The left picture in the pair above is a version of Carmen Taylor's famous photograph of the aircraft (ostensibly UA Flight 175) just before hitting the South Tower. The right picture is a freeze-frame of the video by Michael Hezarkhani, taken from a similar viewpoint. I took the clip from CNN's DVD "America Remembers" — 2002 edition.
Three bright dots appear along the wing entry shadow. The fourth major bright spot is the right tail wing reflecting sunlight. In my older article, I go to considerable lengths to point out the bright dots. I refuse to do so here, because the three bright dots are obvious. In my experience, if one doesn't see the three bright dots, one also doesn't see the phrase "Three bright dots" even though the phrase is staring at him in the face.
Another video, by Luc Courchesne, also captured the plane hitting the South Tower, from a different angle. The picture to the right is a cropped freeze-frame from that video, and also exhibits the three bright dots, although the middle one appears miniscule compared with the outer two. This should eliminate any residual suspicions that the bright dots are an artifact of the video recording method. The bright dots are bursts of light produced by the collision.
Two freeze-frames are presented to the left. The first shows the aircraft just before penetrating the wall. The second shows the aircraft after it has mostly penetrated the wall, although the tail section is still visible.
The wings of the aircraft are visible in the first picture. The region where the wings entered the wall is darker than the rest of the wall, but matches the general shape. The aircraft's jet engines are visible in the first picture. In the second picture, two bright spots appear where the jet engines were previously. By clicking on any of the links below (and clicking on "Next" in the page), one can animate the aircraft penetrating the wall. The two outer bright spots appear precisely where the jet engines enter.
It is obvious that the jet engines caused the two outer bright spots, when they penetrated the wall. The jet engines have a gallon or two of jet fuel, which ignited at impact to produce the bright spots.
The middle bright spot appears underneath and to the right of the fuselage in the second picture. Something ignited at the point of collision to produce that spot. The middle spot appears a frame after the outer spots appear, although a hint of the middle spot is in the first frame of the outer spots.
The first picture above, and the Carmen Taylor photograph, show a feature underneath the right wing where it attaches to the fuselage, called the "pod." Some in the 9/11 truth movement say that the pod is a real object, attached underneath. Others, both in the 9/11 truth movement and opposed, claim that the pod is nothing more than the right wheel well (or faring), a bulge underneath the right wing where it attaches to the fuselage.
My original conclusion, in the older article, was that the pod produced the middle bright spot when it penetrated the wall. Stepping through the freeze-frames, the middle bright spot appears where the pod enters the wall. Something comparable to the jet engines produced the bright spot, but nothing comparable to a jet engine (that I was aware of) is underneath an ordinary Boeing 767, where the right wing attaches to the fuselage. But the "pod" was in the right spot. Therefore, I originally concluded that the pod had to be something real, and something not on an ordinary Boeing 767.
Therefore, the aircraft was not an ordinary commercial Boeing 767.
Recently, I found something in the design of the Boeing 767 to cast doubt on that conclusion. Apparently, the right wheel well (the faring) contains a reservoir of hydraulic fluid. This potentially could have ignited during the collision, to produce the middle bright spot.
Therefore, the pod may after all be nothing unusual, and the aircraft hitting the South Tower may have been an ordinary Boeing 767.
The most common response to my original argument has been to disregard everything I say, and respond with insults. Alternatively, they may fog out mentally on what I say, and respond with irrelavency or nonsense. It is impossible to get through to them, as they won't read what I actually write. They couldn't even comprehend the very idea of something impacting, and leaving a signature.
Those critics never found the alternate explanation of the hydraulic fluid. I had to find it myself.
However, I have received responses suggesting alternate explanations for the three bright spots or the middle bright spot. I will discuss and these possibilities: