Is this a missile nosecone or an airplane cockpit?

[240 is Back]

[ToxicAvenger]

its a bird...its a plane....nope..just plane ole missile...

and bush WILL get away with it...

[Hedgehog]

I don't know what to make of this?.. From what I recall, I actually saw the second plane fly, live on TV, into World Trade Center.

So what is there to discuss?

I mean, it was a plane. That's what I saw. It came flying into the World Trade Center.

Now, this pic doesn't look like a plane. But it's a caption, and I still remember how that plane came crashing.

Everyone was talking about how another plane had hit the Sears Tower too, but then another plane hit the World Trade Center...

Unclear pics aren't going to change what I saw.

I have no recollection of what happened at the Pentagon, haven't seen many clips from that, but the media had the WTC situation covered very well, at least here in Sweden.

-Hedge

[Cold]

nope. it's a plane. as it went through the building, the front collapsed and rolled into something much thinner, so it comes out looking like a missile head.

[DK II]

nope. it's a plane. as it went through the building, the front collapsed and rolled into something much thinner, so it comes out looking like a missile head.

agreed.

If something shot through a building, it will not look exactly like it did before it entered it.

Another thing is that the video might have been worked on to provide the feeling it was a missile.

I don't believe in this stuff.

[Delusional Liberal]

heres a bunch of clips from different views of the plane hitting wtc2, very CLEAR video.  another nail in the coffin of 9/11 'truthers'

[Delusional Liberal]

&mode=related&search=

lol! funniest video ive seen today...thanks for the link.

[Nordic Superman]

240, are you SERIOUSLY this fucking STUPID?

Now you're not even chosing to believe what YOU see with your OWN EYES.

Fuck me, I seriously think you're a loon. I fear for the future of your offspring.

[Nordic Superman]

I posed the question to initiate some discussion.  don't attack me - attack the argument dude.

Do you believe that is a 757 cockpit jutting out of the site of the WTC tower? 

I don't know, could be a terd from a martian judging off those pictures... look at the state of your images... typical conspiracy theory quality... SHIT!

[Delusional Liberal]

lol!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT THE FUCK??  jesus christ that is the worst quality image i have ever seen in my life, you've convinced me

[Dan-O]

You just reinforced their point, genius.

The very first video on that can be paused to show the missing wing.

There is no missing wing.  The video is very blurry but you can see the dark outline of the left wing.  The right wing is just in the light and the left wing is in shadow.  That engine on the left side isn't just floating in space.

[Delusional Liberal]

You just reinforced their point, genius.

The very first video on that can be paused to show the missing wing.

are you blind?

[Nordic Superman]

Like I said, I have no grounds to say definitively what it is. No one does going off that picture. Anyone that does in an imbecile.

It could be anything, office equipment, it could be a large fat fucker sitting on one of those big office photo copiers copying pics of his arse for all I know.

All that office equipment + explosion = projectiles. Could be anything. Could be a section from the plane. Might not be. I certainly don't think it's some kind of warhead.

I like your new debating tactics btw... now instead of truly saying what you believe e.g. outright saying "I think it is a rocket", your new tactic is to crawl back into your cave: "yeah yeah, I posted it and posed the question to ignite debate! don't attack me, attack the souce!"

[Delusional Liberal]

DanO,

the belief behind that theory - which again, I am not convinced of - is that the engines were, like the wings, projected from some device on the ground, air, or missile itself.  When the chopper (floating with the bright light directly next to it) LOST LINE OF SIGHT with the plane - the moment before it hit - the wing suddenly stops showing on camera.

It's by no means convinving evidence of anything.   I'm just playing devils advocate with an interesting theory here.  

Can someone show me any video angle where that wing is making contact with the building, and IS visible?

I cannot yet find one.

do you think the wing magically dissapeared before it hit the building?

[Nordic Superman]

Hahaha, seriously 240, even contemplating the wing was either never there, or it disappeared or the media was edited to appear as a plane confirms lunacy.

Lighting, angles all can explain this.

[Delusional Liberal]

I think that you didn't read what I wrote.

Can you please show me a camera angle where - as the plane makes contact with the building, the left wing is still visible?

I WANT to be wrong about this missile thing.  I think 1) seeing video showing that wing clearly as it hits and 2) figuing out what comes out of the other side, will do that.


Hey, this missile things is silly.  So just show me that wing and explain how the cockpit emerged unscathed and I'll apologize for being wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc1o8dvsW-4

[Delusional Liberal]

Fair enough.  Find me video from other lighting and angles (should be easy with every camera in the world focused on it!) which show that wing still present as it hits the building.

Nordic, until this morning, I considered this a 0% possibility.  now I'll give it a 2% possibility.

Please, just prove it wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc1o8dvsW-4

[Dan-O]

Watch the video - I zoomed in to show the precise impact marks. 

They are not symmetical, dude.  I don't know how to tell you this.  Three holes, with holes A and C being equidistant from B.

(A)--(b)--(C)

We do not see that.

The only instance where the impact mark would be perfectly symmetrical would be if the plane hit the building at precisely a 90-degree angle.  If it hit the building at more or less than a perfect right angle, then the impact mark wouldn't necessarily be perfectly symmetrical.  For instance, the plane coming in from the right at an angle of between 45 and 75 degrees relative to the face of the building would explain those holes in the side.

[Delusional Liberal]

DL, I just wanna be proven wrong.  Find one frame of one video clip where that left wing is shown upon impact.

look at the first video moron, show me where the wing dissapears into thin air before impact.

[Delusional Liberal]

 



-DL

[Cavalier22]

im not sure why you want so  badly to believe in what your saying, but take a step back.  look at the pictures, look at the videos you posted.  you can barely make out anything in those pics, first of all, and much of what you are saying you see  in them--I don't have the same impression from the stills/video.  Also, did whomever make these vidoes not have the technology to zoom in without making thigns completely blurry and with shapes blending into each other? Or maybe it would ruin their argument.  Additionally, even if these were high quality images, what experience/expertise do you have with missiles hitting buildings or with planes hitting buildings?

[headhuntersix]

This whole argument is ridiculous. How many people saw plane 2 hit live on TV. I know I did. How many people saw it crash live in New York...come on. Besides where was the missle fired. I think a tomahawk launch by a guided missle frigate would be noticed by the crew. U might never have captured it on tape like we saw those big lumbering jets hit the buildings. Most missles are designed  not to penetrate all the way through but to explode and destroy the target. If that was a missle it would have to be big enough to cause the kind of damage neccesary to incite the political fall-out that was the aim of the plotters. U could not mount mock wings on any kind of missle like that and expect it to hit with any degree of certainty. It would throw off the airodynamics of the weapon. If the missle was too small it would cause little damage. If it were me i would not fire any weapon that would could penetrate through the building and possibly come out the other side thus defeating the purpose of the attack. IT WAS A PLANE

[headhuntersix]

First of all u have to prove that it was a missle....where was it fired..what type of missle..whi built it. I could say it was a big silver jelly donut and u would have to say prove it. A missle that size would have blown the building in two unless ur argument is that it was only half filled with explosives, enough to simulate a plane but why take the chance. We don't fire anything that big..atleast conventional. The Eastern block has tons of stuff like that but its still easier to hijack plane then redesign a missle..test it..take the chance of discovery etc. What pokes out..cockpit..looks like it to me..dammaged but a cockpit none the less. Nobody in their right mind will fly the lasing chopper anywhere near that building if it was being targeted for a hit. A guy on a boat could do it. A frogman could also surface and lase it. A guy in a car on the other side of the river would be enough. A guy in a building ajacent could do it.

[headhuntersix]

LMAO... whose fucking side are you on? The killers or America's?  So if we can conclude it was a missile, but cannot name the manufacturer, then the 19 arabs on 757s story stands?  Come on dude, tell me what pokes out the back of the building.


911 wasn't something that - if indeed it was conducted by a rogue cabal in our nation - would use typical anything.  I'm telling you that with 2 months of planning, an unlmited budget, a blank research/dev check, and monster motivation, they could do it.  To deny that much shows you don't understand technology.  Logistically, please tell me you agree it's possible, however random or unlikely, that this weapon could have been developed.

Would a light source on the other side of the river be able to deliver the same required wattage as a chopper 200 feet away with the same accuracy, manueverability, line of sight, and discretion?   It's very possible - if this whole unlikely scenario is true - that a great deal of local light was required.



Please tell me - why is the chopper there, and why does it stay obnoxiously bright before the blast, and after it turns angle from sunlight?

please tell me - Do you seriously believe a 757 cockpit could penetrate a steel/concrete tower and come out the other end slightly damaged, and the feselage would still be completely circular?

Please tell me - why the F can't we see that wing, just as the light source that could be the chopper becomes blocked from line of sight


For the record, HH6, i want to be wrong on this, I absolutely do.  but I saw that video clip (have you watched it? 2 minutes long) and I cannot resolve those 3 points.  Please help me.[/b

I'm on my side...You 240 have to prove it was a missle because we all saw a plane..therefore if this was a court of law u would have to prove missle type, country of origin, firing point etc. Could a huge missle be developed..sure...why. I could buy a silkworm missle and much easier design a launching rank from a ship to fire the missle from right across the harbor and scoot out before the dust settled.  About the cockpit sure. Most missles are not designed as bunker busters and u would not want to risk a full penetration and punch out if u were trying to destroy the building. Dude as far as lasing the buidling..a few batteries will do it. One of my platoon Sgt's killed a T64/65 from 3100 meters. This involves lasing a moving target from a moving tank. The WTC was much eaiser It was be stupidly easy to paint this target and nobody has to see u. The lase is infrared.

[headhuntersix]

I'm disappointed. you didn't watch it.  That chopper is less than 200 feet away, directly parallel, with a very very bright beam emitting, with line of sight coincidentlaly hitting the plane.

U would never ever want to be this obvious and u would not need to. Why go through the trouble of developing a 757 missle mock up and then lase with a chopper a few hundred feet away when u could lase from anywhere..or better yet just GPS it.