American 77 Flight Data Recorder Released (9/11 Pentagon)

[Pilotasso]

Ok we can't prove there was or wasn't C4 on the planes, which could be the difference. But the Jet fuel even with the fire protectant material off wouldn't have brought the towers down it doesn't burn hot enought. What caused the collapse of Building 7 later that day. and Why none of the buldings inbetween which were closer to the towers fell before building 7?

 

Fire will easely heat up steel to red hot point, even if theres no direct contact between the fire and the structure, steel starts to weaken considerably with temperatures as low as 300 celsius. Confined fires very easely reach 800 celsius, often bypassing 1000 celsius if conditions are met.

With the building banged up, thermal insulation gone and soaked in fuel, so much so that it showered down the elevators pits, I cant think of a way the steel would endure such torture.

 

You would need super aloys to resist these temperatures such as those on jet engines but then each beam of steel in the twin towers would literaly cost their weight in gold.

[Chandawg]

Anyways it doesn't matter, if it was a conspiracey and the current administration got what it wanted, if it wasn't a conspiracy the administration still got what it wanted. NO sense in trying to let anyone see some of the facts some of the holes in the "official story". They also shipped the stell off to China, why? Why not examine it, there are just too many questions, on why some things were done? There are just too many holes.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Now your stories are getting funny. A great deal of that steel was recycled and used to build a brand new war ship for the US Navy.

 

The "official story" makes sense, those of the conspiracy theorists...well...not only don't they make sense to someone trained in such things, but they are also filled with LIES that anybody should be able to see. :)

[Pilotasso]

Anyways it doesn't matter, if it was a conspiracey and the current administration got what it wanted, if it wasn't a conspiracy the administration still got what it wanted. NO sense in trying to let anyone see some of the facts some of the holes in the "official story". They also shipped the stell off to China, why? Why not examine it, there are just too many questions, on why some things were done? There are just too many holes.

 

 

 

LOL dude by believing so much that you cant be fooled by the goverment might prompt you to be missinformed on the contrary .

If I was the goverment trying to hide something I would play this to let you think I was hiding something I wanted you to suspect, in order to hide the real deal. Nothing like faint running in one direction and then double back on the opposite direction. ;)

 

In this case I think you are being led by the media, not the goverment. Mediatic sensationalism is as evil and manipulative as the worst goverments can be.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Fire will easely heat up steel to red hot point, even if theres no direct contact between the fire and the structure, steel starts to weaken considerably with temperatures as low as 300 celsius. Confined fires very easely reach 800 celsius, often bypassing 1000 celsius if conditions are met.

With the building banged up, thermal insulation gone and soaked in fuel, so much so that it showered down the elevators pits, I cant think of a way the steel would be protected against such torture.

 

You would need super aloys to resist these temperatures such as those on jet engines but then each beam of steel in the twin towers would literaly cost their weight in gold.

 

The boiling point of aluminum is 2457 degrees celcius, and this temperature is easily achieved in an open environment, with nothing but an aircraft's wings to act as a plenum. In a closed environment, the temperature can go even higher, so yes, steel structure in a building can be easily destroyed by fire...especially if Jet A is involved.

[S77th-konkussion]

Thats indeed curious, howcome it is so often said there were no whitnesses?

 

BTW I updated my last post.

 

What's curious is how stupid one would have to be to beleive that. There were hundreds if not thousands of witnesses.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Whoops, sorry...correction to that last post. The size of the plenum was a Cessna 172 fuselage, and the fuel was 100LL. The fire started on the pilot's seat, due to the introduction of an ignited 100LL-soaked glove by the aircraft owner. The aluminum structure of the entire cabin area was vaporized by the time Castlewood FD got on the scene...they are only .5 miles from the scene, and it took 10 minutes for the report to go out. They were on-scene in less than 12 minutes. The arsonist was apparently quite mesmerized by his own work, and remained there until DJC personnel found him and spotted the fire. He was, shortly thereafter, flushed from the bushes near TACAIR 10 by dogs from the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Department. All that remained the next morning were the wings, empenage, landing gear, and a small portion of the engine.

[Guest IguanaKing]

What's curious is how stupid one would have to be to beleive that. There were hundreds if not thousands of witnesses.

 

 

Nah...he's got a valid point, Konny. To much of the world, there WERE no witnesses to this event at the Pentagon. Again, it all comes back to those who are in control of what we see and hear. ;)

 

My hat is off to Pilotasso for asking the right questions. He actually asked about how, the multitudes of those who would have to be involved for such a conspiracy to be successful, were all able to maintain complete silence. That is the chief question I ask many conspiracy theorists. Not ONE has been able to answer yet

[hitman]

Ok we can't prove there was or wasn't C4 on the planes, which could be the difference.

 

Actually yes you can. Most explosive compounds leave a chemical residue behind. Chemists can reverse carbon-date materials to determine what kind of (if any) explosives were present at the time. For example: uranium decays into lead over time. All an explosion is is an extremely fast decay rate. TNT decays into something else at a rate of 14,000 feet per second under ignition. Explosive compounds almost always leave a trace.

 

As far as the media and the government has to say about what really happened? Ill just say this.

It takes many people to start the truth, but it takes only 1 to spread a lie.

[Pilotasso]

What's curious is how stupid one would have to be to beleive that. There were hundreds if not thousands of witnesses.

 

 

Thanks to the "positive", missunderstood and completely off target based point of view.

And the hint about my character certainly was uncalled for. tsss tsss.

[S77th-konkussion]

Thanks to the "positive", missunderstood and completely off target based point of view.

And the hint about my character certainly was uncalled for. tsss tsss.

 

 

Notice I said "one" not "you". Maybe you should read eh? tsss tss

[Pilotasso]

Well thats clarifyed then, you must forgive me also because your post was certainly passive of being interpreted the way I did because "one" also did not excluded an indirect referrence to me as it apeared to be in the context of that sentence.

 

Cheers. :)

[S77th-konkussion]

no sweat- I wanted to skip using the quote button, but sometimes threads move too fast and things don't make sense.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Explain why WTC Building 7 fell? Convince me of the speed that the towers fell? How did they fall so fast, and how many steel buildings have collapsed due to fire? 3 buildings have, and all on the same day 9/11.

It is sad that people still ask such empty questions. Do yo0u have Discovery or TLC channels on your cable? If you do, there was numerous shows showing respectable people analyzing Twin Tower tragedy. If you look at the facts, you don’t even need to be expert to conclude why the towers collapsed.

 

BTW, back in 1989, I was on one of those two towers looking at the New York city.

 

I am not one to turn this into a political thread, but there are some things that need answered, but probably won't be, and 40 years from now, we will still be asking the same questions.

Yes, and that question is what is in the psychology of a person to make him to take lives of innocent people?

 

The questions that you are alluding to, those have been answered way back. And the towers collapsed as a consequence of passenger jets fuel damaging tower’s steel structure.

[Mechanist]

About these Pentagon Story: It doesn't make sence at all!

 

Why the Pentagon? It is a very large and low stucture. One "plane" can't make any significant damage there. If i were a terrorist leader i rather attack the White House with that plane, by the way it's not that far from the Pentagon. It would make perfect sence. The symbol of the USA. And remember the terrorist leaders are mostly masterminds...

 

And thats the reason why i don't belive in that Pentagon stuff.

The WTC attack were "ok" and beliveable, but that Pentagon story...

[Guest IguanaKing]

The questions that you are alluding to, those have been answered way back. And the towers collapsed as a consequence of passenger jets fuel damaging tower’s steel structure.

 

Hajduk, I just had to compliment you on your use of the English language. You'd be surprised at how many people who were BORN HERE, and are NATIVE SPEAKERS incorrectly say "eluding to". Very nicely written! :D

[Guest IguanaKing]

About these Pentagon Story: It doesn't make sence at all!

 

Why the Pentagon? It is a very large and low stucture. One "plane" can't make any significant damage there. If i were a terrorist leader i rather attack the White House with that plane, by the way it's not that far from the Pentagon. It would make perfect sence. The symbol of the USA. And remember the terrorist leaders are mostly masterminds...

 

And thats the reason why i don't belive in that Pentagon stuff.

The WTC attack were "ok" and beliveable, but that Pentagon story...

 

The Pentagon event has several witnesses...please read my posts earlier in this thread. Would you also care to comment about the relative size of the Pentagon and the White House? Hint for you: The Pentagon was a MUCH BIGGER TARGET, by physical size alone. You are aware of the role The Pentagon plays in US foreign policy are you not?

[Pilotasso]

Why the Pentagon? It is a very large and low stucture. One "plane" can't make any significant damage there. If i were a terrorist leader i rather attack the White House with that plane, by the way it's not that far from the Pentagon. It would make perfect sence. The symbol of the USA. And remember the terrorist leaders are mostly masterminds...

 

 

LOL dude, what are the diffrences about the 2 buildings?

The white howse is even smaller than the pentagon, infact is much less visible from the air than the pectagon is. The Pentagon is dozens of times wider than the white howse is!

 

Since when the pentagon is any lesser symbol than the white howse?! o_O

 

BTW they did target the white howse.

 

EDIT: LOL iguana you posted just before I did! :D

[Mechanist]

If you have a air rifle, will you target the elfant or the rabbit?

 

Of course easyer to hit the elefant than the rabbit and it have much more meat than the other, but the rabbit is a VALID target. And the Pentagon cannot be a valid target for a plane...

[Pilotasso]

Well consider this:

 

The white howse was empty after being evacuated because it was easy to, the pentagon had to be kept running with thousands of peaple inside, so wich was more atracting to terrorists trying to hit a target from a plane aiming something on the ground?

 

What if they missed the white house, or what if they did hit it but for only a bit of smoldering empty rubble pile?

[Guest IguanaKing]

If you have a air rifle, will you target the elfant or the rabbit?

 

Of course easyer to hit the elefant than the rabbit and it have much more meat than the other, but the rabbit is a VALID target. And the Pentagon cannot be a valid target for a plane...

 

Again...please elaborate on your understanding of relative size. If I had a .50 calibre rifle and the rabbit and elephant were the same distance from me...with the elephant being the only one I could see...which would I shoot? The elephant, of course, he may not die straight away, but at least I will have hit something. BTW...up close, something as small as a .223 rifle makes a rabbit disappear, but it does jack squat to an elephant except give him a little boo-boo and piss him off. ;)

[Pilotasso]

Not to mention if you only had 1 bulet for the rest of your life, chances are you would most probably miss the rabit for nothing.

[Mechanist]

If the Pentagon part was a real terrorist attack, then it must have years of preparation. After years you wont miss a big stucture with a controlabble plane.

 

And since when the goal of terrorism is to kill peoples? The goal is bring fear and destroy hope, althougt killing is a reasonable way to achive it.

[hitman]

If you have a air rifle, will you target the elfant or the rabbit?

 

Of course easyer to hit the elefant than the rabbit and it have much more meat than the other, but the rabbit is a VALID target. And the Pentagon cannot be a valid target for a plane...

 

You cant kill an elephant with an air rifle. What kind of nonsense is that???Even if you fired a pellet into the elephants ear, all your likely to do is piss it off.

 

The White House WAS a target. Flight 93 was that flight that was supposed to hit it. But whos to say that the plane would have done so anyways?? Hello ADF.

[Pilotasso]

LMAO hitman :lol: