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

For reference.

You placed a left hand marker in. It increases elevation the closer you put the helicopter to the WTC2.
Now identify how you established it or concede it was a mistake.

Prove what? I'm asking YOU to show why you placed that left hand marker where you placed it. It has significance to the descent angle.

 

Yes I see that!

That neither proved your view correct nor my view incorrect. I agree because I didn't see anything grossly wrong with what you did, but that was before you tried to prove that what I did was incorrect.

You've made the claim you never proved it.

No objection means you waived the the setup I was using and we went forward based on that presumption and now you wanted to go back and start all over again?

I already told you you made a calculation error and your pixel measurements it's not 106 it's 180 and you claim that my 130 was incorrect all you have to do is measure it and recalculate it.

That doesn't however prove that it affected the five seconds after the 9 seconds before which because you are taking issue with it you have to prove it made a difference worth mentioning.

Well then I guess we start all over from scratch and we'll both use micrometers how about that! I was trying to do it very easily where you need very little calculation but you want to complicate it be my guest, let's go!

I already did I said you made a calculation error when you compared my drawing to the building and since you love the word blunder I guess it falls under the word blunder.

You came up with 106 or some number like that and it should be closer to 180 and my original was a conservative 130.

 

So what? Does not mean it effected the 5 second clip it was used to create unless you prove it.

It wasnt a mistake, you need to prove it affected the 5 second clip to the point it changed the outcome to be a valid argument, otherwise its just batshit minutia.

Because it was very close to the helo position.

Prove it significantly changes the 5 second descent!

 

It proved you made up your pink line. It doesn't align with the plane for the first 5 seconds and the elevation is based on a made up left hand reference.
Four times requested and you still haven't shown where it came from.

Prove it. You keep saying there's a 180% error, let's see it.

You claimed the two didn't align, I proved that your first 5 seconds was incorrect, you showed zero method for its production. When pressed repeatedly before, you made some glib remark about "me" deleting your posts!

Repeating the claim. Prove it. You keep saying there's a 180% error, let's see it.

That's 3 times in the same post, the same claim. Prove it. You keep saying there's a 180% error, let's see it.

 

Evasion again. It does not affect the 5 second clip. It affects the previous 9.

Repeating the same evasion about it affecting the 5 second clip. Nowhere has it even been considered as an issue. Your other part of the pink line ON the five seconds is completely wrong but that's another issue. You made up a left hand marker. It affects the descent angle. THAT is a mistake!
You posted:

Your "correction" in post #185 fabricates a left hand marker! Rhetoric in your image "can't have it both ways" / "suggesting an 800ft perspective error at one mile is over the top ludicrous".

False. You don't KNOW where the helicopter is!

For the 5th time! It doesn't, I never suggested it did. It affects the comments highlighted just above!

Let me explain something to you. This thread is going nowhere until you explain the three things itemized. I'm going to keep pressing you to resolve claims you have made!

FOR CLARITY
1. Show how you arrived at the elevation for the plane at the 13 second mark. I've PROVEN in the image post #301(no rebuttal) it could be at numerous heights, each altering the distance of the CBS helicopter from the WTC2.
2. Show the error you have mentioned 5 times in 2 posts that puts the ratio above the building at 180%.
3. Show why my assessment of your "5 second" pink line is wrong.

 

I told you I was being conservative in the height. Whats your problem?

You waived microcrometering when you said its impossible to do, best we can do is rough estimates and here you are with your micrometer using it to berate my 'estimates'.

In other words none of that **** counts unless you say up front you want to use micrometers.

I have them too.

We come up with very close to the same when we BOTH use a micrometer.

 

Complete obfuscating diversion and spamming the same meaningless gif.

Why are you afraid to answer the 3 simple requests?

You made it all up. You don't know where the helicopter was, you guessed. You stuck a bogus marker on your drawing denoting a bogus altitude. You completely fabricated the descent angle for the BB gif. You've made 2 specific claims about MY "mistakes" and of course that's more noise with nothing to back it up.

Nothing. The absence of an honest response says everything.

 

I did but you called it spam! Of course this thread will go no where, its handicapped with far to much deceitful manipulations!

You have not shown it is wrong, why dont you show its wrong first!

Not when the goal posts were moved to from roughly to micrometers!
I wont fall for that dishonesty again.

Listen to your demands, you put the helo in a place where it had to have superman vision to see through the walls, was that a calculated position?

No thread goes anywhere when the goal posts are constantly changed, and I am not the one changing them.

There see! That is the first time that drawing is osted, I marked it up and post the proof and you call it spam!

You made the BB all up and guessed. Then the attempt to show perspective was a massive failure. This takes cooperation and I give what I receive.

 

Vague evasion.

YOUR TURN!

Followed by steadfast evasion. And, a couple of posts AFTER you made your error with placement, I posted this!

The answer then was some rigmarole about "reverse-engineering" and we both know you just guessed it.

Hogwash. YOU made claims about alignment, I addressed them. See my quote above in red.

• You got the ratio, of the area above the tower wrong, denoting the angle of the plane. You show 130% and you've since baffling claimed it is 180% PROVE IT!
• You arbitrarily stuck an image on the left hand side of your gif - post #185. WHY DID YOU PUT IT THERE?
• Show your alignment for the PINK line that is basically a complete bodge. I proved it was inaccurate(HERE) compared to correct alignment. PROVE YOURS IS RIGHT!

It's on the previous page.

PROVE IT!

All these meaningless evasion posts have a purpose, they are to knock the slam-dunk evidence off of the current page. Loads of rhetoric and bloviating about how it is wrong - not a single post showing why.

PAGE 12 - http://www.politicalforum.com/index...el-over-500mph.616147/page-12#post-1074661682


Regarding the post #185

1. In post #183, @Kokomojojo messed up with the seconds index at the bottom. On this "first draft" which was wrong in almost every way, he had drawn the PINK line with no discernible reason.

2. Immediately I asked 2 questions! "Now, maybe I missed your complex geometry to determine where the CBS live camera is positioned. Indicate how you have verified its elevation as well."

3. As noted above(in red) I asked again in post #199.

4. Five thread pages later and STILL no answer!

 

sure thing!

Precise micrometer!

That is obsolete from when you agreed to 'rough estimate', before you moved the goal posts to micrometer, please post current circumstances.

Sure, the answer is you only have 7degrees persepective for the flight path, CBS shows 11 degrees and that is when the cbs helo is at the same height as the plane entering the picture. Worst case. There now you happy? Still dont work out. Oh yen and the distance from the BB to wtc is 1.14 miles, not .8 LOL, .8 would mean he was Jesus Christ standing in the middle of the water!

 

I just realized something on that yellow image:
Are you dividing the total distance of the "plane to impact" by the "plane to the roof", 447/245 to get your phantom 180%?
That's NOT how you do it. You split the 447 into the upper and lower, 245/202 * 100 = 121%

Errors:
1. Your roof line is in the wrong place at 249 - it's closer to 241
2. You've spanned to the top of the image with no plane. Your original image suggested it was at pixel 3 not zero!
3. Adjusting the top span accordingly becomes 238.
4. You've drawn from top to impact and labelled it as 447, the impact line is on 445! So from pixel 3 should be 442.
5. That gives top to impact at 204.
6. That gives 117%

 

Not really, a rough estimate works. A rubbish guess doesn't.

325/250 is an APPALLING guess. Anyone, giving that a scant look will see that the two spans above the "roof to the plane" and "roof to the impact" are not too dissimilar.

Total fabrication. Here are the 3 so far:

PRELIMINARY:
Let's compare the angles on the 3 specimens so far submitted.


This is @Kokomojojo PINK line showing what he regards as the 5 second angle of descent from CBS. 920 x 85 pixels = 5.28 degrees


This is my first example at 20 degrees of the BB footage(1.1 miles to BB). 934 x 69 pixels = 4.23 degrees


This is my second example 15 degrees of the BB footage (1.2 miles to BB) 975 x 40 pixels = 2.35 degrees ,

Total fabrication. YOUR OWN pink line only shows 5.28 degrees!

You haven't established where the hell it is at ANY point. Nothing you have presented has been accurate. When gaping holes have been shown with your poor drawings, you have done nothing at all to disprove any of them.

Nope. You've done nothing to establish ANY "case".

Your postings offer no change in my state of mind.

You've just plucked that crap out of thin air.

Well, so far, example number 1 from me put it at 1.1 miles. It's actually on image number 2 on this post.
Example number 2 I put it at 1.2 miles. Picture 3 on this post.

And there, establishing very closely where it is from a similar image.

I'm seeing a real problem from you, reading what I have clearly stated. The 0.8 mile reference is the plane travel estimate in 5 seconds - clearly marked(But since the animated gif is only 4.21 seconds long that's too far).

A dozen times and you have avoided this every single time. You completely made the whole view up. A total fabrication from you with no established helicopter position or plane elevation,

 

Yes that was before I used a micrometer, I see yours is broken.
Clearly that clip was not taken from that spot, you posted a fabricated position.
Now its 11 degrees worst case, something is rotten in denmark.

