Missile??

[Oystein]

I didn't think I'd actually have to spell it out. But a lot of things were completely destroyed by the fires and collapse. You expect one weapon to survive?...

No. We expect one bit of evidence from you beyond your total ignorance, limitless incredulity and untrained speculation on hazy things you think you see in grainy video copies on youtube but are shown to be non-existent in better-quality originals.

 

[Sabrina]

No. We expect one bit of evidence from you beyond your total ignorance, limitless incredulity and untrained speculation on hazy things you think you see in grainy video copies on youtube but are shown to be non-existent in better-quality originals.

^^^This.

Nothing more really need be said.

 

[GlennB]

No sadly this whole thread is an example of what I am talking about. Look how hard people are trying to explain these flashes. Yet only one explanation is at all possible.

tmd2_1

please read post #444 and check out the HD video.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Look how hard people are trying to explain these flashes.

We are not trying hard at all. We are merely offering up several rational reasons as to what may have caused it to try and satisfy your curiosity. We really don't care what it was as its not important.

Yet only one explanation is at all possible.

Thats just your opinion.

The static discharge, but we are literally talking about a 1 and a several million chance, for it to happen once, let alone twice.

Why? lets see your math on that please. If an aircraft collects a static charge when traveling at high speed why would it be very likely that two near identical aircraft, traveling at roughly the same speed on the same day hitting near identical metal towers not have the same discharge?

This doesn't even explain the other anomalous flash/flame we see coming out of the back of the A/C.

First show they are connected. Two separate thing can happen at close to the same time and close to each other without being in any way connected.
My guess is its an engine issue. But again I don't really care what it was as its unimportant relative to what else is happening in that picture.....hundreds of people are about to die.......

Yet this is as you say a very small data item.

It is. Next

" There could be a logical explanation for those flashes,"

There are, and we have shown you them.

that doesn't change the mountains of other evidence and the lack of evidence for the official story.

That's just a plain lie.

[/ To my knowledge the only evidence against OBL and AQ is some videos, that are of very dubious authenticity. This is what I mean about missing the big picture.

This thread is about planes and missiles. Not OBL and AQ. Whether thry did it or not is irrelevant as to whether or not there were planes and/or missiles.
There were planes and there were no missiles. Period.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Again the hypocrisy here never ceases to amaze me. In one breath you say you can't rely on visual evidence, in the next breath you say there are no visual signs or bumps indicating weapons? Unbelievable really. Completely and totally unbelievable. I'm sure the people that did this (if it was a CT) would have made sure whatever it was, was as hard to see as possible.

As for the weapons..again there are so many weapons, and so many smart people out there capable of modifying weapons, there is no way to say something could or could not be done.

Arrrgggghhhhh! You cannot even come up with a credible reason why any weapon would be there to start with! It was you that claims there was a visible bump and missile and when we showed you there was not, now you say it might have been hard to see????
Grow up! Admit that you were wrong. You are not a child caught stealing a cookie, you are a grown up who made a mistake.

 

[Craig4]

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.

So you've seen a flash and you have a video that shows only a plane impacting the building and you've concluded the flash could be a missile. Never mind that commercial passenger jets don't carry missiles or that there's nothing supporting the missile idea other than the flash. Do you have some reason to believe a missile was specially mounted in an internal purpose built weapons bay on this airplane?

 

[jaydeehess]

I find it hard to believe any one person would know if there is such a weapon, device etc. There are so many weapons out there (too many if you ask me) so many smart people capable of modifying weapons, I find it hard to believe.

.

That comes very close to invoking magic tmd. You are saying that just because no one, including yourself and others who have similar beliefs, do not have any idea of what such a weapon would be based upon(in the known world arsenal) that one with the capabilities you and your compatriots have decided it would have had, and could have existed and been attached to the aircraft.

Such a position is not that far removed from Judy Wood's beam weapon.

 

[jaydeehess]

I didn't think I'd actually have to spell it out. But a lot of things were completely destroyed by the fires and collapse. You expect one weapon to survive?

You expect that somehow the supposed perpetrators who installed said weapon would know beyond a doubt that the weapon would in fact be completely destroyed. On what would you base that assumption? More magic properties of a weapon you can describe in no other way than to ascribe properties you wish it to have?

Again the hypocrisy here never ceases to amaze me. In one breath you say you can't rely on visual evidence, in the next breath you say there are no visual signs or bumps indicating weapons? Unbelievable really. Completely and totally unbelievable.

Video evidence would be considered docuementary evidence as opposed to physical evidence, actual parts of something. In the case of docuementary evidence the best quality or most verifiable docuements would carry more weight than lesser docuements. The youtibe highly compressed videos you keep referring to simply are outclassed by the higher definition and better angle of the images in post 444.
I reacll a video of the morning show that was once on "Scholars for 911 Truth" (or perhaps it was AE911T, I don't recall for sure) It starts off whith the morning crew including Al Roker doing his thing on the street and then cuts to the news of the impact at the WTC. I don't recall what they were trying to say was visible in the parts showing the towers but it was eminantly ridicilous given the amount of copying and recompression that had been done to this video. Al Roker's face was nothing but an anonomous light brown blur. You can imagine what the video of the towers looked like.
I of course know that you will understand my uise of this example in illustrating how your videos stack up against the images linked to in post 444

I'm sure the people that did this (if it was a CT) would have made sure whatever it was, was as hard to see as possible.

Indeed ,it seems that in higher definition videos taken from better angles this "whatever-it-is" does not appear and it only appears in grainy and highly compressed videos or ones taken from farther away.

As for the weapons..again there are so many weapons, and so many smart people out there capable of modifying weapons, there is no way to say something could or could not be done.

Now that's better. That is an appeal for the existance of a magical device.

 

[NoahFence]

TMD -
DID you check out the high-def frame by frame video yet?

If so, care to discuss it? If not, why not?

 

[dafydd]

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.

Please stop. I am embarassed in your place. There was no missile or projectile. There is a greater possibility that the plane fired a giant roast duck. You must be trolling,I cannot believe that you are this obtuse.

 

[jaydeehess]

Dafydd, a giant frozen turkey would cause more damage.

 

[dafydd]

Dafydd, a giant frozen turkey would cause more damage.

That would still be more likely than a missile.

 

[NoahFence]

With God as my witness I thought turkey's could fly.


-Les Nessman

 

[I Ratant]

With God as my witness I thought turkey's could fly.


-Les Nessman

.
Wild turkeys, yes. Seen'em.

 

[dafydd]

.
Wild turkeys, yes. Seen'em.

Up to 55 mph for short distances. Add that to the speed of the plane and we may have cracked it. I'm going with the turkey theory instead of tmd's invisible missile,it's far more likely.

 

[tmd2_1]

Please stop. I am embarassed in your place. There was no missile or projectile. There is a greater possibility that the plane fired a giant roast duck. You must be trolling,I cannot believe that you are this obtuse.

Hey...where have you been? We missed you. I can see you are bringing your usual intellectual brilliance with talks of roast ducks. Glad your back.

 

[tmd2_1]

TMD -
DID you check out the high-def frame by frame video yet?

If so, care to discuss it? If not, why not?

Yes. Not sure what there is to discuss. The shot isn't zoomed in, it's from a different angle then the one that shows the "almost" perfect circle. Why don't you explain to me how that is possible after penetration? It doesn't matter if it is on an HD picture or not.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Hey...where have you been? We missed you. I can see you are bringing your usual intellectual brilliance with talks of roast ducks. Glad your back.

We didn't miss you.

Given that the plane was already flying it could have been a flightless bird leaping off at the last moment. I think the added mass of an ostrich over a wild turkey would give the most bang for the buck and being biodegradable it would also have the advantage of being less detectable in the debris than a invisible missile (someone would likely have tripped over it!)

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Yes. Not sure what there is to discuss. The shot isn't zoomed in, it's from a different angle then the one that shows the "almost" perfect circle. Why don't you explain to me how that is possible after penetration? It doesn't matter if it is on an HD picture or not.

ftfy

 

[tmd2_1]

We are not trying hard at all. We are merely offering up several rational reasons as to what may have caused it to try and satisfy your curiosity. We really don't care what it was as its not important.



Thats just your opinion.



Why? lets see your math on that please. If an aircraft collects a static charge when traveling at high speed why would it be very likely that two near identical aircraft, traveling at roughly the same speed on the same day hitting near identical metal towers not have the same discharge?



First show they are connected. Two separate thing can happen at close to the same time and close to each other without being in any way connected.
My guess is its an engine issue. But again I don't really care what it was as its unimportant relative to what else is happening in that picture.....hundreds of people are about to die.......




It is. Next



There are, and we have shown you them.



That's just a plain lie.



This thread is about planes and missiles. Not OBL and AQ. Whether thry did it or not is irrelevant as to whether or not there were planes and/or missiles.
There were planes and there were no missiles. Period.

The only thing worth answering is the Math. It's pretty simple really. There's been millions of commercial flights in history right? As far as I could find these were the only two that exhibited anything like that. Is it the best way...probably not, but as I said I couldn't find anything. If you know of something I would like to see it.