Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[shen]

Again I think you fail to comprehend what sort of crime scene it was. This was a 'crime scene' to a crime that was already solved. You may have seen it on TV, a plane flew into one tower and then another one flew into the other tower. You'll never guess what happened next, they fell down! Ground zero lay covered in steel for quite a time, turns out steel is quite heavy and difficult to transport around. Thankfully TV cameras were trained on it 24 hours a day from that point on.

I don't know why anyone should take your patronising drivel seriously. You're just being a jerk about it. Your arguments are based on nothing else than your intuition, which makes you no better than the wild conspiracy theorists. I'm sure you STILL haven't even had a look at the NIST reports. I wish Babs, l444ry or marko would take time off the El Empty and Zingari bashing and tell you where to go...

Edit: And apologies for the strong reaction, you're just starting to get on my nerves

[Rincewind]

quote Again I think you fail to comprehend what sort of crime scene it was. This was a 'crime scene' to a crime that was already solved. You may have seen it on TV, a plane flew into one tower and then another one flew into the other tower. You'll never guess what happened next, they fell down! Ground zero lay covered in steel for quite a time, turns out steel is quite heavy and difficult to transport around. Thankfully TV cameras were trained on it 24 hours a day from that point on. quote

But in six years time some expert may say 'Oooh look that building appears not to have falling down the way it should I wonder if it was a controlled explosion , can we have an investigation?

'What do you mean the sites been cleared? There was evidence of a crime thre. This is all a government cover up just like in 63 and 69.' I'll write some books on the subject and sell them worldwide then you'll be sorry.'

[Zingari]

I am saying there was nothing to look for because there was no reason to. The crime was committed on the Twin Towers. The WTC7 collapsed as a result of this. Nobody had any reason to think anything else. Where did I suggest there were explosives? The only people that have suggested it was the therorists which was some time after the event..

If you finda body with multiple stab wounds would you look for a gun as the murder wepon?

This would be a good starting point for anyone. And keep this thought this in mind.

Try not to prejudice any of your judgement by any other implications of, Who ? Why? How? etc . Just look at what you are witnessing. I know it is difficult to stop thinking of the implications, but please do try and watch as though this was an isolated incident .

Take a good look at the videos of WTC7 collapsing and take a good look at other buildings collapsing in a similar way and I’m sure that any other building that collapses in this manner will have been brought down by controlled demolition .

( type “controlled demolition” into youtube there are 1000s of examples )

Now try to find buildings collapsing in this way that have not been brought down by controlled demolition but by fire and other damage, I’m fairly confident that you will not find a single example. There a many examples of buildings sustaining immense infernos for much longer periods that did not collapse.

This is the very first building in the history ( notwithstanding wtc 1 & 2 ) of steel framed buildings suffering total collapse .it should be of immense value to structural engineers to have had access as to what had occurred .

Does this really not sink in to people ?

[breadandcheese]

that all seems to make sense, I've edited the original post to use their masses instead as I think the converter I used to calculate tonnage may have been quite wrong.

There is another equation that can be used, mv²/2, where m is the mass & v is the velocity.

The plane would've had a velocity of roughly 259m/s and a mass of (for arguments sake lets say the plane was 3/4's of maximum weight capacity) 135,000 kg.

mv²/2 = (135000 * 259²)/2 = (135000 * 67,081)/2 = 9,055,935,000/2 = 4,527,967,500 joules or 4,527,967.5 KJ

A block of ordinary concrete an inch thick can withstand up to approximately 625N, and 1 newton is roughly equal to 1 joule.

The quote below is taken from a conspiracy website: link

So if we take the pentagon walls to be the maximum of 16 inches thick, and even assume brick is as resilient as concrete (any DIY people will know that it isn't), we are looking at a force of at least 10,000N to break through the wall, assuming the concrete was solid rather than a grid.

