Missile??

MRC_Hans said:
If penetration was not an issue, why put any weight to whether the hits were perpendicular or not? Why assume that it was intentional? After all, airliners work best flying straight and level, so when they hit a vertical object, the angle tends to be more or less perpendicular.

Hans
Click to expand...
?????
 
little grey rabbit said:
See my signature line.

Do try to keep up.
Click to expand...

Referring to cyclonic's post, earlier in this thread? Hardly the position of 'JREF'.

In any case, it is rubbish. The effect is negligible. Still, compared to the missile nonsense, it is almost profound.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Referring to cyclonic's post, earlier in this thread? Hardly the position of 'JREF'.

In any case, it is rubbish. The effect is negligible. Still, compared to the missile nonsense, it is almost profound.

Hans
Click to expand...

I think the effect of glass flow would have been greater....
 
Björn Toulouse said:
Yes it does. It took me about 2 hours to find the post you made that I made reference to - but I did find it.





Sorry - I am no researcher in the sense of debunkers. Debunkers are the guys who do the real work. I just know how to find their work. And, yes - I saw a flash. I just did not see the missile that you thought you saw.




That's what you say because you saw other truthers say it on the internet.




Have no idea what you are talking about. Please, enlighten me.




You didn't think the plane would bounce off, did you? Again - think about it. How many people involved either installing a missile on a regular passenger plane or involved in disposing of the real Flight 175 and its passengers and crew? You decide.




What did he say? He was talking about a monumental event and because a lightpole went crashing through his cab and could have killed him, he became a part of it. Sure - it was a plan. Obviously the events of 9/11 was "A PLAN" - but did he say he was involved in it from its inception, or did he mean he was involved in it as a result of what happened? And did he ever implicate anyone as to an "inside job" or was he just referring to the fact that there were obvious planners somewhere, planners who were bigger than he was?




Look at my post again. Carefully this time.

Notice that I said or who provides links that include Barry Jennings being an "eyewitness" to bodies in WTC7 .

I did not say that you directly said anything about Barry Jennings.

Here is your post that includes the link that I referred to. You see what you did now? Your link includes the lying claim that Jennings was an eyewitness to bodies in WTC7.

So tell me - tell us - do you believe Barry Jennings was an "eyewitness" to dead bodies in WTC7? Yes or no.

Maybe you ought to read your links before you post them, pardner. But in your case I can understand. You can't be bothered with little details like that.
Click to expand...

You said equipment to make a flash. Nothing about seeing a missile. I showed you video of the north tower's flash. This whole thread is a question, as to what was going on. So far non seems to have a plausible answer. With the only one even being possible is some sort of discharge, thought this is extremely close to being impossible.

I said what I said about the pentagon, because no one can make anything out in that video.

As for 93 I was being sarcastic. You said something like why did we only see one flash. I was saying the only two we have video (discernible video) on there are flashes, and there's no way to know what happened on the other planes.

The extent of some of you guys denial is unbelievable. With Lloyde, he said the rich people this is their thing. But I'm sure he meant OBL right?

As far as Jennings, come on, your implication was quite clear, that I was using his testimony as some sort of argument. Not even close to being the case. That post I made was simply what people said (and Jennings did say that), and it was all in reference to fireman.

As far as Jennings goes, something tells me this is a tactic on your part to start talking about something totally unrelated, and something I never mentioned before. A way to ask millions and millions of questions, with no real resolution. I have no idea what to make about Jennings statements.
 
tmd2_1 said:
You said equipment to make a flash. Nothing about seeing a missile. I showed you video of the north tower's flash. This whole thread is a question, as to what was going on. So far non seems to have a plausible answer. With the only one even being possible is some sort of discharge, thought this is extremely close to being impossible.
Click to expand...

Why is that theory "extremely close to being impossible"?
 
little grey rabbit said:
Only if she was in the cockpit. You have to remember that due to the coriolanus effect the pilot nearly missed the WTC.
Click to expand...
The coriolanus effect is truthers going round in circles with their heads stuck up their asses. You mean the coriolis effect. Either way you are still wrong.
 
tmd2_1 said:
You said equipment to make a flash. Nothing about seeing a missile. I showed you video of the north tower's flash. This whole thread is a question, as to what was going on. So far non seems to have a plausible answer. With the only one even being possible is some sort of discharge, thought this is extremely close to being impossible.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

So in your world, that makes it a 50/50 possibility, right? I notice you missed the idea of it being a video artefact because of the poor quality. Also, if it was a missile, why can you not see a physical missile in ANY of the stills?

Do you have trouble deciding what to order at a restaurant, because you can not seem to make up your mind about a missile or a pod in spite of overwhelming evidence against either.
 
You said equipment to make a flash. Nothing about seeing a missile. I showed you video of the north tower's flash. This whole thread is a question, as to what was going on. So far non seems to have a plausible answer. With the only one even being possible is some sort of discharge, thought this is extremely close to being impossible.
Click to expand...

Yet a PASSENGER jet firing a missile or some sort of incendiary device an instant before making impact isn't close to being impossible?


The "flash" you see is the fuselage entering the building. Period. That you flat-out ignore that fact is your problem. The sooner you come to grips with the fact that the truther movement is filled with liars, cheats and idiots, the better off you'll be.

No missile.
No incendiary device.
 
EventHorizon said:
I really hate to speculate about this but I have always wondered exactly how aware or unaware the people on the first plane were. Some of them had to realize they were flying very low and very fast over Manhattan and heading south. Even though until that day what happened was unthinkable I wonder if some of them were able to put 2 and 2 together.
Click to expand...

I have flown into Winnipeg , manitoba probably 100 times. I lived there for 5 years as an adult and I was born there. I even worked at the airport for over a year in a job that took me onto the airfield and having to get clearance from ground control to cross runways, so I am familiar with the compass directions of the runways.
However, each time I fly in I have to really look around out the window to identify landmarks, and the direction of the sun, in order to determine which runway we will be coming in on.
Its really not all that easy even when I am relaxed and simply passing time while waiting to land. I do not know what it would be like if i
-was not sure what city I was over
-in an aircraft that had been hijacked and in fear of my life
-in an aircraft which was flying low and going faster than I had ever experienced before.

Avery is most certainly (multiple rule infraction)
 
tmd2_1 said:
Ok I'll be clear I was saying perhaps (and notice the word perhaps) the plane fired some sort of incendiary. You guys would just keep going on and on and on about what exactly is a missile...etc. Please don't ask me what type of incendiary, I don't know, I don't even know if there was one. The whole thread was a question. One no one has answered.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but I for one did not ask you what type of incindiary or missile it would be. I opined on the idea of why an incindiary would be required when there were thousands of gallons of liquid acellerant on board already.

Do you have anything to say about why an incindiary would be used in the aircraft impact?
 
tmd2_1 said:
You said equipment to make a flash. Nothing about seeing a missile. I showed you video of the north tower's flash. This whole thread is a question, as to what was going on. So far non seems to have a plausible answer. With the only one even being possible is some sort of discharge, thought this is extremely close to being impossible.
Click to expand...

Let's see the possibilities have been
-sun reflection between the rounded aluminum nose of the a/c and the windows of the structure
-impact destruction of the weather radar or other electronic equipment in the nose of the aircraft
-static electrical discharge between the fast moving aluminum aircraft and the aluminum cladding of the tower

All of which include only known materials and phenomena.

You on the other hand want to know if it could have been a missile for which the the evidence is simply the flash itself. You want to know therefore, if it could be something that cannot be shown to have been in place as oppsosed to the Sun, the electronics, and the phenomena of static discharge. You cannot even come up with a plausible reason for this missile to be in place.

"Ensuring penetration' is ridiculous for something that is supposedly fired from an aircraft moving at several hundred MPH only a few feet from the target. The blast effect of any explosive missile warhead would barely have touched structural components of the tower before the plane impacted AND the blast wave would serve more to keep plane parts from entering the building than it would to allow them to enter.
An incindiary certainly would have no time at all to affect steel structural members before impact. A 'shot gun' type scattering of incindiary within the structure is the most inefficient way I can think of to weaken key structural steel members. If the idea is to ignite large area office fires with this shot gun spread of incindiary it is less efficient than simply using tens of thousands of gallons of liquid fuel already on board the aircraft.

So , no, there is no reason or evidence that a missile was present, which is , correct me if I am wrong, exactly what you were asking about.

Close the thread now?.

I said what I said about the pentagon, because no one can make anything out in that video.
Click to expand...
,,, and after all you believe in the slight of hand disappearance of a large fast and low flying aircraft that no one ever saw after it reached the Pentagon.

.

The extent of some of you guys denial is unbelievable. With Lloyde, he said the rich people this is their thing. But I'm sure he meant OBL right?
Click to expand...

Full quote?
Perhaps he meant the politics of the middle east in general.

As far as Jennings, come on, your implication was quite clear, that I was using his testimony as some sort of argument. Not even close to being the case. That post I made was simply what people said (and Jennings did say that), and it was all in reference to fireman.

As far as Jennings goes, something tells me this is a tactic on your part to start talking about something totally unrelated, and something I never mentioned before. A way to ask millions and millions of questions, with no real resolution. I have no idea what to make about Jennings statements
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you spent more time posting YOUR OWN thoughts rather than posting links and instructing us to watch videos or read webpages of the thoughts of others we would not assume that references made in those links were also your opinions.
 
Last edited:
Little technical detail you civilians should know about missles, and explosive projectiles pretty much across the board - they all have MSD (Minimum Safe Distance) fusing - meaning the missle must fly a certain distance after launch before the initiator fuzing is "live" - and the asserted missle launch in those vids doesn't make the cut.

I know that technical details of exord is generally dismissed by truthbots, but there it is for the sane posters here.
 
BStrong said:
Little technical detail you civilians should know about missles, and explosive projectiles pretty much across the board - they all have MSD (Minimum Safe Distance) fusing - meaning the missle must fly a certain distance after launch before the initiator fuzing is "live" - and the asserted missle launch in those vids doesn't make the cut.

I know that technical details of exord is generally dismissed by truthbots, but there it is for the sane posters here.
Click to expand...

Bah! just turn the MSD fusing off. After all you are going to destroy the plane anyway, why not start that process before the plane even reaches the building.:D
 
I have a better conspiracy reason for a 'missle launch' than anything I have seen from the 'real' conspiracy theorists.

Its a JATO bolted on, designed to acellerate the aircraft at the last possible moment in order to ensure even greater kinetic energy of impact.

Of course this would negate the whole idea of explosive or incindiary loaded aircraft and require that one actually believe in the effects of kinetic energy and momentum.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom