It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Something New....767-??? Switch at WTC?

page: 1
0
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:01 PM
A Boeing 767-222 has a wingspan of only 156ft.

I DID MY OWN CALCULATIONS BASED ON THIS PHOTO AND CAME UP WITH..

208 ft = wtc width
2.600 inches measured from picture

767 measures 2.210 inches from picture

2.600 - 2.210 = .39 inches remaining.

2.600 / .39 = 6.667 or 15%

15% of 208 = 31.2

208 - 31.2 = 176.8 give or take a few feet.... can anyone verify this?

Perhaps this is more evidence that planes were switched.

Edit: to include picture.

I will fix this...

[edit on 1-4-2006 by fm258]

[edit on 1-4-2006 by fm258]

[edit on 2/4/2006 by Umbrax]

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:06 PM
I don't really think that trying to prove something via picture measurements and such can be accurate. I mean, you take a picture of a plane flying in front of the sun, and take into account the sizes and such, then depending on how far or near the plane is to you, you'll get different results.

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:11 PM
This is not a stretch as in a bird flying in front of the sun...the still is taken just before impact. I believe size measurements can be taken from this.

Anyone confirm or reject my numbers?

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:16 PM
The only problem with the text put out is that the E-10 doesn't exist except on drawing boards. The KC-767 that people said it might be didn't roll off the line until last year. The 767-400 has some obvious dfferences from the -200.

767-200ER

767-400

767-200/-400 comparison

If the 767-200 HAD been switched with a -400 someone would have noticed immediately.

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:19 PM
Why would you take 15% of the building width? Also if you take the actual width in feet and divide them:

156/208 = .75

If you take the picture measurements:

2.21/2.6 = .85

Given that the measurements from the picture won't be exact, those two numbers I think are close enough, so I think that shows that it was a boeing.

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:21 PM
Thanks for that additional info Zaphod.

I'm still having a hard time with these novice pilots that had trouble flying cessnas, flying Jumbos with such precision.

Not to say it didnt happen, but im not totally convinced.

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:26 PM
They would have had plenty of time to straighten out, and plus... the plane is hitting it at an angle so perhaps they weren't the best pilots in the world and were practically swerving to make sure and hit it.

That would have been embarrassing to miss it on the first go... then have to do a u-turn and try it again.

posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 11:44 PM
It has been said by others so this is not my own idea: Hitting at an angle would cause the most damage. If the plane hits straight on, the damage is limited to those floors.

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:25 AM
www.defesanet.com.br...

This is a picture of the E-10, it would also explain why some said that they saw no windows.

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:28 AM
Very interesting.
Gotta look into it more. Tie up some loose ends.

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:28 AM
Very interesting.
Gotta look into it more. Tie up some loose ends.

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 12:31 AM
Uhm, nice ARTISTS CONCEPTION. Too bad the E-10 won't fly for many more years.

In February 2003 the Air Force recently designated its new Multi-Sensor Command and Control Aircraft, the acquisition and development of which is being managed by the Electronic Systems Center, the E-10A. The E designation stands for Electrical Systems. While the E is specific to the mission of the aircraft, the number 10 was used simply because it’s next in the inventory sequence. The A stands for the first variation of the aircraft. Hanscom is the birthplace of two other Air Force aircraft that share the E designation; the E-3B Sentry AWACS and the E-8C Joint STARS. There was talk about creating an M prefix for multi-sensor,, but it was decided to go with the E designation instead.

On 14 May 2003 the Northrop Grumman Corporation, Boeing and Raytheon Multi-sensor Command and Control Aircraft (MC2A) team received a pre-system development and demonstration contract, with a total value of \$215 million, for Weapon System Integration (WSI) of the U.S. Air Force's new E-10A aircraft. All three members of the team bring strong legacies that provide the Air Force with options for the MC2A program. With the system integration expertise Northrop Grumman has in programs such as Joint STARS combined with airframe excellence from Boeing and radar integration proficiency from Raytheon, the E-10A will bring a new level of ISR capability to the warfighter.

www.globalsecurity.org...

In 2001 the problem how most to most effectively replace these aircraft was one that the then USAF chief of staff, General John Jumper, addressed when he, or most likely someone on his staff, came up with the idea of a Multi-sensor Command and Control Aircraft (MC2A) – a single type of aircraft that ‘could’ undertake all the roles of the current AWACS, J-STARS and RC-135 single-role aircraft. In addition, it was envisaged that the MC2A would also become a flying command post, allowing the US to both plan and execute short-notice air operations without having to rely on ground based operations centres. However, when Jumper first unveiled his idea it was unclear whether he proposed that the USAF spend billions replacing all the 33 AWACS, 17 J-STARS and the 8 RC-135 River Joint aircraft, or whether this was just an example of ‘blue-sky thinking’ intended to galvanise industry to investigate the possibilities of fusing current sensor and C2 technologies.

As this proposal was debated, it was further suggested that the planned aircraft might also be equipped to replace the C-130 Compass Call, RC-135 Combat Sent and RC-135 Cobra Ball aircraft, as well as incorporating some equipment to allow it to assume some of the roles of the U-2S. At around the same time, the US Navy’s requirement of a Multi Mission Aircraft (MMA) was also being considered and there were clearly many advantages in considering the option of using the same aircraft.

In Sep 01, the House Intelligence Committee suggested the development of a single manned reconnaissance aircraft, owned by a joint agency, but operated by both the USAF and USN. The precedent for this type of operation had already been set by the USN, US Marines and USAF use of the EA-6B Prowler, delivering obvious benefits in operational costs and inter-service co-operation. The proposed aircraft would replace the RC-135 and EP-3 fleets with a Boeing 767 sized aircraft, designated the E-10A.

www.spyflight.co.uk...

The 767 as a command and control platform was CONSIDERED by Boeing as early as 1996, but the USAF didn't even BEGIN to consider it until Sept of 2001. There has NOT been a plane built yet, and there is no word on when the ONLY E-10 that will be built will fly. The USAF has only been authorized to get one as a technology demonstrator.

(Source : Boeing Co. issued Aug. 18, 2003)

ST. LOUIS --- The U.S. Air Force has awarded Boeing a contract to purchase a 767-400 ER that will be used as a testbed for the new E-10A program, also known as the Multi-sensor Command and Control Aircraft program.

The not-to-exceed value of the contract is \$126 million with the final price subject to negotiations.

Boeing Air Force Systems received the sole-source contract through the Air Force’s Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.

Boeing will build the aircraft at its plant in Everett, Wash., with delivery scheduled for December 2005. The 767-400 ER testbed will be modified to the E-10A configuration at Northrop Grumman’s facility in Lake Charles, La. The contract period of performance extends to December 2008 with additional testbed support beyond the aircraft delivery.

[edit on 4/2/2006 by Zaphod58]

[Mod Edit: Link Format - Jak]

[edit on 2/4/06 by JAK]

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 01:15 AM
I see two problems with this.

1. As you can see, the tower is not exactly straight on, so a view from the TV would make that appear to have a larger surface width.

2. The plane is infact closer to the camera then the building is. This would make it appear to be larger when compared to something in the background, which is farther away.

Thus one can draw the conclusion, this is probly the least acurate way to measure such a claim. common, measuring the tv screen with a ruler?

This is a very classic way, you conspiracy mongerors, like to take stuff with a certian perspective and make it look like your correct.

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:57 AM
holy cow will you people ever give the WTC 's a rest?????! plane crashes into building, building falls down. its not rocket science, well it shouldnt be for most people.

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:07 AM

Originally posted by worksoftplayhard
holy cow will you people ever give the WTC 's a rest?????! plane crashes into building, building falls down. its not rocket science, well it shouldnt be for most people.

Sorry. Buildings don't just fall down. Even ones hit by airplanes.

If you have nothing to add to the debate, don't post.

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:28 AM

Originally posted by acura_el2000
2. The plane is infact closer to the camera then the building is. This would make it appear to be larger when compared to something in the background, which is farther away.

This is what I tried explaining at the beginning of this thread.

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:48 AM
Im sorry skeptics, but at the distance the camera is away from the subject matter, the perspective is not enough to askew the results by 16 feet.

Therefore the measurements taken on this picture will be accurate enough for these purposes.

There are also now 3 points of which this theory falls into place.
1. The measurements are of a -400 series aircraft.
2. There is a bulge under the aircraft, indicating it is not a standard -200 series commercial liner.
3. Someone claimed they could not see any windows on one of the planes.

I recall watching the planes hitting the trade centers. I live right next to CFB Trenton, a military supply base. We get ALOT of -400 series coming and going from here. Its allways obvious to me, when a -200 series comes in to land.

What I saw on TV, I could have sworn it was military issue. At the time I dismissed this for being, perhaps they just stole a military transport.
That was before they released claims that it was civillian.

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:03 PM

Originally posted by DarkHelmet
Why would you take 15% of the building width? Also if you take the actual width in feet and divide them:

156/208 = .75

If you take the picture measurements:

2.21/2.6 = .85

Given that the measurements from the picture won't be exact, those two numbers I think are close enough, so I think that shows that it was a boeing.

Sorry you dont like my math....isnt .85 and 15% equalling 100? The wings are right up to the building before impact, there isnt going to be much of a difference in the perspective.

Anyway you are surely more intelligent than I am so I will defer to you.

The next time someone says 6 instead of a half dozen I will be all over them...

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:12 PM
What bulge? The wheel wells? I've been studying planes for my entire life, and those were definately -200s that hit the buildng that day. EVERY picture I have seen is a -200, every video I've seen is a -200. The E-10 doesn't exist yet, so it wasn't that. The KC-767 was based on the -200, and only just rolled out last year so it wasn't that. They were -200s.

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 04:12 PM

Originally posted by DarkHelmet
Why would you take 15% of the building width? Also if you take the actual width in feet and divide them:

156/208 = .75

If you take the picture measurements:

2.21/2.6 = .85

Given that the measurements from the picture won't be exact, those two numbers I think are close enough, so I think that shows that it was a boeing.

The numbers I used here were based off of those you gave. The first numbers are actuals, so the .75 is accurate. The measuring of the pictures is not as accurate. Having 2.21 inches for a 156 plane gives 70.58 feet per inch. Having 2.6 inches for a 208 foot building gives 80 feet per inch. The scales are not equal. This is because the object is still closer to the camera than the building. The plane would have to be exactly parallel with the building in order to give an accurate measure.

Originally posted by fm258
Sorry you dont like my math....isnt .85 and 15% equalling 100? The wings are right up to the building before impact, there isnt going to be much of a difference in the perspective.

Just a few inches in this case does mean alot. If you have a problem with MY math, then tell me what I've been doing wrong.

new topics

top topics

0