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

deleted

 

look at the many pics provided …

 

Because you did not conveniently respond to the same question put to you first, I am still waiting.

 

What question??? I don’t evade …

 

@Kokomojojo

It's close enough - you have to get SOMETHING right!

• You put the damn plane in the wrong place!
• You failed to adjust for perspective!
• You failed to adjust for aerodynamic lift
• You didn't even consider deformation or entry angle.

All claims where you have done something wrong have been proven after each screw-up. Go back and read them. All you are doing is attempting to hide them all by rolling them off the current page.

Haha, you've made one screw-up after another, I'll pass on your "teaching".

Busted huh? I'm just trying to work out what batshit-screw-up "CAD" method you were using, to get your made-up 171 feet - it wasn't actually a claim.

And yet again, AGAIN! You attempt to determine an angle from an image that is not square on - how can you pretend you are an "engineer" when you make such a basic mistake? See number 1. below. Whoops!

Speaking of teaching:
I'm going to start off by doing some REAL analyses of the measurements involved. So first off, let's establish the impact angle of the plane. First off, we need an accurate drawing of the damage - not some idiotic rendering from an image that isn't square on (facepalm).

1. External damage from the WTC 1 aircraft impact. | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)
Left wingtip pixel coordinates 20,410
Right wingtip pixel coordinates 718,74
This gives a right angle triangle dimensions of 698 x 336 - yielding an angle of 25.7 degrees. Looks like my claim for how you screwed this up was bang on the money!

2. We know the building is exactly 208ft wide (my error above saying 205).

3. Position of the aircraft at the time of impact against the North Tower.... | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)
Left Building edge pixel 73
Right Building edge pixel 699
That is 622 pixels and near as damnit 3 pixels per foot.

Left wing edge pixel 173
Right wind edge pixel 597
Distance horizontally = 424 pixels
Divide by 3 pixels per foot = 141.3333ft

4. Taking side b = 141.3333 / Angle A = 25.7 yields the hypotenuse as 156.8ft - CLOSE ENOUGH for the method being used!

Yeah, well that's frickin' game over! The impact angle and horizontal size are 100% consistent with a 767 passenger jet impact. Oh and just for good measure, let's have a look at all the planes lined up:


The problem with trying to disprove something, is that you need to have two things.
You need the skills to do it accurately. You don't possess these.
You need the thing you are attempting to disprove to be wrong. It isn't.

 

You have proven nothing by measuring distorted low resolution images with pixels.

I laid a protractor on the damn thing, everyone who can read a protractor saw it, you measured wrong! LOL

Yes the NIST PICTURE OF A PLANE is consistent, the real plane is NOT as I have proven at least 3 times now.

There you go folks, I scaled the plane to the building, its pathetically easy!

How can anyone make legitimate claims about distances and angles when they cant give us the a plane to building scale?

I offer to teach them but I guess they dont want to know!

 

OMFG people that is the most laughable post I have seen in years!

How does the plane change length?

Ok Seriously:

Beta no matter which way you axially rotate the plane it will always make a 156ft wide print on the building.

If you draw a right triangle on a piece of paper using the full length of your 6" ruler as side b, then move your ruler to the hypotnuse the 6" ruler does not magically get longer to be both side b and the hyp at the same time!

It cant be both at the same time as the claim purports.

 

Here is a hint: The columns are 3ft4" on center.

I suppose I better explain.....thats engineering talk which means that if you measure from the center of one column to the center of the next column they are 3ft4" between them.

All that need be done is to count columns to get side b, then rotate till it overlays with the NIST fraud!

Side b (156ft) never changes length no matter what angle you rotate it.

We know they hypotnuse has to be longer. The demolition team didnt get the sizing memo! lol

Seriously doesnt get any simpler than that!

/planers

 

Yes I have. I have proven that no matter how many times you are hammered, no matter what level of evidence you will never admit your failures. The images are high enough resolution to be able to get accurate readings.

HELLO? CAN YOU READ?
YOU PUT A protractor on a damn image that wasn't square!

HELLO? CAN YOU SEE?
THE PROVEN image of a plane blueprint accurately reflecting the plane is the same damn size!

You have made one screw-up after another.

It doesn't. What brain-dead reason do you have for thinking it changed size? GO ON - FULLY EXPLAIN what you are talking about. Because right there is the fundamental reason why you are failing.

Yes, I know, totally irrelevant. The only angle we are concerned about is the one at the 25.7 degrees, that you used in your blunder.

You are talking absolute nonsense. You are explaining something totally obvious but totally irrelevant!

The left to right distance of the hole is 141.3ft, the angle formed from both wing points is 25.7 degrees. THEN the only relevant thing is what the length of the hypotenuse is!


YOU have made some sort of colossal cognitive foul-up here. When the penny drops you will realize how foolish you have been.

Gotta laugh at "engineering talk" just after he reiterates the accuracy of his "angle" by dumping a protractor on a misaligned image. Facepalm time.

But folks, let's all use Koko's method - it works for me.

1. Left Impact column distance, to right impact column is, near as damnit, 42.5 columns (yellow line above): 42.5 x 3.333 = 141.6525ft

2. My method of "measuring distorted low resolution images with pixels" is 141.33ft Hilarious!

3. The angle formed by the two sides on this image is 25.4 degrees (25.7 on the other one link in step 1 previous post) so fairly consistent.

4. The hypotenuse from a 141.6525ft side and a 25.4 degree angle is 157ft

5. Given the method used that is perfectly consistent with the 156ft length of the Boeing 767.

6. ALL planes line up the same length and size - we're done.

What now? I mean, surely, SURELY it has sunk in now? EVERY single claim you have made is sheer blundering nonsense and I just proved it using YOUR method!

 

Oh?

Well lets drop a square on it then!




Its damn square!

Well folks here we have it, more pointless micrometer minutia measuring, and clear lack of trig knowledge.

Ok, just to make you happy, 27.479 degrees!



What site did that come from?

You didnt honest to God do that did you?

 

What question Koko?

 

When it gets this bad its no longer fun.






Not that this will help you but Ill post it anyway:

https://techtv.mit.edu/videos/0dddad15f89c42daa4badaa56a849f5b/

As you can see the Tee of the hypotnuse is raised till the ball is over the b side distance then the ball falls straight down into the cup at the b dimension.

If that doesnt do it for you I cant imagine what would.

 

For those who havent abandoned this nonsense, and havent had any trig, the MIT clip in the link I just posted showed the same 'identical' thing I have been demonstrating here.

 

What the hell do you think you are doing here? You seem to be "proving" that rotating the plane length makes it longer than the 141.33ft side of a triangle. Well duh.

The guy who put the plane on the building set it to 75% of the building and rotated it, the reverse of what you just "proved".

Anyway, WHY the hell do you think this is significant? You are making some horrific cognitive failure here. EXPLAIN FULLY.

ARE YOU SERIOUS!?
Do you think this picture(below) is "square" now, because you "put it in CAD"?

My god this thread is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever encountered. You start off with one of the dumbest premises in history, use deliberately deceptive images that have smoke all over them, fail to even understand the adjustments needed for perspective etc. and now we've moved on to you dumping a frickin' protractor on an image taken FROM BELOW and FROM THE RIGHT.

Even if you just look at the far right column, you can see the camera isn't even vertical either!

I can't argue with somebody who denies the undeniable - if you think the above is square, you need glasses and you need to "brush up" on your understanding of CAD.

You simply CANNOT determine the angle of an image that is not perfectly square to the camera, by using a frickin' protractor. What a ridiculous failure.
The angle is just over 25 degrees. Determined from schematics of the damage from 2 different research papers(both cited in post #305).

The folks you refer to are perfectly able to see the image above is not square to the camera! I actually put the guy with glasses on it just for a joke, but it appears now to be a necessity.

Repeating your useless method is just repeating your useless method. The image isn't square to the camera. Or maybe you really don't understand that angles change with perspective!

The place I cited - I know you cannot be properly reading my posts. I'm not going to let you cover any of your mistakes up until you admit them.

As opposed to placing a protractor on a misaligned image? My method used schematic diagrams of the WTC1 that use the dimensions of the building and the damage area to determine the shape of the impact SQUARE ON!

 

This was batshit well before you started your "drawing" failures. I can safely speak for "those who haven't abandoned this nonsense" in saying that nobody has the slightest clue what point you have made in identifying this "identical" thing.

EVERY impact assessment made by me, shows the plane covering the same 156ft span of damage as the original failure of an assessment you originally made! The ONLY one I have pout up that talks about rotating the plane explains what he did. Is this what you are gibbering on about?

Explain your whole point fully right now. I don't think you can or will.

 

Comedy explosives?

See the poor woman in the center to determine the size of these columns! BENT INWARDS.
The "CGI" plane bent the columns inwards?

@Kokomojojo
How come you keep ignoring where you get your claims destroyed?
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"
8. You gave me YOUR method to determine horizontal width and it was the SAME as mine, you ignored this!

That is some seriously poor "engineering".

Posts #284 and #305 absolutely destroy your claims, no wonder you virtually ignored them!

 

She is leaning forward bracing herself on the column looking over the edgs anyone can see that but you.

Doesnt matter where I put the plane since the whole is 15ft physically bigger than the plane.

Vertical perspective does not change the width of the hole.
the wing imprint is horizontal not vertical.

you failed to make anything resembling a relevant claim and it would not change the width of the hole anyway.

does not change the width of the print on the building, no point in it.

You fail to understand that vertical perspective does not change width.

They go sideways, not inward, and you still deny the pic you used is photoshopped when we can all see it was. the pic I used they clearly do not go inward.

• The hole size does not change, 156ft wingspan leaves 156 ft imprint no matter which way you rotate it the hole print is too wide.
• snd you start with the first damaged column not the second.

You use extreme variants that did not exist.
Because something is possible at an extreme does not make increase it beyond minutia.

Its 48.5 columns, not 42.5, bad math skills?

yes that is why I am stuck teaching.

I ignored them because they are minutia, or impossible, or because you failed to make a valid claim.

• you ignore that increased dihedran angle shortens the print.
• you ignore that vertical perspective does not change horizontal length.
• you ignore that 156ft plane does not make a 175ft hole unless at an EXTREME angle.
• you failed to show ANY difference in perspective between NIST and meyou failed to account for any differences in aerodynamic lift at 550mph.
• you failed to make a valid fin deformation claim.
• you failed to make a valid case for entry angle from vertical and horizontal.
• astonishingly you still imagine columns bent sideways to be INWARDS.
• now you've bizzarely concluded a 156 fit plane on the b axis can make a 175ft hole on the c axis which I destroyed, see rotating plane.
• you ignore that YOUR method to determine horizontal width is not the SAME as mine
• you ignore that YOUR DRAWING of a plane does NOT fit the hole that a REAL plane would make.
• you ignore that your math is wrong!
• a boeing 767 is 156ft wide not 141 as you claim.

 

OMG! This guy! THE COLUMN she is leaning against is bending inwards. But all the columns to OUR left are clearly bent inwards! The whole facade is smashed INWARDS!

Denying the undeniable. Horizontal span around 141ft - gives a hypotenuse of circa 156ft. Whatever blundering drawings you have done, IN YOUR FACE, just that, proves it is the perfect dimension.

But, how ridiculous is that YOU put up your "analysis" (in the wrong place/misaligned) with the plane you insisted was perfectly "accurate" and it spanned the exact dimensions of the hole!

What now? You going to deny you said that? You established the hole size is correct and all analyses fit within it. Just yours is too high up and 1.5 columns to the right of the correct placement. No perspective adjustment etc. Daft fuselage shape!

Well duh, nobody said it does. YOU are the one bizarrely claiming that crap!

It DOES however change the VERTICAL WIDTH, so your alignment of a plane with "the correct" dimensions does not equate to the vertical width because it has not been adjusted for perspective. It is your hilarious failure. Even funnier is that STILL, you don't understand this basic thing!

Well duh, nobody said it does. YOU are the one bizarrely claiming that crap! Are you denying that the wings are slightly pushed upwards from aerodynamic lift? ARE YOU!? Your other "answers" are repeating the same horseshit about the width, that is YOUR bizarre claim. I'm fine with the horizontal width and always have been.

But to reiterate, you made ZERO attempt to adjust your "scaled exactly to the proper dimensions" "stick drawing" for VERTICAL WIDTH, aerodynamic lift, possible deformation, entry angle.

You are denying everything that EVERYONE can see. The whole facade including multiple columns is pushed INWARDS. You can pretend that it isn't, but you certainly don't get to use the word "WE" when you are the one denying the undeniable. Your claim that every image showing the fin damage is "photoshopped" is just pathetic.

WHAT THE HELL are you talking about! NOBODY is denying any of that.

1. EXPLAIN EXACTLY why rotating the plane away from its impact angle is relevant in any way!?
2. EXPLAIN EXACTLY how you arrived at the impact distance being 175ft?
3. EXPLAIN EXACTLY how you can say the impact distance is now 175ft when you put up a drawing "scaled 'exactly' to the proper dimensions with respect to the building and placed over the top of the hole."?

Give some examples.

Meaningless gibberish.

It's 42.5 - WTAF!

FOLKS: the columns go in sections of 3. The makers of this diagram have kindly labelled them with numbers. Look at 151 at the top, go down to the wing tip. There's your start point. Now look at 109, go down and there's the other wing tip.

Now take away 151 from109!

ACTUAL BUILDING: By no stretch of batshittery is it "48.5" - clearly 42.5.

Nope, you ignored them because they tore your numerous batshit claims to pieces.

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. The horizontal width is 141ft, the angle is around 25 degrees. The hypotenuse is 156ft. Any other batshittery from you is meaningless.

Never disputed. Vertical perspective changes VERTICAL WIDTH and you have made ZERO attempt to factor it in.

I've asked you several times to explain where you got this idiotic "175ft" from! Now explain it completely!

FALSE!! YOU proved that the wings were different sizes, even though you deceptively put your center line in the wrong place! I can certainly put up my direct comparison of tail fin heights! If I get satisfactory answers to all of this!
Yours is in the wrong place NIST is spot on:

Comparison of fuselages - YOURS is ridiculous:

No, that is true. Let's just establish something first - are you denying that aerodynamic lift alters the orientation of the wings? YOU were the one who failed to allow for it!

I didn't need to make one. YOU did. You didn't even consider the possibility that the leading edge of the fin striking the tower would break the fin, before the trailing edge impacted. I don't NEED to consider it, all I need to do is establish that you didn't!

Again, I don't need to. YOU didn't consider either of those and YOU are the one making the batshit claim!

You're on your own. It is probably one of the most pathetic things I have ever been involved in, debating whether planes were present on 911. Even when shown close-ups of the whole facade pushed inwards, you deny it.

NOBODY knows WTF you are talking about.

EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHERE I SAID A PLANE WAS 156ft ON THE 'b AXIS'! You are making up crap. I have an idea of what you have done to determine this and it is an horrific blunder if I'm right!

Irrelevant - I'm ok with your method, it works for me. Both established the same figure. 141ft. Now you are denying that the column numbers add up to 42.5? I strongly suggest you go and look closely. See image above for starters (facepalm time).

Nice list, shame it is contrived batshit. I don't have a plane.
The guy who made a blog, took a 767, scaled it to 75% width of the WTC and rotated it. It fits the hole perfectly!
NIST produced a digram that was as perfect as needed, to show 100% consistency with the impact, the image perspective and all the other factors that you were completely oblivious to.

 

The gals legs are at an angle, she is leaning, its an optical illusion for you.
the 48.5 was a typo I couldnt correct before the timeout

• yeh lets compare the beta/nist red plane to the black 156ft wingspan drawing for a real one! LMFAO What total bullshit for accuracy!
  
  
• Meanwhile my drawing is ludicrously analyzed with a micrometer HAHAHA
  
  
  
• Increased dihedran angle = decreased wing tip to wing tip width, not increased tip to tip width!
  
  
• Horizontal length does not change with change in vertical perspective!
  
  arguments dont get much weaker than planer nonsense!
  
  /planers

 

Additionally if in fact there really was a plane and if in fact it really was going 550mph it would have to fly nose down due to the increased lift effect of the dense air at sea level, so there would be no additional dihedran angle.


so many contradictory physics problems planers never thought of!

 

I know what you did and have proven you wrong for the last 10 pages, and you simply go into denial.

 

good comeback when you have nothing!

because inwards is strictly in your imagination, and that particular photoshopped pic you use, they did not look that way in my original by a different photographer.

 

looks to me like this pic has 44 damaged columns.

 

No worries. So what is it then?

And yet it fits the same hole as your "highly accurate" "stick drawing"!

You keep doing this "fudging" on your deceptive drawings. You also keep "missing" things.


Right there, your drawing, accurate blueprint, your NIST copy and NIST.

Which part of this is confusing for you!?

YOU put your "accurate" plane on and it fits, but all the other ones, sized the same don't fit? What utter hogwash.

Far left one is not damaged from direct wing impact. That is the cladding BELOW the impact loosened by the enormous vibrational impact/and or fire damage. So 43 is about right. How can that be you say?
Well let me ask you a question. The columns are 40 inches center to center.

So what is the span if two columns get damaged? Please don't say 80!

The answer is you don't know, because you cannot tell how far past the column the wingtip extended. So with that obvious thing in mind, start from far right. The whole column looks clipped. Now start counting when you reach the same point on the next column(right hand edge). That's 1 and that is 40 inches. Keep counting until you get to the last damaged column to the left and you will be at 42. Then add the width of a column. That's 42.5.

 

@Kokomojojo

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'!