Missile??

[excaza]

Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

 

[Dash80]

Yet another thread where we start with an answer in search of a question...

Things more likely than a missile to cause a flash:

• sunlight reflecting onto the aircraft fuselage from the windows of the WTC
• explosion of onboard components from the initial deceleration and shock
• glitter
• a disco ball
• custard
• mallards
• dental floss
• a trombone

*a lit fart
*sparkling Twilight vampires

 

[tmd2_1]

To the OP of this thread.... no... just no... you've done enough with trying to establish "reasonable doubt" with controlled demolition. Don't start embracing fringe theories even among the conspiracy camps...

I have to be quick. But I am not "embracing" a missile theory. This thread was posted as an exposition. Not me telling you it is a missile. So far I have seen not a whole lot of attempts at explanation, just name calling. (I don't mean you by the way)

 

[Sabrina]

A missile at Ground Zero is, if possible, less likely than a missile at the Pentagon.

The entire idea is just stupid on the face of it.

 

[twinstead]

That reminds me, whatever happened to MaGZ?

 

[Kid Eager]

...So far I have seen not a whole lot of attempts at explanation.....

Hmmm... neither have we. Please sir, show us how it's done?

But first, what are we trying to explain? Why you would ask such a question? Why other people have postulated a missile scenario?

 

[tmd2_1]

Ok I have to be quick so I'll address the prevailing points here. Most of this is just making fun of this observation. I posted this as an exposition, not a statement of fact as to what is going on. Almost no one addressed the first video, where a flame appears to be seen. The flash that appears on the building can not be a reflection, as it is seen from several different angles. A static discharge is unlikely because it would be arched from the planes fuselage to the building itself.

Also in the second video it does appear to be racing along side the fuselage.

There have also has been an attempt to link this thread with claims of no victims, even bringing up Phil Jayhan, who is a person I have never mentioned. It would seem like a tactic. The claim that there are no victims would seem impossible on it's face. How could so many victims family members be "paid actors?" That's not even getting into the fact of two 1300 ft+ buildings came crashing down with many people inside.

 

[NoahFence]

Could a missile have been fired from a plane hitting the south tower?

Nope.

That was easy.

 

[NoahFence]

Make all the jokes you want, I was truly looking for some explanations of what that might be.

No you're not. Your fingers are vomiting on the keyboard and this is what comes out. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I can eat alphabet soup and crap a better argument.

Just accept the fact that what your compatriots are telling you is 100% incorrect. They are LIARS and the more you lap this crap up the closer you become to being another one.

 

[NoahFence]

The eyewitnesses would be dead.

WHAT?!?!? Oh. My. God.


Stupid troll is stupid.

 

[NoahFence]

Most of this is just making fun of this observation.

With good reason. It's a mind-numbingly stupid premise. Hundreds of thousands saw that aircraft strike the building. Maybe millions. Certainly thousands of people actually in person, on the ground in NYC.


Not one saw a missile being shot. Not one.

That's what a missile being launched from a plane looks like. Is there anything about that photo that's missing from the aircraft on 9/11? Something? Anything?


http://www.army-technology.com/projects/surface-launched/images/Slamraam_6.jpg

that's another photo. I got to work and all I see is the "X" where my pic was. Just go there, tmd and tell us what's missing.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Make all the jokes you want, I was truly looking for some explanations of what that might be.

First, can you say what the point would be? wouldn't it be just a whole lot simpler just to load any explosive into the plane? And why fire a missile when the plane carrying it is going to hit it anyway?

what your explanation for this? what possible reason would any conspirators have for doing something so pointless?

 

[Kid Eager]

Let's be honest here - the youtube videos linked are self-debunking. Despite all the exhortations of "look here" and "look at this", there are no missiles shown anywhere on those videos.

If somebody believes otherwise, feel free to point out the actual missile for me...

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Is there anything these guys won't buy? I mean, as long as it runs counter to the "official" story, they just seem to lap it up.

I thinks that the whole point.........I've seen truthers argue that thermite was used and the next week say it was mini nukes and the following week its a death ray..........

They seem to lack the kind of woo filters that normal people have.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*Sigh*

Could a missile have been fired from a plane hitting the south tower? I don't know the answer to that.

Are we talking hypothetical scenarios? Then yes, certainly a missile could be fired from a plane and hit a building. The Air force does it often.

Or are you asking if it happened on 911? Then the answer is no. Missiles of a size that makes any serious damage to buildings are fairly large, noticeable, and noisy.

The first one the most interesting part is at about the 3 second mark and is circled. Not sure what that could be. Also towards the end he shows what could be secondary explosions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc4wsjKbYTQ&feature=related

First item is a short flash, either behind one engine or on the face of the building.

It could be:

1) A video artefact.

2) Something from the North Tower or other debris tumbling in the air much closer to the camera.

3) A flash from the engine (after ingesting something floating in the air; the air was full of debris, and birds are also observed on some videos).

4) Someone taking a picture of the approaching plane from the tower.

Since it is not noticeable in videos from other angles, the best guesses are #1 or #2.

Second item are explosions. I'll tell you something: When a fuelled airliner hits a large structure at cruise-speed, there will be explosions. Plenty. It would be far more strange if there were no explosions.

The second video...the most interesting parts starts at around 23 seconds. It definitely looks like something is racing along the plane and than smashes into the building just before the plane.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x8fs2sZmas&feature=related

With this poor resolution, it makes absolutely no sense to look for details. I don't see anything out of the ordinary, but what you see could be light reflexes, JPEG artefacts, pixellation artefacts, normal shadows looking strange due to low resolution. A good rule of thumb is, if you start seeing pixels, zoom out. Otherwise, all bets are off.

These videos taken together are awfully interesting. I'm not saying that it is a missile, simply saying I don't know. I've looked and looked and can not find a better reason for this.

There is no sign of missiles in these or any other videos from that event. There are also no eye witness accounts that indicate missiles were fired.
There were no sounds indicating missiles.
There is no sensible reason to suspect missiles were fired, there would be no need to fire missiles.

No missiles.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*

They seem to lack the kind of woo filters that normal people have.

They just have them installed in reverse: Any sensible explanation is automatically rejected.

Hans

 

[leftysergeant]

What makesthe missile theorists look even more stupid is that firing a missile with an exploding warhead would make it LESS likely that the aircraft would fully enter the buildings. Have these idiots never heard of "REACTIVE ARMOR" on armored fighting vehicles?

The missile would be fractricidal. It would rob the aircraft of some kinetic energy, perhaps evewn make it start to breakup immediately on contact with the shockwave from the exploding warhead.

Wake up, twoofers. There are soldiers reading your crap, and many of them feel the same way about your theories as I do.



I have to go with the idea that it was the radar arcing out.

 

[Oystein]

The missile theory is stupid on its face: Why would someone who crashes a large plane at high speed into a building that carries a great load of fuel add a missile to the mix?

The two planes had a kinetic energies of roughly 2.6 and 3.4 gigajoules. That's about 1240 and 1600 metric pounds of TNT, respectively. I don't think there exist any air-to-surface missiles that would carry such heavy payloads, or do you? Nuclear missiles excepted.

In addition, the planes had each about 1200 gigajoules worth of jet fuel aboard, that's equivalent to another 570,000 (yep, five-hundred-and-seventy-thousand) pounds of TNT!

The plane alone does a lot more damage than any missile could. The fuel does the rest.

 

[Blaupunkt69]

As someone mentioned earlier, there was a lot of debris of all sorts flying about from the first impact. This could explain what we are seeing those low quality videos. Perhaps some of that debris even got sucked into the engine. I don't see how you can leap to the notion that there was a missile. It's all about asking yourself what is more likely after considering the reasonable possibilities.

 

[cyclonic]

TMD2_1you should give up this missile fairy tale and do something constructive that will benefit your fellow man such as finding out were this video was taken.