9/11: The Smoking Gun

Fonebone said:
Thank you for your correction.

I will correct my incorrect data and the statement estimating reaction time

will be amended and my comment will be revised accordingly.
Click to expand...

Sound has nothing to do with it.

People looked out of the windows and SAW airliners!
People in the streets looked up and SAW airliners!
People along the flight paths SAW airliners!
People near the Pentagon SAW an airliner dive and crash into it!

NOT . ONE . PERSON reported seeing a missile!

The evidence that it was airliners is irrefutable and overwhelming... hundreds of eye-witnesses, multiple camera angles from multiple sources!
 
Last edited:
Fonebone said:
In post # 175, I incorrectly stated the speed of sound was 500 MPH.
The correct speed speed of sound at sea level at 70 F is 1100 feet per second
or 343 meter per second which equates to 767MPH.
Thank you Reformed Offlian for alerting me to my error the error.
The flying object disguised as a commercial wide body airliner B767 is calculated to
be traveling at a ground speed of greater than 500 MPH or
733 1/3 FTS (feet per second). Therefore the sound wave created by the flying object
would travel at 1100 FPS, almost twice as fast as the flying object.

The witness would have a fraction of a second to be alerted to the
noise and a fraction of another second to view the object. The witness that viewed
through the windows you have a shorter time to observe the flying object. If the
object was disguised as a B767 jetliner the illusion magnified.
If the flying was powered with jet engine the eye/ear combination would be
likewise reinforce the same illusion and convictions of the witnesses.
Click to expand...

This made me Laugh a low flying plane is heard though the ground before it is heard in air, that's how I can tell a big C130 is about to pass over minutes before it does and why my house shakes when the 101 airborne flies over!
Speed though the ground is about 3500 feet per second.
In a city it would be even more apperent.
Secondly a Cruise Missle wouldn't bring the building down, and their is absolutely no evidence for anything but fire as the cause of all three buildings collapses.
It's all been debunked a decade ago.
 
Fonebone said:
In post # 175, I incorrectly stated the speed of sound was 500 MPH.
The correct speed speed of sound at sea level at 70 F is 1100 feet per second
or 343 meter per second which equates to 767MPH.
Thank you Reformed Offlian for alerting me to my error the error.
The flying object disguised as a commercial wide body airliner B767 is calculated to
be traveling at a ground speed of greater than 500 MPH or
733 1/3 FTS (feet per second). Therefore the sound wave created by the flying object
would travel at 1100 FPS, almost twice as fast as the flying object.
Click to expand...

Your entire argument was based on the premise that the sound of the airliner could not be heard before the airliner passed overhead because it was travelling at the speed of sound. Since you've now admitted that your premise was incorrect, you should accept that the conclusion drawn from that premise is specious. And yet...

Fonebone said:
The witness would have a fraction of a second to be alerted to the
noise and a fraction of another second to view the object.
Click to expand...

...you've chosen to invoke the good old unevaluated inequality fallacy so beloved of truthers: "I don't have any idea how long witnesses would have had to react to the noise, but I'm absolutely certain it wasn't long enough."

I think the word for this is "Flapdoodle," isn't it?

Dave
 
I once had the opportunity to sit in the cockpit jumpseat of a NATO E-3A sentry (AWACS) on a real-world mission. At one point in flight, at cruise speed (Mach 0.8 or thereabouts) and cruise altitude (like 30,000 ft), the E-3A we were relieving in the operation area came straight at us, also at cruise speed and cruise altitude, only a couple of flight levels higher, so relative approach speed was Mach 1.6. You could not hear it at all - but looking out the window on a clear, sunny, cloudless day, a large plane (the E-3A is a Boeing 707 based plane) speeding towards you is something you pick up immediately, with ease, from a long way out. I would guess I spotted it when it was 3 km away - six seconds later, it would pass overhead with an awesome speed. Nothing was easier than to notice it was a large plane with four engines and a radar dome. You know, human vision is tuned to alert you very quickly to moving objects, especially objects that quickly move towards you.

Sound doesn't even factor into it: You spot a large plane racing towards you easily at least a couple of miles out if only you happen to be looking in the general direction, and an at least rough identification ("this is a large plane, not a missile") is dead easy.
 
Fonebone said:
The witness would have a fraction of a second to be alerted to the
noise and a fraction of another second to view the object. The witness that viewed
through the windows you have a shorter time to observe the flying object. If the
object was disguised as a B767 jetliner the illusion magnified.
If the flying was powered with jet engine the eye/ear combination would be
likewise reinforce the same illusion and convictions of the witnesses.
Click to expand...

Everyone in lower Manhattan heard the jets, both of them.

The idea of disguising a cruise missile as a 767 is stupid for many reasons: cost, man-power-to-secrecy ratio, and nobody working in black-ops or the aviation black-projects divisions would ever sign off on something this dumb. Ask any weapons designer and or engineer, and they'll tell you a 767 fully loaded with jet fuel is enough to do the job on 9-11.

You'd think the hundreds of people working at the Boeing plant would start to ask whatever happened to those four cruise missiles we disguised as 767s? It's been 22 years, just about all the big classified blunders of the Afghan and Iraq wars is in the public arena for those who care to read up. Wiki Leaks had Manning and Snowden. Where's the smoking gun you talk about?

Why do you need this to be true?
Why isn't the obvious fact that Bush, and by proxy the American people were so angry over the attacks of 9-11 that we didn't care whose ass we kicked, or how long bombed the crap out of countries most of us can' find on a map?

Why isn't the failure of the FBI and CIA enough?

Why does it have to be some complicated, mushroom and marijuana-fueled cabal of rehashed Vietnam crap?

Why does the real world scare you to the point of embracing fantasies?
 
bknight said:
Ah your most recent pigeon drop. In the Naudet film everyone except no-planers can identify an airplane flying into WTC1, even at 500+ MPH. So no missles didn't cause the big hole in the structure.
Click to expand...

smartcooky said:
Sound has nothing to do with it.

People looked out of the windows and SAW airliners!
People in the streets looked up and SAW airliners!
People along the flight paths SAW airliners!
People near the Pentagon SAW an airliner dive and crash into it!

NOT . ONE . PERSON reported seeing a missile!

The evidence that it was airliners is irrefutable and overwhelming... hundreds of eye-witnesses, multiple camera angles from multiple sources!
Click to expand...

bknight said:
And yet the Naudet brothers film clearly shows an airplane with two wings crashing into WTC1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miA8Td4oNcY approximately 1:09
Click to expand...


This image

https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j394/xfonebonex1/WTC1_naudet_missile_still.jpg
[IMGw=640]https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j394/xfonebonex1/WTC1_naudet_missile_still.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds[/IMGw]


captures the flying object milliseconds before it strikes the north face of the WTC1 north tower. as the image indicates the time-stamp is 1:09 / 1:33 extracted from your youtube link you supplied.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miA8Td4oNcY
Please point out the Boeing 767-200 you claim the "hundred of witnesses witnessed. The "plane" for the "no planers" is the blurred spot in front of the North Sun-lit wall of the WTC1.

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to shrink page-stretching image
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fonebone said:
This image...

<image snipped because its too large>


...captures the flying object milliseconds before it strikes the north face of the WTC1 north tower. as the image indicates the time-stamp is 1:09 / 1:33 extracted from your youtube link you supplied.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miA8Td4oNcY
Please point out the Boeing 767-200 you claim the "hundred of witnesses witnessed. The "plane" for the "no planers" is the blurred spot in front of the North Sun-lit wall of the WTC1.
Click to expand...

Bwhahahaha! A selectively chosen screengrab from a potato quality video

Well I did a screengrab of my own from the same potato quality video and a fraction of a second earlier.

911-846.png


Debunked!

You may not be able to see that is its a 767, but you can see it has wings, and is a lot ******* bigger than a missile. On that scale, a missile would cover about a half-dozen pixels. Even if it was a winged model of a cruise missile such as an AGM-86, AGM-158 or a BGM-109, you would not be able to see the wings.

[IMGW=500]https://www.dropbox.com/s/lsn5rhlkpzqw1ds/757-AGM158%20sizecomp.png?raw=1[/IMGW]


Its worth noting that the people in the video said they heard a plane (not a missile, a plane) and they looked up at it. None of them said "****, that's a missile".

Also worth noting that the sound you hear on the video is that of that of a high-bypass turbo jet, the type used on airliners, which sounds significantly different from that of a small turbofan engine used on cruise missiles.
 
Last edited:
Yep that is my link to the video of the film that they were on location for the NYFD. The only thing I can tell you it is a poor screen shot of a youtube video which is a 2nd generation of the original. I am quite able to see an airplane crashing into the building, but not of your captured image. From the video I am unable to determine the type, manufacture or servicing company that owned the airplane, but it is an airplane, now if you can't determine this then your eyesight along with your reasoning skills is lacking. Everyone except toofers knows it was an airplane. As many have pointed out some of the plane parts from the wreckages of WTC1 and WTC2 along with the Pentagon are in exhibit for all to see. Get over your 20+ years of delusion and wake up to the reality that 19 Muslims hijacked 4 airplanes on that day crashing 3 into buildings and one into a field in Pa.

ETA: smartcooky beat me to the debunking!
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Bwhahahaha! A selectively chosen screengrab from a potato quality video

Well I did a screengrab of my own from the same potato quality video and a fraction of a second earlier.

911-846.png


Debunked!

You may not be able to see that is its a 767, but you can see it has wings, and is a lot ******* bigger than a missile. On that scale, a missile would cover about a half-dozen pixels. Even if it was a winged model of a cruise missile such as an AGM-86, AGM-158 or a BGM-109, you would not be able to see the wings.

[imgw=500]https://www.dropbox.com/s/lsn5rhlkpzqw1ds/757-AGM158%20sizecomp.png?raw=1[/imgw]


Its worth noting that the people in the video said they heard a plane (not a missile, a plane) and they looked up at it. None of them said "****, that's a missile".

Also worth noting that the sound you hear on the video is that of that of a high-bypass turbo jet, the type used on airliners, which sounds significantly different from that of a small turbofan engine used on cruise missiles.
Click to expand...


To help "no planers" identify the flying object in the Naudet video, an image
of a Boeing 767 is shown here for comparason. Nose end view of a Boeing 767-200 with a camera center-point
of focus in the horizontal and vertical axes on the nose cone center for scale.


To visualize the size of the B767 a man is standing along side of the nose wheel. The wingspan of the
B767 is 156 feet 1 inch from wing tip to wing tip. The width of the WTC1 tower north fave is 208 feet.

Smartcooky will assist the no planers locate and identify the wide-body airliner he clearly sees.

The port (left) side of the plane is brilliantly reflecting the same rising sun illuminating on the tower's
East face and the brick building in the video foreground.
 
Last edited:
Fonebone said:
<irrelevant BS snipped>
Click to expand...


Hand-waving away facts again I see! :rolleyes:

1. A typical US cruise missile is only 13 to 21 ft long.

AGM-86 - 20 ft
AGM-158 -14 ft
BGM-109 - 20 ft

2. The width of the Twin Tower building was 208 ft, therefore the apparent size of the cruise missile would be between 1/10th and 1/14th the apparent width of the Tower (if it was side on to the viewer. Anything less than side on and the apparent width will be reduced).

3. The absolute best, highest resolution video camera available in 2001 was the Panasonic Broadcast AG DVC10. It had 3 x 1/4-inch CCDs, ~270,000 pixels per CCD - one for each colour; R, G and B[*] (that is 270 kilopixels - about a quarter of a megapixel). Shooting in 16:10, which is what your video looks to have been shot in, that would be about 650 x 400, in other words 650 pixels across the video, and 400 pixels down.

4. The apparent width of the tower, on your video is 1/27th of the width of the video, so it is approximately 24 pixels wide. Since the Tower is 208 feet, and the wing span of a 767 is 159 feet, that aircraft would appear to be about 18 pixels wide. The biggest of the cruise missile is 20 ft, and that works out to... 2 pixels! Your missile would only be two pixels wide at absolute best.

5. In reality, looking at the viewing angle, a cruise missile would not be side on, it would be almost head on - less than a pixel. Even a forensic examination of the video would be extremely unlikely to detect it.

6. To help you visualize this I have drawn some lines on the previous image I posted...

911-846A.png


The red line is the width of 767's wingspan (compare it with the dark shape above it). That dark shape is EXACTLY where I would expect your missile to be, given the frame-grab you posted that you claim shows a missile impact

The white dot below the red line is how big the missile would appear. The dark shape is CLEARLY far too big to be your missile, but is about the right size to be an airliner.

Debunked again!



[*] The Panasonic Broadcast AG DVC10 used full-frame dichroic filters to better separate the red, green and blue color bands, and to get better low-light performance.
 
smartcooky said:
Hand-waving away facts again I see! :rolleyes:

1. A typical US cruise missile is only 13 to 21 ft long.

AGM-86 - 20 ft
AGM-158 -14 ft
BGM-109 - 20 ft

2. The width of the Twin Tower building was 208 ft, therefore the apparent size of the cruise missile would be between 1/10th and 1/14th the apparent width of the Tower (if it was side on to the viewer. Anything less than side on and the apparent width will be reduced).

3. The absolute best, highest resolution video camera available in 2001 was the Panasonic Broadcast AG DVC10. It had 3 x 1/4-inch CCDs, ~270,000 pixels per CCD - one for each colour; R, G and B[*] (that is 270 kilopixels - about a quarter of a megapixel). Shooting in 16:10, which is what your video looks to have been shot in, that would be about 650 x 400, in other words 650 pixels across the video, and 400 pixels down.

4. The apparent width of the tower, on your video is 1/27th of the width of the video, so it is approximately 24 pixels wide. Since the Tower is 208 feet, and the wing span of a 767 is 159 feet, that aircraft would appear to be about 18 pixels wide. The biggest of the cruise missile is 20 ft, and that works out to... 2 pixels! Your missile would only be two pixels wide at absolute best.

5. In reality, looking at the viewing angle, a cruise missile would not be side on, it would be almost head on - less than a pixel. Even a forensic examination of the video would be extremely unlikely to detect it.

6. To help you visualize this I have drawn some lines on the previous image I posted...

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/eylmrzymgte4321/911-846A.png?raw=1[/qimg]


The red line is the width of 767's wingspan (compare it with the dark shape above it). That dark shape is EXACTLY where I would expect your missile to be, given the frame-grab you posted that you claim shows a missile impact

The white dot below the red line is how big the missile would appear. The dark shape is CLEARLY far too big to be your missile, but is about the right size to be an airliner.

Debunked again!



[*] The Panasonic Broadcast AG DVC10 used full-frame dichroic filters to better separate the red, green and blue color bands, and to get better low-light performance.
Click to expand...

Quite well thought out and presented, unfortunately I don't believe Fonebone will learn anything nor change his mind.
 
Additionally for Fonebone - this is what happens when a missile hits a building



An explosion and a very brief flash of flame as the explosive detonates, then no more flame. Why is there so little flame? Because...

1. Explosives used on missiles do not generate very much in the way of fire and flame, and

2. There is only a few hundred pounds of propellant on board - just enough to fly its range.

Now compare that with your video - where do all the flames come from on your video?

Answer, jet fuel. 150,000 lbs of Jet A-1 or JP-5

Missiles cannot carry sufficient jet fuel to cause an explosion like that with an extended fire. It is impossible for the fires we saw with either of the tower impacts have been caused by impacts for a missile of any kind!
 
Just to put the quality of the video in perspective (aside from its being a capture from YouTube and thus not as good as the original) the original tape was of course standard definition video. A favourite saying from back in the days of standard definition TV was that if you had the same visual acuity as the very best professional TV camera of the era, you would be considered seriously visually impaired.

Eyewitnesses had a much more detailed view of the plane than that camera was capable of capturing.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Just to put the quality of the video in perspective (aside from its being a capture from YouTube and thus not as good as the original) the original tape was of course standard definition video. A favourite saying from back in the days of standard definition TV was that if you had the same visual acuity as the very best professional TV camera of the era, you would be considered seriously visually impaired.

Eyewitnesses had a much more detailed view of the plane than that camera was capable of capturing.
Click to expand...

Yup, I picked the Panasonic Broadcast AG DVC10 because it was the best available at that time and therefore gives Fonebone the greatest possible benefit of doubt. Anything other than that camera will be lower quality.

While the DVC10 was a digital video camera, it did not store video onto memory (in 2001, the highest capacity memory card available was 128 MB, way too small to be useful as video storage). Instead, it stored video on miniDV tape cassettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DV

220px-DV_tape_sizes_2.jpg

miniDV is the black and red one
For reference, the grey DVCAM-L cassette
is the same physical size as a VHS cassette.


Storage on tape is "lossy", so very much inferior in quality to storage on flash memory.
 
I wonder if Fonebone remembers having seen (and heard!) the Dick Oliver tape that captured the first crash?

Dick Oliver was a local news reporter. He was outside NY City Hall, to cover the state primaries that happened to be held that same Tuesday. His cameraman had put the camera on the ground as it was running, not pointed to anything in particular, when a noise is swelling in the background, culminating in a huge "boom" sound, followed by Oliver and his man exclaiming things like "what was that??" and "an airplane", then the camera is picked up, moved by foot a bit, and eventually pointed at the North Tower and its now famous plane-shaped gash.

Ok, the video did not show a plane.
But you sure can hear the familiar engine sounds of a large jet liner.
But the things I want to point out here are these:
  • Before the noise, there is no alarm, no urgency beyond everyone doing their normal job - indicative of the fact that the WTC ad not yet been hit by anyting: neither plane nor missile
  • Seconds after the noises, there is the full plane-shaped gash
  • But there was only one noise event!

So if you think a number of missiles combined to cut the plane-shaped hole, you must theorize that they all approached and explosed at essentially the same time, like flying in close formation.

I wonder if that is exsactly what Fonebone theorizes?
 
Oystein said:
I wonder if Fonebone remembers having seen (and heard!) the Dick Oliver tape that captured the first crash?

Dick Oliver was a local news reporter. He was outside NY City Hall, to cover the state primaries that happened to be held that same Tuesday. His cameraman had put the camera on the ground as it was running, not pointed to anything in particular, when a noise is swelling in the background, culminating in a huge "boom" sound, followed by Oliver and his man exclaiming things like "what was that??" and "an airplane", then the camera is picked up, moved by foot a bit, and eventually pointed at the North Tower and its now famous plane-shaped gash.

Ok, the video did not show a plane.
But you sure can hear the familiar engine sounds of a large jet liner.
But the things I want to point out here are these:
  • Before the noise, there is no alarm, no urgency beyond everyone doing their normal job - indicative of the fact that the WTC ad not yet been hit by anyting: neither plane nor missile
  • Seconds after the noises, there is the full plane-shaped gash
  • But there was only one noise event!

So if you think a number of missiles combined to cut the plane-shaped hole, you must theorize that they all approached and explosed at essentially the same time, like flying in close formation.

I wonder if that is exsactly what Fonebone theorizes?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that Fonebone has ever articulated exactly what his beliefs are with the exception of a "no-planer" handle on hm, but other than that no specifics that I can recall. Perhaps someone has run onto him in another thread or platform and have a better description of his beliefs.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Just to put the quality of the video in perspective (aside from its being a capture from YouTube and thus not as good as the original) the original tape was of course standard definition video. A favourite saying from back in the days of standard definition TV was that if you had the same visual acuity as the very best professional TV camera of the era, you would be considered seriously visually impaired.

Eyewitnesses had a much more detailed view of the plane than that camera was capable of capturing.
Click to expand...

There's even a meme about it.
https://i.imgur.com/r3Z46QX.jpeg

(it's a bit large which is why I'm not posting it inline).
 
pgimeno said:
There's even a meme about it.
https://i.imgur.com/r3Z46QX.jpeg

(it's a bit large which is why I'm not posting it inline).
Click to expand...

Hint: You can make the image size in your post whatever you like regardles of the actual image size

For example, your image is 960w x 924h, but using the Image Width BBCode [IMGW=], I can make it smaller, say 500w

[IMGW=500]https://i.imgur.com/r3Z46QX.jpeg[/IMGW]


... or 300w

[IMGW=300]https://i.imgur.com/r3Z46QX.jpeg[/IMGW]


The format is [IMGW=width in pixels]url of image lcoation[/IMGW]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom