NoahFence
Banned
Wow.
You're off the deep end, junior.
There are CLEARLY two separate, distinct, unrelated flashes. If you can't see this, you're beyond hope.
Missile??
- Thread starter tmd2_1
- Start date
Wow.
You're off the deep end, junior.
There are CLEARLY two separate, distinct, unrelated flashes. If you can't see this, you're beyond hope.
Are you this funny in person?
Here's YOUR link from upthread. Look at around the 15 second mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJGrda2Jeqc
Big yellow dot on the building, about 1 airframe-diameter across, with a reflection of that dot on the nose.
I was referring to what appears to be a traveling flash, that only appears to have a "reflection" as it travels in front of the A/C.
NoahFence
Banned
Question -
Is it actually difficult to handwave obvious explanations in favor of retarded, impossible ones, tmd? Or are you an expert on doing this, and as such find it easier with every passing moment?
Is it actually difficult to handwave obvious explanations in favor of retarded, impossible ones, tmd? Or are you an expert on doing this, and as such find it easier with every passing moment?
Are you this funny in person?
Here's YOUR link from upthread. Look at around the 15 second mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJGrda2Jeqc
Big yellow dot on the building, about 1 airframe-diameter across, with a reflection of that dot on the nose.
I really can't believe these last couple posts. I really can't. All this was addressed in the original post. It's the points I've been making all along. Look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x8fs2sZmas&feature=related from about the 25 second mark and on you see something that appears to be traveling. If it had something to do with compression..speed of sound..etc...I would expect it to be seen all around the A/C, it's not. So I would say that makes it difficult to believe it has something to do with compression.
NoahFence
Banned
You are wrong. You appear to be wrong, and have been proven wrong.
The aircraft pushes air IN FRONT OF IT. Not all around it. I've given you (what I thought) were pretty clear examples. I even showed you a ship doing exactly what the aircraft did. I showed you a ship because you can actually see the water in front of the bow being pushed out of the way, without coming in actual contact with the ship.
This is exactly the same thing as the aircraft pushing air out of the way.
YOU push air out of the way when you walk. I do. A stone tossed underhand does. A space shuttle does. EVERYTHING does.
The air being pushed out in front of the plane STRUCK THE BUILDING. The flash you see is the result of that.
The other flash, the inconsequential, insignificant, unrelated flash is a reflection, and it is not visible at any other angle.
Sabrina
Wicked Lovely
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,810
Based on the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, however, a missile IS impossible.
BStrong outlined some of the major issues with this theory earlier in the thread; not the least of which is that before a missile can go "live" (that is, be armed) it has to fly a certain distance. The foot or so that existed prior to the plane's nose impacting the building is not sufficient distance. Then there's the utter lack of explosive residue found anywhere in the WTC debris (and they were looking for it). And to add to this, again, A MISSILE MAKES NO BLEEDING SENSE WHATSOEVER. WHY would a passenger jet, which is by design unequipped to fire ANYTHING (it simply doesn't have the hardware to make it capable of doing so), suddenly in your head be able to fire one when the plane was about to plow into a building anyway? The physics tells us that inertia alone would be sufficient to allow the plane to easily penetrate the building, given the specs on the building and plane which are easily locatable in the public realm, as well as knowing the approximate speed the plane was flying at when it impacted. A missile would be an utterly USELESS addition that would accomplish absolutely NOTHING but making people scratch their heads in confusion as to why it was there in the first place!
Visual evidence can be deceiving, tmd; perception is everything. You see, the vast majority of posters in this thread have viewed the videos and agree that the flash occurred AFTER the impact; you are the only one saying it happened BEFORE the impact. Which is more likely; that your eyes are deceiving you, or that some sort of projectile weapon was fired from a passenger jet that was about to plow into a building anyway? If you said the second option, you need to look up Occam's Razor. That is why the PHYSICAL evidence will always and forever trump so-called "eyewitness" testimony; because it is evidence that can be backed up with PROOF. And the physical evidence tells us... guess what... THERE WAS NO MISSILE.
I refer you to the famed quote by Sherlock Holmes: "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, MUST be the truth." (The Sign of the Four, Ch. 6) You yourself in the post quoted above admitted that some of the options presented to you are, in your words, "extremely unlikely", which by inference tells us that you at least think there's a possibility they could be true under the right circumstances. Since we have eliminated a missile due to the complete lack of PHYSICAL evidence (knowing that visual evidence is completely inadmissable; the eyes can be deceived), that leaves us with the "extremely unlikely" options given to you by various posters here as reasonable possibilities that actually ARE backed up by the physical evidence in existence. Given that, which of the "extremely unlikely" options are you willing to accept? Because a missile is physically impossible. Learn to accept that and you might actually be able to climb out of the morass of lunacy that is trutherdom.
No anyway you want to look at it that is not correct. If you want to maintain that those "initial flashes" (for lack of a better word) are just reflections fine( I don't agree with you but for sake of argument I am saying fine) than the flash you believe is caused by compression should still be all around. Not just the lower right hand side, or is that the only place air is "compressed"?
NoahFence
Banned
You are hopeless.
The 'compression' flash is in the FRONT OF THE
: airplane. It SHOULD be in the front of the : airplane and is in the front of the : airplane.Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
The thing that's traveling appears to be a 767. At 26 seconds something explodes on contact with the building, when about half an airframe-diameter of nose has penetrated the building. That would be consistent with the location of pressurized oxygen bottles in the airplane, as explained before using small words and easy-to-understand pictures. Perhaps it hasn't been dumbed down enough for you yet?
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
You're conflating several different events. Perhaps you could find ONE GOOD VERSION of the footage you want to discuss and then discuss things using the timecode (such as it is) of that one version.
NoahFence
Banned
tmd - I know this will pain you, but this is (in my opinion) the more likely scenario.
So now there are two options for you to consider that are about 1,00010 more likely than any projectile not named "Boeing".
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
So, what makes you think the flash is a missile?
NoahFence
Banned
He's not sure...at least that's what he'll say.
He'll also say that it being a reflection off of a metal surface on a sunny day is impossible, though.
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,608
Others have told you possibilities, but you discard them.
Now, what you should do, which I suggested before, is determine if it could be a missile. Where would you hide it? How would you mount one to a 767? Is it even possible and how would it be done?
Here's the kicker though, since you are so caught up with visual evidence. A missile would be visible, not just some flash, but able to be seen in photos. Find a single photograph of an actual missile moving away from the plane going towards the tower. Don't rely on one video, but examine all of the evidence. When you fail to do so, admit that it is not a missile, you do not know what it is and then move on.
Everything I ever wanted to discuss is in the OP. All I've ever said (save for the north tower) is in the OP. You have a flame that appears out of the back of the A/C, you have something that appears to be traveling along side the A/C that strikes the building before the A/C does. All responses have been (in my opinion) impossible or so unlikely they might as well be impossible.
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,258
.
More properly, invincibly ignorant.
Cannot be dissuaded from the fixation on the just plain silly.
No asking me what it is, or why I think something could be something are two different questions. He didn't specify could be, but I will answer as such. Asking me what it is I can only say I don't know because I don't. Why I think it could be a missile (incendiary/projectile weapon) is all in the OP. You have something (flame/flash) coming out of the back of the A/C. Hence would could be the firing. You have video of something on that same side traveling along the A/C and impact the building before the A/C. Any other explanations I have seen are either impossible or so unlikely they might as will be impossible. So we're left with still trying to explain what it is.
I haven't discarded anything. I showed why they are impossible are highly unlikely. In regards to pictures. You did see those stills right? Looks like something traveling to me. Also I don't pretend to know everything about weapons. If it was a conspiracy I'm sure they would have picked a weapon that was the least visible but still have an affect. As it is the video has to be zoomed in and slowed down dramatically to notice anything.
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
You've shown nothing.
I've said many times I don't know every type of weapon, nor do I pretend to. Something could have done damage. Yes I am aware of that SH quote. But a missile (projectile, incendiary) is not impossible. Based on the visual evidence it can not be ruled out, and you know that. If you want to argue where was it housed why would be necessary, that is another thing. But again a weapon that would do damage is not impossible. This type of thing (crashing a plane into a building) is not something you can run physical tests on. Perhaps they wanted to make absolute sure plane parts did not fall back. Because as I said it is easier to deny a video, than a part that shouldn't have been there. The others(theories) that have been mentioned are impossible or are so unlikely they might as will be categorized as impossible. So we are where we are.