• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Same missile?

Myriad said:
Okay, there you go. You're basing your approximate measurement of its speed ("too fast for a bird") on the assumption that it has passed behind the tower, which is what accounts for its sudden appearance to the right of the tower in the image.

That's a plausible (though not yet proven) assumption, so let's go with it. I agree with you that if it did indeed emerge from behind the tower, it would have to be moving too quickly to be a flying bird.

However, I can also show that under the same assumption, the object is much too large to be an air-to-air missile. The height of each story of the north tower is between 2 and 3 pixels in the youTube rendering of the video (and much closer to 2 than to 3). We have to allow for some foreshortening because we're looking upward at the towers, but even if we allowed for an upward angle of 45 degrees (actually it's much less) and for an overestimated 3 pixels per tower story, our vertical scale at the minimum possible behind-the-tower distance is not more than 3 * sqrt(2), or about 4.25, pixels per story, or about 1.25 pixels per meter. The diamater of an air to air missile would be somewhere between 1/8 to less than 1/2 meter, so it should be less than a pixel wide in the image.

Blurring cannot account for it appearing as wide as it does. The camera is focused at a distance; under the assumption that the object has passed behind the tower, it cannot be out of focus. And the object's motion would not cause blurring in the direction perpendicular to the direction it's moving.

Furthermore, given that the true image size of a missile at that distance should be less than 1 pixel wide and 12 pixels long, no amount of blurring of any sort can account for it making a much larger smudge (bwtween 5x and 10x larger, linearly) while retaining that much contrast. A bright object against a darker background can (if it starts out intensely bright) can blur into a much larger image and still stand out, but a dark object cannot start out darker than black, and so must fade away as it gets blurred. I urge you to try this out with any kind of camera (motion or still, digital or film) at your disposal. Image a matte black object against a bright background, blur (not enlarge) the object using motion or focus or any other means or any combination to make its outline larger in your image by at least a factor of 5, and see how visible it remains.

Then there is the question of why the object appears black in the first place. Continuing to assume that the object appears from behind the tower, it is in direct sunlight (notice the glare on the nearest sides of the towers, the position of the impact fireball's shadow, and the brightness of the debris object moving right of the north tower about a second later, not as high up) so it would only appear black if it were painted black. I suppose that's possible, but I've never seen AAMs surfaced like that in any photo. There's also no reason for any exahust (if any part of the visible trail of the object were missile exhaust) to appear black, nor for it to disappear completely in the fractions of a second between video frames.

My conclusion from the video is that if the object did indeed pass behind the north tower, then it cannot be an air-to-air missile.

What is it, then? I don't know. I could give you my best guess, but guesses (that is, conjectures without conclusive confirming evidence) are pretty useless, aren't they?

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

I hope we can agree it is worth further investigation.
 
pomeroo said:
No missiles were fired on September 11, 2001.

Let us agree that the topic of this thread has been worn to rags and does not merit further discussion.
Click to expand...
That said, it's always worth reading Myriad's analyses, which may be wasted on MaGZ but are instructive to others.
 
MaGZ

If you wish to investigate this further I would suggest you check out my site

www.inlex.net/bluemonk/nonsense

There is a great deal of information concerning the second video you posted. The site was created in response to a paranormal claim but it is still relevant.

I have posted a video of that very clip but it differs significantly from what you normally find on the net.

I did not get my clip from the net. I went to a commercial news outlet and purchased a copy made from a direct feed from the networks on 9/11.

It differs from clips on the net on several points.

1) All frames are included. Most software only captures every other frame but I took great care to include every frame in the video.
2) Aspect ratio is correct. The pixel shape for video differs slightly from the pixel shape of a computer monitor and if this is not accounted for your resulting image is slightly distorted, being somewhat elongated horizontally.
3) Mine is unaltered. Yours is not. It has been significantly lightened (the original is pretty dark) but more importantly your version has been intentionally cropped! The area that has been cropped out is significant because it is in this area where you can see the object change shape, in a manner very suggestive of the flapping of wings.

But far more important than the clip itself are the dozens of other clips showing this very exact moment.

The only way to determine the size and speed of an unknown object would be through triangulation, viewing it from a different angle.

Only one problem, from every other view, and there are many, in which this object, if it were large and passing near the tower, should be clearly visible, IT IS NOT THERE.

