Missile??

Cl1mh4224rd said:
That would also be true if it were a flatulent elf holding a match while strapped to the underside of the plane. Anyone can come up with equally wild ideas about what it might be and claim it would be a problem for "the official story" if it turned out to be true.
Click to expand...
What is the KE of an ignited elf fart? Does it depend on what he's eaten? Lets say he indulged in an indian curry buffet the night before.
 
tmd2_1 said:
You are a bold faced liar. It's circled for you.
Click to expand...

Getting a little frustrated that you don't rate a seat at the grown-up table are you? Good. It's good that you should feel so. How's the new investigations coming? Nothing succeeds like success.
 
NoahFence said:
So your "evidence" that something is amiss is a flash of light that lasts less than 1/2 a second. You're pinning your entire 9/11 theories on a reflection.
Click to expand...

See? He missed the whole point of my post #99, not following his "logic" to the next step. Apparently anything that looks unusual to him means inside job.

Has he asked himself, why was that the only one of four planes that was equipped with something that caused a flash?

Or, has he asked himself, were all of the four planes equipped with something that caused a flash?

Then, he will have to ask himself, if it was deliberate, then what was the purpose of this flash? Step by step.

Anybody who thinks Lloyde England's talk with the Flyover Flakes was a confession or who provides links that include Barry Jennings being an "eyewitness" to bodies in WTC7 is fervently looking for an inside job in any anomaly of 9/11 and will see one there as rapturously as those who spot the Madonna in a casual coffee stain.
 
Truther logic:

A missile strapped to a 767 was fired into the building just before impact.

The building's collapse was completely improbable.



I need to go lie down.
 
TK0001 said:
Truther logic:

A missile strapped to a 767 was fired into the building just before impact.

The building's collapse was completely improbable.



I need to go lie down.
Click to expand...

Hence my post 179

and Bjorn's
fervently looking for an inside job in any anomaly of 9/11 and will see one there as rapturously as those who spot the Madonna in a casual coffee stain.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dash80 said:
Stop making crap up! I see nothing traveling along the side, a flash behind AN ENGINE could well be a fuel surge. This sometimes happens, I remember seeing a sheet of flame coming from an engine while staring out a plane's windows. I almost crapped my pants, a nice flight attendant took sympathy on me and explained this was normal and nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...
One of the engines on the plane carrying Lynyrd Skynyrd started flaming out. The pilot went to shut it down, but shut down the good engine by accident... :eek:
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
One of the engines on the plane carrying Lynyrd Skynyrd started flaming out. The pilot went to shut it down, but shut down the good engine by accident... :eek:
Click to expand...
Damn... I'm a nervous flyer as it is!


Oh that reminds me, I saw a documentary a few years ago... A British Airways 747 almost crashed after all four engines failed, the pilots managed to restart them and pull out of the dive. The problem was caused by an Indonesian volcanic eruption and the plane was surrounded by the blue glow of St. Elmo's Fire.

Now I'm not saying the United 175 flash was St. Elmo's Fire... Just some kind of natural reaction as the nose met the aluminum cladding and glass of the building. Makes 1000x more sense than a freakin' missile!
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
So you have an engine problem, and you have something that appears to be traveling along that side, and than appear to impact the building. That initial fire appears to be at exactly the right time, as to be the least noticeable, but still make it in front of the plane, just before it hits the building. Lots of coincidences. What kind of shell is it? I wouldn't know that, if it is an incendiary at all.
Click to expand...

I'll say it slowly so that you can keep up: you have *decided* that it is a fire line.

There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that it *is* a fire line. Indeed, the utter implausibility and inpracticality of having or needing anything that could create a "fire line", in combination with the total absence of evidence in support of a "fire line" should eradicate that phrase from the 9/11 vocabulary.

On the subject of missile lauches: look at actual missile lauches from aircraft on youtube, still photos, anywhere you like. They're what a missile lauch really looks like.

Next.
 
WildCat said:
One of the engines on the plane carrying Lynyrd Skynyrd started flaming out. The pilot went to shut it down, but shut down the good engine by accident... :eek:
Click to expand...
.
Real old real airplane joke::::
Pilot. "ENGINE PROBLEM... Cut 3".
Co-pilot: "Shutting down 1,2 and 4!"
See #189.... :)
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 said:
What is it?
Click to expand...
.
What it is...
In this video, nothing "flashes" behind the motor.
The airplane impacting the building creates a flash at the nose of the airplane.
The sunlight reflecting off the trailing edge of the rudder provides a flash of some duration.
None of this can be learned in "Worlds of Warcraft", where -everything- is faked.
Only in the real world.
 

Attachments

  • Missile-02.jpg
    Missile-02.jpg
    42.3 KB · Views: 4
NoahFence said:
Those are two completely different things.



But it's not - so any reports of the so-called "official story" being done are premature.


Will you finally say, with 100 percent certainty, that no missile was fired at the WTC?
Click to expand...

I will not. You are right though perhaps I should have used the word incendiary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom