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

I'm no expert but judging from what I've read, a standard plane of that size with standard engines could only achieve >500 MPH at that altitude by coming out of a dive. Most of the dive was probably off camera. There are scenarios that may explain why it didn't break up. It may have been a specially designed plane that could take the stress. Or maybe it would have broken up if it had flown a while longer than it did. According to the truther video it would have needed engines that were much different from the ones in the videos to achieve that speed without diving from a high altitude. I'm not and expert so I'm only speculating.

 

Tedium. YOU claimed it was level. it is most certainly nothing of the sort. I explained exactly why this was deceptive:
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!?

If you STILL don't understand this I am struggling with ways to educate you. Things further away appear less tall.

And it does. Hence deceptive.

It's not minutia. It is the same issue as the distant gif. It's approaching from further away at a significant angle so will naturally appear lower if it is the same altitude. .

Yes I have. Your failure to understand is the problem.

Hogwash, there's no difference. Things further away at the same height will be lower. Children work this out.

Yes they are and the "one" doing it is you. Perspective is very rarely NOT in play.

Same argument again! Hogwash, there's no difference. Things further away at the same height will be lower. Children work this out.

It isn't a concept! You just don't understand how it works.

You aren't the spokesperson for "we". Everything supplied already applies.

Gibberish. You deceptively claimed it was level and deceptively used the short period before impact where it was only a few degrees off level. As noted, you failed to work out that things angled away and more distant would appear lower if they were the same height!

More nonsense. Nothing you have provided is valid, neither in the method or conclusion.

Really!? The foreground building will only look to be that apparent height when you are lower than the animated gif comparing it.

 

That is almost certainly correct.

(1) UA175 visible for 25 seconds before impacting WTC2 : 911archive (reddit.com)
Go full screen, at about 22 seconds and close to and a little right of the center. The plane can be seen for some time on its approach.

It's a very well designed plane.

Probably.

Go to post 44, do not point me to your spammed video about Pearl Harbor as any response. Nothing in that video explains the fundamentals of what I have listed.

 

I don't have a Reddit account so I couldn't watch your video but I watched this one.

Roberto Cervante's WTC 9/11 Footage


It's obviously in a shallow dive, It was probably in a deeper dive before it got into camera view.

This is the first time I've seen a 9/11 truther raise the argument that the plane wasn't in a dive.

 

No planers are not "truthers". The argument has been destroyed completely.

 

I agree with both points but this in no way debunks the idea that 9/11 was an inside job (viewers see video referred to in post #36)..

 

Post 7 explains that "truthers"', as you so grandiosely self-label, cannot provide a coherent story even amongst yourselves. The various nuances attached to every claimed event make no sense at all. Post 20 has another list that not one of you has addressed and that's supposed to be this "smoking gun", when in reality it's just ridiculous.

 

I cut the part off where it was hidden behind the building, why have if you cant see it anyway? It materially changes nothing what so ever.

You claim it was level but cant provide me with anything believable, like trigging it out.

You can convince me with math you know, but your posts only extend to proving perspective exists, nothing more, nothing that applies to the wtc, just vague generalities.




There I fixed your omissions from the cbs video, and that is a material omission since it drastically changes the outcome.

Want to fix it? 10 minutes tops of math will do the trick!

Is omitting where the plane entered the cbs video a deception? Why did you do that?

 

Scott, here is the problem...when I try to do the math nothing works out!



Seems to me the antenna was 250ft tall.

What I am looking at does not add up.

Its from betas cbs video gif, maybe beta can add it up

 

The problem isn't the math, it's the person doing it!

What's the problem here? If I knew what your failure was, I could help you, try to be more specific! What nonsense are you claiming now?

What on Earth is that hogwash about F-16s and hairpin turns!?

You presented the image as level. Pure deception. Unless you are claiming that building in the foreground is at that height! Knowing it is clearly BELOW the observer, the plane must be higher further away. It's as basic as you can get with viewing objects. The Father Ted video should have helped you.

I proved yours was NOT level, simply by observation. The foreground building is nowhere near that height!
The distant one is level enough.

Hogwash. Simple observations are enough. How anyone cannot understand these simple demonstrations is baffling.

I'm glad you did. It makes no difference whatsoever to any outcome. It just proves even more so that the plane was diving. Had I noticed that it was visible above the smoke, I would most certainly have extended the gif for that very reason! I presented a YouTube video (just above) that showed this very thing!

Nothing will "do the trick". You cannot reason anybody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. You have been given untold reasons why you are wrong and not one single thing you've messed up has been conceded.

Simply didn't see it. Happy that you found it, it just reinforces my case. Clearly, in every view that is not perspective skewed, the plane is diving. I seriously wonder what world of screwed-up logic do the "evil-powers-that-be" fail to understand simple perspective when they are "faking" 50 odd videos from numerous sources. Given that there are dozens off software packages that can be used to render exact trajectories according to orientation, it's a ludicrous suggestion that they wouldn't use such. Autocad for example. Another one of these being Blender - a slam-dunk video to come!

 

In post #59 Kokomojojo said the plane had made a hairpin turn* that an F-16 couldn't even make. I was going to ask him about that but the statement he made isn't there any more...


*
https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...0HHRRKB18Q0pQJegQIDBAB&biw=1366&bih=657&dpr=1

 

It's clearly a load of hogwash. It's visible in lettering on the big blue baffling image.

 

I'd forgotten where it was.

This is the first I've heard of a hairpin turn. He Kojo; can you link to a some footage or something to support this? I've never seen any maneuver that looked out of the ordinary in any footage I've seen.

 

Image snipped by me. Yet more deception and denial that the plane is diving all the way into the building, a few degrees, right at the end. This claim is dead in the water.


nb. When somebody claiming "no planes" puts the words "drawn to scale" on a drawing, it very rarely is!

BUT, what if there were a way to do this properly? What if you could create the buildings to scale with surrounding buildings and distances, plot the plane position in and then rotate it around a whole series of positions? That would maybe close this whole pathetic strawman wouldn't it? Well it damn well should!


And what about that ridiculous denial that the image claimed as level was clearly not!
Here's Manhattan - can anyone see any buildings on UA175 flightpath that come up to 3/4 of its size? Of course not!

 

That's a good explanation of the physics involved, the physics that make so many elements of the official narrative completely absurd.

 

Sure there is, its called closer to the tower or telephoto, you can see they are looking down at some railings so the drawing you made is a false representation since your line of sight goes all the way to the ground and clearly they are not on the ground, so I have to scrap that pic because its not remotely accurate, sorry. If you know what building they were in let me know, I will make sure it gets drawn accurately on graph paper.

I will download the other one, where is the file for that? Who did it? who has that blender file? Send me a link to the file, or send it to me in email.

 

No, really it isn't. It is an example of distorting the facts which occurs alarmingly often with conspiracy claims! There were no Boeing engineers and the woman contacted was a customer relations employee and asked a deliberately deceptive question omitting vital points!

 

If thats really the case, that she is not an engineer since we have no proof she is not and engineer, other than her job title which is meaningless since she could still be an engineer, and to use that one person out of 5 maybe 6 other boeing engineers as a representative of the whole group would be highly deceptive.

 

Complete hogwash. Not even close to being true. If you are level, a building 1/4 the size doesn't suddenly appear 3/4 the size when you zoom. You've just proven that you really don't know what you are talking about. This whole debate is like pulling teeth.

Irrelevant! Anywhere on the example line produces the same line of sight. It doesn't need to be on the ground.

Your claim is proven to be deceptive. Period. Indicate on that Manhattan map, the big building that is level with 3/4 of the WTC! You just ignored that question!

Meh! You are the one claiming it and nothing you have provided has been accurate.

The ridiculous method for subsequent denial, make absurdly unreasonable demands.

This whole ridiculous denial stems from viewing an apparently horizontal plane approach that fails to incorporate distance to observer angled away. As children, we learn very quickly that things further away are smaller (lower down).



It would appear that no amount of simple, irrefutable evidence will suffice. It's a human strength to concede ones errors. There is no loss of face. I rarely see anyone making a conspiracy claim admit anything. They just avoid it at all costs.

I have compiled a basic list concerning what must be done for no-planes (a totally insane claim) and it has been completely ignored. Very telling!

 

ok but you have problems with your examples since they are not applicable to a 'precision' examination of the wtc, sorry. Im not going to accept defective explanations, sorry. The pic where you drew the observation line, the one on the left is clearly elevated so your observation line is incorrect since it should terminate elevated, so its useless.

The bright blue pic on the right is clearly a telephoto shot and its from a different angle, hence a parallax line you drew above mine is incorrect, sorry I cant accept those kinds of errors because they are too far from usable.

 

Feel free to draw your own if you like and think you can do better. Mine is accurate enough to analyse this perspective issue correctly, more just dives into minutia which is worthless.

 

Nope. There are no problems with my examples or any of my statements. You are denying the totally obvious.

Yet that's ALL you provide.

Hogwash once more, as you ignore the statement!
Anywhere on the example line produces the same line of sight. It doesn't need to be on the ground.

Total BS! Viewers can see you bloviating and evading basic questions:

Indicate on that Manhattan map, the big building that is level with 3/4 of the WTC!



Viewers are wondering why you are evading this. Just admit you made an error, or if you continue, it proves it was deliberate deception. I'm open to the former as your explanation, and will apologize accordingly should you concede this as an error.

You clearly do not have any understanding of basic perspective. You claimed an image was level when it is TOTALLY OBVIOUS that it isn't.

 

What a crock of crap. I mean seriously. You got caught out making a totally false claim that the "engineer laughed her ass off" - She is neither an engineer and she chuckled at a dishonestly made question! The operating phrase here is YOU have zero proof she is an engineer!

This is getting more and more deceptive. Where in that movie are "5 maybe 6" Boeing engineers!? PROVIDE TIMESTAMP!

The claims thus far and their outcome - PRESENTED AGAIN - totally ignored:

• 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 NOT an engineer either!
• "No evidence of their speeds". A ludicrous arm-wave away of multiple sources of evidence. Numerous vantage points captured the event ( at least 3 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!

 

Once again beta we are discussing PERSPECTIVE not every thing you can think of since the beginning of time, so lets stick to perspective for now ok