9/11 - what happened?

[shel90]

Well good luck in your research because all we can do is speculate. By speculating--nothing is going to come out of it. Also in your 4th sentence--you're talking about two planes? Now are we talking about the attack at the WTC or have the Pentagon?

Let's stick to the Pentagon since it was brought up.

As shel90 has pointed out--there were numerous witnesses including some of her friends that witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. Also I think he husband works at the Pentagon, correct me if I am wrong Shel90.

Secondly it will be classified information due to national security.

Third--why are we bringing this up again after 8 years? Just because we have a change in the new administration doesn't necessairly mean that everything will be revealed. There are going to be things that we would know about and other things that would remain locked under lock-n-key.

Yes, he works at the Pentagon but not at that time. He started working there in 2002.

 

[naisho]

• So if we consider how much fuel was lost in that explosion, we then have to consider that jet fuel at peak conditions can only reach about 1500ºF. This patent states that about 75% of a Boeing 757 is made of (nanocrystalline) aluminum.
• So the melting point of aluminum is around 1220ºF.

I don't have much to contribute in the conspiracy per se, but as another scientist, the melting point could possibly not be the same as the generally accepted consensus on the periodic chart.. The structure of the AL should be changed and not the same..

Not disagreeing with the theory, but I am just saying that the melting point of nanocrystalline aluminum cannot possibly be the same, because these materials are ultrafine and made for the purpose of withstanding more than their original elements.

I can't get technical in-depth into the specifics of nanocrystalline aluminum because I haven't gone to that point of knowledge yet, but I do understand the basic teachings enough to distinguish that the properties of the crystalline compound are not the same as the pure element.

Did some quick searching around, and found a statement that backs this up --

"Other properties of nanocrystalline metals, apart from increased strength and hardness, include higher electrical resistance, increased specific heat capacity, improved thermal expansion properties, lower thermal conductivity and improved magnetic properties."

To give an idea of the changes that can be achieved in metals, Rensellaer Polytechnic researchers measured the strength of nanocrystalline copper and found it to be 5 times harder than conventional copper. In fact today's strongest steels have about 10% of the theoretically possible maximum strength.

Loss of ductility in nanocrystalline metals can actually be avoided. This can be achieved by creating a mixture of nanoscale and microscale grain structures. Late in 2002, reseachers at John Hopkins University managed to create copper that was 75% nanocrystalline with 25% of microcrystalline grains dispersed into the material. It proved to be 5-6 times the strength of normal copper but without any loss in ductility. A ceramic structure with microscale grains embedded in a predominantly nanocrystalline matrix has also been found, by the US's Office of Naval research, to produce the best properties for their aluminum and titanium oxide ceramic coatings.

Científica is the world's largest nanotechnology information company. With a global network of partners, the company organizes both scientific and business conferences and provides information and research to thousands of clients worldwide. Cientifica is the publisher of the Nanotechnology Opportunity Report and TNT Weekly.

http://cientifica.eu/files/Whitepapers/nanocrystalline_materials_WP.pdf
(PDF File)

I have worked a short time for a private aerospace engineering company that created these rotors of 747s and so on jets, McDonnell and Boeing being our customers after the finished product was OK'ed.

Although my previous department did not revolve about the chemical creation process, and those of the forge.. We were more concerned whether if there were flaws in the product. Apart of what I did was the micrograin sample scaling and ultrasonar testing of these said aluminum forged rotor discs. I was never that deep into the chemical properties of our metals back then, but now as I am learning, I am beginning to understand more of it than I used to.

 

[lsfoster]

Also in your 4th sentence--you're talking about two planes? Now are we talking about the attack at the WTC or at the Pentagon?

Let's stick to the Pentagon since it was brought up.

As shel90 has pointed out--there were numerous witnesses including some of her friends that witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. Also I think he husband works at the Pentagon, correct me if I am wrong Shel90.

Secondly it will be classified information due to national security.

Third--why are we bringing this up again after 8 years? Just because we have a change in the new administration doesn't necessairly mean that everything will be revealed. There are going to be things that we would know about and other things that would remain locked under lock-n-key.

By the two planes, I meant the one that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon, and the one that crashed into the mountain that you had mentioned would not have the same explosion.

I would recommend reading about the accuracy of eyewitness testimonies, especially in a situation like this, where the events themselves would have been highly unusual and unexpected and then massively reported on.

I'm bringing it up after 8 years because there was another thread about a site on censorship, and one of the topics was about 9-11. Jiro and I had been mentioning some things, but since that wasn't the real topic of that thread, this one was linked.

I don't have much to contribute in the conspiracy per se, but as another scientist, the melting point could possibly not be the same as the generally accepted consensus on the periodic chart.. The structure of the AL should be changed and not the same..

Not disagreeing with the theory, but I am just saying that the melting point of nanocrystalline aluminum cannot possibly be the same, because these materials are ultrafine and made for the purpose of withstanding more than their original elements.

I can't get technical in-depth into the specifics of nanocrystalline aluminum because I haven't gone to that point of knowledge yet, but I do understand the basic teachings enough to distinguish that the properties of the crystalline compound are not the same as the pure element.

I know that the properties are not the same, and although I would assume that nanocrystals would be harder and have even higher melting and boiling temperatures, I was choosing to err on the more conservative side, and just go with plain aluminum. I don't want to use higher values for the nanocrystals without being sure that they were used at the time, and then have people say that my numbers were higher than they should have been. In general, I would say that whatever alloys or forms they use in the planes would be "sturdier" than plain aluminum, but the fact that the numbers still don't make sense with the lowest values was more what I was getting at.

 

[lsfoster]

There's no end to this because there is no end to websites that one can post, pro and con.

The Frustrating Fraud: March 2007

Personally, Reba, the only thing I saw on that site about the Pentagon was one man's take. He starts out from the beginning saying that he is in no way an expert, nor does he know anything about structural engineering. Then he presents some pictures, which to me don't match up with his "analysis" at all. "Broken and oddly tilted support beams" wouldn't result from having a jet engine slam into a building at high speed. Now, I'm just as much of an expert as the guy who wrote that, and personally, I don't see how something slamming "into" support beams, could push them "outwards". I would imagine that it would not only take them out in general, but if it didn't, push them in the direction it was traveling, not perpendicular to that direction.

Then there's a graphic with "mysteriously" unharmed locations that he doesn't seem to mention at all.

But even if you don't want to consider the evidence from any other similar event, just look at that one day. There's enough footage of the planes flying into the WTC buildings. Nobody seems surprised that those planes completely took out huge areas around them, and yet we're supposed to accept that the same thing happened at the Pentagon, and because maybe the bottom floor looks like it's a bit more damaged, that fits the scenario of both wings of the plane slamming into that building?

I don't see how it's possible for the whole lawn to be untouched (meaning that the plane didn't hit the ground at all, so it had to be in the air) and yet there is basically no damage from the wings, engines, or tail of the plane.

 

[Reba]

Personally, Reba, the only thing I saw on that site about the Pentagon was one man's take. He starts out from the beginning saying that he is in no way an expert, nor does he know anything about structural engineering. Then he presents some pictures, which to me don't match up with his "analysis" at all. "Broken and oddly tilted support beams" wouldn't result from having a jet engine slam into a building at high speed. Now, I'm just as much of an expert as the guy who wrote that, and personally, I don't see how something slamming "into" support beams, could push them "outwards". I would imagine that it would not only take them out in general, but if it didn't, push them in the direction it was traveling, not perpendicular to that direction.

Then there's a graphic with "mysteriously" unharmed locations that he doesn't seem to mention at all.

But even if you don't want to consider the evidence from any other similar event, just look at that one day. There's enough footage of the planes flying into the WTC buildings. Nobody seems surprised that those planes completely took out huge areas around them, and yet we're supposed to accept that the same thing happened at the Pentagon, and because maybe the bottom floor looks like it's a bit more damaged, that fits the scenario of both wings of the plane slamming into that building?

I don't see how it's possible for the whole lawn to be untouched (meaning that the plane didn't hit the ground at all, so it had to be in the air) and yet there is basically no damage from the wings, engines, or tail of the plane.

I previously posted countless times in this thread, so I don't want to start all over again. I only used that one link to show that for every link that uses the picture you posted to "prove" that it wasn't the 757 that hit the Pentagon, there's another link using the same picture to support the opposite point of view.

The reason I posted the link to this thread was because the 9/11 discussion was getting the other thread off track. It also shows that any and all civil discussions about 9/11 have been allowed here without censorship.

Cloggy and I (and others) pretty much hashed this out before. Now the new generation of ADers can take a whack at it.

 

[lsfoster]

I previously posted countless times in this thread, so I don't want to start all over again. I only used that one link to show that for every link that uses the picture you posted to "prove" that it wasn't the 757 that hit the Pentagon, there's another link using the same picture to support the opposite point of view.

The reason I posted the link to this thread was because the 9/11 discussion was getting the other thread off track. It also shows that any and all civil discussions about 9/11 have been allowed here without censorship.

Cloggy and I (and others) pretty much hashed this out before. Now the new generation of ADers can take a whack at it.

Right, but that's kind of the point. Obviously we're going to use the same pictures, they're all of the same thing. But if the pictures, and experts cancel each other out, then we're just left with the actual evidence left over. Personally, going based on what I know scientifically I think that the explanations trying to show that it was a 757 match the evidence worse, and sound more forced. I also find it strange that if it was a plane, the government would still refuse, 8 years later, to release one single picture or still shot that actually showed a plane. The only footage they did release, to me seems like it makes it even harder to believe that it was a plane. It shouldn't be too much to ask for one conclusive picture of a plane, and yet it is. That makes me curious.

 

[Jiro]

don't you love it when all pix/video of suspicious stuff are always grainy?

 

[lsfoster]

don't you love it when all pix/video of suspicious stuff are always grainy?

I think we just need to live in the CSI universe, where no matter how crappy the video camera was, you can always improve the resolution and get a clear picture of someone's face.

But I swear, Jiro, I saw this picture taken on 9/11 and I think that actually Big Foot was responsible for the whole thing.

 

[Jiro]

I think we just need to live in the CSI universe, where no matter how crappy the video camera was, you can always improve the resolution and get a clear picture of someone's face.

But I swear, Jiro, I saw this picture taken on 9/11 and I think that actually Big Foot was responsible for the whole thing.

noooo YOU DON'T SAY! :-o

 

[Smithtr]

my opinion

I think so not sure I am vote on important to help you vote. I think so stronger vote. I dont' know what is happened. Iam not sure well i don't know how can explain to understand. I think so police witness to 9/11 think so possible I am not sure It is complex very hard to understand what is happened It is prevent to crime or bad things. I don't know not aware not enought to time.

 

[lsfoster]

I'm not sure if Byrdie or Reba are still reading this, but I had a few other thoughts. First of all, here is a picture of the recent plane crash in Buffalo. Since I figure most people have heard about it in the news, you'll know that it basically fell at a dead drop (since the last time they heard from the pilot was around 2,300 ft that would mean the plane could easily have reached terminal velocity while falling), and was carrying around 5,000 lbs of fuel when it crashed. So in a scenario with basically the hardest crash imaginable (terminal velocity into the ground) and carrying tons of fuel, this was the result.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00486/US_plane_crash_11_486475a.jpg

Now that plane is about 22-25 m long, and you can tell that it must have still crumpled some on impact, since the plane is clearly visible, and the back end is far less damaged. To assume that a Boeing 757, which is about 47 m long, and wouldn't have been traveling as fast and would have had less resistance from a building than solid earth would inexplicably vaporize instead of behaving the same way just seems ridiculous to me.

Again, though, I welcome any attempts to explain that theory. (Since nobody has provided an explanation themselves yet).

 

[lsfoster]

Nobody?

Buehler?

It's starting to look like I'm going to have to go with my "Big Foot did it" explanation of things. Sad.

 

[Jiro]

Nobody?

Buehler?

It's starting to look like I'm going to have to go with my "Big Foot did it" explanation of things. Sad.

lol. sorry. it's just that we all have moved on and it's in past.

 

[Beowulf]

Nobody?

Buehler?

It's starting to look like I'm going to have to go with my "Big Foot did it" explanation of things. Sad.

Don't be discouraged, Isfoster. A lot of us are still at odds with the official version and still discuss 9-11 at meetings. It is also sad that a lot of 9-11 sites are disappearing, as well as forums. I was a member of Libertyforum but it has disappeared. Sad. I can only hope that the truth will win at the end and that the consequences are not too severe.

 

[lsfoster]

Don't be discouraged, Isfoster. A lot of us are still at odds with the official version and still discuss 9-11 at meetings. It is also sad that a lot of 9-11 sites are disappearing, as well as forums. I was a member of Libertyforum but it has disappeared. Sad. I can only hope that the truth will win at the end and that the consequences are not too severe.

Kind of hard not to be discouraged. It just bothers me that people are so unwilling to question this. They'll come in and offer ridiculous, generally impossible explanations for things, and act like somehow we're crazy conspiracy nuts, but when you ask a simple question, and just present the facts that they're giving you back to them, they run away and hide behind crap excuses and questions. I'm really just tired of it.

I'm not attacking anyone, I'm not accusing anyone, I'm not saying I have any idea what happened. I'm just saying that nobody who's defending the "official" story can actually back up their statements or give a rational explanation to any of the points I brought up. You can't just throw out an idea and then run away. What happened to the plane? If you think it's the jet fuel, then fine, how did it burn over three times hotter than is physically possible? If you can give any explanation, then fine. Even if you can, why has it never happened before or since? And if it did, how did they identify a single person involved in that crash?

I'm not being unreasonable, they're pretty simple questions. If you present an explanation that makes no sense and is scientifically impossible, I'd like to know how you rationalize it to yourself. And if you can't, then please stop acting like somehow I'm being unreasonable by wanting answers to these questions.

 

[Jiro]

Kind of hard not to be discouraged. It just bothers me that people are so unwilling to question this.

oh no no - we DO question it but how can we investigate it? what resource and manpower do we have? what info can we get? it's futile..... FOR NOW.... just sit tight. it's just matter of time till truth will come out

 

[lsfoster]

oh no no - we DO question it but how can we investigate it? what resource and manpower do we have? what info can we get? it's futile..... FOR NOW.... just sit tight. it's just matter of time till truth will come out

You might, Jiro, but look at some of the responses in this thread. Some people clearly don't. And not only do they not question it, but they so fiercely and adamantly believe whatever story they've been shovel-fed that it kind of scares me. I'm sure that some day the truth will come out. (Possibly helped by Obama's willingness to disclose way more information than Bush ever was ) I just don't think that means that it should just be filed away in some "to do later" box. Something happened, and it was hugely important and almost definitely changed the course of history for our country. To me, that warrants continued questioning and making sure that it doesn't get swept aside or forgotten.

 

[Jiro]

You might, Jiro, but look at some of the responses in this thread. Some people clearly don't. And not only do they not question it, but they so fiercely and adamantly believe whatever story they've been shovel-fed that it kind of scares me. I'm sure that some day the truth will come out. (Possibly helped by Obama's willingness to disclose way more information than Bush ever was ) I just don't think that means that it should just be filed away in some "to do later" box. Something happened, and it was hugely important and almost definitely changed the course of history for our country. To me, that warrants continued questioning and making sure that it doesn't get swept aside or forgotten.

the best I can say is - look at JFK Assassination. at that time - they really thought he was assassinated by a Domestic Dissent. and now.... 46 years later... it's a common (unproven) knowledge that CIA/rogue government/etc. did it.

 

[Reba]

the best I can say is - look at JFK Assassination. at that time - they really thought he was assassinated by a Domestic Dissent. and now.... 46 years later... it's a common (unproven) knowledge that CIA/rogue government/etc. did it.

That is NOT common knowledge or accepted in the real non-blog, older American world.

 

[Jiro]

That is NOT common knowledge or accepted in the real non-blog, older American world.

I'm talking about now... in blog & younger American world. that's why i said "46 years later......"