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

Measured time from the top of the wtc to impact 4 seconds. This is bunk. I downloaded both the 60fps and the 30fps and neither match the cbs speeds therefore are a lot faster.

If you have the file I will load blender and fix it for you, otherwise blender is off the table, its bunk.

 

What the hell is that supposed to mean? The top of WTC to impact? Gibberish.

Bloviating evasion. I do not believe anything you say. This exchange is a complete waste of time. You are running away from dead obvious, irrefutable things.

Almost every time and every thread, the same evasion.

Add to the list above:

• Image is level. Provably impossible, no building is that tall nearby!
• Flat approach. Fails to incorporate angle of approach. Distant objects the same height are lower!

 

I responded to that in my last post, we are talking about PERSPECTIVE right now, not everything else you can dream up from the beginning of time, and you just posted that in post 74, are you going to continue to post that after every one of my responses?

If you no longer want to engage in this discussion, thats fine. But if you do since we are talking about PERSPECTIVE lets try to stick to one subject at a time ok? Can we do that?

OK so what I am looking for in an answer from you is some numbers because I can relate to numbers fair enough?

Anyway the star is the observer under the brooklyn bridge....
a plane is flying flat to the peg 90 degrees to the peg and you the peg height just happens to be the same as the impact height.

What I need to see since you objected to my claim is some math trigging out where you would see the plane. Assume the point is 750ft high the distance is 6500 feet and the plane is flying left to right at 90degrees to the peg from your position.

Give me something to work with here. Blender was nonsense, the images you posted and yellow/gree line were nonesense in that they do not apply to the AMOUNT of error we can expect to see under those conditions. Drawing lines that show we cant see through buildings as you supplied is not an explanation by any means.



I look forward to your answer, simply draw in where we would see the plane and be prepared to explain your steps to get the answer if necessary.

Also most importantly give us how many feet or inches it would deviate from the actual path

If you cant, have someone else do it makes no difference to me.

Then if you are really good at this stuff as we are lead to believe then do another at 135 degree entry angles.

 

Evasion noted. Consistently through this thread you have failed to answer inconvenient observations! ow we're "on perspective"? What a crock! This is just evasion again. Simple and easy to understand diagrams have been given to you, over and over again. I find it ridiculous that you cannot understand them!

Gibberish diagram.

More gibberish. The plane is apparently flat, but is approaching at an angle. Things farther away at the same height are lower, how can you not get that!

[/QUOTE] Blender was nonsense, the images you posted and yellow/gree line were nonesense in that they do not apply to the AMOUNT of error we can expect to see under those conditions. Drawing lines that show we cant see through buildings as you supplied is not an explanation by any means.[/QUOTE]
And with a wave of the arms, solid evidence is dismissed. Pathetic.

What the hell are you talking about now?

Here is the observation from above. The approach angle is 45 degrees, but for the last 5 seconds it curves around roughly as shown (not to scale - for educational purposes). This curving trajectory is clearly visible on higher elevation views of the impact:

 

A sincere 9/11 truther wouldn't have even started this thread. I think that most viewers can imagine what I'm thinking.

https://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------
Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
-------------------------------------------------------

 

If the shoe fits!

 

You knew I was referring to the towers and not the Pentagon when I said that. Deliberately misrepresenting someone's position to cause confusion is a pretty low tactic.

 

I don't give a crap what YOU regard as a no-planer! You deny that the actual planes hit New York, claiming "truthers" (meh!) say they were remote controlled and you deny a plane hit at all for the Pentagon. There is a whole series of videos by "truthers" showing quite clearly that it was the actual AA77 plane!

It's a total joke that none of you can agree on a single thing, yet call yourselves "truthers"!

 

Viewers...

Watch the video referred to in post #36 to get an idea of what most viewers believe.
·

 

Im glad that means something to you because its meaningless to anyone else. Thats not the work of anyone with engineering experience.
What does that line of site meaqn?
what are the yellow lines? What is the green dots?
what is the red line?
What is the blue dots?
what are the distances?
Top view?
I dont have a crystal ball.
Its really easy to download graph paper and label it and make something decent enough for others to understand.
that pic is pure garbage, cant tell if it 2d or 3d, vertical or horizontal, it looks like a mishmash of both at the same time.

There you go folks I put up a simple perspective problem and apparently our expert cant do task. I mean its not a big deal no one knows everything but why post goblety gook.

Not much of anything useful that anyone can conclude from that mess, sorry.

 

Does anyone else understand what he is trying to do?
there isnt even any comprehendable perspective in it.
beta we first need to know what all that **** is to go further.

 

What I am talking about is that its not that SIMPLE like you demand.

If you want to plot 3d and make it understandable to anyone other than yourself try using 3d graph paper.





You can change the numbers to anything you like.

There is no way for anyone to comprehend what you did there as I said its a mess and looks like you were combining 3d and 2d together and that simply does not work at least not the way you did it.

Even with that, your drawing does not appear to 'perspective deviation' as we were looking for since you are making such a big issue out of it. You need to calculate the deviation from the apparent path to the true path.

Its very easy to accomplish if you do it in 2d (ish) chart that I provided earlier but if you prefer 3d great! That means you will need 2 paths, the actual position of the plane and the apparent position of the plane that the observer would see.

You only had one path, that does not work to demonstrate perspective deviation.

Use the one above if you prefer to do 3d.

Another thing, the plane went at whatever ever angle down for 7 seconds, it used 3 seconds to level off and slightly less then 3 seconds to impact for a total of 13 seconds on the cbs video. Please use the correct data in your plot.

Btw everything shrinks 'equally' with distance, not lower.

 

I never seen that, its actually quite good for the most part for the little I have see of it so far.

 

Yes you posted a gibberish diagram that lacked enough information and has incorrect labeling for anyone to make sense out of it, while I was watching a bug bunny cartoon and drinking a beer I realized what you did.

You took what I did 2 pages ago, copied it and redrew and mislabeled it to make it appear complicated, well its not, sorry.

I posted this 2 pages ago without the modifications to added to prove you copied me.



Like I said at 45degree angle the board will appear 1/2 length.

Bravo! Was anyone fooled?

Incidentally, the lines I drew to prove the 45, you need to imagine them looking into the 2x4 or horizontal, I thought that was painfully obvious to everyone in my first drawing 2 pages ago.

Of course this only accounts for the horizontal left/right 2d, there is no vertical component shown like it appears beta tried to do, cant be done without a 3d chart beta.

So now that we know this we can look at the start of the clip I posted and calculate the ADDITIONAL distance the plane is from the tower compared to what we actually see.

 

He Kojo...

You never responded to post #64.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...vel-over-500mph.616147/page-3#post-1074641391

 

well more accurately its like a 1/2 hairpin, in other words a very sharp turn. In the CBS clip it goes from nose down to nose level in 3 seconds, frankly I cant imagine any human flying a plane like what we see there.

Not only is the air 6 times more dense the plane becomes 6 times more sensitive to the controls as a result of the increased density making it extremely difficult to control. It flew like it had computer control.

So do you understand the concept of perspective? Did I make it clear enough? If not let me know and I can clarify it more.

 

Sure it is. See below in bright red letters!

What the eyes see. But strictly speaking that should be labelled as apparent line of approach.

Lines to various points on the approach trajectory.

"Are". These are APPARENT points on the approach that you see with the eyes.

The approach vector of AA77 viewed as stated from directly above.

"Are". Actual position.

Non scaled but reasonably accurate distances to what you think you see and what you are actually seeing.

That's what it says!

Or any technical drawing experience it seems. PLAN VIEW is a specific term.

The clue was in the words "PLAN VIEW"

And with a wave of the hands, a painfully obvious 2d PLAN VIEW is dismissed. This happens all the time.

TBH I generally take one look at your garbage drawings and forget all about them. YOUR drawing is actually more deception!

The view is from below the Brooklyn Bridge - how the hell do you get off saying it's level!

Whilst the approach is from 45 degrees off, the last 4-5 seconds are more like 20 degrees, as the jet curves around and begins to bank.

Don't flatter yourself. Nobody WAS fooled, it isn't level!

It demonstrates that which you painfully keep failing to understand, things far away are smaller!

I take on board your observations and also your clear limitations and have addressed the simple drawing accordingly.

So, as posted before this is a view FROM ABOVE - the use of the words PLAN VIEW!

"A plan view is an orthographic projection of a 3-dimensional object from the position of a horizontal plane through the object. In other words, a plan is a section viewed from the top."

Let's try again shall we? NOT TO SCALE (DRAWINGS ARE NOT LINKED)

"Here is the observation from above. The approach angle is 45 degrees, but for the last 5 seconds it curves around roughly as shown (not to scale - for educational purposes). This curving trajectory is clearly visible on higher elevation views of the impact:"

 

More total crap. It does NOT strike WTC2 level! 1/2 hairpin? Hogwash! Not even close, it's a gentle curve / bank and pulling up on the column.

The Boeings can easily do those maneuvers!

 

If I have time and feel so inclined I will correct all that for you tomorrow. yer on the right track but are missing the gist of it.

 

It needs no correcting. Were there any errors, your past performance suggests you are poorly equipped to correct them.

There is no missing "gist".

Do you understand what a PLAN VIEW is now?

 

I'm no expert but it doesn't look unusual to me. If you're arguing that it was a drone, truthers already believe it was a drone (see video referred to in post #36).

 

It only looks "unusual" to no-planers!

Oh give me a break! There are over a dozen ways that "truthers" claim this was done. You most certainly are NOT a spokesperson for "truthers"!

You are claiming the real flights weren't used, because "truthers" have spotted "errors"? Those fools who planned this whole thing got all these "obvious" things wrong, that only you people can spot? An ever more ridiculous line of logic.

Post #44 at the bottom has a list. It is a must do list. So far all I've had is 2 responses. One said "black ops"(meh) the other was "look at this spam video", .which had no proper explanations for any of it. The whole logic train doesn't work. It makes no sense at all and turns the easiest option "just let them do it" into the most ridiculous, riskiest and nigh-on impossible option!

 

Flogging a dead horse, trying to get an honest response to a MUST-DO list, wherever it is asked! Interested viewers will notice that "what this thread is about" started at posts #2 and #6. For the last 2 pages it has been nothing whatsoever to do with the 757/767 speed and totally to do with "no-planer" failure to understand simple perspective!

 

in #93 first video 7:35 they talk about how air density drastically affects the performance of a plane, its the part believers ignore.

 

I was just informed I cant talk about errors that others make and since gross errors have been made that require correction I dont see this as being a productive thread.

Lets talk about must do's instead!

Aircraft speed 550mph has already been determined to be BS.