Missile??

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Never in doubt? Well according to this it was till in the air, AFTER the south tower collapsed. Now I don't want to discuss this much here, because it is mentioned in the other thread. If you want to talk about it, I would prefer to do it there.

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

So in reference to the two fairbank's frames, instead of looking at them and seeing what everyone else sees which is the sun reflecting off the fuselage and not a missile, you choose to move the goal posts.

And you wonder why we think you are idiots and liars. Amazing. Try being honest for once in this thread.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Ok let me see if I can make this simple for everyone. Basically what you're saying is if the plane was traveling 700 ft a second a missile or projectile is fired from about 100ft away from the nose of the plane. For the missile to catch up it has to be going 100ft per second faster than the plane (of course I'm just rounding numbers.)

NO!
It has to go 100 feet further than the nose of the plane in the same amount of time, not 100fps faster.
I thought you could follow the math?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

NO!
It has to go 100 feet further than the nose of the plane in the same amount of time, not 100fps faster.
I thought you could follow the math?

Haha you'll never lose hope, eh?

[NoahFence]

Quote:

Amazing. Try being honest for once in this thread.

Would a truther being honest qualify for the "something new and fresh" thread we had a while back?

[jaydeehess]

delete

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Haha you'll never lose hope, eh?

Well I notice he has not picked up the mistake in my math.

I will redo it all and post again.

[jaydeehess]

Let's try this again;

The plane is moving at over 700 feet per second. Let's round it down to 700fps and have the missile fire 1 second prior to impact. This puts the missile launch when the plane is 700 feet from the tower.

IIRC I calculated 60 g's for the acelleration of the Starstreak missile.The missile has to travel 100 feet further than the nose of the plan(approximately)
if d=the distance from the nose to the WTC then the distance from missile to WTC is d+100 (feet)
d+100=v₀t + 0.5at²
and the missile hits the tower very close to the same time as the plane but let's make missile and nose impact simultaneous
d+100=700(1.0) + 0.5(60X32)(1.0)²
d= 1560 feet
However we already know that the plane is moving at 700 fps and is 1 second out, therefore the plane must be 700 feet from the WTC, not 1560 feet.

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 + 0.5at²
800=700(1)+0.5(a)(1)²
a=(800-700)X2=200 f/s/s =6.25g
Certainly 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 + 0.5at²
d+100=700(d/700) + 0.5(60X32)(d/700)²
100= 0.5(60X32)(1/700²)d²
100= 0.001959(d²
sqrt(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)

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by dafydd

Where did you study physics and engineering?

At good ol' UT of course. By that I mean UToob

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Never in doubt? Well according to this it was till in the air, AFTER the south tower collapsed. Now I don't want to discuss this much here, because it is mentioned in the other thread. If you want to talk about it, I would prefer to do it there.

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

Look at teh utoob!1111!tehutoobzzzzzzz1!!!11111!!!

[tmd2_1]

Originally Posted by Oystein

You seem to have missed (or ignored?) my post # 631. So let my try again (this is fun - thinking your thoughts through to their inevitable end).

Let's go with your higher estimate of v_plane = 895ft/s = 273m/s and v_missile = 1000ft/s = 305m/s (both rounded up).
And let's also accept your mass of missile = 40lb = 18.15kg
I get a kinetic energy of (0.5 * 18.15 * 305²)J = 860,481J - slightly below your value. I guess that's because of rounding errors as you convert ft and lb to SI units? I go with my values.

What you are missing first is the fact that the 40lb of missile already has a kinetic energy of 0.5 * 40lb * (895ft/s)² = 676,351J before being fired. So the missile adds only (860,481-676,351)J = 184,130J of destructive energy to the plane.

Now, the plane had a mass of 115,980kg according to my research. I believe your estimate is higher, but since my lower estimate is in favour of your missile theory, I am doing you the favour of going with my lower estimate, but I use your (higher) estimate of the speed, as we use the same for the missile.
Kinetic energy of the plane is thus
E_plane = 0.5 * 115,980kg * (273m/s)² = 4,321,936,710J

To this, your missile adds 184,130J, or 0.004%.

You'd need 234 of these missiles to add only 1% of kinetic energy to what the plane already has!

To add the same destructive force, the plane could carry an additional 5kg of load. That's ome more piece of carry-on luggage.

Man, we don't know the mass of the plane to within 1%, and don't know the speed of the plane to within 1%! Our calculation of the kinetic energy has a margin of error of at least 20%! That margin of error is nearly 5000 times greater than what your flimsy little missile can add!

That missile is absolutely, totally irrelevant! Insignificant as can be! Not noticed! You see, it is like this: Suppose I want to break a plank of wood by stepping on it. Suppose I weigh 70kg. What would you think about the following reasoning? "I may be too light to break this plank of wood with my weight only, hm hmmm is there a way that I can make sure I break it ... Ah! Heureca! I will place one 10-cent coin (Euro cent that is) on the plank just before I step on it, that will surely guarantee success!" Sounds nutty to you? Foolish? Laughable? It should! If it does, then now you know how we have been feeling and thinking about you since the start of this thread.

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. 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. Quite a variation. The missile/projectile is focused on a single column, and can probably penetrate it with it's own kinetic energy. Saving the plane the trouble from having to do it. Allowing the plane to penetrate further before other parts of the plane encounter resistance. Your penny example is a bad one I believe. 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. Thereby when it is used, while I'm sure doesn't feel great, is still much better than taking a non pre-cut chair (or something similar) In both ways the person swinging the object swings with enough force to brake the object (even if it were not pre-cut), and hits the person. But when the object is pre-cut it takes a far less toll and the person's body, than if it were not. Much as it would make it easier for the plane the penetrate. Is this a perfect example? Probably not, but I think you get the point.

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.

[tmd2_1]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Let's try this again;

The plane is moving at over 700 feet per second. Let's round it down to 700fps and have the missile fire 1 second prior to impact. This puts the missile launch when the plane is 700 feet from the tower.

IIRC I calculated 60 g's for the acelleration of the Starstreak missile.The missile has to travel 100 feet further than the nose of the plan(approximately)
if d=the distance from the nose to the WTC then the distance from missile to WTC is d+100 (feet)
d+100=v₀t + 0.5at²
and the missile hits the tower very close to the same time as the plane but let's make missile and nose impact simultaneous
d+100=700(1.0) + 0.5(60X32)(1.0)²
d= 1560 feet
However we already know that the plane is moving at 700 fps and is 1 second out, therefore the plane must be 700 feet from the WTC, not 1560 feet.

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 + 0.5at²
800=700(1)+0.5(a)(1)²
a=(800-700)X2=200 f/s/s =6.25g
Certainly 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 + 0.5at²
d+100=700(d/700) + 0.5(60X32)(d/700)²
100= 0.5(60X32)(1/700²)d²
100= 0.001959(d²
sqrt(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? What I thought and sure looks like you wrote before? I'm not sure why you feel the need to do this. It's as I stated before. 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. 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.

You don't have to take my word for the kinetic energy Oystein calculated (0.5 * 18.15 * 3052)J = 860,481J I did make an error I had 22kg instead of 18. But I mean a missile could have easily weighed that as well. The low end (meaning the plane is going 700 ft a second) the kinetic energy is now 531441 joules, with the 18kg. Again not to shabby.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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. 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. Quite a variation. The missile/projectile is focused on a single column, and can probably penetrate it with it's own kinetic energy. Saving the plane the trouble from having to do it. Allowing the plane to penetrate further before other parts of the plane encounter resistance. Your penny example is a bad one I believe. 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. Thereby when it is used, while I'm sure doesn't feel great, is still much better than taking a non pre-cut chair (or something similar) In both ways the person swinging the object swings with enough force to brake the object (even if it were not pre-cut), and hits the person. But when the object is pre-cut it takes a far less toll and the person's body, than if it were not. Much as it would make it easier for the plane the penetrate. Is this a perfect example? Probably not, but I think you get the point.

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.

You failed to comprehend your delusional claim is 4,739 times smaller kinetic energy than the plane's kinetic energy. The cross section of the plane is small head-on, because the plane is a missile of sorts. You fail, the plane has no problem breaking the skin of the WTC.

Flight 175 had the energy of 2093 pounds of TNT, the WTC shell was designed to resist 187 pounds of TNT as a plane, 11 times less than Flight 175. This is why Flight 175 entered the WTC, it had more energy than the design could handle, and then excess energy from 175 destroyed 10 core columns. 11 times, 1 to enter, 10 to destroy core columns and cause massive damage.

Your tiny missile would bounce off the shell of the WTC, or make a tiny hole. You failed this time, but don't let failure stop you from spreading more lies and delusions, your duty as a loyal 911 truth Follower; spread nonsense; you are the best.

[Dog Town]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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...

Wow...just, wow! And you wonder...

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by beachnut

You failed to comprehend your delusional claim is 4,739 times smaller kinetic energy than the plane's kinetic energy. The cross section of the plane is small head-on, because the plane is a missile of sorts. You fail, the plane has no problem breaking the skin of the WTC.

Flight 175 had the energy of 2093 pounds of TNT, the WTC shell was designed to resist 187 pounds of TNT as a plane, 11 times less than Flight 175. This is why Flight 175 entered the WTC, it had more energy than the design could handle, and then excess energy from 175 destroyed 10 core columns. 11 times, 1 to enter, 10 to destroy core columns and cause massive damage.

Your tiny missile would bounce off the shell of the WTC, or make a tiny hole. You failed this time, but don't let failure stop you from spreading more lies and delusions, your duty as a loyal 911 truth Follower it to spread nonsense; you are good at it.

Exactly.

Even if tmd's imaginary missile was an anti-armor type (known examples, not a Sheen missile of truth...) the shaped charge head would cut a hole approximately 6" in diamter, with after armor damage to soft material.

The missile theory is one of the more foolish fictional constructs that they've come up with.

[tmd2_1]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

NO!
It has to go 100 feet further than the nose of the plane in the same amount of time, not 100fps faster.
I thought you could follow the math?

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)

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

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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)

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

lol, where exactly is the missile and how is it attached to the airframe so the pilot on his walk around will not discover it?

This gets more insane if you had a clue what goes on in the real world.

Why would you need a missile, when you have a plane (which is a missile) which has more weight, and more energy than a missile? The plane also carries 315 TONS of TNT heat energy in 66,000 pounds of jet fuel. It would take over 666,000 tons of thermite to equal the heat energy of the jet fuel.

In addition, it would take over 2,000,000 tons of thermite to equal the heat energy of the fires in the WTC towers, times 2! What will you do when you figure out 911? You will be upset with 911 truth and yourself when you wake up to reality.

[The Platypus]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

I'm not sure what game you are playing.

Says the guy who is playing games...

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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. 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.

Why are you continuing to argue about technicalities when the hi-res videos clearly show a total absence of missiles?

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by GlennB

Why are you continuing to argue about technicalities when the hi-res videos clearly show a total absence of missiles?

It's the truthers version of mental masturbation. Some people try to figure out how a magician does his illusions or how to create new ones and others make light of the deaths of thousands of people by inventing new and creative ways to kill them... again.

Both require approaching the problem from the end point and then trying to make it appear to be something that it's not to people who either don't know any better or who simply want to be fooled for whatever reason.

Accomplished magicians can do this knowing that it's harmless and in good fun. Truthers try to do this because of either some macabre sense of humor or because of mental illness. There is a third group. The charlatans and con men who prey upon the feeble minded for a quick buck or political points. I don't think that tmd is in the third group. I haven't decided where he falls in the other two groups yet.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

It's the truthers version of mental masturbation. Some people try to figure out how a magician does his illusions or how to create new ones and others make light of the deaths of thousands of people by inventing new and creative ways to kill them... again.

Both require approaching the problem from the end point and then trying to make it appear to be something that it's not to people who either don't know any better or who simply want to be fooled for whatever reason.

That bit gets my vote re tmd2_1

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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!

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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.

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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.

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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!

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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.

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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.

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Your penny example is a bad one I believe.

Nope. Spot-on.

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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?

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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...?

[AJM8125]

Well if you insist.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

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.

[AJM8125]

Originally Posted by Oystein

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]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

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

Yeah, those

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by 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 + 0.5at²
800=700(1)+0.5(a)(1)²
a=(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 + 0.5at²
d+100=700(d/700) + 0.5(60X32)(d/700)²
100= 0.5(60X32)(1/700²)d²
100= 0.001959(d²
sqrt(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)

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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]

Originally Posted by Oystein

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]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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]

Originally Posted by Oystein

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]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

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]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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]

Quote:

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

The infamous "They".

Who exactly is "They" tmd?

[ApolloGnomon]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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?

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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.

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

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?