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

I posted the pic of the plane against the building on the x axis proving that my plane is 156ft and not a peep from you that it was wrong, whats up with that? So odd!

 

Sure thing!

You screwed yourself when you demanded I put in the dihedran angle, so I did, now it matched your aerodynamics dilemma, however adding a diheran also shortens the real planes wing span as I told you it would! Oopsie!

You admitted that you and I both used the columns to scale the plane, so here you go, I need an explanation why nists red drawing is so much longer than a proven 156ft plane scaling?

I even flipped and lined up the columns at the same angle for you so you can see that there are problems Houston needs to deal with!




Now you can do a DIRECT measurement and tell us how that extra 20 ft got there!

So what other perspectives are you claiming NIST added?

Explain the ?

 

I have NO questions on "my plate" - you and everyone watching this pathetic thread know it! You are afraid to answer this because you made a complete screw up in comprehension and made dozens of crappy posts as a result. It should be dead easy for you, but we both know it isn't.

I've detailed some already, but as I said you are afraid to admit your comprehension error! I have already guaranteed very solid proof once you resolve this simple request.

Utter hogwash. Where? You're just making up crap.

Did I say they did? I said YOU didn't. Same as for angle of impact. You just dumped your flat template on an out of whack image.

That is some serious, serious failure. I am positive you are starting to realize how horrific your mistakes have been and you are doing everything to avoid admitting them!

People who watch your ever worsening "Janet and John" CAD work, want to know where the hell you came up with 175ft

I challenge you right here to answer where you came up with your 175ft hogwash.

FULL EXPLANATION AS TO HOW AND WHY.

EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHERE I SAID A PLANE WAS 156ft ON THE 'b AXIS'!

 

Only this is just made up batshit, making the same errors pointed out. A thousand facepalms at you.

Hogwash. I pointed out that YOU had made no consideration for ANY aerodynamic lift/flexing. I gave no demand you put it in, because I don't recall you ever identifying what said angle would be! If you DID identify any angle, then how come your original drawing did not reflect it!?

I said YOU need to account for the dihedral angle of the lower wing in a bank, compared with the upper wing. You didn't do it and you still haven't. I don't demand or care whether you do it.

You did neither and I don't have a dilemma. Whatever you think you are doing, it still, STILL, STILL, fails to address the perspective! I could relay this to a five year old and get a better response.

Hogwash. The plane has a natural angle and when in a bank one wing will compensate against the other to create the conditions for the plane to level off in flight. How can you not have checked this!? The blog owner identified a 3% change and I have not been able to source a confirmation for it. I neither care whether it is accurate or not, YOU didn't check it!

IT ISN'T! NIST's drawing fits the same hole as your "accurate" first blundering attempt with no perspective adjustments!

What you actually need to do, is to stop claiming a plane 156ft across doesn't fit in a damage zone 156ft across!

Complete gibberish drawing - for the 20th time you are dumping a 2D plane blueprint on a perspective rendered drawing - why do you keep doing this? The columns in the drawing are the same as the images - I overlaid it on an image a few pages back!

Incompetent, blundering on your part. You still haven't explained it. And now I am convinced you won't.

I know where you blundered into it. You misread the blog owner's instruction. He overlaid a plane at 75% of the building width and rotated it. You read that as him overlaying it on the horizontal width! It's why a triangle with 156ft on the longer (b side) and an angle of 27 degrees as you claimed creates a batshit hypotenuse of 175ft. Oooooops.

Anyway. If you post anymore crap about 175ft planes or damage areas you are deliberately and deceptively misrepresenting my statements!

Here is the thing. The ONLY thing that matters.

1. The width of the damage horizontally covers 42.5 columns and is 141.3 feet wide.
2. The angle formed between the left and right wing damage points is near as damnit 25 degrees.
3. The hypotenuse on such a right angled triangle is 156ft. The width of a Boeing 767.

There, right there is everything to put a stop to this tirade of batshit and hopeless, utterly useless, image "rectification".

......But of course, it won't!

nb. From previous comprehension fails I wish to make sure the answer above in post #353 "NIST didn't make any rectifications" is related to "What rectification have you made for impact?" I'd hate for it to be deliberately taken out of context!

 

Heres the problem, what both of us did should have worked, and we are just getting bogged down, so I am not conceding, however there are so many things wrong to deal with this **** we can pick it back up another day. Till then we can agree to disagree on the wingspan.

Im moving on to other problems. So here is the damage assessment, what you see circled in red are problem areas that need REAL explaining, we are not talking about a 3d object in space here we are talking about a 2d surface which does not leave a lot of options.

You used 2d yourself to measure the wing, tail., and scaling!

So far you have failed to talk about the tail damage, big issue, what possibly could apply to such a cockeyed drawing. Simply claiming perspective and a plethora of vagaries and unknowns/cant be knowns without justifying and articulating each one in satisfactory detail detail along with your expected effects and results and why you believe it should be included is not sufficient going forward.

Here is the damage assessment with the problem areas circled in red. I do not accept that drawing of NIST as having anything to do with perspective, a drunken sailor ok Ill buy that one!

I sized both NIST and mine to the same wingspan.

Explain the issues with damage in the following:

 

IRONY, the first line of this REPOST said "Reposting this: It was ignored" - it contains verifiable analysis that shows significant changes to the wing sizes! Right wing is longer on the drawing than left wing

OK, so there was the first major piece of evidence that NIST had factored in perspective the RIGHT wing is longer than the LEFT.


We need one more. We need to explain this image:


Why is there more angle on the left wing when the right is aligned? Firstly the real plane is climbing and that flattens the angle, but is that enough?

Here are two pictures of the same piece of tubing - now this is NOT a scale representation, the camera is a cell-phone and there are going to be focal length differences between these images and the ones taken by the photographer on 911. The viewing angle(picture 2) is also NOT to scale. These are merely taken to illustrate a point.
Full versions: Picture 1 / Picture 2

Now, here is the right "wing aligned":


As I said. As I've continued saying and as I PROVE right now... when you observe something from the side, perspective alters things - in this case the angle decreases. It depends on the angle of view and the focal length of the camera. Notice too, the left wing is shorter than the right one .

Let's look at all the variables this hopeless thread has FAILED miserably to consider:

1. PERSPECTIVE! Not just failures with interpreting the NIST analysis, but an absolutely useless failure to apply ANY perspective alignment on THIS. If you look closely there is a narrowing at the top of the building and there is zero vertical alteration of his template. The horizontal width is close enough it is more or less square - but difficult to conclude 100%.
2. THE IMPACT ANGLE. I am now satisfied that the plane struck orthogonally with the building, but it was not level ( NIST estimates between 7-10 degrees down). This has the effect of further limiting tailfin damage(by 7-10 degrees) as top rear of the plane now enters partially into the area cleared by the front.
3. AERODYNAMIC LIFT. This has not been checked or determined. Boeings are set with dihedral wings. These alter according to speed and orientation. When banking, the lower wing moves opposite to the upper wing creating the circumstances that naturally make the plane settle back to level flight.
4. IMPACT DEFORMATION. No analysis has been performed or considered. Why is this important? I originally thought there could be inwards rotation of the wings, but after seeing stress test videos, I now consider that very unlikely. BUT, once the plane reaches the point where the connecting mechanism is destroyed (shown in the image below) there now exists the possibility of OUTWARDS rotation. An offset oblique object striking a flat surface will naturally rotate. How much, or if even significantly at all - unknown and not enough data for me to give a firm opinion on.


ETA:Facepalm yet again: I just noticed the post above. See deformation and entry angle in this post!

 

Geebus stop before you sink! I wanted to stop this and move on but it seems you have a burning desire to continue so.... dont blame me.....

Beta, the rod is 2 circles wide in both views. FAIL!

I told you that its not like we have a 3d object floating in space. I guess you were not able to connect with that?

 

Please let me interject at this point … the magical explosive planners blew plane shaped holes in the towers but didn’t size them correctly? …

 

Hot air bloviating.

YOU have effectively lifted "the angled frame" on the animated gif and applied it to 20 different crappy drawings, representing it as a 2D comparison! That's just useless.

The plane spans the same distance on the WTC1 in all views! You seem to be under some sort of illusion here. Just because you make some inane observation it doesn't alter the premise. An angle narrows due to perspective.

We DON'T have a 3D object "floating in space" and what you "tell me" is invariably wrong! on the WTC1, we have an impact outline and a plane template to align with it. In the case of the angle demonstration above, to all intents and purposes that represents a potential plane outline. Altering the view alters the angle.

On your pathetic claim you did NOTHING! You didn't even vertically narrow your plane at the bare minimum! Your plane didn't cover the left hand damage and was incorrectly placed and aligned. Useless.

I can connect with anything that is correct, so far you haven't provided anything.

I'm guessing that no matter WHAT is presented to you, you will wriggle, squirm and obfuscate to avoid admitting your numerous blunders. I just proved that it is perfectly consistent to narrow the plane wing angle due to perspective and you reply with some batshit about "2 circles"!

My post was more than 1 gif PROVING angles change due to perspective!

 

Logic bombs work even less than evidence, with a no-planer.

The psychopathic demolition teams who placed the magic hushabooms all over the two towers with nobody noticing, also placed magic-batshit-inwards-blowing "carefully-placed-invisibly-concealed explosive charges" that perfectly mimic a 767 outline but they screwed it up because of reasons. Totally-useless-inept-drawings "carefully-crafted-perfectly-aligned" drawings have exposed the evil plot. The inward-collapsing facade not inwardly-facing facade proves the truf.

Get the "911 Truth" team immediately, they need to learn about this!

 

NIST and you did the same, and with made up data no less!
That and if you have not figured it out yet we are both saying the plane had to make a 156ft imprint.

A drunken sailor drew NISTs cockeyed drawing to force fit!
We still have that damage that does not match the alleged plane.

Not on a grid as I proved when I saw through your attempted example and pointed out to you, but of course you ignored.

you refuse to address the inconsistent damage

 

Made up crap.

False, there are circumstances where it could be very slightly wider. I identified them in that big post above, you failed to look at.

False. And quite how you can make that claim after your ridiculous failure on page 4 is nauseating!
You CLEARLY:

• Failed to do ANY image rectification for perspective and on that image you used it is very significant!
• Failed to apply the entry angle which is reported to be between 7 and 10 degrees downwards!
• Failed to assess any impact deformation or potential for it.
• Failed to address any aerodynamic changes to the wings inclination!
• Drew the plane 1.5 columns to the right.

No we don't, you have just produced another crap drawing!

• I want a citation for the damage template you used. It doesn't match the visible damage!
• Then I want you to explain why you haven't addressed the impact angle.
• It should tilt the plane down, 7-10 degrees and this will make the wing angle narrower and will compress the vertical distance between front and rear wings. It will also make the tail-fin appear shorter.
• Then I want to know why you keep insisting that the tailfin is going to do a comedy outline when the leading edge striking the building will begin disintegrating it. The top part of the tail fin is very unlikely to survive to cause any damage.

I have lost count now of how many times you have blundered into your "drawings", failing to properly consider all variables. It is just useless beyond words.

Many pages ago I told you, you don't know what you are doing. You have learnt nothing and are still screwing around.

EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHERE I SAID A PLANE WAS 156ft ON THE 'b AXIS'!

 

Explain why there is no galling.

 

Explain what galling there would be, where and why. Explain how you would be able to see what is essentially scuffing on images that are taken from distance and are not zoomed in adequately.

Folks, he's discovered a new word and thinks it means that he doesn't have to answer to his colossal failures!

Did you miss this?

• I want a citation for the damage template you used. It doesn't match the visible damage!
• Then I want you to explain why you haven't addressed the impact angle.
• It should tilt the plane down, 7-10 degrees and this will make the wing angle narrower and will compress the vertical distance between front and rear wings. It will also make the tail-fin appear shorter.
• Then I want to know why you keep insisting that the tailfin is going to do a comedy outline when the leading edge striking the building will begin disintegrating it. The top part of the tail fin is very unlikely to survive to cause any damage.[/QUOTE]

1. EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHERE I SAID A PLANE WAS 156ft ON THE 'b AXIS'!

2. NOSE OUT CRAP - WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ANSWER THIS?
If the main video shows the object to be struck (the building) moving within every frame and you overlay a pre-made fake plane crash approach on top, it won't hit where it should. Oh, unless you not only worked out in advance (ridiculous!) where the chopper was going to be, its exact elevation(insanely ridiculous!), the direction it would be moving and by how much. And the pilot needed to be in on it. The same explosion shape occurred over multiple shots from different angles, the premise of a "mistake" in one of them is ludicrous beyond words.

3. WHY DID YOU PUT A PROTRACTOR ON AN IMAGE THAT a) WASN'T EVEN LEVEL! AND b) WASN'T PERSPECTIVELY SQUARE!?

4. IN POST #278 YOU PLACED YOUR "CENTER" LINE TO THE RIGHT OF THE FUSELAGE, WHY DID YOU DO THAT? VERY DECEPTIVE!

5. WHERE THE HELL DID YOU GET YOUR 175FT BATSHIT DISTANCE FROM? IT WAS COMPLETELY MADE UP - POST #283. VERY DECEPTIVE.

 

Did you miss this?

• I want a citation for the damage template you used. It doesn't match the visible damage!
• Then I want you to explain why you haven't addressed the impact angle.
• It should tilt the plane down, 7-10 degrees and this will make the wing angle narrower and will compress the vertical distance between front and rear wings. It will also make the tail-fin appear shorter.
• Then I want to know why you keep insisting that the tailfin is going to do a comedy outline when the leading edge striking the building will begin disintegrating it. The top part of the tail fin is very unlikely to survive to cause any damage.

When are you going to answer these? Pretending you have already is deceptive. Everyone knows you haven't!

 

EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHERE I SAID A PLANE WAS 156ft ON THE 'b AXIS'!

Show where you have answered it, because everyone knows you didn't.

 

WHY DID YOU PUT A PROTRACTOR ON AN IMAGE THAT a) WASN'T EVEN LEVEL! AND b) WASN'T PERSPECTIVELY SQUARE!?

Show where you have answered it, because everyone knows you didn't.

 

IN POST #278 YOU PLACED YOUR "CENTER" LINE TO THE RIGHT OF THE FUSELAGE, WHY DID YOU DO THAT? VERY DECEPTIVE!


Show where you have answered it, because everyone knows you didn't.

 

WHERE THE HELL DID YOU GET YOUR 175FT BATSHIT DISTANCE FROM? IT WAS COMPLETELY MADE UP - POST #283. VERY DECEPTIVE.

Show where you have answered it, because everyone knows you didn't.

 

Scuffing?

You think galling in this context as it would apply to an aircraft impact means scuffing?

YEH LETS TALK ABOUT DECEPTIVE LANGUAGE!

 

I was getting those answers for you but due to technical difficulties, Im no longer going to continue this discussion its all yours!
I defer and concede all arguments I have ever made to the planers and believers!

 

Accepted.

 

Only here, nowhere else.

 

Accepted "only here, nowhere else".
https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y...9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/27EhcDHnlkw1O/200w.gif

 

So the Arabs didn't crash the two planes on the towers ? Only one plane ?
Because i saw a second plane!