It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Missiles Dunnit.

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Original images here:
911research.wtc7.net...
thewebfairy.com...#
And screenshots from the Naudet 911 film

Greetings All,

Please pardon my simplistic drawings.

We are told a 767 struck the tower and sliced steel. With the 35ish degree swept back wing of a 767, this would require the damage to the columns to occur in a center-out manner…like a wedge:


This theory is also not supported by the evidence:



The damage appears to have begun denting the pillars from left to right, as shown below:



So however implausible it sounds, the damage only supports an outside-in impact, which can be better explained with two JASSM missiles striking at glancing angles to the tower. This is further supported by explosions visible in the Naudet film many stories below and to the left of the impact point, not in line with the direction of the "jet".





Two missiles at glancing blows and maybe one right up the middle. That's my story.











edit on 19-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: jpeg trouble




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451





I am usually one to say the OS is bogus.. but this image above.. well its the perspective the camera angle.. the damage on the left may certainly be a floor or two below, but this image is suggesting its too many, and had to have been missiles?

I will say, the video of the first impact is sketchy.. we should have other videos... theres were many cameras fixed on the WTC.. and in this Naudet vid, you do see odd flashes what appears to be before impact.. that may or may not be a missile, or just once again, perspective.. so, I think this picture is misleading... Though we should reinvestigate 9/11



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


Look at the close up shot from NIST again...check the dings in the columns. Left to right. There are three floors shown in that closeup alone.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Myendica
 



see, thise image, where it points to "nose" impact, well I think thats the left engine impact.. when you look at the last image in your OP, this image is the left side of that image.. I do agree that the OS is BS.. but not this evidence... but for all I know it was missiles... I just need more evidence.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 





posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


Please explain how a wing, sawing outward can bend those steel beams inwards.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


take this last image you posted, the first one I questioned.. and view it in paint, or corel, or what have you.. tilt it, so that you have a straight image, and its not all crooked, and then think to yourself, if I were 90 floors below this object, how would depth appear in terms of something on the front side, closer to me, as opposed to something on the left side, perhaps a few meters or so further away, yet relative to height of each other.. if they were on the same floor, well the one further away would seem lower, because of your angle, then throw in the picture being crooked, and well, it definately looks lower.. although it may be, its no so much.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Myendica
 


Please explain how a wing, sawing outward can bend those steel beams inwards.


impossible for me to explain that for ya. I wish I could.. because then i wouldn;t have so many questions of my own now would I?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:52 PM
link   
were supposed to forget about the number of videos of planes hitting?
drone planes.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by epitaph.one
 


If the damage makes the video impossible, the video can't be real, right? Or do you have a better explanation for the damage?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


It's also impossible for you to reconcile the damage with a jet.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 


Not sure what you are getting at. If you'd like to measure the image, feel free. It appears to be about 15 or 20 floors below the impact zone.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 

Good, now you just need to handwave away those who were actually there and saw it happen.

Should be fun to watch



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by Myendica
 


Not sure what you are getting at. If you'd like to measure the image, feel free. It appears to be about 15 or 20 floors below the impact zone.


no its not. its your perspective. its the angle of being 90 floors down, and 500 or so feet away.. two fires the same height, one can appear lower because of your angle of it.. straighten that picture..

it may have been missiles, but these images do not prove that, or come close.

and that one image really is the left side of the impact, and not the whole impact.. your missing the majority of the impact with that image.. I feel like your just trying to mislead now.. Why show me horrible images and try and convince me I'm wrong in what I'm seeing.. ?

Listen, I agreed I can't explain how a plane did it, but I can't explain how a m issile did it, and neither can you... get better evidence and we'll talk,



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


So lots of people saw it, and the event is captured on video, but you're making up reasons why the hole is in the shape of a plane because you think that something of smaller mass can never damage something of greater mass?

I'm afraid that the flaw is not in the copious physical and eyewitness evidence, but in your understanding of what is possible.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


Unless someone can provide a better explanation for the damage, they're lying.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Myendica
 





no its not. its your perspective. its the angle of being 90 floors down, and 500 or so feet away.. two fires the same height, one can appear lower because of your angle of it.. straighten that picture..


No, it's your inability to see evidence that doesn't fit your presumptions. They are not the same height as is clearly evident in the image I already straightened. If you disagree, do some measuring to prove your point.



it may have been missiles, but these images do not prove that, or come close.


They explain the damage perfectly; it is planes that do not even come close. I've highlighted the areas showing the left-to-right scarring. That you can't reconcile the damage with missiles is besides the point that the damage absolutely negates the slicing action from the machete-wings of a 767. Inside out damage as compared to outside in. If you disagree with the assessment, please point out how the damage does not fit with a JASSM missile, and if you think it's a jet, please point out how the damage can be caused by a jet...it takes more than just "no it doesn't".




and that one image really is the left side of the impact, and not the whole impact.. your missing the majority of the impact with that image.. I feel like your just trying to mislead now.. Why show me horrible images and try and convince me I'm wrong in what I'm seeing.. ?


I showed that image because its a closeup of the damage. If you can provide a better close up of the right side, please post it. "Horrible" images? WTF does that mean? This is a 911 conspiracy thread...what should I post, pictures of Iraq? Are your hands painted on? Show me how those dents don't go left-to-right, and then demonstrate how a JASSM missile couldn't cause the damage. Then try to demonstrate how a jet could cause the damage. I think you're being misleading and trying to get folks not to look at the obvious direction of the damage. "Horrible images". Honestly.




Listen, I agreed I can't explain how a plane did it, but I can't explain how a m issile did it, and neither can you... get better evidence and we'll talk,


I just explained how a missile did it using the clear evidence posted. At least you admit you don't know how a plane did it. Why that doesn't make you reconsider your convictions is beyond me.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 




So lots of people saw it, and the event is captured on video, but you're making up reasons why the hole is in the shape of a plane because you think that something of smaller mass can never damage something of greater mass?


I'm looking at the evidence, why are you doing looking at the TeeVee? Did you even read the OP? Did I mention mass anywhere? Did you mention the evidence anywhere? What post are you replying to?




I'm afraid that the flaw is not in the copious physical and eyewitness evidence, but in your understanding of what is possible.


I posted photographs of the physical evidence. That you can't understand the OP, not to mention what is possible based on the evidence is not my problem. Got anything to say about the OP, or are you content with putting words in my mouth?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
The message is clear. Any proof that can disprove the official story goes into the HOAX bin.



Screen shot from the below video:

thewebfairy.com...
edit on 20-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)







 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join