IT ISN'T GREEN.
Same object in my opinion, that's IF anyone but yourself is ALLOWED to have an opinion. No matter the quantity of words and conjectures you offer, you haven't convinced me. And if you can't convince a freeper, your diatribe is going nowhere. I don't know why you bother. You can't bully my eyes.
And that brown thing you can see above the nose is the exhaust extractor, partly ripped off its fastenings to the aircraft.
Wow. I guess you speak for all Freepers, then, and if you merely claim not to be convinced, no one would be convinced and I am therefore merely in the midst of some kind of fact-filled, bullying diatribe.
The color of the thing against the plane's starboard passenger exit door in your first picture is probably closer to chartreuse than green, but chartreuse is generally accepted as a variety of green. But fine, the color of the baggage pod floor is nowhere near green and/or chartreuse. The pod floor color, by contrast is clearly some shade of brown, perhaps khaki or tan. In any event those two pieces in your first and third images are very far from being the same color.
Neither does what's against the plane's door in your first picture sport rows of rivets or evidence of an internal bulkhead every four feet or so, as does the internal bottom surface of the baggage/cargo pod in your third picture.
The baggage pod shows a gash only on the starboard sign, with internal structures still present on the port side of the pod. Thus, there's strong evidence that the symmetric, brownish, half-oval one sees near the engine at the tip of the red arrow could not be the front portion of the baggage pod.
You're welcome to claim an opinion, but the chartreuse SlipNSlide(R) has already been factually identified by a person who knows. Though you pretend that your difficulty to hold to your opinion justifies accusing me of bullying--and what a snowflake thought that is!--it's nonetheless useless to undo such an expert confirmation (perhaps a snowflake should think of such a person's determination as implicitly "mounting an attack"), no matter how justified that may make you feel in labeling all this my diatribe.
The chartreuse part we've all seen against the starboard side is a very modern diver transport that became unbalanced when the likely corporate contractors (friend of yours, maybe?) didn't time their re-balancing quite right after they rolled off. If it had been wartime, they would all have been spotted by the enemy and killed.
The camera's lens sees that SlipNSlide for only a very few "deadly" frames and never again. Same for the thing pointed to by the red arrow. If those parts had been there and seen as a natural consequence of a plane part breaking off, it would likely been seen over the course of several successive minutes in the video. Obviously, however, the divers had an awareness that their stuff shouldn't be captured on the video they must've known was being shot less a short football field away.
We know there were divers there at that time. We also know from photos taken on the salvor's barge that two different engine/propeller combinations had been cut from their respective mounts, one of them having been cut off Fuddy's Crash plane. One doesn't go through all that trouble for no good reason. Those divers whose company was already there for dealing with Fuddy's extraction had means, motive, (also the orange equipment shown in your second picture) and opportunity to cut that engine off at that time rather than have to wait for a later return visit. As the divers' activity clearly shows the aircraft rising in the water (as seen in the three, successive following pictures), cutting things off the engine area would account for that. What else might you posit to account for the fact that these three successive pictures, left-to-right show the plane having been made to rise in the water?
You're of course welcome to have your own opinion. Even good logic won't necessarily make a wrong answer right, but logic that figuratively leaks like a sieve is only going to arrive at a correct answer almost never. Your logic doesn't seem to hold much water in this case, as many of the facts are in, and confirm what we had suspected. Your logic, by contrast, doesn't seem to have arrived at (m)any correct answers. Love the purse idea, however. Did you think your calling Jim Robinson to your purse post was sufficient and reasonable justification to shut down exposition of facts surrounding the Deep State's hoax? Fair dinkum, --NOT!