ive read more but not all atm but so far it seems to prove it to me.
the hardest things to find are sometimes the more obvious things and this is the case with this.
Thanks marky 54. A lot of time and energy went into putting it together.
What's strange about it, is that it recieves very little comment at all wherever it's posted. It's so in your face in plain sight, that I guess it leaves people either incredulous or dumbfounded and at a loss to comment on it. Even sceptics don't want to touch it. It's like a third rail this aspect. I think people are afraid of being ridiculed or called a "pod person" or something..
I think I offered some fairly good insight in the comments I made on it in the 9/11 Truth Controversy forum.
But here's the top post evidence presented in a better context.
Quote:
Quote:
Proportion Analysis = Wrong Plane!
767-200 => A is less than B
767-300 => A is greater than B
Let's be clear about one thing. The plane which hit the south tower was not and could not possibly have been flight 175 piloted by Arab Islamist extremist terrorists. That's established fact, based on first hand, recorded in real time, physical reality. The plane that hit the south tower was not flight 175.
As we saw in "The Wrong Plane", the nose section of a 200 series, A, is shorter than the wing assembly, B. Whereas for the 300 series A is longer than B.
767-200 => A:B = 190:200 = 0.95:1, i.e. A is less than B
767-300 => A:B = 221:200 = 1.105:1, i.e. A is greater than B
While the NIST frames give us A:B = 20.76:19.91 = 1.04:1
(remember that these are Lower Limit Values, see Techie Notes),
in other words, A is greater than B
Therefore: This plane's fuselage is too long to be a Boeing 767-200.
Ergo: The plane that hit the South Tower was not N612UA. It was not Flight 175!
Open side by side images
http://letsroll911.org/images/fueljetspray.jpg
in a separate screen, size it, and then view it again, relative to both slomo videos, in terms of the end point of the apparent pipelike-structure on lower right side of fuselage.
Mark Burnback, a FOX News Employee, was an eyewitness of the 2nd Plane at the 2nd Tower, and while still fresh in his mind, only moments after impact said he saw no passenger windows on this aircraft. Listen for yourself.
Upon careful examination, Boeing refuses to clarify, citing "National Security"
One morning last February a young reader came into the head offices of LaVanguardia.es with an idea in his head that had occurred to him as he was looking attentively at the videos and photos on 9/11.
There are reader/discoverers. They're readers who get a chance to bring news out—provide their newspapers with an exclusive story. It is initiative which is gratefully received. These readers are efficient spontaneous reporters. That's what's happened in the case of the mystery of the plane which crashed into the WTC in new York on 11 September 2001.
The reader who walked into the editing room of LaVanguardia.es that winter's morning with photos under his arm was attended to by Josep Maria Calvet. The reader, who has asked to remain anonymously as R.R., asked the journalist to look hard at some of the details in the photos: two strange shapes which appeared below the aircraft.
This is how the reporters' work started off the results of which were published in articles in "La Vanguardia" on 22 June and 13 July 2003, and as I commented at the request of a reader, in the last article before the summer holiday season, published on 27 July 2003.
One function of the readers' ombudsman explained in La Vanguardia statutes is to describe the procedure the journalist follows in preparing, elaborating and publishing the story he takes up. The circumstances of this case beg telling the inside story of these reports.
Did "La Vanguardia" come up with this? How did the reporters find out about the mystery of the plane?
Two days after R.R.'s visit, the editorial office contacted Eduardo Martín de Pozuelo to ask him have a look and give his opinion on the shapes or bumps to be seen in the images of the plane seconds before it crashed into the skyscaper.
The office checked that the photos had not been manipulated in any way and that they coincided with the ones held in the newspaper's archives. It was true. There were strange "shapes" or "bumps".
Martín de Pozuelo set to work. He had a meeting with R.R. and Calvet at La Vanguardia.es head office. They spent two long afternoons poring over the photos, videos and all the visual material they could get together on the attack on the twin towers in New York. What conclusion did they come to?
They noticed evidence of shapes present on the fuselage of the plane. They couldn't tell what on earth it was.
Martín de Pozeulo has told the ombudsman that he did not think it was opportune to publish anything as yet on the subject. Data and reliable sources were missing. He says about these "shapes":
"It looked like an optical effect but as that was a totally subjective opinion I showed the photos to fellow photographers and asked them to give their opinion as image experts. They swung between the hypothesis of an optical effect or an added object, as I did. The reporters persevered.
