There is No Evidence a 7x7 Can Fly Level over 500mph

Well when I see boeing engineers laughing their asses off about somebody claiming that a 7x7 can fly over 500 mph sea level as far as I'm concerned that's conclusive that it can't be done which makes sense because that's as silly as making the assumption that a boat can go 80 miles an hour above the water can also go 80 miles an hour underwater since water is far more dense, hence more friction just like the air at sea level is six times more dense than air at 33,000 ft.

Aircraft are designed to fly at a specific speed at a specific altitude at least when it comes to jumbo Jets which is typically 25 to 35,000 ft, and they simply don't have enough horsepower to fly 500 miles per hour at sea level where the air is 6 times the design density.

As far as I'm concerned the question in the op has been sufficiently answered and I see no reason to deviate from that unless someone can provide test data proving that a 7x7 plane can fly nearly level with the Earth in 6 times thicker air at sea level.

@Scott has produced sufficient evidence (Boeing engineer statements) that it can't be done.

That being said the only thing that can negate the statements of Boeing engineers is a test proving the contrary, that has not been provided, and no one seems to be able to provide such a thing, in fact they claim such a test thing is not possible to because the plane will break apart. Strawman arguments and other deviations from the OP notwithstanding.

Once again thanks to all who have contributed to answering the OP.

 

Well, that's am awful lot of gibberish. Who are these "Boeing engineers" you refer to? I certainly didn't notice any of these "Boeing engineers" "laughing their asses off". Are you sure you're not just making it up? Leslie Hazzard (almost certainly on public relations desk!) gave a little chuckle, but then again the guy asking the "innocent question" puts words in her mouth and doesn't explain that the plane had been in a full throttle dive from high altitude! As I said, this film is highly deceptive and uses any means to create controversy.

The planes were all diving. Even your own source shows they were diving! 1hr 53 mins:

More of this made up gibberish. Planes are designed to take-off, ascend, fly distances, descend and land. They are perfectly able to go very fast at low altitude, especially when diving at full throttle.

You already said that. I'm guessing you just wanted to roll my response off the current page, so you said it all again.

And yet he only thinks the Pentagon one wasn't a plane.

He isn't too impressed with them. Elaborating here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/shills-mod-alert.289757/page-10#post-1062450957
SCOTT: "I think that planes did hit the towers. No-planers are infiltrator shills who are trying to make truthers look silly. Real truthers think planes did hit the towers."

What Boeing engineers?!

False once again. It was false when you said it in your previous post. The video evidence and the AA77 black box data does the job.

Needless to say, the very long inconvenient list on the preceding page is ignored for the 100th time. Surely arriving at the truth is the objective?

 

I dont know where you got that goofy looking thing, its not from MY source.

Here is MY source flat as my table.



mine has the real scene see the boat.

 

You don't know? But I told you where. YOUR SOURCE, that spammed video "New Pearl Harbor" Time = 1hr 53 mins. They overlaid the footage on top of a photograph that was more square on to the approach.

Both are correct. Your "flat" one is angled away. The plane is approaching from about a 45 degree angle.

You previously ignored where I pointed out this totally obvious thing:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...175-flight-path.610714/page-3#post-1074232486
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...175-flight-path.610714/page-3#post-1074232546
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...175-flight-path.610714/page-3#post-1074232592

Angled away. Theirs has the actual footage inset and they have taken the time to adjust it.

 

I did not reference the graphic you posted, therefor I will not use it in discussion.

Everything you posted is from a different thread and a different viewing angle, nothing that you posted demonstrates a perspective that would invalidate flat flight since the camera angle to the building is 90 degrees and far enough away that parallax is next to zippo, so if you wish for me to continue discussing this with you explain your 45 degree claim articulating it mathematically from the perspective I posted showing how how much you believe it would deviate from my claim of "nearly flat with the horizon". Presently I see nothing in your post that applies to my claim since an object traveling at 45 degrees downward can be seen as traveling downward for nearly 270 degrees easily within 180 degress rotation around the object. The camera is at 90 so it makes it easy for you.

 

It's from a truther film and you are dismissing it? That's exactly how it happened. It was diving.

Hogwash! See the row of houses? THAT is what happens when you apply a "flat" line to an angled approach!

AT 3:47 we see clearly the path of UA175. Big angle from the right, easily 45 degrees!

That's just gibberish. Really, a word salad.

Here's the map. Your gif is from under the Brooklyn Bridge. The yellow lines are line of sight and 90 degree angle. The red line is approach angle of UA175 as seen from video above. Now really! do I have to put up the row of houses picture again! Level on something approaching from 45 degrees is DESCENDING!


Kevin Westley's new 9/11 2nd plane angle - Synced with Michael Hezarkhani's video (youtube.com)

 

Kool, good job!

So now lets look at that from under the bridge roughly a mile away, say 5000 ft and he looks to be about 20 stories above the ground.



Ok so we have the pink line in my previous post showing what you claim is the flight path of a plane at 45 degrees in reference to the side of the building and we are viewing it from roughly 90 degrees, roughly a mile away.

I put 3 X's on your drawing, (below) with that draw 4 lines what a plane would look like in perspective when flying flat with the horizon, one for each X, and one for your 45 degree (red line) so we can all better understand your position. Color coding would be nice if you want to match the color of your line and the X's that would be great!



tia

 

I was just thinking...lets make it easy. lets say the observer is at the 70th floor and lets say that the gree X is at 90 degrees from the observer. save us some trig

 

This point is proven. And the damn observer is not 90 to the approach! It's 135 degrees to it.

The video showed the angle of the approach. The plane is farther away from square on.
Things the same height, farther away are LOWER in the sky! See houses above, see lights below.


It's not even open for discussion, that the plane approaches close enough to that angle. To explain that with the lights, if that farthest light is at the same level visually with the nearest, it must be higher.

I do not believe that you don't understand this, nobody can fail to get it, it's totally obvious.

If you are viewing a level line going from right to left, it skims the top of each pole. The fact that it's level shows it must be higher to begin with and descending noticeably.
It's not a weakness to concede an error. Even the truther video got this right!

 

It would have been interesting to compare where you would put level flight lines at different angles to where I would put them for each approach angle, in the proper perspective to the observer under the bridge, to mathematically validate each perspective by doing our own work since its so simple to do and since none of us has any reason to trust that drawing without going through and proving out the exercises ourselves, especially for such simple stuff like this.

Would have been a fun exercise so others could understand and validate it without question. Oh well, sorry you dont want to play anymore, would have been fun. Its all good. My question in the OP was already proven anyway thanks to the video @Scott posted so Im happy leaving it at that. So the approach perspective question remains unproven. Im good with that. Till next time.

 

Do a YouTube search on this video and go to the 1:26:00 time mark.
The New Pearl Harbor -- Best 911 Documentary - Full Movie

The video is vague about what the possible explanation is for the planes' not suffering any damage at that high speed at such a low altitude. They just say it's mysterious. I'm just a layman but I wonder if it possible to build a specially designed plane of that size and style that can withstand the stress. That would be consistent with the theory that the planes were drones (start watching at the 1:36:43 time mark).

 

Its really quite simple. They dont have enough horsepower to push them that fast at sea level. This too is very easy to calculate. The density of air which causes friction is 6 times less at the design altitude. With the engines maxed out they fly their rated speed at 30-35000 approximately which is 500+mph, even faster engines at balls to the wall. This is based on volume of air passing through the engines too provide the same EPR as you would have at sea level.

It goes without saying that 10 hp wont push the same object through highly dense water the same speed as it would lower density air at 30000.

This is kind of a goofy way to chart it but as density increases so does volume.



Once the flight path is proven by calculating perspective then we can add gravity into the equation and see how much effect gravity will have on the descent.

Its really easy to understand what we almost started to have a discussion about.

All one need do is take a thin alum pie pan cut it in half, glue it to the top of a peanut butter jar line your eye up level with the top edge of the pie pan and you will very quickly notice the 'perspective angles' if there are any, at the different points around the circumference of the pan.

Thats why I changed the problem from 20 stories high observer to equi-height observer, makes it foolproof and easy to do both experimentally and mathematically and proves the perspective is beyond reasonable doubt. It would have been fun, but you can get those answers at home in your own kitchen LOL.

Anyway the one that really caught my attention was the engineering gal at boeing who busted out laughing just because someone would ask such a silly question, but she gave him a serious answer, no it cant. I had to laugh too. The guy who did the interview with the engineers was a Canadian guy, Jeff Hill, used to be able to call him if you emailed him first, but not sure if he still has his blog.

He was really good, asks and doggedly pursues the inconvenient questions that official story people always find an excuse to dodge and duck from fully fleshing out. And for me I have gotten to the point where I just handwave these people away writing them off as incompetent.

Anyway I appreciate you posting the comments from all those boeing engineers, without any valid contradictory math I have no absolutely no reason not to believe them since they do after all design those planes. lol

That said thanks again for answering the question in the OP proving the point!

 

According to the truther video the planes were travelling at around 500 MPH. How can we measure the speed to verify that? It may turn out that they really were travelling that fast. If that turns out to be the case, we have to figure out why.

 

Then do it yourself!

Hilarious. The OP was "proven" Well, totally ignoring the radar readings, the engineering assessments, the video, the black box data and right now a bizarre refusal to understand perspective and height. All the planes were diving at full throttle. There's no mystery at all.

 

Gibberish. 6 times less? The planes are all over YouTube doing 350 to 400 in level flight on low passes! I'm fairly sure they don't do Concorde speeds at altitude.

Ridiculous comparison. The planes are diving at full throttle. Gravity is very much a factor.

That's done for the last mile or so - proven. It was descending at full power.

It sure is. The flat apparent flight shows an angled approach, It MUST be descending.

And you repeat the claim whilst ignoring the request. Leslie Hazzard is listed as Communications Manager at Boeing. She was NOT given the honest question. Deliberately deceptive. He should have asked her "could the plane achieve those speeds diving at full throttle and ignoring all safety protocols'"!

Name "all those Boeing engineers". Leslie Hazzard is not one!

 

Let me clarify this for you. I asked you to perform a very simple exercise, you refused.

If you want cooperation from me I expect cooperation for you.

If that cant be achieved I have no reason to continue trying to debate anything with you. Feel free to make any claims you want, however anything humanly possible to change or corrupt is suspect and I believe none of it unless its supported in physics. FLight recorders, film speed all humanly corruptable.

You want cooperation from me then you cooperate with me, otherwise feel free to gaslight the thread to your hearts content because I truly do not give a ****, I have plenty of popcorn and beer to enjoy the show.

 

As I expected, no reply to the "list of Boeing engineers." The claims thus far and their outcome:

• Leslie Hazzard is a Boeing engineer. She is NOT, she is the Commercial Manager.
• "All those Boeing engineers". Who? No names given.
• "UA757 final approach was as flat as a table". "So the approach perspective question remains unproven." False. Proven completely wrong not least from the actual video being cited! Angle of approach proves it was diving.
• "Boeing engineers laughed their asses off". Completely false hyperbole. No Boeing engineers were asked and only the commercial spokesperson "chuckled".
• "doggedly pursues the inconvenient questions". This is actually pure deception. He blatantly lies from omission when talking to Leslie Hazzard and makes no mention of the plane hurtling down at full throttle in a dive! With others, he underplays the event with the words "gentle dive". Total dishonesty.
• "I got another chuckle when the one engineer burst out laughing". So not plural now and she chuckled - see point above.
• "No evidence of their speeds". A ludicrous arm-wave away of multiple sources of evidence. Numerous vantage points captured the event ( at least 2 dozen) and the AA77 black box confirmed the aircraft speed.
• "Boeing engineers on the other hand claim it cant be done". A complete fabrication and distortion. Name them - give sources for these claims!
• "FLight recorders, film speed all humanly corruptable." A ludicrous statement arm-waving away dozens of videos and black box data. Also adding to the pathetically unfeasible and massive list of Americans happy to murder thousands of fellow citizens!
  

Lots of hyperbole here. Lots of evasion. Lots of false claims. Just to clarify - I neither seek or want any "cooperation" from anyone who claims there were no planes. I want them to answer the REAL inconvenient questions and requests! Detailed in my post HERE - completely ignored yet again and within the list just above.

 

Okay peeps here we go pop that popcorn grab a beer!

So what I did with regard to that drawing that I asked beta to do for us, is I placed the observer at the same height as the impact and I placed the glide slope to level with the horizon.

The reason I did that of course is because it takes out literally all perspective, it removes the whole claim of vertical perspective errors since beta is claiming that it was diving we only care about the vertical perspective.

So that results in the lines for each angle for that exercise given to beta the lines were all superimpose on top of each other exactly, and the only thing that really changes is the length of the line, there is absolutely no height difference under those circumstances, in other words no matter what angle the plane hits the building if it's flying flat and The observers at the same height as the plane and impact zone it's going to show up as flat flight on the screen.

The initial video that I posted shows the plane flying flat you can rotate that to any horizontal angle you want it won't affect the vertical perspective and it's still going to be flat since under those conditions vertical perspective has been ruled out.

I had no intention of looking at the video that was posted in defense of the 45° angle thing and the dive thing because I know it's bullshit oh wait I mean batshit and I didn't want to waste my time, but then I'll curiosity I couldn't resist it I had to open it up and take a quick peek.

What did I see when I took a peek I seen more fraudulent videos they are all doctored so bad it's ridiculous. Some of the poorest most shitty CGI that I've ever seen.

What happened is the plane appeared to come in lower than the impacts and I love the way they pointed it downward the fake it as if it was diving.

So I drew a purple line through the middle of the plane roughly all the way across the screen thankfully the dumb shits that did the CGI and took that video had it on a tripod and wiggled it around a lot to make it look like it was freehand well it was not freehand it was on a tripod which made this super easy took me less than 5 minutes tops LOL

Then I took another snip of the video where the initiation blew out the side of the building you can see the whitish smoke and to give it as much generously leeway as I could I drew it on the very bottom of the white smoke and that's the green line which is under the impact blowout.

Then the top picture I made transparent so that you could see both pictures within a pixel of accuracy superimposed one picture on top of the other and as we can see the plane hit the building higher than it entered into the screen.

The sweet thing about this of course is there's literally arguably no perspective error because as we can see the observation camera is looking damn near straight at, has a 90° to the side of the building at the height of the impact zone/plane entry into the picture, which means any possible perspective error would be so small we'd have to literally get a micrometer to measure it!

That's why in my last post I gave you the pie pan on top of the peanut butter jar it's just that ****ing simple lol

That's one of the shittiest fake jobs I've ever seen before when it comes to video. That plane should have blasted right through that opening between the two buildings and it didn't it disappeared but when we look at where it entered into the picture and when you look where it presumably blew out the building you can see it's nose diving the wrong way it's diving upward for **** sake!

I keep telling you guys all these videos are butchered beyond anybody's imagination.

Now we've got people drawing pictures and being posted as the flight path.

There was no dive!

seems it is a mystery, well not to me anyway.

that sounds like a real dive!

I did, way back in primer school science class! Thats how come I know how to take perspective out of the equation blow the dive theory to bits.
That's the school we go to before high school, and then on to college.

 

Once again another inconvenient and difficult list is ignored! And now we have a gigantic word salad with more crap about what perspective does. It seems no amount of drawings will make this jaw-droppingly obvious point. UA175 is descending in a long dive into the tower. Clearly, nearly every video shows it banking and coming to a more level approach in the last few seconds.

So, based on that, what would be the deceptive thing to do? Grab a video with just the last few seconds and bloviate about it. Yes. That would be the deceptive thing to do. What other deceptive thing could you do? Zoom in on the image and claim that it was level when IT CLEARLY ISN'T!?





Let's look at some better examples of the approach:





Now what would be the "defense" of in-your-face proof? Well that would be batshit about all these videos being "faked" and "CGI". But that leaves us with more inconvenient stuff that NEVER, not once is honestly addressed!

