I also have seen the photo in question.The version I have seen looks rather like a melted plastic model of a plane (the tail is almost completely seperated from the body which has a huge bulge near the seperation point) lying on piece of ribbed pattern cloth ( which apparently is supposed to be the WTC). The resolution is so bad that the wingtips and tail fin tips take on the same wiggly pattern of the background as they melt into it, with no discernable line between the "plane" and the "building". What is supposed to be the WTC is absolutely uniform in its texture, there is absolutely no definition to distinguish windows from solid building. You wouldn't even know that it was supposed to be a building unless someone told you.
Unless there is a better resolution of this photo around which I haven't seen, then Baker has some serious explaining to do.
At the very least, any critical viewer of the version I've seen, would conclude that if thats the best resolution available, then if the photo is not a deliberate fake, then the best one can say is that the resolution of whatever it represents is so bad that it could have been taken almost anywhere of just about anything, and can't be used as evidence for anything.
Anyone seriously hawking it as "evidence" for what happened at the WTC is suspect to allegations of worse than just careless thinking.
One has to question why, if a real plane is supposed to have hit the tower,and to have been captured on several videos, the propnents of such a theory are so desperate that they have to resort to this kind of junk to prop up their evidence cache.