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

ALL of these points have been ignored. Are you ever going to answer them?
The big must-do list, also never addressed. It's absolutely imperative for this insane no-plane claim, yet you repeatedly ignore it. Why is that?

 

Why are you calling him a liar when you failed to support the bogus accusation?

No one posted any evidence that she's not an engineer what are you talking about?

 

Gibberish I am calling him a liar, because he deliberately omitted important details about his question. Skilfully and deceptively missing out the salient "diving at full throttle" piece of the puzzle!

WRONG! Nobody posted evidence that she WAS! YOU claimed she was an engineer then when shown she was the commercial manager, rather than admit your "error" you chose to double down and say this ridiculous garbage HERE: "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"

It's your claim, your burden of proof. I already showed she wasn't, the chuckling "engineer"!

And look, STILL evading them all at the top of the page!

 

"Missed" this?

You "missed " this one as well!

 

as usual not true, he asked a straight question and got a straight answer, and as expected that pilots link says nothing that validates a 7x7 can fly flat @550mph at sea level.

Your eyball drawing does not represent the flight path since it evades the 13 second nose dive on the cbs live video.

the right drawing is a totally bunk drawing since it does not apply to the event.

the 13 second nose dive shown on cbs continues to be evaded on the drawings you posted

 

• UA175 is approaching from an angle away from the Brooklyn Bridge observer.
  So what?
  
• 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.

still evading the 500ft drop in 13 seconds on the cbs video that you used to prove a nose dive, will we be seeing a graph of that anytime soon?

Will be seeing a graph at all that applies to the cbs video?

I didnt miss anything, you seem to think I have to answer all your questions but you dont have to answer mine.

 

He omitted that the plane was diving at full throttle! I'm telling you that he made no mention of it and deliberately so. You're refutation of this is missing the timestamp where he included this. Basically your denial is bloviating irrelevance.

Wow! Just wow! The whole subject of this pathetic in-your-face back and forth is YOUR claim of level flight during the last 4 to 5 seconds. Your attempt at trying to obfuscate it by including footage NOT on your erroneous claim of level flight is noted.

Nope. It's fine. You have no answer to it, it totally refutes your claim and all you have is bloviating.

Comedy goalpost moving. Since we can't see that on your nonsense claim, there's nothing to plot.

Ditto. Comedy goalpost moving. Since we can't see that on your nonsense claim, there's nothing to plot. Pure evasion.

Pathetic evasion. You made statements that were not true. You have failed to address them. Are you afraid to? You don't have any outstanding questions to me!

ALL of these points have been ignored. Are you ever going to answer them?

May we have an answer? It's simple. Just say "she isn't an engineer, she is the Commercial Manager. She didn't laugh her ass off, she chuckled. She was fed the wrong question. The lying interviewer omitted to say the plane was hurtling down at full throttle for thousands of feet!"

 

and they will continue to be ignored until you answer the questions you ignored.

 

My questions are all being ignored because the math does not work out folks.

Inapplicable fake flight diagrams are being substituted in place of the real path that proves the video fakery.

The CBS 500ft drop in 13 seconds TOTALLY IGNORED and will continue to be totally ignore.

 

I will never get a response, well at least not an on point rational response to why we dont see the plane leveling out from its alleged dive in the very beginning of the clip, flat as a board.

Video fraud.

Anyway thats a wrap on perspective, nothing further to argue with regard to perspective.

 

Damn it I overlooked labeling an axis so here is the final cut and I may as well include all of them into one post for reference.

Here is brooklyn bridge and cbs view:

In this view we should have see the plane immediately drop about 75-100 feet, nope its nice n flat!

^^^ from September 11 - UA Flight 175 - different angles_HD

^^^^^ from September 11 - UA Flight 175

Here is their OOPSIE:



As we can see the BB view is flat and missing the last prt of the dive. This is not a perspective illusion, we are missing about 75-100 feet of drop. Like I said proof of fraud.

And if anyone wants to contest this as perspective I only accept scaled, labeled, drawings with the associated math for the vertical. We already did the horizontal but the vertical is being dodged and ignored and playing footsie gets old fast. The gifs are speed up to save bandwidth.

Ask yourselves why literally all videos are cut off to the final 2 seconds! LOL Because there was no nose dive, the cbs clip is clearly blue screened lol

/perspective.

 

None of the "folks" are taking notice of this total crap. The math works fine, consider the other option - your use of it.

Their both applicable and realistic. They show that when viewing what appears to be flat, the plane is much further away than it appears. As it is the same apoarent height, it must be higher. It's a thing that small children quickly work out.

It is the actual drop of the plane. Seen from the closest to level with the trajectory. It's very difficult to establish exactly how high the observation altitude is, but it's not massively off level.
I addressed this crap about CBS in post #119 and of course you ignored it!

