What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

You don't want airplanes so you reject all evidence of airplanes. You say the fuel was planted but never say how it was planted or how it was stored so that it would not be noticed. You have no idea what missiles can do and can't do. When challenged, you cannot respond and so tell people to move along so that you can continue spreading your nonsensical theory.
Judy Wood's DEW theory is more believeable than yours.

Golly, and here i thought your avatar indicated you were some uptight brainiac. Can't believe I challenged your pathetic *ahem* to a debate.

When challenged I provided a point by point rebuttal, scroll up, you can't miss them...it took me two posts.

Golly, that was some "rebuttal." When challenged all you do is a little dance.

Explain how missiles are not deflected by impacts with the columns.
Describe how a tanker truck load of fuel was transported and hidden on exactly the right floor.
Explain how the airplane parts fell from the sky.
Explain why no witnesses saw multiple missiles arriving.

Keep your tutu on.

Originally posted by pteridine



Golly, that was some "rebuttal." When challenged all you do is a little dance.

Explain how missiles are not deflected by impacts with the columns.
Describe how a tanker truck load of fuel was transported and hidden on exactly the right floor.
Explain how the airplane parts fell from the sky.
Explain why no witnesses saw multiple missiles arriving.

Keep your tutu on.

Is that all you ATS OS losers can do? Project your own failings on others? You barely post anything other than to complain when someone DARES question your steadfast and dogmatic belief in fairy tails.

Let's see, you cried about thousands of gallons of jet fuel, "why weren't missiles seen", why weren't HE explosions noted, and you were still whining about jet wings.

It seems the jet fuel is easily explained, and it turns out missiles WERE seen, and there WERE HE explosives noted, and oops, the 900 lb penetrating payload dented the columns, not the missile wings. I even offered up video which shows missiles without a plane, and you offer nothing except more limp-wristed complaints, and you still can't explain how 35-degree swept-back wings can better account for the left-to-right damage.

Explain how missiles are not deflected by impacts with the columns.

Look at the damage little fella, or are your eyes painted on? SOME OF THEM WERE DEFLECTED! Jesus, the level of dishonesty you guys spew is endless.

TextDescribe how a tanker truck load of fuel was transported and hidden on exactly the right floor.
.

The towers were empty save for false-front corporations. The spooks had 10 years' time to prepare. Planted laser guidance beacons reduced the margin of error to near zero.

More on this for those who read:
False Fronts For A False Flag

Explain how the airplane parts fell from the sky.

No YOU explain it. Explain how the wheel knocked out that huge steel wall section...you remember, from my rebuttal on the previous page?

Explain why no witnesses saw multiple missiles arriving.

A speeding black projectile, maybe two, shooting from left to right into the side of World Trade Center One. An instant later the sonic noise crescendoing in an enraged screaming roar of explosion

From the previously unread rebuttal.

Keep your tutu on.

You're getting whupped by a guy in a tutu.

reply to post by septic


Aren't No-Plane theories relegated to the hoax bin? With a missile per dented column, you'd need a goodly supply arriving, many more than shown in the misinterpreted photo that you posted.
Explain about the empty buildings with only shell companies and how the planes everyone saw weren't real. Those empty buildings were so empty we lost 3,000 people. Those empty buildings had businesses in them and people went there and populated them, daily. Where did all the people who appeared to escape the buildings come from? Why did #7 fall? Where did the plane parts come from?[You couldn't answer this before but it is your theory so you should provide an answer] Were all the videos doctored and all the eyewitnesses hypnotized? Who did it and how? Theories have to be more than "everything was invisible or planted and all witnesses are lying except for the few whose testimony I like."

Now you can dance around the funeral pyre of a poorly thought out theory.

reply to post by pteridine

Aren't No-Plane theories relegated to the hoax bin?

Oh yeah, here we go. OSers always cry "hoax" when they're getting their clocks cleaned...when you were a kid I bet you called your mommy to fight your fights for you.

With a missile per dented column, you'd need a goodly supply arriving, many more than shown in the misinterpreted photo that you posted.

Who said it would take a missile per column? Where are you coming up with this hokum? Your super duper jet wings can cut the steel columns without even slowing down, but a missile designed with a penetrating warhead can only cut one column at a time? Look at the damage (now THERE'S an idea!)...looks like they were able to penetrate several prior to detonation.

Explain about the empty buildings with only shell companies and how the planes everyone saw weren't real.

Noone saw planes, therefore "everyone" only exists in your feeble imagination. Its time for you to do some explaining. Explain how a plane's wing caused the damage to 145-152.

Those empty buildings were so empty we lost 3,000 people.

No, "we" didn't, and besides, what do your fairy tales have to do with the damage to columns 145-152?

Those empty buildings had businesses in them and people went there and populated them, daily.

No, they didn't. They were emptied of all contents and people, exactly as controlled demolitions normally are.

Where did all the people who appeared to escape the buildings come from?

What people. and what do they have to do with the left-to-right damage to columns 145-152?

Why did #7 fall?

Controlled demolition, just like the whole WTC complex.

Aren't you flailing around a lot for a thread that is attempting to explain what caused the damage to columns 145-152? Have you read the OP yet?

Where did the plane parts come from?[You couldn't answer this before but it is your theory so you should provide an answer] Were all the videos doctored and all the eyewitnesses hypnotized?

Staged photographs of planted parts. Your turn, you explain how the wheel knocked the multi-ton wall panel out, and maybe on another thread I'll give you the time of day.

Were all the videos doctored and all the eyewitnesses hypnotized?

There were no eye witnesses to planes, they witnessed missiles and assumed they were planes when they saw the TeeVee. The videos that show a plane were doctored, but the only people hypnotized appear to be the OS losers.

Who did it and how?

Shucks, you tell me. Al CIA-DUH, right?

Theories have to be more than "everything was invisible or planted and all witnesses are lying except for the few whose testimony I like."

You ought to try it some time, seeing as how you just ignored a plethora of evidence which handily disproves your OS fairy tale.

Now you can dance around the funeral pyre of a poorly thought out theory.

Yeah, it's so poorly thought out you can't rebut it. Move along crybaby, you can't touch this.

reply to post by septic


You obviously have no clue about missile capabilities and explosives characteristics. All that videogaming doesn't help you. As you are a 'no planer,' I can understand how you would feel persecuted when everyone laughs at your theories. Of course, the shallowness of your answers was predictable as was your bombast, given that the theory is entirely baseless. The original but ridiculous concept that missiles bent the columns and then exploded, cutting columns exactly as though an airplane had cut through them is the first example of missile art.
It seems that you are one of the folks that don't understand physics and can't accept that a massive, rigid aluminum structure can cut the steel columns.
Keep on dancing.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

You obviously have no clue about missile capabilities and explosives characteristics. All that videogaming doesn't help you. As you are a 'no planer,' I can understand how you would feel persecuted when everyone laughs at your theories. Of course, the shallowness of your answers was predictable as was your bombast, given that the theory is entirely baseless. The original but ridiculous concept that missiles bent the columns and then exploded, cutting columns exactly as though an airplane had cut through them is the first example of missile art.
It seems that you are one of the folks that don't understand physics and can't accept that a massive, rigid aluminum structure can cut the steel columns.
Keep on dancing.

Pathetic.

reply to post by septic


Still having trouble with your responses, I see. Your inabilty to do more than handwave is noted. As a no-planer thread, this belongs at the bottom of the hoax bin.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

Still having trouble with your responses, I see. Your inabilty to do more than handwave is noted. As a no-planer thread, this belongs at the bottom of the hoax bin.

I'm sure the readers can decide who has provided links, videos, images and analysis, and who has been a raving hypocrite.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

Still having trouble with your responses, I see. Your inabilty to do more than handwave is noted. As a no-planer thread, this belongs at the bottom of the hoax bin.

I'm sure the readers can decide who has provided links, videos, images and analysis, and who has been a raving hypocrite.

From what I see there aren't many readers of no-plane hoax threads. Your images of the so-called missiles have been debunked many times and there are many images and videos of aircraft striking the towers. In your ravings, your claim that the WTC towers were generally empty and had only front companies as occupants is unsupported. You are also unable to explain aircraft parts raining down on the city after the impacts.
I think you are done.

reply to post by pteridine

From what I see there aren't many readers of no-plane hoax threads.

From what I see, that's changing. 10 years wasted on OS BS, and "Truth" Movement dead ends tends to lift the veil.

Your images of the so-called missiles have been debunked many times

You can't debunk anything here, else you would have tried.

and there are many images and videos of aircraft striking the towers.

So if the "many" images and videos are genuine, the damage should be consistent. Since the damage proves a plane couldn't do it, then no matter how many videos and images you point to, they're all fake. It's really quite simple, if you think you can prove a soft aluminum jet wing caused the damage to the columns in the wrong direction and on the wrong sides of the columns, have at it Junior.

In your ravings, your claim that the WTC towers were generally empty and had only front companies as occupants is unsupported.

Unlike you, every claim I make is supported by evidence. If you had a leg to stand on you could read through this thread and formulate a rebuttal; alas you are reduced to ravings of your own.

You are also unable to explain aircraft parts raining down on the city after the impacts.

I have explained the aircraft parts, and I have offered examples. You on the other hand, throw a fit and stomp your feet like a spoiled child. You simply can't believe this thread hasn't been closed yet, and you'll do your incompetent best to make it so. If you can't debate it, close it, is that it? Yankee paved the way with you pal, I've got your number. It's obvious why you and the other alleged users won't debate me, and why you're sooo anxious to get this topic sent to the hoax bin. Must suck to be you.

I think you are done.

reply to post by septic


The "damage proves a plane couldn't do it?" How does the damage prove that? You don't understand enough physics to explain the damage so you assume that it wasn't a plane and work from an erroneous conclusion. The only way you can get to where you want to go is to throw all out all evidence and witnesses and invoke magic.

Do you hear the hoax bin calling your thread?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

The "damage proves a plane couldn't do it?" How does the damage prove that? You don't understand enough physics to explain the damage so you assume that it wasn't a plane and work from an erroneous conclusion. The only way you can get to where you want to go is to throw all out all evidence and witnesses and invoke magic.

Read the thread. Jeez, some horses you can't even lead to water.

Do you hear the hoax bin calling your thread?

What I hear is a coward clucking like a chicken.

I did read it and it was most humorous. One of your comments concerning the towers was: "They were emptied of all contents and people, exactly as controlled demolitions normally are." Of course you have evidence of empty buildings and controlled demolitions, somewhere, don't you?

That hoax bin is getting closer.

Originally posted by pteridine

I did read it and it was most humorous. One of your comments concerning the towers was: "They were emptied of all contents and people, exactly as controlled demolitions normally are." Of course you have evidence of empty buildings and controlled demolitions, somewhere, don't you?

That hoax bin is getting closer.

edit on 11/27/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)

"Make it stop" -

'MOMMY!"

Here you go Junior, more evidence for you to ignore:

28 Pages Of Missing Contents

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by pteridine

I did read it and it was most humorous. One of your comments concerning the towers was: "They were emptied of all contents and people, exactly as controlled demolitions normally are." Of course you have evidence of empty buildings and controlled demolitions, somewhere, don't you?

That hoax bin is getting closer.

edit on 11/27/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)

"Make it stop" -

'MOMMY!"

Here you go Junior, more evidence for you to ignore:

28 Pages Of Missing Contents

Well, Youngster, they don't seem to have any more basis for saying "emptied of all contents and people" than you do. One wondered if all the concrete floors had been poured and another wondered if the memorial was using fake names. You probably meant more groundless speculation for the rest of the world to ignore rather than "evidence."
Do you have any more random thoughts on what happened to the airplanes and passengers and why no missiles were seen or are you ready to move on to another conspiracy?

This thread is great. No photographic evidence of missiles exists, but truthers demand OSers to produce photographs of miscellaneous pieces of furniture from the twin towers.

I'm sure once we account for every doorknob, they'll give up their quest.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
This thread is great. No photographic evidence of missiles exists, but truthers demand OSers to produce photographs of miscellaneous pieces of furniture from the twin towers.

I'm sure once we account for every doorknob, they'll give up their quest.

It's so great none of you OS losers can rebut the simple premise.

The dents on columns 145-152 prove a 35-degree swept-back wing of a 767 could not have possibly caused the damage.

reply to post by pteridine

Do you have any more random thoughts on what happened to the airplanes and passengers and why no missiles were seen or are you ready to move on to another conspiracy?

I appreciate your need to move on to a different subject, judging by you inability to form a rebuttal, but I'm still waiting for a decent response from any of you plane huggers. I've provided dozens of posts of evidence, yet not one of you can debunk any of it.

You keep repeating your lies about "no missiles seen", after video and eyewitness accounts have been provided. Seems you OS losers can only pay attention to the witness accounts and the videos that support your fairy tale.

You are obviously not willing to discuss it, and obviously not willing to leave.

I do appreciate your bumps though, so I'll leave you to your calls for censorship.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
This thread is great. No photographic evidence of missiles exists, but truthers demand OSers to produce photographs of miscellaneous pieces of furniture from the twin towers.

I'm sure once we account for every doorknob, they'll give up their quest.

It's so great none of you OS losers can rebut the simple premise.

The dents on columns 145-152 prove a 35-degree swept-back wing of a 767 could not have possibly caused the damage.

You have not proven that claim. Without proof, a person can say anything. Just watch:

The dents on columns 145-152 prove a 35-degree swept-back wing of a 767 must have caused the damage.

Same evidence. I can claim all I want that all the signs point to an airplane wing just like you have been saying that it was a missile wing (even though missiles are weaker... oh wait, you meant the metal protecting the armament, oh wait, you meant the wings again).

reply to post by Varemia

You have not proven that claim. Without proof, a person can say anything. Just watch:

The dents on columns 145-152 prove a 35-degree swept-back wing of a 767 must have caused the damage.

Unlike you, I provided evidence and analysis to arrive at my conclusion. Try again.

Same evidence. I can claim all I want that all the signs point to an airplane wing just like you have been saying that it was a missile wing (even though missiles are weaker... oh wait, you meant the metal protecting the armament, oh wait, you meant the wings again).

Aw, aren't you cute. You're saying "nuh uh!", aren't you (pats Varemia on the head)

Are you confusing me for someone else too? You guys are either experiencing the same bug, or you all are suffering from the same memory loss. Who are you talking to? Are you seeing double? How many fingers am I holding up?