911-UA175-Robert Clark Photograph - "First Rate Fakery"

Robert Clark Photograph - "First Rate Fakery"
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/

Press photographer Robert Clark's photograph shows what look like a near perfect picture of a Boeing 767-200:

This photograph was awarded the prestigious World Press Photograph 1st Prize 2001 after being published in 'Time' only a few days after the attacks, along with other photographs from the series. At a quick glance we can see that there is no 'pod' or 'port wing anomaly'. The presence of two specular airframe reflections were validated by Flight Simulators 'dynamic reflectivity' function and the dimensions of the fuselage are roughly in the correct proportion and size for a Boeing 767-200:

A closer analysis of the UA175 aircraft using the CG Boeing 767-200 comparison model does show a few differences.

The red part of the United Airlines logo seems to be 'slipping' off the tail fin and the underside reflective strip is absent (the image below shows a real United Airlines Boeing 767-200 with its two underside strip sections marked up with red arrows and the tail fin logo showing correctly).

The starboard engine nacelle doesn't appear to be casting a shadow on the underside of the starboard wing. Although the airframe shows the expected differential lighting it is surprisingly dark given the observable fact that it is being exposed to direct sunlight as evidenced by the two specular highlights on the airframe. These two specular highlights seen on the nose tip and on the starboard wing root are very slightly misplaced. Most significantly there is a very faint turquoise haze around the aircraft and the airframe itself is a little too high in comparison the CG model, it is quite possible that the entire aircraft has been added to the photograph.

Some of these observations could possibly be attributed to low image resolution, over or under exposure of the film, ISO/ASA film speed, inaccuracies in the simulation set up and so on, but others have no rational explanation and imply forgery.

The Robert Clark UA175 aircraft photograph would be a very convincing image of a United Airlines Boeing 767-200 if it weren't for the lighting contradictions, signs of manipulation and other anomalies as mentioned above.
-------------------------------------

Afterward

Despite the 'official' version of events stating that WTC2 was hit by a hijacked Boeing 767-200 there is no photographic evidence to support this. Each picture of the supposed UA175 aircraft analysed in this article shows that some kind of unexplainable defect, be it a 'pod', a defective port wing, lighting anomalies or just an airframe that bears no resemblance to a Boeing 767-200. When the UA175 images are analysed comparatively we see glaring inconsistencies in airspeed, airframe symmetry, lighting, descent path angle and airframe attitude.

Some of these deficiencies are so obvious it is as if their creator wanted us to know that they are fakes. We could call these people "Whistle Blowers". There is the distinct possibility that more than one person or organisation is responsible for manufacturing these fake videos and fake images and that what we are seeing here are the differences between the forging standards of each respective party.

It should be apparent to the reader that the visual record of the WTC2 strike has been fabricated or tampered with to make us believe that the tower was hit by an aircraft. This is the Media Hoax. The question is, by how much has the visual record been manipulated? Are they all fakes or just a proportion of them? It is very hard to tell. In my opinion the figure could be as high as 100%. This means that we effectively have no genuine visual record of the WTC2 strike.

So why is the establishment trying to conceal the true nature of this attack? Why manipulate and / or fabricate the videographic and photographic record of the event? The witness reports offer us an explanation. None of them reported seeing a United Airlines Boeing 767-200 collide with the tower. They all describe something different like a "grey plane" or a "non-commercial plane" or "a plane with no windows" or a "small plane".

The reason why the establishment is trying to conceal the true nature of the WTC2 attack is because there was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911.