Otis F-15 filmed at Ground Zero

[MaGZ]

Youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAm3dMeosHU

This video shows one of the Otis fighters which appears on the left of the screen in pursuit of Flight 175 as it crashes into WTC 2. Set the video to large screen and do a slow-motion on the video and you will see the fighter fly east to west behind WTC 2.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/

[mortimer]

I think it's pretty obvious that what we are seeing is not an F-15 but a UFO. The title of the video even says so!

[defaultdotxbe]

your "f-15" is in fact a zeta reticulan scout docking with the mothership before returning to earth orbit

[Checkmite]

A Bird? A Paranormal Bird?

[mailman]

How the f*** can you tell if that is an F15?

Dont worry magz, I wont be holding my breath waiting for an answer :D

Mailman

[Mr. Skinny]

I think it's a paranormal hat shaped object.

Evidences please

[Disinfo Agent]

No he is right, that is an F-15 with a cloaking device that can only be seen from a particular angle (that's why we do not see it on other footage). Conspiracy revealed.

[NickUK]

Youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAm3dMeosHU

This video shows one of the Otis fighters which appears on the left of the screen in pursuit of Flight 175 as it crashes into WTC 2. Set the video to large screen and do a slow-motion on the video and you will see the fighter fly east to west behind WTC 2.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/

You're just not going to give up on this, are you? :)

[ReligionStudent]

Its one of Xenu's warships, its FLS drivers were broken, so it is only arriving now with the thetans.

[Slayhamlet]

The video quality is horrible. There's no way you can tell what that is. Do you have any higher resolution versions of this clip MaGZ (i.e. not Youtube)?

[Slayhamlet]

You're just not going to give up on this, are you? :)

I love your avatar! Just noticed it now. :D

[pomeroo]

I can't believe that I actually watched this video exactly ten times looking for an imaginary fighter jet. I feel so used!

Who is the bigger fool--the hopeless loon who posted this nonsense or the self-styled rationalist who actually wasted time examining it?

[sleahead]

When I try to view this video on large screen, the image is cropped so that you cant see the right hand side. Check this video at the 23:00 minute mark on large screen and see why the troofer Youtube is cropped.

http://www.veotag.com/player/?tid=a46d141d-e658-4d88-bf18-619f64f9a3a8&pid=d2528d8d-42de-461d-bf2a-9cc89a0b6873

[jaydeehess]

Hmm, a F-15 that appears to flap its wings as it gets to the right side of the image.

An F-15 that is "in pursuit of Flight 175" by flying towards it.

[Horatius]

This totally disproves your missle theory.

Because whatever it is, is sure a heck didn't fire any missles.

QED.

[Gaspode]

I agree it does look like a bird. And although it appears the object is passing behind WTC2 it could just as easily be in front. The video quality makes it impossible to tell.

[beachnut]

No F-15, no missile, no facts. OUT (neoNAZI info found to be in error)

[Blue Monk]

Sheesh!

There's about a zillion videos of this event from every conceivable angle. If there is an F-15 chasing this plane then it should be visible in other videos.

If you go to my site a www.inlex.net/bluemonk/nonsense/ you can see a good sampling. Though the site was targeting another ridiculous claim the result should be the same.

Check the 'other angles' links and there should be enough different views of this event there to satisfy any sane person that there is no F-15 anywhere near the event.

[CptColumbo]

I can't believe that I actually watched this video exactly ten times looking for an imaginary fighter jet. I feel so used!

Who is the bigger fool--the hopeless loon who posted this nonsense or the self-styled rationalist who actually wasted time examining it?

"Whose the more foolish the fool, or the fool who follows him?"
--Obi-Wan Kenobi

"You know the old saying 'fool me once strike one, fool me twice strike three.'"
--Michael Scott

"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...not gonna fool me again."
--Pres. George W. Bush or words to that effect

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This totally disproves your missle theory.

Because whatever it is, is sure a heck didn't fire any missles.

And it's flying in the wrong direction...

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Something is flying there. Period. I have seen people denying theories, but denying facts?? come on!!

That said, of course its impossible to know, by seeing the video, what was that. Its safe to call it an UFO, without any other info (US AIRFORCE maybe CLASSIFIED INFO ANYONE?).

I guess its plausible that its indeed an F-15 or similar aircraft. Either that or a bird. After all, of course the Air Force noticed the comercial flights being out of course. Why not sending a patrol to look what was going on?

Now, for the fanaticals in the forum, NOTICE THAT IM NOT SUPPORTING ANY CONSPIRACY THEORY. NOT A SINGLE ONE, just trying to explain to myself what is that thing.

[Anti-sophist]

I'm interested, as well, to know how you know it's an F-15. Have you ruled out F-18 or F-16? I'd love to know how!

[pomeroo]

I'm sad to report that I watched the video another six times, without seeing anything that could be identified as a fighter jet, or, indeed, as any kind of aircraft.

It has been objected that the fighter/bird allegedly following the commercial airliner is, in fact, headed toward it. A snatch of dialogue from Woody Allen's first film, What's New, Pussycat?, clears up the mystery:

(The inveterate womanizer Michael James, played by Peter O'Toole, encounters his psychoanalyst Fritz Wolfgang Sigismund Fassbender, played by Peter Sellers, in a strip club, and asks him what he's doing there.)

Fassbender: "I followed you here."

James: "But if you followed me, how did you contrive to arrive here first?

Fassbender: I followed you...very fast."

[ConspiRaider]

I watched this astounding video noomerus times and have concluded:

The object in the sky appearing from the left was, in fact, stationary.

The island of Manhattan did, in fact, move towards it. Relative motion, based on the observer's point of view.

[Thunder]

MaGz- once again, you have no evidence. You see an object moving across the sky. With no evidence, you decide that it is an F-16 from Otis Air Force Base. I say that it is not an F-16, but a SR-71 Blackbird. What evidence do I haven to back that up? The same as yours.....none.

[Unfit4Command]

Looks like a UFO to me.

[rwguinn]

Looks like a UFO to me.
Now just a cotton-pickin minute! IF you know what it looks like, it can't be Unidentified, no, can it!:D:D:D

[gumboot]

Where's his wingman?

-Gumboot

[David Wong]

Okay... this video HAS to have been doctored. If not... I think I may seriously have to rethink my position.

As for the model of airpline, I agree that it's an F-15 but from my analysis and from looking at the markings on the wings, I believe this is the special F-15I Ra'am that was sold to the Israeli Air Force. My pics are below.

Still from video. You can't really make out the type of plane but you can clearly see it's a fighter:

http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/f15-1.jpg

Zoomed in. The familiar F15 shape takes form:

http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/f15-2.jpg

Zoomed way in. The payload on the wings is plainly visible, along with some hint of markings on the wings. You'll notice the symbol of the winged Zionist setting the world aflame in order to steal its gold; this is the symbol of the Israeli Air Force:

http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/f15-3.jpg

Zoomed further, with contrast turned way up to define details. If you look closely at the cockpit you can see the pilot is a man in his early 30's, bearded, with the rank of Colonel on his shoulder. Does anybody have access to a database of Israeli pilots, so that we can pin down this man's identity?

http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/f15-4.jpg

[Pipirr]

So the little flying thing on the left launched the big plane shaped thing that flew in from the right?

[qarnos]

I'm interested, as well, to know how you know it's an F-15. Have you ruled out F-18 or F-16? I'd love to know how!

In addition, how does it lend any weight to any conspiracy theory? It could be a bird. It could be a plane. It could be superman!

But... So what?!?!?!

[qarnos]

Something is flying there. Period. I have seen people denying theories, but denying facts?? come on!!

I don't think anybody is denying something flies across the screen. They are questioning how the OP knows it's an F-15 and what the heck it has to do with anything, anyway!

Your rant has me truly baffled. :confused:

[pomeroo]

You know, David, the eyes can play tricks. Until you pointed out what I was missing, I felt that the whole video was just more twoofer madness. It is clear now--as if anyone could have ever entertained any doubts--that it was, unquestionably, DA JOOS!!! Specifically, Joos in U.S. airspace.

[defaultdotxbe]

Zoomed further, with contrast turned way up to define details. If you look closely at the cockpit you can see the pilot is a man in his early 30's, bearded, with the rank of Colonel on his shoulder.
clearly this video has been doctored, as an air force pilot would not have a beard since it would provent his oxygen mask from getting a good seal

also, he seems to have a peice of fod stuck to his face, and if you zoom in even more it is clearly pork

[ReligionStudent]

Ok, this is my first time pretty much watching the videos since 2001, I am now sure it was a government conspiracy.

[ReligionStudent]

Ok, this is my first time pretty much watching the videos since 2001, I am now sure it was a government conspiracy.

Wait, I forgot the word "not".

It was not a conspiracy. I should have also said that people that think it is are nuts.

[ConspiRaider]

Good one, David Wong. Very very good detective work indeed.

I noticed on the comm scope of the Israeli pilot's evil jet that his IFF identified L. Silverstein as "friend". Hmm. Wonder what they were talking about?

I realize you didn't point this out because it is so obvious but in case anyone missed it: One can clearly see the braided-steel tow line stretching out the back of the F-15 and attached to the roof of... or the penthouse of... (does NIST have this for their current investigation?)...

[westprog]

Wait, I forgot the word "not".

It was not a conspiracy. I should have also said that people that think it is are nuts.

They got to you, eh?

[peteweaver]

Youtube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAm3dMeosHU

This video shows one of the Otis fighters which appears on the left of the screen in pursuit of Flight 175 as it crashes into WTC 2. Set the video to large screen and do a slow-motion on the video and you will see the fighter fly east to west behind WTC 2.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/

Is it a bird is it a plane ? No its a jpeg artifact. This is most likely caused by file compression.

Another mystery solved.

I should have named my account Hercule Poirot.

[MRC_Hans]

Mmmm, wasn't there a helicopter circling the WTC at the time? I seem to remember some of the shots of the second impact were taken from a helicopter. That would also fit the speed better (since I very much doubt that a fighter in pursuit of a hijacked plane would fly slower than it's target)

Hans

[Belz...]

This video shows one of the Otis fighters which appears on the left of the screen in pursuit of Flight 175 as it crashes into WTC 2.

I stand amazed, still, at the twoofer's ability to see crystal clear things in blurry videos when no one else can. Concrete, pulverised steel, missiles, fires, death beams and "cylindrical" holes, and now F-15.

And it's all so "obvious" to them.

[pgwenthold]

I stand amazed, still, at the twoofer's ability to see crystal clear things in blurry videos when no one else can. Concrete, pulverised steel, missiles, fires, death beams and "cylindrical" holes, and now F-15.

And it's all so "obvious" to them.



You should read the book "Best Evidence" by JFK CT David Lifton. He takes this to extreme, playing Rorschach with super closeups of Dealey Plaza pics.

"And here we can see a crouching man in a navy pin-striped suit wearing a yellow beanie smoking a cigarette (see the second hand smoke) shooting what looks to be a Tommy-gun. The Tommy-gun is blurred, presumably due to it firing rounds faster than the shutter speed of the camera. He is wearing brown Bruno-Martin shoes, and if you compare the size of the shoe to his height, they look to be size 10 1/2."

Meanwhile, all I could see was a black splotch in a black and white pic.

[Tirdun]

Zoomed further, with contrast turned way up to define details. If you look closely at the cockpit you can see the pilot is a man in his early 30's, bearded, with the rank of Colonel on his shoulder. Does anybody have access to a database of Israeli pilots, so that we can pin down this man's identity?

I stand convinced by your unshakable proof. Well done, sir. :salute:

[Pardalis]

http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/f15-4.jpg

Oh my god! A big flying blob! :eek:

[gumboot]

Oh my god! A big flying blob! :eek:


Clear evidence that 9/11 was actually a fiendish plot executed by the traitorous blob-people!

To WAR!!!

-Gumboot

[pgwenthold]

Zoomed further, with contrast turned way up to define details. If you look closely at the cockpit you can see the pilot is a man in his early 30's, bearded, with the rank of Colonel on his shoulder. Does anybody have access to a database of Israeli pilots, so that we can pin down this man's identity?


Be careful. If you look closely, you can see it's a fake beard. You can see an elastic strap going around the guy's head.

[NickUK]

Well, using my CSI type image enhancement thingy, I have been able to further clear up David's image thus:-

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/110194639db5b33fe3.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/110194639db5b64d21.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/110194639db5b92b77.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/110194639db73d1dd9.jpg

[Pardalis]

Be careful. If you look closely, you can see it's a fake beard. You can see an elastic strap going around the guy's head.

You mean the pilot is a Native American? We all know Native Americans can't grow large beards, and Mohawks worked on the construction of the Twin Towers...

This conspiracy knows no end! :boxedin:

[Hammer_of_Thor]

I cant believe that you cant see the f-15. The thing is that you say it is a bird. Well "bird" is another name for an airplane. See you people are part of the conspiracy. You are using cryptic words to try and get the truth out.

[Vincent Vega]

Okay... this video HAS to have been doctored. If not... I think I may seriously have to rethink my position.

As for the model of airpline, I agree that it's an F-15 but from my analysis and from looking at the markings on the wings, I believe this is the special F-15I Ra'am that was sold to the Israeli Air Force. My pics are below.

Still from video. You can't really make out the type of plane but you can clearly see it's a fighter:

http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/f15-1.jpg

Zoomed in. The familiar F15 shape takes form:

http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/f15-2.jpg

Zoomed way in. The payload on the wings is plainly visible, along with some hint of markings on the wings. You'll notice the symbol of the winged Zionist setting the world aflame in order to steal its gold; this is the symbol of the Israeli Air Force:

http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/f15-3.jpg

Zoomed further, with contrast turned way up to define details. If you look closely at the cockpit you can see the pilot is a man in his early 30's, bearded, with the rank of Colonel on his shoulder. Does anybody have access to a database of Israeli pilots, so that we can pin down this man's identity?

http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/f15-4.jpg

:rofl: That is great.

[joesixpack]

Hmm, a F-15 that appears to flap its wings as it gets to the right side of the image.

An F-15 that is "in pursuit of Flight 175" by flying towards it.

That's exactly what I saw.

[Belz...]

You should read the book "Best Evidence" by JFK CT David Lifton. He takes this to extreme, playing Rorschach with super closeups of Dealey Plaza pics.

"And here we can see a crouching man in a navy pin-striped suit wearing a yellow beanie smoking a cigarette (see the second hand smoke) shooting what looks to be a Tommy-gun. The Tommy-gun is blurred, presumably due to it firing rounds faster than the shutter speed of the camera. He is wearing brown Bruno-Martin shoes, and if you compare the size of the shoe to his height, they look to be size 10 1/2."

Meanwhile, all I could see was a black splotch in a black and white pic.

I assume you were paraphrasing ?

[CurtC]

He is wearing brown Bruno-Martin shoes,
You're thinking of Bruno-Magli.

Is Lifton the guy who found the "badge man" in the contrasty pic of shadows and leaves?

[FactCheck]

I'm sad to report that I watched the video another six times, without seeing anything that could be identified as a fighter jet, or, indeed, as any kind of aircraft.

I was going to watch the video but I've been waiting all year to have ten penny nails slowly twisted into my skull. I have my priorities you know...

[sackett]

Fake beard? Elastic band? Wakey-wakey, sheeple! It's a Sikh wearing a hairnet over his chin!

Ever seen that restroom graffitto, "I'm sikh of this shiite"? Think it's just a lame joke some guy scribbled while waiting for the train? IT'S THE NWO RUBBING YOUR DUMM SHEEP FACES IN IT! They despise you! =I= despise you!

MagZee is my friend. We tell each other secrets after Mom turns off the light.

[CurtC]

I was going to watch the video but I've been waiting all year to have ten penny nails slowly twisted into my skull. I have my priorities you know...
Go ahead and watch it - it's only ten seconds. The object in question is not even visible (to me) on the normal, small YouTube sized window, but if you click the button in the lower right to make it full-screen, you'll see it come flying by from left to right.

And it's also pretty obviously a bird, much closer to the camera than the towers are. Just like the other video of a bird that MaGZ thought was a missile.

[CptColumbo]

I can't say for certian what it is. It goes from the far left side to the far right rapidly. I'm not an observation expert and can't tell if it is in front or behind the towers. The FAA had not grounded all flights yet, so there were many planes, press helicopters still in the air, and many birds that could fly through the picture. Based on the loss of signal in the video, it is quite a leap to assume this is a military fighter or any kind of plane. Is the possibility of dust paper or lint flying in front of the lens been discounted entirely? Even if it is a "F-15," given it's direction, what does that prove?

[JC Fla]

A giant eagle, with a short, 9 fingered male on it's back, cursing the giant eye that appeared above the tower right before impact...

Or not

[pgwenthold]

You mean the pilot is a Native American? We all know Native Americans can't grow large beards, and Mohawks worked on the construction of the Twin Towers...



Good gravy (or Gravy, as the case may be)! We have just obtained proof that the Israeli government is using Native American pilots! Why might they be doing that?

This conspiracy goes way up.

[pgwenthold]

You're thinking of Bruno-Magli.


Oh cut him some slack, the pictures aren't perfect quality, so he has to guess at certain aspects...


Is Lifton the guy who found the "badge man" in the contrasty pic of shadows and leaves?

Among others. He had a list of something like a dozen "shadowy" figures, IIRC. I have the book at home. However, I will admit I only read the first part of so, when he starting going off on all the people he saw. I couldn't stop from laughing.

[HeyLeroy]

http://liveu-18.vo.llnwd.net/vidilife/image/2006/10/10/946639/1197618L.gif

[tacodaemon]

Among others. He had a list of something like a dozen "shadowy" figures, IIRC. I have the book at home. However, I will admit I only read the first part of so, when he starting going off on all the people he saw. I couldn't stop from laughing.


Actually Gary Mack was the JFK woowoo who first noticed "Badge Man", and then Jack White and Gordon Arnold who fleshed out the story. See this page (http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_3.htm) for more laffs about the ridiculousness of it all... in particular, compare this depiction of the actual image (http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_3.htm) with the colorized version showing what the woos think they see (http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_3.htm) (L-R: Gordon Arnold himself, Badge Man, and Hard Hat Man). Whenever I read about this stuff I wonder if it's just a bunch of film buffs staging a real-life version of Antonioni's "Blow-Up" just to mess with people.

