“YOu don’t get it.”
No, it is yourself who “don’t get it.”
“This has nothing to do with the time on the clock.”
Either it has everything to do with the “time on the clock,” of you live in a fantasyland where magic trumps physics.
“The submersion of the plane had a specific order in which the various parts of the plane went under.”
Which is a false assumption, because the aircraft does not settle evenly in just one direction as the seawater changes the balance of the aircraft with time.
“As of when the Puentes photo was taken with Fuddy and Yamamoto close to the door, the 2 windows between the wing and the door were already submerged.”
You fail to take into account how the aircraft sinks by wrongly assuming the aircraft sinks in only one direction and failing to take into account how the aircraft is bobbing around in the 6 foot to 13 foot waves knocking the aircraft around.
“Lang’s photo was taken before those were fully submerged.”
The different photos demonstrate the exact opposite of what you claim, Lang’s images were made after the Puente images, as demonstrated by the wings relative to the surface of the sea.
“Doesn’t matter what time on the clock; unless those windows came up out of the water again, Lang’s photos had to be before Puentes’.”
Again, you are making wrong assumptions about the sinking of the aircraft and then stubbornly asserting a wrong conclusion and a rather extremely bizarre conclusion about there being a fake aircrat in the sea based upon your wrong assumptions.
“What would have lifted those windows out of the water?”
The seawater filling the cabin pitched the aircraft towards the aft, which lowered the aircraft’s tail and the aft windows into the sea more and less between the 6 fott to 13 foot waves bobbing the aircraft around. The pitch aftwards raised the nose of the aircraft and its engine compartment higher in the water for awhile as the cabin filled. Then the engine compartment refilled and filled spaces not reached by the water before, and the wings had more time in which to fill with seawater. This changed the fore and aft balance of the aircraft to sink the nose farther down in the sea, submerge the wings as seen in the Lang images and not so much in the Puentes images, and pitched the tail upwards some more. Absent are images as the aircraft finished sinking out of sight, which should have had the nose taking a nearly vertical orientation with the tail rudder high in the air as it finished slipping beneath the waves.
The images and the positions of the windows, tail, wings, and engine compartment clearly indicate Lang’s images were made well after the Puentes images.
The photo of the plane right before it was totally submerged showed the tail sticking practically straight up, meaning the nose was heading practically straight down. The bobbing of the water did NOT lift the nose OR those windows - which are very close to the center of gravity - up out of the water.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3126226/posts?page=408#408
and the probable sequence of events as shown by the images I posted is totally ignored as the debate rages on. Count me out after this. It’s totally useless trying to make sense here.