Missile??

[beachnut]

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

You are making up lies on how people died on 911. Your games is to spread lies based on fantasy. I am sure of your game, it is based on ignorance.

 

[NoahFence]

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.

So you can add mind reader to your ever growing list of stuff you're an expert at?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

So you can add mind reader to your ever growing list of stuff you're an expert at?

it came to him in a divine revelation, a bit like it did to the Mormons about polygamy and colored folks

 

[dafydd]

A mind like yours comes along once a generation.

I was thinking the same thing about you.

 

[djlunacee]

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

Can you please clarify who "they" are. While you are at it, answer me this. I am assuming you mean the US Government when you say they, forgive me if I am wrong, but If I were "they" and I was planning the destruction of the twin towers, so I planted top secret Hushaboom bombs all throughout the towers, why in the world would I care about fallback to the street? The Hushaboom bombs were going to be the primary tool in bringing down the towers anyway, right? (Seems to me fall back would have been more advantageous in this effort it would have killed thousands more on the street)

So in closing, the missle argument is about the third dumbest thing I have heard, only thing dumber is the DEW theory and the mini nuke theory, but we won't get started on those. If you can come up with reasonable answer to the proposed questions, then we can discuss further, otherwise, the missle theory can go back to 200?.

By the way you didn't just happen to watch In Plane Sight did you? Cause your argument is just about verbatim with that piece of fiction.

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

Really?? The formulae I used were first taught to me when I was 18 years old in high school

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 was explaining compression zone? I suppose I was doing it to some degree but IIRC it was Oystein who was more into that than I. However I do recall that when I was referring to the vapour cone effect I was referring to the supposed flash of the missile launch, not the supposed impact.

I still wonder why you did that. You can't seem to tell if something is Silver or if something is Orange.

So you are referring to the supposed launch then? Nope, I saw no orange flash at the supposed launch, I did see a vapourous cloud accross part of the trailing edge of the wing and a brighter spot within that cloud.

You don't know what numbers NIST didn't release.

The parameters that NIST used in their FEA?
Didn't care! If anyone else is to do an FEA then it would seem rather important for them to start by determining those parameters for themselves rather than simply cribbing them from NIST. Don't you agree?

You don't know what a krimp is.

I have not smoked marijuana for several decades. That "krimp"?
OR
are you referring to the kink in WTC 7? I have repeatedly refered to it as a 'kink' as , I believe, NIST does.

For that matter I do not recall a 'krimp' even being discussed in these pages let alone implying that I did not know what it was. Please provide a reference to what the h you are talking about.

So yes I'm really not sure what is going on.

That is so right on many levels.

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.

The math I posted above is nothing that a 12th grade graduate should be able to follow. The formulae are taught in high school physics classes, at least in Canada they are. (you are American or Canadian, right? I can assume you understand what I mean by 12th grade?)

But let me be as clear as possible;
A very high acelleration missile would have been launched much closer to the tower than 1 second ruling out a KE weapon fired 1 second or sooner prior to nose impact.
A slower missile launched sooner, 1 or more seconds prior to impact, would not be traveling fast enough to be a KE weapon of any significance.

I also mentioned what others have said, that damaging (and let's face it no missile you have proposed would have severed or severly damaged any WTC column) ONE WTC column would not significantly affect the ability of a 500MPH, 100,000 pound aircraft from fully entering the building.

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

I'll ETA later.
ETA: as promised;
I thought to myself, "Self, you could be wrong. tmd may not have said he was a scientific researcher.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7446973&postcount=1315

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years ...............snip...........To be clear I am not Dr. Greening nor do I have anything to do with him.

However, I can now tell myself, "you were correct sir."

So the questions remain;
Why could tmd make the sophomoric mistake of saying that beacuse the distance difference is 100 feet that the missile would be going 100fps faster if launched from the Boeing?
Why could tmd not follow the math I posted, perhaps even noticing the mistakes I made? After all I am an electronic tech and he is a science researcher who would presumably could be using formulae such as this more regularily than I.

