[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[Horatius]

...and if you want to insult Austrailians (which I would never do).

...or penguins.


Stupid slacker penguins, lettin' the Nazis run all over Europe.....

 

[SpitfireIX]

Here that is also,
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html
Will you now produce some evidence to the contrary, otherwise I can do no other than proceed with the evidence I have.
If a picture paints a thousand words, why can't you paint one?

This analysis is totally worthless.

First, the video frames are not orthogonal drawing views--they have perspective, and are not perfectly aligned, which limit the accuracy of any comparison between them and the drawings.

Second, the assumption that the fuselages are perfectly parallel in both frames is wholly unsupportable. The aircraft was turning, plus the camera was moving to follow the aircraft. if the fuselage in the second frame is even half a degree out of alignment, that will significantly add to the error in the analysis.

Third, the video frames are sufficiently pixellated that accurate positioning of the lines is problematic at best (the author's "worst-case" assumptions notwithstanding).

Finally, and most importantly, the aircraft was pulling a very hard turn right before it crashed--much harder than it was designed for. Look at the pictures at the bottom of this page (from the same web site). Notice how severely the wing tips are bent up? This means that the wings appear shorter in the video frames than they do in the drawing, which in turn means the PhotoShop measurement will not match the drawing. This "evidence" is rejected.

 

[Belz...]

Why am I the claimant? I'm not claiming anything.

No ? You're claiming 175 DIDN'T strike the south tower. The evidence and expert opinion of the world is against you, and a consensus has already been reached. You are challenging this. It is, therefore, your claim.

I say it couldn't have been 175 because 175 had a plastic nose and tin wings.

You're exaggerating. It wasn't "tin". Also, it doesn't really matter at 500+ mph what you're made of.

I say how can wings that can't stand up to a bird in flight, a big bird true enough. But nevertheless a bird.

It's the same answer: speed. Did you completely ignore all those posts answering this point ? I know you're trying to get back on every post, but at least try to understand what's being said.

I have produced evidence that a civilian wing can't hold up againgst a bird.
Here it is again,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l38oEJwAb1Q&mode=related&search=
Will you now produce some eidence to the contrary, otherwise I can do no other than proceed with the evidence I have.

It's because you don't understand that evidence that we are at a standstill. Mayhap you should listen to those here with actual expertise in those fields, instead of fancying yourself an expert and ignoring all opposing views.

I have further produced evidence that it could not have been 175 that hit the south tower, because the photographic evidence says so.

Please elaborate.

Will you now produce some evidence to the contrary, otherwise I can do no other than proceed with the evidence I have.

Your "evidence" is invalid. You cannot proceed, yet.

If a picture paints a thousand words, why can't you paint one?

Pictures aren't everything. Especially low-res blurry ones. Those are worth just one word: crap.

In the world I live in.

Let's see. America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, Antarctica. Yep. Five.

 

[Belz...]

Arkhan: 175 was a 767.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Arkhan: 175 was a 767.

Ack! Can't correct the post. Thanks for pointing this out though.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Let's see. America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, Antarctica. Yep. Five.

Oceania isn't a continent. You left out Australia and didn't differentiate North and South America.

 

[Lensman]

Malcolm, you said & I quote:

If it can't stand up to a bird in flight, how can it cut through the above structure?

If an aluminium structure can't penetrate a steel & concrete structure, what makes you think that a soft, flesh & blood bird could do any damage to an aluminium construction?

Conversely, if a soft, flesh & blood bird can do severe damage to an aluminium structure that's traveling at several hundred miles per hour with respect to said soft, flesh & blood bird, then an aluminium structure can do severe damage to a steel & concrete structure when it hits it at several hundred miles per hour.

 

[Lensman]

Malcolm, you said:-

If it can't stand up to a bird in flight, how can it cut through the above structure?

You seem to be constitutionally unable to conceive of something made of aluminium traveling at a high speed causing severe damage to something made of steel & concrete, but you have no trouble believing that something made of flesh & blood could cause severe damage to something made of aluminium. Where is your consistency?

 

[apathoid]

Malcolm, you said:-



You seem to be constitutionally unable to conceive of something made of aluminium traveling at a high speed causing severe damage to something made of steel & concrete, but you have no trouble believing that something made of flesh & blood could cause severe damage to something made of aluminium. Where is your consistency?

