The Dummies Guide to "No-Planer" theory

Not to mention a fighter jet compared to a 767...

Originally posted by PepeLapew
That's a great point you are making here. Too bad we can't have a look at the concrete block after the impact to see what it looks like

That block was a specially designed reinforced wall to protect nuke plants.

But 1 point is raised here. If an old fighter like an F-4 that was made mostly of steel could not penatrate a reinforced wall, how could a plane mostly made of aluminum penatrate a reinforced concrete wall, collums and interior walls and punch through the outter wall of the Pentagon ?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
how could a plane mostly made of aluminum penatrate a reinforced concrete wall, collums and interior walls and punch through the outter wall of the Pentagon ?

It could be that they knew the planes would disintigrate on impact with the WTC or would only have marginally penetrated the the building but cause somewhat of an explosion (but nothing would be left in either case) and planted some explosives where the plane hit. How they could have gotten to match the explosives with were the plane would hit, I dont know.

But for the pentagon which was designed to withstand attacks to semi demolished because of the plane(as ULTIMA1 said), is just not coming together in my mind.

Their must have been extra explosives involved in both cases.

But I do believe their were planes that did hit, but with regards to if they caused that much damage, I am pretty damn sure it would be impossible

The F-4 was actually made mostly of titanium.

Comparing what a little F-4 does to the 10 foot steel reinforced concrete armor with the impact of a 767 against the side of a skyscraper is silly.

Originally posted by mattifikation
The F-4 was actually made mostly of titanium.

No you are wrong. The Titanium parts are mostly in the tail section. I know i was a Crew Chief on the RF-4.

I was comparing the F-4 impact with the impact of the Pentagon, not the towers.

Originally posted by Zwieger
the plane just atomised on impact

Just a thought here after so much mention of thermite:

What are the ingredients of thermite?
A primary ingredient is powdered aluminium and there's a reasonable chance there could be a significant number of tons of it after the impact. Now I know from experience that this material is a hazardous substance with pyrophoric tendencies even under stable cool ambient conditions (even getting it wet can set it off). It burns white hot too (remember the old flash powder used for photography a century ago?)

Mix it with some powdered iron oxide (rust) and you have thermite and the reaction can be initiated as simply as sticking a lit sparkler into it.

Not trying to derail things here though
I have zero doubt that planes impacted the towers and I agree that
the fall of WTC7 is highly suspicious

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Not trying to derail things here though
I have zero doubt that planes impacted the towers and I agree that
the fall of WTC7 is highly suspicious

Well there are some theories that their may have been thermite reactions created by the planes thmselves. Since you had all the aluminum of the planes and the planes carry some haz mat.

[edit on 8-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well there are some theories that their may have been thermite reactions created by the planes thmselves. Since you had all the aluminum of the planes and the planes carry some haz mat.

The addition of tons of finely divided aluminium dust to the mix of exploding jet fuel and the heat generated by the kinetic energy of the plane's mass would certainly be capable of producing the temperatures necessary to detemper and buckle the structural steel of the towers. Localisised thermite reactions would be capable of actually melting the steel.

Looking at overhead pics of the collapse of WTC1, the side of WTC7 facing the tower must have taken a horrendous amount of damage. Considering the shape of orientation of WTC7 almost 50% of its surface was exposed to the full force of the massive material being ejected so it's not impossible for that building to have been fatally damaged even though it remained standing (maybe only just standing). It wouldn't have taken much to finally break its back and bring it down in an orderly fashion rather than risk having it fall sideways.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The addition of tons of finely divided aluminium dust to the mix of exploding jet fuel and the heat generated by the kinetic energy of the plane's mass would certainly be capable of producing the temperatures necessary to detemper and buckle the structural steel of the towers. Localisised thermite reactions would be capable of actually melting the steel.

Here is a video of what looks like a thermite reaction and molten metals comming from the corner of the South tower.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The addition of tons of finely divided aluminium dust to the mix of exploding jet fuel and the heat generated by the kinetic energy of the plane's mass would certainly be capable of producing the temperatures necessary to detemper and buckle the structural steel of the towers. Localisised thermite reactions would be capable of actually melting the steel.

In order to create a thermite reaction you have to finely mix precise amounts of fine rust dust and fine aluminum dust. Neither aluminum nor steel would turn to dust on impact, no matter how hard the impact. That's simply ridiculous. Image a car accident if you will - the glass and plastic shatters into little pieces but neither the steel nor the aluminum parts turn to dust. The metal components get mangled up, they shred, but they do not turn to powder, ever.

But at least you are willing to observe that there were molten steel in the buildings and in the basements. The NIST, FEMA and 9/11 commission all are trying to pretend like there were no such molten steel ........ why do you think that is?

But let's say for a moment that you are correct, let's say that the aluminum of the airplanes turned to fine dust on impact and the rust from the steel structure also turned to dust. Then they mixed in with each other to form a thermite reaction. Still this does not explain why molten steel was found in the basement of WTC-7 which was not hit by any airplanes. The only way for thermite reactions to exist in the WTC-7 is for thermites having been placed there before the impact.

Looking at overhead pics of the collapse of WTC1, the side of WTC7 facing the tower must have taken a horrendous amount of damage. Considering the shape of orientation of WTC7 almost 50% of its surface was exposed to the full force of the massive material being ejected so it's not impossible for that building to have been fatally damaged even though it remained standing (maybe only just standing). It wouldn't have taken much to finally break its back and bring it down in an orderly fashion rather than risk having it fall sideways.

So you are basically saying that WTC-7 was severely damaged on the side facing the WTC-1 tower .... correct?
Are you also saying that they deliberately demolished WTC-7 after the two towers feel on that very same day?

There are only a handful of crews around the world qualified to perform controlled demolition jobs. I don't believe that any of them would be willing to walk into a BURNING building with explosives in hand and setting charges here and there. Furthermore, go to your local firefighter house and ask them if they use any explosives to take down building while those buildings are burning. Firefighters are not qualified or equipped to do demolition jobs.

But never mind all this. You and I both agree that molten steel was found in the debris of all three buildings. But why do you think that those who were tasked to investigate the collapse went out of their way to pretend that there were no molten steel anywhere in the area?
See here for more details of how they claim no molten steel was found:

NIST engineer denies molten steel at Ground Zero
www.youtube.com...

Why are they trying to tell us that no molten steel was found?
Neither the NIST report nor the 9/11 omission report mentioned any molten steel and those who report molten steel were not asked to testify about what they have seen .... why is that?

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

Originally posted by PepeLapew
But at least you are willing to observe that there were molten steel in the buildings and in the basements. The NIST, FEMA and 9/11 commission all are trying to pretend like there were no such molten steel ........ why do you think that is?

But let's say for a moment that you are correct, let's say that the aluminum of the airplanes turned to fine dust on impact and the rust from the steel structure also turned to dust.

Well their had to be some type of thermite reactios to creat all the molten steel.

But just think about this. You have molten aluminum from the plane. It comes into contact with 1 or more of the following.

Jet Fuel
Titanium
Magnesium
Oxygen Tanks
Tungsten

What kind of reaction do you think you would get?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well their had to be some type of thermite reactios to creat all the molten steel.

But just think about this. You have molten aluminum from the plane. It comes into contact with 1 or more of the following.

Jet Fuel
Titanium
Magnesium
Oxygen Tanks
Tungsten

What kind of reaction do you think you would get?

Try it yourself - grab a piece of aluminum and rub it against a piece of steel or a piece of titanium or anything else you wish and see if you can create a thermite reaction out of the blue. Thermites don't happen by accident. A finely grinned amount of aluminum is mixed in precisely with a finely grinned amount of steel rust. That can't happen by merely colliding the two components together. And even if it COULD happen with a plane crashing into one of the towers, it still doesn't explain how molten steel was found in the basement of WTC-7 as well ..... remember that WTC-7 didn't get hit by an aircraft.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu

Originally posted by PepeLapew
Try it yourself - grab a piece of aluminum and rub it against a piece of steel or a piece of titanium or anything else you wish and see if you can create a thermite reaction out of the blue.

But your not thinking about molten aluminum. There is a big difference.

www.firehouse.com...

Molten aluminum has a 4-digit UN identification number of 9260. When referenced in the ERG it refers to guide 77 for hazards of the material. Guide 77 was an addition to the 1993 version of the ERG. Molten aluminum is the only material that refers to this guide. The guide indicates that the material is above 1300� F, and will react violently with water, which may cause an explosion, and release a flammable gas. The molten material in contact with combustible materials may cause ignition, if the molten material is above the ignition temperature of the combustible material. For example, gasoline has an average ignition temperature of around 800� F. Diesel fuel has an average ignition temperature of around 400� F, depending on the blend, and additives. In an accident gasoline or diesel fuel could be spilled. The molten material could be an ignition source for the gasoline or diesel fuel if it came in contact. When contacting concrete on a roadway, or at a fixed facility, molten materials could cause spalling and small pops. This could cause pieces of concrete to become projectiles. Contact with the skin would cause severe thermal burns. There is no personnel protective clothing that would adequately protect responders from contact with molten materials.

I am not stating that the reactions from the aircraft hazmats were the main or only reactions, just added to the reactions. I believe there were thermite reactions going on.

Aluminium is a more active metal than magnesium, so active that it oxidises immediately on contact with air at room temperature. It's the thin layer of aluminium oxide that makes it stable enough for safe everyday use.

We can only guess at the physics of 911 as there's no precedent which would allow a reasonable prediction of what reactions could/should take place.

WTC7 failed in reverse compared to WTC1&2 IE the core structure appeared to fail near ground level.
Does that mean it was 'assisted' to avert a bigger catastrophe?
I don't know

Originally posted by Pilgrum
WTC7 failed in reverse compared to WTC1&2 IE the core structure appeared to fail near ground level.
Does that mean it was 'assisted' to avert a bigger catastrophe?
I don't know

Well we have the statement from Chief Nigro that contridicts Silverstien that PULL IT meant the firemen.

We also have the statement from Chief hayden that they were worried about fire jumping the street from building 7.



[edit on 13-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


The F-4 was made of mostly steel?.....www.vectorsite.net...* The Phantom was made mostly of aviation aluminum alloys, but about 10% of the aircraft was built of titanium, a new metals technology at the time. There were seven major aircraft subassemblies, including forward, center, and aft fuselage assemblies; a wing center section; wing outer panels; and the tail assembly. There were initially six fuel cells in the aircraft, four in the fuselage and one in each wing. Flight controls were operated by a triple-redundant hydraulic system.

reply to post by PepeLapew



1- I totally agree that thermite can produce molten steel, but what would keep it molten for 6-8 weeks?........ 2- There are random explosions on 9/11, but I have been unable to find a video, with audio of course, of the pop pop pop pop pop pop pop pop that one finds with a regular controlled demolition. Do you have something like that?

Originally posted by Haroki
The F-4 was made of mostly steel?.....www.vectorsite.net...* The Phantom was made mostly of aviation aluminum alloys, but about 10% of the aircraft was built of titanium, a new metals technology at the time.

Have you worked on an F-4? I have, i was a crew chief on the RF-4C.

And i can tell you that a lot of the plane was steel. Only the wing had some aluminum castings.

Most of the titanium was inthe tail section.

Man that's insane !! What would inspire McDonnell to build a plane out of steel? It's not like they had problems with aluminum alloys like the sovs did when they built the MIG-25. Any clue how that came about? Why would that link be wrong, how could they F that up so bad?

Originally posted by Haroki
Why would that link be wrong, how could they F that up so bad?

The link is not really wrong, its just not completly correct. Remember the F-4 was built in the 60's they did not use the composites like they do now.

Lets look at the size of the F-4 and then look at the empty weight. Still think there was no steel used?

en.wikipedia.org...

Length: 63 ft 0 in
Height: 16 ft 6 in
Empty weight: 30,328 lb