object on the underside of Flight 175?

[Minstrel Boy]

I have no opinion on this, but it's an odd one, as it appears on images of the aircraft taken from different angles before striking the tower:





"Aircraft mechanic: Object should not exist":

http://www.rense.com/general41/ac.htm


Any thoughts?

[rfranklin]

1. That's the canister of explosives which...

were used to demolish the WTC tower.

[LARED]

13. If you had to guess

How much explosives do you think it would take to demolish the WTC, and why use a plane to 'plant' them?

[gWbush is Mabus]

2. it's the shadow of the right wing engine

[Minstrel Boy]

4. I don't think so

The right wing engine already casts a shadow. What's more, the object, whatever it is, casts it's own shadow. It's present at different angles, and since it casts a shadow, must have mass.

[demodewd]

9. bull

bull.

[number6]

43. I second your bull

engine shadow my ass ...

[Military Brat]

3. WTF

I have no idea. Any other aircraft mechanics out there? Pilots? Why did this take so long to surface? Who owns the video of this?

Nothing surprises me anymore ...

[jmanjman]

5. Check out the rest of the articles at www.rense.com

This story gets debunked in some related articles that are posted there. Its almost certainly either A.) a reflection/shadow or B.) cargo door coming open under the severe force the plane was under after the sharp turn. Structuraly, there is no where on the planes fuselage where you'd be able to attach a "pod" or anything else.

[Minstrel Boy]

6. I read those, but the mechanic refutes

that it could be an open cargo door:

"it is definitely not an open right side AC bay door on the bottom of the fuselage, because if it had come unlatched the airstream at 450-550 mile per hour would tear that door right off its hinges, regardless of its orientation to the line of flight."

And I don't see how it could be a reflection or shadow, as it casts a shadow of it's own. And it's not a trick of the light, because it's seen from different angles.

It could have a simple explanation. I just haven't seen an explanation yet, simple or complex, that persuades me.

[Frodo]

23. It may, in fact, be a "trick of light"

I see what "appears" to be the object in question in both images, but not in the same location. Also, in one shot it appears to be a "bulge" on the body of the aircraft... in the other it's a "pod" protruding from the aircraft. The "bulge" (were it an actual object) could not cast the shadow show in the other images.

In short. I think there is no "there" there. The image quality is just not high enough to assume it isn't a confused image and I don't have the ten frames on either side of each frame to confirm that they even show the same thing.

[Old and In the Way]

7. I remember the video capture on NBC was coming from the WTC

that morning. Anyone check that angle to see if the object/artifact shows up on that perspective?

Paulthompson posted pics asking the same question a few months back...these certainly are much clearer...the fact that it appears on 2 different camera's is most interesting.

[demodewd]

8. to help produce fireball?

quote from Leonard Spencer....http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11.htm "I suspect that this plane was absolutely full of fuel, a flying fuel-tank, hence the mighty fireball. So the object on the right wing is probably an ignition device (rather like a flame-thrower) triggered just as the plane strikes to ensure that the fuel explodes as required. It is possible also that the burst of flame is the exhaust trail of an incendiary missile. Whatever it actually is, its purpose is almost certainly to help produce the huge fireball that resulted from this crash." :think:

[Dancing_Dave]

15. Right so far...

One aviation expert showed me pictures of the military re-fueler version of the Boeing, and it had exactly the sort of pod you see on the Boeing in the picture. So the plane was completely loaded with fuel to produce the spectacular fireball...and looked enough like the passenger plane that dissappeared from radar far away that the switch would not be noticed.

[ramblin_dave]

10. A look at CNN video

Check the first Sept. 11 link on this page:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/multimedia.day.html

Caption: CNN exclusive video from two different angles shows the second plane hitting the World Trade Center (Sept. 11)

This first part of the video shows the plane from below as it approaches and impacts tower 2. By stopping the video just as the plane is about to impact, the unexplained "pod" or whatever it is can be seen. It appears to have light shining on it plus a shadow in like manner to the right engine. It is positioned to the right side of the fuselage and slightly more to the rear than the engines just as in the stills above.

