The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
David Chandler on “AA Flight 77 at the Pentagon”
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks


David Chandler of Scientists for 9/11 Truth has done important work on the controlled demolitions of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. Tonight he discusses his latest video AA Flight 77 at the Pentagon. David Chandler, Wayne Coste, and others offer a detailed forensic argument that a large plane, almost certainly the one that left Dulles Airport as AA77, did in fact crash into the Pentagon…but most likely the kamikaze crash was flown by remote control, not by—as the 9/11 Commission absurdly claimed—a guy who couldn’t even pilot a Cessna training aircraft! Those qualified to comb over and attempt to debunk detailed forensic arguments involving avionics should definitely have a go at this one—and contribute to the process of sifting and winnowing for truth.

In the interview I urge David Chandler to get up to speed on the evidence showing the alleged hijackers were innocent patsies. Books mentioned include those by Elias Davidsson, Graeme MacQueen, and Daniel Hopsicker. I could have also mentioned David Ray Griffin.

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: 9/11, Conspiracy Theories 
Hide 23 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Barbara Honneger says never mind the planes, all such evidence has been destroyed. But what about the witnessed explosion that occurred inside the Pentagon several minutes before the plane, or whatever it was, hit the building?

  2. dimples says:

    I’m confused. It says Robin Hordon is on in the second hour, but the podcast only goes for one hour. I can’t find any second hour.

    I agree with whatever David Chandler says, but what is this blurb from Mr Barrett:

    “but most likely the kamikaze crash was flown by remote control, not by—as the 9/11 Commission absurdly claimed—a guy who couldn’t even pilot a Cessna training aircraft! Those qualified to comb over and attempt to debunk detailed forensic arguments involving avionics should definitely have a go at this one!”

    Sadly none of this exciting stuff was in Mr Chandler’s talk or video. As he was at pains to point out, his analysis only involves the Flight Data Recorder and matching points on the ground.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  3. Kevin, I hope you will have Craig McKee on soon to rebut Chandler’s nonsense regarding an airliner hitting the Pentagon. The 9/11 truth movement is basically done if Chandler prevails on this — but then, that is probably the point.

    • Agree: Iris
    • Replies: @Iris
  4. @dimples

    The Robin Hordon interview is at https://www.patreon.com/posts/42419495 and will be up here soon.

    I should have explained more clearly that I was inviting experts to try to debunk Chandler’s argument that Flight 77 did in fact fly the route the official story says it did, including its crash into the Pentagon. For more of that argument see: http://911speakout.org/wayne-coste/

  5. Iris says:
    @David Bauer

    Indeed. The NeoCons have re-invented the laws of material science just for that special day of Sep 11, which saw light, fragile aluminium aircrafts able to miraculously cut through and disappear not only into the Twin Tower sturdy structural steel, but into the Pentagon’s reinforced concrete as well.

    Pictures from the 9/11 “case study simulation” made by pro-government consultancy Integrated Consultants is not afraid to show a Boeing 757 aircraft slaloming on the ground at 850 km/h, and kindly avoiding to hit lamp poles:

    These poles were later photographed neatly lying on the ground, neither damaged nor cut:

    It beggars belief that the Pentagon plane buffonery is still being promoted in 2020.

    • Replies: @Harold Smith
  6. @Iris

    Indeed. The NeoCons have re-invented the laws of material science just for that special day of Sep 11, which saw light, fragile aluminium aircrafts able to miraculously cut through and disappear not only into the Twin Tower sturdy structural steel…

    Abstract
    The problem of the airplane wing cutting through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center is treated analytically. The exterior columns are thin-walled box beam made of high strength steel. The complex structure of the airplane is lumped into another box, but it has been found that the equivalent thickness of the box is an order of magnitude larger than the column thickness. The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The deformation and failure process is very local and is broken into three phases: shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange. Using the exact dynamic solution in the membrane deformation mode, the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted flange was calculated to be 155 m/s for both flat and round impacting mass. Therefore, the wing would easily cut through the outer column. It was also found that the energy absorbed by plastic deformation and fracture of the ill-fated column is only 6.7% of the initial kinetic energy of the wing.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0734743X02001069

    • LOL: Iris
    • Replies: @Erebus
  7. nsa says:

    Barrett is promoting obvious disinfo. Pictures of the initial 20′ diameter hole in the Pentagon facade are still available on the internet. A 757 airliner has a 125′ wingspan, 45′ fin, and weighs over 60 tons dry. The wings, fin, and turbines could not have fit through a 20′ hole……so what happened to them? Where are the pictures of the massive debris field and cadavers? The whole “757 hitting the Pentagon” is absurd…sheer fabrication. Why not have some real fun and claim the damage was due to a flying saucer, which makes about as much sense as this silly article? The PTBs must be laughing their asses off……..it’s all just too easy.

  8. Erebus says:
    @Harold Smith

    The problem can be then modeled as an impact of a rigid mass traveling with the velocity of 240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member.

    It can certainly be modelled that way, but not if one wants the model to reflect what happened.

    An airplane wing simply isn’t, nor does it behave as, “a rigid mass”. In fact, it’s mostly air. Here’s what happens to a wing travelling at a closing speed of 107m/s (238mph) into a small hobby drone weighing a few pounds.

    The exterior box columns were 355mm (14in) square with a wall thickness of 6.4mm (0.25in) at the upper floors. 1/4″ plate welded into a 14″ square is, of course, many orders of magnitude stronger than a plastic hobby drone.

    As only the closing speed matters, not which part is moving, or whether they’re both moving, an airplane wing flying into such a column is exactly the same as that column being propelled at 240m/s at a stationary wing. Only in some parallel universe would the steel column be sliced through and carry on as 2 pieces, while the wing remained more or less intact.

    In fact, the photographic evidence shows that the wing structure extending beyond the engines didn’t slice the columns and damaged only the exterior aluminium cladding.

    That leads one, of course to wondering what happened to the wings. No evidence – physical, or photographic – shows them as doing anything other than passing intact into the building, never to be seen again in whole or in part.

    • Thanks: Iris
    • Replies: @Harold Smith
  9. @Erebus

    “It can certainly be modelled that way, but not if one wants the model to reflect what happened.”

    Well sometimes models are all we have. Often they are imperfect – as is the case here – but my purpose in citing it was to show Iris that under the right conditions, aluminum wings can penetrate the exterior steel columns of a building. (If I understand her correctly she seems to be implying that it’s inherently impossible for a softer material to penetrate a harder material).

    As I read it, the text of the abstract implies complete failure of the exterior columns, apparently over the entire length of the wings. And this would apparently be incorrect since it is greater than the observed damage profile.

    It’s been a long time since I looked at any of this stuff this but as I recall a subsequently published paper by the U.S. “government” reported the complete failure of the exterior columns only out to about the midpoint of the wings and a varying degree of damage (short of complete failure of the columns) beyond that.

    IIRC this discrepancy was attributed to a lack of fidelity of the Boeing 767 wing model used by the authors and/or incorrect assumptions about the fuel distribution in the wings or something like that.

    An airplane wing simply isn’t, nor does it behave as, “a rigid mass”. In fact, it’s mostly air. Here’s what happens to a wing travelling at a closing speed of 107m/s (238mph) into a small hobby drone weighing a few pounds.

    I think it is is incorrect to describe the wings of a 767 or similar aircraft as “mostly air”; there has to be a substantial internal structure if the wings are to support the weight of the engines and fuel. The video you linked to only shows the penetration of the sheet metal on the edge of the wing.

    As only the closing speed matters, not which part is moving, or whether they’re both moving, an airplane wing flying into such a column is exactly the same as that column being propelled at 240m/s at a stationary wing. Only in some parallel universe would the steel column be sliced through and carry on as 2 pieces, while the wing remained more or less intact.

    Who said the wing has to remain “more or less intact”? I believe you’re looking at it the wrong way. The wing was no doubt demolished.

    Did you ever look at a lead bullet after it impacts a steel plate? Depending on the details of the situation sometimes the bullet fully penetrates the plate and sometimes it only partly penetrates the plate but in either case the bullet is destroyed (i.e. squashed, fragmented, etc.). Sometimes depending on the situation a bullet will shatter upon impact with a hard target but still penetrate (as a collection of particles or dust) and leave a nice hole in the target.

    We’re dealing with the conservation of kinetic energy and linear momentum here so the initial kinetic energy of the plane (somewhere around 3 0r 4 x 10^9 joules?) would have to equal the sum of the kinetic energy dissipated by plastic deformation and fracture of everything involved in the collision:

    Initial kinetic energy of the plane = energy dissipated in damage to airframe + energy dissipated in damage to external columns + energy dissipated in damage to floors + energy dissipated in damage to core structure.

    In fact, the photographic evidence shows that the wing structure extending beyond the engines didn’t slice the columns and damaged only the exterior aluminium cladding.

    That leads one, of course to wondering what happened to the wings. No evidence – physical, or photographic – shows them as doing anything other than passing intact into the building, never to be seen again in whole or in part.

    Maybe the same thing that happened to the wings of the F4 (and the rest of it for that matter) in the following video?

  10. Nearly 20 years later the 9/11 truth movement is now in partial alignment with the official government/media explanation of what really happened that day. Hey I gave up on youse guys years ago because you couldn’t agree to any coherent narrative. Now it looks like to many of us that Maybe your critics were right after all.

    • Replies: @eD
  11. Sparkon says:

    The thin, fragile aluminum skin of an airplane wing cannot slice through even a goose, let alone the four steel surfaces of each of the 59 box columns that comprised each face of the exterior of the Twin Towers, enclosing the 110 story WTC towers like a cage, and forming the outer tube of the novel tube-within-a-tube design.

    Indeed, anyone can quickly find images of bird strikes on passenger aircraft, where the bird has penetrated the thin aluminum skin of a wing or the nose of an aircraft:

    Plane lands at airport with a dead eagle embedded in its wing: Shocking photos reveal damage to Airbus caused by a bird strike

    Again, real world events trump theoretical arguments. If an airplane wing can’t cut through an eagle, it certainly can’t cut through steel.

    Aluminum is a soft, brittle, but lightweight metal making it ideally suited for aircraft, which are expected to encounter only air, nothing solid. When any part of an airplane collides with something solid, the airplane part gives way.

    Aluminum cannot cut through steel. There are no aluminum knife blades, nor any armor-piercing aluminum rounds.

    Nor were there any hijacked passenger aircraft that crashed anywhere on Sept. 11, 2001.

    • Replies: @Harold Smith
  12. eD says:
    @Harry_1969

    Harry_1969’s point is one thing I never understood about Truthers, or at least a certain type of Truther. I don’t have much of a dog in this fight, but its a glaring anomaly.

    The narrative put out afterwards were that both attacks on the World Trade Center, and the attack on the Pentagon, were done with hijacked passenger aircraft. If you are a dissident, the moment you concede that hijacked passenger aircraft flew into these targets, you have just agreed with 90% of the establishment narrative. What do you have left to dissent to? That the hijackers were working for the CIA? If this was some sort of western/ Israeli intel op they would not have used suicide bomber Arab hijackers. If the hijackers were duped into doing this you better demonstrate this, which to my knowledge no truther has attempted to do.

    It makes even less sense with the Pentagon, where its plausible that this was a bomb planted on sight by Arab terrorists, but the report still said hijacked planes because they wanted to not disclose a vulnerability with Pentagon security. You can actually agree with the Arab terrorist angle and think the government may not want to come clean with the details of the attack on the national military headquarters. This is also more in line with the initial media reports of the attack anyway.

    Yeah, remote controlled drones, but that is still closer to the “no planes” lunatic fringe than the mainstream truth stuff. This is like pointing out all sorts of holes in the Warren Commission report, but insisting that JFK was still shot by a sniper from that office building overlooking the plaza.

  13. April Gallop was working at the pentagram on 911 and was able to walk out through the hole in the wall and never saw any missile or plane parts, it was a prewired explosion, go to youtube and watch her videos.

    911 was done by Israel and traitors in the ZUS government.

    • Agree: Twodees Partain
  14. @Sparkon

    The thin, fragile aluminum skin of an airplane wing cannot slice through even a goose, let alone the four steel surfaces of each of the 59 box columns that comprised each face of the exterior of the Twin Towers, enclosing the 110 story WTC towers like a cage, and forming the outer tube of the novel tube-within-a-tube design.

    Sheesh; here we go again. The thing is, the towers weren’t hit by the “fragile aluminum skin of an airplane wing”; rather, they were hit by a complete airplane bearing two complete wings. Do I actually have to tell you that there’s more to the wing of a Boeing 767 than a “fragile aluminum skin”?

