| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nomore
Minor Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 29
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:39 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | nomore wrote: | somewhat resistant to fire.
Take a look at this image:
It clearly shows variations of singed paint from an aircraft fire. |
Hmmm - I don't agree that this is a sufficiently close comparison. This plane clearly did not crash, travelling at nearly full speed (according to official reports) into a building.
It may have crashed off a runway, or perhaps into a body of water. Do you have more details of the crash?
Even if you don't, you can clearly see the structural integrity of the plane is far higher than what we saw as a result of the videos of WTC impact (s) - which is what we were all discussing? N'est ce pas ? |
You say that the section of fuselage in the photo you posted in not burnt.
How do you know this?
Do you know for a fact that the section in the photograph is the outside section of the aircraft and not the inside section?
Also, the photograph has a strong blueish hue/tint which makes all blacks and greys in the photo look blue. This would cause problems with analysis.
One more thing. Compare the paint patters on these two photographs to that of the one you posted.
United window sections are pale grey. American Airlines window sections have a white stripe, blue stripe and then unpainted metal. Therefore, i suggest that there is not paint on the section, or the side of the section that we can see.
Comapre these photos:
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
andyb
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | andyb wrote: | | FFS, how did they get the metal to point inwards then, we've gone through this. Now if your explanation is a 'high tech beam weapon' then I'm afraid you really need help. If you can't explain a theory and have to resort to science fiction then you have no credibility left. |
AndyB - let's try and separate the evidence - the use of a beam weapon or not does not affect the "fireball delay issue". This is clear to me - and probably fairly measurable.
As for Beam Weapons, I am afraid they aren't science fiction. They WERE developed as part of the SDI programme in the 80's. Publicly we were told, however, they were useless. However, you might want to hear about their possible use in Iraq. You might also avail yourself of the basic discussions of evidence presented in Prof Judy Wood and Prof Morgan Reynolds article here.
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam2.html
Did lower manhattan flood on 9/11 or didn't it? It didn't. Why, when the collapse of the towers should have damaged the "Bathtub" in which they were constructed. Basic facts and evidence that needs to be explained. Read the article and see what you make of it (it's a draft version). Watch the 24 minute video at the end.
From research I have been doing in the last 3 years, there seems to be good evidence that a fair number of things that people thing are "Science Fiction" aren't. Like 9/11 Truth and NBB, you have to try and look at LOTS of evidence and see if there is a pattern. |
Andrew,
I have to disagree with you on this. You say this is the pattern that CD theories went through. They are still controversila outside 9/11 circles, surely your expertise would be better utlilised lobbying other scietists and structural engineers to get on board with the CD argument. I can't argue the case for CD well enough to do this and regularly get the argument that there aren't enough engineers and scientists on board. Do you not agree that this would be a more constructive use of your time? This whole campaign is about reaching critical mass, lets try and do that and the the chips will fall down and land where they may on things like no 7x7. By pushing it, you will no doubt further alienate scientists and engineers that we need to get on board. If you think CD is easy to get across please do come to the Mark Thomas forum and try and get the point across there as others less knowledgable than yourself have failed regularly. If we can get CD backed enough it is the best evidence we have for an inside job, lets stick to that.
_________________
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is madness!
| nomore wrote: | | Andrew Johnson wrote: | | ...why isn't it burnt? ... |
I'm sure that most poelpe who believe the official reports to be false agree that there were small amounts of fire after the initial impact.
Hypothetically, if a piece of material is exposed to high temperatures for only a small amount of time, it is possible that there may only be slight amount of burning of the material. On this aircraft, the metal would not burn.
Soot could cover it. Further research may reveal that aircraft paint is somewhat resistant to fire.
Take a look at this image:
It clearly shows variations of singed paint from an aircraft fire. |
Clearly? Really?
Without giving any information about where this photo came from, how can anybody reach such a conclusion.
To me, the photo looks like a reconstruction of salvaged parts of a crashed aircraft in an aircraft hangar. The section indicated is almost certainly a separate piece in the re-assembly, therefore its history as a forensic specimin, as all specimins, could be at variance from the rest of the aircraft. For example, it could have spent days or weeks underwater - one explanation for the different colouring. As we are not informed of the circumstances of this crash, the possibilities are infinite.
Another possible explanation? Well the reconstruction is in a hangar. I spent nine years as an aircraft mechanic and I know how difficult it is to illuminate a hangar well enough to do ones work, let alone take a photograph. Having seen technical photographers at work, I'd say the photo was probably taken with a fill-in flash. Most (if not all) panels which are not directly face-on show signs of darkening - especially the underside.
