9/11: The Smoking Gun

[Robin]

I thought the whole point was that the wing was supposed to make those little cuts in the cladding. Now it doesn't have wings.

Maybe it's one of those commie cruise missiles that only has a left wing.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Fonebone

Every soldier tells "war stories" to their children Beachnut.
Was your father a member of General McAuliff's staff ?
Here is a group picture of the general and his staff 2 days later on
Christmas Day. If you cannot find your father in the group photo at this link
https://militaryhistorynow.com/2020/...m-at-bastogne/
I'm afraid your father's story may be ....
Bic?

And you would be wrong, like your claims on 9/11...

Dad's stories were true. Look up Reginald Alexander, Dad's Buddy, he was infront of my Dad, Beachy... Reggie's Parachute popped panels ... why, the plane was hit, the pilot turned on the green light to save the men, the plane had not slowed down... was slowing down... the first guy out pop panels, compound fractures both legs. But then you don't do truth, you spread idiotic lies and delusuaional claims.

Dad was 101st... he dropped on D-Day, he was fighting in Bastogne..

You lie about 9/11, I don't lie about my Father.

Watch "Band of Brothers", it is what my Dad did, as a Paratrooper. You tell stories, my dad told the truth. I guess you are use to being lied to. I never said my Dad was on the General's staff - try to pay attention.

Dad joined the Paratroopers righ out of High School. He picked the Paratroopers because he did not want appear to be a "sissy". He picked one of the toughest things to do.

He heard what the General said that day, he was told what the general said, they told the whole unit. Guess the, "he heard", confused you. BTW, the message appears to be written, thus what was said, was also witten, according to the Army it looked like this.

Quote:

The reply was typed up, centered on a full sheet of paper. It read:

"December 22, 1944

To the German Commander,

N U T S !

The American Commander"

I assume they told the troops that day...

BTW, you have no evidence to refute. And you can't refute my Dad's service, never will.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Robin

I thought the whole point was that the wing was supposed to make those little cuts in the cladding. Now it doesn't have wings.

Maybe it's one of those commie cruise missiles that only has a left wing.

It's yet another example of left-wing violence.

[Axxman300]

After viewing dozens of videos out of Kyiv of missile strikes today, it's clear this theory is BS.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

After viewing dozens of videos out of Kyiv of missile strikes today, it's clear this theory is BS.

But "they" loaded the imaginary missiles with napalm to simulate an explosion of several thousand gallons of jet fuel.

[Fonebone]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

For anyone here still stupid enough to think that it was missiles and not airliners that hit the towers, I'll just leave this here....

Can you post a still of your line drawing and a still of theWTC1 scar please.
I want to study both. Thank you

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Fonebone

Can you post a still of your line drawing and a still of theWTC1 scar please.
I want to study both. Thank you

LOL
You had time enough to actually study and get 5 different college degrees in a row.
This has all been studied to death, more than a decade ago. Result: You are wrong. On essentially everything. You get the date right - that's it.

[Fonebone]

Originally Posted by Robin

I thought the whole point was that the wing was supposed to make those little cuts in the cladding. Now it doesn't have wings.

Maybe it's one of those commie cruise missiles that only has a left wing.

Maybe the missile that created the "left wing plane shaped scar" in the WTC1
North wall had no wings.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/missile
[excerpt] Missile :
:an object (such as a weapon) thrown or projected usually so as to strike

something at a distance stones, artillery shells, bullets, and rockets are missiles :
such as
a : guided missile : a missile whose course may be altered during flight (as by a target-seeking radar device)


b : ballistic missile : a usually rocket-powered missile that is launched in a high arc under guidance
for its ascent but that is unpowered and unguided once it begins its descent [/excerpt]
--and--
[excerpt] guided missile -a rocket-powered missile which is directed to its target by a built-in device
or by radio waves etc. misil teledirigido [/excerpt]


Fonebone>

The definition bolded describes a projectile of mass propelled toward a target. The projectile that
created the left-wing impression in the
WTC1 tower wall had no wings. The mass fired at the extreme oblique
angle created the scar shaped left wing illusion.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by Fonebone

Maybe the missile that created the "left wing plane shaped scar" in the WTC1
North wall had no wings.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/missile
[excerpt] Missile :
:an object (such as a weapon) thrown or projected usually so as to strike

something at a distance stones, artillery shells, bullets, and rockets are missiles :
such as
a : guided missile : a missile whose course may be altered during flight (as by a target-seeking radar device)


b : ballistic missile : a usually rocket-powered missile that is launched in a high arc under guidance
for its ascent but that is unpowered and unguided once it begins its descent [/excerpt]
--and--
[excerpt] guided missile -a rocket-powered missile which is directed to its target by a built-in device
or by radio waves etc. misil teledirigido [/excerpt]


Fonebone>

The definition bolded describes a projectile of mass propelled toward a target. The projectile that
created the left-wing impression in the
WTC1 tower wall had no wings. The mass fired at the extreme oblique
angle created the scar shaped left wing illusion.

And yet the Naudet brothers film clearly shows an airplane with two wings crashing into WTC1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miA8Td4oNcY approximately 1:09

[TheGoldcountry]

Originally Posted by Fonebone

Maybe the missile that created the "left wing plane shaped scar" in the WTC1
North wall had no wings.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/missile
[excerpt] Missile :
:an object (such as a weapon) thrown or projected usually so as to strike

something at a distance stones, artillery shells, bullets, and rockets are missiles :
such as
a : guided missile : a missile whose course may be altered during flight (as by a target-seeking radar device)


b : ballistic missile : a usually rocket-powered missile that is launched in a high arc under guidance
for its ascent but that is unpowered and unguided once it begins its descent [/excerpt]
--and--
[excerpt] guided missile -a rocket-powered missile which is directed to its target by a built-in device
or by radio waves etc. misil teledirigido [/excerpt]


Fonebone>

The definition bolded describes a projectile of mass propelled toward a target. The projectile that
created the left-wing impression in the
WTC1 tower wall had no wings. The mass fired at the extreme oblique
angle created the scar shaped left wing illusion.

Instead of coming up with even more outlandish and convoluted explanations for how the facts could possibly fit your imaginary scenarios, have you ever considered that maybe they did it with a plane?

When you hear hoofbeats, you don't think hoofed manatees from the planet Gryxyrg, you think horses.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Fonebone

Maybe the missile that created the "left wing plane shaped scar" in the WTC1
North wall had no wings.

You are missing the point of the question.

Yankee451 at least realises that if the tip of the missile had made the first scar then it couldn't have made the subsequent damage, the geometry is all wrong. The missile would either penetrate earlier, or else is would bounce off.
It wouldn't move along the side of the building. (try sketching it).

So he uses this idea of the left wing of the cruise missile causing this damage.

Suggesting a missile with no wings only returns you to the original problem with the idea.

Whereas there are no problems at all with that damage being caused by a jet liner flying into the building.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Fonebone

Can you post a still of your line drawing and a still of theWTC1 scar please.
I want to study both. Thank you

What's that phrase conspiratards are always using? Oh yes, that's right....


Do you own research!

[Mark F]

Originally Posted by yankee451

The evidence discussed in this video leads directly to the most likely cause, and the most likely suspects, which is probably why it was banned almost immediately on YouTube and Facebook.

The inescapable conclusion is that multiple cruise missiles were launched in broad daylight on 9/11. How they faked the videos is irrelevant to what the physical evidence shows.

This is forensice examination of the evidence we all have access to, but to discuss it is forbidden. I have tried to do just that on this very site in the past, so I'm under no illusions as to how long this post will remain here. Watch it quickly, while you can. 14.29 minutes.

9/11: The Smoking Gun
https://vimeo.com/741646536

Have not visited in a few months and just caught this thread. The video is hilarious - and that's just the thumbnail.

I had a run-in with Steve De'ak maybe about a year ago in the comment section of his YouTube video on the "Cedar St. Amazing Flying Wall Panel" (or something to that effect). I quickly determined I was dealing with lunacy of the highest order and backed away slowly.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Mark F

Have not visited in a few months and just caught this thread. The video is hilarious - and that's just the thumbnail.

I had a run-in with Steve De'ak maybe about a year ago in the comment section of his YouTube video on the "Cedar St. Amazing Flying Wall Panel" (or something to that effect). I quickly determined I was dealing with lunacy of the highest order and backed away slowly.

Well ALL twooferism is lunacy of the highest order... especially the "no planer" nonsense... so there's no surprise there!

The "it was missiles" nonsense fails right out of the starting gate. Eyewitnesses on the ground saw airliners, not missiles, ATC radar tracked airliners not missiles. Survivors on lower floors saw airliners not missiles... and that is just for starters

[Fonebone]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Quote:

Well ALL twooferism is lunacy of the highest order... especially the "no planer" nonsense... so there's no surprise there!

Hmmm

Quote:

The "it was missiles" nonsense fails right out of the starting gate. Eyewitnesses on the ground saw airliners, not missiles,

Au contraire !
The flying object that created the circular fuselage portion of the WTC1 scar
was traveling NEAR TOP SPEED, about 500 MPH, at the approach and contact with the North wall.
A speed of 500MPH converts to 733 feet per second of viewing time to
recognize and identify the flying object if your exact location allowed.
500 mph is also exactly the sound at ground level meaning the exact instant the sound is
perceived the flying object has passed your vision.

Quote:

ATC radar tracked airliners not missiles.

The very basis of realistic 'war game" exercises
is to create authentic presentations to exactly to the emulate the test conditions for the participants.
An ATC module will have the normal realtime RADAR images
removed from his module screens and have these stimulated images substituted for the display's
war game exercise images.

Quote:

Survivors on lower floors saw airliners not missiles...

This statement defies credulity based on the 733 FPS flying object speed cited above.

Quote:

and that is just for starters

Your critique ended before it started.

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by Fonebone

500 mph is also exactly the sound at ground level meaning the exact instant the sound is
perceived the flying object has passed your vision.

No, it isn't. The speed of sound through air at sea level is about 770 mph.

[Fonebone]

Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian

No, it isn't. The speed of sound through air at sea level is about 770 mph.

Thank you for your correction.

I will correct my incorrect data and the statement estimating reaction time

will be amended and my comment will be revised accordingly.

[Fonebone]

Originally Posted by Fonebone

Thank you for your correction.

My post will be amended and my comment will be revised accordingly.

In post # 175, I incorrectly stated the speed of sound was 500 MPH.
The correct speed speed of sound at sea level at 70 F is 1100 feet per second
or 343 meter per second which equates to 767MPH.
Thank you Reformed Offlian for alerting me to my error the error.
The flying object disguised as a commercial wide body airliner B767 is calculated to
be traveling at a ground speed of greater than 500 MPH or
733 1/3 FTS (feet per second). Therefore the sound wave created by the flying object
would travel at 1100 FPS, almost twice as fast as the flying object.

The witness would have a fraction of a second to be alerted to the
noise and a fraction of another second to view the object. The witness that viewed
through the windows you have a shorter time to observe the flying object. If the
object was disguised as a B767 jetliner the illusion magnified.
If the flying was powered with jet engine the eye/ear combination would be
likewise reinforce the same illusion and convictions of the witnesses.

[bknight]

Ah your most recent pigeon drop. In the Naudet film everyone except no-planers can identify an airplane flying into WTC1, even at 500+ MPH. So no missles didn't cause the big hole in the structure.

[MBDK]

Originally Posted by Fonebone

<snipped irrelevant (for my retort) portion>

The witness would have a fraction of a second to be alerted to the
noise and a fraction of another second to view the object. The witness that viewed
through the windows you have a shorter time to observe the flying object. If the
object was disguised as a B767 jetliner the illusion magnified.
If the flying was powered with jet engine the eye/ear combination would be
likewise reinforce the same illusion and convictions of the witnesses.

Oblivious to reality, as your posts have historically characterized themselves, your "theory" ignores the fact that the sound of an airliner approaching will precede its overhead arrival by several seconds, at least. This puts your fraction of a second hypothesis into the land of fairy tales. The same can be said for those that were in the buildings when they viewed them. Beyond that, the inside people have these things called "windows", through which they can view objects approaching from quite a distance. A low flying plane would be something of serious interest and a common subject to be brought to the attention of those near the first person sighting/identifying it. So, they will actually have a longer window (pun INTENDED) with which to observe the aircraft.

FYI, disguising a missile as a 767 is no easy task, nor one to go unnoticed by a plethora of people involved and happenstance to its construct and journey.

Also, in regards to your earlier mention of somehow compromising the ATC radar, you may as well have claimed "magic happened", as there is no feasible means to do so in the entire context of 9/11.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Fonebone

Thank you for your correction.

I will correct my incorrect data and the statement estimating reaction time

will be amended and my comment will be revised accordingly.

Sound has nothing to do with it.

People looked out of the windows and SAW airliners!
People in the streets looked up and SAW airliners!
People along the flight paths SAW airliners!
People near the Pentagon SAW an airliner dive and crash into it!

NOT . ONE . PERSON reported seeing a missile!

The evidence that it was airliners is irrefutable and overwhelming... hundreds of eye-witnesses, multiple camera angles from multiple sources!

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Fonebone

In post # 175, I incorrectly stated the speed of sound was 500 MPH.
The correct speed speed of sound at sea level at 70 F is 1100 feet per second
or 343 meter per second which equates to 767MPH.
Thank you Reformed Offlian for alerting me to my error the error.
The flying object disguised as a commercial wide body airliner B767 is calculated to
be traveling at a ground speed of greater than 500 MPH or
733 1/3 FTS (feet per second). Therefore the sound wave created by the flying object
would travel at 1100 FPS, almost twice as fast as the flying object.

The witness would have a fraction of a second to be alerted to the
noise and a fraction of another second to view the object. The witness that viewed
through the windows you have a shorter time to observe the flying object. If the
object was disguised as a B767 jetliner the illusion magnified.
If the flying was powered with jet engine the eye/ear combination would be
likewise reinforce the same illusion and convictions of the witnesses.

This made me Laugh a low flying plane is heard though the ground before it is heard in air, that's how I can tell a big C130 is about to pass over minutes before it does and why my house shakes when the 101 airborne flies over!
Speed though the ground is about 3500 feet per second.
In a city it would be even more apperent.
Secondly a Cruise Missle wouldn't bring the building down, and their is absolutely no evidence for anything but fire as the cause of all three buildings collapses.
It's all been debunked a decade ago.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Fonebone

In post # 175, I incorrectly stated the speed of sound was 500 MPH.
The correct speed speed of sound at sea level at 70 F is 1100 feet per second
or 343 meter per second which equates to 767MPH.
Thank you Reformed Offlian for alerting me to my error the error.
The flying object disguised as a commercial wide body airliner B767 is calculated to
be traveling at a ground speed of greater than 500 MPH or
733 1/3 FTS (feet per second). Therefore the sound wave created by the flying object
would travel at 1100 FPS, almost twice as fast as the flying object.

Your entire argument was based on the premise that the sound of the airliner could not be heard before the airliner passed overhead because it was travelling at the speed of sound. Since you've now admitted that your premise was incorrect, you should accept that the conclusion drawn from that premise is specious. And yet...

Originally Posted by Fonebone

The witness would have a fraction of a second to be alerted to the
noise and a fraction of another second to view the object.

...you've chosen to invoke the good old unevaluated inequality fallacy so beloved of truthers: "I don't have any idea how long witnesses would have had to react to the noise, but I'm absolutely certain it wasn't long enough."

I think the word for this is "Flapdoodle," isn't it?

Dave

[Oystein]

I once had the opportunity to sit in the cockpit jumpseat of a NATO E-3A sentry (AWACS) on a real-world mission. At one point in flight, at cruise speed (Mach 0.8 or thereabouts) and cruise altitude (like 30,000 ft), the E-3A we were relieving in the operation area came straight at us, also at cruise speed and cruise altitude, only a couple of flight levels higher, so relative approach speed was Mach 1.6. You could not hear it at all - but looking out the window on a clear, sunny, cloudless day, a large plane (the E-3A is a Boeing 707 based plane) speeding towards you is something you pick up immediately, with ease, from a long way out. I would guess I spotted it when it was 3 km away - six seconds later, it would pass overhead with an awesome speed. Nothing was easier than to notice it was a large plane with four engines and a radar dome. You know, human vision is tuned to alert you very quickly to moving objects, especially objects that quickly move towards you.

Sound doesn't even factor into it: You spot a large plane racing towards you easily at least a couple of miles out if only you happen to be looking in the general direction, and an at least rough identification ("this is a large plane, not a missile") is dead easy.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by Fonebone

The witness would have a fraction of a second to be alerted to the
noise and a fraction of another second to view the object. The witness that viewed
through the windows you have a shorter time to observe the flying object. If the
object was disguised as a B767 jetliner the illusion magnified.
If the flying was powered with jet engine the eye/ear combination would be
likewise reinforce the same illusion and convictions of the witnesses.

Everyone in lower Manhattan heard the jets, both of them.

The idea of disguising a cruise missile as a 767 is stupid for many reasons: cost, man-power-to-secrecy ratio, and nobody working in black-ops or the aviation black-projects divisions would ever sign off on something this dumb. Ask any weapons designer and or engineer, and they'll tell you a 767 fully loaded with jet fuel is enough to do the job on 9-11.

You'd think the hundreds of people working at the Boeing plant would start to ask whatever happened to those four cruise missiles we disguised as 767s? It's been 22 years, just about all the big classified blunders of the Afghan and Iraq wars is in the public arena for those who care to read up. Wiki Leaks had Manning and Snowden. Where's the smoking gun you talk about?

Why do you need this to be true?
Why isn't the obvious fact that Bush, and by proxy the American people were so angry over the attacks of 9-11 that we didn't care whose ass we kicked, or how long bombed the crap out of countries most of us can' find on a map?

Why isn't the failure of the FBI and CIA enough?

Why does it have to be some complicated, mushroom and marijuana-fueled cabal of rehashed Vietnam crap?

Why does the real world scare you to the point of embracing fantasies?

[Fonebone]

Originally Posted by bknight

Ah your most recent pigeon drop. In the Naudet film everyone except no-planers can identify an airplane flying into WTC1, even at 500+ MPH. So no missles didn't cause the big hole in the structure.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Sound has nothing to do with it.

People looked out of the windows and SAW airliners!
People in the streets looked up and SAW airliners!
People along the flight paths SAW airliners!
People near the Pentagon SAW an airliner dive and crash into it!

NOT . ONE . PERSON reported seeing a missile!

The evidence that it was airliners is irrefutable and overwhelming... hundreds of eye-witnesses, multiple camera angles from multiple sources!

Originally Posted by bknight

And yet the Naudet brothers film clearly shows an airplane with two wings crashing into WTC1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miA8Td4oNcY approximately 1:09

This image

https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...sile_still.jpg



captures the flying object milliseconds before it strikes the north face of the WTC1 north tower. as the image indicates the time-stamp is 1:09 / 1:33 extracted from your youtube link you supplied.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miA8Td4oNcY
Please point out the Boeing 767-200 you claim the "hundred of witnesses witnessed. The "plane" for the "no planers" is the blurred spot in front of the North Sun-lit wall of the WTC1.

Edited by Agatha:

Edited to shrink page-stretching image

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Fonebone

This image...

<image snipped because its too large>


...captures the flying object milliseconds before it strikes the north face of the WTC1 north tower. as the image indicates the time-stamp is 1:09 / 1:33 extracted from your youtube link you supplied.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miA8Td4oNcY
Please point out the Boeing 767-200 you claim the "hundred of witnesses witnessed. The "plane" for the "no planers" is the blurred spot in front of the North Sun-lit wall of the WTC1.

Bwhahahaha! A selectively chosen screengrab from a potato quality video

Well I did a screengrab of my own from the same potato quality video and a fraction of a second earlier.



Debunked!

You may not be able to see that is its a 767, but you can see it has wings, and is a lot ******* bigger than a missile. On that scale, a missile would cover about a half-dozen pixels. Even if it was a winged model of a cruise missile such as an AGM-86, AGM-158 or a BGM-109, you would not be able to see the wings.

Its worth noting that the people in the video said they heard a plane (not a missile, a plane) and they looked up at it. None of them said "****, that's a missile".

Also worth noting that the sound you hear on the video is that of that of a high-bypass turbo jet, the type used on airliners, which sounds significantly different from that of a small turbofan engine used on cruise missiles.

[bknight]

Yep that is my link to the video of the film that they were on location for the NYFD. The only thing I can tell you it is a poor screen shot of a youtube video which is a 2nd generation of the original. I am quite able to see an airplane crashing into the building, but not of your captured image. From the video I am unable to determine the type, manufacture or servicing company that owned the airplane, but it is an airplane, now if you can't determine this then your eyesight along with your reasoning skills is lacking. Everyone except toofers knows it was an airplane. As many have pointed out some of the plane parts from the wreckages of WTC1 and WTC2 along with the Pentagon are in exhibit for all to see. Get over your 20+ years of delusion and wake up to the reality that 19 Muslims hijacked 4 airplanes on that day crashing 3 into buildings and one into a field in Pa.

ETA: smartcooky beat me to the debunking!

[Fonebone]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Bwhahahaha! A selectively chosen screengrab from a potato quality video

Well I did a screengrab of my own from the same potato quality video and a fraction of a second earlier.



Debunked!

You may not be able to see that is its a 767, but you can see it has wings, and is a lot ******* bigger than a missile. On that scale, a missile would cover about a half-dozen pixels. Even if it was a winged model of a cruise missile such as an AGM-86, AGM-158 or a BGM-109, you would not be able to see the wings.

Its worth noting that the people in the video said they heard a plane (not a missile, a plane) and they looked up at it. None of them said "****, that's a missile".

Also worth noting that the sound you hear on the video is that of that of a high-bypass turbo jet, the type used on airliners, which sounds significantly different from that of a small turbofan engine used on cruise missiles.

To help "no planers" identify the flying object in the Naudet video, an image
of a Boeing 767 is shown here for comparason. Nose end view of a Boeing 767-200 with a camera center-point
of focus in the horizontal and vertical axes on the nose cone center for scale.


To visualize the size of the B767 a man is standing along side of the nose wheel. The wingspan of the
B767 is 156 feet 1 inch from wing tip to wing tip. The width of the WTC1 tower north fave is 208 feet.

Smartcooky will assist the no planers locate and identify the wide-body airliner he clearly sees.

The port (left) side of the plane is brilliantly reflecting the same rising sun illuminating on the tower's
East face and the brick building in the video foreground.

[bknight]

Any rational individual that isn't a no-planer can see the airplane. That's why I linked the video.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Fonebone

<irrelevant BS snipped>

Hand-waving away facts again I see!

1. A typical US cruise missile is only 13 to 21 ft long.

AGM-86 - 20 ft
AGM-158 -14 ft
BGM-109 - 20 ft

2. The width of the Twin Tower building was 208 ft, therefore the apparent size of the cruise missile would be between 1/10th and 1/14th the apparent width of the Tower (if it was side on to the viewer. Anything less than side on and the apparent width will be reduced).

3. The absolute best, highest resolution video camera available in 2001 was the Panasonic Broadcast AG DVC10. It had 3 x 1/4-inch CCDs, ~270,000 pixels per CCD - one for each colour; R, G and B^[*] (that is 270 kilopixels - about a quarter of a megapixel). Shooting in 16:10, which is what your video looks to have been shot in, that would be about 650 x 400, in other words 650 pixels across the video, and 400 pixels down.

4. The apparent width of the tower, on your video is 1/27th of the width of the video, so it is approximately 24 pixels wide. Since the Tower is 208 feet, and the wing span of a 767 is 159 feet, that aircraft would appear to be about 18 pixels wide. The biggest of the cruise missile is 20 ft, and that works out to... 2 pixels! Your missile would only be two pixels wide at absolute best.

5. In reality, looking at the viewing angle, a cruise missile would not be side on, it would be almost head on - less than a pixel. Even a forensic examination of the video would be extremely unlikely to detect it.

6. To help you visualize this I have drawn some lines on the previous image I posted...

The red line is the width of 767's wingspan (compare it with the dark shape above it). That dark shape is EXACTLY where I would expect your missile to be, given the frame-grab you posted that you claim shows a missile impact

The white dot below the red line is how big the missile would appear. The dark shape is CLEARLY far too big to be your missile, but is about the right size to be an airliner.

Debunked again!



^[*] The Panasonic Broadcast AG DVC10 used full-frame dichroic filters to better separate the red, green and blue color bands, and to get better low-light performance.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Hand-waving away facts again I see!

1. A typical US cruise missile is only 13 to 21 ft long.

AGM-86 - 20 ft
AGM-158 -14 ft
BGM-109 - 20 ft

2. The width of the Twin Tower building was 208 ft, therefore the apparent size of the cruise missile would be between 1/10th and 1/14th the apparent width of the Tower (if it was side on to the viewer. Anything less than side on and the apparent width will be reduced).

3. The absolute best, highest resolution video camera available in 2001 was the Panasonic Broadcast AG DVC10. It had 3 x 1/4-inch CCDs, ~270,000 pixels per CCD - one for each colour; R, G and B^[*] (that is 270 kilopixels - about a quarter of a megapixel). Shooting in 16:10, which is what your video looks to have been shot in, that would be about 650 x 400, in other words 650 pixels across the video, and 400 pixels down.

4. The apparent width of the tower, on your video is 1/27th of the width of the video, so it is approximately 24 pixels wide. Since the Tower is 208 feet, and the wing span of a 767 is 159 feet, that aircraft would appear to be about 18 pixels wide. The biggest of the cruise missile is 20 ft, and that works out to... 2 pixels! Your missile would only be two pixels wide at absolute best.

5. In reality, looking at the viewing angle, a cruise missile would not be side on, it would be almost head on - less than a pixel. Even a forensic examination of the video would be extremely unlikely to detect it.

6. To help you visualize this I have drawn some lines on the previous image I posted...

The red line is the width of 767's wingspan (compare it with the dark shape above it). That dark shape is EXACTLY where I would expect your missile to be, given the frame-grab you posted that you claim shows a missile impact

The white dot below the red line is how big the missile would appear. The dark shape is CLEARLY far too big to be your missile, but is about the right size to be an airliner.

Debunked again!



^[*] The Panasonic Broadcast AG DVC10 used full-frame dichroic filters to better separate the red, green and blue color bands, and to get better low-light performance.

Quite well thought out and presented, unfortunately I don't believe Fonebone will learn anything nor change his mind.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by bknight

Quite well thought out and presented, unfortunately I don't believe Fonebone will learn anything nor change his mind.

Yup, I'm aware that conspiritards are impervious to facts and evidence...


but...

[smartcooky]

Additionally for Fonebone - this is what happens when a missile hits a building

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

An explosion and a very brief flash of flame as the explosive detonates, then no more flame. Why is there so little flame? Because...

1. Explosives used on missiles do not generate very much in the way of fire and flame, and

2. There is only a few hundred pounds of propellant on board - just enough to fly its range.

Now compare that with your video - where do all the flames come from on your video?

Answer, jet fuel. 150,000 lbs of Jet A-1 or JP-5

Missiles cannot carry sufficient jet fuel to cause an explosion like that with an extended fire. It is impossible for the fires we saw with either of the tower impacts have been caused by impacts for a missile of any kind!

[Jack by the hedge]

Just to put the quality of the video in perspective (aside from its being a capture from YouTube and thus not as good as the original) the original tape was of course standard definition video. A favourite saying from back in the days of standard definition TV was that if you had the same visual acuity as the very best professional TV camera of the era, you would be considered seriously visually impaired.

Eyewitnesses had a much more detailed view of the plane than that camera was capable of capturing.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Just to put the quality of the video in perspective (aside from its being a capture from YouTube and thus not as good as the original) the original tape was of course standard definition video. A favourite saying from back in the days of standard definition TV was that if you had the same visual acuity as the very best professional TV camera of the era, you would be considered seriously visually impaired.

Eyewitnesses had a much more detailed view of the plane than that camera was capable of capturing.

Yup, I picked the Panasonic Broadcast AG DVC10 because it was the best available at that time and therefore gives Fonebone the greatest possible benefit of doubt. Anything other than that camera will be lower quality.

While the DVC10 was a digital video camera, it did not store video onto memory (in 2001, the highest capacity memory card available was 128 MB, way too small to be useful as video storage). Instead, it stored video on miniDV tape cassettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DV


miniDV is the black and red one
For reference, the grey DVCAM-L cassette
is the same physical size as a VHS cassette.


Storage on tape is "lossy", so very much inferior in quality to storage on flash memory.

[Oystein]

I wonder if Fonebone remembers having seen (and heard!) the Dick Oliver tape that captured the first crash?

Dick Oliver was a local news reporter. He was outside NY City Hall, to cover the state primaries that happened to be held that same Tuesday. His cameraman had put the camera on the ground as it was running, not pointed to anything in particular, when a noise is swelling in the background, culminating in a huge "boom" sound, followed by Oliver and his man exclaiming things like "what was that??" and "an airplane", then the camera is picked up, moved by foot a bit, and eventually pointed at the North Tower and its now famous plane-shaped gash.

Ok, the video did not show a plane.
But you sure can hear the familiar engine sounds of a large jet liner.
But the things I want to point out here are these:

• Before the noise, there is no alarm, no urgency beyond everyone doing their normal job - indicative of the fact that the WTC ad not yet been hit by anyting: neither plane nor missile
• Seconds after the noises, there is the full plane-shaped gash
• But there was only one noise event!

So if you think a number of missiles combined to cut the plane-shaped hole, you must theorize that they all approached and explosed at essentially the same time, like flying in close formation.

I wonder if that is exsactly what Fonebone theorizes?

[bknight]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I wonder if Fonebone remembers having seen (and heard!) the Dick Oliver tape that captured the first crash?

Dick Oliver was a local news reporter. He was outside NY City Hall, to cover the state primaries that happened to be held that same Tuesday. His cameraman had put the camera on the ground as it was running, not pointed to anything in particular, when a noise is swelling in the background, culminating in a huge "boom" sound, followed by Oliver and his man exclaiming things like "what was that??" and "an airplane", then the camera is picked up, moved by foot a bit, and eventually pointed at the North Tower and its now famous plane-shaped gash.

Ok, the video did not show a plane.
But you sure can hear the familiar engine sounds of a large jet liner.
But the things I want to point out here are these:

• Before the noise, there is no alarm, no urgency beyond everyone doing their normal job - indicative of the fact that the WTC ad not yet been hit by anyting: neither plane nor missile
• Seconds after the noises, there is the full plane-shaped gash
• But there was only one noise event!

So if you think a number of missiles combined to cut the plane-shaped hole, you must theorize that they all approached and explosed at essentially the same time, like flying in close formation.

I wonder if that is exsactly what Fonebone theorizes?

I'm not sure that Fonebone has ever articulated exactly what his beliefs are with the exception of a "no-planer" handle on hm, but other than that no specifics that I can recall. Perhaps someone has run onto him in another thread or platform and have a better description of his beliefs.

[pgimeno]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Just to put the quality of the video in perspective (aside from its being a capture from YouTube and thus not as good as the original) the original tape was of course standard definition video. A favourite saying from back in the days of standard definition TV was that if you had the same visual acuity as the very best professional TV camera of the era, you would be considered seriously visually impaired.

Eyewitnesses had a much more detailed view of the plane than that camera was capable of capturing.

There's even a meme about it.
https://i.imgur.com/r3Z46QX.jpeg

(it's a bit large which is why I'm not posting it inline).

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by pgimeno

There's even a meme about it.
https://i.imgur.com/r3Z46QX.jpeg

(it's a bit large which is why I'm not posting it inline).

Hint: You can make the image size in your post whatever you like regardles of the actual image size

For example, your image is 960w x 924h, but using the Image Width BBCode [IMGW=], I can make it smaller, say 500w

... or 300w

The format is [IMGW=width in pixels]url of image lcoation[/IMGW]