Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[shen]

So these experts would know beforehand how little or big the damage was going to be? The video does not show the other sides of the building. Where and who are these explosive experts that planted the explosives?

Who? When ? How? Before you can be sure an orange is an orange you have to peel it then taste it. Beware of the wolf in sheeps clothing.

No they wouldn't. They would have placed enough explosives to bring down the building intact. And maybe herein lies the crux of your objection. Would the building have been brought down if debris from the towers DIDN'T hit it, or if fire hadn't broken out, i.e. would it have been TOO obvious then?

The questions about who it'd be and where they'd be is obviously impossible to answer or guess. I don't imagine that it would have been impossible to infiltrate the building as the report makes out. I mean, if bombs have been placed in the Twin Towers before, why shouldn't it have been possible in WTC 7?

Again, I'm just playing along with the hypothetical scenario here...

[OzFox]

I am talking about the collapse of WTC7 and as far as I am aware there were no casualties and so no grieving families to upset if there was a reinvestigation of it’s unusual ( to say the least ) collapse .

And grieving families , I’m sure would agree , that the truth is still the most important factor .and many 911 families are at the forefront for 911 truth .

The Guildford 4 , Birmingham 6 , Maguires etc etc etc , would still be languishing in prison if the people cannot keep questioning inconsistencies of the official versions of events and how evidence is presented , so please don’t use that ridiculous emotive claptrap. it is plain wrong to even suggest such nonsense .

Do you really believe that anyone questioning the official version in any of these situations is doing so to upset family and relatives of the deceased ?

Re Pentagon witnesses

Eyewitnesses to the pentagon didn't have the benefit of watching what they saw over and over , unlike the footage of WTC7 collapse , so it really is not a good comparison .

You keep going on about the witnesses to the pentagon crash as though they must be infallible , some of them even claimed to have seen the AA logo

Take a step back and try to imagine an airliner appearing out of the blue in a power dive at 530 mph ( official FDR figures), and really ask yourself if you could possibly be able to tell what it was , let alone pick out logos . it could not have been anything but a blur to any onlooker , at that speed .

Alternatively , If I am to believe the witnesses who did see the logos etc , then I am not inclined to believe that what they saw was travelling at 530 mph . If they recognised logos etc, it must have been travelling at a much slower speed and therefore would not be capable of the enormous puncturing damage, because as we have clearly witnessed so often, airliners break up very easily on contact and do not penetrate concrete walls.

I’ll either believe the eyewitnesses saw what they saw if the plane was travelling at a much much slower speed, or I think they are mistaken and only saying what they think they saw , not both .

You've discussed both WTC7 and the Pentagon in this thread. You appear to think that your interpretation of one grainy Youtube video (WTC7) is more reliable than dozens of eyewitnesses from many different angles and distances (pentagon). Of course Pentagon witnesses would be able to see the AA livery. Many of them made statements to that effect, as I listed in post #335. 530 mph (or 345mph according to the flight data recorder) isn't anywhere near fast enough to be "just a blur" as you seem to think, especially when you consider It's a bloody great airliner, not a bullet. You see planes landing at 150-200mph...don't have any trouble reading the logo or seeing that it's an airplane do you?

As to emotive claptrap, if I was a bereaved family member I'd be getting mighty cheesed off by now with people dragging up conspiracy theories. You say that "many 911 families are at the forefront for 911 truth". Who are they? Can you name them? They all believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition do they?

[Babylon]

You keep going on about the witnesses to the pentagon crash as though they must be infallible , some of them even claimed to have seen the AA logo

Take a step back and try to imagine an airliner appearing out of the blue in a power dive at 530 mph ( official FDR figures), and really ask yourself if you could possibly be able to tell what it was , let alone pick out logos . it could not have been anything but a blur to any onlooker , at that speed .

Alternatively , If I am to believe the witnesses who did see the logos etc , then I am not inclined to believe that what they saw was travelling at 530 mph . If they recognised logos etc, it must have been travelling at a much slower speed and therefore would not be capable of the enormous puncturing damage, because as we have clearly witnessed so often, airliners break up very easily on contact and do not penetrate concrete walls.

I’ll either believe the eyewitnesses saw what they saw if the plane was travelling at a much much slower speed, or I think they are mistaken and only saying what they think they saw , not both .

What rubbish, American Airlines have one of the most distinguishable planes out there. They are silver for starters not the usual white, they have stripes down the side with the word "American" and a large AA logo at the back. Very easy to spot (especially to an American) Stand at an airport and watch planes come and go (181mph take off speed), you can easily spot the major features even and would continue to if you doubled the speed of a takeoff.

airliners break up very easily on contact and do not penetrate concrete walls.

Could you qualify that statement please? You think something weighing 100+ tonnes would not penetrate a concrete wall?

[Darkon84]

What rubbish, American Airlines have one of the most distinguishable planes out there. They are silver for starters not the usual white, they have stripes down the side with the word "American" and a large AA logo at the back. Very easy to spot (especially to an American) Stand at an airport and watch planes come and go (181mph take off speed), you can easily spot the major features even and would continue to if you doubled the speed of a takeoff.

Could you qualify that statement please? You think something weighing 100+ tonnes would not penetrate a concrete wall?

Thats a BIG FREAKING PLANE!!

Is that what hit the Pentagon?

Left an awfully small hole didnt it?

[OzFox]

Maybe they mistook "American Airlines" for "Royal Navy"

[Zingari]

You've discussed both WTC7 and the Pentagon in this thread. You appear to think that your interpretation of one grainy Youtube video (WTC7) is more reliable than dozens of eyewitnesses from many different angles and distances (pentagon). Of course Pentagon witnesses would be able to see the AA livery. Many of them made statements to that effect, as I listed in post #335. 530 mph (or 345mph according to the flight data recorder) isn't anywhere near fast enough to be "just a blur" as you seem to think, especially when you consider It's a bloody great airliner, not a bullet. You see planes landing at 150-200mph...don't have any trouble reading the logo or seeing that it's an airplane do you?

As to emotive claptrap, if I was a bereaved family member I'd be getting mighty cheesed off by now with people dragging up conspiracy theories. You say that "many 911 families are at the forefront for 911 truth". Who are they? Can you name them? They all believe WTC7 was a controlled demolition do they?

if you feel so bad about it , write to the family members of 911 victims here who are calling for a new investigation

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

[OzFox]

if you feel so bad about it , write to the family members of 911 victims here who are calling for a new investigation

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

Interesting website. I notice their mission statement is to "expose the official lies and cover-up surrounding the events of September 11th, 2001 in a way that inspires the people to overcome denial and understand the truth; namely, that elements within the US government and covert policy apparatus must have orchestrated or participated in the execution of the attacks for these to have happened in the way that they did" Sitting on the fence a bit isn't it?

Roughly 3000 people died on 9/11. If we assume each victim had an average of four close family members that means the "9/11 Truth" people had a pool of 12,000+ people to sign up to their cause. And they got 40. Not doing too well are they?

I also note one of their claimed family members was related to someone on American Airlines flight 77. That's the one you said didn't crash into the Pentagon. That's got to be conflict of interest surely?

[Zingari]

OK , I've stated over and over again that there are valid reasons to be suspicious and I respect why many are suspicious , because governments have lied so often in the past for nefarious purposes .

I for one will remain grateful to the ones who are working tirelessly ( often at great personal expense )to keep check on what the government is trying to do .

If you believe they are fools that's fine. But every other grand conspiracy was only believed by "fools" until it was proven , but then of course we can all say, " i knew it all along "

i'll have to leave it there for a day or two , but i'm confident the debate will run for a while yet though with or without me

[OzFox]

OK , I've stated over and over again that there are valid reasons to be suspicious and I respect why many are suspicious , because governments have lied so often in the past for nefarious purposes .

I for one will remain grateful to the ones who are working tirelessly ( often at great personal expense )to keep check on what the government is trying to do .

If you believe they are fools that's fine. But every other grand conspiracy was only believed by "fools" until it was proven , but then of course we can all say, " i knew it all along "

i'll have to leave it there for a day or two , but i'm confident the debate will run for a while yet though with or without me

Such as?

[shen]

i'll have to leave it there for a day or two , but i'm confident the debate will run for a while yet though with or without me

Of course! Empty has joined the carnage

[Babylon]

Thats a BIG FREAKING PLANE!!

Is that what hit the Pentagon?

Left an awfully small hole didnt it?

No not really... Unless you watch too many cartoons and expect there to be a punched out silhouette of a plane.

A 75ft hole is plenty big enough.

[Babylon]

One question, if everyone agrees that planes were flown into the twin towers, why did the government switch tactic and fly a drone/missile into the Pentagon. If they can do it to the twin towers why not do it to the pentagon also?

If the reasoning was to create fear i'm fairly sure demolishing the twin towers and flying a plane full of passengers into the pentagon would have surficed.

[AndyElZorro]

I'm just curious where all the confirmed passengers that perished sat on this supposed drone? I mean, I have flown hundreds of times in the past, on more US airlines than I can care to remember, yet when I think about it, there is not one drone in any of those airlines' fleets!

[BoneDog]

No not really... Unless you watch too many cartoons and expect there to be a punched out silhouette of a plane.

A 75ft hole is plenty big enough.

I think it's you who watches too many cartoons if you think that an object made mostly of soft materials with no explosive power could make that hole. Especially as the hole is in the side of THE PENTAGON! REINFORCED MUCH?!

One question, if everyone agrees that planes were flown into the twin towers, why did the government switch tactic and fly a drone/missile into the Pentagon. If they can do it to the twin towers why not do it to the pentagon also?

If the reasoning was to create fear i'm fairly sure demolishing the twin towers and flying a plane full of passengers into the pentagon would have surficed.

They didn't use real planes on the WTC's (not passenger planes at least). Maybe cargo planes or drones with added features. Many American witnesses saw those planes hit and said they were not normal planes.

Oh, and what about the appendage underneath one of the planes to hit the WTC? No way could that plane have taken off from a civilian airport. The pilot, passengers and airport staff would have noticed for sure. You can keep believing they were passenger planes if you like.....but you are wrong.

Just passing through but defo be back later yo to read thread and hopefully have a debate.

[Darkon84]

No not really... Unless you watch too many cartoons and expect there to be a punched out silhouette of a plane.

A 75ft hole is plenty big enough.

I'm not expecting to see a plane shaped silhouette at all, but there appears to be no damage done whatsoever by the engines at least.

If the brittle nose cone was able to punch through all the reinforced concrete walls etc, I think it would be safe to say that the wings, tail section and engines would do some damage too.

The debris left over was small enough to pick up, no signs of the tail section, wings etc. Are we to beleive these vapourised because of the jet fuel, or some other kind of magic?

[Darkon84]

I'm just curious where all the confirmed passengers that perished sat on this supposed drone? I mean, I have flown hundreds of times in the past, on more US airlines than I can care to remember, yet when I think about it, there is not one drone in any of those airlines' fleets!

They were probably confirmed as much as half of the 'hijackers' that died, who have since been found to be alive and well

[Babylon]

I think it's you who watches too many cartoons if you think that an object made mostly of soft materials with no explosive power could make that hole. Especially as the hole is in the side of THE PENTAGON! REINFORCED MUCH?!

No explosive power?

You think something weighing 100's of tonnes, carrying maybe 36,000 gallons of aviation fuel, traveling at somewhere between 300 and 400mph has no explosive power just because it's wrapped in a fairly flimsy shell?

It's like me wrapping a brick in tin foil, smacking you over the head with it and then you ask why it hurt so much as tin foil doesn't weigh much.

Newton's second law of motion - Force equals mass times acceleration.

The forces created from that alone are catastrophic, let alone adding thousands of gallons of fuel into the equation.

The pentagon is reinforced yes, it doesn't mean it's inpenetrable though. I'm not sure these things were considered when drawing up the plans to combat potential attacks and blasts.

