542 +/- 24 mph?
Is the speed of UA175 according to the final NIST report (NIST NCSTAR 1-2; Chapter 6).
This speed is coincidentally, right in the middle for previous speed estimates-- of a high of 590 mph by FEMA to a low of 503 mph by MIT.
What is amusing is reading how NIST initially tried a fancy complex analysis of the speeds using several different videos, but they couldn't get it to work (to give reliable speeds). So they resorted to a simple "displacement" technique for estimating the plane speed (how many frames it takes the plane to cross its length)-- much very much like I did some time back.
Except I found that "UA175" was going far slower than 542 mph. I calculated a speed of 327 mph as the plane hits the building, and 272 mph right before it hit the building.
My calculations were extremely straight-forward and I can't see how my calculations are wrong. (If you see a flaw in my calculations, let me know)
What I can say is that looking at the videos of the second hit, as I have many many times, the "plane" simply does not seem to be going super fast, i.e. 540 mph.
The plane looks like it is going fast, but only slightly faster than planes coming in for a landing-- and I see large jets slowly descending for landing multiple times every day. I say there is no way that "UA175" is going 540 mph.
Even if you look at the ground the plane covers in videos where the plane is seen longer, the plane covers about a mile in 8-10 seconds. That works out to 450 to 360 mph-- quite a bit slower than the NIST calculations (where they simply present their results, they never show any actual measurements, of course)-- but in line with my earlier calculations from the Ghostplane video.
Why would NIST (and other groups such as FEMA and the FBI) exaggerate the speed of UA175?
I think the reason is clear. They need an extreme speed to sell the idea that the plane was going so fast that it went straight into the building without breaking up and that the fast speed of the plane also caused major building damage. The official story REQUIRES a high speed for the building damage (even though it raises a separate issue of whether amateur hijacker pilots could fly the planes effectively at that speed).
IMO, this speed of 542 mph is yet another 9/11 lie.
YANEL.
Yet Another Nine Eleven Lie.
This speed is coincidentally, right in the middle for previous speed estimates-- of a high of 590 mph by FEMA to a low of 503 mph by MIT.
What is amusing is reading how NIST initially tried a fancy complex analysis of the speeds using several different videos, but they couldn't get it to work (to give reliable speeds). So they resorted to a simple "displacement" technique for estimating the plane speed (how many frames it takes the plane to cross its length)-- much very much like I did some time back.
Except I found that "UA175" was going far slower than 542 mph. I calculated a speed of 327 mph as the plane hits the building, and 272 mph right before it hit the building.
My calculations were extremely straight-forward and I can't see how my calculations are wrong. (If you see a flaw in my calculations, let me know)
What I can say is that looking at the videos of the second hit, as I have many many times, the "plane" simply does not seem to be going super fast, i.e. 540 mph.
The plane looks like it is going fast, but only slightly faster than planes coming in for a landing-- and I see large jets slowly descending for landing multiple times every day. I say there is no way that "UA175" is going 540 mph.
Even if you look at the ground the plane covers in videos where the plane is seen longer, the plane covers about a mile in 8-10 seconds. That works out to 450 to 360 mph-- quite a bit slower than the NIST calculations (where they simply present their results, they never show any actual measurements, of course)-- but in line with my earlier calculations from the Ghostplane video.
Why would NIST (and other groups such as FEMA and the FBI) exaggerate the speed of UA175?
I think the reason is clear. They need an extreme speed to sell the idea that the plane was going so fast that it went straight into the building without breaking up and that the fast speed of the plane also caused major building damage. The official story REQUIRES a high speed for the building damage (even though it raises a separate issue of whether amateur hijacker pilots could fly the planes effectively at that speed).
IMO, this speed of 542 mph is yet another 9/11 lie.
YANEL.
Yet Another Nine Eleven Lie.
posted by spooked at 11:21 PM
7 Comments:
and I see large jets slowly descending for landing multiple times every day.
you do? man, take a video camera and film some of these from the correct distances at the correct time of day so the lighting will be similar to yosemitesam175 and see how many of them look like flat-black primer colored shadowy black holes that don't get any larger as they get closer. go man!
They never look like that, James. I can promise that. I'll see if I can get any good video. I know Gerard Holmgren has done something similar, can't find the link right now.
Hmm-- where's Pinch anyway? I thought he'd be here already blowing his top about this latest egregiously ridiculous analysis of mine.
i know they don't; i used to live in a sorry neighborhood right next to the second biggest airport in the biggest city on the west coast. but i'm glad to hear that you're familiar with the way they're supposed to look. - J
Yeah, well...I've been busy with navy reserve duty. You must think this world subjugation and take over is easy stuff.
Your comment:
"Even if you look at the ground the plane covers in videos where the plane is seen longer, the plane covers about a mile in 8-10 seconds."
What video did you use to calculate a mile of travel of the aircraft? Do you know where a mile is distant in a SSW direction from WTC2 along the plane's projected inbound path?
Your other comment that I was going to bring up just belies logic so I'll let it be.
hmmm, maybe he used the video that shows the plane the same size when it's farther away as it is when it's closer? - or maybe he used the other one that shows the plane not getting any larger the nearer it gets? or i bet he used my favorite one of all: the one that shows a plane the same color as a shadowy black hole even in the direct sun on a cloudless day. oh wait, that would be most of them wouldn't it?
this video has the camera apparently perpendicular to the plane path, and shows the plane taking about 8 seconds to go about one mile:
http://thewebfairy.com/whatzit/wtcufo_c.wmv
I suppose its a good thing - for you - that YOUR analysis isn't peer reviewed, because I doubt even the wackiest wack-job lunatic moonbat would cast much of a scientific eye to a statement that has apparently and 2 abouts in your brief thesis.
Then again, it appears the entire argument from the left hinges on a specious scientific platform, so perhaps they would embrace this.
And your estimate of "about a mile" is based on.....what? How did you estimate that "mile"? My own calculations are below, using Google Earth (GE) and that video you linked to.
The key to this whole thing is where the video was shot. I don’t believe there is anything posted on the Net regarding exactly where this video was shot, and as such we have to do an analysis of what can be seen in the video which may give clues as to its possible location. The two smokestacks on the right at the very beginning, the tall building that is dead center at 2-seconds into the video (I believe that would be the Goldman-Sachs Tower in Jersey City), the WTC towers themselves, and the 3 World Financial Center buildings, 3,2 and 1 WFC) that are spread left-to-right at the base of the WTC towers are all landmarks we can use.
Using GE and triangulating all those buildings and the smokestacks gives us an approximate and what I would consider a likely location for where this Japanese video was taken – this screen shot from GE lays out the geometry:
http://instapinch.com/blog/images/google%20location.jpg
The one known variable we know (and most solid piece of location evidence) of this whole exercise is fact that the aircraft appears directly above the smokestacks (which I believe I have found on GE at 40'42'55.86 N, 074'03'49.26 W) at the very beginning of the video. This can provide us with what I would call a pretty good line-of-estimation with regards to where the aircraft would be at the very beginning. When matched with the extrapolated line out from WTC complex after we line up the buildings as much as we can, we are left with an estimate of the location of the video.
I came up with a distance of 1.25 miles when all the aforementioned data is crunched.
Using a standard NNW flight path coming in over the harbor and extrapolating a line from the aforementioned likely location of the Japanese video through the smokestacks puts the aircraft approximately 1.25 miles out from WTC 2 at the start of the video, a tad to the NNW of a line between Ellis Island and Governor's Island. With a time-to-impact of 8 seconds, the aircraft travels the approximately 1.25 miles (6,600 feet) feet at a speed of 562.5 mph (6,600 x 7.5 = 49,500 feet per minute; 49,500 / 5280 = 9.375 miles a minute; 9.375 x 60 = 562.5 miles per hour).
The variables and holes in the use of this video to try and achieve a realistic solution are big enough to drive a truck thru (or fly a plane through), but using what is available results in this rough back-of-the-envelope estimation, and I have a high level of confidence that this is more accurate than your monkey-butt numbers.
The other comment in your original post that I decided to avoid was your comment that this aircraft didn’t look much faster than an aircraft in a landing mode. That is simply absurd, as anyone who has worked in, around and on aircraft a good part of their adult life can attest to. That aircraft was smokin’.
Post a Comment
<< Home