TOPIC: The Hoaxer Condition

RottenAr$e wrote:
@RottenAr$e

Regarding my analysis you have debunked F**k All.....You are a compulsive liar and disinfo merchant deliberately misinterpreting
what I have demonstrated along with your Jusual $trawmanfest and "Hoaxer Condition" Bull$hit.

@honest followers of the thread. RottenAr$e has added the following text in RED to one of my analysis frames

The devious little $hit has deliberately lied used a $trawman to confuse you. My measurements are actually taken along the FILM PLANE
onto which the image is projected which is FLAT and I explained this in great detail with my constant velocity tennis ball/wooden post example.
He makes numerous other $trawman accusations but avoids, like the plague, addressing the impossible acceleration in the last frame as the CGI plane morphs into the Tower. To make things easier to follow I'll add my analysis posts to this threat later. That's probably why he posted
his Bull$hit in a new thread which makes it difficult for people to compare his deliberately distorted Bull$hit to what I actually demonstrated.....

^ Sorry but your measurements include measuring across the face of the building, but the plane did not fly across the face of the building, hence your measurements are corrupt.

You can argue otherwise until you're blue in the face, but anyone judging my debunking of your analysis who is not a stern advocate for ''no planning'' will conclude that your measurements are clearly wrong, (unless they have a low IQ or are mentally challenged in other ways.) The reason why the measurement that you made over the face of the building is greater than the others, is because the plane did not fly across the face of the building, you are measuring a 2D image of a 3D event, thus you have lost the depth, and you simply have measured over the depth to provide a false conclusion, as if the depth = length.

It;s almost as if you did it on purpose, who are you trying to kid?

If they're honest they'll see you for the lying little $hit you are....

I've answered your point, if you don't like the answer, that's up to you, that's it.

I thought you might have been pleased that I took the time to answer you and had not ''chickened out.''

Good luck with trying to convince anyone else about ''no planning'' with your 2 dimensional measurements on a 3 dimensional perspective.

You're a good example of The Hoaxer Condition, so for that, thank you for your input.

Ausrotten wrote:
$trawman ad infinitum..........

Actually I do like your answers because each successive answer shows you up to be a Lying Disinfo Troll on steroids.
Please carry on......

Following on from my post above


https://truth-zone.net/forum/faq-and-feedback-centre/67019-request-for-research-threads-with-separate-comments-threads.html?limitstart=0#207926




IMAGE 1
SCREEN GRAB OF ACAD "FULL SCREEN" USING FASTSTONE CAPTURE SOFTWARE
Red rectangle = Frame 111, yellow = Frame 112, Green = Frame 113, Magenta = Frame 114

A few notes regarding the accuracy of the analysis. It's very accurate!
1) Autocad is incredibly accurate software. It's dimensional precision, both linear and angular, is accurate to
13 significant figures. Displayed dimensions can be "dialogue box" set to 8 decimal places. I've set them to
2 decimal places which is more than adequate to show the fakery.

2) The enormous increase in distance traveled by the CGI plane in the last frame relative to that traveled between
the previous 3 frames can not be negated by "you can't reliably track the position of the plane because
of pixel blur" arguments. Blur placement errors are insignificant compared to the massive distance traveled
"cockup" in the last frame!

3) The imported jpg frame grabs from Power Director 10 were grabbed using the Faststone Capture "full screen"
mode ensuring they are exactly the same pixel width & height.

4) In AutoCad the imported frames were then placed above each other and each successive frame was moved
a little in the +ve x direction until the vertical line of the edges of the building on the extreme right were in exact alignment.

(In BTwankerSpeak the building on the extreme right would make it Nazi Gestapo HQ^.....Sorry!...couldn't resist that!..)

I chose this building as the vertical alignment reference because the white edge/sky blur is considerably less than the
black edge/sky blur of the WTC Towers.

(In BTwankerSpeak that also makes me a white racist disinfo merchant^.....)

5) On Frame 112 I superimposed white lines over the pyramid roof of the Trump Building. It's the frame where
the junction of the CGI plane and the sloping roof edge is most clearly apparent. I then copied this, as a block, onto the other
frames using vertically aligned reference markers (white) which you can see near the bottom left of Frame #s
112, 113, and 114. This ensured the sloping roof edge is in exactly the same position relative to the Tower in each frame.

See above image




IMAGE 2
BLOW UP OF IMPACT AREA ENCLOSED BY WHITE RECTANGLE IN FRAME 111




IMAGE 3
BLOW UP OF IMPACT AREA ENCLOSED BY WHITE RECTANGLE IN FRAME 112




IMAGE 4
BLOW UP OF IMPACT AREA ENCLOSED BY WHITE RECTANGLE IN FRAME 113




IMAGE 5
BLOW UP OF IMPACT AREA ENCLOSED BY WHITE RECTANGLE IN FRAME 114

Between frames 113 & 114 the CGI plane rudder travels a distance of at least 10.88 units before it's hidden by the sloping pyramid roof edge,
That's approx. 2.5 times the distance it travels between each of the 2 previous frames. It accelerates despite the airliner having to crash through the steel framed outer wall and the 4 inch concrete floor slabs completely defying the laws of Physics!.

Impact with the steel framed facade, plate braced by the concrete floors, would cause the structure of a real airliner to compress, shred into a myriad pieces, but most importantly, it would cause it to DECELERATE in the last frame. My analysis shows conclusively this DECELERATION DID NOT OCCUR. It shows a MAJOR ACCELERATION which is impossible!
The airliner in the footage is a CGI fake. The "impact damage" was faked with demolition charges and NO PLANES hit the Towers!!! ....

Here's the explanation of the analysis method and the geometry supporting it:


IMAGE 1


IMAGE 2

The diagrams are based on the "conceptual Artist's Glass" technique I used to prove beyond a shadow of doubt the mountains are too high on the NA$A Apollo 17 photo. Thread containing the analysis is on the DIF Pit locked away in the Rant Room as per Jewsual.

IMAGE 2 (Frame Plan Drawing) shows track of ball (plane) moving at uniform velocity on a straight collision course with a wooden post (Tower).
The ball's colour changes at uniform distance/time intervals (1/30th second). I then drew dotted lines from the camera position at E to the ball at each consecutive position using "tangent snap" where the dotted lines meet the ball's circular profile. I then marked the positions of the intersections of these lines with the conceptual "film plane" line AB using crosses matching the colours of the ball and wooden post profile edges.

IMAGE 1 (Film Frame Elevation Drawing) The intersections were then projected up onto the film plane rectangle ABCD and show a geometrically accurate representation of the ball's (rudder's in the footage analysis) movement relative to the timber post (Tower).
Note the decreasing distance travelled (across the frame) by the ball in equal time intervals This is consistent with the 911 plane footage with the exception of the faker's acceleration cockup in the last frame, not to mention the 2 dupicate, 4 moving frame fakery pattern in post #8 here:

https://truth-zone.net/forum/faq-and-feedback-centre/67019-request-for-research-threads-with-separate-comments-threads.html?limitstart=0#207838


The technique is 100% mathematically valid and variations have been used to create accurate Maps (Surveying) and track moving objects (Astronomy) for centurys. Note the distance between the ball's projected position on the film plane decreases at equal time intervals
This should also apply on the 9-11 plane footage at the impact frames. It doesn't and the plane shows a massive acceleration on the last frame therefore CGI fake!

The above explanatory notes and diagrams explain the theory behind the original analysis in my previous post #56 here:

https://truth-zone.net/forum/faq-and-feedback-centre/67019-request-for-research-threads-with-separate-comments-threads.html?start=40#208082

The above explanation demonstrates the RottenAr$e Liar did NOT debunk the analysis.

Here's the Google Earth frame grab with imported US "TOPO MAP" overlay I posted to enable reader's to orientate themselves. I've indicated the approx distance to the camera position and a reasonable estimate of the camera field of view.



Yellow squares show the WTC towers,.... the two continuous thick yellow lines show camera field of view, the thin yellow line between
them bisects the angle of view at the field of view axis ...dashed yellow line shows track of fake CGI'd Boeing 767-200.

Google Scale bar at bottom left hand corner reads 3092 feet.

You're not proving anything, your measurements are on a 2D image, but the perspective is 3D, so you are including depth as part of the length, you wont see that with the blue sky background but only when the face of the building comes into play in your measurements, but on that building image you are measuring depth as length, thus your analysis is corrupt.

Your fake ''depthless measurements;

The reality;

The rest is mainly stuff based on ''estimated'' (guessed) information, that you have transferred onto your equipment, you've proved no hoaxing, in fact if anything you've proved the opposite.

What's occurring Exorcist is that you've made a good effort but in the first instance you have measured perspective depth, as length, and in the second instance you have not accounted that the camera may not only be an old style ''video camera'' also it would only need the tape to be slipping slightly and the footage is corrupt. It's most doubtful that it would have been taken on a high quality tapeless video camera in 2001.

The tape would only need to be slipping minutely to produce what you have posted about the double frames in 1/30th second sections.

Exorcist
I appreciate your effort but I'm trying not to laugh ^ you only have to be a small part off target for your entire analysis to be corrupt.

It's you who is hoaxing.

LOL I nearly missed this bit;

:Look, ^ you've even shown the plane does not go across the building face, debunking you own analysis below.

The plane decelerates, as shown here.

RottenAr$e wrote:
That's a typical example of your deliberately disruptive Disinfo Troll Bollocks. Film reels of pre digital movie cameras did not "slip". The film was guided by pairs of sprocketed wheels on either side of the film strip. The wheel sprockets engaged with the holes on the film strip edges in the same way a bike chain works. Even if slippage occured every 5th and 6th frame (which it wouldn't) the aircraft positions in the said frames (5th & 6th) would still be different relative to the buildings because @ 500 mph the plane would move a considerable distance during your Troll "film slippage" nonsense.

