Missile??

[Kid Eager]

Yes I addressed this in another post. Someone said it is similar to falling space debris. But I said even if I accept what you are stating as fact, I would expect the behavior to be like that of a meteor. A more encompassing glow, more or less equal in all directions. With the planes the flash is to the bottom right of the fuselage only.

I was hoping for an improvement in the quality of bogosity, but now you're just piling inanity upon absurdity.

Physics isn't particularly impressed with what you expect, and will continue to perform to specification, irrespective of your expectation.

back onto ignore for you.

 

[tmd2_1]

I was hoping for an improvement in the quality of bogosity, but now you're just piling inanity upon absurdity.

Physics isn't particularly impressed with what you expect, and will continue to perform to specification, irrespective of your expectation.

back onto ignore for you.

Should you ever be so generous as to take me off of ignore, perhaps you could explain it to me oh wise one. A mind like yours comes along once a generation.

 

[TJM]

Yes I addressed this in another post. Someone said it is similar to falling space debris. But I said even if I accept what you are stating as fact, I would expect the behavior to be like that of a meteor. A more encompassing glow, more or less equal in all directions. With the planes the flash is to the bottom right of the fuselage only.

And it was explained to you why your meteor comparison is wrong. True to form, you ignored it.

A meteor encounters the atmosphere at mach 33 or more -- can be as high as mach 250. Bit of a difference. Drop a 767 into atmosphere at that velocity and it'll look just like that.

 

[tmd2_1]

And it was explained to you why your meteor comparison is wrong. True to form, you ignored it.

I didn't ignore it, it wasn't much worth commenting about. It should hold the same general characteristics, something it clearly doesn't.

 

[000063]

Should you ever be so generous as to take me off of ignore, perhaps you could explain it to me oh wise one. A mind like yours comes along once a generation.

Why? You've shown an incredible ability to ignore and rationalize away any point made or evidence presented contradicting your theories, even when you admit your own ignorance. You are literally too stupid or pig-headed or both to understand you are wrong. And we all know what Einstein's definition of insanity is, right?

 

[tmd2_1]

Why? You've shown an increbile ability to ignore and rationalize any point made or evidence presented contradicting your theories, even when you admit your own ignorance. You are literally too stupid or pig-headed or both to understand you are wrong. And we all know what Einstein's definition of insanity is, right?

Of all the theories presented...most were impossible and the others close to impossible. How could any "evidence" have been presented?

 

[000063]

I didn't ignore it, it wasn't much worth commenting about. It should hold the same general characteristics, something it clearly doesn't.

That's the wrong part.

 

[TJM]

I didn't ignore it, it wasn't much worth commenting about. It should hold the same general characteristics, something it clearly doesn't.

Why should it "hold the same general characteristics", in your opinion?

 

[000063]

Of all the theories presented...most were impossible and the others close to impossible. How could any "evidence" have been presented?

That would be "ignoring", everyone, just so it's clear.

 

[tmd2_1]

Why should it "hold the same general charachteristics"[sic], in your opinion?

I mean those were his words not mine, that the thing happens when space debris falls. Why should I not assume the same characteristics. (Incidentally I didn't mis-spell characteristics I have no idea why you have [sic])

 

[beachnut]

Of all the theories presented...most were impossible and the others close to impossible. How could any "evidence" have been presented?

The theory of a missile being used is a moronically insane fantasy. You win the dumb fantasy claims if you think a missile was used on 911. You have low resolution, slow frame rate, lousy pixel count. Means you have nothing.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/design/q0234.shtml

 

[000063]

I mean those were his words not mine, that the thing happens when space debris falls. Why should I not assume the same characteristics. (Incidentally I didn't mis-spell characteristics I have no idea why you have [sic])

So you don't know the reasoning behind the opinion, not in the slightest, yet you endorse it.

 

[NoahFence]

I didn't ignore it, it wasn't much worth commenting about. It should hold the same general characteristics, something it clearly doesn't.

We've done everything including drawing you a picture. From this point on^* you're just ignoring the facts presented to you in order to be a jerk.


* Actually we got to that point many pages ago.

 

[TJM]

I mean those were his words not mine, that the thing happens when space debris falls. Why should I not assume the same characteristics. (Incidentally I didn't mis-spell characteristics I have no idea why you have [sic])

Because they aren't the same thing.

 

[tmd2_1]

Because they aren't the same thing.

Brilliant.

 

[NoahFence]

Of all the theories presented...most were impossible and the others close to impossible.

Are you saying that it's impossible for an airplane to push the air in front of it?

TMD. Listen. And answer the question:

Is it possible to not know exactly what something is, while at the same time being 100% sure what it's NOT?

 

[TJM]

Brilliant.

You seem like you need to be led by the nose, therefore you shouldn't be given too complicated of an explanation. That only confuses you.

 

[tmd2_1]

So you don't know the reasoning behind the opinion, not in the slightest, yet you endorse it.

We've done everything including drawing you a picture. From this point on^* you're just ignoring the facts presented to you in order to be a jerk.


* Actually we got to that point many pages ago.

Oh really?

Let's look at what's been presented.

Reflection-impossible seen from many different angles.
Happens after impact- impossible clearly before impact.
Something to do with the sun/glare- impossible it is seen on both impacts of the towers, the sun did not move that far in 15 minutes.
Static discharge- highly unlikely because a static discharge would be arched from the planes fuselage to the building itself. It would not be a round bright orange flash and would most likely not be seen in daylight.
Compression - Again highly unlikely, would seem like it should have been more encompassing, and spread out in all directions, yet we only see it to the lower right of the fuselage.


So what exactly has been explained to me?

 

[000063]

That depends. Does an explanation require comprehension on the part of the listener? Because if so, very little.

I like how you think that the sun can't reflect off of something from multiple angles, even when the object in question is rounded.

 

[Disbelief]

Of all the theories presented...most were impossible and the others close to impossible. How could any "evidence" have been presented?

Especially the missile theory.