crack pot!!!! That guy and his buddy are complete BS

 

LOL. This thread is DELICIOUS!!!

Ha! That's cute. So tempting too...

 

yes it is.

 

Wrong. Pretty much everything on a 757 is extruded aluminum alloy (Aluminum with copper, magnesium, manganese, silicon and zinc) that is then coated with aluminum oxide. The only major components that are steel are landing gear assemblies. So flight 93 and 77 would both burn pretty nicely especially in a jet fueled fire with lots of oxygen.

Flight 11 and 175 were 767s which has airframe ribbing made from CF and plastics with major components being new-gen aluminum alloys (see; more magnesium) and also carry 395,000lb of fuel to the 757's 220,000lb. Not to mention that water acts as an accelerate when added to aluminum/magnesium alloy fires and I''m sure all those buildings had some nice fire retarding systems that used water...

If you don't believe me that this stuffs burns and burns hot, I would recommend you take a material science class at an aerospace engineering school as I did.

And on the "it looked like a controlled demo to me" point people keep making... I take it that all of you are in the explosive demolition business, right? That's what I thought. I've only witnessed one controlled demolition so I'm not an expert but it was a hell of a lot more controlled (and complete) than any of the things that happened on 9/11.

Not to mention that if you were just going to use explosives to get the job done you don't have to hijack a plane. You can just blow up the building then blame the brown people without having to worry about a messy coverup that could be discovered by undereducated high school conspiracy theorists with an internet connection and too much free time.

 

 

Actually, I said "relative" and I didn't say she was at the Pentagon either. You have the worst reading comprehension I have ever seen.

Also, being an expert has nothing to do with this but thanks for trying to push that convenient logical fallacy. I do however have common sense and a basic understanding of Occam's Razor which is pretty much all it takes to see that this conspiracy crap is just that, crap.

 

Sheesh... shows what you know. They never existed in the first place. Pssht.

 

Bon fire at the beach with a bug block. Don't need a class to experience that.

Yes, the majority of the planes are aluminum, bonded plastics and CF. There's also a LOT of electronics that are in enclosures to protect them. The mechanicals to operate everything that moves, not just the landing gear, are most likely going to be some type of steel. You're materials, I'm manufacturing; I know how things are made; wonderful. My customers have been in every industry from aerospace to guitars. That is NOT the point.

The POINT was, these things were NOT found at the pentagon as far as I know. There is NO WAY is was a commercial airliner. That is not conspiracy theory; I just want to know why they would say it was something if it wasn't because it doesn't "protect" any secrets. Or they just don't want to admit that they could be hit by a missile or something similar? I've seen the video many times, and it just does not appear to be a plane of any type.

Kind of pointless for any of us to argue something like this since NONE of us actually KNOW.

 

They turned to molten weld slag, aluminum melts at 1200* F that fire was much hotter than that. I work at a refinery and during petrochemical fires every metal melts (even ones that melt at a much higher temp).

 

YES!! Bringing it back to the pentagon!!!

I agree there should be wings and a tail section.

 

OK so my question is why did they not sheer off when they hit the building? They were melted instantly/pretty quick? They look big so I would guess a large puddle?

This is an aluminum magnesium blend. I dont want IRX coming down on me for that

 

 

they probably got vaporized (metaphorically speaking) because of the speed. wings aren't nearly as substantial as you would imagine. based on the tensile strength of the materials I would guess (pure conjecture) that the wing components out to the engine nacelle would have been dragged into the building with the airframe. Due to fuel in that part of the wing along with forward momentum, my bet is that most of the wing parts that remained would have ended up on the roof in the resulting explosion.

in the gate security video you can see large pieces blasting up and over building. whether thats part of the plane or part of the building is impossible for use to know. one thing we do know is that the building was designed to send blast waves up and over the building... it's all complicated by the fact that the aircraft (or missile for you crackpots) hit at an oblique angle to the building instead of dead on.

 

Wrong, but that's an easy misconception to make. A good example is the trim tab stabilizer jackscrew that failed causing the crash of Alaska 261. A reasonable person might think a jackscrew that directly moves a control surface would be made of steel... it's made of an aluminum-bronze alloy.

Even if we assumed that all of the electronics, controls, and even the control surfaces, were made of steel you still wouldn't have a huge delta in the total aircraft weight which is 180,000+lbs... Enough to made a difference though, which is why manufacturers use lighter alloys.

You're right, it is beside the point.

yes they were found... inside the building. along with a few 1000 pieces of human remains. It was a plane. If it was a missile then the missile defense system would have brought it down. despite the screams by people like you of "why didnt it should the plane down if it can shoot down a missile!" the simple explanation is that it probably wasn't programmed to.

Similar systems have been modified to shoot mortar rounds out of the sky... once they were programmed to do it. A missile defense system in a populated area is going to look at a large plane and say "yeah, lets not shoot that down and get all of us fired."

 

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon, page 1

There was plenty of airplane wreckage at the site.