IPBFacebook




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
I Need Photos Of 767-200's, At A Distance.

EagleEye
post Dec 22 2013, 09:51 PM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



Hi there,

For some important research that i'm presently involved in, i am in dire need of photographs of Boeing 767-200's at a distance of a kilometer or more, or approximately the same distance as many of the photo's and videos taken of the south tower plane on final approach to impact.

Obviously this is for comparative purposes, in particular as it relates to the apparent difference in length and proportion between a 767-200, and 300.

All i require at this point isn't more photos or videos of the s tower plane, but of any 767-200's at a distance, starboard and/or port side, nothing more.

Can anyone help me with this?

Thanks in advance for your help, it may be very important.


Best Regards,

EagleEye
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Dec 22 2013, 09:54 PM
Post #2





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



Sorry for accidentally double posting the OP, mods please use this one and delete the other, thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
billrti
post Dec 23 2013, 10:26 AM
Post #3





Group: Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 28-July 09
Member No.: 4,514



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Dec 22 2013, 09:51 PM) *
Hi there,

For some important research that i'm presently involved in, i am in dire need of photographs of Boeing 767-200's at a distance of a kilometer or more, or approximately the same distance as many of the photo's and videos taken of the south tower plane on final approach to impact.

Obviously this is for comparative purposes, in particular as it relates to the apparent difference in length and proportion between a 767-200, and 300.

All i require at this point isn't more photos or videos of the s tower plane, but of any 767-200's at a distance, starboard and/or port side, nothing more.

Can anyone help me with this?

Thanks in advance for your help, it may be very important.


Best Regards,

EagleEye
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
billrti
post Dec 23 2013, 10:31 AM
Post #4





Group: Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 28-July 09
Member No.: 4,514



If you look at the underside of this plane just before hitting the south tower, you'll clearly see that the wing shape is correct for a 737, incorrect for a 767 of any kind!

737s are used by the military as freighters and tankers, and are fly-by-wire...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Dec 23 2013, 01:44 PM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (billrti @ Dec 23 2013, 07:31 AM) *
If you look at the underside of this plane just before hitting the south tower, you'll clearly see that the wing shape is correct for a 737, incorrect for a 767 of any kind!

737s are used by the military as freighters and tankers, and are fly-by-wire...


The Tanker Transport was based on the 767ER series. So 767's are also a possibility - will look more at the wing-shape, but right now I"m looking at plane length and proportion, which is not a fit for a 767-200. And that's the main point here, and what can be proven a course from which there need be no distraction.

Anyway, thanks Bill for your insight and interpretation, doesn't help me though with what I was seeking.

I just figured there might be a few plane spotters in here who might have some pics of 767-200's flying at a distance of 1-2 km's. Such pics are next to impossible to find just surfing the net.

Can ANYONE help me with this? Thanks so much.

Best Regards,

EE
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 23 2013, 02:53 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Dec 23 2013, 01:44 PM) *
I just figured there might be a few plane spotters in here who might have some pics of 767-200's flying at a distance of 1-2 km's.



EE,

You'll get a quicker response from people at the airliners.net forum.

Most people in here are not "plane-spotters". And those who may fit that category, pilots (albeit very loosely), will only have close up shots from being at the airport in their own airplane on the ramp/taxiway/etc... and that is if they wish to pick up their cam and shoot a pic of an aircraft which is not all that interesting.

When Pilots drive to or from the airport, they are not thinking about taking photos of a rather uninteresting aircraft 1-2km away. Most are thinking about the bullshit they have to go through with TSA. And when driving home... most are thinking about getting out of their uniform and into something "warmer" (if you know what I mean... smile.gif)

Again, if you are looking for "plane-spotters", your best bet is to ask on the airliners.net forum.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/

Hope this helps...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Dec 23 2013, 03:40 PM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



Thank Rob I'll try that.

Btw, what do you make of the apparent difference in profile, in particular that of length and proportion (setting aside wing shape) between the south tower plane and flight 175 a 767-222..?

