wtc2 flt 175 flight path.

Its thought by many that flt 175 made a nose dive into wtc2

I have to confess I made an error.
So I will admit my error.

from fox chopper entry into view




exiting from view


I posted this clip:



The method I used did not account for the camera shake, that has now been accounted for by the superimposition of line of the plane exiting the view over the top of the plane image of the plane entering the view.

This removed camera shake. Below see the red line perfectly covers the black line.

exit/entry superimposed camera shake removed.


Some people claim flt 175 nose dived, this is easily demonstrated to be a false optical illusion.

The error I made was I did not take into account camera shake which gave a false result.

When superimposed the lines marking the top of the entry of the plane and the top of the exit of the plane line up identically.



This of course means there is no angle of descent at all.

In another thread I did not account for camera shake and found it to be .92 angle of descent.

my error! .92 is not the angle of descent, there is no angle of descent.

this means the alleged plane impacted the building almost perfectly vertically perpendicular to the building.

What are the chances of that in real life?

Clearly this is not a nose dive, anyone with demonstrative math markups or drawings are welcome to join this discussion.

This discussion is not about what people think they 'saw' or 'heard' or 'said' or 'quips' of any kind, anyone making such claims or posting quips/smart remarks in this thread will be reported as off topic.

Any claim put up without demonstrative markups or math will be reported as off topic.

The above is proof beyond a shadow of doubt that the (alleged) plane was in fact flying flat and flying flat means parallel to the horizon is not a nose dive into the buildings as certain others have claimed.

 

I hope this helps.

18 Views of Plane Impact in South Tower | 9/11 World Trade Center (2001)


50 Views of Plane Impact in South Tower | 9/11 World Trade Center (2001)

 

It looks like your post is off topic, state what specifically in any of those videos addresses the OP?

 

Of course it doesn't address it directly. I just figured that the more info people have, the easier it will be for them to see what happened.

 

This is correct. The plane did indeed dive into its target and as it neared it in the last few seconds began to pull up slightly.

Sadly you are "admitting to an error" that wasn't one of your 3 actual errors.
Firstly you claimed that the plane was on auto-pilot which is absolutely absurd, since autopilot will trim the craft using the various wing and rear appendages and will categorically refuse to descend nose down.
Secondly you actually placed your lines in the wrong place for both images. This effectively implied that the plane kept to the same line when it did not.

Here is an animated gif showing this:


Thirdly you claimed this was a 0.92 degree and also that it was 0.001 of a degree. The front of the nose occurs at pixel verticals 311 and 443 giving a visible left to right apparent distance of 132 pixels. The distance between your two black lines is 4 pixels this gives an angle of 1.74 degrees.

For viewers casually watching this they won't actually look to see what you have done here, but it is a colossal mistake or dreadful deception. I will assume the former.

There is NO camera shake, this is a stabilized fixed camera. There is however a small change in point of view.

Yes, people can see that you have actually cut and pasted the plane away from the place it actually was going to hit, level with the one above JUST to join up your two different lines!

That is truly dreadful. Instead of simply moving the second image to align it with the first, you grab a chunk of the second image and move it to a place where the damn plane DID NOT HIT!

Your demonstration(s) are exercises in how not to do image rectification! You have made a dreadful "error".

No, the real error you made was to not adjust one of the images. I did and here is the result!

This now produces a 6 pixel gap between the red lines and an apparent nose to nose distance of 195 pixels, giving more or less the same angle 1.76 degrees.

It means you don't know what you are doing!

The building edge is the vertical bit so if it is perpendicular to it then it's horizontal.

No, it's proof that you need to quit this discussion.

 

Is the topic the last few seconds of 175 or the entire flight path after departing Boston?

 

This discussion is resolved.

FALSE - Flight 175 dived into wtc2.

This is about the angle of descent of the plane that can be seen on the videos immediately before impact that the debunker crowd claims was a nose dive, such as the hezerkoni clip and others like it.

Using betas numbers we can see the slope of the plane was more than 1 degree less than a typical commonly used landing any time you fly.

Betas numbers 1.76 degrees are off but I am not going to quibble over it because regardless it totally proves my point.

Unless someone wants to claim that standard commonly used mild <2 degrees approach slope for a commercial jet is a nose dive there is nothing left to discuss in this thread.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Final_approach

Approach slope

An approach slope is the path that an airplane follows on its final approach to land on a runway. It is ideally a gentle downward slope. A commonly used approach slope is 3° from the horizontal. However, some airports have a steeper approach slope because of topography, buildings, or other considerations. London City Airport, for example, has a 5.5° approach slope; only aircraft that can maintain such an approach slope are allowed to use the airport.[4] In the United Kingdom, any approach of 4.5° or greater is defined as steep and requires special approval.[5] Steeper approaches require a longer landing distance, which reduces runway throughput at busy airports, and requires longer taxi distances. Airports such as Heathrow and London Luton are trialling slightly steeper approaches (3.2°) to reduce noise, by keeping the aircraft higher for longer and reducing engine power required during descent.[6][7]




Dives

A dive or nosedive[2][3][4] is "a steep descending flight path".[5] While there is no specific definition for what degree of steepness transforms a downward trajectory into a dive, it is necessarily a rapid, nose-forward descent.
Pilots of the World War II dive bomber known as the Stuka particularly noted the effects of the dive. Beginning at a height of 4,600 m (15,000 ft), the Stuka would roll 180°, automatically nosing into a dive. The aircraft would then dive at a 60-90° angle, holding a constant speed of 500 to 600 km/h (270 to 320 kn; 310 to 370 mph), until it had gone some 90% of the way to the ground, releasing its bombs at a minimum height of 450 m (1,480 ft).[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_(aeronautics)

we may not have an exact definition for a dive but we do know what a dive is not. It is without question not a standard or less than a standard landing approach.

/thread

 

you didn’t answer my question …

 

The title suggests the latter, though I believe he wants to make it about the last 1.3 to 1.5 seconds of the visible route, taken from a slowly moving distant position. The plane is coming in at around 30 degrees offset to the far tower and ergo 30 degrees to the observer. It is well over 300 metres beyond the far tower (traveling obliquely at 260m/s) and no compensation has been made for this in any calculation of its glide path.

My image in the other thread, a seemingly similar POV shows the height of the far tower shortening due to perspective. And that is 110 yards away, so would be proportionally lower. Now with the camera in the chopper, it's not possible to determine its angle of elevation. It's possible that the plane approach is level with it and it's pointed slightly upwards, but equally possible is that the camera is level and the plane is below this ( it is below image center). With that in mind it is virtually impossible to apply accurate angular calculation.

But, it means it is at least 1.75 degrees if level and indeterminably more if below.

All of this of course totally irrelevant, since other footage shows the plane clearly diving and briefly straightening in its last couple of seconds. Plus everyone in New York either saw the planes or heard the banshee wail of maxed out engines.

 

And all your awful mistakes deliberate or otherwise still not conceded!

An awful and contrived conclusion. 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.
You have basically taken a clip of the last 1.5 seconds of descent, where the plane is being pulled up out of the dive seen in every video. This is deceptive cherry picking.
You have made appalling errors in your claims and 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 the 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.

Yeah, damn right you're not going to "quibble"! We've all seen the previous "quality" of your "quibbling" and also my rebuttal where I've torn your arguments to pieces,

Well the viewers would want you to admit your terrible mistakes and probably wonder how you can take the tiniest segment of a dive and use it to determine the rest of the descent.

 

Thank you for your drawing proving the plane did not dive into the tower as stated.

This discussion is resolved.

FALSE - Flight 175 dived into wtc2.

/Thread

No further discussion is required.

 

So very typical of conspiracy theorist claims. Take a tiny segment 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.

 

This is an science/evidence based thread,

the evidence shows 1.76 degrees

I accepted betas numbers.

no other evidence (as described in the OP) has been entered into the record, therefore:

This discussion is resolved.

FALSE - Flight 175 dived into wtc2.

/Thread

No further discussion is required.

 

Nothing you presented fell under that category!

My scientific evidence shows the apparent 2D angle.

That's because I exposed your appalling errors.

A deliberately false statement ignoring the actual evidence stated above.

It was never unresolved.

Like saying Usain Bolt couldn't have broken the world record because he coasted for the last 5 yards!

• None was required in the first place.
• Flight 175 was recorded doing an extraordinary speed, one that could only occur by putting a plane into a nose down dive and pushing the engines to their maximum throttle.
• The scientifically produced 1.76 degrees was an angle that is based on a 2D interpretation of a 3D event, in response to your appallingly flawed attempt at doing this.
• There is no correction for the obvious perspective.
• The 1.5 final seconds of flight, in no way, accurately reflects the visual evidence from numerous other footage showing the descent before this deceptively cherry picked tiny segment.

Refusing to discuss this is equivalent to placing fingers in one's ears and singing "La la la, I can't hear you"!

 

if you are not happy post new evidence and I will be happy to discuss it.

This is what you need to be eligible for discussion in this thread:
OP:

Everything else will be ignored.

if you want a response follow the thread rules for a response.

 

My "happiness" is not dependent on any reply from you. Evidence has already been posted and ignored.

Nope. So far the only science and evidence has been provided by me.

Whatever makes you think I want a response from you? Everyone has seen the very erroneous posts you have made, so it's probably best if you were to just stop.

The 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 variance in the first position assumed.

Stating that 1.5 seconds of flight, where a 2D representation shows a shallow descent means that the whole descent was the same is completely false.

 

Its not my problem you proved my point for me.

no new evidence or marked up drawings in the quoted post to rebut the standing evidence on record or prove a dive condition existed,

nothing to see here folks.

Flt 175 not diving now proven

Responders Please respect the OP!

/thread

 

Wow, your "evidence" said it was level. I proved your method was incorrect. Your point was erroneous as it dishonestly suggested 1.5 seconds of flight could be used to determine the previous few minutes!

Which part of this is confusing for you:

The 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 disparity in the first position assumed.

Stating that 1.5 seconds of flight, where a 2D representation shows a shallow descent means that the whole descent was the same is completely false.

That is a reference to your own posts.

Nope. Not even for the 1.5 seconds deliberately cherry picked.

It commands no respect, it was riddled with appalling errors.

 

Its not my problem you proved my point for me.

Now he wants to make groundless claims with no evidence no marked up drawings = no response.

again no new evidence or marked up drawings in the quoted post to rebut the standing evidence on record or prove a dive condition existed,

nothing to see here folks.

Flt 175 not diving now proven

Responders Please respect the OP!

/thread

 

Really, you think repeating your post is going to suddenly make this gigantic strawman go away?

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!

 

speculative, no evidence provided, claim invalid, rejected

no new evidence or marked up drawings in the quoted post to rebut the standing evidence on record or prove a dive condition existed,

nothing to see here folks.

Flt 175 not diving now proven

Responders Please respect the OP!

/thread

 

You seem to be repeating yourself and ignoring clear rebuttal.

Stating that the flight was not a dive, from 1.5 seconds of cherry picked footage is extremely poor thinking and/or deceptive. Given that the 1.5 seconds is a 2D rendering from a 3D scenario and the perspective has not been taken into consideration, even that 1.5 seconds of flight shows significant descent.

You are speaking for your own posts, devoid of content or wildly inaccurate.

False, at the very best ignoring perspective, I have proven that the plane is descending at 1.76 degrees for 1.5 seconds. To conclude that the previous 4 minutes is the same is ludicrously incorrect and/or very dishonest.

You basically completely ignored my post and just repeated yourself:

That simple picture of a fence shows how something that appears level and further away, will nearly always be more elevated than it seems. The criteria for no change are not met, since a small change in elevation made no change to the 2D angle.

 

rejected, invalid, speculative, not evidence, there now its not ignored.

Something to see below folks!

Here is are 'valid' points proving no dive condition existed.

The evidence on record has proven that Flt 175 came in on a standard, in fact easier than standard glide slope.

Here is the proof that 3 degrees and under is a standard approach.

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.


FALSE - Flight 175 dived into wtc2.

/Thread

 

Once again you assert the same thing without acknowledging key issues, now this is just wilful evasion.

You cannot take 1.5 seconds of flight to determine the preceding 4 minutes! Especially when you have not rectified the angle produced in 2D and converted it allowing for perspective, to 3D.

No such proof is needed, though it does prove one thing, you don't know the difference between a normal descent and a dive! Key differences being applying flaps and trim to keep the plane level, whilst power is reduced.

As opposed to pointing the nose down and pushing the engines to maximum!

You continue to demonstrate your lack of knowledge on this matter.

And once again being wilfully dishonest by taking 1.5 seconds and applying it to the whole dive!

 

bald speculations, no evidence, invalid, rejected.

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

your claims - summarily rejected

FALSE - Flight 175 dived into wtc2.

/Thread