What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

reply to post by septic

Another poster was claiming the missile wings wouldn't damage the cladding and I was disagreeing

If you are referring to moi, I did not say the missile wings wouldnt damage the cladding, I said the missile wings would not have caused near the amount of damage you claim they did. If you arent referring to me...OOPS.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

Another poster was claiming the missile wings wouldn't damage the cladding and I was disagreeing

If you are referring to moi, I did not say the missile wings wouldnt damage the cladding, I said the missile wings would not have caused near the amount of damage you claim they did. If you arent referring to me...OOPS.

I guess it was you, you all look alike.

I figured they'd score and pinch the cladding like the picture shows. I figured it was the penetrator payload that dented the sides and twisted the columns.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

You do know that those are aluminum casings, right? Many of them fell off as a result of the impact. I saw a video of the construction of the building, and the construction workers were able to slide those on by hand.

Yes, I well aware of the aluminum cladding; it has been mentioned throughout the thread.

The cladding was sliced by something thinner than a jet wing, and the columns were bent by something going left to right.

reply to post by septic


A missile's wing will not be stronger than a plane's. Designers try to remove as much weight as possible to allow for higher velocities. An airliner's wing, though, is designed to withstand a lot of stress and wind. What in the world makes you think a missile is more viable when missiles are made of almost the same thing as airplanes?

reply to post by septic


You keep posting these photos as though they constitute some sort of proof. They don't. Indeed in the one you showed in answer to me above I can't see anything in it which suggests that it couldn't be caused by a plane.

The only thing you seem to have is your own desperate need to be comforted by your thoughts of conspiracy. It's not compelling at all.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

A missile's wing will not be stronger than a plane's. Designers try to remove as much weight as possible to allow for higher velocities. An airliner's wing, though, is designed to withstand a lot of stress and wind. What in the world makes you think a missile is more viable when missiles are made of almost the same thing as airplanes?

This is a fair and logical explanation based in truth. Which is exactly the reason why septic won't pay it any attention. It doesn't compute with his wild fantasy. So why are we all bothering with this back and forth with him I wonder?

I wonder too if septic realizes that he's been arguing for a plane this entire time.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

A missile's wing will not be stronger than a plane's. Designers try to remove as much weight as possible to allow for higher velocities. An airliner's wing, though, is designed to withstand a lot of stress and wind. What in the world makes you think a missile is more viable when missiles are made of almost the same thing as airplanes?

Just to show how dishonest you are, note what you're responding to. I said the cladding was sliced by something thinner than a jet wing:

Yes, I well aware of the aluminum cladding; it has been mentioned throughout the thread.

The cladding was sliced by something thinner than a jet wing, and the columns were bent by something going left to right.

I write "thinner" and you read "stronger".

A missile's wing will not be stronger than a plane's.

When someone is as dishonest as you are, their goal of disruption becomes apparent.

The evidence shows the columns were bent in a left to right motion, (by the 1000 lb penetrating payload), while the cladding was sliced by the missile wing. The damage to the columns supports a left-to-right motion of something heavy striking the columns from the left, while the damage to the cladding indicates being gouged by something thinner than a jet wing.

None of the evidence supports being struck by a jet wing from the opposite side.

What in the world makes you think a missile is more viable when missiles are made of almost the same thing as airplanes?

What in the world makes you think a jet's wings are more powerful than a missile, not to mention steel box columns? What in the world makes you completely ignore the evidence?

This is why missiles were used:


Source

This is why jets were not:


Source

This is the evidence of the impact of a missile:

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by septic

 

You keep posting these photos as though they constitute some sort of proof. They don't. Indeed in the one you showed in answer to me above I can't see anything in it which suggests that it couldn't be caused by a plane.

The only thing you seem to have is your own desperate need to be comforted by your thoughts of conspiracy. It's not compelling at all.

Care to comment on the evidence that indicates the direction of travel of the projectile that caused it?

reply to post by PhotonEffect

This is a fair and logical explanation based in truth. Which is exactly the reason why septic won't pay it any attention. It doesn't compute with his wild fantasy. So why are we all bothering with this back and forth with him I wonder?

I wonder too if septic realizes that he's been arguing for a plane this entire time.

The level of dishonesty would be astonishing if I wasn't aware you've been lying to yourself for well over a decade. If you'd lie to yourself so easily, lying to others would be effortless.

Left to right, exactly the opposite of a cartoon jet's "super-wing".

To get this thread back on track, what caused the damage to the left side of the gash? The evidence indicates a left-right motion:

reply to post by septic


Just so you know, drawing pictures does not strengthen your argument. What is your response to the idea that the plane debris deflected the steel and was not able to perfectly break it?

Originally posted by septic

Care to comment on the evidence that indicates the direction of travel of the projectile that caused it?

Couldn't you find a blurrier more degraded picture ?

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Couldn't you find a blurrier more degraded picture ?

If you can find better images, don't let me stop you from posting them. The reason the only available images and videos of 911 are such crap is precisely because they are more difficult to scrutinize.

For the number of professional photographers at work on 911, it certainly is curious that there are no really tight closeups of the damage and the interior. We get better images on our first generation cell phones.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by septic

 

You keep posting these photos as though they constitute some sort of proof. They don't. Indeed in the one you showed in answer to me above I can't see anything in it which suggests that it couldn't be caused by a plane.

The only thing you seem to have is your own desperate need to be comforted by your thoughts of conspiracy. It's not compelling at all.

They certainly are compelling, so compelling you'd rather discuss something else. Note how the damage indicates the direction of travel of the projectiles:

Originally posted by septic
They certainly are compelling, so compelling you'd rather discuss something else. Note how the damage indicates the direction of travel of the projectile:

Now see, how do you extrapolate that conclusion? It makes no sense, especially since the damage really isn't directional. It looks like something hit the wall, and hit it hard.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

Just so you know, drawing pictures does not strengthen your argument. What is your response to the idea that the plane debris deflected the steel and was not able to perfectly break it?

Note the direction of the jet...remember all that velocity which empowers the jet cut through steel like a Light Saber from Star Wars? You can't have it both ways. You can't have your super light saber wings slicing steel and changing direction at the same time.



The dents indicate a different direction of travel, and not to mention a smaller projectile. Remember, that steel is only 1/4 inch thick. Use it as a measure to judge the rest of the damage, particularly column 152.



These alleged scientists spent a lot of money and time drawing pictures to convince us what we saw was possible, something they wouldn't do if they didn't think it would strengthen their argument. Unfortunately for them, it only proves scientists lie. How do they deal with this evidence? Why, they ignore it.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

The level of dishonesty would be astonishing if I wasn't aware you've been lying to yourself for well over a decade. If you'd lie to yourself so easily, lying to others would be effortless.

Left to right, exactly the opposite of a cartoon jet's "super-wing".

To get this thread back on track, what caused the damage to the left side of the gash? The evidence indicates a left-right motion:

[snip spam]

It was the airplane wing that caused that damage for the up-teenth time. Don't you think if a small winglet on a jassm thats made of light weight material could break through those columns, then so can a much more massive wing from a 767? Can't you see contradiction in what you're saying here?

Look septic- face it, you're theory is pure bunk. I'm sorry to break it you but it's about as bunk as it gets and no one is buying it. Even folks in your own camp think its bunk. Basically everyone except you and perhaps Yankee451, whose stuff you keep spamming and regurgitating here, thinks it's pure bunk.

This whole thread of yours has become an exercise in futility since it was a plane. I know it for a fact. And no amount of you calling me a liar and a fraud is going to change that I saw the plane live and in person that day. I'm the kryptonite to your piss-ant no plane theory.

But alas- T'is the end my friend- I'm sorry to have wasted your time (and mine) engaging with you here. You don't seem at all interested in finding the truth as you say and I believe your only agenda is to find attention. Why else would you continue to promote such a bizarre theory in the face of all the evidence that proves it was planes... It's kind of odd.

Oh well.

Before I'm done with this thread once and for all, I have to ask you- were you the actual pioneer of this no plane mumbo jumbo or are you just that gullible?

reply to post by Varemia

Now see, how do you extrapolate that conclusion? It makes no sense, especially since the damage really isn't directional. It looks like something hit the wall, and hit it hard.

Now see, you're just being dishonest. 145 through 148 are dented on the left sides and bent to the right. The jet's super duper "light-machete" wing would have struck from the right side first, so clearly, it is you who make no sense. The only way your argument makes sense is if you are being disingenuous.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

It was the airplane wing that caused that damage for the up-teenth time. Don't you think if a small winglet on a jassm thats made of light weight material could break through those columns, then so can a much more massive wing from a 767? Can't you see contradiction in what you're saying here?

You're reading-challenged, aren't you?

I have repeatedly stated the missile wings would only have sliced the cladding. If you inspect column 152, you'll see how something small smacked it and gave it a wedgie. The wing would certainly have been snapped off where it connected with the column's edges, right? That leaves the missile's 1000 lb payload (in "penetrator mode") to do it's thing before detonating in front of column 144.

Look septic- face it, you're theory is pure bunk. I'm sorry to break it you but it's about as bunk as it gets and no one is buying it. Even folks in your own camp think its bunk. Basically everyone except you and perhaps Yankee451, whose stuff you keep spamming and regurgitating here, thinks it's pure bunk.

I don't care how unpalatable it is to your tender sensibilities, or how unpopular the concept is to leave no stone unturned in the quest for truth, the facts are the facts. If you have a better explanation for what this evidence proves, I'm all ears.

I'm not spamming anyone's stuff. Everyone on this site posts the work of other people, and Yankee was no exception. If this damage does not clearly show damage on the wrong side of the columns to have been caused by the plane's impact, you have the floor, Chief.

This whole thread of yours has become an exercise in futility since it was a plane. I know it for a fact. And no amount of you calling me a liar and a fraud is going to change that I saw the plane live and in person that day. I'm the kryptonite to your piss-ant no plane theory.

No need to call you a liar, this is true, the evidence does that by default. You didn't see squat.

But alas- T'is the end my friend- I'm sorry to have wasted your time (and mine) engaging with you here. You don't seem at all interested in finding the truth as you say and I believe your only agenda is to find attention. Why else would you continue to promote such a bizarre theory in the face of all the evidence that proves it was planes... It's kind of odd.

Oh well.

Before I'm done with this thread once and for all, I have to ask you- were you the actual pioneer of this no plane mumbo jumbo or are you just that gullible?

Don't let the door hit you on your way out. And I'm not your friend.

reply to post by septic


Yeah sure. That photograph doesn't suggest anything like a "left to right" trajectory. Unless you really, really want it to. So much so that you are willing to believe that millions of people are lying to you.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by septic

 

Yeah sure. That photograph doesn't suggest anything like a "left to right" trajectory. Unless you really, really want it to. So much so that you are willing to believe that millions of people are lying to you.

What a crock. Millions of people now? You know millions of people who saw a plane, regardless of the impossibility? You must believe these things because you "really, really" want to.

Face it, you plane-huggers are desperate to keep folks from examining the evidence, but the TV doesn't trump reality.