IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
How The Shanksville Crater Was Made, Cruise missiles at 10 degree trajectories

tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 3 2014, 03:17 PM
Post #21





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



I would like to ask the author of this thread, making here the absolutely unsubstantiated claim that AGM158 missile(s) created crater and gashes at the Shanksville site (and elsewhere also that it made the holes in the WTC facade), never answered my comment at his http://911crashtest.org site although made already more than 3 weeks ago.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 3 2014, 04:19 PM
Post #22





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 3 2014, 11:17 AM) *
I would like to ask the author of this thread, making here the absolutely unsubstantiated claim that AGM158 missile(s) created crater and gashes at the Shanksville site (and elsewhere also that it made the holes in the WTC facade), never answered my comment at his http://911crashtest.org site although made already more than 3 weeks ago.


I can create a smaller version of the gash with two bullets and a firecracker. Hows that for substantiation? biggrin.gif

I didn't respond because I haven't gotten around to reading your post. I am not required to respond in a timely manner. Keep your shirt on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 3 2014, 04:59 PM
Post #23





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 3 2014, 09:19 AM) *
I can create a smaller version of the gash with two bullets and a firecracker. Hows that for substantiation? biggrin.gif
I didn't respond because I haven't gotten around to reading your post. I am not required to respond in a timely manner. Keep your shirt on.

Just asking.
Have you closely examined the photographs of the hole? To me it seems that the central crater looks like it was created after the gashes. So to recap what seems to me be there: first something creates gashes and then something explodes in the middle.
But still it seems to me much easier to dig a hole, put the charges in the ground together with some plane parts and then at the appropriate moment press a button. - You don't need two 1million$ cruise missiles, you are quite sure the hole will be like you want and where you want and you don't risk the missiles missing the target.
But because I see another (one) aircraft, changing squawk code quite exactly at the moment of the alleged "UA93" crash, approaching and circling then the site, disappearing there from the radar, I can't for now decide what really happened there. And although I find your hypothesis interesting at least certainly I stil don't see any evidence supportive for the AGM158 not speaking two there whatsoever.
This site is more about presenting evidence, not unsubstantiated hypotheses and I would bet even the two bullets and firecracker will not be generally accepted here as an evidence for 2 AGM158 hitting there. nonono.gif

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Feb 3 2014, 05:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 3 2014, 05:20 PM
Post #24





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 3 2014, 11:17 AM) *
I would like to ask the author of this thread, making here the absolutely unsubstantiated claim that AGM158 missile(s) created crater and gashes at the Shanksville site (and elsewhere also that it made the holes in the WTC facade), never answered my comment at his http://911crashtest.org site although made already more than 3 weeks ago.


Okay, sorry about that. Just responded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 3 2014, 05:44 PM
Post #25





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 3 2014, 12:59 PM) *
Just asking.
Have you closely examined the photographs of the hole? To me it seems that the central crater looks like it was created after the gashes. So to recap what seems to me be there: first something creates gashes and then something explodes in the middle.


I am obsessed, so yes; I have examined the available evidence ad nauseam but I'm always looking for something I may have missed.

Yes, I agree - something first created the gashes, followed by the central detonation. I have also researched the size of craters made by bombs of similar size to the explosives carried by these missiles, and even that matches.

Here's the beginnings of a finite element analysis produced by a flake of an engineer I contracted last year. Know anyone who can finish it (for a fee or not)?
Visit My Website
QUOTE
But still it seems to me much easier to dig a hole, put the charges in the ground together with some plane parts and then at the appropriate moment press a button.


I am a dog person. Until last year when one died I had two dogs I walked rain or shine. I know all the dog parks in the area as well as any nearby fields where I can let the dogs run. I'm sure there are hundreds just like me in Shanksville. How would you suppress the evidence of heavy equipment digging a ditch in the middle of someone's ball-chucking space? Wouldn't the locals be wise to the scam even before it started? The area wasn't fenced off, anyone could walk over there and snap a photo. You don't think it's pretty flimsy to assume no locals would report heavy equipment digging in the exact location that flight 93 crashed? Isn't that a pretty ballsy assumption to make considering what was at stake? An errant photo would be devastating.
QUOTE
- You don't need two 1million$ cruise missiles, you are quite sure the hole will be like you want and where you want and you don't risk the missiles missing the target.


These people throw billions around like chump change. What are a couple millions invested in cruise missiles compared to the billions on war profits from an endless "war on terror"?

QUOTE
But because I see another (one) aircraft, changing squawk code quite exactly at the moment of the alleged "UA93" crash, approaching and circling then the site, disappearing there from the radar, I can't for now decide what really happened there.


Thank you for your honesty. I am not a pilot so I can only vaguely understand your lingo but I do understand that the same authorities that have been conducting a 12 year war also control the flow of the information you are referring to. I don't trust the bastards, but that's just me.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 3 2014, 12:59 PM) *
And although I find your hypothesis interesting at least certainly I stil don't see any evidence supportive for the AGM158 not speaking two there whatsoever.


I gather that and I disagree, but I appreciate the feedback nonetheless.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 3 2014, 12:59 PM) *
This site is more about presenting evidence, not unsubstantiated hypotheses and I would bet even the two bullets and firecracker will not be generally accepted here as an evidence for 2 AGM158 hitting there. nonono.gif


You'll note I didn't include that bit in the video. Because missile impact videos are classified, I ised NASA photos and data to support the hypothesis that two cruise missiles with dense-metal penetrating warheads created the crater at Shanksville.

This post has been edited by yankee451: Feb 3 2014, 05:48 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 3 2014, 07:22 PM
Post #26





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE
Yes, I agree - something first created the gashes, followed by the central detonation. I have also researched the size of craters made by bombs of similar size to the explosives carried by these missiles, and even that matches.

But can you admit that even if the crater matches some bombs it is not necessary that they were carried there by cruise missiles?
QUOTE
Here's the beginnings of a finite element analysis produced by a flake of an engineer I contracted last year. Know anyone who can finish it (for a fee or not)?
Visit My Website

At the time I don't know anybody who would be eager to.

QUOTE
I am a dog person. Until last year when one died I had two dogs I walked rain or shine. I know all the dog parks in the area as well as any nearby fields where I can let the dogs run. I'm sure there are hundreds just like me in Shanksville. How would you suppress the evidence of heavy equipment digging a ditch in the middle of someone's ball-chucking space? Wouldn't the locals be wise to the scam even before it started? The area wasn't fenced off, anyone could walk over there and snap a photo. You don't think it's pretty flimsy to assume no locals would report heavy equipment digging in the exact location that flight 93 crashed? Isn't that a pretty ballsy assumption to make considering what was at stake? An errant photo would be devastating.


It was a former mine. They were digging there for years and from the comparison of the 1994 picture and the visible terrain irregularities there with the 2001 pictures it really very much seems they must have been digging there after the 1994 picture was taken. Did you heard about digging there from anybody? Have you seen photos of that digging, have you heard testimonies of anybody digging there? You didn't? Yeat the pictures show it must have happened.
Btw you picture comparing the 1994 gash with 2001 picture is a strawman invented by govt. loyalists. What the people researching the issue (years ago, including me) meant could be the place where the plane parts could have been dumped is this place (in green circle, original loyalist picture borrowed from here)

QUOTE
These people throw billions around like chump change. What are a couple millions invested in cruise missiles compared to the billions on war profits from an endless "war on terror"?

The problem I see is not so much the price, but a precise guidance which would be able to strike two missiles to virtually same spot at good direction and at good incidence angle (10 looks to be very small for the missile not to bounce from the ground - penetrators usually strike at angles close to perpendicular for them to be effective).

QUOTE
Thank you for your honesty. I am not a pilot so I can only vaguely understand your lingo but I do understand that the same authorities that have been conducting a 12 year war also control the flow of the information you are referring to. I don't trust the bastards, but that's just me.

What would be the reason to insert another plane into the radar record which instead of landing at the closest airport flyies from SW straight to the target with two very symmmetric minor course corrections at very least 200nmi distance relatively long after a national grounding order issued, suspiciously changing squawks (secondary radar identification code) closely circles the site, descends below the radar horizon (at about 5 thousand ft MSL) and disappears there from the radar? Does it somehow help the official narrative of 9/11 that a B757-2 with dozens of thousands lb jetfuel on board and coming from north crashed there?

QUOTE
You'll note I didn't include that bit in the video. Because missile impact videos are classified, I ised NASA photos and data to support the hypothesis that two cruise missiles with dense-metal penetrating warheads created the crater at Shanksville.

It is not impossible, but what substantial evidence is available for it, especially that it was namely AGM158?
...I can also claim the other plane which came from SW corner of West Virginia I see on the radar was a medium size UAV (very possible from the speed, flight profile and final leg - with quite narrow turning radius), that it circled the site (at least thrice), confused all witnesses around where it came from (originally SWW) and what it was, than nosed down, hit the ground at the speed it was cappable of (500+ kts), its wings created the gashes (only ~half across in comparison with a B757 wingspan) and the warhead it carried exploded, making the central crater immediately afterwards. Do I claim it? No, I don't have enough evidence for it - although still at least some unlike you for the AGM158)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 3 2014, 08:10 PM
Post #27





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 3 2014, 03:22 PM) *
But can you admit that even if the crater matches some bombs it is not necessary that they were carried there by cruise missiles?


I can. Can you admit that it would be stealthier to launch two cruise missiles, one carrying a targeting beacon for the second to target from the opposite direction than it would be to scoop out a gash and bury a bomb? How many days/weeks/months in advance was this done would you recon?

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 3 2014, 03:22 PM) *
It was a former mine. They were digging there for years and from the comparison of the 1994 picture and the visible terrain irregularities there with the 2001 pictures it really very much seems they must have been digging there after the 1994 picture was taken. Did you heard about digging there from anybody? Have you seen photos of that digging, have you heard testimonies of anybody digging there? You didn't? Yeat the pictures show it must have happened.


I'm not following your thought process.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 3 2014, 03:22 PM) *
Btw you picture comparing the 1994 gash with 2001 picture is a strawman invented by govt. loyalists. What the people researching the issue (years ago, including me) meant could be the place where the plane parts could have been dumped is this place (in green circle, original loyalist picture borrowed from here)


I'm sure they could have buried plane parts in '94. but why bother? How can any of us be certain any of the alleged plane parts supposedly unearthed at the site weren't staged for the camera? Why would they use an excavator to unearth a crime scene? Were they more concerned about the plane parts than the body parts? I would think an archeological dig would be more appropriate had there been real plane parts down there, and if I was a family member of one of the entombed "passengers" I would be outraged that heavy equipment was used. Seems obvious they weren't worried about any of that.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 3 2014, 03:22 PM) *
The problem I see is not so much the price, but a precise guidance which would be able to strike two missiles to virtually same spot at good direction and at good incidence angle (10 looks to be very small for the missile not to bounce from the ground - penetrators usually strike at angles close to perpendicular for them to be effective).


If it was me I would have planted an electronic beacon in the first warhead which once buried under ground could be targeted from the opposite direction by the second missile. Such beacons are routinely used these days for targeting people in Pipelinistan and are much more accurate than a laser targeting system.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 3 2014, 03:22 PM) *
What would be the reason to insert another plane into the radar record which instead of landing at the closest airport flyies from SW straight to the target with two very symmmetric minor course corrections at very least 200nmi distance relatively long after a national grounding order issued, suspiciously changing squawks (secondary radar identification code) closely circles the site, descends below the radar horizon (at about 5 thousand ft MSL) and disappears there from the radar? Does it somehow help the official narrative of 9/11 that a B757-2 with dozens of thousands lb jetfuel on board and coming from north crashed there?


Such stories served as red herrings making it more likely the concerned citizens in the Truth Movement would never stumble upon the truth.


QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 3 2014, 03:22 PM) *
It is not impossible, but what substantial evidence is available for it, especially that it was namely AGM158?


There is more evidence in support of cruise missiles than of planted bombs and excavator-dug gashes.

The AGM158 was built using off the shelf technology and carries a warhead that could have accounted for both the crater in Shanksville and the directional damage to the WTC. Few other missiles of that size are known to carry a warhead known as a "bunker buster". The AGM158 was in production but not in inventory, making for plausible-deniability and it's plane-shape when viewed from the ground could be mistaken for a large jet at a higher altitude. It was ideal for the task and can account for the damage evidence. Whether that particular model was used is beside the point that the technology and in fact the missiles were there and in production at the time.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 3 2014, 03:22 PM) *
...I can also claim the other plane which came from SW corner of West Virginia I see on the radar was a medium size UAV (very possible from the speed, flight profile and final leg - with quite narrow turning radius), that it circled the site (at least thrice), confused all witnesses around where it came from (originally SWW) and what it was, than nosed down, hit the ground at the speed it was cappable of (500+ kts), its wings created the gashes (only ~half across in comparison with a B757 wingspan) and the warhead it carried exploded, making the central crater immediately afterwards. Do I claim it? No, I don't have enough evidence for it - although still at least some unlike you for the AGM158)


There were multiple reports of military jets and small planes. Not every blip is a missile.

This post has been edited by yankee451: Feb 3 2014, 08:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Feb 4 2014, 01:45 AM
Post #28





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 48
Joined: 23-March 11
Member No.: 5,754



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 3 2014, 03:03 AM) *
At that distance he would have plenty of grass in the foreground between the camera and the gash. Zoom in and follow the tall grass down and you'll see they are growing in front of the gash.

You need to go way to the right near the back of the firetruck to get to ground level. Everything in the middle of the photos is in the ravine, including lots of grass. You are taking a very solid theory of a missile hitting the center of the ravine and making it impossible. Is it an ego thing or is the goal to discredit the missile theory?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Feb 4 2014, 01:56 AM
Post #29





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 48
Joined: 23-March 11
Member No.: 5,754



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 3 2014, 07:22 PM) *
But can you admit that even if the crater matches some bombs it is not necessary that they were carried there by cruise missiles?

While I have no idea of what model of missile was used, Susan McElwain did see a missile fly just above the ground, go over the trees and explode. Of course there is no evidence of two missiles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 4 2014, 01:59 AM
Post #30





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (Art @ Feb 3 2014, 09:56 PM) *
While I have no idea of what model of missile was used, Susan McElwain did see a missile fly just above the ground, go over the trees and explode. Of course there is no evidence of two missiles.


You mean other than the two gashes and the other witnesses who said they heard missiles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 4 2014, 02:04 AM
Post #31





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (Art @ Feb 3 2014, 09:45 PM) *
You need to go way to the right near the back of the firetruck to get to ground level. Everything in the middle of the photos is in the ravine, including lots of grass. You are taking a very solid theory of a missile hitting the center of the ravine and making it impossible. Is it an ego thing or is the goal to discredit the missile theory?


Project much?

You're hanging your hat on a claim that the gash was pre existing all based on a few blades of grass in a blurry photo taken from 150 yards away. If you had a leg to stand on you wouldn't need to bring up ego.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Feb 4 2014, 02:15 AM
Post #32





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 48
Joined: 23-March 11
Member No.: 5,754



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 4 2014, 02:04 AM) *
Project much?

You're hanging your hat on a claim that the gash was pre existing all based on a few blades of grass in a blurry photo taken from 150 yards away. If you had a leg to stand on you wouldn't need to bring up ego.

You have absolutely no evidence to support your theory of two missiles. If not ego, why would you stick to a theory when it has been proven to be wrong? Maybe your "blurry" comment is the root of your theory. Try glasses or a higher resolution screen. The photos are not blurry on my computer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 4 2014, 02:25 AM
Post #33





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (Art @ Feb 3 2014, 10:15 PM) *
You have absolutely no evidence to support your theory of two missiles. If not ego, why would you stick to a theory when it has been proven to be wrong? Maybe your "blurry" comment is the root of your theory. Try glasses or a higher resolution screen. The photos are not blurry on my computer.


Witness accounts, NASA examples of craters and the trajectories of the projectiles that make them, extremely accurate missiles of the right size and capability and multiple reports of the jets that can launch them...hmm...sure sounds like someone is a little light on substance all right. What was that you were saying about blades of grass?

But tell me, why would they select a pre existing gully pray tell? Too lazy to dig a fresh one? Please explain it to those of us who are blinded by your brilliance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Feb 4 2014, 12:26 PM
Post #34





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 48
Joined: 23-March 11
Member No.: 5,754



Because the ravine kind of looked like wings. Witness accounts? Who saw two missiles? You don't have to be too brilliant to figure out the ravine was there before 9/11 if it has grass growing in it. The land is flat except for the ravine. The pictures that show grass on the slopes are of the ravine. Your NASA trajectories of the projectiles cannot cut a ravine and leave the grass standing. If you want to taken seriously you need to correct your mistakes and move on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 4 2014, 12:34 PM
Post #35





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (Art @ Feb 4 2014, 08:26 AM) *
Because the ravine kind of looked like wings. Witness accounts? Who saw two missiles? You don't have to be too brilliant to figure out the ravine was there before 9/11 if it has grass growing in it. The land is flat except for the ravine. The pictures that show grass on the slopes are of the ravine. Your NASA trajectories of the projectiles cannot cut a ravine and leave the grass standing. If you want to taken seriously you need to correct your mistakes and move on.


"Kind of looked like wings?" I see you've given this a lot of thought.

You are mistaken about the grass and are literally clutching at straws.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Feb 4 2014, 12:53 PM
Post #36





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 48
Joined: 23-March 11
Member No.: 5,754



You don't think the ravine kind of looks like wings? Then what was the point of firing two missiles in the ground? Use your red marker and show where the grass on the slopes are in the above photo. Did your trajectories of the projectiles take in account the trees to the right of the ravine? Still waiting for the witness accounts that saw two missiles.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 4 2014, 08:48 PM
Post #37





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (Art @ Feb 4 2014, 08:53 AM) *
You don't think the ravine kind of looks like wings?


No. I think it looks like the gashes made when I fire bullets into the ground at slight trajectories. I think it looks like the NASA photo of the crater made by a meteor striking at a trajectory of less than ten degrees from horizontal. I think it looks exactly like the crater two meteorites might make striking at ten degree trajectories from opposite directions.




QUOTE (Art @ Feb 4 2014, 08:53 AM) *
Then what was the point of firing two missiles in the ground?


To make a strange looking crater that most people would was caused by a jet, strange enough that people who doubted the jet story would be baffled by and assume the gash was already there, which if this was their goal you are living proof they succeeded.

QUOTE (Art @ Feb 4 2014, 08:53 AM) *
Use your red marker and show where the grass on the slopes are in the above photo.


No.

Use yours to explain why the grass doesn't fill the whole ditch and is only visible in clumps of soil and around the edges.

Use your marker to explain why the grassy clumps did not fall into the ditch after the detonation, and then use it to explain how the grass at the edge isn't curling into the trench after the ground beneath it was undermined, and then use it to explain how the long grass you insist is growing from the ditch is not actually in the foreground.




QUOTE (Art @ Feb 4 2014, 08:53 AM) *
Did your trajectories of the projectiles take in account the trees to the right of the ravine?


Yes.

QUOTE (Art @ Feb 4 2014, 08:53 AM) *
Still waiting for the witness accounts that saw two missiles.


Hold your breath. I'll hold mine for your answer as to why you'd expect each missile to have a witness.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tumetuestumefais...
post Feb 5 2014, 10:27 AM
Post #38





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,111
Joined: 7-November 07
From: Prague or France
Member No.: 2,452



QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 3 2014, 01:10 PM) *
Can you admit that it would be stealthier to launch two cruise missiles, one carrying a targeting beacon for the second to target from the opposite direction than it would be to scoop out a gash and bury a bomb?

It would be maybe "stealthier", but definitely prone to failure. One doesn't expect a missile hitting ground - at high speed and penetrating it several meters - to stay intact including a homing device. Yes it is remotely possible, but one who pulls a crime of century I would think definitely can't rely on it and risk failure.

QUOTE
How many days/weeks/months in advance was this done would you recon?

It is not primarily about burrying bombs, but the plane parts, as the jet engine for example. One can imagine it to burry itself in a plane crash, one can imagine it burried by a digger, but one somehow can't imagine it burried by an AGM158 missile. To your question WHEN there is only one answer: whenever convenient for the perps, possibly covered up as part of the mine reclamation.

QUOTE
I'm not following your thought process.


And that's what I find being the problem here. You expect others to follow you truly bizzare thought processes which from no evidence whatsoever makes two AGM158s striking ground precisely at very same place at high incidence angle from opposite directions making just one detonation, yet you repeatedly are not able to follow others, even they postulate much simpler things (here a mere difference of two photographs taken at different times). As it looks you aren't able to follow whenever they question your conjectures. One normally finds hardly imaginable a grown man unable to discern different surface patterns in two pictures of same place taken at diffferent times. Except of course doing it for purpose - to avoid painful questions.

QUOTE
I'm sure they could have buried plane parts in '94. but why bother? How can any of us be certain any of the alleged plane parts supposedly unearthed at the site weren't staged for the camera? Why would they use an excavator to unearth a crime scene? Were they more concerned about the plane parts than the body parts? I would think an archeological dig would be more appropriate had there been real plane parts down there, and if I was a family member of one of the entombed "passengers" I would be outraged that heavy equipment was used. Seems obvious they weren't worried about any of that.

Why they should be. They just murdered thousands of people and suddenly they would be tender-hearted that they would care about their bodyparts more than for the hijack-plane show? It doesn't seem plausible rolleyes.gif And if that what made the crater was a drone, missiles or planted explosives, there obviously wouldn't be any body parts there anyway.

QUOTE
If it was me I would have planted an electronic beacon in the first warhead which once buried under ground could be targeted from the opposite direction by the second missile. Such beacons are routinely used these days for targeting people in Pipelinistan and are much more accurate than a laser targeting system.

Now, seriously, show us the evidence there were ever used homing devices in a warhead of a missile sriking ground at high velocity used then for targeting other missile. Ever. I note that avoiding answer factual questions from other members here often leads to showing of the doors.

QUOTE
Such stories served as red herrings making it more likely the concerned citizens in the Truth Movement would never stumble upon the truth.

A "story", "red herring", for "truth movement never stumble upon the truth" you say, so I want evidence that it was like that, because until now it is your AGM158 conjecture which looks to me exactly fitting into you own definition - a red herring.

QUOTE
There is more evidence in support of cruise missiles than of planted bombs and excavator-dug gashes.


What evidence is there for two AGM158 hitting the place?

QUOTE
The AGM158 was built using off the shelf technology and carries a warhead that could have accounted for both the crater in Shanksville and the directional damage to the WTC. Few other missiles of that size are known to carry a warhead known as a "bunker buster". The AGM158 was in production but not in inventory, making for plausible-deniability and it's plane-shape when viewed from the ground could be mistaken for a large jet at a higher altitude. It was ideal for the task and can account for the damage evidence. Whether that particular model was used is beside the point that the technology and in fact the missiles were there and in production at the time.

To me it doesn't look like a production of something somewhere is a proof it was used. It coul'd be the case, but at the time it looks to me as a pure speculation.

QUOTE
There were multiple reports of military jets and small planes. Not every blip is a missile.

A missile if deployed from the second plane at the scene (see here and here) would be most probably below PLA radar horizon, which around the site is at least 1 km above ground due to Tonoloway ridge obstructing view.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Art
post Feb 5 2014, 11:35 AM
Post #39





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 48
Joined: 23-March 11
Member No.: 5,754



QUOTE
QUOTE (yankee451 @ Feb 4 2014, 08:48 PM) *

No. I think it looks like the gashes made when I fire bullets into the ground at slight trajectories. I think it looks like the NASA photo of the crater made by a meteor striking at a trajectory of less than ten degrees from horizontal. I think it looks exactly like the crater two meteorites might make striking at ten degree trajectories from opposite directions.

If that was true, the missile would have exploded in the trees. The trees were too thick and too tall to allow the missile to come in from the west at a 10 degree trajectory to hit the ground. At least it would have left an 8' hole in the trees.


QUOTE
Use yours to explain why the grass doesn't fill the whole ditch and is only visible in clumps of soil and around the edges.

Use your marker to explain why the grassy clumps did not fall into the ditch after the detonation, and then use it to explain how the grass at the edge isn't curling into the trench after the ground beneath it was undermined, and then use it to explain how the long grass you insist is growing from the ditch is not actually in the foreground.
Because the grass is growing out of the ground!






Yes.



Hold your breath. I'll hold mine for your answer as to why you'd expect each missile to have a witness.
I expect each missile to have a witness because you claimed there were witness accounts! Your theory is not only not plausible. it is not possible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
yankee451
post Feb 5 2014, 09:46 PM
Post #40





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 91
Joined: 22-June 13
Member No.: 7,427



QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 5 2014, 06:27 AM) *
It would be maybe "stealthier", but definitely prone to failure. Yes it is remotely possible, but one who pulls a crime of century I would think definitely can't rely on it and risk failure.


Too outlandish you say? Well I say your inability to even consider the option is proof that it was more likely to succeed. Such incredulity is what 'big liars' count on.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 5 2014, 06:27 AM) *
One doesn't expect a missile hitting ground - at high speed and penetrating it several meters - to stay intact including a homing device.


No; one doesn't, does one? Perfect tinder for starting a bonfire of disbelief.

Read the below from a now removed Boeing press release:
QUOTE
"The warhead performed as predicted and met all expectations," said Elmer Lueker, the JASSM payload integrated product team leader in Phantom Works. "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.

This link was scrubbed in November. I like to think I had something to do with that:
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/n...ase_980209n.htm

But here's the Wayback Machine Archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/20111106165019/...ase_980209n.htm


Back to you:
QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 5 2014, 06:27 AM) *
It is not primarily about burrying bombs, but the plane parts, as the jet engine for example. One can imagine it to burry itself in a plane crash, one can imagine it burried by a digger, but one somehow can't imagine it burried by an AGM158 missile. To your question WHEN there is only one answer: whenever convenient for the perps, possibly covered up as part of the mine reclamation.


First of all, they used a freaking excavator to unearth the stuff. Don't you think they'd be more careful if they actually thought there were any jet parts that might be damaged by heavy equipment? What about the people in the jet that was allegedly buried in the ground. Secondly, don't you think an excavator is a little heavy-handed for unearthing body parts? Clearly they knew there were no parts in there and they simply used an excavator to dig into the ditch, plant the plane parts and snap some photos.

Furthermore, if they were to "sculpt" a plane-shaped ditch, you'd think they would have taken the time to make it look more like a plane and less like a dual missile impact.

I ask again, when would you say the 'bomb' was planted?

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 5 2014, 06:27 AM) *
And that's what I find being the problem here. You expect others to follow you truly bizzare thought processes which from no evidence whatsoever makes two AGM158s striking ground precisely at very same place at high incidence angle from opposite directions making just one detonation,


You've already displayed your ignorance on the capabilities of certain missile warheads, shall we repeat the lesson for their accuracy and fuse capabilities? Let's.

QUOTE
JASSM is a precision cruise missile designed for launch from outside area defenses to kill hard, mediumhardened, soft, and area type targets. The threshold integration aircraft are the F-16, B-52, and F/A-18
E/F, and the airframe design is compatible with all JASSM launch platforms: the B-52H, F-16C/D, F/A-
18E/F, F-15E, F-117, B-1B, B-2, P-3C and S-3B. The weapon is required to attack both fixed and
relocatable targets at ranges beyond enemy air defenses. After launch, it will be able to fly autonomously
over a low-level, circuitous route to the area of a target, where an autonomous terminal guidance system
will guide the missile in for a direct hit. The key performance parameters for the system are Missile Mission
Effectiveness, range, and carrier operability.

JASSM's midcourse guidance is provided by a Global Positioning System (GPS)-aided inertial navigation
system (INS) protected by a new high, anti-jam GPS null steering antenna system. In the terminal phase,
JASSM is guided by an imaging infrared seeker and a general pattern match-autonomous target recognition
system that provides aimpoint detection, tracking and strike. It also offers growth potential for different
warheads and seekers, and for extended range.
https://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jassm.htm


But nowadays they just plant a bug on a guy and send in a drone. You don't suppose such targeting systems just 'appear' overnight, do you? Of course you don't:

QUOTE
The tag has sophisticated power management features to allow use over a long period of time (months) Each tag can be installed on a witting or unwitting person, material, vehicle, ship, etc. Power is supplied by installed battery or host power source. The tag can be augmented with GPS to allow data logging for later exfiltration or geo-fencing functions (on/off when inside defined geographic boundaries). Bigfoot provides the warfighter with real-time tracking intelligence on potential adversaries conducting threat activities.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/06/sp...kes-locals-say/
http://www.ewa-gsi.com/Fact%20Sheets/Bigfo...act%20Sheet.pdf


And now about the fuse:

QUOTE
This concept uses the Hard Target Smart
Fuze (HTSF), an accelerometer based electronic fuze which allows control of the detonation point by layer
counting, distance or time. The accelerometer senses G loads on the bomb due to deceleration as it
penetrates through to the target. The fuze can distinguish between earth, concrete, rock and air.
https://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/jassm.htm


But back to you:
QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 5 2014, 06:27 AM) *
yet you repeatedly are not able to follow others, even they postulate much simpler things (here a mere difference of two photographs taken at different times). As it looks you aren't able to follow whenever they question your conjectures. One normally finds hardly imaginable a grown man unable to discern different surface patterns in two pictures of same place taken at diffferent times. Except of course doing it for purpose - to avoid painful questions.


Actually experience tells me to expect others to ridicule, scoff and question my sanity (how does it feel to be so predictable?), but it sure seems to me that I've answered every one of your decidedly painless questions quite nicely. What burning issues remain unaccounted for?


QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 5 2014, 06:27 AM) *
They just murdered thousands of people and suddenly they would be tender-hearted that they would care about their bodyparts more than for the hijack-plane show? It doesn't seem plausible rolleyes.gif And if that what made the crater was a drone, missiles or planted explosives, there obviously wouldn't be any body parts there anyway.


The "horror" card, always played by the disingenuous, right behind the "sanity" card. Pathetic. I expected more.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 5 2014, 06:27 AM) *
Now, seriously, show us the evidence there were ever used homing devices in a warhead of a missile sriking ground at high velocity used then for targeting other missile. Ever. I note that avoiding answer factual questions from other members here often leads to showing of the doors.


And now you're demanding proof that such weapons don't have interchangeable targeting systems. Really? Now we're back to square one, namely dealing with your incredulity. Sorry man, I'm not here as your therapist.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 5 2014, 06:27 AM) *
A "story", "red herring", for "truth movement never stumble upon the truth" you say, so I want evidence that it was like that, because until now it is your AGM158 conjecture which looks to me exactly fitting into you own definition - a red herring.


Yeah, after 12 @#$%ing years of watching the big-name "truthers" spin their wheels and lead us into dead-ends, I'm the one who's a #%^ing red-herring. Get over yourself.


QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 5 2014, 06:27 AM) *
What evidence is there for two AGM158 hitting the place?


The gash.
The NASA meteorite photos.
The capabilities of the missiles.
The ear and eye witness accounts.

And it's not proof but it's sure telling that when it comes to multiple missiles, the "OS" Believers, the "Modified Plane" Believers, the "It's all Fake" Believers, the "DEW" believers and the "Mini Nuke" believers all circle the wagons.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 5 2014, 06:27 AM) *
To me it doesn't look like a production of something somewhere is a proof it was used. It coul'd be the case, but at the time it looks to me as a pure speculation.


No kidding. Looks like sumpin' else entirely to me.

QUOTE (tumetuestumefaisdubien @ Feb 5 2014, 06:27 AM) *
A missile if deployed from the second plane at the scene (see here and here) would be most probably below PLA radar horizon, which around the site is at least 1 km above ground due to Tonoloway ridge obstructing view.


Whatever.

This post has been edited by yankee451: Feb 5 2014, 09:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th October 2019 - 07:37 PM