Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[OzFox]

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.

Zingari's actual quote was "every other grand conspiracy was only believed by "fools" until it was proven"

You've named one. One that was on a far more manageable scale than 9/11 I might add.

[Babylon]

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.

Why would you, are you an expert in head on aviation crashes?

The plane had a big effin tail section for a start, which, in most crashes, leaves some trace.

Most crashes are not head on, they are belly flops . Mainly due to the pilot actually trying to land the plane in one piece, not use it as a weapon. Also, some planes also have smaller tanks at the rear of the plane near the tail section.

See much left after this? This is much more like the type of crash this plane was involved in compared to your usual plane crash.

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.

Because they were blown clear, it's not exactly huge chunks of plane. How would you suggest these parts of plane arrived at their destination with 100's of witnesses wandering about?

[shen]

Dunno but I wish they would bury this thread.

I'd just like to say that this thread has made me look more in-depth into the attacks and I feel slightly more enlightened about it now.

[Darkon84]

Why would you, are you an expert in head on aviation crashes?

Most crashes are not head on, they are belly flops . Mainly due to the pilot actually trying to land the plane in one piece, not use it as a weapon. Also, some planes also have smaller tanks at the rear of the plane near the tail section.

See much left after this? This is much more like the type of crash this plane was involved in compared to your usual plane crash.

Because they were blown clear, it's not exactly huge chunks of plane. How would you suggest these parts of plane arrived at their destination with 100's of witnesses wandering about?

I am not, nor have I professed to be an air crash expert. All I'm doing is raising a few questions, saying to me some things just don't add up.

The video is incomparable to what has been discussed, its a completely different type of plane, size etc, and if a huge 757 came in at that trajectory, where are the markings on the lawn? And to answer if I saw much left after the crash in your video, no I didnt, because they didnt show the aftermath. You see an immediate explosion as the fuel explodes and burns itself up instantly, but no footage of after. I did notice though, that the wings cut through the block they were crashing in to.

Just to repeat a point, If the fuel vapourised everything, the wings, the tail section, the main seating area, everything....how did simple scraps like this survive and in such good condition?

[Babylon]

I'd just like to say that this thread has made me look more in-depth into the attacks and I feel slightly more enlightened about it now.

It's made me realise that people can make a conspiracy out of anything should they wish to.

[Babylon]

I am not, nor have I professed to be an air crash expert. All I'm doing is raising a few questions, saying to me some things just don't add up.

The video is incomparable to what has been discussed, its a completely different type of plane, size etc, and if a huge 757 came in at that trajectory, where are the markings on the lawn? And to answer if I saw much left after the crash in your video, no I didnt, because they didnt show the aftermath. You see an immediate explosion as the fuel explodes and burns itself up instantly, but no footage of after. I did notice though, that the wings cut through the block they were crashing in to.

Just to repeat a point, If the fuel vapourised everything, the wings, the tail section, the main seating area, everything....how did simple scraps like this survive and in such good condition?

But they do add up, that's the point. Any questions you are raising has very simple logical answers that anyone with a gcse in physics and common sense could probably piece together.

Hang on, that video is a damn site more comparable to you saying "other plane crashes have had tail sections left" etc. The reasoning why I already put in my last post.

You don't need to see the "aftermath", you can see the plane hitting the concrete and disintegrating.

Who said the fuel vaporised everything? The way you were talking at the start was as though you wondered why there were no massive wing sections sat on the ground. The answer is several hundred tonnes, several hundred mph, thousands of gallons of fuel. Some parts are almost inevitably going to be blown clear of the blast, that's what happens in explosions.

Again, how did these pieces arrive at their destination if not blown clear of the wreckage?

[zubi]

One thing I don't understand, we are made to believe that jet fuel was the main reason that the steel disgifured in the wtc, but jet fuel had little or no impact on the pentagon?

[zubi]

Also looking at the picture below its obvious the planes wings damaged the tower upon impact.

But on the pentagon it doesn't look as if it made little, if any, impact?

[Rincewind]

One thing I can't understand about the WTC controlled explosion therory is why did they use controlled explosives? If they knew the planes were going to hit the Twin Towers they would know there would be considerable damage done to them as well as surrounding buildings including the WTC. What they would not know is how much damage would be done and the best time for the detination to be set in relation to the planes hitting (if they were on schedule with no delays) to ensure a controlled collapse unless they could predict the future. Also a controlled explosion would bring all the conspiracy therorists out of the closet. Far better if they wanted to destroy the building would be to plant random charges.

