B767 Or A Missile? Options

[Sanders]

But that post was very interesting. I don't take it as an offence when somebody criticises me...

Cool... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[amazed!]

FFG

I know you've been talking about these "penetrator missles" for a while now, and I apologize if I missed previous documentation in that regard.

I've seen bunker buster bombs and all their derivatives and models, but this penetrator missle of which you speak seems a bit dubious. A missle is meant to fly, of course, and must be light and aerodynamic.

Bombs must be a bit dynamic, and they are meant to fall, not sustain level or climbing flight like a missle.

Ordinary cruise missles, conventional warhead, will blow hell out of any building it strikes. I've never heard of a "penetrator missle" until you mentioned it.

Shape charges and armor penetrating rounds, such as those employing Depleted Uranium, are common, but are not really refered to as missles, to my knowledge.

[dMz]

Ordinary cruise missles, conventional warhead, will blow hell out of any building it strikes.  I've never heard of a "penetrator missle" until you mentioned it.

Shape charges and armor penetrating rounds, such as those employing Depleted Uranium, are common, but are not really refered to as missles, to my knowledge.

amazed!, with all due respect, "missile"-- "projectile"-- "round"-- makes little difference in the ballistic sense (especially to the target, either "hard" or "soft"). I'm certain that DoD TM's do make the distinction, though. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Here's a report on DU and Tungsten "weapons."
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0301/0301059v7.pdf

Specifically, see the "Root Density Law" on p.5 and p.7 which states,

"The trouble is that the impact velocity of a cruisemissile is not as large as that of a bomb. The impact conditions are even likely to be well below the “hydrodynamic limit,” so that little benefit is to be expected from the Root Density Law. A hardened steel or titanium penetrator could therefore be just as good as a heavymetal
penetrator, and the possibility that the cruise missiles used in the Gulf War or in Yugoslavia carried a heavymetal penetrator is only a speculation since “there is no publicly available information at all that supports such an assumption” [13, p.165]." :ph43r: (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/to_keep_order.gif)

Without delving in-depth into metallurgy, any alloy that makes a good drill bit, tap, or machine tool for working steel [armor] and stainless steel will likely make a good "penetrator" core (to include chrome, chrome-vanadium, cobalt, tungsten, and titanium alloys).

Although I haven't ever worked for cruise missile programs, I'm reasonably certain that Boeing, General Dynamics, KBR, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon have AT LEAST this much information. The HE cruise missiles fired by Reagan against Qaddafi, by Bush 41 against Hussein, by Clinton against bin Ladin and Milosevic, and Bush 43 against who-knows-whom all likely had some means of "penetrating" hardened structures, even if it is not DU-- IMHO. (Ballistics, both flight and terminal, has been a subject of my study for many years). FfG appears to me to know something about "hardened" targets.

Some newer, light "penetrator" weapons platforms:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/predator_kestrel/

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,1463..._LOSAT,,00.html

Thank you for making us all think, sir. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

This post has been edited by dMole: Nov 12 2007, 09:55 PM

[amazed!]

Thanks dMole, that's what I'm talkin' about! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

What's to be penetrated in an office building with windows?

Sure, a steel exoskeleton, but there were lots of windows. This was not an armor-clad building in any sense.

My point is that a 200,000 pound Boeing will penetrate that shell better than a 3000 pound missle.

[tumetuestumefais...]

What's to be penetrated in an office building with windows?

Sure, a steel exoskeleton, but there were lots of windows.  This was not an armor-clad building in any sense.

My point is that a 200,000 pound Boeing will penetrate that shell better than a 3000 pound missle.

Your point is a bit contradictory: first you talk about the windows and no armor of the buildings - then the CM with the diameter of ~52 cm would "penetrate" in through the 1m wide windows (any ~1/2m piece of stone if having at least 10mph speed would "penetrate" it as well) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

then you talk about the "200,000 pound" Boeing, that it would penetrate the "shell" "better" than a "3000" pound missle. So I will use your data to ilustrate you are seriously missing the point:

I state: A civil aluminium Boeing has much lower kinetic crossection then any penetrator missile to penetrate something.

Let's make some ilustrative figures

767-222 fuselage diameter: 5.03m = 19.87m2
767-200 engine diameter: 2.74m =5.89m2 x2 (two engines) = 11.78m2
intogether 31.65m2
I ommit the wings

CM diameter: (say the 3000lb tomahawk): 52cm = 0.21m2

travel speeds are almost the same

31.65/0.21= 150 times (crossection of B767 is 150 times more than CM)

but the whole weight is just 200 000/3000 = 66.6 times

150/66.6=2.26

so the kinetic crossection of the B767-222 is at least 2.26 times lower than by the CM
- even I didn't include (because of my laziness) the crosssection of the B767 wings.

the whole kinetic energy of the CM would be concentrated to that ~52 cm diameter, a Boeing on the contrary, would have the energy dispersed on many m2 and being less solid than the CM head. So the "penetrability" of your 3000 pound CM is above any doubt much higher than the "penetrability" of your 200 000 pound B767 - at least 2.26 times.

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Nov 13 2007, 08:18 AM

[Factfinder Gener...]

FFG

I know you've been talking about these "penetrator missles" for a while now, and I apologize if I missed previous documentation in that regard.

I've seen bunker buster bombs and all their derivatives and models, but this penetrator missle of which you speak seems a bit dubious.  A missle is meant to fly, of course, and must be light and aerodynamic.

Bombs must be a bit dynamic, and they are meant to fall, not sustain level or climbing flight like a missle.

Ordinary cruise missles, conventional warhead, will blow hell out of any building it strikes.  I've never heard of a "penetrator missle" until you mentioned it.

Shape charges and armor penetrating rounds, such as those employing Depleted Uranium, are common, but are not really refered to as missles, to my knowledge.

A quick google of penetrator missiles, AGM-86 or BGM-109 will get you started. Here's a passage from another one of my threads with a couple of military guys talking before the UN about them:

Well, now read how two military experts, testifying before the NGO Committee on Disarmament in 1999, describe the pyrophoric effect of Depleted Uranium as it impacts and cuts through the material (armor) of its target:

DAMACIO LOPEZ: "When the Depleted Uranium (DU) penetrator strikes the target it will have what appears to be an explosion. There are no explosives in the slug of DU. It is the mass and speed and the energy from the radioactivity that gives the impression of an explosion. The projectile is referred to as a kinetic energy penetrator. It burns through like molten metal, and as it burns it is giving off smoke. The particles in that smoke are very tiny, somewhere between 1 and 5 micrometers in size. 30% to 70% of the slug of depleted uranium goes up as smoke into the air, and is taken by winds."

COLONEL ERIC DAXON: "Science does not support the contention that DU is a weapon of mass destruction. Science does not support the contention that the use of DU will result in an environmental catastrophe. The explosion is not due to the radioactivity of the DU. When the penetrator first hits you see something that looks like a sparkler. That is the pyrophoric nature of the DU. It self-ignites when exposed to high temperatures and high pressures. A tungsten penetrator becomes blunt. A DU penetrator will become sharper as it is penetrating armor, and that is the primary reason that we are using it, along with its density. The self-sharpening effect gives it a significant tactical advantage. "Reference

[dMz]

Hi FfG,

Are you familiar with Major Doug Rokke, PhD (US Army, ret.) and his work on the health effects of DU?

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Rokke-D...m-DU21apr03.htm

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/DUuse+hazard.html

http://www.ecotecture.com/library_eco/inte...okke_du_1a.html

Also see the DVD "Beyond Treason" if you have the stomach for it (it is truly GRUESOME).

I just don't want anyone getting the impression that "depleted" Uranium-238 is safe, humane, or anything close. ["Depleted" = non-"weapons grade" or "reactor" fissionable, actually, unlike U-235]. Many veterans and foreign civilians are either ill, dead, or worried about health effects from the hundreds or thousands of TONS of DU that our DoD has dumped on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thanks,
d

This post has been edited by dMole: Nov 14 2007, 02:33 AM

[Factfinder Gener...]

Hi FfG,

Are you familiar with Major Doug Rokke, PhD (US Army, ret.) and his work on the health effects of DU?

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Rokke-D...m-DU21apr03.htm

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/DUuse+hazard.html

http://www.ecotecture.com/library_eco/inte...okke_du_1a.html

Also see the DVD "Beyond Treason" if you have the stomach for it (it is truly GRUESOME).

I just don't want anyone getting the impression that "depleted"=[non-fissionable, actually] Uranium-238 is safe, humane, or anything close.

Thanks,
d

Quite right, dMole. It is hideous to think of the long term effect that the use of this material has on the population exposed to it.

[amazed!]

Right, the Colonel's statement about DU is misleading to say the least. Part of the projectiles are pulverized, and that releases what is essentially radioactive dust into the air, or ground or water. The indiscriminate use of these weapons is a crime against humanity and nature.

As for TTT's statement about which can "penetrate" better, I'll happily defer to his formulae.

Point is, unless we saw a hologram, the Boeing did a pretty good job, deficient cross section and all.

[Factfinder Gener...]

Right, the Colonel's statement about DU is misleading to say the least.  Part of the projectiles are pulverized, and that releases what is essentially radioactive dust into the air, or ground or water.  The indiscriminate use of these weapons is a crime against humanity and nature.

As for TTT's statement about which can "penetrate" better, I'll happily defer to his formulae.

Point is, unless we saw a hologram, the Boeing did a pretty good job, deficient cross section and all.

It is not a question of which object can penetrate better, a missile designed to penetrate or a plane. One object CAN penetrate a steel framed building, and one CANNOT! No prizes for sorting out which one is which.

The hologram is a "red herring" issue as I see it, amazed!? Holograms cannot be "filmed" from mutliple angles.

You seem to be insisting on dismissing the possibility that witnesses could have been lying about seeing the Boeing. Do you really not regard this as a possibility, especially in light of the information presented in this thread here?

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 14 2007, 09:56 AM

[tumetuestumefais...]

You seem to be insisting on dismissing the possibility that witnesses could have been lying about seeing the Boeing.  Do you really not regard this as a possibility, especially in light of the information presented in  this thread here?

But guys... There was the MAJORITY of witnesses in the live coverage between 8:45 to 9:03 (before the TV hoax with B767 started), they have NOT seen a B767 crash in the North Tower, just go and see... the authentic records of the live coverage are here (top of the page): http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

...Ah, I just forget a homework: Count the proportion and then report here...
(don't count the anchors please) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

we can then compare the results...

I dont remember the exact figure, but I think the word MAJORITY is at least right.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Nov 14 2007, 11:05 AM

[Factfinder Gener...]

You seem to be insisting on dismissing the possibility that witnesses could have been lying about seeing the Boeing.  Do you really not regard this as a possibility, especially in light of the information presented in  this thread here?

But guys... There was the MAJORITY of witnesses in the live coverage between 8:45 to 9:03 (before the TV hoax with B767 started), they have NOT seen a B767 crash in the North Tower, just go and see... the authentic records of the live coverage are here (top of the page): http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

...Ah, I just forget a homework: Count the proportion and then report here...
(don't count the anchors please) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

we can then compare the results...

I dont remember the exact figure, but I think the word MAJORITY is at least right.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

I'm largely referring to South Tower Impact witnesses, Tume. I believe you're right regarding the North Tower impact. The majority of witnesses were being recorded as not having seen a large plane hit. Then, as you say, the WTC2 hoax started kicking in. There were some carefully placed "media personnel" witnesses like Jennifer Oberstein who were initially recorded as saying they didn't see a plane hit Tower 1, that on air turned this around when they definitely saw a plane hit Tower 2. What a disarmingly skillfull use of the deceptive arts is at play with this factor. At one and the same time such a display underlines the confusion over Tower 1 and asserts the falsehood about Tower 2 in a very persuasive and seemingly credible way, i.e. what the perps are planting here is the idea that no-one could easily have seen the plane hit the North Tower because it was too much of a surprise (which is BS because people should have seen a large passenger plane hit if one did) but they make the point here with JO et al that the South Tower was a different issue. You see what they were playing at with JO and why they had her say she didn't see a plane hit the North Tower? Very, very clever stuff.

This is a bit of a rambling presentation of an important point but I hope you all can get ny drift. if not I'll explain more fully? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Nov 14 2007, 11:28 AM

[Shallel]

I think this poll is useful as it does provoke a needed discussion in the community.

There is very little grey area - people doing research are very attached to their pet theories,
and I bet this poll's results would change drastically on the Loosechange board or 911blogger.

Since this is a aviation based site, the questions about the planes are indeed relevant.
I don't know if the NPT would be my ice breaker for someone not familiar with the MIHOP
theory, but it might just be.

Some points to consider: (FL 175)

1 People at the scene (not watching TV) are less likely to report commercial Boeings.

2 The videos shown on TV do not depict real world crashes. There is little if any force acting on the plane to slow or shred or even change the trajectory.
The CNN footage is especially unrealistic, with the building seemingly undamaged until after the explosion even though the plane has already passed into the building.

3 The radar data shows the plane exceeded software and hardware limitations of a commercial 767

4 The news anchors seem very scripted, with different channels reporting very similar comments:

"oh my goodness... there's another one"

5 Some stations showed no plane and the anchors report an explosion. (Didn't get the memo?)

6 There has been some very good analysis of the footage of the impact, and digital video editing experts have explained how the footage could have been manufactured.

Well I guess you know what my vote was.

With the majority of the fine minds on this site.

Keep up the good work and follow the data. This isn't a popularity contest - it's science!

Peace and Blessings, Shallel

[tumetuestumefais...]

6 There has been some very good analysis of the footage of the impact, and digital video editing experts have explained how the footage could have been manufactured.

I would add another point the deniers of the no/fake plane theories don't much like:

7. There was ONLY ONE footage showing something like B767 broadcasted real time live on TV - on ABC and CNN (which was confirmed being the same shot with just other zoom, color scheme and timing adjustment) - it was taken allegedly by the chopper WABC, the shot was confirmed it was made using the WESCAM (highly sophisticated, army grade, high resolution real time digital camera system), the other RT live footages (MSNBC+CBS) actualy don't show discernable large jet, and the trajectory of the barely discernable object there is in the sheer contradiction with above two. (here is one of the sophisticated analyses: what is on the CNN video: http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/live/) In addition it was proven, there was later a tampering done with the MSNBC live broadcast record to make the object appear larger than was in the original broadcast.

The other 2nd hit footages weren't broadcasted RT live and first of them was shown on TV at least whole minutes after - which was the sufficient time to make the CGIs. Even during the live broadcast of CBS were shown two different shots, where the trajectories of the object contradict each other. So there is at least one proven fakery in the live broadcasts. It is alone sufficient to dismiss the allegation there was no TV fakery taking place.

[dMz]

7. There was ONLY ONE footage showing something like B767 broadcasted real time live on TV - on ABC and CNN (which was confirmed being the same shot with just other zoom, color scheme and timing adjustment) - it was taken allegedly by the chopper WABC, the shot was confirmed it was made using the WESCAM (highly sophisticated, army grade, high resolution real time digital camera  system),  the other RT live footages (MSNBC+CBS) actualy don't show discernable large jet, and the trajectory of the barely discernable object there is in the sheer contradiction with above two.

Hypothetical situation #2:

1. Place a previously-"prepared" videocassette or videodisc in a news helicopter and/or news van with video equipment and communications links.

2. Roll tape.

3. Watch it happen "live" on CNN and ABC [after the requisite 7-second or is it 10-second delay].

Is this a far-fetched scenario or not? If so, please move this post accordingly. I'd like to remind the reader that you've likely seen traffic helicopter and cutesy ground-based "live shots" nearly every weekday in metropolitan US cities... I'd also like to remind the reader that the "scientific method" has a hypothesis as a very early step... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/pr...ic_method.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm

[Guest_Ningen_*]

Carl said:

"The No Plane Theory is used over and over by the perpetrators and their
henchmen, aka the MSM, to discredit the Truth Movement as nutjobby
tinfoilheadwearing conspiracy wackos. I for one can't stand to hear the
arguments of "We all saw the planes on TV, what are wrong with these folks?"
anymore."

I don't see that at all. It's been mentioned a few times in the MSM. That's it. The History Channel didn't touch it -- that would have been their big chance.

You're expressing a fear, not an empirical fact. I've heard this fear expressed countless times, and used as justification to suppress discussion. Been accused of spreading disinfo many times, also.

People need to understand that no planers can contribute to the debate. The questions and facts we raise may fit into other theories, and the movement is hurting itself by excluding us, especially since they are doing it based on a false fear.

[tumetuestumefais...]

So are credible the witnesses they "saw the plane":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4yIFnq1wkU&watch_response

[BaNoyes]

What is this?

3-9 secs watch UFO climb on left.
17-19 secs one shoots to the left
25-27 secs two more one on left other on right.
Same but different video
Another
Very Distinct

From Loose Change
(2;33-2:48 ) accross face of S.Tower

and Goes Accross another building

Before attackNever disputed as far as I know

Another??11-14 sec mark

I realize the proplems presented by the mystery( there are more)
and
this is one reason 911 Truthers should recognize the importance
of the Disclosure Project
The Key word "Disclosure"
Disclosure Project
Peace in Space

[tumetuestumefais...]

this is one reason 911 Truthers should recognize the importance
of the Disclosure Project

Yeah, there is a reason indeed...as disclosure project CIA memo from 1991 - http://www.disclosureproject.org/PDF-Documents/CIAMemo.pdf the paragraph "MEDIA" a)
"PAO [Public Affairs Office] now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation. This has helped us turn some intelligence failure stories into intelligence success stories, and it has contributed to the accuracy of countless others. In many instances, we have persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests or jeopardized sources and methods."... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) :ph43r:

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Dec 18 2007, 01:41 PM

[BaNoyes]

Yeah, there is a reason indeed...as disclosure project CIA memo from 1991 - http://www.disclosureproject.org/PDF-Documents/CIAMemo.pdf the paragraph "MEDIA" a)

Interesting document
Disclosure Project started in 2001
This is a CIA doc.
but it only related to the Disclosure Project, because of the pressure put on the CIA to release info.
whatever you were trying to relate, failed me.