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

NIST did not flatten that pic!
We can see the barrel effect.
Another false claim made by planers!

/planer

 

do you have a link to witnesses being professionally deposed?

 

Your drawing is imaginary

No evidence exists that betas was photo shopped

You are defeated annd getting desperate

 

Sure can, when you deceptively draw the wrong shape for a 767!

 

I would never do such things, I dont have too, there is so much fraud dont need to!

 

The "accurate" drawing:

• Drawn in the wrong place - engines do not align with the two deformed sections. FAIL
• No allowance has been made for perspective looking vertically upwards. FAIL
• No allowance has been made for the plane's approach angle. FAIL
• No allowance has been made for impact deformation. FAIL
• The nose view was deliberately misrepresented as an eccentric oval. FAIL
• The drawing HAD an oval that was nowhere near accurate of the 767. FAIL
• It was claimed that NIST's diagram was wrong. FAIL
• You attempted to wriggle out of this by saying it was photoshopped. FAIL
• The NIST diagram aligns the engines with two deformed sections.
• The NIST diagram accurately reflects the shape of the 767.

Absolutely no concession has been made for these colossal blunders. Or indeed for any of the other rapidly accumulating errors.

 

FALSE, TRUE, FALSE, Another Meaningless Claim FAIL SSDD

• No rational reason given! Another Meaningless Claim FAIL SSDD

• No rational reason given! Another Meaningless Claim FAIL SSDD

• No rational reason given! Another Meaningless Claim FAIL SSDD

• FALSE Another Meaningless Claim FAIL SSDD
• Didnt change result!

• Didnt change result! Another Meaningless Claim FAIL SSDD

• NIST diagram is proven fraud. Another FAIL SSDD

• TRUE Because its Fraud Another FAIL SSDD

• FALSE Another FAIL SSDD

• I dont concede to FAILED meaningless irrelevant Claims! FAIL SSDD

 

Just the normal failure to offer an honest response. Complete evasion.

You screwed up your drawing, drew it completely in the wrong place, screwed up the shape. You made all this noise about NIST not doing an "oval" when your own damn drawing deceptively exaggerated it way beyond what it was,

ALL the drawings are good proximities. NIST, the actual plane, the blueprint except for your crappy version. YOUR crappy drawing doesn't align the engines with clear areas where they hit. It makes zero allowance for perspective so inaccurately reflects its shape in the building.

You made one noisy post after another crowing about how your "accurate" drawing exposed something, when the ONLY issue is your useless rendering. FAIL. COMPLETELY

And since you just deliberately made the wrong answers, try again. I've helped with the right answers!

1. Does your representation of the fuselage accurately reflect the 767? No. It distorts it completely.
2. Does the NIST version accurately reflect the 767? Yes, and proven.
3. Does your drawing place the engines correctly against clear impacts consistent with engines? No it does not and it is pathetic that you claim it does.
4. Does the NIST drawing do this? Yes.
5. Did you complain NIST was wrong because it wasn't an oval? Yes, showing astonishing deception because theirs is accurate and yours is the crappy version.

 

Here is an image comparing the relevant sizes of the 767 outlines used in drawings.


From this we can observe that far from being an oval, at the resolution used in the drawing the NIST outline is very accurate compared to the official blueprint and the actual plane. However the outline used to claim the impact was in the wrong place is clearly wrong.

In addition to this, on the original drawing by @Kokomojojo the orientation of the engines with the bottom of the plane is completely misaligned. I shall put up an analysis of this later.

 

Semantics. You suggested the NIST drawing was invalid because it wasn't oval. Your drawing encroaches on the edge of the plane to incorrectly exaggerate the extent of the oval! My version just below demonstrates this.

nb. This image has the fuselage entirely surrounded in a very slightly eccentric oval. The image at the bottom shows how close to a circle this is.

Clearly accurately reflecting the shape of the fuselage, unlike the claim being made with a ridiculous oversized oval.

 

Sorry folks nothing to see, just the usual drowning in extreme monumentally important critical problems that dont exist and have absolutely no effect what so ever on the outcome. ~sigh

Wake me up if anything rational pops on to our screens.

 

Interested viewers capable of reason and with spatial abilities will see very easily that the original claim, overlaid on the WTC1 image, is clearly taken well below the impact looking upwards.

This of course alters the viewing angle for how the plane would interface with this impact. Since all that has been done is a straight overlay of the planes outline, albeit with a ridiculous bulbous oval, it is clearly and obviously inaccurate.

In addition to blundering around with CAD, it has been suggested that the image I posted was photoshopped because it shows damage consistent with where the tail-fin struck. The image used to show the impact damage and the poorly orientated plane was one with smoke wafting all over the hole. BUT, there are many other images online that show MY version of the damage is correct and the one used gives a false impression. I will leave it up to any viewer as to whether they think this deliberately deceptive.



This image I am just posting the link, as it contains a disturbing picture of a man leaping to his death - the background (middle left) shows the exact point where the tail fin struck: Click Here





Notice that in every case the camera is below the impact point. Considering these were the highest buildings in New York it is somewhat ludicrous to suggest they weren't!

 

what lousy photoshop jobs LMAO

 

proof or **** …

 

your qualifications?

 

professional bullshit detector

 

Id give you that but you bullshit detector must be seriously ****ed up since it didnt detect NISTs fraud!
I think you need to take it in and get it repaired ASAP, yer gonna need it.

 

The "accurate" drawing:

• Drawn in the wrong place - engines do not align with the two deformed sections. There has been no rectification whatsoever for a picture that is CLEARLY not a) orthogonal b) on a level plane.
• No allowance has been made for perspective looking vertically upwards. THIS is the rational! The picture has been taken from below, items distort (narrow) in the vertical in such instances.
• No allowance has been made for the plane's approach angle. These planes were both diving.
• No allowance has been made for impact deformation. Vast kinetic energy and heat can cause any number of small or larger plane distortions.
• The nose view was deliberately misrepresented as an eccentric oval. That shows the level of accuracy!
• The drawing HAD an oval that was nowhere near accurate of the 767. Your tail fin is too long!
• It was claimed that NIST's diagram was wrong. Proven to be a very good comparison,
• You attempted to wriggle out of this by saying it was photoshopped. And then when given 5 more images you repeat this absurd bare-assertion and batshit claim.
• The NIST diagram aligns the engines with two deformed sections. Yours does not because you haven't done it properly. Just like your failures previously.
• The NIST diagram accurately reflects the shape of the 767. Bare-assertion denial is meaningless!

It is obvious that no concession will ever be made for these colossal blunders. Or indeed for any of the other numerous and hopeless errors being made.

Here is the comparison between the actual blueprint and the "plane outline" used - place your cursor on the edge of each tail wing to check alignment (it's not perfect but it had to be rotated and it was a half degree out) but close enough :

Next to it is a compressed version of the blueprint (10% vertical) to allow for the difference in perspective. Please note this is an estimate - which is the damn point here anyway!

PROVE IT! Pathetic denial, now adding to the ever growing list of psychopaths - now we have photoshop psychos ready to murder thousands of Americans!

 

You dodged explaining how the fuselage can crash into the wtc at 580mph without cutting through the facade!
People want to see pathetic denial and irrelevant drama they look at the gaslighting in your posts.
BTW whats the point in that gif? You dont like red?

 

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear here. I dodged NOTHING. You just dodged an entire post. You have dodged hundreds previously.

• You put your "PLANE" in the wrong place!
• You didn't get the dimensions right - proven above!
• You didn't adjust it for perspective - proven above!

The plane impact hole, when aligned with the correctly sized and perspective adjusted 767, by competent and professional engineers, is 100% consistent with all damage.
When a half-assed attempt at doing this is made, with wrong dimensions, misalignment and no perspective rectification - not so much.

 

I didnt copy the outline of that plane LMAO!
OOOOOoooooooppppppssssss!


NO its not consistent at all!

Try again!

NIST never corrected for perspective thats pure bullshit, PROVE IT

Whats misaligned...nothing!

My version is 100% properly aligned, NISTS is really ****ed up

BTW that plane that you used is dimensionally incorrect LMAO!

This is getting hilarious!

 

Nah I dont dodge them, I ignore posts that are not relevant, just because you think a full page of gaslighting useless minutia is relevant doesnt mean it really is! lol Just like the last pic you posted. Useless minutia..

 

And there we have it folks, even when presented with in-your-face evidence we get the standard wall-of-noise denial.

• He puts his plane in the wrong place
• He screws up the shape of the fuselage with a ridiculous comedy oval.
• He makes zero rectification for perspective
• He makes no allowance for descent angle.
• THEN, he says the BLUEPRINT he pasted on his own drawing is "dimensionally incorrect"!

Is everyone viewing this thread starting to see a pattern here? I mean every one of these insane "no-plane" batshit claims gets refuted and not one of them are conceded!

To clarify, it has been claimed with ZERO evidence to corroborate any of it:

• EVERY witness, from well over a hundred documented who saw a plane is lying or coerced.
• The very few who didn't actually see a plane (meh!) means there wasn't a plane!
• ALL the images showing tail-fin damage are "photoshopped".
• EVERY single video showing the WTC2 impact have been faked.
• The video showing WTC1 impact is faked.
• The enhanced AI upscaled version is wrong because of reasons.
• NIST's impact analysis is all wrong because of reasons.

THIS thread lists all the must-be-done tasks and NONE of them have been adequately explained.