The photo of the wreckage at the WTC, in my opinion, has a blue hue because the white balance on the camera is set to an indoor setting. If you have a digital camera, try taking a photo outside with the white balance set to indoor. It can be corrected in Photoshop but I don't really see how the 'blueness' is material.
The section of windows is lying with the outside uppermost. The proof of this is that the inside of an aircraft window has a recess of about four inches. If the section had been skinned it would expose the ribs.
The issue of steel pointing inwards and aluminium pointing outwards can be answered by simply considering the respective properties of steel and aluminium and the thicknesses of the items in question. Big thick lumps of steel which is hard and softens at a high temperature vs thin sheets of aluminium which is relatively soft and softens even more at a relatively low temperature. After the initial impact, bending the steel inwards there is a blast as the fuel explodes from inside. The steel, being thicker and harder is not really affected by this but the thin, weaker aluminium is - it is softened by the heat and pushed outwards.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nomore wrote: | | United window sections are pale grey. American Airlines window sections have a white stripe, blue stripe and then unpainted metal. Therefore, i suggest that there is not paint on the section, or the side of the section that we can see. |
Unpainted metal!?
Paint is not just for decoration - it is a treatment to prevent corrosion. About every two years a military aircraft is taken out of service and spends about two months in the corrosion bay where it undergoes a survey and then a thorough process of corrosion removal, treatment and repainting - starting with two coats of yellow primer followed by several coats of 'decorative' paint.
And the suggestion that paint is somehow fire-proof is nonsense. It may be fire-resistant but that would only be effective in small localised fires.
Paint is notoriously difficult to keep in place at extreme temperatures. In the Arctic we were constantly re-applying paint because it was forever peeling off. There the primary purpose was not anti-corrosive as at -40°c corrosion hardly occurs - but camouflage. At extreme high temperatures it will simply blister and burn.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Two points;
Firstly, the bomber video that Magic Johnson keeps citing - if you watch it, you can see the wing appears to explode before it hits the ground as it seems to hit power cables/cabling/overhead wiring of some sort. If this is voltage cabling, it is quite conceivable that this acts as the 'ignition' source. Hence the quickness of the fuel ignition.
Secondly, THETRUTHWILLSETU3 wrote:
| Quote: | On the basis that Jetfuel is stored in the wings - and that the wings would not penetrate the building - there should have been a fireball upon impact.
There was no fireball on impact - it came out the other side of the building |
Why do people keep saying this when it is blatantly incorrect - it came out of BOTH sides of the building.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
50.19 KB |
| Viewed: |
297 Time(s) |
|
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nomore
Minor Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flamesong wrote: | | nomore wrote: | | United window sections are pale grey. American Airlines window sections have a white stripe, blue stripe and then unpainted metal. Therefore, i suggest that there is not paint on the section, or the side of the section that we can see. |
Unpainted metal!?
Paint is not just for decoration - it is a treatment to prevent corrosion. About every two years a military aircraft is taken out of service and spends about two months in the corrosion bay where it undergoes a survey and then a thorough process of corrosion removal, treatment and repainting - starting with two coats of yellow primer followed by several coats of 'decorative' paint. |
From Wikipedia: "American is the only major U.S. airline that leaves the majority of its aircraft surfaces unpainted." Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines
| flamesong wrote: |
And the suggestion that paint is somehow fire-proof is nonsense. It may be fire-resistant but that would only be effective in small localised fires. |
I did not say the paint was 'fire-proof'. I added a hypothesis: "Further research may reveal that aircraft paint is somewhat resistant to fire"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I stand corrected.
I'd be interested to know how they control corrosion...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nomore
Minor Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flamesong wrote: |
I stand corrected.
I'd be interested to know how they control corrosion... |
Again, from Wikipedia: Aluminium is found primarily in bauxite ore and is remarkable for its resistance to corrosion (due to the phenomenon of passivation) and its light weight. The metal is used in many industries to manufacture a large variety of products and is very important to the world economy. Structural components made from aluminium and its alloys are vital to the aerospace industry and very important in other areas of transportation and building.
Also, don't forget that airliner wings are unpainted too...
Last edited by nomore on Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is an interesting point you raise and something I researched a while ago.
The most important aspect to consider is if the aircraft in question flies over salt water, i.e. between continents. This dramatically raises the need for more regular cleaning as the salt is highly corrosive. Adding paint to the mix, in other words painting the outside skin of the aircraft can actually add to the potential dangers if the paint flakes and water is allowed to get trapped underneath.
Unpainted aircraft (remember that much of the plane is unpainted anyway, landing gear, many of the control surface mechanisms etc), have to be inspected frequently but a bare skin, like American's, does not require any additional protection as every imperfection shows up clearly. The additional advantage is in weight savings, two or three hundred pounds on a 737-sized airplane, and a little more on the 757.
The outer layer of material on these bare skins is pure aluminum and requires no 'special' coatings, though I think a clear Alodine is used for corrosion resistance.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flamesong
Major Poster
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nomore wrote: | Again, from Wikipedia: Aluminium is found primarily in bauxite ore and is remarkable for its resistance to corrosion (due to the phenomenon of passivation) and its light weight. The metal is used in many industries to manufacture a large variety of products and is very important to the world economy. Structural components made from aluminium and its alloys are vital to the aerospace industry and very important in other areas of transportation and building.
Also, don't forget that airliner wings are unpainted too... |
I was expecting this to be brought up eventually. Yes, that is true - up to a point. Aluminium does corrode, though - but the corrosion it creates forms a thin film which prevents oxygen and moisture from making contact (passivisation). Just as with fire there is a triangular mnemonic - so there is with corrosion. Metal + oxygen + water = corrosion.
However, that only applies to corrosion caused by oxidation. Where aluminium is vulnerable is disimilar metal corrosion, where two different metals come in contact with each other. This is caused by an electrolytic reaction exactly the same as the way a battery works. The main surfaces are very likely to be either aluminium or magnesium alloy and the fixings - screws, nuts, washers and rivets etc. are almost certainly steel (aluminium does not have the tensile strength required for this purpose. The catalysts to this reaction are water and oxygen so the surfaces still need to be protected.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nomore
Minor Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flamesong wrote: | | nomore wrote: | Again, from Wikipedia: Aluminium is found primarily in bauxite ore and is remarkable for its resistance to corrosion (due to the phenomenon of passivation) and its light weight. The metal is used in many industries to manufacture a large variety of products and is very important to the world economy. Structural components made from aluminium and its alloys are vital to the aerospace industry and very important in other areas of transportation and building.
Also, don't forget that airliner wings are unpainted too... |
I was expecting this to be brought up eventually. Yes, that is true - up to a point. Aluminium does corrode, though - but the corrosion it creates forms a thin film which prevents oxygen and moisture from making contact (passivisation). Just as with fire there is a triangular mnemonic - so there is with corrosion. Metal + oxygen + water = corrosion.
However, that only applies to corrosion caused by oxidation. Where aluminium is vulnerable is disimilar metal corrosion, where two different metals come in contact with each other. This is caused by an electrolytic reaction exactly the same as the way a battery works. The main surfaces are very likely to be either aluminium or magnesium alloy and the fixings - screws, nuts, washers and rivets etc. are almost certainly steel (aluminium does not have the tensile strength required for this purpose. The catalysts to this reaction are water and oxygen so the surfaces still need to be protected. |
The steel components would certainly be composed of iron mostly, so this is a possibility. One thing to take into account is that the fuselage is an alumium alloy, and will have different corrosive properties to aluminium.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mopoterjoted5
New Poster
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 3
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Again this is old well-trodden ground. Our colleague blackcat posted a link to this some months ago and was debunked as not being Shakira but a look-alike.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Veronica, here's a genuine question that I wonder if you can help me with:
It seems to me common sense that if "no planes: video fakery" is correct, then it is not some images that have to be faked, but every single peice of footage shot from any angle by anyone: there cannot be any genuine footage anywhere if "a fake in the image" holds water
How can no planes theory succesfully debunk every single image that exists? Do you state that there are no genuine images anywhere?
If not, the only alternative is "an image of a fake": ergo genuine footage of a hologram plane
Or//
That real Planes hit the towers
I am naturally wary of this scenario becuase it also seems to me that, just as "No Planes" theorists can look at anomalous footage and say "Hey look! this peice of footage shows trickery!", by the exact same methods genuine footage could be doctored to make it appear fake: if not all images can be shown to be fake, then this must be the more likely explanation, surely? |
Morning all.
I have been interested to note I have found answers to all of my questions listed above here:
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200610/Salter.pdf
(although that is not an endorcment of all perspectives contained within)
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
