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

[Dot Matrix]

So, since the board upgrades, the YouTube coding is gone, so I'm not sure my attempts at embedding will work. In case not, here's a good video describing the incoming jet at the Pentagon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

 

EDIT: Just as I thought, embedding isn't working for me, so there's that. *sigh*

[siah1214]

4 hours ago, Dot Matrix said:

So, since the board upgrades, the YouTube coding is gone, so I'm not sure my attempts at embedding will work. In case not, here's a good video describing the incoming jet at the Pentagon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

 

EDIT: Just as I thought, embedding isn't working for me, so there's that. *sigh*

The comment section for that video gave me cancer. 

 

The 9/11 "truther" movement is probably one of the most brain dead out there.  

The only group worse than them are the Sandy Hook morons. 

[Buttus]

6 hours ago, Ian W said:

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.
 

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.

man, those videos look worse than the 'ufo' videos people post on youtube.  don't tell me that you believe in UFO's too.

 

Just after seeing the wreckage pictures and the lack of any real videos, i can't believe it was a full size passenger plane that hit the pentagon....

[adrynalyne]

1 minute ago, Buttus said:

man, those videos look worse than the 'ufo' videos people post on youtube.  don't tell me that you believe in UFO's too.

 

Just after seeing the wreckage pictures and the lack of any real videos, i can't believe it was a full size passenger plane that hit the pentagon....

Put up proof otherwise then. 

[Dot Matrix]

28 minutes ago, Buttus said:

man, those videos look worse than the 'ufo' videos people post on youtube.  don't tell me that you believe in UFO's too.

 

Just after seeing the wreckage pictures and the lack of any real videos, i can't believe it was a full size passenger plane that hit the pentagon....

I don't think you're fully realizing just what kind of building the Pentagon is. The Pentagon is a re-enforced military building. It was built to withstand this kind of stuff, with recent renovations further tightening the structure.

 

Also, this article should answer your security camera myths as well.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Dot Matrix

[ctebah]

57 minutes ago, Buttus said:

man, those videos look worse than the 'ufo' videos people post on youtube.  don't tell me that you believe in UFO's too.

 

Just after seeing the wreckage pictures and the lack of any real videos, i can't believe it was a full size passenger plane that hit the pentagon....

Compare the wreckage of that incident with other plane crashes and it should become clear to you.  You can't disprove something like that simply based on the quality of the videos.  And remember, for every 1 expert saying that it wasn't a plane, there are 100 explaining why it was.   

[Dadwen]

At that time a lot of Security Video was still VHS tape being re-record over and over and most of it's going to look like crap.

[trag3dy]

In some ways the US government is responsible for 9/11 but it's not in the ways you might think.

 

 

They let this guy pretty much do as he pleased in and out of the US for two decades and he played key roles in planning the 9/11 attacks.

 

I'd be very surprised if most people don't know this story or even who he is.

[siah1214]

2 hours ago, Buttus said:

man, those videos look worse than the 'ufo' videos people post on youtube.  don't tell me that you believe in UFO's too.

 

Just after seeing the wreckage pictures and the lack of any real videos, i can't believe it was a full size passenger plane that hit the pentagon....

Alright then, what was it?  And what actually happened to flight 77? 

[monkeylove]

Weaken steel across the whole structure, including the floors above?

 

And two buildings?

 

Plus a third that was not hit?

 

[Emn1ty]

3 minutes ago, siah1214 said:

Alright then, what was it?  And what actually happened to flight 77? 

Apparently some people think it was a missile.

[siah1214]

Just now, Emn1ty said:

Apparently some people think it was a missile.

And now, the ultimate question

 

Where is the evidence

[Nerd Rage]

3 hours ago, adrynalyne said:

Put up proof otherwise then. 

This is like the bible argument.....you can't prove it wrong, you can't prove it right......  

[Emn1ty]

22 minutes ago, siah1214 said:

And now, the ultimate question

 

Where is the evidence

I dunno, just mentioning what some people think it is 

[Michael Scrip]

26 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

Weaken steel across the whole structure, including the floors above?

 

And two buildings?

 

Plus a third that was not hit?

 

I don't know what happened to the third.... but I saw a plane punch a hole in one side of a building and create another hole on the other side.  Twice.

 

Surely there was some structural damage just from the impact.  You've got a building that was created with a certain amount of beams and supports inside it... and then later some of those beams and supports aren't there anymore.

 

Then you've got heat weakening the rest of the steel.  And guess what?  The top 1/3 of a skyscraper is HEAVY.  

 

Weak steel... and missing  steel... and immense weight... I'm not surprised the Twin Towers collapsed.  

 

But I'm still looking for the ghost who knocked down WTC7

[adrynalyne]

29 minutes ago, Nerd Rage said:

This is like the bible argument.....you can't prove it wrong, you can't prove it right......  

Plenty of one sided evidence, actually. 

[Ian W]

5 hours ago, Buttus said:

man, those videos look worse than the 'ufo' videos people post on youtube.  don't tell me that you believe in UFO's too.

 

Just after seeing the wreckage pictures and the lack of any real videos, i can't believe it was a full size passenger plane that hit the pentagon....

No, I do not believe in UFOs.

The videos that are available support the official explanation. There are no videos available that would suggest an alternate version of events. Even if there were videos that showed the entire plane, I am certain that they would not be sufficient to change the minds of doubters such as yourself—one could easily object that such videos were edited for or by the U.S. government to support the official narrative.

[Dot Matrix]

A cruise missile isn't going to knock down light poles on it's way in, toss a portable generator to the side like a toy, or feature American Airlines livery. Worse, as I said above numerous witnesses on the freeways saw a plane. That whole conspiracy theory is bunk, and everyone knows it. 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

8 hours ago, Michael Scrip said:

But I'm still looking for the ghost who knocked down WTC7

Not looking hard enough.  There are plenty of valid explanations on how/why WTC7 collapsed (i.e. damage from WTC1 collapse + uncontrolled fires weakening the structure led to a total progressive collapse). 

[monkeylove]

On 12/26/2015 at 0:26 PM, Michael Scrip said:

I don't know what happened to the third.... but I saw a plane punch a hole in one side of a building and create another hole on the other side.  Twice.

 

Surely there was some structural damage just from the impact.  You've got a building that was created with a certain amount of beams and supports inside it... and then later some of those beams and supports aren't there anymore.

 

Then you've got heat weakening the rest of the steel.  And guess what?  The top 1/3 of a skyscraper is HEAVY.  

 

Weak steel... and missing  steel... and immense weight... I'm not surprised the Twin Towers collapsed.  

 

But I'm still looking for the ghost who knocked down WTC7

The problem is the manner by which they collapsed: on their footprints with hardly any resistance from beams in lower floors. It's as if all three towers were hit by multiple planes from all sides. And one was likely not hit at all by anything from the planes.

 

Of course, these issues can be resolved by examining the steel debris. Except that most of it was sold as scrap!

 

 

 

[Dot Matrix]

3 hours ago, monkeylove said:

The problem is the manner by which they collapsed: on their footprints with hardly any resistance from beams in lower floors. It's as if all three towers were hit by multiple planes from all sides. And one was likely not hit at all by anything from the planes.

 

Of course, these issues can be resolved by examining the steel debris. Except that most of it was sold as scrap!

 

 

 

For the love of.... We just explained this in the posts above! Do you not read!? The towers collapsed due to "Pancaking". And no, the debris was not sold as scrap.

[monkeylove]

On 12/27/2015 at 10:32 PM, Dot Matrix said:

For the love of.... We just explained this in the posts above! Do you not read!? The towers collapsed due to "Pancaking". And no, the debris was not sold as scrap.

The only way to prove that is to examine the steel debris. Unfortunately, only a fraction of it was kept for documentation, and most was sold as scrap:

 

http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-6875/403_apd.pdf

 

 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

This is still a thing?

[mudslag]

11 hours ago, monkeylove said:

The only way to prove that is to examine the steel debris. Unfortunately, only a fraction of it was kept for documentation, and most was sold as scrap:

 

http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-6875/403_apd.pdf

 

 

 

 

You sure that's the only way? Cause there is clear video evidence that you can examine now as well as seen live during that day that would count as evidence to the idea of the pancaking effect. You also don't need to examine ever scrap of steel beam to see the evidence of weakness that end up resulting in pancaking. So clearly there are multiple ways of showing it. Failed thread has failed.

 

[monkeylove]

20 hours ago, mudslag said:

 

 

You sure that's the only way? Cause there is clear video evidence that you can examine now as well as seen live during that day that would count as evidence to the idea of the pancaking effect. You also don't need to examine ever scrap of steel beam to see the evidence of weakness that end up resulting in pancaking. So clearly there are multiple ways of showing it. Failed thread has failed.

 

Video evidence is not enough. In this case, there was a lot of physical evidence that could have been gathered and analyzed carefully. But because much of the evidence was sent to salvage yards, then there was no choice but to refer to videos.

 

It's not a matter of examining each scrap but gathering as much as possible and examining as many as possible. The evidence can even be kept in storage for years, allowing for more time for the investigation. In this case, only a few weeks were spent examining the physical evidence. Out of 350,000 metric tons of steel debris, only around 150 pieces were selected and kept. You will see more details in the report linked earlier.

 

Given that, what failed was a proper investigation.