What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

reply to post by wmd_2008

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!

Why do you guys offer a video of a meat pellet striking aluminum as proof that the dents on the wrong sides of the steel columns could be caused by a soft aluminum wing tip traveling in a different direction?

Originally posted by Varemia


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.

Depending on the mass, materials, density and stiffness, point of impact, sure. You yourself said that at the velocity required for your meatball to puncture steel, it would be shredded by air resistance. However theoretically detailed you like to make it sound, you are still missing parts of the equation. Material densities matter, this is why penetrating missiles are tipped with titanium.

There are countless videos of soft lead breaking through steel. I just showed you freaking meat breaking through an aluminum plate.

All you did was demonstrate how easily aluminum tears. Aluminum plate, you say? How thick was that aluminum, I didn't make out the parameters of the test from the vid.

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.

What I get is this; you are a poster child of someone who accuses others of doing what they do themselves.

Projection, baby. Learn it, love it, avoid it.

It's also best for one's credibility to admit error when at error, something I will gladly do to correct the record when I am proven wrong. I get east and west mixed up and catch myself saying "east" when I mean "west"; mistakes happen...I make them often. I may be wrong about the missiles but for the life of me I can't find a better explanation for the clearly directional damage.

The left to right pattern of impact on the left side of the hole is not something I went looking for, it's what I'm attempting to find an explanation for; and a jet's wing doesn't cut it, pun intended

You however, and those like you, seem to stick to the same conclusion regardless of ten years' worth of contradicting evidence, and that smacks of dogma, or something else. Also, for goodness sake, only threaten to leave once.

Originally posted by septic
this is why penetrating missiles are tipped with titanium.

Birds destroy titanium all the time. The most famous recent event was US Airways Flight 1549 into the Hudson River last year,

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

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.

Trust me, your questions are barely worth remembering, much less avoiding. You assume so much. If you have any questions begging my attention, please first answer how a plane wing can damage the wrong side of the columns.

Why millions? Why would any of them be knowingly lying? Why are government and academics any less susceptible to the big lie than you are? Academics simply repeat what they've been taught, and government compartmentalization would prevent any more than the bare minimum being in a position to "need to know". All it would take would be a few people of authority within the media, government, academia and military proclaiming the videos are real, bemoaning the loss of life, calling for vengeance and urging retaliation, and questioning the patriotism of anyone who dared ask any real questions.

Millions of very smart people thought the world was flat for well over a thousand years; were they all lying too?

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.

Huh? The discomfort I feel from holding contradictory beliefs usually rears its head when I rub elbows with the brainwashed masses. It makes me uncomfortable to pretend sports, politicians, and media personalities matter.

It doesn't matter how many people believe it to be true, impossible is still impossible. Ever hear of "group think"?

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.

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

I know which my money is on

Think about it. Who would they turn to? "Hey, I just realized everyone of prominence in government, media, military and academia are colluding in a plan to take over the world starting with one Muslim nation at a time."

Let's go to the police...nope, they were involved. Bernie Kerik? Guillanni? pfft...

How about the military? Nope. Success would have been impossible without them.

Media? Hah. You mean the ones who just showed fake video of planes?

The government? Let's see...the Supreme Court that put Bush into office, or the Bush administration; how about the Obama administration...you gonna go tell them the whole thing was a lie?

How about the Internet? Yeah, come to the Internet with the vast majority of the "conspiracy" sites already up and being run by controlled opposition. What happens on the Internet? Anyone who happens to wander down the right path will be shouted down, their sanity questioned, ridiculed or banned. Just look around.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

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.

Tearing sheet aluminum with a chicken mcbullet is not even close to apples to apples...it's not even apples to zucchini.

The dents are on the LEFT sides of the columns, which would mean your mcbullet would need to put a sizable dent on the near side of the rib. But to be fairer, your mcbullet needs to be made into a blunt, round-edged 35-degree swept-back chicken mcwing. At that angle, it would strike the far side of the rib first, yet somehow it only dented the near side, and in a completely different direction.



I would wave it off if it was just one column, but it isn't. A missile is the best explanation for this damage. These dents are from the side. A relatively soft aluminum wing striking from the opposite side couldn't possibly do it.





Here's the official explanation:



here's a better one:

reply to post by septic


Your YANKEE451 aren't you! He used the exact same BS on here before and on lets roll!

Originally posted by septic

Why millions? Why would any of them be knowingly lying? Why are government and academics any less susceptible to the big lie than you are? Academics simply repeat what they've been taught, and government compartmentalization would prevent any more than the bare minimum being in a position to "need to know". All it would take would be a few people of authority within the media, government, academia and military proclaiming the videos are real, bemoaning the loss of life, calling for vengeance and urging retaliation, and questioning the patriotism of anyone who dared ask any real questions.

Earlier I showed you how it would be impossible to do something like this with just a few 'key players'. You said that, for example, in TV only a couple of produers would be needed. But what about the reporters who recorded the VO? How about the directors and everyone else in the gallery to which the fake footage was streamed "live"? What about reporters who rushed to the scene in lower Manhattan? Explain to me how all those were duped.

And when I say "explain", I don't mean "delete and ignore".

Why do you assume everyone is so much less brave and inquisitive than yourself? There are hundreds of thousands of engineers and engineering students who, if you're right, must have serious doubts. Yet not a single one comes forward? Logically they must either be in on it or too scared. Which means that the conspirators have successfully silenced millions. Equally implausible.

Millions of very smart people thought the world was flat for well over a thousand years; were they all lying too?

That's a pointless comparison. As soon as it was observable that the world was a sphere only people like you - the very gullible - continued to think it was flat.

Huh? The discomfort I feel from holding contradictory beliefs usually rears its head when I rub elbows with the brainwashed masses. It makes me uncomfortable to pretend sports, politicians, and media personalities matter.

It doesn't matter how many people believe it to be true, impossible is still impossible. Ever hear of "group think"?

That's not what I'm saying, which I suspect you know. I'm not pointing to the numbers of people who believe it, but to the extraordinary events that would have to have happened for your thesis to be true. The thousands of silent conspirators, the mystery of the lack of eyewitnesses, no missile footage, the mythical electrronic jamming, the requirement that somehow the conspirators could guarantee no footage would surface.

You can't explain any of this satisfactorily. You can't even really explain why you think the damage is impossible. So no, I'm not convinced by your "proof".

Think about it. Who would they turn to? "Hey, I just realized everyone of prominence in government, media, military and academia are colluding in a plan to take over the world starting with one Muslim nation at a time."

So now it is everyone prominent? I thought it was just a couple of people. Suddenly we're back to thousands and thousands of conspirators.

Let's go to the police...nope, they were involved. Bernie Kerik? Guillanni? pfft...

How about the military? Nope. Success would have been impossible without them.

Media? Hah. You mean the ones who just showed fake video of planes?

The government? Let's see...the Supreme Court that put Bush into office, or the Bush administration; how about the Obama administration...you gonna go tell them the whole thing was a lie?

Oh dear. This is literally the disctionary definition of cognitive dissonace. A few momets ago, in this very reply, we were talking about a handful of highly placed conspirators. Now that your theory needs something a little different everybody is back in on it.

How about the Internet? Yeah, come to the Internet with the vast majority of the "conspiracy" sites already up and being run by controlled opposition. Anyone who happens to wander down the right path will be shouted down, their sanity questioned, ridiculed or banned. Just look around.

Because of course you would have to post it on a conspiracy site. Nonsense. You could place this on your blog anonymously with extreme ease. I guarantee it would become big news quickly.

But of course the handful of conspirators, who are able to successfully dupe millions of people and run a scheme without apparently involving anyone at all in any technical sense are probably able to police the entire internet. Maybe they take turns on their days off.

Face it, teh reason that you haven't seen a single scrap of evidence for your claim, except for your amateurish analysis of some photos, is because there is none.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by septic

 

Your YANKEE451 aren't you!

I am honored you think so.

He used the exact same BS on here before and on lets roll!

Why is it BS? Do you think the dents indicate an impact from another direction?

Incidentally, good quality closeups of the gashes are impossible to find for a city that had thousands of eyewitnesses.

Here's a fuzzy shot of the left side of the damage to the South tower. Lo and behold, left to right, and very similar bending of the columns:

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by septic
this is why penetrating missiles are tipped with titanium.

Birds destroy titanium all the time. The most famous recent event was US Airways Flight 1549 into the Hudson River last year,

So are you saying birds caused the damage which was impossible for a 35 degree swept back wing to cause?

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by septic
this is why penetrating missiles are tipped with titanium.

Birds destroy titanium all the time. The most famous recent event was US Airways Flight 1549 into the Hudson River last year,

So are you saying birds caused the damage which was impossible for a 35 degree swept back wing to cause?

Are you now being stupid?

If birds, a softer material, can damage a harder material, simply on the grounds of velocity, why do you consider a plane impossible to break through steel?

The plane had more mass and everything! You have to be intentionally acting like a moron!

reply to post by Varemia

Are you now being stupid?

If birds, a softer material, can damage a harder material, simply on the grounds of velocity, why do you consider a plane impossible to break through steel?

The plane had more mass and everything! You have to be intentionally acting like a moron!

You're still here and still name-calling, and still not able to rebut the premise of this thread. The damage to the columns of the left sides of both gashes in both towers indicates an outside-in impact.

Your inability to understand basic physics must greatly hamper your ability to reason. Birds can damage aluminum because they are more massive than the aluminum they collide with. A bird's wing will damage a plane much less than the full bird, for the same reason a jet's wing would damage a wall of steel columns much less than the full jet.

We're back to the spear analogy again...throw a spear at a tree and it'll impale the tree. Throw the same spear at the tree with the same velocity, only have it strike the tree sideways, and you've got the same mass and same velocity, but the spear doesn't impale the tree because the mass isn't focused on a small point.

Your jet wings are the spear striking the tree sideways. The mass was not focused on a small point of impact, making what we saw on TV impossible.

Furthermore, the damage to the left sides of both gashes indicates they were caused by a small projectile striking the columns from the side.

Originally posted by septic

Here's a fuzzy shot of the left side of the damage to the South tower. Lo and behold, left to right, and very similar bending of the columns:

Greetings septic- what missile are you proposing did this type of damage and how much do you know about its capabilities and what it was designed for?

Just trying to gauge how knowledgable you are in this arena before offering my rebuttal.

reply to post by WASTYT


Hello, thanks for the question, I appreciate the repartee.

Greetings septic- what missile are you proposing did this type of damage and how much do you know about its capabilities and what it was designed for?

Just trying to gauge how knowledgable you are in this arena before offering my rebuttal.

I don't know much about missiles, and I don't know much about planes.

I have fairly strong construction experience, so I have a good idea how strong steel and concrete are compared to aluminum. For example, 1/4 inch angle iron is hard as hell to bend with a sledge hammer. Place the angle iron in a vise with one edge vertical, and beat it with a sledge hammer straight down and you might put a dent in the edge of the steel, depending on how hard you can swing the hammer. Strike the steel from the side, and you'll be able to bend it much more. I guess I should provide a video demonstration for clarity, but I don't have one at the moment.

As far as WHAT ordinance caused the damage, I don't know. I assume JASSM because of their plane-shape, their accuracy, and their hardened target penetration capabilities.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by WASTYT

 

I don't know much about missiles, and I don't know much about planes.

As far as WHAT ordinance caused the damage, I don't know. I assume JASSM because of their plane-shape, their accuracy, and their hardened target penetration capabilities.

Fair enough, I appreciate your candor.

I couldn't help but notice the images you've been referring to in this thread through no fault of your own are a bit degraded, which makes it somewhat difficult to make an assessment on the types of details for which your hypothesis is based. But I'll do my best here:





From what I can make out in the above closeup you've been referencing for the columns in question, the front edges of columns 147 and 148 appear to be pinched inwards while the cladding on #'s 146 and 147 appears to be twisted loose in a somewhat counter clockwise manner. Would you agree?

Would you also agree that the cladding on #'s 148 and 149 doesn't appear to be damaged in the same manner as 146 and 147? Specifically that this damage appears more to be pushed inwards from the top than twisted off in a counter clockwise manner...

If it's ok I'd like to get your thoughts on that before proceeding just so I can be sure we're on the same page.

reply to post by WASTYT


Thanks for your civility.

I couldn't help but notice the images you've been referring to in this thread through no fault of your own are a bit degraded, which makes it somewhat difficult to make an assessment on the types of details for which your hypothesis is based.

Yes, it is unfortunate there are no good images available; it is notable because we are to believe thousands of people witnessed this event. The second strike in particular has fewer available images of the damage than does the first. Where are all the tight, close-up shots of the interior of the building? Where are all the high definition close-ups of the damage? WTC2 damage has one blurry image I can find; where are the hundreds of shots from hundreds of angles, from the hundreds of amateurs? We are reduced to scrutinizing a handful of blurry images of the most photographed day in modern history.

From what I can make out in the above closeup you've been referencing for the columns in question, the front edges of columns 147 and 148 appear to be pinched inwards while the cladding on #'s 146 and 147 appears to be twisted loose in a somewhat counter clockwise manner. Would you agree?

I agree with the pinching, but isn't the cladding on 146 and 147 twisted in a somewhat clockwise manner? I think we're trying to say the same thing, that the cladding on 146 and 147 are twisted right with the top portion twisted more than the bottom.

Would you also agree that the cladding on #'s 148 and 149 doesn't appear to be damaged in the same manner as 146 and 147? Specifically that this damage appears more to be pushed inwards from the top than twisted off in a counter clockwise manner...

I agree the results of the damage on 148 and 149 are not the same in that they are not twisted to the right, as are 145 and 146. I note the dent on 148 is lower on the column than that on 147, and that the impact was closer to the spandrel and floor, thereby providing more support to the column. I also note that as the projectile moved further to the right, it's trajectory was "deeper" into the tower, striking more and more of the columns as it traveled to the right.

The cladding on 149 appears to have been damaged similarly to 148, albeit the cladding did not sever completely and has folded over, obscuring the view of the damage to the column. If you scrutinize column 149 just above the folded cladding, you can see the protruding edges beginning to bend to the right. This might be my imagination, so please give me your thoughts.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Left side detail of WTC2 gash.


Source

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by WASTYT

 

Where are all the tight, close-up shots of the interior of the building? Where are all the high definition close-ups of the damage? WTC2 damage has one blurry image I can find; where are the hundreds of shots from hundreds of angles, from the hundreds of amateurs? We are reduced to scrutinizing a handful of blurry images of the most photographed day in modern history.

Well, these are fair questions I suppose. We can only surmise that many of the images we are using here are actually stills from videos taken that day. And in the process of uploading them to the internet then downloading them back onto our computers and into forums such as these, the quality will undoubtedly suffer. Perhaps too if cell phones in 2001 had built in cameras we would have more to reference.

I agree with the pinching, but isn't the cladding on 146 and 147 twisted in a somewhat clockwise manner? I think we're trying to say the same thing, that the cladding on 146 and 147 are twisted right with the top portion twisted more than the bottom.

Ok good, so we agree that both flange tips of columns 146 and 147 are pinched inwards. Now supposing we had a sledge hammer that was in the shape of a baseball bat. If we were to strike the front end of a column like the ones being referenced with enough force to bend the tips with one good whack, is it reasonable to conclude that the they would also bend inward? If not, would you mind explaining why?

(To note- for the purposes of describing how the cladding is twisted away from the actual column I used the right edge as the pivot point. So if the left edge of the cladding is being pulled (or twisted) off with the right edge being the hinge (or pivot) I see it "opening" in a counter clockwise motion, like opening your fridge door. Regardless, I do believe we are speaking about the same thing.)

I agree the results of the damage on 148 and 149 are not the same in that they are not twisted to the right, as are 145 and 146.

Ok good. Now when you say 145 and 146 are you talking about the columns or the cladding? 145 doesn't appear to have any cladding to reference; or does it

I note the dent on 148 is lower on the column than that on 147, and that the impact was closer to the spandrel and floor, thereby providing more support to the column. I also note that as the projectile moved further to the right, it's trajectory was "deeper" into the tower, striking more and more of the columns as it traveled to the right.

I concur on both of these points, and I'm glad you brought that up. I'll come back to these in a later post.

The cladding on 149 appears to have been damaged similarly to 148, albeit the cladding did not sever completely and has folded over, obscuring the view of the damage to the column. If you scrutinize column 149 just above the folded cladding, you can see the protruding edges beginning to bend to the right. This might be my imagination, so please give me your thoughts.

I can see what you mean about #149, but I don't believe it's conclusive enough from the photos to make a determination either way.

Column 147 seems to be the outlier here in my opinion...

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by septic

 

Your YANKEE451 aren't you!

I am honored you think so.

So you are honoured by that, he thought the towers had concrete cores he was proved wrong, he claims NO planes took part it was all faked

So if you want to be considered like that ,thats up to you!

reply to post by WASTYT

Ok good, so we agree that both flange tips of columns 146 and 147 are pinched inwards.

I'm glad we're sorting these things out now...pardon my misunderstanding. I see what you mean now, you're saying 146 and 147 are not simply dented from the left, but also from the right, in a pinching motion.

If I was to take a big steel bar and bash both flanges simultaneously, I would think I would make a rounded dent in both of them, but they could conceivably pinch the flanges together, yes. Even pinching the flanges together with a straight blow would not account for the deep, sharp dents to the SIDES of the columns though.

However I don't believe they are pinched, it appears to me they are struck from the left, with even the flange of 147 bending to the right or simply gouged out.

Here is a shot from a different angle. I used an "East Gradient" edge detection filter and a "Shift And Difference" edge detection filter from "Snagit 8", for what it's worth. I'm about as good with graphics as I am with planes and missiles, so if someone else knows some better tricks, I'm all ears.

To me it all appears to be in one direction, but I'm hardly unbiased.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by septic

 

Your YANKEE451 aren't you!

I am honored you think so.

So you are honoured by that, he thought the towers had concrete cores he was proved wrong, he claims NO planes took part it was all faked

So if you want to be considered like that ,thats up to you!

edit on 15-11-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

Wait, he's not infallible? What a sissy!