Jet fuel can't melt steel. (But it sure can weaken it)

[winrez]

[Buttus]

3 hours ago, siah1214 said:

Top result on Bing videos for "Plane hits pentagon"

 

Try again

no, sorry, that's not a plane hitting a building.  that's some BS video that someone randomly posted saying that it's the plane.  

 

like i said, there's LOTS of video cameras pointed where the plane hit, all of the videos were confiscated and none released.

[FloatingFatMan]

6 minutes ago, Buttus said:

no, sorry, that's not a plane hitting a building.  that's some BS video that someone randomly posted saying that it's the plane.  

 

like i said, there's LOTS of video cameras pointed where the plane hit, all of the videos were confiscated and none released.

And your evidence for that is...?

[Jim K Global Moderator]

5 minutes ago, Buttus said:

no, sorry, that's not a plane hitting a building.  that's some BS video that someone randomly posted saying that it's the plane.  

 

like i said, there's LOTS of video cameras pointed where the plane hit, all of the videos were confiscated and none released.

Bring forth irrefutable evidence ... not some "that's not a plane".  

[Solid Knight]

Why does anyone care whether or not open air burning jet fuel can melt steel when the fire wasn't burning in open air?

 

It's up in an enclosed space with a hole on one side with air blowing into the hole. Guess what that is? It's a furnance/kiln. Guess what they use to melt steel? A furnance. How do you think metal workers could melt steel with burning wood? Further it doesn't have to melt steel all the way to get a structurally compromised building to collapse under load. On top of this, you can't have a "controlled demolition" if you ram an airplane full of jet fuel into your carefully laid out charges. On top of that, controlled demolitions implode the building, they don't blow up the top of the building.

 

 

[abecedarian paradoxious]

10 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

And your evidence for that is...?

9 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

Bring forth irrefutable evidence ... not some "that's not a plane".  

 

All conspiracy theories have to do is bring doubt. Pretty sad, really, considering by definition they don't have to prove the negative.

[Flawedspirit]

Shame that camera only records at one frame per second or something stupid. Also, why the red, white, and blue damn is a camera at the Pentagon recording at one frame per second?!

 

The plane looks like it hit between frames, which is going to be perfect fuel for the tin-foil hat crusaders. I could have sworn last time I saw that particular video that you could see the plane? Not for long though; cruising speed is Fast^TM.

[ctebah]

Pentagon is 24m tall, and the object that hits it in the frame looks a bit more than half that.  The height of the 757 at tail is about 13m, which would fit perfectly with the video.  If it were a missile, you wouldn't even see the object before impact.

[abecedarian paradoxious]

1 minute ago, Solid Knight said:

Why does anyone care whether or not open air burning jet fuel can melt steel when the fire wasn't burning in open air?

 

It's up in an enclosed space with a hole on one side with air blowing into the hole. Guess what that is? It's a furnance/kiln. Guess what they use to melt steel? A furnance. How do you think metal workers could melt steel with burning wood? Further it doesn't have to melt steel all the way to get a structurally compromised building to collapse under load. On top of this, you can't have a "controlled demolition" if you ram an airplane full of jet fuel into your carefully laid out charges. On top of that, controlled demolitions implode the building, they don't blow up the top of the building.

 

 

I mentioned that earlier, even going so far as to define the type of furnace the buildings' construction would equate to: blast furnace.

 

Some bring up thermite, but what is thermite? Most common thermite composition consists of aluminum (aluminium to some), iron and various oxides.

 

Well, what was the plane made of? What are most of the non-structural fixtures ("T-bar ceiling and such") made of? What is the primary constituent of steel... iron? <-- all components of typical thermite.

[adrynalyne]

48 minutes ago, siah1214 said:

 

 

 

Because if I was going to include anybody on my top secret plan to destroy WTC 7, it'd be a random news presenter.  You're grasping at straws. 

What is more disturbing is the member that is spreading this nonsense. 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

21 minutes ago, Flawedspirit said:

Shame that camera only records at one frame per second or something stupid. Also, why the red, white, and blue damn is a camera at the Pentagon recording at one frame per second?!

 

The plane looks like it hit between frames, which is going to be perfect fuel for the tin-foil hat crusaders. I could have sworn last time I saw that particular video that you could see the plane? Not for long though; cruising speed is Fast^TM.

Just an assumption here.  

1) '01 tech (if not older).  

2) It served the purpose for what it was intended to do (identify cars/people who entered the gate if needed)

3) It wasn't really there to capture a jet moving @ ~500 mph

[Dot Matrix]

57 minutes ago, Buttus said:

no, sorry, that's not a plane hitting a building.  that's some BS video that someone randomly posted saying that it's the plane.  

 

like i said, there's LOTS of video cameras pointed where the plane hit, all of the videos were confiscated and none released.

Yeah, you're right. The Pentagon routinely blows up and catches fire. Our mistake.

[Anibal P]

25 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

Just an assumption here.  

1) '01 tech (if not older).  

2) It served the purpose for what it was intended to do (identify cars/people who entered the gate if needed)

3) It wasn't really there to capture a jet moving @ ~500 mph

People also choose to ignore the fact that the "hundreds" of cameras at The Pentagon would rarely be point AT it but away toward where the threats would come from, but that makes too much sense 

[FloatingFatMan]

57 minutes ago, abecedarian paradoxious said:

 

All conspiracy theories have to do is bring doubt. Pretty sad, really, considering by definition they don't have to prove the negative.

If they're making positive claims of something, they absolutely DO have to be able to prove that or face ridicule, and quite rightly so.

[siah1214]

1 hour ago, Buttus said:

no, sorry, that's not a plane hitting a building.  that's some BS video that someone randomly posted saying that it's the plane.  

 

like i said, there's LOTS of video cameras pointed where the plane hit, all of the videos were confiscated and none released.

20-25 seconds, a large silver object flies in front of the camera, hits the pentagon, and explodes.  You can even see the dust the engines kicked up. 

 

Keep moving those goalposts though. 

 

Can you provide ANY evidence for your stupid claims?  Any proof that there were more cameras than this one?  If they were hiding evidence why wouldn't this camera get confiscated?  There's so many holes in your thought process a scientist mistook it for pumice.

[Dadwen]

 

Published on Sep 22, 2014

Video of aircraft debris immediately after the September 11 attack.

Truthers claim the FBI hold 85 tapes which they say must therefore be 85 angles of the same scene; AAL77 hitting the Pentagon. What they fail to realise is that when the FBI collected tapes, they collected any and all tapes from everywhere they could. So a lot of the tapes they collected didn't even have anything on them. They were blank. Most of the ones which had recordings on them were like this; showed only the aftermath or nothing of interest at all. Many were filmed minutes, hours, or even days after the attack. So the 85 tapes truthers claim show what hit the Pentagon, are actually not that at all.

______________________________

 

*****Kind of interesting during this thread learned a bit more about the Pentagon, it's a tough old building and was REALLY built to last.

*** and this little side note it had the nickname ground zero during the cold war.

 

 

Edited December 25, 2015 by Dadwen

[abecedarian paradoxious]

1 hour ago, FloatingFatMan said:

If they're making positive claims of something, they absolutely DO have to be able to prove that or face ridicule, and quite rightly so.

But their claims are phrases spoken like "pull it" suggest someone was supposed to pull some detonation sequence. However, having been in situations, often the phrase "pull it" means pull the plug on the rescue. Which is my point. All they have to do is introduce some doubt and that doubt, in and of itself, is all that's necessary to question any "official" story. And similarly, they mention "thermite", which I've already shown is constructed of similar materials the building itself were made of, yet that's enough doubt to cause people to question the official story.

 

They don't have to introduce facts in order to create doubt, and thus create a conspiracy.

 

Do note, I'm talking about the pure mechanics of the situation and not the motives nor perpetrators. Many people overlook the possibility that the circumstances leading to the introduction of such doubts may have been intentional solely to create doubt and thus obfuscate everything surrounding the actions.

[Buttus]

2 hours ago, jjkusaf said:

Bring forth irrefutable evidence ... not some "that's not a plane".  

bring forth evidence that it is a plane.  bring forth another video from one of the other cameras around the area.  not some "that's a plane".

[PGHammer]

6 hours ago, siah1214 said:

Top result on Bing videos for "Plane hits pentagon"

 

Try again

THAT video was locally shot - the source was, in fact, Gannett-owned CBS affiliate WUSA-TV; they had cameras at the Pentagon for a local-interest story completely unconnected to 9/11, but connected to the building itself.

Where the plane hit the building gave me a "there but the grace of God" moment - that particular spot is home to - among other facilities, the Navy Command Center and the office of the Secretary of the Navy. (I had interviewed for a position there eleven years previously - almost to the day; September 5th, 1990.  The position I had interviewed FOR was not filled due to budget cuts - basically I was "saved by the bean-counters".  Instead, I was working for Big Cable Company, and was on a SDO (scheduled day off) and was at home when the hijacked plane made the unscheduled landing.  The video was rebroadcast the next day (and I was back at work), and I almost lost my breakfast - two co-workers did.

[siah1214]

45 minutes ago, Buttus said:

bring forth evidence that it is a plane.  bring forth another video from one of the other cameras around the area.  not some "that's a plane".

This piece of aluminum aircraft skin only happens to be painted up like an American Airlines 757 but it actually fell off a fire truck cause they carry that stuff around with them

 

This is a blurry picture of a.....cruise missile?  ICBM?  Unicorn? that just happens to vaguely resemble a American Airlines 757

 

Meanwhile American Airlines flight 77 took off from Dulles and then flew through a black hole never to be seen again.  Same black hole that ate that Malaysian Airlines flight 370, it gets around. 

[+Raze Subscriber²]

35 minutes ago, siah1214 said:

This piece of aluminum aircraft skin only happens to be painted up like an American Airlines 757 but it actually fell off a fire truck cause they carry that stuff around with them

 

This is a blurry picture of a.....cruise missile?  ICBM?  Unicorn? that just happens to vaguely resemble a American Airlines 757

 

Meanwhile American Airlines flight 77 took off from Dulles and then flew through a black hole never to be seen again.  Same black hole that ate that Malaysian Airlines flight 370, it gets around. 

 

The infamous Black Hole of Conspiracy.   It can appear anywhere at anytime. 

 

 

 

 

[Solid Knight]

12 hours ago, siah1214 said:

Meanwhile American Airlines flight 77 took off from Dulles and then flew through a black hole never to be seen again.  Same black hole that ate that Malaysian Airlines flight 370, it gets around. 

Ever heard of the Hadron Super Collider? Countries rent it out to create mini-blackholes so they can make evidence disappear.

 

In all seriousness, if people honestly believe that their government just murdered a few thousand people, why haven't they moved?

[Gone]

On 12/24/2015 at 10:23 AM, Jason S. said:

EDIT: NONE OF THIS IS PROOF. NONE OF IT HAS BEEN SOURCED.

 

On WTC7

• Larry Silverstein, the owner of the complex, said, on camera, that they "decided to pull it" after it caught fire
• It was not hit by a plane, and the fire broke out on the exact floor where there was a hardened command center
• Video shows that it was a controlled demolition
• Fire has never brought down a steel building in the history of ever let alone a small fire in WTC7

On the Pentagon

• The "plane" hit the only portion of the building that was under renovation
• There were over 100 cameras in that general area that could have shown the plane. No footage exists.
• Witnesses and employees of businesses around the pentagon have said that their security tapes were confiscated by government officials
• The "plane" did a diving, 270 degree, spiraling turn as it then flew a few feet off the ground before hitting the building
• Many pilots have stated on record that no one could pilot that maneuver
• The only proof we have is a couple grainy film images from a security gate adjacent to the site. It doesnt show the plane at all.
• Footage after the crash shows no plane parts, no luggage, no bodies. The only public footage shows parts from a plane that does not match the one that supposedly crashed. Wheels that were too small, an engine that was too small.
• Pictures also show the inside of the crash site - again, no bodies, no luggage.
• The crash site of the building shows a hole yet no damage to the surroundings
• The official coroner said that, on record, there were no bodies delivered to his morgue.
• Despite being a crime scene, we see government officials cleaning up the site and picking up pieces of metal.

