It was a bomb, not a second plane, who said a second plane...I saw it no second plane!

Viewers will note this being quoted and totally ignored!

 

Each other! How can you fail to have noticed this?

YOU failing to apply ANY perspective rectification on your claim! And in terms of you doing this "comparison" from my demonstration picture and then applying that same angle for the photograph NIST used, is quite pathetic.
Are you saying YOUR original image was 45 degrees from level?

If YES, why didn't YOU do this originally!
If NO, then withdraw this hogwash.

You made that statement because you were shown to have blundered putting your plane in the wrong place and STILL making the bullshit claim about the tail-fin size WITHOUT the perspective rectification and your plane aligned incorrectly.

You don't know what you are doing. It's good enough for what it was designed to show.


This tirade of error-strewn posts/claims has been going on for virtually the entire thread now. No matter how many times I explain each of these screw ups, that are all very simple, they keep coming! I drew up a large post just above that details the wilful evasion going on and it was completely ignored. The viewers can see it though!

Now it's time to list all the errors in one place - big list!

1. Identified the planes in New York as the Boeing 757.
2. Claimed the second plane hit "sideways" after an appalling failure with the impact position!
3. Bizarrely claimed different views of the same "nose-out" crap was just one error(?) when it MUST have different composite templates - ridiculous.
4. Incredibly he claimed all the bent-inward columns and cladding was going "sideways"'
5. Incredibly he actually posted examples of columns going inwards and just denied it!
6. Suggested 0.84 equivalent tons of TNT was "completely meaningless".
7. Placed a 2d image on an image of the WTC1 that was nowhere near orthogonal. An appalling blunder.
8. He made zero attempt to change the alignment from perspective. Expanding on the blunder.
9. He completely misaligned the plane with clear engine damage on both sides.
10.He failed completely to account for the change in the wing orientation due to aerodynamic lift at 550mph.
11.Presented with the image showing the actual tail-fin damage, his response was to insist his crappy drawing was accurate!
12.At first, before he realized his positioning and rectification blunders, no mention of it being "photoshopped".
13.Presented with numerous images all showing the damage he then makes the absurd claim that they are all "photoshopped"!
14.Then claims the plane parts found were photoshopped by the "worst amature on the planet"!
15.On his drawing, for some weird reason he drew the fuselage as an eccentric oval.
16.When it was shown that it was only a very gentle oval, he deceptively drew a thick line circle to claim his was correct.
17.After drawing the correct circle then full mild oval, it was factored down to the size of the original claim and it became very clear that when viewed at such small size it was basically a circle.
18.When presented with an example of aerodynamic lift at take-off, pushing the wings up very slightly, he then proceeded to suggest that the NIST version was wrong because when he overlaid it on the plane (ascending!) it didn't match!
19.When I pointed out that at 550mph and diving, the lift would be more, he ignored this.
20.Now he preceded to compare my example of perspective distortion at 45+ degrees, then ridiculously applied it to the NIST image which was not even half of that angle!
21. He overlaid the NIST outline on his original drawing and said it didn't fit, when ludicrously, he once again failed align it properly or make any compensation for perspective.
22.Earlier he took MY positioning of the area where the fin struck (a red wedge) and drew the damn thing in a totally different place!
23.On numerous images within his images was a blueprint that he said was "dimensionally inaccurate"!
24.I showed with a very simple diagram that it was very accurate and he denied ever using it, even though the damn thing was in his images!
25.Literally dozens of posts were made with his images claiming total accuracy - with NONE of them aligning the engines with engine damage and NONE of them with the plane template adjusted for perspective!
26.A foot-shooting post was then made saying the NIST diagram was a deliberate CIRCLE so that it could be positioned lower (basically where the damn thing impacted!).
27.We had absurd batshit about an "amature" (sic) who can magically bend columns - ignoring that they bent inwards!

I said "all" but I ran out of steam, it's relentless and there are several more.

WHEN CAN WE EXPECT THIS TO BE ANSWERED?

Explain this!

 

So much bombastic drama, so much misrepresentation, the list gets longer every time, when the truth is in front of all of us and being dodged every way possible!

They will never address and ARTICULATE all the in your faces problems denoted by WTF in red below in the NISTS FRAUDULENT plane DRAWING.

Everything, the little that is actually relevant in the bombastic posts is nothing more than belches and beer farts political posturing, nothing definitive.

The problems with the NIST will continue to go unadressed and dodged by THEM.

There is no need for me to further address all that bombasticism since this has been relevantly addressed and incontrovertibly proven fraud on the previous page.

Im moving on to more chapters.

