- :
- 2001 Mazda MP3
interesting find->
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr7.html
http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr7.html
9/11 thread disappeared?
- Thread starter Mach 3.5 Turbo
- Start date
its a conspiracy..enry and antoine have been contracted by the U.S gov. to withold the truth..the truth is out there..
I mean no disrespect at all but that does not prove a plane hit the pentagon.pdhaudio83 said:a plane did hit the pentagon. RyanJayGs cousin was working in an office and was killed.
Seriously people there is no evidence AT ALL a 757 hit the pentagon, there is no wreckage, there is no ground disturbance, there is no damage to the pentagon except for a small whole about 10-20 feet wide where as a 757 fuselage is over 24 feet, about 30 feet where the engines are and a wigspan of 124 feet. Yet it left a hole that small? Obviously that means the plane didnt even penetrate the pentagon. There is no radar detection of the plane at all since it dissapeared in ohio and never came back on radar. All the eyewitnesses said they saw a small passanger sized airplane and heard a woosh sound. If you have ever been to a airport u would know jet engines do not go woosh especially when they are 10 feet off the ground.
Ummm no your are terribly wrong. I know you probably heard this on the godbox AKA T.V. but steel does not melt due to hydrocarbon fires. Let me elaborate, a hydrocarbon fire consists of oxygen plus a fuel. Now I have done my research and no for a fact the maximum temp a hydrocarbon fire can reach is 1800F and thats with a perfect air/fuel ratio mix. When you get a perfect mix you will get that blue flame you see with a bunson burner. So this tells us the fires werent even at 1800F. So we have established the fires can not physically get any hotter due to this little thing we call the laws of physics. Now steel begins to melt at 2800F, this tells us two things, the plane did not melt at the pentagon and there should have been debree all over and the steel beams in the twin towers did not melt either.
Im offering a reward for the first person who gives me one shred of evidence a plane hit the pentagon, cause right now all you people calling us crazy conspiracy nuts are basing your entire story on what TV told you, you dont even have evidence to prove us wrong.
I'm with you Rism..The towers happened..I was standing there not 8 blocks from it. The pentagon..who knows..but what about that security video that "depicted" the crash..i remember that being worse than some of the photowh0ring on this forum..
i kinda wondering would a plane really have that much force to go through 5 layers of building exterior? if you look at the WTC crash the planes don't even make it through the building in one piece and i'm pretty sure that the WTC is not constructed as materially dense as the pentagon. like you don't see the nose shooting through the WTC and falling right off the other side.... so how can a plane go through so many layers of the pentagon?
ok another thing would be.... if they did really fire a missle into the pentagon.... why? why would you damage your own target and kill your own people that work for you?
like what might have happened is that the gov probably found out about the highjackers on board flight 77 and then used something to gun that down before it hit anything but then why would you go cover that up with firing a missile into your own building?
ok another thing would be.... if they did really fire a missle into the pentagon.... why? why would you damage your own target and kill your own people that work for you?
like what might have happened is that the gov probably found out about the highjackers on board flight 77 and then used something to gun that down before it hit anything but then why would you go cover that up with firing a missile into your own building?
Installshield 2
Gothenburg Superiority
wow...I had heard about "it was a missle" a while ago...but never saw any arguments really supporting either story...
Now Rism...your chemistry argument is flawed...a hydrocarbon fuel flame can very easily reach north of 1800* C (yeah Celcius...this is a chemistry argument so that is what I am using...and that is way way way more than 1800* F)...especially in adibiatic conditions (conditions in which there is no loss of heat...that doesn't happen though in this real occurance)...
A true blue flame is a flame that has a radiant temperature (surface temperature basically) of >1400*C...a bunson burner could reach that temp, assuming its using propane, if it was adibiatic conditions...but not perched on a desk...the blue radiance of the flame is created by the fact that these burners usually use a form of natural gas as fuel...namely propane...and other types of fuel will burn certain colors as well, with no indication of the heat it is creating...(this also why there is blue in fireworks...its not that its that hot)
On to steel...normal grade steel melts at roughly 1350*C...thats more than 1800*F (not sure where you got that dude), which is around 982.222*C...it gets higher for heat tempered and treated steels, and stainless steel...and I do not know what the WTC towers were constructed of, grade wise...In either case, a jet fuel power fire could very much so reach the required heat to transfer enough heat into the steel to cause it bend/buckle/melt...all of which would result in its collapse...
And this makes sense...we all remember how the fires continued to burn after the planes collided into the buildings...the specific heat capacity of steel is similar to iron (because thats basically what it is)...and its high...it takes considerable time for a material with a high specific heat to absorb the heat uniformly compared to something with lesser capacity...So the fires kept burning...and the steel kept absorbing more and more heat, until ulitmately a threshold was reached in which the liquifying properties of the metal could no longer support the load...and the buildings collapsed...
Just trying to clarify those points you made...
But I agree that this Pentagon stuff is pretty strange...and I do not have adequate proof that what we are being told is actually what happened...
Now Rism...your chemistry argument is flawed...a hydrocarbon fuel flame can very easily reach north of 1800* C (yeah Celcius...this is a chemistry argument so that is what I am using...and that is way way way more than 1800* F)...especially in adibiatic conditions (conditions in which there is no loss of heat...that doesn't happen though in this real occurance)...
A true blue flame is a flame that has a radiant temperature (surface temperature basically) of >1400*C...a bunson burner could reach that temp, assuming its using propane, if it was adibiatic conditions...but not perched on a desk...the blue radiance of the flame is created by the fact that these burners usually use a form of natural gas as fuel...namely propane...and other types of fuel will burn certain colors as well, with no indication of the heat it is creating...(this also why there is blue in fireworks...its not that its that hot)
On to steel...normal grade steel melts at roughly 1350*C...thats more than 1800*F (not sure where you got that dude), which is around 982.222*C...it gets higher for heat tempered and treated steels, and stainless steel...and I do not know what the WTC towers were constructed of, grade wise...In either case, a jet fuel power fire could very much so reach the required heat to transfer enough heat into the steel to cause it bend/buckle/melt...all of which would result in its collapse...
And this makes sense...we all remember how the fires continued to burn after the planes collided into the buildings...the specific heat capacity of steel is similar to iron (because thats basically what it is)...and its high...it takes considerable time for a material with a high specific heat to absorb the heat uniformly compared to something with lesser capacity...So the fires kept burning...and the steel kept absorbing more and more heat, until ulitmately a threshold was reached in which the liquifying properties of the metal could no longer support the load...and the buildings collapsed...
Just trying to clarify those points you made...
But I agree that this Pentagon stuff is pretty strange...and I do not have adequate proof that what we are being told is actually what happened...
Installshield 2
Gothenburg Superiority
My guess is that the WTC towers surface acts like a net...all those vertical running load beams would bend and kind of "catch" the plane...rather than blow the hell apart like the masonry of the pentagon...thats a thought for why the planes didn't go through the WTC towers...but I still don't believe a crumply 757 could have gone through 6 walls like that at the pentagon...tttP5 said:
In either case we can figure this out...If someone knows the exact postion of that camera that caught the single frame of the projectile entering the front of the pentagon, we are set...We can calculate how far the camera is from the projectile by using trig with the angle in which the "thing" entered the building...I know that is out there...and then we can calculate the distance the tip of the projectile is from the front of the building at the moment that frame was shot...with that we can then try to find the frame rate of the said camera and determine how long it took from when that frame was taken to just when the explosion occured...
With all that we can find the velocity of that "thing" when the frame was taken...and my bet is that it is well north of what a 757 could do...I am just rambling though, I know all of the variables are too hard to find...and the framerate of the camera is probably too slow to be accurate for determining an initial speed...
Last edited:
here is the one and only thing that is making me question the entire story. okay yes, SOMETHING hit the pentagon, and ruined lives... that is a FACT and a very sad one. one of my friends on here, ryan, lost a cousin, and its saddening and i feel for him... but i still have doubts because of one thing.
whatever hit the pentagon did so with enough force to sheer through 6 reinforced walls, punching a nearly perfect hole through them. the picture shown of the outside wall, shows NO signs of ANY wing damage. don't you think, that an object strong enough to punch through 6 reinforced steel walls would have left SOME miniscule damage from the wings on the exterior wall? there is no evidence of any wing damage... none. i thought about this quite a bit yesterday, and that is my argument, plain and simple.
whatever hit the pentagon did so with enough force to sheer through 6 reinforced walls, punching a nearly perfect hole through them. the picture shown of the outside wall, shows NO signs of ANY wing damage. don't you think, that an object strong enough to punch through 6 reinforced steel walls would have left SOME miniscule damage from the wings on the exterior wall? there is no evidence of any wing damage... none. i thought about this quite a bit yesterday, and that is my argument, plain and simple.
some people dont know what you are talking about... they take what some whack jobs say... not what is truth...
HYDRCARBONS CAN EASILY BURN THROUGH STEEL!
yes its true... how do I know? because acetylene is a very common hydrocarbon... what is acetylene? its CUTTING TORCH FUEL!!! I have cut steel MYSELF with a hydrocarbon.. OH NO!
also, I know from personal experience you do NO have to MELT steel to make it fail.... I HAVE DONE THIS MYSLEF!!!! not read it somewhere... those people who say that crap have no REAL world experience... they are quacks
HYDRCARBONS CAN EASILY BURN THROUGH STEEL!
yes its true... how do I know? because acetylene is a very common hydrocarbon... what is acetylene? its CUTTING TORCH FUEL!!! I have cut steel MYSELF with a hydrocarbon.. OH NO!
also, I know from personal experience you do NO have to MELT steel to make it fail.... I HAVE DONE THIS MYSLEF!!!! not read it somewhere... those people who say that crap have no REAL world experience... they are quacks
Last edited:
Here we go again. The usual suspects with their paranoid view of the world that compels them to believe that a small group of people conspire to manipulate events to deceive and control us to suit their own ends. Conspiracy theory rules and it's so much fun for the conspiracy theorists to believe that only they know the "real truth" while the rest of us are all being led around like sheep unaware of the mysterious forces out there that determine events and control our thoughts and behaviors.
It sure sounds like fun to be a conspiracy theorist, but in my opinion it leads to having a totally bizarre, unrealistic and irrational view of the world.
(bang) (uhm) (confused)
It sure sounds like fun to be a conspiracy theorist, but in my opinion it leads to having a totally bizarre, unrealistic and irrational view of the world.
(bang) (uhm) (confused)
as for the sturdiness of buildings.... go read up on Tesla (not the 80's band, the electro physicist) he could bring down the towers with an object the size of a shoe box... no explosives.... easy... if people didn't take note of it...
the point I am trying to make is this... people, and consiracy theorists in particular talk and talk, taking other people's word, and compounding on their own IDEAS and BELIEFS... mis-stating things into FACT... because what is a fact really.... its not truth, its a widely accepted belief.
the point I am trying to make is this... people, and consiracy theorists in particular talk and talk, taking other people's word, and compounding on their own IDEAS and BELIEFS... mis-stating things into FACT... because what is a fact really.... its not truth, its a widely accepted belief.
Mach 3.5 Turbo
Member
- :
- Titanium Speed
Exactly. I don't know what to believe, but I don't believe what the government has told us. They simply haven't given us anything but theories of their own, no proof. They have the tapes and supposedly some pieces of the plane, why not show them and defent themselves from all these "conspiracy theorist" attacks? I'm not saying I know what happened or that me and my buddies sat down one day and figured it out, I just want to expose the truth.aiken said:
On a side note, how many of you believe that our government always tells us what really happened? JFK? Vietnam? Iraq? Spanish-American war? Yeah I might sound like a "nut" because I keep bringing up the same things over and over, but until we know what really happened we shouldn't just sit by and accept out spoon-fed reality. QUESTION THINGS, it's legal and healthy. You don't have to agree with me or anyone else, but you do have to respect our right to speak our minds. I respect everyone's comments on this forum (usually), so I want this to be a discussion about the truth, not a political argument.
Well my numbers on the melting point of steel were a bit off, 2500F were the correct numbers, but i still syand by my statement that a hydrocarbon flame cannot melt steel. Also the video of the "plane" hitting the pentagon doesnt show anything similar to a 757 the thing zoomed in on in the flash video is not a plane at all infact it is a smoke or vapor trail if you watch the video normally you will see that it will dissapate into the air as a smoke trail does. Im still waiting on that evidence that a plane hit the pentagon, cause we have proved one didnt and have the evidence to prove it.Installshield 2 said:
Hmm hadn't seen this info before- It bears questioning- I don't know if the true details of that day will ever be brought before the public eye- the government excels at covering some things up. The big question then would be why? I don't see using a big ass cruise missile to take out a plane inbound to the pentagon way overkill
it is my understanding that the steel beams of the WTC were treated with asbestos on the lower parts of the building and somewhere during construction this process was stopped because of budgeting constraints.
at least that is what I was told by an asbestos expert during training at my then job...
at least that is what I was told by an asbestos expert during training at my then job...
