World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

I gave one. You read it, I assume. I guess you don't agree with it (one assumes again). But that does not mean thre is no joined up coherent explanation.

In your theory, was Bin Laden an extraterrestrial or a holographic being projected by extraterrestrials ?

Bin Laden? You mean that enemy-of-the-state whose body conveniently was dumped in the ocean, beyond further inspection by whomever - the man that just as well may never have died at all? You mean this Bin Laden?

Bin Laden was a convenient scape-goat, needed to restore the totally damaged self-image of the US. No aliens involved here, no rays, no nothing.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: waypastvne
WTC steel construction
Pentagon concrete construction

Yes, indeed. But there were huge windows in the wall, so one would expect more damage due to fire.

They were blast proof windows.

Then there is the mystery of the planes missing wings

No mystery, the wing fragments were scattered all over the lawn.

, where the fusilage pierced through a large number of concrete walls.

You need to learn to count. 2 is not a large number.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
No aliens involved here, no rays, no nothing.

How about the planes ? Were they piloted extraterrestrials or Islamic extremest working for extraterrestrials.

You said your theory tied up all the loose ends. Are you afraid of a few questions?

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: waypastvne
WTC steel construction
Pentagon concrete construction

Yes, indeed. But there were huge windows in the wall, so one would expect more damage due to fire.

They were blast proof windows.

Then there is the mystery of the planes missing wings

No mystery, the wing fragments were scattered all over the lawn.

, where the fusilage pierced through a large number of concrete walls.

You need to learn to count. 2 is not a large number.

No no and no.
There was no plane that hit the pentagon ever period. Show me a video of a plane hitting the pentagon. . . Oh wait you cant because it never happened.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Yes, Yes and Yes

originally posted by: waypastvne
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Yes, Yes and Yes

No plane in sight.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: waypastvne
WTC steel construction
Pentagon concrete construction

Yes, indeed. But there were huge windows in the wall, so one would expect more damage due to fire.

They were blast proof windows.

Then there is the mystery of the planes missing wings

No mystery, the wing fragments were scattered all over the lawn.

, where the fusilage pierced through a large number of concrete walls.

You need to learn to count. 2 is not a large number.

Seriously, though. The "plane fusilage" penetrated at least 6 walls: the outer perimeter wall, the inner perimeter wall (E ring), the D ring (at least 2 walls) and the C ring (another 2). Not to mention the number of inner walls, unknown to me. I feel that's a 'large number' if you keep in mind that these were solid (thick) steel reinforced walls.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

And let's not forget all those internal columns the plane had to slalom around to make those holes in the other walls....

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
If we follow the conspiracy logic. If we agree that wtc7 was a set up. If we agree that this is what actually happened then we need to explain wtc 1 and 2, the Pentagon and shanksville. So over to you conspiracy chaps. We need a joined up coherent explanation that fully covers the how and the why and who of the whole. Can't just point at one building and say there you go.

I gave one. You read it, I assume. I guess you don't agree with it (one assumes again). But that does not mean thre is no joined up coherent explanation.

Spot on forty dear chap, spot on. You are speaking #e as we say in Scotland. You made stuff up. You might as well have said that the '85 Chicago Bears were responsible. That Singletary was the mastermind. That positive chi brought it down. It's the same.level of critical thinking and application.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: ForteanOrg

And let's not forget all those internal columns the plane had to slalom around to make those holes in the other walls....

And the goal posts continue to move. . .

originally posted by: scottyirnbruSpot on forty dear chap, spot on. You are speaking #e as we say in Scotland. You made stuff up. You might as well have said that the '85 Chicago Bears were responsible. That Singletary was the mastermind. That positive chi brought it down. It's the same.level of critical thinking and application.

Well, to be honest I can't come up with a model that includes the '85 Chicago Bears nor Singletary (whomever he may be), nor chi AND explains what happens. So, unless you can provide a theory we can test, I fail to see the significance of these entities in this context. Please keep in mind that creation and application of a model to see if it fits the known facts is part of the critical thinking process. Blindly following the media is not part of such a process.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

Seriously, though. The "plane fusilage" penetrated at least 6 walls: the outer perimeter wall, the inner perimeter wall (E ring), the D ring (at least 2 walls) and the C ring (another 2). Not to mention the number of inner walls, unknown to me. I feel that's a 'large number' if you keep in mind that these were solid (thick) steel reinforced walls.

No, there were only 2 walls. The outer wall was a layer of limestone 2 layers of brick with rebar reinforcement in one layer, then a kevlar blast containment fabric layer then a layer of plaster.

The second wall was plaster and 2 layers of bricks no steel reinforcement.

There was concrete in columns, none in the walls.

a reply to: jaffo

No - observations continue. And the data gathered simply does not fit the model provided.

The Pentagon was not hit by a huge airplane.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

No no and no.
There was no plane that hit the pentagon ever period. Show me a video of a plane hitting the pentagon. . . Oh wait you cant because it never happened.

The plane is visible in all 3 cameras that had a field of view of the aircrafts approach.

Sorry to disappoint you.

a reply to: waypastvne

If these walls really were as unimpressive as you say they were, then it is even more plausible the plane pierced them, so I don't get your point.

What is totally puzzling then is how that plane was simply shrunk to fit a 16 foot hole by these "flimsy" walls. Or how the planes tail did not create any visible impact in them. Or that the wings did not pierce them, nor shatter any of the windows. Somehow similar planes supposedly DID pierce the outer very solid steel mesh of WTC1 and WTC2. Unless you believe that those windows were stronger than the steel beams of the WTC, of course..

a reply to: waypastvne

Any source? No YouTube video's please, as you seem to find them unacceptable as proof.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: waypastvne

If these walls really were as unimpressive as you say they were, then it is even more plausible the plane pierced them, so I don't get your point.

What is totally puzzling then is how that plane was simply shrunk to fit a 16 foot hole by these "flimsy" walls. Or how the planes tail did not create any visible impact in them. Or that the wings did not pierce them, nor shatter any of the windows. Somehow similar planes supposedly DID pierce the outer very solid steel mesh of WTC1 and WTC2. Unless you believe that those windows were stronger than the steel beams of the WTC, of course..

The hole was 90' wide . The left wing impacted the 2nd story floor slab which actually is a very hefty hunk of steel reinforced concrete. Where the aircraft did hit the windows the windows failed.

The aircrafts tail sections were made out of carbon fiber which is strong but shatters on impact,

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: scottyirnbruSpot on forty dear chap, spot on. You are speaking #e as we say in Scotland. You made stuff up. You might as well have said that the '85 Chicago Bears were responsible. That Singletary was the mastermind. That positive chi brought it down. It's the same.level of critical thinking and application.

Well, to be honest I can't come up with a model that includes the '85 Chicago Bears nor Singletary (whomever he may be), nor chi AND explains what happens. So, unless you can provide a theory we can test, I fail to see the significance of these entities in this context. Please keep in mind that creation and application of a model to see if it fits the known facts is part of the critical thinking process. Blindly following the media is not part of such a process.

Because you offer nothing as a suggestion. You've come up with alien energy rays and seem to think this is reasonable. Your input it's almost irrelevant in this thread. You've brought zero substantive material. It's not personal forty, it's just a statement of fact. I've tried to ague using physics and science and you have suggested alien energy rays. So that's that. Have a good one.

a reply to: scottyirnbru

You don't want to be questioned. You want an echo chamber which validates your opinions. If this is a conspiracy you need to explain it all. Can't just point to something and say 'that looks like a collapse that I've seen before on tv'. If it is as you say take your info to a prosecutor or a lawyer. Let's go. Set up a kickstarter and I'll chuck in some cash. I mean, you'd think that ae911 and gage and the rest would have done that by now. Maybe the evidence isn't as strong as they'd have you believe.

You don't want your holy NIST to be questioned. You want an echo chamber which validates 'your' opinions. If this is not a conspiracy you need to explain it all. Can't just point to the floors and say 'that looks like a collapse we could explain if we don't care about the cores, we might even call it pancake-theory after all! Pancakes anyone?'. If it is as you say take your info to a real commission. Let's go. Set up a kickstarter and I'll chuck in some cash. I mean, you'd think that debunk911 and the rest would have done that by now. Maybe the evidence isn't as strong as they'd have you believe.

After looking into the mirror you might be able to start going into the matter, attacking opinions with facts rather than people with BS. Won't you?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: scottyirnbru

You don't want to be questioned. You want an echo chamber which validates your opinions. If this is a conspiracy you need to explain it all. Can't just point to something and say 'that looks like a collapse that I've seen before on tv'. If it is as you say take your info to a prosecutor or a lawyer. Let's go. Set up a kickstarter and I'll chuck in some cash. I mean, you'd think that ae911 and gage and the rest would have done that by now. Maybe the evidence isn't as strong as they'd have you believe.

You don't want your holy NIST to be questioned. You want an echo chamber which validates 'your' opinions. If this is not a conspiracy you need to explain it all. Can't just point to the floors and say 'that looks like a collapse we could explain if we don't care about the cores, we might even call it pancake-theory after all! Pancakes anyone?'. If it is as you say take your info to a real commission. Let's go. Set up a kickstarter and I'll chuck in some cash. I mean, you'd think that debunk911 and the rest would have done that by now. Maybe the evidence isn't as strong as they'd have you believe.

After looking into the mirror you might be able to start going into the matter, attacking opinions with facts rather than people with BS. Won't you?

Well here's the rub. The nist commission used some very capable and qualified people, took a number of years and cost plenty. To those with a rational and critical eye it uses materials and structures to create a most plausible explanation for what happened. Unfortunately the burden of proof is over to you if you wish to question it. Take it to a real commissioner? Vince McMahon? Debunk 911 doesn't need to create a new scenario. The scenario they have fits for the events of that day. Ae911 kinda do need to produce the alternative because they are the ones who have taken issue with the main story. If they had a genuine interest on the truth why haven't they funded a full analysis of all of the events in question? It's not like there isn't a rich seam of conspiracy punters out there. The problem that they have is that when you start to genuinely consider the events of the day the idea of a conspiracy is beyond ludicrous.

So PublicOpinion. You have fallen on the side of conspiracy. Surely you must agree that it can't only be wtc7 that was set up. So then we need a global explanation that rationally and fully explains the who, the how, the why of the day.
This is where the flimsy threads snap. Consider how many people would need to be involved and suggest a number to me. This has to be a thousand at least right? All of the levels that needed to be informed. Military commanders. Demolitions experts. Pilots. The owners. Insurance companies who ponied up without questioning despite the fact that I can't claim for damage to my car even with a cctv picture showing what happened. The fire chief. The silly bbc reporter who jumped ahead. Payroll. The overall planners and the beneficiaries. Perhaps the police chiefs too?

I'm not looking for an echo chamber. I'll debate. I'm on a conspiracy tin foil hat site. I'm already in your garden chatting to you.

So I've asked for the how and the who and why from you, from ForteanOrg and from shadow Herder. Perhaps you'll be the one who finally explains it to me.