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.
For once, you would be right. What was actually used was indeed bigger. It's called a "Boeing 767".
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.
Hahahahahaha
Giving a quantitative assessment to the amount of fallback is nearly impossible and you know that.
Incorrect.
But to try look at the calculations for the loss of momentum upon impact (this will address Mackey as well)
Where are these calculations?
They vary wildly by even those that SUPPORT the official story.
a) How do you know? Where have you seen those calcs?
b) So what? There will be an upper and lower bound. We can look at those.
But that's only initial impact, anything else is very difficult to compute.
And yet, a team of Purdue University has done just that. Oh, and NIST did it, too! Amazing, isn't it? Mackey just did the sanity check, and it worked out fine.
Seems like smart people with sufficient knowledge of physics, engineering and math find such things much easier than you do. That's solely your problem.
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.
You can't compute these things to absolute mathematical precision, but you can get damned close. Within 10% or 20% of "truth" will absolutely do!
Why not do everything you can to have the A/C penetrate as far as it can before it encounters any real resistance?
If you would please provide NUMBERS for the kinetic energy (and momentum) of a plausible missile!? Once we see those numbers, and compare them with the numbers for the 767 that we already have, you may grasp that adding a missile that's launched 1 second before impact is insignificant! A missile would add fewer %s that the error of margin of our calculation for momentum loss.
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.
But I do want to see your math! You make claims that rest on your believes about the physics and the math of kinetic energy missiles. Either you know what you are talking about, then show your work; or you don't know what you are talking about, then STFU!
Post 530 assumes some missile that accelerates at 60g. You say you need a much bigger missile for your purposes. Would a much bigger missile also achieve 60g acceleration? What mass would you assume for the missile? Please, we need numbers, and you need to make them plausible! Sabrina directed you to a database with all missiles in the world! Use it!
So far you are only making stuff up.
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.
Alright.
Plane was 243 m/s.
So your hypothetical missile goes 486 m/s.
40 pounds is 20 kg.
Kinetic energy of your missile is 1/2 m*v
2= 0.5 * 20kg * (486m/s)
2 = 2.36*10
6 Joules
But just before launch, it already moved at the plane's 243m/s. We'd have to subtract that from the above value to get the kinetic energy gained from using a missile as a missile:
- 0.5 * 20kg * (243m/s)
2 = 0.59*10
6 Joules
-> Missile added 2.36*106J - 0.59*106J = 1.77*106J
Kinetic energy of plane was
= 0.5 * 115,980kg * (243m/s)
2 = 3.42 * 10
9J
So your missile added 1.77*106 / 3.42 * 109 = 0.05% to the plane's kinetic energy.
Hahaha
They are anomalous flashes because try as people have, it can not be explained.
Wrong. YOU cannot explain.
