by possible-san 68 Replies latest social entertainment
Actually, though I like some of the people here in this thread, and so that is why I am bothering with it.
Well, OK - me too. But I have already just about typed my fingers down to the nubs on "Bush government demolition of the twin towers", and all the other crazy conspiracy theories out there. This is kind of an unexpected source for that kind of stuff - so maybe it is worth it to point out some facts.
Leolaia,
I was responding to the claim that parts of the plane vaporized.
Given that no picture (interior or exterior wall) I have seen shows scoring due to wings, I am asking whether the wings vaporized before striking the building.
I was responding to the claim that parts of the plane vaporized.
Given that no picture (interior or exterior wall) I have seen shows scoring due to wings, I am asking whether the wings vaporized before striking the building.
No.
There was no scientific claim made that the plane was "vaporized". It was shredded into scrap as it passed through E-Ring, D-Ring, and C-Ring, with some pieces stopping at the outer wall of B-Ring, crashing into a forest of structural columns that tore the plane apart.
Leolia, I wasn't claiming that the plane was vaporized in the "disappeared into thin air sense", but rather that some components, fabrics, lighter metals like smaller sheets of aluminuim, plastics, were completely turned into ashes or gasses during the impacts and resulting fire. Of course, certain people (not you) are assuming i meant the entire fuselage or the wing.
Given that no picture (interior or exterior wall) I have seen shows scoring due to wings
Do you mean scarring due to the wings? There are tons of photos.
Quite a bit of scarring.
Hi Leolaia,
Thanks. I've seen the pictures. The damage where the wings would have impacted appears to me to be quite minimal. Look at the third and fifth pictures. Almost no structural damage whatsoever. Actually glass window panes are still intact.
Obviously from those pictures it's clear that the wings did not penetrate the building, right? So again, if they did not penetrate the wall, what happened to them? If they had penetrated the wall, then yes, they might have been pulverized for lack of a better word. But in that case, I would expect to see some visible evidence of penetration in the wall...
I don't subscribe to the 911 conspiracy theories. I do, however, think there are some interesting "anomalies"... but I am not nearly passionate enough about the issue to debate it.
Almost no structural damage whatsoever. Actually glass window panes are still intact.
Some are, most are not. Wings are mostly hollow and designed to support the vertical weight of a plane in flight, not horizontal force smacking into a structurally sound building.
I don't subscribe to the 911 conspiracy theories. I do, however, think there are some interesting "anomalies"... but I am not nearly passionate enough about the issue to debate it.
In these types of situations there are many instances where "common sense" based on still photos is an easily fallible thing.
First of all, you asked for scarring and hole or not, that's scarring on the facade. Second, the damage in photos #3 to #5 is much less severe (the limestone is removed, so it is not the case that there is no damage) because it was the lightweight outer part of the wing that struck this area. The majority of the wing, including the heavy fuel tanks, entered the building, producing the hole you see. That hole spans between column 8 and 14 (whereas the hole for the right wing spans between column 14 and 19). So yes, the wing penetrated the building and the visible evidence of penetration is there to see in the photos.
When you look at all the evidence together, overwhelming evidence really, it becomes rather silly to focus on things like this without keeping in mind the overall facts. For instance, if you look at the impact damage of AA11 and UA175 at the World Trade Center, you will similarly see that the impact holes and removed cladding do not correspond to the entire length of the wings and height of the tail. It's rather similar, the heavier more massive parts of the plane penetrate, the lighter parts damage the stationary building less. And the structure of the building played an important role in determining the shape of the holes you see, such as the second floor slab which was at a separate plane from the impacting wing (see ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Study for a discussion).
I find anomalies interesting too, and chaotic events (like a plane crash) tend to produce their own anomalies. Like it is kind of amazing that all the falling steel from the collapsing towers managed to miss the Sphere sculpture in the WTC plaza; how on earth was it not flattened? That's a pretty amazing anomaly. But anomalies usually have good physical explanations once the facts are accurately understood. What I found about 9/11 truthers is that these "anomalies", such as those pertaining to the Pentagon crash, are not anomalies at all but simply represent misconstruals of the facts. Loose Change is filled with such inaccuracies.
notverylikely:
Some are, most are not. Wings are mostly hollow and designed to support the vertical weight of a plane in flight, not horizontal force smacking into a structurally sound building.
I don't disagree at all.
My point was that if the wings did not penetrate the building (which they did not, obviously) then they ought to have been... present? in existence? But they weren't.
I am skeptical that the wings of a 757, regardless of their design and physical composition, would cease to exist upon "smacking into a structurally sound building".
In these types of situations there are many instances where "common sense" based on still photos is an easily fallible thing.
True.
I haven't looked at this stuff for years, but wasn't there a reporter (CNN?) on the scene who said there was no evidence whatsoever that a plane had hit the pentagon? No wreckage larger than what you could hold in your hand? No wing sections, no tail sections?
Leolaia:
By "scoring" I meant a physical mark/impression/gash in the side of the building where the wings would have penetrated. This was apparent in the WTC impacts:
edit: you can literally see the 'plane shape' that penetrated the building. Very different from the impact at the Pentagon.
I find anomalies interesting too, and chaotic events (like a plane crash) tend to produce their own anomalies.
Agreed.
I have now exhausted my knowledge of the 911 attacks. And given that I don't want to watch "Loose Change" or do any other research on the subject, I will leave this thread to my 911 betters. :)
Peace.
