What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

page: 35
8
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


TOO bad, so "sad" the 'logic' of your premise fails...due to physics and aerodynamics....


This has also been answered repeatedly. If anything the wings would only damage the cladding before being snapped off. Are you saying the missiles would have been wildly deflected in the fraction of a second before the warhead, traveling at 500 MPH, impacted the columns?


A prevalent aspect of the 'point' of this "OP" has seemed to focus upon a very narrow view (please research in past posts) of the "purported" ( and well...sorry but, "laughable") assertion, as the "OPENING POST ASSERTION" (because in fact ...if one takes the time to bother and just LOOK....That is the "basis" for the "genesis" or, in other words, the "point" of this post??
edit on Tue 20 December 2011 by ProudBird because: wished I had "previewed" before "pushing" the "Reply" 'button' but, "EDIT accomlished, DONE it, it's DONE.....so be t....




posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



Is that your way of better explaining the left-to-right damage?

No I think the poster was trying to tell you that your opinions due not constitute facts. No one needs to challenge your opinions. You need to substantiate them. That's how it works.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by WASTYT
 



You seem to keep dodging a simple question - What part of the JASSM struck column 152 first?


This question has been answered, so I don't know why you're acting like the cat's pajamas. If the missile strikes at a glancing angle, the wing would likely strike first, would it not?


About what angle is "glancing" exactly? This is important to note. Come on, let's get into it already...

And, if you're okay with it I'd like to use a slightly altered version of your animation below just to highlight some things...



The columns squared in blue are the ones in question: noted 145 - 152. The area circled in red represents the alleged entry point of the warhead (according to you), as can be discerned from your other gif below (which I have also slightly altered). The circled area in green (146/147) is where the JASSM should've struck based on the angle of approach according to the above animation. However, it is your contention that it penetrated at columns 143/144. Trouble is, not only does the entry not line up to where the JASSM should've hit (146/147) if the wing made initial contact at 152, but the damage to the column and spandrel of 144 (squared in red below) is not consistent with a projectile entering at a shallow angle from left to right. Actually it indicates quite the opposite having been punched in and to the left; which can be seen clearly here:




Earlier in the thread you said it was the explosion that caused that type of damage. But recently you suggested that the missile penetrated there before exploding- which is it?

If the wing struck first as you allege at 152, then there are only a very limited number of angles for which the projectile can penetrate the building, and hence limited entry points. As it is now, the entry points are off by a few columns, or roughly 10 feet. That's a large margin of error given that a JASSM is 14 feet in length.



As a note: in the top animation the JASSM is slightly oversized, but generally scaled to the correct size compared to the columns. The columns are represented accurately and their numbers have been designated. Using the size of the columns in the image I was able to roughly determine that the size of the projectile is slightly larger. You can do the same if you'd like. If anything though, the projectile should be smaller in the gif thereby rendering your claim even more inaccurate.

edit on 20-12-2011 by WASTYT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by WASTYT
 


The gifs were intended to illustrate the direction of travel, not to be accurate representations of the impacts.

I am now under the impression it took two missiles for each of the jet's "wings".



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by WASTYT
 


The gifs were intended to illustrate the direction of travel, not to be accurate representations of the impacts.

I am now under the impression it took two missiles for each of the jet's "wings".


Why are you under that impression? If you look at the damage you'll see the glaring issues with your belief. You've claimed that the missile coming in from the left penetrated at column 144. That couldn't have happened if the wing first struck at 152.




posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by WASTYT
 





Why are you under that impression? If you look at the damage you'll see the glaring issues with your belief. You've claimed that the missile coming in from the left penetrated at column 144. That couldn't have happened if the wing first struck at 152.


I get that impression by drawing lines between the damaged columns and noticing different trajectories, especially on the South Tower.

As far as what glaring issues you think you've found, I don't follow. The wings and fuselage would shatter, leaving the penetrating warhead to do its thing. it is the warhead that penetrates, not the wings or the fuselage.


The 900-pound warhead, which is 60 inches long and 12 inches in diameter, penetrated a thick reinforced concrete target at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., and left a clean exit hole as it continued another half mile down range, with no adverse effect on the warhead's casing or fuze. Elmer Leuker, the JASSM integrated product team leader at Boeing's Phantom Works,


Source



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by WASTYT
 


First of all, thanks for the detailed images.

The pushed in columns, yes I attributed those to being pushed in by a warhead, possibly one of the "flashes" visible just before the CGI Jet video layer disappears into the building video layer. At first I thought the protruding edges of 145 and 146 were simply clipped by a near miss of a projectile, but upon closer investigation they're badly twisted up and to the right, which could only be caused by something striking more of the column than just the protruding edge.

A 12 inch missile warhead fits the bill for the damage there, but admittedly the pushed-in columns seem odd for a warhead exploding inside, or between the two columns 144 and 143. However, everyone has pointed out that the missiles could be deflected by the columns, which is what I believe we're seeing here, with the warhead hitting 145 which deflected it up and away from the building prior to detonation.

Something must have struck in a left to right motion, and the only thing I can come up with is a missile. Jet wing-tips striking from opposite sides and different trajectories are clearly impossible, but you're welcome to show me different.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by WASTYT
 


As far as what glaring issues you think you've found, I don't follow. The wings and fuselage would shatter, leaving the penetrating warhead to do its thing. it is the warhead that penetrates, not the wings or the fuselage.



It's all about angles yankee.

A few issues for starters:

-Wing snaps off at 152.

-Not possible for the JASSM to do the damage you're proposing given the angle it strikes. The warhead would not penetrate where you claim- at 144. Not to mention the upward trajectory of the damage is not possible from an air to surface missile. Because it's air to surface.. And if it was surface to air then it would have had to have originated from the ground in New York somewhere... now I know you don't want to go there...

-What severed the columns from 143-137 if the the original JASSM entered at 144 as you suggest? Can't be the wings of a 2nd JASSM, as you've also suggested. It's not physically possible for foam core wings to do that. Nor is the angle by which the JASSM strikes allow for 20 feet worth of severed columns. Or does it?

How many missile were used?? You posted a video that you claim shows a missile striking the south tower. If thats the case then why don't we see all the other missiles striking at the same time?

Look at the picture and please be honest with yourself. Missiles are no way possible. Really.


I know you don't at all want to believe that a plane did it. That's your thing, but it's a bit insulting to other peoples intelligence to say what you're saying.

You're going to have to a lot better if your agenda is to change peoples minds.



posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by WASTYT
 





It's all about angles yankee.



You must be seeing things. How many fingers am I holding up?

Your turn. You show me how it's possible for hollow aluminum wing tips to damage the columns in question.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


I'm seeing 20/20. How about you?

The wings were not hollow yankee. See for yourself, or do you need glasses?



edit on 23-12-2011 by WASTYT because: 2nd pic



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by WASTYT
 


Speaking of yankee...




I thought time healed all ills, but this won’t heal until we open it up and air it out, and we can’t do that until you stop believing impossible things.

Aluminum wings cannot cut structural steel columns like a hot knife through butter. Say it three times. I don’t care if you are a doctor, or a journalist, or a psychologist, or a lawyer. Aluminum wings cannot cut structural steel columns like a hot knife through butter. I don’t care how many people go public on the CIA’s media, or how many fake Truth Movement Organizations are created to say otherwise (insert_name for 9/11 Truth); aluminum wings cannot cut structural steel columns like a hot knife through butter.

Jets do not disappear into steel buildings like that in the real world; that sort of thing only happens in the movies. What you saw was a movie version of the War of the Worlds radio broadcast. It’s that simple. Crazy? Not nearly as crazy as you are to believe it was real. Did you believe “Independence Day” was real? Would you believe it if was presented as if it was true, broadcast all over the mainstream media? I bet you would, and that’s just plain psycho.

It’s much easier to believe the CIA-controlled media-military-congressional-industrial complex were successful in their endeavor to ensure “EVERYTHING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BELIEVES IS FALSE” than it is to believe in impossibilities. What the TV showed you was impossible. I know how hard it must be to believe, what with all those “experts” out there claiming it IS possible, but no; jets can’t do that. It doesn’t matter how many real or fake pilots claim otherwise, jets can’t do that.

How they were able to broadcast it on “live” TV is beside the point, the claim that “someone would talk” is not true, and also beside the point, as is the claim that there were eye witnesses. The point is jets can’t do that, period. Anyone who claims they can is lying or a fool, and for that we can all be thankful, because it makes identifying the propagandists that much easier.

Take the planes out of the picture, and the answers start falling into place. Answers to questions like those about the missing “wheels off” data, flights not scheduled, errant flight paths and impossible maneuvers for commercial jets; answers to questions like those about alleged hijackers using false identities, reports about hijackers being reported still alive, and questions about the ability of the hijackers to fly the jets at all.

Take the planes out of the picture, and the propagandists are exposed, and that includes about 90 percent of the truth movement. They are the ones who will scream the loudest to not “waste time” investigating anything BUT planes, and complain that if you do investigate that hypothesis, you’ll cheapen the whole “Truth Novement”. God, we can only hope.

I guess we’re not supposed to notice the last ten years wasted while we twiddled our thumbs and let the Truth Movement lead us around in circles; just as we aren’t supposed to notice Obama still hasn’t closed GITMO, and has managed to make Bush, The Much Lesser look like a rank amateur. The next thing you know the Truth Movement will receive a Nobel Peace Prize, and Alex Jones will be lauded as Time Magazine’s Man of the Year. Yeah, that’d be par for the psycho’s course. The purpose of the Truth Movement has been to lead you away from the fact that jets can’t do what the government, media and so-called “academia” claim they can.

Everything else is just white noise; the mini-nukes, the energy weapons, the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, the “remote control technology”, the physics, NIST, the flight schools, Israeli involvement, all designed to sow confusion and discord. My favorite is the “Israel did 911” crowd. They were able to keep me at bay for several years for fear I was turning into an “anti-Semite”, whatever that is. I now see that claim as being deliberately planted by the Truth Movement for the intent of undermining the whole Movement through guilt by association.

However involved the Mossad was in 911, Israeli involvement should be considered another layer in the gangster’s mind-# they’re playing on you, or did you forget that religion is the original and ultimate propaganda tool? Israel’s very existence has nothing to do with “Judaism”, and everything to do with psychotic Imperialism and every-day, run-of-the-mill Western Colonialism. I suspect this is the real reason Americans give Israel a free ride, because they’re doing to the indigenous population of their colony, exactly what Americans have been doing our indigenous population for the last 600 years. That and the fact that they’re a bunch of xenophobic psychopaths, just like us.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WASTYT
 


and who can forget...



The planes are their Achilles’ heel; 911’s videos will go down as the most ridiculous display of the Big Lie in the history of Big Lies, and if they’d lie about THIS, what won’t they lie about?


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



Aluminum wings cannot cut structural steel columns like a hot knife through butter.


At first I thought this statement was just utter nonsense on so many levels, but then I saw where you kept repeating it over and over and over again so I came to the conclusion that it must be true because if something is constantly repeated then that makes it an infallible truth. Good work.

Now let me start,

I am a millionaire, I am a millionaire, I am a millionaire.....



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by septic
 



Aluminum wings cannot cut structural steel columns like a hot knife through butter.


At first I thought this statement was just utter nonsense on so many levels, but then I saw where you kept repeating it over and over and over again so I came to the conclusion that it must be true because if something is constantly repeated then that makes it an infallible truth. Good work.

Now let me start,

I am a millionaire, I am a millionaire, I am a millionaire.....


Well, you are obviously easily swayed by the power of suggestion, and since it was the repetition of the video that made you believe the impossible, then by all means keep repeating it.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 


I, and the remainder of humanity, shall choose to believe a video supported by eye witnesses in lieu of your contradictory and wholly unsupported personal opinion.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by septic
A relatively light, soft and hollow swept back wing striking from a completely different side and direction of motion caused the damage. Contradictory and unsupported, or plainly evident?


A 767 wing is neither light, soft nor hollow. Also, besides the internal wing structure, it's full of fuel, which adds considerable mass. It didn't strike from a "completely different side", neither from a different "direction of motion", since there is neither a "side" nor a "direction of motion" for an object existing only in your lurid imagination.

I count five lies in one sentence in your comment alone.Well done.
edit on 28-12-2011 by snowcrash911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by septic
 



Yes, it is you who speaks for the rest of humanity. What a buffoon.

In this case also true. Or close enough.

The damage is left to right. Contradictory and unsupported, or plainly evident?

I prefer the word imaginary.

A relatively light, soft and hollow....

Opinion. And wrong. As you have been shown many time the wings are not hollow, light or soft. And they were also filled with fuel.

....swept back wing striking from a completely different side and direction of motion caused the damage. Contradictory and unsupported, or plainly evident?

Contradictory and unsupported.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join