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

Total and complete hogwash. The impact speed recorded is 590mph = 9.833 miles per minute = 0.819 miles in 5 seconds. You misaligned them, the 4th line of my drawing is on the wrong point, you invented a 5th point! Three screw-ups and still no fix. Doesn't matter, your way of doing this is total crap anyway.

If you dispute that speed, give your own figures! Then show where they came from. Meanwhile, let's do this batshit properly!

PRELIMINARY:
Let's compare the angles on the 3 specimens so far submitted.


This is @Kokomojojo PINK line showing what he regards as the 5 second angle of descent from CBS. 920 x 85 pixels = 5.28 degrees


This is my first example at 20 degrees of the BB footage(1.1 miles to BB). 934 x 69 pixels = 4.23 degrees


This is my second example 15 degrees of the BB footage (1.2 miles to BB) 975 x 40 pixels = 2.35 degrees

STEP1:
Take the start and end frame from the CBS 5 second gif. Apply comparative lines to indicate positions.


The Top of the building to the impact point is 103 pixels. The first plane position to the impact is 28. That is 27.2% from impact to the highest point of the plane.

STEP2:
Identify top of the building to impact, apply 27.2% and map it accordingly.



STEP3:
Now let's align the two exactly.



STEP4:
Lets examine the angle on that.


This is the REAL rendering from the CBS 5 seconds of footage. 964 x 35 pixels = 2.08 degrees

RECAP:
First BB technical drawing with 20 degrees and distance to BB of 1.1 miles = 4.23 degrees
Second BB technical drawing with 15 degrees curved and distance to BB of 1.2 miles = 2.35 degrees
@Kokomojojo magic PINK line for CBS gif (with no method shown) assumed as level = 5.28 degrees
My rendering of the CBS gif with alignment, again assumed level = 2.08 degrees.

UNKNOWNS:
1. The distance from BB to WTC2 was assumed at 1.1 and 1.2 miles on respective drawings from an estimated map position.
2. The approach angle of the plane on the BB gif, estimated at 20 and 15 degrees on respective drawings. Personally I think it closer to 15 degrees.
3. The elevation of the CBS helicopter. Assumed level but @Kokomojojo thinks it slightly higher.
4. Where is the math for the magic PINK line?

KNOWNS:
1. I have since identified the walkway under the bridge at 1.06 miles exact from other similar images on wooden walkway next to the East River.
2. An elevated position on the CBS would yield a larger angle when viewed from lower/level.
3. Comparing the second BB analysis of 2.35 degrees and the rendered CBS analysis of 2.08 degrees is more than close enough given the unknowns!

 

Its micrometer time folks!



OOops!

We got a problem Houston!

 

So, fresh off the news that your magic PINK line has been completely fabricated, we now have a completely moronic yellow line drawn on and the equally moronic cry of OOops.

WHAT IS THAT YELLOW LINE?

 

How many pixels was that again?

 

Wow, that is really deceptive. Even if you just increase the actual webpage to match that size, it clearly doesn't do what you just did!
400%


You're busted and you know it. I'm going to have fun now - your crazy drawing in post #185 has a completely bogus left hand marker for the angle of descent. You've "reverse-bodged" it. In reality that view of the plane, THAT height above the WTC2 can occur at any number of DISTANCES from the WTC2!



The pink line, the lowest of them all, places the CBS camera around 3 miles away!

OOops, Houston we have a completely bogus, fudged drawing. Horrific exaggeration on the plane height above the WTC2 and a bogus elevation marker on the left(see post #185)!



There we go folks. This thread is as dead as a Dodo. At the top of the page, this ludicrous claim is totally annihilated. He's been dumping one bodged image after another, just look at the two above. Go to post #185 and see if you can work out how the hell he puts that left hand marker up!

 

ok

 

But the highest point of the plane was here:

 

Hmm, well your drawing says otherwise!


But hey, straight from the horses mouth.
PLANE TO TOP IS NOW = 171 PIXELS
TOP TO IMPACT = 153 PIXELS
THAT'S A DIFFERENCE OF 111.8%

OOops!

 

WHAT!? What the hell is that horseshit? You stuck the WTC2 from the other drawing, on the edge of this drawing and drew in an angle. Hilarious.

It appears you are done here. Be brave now, let's put this batshit to bed. y post at the top of the page closes the whole thing. The observation about your ridiculous fudging of the images to create a false descent angle from 13.25 seconds has been totally exposed.

/thread

 

Ok you can accuse me of bring a copy cat!

Thats exactly what I thought when I seen your post. Did You notice how I lined them up pixel for pixel same as you did? I get almost 40 degrees though, how come? They are lined up pixel for pixel, micrometer accuracy!

 

Are you kidding Im just getting started!

I will shortly, kind of busy right now, but soon, very soon

Nah I already exposed a majoy folly in the logic used for pixel accuracy and proved you can get any angle you want using that method.

Oh Im sure you would love this thread shut down right about now, now that its my turn to post what Ive got to talk about. Such a deceitful debate practice.
For everyone out there Im not done yet, Im just getting started!

 

You did nothing to map that out what makes you think you exposed something?
Are you trying to say the plane was not higher then the building? What gives here?

 

Oh so perspective only applies to your work not mine?

I thought you understood my drawing, what do you need help with, I will be happy to explain it to you.

 

I removed the useless lead in, (the part you seem to always omit for some strange reason), and also the full length of the explosion to the first point where we see the plane enter into view and the point where we see the beginning of the explosion. Presently in the clip I am using there is 399 frames at 29fps you know typical video speed rate, I think thats pretty close to 13.7seconds? Oh and ps:this is a gif by the way for show and tell, the original (actual 'video') came from a clip you posted long time ago.



Frames are listed for important parts so you can check em out

 

What gives is that you deceptively applied a magic marker to the left hand to give it a fixed position when none existed. YOU placed your helicopter a mile away from the WTC2, then said they were usually between 3-5 miles!



You totally screwed up the angle to the plane in the first place, you just plucked a figure out of thin air.

Still posting gibberish images! The framerate is NO INDICATION of accuracy. The video is recorded on the camera. It is played back, probably on a VHS, that may or may not run at exactly the same speed. When converting to video, it can record slightly different timecode. When uploading to youtube the timing is once again open to possible variance. Every time that digital video gets bounced around, also changes its possible speed.

 

Better check your cipherin, (blunder) I was conservative, it should have 180%

 

Close enough, far more accurate than guessing where you are under a bridge.

probably?
meaningless.

Can?
meaningless.

possible?
meaningless.

possible?
meaningless.

prove it.

 

To be meaningful it has to change the point under contention, prove that it changed the point under contention.

 

ENOUGH! Is it possible for you to stop your incessant posturing? I responded in kind and wish I hadn't bothered. This is just tedious. I'm not going to be drawn in any more in doing this.

1. The height of the impact is 0.79 of the total height 1,362ft - so it is 1,076ft.
2. You labelled it as 250ft, it is 286ft.
3. The image from impact to the top / top to the first plane (3 pixels from top) ratio is 112%.
4. Your 250ft / 350 ft is inaccurate.
5. It should be 286ft / 323ft.



I've done some more investigating on the UA175 position from the BB clip, the line of sight to the plane as it enters, much more accurate distances and very accurate speed estimates. I will finish it off and post it after you concede this meaningless error. If you don't concede it, you had better have a damn good piece of evidence to show a 180% variation. If it is accurate I will concede it. If it isn't I will show you why.

I accept that is good enough for any purposes being discussed. It isn't 100% accurate and I have no way to establish by what amount it may not be.

Which is basically all you CAN do. But there is a wooden walkway along the East River and that is between 1.06 and 1.12 miles away from WTC2.

Image of View under Brooklyn Bridge towards Manhattan (photo) (bridgemanimages.com)

 

Show exactly how you established the left hand elevation, or concede that it could be at any of the heights indicated.

 

establish how much the variance effects the 5 second clip or concede it does not.

 

You are the one who pulled out the micrometer and took issue with my nymbers despite the fact I said lets use these just to make it easy in the preface. You did not object so you waive the ability to argue the issue now.

Well you made a blunder in your math, I can measure 'pixels' too you know.

Again the values used were prefaced and you did not object, so you waive the justification to gripe about it now. But since you tried I checked your math, and you goofed. I can measure pixels too.

The best way not to get sucked in is dont start.

Now, if you dont conceded you will sucked in deeper because you need to prove out if and how much variance exists with the different helicopter positions to demonstrate it changes the outcome. You started it! Not me.

 

I never claimed at any point that it did. It's not a five second clip either! Now identify how you established it or concede it was a mistake.

 

It was used to establish the angle in the 5 second clip, that you imply cannot be correct because we dont know 'precisely' where the helo was. Now prove it or concede or withdraw the initial implication.

 

And more posturing......

I identified a significant problem relevant to YOUR claim! You said:

I proved your pink line was bogus.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt without any NEED to check it. You started claiming they don't align, I checked. You don't get to dictate what is waived or not!

False. If I made an error you have yet to identify it. It stands until you do.

I checked them when drawing my own version whilst I tried to establish how far away the CBS camera was. It is a mistake that affects the 9 or so seconds just before.

You don't get to dictate what is waived or not!

You said that literally 2 sentences ago. If I made an error you have yet to identify it. It stands until you do.

"Sucked in" is specifically a response. In this case to your posting style. As I said, I won't be doing it anymore.