3 ms·

Even truck mechanics, cooks, and the like have plenty of opportunities to see missile launches. EDIT : Missiles are far faster, and crucially, are on fire fro

Even truck mechanics, cooks, and the like have plenty of opportunities to see missile launches. EDIT : Missiles are far faster, and crucially, are on fire from the ground up. They go much straighter and produce much more consistent light than a burning half-plane, which is not capable of ascending anywhere close to vertically. They also make drastically different sounds, as one is supersonic and the other very much is not. They really do look and sound very different. I would expect someone who has seen and heard dozens of launches of that exact missile to be able to make it out quite easily. There are plenty of videos of that online and the difference is quite obvious. Especially someone who is used to this exact model of missile would be able to tell them apart.

ceejayoz 4y ago
Yes, but how many have seen a mid-air explosion of a 747 to compare against? "It looked like a missile" may be entirely true. It may also be true that a burning, rapidly climbing half of a 747 looks a bit like a missile from afar. Re: edit: > Missiles are far faster Speed is notoriously hard to measure visually. Watch a A380 come in for a landing and you'll swear it's barely moving. > are on fire from the ground up Most of the eyewitnesses were over the horizon from any potential launch site. > They go much straighter and produce much more consistent light than a burning half-plane, which is not capable of ascending anywhere close to vertically A tail-heavy half of a 747 could absolutely go vertical for a bit with the entire nose missing. > They also make drastically different sounds, as one is supersonic and the other very much is not. People largely reported hearing an explosion, not a sonic boom.
- avh02 4y ago
  Of everything you said > A tail-heavy half of a 747 could absolutely go vertical for a bit with the entire nose missing. Is doing some very heavy assuming.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    I don’t know about “vertical”, but the pitch-up theory is the NTSB’s own, not the sole assumption of the person you’re responding to.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    It's not an assumption. Here's what a tail-heavy 747 does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUWC2jfjqI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUWC2jfjqI
    - avh02 4y ago
      you will notice a rapid lack of upwards ('vertical') movement in that video.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        You’ll notice it’s taking off, not at cruise speed, and still makes a thousand or more feet into the air.
        avh02 4y ago
        Unfortunately I can't find altitude graphs or anything for national airlines 102, so can't really back up my argument with facts, but I'm gonna take a guess and say it wasn't flying like a rocket vertically upwards for 1000 feet. My guess is that it would have stalled very quickly after it nosed up too far and started dropping. You make a good point about TWA 800 being at cruise speed compared to the cargo flight, and let's assume you're right and it does manage to nose up and keep going for some time: in that case you'd see something go upwards after an explosion, not streak towards it - though eyewitness accounts in times like that have been known to be flakey, so i give up here.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        > in that case you'd see something go upwards after an explosion, not streak towards it... Unless there's a subsequent explosion of the now-burning half a plane. There's a good set of animations on https://imgur.com/a/zin7CRo https://imgur.com/a/zin7CRo that illustrate the theory of what happened.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  > Most of the eyewitnesses were over the horizon from any potential launch site. Yes, you will still see it ascend over the horizon. Not so for a level plane. >A tail-heavy half of a 747 could absolutely go vertical for a bit with the entire nose missing. No, it can't. In the unlikely event that it can keep from stalling, a positive feedback loop from being aerodynamically unstable would send it in a spin. It wouldn't be able to pitch up for more than a few seconds before spinning wildly or disintegrating from aerodynamic forces. Most likely it is already in a state of stall and basically in a fall. > People largely reported hearing an explosion, not a sonic boom. Sonic booms sound just like explosions. Here is what a high supersonic to hypersonic missile sounds like : https://youtube.com/shorts/QknqE1IIgHc?feature=share https://youtube.com/shorts/QknqE1IIgHc?feature=share
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > Yes, you will still see it ascend over the horizon. You notice something out to sea. It's a lit object rising up into the air. There's then an explosion. This describes both "missile hits plane" and "burning plane flying upwards explodes". > No, it can't. I mean, tell that to the NTSB, who didn't have much objection to the CIA's theory. Or the world's community of aviation engineers, who a) weren't part of the conspiracy and b) didn't riot over something you're claiming is obviously impossible. Essentially, it did this, but at a much higher starting speed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUWC2jfjqI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUWC2jfjqI > In the unlikely event that it can keep from stalling... Yes, it would stall. If you want to stall a plane, one of the easiest ways ways is to pitch up sharply. > It wouldn't be able to pitch up for more than a few seconds before spinning wildly or disintegrating from aerodynamic forces. Yes, that's the ka-boom part of what was seen. There's an animation based on the reconstruction at https://imgur.com/a/zin7CRo https://imgur.com/a/zin7CRo that demonstrates this, exactly as you describe - pitch up, flip over, disintegrate. > Sonic booms sound just like explosions. Then we agree that "people said it sounded like a missile" is not meaningful.
rascul 4y ago
> Even truck mechanics, cooks, and the like have plenty of opportunities to see missile launches. Not necessarily. Based on my time in the US Army, the opportunities for most troops to see missile launches first hand are fairly low. Even for those of us who were in air defense. Live fire exercises were rare, and we never got to fire any in Afghanistan.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  That specific base was home to a missile testing center, where dozens were shot.

ceejayoz 4y ago

Yes, but how many have seen a mid-air explosion of a 747 to compare against? "It looked like a missile" may be entirely true. It may also be true that a burning, rapidly climbing half of a 747 looks a bit like a missile from afar. Re: edit: > Missiles are far faster Speed is notoriously hard to measure visually. Watch a A380 come in for a landing and you'll swear it's barely moving. > are on fire from the ground up Most of the eyewitnesses were over the horizon from any potential launch site. > They go much straighter and produce much more consistent light than a burning half-plane, which is not capable of ascending anywhere close to vertically A tail-heavy half of a 747 could absolutely go vertical for a bit with the entire nose missing. > They also make drastically different sounds, as one is supersonic and the other very much is not. People largely reported hearing an explosion, not a sonic boom.

avh02 4y ago
Of everything you said > A tail-heavy half of a 747 could absolutely go vertical for a bit with the entire nose missing. Is doing some very heavy assuming.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I don’t know about “vertical”, but the pitch-up theory is the NTSB’s own, not the sole assumption of the person you’re responding to.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  It's not an assumption. Here's what a tail-heavy 747 does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUWC2jfjqI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUWC2jfjqI
  - avh02 4y ago
    you will notice a rapid lack of upwards ('vertical') movement in that video.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      You’ll notice it’s taking off, not at cruise speed, and still makes a thousand or more feet into the air.
      - avh02 4y ago
        Unfortunately I can't find altitude graphs or anything for national airlines 102, so can't really back up my argument with facts, but I'm gonna take a guess and say it wasn't flying like a rocket vertically upwards for 1000 feet. My guess is that it would have stalled very quickly after it nosed up too far and started dropping. You make a good point about TWA 800 being at cruise speed compared to the cargo flight, and let's assume you're right and it does manage to nose up and keep going for some time: in that case you'd see something go upwards after an explosion, not streak towards it - though eyewitness accounts in times like that have been known to be flakey, so i give up here.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        > in that case you'd see something go upwards after an explosion, not streak towards it... Unless there's a subsequent explosion of the now-burning half a plane. There's a good set of animations on https://imgur.com/a/zin7CRo https://imgur.com/a/zin7CRo that illustrate the theory of what happened.
sudosysgen 4y ago
> Most of the eyewitnesses were over the horizon from any potential launch site. Yes, you will still see it ascend over the horizon. Not so for a level plane. >A tail-heavy half of a 747 could absolutely go vertical for a bit with the entire nose missing. No, it can't. In the unlikely event that it can keep from stalling, a positive feedback loop from being aerodynamically unstable would send it in a spin. It wouldn't be able to pitch up for more than a few seconds before spinning wildly or disintegrating from aerodynamic forces. Most likely it is already in a state of stall and basically in a fall. > People largely reported hearing an explosion, not a sonic boom. Sonic booms sound just like explosions. Here is what a high supersonic to hypersonic missile sounds like : https://youtube.com/shorts/QknqE1IIgHc?feature=share https://youtube.com/shorts/QknqE1IIgHc?feature=share
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Yes, you will still see it ascend over the horizon. You notice something out to sea. It's a lit object rising up into the air. There's then an explosion. This describes both "missile hits plane" and "burning plane flying upwards explodes". > No, it can't. I mean, tell that to the NTSB, who didn't have much objection to the CIA's theory. Or the world's community of aviation engineers, who a) weren't part of the conspiracy and b) didn't riot over something you're claiming is obviously impossible. Essentially, it did this, but at a much higher starting speed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUWC2jfjqI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUWC2jfjqI > In the unlikely event that it can keep from stalling... Yes, it would stall. If you want to stall a plane, one of the easiest ways ways is to pitch up sharply. > It wouldn't be able to pitch up for more than a few seconds before spinning wildly or disintegrating from aerodynamic forces. Yes, that's the ka-boom part of what was seen. There's an animation based on the reconstruction at https://imgur.com/a/zin7CRo https://imgur.com/a/zin7CRo that demonstrates this, exactly as you describe - pitch up, flip over, disintegrate. > Sonic booms sound just like explosions. Then we agree that "people said it sounded like a missile" is not meaningful.

rascul 4y ago

> Even truck mechanics, cooks, and the like have plenty of opportunities to see missile launches. Not necessarily. Based on my time in the US Army, the opportunities for most troops to see missile launches first hand are fairly low. Even for those of us who were in air defense. Live fire exercises were rare, and we never got to fire any in Afghanistan.

sudosysgen 4y ago
That specific base was home to a missile testing center, where dozens were shot.