Missile??

[tmd2_1]

Kind of, yes, but not exactly. The compression wave stops traveling forward at the building. The nose is still pressing air forward. The distance between the nose and building decreases faster than the air can get out of the way.



No, it would be from the leading edge of the airframe. The zones of compression are at the forward points of the moving object, and are variable with cross section. The wings and rudder will also have compression waves ahead of them but much smaller both in width and distance forward as they are quite narrow. The nose if the airplane is quite blunt and will push quite a large compression wave ahead of it. Supersonic aircraft and missiles have extremely pointed noses (and wing leading edges) so that the compression zone is as small as possible.



What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about the big circular blink of light on the building itself right in front of the airplane just before impact. I'm NOT talking about any of the various sunlight or jpeg blinks flashes or squares at any other point in the sequence.



Again, what the hell are you talking about? The "flash" is not on the airframe, it's on the building. Change in velocity is irrelevant.

Space debris is traveling into air and compressing air as it goes. The air in contact with the object is the most compressed and gets hot enough to vaporize metal, or rock in the case of meteorites. The nose of an aircraft is rounded, so the air can't accumulate there and over heat the airframe. The SR71 Blackbird was capable of traveling at mach 3.3 or so (or mach 4.5 , depending on whether you buy the official specs or unofficial reports of radar data from Finland) and actually gets extremely hot.

The compression effect is noted only when something gets in the way.
For those airplanes, at those speeds, it's the buildings.
For space debris entering the atmosphere, at their enormous speeds, it's the air, which can't move out of the way, gets compressed, and heated.
Look up how a sonic boom is generated.

Ok so what you both are saying is that what was going on with both A/C should resemble falling space debris. Like a falling meteor. But if you look at a falling meteor (below) you can see it doesn't look the same. The flame (or light) is encircling the meteor equally. We don't see that in the case of either A/C. The flash appears to be on the lower right hand side of the A/C only and is not "encompassing" (for a lack of a better word) the nose.

 

[NoahFence]

. But a lot of possibilities (reflection etc) are ruled out, we're not left with much.

Missiles and Incendiaries are RULED OUT TOO

(i mean, to SANE, RATIONAL people.)

 

[NoahFence]

That is a photo of the shuttle passing the sound barrier. The water vapor used to be pushed by the shuttle, until the shuttle started moving past the barrier. The water vapor is really the only reason you can even see it. Google images on "sound barrier" will show many more examples, mostly with fighter jets but I think you can find a cow as well.

Having said all that, the aircraft on 9/11 did not get fast enough to break the sound barrier. But it was still pushing the air in front of it, exactly like the bow of a ship through water.

It is that air being pushed forward that strikes the building the instant before the plane does, and it is that impact that causes the flash.

Any other 'flash' is inconsequential. They are reflections, or JPEG artifacts.

There was no missile.
There were no incendiaries.
The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, and a 500mph impact by one of the largest aircraft in the sky was plenty. Trust us.

You say "i don't know" an awful lot - but why do you ignore those who DO know? What is your purpose?
Why mock the deaths of thousands, even 10 years after the fact? Do you think it hurts us less now than it did 10 years ago?

 

[tmd2_1]

tmd, did you figure out where the missile was hidden? How could one be fitted on a 757? Why you can not see a missile in ANY still photo?

Here's some nice stills for you. What it is I can't be sure.

 

[tmd2_1]

[qimg]http://www.core.org.cn/NR/rdonlyres/Aeronautics-and-Astronautics/16-885JFall-2005/E568D184-9883-450C-BD5C-BBCBD6BA71AE/0/chp_shuttle.jpg[/qimg]


That is a photo of the shuttle passing the sound barrier. The water vapor used to be pushed by the shuttle, until the shuttle started moving past the barrier. The water vapor is really the only reason you can even see it. Google images on "sound barrier" will show many more examples, mostly with fighter jets but I think you can find a cow as well.

Having said all that, the aircraft on 9/11 did not get fast enough to break the sound barrier. But it was still pushing the air in front of it, exactly like the bow of a ship through water.

[qimg]http://www.tradewindsnews.com/multimedia/archive/00125/Frontline_VL_240_125743i.jpg[/qimg]

It is that air being pushed forward that strikes the building the instant before the plane does, and it is that impact that causes the flash.

Any other 'flash' is inconsequential. They are reflections, or JPEG artifacts.

There was no missile.
There were no incendiaries.
The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, and a 500mph impact by one of the largest aircraft in the sky was plenty. Trust us.

You say "i don't know" an awful lot - but why do you ignore those who DO know? What is your purpose?
Why mock the deaths of thousands, even 10 years after the fact? Do you think it hurts us less now than it did 10 years ago?

That's not the behavior observed by the flashes, it's clear to see. It does not look like that.

You guys always bring up the victims. If there was a conspiracy don't we owe it to them to find out the truth. If there was not I don't think we are doing a dis-service to the victims by investigating more.

 

[NoahFence]

Pretty clearly it is a reflection in the first 3 frames, the flash as the aircraft hits the building, then it penetrating.

if you see anything else there, you're lying to us and yourself.

That is a missile firing. It looks NOTHING like what we saw on 9/11. NOTHING.

 

[NoahFence]

That's not the behavior observed by the flashes, it's clear to see. It does not look like that.

You.
Are.
Lying.


Stop handwaving the overwhelming evidence against you. Learn a thing or two while you're here, or GET LOST.

If there was a conspiracy don't we owe it to them to find out the truth.

You're not interested in any truth. None of you truther 'people' are. Not a single one

 

[NoahFence]

Here's some nice stills for you. What it is I can't be sure.

Why do you ignore people who ARE sure?

That's not a rhetorical question. I want an answer.

 

[tmd2_1]

Why do you ignore people who ARE sure?

That's not a rhetorical question. I want an answer.

Let me know when you find someone.

 

[Disbelief]

Here's some nice stills for you. What it is I can't be sure.

It is NOT a missile. You were shown other stills that would have shown a missile, not a flash. I am talking a physical missile would have been seen, or was it an invisible missile to go with the hush-a-booms.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Ok so what you both are saying is that what was going on with both A/C should resemble falling space debris. Like a falling meteor. But if you look at a falling meteor (below) you can see it doesn't look the same. The flame (or light) is encircling the meteor equally. We don't see that in the case of either A/C. The flash appears to be on the lower right hand side of the A/C only and is not "encompassing" (for a lack of a better word) the nose.

That would be the vapor trail of incandescent vaporized rock.

The flash appears to be on the lower right hand side of the A/C only

What are you talking about?

 

[NoahFence]

Let me know when you find someone.

That would be pretty much everybody in this thread. You ARE reading the thread, right?

 

[tmd2_1]

That would be the vapor trail of incandescent vaporized rock.



What are you talking about?

No I'm talking about what's in front of the meteor. Based on what your saying that is what I would expect to see in the plane that is not the case.


The flash only appears to be on the right side towards the lower portion of the fuselage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJGrda2Jeqc

 

[tmd2_1]

It is NOT a missile. You were shown other stills that would have shown a missile, not a flash. I am talking a physical missile would have been seen, or was it an invisible missile to go with the hush-a-booms.

I've never said it was, the question is...what exactly is it?

 

[tmd2_1]

That would be pretty much everybody in this thread. You ARE reading the thread, right?

To my knowledge no one knows exactly what that is.

 

[Disbelief]

I've never said it was, the question is...what exactly is it?

We know what it isn't - a missile. Why is this so important, since we know it was not a missile.

 

[NoahFence]

to my knowledge no one knows exactly what that is.

i do

 

[TJM]

To my knowledge no one knows exactly what that is.

Which is why you have to ask the questions, much as it pains you to do so, because they interfere with your fantasies. Questions like:

1. What kind of projectile weapon can be deployed at point-blank range from a 767 at 500 MPH?
   
2. What would be the point of such a weapon?
   
3. What kind of effect from this projectile would not be immediately negated by the following aircraft impact?

 

[tmd2_1]

Which is why you have to ask the questions, much as it pains you to do so, because they interfere with your fantasies. Questions like:

1. What kind of projectile weapon can be deployed at point-blank range from a 767 at 500 MPH?
   
2. What would be the point of such a weapon?
   
3. What kind of effect from this projectile would not be immediately negated by the following aircraft impact?

All three are good questions, I've said throughout the post I don't have an easy answer to them. It would be logical to think that a projectile weapon would not do much damage, given the little time it had. Not sure which type of weapon. I can only give a general answer that perhaps some weapon can used to help with maximum penetration. This whole thread is a question, one which no one was able to really answer, or I don't believe even give a likely scenario.

 

[Sunstealer]

I am at a complete loss here. Can someone please help me out.

What exactly is the point in firing a missile milliseconds before the impact of an enormous airliner that will have many times the damage that a missile can cause? Bearing in mind that truthers don't think that a jet liner, full of fuel, can cause the destruction of the WTC towers due to damage an the subsequent fire, then why do some of them think firing a missile ahead of the aircraft will make any difference? What size of warhead does the missile have? What's it's purpose? How much damage is it supposed to cause.

It's utter madness.

I can just see the conspiracy conversation now:

NWO #1: Yeah we'll fly a jet into the WTC - we know that won't cause collapse by damage and fire alone, so we'll use thermite/thermate/mini-nukes/explosives/space beams, but it will suffice to fool the public.

NWO#2: Oh that's so cool! Hey, why don't we fire a missile at the WTC, from one of or both of the planes, just before they impact the towers?

NWO#1: Oooh yeah, absolutely, I like your style. We can over complicate the plot massively with this technique even though it won't have any use at all.

NWO#3: Why the hell would we do that? It's totally unnecessary.

NWO#2: Because we can.

WHY? Why would you do something sooooo stupid. Something that complicates carrying out the attack, introduces dozens of problems yet does nothing to achieve the end result?

Oh, that's right; truthers live in hollywood and youtube-land. How can anyone propose this crap and think they are rational? Why would anyone think that others would believe such nonsense? Who are you trying to convince?

Muppets.