It will be slightly more once the steel re-inforcements are taken into account but they will be at most an inch thick and would not increase the force previously calculated by much, as all it will really do is fill in the loss made once calculated using a grid method rather than solid block. I'd put the force at around 15,000 N or 15 KJ.

For the walls to be able to withstand the force of the plane, we'd be looking at resilience of 4,527,967,500 N - meaning the steel would have to be able to resist at least 4,527,957,500 N, something impossible for small rods less than 2 inches in diameter.

it's nice to see a bit of physics and calculations being used on Foxestalk.

Of course, you've probably used false George Bush physics or something because there's no way the Pentagon or the Twin Towers could be penetrated by an aeroplane made of aluminium. It's impossible for an aeroplane to do this damage because youtube says so and I'm about to say Fact after this sentence. Fact

Can we now put to bed the belief that the aeroplanes could not have penetrated and smashed into the twin towers and the pentagon?

[easilee]

it's nice to see a bit of physics and calculations being used on Foxestalk.

Of course, you've probably used false George Bush physics or something because there's no way the Pentagon or the Twin Towers could be penetrated by an aeroplane made of aluminium. It's impossible for an aeroplane to do this damage because youtube says so and I'm about to say Fact after this sentence. Fact

Can we now put to bed the belief that the aeroplanes could not have penetrated and smashed into the twin towers and the pentagon?

Not so sure after seeing this !

Watch it carefully though. A lot of good vids are put up on here and it seems like nobody really watches them properly if at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWl8mUSDIwU

[The Doctor]

Not so sure after seeing this !

Watch it carefully though. A lot of good vids are put up on here and it seems like nobody really watches them properly if at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWl8mUSDIwU

Not surprising at a hour and a half long, If I could just pick up on one point, "Winston's mic catches ambient sound, BUT NO EXPLOSION" - look how high up the explosion occurs on the tower. If Winston is down at the base of the tower, the basic little mic they use for field reports will pick up ambient sound from around him, on the ground level but not necessarily the explosion.

Sound would not travel straight down to the ground level, instead dissipating across the region, meaning you wouldn't hear much more than a muffled noise down where Winston was located, if anything at all.

Edit: and 8 & 15 frames of black - the human eye sees 24 frames per second meaning the black frames appear for just over half a second. Are you really suggesting that in that half a second they doctored in an explosion/plane?

And the idea of the backdrop being removed (13 minutes in) - what backdrop? The two videos are at different angles and distances - one is higher up and will show downwards the rest of the city, the other is looking pretty much directly across and, what with the towers being much taller than any other building in the area, will show purely sky - as is the case.

I'm not going to bother de-bunking the rest because I don't have the inclination to watch 90 minutes of utter crap.

[OzFox]

Not so sure after seeing this !

Watch it carefully though. A lot of good vids are put up on here

What, like that contradictory waffle about an orange? And the other stuff produced by Truthers and bored teenagers?

Not so sure after seeing this !

it seems like nobody really watches them properly if at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWl8mUSDIwU

Because they are a waste of time and energy, based on cherry picked "evidence" and supposition. Watched three minutes of your video. That was enough. So what if CBS went to black for a few frames? so what if they didn't notice the plane at first? It was a live transmission.

Someone saw a plane hit the tower from Chelsea? Big deal. You're talking half a mile, and how do you know she wasn't watching TV?

A photographer didn't see the impact and he was next to the tower. So what? Maybe he was looking the other way!

A friend of mine works for Morgan Stanley. He stood near Battery Park and watched the second plane come in, but didn't see the impact because other buildings were in the way. Suspicious eh?

[Rincewind]

This would be a good starting point for anyone. And keep this thought this in mind.

Try not to prejudice any of your judgement by any other implications of, Who ? Why? How? etc . Just look at what you are witnessing. I know it is difficult to stop thinking of the implications, but please do try and watch as though this was an isolated incident .

Take a good look at the videos of WTC7 collapsing and take a good look at other buildings collapsing in a similar way and I’m sure that any other building that collapses in this manner will have been brought down by controlled demolition .

( type “controlled demolition” into youtube there are 1000s of examples )

Now try to find buildings collapsing in this way that have not been brought down by controlled demolition but by fire and other damage, I’m fairly confident that you will not find a single example. There a many examples of buildings sustaining immense infernos for much longer periods that did not collapse.

This is the very first building in the history ( notwithstanding wtc 1 & 2 ) of steel framed buildings suffering total collapse .it should be of immense value to structural engineers to have had access as to what had occurred .

Does this really not sink in to people ?

I would have thought that this would be the starting point of all investigations. I cannot come to a conclusion by merely looking at a video shot from a distance of a buiding that 'appears' to collapse in the wrong way.. You cannot convict someone based on circumstantial evidence. Where is the rest of the building? There is footage of another penthouse at the top which isnt shown on the 'collapse' video.

Also I saw one report saying the video was not shot from the side it clains so it gives a false impression. Just because something has not happened before does not mean it cannot happen.

I prefer to go along with those that have qualifications in physics than just saying it doesnt add up. To add up you have to use the correct formula. Tell me how the ones that planted the explosives worked out the correct formula to predict what damage the WTC7 would suffer after the planes hit the Twin Towers and where to place explosives to bring about a controlled explosion.

Getting fed up with this now. I will let others more qualified than myself to explain. I'm afraid I can only use common sense and logic which does not seem good enough. The brick wall I am banging my head against has started to collapse. Without the aid of explosives.

[easilee]

Exactly what i'm talking about.

'Got 3 mins in that was enough'.

How much evidence have you missed because you don't watch everything ?

I draw your attention to the overdubbed screams of the same woman in two entirely different locations on two different videos at 0:29:43. Why would that happen ?

Niggly, I agree but it's a strange thing to happen. And if it is tampered with on this small level, why not on a bigger scale.

[skinnydipper]

I would have thought that this would be the starting point of all investigations. I cannot come to a conclusion by merely looking at a video shot from a distance of a buiding that 'appears' to collapse in the wrong way.. You cannot convict someone based on circumstantial evidence. Where is the rest of the building? There is footage of another penthouse at the top which isnt shown on the 'collapse' video.

Also I saw one report saying the video was not shot from the side it clains so it gives a false impression. Just because something has not happened before does not mean it cannot happen.

I prefer to go along with those that have qualifications in physics than just saying it doesnt add up. To add up you have to use the correct formula. Tell me how the ones that planted the explosives worked out the correct formula to predict what damage the WTC7 would suffer after the planes hit the Twin Towers and where to place explosives to bring about a controlled explosion.

Getting fed up with this now. I will let others more qualified than myself to explain. I'm afraid I can only use common sense and logic which does not seem good enough. The brick wall I am banging my head against has started to collapse. Without the aid of explosives.

Actually, you can

[breadandcheese]

Exactly what i'm talking about.

'Got 3 mins in that was enough'.

How much evidence have you missed because you don't watch everything ?

I draw your attention to the overdubbed screams of the same woman in two entirely different locations on two different videos at 0:29:43. Why would that happen ?

Niggly, I agree but it's a strange thing to happen. And if it is tampered with on this small level, why not on a bigger scale.

LargeAl has provided irrefutable proof that an aeroplane could penetrate the Twin Towers and the Pentagon through simple physics.

Instead, you' don't believe it and are relying on a youtube video that ignores physics and throws speculative mud.

This is akin to believing the world is flat because you have an atlas at home, which when opened, lies flat on the table.

[OzFox]

Exactly what i'm talking about.

'Got 3 mins in that was enough'.

How much evidence have you missed because you don't watch everything ?

I draw your attention to the overdubbed screams of the same woman in two entirely different locations on two different videos at 0:29:43. Why would that happen ?

Niggly, I agree but it's a strange thing to happen. And if it is tampered with on this small level, why not on a bigger scale.

OK. (grudgingly goes to 29.43 ...finds another piece of "so what" material... thinks "why did I bother"...sucked in again)

So a documentary maker/editor has used a few sound fx, and added a bit of sound off an amateur video to dramatise and enhance their programme. Big fu*king deal. I edit video for a living. Been doing it for years. If something sounds dull or if there is no natural sound available, guess what? I add sound fx to make it more entertaining. I'll even take real location sound from other places and add it to my video. I've even done it on 9/11 stories for current affairs programmes. Editors do this all the time. Shocking eh?

Granted the makers of the doco have gone a little over the top with their plane noises/screams, but they are doing it for dramatic effect. There's nothing unusual about it what-so-ever.

Which brings me to my original point.....if the producers of the video spout absolute rubbish within the first three minutes, I'm hardly likely to watch the rest am I? It ain't likely to get any more believable!

[Zingari]

I would have thought that this would be the starting point of all investigations. I cannot come to a conclusion by merely looking at a video shot from a distance of a buiding that 'appears' to collapse in the wrong way.. You cannot convict someone based on circumstantial evidence. Where is the rest of the building? There is footage of another penthouse at the top which isnt shown on the 'collapse' video.

Also I saw one report saying the video was not shot from the side it clains so it gives a false impression. Just because something has not happened before does not mean it cannot happen.

I prefer to go along with those that have qualifications in physics than just saying it doesnt add up. To add up you have to use the correct formula. Tell me how the ones that planted the explosives worked out the correct formula to predict what damage the WTC7 would suffer after the planes hit the Twin Towers and where to place explosives to bring about a controlled explosion.

Getting fed up with this now. I will let others more qualified than myself to explain. I'm afraid I can only use common sense and logic which does not seem good enough. The brick wall I am banging my head against has started to collapse. Without the aid of explosives.

Steel framed buildings brought down by fire ? none

Steel framed buildings brought down by controlled demolition ? 1000s

Common sense logic ; WTC7 brought down by fire .

hmmm , not too sure about that

If you or anyone else think common sense is believing a theory (with a low probability of occurrence )and has never happened before or since explaining a building collapse over one that has caused 1000s in the same way then so be it .

[Babylon]

Steel framed buildings brought down by fire ? none

How many of those buildings were as tall as WT7 let alone the Twin Towers?

How many had sustained exterior/interior damage from planes and huge chunk of debris falling from a great height?

There are quite a few witness reports and videos of people saying WT7 had a huge hole in the side. Although there are no images of each side of the building to prove one way or another how much damage was actually sustained to say conclusively.

[Houdini Logic]

Steel framed buildings brought down by fire ? none

Steel framed buildings brought down by controlled demolition ? 1000s

Being that you like your figures, can you please add the amount of incidents of steel framed buildings catching on fire compared to the amount of steel framed buildings that have had fuck off planes smashed into them?

Also, using that logic 9/11 was almost certainly an earthquake

[Rincewind]

Actually, you can

OK bad example or choice of words.. So a building collapses and from the video footage it doesn't look right.

Ok that is established. So one explanation put forward is a controlled explosion.

Yes OK Now we need to know how this was acheived Who did it Why they did it and when they did it.

Answers so far.

How: Explosives were placed at diffent locations in the building

Who: the American government

Why: To have an excuse to invade Iraq

When: When nobody was looking

These answers prove nothing. They are vague. The explosive experts who planted them would have to be pretty good to know where to plant explosives and know what damage would have been caused by surrounding buildings in order to get it right.

As it has been said before the American Government would not need to go to these lengths to have an excuse to invade Iraq. An attempted attack on a military base would suffice.

Someone please help me and explain in simple terms. It seems that the same things are being said over and over.

2+2 does not equal 5.

