Missile??

[triforcharity]

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

Cool. That is all.

 

[tmd2_1]

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.

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?


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
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.



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

Ah I have found something I think demonstrates the concept of what could (I emphasize could have been used). Missile fires 3 sub missiles are fired from that missile. Full description here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_(missile)

Please do not bombard me with questions, about how this weapon could not have been used. I am not saying it was...only that the concept would be similar, right down to the self detonation of the sub missiles. Which is something I'm sure the conspirators would have made sure happened. Technology was developed in the 80's way in advance of 2001.

As I said explain to me how an almost perfectly circular flash is visible AFTER penetration?

 

[dafydd]

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.

It's just as likely as your missile. Are you actually capable of getting a point?

 

[dafydd]

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!)

If tmd is willing to consider the possibility of a missile then he should be prepared to consider a fowl based incident. Both are equally likely.

 

[dafydd]

Ah I have found something I think demonstrates the concept of what could (I emphasize could have been used). Missile fires 3 sub missiles are fired from that missile. Full description here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_(missile)

Please do not bombard me with questions, about how this weapon could not have been used. I am not saying it was...only that the concept would be similar, right down to the self detonation of the sub missiles. Which is something I'm sure the conspirators would have made sure happened. Technology was developed in the 80's way in advance of 2001.

As I said explain to me how an almost perfectly circular flash is visible AFTER penetration?

There was no missile. End of story.

 

[phunk]

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.

Out of those millions of flights, how many were filmed going into a wall at full speed?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I love how he uses a weapon with a minimum range of roughly 2/10th of a mile as an example of something that had to have had essentially no minimum range in order to do what he claims it did.

Keep digging TMD, keep digging.

 

[Kid Eager]

If TMD had read the Wiki reference properly, he would have discovered that the Star Streak is an epic fail as an example of his missile scenario.

So TMD, would you like to guess why it fails at demonstrating the possibility of your scenario, or would you like to read your reference first?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Did you stop to consider the fact that they were also the only two that wer filmed crashing into high-rise buildings, or is that too trivial a difference even to bother with?

Dave

 

[Sabrina]

Ah I have found something I think demonstrates the concept of what could (I emphasize could have been used). Missile fires 3 sub missiles are fired from that missile. Full description here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_(missile)

Please do not bombard me with questions, about how this weapon could not have been used. I am not saying it was...only that the concept would be similar, right down to the self detonation of the sub missiles. Which is something I'm sure the conspirators would have made sure happened. Technology was developed in the 80's way in advance of 2001.

As I said explain to me how an almost perfectly circular flash is visible AFTER penetration?

Nice to see you've finally joined the land of the sane and have admitted the flash occurred after the nose of the plane penetrated the building. Now if we can just get you to admit that the flash occurred in the region of the oxygen tanks (which can easily explode and create a flash as a result), we might actually get you to realize how utterly ludicrous your "missile" theory is.

And incidentally, did you notice the part on your reference that said before the Starstreak can fire its internal missiles it has to accelerate to Mach 3.5? Do you honestly think ANYTHING can accelerate to that speed in less than a second? 'Cause if so, I got a nice bridge in the desert to sell ya.

 

[TJM]

Ah I have found something I think demonstrates the concept of what could (I emphasize could have been used). Missile fires 3 sub missiles are fired from that missile. Full description here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_(missile)

Please do not bombard me with questions, about how this weapon could not have been used. I am not saying it was...only that the concept would be similar, right down to the self detonation of the sub missiles. Which is something I'm sure the conspirators would have made sure happened. Technology was developed in the 80's way in advance of 2001.

As I said explain to me how an almost perfectly circular flash is visible AFTER penetration?

Which brings us back to this:

If you look very closely, you can see the missile firing another smaller missile just before it hits. And then that smaller missile hinges open and flings a cream pie at the building.

However, since the missile, the smaller missile, and the pie are all engulfed milliseconds later by the huge fireball from the impact of the jetliner into the building at cruising speed, their presence seems to have made no difference at all. It certainly is a mystery why anyone bothered to do such a pointlessly irrelevant thing.

I'm pretty sure the cream pie was poisoned, but I have no idea why. Can you explain it?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tmd2_1]

Nice to see you've finally joined the land of the sane and have admitted the flash occurred after the nose of the plane penetrated the building. Now if we can just get you to admit that the flash occurred in the region of the oxygen tanks (which can easily explode and create a flash as a result), we might actually get you to realize how utterly ludicrous your "missile" theory is.

And incidentally, did you notice the part on your reference that said before the Starstreak can fire its internal missiles it has to accelerate to Mach 3.5? Do you honestly think ANYTHING can accelerate to that speed in less than a second? 'Cause if so, I got a nice bridge in the desert to sell ya.

What are you talking about? I never said any such thing. I was asking how it would be possible to have an almost perfect circle after penetration. Because I can't see how it is.

As far as Mach 3.5. Remember I simply said this was a general concept. It would not have to go nearly that fast, and you know what. You have a flying projectile, another projectile is fired from it, it is used for penetration and can self detonate. Sounds exactly like what could have been used.

 

[dafydd]

What are you talking about? I never said any such thing. I was asking how it would be possible to have an almost perfect circle after penetration. Because I can't see how it is.

As far as Mach 3.5. Remember I simply said this was a general concept. It would not have to go nearly that fast, and you know what. You have a flying projectile, another projectile is fired from it, it is used for penetration and can self detonate. Sounds exactly like what could have been used.

And a giant turkey could have been used too,or a huge frozen salami. There was no missile,why do you keep doing this? We may as well play 'Let's pretend'. I must admit that if you are a chain yanking troll then you are doing very well. At convincing the world that there was a missile you are an abject failure.

 

[NoahFence]

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.

They're also the only two that slammed into the side of a building at 500 miles per hour.

Continue handwaving, junior. You're exceptional at that. Pretty much the only thing you're any good at as far as I can see.

 

[leftysergeant]

Whatever that anomoly on the wing behind the engine is, it moves in unison with the wing, and is, therefor, obviously a solid object.

Missiles will always dispaly some smoke trail. We see none leading from the aircaft to the wall.

We can, therefor, with 100% certainty state:

THERE WAS NO BLEEDING MISSILE.

 

[Oystein]

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!)

But any momentum gained by the bird by leaping from the plane is lost to the plane, as net momentum is preserved

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

Only two EVER have crashed into tall metal clad building........high speed aircraft don't normally go anywhere near them.........

so the only two aircraft to ever do something, both exhibit the same phenomenon and you think that's unlikely based on the fact that millions of other flights that never went near the towers showed no such effect?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

But any momentum gained by the bird by leaping from the plane is lost to the plane, as net momentum is preserved

Curses! foiled by science again!

 

[Sabrina]

What are you talking about? I never said any such thing. I was asking how it would be possible to have an almost perfect circle after penetration. Because I can't see how it is.

You admitted, in the part I highlighted, that the flash occurred AFTER the penetration of the building by the plane. That is what your very words stated:

tmd: "As I said explain to me how an almost perfectly circular flash is visible AFTER penetration?"

Prior to this post you kept insisting the flash occurred BEFORE the nose of the plane impacted the building, so I congratulated your concession to the truth when it appeared that you had a moment of sanity. Apparently I was wrong; my apologies.

As far as Mach 3.5. Remember I simply said this was a general concept. It would not have to go nearly that fast, and you know what. You have a flying projectile, another projectile is fired from it, it is used for penetration and can self detonate. Sounds exactly like what could have been used.

Except for the teeny little problem that this is the only projectile-based weapon of that type in existence, and it cannot be modified to do what you (erroneously) think happened, since there isn't a weapon in existence that can be fired and in a split second arm itself enough to detonate upon impact.

tmd, I'm going to explain a simple concept to you; weapons can only do what they are DESIGNED to do. There is some flexibility within the design that allows for some modification, but not to the extent you are suggesting. The whole purpose behind a projectile-based weapon is to kill or destroy something FROM A DISTANCE so as to allow for fewer or no friendly casualties. Modifying such a weapon, even setting aside the fact that it's impossible to modify a projectile-based weapon to that extent, completely negates that purpose, and for no good reason; the plane was already traveling sufficiently fast to penetrate the building with no help whatsoever from your imaginary weapon. Had there been a missile aimed at the tower on 9/11, there would not have been a plane literally a split second behind it filled with screaming passengers on their way to their death. Period. End of story. I highly suggest you shelve this ludicrous theory pronto, because the only thing you are doing is making yourself look utterly ridiculous by making suppositions about things you know nothing about. For proof of that, just make the suggestion to any weapons designer that you believe a missile could:

A) be fired from a passenger jet with no one noticing the giant modification made to the plane

B) be able to arm itself in less than a second and detonate almost immediately thereafter

You'd be laughed out of the building before you finished outlining your theory, I can just about guarantee that.

 

[dafydd]

Only two EVER have crashed into tall metal clad building........high speed aircraft don't normally go anywhere near them.........

so the only two aircraft to ever do something, both exhibit the same phenomenon and you think that's unlikely based on the fact that millions of other flights that never went near the towers showed no such effect?

Tmd,what kind of a missile was used here?