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

yeh that would be called the apparent perspective, not the side view. a side view from an engineering standpoint is the line of site when looking at the side of something. a side view.

 

Another incredible blunder. This is EXACTLY that!


No engineer on the planet would make the claims you make or the non-stop blunders.

 

Draw a line from the observer to the point you marked as level!

@Kokomojojo 4. Why don't you explain your "mathematical process" in determining that the image you drew a level line on, is in fact a level camera angle! It's blatantly obviously NOT level!

The pitiful irony here. Pages of posts pointing out that the angled in plane MUST be higher due to perspective, dozens of bloviating posts denying it!

And now, even when it is totally obvious there are no buildings level with the impact! You still deny another blunder?

 

Ignoring the ridiculous noise. Does this person think it's my foolish claim and wants me to do his work for him? I do hope he doesn't misalign the two pieces of footage, if he is doing a compare He's already deceptively drawn a flat line for the CBS last few seconds! Or was it just another blunder!

.

And another blunder. For some reason, you've looked at a simplified PLAN VIEW and thought you saw something elevated? As I said before, you clumsily drew a plane on the line of sight for the SIDE VIEW, so I can only assume in the absence of your response, that you bizarrely assumed the red line was a descent profile, when the words clearly state APPROACH ANGLE.

 

Yes thats what I do when spin is used to accuse me of **** I didnt say or I am misrepresented or the situation I responded to is misrepresented.

btw:


see where it says side view? lol




zoomed in

 

A new list with direct quotes:

• You said Leslie Hazzard was an "engineering gal" - she isn't and you have had this pointed out to you. If you say she is, prove it, or withdraw the claim.
• You said "she busted out laughing" and "Well when I see boeing engineers laughing their asses" - she chuckled. There were NO Boeing engineers..
• You said "you posting the comments from all those boeing engineers" - there were NO Boeing engineers!
• You said "5 maybe 6 other boeing engineers". You have been asked a dozen times to point them out! POINT THEM OUT - give names from that movie.
• You said the interviewer "doggedly pursues the inconvenient questions". In talking with Leslie Hazzard, he omits to say the plane was in a dive at full throttle and that the occupants gave no crap to the health of the plane or regulations! In talking with a few pilots he either didn't show his question or said small dive. In legal terms that is "leading the witness"!
• You said "No evidence of their speeds" and "Flight recorders, film speed all humanly corruptable". There is black box data from AA77, there is clear radar data, there are multiple videos showing the crazy approach. To dismiss every piece of video in this insane "no planes" claim is absurd. It also adds on a large number to the untenable list, of Americans happy (and needlessly so, just crash the damn planes!) to commit mass murder in the thousands! You now need to add the radar operators and the NTSB!
• You said "then stop pretending there is a vertical component in it." for my PLAN VIEW! There IS no vertical component in it. SHOW WHERE IT IS!
• You claimed the image quoted in post #168 was "damn near straight at" . This is a colossal error. The nearfield building is nowhere near the impact point! The view was obviously from below! SHOW YOUR "mathematical process" that worked this out. Line of sight drawing from observer to impact point will suffice. Post #129 is a reference.
• From post #179, you have drawn the CBS footage last 3 seconds as level. That is totally wrong. The approach of the plane that we DO see is a dive and the last 1.5- 2 seconds is not even seen! Explain why you have done this.

That's just the major items that you say are being "misrepresented". Until you address them or withdraw them, I shall keep holding you to account!

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of what a strawman is.

BTW, the tower approach finishes where the red line ends and where the grey vertical line sits, even though the impact height is nearer 1050ft. As I said it's real nonsense!

 

I remember that you decided you wanted to evade all the accumulating issues with more crap - if you wish to make more erroneous claims don't ask for my assistance! As stated you have screwed up the descent profile of the CBS footage on a side view, was that a mistake? Here are two side by side gifs - exactly 5 seconds each, aligned almost perfectly, the ONLY thing that you can compare anything to! Notice that the last 1.5 to 2 seconds of CBS are obscured by the building.



n.b. As anyone knows things farther away appear smaller, the plane on the right gif is approaching angled in. If it was level it would appear to be ascending.

 

30 degree perspective error over 2 miles? I think not.

 

It was advisable in the extreme!

No need to demonstrate an absurd one. There is no perspective error at all and it isn't over 2 miles. The BB clip is only 0.81 miles. Perspective isn't an error.

1. Are you still denying that there is angled descent on the BB footage? It's proven whether you deny it or not.

2. Please tell all the eager viewers why you have aligned the position a full 8 seconds too soon on a 5 second animated gif from the Brooklyn Bridge! That is either an absurd blunder or gross deception. Aligning it 2.6 times what we see gives a more accurate angle. 2.6 * 5(seconds) = 13 seconds.

3. Please tell everyone why you have drawn 13 seconds on the X axis! That BB clip has a span of 5 seconds! Referring to question 2, is it just a gross blunder?

4, Now, maybe I missed your complex geometry to determine where the CBS live camera is positioned. Indicate how you have verified its elevation as well.

As has been exhaustive explained perspective alters the height of things!

Also, we can clearly, I mean totally obviously CLEARLY, see the CBS video showing the plane descending but pulling up as it approaches. This desperation to find fault is producing some seriously poor observations, guesses and what appears to be deliberate subterfuge.

I love that line in your daft drawing: "Are we going to ignore the facts?" The answer is only you are apparently.

 

I wasnt going to modify it but since I ****ed up and forgot to strip the scale I decided to modify anyway. Doesnt change anything, perspective error between CBS and BB is a joke.

 

Instead of making things up, why can't the viewers get answers to all of your errors?

 

I don't see what the problem is? Seriously, the plane is diving, he pulls up on the stick, the plane comes up to a more flatter 6 or so degrees on the two gifs, then right at the end it comes up to around 3 degrees (as per engineering report). This whole line of inept drawing was supposed to be comparing the two clips, but takes a CLEAR steeper dive from just before, THEN suggests it's an error because the BB view, which matches the CBS view for the last 5 seconds, is some sort of perspective error. It has been explained exhaustively that things further away are smaller (therefore lower ) if they are the same height! Logic, if they are the same height and farther away, logic, they must be higher. This is really basic perspective!

Regarding point 1 above, here is Frosty the Snowman walking along a straight line in front of the camera. Now, the cell-phone has a wide angled front facing camera and it's not quite aligned orthogonal to the near edge (it certainly mimics an angled approach though!), but it demonstrates the very simple premise!

 

Disinformation.

 

Don't be silly. I put up a snowman gif to explain how perspective works. Surely it isn't hard to understand!

Why are you so afraid to answer the simple rebuttal to your mistakes?

 

No need for a personal attack.

yeh damn it, I accidentally forgot to delete/change the scaling, so I fixed it with a quick redraw. Doesnt seem like fear to me. Reverse engineered where the actual alleged plane had to be, the penguin wasnt much help, but then I dont have a penguin, oh damn it I made another mistake, I mean a snowman!

 

I gave you every opportunity, it went ignored and worse you deleted it, waiving that opportunity, so all there is now is the final result.

 

If you are trying to hide all the issues being raised with your mistakes, think again. I'm going to keep putting them up until you answer honestly! I have no issue with anyone ever who makes a mistake and comes clean. The issues I have are with people who do this, time and time again over multiple treads and for a decade or so!

We can do them one at a time if you wish, or you can pretend not to see them, since the moment you made your claim!

• From post #179, you have drawn the CBS footage last 3 seconds as level. That is totally wrong. The approach of the plane that we DO see is a dive and the last 1.5- 2 seconds is not even seen! Explain why you have done this.

If it's an error or "an accident", admit it. If it isn't, it's deception. Can you see why the casual viewers might be interested. I mean that is the objective here isn't it?

 

Evasion. Explain how you arrived at the CBS camera position and elevation! I read the entire page 7 where you baited me to do your own claim for you and see no geometry! I haven't "deleted" anything of yours.

 

@Kokomojojo Do you understand the simple perspective being shown? Even if the approach was orthogonal to the WT2 it still would show a dive if it was apparently level.

 

Hmmm, well if you look along the line of sight it appears you have drawn your line in the wrong place!


That projection to the right shows a side view. Now surely it looks like this:

 

What a shitmess!
Try again.
btw what camera were they using that they can see right through the walls of the wtc!
OMG!

 

Bloviating noise. Kindly draw a side view in with your inept alignment. Seems a bit high, don't you think?

Why are you afraid to answer the barrage of failures so far?

Now, maybe I missed your complex geometry to determine where the CBS live camera is positioned. Indicate how you have verified its elevation as well.

 

I really do want the name of that camera cbs used that can see through walls! Nope.

 

I want you to explain how you established the camera position and elevation. Can you do that for everyone?

 

I want to show you something. Your original projection worked fine in terms of the descent profile and I made a daft error in quantifying position. I withdraw my observation totally. To be fair I didn't think it through properly and got stuck in a stupid point scoring exercise.

Well done. You got something correct.