One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Who Is Really Responsible For The Chemical Attack In Syria?
This topic is locked to prevent further replies.
This discussion is continued in a new topic. You can find it here.
Page <<first <prev 60 of 99 next> last>>
 
This topic was split up because it has reached high page count.
You can find the follow-up topic here.
 
Apr 24, 2017 18:50:12   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
Where is your source to back up the claims you are making?
Being an anonymous shill blows your credibility enough without you expecting anyone to believe unnamed, unsourced claims.
No explosives in the dust samples? Who examined the dust samples?
The perpetrators controlled the crime scene.


So I should believe a troofer blog just because you think it's true putz....

HOW INDEED CAN NANOTHERMITE BE EXPLOSIVE?
& THE NANOTHERMITE CHALLENGE

T Mark Hightower, B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering

INTRODUCTION

This paper explores the explosiveness of nanothermite.

Steven E. Jones made the error early in his research, of classifying nanothermite as an explosive in the same category as the high explosive RDX, with no published science to back up his claim. The 911 truth movement has never recovered from this error, for to this day nearly everyone in the movement refers to "explosive nanothermite," as even this clever cover for a fictitious "For Dummies" book illustrates. (1)



Examples of Jones confusing these issues are cited and commented upon. Two technical papers on nanothermite are cited to support my contention that nanothermite is not anywhere near being an explosive in the sense of a high explosive like RDX. These two papers are also cited on the issue of adding organics to nanothermites to produce gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) and I maintain that these papers suggest that the only way to make a nanothermite truly explosive is to combine it with an explosive or other high-explosive mechanism. “It's not the “nano” that makes it explosive. It's the explosive that makes it explosive.”

Finally, I make recommendations of what those who advocate the nanothermite theory for WTC destruction can do to clarify their position, and I announce The Nanothermite Challenge.

EXAMPLES OF JONES CONFUSING THERMITE AND NANO-THERMITE WITH EXPLOSIVES

Here is a two-paragraph quote from Steven Jones' first paper. (2)

“Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.”

“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.” (2)

Here Jones puts thermite, HMX, and RDX in the same category. But thermite is totally different than HMX and RDX. Thermite is an incendiary. It gets very hot, it produces molten iron, it can melt steel, and it can catch things on fire, but it is absolutely not an explosive. It is not even a low explosive. On the other hand, HMX and RDX are high explosives. HMX detonates at 9,100 m/s (meters per second) and RDX detonates at 8,750 m/s. He also lumps all three under the category of cutter-charges, but a cutter-charge with thermite would be totally different than a cutter-charge with a high explosive. A thermite cutter-charge would cut by melting the steel with the high-temperature molten iron it produces (an extremely low velocity and slow process compared to high explosives), whereas an RDX cutter-charge would cut by the supersonic detonation of high explosives in what is known as a shaped charge, which essentially produces a supersonic projectile of molten metal (copper is often used in shaped charges) that instantly penetrates and severs the member.

Later in the paper Jones says

“"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust.” (2) And further down he says “Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or office-material fires, such as thermite reactions which produce white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. "Superthermites" are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by the available data.” (2) From page 85 of a presentation that Jones gave early in his work (3), he says “Gel explosives: Tiny aluminum particles in iron oxide, in a sol-gel: “High energy density and extremely powerful” and “can be cast to shape”. http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html (Livermore Nat’l Lab, 2000) I have read the LLNL web page that Jones cites above (4) very carefully and I cannot find anything in it that implies that the “thermitic nanocomposite energetic material” referred to is an explosive. It refers to the result as a thermite pyrotechnic, releasing an enormous amount of heat, but it does not say that it is an explosive. In the web page another class is explained briefly, energetic nanocrystalline composites. "The Livermore team synthesized nanocrystalline composites in a silica matrix with pores containing the high explosive RDX or PETN." No mention is made here of thermite, so this wouldn't apply to Jones claiming that nanothermite is an explosive.

Reply
Apr 24, 2017 19:22:31   #
Steve 700
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
I'm thoroughly convinced now that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are proof that human beings can survive without a heart and a brain.

It is beyond me how any American worthy of the name can be so completely imprisoned in a conspiracy torn from whole cloth and supported by butchered science and the reinvention of engineering principles, along with a total rejection of the history of Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism, that has resulted in so many confusing and contradictory tall tales and outright lies only to blame their fellow Americans for a heinous attack and give a pass to the worst humans on earth. It is unforgivable for Americans to offer, whether intentionally or not, such an unthinkable defense of the Islamic Jihadists who not only carried out the attacks on 9/11 but who are today actively engaged in terrorism across the world. 9/11 truthers live in a closed, impenetrable system where reality is nonexistent. 9/11 truthers are self-deluded fools in denial, they are spiritually barren, mentally corrupt, and morally bankrupt. Those of the Christian faith could rightfully say that 9/11 conspiracy theorists have succumbed to the wiles of the devil and "spiritual wickedness in high places."

The leaders and gurus of the 9/11 conspiracy, along with all of their lemming-like mindless robots who carry their buckets of slop, are malicious, unprincipled, miscreants who should be drawn and quartered for such a monumental hoax. There is little doubt that the blind hate of anti-Semitism along with a hefty dose of paranoia has much to do with this unforgivable mischief.

Battalion Chief JOSEPH PFEIFER: FIRST CHIEF ON THE SCENE Fire commanders do not issue calls for 2nd and 3rd alarm responses BEFORE they arrive at the scene unless they can see that the fire situation is far beyond the capability of a 1st alarm response. Chief Pfeifer did not hesitate to make these calls as the truck he was in rolled toward the WTC. Incidentally, Jules Naudet, one of the two videographers who produced the real time documentary, 9/11, was with Chief Pfeifer in that truck and stayed with him throughout their terrible experiences. (Chief Pfeifer's brother, Kevin, an FDNY lieutenant, lost his life that day.)

WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER: INITIAL RESPONSE
On that day, the Fire Department of New York took on the most difficult response in the history of the fire service. At no time in world history has a fire department ever been called on to respond to a single incident of such magnitude as the attack on the World Trade Center.


No one is expected to read the following 113 page report, but for anyone who takes the time, the information is enlightening.

FDNY Full Report on the response to the WTC emergency, the actions during the entire event, and the extensive recommendations for changes in FD responses and procedures involving high rise fire emergencies of this magnitude.
I'm thoroughly convinced now that 9/11 conspiracy ... (show quote)

What a brain-dead idiot you continue to display your self as. Of what effect is all that stuff in your post that I am answering. It proves absolutely nothing, not a damn bit of it, it all proves nothing -- doesn't even indicate that it was not the doing of our government. You are such an imbecile is to go on and on and on and on with anyone who will continue to argue with you, but you never put up anything that proves that anyone else is wrong, plus the crap you put up is rather lengthly. What does what the firemen were doing at the time have to do with proving who caused it. The firemen heard the demolition explosives go off as the buildings fell, but you're not listening to them about that and I sent you video link where you can see the explosions going off and that with another video was under five minutes for both --- and I sent you proof of God even telling Bush, you and the whole damn world that Bush and our government was heavily involved in a 40 seconds worth of video I asked you to watch and you apparently haven't watched that either or think that a one in several million coincidence has no meaning. On top of that you're a liar 'cuz it is very obvious you have never seen one of those full-featured documentaries on 9/11 as you claim to have. Because is just simply is not possible to watch that and still be sure our government had no involvement. It may be a surprise to you, but there is virtually no one who has watched those videos and come away still believing our government had nothing to do with it. You are an arrogant true suppressing, willfully blind idiot By Choice.

And acting like I am disloyal to America and the friend of jihadists is as stupid as calling me a racist because I didn't like Obama when it is obvious to anyone who will is not a liberal retard and with a modicum of common sense, that dislike for Obama has absolutely nothing to do with his color. When I offer you the proof and you won't even look at the evidence, but call names like that, it only speaks as to how demented you are.

By now you should want to see one of those full-length feature film documentary videos just out of natural curiosity, so why don't you, and then see if you can still hold on to your ignorant, uninformed, immature, naïve, superficial understanding of what happened



Reply
Apr 24, 2017 19:40:33   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
Somewhere your troofers obtained dust samples... that's how the Nano thermite got into the picture... there was no sign of explosives in the samples... I know your identity and you're still always wrong... you choose a 911 blog as your source putz... my sources tare your sources a new asshole putz... you sure you can handle them?...


How can sources you haven't provided "tare" my sources a new asshole?
Where is your source which backs up your claim about explosive additives to thermite? You don't have one do you?
Kevin Ryan wrote the article in 911blogger. Ryan worked for Underwriters Laboratories during 9/11. He was fired from UL because he questioned NIST's report on the steel in the towers.
Here's Ryan's letter to NIST: http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

Reply
 
 
Apr 24, 2017 19:48:22   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
So I should believe a troofer blog just because you think it's true putz....

HOW INDEED CAN NANOTHERMITE BE EXPLOSIVE?
& THE NANOTHERMITE CHALLENGE

T Mark Hightower, B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering

INTRODUCTION

This paper explores the explosiveness of nanothermite.

Steven E. Jones made the error early in his research, of classifying nanothermite as an explosive in the same category as the high explosive RDX, with no published science to back up his claim. The 911 truth movement has never recovered from this error, for to this day nearly everyone in the movement refers to "explosive nanothermite," as even this clever cover for a fictitious "For Dummies" book illustrates. (1)



Examples of Jones confusing these issues are cited and commented upon. Two technical papers on nanothermite are cited to support my contention that nanothermite is not anywhere near being an explosive in the sense of a high explosive like RDX. These two papers are also cited on the issue of adding organics to nanothermites to produce gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) and I maintain that these papers suggest that the only way to make a nanothermite truly explosive is to combine it with an explosive or other high-explosive mechanism. “It's not the “nano” that makes it explosive. It's the explosive that makes it explosive.”

Finally, I make recommendations of what those who advocate the nanothermite theory for WTC destruction can do to clarify their position, and I announce The Nanothermite Challenge.

EXAMPLES OF JONES CONFUSING THERMITE AND NANO-THERMITE WITH EXPLOSIVES

Here is a two-paragraph quote from Steven Jones' first paper. (2)

“Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.”

“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.” (2)

Here Jones puts thermite, HMX, and RDX in the same category. But thermite is totally different than HMX and RDX. Thermite is an incendiary. It gets very hot, it produces molten iron, it can melt steel, and it can catch things on fire, but it is absolutely not an explosive. It is not even a low explosive. On the other hand, HMX and RDX are high explosives. HMX detonates at 9,100 m/s (meters per second) and RDX detonates at 8,750 m/s. He also lumps all three under the category of cutter-charges, but a cutter-charge with thermite would be totally different than a cutter-charge with a high explosive. A thermite cutter-charge would cut by melting the steel with the high-temperature molten iron it produces (an extremely low velocity and slow process compared to high explosives), whereas an RDX cutter-charge would cut by the supersonic detonation of high explosives in what is known as a shaped charge, which essentially produces a supersonic projectile of molten metal (copper is often used in shaped charges) that instantly penetrates and severs the member.

Later in the paper Jones says

“"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust.” (2) And further down he says “Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or office-material fires, such as thermite reactions which produce white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. "Superthermites" are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by the available data.” (2) From page 85 of a presentation that Jones gave early in his work (3), he says “Gel explosives: Tiny aluminum particles in iron oxide, in a sol-gel: “High energy density and extremely powerful” and “can be cast to shape”. http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html (Livermore Nat’l Lab, 2000) I have read the LLNL web page that Jones cites above (4) very carefully and I cannot find anything in it that implies that the “thermitic nanocomposite energetic material” referred to is an explosive. It refers to the result as a thermite pyrotechnic, releasing an enormous amount of heat, but it does not say that it is an explosive. In the web page another class is explained briefly, energetic nanocrystalline composites. "The Livermore team synthesized nanocrystalline composites in a silica matrix with pores containing the high explosive RDX or PETN." No mention is made here of thermite, so this wouldn't apply to Jones claiming that nanothermite is an explosive.
So I should believe a troofer blog just because yo... (show quote)


Your point is moot when all the photos and videos show all three towers were taken down with explosives of some kind and those who witnessed the controlled demolitions heard the explosions loud and clear. The use of thermite is evident in all the molten metal in the debris piles which remained in a molten state for days to weeks. https://youtu.be/VwjRaadx-QU





Reply
Apr 24, 2017 19:54:14   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
How can sources you haven't provided "tare" my sources a new asshole?
Where is your source which backs up your claim about explosive additives to thermite? You don't have one do you?
Kevin Ryan wrote the article in 911blogger. Ryan worked for Underwriters Laboratories during 9/11. He was fired from UL because he questioned NIST's report on the steel in the towers.
Here's Ryan's letter to NIST: http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php



WTF putz... go back and read it... its clear you have lost it...

Reply
Apr 24, 2017 19:56:10   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
WTF putz... go back and read it... its clear you have lost it...


So where did all the molten metal come from?
The only explosive material which creates molten metal in great quantities is thermite.

Reply
Apr 24, 2017 20:17:05   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
Your point is moot when all the photos and videos show all three towers were taken down with explosives of some kind and those who witnessed the controlled demolitions heard the explosions loud and clear. The use of thermite is evident in all the molten metal in the debris piles which remained in a molten state for days to weeks. https://youtu.be/VwjRaadx-QU




Must be the sound a skyscraper collapsing makes to me...I didn't hear any explosions... I know what explosions sound like... just don't know what sounds a skyscraper collapsing makes... same as everyone else on the planet knew on 911... fact is no one pre 911 knew that sound because it never happened before putz... same as your smoking stupid photo... It doesn't look like any controlled demolition on video... your bullshit is maybe could be at best... you troofers live in a maybe could be world ...show us some real proof putz... start with the weeks old molten metal...

Reply
 
 
Apr 24, 2017 20:19:46   #
payne1000
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
A jetliner such as the Boeing 757 is not made entirely of aluminum. The stresses of high-speed, high altitude flight a jetliner must endure demand considerable strength. All critical connecting parts, such as bolts, nuts, rivets, screws, fasteners are all MilSpec parts. Even the aluminum skin is made of strong alloy.

The keel beams and the wing spars are the strongest components in all aircraft, whether it be a single-engine prop job or a high flying jet. The keel beam and wing spar in a jet liner are made of very strong light weight alloys. The fuselage keel beam made like a very strong spear flying at high speed when it hit the building.

Obviously there was no 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon. The 757 that hit the Pentagon was destroyed, But, there were pieces of the plane all over the place, inside and out.

If you can come up with convincing evidence that what hit the Pentagon was something other than a Boeing 757 jetliner, then do it. So far, after all this time, truthers have failed to provide a shred of such evidence.

"It couldn't have been a 757 because I don't believe it was a 757", doesn't cut it.

.

.
A jetliner such as the Boeing 757 is not made enti... (show quote)


Most of the parts of an airliner wreckage can't be carried by hand. The tail section is one of the strongest parts of an airliner. Tail sections usually remain together in crashes. A 757 tail section is three stories tall. There is no hole where the tail could have entered the Pentagon. Where is the tail section?













Where is that tail section? Where is any of the 757?
Where is that tail section? Where is any of the 75...

Reply
Apr 24, 2017 20:29:22   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
Must be the sound a skyscraper collapsing makes to me...I didn't hear any explosions... I know what explosions sound like... just don't know what sounds a skyscraper collapsing makes... same as everyone else on the planet knew on 911... fact is no one pre 911 knew that sound because it never happened before putz... same as your smoking stupid photo... It doesn't look like any controlled demolition on video... your bullshit is maybe could be at best... you troofers live in a maybe could be world ...show us some real proof putz... start with the weeks old molten metal...
Must be the sound a skyscraper collapsing makes to... (show quote)


The reason no one knows what a skyscraper collapsing sounds like is because skyscrapers don't collapse unless explosives are used.
The reporters on the scene knew what explosions sound like and they knew what controlled demolitions look like. They weren't shy about reporting what they saw and heard.
Their comments were censored after that morning. Controlling the media is one of the most important Zionist requirements in the Protocols. They slipped up a little on that morning.
Now, 16 years later, their slip up is making it more difficult to keep their crime covered up. https://youtu.be/VwjRaadx-QU

Reply
Apr 24, 2017 20:31:34   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
eagleye13 wrote:
Where are the wings, tail and engines, after the "plane cartwheeled down the face of the Pentagon?
The "plane" hit the Pentagon at approximately 20 degrees from perpendicular according to official videos.
AND
NO photos of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon. Just a ball of flame. Why?
Say what? "the plane cartwheeled down the face of the Pentagon"? Why don't you explain how that happened, can't wait to see how much worse you can butcher science. I can always use another good laugh.

Nearly 70 witnesses saw a jetliner crash into the Pentagon. and even a couple of your favorite truther gurus analyzed the surveillance videos. There were actually two cameras adjacent to each other at the same security check point. One of the camera views was not obstructed One of them took sequential pairs of Pentagon surveillance video and ran them in a blink comparator. The result shows an aircraft coming in low and fast across the Pentagon lawn. In the other analysis of the videos, stop frame analysis shows the profile of a jetliner. Both of them used radar and FDR data to establish a basis for these analyses and to correct the time error.

Eyewitnesses affirm large plane impact, and the damage trail establishes the plane path before and after impact with a high degree of precision. The plane flew low from the southwest straight toward the Pentagon on a path making a 52-degree angle with the Pentagon's west wall. It clipped a tree; downed five light poles; struck a fence, a generator-trailer, and a low concrete wall; and impacted the building at the first and second floors, creating an 18-foot wide hole atop a 96-foot gash in the facade. Outside, plane debris was strewn to the north near the Heliport because of the speed and angle of impact. The light poles' separation gives a plane wingspan in the range 100 to 130 feet (a Boeing 757 wingspan is 124 feet 10 inches), while the low concrete wall and generator-trailer damage separation indicates an engine separation of approximately 43 feet (Boeing 757 engine separation is 42.5 feet).

Inside the Pentagon, the plane was increasingly fragmented by the steel and concrete columns, creating a fluid-like flow of solid debris. This flow of material destroyed or damaged many internal columns, defining a continuation of the outside path, and ultimately created an exit hole in the C ring wall. Debris, including plane parts, spilled into the AE Drive in the direction of the original plane path. Internal columns were bowed and abraded in the flight path direction and much of the first floor suddenly filled with debris. The first floor ceiling beyond the collapsed portion of the building remained intact.

Applying the Scientific Method

A confluence of physical, eyewitness, and other evidence provides an overwhelming case for a large plane, a Boeing 757 and specifically Flight AA 77, impacting and penetrating the Pentagon on 9/11. The initial hypothesis of large plane impact, when examined for its consequences as shown by the eyewitness testimony, physical damage, and other supporting evidence, survives the scientific method test and becomes a theory that explains virtually all the observations. No other hypothesis, such as impact by a missile or pre-planted bombs, has even ventured to explain all this evidence.

The Impact Hole and Facade Damage:

Many claims have been made that the impact hole was too small for a plane the size of a Boeing 757 to have entered the building. None of these claims have merit. The fuselage of a Boeing 757 is 12.33 feet wide and 13.5 feet high and the corresponding hole was about 18 feet wide. Early photographs were obscured by spray from fire hoses and hid a long gash of about 96 feet in the first floor facade. There were many missing outer support columns. Thus the plane's fuselage, both engines, and the heavier, inner parts of the wings had sufficient room to penetrate the building.

According to witnesses and the FDR data, the plane had rolled about 5 degrees counterclockwise when it hit the wall. Facade markings, such as a long gash made by a wing, confirm these observations. Critics frequently point to the absence of a clear vertical gash that they contend should have been made by the vertical portion of the tail. There are, as shown by Jim Hoffman, markings in the area where the tail might have hit. It is possible that the tail was blown off and fragmented, and did not reach the wall intact. One witness described seeing the fuel explosion while the tail was still visible. Many witnesses saw the tail, and this criticism cannot overturn the other evidence of plane approach and impact.


Courtesy of Blade Runner, the "cowardly Zionist shill", locating this information in the Foreign Policy Journal which linked to the information above. If you ask me nicely, I will provide a link where you can read the entire report. This will include the name of the Journal's editor who prepared this report.

Photo 1 below. Although the surveillance cameras recorded at low resolution, in this frame, enclosed in the red rectangle, is the distinct image of a jetliner which fits the profile of a Boeing 757.

Photo 2. This aerial view of the face of the Pentagon clearly shows a number of significant details. The red arrow indicates the flight path. The blue lines outline the wings, and the yellow bracket indicates the 96 foot measurement of damage to the face. It is important to note that the right wing hit the building nearly head on--this blunt impact resulted in a much higher impact force and consequently a higher kinetic energy than did the left wing which hit at a much more shallow angle. This is apparent in the extent of damage on the right compared with the left.

Trust me payne, old buddy, old pal, I really am trying to help you out here. But the kinetic energy necessary to open the jaws of that trap you are caught in is enormous.

.

.





Reply
Apr 24, 2017 20:37:22   #
emarine
 
payne1000 wrote:
Your point is moot when all the photos and videos show all three towers were taken down with explosives of some kind and those who witnessed the controlled demolitions heard the explosions loud and clear. The use of thermite is evident in all the molten metal in the debris piles which remained in a molten state for days to weeks. https://youtu.be/VwjRaadx-QU





When did metal get transparent putz?...

Reply
 
 
Apr 24, 2017 20:37:41   #
payne1000
 
amadjuster wrote:
Not quite there yet, hot shot. You really jumped to a big conclusion because your highlights were not what the author was saying. I am giving you the link to the Lawrence Livermore study on Nano-thermite and what they were doing was getting it into a more stable, gel form. The final conclusion was this would be useful in pyrotechnics or propellants. No mention of explosives. Also notice the date of the article - 2004.

http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/307362.pdf


Try to understand this . . . Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories is run by the government and produces weapons for the military.
Would a government laboratory produce a paper which gives any clues to their part in murdering 3,000?
Wouldn't they go full bore in attempting to convince the world that the product of their research which is in question wasn't available a few years earlier?

Reply
Apr 24, 2017 20:42:49   #
payne1000
 
emarine wrote:
When did metal get transparent putz?...


There is no transparent metal. The orange glow of the steel is almost as bright as the sky.
A fool such as yourself might mistake that for transparency.

Reply
Apr 24, 2017 20:47:11   #
Super Dave Loc: Realville, USA
 
payne1000 wrote:
There is no transparent metal. The orange glow of the steel is almost as bright as the sky.
A fool such as yourself might mistake that for transparency.


Hahahahaha.

You'll say anything when you're cornered.

Reply
Apr 24, 2017 20:52:17   #
payne1000
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Say what? "the plane cartwheeled down the face of the Pentagon"? Why don't you explain how that happened, can't wait to see how much worse you can butcher science. I can always use another good laugh.

Nearly 70 witnesses saw a jetliner crash into the Pentagon. and even a couple of your favorite truther gurus analyzed the surveillance videos. There were actually two cameras adjacent to each other at the same security check point. One of the camera views was not obstructed One of them took sequential pairs of Pentagon surveillance video and ran them in a blink comparator. The result shows an aircraft coming in low and fast across the Pentagon lawn. In the other analysis of the videos, stop frame analysis shows the profile of a jetliner. Both of them used radar and FDR data to establish a basis for these analyses and to correct the time error.

Eyewitnesses affirm large plane impact, and the damage trail establishes the plane path before and after impact with a high degree of precision. The plane flew low from the southwest straight toward the Pentagon on a path making a 52-degree angle with the Pentagon's west wall. It clipped a tree; downed five light poles; struck a fence, a generator-trailer, and a low concrete wall; and impacted the building at the first and second floors, creating an 18-foot wide hole atop a 96-foot gash in the facade. Outside, plane debris was strewn to the north near the Heliport because of the speed and angle of impact. The light poles' separation gives a plane wingspan in the range 100 to 130 feet (a Boeing 757 wingspan is 124 feet 10 inches), while the low concrete wall and generator-trailer damage separation indicates an engine separation of approximately 43 feet (Boeing 757 engine separation is 42.5 feet).

Inside the Pentagon, the plane was increasingly fragmented by the steel and concrete columns, creating a fluid-like flow of solid debris. This flow of material destroyed or damaged many internal columns, defining a continuation of the outside path, and ultimately created an exit hole in the C ring wall. Debris, including plane parts, spilled into the AE Drive in the direction of the original plane path. Internal columns were bowed and abraded in the flight path direction and much of the first floor suddenly filled with debris. The first floor ceiling beyond the collapsed portion of the building remained intact.

Applying the Scientific Method

A confluence of physical, eyewitness, and other evidence provides an overwhelming case for a large plane, a Boeing 757 and specifically Flight AA 77, impacting and penetrating the Pentagon on 9/11. The initial hypothesis of large plane impact, when examined for its consequences as shown by the eyewitness testimony, physical damage, and other supporting evidence, survives the scientific method test and becomes a theory that explains virtually all the observations. No other hypothesis, such as impact by a missile or pre-planted bombs, has even ventured to explain all this evidence.

The Impact Hole and Facade Damage:

Many claims have been made that the impact hole was too small for a plane the size of a Boeing 757 to have entered the building. None of these claims have merit. The fuselage of a Boeing 757 is 12.33 feet wide and 13.5 feet high and the corresponding hole was about 18 feet wide. Early photographs were obscured by spray from fire hoses and hid a long gash of about 96 feet in the first floor facade. There were many missing outer support columns. Thus the plane's fuselage, both engines, and the heavier, inner parts of the wings had sufficient room to penetrate the building.

According to witnesses and the FDR data, the plane had rolled about 5 degrees counterclockwise when it hit the wall. Facade markings, such as a long gash made by a wing, confirm these observations. Critics frequently point to the absence of a clear vertical gash that they contend should have been made by the vertical portion of the tail. There are, as shown by Jim Hoffman, markings in the area where the tail might have hit. It is possible that the tail was blown off and fragmented, and did not reach the wall intact. One witness described seeing the fuel explosion while the tail was still visible. Many witnesses saw the tail, and this criticism cannot overturn the other evidence of plane approach and impact.


Courtesy of Blade Runner, the "cowardly Zionist shill", locating this information in the Foreign Policy Journal which linked to the information above. If you ask me nicely, I will provide a link where you can read the entire report. This will include the name of the Journal's editor who prepared this report.

Photo 1 below. Although the surveillance cameras recorded at low resolution, in this frame, enclosed in the red rectangle, is the distinct image of a jetliner which fits the profile of a Boeing 757.

Photo 2. This aerial view of the face of the Pentagon clearly shows a number of significant details. The red arrow indicates the flight path. The blue lines outline the wings, and the yellow bracket indicates the 96 foot measurement of damage to the face. It is important to note that the right wing hit the building nearly head on--this blunt impact resulted in a much higher impact force and consequently a higher kinetic energy than did the left wing which hit at a much more shallow angle. This is apparent in the extent of damage on the right compared with the left.

Trust me payne, old buddy, old pal, I really am trying to help you out here. But the kinetic energy necessary to open the jaws of that trap you are caught in is enormous.

.

.
Say what? "the plane cartwheeled down the fac... (show quote)


So you see a 757 in that first photo?
The bottle must be almost empty for you to be hallucinating that much.
Here's a better illustration of the plane in relation to the Pentagon.
Notice the engine on the right would have hit the large wire spools if it had been a 757.





Reply
Page <<first <prev 60 of 99 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.