Other general facts:

• The twin towers fell at the rate of gravity
• The Towers were designed to withstand a hit from a plane larger than those which hit the tower
• The footage of the plane that crashed at Shanksville shows no plane at all. Even the official story says that the plane "vaporized" into the ground. Yeah, not physically possible and has never happened ever.
• Physicists from several universities and one from Underwriters Laboratory have publicly stated their case.
• Physicists have proven that the molten metal left boiling at the Towers' site was from thermite/thermate.
• Former officials from the FBI, CIA and British, and Israeli Intelligence have publicly state their case.
• A truth group "pilots for 9/11 truth" still hold conferences around the country
• The hijackers were Saudi Arabian yet the US Govt decides to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. But hey, what do i know?
• At least one of the supposed hijackers was interviewed after the attacks... alive and well.
• All planes in the US were grounded that morning except for the Bin Laden family who were flown out of their home in Texas.
• The Bush family has documented connections to the Bin Laden family
• The Florida teacher who trained one of the hijackers said, on record, that he could not fly even a 4-seater prop plane let alone a commercial jet.
• The hijackers used box cutters - yeah, that's scary...
• The passengers on the Shanksville plane supposedly made numerous cell phone calls even though this was not possible in 2001. This has been proven and documented.
• Despite being a crime scene, no investigation took place. Instead, the sites were cleared and the Towers' steel shipped off to china.
• Bush and Cheney were never under investigation for the attacks. Instead, they held their own "investigation" in a locked room of the White House.
• Government officials were made aware of a terrorist plot several months prior to the attacks but never acted on it. Condoleezza Rice is on record stating this.
• Employees of the Towers said that there were several explosions in the basements prior to the towers falling, one of which was injured due to the explosions
• Members of the NYC Fire Dept also stated that they heard explosions at ground level prior to the towers falling
• Supposed eye witnesses recorded on camera stating that, paraphrasing, "i looked up in the sky and saw United Flight <1234>. yep, that was it!" Huh? who is this person? how would they ever know, on that day, that it was 100% that particular plane?
• Several celebrities and politicians were warned not to fly that day
• The Patriot Act, over 1000 pages, was written and signed into law only days after the attack.

and finally, just for fun: the magic passport. This hijacker's passport went through the plane's fuselage, into the burning building and survived the towers' crashing hundreds of feet to the ground only to be found on the street afterward. wow! what convenient proof!

You are dishonoring the people killed in 9/11, you honestly have to be joking (and it's not good humor).

 

What about the hundreds or thousands of witnesses who have seen the plane hit the buildings?

Your whole "conspiracy" is debunked by actual witnesses, your theorists are nutcases who have nothing better to do than disrespect the dead and insult President Bush.

[Gone]

On 12/24/2015 at 1:41 AM, EmuZombie said:

I will let the video speak for itself.

 

 

Discuss...  (keep it civil) 

Additionally, thousands of pounds of jet fuel were aboard the aircraft, not a small amount. No ###### a small amount of jet fuel won't melt steel, it won't even light on fire with a match. A lot of it will have an effect with lots of pressure and heat (aka an aircraft slamming into a building).

[Ian W]

19 hours ago, Buttus said:

no, sorry, that's not a plane hitting a building.  that's some BS video that someone randomly posted saying that it's the plane.  

 

like i said, there's LOTS of video cameras pointed where the plane hit, all of the videos were confiscated and none released.

That is not "some BS video that someone randomly posted." It was obtained by Judicial Watch in 2006 as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request / lawsuit. The original video can be found here.

Moreover, contrary to your claim that no other videos are available, there are additional videos that show the Pentagon event based on cameras from a Citgo gas station and a Doubletree hotel.
 

16 hours ago, Buttus said:

bring forth evidence that it is a plane.  bring forth another video from one of the other cameras around the area.  not some "that's a plane".

The burden of proof remains with you. You are the who suggested—really, just shy of outright stating—that what hit the Pentagon was not a plane and you have provided no evidence for your assertion.