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

Post #186 and post #187 detail 13 specific items of rebuttal that you have steadfastly refused to address. Post #192 has as attempted and failed effort to get you to address a single one of them!

What is your issue here? You make statement after statement that is completely wrong or deceptive and ignore every attempt to highlight it. Do you think it will result in a loss of face? Who cares!

Is your goal here to defend at all costs, one of the most insane conspiracy theories ever created? This isn't a pissing contest. You've been doing this no-planes crap for over 10 years, surely if you discover one way or the other the actual truth, then THAT is the goal? Isn't it? Otherwise the point of your posting would be what exactly!?

Name one point you've made in this thread that supports your case!

 

Was that a concession regarding perspective?
Im not sure which observation you are talking about?

 

I think its important to understand that nothing I say is completely wrong or deceptive until proven as such, this is a debate, not Beta says.
Proof? See post 282.

Perspective for starters, despite the constant attempts to insult me, with childrens examples of perspective.

 

Seeing through the building. You're totally wrong about everything else, be brave now and admit it.

You can't even get THAT right! You keep running away from all your mistakes.

Hogwash. Not one thing you've submitted about perspective is correct.

That simple snowman gif totally wipes your claim and all you could do was ignore it with a flippant reply.

We're nearly 10 pages in and you still claim the descent on the BB footage was fiat. That is complete ignorance of perspective. Frosty proved it.

 

Im right about everything, you are wrong about everything.

Im not submitting anything, Im making a statement, a counter argument.

Well you would have known every step had you not deleted it all, dont cry now that you waived the opportunity to see all the ciphering.

We still havent seen any drawings from you on the wtc pictures showing the actual path of the plane. Im sure everyone is starting to wonder why you have not stepped up to the plate and marked up those pics to prove me wrong LOL

Lets face I put up the markups and they prove you are wrong by degree.

 

The Janet and John do "debate" technique!

Are you afraid to admit or concede your errors? Do you think it will make you lose face or something? It's a sign of integrity!

You are evading making counter arguments! See quoted and multiple-ignored post above!

NOBODY will be wondering what you say. They will look at that snowman gif and know beyond doubt that the Brooklyn Bridge clip, well over a1000ft below and angled away, PROVES that it must be descending.

Let me remind you of something!
I am perfectly happy with the accuracy of every piece of footage! It isn't MY job to do any drawings or such. You have submitted absolutely Jack that needs addressing - certainly not with the bridge clip.

May I remind you of what was actually said:

And your reply to this:

Bolding mine. YES OR NO! Is the Brooklyn Bridge clip, showing the plane well over a 1000ft below and angled away? Show me your integrity.

 

Thats purely an assumption until you trig it out. For you to 'prove' it, you would need at a minimum to plot the real plane position on that BB scene from the BB line of site, then and only then (when I have something I can verify) will I consider your claim seriously. Otherwise the metaphorical examples you put up are cute but prove nothing.



you need to draw stuff on that picture and give us the the angles you are using or accept whatever we can conclude from what you do provide, which so far is nothing of scientific value. Im interested in the vertical axis if thats not obvious.

If you provide nothing then my position stands, yours fails.

 

Casual viewers may be wondering what the hell is going on here.

The crux of the matter is an animated gif of video footage. It isn't open to debate of ANY kind that it is taken at or near the base of the Brooklyn Bridge! Astonishingly, this is being disputed! Can anyone believe this? Does anyone watching understand how this can even be under discussion!?



The yellow line MUST be a descent path, basic of the most basic perspective.

YES OR NO! Is the Brooklyn Bridge clip, showing the plane well over a 1000ft below and angled away? Show me your integrity.

 

Yes for those viewers who are first tuning in the "crux" of the matter (that is constantly being evaded) is an attempt to reconcile 2 video clips. these have been converted to gifs for convenience as seen below.

This one, from CBS is supposed to show a plane dropping close to 800ft immediately before slamming into the wtc.




This one show a plane that is not diving into the wtc.



Now the claim I reject due to lack of proof is that its just perspective error and we are supposed to accept this notion with no trigging it out (no math)

I wont accept this position unless I see lines drawn on the clips that reasonably match what we see in the videos so I can mathematically compare them.

In other words we dont want to see dolls and bridges and houses, put the claim on paper!

