What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

reply to post by WASTYT

Ok good. Now when you say 145 and 146 are you talking about the columns or the cladding? 145 doesn't appear to have any cladding to reference; or does it

Sorry, my sentence lost its mind there...I was referring to the columns. 145 and 146 are more twisted, whereas 148 and 149 appear to be simply dented.

reply to post by septic

I don't know much about missiles, and I don't know much about planes.

Which is what we have tried to tell you for pages now. If you bothered to research planes/missiles and learned about their construction, you might just learn WHY the planes were responsible for the damage, and why missiles could not cause that kind of damage. But you refuse to do the work, you would rather keep spouting that you are right....even when most of us know you are dead wrong.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

I don't know much about missiles, and I don't know much about planes.

Which is what we have tried to tell you for pages now. If you bothered to research planes/missiles and learned about their construction, you might just learn WHY the planes were responsible for the damage, and why missiles could not cause that kind of damage. But you refuse to do the work, you would rather keep spouting that you are right....even when most of us know you are dead wrong.

Thanks. I'm sure I know enough about missiles and planes to know why one is used for slicing through hardened targets and punching through armor, and why another is used for flying through the air.

reply to post by septic


Next you will argue that aluminum Japanese planes could not penetrate steel hulled warships either. Your inability to accept that airplanes moving at high speed can cause a lot of damage is scary.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by septic

 

Next you will argue that aluminum Japanese planes could not penetrate steel hulled warships either. Your inability to accept that airplanes moving at high speed can cause a lot of damage is scary.

It's like pushing buttons with you jokers.

reply to post by septic


Pushing my buttons? You? LOL.

Nope, not a bit. I try to live up to the motto of ATS, and try to help those less knowledgable learn the facts about 9/11.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by WASTYT

 

I'm glad we're sorting these things out now...pardon my misunderstanding. I see what you mean now, you're saying 146 and 147 are not simply dented from the left, but also from the right, in a pinching motion.

Indubitably. But I believe we are speaking about 147 and 148, which display the inward indentations of both the left and right flanges. And from what I can tell, the "pinch" seems to be evenly distributed, i.e the left side is not necessarily pinched in more than the right. I believe that is hard to dispute, even with a degraded image.

If I was to take a big steel bar and bash both flanges simultaneously, ...[snip]...they could conceivably pinch the flanges together, yes. Even pinching the flanges together with a straight blow would not account for the deep, sharp dents to the SIDES of the columns though.

Ok, but we both agree that 2 of the columns in question, 147 and 148, are pinched inward which we also agree could've reasonably and conceivably been caused by a straight on severe blow. An airplane wing striking at a high velocity, and therefore having a large force could very reasonably do the damage as you describe (sharp dents). Remember, we're not even talking about slicing the columns. We're just talking about damaging them.

Now if I understand your position correctly, you believe that a projectile, in this case a JASSM missile, scraped across these columns from the east, or from the left hand side of the photos, before exploding into the north side as indicated by this animation:



It seems to be your contention that damage was caused by the left wing of the JASSM on to the left sides of the columns. Now from the photos- this left hand side damage from the alleged missile is not at all evident on columns 152-148. We agree that the damage to column 149 is inconclusive, however it could be argued the damage to its cladding is consistent with a straight on blow given its shape. Is this a fair assessment so far?

Now it's not until we get to 147, that we see the cladding broken away from the column in a manner which could suggest a left side blow. However, if we're to look at the damage to the actual column, we see the flanges are bent inwards, as if to suggest a front on blow.

Question: How would you account for the right flange damage of both 147 and 148 if the missile came in from the left?

However I don't believe they are pinched, it appears to me they are struck from the left, with even the flange of 147 bending to the right or simply gouged out.

Perhaps you mean another column? 147 is clearly bent inwards and doesn't seem to exhibit any gouged out portions. Or am I looking at it wrong?

Here is a shot from a different angle. I used an "East Gradient" edge detection filter and a "Shift And Difference" edge detection filter from "Snagit 8", for what it's worth. I'm about as good with graphics as I am with planes and missiles, so if someone else knows some better tricks, I'm all ears.

Im not sure these are all that conclusive to be honest.

reply to post by septic


Earlier you said this:

I note the dent on 148 is lower on the column than that on 147, and that the impact was closer to the spandrel and floor, thereby providing more support to the column. I also note that as the projectile moved further to the right, it's trajectory was "deeper" into the tower, striking more and more of the columns as it traveled to the right.

I agree that the damage to 148 is lower than 147. In fact the damage from far left to right, which is the direction your missile took, follows an upward trajectory.


The problem here is that JASSM missiles aren't designed to strike its target at an upward angle. In fact they are specifically designed to hit targets on the ground at anywhere from a 40-70 degree nose down angle of attack.
source

Once they lock in on their target they nose dive right into it. This is what makes them so precise.

Check it out:



Videos on this missile will show that they strike their targets at an extreme nose down angle. Never do we see them strike targets at un upward angle. This would be impossible for the JASSM to do once it locked in its target from above given its inertial guidance system. It wouldn't be able to increase it's altitude once it's initiated it's attack dive. They're not designed to deliver payloads in this manner.

The JASSM program was still in its testing phase at the time of the attacks in 2001. And from what I understand the missiles were not very successful initially and the program came close to be scrapped entirely due to a cutoff of funding. However they finally did go into full production in 2002 after several years of testing.

So given all of this I don't see how the JASSM missile could've been used to carve perfect cartoon holes of airplanes into the sides of buildings, especially at the angles you've suggested. It would be very difficult for this have happened so precisely.

reply to post by WASTYT

Ok, but we both agree that 2 of the columns in question, 147 and 148, are pinched inward

Sorry, yes, 147 and 148 are the columns in question.

However, no I do not agree they are pinched inward; I contend they are bent from the left. The right-hand flange of 147 has also bent to the right, as shown below.

Now if I understand your position correctly, you believe that a projectile, in this case a JASSM missile, scraped across these columns from the east, or from the left hand side of the photos, before exploding into the north side as indicated by this animation:

Best guess, yes.

It seems to be your contention that damage was caused by the left wing of the JASSM on to the left sides of the columns.

I contend the wing of a JASSM or similar missile would be able to slice through the cladding but would immediately be snapped off by the column behind it. Column 152 looks as if it was struck hard by something thin, wedging the cladding.

It seems to be your contention that damage was caused by the left wing of the JASSM on to the left sides of the columns.

That is not my contention. The wings of a missile would probably be able to gouge the thinner cladding, creating thin, straight gashes, but would certainly be no match for the steel. Don't mistake me for Yankee. His post "Missiles Dunnit" was my inspiration, but he'll need to adjust his position about the wings being able to dent the columns, if he hasn't already.

Now from the photos- this left hand side damage from the alleged missile is not at all evident on columns 152-148.

Correct about 149-152 the columns are not evidently damaged in any direction. 152 appears to have been smacked by something thin...presumably the tip of a wing, whether a jet or a missile, giving the cladding that pinched look. 150 and 151 appear to have had the cladding sheared off, with 150 buckling a bit in the process. 149 has had the cladding sliced but it has folded over, obscuring the column. However 148 shows a clear dent on the left, whether or not there is one on the right.

Now it's not until we get to 147, that we see the cladding broken away from the column in a manner which could suggest a left side blow.

Agreed, but this is because the projectile has now started to deform the columns behind the cladding, causing them to twist to the right. The trajectory is taking it deeper into the building, striking more of the sides of the columns.

152 -150, cladding is sliced by wing which snaps off. 149 is moot, but 148-145 are deformed consecutively more by the trajectory of the payload which detonates in front of 144.

Question: How would you account for the right flange damage of both 147 and 148 if the missile came in from the left?

The right flange damage you speak of does not exist.

Im not sure these are all that conclusive to be honest.

No worries...the directional damage is difficult to reconcile with a plane.

reply to post by WASTYT

I agree that the damage to 148 is lower than 147. In fact the damage from far left to right, which is the direction your missile took, follows an upward trajectory.

Agreed.

The problem here is that JASSM missiles aren't designed to strike its target at an upward angle. In fact they are specifically designed to hit targets on the ground at anywhere from a 40-70 degree nose down angle of attack.

Agreed.

The JASSM program was still in its testing phase at the time of the attacks in 2001.

Low-rate initial production decision for JASSM is in the year 2000, with full-scale production scheduled to run from 2002 to 2009. Total missile production for the U.S. Air Force is expected to be 2,400 missiles; the total for the U.S. Navy is yet to be determined. The total program is valued at approximately $3 billion.

Source

And from what I understand the missiles were not very successful initially and the program came close to be scrapped entirely due to a cutoff of funding. However they finally did go into full production in 2002 after several years of testing.

No argument from me, we've read the same stuff.

So given all of this I don't see how the JASSM missile could've been used to carve perfect cartoon holes of airplanes into the sides of buildings, especially at the angles you've suggested. It would be very difficult for this have happened so precisely.

Yep, I feel ya man.

Look at the damage. They didn't exactly penetrate did they? Both towers have pretty similar damage on the left sides, the sides where they didn't have the advantage of that 40-70 degree plunge. Without the gravity, they couldn't cut more than one column, and then bend the rest. Look at the opposite sides of the gashes for both towers...nice clean cuts. It's only when the projectiles don't have gravity on their sides that they couldn't cut the mustard.





Here's the right side of the North Tower

reply to post by septic


I'm not seeing a pattern in the damage. The direction that the aluminum cladding and steel goes seems to be arbitrary, implying that the projectile was not pushing it in either direction, but that it was frontal, and the impact was not completely solid, implying shredding of the impacting device, such as what would happen with a plane.

I still don't see how you can possibly suggest that a plane's wing is weaker than a missile wing. After I showed you the link about the weakness of missiles, you claimed that it was the armament inside the missile protected by dense metal that was doing the cutting, but just now you've claimed that the wing of the missile was doing the cutting. I don't understand. Can wings cut or not cut?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

I'm not seeing a pattern in the damage. The direction that the aluminum cladding and steel goes seems to be arbitrary, implying that the projectile was not pushing it in either direction, but that it was frontal, and the impact was not completely solid, implying shredding of the impacting device, such as what would happen with a plane.

You can't be serious.

I still don't see how you can possibly suggest that a plane's wing is weaker than a missile wing. After I showed you the link about the weakness of missiles, you claimed that it was the armament inside the missile protected by dense metal that was doing the cutting, but just now you've claimed that the wing of the missile was doing the cutting. I don't understand. Can wings cut or not cut?

I believe the missile wing wedged column 152's cladding, but the missile's penetrating payload dented the columns.

reply to post by septic


From your own picture:



You can see clearly that parts of the damage do not turn to the right, as you would suspect from your missile-right hypothesis.

Also, your idea about the missile direction and wing damage is purely imagination. We have video of the plane entering the building. Dozens of videos. The damage is not uniformly in one direction, so it couldn't have been an object traveling in that one direction. Face-on is the only explanation that would allow for the metal to bounce back in different directions and pinch the steel.

Septic, you sure you're not mistaking a missile strike with just simple cut columns and explosive damage?

I read this thread, looked at the pics and even viewed a few vids, and I don't think it was a missile.

And why would it be? Why would it be a plane even? I say the answer is behind the curtain, behind the steel curtain...

We have to ask, Did the perps have access to the towers? If we're talking the OS perps then we have to say NO. But this is a conspiracy site and really, we're talking about the Alternate Perps. And so now we have to ask, Did the Alternate perps have access to the towers? I would say YES. But let's go further. Did the Alternate Perps have complete control of the impacted floors? I say LIKELY.

Now with this being likely, where would the first and easiest place to look for a way to materialize a plane shaped hole in the tower? From outside? From an airplane? From a missile? From any exterior projectile? NOT LIKELY.

I mean, why would you go through all the trouble and potential risk?

The plane or missile or other projectile could bounce off or fail to penetrate! It could be seen by X number of people (even "millions" lol) It might miss the building etc. Anything could happen. But most of what would or could would be BAD, very BAD.

So what's the solution?

INSIDE JOB.

You only have to indicate it's a plane (it doesn't have to really be one), and you don't need to use a missile if you have control of the inside of the impact zones.

I think what you are seeing and interpreting as a left to right missile strike is being mistaken by you from the attempt the Alternate Perps made to make a plane shaped hole magically appear. The direction you surmise (for the missile) is just the outer extent of the hole for the wing schematic having been wholly made from the INSIDE.

No plane, no missile, indeed, no exterior projectile is even necessary.

To me it's like the making of the wing hole from the inside (an imperfect science from the inside) fools you through its configuration, into thinking it's an outside event and projectile and not a plane but a missile. Have you given all due consideration that it wasn't a missile, plane, or other outside projectile, but done completely from inside the tower itself?

Considering the lack of risk and total control of the impact zones, why are you even first contemplating an exterior event for the hole's existence?

At first I was going to write a post in support of your theory by revisiting the Naudet clip I talked about in the 'flash' thread. I'm still going to mention that but only because it actually bolsters the "behind the steel curtain" theory of the plane shaped hole.

As I've noted and anyone can review and scrutinize for themselves.

While viewing the Naudet clip closely I noticed that the right wing tip appeared to reach the building before the right engine. Maybe a thread needs to be started on this one thing as well, because that is IMPOSSIBLE as far as I can tell.

Now, what you do see where the right wing tip 'should' hit the building, I am saying, looks actually more like the damage being shown is coming OUT from that area of the building itself. So I am saying that's what's going on. I am saying this again because even as you have pointed out, the wing is angled back and so there is no way that the 'wing tip' damage seen on the very right side of the Naudet clip is really from the wing itself. It clearly isn't. It clearly cannot be etc.

BUT, the damage is in about the right place to appear to have been made by the wing tip and ties in nicely with the rest of the plane shaped hole also being formed at this time to the lower left which also includes the damage you question.

Imagine making a plane shaped hole in the exterior of the tower from the inside! It ain't gonna be perfect. It's gonna look and be strange maybe, but still, my money would be on doing it totally from the inside way up high with total control of the zone than from the outside with all the risk and lack of control involved with that.

My attempt at support of your missile theory was just to note that the right wing tip damage wasn't, couldn't possibly be from the wing tip, and so therefore, it was from something other than a plane. That being so, if it wasn't a plane the left damage was therefore, a separate occurrence, and so in that could give credence to a missile. But I would say if it can be shown that the right wing tip damage was caused not by a wing tip but from 'inside' the building itself, there's no real reason for not doing the same thing on the left side too? Right?

If the right side damage was interior caused why not the left? I say the whole hole was made from inside the tower only and that the apparent direction of travel you see is from trying to make the hole from the inside imperfectly.

What do you think?


Cheers

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

From your own picture:

You can see clearly that parts of the damage do not turn to the right, as you would suspect from your missile-right hypothesis.

Also, your idea about the missile direction and wing damage is purely imagination. We have video of the plane entering the building. Dozens of videos. The damage is not uniformly in one direction, so it couldn't have been an object traveling in that one direction. Face-on is the only explanation that would allow for the metal to bounce back in different directions and pinch the steel.

Dang man...haven't you ever hit anything with a hammer? Thrown a knife? Fallen out of a tree? Look at that slice in the steel column, and look at the columns around it. What can explain it? A plane he says...striking head on, says he...come on.



The video was fraudulent; not real.

Greetings septic,

Originally posted by septic

However, no I do not agree they are pinched inward; I contend they are bent from the left. The right-hand flange of 147 has also bent to the right, as shown below.

From this picture it's impossible to tell.

That is not my contention. The wings of a missile would probably be able to gouge the thinner cladding, creating thin, straight gashes, but would certainly be no match for the steel. Don't mistake me for Yankee. His post "Missiles Dunnit" was my inspiration, but he'll need to adjust his position about the wings being able to dent the columns, if he hasn't already.

So what part of the missile dented the columns in your opinion?

However 148 shows a clear dent on the left, whether or not there is one on the right.

Agreed, but the right flange damage can't be ignored. It is there just like the left flange damage is. Look a the picture below.

Agreed, but this is because the projectile has now started to deform the columns behind the cladding, causing them to twist to the right. The trajectory is taking it deeper into the building, striking more of the sides of the columns.

Is this possible though? 147 and 148, which we both agreed earlier have left and right flanges that are bent sharply inward. Look at it again...

152 -150, cladding is sliced by wing which snaps off. 149 is moot, but 148-145 are deformed consecutively more by the trajectory of the payload which detonates in front of 144.

Well more specifically #149 column damage is moot since it's being obstructed somewhat by the cladding. However, the cladding in no way supports a left to right impact I'm afraid.



I took your animation and overlaid a 767 at the impact point. Notice the angle that your missile takes as it approaches the side of the building matches the sweep back angle of the left wing of the plane. We can agree that the wing increases in mass as we move from the tip to the fuselage. So the damage from 152-145 and beyond, which is lighter damage (less massive part of wing) to heavier damage (more massive part of wing), would be consistent with a wing striking it head on. I know you think this is impossible, which is a bit confusing to me.

The right flange damage you speak of does not exist.

But again, we agreed that it does in fact exist. Look at the picture. The one you keep posting is too degraded to gauge anything.

Originally posted by septic
The video was fraudulent; not real.

And you base this statement on...?

I would like to know what specific points in the video queued you into them being fake. Don't say the damage isn't what you expect, because I want to know how you know the planes were all fake.

reply to post by NWOwned

We have to ask, Did the perps have access to the towers?

The perps built them.

It's a long story, but I can't say it better than this.

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by NWOwned

 

We have to ask, Did the perps have access to the towers?

The perps built them.

It's a long story, but I can't say it better than this.

Exactly.

So then again, why are you looking outside of 'them' for the origin of the plane shaped hole?


Cheers

reply to post by NWOwned


I am not following. I always figured the holes were caused by shaped charges, but the damage indicates something impacted them.