Fl175 Cruise Speed, Could It Be? Options

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Hello, i did some speed estimation of FL 175.
I used the "Japanese" Video as source.
(very strange, i just tryed to find the video again, but i cant. it was called "tv fakery debukend in 11 seconds)

Anyway i came up with a +-588 mph cruise speed.

(IMG:http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1852/judasax1.jpg)


I speacialy want to know from the pilots in here if it is possible for such n aircraft
to travel so fast at 200 m above sealevel#?

[rob balsamo]

hmmm.... what is your source of video? Where is the link to said video? Where are your diagrams for distance and source?


After you provide the mentioned.. we'll take it from there.

If your calculations are correct and your sources are valid.. 588 mph seems extreme. However in no way validate the "No plane Theory".


I will be looking forward to your source.

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

@ Rob

As i said in the topic strangewise i couldnt finde the video on youtube again.

I watched it 2 days ago and captured the screenshoot. Now for the Thread i searched it again but i coulnd find it.

anyway the rest speaks for it self.

[Quest]

hmmm.... what is your source of video? Where is the link to said video? Where are your diagrams for distance and source?


After you provide the mentioned.. we'll take it from there.

If your calculations are correct and your sources are valid.. 588 mph seems extreme. However in no way validate the "No plane Theory".


I will be looking forward to your source.

But it COULD validate the TV fakery theory. Why not mention THAT? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

I have found another source.

It is not the source i used for my estimation, but it is the same video.
At least it should be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV7KNO-1mdw

This post has been edited by m-v-b: Sep 17 2007, 05:47 PM

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Wow i just did a second estimation on the new source.

See what came out:

(IMG:http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/2858/judas2ir9.jpg)

But it COULD validate the TV fakery theory. Why not mention THAT? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif) Because nothing yet has validated "tv fakery theory"! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

I did one more messurement on this Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYwHNBHn_vQ

The outcome is more strange:

(IMG:http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/8208/judas4lb2.jpg)

[Factfinder Gener...]

Good work, m-v-b, looks promising but I would like to see more precise duration of event times factored in. Five seconds and one and a half seconds seem a little too rounded up. Could you get a more precise timing to factor in?

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 18 2007, 05:58 AM

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Ok factfinder.

I worked again.

This time i streched the movies out to single frames
to get the time within a nano second.

Very interesting outcome.

Thats how i did it

(IMG:http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/2496/compareulead1ya2.jpg)

(IMG:http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3634/compareulead2ay2.jpg)


Results:


(IMG:http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/6536/comparevid12wp8.jpg)

(IMG:http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/6660/comparevid22sd6.jpg)

[Factfinder Gener...]

Ok factfinder.

I worked again.

This time i streched the movies out to single frames
to get the time within a nano second.

Very interesting outcome.

Excellent work, m-v-b. I'd say someone needs to do an objective verification of your results (i.e. a double check) and if this pans out you have obtained clear and obvious evidence not only of extreme projectile velocity disparity between the different videos but examples of (IMO) impossible performance speeds.

I hope the rest of the guys here are paying attention to this development. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif)

Well done, m-v-b. This is a most resourceful analysis. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

P.S. Would your skills stretch to being able to input data from the various 911 videos to model accurate 3D flight paths for comparison's sake? I know that there is some serious discrepancies between the various videos and also when measuring particular videos against the NTSB Radar Return Plot.

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Factfinder

Actualy, i am about to "rebuild" downtown manhatten to compare the 911 Videos and Flightpaths. The problem is, i need a map of Manhatten that features all Building Footprints very percisly. I swear i spend allready at least 3 days on google search, and have not found any good map.

2nd problem is, i do not have the Offical "flight path" for FL175.
I have the NTSB Flight Path Study which is build by the Radar Information, which only features a "world view" of the whole flight path and not a detaild path over manhatten area.

So if you know more than me let me know^^

[Factfinder Gener...]

Factfinder

Actualy, i am about to "rebuild" downtown manhatten to compare the 911 Videos and Flightpaths. The problem is, i need a map of Manhatten that features all Building Footprints very percisly. I swear i spend allready at least 3 days on google search, and have not found any good map.

2nd problem is, i do not have the Offical "flight path" for FL175.
I have the NTSB Flight Path Study which is build by the Radar Information, which only features a "world view" of the whole flight path and not a detaild path over manhatten area.

So if you know more than me let me know^^

Have at it, m-v-b. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

I guess Google Maps aren't any good? I know the current map doesn't have WTC but maybe you could patch that info in from an accurate WTC site map.

Lower Manhattan Google Map

If they aren't accurate enough, there must be some detailed survey maps knocking about. I'll look around.

As regards the NTSB radar data plot:

Though the NTSB report on UA 175 doesn't have detailed plot points the flight path summary notes all relevant directional changes. As I understand it, once the projectile changes direction and achieves its NNE trajectory (miles out unbelievably, which to me is further proof of a missile) it pretty much heads direct for WTC2. That is what we have to base it on so I would just go with that for now. I see that you have the NTSB report. I trust this is the same one that I posted up on my WB 11 thread. The comparisons one video to another will be dispositive anyway, thus making the endeavor well worthwhile, IMO.

Good Luck, keep me updated as to how things are going. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 18 2007, 06:13 PM

[Sanders]

I hate to blow smoke up anyone's skirt here guys, but we need to get on a more empirical footing IMO. m-v-b, I salute your diligence and work on this, but there are two fundamental things I see not right about this analysis. First, I don't know how you measured the width of the towers - you may have done it correctly, but it looks to me like maybe you didn't take into account the camera angle, i.e. the way that the apparent width of the towers will change with the vantage point. The width of the towers as they appear in various shots won't be accuate unless the camera is pointed at them straight on, at a perpendicular angle. Neither of these are like that, in fact in the one shot from the Japanese vid where the plane comes in from the right, we are looking at the towers from a diagonal vantage point, making the towers appear wider (we are seeing 2 sides of each tower at a slant). ... my apologies if you did take this into account.

This (below) is all eyeballed, it's not exact, and no one is certain of the exact flight path (since we don't have the FDR), but it's approximate and I think it will illustrate what I'm talking about:

The blue line is an approximation of the site line in the Japanese vid, I used the orientation of the towers and the cluster of buildings at the southern edge of Wall Street as a guide. The red line is an approximation of the site line in the other shot, I used the orientation of the towers and the building with the spire in front of and just to the left of the towers (I found it on a map) as a guide.

(IMG:http://img490.imageshack.us/img490/6936/pathsxv7.jpg)


The second problem I see is the way the apparent speed of the plane will change depending on the angle of the flight path in relation to the vantage point. In the shot that I marked with a 'Red' sight line, the flight path looks to me to be more or less perpendicular, so this should closely reflect the real speed of the "plane" - but in the Japanese shot (sightline marked in blue), the flight path is at a diagonal to the vantage point, so the plane will appear to travel slower. I made a gif to illustrate this:

(IMG:http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/8655/speedsmw7.gif)

This is why the "plane" will appear to travel at different speeds in various footage.

One of the things that allows this phenomenon to elude people so often, is the fact that the camera is so far from the towers and a zoom-lens is being used. The Japanese shot is in fact taken from New Jersey somewhere. Without zooming in, or looking at something from a reasonable distance with the naked eye, when we see a "plane" in this case travelling at an acute angle (i.e. at a diagonal) we would see it change in size as it's getting closer to us or farther away from us. But from a great distance the relative size of the plane changes only imperceptively - it is getting closer or farther from us, but this change is only a small percentage of the great distance from the plane to the camera. Hence, the size of the plane appears static.

This is just my opinion, but whenever these kinds of angles are involved the calculations get very complicated. A good approximation can be done, but you need to identify the other buildings in the shot, use them to triangulate and discern the sightline to the camera, measure the sides (not the total width) of the towers and compensate for the obtuse angles they present to the camera (sounds like a little trigonometry might be involved), and/or use other buildings to create a ruler to judge distances. Then you have to do the same with the flight path of the "plane", which ya really can't do accurately because no one knows the exact flight-path. The shot who's sightline I marked in red would be a good candidate to judge the speed of the plane because the flight-path would seem to be perpendicular to the sight-line and so you don't have to mess with any angles in that case to get a good approximation.

I think the best way to get a fix on the speed of the plane is to measure from the tail to the nose in pixels, and see how many frames it takes for the plane to cover it's own length. This technique is imune to any strangeness stemming from angles, but it's tough to do when the plane is so small. (And, if what we are looking at is just an image of a plane plastered over a missile or something, you can't even be sure of the real length of the "plane".)

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Thank your for your time n work.
Ill have to go to work now and ill come later back to you!

[Sanders]

OK (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[NoQuestionAboutI...]

I posted this link in another topic aswell. It has a page about the speed calculated from different cameras, in case you're interested.

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/index.htm

[Sanders]

Thanks, NoQuestion, and welcome to the forum. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/welcome.gif)

I took a peek at the link dealing with the speeds, but honestly, I don't trust anything connected to that site. I'd have to do all the calculations again myself to believe any of it. That's not to say it's not honest research, but, I just don't know, I just don't trust those guys.

Thanks for the link anyway... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[Factfinder Gener...]

Thanks, NoQuestion, and welcome to the forum. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/welcome.gif)

I took a peek at the link dealing with the speeds, but honestly, I don't trust anything connected to that site.  I'd have to do all the calculations again myself to believe any of it.  That's not to say it's not honest research, but, I just don't know, I just don't trust those guys.

Thanks for the link anyway...  (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

Which brings me back to my point raised within a related thread about going for the clearest simplest proof obtainable from the videos. There are many variables to factor in when dealing with (1) impact analysis and (2) velocity analysis. Of course I believe that impact analysis shows impossible impact effect occurrence and velocity analysis indicates velocity discrepancies (e.g. m-v-b's very useful analysis above, if not necessarily accurate as per actual velocity, at least indicates the probablility of discrepancies) but the variables make the proof "elastic", as it were.

The many possibilities for plastic deformation of metals, the complexity of the structures involved etc. make impact analysis multileveled. With the velocity analysis, the complex calculation of true distance covered, coupled with the possibility of recording or playback discrepancies being involved, as BoneZ has correctly pointed out elsewhere, make this type of analysis similarly hard to pin down.

With trajectory analysis there are fewer variables, i.e. the pictures accurately depict trajectory, it is data with a limited foundation base, and as such any discrepancy is (1) more easily ascertained and (2) more easily demonstrated.

My advice, go all out on analyzing and demonstrating flight path discrepancy through 3D modeling. The discrepancies between approach angles are there, they are significant, and a clear demonstration of them will constitute non elastic proof.

The other advantage to focussing first on obtaining a solid understanding of trajectories through 3D modeling, is that this will lay the groundwork for subsequent and more concrete velocity studies.

My 2 cents. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 19 2007, 02:18 PM

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Om sanders here i am.
I realy apreciate your work, to correct me.

When i started the estimation, i knew that i couldnt tell the angles
perfectly. What i did was, i extended the towers till the point i measures out.

I took the towers outer wall, which we know is 64 m, as a stabild unit.

For example, when i extend the towers 20 times and then imagine the actual tower is the center of a giant circle which radius is 20 tower lenghts, and the circle-line passes trough the plane itself.
In this case there wouldnt be a big difference, if the plane would be 100 meter further ore closer to the camera


(IMG:http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7662/ana1vw6.jpg)



2. At a constant framerate, the messurement upset, should reveal a constant airplane speed even the camera is zooming in.



But in the end you are right sanders, the messurement is not accurat.
I will reproduce the whole scene in Cinema 4D and will do more comparisons.
Ill let you know when i am finished.

greetz

This post has been edited by m-v-b: Sep 19 2007, 03:18 PM