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

Page 10 has been so entertaining. We previously had lots of references to "engineering this" and "engineering that", with nothing to back it up. Now quite clearly there is a real problem with the understanding of simple technical diagrams.

Hmm, well the actual problem is your first statement is false and the PLAN view still has no vertical component.

 

Indeed, it is creating something FROM the plan view! You don't get to rotate the PLAN view and suddenly magic up elevation data.

What a screw-up.

 

Yes Top view vs side view.

If you claim your dots and mine are not in the same place viewed at the impact height then those drawings are really messed up.

 

There is no elevation data on my rotated view!

 

Right no vertical but you are somehow getting vertical data from it.

Yes that is why I posted a machine drawing of a top/side/front view that any machinist could look at and unquestionably make the part in the drawing.

I drew what amounts to the side view of your top view at 750ft.

 

What a load of horseshit. You cannot take JUST a plan view and rotate it it to give vertical components!

This is is now getting absurd. You are doing the ridiculous! You are taking a damn PLAN view and attributing vertical components.
The drawing is perfectly fine. Your understanding of basic technical drawings is the problem.

What the hell! You literally have a damn line saying "SAME HEIGHT AS IMPACT" .

"Somehow"? Hilarious!

I take the position of the actual plane from the PLAN and project it against the line of sight on the SIDE view!
There is my elevation!
Then I need to establish WHERE that elevation occurs against an approach from the front, so guess what? Project the elevation angles onto the 4 points they come from on the FRONT view.

 

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:


SIDE projected the same way as previous 20 degree example(no idea why the image website made it small), nb, the PLAN view at the bottom is what is being projected onto the SIDE view at the top. Enlarge your screen if need be!:

FRONT projected the same way (showing just the right hand part of it with the blue lines extended):




ENLARGED



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.

The ENLARGED picture is the final rendering from a 15 degree curved approach, what now!? More failure to understand?

Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't YOU draw your own version, since it's your damn claim!? I only did this to prove your thread-long failure, that the approach was a flat line, when images(as already stated) of fences, street lights, brick walls, tower blocks, houses and finally a damn snowman all failed to get you to admit your horrific mistake!

 

Ok lets walk a way down that path, then where does it show up on here?

 

This has to be up there with the most tedious exchange yet. You claimed or implied that you were some sort of engineer! Now you want to apply step 2 of a 3 step process to an image!?
The enlarged image above(in my post), funnily enough clearly labelled ENLARGED, is level to the aircraft impact. It shows a descent between the purple line and the second line from the top in the one you posted just above (with the ridiculous red lines on!).

Since my objective was to show, that rectifying for perspective shows a descent NOT a flat approach, as you have consistently and erroneously claimed I now consider it proven.

I do not care one jot whether you are able to understand this dead simple process, pretend it isn't proven, or what you actually do with it. The last few hours have been very telling.

 

Ok but you see now we are back to that same ole problem from 10 pages ago, they dont validate each other! If what we are seeing is true they have to validate each other, they dont, not even close.

There is nowhere you could move that cbs view to get it to match your view, which I accept btw.

In the CBA view, we can see the tops of the shorter buildings and we can also see we are lower than the top of the wtc and it looks to be just slightly higher than the impact height.

Cant have it both ways.

 

Hey, do me a small favour. Make the WTC2 vertical in this picture. Tell me about the offset angle.

 

what off set angle?


Oh that, just lens barrel effect its the same on both sides and cancels out all it would do is make the plane be a perfectly undeviating straight line.

the plane looks like it takes a little dip, but thats due to the barrel effect. It doesnt.

The buildings in the middle are square.

 

All it does is flatten the dip in the center, wont help any here it is.



Not perfect but much better.

 

Interested viewers will see a magic pink line. They will say, like me, he doesn't have any idea as to the elevation of the helicopter. So how the crap has he drawn it in?

They will conclude that you are actually making up crap.

So you accept on page 11.....with repeat and ignorant denial that it wasn't a descent, with a
totally nonsense claim that the approach was a flat line, is now after all a descent! Bolding mine.

Which ones? Identify them. Identify their relative position! How very vague of you.

Prove it.

Does it? Prove it!

There are no "both ways". An absurd piece of guesswork. It's similar to a five year-old trying to hammer a hexagonal peg into a square hole.

Gibberish. It's almost as though you think your nonsense drawing means something. I find it hilarious that you think your pink line is "accurate". I find it equally hilarious that you've "mapped" or to be more accurate "crapped" my ESTIMATE on to the image.


Tell everyone why you have placed the vertical 5 seconds marker at that point. That is NOWHERE NEAR the start of the 5 second gif! That is another appalling blunder or deliberate deception. YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH

Clue: Before you map the FRONT elevation onto the image, don't you think you should at least make the scaled building the same size!?

 

You dont label the drawings, not my problem if its in the wrong place. Graphs work much better when they have numbers

 

Yeh it pulls it sometimes.

still off by a country mile.

 

Correction angle!

Oh right. Another thing to add to the list! On actual barrel distortion the right hand is distorted OUTWARDS on the lower part of an image! The WTC2 is leaning INWARDS by 2 degrees!

Wait what!? You said it was dead level but I after I point out that the camera is not vertical (as is the case!) the plane now takes a little dip?

It is because the camera isn't vertical and it never did dip or looks like it did!

So what

 

Don't you dare blame your screw up on me! It takes no thought at all to at least align the damn markers with the gif. It's a "shitmess" and not by any stretch the first in this thread.

 

Hilarious. Even after I give you a big hint you still screw it up! How about you spend 10 seconds and look at the damn diagram! It's one error after another.

There are 4 green vertical markers. They correspond to the 5 second gif, 0.2 miles apart as clearly marked! The far left marker should align with the start of the gif. A 0.8 mile span.

1. And what is that batshit pink line doing? It should be at the same level. It's almost as though you've deceptively drawn it nowhere near the impact point and below it.

2. Remind everyone how you guessed its position and curve based on a completely unquantified CBS camera elevation.

Tomorrow, when I get time, I shall take your batshit pink line. Take my estimated line and map them HONESTLY onto the gif. I did it roughly earlier and it was close enough considering all the unknowns. I will do it EXACT to what is presented.

Your problem doing this, is you are trying at all costs to fudge it. You've spent most of this thread making one horrific error after another.

 

I dont draw cameras that can see through walls!

yeh now you know how to fudge it to make it work! LOL

 

yeh with the barrel roll removed

 

nonsense it was quantified well enough for this

 

Nothing dishonest in what I did, you make shitty drawings and blame everyone else. As you can see it ends up in the same place as before, mine has seconds labeled, you know like an engineering drawing.



There, everyone can see I lined up your 5 seconds perfectly.

Camera barrel roll has no outcome changing effect on this.

Micrometer for me rough estimate for him! Thats dishonest.

 

Inability to do it properly was my suggestion.

The irony!

And 3 times in a row, the same screw-ups. Do I need to SHOUT!

1. There are 4, that is FOUR! green lines.

2. They are spaced 0.2 miles apart and CLEARLY LABELED!

3. You have aligned an imaginary 5th one with the start of the 5 second gif!
4. At the noted speed, the plane does 0.8 miles in 5 seconds.

5. Your PINK line is not overlaid with the same impact point as the "15 degree curved" example!

NO, YOU HAVE NOT!

Just get the damn overlay is what is being asked!

Hogwash! There isn't enough data for anything else. It's close enough.

I have the integrity to admit any error, I also have the integrity to drop the matter completely on the extremely rare occasions any "truth seeker" has shown the balls to concede one of theirs! That is now the second time you have crowed about a conceded mistake whilst your won colossal screw-ups on the last page, this page (every page!). An out of date list in post #206 now needs about 5 more added to it!

 

I used accepted speeds, you opted to add 40+ mph so you either get time or distance not both or I have to fudge the **** out of it to make it work.