wtc2 flt 175 flight path.

MY calculations thus far ignore that the plane is at least 300 yards beyond the far tower and at an angle of 30 degrees to it. No computation has been made to rectify this. Since a similar picture showed the far tower lower from perspective, 300 yards would yield some difference in the first position assumed.



Stating that the flight was not a dive, based on 1.5 seconds of flight, cherry picked footage! (where a 2D representation shows only a shallow descent) is very deceptive. It is like filming a roller-coaster from a mile away, at the bottom of a steep drop and saying it has no steep drops!

 

The failed method - take a tiny segment of video and generalize it. Then avoid at all costs every other irrefutable piece of evidence:

• All your awful mistakes deliberate or otherwise still not conceded!
• Your whole case is a tiny segment of 1.5 seconds just before impact.
• On every video, the dive is clear.
• Also clear is that the plane is straightened just prior to impact.
• His name was Hezarkhani.
• This is deceptive cherry picking.
• STILL you have allowed no correction for perspective.
• The plane is lower in the sky farther away than it actually is in reality, relative to descent angle.
• Given that the angle of descent doesn't change with a small climb from the chopper it is far more likely that the plane approach is below the level of the camera
• How can you take the tiniest segment of a dive and use it to determine the rest of the descent angle?
• Everyone in New York either saw the planes or heard the banshee wail of maxed out engines.

 

admission your calculation is incorrect?
dont forget to increase x lols



Beta proved the plane is not in a dive:

Standard approach slope is 3° and a steep approach slope is 5.5°

1.76° is greater than 2 times less than 5.5°

Not a dive.

Betas claims stand rejected as invalid, speculative, not evidence.

Here is a glide chart. 'valid' points proving no dive condition existed.

What it looks like can be extremely deceiving compared to what it actual 'is'.



Using betas calculation of 1.76 degrees approach this is a very gentle easy glide slope.

Therefore:

FALSE - Flight 175 dived into wtc2.

/Thread

Its dishonest to simply 'assume' its anything different than what is already proven without further evidence.

 

False, weve proven no dive.

thats called a descent angle

False, there is no evidence on the record. Please consider the facts.

False, no dive is seen, just standard landing approach.

You proved no dive took place.

the plane is not nose down in any evidence entered into the record.

Its dishonest to assume any claim is true that is not entered into the record

 

The air traffic control record confirms an accelerated descent, all the different footage confirms the plane was in sustained power diving. You can make the same baseless denial all you like, but your "no-plane" views are equivalent to the flat Earth claims.

Anyone who had eyes on the WTC from distance saw the planes striking, everyone within a few miles heard the banshee wailing of the maxed out engine. Every single piece of footage shows planes, not one of the inept "no plane" arguments stands up to scrutiny. In addition we have all the cell-phone calls made from people who died on the planes.

My calculation was a correction of your failure, itself an attempt to prove a descent plane by applying 2 dimensional imagery to a 3 dimensional video!

 

Another mega failure!

nothing to see here, sorry folks, just lots of ink no facts. Dont waste your time.

• False, weve proven no dive was seen.
• Thats called a descent angle
• False, there is no evidence on the record.
• Please consider the facts.
• False, no dive is seen, just standard landing approach.
• You proved no dive took place. the plane is not nose down in any evidence entered into the record.

Therefore:

FALSE - Flight 175 dived into wtc2.

/Thread

Its dishonest to simply 'assume' its anything different than what is already proven without further evidence entered in the record

I guess there is one change, beta appears to be claiming his own calculations are incorrect?
I was satisfied with them, what gives?

 

how much of the flight path are you taking into consideration? Completely on topic so please don’t go whining to the mods …

 

It may appear to be some sort of a game to you, but at some point the fifty-ton penny will drop and you will realize how utterly absurd your posts are.

Repeating the lie doesn't make it true.

I suggest actually reading my posts, it would certainly help you in your poor understanding of "what gives?".

Here are a few snippets to help:

MY calculations thus far ignore that the plane is at least 300 yards beyond the far tower and at an angle of 30 degrees to it. No computation has been made to rectify this. Since a similar picture showed the far tower lower from perspective, 300 yards would yield some difference in the first position assumed.

My calculation was a correction of your failure, itself an attempt to prove a descent plane by applying 2 dimensional imagery to a 3 dimensional video!

Stating that the flight was not a dive, based on 1.5 seconds of flight, cherry picked footage! (where a 2D representation shows only a shallow descent) is very deceptive. It is like filming a roller-coaster from a mile away, at the bottom of a steep drop and saying it has no steep drops!

There's irony and then there's blatant deflection. Your OP was probably the most inaccurate and poorly assembled claim I have so far seen on this forum. So, when you label my follow-up observations as "mega failure", you really should try a little humility.

 

But everyone has been waiting for you to post your uncherry picked footage and all we get is more of the same

It pretty easy to see you have nothing to support our claims nut more of the same

As much as we allegedly saw, provided it is accompanied with a demonstratrd markup like the pic I showed, nicely marked up and calculated to show there was no nose dive later verified by beta who seems to be back pedaling really fast on HIS calculations.

 

Nope. Nobody is waiting for it. It was available 20 years ago and conclusively proves what I claim. I don't care what you believe. You can't back up a single thing you post. It's just repetitive denial and appalling blunders.

Haha, no you didnt. You showed incompetence in basic image processing.

A lie. I verified nothing and corrected your basic errors.

Another lie. My calculations were spot on. But they were calculations of YOUR scenario that failed to allow for perspective. You took 1.5 seconds of flight and falsely concluded it represented the preceding 5 minutes. You keep repeating this, even when the problems are pointed out to you.

 

Beta verified 1.76 degrees was the angle of the dive and wants everyone to believe a normal landing approach is a nose dive without any evidence what so ever! We all know what that is! When people make claims with no evidence what so ever!

7 seconds nearly flat flight




how odd, it starts below the line then goes above it, whats up with that?
Thats the path a missile fired from a ship would look like!

Take note readers the only one posting any applicable evidence here has been ME! All they have is:

Im sure ya'll believe people with no evidence to support their claims right?

Anyone see a nose dive yet?
Should we all start taking LSD, would that help?

 

• That is Richard Numeroff, from the Brooklyn Bridge.
• The footage lasts exactly FOUR seconds!
• It is not flat, it is approaching WTC2 from the south-west, around 45 degrees off of directly ahead!
• This time we know categorically that this MUST be an optical illusion. If it was a level approach, farther away it would appear lower!
• It appears level some distance away therefore it MUST be higher some distance away.

Plane appears at exactly 8.10 and impacts at 8.14.

Nope, just failed gif making and denial. You seem oblivious to the rules of perspective.

 

more of the same invalid claims, cant you post so much as one fact?

So then we would not be able to the altitude decrease if its at 45 degrees in the x plane from that distance as you now want us to believe, and of course with not so much as one shred of evidence from you of course to validate that diatribe just more of the same

everyone has been waiting for you to post your uncherry picked footage and all we get is more of the same

Nope no nose dive there.

Hang on everyone I need some more LSD.

Nope still no diving plane

4 seconds? wth???

I didnt make that video, that video was made as soon as the footage came out 20 years ago!

I wonder....

300/550 = .55
4/7 = .57

300/.57 = 526

Amazing coincidence that the speed in betas new video just happens to closely correspond to his new advertised speed of 540ish while mine which is a 20 year old clip matches 7 seconds.

Proof of manipulation.

Either way for those that watched betas link its the same video sped up and it flies just as flat as the gif I posted with no signs of diving what so ever.

Seems we have a nasty descrepancy and you still have not posted any evidence of a dive.

Again validated my claims!


Therefore:

FALSE - Flight 175 dived into wtc2.

/Thread

Its dishonest to simply 'assume' its anything different than what is already proven without further evidence entered in the record.

Now these guys are reduced to posting forged videos!

 

show me a forged video and explain how you know it’s forged…

 

Perspective is a fact whether you understand or not.

Perspective wins over hot air, every time.

Nope, they've all seen it 20 years ago.

I was thinking more education.

You gonna arm wave away the source video now?

It's an animated gif, not a video. Animated GIFs from 20 years ago had no link to playback time!

Gibberish math.

Pure baffling hogwash. The speed of the plane in THE ORIGINAL FOOTAGE(!) cannot be determined. You need two fixed points and a time. You only have one fixed point and the only way to determine the starting point would be if you knew the damn speed.

From the guy who cut and pasted a plane into a position it didn't hit!

False. Saying the original footage is sped up because your silly 20 year old gif is too slow is circular reasoning. Perspective proves it must be higher further away. Don't worry if you don't get that. It doesn't actually matter, everyone else seeing it understands.

Nope, just someone who doesn't know how GIFs are made.

Repetitious hogwash.

Hmmm, all the Numeroff videos online show the same thing, but his silly little gif from 20 years ago is different. But instead of the obvious conclusion, he claims the original footage is doctored.

 

Yeh a
doctored 911 video how unthinkable!

Just read my previous psot.

 

Haha, is that your best shot? I mean, you show a gif that is set at the speed the creator used, which 20 years ago, largely depended on how many frames were used. And instead of coming to the totally obvious conclusion that ALL the online "Numeroff" videos online, every single one of them on all platforms are correct and the problem is with the gif, you choose the facepalm-method and suggest that they are all doctored because of "reasons".

Why? Is it suddenly going to change from useless gibberish to actual rational thinking?

 

7 seconds was right in the filename 20 years ago and the original was exactly 7 seconds. yours are forgeries modified when they changed the speeds from 300 to 540+ mph. Super easy to do over the course of 20 years!

I thought Id get a real debate, I should have known all Id get was a load of meaningless posturing.

Readers can see you guys have nothing at all to contribute to this thread but smoke and mirrors.

Now proven!

Here, as much as I hate to teach my opponents what they are trying to debate, I will be kind and give you a little lesson on perspective, just to be really nice.

I believe people who want to debate any topic should at least educate themselves so I dont have to teach them.




Here is a plane coming in to its target at 45 degrees with a 15 degree descent. (not to scale)



See how pathetically simple 'perspective' is?


Still no evidence to support your dive claims eh....


FALSE - Flight 175 dived into wtc2.

/Thread


.

 

Right, so "they" magically "forged" every copy, but luckily an animated gif still survives which "proves" this?

Uhuh.

I've highlighted your mistake. There are another two, you aren't actually using 3 dimensions and you aren't using any perspective.

That sums up your understanding perfectly. Your perspective rendering doesn't actually use any perspective.

 

so you disagree, got it.

you cant see a 15 degree angle then.

Id bet everyone else can see it.

So then according to you the plane would not start out at a high point and go lower point as seen on that drawing if at a 45 degree angle to the target eh

alrighty then

Personally I can a 15 degree drop angle on there even though the approach is a 45 degree target angle.

Oh btw you only need 2 views to identify 3 dimensions not 3.

Oh look here is a plane that is coming in at 45 degree attack and flying flat how about that!



I suppose you cant see the plane coming in flat at a 45 degree approach either...

 

So far its pretty clear that you get the jist of what perspective is but dont truly 'understand' how perspective works in practice as you would have us believe, thats why as much as I hate teaching my opponents what I feel they should already know before engaging someone in argument, I felt its time to put this perspective nonsense to bed.

 

ai you finally agree that an actual plane hit WTC 2

 

here you go folks, thats all these guys have is strawmen and doubling down posturing.

 

Do you understand the drawings that I put up for beta? Can you explain the point I am making? Do you see the mistake beta has made?

 

Sure I can, I can't how you've applied any damn perspective to it! Quit yanking everyone's chain.

Personally I can a 15 degree drop angle on there even though the approach is a 45 degree target angle.

Try and read properly. I said you need two points! Plus you need the time taken to traverse them.

Nope.

You haven't used a 45 degree approach, that would entail a 3d drawing. You seem to be dreadfully confused about perspective - you can't represent it in 2d.