Repeat...your Troll post has not explain the 4 frames, 2 identical frames, 4 frames, 2 identical frames pattern which repeats continuously over 115 plus frames!!! You sink deeper and deeper into the "soft and smelly" with every post you make.

Also "slippage" shorter than the distance between the sprocket holes would result in partly exposed frames as in sections of the the Zapruder JFK assassination vid......that or a broken film tape .
Even the Zapruder film was altered and the slippage added to conceal the fact Jackie did it.
All the (5th, 6th) frames in the WTC footage I analysed are fully exposed and identical which is impossible with your so called "slippage".

Please entertain us with more of your in$hites.......

Interested readers please refer to IMAGE 1 in my post #26 to see the 4, 2, 4, 2, frame pattern.

Exorcist

It does explain it well, because as the mechanisms of the video recorder/video tape rotate, if there is a slight off exact cognition, then that error will most likely repeat consistently. A squeaky wheel always squeaks at the same point(s) in rotation.

It's like a clock that loses one minute per hour, the cogs are most likely sticking in the same place with each rotation, thus at certain points the minute hand/second hand of the clock will most likely well be at certain locations for longer periods than other locations consistently, thus if you observed it acutely with your analysis equipment you'd see the fault on the clock appearing in the same locations with each cycle of the minute hand/or second hand. You'd get dual stills at the places where the clock hands always remain for longer periods during their rotations of the clock face.

You're expecting to see a 2001 or earlier video camera have a precise rotation to the standard of observation of 1/30th of a second precision.

When more than likely it will have a reoccurring mechanical imprecision, which is exactly what one may expect to see in your analysis, rather than having the precision that you say is missing and try to use to deem the video footage as fake.

As I say, it's your analysis which is fake. You want to try and prove a point and you are trying to bend your analysis to prove it.

It's not going to work on me, or anyone else who is not mentally challenged or a stern supporter of the no plane theory.

The plane did slow down, as shown on the Youtube video that I already posted, Baker is full of shit, the plane was not made of ''aluminium'' rather toughened alloy.

What happened to the plane is exactly what would be expected.

I wish that the no planers would give it up, their narrative is ridiculous.

Put your energy into how three building fell at about free fall speed into their own footprint, you're giving tptb ammunition to state that their opposition are crack pots, is that you're agenda?

Every time the no planners get exposed they just go onto their next piece of ''evidence'' that's their MO, lie and shift, lie and shift.

It started off with ''planes can't go through steel - until it was shown the steel fra,e was only quarter inch thick nearer to the top of the structures.

Then onto ''the wing tips went through steel'' until it's shown that the wing tips only went through the aluminium cladding.

The onto ''it's against Newtonian physics, a weak object cant go through a tougher object'' - see ping pong ball video.

Then onto ''the wing goes behind a building'' - until it's shown that said building was in front of the plane.

Then onto '' debunk my analysis chicken'' - job done.

Then ''the plane did not decelerate when hitting the building - see video posted.

Now it's Ace Baker saying ''the plane is made of aluminium'' ''it does not slow down''

Strawman, after Strawman after Strawman.....
Exorcist wrote:
RottenAr$e has $pammed a YT vid (post #30) containing a gif which demonstrates F**K All....neither acceleration nor deceleration. The only way to establish this one way or the other would be to analyse the footage "frame by frame" using the theory outlined above.......still waiting......

Exactly what I thought; strawmen, strawmen, strawmen.

I wasn't the one comparing a heterogeneous plane with a homogeneous ping pong ball, that was Ze Rat. But of course he avoids answering what we really said, as that makes him show he doesn't have answers, but just turns to silly shilling strawmen of an ancient era.

Heterogeneous objects colliding with heterogeneous objects cannot show homogeneous collision behaviour.

The thermodynamically impossible fuel problem with the alleged thousands upon thousands of deaths that needed burning allegedly after those thousands of bodies were first buried and then needed to be exhumed again in continental climate winter! is also shilled again.

Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat the same lies over and over again, like a true windowlicking autist.

He might have deserved pity, if he weren't such an impossible character.

Exorcist, your ''analysis'' is mainly founded upon measuring a 3D reality on a 2D video still, you're measruing depth as length, evryone can see it except you and Gaia, another false aspect measurement from an ''estimated'' (guessed) camera position, but you have even proved your own ''analysis'' to be wrong, because this; 1)

Debunks this; 2)

On 1) your ''analysis'' shows the plane does not fly across the face of the building, on 2) you have measured the plane flying across the face of the building.

You've debunked yourself and you can't even see it


Ausrotten wrote: Ausrotten wrote:


I rest my case, the o/p premise has been shown to be correct, and Exorcists ''analysis'' is a hoax in tatters.

Debunking the 9/11 No-Planes Theory

Conspiracy Theory FAIL: The 9/11 Video Fakery No-Planes Theory (The Lies of Ace Baker)

Ace Baker taken to pieces.

debunkingnoplanes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-lies-of-ace-baker.html

(((RottenAr$e))) wrote:
Bollocks, Bollocks, and yet more Bollocks.....
Your $pam video demonstrates F**K All.