Yes, that appears to be the case.
The two sets of images don’t make sense with each other though. I’ve addressed that on the other thread. The Lang photo (showing the top frames of the 2 windows between the wing and the door not submerged yet and the bottom of the back window to not have entered the water yet) would have to come BEFORE the Puentes image showing the same 2 windows fully submerged in the water and the bottom of the back window already in the water.
If these were the same plane/event, the Lang photos could only come after the Puentes image if something happened to cause the 2 windows between the wing and the door to come UP out of the water after Puentes’ image showed them fully submerged. But those windows are very close to the center of gravity, and for the tipping of the front of the plane to get those windows up out of the water, the plane would have had to stop sinking and simply rotated on its center-of-gravity fulcrum, putting the tail high into the air - which we don’t see in Lang’s image, so that can’t be the way that the windows weren’t fully submerged on the Lang photo.
The sequence of how the submersion would have had to happen just doesn’t allow the Lang photo to be the same event as the Puentes photos are from.
If somebody wants me to believe otherwise - and believe that these are from the same event and the Lang photos came after the people had floated far, far away, then they need to explain what mechanism caused those 2 windows to come up out of the water after being fully submerged - without bringing the tail up high in the process. Good luck with that.
“if something happened to cause the 2 windows between the wing and the door to come UP out of the water after Puentes’ image showed them fully submerged. “
How about the weight of the three people standing on the door step and sitting on the wing. Or that the tail section would be essentially a sealed compartment and all the engine weight was in the front submerged portion.