NEW: 9/11 Hotel Video Released of NO PLANE hitting the Pentagon
11-27-2012 | 04:52 PM
#76
Something Custom
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 14,505
From: Las Vegas NV
Car Info: 2018 Grand Cherokee Limited Ecodiesel EOC Stage 1
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.
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.
bravo man......
11-27-2012 | 04:59 PM
#77
11-27-2012 | 05:01 PM
#78
Nobody is this goddamn thread knows what happened. Whether true or false.
I don't doubt it at all but our govt has a history of false flag events including Operation Northwoods. Although never executed, part of the plan was to blow up passenger planes as incentive to overthrow Fidel.
I don't doubt it at all but our govt has a history of false flag events including Operation Northwoods. Although never executed, part of the plan was to blow up passenger planes as incentive to overthrow Fidel.
11-27-2012 | 05:06 PM
#80
If in doubt, FLAT OUT
iTrader: (33)
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,046
From: Nor Cal SJ
Car Info: 2010 Hatch, 2011 Sedan
It looks like the link from the study linked on AL77 done by Purdue University was taken down. It supposedly showed a FEA simulation of what happened, basically it shredded the plane since it was at a high rate of speed when it hit, so no big pieces left.
11-27-2012 | 05:11 PM
#81
In the case of the Pentagon, the terrorist aimed the plane full speed into a wall and it vaporized.
11-27-2012 | 05:20 PM
#82
True, but this is BAIC and it will argue no matter what. No ones opinions will change, and we all know this going into it. As long as we keep it civil, its not a big deal. We will all disagree, even on car stuff, see the hella flush thread haha
11-27-2012 | 05:30 PM
#83
Bombed and crashed, but big pieces. I am going to look some more after work
11-27-2012 | 06:16 PM
#84
https://www.google.com/search?q=pan+...w=1288&bih=644
Bombed and crashed, but big pieces. I am going to look some more after work
Bombed and crashed, but big pieces. I am going to look some more after work
The wings of Pan Am flight 103, where the fuel is stored, were no longer recognizable.
Pan Am Flight 103 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fuselage (wing section) impact
The fuselage continued moving forward and down until it reached 19,000 ft (5,800 m), at which point its dive became almost vertical.
As it descended, the fuselage broke into smaller pieces, with the section attached to the wings landing first (46.5 seconds after the explosion) in Sherwood Crescent, Lockerbie, where the 200,000 lb (91,000 kg) of kerosene contained inside ignited. The resultant fireball destroyed several houses and was so intense that little remained of the left wing of the aircraft. No identifiable remains of 8 passengers seated between rows 23–28 were ever recovered; these seats were located in the wing section directly above the centre wing tank. Also, the remains of 7 of the 11 residents killed in the inferno on the ground at Sherwood Crescent were never identified.
Investigators were able to determine that both wings had landed in the crater after counting the number of large steel flap drive jackscrews that were later found there, indeed there were no findings of wing structure outside the crater itself. The British Geological Survey at nearby Eskdalemuir registered a seismic event measuring 1.6 on the Richter scale.
The fuselage continued moving forward and down until it reached 19,000 ft (5,800 m), at which point its dive became almost vertical.
As it descended, the fuselage broke into smaller pieces, with the section attached to the wings landing first (46.5 seconds after the explosion) in Sherwood Crescent, Lockerbie, where the 200,000 lb (91,000 kg) of kerosene contained inside ignited. The resultant fireball destroyed several houses and was so intense that little remained of the left wing of the aircraft. No identifiable remains of 8 passengers seated between rows 23–28 were ever recovered; these seats were located in the wing section directly above the centre wing tank. Also, the remains of 7 of the 11 residents killed in the inferno on the ground at Sherwood Crescent were never identified.
Investigators were able to determine that both wings had landed in the crater after counting the number of large steel flap drive jackscrews that were later found there, indeed there were no findings of wing structure outside the crater itself. The British Geological Survey at nearby Eskdalemuir registered a seismic event measuring 1.6 on the Richter scale.
Now crumple the plane into a little ball by crashing it into a reinforced concrete building, and the resulting fire will make a lot more of the plane disapear.
Last edited by jdblock; 11-27-2012 at 06:19 PM.
11-27-2012 | 06:52 PM
#85
Yep, just like the famous meteor crater. For the longest time miners were looking for 'the rest' of it, to profit off the precious metals. Company ended up going out of business after digging down over 1000 ft with no traces really. They never found it because it vaporized upon impact.
11-28-2012 | 09:41 AM
#88
A guy I used to talk to via another forum actually saw the plane fly across the freeway and hit the pentagon as he was stuck in traffic. His name is Steve Riskus - there have been plenty of people call him into question, but he was not the only eyewitness that day.
Here's a collection of other witnesses:
They saw the aircraft
Here's a collection of other witnesses:
They saw the aircraft
11-28-2012 | 06:57 PM
#89
Something Custom
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 14,505
From: Las Vegas NV
Car Info: 2018 Grand Cherokee Limited Ecodiesel EOC Stage 1
A guy I used to talk to via another forum actually saw the plane fly across the freeway and hit the pentagon as he was stuck in traffic. His name is Steve Riskus - there have been plenty of people call him into question, but he was not the only eyewitness that day.
Here's a collection of other witnesses:
They saw the aircraft
Here's a collection of other witnesses:
They saw the aircraft
Last edited by rau; 11-28-2012 at 07:01 PM.
11-28-2012 | 07:02 PM
#90
The plane was traveling 750' a second, at least. That's over 1/8 mile per second. If you're looking out your front windshield, or picking your nose, you could very well be confused about what you saw.