Missile??

[BStrong]

Bah! just turn the MSD fusing off. After all you are going to destroy the plane anyway, why not start that process before the plane even reaches the building.

LOL!

I know your funnin' me.

On missiles and the like the Fuzing is electrical - try to disable the MSD and the fuzing fails, on certain explosive rounds the fusing is mechanical, determined by the stabilizing spin of the projectile.

 

[BStrong]

I have a better conspiracy reason for a 'missle launch' than anything I have seen from the 'real' conspiracy theorists.

Its a JATO bolted on, designed to acellerate the aircraft at the last possible moment in order to ensure even greater kinetic energy of impact.

Of course this would negate the whole idea of explosive or incindiary loaded aircraft and require that one actually believe in the effects of kinetic energy and momentum.

JATO's are BAD - big ass devices - and it would have been real clear to the naked eye.

We could spread this around via youtube and make a little pocket money, what do you say?

 

[I Ratant]

If penetration was not an issue, why put any weight to whether the hits were perpendicular or not? Why assume that it was intentional? After all, airliners work best flying straight and level, so when they hit a vertical object, the angle tends to be more or less perpendicular.

Hans

.
The angle of impact is only an issue with the CTwinkies.
Once one of them gets a hair up its ass about anything, -that- hair and that hair alone will disprove -all- of the reality of 9/11, no matter what it might be.
And the other CTwits floating in that sewer will swallow it hook, line and sadly, sink even lower in the slime.

 

[jaydeehess]

LOL!

I know your funnin' me.

On missiles and the like the Fuzing is electrical - try to disable the MSD and the fuzing fails, on certain explosive rounds the fusing is mechanical, determined by the stabilizing spin of the projectile.

Yes, I was 'funnin' ya.

A fuse that is armed at launch might actually have the explosive go off due to the acelleration of launch, before it even clears the aircraft. Since we did not se any evidence of the wing detaching from the a/c I would surmise that this did not happen.

Odd also that the supposed reason for a missile might be to 'ensure penetration' into the structure by the aircraft. The blast wave would be meeting the most of the aircraft BEFORE it entered the building producing an effect opposite that which was proposed.
Second there is no explosion UNTIL the aircraft has already entered the building so its difficult to argue that an explosive warhead was used to create a hole in the building for the aircraft to enter.

Frankly this whole meme ranks up there in stupidity with space-a-beams, holograms, mini-nukes, and magically disappearing, fly-over, aircraft.

 

[jaydeehess]

JATO's are BAD - big ass devices - and it would have been real clear to the naked eye.

We could spread this around via youtube and make a little pocket money, what do you say?

Weee-Hoooo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C-130T_Hercules_Blue_Angels.jpg

Oops sorry, I was envisoning being on that ride.

Yes, the above picture will suffice to have a large acdre of followers sending us money for our 'expose' of 'what-really-happened' on 9/11.

There is only one problem with the idea.

I would suffer a similar psychological breakdown as afflicted MacBeth's wife.
"Out damn spot"
I'd never be able to wash the guilt away.

 

[NoahFence]

Weee-Hoooo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C-130T_Hercules_Blue_Angels.jpg

Oops sorry, I was envisoning being on that ride.

Yes, the above picture will suffice to have a large acdre of followers sending us money for our 'expose' of 'what-really-happened' on 9/11.

There is only one problem with the idea.

I would suffer a similar psychological breakdown as afflicted MacBeth's wife.
"Out damn spot"
I'd never be able to wash the guilt away.

That thing is wayyyyy too cool. I want one for Christmas

 

[jaydeehess]

I'd settle for the C-130 this Christmas and the JATO kit for my birthday in spring.

I know I can fly a C-130 at least in VFR conditions. I may need some instruction on getting it airborn and especially on getting back on the ground intact.
BTW: in my case 'intact' means 'in the same manner of completeness it had originally'.
which seems to differ greatly from tmd's definition of an 'intact' WTC 7

 

[I Ratant]

That thing is wayyyyy too cool. I want one for Christmas

.
JATO done incorrectly!!!!

 

[BStrong]

Weee-Hoooo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C-130T_Hercules_Blue_Angels.jpg

Oops sorry, I was envisoning being on that ride.

Yes, the above picture will suffice to have a large acdre of followers sending us money for our 'expose' of 'what-really-happened' on 9/11.

There is only one problem with the idea.

I would suffer a similar psychological breakdown as afflicted MacBeth's wife.
"Out damn spot"
I'd never be able to wash the guilt away.

One of my problems is that I can't sleep at night if I haven't done the right thing, so I guess this get-rich-quick scheme is a no-go for me too.

 

[BStrong]

I'd settle for the C-130 this Christmas and the JATO kit for my birthday in spring.

I know I can fly a C-130 at least in VFR conditions. I may need some instruction on getting it airborn and especially on getting back on the ground intact.
BTW: in my case 'intact' means 'in the same manner of completeness it had originally'.
which seems to differ greatly from tmd's definition of an 'intact' WTC 7

I've jumped out of them many times, but I couldn't fly one at gun point.

 

[Athyrio]

I showed you video of the north tower's flash.

Since I did not read the entire thread, I guess I missed that video.

This whole thread is a question, as to what was going on. So far non seems to have a plausible answer. With the only one even being possible is some sort of discharge, thought this is extremely close to being impossible.

The 2nd video in the first post seemed to show a flash at the moment of impact. In that video I did not see the "flash" that was circled in the 1st video.

I said what I said about the pentagon, because no one can make anything out in that video.

As for 93 I was being sarcastic. You said something like why did we only see one flash. I was saying the only two we have video (discernible video) on there are flashes, and there's no way to know what happened on the other planes.

And they recovered no missile parts either from the crash scenes, but I suppose if they had, they would have had to lie about it, right?

The extent of some of you guys denial is unbelievable. With Lloyde, he said the rich people this is their thing. But I'm sure he meant OBL right?

The extent that some of you guys will go to interpret something to your own design is unbelievable. Of course, the planning of the attacks were done by people with money in comparison to Lloyde, but to call his ramblings a "virtual confession" to his involvement of the planning of the attacks is as ridiculous as spotting the Madonna.

As far as Jennings, come on, your implication was quite clear, that I was using his testimony as some sort of argument.

Nope. Just another benchmark like Lloyde's "confession". When I see that in a post, I tend to dismiss the whole thing as idiocy.

That post I made was simply what people said (and Jennings did say that), and it was all in reference to fireman.

This is what I am talking about. Jennings did NOT "see" bodies, therefore he was NOT an "eyewitness" to bodies in WTC 7. This ignorance just shows what you read and where you get your erroneous information. I have no patience with this garbage. It is the twisting of words.

As far as Jennings goes, something tells me this is a tactic on your part to start talking about something totally unrelated, and something I never mentioned before. A way to ask millions and millions of questions, with no real resolution. I have no idea what to make about Jennings statements.

Nope. Just a benchmark that tells me you are gullible and willing to believe anything that supports your conspiracy theory.

 

[Craig4]

You said equipment to make a flash. Nothing about seeing a missile. I showed you video of the north tower's flash. This whole thread is a question, as to what was going on. So far non seems to have a plausible answer. With the only one even being possible is some sort of discharge, thought this is extremely close to being impossible.

I said what I said about the pentagon, because no one can make anything out in that video.

As for 93 I was being sarcastic. You said something like why did we only see one flash. I was saying the only two we have video (discernible video) on there are flashes, and there's no way to know what happened on the other planes.

The extent of some of you guys denial is unbelievable. With Lloyde, he said the rich people this is their thing. But I'm sure he meant OBL right?

As far as Jennings, come on, your implication was quite clear, that I was using his testimony as some sort of argument. Not even close to being the case. That post I made was simply what people said (and Jennings did say that), and it was all in reference to fireman.

As far as Jennings goes, something tells me this is a tactic on your part to start talking about something totally unrelated, and something I never mentioned before. A way to ask millions and millions of questions, with no real resolution. I have no idea what to make about Jennings statements.

Yes you see but what we're missing here is a missile. There's video of a plane hitting the building but nothing else.

 

[jaydeehess]

I've jumped out of them many times, but I couldn't fly one at gun point.

Sure you could, push gently to go down, pull gently to go up. Turn the yoke and push a pedal to go round and round. If you have someone start you at 12,000 feet straight and level and then you take control ,,, no problem. Like I said its those niggling details like landing intact, engine monitoring and adjustment, trim, and speed control, etc., that need a lot of training. That I would not even attempt without at least a few changes of underwear handy.

Now jumping out of a perfectly functioning aircraft......... I would need a gun to my head to attempt that.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yes you see but what we're missing here is a missile. There's video of a plane hitting the building but nothing else.

A video with a flash Craig. To which I wrote;

Let's see the possibilities have been
-sun reflection between the rounded aluminum nose of the a/c and the windows of the structure
-impact destruction of the weather radar or other electronic equipment and oxygen supply devicves in the nose of the aircraft which would flash if violently crushed.
-static electrical discharge between the fast moving aluminum aircraft and the aluminum cladding of the tower

All of which include only known materials and phenomena.

It strikes me that I may have not read about the sun reflection in this thread. However this very topic has been covered before, a few times IIRC, and it was suggested in one of them.
So yep, we have aplane hitting a building.
There is a Sun and both the plane and tower are highly reflective and the plane is a round reflector.
There are electronics including radar in the nose of 767s and many other large aircraft.
There is a phenomena of static discharge and planes do carry a charge (1st rule of refueling is to attach the grounding connector). Its quite likely that in dry cool air that an aluminum cylinder moving at several hundred MPH would build up a decent charge.

However there is no missile.
There is a bump on the underside of the aircraft that is just like the bump under each wing of all 767s.
There is a flash, but it would be a good example of circular reasoning to suggest that the flash is evidence of a missile when you want to know if the flash was caused by a missile.

 

[WildCat]

Ok I'll be clear I was saying perhaps (and notice the word perhaps) the plane fired some sort of incendiary.

What_would _be_ the_point?

 

[WildCat]

What did he say? He was talking about a monumental event and because a lightpole went crashing through his cab and could have killed him, he became a part of it.

Holy crap, that's where tmd2_1 thinks Lloyd England admitted being in on it?

 

[WildCat]

Also, if it was a missile, why can you not see a physical missile in ANY of the stills?

Because it was a nano-missile carrying a nano-thermite warhead!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

No-one said penetration was a problem, simply that perpendicular strikes are a feature guided missile systems such as cruise missiles. They do this regardless of whether the building is hardened or not - as my visit to Baghdad ascertained.

but only one of the three was even close to perpendicular........so your assertion is utterly irrelevant. and I note you still not even shown that that is actually the case...........

I have no opinion whether one ought to strike buildings perpendicular or not - just that is a feature of guided missile strikes.

so why mention it at all?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

.
The angle of impact is only an issue with the CTwinkies.
Once one of them gets a hair up its ass about anything, -that- hair and that hair alone will disprove -all- of the reality of 9/11, no matter what it might be.
And the other CTwits floating in that sewer will swallow it hook, line and sadly, sink even lower in the slime.

and curiously they will do it EVEN if it is mutually exclusive to another theory they also expound. I seem one argue for weeks that Termite was used and argue that a nuke was used and then argue that it was the DEW.

Its utterly bizarre............

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Sure you could, push gently to go down, pull gently to go up. Turn the yoke and push a pedal to go round and round. If you have someone start you at 12,000 feet straight and level and then you take control ,,, no problem. Like I said its those niggling details like landing intact, engine monitoring and adjustment, trim, and speed control, etc., that need a lot of training. That I would not even attempt without at least a few changes of underwear handy.

Now jumping out of a perfectly functioning aircraft......... I would need a gun to my head to attempt that.

Exactly, planes are not hard to fly, if all you want to do is crash them.......I've done it (the flying not the crashing) and its much much easier than flying an model RC aircraft.