What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

Originally posted by pteridine

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.

The damage looks pretty convincing for missiles, but why would you think a thin aluminum skin would be able to do the impossible? Have you been reading MIT papers again?

reply to post by lunarasparagus


That video and the subsequent other videos proves the perps used many different models for many different "amateurs". If they'd only used one model we might not have blown 10 years hunting down all the anomalies. Guess there was a method to their madness.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by pteridine

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.

The damage looks pretty convincing for missiles, but why would you think a thin aluminum skin would be able to do the impossible? Have you been reading MIT papers again?

The damage doesn't look anything at all like missile hits. Do you have any evidence other than you imagination? Perhaps you missed the idea that the wing structure is more than just thin aluminum.
files.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by septic

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

That video and the subsequent other videos proves the perps used many different models for many different "amateurs". If they'd only used one model we might not have blown 10 years hunting down all the anomalies. Guess there was a method to their madness.

"Many different models"? Why? This make no sense. At least try to appeal to reason here. The "no-plane" CGI composite theory has been debated ad nauseam on this site and elsewhere and has been abandoned by all but the most deluded "truthers". The video you posted makes for some nice bed-time music, but serves no other purpose.

A CGI plane can never be exactly matched to a real plane flexing under real stress--assuming one were able even to match exactly the visual size and viewing angle of the real plane--not to mention digital artifacts and the possibility of optical lens distortion depending on the kind of cameras and lenses being used. All your video proves is that the plane seen in the numerous video and photo images from 9/11 was definitely NOT a computer generated image. If it was, it would look like one.

Originally posted by pteridine

The damage doesn't look anything at all like missile hits. Do you have any evidence other than you imagination? Perhaps you missed the idea that the wing structure is more than just thin aluminum.
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you have any evidence to debunk me save your imagination?

Which part of the wing caused the left to right damage? The skin?

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by pteridine

The damage doesn't look anything at all like missile hits. Do you have any evidence other than you imagination? Perhaps you missed the idea that the wing structure is more than just thin aluminum.
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you have any evidence to debunk me save your imagination?

Which part of the wing caused the left to right damage? The skin?

It could have been any part of the structure inside the wings. They are not just hollow bags of air, you know.

Here's a great illustration of the inside of a plane. Remember how you kept saying it was just aluminum?

i]reply to post by lunarasparagus

"Many different models"? Why? This make no sense. At least try to appeal to reason here.

Different models gives plausible deniability to the government. Any video that is exposed as a fraud can be attributed to a digital artist vying for attention, not to mention spreading confusion among the truth movement. Well, in an event like 911 there should be no single fraudulent image, yet they all cancel each other out.

The "no-plane" CGI composite theory has been debated ad nauseam on this site and elsewhere and has been abandoned by all but the most deluded "truthers".

It is all but banned on this site and most other "truther" sites precisely because it is the truth, thereby exposing those sites that censure it.

The video you posted makes for some nice bed-time music, but serves no other purpose.

I feel the same way when I read your material.

A CGI plane can never be exactly matched to a real plane flexing under real stress--assuming one were able even to match exactly the visual size and viewing angle of the real plane--not to mention digital artifacts and the
possibility of optical lens distortion depending on the kind of cameras and lenses being used.

You just provided a great answer to your own first question:

""Many different models"? Why? This make no sense."

Makes sense now that you explain how easily it is to throw-off the scent using disparate models. Much obliged.

All your video proves is that the plane seen in the numerous video and photo images from 9/11 was definitely NOT a computer generated image. If it was, it would look like one.

The trajectories cancel each other out, no parts fell off the buildings or the planes at impact, and of course the biggie is aluminum wings with .050 inch thin skin can't slice dozens of 1/4 inch steel box columns (that's four sides of steel plate each) in the real world.

reply to post by Varemia

It could have been any part of the structure inside the wings. They are not just hollow bags of air, you know.

Here's a great illustration of the inside of a plane. Remember how you kept saying it was just aluminum?

What are the spars and struts constructed from? Dozens of 1/4 inch thick steel shaped in a 14 inch square box and supported with a four foot wide steel plate spandrel which is further supported by a concrete floor? Or are the struts and spars made from aluminum and covered with a .050 thick (thereabouts) skin?

Are the edges of a wing shaped in a rounded edge? Or is it in a 1/4 inch "knife" like these?

reply to post by septic


Did you already forget the mass*velocity^2 lesson? That's basic physics, and yet you fail to grasp it every time you post. It's like you are erasing your own memory every five minutes just to keep believing your story.

As I've been saying for pages and pages, you blanket-reject any evidence that contradicts you, because you can use your imagination and claim the damage was impossible by a plane. Well, guess what? You're not allowed to just reject evidence. It is evidence and you have no proof that it is false.

reply to post by Varemia

Did you already forget the mass*velocity^2 lesson?

Certainly not, the rounded, thin, lightweight aluminum wing tip covered with .050 inch thick skin, traveling in a different trajectory than indicated by the damage would have been shredded when it encountered the sharp edges of the 1/4 inch steel head on.

That's basic physics, and yet you fail to grasp it every time you post. It's like you are erasing your own memory every five minutes just to keep believing your story.

Then 'splain it to me. 'splain the interaction between the lightweight, thin aluminum wings and the heavy, numerous, laterally braced structural steel columns of the WTC. It's like you keep erasing your own memory of the MIT paper.

As I've been saying for pages and pages, you blanket-reject any evidence that contradicts you, because you can use your imagination and claim the damage was impossible by a plane. Well, guess what? You're not allowed to just reject evidence. It is evidence and you have no proof that it is false.

You're a parody of yourself.

Explain it better than missiles then...use physics if you can't use layman's terms.

reply to post by septic


Your "evidence" is just empty rhetoric. Your use of "lightweight" aluminum and such is inaccurate and silly. The aluminum was thick enough to support all the weight inside the plane, tens of thousands of pounds. Sure, you can keep pretending it weighed nothing, but you'd be wrong.

Come out of your denial.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

Your "evidence" is just empty rhetoric.

There you go again, is this a recording?

Your use of "lightweight" aluminum and such is inaccurate and silly.

Compared to 500,000 tons, I guess I could have included 'wimpy' in the list.

The aluminum was thick enough to support all the weight inside the plane, tens of thousands of pounds. Sure, you can keep pretending it weighed nothing,

Why not, you pretend the building had the same resistive force as air.

but you'd be wrong.

I've been wrong before and I may be wrong now, but nothing you've shown me leads me to that conclusion, because you've shown me nothing.

Come out of your denial.

I can't do it without you man. Please help me by explaining the interaction between the lightweight, wimpy aluminum wings and the laterally-braced, steel plate box columns of the twin towers.

Originally posted by septic
Please help me by explaining the interaction between the lightweight, wimpy aluminum wings and the laterally-braced, steel plate box columns of the twin towers.

The exceptionally strong aluminum alloy wings sheared the thin steel columns, broke welds, and snapped connectors as they themselves were destroyed. The titanium and steel engines sheared the thin steel columns, broke welds, and snapped connectors as they themselves were destroyed.

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by septic
Please help me by explaining the interaction between the lightweight, wimpy aluminum wings and the laterally-braced, steel plate box columns of the twin towers.

The exceptionally strong aluminum alloy wings sheared the thin steel columns, broke welds, and snapped connectors as they themselves were destroyed. The titanium and steel engines sheared the thin steel columns, broke welds, and snapped connectors as they themselves were destroyed.

Sure, the titanium and steel engines, and possibly the landing gear might have been able to punch through, but the hole is huge, much bigger than the outline of even a jet, not to mention the engines.

The wings are a problem though, aren't they? Your explanation is very vague, can you be more specific as to how the exceptionally strong aluminum alloy foil wings were able to bend the much stronger, more dense, more stiff, more numerous and much more massive columns in a different direction than shown on the TV? Surely you can use physics to describe the interaction.

Are your calculations giving you trouble?

Why don't you pick up where MIT left off:
MIT's propaganda piece

reply to post by septic

Certainly not, the rounded, thin, lightweight aluminum wing tip covered with .050 inch thick skin, traveling in a different trajectory than indicated by the damage would have been shredded when it encountered the sharp edges of the 1/4 inch steel head on.

The skin of an aircraft is made of light gauge aluminium covering the structural members (ribs, spars, keel
bean, lonerons) which are made of heavy gauge metal to provide strenght

Can easily demonstrate by covering aluminium baseball bat with aluminium foil, then whacking yourself
upside the head with it.....

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by septic

 

Certainly not, the rounded, thin, lightweight aluminum wing tip covered with .050 inch thick skin, traveling in a different trajectory than indicated by the damage would have been shredded when it encountered the sharp edges of the 1/4 inch steel head on.

The skin of an aircraft is made of light gauge aluminium covering the structural members (ribs, spars, keel
bean, lonerons) which are made of heavy gauge metal to provide strenght

Can easily demonstrate by covering aluminium baseball bat with aluminium foil, then whacking yourself
upside the head with it.....

What metal is used for the "heavy gauge"? Aluminum?

Why don't they make steel baseball bats? Oh well, since steel bats are obviously too heavy and dense even for your head, you can make do with a small piece of angle iron. Hold the angle iron in your teeth and bash it with an aluminum bat to see which one wins.

Originally posted by septic
What metal is used for the "heavy gauge"? Aluminum?

Why don't they make steel baseball bats? Oh well, since steel bats are obviously too heavy and dense even for your head, you can make do with a small piece of angle iron. Hold the angle iron in your teeth and bash it with an aluminum bat to see which one wins.

What part of this had any relevance to how well a ~400,000 lb. plane (that's the max weight, not sure what the weight on 9/11 was, but it was heavy) can smash through a steel mesh that is extremely thin in comparison.

It's like hitting a fence with a car.

reply to post by Varemia

What part of this had any relevance to how well a ~400,000 lb. plane (that's the max weight, not sure what the weight on 9/11 was, but it was heavy) can smash through a steel mesh that is extremely thin in comparison.

Thedman was fantasizing about smacking me with a baseball bat, which is not relevant to the thread but it's what I have come to expect.

It's like hitting a fence with a car.

It's nothing like hitting a fence with a car.

The wing tip is not a 400,000 lb airplane. If you want to calculate it as such, please at least include 500,000 tons of steel in your calculations. I'll let you slide on the concrete.

Originally posted by septic
The wing tip is not a 400,000 lb airplane. If you want to calculate it as such, please at least include 500,000 tons of steel in your calculations. I'll let you slide on the concrete.

The small section of the wall that was impacted is not 500,000 tons of steel. If you're going to make things up, at least make it reasonable.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by septic
The wing tip is not a 400,000 lb airplane. If you want to calculate it as such, please at least include 500,000 tons of steel in your calculations. I'll let you slide on the concrete.

The small section of the wall that was impacted is not 500,000 tons of steel. If you're going to make things up, at least make it reasonable.

I was just playing by your rules, the lightweight aluminum wing tip did not contain the mass of the whole plane, but if you keep tossing out the full mass of the plane, it's only fair to calculate the full mass of the building. I was giving you a break on the 110 concrete floors, so don't push it.

Are you willing to explain how the lightweight aluminum wings cut the much heavier, more dense steel? I'm interested in seeing you use the physics you keep leaning on like a crutch.