ANZACs and war and stuff

[mashman]

wasn't the second tower reported as down about five minutes before the "plane hit"?

WTC building 7 was reported by the BBC to have collapsed 20 minutes before it did. I'm sure there's a vid of a US newsreader saying the same thing, and you could see WTC building 7 still standing in the distant background.

[Katman]

WTC building 7 was reported by the BBC to have collapsed 20 minutes before it did. I'm sure there's a vid of a US newsreader saying the same thing, and you could see WTC building 7 still standing in the distant background.

Yeah, and when they realised their mistake they suddenly 'lost transmission'.

[Hinny]

Yeah .. why not .. there are explanations that say it is possible .. it may well be unlikely .. but that does not mean it would not happen ... models of events are just that .. what actualy happens can be pretty wild ... the nose of the plane going through the building and out the other side appratrently largely intact is possible ... that's not hard to accept ..

Mate you are dreaming.
Ever seen photos of a bird strike on the nose of an aircraft? Little bird smashing the nose in.

This plane, was exiting the building before it had totally entered the other side. It grew rather than was crushed smashing into a steel web stronger than a tank.
Instead of being crushed by smashing through two webs of Super Strength steel with 22" gaps between the columns and a bunch of Inner steel support columns, it comes out the other side seemingly intact. Like the scene from 'Flying High' when the aeroplane goes through the curtain wall of glass in the terminal building. .
These walls were not curtain walls of glass.

[Banditbandit]

But that's certainly not the case with Building 7.

If one suspects that Building 7 was rigged for demolition then one has to suspect that Buildings 1 & 2 were also similarly rigged.

No .. I don't get that .. why do you have to suspect that?

[Banditbandit]

Mate you are dreaming.
Ever seen photos of a bird strike on the nose of an aircraft? Little bird smashing the nose in.

But not always ...

This plane, was exiting the building before it had totally entered the other side. It grew rather than was crushed smashing into a steel web stronger than a tank.

Where ??? Show me the video .. I have never seen that ..

Instead of being crushed by smashing through two webs of Super Strength steel with 22" gaps between the columns and a bunch of Inner steel support columns, it comes out the other side seemingly intact. Like the scene from 'Flying High' when the aeroplane goes through the curtain wall of glass in the terminal building. .
These walls were not curtain walls of glass.

I'm not a structural engineer - or any kind of engineer ... but it not only needs an engineerign explanation - it needs some understanding of the laws of probability ... and I think it is possible .. just unlikely .. but unlikely things happen every day ..

I seriously doubt there are 22 inch gaps betwen the columns .. how would people walk between them ...

If the aircraft nose has a "point" then surely it goes through small gaps .. just how much of the "nose" makes it through the bulding intact? I doubnt that all of it back to the pilot's windows does (if it does at all) .. and at some pont the nose is quite small ..

[Katman]

No .. I don't get that .. why do you have to suspect that?

Three buildings fell in a perfect implosion into their own footprint - in a manner that demolition experts would dream to be able to replicate.

If one building had been rigged for demolition then it would not be surprising to discover that all three had been done likewise.

Anything else would be like saying "building 7 fell like that due to an expert demolition job but those other two buildings that are over twice the height fell like they did purely by luck".

[Virago]

...do the maths dude. bullets flying at <3000FPS have impact energy in excess of plane at low altitude cruising speed...

Bwahahahahahaha...!

No, you do the maths. Your results will be... ...interesting...

If you're right, I should be able to shoot down massive buildings with one shot from my rifle. I await your confirmation.

[Virago]

Still no takers for Michael Moore's One Million dollar reward challenge to show that anything in his movie Fahrenheit 911 was not true.

Well Ed's clearly got nothing.

Ironically, you're playing Ed at his own game.

"We are right until you can prove we're wrong, and you are wrong until you can prove you're right." As always, the onus of proof is always on the other party - the key fall-back position of both conspiracy theorists and the religious bigots.

[Oscar]

Bwahahahahahaha...!

No, you do the maths. Your results will be... ...interesting...

If you're right, I should be able to shoot down massive buildings with one shot from my rifle. I await your confirmation.

Nice point, but I suspect logic is wasted here.

The WTC towers were designed to withstand an impact from a errant aircraft (it was modeled on an impact from a 707).
What was not factored in was the intense heat caused by burning fuel, which caused the floor supports to fail (as these were only supported at the edges).
The floors pancaked, slowly at first, which gave a collapse similar to that experienced with controlled demolition.
Video clearly shows the pancake effect starting on the floors immediately under the impact point. If, as some say, there was a conspiracy which somehow blew the building up, why would they go dozens of floors up, and hope that the explosion caused complete destruction?

[Oscar]

Three buildings fell in a perfect implosion into their own footprint - in a manner that demolition experts would dream to be able to replicate.

If one building had been rigged for demolition then it would not be surprising to discover that all three had been done likewise.

Anything else would be like saying "building 7 fell like that due to an expert demolition job but those other two buildings that are over twice the height fell like they did purely by luck".

The "WTC7 was blown up" theory only works from one point of view, where the building appears to collapse as if subject to a controlled explosion.
Any cusary search will turn up articles like this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...umed-fire.html

...that show a several damaged and burning building.

[Katman]

The "WTC7 was blown up" theory only works from one point of view, where the building appears to collapse as if subject to a controlled explosion.
Any cusary search will turn up articles like this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...umed-fire.html

...that show a several damaged and burning building.

Sorry man but that's not 'consumed' by fire.

There are many examples of high rise buildings actually being 'consumed' by fire that don't fall down.

The photo's on this page are what I'd consider to be showing a building being 'consumed' by fire.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...are/fires.html

[scumdog]

Sorry man but that's not 'consumed' by fire.

There are many examples of high rise buildings actually being 'consumed' by fire that don't fall down.

After a large laden plane had been flown into them???

[oneofsix]

Nice point, but I suspect logic is wasted here.

The WTC towers were designed to withstand an impact from a errant aircraft (it was modeled on an impact from a 707).
What was not factored in was the intense heat caused by burning fuel, which caused the floor supports to fail (as these were only supported at the edges).
The floors pancaked, slowly at first, which gave a collapse similar to that experienced with controlled demolition.
Video clearly shows the pancake effect starting on the floors immediately under the impact point. If, as some say, there was a conspiracy which somehow blew the building up, why would they go dozens of floors up, and hope that the explosion caused complete destruction?

But your third paragraph suggests Hinny's "web of steel" didn't exist. You wouldn't be saying the buildings were built as per design, with a central dense support column and looser more space external support, and that it is quite see-able from the video and analyses that the plane's nose didn't hit the central support column? To suggest the the extra fuel load of a fully fuelled 747 could weaken steel designed to with stand a much smaller 707 - really?

Sorry but the pancake must have been set off by explosives in the basement because that is what some conspiracies say happened. And it can't have been fuel leaking down the elevator shaft because the viability of that senario has already been called in to question.

[Katman]

After a large laden plane had been flown into them???

Remember building 7?

[Oscar]

Sorry man but that's not 'consumed' by fire.

There are many examples of high rise buildings actually being 'consumed' by fire that don't fall down.

The photo's on this page are what I'd consider to be showing a building being 'consumed' by fire.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...are/fires.html

So you know of another 81 story building that didn't collapse after being damaged by adjacent collapse’s of two other buildings and subsequent fire?


Notwithstanding that, let's apply Occam's Razor.
How would anyone benefit from the controlled demolition of an empty (it had been succesfully evacuted with no casualties) and burning building (there are dozens of pics of it burning prior to it's collapse)? Why would you somehow construct a plan to fly planes (missiles) into WTC 1&2 or blow them up, only to wait until WTC7 was damaged and on fire, and then blow it up?