Missile??

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

Oh I understand that you are claiming two flashes, one well before and one at impact, though in past references you seemed to havethe sceond flash also occuring before impact and to have changed your mind on that.



Yes, I saw that vid the first time you posted it and again I see nothing that looks like a missile launch, I also see no missile.
I do see something that looks like a vapour cloud at the trailing edge of the wing at the fuselage. 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.

I fail to understand what you mean.
The F-4 was unpowered, you realize that right? It was propelled by a rocket sled strapped under the plane. Its tanks were filled with water to simulate the mass of fuel and its had no electrical power on at the time. Given that they wanted no fuel on board in order to have no explosion and given that no electrical was on I would also expect there to be no Oxygen supply or powered up radar.
Now also given the FACT that many here have stated that the flash after impact is likely to be the O2 bottles or the radar being violently destroyed how is it that you can expect this to look something like the F-4? I'm talking about the flash since its patently obvious that the resultant damage to a smaller aircraft into a solid block of concrete will be vastly different than a 767 into a widely spaced lattice work of steel.

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.
They punch small holes in steel with their kinetic energy/momentum. The explosion is to kill occupants and damage softer equipment inside the armour of a an APC.
The dart WILL(physics dictates it) lose velocity in its passage through steel. Thus it will no longer be capable of again penetrating another column.
I will assume that you are trying to say that once through a perimeter column that it could be angled such that it would then strike a core column since in order to strike another perimeter column it would ahve to hit the first one at right angles to the travel of the aircraft or doa 180 degree turn once inside the building. The core columns are even bigger than the perimeter columns making the idea of a second penetration all the more unlikely. They are also separated by several dozen feet and its trajectory after penetrating the first column is going to be quite unknown. Its fins will have been torn off or bent and its laser tracking will have been destroyed on impact. No missile has ever been created that, having pentrated its target, is expected to have its guidence remain intact so as to then retarget something else.

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.
A hundred thousand pounds moving at 500 MPH is quite capable of entering a steel framed building on its own. It won't be intact as it moves past the outer wall , neither will the wall, but its going inside.

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.

Well in none of your vides have I seen an orange flame. However I notye that in the missile launch vids one also does not see an orange flame, certainly not in the launch of the Starstreak.
Your picture is of a vapour trail. That is the condensing of the vapour coming out of the engines. I you look at a 747 flying high and leaving a vapour trail like this you can easily see that there are actually 4 of them, one coming from each engine. Two on each wing, but the pair on each wing meld together quickly as the planers moves forward leaving only two trails. This is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a cloud forming around a fast moving surface that creates a high pressure shockwave in front of surfaces with a local low pressure area immediatly follwoing it, sufficient to cause the water vapour in the air to condense.

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.

You are correct what happened at the trailing edge of the plane had nothing to do with what happened as the plane impacted the building. One is a physical phenomena having to do with humidity, pressure, and speed, and the other having to do with the violence of a high speed collsion between a jet aircraft and a large building. The former is something that has been observed many times.You can look up 'vapour cones' to see this effect on supersonic fighters but its going to come into play at certain parts of large aircraft approaching Mach 1 ESPECIALLY IF THE PLANE IS manouvering.
The later is something that tahnkfully we rarely ever witness let alone catch in a recording. Planes just do not have a habit of ramming large buildings very often and thus to my knowledge there is no library of video clips of this occuring. That you cannot envision an oxygen bottle being ripped apart and how this will look is a matter not of any suspicious occurance but rather evidence of the conmspiracy myopia that you have.
 
Last edited:
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.

My starting point aside you have no evidence of a missile. No one can see this missile, there are other explanations for the suppposed flashes and penetrating one or perhaps(if you have engineered a specific weapon for this job) two columns is going to have a minimal effect on how well the 100,000 pound , 500 MPH aircraft is going to penetrate the structure.
How soon this first 'flash' occurs before impact only allows the supposed missile to gain velocity. It will still hit only one column(we see only one impact flash) its not going to be able to then target a core column.

Your premise is breaking down all around you and STILL you hang onto it. Very soon you will have a sci-fi weapon proposed, many probably would consider you invoking one now.
 
tmd's next weapon:

medium_firing_wave_motion_gun__1_.jpg



Have ALL the decomissioned battleships from ALL countries been accounted for? If not, how can we rule out the wave motion gun?
 
Youtube,the fons et origo of conspiracy theories. I note that tmd is avoiding the question.
Oh, you'd be shocked to know his level of education, or so tmd2-1 says.

He says that like it's a good thing... :boggled:
 
That reminds me. I have "Space Battleship Yamato" on my hard drive (with engrish subs), I really should watch that...
 
Wonderful. We have agreement there.


Thor is a launcher, not a missile. Reading comprehension...
Being able to "pierce steel" is not the same as being able to "pierce any steel", and cetrainly quite far from "severing large steel columns".
The verb "to pierce" according to Merriam-Webster:
1a : to run into or through as a pointed weapon does : stab b : to enter or thrust into sharply or painfully
2: to make a hole through : perforate
3: to force or make a way into or through
It implies attacking a very limited area and poking through like a needle through skin (hence "piercing" body decoration).
Weapons that pierce steel aim to poke a hole into armour steel so that hot or explosive material penetrates into the attacked vehicle.

What we need here is the ability to cut clean through a steelk box column; not just attack a cubic inch or two, but many.


Great that you realize this.


Why do you think this was a necessary objective?


Later sections need not penetrate as the earlier sections already opened the way. Besides, later sections still have most of their momentum; if you think that the plane would stay rigid, and any deceleration of the front part would significantly slow down the aft, you show once again your terrible grasp on physics and basic structural engineering.


"Greatly"? Sounds like a quantitative assessment. Where does "greatly" begin, and can you show the numbers to prove you use that word reasonably?


Perhaps. In other words, you don't know.
Why do you think this would be a necessary objective?
Can you please show that any missiles exist who are designed with a large fireball in mind?
How much explosives does a starstreak missile carry, how large would their fireball be, and how does that compare to the fireball that was observed, or that you would expect from several thousands of gallons of jet fuel?


Not a smart thought.
Would it make sense to ignite the jet fuel at or even before the building facade, before it has mixed with plenty of air?


You are damned right that you have no clue here.
You also have not given any good reasons how and why the flash could be explained with a missile. You are making stuff up as you go along, that is all.


Why do you think they are anomalous? Can you show us that normally there is no such flash when a large plane crashes into a building?




Oh, and you have in no way at all addressed Mackey's calculation that shows quite clearly that the momentum (energy too) of the plane was very much in excess of what's needed to cut through the columns, penetrate building and not bounce off.

Also, you still have not provided an estimate for the kinetic energy (and momentum) of a plausible missile fired from the plane one second before plane impact. If you did that, you't notice that any missile would not add much to the penetrating force that the plane alone has.

(Do you realize that any missile fired 1 second before plane impact would either impact well ahead of the plane (a plane length or more) or not be very much faster than the plane and thus not add greatly to total energy and momentum?)

Thor is designed to pierce heavily armored vehicles, vehicles designed to take the impact of weapons. There is not doubt something like it could do the job. I am only talking about concept, what was actually used could and would have been bigger, greatly adding to the destructive force.

It's a necessary objective because perhaps, if that was not plane it was suppose to be, they would want as little parts to fall back as possible.

Giving a quantitative assessment to the amount of fallback is nearly impossible and you know that. But to try look at the calculations for the loss of momentum upon impact (this will address Mackey as well) They vary wildly by even those that SUPPORT the official story. But that's only initial impact, anything else is very difficult to compute. You have the wings, you have the engines,
you have the tail, you also have the fact that the A/C may not enter perfectly straight, will all of this it is nearly impossible to get a true momentum loss. Why not do everything you can to have the A/C penetrate as far as it can before it encounters any real resistance?

In regards to speed of a possible projectile all you have to do is go to post 530, and again that is not my math. If it is fired one second before hand, it could be going twice as fast the A/C. So let's just take it conservative and say 1600 ft a second. Plug a 30-40 pound weapon into the kinetic energy formula, and you are talking about a lot of damage.

They are anomalous flashes because try as people have, it can not be explained.
 
Thor is designed to pierce heavily armored vehicles, vehicles designed to take the impact of weapons. There is not doubt something like it could do the job. I am only talking about concept, what was actually used could and would have been bigger, greatly adding to the destructive force.

:solved1

Something like a 767. That'd do the trick. You're welcome.
 
Oh I understand that you are claiming two flashes, one well before and one at impact, though in past references you seemed to havethe sceond flash also occuring before impact and to have changed your mind on that.




Yes, I saw that vid the first time you posted it and again I see nothing that looks like a missile launch, I also see no missile.
I do see something that looks like a vapour cloud at the trailing edge of the wing at the fuselage. I've also shown good quality video of these.



I fail to understand what you mean.
The F-4 was unpowered, you realize that right? It was propelled by a rocket sled strapped under the plane. Its tanks were filled with water to simulate the mass of fuel and its had no electrical power on at the time. Given that they wanted no fuel on board in order to have no explosion and given that no electrical was on I would also expect there to be no Oxygen supply or powered up radar.
Now also given the FACT that many here have stated that the flash after impact is likely to be the O2 bottles or the radar being violently destroyed how is it that you can expect this to look something like the F-4? I'm talking about the flash since its patently obvious that the resultant damage to a smaller aircraft into a solid block of concrete will be vastly different than a 767 into a widely spaced lattice work of steel.

They punch small holes in steel with their kinetic energy/momentum. The explosion is to kill occupants and damage softer equipment inside the armour of a an APC.
The dart WILL(physics dictates it) lose velocity in its passage through steel. Thus it will no longer be capable of again penetrating another column.
I will assume that you are trying to say that once through a perimeter column that it could be angled such that it would then strike a core column since in order to strike another perimeter column it would ahve to hit the first one at right angles to the travel of the aircraft or doa 180 degree turn once inside the building. The core columns are even bigger than the perimeter columns making the idea of a second penetration all the more unlikely. They are also separated by several dozen feet and its trajectory after penetrating the first column is going to be quite unknown. Its fins will have been torn off or bent and its laser tracking will have been destroyed on impact. No missile has ever been created that, having pentrated its target, is expected to have its guidence remain intact so as to then retarget something else.


A hundred thousand pounds moving at 500 MPH is quite capable of entering a steel framed building on its own. It won't be intact as it moves past the outer wall , neither will the wall, but its going inside.



Well in none of your vides have I seen an orange flame. However I notye that in the missile launch vids one also does not see an orange flame, certainly not in the launch of the Starstreak.
Your picture is of a vapour trail. That is the condensing of the vapour coming out of the engines. I you look at a 747 flying high and leaving a vapour trail like this you can easily see that there are actually 4 of them, one coming from each engine. Two on each wing, but the pair on each wing meld together quickly as the planers moves forward leaving only two trails. This is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a cloud forming around a fast moving surface that creates a high pressure shockwave in front of surfaces with a local low pressure area immediatly follwoing it, sufficient to cause the water vapour in the air to condense.



You are correct what happened at the trailing edge of the plane had nothing to do with what happened as the plane impacted the building. One is a physical phenomena having to do with humidity, pressure, and speed, and the other having to do with the violence of a high speed collsion between a jet aircraft and a large building. The former is something that has been observed many times.You can look up 'vapour cones' to see this effect on supersonic fighters but its going to come into play at certain parts of large aircraft approaching Mach 1 ESPECIALLY IF THE PLANE IS manouvering.
The later is something that tahnkfully we rarely ever witness let alone catch in a recording. Planes just do not have a habit of ramming large buildings very often and thus to my knowledge there is no library of video clips of this occuring. That you cannot envision an oxygen bottle being ripped apart and how this will look is a matter not of any suspicious occurance but rather evidence of the conmspiracy myopia that you have.



You are just playing games. This is just like when you couldn't see the silver pouring out of the container. You know that first flash is orange and shouldn't be there.

You also know the point of my video showing the F-4 test. You are smart guy, you have to know. That is how a flash (whatever the reason) should look AFTER impact. Compare that to 175, and you can clearly see the difference.

Look at these sets of stills. Tell me it doesn't look like something is traveling along side the A/C?
 

Attachments

  • clipboard01.jpg
    clipboard01.jpg
    13.6 KB · Views: 12
My starting point aside you have no evidence of a missile. No one can see this missile, there are other explanations for the suppposed flashes and penetrating one or perhaps(if you have engineered a specific weapon for this job) two columns is going to have a minimal effect on how well the 100,000 pound , 500 MPH aircraft is going to penetrate the structure.
How soon this first 'flash' occurs before impact only allows the supposed missile to gain velocity. It will still hit only one column(we see only one impact flash) its not going to be able to then target a core column.

Your premise is breaking down all around you and STILL you hang onto it. Very soon you will have a sci-fi weapon proposed, many probably would consider you invoking one now.

When you start resorting to posts like this, it's clear you are playing games. My "premise" is stronger than ever, and you know that.

Why even bring up a "sci-fi" weapon? This was made in the 80's. It wasn't exactly yesterday.
 
You do realize that parts of the aircraft were found all over lower Manhattan before the collapses, right?

So, this missle theory didn't really work out quite like you had planned, eh?

Well I would disagree with "all over" Manhattan, but yes they were found. But you know an interesting thing is no serial numbers have publicly been announced and verified as belonging to the planes they should have. In fact there is very good evidence, that this was not done at all.

"Federal Defendant has determined that there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated"



http://911blogger.com/node/14406
 
Do the job? What job was it supposed to do? Blow holes in the exterior? It wouldn't do that even if it were used like you say. It would poke small diameter holes in the steel. Weapons like that are intended to penetrate and then detonate inside vehicles with the shrapnel it creates bouncing around the insides and making hamburger of the occupants and perhaps setting of the ordnance being carried.

You than go on to say that your fantasy weapon would have to be a scaled up version of the starstreak with no proof whatsoever of such a thing ever existing outside of a drawing board, much less being tested or deployed. That's not how the real world works. From concept to deployment is usually in the order of years and although the details may be classified the basic weapon concept isn't.

Then you're concept missile has to have time to arm/enable after launch (generally considered to be a minimum of 2/10th of a mile or so). Giving you the benefit of the doubt that's at least 1,100 feet (1/3rd of a kilometer). That's about seven plane lengths. Even allowing for the planes speed the missile would've hit and detonated well before the plane even got there and that would've been evident in all of the videos of the event.

There. Was. Not. A. Missile.

Even if it was for mental masturbation this idea is pointless to kick around.
 
Thor is designed to pierce heavily armored vehicles, vehicles designed to take the impact of weapons.

It designed to make small round holes through the armour. A small rond hole in a column, even with a wost case hit would only reduce it strength by at most 25%

There is not doubt something like it could do the job.

There is every doubt it would do any job.

I am only talking about concept, what was actually used could and would have been bigger, greatly adding to the destructive force.

so you are inventing a new bigger weapon????that is still invisible???

It's a necessary objective because perhaps, if that was not plane it was suppose to be, they would want as little parts to fall back as possible.


It couldn't fall back even if it tried! The plane would either pass through the columns or be shredded by them to confetti as happened at the pentagon,!

Giving a quantitative assessment to the amount of fallback is nearly impossible and you know that.

Rubbish, its already been done by Purdue and others.

But to try look at the calculations for the loss of momentum upon impact (this will address Mackey as well) They vary wildly by even those that SUPPORT the official story.

wildly? where?

But that's only initial impact, anything else is very difficult to compute. You have the wings, you have the engines, you have the tail,

they all have mass too and the same velocity.........what doesn't get through
shreds to confetti

you also have the fact that the A/C may not enter perfectly straight, will all of this it is nearly impossible to get a true momentum loss.

if the required figure to penetrate is much less than that available then how is angle going to make any difference????

Why not do everything you can to have the A/C penetrate as far as it can before it encounters any real resistance?

because its utterly pointless! Its been shown that the aircraft would have had more than enough to go through and anyone planning such an attack could have calculated and not wasted their time withe invisible, not yet invented, missiles!!!

In regards to speed of a possible projectile all you have to do is go to post 530, and again that is not my math. If it is fired one second before hand, it could be going twice as fast the A/C. So let's just take it conservative and say 1600 ft a second. Plug a 30-40 pound weapon into the kinetic energy formula, and you are talking about a lot of damage.

compared to 100,000lb of plane? hardly.

They are anomalous flashes because try as people have, it can not be explained.

Lying is not helping your case.
 

Back
Top Bottom