Missile??

[dafydd]

I was serious about the question...you bet. Not serious that it should actually be done. But like I said if someone wants to fund it, I certainly wouldn't stop it.

Oh dear. When in a hole stop digging. We stopped taking you seriously from your first post onwards. Why are you persisting? All you are doing is entertaining us.

 

[TJM]

True - the snake oil salesman would lose their lease on "The Truth" and have to seek other sources of income.

The merely deluded would suffer emotionally from having their identities pulled out from under them, and many would probably reject any evidence contrary to their worldview, no matter how well founded and documented.

Just like tmd in his/her threads.

I was serious about the question...you bet. Not serious that it should actually be done. But like I said if someone wants to fund it, I certainly wouldn't stop it.

*woooooooossssh*

 

[NoahFence]

I saw the Bush interview from NatGeo last night, and they had a new angle of the impact on the south tower - as close as the Naudet video, but from a different angle. Guess what? One flash when the nose impacted the building.

There is no question to anybody with a brain - it was an airplane, and an airplane ALONE that impacted the tower. If you doubt that, you are stupid. Period.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Yes I know what your reply will be...so here is the answer, the same answer the author of the video gave.

"Based on the exterior appearance of the collapse we can immediately verify that the actual collapse of WTC 7 looks nothing like the exterior of the NIST model. Therefor the model is wrong. It does not accurately describe reality.

In reality we see a crimp appear in the middle of the building and the rest of the building immediately lose all structural stability and begin to fall at the rate of gravity straight down as a single unit. This is controlled demolition. "

You continue to show your ignorance.

Quick answer, because simulating this kind of thing is incredibly difficult.

If you were to reassemble WTC 7 a hundred times, start exactly the same fires in it each time, and then wait for it to burn out, you would not get the same collapse each time.

Should be no surprise. Suppose you drop a bottle on the concrete. Sometimes it breaks. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it just cracks, and sometimes it shatters completely. This is true even if you repeat the conditions as perfectly as you can. The collapse of a large, complex, damaged building is many millions of times more complicated.

This kind of system follows a science called deterministic chaos. Even very small changes in behavior, early on, can lead to visible and seemingly large changes later. Say a weld hangs on for half a second longer than it did last time. Suppose these four bolts don't all let go at the same time. Suppose a column fragment just happens to get wedged between two large pieces and absorbs energy as it flexes, instead of just spearing through the debris.

You can see this effect clearly in the Purdue study of WTC 1 and WTC 2. They ran their simulations dozens of times, making tiny variations in the impact damage, the failure strain of materials, and so on, and found there are quite a few differences between runs. Nobody has bothered to do the same for WTC 7 that I know of, but it certainly could be done. I'd recommend anyone interested contact Dr. Irfanoglu at Purdue and start working on an NSF grant.

Now, having said that, the varying WTC 1 and WTC 2 results do have some features in common -- like the fact that virtually all of them do lead to a collapse. That's what these simulations are for. They aren't intended to make things look exactly right. They're intended to provide some insight into the mechanisms of failure, and to determine whether a given hypothesis is plausible.

And that's all NIST does with WTC 7. Their result did not depend on the exterior collapse simulation. Had this happened in the 1990's, the simulation itself would have been impossible! We wouldn't have simply thrown up our hands and said, "gee, we don't have a fast enough computer, guess we'll never know. Could have been fire, and could have been aliens." Indeed, you could remove that entire chapter of the WTC 7 report and lose almost nothing.

What they did, instead, was to set up two trials with different conditions, and see which one was a better fit to what actually happened. This was a quick way to estimate whether the impact damage had any effect on the collapse. And the answer is, yes, it does -- although they also found it's not likely the collapse would have happened any sooner as a result of that damage. But neither case is a perfect match, nor does it need to be.

Truthers whining about how it "looks different" are following the call to perfection logical fallacy. They arbitrarily decide how perfectly they want things to fit, and then complain when their threshold isn't met. You will note that there is no professional complaint about the fidelity of the WTC 7 simulations. Those who understand the report, and why the sim was run in the first place, also understand that a perfect visual match is not expected nor necessary.

Truthers use "call to perfection" all the time -- show us aircraft debris with serial numbers, they say. Show us a video of the Pentagon impact. Show us the total mass of recovered debris near Shanksville. Well, you don't get to make those demands. If we applied them to the Truthers, they'd be silent forever. To wit: Show us your hypothesis. Show me that you aren't Paul Doherty. Show me that you actually believe the crazy things you're typing on the Internet. Can't do it, can you?

You seriously need to do seaches through prior threads before you walk straight into answers that have been given in the past.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

You bet I doubt that, they wouldn't even release there numbers.

for reasons that have been explained to you ad nauseum.

I never once said Computer models don't matter. I would never say such a thing. Computers are only as good as the people programming them. They have no creative thought. But there is no substitute for actually physically doing it. Many times we hear of problems during flight tests of A/C same thing applies. Now I know you can't physically "test" a building, but there is a long history of building successes and failures, there are to look at. There will also continue to successes and failures, but surely computers help in avoiding and minimizing failures.

And physical tests are only as good as the people that devise and carry them out. And the people that did the programming at Purdue for this
http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html are about as good as they get.

I was clear to state that the results we would see would leave no other conclusion that some other force was at work that day.

Based on what? lets see your math. Now. or go away and stop bleating about things you are incapable of understanding.

I have no fear what so ever of what a test like that would so. None what so ever. Here's one big problem I have. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY If you are an American you should be outraged that your tax dollars go to this. It is a disgrace.

Thanks for your utterly worthless opinion.

"Based on the exterior appearance of the collapse we can immediately verify that the actual collapse of WTC 7 looks nothing like the exterior of the NIST model. Therefor the model is wrong. It does not accurately describe reality.

and thanks for his utterly worthless and irrelevent opinion. NIST never pretended to exactly replicate the collapse, nor could they because there are two many unknowns.

In reality we see a crimp appear in the middle of the building and the rest of the building immediately lose all structural stability and begin to fall at the rate of gravity straight down as a single unit. This is controlled demolition. "

Thanks for your utterly worthless opinion.

 

[jaydeehess]

Hey nice to have you back. So it's oxygen bottles is it. Yes just a few pages ago, we have this.

Post 297

"Let's see the possibilities have been
-sun reflection between the rounded aluminum nose of the a/c and the windows of the structure
-impact destruction of the weather radar or other electronic equipment in the nose of the aircraft
-static electrical discharge between the fast moving aluminum aircraft and the aluminum cladding of the tower

All of which include only known materials and phenomena."


Post 447
"The meteor is compressing air for many minutes at speeds that are multiples of the speed at which the Boeing was travelling. The meteor was used as a much greater effect example of the principle of compression simply as an illustration of the concept of air not being able to move out of the way of extremely fast objects and thsu being compressed in front of that object.

In the case of the aircraft the plane is compressing air all along BUT not enough to be seen or to produce a heat flash UNTIL it gets close to the building. The building prevents the air from moving away and the compression spikes and causes a brief flash."

I think all one has to do is read that and the fact you seem to have completely ignored it the first time and they will see you have no intention of any real discussion. You merely wish to find any explanation/excuse however miniscule, or non-important they may be to "debunk" conspiracy theories.

YOU asked for explanations for the flashes. I listed a few that were put forward, THEN (you understand tempoarl differences do you not?) I saw posts indicating the location of the O₂ bottles amd since this also is aplausible explanation for the impact flash I then spoke to it as well.

YOU HAVE then been given several plausible explanations for these flashes, some more likely than others, each of which requires NO unseen or unknown materials or phenomena unlike your unseen missile.

You seem to think that an unknown, unseen, undemonstrated missile is more plausible than any of these for some gawd only knows reason.

BTW, I am absent on weekends during the summer ,, guess why? Guess why I am absent even longer during long weekends.
Answer: I have other things I'd rather do while the sun shines warmly.

ETA: I have to give you some credit though for sheer obfuscation. I almost missed that of my post which was several paragraphs, which you quoted in full, you addressed PART of ONE sentence of it. (O₂ bottles)

 

[Craig4]

I was serious about the question...you bet. Not serious that it should actually be done. But like I said if someone wants to fund it, I certainly wouldn't stop it.

So why does your silly little 9/11 hobby matter? Come on, if you believe this do something about it.

 

[I Ratant]

Oh dear. When in a hole stop digging. We stopped taking you seriously from your first post onwards. Why are you persisting? All you are doing is entertaining us.

