NEW: 9/11 Hotel Video Released of NO PLANE hitting the Pentagon
11-27-2012, 12:38 PM
#49
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 9,923
Car Info: your mother crazy
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.
11-27-2012, 12:53 PM
#51
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 9,923
Car Info: your mother crazy
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.
11-27-2012, 12:59 PM
#52
Uh, yeah... Then what happened to all the folks who were on that airplane? Gov't sent them overseas? Killed them?
You know our military uses "Concrete" bombs which are completely devoid of any explosives. They use these small bombs to take out rooms in buildings without having to destroy the entire building. These are small bombs dropped from the sky, only inertia giving it it's power. Now think of an airplane, weighs how many thousands of lbs, filled with explosive fuel.... It's going to cause a nasty explosion.
You know our military uses "Concrete" bombs which are completely devoid of any explosives. They use these small bombs to take out rooms in buildings without having to destroy the entire building. These are small bombs dropped from the sky, only inertia giving it it's power. Now think of an airplane, weighs how many thousands of lbs, filled with explosive fuel.... It's going to cause a nasty explosion.
Sheesh... shows what you know. They never existed in the first place. Pssht.
11-27-2012, 01:45 PM
#53
If in doubt, FLAT OUT
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Nor Cal SJ
Posts: 7,039
Car Info: 2010 Hatch, 2011 Sedan
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by 04GG; 11-27-2012 at 01:50 PM.
11-27-2012, 02:21 PM
#54
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Discovery Bay, CA
Posts: 1,569
Car Info: Evo X GSR, F250 Powerstroke Diesel
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).
11-27-2012, 02:25 PM
#55
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.
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.
I agree there should be wings and a tail section.
11-27-2012, 02:45 PM
#58
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 9,923
Car Info: your mother crazy
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.
Last edited by Irrational X; 11-27-2012 at 02:48 PM. Reason: punctuation!
11-27-2012, 02:54 PM
#59
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 9,923
Car Info: your mother crazy
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kind of pointless for any of us to argue something like this since NONE of us actually KNOW.
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."
11-27-2012, 02:54 PM
#60
