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

Following on from the PLAN view. This is a projection from the PLAN to the SIDE elevation:

These are the 0.2 mile / 1.25 seconds of travel, markers.

 

Finally a straight projection across from the SIDE elevation to a FRONT elevation. The vertical lines on the (right hand) FRONT elevation are the 0.2 mile / 1.25* second.



I am happy to redo this for 15 degrees and curving as per the visible footage! It will be slightly lower to begin and more curved on FRONT projection. But this adequately demonstrates the whole issue!

* p.s. I know there is one inaccuracy. The actual line in the PLAN should be the one showing 0.8 miles of travel. The apparent line should be 0.752, so not much variance. I'll correct it if needs be, but only if I get a non-bloviating response!

 

I assume you agree that these are the same drawings.
I rotated it 90 degrees so we are looking at an 'elevation' view from the BB at the same height as the impact.



So we are still standing at the BB just raised to the same level as the impact and looking at the perspective from that vantage point.

 

Total Hogwash! You've aligned the green points on the level line! Use the damn FRONT projection not the PLAN! How can you not know this! The approach angle on that specimen is also not curved and it's very much a process of estimation. The spacings on the intercept are slightly off because I drew the apparent line at 0.8.

I put this damn thing up to prove the incredibly simple and stunningly obvious thing, that you have been denying for most of the thread! A visibly flattened approach (the brick wall, the houses, the fence, the streetlights, tower blocks and Frosty the snowman) means it MUST be a descent!

Here's the process with a curved 15 degree approach and a longer viewpoint at BB. Again, just another estimate!
PLAN with 15 degrees and a curve: https://i.ibb.co/jbt6yP1/PLAN2.jpg
SIDE projected the same way: https://i.ibb.co/2WzhWg5/SIDE2.jpg
FRONT projected the same way: https://i.ibb.co/y0GmZVk/FRONT2.jpg



It's pretty near impossible to get this accurate:

• The whole process relies on the timing of the video through conversion to digital, conversion during uploading to youtube and unknown versions where more converting has taken place. It is assumed it is running at proper speed. Unknown time variance.
• The approach angle and rate of curve is being estimated.
• The points on the approach are assumed to be equidistant in speed/time, when the speeds at these 4 locations are not accurately available.
• ONLY final velocity is given accurately for this section.

You do realize why I asked about #216 don't you!? Do try not to map this against the CBS view unless you can exactly establish the elevation of the helicopter! It's not obvious at all that you were going to do that! Or really, must we go through even more perspective failure to show why it won't accurately map!

 

So the green line is pure vertical or pure horizontal movement?

 

Its not to scale unless you have all the numbers. Is this the same green line and is this vertical or horizontal?

 

I said this before and now you just proved it again.

You do not understand technical drawings.

This is a PLAN VIEW. It is looking down on the whole thing. You made a big thing about claiming my older version of this had "vertical components" when it had none as is the thing with plan views. The green line showing the horizontal motion of the plane is clearly labelled as "Actual Flight Path". The whole point of starting from the plan allows a projection from the apparent onto the actual to show position in space. The side view then shows it from the side and gives elevation. The front view projected from that side view data, shows the flight from a point level with the impact.

DESCENDING!

When do we get you to admit your thread failure about it being flat!? How come YOU haven't done this!? It's YOUR daft claim.

 

Well duh! Didn't this give you a clue?

Sigh. It's the PLAN being projected onto the SIDE.

 

Yes, I rotated it as shown, and if rotated that is how it would/should look.

I need to know what direction that green line is going, your drawings do not make sense.

as we can see everything gets bigger and smaller proportionally when viewed on axis.

This is like 5 miles at bonnevile, no perspective magic!

 

If your plan view is a top view used in engineering drawings then when I rotate 90 degrees that is what it would look like! Sorry.

 

Instead of mapping a plan properly you rotate it when it doesn't show ANY vertical elements. That's useless, how can you not know this!?

Ah well, so much for your engineering claim. The green line is the path of UA175 for the final 5 seconds, looking straight down - PLAN. If that whole scene had a big compass dead center, it's coming from EAST NORTH-EAST. Basically its bearing relative to the building.

But as anyone knows, it's just a horizontal direction. When you project onto a SIDE view, THAT gives you elevation for each of the 4 points. But you don't have relative position until you project that against a FRONT view.

Gibberish. The final drawing - FRONT - gives the descent profile!

 

Thats not possible to derive from a 'top' view as you have it shown.

 

Haha, what!? I mean WHAT!? This is hilarious and very revealing.

Indicate where on that "top view" how high the left edge is! I'll wait!

 

I showed you bonneville where the car tracked nearly perfectly with respect to the horizon as it went past the camera, it did get bigger when it got closer to the camera, but horizontally tracked nearly perfect.

 

Left edge of what?

Top views have nothing vertical, no height, that is why when I rotated it that is what it would look like

 

Your failure to understand is YOUR failure. This is so painfully simple.

1. The plan view gives where the line of sight puts the plane on the actual path.
2. The side view gives the viewing angle, extended past the apparent line of sight. The plan is projected onto the side to give where the plane sits elevation wise on the descent path.
3. The side view is projected onto the front view to give where the elevation points intersect with the actual descent path, position wise.

 

Painful. The left edge on the "top view" shows a rectangle. If you rotate it, indicate how you determine how high it is!?

 

vertical or horizontal?

 

The descent path?

Huh? WHats that supposed to mean?
But the plan has no elevation?

So your plan view does show elevation.

 

This is hilarious. You reckon you can rotate a plan/top view and establish what it would look like!
In your example in post 235 - TOP VIEW - there is a rectangle on the left denoting an L-shaped vertical projection (visible on the front view).

Explain how exactly you rotate that and show anything without knowing how high it goes upwards!?

 

I overlaid the perspective lines lol

This is how you create a 2d engineering drawing.




I can give that to any machinist and he will mill/bore it perfectly.

 

The green line.

The line of sight is seeing an airplane. The airplane only appears to be on the apparent line of sight, square to the building (on the side view). It is extended beyond this "apparent" line of sight to allow sufficient room to project the PLAN view onto it. All 4 points on the actual plane position are to the right of the apparent line of sight.

This is painful and hilarious at the same time. Try carefully to read the words before you. I'll try and make it clearer - this is what I typed with hyphens to help:

"The plan ------ is projected ------ onto the side ------ to give where the plane sits elevation wise on the descent path."

The plan (which has no elevation).
Is projected - it is projected using blue lines.
Onto the side - the is the elevation onto which it has been projected.
To give where the plane sits elevation wise on the descent path - THIS is where the elevation is on the SIDE view.

No. The problem seems to be related to comprehension and reading what I typed.

 

all you did is transpose the same line twice.

If I cant rotate 90 degrees to get what I got in that pic then your pic is wrong, sorry.

 

False! YOU took a PLAN VIEW and rotated it 90 degrees. As has been painfully, so very painfully, been pointed out!, there is zero vertical data on this view, YET you erroneously applied the actual position of the planes (vertical component not yet established!) onto a level line. That is, what's the word?

Precisely!

After a page of hilarious and obvious failure, you are in no position to cut and paste anything. We aren't creating an engineering drawing. We are taking a 2d projection of UA175's position and rectifying it into a 2d front view showing the descent.

 

thats creating something!