It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkHelmet

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.


I dont have a problem with your math. You apparently didnt like mine. Anyway, I didnt use a standard ruler, I used a dial caliper. It is not proof of anything, it was just a line of thought that I gave to the smart folks here to look at and I'm satisfied with the result.




posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
This is more evidence of people attempting to create their own science to fit an idea. You truly think you can solve the 9/11 'conspiracy' with 5th grade math?

What Switch? What is it you are talking about. That again this is a different plane than what took off from Logan? Where are the passengers? Where is your evidence?



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
This is more evidence of people attempting to create their own science to fit an idea. You truly think you can solve the 9/11 'conspiracy' with 5th grade math?

What Switch? What is it you are talking about. That again this is a different plane than what took off from Logan? Where are the passengers? Where is your evidence?


Where is your proof that it was flight 175 and flight 11 that hit the WTC??? I wont bother holding my breath for this proof.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Distance and angles won't change the buildings size, you know it is 208 ft and will be able to compare your measurements to that. Why do you think investigators place rulers and other objects of known length when taking photos of a crime scene? This method of measuring the planes wingspan is perfectly sound. The plane is right in front of the building so the measurements will agree. Remember there are people hired on this and many other websites to distract and annoy you so the best thing to do is completely ignore them.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Where's your proof that it WASN'T either of those? There is a lot more evidence that it WAS Flight 11 and 175 than it wasn't. All the visual evidence points to it BEING them and not some magic hologram projector that suddenly is able to project a perfect hologram that never had any flaws in it, or a UAV with a bigger engine to sound like a 767, and it CERTAINLY wasn't a USAF 767, considering they don't HAVE 767s yet.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Where's your proof that it WASN'T either of those? There is a lot more evidence that it WAS Flight 11 and 175 than it wasn't. All the visual evidence points to it BEING them and not some magic hologram projector that suddenly is able to project a perfect hologram that never had any flaws in it, or a UAV with a bigger engine to sound like a 767, and it CERTAINLY wasn't a USAF 767, considering they don't HAVE 767s yet.


Visual evidence does not identify the planes at all. Please show your video or photo evidence of the first plane hitting WTC.

I never said anything about a halogram, dont try and discredit me with nonsense.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
Distance and angles won't change the buildings size, you know it is 208 ft and will be able to compare your measurements to that. Why do you think investigators place rulers and other objects of known length when taking photos of a crime scene? This method of measuring the planes wingspan is perfectly sound. The plane is right in front of the building so the measurements will agree. Remember there are people hired on this and many other websites to distract and annoy you so the best thing to do is completely ignore them.


Thank you. I am not the least bit intimidated by people trying to bully me with half baked, regurgitated explanations from the 9/11 commission.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
First off, my comments weren't directed SOLELY at you. They were directed at ALL of the theories that were out there.

Secondly if you watch the documentary that the French brothers did you can see the first plane hit and can see that it was an American Airlines plane. They were with the NYFD that day, and heard a plane fly over, the camera jerks up, and catches the plane as it flies over. It banks and you can see it's an AA plane.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
First off, my comments weren't directed SOLELY at you. They were directed at ALL of the theories that were out there.

Secondly if you watch the documentary that the French brothers did you can see the first plane hit and can see that it was an American Airlines plane. They were with the NYFD that day, and heard a plane fly over, the camera jerks up, and catches the plane as it flies over. It banks and you can see it's an AA plane.


I just watched it, and theres no way in hell you can identify it. Post your proof here.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Alright guys so your telling me that the US government is willing to take 4 plane loads of unsuspecting decent people? because alot of familys lost their fathers, mothers daughters and sons. I highly doubt it, were did all the bodies go if it was a military plane then? also, Theres also a good reason you cant see the windows very well is because thos planes are going very fast, and they are hard to see even when the plane is sitting still. its very simple actually.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I don't have time to hunt down all the evidence out there right now. So where is YOUR proof that it WASN'T flight 11 and 175 at the WTC? You say to prove it was, well prove it WASN'T. I've already given a lot of proof that there was no switch of planes in this thread, so let's see something other than "This picture shows it wasn't". Let's see some serious proof that they DID switch planes.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by fm258
Thank you. I am not the least bit intimidated by people trying to bully me with half baked, regurgitated explanations from the 9/11 commission.


So my disagreement was just that? I think my math showed pretty clearly that measurements taken from the picture cannot be as accurate as taking an ACTUAL measurement.


Why do you think investigators place rulers and other objects of known length when taking photos of a crime scene?


Yes, but this is a completely different case. You can't place the ruler next to the plane. I think if you have taken any type of higher math, it's clear that measurements on the picture are both inaccurate and inconclusive.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Yes, but the problem with this is only Delta and Continental operate the 767-400. No Delta or Continental planes hit.

