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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the plane shown was in what is referred to as a skidding turn. If you look at the wings the tips are curved upward because of the loads applied to them. If you are measuring these wings with either a scale or dial calipers then you are going to get an incorrect measurement. It is not unusual for aircraft wings to deflect several feet up or down depending on the situation. It looks to me like these wings are in an extreme deflection. Allowing for the flexed wings, perspective and other varibles it would be easy to justify the error quoted of 16 feet. Photogrammetry software would be of little use here as it requires high resolution pictures with known scale elements in the photographs.




posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by godservant
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?


It was just a line of thought. Looking at the picture of impact, it seemed to me the plane was bigger. I am not trying to promote anything by this, its just a small piece of a big puzzle.

One thing I am sure of, and that is we were lied to about 9/11 and because of the governments actions (conficating video, removing evidence, no investigation for more than a year etc. etc.) if not for the anomolies, there would be no 9/11 truth movement.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by manta

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.




1. What type of military planes?
2. Some smart people....care to enlighten us?
3. Why don't you make a sign and go stand on the corner of Broadway and 42nd, claiming this garbage. I think the surviving members of the families would care to differ with you, along with the NYPD, FDNY and PA.


There was no 'confiscation' of evidence, that is what it is, evidence. I am sure in time it will be released but there are current legal battles where it may be needed and this evidence is sealed. This is common, and not out of the ordinary.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
That isn't the point of impact in that first picture (for those who said it was)...

Anyway here's a better pic:
nineeleven2001.t35.com...

Also look at the explosion

Don't you think if it was a bigger plane, the side it crashed into would have seen a bigger explosion?

And as has been shown before, the wings and body of a 767-400 don't match up to what hit the WTC
767


Flight 175
www.questionsquestions.net...


...you can also see the United symbol
nineeleven2001.t35.com...



[edit on 3-4-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71

Originally posted by manta

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.




1. What type of military planes?
2. Some smart people....care to enlighten us?
3. Why don't you make a sign and go stand on the corner of Broadway and 42nd, claiming this garbage. I think the surviving members of the families would care to differ with you, along with the NYPD, FDNY and PA.


There was no 'confiscation' of evidence, that is what it is, evidence. I am sure in time it will be released but there are current legal battles where it may be needed and this evidence is sealed. This is common, and not out of the ordinary.


You try and sound so authoritative. Where is the security videos of the pentagon crash? They weren't confiscated?? Oh...I see, they were not confiscated, they were stolen.

Yes, there are some very smart people involved in the truth movement.

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

Let the truth be known, show ALL evidence and ALL videos. This can't happen because it will implicate the US Government.

19 hijackers with boxcutters?? Pffffttttttttttt.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:14 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?
...



Tools don't make a difference, please, that's like saying you can't uncover a buried object without a bulldozer, it may be less sweaty than using a shovel, but the shovel still works.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Why do some people have to make this conspiracy so far-fetched? I think EVERYONE can agree that there's something fishy going on, but when you start saying that the planes were switched, or that it was a hologram, or that it was this and that... That's what makes the few of us that want the case to be re-opened cringe, because how credible will I be saying that military craft were switched with the commercial planes, and the victims that haven't appeared are actually living in the secret witness program on a beach Sunny California, or that the plane was holographic and explosives in the building caused the explosions... Even though parts of the planes were found



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkHelmet
Why do some people have to make this conspiracy so far-fetched? I think EVERYONE can agree that there's something fishy going on, but when you start saying that the planes were switched, or that it was a hologram, or that it was this and that... That's what makes the few of us that want the case to be re-opened cringe, because how credible will I be saying that military craft were switched with the commercial planes, and the victims that haven't appeared are actually living in the secret witness program on a beach Sunny California, or that the plane was holographic and explosives in the building caused the explosions... Even though parts of the planes were found


Who here has said anything about holograms??? I certainly havent, and I've not seen anyone else either.

The fact is the planes COULD have been switched....I am NOT saying they were, but it IS POSSIBLE. I don't have a problem with people exploring possibilities, why should you? If there is no merit, it will fade away. Conspiracy goes away when there is sufficient evidence to debunk it, that has not happened here.

Here is some more pictures that show POSSIBLY a different plane hitting South Tower.







The scale of the plane sure makes it look more like a -300 series and not a -200 series. I expect more flames coming my way, but I honestly don't care.

Because something so devious has taken place, it automatically makes people think it couldn't happen. Hitler sets the Reichstag Bld on fire, blames a patsy and seizes more control. Gulf of Tonkin was designed to get us involved militarily in Vietnam. Operation Northwoods was a secret military operation that would hijack airplanes, kill innocent Americans, cause all kinds destruction and mayhem, and then blame Cuba...there are others that I will spare you of. Point is it COULD happen, it HAS HAPPENED and my opinion is it HAPPENED AGAIN on 9/11/01.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by fm258
Who here has said anything about holograms??? I certainly havent, and I've not seen anyone else either.


From another ongoing thread... just felt like adding it to the post for some reason.


The fact is the planes COULD have been switched....I am NOT saying they were, but it IS POSSIBLE. I don't have a problem with people exploring possibilities, why should you?


I don't have a problem exploring possibilities at all. I'm highly open minded... that is to things that might have actually happened. I have no problem saying it COULD have happened, but I can also say that it makes no sense really. If the government wanted to do this personally, do you think they really care about a few hundred people on a plane in this country of millions? if anything, they could use that tactic to get more people behind them in the war.


Because something so devious has taken place, it automatically makes people think it couldn't happen.


So just because I am trying to persuade and explain as to why the planes were not switched that I'm denying the entire thing happened? I believe that our government was involved 100%, whether they just knew and let it happen, or if the orcheastrated it themselves, but switching planes in my opinion, and apparently others, is completely bogus. There is a large amount of PROOF, not evidence, that they were the same flights, and some people have already posted some of that proof, so I'm not going to bother.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
[Mod Edit: removed unecessary quote of the entire previous post]

I am not suggesting you personally have a problem with exploring possibilities, but many here are. Its worth taking a look at IMO. If there are NO FACTS supporting the 'switch' it will fade away. There IS atleast some evidence to support a 'switch', the photos I just posted showing the different scales of the -200 and -300 should be taken seriously, no matter how improbable they seem at first. If you dont want to take part in the debate, thats understandable, but we need as many eyes and brains looking at EVERYTHING, you never know when the silver bullet will make this all a slam dunk.

P.S. I believe WTC 7 is the slam dunk already, it just isn't getting enough media.

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.
Please check your u2u inbox!

[edit on 4/3/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   
well i looked at it, its interesting but youneed a better picture because its too hard in my opinion to measure the wingspan accurately, though i did find it larger than it should be also.
i got 180

need a better picture, if thats possible



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Let's go over this:

The Conspiracy:

The claim stated that the plane that hit the South Tower was swapped in mid-flight with military plane that crashed into the tower

Where Did it Come From?

The theory started in 2003 on websites in England and Spain. The hoax got much bigger in 2004, just after the International Inquiry into 9/11 in San Francisco and as the "election" campaign entered full steam.

The Problem?

The website letsroll911 started up "new video footage" claiming to show a missile fired from the plane into the South Tower, which was the spark to claiming it was a military claim. However, they did not present any documentation to prove that this footage was not merely manipulated with software such as Photoshop. Also, how does Brand New video evidence magically show up 3 years after the attack?

The second crash was seen and photographed by countless people from every possible view. If there had been a missile fired at the WTC, or an anomaly on the plane that suggested plane swapping, it would have been revealed shortly afterwards.

The "bulge" claim is easy to explain. It was not added to the photos of Flight 175, because it was merely a carefully chosen image of the normal "fairing" connecting the wing to the fuselage, which you can find on a numerous amount of aircraft photographs.

Picture of the "Bulge"




The Film "911: In Plane Site" admitted that the "bulge" was really just a picture of the fairing. The above picture was presented by them showing it was just that.

None of the people that have ever suggested why the planes were switched explained why no one noticed the bulge and/or missile until they pointed it out.

As for Picture Measurements

I took my own pictures. I cut two pieces of paper... one 3 inches, one 4 inches. I took a picture with them by a ruler to show that they are these measurements. I then place the 3 ich paper on some books totalling about 6-7 inches or so, what I think is the proper distance from the Wings to the building. Here's the pictures, explanaions below them:







In the first picture, due to the computer and picture sizing, the 3 inch is about 4.5, and the 4 inch is about 5.5, so both are still in an equal ratio. Now if you measure the second picture, where the 3 inch piece of paper is CLOSER to you, you will see that the two pieces of paper are the EXACT SAME SIZE by measuring on screen, which gives you 1.8 inches. Hopefully this explains as to why the picture measurements are inconclusive, and must be disregarded, as the measurements cannot be made accurately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is my argument against a switched plane. I don't think I need to post anymore here, unless I find more evidence. I will welcome any criticism of my post, and will welcome any evidence for your case.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkHelmet
Let's go over this:


In the first picture, due to the computer and picture sizing, the 3 inch is about 4.5, and the 4 inch is about 5.5, so both are still in an equal ratio. Now if you measure the second picture, where the 3 inch piece of paper is CLOSER to you, you will see that the two pieces of paper are the EXACT SAME SIZE by measuring on screen, which gives you 1.8 inches. Hopefully this explains as to why the picture measurements are inconclusive, and must be disregarded, as the measurements cannot be made accurately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is my argument against a switched plane. I don't think I need to post anymore here, unless I find more evidence. I will welcome any criticism of my post, and will welcome any evidence for your case.


I think it was agreed to that the initial part of this thread was not scientific enough, I even agreed myself with the logic. No need to go through proving what perspective is, we are all on the same page there.

But after that argument was disposed of another one came up in this form....



There is no perspective to deal with here, its all right there....and as for the 'pod' theorists, I am not one who supports that, although I can see why they might.

Question now is why is the 'nose' of this plane longer than it should be for a -200 series?



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   
More 9/11 conspiracy Bravo Sierra.

You are looking at the Tower at an angle, therefore the 208 = 2.2 inches aint relevant.

Getting measurements from pix like this aint it exactly scientific especially the way it has been utilised here.

Look guys the US was caught with its pants down. It had a major loss of life on its own soil by a foreign force. Welcome to the club.

Get real. Stop looking for "the truth". The accept the obvious and get on with your life. Have some beers, give your lady some loving or something.

You got so many breaths on this planet dont waste them trying to prove the unprovable.

Jeeze. You guys. The authorities must look at these sites and have a good laugh. They now know how much they can cover up cheaply. You guys and your BS do it for nothing.


Just my 2 cents.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
I know that some of those arguments had been clarified, i just felt the need to add them to make the post "Whole". And yes, i realize that the new set of pictures was put up. Have you yourself measured these to see their merit? From all the different ways I've done my math to see which measurements are closest, I still get the 200 series comingout closest. The numbers still aren't as accurate as I like them, and as already discussed this is because they are taken from a photograph. And since the measurements will be off slighlty, it could cause confusion for the two planes.

When measured, the nose to wing is about 2.65 cm, and on the other 2.8. only a difference of .15, so any inaccuracies may make it seem as though the planes noses are either too big or too small, and in this case makes it seem to large. I don't really have any way to prove this unless you yourself has had experience doing this kind of work before, which I've had to in Calculus and Architecture.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I dont need to measure the picture to see the nose of the plane in the picture is longer than it 'should' be with regard to the -200 series.

Its odd that the -300 series has a longer nose than the -200 and the picture, however imperfect shows the larger of two descriptions for a 767. Is this 'proof' or am I 'promoting' this as a definite? No, I am only looking at this as a possibility, and perhaps someone will debunk it with something other than 'its not scientifically perfect' to make this assumption.

I applaud those willing to have an honest debate, and those that have no position other than 'this is all absurb' can take a hike.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by fm258
I applaud those willing to have an honest debate, and those that have no position other than 'this is all absurb' can take a hike.


despite whether or not this was directed to me, I see clearly that as long as I'm disagreeing, you're going to blow it off as if I'm just saying it's not scientific. I've done my own measurements, all coming out to show it's the 200, i made posts attempting to show my point of view. Perhaps posting somethign a little more in depth than just a picture. Maybe show some of you're own work and explain it. If it were as easy as saying, this picture looks weird, so it must be true... then we wouldn't be discussing this right now.

Also, how can you "see" that the nose is much longer when comparing an actual picture to a drawing? I have 3 AF bases right here in Colroado Springs... and a large airport... I've seen my fair share of aircraft, and from what I've seen I can confidentaly say that this is a 200 series plane.



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
[Mod Edit: removed unecessary quote of the entire previous post]

You quote the only part of my post that wasn't directed towards you, I feel that you are giving an honest debate on this topic, no sarcasm at all.

That being said, there is evidence in pictures and video. If there was only eyewitness reports, you would want pictures, if not video. I am not an expert in aviation, but I am an expert in the field of precision metal. How does that qualify me as an expert here? It doesn't, but I can observe and draw theories from what evidence exists. If my ideas dont hold any water, fine, I am not married to anything other than the big lie.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: Check Your U2U Inbox - Click Here.

[edit on 4/3/2006 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarkHelmet
Why do some people have to make this conspiracy so far-fetched? I think EVERYONE can agree that there's something fishy going on, but when you start saying that the planes were switched, or that it was a hologram, or that it was this and that... That's what makes the few of us that want the case to be re-opened cringe, because how credible will I be saying that military craft were switched with the commercial planes, and the victims that haven't appeared are actually living in the secret witness program on a beach Sunny California, or that the plane was holographic and explosives in the building caused the explosions... Even though parts of the planes were found


Some things that are dramatic seem far fethched at first. I try to look at everyones ideas and weed out the impossible. After that ANYTHING is possible. And because the government has obfuscated the investigation of 9/11 at every single turn they themselves have created the conspiracy theories. The plan WAS NOT executed perfectly, and they did not account for how powerful the internet is as a tool for those who are skeptical.

I will offer another version of 9/11 here... www.saunalahti.fi...

It makes more sense than a lot of other theories and I would like to see if it passes any muster here.

Edit: spelling

[edit on 3-4-2006 by fm258]



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by manta

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.



What military 767s? The US never bought 767s for its military until well AFTER 9/11, and then they only bought the one for the E-10 which won't be in service until at least 2007-8. The KC-767 would have some obvious design changes to the fuselage, and even THAT didn't fly until May 2005. And the USAF isn't currently getting them.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join