Missile??

[newton3376]

LOL this has gone on for 26 pages?

You had the answer in your opening post.....

In the words of Gage "Let's take a look"

Could a missile have been fired from a plane hitting the south tower?

So far you are starting out poorly...the question itself is moronic and the answer is "no" of course.....but you continue...

I don't know the answer to that.

It's "NO". That's pretty much it...next question....

But these two videos I have here certainly present some interesting questions.

If you replace "interesting" with "stupid" then, yes, I have to agree.

It seems crazy but it just might be true.

Everything before the word "but" in that statement is spot on....it seems crazy because it is crazy....

The "just might be true" is where you leave the road of sanity and take the exit to fanatasy truther land....it's a magical, mystical place where anything is possible.....and the possibilities can even break the known laws of physics and no one will fault you.

I would recommend that you leave la la land and come back to reality....it's not as exciting as the "agent-behind-every-corner-as-you-bravely-fight-to-wake-up-the-sheeple-to-the-global-NWO-conspiracy-of-9/11", but at least it's real.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

and a static discharge seems all but impossible.

well as we saw from the high def video the flash was after the impact so this question is kind of moot but I'd love to hear your reasoning for why a static discharge is "all but impossible"??????

 

[cyclonic]

That one time you were clear. There's really nothing to address, the second flash was pre-impact, it's as simple as that.

Why do you keep lying?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

well as we saw from the high def video the flash was after the impact so this question is kind of moot but I'd love to hear your reasoning for why a static discharge is "all but impossible"??????

Because then it would destroy his delusions. I hear that when that happens some people simply lose it and end up in a rubber room wearing a nice comfy "I love me" jacket.

 

[TJM]

Because then it would destroy his delusions. I hear that when that happens some people simply lose it and end up in a rubber room wearing a nice comfy "I love me" jacket.

So that's why he refuses to answer this. It all makes sense now.

 

[Craig4]

That one time you were clear. There's really nothing to address, the second flash was pre-impact, it's as simple as that.

Assuming you weren't lying here, and you are, that does nothing to support the idea it was a missile. You have done nothing to establish that a missile came from the aircraft.

 

[dafydd]

'they are too stupid to realize how stupid they really are'

Very well put. That describes truthers to a tee.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

Seems tmd was perhaps saying that the flash occured after the nose impacted the WTC.

Yeah, yeah, I know tmdie you were asking how its possible to have a circular flash after impact has begun. I cannot envision why it would not be possible given that an explosing oxygen bottle will produce a roughly shperical explosion and that would extend beyond to confines of the aircraft.
I also note that the clearest videos all show that the 'flash' occurs after nose impact so your continued insistence in the face of that evidence illustrates a dogmatic appraoch to 911 on your part.

I'll be back later to look through the last few days of posts to see if you actually had anything new to say.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Well he also believes that it easy to fool dozens (hundreds) of witnesses to a large plane approaching the Pentagon into not seeing said aircraft rise up and zoom away while some other mechanism causes death and destruction at the Pentagon.

So , yes. I believe that I have said all that I need to say about this missile.
If tmd responds to the other points I made I will probably post again. otherwise this is my last post in this thread.

I never said that. I said a flyover was a theory that was offered. I never gave and probability to it's likelihood. All has been said about the other possibilities, that almost all are impossible, and a static discharge seems all but impossible.

You accuse ME of being confusing??
In that above quote it seems that you have conflated the issue of the CiT Pentagon contentions with the flashes that are the subject of this thread! Indeed until the 'and a static discharge...' one cannot know that you have switched between the two.

As far as the CiT go you have offered their contentions up for consideration in the past I do believe. Any rational person would immediatly recognize their contentions as being utterly ridiculous.
'nuff said about the CiT then. If you wish though, we could dicsuss them in another thread, perhaps an existing one, just point the way.

On the issue of the flashes, please refresh my memory and tell me why an exploding oxygen bottle cannot be the second flash? You might as well also inform me as to why a sunlight illuminated vapour cone around the starboard wing cannot be the first 'flash'.

Then you might get around to explaining why, if none of the offered suggestions are possible in your view, that the contention that they (the 'flashes') are the launch and then impact of a missile, is so much better than the offered suggestions, given that no missile is ever visible at any time.

You might include how it is that your supposed missile could have significant KE, given that it physically cannot have a particularily high velocity (as proved by the math for a missile that has a flight time of at least one second ( flight times greater than that make the missile even slower), whether or not missile impact is prior to or after aircraft nose impact, compared to that of the aircraft.

ETA: If tmd fails to address these points this will be my last post in this thread.

 

[tmd2_1]

Seems tmd was perhaps saying that the flash occured after the nose impacted the WTC.

Yeah, yeah, I know tmdie you were asking how its possible to have a circular flash after impact has begun. I cannot envision why it would not be possible given that an explosing oxygen bottle will produce a roughly shperical explosion and that would extend beyond to confines of the aircraft.
I also note that the clearest videos all show that the 'flash' occurs after nose impact so your continued insistence in the face of that evidence illustrates a dogmatic appraoch to 911 on your part.