Also, in the video of it hitting you can clearly see there are no raked wingtips; which is a feature of the 764.

I think the planes wings wern't entering the building but were close though.....
So I think it's just scale.

Also, considering the fuselage length's with the paint job, yes it was definatly a 762 NOT 764

[edit on 3/4/06 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Has anyone on here ever heard of photogrammetry?

It's the process of creating a 3D model out of two or more stills of the same object. This is probably your best bet on trying to reach an accurate measurement.

If anyone is able to get their hands on some commercial photogrammerty software I'd like to see some analysis done with it.

The only problem is that most of the quality softwares are very expensive. The police typically use this stuff for analysing crimescenes...

I suppose all you would need is some stills captured from two different video cameras on the same object.

Anyone with some experience care to enlighten us on the process a bit?



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Also, look at thw wingtip shape:
www.aerospaceweb.org...
compared with:
ax2.old-cans.com... on the 767-200

Now look at the videos! and examine the wings.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jujo
Has anyone on here ever heard of photogrammetry?
-
If anyone is able to get their hands on some commercial photogrammerty software I'd like to see some analysis done with it.
-
The only problem is that most of the quality softwares are very expensive.


there's some free photogrammetry software on these sites - www.gisdevelopment.net... & www.photogrammetry.ethz.ch...

perhaps someone who knows what theyre doing could try it out and see what they come up with



[edit on 3-4-2006 by justyc]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by fm258
Sorry. Buildings don't just fall down. Even ones hit by airplanes.


I'm extremely curious to know if you have any proof of that. Seeing as planes that large were never purposely crashed into building before how could you possible know that?


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

Percision?

They flew into the tallest buildings on the east coast. How hard is that?


Where is your proof that it was flight 175 and flight 11 that hit the WTC??? I wont bother holding my breath for this proof.

Well, flight 175 and 11 were hijacked
On flight 11 the hijackers keep pressing the talk back button so we know what they're saying. The people on board use the planes phones and report the hijacking. Flight 11 never disappears from radar so they watch it as it turns toward NYC. A plane crashes into the North Tower
On flight 175 flight controllers tell them to be on the look out for flight 11 and stay away from it. Flight 175's ELT is picked up. Attendants (and passengers) on 175 report the hijacking. It changes course toward NYC. As far as that "precision" comment you made. The passengers don't agree with you. Seems they weren't flying that good at all
"It’s getting very bad on the plane—Passengers are throwing up and getting sick—The plane is making jerky movements—I don’t think the pilot is flying the plane—I think we are going down—...."
Brian Sweeney
They're still watching the plane as it enters NYC. Millions more see the plane crash into the South tower.

So you're saying that the two hijacked planes headed toward NYC which were flight 11 and flight 175 somehow disappeared just before they crashed into the buildings and were somehow magically replaced at the last second before crashing into the buildings?
1. Where did the other planes come from? And how did they appear out of nowhere?
2. How did 175 and 11 dissapear and where are they now?
3. Why would they hijack 175 and 11 then use other planes to crash into the buildings?



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird


1. Where did the other planes come from? And how did they appear out of nowhere?
2. How did 175 and 11 dissapear and where are they now?
3. Why would they hijack 175 and 11 then use other planes to crash into the buildings?





If thsi whole thing is as big a conspiracy as some people would have you believe then the above mentioned questions are not that hard to answer.

1. They were not civillian aircraft just some military planes decked out to look like it ( this is what thsi topic is about )

2. Some smart people put forward the idea that the pkanes wre switched in mid air (but im not sure i buy that one myself)

3. The were never hijacked the pentagon just remote controlled them straght into the towers and used their fancy voice manipulation tech to call families etc.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   
180 feet.

I used Paint Shop Pro 9 and turned the plane to be horizontal. I made the building to be 208 pixels wide.

The plane was 178 pixels wide.

With the plane being closer to the camera than the building, it would be bigger, but the image was at the second of impact, so this inaccuracy would be minor.

It does seem this plane is bigger, but I never bought into the switched plane theory.

Interesting none the less - very interesting. Guess it COULD be possible - not 100% convinced yet, though.

Is this the same plane that made a U-turn just south of Cincinatti and warped speed to its final destination?



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   
It's very hard to tell with such a low resolution image. The tower face is roughly 186 pixels wide. That means each pixel is about 1.11 feet. If your measurements are off by just a few pixels, it can greatly influence the result. And with such soft edges in the pictures, it's easy to miss the exact edge of the building or the wings. From my measurements in Photoshop, I get a building width of 190.52 pixels and a wingspan of 148.60 pixels. That leads to a wingspan of 162 feet. Not that far off, given the differing angles and distances.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join