What caused the damage to columns 145 through 152?

Originally posted by septic
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.

Does it?

I mean just because there appears to be left right damage inconsistent with a 767 wing on one side, the right leaning cladding, could it not also lean that way due to the direction of force from the interior explosion?

For instance, this left right leaning only seems to occur on the left side towards the middle, and it is the left side that shows the most explosive force.

By that I mean, another anomaly concerning a 767 is that the fuel for the engines is in each wing etc. I don't know that much about how all that works but I would assume the fuel would be equally distributed between each wing engine fuel tank pairing, and yet, when the 'plane' hits the building head on only the left side/wing really explodes, then we look right (Naudet clip) and the right wing tip damages the building before the right engine and what? There was no fuel in the right wing? Where's the equal right wing explosion on what is filmed and claimed is a direct nose in hit?

So you agree that it wasn't a plane?

So there we just eliminated one exterior projectile.

But why depend on any?

Why try and play billiards with the building and slide the missile in to both make a wing scar and a hole but only on one side? Maybe a missile straight in the center to make a big hole but sideways accurately?

I've got another problem with the Naudet clip, and that is though it appears continuous I noticed that at one point zooming in you can see no below hole cladding damage, then with camera movement and a close up refocus, bang, within a split second apparent cladding damage. So it's possible the explosion we see was not what was actual and what caused the explosion is not what appears to be shown, but still, what do you say about the added risk of any type of projectile going awry when you already have total control of the impact zones?

A missile on an angle? For what purpose? With control of the impact zone floors you could have a cut out of Homer Simpson appear...


Cheers

reply to post by WASTYT


Hello WASTYT

From this picture it's impossible to tell.

It's quite possible to tell. There is no pinch, in fact 147 appears to be a smaller version of 146 and 145.

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

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

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...

We are still in a misunderstanding...you are the one who claims they are pinched, I do not. I corrected myself when I first agreed with "pinching" as something I misunderstood. I said as much here and here. So to reiterate, I disagree with your contention of being pinched on both sides, they are only dented from the left. What you are seeing in the image is not a pinch but the exit hole of a 12 inch missile warhead.



The same can be seen in the WTC2 image, where the warhead sliced through the column.



The right flange did not pinch-in, it is punched out and pushed up. This is supported by the images using the edge detection tools.

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.

The cladding in no way contradicts a left to right impact either, 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 missile is striking from the side, consistent with the damage, although I'm not sure the angle of the missile in the cartoon was intended to be accurate.

The jet's wing is striking from the front in a wedge-sawing motion, and from the opposite direction of the damaged columns.

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.

But again, we do not agree it exists:

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.

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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by NWOwned

I don't know that much about how all that works but I would assume the fuel would be equally distributed between each wing engine fuel tank pairing....

Yes, both wings are completely full of fuel, in the case of all four airplanes on 9/11. Because of the length of flight for each, they were "topped off" in the wings, and the rest is then pumped into the center tank, in the fuselage at the wing root.

The center tank fuel must be used first, that is normal procedure, and the hijackers did not know, nor did they care to know, anything different regarding the fuel system.

....and yet, when the 'plane' hits the building head on only the left side/wing really explodes....

Look at the videos again, and be sure to find the highest resolution available. This is a non-starter, sorry....has been raised before, and usually this misconception is derived from poor quality reproduction videos.

Keep in mind one more thing....the fuel doesn't ignite merely from the impact.....it is the rupture of the containment, at whichever point that occurs first, and then contact with the hot engne that sets of the ignition sequence.

reply to post by NWOwned

Does it?

I mean just because there appears to be left right damage inconsistent with a 767 wing on one side, the right leaning cladding, could it not also lean that way due to the direction of force from the interior explosion?

Yeah, something heavy hit the columns in a left to right motion. The cladding on 152 was struck by something from the outside. Explosives planted inside would have burst out, making the jet meme more of a hard sell. Missiles fit the bill.

For instance, this left right leaning only seems to occur on the left side towards the middle, and it is the left side that shows the most explosive force.

The missiles on the left didn't have the advantage of gravity as those did on the right. They had less velocity. I don't know what you mean about the left having the most explosive force...looks to me like it was the middle.

So you agree that it wasn't a plane?

Yeah, not a chance in hell. A plane's wings would have been shredded. This was proven by MIT...heh...

So there we just eliminated one exterior projectile.

But why depend on any?

How would you do it if you had to carve a plane sized hole that needed to appear like it a plane struck from the outside, pushing columns towards the inside. We already know a plane couldn't possibly do it, so how would you do it?

What means would you use...you seem to like the idea of explosives, but have you researched what that entails?

Somehow you'd have to wrap every square inch of steel to be cut with a linear shaped charge or other tried and true cutting mechanism. Nothing exotic here, there's too much at stake. Whatever explosives you use, you'd have to make the gash seamless through the cladding on the outside, so you'd get that outside-in look to the hole. Remember, the steel is coated with fire retardant, just to make your shaped charge placement even more tricky.

The hole must look like it burst inward, without blowing all the cladding of the building.

Whatever you do, if any single charge fails to go off, you could have a very embarrassing moment with half a plane hole.

Would it take more people to wire the buildings or more people to launch missiles?

Seriously, how would you do it?

I've got another problem with the Naudet clip

if you like the clip watch the whole movie and read this by Leslie Raphael.

reply to post by Varemia

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.

'cause jets only do that in the movies

Originally posted by septic
reply to post by Varemia

 

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.

'cause jets only do that in the movies

Ah yes. So you have no actual criticisms of the videos. You just don't believe them.

Have you ever seen a jet crash into anything, ever? What kind of experience do you have that says that what happened on 9/11 was impossible?

Let me guess. NONE

reply to post by Varemia

Ah yes. So you have no actual criticisms of the videos. You just don't believe them.

The fact that it was an impossibility is enough of a criticism, although there are plenty of other examples.

Do you ever stop projecting?

Have you ever seen a jet crash into anything, ever?

No. Have you? This is relevant to what?

What kind of experience do you have that says that what happened on 9/11 was impossible?

Experience? Judging by your petulance, I'm betting about 30-odd years more than you have.

Let me guess. NONE

Guess again.

What you forget septic is even if the plane hit square on the wings wont !

The left wing of the plane the one you like to focus on, what side of a steel column or the cladding would be impacted first by the left wing!

Care to answer that!

Originally posted by wmd_2008


What you forget septic is even if the plane hit square on the wings wont !

The left wing of the plane the one you like to focus on, what side of a steel column or the cladding would be impacted first by the left wing!

Care to answer that!

I don't understand what you mean. I have been saying all along the jet's 35 degree swept-back port wing would strike the right side of the columns first.

Originally posted by septic
The fact that it was an impossibility is enough of a criticism, although there are plenty of other examples.

No, it's not enough. You have not outlined a single, not a single point in any of the videos that leads you to believe that they are fake. You blanket-fake them all based on your belief. This is not just ridiculous, it is scientifically dishonest. It's a circular argument.

You are literally saying "it's fake because it's fake." Where's the backup? Where's the evidence?

You have none. It's that simple.

reply to post by Varemia

No, it's not enough. You have not outlined a single, not a single point in any of the videos that leads you to believe that they are fake. You blanket-fake them all based on your belief.

You can discuss the OP or you can leave. This thread is not about how the videos were faked, it is about the damage to columns 145-152.

This is not just ridiculous, it is scientifically dishonest. It's a circular argument.

You are literally saying "it's fake because it's fake." Where's the backup? Where's the evidence?

You have none. It's that simple.

No, I'm saying it's fake because what it depicted was physically impossible. The damage to 145-152 is proof enough, but there's more where that came from. You remember 145-152 don't you? The thread's topic?

Spare us your tantrums and either contribute or admire from afar.

Originally posted by septic
No, I'm saying it's fake because what it depicted was physically impossible. The damage to 145-152 is proof enough, but there's more where that came from. You remember 145-152 don't you? The thread's topic?

Spare us your tantrums and either contribute or admire from afar.

Now see. I've already explained a few times how the damage could be that way. Ever hit a piece of metal real hard? It bounces back, doesn't it? It deforms? I rest my case.

You clearly cannot address my question, so you revert back to your initial thread question. I get it. You simply can't accept that a plane hit the building. It would require you to rethink everything you've come to believe. Well, deal with it. The truth hurts.

reply to post by Varemia

Now see. I've already explained a few times how the damage could be that way. Ever hit a piece of metal real hard? It bounces back, doesn't it? It deforms?

I rest my case.

Finally

You clearly cannot address my question, so you revert back to your initial thread question. I get it. You simply can't accept that a plane hit the building.

No, I'm just trying to avoid getting the thread closed by focusing on video fakery. From my perspective it is you who can't accept the possibility that a plane didn't hit. It appears to be too much for you to comprehend, so much that you get angry when confronted with it. Sorry, but the implications are yours to deal with. Shall we discuss the damage to columns 145-152?

It would require you to rethink everything you've come to believe. Well, deal with it. The truth hurts.

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]

Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

According to Sigmund Freud, projection is a psychological defense mechanism whereby one "projects" one's own undesirable thoughts, motivations, desires, and feelings onto someone else. 'Emotions or excitations which the ego tries to ward off are "spit out" and then felt as being outside the ego...perceived in another person'.[4] It is a common process.[5]

Source

reply to post by septic


Ironically, everything you just posted can be put right back at you. It's all pointless bickering. Fact is, I have way more evidence to support a plane. You simply mass-reject all evidence, which is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

Ironically, everything you just posted can be put right back at you. It's all pointless bickering. Fact is, I have way more evidence to support a plane. You simply mass-reject all evidence, which is ridiculous.

And yet I have supplied evidence; while you have not.

Originally posted by septic

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by septic

 

Ironically, everything you just posted can be put right back at you. It's all pointless bickering. Fact is, I have way more evidence to support a plane. You simply mass-reject all evidence, which is ridiculous.

And yet I have supplied evidence; while you have not.

No. You have supplied your personal speculation. I have rebutted it, and you have rejected my rebuttal, just like you rejected all the evidence. There is no amount of evidence that could convince you of anything that doesn't already reside in your belief system.

reply to post by Varemia

I have rebutted it, and you have rejected my rebuttal, just like you rejected all the evidence.

I apologize...I missed your rebuttal; what was it? What evidence have I rejected?

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?

And how did the missile scrape the tower with it's wing then take a sharp left turn into the building? And not explode or lose trajectory until it was needed to detonate?

Even without the unanswerable questions about witnesses, videos and logistics the whole thing is patently preposterous.

Originally posted 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?

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

And how did the missile scrape the tower with it's wing then take a sharp left turn into the building?

Please explain. I And not explode or lose trajectory until it was needed to detonate?

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.

Even without the unanswerable questions about witnesses,

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. You assume the story of thousands of witnesses is true, but where are their photographs?

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. 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.

There are no images of closeups of the insides of the towers, while there are close-ups of the collapses. At our disposal, we should have hundreds of different images and video from hundreds of perspectives, yet there are practically none.

Your myopic view of the witness claims continually skip the claims of witnesses like these, and these.

And this:

(even without) videos and logistics the whole thing is patently preposterous.

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?

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

The only thing preposterous is the plane story; the most ridiculous lie in the history of big lies.

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.