You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
|Tweet Topic Started: Sep 27 2008, 12:02 PM (1,543 Views)|
|mjd1982||Sep 27 2008, 12:02 PM Post #1|
I have just watched the film "In Plane site". I understand that this film doesnt have much credibility in the community, but I have a fe questions regarding the qualms tht have been raised about it.
The main issue is the "pod" theory, i.e. that there was something attached to the bottom of the plane that hit the S Tower. Now, this has been debunked on the basis that this is in fact a "fairing", i.e. a standard piece of equipmennt attached to the base of planes to join the wings and the fuselage. But there is something that doesnt stick. Here is the pic from IPS:
And here is an image of a fairing:
There is a clear issue, namely that the fairing is located solely between the wings, not extending further up the fuselage, whereas the "pod" extends all the way up the fuselage from the fairing to the front of the base of the plane, and back from the fairing to the back of the base of the plane. So it would appear to me that what pod proponents are calling a pod, and what pod debunkers are calling a "fairing" are 2 different things.
That being said, I may be missing something. Can someone help me if so?
|mjd1982||Sep 27 2008, 12:04 PM Post #2|
Problem with posting images here it seems. Heres #1:
Edit by JFK - embed image and http://tinyurl.com
Edited by JFK, Sep 27 2008, 12:09 PM.
|JFK||Sep 27 2008, 12:14 PM Post #3|
I see you have neglected this analysis.
|mjd1982||Sep 28 2008, 03:20 PM Post #4|
Right, and that analysis serves to further undeline the point, right?
Which only adds further to the confusion.
|GEORGE DORN||Jul 30 2012, 08:57 PM Post #5|
American airlines flight 11 was a boeing 767-200ER extended range
The 767-200ER was the first extended-range model and entered service with El Al in 1984. The type's increased range is due to an additional center fuel tank and a higher maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of up to 395,000 pounds (179,000 kg). The type was originally offered with the same engines as the 767-200, while more powerful Pratt & Whitney PW4000 and General Electric CF6 engines later became available. (62,100 lbs)
PS :- the 767-200ER has an additional center fuel tank , this is what most people claim was UNUSUAL and postule as to there being a missile or something added ....
|Michal||Jul 31 2012, 04:03 AM Post #6|
||ok, have you got anu photos showing that?|
|BoneZ||Jul 31 2012, 05:30 PM Post #7|
Not accurate. The 767-200ER, 300ER, and 400ER, actually NO 767 that I can quickly find has an extra appendage on the bottom of the fuselage.
Here's a 767-200ER:
Furthermore, when looking at the videos (there are at least 2) of the plane coming at the camera, there is no appendage on the bottom of FL.175 that hit the second tower. There's also a great analysis at the link below discussing how the "appendage" was the highlighting of the wing fairings by the sun and shadows:
The above link also briefly discusses and debunks the link posted earlier in the thread on the analysis from a Spanish university.
|1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)|
|« Previous Topic · United Flight 175 · Next Topic »|