Anyone notice anything funny about the second picture down here?

[spooked911]

Which way did the second plane approach the south tower? Did the plane approach the tower on an upward or downward path?

Also, what is the deal with the plane in the photo below here? Why does the port wing look so odd?

[LARED]

1. Picture two has

two planes in it. Do I win anything?

[sgsmith]

2. Descent

You can't see it in stills, especially when taken from many different angles, but the plane was on a descending path until just a little bit before impact. About the time the descent was stopped, the plane rolled to port causing the wing to flex. All this is evident in one of the video clips.

You'd probablly see things better if you organized the photos in a sequence of far from impact to closer to impact.

[AlienSpaceBat]

4. The pictures contradict though

dont they ? It was descending in a nose-up attitude ? That's not what the video clips show.

Also, even if you allow for the bank to port causing that huge flexure in the wing, would that also make the wing grow several feet longer ?

The port wing appears to be too long, and is swept back more than the starboard wing, in most if not all of the images. I'm not aware of any phenomenon which could cause this - I'd love to know what the explanation is.

[kevinam]

10. tail wing also looks stretched.

The tail wing also appears to be much longer on the near side. That tells me it has something to do with the angle the picture was taken. Since both the near wing and the tail wing both appear to be stretched. I don't know if that is a good 'explanation' just my opinion, and I am not claiming to be a photographic expert.

Kevin.

[mirandapriestly]

12. yeah, I noticed that too. nt

[file83]

3. To anwer your question honestly...

...I don't see anything weird about the pictures. The only thing I saw for the first time was in the bottom photograph. I've never seen the red (port side) light on the left wing before.

Concerning descent, like the other guy said, it's very speculative to be judging the angle of asscent/descent of a plane in still photos, let alone video. Even in real life it can be difficult to judge. The only thing that would give you objective facts would be the flight data recorder, which conveniently was "never found".

I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) your looking for some sort of evidence of faked photos and that that might help support some part of either a LIHOP or MIHOP theory. I commend you on sifting through this great stack of hay for the proverbial needle, but the "fault" you're looking for is going to have to be something glaringly obvious and objective, not a subjective interpretation of airplane motion in still photographs.

Regardless, a plane did hit the building. A real plane. You'll have to dig deeper than photographs to prove that that plane wasn't the plane the official story claims it is. (Like flight records, FAA records, Airplane "graveyards". Can you imagine if they thought they could just scrap the real plane in some desert yard outside of Tucson? Get a picture of that and you would blow the whole cover-up wide open and be read about in the history books.)

[spooked911]

5. the answer is--

the plane is much too low in the second picture, and the picture must be faked.

Now why would anyone need to fake a picture of the second plane, I wonder?

[LARED]

6. How did you come to that conclusion

If it's not too much to ask?

[sgsmith]

7. Huh?

It's at the right altitude. Just above the first set of mechanical floors - which you can tell because of the different shading of the outside wall.

[mirandapriestly]

9. it does look very low

it's at the same height as those mechanical floors.

[Kevin Fenton]

13. I'm not so sure

It's hard to tell from the picture. It's only supposed to have hit a couple of dozen feet above the mechanical floors.

[kerry_s]

14. Not exactly!!!

The second picture is fake because:

1. The plane shouldn't be viewed from north !!!

2. The smoke is WHITE and on other pictures is BLACK

[dailykoff]

8. They all look as real as ballons in a Thanksgiving Day parade

at least to me.

The problem is depth of field. Deep focus -- keeping several planes in focus at once -- comes at the expense of shutter speed. A plane flying at 500 mph is moving at 733 feet per second. In order for that to appear as anything less than a blue streak requires a shutter speed that would make the depth of field seen in all these shots impossible, particularly since they seem to come from video cameras.

In other words, if it was real, it would be a blur.

[hack89]

11. Do you believe that there are no authentic pictures

taken of the planes on 9/11 or are just these fake? Do you have any pictures you think are real?

[dailykoff]

16. If there are I haven't seen them.

And to answer your next question, Yes, I've seen aerial photography, and it doesn't look anything like the plane shots here.

[kerry_s]

15. SMOKE

Compare the smoke on pic. 2 and 3. White vs Black.

The last photo is photoshoped.

[Debo]

17. It's the angle

The first picture shows the smoke as white or grey because you see the side that the sun is hitting. Look at the shadows on the smoke, sun is shining from the left. It has a light source that makes the smoke look lighter. The other picture is from an angle that puts the sun on the opposite side of the smoke from the photographer so there is no lighting on the smoke which is why it looks black.