So meantime I am assaulted with a barrage of strawman arguments that misrepresent me or somehow manipulate the context of of my position or the circumstances I have already responded to which is why they get ignored.

For instance, I already agreed that we can assume the BB view was taken at the waterline and what do I see?

Why none other than a constant regurgitation of the same **** posts totally ignoring my previous responses/positions/context and drawing up strawman arguments spun to make me look foolish, most people classify that style as bad faith debate practices.

So I am waiting for the math and trigging for the BB view over the last 10 pages and I get toys on book shelves and they are claimed to be proof which I find shocking to say the least.

The "crux" of the issue has been constantly evaded for the past 10 pages, Im the only one that put up proofs, which means if we dont see proofs of the same type proving a contrary exists in rebuttal mine stand as fact.

Its not a matter of perspective, its a matter of how much, is the real value within an expected range. I dont think we will ever get to discuss those because we cant get past toys houses and bridges in this discussion.

 

Bolding mine...FINALLY! Diagrams to follow. I find it blatantly absurd that even when shown the simple example you still insist this moronic gif is flat. You haven't a clue about perspective.

So, not only do you fail consistently to honestly reply to this "barrage" of ridiculous mistakes, you erroneously label them as strawman claims and worse you deceptively claim you've answered them!

Post #206. Asked a dozen times and every single time we get evasion. Are you afraid to admit you were wrong?

I encourage viewers to look at the last quote in post #206! where he denied the blatantly obvious statement about the view being lower, then admits it IS lower after all, with not an ounce of humility about his bizarre observational failure.

 

I ask for the 5th time, how did you establish elevation on the CBS view? Pretending you worked it out doesn't cut it! It is kind of level, but you've stuck it exactly level. Why?

 

WTH????

All the information is right here on the scaled chart!




Are you suggesting that I need to explain the chart to you?

You waived my explanation by deleting or by getting the posts that was going through it step by step giving you every opportunity to jump in at each step and contribute or comment and you completely ignored it.

All I am willing to tell you now is the data is all there on the above chart, next time dont delete or get my posts explaining the steps deleted, cuz once that happens you waive the information and the burden of proof shifts 100% to you.

The information is all there, I checked it, that is the actual position of the plane on the CBS video as it would be viewed from the BB direction.

Secondly you need to distinguish between the CBS video as viewed from the BB direction and the BB video video viewed from the BB direction which you seem to be conflating some how since you appear to be talking about them as if they are the same thing, I dont know nothing you are saying is clear enough to make a specific determination?

I have been under the assumption you already had this all calculated out since you are so sure I am clueless, <-flame words, yet I am the only one doing trig and math here whats up with that?

 

Hogwash! There is nothing to determine the origin viewpoint that accurately.

Explain specifically why you chose to terminate your view bang on level. It could be easily 100 ft in either direction. You just guessed!

You checked it against what!?

Gibberish.

I want your exact confirmation, are you saying there is no leeway in your elevation position, or is it on that line "give or take xx feet" closer or farther? You think I'm trying to play a "gotcha-game" here. I'm not. I'm anticipating and pre-empting a potential strawman argument.

 

What are you talking about you want 'exact' with fuzz balls in the sky you got to be kidding me!

I have no idea what you mean by 100 ft either way it would be much easier if you just mark up a drawing.

Exact is a bullshit term when we deal with fuzzballs and then you need to explain what difference it's going to make in the outcome to make it a valid argument otherwise you have no valid argument sorry.

 

As I thought, you just assumed it was level. If I presented a drawing of the most exact nature possible, it would make no difference. You will just bluster and deny. The camera could realistically be anywhere on that orange line.



The snowman gif is basically game over for you claim. Things farther away, even on a more orthogonal / square path will STILL be descending, even if they appeared level.
I showed you this with pictures over streetlights, tower blocks, houses and the edge of a table straightened up from the gif.

I'm staggered that on the one hand you finally admit the blatantly obvious fact that the viewer is considerably lower than the plane, yet cannot understand that this means the flight cannot be level! I am positive that everyone viewing this gets it, yet you continue to deny it!

You labelled all my attempts to hold you to account for your errors as strawman claims and fail every post to address them from the list in post #181.

 

Had you actually analyzed it which I am sure everone presumes you would know it makes little difference in the final analysis, but you wanted to make an issue out of a nonissue so hell I'll play along!

Bravo you got one right! Thats why I drew that pink line in there, since CBS could be anywhere along that pink line including on the ground, but I doubt they have cameras that work very well 13 miles away. Most tv shots were roughly at 3 - 5 miles.

 

I dont admit any such thing till I see it proven mathematically since your snowman does not quantify the amount and therefore is complete bunk and useless, its cute though.

 

I don't need to analyze it. I'm not the one making totally batshit claims about no-planes!

Oh, dude, I've got way more than one right. I've got a list in post #181 that you are afraid to address. The ONLY reason you "conceded" this one was that it was a fairly simple one.

As I stated you guessed. When I'm happy with my simple drawings, it will be relevant and now you cannot make one particular claim off the back of this.

 

What a crock of crap!

1. He admits the BB view was at the waterline.
2. The Plane supposedly flies a flat path into the WTC2, over 1000ft up!

I don't know what ridiculous game is being played here, with the evasion of numerous screw-ups, the denial in addressing them, the denial of dead simple perspective principles (the snowman gif should have been enough for anyone!), but now we've got flip-flopping an opinion right in your face. This is ALL on this page!

 

EVERYONE KNOWS THIS!
If it's above the line of the camera the line of bricks appears to ascend to the camera.
If it's level, they are also level.
If it's below the line of the camera the line of bricks appears to descend to the camera.

The BB camera is below the line of the camera, do the math!

 

You admitted you blew it when I told you that cameras cant see through walls.

Yeh I used math, not toys and bricks and snowmen and light poles LMAO, its all correct

The only one you attempted to mark up was completely ****ed up and you admitted it.

LOL
Its all done mathematically, that you had the opportunity to go through with me step by step and you opted to delete or get those posts deleted, so you waived the opportunity and now you only get the final results and need to figure it out for yourself.

I used math, you can feel free to mark up more drawings and I will review them.

Well if rebuttals that are so simple that prove nothing are what you want to post then thats all you got, nothing.

I admitted no such thing, unlike you I did the math and I know it makes little difference, not enough to change the outcome, so I said for the sake of an argument lets ASSUME we are at the water line for mathematical purposes.

Thats what people say when proving a hypothesis and it wont change the outcome.

It is not agreement, please stop misrepresenting me or my position, that is bad faith debate practices.

We dont know all that yet since you have no shown us a mathematical representation, just toys and houses and bricks and light poles which prove nothing, certainly not the plane path.

Yeh Im seeing a lot of that and the most notable thing is that I see no math or marked up drawings submitted for review. hmmm.....

I did, but clearly you didnt or we would be looking at marked up drawings, we see none, only mine

 

One one thing, behold your only "victory"!

The latter are used because you don't appear to understand simple perspective. This still appears to be the case. As for brick walls, above, I may as well be talking to one!

I do find it a bit sick when somebody crows over one single error honestly conceded, whilst they leave TEN unanswered screw-ups unanswered. Are you afraid to admit your mistakes, because your failure to address them at ANY point indicates that is the case!

Show everyone your "math" on this!

• You claimed 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. Line of sight drawing from observer to impact point will suffice. Post #129 is a reference.

And apart from your one success, for which you appear to be doing the "Gollum victory dance", they have all been horseshit. I think post #110 takes the award for worst one yet. I was wondering right from the outset where you plucked that 750 ft figure from. I think everyone can see now.

 

WELL, do the math!

Another one of your "drawings". Tell the viewers why you drew the last 3 seconds flat! The animated gif shows quite clearly that it is diving on the CBS footage, with the last 1.5-2 seconds not even visible!

 

This one is utter gibberish!


On the TOP drawing, a SIDE view, he has drawn in a front view representation on top of this view as though it is missing!
On the lower drawing, he's put daft planes going sideways past the impact point and onto the line of sight!

 

Here is a PLAN VIEW to scale. The approach angle curves and to quantify it needs a lot of messing which I don't care about. For demonstrational purposes a flat 20 degrees is being used.

Variables are:
1. The position of the observer under the bridge. It could be as much as 1.25 miles away. Impossible to establish.
2. The angle of approach. This varies from around 20 degrees down and would largely be guesswork as to how it curves.