They consulted another expert, Amparo Sacristán, an image and microelectronics specialist at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Her first appraisal encouraged them to go on in their investigation. Doctor Sacristán performed a digital analysis of the photos and concluded that they were shapes not reflections brilliance. The results of this new stage were surprising and disconcerting.
Xavier Mas de Xaxàs, who was working as a correspondent for the "La Vanguardia" in the United States on the 11 September 2001, searched for news, published or unpublished, which could throw some light on the matter. He was gathering information on the poor security at Logan airport (Washington).
Meanwhile Martín de Pozuelo consulted aviation experts—among them an aeronautical engineer who asked not to be identified, due to his rank. He spent all one morning analising the photos in the "La Vanguardia". His pronouncement reinforced the hypothesis of something added to the fuselage.
The two reporters conducting the investigation were not convinced, of course. They were sceptical. They decided to take it one step further to dispel all doubt. They turned to US sources. The Boeing company in Seattle agreed to have a look at the photos and give their conclusions. The photographs were sent electronically from "La Vanguardia".
For ten days, by telephone and electronic mail, the company responded whenever called by the two "La Vanguardia" newsmen, as the photos were studied by various departments at the company. Finally, from Seattle, back came a surprising, enigmatic reply: "We are not able to tell you what it is. Security reasons."
It was then that the newsmen decided there was enough to report to "La Vanguardia" readers. The text and photos were handed in to the newspaper's editorial office to assess whether to publish a first report. It was released in the June 22 issue. It caused an impact, even in the United States, where the translation of the "La Vanguardia" article was hung on a web site dedicated to 9/11.
The two reporters then asked Boeing once more: "Is there any further news?" Answer: "No answer for security reasons". A negative reply which does not clear up the mystery. And so they continue to investigate.
767-200 => A is less than B
767-300 => A is greater than B
Let's be clear about one thing. The plane which hit the south tower was not and could not possibly have been flight 175 piloted by Arab Islamist extremist terrorists. That's established fact, based on first hand, recorded in real time, physical reality. The plane that hit the south tower was not flight 175.
As we saw in "The Wrong Plane", the nose section of a 200 series, A, is shorter than the wing assembly, B. Whereas for the 300 series A is longer than B.
767-200 => A:B = 190:200 = 0.95:1, i.e. A is less than B
767-300 => A:B = 221:200 = 1.105:1, i.e. A is greater than B
While the NIST frames give us A:B = 20.76:19.91 = 1.04:1
(remember that these are Lower Limit Values, see Techie Notes),
in other words, A is greater than B
Therefore: This plane's fuselage is too long to be a Boeing 767-200.
Ergo: The plane that hit the South Tower was not N612UA. It was not Flight 175!
It should be noted, for the above proportion length analysis, that deviation from a ninety degree angle would only serve to foreshorten the length of fuselage to wing proportion. _________________ Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth.” - George W. Bush
Well there aren't many comments because most of us agree I think.
I'm very open to the tanker theory and always will be until someone can find a picture of the plane that shows windows (I've not seen one as yet). The fireball seems too "Hollywood" to be a regular, unassisted, fuel load. Also if the fact the planes hit data-centres in both towers is true, then the objective was probably to destroy that data, requiring a more substantial explosion to guarantee success. _________________ Make love, not money.
My comments were on your original thread on this forum.
Could I have links to the original pics highest quality without your red dotted lines. I want to sharpen up this analysis and your lines are too thick and a little inaccurately drawn.
I made a composite of the two photos in order to check scaling
The inclusion of the full plane composite will show any significant effect of perspective foreshortening or vice versa along the x axis (fuselage)
Reasons for limited interest in yr post
1) without proper scaling people will think result open to interpretation
2) far too much stuff - edited highlights would make the point much better
3) Inclusion of rubbish like this as reference link...
...clearly an artifact of lighting. Such gross bulges would have been seen on other shots. Not saying there definitely was a bump, just that that analysis is OTT & flawed. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
OK I got the photos from the NIST ste. Working on a new composite now
The object of the excercise is
1) To map the scale drawing reference lines onto the plane
2) To compensate for elevation errors (e.g. the wing-tips are higher than the nose) _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
I think the plane probably is a 767-200 not 767-300.
I was trying to make more precise measurements as per my original post. I decided to go the whole hog and map the outline of the scale drawing plans onto the photos. The rear half especially seems to match 767-200.
I will post my pictures and drawing once I have them organised properly.
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. _________________ Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth.” - George W. Bush
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... _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:12 pm Post subject:
Comment from Thought Criminal split off and dump threaded in Truth Controversies, on account of him being a muppet _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
All I know is that you can't just take a schematic and overlay it like that, since there's a problem in terms of scale. The analysis must be in terms of wing to body length PROPORTION, which was already done. Like I said the Salter brothers already tried that. It doesn't work, and it's misleading. I am willing to be wrong, but we've also got to be committed to truth and reality as it is. _________________ Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth.” - George W. Bush
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...
Never was a truer word spoken.
"Hey boy - let's waste a whole bunch of people, bury an aircraft, buy-off any witnesses and accomplices, then remote-control an empty duplicate into WTC"
"Why boss? Why not just remote the first plane with the people in it?"
"Well boy, because we'z the Illuminatiiiii !! " _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
No, it was a swapped drone. Nothing else explains all phenomenon under observation. You have to go by the reality, in terms of what was actually recorded, not what you THINK should have happened. _________________ Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth.” - George W. Bush
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:33 am Post subject:
Ignatz wrote:
rodin wrote:
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...
Never was a truer word spoken.
"Hey boy - let's waste a whole bunch of people, bury an aircraft, buy-off any witnesses and accomplices, then remote-control an empty duplicate into WTC"
"Why boss? Why not just remote the first plane with the people in it?"
"Well boy, because we'z the Illuminatiiiii !! "
Yes Ignatz: after all, who would believe that such an extra twist would be put into the operation? Why, one would have to be totally fruitbat to belive an intelligence operation could throw out a smokescreen to mislead people away from making acurate deductions about WTF went on: Illuminati or not (more sarcasm than wit that: you know I prefer wit)
Now you know how it goes: you can start your own thread down in critics corner and link to it on this one: if you want to make repeated comments, you know they'll just be split off and "put back in the box" _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
there must be something in this for iggy to suddenly come back and have a pop. whats so important here he feels he needs to hijack it rather start a thread in cc?
The above is the composite photo made up of two frames combined so as to show complete aircraft.
Overlaid is a plan of a 767 300 model
If the plan was scaled smaller so that the fuselage matched the picture, the right wing would be longer than the one in the plan. This discrepancy would only be possible if the fuselage was significantly foreshortened by a downward orientation with respect to the line of sight. However, if such a downward orientation were foreshortening the fuselage the nose end would be similarly affected. The wings, too, would be narrowed. As it is the wings seem to match perfectly.
A 3D modeller could take this on and show the exact orientation of the plane wrt LOS. This would be the ultimate proof. I think if done you would be disappointed. A pity, because if they had been sloppy enough to use a 767-300 we would have had them.
As your blog is on several forums, why not ask around and see if anyone can do the 3D modelling. If you are interested in the truth and not just being right, you really should also post my pictures too and ask for opinions. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
there must be something in this for iggy to suddenly come back and have a pop. whats so important here he feels he needs to hijack it rather start a thread in cc?
This is precisely what happens when NPT comes up, they swoop down on it like demonic, vampyric bats.
The above is the composite photo made up of two frames combined so as to show complete aircraft.
Overlaid is a plan of a 767 300 model
If the plan was scaled smaller so that the fuselage matched the picture, the right wing would be longer than the one in the plan. This discrepancy would only be possible if the fuselage was significantly foreshortened by a downward orientation with respect to the line of sight. However, if such a downward orientation were foreshortening the fuselage the nose end would be similarly affected. The wings, too, would be narrowed. As it is the wings seem to match perfectly.
A 3D modeller could take this on and show the exact orientation of the plane wrt LOS. This would be the ultimate proof. I think if done you would be disappointed. A pity, because if they had been sloppy enough to use a 767-300 we would have had them.
As your blog is on several forums, why not ask around and see if anyone can do the 3D modelling. If you are interested in the truth and not just being right, you really should also post my pictures too and ask for opinions.
What if the plane WAS pointing down (losing altitude) for that photo, and could you also do some proportion analysis work on the second photo I offered for comparison, focusing in particular on the proportions from the wing/body join, to the tail, maybe taking the chunk of space between the trailing edge of the wing (what's that shape called, a trapazoid?), including the section of rear fuselage, to the leading edge of the real horizontal wing, in terms of a proportional comparitive analysis? Do you know what I mean?
Quote:
Here's the same comparison yet again, from yet another perspective.
What if the plane WAS pointing down (losing altitude) for that photo, and could you also do some proportion analysis work on the second photo I offered for comparison, focusing in particular on the proportions from the wing/body join, to the tail, maybe taking the chunk of space between the trailing edge of the wing (what's that shape called, a trapazoid?), including the section of rear fuselage, to the leading edge of the real horizontal wing, in terms of a proportional comparitive analysis? Do you know what I mean?
