9/11 Aircraft Speed - Response to NASA

I made this thread to talk about the actual velocity of the Boeing 767-200 that hit WTC 2

This thread is a resource to be used for discussing the 911 truth thread started by www.abovetopsecret.com...

I used this video source to calculate the planes velocity:
www.youtube.com...

I ripped the youtube video, converted it, added a time on the LL side and Frame numbers on the LR side. The video runs at 29.97 fps (ie seconds/frame = 1/29.97)

Looking at Frame 99: I can see a straight vertical shot up of the 767-200 from the ground, and I will use this frame as a reference.

Frame 99:


Knowing that a 767-200 is 159 feet 2 inches = 159.167 feet
and that the pixel measurement on the aircraft is: 42.38 pixels (may be off by a few)
We know know that 3.756 feet = 1 pixel

Measurement of size of plane/Reference:


Taking a look at two different frames that show the plane in movement,
comparing frames 92 and 98:

Frame 92-98 comparison (Frame 98 is at 50% opacity):


Measurement of distance between the nose's of the planes:



Between frames 92 and 98 there is:
92 and 98 there is a pixel difference of 27.48 pixels = 103 feet
92 and 98 there is a time difference of 6 frames = 0.200 seconds

This gives a velocity of 103 feet/0.2 seconds = 514 feet/sec = 350 miles/hr

Does this seem right..??? Seems like the plane was under power at the time when it hit the WTC 2. What is the official velocity estimate?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - 503 mph / 436 knots / M0.653

British Royal Air Force - 575 mph / 500 knots / M0.750

Federal Aviation Administration - 586 mph / 510 knots / M0.765

National Institute of Standards and Technology - 546 mph / 475 knots / M0.714

Federal Emergency Management Agency - 590 mph / 514 knots / M0.771

Those are some of the other reporting agencies and universities:
www.911research.dsl.pipex.com...

Flight 175 crashed into the southern facade of Tower 2 of the World Trade Center (south tower) at 9:02:59, traveling at approximately 545 mph and impacting between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.[13][20]

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 13-7-2010 by THE_PROFESSIONAL]

Interesting stuff. I'd really like to see how the others calculated their estimates. Anybody know?

I tried to do it my self using a different method, and I got a really crazy result. I'm not sure why....

Here is a real time video:
media.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is a GIF animation (slow):
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f0ab6b69d33.gif[/atsimg]

***edit***
It look's like the tip of the jet travels 159.167 feet in 210 milliseconds.

159.167 feet / 210 milliseconds = .758 (feet per millisecond) = 516.818 mph
**********

I used Cam Studio to capture Flight 175 video from YouTube. Then I used Virtualdub with a TimeStamp filter to add the millisecond timer. Then I added an Logo filter for the dimension bracket.

***edited to avoid confusion***

[edit on 13-7-2010 by NineEleven11]

I did it again with another angle:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a9fbf578cb4.gif[/atsimg]

***edited***

It looks like the nose of the jet traveled 159.167 feet from 00:42 to 00:62. That is 200 milliseconds.

159.167 feet / 200 milliseconds = .796 (feet per millisecond) = 542.727 mph

***edit***

Now watch this with sound...



It sounds almost like a sonic boom!

Compare it to the sound of this:




***edited to avoid confusion***

[edit on 13-7-2010 by NineEleven11]

reply to post by NineEleven11


Its not 21 miliseconds, its 210 miliseconds.
159.167 feet/0.2 seconds = 795 feet/second = 542 mph

Use this resource for conversion:
www.onlineconversion.com...

Yes some good work done here.

When you look at it the plane it was a 154 ft crimple zone like you have on the front of your car and the tail of the plane should had been going much slower by the time it hit the building and all the conetic energy released would have been dispated over a few seconds so it's not like to anyone can say it was a 100 ton ball of steel hitting the builing at 300-500mph and this is why i say next to no damage would had been done to the main structral core of the building.

Planes are just scaled up versons of tin foil planes made by kids except for the engines and even they are not that heavey.

reply to post by NineEleven11


Once again its 200 miliseconds, not 20 miliseconds. So both your estimates are correct but off by a factor of 10.

And so far I think you have the best estimates because you confirmed the velocity from two different angles.

And yea that sound does sound like a sonic boom, does anyone know the air temperature that morning? We can easily calculate the speed of sound that day.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by THE_PROFESSIONAL]

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Oh crap you are right! I feel so dumb. The TimeStamp filter I used allows to switch from 2 digits or 3 digits for the milliseconds. When I switch it to 3 digits it shows 210 instead of 21.

So, my first try was 210 milliseconds...

159.167 / 210 = 0.76 feet per millisecond = 518.18 mph

My second try was 200 milliseconds...

159.167 / 200 = 0.795 feet per millisecond = 542.05 mph

...faster than sound, what was I thinking?

***I edited all my previous posts***





[edit on 13-7-2010 by NineEleven11]

Did it ever occur to you that the image you're editing and manipulating as if it were your own personal plaything is an image of the exact moment of time that some seventy of your fellow Americans died? Instead of every pixel being some abstract mathematical formula translating into feet, I see every pixel being the size of someone's mother, or brother, or wife, all clinging to each other in tears knowing they had less than a second left to live.

Not so much fun now, is it?

I watched a documentary some time ago that discussed how a commercial boeing 747 cannot travel anywhere near 500 miles an hour at such a low altitude. It would disintegrate in matter of seconds, and pilot would have absolutely no control of the aircraft. The person in the video called up a whole bunch of professors and scientists and they all confirmed this.

Can anyone comment on this?

reply to post by frozenspark


More than likely a doc outlining the conspiracy so all these scientists etc would have been spoon-fed questions and don't forget editing either so i would take these interviews with a pinch of salt.

It maybe true the plane is not capable or designed to fly at these speeds at such altitude over LONG PERIODS but a one off, short, well placed dive towards the tower is feasible without the plane breaking in mid air.

The designers know that every plane will come under such stresses on occasion so these planes are designed to cope.

reply to post by tommyb0y


The problem is that the planes did not "dive," they were on about the same level for a long distance... And in the doc the guy tried not to spoon feed questions, he informed the scientists/professors that he is talking about the 9/11 attacks.

We all now should realize the gov goes to great length to make its point

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Between frames 92 and 98 there is:
92 and 98 there is a pixel difference of 27.48 pixels = 103 feet
92 and 98 there is a time difference of 6 frames = 0.200 seconds

This gives a velocity of 103 feet/0.2 seconds = 514 feet/sec = 350 miles/hr

The NTSB did the same speed analysis with the same video. (albeit, not from youtube).

It was posted on the bottom of page 18 in the NASA thread I started.

Originally posted by cams
Just for the record, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) also conducted video analysis and provided varying groundspeeds aside from the 510 Knot rada data.


NTSB Video Data Impact Speed Study UA 175

Summary
Using distances taken directly from the video screen, flight 175's groundspeed was calculated to be between 473 and 477 Knots just prior to the collision with the building. Using distances taken from video screen prints, groundspeed at impact of 504 Knots and 507 Knots were calculated. This compares to an impact speed of 510 Knots calculated from radar data in the Radar Data Impact Speed Study (AA11 & UA 175)

911depository.info...

[edit on 12-7-2010 by cams]

Originally posted by NineEleven11
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f0ab6b69d33.gif[/atsimg]

Is it me, or does that plane pass through the skyscraper in the same number of frames as it passes through the thin air?

[edit on 13-7-2010 by ATH911]

reply to post by ATH911


Thats because the wall is not a solid wall ,but is a lattice work of beams
bolted together in 30 ft sections

The plane did not penetrate the wall

It pushed it aside as the bolts holding the beams were sheared off

or did you somehow miss this?

reply to post by ATH911


Nope 5 for thin air and 7 for building.

reply to post by NineEleven11

Here is a GIF animation (slow):
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f0ab6b69d33.gif[/atsimg]

I'm sorry to bring this up:

But why in your animated GIF is there a pause in the motion of the aircraft from time marker 0.09 to 0.15???

Interesting to say the least!

Do planes pause in mid air these days?

reply to post by NineEleven11

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a9fbf578cb4.gif[/atsimg]

Your video here does it also:

From marker 0.64 to about 0.70 the plane doesn't move.

Why?