We made this for the nonengineering types that are capable, and many are, of reading a basic blueprint. Its game over for planers.



center is wingtip to wingtip distance/2 for real plane.
Take note how the tail is tipped left to match the hole LMAO

 

Noise. You have been shown to be dodging almost everything posted - all documented at the top of the page.

An utter disgraceful and deceptive rendering that is completely made up!

Translated as you once again evading absolutely everything. With each post you make, you show that you are out of your depth. Your "drawing" is not the same as the rendering on page 5:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf

You don't know what you are doing and you evade every piece of evidence - that is pathetic.

Who is "we" and you mean you effectively doctored a "basic blueprint" for yourself?

 

Thats all yer gonna get from the planer side mountains of disinfo, misrepresentation,bombastic political driven drama, its all they have cuz we have the facts

Wow folks feast your eyes on this:



Oh McKoko you've done it again!

Ok folks get your **** waders on!

The weather report says massive **** wave is coming!

Bombasticism never knows when its been beaten!

CASE CLOSED!

 

Nope, you'll get facts and rational observation. The plane actually entered the building not square on, right wing entered first. If you pause the NAUDET video you can just about see this. Blundering around in CAD is actually showing how you haven't a clue what you are doing.

1. You put the plane in the wrong place.
2. You made ZERO rectification for perspective.
3. You made ZERO rectification for aerodynamic lift.
4. Any extremely minor discrepancies in tail fin alignment can be accounted for by entry angle.
5. All this time, I assumed you at least got your dimensions correct, but it appears you have failed to even do that correctly!

I told you NIST accounted for all these factors. In none of your CAD blunders have you considered them or applied them!

You've established that the NIST plane fits the impact hole. I have no idea where you are "establishing" your dimensions but they are a total screw-up:
ibid.
The WTC1 Hole
None of the arguments against a 767 can adequately explain how a hole in the building was created that fits a 767 perfectly, including widening of the hole where the engines were located. Here is a 767-200 diagram (with the wings tilted upwards 3 degrees to simulate flexing due to aerodynamic lift (aeronautic Journal of 9/11 Studies 5 October 2006/Volume 4 experts will have to determine the exact amount of flexing), sized to 75% of the width of the WTC and rotated to fit over the hole in WTC1:

Again? Yes, but not in the way you think! More deliberate deception "errors", the eagle-eyed viewers will already have spotted it.

Tell everyone why you placed your central line off-center? That's just so obvious and rather deceptive.

OK folks, 3 quick things:

• His center line is wrong!
• His dimensions are shockingly wrong. I have no idea what he is doing - and neither does he.
• He just proved that the NIST template hits WTC1 exactly as claimed with the appropriate tail-fin damage.

Hilarious, maybe we'll get some proper accuracy soon - is he going to get his protractor out and measure the entry angle? Or maybe he'll compare the width of the entry hole on HIS useless drawing, with other ones to get a better idea of how narrow it is in relation to it! Perspective that he denied for numerous pages! Maybe he'll factor in deformation or building resistance. Then he can damn well factor that in on his "CAD" hogwash.

 

The stunning irony.

 

I suppose if people are willing to CLOSE THEIR EYES AND IGNORE THAT A REAL PLANE is 156 feet wide and yours is ! Hmmmm!


BUSTED AGAIN!






putting up fake plane drawings is really sneaky and disturbingly deceptive. there is a HUGE difference between 175 feet and 156 feet!

I gave you a picture demonstrating how I did it, clearly nothing connected.

Probably should have took a few engineering courses before arguing engineering issues!

 

REPOSTING THIS: It was ignored!

For everyone watching, this person has spent pages going on about his stunningly accurate rendering of the plane. But neither of the big engine holes in the building align with any of his "CAD" work. However, luckily NIST have already done this, allowed for perspective, dynamic flexing, possible deformation and it fits the picture perfectly*.

Now what is the comedy response, "yeah but it's photoshopped". MEH!

This below is NOT perfectly aligned with the WTC1 image(I suspect another photo was used from the same photographer with a very slight change to view), but it's close enough to show it is correct.


It doesn't matter how many more uselessly drawn "CAD" images are dumped on here, the plane fits the hole, therefore the dimensions are correct. It was the same hole HE fit HIS badly aligned plane on - his ONLY "problem" was tail-fin damage (he misaligned his drawing).

Let me clarify that:
HIS PLANE drawn at scale fit the hole. Got that?
NIST'S PLANE drawn to scale also fit the SAME HOLE! Got that?

Now he says the NIST one is too big, yet it fits the same damn hole.

Hilarious failure.

