Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[marko]

no they weren't

i've seen those photos many times before and i really cannot see a plane , please show me where you can ,

they superimposed the image of a plane in the tv program for effect , there is no real unambiguous image of a plane in reality

Oh come on, watch it again on iplayer and the twisted aluminium - including AA liveries - is clearly visible on the ground around the building. Even the conspiracy theorists accepted it was plane debris. Although, for some bizarre reason, they think the military plane dropped it afterwards.

[fleckneymike]

Did you not hear that Danish guy with regards to its collapse as being due to nano thermate , and the other 2 guys saying " oh yeah we could prove him wrong but we got far too much on at the moment " ( or words to that effect ), yeah right

i realise what you posted earlier , but nist have claimed that the collapse was due to fire and not structural damage , because your assertion of massive damage on one side of the building would most certainly have caused the building to collapse in a tilting motion and that obviously did not happen , as it obviously fell symmetrically in on itself and not like a falling tree after one side had been cut out .

but i really can't keep discussing this on so many levels now , please accept my terse reply

I think we all heard the Danish guy and the gentlemen who asserted that it would be a complete waste of his time to disprove his theory. The reason it is a waste of time is because the theory disproves itself. How can they 'control' an explosion using explosive paint?

[Zingari]

Oh come on, watch it again on iplayer and the twisted aluminium - including AA liveries - is clearly visible on the ground around the building. Even the conspiracy theorists accepted it was plane debris. Although, for some bizarre reason, they think the military plane dropped it afterwards.

you asked me if i can see a plane that in any way resembles a 757 in any photograph released by the US government and i can't , please show me one

[Zingari]

I think we all heard the Danish guy and the gentlemen who asserted that it would be a complete waste of his time to disprove his theory. The reason it is a waste of time is because the theory disproves itself. How can they 'control' an explosion using explosive paint?

sorry i didn't hear it that way , , my understanding was that no-one had as yet disproved his theory

i might need to watch it again

[fleckneymike]

sorry i didn't hear it that way , , my understanding was that no-one had as yet disproved his theory

i might need to watch it again

No one has disproved his theory because to do so would be a complete waste of their time.

[marko]

I think we all heard the Danish guy and the gentlemen who asserted that it would be a complete waste of his time to disprove his theory. The reason it is a waste of time is because the theory disproves itself. How can they 'control' an explosion using explosive paint?

Don't forget it also gives off less energy per kilo than burning paper.

The Danish guy also gave a greatly exaggerated verdict, with carefully selected results.

[Zingari]

No one has disproved his theory because to do so would be a complete waste of their time.

But most scientists do nothing but waste their time looking at insignificant stuff such as how sub atomic particles behave ,surely they can afford a couple of days off from this not so pressing engagement

[marko]

you asked me if i can see a plane that in any way resembles a 757 in any photograph released by the US government and i can't , please show me one

Zing, as I said even the conspiracy theorists said there was plane debris at the Pentagon. Of course it wouldn't be a whole plane sticking out the side of the building, the article you provided to back up a previous argument categorically stated a plane hitting with such force would be torn in to very small pieces.

Plus, how can you discredit the eyewitnesses??? You rely on them so heavily in some instances, yet on this occasion you seem to conveniently ignore them. Have you ever heard of an eyewitness claiming it was a missile??? I certainly haven't.

Skip to 23.33 for eyewitness. Please, please tell me you're not going to question this guy's credibility?

Skip to 26.00 for pictures of debris. There is clearly shredded and contorted pieces of AA aluminium fuselage on the grounds outside the Pentagon. The aluminium is clearly like confetti, just as your article - drawing upon similar impacts - suggested it would be.

BBC Documentary

Oh, what about the positive DNA matches from the bodies found in the Pentagon?

[Zingari]

Marko. You keep accusing me of ignoring eye/ear witness accounts ( maybe i am ) but you are doing exactly the same thing

oral histories .

