Re: 9/11 : Flight 175

He said plane....

Not American Airlines Passenger plane.

Besides they are based on the same design.... Fuel in a pod attached to underbelly...

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a202/ty2d2/fsprsig2.gif
"Munchkin: One who, on being told that this is a game about politics and intrigue in 17th century Italy, asks to play a ninja."
Andrew Rilstone

Re: 9/11 : Flight 175

FSDev| Bandu wrote:

I thought the fuel tanks were usually inside the fuselage? 

Im no planes expert tho and it seems you know more about them than me.

Iv never seen a plane with an exterior fuel tank tho :S

No dude the CIA strapped the fuel tank to the outside so it would set more people on fire when the plane hit the building by remote control.

Can we perhaps have a subforum in the Offtopic forum called '9/11 Discussions hosted by Bandu'?  You're like the James Lipton of 9/11 theories.

Check out my blog about how wonderful the internet is, called The Wonderful Internet.
http://thewonderfulinternet.com/

http://stats.fsmod.com/fssig.php?player=Canadiens1160

Re: 9/11 : Flight 175

Watch your mouth kid.

Pity you couldnt have been this active when you were part of the team.

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else."
Frédéric Bastiat

Re: 9/11 : Flight 175

Now now lets all settle down...

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c387/ArcAngel227/FirstStrike.jpg
Futurama: You Can't Prove it Won't Happen

12 (edited by FSDev| Woodrow 2006-11-05 11:18:29)

Re: 9/11 : Flight 175

Like all grainy poorly focused images it just looks like an artefact to me.  Like ghosts and other made up things derived from poorly taken photographs, it's probably nothing more than a bending of the light, a piece of dust on the lens, the reflection of the engine on the wing, or any other optical abnormality.  And besides, it'd be very hard to put a pod directly underneath the fuselage of a larger plane, because then the alighting gear has to extend all that much further to cover it.  I can't recall any large jet aircraft that has a massive fuel pod underneath.  All of them are on the wings.  This also doesn't even mention the fact that if you're building a giant flying fuel bomb that's due to hit, why try to modify some jet with an external tank when you can fill up the entire interior of it with fuel tanks instead?

And interestingly as well, grainy photograph manipulation is one of my specialties in photoshop big_smile  If you like I can add another fuel pod, the wings made out of fuel pods, or even a giant rubber ducky strapped to the underside if you want tongue

Fear the Woodzilla

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/Tortel/Woodrow-1.jpg

13 (edited by FSDev| Woodrow 2006-11-05 11:45:44)

Re: 9/11 : Flight 175

Oh yeah, here's a good example of how poor resolution pictures can be misleading with just a few small details smile  That, or a duck swallowed an alien or a cat before being zapped. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/ … E680.shtml

There was one weird thing about the article though. 

Unfortunately, the duck died quickly and quietly of its injuries.

Unfortunately?  I guess the author of that page prefers his ducks to die long slow painful deaths :S

Fear the Woodzilla

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/Tortel/Woodrow-1.jpg

14 (edited by zanth91 2006-11-05 13:09:29)

Re: 9/11 : Flight 175

TY2D2 wrote:

Besides they are based on the same design.... Fuel in a pod attached to underbelly...

on the underbelly? It clearly looks external wink

And for the flash, I honestly thnks it's static discharge. Think about it, a big metal building...

http://www.usfbf1942.com/forums/image.php?u=158&dateline=2006