9/11 Aircraft Speed - Response to NASA

Video can never be an accurate form of speed analysis unless the camera was at a perfect 90 degree angle to the aircraft.

Anyone with basic 10th grade trigonometry knowledge will understand.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Video can never be an accurate form of speed analysis unless the camera was at a perfect 90 degree angle to the aircraft.

Anyone with basic 10th grade trigonometry knowledge will understand.

Yes I have taken trig, not to mention all the way up to calc 3, and differential equations and have a degree in physics...let the big boys play here go back to the playground.

We all know video is not accurate that's why i chose one in which the plane was directly above, and that slight angle will not make a difference.

Originally posted by theability
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?

It's because I didn't have the source video so I used the program called "Cam Studio" to capture the video from YouTube. Cam Studio doesn't capture every frame, it just captures as fast as your computer is able to.

The reason the jet appears to pause in both videos is because Cam Studio missed a few frames when capturing (or captures frames too late). Between 0.09 and 0.15 of the first video there should have been another frame. Since there isn't a frame, it just goes to the next one.

It may seem like it would mess up the measurements, but it doesn't. The time it takes the jet to cross the dimension braket is still the same, it just appears to pause because there is a missing frame.

To do these measurements I used tools that are FREE so that anyone of you could double check my work your self if you want.

You can download Cam Studio, it's free. Use it to capture video from YouTube, which is free (or use a source video). Then download Virtualdub, it's free. Then download the TimeStamp filter for Virtualdub, it's free. Then you can test this all out yourself.

My next post will be another measurement using a video which I have found the source file to, so there will be no missing frames.

To be continued...


[edit on 14-7-2010 by NineEleven11]

reply to post by GoodOlDave


It's a valid thing to calculate. It's called 'research' and, in this case, pretty well proves this odd idea that the plane was not going 'fast' enough, whatever that means, completely wrong and bogus. Thank you NASA, but yer an idiot.

Nobody here said it was "fun." That's absurd.

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
Video can never be an accurate form of speed analysis unless the camera was at a perfect 90 degree angle to the aircraft.

Anyone with basic 10th grade trigonometry knowledge will understand.

...the quote above is incorrect.

You must go beyond 10th grade trigonometry to understand that all you need to figure out the speed of an object in a video is the size of the object you are measureing, and the direction it is traveling. Then you can just measure how long it took for the object to pass a single point.

Although it is much easier to use a video that is perpendicular to the camera direction (to avoid dealing with laws of perspective), it is not always needed. Which is why I was able to do it from the video with the odd angle.

Now, I will show you the other technique, however, I will use a better view for your pleasure:

I used this video filmed by "Scott Myers":
www.youtube.com...

In the description there is a link to download the video source:
xenomorph.s3.amazonaws.com...

I did this using Virtualdub with a TimeStamp filter, and a Logo filter, then I cropped the size, and exported it as a GIF animation:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4f4bc08427b6.gif[/atsimg]

See, with this method I just measured the amount of time it took for the jet to pass the single point (the green line). In this case, it took the jet from 3:03 to 3:23 to cross the line. That is 200 milliseconds. I believe I could be off by +/- 10 milliseconds.

Since I know the jet is 159.167 feet long, that means the jet traveled 159.167 feet in 200 milliseconds. At any rate, this is basically the same measurement I got with the other two videos.

159.167 feet divided by 200 milliseconds = 0.795 feet per millisecond

0.795 (feet per millisecond) = 542.05 MPH

So I think the speed of the jet is between 516 - 545 MPH

If any of you would like to see the full real time video with sound and the measurements I just did, let me know and I can arrange that.

Good Day

[edit on 14-7-2010 by NineEleven11]

reply to post by NineEleven11


That is of course Statute MPH:

So I think the speed of the jet is between 516 - 545 MPH

Since we usually use Knots as a refernce for airspeeds in aviation, the conversion works out to a range of 448 kts, to 474 kts.

Your calcs, since they reference a fixed object relative to the ground, therefore represent an estimated groundspeed.

At the known temperatures, winds and estimated altitude that morning, the difference between KIAS, KTAS and G/S are minimal, so within a few knots we can assume the Indicated Airspeed, in knots, using those calcs (and they tend to agree with OTHER estimates, from other sources as well).

It is acknowledged that the suicide terrorist pilots well exceeded the published manufacturer's (and thus FAA-mandated) "maximum" airspeed of 360 knots (the "VMO"), but this was accomplished after a shallow dive, with engine thrust likely at maximum (similar to the B-757, AAL 77, at the Pentagon, as recorded by the FDR).

The KCAS from that airplane (which is operationally very similar to the B-767) was ~480 knots, and that speed was attained in just the last several seconds, prior to impact. Airplane at the Pentagon remained in complete control, until time of impact. It is logical to apply similar assumptions to this event, as well...not only fromt he calculated science and evidence, but the visually recorded and eye-witness evidence as well.


Combine this deduction with other events in recorded aviation history iinvolving large commercial passenger jets that well exceeded their published "maximum" airspeeds (up to, in some cases, approaching near to, even exceeding, Mach 1 briefly) and still were recoverable. BTW, the value of 4745KCAS (upper limit in the clacs above for UAL 175) is only Mach 0.736

Therefore, it must be argued that the many, many alleged claims that are made of "impossiblity" of the airspeeds exhibited and observed by the airplanes on 9/11???

Those claims are exposed as complete bunk....

You all can get technical with your high brow equations all night long but that plane was not clipping along at 500+ mph, I can tell you right now

"Therefore, it must be argued that the many, many alleged claims that are made of "impossiblity" of the airspeeds exhibited and observed by the airplanes on 9/11???

Those claims are exposed as complete bunk...."

The only thing which is bunk is the ludicrous story of three guys, who could not even fly a Cessna, expertly controlling a modern jet while traveling well beyond the manufacturer's suggested speed (at low altitude) and hitting their targets without a problem whatsoever.

Nevermind that they allegedly commandeered those aircraft with lightning quick efficiency, expertly navigated and flew to their targets, all the while managing to avoid the most sophisticated air defense systems on the planet.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Excellent job!!!

...repeatedly parrotting the official talking points of the "TM"....let's from now on refer to that as the "TMTP" --- to offset the strawman so-called "Official Story" ("OS") that was contrived by the "TM" originally.

The "TMTP" are very, very easy to refute...but, it is humorous to see them trotted out, and regurgitated nearly verbatim, over and over. Again and again.

Someday, maybe after when...TEN years?? Some creativity and originality will be displayed.

In the meantime, the FACTS are: UAL 175, a regularly scheduled passenger airline flight from Boston to Los Angeles was hijacked. Shortly after reaching its initial cruise altitude, enroute.

Not a difficult accomplishment, when done BY SURPRISE by a group of vicious, determined terrorists.

AT LEAST ONE on each hijacked airplane that day had had a great deal of practice, and achieved familiarity with the cockpit layoputs, and autoflight and navigation systems.

If I recall, I once suggested that, IF I had but just a few hours and appropriate training materials, I would be able to impart enough information of the basics to the poster, SphinxMontreal. I suggested he/she take some time, go to a nearby airport, and experience an "Introductory Lesson" (several such plans are offered, usually, in most Western nations) in order to get a real, hands-on impression to understand, better, a little more about flying an airplane.

SO, selecting a waypoint, and steering to it, was NOT beyond their abilities. It isn't all that dissimilar from using a modern GPS Nav system in an automobile --- just different, of course, but hardly difficult.

Once visually acquiring the target, a simple matter to steer into it, when one is determined to commit murder/suicide.
~~~

What i am vexed by is people's continued reluctance to acknowledge the OFTEN POSTED VIDEO, made by a Dutch TV program, and avaliable online for viewing as well, of the re-creation (THREE TIMES) of the Pentagon crash. Students, with far fewer flight time than the 9/11 terrorists, had no difficulty flying a full-motion simulator, and hitting the Pentagon --- therby, again refuting EVERY ONE of the "claims" and the "TMTP".....if it worked THERE, why not at the WTC? Seems very logical deduction.


But, alas....those "TMTP" litanies and tactics are alive and well....even IF they aren't really very well understood by those who keep repeating them.





[edit on 14 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
We all know video is not accurate that's why i chose one in which the plane was directly above, and that slight angle will not make a difference.

Then why is your calculation of 350 mph so far off from the NTSB analysis using the same video?

Originally posted by TiffanyInLA
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]

The NTSB Video analysis is very close to their Radar analysis.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
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?

Perhaps you shouldn't use youtube for your analysis?

[edit on 14-7-2010 by TiffanyInLA]

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"Therefore, it must be argued that the many, many alleged claims that are made of "impossiblity" of the airspeeds exhibited and observed by the airplanes on 9/11???

Those claims are exposed as complete bunk...."

The only thing which is bunk is the ludicrous story of three guys, who could not even fly a Cessna, expertly controlling a modern jet while traveling well beyond the manufacturer's suggested speed (at low altitude) and hitting their targets without a problem whatsoever.

Nevermind that they allegedly commandeered those aircraft with lightning quick efficiency, expertly navigated and flew to their targets, all the while managing to avoid the most sophisticated air defense systems on the planet.

And then somehow were never shown on airport security videos.

Credit card number and name for the purchase of the tickets? Or did they walk up to the front desk and pay cash...with airport security videos not running

reply to post by NineEleven11


Excellent work nineelleven, now you have verified the speed from three different angles and three different observers, and they all lead us to use your speed estimate as the correct one. I think my estimate was off, cause I was kinda eyeballing the front of the nose, i shoulda used a tip to tip method when comparing data, similar to yours. Excellent work

reply to post by Big Trouble in Little Chi

Credit card number and name for the purchase of the tickets? Or did they walk up to the front desk and pay cash...with airport security videos not running

Several of the terrorists used a computer at NJ state universoty library, William Paterson University, to book their tickets

"Investigators tracing the activities of the hijackers determined that, on four occasions in August of 2001, individuals using Internet accounts registered to Nawaf Alhamzi and Khalid Almihdhar - 9/11 hijackers - used public access computers in the library of a state college in New Jersey," Wainstein testified before a House Judiciary subcommittee.

"The computers in the library were used to review and order airline tickets in an Internet travel reservations site," he said.

On Aug. 30, 2001, someone using Alhamzi's account logged on to a computer at the school to check on travel reservations for Sept. 11, 2001, that had already been made, he added.

Wainstein did not identify the college, but an official with William Paterson University in Wayne said that shortly after the attacks, investigators

If had actually done any research would have found that out

One of my friends worked at the library - he slong with others was interrogated by the FBI ...