[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[SOMERLED]

Your dishonest claim that the alleged demolition of WTC 7 has been demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction exposes the unfalsifiable nature of your beliefs. No demolition expert, with the single exception of Danny Jowenko of the Netherlands, agrees with you. So, apart from the fantasists themselves, who "admits" that explosives were used? People in the demolition industry reject your myth. No conspiracy liar has, to date, managed to explain how the collapse of building 7 fits into the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy's grand scheme.

I am satisfied that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.
How do you explain it's collapse, if not by controlled demolition?

 

[SOMERLED]

I can't believe this has been dug out AGAIN. Raytheon did NOT fly passenger jets "around" via "remote control". They constructed a GPS-enabled device that can guide a plane to a dedicated location. IOW: the device is somewhere and sends out a signal. The plane flies to where the signal guides it. Nobody on the ground holds a remote control in their hands.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/jpals/

Read up on JPALS before you repeat this nonsense of "remote contolled" planes. And please provide a link for the original SPIEGEL article. I am German so I can read it.

Raytheon themselves admit to landing a PILOTLESS plane using the system.
How did that PILOTLESS plane get airborne?

 

[SOMERLED]

Is the serial number from the engine, in your opinion, the only way to identify a plane from wreckage?

Hans

And stateofgrace: You are quite right. I am also wondering how seemingly sane people, myself included, can be compelled to bang their heads at a wall for thousands of posts.

Obviously the serial number from the engine is not the only way to identify an aircraft. However, as a last resort it would do quite nicely, so where is it?

 

[SOMERLED]

In the FBI's PENTTBOM case files. And probably the NTSB's as well.

-Gumboot

If this is the case, then there should be no problem in tipping this informstion up, so where is it?

 

[SOMERLED]

No they weren't. Did you even read my post?

-Gumboot

Yes, I did read your post.
Will you now kindly read this webpage,
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=global_guardian

 

[SOMERLED]

Yes, I find it suspicious that America was the victim of an unprovoked attack and various bizarre characters will attempt to stand reality on its head to prove that what obviously happened really didn't.

What did OBVIOUSLY happen?

 

[SOMERLED]

I do find something suspicious... that you'd consider making the false claim that WTC7 was an admitted controlled demolition, knowing that we've been around this block about a dozen times.

You took a long break - didn't you learn anything in all that time?

Return when you have some better game.

How did WTC7 come down, if not by controlled demolition?

 

[gumboot]

If this is the case, then there should be no problem in tipping this informstion up, so where is it?

Did you actually read my post? The information is in the FBI's PENTTBOM case files. If you want it, I suggest you file a FOIA request.

-Gumboot

 

[SpitfireIX]

Raytheon themselves admit to landing a PILOTLESS plane using the system.
How did that PILOTLESS plane get airborne?

Please show any direct quote from Raytheon that indicates the plane didn't have any pilots.

From a Raytheon press release.

Raytheon conducts successful flight test of global positioning system (GPS) precision landing system

MARLBORO, Mass., (Feb 21, 2002) - Raytheon Company successfully completed the first in a series of autoland flight tests using its Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) on January 17, 2002 at the Salt Lake City International Airport.

The aircraft, a Boeing 737-900, . . . utilized differential GPS corrections and precision approach path data uplinked from a Raytheon RAYNAV-4100 Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) ground facility at the Salt Lake City Airport. A series of autocoupled (hands-off) approaches, through touchdown and rollout, were conducted using two different runways.

The current flight testing was a continuation of Raytheon's LAAS ground station test program which also included flight tests in August 2001 with a FedEx Express Boeing 727-200 aircraft . . .

Later this year, the FAA plans to begin acquisition of LAAS ground stations for installation at airports nationwide. LAAS will initially provide GPS based Category I precision approach capability (200-ft. ceiling, one-half mile visibility). Later versions will provide Cat II/III capability, enabling all-weather automatic landings and surface navigation. LAAS will provide precision approach capability in virtually any environment including mountains, urban areas and offshore platforms. One LAAS will service the entire airport and will allow for tailored approaches to avoid obstacles, noise sensitive areas or congested airspace. . . .

Note to Editors [and conspiracy theorists]:

CATEGORY I/II/III refer to different levels of low visibility approaches. Aircraft fly on instruments during most of the approach but the pilot must have visual contact with the runway and/or approach lights by the time he reaches the minimum ceiling and/or horizontal visibility listed below. CAT I is the least stringent.

Ceiling Visibility
CAT I 200 ft. 1200ft. - 2400ft. Runway Visual Range (RVR)
CAT II 100 ft.-200 ft. 1200ft. - 2400ft. RVR
CAT IIIa 50 ft. - 100ft. 600ft. - 1200 ft. RVR
CAT IIIb 0 ft. - 50 ft. 150 ft. - 600ft. RVR
CAT IIIc 0 0

[emphasis added]

Autolanding systems have been around since the 1970s; they were standard equipment on the Lockheed L-1011^WP.

The L-1011 was the first widebody to receive FAA certification for Cat-IIIc autolanding, which approved the TriStar for completely blind landings in zero-visibility weather.

