Rob Howard Photograph - "Produce of Popular Mechanics"
The Der Spiegel image has been attributed to a man named Rob Howard
(freelance photographer, WTC eyewitness and Popular Mechanics consultant on the
911 Conspiracy) and is rumoured by some to be a fake.
There are questions over image pixelation and building
positioning. My concerns lie with the aircraft itself which has a bizarre
bent back port wing when seen in comparison to the starboard wing - the 'Port Wing Anomaly'
as mentioned previously.
On a more positive note you might just be able to make out a minute amount of
motion blur on the aircraft which would suggest that whatever it was it was in fast motion at
the time the picture was taken.
We are of course assuming that this motion blur has not been added to the
image to increase its authenticity.
I've reproduced a corrected version of the Der Spiegel image below.
The question we should be asking ourselves is:
"Why is the port wing bent back so much?"
Take a look at the strange structure beneath the starboard
wing that is referred to by many as the 'pod':
Judging by the shadowing seen in this image we can see that the starboard wing fairing is being
illuminated by the sun.
So the 'pod' is as real as it appears, looking like an addition to the airframe,
or perhaps something partially inside the outer skin of the aircraft.
I also find the 'specular highlights'
argument a little difficult to accept in this case even though Flight Simulator places the 'pipe' illusion
in exactly the same place as the 'pipe' on the UA175 aircraft.
In comparison to this simulation the 'pipe' seems to be extending too far down the
tapered ends of the fuselage and has a distinct outline, not a gradual
fading out of the reflection that you would expect to see from a curved surface.
For the pipe on the aft section of the fuselage the simulation suggests a pointed end to the highlight,
whereas on the UA175 aircraft it looks like a solid structure with a blunt end.
If you study the 'pipe' on the forward section of the aircraft
you can just make out some reflection detail that suggests that the 'pipe' has
a curvature of its own and is therefore a mechanical object added on to the fuselage.
In other words the 'pipe' appears to be partially embedded
within the skin of the UA175 aircraft and has a much smaller diameter than that of the fuselage section.
The same can be said for the reflective stripe on the underside of the fuselage, it too
seems to be partially embedded in the aircrafts skin relief-style and bulging outward from the
fuselage with its own curved appearance.
The real UA175 only had paint markings with no such bulging reliefs.
The front of the 'pod' has a 'butt' or a 'stub' to it which is reflecting a vast amount of light.
The 'pod' does not look like a 'pod' but more like two miniature pipe sections
attached to the slightly enlarged wing fairing.
The port wing root looks gigantic, bulging and over-sized in comparison to the CG model and
this feature manifests itself in other photographs of the UA175 aircraft as well
(but not on the many airliner photographs of the authentic UA175
aircraft and other photographs of Boeing 767-200's).
I've noticed that the airframe illumination in this image differs from other UA175 images.
The small shadow cast by the starboard engine nacelle on the underside of the starboard
wing suggests that the sun was no more than 10 degrees above the horizon when in reality
it was approximately 27 degrees above the horizon.
By contrast the Brooklyn Heights photograph, taken within a fraction of
a second of the Der Spiegel image and with the same bank angle,
suggests a relatively higher sun angle with its
almost completely shadowed port wing and port tail fin,
not to mention a starboard engine nacelle shadow that almost
completely covers the starboard wing fairing.
Please note that I have introduced motion blur and the appropriate airframe shadowing to the
CG Boeing 767-200 in the image below:
Another problem is that lack of airframe detail shown in the Der Spiegel image. When compared to
a real Boeing 767-200 this point becomes self-evident. Where are the flaps,
ailerons, nuts, bolts, rivets, flap hinges, aileron hinges, inspection hatches,
leading edge devices, gear bay doors, safety labels, identification numbers,
pitot heads, cargo bay doors, static wicks, blade antenna...etc...etc...?
The Der Spiegel image makes the UA175 aircraft like a child's toy with a defective wing
and strange pipe-work attached to its fuselage. It bears no resemblance to a real
Boeing 767-200.