.
It's not anywhere's near "entertaining" any more.
Stupid, and getting stupider.

 

[jaydeehess]

So tmd has a problem with the WTC 7 model and this becomes 'some other force' was in play. Let's leave aside that this is incredubly inaccurate literraly in that only ONE 'force', gravity, was acting upon the structure. The problem, as tmd sees it, is that the exterior of the structure does not fold in on itself as shown in the models.
This difference has been explained several times, the best being in the ElMondohummus quote of Mackey above. Yet despite this tmd maintains that the FEA should accurately predict the exact manner of collapse going to far as to suggest that there is no reason why it should not.

So once again we get back to AE911T having been unwilling to conduct their own FEA and demonstrate a model that does EXACTLY show the same manner of collapse as seen on 9/11.
"Oh" they colpain,"NIST will not release their work on the parameters they used for the FEA." So what? Should not a new FEA also include an independant study and justification for the parameters used as input for the FEA?

Asked and never answered........

 

[jaydeehess]

.
It's not anywhere's near "entertaining" any more.
Stupid, and getting stupider.

, and suprisingly off topic unless we are going to call back MaGZ to tell us about the missiles that hit WTC 7.

 

[I Ratant]

, and suprisingly off topic unless we are going to call back MaGZ to tell us about the missiles that hit WTC 7.

.
No, that's all right.
He's probably in a happier place now.

 

[jaydeehess]

Trust me it's not that I can't follow math, you don't have to worry about that. How can anyone follow all that you did? You kept changing your mind saying you didn't mean what you wrote, saying you made mistakes. It's clear you wrote things purposely difficult. I honestly just gave up.

Yes, I made mistakes AND YET I was the only one that noticed.

I told you I was just rounding everything with the 800 Fps to get an approximation.

Yet the math shows that this was 900 fps, a number that would benefit YOU, not me and yet YOU did not follow the math.

The only way to really measure this is to take the perceived launch time go frame by frame until impact time, and than you can reasonably approximate the distance it traveled by the visual evidence on video. Something I really don't feel like doing when I think this is close enough.

ridiculous! That is the way that the velocity of the aircraft was determind. Since we already know that and since we already know the measurements of the aircraft, the way to determine how much further it needs to travel is to determine where the missile was located. The way to determine how fast it was going is easy once you know this since you already know its velocity at t-0 time(launch) and the time to supposed impact (the flash). With this info you can, using high school physics, determine the velocity that the missile HAD TO BE at when it reached the WTC.
OOPS! There is problem isn't there? No missile is ever visible and therefore we can only imply the location of the missile on the aircraft.
Tell you what then. Suppose you come up with some margin of error for the location of the missile. Perhaps it anywhere from 50 feet behind the nose to 150 feet behind the nose, and show us the math for how fast the missile would be moving for a couple of different velocities for the aircraft itself.

,,,,or would you like me to do it for you?

I'm not sure what you mean by high powered or low powered missile, kinetic energy is kinetic energy.

I don't believe that I said anything about high or low powered missile. I stated that the math shows the velocity and therefore the kinetic energy of any given mass at that velocity. You simply cannot have a high acelleration missile launched from the area near the wing of the aircraft at 1 second or longer before nose impact and have this missile impact the WTC at near the same time as the nose of the a/c itself.
AND
a lesser acelleration WILL result in a missile that impacts at a slower velocity and therefore a lesser KE.

Seems like you were arguing pretty hard for a pre-impact flash. Also you know full well you weren't talking about the flash coming out of the back of the A/C. Did you forget about your "vapor cloud" explanation?

For simplicity sake I used nose and flash impact as happening at the same time. If you wish then I can redo the math for the missile hitting what, 0.1 seconds after nose impact. Or I can do it for 0.1 seconds prior to nose impact (the situation you first claimed).

I do KNOW that I was speaking about impact flash when Ifirst spoke of vapour. You would note however, if you read for comprehension, that I noted that the discussion of that was applicable to compression zones anywhere on or around an aircraft close to Mach 1 and that it certainly lokks quite like a vapour cone effect at the trailing edge of the wing at the time of the supposed first 'flash'.

