Missile??

tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No there isn't.
 
tmd2_1 said:
... Perhaps they wanted to make absolute sure plane parts did not fall back. ...
Click to expand...
.
Yes, the world's most considerate mass murderers, fearful of creating damage away from the event site.
.
So we are where we are.
Click to expand...
.
There is no "we" in your delusion. It's all yours.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Flash was before impact...no doubt about it.
Click to expand...
I will post this link again and this time give you simple step by step instructions.


Step 1: Click the link I have provided for you below. It will take you to a frame by frame HD version of the Evan Fairbanks video.


http://www.911conspiracy.tv/Fairbanks_HD.html


Step 2: Type 16 in to the box marked "go to frame:"

step 3: click the button marked "Go"

step 4: after frame 16 has loaded click the button marked "Next".

step 5: after frame 17 has loaded click the button marked "Prev".

step 6: click the button marked "Next".

step 7: click the button marked "Prev".

step 8: repeat steps 6 and 7 as necessary.

All of the evidence, including your observations, points to an oxygen tank exploding upon impact with the building.

Fairbanks_jpegs018.jpg
 
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So where in the video is the missile impact? A flash and a missile aren't the same thing.
 
A high-def frame-by frame video. If there was something as small as a computer monitor attached to the underside of that plane, we'd see it.

There were no missiles.

tmd...please stop. Just stop.
 
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Have you completely missed the way this occurs or are you just playing at being incapable of understanding the difference?

The meteor is compressing air for many minutes at speeds that are multiples of the speed at which the Boeing was travelling. The meteor was used as a much greater effect example of the principle of compression simply as an illustration of the concept of air not being able to move out of the way of extremely fast objects and thsu being compressed in front of that object.

In the case of the aircraft the plane is compressing air all along BUT not enough to be seen or to produce a heat flash UNTIL it gets close to the building. The building prevents the air from moving away and the compression spikes and causes a brief flash.

However,
your post title simply asks "Missile??" The answer is a resounding "NO!".

As far as a reflection goes it is true that when you are talking about two flat surfaces that a reflection would be only at one place but we are talking about one flat and one rounded surface. A Sun reflection off the tower onto the nose of the plane would be visible to many observers in many locations. The angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence which would be a tangent to the convex reflecting surface.

As far as 'ensuring maximum penetration" this is utterly ridiculous, far exceeding any doubt in the various explanations of the flash given in these pages. The heaviest materials the aircraft will encounter are the perimeter columns. The aircraft will encounter these at its maximum speed, the momentum of the aircraft is an order of magnitude greater than required to carry it through the perimeter. Both a/c and perimeter columns would be shredded by the encounter. The a/c would have lost about 15% of it momentum in this collision. The perimeter column parts torn off would have retained some of that momentum (but even just a little bit will have them move inside the building).
Next is nothing but lightweight interior walls, furniture and office equipment, and people. There are hundreds of examples of cars ramming into stores and restartaunts where we see interior contents scattered about easily. Imagine chunks of an aircraft moving at 8-9 times highways speed and all of comparable size and mass to that of an automobile, roaring through an office floor. A few of these pieces are constructed of quite dense material, parts designed to either produce the power required to move a 100,000 pound aircraft through the air at several hundred MPH, or designed to carry the mass of said aircraft and they are still moving at a few hundred MPH when they reach the core.

Now try to imagine what you could possibly add to this situation, in the form of a missile launched with no time to affect the perimeter columns, (given the spacing between columns its as likely as not that any missile would be punching through a window as through a column anyway) that would significantly increase the effect.

So as stated previously by me, and many many others in this thread, the answer to your question , "Missile??", is "NO!, there was no missile.So let us not see you posting any more about how no one has positively addressed your question.
 
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

*facepalm*

tmd, I just explained in my post that you quoted that VISUAL evidence means absolutely nothing; this is why eyewitness testimony is considered notoriously unreliable in court. You see something one way; I and others in this thread see it in a totally different way. So I'm asking you to set aside the "visual evidence" and look at the PHYSICAL evidence; the stuff you can touch and verify. And what we can touch and verify is that there is absolutely NO physical evidence of a missile. None. Nada. Zero. Zip. Zilch. If I have to, I'll say it in as many languages as it takes to get it through your skull. THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF A MISSILE.

Again, you indicated in your post that some of the options presented to you by other posters (that, by the way, DO fit the existing physical evidence) are "extremely unlikely", which by inference means that there IS a possibility that the scenario posited is what happened. So I will ask you this; of the scenarios you consider unlikely, which do you think is the most likely of the bunch? Remember the physical evidence, which says quite plainly THERE WAS NO MISSILE, when you answer.

I'm beginning to doubt that you can comprehend the sheer lack of critical thinking you are displaying by offering up this absurd theory of yours, but I have to try.
 
waypastvne said:
I will post this link again and this time give you simple step by step instructions.


Step 1: Click the link I have provided for you below. It will take you to a frame by frame HD version of the Evan Fairbanks video.


http://www.911conspiracy.tv/Fairbanks_HD.html


Step 2: Type 16 in to the box marked "go to frame:"

step 3: click the button marked "Go"

step 4: after frame 16 has loaded click the button marked "Next".

step 5: after frame 17 has loaded click the button marked "Prev".

step 6: click the button marked "Next".

step 7: click the button marked "Prev".

step 8: repeat steps 6 and 7 as necessary.

All of the evidence, including your observations, points to an oxygen tank exploding upon impact with the building.

[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/Fairbanks_jpegs018.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
I found that page about as easy to use as it could possibly get.

There it is in chilling high def, frame by frame.
NO flash until after the nose hits the building.
NO missile launch under the aircraft in evidence at all.
NO 'pod'.

As horrific as it it to say this, there is nothing there but an aircraft hitting a building.
 
All weapons that are self propelled (and many projectiles fired from larger guns) have what's called an enabling point. This is the point that is is armed. It is always well outside the zone of destruction of the weapon (there was only one exception to this rule that I know of involving nuclear weapons and the fact that the launching platform simply couldn't get far enough away, it was enabled as far away as possible though).

The entire point of waiting to arm the weapon is to prevent killing yourself while firing the weapon. Movies aside you cannot change this setting to anything below the minimum (much less remove it), it is hardwired into the weapon and requires factory level changes.
 
jaydeehess said:
Have you completely missed the way this occurs or are you just playing at being incapable of understanding the difference?

The meteor is compressing air for many minutes at speeds that are multiples of the speed at which the Boeing was travelling. The meteor was used as a much greater effect example of the principle of compression simply as an illustration of the concept of air not being able to move out of the way of extremely fast objects and thsu being compressed in front of that object.

In the case of the aircraft the plane is compressing air all along BUT not enough to be seen or to produce a heat flash UNTIL it gets close to the building. The building prevents the air from moving away and the compression spikes and causes a brief flash.

However,
your post title simply asks "Missile??" The answer is a resounding "NO!".

As far as a reflection goes it is true that when you are talking about two flat surfaces that a reflection would be only at one place but we are talking about one flat and one rounded surface. A Sun reflection off the tower onto the nose of the plane would be visible to many observers in many locations. The angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence which would be a tangent to the convex reflecting surface.

As far as 'ensuring maximum penetration" this is utterly ridiculous, far exceeding any doubt in the various explanations of the flash given in these pages. The heaviest materials the aircraft will encounter are the perimeter columns. The aircraft will encounter these at its maximum speed, the momentum of the aircraft is an order of magnitude greater than required to carry it through the perimeter. Both a/c and perimeter columns would be shredded by the encounter. The a/c would have lost about 15% of it momentum in this collision. The perimeter column parts torn off would have retained some of that momentum (but even just a little bit will have them move inside the building).
Next is nothing but lightweight interior walls, furniture and office equipment, and people. There are hundreds of examples of cars ramming into stores and restartaunts where we see interior contents scattered about easily. Imagine chunks of an aircraft moving at 8-9 times highways speed and all of comparable size and mass to that of an automobile, roaring through an office floor. A few of these pieces are constructed of quite dense material, parts designed to either produce the power required to move a 100,000 pound aircraft through the air at several hundred MPH, or designed to carry the mass of said aircraft and they are still moving at a few hundred MPH when they reach the core.

Now try to imagine what you could possibly add to this situation, in the form of a missile launched with no time to affect the perimeter columns, (given the spacing between columns its as likely as not that any missile would be punching through a window as through a column anyway) that would significantly increase the effect.

So as stated previously by me, and many many others in this thread, the answer to your question , "Missile??", is "NO!, there was no missile.So let us not see you posting any more about how no one has positively addressed your question.
Click to expand...

Yes I understood that the meteor was a "greater" example. But I've already said it many times. That "flash" does not hold the same characteristics, it is in lower right hand of the fuselage only not all encompassing, I see no reason why it would lose that general principal.

I've said perhaps "missile" was a bad title, I should have said incendiary/projectile weapon.

No a "reflection" can be seen from one angle. Sun glare could be seen from multiple angles yes, which is why I specifically said the same flash can be seen on the north tower as well. The sun did not move that much in 15 minutes.

Tell me you're 100% certain no weapon exists what would help with penetration, in the time allotted? It would have to puncture quickly no doubt, but to say it doesn't exist, is not something any one can say.

As far as only losing 15% of it's momentum. I've seen the math that gets it this low before, and I think it is flawed. Just take MPH. No one is exactly sure how fast that plane was going especially the one that hit the north tower. Even a relatively small change can make a big difference. For example a baseball player swings a bat 75 mph as opposed to 70 mph. That's the difference between a 430 ft home run or a 390 ft long out. Would 5 mph make that much of a difference in this case probably not, but once you start getting to around 20 mph it definitely will.

Also if as you say several pieces were still going hundreds of miles an hour when they reached the core (still meaning the only 15% momentum loss) I literally would expect more parts to fly through the other side. You know most of the support was in the exterior columns, so how is it going to lose much momentum inside the building? No I believe that math is greatly flawed., and total penetration would have been a great concern if this was a conspiracy.


I do not know how much or little shredding there was of the plane and/or columns. I have not looked into it.

Let me close this by going back to the OP.

Here are the two videos again http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc4wsjKbYTQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x8fs2sZmas&feature=related

The first is where you can see the an initial flame flash (whatever you want to call it) hence would could be the firing.

The second is where you see something traveling along side the plane and impact the building just before the plane does. Or at the very least would you would call another flash. What are the chances of two anomalies happening like this on the same side of the A/C, that can't possible be related? Because if it wasn't something that was firing, there's no way one could have affected the other, they must have been two separate events.
 
Sabrina said:
*facepalm*

tmd, I just explained in my post that you quoted that VISUAL evidence means absolutely nothing; this is why eyewitness testimony is considered notoriously unreliable in court. You see something one way; I and others in this thread see it in a totally different way. So I'm asking you to set aside the "visual evidence" and look at the PHYSICAL evidence; the stuff you can touch and verify. And what we can touch and verify is that there is absolutely NO physical evidence of a missile. None. Nada. Zero. Zip. Zilch. If I have to, I'll say it in as many languages as it takes to get it through your skull. THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF A MISSILE.

Again, you indicated in your post that some of the options presented to you by other posters (that, by the way, DO fit the existing physical evidence) are "extremely unlikely", which by inference means that there IS a possibility that the scenario posited is what happened. So I will ask you this; of the scenarios you consider unlikely, which do you think is the most likely of the bunch? Remember the physical evidence, which says quite plainly THERE WAS NO MISSILE, when you answer.

I'm beginning to doubt that you can comprehend the sheer lack of critical thinking you are displaying by offering up this absurd theory of yours, but I have to try.
Click to expand...

Well let me address your point about physical evidence first. If you read through the thread you will see almost no one makes mention of physical evidence or lack there of. There probably is a very good reason for that. Because despite what they may write about me I am very far from being delusional, or lack mental capacity, and they know that which is why they resort to such childish things.

They know there is a simple answer to this. So let's take your premise no physical evidence means it wasn't there. That's basically what your saying right? So you realize that most of the plane was not found including the black boxes (officially). So that would mean it's not there or never was. Also well over 1000 victims never had any remains identified, so that's means they weren't there right? Even ones who had remains identified most of what was found was only tiny bone fragments, so that means the rest of there bodies weren't there right? Hardly any computers or phones were found, none of that must have been there right? I mean all this is basically what your telling me right?

So by your criteria nothing fits the physical evidence, so I wouldn't know what to answer.

But if you want to ask me which one of the scenarios is the "most" likely. I would say the only one that is at all possible (this of course is not counting a weapon/projectile etc...) is static discharge. But I would put the odds of that at literally 1 and several million. That of course is not saying it is some sort of weapon, but just the odds of what was presented so far.
 
waypastvne said:
The first 2 drawings come from the Boeing web site and can be found in the
AIRPLANE RESCUE AND FIRE FIGHTING INFORMATION
767 SERIES FLAMMABLE MATERIAL LOCATIONS

Link:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/arff/arff767.pdf


This drawing gives the general location of the "CREW OXYGEN BOTTLE IN RIGHT SIDE, E & E COMPARTMENT"
E & E stands for electrical and equipment

[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/Screenshot2011-08-18at94210AM.png[/qimg]


The second drawing shows an X-ray view of the E&E compartment. Although it does not show the O2 tank,
it does give us a better idea of the size and location of the compartment in relation to the rest of the plane.
Note that the aft bulkhead of the nose wheel bay is also the fwd wall of the E&E compartment.

[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/Screenshot2011-08-18at94015AM.png[/qimg]


This is a photo of the E & E compartment. The O2 tank would be under the floor on the left hand side of the picture.
You can also see the external access door used to service the tank and battery.

[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/IMG_2481-1.jpg[/qimg]


An emergency O2 tank like the one on UA 175. It is pressurised to 1,800 psi with pure oxygen, not compressed air like scuba tanks.

[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/qantas2_ss_567530a.jpg[/qimg]


The nose wheel undercarriage was located directly in front of of the E&E room and would have been the first major part of the plane to impact. When GPers say hollow aluminum can, they are neglecting things like this. On impact this undercarriage would decelerate wile the rest of the plane continued forward. So the under carriage smashed through the E&E room as well as knocking a large hole in the building. This is why the flash happens outside of the wall and gives the illusion of happening before impact.


[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/TrenJupiter.jpg[/qimg]


A photo of N612 UA in its original colors. The O2 tank would be within the red circle.

[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/0188144copy-1.jpg[/qimg]


An O2 tank explosion on a Qantas Boeing 747.

[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/QantasExt1_gallery__533x400-600x400.jpg[/qimg]


This composite photo was made by Achimspok it's a boeing 767 photo resized and over laid on a frame from the Spiegel TV video to give a clear view of the location of the flash.

[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/flash_analysis_jpg_no_layers_readju.jpg[/qimg]


This is the highest quality, best view video. The flash happens after the nose impacts the building.



The oxygen tank is the most likely explanation for the flash.

There was no "Missile"
Click to expand...

Listen I don't what you've read or what you've been told but this ends here. Take a look at these pictures. You can see that the flash, flame or whatever you want to call it, is perfectly circular. Tell me how this is possible if there's already penetration? I'll tell you it's not possible 100% not possible.
 

Attachments

  • 1fmt8.jpg
    1fmt8.jpg
    31.4 KB · Views: 0
  • 4angleqq7.jpg
    4angleqq7.jpg
    37.2 KB · Views: 1
tmd2_1 said:
I've said perhaps "missile" was a bad title, I should have said incendiary/projectile weapon.
Click to expand...
Actually you shouldn't have said anything at all until that organ between your ears has a chance to do its thing.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Listen I don't what you've read or what you've been told but this ends here. Take a look at these pictures. You can see that the flash, flame or whatever you want to call it, is perfectly circular. Tell me how this is possible if there's already penetration? I'll tell you it's not possible 100% not possible.
Click to expand...
Apparently you don't know what a circle is either.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Listen I don't what you've read or what you've been told but this ends here. Take a look at these pictures. You can see that the flash, flame or whatever you want to call it, is perfectly circular. Tell me how this is possible if there's already penetration? I'll tell you it's not possible 100% not possible.
Click to expand...

Have you tried waypastvne's suggestion in post #444? Clear HD video that shows the flash post-impact and no missile. It's much better than these crappy sources you're using.
 
GlennB said:
Have you tried waypastvne's suggestion in post #444? Clear HD video that shows the flash post-impact and no missile. It's much better than these crappy sources you're using.
Click to expand...

If he did then he knows that he'd have nothing. By using crappy lo-res images he can continue trolling.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
If he did then he knows that he'd have nothing. By using crappy lo-res images he can continue trolling.
Click to expand...

I dunno. Genuine trolls who post this much generally begin to show signs of some kind of sense of humour. Like Bill Smith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom