ReeferMadness Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 The engines and landing gear would be the only pieces to make a major penetration of the building and be found largely intact. The rest of it would have been consumed by the fire. Temperatures reached over 2000 degrees F and the only thing in the building that could have caused that kind of fire would have been the fuel carried by the aircraft. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable when it comes to aircraft accidents. I flew B767's and know what I and other pilots believe. The B757 that hit the Pentagon was basically a narrow body version of the same aircraft. So, what do you make of this? (scroll to the bottom and it purportedly shows the size of a 757 matched up against the damaged Pentagon wall). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 What happened on 9/11 was a conspiracy - that is not in doubt. The only question is - which conspiracy is right. Is it the theory advanced by the government - that a bunch of mad Arabs, funded and organized by somebody living in a primitive camp in Afghanistan pulled this off? Is it one of the various other theories floated by various and sundry? Or is it something else entirely? I would submit the following: Governments around the world (the US government included) have been known to lie to their citizens so it isn't logical to just accept their version of events The US government was under huge pressure following the incident to explain what happened. It's quite possible that even if no Americans were involved in any way, bin Laden was a convenient fall guy Jet fuel doesn't burn that hot and it would burn off very quickly. So it was actually other materials inside the tower that were responsible for the heat of the inferno. If towers can collapse after a fire burns for a couple of hours, perhaps someone should be reviewing building standards There were a lot of odd things that happened on 9/11 but that doesn't necessarily mean an inside job If it were an inside job, it's extremely unlikely that the people in charge would have informed George Bush. Maybe all we can hope for is a deathbed confession from Cheney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 How about the number of lamp poles the a/c knocked over on approach, and the gouge one of the engines put in the buildings standby generator before impact? And how about the dozens of people who saw it hit, including the crew of a C-130 Herc. who reported it to ATC? I guess they are all unreliable? I heard from a friend who read on the internet somewhere that these "witnesses" were transported to where the missile hit from Area 73 with implanted memories. It's truly incredible how competent and efficient governments can be at managing their Areas and conspiracies but such a bunch of morons when it comes to just about anything else they do, or is that part of the facade too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) Swoot! more 911 Truther Nonsense. The US could perpetrate a conspiracy where 4 planes are hijacked and two of the world's largest buildings are demolished without anyone saying anything about it. But can't break into an iPhone. GOTCHA! Edited February 26, 2016 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 Lots of pictures of a/c debris at Pentagon. https://www.google.ca/search?q=pictures+of+aircraft+debris+at+pentagon&biw=1344&bih=696&tbm=isch&imgil=6askiLug5_eQdM%253A%253BVMV69dO_t6pLJM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fkendoc911.wordpress.com%25252Fpentagon%25252Fdid-a-plane-hit-the-pentagon%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=6askiLug5_eQdM%253A%252CVMV69dO_t6pLJM%252C_&usg=__4By2Gd1hpU74W4xWut8Gr1MZAb0%3D&dpr=1.25&ved=0ahUKEwiotvGKlpbLAhUByWMKHX2hCQUQyjcILg&ei=pajQVujPMoGSjwP9wqYo#imgrc=6askiLug5_eQdM%3A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 It will be along time before the real truth comes out just like the real truth about the killings of JFK, Robert Kennedy, John Jr. and Martin Luther King and most of us on here will probably be dead. I feel all of those killings and the 9/11 couldn't have happened without inside help from government officials and the CIA is first on my list, then military, President, VP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 But hey, what do I know. The answer to that is self evident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 The Crazy Years and their Empty Moral Vocabulary One prediction that was remarkably prescient, however, was the advent of “The Crazy Years” described as “Considerable technical advance during this period, accompanied by a gradual deterioration of mores, orientation, and social institutions, terminating in mass psychoses in the sixth decade, and the interregnum.” According to Robert Heinlein we still have 45 years or so to go but I think he might have miscalculated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 So, what do you make of this? (scroll to the bottom and it purportedly shows the size of a 757 matched up against the damaged Pentagon wall). Ok. I need to see plane parts on the ground. Than you may convince me that I may be wrong here and getting the wrong information. So, where is the tail section, for instance? There still should be some big parts of the plane lying around somewhere? It cannot all have been burned up. That I find hard to believe. So, let's see some photos. Not much to ask. Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxme Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 I've heard stories from the 9/11 conspiracy theorists that the planes didn't even fly into the towers. How's that for googley eyed nonsense? The planes hit the towers at high speed. The impact combined with heat of fire caused the structures to collapse vertically and pancake the rest of the building. #7 caught the worst of the shrapnel and with the ensuing fire, it did the same. Oh well, I guess coming up with conspiracies is good fodder for paranoid minds. Oh boy, now that is funny. Reading what you just wrote, now I do believe in the 9/11 conspiracy. Why didn't other buildings close to the towers not have the same thing happen to them as did building #7, and come tumbling down. Building #7 appears to have been a planned explosion also. And why was all the steel from the towers removed as quickly as possible and shipped to China and apparently melted down before any real investigation could be done? Looks like someone was trying to get rid of any evidence. Something is not right with this picture people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 Oh boy, now that is funny. Reading what you just wrote, now I do believe in the 9/11 conspiracy. Why didn't other buildings close to the towers not have the same thing happen to them as did building #7, and come tumbling down. Building #7 appears to have been a planned explosion also. And why was all the steel from the towers removed as quickly as possible and shipped to China and apparently melted down before any real investigation could be done? Looks like someone was trying to get rid of any evidence. Something is not right with this picture people. Other buildings weren't in the debris path as #7. Lucky for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Other buildings weren't in the debris path as #7. Lucky for them. Building 5 and 6 were closer to the towers and both had to be taken down after the fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 So, what do you make of this? (scroll to the bottom and it purportedly shows the size of a 757 matched up against the damaged Pentagon wall). You don't seem to understand how aircraft are built, you seem to think the whole aircraft has the same density and will penetrate a concrete structure leaving a hole the same as its shape. Engines and landing gear are the most dense and will penetrate farther, The fuselage is hollow aluminum filled with air (you know, the bit the passengers and cargo go into) and the wings are hollow aluminum filled with fuel (air when the tanks are empty), These pieces will break up on impact and may not penetrate at all depending on how strong the building structure is. The whole schmeer will go up in the furnace fuelled by the thousands of gallons of fuel the aircraft was carrying with only the largest most dense parts of the aircraft (engines and landing gear) surviving the fire. Some of the temperatures reached in the Pentagon fire were nearly double that required to melt aluminum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) You don't seem to understand how aircraft are built, you seem to think the whole aircraft has the same density and will penetrate a concrete structure leaving a hole the same as its shape. Engines and landing gear are the most dense and will penetrate farther, I do understand that. It just appeared that there should be some impact mark where the wings hit, even if they don't penetrate. Aluminum is still pretty strong. The other interesting feature is the nice round hole on the inside wall. Was that caused by the fuselage? Not likely, given your description. One of the engines? If so, what happened to the other engine? I'm just saying it looks odd. Edited February 27, 2016 by ReeferMadness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Oh Truthers.... you've been so debunked and discredited that you all sound so silly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Oh Truthers.... you've been so debunked and discredited that you all sound so silly. One engine of one plane made it through the tower and the plummet to the ground and stayed intact. Can't say that about the one that hit the Pentagon. Now I've expressed I think something else happened, but there are lots of stupid 'truther' angles that are simply no goes. It's not worth getting into really, people hear or see what they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 I do understand that. It just appeared that there should be some impact mark where the wings hit, even if they don't penetrate. Aluminum is still pretty strong. The other interesting feature is the nice round hole on the inside wall. Was that caused by the fuselage? Not likely, given your description. One of the engines? If so, what happened to the other engine? I'm just saying it looks odd. Aluminum isn't strong, and the same type of lethal super hot fires have happened before, namely at sea.......ie a combination of jet fuel, aluminum and various other metals creating a near thermite like reaction that resulted in not only aluminium, but steel melting from a fire started by jet fuel........ Case in point, over 40 years ago, the USS Belknap collided with the carrier USS John F Kennedy. Very little initial damage to either ship, but the crash broke a jet fuel line on the carrier, which in turn coated the cruiser in jet fuel.....one spark, and the cruiser's mostly aluminum and steel superstructure melted down to deck level. Another example would be the British loss of HMS Ardent during the Falklands war....in this case the British frigate was hit by an Argentine bomb in the ship's helicopter hanger, which started a fire fed by jet fuel........the fire grew super hot and started melting the after end of the aluminum structure, which in turn melted steel support beams and the hull, so hot that the crew was unable to fight it and had to abandon ship. The point, jet fuel combined with aluminum and other crushed metals can create a chemical reaction, that in turn will create a fire hot enough to melt steel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Anyone who has ever done any gas welding understands how the introduction of oxy to acetylene can jack up the temp. by ~1000 deg. C. Or closer to home, blown on a smoldering log in a fireplace. A jet fuel fire sucking air through cracks in a building works similarly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Oh Truthers.... you've been so debunked and discredited that you all sound so silly. It's more than silly. This sort of overt stupidity is like rust, it never sleeps and it's adding to the general rot and corrosion of people's sensibilities. I blame broadcasters and media for a lot of this because of the way they give as much weight to stupid irrelevant things as they do serious things based in reality. People talk about how an endless stream of micro-aggressions hurt society but what about the endless stream of micro-delusions the world is saturated with? If there was ever a sound basis for a professional code of ethics amongst broadcasters and reporters this would be it - they need to take greater responsibility for the damage their industry is doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Aluminum isn't strong, and the same type of lethal super hot fires have happened before, namely at sea.......ie a combination of jet fuel, aluminum and various other metals creating a near thermite like reaction that resulted in not only aluminium, but steel melting from a fire started by jet fuel........ The fire isn't relevant here. I was referring to an apparent lack of impact mark where the wings would have hit. Aluminum may not be as strong as steel but if you hit a building with an aluminum wing at 200+ mph, it's going to leave a dent of some sort. The fuselage appears to have gone clear through the building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 The fire isn't relevant here. I was referring to an apparent lack of impact mark where the wings would have hit. Aluminum may not be as strong as steel but if you hit a building with an aluminum wing at 200+ mph, it's going to leave a dent of some sort. The fuselage appears to have gone clear through the building. The mostly aluminum wings hitting a steel (or limestone with the Pentagon) facade.......and the question is what? Ever play rock-paper-scissors? The same concept applies.......steel and limestone beat aluminium...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 It's more than silly. This sort of overt stupidity is like rust, it never sleeps and it's adding to the general rot and corrosion of people's sensibilities. I'm agnostic on the topic but in general I think that we're all better off because of people who don't trust official stories. Governments get away with lies all too often as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 The mostly aluminum wings hitting a steel (or limestone with the Pentagon) facade.......and the question is what? Ever play rock-paper-scissors? The same concept applies.......steel and limestone beat aluminium...... OK. So the aircraft is mostly aluminum - what did all of the damage? According to what you're saying, we should see a couple holes where the two engines went in and that's about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek 2.0 Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 OK. So the aircraft is mostly aluminum - what did all of the damage? According to what you're saying, we should see a couple holes where the two engines went in and that's about it. "All the damage" wasn't caused by the impact, but the fires fed by jet fuel and pulverized aluminum that created a super hot, near explosive fire, that resulted in structural steel being weakened, then collapsing under its own weight........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 I'm agnostic on the topic but in general I think that we're all better off because of people who don't trust official stories. Governments get away with lies all too often as it is. It sure is a lot easier to lie to a society when it's as steeped in supernatural ignorance as our's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.