You can see for yourself that this is an irrefutable fact. The only conclusion that one can arrive at is that this is not a large object passing near the towers but a small object passing near only one camera.

As the color and shape is similar to the color and shape of many birds seen in other videos and the very pronounced ‘flapping’ motion one can see in the uncropped version I think one must conclude that it is most likely a bird.
 
Ha! Great job, Blue Monk. That's one special hat!

Anyone who goes to Blue Monk's site should play the 2.7 mb video frame-by-frame. It's perfectly clear that the object is in the foreground, far in front of both towers. As a daily observer of NYC's pigeons, I feel safe in saying "dat's a boid, ya maroon!"
 
Monk, thanks for providing that data.

I was telling the truth when I said I didn't know what the object was. Looking at the version of the video MaGZ linked to, I certainly couldn't say with any confidence that it was a bird. I'm still not certain of that, and probably shouldn't be, given the available evidence. But I do think you've made the strongest possible case.

The only alternative I could think of is far less likely. I was thinking of the timing, the way the object appears during the expansion of the collision fireball, on an apparent trajectory remarkably similar to another object that obviously is piece of debris a second later (though its actual trajectory cannot really be similar). So, I was thinking of the possibility of a relatively small piece of debris ejected, due to some random accident of colliding objects, at a freakishly fast velocity, on an angle toward the camera (and therefore lower than it looks, down in the shadow of other buildings). It's physically possible, there are physics demos you can do in which a collision results in a less massive body being propelled at a much higher speed than any of the bodies going into the collision. But there are many problems with that -- chiefly, that the first clear position of the object appears wrong for such a scenario, and that to originate in the collision and move that quickly toward the camera it would have to be supersonic.

MaGZ, whether it is worth further investigation depends on the form of the proposed investigation. (Just like, I think the causes of cancer is something worth investigating but that doesn't mean I'd be in favor of a study investigating whether playing Beatles albums backwards causes cancer.) I am curious about it, I think it's more likely than not to be a bird, and (as with everything else in this universe) I do wish I knew for sure. But after examining videos from other angles to see if the object's size, trajectory, origin etc. can be clarified, and finding that it doesn't appear at all in those other views, where would an investigation go next?

Another reason for investigation of this object not to be very high on my wish list is that though I don't know what it is, the most likely hypotheses I can think of -- as well as your own missile hypothesis -- are all benign. It doesn't matter whether it was a bird or a freak piece of debris. It also doesn't matter to me it if it were in fact an air to air missile fired by a U.S.A.F. pilot in a failed attempt to save the greater number of lives. None of those possibilities are anything I would be concerned about. If there were any evidence of it being a missile, the only reason I'd want to know about it is for future historical accuracy. It would not affect my political reaction to the day's events at all.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad, I asked the question of Magz a few weeks ago (So what if it is a missile?) and received the response back (rough paraphrase) Don't you want to know if your government is lying to you?
My thoughts are, even if it was, what of it? It matters little in the overall scheme of what happened that day.
 
Gravy said:
Ha! Great job, Blue Monk. That's one special hat!

Anyone who goes to Blue Monk's site should play the 2.7 mb video frame-by-frame. It's perfectly clear that the object is in the foreground, far in front of both towers. As a daily observer of NYC's pigeons, I feel safe in saying "dat's a boid, ya maroon!"
Click to expand...

I think it depends on your monitor, vid card, etc... For me the MP4 worked best. But like your results in on the 2.7mb, on the MP4 it's clearly an object in front of BOTH towers and coming in from out-of-frame on the left of the picture. Clearly something much closer to the camera than the towers, and clearly something not visible on the news footage captured from TV.

Blue Monk..... really good stuff.
MaGZ.... Oh, well, back to the drawing boards, I guess.
 
Foolmewunz said:
...on the MP4 it's clearly an object in front of BOTH towers...
Click to expand...
For those who weren't around at the time, the previous nut who claimed this video showed something odd, was claiming that the object went behind the towers, so therefore it must have been going extremely fast, and was large.

The problem was that he was using a computer video which omits every other frame of the complete one, and the particular frame where the bird passed in front of the North Tower wasn't there. Blue Monk managed to get his hands on the full video with all the frames intact, showing clearly that the object was closer than the tower.
 
Blue Monk said:
MaGZ

If you wish to investigate this further I would suggest you check out my site

www.inlex.net/bluemonk/nonsense

There is a great deal of information concerning the second video you posted. The site was created in response to a paranormal claim but it is still relevant.

I have posted a video of that very clip but it differs significantly from what you normally find on the net.

I did not get my clip from the net. I went to a commercial news outlet and purchased a copy made from a direct feed from the networks on 9/11.

It differs from clips on the net on several points.

1) All frames are included. Most software only captures every other frame but I took great care to include every frame in the video.
2) Aspect ratio is correct. The pixel shape for video differs slightly from the pixel shape of a computer monitor and if this is not accounted for your resulting image is slightly distorted, being somewhat elongated horizontally.
3) Mine is unaltered. Yours is not. It has been significantly lightened (the original is pretty dark) but more importantly your version has been intentionally cropped! The area that has been cropped out is significant because it is in this area where you can see the object change shape, in a manner very suggestive of the flapping of wings.

But far more important than the clip itself are the dozens of other clips showing this very exact moment.

The only way to determine the size and speed of an unknown object would be through triangulation, viewing it from a different angle.

Only one problem, from every other view, and there are many, in which this object, if it were large and passing near the tower, should be clearly visible, IT IS NOT THERE.

You can see for yourself that this is an irrefutable fact. The only conclusion that one can arrive at is that this is not a large object passing near the towers but a small object passing near only one camera.

As the color and shape is similar to the color and shape of many birds seen in other videos and the very pronounced ‘flapping’ motion one can see in the uncropped version I think one must conclude that it is most likely a bird.
Click to expand...

Blue Monk,
Thanks for providing the large clip. Clearly the object is in front of both towers. However, I am not convinced it is a bird. If the object did not travel in a straight line you might have a good argument. Also, I suspect the object you presented is not in real time: the explosion appears to be in slow-motion. If it is a missile, it appears to have missed WTC 7: the building that I am convinced was hit.
 
I've located the missile impact point.




Here are the two F-15s from Otis, filmed above NYC on 9/11. Call me crazy, but I believe these planes were armed with missiles when they took off. Notice anything missing?

 
Last edited:
realitybites said:
Which begs the question... Why are you still convinced WTC7 was hit?

What is convincing you?
Click to expand...

I have seen the footage taken by FOX News where the cameraman is at the base of WTC 1 on the east side of the building filming the tower above burning. Then WTC 2 is hit by the second plane followed a second or two later by the missile striking WTC 7 near the 14th floor. Sooner or later this will appear on Youtube.
 
MaGZ said:
I have seen the footage taken by FOX News where the cameraman is at the base of WTC 1 on the east side of the building filming the tower above burning. Then WTC 2 is hit by the second plane followed a second or two later by the missile striking WTC 7 near the 14th floor. Sooner or later this will appear on Youtube.
Click to expand...

That footage has been on Youtube for over a year.

 
Unsecured Coins said:
well by GOD put it up then
Click to expand...

You misunderstand him. He didn't record it, he just thought he saw it. He figures someone must have recorded what was in all probability a side-effect of some sort of recreational drug or perhaps just delirium. They just haven't put it up on YouTube yet, despite the fact that such a revelation would be groundbreaking and no one who happened to record such a thing would have waited this long to upload the clip.

Unless Zionists got to them....
 
MaGZ said:
I have seen the footage taken by FOX News where the cameraman is at the base of WTC 1 on the east side of the building filming the tower above burning. Then WTC 2 is hit by the second plane followed a second or two later by the missile striking WTC 7 near the 14th floor. Sooner or later this will appear on Youtube.
Click to expand...

... Mhm. Is this missile in this footage any clearer than the "missile" in the video that just got debunked?

I'm wondering (and maybe this has already been discussed), but to my knowledge, no one died in WTC7. Considering that the occupants of WTC2 were told to stay put, that the emergency was confined to Tower 1, I would imagine that the occupants of WTC7 were still in the building at the time as well.

How is it this missile didn't so much as injure a soul?
 
realitybites said:
How is it this missile didn't so much as injure a soul?
Click to expand...
In the mid-90's, a state-of-the-art missile defense system was installed in WTC 7. This was a combination radar warning system/ bagel crumb chaff dispenser/hawk cannon. If that failed, the building had anti-missile armor installed, which is demonstrated here:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom