Nypd Helicopter Picture Of "flight 175", has anyone been able to identify the type of plane this is? Options

[thorshammer1999]

A hard to find picture released a few years ago. I'm sure you have probably seen it but I wondered if anyone had been able to identify it...it's certainly doesn't look like a 767 to me anyhow.
nypd photo of attack plane

you can fast forward to the 6:40 mark and go from there.

Thnx for any help.

This post has been edited by thorshammer1999: Aug 17 2012, 09:20 PM

[CJEAN]

Hi all.

For me, the video is 6:03 TOTAL ???

Blue skies.

[thorshammer1999]

sorry, i meant 5:40

[kawika]

Surely not UA175. Some other craft in the area before UA175 arrives.

Like with many videos of 9/11 you have to get the front and back of them so you can figure where, and more importantly, WHEN this is taken.

[thorshammer1999]

Surely not UA175. Some other craft in the area before UA175 arrives.

Like with many videos of 9/11 you have to get the front and back of them so you can figure where, and more importantly, WHEN this is taken.

umm, well that is the plane that is about to hit the south tower..there were no other planes headed at the trade centre on 9/11 (including flight 175). It was taken by an NYPD helicopter just prior to impact, as other pictures in the compilation show.

[phaeton666]

umm, well that is the plane that is about to hit the south tower..there were no other planes headed at the trade centre on 9/11 (including flight 175). It was taken by an NYPD helicopter just prior to impact, as other pictures in the compilation show.

No, it is a plane starting from another Airport (Newark?). It is NOT UA175.

[thorshammer1999]

sorry, i guess u misunderstood. I'm not saying it is flight 175, I'm saying it is the plane meant to mimic 175. I wondered if anyone could tell what type it is.

[23investigator]

sorry, i guess u misunderstood. I'm not saying it is flight 175, I'm saying it is the plane meant to mimic 175. I wondered if anyone could tell what type it is.

Dear 'thorshammer1999'

The following opinion is premised with the caveat.

It must be realised that the image under consideration is a single image, that has been captured by some means --the more likely, it would seem by video camera--, then included in the presentation video at a number of different scale (magnification), and position.

There can be no doubt from digital image analysis, that the image of an aircraft contained in the overall image, in all instance, is not that of a Boeing 767 200 series.

The image of the aircraft, by digital analysis, appears to have had some 'retouch', additional to the base captured image, in this instance fairly minimal, which leaves the original 'shape captured', as the predominant detail.

It could be, some of the appendage apparent in the image, at the rear and below the fuselage at about a third of the distance from the nose, have been artistically added, but could possibly be items
that were added to the original airframe, for some particular reason.

This could have been for remote control of the aircraft and target seeking.

The profile of a Douglas B66 destroyer, positioned over the 'aircraft image', has a startling similarity
to what appears to be the 'core image' captured.

Robert S

[23investigator]

Dear 'thorshammer1999'

The following opinion is premised with the caveat.

It must be realised that the image under consideration is a single image, that has been captured by some means --the more likely, it would seem by video camera--, then included in the presentation video at a number of different scale (magnification), and position.

There can be no doubt from digital image analysis, that the image of an aircraft contained in the overall image, in all instance, is not that of a Boeing 767 200 series.

The image of the aircraft, by digital analysis, appears to have had some 'retouch', additional to the base captured image, in this instance fairly minimal, which leaves the original 'shape captured', as the predominant detail.

The profile of a Douglas B66 destroyer, positioned over the 'aircraft image', has a startling similarity
to what appears to be the 'core image' captured.

Robert S

Dear 'thorshammer1999'

By further digital image analysis, the "appendage", at the rear of the aircraft, 'in the image you have provided', has been able to be clarified.

What it reveals is very strange, but answers a number of questions, which were not expressed in the previous post.
There can be no doubt, that what was called "appendage", in the previous post, was not part of the aircraft contained in the 'original image captured on 9-11-2001'.

Why the approach taken to disguise the original aircraft was carried out in such a strange way, only the person involved could possibly explain.

By overlaying the image of a 'Boeing 767 200', which is published on the internet, on the 'original image captured on 9-11-2001'.
Setting the height of the vertical stabilizer, at the top of the vertical stabiliser 'in the image you have provided', the wing and horizontal stabilizer align on the "appendage".
There can be no doubt the "appendage" showing 'in the image you have provided', is the wing and horizontal stabilizer of the image of a Boeing 767 200, used by whoever violated the integrity of the 'original image captured on 9-11-2001'.

This, then reveals.
That the front of the 'overlay' Boeing 767 200, is much longer, than the front of the aircraft shown 'in the image you have provided', as well as, longer than the front of the aircraft, in the 'original image captured on 9-11-2001'.

For reasons only known by the person who added the image of a Boeing 767 200 to the 'original image captured on 9-11-2001', they saw fit, to 'crop off ' a large portion of the nose of the Boeing 767 200, reshaping the front of the 'original image captured on 9-11-2001', by what remained, causing the very strange blunt appearance at the nose, 'in the image you have provided'.

As well as the nose being removed, the 'starboard' engine, of the Boeing 767 200 was also 'cropped off'.

Whatever it is, that is visible under the front portion, 'in the image you have provided', appears that it could have been part of the aircraft, in the 'original image captured on 9-11-2001'.

The position, aligns with the starboard engine, of the olay B66 Destroyer, but protrudes further below the bottom of the fuselage than the engine does.
Perhaps the result of further interference, to make the object appear more like the size of a Boeing 767 200 engine, which as stated earlier has been removed from the olay image of the Boeing 767, the engine of the Boeing 767 being completely forward of the engine of the B66 Destroyer.

Robert S

This post has been edited by 23investigator: Aug 27 2012, 08:37 AM

[23investigator]

Dear 'thorshammer1999'

By further digital image analysis, the "appendage", at the rear of the aircraft, 'in the image you have provided', has been able to be clarified.

What it reveals is very strange, but answers a number of questions, which were not expressed in the previous post.
There can be no doubt, that what was called "appendage", in the previous post, was not part of the aircraft contained in the 'original image captured on 9-11-2001'.

Why the approach taken to disguise the original aircraft was carried out in such a strange way, only the person involved could possibly explain.

By overlaying the image of a 'Boeing 767 200', which is published on the internet, on the 'original image captured on 9-11-2001'.
Setting the height of the vertical stabilizer, at the top of the vertical stabiliser 'in the image you have provided', the wing and horizontal stabilizer align on the "appendage".
There can be no doubt the "appendage" showing 'in the image you have provided', is the wing and horizontal stabilizer of the image of a Boeing 767 200, used by whoever violated the integrity of the 'original image captured on 9-11-2001'.

This, then reveals.
That the front of the 'overlay' Boeing 767 200, is much longer, than the front of the aircraft shown 'in the image you have provided', as well as, longer than the front of the aircraft, in the 'original image captured on 9-11-2001'.

For reasons only known by the person who added the image of a Boeing 767 200 to the 'original image captured on 9-11-2001', they saw fit, to 'crop off ' a large portion of the nose of the Boeing 767 200, reshaping the front of the 'original image captured on 9-11-2001', by what remained, causing the very strange blunt appearance at the nose, 'in the image you have provided'.

As well as the nose being removed, the 'starboard' engine, of the Boeing 767 200 was also 'cropped off'.

Whatever it is, that is visible under the front portion, 'in the image you have provided', appears that it could have been part of the aircraft, in the 'original image captured on 9-11-2001'.

The position, aligns with the starboard engine, of the olay B66 Destroyer, but protrudes further below the bottom of the fuselage than the engine does.
Perhaps the result of further interference, to make the object appear more like the size of a Boeing 767 200 engine, which as stated earlier has been removed from the olay image of the Boeing 767, the engine of the Boeing 767 being completely forward of the engine of the B66 Destroyer.

Robert S

Dear 'thorshammer'.

As '23investigator', various video have been placed on Youtube over the past two years.

To produce the videos, they have been prepared as powerpoint presentations, then converted by a purchased software package, for presentation as Mp4 format on Youtube.

The same procedure has been used with a presentation of this particular 'subject'.

Whereas in the previous presentations they were always converted successfully with no bother at all, in the current case, this is not so.
The reason so far unexplained by the 'provider' of the conversion software package, which was downloaded from the internet. (this situation now existing, for a fortnight)

Another conversion programme has been used to check out what has been going on, which again in the past had always worked successfully.
A new set of problems, then presented, which make the video 'quite difficult to watch'.

The original powerpoint presentation works quite perfectly, with none of the transition speed problems, or hesitations, which are occuring when it has been converted.

Perhaps somebody, on this forum, would be interested in receiving the powerpoint presentation (it is not a big file), to convert to video and place it on Youtube.

If so please send a personal message with email address so as the file can be provided you.

Robert S

[23investigator]

Dear 'thorshammer'.

As '23investigator', various video have been placed on Youtube over the past two years.

To produce the videos, they have been prepared as powerpoint presentations, then converted by a purchased software package, for presentation as Mp4 format on Youtube.

The same procedure has been used with a presentation of this particular 'subject'.

Whereas in the previous presentations they were always converted successfully with no bother at all, in the current case, this is not so.
The reason so far unexplained by the 'provider' of the conversion software package, which was downloaded from the internet. (this situation now existing, for a fortnight)

Another conversion programme has been used to check out what has been going on, which again in the past had always worked successfully.
A new set of problems, then presented, which make the video 'quite difficult to watch'.

The original powerpoint presentation works quite perfectly, with none of the transition speed problems, or hesitations, which are occuring when it has been converted.

Perhaps somebody, on this forum, would be interested in receiving the powerpoint presentation (it is not a big file), to convert to video and place it on Youtube.

If so please send a personal message with email address so as the file can be provided you.

Robert S

Dear 'thorshammer'

For those interested, the video mentioned above has been uploaded on Youtube.

23investigator --Presentation-- NYPD photograph.mp4.

As the conversion difficulties have still not been resolved, it is suggested that the pause button of the video be used, to set the duration you require to read text and view the images.

It is also suggested that to view the detail satisfactorily the monitor screen magnification be set to 200% or higher if you require.

Robert S

[23investigator]

Dear 'thorshammer'

For those interested, the video mentioned above has been uploaded on Youtube.

23investigator --Presentation-- NYPD photograph.mp4.

As the conversion difficulties have still not been resolved, it is suggested that the pause button of the video be used, to set the duration you require to read text and view the images.

It is also suggested that to view the detail satisfactorily the monitor screen magnification be set to 200% or higher if you require.

Robert S

Dear 'thorshammer'

The title of the above video on Youtube, has been changed to,
23investigator --South Tower--Presentation--NYPD photograph--aircraft mp4

To this point of time, it appears only 10 people have looked at the video.

It appears that people have very fixed views, that either there were no aircraft involved hitting the towers,
or that the aircraft involved were Boeing 767 200 series, as the photographs and many videos showing the strikes on the South Tower, show (prove this).

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Robert S