What brought down WTC7

Page 43 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: munky
The problem is that the pictures from the pentagon don't show enough debris that would resemble an actual plane crashing there.

No, the problem is, once again, that you have zero ability to weigh evidence.

On one side we have your argument that the pictures of the wreckage at the pentagon don't show enough debris.

On the other hand we have dozens of reported eyewitness accounts of the plane as it headed to and ultimately struck the pentagon.
http://www.geocities.com/someg...ntknow33/witnesses.htm

In any normal person's view, what happened isn't really up for debate. Of course we've established truthers are by no means normal so this isn't surprising.

I also recall there being plenty of eye witnesses to explosions at WTC. What makes your eye witnesses more credible than the others? I can just as easily sweep aside your list of eye witnesses as irrelevant.

bullshit. There were ZERO eye witnesses of explosions at the WTC. Some people claimed to hear loud bangs which could have been oil tanks exploding. Not one person saw explosives or shaped charges or detonation wire.

You're going to "sweep aside" the accounts of dozens of people who saw the fucking plane hit the building?

Again, you can't weigh evidence.
Bull fucking shit. There were people in the basement of WTC who were injured by explosions before the planes even hit the towers. Just that fact that they didn't see some dynamite sticks with red wires duct-taped to the walls (as your simpleton assumption would suggest), does not in any way prove that there were no explosives in the building or that there were no eye witnesses. Let me remind you that in 1993 nobody saw your "explosives" either until a huge crater blew up under one of the towers.

Who put the explosives there? Why is there nearly 95% consensus among structural engineers from around the world that the planes and nothing else brought the towers down?

Who was injured prior to the towers coming down? There is no evidence, not even from seismographs, that there were ANY explosions prior to the planes hitting, but I guess those seismographs are also in on the conspiracy.

Maybe because the structural engineers never bothered investigating the incident beyond the scope of their hypothesis? Because they have a severe case of tunnel vision, and can't explain anything that wasn't in their computer simulation? Those structural engineers don't disprove the witness accounts either.

Well they did. They examined the entire case for the possibility of a demolition and quickly ruled it out. There was no "tunnel vision" or any other such nonsense you're making up. Both the NIST report and the FEMA report address the possibility that something else brought the towers down. They investigated it and modeled it and concluded it was impossible for that to have happened.

You realize that you're now just making things up and hoping that you're right, don't you?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: munky

A plane recently crashed into a mountain, and there were much larger debris pieces, as seen here

Text

how fast was it going? what was the angle of impact?

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Watch this and tell me the man is liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lci_eKWgcos

obviously it comes down to lying. not that he didn't know what he was looking at, was too far away to see anything, or any other reasonable explanation. no, he's either blown the lid off the whole thing or he's lying.

Well glad you brought it up. I wasa waiting for such a reply . Check out how fast a large plane can travel on the deck . Low altitude. Speed is a lie as reported as it goes against pyhsics .

http://www.boeing.com/commerci...7family/technical.html

Typical cruise speed of a 757 is mach .80. Mach .80 = 608.965641 mph. That's about 55 mph faster than the plane was traveling when it hit the Pentagon. Fail.
I'll make a prediction here. Nemesis1 will next trot out the thoroughly debunked "ground turbulence" argument.

It's as if his arguments are based on information from a truther website that hasn't been updated since 2005.
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: munky
There were people in the basement of WTC who were injured by explosions before the planes even hit the towers.

1. who are these people?

2. you still don't address the dozens and dozens of unrelated people who are in reports as having seen a plane hit the pentagon. are they lying? did they see something other than what they see? Are they all in on the conspiracy? other than you ignoring them, what explains them?

Just as you didn't address the dozens and dozens of people who heard, felt, or were injured by explosion at WTC. I guess they must be lying too?
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: BeauJanglesWhy is there nearly 95% consensus among structural engineers from around the world...

Maybe because the structural engineers never bothered investigating the incident beyond the scope of their hypothesis? Because they have a severe case of tunnel vision, and can't explain anything that wasn't in their computer simulation? Those structural engineers don't disprove the witness accounts either.
The consensus among engineers he claims seems to be a figment of his imagination. I've asked him and others to substantiate such statistical claims before, but none have manged to do anything of the sort.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: munky
The problem is that the pictures from the pentagon don't show enough debris that would resemble an actual plane crashing there.

No, the problem is, once again, that you have zero ability to weigh evidence.

On one side we have your argument that the pictures of the wreckage at the pentagon don't show enough debris.

On the other hand we have dozens of reported eyewitness accounts of the plane as it headed to and ultimately struck the pentagon.
http://www.geocities.com/someg...ntknow33/witnesses.htm

In any normal person's view, what happened isn't really up for debate. Of course we've established truthers are by no means normal so this isn't surprising.

These eye witness accounts must be recent because few seen the hit. or the plane not only that most discribe seeing differant planes . WHY? LIES!
The publication dates are linked to most of the testimonials on the page. Almost all are 9/11 or 9/12 of 2001. So yes, they are recent given that our calendar goes back 2000 years, but they are not recent in relation to 9/11/01 and today, having been made on or near the day of 9/11.

The families of the other plane went down in country . Why NO heros funeral with all the grieving family members . They were heros after all . Or is it a lie ? Were aew the grieving relatives of al;l these dead passangers. Why so few passengers LOL.

 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: munky
The problem is that the pictures from the pentagon don't show enough debris that would resemble an actual plane crashing there.

No, the problem is, once again, that you have zero ability to weigh evidence.

On one side we have your argument that the pictures of the wreckage at the pentagon don't show enough debris.

On the other hand we have dozens of reported eyewitness accounts of the plane as it headed to and ultimately struck the pentagon.
http://www.geocities.com/someg...ntknow33/witnesses.htm

In any normal person's view, what happened isn't really up for debate. Of course we've established truthers are by no means normal so this isn't surprising.

I also recall there being plenty of eye witnesses to explosions at WTC. What makes your eye witnesses more credible than the others? I can just as easily sweep aside your list of eye witnesses as irrelevant.

bullshit. There were ZERO eye witnesses of explosions at the WTC. Some people claimed to hear loud bangs which could have been oil tanks exploding. Not one person saw explosives or shaped charges or detonation wire.

You're going to "sweep aside" the accounts of dozens of people who saw the fucking plane hit the building?

Again, you can't weigh evidence.
Bull fucking shit. There were people in the basement of WTC who were injured by explosions before the planes even hit the towers. Just that fact that they didn't see some dynamite sticks with red wires duct-taped to the walls (as your simpleton assumption would suggest), does not in any way prove that there were no explosives in the building or that there were no eye witnesses. Let me remind you that in 1993 nobody saw your "explosives" either until a huge crater blew up under one of the towers.

Who put the explosives there? Why is there nearly 95% consensus among structural engineers from around the world that the planes and nothing else brought the towers down?

Who was injured prior to the towers coming down? There is no evidence, not even from seismographs, that there were ANY explosions prior to the planes hitting, but I guess those seismographs are also in on the conspiracy.

Maybe because the structural engineers never bothered investigating the incident beyond the scope of their hypothesis? Because they have a severe case of tunnel vision, and can't explain anything that wasn't in their computer simulation? Those structural engineers don't disprove the witness accounts either.

Well they did. They examined the entire case for the possibility of a demolition and quickly ruled it out. There was no "tunnel vision" or any other such nonsense you're making up. Both the NIST report and the FEMA report address the possibility that something else brought the towers down. They investigated it and modeled it and concluded it was impossible for that to have happened.

You realize that you're now just making things up and hoping that you're right, don't you?

Based on what evidence did they rule it out? You realize that the FEMA investigators weren't even allowed on ground zero, and they stated "further investigation is needed."
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: munky
The problem is that the pictures from the pentagon don't show enough debris that would resemble an actual plane crashing there. There were no large sections of engines, or tail piece, or wing sections. Of course you already knew that, right? The official story claims it was just vaporized in the heat.

Now, the pseudoskeptics have been hammering away how jet fuel burns at only about 1000C, not hot enough to melt steel. The engines of the airplane were made from titanium alloys, which would require at least 1600C to melt... and even greater temps to vaporize. So how is it that those components just happened to melt?

The flip side is IF by some magic circumstance most of the plane just vaporized, then how were the authorities able to identify the victims by DNA, which supposedly did not vaporize?

they didn't, and photos of them and the wheels are all over the place.

I would like to see wheel pic . I haven't got that one>

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
obviously the much more reasonable explanation is that the guy interviewed was in on it too. wonder how much money unocal paid him?
 

JohnnyGage

Senior member
Feb 18, 2008
699
0
71
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
You haven't made a case for anything . Next few years I will not enjoy but ya all deserve what your going to recieve. The day I die . You die.
:laugh:

Seriously, what the fuck?
Didn't you know? Nemesis1, along with all his other crazy ramblings, believes in the Mayan prophecy. In fact his forum name comes from a belief in some kind of dark star named Nemesis that is suposed to wipe out life the Earth in 2012. He actually believes in that crap.

You can't make that kind of crazy. It's born that way.

Now I see the light. The MAYANS perpetrated 911 and made it look like the government covered up their own plot to destroy 911 while framing a bunch of religious extremists. Of course!

Yep, but it was supposed to be completed on Dec. 21st 2012....or so theytell me.

How is this thread still going? I will soon have hard opinionated evidence that Elvis and Red did it. And if I ask the right questions, I can prove it!
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
obviously the much more reasonable explanation is that the guy interviewed was in on it too.
More likely he was just doing what he was told without rightly knowing what was going on, much like the CNN and BBC talking heads who reported the fall of WTC7 before it happened likely were doing themselves.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1 Wrong . In sig 4 possibilities. You choose I am a witness for now thats all . I must warn of wrong teachings. The rest comes latter. You shall not like us 2 at all . Like the earth quake that arrives this coming year its going to be ugly for America Bad ugly . 1. it has begun.

There are earthquakes that hit all over the world.

There are earthquakes that also hit the US everyday.

Every year there are earthquakes that cause serious damage within the US fault zones.

You are like McOwen used to be - vague so you can claim that your are right.

Pinpoint to within a 250 mile geographic area and within 1 week.

Otherwise your predications are just as looney as anyone else and as accurate

You sound like a religious freak - "You are right - all others are wrong"

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Originally posted by: ElFenix
obviously the much more reasonable explanation is that the guy interviewed was in on it too.
More likely he was just doing what he was told without rightly knowing what was going on, much like the CNN and BBC talking heads who reported the fall of WTC7 before it happened likely were doing themselves.

hi!

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: kylebisme
Yeah, and note that when ElFenix (and NIST) say "the upper section started falling slowly", they are only referring to the bowing towards the middle of the roofline, while the corners go pretty much straight from standing still to free all. In the Wile E. Coyote comparison, that is basicly like him wagging his feet in the air for a moment before he falls.

when has anyone ever stated anything that could be construed as wile e coyote hanging in the air after running off the cliff?
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
How is this thread still going?
Because the OP is irrefutable. If you actually look at the facts I presented and came to terms with them, you would know this. Instead you'd rather ignore your inability to understand the physics in question to dismiss my argument on faith. Perhaps you'd be more respective to a retired engineering executive who spent over 37 years working for NASA telling you the same thing, or is there anything that could shake you from your refusal to address the facts in the OP?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: munky
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: munky
There were people in the basement of WTC who were injured by explosions before the planes even hit the towers.

1. who are these people?

2. you still don't address the dozens and dozens of unrelated people who are in reports as having seen a plane hit the pentagon. are they lying? did they see something other than what they see? Are they all in on the conspiracy? other than you ignoring them, what explains them?

Just as you didn't address the dozens and dozens of people who heard, felt, or were injured by explosion at WTC. I guess they must be lying too?

Sigh.

For the Nth time, you can't weigh evidence. You have people at WTC who "heard or felt" "something". I'm not calling them liars, I'm saying they don't know what they heard. No one saw explosions. Could have been a subway for all they know. A car backfire. Or one of a thousand other things. Regardless, their testimony is ambiguous.

There is no ambiguity in the pentagon witnesses testimony. They saw a plane fly low and fast towards the pentagon, and seconds later many saw it hit. No ambiguity. I argue the WTC eyewitnesses could have heard something other than explosions. What is your explanation as to the eyewitness account of the plane hitting the pentagon do you claim is ambiguous or misunderstood by the witnesses?

There, I just addressed your purported WTC "eye witness accounts" and you still can't address the pentagon eye witness accounts because short of simply calling them liars, you have no grounds to address it.

Oh, one last thing. The main "eye witness" at WTC who claims he heard explosions prior to the planes hitting? Here's the lawsuit he filed:

"In his lawsuit, Rodriquez made hundreds of allegations including allegations that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of "controlled demolitions;" that members of the FDNY were ordered, on instructions of the CIA, not to talk about it; that the FDNY conspired with Larry Silverstein to deliberately destroy 7WTC; that projectiles were fired at the Twin Towers from ?pods? affixed to the underside of the planes that struck them; that FEMA is working with the US government to create ?American Gulag? concentration camps which FEMA will run once the federal government?s plan to impose martial law is in place; that phone calls made by some of the victims, as reported by their family members, were not actually made but were "faked" by the government using "voice morphing" technology; that a missile, not American Airlines Flight 77, struck the Pentagon; that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down by the U.S. military; that the defendants had foreknowledge of the attacks and actively conspired to bring them about; that the defendants engaged in kidnapping, arson, murder, treason, conspiracy, trafficking in narcotics, embezzlement, securities fraud, insider trading, identity and credit card theft, blackmail, trafficking in humans, and the abduction and sale of women and children for sex."
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1 Wrong . In sig 4 possibilities. You choose I am a witness for now thats all . I must warn of wrong teachings. The rest comes latter. You shall not like us 2 at all . Like the earth quake that arrives this coming year its going to be ugly for America Bad ugly . 1. it has begun.

There are earthquakes that hit all over the world.

There are earthquakes that also hit the US everyday.

Every year there are earthquakes that cause serious damage within the US fault zones.

You are like McOwen used to be - vague so you can claim that your are right.

Pinpoint to within a 250 mile geographic area and within 1 week.

Otherwise your predications are just as looney as anyone else and as accurate

You sound like a religious freak - "You are right - all others are wrong"

No no my fine enemy friend. I am talking 100 of thousands dead . I am talking major earth quake the likes which have never been seen . Would you choose to have a date set . I will give it thought . I have choice in these matters.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Why was Fema ready to go into action in NY city the day befor 9/11. Want proof I have it from fema themseves. Explain it away any way ya want the fact remains Fema was there ahead of 9/11 ready and waiting . HOW?
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
when has anyone ever stated anything that could be construed as wile e coyote hanging in the air after running off the cliff?
[/quote]
Not like running off a cliff, rather:

Originally posted by: kylebisme
...NIST was eventually persuaded to to admit [WTC7's period of free fall acceleration], as documented here:

In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
...
...

As I noted elsewhere in this thread, NIST's argument is based in Loony Tunes physics. Their separating between stage 1 and stage 2 is like Wile E. Coyote standing on top of a pillar of rock which crumbles below while he hangs in the air, only after which can he free fall to the ground. In real world physics, the coyote would fall right along with the crumbling rock, with the resistance provided by that rock keeping his fall observably below that of free fall.
Understood?
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: kylebisme
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
How is this thread still going?
Because the OP is irrefutable. If you actually look at the facts I presented and came to terms with them, you would know this. Instead you'd rather ignore your inability to understand the physics in question to dismiss my argument on faith. Perhaps you'd be more respective to a retired engineering executive who spent over 37 years working for NASA telling you the same thing, or is there anything that could shake you from your refusal to address the facts in the OP?

Irrefutable? What about the 600 posts in this thread, the 900 posts in the last thread, and the mountains of physical and circumstantial evidence you've ignored?

Or have you now redefined irrefutable, just like you redefined "will of the people?"
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Why was Fema ready to go into action in NY city the day befor 9/11. Want proof I have it from fema themseves. Explain it away any way ya want the fact remains Fema was there ahead of 9/11 ready and waiting . HOW?

They weren't. Cool.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1 Wrong . In sig 4 possibilities. You choose I am a witness for now thats all . I must warn of wrong teachings. The rest comes latter. You shall not like us 2 at all . Like the earth quake that arrives this coming year its going to be ugly for America Bad ugly . 1. it has begun.

There are earthquakes that hit all over the world.

There are earthquakes that also hit the US everyday.

Every year there are earthquakes that cause serious damage within the US fault zones.

You are like McOwen used to be - vague so you can claim that your are right.

Pinpoint to within a 250 mile geographic area and within 1 week.

Otherwise your predications are just as looney as anyone else and as accurate

You sound like a religious freak - "You are right - all others are wrong"

Memphis. I would love to set date right now . But 1 more man made event remains . Than and only than shall that seal be broken and a date set . It must occur in this order as commanded by GOD. I am not allowed to cut short the time only God can do such a thing . I hope he does it soon tho . Its getting harder to stay safe. But 2010 is ugly for you all. Much death hunger no shelter from elements . Good times not . Promised times fact.

 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1 Wrong . In sig 4 possibilities. You choose I am a witness for now thats all . I must warn of wrong teachings. The rest comes latter. You shall not like us 2 at all . Like the earth quake that arrives this coming year its going to be ugly for America Bad ugly . 1. it has begun.

There are earthquakes that hit all over the world.

There are earthquakes that also hit the US everyday.

Every year there are earthquakes that cause serious damage within the US fault zones.

You are like McOwen used to be - vague so you can claim that your are right.

Pinpoint to within a 250 mile geographic area and within 1 week.

Otherwise your predications are just as looney as anyone else and as accurate

You sound like a religious freak - "You are right - all others are wrong"

Memphis. I would love to set date right now . But 1 more man made event remains . Than and only than shall that seal be broken and a date set . It must occur in this order as commanded by GOD. I am not allowed to cut short the time only God can do such a thing . I hope he does it soon tho . Its getting harder to stay safe. But 2010 is ugly for you all. Much death hunger no shelter from elements . Good times not . Promised times fact.

You need help. Seriously.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Why was Fema ready to go into action in NY city the day befor 9/11. Want proof I have it from fema themseves. Explain it away any way ya want the fact remains Fema was there ahead of 9/11 ready and waiting . HOW?

They weren't. Cool.

Weren't they . Don't make same mistake Dan rather made . Ask yourself why fema arrived on monday night.

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

 
Status
Not open for further replies.