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

I told you several times and just gave up.

AGAIN: the top 2 are from my original picture which is NOT the same as the nist picture we have been arguing about over the last 13 pages.

Its very dishonest to use an inapplicable strawman pic.

Then to make matters worse you combine the old pics from that different drawing and the new pics together.

Thats really dishonest, but I gave up since you insist on posting it regardless.

 

@Betamax101 How about you help me out with this?

Choose which alignment is the "right" alignment (as you say):

 

No you did NOT! That is just ludicrously vague!

BUT they are scaled the same and cover the SAME span of the impact!

Yes it is, it's more dishonest to call it one when it isn't!

That is basically the same thing as your last statement!

They are scaled the same and cover the SAME span of the impact!

No it isn't. Dishonest, is refusing to accept DATA that you created, proving yourself wrong!

You gave up did you? You're lucky anyone is taking time to reply to you when you refuse to accept TOTALLY OBVIOUS images showing the fascia going inwards, large columns clearly BENT INWARDS!

 

you claimed and argued my original pic was no good (you kinow the one that is not photoshopped to look like things were bent inwards), so I used NISTS, now its all the same huh?

You didnt like my alignment either so which one? You choose!

 

I claimed it was no good because (FFS!):

• You made no perspective rectification on a hole vertically MUCH more narrow than straight on!
• You put YOUR plane 1.5 columns too far to the right!
• No assessment was made for wing/tailfin deformation!
• No assessment was made for entry angle.
• Later I added aerodynamic lift to the wings was NOT assessed

For very good reasons. It was useless.

NONE of them. Your "plane" is too small.

WHICH PART OF THIS ARE YOU NOT GETTING!!!!

You cannot align a straight image to one that has been perspectively aligned and expect them to match!

@Kokomojojo - Here is where previously you aligned the 767 plane to the NIST version - it's off a little because you cannot align two different image perspectives. BUT it's close enough to show that it fits the dimensions of a damn plane!


SO, SUDDENLY YOU CANNOT ALIGN A PLANE?

Now who is being deceptive!

 

Looks ok to me!

Whats wrong with it?

 

So then if the plane impacts on an angle and is the hypotnuse then that same plane hitting while flying flat is only going to be 141ft wide?

How can the hypotnuse be 156ft when I rotate a 156ft plane you claim its too small....wth?

Hey check out that perspective! Doesnt look like the length change at all! So whats all this major excitement and calamity about perspective if the width stays the same?

Ok folks so now we have NISTS drawing is correct for a 156 ft plane when concentrically rotated the 156ft plane is too small! wth gives?

 

Are you yanking my chain!? I just TOLD you what was wrong!

1. You CANNOT overlay a 2D image on a perspective rendered image and expect them to align!
2. In the case of the NIST diagram it needs a few things

• The perspective needs to be altered for viewing from the right of the image.
• The perspective needs to be altered for viewing below the image
• I believe the fuselage position is 5 pixels wrong on the NIST diagram (hence the tail fin misalignment) I highlighted this in post #284.

3. You cannot drop a damn protractor on an image that isn't even level! You ignored where I pointed that out.
4. You cannot drop a protractor on an image that is not geometrically square! You ignored that as well.
5. Do you even know what image rectification is?

Blunder after blunder after blunder. You ignore them all and keep making the same ones!

 

What? What are you talking about now? The impact of the plane on WTC1 appears (from the footage) to be very, very slightly rotated. But that's guesswork, as opposed to batshit.

It's just not sinking in, YOU CANNOT ALIGN A 2D IMAGE ON A PERSPECTIVELY ALTERED ONE!

And WHAT? You've "determined" the length of the plane against an image that isn't square! Facepalm! Useless!

It is not square, therefore it changes. Though on that picture I would imagine very litte. The vertical length changes and guess what! You never took that into account on your first drawing and any damn drawing since!

 

@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'!

Should I make this size=7 to get your attention!?

 

But the x axis perspective does not change with vertical displacement beta, and you said the choices were all too small, and I showed you that the plane is 156ft! whats up with that?





Looks like you can.
Same 156ft plane drawing as the plane in the choices pic. 2D
the wing is thinner because I drew it that way and the dihedran is greater angle, so how come my 2D in black fits so well and NISTS red doesnt fit even close?



I cant find any evidence NIST did anything with perspective, what did they change? The length should stay the same, why hasnt it in the NIST drawing? What are they trying to perspect by making it so long?

You still told me that my 156ft plane was in the wrong place, it was too short before too, so I want to know what the right place was supposed to be then and why you wont pick one since its the same length plane as before?

 

Maybe it was a Jewish space laser.

They found this in the rubble

 

Maybe it was just plain good ole fashioned fraud, and maybe there is an army of people out there covering for them!

Before he told me it was in the wrong place, the same length drawing, not he tells me its too small, looks like a major blunder is brewing.

Only vertical perspective changes with vertical displacement, not horizontal as we can see from the pics beta posted...so how can a picture of a 156ft plane pulled directly off a boeing schematic possibly be too small?

 

Lasers man. Pew-pew-pew.

 

Id believe that before Id believe this magic invisible perspective nonsense!

 

yes, an army of people to pull off what’s in your imagination … explain that please …

 

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! IS THIS DELIBERATE?

Which part of the "NIST's image is viewed from the RIGHT" confused you? YOU, for some reason, that you are afraid to acknowledge, deliberately drew your center line to the right of center! Post #278 and with this BATSHIT-175ft-claim that you are also afraid to explain!

Looks like you chose an almost square on image as your example and you deliberately ignored the reason(see big red writing below)! My god is there anything you can actually get right or understand? Your wings are slightly too big, do you want to know why? See if you can work it out! The engines are misaligned as well.

But as I say if you are using a square on image it's going to be close. It's climbing btw and in case you don't understand the big red writing, the climbing plane is not perspectively rendered.

Great, we have now confirmed that the plane outline is correct for a square on drawing with no perspective changed.

BTW, well done for googling the aviation term for a wing inclination, you got something right! But unfortunately you just laid yourself open to another missed consideration.

1. You CANNOT overlay a 2D image on a perspective rendered image and expect them to align!
2. In the case of the NIST diagram it needs a few things

• The perspective needs to be altered for viewing from the right of the image.
• The perspective needs to be altered for viewing below the image
• I believe the fuselage position is 5 pixels wrong on the NIST diagram (hence the tail fin misalignment) I highlighted this in post #284.
• You need to identify the dihedral adjustment for the lower wing.

3. You cannot drop a damn protractor on an image that isn't even level! You ignored where I pointed that out.
4. You cannot drop a protractor on an image that is not geometrically square! You ignored that as well.
5. Do you even know what image rectification is?

Blunder after blunder after blunder. You ignore them all and keep making the same ones!

Vertical span is slightly compressed. Right wing is longer than left wing by 20 pixels on the image I analyzed The length should stay the same, why hasnt it in the NIST drawing? What are they trying to perspect by making it so long?

You need to do what NIST did in that list above! HOW MANY MORE TIMES!

nb. https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/aerodynamics/dihedral-keeping-your-wings-level/
"Dihedral is the upward angle of an aircraft's wings, which increases lateral stability in a bank by causing the lower wing to fly at a higher angle of attack than the higher wing."

 

Good timing!

In fact, I added 12 degrees dihedran to match NISTS plane perfectly!
I tried to tell beta that it will make it shorter if I do, now I did and he is complaining the plane is too small.



He also complained that my plane was off center, but its a tracing of a boeing schematic, so NISTS is off center.

I cant think of any rational perspective that would cause boring to build one 767 with a slanted too long tail fin!

Wait except for the fraud perspective!

Oh and there is the engineering dept at boeing were all drunk when they designed the 767!

Actually boeing has some of the most sophisticate CAD software I ever seen.

 

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!

4. Post #330 shows where Kokomojojo placed his rendering of the NIST image against a Boeing 767 - now of course there are numerous perspective issues in play on it, but the width of the wings is close enough.
5. So viewers, ask yourself, how come all of a sudden his "767 plane" is no longer "wide enough"?
6. Based on his previous, hopeless efforts, do you think he may be just yanking everyone's chain or it's yet another screw-up?

Viewers, there is a very good reason why he won't answer this below. He made a colossal screw-up in comprehension then spent dozens of posts containing useless drawings as a result. I think he misread where the blog owner said he laid the plane on the building and rotated it. Who knows, batshit is hard to understand sometimes!

@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'!

 

AND AGAIN! He's done it again!

This is deliberate, he is STILL trying to render a perspective adjusted image!

YOUR plane is too short. The one that fits across a PROVEN 156ft hypotenuse is not.

I ask once again, another issue that you have ignored. What rectification have you made for impact?

YOUR plane used the bullshit 175ft that you are afraid to explain. It placed the center line on that bullshit 175ft width to the RIGHT of center on the fuselage. It did all this 2D "analysis" on an image rectified for perspective.

No, but I can think of an explanation and have posted it and referenced it!

Don't forget incompetent no-planer "analysis".

 

That is a naked response folks there is no evidence NIST added perspective, it looks like they gave it to a drunk 3 year old to draw for them and people are defending it.

PROVE IT

 

I guarantee I will do just that (again and more) IMMEDIATELY after you answer these two questions!

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'!

 

not until you start answering the stack of questions that are starting to mold on your plate.

Start with the proof there are perspective modifications and how they were accomplished.

 

you used it to prove my 156 was wrong.

 

So nist made some rectification?
Show the rectification NIST made please.