Fbgdavidson From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 3688 posts, RR: 31 Posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 23241 times:
Happened to come across a video on Youtube.com about 9/11 and one of them was talking about UA175. Up close it appears there is something on the belly of the aircraft just to the left of the wing. And an odd flash just ahead of the fuselage as it hits the tower.
Could anyone make any suggestions about what either of these could be?
Before all the conspiracies begin (which appears to be the pretext of the video) just take a look at the video.
My first thought was perhaps the object on the belly is some form of external fuel tank and that the flash could be some form of static. Take a look.
"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
CasInterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3339 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 23210 times:
Cripes all mighty...
It is the fuselage of the plane. It was 9:00 A.M
Sun was in the ESE reflecting off the iregular fuselage.
The light on impact was probably the cockpit and avionics compartement being Compacted due to impact at 500 miles an hour
you know PV=nrT.
The temperature went up catastrophically as V of air went from big to small in the cockpit.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
B6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2767 posts, RR: 7 Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 23135 times:
I don't see anything. The flash occurs whe the a/c is hitting the tower and could be a number of things including severing wires etc. But something hanging off the bottom of the plane???? Guess I need to go get some glasses because I don't see anything.
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3996 posts, RR: 36 Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 22998 times:
Looks like the intial impact of the nose causing some type of flash. Besides- who needs a missle or some other detonation when you have a 767 full of jet fuel that is about to be atomized at over 500 miles per hour?
Fbgdavidson From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 3688 posts, RR: 31 Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 22948 times:
Quoting EMBQA (Reply 1): I work with a guy that was on that very plane the night before on its in-bound leg to Boston.
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 2): What you're seeing is a reflected light off the belly of the aircraft, and the "bulge" that people mention is the wing-to-body fairing.
Thank you
I didn't intend for it to become a tin-foil hat argument over 9/11 conspiracies.
To me it appeared as though the aircraft had something on the belly, the video wasn't altered as apparently they showed a clip from the CNN DVD of the events or something (it is buried deeper in the clip), but then I don't know enough about aircraft bellies to be able to tell what it could be a reflection of, or trick of light emphasising a normal part of the aircraft I don't know.
Quoting CasInterest (Reply 3): The light on impact was probably the cockpit and avionics compartement being Compacted due to impact at 500 miles an hour
That makes a lot of sense! To me the missile thing seemed ridiculous for the reasons outlined above. My first thought was static, possibly because the aircraft (made of aluminium, err I think!) flying at such a fast speed making contact with a building and discharging is possible, but then the cockpit theory seems very likely, if not the actual cause.
Thanks!
[Edited 2006-03-29 01:34:18]
"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
Airfinair From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 650 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 22878 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 2): This subject has been discussed numerous times on Anet, and each time, it quickly becomes a flamefest over various 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Agreed. In fact, here's my quote from a thread started about a year ago on 9/11 conspiricy b.s.
"Now I pose this question - Is there any reason to post more threads on Airliners in regards to 9/11 conspiricy theories? I think not. As OPNLguy says, all your questions can be answered if you'll search for the past threads on the subject."
Dc10guy From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 22824 times:
Why would someone put a missile on the outside of the airplane when all they would have to do is strap it down in the forward lower cargo ? No one would see it and they wouldn't have to do all that engineering ? Nice try though ...
Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
Boeing747_600 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 22824 times:
Now Now Guys ... dont jump to conclusions. Professorial-looking men in red sweaters are seldom wrong. His arguments were entirely convincing! And he even showed you the types of missiles used for crying out loud!!! What more proof do you A.nutters need?!?!
FlyKev From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 1350 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 22729 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
The 4th time You cant even see a buldge.
Please people let it all rest. You cant go on and on looking for new answers, and then you begin to blame your government, loose faith in your society and then what?
Your telling me that the government wanted this to happen. Look at the damage caused, why woudl they want this?
Please, face the facts, I know it may be hard for some to grasp, but the truth is Arabs hijacked these planes and crashed them. They admitted to it, and theres evidence for them commiting it.
My respect to all those lost or in someway injured/affected in these terrible happenings.
kev.
The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only
B6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2767 posts, RR: 7 Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 22602 times:
FlightShadow From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 862 posts, RR: 7 Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 22602 times:
I watched the entire thing.
A bunch of bull if I ever saw some.
However...one thing I did see, that white "flash" right before impact of the first plane. It did seem to me that it occurred a minute fraction of a second before impact. Could it be something similar to the instant vaporization that happens when an airplane hits the sound barrier, the little clouds?
In this case all the air traveling with the aircraft suddenly hits the WTC and is forced to stop, therefore making a somewhat similar vapor effect?
In any case, even if above is not rational...the "flash" thing is pure BS. It's funny in the beginning he says "we can prove it's not a reflection because you can only see the reflection from a certain point" and then later on he says "look at this reflection"
KSYR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 22532 times:
The level of ignorance in this thread is astounding.
Everyone knows the white flash was the super-secret government man using his secret ejection seat to blast out of the aircraft before it hit the WTC. He then flew into the WTC through a window, and whipped out the explosives in his briefcase in order to plant them for a controlled explosion. Finally, the government used its invisible stealth helicopter to whisk him away while CNN wasn't looking.
AndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 22497 times:
I made a simple calculation a few days ago on a similar thread in non-av.
If you take the amount of difference between kinetic energy of an airplane hitting the WTC at 180 mph (lost while landing) to UA at 560 mph, not taking into account the amount of gas in the plane, the kinetic energy is almost 10 times as much as compared to 180 mph.
Kinetic energy is 1/2 the mass times the velocity squared. You can do the calculations. You wouldnt need missiles, the planes were the missiles.
Ihadapheo From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 6026 posts, RR: 59 Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 22299 times:
This has been discussed several times and this version has run it's course. I am locking this thing up
IHAP
Pray hard but pray with care For the tears that you are crying now Are just your answered prayers
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 3688 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9292 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1764 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
