How were WTC core columns separated at the weld planes?

[MRC_Hans]

* * *

Good job Bell.

This one is by far the clearest:

http://www.amics21.com/911/imags/ua155_g.jpg

Thanks!

Max

So, now you got the evidence you asked for, please answer:

What did, within reasonable probability, hit the South Tower?

Hans

 

[Max Photon]

What does the clearest photo of "UA175" tell Max?

So, now you got the evidence you asked for, please answer:

What did, within reasonable probability, hit the South Tower?

Hans

Hans,

Based on this fine photo provided by Bell...

http://www.amics21.com/911/imags/ua155_g.jpg


I am certain a jet hit WTC2.

I am certain the jet has UA-type markings.


The jet is most likely a 767, or a jet that looks like a 767.

I suppose there could be other jet types - civilian or military - that look like a 767 - but I have not invested the time, nor do I have the expertise to comment on this at the moment. Perhaps others could.


I cannot tell if the jet is actually UA Flight 175.

I cannot tell if passengers, pilots, or hijackers are on board.

I cannot tell how the jet is controlled (hand-flown vs. not).

I cannot tell if the the jet's pitch, angle, etc., are features of being hand-flown, or precisely predetermined and controlled.

I cannot tell if the point of impact on WTC2 was an idiosyncratic feature of the jet being hand-flown, or if the point of impact was a precise, predetermined target.

I cannot tell if the jet was used to create a phreato-thermatic (aluminum-water) explosion.

I cannot tell if the fuselage piece found is indeed authentic.

I cannot tell if the landing gear found is indeed authentic.

I cannot tell if the DNA "evidence" is authentic.


I cannot tell what hit WTC1 from the photo.


Max

* * *

 

[Disbelief]

Hans,

Based on this fine photo provided by Bell...

http://www.amics21.com/911/imags/ua155_g.jpg


I am certain a jet hit WTC2.

I am certain the jet has UA-type markings.


The jet is most likely a 767, or a jet that looks like a 767.

I suppose there could be other jet types - civilian or military - that look like a 767 - but I have not invested the time, nor do I have the expertise to comment on this at the moment. Perhaps others could.


I cannot tell if the jet is actually UA Flight 175.

I cannot tell if passengers, pilots, or hijackers are on board.

I cannot tell how the jet is controlled (hand-flown vs. not).

I cannot tell if the the jet's pitch, angle, etc., are features of being hand-flown, or precisely predetermined and controlled.

I cannot tell if the point of impact on WTC2 was an idiosyncratic feature of the jet being hand-flown, or if the point of impact was a precise, predetermined target.

I cannot tell if the jet was used to create a phreato-thermatic (aluminum-water) explosion.

I cannot tell if the fuselage piece found is indeed authentic.

I cannot tell if the landing gear found is indeed authentic.

I cannot tell if the DNA "evidence" is authentic.


I cannot tell what hit WTC1 from the photo.


Max

* * *

So, what would convince you of the authenticity? How many would have to be involved in a conspiracy, if you are questioning the investigators? How many investigated the crime?

 

[Belz...]

Hans,

Based on this fine photo provided by Bell...

http://www.amics21.com/911/imags/ua155_g.jpg


I am certain a jet hit WTC2.

I am certain the jet has UA-type markings.


The jet is most likely a 767, or a jet that looks like a 767.

I suppose there could be other jet types - civilian or military - that look like a 767 - but I have not invested the time, nor do I have the expertise to comment on this at the moment. Perhaps others could.


I cannot tell if the jet is actually UA Flight 175.

I cannot tell if passengers, pilots, or hijackers are on board.

I cannot tell how the jet is controlled (hand-flown vs. not).

I cannot tell if the the jet's pitch, angle, etc., are features of being hand-flown, or precisely predetermined and controlled.

I cannot tell if the point of impact on WTC2 was an idiosyncratic feature of the jet being hand-flown, or if the point of impact was a precise, predetermined target.

I cannot tell if the jet was used to create a phreato-thermatic (aluminum-water) explosion.

I cannot tell if the fuselage piece found is indeed authentic.

I cannot tell if the landing gear found is indeed authentic.

I cannot tell if the DNA "evidence" is authentic.


I cannot tell what hit WTC1 from the photo.


Max

* * *

You mention a lot of unknowns. The question is, why would you think that the evidence we DO have isn't enough.

While you're at it, why don't you tell me what's the flight number of the 767 that AA lost that day ?

 

[AMTMAN]

Hans,

Based on this fine photo provided by Bell...

http://www.amics21.com/911/imags/ua155_g.jpg


I am certain a jet hit WTC2.

I am certain the jet has UA-type markings.


The jet is most likely a 767, or a jet that looks like a 767.

I suppose there could be other jet types - civilian or military - that look like a 767 - but I have not invested the time, nor do I have the expertise to comment on this at the moment. Perhaps others could.

* * *

Wow, an admission that you really don't know what you are talking about. Tell you what; I'll do that research for you. It's a UAL 767. The aircraft in question has the planform of a 767, the fuselage of a 767 and the UAL color scheme. Therefore it's a UAL 767.

There are no aircraft in the USAF that look like a 767. The simple reason being the USAF does not have any widebody twins in it's inventory. Some CT's tried to say that it was a 767 tanker. The only problem with this is that the first 767 tanker did not fly until after 9-11. Now there are other widebody twins that to the untrained eye might look like a 767. The 777 is a good example. Since the 777 is also made by Boeing it's only natural that they would look similiar. However anyone who is familiar with commercial airliners is not going to mistake a 777 for a 767. Then there's the A330 built by Airbus. There are a lot of people who could not tell the defference between a a 767 and a A330. However the dead giveaway are the huge winglets on the A330.

 

[Max Photon]

Oh oh say can you hear? Do not confuse hearsay with evidence.

You mention a lot of unknowns. The question is, why would you think that the evidence we DO have isn't enough.

I mentioned a lot of unknowns because there are a lot of unknowns.

As to your question: Why do I think that the evidence we DO have isn't enough?

Well, the discussion was about Flight 11. You said you SAW a 767-(223) crash into WTC1.

I simply said the video does not provide enough evidence for you or me to say we SAW a 767-223 crash into WTC1. (Is that complicated?)


I know this may come as a shock to you, but governments do lie. I think it's naive (and narcissistic) to think: Yeah, all governments - except the US government.

Given that governments lie, only a fool takes all government proclamations at face value. Healthy skepticism is a civic duty.

While you're at it, why don't you tell me what's the flight number of the 767 that AA lost that day ?

AA11 = N334AA

UA175 = N612UA


Max

* * *

 

[Max Photon]

AMTMAN warms up for the long jump.

Wow, an admission that you really don't know what you are talking about. Tell you what; I'll do that research for you. It's a UAL 767. The aircraft in question has the planform of a 767, the fuselage of a 767 and the UAL color scheme. Therefore it's a UAL 767.

You lost me on that last leap.

Can't a non-UA 767 be painted to look like a UA 767?


* * *

 

[Belz...]

I mentioned a lot of unknowns because there are a lot of unknowns.

No, you mentioned them because you made them up.

Well, the discussion was about Flight 11. You said you SAW a 767-(223) crash into WTC1.

I simply said the video does not provide enough evidence for you or me to say we SAW a 767-223 crash into WTC1. (Is that complicated?)

Of course it does. AA is missing a 767 called flight 11 from that day. We see a plane crash into the building. The passengers of that plane are missing since that date. In and of itself, that's enough, and that's assuming we didn't find plane parts, too.

I know this may come as a shock to you, but governments do lie.

Why do truthers always think that they're the only ones who realise this ? Of course governments lie. Politics is all about PR.

I think it's naive (and narcissistic) to think: Yeah, all governments - except the US government.

When you're done battling that strawman, you might want to get back to the subject at hand.

Given that governments lie, only a fool takes all government proclamations at face value. Healthy skepticism is a civic duty.

Sure. But we DO have evidence, so it has nothing to do with face value.

 

[AMTMAN]

You lost me on that last leap.

Can't a non-UA 767 be painted to look like a UA 767?


* * *

I'm not surprised you would be lost.

I've noticed that when you are talking to someone who has expertise in a particular subject you give one or two sentence answers to their questions. When I asked you if you thought AA and UAL were in on the conspiracy or they were totally clueless you gave a very brief answer. My guess is you realize that if you were to elaborate more all you would end up doing is hanging yourself with your own words.

Since all you really gave me is Can't a non-UA 767 be painted to look like a UA 767? I guess I'll have to go with that. Now I know you are probably sitting there thinking how cleaver you are by asking me a question that there's only one answer to. Of course the answer is yes.

However you fail to take the big picture into account. Do you realize the number of people that would have to be involved in the sort of operation you seem to think happened? Heck, just painting an aircraft is a labor intensive operation. Never mind all the other people who would have had been needed. In order for this to happen the airlines themselves would have had to been in on it as well. This of course contradicts your belief that they were not. And please do not talk about "moles". It would have taken more than just a few moles for this to happen.

So what is more likely? A UAL 767 being hijacked and hitting the WTC. Or this vast operation involving god knows how many people..

 

[MIKILLINI]

You lost me on that last leap.

Can't a non-UA 767 be painted to look like a UA 767?


* * *

Max, you are really stretching on this one. Like AMTMAN said, there is only one answer to that question and it's yes. So in order to go down that rabbit hole, the next question I will ask pertains to how much spin you can put on it.
You can be like Bill 'O Reilly and call it the No Spin Zone.
But the readers can decide.

Where would this non-UA 767 come from? A government backyard sale? A used aircraft outlet? A Boeing discount retailer? Where Max would this non-UA 767 come from?

 

[AMTMAN]

Max, you are really stretching on this one. Like AMTMAN said, there is only one answer to that question and it's yes. So in order to go down that rabbit hole, the next question I will ask pertains to how much spin you can put on it.
You can be like Bill 'O Reilly and call it the No Spin Zone.
But the readers can decide.

Where would this non-UA 767 come from? A government backyard sale? A used aircraft outlet? A Boeing discount retailer? Where Max would this non-UA 767 come from?

Since the government did not own any 767's I guess it would have had to have come from another source. Naturally this source would have to be in on the conspiracy as well.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Since the government did not own any 767's I guess it would have had to have come from another source. Naturally this source would have to be in on the conspiracy as well.

This tiny group of super-agents, adept at using MILDEC, keep growing larger every step of the way. It's like they're everywhere.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

* * *

Well it is clear everyone is acting like it is a gimme that a 767 hit WTC1, and some even claim they saw a 767 hit WTC1.

The rationalize is:

A 767 hit WTC1 because I said so.

Now I understand cameras weren't on WTC1, but thousands were on WTC2.

So please show me just - I don't now - 10 clear photos that unambiguously show a United Airlines Boeing 767-222 colliding into WTC2.


Or is this another case of:

• Experts told us. (read: a little birdie told me so)
• Oh, dude, cmmon! You think - like - everyone's in on it? You ass.
• It was a UA Boeing 767-222 because I said so. (read: infantile wish-thinking)
• Max, prove that it isn't.

Come on pseudo-gang, let's see what we can do here.

Make short work of me.


* * *

Evil Inside-job Mastermind: All right, let's see what we've got. First, we crash the first plane into the first tower, right?

Minions: Check!

EIM: A delicious element-of-surprise moment, I'd say.

Minions: Delicious!

EIM: Then, our plane numero two-o goes kablooie into the second tower.

Minions: Kablooie!

EIM: Then, WTC 7 --

Lone Underling: Er, chief?

EIM: What is it?

LU: With the second hit on the second tower, the element of surprise is no longer with us.

EIM: Yes? What of it?

Minions: What of it?

LU: Well, the Twin Towers are visible from a great distance, never mind up close. Now, the five boroughs of New York have a population of 8-million. And there are a large number of people who will be at work from their homes in Connecticut, Jersey, etc. Also, there are countless tourists in town on any one day, many of them toting still and video cams.

EIM: Get on with it!

LU: Remember, too that Manhattan is the media center of the world. Who knows how many broadcast and film units will be focused live on the one tower, almost exactly where we hope we can get away with sliding a disguised plane into the second with no one recognizing it for what it is.

EIM: Hmm...

Minions: Hmm...

LU: I guess what I'm asking...

EIM: Yes?

LU: If we want to get away with this scheme, well, wouldn't it be smarter to just use a couple of bombs? Or if we must make it much more complex, adding who knows how many layers on top of what we're already trying to keep secret by using airplanes in the first place...why not attack just one tower? Wouldn't that cause destruction enough? Or if for some reason we need to do both, why must it be in the middle of broad daylight with, again, the likelihood of anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of people watching?

EIM: ...

Minions: ...

LU: Just a thought.

EIM: Seize him!

 

[AMTMAN]

This tiny group of super-agents, adept at using MILDEC, keep growing larger every step of the way. It's like they're everywhere.

Yes the list keeps getting larger and larger. Yet not one of them have spilled the beans before or after 9-11.

 

[Max Photon]

Is there evidence that core column seats were heat-weakened with thermite?

* * *


I want to ask if there is any evidence that thermite was planted at the seats that connected core columns to core horizontal members.

Do the core column seats show a heavy, continuous oxidation layer, indicative of heating?


Max

* * *

 

[phunk]

* * *


I want to ask if there is any evidence that thermite was planted at the seats that connected core columns to core horizontal members.

Do the core column seats show a heavy, continuous oxidation layer, indicative of heating?


Max

* * *

Well considering they were in a fire, then in a burning rubble pile with fire hoses spraying on it for weeks, I think you're asking the wrong question. Heavy oxidation is to be expected without thermite.

The question you should be asking is: Are they covered in the iron slag that would be left over by thermite? The answer is no.

 

[MIKILLINI]

* * *


I want to ask if there is any evidence that thermite was planted at the seats that connected core columns to core horizontal members.

Do the core column seats show a heavy, continuous oxidation layer, indicative of heating?


Max

* * *

Yes....ahem...subject change. Well Max, there's a pattern you exude; When you can't jump across such a wide gap in your hypothesis....Change the subject. You couldn't be more obvious.
Well at least you went back to the thread subject.

 

[Max Photon]

There is no pleasing some JREF NISTIANs

Yes....ahem...subject change. Well Max, there's a pattern you exude; When you can't jump across such a wide gap in your hypothesis....Change the subject. You couldn't be more obvious.
Well at least you went back to the thread subject.

Mikillini, once again, turn your telescope around.

I started this thread simply from the position of discussing how core columns were separated at weld planes. Some say collapse dynamics, others say high explosives, and so on. (I think it was collapse dynamics.) So what wide gap am I jumping across? I think once the towers got moving, the stored energy did the job. For goodness sake, I'm arguing your side - against truthers no less - and yet still you have a problem.

As far as heat weakening seats, I raised that eons ago, and simply thought this the time and place to - again - simply ask if there is any basis.

So what's your chief grievance?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Max, I'm not talking gap as in your collapse hypothesis. I'm talking about the manner the airliners were directed to their destination crash sites. You claim remote-controlled airliners.
This would require you to convince those who work in and around airports and airline companies that it is a distinctly workable scenario. Such as answering posts
#489, #490, to #493, and #529.