reply to post by johnlear
I cannot begin to express how overjoyed I am with your opening comments about "sweating bullets". I'm truly happier than a baby in a barrel full of
ti**ies because of it.
Originally posted by johnlear
Reply to Response To The John Lear Hologram Challenge
The Challenge: What made the 'cartoon cutouts' in the steel side of the buildings?
The response: Was Wile E. Coyote here?
I was hoping you could explain, or rather demonstrate, to me what did the damage. I guess you don't plan to do that, so I'll entertain your
conclusion that a plane could not have done it, for now.
trying to get that Boeing 767 to fit into that little crack allegedly made by a 150 ton airliner. Some of us had a good laugh over that one.
What? I thought we were all talking about 2 ton pickup trucks not being able to batter their way into the buildings? Since you don't have proof of
DEW/TNT weapons making the penetrations, do you have proof that the planes were "only" 150 tons? Hmm, you might get me on that one, how about do you
have some sort of scientific structural mathematical calculations that so much weight and perhaps the planes density couldn't penetrate
interlocking steel sections
The cartoon cutouts in the side of the World Trade Center towers were probably made by demolition experts to simulate an airplane crashing into
I'm glad to see you not talking in absolutes, even if for this one time only.
The fact is that it is totally impossible for an airplane the size of a Boeing 767 to crash into a building ‘like gliding through butter’.
I'm hoping to eventually see your proof of such an absolutist claim, but allow me to interject at this point...
They really didn't "glide thru like butter". For the most part, they battering rammed their way thru pushing the prefabbed steel assemblies in with
them. There are some spots that did 'slice', on one of the buildings:
There's an interesting difference between oru other example:
As you can see the one that was more horizontally 'leveled' (sorry if I don't speak pilot) was the one which 'sliced' towards the ends of
. The other one was more vertically positioned during the final impact. That one didn't 'slice'. This makes sense because at that
angle it would seem to require much more force as now it's trying to cut thru the structural integrity with the floor slab interconnections etc.
Where there were no floors it was able to slice much further outwards towards the wing tips.
Or you could sinply declare that our Hollywood's special effects messiah's went out of their way to work that into their plans. That is, rather than
have each plane hit the same way to make the same 'easy' effect, they intentionally tilted the 2nd one much further and then had to engineer their
imaginary explosives whatever to account for the damage you'd expect when the wings collided perpendicularly with the floors. I'd say that
observation alone make your belief even more outlandish.
Thanks for reminding everyone of some of the dimensions involved. I'm not sure what your point is but I'm sure you'll so eloquently find use for
them at some pont.
But now I'm not sure why you're tossing that defendeantsred herring wrench into the 'engine intake'? Perhaps you forgot to throw in the conclusion
paragraph that was supposed to go with that little exhibit?
Here is the first photo, the one containing the lady standing near the edge:
O, please, don't limit yourself to the images I found to post in. They were just the first images I found to convey an perspective. My main PC is
down and I'm very limited in anything I can do or access to my raw 911 data with the machine I have to work with over here.
I didn't place the plane overlay there, but there's a good chance that NIST did on that one.
The placement or the size of the engine has no relevance in my Reply.
I hope not, because if the original was right and yours was wrong then there's much higher odds that the engine was indeed almost perfectly lined up
for our Hollywood scifi thriller aftermath. But more importantly, the wings in 'my' image line perfectly up with the indents, while yours are an
The span or length of a Boeing 767 wing is approximately 156 feet. Since each column is 39 inches on center we have approximately 11.5 ft of
the left outer wing panel that did not fall to the ground or penetrate the building. We will refer to the missing outer wing panel as the Stealth Left
Outer Wing Panel (SLOWP, pronounced slo-wop).
Since no part of the left hand horizontal stabilizer was found on the ground and since it could not possibly have entered the building we will
refer to it as the Stealth Left Hand Horizontal Stabilizer (SLRHHS, pronounced slersh).
Hmm. I'm lost here. Where are all of the photos of the ground area around that side of the building... before
the collapse? I wasn't aware of
there being any proof of such a reality. It would seem, call me crazy, that we'd need something to actually indicate such a reality. Otherwise, I
know this might seem outlandish to some, it's rather self-serving and fallacious to declare that nothing was found beneath, for either
impact/building. I do however recall several reports form the live news that day talking about metal and debris raining down to beneath. Now if this
debris had anything to do with planes perhaps we'll never know, for sure
, but I'd like to see photos of the ground with analysis
demonstrating that it's the ground facing the impact holes befre we go any further with that sort of language you've expressed there, if that's not
too much to ask.
Moving on, that sure is a lot of technical talk. I'm surprised to see a man of your expertise speaking and concluding in absolutes when the photo
appears to be of a cocked angle which could seriously alter our perception of what 'was going on there'.
Even more baffling is how in one instance you refer to the plane as a hollow tube, similar to how the 911 Commission referred to the towers, but then
on the next page you say this:
If a Boeing 767 hit the WTD for real it would impact and start to compress as it hit the steel box columns on the perimeter of the building.
Could it be, and remember we're talking about extreme 'brickwall' 'god-speed' forces here, that out fabled Boeing 'straw' may have compressed
into a higher density as it battering-rammed its way thru the steel sections that were before it?
Take that larger photo for example. I'd like to call your attention to the upper right interior of the hole, and the columns sticking up beneath the
engine impact area. You say it's not possible that plane damage did that, but what or how on earth were those appendages pushed inwards like that?
[im]image source: www.whatreallyhappened.com...
We really only have a handful of shaped charge effect possibilities, unless you're holding back on some fundamental explosives secrets, to try to
explain the effect.
Those really seem ill-equipped to account for the observed bent-inwards damage. Surely you've calculated a mechanism to account for the impressions,
to go with the speculative refutation you so kindly provided us with?
And as long as we are looking at this part of the picture please notice the three lines marked as ee. They point to 3 perfectly and squarely
cut box columns. Probably cut by thermite.
So could you tell us how long it would take for the thermite to cut thru the steel in question? Also how they got it (or shaped charges) onto the
exterior of the building without anybody noticing?
And then there's the South Tower. I'm curous how many gallons of what type of fuel they used to create the fireball we seen? Also how they
'pushed' it out of the opposing side of the building? We all know that explosives usually have the tendency to explode outwards in all directions
from their central point. Shaped charge effects become more complcated, especially when trying to project a fireball.
After all that is almost certainly a fuel air bomb type explosion:
And then it's awful strange how the building was damaged to coincide with that same fireball:
I wonder how they managed to 'push' all of that heavy looking debris into the corner where that 'thermite' was pouring out, and so on? Surely
you've figured that out already and have been dying to tell us about it.
But you still haven't answered the challenge. It's easy to say x
was used, but can't you demonstrate it if so absolute? And where do these
DEW's even come into play? What purpose. You said hollywood explosives did it, then why even talk about DEW's? How were they used, or weren't they
in the holes? Then for what? First, tho, if no DEW how did explosives do the hole? And how much? Including liquid fuel? And how did they pile it all
up in there?
[edit on 29-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]