Missile??

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by bill smith

What else can a debunker be expected to say ?

The truth?

A "truther" should really try that sometime. I'll not hold my breath, as the whole lot of you are flat-out liars.

[sheeplesnshills]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

There can be absolutely no doubt given the information I presented previously that a starstreak type missile could penetrate and damage the columns at the impact level.

I agree it would make a small hole on one column, not columns, and since its insignifient relative to the plane what would be the point. They could simply have loaded the plane up with office desks and computers and the added mass of those alone would have far more effect than your missile and no one be surprised to find bits of them all over ground zero.

Quote:

This serves as evidence of the deceptive tactics debunkers will use. 6 - 20 mm is a far cry from 76mm.

One person made a silly mistake and no doubt will be back to admit that error. I would have corrected it myself but its was already done by the time I logged on today.

[waypastvne]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e
rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the
bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

I can see that you are a member of the Dead Parrot Society. Me too.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Hey Bill thanks for backing me up, I didn't think it was too crazy of a hypothesis!!

As far as I am concerned nothing is off the table in the 9/11 story.

You may have covered this already but some people think that the flashes were 'matches' to make sure that the photogenic fireball would actually ignite and not turn into a damp squib. That would leave the watching live world audience much less impressed than they might have been. Not enough 'shock and awe'.

If so it means that the planes hit with pinpoint accuracy which in turn could mean that the perimeter columns in the impact area had been replaced with something that looked like steel but was not.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

I'm not sure there is a reason to address much of anything you say anymore. Your deceptive tactics have been exposed. If you bothered to look up a correct value of 76 mm thick for the lower columns, you would have have known it doesn't apply to all columns. Everything I found clearly states that the thickness decreases as it went up. Why should I continue to discuss things with someone that is obviously deceptive?

Because that someone is a lot smarter than you? Is right in substance, detail, spirit and fact? Understands all the many things that you don't? Knows a lot more than you do?

Do tell me, honestly: Before today's exchange, did you even have the faintest idea how thick those plates were?
Oh, and did you think about the fact that of course you have an inner and an outer web plate to every box column - it's a box after all! So your silly little missile, after it goes into the column, is there enough momentum and energy left to penetrate the back side, too? What about the side flanges that were 14 inches deep - your missile does not even touch these, now does it?

We are discussing UA175 here, which hit the south tower. Plate thickness there was up to 20.6mm, as you found out.
You also found out that the Starstreak can penetrate the 12.7 mm max of a FV432.
Would you care to tell me if plate thickness of the column presumably hit by your silly missile was more or less than that armour of the FV432?
Oops - you don't know, eh?

[Sam.I.Am]

Originally Posted by waypastvne

I can see that you are a member of the Dead Parrot Society. Me too.

Which is an offshoot from the venerable and wise ancient order of the Knights who say NI.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by bill smith

As far as I am concerned nothing is off the table in the 9/11 story.
...

tmd,
Bill Smith has recently presented as his only theory that the core columns were filled with many tons of thermite that was ignited in fast sequence, and that the possibility of this demolition method was a design requirement for the towers.

Do you think that is a theory that should be on the table?

How about my favourite theory, according to which the towers were demolished by an army of midgets with saws?

[Sam.I.Am]

Quote:

How about my favourite theory, according to which the towers were demolished by an army of midgets with saws?

You can expect a visit from the goon squad of the National Association of Little People soon. I strongly suggest that you put on your shin guards.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Hey Bill thanks for backing me up, I didn't think it was too crazy of a hypothesis!!

.
That makes one of you.
Your mouse doesn't make it two.

[waypastvne]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Ok really you can only make out the N for sure in less I'm missing something. If you go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...nited_States_2 you can see there's more than a few that begin with N.

Please pick out one that you think matches this piece of debris better than N612UA

Quote:

I'm talking about A/C part serial numbers.

This is the biggest and most unique number on the whole plane. All visible curves and points of the characters corners match perfectly with N612UA.
Even the paint sheen line matches perfectly. The corner of the flag is also visible and exactly where it should be. This piece of debris came from N612UA.

[tmd2_1]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Because that someone is a lot smarter than you? Is right in substance, detail, spirit and fact? Understands all the many things that you don't? Knows a lot more than you do?

Do tell me, honestly: Before today's exchange, did you even have the faintest idea how thick those plates were?
Oh, and did you think about the fact that of course you have an inner and an outer web plate to every box column - it's a box after all! So your silly little missile, after it goes into the column, is there enough momentum and energy left to penetrate the back side, too? What about the side flanges that were 14 inches deep - your missile does not even touch these, now does it?

We are discussing UA175 here, which hit the south tower. Plate thickness there was up to 20.6mm, as you found out.
You also found out that the Starstreak can penetrate the 12.7 mm max of a FV432.
Would you care to tell me if plate thickness of the column presumably hit by your silly missile was more or less than that armour of the FV432?
Oops - you don't know, eh?

Did i know how thick it was? I had a general idea yes, and I knew how they got less thick on the way up. You forgot the part about the Bofors 40mm gun. You forgot to low quality of steel in the WTC. As I said I'm not sure there is much of a reason to respond to you. Your deceptive tactics have been exposed, it's not my fault you decided to write what you wrote. Maybe from time to time I can respond to something you write after this, but I see no reason to do it anymore than that.

[waypastvne]

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

Which is an offshoot from the venerable and wise ancient order of the Knights who say NI.

tmd 2-1 must chop down the tallest tree in the forest with, a red herring.

NI.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Oystein

tmd,
Bill Smith has recently presented as his only theory that the core columns were filled with many tons of thermite that was ignited in fast sequence, and that the possibility of this demolition method was a design requirement for the towers.

Do you think that is a theory that should be on the table?

How about my favourite theory, according to which the towers were demolished by an army of midgets with saws?

If you remember Oystein it is a consistent working theory covering most of the events of 9/11. It works in other words like no other theory I've seen.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Did i know how thick it was? I had a general idea yes, and I knew how they got less thick on the way up.

Now where on the impact floors of the south tower do you find steel that's les than the 12.7mm of the armoured personel vehicle? Do you know?

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

You forgot the part about the Bofors 40mm gun.

No, I did not:

Originally Posted by Oystein

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.

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

You forgot to low quality of steel in the WTC.

No, I did not:

Originally Posted by Oystein

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?

But there are several things that you forgot to reply to. For example, you never addressed the main point that no matter how you look at Starstreaks, Bofors guns etc, any such device is a peanut compared to an elephant. That the kinetic energy of any missile would be orders of magnitude smaller than even the margin of error with which we can estimate the kinetic energy of the plane per one column.

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

As I said I'm not sure there is much of a reason to respond to you. Your deceptive tactics have been exposed, it's not my fault you decided to write what you wrote. Maybe from time to time I can respond to something you write after this, but I see no reason to do it anymore than that.

I did not deceive you. I didn't know how thick the plates were around the impact location, I knew that, in general, perimeter column plates were up to 76mm (3 inches) thick, which is true.

I think the reason why you use this cheap excuse to not respond to me is that you feel embarrassed I demolish your silly ideas so thoroughly every time. I think you are starting to get a hunch just how bizarrely wrong your missile theory is.

[NoahFence]

Quote:

but some people think that the flashes were 'matches' to make sure that the photogenic fireball would actually ignite and not turn into a damp squib

Indeed. Here's one of them:

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Oystein

tmd,
Bill Smith has recently presented as his only theory that the core columns were filled with many tons of thermite that was ignited in fast sequence, and that the possibility of this demolition method was a design requirement for the towers.

Do you think that is a theory that should be on the table?

How about my favourite theory, according to which the towers were demolished by an army of midgets with saws?

I guess I'll have to bump that thread in self defence Oystein. When I do Peaders should read my posts on the first page and a half. That will give you the guts of it.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

Which is an offshoot from the venerable and wise ancient order of the Knights who say NI.

You mean the Knights who say....well, the Knights who until recently said "Ni"?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by waypastvne

tmd 2-1 must chop down the tallest tree in the forest with, a red herring.

NI.

This is a good example, too: tmd is arguing that maybe a 2-pound axe is not enough to cut down a tree, so just to make sure, let's increase the weight to 2 pounds and 0.003 ounces. Maybe but a small piece of booger on it. Just to make sure.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by bill smith

I guess I'll have to bump that thread in self defence Oystein. When I do Peaders should read my posts on the first page and a half. That will give you the guts of it.

They should make sure that they read the last pages as well. You know, the ones where you admit that you have nothing beyond that silly thermite-in-the-box-columns thingie.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Oystein

This is a good example, too: tmd is arguing that maybe a 2-pound axe is not enough to cut down a tree, so just to make sure, let's increase the weight to 2 pounds and 0.003 ounces. Maybe but a small piece of booger on it. Just to make sure.

Unfortunately for me, the mightiest tree in my forest is lying on my house. Stupid hurricane.

[Sam.I.Am]

Quote:

You may have covered this already but some people think that the flashes were 'matches' to make sure that the photogenic fireball would actually ignite and not turn into a damp squib. That would leave the watching live world audience much less impressed than they might have been. Not enough 'shock and awe'.

It's nice that you can make light of the fiery deaths of hundreds people by calling it "Photogenic". No wait, it's not nice. It's sick. Go visit your local burn ward, you'll never make a comment like that again.

[bill smith]

Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am

It's nice that you can make light of the fiery deaths of hundreds people by calling it "Photogenic". No wait, it's not nice. It's sick. Go visit your local burn ward, you'll never make a comment like that again.

Read the thread I just bumped for full context.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Unfortunately for me, the mightiest tree in my forest is lying on my house. Stupid hurricane.

Are you sure that wind gusts up to 71mph can topple a tree?? Surely the evil government added a trained butterfly, just to make sure!

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Are you sure that wind gusts up to 71mph can topple a tree?? Surely the evil government added a trained butterfly, just to make sure!

Now that you mention it, I didn't actually NOT see a butterfly, so it could have had something to do with it.

Oh man. The lid is BLOWN OFF this thing! The NWO hates Front-To-Back Splits!

[waypastvne]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Surely the evil government added a trained butterfly, just to make sure!

Laden or unladen ?

[Sabrina]

Originally Posted by waypastvne

tmd 2-1 must chop down the tallest tree in the forest with, a red herring.

NI.

OIC what you did there...

[tmd2_1]

Originally Posted by waypastvne

Please pick out one that you think matches this piece of debris better than N612UA





This is the biggest and most unique number on the whole plane. All visible curves and points of the characters corners match perfectly with N612UA.
Even the paint sheen line matches perfectly. The corner of the flag is also visible and exactly where it should be. This piece of debris came from N612UA.

http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/a.../dsc00478k.jpg

I'm sorry I really don't see more than an N. Do you know the source of this photo? I am curious to look more into it.

[tmd2_1]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Now where on the impact floors of the south tower do you find steel that's les than the 12.7mm of the armoured personel vehicle? Do you know?


No, I did not:




No, I did not:



But there are several things that you forgot to reply to. For example, you never addressed the main point that no matter how you look at Starstreaks, Bofors guns etc, any such device is a peanut compared to an elephant. That the kinetic energy of any missile would be orders of magnitude smaller than even the margin of error with which we can estimate the kinetic energy of the plane per one column.



I did not deceive you. I didn't know how thick the plates were around the impact location, I knew that, in general, perimeter column plates were up to 76mm (3 inches) thick, which is true.

I think the reason why you use this cheap excuse to not respond to me is that you feel embarrassed I demolish your silly ideas so thoroughly every time. I think you are starting to get a hunch just how bizarrely wrong your missile theory is.

You most certainly use deceptive tactics. Watch this video it penetrates over an inch http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c53_1223582333

So that should be the end of that discussion. It most certainly can penetrate the columns at the impact zone.

I've said time and time again. That huge kinetic force is not even close to being applied to one column. Damaging the column before the nose hits, ensures greater penetration. So it's not really a matter of adding kinetic energy it is when it is delivered. Much as if a hole is already in the wall, smaller than the size of your fist. It would make it much easier for you to punch your ENTIRE fist through the wall. The force to make that small hole could have been much less then the force you applied with your fist, but it still made the job much easier.

[Mr. Skinny]

ineducable [ɪnˈɛdjʊkəbəl]
adj incapable of being educated, esp on account of mental retardation ineducability n


Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

[Grizzly Bear]

Can we just ask tmd to produce his evidence or end the discussion? Why the hell should he be allowed to speculate freely if he doesn't have the slightest bit of evidence to support his ridiculous "theory" to begin with?

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

I'm sorry I really don't see more than an N. Do you know the source of this photo? I am curious to look more into it.

Looking for a missile?

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Mr. Skinny

ineducable [ɪnˈɛdjʊkəbəl]
adj incapable of being educated, esp on account of mental retardation ineducability n


Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

.
Theology has a similar term...
Invincible ignorance...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm
.
It was used a lot to justify burning heretics in the Dark Ages.
And, it applies here as well.

[tmd2_1]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear

Can we just ask tmd to produce his evidence or end the discussion? Why the hell should he be allowed to speculate freely if he doesn't have the slightest bit of evidence to support his ridiculous "theory" to begin with?

Evidence is all in the OP. Try watching the videos. Here they are again, here is what could be a firing sequence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc4ws...eature=related

Here at about 24 seconds and out you see something that appears to be traveling along side the A/C and than impacting the building. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x8fs...eature=related

I'll add one more. Here is a good quality video that the second flash was before impact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw3dz...eature=related Explain any of these to me? It hasn't been done yet. I know you will deny what is on these videos in some way shape or form, but maybe you will surprise me.

[Sam.I.Am]

Quote:

Evidence is all in the OP. Try watching the videos. Here they are again, here is what could be a firing sequence. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc4ws...eature=related

A blip in one frame of a highly compressed video does not evidence make. There is nothing after it in the following frames to make it anything more than that. There's also something noticeably missing in that video. Care to hazard a guess as to what it is?

Quote:

Here at about 24 seconds and out you see something that appears to be traveling along side the A/C and than impacting the building. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x8fs...eature=related

And there's nothing in between that "Blip" and your flash. Again that's a highly compressed video. You can't even discern between the windows and the columns on the building. A gap of about 2 feet. What does that tell you about the resolution?

Quote:

I'll add one more. Here is a good quality video that the second flash was before impact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw3dz...eature=related Explain any of these to me? It hasn't been done yet. I know you will deny what is on these videos in some way shape or form, but maybe you will surprise me.

You call that a good quality video? Well that's one of your problems right there...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Hey Bill thanks for backing me up, I didn't think it was too crazy of a hypothesis!!

Even as a truther, bill smith is not someone you want backing you up. That he supports your nonsense is just more proof of it being nonsense.

[atavisms]

Originally Posted by bill smith

As far as I am concerned nothing is off the table in the 9/11 story.

You may have covered this already but some people think that the flashes were 'matches' to make sure that the photogenic fireball would actually ignite and not turn into a damp squib. That would leave the watching live world audience much less impressed than they might have been. Not enough 'shock and awe'.

If so it means that the planes hit with pinpoint accuracy which in turn could mean that the perimeter columns in the impact area had been replaced with something that looked like steel but was not.

Maybe that stuff is true but I think it hurts 9-11 truth to use it.
I dont think there would be a need (or surreptitious manner) in which to replace the perimeter columns! The fuel in the wings and the engines were the most substantial parts of the planes and at that speed tore right through those hollow perimeter columns/wall assemblies, leaving their rough outline on the buildings facade.

If I were you I would just stick to the facts that prove the use of explosives:
There is NOTHING theoretical about these facts:

-The speed and symmetry in the destruction of wtc 1,2&7
-WTC7's implosion
-The Squibs and the Explosiveness of wtc 1&2 which literally erupted creating massive debris fields, pulverizing most of the 160 tons of concrete and blasting it, the superstructures and perimeter wall assemblies and building contents all over the surrounding streets! The streets were strewn with thousands of body parts. And despite a two years search for human remains (at Freshkills Landfill, SI) there remained no discernible genetic trace of 1100 human beings. They remain: 'unaccounted for.'
-The witness and first responder testimony.
-The 99 day fires. With excessive heat *up to 2800f days after 9/11 (see Bechtel and NASA readings even weeks late).
-The elemental iron microspheres
-the Molten metal: See: fema bpat http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...WTC_apndxC.htm
-NIST's refusal to even test for explosives despite the procedural mandate to do so. And what their spokesperson said when asked. 'why not?' 'Its a waste of time to look for something that isn't present" they replied.
-Danish hero Dr Niels Harrit et al's study is undeniable proof of the presence of advance-engineered thermitic explosives in the WTC dust. Like the Anthrax attacks of the same time period, it leads right back to US military labs and contractors.
And the highly revealing clip used in The NORTH TOWER EXPLODING VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

There's more.. but this should be enough for most reasonable people to realize that, at the very least, a proper investigation (you know, one that actually considers the evidence and does not begin with it's conclusions) is needed.

[fess]

tmd, did you miss this post?

Originally Posted by fess

tmd2_1, just a simple question. Just where, how, and when was this missile mounted on the B757/767 aircraft?

Before you can speculate on the damage a missile can do, you must first prove that a missile was present.

A few other questions would be; who mounted the missile, how was it missed during the pre-flight walk around.

You do know that some missiles take up to a second to arm themselves once they a launched… right? Considering that this missile was already flying at over 700 fps when it was launched from where you say it was, then figuring in acceleration factor of the missile, the missile wouldn’t be armed until it was half way through the tower.

[Reactor drone]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Here at about 24 seconds and out you see something that appears to be traveling along side the A/C and than impacting the building. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x8fs...eature=related

Have you considered seeing an optometrist about your vision problems?

[tsig]

Originally Posted by tmd2_1

Did i know how thick it was? I had a general idea yes, and I knew how they got less thick on the way up. You forgot the part about the Bofors 40mm gun. You forgot to low quality of steel in the WTC. As I said I'm not sure there is much of a reason to respond to you. Your deceptive tactics have been exposed, it's not my fault you decided to write what you wrote. Maybe from time to time I can respond to something you write after this, but I see no reason to do it anymore than that.

Ouch, played with fire and got burned.

[tmd2_1]

Originally Posted by fess

tmd, did you miss this post?



Before you can speculate on the damage a missile can do, you must first prove that a missile was present.

A few other questions would be; who mounted the missile, how was it missed during the pre-flight walk around.

You do know that some missiles take up to a second to arm themselves once they a launched… right? Considering that this missile was already flying at over 700 fps when it was launched from where you say it was, then figuring in acceleration factor of the missile, the missile wouldn’t be armed until it was half way through the tower.

Well there's several scenarios I can think of, but Airport security at the highest levels would have had to have been involved. Security at all 3 airports just happened to be run by the same company at the time. Coincidence I'm sure. If airport security was involved it is possible. For me to give scenario's would only be speculation on my part. This thread was started as a question, I was looking for an explanation for the flash(es) so far I have only seen one that seems to be possible at all. But seems extremely unlikely, and that's static discharge.