What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

reply to post by PhotonEffect

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.

I agree, the jet would have damaged the cladding.

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.

Another poster was claiming the missile wings wouldn't damage the cladding and I was disagreeing.
The 767 wing is far too big to cause this damage. Besides it would have struck in a wedge-shaped slicing motion from the opposite direction.





Look at 152...see how the cladding is pinched? How big is a jet's wing? We know the columns are made of 1/4 inch steel, so use that as a guide to estimate the thickness of whatever pinched that cladding.

Look at column 149...see the cladding hanging down like it was pinched too? How big is a jet's wing again? Small enough to do that, even if it was striking from the left? Nah.

Besides, this is an example of a wing hitting just a 12 inch wooden pole:

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.

What am I your cartoonist? I have the full images on the OP anyway.

Here's a closeup of the right side. Zoom in to see the columns cut petty straight, yet the floor behind it is still intact. If a jet wing sliced through there, it's nowhere to be seen. Note how this looks like two missile strikes here, but I'm not sure even missiles could cut those columns that straight.

reply to post by septic


THE REASON THEY LOOK LIKE STRAIGHT CUTS IS GUESS WHAT the columns failed at the joints

We have had this no plane BS with no rational way to explain it, there are NO PHOTOGRAPHS or VIDEOS that show any evidence of missiles so grow up!

One other poster on here claims that on here and other forums and at one point provided a link to a system used on tv by sports commentators as a method of putting graphics of planes on a tv picture live.

The problem was that the system could only draw a coloured line on sceen

The other thing is that people on the truther side have a habit of looking at things that can be done NOW forgetting that this happened 10 yrs ago.

What about the videos and pictures taken by the public at various locations around the city!

That's the problem with most truther ideas they are actually more complicated and more difficult to do than what really happened

reply to post by wmd_2008

THE REASON THEY LOOK LIKE STRAIGHT CUTS IS GUESS WHAT the columns failed at the joints

What's all this about photographs and stuff? Care to comment on the ones I posted and how the damage contradicts the OS?

reply to post by septic


Explain what ?

Do you care to expand on what you want explianed.

Originally posted by septic
Cognitive dissonance

You see when you delete my questions? When you run the mouse over them and zap them out of your reply? That's the physical manifestation of what you're doing in your head. You can't answer them so it's easier to cut and paste a couple of quoted bromides that I'm sure you think make you look erudite and pretend that the impossible questions just never existed.

The reason you can't answer them, why you have to pretend they're not there, is because they render your worldview untenable. So you cling to this notion of the damage being impossible in the face of dozens of holes in your logic that you can't even begin to answer. That you have to actively delete.

Given your comments about my servility I imagine you do this because you need an excuse for your failings, and dreams of a class of super-plutocrats holding you down is as good as any. You'll ignore this advice, but I suggest you look closer to home, at your own reasoning and prejudices, and start there.

reply to post by septic


With regard to your video, can you not tell that the plane's velocity is extremely low? Velocity increases energy and force exponentially.

Imagine an object has 1 unit of mass and is going at a unit of 2 velocity. It will have a force of 8 because F=mv^2. Now, make that velocity 4, and it will have a force of 16. Make it 8, and it will have a force of 64. Now, make the mass bigger than 1, and you start to get the idea. This plane going 500 mph had tons and tons of energy.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by septic
Cognitive dissonance

You see when you delete my questions? When you run the mouse over them and zap them out of your reply? That's the physical manifestation of what you're doing in your head. You can't answer them so it's easier to cut and paste a couple of quoted bromides that I'm sure you think make you look erudite and pretend that the impossible questions just never existed.

The reason you can't answer them, why you have to pretend they're not there, is because they render your worldview untenable. So you cling to this notion of the damage being impossible in the face of dozens of holes in your logic that you can't even begin to answer. That you have to actively delete.

Given your comments about my servility I imagine you do this because you need an excuse for your failings, and dreams of a class of super-plutocrats holding you down is as good as any. You'll ignore this advice, but I suggest you look closer to home, at your own reasoning and prejudices, and start there.

