What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

reply to post by septic


Wasn't it explained before that the plane was going slower in that video? Remember the equation F=mv^2? Remember anything that has been explained to you?

I'm beginning to think you are either very dense (unlikely) or just have so much faith in your theory that you will never consider another possibility. Tell me, have you accepted Mormon Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior through the Holy Ghost and pledged to follow his gospels, including those passed down and restored through the translations of Joseph Smith?

reply to post by Varemia

Wasn't it explained before that the plane was going slower in that video? Remember the equation F=mv^2? Remember anything that has been explained to you?

Don't start talking about kinetic energy like you know what you're talking about. You haven't explained anything. You can't explain anything, and you certainly haven't proven anything, because it is impossible to prove a lie. You would like to discuss physics for the benefit of its camouflage, not as a means to prove your point. You throw up your equations as other superstitious souls might hold up a cross or garlic cloves, as talismans against a feared and unseen evil. You don't know how to apply your equation to prove your point, and you're hoping I don't call you on it. But frankly, it doesn't matter because this thread is about the direction of the damage caused to columns 145-152.

Originally posted by septic
Don't start talking about kinetic energy like you know what you're talking about. You haven't explained anything. You can't explain anything, and you certainly haven't proven anything, because it is impossible to prove a lie. You would like to discuss physics for the benefit of its camouflage, not as a means to prove your point. You throw up your equations as other superstitious souls might hold up a cross or garlic cloves, as talismans against a feared and unseen evil. You don't know how to apply your equation to prove your point, and you're hoping I don't call you on it. But frankly, it doesn't matter because this thread is about the direction of the damage caused to columns 145-152.

You have to be delusional. No one is this ignorant unless it's on purpose.

F=mv^2 has EVERYTHING to do with whether a plane could have caused the damage. You say it cannot, so I show that the energy was ridiculously high. You wave it off and then post your cartoons as if they back up your belief that aluminum cladding being knocked about is evidence of a missile going sideways into the tower, completely invisible to the entire population of New York, and that everyone who saw a plane is lying.

Honestly, you're crazy. That's what this has to be. I can't fathom someone to be in so much denial.

reply to post by septic


The only "big lie" here.....would be the one you are continuing to spew. No, I repeat, NO missile in the US inventory could cause the damage pattern seen on the Towers. Not a single witness has come forward to talk about missiles that day. Not a single conspiracy theorist has been able to explain away the images of an AIRLINER hitting the South Tower, that were taken by still cameras in the hands of reporters, photographers and tourists that were in the area that day. Not a single solitary shred of evidence exists that supports your theory about missiles being used.

Then, there is your constant whining about steel bent this way and that way....you don't have the first clue about the internal structure of an airliner wing......whose structural members COULD cause the very damage you claim is proof of a missile.

Again, the only lie here is you.

reply to post by Varemia

You have to be delusional. No one is this ignorant unless it's on purpose.

F=mv^2 has EVERYTHING to do with whether a plane could have caused the damage. You say it cannot, so I show that the energy was ridiculously high. You wave it off and then post your cartoons as if they back up your belief that aluminum cladding being knocked about is evidence of a missile going sideways into the tower, completely invisible to the entire population of New York, and that everyone who saw a plane is lying.

Honestly, you're crazy. That's what this has to be. I can't fathom someone to be in so much denial.

Use your formula to make your case that the damage to the left side of the steel columns was caused by the 35 degree swept-back wing striking from the opposite side and a different direction of movement.

If you don't use the formula you're flashing around, it can only mean you don't know how. It appears you like to include it in your sentence, like a stepping stone on your way to calling me crazy. Something tells me you're the best ATS has to offer. Pity I can't find anyone to debate this.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

The only "big lie" here.....would be the one you are continuing to spew. No, I repeat, NO missile in the US inventory could cause the damage pattern seen on the Towers. Not a single witness has come forward to talk about missiles that day. Not a single conspiracy theorist has been able to explain away the images of an AIRLINER hitting the South Tower, that were taken by still cameras in the hands of reporters, photographers and tourists that were in the area that day. Not a single solitary shred of evidence exists that supports your theory about missiles being used.

Then, there is your constant whining about steel bent this way and that way....you don't have the first clue about the internal structure of an airliner wing......whose structural members COULD cause the very damage you claim is proof of a missile.

Again, the only lie here is you.

All that blathering and still no attempt to explain how the damage to the columns could be caused by being struck from the wrong side and the wrong angle of impact, and by soft aluminum.

If you're saying the US military has no weapon that could cut the columns, and a jet wing CAN I'd have to say BS to that. Yes, a single missile caused the damage to columns 145-152. And not to mention 144.

I know, I know...you wants to talk about planes, dammit!

The damage is the evidence. Bummer for the plane huggers.

reply to post by septic


Look, I already explained how the plane could have shredded and gone in different directions due to the impact with the steel. You rejected it, so that's your fault.

Look at all the photos in this nice post on another forum. Are they all fake and all the people quoted lying?

letsrollforums.com...

reply to post by septic


Soft aluminum? LOL. You truly do not have the first clue about the subject do you.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

Look, I already explained how the plane could have shredded and gone in different directions due to the impact with the steel. You rejected it, so that's your fault.

Look at all the photos in this nice post on another forum. Are they all fake and all the people quoted lying?

letsrollforums.com...

Oh my goodness, a Phil Jayhan thread...won't Shadowherder go bonkers. And mocking the no plane theories to boot. Just so you know, Phil's changed his stance on that, and much more. No one was born a no planer. The evidence leads us there...Phil's there too. The plane "evidence" was obviously staged, but alas, the subject of another thread.

If your claim is a plane dented the columns on the wrong side, I want demonstrations...not some vague "it coulda happened". Explain it. I have given a perfectly rational explanation for the damage. It does not suit your preconceptions, I understand, but no matter how crazy it may seem to you, the evidence of the direction of the dents cannot be argued. Whatever hit them was going east. A missile fits the bill, all the way down to a gouged aluminum cladding piece from a missile wing on 152, and a hole in column 144 where the warhead detonated.

The other side appears to have been two missiles too, rather than one wing. Note the floor is still intact, meaning the machete wing it didn't penetrate there, right? Why do the models of the scientists ignore that evidence?



Furthermore, why is this subject so difficult to discuss for some?

This is a conspiracy site, is it not?

Why is this subject so tender?

There is solid evidence which clearly contradicts the "official" conspiracy right here, using their own photographs we can see the fraud. Something struck the those columns from the side opposite where a jet would have struck, and in a different direction. The implications are huge, gigantic actually, by definition the "big lie". Is it that you're afraid to admit to yourself you've been duped? Yeah, that sucks, but it's nothing like the feeling of living among people who believe impossible things.

reply to post by vipertech0596

Soft aluminum? LOL. You truly do not have the first clue about the subject do you.

Compared to the steel? Oh yes.

But come...let us pretend the aluminum skin was somehow able to withstand the force of being struck by multiple box columns of much more dense, thicker, more massive and much stiffer steel at 500 MPH.

That plane crash video shows what happens to wooden poles at much slower speeds, yet you guys are sitting there with straight faces and crooked physics telling me at greater speeds a similarly built wing would become an infinitely more deadly weapon against a wall of dozens of square steel columns, with protruding steel knives, laterally braced by spandrels and concrete floors.

You still haven't even tried to explain how the jet hit the wrong side of the columns.

reply to post by septic


So, then I am to understand that ALL the photos of plane parts and ALL the witnesses and ALL the data and ALL the models and ALL the math is wrong. Everyone's just wrong because you think the damage is to the right.

Aren't you just awesome!

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

So, then I am to understand that ALL the photos of plane parts and ALL the witnesses and ALL the data and ALL the models and ALL the math is wrong. Everyone's just wrong because you think the damage is to the right.

Aren't you just awesome!

Move along groupthinker, your pack needs another champion.

reply to post by septic


And maybe you should study the design of the wings of a 767. You might, just might, clear the fog from your brain and realize there actually were airliners that day.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

And maybe you should study the design of the wings of a 767. You might, just might, clear the fog from your brain and realize there actually were airliners that day.

And maybe you should pull your head out and show me how your super duper light-saber wing could strike from the wrong side and the wrong direction.

reply to post by septic


I'm just saying. You have to reject any form of reality in order to conform to your personal view on the matter at hand. It's illogical and unscientific, since we have so much overwhelming evidence for a plane, there shouldn't even be an argument here. Even the other Truthers on this site have abandoned this thread because it is completely ridiculous.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

I'm just saying. You have to reject any form of reality in order to conform to your personal view on the matter at hand. It's illogical and unscientific, since we have so much overwhelming evidence for a plane, there shouldn't even be an argument here. Even the other Truthers on this site have abandoned this thread because it is completely ridiculous.

Yeah, and being a groupthinker you follow the crowd. Most of the ATS "truthers" are just like you...following the crowd. No one wants to venture out on their own. Both the ATS faux truthers and the ATS OSers want to keep the topics of discussion focused on the same topics that wasted the last ten years...namely the planes.

ATS "truthers" aren't.

Are you going to explain why the crowd is so much more reliable than the evidence I've provided, or is your final answer "because everyone else does it"?

reply to post by septic


Oh, ok. So you reject the idea of a plane simply because most people believe there was a plane? What a rebel mentality. I bet your parents are annoyed by it.

But I'm just being silly.

Really, what makes all the evidence fake? You've never offered a real reason for it. I'm not "following the crowd." I've seen the evidence, and it is satisfactory enough to consider true (most of it).

Like, really. You never answer me. What makes all the evidence fake? And don't say because you think the damage was sideways. I mean an objective reason that the evidence is fake. If you don't actually have any reason to deny individual bits of evidence, and just blanket-reject it based on your beliefs, say so.

reply to post by Varemia

"It just disappeared. It disappeared like a, like a, bad special effect. Disappeared right into the building."

~Evan Fairbanks

A SMALL PLANE
1. "At that point we were still not sure that it was a plane that had hit the tower. There was some talk from the civilians coming down that a plane hit. The consensus was that it was a small plane."- Credited to: Roy Chelson

A CESSNA OR LEAR JET TYPE OR...
2. “Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Lear jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building”. - Credited to: Anthony Bartolomey

A SMALL (TRAINING) PLANE
3. “I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane….no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot a plane, a small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane…, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they worked with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!”- Credited to: Karim Arraki

A CESSNA
4. “I was on my way to work…traffic was excellent…I received a call saying a small Cessna had hit the World trade Center…I was asked to go and man the Office of Emergency Management at the World Trade Center 7 on its 23d floor…” – Credited to: Barry Jennings

LIKE A SMALLER PLANE
5. “I was waiting a table and I literally saw a, it seemed to be a small plane. I just heard a couple of noises, it looked like it like it ‘bounced’ off the building and then I heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down…it just seemed like a smaller plane, I don’t think it was anything commercial.”- Stuart Nurick, LIVE on CBS NEWS

A SMALL, SMALL JET PLANE
6. “…We saw a plane flying low overhead which caught all of our attention. We looked up. It was making a b-line for the World Trade Centre. It was very low, extremely low, not a big plane like an airliner …uh… but not a tiny propeller plane, a small, small jet plane.”- Credited to: Mary Cozza

A LIGHT COMMUTER PLANE
7. "I mean, I hate to admit this, but I'm sitting there hoping that someone has made a mistake; there has been an accident; that this isn't the hijacked airplane, because there is confusion. We were told it was a light commuter airplane." Credited to: (news report)

THOUGHT PLANE WAS MUCH SMALLER
8. "I thought it could have been an accident...I thought the plane was much smaller..."- Credited to: Sid Bedingfield

A PROP JET
9. "I was told by somebody that we had an eyewitness who happened to be an off-duty firefighter who told me that he saw the first building get hit and it was hit by a prop jet, which I think turned out to be the wrong information, but everybody sees things differently."- Credited to: Steven Mosiello

A SMALLER TYPE PLANE
10. "And we went to a high point in our building, which is on the 25th floor, and you had a clear view of both World Trade Centers and the one that was smoking hard, and there was another plane that was flying low, and we just looked at it, and before we know it, it was just kamikaze, boom, right into the other tower... but it didn't seem like a big passenger jet. It was a smaller type plane, because it made some pretty radical turn, and flying low..." - Credited to: Mr. Tractsonburg

A SMALL JET
11. “We’re walking the dogs and we saw a plane flying really low, a jet, a small jet, and it flew directly into the World Trade Center..”- Credited to: (news report)

SMALL CARGO MILITARY
12. I got out of the car, and I told Larry I saw an FBI agent and I was going to start talking to him. I gave him my card, and he gave me a card. I said I thought that that second plane that went into the south tower was a military plane, like a transport or small cargo military. - Credited to: Battalion Chief Brian O’Flaherty

A BOMB....A MISSILE
13. "Hey Grandpa, I'll tell you what woke me up. They bombed the World Trade Centre. I'm looking at it and Mi-Kyung's video taping it. Terrible. I heard, Grandpa, I saw it. It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb...a missile...er...this could be world war three."- Credited to: Mi Kyung Heller

LIKE A MISSILE
14. “…I can only describe as, it sounded like a missile, not an airplane….it was definitely not the sound of a prop plane or anything like that….I grew up on military bases and I know the sound of jets and I’ve been in war zones and heard those kinds of different sounds….the sound itself was not of a prop plane , it was perhaps a jet, but it could have been a missile as well….it was high pitched, but it had a…er…a…whooshing sound, not, not like a prop plane…”- Don Dahler, LIVE on ABC TV

Source

reply to post by Varemia

A ROCKET
15. “It was a big fireball or something from the plane I guess, came from across the street in front of our rig, and as we get out of the rig, there's a cop, city police officer, in the street. He's telling us, "I'm getting out of here. I just saw a rocket." He said he saw it come off the Woolworth Building and hit the tower”. - Credited to: Peter Fallucca

SOMETHING - PLANE OR MISSILE
16. “At that point I assumed you can't have two -- it can't be an accident to have two planes. So, I don't know if there's planes or missiles or what but something was hitting this thing. You saw debris was falling down.“ - Credited to: Brian Dixon

NOT A BIG PLANE
17. ”I was saying to him, "That plane is closer to us. It's really not a big plane going towards the building." Two seconds later it rammed into the building. "- Credited to: James Murphy

THOUGHT THEY SAW A MISSILE
18. " Some people thought they saw a missile, now I don't know how they could differentiate, but we might leave open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings ..." Dick Oliver, LIVE on FOX News

LIKE THE SIZE OF A GOLF BALL
19. “I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fireball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions.” - Credited to: Patricia Ondrovic

Source

reply to post by Varemia

Oh, ok. So you reject the idea of a plane simply because most people believe there was a plane? What a rebel mentality. I bet your parents are annoyed by it.

Your logic gives me chills.

But I'm just being silly.

While you follow the crowd.

Really, what makes all the evidence fake? You've never offered a real reason for it. I'm not "following the crowd." I've seen the evidence, and it is satisfactory enough to consider true (most of it).

"All" the evidence? Hell, most of the evidence is forbidden on ATS. Do tell, what unapproved OS evidence have you exposed yourself to? All of it? Don't make me laugh.

Like, really. You never answer me. What makes all the evidence fake? And don't say because you think the damage was sideways. I mean an objective reason that the evidence is fake. If you don't actually have any reason to deny individual bits of evidence, and just blanket-reject it based on your beliefs, say so.

Like really, you've spent the whole thread trying to discuss anything but the topic.

The premise is simple, the damage PROVES the direction of the projectile that caused it. The evidence is there, it is you who are not being objective.