What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

reply to post by Insolubrious

I'm not convinced it was a regular airliner.

Yes, it was. It is seen clearly in the videos. There is debris also that is identifiable that came from UAL 175, N612UA.

Pilots for 911 truth have brought some really interesting data to life that suggests some kind of mid air plane swap took place ....

NO, they have not. If you are referring to the latest screed from "them" (about the ACARS messages, ATS thread HERE), it is certainly NOT from "them". It is copped form some dude (dudette?) who first blogged it under the screen name "Woody Box" back in 2009.

"P4T" probably saw their 'donations' dropping off, and decided to amp up the volume again, hoping to get attention and $$$. For the record, it is more hogwash, pure and simple.

reply to post by Varemia

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.

A missile can account for it much better than a jet can.



Souce

reply to post by septic


The link you posted says that the imaginary X-11 airplane was the culprit and that missiles could not account for the damage. This link uses selected video frames to make the case for the "X-11" but fails when other frames and videos are used.

Just another day in that special, happy place called "Trutherdom."

reply to post by septic


The "source" you posted is laughable in its many, many errors and selective "evidence mining". Seeing as how it is dated as far back as 2004, not surprisingly it is just more of the trash and debris and detritus that still remains on the Internet....since nothing, no matter how inane nor ridiculous, ever goes away, once it enters the ether of the World Wide Web....

Just to point out the most obvious mistake, based on that author's ineptitude and lack of knowledge:

The "angle" of the wings. This is known as dihedral. The author uses the photos, and also a line drawing, of the Boeing 767 wing dihedral angle in an attempt to "prove" that the entry wound in the Tower facade "doesn't match".

What this author does not realize is that the wings will flex, in flight. It does not take much of a g-load, either. In fact, at a constant one-G in flight, the wings will have a slightly bit more dihedral than when viewed on the ground, with gear extended and supporting all of the airplane's static weight.

This is an analysis of that "X-11" source's claims:

The upwards flex of the wing tips due to aerodynamic lift, which Icke has omitted, would account for the misalignment in the holes created by the wings. Except for the tail, the fit would be perfect. Icke simply assumes that the tail and stabilizers should have created holes without supporting this with any physics or materials science analysis. This kind of "common sense" lay person reasoning is not satisfactory. Even if qualified scientific analysis shows there should have been more damage, the forces of impact theoretically could have made the tail end of the fuselage rotate counter-clockwise before entering the building. That could account for the damage pattern. Of course, in regards to the tail, Icke's X-11 doesn't fit the damage pattern either. If the plane diagram is shifted to the left to fit in the hole, then you have a plane with a left wing that's significantly shorter than the right, which is impossible.

Response to Icke's "What hit WTC1?"

reply to post by septic


There you go again- using evidence of planes as evidence for no planes. This time with eyewitness accounts of planes. The same sorts of witnesses you claimed don't exist or are liars. What gives?

How about some actual evidence of missiles? Got any of that?

reply to post by pteridine


I posted the source for the image, and you're still ignoring the OP.

Just another day in liardumb.

reply to post by ProudBird


I posted an image, and the source for it. Sue me.

You still haven't tried to explain how the left to right damage of the columns was caused by a 35 degree (according to MIT) swept back wing striking at a wrong angle, and wrong direction. Since the circa .050 inch thick aluminum skin of the wings were clearly no match for the 1/4 inch thick steel of the columns, what can explain the left to right impacts of the left sides of both towers.






Something tells me you and your buddies will twist yourselves into a fetal-position pretzel to avoid answering that question.

How can a plane's retracted landing wheel (rubber, filled with air) do this?

Like the OP, why won't anyone attempt to answer how the wheel can do this to the multi-ton wall panel, but the wall panel did not knock out the wheel or leave a crater in the ground when it fell a quarter mile, or even shatter the concrete of the driveway in which it appears to have been carefully staged?



Where's the jet in this video?

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine

 

I posted the source for the image, and you're still ignoring the OP.

Just another day in liardumb.

I prefer "Trutherdom" because it isn't so judgemental. The image source includes a discussion of how the X-11 imaginary plane is not as good a fit as the 757 and that missiles can't explain the impact holes. The source you used for the picture was explaining why it was wrong.
The images in the OP are not convincing. Have you considered what things would look like if the wings destroyed the center webs of the columns before they cut the flanges?

reply to post by pteridine

I prefer "Trutherdom" because it isn't so judgemental.

fascinating

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by pteridine

 

I prefer "Trutherdom" because it isn't so judgemental.

fascinating

No, no. Pteridine makes a good point. What would physically happen to the parts within the wings after impacting the outer cladding? Would they face perfectly forward or would the parts angle out while they shred and break against the steel?

reply to post by septic

Since the circa .050 inch thick aluminum skin of the wings were clearly no match for the 1/4 inch thick steel of the columns....

Once again, completely misrepresenting the facts, with a strawman. There is no point in explaining again, when all the descriptions and evidence in the World is responded to with trolling.

,

...what can explain the left to right impacts of the left sides of both towers.

The wings bashing their way, at extremely high speed and force, into the building's structure. Things move, when that happens. Stuff moves, sometimes in chaotic ways. People who know how to think outside overly simplistic mindsets can comprehend this simple fact.

Which way should they look like to have moved??

How can a plane's retracted landing wheel (rubber, filled with air) do this?

Pure chance, in the way all the various components behaved, during the impact progression sequence.

And, once again, the distraction (strawman) of "(rubber, filled with air)" has absolutely no bearing on the fact of the image, and the result that occurred.

Like the OP, why won't anyone attempt to answer how the wheel can do this to the multi-ton wall panel.....

Do what to the "multi-ton wall panel"?? It got stuck in the gap between sections.


,

..... but the wall panel did not knock out the wheel or leave a crater in the ground when it fell a quarter mile....

What does "knock out the wheel" mean? Are you referring to the center wheel and hub? As if, it should have broken the bead for some reason?? It all depends on how the tire/wheel assembly, as a unit, broke free of the axle (wherever it broke) and then got lodged in the gap in the panel. Nothing more complicated than that.

.... or even shatter the concrete of the driveway in which it appears to have been carefully staged?

Well, it seems that a continued lesson in physics is still required, here. Why not do the calculations yourself? Instead of constructing yet another strawman??

Determine the velocity (**) of the section of metal exterior component, with the wheel assembly embedded when it hit the ground from the height of.....the height of the impact point on the building. You said "a quarter of a mile". Using the figure for a Statute mile, that is 1,320 feet. However, the total height of each WTC Tower was 1,368 and 1,362 respectively (not including the antenna spire). So, did that section, with the wheel assembly embedded, actuall "falll a quarter of a mile"??

(**) I'll get you started -- assuming an even 1,000 feet above the ground, and no air resistance, the velocity at impact for a free fall from that height is ~173 MPH. I'd link the online calculator, but I think it's better if some things aren't handed out on a silver platter. (I will provide the formula, though...have pencil and paper ready, if you wish to do it the harder way: [v = (2gh)1/2]

Thats v (velocity) = 2 times g (acceleration due to gravity) times h (height), to the power of one-half. Remember to keep the units straight....feet/sec, or meters/sec, whichever you prefer. Then, convert as needed.

So.....just why should there have been "shattered concrete" from that sort of impact, of that type of object??

You can work that out, with science....right?

At the pentagon we allegedly had a normal passenger plane punch through 3 rings of re-enforced concrete and steel rebar exiting with a perfectly circular hole on the last wall. If passenger planes are capable of such destruction I'd say the military have wasted their time and money researching penetrator weapons to do just this, as they already had an efficient design that works just as well. And as for controlled demolition companies, they should be out of business, next time they want to bring down a steel skyscraper all they need to do is make some damage on the top floors and start a fire with some jet fuel and then just wait an hour and they'll get a complete and total collapse, there is clearly no need to spend months of planning and preparing a demolition when the same can be achieved in just a couple of hours.

reply to post by Insolubrious

If passenger planes are capable of such destruction I'd say the military have wasted their time and money researching penetrator weapons to do just this, as they already had an efficient design that works just as well.

That's the bottom line right there. They'd have missiles made like Jet wings instead of being made like long, titanium-tipped spears that concentrate their mass and velocity at a small point.

reply to post by Insolubrious


Maybe because launching 757 sized missiles from much smaller aircraft is not the best way to do things. This rhetorical question has been asked many times as a way of trying to convince people that the damage was "far too great" for a 757 airplane.

Just because the planes are big doesn't mean they're strong! You couldn't push a plane through a steel girder, the girder would win. Uranium on the other hand has the density, hardness, and pyrophoricity to pass through the girder.

You know the pre-911 plots like Project Bojinka involved crashing planes filled with explosives into the CIA head quarters, and other such plots involved bringing down multiple airliners using planted explosives. There isn't really any large terrorist plots that don't involve missiles, explosives and airplanes in one way or another. These are officially the precursor like events for 911. The infamous Whitehouse memo stated they would 'use airliners as guided missiles' which in itself is a vague statement. Well I guess they really did use planes as missiles, or missiles as planes depending on how you look at it!

themoderntribune.com...

“Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House,” the September 1999 report said.

If there was a plane swap there's no telling what was on those planes, where they had come from or what had been done to them.

reply to post by Insolubrious


Maybe you don't understand the physics?

Just because the planes are big doesn't mean they're strong!

Mass multiplied by Velocity = Force

You couldn't push a plane through a steel girder, the girder would win.

Much of the "girders" were dislodged, and otherwise deformed....and connection points snapped and sheared....not penetrated or "pushed through". Get that clear, first.

Secondly, ever heard of World War II and kamikaze airplanes, versus the battleships?

If there was a plane swap there's no telling what was on those planes, where they had come from or what had been done to them.

There was no "plane swap"! The images are very clear, and the debris found is as well. That is pointless speculation, in this instance.

Just 1 floor of the building has far greater mass. Planes are made to be light and are mostly filled with air.

Originally posted by ProudBird


Maybe you don't understand the physics?


Mass multiplied by Velocity = Force

The force on the plane or the force on the building?

Much of the "girders" were dislodged, and otherwise deformed....and connection points snapped and sheared....not penetrated or "pushed through". Get that clear, first.

I think it's pretty clear from the pictures that girders look like they've been sliced with a blow torch.

Secondly, ever heard of World War II and kamikaze airplanes, versus the battleships?

Yes and it's a bad comparison in your case, as Kamikaze missiles (aka flying torpedos) guided by humans were dropped from bigger planes which caused the most damage.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Yes and it's a bad comparison in your case, as Kamikaze missiles (aka flying torpedos) guided by humans were dropped from bigger planes which caused the most damage.

edit on 3-12-2011 by Insolubrious because: (no reason given)

Really now?



You're wrong... yet again. Will he be right in the future, folks? Find out next time on ATS!

reply to post by Insolubrious

Yes and it's a bad comparison in your case, as Kamikaze missiles (aka flying torpedos) guided by humans were dropped from bigger planes ....

Odd, to write that....almost as if one has not done any research at all:

Kamikaze pilots would attempt to crash their aircraft into enemy ships in what was called a "Body Attack" — in planes often laden with explosives, bombs, torpedoes and full fuel tanks. The aircraft's normal functions (to deliver torpedoes or bombs or shoot down other aircraft) were put aside, and the planes were converted to what were essentially manned missiles....

en.wikipedia.org...