What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

reply to post by septic


So what's the answer? How do you distinguish between the effects of the impact and the effects of the explosion.

Sorry, saying that the explosion had no effect is not an answer, its just denial.

Try again.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine

 

So, for the readers' sakes lets recap:

1 - directional damage to both towers indicates a physical impact in a left-to-right pattern.
2 - the directional damage is impossible to have been caused by a round-edged aluminum wing tip traveling in a different direction.
3 - every attempt to prove a lightweight jet wing could account for the damage has failed.
4 - witnesses reported bombs and missiles and small planes at first, but that story changed when the TV broadcast jets.
5 - every image containing a jet has been proven to be fraudulent.

1.- Damage is consistent in size and shape with 767 aircraft striking the towers.
2.- The dynamics of such a collision have not been explored in detail and there is no evidence that the damage was caused by anything other than the aircraft.
3.- There is no need to analyze the damage to prove that the wing of a commercial jet liner could account for it as witnesses and photo evidence show that it was caused by the aircraft.
4. Witnesses reported what they thought happened. Some reported bombs and planes. Physical and video evidence shows that the damage was caused by aircraft.
5. The statement "every image containing a jet has been proven to be fraudulent" is not true.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine

 

So, for the readers' sakes lets recap:

1 - directional damage to both towers indicates a physical impact in a left-to-right pattern.

2 - the directional damage is impossible to have been caused by a round-edged aluminum wing tip traveling in a different direction.
3 - every attempt to prove a lightweight jet wing could account for the damage has failed.
4 - witnesses reported bombs and missiles and small planes at first, but that story changed when the TV broadcast jets.
5 - every image containing a jet has been proven to be fraudulent.

1.- Damage is consistent in size and shape with 767 aircraft striking the towers.
2.- The dynamics of such a collision have not been explored in detail and there is no evidence that the damage was caused by anything other than the aircraft.
3.- There is no need to analyze the damage to prove that the wing of a commercial jet liner could account for it as witnesses and photo evidence show that it was caused by the aircraft.
4. Witnesses reported what they thought happened. Some reported bombs and planes. Physical and video evidence shows that the damage was caused by aircraft.
5. The statement "every image containing a jet has been proven to be fraudulent" is not true.

edit on 12/9/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)

1 - It certainly is not. Do you even know the size and shape of the wing tip?
2 - It can be examined by all right on this thread. Are you waiting for some expert to tell you what to think?
3 - most witnesses saw anything but a large jet, and all the images that include a jet have been proven fraudulent
4 - physical evidence shows the columns were severed, which is impossible for round edged jet wings to accomplish due to their light weight, wide distribution of mass, and the shape of the steel columns. The left sides of both gashes show an "inward" trajectory, completely inconsistent with a jet wing striking from a different direction.





5 - I repeat, every image containing a jet has been proven fraudulent. If I am mistaken, please provide an example.

reply to post by septic


Start by proving your premise that "every image containing a jet has been proven fraudulent." You seem to think that just stating that they are frauduent will suffice. Show the detailed photo analyses that they are fraudulent.

reply to post by pteridine

Start by proving your premise that "every image containing a jet has been proven fraudulent." You seem to think that just stating that they are frauduent will suffice. Show the detailed photo analyses that they are fraudulent.

Yeah, hey, maybe I should start a thread about video fakery!

Since you've been so kind, I'll gladly look over any image or video you would like.

reply to post by septic


The problem here is that you are acting as if the wings are solid, hollow pieces impacting the steel. You are entirely ignoring the internal structure of the wings, which would completely change the impact mechanics.

Also, it has not been proven that the videos are fraudulent. That's your personal opinion, and I would say it's wrong, since you have not proven it.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

The problem here is that you are acting as if the wings are solid, hollow pieces impacting the steel. You are entirely ignoring the internal structure of the wings, which would completely change the impact mechanics.

.

No, I'm certainly not "acting as if the wings are solid", that's what the liars at MIT tried. I'm well aware of what goes into wing construction, and you've been so kind as to show schematics. They are a flexible combination of large and small pieces of aluminum wrapped with a thin skin. If anyone is entirely ignoring something it is you guys who fall short of trying to explain how the spars could possibly cause the damage, and only on the left wings of both crashes. Different speeds, different trajectories, same damage...even down to the relation to the position of the floor.

The problem here is that you are acting as if the wings are solid, hollow pieces impacting the steel. You are entirely ignoring the internal structure of the wings, which would completely change the impact mechanics.

Also, it has not been proven that the videos are fraudulent. That's your personal opinion, and I would say it's wrong, since you have not proven it.

No, it has been proved repeatedly by many different people. If you can point to one, single image of a jet that has not been proved fake, please share.

Also, why would any images be fake? Why are all the images so crappy, and why aren't there hundreds more images of the damage to WTC1? Where there not thousands of eye witnesses?

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine

 

Start by proving your premise that "every image containing a jet has been proven fraudulent." You seem to think that just stating that they are frauduent will suffice. Show the detailed photo analyses that they are fraudulent.

Yeah, hey, maybe I should start a thread about video fakery!

Since you've been so kind, I'll gladly look over any image or video you would like.

You stated "every image containing a jet has been proven fraudulent" and it is up to you to show it. This is the entire basis of your theory. I'd like you to look over all of them and prove your claim. You can begin with any of them. The ATS members will happily check to make sure that you haven't missed any. You have a lot of work to do; detailed frame by frame video analysis of all those videos will take a while.
The alternative is to concede that not all 911 images showing an airliner striking the WTC have been proven fraudulent. Of course, this would mean that the invisible missile theory is cooked.

reply to post by pteridine

You stated "every image containing a jet has been proven fraudulent" and it is up to you to show it.

If this was the case, you'd have to prove your claim first! Prove a jet wing can slice the steel shown repeatedly throughout this thread. That is the original claim, right?



Every image that includes a jet has been proved fraudulent and a simple google excercise proves this. Furthermore, I will prove it by scrutinizing any example you choose, very generous of me considering you fellows don't feel the need to even back up your words with anything but chutzpah.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine

 

You stated "every image containing a jet has been proven fraudulent" and it is up to you to show it.

If this was the case, you'd have to prove your claim first! Prove a jet wing can slice the steel shown repeatedly throughout this thread. That is the original claim, right?

Every image that includes a jet has been proved fraudulent and a simple google excercise proves this. Furthermore, I will prove it by scrutinizing any example you choose, very generous of me considering you fellows don't feel the need to even back up your words with anything but chutzpah.

The jet wing sliced the steel columns as seen on the many videos. Aircraft parts fell onto the surroundings. I say the parts and videos are real and THAT is the proof that airplane wings can cut steel columns.
You say they can't and now have to show my evidence is false by proving your statement "every image containing a jet has been proven fraudulent."
Not doing such is an admission that your theory is groundless.

reply to post by septic


That's not entirely true. I was just looking on wikipedia, and look what I found:

en.wikipedia.org...

The airframe further incorporates carbon-fiber reinforced plastic composite wing surfaces, Kevlar fairings and access panels, plus improved aluminum alloys, which together reduce overall weight by 1,250 lb (570 kg) versus preceding aircraft.

en.wikipedia.org...

Much of the fuselage of the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus A350 XWB will be composed of CFRP, making the aircraft lighter than a comparable aluminum fuselage, with the added benefit of less maintenance thanks to CFRP's superior fatigue resistance[citation needed].
Due to its high ratio of strength to weight, CFRP is widely used in micro air vehicles (MAVs). In MAVSTAR Project, the CFRP structures reduce the weight of the MAV significantly. In addition, the high stiffness of the CFRP blades overcome the problem of collision between blades under strong wind.

So, I can conclude that your claims about it just being lightweight, flimsy aluminum are... false.

reply to post by pteridine

The jet wing sliced the steel columns as seen on the many videos.

Show me one, and I'll show you how it is fraudulent. If even one video can be proved fraudulent, your argument is moot.

Aircraft parts fell onto the surroundings.

Not at impact. The videos show the entire plane sliding like butter into the building, with no pieces of either the building or plane falling off.

I say the parts and videos are real and THAT is the proof that airplane wings can cut steel columns.

Did you ever attempt to explain how this isn't a staged photo?



Because the videos are real, planes can slice through steel? OS logic at it's best.

You say they can't and now have to show my evidence is false by proving your statement "every image containing a jet has been proven fraudulent." Not doing such is an admission that your theory is groundless.

Are you an infant? What kind of pronouncement is this, especially from someone without the sand to go toe-to-toe in a debate?

I'm so sure they're fraudulent you can pick any one of them, any number of them actually, so we can all scrutinize them, but you're clutching at some self-proclaimed technicality? Jesus, you guys are so dishonest you make my skin crawl.

reply to post by septic


What about this video:

(Warning, strong language)



It's the second part of a long video where the guys were on the ground on the opposite side of the tower when it got hit. They almost get hit by plane parts and show the fuselage in the middle of the street. Has this been "proven fake?" And if so, how?

reply to post by Varemia


I missed the part where they caught the jet slicing like butter into the tower.

reply to post by Varemia

So, I can conclude that your claims about it just being lightweight, flimsy aluminum are... false.

Good grief, more technical straw-clutching.

Compared to the heavy steel of the building, they are lightweight and flimsy, and I am well aware the wings have more than just aluminum parts, just as the building had more than just steel parts, but for brevity it's simpler to refer to them by the material that most makes up their construction.

reply to post by septic

If this was the case, you'd have to prove your claim first! Prove a jet wing can slice the steel shown repeatedly throughout this thread. That is the original claim, right?

I can prove it, its easy! Here's the proof- I SAID SO! There, absolute proof based on your own standards! Can't argue with your own means and methods. Glad I can be of help!

Every image that includes a jet has been proved fraudulent and a simple google excercise proves this.

You betcha! A simple google search will bring you to more of your posts and has been shown above, you are the measure of your own standards!

Furthermore, I will prove it by scrutinizing any example you choose, very generous of me considering you fellows don't feel the need to even back up your words with anything but chutzpah.

So it is your scrutiny that now is the measure of reality? Oh boy!

reply to post by septic


Nice try. You made the statement, now back it up. Stop squirming and show how how all those videos are "fraudulent" or admit that the theory has no basis. You can start with any one of them and do a frame by frame analysis to show how and where it was faked. Once you have that done, you may have something to debate with.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

Nice try. You made the statement, now back it up. Stop squirming and show how how all those videos are "fraudulent" or admit that the theory has no basis. You can start with any one of them and do a frame by frame analysis to show how and where it was faked. Once you have that done, you may have something to debate with.

You got to love it though - just think - his missile theory is true because the videos are fake and the proof that the videos are fake? - because the missile theory is true! Win, win all around!

reply to post by pteridine

Nice try. You made the statement, now back it up. Stop squirming and show how how all those videos are "fraudulent" or admit that the theory has no basis. You can start with any one of them and do a frame by frame analysis to show how and where it was faked. Once you have that done, you may have something to debate with.

What a cartoon you are. You don't run the show here junior, and your tantrums only make you look more clownish.

For the readers, it is verboten to have "video fakery" threads on ATS, as it is on all controlled sites. Pteridine is well aware of that.

I suggest anyone to head over to September Clues, Killtown, or LetsRoll if they're interested in looking at the mountain of evidence against each and every image that contains a 911 jet.

This thread is regarding the columns 145-152 and the obvious-to-a-barnyard-animal-left-to-right damage, and my opponent is demanding standards of proof he knows will get this thread closed. As an alternative, I have offered him a chance to post any number of images to be scrutinized by all.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic

 

If this was the case, you'd have to prove your claim first! Prove a jet wing can slice the steel shown repeatedly throughout this thread. That is the original claim, right?

I can prove it, its easy! Here's the proof- I SAID SO! There, absolute proof based on your own standards! Can't argue with your own means and methods. Glad I can be of help!

Every image that includes a jet has been proved fraudulent and a simple google excercise proves this.

You betcha! A simple google search will bring you to more of your posts and has been shown above, you are the measure of your own standards!

Furthermore, I will prove it by scrutinizing any example you choose, very generous of me considering you fellows don't feel the need to even back up your words with anything but chutzpah.

So it is your scrutiny that now is the measure of reality? Oh boy!

Dear readers...you can see my opponents have abandoned any attempt of discussion, and are content with silly comments, sniping and personal attacks.

They have yet to offer a counter argument to the dozens of pages of evidence and analysis. I guess I win.