Looking More Closely at the Bulge on Flight 175

[On the Road]

I've been trying to sort through all the arguments on Will Pitt's thread from a couple of weeks ago.

The bulge on the second WTC plane is one of the very few pieces of evidence that have really puzzled me. I don't care at this point WHAT it is. I am just trying to establish whether or not there is an anomalous bulge on the aircraft:



Here is a slo-mo video which helps to see it more clearly. For comparison, here are large jpgs of a http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=767-222/v=2/l=IVS/*-">767-222 and &ZyXtCe=MTYyMDA1&id=264584&ViD=big">767-323 with the underside visible. (Both have been cited as the model that hit the second tower.)

I think the following can be ruled out:

(1) Shadows, (2) landing gear (wrong size and location), (3) photoshop (a variety of public photos show the same pattern).

The size and location of the bulge look most similar to the normal bulge at the base of the wing. But the bulge as shown seems to be larger and protude further. This might be caused by:

(4) photographic, filter, or image processing effects which exaggerate size and shape.

If the bulge is real and anomalous, there might be legitimate reasons. (Some might be ruled out fairly quickly --I have no expertise in aviation):

(5) slightly different model of aircraft, (6) aircraft altered by manufacturer, (7) aircraft altered by carrier, (8) repair.

The bulge is so close to the size and dimensions of the wing base that I am almost ready to accept that it's a normal aircraft and the bulge is the wing base exaggerated by photography and image processing. But every time I look at it again, my eyes reject that interpretation. It just doesn't look right.

I'd really like to avoid speculation on what the bulge might be until it can be established that's it's real and anomalous. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This could qualify if no reasonable explanation can be found.

Can anyone nail this issue one way or the other?

[buckeye1]

1. Have you been on Art Bell?

He would be interested. Sucker stuff is always in demand.

[On the Road]

2. So -- Anything to Add?

Conspiracy sites are endlessly frustrating because the creators can't seem to evaluate evidence properly and leap ahead to unwarranted conclusions.

Ignoring visual evidence without even attempting to explain it is the flip side. And it's just as likely to make you delusional.

[Old and In the Way]

3. Here's a new site that was posted last night on the DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1152679&mesg_id=1152787

It is pretty focused on this issue, you'll find it of interest. It's so damn frustrating that we can't get better visuals to ascertain what it is.....I really don't think it's a shadow, but I don't know what else it could be.

[On the Road]

4. Thanks -- I Hadn't Seen That One

I can also see better where some people claim there's a missle launched at point-blank range. But it's a lot less clear. I'd rather decide the bump question first. It's really confounding me. If it were just an effect of the photography or lighting, you wouldn't expect it to show up consistently on multiple shots.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. The Second WTC Strike - The Most Photographed Event In History

And the only thing you have to show for evidence are two or three grossly pixelated images.

The hologram lady isn't the only one that's taking this a tad too far.

[On the Road]

6. This Is What Gets Me

I am seriously just on the point of accepting the explanation that the 767 is just a normal plane with the base of the wing appearing unusually prominent. There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation. It's just that NO ONE can seem to account for the shape of the plane in the photos.

I have no theories about what it is (missiles or whatever). I hate it when otherwise educated people leap beyond the evidence. I hate it just as much when perfectly plain is dismissed without an explanation.

Most of the MIHOP arguments are speculative -- even the engineering ones argue for what the author feels SHOULD have happened. This is visual. This type of evidence should be examined carefully. That's how the issue should be decided.

One question -- if the second WTC hit is the most photographed event in history, are there other photos of the plane that show it without the bump? If it's an artifact, they probably do. I just haven't seen any.

[k-robjoe]

7. theories

If it was a missile, it should have been visible also in the video that was taken by that guy standing on the ground, almost straight underneath the plane.
Here is a theory that I haven´t seen mentioned here :

"THE BULGE ON THE BODY UNDER THE RIGHT WING is similar to the bulge on the
remote-controlled Predator used in military operations. The UA engineer said
ON THE PREDATOR it is a cover for the radar antenna that receives signals
from a control station for guidance."

( But one might also ask if there is a connection between the bulge and the gigantic fireball. See : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x8484 )

On edit : Something that has hardly been mentioned here, is the weird shape of the planes underbelly. It ought to be rounded, but that´s not how it looks.
( http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11.htm )

[On the Road]

8. Rounded Underbelly?

I can't see anything wrong with the underbelly of the second plane, and the clip of the first plane is too small to make anything out.

The author of the last http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11.htm">link seems to think the first plane's the wrong model, based on the fact that the engines are not attached to the wings. But again the photos are too small to see clearly.

[k-robjoe]

9. engines

>the belly of the second plane.
The shadow-line that runs along the belly, is the anomaly I´m talking of.
(Agree with your second comment.)

Another thing that is very strange, is how the two engines of the plane don´t seem to be "in line".
Have a look at the 4th and 6th pic on this site : http://wtc1.batcave.net/2.html
It is really striking.
Here is a theory why :
"Rose also brings up an interesting point: the stills of Flight 175 also show that left engine has been somehow interfered with. The turbines should be parallel to one another and attached to the wings, below we see the left engine at a slight angle to the right turbine, and looking as if it was about to come away from the wing. According to Rose this would be necessary to counterbalance the large "bump" attached just to the right of the centre of the fuselage and to compensate for the resulting aerodynamic drag."

[MercutioATC]

27. Offset engines to counter unequal weight distribution? What a JOKE!

1) Why not just increase thrust to one engine?

2) Why not weight the other side of the aircraft to balance it?

To offset engines would seriously affect the handling characteristics. Why not maintain standard handling and just weight-balance the aircraft?

I laugh when I hear the "Predator bump" theory. The Predator has a "bump" because it needs to be as small as possible and as aerodynamic as possible (for maximum loiter time/minimum fuel consumption). Why the hell would you put a "bump" on a large commercial aircraft that had an entire fuselage to work with?

[MercutioATC]

28. I have to laugh when I read the "Predator bulge" theory...

The Predator has a "bump" because it needs to be as small as possible and as aerodynamic as possible (for maximum loiter time/minimum fuel consumption). Why the hell would you put a "bump" on a large commercial aircraft that had an entire fuselage worth of empty space to work with?

[Bolo Boffin]

10. This issue pops up every two months or so, ribofunk

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=3649&mesg_id=3649

here's the last one:

I draw your attention to this post of LARED's:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=3649&mesg_id=3671&page=

The pictures there clearly show the underside of similar planes and the bumps are already there. It's a part of the plane, nothing more.

[On the Road]

19. Thanks for the Link

I try to keep up with these threads, although I miss some of them.

I had not seen the specific photo you linked to. The widening on the base of the wings doeslook larger than some of the other 767 photos. Maybe there's some variation, or they look different at different angles.

However, just look at the photos side by side. I don't see how that widening at the base of the wings on a 767 can possibly be the same thing as on the photos of Flight 175. On the WTC photos, the bulge is much larger. It's also asymmetric. I don't know how to argue this exactly -- I just don't see how X can possibly be a photo of Y.

That's why I'm thinking that some type of photographic or image effect is the only alternative to a physical anomaly.

I know this issue keeps coming up, but it's never really resolved. My first goal is to find a reasonable explanation. The MIHOP scenarios all sound pretty far-fetched. But none of the attempts to debunk the issue really succeed in my opinion. Look at the photos again. I still can't see any way those are images of a normal 767.

[Phil_Jayhan]

11. I have tons of pics with that bulge

That 'bulge' is in every video, from every news source taping that day. Give me 15 minutes after this posts and I will place an entire directories worth of @ this address;

http://www.forlarasbenefit.org/philspictures/pod

This will be the entire video from start to finish;

Also if you go to my new site, only a day old so give us time to build, you will see another video playing in loop; you can clearly see the missile firing there;

http://www.letsroll911.org

Also, I have taken a lot more time to look into this aspect of 911 and have oodles of information about it; It is the one place where we can actually hang bush if we rise up together;

other than that these discussion groups will be going 40 years from now with much the same talk;

No, its definately a missile; When I called Congressman Wellers office and had her (his secretary) look at this thread and the video; 'Best video proof showing missile' the first thing she said after watching it only once was 'that looks like a wire guided missile'

I then was allowed to walk her through since I gained her interest;

And Wellers a Republican! I was able to also somewhat convince two staffers inside Cranes office, as well as one in Bobby Rushes as well as Tom Daschles office;

And thats 2 republicans and 2 democrats; Go figure. I am working on getting mettings with all of them to show them this asap;

All the stuff concerning the missile can be found in this thread at the forums for 'lets roll 911'

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3

Give me 15 minutes and you will be able to access that directory of pod pics;

cheers~
pj :)

[Phil_Jayhan]

12. Notice this 767 pic, no bluge, pod, or anything

And don't forget Boeing couldn't identify it; If it was a shadow or something they would have said; They saw it as a hot potato and said to ask the 911 commission which isn't even investigating this aspect of 911;

pj :)

[Bolo Boffin]

13. Honestly, you post a picture of a toy airplane...

,,,and expect us to compare it to a picture of an actual airplane???

In the last thread devoted to this non-anomaly, LARED posted pictures of actual airplanes that showed the bulge to simply be the standard connection between the wing and body of the plane.

Leave your toys in the toybox.

[LARED]

14. Here they are again

[Phil_Jayhan]

15. Toy Airplane? This is a perfect model

Give me a break;



Notice the EXTRA equipment on the bottom of the 767 that hit Tower 2?

You must not like this picture cause it shows your wrong. It's about that simple.

cheers~
pj :)

[LARED]

16. EXTRA equipment ??????

What extra equipment?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

18. Hint

put on your glasses.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

22. Regarding my mojo

Don't know what it is and don't have any that I'm aware of so I'll not be regaining it.

All I'm asking if for you to show me the extra equipment. All I see are extremely poor quality images that show nothing of substance. In fact looking at your image it is plain to see that many normal parts of the plane are missing.

I did post some very clear images of 767's that show a bulge right where you think there is extra equipment. Why not comment on those?

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Infreakingcredible is what it is...

You hold up a toy airplane and use it as proof of what the real airplane looks like...

...and you ignore actual photographs of a real airplane.

Come on, PJ, you're talking to grownups here. Leave the toys to the three-year-olds and start dealing with the facts.

[impe]

23. Scale Models Bobolink

You can't discredit his argument on this point. Where would engineers and architects be without these toys.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. The Toys-R-Us argument is prima facie discredited.

Behold a scale model of the 767. Behold the fricking "bulge" that comes standard at the wing joint.

Behold the actual pictures of Lared of actual planes with the same mysterious "bulge" at the wing joint.

Get thee hence to a sandbox. Juice and cookies will be served after recess.

[demodewd]

25. location

Your fricking bulge isn't located in the right fricking place.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. *checking his bulge*

Is, too.