The original video of this could provide a better view. The online video, even at broadband resolution, is still too poor to say for sure what it is.

I am very skeptical however that anything as large as the apparent object could have been affixed to the plane without anyone noticing, either at departure or as it approached the tower.

[ramblin_dave]

11. Consider these photos...

This site has lots of Boeing 767 photos:

http://www.photovault.com/Link/Technology/Aviation_Commercial/Aircraft/Boeing767.html

In particular, check out this photo:

http://www.photovault.com/Link/Technology/Aviation_Commercial/show.asp?tg=Volume16/TAFV16P09_09

Note the rather prominent bulging transition between the wing and the fuselage and that part of this bulge extends to the rear past the back edge of the wing. Flight 175 was tilted with the underside of its right wing illuminated by the sun as it impacted the WTC. Perhaps the illumination of the right side bulge, in conjunction with blurring due to moving cameras and high speed plane, is what produced the apparent object clinging to the plane at the fuselage and just rear of the engines.

[RedSock]

12. has been discussed

paul "timeline" thompson discussed this awhile back with a foreign news article and photos. very good discussion. over 300 posts if i recall. tried to search (i think it was LBN, but not sure) but nothing came up.

[LARED]

14. Some more photos

[MercutioATC]

16. A very simple question:

If the pictures DO, in fact, show a modification to the airframe that is actually there, how did nobody see it on the ground?

Between the mechanics, baggage handlers, caterers, tower personnel and the pilot (who does a walkaround of the plane before each flight) there were plenty of people who should have observed this massive bulge on the aircraft.

How did they all fail to see it?

[northzax]

17. because, obviously

this isn't the plane that took off from Boston. Everyone knows that. That plane landed at a secret military base in Saskatchewan, whereupon the passengers were taken prisoner and forced to work in BushCo's salt mines.

The plane that hit the WTC was, in fact, a different plane, with the exact same markings (down to the same numbers) loaded with ultra-secret explosives to bring down the building.

sheesh, it's so freaking simple, I can't believe you don't see.

[MercutioATC]

18. Where does the alien technology from Roswell fit in?

Or am I confusing this with Desert Storm?

[gandalf]

19. Precisely

and everybody who speculates and asks some questions also believes that Elvis is still alive. And that the earth is flat and/or hollow.

[Robb]

20. Probably not "everybody"...

:)

[northzax]

21. hmm, don't believe I said that

but in this case you may be right. There is simply no way that an airliner could take off from a major metropolitan airpost with something that large stuck to the bottom of the fueselage. it ain't gonna happen. so we are left with three options, if it is, in fact , a foriegn object.

1: it spontaneously grew from the bottom of the plane. I think maybe we can discount this one.

2: it was attached in flight. and since this is not, in fact, a jerry bruckheimer film, I think we can rule this one out as well.

3: The plane in question landed, the object was attached, and not one single person on board noticed. Not one of the people who called their loved ones from their cell phones said "hey, we landed in Pennsylvania and they duct-taped something to the plane." hmm, seems unlikely. seems the type of thing you'd mention, doesn't it?

4: this was, in fact, a different aircraft than had taken off from Boston. (this idea was posed above, you'll notice) that plane landed somewhere, and has been completely destroyed. Another plane took off and crashed into the WTC. This was so well planned that the serial numbers on the debris of the planes matched.

Now, colour me crazy, but none of those four options seem all that plausible to me. maybe you have a better one. I'm listening.

[ramblin_dave]

24. It's not a foreign object

that's the best explanation based on photos posted above. The bulging transition from wing to fuselage does look something like half a cylindical pod protruding from the fuselage. Given the illumination and distortions of a far away camera the photos in the top post seem plausible.

A few days ago I watched some 9/11 related program on cable. There was a rather good close up video (apparently taken from a nearby building) that showed the underside of the plane just as it impacted the south tower. But the clip shown was too short and too quick for me see anything. But it does tell me that somewhere "out there" is some good video that would probably resolve this issue.

[northzax]

22. and another thing

how can the earth be both hollow and flat? a 2 dimensional object can't be hollow.

[JackRiddler]

25. obviously the bulge

where the wings meet the fuselage. Why anyone would think otherwise escapes me.

Why do so many people who see government complicity (as I do) go out of their way to make things far more complex than they need to be?

The simplest way to do 9/11 as an inside job is by letting a hijacking originally planned by genuinely anti-American terrorists (most of whom we know were under surveillance years in advance!) take place...

by obstructing investigations that might catch these terrorists, standing down air defenses on the day, and constructing a set of wargames as an alibi and excuse...

by infiltrating or steering the terrorists from a higher-up level...

perhaps also by constructing the identities of "the 19" to hide a different set of terrorists, but this comes at the risk associated with greater complexity...

perhaps by assisting with the remote control option, by hardwiring the actual flights the terrorists planned to take...

perhaps even assisting with a controlled demolition...

but I draw the line at bumbleplanes, holograms, extra-pod fuel tanks, and cruise missiles/small commercial planes dressed as Boeings. All of these seem like excellent blueprints for how NOT to succeed at MIHOP.

Why wouldn't master planners go with a simple, effective, low-risk plan that actually disposes of the evidence, i.e. by seeing to it that the real Boeings crash into real buildings, and by making sure that the patsies/unwitting accomplices are actually ON these planes?

[demodewd]

26. apparent anomaly

If it is indeed the shadow of the bulge where the wings meet the fuselage that shadow should necessarily extend beyond the fore part of the wing and it does not. The shadow does extend throughout the length of the fuselage and the two engine pods on the ABC footage. Why the anomaly...JackRiddler?

[LARED]

29. Some more anomlies

Notice that half the tail and left elevator is missing. How do you explain that demodewd?

[JackRiddler]

34. You are so clever

So why the strange "halo" around the whole plane? What fool would think this was the smoothing effect of an image enlargement (of a moving object, no less) in Photoshop? I think it's the Lord lifting his veil of protection just in time to let the plane hit Babylon.

[Minstrel Boy]

27. Largely agree with you, Jack

No need to complicate this. Occam's razor and all that. Like I said in my original post, I had no opinion as to what it was, but that I hadn't yet been satisfied by either simple or complex explanations. At the end of the day it probably doesn't matter, likely has a benign reason for being there, and is probably just a distraction.

Still, there are some considerations which suggest to me more than passivity in allowing 9/11. For instance, flight 77's reported high-speed 270 degree turn to align with the Pentagon's relatively empty navy side; the only side with an exterior wall which had been recently reinforced against attack. And I can't get it out of my head that it was supposedly piloted by a guy too incompotent to fly a Cessna less than a month before.

[demodewd]

28. apparent anomaly

If it is indeed the shadow of the bulge where the wings meet the fuselage that shadow should necessarily extend beyond the fore part of the wing and it does not. The shadow does extend throughout the length of the fuselage and the two engine pods on the ABC footage. Why the anomaly...Minstrel Boy?

[JackRiddler]

35. So where did I suggest passivity?

Ahem, I did not talk about the evidence you mention (the empty wing of the Pentagon, etc.) - all of which I take seriously and regularly emphasize.

But the only "solution" to the Pentagon question is not to endlessly analyze the same set of pictures and article quotes but to raise the demands for ALL the evidence (the other videos, the autopsy reports, all photos from the inside...) That is very unattractive to people who want their answers now but who don't want to do the footwork.

For the record - this is probably the last post I will ever make on this moribund board before I leave it to the usual suspects, so let me clarify a few things for the Nth time, (no doubt pointlessly as far as a few of you are concerned):

"Letting it happen" would require much action. It is morally equivalent to "making it happen." The difference is only one of the possible methodologies employed by the perpetrators, and of what we can actually prove. You have to start with the LIHOP evidence, if you want to convince Americans that they need to demand ALL the evidence.

Gaining acceptance for LIHOP would move us smoothly into being able to subpeona items from MIHOP territory. Those who posit these as mutually exclusive or opposing theories are missing the point and hindering investigation.

Many people on this board attack anyone who does not immediately swallow, nay salute, every single piece-of-shit evidence that comes along. They insinuate traitors, Zionist agents, total dupes and/or government employees. This is certainly moronic and rather suspicious.

Two years on, I can well understand the frustration that makes one hope for a new smoking gun; but it won't be allayed by imagining "evidence" in some pixels you blew up on Photoshop.

We should be looking at the politically viable case, one stage at a time. Most people still don't know about the dubious hijacker stories, the known forewarnings, the air defense standdown, the simulations and 9/11 wargames, the continuous revisions in the "official story," the obvious obstruction of all investigations ... not to mention the global context, the long-standing preparations for war, the need for a new Pearl Harbor. All this information is already there, it makes an overwhelming case, and the most constructive thing we can do is popularize it every way we can.

But before that stuff, the media rush ahead and tell the world that "conspiracy theorists" are promoting garbage theories about cruise missiles or holograms or demolition by mininuke or explosive canisters attached to UA 175, or else 4,000 missing Jews. The credible stuff gets discredited by association - before it ever gets reported.

And the energies of a lot of skeptical and creative people are wasted on phantom leads. 40 years after JFK, people are still debating Dealey Plaza bullet trajectories and whether Aristotle Onassis was involved. Opportunists are still inventing new scenarios. Meanwhile, the outlines of the assassination were obvious by 35 years ago. All you had to do was to follow the human leads - Oswald and Ruby - back through their biographies and associations. The Bay-of-Pigs/CIA gang got payback on Kennedy, and he had pissed off enough powerful interests that the other major players were happy to "let it happen" (i.e., arrange for the cover and other essentials).

But for many this isn't good enough. They think they're going to find a new solution from their desktop. They want to promote the latest discovery, even if they have to invent it. They want to go after their pet scapegoat (usually Jews or "Illuminati"). They want to publish their own book. Or they want to be known as the discoverer of the bulge on UA 175.

Enough distraction.

[demodewd]

38. bye..bye

Well happy trails..glad to see you're packing your mumbo jumbo of blanket rejection and substantive nothingness to post elsewhere.

[JackRiddler]

47. Not so fast...

Ah, if it makes a goonball who's happiest having his solipsism echoed back at him happy to see me leave, then maybe I should get some last shots in from the door: you're illiterate, right? I mean, you can't actually read what I wrote, can you? And it wouldn't matter if I brought in high-res pics demonstrating you're full of shit. You'd still claim to see whatever you like.

I'll be back whenever I please.

(PS - Is the "Dewd" a tribute to Dr. Kee or actually part of your name?)

[demodewd]

49. options

Jack...Go ahead and bring in your hi-res pics but please don't presume that I'll reject them offhand. I have an open mind...we're both after the truth after all. The difference between us is that I leave more options on the board.I understand your displeasure with some of the radical theories. I long since dismissed the missile only idea at the Pentagon.But you "draw the line" and we should goosestep to it or else?I contend that the "bulge" is not the area between the wings and the fuselage because if it was it would extend further towards the front of the plane! That is the only contention I have made.Look at the ABC shots again... Also it is my strongly held belief that the overiding conspirators would control the operation every inch of it..and I really don't believe that they would allow amateur pilots to attempt to hijack four commercial airliners with alleged box cutters having faith that they would 1.be able to sucessfully subdue the passengers and crew and2. sucessfully navigate these large aircraft into the planned targets.( I'm just stating this so that you will know what where I'm coming from)What would happen if a number of these alleged hijackers would have been apprehended before they boarded? I've road down your path...its feasible but is it the only possibility?..I contend no..Dewdney's theory is a possibility...Let's work together dewd

[LARED]

30. I used to work

at a place across the river from the WTC. I did not work there on 9/11. This plane flew directly over this facility at a pretty low altitude. I personally know and have spoken with a number of people that were standing on a structure about 100 feet high that got a very decent look at the jet as it flew directly overhead.

No one saw anything unusual other than it was flying low and very fast.

