Missile??

[jaydeehess]

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.

I most certainly do not know that the first flash is orange. I do NOT see any orange flash. I see a brighter part of a cloud of vapour at the trailing edge of the wing. Is that orange on your screen or does it become orange somewhere behind your retina?

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.

NO, and this is by my count the third time I have questioned this, what about the impact of the F4 into a concrete block is supposed to resemble a 'flash' of an oxygen bottle exploding?

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

Why is it that whenever you post a series of thumbnail pics and I click on them I still only get a very small (i.e. thumbnail) image that shows me absolutely nothing?

However, in all videos so far posted incuding the high def series of frames posted (which you seem averse to even acknowledging), I see nothing at all that looks like something travelling alongside the 767.

 

[Craig4]

Maybe it was this guy.

[qimg]http://www.angelfire.com/pa/lkmarvin/Pictures/marvk9.gif[/qimg]

With his Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.

What happened to the Earth shattering kaboom?

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

Thor is merely a multiple Starstreak launcher. These darts are not designed to pierce tanks IIRC they are designed to pierce APCs and aircraft. They could for instance NOT penetrate an T-10 Soviet era tank or an M1A1 Abrams

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.

A small hole in a one column is not going to significantly affect the ability of a 100,000 pound aircraft travelling at 500MPH to move through the perimeter wall of the tower.

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,

Actually Purdue and others did do exactly that. The engines and the wheel assemblies individually have more punch than any other sub assembly. The wings however are not flimsy themselves. Note that they are responsible for LIFTING a 100,000 pound aircraft and causing it to be propelled through the air at several hundred MPH.

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.

Actually no its not that big a problem. Perhaps for someone not trained in such things it would be. I know I would have a great deal of trouble if I were to try to put a jet turbine engine together but somehow people who are trained in this do it regularily.

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

"Real" resistance? Like the rest of that columns that has a small hole in it? Like the other two dozen coulmns its going to hit on the perimeter? Perhaps the core columns that its debris will impact in another hundred feet?
Between perimeter and core there is nothing very substantial.

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.

So this is now nothing at all like Starstreak?
The darts are each 396 millimetres (15.6 in) long with a diameter of 22 millimetres (0.87 in) and weigh about 900 grams (32 oz).

That's two pounds, tmd.
You are supposing that the darts don't even enter into this now? that they are still attached to the launcher?

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

They are not particularily anomalous, there is no requirement for a missile to ensure that a 500MPH 100,000 pound aircraft can destroy a steel framework wall at any angle with enough momentum leftover to ensure that almost all of the aircraft enters the structure.

 

[jaydeehess]

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

Search the NTSB site please for investigations into other aircraft incidents where the identity of the aircraft was not in question AND the serial numbers of parts of the debris were listed in the reports.
Perhaps the one that went down in Queens in 2001 would be a good place to start. Maybe, just maybe they checked the serial number of the parts that came off just before impact with residential houses. However I would be quite certain that the engines found in the streets of Queens were not checked to see if they had serial numbers that matched what was supposed to be on that plane. Honking big chunk of a jet engine in the middle of Queens in the debris field of a large crashed jet airliner that was followed on radar until it disappeared over Queens, its a lock that it came from the airliner that caused this devastation.
So you can rule out any midair collissions or cases where the aircraft hits another aircraft.

 

[jaydeehess]

Ah I have found something I think demonstrates the concept of what could (I emphasize could have been used). Missile fires 3 sub missiles are fired from that missile. Full description here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_(missile)

Please do not bombard me with questions, about how this weapon could not have been used. I am not saying it was...only that the concept would be similar, right down to the self detonation of the sub missiles. Which is something I'm sure the conspirators would have made sure happened. Technology was developed in the 80's way in advance of 2001.

As I said explain to me how an almost perfectly circular flash is visible AFTER penetration?

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.

So now its not neccessary for the conspirators to make sure that the weapon exploded creating a 'perfectly circular' flash after penetration.

We now have tmd stating that the supposed missile penetrated ONE column AFTER initial penetration.

Hmm in looking at this again it seems time once more for a little math.

The plane is moving at over 700 feet per second. Let's round it down to 700fps and have the missile fire 1 second prior to impact. This puts the missile launch when the plane is 700 feet from the tower.

IIRC I calculated 60 g's for the acelleration of the Starstreak missile.
d=v₀t + 0.5at²and the missile hits the tower very close to the same time as the plane let's call it 1.1 seconds
d=700(1.1) + 0.5(60X32)(1.1)²d= 1930 feet

But that cannot be as we know that the plane is only 700 feet from impact.
Hmm let's try 2 seconds from impact (plane is 1400 feet from the tower about 7 plane lengths)

d=700(2) + 0.5(60X32)(2)²d= 5240

Ohhhh that will never work thats just 40 feet short of a mile.

Wait a minute (pun intended) if the missile launches from the plane and impacts at the same time as, or after, the nose of the plane itself impacts the tower then,,,,,,, the missile is only slightly faster than the plane itself as its only gained 100 feet from its supposed launch site at the wing.

Let's try this again at 1 second from nose impact
v₀=700fps
t=1.1 seconds
d=800 feet(nose is 700 feet from tower, missile is 100 feet behind the nose)
d=v₀t + 0.5(a)(t)²800=700(1.1) +a(0.5)(1.1)²a=49.6 f/s² OR 1.5 g

We could try this from 2 seconds out or with simultaneous nose and missile impact but the former is going to make the acelleration of the missile even slower and the later is not going to significantly speed it up.

Conclusion: The supposed missile will contain no significant anmount of kinetic energy over what its mass would have constituted had it stayed attached to the plane, it is barely supersonic and in no way whatsoever now resembles a Starstreak(not that it did at any time in tmd's idea of how this was working)

I guess we must be back to an explosive warhead then tmd?

fissicks don't lie.

 

[funk de fino]

But you know an interesting thing is no serial numbers have publicly been announced and verified as belonging to the planes they should have.

This is so untrue it hurts.

 

[tsig]

That's the beauty of the conspiracy forums; most truthers here have perfected the fine art of arguing in favor of a point that is utterly ludicrous forever.

Actually, in what I call a reverse troofer, you can copy their first post then wait awhile till they contradict themselves then feed it back to them.

 

[jaydeehess]

Actually, in what I call a reverse troofer, you can copy their first post then wait awhile till they contradict themselves then feed it back to them.

I await tmd's response to my above post.

He stated that the concept of the Starstreak is the type of missile he would be expecting to have been used because of its ability to acellerate quickly to Mach 3.5.

I calculated that yes it would be possible for a missile with the acelleration of a Starstreak to double its velocity in one second post launch from an almost Mach one platform (the 767).

To my shame though, until my last post I had not noticed the glaringly obvious arguement agaisnt a high velocity missile. The supposed missile reaches the WTC wall AFTER the plane's nose meaning that this rapid acelleration is only gaining about 100 feet more than the constant velocity aircraft (missile needs to move from the wing, to the nose in the same amount of time it takes the nose of the aircraft to reach the building).

Turns out that an acelleration of 1.5 g will suffice.
What I did not do is calculate final velocity on impact

v=v₀ +at
(using round numbers in favour of higher velocity)
v=700+50(1)=750fps = 510 MPH

Another way to look at this is to determine when launch would occur for a high acelleration missile such as Starstreak to reach the tower at the same time as the nose of the plane.

Aircraft time to impact
t=d/v where d=distance from nose of a/c to WTC and v=velocity of the a/c
missile distance to impact
d+100=vt+0.5at² where a=the missile acelleration(t=time to impact of both plane and missile since we are assuming they get there at the same time.)
substituting and condenseing
100=0.5a(d/v)²d=109 feet(distance between nose of plane and WTC at launch of a 60 g missile

and the plane is t=d/v =109/700=0.16 seconds from impact

So if a Starstreak concept missile is launched 160 milliseconds before the plane reaches the wall they will impact at the same time. tmd has been quite strongly argueing for a much longer flight time of the missile because it allows the missile to gain more speed.
At 60g's a missile would gain
60(32)(0.16)=307fps
add in the v₀ of 700 fps and we have 1007 fps= 687 MPH
a far cry from Mach 3.5

Having the missile arrive at the wall after the plane's nose will slow the missile.
Using a much greater acelleration of the missile will mean it either arives much earlier or is launched much later(and its already only 0.16 seconds from launch to impact in the above example).

So either tmd has to argue against a high velocity missile(launch is 1+ seconds before impactand he keeps his first 'flash') or he has to argue for a very short time of flight (launch is 160ms before impact and he abandons his launch 'flash') and either way his missile is really not going that fast on impact.

 

[tmd2_1]

I most certainly do not know that the first flash is orange. I do NOT see any orange flash. I see a brighter part of a cloud of vapour at the trailing edge of the wing. Is that orange on your screen or does it become orange somewhere behind your retina?



NO, and this is by my count the third time I have questioned this, what about the impact of the F4 into a concrete block is supposed to resemble a 'flash' of an oxygen bottle exploding?



Why is it that whenever you post a series of thumbnail pics and I click on them I still only get a very small (i.e. thumbnail) image that shows me absolutely nothing?

However, in all videos so far posted incuding the high def series of frames posted (which you seem averse to even acknowledging), I see nothing at all that looks like something travelling alongside the 767.

Yep just like you couldn't see silver hanging from the cylinder. Fine see what you want.

As far as the oxygen bottle goes (before I get into it), if you really believe this, why did you spend so much time explaining the compression zone to me? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

I think you know what I am saying. If a flash were to occur after impact it should look like a spark. No matter what it is from. It should be an off shoot from the plane, not a bright circle, on the wall.

 

[beachnut]

The impact of Flight 175 was equal in kinetic energy to 2093 pounds of TNT. No missile is needed. Flight 175 was like bullet, tell me what it takes to stop a 757 going over 500 mph?

I will answer, since 911 truth can't! It takes one shell of a WTC tower, and 10 core columns. Something that takes some physics, something Robertson can calculate on the back of napkin, something tmd2_1 can't do given infinite time.

Missile ranks up there with beam weapons and thermite; moronic claims made up by morons and insane people.

 

[tmd2_1]

So now its not neccessary for the conspirators to make sure that the weapon exploded creating a 'perfectly circular' flash after penetration.

We now have tmd stating that the supposed missile penetrated ONE column AFTER initial penetration.

Hmm in looking at this again it seems time once more for a little math.

The plane is moving at over 700 feet per second. Let's round it down to 700fps and have the missile fire 1 second prior to impact. This puts the missile launch when the plane is 700 feet from the tower.

IIRC I calculated 60 g's for the acelleration of the Starstreak missile.
d=v₀t + 0.5at²and the missile hits the tower very close to the same time as the plane let's call it 1.1 seconds
d=700(1.1) + 0.5(60X32)(1.1)²d= 1930 feet

But that cannot be as we know that the plane is only 700 feet from impact.
Hmm let's try 2 seconds from impact (plane is 1400 feet from the tower about 7 plane lengths)

d=700(2) + 0.5(60X32)(2)²d= 5240

Ohhhh that will never work thats just 40 feet short of a mile.

Wait a minute (pun intended) if the missile launches from the plane and impacts at the same time as, or after, the nose of the plane itself impacts the tower then,,,,,,, the missile is only slightly faster than the plane itself as its only gained 100 feet from its supposed launch site at the wing.

Let's try this again at 1 second from nose impact
v₀=700fps
t=1.1 seconds
d=800 feet(nose is 700 feet from tower, missile is 100 feet behind the nose)
d=v₀t + 0.5(a)(t)²800=700(1.1) +a(0.5)(1.1)²a=49.6 f/s² OR 1.5 g

We could try this from 2 seconds out or with simultaneous nose and missile impact but the former is going to make the acelleration of the missile even slower and the later is not going to significantly speed it up.

Conclusion: The supposed missile will contain no significant anmount of kinetic energy over what its mass would have constituted had it stayed attached to the plane, it is barely supersonic and in no way whatsoever now resembles a Starstreak(not that it did at any time in tmd's idea of how this was working)

I guess we must be back to an explosive warhead then tmd?

fissicks don't lie.

I await tmd's response to my above post.

He stated that the concept of the Starstreak is the type of missile he would be expecting to have been used because of its ability to acellerate quickly to Mach 3.5.

I calculated that yes it would be possible for a missile with the acelleration of a Starstreak to double its velocity in one second post launch from an almost Mach one platform (the 767).

To my shame though, until my last post I had not noticed the glaringly obvious arguement agaisnt a high velocity missile. The supposed missile reaches the WTC wall AFTER the plane's nose meaning that this rapid acelleration is only gaining about 100 feet more than the constant velocity aircraft (missile needs to move from the wing, to the nose in the same amount of time it takes the nose of the aircraft to reach the building).

Turns out that an acelleration of 1.5 g will suffice.
What I did not do is calculate final velocity on impact

v=v₀ +at
(using round numbers in favour of higher velocity)
v=700+50(1)=750fps = 510 MPH

Another way to look at this is to determine when launch would occur for a high acelleration missile such as Starstreak to reach the tower at the same time as the nose of the plane.

Aircraft time to impact
t=d/v where d=distance from nose of a/c to WTC and v=velocity of the a/c
missile distance to impact
d+100=vt+0.5at² where a=the missile acelleration(t=time to impact of both plane and missile since we are assuming they get there at the same time.)
substituting and condenseing
100=0.5a(d/v)²d=109 feet(distance between nose of plane and WTC at launch of a 60 g missile

and the plane is t=d/v =109/700=0.16 seconds from impact

So if a Starstreak concept missile is launched 160 milliseconds before the plane reaches the wall they will impact at the same time. tmd has been quite strongly argueing for a much longer flight time of the missile because it allows the missile to gain more speed.
At 60g's a missile would gain
60(32)(0.16)=307fps
add in the v₀ of 700 fps and we have 1007 fps= 687 MPH
a far cry from Mach 3.5

Having the missile arrive at the wall after the plane's nose will slow the missile.
Using a much greater acelleration of the missile will mean it either arives much earlier or is launched much later(and its already only 0.16 seconds from launch to impact in the above example).

So either tmd has to argue against a high velocity missile(launch is 1+ seconds before impactand he keeps his first 'flash') or he has to argue for a very short time of flight (launch is 160ms before impact and he abandons his launch 'flash') and either way his missile is really not going that fast on impact.

Ok let me see if I can make this simple for everyone. Basically what you're saying is if the plane was traveling 700 ft a second a missile or projectile is fired from about 100ft away from the nose of the plane. For the missile to catch up it has to be going 100ft per second faster than the plane (of course I'm just rounding numbers.) So that would be 800 ft a second. This assumes it was fired one second out. Fair enough, so let's take a 40 lb missile going to fast. It would generate 590490 joules of energy. Not to shabby. But I've seen estimates that the plane was going 895 ft a second. That would mean the missile is traveling 1000ft a second, or 924160 joules. Even more powerful. Now I don't know the exact amount of joules it would take to penetrate the column, but I would think even the low end is pretty close.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Ok let me see if I can make this simple for everyone. Basically what you're saying is if the plane was traveling 700 ft a second a missile or projectile is fired from about 100ft away from the nose of the plane. For the missile to catch up it has to be going 100ft per second faster than the plane (of course I'm just rounding numbers.) So that would be 800 ft a second. Fair enough, so let's take a 40 lb missile going to fast. It would generate 590490 joules of energy. Not to shabby. But I've seen estimates that the plane was going 895 ft a second. That would mean the missile is traveling 1000ft a second, or 924160 joules. Even more powerful. Now I don't know the exact amount of joules it would take to penetrate the column, but I would think even the low end is pretty close.

Even without doing the math it's quite clear to me that if your imaginary missile scaled up by that much then so would the much more massive airplanes. This would make your argument for using any missile even less effective, not more.

 

[The Platypus]

17 pages, and there still was no missile...

 

[TJM]

No matter what it is from. It should be an off shoot from the plane, not a bright circle, on the wall.

Well, no.

It's a bright circle on the side of Flight 175, like you've been told. Where's the nose of the aircraft in frame 17?

 

[beachnut]

Ok let me see if I can make this simple for everyone. Basically what you're saying is if the plane was traveling 700 ft a second a missile or projectile is fired from about 100ft away from the nose of the plane. For the missile to catch up it has to be going 100ft per second faster than the plane (of course I'm just rounding numbers.) So that would be 800 ft a second. Fair enough, so let's take a 40 lb missile going to fast. It would generate 590490 joules of energy. Not to shabby. But I've seen estimates that the plane was going 895 ft a second. That would mean the missile is traveling 1000ft a second, or 924160 joules. Even more powerful. Now I don't know the exact amount of joules it would take to penetrate the column, but I would think even the low end is pretty close.

Airplane impact, 4,380,000,000 joules
Your delusional missile impact, 924,160 joules
You delusional claim is 4,739 times smaller than reality.

good job

Your silly missile is 42 times less energy than the B-25 that hit the ESB.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

17 pages, and there still was no missile...

Conjure Missile is an advanced spell requiring complex verbal and somatic components that can drag on for weeks. To date, not one person is known to have successfully completed the spell. That doesn't stop people from trying, though, for the person to do so will be known as the greatest magician to have walked this earth...

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

[qimg]http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff387/AJM8125/fairbanks0-horz.jpg[/qimg]

Wait... That's just the sun reflecting off of the fuselage. Note the shadow of the plane against the tower, which means the sun is at a very shallow angle relative to that face of the building. No explosion of any kind.

tmd2_1 has been hallucinating about sun reflections this entire time?

 

[tmd2_1]

No, I'm following the FBI et al's example by saying that the indentification of the aricraft was never in doubt. I mean, how else could you identify an airplane?

Never in doubt? Well according to this it was till in the air, AFTER the south tower collapsed. Now I don't want to discuss this much here, because it is mentioned in the other thread. If you want to talk about it, I would prefer to do it there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdXGSefI6pM

 

[TJM]

Never in doubt? Well according to this it was till in the air, AFTER the south tower collapsed. Now I don't want to discuss this much here, because it is mentioned in the other thread. If you want to talk about it, I would prefer to do it there.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdXGSefI6pM

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137237

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Never in doubt? Well according to this it was till in the air, AFTER the south tower collapsed. Now I don't want to discuss this much here, because it is mentioned in the other thread. If you want to talk about it, I would prefer to do it there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdXGSefI6pM

Not that this hasn't already been beaten to death here (it has) but if you simply check up on how the system that that news report used to indicate air traffic you will find out that the data used by that software was generated and extrapolated based upon the last best data that they had available at the time. That software was designed to help people find out where a particular flight should be and not as an accurate tracking tool for all flights in all situations.

In other words the software designers didn't anticipate an airplane slamming into a building with no prior warning nor should they have.