Summary of attacks
The Twin Towers were hit by missiles from the planes. Missiles had been loaded at the 9/11 airports by airport sayanim working for ICTS, an airport company with links to Israel.
Either:
- Missile launch tubes, much like the ones used for anti-tank missiles, were loaded into the cargo hold of the planes or specially designed bay ports under the belly, close to the wings.
- Missiles were loaded and locked onto rail launchers either within the cargo hold or on the underbelly of the aircraft
The pictures obtained of the plane in the South Tower attack are indeterminate.
The missile only had to be connected to the wires of the launch tubes for the missile to be ready for firing.
Target information would have been programmed into the missiles if the missiles were fired and/or detonated using a program.
Timing of detonation was controlled with
- a proximity fuse or
- by an infrared detection homing system
- radar homing system
- manually using a spotter drone
If a homing system was used, radio signal of a certain frequency could have been emitted from the target floors. Upon sensing this signal with its radar sensor, a detonation is triggered. This information would have been pre-programmed into the missile’s control system before loading.
If the missile had been fired from within the plane. The missile would have easily sliced through the thin aluminium frame of the Boeing planes. The inertia of the missile could have accounted for its path straight through the WTC and its ejection to the outside of the tower.
The planes were flown by remote control to the towers.
Homing devices had probably been inserted in the infrastructure of several levels, around Floors 90 and 91, by Mossad agents posing as art students and also possibly posing as movers. These homing devices would have been for guiding the plane’s flight as well as guiding the missile after it had been fired. They could have been also used for the timing of the firing and/or detonation of the missile.
Bombs were also planted in the walls to weaken the building and set off a cascade of exploding, disintegrating and collapsing floors, starting off at the plane strike floors.
A helicopter was hired by the spying art group. This was done either to obtain coordinates or infrared images and other needed data for the missile attack and plane collision, or it was done to test homing systems, assessing the strength of signals, or for testing the suitability of a UAV acting as a spotter plane or for all these reasons above. Any information of this nature (infrared imaging, GPS coordinates and/or radar measurements) would have been programmed into the missile control head if homing systems were used as well as the plane’s flight control.
The missile on the plane was probably of an anti-submarine type. The missile involved would have to be capable of puncturing through a grid of thick steel surfaces.
If the missile was detonated by a proximity fuze, information about the target was obtained as described above and programmed into the missile.
The design of the attack was such that the missile was supposed to detonate right before impact of the plane with the WTC. The missile would punch a round hole in the wall that would allow the plane to enter or make it look as if the plane had gone into the building. In some photos and videos of the South Tower attack, a missile part can be seen shooting out in an arc from the opposite side to the plane strike.
If a proximity fuze had been used and the missile not launched from the plane, the thrust of the plane’s forward trajectory and the missile’s inertia would have propelled the missile forward through the building to come out the other side.
An “ordnance flash” – bright white ball of light with an orange edge – was seen just prior to the plane FL175 hitting the South Tower, and is caught on videos. See below.
If there was firing of the missile from its launcher tube or rails from the plane, the same trigger mechanism for the detonation of the missile could have been used for the firing, if that technology was available to the Israelis at that time.
Manual firing is a little more uncertain in its timing. However, accuracy can be improved by a spotter aircraft hovering nearby recording the approach of the Boeing plane and relaying the information via SATLINK to the ground operators who control the plane and the missile on board the plane.
As already mentioned, that might have been another reason for the helicopter trip that the Israeli spies made: to test the flight of a helicopter close to the tower and see whether a drone helicopter would be suitable for the task of acting as a spotter of the Boeing plane attack on the tower. A white plane was also observed in the Pennsylvania attack and also in the Pentagon attack. These planes could have been drones that acted as spotters and sent information to ground control to help them with the timing of the missile firing and/or detonation. There were a few helicopters hovering around the towers at the time of their explosions. These can be seen in Rick Siegel’s “911 Eyewitness” video.
However, for more precise timing of the firing and detonation of the missile, computer programmed control of the firing would be necessary. However, the Israelis may not have had the technology to do this. Furthermore, human control would have to override any computer program control in the end, as there might have been a need to change plans, for example in the case of something going wrong with the plan and the timing of the firing of the missile needing to be changed. For example, in the Pennsylvania attack, the mission seemed to have gone awry, and probably had to be aborted and the plane deliberately made to crash in Shanksville. In this case, the missile on board the plane was detonated in situ, destroying most of the plane and the evidence onboard it. Detonation was probably achieved under human control with the help of images relayed via a spotter plane, probably a UAV, sending information about FL93’s flight to ground control.
Whatever the means of firing/detonation, the perpetrators’ main goal was to disguise the use of a missile as much as possible.
If the missile had been loaded into the cargo hold, it’s likely the missile was detonated while it was still in the plane.
More important than accurate guidance of the missile was the size of the missile. It had to have a payload that would be able to punch a big enough hole in the WTC tower and the Pentagon for the plane to enter. It also had to be powerful enough to destroy the planes as much as possible, in order to hide any evidence left behind on the plane. It’s highly possible depleted uranium weapons were used as missiles on the planes. This would account for the molten metal seen pouring out of the building in some pictures after the plane strike in the North Tower.
Questions that remain are: were the missiles fired or did they explode in place on the plane; were the missiles attached to the undercarriage of the planes, leaving a tell-tale bulge or were they fully contained within the cargo hold or elsewhere and discharged from it?
If they had been fired, what was the firing mechanism involved? What triggered the firing? How was the missile’s detonation controlled? Was it done by a human pushing a button or was it done by a computer program?
Plane hits the South Tower
VIDEO: 911 – WTC South Tower Plane Crash – abridged Dailymotion
COMMENT: The plane looks unbalanced. The fuselage under the left wing looks abnormally large.
Flash before plane hits the tower and extra fuselage piece on the underbelly
VIDEO: Flash seen before plane hits the tower Dailymotion | Youtube
(Video from Loose Change). Flash seen 0:40 and extra piece of fuselage at 1:29.
Anti-ship missile
VIDEO: Deadly Kh-35 Russian Anti Ship Missile Documentary Dailymotion | Youtube
From the video:
2:10 – 2:17 “Ka-27 helicopter can be armed with 3 Kh-35. Just one rotor-craft can seriously spoil life of enemy’s cruiser.
3:15 “The missile is in the cargo-launch container now”
3:17 “It needs only to be installed on a launching platform, to connect wires and the missile is ready for launch.”
4:05 “Missile approaches the target by illuminating it with missile’s radar.”
5:49 “one such missile can kill a destroyer”
5:57 “A launching container can be installed on ships and on coastal missile systems”
6:00 “Airplanes and helicopters can also be armed with this missile.”
7:03 “Another merit of the missile is that its warhead detonates only several microseconds after contact. This way an explosion doesn’t occur on ship’s surface, but inside.”
Kh-35 self-guided missile
Missile transported on a truck
A small-scale model of the Kh-35 in launch tube at an arms fair
Even a helicopter can be armed with 3 of the Kh-35 missiles
Cargo launch container
“Missile is put in the cargo-launch container”
3:17 “It needs only to be installed on a launching platform, to connect wires and the missile is ready for launch.”
6:01 “Airplanes and helicopters can also be armed with this missile”
4:05 “Missile approaches the target by illuminating it with missile’s radar”
Missile fired from a launcher on the ground
Missile fired from a launch tube
Missile trail
White trail at the Pentagon crash
White flash of the missile
Image: White flash right before the moment of impact
Launch tubes and containers
Torpedo tube – Wikipedia
A torpedo tube is a cylinder shaped device for launching torpedoes.
There are two main types of torpedo tube: underwater tubes fitted to submarines and some surface ships, and deck-mounted units (also referred to as torpedo launchers) installed aboard surface vessels. Deck-mounted torpedo launchers are usually designed for a specific type of torpedo, while submarine torpedo tubes are general-purpose launchers, and are often also capable of deploying mines and cruise missiles. Most modern launchers are standardised on a 12.75-inch (324 mm) diameter for light torpedoes (deck mounted aboard ship) or a 21-inch (533 mm) diameter for heavy torpedoes (underwater tubes), although other sizes of torpedo tube have been used: see Torpedo classes and diameters.
Mark 32 Surface Vessel Torpedo Tubes – Wikipedia
“The Mark 32 Surface Vessel Torpedo Tubes (Mk 32 SVTT) system is a torpedo launching system designed for the United States Navy.”
“The tubes are designed to be fired remotely, but manual firing controls are fitted as a backup to all but the Spruance-class destroyer’s Mod 15 sets, as all aspects of the tubes’ operation are controlled remotely.”
“The launch is powered by compressed air in a rear flask, which also doubles as each tube’s breech, and the torpedoes are fire-and-forget weapons.”
“Each triple-tube set weighs around 2,230 pounds (1,010 kg) unloaded, with variations between mods.”
IMG: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/MK46_torpedo_launch.jpg
URL: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Mark_32_Surface_Vessel_Torpedo_Tubes
Fire-and-forget – Wikipedia
“Fire-and-forget is a type of missile guidance which does not require further guidance after launch such as illumination of the target or wire guidance, and can hit its target without the launcher being in line-of-sight of the target.”
“Generally, information about the target is programmed into the missile just prior to launch. This can include coordinates, radar measurements (including velocity), or an infrared image of the target.”
“After it is fired, the missile guides itself by some combination of gyroscopes and accelerometers, GPS, organic active radar homing, and infrared homing optics.”
“Some systems offer the option of either continued input from the launch platform or fire-and-forget.”
Modern PARS 3 LR fire-and-forget missile of the German Army Wikipedia
Modern fire-and-forget Nag missile of the Indian Armed Forces Wikipedia
Under the belly of the plane
Missile on the right side under the fuselage of the plane that hit the South Tower
On the right side of the plane, near where the wing’s attachment to the plane, a shape like a missile can be made out.
In a picture captured of Flight 175, some anomalies have been noted on the undersurface of the plane that people have attributed to the normal contour of the plane, but others have said are due to “pod” missiles attached to the planes (see this site for pod discussions).
Flight 175
Various irregularities can be seen in this picture of FL175 as it approaches the South Tower: a lighter-colored rectangular area in the forward section, a large dark shadow in the middle section between the root of the wings, a light colored squarish shadow in the posterior section of the plane.
Below is a picture of a Boeing 767 for comparison, showing the underside of the fuselage:
Boeing 767
Below is another picture of FL175 as it heads towards WTC2. Some conspiracy theorists believe the dark shadows indicate a missile pod located under the belly of the plane, on the right hand side.
Flight 175
A closeup of the plane that crashed into the South Tower (WTC 2):
Flight 175
Another photo of FL175 which shows anomalies that some have speculated are a missile pod. It could be the wheel flaps opening to release the missile or cargo door opening for the same purpose.
Headless planes
In the two photos above, the heads of the planes seem to be missing. They could have been edited out, to remove any evidence of a missile shooting outward from the plane. However, some video stills show something that could be likely be a missile flash.
White flash that looks like an ordnance flash right before the moment of impact
VIDEO: J-20 stealth fighter with Chinese indigenious missile launch rail-abridged Dailymotion
The role of spies
Spies infiltrated WTC and planted homing devices as well as got readings of the target for accurate detonation of the WTC.
Spies also planted bombs in the walls of the WTC from Floors 90-91 to detonate and start the crumbling of the WTC at those levels to simulate a collapse caused by plane strikes.
Silverstein was involved in giving permission and ease of access to these floors to the spies.
The spies had insiders, “sayanim”, in the Lower Manhattan Council helping make the art project look legitimate. The art project was a cover for the spies’ activities.
Spies also rented a helicopter as part of this art project to get coordinates and readings from outside the WTC towers and other information needed for the plane and missile strike of the Twin Towers.
Spies also got the information for the Pentagon. As a cover, they also spied on military installations around the country as a camouflage.
The missile was controlled by remote control and had been pre-programmed with target information.
Spies in the 9/11 airports all of whom were working for the Mossad Israeli company ICTS were involved in loading and concealing the weapon on the plane. Israeli agents were in control of ground operations of the 9/11 planes, such as the loading of luggage and plane maintenance and checking.
Missile was probably loaded into the cargo hold. First it was placed in a load container tube. It had a proximity fuse, which meant that the missile would be fired from the loading tube at the right time, just before the plane struck the WTC. The homing systems and pre-programmed target information made the missile hit the target accurately and at the right time.
Spies in the mainstream TV networks altered the captured videos of the plane strikes, especially the second plane strike on the WTC towers. The South Tower strike video was altered to remove frames that showed the missile shooting out of the plane. That’s why the plane’s head is absent in frames right before the plane hits the tower.
There was no need for the missile to be ejected or released from the plane prior to firing as the plane was meant to be destroyed at the time of the detonation of the plane.
From the videos below and MarkDotzler
- Group of art students were doing art projects on floors 90 and 91 of North Tower
- Gelatin was the name of this group
- Gelatin changed to Gelitin in 2005
- Another group of art students were also at the WTC, named E-Team
- Stunt involved doing construction work on these floors
- The art students were camping inside the WTC; they had tents set up
- Name of the book about their art projects was “The B-thing”
- One stunt had them building a balcony outside of the WTC
- They had a team filming them from a helicopter that flew right up to these floors in the tower
- Art students were part of the Lower Manhattan Cultural Arts program
- Record of these art students and involvement in the arts program but no record of these people in the Lower Manhattan Cultural Arts site
- Art students were German and Austrian and two were Asian racially
- Art book was released in Austria – limited edition
- They had blueprints of the WTC
- 3-4 tons of boxes on the 90th floor around them
- Full access to the building: construction passes, security passes
- Blueprints broken down with times and places to hide, security checkpoints and pass times
- One of the art students called Hamas Fatih (spelling?) was an Israeli military intelligence officer
- Four of these art students were arrested after 9/11; non-Israelis who are connected to 9/11
- Fatih rented two Hollywood apartments close to the mail drop of Mohammed Atta when he was living in L.A. at the same time
- Fatih was carrying a bank book that showed more than $100,000 deposits from December 2000 to the first quarter of 2001
- Other bankbooks showed withdrawals of $80,000
- Apartment served as a crash pad for at least two other art students; their addresses were where Mohammed Atta had his mail drop
- Fatih rented an apartment two blocks from Atta when he was in Florida
- DEA was tracing art students because they penetrated military installations including bases and Pentagon
- DEA was also tracking an ecstasy ring that led them to these art students
- When it was found out that they were tracking an ex-Israeli military spy ring the investigation became top secret.
6:01: Israeli art students in WTC connected to September 11, 2001
“Hamas Fatih [was] living blocks away from the suspected hijackers on 9/11 according to the official story … the reason why that’s interesting is because remember, Sept 21st, 2001, [it was] reported that FBI director Robert Mueller acknowledged that some of those behind the attacks may have stolen the identification of the people they believed to be the hijackers.”
Gelatin Art Group
VIDEO: “The Mysterious Gelatin Art Group Living in WTC prior to 9/11″ Dailymotion | Youtube
Israeli art students in WTC connected to September 11, 2001
VIDEO: Israeli art students in WTC connected to September 11, 2001 Dailymotion
9:11 Mossad Agents were in the twin towers
VIDEO: 9:11 Mossad Agents were in the twin towers Dailymotion
The Art Project – Gelitin B-thing E-team
VIDEO: The Art Project – Gelitin B-thing E-team Dailymotion
URL: http://www.markdotzler.com/Mark_Dotzler/WTC_Artists.html
http://www.markdotzler.com/Mark_Dotzler/WTC_Artists.html
http://www.markdotzler.com/Mark_Dotzler/WTC_Artists.html
http://www.markdotzler.com/Mark_Dotzler/WTC_Artists.html
http://canspeccy.blogspot.kr/2016/08/more-about-art-students-who-occupied.html
From the video “The Art Project – Gelitin B-thing E-team”
11:49 Two members of the art group in the helicopter
9:07 The helicopter got quite close to the WTC
A member of the art group in the helicopter
2:21 Helicopter hovered near the 91st floor where the art group was gathered
11:55 Members of the art group stood at the windows while the helicopter hovered near them outside the WTC
11:49 Member of art group took this picture from the helicopter
Helicopter drones
Israeli “art students” were selling these zoom copters at various malls.
“Why is “Dancing Israelis” Mossad agent Dominik Suter associated with a storage unit full of toy helicopters in Bayonne, NJ? Only his katsa knows for sure.” Zionism Stinks
VIDEO: Rick Siegel 9-11 Eyewitness-helicopter drones Dailymotion
Helicopters appear at key moments, for example, when explosions occur, and right before the South Tower explodes.
In this still, the helicopter emits a light. This happens right before the South Tower falls.
As the caption says, it seems to be “Mission accomplished”. The South Tower fell at 9:59 am right before the helicopter seen in the picture above this one emits a light as it passes over the towers.
The South Tower collapses.
The “bird” goes back and forth near the smoking tower.
In this video still, a man is reporting that a helicopter was seen at the Pentagon shortly before a fireball rose into the sky.
North Tower levels that were hit by the strike
NIST
NIST; Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf)
NIST: North face of WTC 1. The floors that are damaged by the plane strike are the 93 to 95th floors.
__________________________________________________________
Operation Aphrodite and Operation Anvil
VIDEO: Operation Aphrodite – Blueprint for Sept 11 Attacks (History Channel) Youtube
During World War II, Americans carried out a program of using remote-controlled planes as missiles. Planes were fitted out with automatic pilots, radio control and TV sensors. Since there was no way to safely launch the aircraft unmanned, the pilots had to fly the plane for part of the distance, and when they had reached a certain point in the journey, they ejected from the plane by parachute. Before leaving the plane, the pilots transferred the plane to radio controlled flight, and armed the bomb payload. After this, a “mothership” controlled the flight of the planes.
VIDEO: Operation Aphrodite “Weary Willy” Youtube
|
Aphrodite drone at takeoff Wikipedia Operation AphroditeAphrodite and Anvil were the World War II code names of United States Army Air Forces and United States Navy operations to use B-17 and PB4Y bombers as precision-guided munitions against bunkers and other hardened/reinforced enemy facilities, such as those targeted during Operation Crossbow. The plan called for B-17 aircraft that had been taken out of operational service: various nicknames existed such as “robot”, “baby”, “drone” or “weary Willy” – to be loaded to capacity with explosives, and flown by radio control into bomb-resistant fortifications such as German U-boat pens and V-weapon sites. It was hoped that it would match the British success with Tallboy and Grand Slam ground penetration bombs but the project was dangerous, expensive and unsuccessful. Of 14 missions flown, none resulted in the successful destruction of a target. Many aircraft lost control and crashed or were shot down by flak, and many pilots were killed. However, a handful of aircraft scored near misses. One notable pilot death was that of Lt Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., USNR, the elder brother of future US President John F. Kennedy. The program effectively ceased on January 27, 1945 when General Spaatz sent an urgent message to Doolittle: “Aphrodite babies must not be launched against the enemy until further orders”. Proposal By late 1943, General Henry H. Arnold had directed Brigadier General Grandison Gardner’s electronic engineers at Eglin Field, Florida, to outfit war-weary bombers with automatic pilots so that they could be remotely controlled. The plan was first proposed to Major General James H. Doolittle some time in 1944. Doolittle approved the plan for Operation Aphrodite on June 26, and assigned the 3rd Bombardment Division with preparing and flying the drone aircraft, which was to be designated BQ-7. In the U.S. Navy’s similar project, Operation Anvil, the drone was designated BQ-8. Final assignment of responsibility was given to the 562nd Bomb Squadron at RAF Honington in Suffolk. Similarly, on July 6, 1944 the US Navy Special Attack Unit (SAU-1) was formed under ComAirLant, with Commander James A. Smith, Officer in Charge, for transfer without delay to Commander Fleet Air Wing 7 in Europe to attack German V-1 and V-2 sites with PB4Y-1s converted to assault drones. Procedure After completing 80 323rd BS missions, Aphrodite B-17F (The Careful Virgin) was used against Mimoyecques but impacted short of target by controller error. Old Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress bombers were stripped of all normal combat armament and all other non-essential gear (armor, guns, bomb racks, transceiver, seats, etc.), relieving about 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) of weight. To allow easier exit when the pilot and co-pilot were to parachute out, the canopy was removed. Azon radio remote-control equipment was added, with two television cameras fitted in the cockpit to allow a view of both the ground and the main instrumentation panel to be transmitted back to an accompanying CQ-17 ‘mothership’. The drone was loaded with explosives weighing more than twice that of a B-17’s normal bomb payload. The British Torpex used for the purpose was itself 50% more powerful than TNT. A relatively remote location in Norfolk, RAF Fersfield, was the launch site. Initially, RAF Woodbridge had been selected for its long runway, but the possibility of a damaged aircraft that diverted to Woodbridge for landings colliding with a loaded drone caused concerns. The remote control system was insufficient for safe takeoff, so each drone was taken aloft by a volunteer pilot and a volunteer flight engineer to an altitude of 2,000 ft (600 m) for transfer of control to the CQ-17 operators. After successful turnover of control of the drone, the two-man crew would arm the payload and parachute out of the cockpit. The ‘mothership’ would then direct the missile to the target. When the training program was complete, the 562nd Squadron had ten drones and four “motherships”. |
After completing 80 323rd BS missions, Aphrodite B-17F (The Careful Virgin) was used against Mimoyecques [a German underground missile site] but impacted short of target by controller error. Wikipedia
VIDEO: WWII’s Operation Aphrodite Youtube
| Type | Radio-controlled bombers as guided missiles |
|---|---|
| Place of origin | United States |
| Service history | |
| In service | 1944 |
| Used by | United States Army Air Forces (Aphrodite) United States Navy (Anvil) |
| Specifications | |
| Warhead | Payload: 30,000 LB (13,600 kg) Torpex |
|
|
|
|
Guidance
system |
Azon (TV sensor, radio control)
Castor (radar & TV sensors, radio control) |
Videos: Operation Aphrodite
VIDEO: Operation Aphrodite Youtube
_________________________________________________________
Radio-control system of detonation of ordnance
VIDEO: WWII RADIO CONTROLLED DRONE AIRCRAFT TESTS PROJECT HERMIT 40800 Youtube
Azon
Azon was one of the world’s first guided weapons. It was deployed by the Allies. At the same time, Germans deployed the Fritz X.
It was developed in the latter stages of World War II.
The Azon was a 454 kg bomb that had been fitted with a radio-controlled tail fin. The tail gave the missile the radio guidance capability. Gyroscopes were mounted in the tail package.
The bomb’s receiver and control system were powered by a battery.
When used in combat, it was dropped from an aircraft.
From Wikipedia:
AZONAZON (or Azon), from “azimuth only”, was one of the world’s first guided weapons, deployed by the Allies and contemporary with the German Fritz X. Officially designated VB-1 (“Vertical Bomb 1”), it was invented by Major Henry J. Rand and Thomas J. O’Donnell during the latter stages of World War II as the answer to the difficult problem of destroying the narrow wooden bridges that supported much of the Burma Railway. AZON was essentially a 1,000 lb (454 kg) general-purpose AN-M65 bomb with a quadrilateral 4-fin style radio controlled tail fin design as part of a “tail package” to give the desired guidance capability, allowing adjustment of the vertical trajectory in the yaw axis, giving the Azon unit a lateral steering capability (meaning it could only steer left and right, and could not alter its pitch or rate of fall). This lack of any pitch control meant that the bombardier still had to accurately release it with a bombsight to ensure it could not fall short of or beyond the target. The “tail package” bolted onto the standard bomb warhead, in place of the usual sheet-metal fixed fins; this concept was an early iteration of a now common method of making modern guided bombs (such as the JDAM, the Paveway family, the KAB-500L, etc): making the guidance and control units as separate pieces that attach to the tail and/or nose of a standard “iron bomb”, making it into a guided weapon. There were gyroscopes mounted in the bomb’s added tail package that made it an Azon unit, to autonomously stabilize it in the roll axis via operating a pair of ailerons,[1] and a radio control system to operate the proportional-control rudders, to directly control the bomb’s direction of lateral aim, with the antennas for the tail-mounted receiver unit built into the diagonal support struts of the tail surface assembly.[1] The bomb’s receiver and control system were powered by a battery which had around three minutes of battery life. The entire setup in the added “tail package” was sufficient to guide the weapon from a 5,000-foot (1,500 m) drop height to the target. Situated on the tail of the bomb was a 600,000-candela flare which also left behind a noticeable smoke trail, to enable the bombardier to observe and control it from the control aircraft. When used in combat, it was dropped from a modified Consolidated B-24 Liberator, with earlier development test drops of the Azon in the United States sometimes using the B-17 Flying Fortress as the platform.[1] Some ten crews, of the 458th Bombardment Group, based at RAF Horsham St Faith, were trained to drop the device for use in the European theater. The 493rd Bomb Squadron also dropped Azon bombs in Burma in early 1945 from similarly-modified B-24s, based at Pandaveswar Airfield, India, with considerable success, fulfilling the designers’ original purpose for the ordnance. |
|
AZON, the first smart bomb developed by the United States.
|
|
| Type | Smart bombs |
|---|---|
| Place of origin | United States |
| Service history | |
| In service | 1944 |
| Used by | United States |
| Wars | World War II |
| Specifications | |
| Weight | VB-1: 1,000 pounds (450 kg) VB-2: 2,000 pounds (910 kg)[1] |
|
|
|
|
Operational
range |
5,000 feet (1,500 m) |
|
Guidance
system |
MCLOS radio control system |
The world’s first smart bomb
Components of Azon
Video: Smart bombs – guided bombs
VIDEO: Smart bombs (History Channel) Youtube
__________________________________________________________
Quoted from US Navy Gunnery and Ordnance:
Above-Water Torpedo Tubes
Function
Torpedo tubes serve the following purposes:
- House and protect the torpedo (including heating in cold weather) until the instant of firing.
- Provide means for setting torpedo gyro angle, running depth, and, where required, torpedo speed as necessary, up to the instant of firing.
- Expel the torpedo with sufficient force to clear the firing ship and with such velocity and direction that it will remain on its firing course until its engine develops enough power for self-propulsion.
- As expulsion starts, trigger the torpedo so as to start its engine and gyro.
URL: http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-12-J.html
21-inch Above-Water Torpedo Tube Mark 14
Quote:
“Torpedoes are expelled from each barrel individually by an impulse charge fired in the firing mechanism on top of the barrel. A passage from the firing mechanism leads to the space between the door and the torpedo. Normally, charges are fired electrically from the bridge, but they can be fired by percussion at the tube if necessary. Each black-powder impulse charge is contained in a special 3-inch case about 13 inches long.”
“Atop the barrels are a seat for the trainer and gyro setter, the train controls, and the sight and fire control apparatus. Also on top of the barrels, and thus within easy reach of the crew, are the gyro-setting, depth-setting and speed-setting mechanisms.”
http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-12-J.html
Quote:
“They are air-fired and are suitable for launching only torpedoes having electrically set torpedo controls. The breech and muzzle doors arc so interlocked that firing can occur only when the breech door is closed and locked and the muzzle door opened. The torpedo control cable enters the tube through a special electrical terminal plug mounted in the breech door. The door connector is in two parts. One part is permanently installed in the center of the door, while the inner half is affixed to the torpedo cable. The two halves are coupled together after the torpedo is loaded into the tube. The cable is cut by the forward motion of the torpedo at launching.”
http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-12-J.html
A torpedo launcher tube weighs around 300 kg
Mark 32 torpedo launcher: it’s capable of firing light-weight torpedoes against enemy submarines
URL: http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsrans-hobart-class-awd-demonstrates-torpedo-launcher-capability
Torpedos
Mark 14 Type torpedo showing the location of the interior mechanisms
URL: http://archive.hnsa.org/doc/torpedo/
A Spanish submarine torpedo S-80: shows a SAT COM link 22 for remote control
URL: http://www.corlobe.tk/spip.php?article33785
Mark 48 torpedo – Wikipedia
- American submarine-launched torpedoes
- new version of weapon known as Mk-48 Mod 4 was introduced in 1988
- launched from submarine torpedo tubes
- missile is guided from a submarine by wires attached to the torpedo
- also can use own sensores to perform programmed search and attack procedures
- torpedo’s sensors can monitor electrical and magnetic fields
Technicians perform maintenance on a Mark 48 torpedo
URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo
Triggering of detonation of missile
Proximity fuze – Wikipedia
- proximity fuze that detonates a missile when the distance reaches a certain value
- designed for use on targets such as planes, ships and ground forces
- have a sophisticated trigger mechanism
- the fuze can be miniaturized
- alternative name is “VT”: could mean variable time
- munitions before proximity fuzes were invented were set to explode at a given time after firing but this could produce a late or early explosion
- VT fuzes were reliable in exploding at the right time
Sensor types
- Radio: radio frequency sensing is the main sensing principle used in artillery shells. Artillery shell contains a micro-transmitter that emits a wave of 180-220 MHz. As the shell approaches a reflecting object, an interference pattern is created. Based on the pattern of this wave, an amplified signal is transmitted, which triggers a detonation once a certain amplitude is exceeded
- Optical: some missiles use lasers to trigger detonation. Beams of laser light are projected perpendicular to the flight of the missile. Reflection of the energy that is beamed out back onto the missile when it passes the target triggers the detonation
- Acoustic: microphone in a missile senses the characteristic frequency of an aircraft and triggers the detonation
- Magnetic: magnetic sensing is used for large masses of iron such as ships.
The proximity fuze system for detonation of the warhead could have been adapted for the firing of the missile from its launch canister on the plane. Information about the infrared
Kh-35
- Russian anti-ship missile that can be launched from jets, helicopters, ships and land batteries with the help of a rocket booster
- designed to attack vessels up to 5000 tonnes
- propulsion unit is a turbofan engine
- missile is guided to target at the final leg of trajectory by commands fed from active radar homing head and radio altimeter
- target designation data can be introduced into the missile
- flight mission data is inserted into missile control system after input of target coordinates
- at a certain target range, the homing head is switched on to search for, lock on and track target
- process of homing by the data fed from the homing head continues until hit is obtained
- radar-seeker types also available
URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-35
URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-35
Infrared homing – Wikipedia
- Infrared homing uses infrared light emission from a target to track and follow it
- Missiles that use this system are often called “heat-seekers”
- Great strides in development in 70s and 80s
- Infrared sensor package in the tip of the missile head is called the “seeker-head”
“Infrared homing is a passive weapon guidance system which uses the infrared (IR) light emission from a target to track and follow it. Missiles which use infrared seeking are often referred to as “heat-seekers”, since infrared is radiated strongly by hot bodies. Many objects such as people, vehicle engines and aircraft generate and emit heat, and as such, are especially visible in the infrared wavelengths of light compared to objects in the background.
Infrared seekers are passive devices, which, unlike radar, provide no indication that they are tracking a target. This makes them suitable for sneak attacks during visual encounters, or over longer ranges when used with a forward looking infrared system or similar cuing system. This makes heat-seekers extremely deadly; 90% of all United States air combat losses over the past 25 years have been due to infrared-homing missiles.[1] They are, however, subject to a number of simple countermeasures, most notably dropping flares behind the target to provide false heat sources. This only works if the pilot is aware of the missile, and modern seekers have rendered these increasingly ineffective even in that case.
The first IR devices were experimented with in the pre-World War II era. During the war, German engineers were working on heat seeking missiles and proximity fuses, but did not have time to complete development before the war ended. Truly practical designs did not become possible until the introduction of conical scanning and miniaturized vacuum tubes during the war. Anti-aircraft IR systems began in earnest in the late 1940s, but both the electronics and entire field of rocketry was so new that it required considerable development before the first examples entered service in the mid-1950s. These early examples had significant limitations and achieved very low success rates in combat during the 1960s. A new generation developed in the 1970s and 80s made great strides and significantly improved their lethality. The latest examples from the 1990s and on have the ability to attack targets out of their field of view (FOV), behind them, and even pick out vehicles on the ground.
The infrared sensor package on the tip or head of a heat-seeking missile is known as the seeker head. The NATO brevity code for an air-to-air infrared-guided missile launch is Fox Two.[2]“
From Quora (quote):
Question:
“How many steps are required to arm and trigger an aircraft fired missile and what safeguards are there to prevent accidents?”
Answer:
Tim Hibbetts (Updated Mar 11, 2016):
“Zero to destruction in six steps.
The ordnance crews have to prep some weapons before they will work. This happens in the secret hollows of their sacred lairs. When transporting them in this state, it’s directly to the aircraft, often in special vehicles, or—in the case of the aircraft carrier—on special elevators. There are pins in place that prevent activation, reducing the chances of inadvertently having several wives collect survivor benefits.
Once mounted on the aircraft, prior to launch, the ordies pull the safety pins. You still can’t fire it.
There is a switch that is activated when the landing gear is compressed, indicating the aircraft is on the ground. This is going to inhibit several functions, one of which is weapons expenditure. Thank goodness.
Like unholstering a gun or dropping your trousers, you don’t activate the master arm switch unless you mean business and are near where the action is happening.
Pulling the trigger is the last step. Sometime that trigger is a button. This will still not make things go boom.
After enough distance or time, the fuzing will put the rest of the puzzle together and the magic is ready to happen. In the case of missiles, that means it has detected a target within the proximity of the warhead. If this doesn’t happen the thing will just keep going until this happens. Of course, the Earth has been a good sump for missiles.”
Automatic firing of missiles
Quote from Patents:
By Allen C. Hagelberg, Walter A. Lobitz
Publication date: August 1980
Anti-ship torpedo defense missile
US 4215630 A
“ABSTRACT: A ship anti-torpedo defense system includes a detecting device for detecting and locating an incoming threat, such as a torpedo, and an interrelated missile launching and control system for firing at least one warhead carrying missile into the path of the oncoming threat, the missile having an active acoustic fuze system including a highly directional sensing system for continuously monitoring the position and proximity of the incoming threat and for detonating the warhead at the optimum proximity of the incoming threat with the missile. The missile floats at a predetermined depth determined by the predetermined depth of the torpedo to be intercepted.”
“The control system carried within the rocket itself is schematically illustrated in FIG. 9. This system is an acoustic active directional pulse doppler echo ranging system operating in an ultrasonic frequency band. The system functions to fire the warhead when the target has both entered the lethal radius and reached an optimum firing position.”
“When the target threat criteria has been satisfied, a warhead fire pulse is generated by the microprocessor commanding the warhead fire control 74 to detonate the warhead.
The fire logic sub-system which is located in the microprocessor utilizes the information contained in the received pulse series to make the fire decision.”
https://www.google.com/patents/US4215630
Quote from Foxtrotalpha: “The Navy’s Smart New Stealth Anti-Ship Missile Can Plan Its Own Attack”
“[It] depicts generally how LRASM works and some of the capabilities it brings to the table. In it you will see its most prominent feature is that it will “intelligently” sense and avoid hostile threats via an on-board passive radio frequency and threat warning receiver. Additionally, LRASM is equipped with an on-board data-link, advanced artificial intelligence software, low probability of intercept radar, imaging infrared sensor and an inertial navigation system with embedded GPS. All of this is tied to the sneaky missile’s autopilot and cutting-edge computing core.”
Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM)
The video shows the coordination of SATLINK data and the firing, path projection and detonation of the missile.
VIDEO: Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) Youtube
Published on 2 May 2016 by LockheedMartinVideos: “LRASM is a long range, precision-guided anti-ship missile leveraging off of the successful JASSM-ER heritage”
Autonomous firing of missile
From The Diplomat:
Is China Really Building Missiles With Artificial Intelligence?
- “intelligent” weapon systems: autonomous systems
- report in Chinese media about family of cruise missiles with AI capabilities
- these missiles seek out targets in combat
- “plug and play” missiles
- tailor-made cruise missiles
- “Technically, AI is any onboard intelligence that allows machines in combat to execute regular tasks”
- “Modern-day combat requires war-fighters to operate with the active assistance from sensors and systems.”
- “In practice, however, Artificial Intelligence is a term used for a combat system that has the ability to take targeting decisions. This is more in the nature of “who to target,” as opposed to “how to target”
- “the LRASM is a replacement for the Harpoon missile (albeit a more powerful version) and a supposedly “intelligent” missile system.”
- the missile makes its own decisions only after it receives critical targeting information from the command team.
Low Cost Autonomous Attack System – Wikipedia
The Low Cost Autonomous Attack System (LOCAAS). In 1998 the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army Lockheed Martin began to examine the feasibility of a small, affordable cruise missile weapon for use against armoured and unarmoured vehicles, materiel and personnel, and if so develop a demonstration program.[1] The program has cost approx. $150,000,000 so far; the cost per unit is calculated to be $30,000 based on a production of 12,000 units.
After being launched from a weapon platform, it is guided by GPS/INS to the target general area, where it can loiter. A laser radar (LIDAR or LADAR) illuminates the targets, determines their range, and matches their 3-D geometry with pre-loaded signatures. The LOCAAS system then selects the highest priority target and selects the warhead’s mode for the best effect.[2]
It is part of the Small Bomb System (SBS) program. The LOCAAS has been cancelled.
Quote from HowStuffWorks: “How Smart Bombs Work”
Smart Bomb Basics
“A smart bomb is essentially an ordinary dumb bomb with a few major modifications. In addition to the usual fuze and explosive material, it has:
- an electronic sensor system
- a built-in control system (an onboard computer)
- a set of adjustable flight fins
- a battery”
“Up until relatively recently, most smart bombs were either TV/IR-guided orlaser-guided. Both types of bomb use visual sensors to locate ground targets.
A TV/IR-guided bomb has either a conventional television video camera or an infrared camera (for night vision) mounted to its nose. In remote-operation mode, the controller relays information through radio signals to a human operator, who is usually onboard the bomber plane. The remote operator relays commands to the control system to steer the bomb through the air — the bomb acts something like a remote-control plane. In this mode, the operator may launch the bomb without a specific target and sight, and then pick up the target from the video as the bomb gets closer to the ground.
In automatic mode, the pilot locates a target through the bomb’s video camera prior to launch and sends a signal to the bomb telling it to lock on to the target. The bomb’s control system steers the bomb so that the indicated target image always stays near the center of the video display. In this way, the bomb zeros in on the locked target automatically.
Laser-guided smart bombs work a little differently. Instead of a video camera sensor, the bomb has a laser seeker — an array of photo diodes. As you might expect, the photo diodes are sensitive to a particular frequency of laser light. For the bomb to see its target, a separate human operator, either on the ground or in the air, has to “paint” the designated target with a high-intensity laser beam. The laser beam reflects off the target, and the laser seeker picks it up.
The laser designator has its own unique pulse pattern. Before dropping the bomb, the bomber aircraft computer tells the missile’s control system the specific pulse pattern (via an electronic “umbilical” connection to the bomb). Once the bomb is in the air, the control system is only interested in laser energy with this pulse pattern. The control system’s basic goal is to steer the bomb so that the reflected laser beam is hitting near the center of the photo diode array. This keeps the bomb heading straight toward the target.
Both of these systems can be highly effective, but they have one major drawback: The bomb sensor has to maintain visual contact with the target. If cloud cover or obstacles get in the way, the bomb will most likely veer off course.
We’ll explore today’s smart bombs next.
The GBU-15, a TV/IR smart bomb PHOTO COURTESY U.S. AIR FORCE
The Ground Laser Target Designator II (GLTD II), used to direct laser-guided smart weapons PHOTO COURTESY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
http://science.howstuffworks.com/smart-bomb1.htm
Quoted from Quora:
How is a missile fired from a fighter jet? How does it function exactly?
Answer:
- How it is fired: Missiles can be carried externally as is most common or internally inside the aircraft, as with the old F-106 and the newer stealth aircraft. Aside from opening the fuselage doors and extending the missile out into the slipstream as with those type aircraft with internal carriage, their firing methods are essentially the same.
The two main ways to launch and fire a missile are either firing it straight ahead on its railing like an AIM-9 Sidewinder – a rail launch, or by ejecting it down and away from rack holding the missile with two pistons, and then firing it – an ejector launch. In a rail launch, the missile fires while still attached to its launcher. On an ejection launch, the missile is ejected away from the launcher. Then a thin wire spools out, and when it reaches maximum extension if will trip the firing sequence, well away from the aircraft.
- How it functions: Generally there are two types of air-to-air missiles: Active radar guided missiles and passive seeker missiles, usually based in IR guidance.
With radar missiles there are two further types, active and semi-active, or more often a combination of both. An active missile will have its own small radar to paint the target and then guide off the radar return. Not needing the fighter to illuminate the target, this would be a “launch and leave” missile.
The other type of radar guided missile is a beam rider. The launch aircraft illuminates the target with its own radar, and the missile receives this reflected energy off the target and follows that reflected beam to the target. However the more common type of missile will initially follow the fighter’s reflected energy for some period of time and distance, then it will go “active” itself, following its own internal radar return from the target.
IR missiles are much simpler (and less expensive and lighter) than the radar guided ones. They passively with their own seeker head lock on to a heat or similar source and just follow it to its source.
There are two ways to destroy a target, either by a direct hit or by proximity fusing. With a Proximity fuze the missile does not have to hit the target, but only come close. The missile will have a sensor that will detect a Doppler shift as it passes by the target, causing it to detonate.
Rail launch: AIM-9 Sidewinder
VIDEO: AIM-9 Sidewinder Dailymotion
Fire-control system – Wikipedia
A fire-control system is a number of components working together, usually a gun data computer, a director, and radar, which is designed to assist a weapon system in hitting its target. It performs the same task as a human gunner firing a weapon, but attempts to do so faster and more accurately.
Computer-controlled firing
Quote from a research paper on IEEE Xplore:
Design of portable integrated fire control computer (PIFCC) for indonesian navy
Abstract:
Tactical weapons system
From Encylopaedia Britannica
Tactical weapons system, system integrating tactical weapons with electronic equipment for target acquisition, aiming, or fire control or a combination of such purposes. Tactical weapons are designed for offensive or defensive use at relatively short range with relatively immediate consequences. They include weapons used for antitank assault, antiaircraft defense, battlefield support, aerial combat, or naval combat.
Missile fire control systems
From the extract below, we can see that fire control systems can be used for missiles, and that some systems involve a computer controlling the firing to “overcome the delay of the pilot”
Quoted from Fire control system – Wikipedia
Modern fire control systems
Modern fire-control computers, like all high-performance computers, are digital. The added performance allows basically any input to be added, from air density and wind, to wear on the barrels and distortion due to heating. These sorts of effects are noticeable for any sort of gun, and fire-control computers have started appearing on smaller and smaller platforms. Tanks were one early use that automated gun laying using a laser rangefinder and a barrel-distortion meter. Fire-control computers are not just useful for large cannons. They can be used to aim machine guns, small cannons, guided missiles, rifles, grenades, rockets—any kind of weapon that can have its launch or firing parameters varied. They are typically installed on ships, submarines, aircraft, tanks and even on some small arms—for example, the grenade launcher developed for use on the Fabrique Nationale F2000 bullpup assault rifle. Fire-control computers have gone through all the stages of technology that computers have, with some designs based upon analogue technology and later vacuum tubes which were later replaced with transistors.
Fire-control systems are often interfaced with sensors (such as sonar, radar, infra-red search and track, laser range-finders, anemometers, wind vanes, thermometers, barometers, etc.) in order to cut down or eliminate the amount of information that must be manually entered in order to calculate an effective solution. Sonar, radar, IRST and range-finders can give the system the direction to and/or distance of the target. Alternatively, an optical sight can be provided that an operator can simply point at the target, which is easier than having someone input the range using other methods and gives the target less warning that it is being tracked. Typically, weapons fired over long ranges need environmental information—the farther a munition travels, the more the wind, temperature, air density, etc. will affect its trajectory, so having accurate information is essential for a good solution. Sometimes, for very long-range rockets, environmental data has to be obtained at high altitudes or in between the launching point and the target. Often, satellites or balloons are used to gather this information.
Once the firing solution is calculated, many modern fire-control systems are also able to aim and fire the weapon(s). Once again, this is in the interest of speed and accuracy, and in the case of a vehicle like an aircraft or tank, in order to allow the pilot/gunner/etc. to perform other actions simultaneously, such as tracking the target or flying the aircraft. Even if the system is unable to aim the weapon itself, for example the fixed cannon on an aircraft, it is able to give the operator cues on how to aim. Typically, the cannon points straight ahead and the pilot must maneuver the aircraft so that it oriented correctly before firing. In most aircraft the aiming cue takes the form of a “pipper” which is projected on the heads-up display (HUD). The pipper shows the pilot where the target must be relative to the aircraft in order to hit it. Once the pilot maneuvers the aircraft so that the target and pipper are superimposed, he or she fires the weapon, or on some aircraft the weapon will fire automatically at this point, in order to overcome the delay of the pilot. In the case of a missile launch, the fire-control computer may give the pilot feedback about whether the target is in range of the missile and how likely the missile is to hit if launched at any particular moment. The pilot will then wait until the probability reading is satisfactorily high before launching the weapon.
Missile rails
F-35C
URL: www.migflug.com
LAU-128 Missile Rail Launcher on a US Air Force F-15
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/lau-127.htm
Rail-launched AIM-7 from an F-15
URL: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=28429
VIDEO: J-20 stealth fighter with Chinese indigenious missile launch rail-abridged Dailymotion
Quote from Duotech:
5 Data Inputs from Aircraft to the Central Air Data Computer (CADC)
The Fire Control Computer (FCC) helps with navigation and aircraft management, but the primary purpose is to manage targeting in both air-to-air and air-to-ground attack modes. The FCC is modularly designed in three primary functional groups: the central processing unit (CPU), the magnetic memory (MM), and the input/output (I/O).
Simply put, the magnetic memory is like a chalkboard, where the input/output writes the numbers it receives from various avionics systems and the radar system of the aircraft. The I/O communicates with the CPU, which then calculates a result using the numbers in MM. The CPU then tells the output the result, passing the information over a data bus to the proper receiving unit to be utilized by the aircraft and pilot.
The FCC implements the computations for nine major functions:
9 Major Functions of the Fire Control Computer (FCC)
- Executive scheduling, initialization, and mode control – The FCC determines which electronics system can deliver, or receive, what information to or from the FCC’s data bus at what time.
- Data entry and display – Calculates the information input from the aircraft’s various avionics and the radar system and outputs the data to the proper displays.
- Navigation support such as system altitude and steering – provides data to cockpit displays in order for pilot to follow optimum flight paths for intercept.
- Fixtaking – The FCC calculates the input terrestrial, electronic, or astronomical data acquired from the aircraft’s avionics and global positioning system to continuously determine where in the sky the jet is positioned.
- Air-to-ground and air-to-air weapon delivery including lead computing optical sight (LCOS), snap-shoot, and missile modes – assist pilot with accurate firing of guns and missiles by calculating their aircraft’s position (fixtaking) versus the enemy combatant’s position, and properly leading the pilot with head-up display to radar intercept
- Energy management – While dog fighting, energy advantage is everything. As two pilots engage, they trade airspeed for altitude back and forth, trying to gain the advantage over the other. The good pilot is constantly aware of their own energy while observing his opponent to assess their energy situation. With this information, the pilot can decide who has the energy advantage and maneuver to gain the upper hand.
- Stores select – Tells the pilot which weapons he has available to him. Allows them to select the missile or bomb they wish to employ against the enemy.
- Self-test monitoring and reporting – FCC monitors itself and notifies pilot if system is not functioning properly.
- Head-up display (HUD) display parameters – delivering accurate data that the FCC outputs to be displayed on the HUD for pilot’s immediate use
Technical Description: The FCC communicates with other avionics systems via a dual redundant multiplexed data bus. Whenever the FCC is off or incapable of performing the bus control function, a discrete is furnished to the inertial navigation set such that the bus control function is transferred to the inertial navigation set computer.
Layman Description: This means that there are two data buses. The FCC talks to other avionics systems over those buses. If the FCC fails, it turns off the switch that says it is in charge (a discrete signal, off the bus), and the navigation computer takes over. That way, the other avionics can keep working.
Quoted from Debug Lies News
Israel : Autonomous USV System That Fires Torpedoes
Elbit Systems completed recently a trial test torpedo launch from its Seagull multi-mission, autonomous Unmanned Surface Vessel (USV) system.
Performed out of Israel’s Haifa port, the trial demonstrated the capability of Seagull to install and launch lightweight torpedoes, adding to the platform’s sensory capabilities.
The Seagull is designed to carry out unmanned maritime missions, such as anti-submarine warfare (ASW) counter-mine operation, protecting high-value assets inshore and offshore. Lightweight torpedoes are often used by anti-submarine vessels, helicopters, and aircraft against submarines located in shallow waters.
This is the first instance where such weapons are used from unmanned platforms.
“The success of this test demonstrates Seagull’s modular mission system capability, enabling a highly effective ASW configuration of high-performance dipping sonar using two single tube torpedoes,” said Ofer Ben-Dov, Vice President Naval Systems Business Line atElbit Systems’ ISTAR Division …
The Seagull USV is controlled by means of a line-of-sight communication link that is effective to a range of about 100 kilometers or through a satellite communication link effective at longer distances.
Homing – Infrared image, coordinates, radar measurements of the target
Active radar homing
URL: http://www.slideshare.net/bknjrotc/naval-aircraft-missiles-web
Semiactive homing
URL: http://www.slideshare.net/bknjrotc/naval-aircraft-missiles-web
Homing guidance
URL: http://www.slideshare.net/bknjrotc/naval-aircraft-missiles-web
Mode of exit of missile
If the missile was within the fuselage of the plane, it was loaded into the cargo hold and probably shot out through the nose cone.
Cargo door of a passenger plane open.
The nose cone of this cargo plane is lifted up
Doctoring of videos of Flight 175 hitting South Tower
VIDEO: 911 plane hitting tower slow motion Dailymotion
In a number of videos, a white flash ball with an orange tinge can be seen as Flight 175 approaches the South Tower. In the video above, the head of the plane seems to have been scrubbed out; however, there is still a flash that can be seen just as the plane hits the tower.
VIDEO: Airplane and a flash on impact 911 Dailymotion
This video shows the orange-tinged white flash very distinctly. The head of the plane seems to have been pixelated out. There are bright spots of reflection on the plane’s fuselage in two places that did not appear before right up until the plane was within the close vicinity of the building. Instead of these bright reflections, the plane should have been dark as the building would have cast a shadow on the plane. A missile’s bright flash can be the only explanation.
Spotter helicopter drone or aimed laser
Also, right as the plane approaches the South Tower, a white light seems to be flitting nearby. It looks like a helicopter that is nearby. Perhaps it’s guiding the plane’s flight or the missile from the plane. It could be a drone-helicopter. Another explanation for this object is that it is a spotter unmanned aircraft that is controlling the firing of the missile from the plane. As the plane approaches the building, the drone is in a good position for relaying information via SATLINK to operators on the ground who will time the firing of the missile appropriately.
VIDEO: The 2nd World Trade Center Attack – flittering object Dailymotion
In the video below, there is a distinct object shooting out of the opposite side of the South Tower from where the plane hit. It looks like a missile remnant. A missile trail can also be observed in many videos of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower.
VIDEO: The 2nd World Trade Center Attack – missile trail and remnant Dailymotion
A screen capture from the video shows a trail of smoke shooting out the other side of the tower from the plane strike.
In many of the other videos taken of Flight 175 hitting the South Tower, the video looks doctored in a similar way. The head of the plane seems to be missing or abnormally foreshortened. The pixels look fuzzy around the head of the plane just before it hits the South Tower. It’s possible that Israeli Mossad agents were ready to film the plane attack of the South Tower at different angles and they doctored the videos before releasing the videos to the broadcasting stations. These doctored videos would be the main documentary evidence of a plane hitting the South Tower, and they would be scrubbed of any evidence of a missile hitting the tower.
If the doctored video was taken by a cameraman from a broadcasting company, it would mean that the owner of the news network company was complicit in the false flag attack.
______________________________________________________________
Cargo hold doors
767 cargo hold door IMG: http://aerosavvy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/belly-door.jpg URL: http://aerosavvy.com/airlines-freight-vs-passengers/
US Airways 767-200ER N653US at Schiphol on Oct 9th 2003. Photo (CC) caribb. IMG: http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/Boeing-767-006.preview.jpg URL: http://www.aviationspectator.com/image/latest-aviation-images?page=8
Cargo door is open on the right side of the plane near the rear. Flight 11 was a Boeing 767-200ER.
Boeing 767-200. Photo (CC) Todo-Juanjo. IMG: http://www.aviationspectator.com/files/images/Boeing-767-001.preview.jpg URL: http://www.aviationspectator.com/image/latest-aviation-images?page=8
The outline of the door of the nose cone compartment that houses the avionics is visible in this picture.
Boeing 767-200 IMG: http://www.airvectors.net/avb767_02.jpg URL: http://www.airvectors.net/avb767.html
This image shows the landing gear out and the doors of the landing compartment open.
_________________________________________________________________
Cargo hold description
Quoted from Quora:
- What we call the “hold” or the “bulk” is actually on the Airbus 330 and 340 the aft cargo section. There’s a separate smaller access door to it from the outside. It’s not a separate space inside the airplane as there’s only a net that keeps this zone isolated from the zone just in front of it. It distinguishes itself from the rest of the cargo area in that there are no special cargo containers needed to load the items in first. Please notice that I’m only talking about a passenger A330/340/320 now as I have too little experience with other types. I have a little 737-200 experience and there were no cargo containers needed at all, cargo could just be piled up inside the plane.
(Note the small “bulk cargo compartment door” aft of the aft cargo compartment door. This allows separate access to the “bulk” or “hold” for items like baby strollers or animals that aren’t conveniently loaded in cargo containers before being put on board.)
(The bulk cargo compartment forms one big space together with the aft cargo compartment so in theory whatever the temperature in the aft cargo compartment is, is also the temperature in the bulk cargo compartment)
(Here’s a view from inside the aft cargo compartment towards the back of the airplane. The open door is the aft cargo door. Note how only a net separates the “bulk” or the “hold” from this aft cargo compartment.)
(Other items, like checked in luggage or cargo, go into a cargo container like depicted here before being loaded onto the airplane. This prevents items from shifting significantly and keeps the airplane stable and balanced. Items that go into the bulk are not loaded in one of those containers but just kept in place with a net.)
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-temperature-in-an-airliners-cargo-hold
Even though the pictures are from an Airbus, a Boeing cargo hold would be similar.
________________________________________________________________
Cargo doors
Cargo door of a Boeing 757-200 URL: http://craigmiddleton.co.uk/757/Biggles/www.crjresets.ca/z-Mcon/Hard2Find/B757/757_rr/airplane_general/doors_and_windows.html
URL: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-cargo-hold-of-most-airliners-accessible-from-the-main-cabin
Quote: (To give you an idea of what it looks like down there: cargo is usually loaded in these containers and even if you open the doors of the LDMCR or avionics bay, you’ll just stand face to face with the first container. No access to your suitcase where you accidentally put your recharge cable for your phone in, I’m sorry to inform you.) https://www.quora.com/Is-the-cargo-hold-of-most-airliners-accessible-from-the-main-cabin
Cargo hold
777 forward cargo URL: http://snocamp.s3.amazonaws.com/steve.cotterill@sno.wednet.edu/uploads/files/fam_002.pdf
Inside of an airliner cargo pit
IMG: https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/pltkd/the_inside_of_an_airliner_cargo_pit_in_case/
http://www.keywordsking.com/bDEwMTEgY2FiaW4/
In some planes, the cargo hold can be accessed from the main cabin.
__________________________________________________________
767 Boeing family
Quote from Boeing:
767 The Boeing 767 family includes three passenger models — the 767-200ER, 767-300ER and 767-400ER — and a freighter, which is based on the 767- 200ER fuselage. The 767 has been converted into a Tanker for military purposes. Passengers are never more than one seat from the aisle.
AWACS
From Boeing E-767 – Wikipedia
- Boeing E-767 is an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft.
- This plane is essentially Boeing E-3 Sentry’s surveillance radar and air control system installed on a Boeing 767-200
- E-3 Sentry was the prime aircraft for airborne warning and control system aircraft
- Base airframe of Boeing E-767 is 767-200ER
- Has 3-D radar
- Other major subsystems are identification, tactical data link and navigation
- First E-767 made first flight in 1994
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_E-767
Boeing E-767 AWACS plane URL: http://nosint.blogspot.com/2014/11/boeing-to-upgrade-cabin-and-cockpit.html
Emergency exits in a Boeing 767-200ER and Boeing 757-300
Seating and exits on Boeing 767-200ER on left and Boeing 757-300 on right URL: http://www.aviationexplorer.com/aircraft_airline_seating_charts.html
The hijackers could have exited the plane from any of these emergency exits.
Dimensions of a 757
_________________________________________________________________
Quote from New York Magazine:
The Planes
Flying weapons
by Eric Benson, published Aug 27, 2011
The Fleet
American Airlines Flight 11 was a Boeing 767-200ER built in 1987. The “ER” stands for “extended range”; the plane could fly from New York to Beijing nonstop.
United Flight 175 was also a Boeing 767-200ER, built four years earlier, in 1983. The 767 had debuted the year before.
American Airlines Flight 77 was a Boeing 757-200 built in 1991, four feet shorter and four feet slimmer than the 767-200ER.
United Airlines Flight 93 was also a 757-200, built in 1996. The model was discontinued in 2005.
Illustrations by Martin Ansin
The first of the four planes [P4] to depart was American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767-200ER. It was 159 feet and two inches long, with a sixteen-foot-six-inch-wide body that allowed for two aisles. The plane made daily flights between Boston and Los Angeles, and when it took off at 7:59 a.m. on the morning of the eleventh, it carried only 81 passengers in its 158 seats. Forty-seven minutes later, it crashed into the North Tower at 440 mph, carrying 9,717 gallons of jet fuel, 14,000 gallons under capacity.
United Flight 175, also a Boeing 767-200ER, was the second. Like American Airlines 11, it was scheduled to fly between Logan and LAX. When United 175 took off at 8:14 a.m., it was even lighter than the American flight: Only 56 out of 168 seats were occupied. When it crashed into the South Tower at 9:03 a.m., traveling 540 mph, it had 9,118 gallons of fuel in its tanks.
American Airlines Flight 77 was the third plane to take off that day, a Boeing 757-200. AA77 left Washington, D.C., at 8:20 a.m. bound for Los Angeles. It was two-thirds empty, with 58 passengers in its 176 seats, and its tanks were 4,000 gallons under its 11,500-gallon capacity. It crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m., flying 530 mph.
The fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, was also a 757-200. It was delayed for 42 minutes past its scheduled 8 a.m. departure from Newark bound for San Francisco. When it finally took off, it carried only 37 passengers—its capacity was 182—and it was loaded with a little over 7,000 gallons of fuel. It crashed at 560 mph into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 10:03 a.m.
The two models—the 767 and the 757—were introduced within a year of one another in the early eighties, when Boeing was fighting lackluster sales, dwindling cash reserves, and a surging European rival, Airbus. The company marketed the planes to airlines as cost-savers, emphasizing their fuel efficiency and their modified cockpits, which allowed two pilots to do the work of three. Crews testing both aircraft gave them high marks for precise handling.
http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/planes/
________________________________________________________________
Quote from Air Mobility Command Pamphlet 24-2 Volume 3, Addendum E (14 Oc 2011)
1.7. Description. Addendum E. Boeing B767 Series.
The B767 Series aircraft are wide-body, twin engine aircraft, designed for short to medium range. The ER models can also fly long range routes, due to advanced systems and modifications, and the first to be approved by the FAA for Extended Twin Engine Operations (ETOPS) 120 and 180 minutes long. Incorporating newer technology, lighter materials, and a thicker, longer wing, the B767 has increased performance and economy. The B767 and the B757 series aircraft were developed concurrently, and share many common features, allowing pilots dual qualifications. Therefore, many companies operate with both B767’s and B757’s, increasing efficiency and savings. To date, 981 B767’s have been made, with orders for over 50 more.
The B767-200 was developed for roughly three years before its first flight on September 1981, being type-certified in July 1982. Featuring many common features as the B757, it also shared common engines with the B747, as well as having over four feet more width than a standard narrow-body. Before production ceased in 1994, 128 B767-200’s were manufactured.
The next model, the B767-200ER, or extended range, was developed right after the first B767- 200 was delivered. Identical to the B767-200, except for center fuel tanks, it first flew and was type-certified in March 1984. 121 B767-200ER’s have been manufactured to date.
B767-200SF. Israel Aerospace Industries received a FAA Supplemental Type Certificate in July 2004 to convert B767-200 and -200ER’s into freighters. The B767-200SF (“SF” for Special Freighter), has all passenger windows, galleys, and exits removed, and the main compartment floor strengthened and cargo door added. As of 2009, 38 B767-200SF’s have been converted.
Click to access amcpam24-2v3_add-e.pdf
Israelis had extensive experience with Boeing 767-200s and converted a number of them into freighters.
_____________________________________________________________
Boeing 767 was suitable for adaptation as a military plane
Quote from Air Vectors:
BOEING 767 ORIGINS
“In early 1978, Boeing began to peddle the “767” to prospective customers, with United Airlines being the launch customer. Development then moved ahead towards production. Boeing was also working on the smaller 757 jetliner in parallel; turning out two major aircraft in parallel was a strain, reduced by sharing technology between the two aircraft, most notably the advanced cockpit. Interestingly, aircrew have to step up into the cockpit on the 767, while they step down into the cockpit on the 757.”
“One of the prototypes, incidentally, was modified for use as a US military testbed, the “Airborne Optical Adjunct (AOA)”, later renamed the “Airborne Surveillance Testbed (AST)”. It had twin ventral fins and a “hump” running down the top of the forward fuselage to the rear of the wing roots. It was used to test an infrared imaging missile-tracking system, and possibly some other kit. The AST was retired in 2002.”
http://www.airvectors.net/avb767.html
URL: http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Army/Boeing-767-200(AST)/704653
______________________________________________________________
Fuel tank of Boeing 767-2C
Emergency exits
Boeing 767-2C landing gear and undercarriage of plane
Basic model of a passenger cabin and lower bays
_______________________________________________________________
Boeing 767s and 757s
DHL Boeing 767 N752AX. Photo (CC) Drewski2112. http://www.aviationspectator.com/image/latest-aviation-images?page=8
US Airways 767-200ER N653US at Schiphol on Oct 9th 2003. Photo (CC) caribb. http://www.aviationspectator.com/image/latest-aviation-images?page=8
Royal Air Maroc Boeing 767. Photo (CC) caribb. http://www.aviationspectator.com/image/photos/civil-aviation/boeing/boeing-767/boeing-767-30
________________________________________________________________
Boeing 767
Boeing 767: Delta Air Lines Boeing 767 N178DZ. Photo (CC) N701DN. http://www.aviationspectator.com/resources/aircraft-profiles/boeing-767-aircraft-profile
Quote from Air Vectors:
“In early 1978, Boeing began to peddle the “767” to prospective customers, with United Airlines being the launch customer. Development then moved ahead towards production. Boeing was also working on the smaller 757 jetliner in parallel; turning out two major aircraft in parallel was a strain, reduced by sharing technology between the two aircraft, most notably the advanced cockpit. Interestingly, aircrew have to step up into the cockpit on the 767, while they step down into the cockpit on the 757.”
BOEING 767-200: _____________________ _________________ _______________________ spec metric english _____________________ _________________ _______________________ wingspan 47.57 meters 156 feet 1 inch wing area 283.3 sq_meters 3,050 sq_feet length 48.51 meters 159 feet 2 inches height 15.85 meters 52 feet fuselage diameter 5.03 meters 16 feet 6 inches empty weight 79,925 kilograms 176,200 pounds max take-off weight 136,075 kilograms 300,000 pounds max cruise speed 900 KPH 560 MPH / 485 KT service ceiling 13,135 meters 43,100 feet range, nominal 5,185 kilometers 3,220 MI / 2,800 NMI _____________________ _________________ _______________________
“There was a fuel tank in each wing and in the wing center section, providing a total fuel capacity of 63,216 liters (16,700 US gallons). The nose gear had twin wheels and retracted forward; the main gear had four wheels each, in a 2×2 bogie arrangement, and retracted from the inner wings towards the fuselage. The wheels had anti-skid brakes.
There were two flight crew, using a “glass cockpit” with six CRT displays that was advanced for the era. The avionics included radios, navigation aids, and a weather radar, with some variation in particular kit as per customer request. A typical two-class arrangement seated 216, both classes featuring two aisles, with six seats across for 18 first-class passengers and seven seats across for 198 tourist passengers. There were toilets and a galley fore and aft, with toilets in the center section as well. There were fore and aft passenger doors on the left side of the fuselage, with matching service doors on the right side of the fuselage, and an emergency exit over each wing. There was a baggage hold underneath the passenger compartment, with fore and aft baggage doors.”
Although no new-production freighter version of the 767-200 was built, from the late 1990s, a number of 767-200 jetliners were converted to “767-200SF (Special Freighter)” configuration, featuring a large loading door on the left forward fuselage and cargo handling facilities.
* The 767-200 was followed by a series of improved variants:
- An extended range “767-200ER” performed its initial flight on 6 March 1984, with initial deliveries from late in that month. The main change was more fuel tankage in the wing center section, raising the fuel capacity by 22%.”
“* It should be added that one stock 767-200ER was also converted to a “Multi-Mission Tanker Transport (MMTT)” for the Colombian Air Force by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), this machine featuring a drogue refueling pod under each wing, plus cargo-handling facilities or troop seating. In 2013, the Brazilian Air Force ordered three similar conversions from IAI of 767-300ER machines. IAI has test-flown a 767-300ER with a boom refueling unit, and is offering “smart tanker” options to customers, adding modules for signals intelligence, communications relay, or “flying command post” operations.”
KC-767 for Italy (USAF) URL: http://www.airvectors.net/avb767.html
_____________________________________________________________
Wire missile
Wire-guided missile – from Wikipedia
- Wire-guided missiles are missiles that are guided by signals sent via wires that connect the missile and guidance mechanism
- Guidance mechanism is located somewhere near launch site
- This system is commonly used in anti-tank missiles
- Longest range of missile is 4 km (2.5 miles)
- Germans first used electrical wire guidance during WWII, using radio control
- Wire guidance has remained the main system for most smaller weapons
- Newer systems such as laser beam riding increasing in use in anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles (eg. US Hellfire missile and Russian AT-14 Kornet)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire-guided_missile
URL: http://defense-update.com/products/h/hellfire.htm
“Hellfire is currently produced in three configurations – Anti-Tank, Blast-Fragmentation and Thermobaric. A choice of semi-active laser and milimeter wave active seekers are also available. The 45kg Hellfire II missile (48kg in AGM-114M version) offers operational range of 0.5 to 8 km, and utilizes a semi-active laser seeker which has improved targeting capability, including advanced processing to solve laser obscurant/backscatter problems identified during combat engagements in 1991.”
Hellfire missile hits a tank
VIDEO: Hellfire Missile Hitting a Tank Dailymotion
_____________________________________________________________
Command guidance
Quoted from Command guidance – Wikipedia
- Guidance where signals are sent to missile via radio control or wire connected between missile and launcher
- Signals tell missile where to steer
- Signals also command missile to detonate
- Typical system guides the missile tracks the missile and the target via radar
- Command to Line-Of-Sight (CLOS) uses coordinates between target and missile. Missile is in line of sight between target and launcher
- Beam riding guidance (LOSBR): a beam (radio, radar or laser) is pointed at the target. Detectors in rear of missile keep missile centered on the beam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_guidance
Since the missile was detonated/fired close to the WTC buildings, accuracy of hitting the target was not important in the 9/11 attacks.
___________________________________________________________
Depleted uranium munitions
It’s likely the weapon used to punch a hole in the walls of the 9/11 buildings contained depleted uranium due to the penetrative capacities of depleted uranium. In the chapters on cancer, reports showing higher than normal levels of radioactivity are discussed. The Pennsylvania Shanksville crash site of FL93 was still being guarded for at least five years after the event. This may have been the government’s attempt to stop people from testing the soil and materials in that crash site for evidence of radioactivity.
Quote from The Guardian:
Why deadly depleted uranium is the tank buster’s weapon of choice
The use of depleted uranium weapons is again causing concern. The people of Kosovo have been alarmed to discover that the conflict there has left radioactive contamination, just as it did in Kuwait nine years ago.
Why do the United States and Britain continue to use a waste product of the nuclear industry in their weapons? Some commentators allege that it is a conspiracy between the military and the nuclear industry to dispose of dangerous waste in hostile countries. The real reasons are more complex.
Metallic uranium occurs naturally in tiny quantities. In its native state it is a mixture of highly radioactive uranium-235 and less active U-238. U-235 is used in reactors and atomic weapons; once it is extracted, the rest is depleted uranium (DU). It is a poisonous heavy metal like lead or mercury, but only slightly radioactive.
To understand why DU makes a good anti-tank weapon you have to enter the Alice In Wonderland world of high-energy collisions. When metal meets metal at five times the speed of sound, hardened steel shatters like glass. Metal flows like putty, or simply vaporises. A faster shell does not necessarily go through more armour, but, like a pebble thrown into a pond, it makes a bigger splash.
Armour penetration is increased by concentrating the force of a shell into as small an area as possible, so the projectiles tend to look like giant darts. The denser the projectile, the harder the impact for a given size. DU is almost twice as dense as lead, making it highly suitable. The other metal used for anti-tank rounds is tungsten, which is also very hard and dense. When a tungsten rod strikes armour, it deforms and mushrooms, making it progressively blunter. Uranium is “pyrophoric”: at the point of impact it burns away into vapour, so the projectile stays sharp. When it breaks through, the burning DU turns the inside of a vehicle into an inferno of white-hot gas and sparks.
Normal uranium is not as hard as tungsten. But a classified technique allows it to be hardened. This is believed to involve alloying it with titanium and cooling it so that it forms a single large metallic crystal rather than a chaotic mass of tiny crystals. This structure is very strong and produces an improvement similar to the difference between a brittle pencil lead and a carbon-fibre tennis racquet. The final advantage of uranium is cost. Machined tungsten is expensive, but governments supply DU more or less free.
As with most weapons, depleted uranium is not as deadly as its proponents – or its critics – claim. One tank was hit four times with no casualties. Twenty US vehicles took penetrating hits from DU weapons during the Gulf war. Thirteen crew members were killed, but 113 others – almost 90% – survived. The long-term health effects are not known.
It is likely that DU will be phased out eventually, not for health reasons but for military ones. It was introduced to solve the problem of breaking through heavy armour. But tank armour is concentrated mainly at the front, facing the main threat; it is thinner on the sides, and thinner still on top. If the entire vehicle were clad in thick armour it would be too heavy to move. Instead of brute force, the clever approach would be to attack the weakest point.
After decades of development a new generation of anti-armour weapons is being fielded. These “brilliant” weapons find their own targets, unlike mere smart bombs, which have to be directed. One example is Sadarm (Seek And Destroy Armour). It is fired like a normal artillery shell into the target area, where it ejects two submunitions that descend by parachute. As they fall, Sadarm scans the ground with radar and infrared sensors. Targets are identified, and the most important are selected – a Scud launcher in preference to a tank, a tank rather than a truck.
Sadarm fires a slug of molten metal at the selected target. The slug takes on an aerodynamic shape as it travels through the air, ideal for piercing armour. Though less powerful than a DU shell, it can break through the top armour of any tank.
Engagements between tanks are fought face-to-face, at a maximum distance of about 4km. Sadarm can be lobbed at an enemy 20km away. Missiles carrying brilliant munitions can range out to 100km or more.
Sadarm and other brilliant weapons use tantalum, an exotic heavy metal for which little data is available. But it appears to be highly toxic, especially when vaporised. We will probably discover its full effects only after the next hi-tech war.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/may/18/armstrade.kosovo
________________________________________________________________
The Day America Was Punked 
