What Hit The South Tower?, The wrong plane! Options

[Beached]

Here is an actual file photo of N612UA - the aircraft alleged to have impacted the South Tower (Flight 175):

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/205074/L/
United Airlines
Boeing 767-222
New York - John F. Kennedy International (Idlewild) (JFK / KJFK)
USA - New York, April 28, 2001
N612UA

Please take a look at the following comparisons:

(IMG:http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m275/beached1000/plaindud.jpg)

(IMG:http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m275/beached1000/scale.jpg)

We will observe that the nose section of a 200 series, A, is shorter than the wing assembly, B. Whereas for the 300 series A is longer than B.
767-200 => A:B = 190:200 = 0.95:1, i.e. A is less than B
767-300 => A:B = 221:200 = 1.105:1, i.e. A is greater than B

The NIST frames of the aircraft that impacted the South Tower give us A:B = 20.76:19.91 = 1.04:1

In other words, A is greater than B. Therefore, this plane's fuselage is too long to be a Boeing 767-222.

A more in-depth analysis can be found here:
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html

This post has been edited by Beached: Mar 3 2007, 03:24 PM

[Omega892R09]

Hello O892,

I'm sorry to say that I'm growing increasingly weary of all the infighting, self-censorship,  and "pet" theories in the 9/11 Truth Movement.

I am sorry if I have aroused your ire but I was only speculating on a possible answer for one of the phenomena seen on that day, unless of course it has been proven that the highlights were simply sun reflections, one which could help explain how the a/c sliced so easily through the outer steel columns of the tower and then produced a large fireball.

It is not exactly a pet theory of mine more a point for discussion and not intended to promote any infighting etc.

Now that 800 meter time apart (and being from UK I am not sure what that is) I also have a background in science, welding (fitting, turning, sheet metal working and more) and military aviation (naval) only lacking formal studies in military strategy. However being widely read on many such topics and WRT that latter I could probably vie with Clausewitz and his naval counterparts. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)


On naval studies I have quite a library around the days of naval fighting sail, not that such battles would occur again as climate change is killing the trade winds. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

Judging by the content of your post, and your later one, it seems that we agree on much.

I have taken time before replying to study that 911 Blogger page that you cited and to fetch and read the MacKey document, thank you for bringing that to my attention.

I began reading it and to be honest at first only got as far as the quote of Robertson (page 8) and smelt a rat so decided to then have a look at the comments by yourself, Tony Zamboti and others. Indeed Tony pins it to the wall very well. Any comparison between a 707 and what hit the WTC goes against anything that NIST tries to prove, or rather obfuscate over. In short Griffin is right and this counter Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a parody. mcfrandy also makes a very good point that such attempts at undermining the work of those trying to get to the truth should be considered, understood and replied to when cited.

Many things bothered me about the NIST report not least the emotive language often used in what is supposed to be a scientific report. It should be a scientific report and not a tabloid newspaper article. I find those who try to shut me up often use emotive language and accuse me of having little respect for those that died that day. This is far from the case.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Oct 28 2007, 01:21 PM