Same missile?

[Unfit4Command]

The problem is the streaking object in both videos do not look like birds. For me to agree it may be a bird it first has to look like a bird.

Does it look like a missile? Why is no afterburner present? Where's the jet of smoke behind the objects? Missiles normally have these.

Also, in a previous post about the missiles, I showed how in one of the videos, the "missile" flies over WTC 7:

If I remember correctly, you said that the "missile" in the image above must have flown into the Hudson River.

Now you have come out with another video that you say shows another "missile." Well, they aren't the same object, just look at the trajectories.

One of them flies over WTC 7, and the other flies away from WTC 7:

The pilot of the plane that fired these missiles, must have been flying pretty erratically to get two completely different trajectories like that!

So since both of these "missiles" flew either over, or away from WTC 7, where's the one that struck WTC 7? And how many were fired again?

 

[bonavada]

F-15 fighter in the background photographed from the direction of the missile launched.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAm3dMeosHU

that's quite a circular argument you've got there. again i ask why there is no indisputable evidence (photographic or eye-witness) of missiles at the event? or of your supposed millitary jet? you insisting they are what you state they are is not sufficient evidence of any reasonable standard.
you seem to be stuck in a loop. you admit you may be wrong about the bird/helicopter/missile hypothesis. could you also be wrong about that being a millitary jet? if so doesn't this give you pause for thought?
you complain about no critical thinkers here but you must know that a primary tenet of critical thinking is to be able to accept the concept of falsifyability. do you in this case?

BV

 

[Unfit4Command]

F-15 fighter in the background photographed from the direction of the missile launched.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAm3dMeosHU

nah, that's not an F-15 fighter, that's CLEARLY another missile being fired from the grand mothership, the New World Explorer.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

If I remember correctly, you said that the "missile" in the image above must have flown into the Hudson River.

Despite what MaGZ claims in this thread, that would make at least 3 missiles that he's suggested in his time on this forum: one he claims hit WTC7, one he claims hit a parking lot a couple blocks from the towers, and [new to me] one he claims plunged into the Hudson.

That, of course, is ignoring the few videos he's posted that show objects moving in all kinds of directions. Taking those into account, he could be claiming 5+ dumb-fired missiles...

 

[Myriad]

Hi Magz,

I'm going to continue to respond to your points at face value. If the mods want to close, more, or merge the thread that's up to them.

I do not consider myself qualified to measure the moving objects in the videos. I am sure others are, paretically those with physics and math backgrounds. We have two videos of a real object which may or may not be in the same time and place. Some say the objects are a bird or helicopter, but they present no evidence to support their assertions. I challenge those with the scientific analytical background to examine the two videos and conduct measurements of the moving objects with respect to the explosion coming from WTC 2.
I am pleased we are now getting some serious posts to these two videos.

You might be thinking in terms of too narrow a definition of "measure." While the word might make you think of procedures and instruments that yield results of high precision, any time you make an observation that compares an unknown quantity with a known quantity, that's a measurement. "How far away is that tree?" "I don't know, but it's farther than that house, and the house is at least two miles from here." That's a measurement. It might not be a very precise or very accurate measurement, but it's a measurement.

So, when you say that the object in the video is "moving too fast" to be a bird, you're making a measurement (comparing the unknown quantity, the speed of the object in the videos, with a known quantity, the approximate speed of a flying bird) and then using that measurement as the basis for further reasoning about your evidence (as in, therefore it is not a bird). So to then say that you cannot measure (the speed of, presumably) the objects in the video seems to be a contradiction.

Perhaps that's because, as I said, you might be interpreting my use of "measure" in the question "how did you measure?" as implying that technical procedures or math have to be involved. Really, all I'm asking is, how did you determine that it's moving too fast to be a bird?

If you don't want to say how you determined that it's moving too fast to be a bird, because you don't think others will be convinced of your conclusion, then what does that tell you? You apparently do see the value of making a more accurate measurement, because you've requested others to make that measurement.

If no conclusive measurement is made (for whatever reason, perhaps others don't wish to do your research for you, or perhaps such a measurement is not possible with the data available), then you and others making assertions about what the objects are will have to look for other evidence to support your claims. The presence of birds and/or helicopters in Manhattan is not an extraordinary claim, the presence of missiles is. The burden is on you to provide convincing evidence of this.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[bonavada]

Hi Magz,

I'm going to continue to respond to your points at face value. If the mods want to close, more, or merge the thread that's up to them.
<snip>

put much more coherently than i ever could..........

of course the possibility will always be that the objects are what magz states they are but given the absolute flimsy nature of his evidence it is so ludicrous to be as convinced as he is. those objects could very well have been my wifes furry nic-nacs, that seems just as valid a statement as what magz postulates.

