The plane that hit the South Tower was not Flight 175

[whipzz]

Some while back, in an attempt to put a halt to all talk of strange objects attached to the underbelly of Flight 175, Boloboffin posted some stills from a NIST Interim Report. Well, I've seen loads of photos of these "pods" and one that didn't show them wasn't about to change my mind. Besides, as Demodewd quite rightly pointed out, there seemed to be a suspicious smudge just where the "pods" were to be found in other pics.

However, my interest was raised by the clear pictures, as all the others taken from under the plane were far from clear, and, on first inspection, the nose seemed rather long for a snub-nosed Boeing 767-222.

Now, I'm no aeronautical engineer, but by simply applying a pencil and ruler I obtained the following:

I have been as generous as is humanly possible to the opposition and made "B" as long as possible and "A" as short, but I still get a ratio of A to B greater than 1, i.e. the nose assembly is longer than the wing assembly. Whereas, in fact, the peculiarity of a snub-nosed Boeing 767-222 is that the nose is shorter than the wing assembly:


So, the plane that hit the South Tower could not have been a Boeing 767-222. So, therefore, it was not Flight 175.

Go to http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html and try it yourself.

Thanks for the clue Boloboffin!

[Gore1FL]

1. Interesting analysis

I am not sure the effect of the roll of the craft. It is somewhat bakced in the photo -- that may account for the .85 mm difference in your measurement.

It may be worthwhile to measure the length of the wings as shown. From the difference you might be able to get a good enough ballpark idea of the banking at the point the piture was taken to see if the .85 mm falls within the "fudge factor".

[SheilaT]

2. So if it wasn't

flight 175, what was it? And where are all the passengers on board it, including the ones who had phoned people on the ground saying they were hijacked? And whose conversations were cut off abruptly just as it didn't hit the tower?

Viewing planes from odd angles makes their proportions look off.
You're not an aeronautical engineer, and I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Especially since lots of other views of that aircraft striking the tower clearly show it's the 767 it's supposed to be.

[LARED]

3. Put a ruler up to the screen and measure these yourself.

Huh? This was measured off the screen. LOL.

Just a side note, in the image the jet is in a three dimensional space. The image it is being compared to is two dimensional. Anyone with basic trigonometry know this comparison is very flawed.

[k-robjoe]

4. Photo

Lared wrote : > " in the image the jet is in a three dimensional space(...)"

Sounds like it would be a good idea to find a photo of a Boeing 767 222 taken from straight underneath (and a tiny bit from behind?) to compare it with.

[RH]

5. a tiny bit from behind?

The plane is approaching the viewer.

[k-robjoe]

11. Hm

You would actually need a few pictures of a 767 222 taken from underneath. One from straight underneath. Another one a tiny bit from the front. A third one a tiny bit more from the front. Etc.

Then see if you can determine how much from the front the 175 pic is. And if it is so much from the front that this can distort the dimensions this much.

[whipzz]

6. Three dimensions...

four dimensions, makes no difference. All measurements were taken along one dimension, the X axis. And X(A) is greater than X(B). It's not the absolute dimensions we're on about here, but the relative proportions (and, no Lared, I didn't use a ruler up against the screen, that's a joke from another page).

As for the aircraft's roll, from the scale plan, you'll notice that proportions A, B and C remain constant whether viewed from above or from the side.

All unknowns such as roll, tilt, inclination, etc., or whether the still was taken from in front or behind, are projected onto the two-dimensional plane in the top photos. I.e. the back ends of the wing tips are not vertical to one another. Join these with a red diagonal line and draw three parallel lines to delineate the points you want to measure. Notice that the middle line touches the fronts of the two engines. Notice that the dividing line between A and B in the scale plans touches the fronts of the engines. Same line.



As for the "Pods", read these La Vanguardia articles from last year:
http://www.amics21.com/911
Slam them if you will, but were talking about a respected, mass circulation paper here.

[LARED]

7. No, it does matter

You cannot compare the images from the photo to the images in the drawing. It is a flawed method. One image is three dimensional, one is two dimensional. An accurate comparison simply cannot be done the way you are doing it.

[GliderGuider]

8. How so?

They're both projections into two-dimensional space. The only possible difference it could make is in perspective distortions introduced by the different distances of the virtual focus point (observer position) from the object.

whipzz' response is correct. Since we're not concerned with absolute dimensions, but rather proportions, the this would make no difference anyway. Especially since the photo was taken from street level and the fuselage orientation is essentially normal to the optical axis. Had the photo been taken from close up and significantly off the longitudinal axis of the fuselage I'd have a quibble. Given the situation, though I agree with whipzz that the comparison is valid.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. this is what LARED is talking about

www.cs.unc.edu/~lowk/research/writings/lowk_persp_interp.pdf

The process of comparing a 2-D picture of an 3-D object to a 2-D schematic is not as simplified as whipzz makes it out to be. The above pdf will suggest to you how complicated such a comparison is.