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Dec 23 2013, 03:42 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Dec 23 2013, 04:07 PM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,830
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Dec 23 2013, 03:40 PM) *
Btw, what do you make of the apparent difference in profile, in particular that of length and proportion (setting aside wing shape) between the south tower plane and flight 175 a 767-222..?


Based on my research.... it is something worth pursuing for those who have the time.

However, based on my knowledge of camera angles... etc, and all the other data/information on my plate which conflicts with the govt story, it is a "back-burner" item for me. Which is why it is great to know people like you... who will pursue it, and be objective.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Dec 23 2013, 07:50 PM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (rob balsamo @ Dec 23 2013, 01:07 PM) *
Based on my research.... it is something worth pursuing for those who have the time.

However, based on my knowledge of camera angles... etc, and all the other data/information on my plate which conflicts with the govt story, it is a "back-burner" item for me. Which is why it is great to know people like you... who will pursue it, and be objective.


I think I can show in self evident terms, just by comparative eyeballing, at that distance, in examining the best videos and photos - that it wasn't a 200.

It fits the profile I believe of a 300, but I'm not about to hang the evidence on what it WAS but only on what it quite apparently was NOT.

It's devastating to the OS when taken together with all your work Rob and that the P4911T.

The only "theory" that will be drawn therefrom is at it relates to the self evident proof of the CD of the twin towers, which due to their sheer height and the timed rate of destruction, is clear, and unequivocal.

The flaw in the NIST hypothesis, about collapse initiation occurring at the impact area precluding evidence of CD, which is on it's face too "preposerous and outrageous to even begin to consider in light of the "self evident" causal mechanism of their destruction - the plane impacts and fires, can ALSO be seen in the south tower plane itself, which severs the link to the O.S. based on nothing but objective truth and reality and scientific inquiry.

It's a cunning hijack of Occam's Razor, the false flag operation and "narrative", because it creates what's called a "honey pot" out of any questioning of it as "the truth", which is then attacked and ridiculed as a "conspiracy theory".

But the actual reality of it, reveals something else, a murderous hoax and a great Big Fat Lie like a "forgotten" elephant in the room who's right there in the midst of the whole history of it all, including current excessive domestic surveillance and spying and a curtailing of civil liberty and the right to privacy.

It's relevant in other words and cannot be ignored.

History therefore can't not figure this one out on a long haul basis, as people both from and beyond the experiencing generation looks back on it under a magnifying glass of near 20/20 historical hindsight, right to the actual occurrence of the event itself, both in terms of the destruction of the twin towers (and building 7), as well as, the south tower plane, which cannot have done what it did unless modified and thus remotely piloted, and in the final analysis, just by looking at the plane, not flight 175, not even a 767-222.

I think we just needed enough time to pass before we would come to see ever more clearly the nature of the Big Lie that is the O.S. of 9/11, but oh what a monstrous and barbaric thing the ugly lie at the heart of it, rendered clearly for what it really was in hindsight.

9/11 need not have "changed the world", not if it's nothing but a LIE and a hoax. The very innocence of the pre-9/11 world can still be accessed on the other side of the truth about what really happened. There's peace there, and all new possibility, even at the expense of everything that must go.

We must keep on carrying on, especially now.

Just shine the light on it objectively, as it is, nothing else is needed.

The plane was not flight 175, but a modified aircraft and not even a 200 but almost assuredly a 300, but all that's required is to prove what it was not and could not have been.

Sorry for rambling I always do that when it comes to 9/11 and this evidence.

Best regards,

EagleEye

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Dec 23 2013, 07:54 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Dec 24 2013, 10:28 AM
Post #10





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,158
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Hang in there EE!! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MisterG
post Dec 28 2013, 05:45 AM
Post #11





Group: Troll
Posts: 3
Joined: 16-September 11
Member No.: 6,278



This is the shittiest video ever. It SUCKS! And the dumb repetitive music added with the stupid hand writing with the pencil on the screen makes this video worthless. The content is crap. Good thing it is your last and final video
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Dec 28 2013, 06:27 PM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (MisterG @ Dec 28 2013, 02:45 AM) *
This is the shittiest video ever. It SUCKS! And the dumb repetitive music added with the stupid hand writing with the pencil on the screen makes this video worthless. The content is crap. Good thing it is your last and final video


What the hell are you talking about?!

If you don't have anything of value to contribute, then STFU.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Dec 30 2013, 06:54 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,985
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Sorry, MisterG has got a 2 week vacation for a chance at an attitudinal adjustment.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jan 8 2014, 11:41 PM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 445
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Dec 24 2013, 10:20 AM) *
I think I can show in self evident terms, just by comparative eyeballing, at that distance, in examining the best videos and photos - that it wasn't a 200.

It fits the profile I believe of a 300, but I'm not about to hang the evidence on what it WAS but only on what it quite apparently was NOT. [indent][/indent]

Just shine the light on it objectively, as it is, nothing else is needed.

The plane was not flight 175, but a modified aircraft and not even a 200 but almost assuredly a 300, but all that's required is to prove what it was not and could not have been.

Sorry for rambling I always do that when it comes to 9/11 and this evidence.

Best regards,

EagleEye


Dear 'EagleEye'

Visit youtube ------click here

You may be interested in viewing this video I have recently placed on youtube, which shows that the aircraft depicted in the original ABC video is most definitely not a true Boeing 767 200.

url = "http://youtu.be/Xk1F33Clj-Y"

Robert S

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Jan 9 2014, 07:48 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 10 2014, 11:15 PM
Post #15





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jan 8 2014, 08:41 PM) *
Dear 'EagleEye'

Visit youtube ------click here

You may be interested in viewing this video I have recently placed on youtube, which shows that the aircraft depicted in the original ABC video is most definitely not a true Boeing 767 200.

url = "http://youtu.be/Xk1F33Clj-Y"

Robert S


Nice try, and thanks for the PM. See your inbox.

What you've provided here, although it may be conclusive in your eye and mind, when evaluated, isn't really going to convince anyone or not very many and from a certain perspective, might be considered to be a type of misinfo or disinfo.

There are much better photographs of the plane which from the side, highlight the length and proportion to a much greater degree and those are the photo's i'll be working with.

So what i need are images of a side on view, from a distance, maybe even at a bit of an angle, doesn't even need to be the very same configuration to do a comparative proportion analysis, because it's THAT obvious that it cannot be a 200.

That said I have noted in the past the rear vertical stabalizer is seemingly too TALL as well for a 767-222, something which that image from that video seems to reveal, to a degree.

Thanks for trying.

What I really need for this is to lift images from plane spotter enthusiast websites and blogs. I'm apt to find what I'm looking for, there.

Anyone can take up this line of research though. Just be careful not to feed "the honey pot".

That's a whole other thread topic though, to explain precisely what i mean by that, but it's part and parcel of the 9/11 event, even an anticipated self evident factor in the planning of the op itself, where into the "honey pot" of every impossibility goes every conspiracy theory under the sun, with the OS APPEARING to be the only single consistent narrative capable of explaining all information, events and phenomenon according to the APPARENT use of Occam's Razor.

Thus, certain people tend to be drawn to the honey pot, and from therein craft every imaginable explanation under the sun. Some folks, like John Lear, and Morgan Reynolds, they are too smart to fall victim to the honey pot, so what they do, having recognized it, is to intentionally feed it with hypothesis that cannot be believed by any rational thinking person, or perhaps even men of renown and exceptional education and credentials can be driven stark raving mad when they fall into the honey pots of 9/11, of which there are many.

Think of it as a reverse engineering of the operational planning phase, where someone says for example - these planes will have to have leading wing edge strength, and a SPEED capable of breaking right through the outer steel curtain wall of the building and in the case of the south tower, since we'll need to hit the building lower down at around X floor level (= 700 ft alt.) and angle the plane to hit multiple floors (to help sell the cause of it's "collapse" earlier), so we'll need to hit after coming out of the dive a speed over 500knots, with a turn, running through an angle of the building - so as to maximize the fireball magnitude to be recorded by every camera and angle (as the shock and awe psy-op needed to create a suspension of disbelief as to the cause of the destruction of the building, which then "sold" the destruction of the other one a half hour later - which will generate about (scribbles some equations) a 2.5-3 G force

- Military (probably the Navy) guy, we're going to need modifications along these lines... (even though they might not know what the ultimate requirement is FOR)

to which someone, somewhere down the line, says - but that will appear to be utterly impossible for a regular commercial airliner..!!!

Don't worry about, says the op planner, it's just another honey pot for "conspiracy theories" - no one will believe it for a moment, and they'll think anyone who says such a thing is INSANE. We're CREATING history here as we go don't you see, why can't you understand that..! (said with supreme arrogance).

something along those lines...

The Honey Pot

A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association” – Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184

ie:
Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research:
“The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.”

This post has been edited by EagleEye: Jan 10 2014, 11:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jan 11 2014, 07:13 AM
Post #16





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 445
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 11 2014, 01:45 PM) *
Nice try, and thanks for the PM. See your inbox.

What you've provided here, although it may be conclusive in your eye and mind, when evaluated, isn't really going to convince anyone or not very many and from a certain perspective, might be considered to be a type of misinfo or disinfo.

There are much better photographs of the plane which from the side, highlight the length and proportion to a much greater degree and those are the photo's i'll be working with.

So what i need are images of a side on view, from a distance, maybe even at a bit of an angle, doesn't even need to be the very same configuration to do a comparative proportion analysis, because it's THAT obvious that it cannot be a 200.

That said I have noted in the past the rear vertical stabalizer is seemingly too TALL as well for a 767-222, something which that image from that video seems to reveal, to a degree.

Thanks for trying.

What I really need for this is to lift images from plane spotter enthusiast websites and blogs. I'm apt to find what I'm looking for, there.

Anyone can take up this line of research though. Just be careful not to feed "the honey pot".

That's a whole other thread topic though, to explain precisely what i mean by that, but it's part and parcel of the 9/11 event, even an anticipated self evident factor in the planning of the op itself, where into the "honey pot" of every impossibility goes every conspiracy theory under the sun, with the OS APPEARING to be the only single consistent narrative capable of explaining all information, events and phenomenon according to the APPARENT use of Occam's Razor.

Thus, certain people tend to be drawn to the honey pot, and from therein craft every imaginable explanation under the sun. Some folks, like John Lear, and Morgan Reynolds, they are too smart to fall victim to the honey pot, so what they do, having recognized it, is to intentionally feed it with hypothesis that cannot be believed by any rational thinking person, or perhaps even men of renown and exceptional education and credentials can be driven stark raving mad when they fall into the honey pots of 9/11, of which there are many.

Think of it as a reverse engineering of the operational planning phase, where someone says for example - these planes will have to have leading wing edge strength, and a SPEED capable of breaking right through the outer steel curtain wall of the building and in the case of the south tower, since we'll need to hit the building lower down at around X floor level (= 700 ft alt.) and angle the plane to hit multiple floors (to help sell the cause of it's "collapse" earlier), so we'll need to hit after coming out of the dive a speed over 500knots, with a turn, running through an angle of the building - so as to maximize the fireball magnitude to be recorded by every camera and angle (as the shock and awe psy-op needed to create a suspension of disbelief as to the cause of the destruction of the building, which then "sold" the destruction of the other one a half hour later - which will generate about (scribbles some equations) a 2.5-3 G force

- Military (probably the Navy) guy, we're going to need modifications along these lines... (even though they might not know what the ultimate requirement is FOR)

to which someone, somewhere down the line, says - but that will appear to be utterly impossible for a regular commercial airliner..!!!

Don't worry about, says the op planner, it's just another honey pot for "conspiracy theories" - no one will believe it for a moment, and they'll think anyone who says such a thing is INSANE. We're CREATING history here as we go don't you see, why can't you understand that..! (said with supreme arrogance).

something along those lines...

The Honey Pot

A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or 'dangle' that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association” – Michael Ruppert, "Crossing the Rubicon," p. 184

ie:
Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research:
“The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.”


Dear 'EagleEye'

Thank you for your belated reply to my personal message.

Regarding your post above.

I wish you luck: in finding an image of a Boeing 767 200 in the flight attitude shown in any of the videos that have been presented on the internet.

There is one thing most definite: any of those videos you may decide upon to demonstrate your 'thesis'; will not be the original footage that was shot on 9/11.

If you understand what you are setting out to demonstrate: you will come to realise that it is very important to find a comparative aircraft (Boeing 767 200) in exactly the same 'flight attitude' as that showing in the captured image in the footage you may decide upon.

My experience: there are literally thousands of photographs, and a vey large number of videos available: but two significant factors come into play: just what angle the aircraft in the video captured on 9/11 is at; and of course what angle the aircraft you are seeking to compare it with: is actually at.

The frame of the video I have recently posted has provided a number of key elements in this quest.

By the proximity of the "aircraft" in the 9/11 video to the tower: the angle of the faces of the tower (which is very close to the centre of the frame) relative to the camera can be determined, : by "trig" considerations; (note; not perspective considerations) the angle of the tower to the camera, and the angle of the aircraft approach to the south face of the tower can be concluded.
(It is interesting to consider the aircraft approach angle to those published in the Nist and the Fema reports).

The aircraft shown in the presentation is an actual model of a Boeing 767 200 aircraft: as in happens it is in the liverage used by UAL, prior to 2001: the registration number shown on the model is N612UA; the same registration as the aircraft that it is claimed hit Tower 2.

The model is a very accurate representation of a Boeing 767 200.

By placement of the model in the relative position of the "aircraft" shown in the 9/11 video, it has been possible to determine the angle of the model relative to the camera: when the image you see in the presentation was produced.

The angle of the aircraft to the camera is 40 degrees, which when considered with the angle of the south face of the tower results in an approach angle of fifteen degrees clockwise to north.

The horizontal attitude of the aircraft is level to the horizon (ground).

Considering the vertical approach angle over the number of frames it is descending in the 9/11 video (have not at this point plotted this) but it will probably be in the range of three to four degrees.

I have located a Boeing 767 200 in a video: where the aircraft is at very close to the same approach angle to the camera; and it is banked to 'port' at very close to the angle of the aircraft shown in the 9/11 video: which is twenty degrees.

I have chosen at this point not to include this in the presentation, as my intention has been to replicate the exact angle of bank shown in the 9/11 video.

As you will see this is the case in the presentation.

I see you have made reference to the difference in the relative position and shape of the vertical stabiliser: but there are many more things to consider.

1 Note the positional difference of the starboard wing.

2 Note the difference in length of the starboard wing,

3 Note the positional difference of the starboard engine. (the engine in the 9/11 video is far too long and far too close to the nose of the aircraft)

4 You should note: that the model port wing has been placed exactly over the wing of the 'aircraft' shown in the 9/11 video.

5 At this angle the port horizontal stabilisers near enough align.

6 Note the misalignment and shape of the starboard stabiliser in the 9/11 video.

7 Note the difference in the profile of the 9/11 fuselage. (it is far too skinny)

8 Note the root of the port wing, (it is very skinny not even half the width it should be).

9 Note the proportions and shape of the port engine.

This summary by no means covers all of the discrepancies.

What has been presented in the 9/11 video, is a very poor attempt to represent a Boeing 767 200: because this was obviously a key part of the official story.

Robert S

ps you may note if you pay careful attention: that the port wing angle of the model lies very much along the length of the wing shown in the 9/11 video.

the wing of the model was not subjected to any dynamic loads; which any pilot will tell you in the case of an aircraft banking subjects wings to stresses which cause them to flex upward resultant to the load put upon them, which in the case of the aircraft in the 9/11 video should show the port wing flexed upwards.

the wing in the 9/11 video is clearly not flexed upwards: what more evidence is needed than that! to show that the imagery in the video is fake?

with a wing root section as depicted in the 9/11 video, any pilot I am sure would not be confident of getting such an aircraft into the air: let alone subjecting to the stresses that a 500mph highly banked turn would generate.

The video I referred to earlier clearly shows the upwards flexing of the port wing in a turn at about the same bank angle, but at only a fraction of the velocity that is claimed the Boeing 767 200 was travelling at; when it is claimed; to have hit the South Tower.

