Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
shuize said:
Why hit the Pentagon in addition to the WTC? Did "they" think the public wouldn't be in favor of the War On Terror without that last little cherry on top?
Click to expand...

Which also raises the question of the fourth plane (was it 93 ?) that crashed before reaching its destination. WTH ?
 
Belz... said:
Which also raises the question of the fourth plane (was it 93 ?) that crashed before reaching its destination. WTH ?
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard? There was no such flight. Or if there was, it was diverted and the passengers were loaded on a different plane and crashed into the Pentagon. Or, since no plane ever hit the Pentagon, those passengers were taken someplace else and murdered for their DNA. Or it was shot down by the military. Or something, man. I can't keep their f_cking stories straight.
 
A person using the name Nefastus on IMDB.com wrote this in the United 93 forum. I thought it was interesting.
Here is from a friend of mine who works in the field`

"First off there is footage of the commercial airliner hitting the building.
I've seen it you can prob find it on the internet quite easily.

The pentagon was made to take violent impacts sort of like how a kevlar vest works. It lets some in and absorbs the impact bit by bit.

The streetlights going away from the pentagon.
Concussion waves. Any large explosion has them; hell you can even feel them when a military fighter takes off in burner.
Why weren’t there parts?
Like it was said above aircraft are made to be light but strong.
A.K.A. they use a lot of magnesium, beryllium, aluminum, with some titanium for structural support.
Every metal except for the last listed melts fairly easily.
Jet fuel from an engine fire can melt titanium easily though.
I saw this from an F-15 aircraft 73-110 which had an engine fire and when it landed the titanium engine panels were running off the jet like syrup.

Why wasn’t more debris found?
This depends on the impact and how much fuel load the aircraft has left in it. Meeting the pentagons reinforced walls was one hell of an impact and it was heavily loaded down with fuel.

For example I was on a team that had to locate and investigate a crashed F-16 in New Mexico.
The entire aircraft was in a 6 foot diameter hole about 5 feet deep.
What was left of that aircraft could easily fit in the trunk of my mustang.

Engine parts.
Engines are not made of massive parts but of a whole crap load of small parts and very flimsy fan blades that spin at insane rpm's and disintegrate at the drop of a hat.
Which is why in the military we do a F.O.D. Foreign object damage walk every morning to pick up any rocks and such we can find on the flight line.
Just one large screw on the runway during takeoff roll can cripple an engine and cause the aircraft to crash.

Boeing, Prat Whitney, Northrop, and GE make most of today’s military and commercial engines.
If a Boeing or GE engine takes a hit its toast because the operation specifications are extremely close.
It gives them more thrust and better operating ability but if anything odd occurs watch out.
From a GE rep I was talking to GE engines are more fun but a Prat Whitney engine will get you home.

My squadron uses Prat Whitneys. 100's were upgrading to 220's soon wo hoo.

But what Do I know I’ve just been working on Military aircraft for the past ten years"

Also from another friend of mine

"Aluminum- Melt point 1220°F (source: periodic table of elements)
Titanium- Melt point 3034°F (source: periodic table of elements)
Jp4- Freeburn temperature 9752°F (source: Volume 1, The Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Compressible Fluid Flow)

Now. (And this will be the hard part for some of you)
9752F is what Jp4 "freeburns" at. Freeburn is a Pyro term for "lay it on the ground and burn it" No wind, nothing else feeding the flame, just the material in a lab setting generating heat.

1220F and 3034F is what those materials used in the majority of construction of an aircraft MELT at. (I am sure we all know what melt means)

Now that’s a good 6718F left unaccounted for on the Titanium alone, not to mention the 8532F on the aluminum. And just for the sake of argument we wont even get into ambient heat generated by all the other stuff involved raising the temp even more.

Ok, I am no metallurgist, but I am however a chemist and a pyrotech. The possibility of those two metals *not* "ashing" in that kind of heat is down right silly. Especially when we have all done the "throw a coke can" in the camp fire bit, and seen it melt and ash with our own eyes. You telling me a camp fire burns at OVER 10,000F?? That’s a hellava camp fire! (That’s also called practical real world evaluation, fancy term for we know its true, and can prove it over and over)

Believe what ya want, watch some flash vid telling you what you want to hear, or would like to hear. But the plain (no pun intended) fact of the matter is, an aircraft hit that building, Jp4 spilled out from ruptured wings and then burned/ashed what was left of the small bits that were left solid and didn’t disintegrate on impact. I could go one to punch holes in the video especially with the pic of the "motor" bits seen by the fire fighters, but why bother if this will not get some folks to see facts nothing will.

A flash animation on the net showing pictures that have been edited to a point that the local village idiot would Believe it means nothing to me. The numbers, the facts of the materials involved, sitting there in black and white.. that’s what matters. "
Click to expand...
I've corrected some of the spelling.
I would have posted this earlier, but I was waiting for the authors permission
 
Last edited:
chipmunk stew said:
Damn it! I wish I'd known this was going to aired. I would have called in. These clowns are crapping in my town.
Click to expand...

i sent them a REALLY long e-mail about the real facts of 9/111. hopefully they'll read it and talk about it on the air.
 
rwguinn said:
and for the 100thtime...
How else would it look?
The laws of physics and rules of structural design can't have it any other way!
That is the way things work.
Click to expand...

Butbutbut! Dr. Jones said the 2nd law of Thermodynamics means "things topple over"! So the buildings should have toppled over!

:p
 
since the loosers like to compare things that have nothing in common, like a warehouse fire and how the WTC collapsed. i figured i can do the same thing.

they say its impossible for a plane to penetrate all those walls at the pentagon.
yet i have found evidence that a 2x4 can go clean through a pall tree during a hurricane. so, if i use loosers logic, i can say that it is possible for a plane to penetrate through all those walls. heres the evidence for it. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-006/images/palm.jpg

coincidently, that part of the tree was just reinforced in case of such an attack by hurricanes.
 
Hurtman...
That makes no sense....if what you've claimed was true, then the puff o' dust would have blasted out of more than just one window.

B24.jpg


Either it was a very successful terrorist attack or it was a sloppy one..
 
Wow.

I'm assuming this is a picture of a controlled demolition?

If that is the case, it is really funny that you would post it, because it TOTALLY demolishes any of your claims that the falling of the WTC was a controlled demolition.

In the picture you have shown, did you happen to notice how the building is falling? The bottom is blowing out first.

Now contrast that to the WTC, where the bottom wasn't destroyed until the top fell on it.

In a recent post, I asked you to compare the WTC with a known controlled demolition to show me that they actually look the same. Here, unwittingly, all you have done is clearly shown that the WTC was NOTHING like a controlled demolition.

PS. Why would the dust blow out more than one window? Wouldn't the air just go out the path of least resistence?
 
Stop poking the guys people!

I must be really terrible to be one of the few left outside the conspiracy...
 
geggy said:
Hurtman...
That makes no sense....if what you've claimed was true, then the puff o' dust would have blasted out of more than just one window.
Click to expand...

Not automatically. And given that you are seeing one side, you cannot be certina.

[qimg]http://www.explosive911analysis.com/B24.jpg[/qimg]

Either it was a very successful terrorist attack or it was a sloppy one..
Click to expand...

What does this prove? You are seeing 'squibs' of explsive charges. The building has yet to start falling. The alleged 'squibs' you point out tkae plcae after the building has started falling.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
They moved the thread into the "lounge" area, out of the 9/11 discussion area.

;)

Really, other kooks do a better job of making the Loosers look ridiculous than we do. They put real effort into making equally spurious graphics and arguments. There's no better illustration of just how confused and silly the 9/11 CT community is.
Click to expand...
A response from popul vuh included the following brush-off:
I really have come to dislike people like you with your god-on high opinionated BS mouthing off at the very people who have woken up more people to this issue than anyone else out there. People make mistakes. All of us get things wrong. None of us has access to the evidence beyond what little is publicly available out there on the Internet. You match their impact and I'll do anything I can do to help YOU, but with an attitude like yours, that's not likely.
Click to expand...
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3526&view=findpost&p=4111394

I guess they don't know how to operate a phone, type an email, or write a letter. They don't know how to visit a public library or a public records office. They don't know how to conduct an interview with someone who has specialized knowledge.

They have access to Benjamin Chertoff, but none of them has ever exploited it. They have access to CDI, but none of them has ever exploited it. They have access to just about every public official in the country, but none of them has ever exploited it.

Gravy, has ANYONE from the Truth Movement taken you up on submitting corrections to your critique?

How do they think information (and misinformation) shows up on the internet in the first place? Do they think it just existed there all along?

No wonder they can't get anything right--they think information and evidence can only be found on the internet!
 
pgwenthold said:
Wow.

I'm assuming this is a picture of a controlled demolition?

If that is the case, it is really funny that you would post it, because it TOTALLY demolishes any of your claims that the falling of the WTC was a controlled demolition.

In the picture you have shown, did you happen to notice how the building is falling? The bottom is blowing out first.
Click to expand...

I don't think the building is even falling at that point in the photo. What you are seeing is the majority of charges firing off at the place where they are needed the most: the base of the building.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom