if it is a plane however i believe something was fired at the building (a missle maybe = white flash) to weaken the wall allowing the plane to "MELT" into the building. the falsh haapens prior to impact suggesting something being fired from the object that hits the wall milliseconds later.
i could be wrong but i think the flash says alot more that people think.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject:
marky 54 wrote:
if it is a plane however i believe something was fired at the building (a missle maybe = white flash) to weaken the wall allowing the plane to "MELT" into the building. the falsh haapens prior to impact suggesting something being fired from the object that hits the wall milliseconds later.
i could be wrong but i think the flash says alot more that people think.
the clue is the flash.
Aircraft charge themselves with an enormous amount of static electricity flying at speed through the air- you may have noticed at the airport that there are grounding points that must connected before refuelling to prevent explosions.
It doesn't tend to happen often, but a hi-speed plane in close proximity to a steel building could discharge quite a flash. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
if it is a plane however i believe something was fired at the building (a missle maybe = white flash) to weaken the wall allowing the plane to "MELT" into the building. the falsh haapens prior to impact suggesting something being fired from the object that hits the wall milliseconds later.
i could be wrong but i think the flash says alot more that people think.
the clue is the flash.
Aircraft charge themselves with an enormous amount of static electricity flying at speed through the air- you may have noticed at the airport that there are grounding points that must connected before refuelling to prevent explosions.
It doesn't tend to happen often, but a hi-speed plane in close proximity to a steel building could discharge quite a flash.
Aircraft charge themselves with an enormous amount of static electricity flying at speed through the air- you may have noticed at the airport that there are grounding points that must connected before refuelling to prevent explosions.
It doesn't tend to happen often, but a hi-speed plane in close proximity to a steel building could discharge quite a flash.
Interesting. I always thought the flash was interesting, but since no ideas relating to it have ever been forthcoming, I haven't really focussed on it.
This is probably the first time I've heard a coherent explanation for it.
Interesting. I always thought the flash was interesting, but since no ideas relating to it have ever been forthcoming, I haven't really focussed on it.
This is probably the first time I've heard a coherent explanation for it.
Thanks.
Stefan, do you know what voltage is required to spark across 1cm of air?
Have you thought about the relative brightness of that flash in that video, the voltage required for the charge on the plane to make the flash and the voltage involved in, say, a bolt of lightning?
Some of these figures are known and some could be calculated. This is difference between speculation and analysis - actually trying to work such things out before agreeing or disagreeing with them (not that you necessarily did either in your post above). _________________ Andrew
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Stefan wrote:
Interesting. I always thought the flash was interesting, but since no ideas relating to it have ever been forthcoming, I haven't really focussed on it.
This is probably the first time I've heard a coherent explanation for it.
Thanks.
Stefan, do you know what voltage is required to spark across 1cm of air?
Have you thought about the relative brightness of that flash in that video, the voltage required for the charge on the plane to make the flash and the voltage involved in, say, a bolt of lightning?
Some of these figures are known and some could be calculated. This is difference between speculation and analysis - actually trying to work such things out before agreeing or disagreeing with them (not that you necessarily did either in your post above).
Well Andrew believe it or not, some of us do actually check things out first.
Walking across a rug can produce a static electricity voltage of up to 12000 volts. (general knowledge)
I therefore have assumed (not my use of the word 'could' rather than 'did' ) that an aircraft moving considererably faster than walking pace may produce an even greater voltage to discharge.
Perhaps you can bring more expertise to bear on this?
Bearing in mind that last time I checked you were an NPT believer, or is it the cloaked hologram /missile carrying hologram now? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Andrew,
You're right that I didn't agree or disagree with what Chek said, just that it was interesting, and the first explanation for the "flash" phenomona.
I was hoping iw would open up a discussion between people who would know about these sorts of things, as I'm pleased that it has and I will follow with interest. _________________
the flash prior to the two impacts was pre positioned explosives in order to make a hole in the building
the planes are clearly planes, but it is generally accepted that they are cargo planes not passenger planes and are flown by remote control in the same way that reconnaissence flights ever since the sixties
some of the videos show no yellow flash, these have been clearly doctored at some stage, which is unfortunate because tainted evidence is clearly disinformation
the original video shows a flash prior to impact and the shadow of the plane on the building and also the reflection of the flash in the body of the plane - look closely to the original videos
i am 100% sure there were planes that hit the wtc 1 and wtc 2
BUT BUT
i accept that no planers are still advocates of investigate 911 and so have the right to post freely on this 911 forum _________________
Stelios,
That was my first thought as well - but to be honest the "firing a missile ahead to aid penetration" makes more sense, since if we look at the damage we don't see any sign of force from within- all the bending of any steel shows force from without. But we don't see any missile being fired, and we have some good footage.
I personally look at the research which has been done which shows that a plane could penetrate and cause that damage, and also the fact that in John Skillings analysis of a plane hitting the building he considered it would penetrate.
Which is why the "static" seemed interesting to me; as I think few would deny there was a bright flash there. _________________
there were only two reasons why i think a missle may of been fired.
1. the bright flash
2. the piece of equipment under the plane on the second strike
it would explain both, however it is likely to be wrong and the static charge does sound more likely, although the extra thing on the craft is still a mystery.
maybe someone has already explained the extra piece under craft two? if so im either not aware or it was to long ago to remember what was claimed.
I see a missile before even pressing play on this video. It's there in the still frame.
When this was first shown I believe Dylan and Co received so may e-mails asking them to remove this particular clip and not use it in Loose Change 2. This was where the 'disinformation' bandwaggon began to fire up and lots of you fell for it.
Now the clip has been removed and Loose Change Final Edit is now heading for a general release without a blink of an eyelid from the perps. I wonder why?
Here's hoping Rosie O'Donnell takes TV fakery to the mainstream and saves us.
I see a missile before even pressing play on this video. It's there in the still frame.
When this was first shown I believe Dylan and Co received so may e-mails asking them to remove this particular clip and not use it in Loose Change 2. This was where the 'disinformation' bandwaggon began to fire up and lots of you fell for it.
Now the clip has been removed and Loose Change Final Edit is now heading for a general release without a blink of an eyelid from the perps. I wonder why?
Here's hoping Rosie O'Donnell takes TV fakery to the mainstream and saves us.
which type of missle was it?
why does the missle give of the shadow of a plane close to impact and why is there a plane shape in the building.
if it is a missle and these things can be answered WITH evidence then im inclined to change my opinon.
I see a missile before even pressing play on this video. It's there in the still frame.
When this was first shown I believe Dylan and Co received so may e-mails asking them to remove this particular clip and not use it in Loose Change 2. This was where the 'disinformation' bandwaggon began to fire up and lots of you fell for it.
Now the clip has been removed and Loose Change Final Edit is now heading for a general release without a blink of an eyelid from the perps. I wonder why?
Here's hoping Rosie O'Donnell takes TV fakery to the mainstream and saves us.
which type of missle was it?
why does the missle give of the shadow of a plane close to impact and why is there a plane shape in the building.
if it is a missle and these things can be answered WITH evidence then im inclined to change my opinon.
Hi Marky! If you look there is only the shape of a missile type shadow. If you press play and instantly press pause in order to remove the youtube play button you see no wings.
I really do not know what sort of missile it is but it wass probably enlarged and manipulated which is evident from slow motion replays of this Naudet brothers clip. Couple that with the fact that the audio of this clip was also tampered with and laced with special effects on at least two occasions and, hey presto, what we have is an all singing, all dancing media magic show!
Last edited by schizophrenogenic element on Wed May 09, 2007 12:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 12:49 pm Post subject:
marky 54 wrote:
there were only two reasons why i think a missle may of been fired.
1. the bright flash
2. the piece of equipment under the plane on the second strike
it would explain both, however it is likely to be wrong and the static charge does sound more likely, although the extra thing on the craft is still a mystery.
maybe someone has already explained the extra piece under craft two? if so im either not aware or it was to long ago to remember what was claimed.
Well I can definitely say it's not a missile.
A missile ignition phase consists of a long flame followed by a smoke plume.
Neither is it cannon fire to break the outer framework - there's no 'ripple' effect and the colours and lack of smoke again are wrong.
And it's not a laser-type weapon - the origination point wouldn't be visible from the direction we see it, and there's no medium for us to see a reflection of the beam in (smoke, mist etc.).
It appears to me that it is some kind of spark, and ruling out the old 40 years in advance unknown military technology, my best guess is a static discharge.
I'm not saying it definitely is, just that would be my most likely guess.
I'm not sure about the pod theory either. It too may be a product of over-enhancing the contrast of the fairly subtle wing fairing contours. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
s-e,
I actually disagree, while it incredibly hard to make out what we are seeing from the few blurred pixels we have, the overal shape has wings and a tail section. _________________
there were only two reasons why i think a missle may of been fired.
1. the bright flash
2. the piece of equipment under the plane on the second strike
it would explain both, however it is likely to be wrong and the static charge does sound more likely, although the extra thing on the craft is still a mystery.
maybe someone has already explained the extra piece under craft two? if so im either not aware or it was to long ago to remember what was claimed.
Well I can definitely say it's not a missile.
A missile ignition phase consists of a long flame followed by a smoke plume.
Neither is it cannon fire to break the outer framework - there's no 'ripple' effect and the colours and lack of smoke again are wrong.
And it's not a laser-type weapon - the origination point wouldn't be visible from the direction we see it, and there's no medium for us to see a reflection of the beam in (smoke, mist etc.).
It appears to me that it is some kind of spark, and ruling out the old 40 years in advance unknown military technology, my best guess is a static discharge.
I'm not saying it definitely is, just that would be my most likely guess.
I'm not sure about the pod theory either. It too may be a product of over-enhancing the contrast of the fairly subtle wing fairing contours.
Your 'spark' analysis could be correct as it would also apply to a missile. Your theory does not confirm that is is a plane.
There is no plane in plain sight, whatever the spark is, there is no plane. Have you bothered to look at the fraudulent audio thread? Maybe you could explain the relevance of added audio on there?
there is so much that people dont take into consideration before claiming things.
quailty is one of them. i have never said it is a plane that i see, however i dont see a missle either, i only see a poor quality image of a blurred object that could be a missle, that dosnt mean it is.
so i take into account the other evidence to get the jist of what it could be.
plane parts found around the site, plane shaped holes in the towers etc etc.
the plane parts could of been planted etc. however ive never seen evidence to prove this beyond doubt.
so untill there is evidence that says it could only be a missle it will always be left to the individual to decide what he/she thinks it is.
the evidence for plane is stronger than missle.
the auido clips again neglect quality, this time quality of sound. all equipment differ in quality as does distance from the sound and if your stood in a building or outside.
anyone can claim what they like but untill someone presents evidence that can only mean it is what is being claimed then its open for debate and will always come down to what the individual believes.
you say its a missle yet no one can identify the missle used proving the image is to poor to tell what it is. its a missle is just a guess and has no other evidence to support it.
So the perps fired a Tomahawk cruise missile (or similar) over the buildings of Manhattan with their fingers crossed that no one would notice it was not a commercial plane. Now why did they not just fly a remote-controlled plane into the tower? Well, you see. It's because they wanted us to think it was a missile so that we would all doubt the official 9/11 story, thus hastening the day of their arrest.
It is exceptionally fortunate given that the Naudet Brothers film was 'set' up to capture the first impact and to hide the fact it was a missile and not an aircraft, that there was no tourist currently filming the WTC as it occurred.
When you think of the work and effort that went in to setting the thing up, the planning etc, Mr Yamamoto films it and then goes home in the following weeks and it ends up on Japanese TV sidestepping anything put in place to stop such an occurrence popping up on an American network.
Strewth, can you imagine the awful stink if Mr Yamamoto had his top of the range camcorder with 20x optical zoom trained on the building just as it struck? The world's most popular city still in holiday season, who would think that people would have camcorders recording stuff?
It is exceptionally fortunate given that the Naudet Brothers film was 'set' up to capture the first impact and to hide the fact it was a missile and not an aircraft, that there was no tourist currently filming the WTC as it occurred.
When you think of the work and effort that went in to setting the thing up, the planning etc, Mr Yamamoto films it and then goes home in the following weeks and it ends up on Japanese TV sidestepping anything put in place to stop such an occurrence popping up on an American network.
Strewth, can you imagine the awful stink if Mr Yamamoto had his top of the range camcorder with 20x optical zoom trained on the building just as it struck? The world's most popular city still in holiday season, who would think that people would have camcorders recording stuff?
Really lucky.
Yep. Very fortunate indeed.
You're on form tonight, tele. Are you on the pop? _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Yes, think of all the Japanese tourists possibly filming the tower at the time much closer to the North Tower who would have gone home and then found to their horror they had captured a missile on tape. Do the 'no-planers' believe they were all killed before they could contact their TV companies with their damning footage? More seriously, do the 'no-planers' really believe the perps would have risked firing a missile that hundreds (if not more) could have spotted winging its way for miles towards the North Tower? The notion is as daft as a concrete parachute.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