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Jan 11 2014, 09:28 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 11 2014, 02:42 PM
Post #17





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



I'm not biting for reasons i explained, although i admire your efforts.

There are some photographs of the plane, it's not all videos, and there's a high speed still photo of the plane at about the same position and orientation as the video frame you just used, which is much much clearer, even distinguishing to a degree, the front windows. In that photo, taken from the hereisnewyork gallary of photos, although i went through them all not too long ago and cold not find it, the only really distinguishing characteristic that can be determined with any reliability, is the rear vertical stabilizer wing, which is definitely too tall for a Boeing 767-200.

for the record, i am not into the NRPT, which, as i described briefly amounts to "feeding the honey pot" with misinfo (if one is unaware of it) or disinfo (if they are aware of what they doing).


EE
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bmead
post Jan 12 2014, 04:50 PM
Post #18





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 26
Joined: 1-May 13
Member No.: 7,380



QUOTE (billrti @ Dec 23 2013, 03:31 PM) *
If you look at the underside of this plane just before hitting the south tower, you'll clearly see that the wing shape is correct for a 737, incorrect for a 767 of any kind!

737s are used by the military as freighters and tankers, and are fly-by-wire...



Damn you are right. But that jogged my memory of the transcripts, i don't know which one (station) but was wherever Nayspany was. And is as follows

Unknown: And uh, I just whipped around and we were just, we always watch the news, and a seven thirty seven hit the World Trade Center, and I was just curious at the same time if that was the aircraft. Last I knew they had a primary on it. Track was not squawking seventy five hundred but it was, ah—

Nasypany: Could be it.


Now the time that they got this, and said this (google the quoted part for the transcript in full) there was NO televised impact for AA11. And 175 was not hit yet.
Track was squawking ah..?
737 hit when that info can't be from the FAA else they would have had it right, can't be visual else they watched off a unknown cam.

But then "unknown" has never been tracked down has he. So no need to answer how he knew and exactly WHAT --ah? was.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Jan 12 2014, 09:39 PM
Post #19





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 445
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (EagleEye @ Jan 12 2014, 05:12 AM) *
for the record, i am not into the NRPT, which, as i described briefly amounts to "feeding the honey pot" with misinfo (if one is unaware of it) or disinfo (if they are aware of what they doing).


EE


Dear 'EagleEye'

There were a lot of people who were interviewed in the immediate moments after the towers first exploded.

In both cases their report was of a small aircraft, some of a small: commuter; military; fighter; Boeing 727, Boeing 737: impacting the towers.
In the case of the second tower the remarks also included: no windows; grey; black: with not one of them suggesting what they saw was an United Airlines aircraft.

They were the predominant reports in the immediate period after the first explosions, with even media people and people who were watching the first television footage stating it looked like a small aircraft in the case of Tower 2.

For the record, the 'aircraft' depicted in the presentation by the ABC news footage, descends at an angle of two and a half degrees for the last thousand feet of travel shown in the video. (i.e. the vertical descent angle was two and a half degrees, with the aircraft horizontal to the horizon {ground}.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EagleEye
post Jan 13 2014, 02:38 PM
Post #20





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 101
Joined: 18-December 13
Member No.: 7,630



QUOTE (23investigator @ Jan 12 2014, 06:39 PM) *
Dear 'EagleEye'

There were a lot of people who were interviewed in the immediate moments after the towers first exploded.

In both cases their report was of a small aircraft, some of a small: commuter; military; fighter; Boeing 727, Boeing 737: impacting the towers.
In the case of the second tower the remarks also included: no windows; grey; black: with not one of them suggesting what they saw was an United Airlines aircraft.

They were the predominant reports in the immediate period after the first explosions, with even media people and people who were watching the first television footage stating it looked like a small aircraft in the case of Tower 2.

For the record, the 'aircraft' depicted in the presentation by the ABC news footage, descends at an angle of two and a half degrees for the last thousand feet of travel shown in the video. (i.e. the vertical descent angle was two and a half degrees, with the aircraft horizontal to the horizon {ground}.

Robert S


Stop feeding "the honey pot"...

Best regards,

EE
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th September 2017 - 09:06 PM