It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Question For You Weapons Guys

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   
I never really post on this weapons forums but you guys seem to know your stuff, so I thought I'd pose a question...
What kind of missle would be the easiest to disguise as a civilian air liner, comparable size I guess being the primary criteria?
(Yes it's a 9-11 related question)
Seems I remember reading something about some of the passengers on one of the planes were with some engineering team to design exactly that, but I wonder if there's any merit to this or if something was already in production along those lines.




posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:46 AM
link   
I think the only missle that would be even remotley similar in size to an airliner would be an ICBM, and even then, not really all that close.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Either the BGM-109, [(pic), (pic)], or the AGM 129 [(pic) , (pic)].
They are both kinda small compared to a full size air-liner, but they could be painted up and if you are unable to determine the distance you are from them, they would be indistinguisble from the real thing.

An ICBM, MRBM or even something like a SCUD wouldn't work because of the plumes of exaust coming out the back. They operate with rocket motors, rather than the air-breathing jet engines you find on cruise missiles. Plus, as the name says, they tend to be ballistic, and are very hard to aim at something, like, say the side of a squat building.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   
None of the missles would be cruising towards the target without a flame trail behind it. Thats why it is called Missile/rocket.

That is why the basis behind that theory is flawed.

If you are talking about the pentagon attack, that theory is also flawed.

Heres why, If a missile hits the pentagon on the side, the missile would have most indeed have caused some sort of explosion which there was no evidence of. If the missile was "blank" then it would have made a much smaller hole.


Here is how a plane could have made that hole.

1. The Wings could have destroyed its self just as a bullet would when it hits anything hard.

2. No wreckage of the plane could have been done by a quick cover up to prevent anyone to find data from the pentagon. i.e. paper, entrance etc.

None of the 911 consipiracies stands up to evidence. That is why it is a theory.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Why haven't they released the footage of any number of cameras that they claim to have captured the impact then?

Not a single line post.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by watch_the_rocks
 


Where's the jet intake on the AGM-129?

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Shattered, the AGM-129 is air-breathing, I'm pretty sure of that, but yeah, there appears to be no air intake anywhere. Perhaps it's well hidden and recessed, like the ones on the B-2/F-117, as the edges of the intake are prone to reflecting radar signals, and the -129 is supposed to be a stealthy little weasel.

It's weird, photos let you look at it from all angles, yet I still can't see a thing. But there is no air-indepenant propulsion system that sustain a craft at low-altitude for 3000 kilometres that I know of. I mean, the Bell X-1 had only 5 minutes of flight time on its rockets.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   
I know that the exhaust no where near resembles that of a rocket, but I can't spot anything that resembles an intake.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Gotcha: Pic
The -129 is meant to evade look-down Soviet radar, so of course it figures they'd stick it on the bottom somewhere towards the rear where it's disguised by all the stabilizers.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Wouldn't matter what missile because none would able to meet the size of a passenger plane, not to mention that there is no current platform since aviation came to history with ability to launch that big.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   
at the risk of stating the obvious :

the only thing which will convincingly mimic an civilian airliner is ..................

a civilian airliner

yup - no missile required

the civilian airliner is visually perfect , from ever angle and at every range , its flight characteristics , radar signiture , sonic signiture etc etc are all spot on

only question is - how is it guided , and is any additional payload fitted [ explosives / KE penetratiors etc ]

PS - the civilian airliner will also helpfully leave lots of forensically identifiable debris



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 07:57 AM
link   
It doesn't need to be a working missile that is made to look like a plane, as a car bomb is not a bomb that is made to look like car, but the car is the weapon delivery system or platform, If I wanted to make a weapon that looked and acted like a plane in flight I would use a plane, rockets are use because they are faster with less working parts than a jet, the "daisy cutter" and the "MOAB" use the prop Driven c130 as their weapons platform. So the type of weapon would depend on what type of jet I would use, A solid explosive could use a cargo variant with a proximity sensor or remote control linked to multiple dets depending on the amount of explosives. A liquid explosive I would use a tanker variant with an incendiary device, this type of weapon would be like a great Molotov cocktail going off where ever you decided to flight your plane into, now finding pilots to do this would be hard to find so attach a pod that would give you remote control over the entire plane.
SORRY HAD NOT READ ALL POSTS BEFORE REPLYING

[edit on 28-8-2007 by MrBlonde]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join