This skin was created by Cortez of the IF Skin Zone modified by JDX
All views expressed in this forum are not necessarily the views of pilotsfor911truth.org
Please click on the banner to read the mission statement of pilotsfor911truth.org

Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to Pilots For Truth. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:


This Forum Is Now Read Only. New Forum Can Be Found Here. Thank You.


Pages: (3) [1] 2 3  ( Go to first unread post )

 What Hit The South Tower?, The wrong plane!
Beached
Posted: Mar 3 2007, 11:46 AM


Very Active Poster


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 775
Member No.: 117
Joined: 20-October 06



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:

user posted image

user posted image

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 on Mar 3 2007, 02:24 PM
Top
Beached
Posted: Mar 3 2007, 04:33 PM


Very Active Poster


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 775
Member No.: 117
Joined: 20-October 06



Below is N612UA (image flipped horizontally) and the aircraft that hit the South Tower:

user posted image

user posted image

I don't want to speculate here, however, unless this is an erroneous registration, then we are looking at two completely different aircraft.

unsure.gif

This post has been edited by Beached on Mar 3 2007, 04:39 PM
Top
Zapzarap
Posted: Mar 3 2007, 05:08 PM


Pilot Response
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,206
Member No.: 110
Joined: 19-October 06



smile.gif
Yeah, I remember!

From Robert (SunZoo)'s interesting theory.
- Posted: Mar 4 2006, 07:08 PM - exactly 1year ago!
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...wtopic=611&st=0

He was systematically attacked by Killtown, until he unregistered.
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...topic=611&st=90


Was that ONE full year ago??? blink.gif
Unbelievable


Top
Beached
Posted: Mar 3 2007, 05:47 PM


Very Active Poster


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 775
Member No.: 117
Joined: 20-October 06



I remembered that too, and went browsing the old LC Forum (I was getting all nostalgic for the old days!) Doesn't time fly!

I was also looking at the pictures of the 300 series 767 aircraft you posted in that thread... These look more like the aircraft that struck the South Tower:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1038372/L/

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1040514/L/

I'm pleased that at least one other person agrees that this cannot be N612UA that impacted the Tower!

biggrin.gif
Top
waterdancer
Posted: Mar 3 2007, 09:39 PM


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,654
Member No.: 77
Joined: 15-October 06



another image for you- very large, so I won't try posting it...
http://media.twango.com/m1/original/0025/f...c7646c8ae8f.jpg
Top
Zapzarap
Posted: Mar 4 2007, 03:00 AM


Pilot Response
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,206
Member No.: 110
Joined: 19-October 06



QUOTE (waterdancer @ Mar 4 2007, 03:39 AM)
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?
Top
waterdancer
Posted: Mar 4 2007, 04:56 AM


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,654
Member No.: 77
Joined: 15-October 06



QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Mar 4 2007, 08:00 AM)
QUOTE (waterdancer @ Mar 4 2007, 03:39 AM)
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?

Phil Jayhan talks about a member of his forum buying that and a second pic from a newspaper, but I don't know which paper or the photographer. it sems like it would be tougher to fake an image with resolution that high, but I'm no expert on photoshopping.
Top
Beached
Posted: Mar 4 2007, 10:15 AM


Very Active Poster


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 775
Member No.: 117
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (Zapzarap @ Mar 4 2007, 08:00 AM)
QUOTE (waterdancer @ Mar 4 2007, 03:39 AM)
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?

Looking closely at the high resolution picture, I cannot see any sign of digital editing as the grain is consistent throughout. However, having closely studied the proportions of the aircraft, I am also adamant that there is no way that this was N612UA that stuck the South Tower.

In fact, there is no soild evidence to support the claim that either N612UA, or any of these other airctaft crashed on 9/11. In the case of N612UA, neither the CVR nor FDR were recovered, nor have any of the parts alleged to have originated from this aircraft been identified against maintenance logs etc.

Furthermore, the transponder of the aircraft that impacted the South Tower squawked a completely different code. To claim that this was merely due to the hijackers changing codes appears to be overly speculative to me. Someone who knows how to change codes certainly knows how to turn off a transponder. Furthermore, someone who knows how to turn off a transponder certainly knows that to do so is a pointless excercise, as their aircraft will still be visible to primary radar, and in the absense of a transponder identification, will stick out like a sore thumb!

Considering these points, and the fact that Flight 175's transponder changed just after it passed over Stewart AFB (Flight 11's transponder was shut off just prior to passing over Schenectady Airport) then we could be looking at a plane swap scenario as per Operation Northwoods. Possible reasons for a plane swap could be:

1. Remote controlled aircraft would pick up the flight pattern (The botched trajectory of the aircraft that impacted the South Tower is consistent with a remote operation, where the operator will need to take into consideration factors such as a time delay).

2. The drone aircraft could be loaded with thermite to be ignited upon impact. This is the most logical method of delivery and to ensure the structure of the Towers would be heavily compromised at the point of impact. Therefore, only a minimal number of explosives would be required to initiate the collapse (Note that the breaking point at the South Tower was around the upper sky lobby, therefore the impact zone could be anywhere above this point).

Of course, such a scenario raises the question of what became of the passengers, and even who they really were. Due to the sensitive nature of this question, I'd rather not speculate, and instead stick to facts.

This post has been edited by Beached on Mar 4 2007, 07:25 PM
Top
amazed!
Posted: Mar 9 2007, 10:35 PM


Extreme Poster


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 1,489
Member No.: 331
Joined: 14-December 06



The passengers are always the sticking point, but it seems there are enough irregularites about the passengers--weird or incomplete lists, possible 2 gate controversy at BOS, deplaning in Cleveland, etc, etc, that whatever happened to the passengers offers only 2 possibilities--they were killed or not.

If they were not killed, the most practical means to absord and displace them would be the Federal Witness Protection Program.

Considering the relative reluctance of surviving family members to talk, it makes sense to me.
Top
Beached
Posted: Mar 10 2007, 07:03 AM


Very Active Poster


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 775
Member No.: 117
Joined: 20-October 06



QUOTE (amazed! @ Mar 10 2007, 03:35 AM)
The passengers are always the sticking point, but it seems there are enough irregularites about the passengers--weird or incomplete lists, possible 2 gate controversy at BOS, deplaning in Cleveland, etc, etc, that whatever happened to the passengers offers only 2 possibilities--they were killed or not.

If they were not killed, the most practical means to absord and displace them would be the Federal Witness Protection Program.

Considering the relative reluctance of surviving family members to talk, it makes sense to me.

I do agree with you. Taking into consideration these irregularities and the possiblility that the aircraft that impacted the South Tower was not Flight 175 (looking at the dimensions of the aircraft that impacted, it is clearly a different plane) then we have to question the true identities of the passengers.

In no way am I suggesting that 9/11 was a carbon copy of Northwoods, however, if we consider who the passengers would have been under the proposed scenario, then it proves that such claims are not at all far fetched. In fact, this is highly probable in the case of 9/11. The opportunity for a plane swap was certainly there for all four flights. Furthermore, due to the emotional gravity of these attacks, many people would find this scenario so offensive, that if it were true, no one would believe it.

Can you imagine the situation if Northwoods had gone ahead? We'd be finding ourselves in exactly the same position as we are with 9/11. We'd be asking: Who were the passengers and what became of them?

This post has been edited by Beached on Mar 10 2007, 07:04 AM
Top
biggahthebettah
Posted: Apr 10 2007, 09:33 PM


Active Poster


Group: Members
Posts: 183
Member No.: 412
Joined: 7-January 07



I have a question about this photo. user posted image

Does it look to any of you like the engines on the right (top) is forward of the other one? If you look closely at the wings, they look symmetrical as far as the three lines* on each wing, so I don't think it's a matter of the plane being turned more to one side or another (*please don't laugh; I don't know technical terms for anything on a plane except wings and nose....and I can find the bathroom when I'm in one...LOL). Again, not being a pilot but knowing a tiny bit about physics and aerodynamics (at least enough to fill the head of a pin!) I would think engines would have to be balanced exactly symmetrical. Any thoughts on this, or is it somehow a trick of the eye due to angle? Could this be another type of plane which allows for such asymmetrical engine placement?
Top
tit2
Posted: Apr 28 2007, 10:42 AM


Poster


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Member No.: 999
Joined: 27-April 07



There is a refutation of "The Wrong Plane" by Eric Salter, See:

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/pod.html


"The authors of the following claim that the size of the plane that hit the WTC is not the size of a 200 series 767, which flight 175 was, and instead is closer to a 300 series 767, which has a longer fuselage:

http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html

http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html

This simply isn't true as the following graphic illustrates. I've overlaid the 767 schematics they provided on the Fairbanks footage. It is clear that the 200 series is a near perfect fit and the 300 series fuselage is too long.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/podi...175sizecomp.jpg

So why did they get it wrong? Notice in the graphic that they used, that the midline of their line diagram is on the side of the fuselage and not the center, allowing it to be scaled down smaller than it should be and still match up with the clearly visible right wingtip.

I should take a moment to note that some researchers have found other non-visual forms of evidence which might suggest that a plane "substitution" could have taken place in the 9/11 plot, such as discrepancies in official flight records, anomalies in the FAA and military response to the alleged hijackings, suspicious military war games occurring on the same morning, and so forth. I am not implying any opposition to these areas of inquiry; in fact, I believe they are quite worthy areas for continued investigation (and, for the record, the fact that I have been mentioning "flight 175" does not imply that I have ruled out these substitution possibilities). For now, I am just analyzing the visual record to determine what it can or cannot tell us reliably.

Which is the relevance of this refutation?
Top
painter
Posted: Apr 28 2007, 12:23 PM


* M E R C U R I A L*
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 3,466
Member No.: 16
Joined: 25-August 06



Thanks, tit2 -- and by the way, welcome to our forum. cheers.gif
Top
amazed!
Posted: Apr 28 2007, 07:53 PM


Extreme Poster


Group: Valued Member
Posts: 1,489
Member No.: 331
Joined: 14-December 06



Somebody here at PFT has uncovered the various roles of Dov Zakheim in the events of the day. Apparently he sold a batch of 32 Boeing 767 variant to the USAF for tankers. Perhaps that explains the irregularities AND some of those photos showing a fuselage with certain pods and appendages.
Top
Omega892R09
Posted: Oct 25 2007, 07:27 AM


Active Poster


Group: Members
Posts: 239
Member No.: 2,274
Joined: 29-September 07



This possibility of aircraft substitution by carefully prepared drones occurred to me as I watched TV live over here in the UK, being ill at the time I had unusually the time to watch through the day so am aware of how things went and were originally reported with all manner of noises and comment from witnesses which the media has since tried to bury, not least the squibs first before collapse of WTC7. But I digress , just thought that background would illuminate my point of view.

Being ex naval aviation myself I have maintained an interest in aviation and was thus aware that a drones could have been worked from tankers which I knew would be being developed to replace elderly KC-135s.

I have pondered the sheer size of the fireball on WTC2 and consider a tanker a strong possibility. The under fuselage reflections in the area in front of the position where the leading edge of the mainplanes joins the fuselage are dismissed by official believers as being the fairings housing the undercarriage. I find this difficult to swallow as the reflection appears to me to be forward of the leading edge and indicates a more pronounced bulge than that which is normal here.

Further there is the odd reflection on the nose.

I have downloaded the large image pointed to by waterdancer and checked it over in PS.

I would include a crop (at the original resolution of the image) and a version of that crop with an emboss filter applied, both under 160KB in size and would post them here if I knew how.

I have done quite a bit of aviation photography in my time and spend some time processing images for publication. Thus I am well aware of the limits of 'shopping and of enlarging distant objects in a 'photo (I laugh every time I see one of those spook movies or TV dramas where they enhance grainy CCTV images beyond belief). I can see no evidence of this image being tampered with as the grain extends uninterrupted and with little change (other than that always caused by a difference in gamma) from sky to aircraft.

In some videos there is a flash, or two, from the aircraft which seems to originate from these positions. Now I am not sure if these were real events or doctored images.

If we take the position that the towers were rigged for CD then one explanation for these flashes could be to initiate the detonation of specially prepared devices (explosive and or thermobaric but probably a too early a phase for that latter, they came later) in the tower to ease the penetration of the aircraft through the external steel columns. The flash (laser or some such) could also easily be reflected back to the aircraft to a detector which would initiate the detonation of some special device in the aircraft, say a special tank of napalm, to ensure the fireball is produced.

That the target area for both aircraft was above the upper sky lobby, and given that the aircraft would be more or less accurately flown by remote control (by somebody in a suitably equipped other aircraft during the final stages) then it would be known which areas to specially prepare. This idea has support when the remarks of Scott Forbes, Senior Database Administrator, Fiduciary Trust on the 97th floor WRT noises above on 98 and of dust and debris around on the mornings of the week prior are considered some of the final preperation.

In the NISTAR 1 document NIST writes about 'unusually large fires'. Is this because they knew something that we were not supposed to i.e., that there was an unusual amount of fuel aboard these planes. NIST also try to claim that building regulations did not require consideration of fuel laden aircraft colliding with tall buildings. Are we expected to believe that in an area like downtown Manhattan, with no less than three major airports in the vicinity, that the many aircraft flying into and out of these airports would do so without using fuel! This I believe is contrary to the documented design philosophy of Skilling. Note Robertson's, a very junior member of the design team, obfuscation on this point in post 9/11 interviews. Whatever, the quantity of fuel was for effect i.e., to make belief in the illusion being perpetrated more certain.

Sorry for this ramble, if this has been discussed here before then I apologies, I have been searching for awhile and not found any discussion on the main point concerning laser triggered detonations.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09 on Oct 25 2007, 07:31 AM
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
« Next Oldest | United 175 | Next Newest »
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (3) [1] 2 3 












Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.2131 seconds | Archive