What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

WTH is everyone arguing about, the hole in the side of the building matches exactly to what I would expect a hole to look like from an airplane hitting it. It came in at a slight angle and the wing began to enter the building (from the left) and then the nose hit and by then the thing already began exploding which just disintigrated the right wing not damaging the right side of the hole as much. As soon as there is a breach in the wing (which holds the fuel) the wing will explode, how far do you think the wing is going to go into the building before the the wing is breached and explodes? How deep are you trying to go with this for Christ sake, I believe that the story of how towers fell is not legit, but for the love of God stop trying to make a conspiracy out of every part of this awful event.

Here's my conspiracy then, the planes were holograms beamed down from flying saucers which came from inside the moon, they have been trying to control the government for a long time and this was a warning. The aliens are very upset that the Pentagon has such a large lawn and that health care in the United States is so expensive. Also, the homeless people are the ones that made World Trade Center bldg. 7 collapse because they got scared and all ran into the building at the same time. The Towers lined up in such a way that they pointed indirectly at the North Pole upsetting Santa to no end, thus the holograms from the flying saucers were covering up the Flying Reindeer that actually flew directly through the buildings!!!



The End

In terms of the damage, if we reverse the equation and the plane was not moving but the building was moving at 500mph, do you think the plane would make the same hole or it would flatten the plane?

reply to post by Insolubrious


You are thinking in terms, there, of your practical day-to-day experience. Such as hammering a nail, for instance. But, in those familiar examples, the nail is encountering resistance, so is not the proper analogy.

Think of it as a mental picture....and, in an environment such as micro-gravity, in space. Where the airplane can be "at rest" relative to a reference point arbitrarily chosen.

Then, relative to that same reference point, and to the airplane, the building (again, a mental exercise) can be set in motion, so as to impact. The building will "smash" the airplane, it will disintegrate much as seen, and the building will suffer the "wound". Of course, on Earth, when the airplane hit, there were also gravitational motions due to Earth's gravity, so the results would not be exactly similar.

Try this: Your car, at 100 MPH and a rock suspended on a string hits the windshield as you drive into it. Conversely, you propel the same rock at 100 MPH at the stationary car, into the same windshield, at the same point and angle. Results should be similar.

A spacecraft in motion, at a velocity of 'X' hits a piece of debris.....a tiny micrometeor. Or, even a fleck of paint, or some other debris that is there, as a result of decades of Human activity in space. In reality, you (the spacecraft, if it's manned) and the debris each have relative velocities....but on impact, it is the relative velocity that matters, and the mass and even shape of the two objects, that determines the outcome of damage.

The Space Shuttle's windshields would often be pitted from even tiny flecks of paint, after a mission.

From STS-7:

Originally posted by Insolubrious
In terms of the damage, if we reverse the equation and the plane was not moving but the building was moving at 500mph, do you think the plane would make the same hole or it would flatten the plane?

Huzza!

I'm betting on a building-sized hole in the plane.

Jus' sayin'

reply to post by septic


Hello septic,

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by WASTYT

 

Originally posted by WASTYT
The problem here is that JASSM missiles aren't designed to strike its target at an upward angle. In fact they are specifically designed to hit targets on the ground at anywhere from a 40-70 degree nose down angle of attack.

So what? What they're "designed" for and what they are used for are different things.

"So what?" Is that your only resolution to this one?

Are you going to use a fork to eat soup?
Design has everything to do with how things are used, especially precision guided missiles.

Look at the damage to the right side of WTC1.

As you've previously noted in abundance, the topic of this thread is about the left side...

Now let's look at the left sides of the gashes, the sides that didn't have the benefit of the 40-70 degree incline enjoyed by the right:
[snip pics]

Great, back on topic ... But if you're attempting to make a point here, it's completely escaped me I'm afraid.

posted by septic

posted by WASTYT
To recap- The impact damage (for both buildings) is at an upward trajectory from left to right, which is the path you claim the missile took as it struck the towers. The problem with this is that JASSM's engage their ground targets from the air, hence to the Air-to-surface moniker.

Really? You're splitting hairs like that?

Pardon me, but exactly how is that splitting hairs? It's a fundamental principle behind my argument. The JASSM does not strike it's targets from below. Quite the opposite actually; they strike downward from above. Hence, the damage which we are discussing, per your topic of this thread, could not have been caused by the wings of a JASSM. Unless of course you can prove that fact to be demonstrably incorrect.

Come, if JASSM missiles were used what's to say Tomahawks weren't also used? At that point the US military is knee-deep in this crap and anything is possible.

I'm sure there's quite a lot to say about Tomahawks not being used. It's a preposterous idea, which seems to confirm your self-admitted lack of knowledge in this arena. Anything is not possible when it comes to what happened that day. This wasn't a fantasy.

What's the most efficient way to cut a plane-shaped hole in the WTC when you know a real plane would just spread identifiable aircraft parts all over Manhattan? JASSMs to cut the "wings" and Tomahawks to cut the rest?

By using an airplane. There were plenty of identifiable real plane parts strewn all about. You yourself have posted pictures of such evidence.

JASSM's and Tomahawk cruise missiles do not cut out airplane sized and shaped holes into skyscrapers. You seem to be inventing capabilities that have no basis in the realm of possibility. It has to go well beyond you just stating that as a fact for it to be true. However, I'll give you credit for your colorful imagination. Seriously.

Here's a Tomahawk striking horizontally...and this is old school:
www.youtube.com...#!

Horizontal is flat trajectory. The damage we are discussing is at an upward trajectory.

Are you now officially introducing the Tomahawk as your new theory of what caused the damages to the columns in question?

It is because the damage is so incriminating that so few images are available; clear evidence of the government's complete control of the situation. With something like 911, there should have been THOUSANDS of eyes witnessing the events unfold, with HUNDREDS of cameras taking pictures and video, yet there are practically zero shots of the damage to the towers between the impacts and the collapses. An hour of time for the thousands of witnesses to run home, and run back outside with a camera, or to run to a 7-11 to buy a disposable Kodak. An hour for National News Networks with their million dollar studio optics to take tight, close-up shots of the damage and the interiors of the buildings. Yet we have a mere handful of blurry, indistinct images of the crime of the millennium.

Even the few we have are incriminating enough to prove planes couldn't possibly have done the deed.

Well this entire rant seems to confirm just how off base and wild your idea of that day is. It's quite bizarre.

Shall we discuss what a Boeing 767 is "designed" for now?

Sure. Why not.

So how would you resolve this?

I don't know, . . .?

The most honest thing you've said all thread.

reply to post by WASTYT

"So what?" Is that your only resolution to this one?

Are you going to use a fork to eat soup?
Design has everything to do with what things are used for, especially precision guided missiles.

Design is everything when it comes to flying large numbers of people through the air too. That's why large aluminum jets are used for one thing, and missiles are used for another. You are trying to claim the design of a long-rod penetrating warhead is proof they weren't used to cause the left-to-right damage, simply because the trajectory is outside their preferred use envelope. You then ignore the design limitations of large commercial Jets, but don't offer any attempt to explain how it damaged the columns in the wrong direction and on the wrong side, or how thin, soft aluminum could survive being struck at 500 MPH by the dozens of 14-inch steel box columns with two sharp, wing slicing edges each.

Great, back on topic ... But if you're attempting to make a point here, it's completely escaped me I'm afraid.

The left side isn't as cleanly cut as the right, indicating more energy on the right side.

I'm sure there's quite a lot to say about Tomahawks not being used. It's a preposterous idea, which seems to confirm your self-admitted lack of knowledge in this arena. Anything is not possible when it comes to what happened that day. This wasn't a fantasy.