The plane was diving. Period. It's proven.

 

So far I posted 2 videos that confirm a near flat entry easily provable (horizontal angle of approach notwithstanding) because the observer is at the same height or great enough distance that vertical variation would be irrelevantly negligible from their vantage point. iow it would appear flat anyway.

IE we would see no significant vertical deviation from flat as a result of the observer being at eye level to the object.

This is perspective basics 101, and I am sure most of you know this but I will put up a quicky drawing anyway for shits n giggles.

We can demonstrate this very clearly on the kitchen table by simply placing a 2x4 on the table, rotating it while observing it vertically at the center line while rotating.

I see a lot of nonsense out there on internet sites about perspective.

With the spectator vertical viewing at precisely 0cl V ei dead vertical center of the 2x4 and the 2x4 is rotated the only thing that changes to the observer is the length that is the 'horizontal length of the rotating 2x4.

Green=8ft@90/180deg,
Red=4ft@45/135/225/and315Deg, and
Black=board thickness at 360/0deg



each color represents what the 2x4 looks like as the given angle when lying flat, ie the same as flat nearly level flight path would look in terms of vertical deviation.

The was no major variation in vertical height in either video that I posted therefore there was no 45degree dive because the observer was at the impact site height.

 

False. You have posted 1 gif that shows an APPARENT flat entry. Simple to understand explanations have been given to you showing why this is not the actual angle. The other "flat entry" was an image with the same issue!

Utter hogwash. The gif is below the Brooklyn Bridge! The image is clearly NOT level and uses only the last 3 seconds of flight where the plane levels off closer to flat prior to impact.

More complete hogwash. Distance makes no difference whatsoever, it is elevation that is the issue. Your gif on its own PROVES the plane MUST be descending. Things farther away appear lower. I cite the ignored picture of lights or houses. I cite it being totally damn obvious!

Neither fit that criteria. You deceptively claimed it was level on your image by cropping the picture. The full image shows this to be below the level of the plane's approach.

That you clearly do not understand.

The ridiculous straw man. Nobody is disagreeing with level observation!

Do you now! The irony!

I doubt very much whether there is a single person viewing this thread who is on the fence. EVERYONE can see the issues being deliberately avoided. Post 44 above contains a whole barrage of items that remain completely ignored. Inconvenient but vital for this ridiculous "no plane" crap.

 

deleted

 

Its not apparently flat entry, flat entry is a fact we can all see.

So then I did post 2 after all.

Which image, I posted 2 remember? Please be more clear.

 

You are not the spokesperson for "we".

This is actually painful. You said you posted 2 VIDEOS. You posted NONE "after all". One was a gif and the other was a single image.

I don't think it's actually possible to be more clear! You posted 1 "remember"!

For clarity, look at the foreground building in the deceptively claimed "level image" just above in quotes. See how "high" it is against the twin towers! Now look at the gif, far more level with the flight trajectory:

 

So you think that is a deception.
How so?
Does it materially change what we would conclude?
If it materially changes what we would see to the point it would lead one to the wrong conclusion that would be deceptive.
Argumentative minutia is not deception, its simply useless argumentative minutia.
You have not demonstrated that it could cause any relevantly significant material alteration that would wrongfully alter ones understanding since that can only be done mathematically and you have not provided a proper analysis needed to justify your claim.

Thats 30 feet away and totally not representative of the wtc taken a mile away.
No one is arguing that under CERTAIN circumstances perspective comes strongly into play.

Your house are correct but failed to made a connection to the wtc since the wtc clip was a mile away and the angle is completely different and a host of other problems that make that graphic completely useles with the exception to claim 'perspective' does exist.

I agree perspective does exist, I never disagreed with that concept.

Now we need something that actually applies to the wtc real world event.

Yes, the still was from your video and it proved the plane was ascending, not descending because the entry image was superimposed over the impact image precisely within 1 pixel accuracy.

So then you are denying that is a valid method? If so articulate all pertinently applicable points and provide a validation clip in support of your points.

Looks like one view is closer than the other or zoomed in, not sure what you believe you see?