 

[dafydd]

I think that a krimp is a Russian crimp.

 

[tmd2_1]

Really?? The formulae I used were first taught to me when I was 18 years old in high school

I was explaining compression zone? I suppose I was doing it to some degree but IIRC it was Oystein who was more into that than I. However I do recall that when I was referring to the vapour cone effect I was referring to the supposed flash of the missile launch, not the supposed impact.



So you are referring to the supposed launch then? Nope, I saw no orange flash at the supposed launch, I did see a vapourous cloud accross part of the trailing edge of the wing and a brighter spot within that cloud.

The parameters that NIST used in their FEA?
Didn't care! If anyone else is to do an FEA then it would seem rather important for them to start by determining those parameters for themselves rather than simply cribbing them from NIST. Don't you agree?




I have not smoked marijuana for several decades. That "krimp"?
OR
are you referring to the kink in WTC 7? I have repeatedly refered to it as a 'kink' as , I believe, NIST does.

For that matter I do not recall a 'krimp' even being discussed in these pages let alone implying that I did not know what it was. Please provide a reference to what the h you are talking about.


That is so right on many levels.



The math I posted above is nothing that a 12th grade graduate should be able to follow. The formulae are taught in high school physics classes, at least in Canada they are. (you are American or Canadian, right? I can assume you understand what I mean by 12th grade?)

But let me be as clear as possible;
A very high acelleration missile would have been launched much closer to the tower than 1 second ruling out a KE weapon fired 1 second or sooner prior to nose impact.
A slower missile launched sooner, 1 or more seconds prior to impact, would not be traveling fast enough to be a KE weapon of any significance.

I also mentioned what others have said, that damaging (and let's face it no missile you have proposed would have severed or severly damaged any WTC column) ONE WTC column would not significantly affect the ability of a 500MPH, 100,000 pound aircraft from fully entering the building.

I'll ETA later.
ETA: as promised;
I thought to myself, "Self, you could be wrong. tmd may not have said he was a scientific researcher.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7446973&postcount=1315


However, I can now tell myself, "you were correct sir."

So the questions remain;
Why could tmd make the sophomoric mistake of saying that beacuse the distance difference is 100 feet that the missile would be going 100fps faster if launched from the Boeing?
Why could tmd not follow the math I posted, perhaps even noticing the mistakes I made? After all I am an electronic tech and he is a science researcher who would presumably could be using formulae such as this more regularily than I.

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

Next, yes I meant kink. I really don't know why I wrote that. It is embarrassing. I know I was thinking of a crimp at the time (for other reasons), I guess I just combined the words, with a hilarious result. But I have no excuses for it.

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.

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

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

Let me again remind you of the numbers NIST won't release.

http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf

Now on to what you said about compression zone or in general about a pre-impact flash.

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."

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?

 

[tmd2_1]

Can you please clarify who "they" are. While you are at it, answer me this. I am assuming you mean the US Government when you say they, forgive me if I am wrong, but If I were "they" and I was planning the destruction of the twin towers, so I planted top secret Hushaboom bombs all throughout the towers, why in the world would I care about fallback to the street? The Hushaboom bombs were going to be the primary tool in bringing down the towers anyway, right? (Seems to me fall back would have been more advantageous in this effort it would have killed thousands more on the street)

So in closing, the missle argument is about the third dumbest thing I have heard, only thing dumber is the DEW theory and the mini nuke theory, but we won't get started on those. If you can come up with reasonable answer to the proposed questions, then we can discuss further, otherwise, the missle theory can go back to 200?.

By the way you didn't just happen to watch In Plane Sight did you? Cause your argument is just about verbatim with that piece of fiction.

First of all this is not a "theory" it is a question. I certainly don't base the whole collapse of the towers on whether or not that was missile. Far from it. A question that no one has really given much of a plausible answer to. In fact only one is at all possible. Although I have found no evidence of any discharge looking anything like what we see.