 

How incredibly deceptive. The last second or two are not visible on the CBS video! Your fraudulent drawing straightens the path as fully flat when it isn't!
Yet again it ignores perspective principles that children understand! Take any point that appears flat on what appears a parallel flightpath(that is in reality angled away!), extend the line of sight and you get the true height of UA175. It's diving the whole way in for those 4-5 seconds. AND because it is straightening its approach angle, that line of sight extension gets smaller accordingly and the descent angle lowers accordingly.

 

You have been given the very simple data that shows the approach is angled in! It therefore CANNOT be flat!

That's not very honest, just totally ignoring dead simple perspective principles.

Already done. You ignored it. Recognizing futility doesn't stop me from contesting garbage claims!

And yet you drew it in flat on your diagram! (Bolding mine) Did you do that deliberately?!

The insane no-planes claim. Numerous views were live on TV and have motion on the camera position. It is IMPOSSIBLE to do a composite overlay accurately on a moving target (this includes the brainless "nose-out" lie from "ace baker").

 

At any stage in any debate on 911, the use of the word "LOL" is simply nauseating.





It is even more nauseating that a suggestion these are all faked is being made. It was insane 20 years ago and continues to be so!

 

"There is No Evidence a 7x7 Can Fly Level over 500mph"
Radar_Data_Impact_Speed_Study--AA11_UA175.pdf (911facts.dk)


The ludicrous implied suggestion is that the radar operators at ATC are lying/in on it/happy to murder thousands! Plus all the people at NTSB, all the engineers for NIST included. What a pile of horseshit!

 

Gravity effects on a diving plane are well known. UA175 is logged as diving at full throttle by radar. I wonder why this post was "missed"!

 

Bravo! Moving the goal posts again! lol

Did you forget the topic under examination is the flight paths that we see on the videos again?

Maybe we should take this to slick micks site, he would never let anyone do 15 tangents a post.

 

Probably because we are talking about the flight path we see on the videos and probably because that is yet another attempt at moving the goal posts.

 

Thanks for the useless clips that you have already proven cannot be used to support your case.

here

 

'Real' engineers know it has to be flat on the 2 d drawings we are using! OMG! LOL

It is dead simple to engineers. Its dead simple in concept to nonengineers too, however its also too complicated for them to put actual NUMBERS on their charts. Did you notice that?

the only way anyone in this thread is going to prove its garbage is by engineering, we need, you know, numbers that everyone notices do not exist in the charts I rebutted.

Sure because the brooklyn view is flat, anyone can see that, and you have not drawn an appropriate graph to prove otherwise. Simply doing something is not equivalent to 'addressing' you know. Big difference.

I have not said one thing about no plane, again I remind you we are supposed to be discussing the plane paths.

But you already disqualified all that here so why keep bringing it up?

no it possible, just difficult, do you think software stagnated since then?

Oh yeh I remember that nose out, Peter jennings "It went in one side and right out the other"! To which Kevin Fairbanks responded "Just like a bad special effect"! LOL

So when will this get serious and see some numbers with/on drawings that actually represent reality? Can we see soemthing serious now?

 

Bloviating noise.

An utterly absurd statement, a diving plane gathers speed from the effects of gravity! How can you not know this. Nicely dodged as well!

TRY AGAIN!

 

YOU said "Ask yourselves why literally all videos are cut off to the final 2 seconds! LOL"
My clips proved you wrong. Go on, admit you were wrong. "LOL"!

An "OMG! LOL" and a reference to "real engineers". The appeal to incredulity with no substance. It's proven by the simple drawing. Small children understand things farther away are smaller.

What has that got to do with you and how would you know!?

Apparently not. This is exactly as I have shown you, children understand this, why can't you.

A plane farther away, level with one near by (viewed from below!) MUST be lower. ERGO, if it is the same height and farther away it MUST be higher.

Demonstrating a simple principle to somebody who repeatedly denies perspective, requires no numbers.

1. Nobody is trying to convince YOU of anything. Read my signature.
2. Stop going on about engineering as though you are one!
3. Your drawings are gibberish. You have rebutted nothing.

WHAT!? You reckon UNDER the damn Brooklyn Bridge is flat? Flat means level with the approach! Are you claiming this?

There we go folks, you've seen it all now! This poster is claiming that well below the Brooklyn Bridge is "flat" to the plane trajectory! Hilarious.

But, my response was for the clear deception. He drew the last 3 seconds flat on the CBS approach after admitting we couldn't see the last 2 seconds and what we could see was clearly always diving!

You have claimed all the video is faked. I can go back 10 years, 5 years and 1 year and always you are claiming no-planes.

Completely false! Numerous views were live on TV and DO have motion on the camera position!

No. It was IMPOSSIBLE. They had no way at all of knowing which way the helicopter was moving in advance. You're just making up crap.
It was impossible then to do a live overlay when the position to overlay was not static.

Again the nauseating "LOL". The pathetic "nose-out" lie has been debunked. Period. It is not the same shape as the nose going in, as was claimed!

It's all serious. Simple diagrams to demonstrate very simple concepts. Your continuing refusal to understand this simple thing is irrelevant. See my signature. I address any viewer who could be taken in by this ridiculous hogwash.

 

Try to stay focused, the focus is on flight path, flight path is the path that the airplane took, and that's what we're supposed to be talking about right now, not gravity not aircraft speed, flight path okay?

Thank you but here again keep in mind the conversation and focus right now is flight path you know the path that the airplane flies?

The clips in that post were completely useless for our purposes anyone can see that.

Yep that's what I said, totally useless videos for the purpose of flight path.

Yes it's proven by my simple drawing.

That's true when viewed from below but not true and viewed from the same height. That's well understood but the problem here is that I haven't seen any post that tells me how much lower in reference to flight 175. That's what I thought a simple drawing would show but at this point I didn't see any post from you with a scaled drawing proving that it's relevant to the Brooklyn bridge / CBS views.

Not when viewed from the same height has the plane.

If it's viewed axially from the same height as the plane then it merely looks larger as it approaches, that's just simple perspective that everyone knows.

It's not demonstrated until it's scaled no scale drawing has been posted in rebuttal to mine.

One can't reason a person out of a faulty position when their reasoning is faulty either.

I'm so sorry but engineering drawings are required or at least something that resembles an engineering drawing is required to understand what's going on here, and of course with that is the understanding of what's relevant and what's not relevant, and the only way we can find that out is through a scale drawing that's actually applicable to what we see based on what's relevant insofar as what's going to change the outcome in one direction or the other.

They first have to be understood and effectively rebutted but they have not been therefore they can not be called gibberish until proven. Labeling them gibberish without an effective numerically scaled rebuttal showing all the numbers is just nonsense and more useless babble.

I have no clue what I reckon the damn Brooklyn bridge is flat is supposed to mean I hope it doesn't have too many ruts and holes in it that would be a really bumpy ride if it did.

I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say flat means level with the approach? This can be viewed from many different angles so that's a very confusing question would you care to draw it out and give give us something to work with other than such a vague question that could be connected to the several different aspects?

I'm claiming that there is a pink line on the flight path on the gif that I provided that is parallel to the earth, looks pretty flat to me if we define flat as parallel to the Earth and that is how I define flat.

What's hilarious is that I have not been provided with any kind of a drawing that shows that it's not flat, please feel free to provide a scale drawing showing what a plane would look like from that perspective if it were coming down on a 45° angle toward the WTC., Then draw a second line that would show what the plane would look like if it were flying perfectly flat with the earth so we can all see what you are trying to say otherwise it's just verbal word salad that has no useful meaning in this review.

But we can see that it was nearly flat on the Brooklyn bridge view, are we going back to getting out a pointless micrometer like last time?

Once again I remind you that is not the focus of this review we are trying to review the flight path I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand about the concept of discussing flight path.

You posted blender and blender proves that we could see a million views on TV from any angle and call them all live just added in a couple of camera shakes and a bunch of people screaming oh my god, oh ****, holy **** and then pretend that it was live extremely simple to do even the worst amateur can do it.

Wow, so you agree with Ace Bakers flight path huh that's a shocker.

Here again I'd like to remind you that the focus is not on someone's nose the focus is on the flight path you know that's the path that the airplane allegedly flew it has both vertical and horizontal components all of which can be drawn on a 2d drawing and scaled to fully understand the path of the airplane and fully examine the concept of perspective but only if it's scaled.

Will we see a scaled drawing from you anytime soon?

Everybody understands the concept of perspective what's not understood is the way you are applying that concept since you refuse to post a scale drawing.

At a minimum we need one scaled drawing numerically described showing the plane path vertically and another one numerically describing the plane from a horizontal view and we have not seen you post anything usable but we hope that we will see something usable at some point.

Again I remind you that the simple concept of perspective is well understood by everyone the complex concept of proper application has not been numerically demonstrated in the form of an engineering drawing in any of your posts, and that's what we're all waiting to see.

Caveat: my use of the word means near or reasonably flat, not micrometer flat.

 

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. You suggested she may be an engineer, prove it!
• "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.
• "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. Now also presented NTSB data!
• "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!
• The Brooklyn Bridge is flat when viewing the aircraft approach. This is absolutely ridiculous, it's many hundreds of feet below!
• "Ask yourselves why literally all videos are cut off to the final 2 seconds! LOL". A totally false claim, numerous examples provided and ignored.
  
• "Draws the last 3 second of CBS footage as flat". Pure deception see point above - we don't see it on the CBS video!

Unbelievable. He's claiming AGAIN that underneath the Brooklyn Bridge is level with UA175. That's it, were done, this is totally pathetic.