 

[jaydeehess]

First of all no you are in-correct sir, re-read that post. Those are Dr. Greening's words not mine. At the end I wanted it to be clear that I have nothing to do with him

Ahhh, yes now I see. Its difficult to tell where its you speaking and where its Greening since you did not use the quote function or even quotes (").
My bad for misunderstanding your post.

 

[I Ratant]

...
,,,,or would you like me to do it for you?



...

.
No matter how well you present reality, the ignorance will remain invincible.

 

[jaydeehess]

.
No matter how well you present reality, the ignorance will remain invincible.

I admit, have done so already in fact, that my first attempt balls'd it up.

However I find that I am old school (due to advancing 'middle' age) and that I should really write it down on paper before posting.

I should do that every time from now on.

 

[tmd2_1]

YOU asked for explanations for the flashes. I listed a few that were put forward, THEN (you understand tempoarl differences do you not?) I saw posts indicating the location of the O₂ bottles amd since this also is aplausible explanation for the impact flash I then spoke to it as well.

YOU HAVE then been given several plausible explanations for these flashes, some more likely than others, each of which requires NO unseen or unknown materials or phenomena unlike your unseen missile.

You seem to think that an unknown, unseen, undemonstrated missile is more plausible than any of these for some gawd only knows reason.

BTW, I am absent on weekends during the summer ,, guess why? Guess why I am absent even longer during long weekends.
Answer: I have other things I'd rather do while the sun shines warmly.

ETA: I have to give you some credit though for sheer obfuscation. I almost missed that of my post which was several paragraphs, which you quoted in full, you addressed PART of ONE sentence of it. (O₂ bottles)

So what I'm hearing you say is you found out about oxygen bottles and that is what made you decide the flash was post impact rather than prior. Notice what I am writing the existence or non existence of oxygen bottles should have no bearing on whether you thought the flash was pre or post impact. You tried to duck this issue and not come right out and say it because you know this is what I would write, but that is really what you are saying.

I don't understand, you seem like an intelligent individual, yet you do anything and everything to try and disprove CTs. Why not use you intelligence to questions aspects of the official story as well? There's nothing wrong with doing both, I know I certainly do. You'll never see me talking about DEW or no planes(at the WTC) the pentagon is a slightly different matter.

In regards to a missile vs other explanations, yes a missile is more possible than the explanations that were given almost everyone that is mentioned, is impossible, so yes a missile would be more probably. The only that's not impossible is a discharge of some sort, but I have found no data, that a discharge would look anything like we see.

 

[The Platypus]

Why not use you intelligence to questions aspects of the official story as well? There's nothing wrong with doing both, I know I certainly do.

Sure ya do...

 

[Dave Rogers]

I don't understand, you seem like an intelligent individual, yet you do anything and everything to try and disprove CTs. Why not use you intelligence to questions aspects of the official story as well?

Ah, the classic fallacy of the woo pedlar: why aren't we as skeptical of reality as we are of the nonsensical fantasies you make up? But the truth is, we are as skeptical about it. We've studied the evidence, modelled the physics, understood the history and motivations of the participants, examined the generally accepted narrative, and found that it's substantially true although imperfect in some respects. Compare that to the conspiracy theories that seek to explain some trivial aspect of events that never even happened at the expense of monstrous internal contradictions and cartoon characters, and it's very simple to determine which one is utter dross. Skeptical investigation doesn't preclude working conclusions, and the working conclusion to be drawn is that the truth movement is based on nothing but lies.

Dave

 

[tmd2_1]

You continue to show your ignorance.

​

You seriously need to do seaches through prior threads before you walk straight into answers that have been given in the past.

As has been stated by some, this is getting off topic so I'll be brief. I realize I had a role in it and apologize for it. To respond to your post, no one is/was expecting perfection, at least I hope not. That model however, is a disgrace a complete and total disgrace. It should look "somewhat" like reality, to think taxpayers money went to that is an outrage.

 

[The Platypus]

As has been stated by some, this is getting off topic so I'll be brief. I realize I had a role in it and apologize for it. To respond to your post, no one is/was expecting perfection, at least I hope not. That model however, is a disgrace a complete and total disgrace. It should look "somewhat" like reality, to think taxpayers money went to that is an outrage.

If you are so correct and outraged, why aren't you doing anything about it other than trolling the internet trying to recruit people for the cult with these BS performances?