Missile??

[I Ratant]

Something is circled, but it's no flame. Flames tend to last longer than less than 1/2 a second.

.
And they aren't square.
Resembles a pixel drop more than anything else.
ETA:
Or a reflection of a reflection -off the plane- on a -window- on the tower.
About the right shape...

 

[NoahFence]

What is it?

A reflection.


AGAIN FOR THE SLOW:

It is possible to not know exactly what something is, while at the same time being 100% sure what it IS NOT.

That IS NOT a flame. PERIOD.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Right in this video...this is all in the OP. It sure looks like something is being fired. It happens to be along to same side that object is traveling.

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

so one flash.....so a gun not a missile as the later would have continuous trail til impact? and the point of this would be???? what kind of small diameter shell could cause any damage compared to what the plane and its fuel is about to do??? and the flash is in mid air not on the plane so it seems unlikely that its anything still attached to the plane.

Is it not much more likely its simply an engine problem due to perhaps fuel surge or ingesting a piece of debris? (its right behind the starboard engine)

 

[tmd2_1]

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.




Truly twoofer 101 stuff there.


That's like pinning your new theory of the big bang and the creation of all the known universe on a single asteroid you find curious.

No I have two threads one called reasonable doubt, another called evidence for the official story, both of which show why I have huge doubts.

You see this is a small point, if it isn't a missile/incendiary, it doesn't make any alternative theories impossible, far from it. But to those who support the official story it is a huge deal, if that is some sort of missile/incendiary, that's it the official story is done.

 

[The Big Dog]

What is it?

Not a missile, eh?

 

[tmd2_1]

so one flash.....so a gun not a missile as the later would have continuous trail til impact? and the point of this would be???? what kind of small diameter shell could cause any damage compared to what the plane and its fuel is about to do??? and the flash is in mid air not on the plane so it seems unlikely that its anything still attached to the plane.

Is it not much more likely its simply an engine problem due to perhaps fuel surge or ingesting a piece of debris? (its right behind the starboard engine)

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.

 

[NoahFence]

if it isn't a missile/incendiary

Those are two completely different things.

if that is some sort of missile/incendiary, that's it the official story is done.

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?

 

[Dash80]

I'm convinced you guys are just looking for things to disagree with and not reading everything. I was saying if I missile was fired it does not appear that it would have had enough time to do damage. I was giving points, to why it may not be a missile.

A static discharge would be arched from the planes fuselage to the building itself. It would not be a round bright orange flash and would most likely not be seen in daylight.

A reflection can only be seen from one angle, while the flash can be seen from many vantage points

No tmd we look at things rationally, unlike you truthers who just pull sinister explainations out your butt while dismissing innocent ones instantly.

 

[twinstead]

You see this is a small point, if it isn't a missile/incendiary, it doesn't make any alternative theories impossible, far from it. But to those who support the official story it is a huge deal, if that is some sort of missile/incendiary, that's it the official story is done.

This is why you cannot give up this whole missile thing; it's not about truth, it's about casting doubt on the "official story". You want the "official story" to be "done", therefore you want it to be a missile.

Your entire position on 9-11 is like this

 

[Dash80]

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.

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.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No I have two threads one called reasonable doubt, another called evidence for the official story, both of which show why I have huge doubts.

You have certainly done that. We are quite convincing that you have a problem.

You see this is a small point, if it isn't a missile/incendiary, it doesn't make and alternative theories impossible, far from it. But to those who support the official story it is a huge, if that is some sort of missile/incendiary, that's it the official story is done.

If If If.............but there there is no rational reason to presume any of you "ifs" are reality. and the reality is that a missile makes no sense on any level unless you think the KE of the plane alone would not allow it to smash though the building. Simple maths (and extensive modeling by Purdue) say it is so why would anyone add a missile to do the unnecessary when a missile is less effective than a plane to start with!

so it doesn't look like a missile, it doesn't behave like a missile, it wouldn't do anything the plane would not do much more effectively even if it was a missile.........

so why would anyone think the above does anything to the official story

 

[Dumb All Over]

Everyone deserves respect, that's why.

Not in my world. Respect is something that is earned.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

I see nothing traveling anywhere other than the plane.

what kind of shell is it???? the point is it doesn't matter what kind of shel l you imagine it to be....its still pointless! It would be like setting of a hand grenade at the same time and place you set off a bunker buster!

 

[twinstead]

Not in my world. Respect is something that is earned.

Everybody deserves a little common courtesy, but respect must be earned.

 

[Dash80]

No I have two threads one called reasonable doubt, another called evidence for the official story, both of which show why I have huge doubts.

You see this is a small point, if it isn't a missile/incendiary, it doesn't make any alternative theories impossible, far from it. But to those who support the official story it is a huge deal, if that is some sort of missile/incendiary, that's it the official story is done.

What would be the POINT? A missile/bomb/cream pie is NOT necessary, the plane would and did enter the building causing massive damage, all by itself!

You seriously think this plane was flying around carrying things that shouldn't be there and nobody noticed this, or "in on it" aircraft maintenance crews installing such things?

 

[Disbelief]

If it is crazy, why do you assign a 50/50 probability? How would you arm a 757 with a missile? Why did you avoid the stills that clearly show no missile? Why do you just agree it did not happen and move on?

Because there is something there that I have not seen a good explanation for.

How does your response even answer any of those questions? You said that it was crazy and a low probability, but then you say you are 50/50. How does that make any sense? So, why do you assign such a high probability for something you consider crazy?

Since this is your little theory, though it's admittedly crazy, you should research how you would arm a 757 with missiles so no one notices. How could you do that? Where would the missile be housed?

The stills show no missile on the underside of the plane and no missile moving away from the plane just before impact. How could there be a missile?

Will you admit that there are things that are just silly from the outset? Aliens? Death rays from space? This is right up there with them, so you should admit that this is not part and move on.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But to those who support the official story it is a huge deal, if that is some sort of missile/incendiary, that's it the official story is done.

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.

So, what's your point? "If X is true, then Y must be false. Therefore, let us simply declare Y false and be done with it"?

 

[jaydeehess]

OMG I take a day off from responding to the original thread and look what happens 5 pages of a new thread.

What fresh hell is this?

tmd trying to push the idea that the plane had an anomolous 'pod' attached to it. Not that he believes there was one there, JAQing of course.

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

What possible reason would there be to have an explosive on the plane when there is just as good an explosive as 10K gallons of jet fuel?

Oh sure if one wanted to create an explosion that would immediatly destroy enough internal structure that he building would collapse right away then you'd want a high velocity gas expansion explosive. Otherwise the jet guel is going to supply as much heat and explosive power as is required to set several floors on fire over large areas each all at once. In fact its better at that than any high explosive.

 

[jaydeehess]

That would also be true if it were a flatulent elf troll 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.

So, what's your point? "If X is true, then Y must be false. Therefore, let us simply declare Y false and be done with it"?

Fixed that for you. Elves are too small.