9 - 1 1 R e s e a r c h

an attempt to uncover the truth about September 11th 2001
mirror of “NERDCITIES/GUARDIAN” site : disclaimer
NOTE: See this more recent version of this article.

HOW BIG SHOULD THE BOEING 757 BE.

The following picture, of a Boeing 757 superimposed on a photo from the explosion series,


originally appeared in the article

http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian/SeptemberEleventh/WhatHitThePentagon

The size of the Boeing 757 in this picture was determined directly from that of a similar picture on David Bosankoe's web-site (without verifying its accuracy, as the picture seems to be roughly what one would expect). As David has since recalculated the size of the pictured 757 and released an updated (and significantly different) version of this picture, I decided to check his work by calculating the size of the Boeing 757 using a different approach (an approach already put to use in the above mentioned article). This alternate approach is particularly suited to the task here, as it automatically accounts for the distortion due to the security camera's wide angle lens.


Since the heliport control tower is strangely invisible in the "plane" photo, the lines bounding it had to be superimposed from the "impact 2" photo. These are the 2 lines on the left. The line bounding the planes tail has also been marked. It is the rightmost line. What we need to calculate is the position of the line that bounds the nose of the 757. The angle between the lines bounding the heliport control tower is 6.4 degrees. The other (rightmost) angle is 16.5 degrees.

We now transfer these lines to the overhead photo of the area, presented below. Since the angles must maintain the same ratio in both pictures (imagine that the lines have been painted on the ground) the 16.5 degree angle in the "plane" photo must correspond to a 12.2 angle in the overhead photo. That is, the 6.4 : 4.8 ratio must be the same as the 16.5 : 12.2 ratio, which is the same as saying that 6.4 / 4.8 = 16.5 / 12.2 (this value is about 1.34). Now each side of the Pentagon is known to be 920 feet long, so each pixel corresponds to 920 / 622 = 1.48 feet. We know that a Boeing 757 is 155 feet long. So in the overhead picture, the Boeing must be 155 / 1.48 = 105 pixels long. At this point we have obtained the following picture.


Note that I have used the 50 degree angle calculated on xox's web-site, and not David's figure of 55 degrees. It doesn't really make too much difference, but it seems to me that the idea behind xox's estimate should lead to a more accurate result.

Now the 1.9 degree angle in the overhead photo corresponds to an angle of 1.9 x 1.34 = 2.6 degrees in the "plane" photo. Making a line 2.6 degrees to the right of the line that bounds the right of the heliport control tower, we obtain the desired line which bounds the nose of the 757. Thus we obtain the following picture that shows roughly what one would expect to see if the security camera had indeed snapped a picture of a Boeing 757 (with its tail in the same position as the purported tail section that we are meant to be able to see above the larger of the two parking control structures).


Although, my calculation does not agree with David's new graphic, it (very roughly) agrees with his original picture.

However, note that both David's new graphic, and his old one, together with the other features of the "explosion" photos, prove that these photos are complete and utter fabrications.

Home Page (an assortment of articles on September 11 and Palestine).
How did the Sports Utility at the Pentagon become a burnt out shell?

mirror of “NERDCITIES/GUARDIAN” site : disclaimer