NoahFence
Banned
Not really.
Go to Boeing's website, find out how big the plane was and that's how much penetrated WITHOUT THE AID OF A PROJECTILE
Missile??
- Thread starter tmd2_1
- Start date
Not really.
Go to Boeing's website, find out how big the plane was and that's how much penetrated WITHOUT THE AID OF A PROJECTILE
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
Purdue already did it...........
http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html
now unless you think they too are part of the plot
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Where is the evidence the flash was a missile?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Why would you expect you such a thing? His answers did not answer even one of my three questions.
Cool. 6.23 * 109 Joules.
That's for UA175?
I once computed 3.42 * 109 Joules. I think my estimate for mass of plane was more conservative, and I also assumed only 545mph instead of 590. But we're in the same ballpark.
Does that mean you don't know what variables to use?
The missile theory is not mine. It's yours. I'd expect you to have a first idea about these variables.
Please show the assumptions you used when you theorised that the kinetic energy of a missile might have cracked initial columns to enable the plane to penetrate.
Oh, you don't know again? How unsurprising!
Ryan Mackey once calculated quite precisely what the mass of the fuel alone (without all the steel and stuff) would do to perimeter columns. Result: Cut them. I can't be bothered to find the link right now.
In any case: I hope you realize that your little theory rests on imagination only, as you haven't checked it for plausibility.
Agreed?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
But it has been done. I could be bothered to find Ryan Mackey's presentation after all:
http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:911physics_big.ppt
Pages 1-25 explain that momentum of fuel alone would penetrate the much stronger core columns.
(If you can't open PowerPoint files, here is a PDF of the same: http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:911physics_big.pdf )
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
For you yes,not for people who know what they're doing.
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
That's why one uses computers. Marvelous devices, they make the "difficult to compute" very easy.
Here's one: http://hsrlab.gatech.edu/AUTODYN/papers/paper142.pdf
Here's another: http://ascelibrary.org/emo/resource/1/jenmdt/v131/i10/p1066_s1?isAuthorized=no
"It was found that about 46% of the initial kinetic energy of the aircraft was used to damage columns. The minimum impact velocity of the aircraft to just penetrate the exterior columns would be 130 m/s. It was also found that a Boeing 767 traveling at top speed would not penetrate exterior columns of the WTC if the columns were thicker than 20 mm. "
From "Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center" by Mohammed R. Karim and Michelle S. Hoo Fatt.
E=1/2mv2; you don't know physics. Why do you avoid the hard subjects and use hearsay and nonsense to form your fantasy?
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Asking a truther for his opinion on 911 is like asking a Neanderthal for his opinion on brain surgery. I have never come across a truther who knows anything about physics. Tmd,where did you study physics?
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
Hello? Those columns were just bolted together. Tear one loose and the rest lose structural integrity and the whole thing unzips around the site at which the force is applied.
Last edited:
Yes for 175. There's no doubt a 350,000+ A/C traveling in excess of 500 MPH, has a tremendous amount of kinetic energy.
Let me first address the star streak or Thor. If you are trying to imply that such a weapon could not have penetrated steel in any way or form, you are quite wrong. All you have to do is watch this video and you can see it. No formulas are necessary.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c53_1223582333
Amazing steel piercing ability. It could clearly do that job, especially with a full second to work with.
Now in regards to Mackey, and the penetration expected with the A/C itself, I've said many times, this is one reason why any type of weapon does not make sense. It seems like it would not be needed.
But I am talking about complete and total penetration. To ensure no shredding falls back, no bounce back of any any kind for that matter. It certainly would lose velocity on initial impact making it harder for later sections of the A/C to penetrate because of the loss velocity. This problem would have been greatly reduced if the nose was able to penetrate more without encountering significant resistance.
Also another thing to consider is the starstreak penetrates and than ignites, perhaps, it could help in the aid in the size of the fireball. Penetrates and than ignites with all the fuel around it. Just another thought.
I certainly don't have all the answers, and that includes the answer to the flash(s). It seems no one here really does either.
So I'll ask the same question, what are the chances of two anomalous flashes occurring on the same side of the A/C and they are not related?
Last edited:
triforcharity
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 13,961
You do realize that parts of the aircraft were found all over lower Manhattan before the collapses, right?
So, this missle theory didn't really work out quite like you had planned, eh?
So, this missle theory didn't really work out quite like you had planned, eh?
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
The "problem" is easily solved: 767. Floor it.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
Of course they are related, there was only one 767 flying into the building at the time.......
As to what they are, we have suggested many plausible causes and you have suggested none............a missile simply make zero sense when you have a 767 and a suicidal pilot.
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
Not only is no other weapon needed, the Star Streak would be pretty much useless. It would only punch a very small hole of little consequence. It would also leave identifiable damage to the spot where it hit.
And there is no sign of any of the system parts falling away when the aircraft is ready to hit.
Since both aircraft and both buildings are shaped the same, 100%.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Wonderful. We have agreement there.
Thor is a launcher, not a missile. Reading comprehension...
Being able to "pierce steel" is not the same as being able to "pierce any steel", and cetrainly quite far from "severing large steel columns".
The verb "to pierce" according to Merriam-Webster:
1a : to run into or through as a pointed weapon does : stab b : to enter or thrust into sharply or painfully
2: to make a hole through : perforate
3: to force or make a way into or through
It implies attacking a very limited area and poking through like a needle through skin (hence "piercing" body decoration).
Weapons that pierce steel aim to poke a hole into armour steel so that hot or explosive material penetrates into the attacked vehicle.
What we need here is the ability to cut clean through a steelk box column; not just attack a cubic inch or two, but many.
Great that you realize this.
Why do you think this was a necessary objective?
Later sections need not penetrate as the earlier sections already opened the way. Besides, later sections still have most of their momentum; if you think that the plane would stay rigid, and any deceleration of the front part would significantly slow down the aft, you show once again your terrible grasp on physics and basic structural engineering.
"Greatly"? Sounds like a quantitative assessment. Where does "greatly" begin, and can you show the numbers to prove you use that word reasonably?
Perhaps. In other words, you don't know.
Why do you think this would be a necessary objective?
Can you please show that any missiles exist who are designed with a large fireball in mind?
How much explosives does a starstreak missile carry, how large would their fireball be, and how does that compare to the fireball that was observed, or that you would expect from several thousands of gallons of jet fuel?
Not a smart thought.
Would it make sense to ignite the jet fuel at or even before the building facade, before it has mixed with plenty of air?
You are damned right that you have no clue here.
You also have not given any good reasons how and why the flash could be explained with a missile. You are making stuff up as you go along, that is all.
Why do you think they are anomalous? Can you show us that normally there is no such flash when a large plane crashes into a building?
Oh, and you have in no way at all addressed Mackey's calculation that shows quite clearly that the momentum (energy too) of the plane was very much in excess of what's needed to cut through the columns, penetrate building and not bounce off.
Also, you still have not provided an estimate for the kinetic energy (and momentum) of a plausible missile fired from the plane one second before plane impact. If you did that, you't notice that any missile would not add much to the penetrating force that the plane alone has.
(Do you realize that any missile fired 1 second before plane impact would either impact well ahead of the plane (a plane length or more) or not be very much faster than the plane and thus not add greatly to total energy and momentum?)
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 4,627
tmd, just stop it with the missile stuff. You have no clue as to what you are speaking of.
Your imaginary missile would've had to have left the aircraft at least 2/10ths of a mile away from the buildings (and that's pushing it, it's probably more than that). It would've been seen. It wasn't. End of story.
Ignoring that basic fact for a moment the design of the building was roughly 2/3rds glass to 1/3rd steel as a measurement of area on the exterior of the impact floors. That gives your imaginary missile with three projectiles a likelihood of missing with two of the three spikes deployed.
I can go on but it's pointless. There was no missile no matter how hard you try to shoehorn it into the picture.
Your imaginary missile would've had to have left the aircraft at least 2/10ths of a mile away from the buildings (and that's pushing it, it's probably more than that). It would've been seen. It wasn't. End of story.
Ignoring that basic fact for a moment the design of the building was roughly 2/3rds glass to 1/3rd steel as a measurement of area on the exterior of the impact floors. That gives your imaginary missile with three projectiles a likelihood of missing with two of the three spikes deployed.
I can go on but it's pointless. There was no missile no matter how hard you try to shoehorn it into the picture.
NoahFence
Banned
YES WE DO!!!
All you have to do is allow yourself to READ
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
It's pretty obvious here that you've just decided that there are unanswered questions whether or not there really are. You've heard lots of explanations but you have chosen not to accept the blatantly obvious (no missile hit the WTC). I'm sure you will now tell us how there is no explanation for the flashes so no one is looking into the possibility of a missile and that's proof of a cover up. It's okay for you to say that. However, do understand that you saying that will have no impact on anything that matters. You being dishonest and saying a missile could have hit the WTC will trigger no action on the part of anyone who could forward your agenda. Do enjoy being one of the few voices of "truth" for all the good it will do you.
NoahFence
Banned
tmd.
What specific question do you feel has gone unanswered?
What specific question do you feel has gone unanswered?