The plane was not pointing down wrt the ground, it was perhaps slightly pointing down wrt the geometric plane orthogonal to the line of sight.
The second photo can IMO only be analysed by taking a model of a 767, orienting it to match the photo, photographing it, and then doing a proportional analysis.
3D orientation will change the relative lengths of the empty shape framed by fuselage, rear wing and wing as well as the angles. This is because the 3 framing lines are not in a geometric plane (I refer you to the side elevation scale drawing)
If you want to take this further, get a model of a 767-300 and photograph it from a scale distance at the same angle. Send me the pic and I will trace it.
Need to remember the upper wing in these photos is severely bent from the G-forces of the turn its making, may affect the silhouette locations/scales. _________________ Make love, not money.
Need to remember the upper wing in these photos is severely bent from the G-forces of the turn its making, may affect the silhouette locations/scales.
Work out the max bend before shearing. Photograph normal & bent. The reality must lie between the two. Better still, get a 3D computer model and try to orient it right over the photo. You can specify perspective as well as orientation to perfectly match the pic, or any pic.
You must rigorously prove it is not a 300 before we run with it as gospel (or even likely) since my analysis currently strongly suggests it is not. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
When you take a good look at that space I was referring to in the second photo, it makes you wonder, again though, doesn't it? Looks 300'ish. Looks longer, but yes, the right wing was bent up for that final high G turn. but how much difference would that make, if you use the wing root where it joins the body? Plus, you can barely make out the cockpit window area against the dark shadow side of the building, and so in that pic, the camera is at about a directly perpendicular position to the plane. Looks too long for a 200, that rear section of fuselage in that second pic..
Perhaps we could find a pic of a flying 200, at a somewhat similar orientation..? And use the wing root/body join to tail to make the proportional comparison?
Here, check it out at lower levels of magnification to see the orientation of plane to camera position, to south tower.
The plane was not pointing down wrt the ground, it was perhaps slightly pointing down wrt the geometric plane orthogonal to the line of sight.
Yes, it does in fact look like the plane was pointing down wrt the ground, since it was losing altitude through that final high-G turn causing the right wing to also bend upward (talk about high G's!).
And what on earth is that bulbous thing on the bottom. That's not a "wing root fairing" reflecting sunlight, and that I CAN prove beyond any "shadow" of a doubt. _________________ Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth.” - George W. Bush
And what on earth is that bulbous thing on the bottom. That's not a "wing root fairing" reflecting sunlight, and that I CAN prove beyond any "shadow" of a doubt.
Yeah the footage from this angle is really good support for the "pod" but then you watch the 2 clips of the plane incoming almost head-on and can't see anything... could've been airbrushed/cgi'd out I suppose. But in this clip it looks very like the "pod" is falling away like a bomb just before impact AND if you look closely, it seems to make its own entry wound. I can't see any other valid explanation for the strong shadow on the underside of the plane, no way its the engine. _________________ Make love, not money.
And what on earth is that bulbous thing on the bottom. That's not a "wing root fairing" reflecting sunlight, and that I CAN prove beyond any "shadow" of a doubt.
Yeah the footage from this angle is really good support for the "pod" but then you watch the 2 clips of the plane incoming almost head-on and can't see anything... could've been airbrushed/cgi'd out I suppose. But in this clip it looks very like the "pod" is falling away like a bomb just before impact AND if you look closely, it seems to make its own entry wound. I can't see any other valid explanation for the strong shadow on the underside of the plane, no way its the engine.
Its the shadow of the starboard engine IMO. I really think the way to prove these claims is get a model 767 (1 of each 200 & 300), orient & light it as per 911, then shoot it from the camera angles of the key footage with scale distance between camera and plane. Better still do the whole exercise as a computer simulation. Since the 300 model hypothesis is obviously so important if true, you should get proof positive to support it. Otherwise no-one will admit it anyway. So if you wanna make a name for yourself - do the hard work! In your case it probably means persuading people with expertise to join your pursuit.
AND if you look closely, it seems to make its own entry wound.
It's certainly no starboard engine reflection, and it's no wing root fairing either.
-----------------------------------------------
But even more interesting, is this:
Quote:
The "flash"
Quote:
Open side by side images
http://letsroll911.org/images/fueljetspray.jpg
in a separate screen, size it, and then view it again, relative to both slomo videos, in terms of the end point of the apparent pipelike-structure on lower right side of fuselage.
So even if the proportion length analysis does not prove the 300 hypothesis, it is still proven that this was not flight 175 the commercial airliner. _________________ Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
“We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth.” - George W. Bush
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