[demodewd]

31. Very fast indeed!

Yes it was going very fast and thus impossible to discern the details we are able to see in the photographs...but why the abrupt halt to the bulk's shadow before it stretches beyond the wing?

[LARED]

32. Why

is half the tail and left elevator missing in the first photo?

[demodewd]

33. ??

I don't know. If it bothers you,refer to the ABC photos...they give a much more discernable view of what I am proving anyway.

[LARED]

37. Re: what I am proving anyway

Sure you are. :)

You are missing the point I am trying to make. You completely dismiss the fact that in the image the rear elevator and tail are apparently missing. Of course we know that there are intact but only appear to be missing because of the very low quality of the image. This of course is one of the images you think proves there is an attachment to the fuselage.

So you are selectively using a set of extremely poor quality images by pointing out some anomaly in the image while ignoring the dozen or so other that anomalies. This is useless on your part to prove anything was unusual about the jet.

[demodewd]

40. re: selectivity

The bulge exists not only on the image you are deploring but also on the photos presented by Mistrel Boy by ABC. As I said before..observe those photos and notice that the "bulge" does not extend to the length of the front wing. You have yet to address my observation. So I am not selectively using just the one image.

[JackRiddler]

36. PS - The dark area that you say "extends" to the front

is not the shadow. It also extends in a straight line all the way to the back. It's the side of the plane, darker at this angle. (In a a whole bunch of low resolution pictures!)

I'm leaving this board - otherwise I'm going to waste a lot of time making fun of you, like LARED is. It's easy. You don't even seem to get it. It's also masturbation, at this point.

People who want to do something about 9/11 should be organizing rallies and presentations, doing films and op-eds, raising demands to the Commission itself and tracking its work, investigating biographies of the possible players, ORGANIZING the research (like Paul Thompson) and making it easier to understand, recruiting endorsements...

[demodewd]

39. Read my post again..

Okay its the dark area in contrast to the areas being reflected by the sunlight. But the dark area of our mysterious object should extend beyond the wing towards the front of the plane to be the bulging where the wing meets the fuselage and it DOESN'T. This is quite evident in the ABC shots.

[CaptainMidnight]

44. gotta agree, lared and JR

ENUFF!

Let's concentrate on what can be proven, or is ripe for further shaking of the evidentiary tree.

This "pod" thing will get us nowhere. Probably an anomaly.

AND A TIME-WASTER, which might be demodewd's point. Throw us off.

Don't wanna make accusations, do don't be insulted if I suspect - well I DO know that "they" have people working for them to infiltrate these groups and do that classic CIA tactic of "poisoning the well."

I feel similarly about the Pentagon "missile." Yay or Nay, ALL the evidence we have to go on is not only already out there, found out, discovered, and analyzed withing an inch of its life, it's also been DESTROYED.

If two planes hitting the WTC were good enuf for the conspirators, I think a real plane hitting the Pentagon would do the trick there, again, no matter how small that friggin' hole looks.

Moving on!

Captain Mike

[RH]

45. Destroyed?

What was destroyed?

:shrug:

The remains of the plane wee buried.

[LARED]

41. Look at this video

http://www.loftninjas.org/projects/20010911/videos/cnn-asf-20010912/2ndplanehitscnnmed.asf

The quality is a little better than the images you have posted. If you watch the jet as it enters from the left you can see there is nothing funny looking about it at all (at least to me).

Many video are here http://www.loftninjas.org/projects/20010911/

[reorg]

42. stop the video at second 21

and you see the same image as in the photo on top of this thread.

[demodewd]

46. a good video is...

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wmv/ghostplane2...vividly showing what looks like a flame shooting from the front of the plane instantaneous to its onset of entry.

[LARED]

48. Well sort of

Not the same, but a similar image.

Call me an unbeliever if you must, but to me the video shows what some have said. That the 'pod is nothing more than digital artifacts created by shawdows. The jet enters the frame from the left hand side in the shadows. You see nothing unusual on the bottom. Just before the jet impacts the building, sunlight strikes the underside of the fuselage creating some shadows that create the artifact that some think proves there is some sort of pod on the bottom. I think it's wishful thinking, as I said I'm not a believer.

But lets take it a step further. If the pod was there, what did it do. The video after the impact indicates nothing to me that causes me to think there was an 'extra' explosion.

[leftofthedial]

50. I don't know what it is, but

with the different photos, angles and times, it is clearly something physical there--not glare, shadow or reflection.

[LARED]

51. Have you considered

the possibility that there is something there (something that is normally there) on both sides, but only one side is visible because the other side is in the shadows?

[demodewd]

52. Just exactly what....

...do you believe it to be..Lared?

[LARED]

53. This is what I believe

I'm sure this is futile as you will most likely just dismiss my opinion with a wave of the hand, but here it is anyway.

Look at this image


Look at the wing to fuselage connection. There is a rather pronounced bulge at this connection. I think what we all see is a digital artifact that makes this bulge appear to be some sort of attachment.

This was caused a number of things.

1. First and foremost the quality of the video is horrible. It is virtually useless to determine any sort of detail. As I pointed out some of the other images appear to tell us the elevators and tail are missing. A huge artifact created by the video equipment. Why you dimiss this fact, but hold on to the idea that the images proves there is a pod rather than an artifact is a mystery.

2. If you look at the video I posted earlier it is pretty clear that there is nothing unusual looking underneath if you look at the jet right as it enters from the left side. The jet is in the shadows at this point.

3. Just as the jet get very close to the tower, sunlight strikes the jet. The jet is also rotating along it axis as it is approaching the towers. It is pretty clear that the sun is hitting the underside of one wing but not the other due to this rotation.

4. So what I believe we are seeing is sunlight brightening the under side of one wing. making the bulge appear to stand out as if it is some pod. The reason it appear to be cut off is because the engine is blocking the sunlight from hitting the front of the bulge, hence the artifact is limited to the bulge that is in direct sunlight.

So ----

This is nothing more than sunlight creating a digital artifact that heighten the bulge making it stand out.

[demodewd]

54. re: bulge

This is why I think you are misgiven. As we notice with your GulfAir photo the bulge you are referring to extends fully from the fore to the aft of the wing.Now if you will please refer back to the ABC photo( not the one you've made reference to,but the photos below it)..it is clearly visible that the mystery pod does not extend far enough up the underside of the fuselage to span the wing fore area. It is at least a good six feet short(guestimate). It is situated too low on the underside of the fuselage to be what you claim it to be.

[LARED]

55. I addressed that

4. So what I believe we are seeing is sunlight brightening the under side of one wing making the bulge appear to stand out as if it is some pod. The reason it appear to be cut off is because the engine is blocking the sunlight from hitting the front of the bulge, hence the artifact is limited to the bulge that is in direct sunlight.

[demodewd]

56. It is also...

....too low corresponding to the back part of the wing.The engine isn't blocking out anything. All protrusions...fuselage...engines...wings...and bulge... are clearly identifiable in their entirety.

[LARED]

57. are clearly identifiable in their entirety.

Sure they are. :)

How do you explain that in some images the left elevator and tail is 'missing', yet you can clearly identify this particular artifact (ie; the pod) as something sinister?

[demodewd]

58. forms of an unknown origin

The plane that crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center shows forms of an unknown origin.
The mysterious reflections of 9/11
Eduardo Martín de Pozuelo - 22/06/2003 (Text) Eduardo Martín de Pozuelo

Xavier Mas de Xaxàs
Barcelona


UNEXPLAINED. Tenths of a second before the Boeing crashes against the south tower, the television cameras tracking the plane record a form resembling a protuberance on its underbelly.
Two and a half years after 9/11 many questions remain as to the circumstances surrounding the attacks on the Twin Towers. One of these unknowns is the nature of certain forms or marks which can be seen on the fuselage of the plane which crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center. "La Vanguardia" asked Boeing about these marks, who claimed they were unable to respond for reasons of national security and referred it to the independent commission which has been conducting an inquiry since 31 March into what happened.

In the frozen images of various film shots of the final run of United Airlines flight 175, there are three strange shapes discernible, which the aeronautical experts consulted find difficult to explain. They consist of two long shapes located underneath the fuselage, one towards the bow and the other towards the stern of the plane. There is a third, seemingly pyramidal in shape, on the underbelly, almost in the center of the plane. Boeing's department of commercial aviation, with headquarters in Seattle, examined the photographs for ten days and, having announced an explanation for the phenomenon, declined to make a statement on what it saw. Finally a spokesman stated that Boeing was unable to offer an opinion "for security reasons" and because it had not officially participated in the investigation of the attacks.

Various aeronautical engineers at official Spanish centers have found no clear explanation for the reflections or shapes which can be observed on the hijacked plane. However, a contour-detection digital analysis of the stills, carried out at the Escola Universitària Politècnica de Mataró, concludes that the "objects discerned cannot be due to shadows caused by the angle of incidence of the sun upon the plane as they always appear as the same shape and size, although their luminosity varies." This result was reached having subjected the photographs to a digital image process "which would respond to changes in luminance" which can be seen with the naked eye and which, in principle, would make no sense, given that the fuselage of commercial airplanes is cylindrical and flat, according to the cited technical report.

The author, who has had extensive professional experience in digital image processing, artificial neuronal networks and biometry, says in the report that "the same treatment" was applied to each of the photographs "using three standard digital image processing algorithms", the technical data of which are detailed at length in the dossier. Having clarified that "the images studied are taken from different angles of observation", it establishes that the "objects detected present distinct luminosity as they are in relief" and adds that "this is the only possible explanation", finally pointing out that "the objects detected can be clearly distinguished from the landing gear."

The reconstruction of the events leading up to the horrific attack on the second tower show that preparations for the United Airlines flight UA-175 from Boston to Los Angeles were routine on the morning of 11 September 2001. The aircraft, a B-767-222, registration N612UA, left the United terminal at Logan International airport at 7:58 and was in the air by 8:15. There were 56 passengers on board, including five Al Qaeda terrorists armed with box-cutters. The captain was fifty-year-old, ex-Naval pilot, Victor Saracini.

The aircraft followed its usual route until 8:47, when, at the level of George Washington bridge, which joins the north side of Manhattan to New Jersey over the River Hudson, it changed course veering sharply left. The hijackers, having slit the throats of several stewardesses, had taken control of the cockpit. For twelve minutes the Boeing flew over the Hudson following its western shore, until it again made another tight left turn. Right before it was the south tower of the World Trade Center, into which it crashed at 9:03.

At the time live television cameras were broadcasting a fire in the north tower, caused by the impact of an American Airlines B-767 which had taken place at 8:48. Millions of viewers witnessed live the UA-115 (sic) fly into the south tower, between floors 78 and 84, causing a much greater explosion than the one caused minutes earlier by the American Airlines plane.

The official investigation by the Federal Aviation Authority determined that the Boeing crashed into the building at a velocity of 937 kilometers per hour. Another study by the Massachusetts Technology Institute, however, established a speed of 859 kilometers per hour at the moment of impact.

Neither of the two investigations mentioned there was any strange form attached to the aircraft. Their conclusions form part of the half million documents serving as a departure point for the ten members of the national commission looking into the causes of the attacks.

The commission began its investigations at the New York Port customs building. Its objective is to continue the investigation started by the Joint Senate-House of Representatives Intelligence Committee. Before handing over to the national commission, the committee identified several human and organizational errors which had hindered work by the intelligence services to prevent the attacks. The White House then tried to get ex-Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, to preside the commission. Having failed to achieve this, it then cut off financing and the commission has still not received the eleven million dollars budgeted for their work. The commission, which has the support of both the Democrat and Republican parties, is due to present its conclusions to Congress in May 2004. The families of the 2,798 people who died on 9/11, 1,095 of whom were in the south tower of the World Trade Center in New York, will have to wait until then for concrete answers as to how the biggest attack the United States has ever suffered was carried out.