Media Blackout As Obama Appoints First Ever Assassination Czar

Dr Kynes · May 31, 2012

Anybody who has ever shot a deer can attest, objects moving at high speed do not always pass through a complex structure undamaged, nor do they always follow an easily predictable path.

The pentagon crash damage is fertile ground for speculation and conspiracy for several obvious reasons. It doesn't look like a plane crash site because its NOT A PLANE CRASH SITE! The pilot made no attempt to save the plane or make a landing. he deliberately plowed right into the side of the building at high speed. the round hole pictures, worlds strongest no parking signs and other shit are from C-RING INTERIOR areas where only the flaming ball of dense material can penetrate through concrete and stone. Thats right, it the aircraft's main mass passed through the A ring, the B ring and the C ring before it EXITED the INSIDE of the C-Ring for the no parking sign picture. And now we're done with the picture show.

Titanium is strong yes, VERY strong. It's also pretty abundant, light and durable. Why dont we make everything out of it? Because it is brittle, and under heat stress it deforms readily. Thats why very few firearms are made of the stuff. Theres more guns made of aluminum and even plastic than titanium. when exposed to heat as low as 400-500 degrees it expands and deforms under stress. It galls, spalls and can even catch on fire when the conditions are right. Titanium is great stuff, but its not a magic solution, and it's not stronger more durable or better than steel in almost every application.

the majority of the titanium used in an aircraft is in the turbine blades. spinning at high speed, even a bird passing through them can result in catastrophic failure. when plowed at high speed into a concreter and marble building the turbines of mighty titanium reduce to a fine powder and burn like a roman candle. that's why there's all these steel hubs, but no blades. most of a passenger aircraft is empty space (for passengers) supported by aluminium, and a little bit of steel. In a normal emergency landing or controlled crash the entire fuselage can sag like a wet cardboard box, or even rip apart. aircraft fuselages are delicate thin shells which can rip open under the force of the wind even at relatively low speeds.

(Aloha airlines flight 243 198

when moving at high speed, and plowing into a building there is very little left that would be easily recognized as an aircraft. Thats why kamikaze attacks were so terrifying in WW2. They were tiny slow and almost massless when compared to a modern passenger jet, but the kamikaze zeroes delivered plenty of damage to enormous armored steel warships designed to survive naval artillery.

deprave · May 31, 2012

wtf this is now a 9/11 thread?

NoDrama · May 31, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
Anybody who has ever shot a deer can attest, objects moving at high speed do not always pass through a complex structure undamaged, nor do they always follow an easily predictable path.

The pentagon crash damage is fertile ground for speculation and conspiracy for several obvious reasons. It doesn't look like a plane crash site because its NOT A PLANE CRASH SITE! The pilot made no attempt to save the plane or make a landing. he deliberately plowed right into the side of the building at high speed. the round hole pictures, worlds strongest no parking signs and other shit are from C-RING INTERIOR areas where only the flaming ball of dense material can penetrate through concrete and stone. Thats right, it the aircraft's main mass passed through the A ring, the B ring and the C ring before it EXITED the INSIDE of the C-Ring for the no parking sign picture. And now we're done with the picture show.

Titanium is strong yes, VERY strong. It's also pretty abundant, light and durable. Why dont we make everything out of it? Because it is brittle, and under heat stress it deforms readily. Thats why very few firearms are made of the stuff. Theres more guns made of aluminum and even plastic than titanium. when exposed to heat as low as 400-500 degrees it expands and deforms under stress. It galls, spalls and can even catch on fire when the conditions are right. Titanium is great stuff, but its not a magic solution, and it's not stronger more durable or better than steel in almost every application.

the majority of the titanium used in an aircraft is in the turbine blades. spinning at high speed, even a bird passing through them can result in catastrophic failure. when plowed at high speed into a concreter and marble building the turbines of mighty titanium reduce to a fine powder and burn like a roman candle. that's why there's all these steel hubs, but no blades. most of a passenger aircraft is empty space (for passengers) supported by aluminium, and a little bit of steel. In a normal emergency landing or controlled crash the entire fuselage can sag like a wet cardboard box, or even rip apart. aircraft fuselages are delicate thin shells which can rip open under the force of the wind even at relatively low speeds.

View attachment 2193327(Aloha airlines flight 243 198

when moving at high speed, and plowing into a building there is very little left that would be easily recognized as an aircraft. Thats why kamikaze attacks were so terrifying in WW2. They were tiny slow and almost massless when compared to a modern passenger jet, but the kamikaze zeroes delivered plenty of damage to enormous armored steel warships designed to survive naval artillery.

Extremely contradictory evidence you just put up there. First you start by saying that the fuselage is the most massive and strongest part of the plane and was able to get through all 3 rings of the pentagon, later on you say that the "aircraft fuselages are delicate thin shells which can rip open under the force of the wind even at relatively low speeds" You can't have it both ways. either the fuselage is the strongest part of the plane, capable of penetrating 3 battle hardened rings or it is flimsy and made up of thin aluminum and composites. Which is it?

They don't make guns out of titanium because that shit costs $40 a pound and requires a much more expensive tooling capability. They DO MAKE receivers and other gun parts out of titanium for the very expensive parts, but Titanium is too elastic to hold rifling in a barrel. Whomever told you it was because it gets brittle at high heat as the reason why was filling you full of shit. The reason they don't make guns out of it has to do with cost and not tensile strength.

NoDrama · May 31, 2012

deprave said:
wtf this is now a 9/11 thread?

Just a continuation on the theme that government will lie to you and the media will help them in every way possible. Just like how the media has nothing to say about the president appointing someone who will decide which US Citizens (and others) gets to live and die without the right to a trial by jury.

Dr Kynes · May 31, 2012

NoDrama said:
Correct, a very astute observation as you have now noted that the most massive and strongest part of the plane never went through even the exterior walls of the Pentagon, yet the aluminum and carbon fuselage went through all 3 layers of battle hardened reinforced concrete. I think you might be onto something here!!!

The engines spun so fast that they disintegrated themselves, LMFAO, when the jet is flying they spin real fast too, when they get a bird strike how come none of the engines ever disintegrates? LMAO at your foolishness, you are a great source of entertainment for many.

Yep. birds and jets have a natural compatibility.

As to why they didnt disintegrate, its only a bird. A BIRD! not 500 tons of concrete and marble! a bird for fucks sake. Or do you propose that if a bird carcass cannot pulverize a turbine, then a block of concrete could not either? Turbines are designed to handle a bird without the plane's survival being challenged (usually) but once struck that engine is dead,and the plane must divert to an emergency landing as soon as possible. This did not happen at the pentagon because the pilot was using his plane as a missile. or did you miss that part?

"the most massive and strongest part of the plane never went through even the exterior walls of the Pentagon"
Yes. the engines. mounted in nacelles below the wings were busted off when the plane went through the building. This is not a bugs bunny cartoon. wings stick out, and therefore receive more stress when pushed through concrete. The wings will generally fail, and not leave a perfectly plane shaped hole after passing through 60 yards of building. the central fuselage (which may be mostly hollow, and made of aluminium, but its the greatest concentration of mass on the plane) will continue on it's journey longer than the wings and engines, just like the tail stabilizers on a missile are not the part that does the damage. thats how science works.

"yet the aluminum and carbon fuselage went through all 3 layers"
yes... a couple hundred tons of aluminium can damage a building just like a couple hundred tons of lead, steel, Acme Brand Perfectly Round Boulders (tm), or a falling meteorite.

"battle hardened reinforced concrete."
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !! if the builders and occupants of the pentagon ever even dreamed they might need their offices to be "battle hardened" they would have buried it under cheyenne mountain! I dont want to say youre retarded, but claiming the pentagon is "battle hardened" is pretty much iron-clad evidence of an extra chromosome in the mix.

InCognition · May 31, 2012

UncleBuck said:
how dare those poor african children born into the most dire of circumstances not possess the working knowledge of germs and disease that us westerners do.

let's mock and deride them for cheap political points.

fucking assholes make me sick.

Yes because they must be entitled to the same comforts as the people of the ridiculously comfort-structured, western society.

Just like it's not their fault they're born into dire circumstances, it's no one else fault either.

They will just have to deal with it, like they have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years. 2012 must be different... did I miss something?

OGEvilgenius · May 31, 2012

The Pentagon is unquestionably constructed of reinforced concrete.

InCognition · May 31, 2012

UncleBuck said:
talk about strawman. you have an army of strawboys here.

once again, your long winded nonsense can be boiled down to one sentence: you are against foreign aid.

that's fine, just say it. but you ignore the main point: a stitch in time saves nine. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of treatment.

we are sending that aid money anyway. fix the underlying problem, and we will be able to send less money. we save money in the end. it's an investment.

not to mention, it saves lives. but a humanitarian like yourself is not interested in that, only cheap political hackery.

Foreign aid is not aid, when it's prerequisite is theft of taxes. It's theft first and foremost, then beyond that, it's a deliverance of stolen property (money).

Using theft in order to justify charity and/or aid, is not a justification in the least, it's unjust in the utmost degree.

Dr Kynes · May 31, 2012

NoDrama said:
Extremely contradictory evidence you just put up there. First you start by saying that the fuselage is the most massive and strongest part of the plane and was able to get through all 3 rings of the pentagon, later on you say that the "aircraft fuselages are delicate thin shells which can rip open under the force of the wind even at relatively low speeds" You can't have it both ways. either the fuselage is the strongest part of the plane, capable of penetrating 3 battle hardened rings or it is flimsy and made up of thin aluminum and composites. Which is it?

They don't make guns out of titanium because that shit costs $40 a pound and requires a much more expensive tooling capability. They DO MAKE receivers and other gun parts out of titanium for the very expensive parts, but Titanium is too elastic to hold rifling in a barrel. Whomever told you it was because it gets brittle at high heat as the reason why was filling you full of shit. The reason they don't make guns out of it has to do with cost and not tensile strength.

Ohhh my god. Im going to have to walk you through this aint i? An aircraft fuselage may not be the most solid piece of engineering ever devised, but there is a LOT OF IT! energy delivered on a target is simple: Force = Mass X Velocity a half ounce of lead moving at 600 miles an hour delivers exactly the same energy as a half ounce of aluminium moving at 600 miles an hour, and thats the force of a .45 slug. lead is a better choice for bullets than most materials because it's higher sectional density makes for a smaller projectile, with the same or greater mass. Firearm (guns and cannons, not even counting bows and spears and slings etc) projectiles used for killing people and knocking down walls (even ones that are "battle Hardened") include Stone Wood (yes, wood) Aluminim, Iron, Steel, Tin, Bronze, Copper, and Plastic. All of these materials were, and in many cases still are used in Lethal Ammunition, not just crowd dispersal rounds, and every one of them can, and has killed people and knocked down walls. Big Game hunters use comparatively light bronze slugs to take down large and dangerous game. The french and british have used wood, aluminium and copper slugs since WW1 to good effect, and even bullets with large hollow spaces stuffed with paper. (example .303 mark 7 projectile)

force = mass X velocity. low mass at high velocity or high mass at low velocity, the result is the same. big holes in shit.

also, read up on titanium. it IS BRITTLE it shatters under stress, but is very hard, which is why it is used in golf clubs, for the club face. when exposed to high temperatures it creeps, bulges, spalls and galls, has poor friction handling powers, and can crush under a load. This is why your car's tiny 2 ounce steel bearings which support the full weight of your car are made of steel instead of titanium. the only portions of a firearm made from titanium (and damned few of those even) are frames for revolvers, and not because of the expense. FOR STRENGTH! the m16 's receiver parts are aluminium, not titanium. if the pentagon (being so "Battle Hardened") thought they could get better performance out of titanium they would not be shy about spending our money to get some. The space shuttle used surprisingly little titanium, because it BURSTS INTO FLAMES IN THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID OXYGEN! Titanium is not the super-metal that TV and comic books have portrayed for the last 30 years. Titanium is useful in a wide range of applications, but its actually weaker than steel in all the ways that really count. it doesnt bend, it breaks. it deforms under moderate heat, and cant take friction. thats not to say titanium is bad, it just isnt always the "Battle Hardened" choice for most uses.

lets not be "Battle Hardened" about this. Im sure theres a "Battle Hardened" way to find out the truth. If only we could reach Scooby and the gang, maybe they could pull the monster mask off Old Man Cheney, owner of the haunted amusement park.
"and i woulda got away with it if it wasnt for you "Battle Hardened" kids!

UncleBuck · May 31, 2012

InCognition said:
Yes because they must be entitled to the same comforts as the people of the ridiculously comfort-structured, western society.

Just like it's not their fault they're born into dire circumstances, it's no one else fault either.

They will just have to deal with it, like they have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years. 2012 must be different... did I miss something?

i like how you think it is perfectly wonderful to watch them die, rather than a sad event.

but then again, some people lack empathy and/or are psychotic, homicidal loons.

NoDrama · May 31, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
"the most massive and strongest part of the plane never went through even the exterior walls of the Pentagon"
Yes. the engines. mounted in nacelles below the wings were busted off when the plane went through the building. This is not a bugs bunny cartoon. wings stick out, and therefore receive more stress when pushed through concrete. The wings will generally fail, and not leave a perfectly plane shaped hole after passing through 60 yards of building. the central fuselage (which may be mostly hollow, and made of aluminium, but its the greatest concentration of mass on the plane) will continue on it's journey longer than the wings and engines, just like the tail stabilizers on a missile are not the part that does the damage. thats how science works.

I agree , but there isn't even any damage on the OUTSIDE of the fucking building, as if the wings, tail and engines were not even there, what part of that did YOU miss? Without refuting that, your entire argument falls flat.

"yet the aluminum and carbon fuselage went through all 3 layers"
yes... a couple hundred tons of aluminium can damage a building just like a couple hundred tons of lead, steel, Acme Brand Perfectly Round Boulders (tm), or a falling meteorite.

But against steel it can go right through? Remember the huge hole that was made through the giant STEEL girders in the Towers? It had a big wing shape in it because the wings went through those steel girders. BTW, if we hold your theory to be true, 100 tons of feathers would also go through the walls of the Pentagon also.

"battle hardened reinforced concrete."

Click to expand...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !! if the builders and occupants of the pentagon ever even dreamed they might need their offices to be "battle hardened" they would have buried it under cheyenne mountain! I dont want to say youre retarded, but claiming the pentagon is "battle hardened" is pretty much iron-clad evidence of an extra chromosome in the mix.

The walls of the pentagon are each 3 feet thick of what is called "Bunker Concrete" which is reinforced with steel every 4 inches, its made to shrug off minor blasts like a bunker should. Your argument that the pentagon is nothing more than a house of straw is absurd upon its face if a similar jet can take down a 144 story building and the wings and engines can go all the way through the outer steel girders, yet not exit the other side, but in the pentagon the wings and engines cannot even scratch the outer surface of the pentagon, yet the fuselage can go through 3 times as much material as the WTC plane strikes did.

Guess what the walls of nuclear power stations are made of? Same thing the pentagon is made of, Reinforced concrete, 1.8M thick. Guess what the biggest strongest bank vaults in the world are made of? Reinforced concrete. There is this big dam out by Vegas, you might have heard of it, Hoover Dam, guess what that is made of? Did you guess reinforced concrete? I think it is hilarious that you really think that a Military building next to washington DC doesn't have quality construction methods, especially when it was built during a huge war.
http://www.opg.com/power/nuclear/darlington/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_concrete
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/The_Pentagon.html

NoDrama · May 31, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
Ohhh my god. Im going to have to walk you through this aint i? An aircraft fuselage may not be the most solid piece of engineering ever devised, but there is a LOT OF IT! energy delivered on a target is simple: Force = Mass X Velocity a half ounce of lead moving at 600 miles an hour delivers exactly the same energy as a half ounce of aluminium moving at 600 miles an hour, and thats the force of a .45 slug. lead is a better choice for bullets than most materials because it's higher sectional density makes for a smaller projectile, with the same or greater mass. Firearm (guns and cannons, not even counting bows and spears and slings etc) projectiles used for killing people and knocking down walls (even ones that are "battle Hardened") include Stone Wood (yes, wood) Aluminim, Iron, Steel, Tin, Bronze, Copper, and Plastic. All of these materials were, and in many cases still are used in Lethal Ammunition, not just crowd dispersal rounds, and every one of them can, and has killed people and knocked down walls. Big Game hunters use comparatively light bronze slugs to take down large and dangerous game. The french and british have used wood, aluminium and copper slugs since WW1 to good effect, and even bullets with large hollow spaces stuffed with paper. (example .303 mark 7 projectile)

force = mass X velocity. low mass at high velocity or high mass at low velocity, the result is the same. big holes in shit.

also, read up on titanium. it IS BRITTLE it shatters under stress, but is very hard, which is why it is used in golf clubs, for the club face. when exposed to high temperatures it creeps, bulges, spalls and galls, has poor friction handling powers, and can crush under a load. This is why your car's tiny 2 ounce steel bearings which support the full weight of your car are made of steel instead of titanium. the only portions of a firearm made from titanium (and damned few of those even) are frames for revolvers, and not because of the expense. FOR STRENGTH! the m16 's receiver parts are aluminium, not titanium. if the pentagon (being so "Battle Hardened") thought they could get better performance out of titanium they would not be shy about spending our money to get some. The space shuttle used surprisingly little titanium, because it BURSTS INTO FLAMES IN THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID OXYGEN! Titanium is not the super-metal that TV and comic books have portrayed for the last 30 years. Titanium is useful in a wide range of applications, but its actually weaker than steel in all the ways that really count. it doesnt bend, it breaks. it deforms under moderate heat, and cant take friction. thats not to say titanium is bad, it just isnt always the "Battle Hardened" choice for most uses.

lets not be "Battle Hardened" about this. Im sure theres a "Battle Hardened" way to find out the truth. If only we could reach Scooby and the gang, maybe they could pull the monster mask off Old Man Cheney, owner of the haunted amusement park.
"and i woulda got away with it if it wasnt for you "Battle Hardened" kids!

#1, A ton of feathers going 500 miles per hour does the same damage as a ton of lead? Pure entertainment tonight to watch you try to make this assertion. BTW you know next to nothing about bullets, Big game hunters do not use bronze bullets you moron. I never have and I have hunted more in a year than you have in a lifetime. The amount of time between hunts for me is measured in weeks , sometimes days, in the fall. Your only hunt was for panties in a raid in College.

#2 Titanium grade 23 has 30% more tensile strength than highest tensile alloy steel. I know plenty about titanium there bub, if it shatters into dust at 500F then how the fuck does it not shatter in a jet engine with temps of 1000F. I will let you contemplate how you will dig yourself out of the huge hole you are in. The more you post the deeper that hole gets.

http://peosoldier.armylive.dodlive.mil/2010/04/20/making-the-army’s-first-titanium-machine-gun/
http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/l/aasttaurustrcka.htm
http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=19&category=Pistol
http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/31058997/detail.html
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/04/foghorn/nemo-arms-worlds-first-titanium-ar-10/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/10/daniel-zimmerman/new-gun-maker-heizer-announces-doubletap-45-derringer/

They don't make guns out of titanium eh?

Dr Kynes · May 31, 2012

OGEvilgenius said:
The Pentagon is unquestionably constructed of reinforced concrete.

yes thats true. but so were the WTC towers and building 7, and almost every large concrete structure in the world. this is not the same as armored concrete. armored concrete is not reinforced with rebar, or hog wire. that shit is reinforced with fiberglass, ballistic fibers, and asbestos fibers, built up from layers of concrete cured underwater, and under pressure. some of it is even infused with epoxy and other materials as bonding agents, then baked for a super hard surface and incredibly strong structure underneath. Armored concrete is so expensive to use, the best types are solely the province of experimental laser target backstops and supercollider enclosures.

the pentagon office structure was built from the ordinary "reinforced concrete" that is called "just plain concrete" when its used to make your root cellar, or the town swimming pool. they just used a fucking shitload of the stuff.

the bunkers under the pentagon, and under the greenbriar hotel, and under cheyenne mountain, and in iron mountain, etc etc etc.. are usually made of the same ordinary reinforced concrete. more 'crete makes strong walls, for less money than thinner walls made of exotic materials and esoteric alloys

NoDrama · May 31, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
yes thats true. but so were the WTC towers and building 7,

Jeeezus you ARE a wonderment of low IQ today aren't you? WTC and Building 7 were made of Steel you idiot. I don't mean to sound so aggressive, but goddamn you keep just digging that hole.

the pentagon office structure was built from the ordinary "reinforced concrete" that is called "just plain concrete" when its used to make your root cellar, or the town swimming pool. they just used a fucking shitload of the stuff.

Dig faster, I assure you that "Ordinary concrete " is not the same as "reinforced Concrete" You don't "reinforce" concrete by adding more concrete there dummy, you reinforce it by adding a steel grid to the slurry. Jeezus you have to be SUperdense, like a white dwarf star or something.

the bunkers under the pentagon, and under the greenbriar hotel, and under cheyenne mountain, and in iron mountain, etc etc etc.. are usually made of the same ordinary reinforced concrete. more 'crete makes strong walls, for less money than thinner walls made of exotic materials and esoteric alloys

You must have a titanium shovel to dig that hole so deep, now stop acting so dumb, I have read many of your posts, and you never act this stupid before>What kind of shit you been smoking? Bath Salts cause you to eat people's faces off don't you know?

if the builders and occupants of the pentagon ever even dreamed they might need their offices to be "battle hardened" they would have buried it under cheyenne mountain!

You said a mouth full when you realized that it was reinforced concrete.

Reinforced Concrete walls do this to planes, notice that the plane does not penetrate at all, yet we are asked to believe that in this instance a plane penetrated much more.

[video=youtube;RZjhxuhTmGk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk[/video]

C'Mon dude, get with the program.

Dr Kynes · May 31, 2012

NoDrama said:
#1, A ton of feathers going 500 miles per hour does the same damage as a ton of lead? Pure entertainment tonight to watch you try to make this assertion. BTW you know next to nothing about bullets, Big game hunters do not use bronze bullets you moron. I never have and I have hunted more in a year than you have in a lifetime. The amount of time between hunts for me is measured in weeks , sometimes days, in the fall. Your only hunt was for panties in a raid in College.

#2 Titanium grade 23 has 30% more tensile strength than highest tensile alloy steel. I know plenty about titanium there bub, if it shatters into dust at 500F then how the fuck does it not shatter in a jet engine with temps of 1000F. I will let you contemplate how you will dig yourself out of the huge hole you are in. The more you post the deeper that hole gets.

http://peosoldier.armylive.dodlive.mil/2010/04/20/making-the-army’s-first-titanium-machine-gun/
http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/l/aasttaurustrcka.htm
http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=19&category=Pistol
http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/31058997/detail.html
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/04/foghorn/nemo-arms-worlds-first-titanium-ar-10/
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/10/daniel-zimmerman/new-gun-maker-heizer-announces-doubletap-45-derringer/

They don't make guns out of titanium eh?

point 1 who said feathers? answer, you did.
point 2 bronze solid monolith bullets for big game. http://www.shakariconnection.com/solids-v-monometal.html check em bro. also, accusing a hillbilly of not huntin, or of goin to college is fightin words round here!

point 3 tensile strength is not the sole measure of strength. it only measures the failure load of a given material, not it's malleability, ductility, or the hundreds of other factors that go into choosing the right material for an application.
point 4 reading is fundamental. titanium shatters under a load rather than deforming. thats why they dont make springs or bearing out of it.
point 5 at 400 to 500 degrees titanium deforms, not disntegrates. it is not used for high temp applications for this reason. when held captive in the hub, and sprules of a turbine the deformation is not a problem, and the volume of air moving through the turbines keeps the temeperature stable enough to keep the blades in shape. most modern turbofan engines generate heat well in excess of the melting point of it's components. Thats right the fucker is half melted when operating, and only stays in it's shape due to clever engineering and Rube Goldberg cooling systems. read this shit. "In the combustion chamber, fuel is mixed with air to produce the bang, which is responsible for the expansion that forces the air into the turbine. Inside the typical commercial jet engine, the fuel burns in the combustion chamber at up to 2000 degrees Celsius. The temperature at which metals in this part of the engine start to melt is 1300 degrees Celsius, so advanced cooling techniques must be used." source: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~eroberts/courses/ww2/projects/jet-airplanes/how.html

point 6 yeah. and you can make a gun out of gold, silver or platinum too. you cited experimental guns, show guns, trick guns, and brag guns, but only there are very few examples of actual production guns using titanium, and those use it in the frame (where glock uses plastic, and most ohers use aluminium) as a weight saving idea. Other guns include a titanium dioxide rust preventative coating, but they are steel or aluminium underneath. since most of your links are 403, or about taurus guns, i guess you think taurus makes the finest guns on earth, or they have stumbled onto the secret that nobody else has tossed yet. (protip: taurus makes cheap guns, that are designed to appeal to the casual shooter, not serious hunters or sportsmen) Smith and wesson toyed with titanium framed revolvers in the 90's (the airweight line), turns out aluminium is better, and they havent looked back. Titanium has it's place, but as the primary material for guns, not a chance. even the titanium knives are made of titanium for light weight and corrosion resistance, not for the "strength" of titanium. I have a couple titanium knives, and you have to hone them with a diamond sharpener. they keep their edge well, but titanium knives are easy to chip, and even break under normal use. ask an abalone diver what kind of knife he uses to pry them off the rocks and he willl tell you. STEEL! Titanium knives are fine in the kitchen but for prying abalone off a rock, separating the joints of a big ass elk so you can pack it home, or workin around the farm they just dont cut it.

stop being smug and trying to "score" i dont have to dig out of shit. science doesnt change to fit agendas, schemes, conspiracy theories or the insane ramblings of tin foil hat club members.

Dr Kynes · May 31, 2012

reinforced concrete is NOT ARMORED CONCRETE! reinforced concrete is ORDINARY CONCRETE USED IN THE ORDINARY WAY ALL IN CONSTRUCTION!!! 1) place steel mesh or rebar. 2) build your forms, 3) pour it in,shake it, vibrate it and tamp it down to eliminate voids 4) let it set up and cure. these are the same steps used to build with concrete, from a swimming pool to a fucking skyscraper. the same 'crete in the same way. with more or less steel as needed.

WTC buildings were built with load bearing reinforced concrete columns with a steel and glass curtain wall for the exterior surfaces. the steel and glass exterior curtain wall helped support the structure's habitable spaces but the wieght of the building rested on ORDINARY CONCRETE which is ALWAYS REINFORCED because 'crete cant support it's own weight without help in any structure more complex than a solid pyramid. if you insist on splitting the hairs of how reinforced concrete is not ordinary, because it is reinforced, then you really need mental help. anybody who ever put in a driveway can tell you ALL CONCRETE REQUIRES REINFORCEMENT unless you pour it 3 feet thick for a godamned driveway, not a building!

your video shows a fighter jet hitting a target, not a building. what is the target made of, can you tell me that? a block of steel painted white? real armored concrete? or perhaps it's made of spider silk and moonbeams? This is proof of nothing except when hitting a massive object at high speed, aircraft tend to turn into very small particles what is particularly telling is the lack of an after shot of the target. the TV announcer's voiceover (always the finest source for scientific data) describes the target as a test material for the walls of nuclear power plants which is "designed to move and absorb energy" what material is that? certainly not concrete. Low mobility is one of the key traits builders look for in a structural material for skyscrapers, or office building for military clerks..

the pentagon is just an office building. it's not a fortress, or indestructible castle. it is just a really large office block for military clerks.

be less smug seriously. you may not know everything, and as a dude who has loaded and shot bronze bullets, i can tell you definitively they actually do exists. as do some of the wackier other options.

"Although the it appears to be a conventional spitzer-shape full metal jacket bullet, this appearance is deceptive: its designers made the front third of the interior of the Mk 7 bullet out of aluminium (from Canada) or tenite (cellulosic plastic), wood pulp or compressed paper, instead of lead." source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.303_British i have shot these as well, and they really do work.

i've used bullets with plastic tops, solid lead, solid bismuth, solid copper, solid brozne, aluminium jacketed brass, steel jacketed lead , copper jacketed steel, steel cores encased in lead then jacketed with copper, bullets with incendiary and explosive charges, and even bullets made from compressed pellets of copper and tin.

NoDrama · May 31, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
reinforced concrete is NOT ARMORED CONCRETE! reinforced concrete is ORDINARY CONCRETE USED IN THE ORDINARY WAY ALL IN CONSTRUCTION!!! 1) place steel mesh or rebar. 2) build your forms, 3) pour it in,shake it, vibrate it and tamp it down to eliminate voids 4) let it set up and cure. these are the same steps used to build with concrete, from a swimming pool to a fucking skyscraper. the same 'crete in the same way. with more or less steel as needed.

WTC buildings were built with load bearing reinforced concrete columns with a steel and glass curtain wall for the exterior surfaces. the steel and glass exterior curtain wall helped support the structure's habitable spaces but the wieght of the building rested on ORDINARY CONCRETE which is ALWAYS REINFORCED because 'crete cant support it's own weight without help in any structure more complex than a solid pyramid. if you insist on splitting the hairs of how reinforced concrete is not ordinary, because it is reinforced, then you really need mental help. anybody who ever put in a driveway can tell you ALL CONCRETE REQUIRES REINFORCEMENT unless you pour it 3 feet thick for a godamned driveway, not a building!

your video shows a fighter jet hitting a target, not a building. what is the target made of, can you tell me that? a block of steel painted white? real armored concrete? or perhaps it's made of spider silk and moonbeams? This is proof of nothing except when hitting a massive object at high speed, aircraft tend to turn into very small particles what is particularly telling is the lack of an after shot of the target. the TV announcer's voiceover (always the finest source for scientific data) describes the target as a test material for the walls of nuclear power plants which is "designed to move and absorb energy" what material is that? certainly not concrete. Low mobility is one of the key traits builders look for in a structural material for skyscrapers, or office building for military clerks..

the pentagon is just an office building. it's not a fortress, or indestructible castle. it is just a really large office block for military clerks.

be less smug seriously. you may not know everything, and as a dude who has loaded and shot bronze bullets, i can tell you definitively they actually do exists. as do some of the wackier other options.

"Although the it appears to be a conventional spitzer-shape full metal jacket bullet, this appearance is deceptive: its designers made the front third of the interior of the Mk 7 bullet out of aluminium (from Canada) or tenite (cellulosic plastic), wood pulp or compressed paper, instead of lead." source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.303_British i have shot these as well, and they really do work.

i've used bullets with plastic tops, solid lead, solid bismuth, solid copper, solid brozne, aluminium jacketed brass, steel jacketed lead , copper jacketed steel, steel cores encased in lead then jacketed with copper, bullets with incendiary and explosive charges, and even bullets made from compressed pellets of copper and tin.

No one ever made the argument that the reinforced concrete in the Pentagon was armored, Your probably just hearing things differently way down in that hole you dug for yourself.

BTW if you are too stupid to read or listen to the video tell you that the "Target" is plain old vanilla reinforced concrete, well then I can't help you, you need to be at least this(1) smart to participate in debate.

You shot a bronze bullet while in Africa hunting big game?

BTW a british .303 is NOT a big game bullet, not even a little bit. Your ignorance shines brightly for all to see. You start at .375H&H for big game. :dunce:

I never said they don't exist, I said they don't hunt large game with them.

What military service were you in?

Oh and one more thing, WTC towers and building 7 are made from Steel, not concrete, you can try all you want to debate this but all the evidence is on my side so its gonna make your hole even deeper, quit before you get to the hot and gooey center.

Dr Kynes · May 31, 2012

NoDrama said:
No one ever made the argument that the reinforced concrete in the Pentagon was armored, Your probably just hearing things differently way down in that hole you dug for yourself.

BTW if you are too stupid to read or listen to the video tell you that the "Target" is plain old vanilla reinforced concrete, well then I can't help you, you need to be at least this(1) smart to participate in debate.

You shot a bronze bullet while in Africa hunting big game?

BTW a british .303 is NOT a big game bullet, not even a little bit. Your ignorance shines brightly for all to see. You start at .375H&H for big game.
I never said they don't exist, I said they don't hunt large game with them.

What military service were you in?

Oh and one more thing, WTC towers and building 7 are made from Steel, not concrete, you can try all you want to debate this but all the evidence is on my side so its gonna make your hole even deeper, quit before you get to the hot and gooey center.

You seem to have forgotten about the "Battle Hardened" comment you yourself made, to give the impression that the construction of the pentagon office structures were somehow inexplicably stronger than ordinary concrete construction. These implications result in an erroneous inference on the part of the reader. or, in other words, everything short of an actual lie. despite your curious handle, Drama seems to be your goal.

The video describes the target material exactly as i quoted. a test material "designed to move and absorb energy" (the little ears on either side means these words are EXACTLY what the announcer said.)

No, i loaded and shot a bronze bullet because somebody gave me a few, and i wanted to load them and soot them. For Fun. I shot an Oak stump. Shit was a gas. and the goddamed rifle nearly knocked me on my ass. So now you agree that they actually are used for big game hunting? i thought you said "Big game hunters do not use bronze bullets you moron" or am i foolishly believing my own lying eyes again?

FYI while i never made any such claim, regarding the suitability of the .303 british round for big game hunting, the .303 british is rated as suitable for all but the largest bruins in north america, and they can get the job done there too, though most hunters would agree, bear mean when soot him, use big big gun. Fact is, the .303 british has successfully taken game of all types on all continents (including the african big 5, aincluding yes, elephant) even if they are not ideally suited for the heavier, thicker skinned critters, or may require a lot of shots to get the job done, or a change of underpants at the end. The purpose of including the .303 mark 7 data is to offer you a little knowledge about seemingly retarded bullet design materials which have been used, sometimes with great success (the .303 mark 7 for example), and you should know, Theodore Roosevelt carried a savage model 1899 lever action rifle in .303 british on safari in africa, and on his exploration of the amazon and orinoco rivers. (this was not his only gun, but its the one he personally carried the most. it was his preferred stalking and walking gun)

sadly my football injuries prevented my enlistment, but i dont see why this is relevant, or are you just making small talk?

and finally: Reinforced concrete load bearing columns,a glass and steel curtain wall and solid concrete floors supported by steel trusses and the curtain wall were the hallmarks of the WTC tower's construction. the central core of the towers was a massive column of concrete and steel risinf almost to the topmost floors to take most of the weight of the freefloating concrete floors and their trusses, with the balance distributed to the glass and steel curtain wall. The design minimized the outward appearance of structural concrete, offering a modern look of polished steel (actually polished aluminium cladding) and glass. The concrete was all inside but that doesnt mean it wasnt there. Building 7 was a fairly traditional modern concrete and steel construction with funky steel trusses to transfer the weight of a too large building onto a too small foundation, but the vast majority of its mass was in fact, concrete. you cant just make shit up bro.

if the buildings were made of steel then why all the concrete? sure they used a little less 'crete per cubic foot than many other buildings of the same era, but they also stood taller than most too, and 'crete doesnt hold it's own weight well. Unless it's "Battle Hardened"

InCognition · Jun 1, 2012

UncleBuck said:
i like how you think it is perfectly wonderful to watch them die, rather than a sad event.

but then again, some people lack empathy and/or are psychotic, homicidal loons.

I like how you think it's perfectly wonderful to steal from the people of this country in order to give to others, rather than take care of the sad problems here.

But then again, some lack intelligence, and/or are delusional in regards to thinking we can take care of the world, on the basis of theft from those who are "better-off".

Hypocrisy spoken to it's greatest degree... absolute insanity and the epitome of ignorance.

NoDrama · Jun 1, 2012

Dr Kynes said:
You seem to have forgotten about the "Battle Hardened" comment you yourself made, to give the impression that the construction of the pentagon office structures were somehow inexplicably stronger than ordinary concrete construction. These implications result in an erroneous inference on the part of the reader. or, in other words, everything short of an actual lie. despite your curious handle, Drama seems to be your goal.

The video describes the target material exactly as i quoted. a test material "designed to move and absorb energy" (the little ears on either side means these words are EXACTLY what the announcer said.)

No, i loaded and shot a bronze bullet because somebody gave me a few, and i wanted to load them and soot them. For Fun. I shot an Oak stump. Shit was a gas. and the goddamed rifle nearly knocked me on my ass. So now you agree that they actually are used for big game hunting? i thought you said "Big game hunters do not use bronze bullets you moron" or am i foolishly believing my own lying eyes again?

FYI while i never made any such claim, regarding the suitability of the .303 british round for big game hunting, the .303 british is rated as suitable for all but the largest bruins in north america, and they can get the job done there too, though most hunters would agree, bear mean when soot him, use big big gun. Fact is, the .303 british has successfully taken game of all types on all continents (including the african big 5, aincluding yes, elephant) even if they are not ideally suited for the heavier, thicker skinned critters, or may require a lot of shots to get the job done, or a change of underpants at the end. The purpose of including the .303 mark 7 data is to offer you a little knowledge about seemingly retarded bullet design materials which have been used, sometimes with great success (the .303 mark 7 for example), and you should know, Theodore Roosevelt carried a savage model 1899 lever action rifle in .303 british on safari in africa, and on his exploration of the amazon and orinoco rivers. (this was not his only gun, but its the one he personally carried the most. it was his preferred stalking and walking gun)

sadly my football injuries prevented my enlistment, but i dont see why this is relevant, or are you just making small talk?

and finally: Reinforced concrete load bearing columns,a glass and steel curtain wall and solid concrete floors supported by steel trusses and the curtain wall were the hallmarks of the WTC tower's construction. the central core of the towers was a massive column of concrete and steel risinf almost to the topmost floors to take most of the weight of the freefloating concrete floors and their trusses, with the balance distributed to the glass and steel curtain wall. The design minimized the outward appearance of structural concrete, offering a modern look of polished steel (actually polished aluminium cladding) and glass. The concrete was all inside but that doesnt mean it wasnt there. Building 7 was a fairly traditional modern concrete and steel construction with funky steel trusses to transfer the weight of a too large building onto a too small foundation, but the vast majority of its mass was in fact, concrete. you cant just make shit up bro.

if the buildings were made of steel then why all the concrete? sure they used a little less 'crete per cubic foot than many other buildings of the same era, but they also stood taller than most too, and 'crete doesnt hold it's own weight well. Unless it's "Battle Hardened"

Snore, more BS. Let me just make this real short for you.

Reinforced concrete is what makes bunkers and buildings that are hardened against battle damage. Ordinary concrete has no steel girder.

Teddy Roosevelt's favorite gun was called "Big Medicine" it was chambered in .405 WCF and was a Winchester model 1895 Lever action, in fact all of Teddy's favorite guns were Winchesters. You would know this if you have ever been to Medora. This is a well known FACT and is very well documented.

Oak Stumps are not big game animals, neither are black or brown bears. Big Game hunters use single shots to take down animals, Using multiple shots because you didn't bring the correct tool for the job is very disrespectful of nature and heresy in some hunter circles. You don't want the animal to suffer any more than it has to, obviously someone here has never hunted.

Guess where 60% of the concrete used in WTC was? In the BASE!!! 425,000 Cubic yards used, of which 310,000 cubic yards were used in the sub floors or base of the building.

Notice how this building is constructed primarily of large steel girders? its WTC being built.

Media Blackout As Obama Appoints First Ever Assassination Czar

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member