9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
50% aluminum
40 % steel
10% titanium.

And i stand by those numbers since they have not ben proven wrong by evidence.

So you stand by the numbers proving you were incorrect at best and lying at worst when you said the F-4 was mostly steel.

I'm glad to hear it from the horses mouth though.

KarmaIncarnate, first you type the following comments, which are personal attacks and insults:

KarmaIncarnate
I'm sure the only reason ATS bothers to keep him around is that everyone enjoys a clown.

I think I'm going to go ahead and file Ultima under "crackpot troll" and treat him accordingly, as I advise others to do the same.

Then you type the following comment, where you are annoyed at personal attacks against you:

KarmaIncarnate
Incidentally, I would encourage you to stop the personal attacks against me.

So why do you then type the following comment, where you launch another personal attack against a fellow member?

Originally posted by KarmaIncarnate
You're expecting to get anything from him other than the usual brand of crackpot antics? He's a troll, nothing more. Let's ignore him and he'll scurry back under the rock he came out from.

This thread is about evidence to show a 9/11 conspiracy. It's not a thread for you to vent against ULTIMA1.

Originally posted by _Del_
I'm glad to hear it from the horses mouth though.

And as usual i am glad to see you avoided the question abot showiong a source for the SR-71.

Just keep proving my point about the believers.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Then you type the following comment, where you are annoyed at personal attacks against you:

KarmaIncarnate
Incidentally, I would encourage you to stop the personal attacks against me.

So why do you then type the following comment, where you launch another personal attack against a fellow member?
.

You are wasting your time. What do you expect from the beleivers, its all they know how to do since they cannot deabte with facts and evidence they have to resort to insults?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Disclosed
50% aluminum
40 % steel
10% titanium.

And i stand by those numbers since they have not ben proven wrong by evidence.

Lets look at the steel in the F-4.

1. Keel and rear sections.

2. Tail section.

3. Tail hook assembly.

4. Landing gear and wheel wells.

5. Engine bays

6. Engines.

Even if those numbers are correct, 40% is NOT "mostly" steel as you claimed. You made an error and it's time to fess up to it and move on. Everyone makes mistakes but when you deny them, it hurts your credibility especially when your own post shows your previous post as incorrect.

I think you would gain some respect if you admitted to your error.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
And as usual i am glad to see you avoided the question abot showiong a source for the SR-71.

Just keep proving my point about the believers.

I'm finding it particularly difficult to believe that an NSA analyst didn't recognize satire when he saw it...
As usual, I am glad to see you avoided the subject about the content of the F-4.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
And i stand by those numbers since they have not ben proven wrong by evidence.

Evidence like this?

www.faqs.org...

* 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.

Mostly of aviation aluminum alloys, and 10% titanium.

Where are you getting your 40% steel? Also, where is 40% considered "most"?

Originally posted by Disclosed
* The Phantom was made mostly of aviation aluminum alloys, but about 10% of the aircraft was built of titanium,

Well your site is just missing the steel that other sites show, you jsut need to do better research.

STRUCTURE:

Centre-section and centre wings form one-piece structure from wing fold to wing fold. Portion that passes through fuselage comprises a torsion box between the front and main spars (at 15 per cent and 40 per cent chord) and is sealed to form two integral fuel tanks. Spars are machined from large forgings. Centre wings also have forged rear spar. Centreline rib, wing-fold ribs, two intermediate ribs forward of main spar and two aft of main spar are also made from forgings. Wing skins machined from aluminium panels 0.635 m (2[1/2] in) thick, with integral stiffening. The fuselage is an all-metal semi-monocoque structure. Forward fuselage built in port and starboard halves, so that most internal wiring and finishing can be done before assembly. Keel and rear sections make use of steel and titanium. Double-wall construction under fuel tanks and for lower section of rear fuselage, with ram-air cooling. The tail unit is a cantilever all-metal structure, with 23º of anhedral on one-piece all-moving tailplane which has slotted leading-edges. Ribs and stringers of tailplane are of steel, skin titanium and trailing-edge of steel honeycomb.

www.strategypage.com...

The J79 required alot of extra steel around the unit in order to protect the area surrounding the engine from excessive heat.

Just under 1,300 pounds of heat shielding went into the F-4 just because of the J79's heat emitting characteristics.

This site shows 7.7 to 8.5 % titanium, with enginse added puts
it up to at least 10% or higher.
www.boeing.com...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Well your site is just missing the steel that other sites show, you jsut need to do better research.

Well, your site is just missing the steel percentages that you are showing. Where is it saying 40% steel? Can you please point out that section for us, please?

You just need to do better research.

This site shows 7.7 to 8.5 % titanium, with enginse added puts
it up to at least 10% or higher.
www.boeing.com...

Wow, just like my site stated. So you agree with me on the titanium. Now all you need to do is pony up the data for your 40% steel...

The one question I have is in regards to the "all-metal semi-monocoque" portion Ultima highlighted. How does that directly show that it's steel? All it says is metal, and the last I checked, aluminum was still a metal.

All that's saying is that the fuselage was partially made out of a single metal shell. And that the shell is also a load-bearing component of the fuselage.

Personally, I'd like more specifics to definitively prove that it was all steel. That sentence isn't conclusive enough to point to all steel.

[edit on 17-5-2008 by HLR53K]

reply to post by HLR53K


Well....I know what 'monocaque' means....even if I can't spell it properly!

OK....sorry about the botched spelling, but I build model airplanes, so I understand the term....PLUS....I actually used to fly the real thing....Cessna designed the 177 to innovate just this concept, I believe...

Actually, the Cessna 177 'Cardinal' was advertised as having a 'Laminar Flow' wing.....basically, they used flush rivets throughtout....and hoped that a new airfoil section would be innovative....AND, the Cessna 177 had a full Stabilator....not a fixed Horizontal Stabilizer and Elevator, but a full 'flying' Stabilator....designed to be less drag, according to the brochures.....still, it needed to be trimmed, in flight.....

reply to post by HLR53K


HLR....if I can get the spelling correct....'monocuoqe'....(sp?) is a French term, originally...as I am sure you know....it refers to the modern design of airplanes, after we graduated from internal formers and stringers, with fabric covering (in the case of the fuselage) to using the exterior metal (aluminum) to provide rigidity.....and thus make the airframe lighter, and progress to greater heights....(no pun intended..)

reply to post by weedwhacker


Still can't spell the bloody word!! stand by.....OK! the correct spelling is 'monocoque'

Whew! Thanks, Wiki!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yes, that's exactly what it means.

In 1930, Jack Northrop introduced the use of riveted aluminum for the semi-monocoque flush-riveted aluminum fuselage and aluminum stiffened skin riveted to flanged shear web wing box structure of the Alpha aircraft. ...This type of structure was also utilized for the Northrop Delta and Gamma aircraft and employed by Douglas for the DC-1, DC-2 & DC-3, with the upper cover stiffened by riveted corrugated aluminum sheet. With the success of the DC-3 in 1936, riveted aluminum stiffened skin stringer/frame structure became entrenched as the preferred concept.

www.aiaa.org...
Click on the button labeled "See First Page"

Obviously, the progression went from fabric/wood to aluminum to the composites of modern day aircraft. However, stringers have not been completely eliminated. They still do exist in areas of higher stress to provide additional strength.

And as you have stated, it's basically a "hollow" skeleton frame that has a skin (be it fabric, aluminum, or composites) over the top for the shear loads to go into. No more trusses on the inside of the skin to take the loads.

As much as I love discussing the aerospace field, we have gone off-topic here. This is a thread about what evidence would make someone believe in a 9/11 conspiracy.

[edit on 17-5-2008 by HLR53K]

reply to post by HLR53K


Yup!!

Oh....that's a one-line-post....ummmm....yuppers!!

Humor....very hard. They say dying is easier....not dyeing....DYING....

eh, forget it! I know, from flying real airplanes, and building models, the benefits of engineering, in adding strength, and not adding unnecessary weight.

Since this thread is not about what I just wrote about, my apologies...but it has some pertinence....since 9/11 involved airplanes, and when we discuss airplanes and how they are constructed, it pertains. Sooooo.......

Who wants to decide why any of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists have any merit at all?? Anyone?? Hello.......

[edits] because I had spelling erors...er....errors....LOL!

[edit on 5/17/0808 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by HLR53K
Personally, I'd like more specifics to definitively prove that it was all steel. That sentence isn't conclusive enough to point to all steel.

Please don't misquote me, i never stated it was all steel, just mostly steel.

When you add all the components and the engines together you should see that there is a large amount of steel in the F-4.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by HLR53K
Personally, I'd like more specifics to definitively prove that it was all steel. That sentence isn't conclusive enough to point to all steel.

Please don't misquote me, i never stated it was all steel, just mostly steel.

When you add all the components and the engines together you should see that there is a large amount of steel in the F-4.

Guys, please remind me what this has to do with the 9/11 discussion? Thanks, I was just wondering if we were starting to drift off topic a bit.

Originally posted by jfj123
Guys, please remind me what this has to do with the 9/11 discussion? Thanks, I was just wondering if we were starting to drift off topic a bit.

It was because of people trying to compare the video of the F-4 hitting the steel reinforced power plant wall to the 757 hitting the wall of the Pentagon.

We know the 757 is almost all aluminum and the F-4 has a large amount of steel (including the engines) so the comparision is not a very good one.

An aluminum airframe is not going to penatrate through all the walls and collumns of the Pentagon.

[edit on 17-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Please don't misquote me, i never stated it was all steel, just mostly steel.

Mostly steel?

You yourself stated it was about 50% aluminum, 40% steel and 10% titanium.

Are you saying 40% is GREATER that 50%?

You are familiar with what "mostly" means, correct? Shall I link the definition here for you?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Guys, please remind me what this has to do with the 9/11 discussion? Thanks, I was just wondering if we were starting to drift off topic a bit.

It was because of people trying to compare the video of the F-4 hitting the steel reinforced power plant wall to the 757 hitting the wall of the Pentagon.

We know the 757 is almost all aluminum and the F-4 has a large amount of steel (including the engines) so the comparision is not a very good one.

An aluminum airframe is not going to penatrate through all the walls and collumns of the Pentagon.

[edit on 17-5-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Excellent so it was a comparison. Just wondering how it got started. Thanks for the summary. It also makes me wonder how the outer wall of the Pentagon was constructed VS the Power Plant wall. Do we have a structural comparison between those 2 things?

Also, what was the mass and speed of each plane?

How much fuel did each plane have on board that ignited?


[edit on 17-5-2008 by jfj123]