful beyond a picture of a VC10.
Additionally…even if a hard point exists on the airframe are you suggesting a mounting bracket is always present such that a would be terrorist might just latch something on? Or, if you want to make use of the harpoint, do you have to manage some more difficult modifactions to the wings and/or fuselage?
Oh yeah…the planes that struck the WTC were neither a VC10 or 747…does a 757 have hardpoints for external mounting as well? (I really don’t know which is why I’m asking)
If there are hardpoints on a '47 for an extra engine (and that’s a big if), I’d wager it’s for transporting a replacement engine for an aircraft with a bad one. Those engines are HUGE and since the planes land where the engines are needed it makes sense to fly them in, rather than ground ship them. I doubt it would be a functional extra engine, being as the 747 has been demonstrated to be able to fly and land safely with just one engine operational.
Yes, the idea is to carry a replacement engine; as for:
Look bellow the right wing, there´s a large… LARGE streamlined pod there; the VC10 had four tail mounted engines. The pod carried a RollsRoyce engine inside.
Try this one then; it´s not as good as the first one but you still can see the fifth engine between the first left wing engine (engine number 3) and the fuselage.
Whack-a-mole the attach point on a 747 is to ferry a dead engine somewhere so that it can be fixed. The hard point has none of the normal things associated with an engine mount (ie fuel, hydraulics, etc) - it is simply a place to attach an engine. Go
here for a picture of a BOAC 747 doing an engine ferry.
The 757 and 767 do NOT have similar hardpoints. The only reason the 747 can get away with it is because the mounting point is between the other two engines on the wing. Having a dead engine hanging out there is like having a giant speedbrake - it induces extra drag (and subsequently yaw) on the side that it is mounted. Having an engine outside of it (looking spanwise along the wing) helps counteract this.
And REALLY people…this whole discussion about hardpoints on airliners is kind of ridiculous. The photo in the OP is a grainy shot of the underbelly of a 767. Well, the design of the 767 puts a lot of things in the underbelly already…things like fuel tanks, wing spars and the main landing gear. Go here for a look at a UAL 767-200 retracting it’s gear on takeoff.
Whack-a-mole and everyone else is correct: the airplanes themselves were the weapons.
Period.
Well, it serves me right spending all that time looking for good photos…the question was already answered by the time I finished!
But I still like my picture of the BOAC 747! And Ale’s picture of a 747 shows an engine being mounted inside of both engines… I’d never seen that before, but the principle remains the same…you need an operating engine outside of the dead one.