they say this debunks the AZ studio moon landing...

colchar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
1,554
Reaction score
1,501
Location
The Great White North
Remember when Myth Busters refused to investigate the molten metal spewing from the world trade centers? not denying aircraft hit the building, but the melting point to liquify steel is a strong need for those who say it can happen to PROVE carpet, jet fuel and paper burning can liquify steel. I was surprised Myth Busters refused to test it.

how it relates to the moon landing topic is that we are supposed to accept something that is unproven.....and cannot stand on its own against scrutiny, and they accuse and slander those who question the narrative as " conspiracists"....lol


just an fyi

Steel Alloys Melting Range Table​

Melting ranges of the most widely used steel alloys in Celsius and Fahrenheit.

Steel Grade (SAE)UNS DesignationAlloy TypeMelting Range °CMelting Range °F
201S20100Nickel steel1400 – 14502552 – 2642
254S31254Nickel steel1325 – 14002417 – 2552
301S30100Nickel-Chromium steel1400 – 14202552 – 2588
304S30400Nickel-Chromium steel1400 – 14502552 – 2642
305S30500Nickel-Chromium steel1400 – 14502552 – 2642
309S30900Nickel-Chromium steel1400 – 14502552 – 2642
310S31000Nickel-Chromium steel1400 – 14502552 – 2642
316S31600Nickel-Chromium steel1375 – 14002507 – 2552
321S32100Nickel-Chromium steel1400 – 14252552 – 2597
330N08330Nickel-Chromium steel1400 – 14252552 – 2597
347S34700Nickel-Chromium steel1400 – 14252552 – 2597
410S41000Chromium-Molybdenum steel1480 – 15302696 – 2786
416S41600Chromium-Molybdenum steel1480 – 15302696 – 2786
420S42000Molybdenum steel1450 – 15102642 – 2750
430S43000Nickel-Chromium-Molybdenum steel1425 – 15102597 – 2750
434S43400Nickel-Chromium-Molybdenum steel1426 – 15102600 – 2750
440S44000Molybdenum steel1370 – 14802498 – 2696
446S44600Molybdenum steel1425 – 15102597 – 2750




:iough:
 

colchar

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
1,554
Reaction score
1,501
Location
The Great White North
In my opinion:
Anyone who watches that video and can't derive the truth from that alone, is most likely in about 5 or 3 or 11 different levels of denial. The chances that these buildings could cave in such uniform manner, outside of a highly skilled demolition, is about 1 in more millions than I could ever count. It's completely unnatural, and it occurred not once, but a second time with the adjacent building.


It would have taken weeks to place the charges required for a controlled demolition like what you are suggesting. If it happened, why has nobody involved ever come forth? Why were those placing the charges never seen? What possible reason could there have been for doing it? And why has nobody involved in such a massive conspiracy ever come forward? Hundreds of people would need to be involved and at least one would have spoken up by now, and yet none have.

Just because you cannot understand something doesn't make it untrue, it just means you cannot understand it.

There is a member over at MLP who worked in the buildings. He was in charge of the cabling, etc. for all of the telecommunications in the buildings. He was deep inside those buildings every day, in the places where charges would need to be placed, and not once did he ever see anyone who wasn't supposed to be there, nor did any of the people working for him ever report seeing anyone. Not only that, but they never saw anything that wasn't completely normal. He left his position a couple of weeks before the attacks, but lost a lot of friends and former co-workers that day.
 

PelliX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
2,544
Reaction score
5,015
The primary value of the moon for us is as a second location to house humans in the astronomically small event that a big rock smites the earth. It's 'next door' in space terms and easier to colonize than Mars even though Mars probably has much more natural resources - thinking minerals and H₂O.

The other fun bit I can interject into this convo is a rumor I've heard since the early 80's that the Russians did manage a manned moon landing but the crew died on impact.

Russ

Only a lunatic would attempt such an endeavor.... [badum...]
 

Matthews Guitars

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2019
Messages
6,378
Reaction score
10,294
Conspiracy theorists alternate between amusing me and pissing me off. Today I'm just going to go with amusing and let it be at that.

What's really funny is that I've heard of people denying that planes hit the WTC on 9/11/2001. Or that no plane hit the Pentagon, despite the fact that there are plenty of pieces of aircraft wreckage visible in the photos. Yes, they're smaller pieces, but the plane hit one of the most strongly built fortified buildings in the world. You'd expect big chunks to be left over after that?

American Airlines Flight 77 was a Boeing 757-223, N registry N644AA

N644AA American Airlines Boeing 757-200​


Manufacturer Serial Number (MSN) 24602

Line Number 365

Aircraft Type

  • Built as
  • Boeing 757-200

Age
10.4 Years

Production Site
Renton (RNT)

Airframe Status

  • Written Off

With a documented passenger manifest that is detailed here:



They're not phantom people, it wasn't a phantom airplane, get your head out of your butt.
 

PelliX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
2,544
Reaction score
5,015
It would have taken weeks to place the charges required for a controlled demolition like what you are suggesting. If it happened, why has nobody involved ever come forth? Why were those placing the charges never seen? What possible reason could there have been for doing it? And why has nobody involved in such a massive conspiracy ever come forward? Hundreds of people would need to be involved and at least one would have spoken up by now, and yet none have.

Somebody help me out here, but I recall seeing a couple of whistleblowers, one being an IT guy - and I figured exactly that; he'd have a fair chance of looking where all the cables go. There were also a couple of shady companies around the affected floors, one Israeli outfit, IIRC. It's public that Mossad had prior knowledge (as in minutes to hours, no idea if longer). The FBI evacuated building 7, despite there being zero going on there except a little office fire. The owner of the towers himself was on live TV stated he talked to the [fire brigade or somebody dealing with the situation] and the decision was made to pull the buildings. His exact words, and he repeated it.

I think 'why' is up for grabs. These kind of events don't generally have a single cause, it's a conglomeration of benefit to various parties. For example, the owner also took out additional insurance policies on the buildings just before the events. I think 'why' would go way off on a tangent into exo-/geopolitics - also, it's speculation. I prefer to deal with the facts.

Just because you cannot understand something doesn't make it untrue, it just means you cannot understand it.

Absolutely agree, honestly. But that could work both ways. Just because something seems unlikely doesn't mean it isn't true. Case in point, the moon landings. A 1960 survey asking people "do you think we'll have guys walking up there within 10 years?" would probably have got quite a unanimous 'no'. And yet, here we are...

There is a member over at MLP who worked in the buildings. He was in charge of the cabling, etc. for all of the telecommunications in the buildings. He was deep inside those buildings every day, in the places where charges would need to be placed, and not once did he ever see anyone who wasn't supposed to be there, nor did any of the people working for him ever report seeing anyone. Not only that, but they never saw anything that wasn't completely normal. He left his position a couple of weeks before the attacks, but lost a lot of friends and former co-workers that day.

I'm sorry to hear that. Many died and many more suffered that day.

Bottom line, whatever happened, the official narrative is about as water tight as a picket fence. Passports surviving explosions that destroy an entire skyscraper and landing on the pavement? A passenger jet making a few meter wide hole in the side of the pentagon without scratching the lawn? 3 skyscrapers all collapsing in their own footprint on the same day in the same location and only two were actually damaged prior to the collapse? A military training excersize of the same scenario going on simultaneously causing NORAD to stand down? The official report forgetting to mention building 7?

All this is possible, but astronomically improbable. As usual, I'd say there are plausible, rational explanations for these phenomena. The pilots, flight trainers, engineers, architects, demolition experts, fire fighters and so on agree that things aren't right. I'm an expert in exactly none of those fields, but I understand basic physics and must concur.
 

PelliX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
2,544
Reaction score
5,015
Conspiracy theorists alternate between amusing me and pissing me off. Today I'm just going to go with amusing and let it be at that.

What's really funny is that I've heard of people denying that planes hit the WTC on 9/11/2001. Or that no plane hit the Pentagon, despite the fact that there are plenty of pieces of aircraft wreckage visible in the photos. Yes, they're smaller pieces, but the plane hit one of the most strongly built fortified buildings in the world. You'd expect big chunks to be left over after that?

American Airlines Flight 77 was a Boeing 757-223, N registry N644AA

N644AA American Airlines Boeing 757-200​


Manufacturer Serial Number (MSN) 24602

Line Number 365

Aircraft Type

  • Built as
  • Boeing 757-200

Age
10.4 Years

Production Site
Renton (RNT)

Airframe Status

  • Written Off

With a documented passenger manifest that is detailed here:



They're not phantom people, it wasn't a phantom airplane, get your head out of your butt.

I certainly would expect a bigger hole in the building indicating that the plane had wings when it made impact, to be fair. And some marks on the grass. The fusilage I saw was perhaps half a sport plane, not enough for a passenger jet. Presuming the plane went 'in' and thus didn't even leave the tail sticking out, where did it go? There are pictures of the affected area, and I'm no aviation expert, but I see that the hole and the suggested aircraft don't match up... :shrug:

The towers? Yeah, looked like two planes to me...
 

purpleplexi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
1,717
Reaction score
3,285
This guy was my physics teacher


The other guy mentioned in the piece was my chemistry teacher. I started there the year after the moon landing. He was still crowing like a hen that had laid a double yoke for years afterwards. They couldn't track apollo all the way to the moon but they tracked it leaving earth's orbit, followed it for a good way and tracked it coming back. He had no axe to grind - I can tell you he was the original tell it like it is guy. If there had been anything hokey about apollo he would've been shouting it from the rooftops.
 

Matthews Guitars

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2019
Messages
6,378
Reaction score
10,294

Debris is Consistent with a Jetliner Crash​

The Pentagon attack left debris scattered over a wide area. Judging from the dimensions of punctures in the facade the vast majority of debris ended up inside of the building. Nonetheless, the few photographs that show portions of the lawn near the building show an extensive debris field, easily accounting for the portions of a 757 that did not penetrate the building. Although no photographs show large pieces of aircraft, it is not reasonable to expect large pieces to have survived intact given the nature of the crash.

High-Speed Crashes Reduce Aircraft to Small Pieces​

Few people have direct experience with the results of high-speed collisions of aircraft into strong barriers. Most aircraft accidents occur shortly after takeoff or during attempted landings, and do not completely destroy the aircraft. In contrast, uncontrolled crashes into terrain usually reduce aircraft into fine debris, leaving little if any parts identifiable by casual visual inspection. The debris fields of several jetliner crashes pictured here show the surprising paucity of apparent debris many crashes produce. Crashes of aircraft into buildings also typically leave little in the way of large debris, as the December 5, 2005 crash of a C-130 into an apartment building in Iran illustrates.
It is noteworthy that many crashes that left very little to no large recognizable pieces involved much lower impact speeds than the Pentagon attack. Since the Iranian C-130 was attempting to land, its airspeed was probably less than 150 mph.

Debris from the Attack Plane is Widely Distributed​

The Pentagon attack produced damage covering an area inside and outside the building totaling tens of thousands of square feet. Available photographs document only small portions of this area, but nonetheless show significant quantities of debris.
Photographs show a debris field covering a portion of the lawn directly north of the central impact region of the facade, and extending to the heliport about 120 feet from the facade. Most of the debris in this field is small, but some photographs show pieces as big as four feet across.

Photographs of Interior Wreckage Are Sparse​

Given the extent and shape of punctures in the Pentagon's facade, it is reasonable to expect that well over 90 percent of the mass of a 757 would have ended up inside the building. Unfortunately, there are relatively few public photographs of the interior of the Pentagon after the crash, and there are very few photographs showing the interior before the rescue and recovery operations had removed debris.
Skeptics of the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon have argued that the lack of public photographs showing airliner seats, bodies, and luggage is evidence against the crash of Flight 77. This argument is based on several assumptions, none of which are supported.
  • The seats, passengers, and luggage would have survived the over 500-mph crash and subsequent fires in a form yielding to easy identification in photographs.
  • Remains of the seats, passengers, and luggage would have been photographed and the photographs would have been made public.
The baselessness of the second assumption becomes particularly apparent when one notes that nearly the entire fuselage (containing the seats, passengers, and luggage) probably entered the Pentagon, where we know that 125 Pentagon workers were killed. Yet there are no photographs in public circulation of the remains of these victims.

Summary​

Proponents of the no-Boeing theory have made the following claims about the debris from the crash:
  1. There was no aircraft debris.
  2. There was insufficient aircraft debris for a jetliner crash.
  3. There was an absence of aircraft wreckage that should have survived a jetliner crash, such as pieces of wings and tail.
  4. The absence of signs of bodies, seats, and luggage in photographs of the crash site prove that the attack plane wasn't Flight 77.

Claim 1 is disproved by numerous post-attack photographs of the Pentagon.
Claim 2 is based on the unfounded assumptions that the quantities of debris can be established from public evidence.
Claim 3 is invalidated by a review of the debris fields of any number of jetliner crashes.
Claim 4 supposes that bodies, seats, and luggage should have survived in easily recognized forms, and that they would have ended up in places that were photographed. However, the impact holes would have admitted an entire fuselage of 757 into the building, and there is no complete photographic record of the interior wreckage available to the public.
 

Crikey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2019
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
2,861
Its just not worth my time
but yet here you return, again. lol
there is no need for you to defend the narrative. if you believe it , that is your decision. My pops is a retired Navy commander, naval academy grad, and he doesn't believe it was possible. His doubt, and one of the smartest people I know, speaks volumes to me upon what I researched. I just think NASA has some splaining to do...
 

Crikey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2019
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
2,861

Debris is Consistent with a Jetliner Crash​

The Pentagon attack left debris scattered over a wide area. Judging from the dimensions of punctures in the facade the vast majority of debris ended up inside of the building. Nonetheless, the few photographs that show portions of the lawn near the building show an extensive debris field, easily accounting for the portions of a 757 that did not penetrate the building. Although no photographs show large pieces of aircraft, it is not reasonable to expect large pieces to have survived intact given the nature of the crash.

High-Speed Crashes Reduce Aircraft to Small Pieces​

Few people have direct experience with the results of high-speed collisions of aircraft into strong barriers. Most aircraft accidents occur shortly after takeoff or during attempted landings, and do not completely destroy the aircraft. In contrast, uncontrolled crashes into terrain usually reduce aircraft into fine debris, leaving little if any parts identifiable by casual visual inspection. The debris fields of several jetliner crashes pictured here show the surprising paucity of apparent debris many crashes produce. Crashes of aircraft into buildings also typically leave little in the way of large debris, as the December 5, 2005 crash of a C-130 into an apartment building in Iran illustrates.
It is noteworthy that many crashes that left very little to no large recognizable pieces involved much lower impact speeds than the Pentagon attack. Since the Iranian C-130 was attempting to land, its airspeed was probably less than 150 mph.

Debris from the Attack Plane is Widely Distributed​

The Pentagon attack produced damage covering an area inside and outside the building totaling tens of thousands of square feet. Available photographs document only small portions of this area, but nonetheless show significant quantities of debris.
Photographs show a debris field covering a portion of the lawn directly north of the central impact region of the facade, and extending to the heliport about 120 feet from the facade. Most of the debris in this field is small, but some photographs show pieces as big as four feet across.

Photographs of Interior Wreckage Are Sparse​

Given the extent and shape of punctures in the Pentagon's facade, it is reasonable to expect that well over 90 percent of the mass of a 757 would have ended up inside the building. Unfortunately, there are relatively few public photographs of the interior of the Pentagon after the crash, and there are very few photographs showing the interior before the rescue and recovery operations had removed debris.
Skeptics of the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon have argued that the lack of public photographs showing airliner seats, bodies, and luggage is evidence against the crash of Flight 77. This argument is based on several assumptions, none of which are supported.
  • The seats, passengers, and luggage would have survived the over 500-mph crash and subsequent fires in a form yielding to easy identification in photographs.
  • Remains of the seats, passengers, and luggage would have been photographed and the photographs would have been made public.
The baselessness of the second assumption becomes particularly apparent when one notes that nearly the entire fuselage (containing the seats, passengers, and luggage) probably entered the Pentagon, where we know that 125 Pentagon workers were killed. Yet there are no photographs in public circulation of the remains of these victims.

Summary​

Proponents of the no-Boeing theory have made the following claims about the debris from the crash:
  1. There was no aircraft debris.
  2. There was insufficient aircraft debris for a jetliner crash.
  3. There was an absence of aircraft wreckage that should have survived a jetliner crash, such as pieces of wings and tail.
  4. The absence of signs of bodies, seats, and luggage in photographs of the crash site prove that the attack plane wasn't Flight 77.

Claim 1 is disproved by numerous post-attack photographs of the Pentagon.
Claim 2 is based on the unfounded assumptions that the quantities of debris can be established from public evidence.
Claim 3 is invalidated by a review of the debris fields of any number of jetliner crashes.
Claim 4 supposes that bodies, seats, and luggage should have survived in easily recognized forms, and that they would have ended up in places that were photographed. However, the impact holes would have admitted an entire fuselage of 757 into the building, and there is no complete photographic record of the interior wreckage available to the public.
a lot of the "official" clarification is not absolute. Good post though.
any video links from many of the cameras in the area that might have seen this plane fly into the pentagram?
 

Crikey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2019
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
2,861
I would not say I am but in the past I might have qualified.
To be honest these days my attitude is "who the F'ck cares". We're all screwed and maybe that is as it should be.

I do question the official story on some points and I do not fully trust all the things our government tells us.
You shouldn't either.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...use-3rd-towers-collapse-on-911-300911896.html


buildings with structural damages that topple, tend to fall over, not straight down as this building does as if internal charges on the support columns
think about the Florida high rise collapse, parts of it fell, not the entire building.
 

PelliX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
2,544
Reaction score
5,015
arial_pent3.jpg


Assuming the plane hit in the way described, there should be extensive damage to the grass. What I gather from pilots is that it would be practically impossible to get the aircraft in that low above the ground at the estimated speed. I can't judge that properly. What I can judge is the suggest trajectory should have deafened people below and taken out at least a couple of streetlights. I mean, people go as far as to indicate that it wasn't a coincidence that section was being renovated at the time. I don't necessarily see a connection there, but I do find it odd for a rookie pilot to go around the building instead of just aiming at the center.

010911-D-FN314-002.JPG


Not the lorry on the right which presumably withstood the right hand wing of the craft.

1*Wyn72bnW9fscQQK4I-IP2A.jpeg


Here's the inside. The nose made it that far in and punched through this fairly solid looking brick wall. Then it disintegrated? Of course, see the mark on the right, this is post initial cleanup, but surely there must have been some left before?

Just from a generic perspective, if this would happen in most places in the world, most would call foul play - warranted or not. I find it somehow amusing who anybody who has their doubts is considered a 'conspiracy theorist'. After all, the official narrative is that there was a conspiracy between bunch of guys who then set out to hijack aircraft with knives and attack the most powerful nation on earth. That's just as much a conspiracy theory as would be the notion that certain rogue elements in government or 'bad actors' wanted to start a war. Cui bono?
 

PelliX

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
2,544
Reaction score
5,015
a lot of the "official" clarification is not absolute. Good post though.
any video links from many of the cameras in the area that might have seen this plane fly into the pentagram?

I believe some of the cameras were out of order that day (this seems odd, but I don't have a failure ratio on their CCTV systems). A petrol station captured the event on tape, and the tape was confiscated by the officials shortly after. That's perfectly logical, by the way. I do not believe it has been released yet. Three entire frames from the Pentagon's own CCTV have been released, though.
 

Matthews Guitars

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2019
Messages
6,378
Reaction score
10,294
There are videos of an F-4 Phantom being test crashed into a heavy reinforced concrete wall, which was a test done in 1988 by Sandia Labs, intended to simulate the impact of an aircraft against the concrete containment vessel of a nuclear reactor.

Aside from the wingtips that sheared off, no parts of the plane remained that were identifiable by appearance as being Phantom parts, and none were larger than a dinner plate. The plane essentially turned to coarse metallic dust.

A plane hitting the Pentagon outer wall would be shredded to small bits nearly as effectively. And that happened.
 

Crikey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2019
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
2,861
There are videos of an F-4 Phantom being test crashed into a heavy reinforced concrete wall, which was a test done in 1988 by Sandia Labs, intended to simulate the impact of an aircraft against the concrete containment vessel of a nuclear reactor.

Aside from the wingtips that sheared off, no parts of the plane remained that were identifiable by appearance as being Phantom parts, and none were larger than a dinner plate. The plane essentially turned to coarse metallic dust.

A plane hitting the Pentagon outer wall would be shredded to small bits nearly as effectively. And that happened.
757 wing tips and wings would be clearly evident
Whats wing span of 757 versus F4? Considrable
Tomahawk more plausible

 
Last edited:

Matthews Guitars

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2019
Messages
6,378
Reaction score
10,294
Look for that F-4 video. The only reason the wingtips of it were identifiable is because the concrete block was not quite as wide as the wingspan of the plane, so they sheared off and kept on going. The wingtips of a 757 would be obliterated on impact with the side of the Pentagon.
 

Latest posts



Top