thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:04 pm Post subject: Thought Criminal commits Crime |
 |
|
| rodin wrote: | | Headhunter wrote: | | I do believe that the original proportion analysis, combined with the second photo, both show that it wasn't a 200. The Salter brothers tried the line drawing method also. Additionally, the bulge and the flame-flash also show that the aircraft was not flight 175. The problem with the line drawing overlay, is one of scale. |
I thought at first the analysis you presented had merit so I tested it. I was not looking to disprove. There is a problem comparing flat plans with almost-flat but not quite pictures. However, the outlines provide more reference points than do simple parallel lines. (The lines are not quite parallel in any case once you get down to accurate drafting)
The problem is as I described, not one of 'scale'. In fact both outlines are the same scale and also one of them fits rather well apart from the left wing which as I have said is angled upwards out of a plane orthogonal to the line of sight. In real life with Earth frame of reference the left wing was actually dipping and the right raised by a steeper angle being due to the shallow 'v' between the wings. This 'v' is more pronounced in the 767-200 further distorting the match between flat measurements and reality.
If you re-scaled the 767-300 profile so that the nose and tail matched, the wings would become smaller, and they would appear closer to the front of the aeroplane than they do now - ie they would be misaligned. As it is the wings and tail match perfectly (at least for the one wing viewed flat-on which is the best we could expect given we have a finite focal length wheras a plan has an infinite focal length).
It's tough to have an original hypothesis/idea shown to be in error/flawed, but that's what happens to 99% of them. If you are into research you must be prepared for labour to lead to dead ends far more often than not.
Then again - I could be wrong. My research is done in good faith and for free. Anyone can challenge it provided they do the maths (numbers or lines).
Regards
dB
PS After I posted the above I suddenly remebered something. The NIST images (which are better than the images with red dotted lines on them) when blown up by 400% clearly reveal engine detail - notably the circular air intakes. The engine fronts appear as ellipses 2.5 times high as wide. From this you can calculate that from the POV of the camera, the plane was tilted down going forward. This would have the effect of lengthening the nose section and shrinking the tail section relative to the wing section. This makes the nose appear relatively slightly longer in the photo than it really is. Perhaps this is what makes it look like a 300 mode? (Also explains why the 300 tail seemed so ridiculously much longer than the photo).
Of course this does not prove that flight 175 hit. Just that the perps, if they did swap, were not so cavalier as to use a different model plane...
Even Chutzpah has its limits... |
This Rodin guy is the biggest freaking shill on here. F-ucking poisonous. |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
