What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

reply to post by septic

The jet cannot cut the building like it wasn't there....

I didn't "cut like it wasn't there"!! The damage proves that the building reacted to the airplane impact!

How hard is this for brains to wrap around, is what I wonder....because every personal life experience shows you, besides the fact of physics, and the science.

How else do bullets manage to penetrate anything they are target at ??

Using your odd sense of "fysics", a bullet should just bounce off of everything it hits....since a bullet is made of a soft, malleable metal like lead.

Yet "magically", it can still pierce steel. Must all be constant camera tricks, all over the World, making those illusions I guess............and billions of people all keeping quiet about the "lies".

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Hmmm, to me the aluminum casings of columns 147-149 seem to be twisted off in a manner consistent with the angle of the wing hitting it basically straight on.

Perhaps if was possible to have jet wings trump the columns, however this still does not address the left-side dents on column 147 and 148. Had you never seen the video of the jet prior to seeing these closeups, I'm betting your first thought would be "missile" too.

But the aluminum casing of column 150 doesn't seem to agree with you on that.
And neither does the heavily damaged #144 column. How did your missile manage that one if it came in from the left??

Perhaps it detonated outside column 144 , causing it to push inwards as seen, or perhaps another missile was responsible.

As far as the cladding on 150 it appears to have been sliced, right? Perhaps a wing struck there, and sliced the cladding, snapping off the wing. Note the next column (149) has the cladding still hanging on...it wasn't completely severed.

Originally posted by JBA2848
I guess we could say the woman in the photo might be responsable.

I don't understand.

I notice she's not engulfed in flames, or anywhere near them.

Originally posted by JBA2848
[
Why does anybody think it was not a plane that hit the tower.

Because planes can't do that. That only happens in the movies.

Originally posted by septic

Based on the damage like that of the other side of the gash, it appears multiple missiles were used from multiple angles.

I think the best explanation for this is radiation.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by septic

 

The jet cannot cut the building like it wasn't there....

I didn't "cut like it wasn't there"!! The damage proves that the building reacted to the airplane impact!

How hard is this for brains to wrap around, is what I wonder....because every personal life experience shows you, besides the fact of physics, and the science.

How else do bullets manage to penetrate anything they are target at ??

Using your odd sense of "fysics", a bullet should just bounce off of everything it hits....since a bullet is made of a soft, malleable metal like lead.

Yet "magically", it can still pierce steel. Must all be constant camera tricks, all over the World, making those illusions I guess............and billions of people all keeping quiet about the "lies".

Your penchant to incorrectly paraphrase me grows tedious and smacks of projection.

As I said to waypast, you are being deceitful with your proclamations. The jet wings hitting the tower do not contain the full mass of the airplane.

The reason a 1000 lb penetrating warhead can penetrate hardened targets is due to the mass of the warhead being focused on the point of impact.

If you throw a spear into a tree, the mass of the spear is focused on the point of impact and it pierces the tree.

If you throw a spear sideways at the tree, the spear can hit the tree with the same velocity and the same mass and still not impale the tree because the mass isn't focused on a small point.

The missile applies the velocity and the mass at a small point of impact, like the spear head or like a bullet, whereas the aluminum wings slapping into the tower are like the spear hitting the tree sideways.

It is you who is being dishonest by using selective physics.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by PhotonEffect

I'm not convinced of the authenticity of you or your agenda quite frankly.

My "authenticity"? I am not in disguise. My agenda is to learn the truth; while yours appears to be to prevent that.

You've stated emphatically that any and all images of this event are not genuine.

I have said no such thing. I believe they should all be scrutinized to discover which ones are fraudulent and which aren't. The damage photos here seem genuine to me.

Yet you're using NIST photos to promote your fringe theories. How does that work?

I am using NIST's images because they're the easiest to access and include some of the best images, that's how it works.

Isn't that a gross conflict of interest for you? How does this help your credibility?

That they ignored this evidence exposes NIST for the frauds they are, helping my credibility while hurting theirs, and by extension, yours.

You were also going on and on in another thread about how the wing tips severed all those columns. Why can't we see evidence of that in the photo you referenced ? Columns 145-152 appear to be damaged, but not severed.

According to the shady lads at NIST they were severed...so I dunno, ask them.



They don't look severed to me either, that's why I started this thread, they look dented on the left, and twisted to the right.

reply to post by ProudBird


Why are you talking about witnesses; did they comment on the direction of the damage?

Witnesses of an impossible event are to be trusted as much as videos of it.

reply to post by lunarasparagus

You say damage was "left to right" which would be approx. east to west. But as you can see below, the west face of WTC 1 was the least damaged side of the building. How could this be from a missile coming in from the east and exploding into (and out of) the inner west wall? Your missile trajectory (up and to the right) does not match the observable damage to the rest of the building.

The left-right motion refers to columns 145 through 152, not the whole hole. If they were to use missiles for the rest, they would have needed quite a few from multiple angles.

As can be seen by the heavily damaged south face, the majority of debris from the impact was blown out of the south face (opposite side of the impact) of tower 1:

As part of a demolition, it is standard to remove all fixtures, partitions, plumbing, electrical, elevators and doors, etc. Had this been done, then the missiles could have easily traveled through to the opposite sides. More here.

reply to post by septic


Umm no, I haven't spoken to everyone that was there that day. However, there are thousands that saw the airliners you claim did not exist. Therefore, using your twisted logic, they must be in on it, since they stick to their accounts of seeing airliners.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

Umm no, I haven't spoken to everyone that was there that day. However, there are thousands that saw the airliners you claim did not exist. Therefore, using your twisted logic, they must be in on it, since they stick to their accounts of seeing airliners.

Again with the thousands, have you met all those thousands or are you simply repeating a rumor told by the most likely suspects?

Let me get this straight, regardless of how impossible an event is, as long as you believe thousands of other people saw it, it becomes possible? The impossible becomes possible as long as the TV says so?

Originally posted by septic


Let me get this straight, regardless of how impossible an event is, as long as you believe thousands of other people saw it, it becomes possible?

No. But one tends to doubt the veracity of the "proof" given when so much seems to contradict it. Either all those people are wrong or you are.

I know which my money's on.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by septic


Let me get this straight, regardless of how impossible an event is, as long as you believe thousands of other people saw it, it becomes possible?

No. But one tends to doubt the veracity of the "proof" given when so much seems to contradict it. Either all those people are wrong or you are.

I know which my money's on.

All what people? The people the most likely suspects want you to believe saw something?

No one saw a jet cut through a building like it wasn't there. Jets don't do that, therefore my money is not on thousands of people lying about seeing a plane, but about on one lie about thousands of people.

Septic you need to understand that weird things happen in a crash. Things you would not expect.

Ask any police officer what happens in almost every motorcycle crash where the speed is over 25mph.
Their shoes come off.

Just because you are having problems understanding the 'dents' doesn't mean a plane did not cause them.

If you are not a crash investigator you should not expect yourself to understand each and every beam dent.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

And neither does the heavily damaged #144 column. How did your missile manage that one if it came in from the left??

Originally posted by samkent
Septic you need to understand that weird things happen in a crash. Things you would not expect.

Ask any police officer what happens in almost every motorcycle crash where the speed is over 25mph.
Their shoes come off.

Just because you are having problems understanding the 'dents' doesn't mean a plane did not cause them.

If you are not a crash investigator you should not expect yourself to understand each and every beam dent.

Aside from the fact that it is impossible for the jet wing to slice the steel columns, the dents are clearly consistent with a missile impact.

Originally posted by septic

All what people? The people the most likely suspects want you to believe saw something?

No one saw a jet cut through a building like it wasn't there. Jets don't do that, therefore my money is not on thousands of people lying about seeing a plane, but about on one lie about thousands of people.

There are dozens of eyewitness reports from people who saw a plane. I surmise that they cannot all be faked, not because I "believe everything the TV tells me", but because I understand how the media works and that control of that nature is practically impossible.

I assume you think that the videos of the second plane are faked? If so, let me ask you a question. How would the authorities know for sure that they had collected all the videos of the second impact? Why are there no videos with missiles on?

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

But seriously...have you ever considered letting the evidence do the talking instead of starting from the assumption the plane film was genuine? The jet cannot cut the building like it wasn't there; therefore there must be another explanation.

Where is there evidence that a plane can't cut through the building when it has the energy that a plane has going 500 mph? You haven't found a video or a study which shows planes stopping or not making it through steel. You have no evidence other than your personal disbelief. That is why everyone is treating you like you're crazy. You have NO evidence at all. You claim that you know what every single person in New York saw, and that also makes you a liar.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

There are dozens of eyewitness reports from people who saw a plane. I surmise that they cannot all be faked, not because I "believe everything the TV tells me", but because I understand how the media works and that control of that nature is practically impossible.

I assume you think that the videos of the second plane are faked? If so, let me ask you a question. How would the authorities know for sure that they had collected all the videos of the second impact? Why are there no videos with missiles on?

You obviously don't know how the "media works", or else you wouldn't need to ask why there are no videos with missiles.

However important it is to you to believe there were witnesses to planes, I'm sorry but the planes weren't real, and the left-right damage is one more proof thereof.