Firemen on tv comes out and says there were no explosions everyone believes them , many more say there were , totally ignore them

There were so many reports of explosions even on known tv footage taken at the time that has been completely swept under the carpet because it doesn't fit the story .

Explosions

Reports of Sights and Sounds of Explosions

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html

This is so reminiscent of the JFK warren commission findings that seemed to ignore any testimony that did not tally with a lone nut assassin theory inasmuch as if it didn't fit in with the preconceived theory that three shots came fom the TSBD then they must be wrong , even though most witnesses can be seen looking and running towards the area to the front and right ; on the famous Orville Nix film footage taken at the time.

Sorry to make these comparisons but the same patterns keep emerging in what i believe to be government cover ups

If you had not been bombarded by the official version of lone nut assassin firing from behind , what would you say had happened in Dealy Plaza ?

Just try looking again at the Nix and Zapruder films and try to piece together what you think is happening by what you actually see and not what you are told .

i've watched them scores if not hundreds of times and i really can't believe that the only shots came from behind , i truly believe at least some must have come from the front .

This trick works every time.

We've all been eyewitnesses to the collapse of WTC7 via the film footage , if you had not been bombarded with official explanations that claim it is merely fire and external damage , what would you have thought caused it ?

try to disassociate yourself from what you've been told and try to say what you actually see .

Sorry but I really can't see a building (WTC7)falling down by random fire and damage, and no explanation I've heard convinces me it does, and so i'm more inclined to believe the eye/ear witnesses that agree with this or back it up and ignore the ones that don't , just as you are doing in reverse

RE Pentagon attack

I'll ask again , where is the film footage or at least one good photograph of a plane hitting or even closely approaching the pentagon ?

They must have some if it did happen that way , why won't they show it ?

Kebab shop blows up on Narborough Road , reasonably good film footage

Plane ( supposedly) flies into pentagon ( surely the most securely protected and watched building in the world ), not a fookin thing (other than those 4 poor images that you claim shows a plane, but quite clearly does no such thing )

i'd have put good money on it being the other way round

[OzFox]

Kebab shop blows up on Narborough Road , reasonably good film footage

Plane ( supposedly) flies into pentagon ( surely the most securely protected and watched building in the world ), not a fookin thing

I think your theories are codswallop (In the nicest possible way), but I've gotta say that did make me laugh :D Nice one

[Legend_in_blue]

I watched the documentary last night and am not convinced by any of the arguments put forward at all. There are holes in both arguments. Conspiracy theories will continue to exist until the actual facts of what happened are 100% bullet-proof and believable. At the moment, based on the evidence given, they are not.

The focus on the towers was the towers themselves - not the planes. I'm not convinced about the charges being planted theory and at the same time I'm not convinced that they were passenger jets either - although this was not focussed on at all. A passport of one of the hijackers found amongst all the debris? Again not focussed on in the docu but believable? Really?

As for the Pentagon I can believe that a something hit the building from the debris shown in the footage but then again this is one of the most protected and secure buildings in the world so why only two pieces of film which do not clarify that a plane hit the building? Surely there should be more than that? There are cameras all over the building. And then the clear-up of the area. Would FBI personnel just go around picking up pieces of aircraft? It seems amateurish to do that.

The "crash" in PA - the first question one has to ask is where is the plane? There is no sign of a plane crash, just a hole in the ground. Having watched many aircraft investigation docu's on sky there is always evidence of the plane on impact. Here there is none. Strange.

Then finally WTC7. Imo the most believable theory.

I was real close to building 7 when it fell down... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming "get away, get away, get away from it!" ...Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the ****'s hitting the ground and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom". I think I know an explosion when I hear it...

Taken from a police officer when WTC7 collapsed. Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/100207heardbombs.htm

Have a read of "9.11 The New Evidence" by Ian Henshall. It's an interesting read.

That's all from me!

[Babylon]

So the windows weren’t broken by the wings ( presumably they were travelling at the same speed as the fuselage ) because the glass was blast proof , but the fuselage managed to pierce itself through 9 layers of reinforced concrete wall .

There is a reason bullets are shaped like this, if it was fired sideways it wouldn't have anything like the same penetration due to the distribution of the pressure.

The fuselage is funnily enough rather bullet shaped, the wings are not. The force applied to the building by the areas of the plane is completely different. And that's without even taking into account the fact the front of the plane has already created a hole before the wings hit the structure, meaning there was no long the same amount of resistance.

How you can believe crack pots like the guy last night (who admitted there was wreckage) but said it was dropped by the military plane above washington.

Bits off aluminium dropped from thousands of feet land exactly outside the building??? Impossible.

[Zingari]

a bullet (like a missile ) is designed to pierce objects , whereas an aircraft although similar in shape is not , it is designed to fly through the air without hitting anything

the nosecone of an aircraft such as a 767 is made of poly carbon and the rest of the fuselage a light aluminium sheeting riveted together '

the two things are similar in appearance , but it ends there really

now if you compare the bullet to a missile , then there is much more logic and i can see how it would be capable of piercing through so much steel reinforced concrete

read about it hear

http://www.waftit.com/missile3.htm

[Babylon]

a bullet (like a missile ) is designed to pierce objects , whereas an aircraft although similar in shape is not , it is designed to fly through the air without hitting anything

the nosecone of an aircraft such as a 767 is made of poly carbon and the rest of the fuselage a light aluminium sheeting riveted together '

the two things are similar in appearance , but it ends there really

now if you compare the bullet to a missile , then there is much more logic and i can see how it would be capable of piercing through so much steel reinforced concrete

read about it hear

http://www.waftit.com/missile3.htm

Quite possibly one of the worst arguments you have ever come up with. Just because something wasn't designed to do something doesn't mean it can't do it. Fly a plane nose first (And I mean nose first) into the ground, it will leave a crater. Now the earth has some give in it, but will only compact so much. The pentagon will have a strong outer shell but if breached there is absolutely nothing to stop the forces as there are offices and open spaces etc behind the shell.

So parts of it are made from poly carbon and aluminium whoopy. The empty operating weight of a 767 is 80,130 kg, the maximum weight is 142,880 kg. Even taking into account the weight distribution across the whole aircraft the forces and energy involved here are absolutely colosal considering the speeds it was traveling.

[Zingari]

That's fine , but they ain't my theories ( i'm not pretending to be anywhere near so clever ), they are those groups such as Architects and Engineers , Scholars for 911 truth etc etc ,

i'm just saying what i see , and i know that a tin can is not designed to be a hammer , i've tried slamming them against stuff and the result is nothing like that of using a hammer and

sometimes i've bashed my head against the wall with similar results

usually if something is designed for a purpose it will almost certainly do it better than something that is not , and i believe only a purpose designed missle could pierce 9 , 18 inch steel reinforced walls and then leave a 10 feet round exit hole , i believe a missile( the hammer) could do this , i don't believe an aeroplane (the tin can ) could

if you believe different that's fine ,

[Babylon]

i'm just saying what i see , and i know that a tin can is not designed to be a hammer , i've tried slamming them against stuff and the result is nothing like that of using a hammer and

sometimes i've bashed my head against the wall with similar results

If your tin can weighed 150+ tonnes and contained things like landing gears (**** off great big chunks of metal), and it was traveling at 200/300/400 hundred mph then it would probably make a good hammer.

[Zingari]

If your tin can weighed 150+ tonnes and contained things like landing gears (**** off great big chunks of metal), and it was traveling at 200/300/400 hundred mph then it would probably make a good hammer.

they don't look like they make very good hammers to me

[Babylon]

they don't look like they make very good hammers to me

Planes are not really made to withstand crashes, they are made to not crash. Every picture on that video shows the soft outer parts of the plane being crumpled in low speed collisions. They are made as light as they can be so of of course the outer shell will crumble. But the facts are the these planes can weigh anywhere from 100 to 200 tonnes, they have exceptionally strong and heavy sections that hold the plane together as well as bit like landing gears, cargo holds etc.

Plane crash in 1958... that light weight tin can did a lot of damage to the floor.

[fleckneymike]

This thread gets increasingly depressing.

[Rincewind]

So Saddam was innocent after all? Nice of the US government bungling things to prove his innocence. Now will the US and GB be charged with illegally invading a country. The terroruists must be rolling on the floor laughing at all these revelations.

[Zingari]

Planes are not really made to withstand crashes, they are made to not crash. Every picture on that video shows the soft outer parts of the plane being crumpled in low speed collisions. They are made as light as they can be so of of course the outer shell will crumble. But the facts are the these planes can weigh anywhere from 100 to 200 tonnes, they have exceptionally strong and heavy sections that hold the plane together as well as bit like landing gears, cargo holds etc.

Plane crash in 1958... that light weight tin can did a lot of damage to the floor.

i agree that does indeed look like an impressive amount of damage and I’m not trying to belittle the fact that a huge airliner could do masses of damage in a collision, and I saw the mess an airliner made to the grass verge on the M1 at Kegworth.

But the strike on the pentagon punched a hole through 3 rings of the building, each having two 18inch steel reinforced concrete walls, that’s a total of 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete, and add to this the fact that it left a hole 10 feet wide as it exited.

Remember that as it passed through the first ring any speed and momentum would have been reduced dramatically. And also remember that it is supposed to have demolished the steel support columns too.

Just picture in your mind 6 x 18 inch steel reinforced wall spaced apart and put huge steel support columns in between and then try to imagine a hollow aluminium tube trying to penetrate them . I agree that there are huge engines landing gear etc attached but these would surely have been ripped off on contact with the first ring.

This amount of destruction really takes some striking power of bunker buster missile proportions and I don’t think an aircraft could have done that.

I just don’t believe it , if that makes me a conspiracy nutcase , so be it .I've been called a lot worse

[Rincewind]

Who pressed the big red button with FIRE written on it?

[shen]

I just don’t believe it , if that makes me a conspiracy nutcase , so be it .I've been called a lot worse

I want examples!

[Zingari]

I want examples!

i was once called a coventry fan

[l444ry]

i agree that does indeed look like an impressive amount of damage and I’m not trying to belittle the fact that a huge airliner could do masses of damage in a collision, and I saw the mess an airliner made to the grass verge on the M1 at Kegworth.

But the strike on the pentagon punched a hole through 3 rings of the building, each having two 18inch steel reinforced concrete walls, that’s a total of 9 feet of steel reinforced concrete, and add to this the fact that it left a hole 10 feet wide as it exited.

Remember that as it passed through the first ring any speed and momentum would have been reduced dramatically. And also remember that it is supposed to have demolished the steel support columns too.

Just picture in your mind 6 x 18 inch steel reinforced wall spaced apart and put huge steel support columns in between and then try to imagine a hollow aluminium tube trying to penetrate them . I agree that there are huge engines landing gear etc attached but these would surely have been ripped off on contact with the first ring.

This amount of destruction really takes some striking power of bunker buster missile proportions and I don’t think an aircraft could have done that.

I just don’t believe it , if that makes me a conspiracy nutcase , so be it .I've been called a lot worse

I know you'll think I'm being sarcastic which is not my intention. However, I'd like to see a bunker buster come in horizontally, just a couple off feet off the floor, travelling at 500mph, and knocking into a generator whilst at the same time making a 'U' shape 'scoop' in the ground.

Oh, and it also knocked down three telephone poles, sounded like a plane, looked like a plane and it's remains became the charred remains of a plane.

It's probably safe to assume that a bunker buster or missile did not hit the Pentagon.