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


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

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

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Analysis of crash site photo, left of impact point - superimposing the plane

Sanders
post Jan 10 2007, 01:00 AM
Post #1



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



I’ve used these 3 sources of the same photo (the best largest photo without type additions is cropped,
I used the other two to create a good rendering that extends all the way to the right).

Pentagon left URL: http://www.assassinationscience.com/Pentagon.jpg
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/034.html
http://www.september-11th.us/2001/Pentagon.gif


Photographer: Will Morris AP Photo
Date: 9/11/01
Time: Before 9:57


Acertaining the height of various features in this photo:

The ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report does not give a figure for the total height of the building (which would help in deriving other heights using other photos), but they give the height of the 1st floor of the Pentagon as 14’ 1”. The height of the Pentagon is often cited as being 77 feet, however instances where 71 feet can also be found. (This is all difficult, as blueprints are classified.)

I tried using the commonly cited 77 foot total height figure to derive the correct height for the 1st floor of the Pentagon by counting pixels, but was unable to. I was getting figures of around 15 to 16 feet. Oddly, the ASCE quotes floor heights (1-5) as 14’1”, 12’ 5”, 11’ 4 “, 11’ 4” and 15’ 4” from bottom to top respectively. Together those figures only add up to 64’ 4”. This site helped me solve this riddle:

http://www.kolumbus.fi/sy-k/pentagon/asce_en.htm

(Scroll down near the bottom to References: [4] ~ there's a photo of the American flag hanging from the Pentagon to the right of the relevant text.)

It seems that the Pentagon from ground to roof top is about 66 feet tall, not 77 feet (reading those paragraphs from @ the above link will provide ample support for this I think). When I calculated the height of the first floor from this photo using the 66 foot figure for total height, I got an answer of 14.16 feet.



583 pixels / 66 feet = 8.83 pixels per foot. 1st floor height @ 118 pixels = 118 / 8.33 = 14.16 feet.

These two diagrams, while being unsourced, also confirm the 14' figure:





Admittedly there’s some eyeballing involved here, but I’m satisfied that the figures supplied by the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report are more or less correct and that the height from the ground to the (beginning of the) 2nd floor slab was around 14 feet.

Now for the plane. I could not find any documentation that stated the distance between the bottom of the engines to the top of the fuselage, which is what I was looking for. I derived this distance using 2 diagrams from this source: http://www.757.org.uk/spec/spec1.html

You can see all my calculations circled in red, each derivation came out a little different, I took an average from the three pixel/foot derivations I could do with each diagram and put a red square around the result for the distance between the bottom of the engines to the top of the fuselage. Both came out about the same, one a touch over 8.5 and the other a little over 8.7 feet.





This figure (18 1/2') is further confirmed by a post that JDX posted in this thread by Pilots' forum member and Continental aircraft mechanic tocarm:

QUOTE
In order to preform that 'feat' of getting its 13' feet diameter fuselage into a 16' feet in diamater hole (measuring from THE GROUND and to the top of that hole), the alleged Boeing 757 (or Boeing 737 for that matter) would have to have been virtually flying about 1 to 1 1/2 feet ABOVE the Pentagon's lawn.

I trust that you will agree/concur with my personal A&P's dimensional assessment of the circumstances/flight conditions necessary for a Boeing 757/Boeing 737 to neatly and cleanly 'disappear' INTO the Pentagon's 16 foot diamter hole in its outer wall.

NOW THEN, my dear MuhammedColumbo - its is a PHYSICAL FACT that the bottoms of the TURBOFAN ENGINE NACELLES on Boeing 757s and Boeings 737s are 3 to 4 feet BELOW the lowest point of the very bottoms of their respective B757/B737 fuselage.


So 18.5 feet seems like a reasonable figure to work with.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jan 10 2007, 01:05 AM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Next I drew perspective lines. The building around the impact point had settled a bit so it took a little fudging, but I tried to find the focal point where all the lines would line up with all the features of the building as closely as possible.



To see the focal point I decided on click here
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/9207/perspectiveuj3.jpg

Next, I measured the 14 foot mark and notated 18.5 feet above it near the point of impact - this indicates the height of the plane (from the ground).



Now we can size the plane.

Here’s the image I chose, I sized it so that from the bottom of the engines to the top of the fuselage would be 140 pixels.



Now I can superimpose it onto the crash site:



Now, there's something very wrong with this. That engine is about 7 feet in diameter. Those cars are maybe, what, 4 (Nissan300ZX), or 51/2 (Jeep GrandCherokee) feet in height? What is wrong?

Here is why I was perplexed. I did this little photo composite once before, without being rigorous. I simply ignored the effects of perspective and used the size of the cars to scale the plane:


Winding up with a superimposition that looked like this:


While this does show how large the plane would have been in relation to the cars, I have discovered that the photo was in fact NOT taken from a great distance, and that perspective cannot be ignored (see below). Neither of the composites are correct, while the plane in the newer composite is scaled more or less correctly at the impact spot, the engine is closer to the camera and needs to be enlarged somewhat.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jan 10 2007, 02:36 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



This

is from this site:
http://911review.org/brad.com/pentagongraphics.html

I don't know how accurate it is, but it sure looks nice. Then I fudged around till I found a spot for the camera position that (1) allows everything to be in frame just like the picture and (2) the pink line, which is where features in the picture on the far right edge are (or would be) exactly twice their size - which pertains to 1/4th the distance from the camera to the pink line as compared to the right edge of the picture (object increase in size by 2 when they are closer by a factor of 2 squared, or 4. I measured all this carefully, I couldn't get it perfect because I suspect the cars in the rendering are a touch too far away from the building, but it's close enough for what I'm trying to do. Also, my "camera position" might be different from the actual camera position if there was some zooming going on, I don't know enough about zoom lenses and their effect on perspective, but it's the only position that allows the perspective and the framing that I see in the photo - to the best of my judgement and measuring that is). This will give you a clue as to what I'm talking about - it represents the last step in my work:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Jan 28 2007, 11:42 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Here's how you calculate the expected sizes of objects in the photo, as relative to the spot where the 'plane' entered, which is 156 pixels away from the spot where I have deduced to the best of my ability where the photo was taken from. It's very simple math, an object 4 times as close to the viewer appears twice as large. D denotes distance in pixels:

Square root(D1/D2)=X

Size1(X)=Size2
To find the expected size of the foreground engine:

156px/129px=1.2
Square root of 1.2=1.1

The engine in the photo I've used (and sized to the Pentagon photo using the entrance point as a reference point) is 65 pixels high. Mulitply by 1.1 to account for perspective, and this engine should be 71.5 pixels high. I'll adjust for that in a new composite. I've marked wedge 2 as unrenovated. For discussion about the assertion that windows left of the dotted line were not blast-proof, waterdancer dug up some things here
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...dpost&p=7681965

And these two links support this as well
http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/pentagon_911/fig2.htm

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...novation.ng.wmv

So here it is:



In summary, the original photo is deceiving. The cars are farther in front of the crash site than they appear. The engine appears smaller than the Jeep Cherokee, in fact it is quite a distance behind it, and while the Cherokee is 51/2 feet tall, the engine is actually quite a bit taller, around 7 feet in diameter.

While not as dramatic as my original composite which ignored the effects of perspective, this composite does give an idea I think of what the plane would have looked like crashing into the facade (had it actually happened according to the official account).

This is about as good as I can do.

Draw your own conlusions.

salute.gif
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: 13th November 2019 - 05:38 AM