I'll be back later to look through the last few days of posts to see if you actually had anything new to say.

Because it should look like a spark coming from the side of the A/C. There's no other way around it.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Because it should look like a spark coming from the side of the A/C. There's no other way around it.

what would??? try to make sense!

 

[tmd2_1]

You accuse ME of being confusing??
In that above quote it seems that you have conflated the issue of the CiT Pentagon contentions with the flashes that are the subject of this thread! Indeed until the 'and a static discharge...' one cannot know that you have switched between the two.

As far as the CiT go you have offered their contentions up for consideration in the past I do believe. Any rational person would immediatly recognize their contentions as being utterly ridiculous.
'nuff said about the CiT then. If you wish though, we could dicsuss them in another thread, perhaps an existing one, just point the way.

On the issue of the flashes, please refresh my memory and tell me why an exploding oxygen bottle cannot be the second flash? You might as well also inform me as to why a sunlight illuminated vapour cone around the starboard wing cannot be the first 'flash'.

Then you might get around to explaining why, if none of the offered suggestions are possible in your view, that the contention that they (the 'flashes') are the launch and then impact of a missile, is so much better than the offered suggestions, given that no missile is ever visible at any time.

You might include how it is that your supposed missile could have significant KE, given that it physically cannot have a particularily high velocity (as proved by the math for a missile that has a flight time of at least one second ( flight times greater than that make the missile even slower), whether or not missile impact is prior to or after aircraft nose impact, compared to that of the aircraft.

ETA: If tmd fails to address these points this will be my last post in this thread.

What does CIT have to do with any of this? I told you what I said about CIT, and that is a flyover scenario is a theory. That's it. I said no more than that. Why is a missile more likely. As I've said it's not impossible everything else is (or in the case of discharge I found no evidence of anything like that happening before). I believe something could possibly be seen, what it is I don't know, but in the second video of my OP it sure looks like something traveling along the A/C and impacting the building.

Prove the KE? I already did that. Look through the previous posts, based on what I think the acceleration is (which is based on the flashes) I think the missile approaches star streak like speeds. I showed a video of a star streak penetrating an inch thick piece of heavy armor steel, and showed the columns in that area of building were less than an inch thick.

 

[GlennB]

.....
what it is I don't know, but in the second video of my OP it sure looks like something traveling along the A/C and impacting the building.

Much better quality videos show no missile at all. And clearly so.

It really is a mystery why you support your points with the poorest quality evidence. Rather like someone claiming a flat earth because "it's pretty damn flat around here"

So weird why you do this. Do you ever wonder why?

 

[Craig4]

Because it should look like a spark coming from the side of the A/C. There's no other way around it.

Have you gone to the FBI with your concerns? How about the US Attorney? World Court perhaps? Come on, if you believe this show us you have the courage of your convictions. Risk your standing and reputation. Put your name behind it and make something happen. You could convince everyone on the forum and it still wouldn't matter. Let's see you take this "evidence" and accomplish something.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Why is a missile more likely.

More likely than what? no missile????

(or in the case of discharge I found no evidence of anything like that happening before)

.

how many other airliners have flown into steel towers and be video taped in high def??? where the heck would you look for evidence other than the one clear video that exists????? aircraft do build up static charges and its hard to imaging a better grounded object than the WTC towers!

I believe something could possibly be seen, what it is I don't know, but in the second video of my OP it sure looks like something traveling along the A/C and impacting the building.

I see nothing.

Prove the KE? I already did that. Look through the previous posts, based on what I think the acceleration is (which is based on the flashes) I think the missile approaches star streak like speeds. I showed a video of a star streak penetrating an inch thick piece of heavy armor steel, and showed the columns in that area of building were less than an inch thick.

adding nothing other than slight damage to one column. Since we know the aircraft alone is more than enough to do destroy dozens of columns whats the point?. Adding a few 50lb bags of dog food in the hold would have more impact and would be much less likely to me thought as suspicious than a missile stuck on the plane!

Why can't you simply admit that you were wrong, a missile is a silly idea and move on. Thats what a sane person would do............

 

[waypastvne]

Because it should look like a spark coming from the side of the A/C. There's no other way around it.

Why should an exploding O2 bottle look like a spark ?

 

[NoahFence]

What does CIT have to do with any of this? I told you what I said about CIT, and that is a flyover scenario is a theory. That's it. I said no more than that. Why is a missile more likely. As I've said it's not impossible everything else is (or in the case of discharge I found no evidence of anything like that happening before). I believe something could possibly be seen, what it is I don't know, but in the second video of my OP it sure looks like something traveling along the A/C and impacting the building.

Prove the KE? I already did that. Look through the previous posts, based on what I think the acceleration is (which is based on the flashes) I think the missile approaches star streak like speeds. I showed a video of a star streak penetrating an inch thick piece of heavy armor steel, and showed the columns in that area of building were less than an inch thick.

A missile being fired at the World Trade Center in NYC at the time these images were taken is IMPOSSIBLE.

It is also IMPOSSIBLE that this image is from Auckland, New Zealand:

How can I say that?
Because we know what that is. We know where it is. It ain't New Zealand.

That's exactly how sure the rest of the world is that a missile didn't get fired from that plane. IT'S THAT FREAKING OBVIOUS

 

[jaydeehess]

what would??? try to make sense!

ditto

ETA: wait a minute... is this what you meant by what the F-4 into the concrete block should have in common with the 767 into the WTC?
IF SO...
1) what makes you believe that an oxygen bottle, let alone one the size of that in the Boeing, was on that F-4?

2)Over the course of many years I have watched that F-4 video dozens of times and really never saw any such sparks except for those associated with the rocket sled that the F-4 was attached to.

 

[jaydeehess]

What does CIT have to do with any of this? I told you what I said about CIT, and that is a flyover scenario is a theory. That's it. I said no more than that.

I was , in the post you quoted, showing that you were confusingly speaking to both topics at once and hypocritically accusing me of being confusing.

Now as far as the CiT having a theory, that is incorrect. They have a contention, they have a scenario, but it is so implausible and lacks any concrete evidence and is thus no more than that.
I brought up your mentioning of the CiT because you referred to it in something other than the derogatory terms it deserves and because in relation to the subject of tis thread it illustrates your lack of logical thought which carries over to this topic(the invisible missile)

Why is a missile more likely. As I've said it's not impossible everything else is (or in the case of discharge I found no evidence of anything like that happening before). I believe something could possibly be seen, what it is I don't know, but in the second video of my OP it sure looks like something traveling along the A/C and impacting the building.

As I said before the clearest video of that aircraft shows NO missile and it shows the 'second flash' as occuring AFTER the plane's nose impacted the WTC and this flash occurs in proximity to the location of the large oxygen bottle. You do not get to pick and choose the video that best illustrates your POV, you should instead regard the best quality video as being the one that best illustrates the event. That said I have not seen any video that even suggests something travelling alongside the aircraft. While that is far from conclusive it stands the test of known phenomema and equipment in the a/c.

Prove the KE? I already did that. Look through the previous posts, based on what I think the acceleration is (which is based on the flashes) I think the missile approaches star streak like speeds. I showed a video of a star streak penetrating an inch thick piece of heavy armor steel, and showed the columns in that area of building were less than an inch thick.

In other words you simply cannot follow the physics involved and the calculations I did that show that for a missile launched from the Boeing with 1 second or longer before a/c nose impact cannot be travelling at "star streak like speeds". A starstreak-like accelerating missile would launch a fraction of a sceond before nose impact.

I showed the math and proved that a missile launched 1 second before a/c nose impact would be travelling a little over Mach 1(900 fps) no where near "star streak like speeds" of 3.5 Mach.

Others showed the math that illustrates the minute addition of energy that such a missile would add to the impact of the Boeing 767. This alone makes the topic of a missile a moot point.

Yet in the face of all of this (clearest vid shows no missile, missile cannot have the velocity of a starstreak, missile adds insignificant energy to the event) you will not abandon the scenario. That is the hallmark of a dogmatic idealogue, tmd.

 

[tmd2_1]

Could a missile have been fired from a plane hitting the south tower? I don't know the answer to that. But these two videos I have here certainly present some interesting questions. It seems crazy but it just might be true. To my knowledge there is no tampering with the videos, they are just slowed down and zoomed in.

The first one the most interesting part is at about the 3 second mark and is circled. Not sure what that could be. Also towards the end he shows what could be secondary explosions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc4wsjKbYTQ&feature=related

The second video...the most interesting parts starts at around 23 seconds. It definitely looks like something is racing along the plane and than smashes into the building just before the plane.

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

These videos taken together are awfully interesting. I'm not saying that it is a missile, simply saying I don't know. I've looked and looked and can not find a better reason for this.

Definitely. I saw the video, too. It was so convincing I don't know why it's still up on Youtube. The New World Order police should have taken it down and put its maker in a FEMA death camp. I'm still considering the idea of the Star Wars death ray as a possibility. There have been some very convincing arguments made recently for this possibility. I understand Ronald Reagan has admitted that he personally built something like this as part of the Star Wars Initiative. If that's true, then the idea that it's a missile would have to be wrong.

What do you think?

I apologize for bringing back a dead thread. But I just wanted to point out, we may a nostradamus among us. The second video I posted, has indeed been removed. I am not making any claims, accusations, or implications, simply pointing this out, because I think it is interesting and seems to happen to a lot of videos. Please note and I want to say this explicitly I am certainly not accusing Scott (or anyone else) of doing this or are involved somehow. Just wanted to make that clear, before anyone accuses me.