WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

[Riverwind]

Riverwind, mind giving a page number on the above document ?

You can start with the Abstract. Section 1.4 discusses the test model accuracy.

The aspect of 911 that proves it was an inside job is the expedient and orderly manner in which the buildings collapsed.

A collapse that spewed debris across lower Manhattan and destroyed 6+ surrounding buildings is hardly 'orderly. You assertion is not supported by one shred of scientific evidence. It is simply BS truthies invented to justify themselves.

[PolyNewbie]

ScottSA:Kamakazis got shot down because they were travelling at half the speed of a modern airliner at a moving ship, bristling with guns, a fraction of the size of the WTC.

Wind has the same affect on a moving aircraft relative to its ability to hit a sitting target that motion of the target has. We don't know what the wind was at higher altitudes but it is always there.

ScottSA: Christ, listen to yourself.

I doubt he is reading this, or has anything to say about it.

You should be kicked off this forum I think.

Riverwind:A collapse that spewed debris across lower Manhattan and destroyed 6+ surrounding buildings is hardly 'orderly. You assertion is not supported by one shred of scientific evidence. It is simply BS truthies invented to justify themselves.

Anyone can watch the videos and determine this for themselves if there was any order to the event. The fact that the buildings collapsed straight down and the debris was thrown symmetrically around the building footprint shows an orderly nature to the event.

[ScottSA]

ScottSA:Kamakazis got shot down because they were travelling at half the speed of a modern airliner at a moving ship, bristling with guns, a fraction of the size of the WTC.

Wind has the same affect on a moving aircraft relative to its ability to hit a sitting target that motion of the target has. We don't know what the wind was at higher altitudes but it is always there.

Right. So poorly trained kamikazes could hit teensy moving ships using propeller-driven planes and mid-20th century technology, whilst flying through solid sheets of flying lead, but trained pilots can't hit large stationary buildings using the latest in 21st century technology on a cloudless day in New York, and all because of wind. Good thing for the kamikazes there was never any wind in the South Pacific, eh? Makes you wonder what made all those waves and storms and stuff though. I've never heard about windless cyclones and tropical storms, but I'm sure that's just because it's been covered up by the Elders of Zion.

[PolyNewbie]

ScottSA:but trained pilots can't hit large stationary buildings using the latest in 21st century technology on a cloudless day in New York

This is more difficult than it seems according to the Pilots For 911 Truth. The impossibility comes into play with the Pentagon crash.

You must be getting really frustrated ScottSA. The truth about things is getting out, whether you like it or not. I don't know how much the Penthouse Pentagon is paying you for this but you are no good at it and they should be getting a refund.

[Wilber]

Wind has the same affect on a moving aircraft relative to its ability to hit a sitting target that motion of the target has. We don't know what the wind was at higher altitudes but it is always there.

It's not unusual for your average airline pilot to put an aircraft in the center of the runway with crosswinds gusting into the 30Kt range. It can be hard work but it is just part of the job.

[PolyNewbie]

Wilber:It's not unusual for your average airline pilot to put an aircraft in the center of the runway with crosswinds gusting into the 30Kt range. It can be hard work but it is just part of the job.

These guys that supposedy took over four airliners were not experienced pilots. I know from playing on flight simulators that wind makes what you would think of as easy things a lot more difficult than you would think.

But anyway...should we believe that 911 Pilots For Trth are working for Usama ?

[ScottSA]

You must be getting really frustrated ScottSA. The truth about things is getting out, whether you like it or not. I don't know how much the Penthouse Pentagon is paying you for this but you are no good at it and they should be getting a refund.

The truth is indeed getting out. You're arguing that inexperienced kamikaze pilots in propeller planes can hit moving ships through a blizzard of lead, but modern jet aircraft can't hit two of the largest stationary buildings in the world. On top of that, you're arguing with Wilbur, an experienced passenger plane pilot! The truth is that you need help.

[PolyNewbie]

An annonymous pilot on a news group isn't the same thing as the more experienced and numerous pilots stating their names on Pilots For 911 Truth. PilotsFor911Truth.org

Riverwind says he is an engineer and I have shown that this is obviously not the truth using his own statements regarding scientific fact.

Again, I think the Pentagon should get a refund for whatever they have been paying you.

[Wilber]

An annonymous pilot on a news group isn't the same thing as the more experienced and numerous pilots stating their names on Pilots For 911 Truth. PilotsFor911Truth.org

The difference is that I am not taking a position and then trying to justify it. If I really thought there was some kind of conspiracy it would be in my own best interest to see it exposed. I critiqued the AA77 simulation using 35 years of practical experience and knowledge that every airline pilot has. You have no idea what my experience is so don't jump to conclusions on that score. My opinion represents that of the vast majority of pilots, not a minority as you suggest. I cannot help it if you only go to sources which support your own delusions and ignore or belittle everything that contradicts them.

[PolyNewbie]

Wilber:The difference is that I am not taking a position and then trying to justify it.

Yes you are. Anyone that looks at the collapse of wtc7 and then still insists that the building came down like that as result of fires and structural damage is. There is a good reason why mainstream only showed that collapse on the first day of 911 and didn't air it again. The collapse of wtc7 makes the case for 911 being an inside job obvious to anyone.

There is also a good reason why people like Philip Zelikow was involved in presenting 911 to the public, why qualified investigators were restricted from doing the investigation, why members of NYPD & NYFD were gagged and why people like Stephen Jones & Kevin Ryan were fired.

When this many people with these qualifications step up to raise suspicion about the official version something mus be wrong. link

When the collapse of wtc7 still hasn't been explained then something is wrong.

911Truth is growing after 5 years.

[Wilber]

Unlike you I have only offered an opinion on something of which I have extensive first hand knowledge so don't keep refering to wtc 7 when you talk to me. I haven't been part of that debate although I do have an opinion which I will keep to myself.

[PolyNewbie]

Unlike you I have only offered an opinion on something of which I have extensive first hand knowledge so don't keep refering to wtc 7 when you talk to me.

You don't need any kind of scientific background to see that the collapse of wtc7 looks identical to any number of controlled demolitions of buildings you can find on the web. In fact it is a text book example - wtc7 goes down more perfectly than any other controlled demolition that you will ever find videos for.

No building has ever collapsed like this except for a handful that had a very specific fault due to incomplete bracing while under construction or incorrect construction.

You don't need to be a molecular biologist to tell a tree from a rock.

[stignasty]

"Yes it is."

"No it isn't."

28 pages and counting.

[PolyNewbie]

"Yes it is."

"No it isn't."

Thats just Riverwind making scientific statements and me correcting him mostly. I don't know why he keeps cramming things up with that crap.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind says he is an engineer and I have shown that this is obviously not the truth using his own statements regarding scientific fact.

You repeat the word 'proven' over and over again yet it is clear you do not have a clear what the word means. Posters on this forum have shredded every single "scientific assertion" that you have posted yet you continue to insist that you have 'proven' something. Your really do live in a fantasy world.

It is easy to tell when you realize that you have been beaten: you attack others instead of addressing the argument. Your attitude towards Wilber is downright pathetic and a perfect example this. A true engineer would look at the claims by pilots you quote and look at Wilbers comments. A true engineer would recognize that there is no concensus amoung the experts regarding the skill required to fly a plane into a building. A true engineer would then recognize that the 'pilot skill level' argument is inconclusive and cannot be used to support anyone's hypothesis. But you don't do that. You rant on like a religious fanatic.

[ScottSA]

You don't need any kind of scientific background to see that the collapse of wtc7 looks identical to any number of controlled demolitions of buildings you can find on the web. In fact it is a text book example - wtc7 goes down more perfectly than any other controlled demolition that you will ever find videos for.

You don't need any kind of scientific background to see that the Saturn 5 launch looked identical to any number of missile launches you can find on the web. In fact it is a text book example - the thrust fires out the back end even further than any other missile that you will ever find videos for. Therefore the Saturn 5 was actually a missile.

Its a case of claiming it looked like something else, so it must be something else.

[GostHacked]

"Yes it is."

"No it isn't."

28 pages and counting.

On top of the 130 plus in that other thread. For some reason this was the only post that was worth replying to at all.

OH and reading the plane stall thing. There is not much of a chance of a plane that large stalling while at such high speeds with not much of an angle of attack. When a plane stalls, and one that large, it would be near impossible to recover the plane in time if you were less than 5000 feet. Very hard to kick around a few hundred tonnes of plane when not being able to generate any lift, therefore no controls.

EDIT LE - And to recover, you need to point that baby at the ground to start generating lift again and to have any control whatsoever of the craft. It would look more like a spiral dive that the pilot made. Those are a bitch to get out of.

So I'd say there was no stalling involved. He did not hesistate and crashed the plane. I am so going to hell.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind: Posters on this forum have shredded every single "scientific assertion" that you have posted yet you continue to insist that you have 'proven' something.

who... you ?

wtc7 was a controlled demolition. It has all six characteristics of controlled demolitions. There was no characteristic of this collapse that didn't make it look exactly like a conventional controlled demolition. Things like this don't happen by accident. The collapse of wtc7 proves 911 was an inside job beyond any reasonable doubt.

The doubts about 911 being an inside job raised on this thread are consistently shown to be foolish reasons for doubt. The science is completely wrong in every case and its easily shown to be wrong.

Characteristics Of Controlled Demolition:Physics Professor

- The three buildings collapsed in their own footprints and did not topple over. This bears the characteristics of controlled demolition. The central columns were pulverized and the buildings fell in on themselves. Why would Muslim fanatics go to the lengths of wiring the largest complex of buildings in the world with explosives when a topple collapse would have caused more damage to lower Manhattan and killed more people?

- Horizontal puffs of smoke or 'squibs' can be seen popping out floors as the collapse engulfs floor by floor of the buildings. Again, this is a phenomenon atypical of controlled demolition.

- Molten metal found in the basement of the WTC suggests that the commonly used explosive thermite may be responsible for the collapse. Jones said that buildings not destroyed by explosives would have insufficient directed energy to produce the large quantities of melted melted that was discovered. The molten steel was found five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site’s hot spots.

- It requires temperatures of at least 5,000 fahrenheit to melt steel. Diesel jet fuel does not reach these temperatures and the fires in the buildings were short lived. Firefighter tape recordings prove that only small pockets of fire were still burning in the buildings seconds before their collapse.

- Building 7 was not hit by a plane and yet it collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which is .6 seconds quicker than it would take an object dropped from the roof of the building to hit the floor. This violates fundamental laws of physics, unless the building was brought down by explosives.

- Buildings that collapse without the aid of explosives produce large piles of in-tact concrete and do not turn to dust as they are falling, as was witnessed on 9/11.

[PolyNewbie]

ScottSA:You don't need any kind of scientific background to see that the Saturn 5 launch looked identical to any number of missile launches you can find on the web.

Thats why another term for a rocket is a "missile" and Saturn 5 was a missile. Really I hope you are not being paid for this with tax dollars.

[PolyNewbie]

Ghost Hacked: On top of the 130 plus in that other thread. For some reason this was the only post that was worth replying to at all.

Thats why when you ask if we can work togather my answer is a definitive NO.

[ScottSA]

ScottSA:You don't need any kind of scientific background to see that the Saturn 5 launch looked identical to any number of missile launches you can find on the web.

Thats why another term for a rocket is a "missile" and Saturn 5 was a missile. Really I hope you are not being paid for this with tax dollars.

In any conversion in which 'missile' is differentiated from a rocket launch, only the densest of meatheads would fail to understand the context of the terminology, although you seem not to understand the concept of context, since you take so much of your argument out of it. I recall that one such out of context statement was your citation of the guy who refered to the Pentagon plane as a "missile" to prove it wasn't a plane. Of course, you left out the part of the sentence in which he said it was a plane that had "become" a missile by diving into the Pentagon. Do you think he was talking about the space shuttle or the moon launch? Obviously you simply change your definitions to suit the moment.

[PolyNewbie]

There is not much difference between a space rocket and a missile except on has a manned capsule and is much bigger. You shouldn't try and hang onto weak and stupid arguements like this.

[ScottSA]

There is not much difference between a space rocket and a missile except on has a manned capsule and is much bigger. You shouldn't try and hang onto weak and stupid arguements like this.

There's not much difference between a matchbox car and a real car except one has room for people and is much bigger. Speaking of weak arguments. Here: maybe this will help http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&defl=en&...nition&ct=title

[PolyNewbie]

wtc7 collapse had all the characteristics of a controlled demolition and had no characteristics that did not show controlled demolition except that there were a few small fires and comparatively small structural damage.

[White Doors]

Seriously Poly, you need professional help. I am not saying this to slag you, but I think you really need to consult with a mental health practisioner.