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

Nope, not ignoring it. It's why planes don't generally get up much faster than 350kts. Gravity and diving at maximum throttle will do it though!

Nope. You're the one ignoring evidence not me. Diving plane, gravity.

 

Just stop wasting your time with these folks Koko, the video of WTC 7's collapse alone is incontrovertible proof that 911 involved controlled demolitions.

 

Another huge list of inconvenient things ignored.

If it's incontrovertible there shouldn't be so many "loose ends".

Incidentally have you seen the debunk for "Loose Change"?
A blog and a really long movie. Pretty much destroys it completely.

https://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

 

there was no diving.

 

So Im the subject again huh

 

That **** is completely off topic make your damn thread for it.

 

Sure after I post corrections then here we see my corrections copied un ****ing believable

 

They are NOT flying 550mph what total disinformation to suggest that is equivalent to a plane at 550mph.

Remains unaddressed

 

Yep here we go again! Another complete abortion of perspective. The above drawing was ABSOLUTELY not drawn by an engineer.

Like the last one I have to correct it, since it is meaningless garbage.

this is so ****ing simple I am amazed!

All one need do is take the drawing I made to correct the original from above and flip it sideways.

 

WOW look at that, a plane that is diving appears to be diving, not flying nearly flat!

We can rotate the perspective in any direction and in every case the plane will be coming down at the angle shown and NEVER APPEAR any where near FLAT as we see in the video clips.

So this will help yall make some sense out of this.




The black horizontal line would be what it looks like on that drawing if it were flying FLAT or near FLAT when viewed at the 750ft level from this side view.

Look at my previous drawing to see what it would look like looking directly at an oncoming plane axially.

The pink is an observer at ground level, the green circles are where the plane would 'appear' if viewed from the ground.

We can rotate this any way we like, never will it appear remotely close to flying flat.

Oh and sorry for the mess, it does show the comparison well and it does prove the point, however the more **** gets ignored or deleted the less effort I put into it.

 

Can you link to something?

 

the video you posted and was deleted

 

That's a very crude example of the appeal to incredulity and bare assertion. Keen viewers will notice a complete lack of counter evidence and basically a post of noise.

And look, yet again more noise with the false equivalence fallacy. These are there to demonstrate the other uninformed claim as to the manoeuvering capabilities of the plane. Acquiring more speed doesn't suddenly change aeronautical capability. The banking and pullup are not even close to tolerances for humans which is the primary limiting factor.

Nobody knows what you are bloviating about. You requested elaboration and there it is.

It takes only 5 seconds of thought to see that a front projection, which is PROPERLY level! shows the descent CANNOT be level.

X, y and z are not level sideways. They are not level front on. As for that baffling failure of a thing in #110, you are quite right, everyone is going to ignore it. The point is proven emphatically by 2 simple drawings.

 

That would be the video referred to in post #36, is that right? If I remember correctly, it was said in that video that the planes hit the towers at 500 plus MPH. I wondered how that could be verified.

 

It was determined to be 590mph. You can take the plotted positions on an aerial view from above and apply that to the distance involved and the time on the video. Main problem is verifying accuracy of playback speed after the footage has undergone numerous algorithms, and you can only estimate the positions. The best version for estimate would be the one taken on board the ferry. If I get time I will see if I can do a decent estimate from it using some trig. It will be subject to the video speed being accurate, but will definitely give a ballpark figure.

Excessive speeds are certainly possible with gravity assistance. Of course this is a different plane and descending at 70 degrees, but it has a much lower top speed than a Boeing 767 by 100 knots:
Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771
"At 4:16 pm, the plane crashed into a hillside on the Santa Rita cattle ranch[18] in the Santa Lucia Mountains between Paso Robles[19] and Cayucos. The plane was estimated to have crashed slightly faster than the speed of sound, around 770 mph (670 kn; 340 m/s; 1,240 km/h), disintegrating instantly."

 

@Scott I spent a long time trying to get an estimate and the biggest problem is orientation of the ferry/position, distance to UA175, orientation of the camera. Getting an exact time in thousands of a second is the easiest part, using online gif maker. Establishing position is too difficult.

 

Useless assertion of incredulity, no credible reason given.

That is an attempt to move the goal post to some other evidence, when we're not talking about other evidence we're talking about the flight path and only the flight path.

Yes the false equivalency is the assumption being made above that a plane handles the same at 550 mph at sea level as it does at 550 mph at 33,000 ft.

Yes low speed probably 250 mph at sea level which is far different than 550 miles per hour at sea level.

Another naked statement with nothing to back it up Scott's video had pilots testifying to the fact that there's a huge difference in the way of playing handles if you want to claim otherwise post whatever you think you have that supports that nonsense.

Caveat: if the air density is the same then the maneuverability would be the same.

Again moving the goal posts to what a human can tolerate instead of the flight path of 175.

If they don't then they certainly aren't qualified engineers!

I requested elaboration with the idea that it was going to be on point not with goal post moves so far out that you can't even apply it to the flight path.

It takes about a millisecond of thought to realize that is not the actual flight path of 175 with respect to the CBS video where it literally drops out of the sky compared to your drawing which has the plane flying on an exactly the same gradient to the eyeball

And the guy who's looking at the plane does not see the 13 second 500 ft drop that we see in the CBS video, because it's a bunk bogus abortion of a drawing compared to the actual flight path that we see in the CBS video!

I was referring to the incredulous, not qualified engineers without an agenda.

The only point emphatically proven by the last drawing is a deceptive flight path.

The eyeball would see a descending plane but it would be in a straight line (the impact is not advertised as being in a straight line), and the drawing has an unchanging gradient in reference to the eyeball which means it didn't drop 500 ft, because it's a totally bunk and misleading drawing compared to the actual descent seen on the CBS video.

If that's going to be the standing position and the drawing is correct then the CBS video is false, can't have it both ways.

 

Well right now you don't have to worry about that because we're comparing the flight path a flight 175 based on the perspective of the Brooklyn bridge which also brings into play the perspective of the CVS video for the vertical descent so you don't need to worry about the ferry.

What you do need to worry about is the CBS video path compared to the Brooklyn bridge video path without moving goal posts.

 

Just needless noise!

False. You're either deliberately misreading what I wrote or didn't read it at all!

It's the false equivalence of claiming that video to represent the low altitude handling capabilities at 350-400mph are not the same as the low altitude handling capabilities at 580mph.

Oh, I know you know it's going much faster than that!

Never, not a few pilots who gave an answer to an unheard question! But incidentally, we're down to a few pilots from 5-6 made up Boeing engineers. Shall we go and see what pilots on flight forums say? Or don't they count?

(bolding mine) Shoot that foot away! The video I supplied of an extremely fast 767 at low altitude, pulling off numerous manouvers and one at 1000ft. I agree, they would indeed be the same! Hilarious.

There's no meaningful g-forces in play with anything on 911. Stop talking crap.

Your drawing could probably be reproduced by a five year old on an Etchasketch. Please don't imply you are an engineer.

Bloviating. It explains it perfectly and I suspect you are fully aware of this.

That's the beauty of perspective. It changes what things look like. A camera reasonably level sees the clear descent. One far below seeing an angled approach doesn't. Painfully simple explanations have been provided for you, it's nobody's fault you don't understand them.

Gibberish. It's close enough for what is intended. To demonstrate that seeing the apparent approach is not indicative of its actual altitude. It's higher because it is further away.

Once again: things farther away appear smaller. If you see a building and one farther away and they appear the same height viewed from the ground, do you conclude they are REALLY the same height?

Qualified engineers wrote a detailed report on this and many other aspects. Stop representing yourself as an engineer.

Nope. Nothing deceptive. The words "NOT TO SCALE" should have given you a clue. The drawing shows that viewing the apparent flight path sees a plane that MUST. be higher in the sky.

Gibberish and repeating failed understanding of the CBS video.

Yes, really you can. The CBS video shows the plane descending from a roughly level position. The last 4-5 seconds it flattens out to a more shallow dive. The one seen from farther below is 4-5 seconds. Works just fine.

Thank you for your advice about what I need "to worry about". I'll post whatever I wish in this 911 free-for-all thread. Post 2 and 6 set the scene for this!

I most certainly need not worry about your flawed understanding of perspective. Already addressed.

Your continued and ridiculous attempts to bolster these claims about "no-planes" have been going on for some time now. We're well over 2 decades down the road. It was complete horseshit then and it continues to be so.

You keep referring to "engineer this" and "engineer that" yet not one single accredited engineer has even remotely agreed with this insane flat-earth-like 911 claim!

 

Admission that its a deceptive picture using not to scale as a reason to put a path that is not remotely close to the actual path is disinformative of the actual event.

Ok so put up one that represents something close enough, that at least resembles the actual flight path, a pic that it is clearly not disinformation, such that it at least resembles the actual event seen on the cbs clip, the clip I posted not the fraudulent one that omitted the beginning of the descent that I had to correct.

yeh if you got a link to some pilots, add that too.

 

What an over the top ludicrous/sick comparison.
Naked hyperbole on steroids fallacy.
Total failure for an analogy since there is absolutely no possible connetion between the two.
This is about flight path not flat earth ok.
If someone could convince me that it was worth my time I might be interested in exploring it, but only from a psychological stand point.

 

You seem to be intent on trying to provoke me. The image is very close to the path portrayed from videos that have good views of the approach. The "NOT TO SCALE" part is to help those who deliberately take things literally to distort.

My drawings are close enough and really, not one single thing ypresented by is a correction of anything I have done.

An honest person would have already sourced alternatives. It's good practise to check everything in science, to see if it can be disproven. It comes as no surprise that 23 years after the event you're asking such a ridiculous thing! It should come as no surprise that numerous links I had from the past are no longer around. Here's a couple:
https://www.pprune.org/questions/print-465642-boeing-767-max-speed-sea-level.html
Many examples online have the same dishonest question about can the plane do it in level flight. Nowhere are the pilots asked about the plane diving at full throttle. I have no idea why "truthers" have to be so deceptive to obtain their answers, it is wrong in so many ways. NONE of the examples in that spammed movie have the correct question being posed to any of the people answering!

 

My perfectly valid statement results in this bloviating quoted gibberish.

"Not one single accredited engineer has even remotely agreed with this insane flat-earth-like 911 claim!"

As stated, there is not a single person on the internet with accredited engineering experience who agrees with the absurd and insane "no-planes" crap. No-planes is equivalent to flat earth for 911. We've already seen what another "truther" thinks of no-planers!

 

FACTS:

• UA175 is approaching from an angle away from the Brooklyn Bridge observer.
• WHATEVER that angle there will be the SAME row of green dots and similar row of blue dots - exactly as depicted.
• The observer is CONSIDERABLY lower than the plane flight and impact point and is looking upwards.
• Regardless of any scale, diagram 2 even when 100% correct, will show the eye seeing x y or z as 750ft!
• Regardless of scale, these points projected to a frontal view show a slope when viewed level!

Whatever noise is made, or whatever bloviating denial is made, all of the above are correct.

 

When are you going to answer this?