Your inability to stomach the possibilities and the implications of the damage is not my problem. That you find it easier to believe impossibilities is also not my problem. I'm still waiting for your better explanation.

By using an airplane. There were plenty of identifiable real plane parts strewn all about. You yourself have posted pictures of such evidence.

I have posted the staged, ludicrous photograph of a multi-ton wall panel impaled by a wheel. It was an example of the planted evidence used to convince gullible people a plane hit. None of you have tried to defend it until now.

JASSM's and Tomahawk cruise missiles do not cut out airplane sized and shaped holes into skyscrapers.

The damage evidence indicates they do.

You seem to be inventing capabilities that have no basis in the realm of possibility. It has to go well beyond you just stating that as a fact for it to be true. However, I'll give you credit for your colorful imagination. Seriously.

How unusual, another OSer who can't support his own theory, accusing me of fabricating mine. It's amazing how thoroughly the evidence has been avoided. Not that amazing actually, but predictable.

Horizontal is flat trajectory. The damage we are discussing is at an upward trajectory.

Thereby causing less damage than on the right.

Are you now officially introducing the Tomahawk as your new theory of what caused the damages to the columns in question?

The Tomahawks were offered to display side-impact targeting availability since the 80s, but I am not ruling out any military ballistics capabilities. What do you consider acceptable? Jets, and only jets?

Well this entire rant seems to confirm just how off base and wild your idea of that day is. It's quite bizarre.

yawn

The most honest thing you've said all thread.

Projection will get you no where.

Originally posted by septic
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.

Your claim is a missile wing tip cut and "sliced" through the box columns. Which you support using that animation. So how does a wing which is composed of composite material outer lining and a core made of closed cell foam (that's right foam) sever steel columns, but a much larger and much more massive aluminum wing doesn't? Is foam stronger than heavy aluminum? Please explain if you can.

4. Witnesses saw planes. Witnesses saw missiles. The damage indicates missiles, while disproving planes, therefor, some witnesses are right and some are wrong.

No witnesses saw missiles.

If witnesses saw a missile then they are either lying or mistaken.

reply to post by WASTYT


I won't repeat the same answers to the same questions.

Read the thread and get back to me.

reply to post by septic

Originally posted by septic
You then ignore the design limitations of large commercial Jets, but don't offer any attempt to explain how it damaged the columns in the wrong direction and on the wrong side, or how thin, soft aluminum could survive being struck at 500 MPH by the dozens of 14-inch steel box columns with two sharp, wing slicing edges each.

Not ignoring it. The jets flew directly into the towers at a very high speed. Why can't they do this?

Please be reminded that you admitted earlier in this thread to knowing nothing about airplanes (or missiles), so perhaps you shouldn't assert yourself in the manner you are doing. It makes you seem phony. Just some friendly advice. Honest.

Your inability to stomach the possibilities and the implications of the damage is not my problem. That you find it easier to believe impossibilities is also not my problem. I'm still waiting for your better explanation.

No, that's an incorrect assessment. Please allow me to clarify:
It's not that I'm unable to stomach the possibility that our government was involved in this some how, if that's what you mean. They knew this attack was coming and did nothing to prevent it and that's the real conspiracy here. That's what I believe. Yet for some reason no one wants to approach it from that angle. But alas, I realize that its not as exciting as CGI'd planes over missiles.

Kids these days...

I have posted the staged, ludicrous photograph of a multi-ton wall panel impaled by a wheel. It was an example of the planted evidence used to convince gullible people a plane hit. None of you have tried to defend it until now.

Ludicrous is a good word to describe it, yes.

How unusual, another OSer who can't support his own theory, accusing me of fabricating mine. It's amazing how thoroughly the evidence has been avoided. Not that amazing actually, but predictable.

You are not willing to listen to anyone else's contributions to the discussion if it doesn't go along with your position. You make things up to suit your view, which is why the majority here don't support you or take you seriously.

You appear to be completely alone in promoting this theory. Why is that?

Horizontal is flat trajectory. The damage we are discussing is at an upward trajectory.

Thereby causing less damage than on the right.

Huh?

The Tomahawks were offered to display side-impact targeting availability since the 80s, but I am not ruling out any military ballistics capabilities. What do you consider acceptable? Jets, and only jets?

Yes. Jets and only jets. I haven't seen any evidence that disproves jets. Funny how the only evidence you've been using to disprove jets... is actually evidence OF jets. How ironic

yawn

Get some sleep

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by WASTYT

 

I won't repeat the same answers to the same questions.

Read the thread and get back to me.

The topic of your thread is posed as a question, yet you already have all the answers it seems...

Well, I've read back over the thread and found the answer I was looking for:

Originally posted by septic
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....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by WASTYT


There are 18 plus pages of OSers avoiding the question in the OP. I have offered an answer to my question. If I am incorrect, I am open for a discussion as to how I am wrong. I am not here because I like to argue. If you can't discuss the OP honestly what's your reason for being here? When I am exposed to new information that contradicts older information, I reconsider my conclusion.

I have done the best I can to explain the left-to-right damage. There is nothing stopping you from doing the same.

Hi septic,

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by WASTYT

 

There are 18 plus pages of OSers avoiding the question in the OP. I have offered an answer to my question. If I am incorrect, I am open for a discussion as to how I am wrong. I am not here because I like to argue. If you can't discuss the OP honestly what's your reason for being here? When I am exposed to new information that contradicts older information, I reconsider my conclusion.

I have done the best I can to explain the left-to-right damage. There is nothing stopping you from doing the same.

Honestly- I don't see where anyone has avoided you. It's 18 pages of disagreement with you, and even by some of your fellow truthers.

Your theory is incorrect and is based on your own preconceived notions, not the facts. If you want some truth, than there you go.

You have been shown many times over in this thread, and others, that missiles could not account for what you are claiming. But you've chosen to completely disregard the explanations for some reason, and have opted to conjure up your own. You say you are open to other answers, but it certainly doesn't seem so given the way you've been carrying on here. You've managed to argue with everyone who's participated while completely alienating yourself.

I'm no psychologist so I won't be able to understand why you so firmly believe this no-plane theory in the face of all the evidence against it. To me, and for what it's worth, it seems a little bit delusional.

In all of the pages of this thread you have not presented one piece of real evidence for a missile. You've only taken the evidence of a plane, changed the meaning of it and presented it as evidence of a missile. Or just invented evidence of a missile. And no amount of reasoning seems to matter to you.

You said yourself you don't know about missiles and planes. So why do you pretend to know more about this subject matter, then say a pilot? When a pilot offers an explanation to you, why do you shun it? Wouldn't he know more about what planes are capable of than you?

Isn't it possible that your lack of knowledge should render your theory to be highly questionable? That's a fair question, right?

reply to post by WASTYT

Isn't it possible that your lack of knowledge should render your theory to be highly questionable? That's a fair question, right?

What, that's it? I ask a question in the OP and offer an answer and all you can offer is to say I'm not an expert? Wow, you guys are a shame to behold! You're positively wetting your pants to highlight my admission I'm not a missile or plane expert; but why is that relevant to you? It is of no consequence to me, that's why I shared it...it is of no consequence to the OP...remember, I'm asking a question. It doesn't take an expert to scrutinize the damage and conclude the trajectory of whatever hit it.

I happen to think the damage is consistent with a 12 inch by 60 inch "long rod" 900 lb penetrating payload of a JASSM missile, or something similar. I have provided images, video, eyewitness accounts and my own analysis in support of my hypothesis. All of my evidence is exactly the same evidence as that used to go to war, albeit scrutinized with an honest eye.

It doesn't take an expert to read and to learn. I am not an expert in anything, are you? Do you rely on experts to do your thinking for you?

