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

[p.w.rapp]

another image for you- very large, so I won't try posting it...
http://media.twango.com/m1/original/0025/f...c7646c8ae8f.jpg

thx for that link WD!
I've been looking for this original earlier, because in all the discussions (no plane, pod) people were basing their arguments on grainy, low res images.

This picture has 18.4MB and apart from the proportions of the plane the following aspects would be interesting (I am no expert in digital photography and software):

-source of the picture (or even contact to the photographer)
-must have been a professional - high resolution digicam.
-has this picture been "photo-shopped" i.e. is it possible or impossible to add the plane to a high res pic like this one.

Anybody?

[DoYouEverWonder]

thx for that link WD!
I've been looking for this original earlier, because in all the discussions (no plane, pod) people were basing their arguments on grainy, low res images.

This picture has 18.4MB and apart from the proportions of the plane the following aspects would be interesting (I am no expert in digital photography and software):

-source of the picture (or even contact to the photographer)
-must have been a professional - high resolution digicam.
-has this picture been "photo-shopped" i.e. is it possible or impossible to add the plane to a high res pic like this one.

Anybody?

No matter what the resolution, the clear blue sky makes it very easy to insert objects into the original image. The photoshopped images below only took a few minutes to make and would have been even easier, if I had the original cut out for the plane. Instead I had to pop out the plane from the rest of the picture and since I didn't want to spend a lot of time cleaning it up, my edges aren't exactly perfect, but they're close enough for government work.


(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/DoYouEverWonder/Misc/Flight-175-flat.jpg)

Then I flattened the whole thing and embossed it. Neat effect but it doesn't prove if the plane in the original image was real or not. Once you flatten an image, it makes it very hard to tell whether or not something was added.

(IMG:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v411/DoYouEverWonder/Misc/Flight-175-emboss.jpg)

Unfortunately, I had to reduce the images a lot to be able to upload them to Photobucket. If anyone is interested I can provide copies of the doctored images that are at the original resolution. Even with zooming in, you can't tell the difference between the plane in the original and the ones I created.

PS: This doesn't not mean I support anyone else's assertions about what did or did not hit WTC 2. I'm just trying to show how easy it was for the originial image to be faked.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Jun 14 2009, 07:50 AM

[achimspok]

Of course it's easy. It will be much harder to fake it in a way that you can take 2 different shots from about the same perspective to build a red-blue-3D-image. It works fine for UA175.

[DoYouEverWonder]

Of course it's easy. It will be much harder to fake it in a way that you can take 2 different shots from about the same perspective to build a red-blue-3D-image. It works fine for UA175.

Can you show me what you're talking about?

I remember someone doing something like that, with some pics from the southside of the Towers?