[OzFox]

I generally find my self in these threads when the main Leicester forum is calling for the managers head after a few games of the season. I feel I have more chanced of convincing El Empty he's wrong, than convincing everyone sacking the manager 6 games into a season after he's just assembled a squad of his own players, may not be the best idea in the world.

Don't fancy your chances. On either count.

[OzFox]

Some of the hijackers were still alive after 911 and Osama Bin Laden certainly didn't make sure that the US Air Force didn't follow standard operating procedure (for the first time) that day.

There was/is lots of proof of this.

There is also lots of proof that Atta et al were in contact with the CIA/FBI before the attacks. Some of the hijackers were living on military property. And one hijacker even rented property from an FBI agent.

Didn't expect you to respond to the first paragraph as none of you have any real answers as to why US defences were stood down or as to why some of the hijackers were not dead after 911. Very fundamental points.

You might be right about the supposed hijackers all being dead now, I don't know, but they certainly weren't all dead in the immediate future after 911. I've seen and heard people bring evidence of this and I'm sure that the evidence is still around.

Still waiting for that proof El old chap. If you make a rash statement like that, I'd expect at least a token attempt to back it up with some evidence. And by evidence, I mean a reputable source not some nutty website. You reckon you've seen and heard it, so where is it?

Likewise your claim of an unmarked plane hitting the south tower with a bit hanging off the bottom. You didn't provide any proof of that either. Or at least, anything that can't be dismissed with a glance at a United 767

[Zingari]

Being that you like your figures, can you please add the amount of incidents of steel framed buildings catching on fire compared to the amount of steel framed buildings that have had fuck off planes smashed into them?

Also, using that logic 9/11 was almost certainly an earthquake

jesus wept

WTC7 never had an airliner fly into it , haven't you got that yet ?

[Houdini Logic]

jesus wept

WTC7 never had an airliner fly into it , haven't you got that yet ?

I'm sorry, you must have confused me for someone who has contributed to the last 35 pages.

Well at least you accept that the twin towers were not a controlled demolition.

Have we established it was an earthquake yet, being that they bring down more steel framed buildings than controlled demolitions?

[OzFox]

jesus wept

WTC7 never had an airliner fly into it , haven't you got that yet ?

How do you know? You reckon a speeding plane is just a blur to the human eye (I refer you to your earlier posts regarding the Pentagon...can't be bothered to find them as this thread is getting out of hand).

On that basis, it's entirely plausible that another plane came in and smashed down WTC7 without anyone noticing. Or a missile.

Just thinking outside the square like

[shen]

How many of those buildings were as tall as WT7 let alone the Twin Towers?

One Meridian Plaza, Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Parque Central, First Interstate Bank, The Empire State Building among others were perfectly comparable to those sizes.

How many had sustained exterior/interior damage from planes and huge chunk of debris falling from a great height?There are quite a few witness reports and videos of people saying WT7 had a huge hole in the side. Although there are no images of each side of the building to prove one way or another how much damage was actually sustained to say conclusively.

This argument keeps popping up among 'debunkers'. So tell me, do you believe the NIST report was bogus? Why else would you dismiss their conclusion that damage by falling debris had no significant effect on the collapse of WTC 7? They apparently started the fires in the building albeit at the opposite end of the impact. The fires alone allegedly made the building collapse. There wasn't any fuel other than office combustibles.

Regarding that argument, I must've repeated myself at least a dozen times in this thread already. Maybe some of you've contracted the 'repetition and insistance'-disease from some of the 'truthists' ...

[Zingari]

watch this building , it didn't collapse and neither have any others suffering massive infernos

Mandarin Oriental Hotel beijing

[Houdini Logic]

Now I may have missed something (I don't seem to have the keen eye of the conspiracy theorist), but I can't see a 500 metre building falling to bits next to that hotel...

[Zingari]

Now I may have missed something (I don't seem to have the keen eye of the conspiracy theorist), but I can't see a 500 metre building falling to bits next to that hotel...

read shen's last post