What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

reply to post by septic


Therefore, you confirm my suspicion. Your assumption about the direction of the damage leads you to assume that ALL evidence to the contrary is fake. It's an illogical way to go about things, as usually people think about other ways that the damage could have gotten that way, and take the evidence with a grain of salt. You aren't even taking the evidence with salt. You are rejecting it outright because you BELIEVE that it can't be true.

I think I'm done arguing in this thread now. Have fun.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

Therefore, you confirm my suspicion. Your assumption about the direction of the damage leads you to assume that ALL evidence to the contrary is fake.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, you haven't even tried to rebut the premise of this thread.

Suspicions? Why, I was under the impression one should examine the evidence and let it lead where it will. Are you considering only the evidence that supports your hypothesis? I was once a plane-hugger too, but the evidence changed that. Is this why you avoid looking at all the evidence, even as you're claiming you already have?

It's an illogical way to go about things, as usually people think about other ways that the damage could have gotten that way, and take the evidence with a grain of salt.

What "other ways" are you referring to? The jet striking from an impossible angle is your one and only option.

You aren't even taking the evidence with salt.

I am waiting for you to give a better explanation. So far all you've done is complain.

You are rejecting it outright because you BELIEVE that it can't be true.

You are projecting again. If you're referring to the "evidence" of the existence of a plane, I am happy to start another thread, but this thread is discussing the damage to columns 145-152.

I think I'm done arguing in this thread now. Have fun.

Translation: "I can't prove a lie, so I'm going to declare victory and leave like the Marines left Vietnam."

reply to post by septic


Look. You yourself just said that we should look at all the evidence. Yet, you are narrowly staring at columns 145-152, claiming that the damage refutes all other evidence, and then making the hypothesis that a missile must have done it. You are staring at one small piece of evidence out of hundreds of pieces, and then claiming that this one piece trumps all the other evidence, though I have already explained ways that the aluminum casings could have been bent that way by a strong forward force by an airplane. You rejected that hypothesis and maintained your view that there is no other way than a missile. You then reject all other evidence as if it was all fake, and claim that your one view here is more important than any other evidence in the entire world, ever.

This is why I cannot take you seriously.

Originally posted by webpirate
The planes did not hit either building exactly straight on. It wouldn't take much of an angle at all to cause certain areas to look like they were hit like these images show.

This is true, and for me the more pressing question is why rescue workers like
firefighters said there was molten metal int he basement like lava for several days
after the event and traces of thermite.

The video of it is in my signature.

reply to post by Varemia

Look. You yourself just said that we should look at all the evidence. Yet, you are narrowly staring at columns 145-152, claiming that the damage refutes all other evidence, and then making the hypothesis that a missile must have done it. You are staring at one small piece of evidence out of hundreds of pieces, and then claiming that this one piece trumps all the other evidence, though I have already explained ways that the aluminum casings could have been bent that way by a strong forward force by an airplane. You rejected that hypothesis and maintained your view that there is no other way than a missile. You then reject all other evidence as if it was all fake, and claim that your one view here is more important than any other evidence in the entire world, ever.

This is why I cannot take you seriously.

Stop with this nonsense, please. Any real investigator would focus on every square inch of available evidence, which I have done to the best of my abilities.

It is because this is the strongest single example out of the sea of examples that I started this thread. It is rock solid evidence that columns 145-152 were damaged by a small projectile traveling east, not a huge jet wing traveling south.

The thread is about nothing else, it doesn't need to be about anything else; certainly not your inability to digest the implications.

Originally posted by septic
Stop with this nonsense, please. Any real investigator would focus on every square inch of available evidence, which I have done to the best of my abilities.

Oh, I'm so sorry. You were explaining what was wrong with the other evidence, then?

It is because this is the strongest single example out of the sea of examples that I started this thread. It is rock solid evidence that columns 145-152 were damaged by a small projectile traveling east, not a huge jet wing traveling south.

No, it's not.

The thread is about nothing else, it doesn't need to be about anything else; certainly not your inability to digest the implications.

Then, like I said, if you're not willing to even discuss the other half of the impact zone and try to explain it, then I have nothing to do here. Good day.

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech

Originally posted by webpirate
The planes did not hit either building exactly straight on. It wouldn't take much of an angle at all to cause certain areas to look like they were hit like these images show.

This is true, and for me the more pressing question is why rescue workers like
firefighters said there was molten metal int he basement like lava for several days
after the event and traces of thermite.

The video of it is in my signature.

"this is true"?

Better tell the NIST.



You'd think the firefighters would have taken photos and video of the molten lava rivers.

Originally posted by Varemia

Then, like I said, if you're not willing to even discuss the other half of the impact zone and try to explain it, then I have nothing to do here. Good day.

Give me a break.

Why the hell should I answer any more of your "but, but"s when you won't even respond to the OP. \

You keep repeating these bogus claims when anyone reading the thread can see I HAVE discussed the other half of the impact zone, several times, but you keep avoiding the simple premise. The impact of the projectile that damaged the columns 145-152 was going east, whereas the 35 degree swept back wings of a 767 would have struck from the opposite side, traveling south.

If you disagree, please tell me where I am mistaken, and why.

If you aren't willing to talk about the OP, then by all means leave. It is the courteous thing to do.

reply to post by septic

If you disagree, please tell me where I am mistaken, and why.

Because south is not the opposite of east? You must get lost a lot.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic

 

If you disagree, please tell me where I am mistaken, and why.

Because south is not the opposite of east? You must get lost a lot.

Actually I do get lost a lot...for those like me:



A southbound jet 's 35 degree swept back wing would strike the columns on the opposite sides, and in a wedge motion, sawing in the opposite direction as the damage shows.







Its silly and probably a little nuts to think a jet's wing can do the impossible.

reply to post by septic

A southbound jet 's 35 degree swept back wing would strike the columns on the opposite sides, and in a wedge motion, sawing in the opposite direction as the damage shows.

Or, they would strike the cladding and columns with such force that trying to recreate directions from damage patterns would be totally stupid.

I'll go with totally stupid.

Originally posted by hooper

I'll go with totally stupid.

Without a doubt. Who else would go with you?

reply to post by septic


I take it, then, that even though you can see the object going through this piece of aluminum, it was hit from left to right? The damage does turn to the right, after all.

reply to post by Varemia

I take it, then, that even though you can see the object going through this piece of aluminum, it was hit from left to right? The damage does turn to the right, after all.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to see there. Shouldn't the projectile have been shattered by the super aluminum?

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

I take it, then, that even though you can see the object going through this piece of aluminum, it was hit from left to right? The damage does turn to the right, after all.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to see there. Shouldn't the projectile have been shattered by the super aluminum?

It looks like they fired some meat at it to simulate a bird impact on the jet engine. The point is that the damage wasn't perfectly straight even though the impact was certainly straight on.

reply to post by Varemia


It isn't an apples to apples comparison, is it? Furthermore, if meat can trump aluminum, imagine what steel can do.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

It isn't an apples to apples comparison, is it? Furthermore, if meat can trump aluminum, imagine what steel can do.

Think about it this way you say that as aluminium is softer than steel so it couldn't damage it, so what do you guys offer on lots of posts on this site and others, bird strikes were the softer bird er damages the harder plane?

You see that's the problem with high speed collisions they don't work the way you think they might!

Originally posted by septic


What a crock. Millions of people now? You know millions of people who saw a plane, regardless of the impossibility? You must believe these things because you "really, really" want to.

Face it, you plane-huggers are desperate to keep folks from examining the evidence, but the TV doesn't trump reality.

You see earlier, when you were avoiding answering my questions? The reason you had to do that was because your stance (which remember involves the entirety of academia, the media and the government being involved) requires millions of people to be in on it. To be lying to you. You can pretend, with your own extraordinary brand of cognitive dissonance, that this isn't the case. You can continue to ignore it, but it remains axiomatically true. If you are to use one "proof" to trump all others, at least have the courage to face up to what the implications of that "truth" are.

The powers that be have convinced millions of your fellow citizens to lie to you. They have managed to do this without a single person breaking ranks and coming forward with the truth. They somehow falsified live television pictures, prevented anyone in Manhattan from seeing a missile, and stopped anyone from filming one.

Or you're wrong about some pictures. And a bit mad.

I know which my money is on.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

It isn't an apples to apples comparison, is it? Furthermore, if meat can trump aluminum, imagine what steel can do.

It doesn't need to be. You're saying that left-to-right damage is impossible if the impact is head on. You've been shown that it's not.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

It isn't an apples to apples comparison, is it? Furthermore, if meat can trump aluminum, imagine what steel can do.

Are you serious? You'll believe that meat will break aluminum, but you refuse to believe that aluminum reinforced in an airframe with other components cannot possible bend or break steel?

It is apples to apples. It is an impact, and clearly you are disingenuous, because all you seem to do is act like you are high and mighty on your pedestal, when really, you don't even understand basic physics.

Do I have to find an image of some other "soft" thing breaking a "hard" thing? All it takes is higher velocity to acquire enough energy to break through. There are countless videos of soft lead breaking through steel. I just showed you freaking meat breaking through an aluminum plate.

Yet, you still just don't get it. It doesn't make it through your filtered brain. You can only see what you want to see, just like a true believer. Well, screw this.