Fl175 Cruise Speed, Could It Be? Options

[Factfinder Gener...]

My vantage point angle might be a little off, but we don't know the exact angle of the approach, do we?  We do know that the plane didn't hit the tower head on, it came in from the "right" (as defined by the vantage point of the WB11 clip), as is evident from all of the crash footage.

Yes we do know the angle of approach (to an accurate enough degree) as I understand things. NTSB records it. the various videos are meant to have done, LOL. NIST has some graphics. Purdue has it's alleged approach as per data etc. etc. It is as far as I understand, a descending path just slightly east of NNE. it didn't come in from the right as such. It was just off of being perpendicular.

The WABC 7 clip, (which is what I'm presuming you meant to refer to?) only shows the plane flying right to left, i.e. coming in from the right, because of the vastly different camera angle the clip is being shot fom. The plane is actually, according to perspective, advancing to the tower's facing wall in a nearly perpendicular angle. But I'm sure you understand that.

(IMG:http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/nist1-2d/7-63_wtc1,2-impact-damage.jpg)

NIST WTC2 Crash gif

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 20 2007, 05:29 PM

[Sanders]

WB 11 gif

WABC 7 gif

Darn, I wish I could embed these gifs of the two vids so they could run concurrently, one on top of the other.  That might illustrate something.  Can anyone do this for me? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Sorry, can't help you there.

I redid this more rigorously, using the Empire State as the vantage point, and "reverse engineered" it.

I looked at the WB11 footage, and counted 7 seconds between when the plane enters from the right side of the frame and impact. The plane is allegedly doing a little over 500 mph. 500 mph translates to .1389 miles per second, I rounded it off to .14 (since the plane was doing better than 500 mph), and multiplied that by 7 (since the plane enters the WB11 shot 7 seconds before impact), which gave me .98 miles. Very convenient, we can guestimate pretty well that the plane enters the frame of the WB11 clip when it is about one mile out.

I used the width of the trade towers as a reference and estimated the width of the field of view (yellow lines, light blue ocean in between as before), and drew a green line to represent the flight path indicated by the WB11 clip:

(IMG:http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/5513/rigorousyc1.jpg)

Can anyone say that this green line CANNOT reflect the alleged flight path of whatever hit the South Tower? Does the angle (as it intersects the towers) of this green line not agree well with the above diagram provided by NIST (as if I trust anything that NIST puts out..) ?

[Factfinder Gener...]

WB 11 gif

WABC 7 gif

Darn, I wish I could embed these gifs of the two vids so they could run concurrently, one on top of the other.  That might illustrate something.  Can anyone do this for me? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Sorry, can't help you there.

I redid this more rigorously, using the Empire State as the vantage point, and "reverse engineered" it.

I looked at the WB11 footage, and counted 7 seconds between when the plane enters from the right side of the frame and impact. The plane is allegedly doing a little over 500 mph. 500 mph translates to .1389 miles per second, I rounded it off to .14 (since the plane was doing better than 500 mph), and multiplied that by 7 (since the plane enters the WB11 shot 7 seconds before impact), which gave me .98 miles. Very convenient, we can guestimate pretty well that the plane enters the frame of the WB11 clip when it is about one mile out.

I used the width of the trade towers as a reference and estimated the width of the field of view (yellow lines, light blue ocean in between as before), and drew a green line to represent the flight path indicated by the WB11 clip:

(IMG:http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/5513/rigorousyc1.jpg)

Can anyone say that this green line CANNOT reflect the alleged flight path of whatever hit the South Tower? Does the angle (as it intersects the towers) of this green line not agree well with the above diagram provided by NIST (as if I trust anything that NIST puts out..) ?

A truly excellent job, Sanders. I double checked everything and all your great work holds up splendidly. Now I also calculated the angle of approach as per NTSB (not NIST, of course) who used three sets of Radar Data (including JFK approach) to plot the alleged plane's flight path. The angle measured close to 35 degrees or what is known as North East by North as opposed to your reasonably accurate display of WB 11's angle of approach which measured close to 45 degrees or North East.

