PDA

View Full Version : The Speed of Flight 175 Calculated!

musti
29-08-2008, 09:02 AM
okay, first of all, i am inclined to believe the npt but i can't say i am an advocate of it. it may very well be wrong.

second, i really feel sorry that people who penetrated the illusion and exposing the illuminati, people who are in many ways like minded are fighting and hating each other over the two theories. debating is of course fine but insulting each other (both sides do this) is first sad and second counterproductive. i really don't think there are that many "shills" (though i am sure there are a few), yet i think every major contributor to this thread is being accused of being one regardless of which side they are on. how about a more friendly atmosphere?

anyway, recently i watched the video below
Killtown: Air vs. Skyscraper - YouTube

there, it is clearly shown that it takes 11 frames for the plane to travel its length. we know the length of boeing 767-200. i assume (i may be wrong and would appreciate comments on this) there are 24 frames in one second, so 11 frames equals to 11/24 seconds. we can also easily calculate how many seconds are there in one hour.

boeing 767-200 length: 48.5 m
11 frame: 11/24= 0.458 secs
1 hour = 60x60 secs = 3600 secs.

now if 48.5 meters is taken in 0.458 seconds, how many meters is taken in 3600 seconds (1 hour)?

if
48.5 0.458
z 3600 secs

z = 48.5x3600/0.458 = 174600/0.458 = 381222 meters/hr = 381 kms/hr = 236.7 miles/hr

thus, the speed of the plane just before the impact was 381kms/hr (236 mph), and NOT 950 km/h (590 mph)! this is a substantial difference. the plane (whether real or fake) crashed the building with around 1/2.5 of the speed that is claimed.

the only thing i am uncertain about is the assumption of 24 frame/sec, so it'd be great if someone would confirm or disconfirm this.

banoyes
29-08-2008, 04:28 PM
For the purpose of this speed analysis I have assumed that the UA175 aircraft was travelling at a height of approximately 1000 feet at the time of impact and that the air temperature was approximately 20 degrees Celsius at that altitude. Under these environmental conditions the speed of sound (Mach 1.0) would occur approximately at 767 mph or 666 knots. Here is a list of UA175 speeds issued from official bodies that were presumably calculated using video footage of the WTC2 strike:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - 503 mph / 436 knots / M0.653

British Royal Air Force - 575 mph / 500 knots / M0.750

Federal Aviation Administration - 586 mph / 510 knots / M0.765

National Institute of Standards and Technology - 546 mph / 475 knots / M0.714

Federal Emergency Management Agency - 590 mph / 514 knots / M0.771

All media used for my calculations came directly from good quality NTSC DVD sources. The results were as follows:

Park Foreman Video - 540 mph / 470 knots / M0.705

Evan Fairbanks Video - 565 mph / 490 knots / M0.735

"Unknown Video" - 492 mph / 428 knots / M0.642
As with the official calculations there is quite a variation in speeds obtained from one video source to another according to my analysis, but we can comfortably group together the RAF, FEMA, FAA, Park Foreman Video and the Evan Fairbanks video figures to produce a speed range between 560 mph and 590 mph.

The variation in speed from the differing video sources could easily be due to small errors in the calculations by each respective party and as the calculated speeds in this group are quite close, this could be one possible explanation.

However, the calculation performed by Eduardo Kausel (below) at MIT and my own calculation using the Unknown Video are well outside this 560 mph to 590 mph speed bracket, yet Kausel claims to have used various publicly available video recordings and states that the velocities for the two WTC planes were in excellent agreement with the flight data based on RADAR information provided by the NTSC.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this UA175 airspeed analysis is that the video recordings are all giving us different speeds because the UA175 aircraft was actually travelling at a different speed in each video!

Your calculation seems very far removed from these others.
so
Is it your contention that these are all in error by a huge margin

http://www.geocities.com/ua175reflections/
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/

musti
29-08-2008, 09:32 PM
hi banoyes,

thanks for the links, very informative!

the speed analysis website shows 13 frames, which is relatively close to 11 frames. however, the video i posted looks much accurate than the frames shown on the website. in any case 11 frames vs. 13 frames is not a big discrepancy.

the reason of my calculation being that different than the one on the website is that on the website 13 frames = 0.2002 secs, which would mean that 1 sec contains roughly 65 frames (13/0.2002 = 64.9).

as i said in my previous post, i am not sure about this frame business. wikipedia says the norm is 24 but sometimes 25 and 30 are used as well.
Film frame - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

to summarize, the whole calculation is based on the frame numbers per second. i accepted 24 frame/sec whereas according to the other calculation there are 65 frames/sec.

i guess the easiest way is to look at it with a video editor (i am somewhat familiar with audio editors but not with video editors) and simply observe the time difference on the video editor.

musti
29-08-2008, 09:37 PM
i see that the video i posted in my first post, which my calculations are based on, isn't there...

here it is once again:
Killtown: Air vs. Skyscraper - YouTube

musti
29-08-2008, 10:52 PM
by the way if my calculation is accurate or close to accurate, then i see two implications:

1. the plane was not flying with an impossible speed, so it was real [supports there was a plane]

2. the plane was not fast enough (236 mph instead of 590!) to disappear into the building [supports no plane]

mynameis
29-08-2008, 11:16 PM
Actually it takes 2 seconds at 24 frames per second on that video. The video shown looks to be slowed down for visual accuracy. I would take a video from original source here:

Original speed makes the plane faster on this video compared with the slowed down for accuracy version. Someone is misleading you.

musti
29-08-2008, 11:36 PM
Actually it takes 2 seconds at 24 frames per second on that video. The video shown looks to be slowed down for visual accuracy. I would take a video from original source here:

Original speed makes the plane faster on this video compared with the slowed down for accuracy version. Someone is misleading you.

thanks my nameis, that's a very good point. the slowed down video might be the reason for the discrepancy.

does the video you posted shows the original speed at 0:18-0:38? it looks original but at times it feels like its slowed down... in any case, i don't have a video editor to analyze this but i might download one (i found some freeware video editors) and try to analyze it when i have time.

mynameis
29-08-2008, 11:50 PM
thanks my nameis, that's a very good point. the slowed down video might be the reason for the discrepancy.

does the video you posted shows the original speed at 0:18-0:38? it looks original but at times it feels like its slowed down... in any case, i don't have a video editor to analyze this but i might download one (i found some freeware video editors) and try to analyze it when i have time.

No worries. Glad I could be of some help to you on your calculation. It's a sound attempt at trying to reign in a rough figure via the plane's dimensions. I would figure the news to play the purported original as is. Nothing will dissuade the vocal no planers from the actual reality that this is of course footage that was never tampered with; as those adherents to no planes see it justified and necessary to tamper with the original footage and pass it off as legitimate.

musti
30-08-2008, 12:22 AM