One of the things I am is a photographer. And here's the things that I noticed:
1) The centreline is visible behind engine #2, so clearly there is either very shallow water there or no water.
2) the photographer is slightly above the level of the top of the fuselage, but only slightly (note the position of the horizon cf vetical stab.)
3) a long focal length is used (note the compression of distances)
4) The ripples in the foreground are large compared to those near the aircraft.
3 & 4 are at odds. If this was real, the ripples in the foreground would be much smaller.
Even allowing for (3), 1 & 2 suggest that the "water" does not extend far behind the aircraft. In addition there is no indication that the water is covering the ground on the port side of the aircraft. These would suggest that either the aircraft has sunk into the runway, or the runway has subsided. Note that if there was a dramatic slope, we would expect to see far more of the top of the aircraft.
The main gear seems to be only 2/3 submerged, but the nosewheel doors are in the water. I don't know the relative heights of these things, but I suspect that this lends weight to the argument above - unless the water isn't level :-)
Even on an obviously overcast day like this appears to be, I would still expect to see some unevenness in the illumination on the underside of the fuselage nearest the water. The water has a rippled surface which reflects light unevenly and should "dapple" light under the aircraft -- at least a bit.
I didn't notice the jet blast, but if stuff is coming out of the back of the engine then (as pointed out already) stuff should be going in the front, and a lot of that stuff would be water!
Even if the aircraft is at rest and has been for quite some time, the ripples on the surface of the water would "reflect" off objects in the water giving interferance patterns that should be visible in three places (engines and nosewheel doors)
The argument about the jetblast + engines not spinning is wrong. I am sure you'd see those spiraly things even with the engines spinning -- I've noticed how slowly they go round during the later stages of descent in some aircraft where I have been able to see into the front of the engines (I don't fly business class too often).
In addition to the #2 engine beig visible as a reflection (sans water) on the fuselage, the main gear is visible, also sans water.
The water on the lower right of the image (around the front of engine #1) reflects the grassed area, why doesn't the water under the wing do likewise?
If you're really interested in fake photos, try this one:
http://www.naturephoto.hu/natgeo_english/index.html