Can somebody please explain what the large bulge on the underbelly of flight 175 is that hit the south tower?

Question

And please don't say that all the video footage and photographs have been doctored because pictures of the plane have even been published on the front cover of national US magazines.

Sources.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org
http://www.911truth.org
http://www.911witness.com
http://www.911revisited.com
http://www.911mysteries.com (3 parts)
http://www.letsroll911.org

Answer 1

Maybe the plane was pregnant???

Naaaaahhhhh.

Answer 2

Well, since the only thing you can see is video from Amateur Video and Video of an aircraft traveling at 800MPH with SHADOWS, you tell me!

Only a MORON would think that it is a military craft slamming into the building! What about the 100's of people that died on the plane?

ALSO, maybe you also think a missile hit the Pentagon and not an aircraft? Never knew a missile the same size of a plane fuselage was made!

After reading some of your question/answers, I have come to a conclusion that you are Muslim. Reporting people for asking about the 72 Virgins?
I am sure you are proud of what the terrorist have done, you just want your homelands free of the US Soldiers that are killing your militant Terrorist friends!

Get a life MORON!

Email From: Karljt

Subject: Re : Your answer

Message: Jet liners don't travel at 800 mph you ******* moron.

They can actually travel at 567 mph, or 913kph. Point was they are too fast for most human eyes to adjust and to capture with a camera.

Moron Emailed again....
From: Karljt

Subject: Re: Re : Your answer

Message: My eyes must be ten times better than yours then, and cameras never lie, But Republican bastards have it down to an art form. I'll tell you what if America doesn't start to vote out the imbeciles that have been running your country for that 8 years it will prove that you lot are as stupid as the government you elected.

Answer 3

1. None of your links takes us to any evidence of the bulge.

2. A few of these links are pure commercials. Do you have a profit motive here?

3. Several of these '9/11 conspiracy' links are well debunked elsewhere on-line- and I bet you have seen and ignored those sites.

4. Try this link for more info about the various plane-based elements of the consiracy theories: http://www.911review.com/errors/phantom/st_plane.html Heck, it is even a pro-conspiracy site!

Answer 4

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=2

CLAIM: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."

FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."

Answer 5

Thanks to stung4eve for some input about the video he mentioned. I find the videos that question 9/11 disturbing and am not satisfied afterwards. There are good reasons why we need to be well informed, and things like our government confiscating the video cameras that showed what hit the pentagon cause suspicion in the minds of too many of us. We do not need that kind of doubt in our citizens minds when going to war over what happened on 9/11. If anyone can help with my doubts as stung4eve has with that particular video, I would appreciate it. For example, I find the film of the little hole in the side of the Pentagon particularly difficult to accept as the result of a jetliner crash.

Answer 6

Maybe the plane was pregnant. Now get a life and get on with it. It was 5 years ago.

Answer 7

That's the baby plane. Seriously though how did your links support your question?

Answer 8

It was the plane's package.

Love jack

Answer 9

Maybe you need a wife, and not another conspiracy.

Answer 10

It had a hard on and was jackin?