 

My signature has never been truer. You refuse at every request to correct your numerous mistakes. You keep making one ridiculous claim after another and each time offer nothing to back them up. Prove I fabricated a single thing. The proof you have been doing that, is being systematically ignored with attempts to bury it.

• You tried to rotate a PLAN view with NO ELEVATION data into a FRONT view. That's just so wrong. Post #228
• You put up an image showing the last 3 seconds of the CBS dive as FLAT! Post #139. The last 1.5 seconds are not visible and it clearly is descending!
• You created a bogus elevation for UA175 based on a fabricated left hand marker. You have failed to address this failure. Post #185.
• Your bogus elevation included a bogus comparison between the impact to roof/roof to plane ratio. You have failed to address this failure. Post #280.
  
• You created a gradient for the 5 seconds of the CBS approach and it doesn't match with the animated gif. You failed to address where this was highlighted. Post #260.
• You put up a bright yellow image and suggested it showed a 180% variance when this was an appalling math fail. Highlighted post #311 and ignored.
• You made unsubstantiated nonsense claims about 7 degrees and 11 degrees for something or other - just vague rhetoric. On this page.
• You keep referring to the CBS helicopter but have performed nothing to determine it's position or elevation. Throughout the thread.
• You "corrected" me on an error YOU yourself made with reading my post - on distance to the WTC2 from the bridge.
• You put up an image of a different impact claiming it was level when that was impossible with no other building that high. Highlighted post #65.
• Post #181 details a whole series of failed claims that have all been avoided.

The only conclusion is that you are afraid to admit any of your mistakes.

 

Weve all see the claim! Obviously the explanation given was either not understood or its just a bad faith conclusion.

Bad faith claim. That was when I was baited into the belief we were using rough estimate terms before the goal posts were moved in bad faith without my agreement to using micrometers.

Again I was baited into 'rough estimate' terms before the goal posts were moved in bad faith to using micrometers. 20 ft on 1300+ is laughably ridiculous claim. More bad faith insignificant minutia.

Bad faith insignificant minutia.

False. Unproven. More bad faith.

It served my purpose fine, sorry it didnt serve yours.

Nope its a micrometered fact that may never be posted because of all the bad faith seen in this thread.

I have but as usual it goes ignored, more bad faith debate practices.

That was when I was baited into the belief we were using rough estimate terms before the goal posts were moved in bad faith without my agreement to using micrometers.
Even my rough estimate did not have the cameraman walking on water!

After all this bad faith I see, I could care less not going back to look.

Lots of opinions, nothing proven, misrepresentations, minutia all the stuff that becomes essential when someone has lost the initiative and need to quickly move goal posts.

Bad faith conclusions are pretty typical SOP for some people, how predictable!

 

You gave NO explanation. You cannot obtain elevation from a PLAN there are no vertical components in it. It was a ludicrous error and you still, STILL cannot admit it.

Hogwash. Your "rough" estimate was a bad mistake. But so glad we can write it off as "answered".

That is a complete evasion. You fabricated an elevation and a helicopter position! You then made some ridiculous claim that it was impossible!


THAT IS NOT A MATTER OF 20FT! The variation between your top yellow line and the bottom pink line is 300ft.

This is the yardstick you used when you made that bad mistake on the previous point!

Show exactly how you mapped this useless curve out!


This is @Kokomojojo PINK line showing what he regards as the 5 second angle of descent from CBS. 920 x 85 pixels = 5.28 degrees

It was a bad mistake. You claimed it showed a 180% discrepancy, an appalling math failure.

Gibberish. You made claims without any substance or evidence.

Identify it. I say you have done nothing prove me wrong!

Gibberish response. You "corrected" me on an error YOU yourself made with reading my post - on distance to the WTC2 from the bridge.
NOWHERE did I make the error you made up.

Just like every one of these bad mistakes you are asked to explain them 20 times and keep ignoring the requests. I already asked you about about 5 times previously

Evasion and diversion. Not one of the posts in #181 has been addressed. You just make up nonsense and refuse every request to explain it!

A totally evasive response to every one of those bad mistakes.

What an appalling response. You failed AGAIN to answer a single one of your errors honestly. Instead you make up some crap about being "baited" to provide useless diagrams that were just "rough estimates". They were crap estimates and totally not fit for purpose - every single one of them.

 

and the bad faith, misrepresentations continue, in fact its growing exponentially. Therefore:

"You cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into."

Thats a common cause of bad faith debating and goal post moving add useless arguing over minutia, redd herrings, misrepresentation, ignoring important points, pretending hard evidence is just "noise", posting no evidence opinions as fact, and the list is much much MUCH longer.

Do you think I am going to respond to this increasing expansive bullshit? I actually charted much of this out to post but not when splitting hairs degenerates into and becomes a splitting quarks pissing contest, and as soon as I hit enter for this post my next thing to do is hit the delete button on the charting I did to prove the points. I have better things to do than lose the will to live dancing with anyone that uses increasingly expansive bad faith debate tactics.

Something for people to think about....a standard ILS glide slope for a perfect landing is 3 degrees and we have someone telling us that 4 degrees is 'diving'.

 

Wherever you think this thread is going, it isn't. I've put up with one made up claim after another, one crappy drawing after another and you have ignored EVERY SINGLE request to explain or withdraw the whole lot. Either you start admitting your mistakes or I keep asking you to do so or explain them properly.

You are making the insane "no-plane" claim, suggesting all the video is fabricated(meh!) and using useless diagrams as a means to "prove" it. NOWHERE have I suggested YOU stuff up "rough estimates". NOWHERE have I even intimated it was acceptable to do so! It is an absurd suggestion that you can stuff up inaccurate drawings as a means to disprove the presence of 767 airplanes in New York!

The only estimates I have provided were used, as CLEARLY STATED "not to scale" , to show your other awful error about the BB approach being flat. The similar ones later presented were to scale and marked as such!

I have some more and accurate data about this footage to present but I'm damned if I'm going to post it when a bluster of obfuscation
is guaranteed to be posted in response. Admit all your errors, start creating accurate and usable drawings, because so far this thread is a big pile of junk and you've proven nothing.

 

There is zero bad failh in holding somebody to account for their egregious errors.

You did not reason yourself into the no-plane position. It defies any reason. I have a whole thread detailing must-complete items that are absurd! You have ignored it. There is NO reasonable answer to any of it.

Meaningless and bloviating rhetoric.

Cherry picking to create an argument is deceptive. The last 5 seconds before impact have the plane with its nose remaining down, only considerably less so than the preceding 9 seconds! Something for the "people to think about" - using awful and inaccurate diagrams ("rough estimates" - meh!) it has been suggested that the descent profile was too MUCH!

Boeing 757 and 767 models have leading edge slats and they descend and land nose UP!
United Airlines Boeing 767-400 Smooth Landing on the Polderbaan - Amsterdam Schiphol (AMS/EHAM) - YouTube

 

I dont have camera men standing in the middle of the lake or cameramen with cameras that can see through steel, talk about the most hilarious blunders I have ever seen. Neither do I move the goal posts, or use minutia to distract evade the point of the thread or claim proven because I made an opinion, these are the dishonest debate tactics that cause people to loose the will to live.

The thread has degenerated into goal post moving and posturing for the past 10 pages, I have actually have a life that is much more fun that chasing the constant no end in site misrepresentations.

I have beeter things to do than chase after and correct every imaginable misrepresentation disingenuous believers can concoct.

See the plane everyone?

What am I talking about, read the thread people, see for yourselves.

Speaking of believing, here believe this:

If I took this to a psychologist and told them I saw a plane strike the north tower, they would say "Koko, please lie down on the couch and tell me all about it"



That is the second original, the first one didnt account for the time it takes to hear the sound due to the distance, I knoew immediately it was a fake. Of course these video clips evolve over time, in 10 more years we will see a perfectly crystal clear plane in that 'original' clip.

Of course 20 years later Im sure someone took the time to cgi another view!

 

Goalpost moving, bloviating, error evading, bare assertion posturing rhetoric.

re: Bolded part....and?


UPDATE TO ERRORS (This list is not even a full list of errors made within this thread).

1. Why did you try to rotate a PLAN view with NO ELEVATION data into a FRONT view. That's just so wrong. Post #228. Still awaiting any explanation because despite you claiming you gave one you have not! The sequence of determining elevation BEGINS with the plan! You said "There is no elevation data on my rotated view!" and it clearly has the impact level on it! On to which, you have bafflingly added all the un-projected descent data!

2. For your so called "rough estimate" elevation for UA175 based on a fabricated left hand marker - Post #185. No ongoing comparison with this drawing is acceptable to determine a single thing. It specifically highlights an "800ft error" as "a joke" when the span above the building is exaggerated, the descent angle is fabricated and a lower more realistic one makes the variance at least over 300 feet. THAT is why you are being held to account for the mistakes!

3. Your bogus elevation included a bogus comparison between the impact to roof/roof to plane ratio. You have failed to address this failure. Post #280. A "Rough Estimate" apparently. This is the guide for point 2 making it even more of a "rough estimate".

4. You created a gradient for the 5 seconds of the CBS approach and it doesn't match with the animated gif. You failed to address where this was highlighted. Post #260. This is being used to compare another piece of footage and as such needs to be very accurate and not another "rough estimate"! Your original drawing CLEARLY says DRAWN TO SCALE"!

5. You put up a bright yellow image and suggested it showed a 180% variance when this was an appalling math fail. Highlighted post #311 and ignored. The significance is it was used to claim my statement in number 3 was wrong when it does no such thing. You said "Better check your cipherin, (blunder) I was conservative, it should have 180%" - admit your error withdraw your claim!

6. When are we getting explanations about these claims for "7 degrees" and "11 degrees" for something or other? They are on this page. You have still offered nothing to back these vague claims up.

7. You keep referring to the CBS helicopter but have performed nothing to determine it's position or elevation. Throughout the thread. You claim you have addressed it and I have been through the whole thread - you have not! Indeed the only drawing to ascertain its position is the awful "rough estimate" in number one above.

8. You "corrected" me on an error YOU yourself made with reading my post - on distance to the WTC2 from the bridge. Withdraw the claim and admit your error.

9. On an image taken from a different side on impact view (CLEARLY BELOW!) you claimed it was level. That is not possible as there are no other buildings that high level with the impact point. Highlighted post #65. You actually said the image quoted in post #168 was "damn near straight at". This is a colossal error. The nearfield building is nowhere near the impact point! The view was obviously from below! SHOW YOUR "mathematical process" that worked this out.

10. On your 5 second pink line on the BB gif, why have you failed to show how you mapped out this line? The CBS camera elevation is unknown anyway, so it is total guess work. From top of post #312.

11. Post 37 you said Leslie Hazzard was an "engineering gal" - she isn't and you have had this pointed out to you - she is the Commercial Manager. If you say she is an engineer, prove it, or withdraw the claim.

12. Same post you said "she busted out laughing" and "Well when I see boeing engineers laughing their asses". "you posting the comments from all those boeing engineers" and here "5 maybe 6 other boeing engineers" Firstly this is a deceptive exaggeration about laughter used to add weight to your erroneous claim. As can be heard on the video she merely chuckled. In this video there were NO Boeing engineers on that video, another complete fabrication. EVERY time you have been asked to identift them or conform any of this you have simply ignored the request!

13. In this post you said that the interviewer "doggedly pursues the inconvenient questions". In talking with Leslie Hazzard however, he deceptively omits to say the plane was in a dive at full throttle and that the occupants gave no crap to the health of the plane or regulations! Also, while he is talking with a few pilots, he either didn't show his question or said "small dive". In legal terms that is called leading the witness! Why have you not responded to the numerous times where I have pointed this out?

14. On Page 2 you said "No evidence of their speeds" and "Flight recorders, film speed all humanly corruptable". There is black box data from AA77, there is clear radar data, there are multiple videos showing the crazy approach. To dismiss every piece of video in this insane "no planes" claim is absurd. It also adds on a large number to the untenable list, of Americans happy (and needlessly so, just crash the damn planes!) to commit mass murder in the thousands! You now need to add the radar operators and the NTSB! Show something to add substance to this bare assertion nonsensical claim.

15. From post #165 you said "then stop pretending there is a vertical component in it." for my PLAN view. There IS no vertical component in it. Withdraw that staement or show where there is a vertical component! Ironically point 1 above has YOU doing this very thing!

People who have been following this thread will probably be wondering when you are going to start answering PROPERLY(!) to these numerous egregious errors!

SOME IRONY

How about YOU start with the "cooperation"! - start answering to your big list of mistakes. There are loads more, these are just the ones I can be bothered to list!

 

Nope, You had several chances to produce you either deleted or got my **** deleted calling it spam, went on to call another proof spam, enough is enough, I told you there is a limit to how much misrepresentation and goal post moving I can tolerate, I have better things to do than chase and correct all the strawman bullshit thrown at me, too late I told you I deleted my work and material Im done, talk to the hand. /THREAD as far as I am concerned.

 

This useless, duplicate thread highlighted the baffling, error-strewn lengths no-planers will go to in an attempt to scrape the empty barrel for evidence. The concept of doing 911 without any planes has long been the ridiculed "flat-earth" equivalent for so called "911 truth seekers".

It's been one screwed up drawing after another, one exaggerated or made up statement after another and everything completely denied. That list, fully referenced in post #321 has ludicrously just been labelled as "strawman bullshit". The viewers of this thread can see clearly what has been going on here.

Any more duplication or attempts to dump this no-plane garbage up again will result in not just the items of failure in THIS thread being brought up, but I will go through a whole host of other threads and make the list extensive. I'm done putting up with this tactic.

/THREAD