Missile??

[Oystein]

First of all we are talking about two separate events. A missile (possibly) hit
and than the plane hitting. You know all of the plane's kinetic energy isn't focused on one column.

So? The face of the tower has 60 columns. The wing span of the plane can hit less than 50 of these, so the plane's kinetic energy is "focussed" at first on, say, 45 columns. Now I will even grant you this: Most of the plane's mass meets windows head-on. I don't have the dimensions handy at this time, but I believe the columns were about 0.3m wide, and windows must have been 0.75m or thereabouts. So let's say that only 30% of the planes kinetic energy was available to cut 45 columns - that's uhm 2/3% of the energy per column. 0.6666% of 4,321,936,710J is 28,812,911.4J.
That's 33 times the total kinetic energy of your missile, and 156 times the energy the missile adds by being fired instead of just being on the plane!

It will lose momentum on initial impact. As I said estimates of this have varied. In this thread alone (by people who support the official story) I have seen 15% momentum loss and 46% momentum loss.

Maybe. Since both are comfortably less than 100%, that means the mass of the plane is not stopped - it penetrates.

Quite a variation.

Yep. It's called "margin of error", and when that margin of error is several magnitudes larger than the effect of the missile, that means, to engineers at least, that the missile is totally irrelevant. Adding it does not change these values.

The missile/projectile is focused on a single column, and can probably penetrate it with it's own kinetic energy.

Depends on what you mean by "penetrate". Drill a small hole through the steel plate that these box columns consist of? Maybe. That would reduce the column's strength by a couple of % maybe. Nothing significant. Fully break and sever the column? No way in hell! Remember YOU doubt that the plane could do it, and remember that the missile has only 3% of the kinetic energy that the plane can put on EVERY column in a worst case scenario?
I guess now is the time for you to show calculations what 860,481J of missile energy can do to the WTC perimeter columns around the 80th floor!

Saving the plane the trouble from having to do it.

The plane has several thousand times the energy that the missile has. It has no trouble at all.

This is really like my preivious example: It's like putting a small coin on a plank, hoping it will break the plank, saving you the trouble from having to do it with your full weight.

Allowing the plane to penetrate further before other parts of the plane encounter resistance.

To penetrate how much further? 0.004% further? On a building that's 240ft deep, that's 0.1 inch further.

Your penny example is a bad one I believe.

Nope. Spot-on.

I believe it is more like what professional stuntman or wrestlers do. If they are going to be hit by a chair or something wooden, it is always pre-cut. ... Is this a perfect example? Probably not, but I think you get the point.

Your example is missing one important thing that mine did include: I took care of the 0.004% difference the missile makes. A 10ct coin has about 0.004% of my mass.
In your chair example. Let's say the wood that need to get broken is 1 inch thick. Your example would fit if your precut went 0.004% of an inch deep. That would be 1 micron! The thinnest hair on your body is 40 times thicker than that.
Would this precut help your wrestler significantly? If you suggest this approach - precutting 1 micron deep, what would the wrestler do to you, huh?

You are right about the joules. I used 22kg by mistake. I apologize for that. I must have been going to fast, and had the 1 Kg = 2.2 pounds stuck in my head. So I am sorry for that.

No sweat. We were in the same ballpark. That error is well within the margins of error we are talking about here. Doesn't matter much if the missile adds 0.004% or 0.003% or 0.005%. All of that is pathetically irrelevant. Even if it added 0.4%, a hundred times more, it would still be irrelevant.

 

[MRC_Hans]

The missile/projectile is focused on a single column, and can probably penetrate it with it's own kinetic energy.

The columns are only a fraction of the surface. How will you make the missile hit a column? You can't aim it precisely enough and it hasn't time to home in, even if you planted a beacon or something.

Most likely, a missile would fly straight trough, explode in the air on the other side, and give your conspiracy away.

So let's sum up:

Even from the POW of a conspiracy, the idea of a missile is silly because:

- It makes no significant difference at best.
- At worst it gives your show away.