I admit I imagined that the WB 11 flight path would have been more along the lines of East North East but nevertheless I feel that a 10 degree differential from official flight path is still of significance. The differential puts the WB 11 footage at variance with most, if not all, the other videos and reports.

You are proven right in so far as it does not represent the smoking gun; only a much bigger differential would have provided that. Nevertheless, a ten degree disparity against a radar plot that is the result of three different sets of returns and from which we can presume a reasonable degree of accuracy, seems to me significant when it comes to trajectories. Point (G) on the NTSB flight path graphic, i.e. the point at which the plane starts to head straight for the tower, would be way off with this degree of difference. This discrepancy substantiates, to my way of thinking at least, the presence of reasonable doubt as per the authenticity of the footage and is suggestive of modification.

It is also now firmly established that had the official flight path been followed by the projectile, it would have been out of sight for the duration of the footage. In that I seem to be right, at least.

In summary: a real event when filmed by different sources will be consistent from film to film, as per the aspects and details of that event. If there is lack of consistency, it points to the possibility of falsification. I understand though that such judgements are entirely subjective when one takes into account the size of the discrepancy and factors in margin of error. As you so correctly stated, we are still left with a need to provide the type of persuasive proof that will help the debate to solidify towards conclusions.

Could you do me one last favor and add a line to the graphic indicating the official flight path, that so being in a direction of 35 degrees or what is known as North East by North, and obviously in a contrasting color? (If you want to check that this angle is correct please feel free to do so.)

Of course these are my initial thoughts, further thought and the possibility of new input may shed a different light on these results. We will see.

Anyway, if you can draw the "Official" line on the graphic as it were, that will be splendid, and once again thank you so much.

Yours most Sincerely, FfG (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

P.S. I wonder how this all tallies with Zap and his project work? I guess we will know soon enough.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 20 2007, 04:32 PM

[Factfinder Gener...]

Now, I was just reviewing my other threads concerning this matter and a thought suddenly struck me. I did warn you of this possibility at the tail end of the last post. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Sanders factored in speed and came up with the angle partly on the basis of this speed, however as this thread began to show in it's initial posts, the speed of the projectile is all over the place. Just as important (and in this case I believe more important) to consider when ascertaining angle of approach from two dimensional source material is the perspective growth of object in transit, i.e. if the object gets bigger appreciably and exponentially that indicates a trajectory towards camera and if it fails to grow appreciably at all that indicates a lateral path of action.

(IMG:http://www.richardgregory.org/papers/recovery_blind/rec_blind_fig_06_perspective_illusion_sm.gif)
(an object not following the laws of perspective.)

Take a look at the WB 11 Live Shot video sample again:

WB 11 2nd Hit Live

Watch it full screen and measure the object at first and last appearance on screen: there is NO discernible difference. In fact it resembles the example above! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/doh1.gif) It should in reality, according to Sanders' angle of approach be getting about 15 percent closer

This means we have to exclude the kind of deep perspective trajectory that a 45 degree angle of approach affords. The object traveling along this path would not only get bigger as it advances but it would appear to speed up. Neither of these phenomena occur.

A much more lateral, across screen, trajectory is indicated. Such a trajectory will I believe keep the same correct ratio as before of visible to non visible flight path portions before impact: i.e. roughly sixty percent visible, forty percent non visible as the object passes behind the buildings.

I am not being stubborn here, but merely applying the laws of visual perspective in an objective fashion.

This means of course that we will have that wide discrepancy of angle that I was suspecting we would have. Also, as an added bonus, there will be the demonstration of a great discrepancy of speed. If Sanders' suggested flight path was worked out at a speed in excess of 500mph then a more lateral trajectory will diminish that speed considerably, possibly by as much as a factor of five or six, which would put the speed closer to (or under) 100mph unless I am mistaken.

This might yet turn out to be a smoking gun, after all. Thoughts?

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 20 2007, 06:22 PM

[Factfinder Gener...]

This might yet turn out to be a smoking gun, after all. 

Thoughts?

But you know even though most of the other deep perspective shots of the plane conform to some degree to the laws of perspective I suppose it really is open to argument, resolution problems, zoom flattening effects, etc. etc.

So still no smoking gun probably, huh? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cleanup.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 20 2007, 06:21 PM

[Sanders]

I don't know - the plane is behind the buildings for the last bit - what percentage of the total distance between the plane and the camera is the distance where it is in the frame and visible?

Is it even 15%? That'd be pretty negligable to the naked eye IMO, and hard to measure on something that small and blurry proabably.

I don't know what the official flight path is. Do either of those agencies plot it out in detail down to the last mile? I don't trust what NIST or the NTSB say anyway. If someone is trying to prove that the flight paths conflict in different footage, the same kind of analysis I just did above would have to be done for each of those shots . The one above was pretty easy, cause you knew the camera position. If the camera position has to be figured out by triangulation, it's a lot more work (I'm sure you remember from the Hezarkhani adventure!).

P.S. I didn't set out to do this kind of analysis, I was just trying to illustrate the illusory effect of a plane flying toward a camera from a great distance away. I don't see any obvious bizarreness in the comparisons of the flight paths in any of these shots.

[Factfinder Gener...]

I don't know - the plane is behind the buildings for the last bit - what percentage of the total distance between the plane and the camera is the distance where it is in the frame and visible? 

Is it even 15%? That'd be pretty negligable to the naked eye IMO, and hard to measure on something that small and blurry proabably. 

I don't know what the official flight path is. Do either of those agencies plot it out in detail down to the last mile?   I don't trust what NIST or the NTSB say anyway.   If someone is trying to prove that the flight paths conflict in different footage, the same kind of analysis I just did above would have to be done for each of those shots . The one above was pretty easy, cause you knew the camera position.  If the camera position has to be figured out by triangulation, it's a lot more work (I'm sure you remember from the Hezarkhani adventure!). 

P.S. I didn't set out to do this kind of analysis, I was just trying to illustrate the illusory effect of a plane flying toward a camera from a great distance away.  I don't see any obvious bizarreness in the comparisons of the flight paths in any of these shots.

No, all in all, I have ot agree with you, my good fellow. As I said earlier, according to NTSB the plane would not have been visible in shot and this has significance to me but is not dispositive for all the reasons you state. All this could arguably be within margin of error as it were and thus any conclusions drawn from viewing the results remains largely subjective.

Could you please, pretty please, draw the "official" NTSB flight path in to the diagram, i.e. an angle of approach of 35 degrees, and in a pretty, and contrasting color? (Just for completeness sake, as it were.)

(IMG:http://www.mcallen.lib.tx.us/staff/compas4.jpg)

Thanks once again for all the hard and accurate work. It was all splendidly done! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

(Of course, I should add, that I await with interest any results from Zap who as I understand is working on similar issues.) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 21 2007, 01:29 AM

[Sanders]

I'm not real sure what NIST says, but this red line is 35 degrees clockwise from North.

(IMG:http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/8383/35degreesoe5.jpg)

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[Factfinder Gener...]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

Thank you so very much, Sanders, my dear fellow. [tiphat]

Now back to Topic:

m-v-b raises a very important point with this thread: the probability of speed discrepancies. Couple that with trajectory discrepancies and the evidence for modification mounts IMO. The two issues, as has been illustrated here, are intimately connected. More work needs to be done on this issue, I believe, and I am grateful to m-v-b for opening this area up in this way. I am definitely involving myself in more investigation.

To be continued. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 21 2007, 05:35 AM

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Hey folks. Nice stuff has raised the last couple pages.
Good to see an open minded discussion, without f*cking up each other. :]

I am almost finished with simply modelling, what i still not have is the
Offical flightpath.

Can some one of you provide me the flightpath of the last 10 seconds, from offical accounts?

would be very helpfull!

[Sanders]

You're welcome, FfG - my pleasure...

m-v-b raises a very important point with this thread: the probability of speed discrepancies.  Couple that with trajectory discrepancies and the evidence for modification mounts IMO.  The two issues, as has been illustrated here, are intimately connected.

Very intimately connected!

Can some one of you provide me the flightpath of the last 10 seconds, from offical accounts?

Maybe Factfinder General can repost the links to that stuff, I forgot where it was. I certainly don't know what the "official account" says, except FfG says that it has the plane at a 35 degree angle (clockwise from North? I have no idea...) Anyway, THAT figure doesn't jive with the WB11 footage, but it doesn't jive with any of the official diagrams either - the official diagrams seem to jive with the little jpg I made up.

Anyway, have fun (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/pilotfly.gif)

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Ok here is my first try to overlay my Model and the WB11 shoot.

Strangewise, (i used the "1 Liberty Plaza" as a reference, lefthand black building)
the Liberty Plaza does not add up in anyway. I will do more messurements.

I will try then, when i have the best know flightpath, compare WB11 and WABC7.

So there you go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GQj-5PrWrM

This post has been edited by m-v-b: Sep 21 2007, 08:06 AM

[Sanders]

Sweet

I wish I could do 3D (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)


Hey, FfG, do you have a link to the clip that the WABC7 frame came from?

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

There you go sanders

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html


I have tryed another cameraangle, but still not matching, cant tell why!


(IMG:http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2738/judas1kb6.jpg)

[Factfinder Gener...]

Confusion Over Angle of Approach

Vis a vis Sanders' previous comment about the official graphics conforming to his approach angle and not my figure of 35 degrees: I just double checked all the material regarding this approach angle business. I think I finally understand the confusion between Sanders and Me over it.

Longitude lines run North South of course and overlaid on a map of the US look like this:

(IMG:http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/activity/latlong/map.GIF)

I was overlooking that maps sometimes adjust for longitude and sometimes don't. When cartographers flatten out the longitude, i.e. cheat it to make longitude run perpendicular, the East coast is represented thus:

(IMG:http://www.ecu.edu/cs-ecu/images/East-coast_5.gif)

When the cartographers leave it true it looks like this with everything curving upward relatively speaking:

(IMG:http://www.meredith.edu/images/east-coast-map.gif)

The widely distributed flight path graphic is drawn over an unadjusted east coast map:

< IMAGE DELETED by Sanders >

I inadvertently failed to take this into account when I was working out the approach angle and thus came up with my 35 degree, North East by North direction (NExN). When you properly adjust for longitude the angle is actually 45 degrees i.e. North East, just like Sanders was indicating.

A check on the NTSB graphic of the ground track shows it has been overlaid on an adjusted map and thus shows an angle of 45 degrees, i.e. North East (NE)

So I was in error and that's the reason and of course this throws all my calculations about WB 11 out the window and means that Sanders' 45 degree approach angle is bang on according to NTSB. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

So the apparent discrepancy has vanished under the cold light of objective reasoning. I finally understand the confusion and of course Sanders was 100% correct in the first instance.

This being said it means that the WB 11 video is, as Sanders says, reasonably consistent with NTSB and in all likelihood the WABC 7 video.

Here's the NTSB flight path report with the relevant information for any that need it:

NTSB UA 175 Flight Path Report

The silver lining in all this for me is that the investigation has alerted me to something else of possible importance that I am currently writing up. I will of course keep you posted.

FfG.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[Factfinder Gener...]

The silver lining in all this for me is that the investigation has alerted me to something else of possible importance that I am currently writing up.  I will of course keep you posted.

FfG.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

And, sure enough, here is
My Report Here

Take a look and let me know what you think. FfG.

[Gator]

Yeah, I agree, much too accurate to be piloted either ! I've only one
question? What happened to all the passengers if this was, as well as
all the other impacts that resemble military aircraft ? I fear there's a
more devious act committed here on 9-11, then what we're being told .

[Factfinder Gener...]

I have tryed another cameraangle, but still not matching, cant tell why!

OK, m-v-b, a couple of suggestions here:

First of all, your horizon line is too high. Look at the ESB Towercam shot and you can note, because of the sharper definition, that the far background has hills. The hills sit above the HL. This shot, though taken from the same building, i.e. the WB 11 shot is an ESB Towercam too, is taken from higher up the tower. In my estimation, the WB 11 Towercam isn't that far above the level of the building to the left of shot in your graphic. Notice how you don't see the top of that building in the WB 11 shot? That's because it's just slightly below the HL. Lower the HL to just above that building, i.e. not too far above the coast line above the far left building. You might play around with finding the centre point in the large comp, i.e. the panoramic aerial shot, and then this will give you your HL for the WB 11, as it is comped in. The CP sits on the HL, always. A hint here, Just as Sanders has drawn it, the camera is pointed direct at the middle of the Towers so the CP will be centrally placed behind them.

The other thing is you need to get the camera further back, probably quite a bit. Look how far Sanders puts the camera. The ESB is far from the WTC. This distance will lessen the disparity between the building heights, and widths, and should enable you to get a better match.

As for your sightline: 30 degrees clockwise, a few degrees east of NNE is the correct angle and positioned like this the camera is shooting in a direction perpendicular to the faces of the WTC buildings, just as you seem to have it. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

Hope that helps. If you get this accurate and then model the projectile as per an exact NE approach, i.e. 45 degrees clockwise, and match it to the WB 11 shot we will see how fast the camera is suggesting our superplane is flying. If WB 11 obscured the missile with their blob, which would make sense, then we will probably be seeing a pretty fast speed turn up in your model.

One last thing, the videos all pretty much show the projectile curving upwards toward the end of its approach, not meaning to complicate things too much or anything. Study the vids closely and I think you'll see what I mean. This would account for the exit explosion discrepancy you are showing right now. (Shack misses that in his SC8 vid too, when he does his angle of approach analysis, and is yet another reason why his claims are wrong, but I digress.)

Good Luck and I would say stick with this particular project and see where it leads us. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Cheers, FfG.

(IMG:http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2738/judas1kb6.jpg)

(IMG:http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/WB-11-plane.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.scripting.com/images/wtcBurningFromEsb.gif)

(IMG:http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m177/wassertanzen13/1097683-comp.jpg)

(IMG:http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/5513/rigorousyc1.jpg)

(IMG:http://killtown.911review.org/images/wtc-gallery/fema403-1/1-3_wtc-impacts-fireballs.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.mcallen.lib.tx.us/staff/compas4.jpg)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 22 2007, 11:28 PM

[waterdancer]

I've been collecting ESB shots from various times- pre, on 9/11 and post 9/11. This looks like it might be a good place to post links for them. Hopefully one or more of these will be of some use for matching up the skyline,horizon etc. in various shots:

pre- 9/11
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/124531.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=43...56216591&size=o
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=395884995&size=o
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=394071616&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=36...157594486491145
http://i.pbase.com/u7/daveandjill/large/1097683.DSC00035.jpg

several ESB webcam shots which say posted on flickr on 9/14/2001 (but taken in August 2007?) from pre- 9/11 and day of 9/11 in this album:
http://flickr.com/photos/chicagodom/sets/72157601471678103/

post 9/11-
http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1412201218&size=o
http://www.zenaa.com/cgi-bin/wtcpic.cgi?pic=31

This post has been edited by waterdancer: Sep 23 2007, 03:27 AM

[Factfinder Gener...]

I've been collecting ESB shots from various times- pre, on 9/11 and post 9/11. This looks like it might be a good place to post links for them. Hopefully one or more of these will be of some use for matching up the skyline,horizon etc. in various shots:

Good man, waterdancer. What a splendid resource you offer us all. many thanks. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 23 2007, 05:56 AM