    If you look inside the “fragile aluminum skin” you’ll see beams, ribs and stringers. The wings have to be stiff and strong to support the weight of the engines and the fuel in addition to aerodynamic forces. IIRC the wings weigh something like 10 or 12 tons each not including the engines and fuel.
    I’m not sure how much fuel the wings can hold but somewhere I read that each wing tank can hold someting like 6000 gallons. So depending on how much fuel was in the tanks each wing might represent a mass of 20 to 30 tons or something like that.

    Indeed, anyone can quickly find images of bird strikes on passenger aircraft, where the bird has penetrated the thin aluminum skin of a wing or the nose of an aircraft:

    Again, real world events trump theoretical arguments. If an airplane wing can’t cut through an eagle, it certainly can’t cut through steel.

    First, the “real world event” at issue here is the high speed impact of a Boeing 767 with a building, not the impact of a bird with sheet metal. So the details of the actual event at issue trump your strawman.

    Second, the sheet metal of the wing is stronger than the flesh of a bird, right? So basically you’re telling me that softer bird flesh can easily cut through harder aluminum, but for some reason softer aluminum can’t cut through harder steel? So according to your “reasoning” maybe bird flesh would make good armor piercing bullets?

    You make it all seem so simple. Unfortunately the physics of high speed impacts between objects, especially objects with complex 3D geometry made of different materials, is actually rather complicated. You can’t just look at a picture of an airplane wing damaged by a collision with a bird and extrapolate the whole universe from that. That’s why sophisticated software packages such as LS-Dyna and Ansys evolved. That’s why journals like the International Journal of Impact Engineering exist:

    The International Journal of Impact Engineering, established in 1983 publishes original research findings related to the response of structures, components and materials subjected to impact, blast and high-rate loading. Areas relevant to the journal encompass the following general topics and those associated with them:

    Behaviour and failure of structures and materials under impact and blast loading

    Systems for protection and absorption of impact and blast loading

    Terminal ballistics

    Dynamic behaviour and failure of materials including plasticity and fracture

    Stress waves

    Structural crashworthiness

    High-rate mechanical and forming processes

    Impact, blast and high-rate loading/measurement techniques and their applications

    Aluminum is a soft, brittle, but lightweight metal making it ideally suited for aircraft, which are expected to encounter only air, nothing solid. When any part of an airplane collides with something solid, the airplane part gives way.

    Any object in motion manifests kinetic energy and momentum. If the object strikes another object, the outcome is determined by the details, i.e., the mass and geometry of the objects, the properties of the materials they’re made out of, the velocity, and the laws of physics.

    Aluminum cannot cut through steel. There are no aluminum knife blades, nor any armor-piercing aluminum rounds.

    There are no aluminum knife blades nor aluminum bullets because aluminum is generally a poor choice for these applications, not because an aluminum projectile can’t damage a particular object under the proper conditions.

    BTW the army has apparently experimented with aluminum projectiles:

    In support of the U.S. Army’s science and advanced technology objective in hypervelocity penetration mechanics, the Army Research Laboratory has been studying the terminal ballistics of conventional and non-conventional high-velocity kinetic energy projectiles against urban, light-armor and heavy-armor targets. The purpose is to identify and analyze both mechanisms and concepts to effectively defeat a range of targets with inert payloads using the elevated impact velocities available from future delivery systems. To this end, a series of experiments has been performed launching low-aspect-ratio aluminum and steel cylindrical projectiles, aluminum conical projectiles, and encased reactive material projectiles, with nominal masses between 200 and 240-gm, striking finite aluminum armor at nominal velocities of 2100 m/s to observe crater and spall formation and to determine the damage capacity of the debris.

    (This link downloads a pdf file.) https://cyberleninka.org/article/n/517616.pdf

    Anyway, lead is even softer an aluminum, right? In fact you can scratch a soft lead .22 caliber bullet with your fingernail. Yet under the right conditions a soft lead .22 bullet can penetrate a steel car door.

    The real real world event of a soft lead projectile penetrating a steel car door as shown in this video trumps your theorizing.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
    , @Sparkon
  15. @Harold Smith

    There were no planes used in the Israeli attack on the WTC, the attack was done by DEWs and internal charges, go to drjudywood.com and wheredidthetowersgo.com, holograms of planes were used as a diversion, also go youtube and enter John Lear, he explains how it was done.

  16. Sparkon says:
    @Harold Smith

    The real real world event of a soft lead projectile penetrating a steel car door as shown in this video trumps your theorizing.

    Lead is not aluminum, Harold. Lead is not even involved, so it has absolutely no bearing on this topic, and trumps nothing.

    The guys in that paper you cited were shooting at aluminum armor, not steel armor:

    This paper presented a series of experiments of nylon, aluminum, steel, and cased Al/PTFE projectiles striking aluminum armor at 2100 m/s

    The researchers were also using very high velocities in their tests. Note that 2100 m/s is 6889.8 feet per second, or 4697.5 mph, which is 10x faster than AA11 was said to be flying on 9/11 when it allegedly crashed into WTC 1.

    AA 11 was said to be flying at 465 mph when it apparently crashed into WTC 1. That’s 682 feet per second, or about as fast as a speeding BB shot from an air gun.

    Every time this issue of the 767’s magical steel-cutting wings comes up, I get various apples to oranges comparisons, but the only valid test or demonstration is between aluminum and steel, and nothing else.

    According to this table of the Mohs hardness scale from Ted Pella Inc., aluminum’s hardness is 2.0 – 2.9, while steel rates 5.0 – 8.5. Steel is much harder than aluminum, and can easily scratch or puncture it, but the reverse is not true. Aluminum can’t scratch or cut through steel.

    Armor is made from steel because it is very difficult to shoot bullets through steel armor. Anti-tank and armor-piercing rounds often contain smaller, dart-like penetrators made of very hard substances like tungsten and depleted uranium, and these projectiles additionally are accelerated to very high velocities of 4,000 – 5,000 fps, or about 3,500 mph, in order to blast through the armor of enemy tanks.

    Some lightweight combat vehicles have aluminum armor to save weight, extend range, and make the vehicle faster, but they are death traps for the crew.

    The aluminum airplane wing can’t cut through even a bird, but you think it can cut through steel box columns. Well, I’m not from Missouri, but you’ve got to show me a demonstration where aluminum cuts or penetrates steel.

    Incidentally, the notorious Michael Hezarkhani still frame showing UA 175 gliding into WTC 2 with no reaction from either the aluminum airplane or the steel-famed skyscraper, proves all by itself that the images of airplanes crashing into the WTC that were broadcast on 9/11, and released thereafter, are all as phony as the proverbial $3 bill.

    • Replies: @Harold Smith
  17. @Sparkon

    Lead is not aluminum, Harold.

    LOL! Powerful argument you got there.

    That’s right, it’s not; it’s much softer than aluminum, and that’s the point. If lead is much softer than aluminum, how is it that a soft lead projectile can penetrate a mild steel car door but – according to you – an equally energetic projectile made of aluminum (say a little longer and moving at a somewhat higher velocity to make up the difference) would not penetrate? In theory the aluminum, being harder than lead, would not “mushroom” as much as lead and would therefore actually be more effective, right?

    Lead is not even involved, so it has absolutely no bearing on this topic, and trumps nothing.

    Why just because you say so? You can theorize but I can’t? You’re going to make up the rules as you go along? LOL!

    The guys in that paper you cited were shooting at aluminum armor, not steel armor:

    So what? That 7039-T64 aluminum armor plate is used in armored vehicles to protect the crew from small arms fire and shrapnel. At the thicknesses used in that experiment (2″ and 3″) that aluminum plate will stop .30 M2 AP and .50 M2 AP ammo (both with hardened tool-steel cores) at point blank range.

    The researchers were also using very high velocities in their tests. Note that 2100 m/s is 6889.8 feet per second, or 4697.5 mph, which is 10x faster than AA11 was said to be flying on 9/11 when it allegedly crashed into WTC 1.

    So what? You said an aluminum projectile will not penetrate steel. Period.

    Since 2″ of 7039-T64 will stop .30 M2 AP, it is the approximate ballistic equivalent of 0.5″ of hardened steel armor plate. Therefore, this study impliedly proves that an aluminum projectile will penetrate steel. (BTW the study shows that even a piece of plastic will penetrate the same thickness armor plate that a steel projectile will at the same energy, so that should tell you something).

    AA 11 was said to be flying at 465 mph when it apparently crashed into WTC 1. That’s 682 feet per second, or about as fast as a speeding BB shot from an air gun.

    And as the pictures of WTC1 show, some of the exterior columns failed apparently due to impact with the wings of the plane.

    Every time this issue of the 767’s magical steel-cutting wings comes up, I get various apples to oranges comparisons, but the only valid test or demonstration is between aluminum and steel, and nothing else.

    In your highly subjective opinion, that is. You can wave your hands and make claims and opine anything you want but the fact of the matter is that an aluminum projectile can penetrate a steel target under the right conditions.

    According to this table of the Mohs hardness scale from Ted Pella Inc., aluminum’s hardness is 2.0 – 2.9, while steel rates 5.0 – 8.5. Steel is much harder than aluminum, and can easily scratch or puncture it, but the reverse is not true. Aluminum can’t scratch or cut through steel.

    And as I already pointed out, lead is even softer than aluminum and yet youtube is full of videos showing that soft lead bullets can penetrate steel. And in the study I linked to, even a piece of nylon was able to penetrate the 2″ thick target plate. So there’s more to it than just “hardness.”

    (In my own personal experience fooling around with .30 caliber sabots loaded with lathe turned .223 projectiles of different materials, I tend to think about it in terms of kinetic energy/frontal area).

    Armor is made from steel because it is very difficult to shoot bullets through steel armor. Some lightweight combat vehicles have aluminum armor to save weight, extend range, and make the vehicle faster, but they are death traps for the crew.

    Depending on the application, armor is made from steel, aluminum, ceramics (e.g. boron carbide), even plastic. Just like anything else, there are tradeoffs involved. If you’re wearing level 3A body armor and somebody shoots you with a rifle, too bad. If you’re in an M-113 APC and somebody hits it with an RPG-7, too bad.

    The aluminum airplane wing can’t cut through even a bird, but you think it can cut through steel box columns. Well, I’m not from Missouri, but you’ve got to show me a demonstration where aluminum cuts or penetrates steel.

    I think I’ve already adequately pointed out the flaws in your reasoning and backed it up with some examples, so I’m not inclined to spend any more time on it.

    (BTW how many different pseudonyms do you use here)?

  18. Sparkon says:

    Lead is not aluminum, Harold.

    LOL! Powerful argument you got there

    .

    It was your argument, Harold. You said:

    The real real world event of a soft lead projectile penetrating a steel car door as shown in this video trumps your theorizing.

    .

    Lead was not involved on 9/11, so it’s a red herring that trumps nothing, but does prove that you’re peddling BS.

    (BTW how many different pseudonyms do you use here)?

    Just one. I began posting at UR as “SP” back in 2016 until I discovered after several posts that someone had already used that handle here previously, so I asked Ron Unz if I could change to “Sparkon.” He agreed, and that’s the only handle I ever post with at Unz Review, so you’re wrong about that just like you’re wrong about steel and aluminum.

    https://www.unz.com/announcement/major-commenting-enhancements/#comment-1629775

    To repeat, there were no hijacked airliners that crashed anywhere on 9/11. What we saw on TV was CGI.


    Photo: Michael Hezarkhani

    Phony as a three-dollar bill.

    • Replies: @Desert Fox
    , @Harold Smith
  19. @Sparkon

    Arguing with him is like pissing into the wind.

  20. @Sparkon

    Lead is not aluminum, Harold.

    LOL! Powerful argument you got there

    It was your argument, Harold. You said:

    It was my argument that proves you wrong, it is not in your favor.

    Your “argument” – as best I can understand what you’re saying – is that no aluminum projectile can ever penetrate a steel target because aluminum is softer than steel.

    My point was that lead is even softer than aluminum, and if lead bullets can penetrate steel objects, as the youtube video demonstrates, then your argument is proven wrong. Thus I linked to the youtube video because it impliedly proves you wrong. Capiche?

    Lead was not involved on 9/11, so it’s a red herring that trumps nothing, but does prove that you’re peddling BS.

    Seriously? Lead didn’t need to be “involved on 9/11” to prove your premise wrong – which it did – thus it is not a “red herring” but a useful example that also proves you know nothing about the subject matter and/or that you’re just being contrary.

    (BTW how many different pseudonyms do you use here)?

    Just one. I began posting at UR as “SP” back in 2016 until I discovered after several posts that someone had already used that handle here previously, so I asked Ron Unz if I could change to “Sparkon.” He agreed, and that’s the only handle I ever post with at Unz Review, so you’re wrong about that just like you’re wrong about steel and aluminum.

    I asked you a question. A question is a question, it is not a statement that can be proven “right” or “wrong”; therefore I am not “wrong” in merely asking something. Neither am I wrong about an aluminum projectile penetrating a steel object.

    To repeat, there were no hijacked airliners that crashed anywhere on 9/11.

    ROTFL!

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  21. Sparkon says:
    @Harold Smith

    It was my argument that proves you wrong, it is not in your favor.
    […]
    My point was that lead is even softer than aluminum, and if lead bullets can penetrate steel objects, as the youtube video demonstrates, then your argument is proven wrong.

    You refuse to get it through your thick skull that lead is not aluminum. You can’t just substitute one for the other in any scientific or engineering study. Are you completely daft?

    Your study used aluminum armor, so again, it does not apply. Nowhere have you shown an aluminum projectile penetrating steel plate or armor. Instead it’s apples and oranges all over again.

    The test or demonstration you need to produce to support your argument is one where hollow aluminum bullets are fired at subsonic speeds, and penetrate 1/4″ steel plate.

    Show me that and I may discuss it with you some more, but for now, that’s it.

    In any event, this is mostly a side issue and something of a distraction. Along with the lack of any credible airplane crash wreckage at any of the alleged crash sites, failure of the USAF to intercept any hijacked jetliners, failure of the Pentagon to defend itself, Cheney’s order, the ACARS data, and a host of other inconsistencies, the phony videos provide graphic evidence to confirm there were in fact no hijacked 767s or 757s on September 11, 2001.

  22. remo says:

    David Chandler is right. The data points have to be adjudicated. All the way .
    If I don’t like it is on me.
    Not the data.

  23. “You refuse to get it through your thick skull that lead is not aluminum. You can’t just substitute one for the other in any scientific or engineering study. Are you completely daft”

    Well look what’s talkin’! Being that the object is merely to refute your childishly silly “argument,” I CAN substitute one for the other (especially since, unlike you, I have both some relevant practical experience and some basic idea of the physics involved).

    In comment #16 you said:

    According to this table of the Mohs hardness scale from Ted Pella Inc., aluminum’s hardness is 2.0 – 2.9, while steel rates 5.0 – 8.5. Steel is much harder than aluminum, and can easily scratch or puncture it, but the reverse is not true. Aluminum can’t scratch or cut through steel.

    Okay so this is your argument, yet somehow it apparently escaped you that on that same scale, lead is 1.5; i.e., it is softer than aluminum. And since we know that lead bullets can penetrate steel, your simple-minded “argument” fails right there.

    https://www.tedpella.com/company_html/hardness.htm

    BTW I don’t know exactly what aluminum alloys are used in a Boeing 767 but I assume that the relevant mechanical properties would be in the same ballpark as 7075-T6 aluminum alloy. Here’s a comparison of some properties between 7075-T6 aluminum alloy and ASTM A36 steel where you can see for example that on the Brinell scale the 7075-T6 aluminum alloy is actually slightly harder than the ASTM A36 steel:

    https://www.makeitfrom.com/compare/7075-T6-Aluminum/ASTM-A36-SS400-S275-Structural-Carbon-Steel

    Second, who the hell are you that you claim to know more than the author of the study I linked to in comment #6? What are your credentials/qualifications?

    The author of that paper is MIT Professor Tomasz Wierzbicki, PhD (applied mechanics), the director of the Impact and Crashworthiness Laboratory at MIT.

    According to his analysis, massive aluminum projectiles (Boeing 737 wings) can and did cut through the exterior columns of the WTC buildings.

    And it’s clear from the pictures that the wings did cut through some of them. The reason that not all exterior columns failed may be because he had incomplete information and some of the assumptions he made about the mass distribution in the wings were incorrect. Also there was uncertainty as to the grade of steel used in the exterior columns. He assumed A36 steel but apparently that would’ve been the minimum grade and it may very well have been a higher grade of steel.

    But if as you claim it is inherently impossible for an aluminum projectile to penetrate steel this MIT professor would not have submitted this paper for publication, and if he did it would have been rejected in peer review.

    This is probably the last comment I’m going to make in this discussion as it has become a pointless waste of time.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS