The steel of the WTC was made of lower strength steel.
http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/structural-data-wtc-1-2 I would assume the APC is made of higher strength steel.
Can you explain what the word "strength" means when applied to structural steel, and how this "strength" affects resistance to penetration by high-speed projectiles?
Can you explain what this "lower" strength steel actually is compared to? Was the WTC built of weak steel, you think?
This is one of the reasons why I say any type of penetration models whether it be for a plane or missile is very difficult there are so many variables.
And yet, a team by Purdue university as well as the NIST guys did exactly that. I don't recall you ever commented on that.
I think this perceived difficulty is a difficulty only for
you and
your theory. You are, in effect, telling us that
you don't know, and can't know (for lack of personal skills), whether even a tiny aspect of your theory hold water.
Besides that let's see what else it says. "Each sub-munition dart travelling at 1,250 meters per second (2,800 mph) has comparable kinetic energy to a shell from a Bofors 40 mm gun"
But remember:
- In your theory, the missile was launched one second before plane impact, or about 243meters away from the building face
- The Starstreak reaches its intended velocity of 3.5 mach only 400 meters away from the "operator", who is though to sit right above the location from whence the missile was launched
- These two facts together tell you that the missile could not have reached the speed you mention there
Now what can the Bofors gun do? "In U.S. Army service, the single mount Bofors was known as the 40 mm Automatic Gun M1. The U.S. version of the gun fired three variants of the British Mk. II high-explosive shell as well as the M81A1 armor-piercing round, which was capable of penetrating some 50 mm of homogeneous armor plate at a range of
500 yards."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm_gun
And so can any small part of a plane that races at 243m/s.
Let's see.
"
The new 40 mm design used a larger 40 × 364R round firing a slightly lighter 870g shell at a much higher 1,030 m/s (3,379fps) muzzle velocity."
Such a projectile had a kinetic energy of 0.5 * 0.87kg * (1030m/s)
2 = 461,491.5J.
The 767 had a
KE of 3,424,251,510. That is more than 7,400 times the KE of that of the strongest Bofors 40mm rounds at muzzle. In other words, the Bofors would add 0.01% destructive energy to the plane.
Again, that is 3 orders of magnitude too little to even be significant.
If you want to add 461,491.5J of energy to your plane to penetrate further, you have smarter options:
- Increase velocity of plane imperceptably, from 243.00m/s to 243.02m/s (0.0067%)
- Increase mass of plane by 15.63kg (0.013%), for example by putting another suitcase on board, or 4 gallons more fuel.
Don't tell me it can't penetrate a box column.
Show me it can!
(Of course, even if it can, that is 3 orders of magnitude away from being significant, considering the fact that you, tmd, can't control the KE of the plane to within 10% accuracy)
I have no idea why you hilite the meters. It goes to 400 meters a safe distance from the operator and than phase two accelerates to Mach 3.5 very quickly. Not sure why you feel the need to hilite this.
Because you say that the missile is launched a much smaller distance away from the building, namely 243m. By the time the missile would reach the facade, the plane, too, will be much closer.
In regards to your big text, yes I understand what you are writing.
I don't believe you. You have such great trouble understanding pretty much anything we write to you, I don't trust you understand this.
That's why I asked you to repeat it in your own, different, words, so I can check if you
really understand what it means.
But I've said many time all that kinetic energy is not even close to being applied to one column. The further in the plane can penetrate before encountering resistance the less shredding and fall back that would occur.
There we have it: This is proof positive that
you don't understand at all what my big size text meant.
