Missile??

jaydeehess said:
tmd2_1 said:
I came up with slightly different numbers, but they are close enough that I am not going to argue. We can both agree that there is some arbitrary numbers such as rounding to Mach 1, again nothing to be to concerned with.

What does bother me however is your starting point for missile fire. I would argue it is at least a second before it would have impacted the building. As seen in this video here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc4wsjKbYTQ&feature=related
Yes yes, let me guess, the grainy long shot video. I'll ETA in a bit.

ETA, yep, and what do we see? a 'flash'? No, a blush of light colouring at the trailing edge of the wing. If it is real and I were to guess, I'd say its a vapour due to the extreme speed and the manouvering of the aircraft as it passed througha slightly more humid bit of air near the tower.

Of course you are going to argue that its a full second because you saw my numbers that showed a doubling of velocity and decided that was to your liking.




The missiles fly in formation about 1.5 meters from each other. That is going to garuntee that at least one will not even impact a perimeter column and thus you will not get this same effect. You could say that it would be reworked to have them fly in a tighter formation but now you will decrease(yes decrease) the effectiveness of the three warheads and will only cause damage to 1 column. Ok you say its one warhead to each of three columns. Now you have a very small warhead into a very large column and the problem of multiple laser targeting.

I also note that the warhead explodes inside the armoured vehicle. That's because all its kinetic energy needs to do is punch that 2 inch hole and then get the small amount of explosive inside to kill much softer targets, the crew. In the case of an aircraft a small hole and small explosion willsuffice to bring it down. This amount of damage to a perimeter column is negligible.




Yes and ONE column severed is going to make little difference. IIRC a couple of dozen perimeter columns were severed by the passing of the jet. We certainly did not see anything that would cause any damage to a significant percentage of that.


So far your 'concept' is nothing more than 'explosives used to create a hole in a column'. Your 'concept' is no more fleshed out or practicle than Ms. Wood's pet concept.
Click to expand...

Oh it's real. Here are some good quality videos, made by a member on this site. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzRljtPjOhM

Here you see the almost circular flash http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw3dzA0sDTQ&feature=related

And another with the flash/flame out of the back http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPlt6Yghriw&feature=related

Here's what a flash should look like AFTER impact, and compare that to the second video above. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM

You see it best at about 25 seconds.

As far as damage goes, a slightly bigger missile more columns damaged.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
waypastvne said:
What I see is most likely an oxygen tank exploding. You said that this 100% impossible, but you never said why this is 100% impossible. So explain it to me.

The flash happens after impact, in the exact spot were the oxygen tank is located.

Do you think oxygen tanks can't explode ?

Do you think the flash is to big/small for an oxygen tank explosion ?

Do you think pure oxygen can't flash burn ?

Do you think the tank is located some were else on the plane.

In Truther world what do oxygen tanks do on impact ?
Click to expand...


Take a look at this video, and it's good quality made by a member here, so don't whine about that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw3dzA0sDTQ&feature=related Compare it to this video of what a flash would look like AFTER impact. About 25 seconds you see it best. Let me know if you see a difference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM
 
tmd2_1 said:
Take a look at this video, and it's good quality made by a member here, so don't whine about that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw3dzA0sDTQ&feature=related Compare it to this video of what a flash would look like AFTER impact. About 25 seconds you see it best. Let me know if you see a difference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM
Click to expand...

Why are you showing a video that only shows a plane crashing into the building but no missile? I see a flash as the nose impacts the building but I don't see a missile. Where is this missile you seem to think is there?
 
tmd2_1 said:
Oh it's real. Here are some good quality videos, made by a member on this site. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzRljtPjOhM
Click to expand...
As I said it looks more like a vapour cloud formed by the wing's passage than a flash. Certainly did not look circular in that video.(note that here we are speaking of the supposed missile launch, not the building impact). How come its not even visible in the high def sequence posted earlier?


Here's what a flash should look like AFTER impact, and compare that to the second video above. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM
Click to expand...
Should look like?
Man you are a funny funny guy.

Sure that is an F-4 which weighs in at about same as the fuel load on a 767 and its hitting a SOLID CONCRETE block ten feet thick.
see any differences between that and a 767 hitting a steel framed structure? Any major differences at all?
Well at least you are back to it occuring AFTER impact.
As far as damage goes, a slightly bigger missile more columns damaged.
Click to expand...

Sure, as long as the object you are attacking is a solid faced object , like a tank or APC. However in the case of the WTC towers an explosive would have to impact a column to have any effect. The columns were separated by a couple of meters and an explosive that takes out one will do little to nothing to the next one EVEN IF you used charges the power and strength of those used to sever large columns such as these. You would have to independantly target each column and each column would display its own 'flash'. We see ONE flash thus one explosion thus if its severing column(s) we can be assured that it ONE column. We do not see individual flashes on several columns.

As I said before as well, an explosive going off at the perimeter of the building as the plane impacts is going to have the effect of tearing parts of the aircraft off as those parts approach and to throw them outwards in all directions. Not only is this not in evidence, it is contrary to your own reasoning as to why a missile would be used at all(ensure maximum penetration). Indeed in order to use a missile in that fashion you would want to hit the building several full seconds prior to the plane getting to the building. You would want enough time to have the shock wave to have widened and weakened, and for flying debris to have moved out of the path of the aircraft.
Basically for the same reason we wait until a door is fully opened before trying to walk through the doorway.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
As I said it looks more like a vapour cloud formed by the wing's passage than a flash. Certainly did not look circular in that video.(note that here we are speaking of the supposed missile launch, not the building impact). How come its not even visible in the high def sequence posted earlier?



Should look like?
Man you are a funny funny guy.

Sure that is an F-4 which weighs in at about same as the fuel load on a 767 and its hitting a SOLID CONCRETE block ten feet thick.
see any differences between that and a 767 hitting a steel framed structure? Any major differences at all?
Well at least you are back to it occuring AFTER impact.


Sure, as long as the object you are attacking is a solid faced object , like a tank or APC. However in the case of the WTC towers an explosive would have to impact a column to have any effect. The columns were separated by a couple of meters and an explosive that takes out one will do little to nothing to the next one EVEN IF you used charges the power and strength of those used to sever large columns such as these. You would have to independantly target each column and each column would display its own 'flash'. We see ONE flash thus one explosion thus if its severing column(s) we can be assured that it ONE column. We do not see individual flashes on several columns.

As I said before as well, an explosive going off at the perimeter of the building as the plane impacts is going to have the effect of tearing parts of the aircraft off as those parts approach and to throw them outwards in all directions. Not only is this not in evidence, it is contrary to your own reasoning as to why a missile would be used at all(ensure maximum penetration). Indeed in order to use a missile in that fashion you would want to hit the building several full seconds prior to the plane getting to the building. You would want enough time to have the shock wave to have widened and weakened, and for flying debris to have moved out of the path of the aircraft.
Basically for the same reason we wait until a door is fully opened before trying to walk through the doorway.
Click to expand...

Let me be clear again there are two separate and anomalous flashes.

Just as in the OP here are two videos you see them the best. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc4wsjKbYTQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x8fs2sZmas&feature=related

I've also shown good quality video of these.

What I was saying about that plane crashing into the wall is that is how I would have expected 175 to look had it happened AFTER impact. I'm talking about the flash. I see absolutely no reason for it to not have looked like that, similar to the example I gave about the pencil puncturing through a screen.

Now the projectile could (I stress the word could) have been angled in such a way that it would damage two columns. Remember these work on kinetic energy alone, no explosion is necessary. It detonates after penetration. Also with the columns being so far apart maybe puncturing one column is all that's necessary. It would have greatly helped with the penetration of the nose.

But getting back to the flash that comes out of the back. I always thought a vapor cloud looked more like the picture below. Not an orange flame or flash coming from the back of the A/C.

So what are the chances of having two anomalous flashes coming from the same side of the A/C, in just a little over a seconds time, and both of these flashes being unrelated? Because I don't see how what happened out of the back of the plane would have had anything to do with the flash in front of the plane.
 

Attachments

  • 7075993-vapour-cloud-of-a-commercial-plane-in-the-air.jpg
    7075993-vapour-cloud-of-a-commercial-plane-in-the-air.jpg
    22.5 KB · Views: 2
tmd2_1 said:
Now the projectile could (I stress the word could) have been angled in such a way that it would damage two columns. Remember these work on kinetic energy alone, no explosion is necessary. It detonates after penetration. Also with the columns being so far apart maybe puncturing one column is all that's necessary. It would have greatly helped with the penetration of the nose.
Click to expand...

As others have pointed out repeatedly, the notion that a 767 at cruising speed would need the help of a missile to breach the outer wall of the WTC is remarkably stupid.

tmd2_1 said:
But getting back to the flash that comes out of the back. I always thought a vapor cloud looked more like the picture below. Not an orange flame or flash coming from the back of the A/C.
Click to expand...