Whipzz isn't taking into account the angle of the camera to the 3-D axis of the plane. That's something I don't think Whipzz has the ability to determine.

If the camera is slightly forward of the axis, then that is going to affect the proportionality of the picture. The front of the plane will be slightly bigger, and the back part slightly smaller. Check out any drawing lesson on "perspective" to see why that is.

Until Whipzz determines the true axis of the plane and the relative position of the camera to that axis, his "proof" is nothing more than an exercise in propaganda.

[GliderGuider]

10. I realized after thinking about it a bit more

That the position of the aircraft does factor into it, as it's the wingtip-to-wingtip line that forms the baseline for the measurements, and lines drawn onto the image will necessarily have to be drawn (projected) at slightly different angles in order to represent lines parallel in two dimensions to the baseline.

Would that make a difference in this case? Enough to make a ratio of 1.07 (by my measurement) or 1.05 (by Whipzz' measurement) drop below 1.00? Given the fact that the perspectives in the image aren't extreme, it would seem unlikely, but I have been wrong at least once before.

I wonder if a more accurate projection could be done by taking into account the sweep angles of the wings relative to the fuselage centerline? It's obvious there is some minor perspective distortion, as shown by the fact that the baseline cuts the fuselage at other than a 90 degree angle. Being able to factor that out would help the accuracy, but I can't do the trig when I should be working...

[RH]

13. the perspectives in the image aren't extreme but

it is not so much a question perspective. It is a question of the angle of the view.

A few B767-200 links to illustrate the point:

http://www10.plala.or.jp/skynature/05-03%20B762NH.html

http://homepage1.nifty.com/islander/shimoji02.html

http://www5a.biglobe.ne.jp/~airroute/shi/004.html

[LARED]

14. Thanks for this great image

This is an excellent image to show what people believe are the "pods."

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Hey, this same angle is in Fahrenheit 9/11!

I distinctly remember seeing a shot where an airplane sails over the camera, revealing the underside. It's about a third of the way through, I believe, and the wing mounts are just as prominent as in this picture.

One more reason to recommend F 9/11...

[demodewd]

18. correction

What you believe to be pod(s). The actual pod(singular) is located on the one side of the plane with an obvious piping extention fore and aft. Your "pods" are one too many,dwarfed in circumferance and have no piping extentions.

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Pod nonsense

I'm reprinting a recent post from another thread...

90. And how about the impossible aerodynamics that would result?

We're taking it for granted that the plane could take off without landing gear (because the pod is obviously in the way of any landing gear).

Would it really be possible to fly any aircraft that fast (590 mph) with such an incredibly large bump on one side of the underbelly?

Maybe at slower speeds, but I can't imagine any plane staying airborne with the drag induced by such a large obstruction to airflow. The weight of the pod would have to be counterbalanced with a second pod on the other side - but no one claims there are two pods. If it could stay in the air, any banking manuever would tear the plane apart at those speeds.

More reasons why the pod is not plausible. What we're left with is an digital artifact due to video compression of a shadow, which doesn't even appear in the NIST photos, a pod out of a pixel. Give me a break...

The pod isn't plausible. The pod isn't possible. The pod isn't there.

[demodewd]

20. NIST photo is invalid nonsense

It's not a digital artifact bolo,it's on all video copies of of all the major networks.There are innumerable references to the original photos shot that day. What? Did all the networks tamper with their photos prior to publication? haha. Of course they didn't. Your NIST no-pod picture is but a large shadow and therefore does is no way refute the obvious. Your NIST photo is as presented by you misinformation.You continually refer back to it because it's all you got..and it is invalid.Nothing could possibly be discerned from that photograph. The fact that the plane was traveling at 590 is enough to dismiss the idea that it was a commercial airliner.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. You didn't deal with anything I posted.

I'll take that as a concession that you can't, and you consider the aerodynamic argument valid.

[demodewd]

29. bullpoopy

The pod is there and the flash is there PRIOR to the plane entering the building. The plane that waas used was a military tanker version of a 767. I concede nothing.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. You STILL didn't deal with anything I posted.

How can the plane fly with the pod? How can the plane not be torn apart at those speed when trying to manuever with that pod attached?

Deal with what we say. Simply ignoring the argument isn't real discussion.

Claiming "Mission Accomplished" when nothing has been accomplished is a very Bushian tactic, Demodewd. Deal with the argument, or concede the point.

[demodewd]

34. I did

I did deal with it. It wasn't a regular commercial jet,it was a military tanker. You identify the pod and the flash and work backwards. You don't presume it doesn't exist because your logic tells you it shouldn't . It does exist. And that's where you start.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. bullpoopy

Regular commerical jet, military tanker, small Cessna, whatever...

How is the plane going to fly with a massive air-dragging aerodynamic-ruining pod under its right wing? How's the plane going to maintain weight balance when you've got this retrofitted pod pulling the center of gravity over to the right - with no compensating weight on the other side?

Look, back in my graduate school days I worked at Fed Ex. Weight is a tremendous priority in loading aircraft. If there's too much weight on one side of the plane, the plane doesn't take off - it crashes.

How can any-plane-you-want-to-posit having that massive pod on one side of the plane fly?

Answer: it can't. It's impossible. Not in this physical universe.

How can any-plane-you-want-to-posit manuever at top speeds with that pod on one side of the plane?

Answer: it can't. It's impossible. Not in this physical universe.

Was there really a pod on that plane?

Answer: there wasn't. It's impossible. Not in this physical universe.

Then what's that pod on the picture?

It's distortion of a shadow from digital compression.

Deal with this argument, or concede the point.

[demodewd]

36. pod..piping..flash..

The pod is not a "distortion from a shadow from digital compression". You make up such crap sometimes. The piping is easily discernable and extends fore and aft from the FTS module.The pod is extremely discernable on most photographs. It casts its own shadow. It casts a reflection on the NIST photo. The flash that occurs prior to the plane's contact is a photographed reality. No doubt some retrofiting and weight adjustments were done to compensate for the probable FTS module(pod).

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Thank you for conceding the point.

You are completely avoiding my argument. It's quite clearly because you cannot deal with it.

No plane could fly AT ALL with such an attachment. It's completely unaerodynamic, there is NO weight adjustment possible other than attaching a second pod on the other side of the underbelly, and your utter avoidance of the discussion is quite clearly a concession of the point.

Wanna see what you're calling the point clearly? Go look at that crappy Pentagon strike video that's being hawked here on heavy rotation (along with Ruppert's upcoming book to cash in on the conspiracy market). Right at the very beginning of the movie, a plane flies up and over the camera. The wing joint assemblies are prominent because of the distortion and they look exactly like your pod.

A similar shot is in Farhenheit 9/11.

Your "pod" is a shadow. It's an impossibility in aerodynamic flight. It is the "crap being made up" here.

Deal with what we say, not your straw men. Dick Cheney and Zell Miller are quite good at knocking down straw men - we saw that last night. Don't be like Dick and the Zellraiser - deal with reality.

[MercutioATC]

22. I'd be happy to know how it took off without one landing gear.

Big slingshot?

[RH]

12. dihedral. n/t

[RH]

16. Measure the nose on this.

http://www10.plala.or.jp/skynature/09-36%20B772JL.html

The view angle appears to me to be similar.

[k-robjoe]

17. photo

I did. And the front part turned out a little bit longer than the middle part. Seems like a little bit of angle can do a lot of change to the dimensions. The point of whipzz would need to deal with this - and still present a pretty big difference - for it to be convincing.

( But your photo seems to be more from the front though. You can see "into" the engines in it.)

[whipzz]

23. A fine example of perspective RH

Yes the nose is longer, even though this is a 767-200, but it is also fatter. The camera is looking at the plane and is relatively close compared to the mystery plane. The nose is significantly closer to the camera than the rear, so the front of the fuselage looks wider (and longer) than the rear. Perspective at work!

Notice how the fuselage tapers down towards the rear, further away from the camera, and that the sides are not parallel to one another as in the scale plans at the top of the page.

Project two parallel lines onto our mystery plane:

Notice how the sides of the fuselage follow the parallel lines. This is because the difference in distance between the front of the plane to the camera and the rear to the camera is basically insignificant. To all intents and purposes, the fuselage is perpendicular to the camera, or close to it, (angle of view) and linearity is maintained along this axis. My figures stand. This is not a Boeing 767-222!

[Bolo Boffin]

24. But this is an image you maintain was digitally altered.

You say there was a pod. There's no pod on the plane in this picture, so you suggest that it was photoshopped in some way.

So how can you rely on this picture for such precise measurements? Are you quite sure that the fuzziness of the image isn't masking a subtle increase in diameter from back to front?

You can't have it both ways, whipzz. You can't impeach the picture as being digitally altered and then use it to prove that it doesn't match the precise ratios of a 767-222.

You still have failed to determine the axis of the plane and the relative position of the camera to that axis. Until you do, you haven't proved diddly about this plane.

[k-robjoe]

25. You can have it both ways Boloboffin

You can hold that the picture is not photoshopped, and if whipzz treats it like it is indeed not photoshopped, then you can attack him, saying that it´s supposed to be photoshopped. It works just fine.

About determining the axis of the plane : whipzz made a good point, showing that the axis is not like that of the plane in RH´s photo.
But to determine it even better... I have no good ideas. Does anyone.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Am I asking to have it both ways?

No. I think the picture isn't photoshopped, but is too imprecise to do the kind of precise measurements whipzz is trying to do. And I believe I've shown that whipzz's calculations are hopelessly simplified for what he's trying to accomplish.

But whipzz genuinely believe the photo to have been digitally altered, yet still maintains the photo is accurate enough for these measurements. Whipzz is the one asking for the two way, and that, like the hypothetical pod-laden aircraft, won't fly.

[k-robjoe]

31. Maybe whipzz is

holding two thoughts in his head at the same time.

Like :

1) Believing it was photoshopped.

2) Thinking : If it is real, it can´t be a 767 222.

Now let´s discuss if he has any basis for claiming number 2. And not get lost in your intricate ideas about what a "rational mind" can and can not think.

[demodewd]

30. there is a pod

There is a pod in this picture but it is barely discernable and possibly photoshopped to cover it. Once you become familiar with the piping extentions you are more apt to discern that the crease along the fuselage actually differentiates the fuselage from the added piping.

[RH]

26. Count the pixels.

In plaindud.jpg in the original posting of this thread, at the rear of the plane I find the width equivalent to 26 pixels, (give or take one or two for the sake of the blurred image). Nearer to the front the object is distinctly two or three pixels wider.

[MercutioATC]

28. That doesn't matter. The image would vary (as would the pixel count)

depending on the angle from which it was photographed.

[k-robjoe]

32. This is interesting

A possible next step ( I don´t have time to do it ) would be to have the RH pic and the 175 pic next to eachother, same size, and compare the meassurements.

If you got something like this:

RH pic : Width of back part to width of front part : 1 : 1,4
Length of middle part length of front part : 1 : 1,1

175 pic : Width of back to ... : 1 : 1,1
Length of middle to... : 1 : 1,4

it would be interesting.
( The numbers exagerated to make the point. )

But ofcourse, there´s more things to take into consideration. Like Mercutio says.

[k-robjoe]

38. Nope

Gave it a try (very unsientific), and it didn`t turn out like that at all.

[Zynx]

39. Your parallel lines are wrong.

Ohoto #1 is a good deal lower than photo #2. Hence why the lower wingtips simply do not match.

Since you drew the lines after the photos were placed like that, I conclude you are deliberately misrepresenting information, because this is hardly an easy thing to overlook.

[Endangered Specie]

40. A difference of .85mm.

Well, lets see, this is a 2d representation of a 3d image, unless the image was taken with the aircraft in the center and parallel to the camera lens can such accurate measurements be taken

Even worse, the particular image is not very crisp or clear.

.85mm, well, most pencils are .5 .7 or more.

They seem to have recorded phone calls of people on the flight, describing a VERY VERY similiar situation to the "real" plane that hit the 2nd tower. :eyes:

"hereas, in fact, the peculiarity of a snub-nosed Boeing 767-222 is that the nose is shorter than the wing assembly" - by how much?, please show photos of a schematic of a Boing 767-222 with said lengths labelled.


I would submit that anyone looking to disprove a well documented occurance by drawing lines on a couple frames of video in order to determine the ratios of lengths of two elements of an aircraft, with all the problems listed above, probably went into it WANTING to believe that said documentation was all wrong, and he was right.

"Now, I'm no aeronautical engineer" Boy is that the truth.

[MercutioATC]

41. That opinion won't get you anywhere in this forum.

But it does with a few of us.


Nice synopsis!


:toast:

[Endangered Specie]

42. Please elaborate...

"That opinion won't get you anywhere in this forum."

-Am I to assume this implies that this forum is full of similiar "conspiracy theories" and so-called "evidence" and the majority support it?

Im new here, I was just sort of browsing when I came across this.

[MercutioATC]

43. It was a tongue-in-cheek statement.

Personally, I like your analysis. Expect to get jumped on by our resident CT squad, however.


Look about a while and you'll find all sorts of interesting things here. At times, it rivals the Weekly World News (home of BatBoy).

I didn't mean to scare you off...welcome!

[stickdog]

44. Interesting. The perspective angle doesn't SEEM to explain this

discrepancy.

Keep plugging away on this. Up until now, your would be debunkers have been less than convincing.