There is definately something attached to the bottom of flight 175 which should not be on any passenger jet. Please look at the images in the webpage below for proof (SCROLL RIGHT)
http://www.letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.php?module=announce&ANN_user_op=view&ANN_id=14
2007-10-08 11:32:56 · 29 answers · asked by bloody maria 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It was the plane that hit the building. Why must everything be a conspiracy. Geez.
2007-10-08 11:35:33 · answer #1 · answered by 354gr 6 · 12⤊ 4⤋
I'm not up on Boeing's, nor any other planes come to that, but could it not be the landing gear under the wings/haul? Perhaps it came partially open for some reason - from a distance I'm sure that could give an impression something 'foreign' was attached to the underside.
As for the other so-called fixtures - the haul is not flat, it could easily have been light reflecting from the underside of the plane. It was flying low so could have reflected back something shining from windows, tall buildings - shadows and lights can play some very good tricks and that can often be transferred to photos confusing those looking at them.
Or simply the photo was touched up to give an impression of 'attachments' - to 'create' a conspiracy.
2007-10-08 18:51:32 · answer #2 · answered by Leu 4 · 6⤊ 3⤋
What do you think it is?
a passenger plane is a long hollow tube, if they attached remote controls they could have easily stored them inside the plane, if it was a bomb again it would have fit inside the plane as well and no one would be the wiser.
So please tell us why anyone would make cosmetic alterations to a plane when everything needed to pull off the conspiracy could safely be hid inside the plane and be 100% effective in covering up the conspiracy?
maybe they did it just so you could wast bandwith asking silly conspiracy questions on yahoo answers perhaps?
2007-10-08 18:54:53 · answer #3 · answered by Stone K 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Rufus - if theyre saying it wasnt flight 175, then what happened to flight 175?
2007-10-09 12:30:52 · answer #4 · answered by kleptomanic sheep 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I guess what the conspiracy theorists are saying is not that the POD was a bomb or anything, but rather just the presence of this extra equipment indicates that it wasn't flight #175.
2007-10-08 18:50:34 · answer #5 · answered by Whoops, is this your spleeen? 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, there is not something "definitely" there at all. You're looking at ONE photo and believing a conspiracy theory. Try looking at some other photo's on the incident. Also consider how a plane with something the size of an engine strapped under it could have taken off (wheel clearance) and how it would have been stable/manoeuvrable in flight, especially as you believe the mystery object was not even attached symmetrically.
2007-10-08 18:44:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 3⤋
From Popular Mechanics:
"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." "
2007-10-08 18:52:31 · answer #7 · answered by Carrot 5 · 7⤊ 3⤋
As a former B52 pilot in the Air Force, let me explain a few things to you. It is against the law for the military to attach and equipment to a civilian vehicle. The vehicle must be painted with US Military Markings. The aircraft was flying way over maximum speed. What that shadow was, if it was anything at all, is doors to the luggage area that the speed opened up in flight.
2007-10-08 18:50:08 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 10⤊ 3⤋
Looks more like a shadow.
Notice that the "pod" under the J-Stars is well forward of the supposed "pod" under the hi-jacked airliner.
2007-10-08 20:54:10 · answer #9 · answered by wichitaor1 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
how could you be worried about that. it really doesnt matter what is was. 343 firefighters died from it and thousands of helpless men and women died who were just doing their jobs and how many army men and woman are dieing daily from some jerk that felt the need to fly planes into buildings ??? its people like you that make me disgusted maby if you were there you would have known what was on the plane
get a life and stop reading those gossip sites
2007-10-08 19:03:56 · answer #10 · answered by funkeymonkey1344 1 · 6⤊ 2⤋
So what you are asking us to believe is that AFTER the plane was hijacked, someone crawled outside and attached something to the belly of the airliner?
My brain is telling me that what you are looking at is where the landing gears are stored.
2007-10-08 19:37:01 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