What have you offered other than to display your own low self-esteem?

reply to post by septic


As someone who seems to want expert opinions from people while expressing his layman opinion and REJECTING, yes REJECTING all evidence to the contrary of his opinion, you sure are on a high horse.

It has been shown repeatedly that the planes had enough energy to cause the damage. Parts of the specific portion you singled out for this thread are facing in the wrong direction, making you use the term "mostly" now when you refer to the seemingly left-to-right damage direction. I realize that this is undeniable evidence of a missile to you, but it is not so clear-cut to people who are naturally skeptical of these things. It does not make you smarter. If anything, you should use your intelligence to step back from your position in the debate and just think about it all. How could it have been done? Do you have to meet a dozen people who were physically there before you'll believe they existed as witnesses to the plane crash? Would even that convince you?

If you say no, that it must be a missile even in that hypothetical, then stop where you are and slap yourself in the face. Because in that hypothetical, there would be no logical way for a plane to have not caused the damage. In order for you to maintain your position in that "what if" scenario means that you are delusionally backing your theory no matter what, and that will spread to the non-hypothetical reality of what happened. Dozens of videos captured the plane, from video cameras to news cameras. Hundreds of witnesses saw the plane with their own eyes.

You are saying it is all lies if you want to be right, and you do seem to WANT to be right. This is an important part of dissecting the psychology of why you can't even consider an alternate possibility.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by WASTYT

 

I ask a question in the OP and offer an answer and all you can offer is to say I'm not an expert?

I didn't say it. You did.

You're positively wetting your pants to highlight my admission I'm not a missile or plane expert; but why is that relevant to you?

My intention is to highlight your misplaced assertiveness on the subject. Your opinions about planes or missiles is moot because of your complete lack of expertise in the field. It's really that simple. You seem to think you know what you are talking about, but I don't think anyone here is buying it for a second.

I have provided images, video, eyewitness accounts and my own analysis in support of my hypothesis.

There were no eyewitnesses to a missile or multiple missiles striking the towers. So whatever witnesses you've provided are either liars or completely unaware of what a plane is. Your images are degraded, your videos irrelevant (why no videos of missiles?), and your analysis incorrect in its assumptions.

I am not an expert in anything, are you?

Thank you for that, again.

What have you offered other than to display your own low self-esteem?

Now who's the one projecting?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

As someone who seems to want expert opinions from people while expressing his layman opinion and REJECTING, yes REJECTING all evidence to the contrary of his opinion, you sure are on a high horse.

None of you are experts at anything except being blowhards. Your penchant to genuflect to experts reflects your inability to critically think for yourselves, and you seem to resent that capacity in others. I've read your "expert" papers, something you haven't done, and found them to be a bunch of hogwash.

Since you boneheads can't think for yourselves, I'm asking for LAYMAN opinions from those who can. You can stuff your experts, I'll take rational thought any day, thank you.

It has been shown repeatedly that the planes had enough energy to cause the damage.

Translation: "Experts" have tried to prove planes "could" cause the damage, but never succeeded. I prefer to let an expert do my thinking for me, and I want everyone else to follow suit, or I'm going to throw a temper tantrum.

Parts of the specific portion you singled out for this thread are facing in the wrong direction, making you use the term "mostly" now when you refer to the seemingly left-to-right damage direction.

Not true, and if true, you can certainly point it out, can you not? If a plane caused the damage, surely some expert somewhere can prove it. It is clearly left-to-right, and even you admitted it...but now YOU are doing the backpedaling while projecting your failings on me (you're expert at that, for sure).

I realize that this is undeniable evidence of a missile to you, but it is not so clear-cut to people who are naturally skeptical of these things.

I am not as convinced of missiles as you are of planes. It would be nice to see your case made as to how a 31.5 degree wing striking from the right, could cause dents to the columns on the left. No? Nothing offered? Pity.

It does not make you smarter.

Careful, you're projecting again. I never claimed as much, but you sure seem threatened by me.

If anything, you should use your intelligence to step back from your position in the debate and just think about it all.

What debate? I have stated my position, offered my proof, evidence and analysis, yet all you guys do is tell me how stupid I am. You haven't tried to prove your case, and haven't even bothered to disprove mine. You haven't tried to present an argument at all. There is no debate here...there is one guy offering a theory and half a dozen guys telling me to shut up.

How could it have been done?

One way would be missiles.

Do you have to meet a dozen people who were physically there before you'll believe they existed as witnesses to the plane crash? Would even that convince you?

I've met about 7 people so far, but each one turned out to be a liar. What would convince me would be someone making a claim that matched the forensic evidence of the damage, not to mention claiming to have witnessed something physically possible.

stop where you are and slap yourself in the face.

You first.

Because in that hypothetical, there would be no logical way for a plane to have not caused the damage.

Our definitions of logic differ, obviously. Logically, I like to stick to options that are physically possible in the real world...therefor, logically a plane is right out.

In order for you to maintain your position in that "what if" scenario means that you are delusionally backing your theory no matter what, and that will spread to the non-hypothetical reality of what happened.

yeah, more projection...how unusual.

Dozens of videos captured the plane, from video cameras to news cameras.

Each one has been proven to be fraudulent, which explains why video-fakery threads are banned from this clearly government-controlled site.

Hundreds of witnesses saw the plane with their own eyes.

Repeating rumors and stating your assumptions does not make it so. No one witnessed planes with their own eyes. Those who I've met who have claimed as much crumble under examination, and their stories cancel each other out.

You are saying it is all lies if you want to be right, and you do seem to WANT to be right.

You guys have so far been unable to successfully paraphrase me correctly, but you have been very successful in projecting your own feelings on me. Bummer about your confusion.

This is an important part of dissecting the psychology of why you can't even consider an alternate possibility.

Irony.

Originally posted by septic
None of you are experts at anything except being blowhards. Your penchant to genuflect to experts reflects your inability to critically think for yourselves, and you seem to resent that capacity in others. I've read your "expert" papers, something you haven't done, and found them to be a bunch of hogwash.

Since you boneheads can't think for yourselves, I'm asking for LAYMAN opinions from those who can. You can stuff your experts, I'll take rational thought any day, thank you.

I've never once said that I was an expert, but I am highly interested about the specific points of the papers that were hogwash to you, Mr. Layman. If it's just your opinion, then that's not worth very much, and it won't get us anywhere. That's like me looking at an electrical tower and saying it's run by God, backing it up by saying I wash pigs for a living.

Translation: "Experts" have tried to prove planes "could" cause the damage, but never succeeded. I prefer to let an expert do my thinking for me, and I want everyone else to follow suit, or I'm going to throw a temper tantrum.

What has not succeeded in using the equation F=mv^2? This is basic stuff. You don't have to be an expert to calculate basic energy. Expert opinion is only needed when it comes to determining complex interactions.

Not true, and if true, you can certainly point it out, can you not? If a plane caused the damage, surely some expert somewhere can prove it. It is clearly left-to-right, and even you admitted it...but now YOU are doing the backpedaling while projecting your failings on me (you're expert at that, for sure).

It has been pointed out, repeatedly. You dismiss it as if you don't even see it. It's really amazing you see you dismiss it. It's almost comical.

I am not as convinced of missiles as you are of planes. It would be nice to see your case made as to how a 31.5 degree wing striking from the right, could cause dents to the columns on the left. No? Nothing offered? Pity.

If the plane was anything but perpendicular to the tower, it would cause angled damage. Since it's impossible that it could have been perfectly perpendicular, I'm inclined to say it was angled.

Careful, you're projecting again. I never claimed as much, but you sure seem threatened by me.

Not at all. I'm just trying to see if I can make you think logically about this.

What debate? I have stated my position, offered my proof, evidence and analysis, yet all you guys do is tell me how stupid I am. You haven't tried to prove your case, and haven't even bothered to disprove mine. You haven't tried to present an argument at all. There is no debate here...there is one guy offering a theory and half a dozen guys telling me to shut up.

Says the guy who ignored every counter-argument. It must be a nice view from your horse.

One way would be missiles.

You know what I meant. How could no one have seen it?

I've met about 7 people so far, but each one turned out to be a liar. What would convince me would be someone making a claim that matched the forensic evidence of the damage, not to mention claiming to have witnessed something physically possible.

So if they say they witnessed it, they are automatically a liar to you? That is just awesome. You must be omniscient or something.

Our definitions of logic differ, obviously. Logically, I like to stick to options that are physically possible in the real world...therefor, logically a plane is right out.

No, logically, you would look at the sum of the evidence first. Instead, you throw out all evidence and assume that your understanding of the apparent direction of damage is perfect.

yeah, more projection...how unusual.

Not projection at all. Hypotheticals are good thought games. They help determine your bias. Clearly, you are biased, as am I, but I see a very powerful bias on your side, while I'm actually willing to change my mind.

Each one has been proven to be fraudulent, which explains why video-fakery threads are banned from this clearly government-controlled site.

Really now. I have yet to see this proof. You must just have a secret store of this "proof." Can I see it, pretty please?

Irony.

The only irony here is how you claim to be logical and intelligent, yet you act like a religious nut.

reply to post by Varemia

I've never once said that I was an expert, but I am highly interested about the specific points of the papers that were hogwash to you,

You want to go over the MIT paper's creative wing modeling again? I'm happy to. They first calculated all the material that goes into a wing, save the engines.

The main structural part of the wing is the spar – a continuous beam that extends from one tip of the wing to the other. For modeling purposes, we assumed that the mass of the wings (excluding engine) was approximately 21300kg wing M . This mass does not include the mass of the fuel in the wing tanks. Assuming that this mass is now uniformly distributed over the whole wing span and the wing is modeled as a thin-walled square section cross section ...the equivalent thickness becomes 34.5mm.

Most of the mass of a wing goes into supporting the engines, but they took all that material, rolled it all into a big ball of play-doh, and then reformed the wings so that they were 4 times as thick as the columns, and formed like a rectangular box, 34.5 MM thick. Does this look like they're making a fair model to you?

Here's a description of the average wing thicknesses of some other jets' skins...0.050 appears to be the thickest of these examples. They then took the mass and equally distributed it over the whole wing.

I assume that you are talking about the fuselage skin thickness. The minimum skin thickness on the DC-8 is 0.050" and the DC-9 is the same. I have never worked on the 707, but the minimum skin thickness on the 727 is 0.038" and the 737-200 is 0.036". I would be very surprised that the minimum skin thickness of the early Comets would be under 0.010".
The thinner skin thicknesses on the Boeings made them more susceptible to fatigue cracking over time than the Douglas built aircraft and was one of the contributing elements to the Aloha incident in the late 1980's.
Mind you that there were other issues in the design and maintenance of that 737-200 that also contributed to the fuselage upper lobe failure.t

Source

The wings are swept at approximately 35o so that upon impact, external columns are contacted sequentially, one by one. However, the problem of a hollow beam striking another hollow column at a right angle and a speed of 240 m/s has not been analyzed in the literature. Therefore it is not possible, at this point in time, to give any detailed account on this interaction, between the wings and outer column, with a higher degree of accuracy than our approximate engineering analysis.

Another poster was questioning the veracity of my thread because I was wrong about the 35 degree swept back wing (it's 31.5), but here we see MIT using that figure. In the above excerpt it can be seen that they pretty much threw in the towel about trying to give a detailed account about what occurred between the wings and the outer columns (plural). They used fancy language and creative modeling to say they were giving their best guess based on the results for which they were looking.

The equivalent thickness of the hollow wing beam is approximately four times larger than the thickness of the exterior columns, 9.5mm ext t . It is therefore reasonable to treat wings as rigid bodies upon impact with exterior columns.

So they've taken their creative wing model and consider it a "beam"...a rigid body four times as thick as the exterior columns. Houdini would be proud of this sleight of hand.

In actuality the wings are constructed as a 3-dimensional lattice of open section beams, ribs and sheet metal skin that maybe of comparable strength to the floor trusses. However, interaction between two 3-dimensional space frames impacting each other is too difficult to carry out analytically at the present level of approximation.

A look at the above excerpt and we can see them again throwing in the towel with regards to the floor trusses. They return the spars and 3-dimensional latticework of the beams-er-I mean beams...WINGS, but then say it's too difficult to calculate. Does that stop them? No, they must simply assume the wings did what they saw on the TV.

So there's your layman's ripping of your MIT paper. No math needed, just a good nose for BS.

Mr. Layman. If it's just your opinion, then that's not worth very much, and it won't get us anywhere. That's like me looking at an electrical tower and saying it's run by God, backing it up by saying I wash pigs for a living.

Then find me an expert who can address the OP, you've got dirty pigs to attend.

What has not succeeded in using the equation F=mv^2?

Have at it. Demonstrate for me what your MIT paper could not.

reply to post by Varemia

So if they say they witnessed it, they are automatically a liar to you? That is just awesome. You must be omniscient or something.

I wrote everyone I've met who has claimed to have seen a plane has been exposed as a liar. That's not what you wrote is it? Your paraphrasing is atrocious.

I am omniscient though. I can tell you're not being honest anyway.

No, logically, you would look at the sum of the evidence first. Instead, you throw out all evidence and assume that your understanding of the apparent direction of damage is perfect.

You and your team have done a mighty job of trying to throw out this evidence. What was it that happens to no planes threads? Oh yes...ridiculed and sent to the hoax bin, right? What was that you were saying about throwing out evidence?

My understanding of the apparent direction of damage is pretty good. So far it has been good enough to enrage a few OSers who have been able to do nothing more than gnash their teeth and tear their hair.

Not projection at all. Hypotheticals are good thought games. They help determine your bias. Clearly, you are biased, as am I, but I see a very powerful bias on your side, while I'm actually willing to change my mind.

You're dead wrong about this, seeing as how I've changed my mind many times about 911 in the last 10 years. You plane huggers have been spinning your wheels in the same rut. If you're being truthful, then let's you and I debate this. I have no problem conceding my interpretation of the evidence is incorrect if proven so.

Really now. I have yet to see this proof. You must just have a secret store of this "proof." Can I see it, pretty please?

That's the sort of proof that will get you banned from here. I'll pass, but if you were truly curious, you'd know how to find it. It's a big mountain that grows every day.

The only irony here is how you claim to be logical and intelligent, yet you act like a religious nut.

Still here, still name-calling and still not able to consider the evidence.

reply to post by septic


Actually, it is not anyone's task to disprove your theory, it is your job to prove it.

You deny that aircraft damaged the WTC buildings because you don't "feel" that they could. You decided that missiles, unseen by anyone, were to blame and that the airplanes which were seen somehow weren't really there. The missiles not only did the deed but managed to cut an airplane shaped hole, dimensionally accurate, in the side of the building. All the witnesses are lying, all the evidence is planted; typical claims from those supporting groundless theories.

If you want to prove your theory, start by showing how all the evidence of airplanes has been faked. Just saying it doesn't prove anything. List all the witnesses and show how they lied; show payoff lists or bank statements. Analyze every videotape to show CGI or other tampering.
Then, you can provide the evidence that missiles did strike the towers. You will have to show flight envelopes, warhead characterstics, strength of the columns, how thousands of gallons of jet fuel were planted, how the missiles arrived at exactly the same time after being launched from different locations, and a host of other things, not the least of which would be some physical evidence of missiles.
Good luck.