911 Pentagon plane remote controlled?

bonkey

TMoreno wrote: »

Try to debunk the controlled demolition of WTC7

Try and debunk....what, exactly?

There is no coherent argument for controlled demolition that I'm aware of...but rather a large collection of often-contradictory "it must be demolition" versions.

You tell me which one to debunk...which one you think happened...and I'll get to it.

Meanwhile, would you return the favour, and debunk the NIST report explaining what happened to WTC7. It is, after all, the offiical explanation that you reject, so naturally you must have your reasons for not accepting it.

For the record...I've a very good reason for asking. Most people aren't even aware of what that report actually says....why NIST believe the building really collapsed, what were contributing factors and (more interestingly) what were not.

bonkey

Torakx wrote: »

Im confused now.
How many buildings exactly did "Al-Qaida" knock down at the end of that day?

That depends on what you mean.

How many buildings collapsed that day? How many buildings were destroyed that day? How many buildings were destroyed as a result of the actions of that day?

The answers to all of those questions are different.

I would suggest, however, that if you're not aware of what notable high-rise buildings collapsed, then you're hardly in a position to say that the official explanations of what happened are wrong.

bonkey

Di0genes wrote: »

Velocity increases mass.

I think you mean velocity increases kinetic energy.

Velocity, after all, is mass times acceleration. If velocty increased mass, that would create a positive feedback loop

(Yes, I'm aware of the relativistic effects of velocity on mass. They are hardly likely to be a key factor here....so lets stick to Newtonian physics on this one for simplicity)

Torakx

bonkey wrote: »

That depends on what you mean.

How many buildings collapsed that day? How many buildings were destroyed that day? How many buildings were destroyed as a result of the actions of that day?

The answers to all of those questions are different.

I would suggest, however, that if you're not aware of what notable high-rise buildings collapsed, then you're hardly in a position to say that the official explanations of what happened are wrong.

There are many facets to the 9/11 ct not just building 7 and what ever else was demolished or fell down.
What i was asking was which buildings fell down as a result of the planes crashing into the twin towers.
I had thought there was a ct that building 7 colapsed but heard that after i had looked into the 9/11 stuff(mainly the politics of it and prior to the incident) and dont fancy going back to all that research every time a new area pops up.
9/11 is in the history books.Iran is next.
I was just curious since its being discussed now.
Asking questions shouldnt be seen as refuting surely?

bonkey

Torakx wrote: »

What i was asking was which buildings fell down as a result of the planes crashing into the twin towers.

http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_403CD/html/pdfs/403_ch7.pdf

4 total collapses, 3 partial collapses. 11 with major damage (of which some were subsequently deemed irreperably damaged and demolished).

Asking questions shouldnt be seen as refuting surely?

My bad. I misread a post as being yours which wasn't.

King Mob

bonkey wrote: »

I think you mean velocity increases kinetic energy.

Velocity, after all, is mass times acceleration. If velocty increased mass, that would create a positive feedback loop

(Yes, I'm aware of the relativistic effects of velocity on mass. They are hardly likely to be a key factor here....so lets stick to Newtonian physics on this one for simplicity)

Actually velocity is distance divided by time.

Force is mass times acceleration.
And kinetic energy is half the mass times the velocity squared.

I still owe you for correcting me that time

Di0genes

bonkey wrote: »

I think you mean velocity increases kinetic energy.

Velocity, after all, is mass times acceleration. If velocty increased mass, that would create a positive feedback loop

(Yes, I'm aware of the relativistic effects of velocity on mass. They are hardly likely to be a key factor here....so lets stick to Newtonian physics on this one for simplicity)

Sorry yes written in haste as I was walking out of the office.

Podman

Di0genes wrote: »

Evidence like?
...
Velocity increases mass.
...
Several other buildings were brought down later due to damage sustained that day. Your point?
...
Thats simply not true personal effects of passengers, body parts, DNA, parts of the airplanes were all recovered from the three sites.

Where are the figures?
Where are the links?
Where are the Photographs?
Without those, your claims carry no weight.

Incidentally, any demolition expert will tell you that it takes weeks of preparation to wire a building for demolition, wtc7 was demolished the same day. It's destruction was even prematurely reported on international television.

Podman

bonkey wrote: »

Yes...and I looked up the facts to find that It wasn't.

To what facts are you referring please?
There are photographs of Pentagon staff moving aircraft wreckage immediately after impact. It doesn't prove anything except tampering and contamination of a crime scene. (link)
Key steel structural beams from the twin towers were taken to China and destroyed as soon as they could be moved. (link1, link2)

I can't understand how some people can be so blindly accepting of this.

I don't know...but given that the official account of events doesn't claim it did, I'm not sure why that's relevant.

Not relevant? Surely the point of impact is central to the collision?

"Something" made at least four large holes in a dead straight line, in arguably the most secure and reinforced building on the planet, and you want me to believe it's not relevant? really?

eyewitness says "not a plane"

Well what is relevant then? What do you believe caused the holes? (link)

..Perhaps that's because the investigation of WTC7 concluded that it wasn't demolished?..

The official 911 Commission Report doesn't even mention Building 7. If I am wrong here, please correct me, I'd love to see it for myself.

They're not the only intact fragments.

Of course not..
It's a bit suspicious though, don't you think, that a paper passport at the epicenter of the WTC plane crash, survived a fireball that was allegedly hot enough to melt structural steel, survived a skyscraper collapse, and were among the items to be found intact?

There are also conflicting reports of this, one says it was found minutes after the attack, another says it was found the day after. (Morgan and Henshall, 9/11 Revealed, page 68)

Would you go on and on making inaccurate claims if you did?

No one is able to rationally defend the Official story, their only actions are to distract from, and discredit any research and investigation.

(Edit : I'm more then willing to discuss any of these points. Why don't you pick the one you're most certain I'm wrong about)

Considering the sheer volume of inconsistencies on the day, and the sketchy-ness of the Official story, I don't know where to begin.

It seems that "What made the Pentagon holes" is the most obvious question from that post, in this thread.
I'd love to hear an official version that makes any sense. (with links please)

Di0genes

chompy wrote: »

Where are the figures?
Where are the links?
Where are the Photographs?
Without those, your claims carry no weight.

Must I? Again?

Personal Effects

Orange County, CA., Sept. 11 - Lisa Anne Frost was 22 and had just graduated from Boston University in May 2001 with two degrees and multiple academic and service honors. She had worked all summer in Boston before coming home, finally, to California to start her new life. The Rancho Santa Margarita woman was on United Flight 175 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when it became the second plane to slam into the World Trade Center...

Her parents, Tom and Melanie Frost, have spent two years knowing they will never understand why.

A few days before the first anniversary of our daughter's murder, we were notified that they had found a piece of her in the piles and piles of gritty rubble of the World Trade Center that had been hauled out to Staten Island. It was Lisa's way, we believe, of telling us she wasn't lost.

In February, the day of the Columbia tragedy, we got word they'd found her United Airlines Mileage Plus card. It was found very near where they'd found a piece of her right hip. We imagine that she used the card early on the morning of Sept. 11 to get on the plane and just stuck it in her back pocket, probably her right back pocket, instead of in her purse. They have found no other personal effects".

nited Airlines Flight 93 slammed into the earth Sept. 11 near Shanksville, Somerset County, at more than 500 mph, with a ferocity that disintegrated metal, bone and flesh. It took more than three months to identify the remains of the 40 passengers and crew, and, by process of elimination, the four hijackers...

But searchers also gathered surprisingly intact mementos of lives lost.

Those items, such as a wedding ring and other jewelry, photos, credit cards, purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency, are among seven boxes of identified personal effects salvaged from the site.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011230flight931230p3.asp

On Oct. 12, it arrived inside a second envelope at Mrs. Snyder's modest white house on Main Street here, and the instant she took it out and saw it, she says, ''chills just went over me.'' It was singed and crumpled. A chunk was ripped out, giving the bottom of the envelope she had sent the look of a jagged skyline. Mrs. Snyder's lyrical script had blurred into the scorched paper. The stamp, depicting a World War II sailor embracing a woman welcoming him home, was intact.

Along with the letter was a note: ''To whom it may concern. This was found floating around the street in downtown New York. I am sorry if you suffered any loss in this tragedy. Sincerely, a friend in New York!''

Since then, Mrs. Snyder, a customer service representative at a grocery store, has discovered that she has one of only two pieces of mail known to have been recovered from the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. At least one auction house has contacted her, saying she could sell the letter for tens of thousands of dollars.

One Letter's Odyssey Helps Mend a Wound

So more than just a passport was found at the crash site.

Incidentally, any demolition expert will tell you that it takes weeks of preparation to wire a building for demolition, wtc7 was demolished the same day.

It collapsed, it wasn't demolished. And those same demolition experts will tell you that it takes weeks of preparation, cutting support beams, breaking structural walls and a building needs to be empty for the crew to work.