What, this thread is all about answering your naive questions about the media? Why don't you answer the question in the OP? So far I've seen a lot of "it was possible because someone would talk". Brilliant.

You've spent I don't know how many pages rationalizing a way around the OP, but as much as you'd like it to be about something else, this thread is about the damage from columns 145-152.

I am no more obliged to answer your distracting questions than you were to comment on this thread, but as long as you're here, please explain how the impact of a jet could cause the damage. I say it is impossible, and I've provided a better explanation for it. If you think it is possible, then explain why.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

With regard to your video, can you not tell that the plane's velocity is extremely low? Velocity increases energy and force exponentially.

Imagine an object has 1 unit of mass and is going at a unit of 2 velocity. It will have a force of 8 because F=mv^2. Now, make that velocity 4, and it will have a force of 16. Make it 8, and it will have a force of 64. Now, make the mass bigger than 1, and you start to get the idea. This plane going 500 mph had tons and tons of energy.

Oh good grief. Just increase the velocity and the plane will cause more damage than it takes? Is that how the physics works?

How about simply looking at the damage and using your physics to calculate how the columns were damaged on the wrong side.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by septic

 

Explain what ?

Do you care to expand on what you want explianed.

What is it with you guys and your inability to focus on the question at hand?

What caused the damage to 145 - 152? If you say "jet-wing" please explain how it's possible.

reply to post by septic

What caused the damage to 145 - 152?

Jet wing.

If you say "jet-wing" please explain how it's possible.

Because a jet wing hit them. That's how.

Originally posted by septic
Oh good grief. Just increase the velocity and the plane will cause more damage than it takes? Is that how the physics works?

How about simply looking at the damage and using your physics to calculate how the columns were damaged on the wrong side.

The plane took damage and imparted damage at the same time. Where are you getting the idea that it took less damage than it imparted?

The columns weren't damaged on the wrong side at all. You're just making stuff up now.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by septic
Oh good grief. Just increase the velocity and the plane will cause more damage than it takes? Is that how the physics works?

How about simply looking at the damage and using your physics to calculate how the columns were damaged on the wrong side.

The plane took damage and imparted damage at the same time. Where are you getting the idea that it took less damage than it imparted?

I'm getting the idea from you. You told me the plane in the video had less velocity than flight 11, as if that meant something.

The columns weren't damaged on the wrong side at all. You're just making stuff up now.

No, you're just lying now. The dents are on the left side when they should be on the right. The columns clearly bend to the right.

Originally posted by septic
I'm getting the idea from you. You told me the plane in the video had less velocity than flight 11, as if that meant something.

It does mean something. Did you not read about force and energy? It's basic physics. Like, less than basic. It's elementary.

No, you're just lying now. The dents are on the left side when they should be on the right. The columns clearly bend to the right.

It was an impact where the plane shredded as it impacted. Did you expect the damage to be perfectly straight when the plane couldn't have maintained a straight trajectory as its momentum carried it through? You seem to lack a basic understanding of anything right now.

reply to post by Varemia

It does mean something. Did you not read about force and energy? It's basic physics. Like, less than basic. It's elementary.

Interesting...so if the slower velocity was enough to shred the plane, are you saying if that plane reached 500 MPH it would be less shredded by the telephone pole?

It was an impact where the plane shredded as it impacted. Did you expect the damage to be perfectly straight when the plane couldn't have maintained a straight trajectory as its momentum carried it through? You seem to lack a basic understanding of anything right now.

Don't you want to give me the MIT paper again to show me how the machete wings would slice through the tower "AS" they were being shredded?

The jet wings are like the spear analogy. Throw a spear at a tree, and it will impale the tree. Throw the spear at the same velocity, only have it impact the tree sideways and it won't impale the tree. Same mass, same velocity, no damage.

The wings are the spear hitting the tree sideways. Their mass and velocity would be spread out over the length of the wings, just like a spear's shaft. Even if what the TV showed was remotely possible, they would still strike the columns from the wrong side.

Originally posted by septic
Interesting...so if the slower velocity was enough to shred the plane, are you saying if that plane reached 500 MPH it would be less shredded by the telephone pole?