There is no observation of a missile. There are some light effects on some of the low-res pictures, but they don't look particularly like missiles, and they are not consistent between different shots and view angles, suggesting they are either artefacts or reflection/shadow effects.

In other words, there is no case what so ever for a missile. Not even if you believe in a conspiracy.

Hans

 

[Oystein]

Has anyone bothered to show videos or images of actual missiles penetrating actual ... whatever? Buildings, planes, tanks...?

 

[TJM]

Well if you insist.

 

[Oystein]

Well if you insist.

Well, the Tomahawk is a large subsonic missile that depends on explosive payloads to do their thing.
tmd speculates about smaller, faster things that employ purely kinetic energy.

 

[TJM]

Well, the Tomahawk is a large subsonic missile that depends on explosive payloads to do their thing.
tmd speculates about smaller, faster things that employ purely kinetic energy.

Oh, you mean the one that exists in trutherland? That's gonna be a tall order.

 

[Oystein]

Oh, you mean the one that exists in trutherland? That's gonna be a tall order.

Yeah, those

 

[jaydeehess]

Let's try this again;

..............Ok so the time to impact is the same for the missile and the nose of the aircraft if t=0 begins with the launch.

Here we assume that t=1 second
Distance from nose to WTC is 700 feet.
Distance from missile to WTC is 800 feet

with
d_missile=v₀t + 0.5at²800=700(1)+0.5(a)(1)²a=(800-700)X2=200 f/s/s =6.25gCertainly not 60 g's


What if the missile was a 60 g acellerating missile? How far back was the plane and what was the time to impact?
v=700 fps
Again t(missile impact)=t(nose of a/c impact)
t(a/c)=d/700=t(missile) where d=distance from a/c nose to WTC
d+100=v₀t + 0.5at²d+100=700(d/700) + 0.5(60X32)(d/700)²100= 0.5(60X32)(1/700²)d²100= 0.001959(d²sqrt(100/0.001959)=d =225.9 feet

t=d/v=225.9/700=0.322 seconds

Conclusions:
A Starstreak type missile would launch a third of a second prior to impact.
A slower missile launching at 1 second prior to impact would be travelling at 800 fps at impact.(I wrote it down this time rather than trying to work it out by looking at the hypertext I had on screen. So hopefully I have it right this time)

You wrote all of this and it what I had already written previously in one sentence?

If you note the first hilited part you will notice that the second hilited part does not follow from this calculated acelleration. Right? You can see that now right? Its a mistake in the conclusions part of my above post. You can see that right?

What I thought and sure looks like you wrote before?

Its similar but better than before. I thought you might have noticed the final calculated values were different at least.

Missile fires approximately 100 feet away from the nose of the plane. The plane is traveling 700 ft per second. Fired one second before impact, missile has to be traveling 800 ft per second.

No, that would REQUIRE that the missile instantaneously acheived 800 fps AT launch and remain at 800 fps until impact.

Now since it impacted BEFORE the nose hit the building it would be traveling a little faster, but for calculation purposes, we can stay with the 100 ft per second difference.

Except its wrong

This doesn't make any sense. Especially given what you wrote below. Also why did you feel the need to write this?
d=800 feet(nose is 700 feet from tower, missile is 100 feet behind the nose)

Despite saying you are a researcher in a science of some sort and despite my posting my work you seem unable to notice the mistakes I made. Nor do you seem to recognize that in this part I was using 'd' to represent the distance of missile to WTC whereas in the previous calculation in the same post I had used 'd' to represent the distance from nose to WTC, which is why I wrote that out to make sure there was no confusion.

Above I said that a slower missile would be travelling at 800 fps. You agree and state that because it has to cover 100 feet more distance than the nose of the plane it must be travelling at 100fps faster at impact.

But that is wrong. Certainly its AVERAGE speed must be 100fps faster than the aircraft, not its final speed.
And here is where I show you the mistake I made in the conclusions in my last post.............
Above I calculated that it is acellerating at 6.25 g, or 200f/s/s
v_final=v₀ + at
=700 + 200(1)= 900 fps

Jeez, since it was right in front of you and shows that it was actually faster than you thought it would be, one would think you'd have picked up on it right away. In your defence no one else did either.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well, the Tomahawk is a large subsonic missile that depends on explosive payloads to do their thing.
tmd speculates about smaller, faster things that employ purely kinetic energy.

Well tmd wants it both ways, he wants a missile with high KE so that no explosive is required because an explosive offers up just too many problems for him not the least of which is that an explosive shockwave is going to do exactly the opposite of what he is proposing the missile was used for, ensuring that the plane completely enter the building,
AND
he also wants a missile that is launched 1 second or sooner which will mean that its not going to be carrying significantly more KE than it was when simply attached to the aircraft.

I said above that it would be going 900 fps as oppossed to its original velocity while attached to the plane, of 700 fps
This would mean that the mass of the missile would have 1.65 times more KE than if it were still riding along with the aircraft.
If tmd can somehow show that this would actually cause a mass the same as his missile to punch through a column AND that such mass could not do so at the velocity of the aircraft then he would have a point about it managing to punch through ONE COLUMN.

Gawd, it stings just addressing this stupid line of reasoning.

 

[jaydeehess]

Just for our information? I'm not sure what game you are playing.

Given that your notion for this missile has been shown to be demonstrably ill conceived on several levels (it does not significantly affect the passage of the aircraft, and there is no evidence of a missile on the aircraft, for instance) I must wonder about your motivation.
Is this a game to you?

 

[Dash80]

This subject doesn't need math at all, it's absolutely clear there was no missile!

tmd2_1
I have experience as a flight attendant and working at major airports. You cannot just bolt extra equipment on to a plane and keep it quiet, someone is going to notice. One flight I worked aboard was a 747 carrying a podded spare engine, the sheer amount of paperwork, calculations and inspections concerning this appendage was staggering. You really think a missile pod can just be placed on a commercial airliner in full view of an entire airport? Deluded much?

 

[NoahFence]

The sheer depth of stupidity required to think a missile would be needed is astounding. And the people responsible are now entering year 10 without being caught?

Yea, right.

So the world's best photo and video anaylsis could'nt find out what zit faced idiots can while looking at only the grainiest, crappiest photos and videos out there.

 

[tmd2_1]

So? The face of the tower has 60 columns. The wing span of the plane can hit less than 50 of these, so the plane's kinetic energy is "focussed" at first on, say, 45 columns. Now I will even grant you this: Most of the plane's mass meets windows head-on. I don't have the dimensions handy at this time, but I believe the columns were about 0.3m wide, and windows must have been 0.75m or thereabouts. So let's say that only 30% of the planes kinetic energy was available to cut 45 columns - that's uhm 2/3% of the energy per column. 0.6666% of 4,321,936,710J is 28,812,911.4J.
That's 33 times the total kinetic energy of your missile, and 156 times the energy the missile adds by being fired instead of just being on the plane!


Maybe. Since both are comfortably less than 100%, that means the mass of the plane is not stopped - it penetrates.


Yep. It's called "margin of error", and when that margin of error is several magnitudes larger than the effect of the missile, that means, to engineers at least, that the missile is totally irrelevant. Adding it does not change these values.


Depends on what you mean by "penetrate". Drill a small hole through the steel plate that these box columns consist of? Maybe. That would reduce the column's strength by a couple of % maybe. Nothing significant. Fully break and sever the column? No way in hell! Remember YOU doubt that the plane could do it, and remember that the missile has only 3% of the kinetic energy that the plane can put on EVERY column in a worst case scenario?
I guess now is the time for you to show calculations what 860,481J of missile energy can do to the WTC perimeter columns around the 80th floor!


The plane has several thousand times the energy that the missile has. It has no trouble at all.

This is really like my preivious example: It's like putting a small coin on a plank, hoping it will break the plank, saving you the trouble from having to do it with your full weight.


To penetrate how much further? 0.004% further? On a building that's 240ft deep, that's 0.1 inch further.


Nope. Spot-on.


Your example is missing one important thing that mine did include: I took care of the 0.004% difference the missile makes. A 10ct coin has about 0.004% of my mass.
In your chair example. Let's say the wood that need to get broken is 1 inch thick. Your example would fit if your precut went 0.004% of an inch deep. That would be 1 micron! The thinnest hair on your body is 40 times thicker than that.
Would this precut help your wrestler significantly? If you suggest this approach - precutting 1 micron deep, what would the wrestler do to you, huh?


No sweat. We were in the same ballpark. That error is well within the margins of error we are talking about here. Doesn't matter much if the missile adds 0.004% or 0.003% or 0.005%. All of that is pathetically irrelevant. Even if it added 0.4%, a hundred times more, it would still be irrelevant.

First and foremost I never said the plane couldn't do it. You even commented on it. I said one of the reasons AGAINST a missile being fired is that it just doesn't seem necessary. But as I have been saying, they wanted to ensure as little fall back as possible.

You state "That's 33 times the total kinetic energy of your missile, and 156 times the energy the missile adds by being fired instead of just being on the plane!"

But again same as before it loses momentum on impact, they want to penetrate as deep as possible. The more the planes avoids impact, the further it can penetrate.

You said
"Depends on what you mean by "penetrate". Drill a small hole through the steel plate that these box columns consist of? Maybe. That would reduce the column's strength by a couple of % maybe. Nothing significant. Fully break and sever the column? No way in hell! Remember YOU doubt that the plane could do it, and remember that the missile has only 3% of the kinetic energy that the plane can put on EVERY column in a worst case scenario?
I guess now is the time for you to show calculations what 860,481J of missile energy can do to the WTC perimeter columns around the 80th floor!"

Again I don't doubt the plane could do it at all. Simply saying it's spread out over many columns, and loses momentum on first impact. Could a missile cause damage? I think we can both agree that it will cause some damage. If you give me a couple of days hopefully I can work something out. But you know it is a somewhat difficult thing to answer hopefully I can have something.
If you have a hole in a wall (that is big enough) it will make it much easier to punch through. Note I say is big enough a small hole will make no difference this is something that could easily be calculated by the perps (assuming it happened of course.)

 

[tmd2_1]

If you note the first hilited part you will notice that the second hilited part does not follow from this calculated acelleration. Right? You can see that now right? Its a mistake in the conclusions part of my above post. You can see that right?
Its similar but better than before. I thought you might have noticed the final calculated values were different at least.


No, that would REQUIRE that the missile instantaneously acheived 800 fps AT launch and remain at 800 fps until impact.

Except its wrong




Despite saying you are a researcher in a science of some sort and despite my posting my work you seem unable to notice the mistakes I made. Nor do you seem to recognize that in this part I was using 'd' to represent the distance of missile to WTC whereas in the previous calculation in the same post I had used 'd' to represent the distance from nose to WTC, which is why I wrote that out to make sure there was no confusion.

Above I said that a slower missile would be travelling at 800 fps. You agree and state that because it has to cover 100 feet more distance than the nose of the plane it must be travelling at 100fps faster at impact.

But that is wrong. Certainly its AVERAGE speed must be 100fps faster than the aircraft, not its final speed.
And here is where I show you the mistake I made in the conclusions in my last post.............
Above I calculated that it is acellerating at 6.25 g, or 200f/s/s
v_final=v₀ + at
=700 + 200(1)= 900 fps

Jeez, since it was right in front of you and shows that it was actually faster than you thought it would be, one would think you'd have picked up on it right away. In your defence no one else did either.

To be completely honest with you, I'm really not sure what you are trying to do anymore. It seems you are purposely making this hard to understand. You claim the flash was AFTER impact, yet you spent a lot of time explaining a compression zone to, something that would explain the flash (if the compression zone were possible) BEFORE impact. I still wonder why you did that. You can't seem to tell if something is Silver or if something is Orange. You don't know what numbers NIST didn't release. You don't know what a krimp is. So yes I'm really not sure what is going on.

To address more of what you wrote fine 900 ft per second, as I said I'm really not sure what you are trying to do anymore.

Also I never claimed to be anything. All I've said is I am far from ashamed of my qualifications.

 

[dafydd]

To be completely honest with you, I'm really not sure what you are trying to do anymore. It seems you are purposely making this hard to understand. You claim the flash was AFTER impact, yet you spent a lot of time explaining a compression zone to, something that would explain the flash (if the compression zone were possible) BEFORE impact. I still wonder why you did that. You can't seem to tell if something is Silver or if something is Orange. You don't know what numbers NIST didn't release. You don't know what a krimp is. So yes I'm really not sure what is going on.

To address more of what you wrote fine 900 ft per second, as I said I'm really not sure what you are trying to do anymore.

Also I never claimed to be anything. All I've said is I am far from ashamed of my qualifications.

You haven't said what they are. Until you do I will assume that you flip hamburgers for a living,or that you are still attending school. There was no missile.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

But as I have been saying, they wanted to ensure as little fall back as possible.

The infamous "They".

Who exactly is "They" tmd?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

But as I have been saying, they wanted to ensure as little fall back as possible.

Try doing the math on that. Not the kinetic energy absorption required, nor the elastic deformation required, but JUST the velocity over time for, say, a random 1 kg to "fall back."

Feel free to use any terms or dimensions you like, including g, ft/pounds, feet per second, any think like that.

 

[Oystein]

First and foremost I never said the plane couldn't do it. You even commented on it. I said one of the reasons AGAINST a missile being fired is that it just doesn't seem necessary. But as I have been saying, they wanted to ensure as little fall back as possible.

You state "That's 33 times the total kinetic energy of your missile, and 156 times the energy the missile adds by being fired instead of just being on the plane!"

But again same as before it loses momentum on impact, they want to penetrate as deep as possible. The more the planes avoids impact, the further it can penetrate.

I already covered that in the very post you quoted. Didn't you read it fully? I said "To penetrate how much further? 0.004% further? On a building that's 240ft deep, that's 0.1 inch further."

Now can you agree that this is insignificant? Do you understand what the term "insignificant" means?

You said
"Depends on what you mean by "penetrate". Drill a small hole through the steel plate that these box columns consist of? Maybe. That would reduce the column's strength by a couple of % maybe. Nothing significant. Fully break and sever the column? No way in hell! Remember YOU doubt that the plane could do it, and remember that the missile has only 3% of the kinetic energy that the plane can put on EVERY column in a worst case scenario?
I guess now is the time for you to show calculations what 860,481J of missile energy can do to the WTC perimeter columns around the 80th floor!"

Again I don't doubt the plane could do it at all. Simply saying it's spread out over many columns, and loses momentum on first impact. Could a missile cause damage? I think we can both agree that it will cause some damage. If you give me a couple of days hopefully I can work something out. But you know it is a somewhat difficult thing to answer hopefully I can have something.

I will remind you, and recommend that you stop posting until you have done that work.

If you have a hole in a wall (that is big enough) it will make it much easier to punch through. Note I say is big enough a small hole will make no difference this is something that could easily be calculated by the perps (assuming it happened of course.)

Yes, it can be easily calculated by the perps. In fact, those folks who have such missiles do such calculations regularly. They'd be the first to notice that the missile totally dwarfs into insignificance compared to just the imprecision with which speed and mass of the plane are known. As I said, instead of putting a 40lb missile on the plane, with all the risk of being found out, they could as well have put an additional 50lb suitcase on the plane - same effect!

 

[MetalPig]

To be completely honest with you, I'm really not sure what you are trying to do anymore.

He's using math to show that your missile idea is inceredibly dumb.

 

[fess]

tmd2_1, just a simple question. Just where, how, and when was this missile mounted on the B757/767 aircraft?