WTC 7 was filled to capacity with dozens of businesses in the weeks leading up to 911.

Congratulations you've just debunked yourself.

It's destruction was even prematurely reported on international television.

Because accounts from firefighters throughout the day stated that the building was in a dangerous condition and likely to collapse.

humanji

I still can't understand how anyone can assume a missile hit the Pentagon. Regardless of who was behind the whole thing, which seems more likely, that:

a) a plane was hijacked and crashed into the building,

or

b) the plane somehow landed without being notced,
the passengers and crew were killed and their bodies burned,
a missile was launched without being noticed,
the missile managed to fly over residential areas without being noticed,
the missile hit the Pentagon,
hundreds of people were hired to hide all wreckage of the missile, replace it with plane wreckage, hide the burned bodies of the passengers and crew in the building, and place themselves at varaious points around the area and say that they saw a plane,
And even with all this expertly crafted plan, they still managed to not think that a couple of other witnesses may be about who'd say it was a missile?

How can B even be considered? It dosen't make a lick of sense. I've said it before that if the US government or some other organisation was behind it, replacing the plane with a missile is f*cking retarded, and that rigging the plane with some sort of remote control (something that is very possible) or even better, tricking some fanatical Muslims into thinking their part of a terrorist organisation so that they willingly commit the hijacking, makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Di0genes

humanji wrote: »

I still can't understand how anyone can assume a missile hit the Pentagon. Regardless of who was behind the whole thing, which seems more likely, that:

a) a plane was hijacked and crashed into the building,

or

b) the plane somehow landed without being notced,
the passengers and crew were killed and their bodies burned,
a missile was launched without being noticed,
the missile managed to fly over residential areas without being noticed,
the missile hit the Pentagon,
hundreds of people were hired to hide all wreckage of the missile, replace it with plane wreckage, hide the burned bodies of the passengers and crew in the building, and place themselves at varaious points around the area and say that they saw a plane,
And even with all this expertly crafted plan, they still managed to not think that a couple of other witnesses may be about who'd say it was a missile?

Keeping in mind this all had to be done in broad daylight, during morning rush hour next to a massive freeway junction

TMoreno

bonkey wrote: »

Try and debunk....what, exactly?

There is no coherent argument for controlled demolition that I'm aware of...but rather a large collection of often-contradictory "it must be demolition" versions.

You tell me which one to debunk...which one you think happened...and I'll get to it.

Meanwhile, would you return the favour, and debunk the NIST report explaining what happened to WTC7. It is, after all, the offiical explanation that you reject, so naturally you must have your reasons for not accepting it.

For the record...I've a very good reason for asking. Most people aren't even aware of what that report actually says....why NIST believe the building really collapsed, what were contributing factors and (more interestingly) what were not.

No building has ever collapsed through fire in more that 4000 years of architecture, however the 11th of September 2001 three collapsed, falling without any resistance. What a coincidence, isn't it?
The simple fact that 99% of the world population is not aware of WTC is more than suspicious.

Di0genes

TMoreno wrote: »

No building has ever collapsed through fire
in more that 4000 years of architecture,

Wrong. Well for starts ever heard of y'know Dresden? Or the great fire of London.

There's also this;
Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire


Includes
Minneapolis Thanksgiving Day Fire
Windsor Tower Building Fire (The steel framed portion of the buidling collapsed.
Namdaemun fire

And so forth.

however the 11th of September 2001 three collapsed, falling without any resistance.

There was resistance. See the dust cloud falling faster than the building?

What a coincidence, isn't it?
The simple fact that 99% of the world population is not aware of WTC is more than suspicious.

The simple fact that you picked the figure of 99% out of thin frickin air says alot about you.

TMoreno

Di0genes wrote: »

Wrong. Well for starts ever heard of y'know Dresden? Or the great fire of London.

There's also this;
Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire


Includes
Minneapolis Thanksgiving Day Fire
Windsor Tower Building Fire (The steel framed portion of the buidling collapsed.
Namdaemun fire

And so forth.



There was resistance. See the dust cloud falling faster than the building?



The simple fact that you picked the figure of 99% out of thin frickin air says alot about you.

The three buildings collapsed in less than 10 seconds. That's free fall. It's clearly a demolition.
Regarding Dresden it was a horrible bombing. Thank you for confirming that bombs can destroy a building.

Ask anybody about WTC7 and just a few will know what you are talking about. Do the experience. Go ahead. The reason? The mainstream media controlled by "you know who" will not show it. I was watching a documentary the other day on National Geographic channel about the so called conspiracy theories regarding 911 ( conspiracy facts) and they did not mention WTC7. Why? It's the smoking gun.

Di0genes

TMoreno wrote: »

The three buildings collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

No they didn't.

Ask anybody about WTC7 and just a few will know what you are talking about. Do the experience. Go ahead. The reason? The mainstream media controlled by "you know who" will not show it. I was watching a documentary the other day on National Geographic channel about the so called conspiracy theories regarding 911 ( conspiracy facts) and they did not mention WTC7. Why? It's the smoking gun.

Could you explain why? What was the purpose or point of the demolition of WTC7?

TMoreno

Di0genes wrote: »

No they didn't.



Could you explain why? What was the purpose or point of the demolition of WTC7?

Free fall is free fall. It's a demolition.
Why WTC7?
World Trade Center 7 housed SEC files relating to numerous Wall Street investigations, as well as other federal investigative files. All the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. While some were backed up in other places, others were not, especially those classified as confidential. What a coincidence...

Podman

Di0genes wrote: »

Must I? Again?
..
Personal Effects
..
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011230flight931230p3.asp
..
One Letter's Odyssey Helps Mend a Wound
..
So more than just a passport was found at the crash site.

Your argument is ridiculous.
All it proves is that..
(a) "things" are found where planes crash, or
(b) "things" are found where they are placed.

You are either..
(a) unaware of what you are being asked to prove, or
(b) using more misdirection to ridicule and have the last word.

Again...

How can an airplane's aluminium nosecone punch holes through several reinforced walls?

Velocity increases mass.

Do you honestly think that is any kind of answer?

Feel free to provide some figures to back up your claim, but I know you will ignore the request again.

Di0genes wrote: »

It collapsed, it wasn't demolished..

Di0genes wrote: »

Several other buildings were brought down later due to damage sustained that day.

Make up your mind.

WTC 7 was filled to capacity with dozens of businesses in the weeks leading up to 911.

Congratulations you've just debunked yourself.

You have no idea what your talking about.

You might want to read this again and wise up.

TMoreno wrote: »

... by ridiculing people who are skeptic you just show that you are not interested in a debate...

Because accounts from firefighters throughout the day stated that the building was in a dangerous condition and likely to collapse.

How about some rational thinking instead of point-scoring?

King Mob

TMoreno wrote: »

Free fall is free fall. It's a demolition.

How do you know it's free fall exactly?
Please go in to do detail, and provide video evidence.

TMoreno wrote: »

Why WTC7?
World Trade Center 7 housed SEC files relating to numerous Wall Street investigations, as well as other federal investigative files. All the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. While some were backed up in other places, others were not, especially those classified as confidential. What a coincidence...

Which files disappeared exactly?

bonkey

TMoreno wrote: »

No building has ever collapsed through fire in more that 4000 years of architecture, however the 11th of September 2001 three collapsed, falling without any resistance.

I'm not sure what you mean by "no building has ever collapsed through fire". Plenty of buildings have collapsed from fire. Plenty of steel-support building have collapsed from fire. Its only as we start more explicitly defining things (e.g. no high-rise, steel-support building) that we get to a category where we can say there was a first.

Its also worth pointing out that the towers didn't collapse from fire. They collapsed from the combined effects of structural damage caused from aircraft impact and fire.

Additionally, its worth pointing out that WTC 7 collapsed from the combined effects of a design flaw and fire.

What a coincidence, isn't it?

What is the coincidence?

That the only two high-rise buildings ever hit by large heavily-fuelled aircraft travelling at high speed, both collapsed from the combination of structural damage and fire? I wouldn't call that a co-incidence at all. I'd call it consistent behaviour.

Or perhaps you mean that its a coincidence that a nearby building was the first ever highrise to collapse from a fire effecting what was effectively a unique design flaw?

Sure...I'll accept that it was a coincidence that this incredibly rare design flaw existed in a building near the WTC.

The simple fact that 99% of the world population is not aware of WTC is more than suspicious.

If you say so.

TMoreno

King Mob wrote: »

How do you know it's free fall exactly?
Please go in to do detail, and provide video evidence.


Which files disappeared exactly?

Watch WTC 7 in Youtube for the free fall.

Files relating Citigroup to the WorldCom scandal were lost.[51] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimates over 10,000 cases will be affected.[52] The Secret Service had its largest field office, with more than 200 employees, in WTC 7 and lost investigative files. Says one agent: “All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building.
Also the CIA and the Department of Defense had officces in WTC7. Surprise, surprise...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

TMoreno

bonkey wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "no building has ever collapsed through fire". Plenty of buildings have collapsed from fire. Plenty of steel-support building have collapsed from fire. Its only as we start more explicitly defining things (e.g. no high-rise, steel-support building) that we get to a category where we can say there was a first.

Its also worth pointing out that the towers didn't collapse from fire. They collapsed from the combined effects of structural damage caused from aircraft impact and fire.

Additionally, its worth pointing out that WTC 7 collapsed from the combined effects of a design flaw and fire.


What is the coincidence?

That the only two high-rise buildings ever hit by large heavily-fuelled aircraft travelling at high speed, both collapsed from the combination of structural damage and fire? I wouldn't call that a co-incidence at all. I'd call it consistent behaviour.

Or perhaps you mean that its a coincidence that a nearby building was the first ever highrise to collapse from a fire effecting what was effectively a unique design flaw?

Sure...I'll accept that it was a coincidence that this incredibly rare design flaw existed in a building near the WTC.


If you say so.

The fact that the second tower hit by a plane collapsed before the first tower hit by a plane is not consistent with the "Jet fuel conspiracy theory" . As the tower burnt longer it should have collapsed before the second tower.
Those towers were designed to resist impacts of jetliners. They were demolished.

The media never mention WTC 7 because they want to hide the smocking gun.;) What are they afraid of?

King Mob

TMoreno wrote: »

Watch WTC 7 in Youtube for the free fall.

I have.
That doesn't answer my question at all.

How exactly do you know the WTC fell at free fall speed.

TMoreno wrote: »

Files relating Citigroup to the WorldCom scandal were lost.[51] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimates over 10,000 cases will be affected.[52] The Secret Service had its largest field office, with more than 200 employees, in WTC 7 and lost investigative files. Says one agent: “All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building.
Also the CIA and the Department of Defense had officces in WTC7. Surprise, surprise...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

So you only know that these files are missing because the agencies that are missing the files said so?
Huh...

TMoreno

King Mob wrote: »

I have.
That doesn't answer my question at all.

How exactly do you know the WTC fell at free fall speed.



So you only know that these files are missing because the agencies that are missing the files said so?
Huh...

Not seeing that the collapse of WTC 7 is the result of a controlled demolition is like seeing a woman and man naked in a bed and pretending that they are just testing the bed and not doing sex:rolleyes:.

King Mob

TMoreno wrote: »

Not seeing that the collapse of WTC 7 is the result of a controlled demolition is like seeing a woman and man naked in a bed and pretending that they are just testing the bed and not doing sex:rolleyes:.

Classy.

But again you've not answered my question.
How exactly do you know it fell at free fall speed.

Here's me thinking it was a simple question.

bonkey

chompy wrote: »

To what facts are you referring please?

The facts surrounding the aftermath of the collision.

There are photographs of Pentagon staff moving aircraft wreckage immediately after impact. It doesn't prove anything except tampering and contamination of a crime scene. (link)

In any situation, rescue operations have higher priority then crime investigation. That evidence was collected rather than risk losing it or having it damaged by the ongoing rescue operations is not "tampering and contamination"...or if it is, its nothing unusual. It is, rather, making a pragmatic decision.

Key steel structural beams from the twin towers were taken to China and destroyed as soon as they could be moved.

The material was moved from the site to a secure location, using GPS-tracked vehicles, and then kept there until such times as the investigation team had declared that they had taken the samples they wanted / needed, and that the remainder could be disposed of. So if the people investigating the scene didn't feel those beams were key, and that they had taken what they wanted...then surely the "as soon as they could be moved" has to be understood to mean "as soon as the investigating team said they were finished with them".

Not relevant? Surely the point of impact is central to the collision?

"Something" made at least four large holes in a dead straight line, in arguably the most secure and reinforced building on the planet, and you want me to believe it's not relevant? really?

I'm questioning the allegation that an alumunium nose cone punched through several re-inforced walls.

There weren't several re-inforced walls, nor did any official account I'm aware of suggest that it was an aluminium nose cone which caused the hole in question.

Something ended up causing that hole, after going through the -inforced outer wall, the wall with hole, and whatever lay in between. I've no question about that.
The idea that there were several re-inforced walls in the way, and the suggestion that it was an aluminium nosecone....that's what I don't agree with.

The official 911 Commission Report doesn't even mention Building 7. If I am wrong here, please correct me, I'd love to see it for myself.

Did it mention any of the buildings, other then those directly impacted by planes? No, it didn't.

Why is it suspicious that one specific building from all of the ones which were "collateral damage" was not singled out? Wouldn't it be the other way round...that if they picked out one building from all the collateral damage, that would be suspicious.

Of course not..

So you at least accept that your claim that htey were the only intact fragments was completely wrong, then. That's at least one item down.

It's a bit suspicious though, don't you think, that a paper passport at the epicenter of the WTC plane crash, survived a fireball that was allegedly hot enough to melt structural steel, survived a skyscraper collapse, and were among the items to be found intact?

If this was the only piece of paper-based material which survived....then I'd find this curious to be sure.

It wasn't. Plenty of paper survived.

If you find that suspicious, though, thats entirely your perogative. You found it suspicious that it was the only intact thing...and then admitted that "of course" it wasn't.
Now you find it suspicious that it was paper...almost suggesting that there was something unusual about a paper artefact surviving.
No doubt you'll accept that other paper survived, and that its still suspicious.

It seems that "What made the Pentagon holes" is the most obvious question from that post, in this thread.
I'd love to hear an official version that makes any sense. (with links please)

The official version is that debris caused the hole.

You'll find the official details of it here.

Incidentally, in that document, you'll also find diagrams and details of what - exactly - the debris went through between the outer wall and the wall to the AE "corridor" (the so-called "exit hole"). Perhaps you'd be so good to show me the "several reinforced walls" you refer to, or indeed where the "four large holes in a dead straight line" were....as the simple existence of these walls would be sufficient to show that the official account is wildly inaccurate.

TMoreno

King Mob wrote: »

Classy.

But again you've not answered my question.
How exactly do you know it fell at free fall speed.

Here's me thinking it was a simple question.

What's not classy is defending the official version of Bush and all his lies. You remember the WMD in IRAQ?

I don't understand your question. The free fall refers to a collapse without resistance. You can clearly see that the building collapse in few seconds. You don't think it's bizarre? It was not even mention in the 9/11 official report.
But you don't answer my question, how WTC 7 could collapse if it was not hit by a plane? Why is it no shown on TV regularly?

bonkey

TMoreno wrote: »

The fact that the second tower hit by a plane collapsed before the first tower hit by a plane is not consistent with the "Jet fuel conspiracy theory" .

Why not? No-one claimed that the damage done to the two buildings was identical. We know they were hit at slightly different heights, and the planes impacted each differently. It is entirely logical to assume that the structural damage in each case would be different. It would be entirely suspicious if both failed exactly the same duration after impact....but its perfectly normal that one would be more damaged then the other. That it was the second impact is a 50-50 chance. Staggering odds, I'm sure you agree.

Those towers were designed to resist impacts of jetliners.

They were designed to resist low-speed impacts of jetliners low on fuel which might hit them by accident (based in the ESB incident).
As it is, they resisted the high-speed impact of jetliners, heavily laden with fuel.

What they didn't resist was the combined effect of impact and ensuing fire. Given that neither the models for fire damage nor the computing power to evaluate same existed in the 70s, we can state with confidence that there is simply no way they could have been designed to resist this combination.

bonkey

TMoreno wrote: »

It was not even mention in the 9/11 official report.
But you don't answer my question, how WTC 7 could collapse if it was not hit by a plane?

It was, however, considered to be sufficiently interesting for the official 911 investigation to commission NIST to investigate the collapse.

They did so, and produced a report which answers your question.

Are you not aware of what this official report says, that you keep asking how it could happen?

King Mob

TMoreno wrote: »

What's not classy is defending the official version of Bush and all his lies.

Funny that's the first thing you jump to.
I never "defended" anything.
I am just asking you a very simple question.

TMoreno wrote: »

You remember the WMD in IRAQ?

What's this to do with anything exactly?

TMoreno wrote: »

I don't understand your question. The free fall refers to a collapse without resistance. You can clearly see that the building collapse in few seconds. You don't think it's bizarre?

And how do you know the collapse was at free fall speeds exactly?

TMoreno wrote: »

It was not even mention in the 9/11 official report.

This has probably been pointed out to you many many time before.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tbx2008_1120_wtc7.htm
Have you read this report?

TMoreno wrote: »

But you don't answer my question, how WTC 7 could collapse if it was not hit by a plane?

It's in the report.

TMoreno wrote: »

Why is it no shown on TV regularly?

Because no one died in it?
Because it wasn't directly attacked?
Because it's not as iconic as the images of the twin towers burning?
Because they don't pay any attention to the other buildings on the site?
And so on....