It depends on the reaction of the telephone pole. If the pole has enough force imparted on it that it flies backwards or bends out of the way, then the plane will be less damaged, albeit damaged still.

Don't you want to give me the MIT paper again to show me how the machete wings would slice through the tower "AS" they were being shredded?

The jet wings are like the spear analogy. Throw a spear at a tree, and it will impale the tree. Throw the spear at the same velocity, only have it impact the tree sideways and it won't impale the tree. Same mass, same velocity, no damage.

The wings are the spear hitting the tree sideways. Their mass and velocity would be spread out over the length of the wings, just like a spear's shaft. Even if what the TV showed was remotely possible, they would still strike the columns from the wrong side.

Not really. That's a matter of mass and energy concentration. With the spear, when it is point forward, all the energy is concentrated on a smaller point while its mass pushes it through. When it is pitched lengthwise, the energy is distributed, and its aerodynamics are different. If you could throw it at the same velocity, it would probably break against the tree due to the shape of the tree allowing the sides of the spear to continue forward while the center impacts.

It is in no way comparable to the plane hitting the tower. Work on your concepts, man. Go back to physics class and learn something.

reply to post by Varemia

Not really. That's a matter of mass and energy concentration. With the spear, when it is point forward, all the energy is concentrated on a smaller point while its mass pushes it through. When it is pitched lengthwise, the energy is distributed, and its aerodynamics are different. If you could throw it at the same velocity, it would probably break against the tree due to the shape of the tree allowing the sides of the spear to continue forward while the center impacts.

Speed it up to 500 MPH and it'll cut down the tree.

Originally posted by septic
Speed it up to 500 MPH and it'll cut down the tree.

It's possible. There might not be enough mass. Remember it's MASS times VELOCITY^SQUARED. If the mass is smaller, it has less energy to impart.

If you sped it up fast enough, there is no doubt that it would cut down the tree. It would also practically disintegrate the spear, but that is beside the point.

Originally posted by septic

What, this thread is all about answering your naive questions about the media? Why don't you answer the question in the OP? So far I've seen a lot of "it was possible because someone would talk". Brilliant.

You've spent I don't know how many pages rationalizing a way around the OP, but as much as you'd like it to be about something else, this thread is about the damage from columns 145-152.

I am no more obliged to answer your distracting questions than you were to comment on this thread, but as long as you're here, please explain how the impact of a jet could cause the damage. I say it is impossible, and I've provided a better explanation for it. If you think it is possible, then explain why.

You've shown nothing to suggest that it's impossible. And when confronted with the implications of your assertions you've stuck your head in the sand.

One sees this all the time from Truthers. You've just got a particularly bad case of it. You insist that something is the only possible answer and that no matter how unlikely the necessary implications of that notion are it must be true. You retreat to defending this one position because you feel safe in it and refuse to hear anything about the logic that flows from your stance. At the same time you reject totally any answer that conflicts with your "scientifically proven" position regarding this small detail.

You may be able to keep your delusions alive with this, and I guess it makes you feel better. But you won't persuade many others.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

You've shown nothing to suggest that it's impossible. And when confronted with the implications of your assertions you've stuck your head in the sand.

One sees this all the time from Truthers. You've just got a particularly bad case of it. You insist that something is the only possible answer and that no matter how unlikely the necessary implications of that notion are it must be true. You retreat to defending this one position because you feel safe in it and refuse to hear anything about the logic that flows from your stance. At the same time you reject totally any answer that conflicts with your "scientifically proven" position regarding this small detail.

You may be able to keep your delusions alive with this, and I guess it makes you feel better. But you won't persuade many others.

No, what has happened is a half dozen OS blowhards have done a mighty job of avoiding the proof. It's a simple premise. The damage proves the path of the projectile that caused it. That path proves a plane couldn't possibly cause it.

Your inability to prove it is possible is not my problem. The damage is the proof.

reply to post by septic


You do know that those are aluminum casings, right? Many of them fell off as a result of the impact. I saw a video of the construction of the building, and the construction workers were able to slide those on by hand.