What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

reply to post by septic


Look, I can draw pictures and make assertions too.

It's clear that the plane hit the wall and damaged the steel, knocking off a bunch of the aluminum cladding in the process:



How do you explain the other half of the damage too? I notice you never mention it.

reply to post by Varemia

Look, I can draw pictures and make assertions too.

It's clear that the plane hit the wall and damaged the steel, knocking off a bunch of the aluminum cladding in the process:

See, all the cool kids are doing it. But your picture ignored the way the cartoon jet wing would have impacted the columns from the opposite side, not to mention you ignored the dents on the west sides of columns 145-148 and the way they bend to the east.

How do you explain the other half of the damage too? I notice you never mention it.

The thread is specifically about 145-152, but its mentioned here

Originally posted by septic
See, all the cool kids are doing it. But your picture ignored the way the cartoon jet wing would have impacted the columns from the opposite side, not to mention you ignored the dents on the west sides of columns 145-148 and the way they bend to the east.

You know, when metal gets impacted hard enough to be severed, it usually doesn't look the same. Ever seen a car crash before?

The thread is specifically about 145-152

Ah, apologies. Here's one of the better photos I found, cropped and labeled for convenience:

reply to post by Varemia


That's your explanation then?

You know, when metal gets impacted hard enough to be severed, it usually doesn't look the same. Ever seen a car crash before?

Yes, yes very compelling explanation. It should be obvious you're not willing to consider any evidence that contradicts a plane. The investigation starts with the assumption the video is real and jet wings can do impossible things, and anything that disagrees with that is tossed aside.

Ah, apologies. Here's one of the better photos I found, cropped and labeled for convenience:

The NIST version seems clearer to me.

reply to post by septic


What evidence? All I have is your conjecture and assertions.

Also, you are a hypocrite, considering that you toss out all evidence that contradicts you. I rest my case.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

What evidence?

The dents on the left sides of the columns, proving the direction of travel of whatever hit there.

All I have is your conjecture and assertions.

No, you've got a whole thread of photographic evidence from various perspectives which proves the path of the projectile, and consequently disproves the impact of a plane.

Also, you are a hypocrite, considering that you toss out all evidence that contradicts you. I rest my case.

Snort, you haven't made a case other than to say stuff like "anything can happen when light saber wings move real fast".

The damage is the evidence.

Originally posted by septic
The dents on the left sides of the columns, proving the direction of travel of whatever hit there.

That does not prove the direction of impact. In fact, an object coming in at an angle like that would have cut the aluminum casings at an angle, not sliced off the whole section and dented it. It looks like one of the panels is folded down on itself as well. How do you explain that with a missile?

Also, what magical material is this missile made of that makes you believe it is able to cut while you assert that a plane cannot?

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by septic
The dents on the left sides of the columns, proving the direction of travel of whatever hit there.

That does not prove the direction of impact. In fact, an object coming in at an angle like that would have cut the aluminum casings at an angle, not sliced off the whole section and dented it. It looks like one of the panels is folded down on itself as well. How do you explain that with a missile?

Also, what magical material is this missile made of that makes you believe it is able to cut while you assert that a plane cannot?

If left side of column dents, and twisting, pulling and bending of the columns to the right does not indicate a left-to-right impact to you, do tell us how it can be better explained by striking it from the opposite side.

The "magical material" of the missile is specifically used against targets like buildings. The mass of the payload focused on a small impact point damaged the columns before detonating in front of column 144. THAT is how it can do more damage than a flimsy aluminum wing, which would spread it's impact over a much wider area. For the same reason a bullet works, a missile works, and the evidence is plain to see for those with honest eyes.

Originally posted by septic
If left side of column dents, and twisting, pulling and bending of the columns to the right does not indicate a left-to-right impact to you, do tell us how it can be better explained by striking it from the opposite side.

The "magical material" of the missile is specifically used against targets like buildings. The mass of the payload focused on a small impact point damaged the columns before detonating in front of column 144. THAT is how it can do more damage than a flimsy aluminum wing, which would spread it's impact over a much wider area. For the same reason a bullet works, a missile works, and the evidence is plain to see for those with honest eyes.

This may interest you:
www.missilethreat.com...

The lightness of missile bodies has led some engineers to refer to them as flying condoms. Hence missiles are highly vulnerable. Any kind of physical hit (kinetic energy), or a relatively low amount of radiant energy, causes missiles to self destruct catastrophically.

The military is even looking for researchers who can solve the problem of missile weakness:
www.sbir.gov...

So... you're wrong. Admit it.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by septic
If left side of column dents, and twisting, pulling and bending of the columns to the right does not indicate a left-to-right impact to you, do tell us how it can be better explained by striking it from the opposite side.

The "magical material" of the missile is specifically used against targets like buildings. The mass of the payload focused on a small impact point damaged the columns before detonating in front of column 144. THAT is how it can do more damage than a flimsy aluminum wing, which would spread it's impact over a much wider area. For the same reason a bullet works, a missile works, and the evidence is plain to see for those with honest eyes.

This may interest you:
www.missilethreat.com...

The lightness of missile bodies has led some engineers to refer to them as flying condoms. Hence missiles are highly vulnerable. Any kind of physical hit (kinetic energy), or a relatively low amount of radiant energy, causes missiles to self destruct catastrophically.

The military is even looking for researchers who can solve the problem of missile weakness:
www.sbir.gov...

So... you're wrong. Admit it.

You can't be serious. Golly, do ya think they might be talking about the missile fuselage and body rather than the penetrating warhead payload? What, did you think the missiles were reliant on their aerodynamic bodies to penetrate their targets? They're pretty much just bunker buster bombs with a candy shell! The payload is what bent the columns, not the body.

Why do YOU think bunker busting missiles even exist if all you'd need is a lightweight aluminum wing?

The JASSM is a conventionally armed, low observable cruise missile designed to destroy the enemy's high-value targets from aircraft that can be launched from outside the area defenses. The missile has automatic target recognition, autonomous guidance, precision accuracy, and a J-1000 warhead optimized for penetration and carrying a new high-yield explosive. These characteristics give JASSM capabilities against heavily defended hard targets such as aircraft shelters and underground command posts, as well as soft targets such as rail yards.

Source

The warhead can be detonated as a long rod penetrator, an aerostable slug, or as fragments based on the hardness of the target.

Source

reply to post by septic


Alright so if you're so certain that a bunker-buster was used at an angle to simulate a plane impact, do you have any objective evidence? Any witnesses? Any video? Any documents about any being fired? Any remains of the missile? Anything?

I'm all open to these ideas, but come on. You gotta give me something. Right now it's just your personal biased opinion, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

reply to post by Varemia

Alright so if you're so certain that a bunker-buster was used at an angle to simulate a plane impact, do you have any objective evidence? Any witnesses? Any video? Any documents about any being fired? Any remains of the missile? Anything?

I'm all open to these ideas, but come on. You gotta give me something. Right now it's just your personal biased opinion, and it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

HAHAHAHAHA...

Man you are so full of it. I'm not sure of anything except the direction of the damage; there lies your objective evidence by the way. Since a jet can't possibly account for it, then WHAT COULD? A missile? Hmmm...could a missile do that damage?

"Witnesses" you say? "Video"? Dang man, do you think the government, media and military that were faking a terrorist attack that would enable them to reach the culmination of their multi-decade plan to invade the world would allow any witnesses?

"Any documents about any being fired"? Shoot, let's ask the navy!

You're a real piece of work.

reply to post by septic


In your OPINION, that's the direction of damage. You could be entirely wrong. If the plane began shredding as it passed through the building, and the direction changed, being deflected by the steel through the windows, it could have bent the parts that way.

reply to post by Varemia

In your OPINION, that's the direction of damage. You could be entirely wrong. If the plane began shredding as it passed through the building, and the direction changed, being deflected by the steel through the windows, it could have bent the parts that way.

Please. Any kid who has ever run parallel to a picket fence hitting it with a stick knows the damage is consistent with a left-right motion. This is impossible for your jet's wings striking in a wedge motion from the opposite side, even if they could cut the steel, a feat still unproven by MIT.

Your "it could have bent the parts that way" sounds pretty pathetic...any kid can see that too.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

In your OPINION, that's the direction of damage. You could be entirely wrong. If the plane began shredding as it passed through the building, and the direction changed, being deflected by the steel through the windows, it could have bent the parts that way.

Please. Any kid who has ever run parallel to a picket fence hitting it with a stick knows the damage is consistent with a left-right motion. This is impossible for your jet's wings striking in a wedge motion from the opposite side, even if they could cut the steel, a feat still unproven by MIT.

Your "it could have bent the parts that way" sounds pretty pathetic...any kid can see that too.

It has not been proven not to happen either. I've yet to see any objective tests run.

It COULD bend that way though. This thing was going very fast, and you've yet to find any objective evidence. This whole thread rides on your opinion, and at this point, it's not worth very much.

Tell me. What would happen if parts of the airplane got caught on the steel, and other parts of the plane pulled it through. Could it possibly bend parts of the steel in other directions than straight?

reply to post by Varemia

It has not been proven not to happen either.

I'll just let that sentence sink in.

I've yet to see any objective tests run.

This looks fairly objective:

It COULD bend that way though. This thing was going very fast, and you've yet to find any objective evidence. This whole thread rides on your opinion, and at this point, it's not worth very much.

It COULD bend that way if it was struck in a different direction. This entire thread has been the simplest proof there is of NO PLANES in the WTC. Its a simple premise...left to right path equals no plane. If you can prove otherwise, please do. Hint, proof does not include your opinion on the worth of this evidence.

Tell me. What would happen if parts of the airplane got caught on the steel, and other parts of the plane pulled it through. Could it possibly bend parts of the steel in other directions than straight?

Tell me, what would happen if monkeys flew out of the president's butt?

reply to post by septic


So now, according to you, all of lower Manhatten was closed off that day. None of the thousands of people that work/live there, were in the area to be possible witnesses to your missile attack. I see......

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

So now, according to you, all of lower Manhatten was closed off that day. None of the thousands of people that work/live there, were in the area to be possible witnesses to your missile attack. I see......

Is that it?

Is this some macro you guys have ready to post or something?

If the damage proves a plane impossible, then the story about the "thousands of witnesses" cannot be true, can it?

reply to post by septic


And there you go folks...he confirms it. The big, bad conspiracy closed off lower Manhatten that day. None of the workers that worked in the area (with the exception of the ones on the Towers) were allowed to go to work that day. No tourists, the hotels in the area were empty, no taxi drivers, no nothing......

That's the only way your goofy theory works.

You really should try to latch on to another theory. All these pages and you have yet to offer ANY evidence to back you up. All you have is your opinion, which has only proven you have no knowledge of airliner or missile construction.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

And there you go folks...he confirms it. The big, bad conspiracy closed off lower Manhatten that day. None of the workers that worked in the area (with the exception of the ones on the Towers) were allowed to go to work that day. No tourists, the hotels in the area were empty, no taxi drivers, no nothing......

That's the only way your goofy theory works.

You really should try to latch on to another theory. All these pages and you have yet to offer ANY evidence to back you up. All you have is your opinion, which has only proven you have no knowledge of airliner or missile construction.

Boy, the propagandists sure have human behavior down. The big lie, baby. How does it feel to suck it up like that?