NEW YORK MAGAZINE
Photo by Rob Howard


FLIGHT 175:  Abnormal protrusion captured on film
WAS FLIGHT 175 A UNITED AIRLINES JETLINER?

Let’s begin by examining the original source footage from CNN.  Everyone has seen this same footage over and over again.  The Boeing 767 enters from the left side of the frame and plows full speed into the corner of the South tower.  Still frames from this shot appear on dozens of national magazine covers from all over the country and it is also the trademark video that used by most filmmakers for their documentaries on 9/11.  What most people have failed to recognize, until recently, is that on the underside of the plane, just to the right of the fuselage, there appears to be a peculiar three-dimensional anomaly.  By comparison, this “protrusion” looks as if it is slightly smaller than one of the engines mounted to the plane.  Keep in mind that the engine rotors on a 767 are approximately 9 feet in diameter.
The first impression is that it might be a trick of light and shadow, so it was important to turn to experts in this field.  La Vanguardia, a publication in Barcelona, Spain, published an investigative report from a Spanish University, back in June of 2003.  What was their professional opinion?  After a thorough digital image analysis, the university experts came to the conclusion that the object mounted to the bottom of this plane was three-dimensional in nature and could not have been caused by shadows or reflections.  This brings us to a very interesting point in our investigation and begs us to ask some very serious questions.  What is mounted to the underbelly of Flight 175?  What purpose did it serve in the attacks?  How could this plane have departed from a commercial airport without such a large attachment being noticed by maintenance and refueling personnel?  Wouldn’t the baggage handlers have noticed it?  Surely we can all agree that they would have noticed it - that is, if this plane had taken off from a commercial airport.

Let’s stop for a moment and ask the question, “Did this plane take off from a commercial airport?”  We already have one Fox News employee making the statement that the plane had no passenger windows.  What commercial airliner has no passenger windows?  The answer, I’m sure we all can agree, is none.  We have a Fox News anchor asking the question, “Is it possible that was some sort of cargo plane?”

After a few weeks of searching, we were able to obtain photographs of a military Boeing 767. This plane is being marketed to the U.S. Air Force by Boeing to replace their KC-130 series.  The most perplexing aspect of this military craft is that it has no passenger windows and is in fact a refueling tanker aircraft.  Is it possible that the plane we all saw crashing into the South tower was a Boeing 767 refueling tanker aircraft?  Wouldn’t such a plane take off from a military base?