BV

 

[A W Smith]

its a bird in the foreground of the camera. just as it was proven last month. and just like it was proven to you IIRC in January. In full length videos we have shown that it is flapping its wings. Because you insist on spamming this forum with repeat identical assertions of your missile delusion, I am reporting this thread as spam.

magz previous threads on this subject
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81103
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83514
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73933
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75926

 

[pomeroo]

Yes, I accept the possibility I may be wrong, but as I see it a missile is the best explanation for the objects on the videos.

The object you pretend is a missile creates no explosion. Is it your contention that it is a dummy missile?

I will leave the obvious follow-up to someone who lacks my taste and restraint.

 

[Rrramon]

I like the idea that simply crashing two planes into two highly populated buildings and another into the military headquarters of the country wouldn't be enough to accomplish the conspirators' goal of getting the public angry at the Middle East--only by adding a missile into the mix could they have achieved this.

 

[Unfit4Command]

I like the idea that simply crashing two planes into two highly populated buildings and another into the military headquarters of the country wouldn't be enough to accomplish the conspirators' goal of getting the public angry at the Middle East--only by adding a missile into the mix could they have achieved this.

The missiles being fired was an accident. If I remember correctly, MaGZ believes that a F-15 fighter reached Manhatton right before Flight 175 struck the South Tower and fired several missiles in an attempt to shoot it down. These missiles then struck a parkinglot, and WTC 7.

 

[MaGZ]

Does it look like a missile? Why is no afterburner present? Where's the jet of smoke behind the objects? Missiles normally have these.

Also, in a previous post about the missiles, I showed how in one of the videos, the "missile" flies over WTC 7:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/12th_Floor.jpg

If I remember correctly, you said that the "missile" in the image above must have flown into the Hudson River.

Now you have come out with another video that you say shows another "missile." Well, they aren't the same object, just look at the trajectories.

One of them flies over WTC 7, and the other flies away from WTC 7:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/idiot3.jpg

The pilot of the plane that fired these missiles, must have been flying pretty erratically to get two completely different trajectories like that!

So since both of these "missiles" flew either over, or away from WTC 7, where's the one that struck WTC 7? And how many were fired again?

I think the missile answer to the two videos is ‘likely’ because of the speed of the object(s) in view. I tend to agree with you the two objects are different because they appear to have different trajectories. However, I can not be certain. That is why I would like to see some research done comparing the position and rate of expansion of the explosive cloud to the movement of the missile(s) . This would give us an answer: one missile or two. The first missile appears to come from behind the Twin Towers flying south to north toward the Hudson River. This may be an illusion. So the possibility exist they may be the same missile.
We know two fighters were sent to intercept the hijacked planes. I have only one on video that shows a F-15 being over the area at the time of impact.

The missile that hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor which I have see in FOX News coverage after 9/11 is not the one that appears in these two videos. After viewing most of the Bob and Bri video I can now say I was wrong about a missile hitting in the parking lot.

Total missiles fired that day; I say two, possibly three.

 

[MaGZ]

that's quite a circular argument you've got there. again i ask why there is no indisputable evidence (photographic or eye-witness) of missiles at the event? or of your supposed millitary jet? you insisting they are what you state they are is not sufficient evidence of any reasonable standard.
you seem to be stuck in a loop. you admit you may be wrong about the bird/helicopter/missile hypothesis. could you also be wrong about that being a millitary jet? if so doesn't this give you pause for thought?
you complain about no critical thinkers here but you must know that a primary tenet of critical thinking is to be able to accept the concept of falsifyability. do you in this case?

BV

I do not think I am wrong about this object being one of the F-15s sent to intercept the hijack planes. It flies as a fixed wing aircraft. Also we have an air traffic controller in Newark NJ saying the fighters were over the area moments after the impact of the second plane.

Bob Varcapade: I rememember the two F-15’s. They were moments after the impact. And I was just said to myself, “If they only could’ve gotten there a couple minutes earlier. They just missed it.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14754701/page/5/

 

[MaGZ]

Hi Magz,

I'm going to continue to respond to your points at face value. If the mods want to close, more, or merge the thread that's up to them.



You might be thinking in terms of too narrow a definition of "measure." While the word might make you think of procedures and instruments that yield results of high precision, any time you make an observation that compares an unknown quantity with a known quantity, that's a measurement. "How far away is that tree?" "I don't know, but it's farther than that house, and the house is at least two miles from here." That's a measurement. It might not be a very precise or very accurate measurement, but it's a measurement.

So, when you say that the object in the video is "moving too fast" to be a bird, you're making a measurement (comparing the unknown quantity, the speed of the object in the videos, with a known quantity, the approximate speed of a flying bird) and then using that measurement as the basis for further reasoning about your evidence (as in, therefore it is not a bird). So to then say that you cannot measure (the speed of, presumably) the objects in the video seems to be a contradiction.

Perhaps that's because, as I said, you might be interpreting my use of "measure" in the question "how did you measure?" as implying that technical procedures or math have to be involved. Really, all I'm asking is, how did you determine that it's moving too fast to be a bird?

If you don't want to say how you determined that it's moving too fast to be a bird, because you don't think others will be convinced of your conclusion, then what does that tell you? You apparently do see the value of making a more accurate measurement, because you've requested others to make that measurement.

If no conclusive measurement is made (for whatever reason, perhaps others don't wish to do your research for you, or perhaps such a measurement is not possible with the data available), then you and others making assertions about what the objects are will have to look for other evidence to support your claims. The presence of birds and/or helicopters in Manhattan is not an extraordinary claim, the presence of missiles is. The burden is on you to provide convincing evidence of this.

Respectfully,
Myriad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_TxzMUKwyc&mode=related&search=

Please take a look at the video again. The object clearly comes from behind WTC 1 (North Tower) travels in a straight line and has a exhaust trail. Set the video on large screen and do moment by moment clicks and you will see this.

 

[Zep]

It's a magic flying hat.

 

[MaGZ]

The missiles being fired was an accident. If I remember correctly, MaGZ believes that a F-15 fighter reached Manhatton right before Flight 175 struck the South Tower and fired several missiles in an attempt to shoot it down. These missiles then struck a parkinglot, and WTC 7.

Yes that is correct, however I have been proven wrong about the missile hitting the parking lot northwest of the WTC complex. I now believe the black crater seen the NOAA satellite photo is from a explosive natural gas pipeline. Here is a separate photo; not the one from NOAA.

http://img431.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc00105gh0.jpg

 

[I Am He]

MaGZ

Do mean like these two??

[link]

[Link]

Are they the ones you see??

I Am He

 

[Unfit4Command]

I think the missile answer to the two videos is ‘likely’ because of the speed of the object(s) in view. I tend to agree with you the two objects are different because they appear to have different trajectories.

Neither one of the trajectories points towards the 14th floor of WTC 7, so I guess that means at least 3 missiles were fired and the last and seeminly invisible missile from video footage was the one that struck WTC 7.

However, I can not be certain. That is why I would like to see some research done comparing the position and rate of expansion of the explosive cloud to the movement of the missile(s).

I'm not sure how this should be done.

This would give us an answer: one missile or two. The first missile appears to come from behind the Twin Towers flying south to north toward the Hudson River. This may be an illusion. So the possibility exist they may be the same missile.

I don't understand how they could possibly be the same "missile" based on the video footage, but I could be wrong. I doubt it is an illusion though.

We know two fighters were sent to intercept the hijacked planes. I have only one on video that shows a F-15 being over the area at the time of impact.

There's no possible way you can tell that's an F-15 fighter, it looks like a black dot.

The missile that hit WTC 7 on the 14th floor which I have see in FOX News coverage after 9/11 is not the one that appears in these two videos.

Wouldn't more people be talking about seeing a missile strike WTC 7 if it really happened on national TV around the time of 9/11? MILLIONS were watching the news, someone else should have seen a missile strike WTC 7 if it really happened.

After viewing most of the Bob and Bri video I can now say I was wrong about a missile hitting in the parking lot.

Good.

Total missiles fired that day; I say two, possibly three.

Ok, I did a little research into the types of missiles F-15's carry. I found two different air-to-air missiles on this website. The AIM-9 Sidewinder that you can see being fired here:

Each AIM-9 Sidewinder costs about $84,000 to build...so, it's not like firing off two or three of these wouldn't be a big deal.

The next one, the AIM-7 Sparrow that you can see being fired here:

Each AIM-7 Sparrow costs about $125,000 to build.

If two or three of these missiles go missing, it's not going to be kept a secret to everyone at the base the plane is returning to. It's not possible, there's absolutely NO evidence that any missiles were fired on 9/11, or that a missile played a part in bringing down WTC 7. The most logical explaination for the black objects streaking across the air is that they're either birds, or UFOs, but missiles? Come on...

There's another video I've seen online that shows an object fly by in front of the camera right before Flight 175 strikes the South Tower...I can't seem to find it now. That video is a bit clearer than the ones we're looking at in this thread, and you can clearly see a bird flapping its wings, I just wish I could find it.

 

[The Doc]

"It's a bird, it's a plane, it's a bird and a plane"

That pretty much sums up MagZ's missile argument. Superman style.

 

[JC Fla]

Unfit, besides the fact that those two missiles do not work like they do in Hollywood. No large explosions. They work by shrapnel. The warheads contain coils of notched wire that are blow apart by a relatively small charge detonated by a proximity fuse. The folks that think these could do all that damage have watched Top Gun and Iron Eagle waaaayyy to many times.

http://tinyurl.com/3xdz28 Sidewinder

http://tinyurl.com/yuprba Slammer

http://tinyurl.com/2fd52t Sparrow

http://tinyurl.com/yu9xyp Phoenix

You could hit a building 100 times with these missiles and have no effect. They are also smart enough to not lock on to stationary, high infrared sources (a problem with early Sidewinders, that locked on to the sun)...They are Air to Air missiles. And to head of the next claim before it happens, there is no point in firing Air to Ground missiles at aircraft. They will not lock no.

There was no missile.

Get over it.

 

[Myriad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_TxzMUKwyc&mode=related&search=

Please take a look at the video again. The object clearly comes from behind WTC 1 (North Tower) travels in a straight line and has a exhaust trail. Set the video on large screen and do moment by moment clicks and you will see this.

Okay, there you go. You're basing your approximate measurement of its speed ("too fast for a bird") on the assumption that it has passed behind the tower, which is what accounts for its sudden appearance to the right of the tower in the image.

That's a plausible (though not yet proven) assumption, so let's go with it. I agree with you that if it did indeed emerge from behind the tower, it would have to be moving too quickly to be a flying bird.

However, I can also show that under the same assumption, the object is much too large to be an air-to-air missile. The height of each story of the north tower is between 2 and 3 pixels in the youTube rendering of the video (and much closer to 2 than to 3). We have to allow for some foreshortening because we're looking upward at the towers, but even if we allowed for an upward angle of 45 degrees (actually it's much less) and for an overestimated 3 pixels per tower story, our vertical scale at the minimum possible behind-the-tower distance is not more than 3 * sqrt(2), or about 4.25, pixels per story, or about 1.25 pixels per meter. The diamater of an air to air missile would be somewhere between 1/8 to less than 1/2 meter, so it should be less than a pixel wide in the image.

Blurring cannot account for it appearing as wide as it does. The camera is focused at a distance; under the assumption that the object has passed behind the tower, it cannot be out of focus. And the object's motion would not cause blurring in the direction perpendicular to the direction it's moving.

Furthermore, given that the true image size of a missile at that distance should be less than 1 pixel wide and 12 pixels long, no amount of blurring of any sort can account for it making a much larger smudge (bwtween 5x and 10x larger, linearly) while retaining that much contrast. A bright object against a darker background can (if it starts out intensely bright) can blur into a much larger image and still stand out, but a dark object cannot start out darker than black, and so must fade away as it gets blurred. I urge you to try this out with any kind of camera (motion or still, digital or film) at your disposal. Image a matte black object against a bright background, blur (not enlarge) the object using motion or focus or any other means or any combination to make its outline larger in your image by at least a factor of 5, and see how visible it remains.

Then there is the question of why the object appears black in the first place. Continuing to assume that the object appears from behind the tower, it is in direct sunlight (notice the glare on the nearest sides of the towers, the position of the impact fireball's shadow, and the brightness of the debris object moving right of the north tower about a second later, not as high up) so it would only appear black if it were painted black. I suppose that's possible, but I've never seen AAMs surfaced like that in any photo. There's also no reason for any exahust (if any part of the visible trail of the object were missile exhaust) to appear black, nor for it to disappear completely in the fractions of a second between video frames.

My conclusion from the video is that if the object did indeed pass behind the north tower, then it cannot be an air-to-air missile.

What is it, then? I don't know. I could give you my best guess, but guesses (that is, conjectures without conclusive confirming evidence) are pretty useless, aren't they?

Respectfully,
Myriad