Merged No Planes At WTC (Split from: WTC Dust)

[waypastvne]

1.
14. The strange passport given to the FBI. Paper wasn't really burned, I understand, but the unlikelihood of a passport surviving a plane impact causes me to question who gave the passport to the FBI.

I answered that question for you.

I gave you his name, A link to where he describes how he found the passport, where he works, the name of the church he goes to, and even his email address.

This is what he looks like.



If you still live in Manhattan you could easily contact him and talk to him face to face.

 

[twinstead]

A plane shaped object. A faux plane. A fake plane. A 3D image of a plane, projected moving through the sky.

By the way, I'm being consistent when I say that I'm a no planer here. The object that was in the sky in those videos was not a plane. It was an image of a plane, but an image of a plane isn't a plane.

Education or not, this is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[waypastvne]

8. The strength of steel vs. aluminum.

7055-T7751 Aluminium alloy used in the wings of the 767: ultimate tensile strength 89000 psi, tensile yield strength 86000psi.

A36 steel used in the columns of the WTC: ultimate tensile strength 58,000–80,000 psi, minimum yield strength of 36,000 psi

The aluminum is stronger.

 

[Sunstealer]

7055-T7751 Aluminium alloy used in the wings of the 767: ultimate tensile strength 89000 psi, tensile yield strength 86000psi.

A36 steel used in the columns of the WTC: ultimate tensile strength 58,000–80,000 psi, minimum yield strength of 36,000 psi

The aluminum is stronger.

It's quite hilarious. Truthers only have experience of aluminium alloys when they buy a can of coke. They equate the properties to all aluminium alloys to their experience of a coke can. So when they crush the can with their bare hands they automatically assume that all aluminium structures behave in the same way. It's the reason why WTC Dust describes massive aircraft wing structures which by design have to be incredibly strong as "fragile".

I doubt she'll even acknowledge your post correcting her. Even if she does it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

In Dusty's world soft, lower strength lead bullets don't penetrate steel plate. We know they do of course, so any one with any reasoning skills would realise that hardness, yield strength and UTS are not the deciding factor when it comes to one material penetrating another.

It won't stop the silly aluminium can't cut steel cos it's not as strong nonsense.

 

[Dash80]

I don't know.

Well we know, almost 12 years and you haven't figured it out yet. "Research scientist?" I don't think so!

I'd like to hear the stories of these JREFers who know these people.
Names, dates, places, details, etc.

Oh let me see...

Date: September 11 2001

Places: NY, DC and Shanksville

Details: Terrorist nutters crashing planes.

Obviously.

 

[Liam]

That's one of the things that has always puzzled me. Most of the 9/11 community agrees that the evidence for planes is sketchy at the Pentagon and at Shanksville, but they are unwilling to extend that line of thought when it comes to the WTC.

Those videos do make a difference.

I say forget planes and focus on the damage to the WTC. THAT is the really strange thing.

It's because even the average conspiracy theorist cannot deny that planes flew into the WTC buildings.
It's preposterous even by thruther standards.

 

[Dash80]

That's one of the things that has always puzzled me. Most of the 9/11 community agrees that the evidence for planes is sketchy at the Pentagon and at Shanksville, but they are unwilling to extend that line of thought when it comes to the WTC.

The evidence is not "sketchy" for any of the four planes. Try research.

I say forget planes and focus on the damage to the WTC. THAT is the really strange thing.

Yes if you IGNORE the planes the damage would look somewhat strange. Too bad those planes keep screwing up your "theory."

Aircraft impact and structural damage plus fire equals collapse.

Your method:

Ignore planes plus make stuff up equals science-fiction weapon.

 

[swright777]

<snip some crazy talk>
...
It doesn't make sense to me, and I'm the one I trust.

You should get a second opinion. Maybe then you wouldn't say such crazy stuff.

 

[SUSpilot]

22. The stories I've read from self-proclaimed pilots who say, "Naah. It'd be real hard to hit the WTC by piloting a plane."
23. The extreme difficulty of navigating from Boston to NYC without the aid of air traffic controllers.
24. The unlikely idea of inexperienced pilots being able to navigate a passenger jet with such precision.

Now you're squarely on my turf. I teach people how to fly.

Let's take my favorite first, point number 23. There are two very easy ways to do this, especially on a day that pilots call "clear and a million", as September 11, 2001 was. One is to take a plotter, figure out the true course between Boston and the tip of Manhattan, take into account the magnetic variation and winds aloft (that last pretty negligible at 500+knots) and aim the plane that way (magnetic course works out to 250 degrees, btw). Or two, follow the Eastern Seaboard to the southwest. Eventually, New York City, with it's distinctive skyline, will appear in the window. It's not hard. In fact, it's a basic skill taught to all pilots at the very beginning of their training. The whole "you need ATC" to navigate comes from instrument flight rules traffic separation, NOT "we have to hold your hand from beginning to end." In fact, in IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions - you can't see out the window), pilots can and do navigate without ATC help - they're basically cleared to go where there going on a specific route and altitude. If no traffic conflicts exist, ATC pretty much doesn't even talk to you. Not that the last point is that relevant to the conversation, other than to illustrate how fatuous your point is.

Now let's take the next point in my mind, number 22. If you're merely trying to hit a large object with an airplane, it's pretty damned easy. Obviously, I've never done it myself, but I can pass directly over a selected point on the ground at a specific altitude anytime I wish. Not hard at all. In fact, it relates to my answer to point number 23 - it's a basic skill we teach (mainly so we don't run into things!).

Both of which demolish point 24. Again, running any airplane, regardless of type, into a structure isn't terribly difficult. Some other things, such as putting the main gear down precisely on the thousand-foot marker on a runway, that takes training, practice, and skill. But to hit a building? To quote Peter Sellers' character of Dr. Strangelove: "It only takes the will to do so!"

Four planes, 19 terrorists, three buildings, and one thwarted attempt, and thousands of innocents died. That's what happened.

 

[Gamolon]

The fragile wings of an airplane would not have made such perfect slices through steel beams.

So you're basing this part of your claim on the strength of aluminum vs. steel? You're not even considering the reinforced structure of the wing itself?


Have you considered the strength of the above reinforced structure vs. the square perimeter columns made of 1/4" thick steel plate?

Also, where are you getting "perfect slices"? Can you explain why the damage pattern increased from the wingtip to the fuselage? From no slice at the wingtip, to bent column plates, to sheared columns?

 

[MRC_Hans]

And what I've discovered is that there are multiple types of WTC dust, and that these differences are valuable in terms of a forensic analysis. I'd like equal scrutiny on this idea, too.

Ehr, of course there are different types of dust. We are talking about huge structures; why should the dust be homogenous?

Hans

 

[WTC Dust]

What scientific reason is there to believe that anything should have been seen in less than 0.18 seconds which was not seen?


Let's just say it was 200 milliseconds. A fifth of a second. That's plenty of time to see evidence of deceleration.


Why are you doing your calculations in terms of strength and not in terms of force?

I didn't do any strength calculations. I just mentioned the relative strength of steel vs. aluminum. That's not a calculation.

The strength of aluminum against steel doesn't seem to be as important as the force the aluminum imparted on the steel. What scientific reason is there to disregard force?


On the contrary, I say that you are disregarding the force that the building would have exerted onto the plane. This force would be equal to the force you say a plane exerted onto the building, but exactly opposite in direction. Don't forget the other force! It would have decellerated any plane

I don't know if this guy is right. If so, the force of the aluminum plane was massive. What scientific reason is there to disregard the force that would have been applied to the steel?


I am not disregarding it. I'm pointing out the "opposite and equal" force that exists with every collision between two objects.


What scientific reason is there to expect to see on the video equipment of that day anything different than what was recorded using the technology of that day? Nobody had high-speed film rolling. Nobody had a camera distance precisely measured to the building. Nobody had multiple views exactly perpendicular to the event and exactly head-on to it. Everyone's footage that you have ever seen has been subjected to multiple computer compression algorithms at varying speeds of playback and resolutions.

Why would you expect better evidence to exist?


I'm just saying that if better evidence comes around, I'd change my mind. I don't know if it exists or not.


That's fine for you. However, since you attempt to be trying to convince others, it is insufficient. If you want anyone to ever believe anything you say, you're going to have to show exactly why it should not make sense to a reasonable, sane person.

Nope. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm putting my ideas out there and seeing if anyone can pick them apart.

 

[WTC Dust]

You would say that because the fact of the planes impacting the WTC really screws up the cat-piss crazy no-planer, sooper-seekrit energy weapon scenario.

Reality messes up fantasies all the time.

Not really. I'm mentioning the obvious point that any plane would have been destroyed at the site of impact. If you say a plane hit the south wall of WTC 2, then I say the plane would have been destroyed there, and videos should show this. They don't.

 

[WTC Dust]

7055-T7751 Aluminium alloy used in the wings of the 767: ultimate tensile strength 89000 psi, tensile yield strength 86000psi.

A36 steel used in the columns of the WTC: ultimate tensile strength 58,000–80,000 psi, minimum yield strength of 36,000 psi

The aluminum is stronger.

That's funny.

If aluminum were stronger than steel, they'd make skyscrapers out of aluminum.

 

[WTC Dust]

In Dusty's world soft, lower strength lead bullets don't penetrate steel plate.

Absolutely not true. I am not saying this. I'm saying that lead bullets wouldn't penetrate steel without evidence that they were decelerated by the impact. You can look at a lot of different videos of bullets hitting things. These videos show evidence of deceleration.

 

[WTC Dust]

It's because even the average conspiracy theorist cannot deny that planes flew into the WTC buildings.
It's preposterous even by thruther standards.

Truth isn't determined by majority opinion.

 

[Spanx]

That's funny.

If aluminum were stronger than steel, they'd make skyscrapers out of aluminum.

Excellent idea, we could have flying skyscrapers

 

[WTC Dust]

Now you're squarely on my turf. I teach people how to fly.

Let's take my favorite first, point number 23. There are two very easy ways to do this, especially on a day that pilots call "clear and a million", as September 11, 2001 was. One is to take a plotter, figure out the true course between Boston and the tip of Manhattan, take into account the magnetic variation and winds aloft (that last pretty negligible at 500+knots) and aim the plane that way (magnetic course works out to 250 degrees, btw). Or two, follow the Eastern Seaboard to the southwest. Eventually, New York City, with it's distinctive skyline, will appear in the window. It's not hard. In fact, it's a basic skill taught to all pilots at the very beginning of their training. The whole "you need ATC" to navigate comes from instrument flight rules traffic separation, NOT "we have to hold your hand from beginning to end." In fact, in IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions - you can't see out the window), pilots can and do navigate without ATC help - they're basically cleared to go where there going on a specific route and altitude. If no traffic conflicts exist, ATC pretty much doesn't even talk to you. Not that the last point is that relevant to the conversation, other than to illustrate how fatuous your point is.

Now let's take the next point in my mind, number 22. If you're merely trying to hit a large object with an airplane, it's pretty damned easy. Obviously, I've never done it myself, but I can pass directly over a selected point on the ground at a specific altitude anytime I wish. Not hard at all. In fact, it relates to my answer to point number 23 - it's a basic skill we teach (mainly so we don't run into things!).

Both of which demolish point 24. Again, running any airplane, regardless of type, into a structure isn't terribly difficult. Some other things, such as putting the main gear down precisely on the thousand-foot marker on a runway, that takes training, practice, and skill. But to hit a building? To quote Peter Sellers' character of Dr. Strangelove: "It only takes the will to do so!"

Four planes, 19 terrorists, three buildings, and one thwarted attempt, and thousands of innocents died. That's what happened.

I disagree, but even if I'm wrong, there's nothing in a plane crash that could turn the WTC into metallic foam.

 

[WTC Dust]

So you're basing this part of your claim on the strength of aluminum vs. steel? You're not even considering the reinforced structure of the wing itself?
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/767_wing_internals-20120531-092423_zpse00c7dd9.jpg[/qimg]

Have you considered the strength of the above reinforced structure vs. the square perimeter columns made of 1/4" thick steel plate?

Also, where are you getting "perfect slices"? Can you explain why the damage pattern increased from the wingtip to the fuselage? From no slice at the wingtip, to bent column plates, to sheared columns?

This line of thinking makes me laugh. Planes fall apart if you land them too hard. A bird can crash through the wing of a plane, and a bird is made out of meat, not steel.

This category of thinking falls into one of the two types of conspiracy theories I call "bandaids". Bandaids are little fixes that cover up the boo-boos and prop up the common storyline to make it work. The two main categories of bandaids are "strong plane" and "weak building" theories.

Because really, a plane is rather weakly constructed compared to a building. You cannot crash an airplane into a steel wall and have it continue on undamaged, like videos of 9/11 apparently show. Since this is not possible, either the videos were faked or the plane crash was faked. I say the plane crash was faked, or, more precisely, the plane was faked, because the perps didn't put up a 3D model of a collision. They only modeled the plane.

 

[WTC Dust]

Ehr, of course there are different types of dust. We are talking about huge structures; why should the dust be homogenous?

Hans

No one else is talking about the WTC dust heterogeneity in the same way I am. Other people say, "There's a whole lot of stuff in the dust." I'm saying, "There's more than one type of dust."

Or am I wrong? Is there someone else who talks about completely different types of dust with different heterogeneous features, like I am? I haven't seen it.