• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Same missile?

MaGZ said:
No, but here is footage of one of the missiles that was fired at the same time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49NZWGWNGz8
Click to expand...



Ridiculous. The AIM-9 travels at Mach 2.5, and the AIM-120 at Mach 4. Such a missile caught on a video camera would travel 28.3m or 45.3m in the space of a single frame, generating a single enormous blur and quickly vanishing. For reference the WTC towers are each 63m wide.

This "missile" takes about 21 frames to cross the screen, meaning if it was an AIM-9 it covered almost 600m and if it was an AIM-120 it covered over 950m. Neither of these missiles, at this distance, would be visible (the AIM-120 has a diameter of 7in, the AIM-9 5in).
 
I predict the bigot will ignore Gumboots post which shows his fantasy to be utter junk.

I would also say AIM 9 is mach 2.5 + with a max range about 18km. There were no jets close enough to have fired this missile at this time.

ETA - even if the pilots had shootdown orders (which they did not at that time)
 
Last edited:
funk de fino said:
You are a liar. You have seen something your ignorant mind thinks was a missile. It was not.

Do you know the actual speed of an AtoA missile pal?

Tell me how this guy could have captured this? Then tell me what fired it.
Click to expand...

Jack Taliercio, a local Fox News cameraman was one of the first on the scene after the crash of the first plane. He took footage of the burning WTC 1 building on the east side looking upward. At this time he captured footage of the second plane hitting WTC 2 above him and to the left. A second or two later there is a explosion on his right and he falls with his camera to the left capturing debris flying out of WTC 7 a few stories above ground level.

I saw this footage repeated often in the news after 9/11.
 
MaGZ said:
Jack Taliercio, a local Fox News cameraman was one of the first on the scene after the crash of the first plane. He took footage of the burning WTC 1 building on the east side looking upward. At this time he captured footage of the second plane hitting WTC 2 above him and to the left. A second or two later there is a explosion on his right and he falls with his camera to the left capturing debris flying out of WTC 7 a few stories above ground level.

I saw this footage repeated often in the news after 9/11.
Click to expand...

You do know large parts of the aircraft that hit the buildings flew out of them right?

Debris flying out of WTC7? I do not think so.

Why is the only explanation for an explosion a missile from an aircraft that is not even there?

Think about it mate, you are looking very stupid here
 
gumboot said:
Ridiculous. The AIM-9 travels at Mach 2.5, and the AIM-120 at Mach 4. Such a missile caught on a video camera would travel 28.3m or 45.3m in the space of a single frame, generating a single enormous blur and quickly vanishing. For reference the WTC towers are each 63m wide.

This "missile" takes about 21 frames to cross the screen, meaning if it was an AIM-9 it covered almost 600m and if it was an AIM-120 it covered over 950m. Neither of these missiles, at this distance, would be visible (the AIM-120 has a diameter of 7in, the AIM-9 5in).
Click to expand...


The film was made to run slower. Did you consider this?
In real time, perhaps you are correct and would not have caught the eye.
 
MaGZ said:
Jack Taliercio, a local Fox News cameraman was one of the first on the scene after the crash of the first plane. He took footage of the burning WTC 1 building on the east side looking upward. At this time he captured footage of the second plane hitting WTC 2 above him and to the left. A second or two later there is a explosion on his right and he falls with his camera to the left capturing debris flying out of WTC 7 a few stories above ground level.

I saw this footage repeated often in the news after 9/11.
Click to expand...

Where was this reporter in this picture and would he have seen the parts flying from the building towards the WTC7 complex and how could he see the first few floors of WTC7?

His camera would not have captured an AtoA missile at full speed and there was no aircraft in the area to fire it. Stop being foolish.



 
MaGZ said:
No, but here is footage of one of the missiles that was fired at the same time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49NZWGWNGz8
Click to expand...

There's something wrong with the appearance of the missile visible in this clip. It clearly has two sets of fins, one near the warhead and another at the tail, suggesting it should be an AIM-9 Sidewinder; however, all the fins are triangular in shape, which suggests an AIM-120 or possibly an AIM-7. I can't quite make out the lettering, but the labelling appears to have too few characters to read AIM-120. It looks to me like someone found some old footage of an AIM-7, which was long obsolete by 9-11, realised the lettering was a giveaway, then cropped it to make it look like an AIM-9 hoping that the text would be illegible. Therefore, I call video fakery.

Dave
 
Last edited:
funk de fino said:
You do know large parts of the aircraft that hit the buildings flew out of them right?

Debris flying out of WTC7? I do not think so.

Why is the only explanation for an explosion a missile from an aircraft that is not even there?

Think about it mate, you are looking very stupid here
Click to expand...

You failed to read my post.

I said a second or two later there was an explosion at WTC 7. At this time the second plane and it pieces were still contained in the explosion above him in WTC 2.

From my memory of the footage the debries flew out WTC 7 coming form an explosion; it was not parts of the plane bouncing off WTC 7.
 
funk de fino said:
Where was this reporter in this picture and would he have seen the parts flying from the building towards the WTC7 complex and how could he see the first few floors of WTC7?

His camera would not have captured an AtoA missile at full speed and there was no aircraft in the area to fire it. Stop being foolish.



[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1824448749e0cddde8.jpg[/URL]
Click to expand...

The reporter was in the plaza of the WTC at the base of WTC 1 on the east side of WTC 1 at 9:03.

WTC 2 was to his left and he captured footage of WTC 1 burning directly above him and the explosion of the second plane on his left in WTC 2.
 
Dave Rogers said:
There's something wrong with the appearance of the missile visible in this clip. It clearly has two sets of fins, one near the warhead and another at the tail, suggesting it should be an AIM-9 Sidewinder; however, all the fins are triangular in shape, which suggests an AIM-120 or possibly an AIM-7. I can't quite make out the lettering, but the labelling appears to have too few characters to read AIM-120. It looks to me like someone found some old footage of an AIM-7, which was long obsolete by 9-11, realised the lettering was a giveaway, then cropped it to make it look like an AIM-9 hoping that the text would be illegible. Therefore, I call video fakery.

Dave
Click to expand...

Your mockery does nothing to address the question you have as to what the streaking image in the film is. You do have the critical skills to address this, but you fail to do so unless you really think this is some type of fakery.

For you, it appears this is a bit of evidence you can not handle so you resort to mockery.
 
funk de fino said:
You are a racist and religious bigot. The evidence is on this forum. It is only rude to call you names if it is not true or it is a blatant personal attack. If the mods feel I am being unfair then they can warn me.

I note again you refuse to address the facts I brought?

PS slowing down a film does not change the amount of frames mate.
Click to expand...

What facts of yours have not been addressed?
 
MaGZ said:
You failed to read my post.

I said a second or two later there was an explosion at WTC 7. At this time the second plane and it pieces were still contained in the explosion above him in WTC 2.

From my memory of the footage the debries flew out WTC 7 coming form an explosion; it was not parts of the plane bouncing off WTC 7.
Click to expand...

I never failed to read it.

He experiences the second plane hit the tower and a few seconds later he hears an explosions to his right. This is the parts from the second plane which have escaped the tower and fall to earth. The track for them is in the picture I provided.

Which floor of the WTC7 and how could this not have been aircraft debri?

I suggest you provide the clip?
 
MaGZ said:
What facts of yours have not been addressed?
Click to expand...

The speed of an AIM9, the range of an AIM9 the fact there were no aircraft in range with shootdown orders.

Also the amount of frames in a film does not change if you slow down.

Those inconvenient ones.

Dave R was not mocking and brought a perfectly reasonable assessment to the table and you hand wave??

You are done here, your story is junk. Pure and utter lunacy
 
MaGZ said:
Your mockery does nothing to address the question you have as to what the streaking image in the film is. You do have the critical skills to address this, but you fail to do so unless you really think this is some type of fakery.

For you, it appears this is a bit of evidence you can not handle so you resort to mockery.
Click to expand...

Mockery, in this case, is fully warranted. You've claimed that a vague blur on a video is a missile. When presented by Gumboot with clear proof that it can't be, you ask a facile question which shows that you hadn't taken the trouble to understand his analysis. Personally, I don't much care what the streaking image in the film is - I suspect it's a bird too close to the camera to be focused, but I'm sure there are other innocent explanations - because it's perfectly clear it isn't an air-launched missile.

Dave
 
This missile delusion reminds me of freedomlover911's "Laser Painting "UAV" Drone Attack on WTC 9/11" that was easily debunked.

Includes home videos of UAVs and missiles!

 
MaGZ said:
In the Fox footage, I saw the missile hit in the area of the 14th floor of WTC 7. What was caught on camera as the cameraman fell was not smoke from the impact but instead debris shooting away from the building at an incredible speed. It appeared as if steel beams were flying thru the air. Other than that, I have no idea what type of missile it was.

I should add that at the time–when I first saw the footage a few days after 9/11–I really did not make the connection of the blast being a missile impact. Later on with the Drudge link of the missile was I able to make the connection.

I think the ambiguity of the footage is the reason it was not censored in the early days after 9/11.
Click to expand...

I watched fox for days after 9-11.
Never even thought I saw what you claim you did.
Perhaps fewer bong hits might help!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom