Same missile?

[Alt+F4]

Where are the critical thinkers?

Not with a neo-Nazi trying to use 9/11 to promote his/her agenda.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Obviously the object could not be a bird since it was moving too fast.

Evidence?

To the best of my knowledge one helicopter was northwest and another one was southwest of the WTC complex.

Evidence?


(And they said this debunking would take research and effort. You're spoiling the newbies, MaGZ)

 

[PhantomWolf]

None of you seem to be very analytical. Obviously the object could not be a bird since it was moving too fast. But these little details don’t seem to bother anyone here.

And you of course realise that the time taken for an object to pass through the angle subtended by the lens of the camera is not just related to velocity, but also distance from the camera?

ie. a bee flying past the camera 100 mm in front of the lens will appear to travel faster then a super sonic jet aircraft 10 km away.

 

[rwguinn]

None of you seem to be very analytical. Obviously the object could not be a bird since it was moving too fast. But these little details don’t seem to bother anyone here.

Also, no helicopter flew over the plaza at the time of the second impact. To the best of my knowledge one helicopter was northwest and another one was southwest of the WTC complex.

Where are the critical thinkers?

Moving things close to the camera move across the field of view faster than things farther away. This is because the field of view is a cone, with the lens at the vertex. You can use trigonometry to prove this to yourself. If you had an inkling of what trigonometry actually is.
On nice, sunny days outdoors, things close enough to a camera lens will be out of focus if the lens is focused on a distant object. This is referred to as the "depth of field", and is dependent on the iris size (f-stop)

ETA oops- I see that wolfie beat me to it by a couple of minutes...

 

[Myriad]

Where are the critical thinkers?

Most people here are critical thinkers.

What you're really asking is, where are the critically thoughtful replies to your ideas?

Being among critical thinkers doesn't guarantee you critically thoughtful replies, any more than being at a motorcycle customizers' convention means that people will be handing you free customized motorcycles. Critically thoughtful replies have to be earned.

Not that that's very hard to do. All you have to do is present your ideas and the evidence for them in a straightforward honest way, and then honestly and logically address whatever criticism those ideas receive. If there is more criticism than you can address individually, focus on the points that appear to be most damaging to your claims. If you do the opposite, and respond only to the least effective arguments (such as, only to someone who's arguments contain obvious errors) or to trivial matters (such as spelling mistakes or whether or not someone's tone is disrespectful) then you will fail to earn any further critically thoughtful replies. If you respond but without logic or honesty, such as by questioning the critic's political motives instead of addressing their substantive points, you will fail to earn any further critically thoughtful replies.

Eventually, if you continue to not earn critically thoughtful replies, you will not only get no critically thoughtful replies, it will become completely impossible for you to ever earn them in the future. Like trying to get a mortgage with a very bad credit rating. This post, in fact, might be your very last chance. Think of me as the high-risk lender of critically thoughtful replies, willing to give even people who have multiple intellectual bankruptcies on their credit reports a small line of critical credit, just to see if they can do better in the future.

So, here's my critically thoughtful reply, unearned by you but given on spec. You claim that the objects cannot be birds because they are moving too fast. What is your procedure for measuring how fast they're moving? Clearly this measurement must involve determining the distance of the object. How have you done this? What speed for each object does your measurement procedure indicate?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Yaters]

None of you seem to be very analytical. Obviously the object could not be a bird since it was moving too fast. But these little details don’t seem to bother anyone here.

Also, no helicopter flew over the plaza at the time of the second impact. To the best of my knowledge one helicopter was northwest and another one was southwest of the WTC complex.

Where are the critical thinkers?

No, those little details don't. Yet, the GIANT details of the airplanes striking the buildings means nothing to you, so I guess we have a stalemate?

 

[Belz...]

None of you seem to be very analytical.

That's because your claim is nonsensical.

 

[MaGZ]

Most people here are critical thinkers.

What you're really asking is, where are the critically thoughtful replies to your ideas?

Being among critical thinkers doesn't guarantee you critically thoughtful replies, any more than being at a motorcycle customizers' convention means that people will be handing you free customized motorcycles. Critically thoughtful replies have to be earned.

Not that that's very hard to do. All you have to do is present your ideas and the evidence for them in a straightforward honest way, and then honestly and logically address whatever criticism those ideas receive. If there is more criticism than you can address individually, focus on the points that appear to be most damaging to your claims. If you do the opposite, and respond only to the least effective arguments (such as, only to someone who's arguments contain obvious errors) or to trivial matters (such as spelling mistakes or whether or not someone's tone is disrespectful) then you will fail to earn any further critically thoughtful replies. If you respond but without logic or honesty, such as by questioning the critic's political motives instead of addressing their substantive points, you will fail to earn any further critically thoughtful replies.

Eventually, if you continue to not earn critically thoughtful replies, you will not only get no critically thoughtful replies, it will become completely impossible for you to ever earn them in the future. Like trying to get a mortgage with a very bad credit rating. This post, in fact, might be your very last chance. Think of me as the high-risk lender of critically thoughtful replies, willing to give even people who have multiple intellectual bankruptcies on their credit reports a small line of critical credit, just to see if they can do better in the future.

So, here's my critically thoughtful reply, unearned by you but given on spec. You claim that the objects cannot be birds because they are moving too fast. What is your procedure for measuring how fast they're moving? Clearly this measurement must involve determining the distance of the object. How have you done this? What speed for each object does your measurement procedure indicate?

Respectfully,
Myriad

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.

 

[bonavada]

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.

you have now had several cogent replies above as to why the objects discussed were not so "obviously missiles" ergo the objects you insist were "going to fast" (to be perhaps a bird or a helicopter) may in fact be those much more mundane objects. do you now accept the possibility that you may be wrong?

BV

 

[NeoRicen]

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.

Wow dude, you're the one claiming it's a Missile!

 

[MaGZ]

you have now had several cogent replies above as to why the objects discussed were not so "obviously missiles" ergo the objects you insist were "going to fast" (to be perhaps a bird or a helicopter) may in fact be those much more mundane objects. do you now accept the possibility that you may be wrong?

BV

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.

 

[Unfit4Command]

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.

Ok, so after a massive explosion from an airliner impact, you think the best explaination for the object flying by is that it's a missile? Not a bird or anything else, but...a stray missile that was fired from a NORAD jet. How many missiles were fired again? 3? 4? I'm starting to lose count.

 

[MaGZ]

Ok, so after a massive explosion from an airliner impact, you think the best explaination for the object flying by is that it's a missile? Not a bird or anything else, but...a stray missile that was fired from a NORAD jet. How many missiles were fired again? 3? 4? I'm starting to lose count.

By my count now, two. The one that hit WTC 7 and this stray in the video.

 

[NeoRicen]

By my count now, two. The one that hit WTC 7 and this stray in the video.

Gee, what a wonderfully well planned conspiracy, just fire a stray missle off into nowhere for everyone to see.

How do you take yourself seriously?

 

[bonavada]

Yes, I accept the possibility I may be wrong

without being patronising that's quite laudable of you.

as I see it a missile is the best explanation for the objects on the videos

perhaps then, you could expand on why it's "the best explanation"?
i myself would find this explanation far from satisfactory. for instance, i would be quite bothered by the lack of eye-witness accounts of missiles. there were many thousands of people present on that day. also many had photographic equipment. none (as far as i know) managed to film incontrovertible footage of these "missiles" why is that?

BV

 

[MaGZ]

without being patronising that's quite laudable of you.



perhaps then, you could expand on why it's "the best explanation"?
i myself would find this explanation far from satisfactory. for instance, i would be quite bothered by the lack of eye-witness accounts of missiles. there were many thousands of people present on that day. also many had photographic equipment. none (as far as i know) managed to film incontrovertible footage of these "missiles" why is that?

BV

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

 

[Gravy]

I've reported this thread to the mods and asked if they will advise MaGz to argue his missile case in one of the other five threads about the subject that he started and abandoned.

 

[CurtC]

MaGZ, if something flies across the field of view of a video camera, you know how long it takes to get across the frame, but you don't know how far away it is, and therefore you don't know how fast it's going. If the object is close to the camera, it will be going much much more slowly than if it's far away. Does that make sense?

For the objects in the videos, it could be something a few feet away, going approximately the speed of a flying Rock Pigeon, the most common birds in cities, or if it's as far away as the towers, maybe it's some kind of missile, or if it's in the sky beyond the towers, it could be an alien flying saucer going at hypersonic speeds.

A couple of years ago, someone brought your second video to this forum, claiming that it was an alien spaceship going incredibly fast. Someone here (Blue Monk maybe?) cropped just that object out of each frame of the video and put them together into an animated image. You could make out flapping wings.

Now what do you think is more likely? An extremely common bird flying by, a UFO, or a missile? If you still think it's a missile, you need to provide the evidence.

 

[MaGZ]

MaGZ, if something flies across the field of view of a video camera, you know how long it takes to get across the frame, but you don't know how far away it is, and therefore you don't know how fast it's going. If the object is close to the camera, it will be going much much more slowly than if it's far away. Does that make sense?

For the objects in the videos, it could be something a few feet away, going approximately the speed of a flying Rock Pigeon, the most common birds in cities, or if it's as far away as the towers, maybe it's some kind of missile, or if it's in the sky beyond the towers, it could be an alien flying saucer going at hypersonic speeds.

A couple of years ago, someone brought your second video to this forum, claiming that it was an alien spaceship going incredibly fast. Someone here (Blue Monk maybe?) cropped just that object out of each frame of the video and put them together into an animated image. You could make out flapping wings.

Now what do you think is more likely? An extremely common bird flying by, a UFO, or a missile? If you still think it's a missile, you need to provide the evidence.

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.

 

[MaGZ]

I've reported this thread to the mods and asked if they will advise MaGz to argue his missile case in one of the other five threads about the subject that he started and abandoned.

Thank you for your service to humanity.