Jassm missile likely used in 911..

[masonfree party]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=X6bPdkjZwLo


Funny how both the 9-11 commissioner in this video and Donald Rumsfeld, both insiders, both have had Freudian slips saying missile when they meant to say planes, lol.

That truth always gets out somehow, lol!

[christophera]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=X6bPdkjZwLo


Funny how both the 9-11 commissioner in this video and Donald Rumsfeld, both insiders, both have had Freudian slips saying missile when they meant to say planes, lol.

That truth always gets out somehow, lol!

If a missile was remoted into the Twins, why did the perps choose to hit WTC 1 first, then demo WTC 2 first? Remote control exists in order to make last second adjustments for the best effect. They made a backwards sequence of impact and fall intentionally because they had every option to do otherwise by they very theory you put forth. Why would they do that?

[christophera]

I would however advocate that a US version of this missile hit the 5 thing.

http://defense-update.com/products/b/brahmos.htm

The only thing I can find pre impact at the pentagon to indicate what was actually flying were reports of a sonic boom a few seconds before the impact/blast.

Seriously, can we believe that the brahmos was not preceded by the Jassm missile?

http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jalw/jalw9195.html

Description
The US has been examining a range of very high-speed strike weapon concepts for a number of years. These weapons, both sea- and air-launched, have been drawn up for use against mobile and/or time-critical targets, along with hardened and buried targets. In all cases the weapons rely on the kinetic effects of a ramjet powerplant to attain the velocities needed to be effective against such target sets. The supporters of these 'leap ahead' weapons point to their combination of range, speed and payload as a much needed way to provide the increased lethality required to defeat hardened targets (HARTs) in a non-nuclear package. The optimum penetration effect of a weapon in this class would be between 30 and 55 m.In 1998 the US Navy drew up the concept for what, by 2001, had become known as the Joint Supersonic Cruise Missile (JSSCM) and Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator (ACTD). To make the case for this weapon, CINC CFC Pacific prepared a brief that highlighted the effectiveness of a very accurate long-range, high-speed missile against mobile weapons deployed by North Korea, such as its 240 mm multiple-launch rocket systems. The same weapon would also be effective against special weapons facilities, command and control centres and air bases. The promise held out for the JSSCM was to develop a system that could deny, degrade or destroy North Korea's strategic and operational centres of gravity within 15 minutes of the decision to launch.The goals of the JSSCM ACTD included: a weapon with a

[matrix911]

http://911exposed.org/Missile.htm

go check out that link to military drones... and look at the last drone on the page... thats the drone I think resembles the closest to what hit the second tower.

its called a BGM-34C type drone

a combination missle and drone was used in some capacity and combination for all three strikes.


If a missile was remoted into the Twins, why did the perps choose to hit WTC 1 first, then demo WTC 2 first? Remote control exists in order to make last second adjustments for the best effect. They made a backwards sequence of impact and fall intentionally because they had every option to do otherwise by they very theory you put forth. Why would they do that?

[trondh]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=X6bPdkjZwLo


Funny how both the 9-11 commissioner in this video and Donald Rumsfeld, both insiders, both have had Freudian slips saying missile when they meant to say planes, lol.

That truth always gets out somehow, lol!

In that video they claim to show the profile of a Boeing right above a profile of a Jassm missile. Obviousy, he made a copy of the profile using photoshop.

The guy who made this video is most probably a liar.

http://www.seeninside.net/911/jassm-aa04.jpg

[trondh]

http://911exposed.org/Missile.htm

go check out that link to military drones... and look at the last drone on the page... thats the drone I think resembles the closest to what hit the second tower.


So you agree then that it was not CGI graphics and that those who come with these claims are disinfo agents?

Whether it was a plane filled with explosives (missile that look like a plane, also the same size) or if was an ordinary unmanned plane is not important. That there were no hijackings and that UAV's have been used for almost 100 years are things that people need to know about the planes.

[christophera]

a combination missle and drone was used in some capacity and combination for all three strikes.

For the 5 thing, the info works.

But why did they choose to mack a backwards impact/fall sequence at the WTC?

[narcolepticwatchman]

In that video they claim to show the profile of a Boeing right above a profile of a Jassm missile. Obviousy, he made a copy of the profile using photoshop.

The guy who made this video is most probably a liar.

http://www.seeninside.net/911/jassm-aa04.jpg

check the below clip from 4mins. It is the 1st youtube video that comes up when you google Jassm missile.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vgJxhgFtDQo

Most probably NOT then. Obviously your skepticism outweighs your ability to research.

[trondh]

check the below clip from 4mins. It is the 1st youtube video that comes up when you google Jassm missile.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vgJxhgFtDQo

Most probably NOT then. Obviously your skepticism outweighs your ability to research.

The Jassm missile in this video didn't ssem to have the size of the plane that hit WTC either, so I'm not sure what your point is...

[marpat]

The missle is a lot smaller than a passenger jet.

What about the witnesses though? people have looked at all sorts of theories about how it could be done and hidden then ac as if the witness cn be trusted completely

[csiwembley]

nobody has yet mentioned that the US has holographic technology, and likely had such technology for at least 20 years !!

remember the NOSE OUT report?

most folks accept that the tv coverage was doctored!, also many witnesses at the time said.. "i heard a large explosion" .. "it looked like the tower just exploded" .. these witnesses never saw or mentioned aircraft!, not to mention the live coverage when the commentator failed to notice an aircraft!

(Scripted news coverage?)

what hit the Pentacon? the pictures released showed a white line of smoke which could have been left by a missile (see the picture above), what was it they took away under a tarpaulin?, the idea a 767 hit it is ridiculous.

looking at the hole, not only on the outside, but also the holes in the different rings suggests it was explosives, designed specifically to make such holes, also the fact the folks on the scene said they smelt cordite, (a military explosive) did they fire a missile (without any explosive content) to make it look like an aircraft hit it?

the other point, told by John Lear, is that there may have been a Scalar Weapon used to (HELP) demolish the towers, we know from evidence found that Thermite or Thermate were used (the picture of one of the core columns cut by a shape charge) showing it to be a controlled demolition!

it seems possible to accept that this event happened because of the use of technology not known by the public!

[dave52]

it seems possible to accept that this event happened because of the use of technology not known by the public!

Amen. We have no idea what tech is out there. I'll wager that Future Combat Systems that we're allowed to know about are old hat.

[narcolepticwatchman]

The Jassm missile in this video didn't ssem to have the size of the plane that hit WTC either, so I'm not sure what your point is...


My point is that you said the video maker had photoshopped the plane footage and overlaid them against each other ......you called him a probable liar. I'm showing you that the missile footage was indeed taken from military footage and that it does look remarkably similar in size and scale to one of the shots of the plane as indeed outlined in the video in the opening post.....therefore not a probable liar....therefore your skepticism has made you jump to a false conclusion about someone without researching it first yourself. Not really that hard to comprehend surely?

the other thing that most people forget here is that air traffic at that height (approx 300m) over Manhattan was not a regular occurence and therefore none of the eyewitnesses would have ever seen anything in the past to allow them to guage what the size of a plane at that height should look like. Such a sized plane had never been seen at that height from ANY perspective. I have no doubt that, flying at 500mph and at LEAST 300m away, people would have mistaken that missile for a plane. The repetition of the TV CGI images following the event would ram home that it was a plane and remove any doubt which may have lingered that it may have been a cargo plane / missile / military plane / drone etc . Some thought they saw a missile as well though.....there you have all bases covered.

[trondh]

My point is that you said the video maker had photoshopped the plane footage and overlaid them against each other ......you called him a probable liar. I'm showing you that the missile footage was indeed taken from military footage and that it does look remarkably similar in size and scale to one of the shots of the plane as indeed outlined in the video in the opening post

It din't look similar in size at all.

[trondh]

nobody has yet mentioned that the US has holographic technology, and likely had such technology for at least 20 years !!

Nobody has mentioned it, but you know it? Very weird that they couldn't make a video of a plane hitting the Pentagon...

The fact that they didn't, but realeased some lame footages from the Pentagon years later, is evidence that you TV Fakery guys are full of BS.

[narcolepticwatchman]

It din't look similar in size at all.

Eh? you shitting me? The two images shown on those videos are almost exactly the same size. One is a (supposed) plane the other is a Jassm missile.

[matrix911]

Nobody has mentioned it, but you know it? Very weird that they couldn't make a video of a plane hitting the Pentagon...
The fact that they didn't, but realeased some lame footages from the Pentagon years later, is evidence that you TV Fakery guys are full of BS.

NO, *you're* full of BS... why? BECAUSE I ANSWERED, ADDRESSED AND DEBUNKED your claim they "couldn't make a video of a plane hitting the pent."
and the only response you had was SILENCE.

So until you can show me where what I explained and pointed out is wrong or my logic is erroneous, shut your pie hole. You ignored and post-edited my entire response because you KNOW it blew your logic to bits.

You're welcome to redeem yourself and at least give some type of response, but i won't hold my breath. :cool:

[matrix911]

So you agree then that it was not CGI graphics and that those who come with these claims are disinfo agents?


where exactly did I state cgi tampering wasn't used?


Whether it was a plane filled with explosives (missile that look like a plane, also the same size) or if was an ordinary unmanned plane is not important. That there were no hijackings and that UAV's have been used for almost 100 years are things that people need to know about the planes.

BOTH are important.

FACT: there's irrefutable evidence proving VIDEO FAKERY which appears also to show the "planes" and "scenes"/footage were manipulated and or cgi graphics etc were used in some capacity. I submit the evidence showing the "planes" seen in 99.9% of the footage are FAKE ie cgi graphic images were used.

the fact the pentagon footage does not appear to be "faked" in the same manner, is IRRELEVANT and has nothing to do with what happened in NEW YORK nor disproves what i'm saying and whats been PROVEN beyond a doubt with regards to the cgi images/video fakery.

EOS

[white horse]

The fact that they didn't, but realeased some lame footages from the Pentagon years later, is evidence that you TV Fakery guys are full of BS.

Why full of BS?

Surely the point is that in a place like this we are free to discuss and believe in what we like?

I DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE in TV fakery, but on balance, I find it more pursuasive than believe that hijacked airliners were piloted into the WTC.

If this is so painful for some, why go to these threads just to hound no planers? Surely we can discuss these theories without being bombasted into submission? I would like to discuss the various aspects of no-plane theory with like minded people without resorting to personal insults, so that I can gather as much evidence as possible to try to come to a conslussion

Why is it so easy to beleive in demolition but not in TV fakery? The cinema has been faking things for years of far higher quality than 911!! lol! It doesn't stretch the imagination that much to beleive that they 'could have' done it? Doesn't make it any truer, and I may be wrong, but I'd like to find that out without being presurised off these boards!! :D:)

It's not BS - it's part of a journey of trying to evaluate evidence.

[lightgiver]

something similar to this hit the pentagon,maybe different colour,but what hit the twin towers??

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/2259/000alcm600032je5.jpg (http://img75.imageshack.us/my.php?image=000alcm600032je5.jpg)

Still no more cctv footage as been released from the confiscated cctv footage nicked by the FBI.

and not forgetting all the plane wreckage evidence.WHERE IS IT??

[white horse]

I find it really hard to believe that the PTB would go to so much trouble to arrange for the detonation of the WTC 1/2, (+7), arrange all those NORAD exercises, and then just sit back fingers crossed and hope these badly trained hijackers would hit their targets; what if they missed?

EITHER - the Boeings were remote controlled, or there were no hijacked Boeings crashing into the building.

(DISCLAIMER - BEFORE you lampoon me - nowhere have I ever advocated space based microwave beams or holographic planes. Don't use that tactic to debunk! :rolleyes:)

I do believe some fome of physical body flew into the WTC - I do not believe they were Boeings freely piloted by Saudi et al hijackers.

I proudly stand up to be ridiculed! :D

I AM a no-planer!!! *ducks!*

[trondh]

EITHER - the Boeings were remote controlled, or there were no hijacked Boeings crashing into the building.

Why are you saying these crazy things?

Remote controlled or no hijackings?

Remote controlled means no hijackings. And why does it have to be a Boeing?

Are you just trying to confuse?

[trondh]

where exactly did I state cgi tampering wasn't used?

I just thought you'd sobered up. Obviously I was wrong.

[trondh]

NO, *you're* full of BS... why? BECAUSE I ANSWERED, ADDRESSED AND DEBUNKED your claim they "couldn't make a video of a plane hitting the pent."
and the only response you had was SILENCE.

Actually we're just laughing at you...

[trondh]

something similar to this hit the pentagon,maybe different colour,but what hit the twin towers??

And made this hole in Ring C?

http://home.chello.no/trondh/911/hull_i_ring_c3.jpg

[matrix911]

Actually we're just laughing at you...

who's "WE"?? Are you bi-polar or just schizophrenic?

the only one looking stupid and being laughed at is YOU since all you're doing is making claims you can't back up and i've conclusively proven that by shredding your argument and absurd line of Illogic LINE BY LINE to which you made no counter-argument whatsoever other than rhetorical ad hominem attacks and evasions.

Why?

Because U know I'm right,,, If I wasn't, you'd have been able to show how, where and why.

You're a moRON... maybe thats why RON is in the middle of your name.

CASED CLOSED

[trondh]

You're a moRON...

No, you and Morgan Reynolds are moronic liars.

- The criminals used considerable psy-op “magic.”...
- No aluminum airliner could crash into the towers...
- Yet many witnesses swear they saw such a magic act that morning...
- These witnesses were lying or deluded...
- The military may have cloaking or stealth technology...
- Flexible liquid crystal display screens on the aircraft itself...
- Making the plane invisible to those on the ground...

[trondh]

I proudly stand up to be ridiculed! :D
I AM a no-planer!!! *ducks!*

So you think you're ridiculous too?

[matrix911]

are there any post icons that have a face with its eyes rolling?

good grief trondh... you just don't get it do u.

case definitely closed. its a total waste of time engaging you in debate or having intelligent discourse.

you don't know how or what it is.



No, you and Morgan Reynolds are moronic liars.

- The criminals used considerable psy-op “magic.”...
- No aluminum airliner could crash into the towers...
- Yet many witnesses swear they saw such a magic act that morning...
- These witnesses were lying or deluded...
- The military may have cloaking or stealth technology...
- Flexible liquid crystal display screens on the aircraft itself...
- Making the plane invisible to those on the ground...

[trondh]

good grief trondh... you just don't get it do u.


You're just pretending that you don't get it. You Jews expose yourselves posting that CGI graphics stuff of yours. The idiocy has been identified as Jewish idiocy.

[matrix911]

You're just pretending that you don't get it. You Jews expose yourselves posting that CGI graphics stuff of yours. The idiocy has been identified as Jewish idiocy.


.................................. Nahhhhhhhhh,,, too easy.

Lol

enjoy your delusion.

[trondh]

Jewish Morgan Reynolds and Fox Jews joking:
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/4207317/11310355