What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

i]reply to post by TrickoftheShade

"I didn't say that at all. I said that if something seems impossible in the execution of the thing I consider the only possibility then I'd think pretty carefully about my methods and thought. When this thing involves factors as unlikely as those you're bandying about I'd be given to surmise that the fault might be in my reasoning.

You've literally avoided every question I put to you. Does that not show you how your theory actively requires you to ignore inconvenient truths?

"Seemingly" impossible is a lot different from impossible. Being in the media you know that with national news there is a top-down heirarchy. If a producer handed a news-reader a story, they'd read it. The cameraman, the reader, the director, no one would need to know whether the story was real. Only one producer would need to be an "asset".

What "inconvenient truths' have I missed? Ask away.

Why would it point to all of those? I think you've already made your mind up.

Deduction, Watson. Since what the media showed us is impossible, then those who are writing papers explaining in tedious detail how the impossible becomes the possible, are involved. Purdue, MIT, NIST, etc. Because it is impossible for a jet to have done this, the government that has based ten years of war on their own lies are clearly guilty. The Port Authority and Giulani's office were clearly involved, because a scam like this would need the help of these corrupt institutions to pull off; with Giuliani came the NYPD and the FDNY. This is not conjecture and has been backed up by solid research from many different researchers, some of whom are linked on previous pages of this thread. However hard it is to stomach, it is provably possible, whereas the building-slicing jet is provably impossible. It is much easier to believe scientists and Presidents lie, than it is to believe lightweight alumiunum wings can slice structural steel columns like a hot knife through butter.

And yet according to you the missiles exist. But somehow nobody caught them on camera, and the powers that be were completely relaxed about people filming their missiles and potentially blowing the whole conspiracy.

According to me, they are a better explanation than the impossible one we've been given, based on the evidence. The damage is consistent with the hypothesis, and there WERE witnesses to that effect. Why would you expect the missiles to be caught on camera anyway? Even if you did see a fourteen foot missile almost a quarter mile high at subsonic speeds, would you have the reflexes to take a shot of it?

Everything about the day was staged. It was a national movie, where the government pulled out all the stops and revealed hollywood, the media, military and academia as government agencies. Frightening stuff, sure, so I understand why most people would choose to believe impossibilities.

Oh I forgot, there was an electronic jamming operation. For which you obviously have absolutely no evidence.

Sure I do, but that's not the topic of this thread. I believe September Clues would be the place to go for that evidence, but there are several reports of interrupted service for phones, TV, radio, etc. It was publicly blamed on the WTC antenna being damaged, but what did you think they'd do, announce they sabotaged the airwaves with electronic jamming weapons so they could fake a terrorist attack?

Or you're wrong, and a jet wing can do it.

Given the literally collosal odds of the other factors you need to be true for this to have any chance of being real, I'm betting you're wrong.

It should be a dead give away to you that you have to force yourself to ignore the glaring holes in your analysis and my references to them.

You're like a poster child for cognitive dissonance.

We happen to be on a thread exposing just how imposible this damage would be to have been caused by a jet wing. Care to point out where I'm wrong?



]

Originally posted by PhotonEffect


How can you say a JASSM wing tip can dent those column but a much larger and stronger jet tip can't? That's confusing.

I don't know...you tell me. Is it easier to bend two protruding edges of steel by striking them straight-on, or from the side? The wings of a jet would be striking the edge of the protrusions head on, and from the opposite side of the observed damage, so they're right out...what could it be?

What could cause the damage to the left side of the columns, moving to the right, and still slice through the cladding like that? Missile wings, could they cut through aluminum cladding? How about the big dents and the twisted columns 145 - 148? Missile warhead?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

And you keep forgetting to add "in my opinion" to your posts. Which by the way, fly in the face of the known evidence.

This thread discusses some of that known evidence. Where am I wrong about the direction of the damage?

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by septic

 

I have my suspicions. He gets banned and within a few days you arrive carrying on about the same exact stuff using his same exact stuff.

Why, are you jealous you didn't think of it first?

reply to post by septic


A better question would be, where are you RIGHT. You make assumptions that are not supported by reality. Reality is, two 767 jets slammed into the North and South towers of the WTC. You are trying to create an alternate reality in which a dozen missiles, I believe you said, hit the towers. Hanging your hat on the way the metal has been deformed by first the impact and second the remaining structure trying to transfer the stress, is silly.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

A better question would be, where are you RIGHT. You make assumptions that are not supported by reality. Reality is, two 767 jets slammed into the North and South towers of the WTC. You are trying to create an alternate reality in which a dozen missiles, I believe you said, hit the towers. Hanging your hat on the way the metal has been deformed by first the impact and second the remaining structure trying to transfer the stress, is silly.

I've made my case and it's pretty simple, you should be able to point out the errors. The column damage on the left side of the gash is best supported by a missile, not a jet, the wings of which would have been shredded against the tower. If I am wrong, please correct me.

Originally posted by septic
I've made my case and it's pretty simple, you should be able to point out the errors. The column damage on the left side of the gash is best supported by a missile, not a jet, the wings of which would have been shredded against the tower. If I am wrong, please correct me.

The jet wings were shredded against the tower, but the tower took damage too, and that's what we saw. The momentum from the wings continued through the tower. I really am failing to see where you are getting impossible from.

Originally posted by Varemia

The jet wings were shredded against the tower, but the tower took damage too, and that's what we saw. The momentum from the wings continued through the tower. I really am failing to see where you are getting impossible from.

You've accused me of lying and of not proving my point, yet you haven't offered anything other than weakly proclaiming "wings did it".

They did not; they could not.

This fits the evidence:



This does not:

reply to post by septic


You're wrong. You are assuming that the wings couldn't do it, but it's been proven how much kinetic energy they have. I even showed you calculations about the amount of energy the plane had, and the amount of energy the steel columns could resist. You ignored it every time or acted as if it was made up by somebody just to lie.

What if someone took a plane and fired it through a steel mesh. If it passed through, would you consider the planes real then? Or would you claim the experiment to be a fraud because you've already predetermined your explanation?

reply to post by septic


And the piddly little wings on ANY missile in the US inventory would not cause near the amount of damage you are trying to credit it with. Its simple. NOTHING in your theory is accurate.

reply to post by Varemia


Not only this:

You are assuming that the wings couldn't do it, but it's been proven how much kinetic energy they have.

What many just won't (or cannot) comprehend is the mass of the fuel that is contained within the wings. All of that liquid, filling the majority of the internal structure of each wing.

Liquid is incompressible.....when it is confined in a container of any kind, it acts almost like a solid....it has mass, and density, and momentum and when in motion, kinetic energy.

The Boeing 767 (and 757, for that matter)....heck just about ALL modern twin-jets always, always must burn the fuel from the center tanks, in the fuselage first. The jets used on 9/11 had BOTH wing tanks completely full, and the remainder of the required fuel for the flight was in the center tank....it is located center of the wings, below the cabin floor, above the wheel wells. It extends outward past the edge of the fuselage sides a bit, in the wing root.

The wings, therefore, when completely filled with fuel, were more massive than is comprehended by many of the 9/11 "hoax" conspiracists....since they seem to lack any of the essential faculties, knowledge, and education to understand these (and many other) simple and basic facts.

Originally posted by septic

"Seemingly" impossible is a lot different from impossible. Being in the media you know that with national news there is a top-down heirarchy. If a producer handed a news-reader a story, they'd read it. The cameraman, the reader, the director, no one would need to know whether the story was real. Only one producer would need to be an "asset".

Oh dear.

Okay, let's assume that you have a producer or two on the payroll. They receive false stories and give them to readers. Simple, right? So...

- where do they get the footage from?

- who cues it up? Live newsroom galleries contain directors, vision mixers, editors, producers, runners and so on. Are they all ignorant of the false footage? You at least need the guys who handle the feeds in your scheme

- the footage has been preproduced, right? So how do you fool the director and all the people above that they are working on live footage? Do you have the reporter pretend he's in the helicopter or on the ground at the WTC while he talks to the director? That sounds tricky. And of course the reporter must be in on it

- how do you stop honest reporters from attending the scene and reporting from there? Or at least witnessing the scam? Dozens of news teams descended on downtown NYC. They must all have seen what happened and then been silenced

There are dozens more problems I can think of. And this would be true in every agency you say was involved. The whole thing is impossible.

What "inconvenient truths' have I missed? Ask away.

Several. The most pertinent one I keep raising, and you keep ignoring, is how the conspirators could be certain that nobody would get the missiles on camera.

Deduction, Watson. Since what the media showed us is impossible, then those who are writing papers explaining in tedious detail how the impossible becomes the possible, are involved. Purdue, MIT, NIST, etc. Because it is impossible for a jet to have done this, the government that has based ten years of war on their own lies are clearly guilty. The Port Authority and Giulani's office ... with Giuliani came the NYPD and the FDNY. ...It is much easier to believe scientists and Presidents lie, than it is to believe lightweight alumiunum wings can slice structural steel columns like a hot knife through butter.

You do understand how many people that means, don't you? I understand that you're ignorant of how much of each organisation would have to be party to the truth, but if your ideas are right then the conspiracy must have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of participants. And yet not a single one has come forward? Preposterous.

Take MIT alone. One tiny part of your scheme. Every year thousands of students join its engineering department. Are they all immediately inducted into the conspiracy? Obviously they know what you know, so they must be insiders, right?

According to me, they are a better explanation than the impossible one we've been given, based on the evidence. The damage is consistent with the hypothesis, and there WERE witnesses to that effect.

There were witnesses who said they saw ten missiles hit the towers? Rubbish.

Why would you expect the missiles to be caught on camera anyway? Even if you did see a fourteen foot missile almost a quarter mile high at subsonic speeds, would you have the reflexes to take a shot of it?

Cameras all over new york were trained on the towers after the first hit. That's why there are lots of videos of the second strike. And yet none of them show missiles.

You understand that people were "quick" enough to capture the plane because they were already filming? You wouldn't need fast reflexes. And yet oddly enough nobody filmed what you say happened.

Sure I do, but that's not the topic of this thread. I believe September Clues would be the place to go for that evidence, but there are several reports of interrupted service for phones, TV, radio, etc. It was publicly blamed on the WTC antenna being damaged, but what did you think they'd do, announce they sabotaged the airwaves with electronic jamming weapons so they could fake a terrorist attack?

Yeah, you have the evidence but don't want to present it.

Whatever.

You're like a poster child for cognitive dissonance.

We happen to be on a thread exposing just how imposible this damage would be to have been caused by a jet wing. Care to point out where I'm wrong?

Wings can cause the damage you've shown. I know it, everybody knows it. Present something that refutes that or stop trolling.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

You're wrong. You are assuming that the wings couldn't do it, but it's been proven how much kinetic energy they have. I even showed you calculations about the amount of energy the plane had, and the amount of energy the steel columns could resist. You ignored it every time or acted as if it was made up by somebody just to lie.

I haven't ignored it and it was a lie; I'm sorry if I didn't genuflect to it like you did. Had you read it or understood it you'd see their figures may be accurate but their model is meaningless. You provided the MIT paper as proof the wings could slice the box columns, but even their own paper admits they couldn't accurately estimate that.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


The paper you provided as "proof" was pure speculation designed to support a predetermined conclusion. They were dishonest. They lied. Wings can't do that; it's not real.

What if someone took a plane and fired it through a steel mesh. If it passed through, would you consider the planes real then? Or would you claim the experiment to be a fraud because you've already predetermined your explanation?

I'd have to see the evidence.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

And the piddly little wings on ANY missile in the US inventory would not cause near the amount of damage you are trying to credit it with. Its simple. NOTHING in your theory is accurate.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and I suppose you're entitled to scoff at anything you wish, no matter how much evidence supports it.

If the little wings of the missiles couldn't gouge the cladding then what did?



The huge wings of the jet liner? How do you figure? You seem pretty sure of yourself, so you have the floor.

How about that front "knife-edge" of a jet's wing? It's pretty sharp isn't it? Sharp like a marble, huh? So tell me how it happened..if you're so sure a jet wing striking from the right can only dent the left, please explain.

Can you see in which direction the columns bend? Left, or right?

reply to post by septic

Can you see in which direction the columns bend? Left, or right?

Try "in". The columns bend IN.

Next preposterous theory please. This one is getting WAY too old.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic

 

Can you see in which direction the columns bend? Left, or right?

Try "in". The columns bend IN.

They are bent "in" and to the right.

reply to post by ProudBird


Yeah, planes man, it's all about the planes.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by PhotonEffect


How can you say a JASSM wing tip can dent those column but a much larger and stronger jet tip can't? That's confusing.

I don't know...you tell me.

Jet wings are more than capable of damaging aluminum cladding and denting steel columns. If your JASSM wings can do it so can jet wings. That simple.

What could cause the damage to the left side of the columns, moving to the right, and still slice through the cladding like that? Missile wings, could they cut through aluminum cladding? How about the big dents and the twisted columns 145 - 148? Missile warhead?

Uh no- The 767 jet engine is more than capable of doing this when it strikes at 500 mph. Whats your hang up on the aluminum cladding all of the sudden? That would be the easiest thing to damage.

No one is buying it. This batman animation is taken out of context. Why not show the full view so we can see where your missile is doing the actual damage. And then add missiles for the other portions of the impact hole.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

We must remember that in time of war what is said on the enemy’s side of the front is always propaganda, and what is said on our side of the front is truth and righteousness, the cause of humanity and a crusade for peace.
~Walter Lippmann

Source

Oh dear, etc.

Thanks for sharing your dreams of how the media work. I see your fantasies don't stop with 911.

It's understandable, believing impossible things to avoid noticing painful realities. Cognitive dissonance is probably rampant among the cultists of the OS.

How effortlessly you brush off the historical record which proves the mass media are simply mass perception control for the world's most privileged.

Something old:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.

Something new:

Here a young reporter recounts his revelations while covering Libya. At about 32 and 38 minutes he notes the integrated media:

Several. The most pertinent one I keep raising, and you keep ignoring, is how the conspirators could be certain that nobody would get the missiles on camera.

I don't know, how? Is electronic jamming impossible, or is it just impossible for you to fathom? Remember, the jet WAS impossible and still shown with a straight face.

What, that's just too much to believe? Well then, that would be my first plan if I was planning the thing. The big lie works like a charm, every time.

I mentioned a dozen or so missiles because I was speculating that was how many it would take to cut the whole hole HAD they only used missiles. However, based on the evidence, it appears more than just missiles were used. Some of the columns appear to have been cut very straight on all four sides...impossible for a jet and highly unlikely for a missile, and at angles inconsistent with the column construction. So what does THAT mean?

I don't have all the answers, but I do tire of dishonest conversations with people who think they do. An honest evaluation of the damage would be refreshing.

So for now, we're focusing on just the dents on the left side of the column and the direction of the projectile that caused them.

Just by the damage shown on this thread, an honest person would concede that even if a jet wing could slice steel like it wasn't there, they shouldn't have bent the steel on the wrong side and in the wrong direction.

You do understand how many people that means, don't you?

So what? You're using classic group think. Impossible is impossible, and people are idiots to believe in impossibilities because of peer pressure. It is because people are idiots that mass media were developed in the first place...because they work to persuade people do do the bidding of rich people. Look at you now...fighting tooth and nail to protect your masters. I'm sure your chest bursts with pride.

I understand that you're ignorant of how much of each organisation would have to be party to the truth, but if your ideas are right then the conspiracy must have hundreds of thousands, if not millions of participants. And yet not a single one has come forward? Preposterous.

And once again, it's easier to believe in impossibilities than to admit one turned out to be a schmuck. Impossible is still impossible, no matter how many movies are made to say otherwise. It would take far fewer than your rather wild imagination. All they needed to do was simply jump-start the guilt machine and all the little sheep will jump on the bandwagon. Just look at you man, it's psychology 101. You did know that Edward Bernays was Sigmund Freud's nephew, didn't you?

Do you really think the rich folks give a damn about your welfare? Talk about pathetic.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Take MIT alone. One tiny part of your scheme. Every year thousands of students join its engineering department. Are they all immediately inducted into the conspiracy? Obviously they know what you know, so they must be insiders, right?

You need an education on education don't you? Do you think indoctrination is something reserved for "totalitarian" nations on the other side of the planet? How else would a government train a citizenry than through the "education" system? Yes, of course they're teaching them falsehoods, the professors are only repeating what their professors were taught. Not every falsehood is exposed, especially if the one who does is accused of being crazy. Or did you forget that for well over a thousand years a lot of very smart people thought the world was flat?

Speaking of MIT, their paper on how the aluminum machete wings might have been able to cut the steel if they had only managed to estimate the 35 degree swept-back wings' impact with the columns was riveting.

Cameras all over new york were trained on the towers after the first hit.

Then lets not get ahead of ourselves. Lets just talk about the left side of the damage to the North tower.

That's why there are lots of videos of the second strike. And yet none of them show missiles.

There are surprisingly few photographs, considering the thousands of witnesses and all. Why would you expect the media who are purposefully deceiving you with the fake jet to dutifully report about multiple missiles, especially if that's the way it was done? Wouldn't that be the last thing they'd report? Wouldn't they bend over backwards to ridicule the whole notion, much like you are?

Yeah, you have the evidence but don't want to present it.

Whatever.

Ah. Are you fingers painted on? You're pretty long winded, and I shudder to think how much more you could clutter this thread if I brought in Simon Shack's material. You've already said so much without explaining how your silly jet can better account for the damage than a missile.

Wings can cause the damage you've shown. I know it, everybody knows it.

Then explain how a big jet wing slice the column cladding so finely, and dent the columns on the wrong sides and in the wrong direction.

Present something that refutes that or stop trolling.

This thread is plenty of proof you know it, I know it, and name-calling won't help your case.