WTC 1 and 2 - Impact Zones

[DoYouEverWonder]

Amazing how similar the damage is in both buildings.

Especially since both planes were 'piloted' by hijackers who had never flown a passenger jet, no less fly one in a high stress situation.

[piobair]

1. I believe these are two pictures of the same tower.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. That's what I thought

the first time I saw the pic of the hole in WTC 2.

[piobair]

3. No, I'm serious

It's the same tower.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. I'm serious too

The first picture is WTC1. The second picture is WTC2.

Here's another picture from the south side. WTC 2 is on the right.

[piobair]

8. The picture on the left

doesn't match either of the pics in the op.

[DoYouEverWonder]

9. You mean the tower on the left?

That is WTC 1. You are looking at the south face of WTC1. WTC1 was hit on the north side.

[piobair]

10. Yea,that one

It doesn't match either pic in your original post.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. It's not supposed to

It is one picture of both towers still standing and it was taken from the south.

WTC 1 (the North Tower) was hit on the opposite side away from the camera.

WTC 2 (the South Tower) was hit of the south side facing the camera.

The picture of WTC 2 in the OP and WTC 2 in this one are the parts that match.

[piobair]

12. I would expect the same pictures of the same tower to match

I thought you were trying to say the entry holes in the two towers were similar because I don't really see that.

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. I know these pictures can be confusing

Maybe this will help get you oriented

This is WTC 1 and 2 from the north -




This WTC 1 and 2 from the south -

[wildbilln864]

4. That is odd. But then lot's of things seem odd about 911 though.

I wonder why the pentagon seemed to have no damage where the wings should have hit. I would have expected they'd have been sheered off and left outside with those huge 9' engines.

[vincent_vega_lives]

28. The Pentagon DID have dammage where the wings hit!

Only the part of the wing tips disintergrated on impact, the rest penetrated the building along with the engines. :eyes:

You can see it in the pictures of the Pentagon.

[SidDithers]

5. At least you're admitting that there were planes. nt

Sid

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. Oh there was something

was it Flight 11 and 175 is another story.

Funny thing, there's not a lot of smoke or fire coming out of either impact zone so you can see a little bit into the building. You would think there would be burning debris? Or at least the glow of burning debris?

[Bolo Boffin]

15. On what basis do you deny that Flight 11 and 175 made those holes?

For the record: The pictures in the OP are of different towers. The South Tower picture is cropped (or doesn't go out far enough) to show the edge of the building, but it's right there. Compare the perimeter column damage.

As for not a lot of smoke, I beg to differ. There's not a lot right there in the North Tower picture, but there's several fires ringing the South Tower picture. Your picture in Post 7 shows more of the same - in fact, there's a wicked fire in the south side of the North Tower.

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. I was referring to the impact zone

There were fires in other places, just very little of it in the impact zone.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. There's very little in the impact zone TO burn.

The planes took care of that.

[mirandapriestly]

20. Au Contraire

It's that abstract thinking problem...

[LARED]

13. Why do you find this amazing?

Two identical planes hit two identical buildings in similar locations at similar speeds, and you expect the damage to each building to be very different?

Please explain.

[G Hawes]

18. That's what I was just going to say

I don't understand why someone should be surprised that identical planes crashing into identical buildings at similar speeds would cause similar damage to the facades of the buildings.

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. Because first of all, everything wasn't identical

Aside from the problem of having two hijackers who never piloted a commercial jet to be able to both hit their targets in almost the exact same way is a bit of a stretch to say the least, but let's assume they got lucky that day.

Even if the same planes hit the buildings in the same way, the buildings themselves were not the same. The service core in WTC 1 was oriented east to west, and the service core in WTC 2 was oriented north to south. A plane 159' long, would have hit the core of the south tower sooner then a plane hitting the north tower. So in WTC 1, the plane had about 65' to go before hitting the core. In WTC 2, the plane only had about 35'. Most of the plane was still outside the building when it hit the core. You would think the resulting damage would be quite a bit different?

[mirandapriestly]

21. Good observation, DYEW.eom

[G Hawes]

23. The planes were and the building facades were,

the rest of your post has nothing to do with the physical damage to the identical facades of identical buildings caused by identical planes. The damage that you referred to in your opening post was the facade damage, remember?

If you want to get into the structural damage based on the different orientations of the cores and the different approaches of the airplanes that crashed into them, that's another story and one that can be discussed in further detail in an appropriate thread. (and maybe your point about the shorter distance to the core structure in the south tower has some bearing on why that tower fell more quickly than the the north, by the way, along with the reality that it was hit at a lower level and nearer a corner, etc.) not to mention that the towers were not hit on the same side, at the same height, or on the same side, etc. But for this thread, my point still stands.

[G Hawes]

33. Nothing to say about this, DoYouEverWonder?

It was your contention in posting this thread, after all.

Are you retracting your claim or will you defend it?

[John Q. Citizen]

24. One would think,

but only if you aren't a mid-level technocrat for a company with government contracts.

You know better, but they know best.

Trust me on this. My older brother is a mid-level technocrat with just such a company. It's par for the course. At this point in an equivalent conversation, my brother would; change the subject, make a joke about it, resort to a strawman argument, or maybe just leave the room to get busy on dinner. He would never admit that you made some very good points, and yes, it is perhaps a little odd that the damage profiles on the exteriors appear almost identical given the facts you just presented.

Oh well, what can you do?

[G Hawes]

25. "Trust me on this"

Sorry, no can do.

Verifiable facts and evidence, I trust. Some random stranger on the internet saying "trust me", no. I'm sure you can understand that and I would guess that you'd even agree with it.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. See what I mean? It's so predictable it's funny ha ha.

[G Hawes]

27. You find the deaths of thousands "funny ha ha"?

*see? you're not the only one who can play your silly game.

[John Q. Citizen]

30. No, I find YOU funny ha ha, and oh so predictable. Your insinuation as

regards the deaths of thousands of innocents is vile and despicable.

I stand with the families of the victims in calling for a legitamate investigation into the attacks of 9/11.

Where do you stand?

[G Hawes]

32. What is it about the "troof movement"

that renders troofers incapable of engaging in legitimate discussion or debate? It's as if they read a script that tells them to change the subject every other minute because they can't stay on topic for longer than that. Your posts are a good example of that.

But any time you want to actually have a discussion or debate about a particular subject, just say so. So far, you've done nothing but toss up nonsensical crap, strawmen, red herrings, and other assorted BS. Here's an idea. Pick a topic and stick to it for more than one post at a time. So far, you have just been all over the map posting unrelated and incoherent nonsense that makes no sense whatsoever.

[dailykoff]

34. It was you who changed the subject. (n/t)

[G Hawes]

No, it wasn't.

As you were, little soldier.

[dailykoff]

37. I believe you brought up the "deaths of thousands." (n/t)

[G Hawes]

38. The thread is right there in front of you

Read it in its entirety and you'll see that it wasn't me who was "changing the subject" at all. JohnQ and other troofers seem to do that a lot, though. Perhaps you should take it up with him.

Edit to add that while you're at it, you might also consider thinking about why the troofer who started this thread abandoned it as soon as she realized that she was wrong.

[dailykoff]

39. The subject is the towers. You changed it to the deaths. (n/t)

[G Hawes]

40. BS. Read the thread.

P.S. Haven't you noticed that the person who started the thread disappeared as soon as it was shown that her initial premise was wrong, and that some random conspiracy theorist spouting the usual CT verbal diarhea stepped up to the plate immediately and has been posting the usual CT drivel and changing the subject ever since?

[dailykoff]

41. I see no evidence of anything you're ranting about. (n/t)

[G Hawes]

42. You're the ranting one, dear girl.

Do you get paid to derail threads or do you just do it for fun?

[dailykoff]

43. Welcome to my ignore list. (n/t)

[G Hawes]

44. Since you've said nothing of substance whatsoever

that is no loss.

That you started something (for no apparent reason) which you could not finish (let alone substantiate) and then ran away like a schoolgirl,
...
...
...
priceless.

:D


That you've added me to your lengthy "ignore list" speaks volumes, but only about you, dear girl, only about you.

:D

[dailykoff]

35. More good reasons to disbelieve the TV tale.

There are no signs of those jumbo jets or their contents anywhere in the towers after they dissolve into them, and the possibility of their having disappeared in such a way is less than zero.

[jberryhill]

22. If the pilots were any good

then I would have expected at least one of them to have hit dead on flat, without having to bank to stay on target.

You can look at two pictures like this and you can see similarities, and you can see differences. The similarities tend to be where large chunks are knocked out. One reason why the knockout portions of the large chunks are similar is a quantization effect - i.e. the sheathing sections are of uniform size and the column sections are bolted at uniform intervals.

[sgsmith]

29. I look at it the other way

If the pilots were good, they would have tried to cause the most damage. Rolling the airplane would put the three major pieces of the airplane (engine, fuselage, engine) on different floors, which would cause more damage to the building's structure. If you watch the WTC 2 impact clips, the roll was at the very last second. Since both impacts had a similiar rotated pattern, I would assume it was planned that way.

[Contrite]

31. If there were pilots

and/or if the pilots were flying the planes

[dailykoff]

36. Good point. (n/t)

[Contrite]

45. Thanks and here is all you need to know:

http://www.ziopedia.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1531&Itemid=1&mosmsg=Thanks+for+your+vote%21