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

Yes we noticed that every one of these insane "plane" batshit claims gets refuted and not one of them are conceded!




Naughty NIST designing the plane to fit the hole.




and the funniest part is that the REAL plane wings match perfectly no perspective necessary! They sure added perspective alrighty!
Faked assessment top to bottom!

 

So, predictably the same useless noise in response but a special kind of noise. Of course the quoted post below is ignored, where I refuted the false claim that the blueprint HE used was "dimensionally incorrect"! He dumps another crap post up, just to knock this off the current page. Pathetic.

Now what is the latest batshit that has been drawn? Well now he's overlaid a template of the real plane with the same foolish and blundering mistakes!

• He puts his plane in the wrong place - BOTH of them!
• The extra one, a real plane template, is even worse and now ridiculously further up!
• He STILL screws up the shape of the fuselage with a ridiculous comedy oval.
• He STILL makes zero rectification for perspective
• He STILL makes no allowance for descent angle.
• He ignores where his false claim is refuted about the BLUEPRINT he pasted on his own drawing being "dimensionally incorrect"!

It seems no amount of correction, simple explanation or observation of his failures makes any difference.

The NIST one - a perfect fit, perfect dimensions, totally consistent. The batshit being dumped on this thread, not so much. The responses, bloviating bluster and denial.

 

Why would you attribute such a stupid drawing to me that has every engineer on the planet laughing hysterically? I never seen that drawing before you posted it!

everyone knows you dont measure a 150ft plane in ****ing pixels!


Your questions have all been answered. NIST CHEATED!




You take a microscope to me and at the same time accepted their cheating and still advertise it as all as facts even when proven to be an in our face fraud.

Im sorry Beta, redesigning the plane to force it to fit the official story is not putting it in the "right" place!

 

If anyone wants to know how they did it:



Excellent video on cgi believers and debunkers vehemently hate this video!

 

This is laughable!
You think you know what thats about and you are completely in another universe wrong.

I showed you how I did it, it was all laid out in a nice pictorial, exactly what I did, and you said it was too complicated which is not my problem, now I cant find it so oh well too bad, yer on yer own partner.

Even if you were correct, its a lousy 3% off, and 3% absolutely did not change the outcome or materially affect the result in any way!

All this stupid meaningless minutia all the time folks.

Im not going to redo it, figure it out, another one of your claims bites the dust.

Oh, and how nice of you to rename those nasty pics, you forgot one though, are you going to change that one too I hope?

 

All accurately laid out for everyone to see - you said it was "dimensionally inaccurate" - FAIL!

REALLY!? You posted it about 10 times over 2 pages:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...no-second-plane.610889/page-6#post-1074336966

Well, since you are taking said "150ft plane" and representing it in an image - that is the PERFECT way to measure it! The plane you said was "dimensionally inaccurate" was spot on!

NONE of them have been answered honestly.

Placing a representation of a plane onto a building without aligning it correctly with the damage or using any image rectification is useless. NIST did not do that, you did. I haven't even bothered checking sideways dimensions up to now, maybe I will!

The irony! You've been caught out and are trying to deflect everyone's attention. Too late.

Ridiculously cluttered actually!

I am correct and that doesn't include the perspective shift! It is WAY more than friction' 3%! Just looking at the estimated compressed one it is closer to 25%!

Just as well, it was in the wrong place, no perspective correction, no descent angle adjustment etc.

Here is a very simple question for you.
If you are looking UPWARDS at a scene, is the width of the hole going to be narrower than looking straight onwards?

The answer is YES! And THAT is why you compress your image vertically with correct perspective rectification.

 

Oh?

Sure after you got done messing with the pic who knows where its at now!

You dodged the perspective and descent questions I asked.

Hell NIST didnt even correct for the barrel effect which is extremely easy much less anything else. You dont even know how they did that drawing, I do

BUT I will wait till you get done playing your perspective games.

NIST is BUSTED and so are you for defending them!

 

BTW, descent is totally meaningless, and here is a hint:
the NIST drawing fails and is a BUST both vertically and horizontally.
Be careful how you answer.

 

Folks, I'm getting the run-around here.

• At the start of the thread I posted a minimal list of things that needed to be done if there were no planes. HERE.
• Completely arm-waved away! That is complete failure to consider evidence.
• I reiterated the other extremely poor observation of the "sideways" plane. HERE.
• It was ignored when it was first posted and ignored again when I raised it as reference.
• Early in the thread I posted a debunk of the idiotic claim about live compositing. The chopper image is moving, as is the position of the building! HERE
• This was completely ignored, but fundamentally destroys the main argument!
• I elaborated - destroying the idiotic "nose-out" argument on another blog. HERE
• He again responded with a ridiculous one line dismissal!
• I continued posting the full explanations from the blog, destroying "ACE Baker" completely. Starting HERE
• Some truly ludicrous and evasive answers were given!
• Early in the thread I post images of the WTC1 damage showing the impact is clearly going inwards. HERE
• I received ridiculously evasive answers.
• I highlighted the insane idea that they recruited invisible psychopathic demolition experts. HERE
• Of course that too was ignored!
• I showed all the aircraft pieces scattered around Manhattan! HERE
• The responses were truly pathetic.
• I identified the errors with his useless plane impact claim. HERE
• Pretty much ignored and denied.
• I listed well over a hundred witnesses to a plane. Starting HERE
• And it was implied they were all coerced and it was basically ignored!
  
• I pointed out that the image shows clear tail-fin damage and have cited numerous examples. HERE and numerous other places.
• I received a ridiculous "they were all photoshopped" claim! ZERO evidence to prove this pathetic bare-assertion denial.
• BIZARRELY a complete denial was made of the blueprint used, when it was posted numerous times! HERE
• Of course the post showing this (just above this post) was totally ignored.
• NISTs version of this and their analysis was posted. HERE
• An utterly ludicrous post suggesting this was "gaslighting" was the reply!
• A post with animated gif showing NISTs version exactly fitting the impact damage with the correct perspective adjustment and dimensions. HERE
• And of course the ridiculous bare assertion that it was fake.
• I point out something EVERYONE can see, the image (used in this claim) is being viewed from below. HERE
• Not once has this basic, OBVIOUS issue been acknowledged!
• Now comes massive evasion. I identified from all used sources, that the NIST version was perfectly consistent with a 767. HERE
  
• Responses include complete denial! That is ridiculous given the images confirm my point.
• I highlight the ridiculous fuselage shape used. HERE
• It was claimed that this made "no difference"!
• A gif highlighting the dimensions of the plane showed the original claim to be a BAD exaggeration/misalignment. HERE
• An astonishing denial was made about the blueprint saying it was "dimensionally incorrect"!
• This "dimensionally incorrect" claim was completely refuted. HERE
• Totally ignored and a ludicrous repeat of the alignment failures made instead!

And this list of failures has just the most absurd evasive responses.
The "accurate" drawing:

• No allowance has been made for aerodynamic lift / wing flexing. I will detail this in a subsequent post.
• 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! By estimated 25%!

 

On an airplane, when in flight, the wings naturally flex upwards. This is what the 767 wings look like in flight:


As opposed to accurate blueprints:


What this means is that the base of the plane aligning on the WTC1 plane impact hole, would be lower down, further increasing the consistency of tail-fin damage.

 

All that jumping up and down, rant after rant, imaginary scenarios, shadowy stuff, and other stuff you claim escapes your imagination and in the end FORENSIC EVIDENCE....(or lack thereof) PROVES once again, as usual, your claims fail and fail and fail time and time again!



BUSTED again!

For those who just joined us, NIST cheated on their markup and drew a grossly exaggerating plane to force match it to the hole!

Literally the whole NIST investigation on literally all levels is a BUST!

When we superimpose the outline of the NIST plane against a real plane it proves assessment fraud.

So much for all those imagined problems and exaggerated claims of descent, perspective, and aerodynamics, and flexing, and heat, and the BOOGER HANGING FROM THE PILOTS NOSE!

I knew you would dodge those issues because as usual the claims are made and never corroborated, well thats what I do, I corroborate or or prove the contrary using FORENSIC EVIDENCE! (or by the lack thereof)

Thanks for that pic Beta!

Keep up the good work!

Game Over!
/planers

 

Gibberish

Is that the NIST image, showing a plane FROM BELOW WTC1, slightly to the side of the impact, aerodynamic flexing for 550mph, that you have overlaid on the climbing plane at circa 220mph that is difficult to see what angle it is? What blundering hogwash.

50 forum posts later and he STILL doesn't get this BASIC thing. Firstly that image above, the plane isn't level, it was used to convey to you that the wing changes upwards in flight and the faster the plane goes the more it changes. All I see is you ignoring this fundamental thing and doing more misalignment.

• NIST adjusted their plane for perspective. YOU DID NOT!
• NIST places their plane with the engines on the building damage consistent with this. YOU DID NOT!
• YOU have made zero change to the wing angle from aerodynamic lift at 550mph
• The NIST example is not orthogonal FFS - if you turn something slightly sideways it will alter the angle.
• The NIST example is looking from below and you haven't appeared to ever acknowledge this.

Imagined problems? You think perspective is imagined? You thing flat out 767 aerodynamic lift is imagined? No wonder you've made one screw-up after another.

ZERO issues have been dodged by me! You just quoted a massive post showing that YOU are the one evading every single thing possible.

Haha, no really you don't!

It was over well before this pathetic thread and its ludicrous claim.

This whole series of exchanges are the result of your appalling lack of image rectification - you absolutely do not have a clue what you are doing.

 

So Long story short, its not like I am ignoring what the planers say, I consider all reasonable claims.

I do ignore half baked claims and claims with no relevance or claims that do not change the outcome.

That said its not like there is no rationale what so ever regarding the claims being made, its that the effect is negligible or does not change the outcome, or there are other discrepancies not yet posted because the present discrepancies have not been settled conclusively usually as a result of planers uncorroborated blind denial.

Here I align the extremely exaggerated NIST plane wing with a REAL plane the same way I did it to sink his claim.

So when I ignore most of the blather this is why.....I have still have trump cards!

Here is an overlay of a plane in the same manner I did with Beta plane in the previous post.

As as we can all see, while Beta has a valid point it changes nothing regarding the OUTCOME!





We can see Beta has a point, we can also see NIST exaggerated it to fit hole.


The stated outcome NIST BUSTED AGAIN has not changed.

 

So lets take a looksie at this claim, from Betas previous post:

OOps another FAIL!





The perspective matches the plane on the ground perfectly according to YOUR DRAWING!

Do you deny that is YOUR DRAWING?

Like I said NIST MADE NO PERSPECTIVE ADJUSTMENTS!

This is what you get folks when it becomes political, what is correct or rational get flushed down the toilet and it become all about winning, FACTS BE DAMNED.

The truth and facts will be assaulted with 1/2 truths as you can see in the demolished claims!

Betas red line matches NISTs ALLEGED PERSPECTIVE CORRECTION.

Just more **** thrown at the wall where WINNING IS THE ONLY GOAL facts and reality be damned!

You can claim and use every pejorative on the planet that no planers are idiots, and FORENSICALLY it will all go down in flames!

Proof NIST made NONE of the claimed adjustments!

/planers!

 

False, you ignore everything. I made a very big list showing this and it's rather pathetic evasion.

The problem is that you are CREATING quarter baked claims and don't have the slightest clue what you are doing.

Meaningless hogwash.

And astonishingly the 50 ton penny fails to sink in. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING!

Another screw-up and you ignored the reasons why that was!
1. The take-off picture is not level you applied a rectified image to it from another non-level, non-orthogonal image!
2. The take-off image has a level of aerodynamic tilt that is demonstrates a change from normal. It does NOT accurately reflect the tilt at 550mph!
3. You do not have any idea what you are doing.

More useless "rendering". I mean what the hell is it you think you are doing. These images are ALL at different angles, different elevations and you blunder in with your "CAD" and think you've done something.

Their image is NOT LEVEL! Viewed from below, banked slightly left and not orthogonal.

You don't know what you are doing.

 

FALSE, it is close to the ground version but with a little vertical compression - the real perspective adjustment can be seen with the relative gap between the tail wings and the wings.

And what did you say when I pointed that the two were very consistent?
ME: The NIST diagram accurately reflects the shape of the 767.

Demonstrating quite clearly the ludicrous games you are playing here!

See below - the distance between the wing and tail wing! You can make all these false "like I said" claims all you like, but you haven't the slightest clue what you are doing.

Hot air crap.

Hmmm,

NIST have excluded the eccentricity of the wings from the central fuselage section. You have failed to incorporate this. But CLEARLY the distance between tail wing and wing is less on the NIST rendering. Compressed vertically. You make all this noise about things that don't matter, such as your "3%" wrong tail fin that was out by 25%, then miss the salient parts of their diagram.

No need to claim anything but thank you for the reminder.

 

YOU KEEP AVOIDING QUESTIONS, from the top of the page post 256:

If you are looking UPWARDS at a scene, is the width of the hole going to be narrower than looking straight onwards?

Here's another to evade(you quoted it in post 253):

Did I demonstrate that the bit relative to the tail-fin impact was NOT "dimensionally inaccurate"?

Here's another:

You denied any knowledge of the very blueprint I used, even after you must have posted about a dozen images with it, do you remember now?

 

Wow!

Now beta again totally contradicts his own claims!

From Betas picture: https://i.ibb.co/7SzsqQy/IMBECILE.jpg

in the above post,

was intended to demonstrate perspective error and it does that very well!

Its exactly what NIST would have had to do if in fact they did a perspective correction.

WE CAN ALL SEE THEY DID NOT, and dont accuse me of modifying your drawing, I can prove I did not materially modify your drawing.

Here is what we would expect to see:





I had to enlarge the 45 deg angle pic to get it to match the circle since it was taken from farther away.

We can see the vertical dimension tends to compress and the circle shape now tends to look like someones eye. no longer round.


However even though Beta is accusing me of cheating I did not. I have no reason to cheat, hell Im in the catbird seat!

So to prove any claims of me materially modifying betas pics are 100% PATENTLY FALSE here is video clip proof of every step I took to PROVE NIST DID NOT PERSPECTIVE CORRECT!





If perspective corrections were in FACT made it is not possible for the red line beta drew around the fuselage direct straight on view to also fit a perspective corrected view.

The uncorrected red line fits NISTS drawing PERFECTLY!

The claim NIST made perspective corrections is 100% FALSE


Now to prove NIST made no perspective adjustments:




Compare Betas from below pic to the axial pic!

Had NIST made any corrections as claimed then their drawing we see the original outlines with the yellow dashed line move from the dashed yellow to the solid yellow view.

That is what a perspective correction would look like.

Both conditions cannot be true at the same time.

Irrefutable proof Beta totally contracted himself.

case closed!

/planers

 

It's like. I'm typing the words to explain this complete failure of understanding and each time they are ignored. Almost every blundering image has multiple mistakes or is irrelevant.

Nope, the problem is your failure to read properly or you are deliberately "misinterpreting".

And yet, not once have you conceded this or admitted your failure to apply this! You are pulling ME up for something YOU failed to do!

NO IT IS NOT! It is what they would have had to do if they were rectifying for 45+ degree angle! The perspective change is probably around 10% from previous estimates.

Don't you dare use the word "WE". You certainly don't get to bring others into your false and useless claims.

WE, as in people who use logic and critical thinking can see that the gap between wing and tail wing is less that the blueprint and actual plane.

My photograph (not a frickin' drawing) is just fine. Totally irrelevant, the elevation difference on the WTC1 image is much, much less than 45 degrees. The purpose of the photograph was to show an extreme version so you couldn't deny it. The irony is that instead of denying it, all of a sudden you agree it and are using it in a way that you failed miserably to do in your hopelessly flawed claim.

Really, really deceptive unless you are saying that YOU think YOUR image was a 45 degree observation angle! In which case, every single thing you have suggested is completely wrong because you have done ZERO perspective rectification!

Totally irrelevant, the WTC1 picture is around a 10% adjustment - one that you failed to make. Hence your 25% inaccurate tail fin height.

We CAN see that if the WTC1 image was 45 degrees, but it isn't. Again are you saying it is?

Incompetence is not cheating, don't make false statements. You failed to do ANY perspective alteration.

You had the plane in the wrong place, engines not aligned with clear damage, you failed to adjust perspective, you failed to incorporate even a minimal estimate of aerodynamic lift - all in all - totally useless.

As I said, you haven't the slightest clue what you are doing.

Now call me a cynic, but you seem to have completely ignored the large gorilla! The tail wing and wing are closer together on the NIST image - tell everyone why you ignored that!?

The BOTTOM of the circle does not line up with the bottom of the plane when the top does! You are not taking into account the side pods that skew the bottom of the fuselage. BUT, and here's the kicker, you are assuming that my comparison image of the NIST diagram is correctly sized. All I did was make it roughly the same.
The NIST image is a circle.

A circle. But don't take my word for it, let's consult somebody else!

WHY are you tilting this? They are both level!

This is basically just a repeat of above where you now seem to be suggesting the original image was viewed from 45 degrees below. Are you suggesting this? I estimated a 10% change and posted THIS:

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!

NOTICE that even on the right hand blueprint it's still pretty much a circle. The whole point of this was to refute YOUR claim it was a damn "oval"!

For 45 degrees! Repeating crappy observation is just a repeat of crappy observation. It was much less than 45 degrees.

False dichotomy, you assume my NIST picture is sized perfectly, you've fudged the outline, which on the NIST diagram is not the same shape as the plane. And to stress, YOU HAVE IGNORED that the tail wing and wing are closer together on the NIST diagram and THAT, as far as YOUR previously stated accuracy is all that matters!

Nope, proof where no more is needed, that you have absolutely no idea what you are doing!

 

Ignored.

ADD

Why did you fail to address the fact that the tail wing and wing are closer on NISTs diagram!?
Are you saying YOUR original image was 45 degrees from level?

 

*facepalm*

 

why didnt you watch it?

 

closer to what?

 

then whats your problem.?

 

noting on the nist image is a circle lol