Missile??

Just to point something out....

Patents are granted all the time on things that don't exist. Just because a patent exists for something, doesn't mean it was ever fully developed; lots of people patent ideas rather than items. Therefore, tmd, your patent claim means exactly nothing unless you can produce an instance in which such a device was actually USED.
 
Sabrina said:
Just to point something out....

Patents are granted all the time on things that don't exist. Just because a patent exists for something, doesn't mean it was ever fully developed; lots of people patent ideas rather than items. Therefore, tmd, your patent claim means exactly nothing unless you can produce an instance in which such a device was actually USED.
Click to expand...
Then explain how such a device was fitted to a commercial airliner without anyone noticing this unusual appendage. Then explain why there is absolutely no sign of such a device no the video footage. He can't of course but he'll just keep pissing in the wind anyway.
 
Last edited:
Sabrina said:
Just to point something out....

Patents are granted all the time on things that don't exist. Just because a patent exists for something, doesn't mean it was ever fully developed; lots of people patent ideas rather than items. Therefore, tmd, your patent claim means exactly nothing unless you can produce an instance in which such a device was actually USED.
Click to expand...


I have at least a dozen Patents for things that were never actually built....
 
Dash80 said:
Then explain how such a device was fitted to a commercial airliner without anyone noticing this unusual appendage. Then explain why there is absolutely no sign of such a device no the video footage. He can't of course but he'll just keep pissing in the wind anyway.
Click to expand...

I'll answer you because most of the recent posts have been similar questions, and you may have summed it up the best I believe.

For me to answer *how* it could be done is pure speculation. I've always said that if it was a conspiracy Airport security and perhaps even some maintenance folks would have had to have been involved. At the very least security would have been involved in letting these guys on the A/C. I also like to point out that security was run by the same company at all 3 airports that were used that day.

So given this I believe it could have been done. How exactly it would have been done is a matter of pure speculation. It never ends with you guys, I could lay something out, and I wouldn't be surprised if people pointed out I didn't take into account bathroom breaks. That's really the absurd level, you guys would like me to go to. Yet it's ok for there to be huge holes in the official story. Unbelievable really.

But let's take a look at what I did do in this post. I didn't necessarily start out with this intention but it did happen. I provided evidence that a particular type of weapon was in existence far in advance of 2001, and would have been suitable for the job, the concept of that weapon anyway.

I provided evidence that a commercial A/C could be rigged with a missile launching system, without even changing it's structure. I see no reason why that person's patent would not work, whether it was in production or not. Obviously this exact system would have not been used, but it does show that it can be done.

Explained why it could have been needed, that is to help eliminate fallback. Also let's not forget it could have also been used to help in the size of the fireball.

Now let's look at what has not been done in this thread. Which was the whole question of the thread. Regardless of what people believe I have established or not established in terms of weaponry. No one has given a plausible answer to what either of those two flashes are. Only a static discharge is even possible to explain the flash before it hits the building, though I found absolutely no evidence that anything like what we see has happened before, and that doesn't even begin to explain the flash coming out of the back of the A/C.

Now I've said this once or twice in the thread I believe, if not I am saying it now. I did have a somewhat ulterior motive. The whole concept of a missile is on the "fringe" of the truth movement, that's for sure. It really doesn't matter one bit if those planes fired missiles or not. It is something that is not if often discussed, even among CTers. But yet as we see from the pages in this thread, it can't be explained, and this is just a small fringe element. It boggles my mind that even with a fringe element like this being unexplainable, people still continue to believe the official story unquestionably. It really does.

I know a lot of you will disagree with what I just wrote, but if you were honest with yourselves you know it's true, and yet you'll still continue to believe unquestionably.
 
AJM8125 said:
Well apparently, it's not your average missile system. It's invisible, small, designed to be launched milliseconds from its intended target at point blank range and its payload is the 767 that launched it.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, evidence has been uncovered that Wonder Woman's invisible jet was taken by the government. It already had invisible missiles loaded onto it. There is a video on youtube that shows an anomoly in the air just moments before the first explosion. It's hypothesized that the jet, although invisble, does have slight reflective qualities and therefore produces a wave like appearance as it distorts the light around it...:rolleyes:
 
Your not accepting valid explanations is not the same as "Cannot be explained". It's simply evidence of your unwillingness to accept valid explanations for whatever reasons that you have. Nobody can force you to change your opinions but they can judge you by them.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Now let's look at what has not been done in this thread. Which was the whole question of the thread. Regardless of what people believe I have established or not established in terms of weaponry. No one has given a plausible answer to what either of those two flashes are. Only a static discharge is even possible to explain the flash before it hits the building, though I found absolutely no evidence that anything like what we see has happened before, and that doesn't even begin to explain the flash coming out of the back of the A/C.
Click to expand...

Silly truther. :rolleyes:
 
cameragltch.jpg


Hey tmd2 1, I found another missile being fired by the aircraft after it hits the building....or maybe it's another pixel glitch in the camera.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
I've always said that if it was a conspiracy Airport security and perhaps even some maintenance folks would have had to have been involved. At the very least security would have been involved in letting these guys on the A/C. I also like to point out that security was run by the same company at all 3 airports that were used that day.
Click to expand...

However. you were asked how this missile could be missed by the commercial pilots during the walk walkaround, how it was nor noticed by passengers as they boarded or the pilots and ground crews around other aircraft at the terminal. This you have steadfastly refused to consider.

Yet it's ok for there to be huge holes in the official story. Unbelievable really.
Click to expand...
There are minor missing pieces in the narritive of the events of 9/11 however the so called official story does account for enough and takes into account only KNOWN phenomena and events whereas each and every conspiracy theory must invoke unseen materials, equipment, and phenomena.
Thus those conspiracies are actually unbelievable unless they can supply much greater detail than is in the so called official story to counter this speculative approach.

But let's take a look at what I did do in this post. I didn't necessarily start out with this intention but it did happen. I provided evidence that a particular type of weapon was in existence far in advance of 2001, and would have been suitable for the job, the concept of that weapon anyway.
Click to expand...

Which means nothing unless you could DEMONSTRATE that a missile of any type could accomplish anything significant. THAT you have failed utterly to do , instead prefering to assert that a missile could ensure maximum penetration, somehow, because its a missile. (note that the hilited part of that sentence is effectively the circular arguement you are making)


Explained why it could have been needed, that is to help eliminate fallback. Also let's not forget it could have also been used to help in the size of the fireball.
Click to expand...

NO! All you have doen is assert that it would do so. You most certainly have not shown that it would do anything significant.

Now let's look at what has not been done in this thread. Which was the whole question of the thread. Regardless of what people believe I have established or not established in terms of weaponry. No one has given a plausible answer to what either of those two flashes are. Only a static discharge is even possible to explain the flash before it hits the building, though I found absolutely no evidence that anything like what we see has happened before, and that doesn't even begin to explain the flash coming out of the back of the A/C.
Click to expand...

Refelection of the sun off the aircraft or off a vapour cone at the trailing edge of a large aircraft approaching Mach 1 and manouvering in dense , basicaly sea level, air.

For the impact flash it very well could be the O2 bottle, it could also be the radar klystron shattering or it could be a reflection of the sun (sun>>windows>>aircraft convex surface). Each of these requires no speculation as to the mere existance of the materials or phenomena involved as oppsed to your completely speculative , basically fictional, account.


Now I've said this once or twice in the thread I believe, if not I am saying it now. I did have a somewhat ulterior motive. The whole concept of a missile is on the "fringe" of the truth movement, that's for sure. It really doesn't matter one bit if those planes fired missiles or not. It is something that is not if often discussed, even among CTers. But yet as we see from the pages in this thread, it can't be explained, and this is just a small fringe element. It boggles my mind that even with a fringe element like this being unexplainable, people still continue to believe the official story unquestionably. It really does.
Click to expand...

The world is watched over and all events directed by an omnipotent being in the sky. this being created all and will eventually destroy all. Want proof? The scientific community cannot fully explain how the eye developed therefore there must have been a divine creator?

Same arguement you are making here.

I know a lot of you will disagree with what I just wrote, but if you were honest with yourselves you know it's true, and yet you'll still continue to believe unquestionably.
Click to expand...

I am fully honest with myself. I reject your line of arguement which is basically an appeal to ignorance ("you can't fully explain it therefore my speculation is as good as any other").

I understand that a 500 MPH, 100,000 pound aircraft will have more than sufficient kinetic energy to fully enter the structure without the assitance of an unseen missile. I understand that thousands of gallons of jet fuel spread out over several floors in an instant is an acellerant that will cause large area, multi-floor office fires within seconds (a situation never before experienced anywhere. Large area fires and multifloor fires always take a long tome , sometimes many hours, to develop) and that the combination of impact damage followed by the heat of large area multifloor fires can result in enough cumulative damage to result in a rapid onset of complete failure of long span steel structures.

You don't!
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
However. you were asked how this missile could be missed by the commercial pilots during the walk walkaround, how it was nor noticed by passengers as they boarded or the pilots and ground crews around other aircraft at the terminal. This you have steadfastly refused to consider.


There are minor missing pieces in the narritive of the events of 9/11 however the so called official story does account for enough and takes into account only KNOWN phenomena and events whereas each and every conspiracy theory must invoke unseen materials, equipment, and phenomena.
Thus those conspiracies are actually unbelievable unless they can supply much greater detail than is in the so called official story to counter this speculative approach.



Which means nothing unless you could DEMONSTRATE that a missile of any type could accomplish anything significant. THAT you have failed utterly to do , instead prefering to assert that a missile could ensure maximum penetration, somehow, because its a missile. (note that the hilited part of that sentence is effectively the circular arguement you are making)




NO! All you have doen is assert that it would do so. You most certainly have not shown that it would do anything significant.



Refelection of the sun off the aircraft or off a vapour cone at the trailing edge of a large aircraft approaching Mach 1 and manouvering in dense , basicaly sea level, air.

For the impact flash it very well could be the O2 bottle, it could also be the radar klystron shattering or it could be a reflection of the sun (sun>>windows>>aircraft convex surface). Each of these requires no speculation as to the mere existance of the materials or phenomena involved as oppsed to your completely speculative , basically fictional, account.




The world is watched over and all events directed by an omnipotent being in the sky. this being created all and will eventually destroy all. Want proof? The scientific community cannot fully explain how the eye developed therefore there must have been a divine creator?

Same arguement you are making here.



I am fully honest with myself. I reject your line of arguement which is basically an appeal to ignorance ("you can't fully explain it therefore my speculation is as good as any other").

I understand that a 500 MPH, 100,000 pound aircraft will have more than sufficient kinetic energy to fully enter the structure without the assitance of an unseen missile. I understand that thousands of gallons of jet fuel spread out over several floors in an instant is an acellerant that will cause large area, multi-floor office fires within seconds (a situation never before experienced anywhere. Large area fires and multifloor fires always take a long tome , sometimes many hours, to develop) and that the combination of impact damage followed by the heat of large area multifloor fires can result in enough cumulative damage to result in a rapid onset of complete failure of long span steel structures.

You don't!
Click to expand...

Hey nice to have you back. So it's oxygen bottles is it. Yes just a few pages ago, we have this.

Post 297

"Let's see the possibilities have been
-sun reflection between the rounded aluminum nose of the a/c and the windows of the structure
-impact destruction of the weather radar or other electronic equipment in the nose of the aircraft
-static electrical discharge between the fast moving aluminum aircraft and the aluminum cladding of the tower

All of which include only known materials and phenomena."


Post 447
"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."

I think all one has to do is read that and the fact you seem to have completely ignored it the first time and they will see you have no intention of any real discussion. You merely wish to find any explanation/excuse however miniscule, or non-important they may be to "debunk" conspiracy theories.
 
"Ma'am, can I have a seat that is a little less......well......explosive"


"No ma'am, we're booked solid. Because of the "confetti guns", we're limited on space. Would you like a pillow to rest your head on the breach? "
 
Again, tmd, just because a patent exists for something does not mean it was ever fully developed. If you want to point to a patent for proof of your theory, you need to find one that was fully developed, tested, and USED.

I'm betting you can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom