diagonal2 wrote:The missile theory is plausible: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/acm.htm
It could explain why the "air plane" was so small, cruise missiles are small and look very much like a plane.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bombe ... 29a_01.jpg
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bombe ... 29a_02.jpg
Didn't the "air plane" fly up-side down in one of the vidoes?
It looked very much like this: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/acm_03.gif
Hehe You make me laugh, I want to say this following quote with out being one bit high ego nor cocky. But to try and get you to understand my dear diagonal2..... "you are preaching to the choir"
We know all about this stuff years ago... If anything the fair call comes off towards the JASSM Cruise missile... with release n testing 2001.. acuraccy to with in 2.8f= blah blah..
Well it does make sense to fire something into the wtc. For shock 'n Awe - and the jassm definitely had the accuracy and the look to may be able to pull it of.
The alleged speeds for 175. Were 550miles witch is also the cruising speed of the jassm.
At those speeds, twice as fast as what you see ground level at the airport. I doubt one could distinguish one from the other that well.
Profile of a real jassm compared to “Park Foreman's”, 9/11 CGI image.
The missile research is just essentially just some trivia to me though. Just My outtake on it is this.
The main proof of what happened that day lies in the imagery. And that is all that mattered. I honestly don’t know what really happened that day. I wasn’t there to see with my own eyes. Plane, no plane, missile, holograms, d-duck on a blimp…Who knows (or cares) what really what happened.
All I have got to say is how come the 9/11 imagery is so computer generated?
SOURCE--- http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5#p2362251 SIMONSHACK
simonshack wrote:Brutal Metal wrote: I hate to be the thorn in the foot of this thread by I AGREE with reels post!
Thorn in the foot? Not in mine
Again, I am open to anyone's ideas as to how it all played out in reality. Are we really much in disagreement, anyway? After all, my September Clues docu (2008) does speculate about a JASSM158 striking WTC2. (Of course, I NEVER implied that this would have caused the collapse of the tower - it would have just punched a hole in it - but it would have ensured that a winged little thing was seen striking WTC2):
It's not like they even needed to use GPS technology (which isn't 100% reliable) to aim a missile/drone at the towers. A pre-placed tracking device inside the desired floor would have been 100% foolproof - guaranteeing a perfect precision strike. The main objection to this proposed scenario has been "wouldn't that have played havoc with the demo-wiring inside the towers?" Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they place the main charges in the LOWER floors of a building to be demolished? Since we now know that the rubble imagery was faked too (just like the collapse imagery) how can we rule out the possibility that they basically just made the towers topple over (perhaps in short, handy sections) and let them crash/dismember on top of the surrounding buildings (WTC3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) - all owned by Mr. Silverstein?
As for the available eyewitness accounts (for what they are worth) to such a real-world scenario, we actually DO have quite a few reporting something to this tune: "I saw the top of the tower toppling/falling over". Why do all these people mention only "the top"? Perhaps because the rest of the twin towers was, by then (9:59AM), enveloped in smoke? Such testimonies - even if delivered by actors/media people - would have served the purpose to match / coincide / corroborate what the 'millions of New Yorkers' saw in reality (likewise - if the missile theory is correct - the many reports of "a small plane" would have served to 'comfort' anyone who observed a distinctly smaller aircraft than a Boeing 767 hitting WTC2). To be sure, I have never bumped into one single testimony describing the collapses in any manner of detail - and not even remotely in the way we saw it on TV.
So what about WTC1 (at 8:46AM)? No impacting flying device needed there - it was a totally unexpected event. If "FLIGHT11" really had roared across the full length of Manhattan at such low altitude, we should have hundreds of thousands of witness reports of such a loud event. We simply don't. For WTC1, only some fireworks were required to shape what looked from afar like a 'plane-shaped' gash (then artificial smoke gushing out of it) in the top floors to enact something resembling the images featured in the prefabricated, Made-for-TV Hollywood 9/11 movie.
SOURCE-- http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5#p2362341EQUINOX
Equinox wrote:reel.deal wrote:^ ^ ^
yeah, my friend keeps repeating the OCT 9/11 mantra... 'it would have got out, someone would have come forward".
to who ? the media ?!?
but no plane/missile/drone/nothing... ?!?
thats some balls.
nah... there had to be 'something'... imho.
It’s perfectly feasible to believe in a shock and awe missile
Would have been used on 9/11 (and Due to the pinpoint accuracy only a missile, more than likely)
The accuracy was there...
Missile cam target strike test.
JAASM Through a small window easy done.
Eyewitnesses who would have seen it could have easily mistaken its profile for a real 767.
JAASM Painted up in AA colors would be easy done. I myself would no doubt definitely believe if It was painted up.
The video you are relating too is pre-fabicated footage shown live on news. The whole shot is fake.... If you want to learn more on the topic or wish to talk or reply to this side of the research please use this thread here.... Why they didn't use planes---- HERE--- http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=467
simonshack wrote:- The 9/11 imagery was nothing but a Hollywood-style film production, complete with actors in the role of 'eye-witnesses' or 'firefighters', staged 'running crowds', 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. The '9/11 movie' was split into a number of short clips and sold to the TV audience as 'newscasts'. The few clips featuring 'airplanes' (or dull silhouettes thereof) were computer-generated images - clearly in conflict with each other. Years of relentless 'debunking' attempts have failed to disprove the evidence expounded in the longstanding September Clues research.