Has this point ever been addressed by the therorists with a constructive and logical answer?

I think because the other three sides of the building are not shown in the video plus the distance and angle that it was shot there is not enough evidence to back the controlled explosion storiy. and convince me.

[Babylon]

One thing I don't understand, we are made to believe that jet fuel was the main reason that the steel disgifured in the wtc, but jet fuel had little or no impact on the pentagon?

The heat will probably have decreased the strength of the metal in both buildings. The difference being that steel in the twin towers is supporting a much great load than that of the steel in the pentagon. Then of course you have completely different building designs, different ways of support loads etc etc that could dramatically alter the way buildings react.

[Babylon]

Also looking at the picture below its obvious the planes wings damaged the tower upon impact.

But on the pentagon it doesn't look as if it made little, if any, impact?

Different buildings, different materials, different designs etc etc etc.

[OzFox]

One thing I can't understand about the WTC controlled explosion therory is why did they use controlled explosives? If they knew the planes were going to hit the Twin Towers they would know there would be considerable damage done to them as well as surrounding buildings including the WTC. What they would not know is how much damage would be done and the best time for the detination to be set in relation to the planes hitting (if they were on schedule with no delays) to ensure a controlled collapse unless they could predict the future. Also a controlled explosion would bring all the conspiracy therorists out of the closet. Far better if they wanted to destroy the building would be to plant random charges.

Has this point ever been addressed by the therorists with a constructive and logical answer?

I think because the other three sides of the building are not shown in the video plus the distance and angle that it was shot there is not enough evidence to back the controlled explosion storiy. and convince me.

I agree. You'd think If you were trying to hide a conspiracy, a controlled demolition in a crowded city would be the last thing you'd attempt .

If you watch a few of the videos on the late Danny Jowenko's site, you'll notice the demolitions start with a series of loud and very obvious explosions, presumably to weaken internal supports. Zingari will leap in at this point and say there were reports of explosions at WTC7. By a few people maybe, but not by the vast majority who were in the area. Most notably the firemen.

Jowenko

[stripeyfox]

I also remember George Bush saying at a rally that he was in a school on the day of the attacks and that he watched the first plane hit the Twin Towers.

Which is impossible as no-one saw the first plane hit on tv until the next day. Now he is either Lying or this was one monumental **** up on his part.

Also the 9/11 commisioner who said in an interview that he 'was shocked at the events at the pentagon when a Missile ah plane hit the building'

These events combined with so many other suspicious pictures , footage , interviews are bound to breed conspiracy its only natural.

I was in Greece on the day and watched the news (Sky/CNN) all afternoon, and recall the footage of the first airliner (shot by the Naudet brothers who were filming a documentary about the NYFD) was released very quickly, and certainly within hours of the incident, not the next day.

[jonthefox]

Not so much related to WTC 7, but i found it quite interesting.

Air traffic control on 9/11

[Fox92]

http://news.sky.com/...rticle/16065544

Just watched this (not sure if its the same as jonthefox's post). Really chilling and sad.

You can listen to the main terrorist as well, who flew the aircraft into one of the towers. Listening to it, it seems like air traffic control and the air force were always behind. For example, air traffic control told the air force about a aircraft after it went missing 30 minutes before, then bang, its to late.

I find bits on 9/11 interesting. I don't know why, perhaps because it is a puzzle.

The image of the twin towers burning behind the Statue of Liberty is era-defining.

[marko]

All you conspiracy theorists should watch this.

Conspiracy Road Trip

I'd love to hear the thermite/controlled demolition theory after watching the tests in this.

Don't worry conspiracy theorists, it's ok to feel stupid.

[BoneDog]

No explosive power?

(just deleted the rest to save space)

Jet fuel is highly incombustible and is nothing like explosives that are used for destroying buildings.

We've all heard of bunker buster and other style bombs and missiles. They make those missiles and bombs at great cost because they do a job that other flying objects can't do i.e penetrate bunkers and other reinforced buildings yo. The Pentagon is probably the most reinforced and indestructable visible building on the planet (barring one of the pyramids, the Great Pyramid) so I'm still saying that people are silly if they believe a 757 can do that damage. Sheeyiit, I've seen planes hit smaller buildings before that aren't reinforced and do less damage. THIS IS THE PENTAGON DIPSHITS (no offence, just light hearted name calling of opponents ) and a 757 went straight through it ?!! Nah, I don't think so.

I really don't think the fuel on the supposed plane is an issue and it would in no way contribute to creating that hole in The Pentagon even if it did explode in a fireball.

There are alot of good patriotic highly ranked ex US military men who talk about The Pentagon attack and they know far more on the subject and talk more sense about it than any of the other fabricated codswallop I hear from the msm or from the US government so I'll continue to believe their words and not the msm/government. Also many pilots, firemen, engineers, architects and others are also joining in the fight for the truth and doing a good job too. Hopefully they're not going to give up until the real perpetrators are named and lynched for all the shit they've caused.

Still haven't read this thread but will do barring a catastrophe.

[BoneDog]

[Fox92]

"US braced for "active" bomb threat ahead of the 10 year anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks"

http://www.channel4.com/news/credible-terror-threat-for-9-11

I always thought this could happen, but is it to obvious? They might lay low until after when nobody is expecting it.

[Rincewind]

An one sided unpeeled orange. I cannot see what is happening on the other side..

[shen]

Jet fuel is highly incombustible and is nothing like explosives that are used for destroying buildings.

We've all heard of bunker buster and other style bombs and missiles. They make those missiles and bombs at great cost because they do a job that other flying objects can't do i.e penetrate bunkers and other reinforced buildings yo. The Pentagon is probably the most reinforced and indestructable visible building on the planet (barring one of the pyramids, the Great Pyramid) so I'm still saying that people are silly if they believe a 757 can do that damage. Sheeyiit, I've seen planes hit smaller buildings before that aren't reinforced and do less damage. THIS IS THE PENTAGON DIPSHITS (no offence, just light hearted name calling of opponents ) and a 757 went straight through it ?!! Nah, I don't think so.

I really don't think the fuel on the supposed plane is an issue and it would in no way contribute to creating that hole in The Pentagon even if it did explode in a fireball.

There are alot of good patriotic highly ranked ex US military men who talk about The Pentagon attack and they know far more on the subject and talk more sense about it than any of the other fabricated codswallop I hear from the msm or from the US government so I'll continue to believe their words and not the msm/government. Also many pilots, firemen, engineers, architects and others are also joining in the fight for the truth and doing a good job too. Hopefully they're not going to give up until the real perpetrators are named and lynched for all the shit they've caused.

Still haven't read this thread but will do barring a catastrophe.

I agree. I think they should fly a new plane into the Pentagon to see whether it could actually do such damage. To prove once and for all how harmless planes are when up against the mighty Pentagon. I mean, if it's impenetrable, surely they can spare an empty plane, give the Pentagon staff a day off and recreate the 9/11 attack. If it proves the doubters wrong, well then we'll have to re-think our assumption that the Pentagon and its reinforced steel and concrete walls are impenetrable. If it proves the doubters right, authorities will just manipulate the pictures and hire destruction workers to make the hole bigger, keeping the doubt going. Hell, it could become an annual event!!

[Jace]

Also looking at the picture below its obvious the planes wings damaged the tower upon impact.

But on the pentagon it doesn't look as if it made little, if any, impact?

what are you expecting a plane shaped hole in the building?

[Babylon]

Jet fuel is highly incombustible and is nothing like explosives that are used for destroying buildings.

But it's not just jet fuel is it. The forces involved from the plane alone are immense. Having 36,000 gallons of fuel on board just adds "fuel to the fire" so to speak. When a bomb explodes it expels forces, a 200 tonne plane going 350mph carrying fuel and hitting a stationary object expels forces. And those forces are comparable to an absolutely massive bomb, it's as simple as that. Just because it wasn't built to demolish things doesn't mean it can't.

The Pentagon was blast proof to a point, not indestructible like you would have people to believe. An indestructible building would not have thousands of bloody windows in it.

We've all heard of bunker buster and other style bombs and missiles. They make those missiles and bombs at great cost because they do a job that other flying objects can't do i.e penetrate bunkers and other reinforced buildings yo.

They build unmanned missiles because sending someone up in a giant, very expensive plane to crash and kill themselves is somewhat against mans better judgement or "Kamikaze". Which funnily enough comes from Japanese pilots who committed suicide by using their planes as weapons. Yes missiles are built purposely for destroying things, but as I have already said just because something isn't a missile doesn't mean it cannot cause a huge amount of damage. Fire a bloody 100 tonne frozen chicken at 350mph and it'd do some damage.

The Pentagon is probably the most reinforced and indestructable visible building on the planet (barring one of the pyramids, the Great Pyramid) so I'm still saying that people are silly if they believe a 757 can do that damage.

Wow, just wow. Love your completely fabricated guess work on the pentagon being "the most reinforced and indestructable visible building on the planet".

Sheeyiit, I've seen planes hit smaller buildings before that aren't reinforced and do less damage.

And these planes and building were? Could you share these.

I really don't think the fuel on the supposed plane is an issue and it would in no way contribute to creating that hole in The Pentagon even if it did explode in a fireball.

On it's own no, but it wasn't on it's own was it. You quite clearly do not have a grasp of rudimentary physics.

There are alot of good patriotic highly ranked ex US military men who talk about The Pentagon attack and they know far more on the subject and talk more sense about it than any of the other fabricated codswallop I hear from the msm or from the US government so I'll continue to believe their words and not the msm/government. Also many pilots, firemen, engineers, architects and others are also joining in the fight for the truth and doing a good job too. Hopefully they're not going to give up until the real perpetrators are named and lynched for all the shit they've caused.

So basically you believe anyone who says what you want to hear and rubbish anyone who goes against what you believe. You quite clearly aren't qualified to pass comment on these things, so you can only rely on other people doing the math for you. If that's the case how do you know which one is correct?

[marko]

Jet fuel is highly incombustible and is nothing like explosives that are used for destroying buildings.

We've all heard of bunker buster and other style bombs and missiles. They make those missiles and bombs at great cost because they do a job that other flying objects can't do i.e penetrate bunkers and other reinforced buildings yo. The Pentagon is probably the most reinforced and indestructable visible building on the planet (barring one of the pyramids, the Great Pyramid) so I'm still saying that people are silly if they believe a 757 can do that damage. Sheeyiit, I've seen planes hit smaller buildings before that aren't reinforced and do less damage. THIS IS THE PENTAGON DIPSHITS (no offence, just light hearted name calling of opponents ) and a 757 went straight through it ?!! Nah, I don't think so.

I really don't think the fuel on the supposed plane is an issue and it would in no way contribute to creating that hole in The Pentagon even if it did explode in a fireball.

There are alot of good patriotic highly ranked ex US military men who talk about The Pentagon attack and they know far more on the subject and talk more sense about it than any of the other fabricated codswallop I hear from the msm or from the US government so I'll continue to believe their words and not the msm/government. Also many pilots, firemen, engineers, architects and others are also joining in the fight for the truth and doing a good job too. Hopefully they're not going to give up until the real perpetrators are named and lynched for all the shit they've caused.

Still haven't read this thread but will do barring a catastrophe.

Where is your evidence that it's one of the most reinforced, indestructible buildings? Virtually nothing is indestructible in reality, we're talking about a 100 tonne plane travelling at 400/500 mph hitting it. Forgive me, but wasn't the Titanic an indestructible, unsinkable ship??? Plans and reality are different things.

Please do share these other plane crashes with us. I'd be interested to know where and when you've seen other 767 & 757's crash into smaller buildings and do less damage.

Please, please, please watch the link I provided to the Conspiracy Road Trip. I'd like to see you argue against the facts they provide.

[Rincewind]

Programme on BBC2 last night about 9/11and the creator of the X Files and writer? of The Lone Gunman was on. He said People loved conspiracy therories and they only come about because government are not trusted. There was also the pilot of the plane that was supposed to have dropped debris onto the lawn of the Pentagon. He said he first heard about it from the newspaper. His plane was the only one in the area and he saw the airline pass him.

There was also a woman on the plane that was supposed to have been hijacked then diverted. It was an entirely different plane. The air controllers were confused at the time and assumed it had been hijacked and ordered it to make an emergancy landing. The confusion arose because the two planes were on the same flight path until the hijacked one changed course. The passenger spoken to still has her flight ticket.

No doubt this will be poo-aahed by say she and all the flight controllers that day were involved in the plot and are lying.

Like it was said on the programme these stories come about as whispers passed onto someone else and so on by the end we have a massive conspiracy.