Actually, its not just aluminum, birds can destroy titanium.

A B-767 on climb-out at 200 ft. AGL struck a flock of more than 20 Double-crested Cormorants, ingesting at least one. There were immediate indications of right-side engine surge, including compressor stall and smoke. The engine was shut down and an overweight landing was made without incident. The nose cowl was dented and punctured, and there was significant fan blade damage. Hydraulic lines were leaking, and several bolts were sheared from the inside of the engine. The aircraft was towed to the ramp. The aircraft was out of service for three days; cost of repairs was USD$1.7 million.

August 31, 2004

On climb-out at 4800 ft. AGL, approximately five miles from the airport, a B-737 ingested a Double-crested Cormorant. Engine vibrations prompted the crew to make a precautionary landing. The aircraft was out of service for approximately six hours. Six fan blades were replaced at an estimated cost of USD$61,000. Other costs totaled USD$7,000.

Link.

 

[SOMERLED]

Post #1177 is putting the cart before the horse. It is quite simple really; either the visual evidence is consistent with that of a UA 757, or it is not. If it is not, please demonstrate why it is not. If it is, then concede that the visual record is consistent with a UA 757 flight. Then we can move on to the next talking point.

What do you mean by "Putting the cart before the horse" ?

 

[Belz...]

Oceania isn't a continent. You left out Australia and didn't differentiate North and South America.

Last I heard, Australia was an Island. Or is New Zealand just part of Asia ?

Also, North and South America aren't always separate, depending on the source.

 

[SOMERLED]

Here that is also,
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html
Will you now produce some evidence to the contrary, otherwise I can do no other than proceed with the evidence I have.
If a picture paints a thousand words, why can't you paint one?

This analysis is totally worthless.

First, the video frames are not orthogonal drawing views--they have perspective, and are not perfectly aligned, which limit the accuracy of any comparison between them and the drawings.

Second, the assumption that the fuselages are perfectly parallel in both frames is wholly unsupportable. The aircraft was turning, plus the camera was moving to follow the aircraft. if the fuselage in the second frame is even half a degree out of alignment, that will significantly add to the error in the analysis.

Third, the video frames are sufficiently pixellated that accurate positioning of the lines is problematic at best (the author's "worst-case" assumptions notwithstanding).

Finally, and most importantly, the aircraft was pulling a very hard turn right before it crashed--much harder than it was designed for. Look at the pictures at the bottom of this page (from the same web site). Notice how severely the wing tips are bent up? This means that the wings appear shorter in the video frames than they do in the drawing, which in turn means the PhotoShop measurement will not match the drawing. This "evidence" is rejected.

Not by me.

 

[Lensman]

I didn't mention titanium because (as far as I know) there's only one aeroplane that uses titanium as a major structural component - the SR71B Blackbird.

I apologise for my double post on the subject, but after my first post I refreshed the page & my post didn't appear, so I re-posted with a paraphrase of my original post.

 

[SOMERLED]

No ? You're claiming 175 DIDN'T strike the south tower. The evidence and expert opinion of the world is against you, and a consensus has already been reached. You are challenging this. It is, therefore, your claim.



You're exaggerating. It wasn't "tin". Also, it doesn't really matter at 500+ mph what you're made of.



It's the same answer: speed. Did you completely ignore all those posts answering this point ? I know you're trying to get back on every post, but at least try to understand what's being said.



It's because you don't understand that evidence that we are at a standstill. Mayhap you should listen to those here with actual expertise in those fields, instead of fancying yourself an expert and ignoring all opposing views.



Please elaborate.



Your "evidence" is invalid. You cannot proceed, yet.



Pictures aren't everything. Especially low-res blurry ones. Those are worth just one word: crap.



Let's see. America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, Antarctica. Yep. Five.

You say it doesn't matter what you are made of, at 500 mph, you will go through it. Using that logic, the jumpers should have gone through the pavement.

 

[SOMERLED]

Oceania isn't a continent. You left out Australia and didn't differentiate North and South America.

When you've decided between yourselves just how many continents there are. Would you knidly imform the Olymic Games Committee, then they can readjust the flag accordingly.

 

[Horatius]

When you've decided between yourselves just how many continents there are. Would you knidly imform the Olymic Games Committee, then they can readjust the flag accordingly.

There are 7, 6, 5, 6, 5, 5, 4 continents. Take your pick.

As for the Olympics being the final arbiter of how many continents there are, well:

The Olympic flag, devised in 1913, has five rings representing the five inhabited, participating continents, with America being treated as one continent and Antarctica not included.[18]

 

[SOMERLED]

Malcolm, you said & I quote:



If an aluminium structure can't penetrate a steel & concrete structure, what makes you think that a soft, flesh & blood bird could do any damage to an aluminium construction?

Conversely, if a soft, flesh & blood bird can do severe damage to an aluminium structure that's traveling at several hundred miles per hour with respect to said soft, flesh & blood bird, then an aluminium structure can do severe damage to a steel & concrete structure when it hits it at several hundred miles per hour.

Your logic completely escapes me.
It seems to me that if an aluminium structure that is travelling at several hundred miles per hour suffers severe damage when in collision with a bird.
Then the same aluminium structure travelling at the same speed, wouldn't have a lot going for it when it came up against a steel wall, supported by a conrete and steel floor, all attached to gigantic core columns.
Hitting one of the twins at floor level, is akin to flying into a pier head on.
If the wing isn't strong enough to stand up to a big bird in flight, how would it fare if it hit the end of a pier / aka the wall of a twin at floor level.
If you look at the video, you will clearly see the plane slice into the steel wall (backed by a concrete and steel floor, backed by gigantic core columns), like a knife into butter. There is no fold up of the wings at all, they just cut right in. This is totally impossible for regular wings,
http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/
This cutting right in, is akin to the plane slicing into a steel and concrete pier with its wing.
There is other evidence here. The length of the fusilage in front of the wing is indisputable.
Here you can compare if the plane is 175,
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html
I am at a loss, as to how any unbiased observer, would maintain that the plane that hit tower two, was flight 175.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What do you mean by "Putting the cart before the horse" ?

Idiom: Putting the cart before the horse
Meaning:

• When you put the cart before the horse, you are doing something the wrong way round.

http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/putting+the+cart+before+the+horse.html

You say it doesn't matter what you are made of, at 500 mph, you will go through it. Using that logic, the jumpers should have gone through the pavement.

False. The mass of the object the jumper struck is sufficient to absorb the energy of the mass of the jumper. This is not to say that it is not possible that the impact of the bodies would cause damage to the concrete on the surface. Please review F=ma.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Your logic completely escapes me.
It seems to me that if an aluminium structure that is travelling at several hundred miles per hour suffers severe damage when in collision with a bird.
Then the same aluminium structure travelling at the same speed, wouldn't have a lot going for it when it came up against a steel wall, supported by a conrete and steel floor, all attached to gigantic core columns.
Hitting one of the twins at floor level, is akin to flying into a pier head on.
If the wing isn't strong enough to stand up to a big bird in flight, how would it fare if it hit the end of a pier / aka the wall of a twin at floor level.
If you look at the video, you will clearly see the plane slice into the steel wall (backed by a concrete and steel floor, backed by gigantic core columns), like a knife into butter. There is no fold up of the wings at all, they just cut right in. This is totally impossible for regular wings,
http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/
This cutting right in, is akin to the plane slicing into a steel and concrete pier with its wing.
There is other evidence here. The length of the fusilage in front of the wing is indisputable.
Here you can compare if the plane is 175,
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/dud.html

Argument from personal incredulity.

I am at a loss, as to how any unbiased observer, would maintain that the plane that hit tower two, was flight 175.

Please substantiate your claim. I highly recommend you start with visual analysis. Show that the plane that struck the tower is visually different from that of a Boeing 767-222 painted in UA scheme, or concede that it is visually the same. Then we can discuss a different talking point.

 

[CptColumbo]

You say it doesn't matter what you are made of, at 500 mph, you will go through it. Using that logic, the jumpers should have gone through the pavement.

Unless I'm mistaken, the fastest the "jumpers" could fall is 120mph (terminal velocity).