Missile??

[TJM]

In regards to a missile vs other explanations, yes a missile is more possible than the explanations that were given almost everyone that is mentioned, is impossible, so yes a missile would be more probably. The only that's not impossible is a discharge of some sort, but I have found no data, that a discharge would look anything like we see.

Yes, a discharge. Brilliant. Now I wonder what could possibly be stored in the forward section of a 767 that could discharge...

 

[dafydd]

.
It's not anywhere's near "entertaining" any more.
Stupid, and getting stupider.

Yes,the thread is reaching saturation point.

 

[dafydd]

Yes, a discharge. Brilliant. Now I wonder what could possibly be stored in the forward section of a 767 that could discharge...

I have discharges now and again.

 

[TJM]

I have discharges now and again.

There's shots for that I hear. I prefer Kettle One.

 

[dafydd]

We've gone from a visible missile to a mysterious 'discharge' now. And truthers wonder why they are mocked.

 

[Craig4]

As has been stated by some, this is getting off topic so I'll be brief. I realize I had a role in it and apologize for it. To respond to your post, no one is/was expecting perfection, at least I hope not. That model however, is a disgrace a complete and total disgrace. It should look "somewhat" like reality, to think taxpayers money went to that is an outrage.

Great. Go do something about it.

 

[dafydd]

As has been stated by some, this is getting off topic so I'll be brief. I realize I had a role in it and apologize for it. To respond to your post, no one is/was expecting perfection, at least I hope not. That model however, is a disgrace a complete and total disgrace. It should look "somewhat" like reality, to think taxpayers money went to that is an outrage.

Which qualifications do you have that enables you to judge it a disgrace? I will go with the experts who actually know what they are talking about.

 

[jaydeehess]

So what I'm hearing you say is you found out about oxygen bottles and that is what made you decide the flash was post impact rather than prior. Notice what I am writing the existence or non existence of oxygen bottles should have no bearing on whether you thought the flash was pre or post impact. You tried to duck this issue and not come right out and say it because you know this is what I would write, but that is really what you are saying.

At first I was responding to YOUR INSISTENCE that the flash was pre-impact. the video YOU posted was really not clear and I allowed YOU the benefit of the doubt then. THAT is why I then spoke to plausible explanations of a pre-impact flash.

THEN as other clearer videos were posted YOU switched to admitting a post aircraft impact flash so the talk then turned to PLAUSIBLE explanations for such a thing.

Got it?

So perhaps you will explain now why you argued so strongly for pre-impact flash given that you question why I spoke to it?

I don't understand, you seem like an intelligent individual, yet you do anything and everything to try and disprove CTs.

Incorrect, I use my intelligence to question implausible scenarios put forward. Your missile scenario ranks up there with the best (worst?) of implausible scenarios, on many levels.
In fact your beliefe of it and the CIT scenario would indicate that you are willing to subscribe to just about any scenario that adheres to the basic mantra of '911 was in inside job' and that this is your strating point.

Waaaay back in late Sept of 2001 I first saw the claims of bombs in the WTC. I looked into the 'evidence' and found it severely wanting for plausibility. Especially onnerous were the claims of material being thrown upwards as 'evidenced' in stills of the collapse. On video it was obviously not the case. Since that time I have simply not seen ANY scenario that stands up as well as those put forth by NIST and others who agree that impact and fire caused all death and damages. That certainly includes your contentions in this thread.

Why not use you intelligence to questions aspects of the official story as well? There's nothing wrong with doing both, I know I certainly do.

Perhaps the search function and enough time would have you find that I DO have some questions.
Two of them would be
- Why did NIST step lightly around the issue of PANYNJ getting a different fire code than NYC? Seems they did not wish to attach any blame. I can appreciate that but on this issue perhaps some truth to power was in order.
- NIST concluded that heat expansion of the floor beams caused the walk-off of the girder that led to WTC 7's collapse. I would have preffered that NIST also take in account the effect of cooling contraction of sagging beams pulling the girder off its seats. This would have been the case if the girder survived the fire phase but succumbed to the effect of cooling and contraction.

You'll never see me talking about DEW or no planes(at the WTC) the pentagon is a slightly different matter.

The CIT scenario IS a "no plane" scenario.
They contend that a plane approached the Pentagon and was witnessed by dozens(hundreds?) of people doing so, but that it rose up and over the Pentagon unseen and unnoticed while some other mechanism caused the death and destruction in the Pentagon. No plane caused the death and damage, according to the CIT. Therefore the CIT scenario is a no plane scenario no better than the ones concerning the WTC.
Congrats on not believeing Judy Wood or Morgan Reynolds.

In regards to a missile vs other explanations, yes a missile is more possible than the explanations that were given almost everyone that is mentioned, is impossible, so yes a missile would be more probably. The only that's not impossible is a discharge of some sort, but I have found no data, that a discharge would look anything like we see.

NO! That is an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy at best. This would be saying that since there is no definitive explanation for something that your explanation must be plausible.

The whole issue is moot however given that no missile would in any way offer significant advantage to the effect the aircraft would have on the tower much less how much of the aircraft would enter the structure.

My opinion, given all that has gone forth in this thread, is that the first 'flash' is likely a vapour cone effect on the starboard inboard part of the wing and the angle of the sun lighting up this vapour,
AND
that the second 'flash' is either a sun reflection off the convex surface of the aircraft as it warped on impact(sun reflects off WTC windows , then off the a/c, or directly off the a/c), OR, the explosion of the O₂ bottle as it is burst on impact with the WTC.

No mysterious unseen missile required either to ensure aircraft penetration or to explain the 'flashes'.

 

[jaydeehess]

second thoughts on this post

 

[tmd2_1]

At first I was responding to YOUR INSISTENCE that the flash was pre-impact. the video YOU posted was really not clear and I allowed YOU the benefit of the doubt then. THAT is why I then spoke to plausible explanations of a pre-impact flash.

THEN as other clearer videos were posted YOU switched to admitting a post aircraft impact flash so the talk then turned to PLAUSIBLE explanations for such a thing.

Got it?

So perhaps you will explain now why you argued so strongly for pre-impact flash given that you question why I spoke to it?


Incorrect, I use my intelligence to question implausible scenarios put forward. Your missile scenario ranks up there with the best (worst?) of implausible scenarios, on many levels.
In fact your beliefe of it and the CIT scenario would indicate that you are willing to subscribe to just about any scenario that adheres to the basic mantra of '911 was in inside job' and that this is your strating point.

Waaaay back in late Sept of 2001 I first saw the claims of bombs in the WTC. I looked into the 'evidence' and found it severely wanting for plausibility. Especially onnerous were the claims of material being thrown upwards as 'evidenced' in stills of the collapse. On video it was obviously not the case. Since that time I have simply not seen ANY scenario that stands up as well as those put forth by NIST and others who agree that impact and fire caused all death and damages. That certainly includes your contentions in this thread.

Perhaps the search function and enough time would have you find that I DO have some questions.
Two of them would be
- Why did NIST step lightly around the issue of PANYNJ getting a different fire code than NYC? Seems they did not wish to attach any blame. I can appreciate that but on this issue perhaps some truth to power was in order.
- NIST concluded that heat expansion of the floor beams caused the walk-off of the girder that led to WTC 7's collapse. I would have preffered that NIST also take in account the effect of cooling contraction of sagging beams pulling the girder off its seats. This would have been the case if the girder survived the fire phase but succumbed to the effect of cooling and contraction.


The CIT scenario IS a "no plane" scenario.
They contend that a plane approached the Pentagon and was witnessed by dozens(hundreds?) of people doing so, but that it rose up and over the Pentagon unseen and unnoticed while some other mechanism caused the death and destruction in the Pentagon. No plane caused the death and damage, according to the CIT. Therefore the CIT scenario is a no plane scenario no better than the ones concerning the WTC.
Congrats on not believeing Judy Wood or Morgan Reynolds.



NO! That is an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy at best. This would be saying that since there is no definitive explanation for something that your explanation must be plausible.

The whole issue is moot however given that no missile would in any way offer significant advantage to the effect the aircraft would have on the tower much less how much of the aircraft would enter the structure.

My opinion, given all that has gone forth in this thread, is that the first 'flash' is likely a vapour cone effect on the starboard inboard part of the wing and the angle of the sun lighting up this vapour,
AND
that the second 'flash' is either a sun reflection off the convex surface of the aircraft as it warped on impact(sun reflects off WTC windows , then off the a/c, or directly off the a/c), OR, the explosion of the O₂ bottle as it is burst on impact with the WTC.

No mysterious unseen missile required either to ensure aircraft penetration or to explain the 'flashes'.

I argued strongly for a pre-impact flash, because that's what it is. You seem to have thought so to, even if you didn't know about the Oxygen bottles, there are certainly explanations for the flash after impact. I think you are deliberately trying to be confusing, about which "flash" you are speaking about at any given time. There were two flashes one appears to be coming out of the back of the A/C the other appears right before the plane impacts. The one coming out of the back of the A/C can be referred to as the "first" flash obviously because it happened first. The one that appears before the plane hits the building in front of the nose, can be referred to as the "second" obviously because it was second. I have little doubt you are intentionally being confusing. I'm still not sure what you believe caused which flash. I would assume the "second" flash is what you would blame on the oxygen bottle, and some sort of "vapor cloud" caused the "first" But at this point I really can't be sure.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I argued strongly for a pre-impact flash, because that's what it is. You seem to have thought so to, even if you didn't know about the Oxygen bottles, there are certainly explanations for the flash after impact. I think you are deliberately trying to be confusing, about which "flash" you are speaking about at any given time. There were two flashes one appears to be coming out of the back of the A/C the other appears right before the plane impacts. The one coming out of the back of the A/C can be referred to as the "first" flash obviously because it happened first. The one that appears before the plane hits the building in front of the nose, can be referred to as the "second" obviously because it was second. I have little doubt you are intentionally being confusing. I'm still not sure what you believe caused which flash. I would assume the "second" flash is what you would blame on the oxygen bottle, and some sort of "vapor cloud" caused the "first" But at this point I really can't be sure.

We've been through all this multiple times. You are wrong. period. Stop flogging the poor horse. Its dead.

 

[Craig4]

I argued strongly for a pre-impact flash, because that's what it is. You seem to have thought so to, even if you didn't know about the Oxygen bottles, there are certainly explanations for the flash after impact. I think you are deliberately trying to be confusing, about which "flash" you are speaking about at any given time. There were two flashes one appears to be coming out of the back of the A/C the other appears right before the plane impacts. The one coming out of the back of the A/C can be referred to as the "first" flash obviously because it happened first. The one that appears before the plane hits the building in front of the nose, can be referred to as the "second" obviously because it was second. I have little doubt you are intentionally being confusing. I'm still not sure what you believe caused which flash. I would assume the "second" flash is what you would blame on the oxygen bottle, and some sort of "vapor cloud" caused the "first" But at this point I really can't be sure.

Fine, there was a flash before impact. Prove it was a missile.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Fine, there was a flash before impact. Prove it was a missile.

he doesn't even understand what "prove" means............as long as something fits his theory, his confirmation bias make it "proof" to him. The mere idea is enough for it to be proof in his world.

 

[fess]

Why are we still addressing this A$$? He is still talking about missiles; missiles that he says are easily mounted on an airliner, but yet can’t show how easy it is.

 

[jaydeehess]

I argued strongly for a pre-impact flash, because that's what it is.You seem to have thought so to,

Should I post quotes in which you state its post impact?

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt at first so I addressed plausible pre-impact explanations. That's IT!

even if you didn't know about the Oxygen bottles, there are certainly explanations for the flash after impact.

,,,and in seeing the better videos it is clearly post impact. that you now seem to be reversing again to pre-impact is rather odd. Talk about confusing.

I think you are deliberately trying to be confusing, about which "flash" you are speaking about at any given time.

NOPE. I have been clear about which 'flash' I am referring to in each post, often quoting a post of yours as reference.

I have little doubt you are intentionally being confusing.

If I quote a post of yours and address a 'flash' how is it confusing which flash I am speaking to? It would be the one in the post I am quoting. How much more clear can I be?
YES I KNOW THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO A FLASH at the trailing edge of the wing about a second out from impact and another that occurs just after the nose impact occurs (YES,,, AFTER!)

I'm still not sure what you believe caused which flash. I would assume the "second" flash is what you would blame on the oxygen bottle, and some sort of "vapor cloud" caused the "first" But at this point I really can't be sure.

There ya go you got it.

Explosion of the oxygen bottle is the second 'flash' while a sunlight illumination of a vapour cone effect at the starboard wing is the first 'flash'.

Just like I have stated a few times now.

Are you being deliberatly dense?

 

[jaydeehess]

The CIT scenario IS a "no plane" scenario.
They contend that a plane approached the Pentagon and was witnessed by dozens(hundreds?) of people doing so, but that it rose up and over the Pentagon unseen and unnoticed while some other mechanism caused the death and destruction in the Pentagon. No plane caused the death and damage, according to the CIT. Therefore the CIT scenario is a no plane scenario no better than the ones concerning the WTC.
Congrats on not believeing Judy Wood or Morgan Reynolds though.

.............

That is an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy at best. This would be saying that since there is no definitive explanation for something that your explanation must be plausible.

The whole issue is moot however given that no missile would in any way offer significant advantage to the effect the aircraft would have on the tower much less how much of the aircraft would enter the structure.

My opinion, given all that has gone forth in this thread, is that the first 'flash' is likely a vapour cone effect on the starboard inboard part of the wing and the angle of the sun lighting up this vapour,
AND
that the second 'flash' is either a sun reflection off the convex surface of the aircraft as it warped on impact(sun reflects off WTC windows , then off the a/c, or directly off the a/c), OR, the explosion of the O₂ bottle as it is burst on impact with the WTC.No mysterious unseen missile required either to ensure aircraft penetration or to explain the 'flashes'.

I cannot envision how I could have been clearer in the bolded part above.

tmd, will you get around to addressing the other points above or do you simply concede them?

 

[jaydeehess]

Why are we still addressing this A$$? He is still talking about missiles; missiles that he says are easily mounted on an airliner, but yet can’t show how easy it is.

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.

 

[tmd2_1]

Should I post quotes in which you state its post impact?

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt at first so I addressed plausible pre-impact explanations. That's IT!


,,,and in seeing the better videos it is clearly post impact. that you now seem to be reversing again to pre-impact is rather odd. Talk about confusing.



NOPE. I have been clear about which 'flash' I am referring to in each post, often quoting a post of yours as reference.

If I quote a post of yours and address a 'flash' how is it confusing which flash I am speaking to? It would be the one in the post I am quoting. How much more clear can I be?
YES I KNOW THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO A FLASH at the trailing edge of the wing about a second out from impact and another that occurs just after the nose impact occurs (YES,,, AFTER!)



There ya go you got it.

Explosion of the oxygen bottle is the second 'flash' while a sunlight illumination of a vapour cone effect at the starboard wing is the first 'flash'.

Just like I have stated a few times now.

Are you being deliberatly dense?

Yes I would love those posts. The only thing you can be talking about is this. "As I said explain to me how an almost perfectly circular flash is visible AFTER penetration?" I was clearly asking a question and using it as a reason why the flash is pre-impact. No I've never said it was post impact. So yes I would love to see where I said it was post impact.

 

[tmd2_1]

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.

 

[tmd2_1]

I cannot envision how I could have been clearer in the bolded part above.

tmd, will you get around to addressing the other points above or do you simply concede them?

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