[CurtC]

Good gravy!
[cafeteria guy]
Thank you. It's just brown and water.
[/cafeteria guy]

[JC Fla]

HeyLeroy


You a nasty man...

:eek:

[PhantomWolf]

I call :dragon:

or perhaps :raven:

or maybe it was :chicken:

or a :batfly:

[Bobert]

The Omish did 9-11?

[NeoRicen]

I wonder where Magz went, he has a lot of balls posting something so ridiculous, I'd like to see him try and defend his claims after being torn apart so conclusively.

[MaGZ]

I can't say for certian what it is. It goes from the far left side to the far right rapidly. I'm not an observation expert and can't tell if it is in front or behind the towers. The FAA had not grounded all flights yet, so there were many planes, press helicopters still in the air, and many birds that could fly through the picture. Based on the loss of signal in the video, it is quite a leap to assume this is a military fighter or any kind of plane. Is the possibility of dust paper or lint flying in front of the lens been discounted entirely? Even if it is a "F-15," given it's direction, what does that prove?

It proves Bob Varcapade was right!


Bob Varcapade: I rememember the two F-15’s. They were moments after the impact. And I was just said to myself, “If they only could’ve gotten there a couple minutes earlier. They just missed it.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14754701/

[beachnut]

It proves Bob Varcapade was right!


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14754701/
Which part of minutes do you not understand?

Your video was 10 seconds with nothing. So tell me which part of "minutes" do you have a problem with?

[Architect]

You really don't seem to understand the meaning of "prove", mate.

[MaGZ]

"It was a military plane."

Another view of the F-15 from a different video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVFbTYX-tY&mode=related&search=

[beachnut]

"It was a military plane."

Another view of the F-15 from a different video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVFbTYX-tY&mode=related&search=
What a joke, and it must be on you. Which part of a few minutes confuse you?


Bob Varcapade: I rememember the two F-15’s. They were moments after the impact. And I was just said to myself, “If they only could’ve gotten there a couple minutes earlier. They just missed it.”
Minutes not 10 seconds or while.

[Skibum]

"It was a military plane."

Another view of the F-15 from a different video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVFbTYX-tY&mode=related&search=

I'm pretty certain was was incorrectly identifying the plane that hit the tower as a military plane, not the little spot the editor is pointing out as a ufo.

[Architect]

MaGZ

You seem to be having difficulty. Let me explain how "evidence" and "proof" work.

Before arriving at a conclusion, you assemble all the available and relevant evidence together. This is then analysed. Now there will invariably be inconsistencies. The skill, and education, lies in looking at the overall picture and arriving at a theory which best explains the majority of the evidence.

One man saying he saw an F-15 (or two) when there is no corrobatory eye-witness testimony does not represent overwhelming evidence. One lone picture of an undefined object, probably a bird, does not represent proof that the dozens of other videos on the day are wrong.

Now if you have trouble analysing such basic evidence - and we've seen this problem before - then I really have to question your ability to address more complex issues such as structural mechanics and fire performance. And I think your past record in these fields speaks for itself.

[pomeroo]

There were no fighter jets anywhere near the Twin Towers when the hijacked commercial airliners collided with them.

No missiles were fired by any U.S. military aircraft on 9/11/01.


NORAD interceptors had no authority to shoot down American commercial airliners until Bush conveyed such orders to Cheney far too late to be implemented.

Had either of the two planes that crashed into the Twin Towers been shot down, the fantasists would have screamed for Bush's impeachment on the grounds that no one could possibly know that the planes were going to be flown into buildings.

Really, enough is enough.

[Skeptic Guy]

I'm pretty certain was was incorrectly identifying the plane that hit the tower as a military plane, not the little spot the editor is pointing out as a ufo.

She was certainly refering to the plane that had just hit the tower.

[Thunder]

does this look like a military plane to you?

http://letsroll911.org/images/fueljetspray.jpg

[Cl1mh4224rd]

"It was a military plane."

Another view of the F-15 from a different video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVFbTYX-tY&mode=related&search=

This second video you posted shows a blur in a completely different spot and moving in a different direction than your first video... and you claim it's of the same object from a different angle?

From a previous thread we already know you have trouble looking at two pictures and orienting yourself, but this takes the cake.

Have you seen a mental health professional recently? You need help, and I say that with all seriousness.

[JC Fla]

By what standards do you call this any kind of plane, much less military? I am just an old grunt, but I have seen enough aircraft from several countries to tell you that was a blur, compression artifact, bird, etc. Not an aircraft. Does it bother you at all that the video you are referencing is labeled a UFO video? Yet you and some other conspiracy theorist can call that an F-15? Could you honestly identify an F-15 in a static display, much less moving? I am not being insulting here, just asking an honest question. Sorry for this little rant, but really.

[twinstead]

By what standards do you call this any kind of plane, much less military? I am just an old grunt, but I have seen enough aircraft from several countries to tell you that was a blur, compression artifact, bird, etc. Not an aircraft. Does it bother you at all that the video you are referencing is labeled a UFO video? Yet you and some other conspiracy theorist can call that an F-15? Could you honestly identify an F-15 in a static display, much less moving? I am not being insulting here, just asking an honest question. Sorry for this little rant, but really.

No need to be sorry. Your frustration is certainly understood.

[MaGZ]

By what standards do you call this any kind of plane, much less military? I am just an old grunt, but I have seen enough aircraft from several countries to tell you that was a blur, compression artifact, bird, etc. Not an aircraft. Does it bother you at all that the video you are referencing is labeled a UFO video? Yet you and some other conspiracy theorist can call that an F-15? Could you honestly identify an F-15 in a static display, much less moving? I am not being insulting here, just asking an honest question. Sorry for this little rant, but really.

The two women in the video identified the object as a military plane. They were clearly referring to the object and not the airliner. The only military planes sent to the area were the two F-15s from Otis Air National Guard Base.

[beachnut]

The two women in the video identified the object as a military plane. They were clearly referring to the object and not the airliner. The only military planes sent to the area were the two F-15s from Otis Air National Guard Base.
Wrong they were talking about fligth 175, go ask them. Why are you always wrong the f-15s did not show up for a few minutes. You are wrong cause there was not F-15 in the film and the F-15s did not show up for minutes.

Got anything better than these lies?

[MaGZ]

You really don't seem to understand the meaning of "prove", mate.

I proved the object was a military plane, a F-15 to be specific by deduction.

We know the object was a military aircraft–confirmed by two witnesses–and we know F-15s were sent to NYC.

[MaGZ]

Wrong they were talking about fligth 175, go ask them. Why are you always wrong the f-15s did not show up for a few minutes. You are wrong cause there was not F-15 in the film and the F-15s did not show up for minutes.

Got anything better than these lies?

Why would these two women or anyone else think Flight 175 was a military plane? They were clearly referring to the object in the video. They said they thought it ( the object--military plane) had something to do with the Towers.

[beachnut]

I proved the object was a military plane, a F-15 to be specific by deduction.

We know the object was a military aircraft–confirmed by two witnesses–and we know F-15s were sent to NYC.
There was no F-15 in the videos you cited. If you mean the people in the video saying it was a military plane, they were talking about 175 and the fact it was doing 590 mph, which no one has ever seen an airliner do at 700 feet. Never before has anyone seen that fast for an airliners going that fast, they were overspeeding the planes.

The F-15s did not show up for minutes after the video clip you cited. Did you get this junk from your NeoNAZI buddies?

[Arus808]

Why would these two women or anyone else think Flight 175 was a military plane?

because they didn't see it strike the building, and through hearsay of eveyrone else, they concluded that it was.

They were clearly referring to the object in the video. They said they thought it ( the object--military plane) had something to do with the Towers.

your assumpotion. please track down the women in the video and get their opnion on tape.

[MaGZ]

There was no F-15 in the videos you cited. If you mean the people in the video saying it was a military plane, they were talking about 175 and the fact it was doing 590 mph, which no one has ever seen an airliner do at 700 feet. Never before has anyone seen that fast for an airliners going that fast, they were overspeeding the planes.

The F-15s did not show up for minutes after the video clip you cited. Did you get this junk from your NeoNAZI buddies?

Millions of people around the world saw Flight 175 hit WTC 2 and knew it was another airliner.

The all saw the plane hit at a high rate of speed yet they knew it was an airliner and not a military plane. Why do you think these women would be different in their observations than millions of others?

[MaGZ]

because they didn't see it strike the building, and through hearsay of eveyrone else, they concluded that it was.

They would have seen the incoming airliner because they were filming the Twin Towers as the second plane hit. Look at the bellowing black smoke coming from WTC 2. The event all happened at 9:03.

[MaGZ]

your assumpotion. please track down the women in the video and get their opnion on tape.

They have already expressed their opinion on tape. They said the object was a military plane and thought it had something to do with the Twin Towers.

[beachnut]

Millions of people around the world saw Flight 175 hit WTC 2 and knew it was another airliner.

The all saw the plane hit at a high rate of speed yet they knew it was an airliner and not a military plane. Why do you think these women would be different in their observations than millions of others?
The women heard the jet. It was speeding, NO JET AIRLINER EVER has gone that fast at 700 feet. Only military aircraft go that fast. Sorry you are wrong again. I am a pilot, the planes on 9/11 were going faster than they are suppose to. There speed limit was 350KCAS, all the planes were going too fast and 175 was going over 450 KCAS for a speed of 590 mph.

Only military jets go that, but the terrorist did not care if the planes were messed up and they went too fast anyway. The woman were also watching TV. You should stop getting your stuff from NeoNAZIs.

No one that day had seen an airliner go that fast! This was the first time ever. The F-15s showed up minutes later, your speck of dust showed up at the same time. Dust is not an f-15. If you called it a helo I would say, could be.

[MaGZ]

No he is right, that is an F-15 with a cloaking device that can only be seen from a particular angle (that's why we do not see it on other footage). Conspiracy revealed.

Have you seen the second video?
The object is real. It appears in two videos in the same location and at the same time.

[Firestone]

I proved the object was a military plane, a F-15 to be specific by deduction.In the video they clearly say "it was a military plane". They are not talking about some artefact on the video, but about the plane that struck WTC2 seconds before.

We know the object was a military aircraft–confirmed by two witnesses–and we know F-15s were sent to NYC.But we also know that the F-15 were 60 miles away when flight 175 struck WTC2.

That's what one of the pilots, Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Duffy (http://www.buildthememorial.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Story_TimD), tells:About 60 or 70 miles out of New York City, I requested information on the aircraft we were trying to track. I was told at that point that a second aircraft had hit the WTC.

Face it, MaGZ, each and every claim you have made so far has been proven wrong.

[beachnut]

This missile is like a concrete core, it has thousand of posts but no facts.

Some just cheated and use some more facts to prove MaGZ wrong again.

[MaGZ]

The women heard the jet. It was speeding, NO JET AIRLINER EVER has gone that fast at 700 feet. Only military aircraft go that fast. Sorry you are wrong again. I am a pilot, the planes on 9/11 were going faster than they are suppose to. There speed limit was 350KCAS, all the planes were going too fast and 175 was going over 450 KCAS for a speed of 590 mph.

Only military jets go that, but the terrorist did not care if the planes were messed up and they went too fast anyway. The woman were also watching TV. You should stop getting your stuff from NeoNAZIs.

No one that day had seen an airliner go that fast! This was the first time ever. The F-15s showed up minutes later, your speck of dust showed up at the same time. Dust is not an f-15. If you called it a helo I would say, could be.

Why are you assuming they did not see flight 175 crash into WTC 2? It would have happened just a second before the start of the video. How can you know this?

[Firestone]

Why are you assuming they did not see flight 175 crash into WTC 2? It would have happened just a second before the start of the video. How can you know this?Because they say so!

Q. Isn't this video missing important scenes?
A. We did not capture the impact of either plane or the start of either building's collapse. As many have surmised, the impacts of the airplanes and collapses of both buildings did catch us by surprise.

Source (http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/2006/09/frequently-asked-questions.html)

[MaGZ]

In the video they clearly say "it was a military plane". They are not talking about some artefact on the video, but about the plane that struck WTC2 seconds before.

But we also know that the F-15 were 60 miles away when flight 175 struck WTC2.

That's what one of the pilots, Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Duffy (http://www.buildthememorial.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Story_TimD), tells:

Face it, MaGZ, each and every claim you have made so far has been proven wrong.

The commission report and the pilots are not telling us the truth. The truth is now coming out.

[beachnut]

Why are you assuming they did not see flight 175 crash into WTC 2? It would have happened just a second before the start of the video. How can you know this?I know everything.

You are wrong, try something new. There were no missiles on 9/11 shot at anything. Missiles travel faster than the speed of sound and make BIG BOOMS. There was no supersonic thundering path to be heard on 9/11, I know what missiles sound like and I did not hear the missiles on 9/11, nor did anyone on the ground hear the missiles you say were used.

The F-15s were not in visual range when 175 hit the WTC. You are telling lies to us and doing a poor job.

You are short on facts, and ignore all the facts people are trying to help you understand. I have to assume you are not reading anyone's post as being helpful and have closed your mind on trying to understand what really happened on 9/11 and you have chosen instead to make up lies and repeat what you have heard.

[MaGZ]

Because they say so!

Please give me the quote in the video where they said they did not see flight 175 hit WTC 2?

[beachnut]

The commission report and the pilots are not telling us the truth. The truth is now coming out.
No just lies are coming out or your posts. A continuous stream of lies from you. You post lies from NeoNAZI sites, and now you try to make up lies about videos. You have failed to show an F-15 on the video. Do you have any facts at all to support your stuff besides the lies you made up and the video that does not show any F-15s?


Missiles travel faster than the speed of sound and make BIG BOOMS. There was no supersonic thundering path to be heard on 9/11, I know what missiles sound like and I did not hear the missiles on 9/11, nor did anyone on the ground hear the missiles you say were used.

[MaGZ]

I know everything.

You are wrong, try something new. There were no missiles on 9/11 shot at anything. Missiles travel faster than the speed of sound and make BIG BOOMS. There was no supersonic thundering path to be heard on 9/11, I know what missiles sound like and I did not hear the missiles on 9/11, nor did anyone on the ground hear the missiles you say were used.

The F-15s were not in visual range when 175 hit the WTC. You are telling lies to us and doing a poor job.

You are short on facts, and ignore all the facts people are trying to help you understand. I have to assume you are not reading anyone's post as being helpful and have closed your mind on trying to understand what really happened on 9/11 and you have chosen instead to make up lies and repeat what you have heard.

I am not making up any lies. All of my points about missiles being fired at flight 175 are from information I have discovered from my own research.
Also I must include the footage taken by FOX news which I saw on television after 9/11 showing a missile hitting WTC 7 on the 14th floor.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/

[Mancman]

Have you seen the second video?
The object is real. It appears in two videos in the same location and at the same time.

Except one object is south of the towers travelling west and is a helicopter, and one is west of the towers and travelling south - and is a bird?

You really think those are the same object?

[NeoRicen]

I am not making up any lies. All of my points about missiles being fired at flight 175 are from information I have discovered from my own research.
Also I must include the footage taken by FOX news which I saw on television after 9/11 showing a missile hitting WTC 7 on the 14th floor.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/

:hit:

[Mancman]

Also I must include the footage taken by FOX news which I saw on television after 9/11 showing a missile hitting WTC 7 on the 14th floor.

The Missiles at Ground Zero
http://missilesatgroundzero.blogspot.com/

I will include every piece of footage shot that day none of which show a missile.

[Corsair 115]

The two women in the video identified the object as a military plane. I'd like to know by what criteria did these two women judge it to be a military plane. Speed? Altitude? Size? Course? Shape? What?

As a general observation, I'd say most laypersons would not be able to tell an F-15 from an F-14 or F/A-18, since all three share basic similiarities in shape (twin engines, twin tail). This would be particularly true if the aircraft was being viewed from a considerable distance away.

[Alt+F4]

If an F-15 missile hit WTC 7 accidentally, why cover it up? No one died at WTC 7 and I believe most people would have been glad the military had made the attempt to shoot UA77 down considering what had already transpired, as horrible as that sounds.

Historically, the military has a poor record of covering up their blunders, especially when many people die. Little Bighorn, Bay of Pigs and the attempted rescue of the Iranian held hostages are the first that come to mind.

Since 9/11 I think most Americans fly with the understanding, even the expectation, that if their plane is hijacked by terrorists the military WILL shoot it down. Yet they continue to fly. I do.

[beachnut]

If an F-15 missile hit WTC 7 accidentally, why cover it up? No one died at WTC 7 and I believe most people would have been glad the military had made the attempt to shoot UA77 down considering what had already transpired, as horrible as that sounds.

Historically, the military has a poor record of covering up their blunders, especially when many people die. Little Bighorn, Bay of Pigs and the attempted rescue of the Iranian held hostages are the first that come to mind.

Since 9/11 I think most Americans fly with the understanding, even the expectation, that if their plane is hijacked by terrorists the military WILL shoot it down. Yet they continue to fly. I do.

What is the missile suppose to do? The impact of the missile would be like 41 pounds of TNT compared to the aircraft impact of 2200 pounds of TNT. Then you have the war head 40-50 pound of explosives. Enough energy to do what? What would the missile do if it had hit WTC7, it would not do much of anything, unless you are in the office it hits. But the WTC7 could take hundreds of missiles hits from an AIM7 or AIM 120.

Which missile does the missile man have to offer up as proof of what?

I have got to ask him what it all means next time he makes his hit and run.

And your whole point is correct. I can see the pilot and the ground crew now. "Where is your missile sir?" What does he say, I don't know? The guys then say, "you owe us 300,000 dollars unless you can tell us what you did with our AIM120!" "Fess up now sucker." "Did you hit the wrong button again?"

[Thunder]

A missile did not hit WTC 7. This is silly. MaGz..you are very silly.

[AZCat]

What is the missile suppose to do? The impact of the missile would be like 41 pounds of TNT compared to the aircraft impact of 2200 pounds of TNT. Then you have the war head 40-50 pound of explosives. Enough energy to do what? What would the missile do if it had hit WTC7, it would not do much of anything, unless you are in the office it hits. But the WTC7 could take hundreds of missiles hits from an AIM7 or AIM 120.

I calculated something similar regarding the Pentagon on another forum a while back and came up with similar numbers:
Boeing 767 = 1440 tons TNT
SA-7 (with warhead explosive power included) = ~3 tons TNT

Pretty close to your numbers, and the point is very clear - a missile isn't going to do nearly the damage to a building that an aircraft like a 767 would.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Have you seen the second video?
The object is real. It appears in two videos in the same location and at the same time.

Myself and Mancman have already pointed out to you that the objects in either video are not in the same place, even considering the different angle.

- The object in your first video would be off-screen to left and traveling away from the camera in the second video.
- The object in the second video would be off-screen to the right and traveling toward the camera in the first video.

I am absolutely amazed that this escapes you.

[gumboot]

- The object in your first video would be off-screen to left and traveling away from the camera in the second video.
- The object in the second video would be off-screen to the right and traveling toward the camera in the first video.


OMG, you know what that means....


They flipped the image!!!:jaw-dropp

CONSPIRAT0R!!!

-Gumboot

[PhantomWolf]

hmmm, from the originator of the video. (link to source in post #95)

Q. Does Bri believe she saw a military plane?
A. Bri's comment regarding the "military" plane was due to her seeing a silhouette of the plane and therefore assuming black coloration. Her initial thought was that the plane was approaching the south tower to help fight the fire. There is nothing in our recollection to suggest that events of the day occurred in any way other than seen on the video.

[A W Smith]

Millions of people around the world saw Flight 175 hit WTC 2 and knew it was another airliner.

The all saw the plane hit at a high rate of speed yet they knew it was an airliner and not a military plane. Why do you think these women would be different in their observations than millions of others?

Because of their vantage point to the north and west of tower one. Fliight 175 approached tower two from the south. The flight was blocked from view by tower one.

[JC Fla]

I'd like to know by what criteria did these two women judge it to be a military plane. Speed? Altitude? Size? Course? Shape? What?

As a general observation, I'd say most laypersons would not be able to tell an F-15 from an F-14 or F/A-18, since all three share basic similiarities in shape (twin engines, twin tail). This would be particularly true if the aircraft was being viewed from a considerable distance away.

I agree. By what standards did these two women decide these were F-15's? Do they have a history of dealing with any military aircraft? What are their backgrounds? People can say anything, but the fact they are witnessing an event when they say them does not add truth to statement.

[tsig]

:rofl: That is great.

If you can't see the conspricy here you are part of it.

[tsig]

Fake beard? Elastic band? Wakey-wakey, sheeple! It's a Sikh wearing a hairnet over his chin!

Ever seen that restroom graffitto, "I'm sikh of this shiite"? Think it's just a lame joke some guy scribbled while waiting for the train? IT'S THE NWO RUBBING YOUR DUMM SHEEP FACES IN IT! They despise you! =I= despise you!

MagZee is my friend. We tell each other secrets after Mom turns off the light.

Are the secrets stickey?

[tsig]

The commission report and the pilots are not telling us the truth. The truth is now coming out.

Wrong hole.

[Spins]

For the record this is what happened, they saw a plane fly in (briefly and very fast) and Bri's mother(?) in the background commented she thought it was a military plane. Later as Bob came in they showed him the plane (Flight 175) hitting the tower on live TV, as everyone else saw....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903#11m45s

...it's obvious from the video that they were referring to Flight 175 and not the object flying past in the distance.

BTW the original thread for the Bob & Bri video makes for interesting reading, for instance this post by T.A.M...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1914228#post1914228 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1914228#post1914228)

;)

Also check out this thread...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66942

[Belz...]

I proved the object was a military plane, a F-15 to be specific by deduction.

You've just made his point. You don't know what the word "proved" means.

We know the object was a military aircraft–confirmed by two witnesses–and we know F-15s were sent to NYC.

We also know they didn't get there in time, so you have conflicting statements. Since no one else saw the noisy F-15 over NYC, what is the most likely explanation ?

The all saw the plane hit at a high rate of speed yet they knew it was an airliner and not a military plane. Why do you think these women would be different in their observations than millions of others?

Because that's the nature of subjective observation.

[Anti-sophist]

Let's recap:

1) One guy said he saw F15s several minutes after the planes hit
2) In video of plane hitting, there is a blurry object
3) In another video of plane hitting, there is a blurry object
4) In video #3, the people in the video said "military plane"
5) Despite the fact that people just witnessed a plane fly into a building, he claims that the people in #4 were referring to the blurry object.

Is that the extent of the 'proof' at our disposal that an F15 was present in either video?

[joesixpack]

I agree. By what standards did these two women decide these were F-15's? Do they have a history of dealing with any military aircraft? What are their backgrounds? People can say anything, but the fact they are witnessing an event when they say them does not add truth to statement.The two women you are referring to made no claim as to the model of aircraft that struck the tower. Bri saw the aircraft in silhouette and believed it to be painted black because of that. The apparently dark color scheme led her to believe that it was a military plane.

Here's the link, you need to read it to see how far-fetched Magz's claims are.

http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/2006/09/frequently-asked-questions.html

[ihaunter]

In the video they clearly say "it was a military plane". They are not talking about some artefact on the video, but about the plane that struck WTC2 seconds before.

But we also know that the F-15 were 60 miles away when flight 175 struck WTC2.

That's what one of the pilots, Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Duffy (http://www.buildthememorial.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Story_TimD), tells:

Face it, MaGZ, each and every claim you have made so far has been proven wrong.

Just wanted to repeat this for MaGZ to see.

Why would she use the word "was" when talking about something that is still visible? In fact, she said it just shortly after the object first becomes visible.

Conspiracy Theorists need to retake some grammar classes. They seem to have trouble understanding word tense, conditional modifiers, similes, etc.

[JC Fla]

The two women you are referring to made no claim as to the model of aircraft that struck the tower. Bri saw the aircraft in silhouette and believed it to be painted black because of that. The apparently dark color scheme led her to believe that it was a military plane.

Here's the link, you need to read it to see how far-fetched Magz's claims are.

http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/2006/09/frequently-asked-questions.html

Thank you Joe. Apparently Magz did not bother to read any of this . I would assume the thinking is "Why screw up a perfectly good conspiracy theory with facts?"

[MaGZ]

If an F-15 missile hit WTC 7 accidentally, why cover it up? No one died at WTC 7 and I believe most people would have been glad the military had made the attempt to shoot UA77 down considering what had already transpired, as horrible as that sounds.

Historically, the military has a poor record of covering up their blunders, especially when many people die. Little Bighorn, Bay of Pigs and the attempted rescue of the Iranian held hostages are the first that come to mind.

Since 9/11 I think most Americans fly with the understanding, even the expectation, that if their plane is hijacked by terrorists the military WILL shoot it down. Yet they continue to fly. I do.


I think the reason the government did not want to admit that they nearly intercepted Flight 175 is because they made the decision early on in denying they shoot-down Flight 93 over Penn. They lock themselves into lies and now they can’t go back.

[MaGZ]

What is the missile suppose to do? The impact of the missile would be like 41 pounds of TNT compared to the aircraft impact of 2200 pounds of TNT. Then you have the war head 40-50 pound of explosives. Enough energy to do what? What would the missile do if it had hit WTC7, it would not do much of anything, unless you are in the office it hits. But the WTC7 could take hundreds of missiles hits from an AIM7 or AIM 120.

Which missile does the missile man have to offer up as proof of what?

I have got to ask him what it all means next time he makes his hit and run.

And your whole point is correct. I can see the pilot and the ground crew now. "Where is your missile sir?" What does he say, I don't know? The guys then say, "you owe us 300,000 dollars unless you can tell us what you did with our AIM120!" "Fess up now sucker." "Did you hit the wrong button again?"

The missile started the fires in WTC 7.

[JC Fla]

Magz, read the post above yours...the "proof" you are using is debunked by the very people who took the footage. Open your eyes. Read with an unbiased point of view. Assimilate the information. Come to a rational conclusion. You are watching a video with a glitch, and believing the statements of someone who also sees the glitch and states it is a military aircraft.

[jsiv]

Are we sure it was an american F-15, and not IDF?

[MaGZ]

Because of their vantage point to the north and west of tower one. Fliight 175 approached tower two from the south. The flight was blocked from view by tower one.

Wrong.
Flight 175 dived in from the southwest from a very high altitude and hit WTC 2 only after making a sharp left turn. It almost missed the tower. The two women and everyone else saw the airliner.

[MaGZ]

I agree. By what standards did these two women decide these were F-15's? Do they have a history of dealing with any military aircraft? What are their backgrounds? People can say anything, but the fact they are witnessing an event when they say them does not add truth to statement.

They did not say the object was a F-15. They said it was a military plane. I (MaGZ)am saying this is one of the F-15s that appears in the video.

[MaGZ]

You've just made his point. You don't know what the word "proved" means.



We also know they didn't get there in time, so you have conflicting statements. Since no one else saw the noisy F-15 over NYC, what is the most likely explanation ?

The most likely explanation is the military and 9/11 Commission Report lied about the time of arrival of the F-15s. I say this because the videos clearly indicate otherwise.

[ref]

The most likely explanation is the military and 9/11 Commission Report lied about the time of arrival of the F-15s. I say this because the videos clearly indicate otherwise.

What would you guys do without videos.

[MaGZ]

Let's recap:

1) One guy said he saw F15s several minutes after the planes hit
2) In video of plane hitting, there is a blurry object
3) In another video of plane hitting, there is a blurry object
4) In video #3, the people in the video said "military plane"
5) Despite the fact that people just witnessed a plane fly into a building, he claims that the people in #4 were referring to the blurry object.

Is that the extent of the 'proof' at our disposal that an F15 was present in either video?

The "one guy" you refer too is an air traffic controller at Newark across the river. He said the fighters were there moments after Flight 175 hit WTC 2. Moments means seconds not minutes. He also said if they had arrives minutes earlier before the crash then they could have shootdown the plane. He is essentially saying they could have put up an air defense area if they arrived minutes earlier instead of seconds later.

[MRC_Hans]

I think the reason the government did not want to admit that they nearly intercepted Flight 175 is because they made the decision early on in denying they shoot-down Flight 93 over Penn. They lock themselves into lies and now they can’t go back.Let me see .. Because you think they shot down flight 93, you must also think they covered up attempting to shoot down flight 175?

... You know, logic works independently of reality, it just doesn't make much sense without it.

Hans

[MaGZ]

Just wanted to repeat this for MaGZ to see.

Why would she use the word "was" when talking about something that is still visible? In fact, she said it just shortly after the object first becomes visible.

Conspiracy Theorists need to retake some grammar classes. They seem to have trouble understanding word tense, conditional modifiers, similes, etc.

Perhaps because the fighter flew out of her view. I don’t know if this part of the video has been edited by someone else. I plan to view the entire video and determine when she said the "was" remark. I will check it.

[MaGZ]

Let me see .. Because you think they shot down flight 93, you must also think they covered up attempting to shoot down flight 175?

... You know, logic works independently of reality, it just doesn't make much sense without it.

Hans

So, you are a believer in the "let’s roll" myth?

[MRC_Hans]

The "one guy" you refer too is an air traffic controller at Newark across the river. He said the fighters were there moments after Flight 175 hit WTC 2. Moments means seconds not minutes.

The question is, what does he mean by "arrive"? Since he is sitting at ATC, he does not mean visual contact, because he would only have visual contact if they actually buzzed his tower, so he probably means they arrived in the control area. Since they were hurrying to the place, they were probably supersonic. How long exactly do you think it takes for a fighter arriving at supersonic speed to slow down, position itself, obtain missile lock, and fire at a subsonlic plane?


He also said if they had arrives minutes earlier before the crash then they could have shootdown the plane.


Probably causing it to crash into uptown NY. Question is, even if his information is accurate, could they have averted the attack? Would they have taken the risk?

He is essentially saying they could have put up an air defense area if they arrived minutes earlier instead of seconds later.

Even if he is right, so what? What does this prove?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

So, you are a believer in the "let’s roll" myth?I consider it plausible. Another possibility is that flight 93 crashed due to incompetence on the part of the hijackers. Or both.

What is your problem with it, since you choose to label it a myth?

Hans

[peteweaver]

Magz, all you've proven is that you made a mistake.

[MRC_Hans]

What is the missile suppose to do? The impact of the missile would be like 41 pounds of TNT compared to the aircraft impact of 2200 pounds of TNT. Then you have the war head 40-50 pound of explosives. Enough energy to do what? What would the missile do if it had hit WTC7, it would not do much of anything, unless you are in the office it hits. But the WTC7 could take hundreds of missiles hits from an AIM7 or AIM 120.

What would a missile do? Well, for sure, it would make a very characteristic straight vapor trail. It would make a lot of noise in passing (missiles are supersonic, so there would be a sonic boom), and the 40-50 pound warhead would make a very loud bang. Now, the question is: Was any of this observed?

... I thought not.


And your whole point is correct. I can see the pilot and the ground crew now. "Where is your missile sir?" What does he say, I don't know? The guys then say, "you owe us 300,000 dollars unless you can tell us what you did with our AIM120!" "Fess up now sucker." "Did you hit the wrong button again?"

Yeah, the military tedns to be rather preoccupied with munition accounting. Especially missiles. And of course, the gun camara would record the missile firing. No doubt, however, the evil gubmint simply covered it all up (another few dozen people who had to know and be kept silent).

Hans

[Belz...]

I think the reason the government did not want to admit that they nearly intercepted Flight 175 is because they made the decision early on in denying they shoot-down Flight 93 over Penn. They lock themselves into lies and now they can’t go back.

That's an interesting speculation, and we already know your theory. However, where's your proof ?

The only thing you have is a blurry object in a video, and reflection in a window, that you call a fire. No one on site saw this damage to 7 WTC.

The missile started the fires in WTC 7.

You keep repeating that. Unfortunately as you might be starting to realise, saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. Or at least it doesn't convince people here.

[Belz...]

The most likely explanation is the military and 9/11 Commission Report lied about the time of arrival of the F-15s. I say this because the videos clearly indicate otherwise.

No, that is not the "most likely" explanation. That's called circular reasoning.

Perhaps because the fighter flew out of her view. I don’t know if this part of the video has been edited by someone else.

You keep speculating. Why is that ?

[VespaGuy]

Moments means seconds not minutes.

Wrong. A moment is an ambiguous measurement, used to express a short interval of time. Just because you want a moment to equal a second, doesn't make it so.

Perhaps they weren't using the Magz version of moment, and instead were using the Dictionary.com version (bolding mine):
"Minute is often interchangable with moment and second with instant: The alarm will ring any minute. I'll be back in a second. "

Feel free to continue tailoring vague terms to fit your own predetermined conclusion, though.

[JC Fla]

They did not say the object was a F-15. They said it was a military plane. I (MaGZ)am saying this is one of the F-15s that appears in the video.

Okay, now how about the fact that they admit they were just guessing? That you are guessing? That none of you know what the heck you are talking about? An educated guess is one thing, but throwing out guesses blindly, like tossing darts with a blindfold, is another. Please wake up and ask yourself what makes more sense, a giant conspiracy encompassing multiple government agencies...or the truth?

[Mancman]

I think the reason the government did not want to admit that they nearly intercepted Flight 175 is because they made the decision early on in denying they shoot-down Flight 93 over Penn. They lock themselves into lies and now they can’t go back.

False premise to support a false premise.

High five!

[Corsair 115]

They did not say the object was a F-15. They said it was a military plane.I'm still waiting to hear by what criteria these witnesses judged it to be a military aircraft...

[Beerina]

Zoomed further, with contrast turned way up to define details. If you look closely at the cockpit you can see the pilot is a man in his early 30's, bearded, with the rank of Colonel on his shoulder. Does anybody have access to a database of Israeli pilots, so that we can pin down this man's identity?

http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/f15-4.jpg

If that's not enough info, don't forget that you can see the other side of the guy's face by looking at the reflection on the far inside of the cockpit. Don't forget to reverse it in a mirror!

[Anti-sophist]

The "one guy" you refer too is an air traffic controller at Newark across the river. He said the fighters were there moments after Flight 175 hit WTC 2. Moments means seconds not minutes. He also said if they had arrives minutes earlier before the crash then they could have shootdown the plane. He is essentially saying they could have put up an air defense area if they arrived minutes earlier instead of seconds later.

At the risk of severe understatement: your evidence is less then compelling, to be honest.

[hellaeon]

Magz, this arguement of yours is a joke. I cant believe your still peddling this stupidity. This is up there with flat earthers. There is no arguement here when your asking us to defy common sense. You summise from a vague blob in a picture that its a 'F-15'.

Enough is enough. Please, how old are you? Stop doing this to yourself.

Can you honestly say you sit comfortably with what your presenting here MaGZ? This is a joke, not evidence of a coverup.

[ihaunter]

Perhaps because the fighter flew out of her view. I don’t know if this part of the video has been edited by someone else. I plan to view the entire video and determine when she said the "was" remark. I will check it.

Should you discover that the audio is in the right place, will you:

A: Admit your mistake.
B: Make some excuse about how it still makes sense.
C: Never mention it and hope we forget, so that you can try to use the exact same argument again in the future.

[pomeroo]

I think the reason the government did not want to admit that they nearly intercepted Flight 175 is because they made the decision early on in denying they shoot-down Flight 93 over Penn. They lock themselves into lies and now they can’t go back.



Speaking of locking themselves into lies, why do conspiracy liars pretend that the air force shot down Flight 93? Isn't that what should have been done? You people invent so many falsehoods that inevitably you stumble on your own tongues. Are you saying that the air force is wrong for shooting down a plane, while they are simultaneously wrong for not shooting it down? You must imagine that you're making some sort of point here.

Asking you to make sense is like asking a walrus to play a Beethoven piano sonata, but can't you at least attempt to stick to an internally consistent body of myth?

[PhantomWolf]

They did not say the object was a F-15. They said it was a military plane. I (MaGZ)am saying this is one of the F-15s that appears in the video.

MaGZ, what part of "Bri's comment regarding the "military" plane was due to her seeing a silhouette of the plane and therefore assuming black coloration. Her initial thought was that the plane was approaching the south tower to help fight the fire." don't you understand?

[CurtC]

Speaking of locking themselves into lies, why do conspiracy liars pretend that the air force shot down Flight 93? Isn't that what should have been done? You people invent so many falsehoods that inevitably you stumble on your own tongues.
The different personalities are hard to keep up with for sure, but MaGZ has stated that he thinks there was no MIHOP involved, only that the military tried to shoot down UAL175, the missiles missed, hit WTC7, caught it on fire, and the missile damage and fire brought down WTC7. I think I stated that right. So for him, the shooting down of UAL93 fits right in with the rest of his insane narrative.

ETA: He is holding onto his beliefs like a snapping turtle, but at least he has the courage to state what he believes happened as a whole story. I wish the rest of the Truthers would attempt that, because they would see that they can't fit all of their conflicting misconceptions into a coherent big picture.

[gumboot]

I may have an answer on this quote MAGZ is obsessed about...

The F-15s entered a holding pattern off Long Island, but that holding pattern was about 100 - 120 miles from Manhattan itself.

According to the official account they were about half way between Otis and the holding point at 0903. Otis is about 120 miles from the center of the holding point, so at 60 miles distance, travelling at, I would say, a minimum of 900 MPH, you're talking 3-4 minutes from the holding point when UA175 hit, but about 150 miles from Manhattan.

If the pilots really were red lining to get there as they claim (I have my doubts) they could have been as little as 90 seconds away from that holding point when UA175 crashed.

-Gumboot

[MaGZ]

The two women you are referring to made no claim as to the model of aircraft that struck the tower. Bri saw the aircraft in silhouette and believed it to be painted black because of that. The apparently dark color scheme led her to believe that it was a military plane.

Here's the link, you need to read it to see how far-fetched Magz's claims are.

http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/2006/09/frequently-asked-questions.html

He acknowledges a fighter jet flew overhead. Perhaps this was the second fighter that approached from the south and fired the missile that flew slightly west of the Twin Towers and landed in the Hudson River.

Compression of the video for display on the web has distorted some objects, which include helicopters, birds, a fighter jet passing overhead (after the second plane hit the south tower), and glare from a window.

[MaGZ]

I consider it plausible. Another possibility is that flight 93 crashed due to incompetence on the part of the hijackers. Or both.

What is your problem with it, since you choose to label it a myth?

Hans

We need a new thread to discuss the "let’s roll" myth.

[MaGZ]

That's an interesting speculation, and we already know your theory. However, where's your proof ?

The only thing you have is a blurry object in a video, and reflection in a window, that you call a fire. No one on site saw this damage to 7 WTC.


A fireman reported WTC 7 had a large hole in it on the 14th floor with black smoke coming out. (Where the missile hit)

[MaGZ]

Speaking of locking themselves into lies, why do conspiracy liars pretend that the air force shot down Flight 93? Isn't that what should have been done? You people invent so many falsehoods that inevitably you stumble on your own tongues. Are you saying that the air force is wrong for shooting down a plane, while they are simultaneously wrong for not shooting it down? You must imagine that you're making some sort of point here.

Asking you to make sense is like asking a walrus to play a Beethoven piano sonata, but can't you at least attempt to stick to an internally consistent body of myth?

I don’t blame the military for shooting down Flight 93 nor do I blame them for trying to shoot down Flight 175. In fact, I would expect them to do so. I blame them for lying about it. I do not believe the government did 9/11 as an inside job nor do I believe in controlled demolition of the Twin Towers, nor do I believe a missile hit the Pentagon.

[MaGZ]

MaGZ, what part of "Bri's comment regarding the "military" plane was due to her seeing a silhouette of the plane and therefore assuming black coloration. Her initial thought was that the plane was approaching the south tower to help fight the fire." don't you understand?

I read their blog.
http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/2006/09/frequently-asked-questions.html

... and no, I do not understand how a sihouette was mistaken for a military plane.

Also in the blog, I note they acknowledged a jet fighter flew over them after the impact of Flight 175.

[MaGZ]

The different personalities are hard to keep up with for sure, but MaGZ has stated that he thinks there was no MIHOP involved, only that the military tried to shoot down UAL175, the missiles missed, hit WTC7, caught it on fire, and the missile damage and fire brought down WTC7. I think I stated that right. So for him, the shooting down of UAL93 fits right in with the rest of his insane narrative.

ETA: He is holding onto his beliefs like a snapping turtle, but at least he has the courage to state what he believes happened as a whole story. I wish the rest of the Truthers would attempt that, because they would see that they can't fit all of their conflicting misconceptions into a coherent big picture.

To correct you, I do not believe the missile hit nor the fires in WTC 7 brought the building down. I acknowledge the collapse of WTC 1 damaged the southwest corner of WTC 7–making it unstable–but did not start any fires. I will claim WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition in order to prevent it from collapsing into the rescue area where emergency personal were working.

[twinstead]

To correct you, I do not believe the missile hit nor the fires in WTC 7 brought the building down. I acknowledge the collapse of WTC 1 damaged the southwest corner of WTC 7–making it unstable–but did not start any fires. I will claim WTC 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition in order to prevent it from collapsing into the rescue area where emergency personal were working.

You will claim it, but you will still have no evidence to support it. If you don't have solid evidence of something, it is possible to claim anything. I can, therefore, claim that it was the two-headed Pfrop of the Aldrama Galaxy who destroyed WTC7 using an undetectable advanced alien weapon.

Prove me wrong.

[MaGZ]

I may have an answer on this quote MAGZ is obsessed about...

The F-15s entered a holding pattern off Long Island, but that holding pattern was about 100 - 120 miles from Manhattan itself.

According to the official account they were about half way between Otis and the holding point at 0903. Otis is about 120 miles from the center of the holding point, so at 60 miles distance, travelling at, I would say, a minimum of 900 MPH, you're talking 3-4 minutes from the holding point when UA175 hit, but about 150 miles from Manhattan.

If the pilots really were red lining to get there as they claim (I have my doubts) they could have been as little as 90 seconds away from that holding point when UA175 crashed.

-Gumboot

I don’t believe the Otis fighters were rushing to a holding pattern, instead they were trying to intercept the hijacked aircraft. I am open to the possibility they flew supersonic off the coast and entered NYC from different angles. One fighter in these two videos posted appears to be approaching Manhattan from the southeast. In a earlier post you asked "Where is his wingman?" I think the second fighter approached from the south and fired the missile that appears to fly just west of the Twin Towers.

I think they went to the holding pattern at the times reported in the Commission Report to clear NYC airspace for the grounding of incoming airliners.

[Thunder]

They were in no holding pattern. They were preparing to fire their missiles at St. Patrick's Cathedral, under order from Ehud Olmert. Right MagZ?

I cant believe you posted a link to "The Eternal Jew". Your anti-Semitism is now as clear as day. (was it ever not?)

[PhantomWolf]

... and no, I do not understand how a sihouette was mistaken for a military plane.

How about because a silhouette is dark in colour and so she assumed the plane was painted black. Since she didn't know of any airlines that paint their planes black, she assumed it was military.

Also in the blog, I note they acknowledged a jet fighter flew over them after the impact of Flight 175.

It says after the second tower was hit, it doesn't say immediately after. It also gives other objects that caused them, including helicopters and birds. Your entire assumtion on this being the F-15 is based on the "military plane" comment, while they point out was in reference to Flight 175. Without the comment, or a better resolution, or confirmation from them that this particular artifact was an F-15, you're merely trying to paste your belief onto the video. Sorry not going to play.

[gumboot]

I don’t believe the Otis fighters were rushing to a holding pattern, instead they were trying to intercept the hijacked aircraft.


We're all quite aware of what you believe. Your grasp on reality appears to be tenuous at best.

-Gumboot

[JC Fla]

A fireman reported WTC 7 had a large hole in it on the 14th floor with black smoke coming out. (Where the missile hit)

Magz, since you seem to have all the details, what kind of missile was fired? And just supposing a military aircraft was on site, and did fire a missile, what of it?

[MaGZ]

Magz, since you seem to have all the details, what kind of missile was fired? And just supposing a military aircraft was on site, and did fire a missile, what of it?

It means the official story is not true.
Apparently you prefer lies over the truth.

[pomeroo]

It means the official story is not true.
Apparently you prefer lies over the truth.



No missiles were fired anywhere in the U.S. on September 11, 2001. This thread is Christophera-World.

[Thunder]

No missiles were fired at WTC 7. This is a strange side-track developed by Oberfuehrer MaGz.

[JC Fla]

I know Parky. I was just attempting to introduce MaGZ to the concept of backing up claims. Most of us take that for granted, but I am finding out in Troofer world, it is a strange and scary thing.

In response to you MaGZ, I do not prefer lies to truth, I am asking you to prove what you said with data. You avoided answering the question, as I had thought. Now, can you provide details, or just conspiracy theories?

[Belz...]

A fireman reported WTC 7 had a large hole in it on the 14th floor with black smoke coming out. (Where the missile hit)

Source ?

[MaGZ]

Here is a video showing one of the F-15s from Otis Air Force Base flying past WTC 2 after the second hijacked plane hits the tower. The fighter appears about 50 seconds into the video and flashes past the WTC. It first appears in the foreground of the distant smoke and then flies behind or into the most recent smoke cloud coming from WTC 2; then it flies behind the water tower.

You have to use stop and go on the video to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88&feature=related

[Josarhus]

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No it's superman!

[doobiedoright]

First off the video jumps way to much to see anything.
second so what?

[Thunder]

Here is a video showing one of the F-15s from Otis Air Force Base flying past WTC 2 after the second hijacked plane hits the tower. The fighter appears about 50 seconds into the video and flashes past the WTC. It first appears in the foreground of the distant smoke and then flies behind or into the most recent smoke cloud coming from WTC 2; then it flies behind the water tower.

You have to use stop and go on the video to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88&feature=related

you mean the thing at :55?

that my friend, is a bird.

[Arus808]

what is this? magZ repeating a claim he started when he first joined this forum? Why are we even revisiting this?

btw: said "f15" fles in front of the towers and just behind the water tower in the forefront. too small to be even a freaking planes

ITs a bird. you can see the wings flapping.

[Reheat]

If you're talking about that black streak toward the end of the video, only a moronic idiot would believe that was an aircraft.

The F-15's were not in that area at that time and multiple radars prove it.

As always you are wasting everybodies time with your moronic claptrap.

[Jackanory]

If you're talking about that black streak toward the end of the video, only a moronic idiot would believe that was an aircraft.

The F-15's were not in that area at that time and multiple radars prove it.

As always you are wasting everybodies time with your moronic claptrap.

He his fully aware of all your points. Yanking chains is were it is all at.

[AJM8125]

what is this? magZ repeating a claim he started when he first joined this forum? Why are we even revisiting this?

btw: said "f15" fles in front of the towers and just behind the water tower in the forefront. too small to be even a freaking planes

ITs a bird. you can see the wings flapping.

Can't you both be right?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=456&pictureid=2869

[beachnut]

Here ... F-15s from Otis Air Force Base flying past WTC 2 after the second hijacked plane hits the tower. The fighter appears about 50 seconds into the video and flashes past the WTC. It first appears in the foreground of the distant smoke and then flies behind or into the most recent smoke cloud coming from WTC 2; then it flies behind the water tower.

You have to use stop and go on the video to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88&feature=related
911 truth neoNAZI delusions.

A silent F-15, really a bird, flies by the camera. How do people become so delusional on 911? Did you post this tripe before? 8 years of failure, what next?

[WildCat]

We did this bird thing long ago here... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=33

[Juniversal]

Only in paranoid conspiracy land could a 2 lb bird be mistaken for a F-15. :rolleyes:

[Macgyver1968]

Wow...if that was an F-15...homeboy was bookin'!! Funny how the camera picked up the sound of the jet hitting the building, but didn't manage to pick up the sound of an F-15 flying at hypersonic speeds.

[funk de fino]

MaGZ runs away from Mike Catalanos statements that disproves his missile theory and then regurgitates this fantasy claptrap.

Shocked I tell you.

[Thunder]

silent, super-secret, Mossad developed F-16?

and shaped like a bird. boy dem Jews are smart.

[EventHorizon]

Here is a video showing one of the F-15s from Otis Air Force Base flying past WTC 2 after the second hijacked plane hits the tower. The fighter appears about 50 seconds into the video and flashes past the WTC. It first appears in the foreground of the distant smoke and then flies behind or into the most recent smoke cloud coming from WTC 2; then it flies behind the water tower.

You have to use stop and go on the video to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88&feature=related

It takes a special kind of stupid to lack the ability to tell a plane apart from a bird.

[Redtail]

Can't you both be right?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=456&pictureid=2869

AJM wins thread.

[Hokulele]

Can't you both be right?


Your weapons delivery system label is about 1" too far forward.

[firecoins]

Must have been a stealth bomber.

[AJM8125]

Your weapons delivery system label is about 1" too far forward.

It's implied. Hasn't jammonius taught you anything? :)

[carlitos]

Someone read their calendar wrong. It's April 11th, not April 1st.

[T.A.M.]

Funny and stupid - that anyone thinks that black blip was a jet.

Eerie - That the people filming the 2nd plane hitting made not gasp or sounds of horror as they watched it hit.

TAM:)

[Thunder]

it is soooo clearly NOT.....an airplane.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

what is this? magZ repeating a claim he started when he first joined this forum? Why are we even revisiting this?


Long-term memory problem on MaGZ's part?

We did this bird thing long ago here... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=33


I... don't think The "Carlos Swett affair" is the thread you meant to link. ;)

[Garb]

God dammit that is a chilling video to watch.

[MG1962]

That was a very quiet plane

[ElMondoHummus]

lolololhttp://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/laughing-smiley-007.gif
Can't you both be right?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=456&pictureid=2869


http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/rofl.gifhttp://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/elmondohummus/lol.gif

[akama1]

Can't you both be right?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=456&pictureid=2869
.....
.
.
.

Brain officially Blown

[CurtC]

I didn't see the video - is this another "paranormal hat"?

[Walter Ego]

I didn't see the video - is this another "paranormal hat"?

It was an avian UFO. Here's another UFO at GZ.

GBQNMMeMEgk

[Mancman]

Is it a bird? It is a.....oh, yeah it is a bird.

[Pardalis]

It's Groundhog Day.

This has been discussed already here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81103

That was one of the first threads MaGZ started three years ago.

[Tricky]

I have merged this thread with an identical thread from earlier. While it is not uncommon to have the same issue discussed more than once, when it is the same member starting the thread, it may be considered flooding.

[newton3376]

When I paused the video and played it for 1 second at a time I noticed that the "F-15" looks very similar to a bird.....same body shape, same wing motion (flapping), same size....

I'm not sure what to make of it.....

How did they fit the pilot inside the cockpit?

This could NOT have been a manned aircraft...

The manned "looks and acts exactly like a bird" F-15s are much much larger.....this must have been special "UAV" type....commonly known as "UAVTLAELB"....

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle That Looks and Acts Exactly Like a Bird.

cause those are smaller.....

[Pardalis]

I say we shouldn't encourage someone's delusion.

Like the infamous Christophera with his "concrete core", MaGZ will hold on on to his pet theory until the day he dies. There is no way we can make him see reason.

Like the old saying: you can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into.

[AJM8125]

Brain officially Blown

If you think that's a mind blower, then think about this:

With its wings and tail retracted while grounded, its markings are covered and appears, for all the world, to be a normal pigeon... Those things could be everywhere!:eye-poppi

[sheeplesnshills]

If you think that's a mind blower, then think about this:

With its wings and tail retracted while grounded, its markings are covered and appears, for all the world, to be a normal pigeon... Those things could be everywhere!:eye-poppi

I've heard they are being phased in across the world by the NWO to replace the black helicopters.

[newton3376]

If you think that's a mind blower, then think about this:

With its wings and tail retracted while grounded, its markings are covered and appears, for all the world, to be a normal pigeon... Those things could be everywhere!:eye-poppi

.....I just saw one!!!!!

[newton3376]

I say we shouldn't encourage someone's delusion.

Like the infamous Christophera with his "concrete core", MaGZ will hold on on to his pet theory until the day he dies. There is no way we can make him see reason.

Like the old saying: you can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into.

Exactly...which is why sometimes the best position is pure mockery....

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I awoke this morning to a fleet F-15s on my front lawn. And from the looks of the devastation, a number of them bombed my car.

[triforcharity]

Here is a video showing one of the F-15s from Otis Air Force Base flying past WTC 2 after the second hijacked plane hits the tower. The fighter appears about 50 seconds into the video and flashes past the WTC. It first appears in the foreground of the distant smoke and then flies behind or into the most recent smoke cloud coming from WTC 2; then it flies behind the water tower.

You have to use stop and go on the video to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RpNSF-er88&feature=related

Wow, since when did out F-15's from Otis flap their wings? LOL!! I propose this entire thread be moved to the comedy section.

[triforcharity]

Can't you both be right?

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=456&pictureid=2869

Nominated Sir. Very nicely played!! I love the "Specialized Weapon Management System". Perfect.

[triforcharity]

Oh damn, this thread has got me ROLLING.



Note to self : No drinking anything while reading this thread.

[Sam.I.Am]

Apparently the Nautilus has an entire squadron of F-15's in her sail. They also must think that tourists are terrorists considering how ofter they try to bomb them every day.

[thecritta]

I say where is the invisible F-15 in this video because I don't see
one, looks like the author of the post is lying through his teeth
and is wasting everybody's time, I demand to know where the
invisible F-15 is in the video is, let me guess the invisible F-15 shot
two invisible missiles into the towers and the big silver jet is just
a CGI graphics animated plane, or maybe not hmmmm makes me
wonder.

:D:D:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

[dafydd]

I say where is the invisible F-15 in this video because I don't see
one, looks like the author of the post is lying through his teeth
and is wasting everybody's time, I demand to know where the
invisible F-15 is in the video is, let me guess the invisible F-15 shot
two invisible missiles into the towers and the big silver jet is just
a CGI graphics animated plane, or maybe not hmmmm makes me
wonder.

:D:D:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

''Wonder on,'till truth makes all things plain.'' Meanwhile the rest of us will deal with reality.

[Foolmewunz]

Whoa! Did I get off the elevator in the wrong year? I could've sworn I pressed 2010 when I came back from getting a coffee!

Wasn't this about the time we dug up the links to the crazy who had proof that it was Pteradactyls(sic)? I think MaGZ is trying for her sort of iconic status. (You're getting there, MaGZ! You just need to concentrate on anti-semitic holocaust denying white supremist posts or batcrap crazy missiles and jets and pigeons at GZ. It's a specialists' world, after all.)