Missile??

Remember, I'm not SAYING there was a secret Jewish conspiracy to summon Cthulhu to destroy the WTC. I'm simply saying I don't know and that the possibility brings up some interesting questions.

I'm totally agnostic on this issue. I don't know. But we should look into it.
 
Whenever I feel a little blue, I can count on the CT forums to bring a smile to my face.

Nothing short of a rootin' tootin' cruise missle would have caused the level of damage done to the pentagon - and cruise missles aren't launched from small - anythings - Show me a 52 or a B2 in the air or it's a no-go.

ETA - missles on the WTC? I thought there was an ever so slight chance tmd wasn't that far down the rabbit hole
 
Last edited:
000063 said:
Please don't. The last time someone asked TMD to simply say whether X was more likely than Y, he somehow managed to turn a simple yes/no question into half-page screeds. Six times, I think, and I don't think he ever answered.
Click to expand...

I'd like for you to show me where I did that. Should be great.

As for his question, any theory that involves the plane hitting the building and than the flash is less probable because it is impossible. The flash happened before the plane hit the building. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VFV8MvqxE&feature=related

If one were to ask me if that really is a missile however, I would say I am split 50/50. On one hand, it just seems to crazy to be true. Doesn't seem like it would be necessary (although perhaps they thought the risk of someone noticing the missile is outweighed by the risk of some plane parts falling to the ground and did not want to take that chance because after all it would only be on video leaving plenty of room for denial, it would be hard to deny a plane part that didn't belong there). Also I have looked and not found someone that has laid out a good math model for what we should expect a plane to when colliding with the building. If someone knows of one I would like to see it. I'm honestly not sure it (the missile) would have caused that much damage, given the little amount of time it would have had. But on the other hand, I just don't know what it is. Can not be a reflection does not appear to be a static discharge. And any theory that relies on the plane connecting first is impossible. Also you have to deal with whatever that flame is out of the back. There is also a flash at the North tower as well. You can see it here at the 14 second mark or so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCGNZzdwEiM&feature=related

I posted this truly as a question because I don't know what those flames or flashes are.
 
Last edited:
1337m4n said:
Remember, I'm not SAYING there was a secret Jewish conspiracy to summon Cthulhu to destroy the WTC. I'm simply saying I don't know and that the possibility brings up some interesting questions.

I'm totally agnostic on this issue. I don't know. But we should look into it.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you bring something like this up. It really has no place here. I've always said I believe the evidence lies against the official story and have huge doubts about it. I'm hardly an agnostic.
 
tmd2_1 said:
I'd like for you to show me where I did that. Should be great.

As for his question, any theory that involves the plane hitting the building and than the flash is less probably because it is impossible. The flash happened before the plane hit the building. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VFV8MvqxE&feature=related

If one were to ask me if that really is a missile however, I would say I am split 50/50. On one hand, it just seems to crazy to be true. Doesn't seem like it would be necessary (although perhaps they thought the risk of someone noticing the missile is outweighed by the risk of some plane parts falling to the ground and did not want to take that change). Also I have looked and not found someone that has laid out a good math model for what we should expect a plane to when colliding with the building. If someone knows of one I would like to see it. I'm honestly not sure it would have caused that much damage, given the little amount of time it would have had. But on the other hand, I just don't know what it is. Can not be a reflection does not appear to be a static discharge. And any theory that relies on the plane connecting first is impossible. Also you have to deal with whatever that flame is out of the back. There is also a flash at the North tower as well. You can see it here at the 14 second mark or so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCGNZzdwEiM&feature=related

I posted this truly as a question because I don't know what those flames or flashes are.
Click to expand...

Ouch, that must hurt.
 
You can see some of the same small energy flash releases upon impact in this video as well. Do you think they shot missiles at the wall for the test?



ETA forgot to add the video
 
Last edited:
Doesn't seem like it would be necessary
Click to expand...

It matters not what you think would or wouldn't be necessary. The FACT is there were no missiles there. It's every bit as obvious that it wasn't a cow, an aircraft carrier or a space station.

THERE WERE NO MISSILES. Missiles leave a telltale signature. A missile. A contrail. Jet fuel being burned. ETC..etc..etc....



* and I swear if someone feels the need to correct me that it would be rocket fuel, so help me god I'm turning truther.
 
There's two pages on the flashes at 911 review'

http://911review.com/errors/phantom/st_impact.html
"Von Kleist and other missile theorists state that the flashes occur before the plane hits the South Tower, ignoring that the fuselage enters the Tower's shadow just before impact. Close examination of the footage, noting the distance from the aircraft wings to its nose, shows that the flashes happen just as contact begins".

" The most plausible explanation for the flashes we've seen is that the kinetic energy of the collisions vaporized a mix of materials, including steel and aluminum, which were rapidly oxidized by the pressure and heat of the 400+ mph collision. Perhaps the flashes are entirely explainable by the oxidation of aluminum"



Analysis of Aluminum Impact Flashes in the WTC Crashes

http://911review.com/errors/phantom/flash.html

"When Aluminum metal is intensely smashed and shattered or it otherwise burns in air, it emits Bright White LIGHT"

missiles? ppppfffffffffttt yeah right, do you want to buy the sydney harbour bridge?....cheap?
 
:confused:
tmd2_1 said:
Video on possible explanations of the flash. Again any theory involving the fuselage first hitting the tower is impossible, as this is not what happens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRL_IptUYTA&feature=related
Click to expand...

Why do you keep posting crappy low-res. CONspiracy videos?

here's the F4 phantom into the wall video, flash at 1.02 .



here you can clearly see a dust cloud before the flash as ft 175 impacts WTC2 in ace bakers hi-res slowed down video at 2.40




why do you want to believe in these illogical fairy tales spread by twoof fairies such as von kliest,gage and jones?

:confused::boggled:
 
tmd2_1 said:
...
I posted this truly as a question because I don't know what those flames or flashes are.
Click to expand...

But you give your prejudice away in the very title of this thread: "Missile??"
You are saying that you think "missile" is possible, and everything else is not.
So this is a badly veiled attempt at shoving "missile!!" down our throats. You even assing it a 50% likelihood of being true. Even though you have what - zero? - proof for it, and you admit that it is a crazy idea to start with. I even told you WHY it was a crazy idea to start with: The kinetic energy of the planes alone dwarfs the destructive power of any possible AGM warhead. The fuel aboard the planes adds another 1 :1000 odds against missiles making any sense at all.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Video on possible explanations of the flash. Again any theory involving the fuselage first hitting the tower is impossible, as this is not what happens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRL_IptUYTA&feature=related
Click to expand...

This video speculates about a pre-planted bomb.
It fails to estimate how large a bomb this would be (as in "x pounds of TNT).
I am no expert, but to me, it looks as if only a pretty small bomb would create this kind of small flash with hardly any material ejections at all. By "small", I mean well under 1 pound of TNT, or just a few ounces.
Compare THAT to the 1200+ pounds of TNT that the kinetic energy of the planes was, and you'lll see that adding such a tiny bomb (or missile) would have no significant contribution to the overall destruction, but would significantly add to the complexity of the plot and the danger of being found out.

Both bombs and missiles are stupid, silly no-starters to explain that flash.
 
Last edited:
tmd2_1 do you see any missiles or pods in these video stills?




Nope no missiles or pods here...
 
Oystein said:
But you give your prejudice away in the very title of this thread: "Missile??"
You are saying that you think "missile" is possible, and everything else is not.
So this is a badly veiled attempt at shoving "missile!!" down our throats. You even assing it a 50% likelihood of being true. Even though you have what - zero? - proof for it, and you admit that it is a crazy idea to start with. I even told you WHY it was a crazy idea to start with: The kinetic energy of the planes alone dwarfs the destructive power of any possible AGM warhead. The fuel aboard the planes adds another 1 :1000 odds against missiles making any sense at all.
Click to expand...

I can't bring myself to address the OP so I will comment on this post. The OP pretends he is torn between the video as presenting evidence of a missile or not. He seems to be searching for a preponderance of evidence to convince himself to believe one way or the other.

This reveals a trait that I have long noticed in extreme truther claims like this - not following their "logic" to the next step and beyond.

To believe the possibility that a missile was fired from the plane is to believe that this plane took off from somewhere loaded with at least one missile. If it was indeed passenger Flight 175, then the ground crew would have become part of the vast conspiracy as well as anyone within visual contact of this plane taking off, not to mention the crew of people who would have installed it underneath this passenger plane. You just don't have missiles lying around on a shelf. They are inventoried. So someone or more had to check this missile out of storage and someone would have trucked it to the location where it supposedly was installed. Step by step, the vast conspiracy grows larger as well as the likelihood that one participant may some day spill the beans. There are probably more steps and more participants to this scenario, but I think you get my drift. Why increase the chances of discovery?

OK - let's say the plane that hit the South Tower was a different plane, already outfitted with a missile. No plane takes off from anywhere without someone knowing it, so that crew of people are now involved in the conspiracy. But now you have the problem of making the real Flight 175 with all of its passengers disappear. The vast conspiracy is increasingly expanding. Now one would have to ponder if Flight 175 was "disappeared", did "they" do the same with the other 3 flights, and if not - why not? If so, again, the vast conspiracy grows even larger.

I'm stopping here before my head explodes. No missile can be seen in that video and to presume that there could have been one is ridiculous when you take that kind of reasoning to the next steps. The OP could have settled this question within himself without making a thread about it if he had just done some logical thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom