Could Limbaugh's maid use Photoshop?

Wondering if I can get some opinions here ...

This article, http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35172 repeats the claim there is a Boeing 707 fuselage at Salman Pak which was used to train terrorists in hijackings.

A 707 fuselage looks like this: http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/707lst_e.htm

Here is a photo Rush Limbaugh claims is that 707 at Salman Pak, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031403/content/photo_2.guest.html

To me, it does not look at all like the same type of aircraft as a 707 - the wings are too far back. There is also a "short fuselage" 707 that has the wings even further towards the front.

And why would a fairly liberal site want to damage any testimony she can give a court on his drug use by claming she "photoshopped" stuff for his website?

... that Limbaugh's serial dishonesty drove him to illegally self-medicate. Seems to me that claiming the pictured aircraft is a 707 adds to the evidence he was on drugs.

BTW, possession of the drugs Rush had purportedly obtained illegally could result in (as little as) a max $10K fine and 90 days in rehab ... as I read the applicable FL laws for second degree felony for possession of schedule II drugs.

There is no way that the aircraft could fly in its current configuration. The wings are too far aft. The hulk has been modified in some way to move the wings aft or to reduce the length of the airframe.

There is not enough evidence to say what type of aircraft is in that photo.

But there is enough for an educated guess. Judging by the shape of the forward fuselage and the wing configuration, my guess would be a Boeing 757.

Martin

as though the entire tail section of the fuselage is missing. As you will notice, no horizontal stabilizers are visible. The photo does appear to have been photoshopped, in my opinion. The wing on the port side is transparent. Also the wings on the 707 pictured on the airforce sight each appear to be as long as the fuselage....which the wings in the rush photo are not. If indeed the tail section is supposed to be missing the wings are definitely too short.

In that someone was able to take an airborne photo of what appears to be a fuselage...why is it the pilots of the military jets flying recon sorties for the past 10 years weren't able to see it?

RC

yes, it does look link the tail is missing now that you point that out.

In all honesty, now this does, to my untrained eye, seem like it could be a 707 sans tail. However the claim has been that this is a 707 expressly for the purpose of training hijackers. And at the same time raises the obvious speculation that it's a bombed or crashed 707 that needed to se somewhere ...

The claim that is was used to train hijackers is obviously in support of the claim Iraq was involved in 9-11 ... the existence of a wrecked plane in Iraq is hardly supporting "evidence" ...

...Because of the airplane boneyward there.

I do not think that is a 707.




I think it is a DC-9 or MD-80 with part of it's tail missing

Look at the starboard side right behind the wing. That's a nacelle. The Boeing 707's four engines are all under the wings, and their nacelles are visible in front of the wings. You don't see that here.

Now, I don't know a whole lot about training terrorists, but if I were training terrorists to work commercial airliners...

* Would I put the plane out in the middle of the desert, so my trainees couldn't practice driving up to the plane and storming it?

* Would I put the plane away from any building, so my trainees couldn't practice running out of the building and storming it? Or practice sneaking out of buildings and planting explosives in the wheel wells?

* Would I use a plane not flown in commercial service as a training aid, so my trainees could get on the target plane for a real hijacking and be confused? As the yankee dog imperialist army manual says, you should train like you fight.

Or is this just an old airplane they scavenged all the useful parts from before dumping the fuselage in the desert?

Look at the shadow on the fuselage. Note the tail seems to be missing. Notice the white shape/spot to the right of the lower wing? That appears to me to be the tail...the shape is right, but the shadowing doesn't match the fuselage...

It might be wrong to assume this is a plane on the ground...That could be a small jet in flight...photo taken from a plane directly above this one...but much higher...

I poked around the site abit more and it does seem to be a series of satellite photos...

I think it is a plane in flight that just happend to get caught in this spy photo...the shadow might be the only flaw in that theory...

Note: one of the photos on the Limbaugh site is dated 4/25/00

And here's a website for 707 specs:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html

And scroll down ner the bottom of this page for an overhead sketch of a 707:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b707/index.shtml

even 707 jewelery (which shows the overhead profile)
http://www.aviationjewelry.com/description.asp?id=163&graphic=16300705&group=Commercial+Jets

And, from below, I think the tanker here is a modified 707:


The tail may be off that plane in the Rush photo (that white thing below and to the right of it could be a broken tail section), but unless the wings are off the plane too, it's not a 707.

And without some context (surrounding area, training operations in progress, etc.), that photo doesn't show anything about that plane.

Well presuming a sunny day...a low flying airplane might cast a shadow like that...

...and taking into consideration that the plane is actually pretty low to the ground relative to the satellite, which is very high off the ground...that could be the plane's shadow...even if the plane is in flight...it would be interesting to know a bit more context...like where is the nearest airport - what would that planes heading be if it were in flight...

I wonder how it got there? Maybe it was long ago and the path of the landing got obliterated. But it certainly isn't there now.