B767 Or A Missile? Options

[tumetuestumefais...]

Because the question of a missile now leaves the realm of a fantasy and enters the realm of a good probability I made this poll.
More information how we came to the serious suspicion of a missile in this thread:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...topic=9179&st=0

This post has been edited by tumetuestumefaisdubien: Nov 11 2007, 06:46 AM

[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