9/11: How they Faked the Videos

[yankee451]

The JASSM has a wingspan of 2.7m, meaning that the body of the missile could pass through a window, leaving only the flimsy (compared to an airliner) alloy wings to damage the columns. So, each missile would need to strike a column exactly head-on and you'd need one missile per column. To cause the observed damage you'd need a swarm of them, but they'd have to strike at different times to avoid colliding with each other while in flight.

You haven't thought this through, have you? Do over!

You haven't read the article, have you?

The best way to hit parallel columns would be from the side, otherwise if you targeted them perpendicularly, you’d at best hit one column and possibly pass between two columns, so any competent missile jockey would have targeted them from the side, and that’s what the damage indicates.

At a shallow oblique trajectory, it would be the wing of the missile that impacted first, which is why the cladding at the far left is only scored and pinched, but not severely damaged like the columns were further to the right.

https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/

 

[carlitos]

 

[Disbelief]

You haven't read the article, have you?



https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/

That makes no sense with your earlier claim that armor piercing was required. Wouldn't your new claim defeat this purpose?

 

[yankee451]

That makes no sense with your earlier claim that armor piercing was required. Wouldn't your new claim defeat this purpose?

Where did you see that? I say the missiles are designed for penetrating concrete bunkers, not armor.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Where did you see that? I say the missiles are designed for penetrating concrete bunkers, not armor.

You better study up on Pyrophoric Metals Aluminum can be used in Amour pearcing projectiles, but Tungsten works better.
The Aluminum steel main Bulkhead of the aircraft should cut though the perimeter columns like a hot knife though butter.

 

[Disbelief]

Where did you see that? I say the missiles are designed for penetrating concrete bunkers, not armor.

Here:

For many reasons, not the least of which is mostly hollow aluminum jets cannot do what dense-metal penetrating missiles can do, and if they could do, then there would be no need for dense-metal penetrating missiles.

You also said it when you talked about JASSMs, since they have armor piercing warheads. Why would you use a concrete buster to hit structural steel anyway?

 

[GlennB]

You haven't read the article, have you?

https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/

Are you seriously suggesting that a single missile, striking at a shallow angle, could have severed all the exterior columns that were observed to be severed?

 

[yankee451]

Here:



You also said it when you talked about JASSMs, since they have armor piercing warheads. Why would you use a concrete buster to hit structural steel anyway?

Dense metal penetrating warheads refer to bunker busters, which are typically kinetic warheads that detonate (or not) after they have penetrated through the concrete. Armor piercing warheads are typically fitted with a shaped charge for penetration, or with a steel rod in the case of a kinetic warhead, neither of which appear to have been used on the WTC.

As for "why" - I can only assume because JASSMS were not in inventory, providing plausible deniability, they were of the right size and had the capacity to cause the damage they desired, they are stealthy, precise and look like planes. This was surely a practiced maneuver. They knew exactly what to expect from their missiles.

 

[yankee451]

Are you seriously suggesting that a single missile, striking at a shallow angle, could have severed all the exterior columns that were observed to be severed?

No.

 

[GlennB]

No.

Then you'll still need multiple missiles flying in tight formation to damage the columns as observed in the time frame observed.

 

[Disbelief]

Dense metal penetrating warheads refer to bunker busters, which are typically kinetic warheads that detonate (or not) after they have penetrated through the concrete. Armor piercing warheads are typically fitted with a shaped charge for penetration, or with a steel rod in the case of a kinetic warhead, neither of which appear to have been used on the WTC.

As for "why" - I can only assume because JASSMS were not in inventory, providing plausible deniability, they were of the right size and had the capacity to cause the damage they desired, they are stealthy, precise and look like planes. This was surely a practiced maneuver. They knew exactly what to expect from their missiles.

Dense metal penetrating warheads though, are not exclusive to bunker busters, hence the confusion in your post. No need for AP to have charges, just dense metal like DU. Case in point is your talking about JASSM, which are not bunker busters.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Loonies don't scare me. People taking them seriously do.

 

[yankee451]

Then you'll still need multiple missiles flying in tight formation to damage the columns as observed in the time frame observed.

No tight formation needed. They didn't all need to impact simultaneously. Sequentially would suffice. It was all hidden behind the mask layer.

 

[yankee451]

Dense metal penetrating warheads though, are not exclusive to bunker busters, hence the confusion in your post. No need for AP to have charges, just dense metal like DU. Case in point is your talking about JASSM, which are not bunker busters.

 

[abaddon]

No tight formation needed. They didn't all need to impact simultaneously. Sequentially would suffice. It was all hidden behind the mask layer.

From eyewitnesses?

Besides, JASSM did not enter service until 2009 and does not have the accuracy required by your fantasy.

 

[smartcooky]

As for "why" - I can only assume because JASSMS were not in inventory, providing plausible deniability, they were of the right size and had the capacity to cause the damage they desired, they are stealthy, precise and look like planes. This was surely a practiced maneuver. They knew exactly what to expect from their missiles.

This is priceless!

You can't be seriously suggesting that thousands of witnesses mistook AGM-158 missiles for Boeing 757/767 airliners?

This image is correctly scaled!

 

[yankee451]

From eyewitnesses?

Besides, JASSM did not enter service until 2009 and does not have the accuracy required by your fantasy.

AGM-86D missile warheads are about 14 inches wide and weigh 1200 lbs, they are big, powerful missiles that have been around for decades.

The smaller AGM-158 looks like a plane and in 2001 no one had ever seen one before, but if someone had seen one it could easily have been mistaken for a small, white plane. JASSMs were being produced for testing and for the Pilot Production models in 2001, but they were not in the military’s inventory at the time. Official production didn’t begin until December of 2001, giving the authorities plausible deniability, but JASSMs used off-the-shelf technology from other tried and true missile systems so there is no question the technology was there. They look like planes, they are stealthy, they can fly in formation, and with planted targeting beacons, their margin of error would be next to zero. If the hole wasn’t cut by cruise missiles such as the JASSM, it was something very similar.

https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/

 

[yankee451]

This is priceless!

You can't be seriously suggesting that thousands of witnesses mistook AGM-158 missiles for Boeing 757/767 airliners?

Many people reported seeing and hearing missiles at both Shanksville and the WTC. Anyone who wasn't sure what they saw had a TV shoved in their face. But the TV, and your incredulity, don't change the impact evidence that indicates small projectiles that were at once more massive and dense in some places than they were in other places, struck from the side.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No tight formation needed. They didn't all need to impact simultaneously. Sequentially would suffice. It was all hidden behind the mask layer.

How could you hide it from the thousands of people who actually watched it with their own eyes in new York?

 

[yankee451]

How could you hide it from the thousands of people who actually watched it with their own eyes in new York?

Most people immediately discount missiles because they assume thousands of people would have seen them, and would have reported them to the authorities. This is a circular argument because if missiles were used, then they would have been launched by the authorities the witnesses would have reported them to. There may well have been thousands of witnesses but why would the authorities tell us about them, when they were selling us planes? Even so, early-on some witnesses did report seeing and hearing missiles, as well as no planes, small planes and big planes; but only one of these options can account for the damage.

https://911crashtest.org/9-11-truth-what-could-have-cut-the-plane-shaped-hole/