There is only a frame of the aircraft in approach and the image is so poor that most of the fuselage (unpainted aluminum) and tail (white) fades into the sky background. What can be seen is the horizontal color stripes of the American Airlines livery---which everyone mistakes for being a missile. The tail wasn't to be seen.
Besides which, the wreckage was specific to the Boeing 757.
I guess you think your imaginary world is superior to the real world, because that is where you are. Since it could never have been a Scud (too slow, no dive angle, too large), nor an ALCM (flew too low, too large). And all these silly claims run away from the fact that it was identified by WITNESSES as being an airliner.
Especially when there are many, who agree on what they see, and testify against your fantasy. (Don't forget the broken lamppost.) How can I be wrong when all the evidence lines up? How can you be right when you haven't a clue about Scud or cruise missiles?
There is only a frame of the aircraft in approach and the image is so poor that most of the fuselage (unpainted aluminum) and tail (white) fades into the sky background. What can be seen is the horizontal color stripes of the American Airlines livery---which everyone mistakes for being a missile. The tail wasn't to be seen.
Besides which, the wreckage was specific to the Boeing 757.
I guess you think your imaginary world is superior to the real world, because that is where you are. Since it could never have been a Scud (too slow, no dive angle, too large), nor an ALCM (flew too low, too large). And all these silly claims run away from the fact that it was identified by WITNESSES as being an airliner.
Especially when there are many, who agree on what they see, and testify against your fantasy. (Don't forget the broken lamppost.) How can I be wrong when all the evidence lines up? How can you be right when you haven't a clue about Scud or cruise missiles?