No I don't mean the U.S government. I mean a relatively small criminal cabal inside of it, a cabal that also includes people from other countries, as well as some other "elite".

I've never once claimed hushaboom bombs or anything like that. First of all there are numerous eye witnesses that say they heard explosions. So I do not know what may have or may not have been used.

Why would they want to eliminate fall back? Simple they would want as little of the plane to be found as possible. Because the parts may not match what they should have been.

Now I know you will say, parts were found, this is true. But it may surprise you to know (and this has all been covered in this thread previously) that no parts serial numbers have been publicly declared to match what they should have been. It doesn't even look like it was done at all. See here
http://911blogger.com/node/14406

Now you can say there is no doubt as to what the planes were, so there is no need to look into it. Well I can give several answers. First this is not a very difficult thing to do. You get the serial, and enter into a database to see which plane it belongs. Or you can look at the serial numbers it should have been through that database, and see if they match the numbers found. It's not like DNA testing which is expensive and timely. Also there's recorded evidence that the flight was still in the air according to flight explorer.

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

 

[cyclonic]

It's just pitiful that twoofers can't see the truth (forest) because of all the facts (trees) in front of them.

 

[TJM]

First of all this is not a "theory" it is a question. I certainly don't base the whole collapse of the towers on whether or not that was missile. Far from it. A question that no one has really given much of a plausible answer to. In fact only one is at all possible. Although I have found no evidence of any discharge looking anything like what we see.

*Cough!*

No I don't mean the U.S government. I mean a relatively small criminal cabal inside of it, a cabal that also includes people from other countries, as well as some other "elite".

Is this cabal separate from the massive amount of conspirators you've amassed so far?

I've never once claimed hushaboom bombs or anything like that. First of all there are numerous eye witnesses that say they heard explosions. So I do not know what may have or may not have been used.

Yes, there's lots of things you don't know, like how buildings are constructed, weapon systems, the American legal system, scale, hyperbole, Flight Explorer, aircraft, radar; just to name a few. The problem is when you encounter an opinion from people who are a whole hell of lot smarter than you that counters to your preconceived notion of guilt on the part of...you don't know who, it's either handwaved off or flatly ignored.

Why would they want to eliminate fall back? Simple they would want as little of the plane to be found as possible. Because the parts may not match what they should have been.

High speed aircraft impacts are another thing you don't know about.

Now I know you will say, parts were found, this is true. But it may surprise you to know (and this has all been covered in this thread previously) that no parts serial numbers have been publicly declared to match what they should have been. It doesn't even look like it was done at all. See here
http://911blogger.com/node/14406

Please cite which law / regulation / mandate requires a downed aircraft is to be identified by its "serial number".

Now you can say there is no doubt as to what the planes were, so there is no need to look into it. Well I can give several answers. First this is not a very difficult thing to do. You get the serial, and enter into a database to see which plane it belongs. Or you can look at the serial numbers it should have been through that database, and see if they match the numbers found. It's not like DNA testing which is expensive and timely. Also there's recorded evidence that the flight was still in the air according to flight explorer.

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

So American and United air lines didn't have data on the aircraft they respectively owned and lost on 9/11, or are they in on it too?

 

[Dog Town]

...snip...

Now you can say there is no doubt as to what the planes were, so there is no need to look into it. Well I can give several answers. First this is not a very difficult thing to do. You get the serial, and enter into a database to see which plane it belongs. Or you can look at the serial numbers it should have been through that database, and see if they match the numbers found. It's not like DNA testing which is expensive and timely. Also there's recorded evidence that the flight was still in the air according to flight explorer.

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

Hello...2005! Bravo, jumped the shark!

 

[TJM]

Hello...2005! Bravo, jumped the shark!

2005?

Dude, he's on about freakin missile pods. 2002 at best.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Why would they want to eliminate fall back? Simple they would want as little of the plane to be found as possible. Because the parts may not match what they should have been.

So... you believe that the planes that actually impacted the towers may not have been the planes that were claimed to have impacted the towers.

Are you aware of the implications of this belief?

 

[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.

You know I have been doing a lot of thinking, and re-reading about this subject. I now believe that you and others have tried to lead me down the wrong path. Whether this was intentional or not I can not be sure. I will go back to what I originally stated, the very first video shows what could have been the launching point, about a second out. Now as seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw3dzA0sDTQ&feature=related and here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x8fs2sZmas&feature=related
the flash is clearly before the impact. The fact that at these speeds it is clearly noticeable and distinguishable, shows there must have been a large (relativity speaking of course) time difference between the two. .25 seconds half a second it's very hard to measure, but there is clearly a noticeable difference. So we are now talking about starstreak like speeds again. If you have any doubt that it could penetrate a box column at the WTC see here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_(missile)
"A demonstration was conducted in September 1999 that showed the missile being used against an FV432 armoured personnel carrier, showing the missile's effectiveness as surface-to-surface weapon" And here's more information on the APC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV432_AFV

Now I know you and others will deny the flash before impact or whine about the video quality, I've come to expect things like this. But we both know what I'm saying is true. I also know another common attack, is "shifting goalpoasts" What I'm doing here is simply moving the goalposts back to where they were originally, goalposts others tried to move.

Now you will say ok even with starstreak speeds it still is far less significant than the kinetic energy of the plane. No doubt that this is true. But as I have been saying all along, that kinetic energy is not even close to being applied to just one column. Far from it. It loses momentum each time a part of the plane comes in contact with the steel. Something like this would help the plane penetrate further by keeping that initial impact resistance to a minimum.

 

[I Ratant]

So... you believe that the planes that actually impacted the towers may not have been the planes that were claimed to have impacted the towers.

Are you aware of the implications of this belief?

.
That was brought up last night on Nat Geo.
The real airplanes were landed at a secret airfield in Pennsylvania.. YGBSM!.. all the passengers and crew loaded onto UAL 175, which was then shot down over Shanksville.
The places of the real airplanes were assumed by others of the same type, painted the same, and then crashed into the towers, with one guiding the cruise missile into the Pentagon... and then flying off to that secret airfield?

 

[tmd2_1]

So... you believe that the planes that actually impacted the towers may not have been the planes that were claimed to have impacted the towers.

Are you aware of the implications of this belief?

I don't necessarily "believe" anything. I do know that there was apparently no effort to do the easy task of tracking down the serial numbers as seen here.
http://911blogger.com/node/14406

Now you may say in accident investigations they don't track down the serial numbers. But this wasn't an accident investigation, those planes were used as murder weapons. It would be like not running ballistic tests. Only this is far less expensive and time consuming.

Now you can say there is still no doubt that as to what the planes were. But you have this flight explorer data, that says different. I'll also add that in the video the plane appears to be flying AWAY from the New York metropolitan area. I can't 100% conclude that, but it sure looks that way. This is something that never should have occurred that day.

Given all this, I think they could have done the 5 minute job of tracking down the serial numbers. I would think they would do that even if the flight explorer data didn't show this, given the enormity of the crime, and the ease of which it can be identified.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdXGSefI6pM

 

[Oystein]

You know I have doing a lot of thinking, and re-reading about this subject. I now believe that you and others have tried to lead me down the wrong path. Whether this was intentional or not I can not be sure.

Can't speak for the others, but I followed your lead, used your assumptions, or those that you recommended me (jadeehess' calcs, for example). Your problem, really.

I will go back to what I originally stated, the very first video shows what could have been the launching point, about a second out.

A second out for the plane, which travelled at 243m/s, would have been 243m out. Agreed?

Now as seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw3dzA0sDTQ&feature=related and here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x8fs2sZmas&feature=related
the flash is clearly before the impact. The fact that at these speeds it is clearly noticeable and distinguishable, shows there must have been a large (relativity speaking of course) time difference between the two. .25 seconds half a second it's very hard to measure, but there is clearly a noticeable difference. So we are now talking about starstreak like speeds again. If you have any doubt that it could penetrate a box column at the WTC see here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_(missile)
"A demonstration was conducted in September 1999 that showed the missile being used against an FV432 armoured personnel carrier, showing the missile's effectiveness as surface-to-surface weapon" And here's more information on the APC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FV432_AFV

Thanks for providing the links that debunks you. You see...

Armour 12.7 mm max

The steel plates that the perimeter columns were made of were up to 76mm thick.
Also
"Starstreak is a British short range surface-to-air missile"
"Effective range 300m–7000 m (0.19–4.3 mi)"
"The operator tracks the target using the aiming unit's optically stabilized sight. The process of tracking the target allows the aiming unit to compute the right trajectory to bring the missile together with the target. The operator can indicate wind direction to the unit, and in the case of a long range target provide super elevation. When the initial tracking is complete, the operator fires the missile by pressing a button.[1]
The missile then fires the first stage rocket motor, which launches the missile from the tube — but burns out before leaving the tube to protect the operator. When the missile is a safe distance from the operator the second stage fires, which rapidly accelerates the missile to burn out velocity of about Mach 3.5 four hundred meters away from the operator."
"On impact with the target a delayed action fuze is triggered"

The Starstreak does not fit your assumptions at all! And no, it is not designed to penetrate structural members of large buildings, it is designed to damage planes inflight, and penetrate into lightly armoured road vehicles.

Now I know you and others will deny the flash before impact or whine about the video quality, I've come to expect things like this. But we both know what I'm saying is true.

To the contrary - I am not at all interested in the flash. I know with absolute certainty that there is no missile in that video, and that your missile theory is utter stupidity. With or without flash.

Now you will say ok even with starstreak speeds it still is far less significant than the kinetic energy of the plane. No doubt that this is true.

It is not only far less significant, it as absolutely insignificant. When the maximum value one variable is smaller by 3 orders of magnitude than the minimum margin of error of our problem, its significance is not 0.004%, it becomes precisely 0!

But as I have been saying all along, that kinetic energy is not even close to being applied to just one column. Far from it. It loses momentum each time a part of the plane comes in contact with the steel. Something like this would help the plane penetrate further by keeping that initial impact resistance to a minimum.

I told you twice already:

With the missile adding 0.004% to the kinetic energy we already have, your plane will at BEST penetrate 0.1 inch further.

Please do not ignore this a third time! Please repeat in a full sentence, in your own words, the content of this paragraph (the one with the very large font size) above so we know that you have read that your theory describes something totally insignificant!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Now you can say there is still no doubt that as to what the planes were. But you have this flight explorer data, that says different. I'll also add that in the video the plane appears to be flying AWAY from the New York metropolitan area. I can 't 100% conclude that, but it sure looks that way. This is something that never should have occurred that day.

The discrepancy is easily explained by the nature of Flight Explorer, which has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Continuing to pursue this nonsense is not your benefit, the benefit of your argument, or the benefit of anyone else.

 

[waypastvne]

I don't necessarily "believe" anything. I do know that there was apparently no effort to do the easy task of tracking down the serial numbers as seen here.
http://911blogger.com/node/14406

Now you may say in accident investigations they don't track down the serial numbers. But this wasn't an accident investigation, those planes were used as murder weapons. It would be like not running ballistic tests. Only this is far less expensive and time consuming.


Given all this, I think they could have done the 5 minute job of tracking down the serial numbers.

This piece of UA 175 debris was found on top of WTC 5

On it you can see a portion of the aircrafts registration number.

close up of US flag

N612UA cn12873/41. Please take five minutes and see if you can match the two.