What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

reply to post by septic


Your reference to airliners.net is discussing the thickness of some of the panels of metal that are found in some portions of the FUSELAGE! Not, the wings.

And furthermore, the point of that seems to be about the fatal flaw in the early (and first commercial passenger jet) DeHavilland Comet. There were several learning curves involved in discovering those flaws, tragically (since it killed people). The passenger windows were too large, and this weakened that area....as well, the window corners radii were to "tight" (sharp), and this led to fatigue cracks developing, unnoticed.

....a few years after introduction into commercial service, Comet airframes began suffering from catastrophic metal fatigue, which in combination with cabin pressurisation cycles, caused two well-publicised accidents where the aircraft tore apart in mid-flight. The Comet had to be withdrawn and extensively tested to discover the cause; the first incident had been incorrectly identified as having been caused by an onboard fire. Several contributory factors, such as window installation methodology, were also identified as exacerbating the problem.

en.wikipedia.org...

The actual structure of the wing is pretty solidly built. And, as has been pointed out, there also exists the influence of the fuel, which filled the majority of the volume of the wing. Perhaps you could learn about fluids, their dynamics and behavior in enclosed spaces? Do you understand how hydraulic systems work? The principles? The mass of the fuel, as it was enclosed in the wings (which acted as completely full containers) had a lot of effect in the initial impact microseconds.

Perhaps you've never been in the ocean surf? To feel the force of even a smallish wave of water. In that case, even as an un-contained mass of liquid, and even at a slow velocity of a few MPH, it is a powerful force. Combine the many gallons, and its mass in each wing, with the fact that it would act, whilst inside the wing cavities, as if the entire wing were one solid.....this would exert its force for the first fractions of a second, as the impact scenario progressed....the structure of the wing would begin to tear apart of course, shortly after initial impact. BUT, the mass and force of the total "package" was there, nonetheless.

Finally, as must be pointed out repeatedly.....the "Achille's Heel" in all of this, regarding the exterior portion of the WTC Towers, are the connection points of the individual components. Also, even the sub-assemblies of the steel columns were welded together, from smaller sections. A few welds that had minor flaws -- not enough flaw that would fail under vertical compression loads, in the normal lifespan of the structure -- but, could possibly fracture from the sudden, and extremely forceful lateral loads imposed by the force of the impacting airplane. The nature of the fracturing was chaotic, and unpredictable.......as seen in the photos of the aftermath.

The FALSE premise that is the meat and potatoes of the silly "conspiracy" theories always are the strawman argument, of "aluminium cutting the steel beams"....like an idiotic mantra, it is repeated ad infinitum in the "truth movement" circles.

The old refrain grows wearisome, in its inanity..

reply to post by WASTYT

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.

Your interpretation of my humble admission to not knowing much about planes and missiles is based on what? Your expertise in the matter? Compared to someone who builds missiles for a living, or launches them for a living? Sure, I don't know much. However it doesn't take an expert to become very well versed in missile and jet construction and capabilities, and this I have done, resulting in the conclusion planes couldn't possibly be used.

I also mentioned I am fairly experienced in construction, a point you apparently missed. I know how things bend, and it doesn't take a forensics expert to look at the images and state as fact that something traveling in a left to right trajectory caused the damage to columns 145-152.

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.

Thanks, big kiss.

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

link

Thank you for that, again.

I've been arguing with a child. I feel so dirty.

Now who's the one projecting?

I'm impaled on my own petard, I've been slain by my own hand!

Now that you've bested me you'll undoubtedly be off for greener pastures.

Originally posted by ProudBird

The old refrain grows wearisome, in its inanity..

What caused the left to right damage to columns 145-152?



What caused VERY similar left to right damage on WTC2? Note the positioning of the gashes to the floors.




Where is the plane in this video?

reply to post by pteridine

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

Then my job is done. Nice talking to you.

reply to post by septic


Funny how the guy says, "it was perhaps a jet, but might have been a missile as well." He only heard it. He did not see it. Your evidence is as lacking as the neighbor boy trying to convince me that he has a real imaginary friend.

reply to post by Varemia

Funny how the guy says, "it was perhaps a jet, but might have been a missile as well." He only heard it. He did not see it. Your evidence is as lacking as the neighbor boy trying to convince me that he has a real imaginary friend.

I'm not writing to you or your imaginary neighbor boy friend. I'm writing for the benefit of the readers who haven't already locked their minds closed.

A SMALL PLANE
1. "At that point we were still not sure that it was a plane that had hit the tower. There was some talk from the civilians coming down that a plane hit. The consensus was that it was a small plane."- Credited to: Roy Chelson

A CESSNA OR LEAR JET TYPE OR...
2. “Numerous civilians were telling me that a plane had hit the building. There were discrepancies as to the type of plane. Some were saying it was a Cessna or Lear jet type, a small jet plane. Some said it was a large passenger plane. One person actually said that it was like a military style plane that actually shot missiles into the building”. - Credited to: Anthony Bartolomey

A SMALL (TRAINING) PLANE
3. “I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane….no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot a plane, a small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane…, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they worked with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!”- Credited to: Karim Arraki

A CESSNA
4. “I was on my way to work…traffic was excellent…I received a call saying a small Cessna had hit the World trade Center…I was asked to go and man the Office of Emergency Management at the World Trade Center 7 on its 23d floor…” – Credited to: Barry Jennings

LIKE A SMALLER PLANE
5. “I was waiting a table and I literally saw a, it seemed to be a small plane. I just heard a couple of noises, it looked like it like it ‘bounced’ off the building and then I heard a, I just saw a huge like ball of fire on top and then the smoke seemed to simmer down…it just seemed like a smaller plane, I don’t think it was anything commercial.”- Stuart Nurick, LIVE on CBS NEWS

A SMALL, SMALL JET PLANE
6. “…We saw a plane flying low overhead which caught all of our attention. We looked up. It was making a b-line for the World Trade Centre. It was very low, extremely low, not a big plane like an airliner …uh… but not a tiny propeller plane, a small, small jet plane.”- Credited to: Mary Cozza

A LIGHT COMMUTER PLANE
7. "I mean, I hate to admit this, but I'm sitting there hoping that someone has made a mistake; there has been an accident; that this isn't the hijacked airplane, because there is confusion. We were told it was a light commuter airplane." Credited to: (news report)

THOUGHT PLANE WAS MUCH SMALLER
8. "I thought it could have been an accident...I thought the plane was much smaller..."- Credited to: Sid Bedingfield

A PROP JET
9. "I was told by somebody that we had an eyewitness who happened to be an off-duty firefighter who told me that he saw the first building get hit and it was hit by a prop jet, which I think turned out to be the wrong information, but everybody sees things differently."- Credited to: Steven Mosiello

A SMALLER TYPE PLANE
10. "And we went to a high point in our building, which is on the 25th floor, and you had a clear view of both World Trade Centers and the one that was smoking hard, and there was another plane that was flying low, and we just looked at it, and before we know it, it was just kamikaze, boom, right into the other tower... but it didn't seem like a big passenger jet. It was a smaller type plane, because it made some pretty radical turn, and flying low..." - Credited to: Mr. Tractsonburg

A SMALL JET
11. “We’re walking the dogs and we saw a plane flying really low, a jet, a small jet, and it flew directly into the World Trade Center..”- Credited to: (news report)

SMALL CARGO MILITARY
12. I got out of the car, and I told Larry I saw an FBI agent and I was going to start talking to him. I gave him my card, and he gave me a card. I said I thought that that second plane that went into the south tower was a military plane, like a transport or small cargo military. - Credited to: Battalion Chief Brian O’Flaherty

A BOMB....A MISSILE
13. "Hey Grandpa, I'll tell you what woke me up. They bombed the World Trade Centre. I'm looking at it and Mi-Kyung's video taping it. Terrible. I heard, Grandpa, I saw it. It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb...a missile...er...this could be world war three."- Credited to: Mi Kyung Heller

Source

reply to post by septic


So basically what your saying is that lots of people saw a plane hit the world trade center. Finally you admit it, now I guess we can move along from this "no-plane" nonsense.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic

 

So basically what your saying is that lots of people saw a plane hit the world trade center. Finally you admit it, now I guess we can move along from this "no-plane" nonsense.

Regardless of the evidence, plane huggers just need to see planes. It must be a defense mechanism.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic

 

So basically what your saying is that lots of people saw a plane hit the world trade center. Finally you admit it, now I guess we can move along from this "no-plane" nonsense.

Regardless of the evidence, plane huggers just need to see planes. It must be a defense mechanism.

No, no sorry its your post full of people talking about the planes that hit the world trade center. End of the line. Last stop? Reality.

reply to post by septic


Odd that no one in your post mentions a series of missiles which is what you're claiming. And quite a few of them think it was a plane.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine

 

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

Then my job is done. Nice talking to you.

Your job is done? You haven't even clocked in yet. Although your job has not yet started, I can understand how you would like to avoid discussion as you can provide absolutely no evidence to support your half-baked theory. Consider taking a sabbatical while working out the details. Focus on "believeable" and "consistent" and try to come up with evidence that supports your ideas.
Alternatively, move on to more fertile conspiracy ground. Coverups of incompetent political appointees, criminal negligence, etc., are all highy likely even though they aren't nearly as interesting as magic missiles, paint-on thermite, and DEW from space. The downside to the coverups is that there are no videos for "researchers" to "research" so actual effort might be involved with none of the instant gratification of youtube.

Now that I have instructed you where to start, you may begin at any time. Don't thank me, I do this for all lost investigators.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Odd that plane huggers need to keep the lie alive.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Odd that plane huggers need to keep the lie alive.

By "plane huggers" you, of course, mean human beings.

So, you are now completely convinced that you have irrefutable proof that no planes hit the world trade center on the morning of 9/11/2001. So where do you go from here? How are you going to "spread the word" without ending up involuntarily committed?

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Odd that plane huggers need to keep the lie alive.

You see what I did? I discussed your evidence. The stuff you brought to the table. And I remarked that none of it supports your theory.

You just waffled about your perceived opponents. Which includes almost the entire human race.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Odd that plane huggers need to keep the lie alive.

By "plane huggers" you, of course, mean human beings.

So, you are now completely convinced that you have irrefutable proof that no planes hit the world trade center on the morning of 9/11/2001. So where do you go from here? How are you going to "spread the word" without ending up involuntarily committed?

Appealing to the herd. I get it. Be like me or you'll be outcast...yes, quite familiar with the old saw, thanks.

Such an ambitious, far-reaching aim could only be accomplished by seizing and monopolising all the means for the dissemination of propaganda—platform, hoarding, press, radio and cinema: and once in undisputed possession of all these, Hitler proceeded to turn on and keep running a steady and constant stream.

He tells us himself the ways in which he hoped to achieve his end, and they can be briefly summarised thus:

(1) driving home by endless repetition a few simple points, and using catchy slogans or war-cries;

(2) playing on the herd instinct, and appealing always to groups or to the mass—never to individuals;

(3) avoiding rational argument, and concentrating on securing instinctive reactions, especially to the primary feeling of fear.

Source

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Any comment on the directional damage in these images? Any explanation as to what caused it, and how? Planes! Says he. From the wrong direction, and a different side, says the evidence.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

You see what I did? I discussed your evidence. The stuff you brought to the table. And I remarked that none of it supports your theory.

You just waffled about your perceived opponents. Which includes almost the entire human race.

You remarked, but you brought nothing to the table to back it up or explain why. Kind of a weak effort. Have you read the thread yet?

Now you're speaking for the entire human race. Well, I guess that was inevitable.

This post applies to you too.

Originally posted by septic



You remarked, but you brought nothing to the table to back it up or explain why. Kind of a weak effort. Have you read the thread yet?

So now I need to explain what your evidence says to you as well? Okay. *sigh.

Have a look at it again. Note how none of the witnesses backs up your claim of "multiple missiles". Not one. You have introduced a piece of evidence to the discussion which refutes your premise. Nice job.

Now you're speaking for the entire human race. Well, I guess that was inevitable.

I'm not speaking for them. I'm just pointing out the magnitude of your task, since only a microscopically small number of people share your view. I imagine that makes you feel special, but really it ought to frighten you a bit.

I'm not convinced it was a regular airliner. Pilots for 911 truth have brought some really interesting data to life that suggests some kind of mid air plane swap took place and so whatever hit the towers was probably not the plane we were told it was. You should check out their research if you haven't already.

I think that not only is the damage completely inconsistent with large jet airliner crash (not to mention what happened at the Pentagon or Shanksville) but the speed and manoeuvring wasn't consistent either, these 'planes' have been shown to be operating way out of their operating limits. There's also evidence to suggest the engine found on the street wasn't a regular 767 engine. Only time I've seen that kind of damage, speed and accuracy on a hard target like a steel and concrete tower is with DU penetrators, so this is all I can compare it to.

reply to post by septic


In those pictures, how come some of the cladding is to the left? And why is it that the steel is bent back and to the left on the upper picture? It is just to the left of your right-most arrow. How did a missile going diagonally up and to the right attempting to simulate the appearance of a plane wing impact cause that damage? It doesn't make any sense at all.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Have a look at it again. Note how none of the witnesses backs up your claim of "multiple missiles". Not one. You have introduced a piece of evidence to the discussion which refutes your premise. Nice job.

Lets see...so you're expecting people to see multiple 500 MPH missiles AND have their stories reported by the media that are in the process of lying about planes. You're a shrewd one.

I'll post this again...it's been posted before on this very page, and on this very thread multiple times. This witness saw one, perhaps two projectiles striking from the left-to-the right. Considering the tall buildings all about the area, even seeing one missile would be a feat, but having it reported with the same zeal as the jets would be impossible.

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

Take this guy for example...he must have missed the Jet and the missile, but he's adamant there wasn't a Jet...as am I.

I'm not speaking for them. I'm just pointing out the magnitude of your task, since only a microscopically small number of people share your view. I imagine that makes you feel special, but really it ought to frighten you a bit.

How have you arrived at this figure? Is this your cherished desire? Have you sent out a survey to the world? Get over yourself, you speak for you and you alone.