What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

reply to post by septic


But there is a 4" solid aluminum main spur in the wing that is built to the main fuselage which would pull into the hole created by the fuselage. That would create a right to left pattern. And the main spur is built not to come off the fuselage.or wings would be falling off aircraft on a regular basis. The thin outer shell would not stand up to any impact but the structure inside the wing is very strong.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by waypastvne

 

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop your childish antics.

We would appreciate if you did the same truther, After all i'm only fighting your evidence with your evidence.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.... Right ?

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by septic

 

But there is a 4" solid aluminum main spur in the wing that is built to the main fuselage which would pull into the hole created by the fuselage. That would create a right to left pattern. And the main spur is built not to come off the fuselage.or wings would be falling off aircraft on a regular basis. The thin outer shell would not stand up to any impact but the structure inside the wing is very strong.

It seems pretty farfetched to think the aircraft are capable of staying together after crashing into a building.

Dozens of ten inch wide, 14" deep laterally reinforced steel knifes backed by four foot spandrels and 4" concrete floors smashing into that 4" solid aluminum main spur at 500 MPH would crush a plane. Even if what you say were possible, this still ignores the columns dented on the left side and the fact that those dents indicate a side-of-column impact.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by waypastvne

 

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop your childish antics.

We would appreciate if you did the same truther, After all i'm only fighting your evidence with your evidence.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.... Right ?

Spit it out then, and try not to be such a putz about it. What is your beef? Be specific.

reply to post by TMJ1972

From what i would expect if a wing hits those beams with such a speed is, that they start disintegrating and build up momentum in a way that sections of the wing start to wriggle around the columns into the gaps and exert force to the beams in the way depictured in the photo.

The much heavier and plentiful beams would have slammed into the relatively flimsy wings at 500 MPH, and even if what you describe was possible, it still ignores the dents on the left-side of columns 147 and 148. Sounds like you're trying to make a plane fit the damage, rather than explain the damage.

Originally posted by septic
What is your beef? Be specific.

Your use of selective physics.

reply to post by septic


And I would appreciate it if you quit talking about missiles, because each time you start spouting off about missiles, you show just how little you know about them. Missiles are not programmed to hit at an angle. They are programmed to hit dead on. An angle strike raises the very real possibility that the missile will not penetrate it's target. Not to mention the oft-claimed JASSM would not damage that much of the exterior.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by TMJ1972

 

From what i would expect if a wing hits those beams with such a speed is, that they start disintegrating and build up momentum in a way that sections of the wing start to wriggle around the columns into the gaps and exert force to the beams in the way depictured in the photo.

The much heavier and plentiful beams would have slammed into the relatively flimsy wings at 500 MPH, and even if what you describe was possible, it still ignores the dents on the left-side of columns 147 and 148. Sounds like you're trying to make a plane fit the damage, rather than explain the damage.

"Make" the plane fit the damage? The plane DOES fit the damage. There is video recording from dozens of different cameras showing a plane MAKING the damage. It requires more imagination to "make" a missile fit the damage, honestly, since there is no evidence at all for a missile.

reply to post by septic

The much heavier and plentiful beams would have slammed into the relatively flimsy wings at 500 MPH, and even if what you describe was possible, it still ignores the dents on the left-side of columns 147 and 148. Sounds like you're trying to make a plane fit the damage, rather than explain the damage.

And yet a small piece of foam punched through a carbon fiber leading edge to take out Columbia. Bone up on your physics and you will find many instances where speed helps light and flimsy objects do amazing things.

Plus it's had to argue with video.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by septic
What is your beef? Be specific.

Your use of selective physics.

Is this you being specific?

The reason a 1000 lb penetrating warhead can penetrate hardened targets is due to the mass of the warhead being focused on the point of impact.

If you throw a spear into a tree, the mass of the spear is focused on the point of impact and it pierces the tree.

If you throw a spear sideways at the tree, the spear can hit the tree with the same velocity and the same mass and still not impale the tree because the mass isn't focused on a small point.

The missile applies the velocity and the mass at a small point of impact, like the spear head or like a bullet, whereas the aluminum wings slapping into the tower are like the spear hitting the tree sideways.

It is you who is being dishonest by using selective physics.

Are you ready to address the dents on the wrong side of the columns now? The damage indicates a left-right motion.

reply to post by Varemia

"Make" the plane fit the damage? The plane DOES fit the damage. There is video recording from dozens of different cameras showing a plane MAKING the damage. It requires more imagination to "make" a missile fit the damage, honestly, since there is no evidence at all for a missile.

The videos depict an impossibility, therefore they are false. One proof of this is the damage on the left sides of columns 147 and 148.

reply to post by septic

The damage indicates a left-right motion.

"Indicates" is just another way of saying "in my opinion". Which is just that - your opinion. You need to justify your opinion - not the other way around.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

And I would appreciate it if you quit talking about missiles, because each time you start spouting off about missiles, you show just how little you know about them. Missiles are not programmed to hit at an angle. They are programmed to hit dead on.

Please; missiles like the JASSM are programmable for many way points. Being programmed to strike a target beacon just inside the column would be enough. The angle of the tower impact would be meaningless to the missile trying to reach the beacon on the other side.

There would be nothing preventing the military from customizing a JASSM to include armor-piercing capability, and if it was my task, I'd certainly include it to ensure the accuracy of the JASSM wasn't wasted. The left-right dings indicate whatever projectile hit it did not penetrate. There are many examples of missiles that would be capable of accomplishing this, the JASSM is just one. It's plane-like shape would reinforce the plane meme if witnessed from the ground.

Link
Since it's impossible for jet wings striking from the opposite side to account for the damage, a better explanation would be a missile or other projectile. Of course that would require a complete reevaluation of the impact, so most people let cognitive dissonance have its way with them.

An angle strike raises the very real possibility that the missile will not penetrate it's target.

Agreed. Fortunately they can rely on the media, government and NIST to ignore the evidence:

Not to mention the oft-claimed JASSM would not damage that much of the exterior.

A dozen or so would do it. But we're only focusing on the left side of the gash.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic

 

The damage indicates a left-right motion.

"Indicates" is just another way of saying "in my opinion". Which is just that - your opinion. You need to justify your opinion - not the other way around.

Sure looks like left-to-right damage to me. There are dents on the columns in a linear pattern getting more pronounced as you move to the right, culminating with columns 145 and 146 being dented on the left and twisted to the right. Do you have a better explanation for the dents on the left sides of columns 147 and 148?

reply to post by samkent

And yet a small piece of foam punched through a carbon fiber leading edge to take out Columbia. Bone up on your physics and you will find many instances where speed helps light and flimsy objects do amazing things.

We're not talking about brittle carbon fiber or the alleged reason for Columbia's demise.

Plus it's had to argue with video.

The video depicts an impossibility, therefore it is false and easy to argue with.

reply to post by septic



Did you happen to notice the 2 sides of the column that are bent right to left.... No ?



Sorry truther.... You loose again.

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by septic

 

Did you happen to notice the 2 sides of the column that are bent right to left.... No ?

Sorry truther.... You loose again.

I have noticed that actually, no need to be so smug and this isn't a competition; this is an offer to the community to put our heads together to discuss the available evidence.

It doesn't appear to me to be "pinched" as much as the right edge looks taller. Since the left side is so clearly dented, this could be the fascia steel being pushed or folded up the opposite side of the column.

However, it looks like the dent might have occurred on a column like the one below. If so the cavity appears to have filled with debris:



There is no need to be so combative. If you are so annoyed by the concept that you can't even discuss it civilly, please leave.

reply to post by septic

Sure looks like left-to-right damage to me.

So what? You have an opinion, as I stated earlier. We all have opinions.

There are dents on the columns in a linear pattern getting more pronounced as you move to the right....

Another opinion. I say there is not pattern. Big deal.

....culminating with columns 145 and 146 being dented on the left and twisted to the right.

So, two columns in your opinion look like they were twisted to the right. Again, so what?

Do you have a better explanation for the dents on the left sides of columns 147 and 148?

Better than what? Being hit by the fuel-filled wing of plane going almost Mach 0.6? No, no better explanation than that.

reply to post by hooper


Nice talking to you.

reply to post by septic


And we add yet another layer to the conspiracy. The people who program the missiles, the people that fire them.....and finally, the bean counters that inventory them. And now it's a dozen of them being used?


Throw in every New Yorker that was there that day and isn't mentioning seeing a dozen missiles.....