South Tower Evidence of Missile Impacts
Most of the photographs in the public domain of the holes in the Twin Towers are of the North Tower of the WTC. There are very few of the South Tower hole, and those that are available are usually screen captures from videos. I recently discovered one such screen capture which shows more clearly than ever that missiles did indeed cut at least some of the columns in the twin towers.
For almost ten years now I’ve been hopping up and down and waving my arms trying to get truthers to look at the evidence of the lateral impacts of small projectiles – cruise missiles, in other words. What leads me to that conclusion is the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting and the progressively worse damaged steel columns visible on the left sides of both of the holes in the towers. I have often used this image to show that in those first nine columns from the left can be seen almost identical damage.
And this one, to demonstrate that in a head on impact, as shown on television, the wings would impact the towers more or less like so:
And this one to show that the columns were bent on the left side of the columns, opposite from what the above image shows (the wing strikes the right side of the columns).
Clearly something that was at once not very dense and not very big struck from the side, as evidenced by the lightly damaged aluminum sheeting seen at the far left of both holes, but it became much bigger and much more dense as it moved to the right when it gouged, and sharply bent the steel to the right. A missile can explain this damage.
I’ve always maintained that this pinched cladding alone is evidence of a missile impact.
I also had some animations created to explain it:
But that was before this screen grab from an as yet unknown video that shows the South Tower hole from a center left perspective. Ironically enough I think it comes from Judy Wood. How could she have missed this evidence?
This is the original shot (which appears to have been scrubbed from the web):
Same image used below:
Notice this piece of aluminum sheeting is still upright, but bent outward.
The columns were gouged, and on the fifth column from the left, the missile warhead passed through the column, but behind the cladding, which can be seen bent out by something circular, striking at an oblique trajectory of somewhere around 10 degrees from parallel.
This is evidence that again proves no plane could have possibly hit head-on and gouged-out three sides of a steel column, but failed to cut through the aluminum sheeting that covered those three sides.
Missiles dunnit. No doubt about it.
I am working on a video on this as well.
Voila
Steve De’ak
11 Comments
Trump's confession · January 15, 2020 at 5:44 pm
My fellow Americans:
In these troubled times, with our tit-for-tat global war games, I now say to the American people, that anything Iran can do; America can do better. If Iran has the balls to confess it shot down an airliner by mistake, thus killing many of its own people, then America too shall confess its sins. I now confess to 9/11 being an “inside job” – exactly as 9/11 Truthers have always proclaimed. I now ask the truther community to support me in my public confession. Will Robert Steele still be there for me, when I go public with 9/11 truth? Will Richard Gage, Jim Fetzer, Steve Deak, Judy Wood, Gordon Duff, etc? Or will such truthers run and hide? It’s time to confess all. Because it’ll be a cold day in hell before an old devil like me, ever lets an Iranian outsmart America – with all their public “confessions”!!
In our darkest hour, in my deepest despair, Will you still care? Will you be there? In my trials and my tribulations, Through our doubts and frustrations, in my violence, especially my MOAB violence, in my turbulence, Through my fear and my confessions – especially my confessions about 9/11 being an inside job – will you be there? So will you!? Do ya feel lucky, punk? Well do ya?!
Arise all ye faithful Truthers. Just as the devil ‘horns of Najd’ arise from the sea, I’m calling you to confess 9/11 sins to the whole world. I now ask that you all unite and make a stand for good. We are literally caught between the devil’s horns and the deep blue sea.There is nowhere left to run and hide, so we might as well grab the bull by its horns, and confess all. It’s the only way. Join me in my 9/11 truth confession. I ask you all, for one last time: will you be there America? Or will you continue to bury your heads in the sand, and allow the never-ending wars to continue? Confess America, confess!!! Or shamefully allow Iranians to defeat you with their confessions! If Iranians say they downed an airliner, then we say we downed the Twin Towers with our own missiles – just as Steve Deak proves to be true with the above article. Iranians will never be able to beat that confession, neeeevvveer!! This is huuuuge!
Yours truly,
D. Trump
P.S. My new slogans are:
MAKE AMERICA CONFESS AGAIN! (MACA)
MAKE EARTH CALL CONFESSIONS AGAIN (M.E.C.C.A)
Let’s go M.E.C.C.A! ’cause I’m a gambler, and I’ll take you by surprise… With my public confessions about 9/11 missiles!
NOW SING LIKE A CANARYI
Evil internet · January 16, 2020 at 4:36 pm
The evil internet doesn’t allow this comment to be posted
“…While U.S. officials are parroting the claim that it is “highly likely” an Iranian anti-aircraft missile downed the jetliner, killing all 176 people on board, the world may never know the undeniable truth now that all of the evidence has been removed from the site.
One thing is for sure: Governments around the world lie to the public all the time
As we recently reported , there were similar anomalies on September 11, 2001, and beyond when investigators went to look for the wreckage from all the downed airplanes, only to find that there was none .
Even though television imagery appeared to show American Airlines planes striking the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, on-site crews revealed that there was no evidence of any airplane wreckage at all.
In the case of 9/11, it doesn’t appear as though the wreckage was cleared out quickly by the government like it supposedly was in Iran following this more recent incident. Instead, it would seem as though some of the 9/11 airplanes in question — the ones that supposedly hit the Pentagon and crashed in Pennsylvania — didn’t actually exist in the first place.
While it’s easy to jump all over Iran for possibly pulling a false flag, here, let’s not forget that our own government did the exact same thing nearly 20 years ago, the repercussions of which are still with us in the form of naked body scanners and full-body pat downs, aka government-sanctioned molestation.”
https://m.beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground-zero/2020/01/us-government-cleared-out-911-wreckage-just-like-iran-did-with-downed-airliner-but-the-media-said-nothing-in-2001-2442738.html
Steve De'ak · January 18, 2020 at 8:15 am
Nice. The truth will out.
Latore lapis · January 17, 2020 at 12:07 pm
I think it would be unlikely to be a missile. The flare from the exhaust would be a problem and the impact of the building would not be controlled in any way. If that cut had been made to impersonate a a wing strike my guess would be a solid amour piercing projectile would have been used, fired from a location to cause the shown impact trail. The resultant damage would have been from the energy of the projectile fired at a very high high glancing velocity at the the building. It should be a simple exercise to calculate exactly where such a projectile would have been fired from.
Just a wag, sometimes they light up the path forward.
Steve De'ak · January 17, 2020 at 9:35 pm
The missiles are jet powered, what flare?
The size of the hole in the steel is too big for anything other than a bunker busting bomb, or cruise missile. Considering the upward direction of the gash, it was probably not a bomb. The lightly damaged cladding is easily explained by the impact of a missile wing, but difficult to explain with anything else. The cruise missiles that I have found that have the capabilities of causing both the light damage to the cladding, as well as the progressively worse-damaged steel columns, are air-launched missiles that have a standoff range of hundreds of miles, and have way point capabilities that would make it impossible to track their origin. They are too big to have been launched from a nearby building, and the gash is too big to have been caused by something like a shoulder, or tank-launched projectile, which can be launched from a nearby building. However improbable you think this conclusion is, it does fit the evidence nicely.
Latore lapis · January 18, 2020 at 2:25 pm
OK, if the cruise missiles had an armor piercing warhead, that might explain it. The damage shown in the gouge sure is strange and looks to be nothing to do with the impact of a swept airplane wing as you pointed out. Strange how the media does not question this. The bigger the silence about the many , many 911 inconsistencies, the bigger the fragility of the totally bs story so far sold to us. Future generations (if there are any) will be incredulous that such a pile of utter BS would last for even 5 seconds, never mind 20 years !
Michael Ludwig · April 23, 2020 at 1:30 am
Hi Steve, me again, mid-February on the “Being there .. Hydrogen Bomb” article. Well, I must say I don’t think any airplanes hit the towers, but just like Latore lapis, I also have doubts that the missile theory is correct. There is a reliability and precision problem with such missiles that would seem to preclude them as the means of choice to cause the damage on the buildings. Yes, I know, the precision of these weapons is much vaunted by the almighty US military and weapons manufactrurers, but in reality they are complex high-tech products built to strike at a distance of hundreds of kilometers, and they can fail for a number of reasons. In the case of 9/11, even partial failure is not an option and so I’d say a failsafe means of destruction would be employed. The most failsafe means I can think of is something that is fixed exactly on site to work with 100 % precision and wired up to function with 100 % reliability. I would not have opted for anything less safe than 100 %. The “impact hole” is a central element of the story and hence must be controlled no less than 100 % in time, space and shape. Missiles don’t afford anywhere near this kind of reliabality. Just my thoughts, of course.
By the way, as it’s been mentioned by other commenters: I don’t think the US built Boeing 737 operated by the Ukrainian-Jewish Kolomoisky controlled airline as flight PS752 that crashed in Tehran on January 8, 2020, with conspicuously right timing for Uncle Sam, was accidentally shot down by a loose canon style isolated Iranian surface air battery that happened to be positioned, of all places, right in the take-off corridor of Iran’s number one international airport and was accidentally cut off from radio comm right when that big pasenger airplane, just like others before on that morning, was approaching from that national main airport, leading the battery operators to conclude it must be a small enemy cruise missile (what else could it be now?) and hence resolutely fire their SAM on their very own initiative. I hope I managed to convey the over-the-top absurdity apparent in the details of the Iranian confession.
A confession can be extorted or negotiated and doesn’t have to be correct. The Soviet Union admitted it shot down KAL-007 in 1983 and yet they didn’t do it. KAL-007 must have been shot down much further South which is evidenced by the distribution of airplane debris along the Japanese shores. Most likely an accidental shotdown by Japanese or American military, which were on high alert that night because of what happened over Sakhaline … where several other planes were shot down by the Soviets, which were US military and intelligence planes. See the book: Incident at Sakhaline, by French pilot and airline operator Michel Brun. A great example of a private investigation by a skilled and knowledgeable individual.
The threat to Iran could be: Either you confess, or you’ll be cut off from international air traffic. It’s a kind of protection racket.
So how was the Boeing 737 destroyed just about five minutes after take off from Tehran airport? A perfectly reliable means would be to trigger thrust reversal on one of the engines. That can be done via satellite comm link (like used for Inmarsat). It is 100 % controlled by Uncle Sam. From the trajectory of the plane as it appeared on flightradar24, it seems reasonable to assume thrust reversal was triggered on the starboard engine. When that happens, the airplane is doomed. Almost all of the passengers were of Iranian descent, which is apparent from the names on the passenger list.
Steve De'ak · April 23, 2020 at 6:53 am
Hi Michael,
Precision wasn’t an issue. But for the sake of argument, what other means better fits the evidence in the impact holes at Shanksville and the WTC?
Steve
Michael Ludwig · April 23, 2020 at 12:28 pm
I wasn’t referring to Shanksville. That could have been a missile (or a bomb). I’ve never given it much thought as it’s just a trivial hole in the ground with no hint of a plane.
As for the WTC, I’d say planted explosive charges calculated and positioned to produce the damage pattern, the construction possibly pre-weakened. That seems much simpler to me than a missile.
I do think precision was an issue at the WTC because they needed to have all the stage props in the correct place before, like the smoke machines and jumpers (see link for an example). I’m simply following Jayhan and do2read on LRF here, repeating what they discovered. I think their analysis is brilliant.
Steve De'ak · April 23, 2020 at 3:40 pm
Shanksville wasn’t trivial. Without the Shanksville story of the brave Americans, 9/11 would have only been an attack against corporate, and military power. Shanksville made 9/11 an attack on America, mom and apple pie. Shanksville is treated as an inconsequential sideshow by the truth movement, which also spread a lot of false information about it, because it brings cruise missiles into the frame, which puts the US Military front and center as the most likely suspect. But more than that, it also exposes the rest of the world’s governments as complicit, because if anyone can recognize missile damage, it would be the so called enemy nations. The Shanksville crater is predictable and reproducible, which are hallmarks of the scientific method. Anyone who has ever seen the gash a bullet makes when it ricochets can see what happened at Shanksville, so I’m guessing that’s why the Christopher Bollyn’s of the misnamed movement were deployed, to salt the well of information, and control the opposition by leading it.
As far as using planted explosives at the WTC, sure, I once thought so as well. But if they could do with explosives what you think they can do, then they would not have used them to contradict their story by mimicking the lateral impact of small projectiles, rather than the head-on impact of a large one. Jayhan and McWilliams don’t like the missile conclusion either, but they haven’t addressed the evidence that leads me there.
Take the photo in this post, for example. What precision explosives can bore through steel like that, creating the progressively worse damage to steel columns, but which wouldn’t have blown off the aluminum sheeting that covered the column? The plane wing allegedly struck more or less perpendicularly to the columns, but their precision explosives left out one piece of aluminum sheeting standing, which all by itself, proves no plane wing caused that damage. Furthermore, that still standing aluminum sheeting, was attached on three sides to the steel column it was covering. If they had munitions that can do what you think they can, then why would they deliberately cut through three sides of the steel column, but not the aluminum sheeting that covered it? No explosives I’m aware of cut steel, but neglect to cut the aluminum sheeting that covered the steel. But if there is such a thing, then they surely would have used it to support their story, not contradict it.
In the same way the Shanksville crater is ignored, so is the evidence of the lateral impact of small projectiles at the WTC, and probably for the same reason.
Michael Ludwig · April 25, 2020 at 4:28 am
I fully agree with you that the Shanksville story isn’t trivial and the point you’re making that without it there would have been no attack on the American people (as in flag, motherhood and apple pie) is not only perfectly valid but spot on. I remember having read that before, either on your blog or on LRF, probably written by you.
I just said the *hole in the ground* looked trivial to me (by comparison with the sophisticated WTC and Pentagon stages). So there’s this great storyboard of flight 93 full of American Martyrs who bravely rise up against Death Incarnate (to save Capitol Hill or the White House, whow!) – and all the evidence they have to back up it with is a hole in the ground in some rural backyard with no trace of an airplane whatsoever. I mean anyone who assumes that there is an airplane buried in the ground must be a complete fool. It is ridiculous.
I read two of your posts on Shanksville – going to post comments there, too.
https://911crashtest.org/shanksville-crocodile-tears-for-the-fictional-dead/
https://911crashtest.org/taboo-truths-uncovering-shanksville/
“US Military front and center as the most likely suspect” – Yes. But are other institutions less corrupt? FBI, CIA, NSA, FEMA, NORAD, White House, Congress – whatever. They’re all corrupted and complicit. An oligarchic plutocracy, a plutocratic oligarchy … a cryptocracy, a kleptocracy, a pseudocracy. That’s the way it works and rules.
“But if they could do with explosives what you think they can do, then they would not have used them to contradict their story by mimicking the lateral impact of small projectiles, rather than the head-on impact of a large one. … If they had munitions that can do what you think they can, then why would they deliberately cut through three sides of the steel column, but not the aluminum sheeting that covered it? … they surely would have used them to support their story, not contradict it.”
But their story doesn’t hinge on the impact hole on the facade looking perfectly realistic in a close-up when examined with a critical mind. People don’t doubt the story when they’ve seen the airplane crashing into the building dozens of times from different angles, with sound and fireball and bells and whistles. It is beyond their imagination that anyone would make things up at this scale. When I saw the TV images for the first time on the evening of 9/11, my first thought was “Whow, like in a Hollywood movie!” – but then my second thought was “Hmm, so Hollywood movies are more realistic than I thought.” It simply didn’t occur to me it that it could be fake video. It was real because I had seen it on TV. Why would I bother to examine a close-up of the impact hole? The video was more spectacular.
So the impact hole is not perfect because it didn’t have to be perfect in order to be effective. It was good enough for about 90% or maybe even 99% of people who never bothered to examine it in close-up shots.
A lot of things contradict their story when reason and knowledge are applied. But people aren’t trained at applying reason and knowledge. They’re trained to believe authority because it is authority. You said so yourself: “They know we’ll believe authority by virtue of their authority and nothing else.” And authority talks to them through television, just like in Orwell’s 1984. When authority says there is a dangerous virus around and you need face masks, then there is a dangerous virus and you need face masks. That’s the way most people behave. I did a field test in my hometown yesterday concerning the virus scam – most people are sheeple and simply parrot what the authorities tell them. Popular wisdom from North America that I learnt: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they’ve been fooled.”