Missile??

Sam.I.Am said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yet it didn't happen for flight 11? Crazy isn't it? As I said I would rather talk about this on my other thread.
 
tmd2_1 said:
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
Click to expand...

Not according to RADAR data; Flight 175 impacted the WTC towers according to RADAR and video. Due to your lack of knowledge you post a moron who thinks an internet application like flight explorer is based on real data all the time. This was debunked as soon as the NTAP was pulled. You have no clue what it takes to verify where a plane was on 911. Your missile is as dumb as your Flight 175 is still airborne, both based on fantasy. Have you done any research before you post these idiotic lies?
 
tmd2_1 said:
What is that suppose to show me?
Click to expand...

Well you could try reading it for starters. At least then you might not appear so stupid.

If you cannot be bothered to read it then look at the flt 11 and 175 combined animated .gif image near the bottom. Flt 11s track ends over the NYC harbor after it hit the north tower.

That software was never meant to be used as an accurate forensic depiction of what was happening in the skies. It was meant to let people who cared enough to subscribe to their services see approximately where their flight(s) of interest were located in (almost) real time.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Well you could try reading it for starters. At least then you might not appear so stupid.

If you cannot be bothered to read it then look at the flt 11 and 175 combined animated .gif image near the bottom. Flt 11s track ends over the NYC harbor after it hit the north tower.

That software was never meant to be used as an accurate forensic depiction of what was happening in the skies. It was meant to let people who cared enough to subscribe to their services see approximately where their flight(s) of interest were located in (almost) real time.
Click to expand...

So...according to that video flight 175 was "almost" in real time after the south tower collapsed?
 
According to the software the flight never crashed. Seeing as there are dozens of videos, thousands of witnesses and the actual data from the FAA is available now that prove otherwise I shall hazard to guess that the software was wrong on 9/11/01. Perhaps you should ask the makers of that software if they think that it was a 100% accurate depiction of the events. After all, they have the source code and can tell you how it does and, more importantly in this case, how it does not work.

G.I.G.O. is a common cause of faulty information where software is concerned.
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'll add one more thing. It's not like checking is a particularly hard thing to do.
Find the serial number on the part, search for it in a database. I know when we think of things like this we often think, of long and expensive processes. Such DNA testing. This is no insult to anyone, I think it is something we all do. But this serial number look-up is something is a cheap and easy thing to do.
 
tmd2_1 said:
... But this serial number look-up is something is a cheap and easy thing to do.
Click to expand...
We know which plane hit each tower, the Pentagon, and crashed in PA. 911 truth can't figure out 911 so they make up nonsense and lies about needing serial numbers. Big fail. You have to be willfully ignorant to claim you need serial numbers to identify planes used by terrorists on 911. Is RADAR data too hard for you? In your fantasy world serial numbers would be planted; don't you 911 truther have a single integrated plot?

The sad part is peopled died, and you can see the RADAR data matches the time exactly of the video impacts. We are seeing people murdered at impact and the best you can do is claim you need serial numbers to figure out 911. What do you do to get more anti-intellectual, more disrespectful by ignoring reality based evidence?
 
People saw what happened to the aircraft. Millions of them if you count people watching it live on television and billions of them if you count the people who have watched video taped replays after the fact over the last 10 years. The actual identity of the aircraft was never in doubt literally within two hours after the impacts.

This is almost always true in every single commercial airliner crash that I can think of in my lifetime.

1) The crash happens for whatever reason.
2) The crash is reported.
3) If the crash was sudden there is some confusion as to the identity of the aircraft, there is no confusion if the aircraft had already reported difficulties before it crashed (see the Iowa crash from the 80's for an example).
4) The confusion is cleared up soon afterwards if for no other reason than they are the only aircraft missing.
5) Any reporting errors are clarified and life goes on.

Sometimes there are even events that are first reported as airplane crashes that aren't crashes at all. The recent San Bruno gas pipeline explosion was initially reported in the news as an airplane crash (I know this as a fact as I live about five miles from the explosion site and watched the news live). This confusion was at least partly due to the explosion happening very close to the take off path out of San Francisco airport and the sudden and violent nature of the explosion that led reporters to jump to conclusions. It was quickly discovered that no airplanes were missing and they stopped reporting it as such other than to say that they were initially mistaken.
 
Apologies if this has already been addressed. I'm late to the party, but what's a few days when this stuff has been debunked at least 6 years ago.

waypastvne said:
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/Fairbanks_HD.html

Frame 17.


[qimg]http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af74/waypastvne/Fairbanks_jpegs018.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say that the building was burning before the plane hit it?

Can't you see that this is a picture of the second tower being hit? See the clear line between the two towers where the smoke is? The North Tower was hit first, and you can see it burning on the right, and this is a pic of the South Tower about to be hit.
 
tmd2_1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed (or ignored?) my post # 631. So let my try again (this is fun - thinking your thoughts through to their inevitable end).

Let's go with your higher estimate of vplane = 895ft/s = 273m/s and vmissile = 1000ft/s = 305m/s (both rounded up).
And let's also accept your mass of missile = 40lb = 18.15kg
I get a kinetic energy of (0.5 * 18.15 * 3052)J = 860,481J - slightly below your value. I guess that's because of rounding errors as you convert ft and lb to SI units? I go with my values.

What you are missing first is the fact that the 40lb of missile already has a kinetic energy of 0.5 * 40lb * (895ft/s)2 = 676,351J before being fired. So the missile adds only (860,481-676,351)J = 184,130J of destructive energy to the plane.

Now, the plane had a mass of 115,980kg according to my research. I believe your estimate is higher, but since my lower estimate is in favour of your missile theory, I am doing you the favour of going with my lower estimate, but I use your (higher) estimate of the speed, as we use the same for the missile.
Kinetic energy of the plane is thus
Eplane = 0.5 * 115,980kg * (273m/s)2 = 4,321,936,710J

To this, your missile adds 184,130J, or 0.004%.

You'd need 234 of these missiles to add only 1% of kinetic energy to what the plane already has!

To add the same destructive force, the plane could carry an additional 5kg of load. That's ome more piece of carry-on luggage.

Man, we don't know the mass of the plane to within 1%, and don't know the speed of the plane to within 1%! Our calculation of the kinetic energy has a margin of error of at least 20%! That margin of error is nearly 5000 times greater than what your flimsy little missile can add!

That missile is absolutely, totally irrelevant! Insignificant as can be! Not noticed! You see, it is like this: Suppose I want to break a plank of wood by stepping on it. Suppose I weigh 70kg. What would you think about the following reasoning? "I may be too light to break this plank of wood with my weight only, hm hmmm is there a way that I can make sure I break it ... Ah! Heureca! I will place one 10-cent coin (Euro cent that is) on the plank just before I step on it, that will surely guarantee success!" Sounds nutty to you? Foolish? Laughable? It should! If it does, then now you know how we have been feeling and thinking about you since the start of this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom