What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

reply to post by septic


If you think the video was faked, why are you using it as evidence of missiles?

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by hooper

The "left-right" is your abstract opinion. The eyewitnesses to the plane crash are not abstract, and they are not opinions. You must deal with them first.

So Bigfoot and the Lockness Monster are real???

I don't think so, but I am willing to deal with the "witnesses" to those things. The poster just wants to call them all liars. I don't think the witnesses (as few as there are) are lying, I just think they saw something other than bigfoot and the loch ness monster.

Please don't speak for me.

I don't assume everyone is lying. If someone saw a 500 MPH blur and then saw the TV telling them it was a jet, they would believe they saw the jet, even if the blur was only a missile. Besides, didn't the majority of the witnesses see anything but a jet? Wasn't it members of the media who were the majority of those who claim to have seen a jet?

Originally posted by septic
Please don't speak for me.

I don't assume everyone is lying. If someone saw a 500 MPH blur and then saw the TV telling them it was a jet, they would believe they saw the jet, even if the blur was only a missile. Besides, didn't the majority of the witnesses see anything but a jet? Wasn't it members of the media who were the majority of those who claim to have seen a jet?

So you don't want people to speak for you, but you're willing to speak for every single witness? Ooookaaay.

Look at this:
sites.google.com...
And this linked from that with lots of pictures of aircraft pieces from the impacts:
sites.google.com...

These people never say the plane was a blur:
www.911research.dsl.pipex.com...

You can put words in their mouths all you want, but in the end you will just be a liar.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by septic

 

If you think the video was faked, why are you using it as evidence of missiles?

The video of the cartoon jet impact is one thing, but the images of the damage are another. I am not convinced of the authenticity of any of the images, but to assume they are all fake based on the fraudulence of some would be premature. The damage appears consistent when looked at from multiple angles.

Originally posted by septic

Please don't speak for me.

I don't assume everyone is lying. If someone saw a 500 MPH blur and then saw the TV telling them it was a jet, they would believe they saw the jet, even if the blur was only a missile. Besides, didn't the majority of the witnesses see anything but a jet? Wasn't it members of the media who were the majority of those who claim to have seen a jet?

I don't remember any witnesses claiming "It didn't look like a plane... it looked like a dozen missiles to me"

reply to post by septic


Just more evidence of how ridiculous your theories are. Pretty much, according to you every person in lower Manhatten that day is in on it. Civilian, military, civil authorities, media members..all of them. Which doesn't begin to include all the members of the federal government that would have to have been involved. And not one of them has talked.....

reply to post by septic

Please don't speak for me.

I am doing you a favor.

I don't assume everyone is lying. If someone saw a 500 MPH blur and then saw the TV telling them it was a jet, they would believe they saw the jet, even if the blur was only a missile. Besides, didn't the majority of the witnesses see anything but a jet? Wasn't it members of the media who were the majority of those who claim to have seen a jet?

People in lower Manhattan know what a plane looks like. The see quite a few of them what with there being three major airports in the neighborhood landing planes every 10 minutes.

I guess we could say the woman in the photo might be responsable.

Originally posted by JBA2848
I guess we could say the woman in the photo might be responsable.

What do you mean? The point of impact was probably one of the few places where there was less heat, and I don't remember properly, but didn't she jump? Your minimalist post has me confused about whether to get angry at you or just stare at my computer screen with incredulity.

reply to post by Varemia


Im just trying to use the logic most of the 9-11 truthers are using. Shes the only one we have proof of being at the location where the hole was made. So she must be guilty.

Why does anybody think it was not a plane that hit the tower.

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by Varemia

 

Im just trying to use the logic most of the 9-11 truthers are using. Shes the only one we have proof of being at the location where the hole was made. So she must be guilty.

Ok. Be careful though. Sarcasm does not translate well through text. Some of the 9/11 conspiracy folk here think that all New Yorkers are idiots who don't know what a plane looks like, and that all the firefighters have no idea what they saw. They think that all the people making measly paychecks in the media in every news station were receiving instructions on what to say from some evil entity. They think that somehow explosives that make no noise like any demolition ever performed were set off in a sequence never done before in the history of demolitions, in a way that would surely cause complications in detonation sequence due to the chaotic nature of a collapse. It's either all at first or not at all when it comes to demolition, and in that case, the top-down collapse invalidates that theory.

Originally posted by septic

Below is a highlighted close-up; note the dents on the left side of the columns, progressively getting more pronounced as you move right.

Whatever it was that caused this damage twisted and bent columns 145 and 146 to the right.

Hmmm, to me the aluminum casings of columns 147-149 seem to be twisted off in a manner consistent with the angle of the wing hitting it basically straight on.

Something traveling left to right must have caused this damage:

But the aluminum casing of column 150 doesn't seem to agree with you on that.
And neither does the heavily damaged #144 column. How did your missile manage that one if it came in from the left??
image

reply to post by septic


You need a serious reality check:

Wasn't it members of the media who were the majority of those who claim to have seen a jet?

That Tuesday morning, as Fred Eichler chatted to his colleagues in the conference room of his company Axcelera, the men found themselves transfixed by a plane flying to the left of the Empire State Building.

'Somebody said: "Gee, that plane is flying awful low,"' Fred recalls. 'I remember saying:
"Oh, it must be a plane from Kennedy (a New York airport) that's got into trouble."'

As one, the men rose to their feet. 'It was all in slow motion,' says Fred. 'I am told that the plane was flying at 600mph towards us, yet it seemed like an eternity getting to us.

'I suppose it was 15 seconds. None of us really expected it to hit the building. But it just kept coming and coming.
'Most of the time it was even - right in line with the window we were staring out of. Then it was almost on us. I could make out the seams on the wings and all the American Airline markings.

"9/11 - Survivors of the Twin Towers" (Daily Mail, UK -- From 2002, reposted 8th November, 2011

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by septic

 

If you think the video was faked, why are you using it as evidence of missiles?

The video of the cartoon jet impact is one thing, but the images of the damage are another. I am not convinced of the authenticity of any of the images, but to assume they are all fake based on the fraudulence of some would be premature. The damage appears consistent when looked at from multiple angles.

I'm not convinced of the authenticity of you or your agenda quite frankly. You've stated emphatically that any and all images of this event are not genuine. Yet you're using NIST photos to promote your fringe theories. How does that work? Isn't that a gross conflict of interest for you? How does this help your credibility?

You were also going on and on in another thread about how the wing tips severed all those columns. Why can't we see evidence of that in the photo you referenced ? Columns 145-152 appear to be damaged, but not severed.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by septic

 

If you think the video was faked, why are you using it as evidence of missiles?

The video of the cartoon jet impact is one thing, but the images of the damage are another. I am not convinced of the authenticity of any of the images, but to assume they are all fake based on the fraudulence of some would be premature. The damage appears consistent when looked at from multiple angles.

I'm not convinced of the authenticity of you or your agenda quite frankly. You've stated emphatically that any and all images of this event are not genuine. Yet you're using NIST photos to promote your fringe theories. How does that work? Isn't that a gross conflict of interest for you? How does this help your credibility?

You were also going on and on in another thread about how the wing tips severed all those columns. Why can't we see evidence of that in the photo you referenced ? Columns 145-152 appear to be damaged, but not severed.

edit on 7-11-2011 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

But the towers, as seen on television and movies, never existed. The knowledge to build such high towers did not exist until many years later. The videos and photos showing the twin towers depict an impossibility, And therefore- they are fakes. Don't you think it's odd that the rubble pile from a 110 story building was so short? That's because it was never 110 stories tall.

**supposed to be a reply to septic

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

Just more evidence of how ridiculous your theories are. Pretty much, according to you every person in lower Manhatten that day is in on it. Civilian, military, civil authorities, media members..all of them. Which doesn't begin to include all the members of the federal government that would have to have been involved. And not one of them has talked.....

What, you've spoken to every person who was in Manhattan that day?

However improbable it may seem to you to be able to fool so many people, it is still a possibility; while the jet is not.

I tire of the "not one of them has talked" excuse. Since the lie was started by the authorities and their media, many people may want to talk, but to who?

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

Just more evidence of how ridiculous your theories are. Pretty much, according to you every person in lower Manhatten that day is in on it. Civilian, military, civil authorities, media members..all of them. Which doesn't begin to include all the members of the federal government that would have to have been involved. And not one of them has talked.....

What, you've spoken to every person who was in Manhattan that day?

However improbable it may seem to you to be able to fool so many people, it is still a possibility; while the jet is not.

I tire of the "not one of them has talked" excuse. Since the lie was started by the authorities and their media, many people may want to talk, but to who?

At what point might you employ the logical principle of Occam's Razor?

reply to post by Varemia



But seriously...have you ever considered letting the evidence do the talking instead of starting from the assumption the plane film was genuine? The jet cannot cut the building like it wasn't there; therefore there must be another explanation.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by waypastvne

 

You're jumping at shadows. The damage is clearly left-to right; visible from multiple angles.

You say damage was "left to right" which would be approx. east to west. But as you can see below, the west face of WTC 1 was the least damaged side of the building. How could this be from a missile coming in from the east and exploding into (and out of) the inner west wall? Your missile trajectory (up and to the right) does not match the observable damage to the rest of the building.



As can be seen by the heavily damaged south face, the majority of debris from the impact was blown out of the south face (opposite side of the impact) of tower 1:


North to south debris trajectory:

reply to post by PhotonEffect

At what point might you employ the logical principle of Occam's Razor?

I am doing so now.

At what point will you join the real world.? Your next step might be admitting the jets couldn't possibly cause the damage highlighted in this thread as the wings and the mass of a jet would be no match for the building, even if the direction of the damage was consistent.

Based on the damage like that of the other side of the gash, it appears multiple missiles were used from multiple angles.



How they managed this is not the point, the point is the damage is consistent with the hypothesis and definitely not consistent with damage caused by linear, comparatively lightweight wings. What we saw on TV was impossible, and the damage further proves it, as there is no evidence of any jetsam visible in these pictures.

Missiles are used for anti-building attacks all the time, JASSM missiles in particular are stealthy and no one was expecting the first attack so they likely wouldn't have seen them, and even if they had, who would report it when the films of jets started being aired? There WERE a couple reports of missiles, but they were quickly forgotten. As always, the media is completely controlled by the government intelligence agencies or have you not heard of Operation Mockingbird? The Port Authority, the Mayor's Office, the NYPD and the FDNY are all involved, as shown here

Stick to what's possible before you apply Occam's razor. There was nothing exotic about 911, just good old fashioned corruption and a precisely planned and executed military operation.