What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

reply to post by septic


You know, if you treat the people around you with bad manners, then you will get no good responses in turn. Stop being a child and perhaps we can move somewhere, but for the moment, all you do is ignore everyone else and continuously make the claim that you are correct and that everyone else is wrong.

There is nothing more to argue here. Now, it is just you bolstering your ego by acting as condescending as you can. Until you can prove with any kind of physical experiment that what was seen is impossible, then you are just blowing hot air. You are not allowed to constantly make claims without any supporting evidence. And no, apparent direction of damage is not evidence, because there are parts of the damage that do not line up with that theory. You simply ignore those parts. Hell, you ignore anything that isn't columns 145-152 because you know you can't explain it. This thread is just one big joke.

reply to post by septic


Not sure why I bother, but if a person cannot even get a simple, demonstrable verifiable and measurable fact correct??:

....a 35-degree swept-back wing of a 767 ......

......then what about the rest of the claims' veracity??

The 757 wing is swept 25° while the 767 wing is swept 31.5°...

Post @PPRuNe, by member "Life as a journey"

Also,for visual reference (get out your protractors!!!):

Aerospaceweb.org -- 3-View Schematic, near bottom of page


You might also wish to read up on the actual, physical design parameters for the Boeing 767 wings. Also, the wings were essentially "solid", since they were filled to capacity with fuel.




In addition, a thorough review of the science of physics might be quite useful. With an emphasis on the force of motion, mass and momentum....and kinetic energy.

reply to post by ProudBird


Touche! I stand corrected. Heretofore I will say 31.5 degree swept-back wing.

As far as the hollow wing becoming "solid" when it's filled with kerosene, that's a lot like saying a water balloon is solid when filled with water.

So tell me...how did the 31.5 degree swept-back wing striking from the opposite side and in a different direction cause the damage to columns 145 - 152?

reply to post by septic


You wouldn't recognize a rebuttal if it hit you head on. The only little thing your theory lacks is evidence. There is no evidence of empty towers. There is no evidence of missiles. There is no evidence of faked videos. There is no evidence of people throwing airplane parts from tall buildings.
All you have is your cherished belief than an aluminum aircraft can't punch through steel columns. Is this based on the time you threw empty beer cans at daddy's anvil and didn't knock it down?

reply to post by Varemia

You know, if you treat the people around you with bad manners, then you will get no good responses in turn.

Pearls of wisdom. The irony is striking. All you and your compatriots have been able to do is spread disrespect for me and my thread. I am asking for the respect to discuss it without the ridicule; Anyone reading the thread can see when treated with respect I return it. Cry me a river for reciprocating disrespect in kind.

Stop being a child and perhaps we can move somewhere, but for the moment, all you do is ignore everyone else and continuously make the claim that you are correct and that everyone else is wrong.

I have provided a mountain of evidence but you only offer complaints and ridicule, several times announcing victory and your imminent departure. You are welcome to change your tune and address this thread's topic and how my explanation for it is so incorrect, but so far you can't seem to get past your disdain for the fact this thread even exists. Get over it.

There is nothing more to argue here. Now, it is just you bolstering your ego by acting as condescending as you can.

Hah...there you go again.

Until you can prove with any kind of physical experiment that what was seen is impossible, then you are just blowing hot air.

It doesn't take a physical experiment to see the left-to-right pattern in the damage, or to understand that a 60x12 inch 900 lb projectile traveling at 500 miles per hour, concentrating all it's energy at impact could easily account for the damage, whereas a jet's lightweight wingtip at the same speed, with its energy and mass distributed over a much wider area, and striking in a 31.5 degree wedge from a completely different direction. simply can not.

You are not allowed to constantly make claims without any supporting evidence.

I have provided so much evidence your only rebuttal is denial or to change the subject. Look around, the evidence is all over this thread, yet all you do is ridicule.

And no, apparent direction of damage is not evidence,

Ballistics experts might disagree.

because there are parts of the damage that do not line up with that theory. You simply ignore those parts.

Name one...point to what the hell you're talking about in any of the image examples I've provided. It's a simple premise; the left to right damage you admit to seeing cannot be reconciled with a jet's 31.5 degree swept back wing striking from a different direction. If it can be proven otherwise, then please demonstrate it. When I demonstrate my points, I like to use video, witness accounts, links and images...I find it's easier for the readers to understand....have you seen any of them?

Hell, you ignore anything that isn't columns 145-152 because you know you can't explain it.

I have already explained why I'm focusing on this section, there's your memory bug acting up again.

1. The fact that there are so few images of the damage is a clue in itself.
2. What few images we do have indicate a left-to-right impact by something with enough density and mass to sever and dent multiple box columns to the right. At best a 31.5 degree swept back wing striking head on would strike in a wedge motion from the right sides of the columns, completely contrary to the evidence of the damage. Right there it's case closed...you're done. We don't even need to discuss the ludicrous claims that a plane's wing could even slice the box columns. The damage direction is clear. Planes couldn't have done it, therefor you'll need to rethink your fragile belief system.
3. The damage is consistent with a 60x12 long rod penetrating payload of a JASSM cruise missile.
4. Witnesses saw planes. Witnesses saw missiles. The damage indicates missiles, while disproving planes, therefor, some witnesses are right and some are wrong.

This thread is just one big joke.

I agree. There's this one guy who has repeatedly threatened to leave but just can't stay away. What a hoot.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

You wouldn't recognize a rebuttal if it hit you head on. The only little thing your theory lacks is evidence. There is no evidence of empty towers. There is no evidence of missiles. There is no evidence of faked videos. There is no evidence of people throwing airplane parts from tall buildings.
All you have is your cherished belief than an aluminum aircraft can't punch through steel columns. Is this based on the time you threw empty beer cans at daddy's anvil and didn't knock it down?

If this is your idea of a rebuttal, then you're right.

Boy, aren't you relieved we didn't debate.

reply to post by septic


Your side of the debate would consist of you quoting unsupported comments from questionable websites and calling it "evidence" of your "research," where "research" is a euphemism for wandering around the web looking for such comments that confirm your predetermined conclusions. My side of the debate would be to point out the lack of evidence for any of your statements, your inability to understand the behavior of metals under impulsive loads, plastic deformation, and dynamics of impact. Then I would point out the complete idiocy of the idea that missiles were tuned to produce a hole that looked as though an airplane had gone through the side of the building in spite of the fact that thousands of people saw planes strike the buildings. Finally, I would state that the basis of your theory is a photograph of bent columns taken with a telephoto lens coupled with your erroneous concept that the plane couldn't possibly have cut through the exterior columns.
You would whine that you had evidence that I wasn't paying attention to and I would say that investigations shouldn't start with a conclusion.
A debate wouldn't have accomplished much, so it is a good thing that we didn't waste any time with it.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

Your side of the debate would consist of you quoting unsupported comments from questionable websites and calling it "evidence" of your "research," where "research" is a euphemism for wandering around the web looking for such comments that confirm your predetermined conclusions. My side of the debate would be to point out the lack of evidence for any of your statements, your inability to understand the behavior of metals under impulsive loads, plastic deformation, and dynamics of impact. Then I would point out the complete idiocy of the idea that missiles were tuned to produce a hole that looked as though an airplane had gone through the side of the building in spite of the fact that thousands of people saw planes strike the buildings. Finally, I would state that the basis of your theory is a photograph of bent columns taken with a telephoto lens coupled with your erroneous concept that the plane couldn't possibly have cut through the exterior columns.
You would whine that you had evidence that I wasn't paying attention to and I would say that investigations shouldn't start with a conclusion.
A debate wouldn't have accomplished much, so it is a good thing that we didn't waste any time with it.

Whew, that was close. You might have been required to address the points made, and you might have even been required to provide your own explanation for how a 31.5 degree swept back wing could cause the damage to the wrong sides of the columns and in the wrong direction. Fortunately you avoided all that as easily as you have avoided deliberating about the damage.

Note the direction of travel of the projectile/s






Note the shape of the columns and the protruding edges which would strike a jet's rounded aluminum wing edge at 500 MPH



Note the direction of the cartoon jet's impact:






Was the information I gathered wandering around the web looking for information that fits my theory? No, it is the same information used to convince gullible people to go to war.

Note what happens to real jets when they run into hard things at 500 mph:


Note what happens to plane wings when they run into hard things slower than 500 mph:


Here is how easily the gullible people were convinced:

Originally posted by septic
Note what happens to real jets when they run into hard things at 500 mph:

Just for future reference, that was a particular test which was using an experimental shock absorbing system to see if a concrete structure could be designed to resist aircraft impact. The concrete bounces back to dissipate the impact force. You can witness this in the video:

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Varemia

Just for future reference, that was a particular test which was using an experimental shock absorbing system to see if a concrete structure could be designed to resist aircraft impact. The concrete bounces back to dissipate the impact force. You can witness this in the video:

Noted.

reply to post by septic


You might have been required to explain why such flimsy evidence was the basis for such a poorly thought out, contrived theory. You could have been asked to show why the wing would not have damaged the columns as shown, what happened to the aircraft and passengers, and how the missiles could have made such a precision hole given the JASSM flight envelope and warhead size.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

You might have been required to explain why such flimsy evidence was the basis for such a poorly thought out, contrived theory. You could have been asked to show why the wing would not have damaged the columns as shown, what happened to the aircraft and passengers, and how the missiles could have made such a precision hole given the JASSM flight envelope and warhead size.

Interesting story.

reply to post by thedman


you mentioned the wingtips being little more than sheet metal

reply to post by septic


You're forgetting that speed is the most important factor here. Low-speed impacts cause less energy to be imparted over-all. From a static position, most steel and other objects can absorb a lot of energy. When a plane is going low-speed, it is not imparting as much, so the steel resists it entirely and shreds it with its own momentum, taking little damage itself.

In high-speed collisions, there is exponentially more energy (velocity squared), so the plane, while still retaining its weakness, will impart far more energy upon impact and cause more damage to the object it hits, while shredding at the same time. This is what was witnessed on 9/11. 500 squared is 250,000. That's how much energy is in a single unit of mass. We know the wings had more than 1 gram of weight, so there is a lot of pent up energy to impart on the tower wall.

reply to post by septic


This guy:

www.youtube.com...


.....has no idea what he's talking about. Well, in a way, it mentions correctly the A380 ground accident, when he said it was at "low speed". THAT is the key, and is how one understands the physics involved, and the differing forces

He has no idea what the "No Step" placards are for, when seen from the cabin of the passenger airliner, painted out there on the wings. He obviously is just some nutter ranting on about things he knows nothing about.


He is also suffering under the delusional ignorance, in his ridiculous attempt at "sarcasm", that the airplanes on 9/11 stayed "intact" through the buildings.

The guy is so ignorant, it's amazing he can figure out how to put his pants on in the morning.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

You're forgetting that speed is the most important factor here. Low-speed impacts cause less energy to be imparted over-all. From a static position, most steel and other objects can absorb a lot of energy. When a plane is going low-speed, it is not imparting as much, so the steel resists it entirely and shreds it with its own momentum, taking little damage itself.

In high-speed collisions, there is exponentially more energy (velocity squared), so the plane, while still retaining its weakness, will impart far more energy upon impact and cause more damage to the object it hits, while shredding at the same time. This is what was witnessed on 9/11. 500 squared is 250,000. That's how much energy is in a single unit of mass. We know the wings had more than 1 gram of weight, so there is a lot of pent up energy to impart on the tower wall.

No, you're assuming a jet wing turns into a light-saber at increased speeds. The rounded edges of the soft aluminum wings would have been struck by the protruding 1/4 inch thick, stiff, dense and sharp steel edges of each 14-inch square box-column at 500 MPH.



You're also forgetting the pattern of the damage precludes the possibility of it being caused by a soft, round wing tip striking from a different direction and on the opposite sides of the damage.

Left to right, as described by this witness:

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

www.contactpressimages.com...

Left to right, as supported by the damage evidence:



No plane, yet visibly smaller projectiles, as shown in this video:



No plane, as described by this witness:

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by septic

 

This guy:

www.youtube.com...


.....has no idea what he's talking about. Well, in a way, it mentions correctly the A380 ground accident, when he said it was at "low speed". THAT is the key, and is how one understands the physics involved, and the differing forces

He has no idea what the "No Step" placards are for, when seen from the cabin of the passenger airliner, painted out there on the wings. He obviously is just some nutter ranting on about things he knows nothing about.


He is also suffering under the delusional ignorance, in his ridiculous attempt at "sarcasm", that the airplanes on 9/11 stayed "intact" through the buildings.

The guy is so ignorant, it's amazing he can figure out how to put his pants on in the morning.

I see...so in your world if the airbus had been going 500 MPH the lightweight, round-edged, soft aluminum wing tip would have simply sliced through the building without slowing down, and without any pieces of the building falling off, as shown in this video of the second strike:

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by thedman

 

you mentioned the wingtips being little more than sheet metal

Yes you can walk on the wing, you can jump up and down and dance like a cornered truther in tap shoes. Just so long as you stay on the structural skin between the main spars.







The curved piece of debris standing on edge in the photo below is a piece of wing skin. As you can see it is a lot thicker than a beer can.

reply to post by waypastvne


Thanks for that...so they're so strong you can walk on them as long as you step on the right place. Check.

Their skin is thicker than a beer can. Check.

Here's a refresher on what a single box column "panel" looks like. What do you know, it's thicker than a beer can too, and you could probably step on it anywhere you wanted, even wearing boots.



Still, as beefy as those box columns look, they were no match for a super-duper jet wheel:

reply to post by septic


Where did I say this?:

....so in your world if the airbus had been going 500 MPH the lightweight, round-edged, soft aluminum wing tip would have simply sliced through the building without slowing down, and without any pieces of the building falling off...

First, the Airbus aluminium is not "soft". But, at 500 MPH it would have a huge amount of kinetic energy, and would cause great damage to a building's structure. And, there would of course be deceleration, it is how the energy of force and velocity is transferred to whatever it comes into contact with, and the properties of that material.

Really.....the level of knowledge of physics displayed in this thread is appalling bad.