Let's examine this pure deception analysis presented on these last two posts. ONLY, instead of using the "red outline copy" of the NIST outline, we shall use the actual NIST outline. (ANYONE CAN EASILY REPLICATE ANY OF THIS AND CONFIRM)

Here's the outline - wingtips rotated level:

Now, quite clearly we can see that the tail-fin is much more vertical on the NIST analysis, than Koko's "Red Line copy". Not quite vertical - more on that below.

Now some pixel accurate analysis of the drawing in post #280 and NIST comparison:

1. LEFT wing is drawn incorrectly, it has lines the end too thick and ends as a flat edge. PIXEL position - lowest point is exactly 504.
2. RIGHT wing is drawn incorrectly, it has lines two noticeable kinks! PIXEL position - lowest point is exactly 492.
3. The wings are not level - LEFT wing is lower!
4. Visually you can see from the level NIST one just above that the tail-fin does have a very, very small discrepancy, far less than claimed.
5. I needed to align the wings level for this next step (right rotation 0.43 degrees) - HERE it is for reference.
5. LEFT wing to centre of nose(measured horizontally) PIXEL 34 to 862 - length is exactly 828
6. RIGHT wing to centre of nose(measured horizontally) PIXEL 862 to 1705 - length is exactly 843
7. Irrefutably the RIGHT side is longer than the left (very slightly - just a small amount)!
8. Koko said the LEFT was longer when he drew his center line in the wrong damn place.
9. When the center line is in the right place, Koko is 180 degrees WRONG!
10. Now what could explain this small discrepancy? Let's think shall we?

Oh yes, the frickin' perspective again! The image is being viewed from right of the impact hole and (as even small children know), things closer are bigger.

Now, the tail fin discrepancy - I'm not going to put it up unless I have to, but his "red template" tail-fin has been drawn...
a) too long(simply enlarge screen and out cursor on NIST fin) and
b) proven above, han an exaggerated offset angle.

Now what could explain this offset angle? I originally thought it may have been caused by the entry not being orthogonal (good to consider all options) but on reflection and closer inspection, it is simply a 0.4%-0.5% misalignment of the fuselage of about 4-5 pixels to make it align vertically. This increases the length of the right wing to 20 pixels(more than the left) up from 15 - which is a pretty small adjustment but well within any perspective variance (and it still sits perfectly within the impact area). I have created an adjusted NIST drawing with this gentle leftwards adjustment and it works just fine.

* So technically I was wrong when I said NIST's version was "perfect" - 99.55% perfect!
Many thanks to Koko for shooting his own claim down in pieces by proving that the NIST template aligns with the impact, whilst he still ignores the effects of perspective, aerodynamic lift, descent angle, impact angle etc. In addition, he has inadvertently identified clear proof that perspective adjustment WAS made.

Oh, and the damn columns are still pushed INWARDS!

/thread

 

The same size as the hole, 75% of the WTC1 building. Perhaps you should put down your "CAD" until you know how to use it.

That is what YOU are doing and I agree with you!

Probably best if you stop posting now, you've really embarrassed yourself.

Your plane fit the hole.
Nist plane fit the same hole.
Blog owner's plane just above fit the same hole.

Surely, SURELY you can see your colossal blunder?

It would certainly help you, but these aren't engineering issues. They are blunders of a highly comical nature:

1. You put your plane in the wrong place.
2. You failed to account for ANY perspective,
3. You failed to account for aerodynamic lift at 550mph.
4. You failed to even consider any wing or fin deformation from impact.
5. You didn't even consider entry angle from vertical and horizontal.
6. Astonishingly you still deny the undeniable, the impact goes INWARDS.
7. Now you've bizzarely concluded planes fitting identical holes are bigger than your "accurate drawing"

That is some seriously poor "engineering".

 

Let me get this straight … somebody came up with a plan to use cgi planes that were filmed and witnessed from multiple angles and made to look like they hit 1 and 2 … at that precise moment of “supposed” impact explosives went off and created holes that left oks like a real plane hit it (I guess those explosives were planted on the facade because everything is bent inward) … then later, the collapses which both started at the impact level surprisingly survived the initial explosives to take down the buildings …

pure ****ing genius …

I wish all the participants in this master plan would stand up so we could give them huge round of applause… masterful work …

 

Take a look folks, its not often you will see posts at that level of idiocy!

Here again, so many ways to prove it to DENIALISTS.

Lets measure the shortest possible length the hole can be, that is less the dihedran additional hypotenuse length that has to be added to match nists fraud.





Yes the PICTURE of a plane that nist drew matches the hole perfectly.


