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 )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
A Few New Pics Of The Plane Part Found On The Roof, of WTC 5

waterdancer
post Sep 8 2007, 01:12 AM
Post #1


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



These seem to have been taken on 9/24/2001, based on info in a couple of the photos in the set and the general progress in clearing Vesey street. Included here more for context than anything else... you can make out the plane part on the roof in a couple of them.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=10...89916367&size=o
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=10...89916367&size=o
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
genghis6119
post Sep 17 2007, 02:54 AM
Post #2





Group: Newbie
Posts: 30
Joined: 17-August 07
Member No.: 1,730



i can't see anything that looks like plane parts. can you please circle so we can see which bit of schrapnel you're talking about?. cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Sep 17 2007, 08:13 AM
Post #3


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77






This post has been edited by waterdancer: Sep 17 2007, 08:25 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Sep 17 2007, 10:17 AM
Post #4





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thanks Waterdancer! I had seen that picture of the fuselage section with passenger windows before, but did not realize it was on the roof of WTC 5.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Sep 17 2007, 11:21 AM
Post #5


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



WD, where did you get picture #1? Did it already have the red circle drawn on it? I ask because the circled 'debris' doesn't look exactly like the 'debris' shown in photo #2. Difficult to say for sure (different angles, 1 taken with a telephoto lens, etc.) but, frankly, photo 1 looks photoshoped.


EDIT:
Looking closer, I wonder if who ever drew the circle didn't circle the wrong piece of 'debris'





OR, perhaps we should ask, "Where IS this other piece of debris?" -- because, if the circled 'debris' in your picture #1 is the same as the 'debris' in your picture #2, then where is the 'debris' to which my yellow arrow points?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Sep 17 2007, 06:29 PM
Post #6


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



Great observation Painter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Sep 17 2007, 10:31 PM
Post #7


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



QUOTE (painter @ Sep 17 2007, 03:21 PM)
WD, where did you get picture #1? Did it already have the red circle drawn on it?

Painter- see post #1 of this thread.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=10...89916367&size=o

No arrow. Compare the angles and perspectives again in higher res. I think your yellow arrow is pointing at building debris rather than plane debris, but I could be mistaken. Or, if there is a second piece of airplane debris as well, I would guess it would be at the feet of/behind the photographer of the second pic.

This post has been edited by waterdancer: Sep 17 2007, 10:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
genghis6119
post Sep 19 2007, 06:28 AM
Post #8





Group: Newbie
Posts: 30
Joined: 17-August 07
Member No.: 1,730



i've seen the fuselage piece a few times and your new one looks very inconclusive. it looks like a nutri-grain to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BaNoyes
post Jan 18 2008, 11:20 AM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 24
Joined: 25-June 07
Member No.: 1,242



Lets see if I have this right
Flight 175 goes entirely into the South Tower and explodes
The Tower "collapses"
A hunk of fuselage lands on a roof top of a building
some blocks away with no sign of fire evident
Naw
nothing suspicious about that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 18 2008, 08:35 PM
Post #10





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Ba

Your absolutely right--there is something suspicious about that.

But in the dynamics of a crash, it seems possible to me.

Not likely perhaps, but possible.

We already know it's an inside job.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tit2
post Jan 19 2008, 01:54 PM
Post #11





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 144
Joined: 27-April 07
From: France, Ajaccio
Member No.: 999



"Nothing suspicious about that":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDGInaB0eQM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 27 2008, 03:23 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Based on the logic and CAD dimensions from:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10460675,

Boeing 757 windows typically measure 10.0" W ( 0.254 m) x 14.0" H ( 0.356 m) in the "real world" from a Boeing CAD drawing.

When I look at Waterdancer's closeup photo (with the construction worker), I measured the left window in GIMP at 16.0 pixels W x 21.1 pixels high, which suggests a "scale factor" of 1.60 pixel/real world inch ( or rwi). The window "aspect" here was 1.31875

The right window measured at 19.1 pixels W x 21.2 pixels H, with an "aspect" of 1.109947644- this seems skewed IMHO.

I measured the fuselage "height" at 54.7 pixels (measured parallel to window "height"). If I use the 1.60 pixel/rwi scale factor, this gives 54.7 / 1.60 or 34.1875 inches "high."

I measured the fuselage "length" at 141.2 pixels (up to the apparent building siding). 141.2 / 1.6 gives 88.25 inches "long."

Similar scale transformations could be done for the 1.91 pixel/rwi factor, but I find the 1.60 scale factor to be much closer to the 1.40 CAD "scale factor, so I used that value. These are of course approximations, but what other numbers have we got at this point, since the FBI has not produced this piece of "evidence" 6.5 years later?

FWIW, I estimated the visible portion of the construction worker's "height" at 67 pixels, (but he is much "deeper" into this field of view).

With the proximity of the "fuselage" to the WTC5 roof door/stairwell in the above photo, is it unreasonable to hypothesize that this approximately steel "man door"-sized (36" x 80") aluminum "fuselage" might have been planted from inside WTC5, possibly by 2 men?

