What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by septic

 

Your problem is not convincing a few peps on ATS.
It's convincing the Billions of people on the entire planet. Billions of other people see 911 differently than you do.
You are wasting your efforts. Billions have seen the planes hit. That's all there is to it. If you were spout your beliefs on Times Square you would find yourself in a rubber room for a few days. Grow up and accept the truth.

You have zero proof. The world has eye witnesses and video.

I'm pretty sure you don't speak for the billions of people you refer to; you only speak from your own perspective.

Those billions saw the same thing I saw; cartoon planes on TV doing the impossible, and if I can figure it out, I'm sure those billions can too.

The proof is in the damage. The damage is not consistent with the impossible event shown on TV, but it is consistent with a projectile striking from the left. Evidence from both towers confirms this. It is likely to stem the flow of evidence that we have so few images to scrutinize, but even the few we have prove a plane didn't do it:

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Ther are bits of metal and debris that clearly lean from right to left as well. How did the missile do that, assuming you're right about the impossibility of metal behaving like that?

Note the similarity between the left side of the two gashes.

Note how the missile's impacts were close to the same in each building with relation to the floor.

The question is not how a missile could do that but how could two relatively soft, basically hollow aluminum planes striking from different angles at different velocities manage to do that.

This damage doesn't look so much like a fluke as it was well planned, practiced and executed.

WTC1



WTC2

Originally posted by septic



The question is not how a missile could do that but how could two relatively soft, basically hollow aluminum planes striking from different angles at different velocities manage to do that.

Um, no. The question is exactly as I have posed it. Just because you don't fancy answering it doesn't mean it's changed.

You contend that objects travelling in one direction cannot warp material in a different direction. Yet in the photos you show above there is metal and other matter clearly bent from right to left. Arguably this is even more impossible because your missile is going in the opposite direction. How then did it manage to do this?

Originally posted by septic



I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to 144?

There is right to left damage on all but two of those columns. How did this happen?

I think you're mistaking me for someone else as I have made clear I don't think the missile wing could do more than cut the cladding. The damage to the columns 145-148 is consistent with the missile's 60"x12", 900 lb penetrating warhead, with the 200 lb warhead detonating in front of 144, bending it in a different direction.

The same pattern can be seen in the WTC2 damage.

So a missile wing can strike metal and just slice through it without altering the path of the projectile?

And it can explode and create damage only on its left hand side? Because if the trajectory you describe had occurred there would be a vast amount of damage in front of the warhead - ie where the right wing struck. Which would obscure the damage of that wing (or missile in your alternative universe).

The only other option is that the missile took a sharp turn to the left.

The witness questions only beget more questions, and actually the more you dig, the more evidence can be found to support the use of electronic jamming technology.

And yet you can present none. Not even a story about a few TV sets malfunctioning.

With thousands of witnesses we should have hundreds of photographs and videos of the damage, but all we have are two or three blurry images.

You think there are 2-3 images of the WTC damage? Nonsense.

There was much more time to take pictures of the burning buildings than the impacting planes yet there are practically no close-ups of the damage to the towers, while there are dozens of the "impact". It should be the opposite.

I can't believe I'm having to tell you this,but the reason there aren't any close up pictures is because the damage occurred hundreds of feet in the air. Can people in your alternative universe fly?

There are no images of closeups of the insides of the towers

How would someone take an image of that? Fly up inside the tower and snap off a roll or two? Wander up the stairs and spend a leisurely half hour taking pictures of the enormous burning hellhole that was the insideofboth buildings?

If any of the videos that have been used to support the plane lie can be proved to be fraudulent (they have), they aren't very reliable evidence are they?

They've been proved fraudulent to you. But that isn't quite the same as being proved fraudulent. You are, after all, a person who believes a missile can behave like it's in a cartoon and that it's odd that nobody took a closeup of the interior of a burning tower hundreds of feet in the air. I imagine it would be relatively easy to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge if you were in a buying mood.

The logistics are not a problem; we're talking about the US military here.

Oh yeah, the US military are amazing. They've totally won every war they've been in in the last... no hang on...

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by septic



The question is not how a missile could do that but how could two relatively soft, basically hollow aluminum planes striking from different angles at different velocities manage to do that.

Um, no. The question is exactly as I have posed it. Just because you don't fancy answering it doesn't mean it's changed.

You contend that objects travelling in one direction cannot warp material in a different direction. Yet in the photos you show above there is metal and other matter clearly bent from right to left. Arguably this is even more impossible because your missile is going in the opposite direction. How then did it manage to do this?

If you're not going to be specific, I can only conclude you are not being genuine.

reply to post by septic


What is unspecific about what I've written? Do you contend that there is no metal or material whatsoever in your photos that does not exhibit movement from right to left? Because if so you're not looking at the same images as me.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by septic

 

What is unspecific about what I've written? Do you contend that there is no metal or material whatsoever in your photos that does not exhibit movement from right to left? Because if so you're not looking at the same images as me.

What are you saying here? The pattern of the damage on the left sides of the gashes of both towers indicate a left-to-right impact. Whatever "right-to-left" straw you're trying to clutch can be highlighted, can it not? The pattern is clear, but if you're seeing things, be specific.

reply to post by septic


There are several bits of material that are bending right to left. They are obvious in the photographs. Since your theory is based on the impossibility of a head-on collision causing left-to-right damage I'm wondering how you account for your left-to-right missile causing damage that bends right to left.

reply to post by septic


Hello septic,

Unless I missed it, you didn't seem to address my previous post regarding the flight capabilities of the JASSM once it's initiated its diving angle of attack, and how this completely contradicts what your claiming.

north


south


To recap- The impact damage (for both buildings) is at an upward trajectory from left to right, which is the path you claim the missile took as it struck the towers. The problem with this is that JASSM's engage their ground targets from the air, hence to the Air-to-surface moniker. So the damage should be at a downward trajectory from left to right. But it clearly isn't. What you're suggesting is the JASSM initiated it's dive upon engaging the target (in this case the North Tower) then came out of its dive to strike the building at an upward angle.

Sounds cool, but they weren't designed to do this. Not to mention the actual targets were some 1000ft above the surface (in the air!) and not actually on the ground, which would further contradict what these missile were meant to be used for.





So how would you resolve this?

(I realize that this may be difficult for you to reconcile since, as you stated earlier, you don't know anything about missiles or planes)

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

There are several bits of material that are bending right to left. .

Name one.

They are obvious in the photographs.

They are not obvious to me. Show me.

Since your theory is based on the impossibility of a head-on collision causing left-to-right damage I'm wondering how you account for your left-to-right missile causing damage that bends right to left.

I keep seeing you plane-huggers talking about this right-to-left stuff but I don't see it. Please point to the piece of damage that speaks to you. Also, how does "right-to-left" reconcile with a head-on collision?

reply to post by WASTYT


Hi WASTYT,

Unless I missed it, you didn't seem to address my previous post regarding the flight capabilities of the JASSM once it's initiated its diving angle of attack, and how this completely contradicts what your claiming.

You must have missed it:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But in case my response was too cryptic:

From your earlier post:

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.

So what? What they're "designed" for and what they are used for are different things.

From your link. I assume this is the line you were referring to:

Normal dive angles for the vehicle range from 40-70 degrees nose-low from horizon (40 for soft targets, 70 for hard targets requiring penetration), which is in that range for JASSM targets for which targeteers would want to airburst the warhead.

Look at the damage to the right side of WTC1. Note the clean cuts and the sharp angles of the cuts...not all fit even the 40 degree angle, but if struck from the right, all would have the benefit of gravity, as opposed to the missiles striking from the left.



Now let's look at the left sides of the gashes, the sides that didn't have the benefit of the 40-70 degree incline enjoyed by the right:

To recap- The impact damage (for both buildings) is at an upward trajectory from left to right, which is the path you claim the missile took as it struck the towers. The problem with this is that JASSM's engage their ground targets from the air, hence to the Air-to-surface moniker.

Really? You're splitting hairs like that? Come, if JASSM missiles were used what's to say Tomahawks weren't also used? At that point the US military is knee-deep in this crap and anything is possible. What's the most efficient way to cut a plane-shaped hole in the WTC when you know a real plane would just spread identifiable aircraft parts all over Manhattan? JASSMs to cut the "wings" and Tomahawks to cut the rest?

Here's a Tomahawk striking horizontally...and this is old school:

So the damage should be at a downward trajectory from left to right. But it clearly isn't. What you're suggesting is the JASSM initiated it's dive upon engaging the target (in this case the North Tower) then came out of its dive to strike the building at an upward angle.

No, what I'm saying is they improvised, using whatever means they had to cut a plane-shaped hole, with missiles being the most likely means, as suggested by the left-to-right damage on the left sides of both towers.

It is because the damage is so incriminating that so few images are available; clear evidence of the government's complete control of the situation. With something like 911, there should have been THOUSANDS of eyes witnessing the events unfold, with HUNDREDS of cameras taking pictures and video, yet there are practically zero shots of the damage to the towers between the impacts and the collapses. An hour of time for the thousands of witnesses to run home, and run back outside with a camera, or to run to a 7-11 to buy a disposable Kodak. An hour for National News Networks with their million dollar studio optics to take tight, close-up shots of the damage and the interiors of the buildings. Yet we have a mere handful of blurry, indistinct images of the crime of the millennium.

Even the few we have are incriminating enough to prove planes couldn't possibly have done the deed.

Sounds cool, but they weren't designed to do this. Not to mention the actual targets were some 1000ft above the surface (in the air!) and not actually on the ground, which would further contradict what these missile were meant to be used for.

Shall we discuss what a Boeing 767 is "designed" for now?

So how would you resolve this?

I don't know, how about a little honesty?

(I realize that this may be difficult for you to reconcile since, as you stated earlier, you don't know anything about missiles or planes)

Aw. That was a long way to go for a FU, but I seem to know much more about missiles than you do. What do planes have to do with anything?

reply to post by septic


I see that you are still pushing your JASSM theory. Wings on a full-size passenger jet should fall apart on impact with the columns but the tiny wings on a JASSM will bend steel and track in a straight line and then explode in such a fashion as to perfectly describe the outline of an aircraft. Magic.

Do you think that this is realistic?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

I see that you are still pushing your JASSM theory. Wings on a full-size passenger jet should fall apart on impact with the columns but the tiny wings on a JASSM will bend steel and track in a straight line and then explode in such a fashion as to perfectly describe the outline of an aircraft. Magic.

Do you think that this is realistic?

Do you think it is realistic to be making such statements without having read the thread, or even the OP? Are you mistaking me for someone else?

reply to post by septic


Your theory is without basis other than in your imagination. No missiles were seen or photographed by anyone; airplanes were. A time-on-target using missiles with column-cutting wins is so contrived it would seem that you are working backwards. You assume missile strikes and then seek confirming information. You have none, and can only show photos of columns around the impact hole. Erroneously assuming simple dynamics of the impact, you conclude that the wing angle was such that the columns should be bent differently and that an airplane couldn't do it. You ignore all of the evidence of airplanes; all of the eyewitnesses, all of the video, and all of the airplane parts falling on the city.
1. Where did the thousands of gallons of fuel come from?
2. Why weren't the many magic missiles seen? Are you claiming invisible missiles?
3. Why weren't HE explosions noted?
4. How can lightweight missile winglets cut steel when aircraft wings cannot?

reply to post by pteridine

Your theory is without basis other than in your imagination.

How unusual, an OS-fantasy believer accusing me of having an over-active imagination.

No missiles were seen or photographed by anyone; airplanes were.

The photographs of the airplanes have been repeatedly proven to be fakes; yet some people did report seeing and hearing missiles, AND there is this video of what appears to be two small projectiles coming from the upper right:





Here is a description of the first strike:

A speeding black projectile, maybe two, shooting from left to right into the side of World Trade Center One. An instant later the sonic noise crescendoing in an enraged screaming roar of explosion

www.contactpressimages.com...

"Left to right,



"Some thought they saw a missile:



Others saw something other than a large jet:

A ROCKET
15. “It was a big fireball or something from the plane I guess, came from across the street in front of our rig, and as we get out of the rig, there's a cop, city police officer, in the street. He's telling us, "I'm getting out of here. I just saw a rocket." He said he saw it come off the Woolworth Building and hit the tower”. - Credited to: Peter Fallucca

SOMETHING - PLANE OR MISSILE
16. “At that point I assumed you can't have two -- it can't be an accident to have two planes. So, I don't know if there's planes or missiles or what but something was hitting this thing. You saw debris was falling down.“ - Credited to: Brian Dixon

A BOMB....A MISSILE
13. "Hey Grandpa, I'll tell you what woke me up. They bombed the World Trade Centre. I'm looking at it and Mi-Kyung's video taping it. Terrible. I heard, Grandpa, I saw it. It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb...a missile...er...this could be world war three."- Credited to: Mi Kyung Heller

A SMALL, SMALL JET PLANE
6. “…We saw a plane flying low overhead which caught all of our attention. We looked up. It was making a b-line for the World Trade Centre. It was very low, extremely low, not a big plane like an airliner …uh… but not a tiny propeller plane, a small, small jet plane.”- Credited to: Mary Cozza

Source

A time-on-target using missiles with column-cutting wins is so contrived it would seem that you are working backwards.

I am so sick of you plane-hugging liars not reading the material. Yankee was mistaken about the missile wings, but not about the missiles, and this has been mentioned several times in this thread. Had you bothered to read it, you would have known. Here's one example where I explain what part of the missiles bent and twisted the columns.

The warhead is approximately 60 inches long, 12 inches in diameter, and 900 pounds in weight (which includes over 200 pounds of explosive). It uses a fuze that has already been qualified on another program.

"After experiencing shock loads as high as 12,000 Gs, there was no deformation of the casing and the fuze timing delay performed to the millisecond." The warhead struck the thick, reinforced concrete target, penetrated through it and traveled another half mile down range. The clean exit hole it left indicates that it had maintained the desired straight trajectory while traversing the thick target.

Source
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You assume missile strikes and then seek confirming information. You have none, and can only show photos of columns around the impact hole.

False. I am looking at the paltry few available images of the damage and attempting to explain the clear left-to-right pattern to the dents. Anyone looking at the damage with honest eyes must admit the damage proves the plane story is a desperate lie, supported by desperate liars.

Erroneously assuming simple dynamics of the impact, you conclude that the wing angle was such that the columns should be bent differently and that an airplane couldn't do it.

What? I'm not assuming anything, I'm using the same videos and images the NIST, Purdue and MIT used to concoct their propaganda publications. 'What caused the damage' is the question I'm asking, whereas the aforementioned shills ignored any evidence that shed doubt on their predetermined conclusion.

reply to post by pteridine

You ignore all of the evidence of airplanes; all of the eyewitnesses, all of the video, and all of the airplane parts falling on the city.

Once again an OSer projects on me the behavior he despises in himself.

I was once a plane-hugger too you know. It was after I examined ALL the evidence, especially the "eyewitnesses", ALL the video, and in particular the few available images of plane parts that I reluctantly admitted planes were "right out"; an impossibility. It is because I have examined it all that I have arrived at these conclusions, whereas YOU appear to be reluctant to even consider evidence that might contradict a plane.

The "Thousands of eyewitnesses"...yeah, yeah, yeah. You haven't followed up on what those alleged witnesses said, so talk to the hand. Here's a blog post that addresses that predictable question:
What Witnesses?

This is my favorite example of the silliness used to prove a plane hit. A wheel, which other than the strut and the hub is made of rubber and filled with air, crashed through columns on one side of the building and popped out an ENTIRE multi-ton exterior wall panel. The landing gear was retracted at impact, let's not forget. The wheel struck the panel with enough force to snap all the bolts simultaneously (but without damaging the columns it impacted with), flew about 90 feet horizontally as it fell about 1/5 of a mile to land neatly in a driveway. It did not shatter the concrete of the driveway, deform the columns significantly, or even push out the jet's superwheel. It did not leave a crater and only slightly damaged the asphalt.

1. Where did the thousands of gallons of fuel come from?
2. Why weren't the many magic missiles seen? Are you claiming invisible missiles?
3. Why weren't HE explosions noted?
4. How can lightweight missile winglets cut steel when aircraft wings cannot?

Please note the title of the thread, and please explain how a 35-degree swept back wing could cause the damage by striking from a different angle in a wedge-slicing motion.

I will however, answer your burning questions:


1. It was planted there.
2. Do you assume we've heard every witnesses' story? If dozens of people swore they saw missiles, but then saw jets on TV, I'm betting those folks would assume they saw it wrong. Nonetheless, some were seen and some were reported. For those who like to read, this is a good post explaining why they didn't use planes:
Why They Didn't Use Planes
3. Both the first and second impacts show "flashes" just before the nose of the cartoon jet strikes the building. Also, the missiles can be used as "aerostable slugs" with or without explosives. But the record of the eye witnesses are clear, it was a huge explosion...they thought it was a sonic boom. And the Naudet film (for what it's worth), also shows a loud explosion. Simultaneous missile strikes, detonating as one, and igniting pre-planted napalm for effect:

The JASSM P-LOCAAS-DM P3I concept integrated powered LOCAAS submunitions with dual mode LADAR and MMW seeker. LOCAAS had a multimode warhead and a maneuvering airframe to produce a high performance submunition. The warhead could be detonated as a long rod penetrator, an aerostable slug, or as fragments based on the hardness of the target. The LADAR allowed target aim point and warhead selection to be determined automatically.

Source

4. I don't think even Yankee ever claimed the wings cut anything but the cladding while dinging the steel. Please read the thread or spare us your sad refrain.

reply to post by septic


Septic, this theory just isn't making sense. It is based entrely on how column edges appear to be bent and the mistaken belief that the steel framework cannot be cut by an aluminum framed aircraft. All other evidence is rejected because of a misunderstanding of how metal behaves. The assumption of a simplistic geometry of impact does not account for any dynamics of impact and metal deformation. Missiles arriving within milliseconds of each other from different directions and making a hole the exact size and shape as an airplane is beyond belief.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

Septic, this theory just isn't making sense. It is based entrely on how column edges appear to be bent and the mistaken belief that the steel framework cannot be cut by an aluminum framed aircraft. All other evidence is rejected because of a misunderstanding of how metal behaves. The assumption of a simplistic geometry of impact does not account for any dynamics of impact and metal deformation. Missiles arriving within milliseconds of each other from different directions and making a hole the exact size and shape as an airplane is beyond belief.

Oh shaddup already. You are obviously incapable of critical thinking. Either address the points I made, or move along.

reply to post by septic


You don't want airplanes so you reject all evidence of airplanes. You say the fuel was planted but never say how it was planted or how it was stored so that it would not be noticed. You have no idea what missiles can do and can't do. When challenged, you cannot respond and so tell people to move along so that you can continue spreading your nonsensical theory.
Judy Wood's DEW theory is more believeable than yours.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by septic

 

You don't want airplanes so you reject all evidence of airplanes. You say the fuel was planted but never say how it was planted or how it was stored so that it would not be noticed. You have no idea what missiles can do and can't do. When challenged, you cannot respond and so tell people to move along so that you can continue spreading your nonsensical theory.
Judy Wood's DEW theory is more believeable than yours.

Golly, and here i thought your avatar indicated you were some uptight brainiac. Can't believe I challenged your pathetic *ahem* to a debate.

When challenged I provided a point by point rebuttal, scroll up, you can't miss them...it took me two posts.