[Babylon]

I'm not expecting to see a plane shaped silhouette at all, but there appears to be no damage done whatsoever by the engines at least.

If the brittle nose cone was able to punch through all the reinforced concrete walls etc, I think it would be safe to say that the wings, tail section and engines would do some damage too.

The debris left over was small enough to pick up, no signs of the tail section, wings etc. Are we to beleive these vapourised because of the jet fuel, or some other kind of magic?

The brittle nose cone is not what punched the hole, the several hundred tonnes behind it did. The hole made (before the exterior collapsed) was 75ft long according to the official report that looked at the damage received to supporting interior beams etc.

No debris? Again, several hundred tonnes, several hundred mph, thousands of gallons of jet fuel (carried in the wings) and you expect their to be a wing lying unscathed on the floor?

It's not magic, it's high school level physics.

[OzFox]

I think it's you who watches too many cartoons if you think that an object made mostly of soft materials with no explosive power could make that hole. Especially as the hole is in the side of THE PENTAGON! REINFORCED MUCH?!

They didn't use real planes on the WTC's (not passenger planes at least). Maybe cargo planes or drones with added features. Many American witnesses saw those planes hit and said they were not normal planes.

Oh, and what about the appendage underneath one of the planes to hit the WTC? No way could that plane have taken off from a civilian airport. The pilot, passengers and airport staff would have noticed for sure. You can keep believing they were passenger planes if you like.....but you are wrong.

Just passing through but defo be back later yo to read thread and hopefully have a debate.

So Wacko #1 (Zingari), says you couldn't possibly identify the livery on a big silver speeding plane or even that it was a plane at all. Meanwhile Wacko #2 (El Empty) says you can not only identify a speeding plane but you can see the number of windows and little bits hanging off the bottom. Make your mind up boys. It's getting embarrassing.

I'm not sure who is more bonkers. You for writing this guff or me for replying and encouraging an avalanche of even more guff

One witness on cheesy old Fox News? Really convincing. Who were the others? I'm all ears.

You quote a few feeble witnesses as though it's gospel and ignore hundreds who saw United and American airlines planes hit the towers. If I cherry picked evidence like that I could make a conspiracy out of last weeks match against Southampton

At this point I might do a Zingari and quit while no one is ahead, and with no end in sight. See you on the 20th anniversary

[Babylon]

They were probably confirmed as much as half of the 'hijackers' that died, who have since been found to be alive and well

woah woah woah... and the proof to qualify that statement is?

[jonno24]

Such as?

Gulf of Tonkin incident that was a pre-curser for war with Vietnam killing 58,000 americans and over a million N vietnamese.

Then 40 years later they said it didnt happen the way they originally said it did.

[Rincewind]

Did they bury any passengers or did they bury manikins? Better start digging the graves up to check.

[Babylon]

Did they bury any passengers or did they bury manikins? Better start digging the graves up to check.

Dunno but I wish they would bury this thread.

[Darkon84]

The brittle nose cone is not what punched the hole, the several hundred tonnes behind it did. The hole made (before the exterior collapsed) was 75ft long according to the official report that looked at the damage received to supporting interior beams etc.

No debris? Again, several hundred tonnes, several hundred mph, thousands of gallons of jet fuel (carried in the wings) and you expect their to be a wing lying unscathed on the floor?

It's not magic, it's high school level physics.

A wing lying unscathed on the floor? No, of course not, but I would expect to see more sections and parts of the plane than were actually there. The plane had a big effin tail section for a start, which, in most crashes, leaves some trace.

The debris that was left was minimal, small pieces, even unscorched pieces of the outer layer. How these were unscorched, clean and even still shiny is beyond me, especially as apparently the jet fuel and power of the crash supposedly annihalited the entire rest of the plane.

It just doesnt add up to me.

[Darkon84]

woah woah woah... and the proof to qualify that statement is?

I beleive the BBC, amongst other media networks and newspapers covered it a year or two after the incident. I'll try and find someting to post, but I certainly remember seeing something about it on the Beeb a few years ago. If I cant find something, I'll take it back