Thread: 9/11 truth

Airplanes are made up of almost 700,000 small parts riveted together into a flying tube. If it were a solid object then it would have made a much larger impact on the outer walls. There are very few solid or dense objects in an airplane.

Do you know why automobiles are designed with unibodies? Because it allows for crumple zones in the front, rear, and sides that absorb energy upon impact (thus lessening damage to occupants and other objects in the collision).

Google some images of major airline disasters. Look at some videos on YouTube. It's very rare anything large remains after substantial impact.

As I demonstrated above: if something the density of that locomotive hit the Pentagon what would you expect? The locomotive I showed you is 15' high (about the same as the hole in the Pentagon) and weighs twice that of the airplane that hit the Pentagon (which is why I only highlighted half of it).

The size of the airplane is irrelevent. It's too easy to think about it being a big chunk of flying steel because that's what we relate to when we see automobile crashes. A plane disintegrates upon impact because it's riveted and not welded.

As an example:

Rushing to Die: The crash of Singapore Airlines flight 006 - Part One, Airline Safety, Airline crashes

This is an airplane that crashed on takeoff. It didn't slam full speed into anything. Notice how wrecked it is.

http://pakpics.wordpress.com/files/2006/07/pia.jpg

Here's another one. Hardly anything left is there?

This one crashed into some trees. If the trees destroyed the wing like this what makes one thing there would be any remains when a plane smashes into a building?

See how the wing shatters? It's not like a big giant piece of metal...it acts more like plastic.

Here's one where a fire burned away the fuselage. Who says that jet fuel doesn't have enough energy to burn and melt aluminum?

Not much left of this one that crashed into some trees either.

yes, but you can actually see bits of left over plane in those pics.
big engines, wings, tailpieces.

And in all those example the planes fell out of the sky and hit trees (which give way).

If a plane's wings shattered when hitting trees what would happen if the trees were a big massive reinforced concrete structure instead?

Aluminium no doubt, that melts at about 660C.
Mild steel starts going soft=mallable at around 1000C.
Did someone post earlier the steel used in the twin-towers would lose its strength at 1300?

This is what happened to your wings and other pieces: the momentum carried the plane forward into the reinforced concrete supports which shredded the plane much like a paper shredder cross-cuts and makes a piece of paper unreadable. The fuel followed the plane into the hole and burned it all up as the images I posted prior showed.

Originally Posted by stroller

Did someone post earlier the steel used in the twin-towers would lose its strength at 1300?

3,000 was the designers figure.
he was fired from his job after he had said this.

Originally Posted by surasak

This is what happened to your wings and other pieces: the momentum carried the plane forward into the reinforced concrete supports which shredded the plane much like a paper shredder cross-cuts and makes a piece of paper unreadable. The fuel followed the plane into the hole and burned it all up as the images I posted prior showed.

would you not expect some pretty serious marks on the grass given that it bounced and scraped its way towards the pentagon that it never hit.

Who said it bounced?

eyewitnesses to the event.

Another conspiracy myth debunked: jet fuel does burn with a heavy black cloud.

also it took out lamposts on the road.
must have been bouncing at that time unless of course they were removed by some other means.
pretty impressive for a man that the flying instructor said was memorable only for his distinctly average flying ability in a single engine light5weight plane.

Originally Posted by surasak

Another conspiracy myth debunked: jet fuel does burn with a heavy black cloud.

I know.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

eyewitnesses to the event.

Which ones do you believe? The eyewitnesses who saw the plane or just the ones who said something like a missile bounced?

Originally Posted by surasak

Which ones do you believe? The eyewitnesses who saw the plane or just the ones who said something like a missile bounced?

I'm saying that if the eyewitnesses are supposed to be credible then there should be a few little scratches on the lawn.
they are not, so there are not.

Ever hear the story about the blind men and the elephant?

Originally Posted by surasak

Ever hear the story about the blind men and the elephant?

something to do with your avatar?

Lots of damage to this plane but the windows are intact. Must be a fake.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Originally Posted by surasak

Ever hear the story about the blind men and the elephant?

something to do with your avatar?

Just saying that no two witnesses to an event will ever give the same exact story. If they do then they are lying or were told what to say.

come on those little nose things are about as hard as a yoghurt pot.

Originally Posted by surasak

Just saying that no two witnesses to an event will ever give the same exact story. If they do then they are lying or were told what to say.

except the 20 independant news reporters that heard secondary explosions at the WTC.
the firefighters who ran out of the WTC hearing a series of explosions from the basement to the 34th floor and rising.
the thousands of eywitnesses to the crash that heard numerous secondary explosions froim low in the building.
reports that were shown once and once only on the day of the event before the great cover up machine shifted into place.