Sinister Air Force General: Say there, Airman Bob.
Airman Bob: Sir?
SAFG: Listen son, you’ve been a good and loyal asset.
AB: Sir?
SAFG: You’ve been reccomended to me from your immediate NCO all the way up the chain.
AB: Thank you sir! I apprecia…
SAFG: So we have a job for you.
AB: Proud to help sir!
SAFG: We want you to kill a few thousand of your countrymen.
AB: SAY WHAT!?
SAFB: And destroy a couple of American icons in the process.
AB: Sir, with all due respect, are you on drugs?!
SAFB: And bring this fine nation to a state of undeniable fear.
AB: OK, definately drugs. I’m guessing crank.
SAFB: But’s it for your country son. Don’t you love your country?
AB: Sir, I love my country sir!
SAFB: So you’ll help up out by killing thousands of them!
AB: What FOR sir?
SAFB: Oh, you know. Stuff. Help George Bush’s approval rating, maybe get to invade Afgantisan. We might get a pipeline or something. Not really sure what, but we’ve got to destroy the Twin Towers to do it. No other way.
AB: Destroy the…Sir, this is the stupidest idea ever.
SAFB: Nonsesnse! No one will ever suspect the president of killing his own people in a fake terrorist act.
AB: Fake terroris…Sir what are you planning to do?
SAFB: Simple! Piece of cake! We simply take a couple of commercial airplanes, seize control of them, murder or hide the passengers, replace them with military aircraft with special rockets on the front. Then we fly those planes into the World Trade Center! Towers go boom! People die. And we of the conspriacy get…something. Genius!
AB: Doens’t sound very…
SAFB: OF course, we need to hope nobody in NYC has a video camera.
AB: But…
SAFB: And we’re hoping Osama Bin Laden will take credit for it.
AB: Errr…
SAFB: No, here’s where you come in, son. You’re going to fly one of the planes into the tower!
AB: Sir, I’m going to have to kill you now.
**blowero ** we neeed to step back for a moment and go back over basic science before we go any further because I really think you are lacking in that understanding. Actual science works on building up testable hypotheses and building evidence for or against that hypothesis in steps. There are very few things in science that are ever considered “laws” or proven. That is why there is the “theory” of evolution even though we have massive amounts of evidence supporting it. Likewise, we still have the “theory” of relativity even though some parts of that theory are completely necessary to make GPS systems work at all. Conspiracy theorists are immune to these tests and conditions because they just make things up and modify the theory whenever the evidence builds against whatever they postulated before. You need to stop giving people the :rolloyes: and start to take a look at your own understanding of the way that science works.
You only needed a few pieces of evidence to debunk this one:
- Planes took off from Logan with passengers and never returned (I even knew some of them through friends).
- Air traffic control tracked these planes all the way to the World Trade Centers
- Commercial airlines have no means to be fitted with missiles.
That is it. You don’t need anymore.
You say that you don’t believe this one but your thought processes suggest that you are unusually open to this kind of thing and that is rather odd for SDMB member.
Emphasis mine.
Sure it would, wouldn’t it? I mean, If I take a mirror, and shine a reflection onto a dark wall, the light on the wall will be visible from any angle. The focused light coming off the reflected surface may not be visible from every angle, but the light on the wall certainly will be. Right? What am I missing here?
That’s just a gigantic non-sequitur.
Well why exactly is it any skin off your nose if I want to discuss the flashes of light and try to figure out what really caused them? If you don’t want to play, that’s fine, but why do you feel compelled to piss all over my thread?
Maybe you don’t care about the flashes of light, but I’m interested in it, if for no other reason than to find out why planes make big flashes of light when they hit buildings. If you’re not interested, then please just ignore the thread.
I already told you that I don’t believe the conspiracy theory; I’m just interested in discussing the real explanation for the flashes. By refusing to accept my explanation, I can only assume you are deliberately trying to bait me, which is not cool.
You may be confused about something. I offered the details of the conspiracy theory not because I believe them, but because I wanted people to understand what they are debunking. For example, saying “there’s no way a terrorist could strap a missile on a commercial airliner” doesn’t disprove the theory if the theory isn’t contending that that was done. I mean, I could say “No way could the terrorists build a laser cannon capable of taking down an airplane”, but it’s irrelevant if noone is claiming such a thing. There are some really good counter-arguments as to why it’s preposterours to claim that military aircraft were used, but “there’s no way a terrorist could strap a missile on a commercial airliner” doesn’t address the argument. So that’s why I’ve included some of the details of the theory, so that people can understand what they’re arguing against. Does that make sense now? It’s not that I believe the theory, it’s that you have to understand what they’re claiming in order to disprove it.
So, as NattoGuy suggested, let’s please forget about the missile now. I consider that debunked. If anyone has any more input as to the flashes, I’d be interested. If you’re just here to rag on people, please go away.
I don’t think you’re missing anything. I think that’s a good point.
I wasn’t ragging on you. The way your OP reads, it sounds exactly like you want us to debunk a missle hitting a World Trade Center tower just before the plane hits to ignite the fuel. You didn’t make it clear that you wanted to understand the physics of a flash of light upon impact disregarding a missle strike. If you wanted only that done, you could have phrased your question much differently and saved people a lot of time.
I thought it was relatively clear that I was asking for a good explanation of the flashes of light. Did you read the whole post, or just the thread title?
I read the entire thread thank you very much. Go back through the entire thread again including the first few and count how many people thought you were asking about missles. A misreading by the majority of posters probably isn’t just by chance now is it?
This is what I wrote; maybe some bolding will help:
Seems clear to me. Apparently you disagree. I’m not interested in bickering over it.
Actually, there are two reasons the “focusing the sun’s rays on the building” idea can’t be right:
-
The tapered front end of the plane is convex, not concave, so would disperse any light instead of focusing it, and
-
The front of the plane was clearly in the building’s shadow at that moment.
I also can’t buy the electrical wires idea - there’s not that much power in the plane’s cockpit. I still think it has to be a kinetic energy fireball, like when Shoemaker-Levy slammed into Jupiter, but on a slightly smaler scale.
Maybe a red herring…but what level of static charge does a plane acquire during flight?
If a missile was fired from the wing, why would it hit the tower at the nose of the plane?
If a missile was fired from the wing, why wasn’t its launch detected? Why just the impact?
Who cares what caused the flash, blowero? It’s obvious that the conspiracy theory is so full of holes it makes Sonny Corleone look intact.
I don’t know why you’re getting so hostile at people feeding you common sense. It sure doesn’t seem like you don’t believe the conspiracy to me. But then, maybe I’m in on it.
I’m interested in what caused the flash, too. And it’s nothing to do with conspiracy-debunking, it’s just curiosity. Is that such a bad thing?
You’re the one who sounds hostile. We’re just trying to discuss a rather interesting phenomemon. I don’t know why you can’t just let us be. Do you make it a habit of jumping into people’s GQ threads and saying “who cares?” That’s hardly constructive.
No, it’s not chance, it’s just the low-hanging fruit theory. Apparently a lot of people couldn’t resist the temptation to knock the missile theory out of the park, so to speak. Satisfied with that coup, they’re content to give shallow treatment to explaining where the flashes of light actually did come from.
Just a guess here, but at those impact speeds both the aircraft structure and the building wall are going to disinitegrate into small pieces, so the flash could be light reflecting off the cloud of metal and glass shards exploding away from the impact site.
The bottom line is the 176 cannot travel at 530mph at sea level only does this speed @ altitude of 35,000ft were there is 3 times less wind resistance fact. Planes were projected illusions of some kind.And anyone who doesn’t except buildings were brought down ������with demolition explosives������ is truly brainwashed ������
We need a zombie emoji. We need it NOW.
Nonsense. Further, George Bush is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.
While Boeing may recommend slower speeds, the top speed of a 767 is 0.86 times the speed of sound at that altitude. Any faster than that and you risk structural failure.
The speed of sound at sea level is about 761 mph (it varies a bit depending on atmospheric conditions). This puts the top speed of a 767 at around 654 mph.
So a Boeing 767 can easily fly at sea level at 530 mph with absolutely no risk of structural failure.
The 767’s engines are also more than capable of pushing it to those speeds at that altitude.
Your idea of projected illusions is just silly. How on earth would you “project” an airplane?
You’re going to find that spouting this kind of nonsense on this board isn’t going to be very well received. We prefer to deal with factual information in this forum, and there’s nothing factual in your post.