What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

Look at your own photos and diagrams. The invisible missile had invisible wings which, before the invisible warhead even touched, hit the columns. Based on your analysis, the invisible missile should have been deflected.
Of course, if you ever do look closely at your photos, you will see some columns with the web knocked out and the stronger edges twisted. You will see some pinched inwards at the break. You still have not shown any evidence of all those missiles you claim did the work, you have not shown that their flight envelopes would allow for such maneuvers, and you have not shown how warheads could do the damage to make ot look like a plane struck the buildng.
Explain again why an airliner couldn't penetrate the towers.

Why look here, VISIBLE missiles and INVISIBLE planes.



What was that? No comment about the invisible plane? How unusual.

The evidence is clear, hence your pitiful denials. Must be hard to see like that.

Look at your own photos and diagrams. The invisible missile had invisible wings which, before the invisible warhead even touched, hit the columns. Based on your analysis, the invisible missile should have been deflected.

LOL..."deflected" by the flimsy, retractable wings of a JASSM? Oh do tell...how much would that 900 lb penetrating warhead be deflected in the split second between when the wings were snapped off to the time the warhead penetrated? You can use physics if you want, no skin off my nose.

You have an amusing interpretation of how sturdy wings are. Steel slicing jet wings are my favorite! LOL!

You still have not shown any evidence of all those missiles you claim did the work, you have not shown that their flight envelopes would allow for such maneuvers, and you have not shown how warheads could do the damage to make ot look like a plane struck the buildng.

It doesn't look like a plane struck the building. It looks like missiles bent the columns towards the center of the gash, striking in cross-fire formation, to create what gullible people want desperately to believe looks like a plane hole.

Except, we know jet wings would be turned to lumps of foil.

"flight envelope"? HAHAHA....clutch at straws much?

I don't have to explain how the warheads caused the damage, the pictures do the talking.

Explain again why an airliner couldn't penetrate the towers.

No, if you missed it the first fifty times, repeating it won't help. You could try to explain how the jet wing striking at a straight angle in a wedge-shape managed to damage the columns in the wrong direction on the left sides of BOTH towers, but we know you won't do that.

reply to post by septic


I see you have resorted to the teenie term "LOL" when you are caught in a tight spot. There was no missile seen in the video. There was also no airplane seen because the impact was on the other side.
You have not responded to the way the columns were cut because you can't. You have not shown what missiles could behave the way you want them to and why thousands saw planes strike the towers, with many videoes of the event.
In a few years when you have completed your high school physics course, you will have a better understanding of the events of the day. Until then, give Judy Wood a call. She is looking for an acolyte.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

I see you have resorted to the teenie term "LOL" when you are caught in a tight spot. There was no missile seen in the video. There was also no airplane seen because the impact was on the other side.
You have not responded to the way the columns were cut because you can't. You have not shown what missiles could behave the way you want them to and why thousands saw planes strike the towers, with many videoes of the event.
In a few years when you have completed your high school physics course, you will have a better understanding of the events of the day. Until then, give Judy Wood a call. She is looking for an acolyte.

Focusing on my verbiage and hiding behind Judy Woods' skirt may make you feel better, but you are still unable to explain the damage better than the 12 by 60 inch, 900 lb payload of a penetrator warhead striking in a left to right trajectory. Missiles, as confirmed by video, witnesses and the damage evidence.

This teenie with a tutu just took you to school. The joke's on you, whether I LOL or laugh out loud.

reply to post by septic


It would help your theory if you had any evidence of missiles at all. You don't. Your fantasy extends far beyond your tutu with another baseless no-planer theory.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

It would help your theory if you had any evidence of missiles at all. You don't. Your fantasy extends far beyond your tutu with another baseless no-planer theory.

Riveting.

reply to post by septic


Show evidence of your claims or consider yourself riveted.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

Show evidence of your claims or consider yourself riveted.

Ah, but pteridine, don't you see? The claim is evidence of the claim! Circular reasoning is the only way to be logical, naturally. [/sarcasm]

reply to post by pteridine


Ignoring the offered evidence, refusing to discuss it and then declaring I never offered it is silly. For the readers who might be interested in a good explanation for why the columns are bent in the wrong direction, I offer an hypothesis backed by witness testimony, videos, images and analysis.

I apologize to the readers for the tone this thread has taken, and in an effort to bring it back on track, and to eliminate the tedium of reading through the worthless bulk of the posts, here are two responses to all of pteridine's questions. I welcome a discussion about the evidence and the implications.

Evidence 1

Evidence 2

reply to post by septic


Evidence happens to mean witnesses seeing a missile (not simply missing the plane), material presence that indicates a missile (not just repeating that the damage looks wrong to you), video of a missile, pictures of a missile, any indication from records anywhere that might suggest a missile.

Instead, you are confronted by dozens of videos of planes, hundreds of eyewitnesses to planes, and pieces of planes on the street after the impact and on building roofs.

So what constitutes as evidence to you?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

Evidence happens to mean witnesses seeing a missile (not simply missing the plane), material presence that indicates a missile (not just repeating that the damage looks wrong to you), video of a missile, pictures of a missile, any indication from records anywhere that might suggest a missile.

Instead, you are confronted by dozens of videos of planes, hundreds of eyewitnesses to planes, and pieces of planes on the street after the impact and on building roofs.

So what constitutes as evidence to you?

What? You're still here? Like I told you the first fifteen times, evidence that can occur in real life. Go back to your cartoons and "hundreds" of imaginary witnesses if you must, but aluminum foil wings don't slice steel.

I realize you and your mini-me pteridine are only here to undermine the topic and confuse the readers, and that the last thing you'll do is address the evidence, but for the reader's sakes, since its obvious to a barnyard animal jets couldn't do it, what could? And where is the jet in this video?

Originally posted by septic
What? You're still here? Like I told you the first fifteen times, evidence that can occur in real life. Go back to your cartoons and "hundreds" of imaginary witnesses if you must, but aluminum foil wings don't slice steel.

I realize you and your mini-me pteridine are only here to undermine the topic and confuse the readers, and that the last thing you'll do is address the evidence, but for the reader's sakes, since its obvious to a barnyard animal jets couldn't do it, what could? And where is the jet in this video?

See what you did there? That's called denial. You refuse to even consider the possibility of a plane. Therefore, any points you make after this are moot.

I mean, seriously, how can I take your "evidence" seriously when you won't even give anything else the time of day? You have done nothing to prove the videos as fake. You've done nothing to prove the witnesses to be made up. You've done nothing to disprove the pictures of plane debris, or the video of plane debris showering down on people in the street.

You have NOTHING.

reply to post by septic

Originally posted by septic

And where is the jet in this video?

Ever heard of video resolution? You're showing a heavily degraded, compressed, low-resolution image there. Try this one. See any wings?

reply to post by septic


All your "evidence" isn't. You say you have evidence but when pressed just show the same pictures of damage that you misinterpret. Ths is not evidence of anything but your desire to have a conspiracy. The basis for your theory can be summed up in your statement:"... but aluminum foil wings don't slice steel." You have a belief and nothing else.

The wings of aircraft are not aluminum foil. They bear the weight of the plane [you probably didn't understand this.] Another concept you fail to grasp is something called 'sectional density.' Couple that with something called 'kinetic energy' [E= 0.5 mv^2] and the force exerted by the aircraft on the parts of the building it was in contact with [F=ma] where acceleration is negative as the plane slows, and you may figure this out yet.

reply to post by lunarasparagus


Good eye. Only one of you seems to have done your homework.

Yes, video resolution and compression artifacts can cause strange anomalies with digital images and video, and once again I'll bring up the terrible quality of the allegedly top shelf video equipment available to the newscasters on 911.

For folks interested in the ongoing effort to expose the fraud in the various videos and photos of planes, this is a good video series:



We're almost past the stage where the truth is ridiculed...perhaps we'll skip over the "violently opposed" stage and move right to the "self-evident" stage.

reply to post by septic

....and once again I'll bring up the terrible quality of the allegedly top shelf video equipment available to the newscasters on 911.

I just love little assumptions like this. You are assuming that all newscasters and field reporters have nothing but the best, highest resolution equipment available at any given moment in time. Does that make sense? Do you thing news organizations, like any other business, just go out and buy the latest and the greatest any time its available?

reply to post by Varemia

See what you did there? That's called denial. You refuse to even consider the possibility of a plane. Therefore, any points you make after this are moot.

As I have said before and I'll say again...I once was a plane-hugger. I once believed all the tripe, complete with box cutters and evil A-Rabs. After many years of plane hugging, and after researching all the available evidence I could get my hands on, it became clear planes were an impossibility. So I guess you're right...I do refuse to consider the possibility of a plane; like I said before, I try to stick within the realm of what's possible in the real world.

You're free to consider moot any points I make, I expect nothing more from you.

How about you? Your reluctance to itemize what it is about the damage that reinforces the plane meme indicates you won't even consider the possibility the media lied to you. What's it called when you accuse someone of behavior you despise in yourself?

I mean, seriously, how can I take your "evidence" seriously when you won't even give anything else the time of day?

Because the topic of the thread is about the damage to the columns, it's not about anything else. What caused the damage to 145-152?

Based on the damage, based on the endless examples of fraudulent video, I say missiles, and I've provided my reasoning for it.

I say based on the clearly directional damage from both towers, and based on the fact that .050 inch thick aluminum skin stretched over a network of spars and struts would be no match for a network of 1/4 inch steel plate formed into a 14-inch box with two 1/4 inch thick steel knives each, the damage could not possibly have been caused by a jet.

If you disagree with these claims you're free to dispute them, but that usually entails more than just claiming I'm wrong. Why can't you be more like Lunarasparagus?

I mean, seriously, how can I take your "evidence" seriously when you won't even give anything else the time of day?

You mean like you won't give my OP the time of day? It's a simple question, what caused the clearly directional damage to the 1/4 inch thick steel columns? If you say the 0.050 inch thick aluminum skin of the 31.5-35 degree swept back wing did it by striking from a completely different angle, you have the floor.

You already tried to wave the MIT paper in my face as proof the wings would win that interaction, remember, and I shredded it, yet even so you still have the sand to accuse me of this:

You have done nothing to prove the videos as fake. You've done nothing to prove the witnesses to be made up. You've done nothing to disprove the pictures of plane debris, or the video of plane debris showering down on people in the street.

Actually I have. Seems all you can do is ignore it and accuse me of not providing it.

You have NOTHING.

I got you, babe.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic

 

....and once again I'll bring up the terrible quality of the allegedly top shelf video equipment available to the newscasters on 911.

I just love little assumptions like this. You are assuming that all newscasters and field reporters have nothing but the best, highest resolution equipment available at any given moment in time. Does that make sense? Do you thing news organizations, like any other business, just go out and buy the latest and the greatest any time its available?

I could take a better shot with a disposable camera, so yeah, I assume the pros have better capabilities. I guess they blew all the money on the helicopter and left the camera at home, I mean, because high quality video optics in an expensive news helicopter is so '80s.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

All your "evidence" isn't. You say you have evidence but when pressed just show the same pictures of damage that you misinterpret.

Oh, so you noticed. See, I keep thinking you must have missed the OP.

The damage proves the 0.050 skin of a jet wing striking from a different trajectory couldn't have done it, but a 60 inch by 12 inch warhead of a JASSM missile striking at a glancing angle certainly could.

Originally posted by septic

Oh, so you noticed. See, I keep thinking you must have missed the OP.

The damage proves the 0.050 skin of a jet wing striking from a different trajectory couldn't have done it, but a 60 inch by 12 inch warhead of a JASSM missile striking at a glancing angle certainly could.

Yes, I noticed that you haven't yet provided anything resembling evidence of missiles striking the WTC. You might want to look into the structure of a wing. Apparently you are unaware that wings are more than thin aluminum.

reply to post by septic

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

Good eye. Only one of you seems to have done your homework.

Yes, video resolution and compression artifacts can cause strange anomalies with digital images and video, and once again I'll bring up the terrible quality of the allegedly top shelf video equipment available to the newscasters on 911.

For folks interested in the ongoing effort to expose the fraud in the various videos and photos of planes, this is a good video series:

We're almost past the stage where the truth is ridiculed...perhaps we'll skip over the "violently opposed" stage and move right to the "self-evident" stage.

Are you serious? What does that video prove? That real planes don't look like CGI planes? No kidding. If anything that video shows that CGI planes were NOT used in any of the 9/11 footage. The real planes shown in the footage were under considerable real-life physical stress banking at high speeds and low altitudes. The wings are going to bend and flex significantly against such high wind and g-forces.

Why would fakery "perps" use distorted CGI models in their composites? What does this video prove?