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.

 

What type of missile hit the WTC?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Look at that lawn on first pic. I could have gone putt putting on that puppy. Don't even try to give me that 767 phony baloney. That's nonsense.


Come on man, everyone knows that the jet fuel burned all of the debris up before it hit the ground and damage the lawn. If it is powerful enough to spread out and start a fire a few blocks away and collapse WTC 7, then surely it is hot enough to vaporize a 767.




posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Jet fuel burning at 3000 degree fareheit would have roasted a weenie a quarter mile away unless this is some new genetically modified super turf. Stop it!



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Sorry Karlhungis, I must be going daff. I did not catch the most apparent of sarcasm. Well put I must say.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Depleted uranium OMG, are you serious?, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. When you start talking about impact velocities, a jet aircraft comes no where near the velocities need to make a DU projectile effective. The energy equation is 1/2 mass times the velocity squared. DU is only effective at high velocities, much higher than that of an airliner.
I ask all of you no planers to look at all of the videos of ordinance exploding( the bountiful examples of cruise missles and guided bombs exploding and tell me what you see). Ordinance explodes, jet fuel burns the explosions of the planes hitting the WTC are very slow moving combustion events, as compared to ordinence exploding, which give a very crisp "BANG" sort of event.
When a bomb or cruise missle hits something there is a very distinct crisp bang sort of explosion, with a great deal of concussion. ORDINANCE is very fast burning, it burns so fast that you get very little flame and a lot of bang,(the gasses expanding), where as with an explosion of a slower burning fuel you will get a billowing flame and a little bang.
Watch a clip of of a missle or artillery round or bomb hitting the target and notice how crisp the bang is and how the rapidly the gasses will expand. It is very different from what is seen in all of the videos, the plane hitting, then the ORANGE fireball expanding. The temperature of combustion is indicated by the color of flame. The billowing orange cloud of flame is consistant of other jet fuel explosions. An ordinance explosion will have very little flame and a lot of bang. A thermite combuston event will have a very white flame, indicative of a reaction at fairly high temps.
Not the billowing flame of burning jet fuels.
IMO you'all noplaners are playing right into the hands of the PTB and discrediting the those that have been able to piece together what really happened.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 03:19 AM
link   
CGI, so the animators were able to create in real time, all of the possible view points of the event ahead of time, come on.
I woke up that morning at 6ish am, im on the west coast, and the first thing i did was turn on the tele. The odd thing is that it is the only time in 10 yrs of living in that place, that i turned on the tele, before I left for work.
I was watching from an independant feed, as the second plane hit the WTC, there is no way that the so called conspiritors were able to sync the video animations with the radio broadcast of what was going on at the time. There were no missles, there was no laser designation of targets. there is no missle that can carry the explosive equivelant, in jet fuel, a ton and a half of tnt or two is no where near the equivelant of of 150,000 lb of jet fuel.
Planes piloted by islamic extremists crashed into the WTC, our gov knew somthing was going to happen but did nothing, for obvious resons.

[edit on 1-10-2007 by punkinworks]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Yup, a megaton flying fortress of juicy jet fuel just goes kabang on a wall leaving a nice neat small hole, little debris, and thankfully for the gardener a perfect lawn. Yup. I got it. I got it all right. So discordant with every known law of physics I know. But yup, I got it.

[edit on 1-10-2007 by jpm1602]



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 03:42 AM
link   
OMG, OMG, OMG, just love that response. Go do the math and the homework and come back and say Oh my rationalism.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   
I added a few new missile candidates...

u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com...

One of them has two engines either side of the tail, like the BBC eyewitness saw.



posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Hi u2r2h, maybe you find some support for your tread in this videos.

Watch the real strange cylinder or whatever that comes out the building at precise 00,06
To me it look not like the nose of a plain, and besides that its looks impossible to me that the nose of a plain comes out undamaged after such a destructive penetration..

video.google.com...

Different video but the same cylinder or whatever at precise 00,23

www.youtube.com...

What the strange object is in both videos I can not tell.

In this video the cylinder or whatever it is, is even longer, watch at precise 00,04
I advice to see the comparing shots in this video also.

video.google.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   
[size=14]Tesla missile?

I am currently checking out Tom Bearden and his commi-scare scalar time-reversal weapons. Has anyone seen the video?

Here, I made a blog:

Tom Bearden Brainwash

It is OBVIOUS that the superweapons that affect the NUCLEUS of the atom are EXACTLY what we observed with toasted cars.

Totally whacko, huh? But it fits the WTC disintegration like bum in the bucket.

I am as baffled as Adam on Mother's Day. you too?

Now what?

How about some brain-exercise. Maybe someone has a grasp of
en.wikipedia.org...
and can give us a executive summary without jargon?

Please refrain from DISMISSIVE COMMENTS, I can do those myself. Rather, tell me about your understanding of how an active-amplifying phase conjugate mirror can be constructed, and how you would know if it works.



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
thx, will check it out.


"Three things cannot be hidden:
the sun, the moon & the truth"
-Buddha


I like this one better:

Neither the sun nor death can be looked at steadily
Francois de La Rochefoucauld


[SIZE=14]CONTINUING BRAINSTORMING
How come the PAX TV
killtown.911review.org...
and the GAMMA PRESS
killtown.911review.org...
and HLAVA2
killtown.911review.org...
show a similar winglet-cigar?

why the CONSISTENT (i.e. pod in many vids/stills, vanishing wing) weird fakes?

IMO: necessity!! . because of either

#1 video-model (they used the same preprogrammed faulty airplane rendering, needed to cover-up the nose out of the live video by inserting a nose-out into other vids too)

or

#2 thats what the camera saw (hologram, shiny from the right angle Hez, black from the side)

the other possibility can be excluded:
#3 real, moving-pod-modified-instant-wing-loss 767 plane

======================================
Please people. What is your vote? #1 or #2 or #3? And why?
======================================

I think WTC1 and WTC 2 were hit by the same gizmo
and I think the last eyewitness here:
www.911research.dsl.pipex.com...
has seen A WEIRD PLANE. Could he have mistaken a cruise missile for a plane?
He says: TWO ENGINES. (2 engines ON THE TAIL, like BBC witness, Howard Stern MD90 witness)

I still think the
Teledyne Ryan ZBQM-111A Model 258 Firebrand target is a good real-world match for
"I HAVE NEVER SEEN AN AIRPLANE LIKE THAT"...

It is too weird to be explained by more weirdness. I feel the cause of it is rooted in a design that we either don't know or dare not factor in.

You see, in scenario #1 there were a few video-fakers who went through all the confiscated image-sources and
- had to rush some vids/pictures out for fast media consumption
- trickle out more videos over time
- even stay on stand-by?
So there lives (to this day?) a team of Video-fakers TOP SECRET who know that they are not really allowed to live because they are just too much of a risk alive.

and IMHO

... there would have been more videos that showed explosion but noplane/missile..... private, normal people that RIGHT NOW sit at home with nagging thoughts: "The FBI took my camera. When I instant-replayed it on the day (before I gave my camera to the agents) I clearly had caught the WTC2 south face and recorded an explosion! It showed this weird aircraft!! (or "it showed NO AIRCRAFT"). Now I had my footage and camera returned and there is this thing I never recorded! They threatened me and the life of my children! I have to be quiet. I got loads of cash. But it is unjust, an enormous war-crime has been committed, and now I am a co-conspirator. But if I go public they kill me."

All kinds of phantasies.

And there are people who planted the "plane debris ejector mechanism" in the WTC.
Has anyone traced the trajectory of the ejected debris and appoximated the landing-area? On the David Thom photo (click-enlarge!) it can be seen nicely amongst the buildings. And WHAT THE @#$%& is the flash in the sky in the Thom photo? Since it is still hi-bright 1 second after the "impact" .. are we looking at the "projector"? Or the laser/maser that burned the cookie-cutter-plane-impact-shape?



posted on Oct, 2 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   
just to clarify.

The flash in the sky (thom pic) I am talking about is maybe 20, maybe 100 miles away, maybe 5 miles high. That's a random guess of course.

The EJECT-DEBRIS is NOT what I am talking about.

about the Conjugate Mirror.

I have absolutely NO HOPE that anyone (with an acute technical understanding and a natural-science mindset) actually broadens their horizon and gives it an hour of their time.

I have a feeling that nobody actually mentally follows-up my posts, they are consumed like a TV advert. Blah Blah, so so, aha, good bye.

Since communication is a function of the sender and the receiver ... I can start blaming myself. Yet... I had the hope that people ACTUALLY DO RESEARCH.
Presumably people only research their own ideas with any conviction, and try to DISMISS/DISPROVE other people's ideas... like they only study other people's eureka moments enough to prepare an argument for instant dismissal.

My favourite quote:

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.

GALBRAITH



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by u2r2h


"Three things cannot be hidden:
the sun, the moon & the truth"
-Buddha


I like this one better:

Neither the sun nor death can be looked at steadily
Francois de La Rochefoucauld


Well u2r2h, fortunately has everybody his own favourite quote.
But because of your remark I looked at mine a bit better and thought,
The sun and the moon are impossible to hide, but the truth?
In reality, many truth are and stayed hidden, and never come out.
So therefore I chanced my quote in another, and this one has for me a special meaning.

“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.”

Ariel Durant.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 08:10 AM
link   
yeah lets ignore the fantasmorgic way 911 was actually executed

and lets decorate ourselves with great quotes:


You can't crush ideas by suppressing them.
You can only crush them by ignoring them.

Ursula K. LeGuin

For those still interested, I just developed a new theory. the

u2r2h-holo-tvf-missile-flyby-projector theory


careful now...



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by u2r2h
yeah lets ignore the fantasmorgic way 911 was actually executed
and lets decorate ourselves with great quotes:


You make a very big mistake here.
I absolute don’t ignore 911.
On the contrary, look again to my quote, and ask yourself the following question.
Which civilization today is destroying itself from within?



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I believ the missile was called a boeing 757



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by u2r2h
*IF* it was a missile (and I am fairly convinced it was), then it would have to be:

VERY PRECISE (cruise missile)

SUBSONIC (cruise missile)

BIG (hmmm, too small, How about a custom-made cruise missile? A snark?)



I was watching something called “Star Wars in Iraq” and

Part 2
www.youtube.com...

Between 52 seconds in and 1.10, there was something that really caught my eye.

If this weapon was used then that might explain how the nose cone of the plane made it out the other side before exploding.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
In the 911 commission report there is a police report of a missile being fired at the towers from the Woolworth building.

There are also photos of the Woolworth building having damage to the roof.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   
These people that argue that there were no planes are the most ignorant people I have heard speak thus far. Well maybe not quite but close. I am certain that 98% of them were not there when it happened. The ones that claim to have been there and atest to there not being planes were probably in buffalo at the time. They just love to debate and have no rationale to what they say. All that matters is that they get the attention that they so feel they deserve. Poor beings.



posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Can compromise and say it was a custom missle built to look like an aircraft? Why not, you get a missle hit the WTC people happy along with the an airplane hit the WTC people happy. It was a missle custom designed to look like a 767 airplane. There, everyone is happy =)



[edit on 3-10-2007 by b309302]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join