Careful, you might incur the wrath of the chem-trailers as well as the debunkers.
 
tmd2_1 said:
...
Now the projectile could (I stress the word could) have been angled in such a way that it would damage two columns. Remember these work on kinetic energy alone, no explosion is necessary. It detonates after penetration. Also with the columns being so far apart maybe puncturing one column is all that's necessary. It would have greatly helped with the penetration of the nose.
...
Click to expand...

Well, actually, they work on energy and momentum.
But that minor fail aside:

Do you have at least a rough idea...
  • ...what the kinetic energy (and momentum) of the 767 was?
  • ...what the kinetic energy (and momentum) of a missle might be? You may use plausible assumptions about its mass and thrust and the time before plane impact when it was fired
  • ...what kinetic energy (and momentum) is needed to penetrate 1 perimeter column, or all the perimeter columns that were in fact penetrated, as evidenced by photos?
 
Oystein said:
Well, actually, they work on energy and momentum.
But that minor fail aside:

Do you have at least a rough idea...
  • ...what the kinetic energy (and momentum) of the 767 was?
  • ...what the kinetic energy (and momentum) of a missle might be? You may use plausible assumptions about its mass and thrust and the time before plane impact when it was fired
  • ...what kinetic energy (and momentum) is needed to penetrate 1 perimeter column, or all the perimeter columns that were in fact penetrated, as evidenced by photos?
Click to expand...

Go to post 530. It was calculated by a member here. Not me or any CTer for that matter. I by in large agree with the numbers. But I greatly disagree with his starting point. It would have been at least a full second before. I base that on the first video of the original post, where you see the flame/flash from the back of the A/C. Based on this you can see there could be enough time to have plenty of damage.
 
tmd2_1 said:
Go to post 530. It was calculated by a member here. Not me or any CTer for that matter. I by in large agree with the numbers. But I greatly disagree with his starting point. It would have been at least a full second before. I base that on the first video of the original post, where you see the flame/flash from the back of the A/C. Based on this you can see there could be enough time to have plenty of damage.
Click to expand...
The point flew over your head. Why would you use a missile if the plane was more than enough? Do you not agree the plane would have enough energy in itself to enter the building?
 
tmd2_1 said:
Go to post 530. It was calculated by a member here. Not me or any CTer for that matter. I by in large agree with the numbers. But I greatly disagree with his starting point. It would have been at least a full second before. I base that on the first video of the original post, where you see the flame/flash from the back of the A/C. Based on this you can see there could be enough time to have plenty of damage.
Click to expand...

Could you please quote post 530 for me and show me where jaydeehess has calculated
  • ...what the kinetic energy (and momentum) of the 767 was?
  • ...what the kinetic energy (and momentum) of a missle might be? You may use plausible assumptions about its mass and thrust and the time before plane impact when it was fired
  • ...what kinetic energy (and momentum) is needed to penetrate 1 perimeter column, or all the perimeter columns that were in fact penetrated, as evidenced by photos?

Thanks.

If it turns out that any, or all, of the questions are not answered in post 530, could you please provide the answers on your own then? That would be much appreciated.
 
Oystein said:
Could you please quote post 530 for me and show me where jaydeehess has calculated
  • ...what the kinetic energy (and momentum) of the 767 was?
  • ...what the kinetic energy (and momentum) of a missle might be? You may use plausible assumptions about its mass and thrust and the time before plane impact when it was fired
  • ...what kinetic energy (and momentum) is needed to penetrate 1 perimeter column, or all the perimeter columns that were in fact penetrated, as evidenced by photos?

Thanks.

If it turns out that any, or all, of the questions are not answered in post 530, could you please provide the answers on your own then? That would be much appreciated.
Click to expand...

Ok I thought his answers would have satisfied you.

Assumuming the plane was going 590 MPH or 865 ft a second. The kinetic energy would be computed as follows.

= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force or 6,227,270 Kilojoules

You can substitute any variables you would like for a missile into that formula.

I'm really not sure what it would take to penetrate a steel column.
 
I'm really not sure what it would take to penetrate a steel column.
Click to expand...

A LOT less than that.

No missile.
No projectile.
Just an airplane. A really, really, really BIG airplane. Going really, really, really fast.
 
NoahFence said:
A LOT less than that.

No missile.
No projectile.
Just an airplane. A really, really, really BIG airplane. Going really, really, really fast.
Click to expand...

Well of course I agree to that, but I mean the impact was dispersed over many columns. As I said, the exact amount of penetration to be expected is a very difficult thing to compute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom