Missile??

[leftysergeant]

You are a bold faced liar. It's circled for you.

It is not a flame of any sort, nor a reflection. It appears to be some sort of control surface. I am not a pilot, so I cannot say exactly WHAT control surface, but any on the right wing wouldl have been at max setting because they had to bank VERY HARD left to hit the tower.

 

[little grey rabbit]

It is not a flame of any sort, nor a reflection. It appears to be some sort of control surface. I am not a pilot, so I cannot say exactly WHAT control surface, but any on the right wing wouldl have been at max setting because they had to bank VERY HARD left to hit the tower.

Funny, when I said that, all the JREF sceptics loudly proclaimed that they hardly banked at all.

My point at the time that banking to hit buildings perpendicular for maximum penetration was what cruise missiles are programmed to do. I thought it was psychologically implausible for a human first time flyer - who would more likely just try to line up the building and go straight for it.

Don't what to derail or anything - just amused at the highly contextual nature of the positions debunkers take.

 

[Disbelief]

Sure some things are silly from the outset no doubt. Death Rays..etc. But I don't believe this is one of them. There is definitely something that resembles a flame that comes out of the back of the A/C, and than something flash BEFORE the A/C hits. What is it? I don't know?

You still don't answer questions. Why a 50/50 chance for something you call crazy? How do you arm a 757 with a missile so no one notices? How could you hide it so no one would see it on boarding? You are making the claim that it possibly happened, so you should be looking to see if it is possible.

ETA: Also, what possible prupose would be served by not only using a missile, but using it so late? Why do you not see a missile moving away from the plane in any video or picture? Was it invisible?

 

[WildCat]

Funny, when I said that, all the JREF sceptics loudly proclaimed that they hardly banked at all.

No, I only recall that wrt the Pentagon crash. Got any examples of sanyone here saying this plane didn't bank very much?

 

[little grey rabbit]

No, I only recall that wrt the Pentagon crash. Got any examples of sanyone here saying this plane didn't bank very much?

Yep. I am sure you can find them if you use the excellent search function.

However, would you like explore briefly the question of why these novice flyers took such care to make an absolute perpendicular entry?

[As it happens the Pentagon is the example where the entry was not perpendicular - so it is unlikely I would have tried to make that argument there. And as we all know, the plane for WTC7 was delayed on the runway and that mission was aborted]

 

[leftysergeant]

And as we all know, the plane for WTC7 was delayed on the runway and that mission was aborted]

No, we do not know that. Unless you have some authentic documnet to prove otherwise, I would assume the Sears Tower would be the most logical target. There are too many other buildings in NYC that would have been in the way.

 

[Kid Eager]

No, we do not know that. Unless you have some authentic documnet to prove otherwise, I would assume the Sears Tower would be the most logical target. There are too many other buildings in NYC that would have been in the way.

ummm... that was an obvious Poe.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Funny, when I said that, all the JREF sceptics loudly proclaimed that they hardly banked at all.

My point at the time that banking to hit buildings perpendicular for maximum penetration was what cruise missiles are programmed to do. I thought it was psychologically implausible for a human first time flyer - who would more likely just try to line up the building and go straight for it.

Don't what to derail or anything - just amused at the highly contextual nature of the positions debunkers take.

I have followed these debates almost as much as you have, and nobody claimed that this plane did not bank (that would have been an utterly silly claim as everyone can see that it does).

The pilot banks to hit the tower at all. He didn't manage a straight approach and had to correct rather violently. Had he continued straight, he would have missed, or only hit it with a wing. His failure to line up might well be ascribed to his lack of routine: As you approach a target (or landing strip) it appears you are nicely aligned, then as you get close, things start to happen really fast and you suddenly realize you are about to miss.

So the contextual position is that when we talk about this plane, we talk about this plane, and when we talk about another plane, we talk ... about another plane.

Hans

 

[little grey rabbit]

I have followed these debates almost as much as you have, and nobody claimed that this plane did not bank (that would have been an utterly silly claim as everyone can see that it does).

The pilot banks to hit the tower at all. He didn't manage a straight approach and had to correct rather violently. Had he continued straight, he would have missed, or only hit it with a wing. His failure to line up might well be ascribed to his lack of routine: As you approach a target (or landing strip) it appears you are nicely aligned, then as you get close, things start to happen really fast and you suddenly realize you are about to miss.

So the contextual position is that when we talk about this plane, we talk about this plane, and when we talk about another plane, we talk ... about another plane.

Hans

Well as I said positions debunkers take are always highly contextual.

But I take your point. I have never flown an aircraft and I expect it is probably very difficult to keep your eyes on a target and make minor adjustments to the controls as your approach.

Much more sensible and logical to do a major last minute bank, strike the building face absolutely perpendicular to achieve maximum entry and through the most unlikely and unfortunate of coincidences precisely mimic the flight path of automated guidance systems.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yep. I am sure you can find them if you use the excellent search function.

In other words, you can't.

However, would you like explore briefly the question of why these novice flyers took such care to make an absolute perpendicular entry?

They didn't. And it didn't matter.

As it happens the Pentagon is the example where the entry was not perpendicular - so it is unlikely I would have tried to make that argument there.

As unlikely as that debunkers would claim that an obviously banking plane didn't bank, I'm sure you will agree?

And as we all know, the plane for WTC7 was delayed on the runway and that mission was aborted]

Presumably, it was not their original plan to hit an open field in the middle of nowhere, no. Whether this aborting was due to the delay or something else is another matter.

Hans

 

[NoahFence]

Yep. I am sure you can find them if you use the excellent search function.

However, would you like explore briefly the question of why these novice flyers took such care to make an absolute perpendicular entry?

[As it happens the Pentagon is the example where the entry was not perpendicular - so it is unlikely I would have tried to make that argument there. And as we all know, the plane for WTC7 was delayed on the runway and that mission was aborted]

LOL

A plane for WTC 7?

 

[tmd2_1]

Funny, when I said that, all the JREF sceptics loudly proclaimed that they hardly banked at all.

My point at the time that banking to hit buildings perpendicular for maximum penetration was what cruise missiles are programmed to do. I thought it was psychologically implausible for a human first time flyer - who would more likely just try to line up the building and go straight for it.

Don't what to derail or anything - just amused at the highly contextual nature of the positions debunkers take.

You know what you said makes perfect sense to me. I had tried to explain this in previous threads but did not do it as elegantly as you. No doubt about it those planes approach caused maximum penetration. Just like a cruise missile. But perhaps "real" hijackers would care about such things!

Do not worry about derailing the thread at all you've done nothing of the sort. What is your take do you think a missile or incendiary was fired?

I know in later posts you mention Flight 93 and building 7. I definitely believe it was meant for that. I don't know if it was aborted, but I think the delay gave enough time for the fighters to scramble and it was shot down. I was this on the fact of how far out the debris of 93 was spread, and the large impact crater, would indicate a vertical fall. Also eye witness accounts of an almost straight down fall, making "rolling" debris unlikely.

 

[Oystein]

Hey...you graced with another post. I mean lowering yourself two times in one thread...must take a lot out of you.
...
The purpose of having a missile or incendiary? Oh I don't know ...

That is precisely the point of Björn Toulouse's two posts: You don't know. As usual, you have utterly, totally failed to think through any of your half-milli-baked stupid ideas - if you even tried at all. That's why you never know a single thing. You just don't know. No matter what topic you raise: Each time it turns out that you don't know what you are talking about.

...they may have wanted to ensure total penetration...

Stupid idea. You say this because you don't know and you don't understand physics. The planes had a lot more kinetic energy than the largest feasible missiles can carry as explosive energy.

It also wouldn't make a bigger explosion would it? You know for dramatic effect?
...

Stupid idea, in particular as there wasn't any dramatoc explosion when your flash went off. Again, you don't know the energy proportions between jet fuel load (immense) and largest feasible missile payload (tiny in comparison).

 

[NoahFence]

I know in later posts you mention Flight 93 and building 7. I definitely believe it was meant for that.

Based on what?

And it wasn't an incendiary, either. Tell the class how you suppose an incendiary was delivered.

You going to get around to answering that anytime soon?

I was this on the fact of how far out the debris of 93 was spread,

So the debris was spread out....

Also eye witness accounts of an almost straight down fall, making "rolling" debris unlikely.

....except it wasn't.

Yikes.

Will you FINALLY say there was no missile? You've proven there wasn't yourself, whether or not you can see it.

 

[tsig]

Right here...it is circled for you.

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

delete

 

[NoahFence]

I will not. You are right though perhaps I should have used the word incendiary.

FYI - I never said to use the word incendiary....

 

[tsig]

I will not. You are right though perhaps I should have used the word incendiary.

Correct, the plane was a giant incendiary.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

A round white flash appears right in front of the nose, just prior to the yellow flash from the actual contact. - On low res copies, this may well give the impression that the flash starts before contact.

So what is the white flash? - It is condensation as the shock-wave from the plane hits the building and air pressure starts to build up between the nose of the plane and the building surface. When a large object approaches an obstacle at a considerable fraction of the speed of sound (in this case about 75%) the air between them is compressed and starts to escape with explosive force, and I should not be surprised if windows were starting to shatter in that zone, while the plane was still ten feet away.

Hans

Interesting! I hadn't thought of the compression wave off the nose, but that makes sense - the white "flash" is visible in both impacts, and appears to be on the building itself. It's about 1 airframe diameter across, and happens when the plane is about an airframe-diameter away from the wall. I did a bunch of research on it when I was boxing with the nope-lamers at DIF and concluded that it was caused by the weather radar based on known effects of microwaves, as well as the size, location and timing of the event.

 

[Animal]

Well as I said positions debunkers take are always highly contextual.

But I take your point. I have never flown an aircraft and I expect it is probably very difficult to keep your eyes on a target and make minor adjustments to the controls as your approach.

Much more sensible and logical to do a major last minute bank, strike the building face absolutely perpendicular to achieve maximum entry and through the most unlikely and unfortunate of coincidences precisely mimic the flight path of automated guidance systems.

So like every good troofer, your ignorance of the given topic (in this case aircraft operation) does not stop you from spouting you greatly misinformed opinion

 

[I Ratant]

I have followed these debates almost as much as you have, and nobody claimed that this plane did not bank (that would have been an utterly silly claim as everyone can see that it does).

The pilot banks to hit the tower at all. He didn't manage a straight approach and had to correct rather violently. Had he continued straight, he would have missed, or only hit it with a wing. His failure to line up might well be ascribed to his lack of routine: As you approach a target (or landing strip) it appears you are nicely aligned, then as you get close, things start to happen really fast and you suddenly realize you are about to miss.

So the contextual position is that when we talk about this plane, we talk about this plane, and when we talk about another plane, we talk ... about another plane.

Hans

.
Yes.
Any flier... or even a skilled automobile driver would recognize the problem with the last seconds of the flight path with UAL 175, nearly missing the building.

Duplicated it myself in Flight Simulator... I have the version with the towers in it.
Just a slight course error on the approach required the quick bank at the end.