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

and then you need to define what "the plane" is.
The problem is that people who were on the ground looking at the building neither saw a plane nor heard a plane, just an explosion. We now have a direct contradiction.

I also posted the psychology study of how people change their minds to go along with the TV, and invent a story because someone said it on TV.

Sounds assinine but thats how dumb some people really are.

Allan Funct demonstrated this in the milman elevator experiment, and it works!

 

I can't use the word to describe this evasion, people know what it is.

Microsoft Word - SalterNovAdded.doc (journalof911studies.com)
The WTC1 Hole
None of the arguments against a 767 can adequately explain how a hole in the building was created that fits a 767 perfectly, including widening of the hole where the engines were located. Here is a 767-200 diagram (with the wings tilted upwards 3 degrees to simulate flexing due to aerodynamic lift (aeronautic Journal of 9/11 Studies 5 October 2006/Volume 4 experts will have to determine the exact amount of flexing), sized to 75% of the width of the WTC and rotated to fit over the hole in WTC1:



The diagram from the NIST report shows the same alignment:

No other plane fits the hole as precisely as a 767, down to the narrow grooves created by the wings on either side of the impact hole, especially visible on the right. Attempts at overlaying diagrams by no-plane advocates, such as Stefan Grossmann and the German Engineers, are flawed, using inaccurate diagrams of 767s, aligning those diagrams incorrectly and/or using photographs from angles that appear to show debris where the engine holes should be.

 

The irony. I've detailed over one hundred first responders who are not looking at their damn TV! Your arm waving is pathetic.

 

Sorry, maybe you didnt get the memo, stating facts is not arm waving.

there was over 100 people who saw no plane too.

 

But you just said that we cant expect a road runner outline, what gives? Hilarious!

 

What part of the wing?

 

This is just such an ignorant statement. The hole FITS the 767, it isn't the Road Runner type outline. What gives? Again, I am forbidden to say, but the viewers know.

 

I can move that plane anywhere on the building along the alleged impact angle of the wings and regarless where I put it there would have HAD TO BE TAIL FIN DAMAGE!

There is none!

Waiting!

/planers

 

And the furious attempts to roll the response off the page begin!

YOU put the plane in the wrong place. YOU made no allowance for perspective. YOU made no allowance for potential deformation.

YOU LOSE.

 

Whatever makes you happy. I actually know people who saw it with their own eyes, and thousands of people did as well, because everyone was looking at the fist tower burn when the 2nd plane came in.

 

No response given.

 

Did you move it to where NIST showed it hitting?

It's posted above, so how can you be "waiting"?


You put it in the wrong place and made no allowance for perspective or deformation. Kinda piss-poor effort.

 

Then put the ****ing plane in the right place!
Prove it or ****ing CONCEDE!

 

Do you know how many times I heard that story?
Then when these people are professionally 'deposed' (not just taken as an unvalidated statement) none of them turned out to be true!

 

Beta I want to know how the fuselage, you nonengineer types would call it a tube, and all those people and all that luggage in the racks failed to break the columns in the yellow box if it in fact was a REAL plane!

 

1. You want to know how something occurred when you put your plane in the wrong place? Put it in the right place and allow for aero-dynamic flexing.
2. I have been calling "the tube" a fuselage.
3. Don't you dare patronize me suggesting YOU are a frickin' engineer.
4. Post #212 above or do you need eye-glasses?

 

For everyone watching, this person has spent pages going on about his stunningly accurate rendering of the plane. But neither of the big engine holes in the building align with any of his inept crappy CAD work. However, luckily NIST have already done this, allowed for perspective, dynamic flexing, possible deformation and it fits the picture perfectly.

Now what is the comedy response, "yeah but it's photoshopped". MEH!


/thread

 

Thats some world class investigation folks!
Some people cant see the forest because the trees are in the way!
767s fuselage are NOT ROUND, FAKED PICTURE for the unobservant believers



Another dumb assed claim bites the dust.

AND of course that invalidates the NIST drawing!

/planers

 

What the **** is that? More garbage theories you have no explanation right?
Everyone can see you jumping from subject to subject making claim after claim with no rational explanation for any of it!

PUT UP A DRAWING WITH THE PLANE IN THE RIGHT ****ING PLACE and yes I will check it dimensionally to make sure you dont cheat like NIST and most other corp guv agencies have cheated.




/planers

 

Probably lot. The terror attack of 9-11 was a significant event.

Pure nonsense. Why do you allow yourself to be played like that?

 

I was involved in several depositions. Anyone can say anything when they arent deposed. I dont buy wooden nickels however.

 

and for those who are not keeping up here, by faking the fuselage as a circle instead of an oval shape they were able to drop the fuselage below the undamaged columns and lower the tail so it is low enough in combination with super low resolution diagrams to 'appear' as if the tail did not extend for 14.5 feet above the damage zone.

Not only that the nist drawing shows the same columns as my original undamaged, contrary to betas photoshopped pic where they are photoshopped to appear bent inward.

I drew the fuselage as an oval, Like I said I traced an actual picture of a 767 than scaled it properly, then scaled it again to the building!

Beta likes to post the first rendering where I used a solid filled in center, and when I realized it was covering up undamaged columns I revised it to a thin line circle so everyone could see that.

I also provide all the plane dimensions on the original drawings. these are blowups to demonstrate the fraud has taken place.




Planers sucker for it every time!

/planers

 

Haha, look at this bloviating crap. The NIST report puts the frickin' engines in the right place, allows for perspective, dynamic flexing etc.

This guy puts his drawing in the wrong place. FAIL. Makes no allowance for perspective. FAIL. Ignores witnesses. FAIL. Ignores "ace-baker-batshit" rebuttal. FAIL. Ignores the plane damage and body parts found. FAIL.

Nope. They see you getting a routine ass-kicking and making one of the most insane claims in history, fractionally behind flat-earth.

You blind?

This folks is where one team of investigators take a very gentle oval and apply it to an image taken from below. In the other ridiculous inept argument about plane approach angles, we saw clearly demonstrated, a complete failure to understand perspective.

We're seeing complete failure here. Here's a quick demonstration.

 

Planers make so many nonsense claims, so easy to prove wrong.
But then I suppose this is a game to them about throwing enough **** at the wall and praying something will stick.

My drawing stands as accurate, Betas is proven photoshopped fraud.

/planers