MaGZ: There were no missiles, here is proof.

[Z]

It looks like a black crater to me. Others here are welcome to comment.

Then you have never seen craters, apparently.



If the red circle is the area that you believe is a crater, then please take note of the two lines I added here; the first is the green line, which shows what appears to be vegetation behind the parking area. That vegetation shows no signs of being disturbed by any blast. The second, the blue line, denotes the line of cars parked along that row. Those cars seem remarkably unaffected by the force of a missile striking only a few feet behind them.

This is not a crater. Thanks for playing, please try again.

 

[MaGZ]

Nonsense. Debris from the airplane impact was found even further away. Consider that these airliners hit the buildings at over 400 MPH (correct me if I'm wrong), and the building didn't just stop them dead; the kinetic energy alone could easily be enough to hurl flaming debris over a vast distance.

If you doubt this, please provide the following:

1) Distance from WTC1 to the parking lot in these photos;
2) Your calculations for how much kinetic energy would be required to send a piece of flaming debris that distance;
3) Your calculations for the maximum available kinetic energy provided by the aircract impact to WTC1, applicable to debris of the necessary mass to create the relatively small black soot mark on the ground.

As it is, my point is that it could not have been a missile attack. This much I know from a decade of experience working with military munitions. I suggest that it looks like soot from burning rubble, but I will happily admit I don't know if that's what caused it. But the point is, the missile strike theory is debunked. You may attempt some OTHER theory, if you like, but demanding that I explain how flaming wreckage can be flung such a distance in no way supports your now debunked missile theory.

It could not be debris from either plane that cause the black carter. Parts from the first plane went southward through WTC 1.
Parts from the second plane went northeastward through WTC 2.

I can't answer all those questions.

 

[Z]

It looks like hundreds of yards. I could see small debris traveling that distance but not a lot of massive burning material. The burning floors of WTC 1 fell onto WTC 6 creating that huge hole in the center of the building and setting it on fire. Burning portions of WTC 1 would have only fallen onto WTC 6, not the empty parking area hundreds of yards away.

Are you---- wha---???

If a man can throw a football 100 yards from a standing point on the ground, unassisted (though rarely, I agree), why can't an aircraft flying hundreds of miles per hour cause a piece of flaming debris, probably weighing under a half-ton, a mere few hundred yards?

Have you ever actually SEEN anything dropped from an airplane? I've seen vehicles dropped only a few feet that slid, on their wooden platforms, for over 200 yds, and that was in a slow-moving plane. Granted, it was partly because of the over-wet conditions of the drop zone... but that only served to reduce friction.

I wonder, what world do you guys live in?

 

[Z]

It could not be debris from either plane that cause the black carter. Parts from the first plane went southward through WTC 1.
Parts from the second plane went northeastward through WTC 2.

I can't answer all those questions.

OK, I have no idea where this parking lot is in relations to the towers - care to illustrate?

Keep in mind, before you draw the debris vectors, that debris sprays out in a fan-shape from the point of egriss. IOW, debris from a southward impact could spray over an area from ESE to WSE, and maybe farther. Similarly, debris from a northeastward impact could spray over an equally wide area.

The fact that you can't answer all of those questions - indeed, any of them - demonstrates clearly that you don't know what you're talking about. In other words, flaming debris from the towers could very well have caused that scorch mark. You don't know.

 

[MaGZ]

Then you have never seen craters, apparently.

View attachment 5690

If the red circle is the area that you believe is a crater, then please take note of the two lines I added here; the first is the green line, which shows what appears to be vegetation behind the parking area. That vegetation shows no signs of being disturbed by any blast. The second, the blue line, denotes the line of cars parked along that row. Those cars seem remarkably unaffected by the force of a missile striking only a few feet behind them.

This is not a crater. Thanks for playing, please try again.

Cars unaffected?

They are all burnt to a crisp!

The original article has a better picture.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058

 

[CurtC]

One car exploding nearby would cause a chain reaction of other cars catching on fire with exploding gas tanks. This would be a good explanation for those who heard a series of explosions that day.

So you agree that one car on fire could set off a chain reaction in a closely-packed parking lot? It's just that you're saying the first car caught fire because of a missile?

It is interesting this black crater is in the middle row of the burnt vehicles. The flame is coming from the crater.
http://img431.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00105gh0.jpg

I'm sorry, I don't see a crater. I see the parking lot, a large flame (somewhat smaller than a car's size), smoke, and what looks like burned up junipers. I see no crater, or even anything that might be mistaken for a crater. But if you're saying it is where the large flame is, and it's obvious that there are two cars within five feet of it, how do you explain that the cars were not pushed away by the blast (overpressure)?

 

[Z]

Cars unaffected?

They are all burnt to a crisp!

The original article has a better picture.
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=10058

Fire is not an indicator of missile strike. Kinetic displacement is. These cars were unaffected by kinetic displacement, meaning the cause of their fires was not from local explosives. The black swirl cannot be a crater, because craters are caused by kinetic displacement, and the cars were unaffected by kinetic displacement.

ETA: The cropped photo was taken directly from the original article, expanded twice, and cropped and annotated.

That's the actual pixellation, Maggie.

So, no, it's not really a 'better picture'.

 

[MaGZ]

Are you---- wha---???

If a man can throw a football 100 yards from a standing point on the ground, unassisted (though rarely, I agree), why can't an aircraft flying hundreds of miles per hour cause a piece of flaming debris, probably weighing under a half-ton, a mere few hundred yards?

Have you ever actually SEEN anything dropped from an airplane? I've seen vehicles dropped only a few feet that slid, on their wooden platforms, for over 200 yds, and that was in a slow-moving plane. Granted, it was partly because of the over-wet conditions of the drop zone... but that only served to reduce friction.

I wonder, what world do you guys live in?

The forward momentum of Flight 11 into WTC 1 was in the opposite directions of the black crater. Flight 11 could not have caused the crater.

 

[Z]

So this smudge was due north of WTC 1?

I see one immediately obvious possibilities: Did you see the impact footage of the plane hitting the tower? Debris also flew BACKWARDS from the massive fireball of exploding jetfuel. Imagine a desk or a partition or something, near the windows, a floor or two above or below point of impact. At the moment of explosion, they could have easily been propelled through the glass backwards, to the north, at a rate of speed sufficient to have it land in the parking lot, set fire to the cars, etc.

Whatever caused it or didn't - maybe even some sick arson near the parking lot - it wasn't caused by a missile strike, period.

When we eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth. Missile strike: impossible. Nuclear weapon strike: impossible. Aircraft debris from flight 11: improbable, but not impossible. Burning debris from WTC 1 - less improbable, but not impossible.

See how this works yet?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Is he referring to the small semi-swirl of black near the back row of cars? The one that's maybe 8-10 ft. in diameter? The one close enough to the cars that, if it HAD been a missile, would have tossed those closest cars 40-50 feet away?

Definitely not a missile crater. Not that my statements count for anything, but I've been in the U.S. Army Field Artillery for 10 years, and I've seen the results of missiles, bombs, rockets, mortars, shells, C-4, etc. This ain't it.

You COULD get a black scorch like that from an incendiary grenade... did those fighter pilots pop their cockpits and chuck grenades at the towers?

I'd suggest that, due to the dark nature of the scorch, it was probably burning rubble. Something with lots of carbon in it, definitely. But explosive? Absolutely not.

Where were you and your Paladin on the day of... oh nevermind.

I don’t find it believable he saw both towers burning from a distance. He said he left Otis at 8:46 and flew toward NYC supersonic. Others have done the math and at that speed he is over NYC at 9:03. You can conclude what you like, I have.

Otis AFB to WTC is ~193 miles.
Now 9:03 - 8:46 is :17
That implies an average airspeed of 660 mph.

 

[MaGZ]

So this smudge was due north of WTC 1?

I see one immediately obvious possibilities: Did you see the impact footage of the plane hitting the tower? Debris also flew BACKWARDS from the massive fireball of exploding jetfuel. Imagine a desk or a partition or something, near the windows, a floor or two above or below point of impact. At the moment of explosion, they could have easily been propelled through the glass backwards, to the north, at a rate of speed sufficient to have it land in the parking lot, set fire to the cars, etc.

Whatever caused it or didn't - maybe even some sick arson near the parking lot - it wasn't caused by a missile strike, period.

When we eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth. Missile strike: impossible. Nuclear weapon strike: impossible. Aircraft debris from flight 11: improbable, but not impossible. Burning debris from WTC 1 - less improbable, but not impossible.

See how this works yet?

Your'r full of it. End of conversation.

 

[MaGZ]

Where were you and your Paladin on the day of... oh nevermind.


Otis AFB to WTC is ~193 miles.
Now 9:03 - 8:46 is :17
That implies an average airspeed of 660 mph.

So in your opinion could the fighters arrived there going supersonic?

 

[volatile]

Your'r full of it. End of conversation.

Is that how you have conversations offline, MaGZ? Someone disagrees with you, and points out why they do, and as you have no rebuttal you sulk off?

You're making yourself look silly. It would be better if you just said "Hey, you know what - I didn't realise missile strikes did that. Thanks for pointing it out to me..." and left quietly.

 

[jhunter1163]

Thread summary so far:

MaGZ is misinterpreting photos.

The JREF Ninjas are trying to convince him of the error of his ways.

HyJinx wants to see Dolly Parton's tits, according to MaGZ.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Carry on.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So in your opinion could the fighters arrived there going supersonic?

Not enough info to guess. The 660 mph figure assumes they passed over Otis AFB, already in the air and at cruising speed, and did a straight line to WTC. Is the 8:46 time when they scrambled? When they left the tarmac? When they left Otis AFB airspace? How far outside of NYC did they start decelerating (assuming they did, so as to allow for maneuverability at intercept time)? Every second they are not at 660 mph pushes the required maximum speed of the aircraft, over the course of the flight, upwards.

 

[Z]

Your'r full of it. End of conversation.

Translation:

I can't argue with that. Ain't nuthin' I can say to save face now. I'll act gruff and hope no one notices I got schooled.

Thank you, Maggie, for admitting defeat. We all think better of you now for it.

 

[Z]

Not enough info to guess. The 660 mph figure assumes they passed over Otis AFB, already in the air and at cruising speed, and did a straight line to WTC. Is the 8:46 time when they scrambled? When they left the tarmac? When they left Otis AFB airspace? How far outside of NYC did they start decelerating (assuming they did, so as to allow for maneuverability at intercept time)? Every second they are not at 660 mph pushes the required maximum speed of the aircraft, over the course of the flight, upwards.

Now, in defense of this point, please remember that most fighters have an actual top speed of 2-3 times the speed of sound; in an emergency, yes, they could have easily reached NYC at supersonic speeds.

However, those same fighters would have had to either climbed to considerable altitude to do so, or risked considerable damage to windows and lightweight structures below them as the sonic boom of their transit washed over the ground below. Or have gone the usual route, out to sea and up the coast.

I'm no expert in flight paths, but I'm guessing even going out to sea, fighters could possibly have arrived in NYC in time to make the arrival time in question...

Of course, they'd have been darned near out of fuel when they got there...

 

[fsol]

It looks like hundreds of yards. I could see small debris traveling that distance but not a lot of massive burning material. The burning floors of WTC 1 fell onto WTC 6 creating that huge hole in the center of the building and setting it on fire. Burning portions of WTC 1 would have only fallen onto WTC 6, not the empty parking area hundreds of yards away.

This is just typical. I don't think how it could of happened so it must have been this way. Flight 93 should have been sticking up out of the ground, so it didn't crash. Well, based on what? People with no idea about how things actually work holding forth on how things work. It's pathetic. It's doubly pathetic when they have it explained to them and still insist that it couldn't of happened that way. "Just because." These people have not even a basic grasp of the physics involved and yet claim everyone else is wrong.

Edited by tim: 

rule 8

.

 

[MaGZ]

This is just typical. I don't think how it could of happened so it must have been this way. Flight 93 should have been sticking up out of the ground, so it didn't crash. Well, based on what? People with no idea about how things actually work holding forth on how things work. It's pathetic. It's doubly pathetic when they have it explained to them and still insist that it couldn't of happened that way. "Just because." These people have not even a basic grasp of the physics involved and yet claim everyone else is wrong.

Edited by tim: 

rule 8 - see above

.

Stop whining, you have no real explanation how the black crater formed.

If you have nothing to contribute: shut up.

 

[fsol]

Stop whining, you have no real explanation how the black crater formed.

If you have nothing to contribute: shut up.

Ok then, show your maths. Put up or shut up. You have nothing. You have a guy here who is experienced with ordinance telling you that it isn't what you say it is, and still you persist with your fantasy. You are either being willfully ignorant or you are just stupid. Seeing as being stupid isn't really your fault, I'll call you stupid so as to give you the benefit of the doubt.