Here's a diagram of what actually happened:
See, how easy was that? You're welcome.
Posted on 11/10/2010 12:45:55 PM PST by Gargantua
Exploding the “That Wasn’t A Missile” Myth
By Gargantua
What appeared to be a missile rose from below the horizon, streaking into the sky off of California leaving a condensation trail identical to the kind that have been filmed being left by a ground-or-sea-to-air launch of a Minuteman missile or ICBM.
First, the Government was inexplicably mum on the topic. Next came a series of sometimes contradictory explanations. Now, days after the event, the finally agreed-upon explanation hits every news station all at once. “It’s the con-trail of a jet returning from across the Pacific.”
There are two glaring problems with this obviously false “explanation.”
First, the shape and density of the con-trail.
A missile launch would be more dense and wide at its base, just as we see in the images we’ve been shown. A jet’s con-trail would be thinner and smaller the further away as it trailed off toward the horizon. We see the opposite in the availale video footage.
Second, the lighting.
In the video footage, we see stratus clouds out over the ocean behind the rising missile. The setting sun is shining on, and illuminating, the bottom of those clouds. On the con-trail, however, the illumination from the sun appears on the right-hand-edge; just as it would if this were a launching missile’s vertically rising con-trail. There is no illumination of the underside of the “jet’s horizontally oriented con-trail” because it is not a jet’s con-trail, it is a vertically-oriented missile’s launch contrail with the sun lighting up the side away from us. Very obviously so.
The Government must think we are at least as stupid as they are if they think this lame explanation is going to “fly.”
;-\
Instead of intelligently discussing the statements in the post you resort to name-calling? How DU-like of you.
Do you consider the folks at Jane’s to be conspiracy nuts?
But Doug Richardson, the editor of Jane’s Missiles and Rockets, examined the video for the Times of London and said he was left with little doubt.
“It’s a solid propellant missile,” he told the Times. “You can tell from the efflux [smoke].”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/10/earlyshow/main7040379.shtml
Hey, FAA said there were no aircraft (that means airplanes) in that area. What does that tell you?
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/miss-n10.shtml
I’m embarrassed for you.
Through occupied commercial air space, which if they were hit would set off an international incident of gargantuan proportions.
And just like TWA 587 which was brought down by a shoe-bomber sitting over a wing.
Shut up.
Contrailscience.com (Anonymous Blog)
View this still, taken from the video, of the last moments it was visible. The contrail below is breaking up and dissipating as the missile disappears straight above not leaving a contrail crossing overhead.
TWA 587...shoe bomber.
Now we know for sure that Jack Cashill and Ray Lahr were 1,000,000% Correct in saying the Missile(s) took down TWA 800 and Clintoon covered up the Horrendous Act of War to save his pathetic BASS!
Now we know for sure that Jack Cashill and Ray Lahr were 1,000,000% Correct in saying the Missile(s) took down TWA 800 and Clintoon covered up the Horrendous Act of War to save his pathetic BASS!
Now we know for sure that Jack Cashill and Ray Lahr were 1,000,000% Correct in saying the Missile(s) took down TWA 800 and Clintoon covered up the Horrendous Act of War to save his pathetic BASS!
...the contrail has only one central plume. That means a single engine jet of immense thrust to produce this type of even residual trail. Trails like this take time to bloom out, and as one can easily see the sun is highlighting the focal object moving at angle which no jet flies at.
There are no lights on this object in the twilight which would show up. ...the contrail is under the one, meaning it is lower and can not have formed a contrail and the other is above the sirus cloud formation meaning this plume is gaining altitude, which jets do not do as sirus are high cloud formations.
This is a missile with one very large rocket propelling it as it arcs in sways guided by it's gyroscope on course. This is not Space Shuttle quality or American quality guidance. This is a foreign missile.
What is the problem America is the US warning systems did not detect the mother craft whether it was a submarine or dump craft (something offloaded from a cargo ship and used as a platform to launch the missile later). In the old days, Americans used to pick up crawl tracks off California which were made by Soviets launching underwater tanks doing all sorts of war provoking things America tried to ignore so not to start a nuclear war.
NORAD did not detect this system, and NORAD did not detect the launch, nor have an ability to track it. link
The Pentagon and the Federal government are never gonna tell us what it was. So why do we continue to bitch about it?
That contrail leaves the top of the picture frame. Show where it ends.
>>TWA Flight 800 was not shot out of the sky.<<
...and terrorists flew planes into the twin towers.
Do you see the logical fallacy here?
Good.
The explanation we are receiving is that this is a jet coming back from Japan or from across the Pacific. In other words, it would have been a continuously dminishing-toward-the-horizon con-trail.
None of which alters the lighting discrepancy. There is no way that the recent footage is that of a jet returning from across the pacific. If it were, the sun would have been lighting up the underside of the con-trail, not along its right-hand-edge.
Period. Nice try, but your imagination has outstripped your powers of observation.
;-\
I doubt the FAA said that. I think the writer is mistaken.
8^D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.