Of course whats being evaded, and avoided with blind denial, is that the dimensions of the picture of nists 767 does not match the dimensions of a real 767!

The demoition team didnt get the proper sizing memo!

They tell you in betas citation that its bullshit when they tell you the plane is approximately 75%, so they can claim plausible deniability for cheating!

Apparently you do not know how to get the 156ft dimension? Do you want me to teach you how to do that so you can understand these drawings?

I cant fathom why anyone would advocate cheating!



Oh McKoko youve done it again!

/planers!

 

Hilarious, I just worked out what he has done wrong! He's applied the width of the plane on the left to right horizontal distance and then incorrectly applied THAT to an angled 25.7 degree hypotenuse!

That's just so useless. It is completely wrong and invalidates all HIS "analyses" too! (well to be fair they were already crap - so no change there).

So a very simple question for Kokomojojo:
The building is 205ft wide. How wide HORIZONTALLY is the impact hole (left-edge damage to the right-edge damage)?

Not once have you admitted any one of the steadily growing list of screw-ups, even in-your-face examples. Be brave, admit this one.

 

I'm getting close to my limit now. I don't mind a reasoned debate, but when you get page after page of batshit, incompetence and denial it starts to get really wearing.

He starts with getting HIS plane to fit "accurately" the length of the hole and makes his big "ahaah" about no tail-fin damage.
<<< PLANE FITS THE HOLE - NO TAIL-FIN DAMAGE>>> was his disproven claim.

Then he goes full circle to saying that NOW the damn plane doesn't fit after all because of more hopeless blunderings in "CAD".
<<< PLANE NO LONGER FITS THE HOLE - NO TAIL-FIN DAMAGE>>> He is either deliberately doctoring images or making ludicrous schoolboy errors, because you know we already established that the NIST plane was the same width as his original "accurate" plane!

As you can see HIS overlay and the NIST overlay cover the same building damage!

I've kicked every stupid claim to pieces and he just keeps moving his own goalposts! He overlays perspective adjusted images onto straight images, onto other non-linear images and keeps making the same useless, useless blunders. Never once admitting his copious errors and doing his best to roll them off the current page.

He refuses to answer relevant questions and thinks for some reason that people are following his batshittery with baited breath as he "uncovers" the truf.

It's all so very pathetic. I'm very stubborn and don't like to leave clear hogwash unchallenged but this is getting ridiculous now. He's not conceding any of his screw-ups!


He is STILL overlaying a 2D image across a non-linear image with a perspectively adjusted plane. Shakes head.

 

Hmmm, I dunno folks sounds like beta is asking me to teach him how to measure and scale the plane to the building.

I would think anyone in this kind of debate, especially if they are stubborn, would already know these things!

 

And again, nauseating evasion to a dead simple question. You have nothing to teach me, absolutely nothing. You cannot learn from your copious blunders because you refuse to acknowledge them all.

P.s. Every question I ask you, I know the answer to. Every one you avoid.

The building is 205ft wide. How wide HORIZONTALLY is the impact hole (left-edge damage to the right-edge damage)?

 

No! You dont until you prove it!

I scaled the plane dimensions to the building YOU CLAIMED my plane/building dimensions are materially wrong, PROVE IT!

Come on this is so simple it sux!

Just say the word and I will be happy to teach you how to do it.


.

 

Beta made a special thread to deal with those types nonsense issues HERE

I could care less about the whos, whys, and all betas shady figures in the night, so I suggest you go there, it covers everything you are talking about. I dont discuss any of that, not my thing, maybe someone else will engage you in his thread.

 

25.7 huh?




I dont know beta, last time I checked (180-152.5) is 27.5!

The posted claim is BUSTED again.

We are all still waiting for post a plane to the building scale, show us how its done the right way so we all know what you are so stubbornly defending!

 

yeah, nothing is your thing except batshit theories … you’re dismissed …

 

well sure is taking a long time to get a response to something as simple as scaling the plane to the building. Seriously this stuff is ridiculously simple yet all I see here is silence which tell me someone doesnt know how!

It doesnt look like your side knows how to do it?

Hell I even offered to teach how to do it, super simple, what more could anyone ask?

 

I don’t care about scaling planes to fit holes … answer my previous post …

how do you cgi planes and use explosives to make a plane shaped hole and then CD a building starting at the “supposed” impact point … grow a set and answer a ducking question for once … all you have is Ace ****ing Baker????

 

the explosives were strapped to the exterior right? How else do get get metal bent inward?

 

Ive seen no evidence to support that.

 

how come you and Ace can’t explain the witnesses ? I already have asked you about your alleged professional depositions which you conveniently didn’t answer …