Admins: while the gray color suggests UA175, should this thread be moved to the WTC location section, as we can more definitely determine this to be the roof of WT5 than which flight this/these piece(s) came from? Fire, dust, and shadow could all contribute to the dark color seen in the photo.

EDIT: This is Strange Coincidence #119 at:
http://www.nc911truth.org/911_Coincidences.html
"Only existing photo of 'Flight 175' windowed fuselage atop WTC5, featured in Popular Mechanics, was not taken until Oct 25, and was found ON TOP of cladding from the collapse of WTC1, not under it, 6 feet from the roof access door "
The original photo is at:
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photodata...ginal/12390.jpg

EDIT2: EXIF data for the original FEMA photo above indicates:
Camera model: Canon PowerShot S300
Software: Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
Date modified: 2005:01:12 14:51:36
Artist: Gene Corley
Date taken: 2001:10:25 17:03:56


Hmmm...

This post has been edited by dMole: May 29 2008, 06:37 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 27 2008, 09:33 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Looking at the much better quality FEMA original photo and re-analyzing the "fuselage", I estimated:

Left: 76.5 p H x 65.4 p W, aspect = 1.1697247706 NOTE: foreshortened from 1.40 CAD window "aspect"
Right [damaged]: 84.8 p H x 68.5 p W, aspect = 1.2379562044
Worker height: 240.1 p H (knee to top of head)

65.4 pixels W/10.0" = 6.54 pixel/rwi (real world inch)

Fuselage piece estimated at 216.9 p H x 585.9 p W (up to/right of cladding/siding only)
216.9 / 6.54 = 33.1651376147 rwi H
585.9 / 6.54 = 89.5871559633 rwi W [7.4658333333 feet]

Additional overall length was about 732.7 p long (including the area beyond/underneath cladding)
732.7 / 6.54 = 112.0336391437 rwi W/"total length" [9.3361666667 feet]

We could get some approximate correction factors based upon ratios of aspect "foreshortening," but this apparently now-missing WTC5 fuselage piece is still approximately the size of a standard steel "man door."

FWIW, this foreshortening correction factor would be about 1.4/1.2 or 1.1666666667 as a "first order" approximation.

This post has been edited by dMole: May 29 2008, 06:38 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Killtown
post May 27 2008, 03:42 PM
Post #14





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 170
Joined: 10-May 08
Member No.: 3,317



QUOTE (waterdancer @ Sep 17 2007, 07:13 AM) *


People always ask me when I say that plane debris atop the WTC 5 was planted: "So what, you saying someone hauled that piece of debris up the stairs?"

My response: "Um, yeah!"

This post has been edited by Killtown: May 27 2008, 03:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Leslie Landry
post May 28 2008, 09:48 PM
Post #15





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 2-May 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,264



QUOTE (waterdancer @ Sep 17 2007, 08:13 AM) *



I just think its absolutly AMAZING how a plane can survive something like this...and yet..at the pentagon, its vanishes without a trace.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post May 29 2008, 06:49 AM
Post #16



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



In case people missed it, that "fuselage" photo was taken approx. 44.3 days after WTC1 N collapsed, apparently by "Gene Corley" and the word Photoshop is embedded in the original FEMA photo...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jun 5 2008, 10:13 PM
Post #17





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



So that photo is photoshopped?

I'm telling you, the plot thickens.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kesha
post Jun 10 2008, 01:24 PM
Post #18





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 54
Joined: 30-August 06
Member No.: 34



QUOTE (dMole @ May 27 2008, 07:23 AM) *
EDIT2: EXIF data for the original FEMA photo above indicates:
Camera model: Canon PowerShot S300
Software: Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
Date modified: 2005:01:12 14:51:36
[b]Artist: Gene Corley

Date taken: 2001:10:25 17:03:56[/b]

Hmmm...


I think it`s save to assume that the "artist" in question can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Gene_Corley


Kesha
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jun 10 2008, 01:39 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Thanks Kesha,

The Wiki links to W. Gene Corley's Congressional Testimony (March 6, 2002):
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf

And his resume (although the Wiki page did a fairly good job of painting the "dots":)
http://www.ctlgroup.com/files/dynamic_resu...RRES%200131.pdf

[Whoa, add "Branch Davidian Church, Waco, TX" to Gene's resume- I did NOT know that.]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kesha
post Jun 11 2008, 01:37 PM
Post #20





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 54
Joined: 30-August 06
Member No.: 34



QUOTE (dMole @ Jun 10 2008, 06:39 PM) *
Thanks Kesha,

The Wiki links to W. Gene Corley's Congressional Testimony (March 6, 2002):
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf

And his resume (although the Wiki page did a fairly good job of painting the "dots":)
http://www.ctlgroup.com/files/dynamic_resu...RRES%200131.pdf

[Whoa, add "Branch Davidian Church, Waco, TX" to Gene's resume- I did NOT know that.]


No prob...

Sometimes things are so obvious that we don`t see them...
After all, it was just a matter of Google and C&P.

salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: 14th November 2019 - 08:40 AM