Missile??

There are a lot of completely stupid, blazingly idiotic theories put forth by the twoof movement. This, along with dustification, are the crown jewels of stupidity.

THERE IS NO MISSILE
 
I really think these people have their logical filters installed upside down. Somehow, the most logical scenarios go to "garbage", and the least logical come out at "assume". In consequence, the more you argue, the more you convince them of their own ideas.

This also explains why the truther movement cannot agree on one scenario: As soon as each hear something like logic from one of the others (flawed as it may be), that scenario moves down their probability list.

The only thing they can agree on is that the most probable scenario must be wrong.

Hans :nope:
 
NoahFence said:
There are a lot of completely stupid, blazingly idiotic theories put forth by the twoof movement. This, along with dustification, are the crown jewels of stupidity.

THERE IS NO MISSILE
Click to expand...

You've clearly never heard of "vicsims" then. If missiles at the WTC and dustification are the crown jewels, "vicsims" are the blazing stars that put jewels to shame. Trust me on this one.
 
Sabrina said:
You've clearly never heard of "vicsims" then. If missiles at the WTC and dustification are the crown jewels, "vicsims" are the blazing stars that put jewels to shame. Trust me on this one.
Click to expand...
The vicsims filth makes me physically sick.
 
Sabrina said:
You've clearly never heard of "vicsims" then. If missiles at the WTC and dustification are the crown jewels, "vicsims" are the blazing stars that put jewels to shame. Trust me on this one.
Click to expand...

Agreed. To the already staggering number of accomplices, it adds, what? Some 50,000 - 100,000 kin, friends, colleagues, and close acquaintances of victims. All these people must somehow be goaded or pressed into claiming that they lost someone. A named someone, not a fictitious name where people would say, "who?", but someone that did plausibly exist and have a past.

I seriously doubt this could be done at all, let alone kept secret. :rolleyes:

Hans
 
Björn Toulouse said:
I can't bring myself to address the OP so I will comment on this post. The OP pretends he is torn between the video as presenting evidence of a missile or not. He seems to be searching for a preponderance of evidence to convince himself to believe one way or the other.

This reveals a trait that I have long noticed in extreme truther claims like this - not following their "logic" to the next step and beyond.

To believe the possibility that a missile was fired from the plane is to believe that this plane took off from somewhere loaded with at least one missile. If it was indeed passenger Flight 175, then the ground crew would have become part of the vast conspiracy as well as anyone within visual contact of this plane taking off, not to mention the crew of people who would have installed it underneath this passenger plane. You just don't have missiles lying around on a shelf. They are inventoried. So someone or more had to check this missile out of storage and someone would have trucked it to the location where it supposedly was installed. Step by step, the vast conspiracy grows larger as well as the likelihood that one participant may some day spill the beans. There are probably more steps and more participants to this scenario, but I think you get my drift. Why increase the chances of discovery?

OK - let's say the plane that hit the South Tower was a different plane, already outfitted with a missile. No plane takes off from anywhere without someone knowing it, so that crew of people are now involved in the conspiracy. But now you have the problem of making the real Flight 175 with all of its passengers disappear. The vast conspiracy is increasingly expanding. Now one would have to ponder if Flight 175 was "disappeared", did "they" do the same with the other 3 flights, and if not - why not? If so, again, the vast conspiracy grows even larger.

I'm stopping here before my head explodes. No missile can be seen in that video and to presume that there could have been one is ridiculous when you take that kind of reasoning to the next steps. The OP could have settled this question within himself without making a thread about it if he had just done some logical thinking.
Click to expand...

Well thanks for gracing us with your presence. It's nice of you to lower yourself and all.

Listen I've made it very clear, right from the first post that it seems crazy. In fact I've said I'm 50/50 on it. Simply because of how hard it would be to do. If there was a conspiracy those planes were not piloted by humans, and therefore extra equipment was added. I've always said this aspect is the hardest for CT to explain. One I do not have an easy answer to.

But when one asses a situation it is best to start out by eliminating the impossible.
In this case:
Reflection is impossible because it is seen from many different angles.
Any theory involving the fuselage hitting first is impossible because that didn't happen.
Static discharge is right next door to impossible.
What you described, while it would be difficult and seems to have a low probability, it is not impossible.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Listen I've made it very clear, right from the first post that it seems crazy. In fact I've said I'm 50/50 on it. Simply because of how hard it would be to do. If there was a conspiracy those planes were not piloted by humans, and therefore extra equipment was added. I've always said this aspect is the hardest for CT to explain. One I do not have an easy answer to.
Click to expand...

If it is crazy, why do you assign a 50/50 probability? How would you arm a 757 with a missile? Why did you avoid the stills that clearly show no missile? Why do you just agree it did not happen and move on?
 
tmd2_1 said:
Listen I've made it very clear, right from the first post that it seems crazy. In fact I've said I'm 50/50 on it. Simply because of how hard it would be to do. If there was a conspiracy those planes were not piloted by humans, and therefore extra equipment was added. I've always said this aspect is the hardest for CT to explain. One I do not have an easy answer to.

But when one asses a situation it is best to start out by eliminating the impossible.
In this case:
Reflection is impossible because it is seen from many different angles.
Any theory involving the fuselage hitting first is impossible because that didn't happen.
Static discharge is right next door to impossible.
What you described, while it would be difficult and seems to have a low probability, it is not impossible.
Click to expand...

OK, could you make a still of the 'right before impact' moment *) and indicate (circle or something) the flash in question? There seems to be several things in those low res videos that could be interpreted as falshes, so let's know which one makes you think of a missile.

Hans

*) If you have no software for this, stop the movie at the right point, press [Print Scrn], open Paint, press [Ctrl]-v, select the appropriate part of the screen dump, and paste into an empty paint file, add marks, and post it here.
 
Sabrina said:
You've clearly never heard of "vicsims" then. If missiles at the WTC and dustification are the crown jewels, "vicsims" are the blazing stars that put jewels to shame. Trust me on this one.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine vicsims actually believe what they write. I think they're just being :rule10: for the sake of being :rule10:.
 
In fact I've said I'm 50/50
Click to expand...

that alone makes you no better than any of the dustification idiots. THERE WAS NO MISSILE. There can BE NO DOUBT

But when one asses a situation it is best to start out by eliminating the impossible.
Click to expand...


The missile theory IS impossible.

MILLIONS of people have seen the footage. THOUSANDS didn't see the 'footage'....they were there

There was NO missile.
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
OK, could you make a still of the 'right before impact' moment *) and indicate (circle or something) the flash in question? There seems to be several things in those low res videos that could be interpreted as falshes, so let's know which one makes you think of a missile.

Hans

*) If you have no software for this, stop the movie at the right point, press [Print Scrn], open Paint, press [Ctrl]-v, select the appropriate part of the screen dump, and paste into an empty paint file, add marks, and post it here.
Click to expand...

It's already been done for me. Simply go to about the 17 second mark of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRL_IptUYTA&feature=related
 
TMD!!!!

THERE WAS NO MISSILE!

missile-plane-300x225.jpg



Missles burn fuel. This leaves a big giant flaming FLAME coming out the butt end of the thing!

Missles are BIG. They can't be mistaken for anything - especially by the THOUSANDS of witnesses on the ground and the MILLIONS watching it on television.

There were NO MISSILES



No matter how many times I see that grainy, crappy video - There are still NO MISSILES. There is a flash when the fuselage contacts the building. There are no flames coming from below the aircraft, where a missle would have been shot from. This is the very definition of the word STUPID.

Get over it. Get a new hobby. You :rule10: stink at this one.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
I have no idea why you bring something like this up. It really has no place here. I've always said I believe the evidence lies against the official story and have huge doubts about it. I'm hardly an agnostic.
Click to expand...

Get a grip. You're looking a video of a god damn plane flying into the *********** building and you're asking gee did a *********** missile hit the building. I don't *********** know but maybe we should *********** investigate. I mean there's no *********** missile on the video but you never know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom