What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

Originally posted by septic

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.

You are assuming that the point impacted by the wing had less mass. You are also assuming that there wasn't enough energy in the wing from the momentum of the mass of the airplane to break the steel. Assuming assuming assuming.

You know what they say about people who assume...

reply to post by Varemia

You are assuming that the point impacted by the wing had less mass. You are also assuming that there wasn't enough energy in the wing from the momentum of the mass of the airplane to break the steel. Assuming assuming assuming.

You know what they say about people who assume...

You're making an ass of yourself?

Don't put words in my mouth. If you think the wing had the mass and energy to bend the columns on wrong sides and in the wrong direction, have at it. You'll succeed where MIT failed. The facts are that no one has been able to prove a jet wing can do what the TV showed, and now you have the benefit of hind sight to scrutinize the damage. Another nail in the plane theory's coffin.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

You are assuming that the point impacted by the wing had less mass. You are also assuming that there wasn't enough energy in the wing from the momentum of the mass of the airplane to break the steel. Assuming assuming assuming.

You know what they say about people who assume...

You're making an ass of yourself?

Don't put words in my mouth. If you think the wing had the mass and energy to bend the columns on wrong sides and in the wrong direction, have at it. You'll succeed where MIT failed. The facts are that no one has been able to prove a jet wing can do what the TV showed, and now you have the benefit of hind sight to scrutinize the damage. Another nail in the plane theory's coffin.

I showed you a picture of the wings' internal design. They are not straight, but angled. Angular object hitting non-angular object equals angular impact.

No nails in any coffin. Just you denying that the evidence is real and sticking to your theory regardless of how little sense it makes.

reply to post by Varemia

I showed you a picture of the wings' internal design. They are not straight, but angled. Angular object hitting non-angular object equals angular impact.

No nails in any coffin. Just you denying that the evidence is real and sticking to your theory regardless of how little sense it makes.

Then you're going to try to prove me wrong now?

I challenge you and any reader out there to find a forensics expert to go on record, examine these images; and with a straight face, tell us all the damage to the left sides of both towers does not indicate a projectile passing left to right.




The 60 by 12 inch warhead of a JASSM missile can account for the damage, it is easy to gauge the size of the gash cut clean through the column in the lower picture above, by comparing it to the 14 inch columns.

reply to post by septic


The wings were strong enough to hold the weight of the loaded aircraft; hardly a job for the aluminum foil you claim they were.

Originally posted by septic


Are you willing to explain how the lightweight aluminum wings cut the much heavier, more dense steel?

The steel columns near the top of the towers were made of much thinner steel. I know you like to use the word lightweight to describe the wings in an attempt to mislead- but no matter what you think here, the wings would've been more than capable of damaging those columns.

Oh and the columns in question are pinched inward, as from a head on collision, not just from left to right as you keep stating. That seems to be the hold up here...

reply to post by WASTYT

Oh and the columns in question are pinched inward, as from a head on collision, not just from left to right as you keep stating. That seems to be the hold up here...

Can you find any other columns pinched like that? Why would only those two be pinched.



The evident gouge in 148 is very similar to the one below from WTC2:

reply to post by pteridine

The wings were strong enough to hold the weight of the loaded aircraft; hardly a job for the aluminum foil you claim they were.

Are wings designed to cut through steel?

Wouldn't the mass be distributed over a wider area than say, the fuselage? Wouldn't the fuselage be decelerating against the building the instant it contacted it? By the time the wing tips contacted columns 145-152. How much energy had they lost, and how much mass did the last 12 feet of wing have?

Come, I'm calling BS on the plane claim...isn't that your claim? If you're so sure all my evidence isn't even worth looking at, much less discussing, why? What's your proof the last 12 feet of two different jet wings could cause such similar damage in two separate crashes, at different trajectories and speeds?

What I'm wondering is: what do you intend to prove if you could show the rotation of the columns in question were unexplainable? There are various tidbits of façade damage which twisted, curled, bent, necked or contorted in various directions; you could highlight any one of them and pose the question: "what exactly caused this?"

To drive this point home: consider zooming into the molecular level. What shifted molecule A to the left and molecule B to the right? And what do you intend to prove if you couldn't explain it?

Rather than exert myself trying to explain micro- or meso-phenomena which involve the intricacies of collision dynamics, I'd rather shrug it off and conclude that on the basis of video, witnesses, debris and DNA evidence, flight AA 11 crashed there.

I'll console you by offering this explanation (pointless as it may be to apply post-hoc speculation with fine granularity to the precise mesoscopic effects on various segments of either colliding body in high speed collisions):

If you've read the WTC NIST report, you must know that the perimeter columns were connected together in groups of three via spandrel plates. Torsion on one column, pushed inward by an impacting outer wing section, might rotate such columns inwards drawing in adjacent columns from the same spandrel-connected set. Indeed, the angular wing shape may also have something to do with it. May.

Still, the more important question is: what do you intend to prove, and can you immunize your proposed alternative explanation from falsification once you make it known?

Originally posted by septic
Come, I'm calling BS on the plane claim...isn't that your claim? If you're so sure all my evidence isn't even worth looking at, much discussing, why? What's your proof the last 12 feet of two different jet wings could cause such similar damage in two separate crashes, at different trajectories and speeds?

Is this is a no plane thread? Then it's in the wrong place.

Originally posted by septic
The TV does not trump physics.

The problem is you don't understand physics and high speed collisions. If you disagree, than please write down for me the energy required to shear an steel column and compare it with the kinetic impact energy of the fuel-laden (aluminum) wing of a 767.

Did you know you can cut steel with air? It's called a "high explosive". Yes, air. What is the differentiating factor? Kinetic energy.

I'm not going to bother with this any further. Maybe you should google Jeff Hill from pumpitout and talk to him. He was once where you are now. Good luck.

reply to post by snowcrash911


It's like talking to a clone of all the other guys. Everyone at once, repeat after me..."we are individuals"...

This is water cutting steel.



Could you explain how the water is able to cut the steel, septic? (I already know, just explain it)

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Could you explain how the water is able to cut the steel, septic? (I already know, just explain it)

That is water with an abrasive under high pressure, through a fine orifice.

You can cut through anything with the right amount of pressure.

Waterjets cut softer materials, while abrasive jets are used for harder materials. The actual cutting is often done under water to reduce splash and noise. Faster feed rates are used to prevent the jet from cutting all the way through.

The water pressure is typically between 20,000 and 55,000 pounds per square inch (PSI). The water is forced through a 0.010" to 0.015" in diameter orifice (hole) in a jewel.

science.howstuffworks.com...

You can just thank me for informing you with a star, thank you

Originally posted by ANOK

[snip]

What did I say? And did I ask you?

Originally posted by septic


Lets see...so you're expecting people to see multiple 500 MPH missiles

Yes.

If they're there. But since they weren't it's really no surprise that they didn't.

AND have their stories reported by the media that are in the process of lying about planes. You're a shrewd one.

Wonderful circular logic. The media must be lying about the people who saw missiles because they are lying about the planes. You're not 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

I've just read that source. The guy thinks it was planes that caused the crashes and says that he saw the event out of the corner of his eye. He doesn't actually think there were two missiles and admits in practically the next sentence that his uncertainty was a factor of only seeing the thing for a split second.

This is the standard of your proof? It's absolutely pathetic.

Take this guy for example...he must have missed the Jet and the missile

Brilliant. You've introduced another witness who refutes your missile theory. Well done.

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.

Okay... slowly... I'm aware of that. But I'm also aware that a vanishingly tiny number of people agree with you. Why? Because there's absolutely no evidence for it. You can't find a single person in a city of millions who saw the missiles that you think were there. The case is closed. In fact it was never really open.

Here's another one... how does septic know the pictures of the façade are real?

reply to post by snowcrash911


Please read the thread, or any number of the hundreds of threads where the OSers distractions of water cutting steel, aluminum rail guns, Kamikazes, etc. are debated.

This thread is not about any of your distractions, it is about the damage to columns 145-152 and their left-to-right directional damage. If you can't address the damage without mentioning your distractions, please refrain from posting.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Here's another one... how does septic know the pictures of the façade are real?

He doesn't.

But unlike the jet impacts, the paltry few damage shots are consistent with each other.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Here's another one... how does septic know the pictures of the façade are real?

He doesn't.

But unlike the jet impacts, the paltry few damage shots are consistent with each other.

Nonsense. Using your logic, the photos are inauthentic so your point is moot. You even use NIST photos