wtc2 flt 175 flight path.

When can we expect an answer to these two posts?

 

Well, we're on page 3 of this thread and the only educating has been done by me. You've shown woeful incompetence in making gifs, wilful refusal to acknowledge how perspective works and worst of all and the ONLY relevant bit, you've dishonestly taken 1.5 seconds of flight and suggested that it proves the preceding 4-5 minutes were not a diving plane!

Air traffic control confirmed this, thousands saw the planes, tens of thousands heard them. Many videoed the event.

 

false 2 points is a straight line, not 3 dimension LOL

 

Comedy gold. So now you are saying that instead of doing the dead simple option of crashing a plane, they went to the ludicrous process of disposing of all evidence of them and/or manufacturing this ridiculously complex process.....then they fired a flat trajectory missile across New York at over 1000 ft high and traveling at 300mph.

Nope, you really don't!

 

I told you 2 points is a line, not 3d lol
thanks for the lesson though

 

Your comprehension is awful. Two points IS a straight line. NEVER DENIED.
Let's rewind to what I said shall we?

ME
"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."
YOU
Oh btw you only need 2 views to identify 3 dimensions not 3.
ME
Try and read properly. I said you need two points! Plus you need the time taken to traverse them.

 

So then you finally agree that a plane can be at 45 angle of attack and we will also see a 15 degree drop and that your perspective claim from the vantage point I posted is completely not relevant.

 

Nowhere did I suggest it was 3d, that is just a facepalming non sequitur.

And again, another baffling non sequitur. See if anyone else can see me "agreeing" with this person in what I said to him:
Comedy gold. So now you are saying that instead of doing the dead simple option of crashing a plane, they went to the ludicrous process of disposing of all evidence of them and/or manufacturing this ridiculously complex process.....then they fired a flat trajectory missile across New York at over 1000 ft high and traveling at 300mph.

Nope, you really don't!

 

Yeh you said it AFTER I responded in an edit!

 

There never was evidence of a whole 'plane' in all alleged crashes combined.
Proof...you cant come up with anything more than a couple parts someone dumped off the pick up truck, and we all know a 50+ton plane does not fit in a pick up truck!

 

the drop associated with 15 degrees is the same regardless of the angle of attack from the vantage point I posted!

All that posturing only to have it be proven to be a complete failure.

 

You said the plane nose dived into the building, [PERIOD] and we proved it did not nose dive into the building at all, that is patently false.

I posted a 7 second clip where the fuzz blob is actually increasing in altitude, how is that a nose dive?

Ive never heard anyone claim flying in at less than a normal landing glide slope is a nose dive before, looks like the analysis you posted is a major 'perspective' blunder to me!

There is no visual evidence of a nose dive at any time in the flight path presented.

So you must be making it up?

 

"WE" didn't prove anything. I proved that based on a 2d scenario, the plane entered the building nose down. It doesn't matter that it was more level in the last couple of seconds.

No, that is a lie. The clip is 4 seconds. Your animated gif of unknown provenance is running at the wrong speed.

Nope. It's approaching from 30 degrees off of straight ahead. The last couple of seconds is where it began to level off. When you map that against a 3d perspective it could indeed show a very slightly higher point. It's how perspective works you see. Well you don't see, that is the problem.

I've never heard anyone getting a nose down descent confused with a level plane descent.

Well, based on your previous useless observations that means diddly squat.

So finally, you actually admit that you really don't have a clue about perspective, you really did make some awful mistakes, that it really is very deceptive to claim the last seconds of a flight amount to an accurate summary of the rest of it.
I'm so glad you can see the light*.

/thread.

* see what I did there?

 

I already gave you a small tutorial.

Not relevant, if and ONLY IF you understand 'perspective'.

Now you see nose down? How can is be nose down when we see the blob steadily increasing in altitude? in the clip you referenced?

 

no one cares if it nose dived over Pennsylvania ffs
why would anyone care?

So you still insist that a proven standard landing glide slope is a nose dive eh?

Readers! Heads up! Are you taking note here?
Beta seems to believe that all plane landings at an airport are nose dives!
Holy double down bat Batman!

 

Nope. You drew some 2d lines and wrote stuff. The problem was that it was gibberish.

Entirely relevant and your understanding of perspective seems as poor as your gif making.

Well I'm going on the proven and AGREED opening post! Are you suggesting it doesn't show this?

I never referenced any such clip. YOU posted a crappy wrong-speed gif. The problem is that you don't understand simple perspective.

Here, a simple exercise for you. Here is a row of street-lights. A plane is flying level across the top of each of these lights. Draw its path - then you can go and learn all about perspective:

 

Only if you do not truly 'understand' perspective! If you did you would have immediately been able to connect all the dots and concede long before wasting all this time.

of course you didnt.

and you referenced modified clip from 50 views.
Maybe your keyboard has an autopilot with an Auto-deny button?

Then the other blunder. I gave you 3 dimensions and you still claim its 2d.





Dont you think it should at least be pointing a little bit downward instead of perfectly parallel running flat with the earth?

Doesnt it seen reasonable that parallel with the earth is not a nose dive?

 

bunk.

 

I missed your plane path over the top of the lights.

Can you fly one level over these houses?

 

Yeh I know!

That pile is over 6ft high and that just for 1 plane!
and 1/3 of it is grown over by trees

 

apparently you missed this too! lol

 

Nope. It's angled forward 30 degrees off and banked left. It's 1.76 degrees side on in 2d and that will be much less than a pixel.

 

Please draw in the level flight of a plane over these buildings. And just for good measure...do you suppose that if you cropped a plane in this level flight over these buildings that it would be horizontal?

 

no its not, its precisely parallel to the earth as the rectangled orange line proves.

not relevant only the body is relelvant

thats descent which is not the same as the nose nose down! WOW
Looks like I will have provide more tutorials

you owe me a concession