Raytheon's new products merely improve reliability by utilizing GPS and modern electronics; and provide for interoperability between civilian and military systems (in the past these were incompatible).

As the press release implies, autolanding merely means the pilots don't touch the controls during the final approach; this in no way implies that the pilots aren't needed for other phases of the flight (or in case something unexpected happens during the autolanding sequence).

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am satisfied that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Explain how and when demolition charges were installed.
Explain how deomolition charges were detonated without anybody hearing the tell-tale noise from them.

How do you explain it's collapse, if not by controlled demolition?

Structural failure after extensive fires raging for hours.

Explain how a controlled demolition differs from another collapse after structural failure occurs. In other words, once structural failure occures, either due to demolition charges, or due to other reasons, how does the collapse itself differ?

Hans

 

[SOMERLED]

I am satisfied that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.

Explain how and when demolition charges were installed.
Explain how deomolition charges were detonated without anybody hearing the tell-tale noise from them.

Structural failure after extensive fires raging for hours.

Explain how a controlled demolition differs from another collapse after structural failure occurs. In other words, once structural failure occures, either due to demolition charges, or due to other reasons, how does the collapse itself differ?

Hans

Demolition charges would have been installed in whatever system was adopted.
They would obviously have to have been installed prior to 9/11.
The fact that they were installed and were detonated is not in doubt.
Here is ample evidence of explosions all round,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw
I am interested to see you explain these.

 

[pomeroo]

What did OBVIOUSLY happen?

OBVIOUSLY, two commercial airliners flew into the Twin Towers. The impacts of the planes dislodged fireproofing, rendering the exposed steel more susceptible to weakening by the extensive fires. That those planes had been hijacked is confirmed by transcripts of conversations between air traffic controllers and their supervisors. The identities of the hijackers were discovered through forensic evidence. Their seating positions on the planes were revealed by the passenger manifests.

OBVIOUSLY, a commercial airliner crashed into the Pentagon, a FACT confirmed by forensic evidence identifying the remains of passengers booked on AA Flight 77 and by phone calls made by passengers and crew to relatives on the ground. Small pieces of the plane were discovered in the wreckage. Roughly a hundred eyewitnesses observed the event.

 

[pomeroo]

I am satisfied that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.
How do you explain it's collapse, if not by controlled demolition?

You are easily satisfied by any groundless hypothesis that smears America. Your beliefs are purely faith-based and fly in the face of evidence and logic. You appear to be devoid of critical thinking skills.

 

[pomeroo]

I am satisfied that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.
Demolition charges would have been installed in whatever system was adopted.

You keep pretending the that insurmountable logistical difficulties to implementing your fantasy is a minor detail.

They would obviously have to have been installed prior to 9/11.

Even more obviously, they could not have been installed at any time.

The fact that they were installed and were detonated is not in doubt.

No, it is not a fact at all: it is a falsehood. With the exception of Dannhy Jowenko, no demolition experts believe that explosives were used.

Here is ample evidence of explosions all round,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw
I am interested to see you explain these.

It is tiresome to explain over and over that "explosions" can have many causes apart from "explosives."

 

[Z]

WTC7 could not have been brought down by a controlled demolition, because at no point were explosive planted in the building. Like WTC1 and WTC2, WTC7 was nearly continually occupied, and people would have easily noticed the work being done to plant demolitions. There was insufficient time to plant them.

WTC7 came down for the same reasons as the other buildings: structural damage and intense fires. Except in 7's case, the fires lasted much longer.

 

[SOMERLED]

OBVIOUSLY, two commercial airliners flew into the Twin Towers. The impacts of the planes dislodged fireproofing, rendering the exposed steel more susceptible to weakening by the extensive fires. That those planes had been hijacked is confirmed by transcripts of conversations between air traffic controllers and their supervisors. The identities of the hijackers were discovered through forensic evidence. Their seating positions on the planes were revealed by the passenger manifests.

OBVIOUSLY, a commercial airliner crashed into the Pentagon, a FACT confirmed by forensic evidence identifying the remains of passengers booked on AA Flight 77 and by phone calls made by passengers and crew to relatives on the ground. Small pieces of the plane were discovered in the wreckage. Roughly a hundred eyewitnesses observed the event.

Kindly produce one scintilla of genuine evidence to support any portion of any part of anything you say.

 

[SOMERLED]

Please show any direct quote from Raytheon that indicates the plane didn't have any pilots.

From a Raytheon press release.




Autolanding systems have been around since the 1970s; they were standard equipment on the Lockheed L-1011^WP.




Raytheon's new products merely improve reliability by utilizing GPS and modern electronics; and provide for interoperability between civilian and military systems (in the past these were incompatible).

As the press release implies, autolanding merely means the pilots don't touch the controls during the final approach; this in no way implies that the pilots aren't needed for other phases of the flight (or in case something unexpected happens during the autolanding sequence).

Will this do,
December 1, 1984 - NASA Dryden experiment flew a Boeing 720 via remote control; 1994 - NASA test involved 110 landings of a Boeing 737 airliner using GPS navigation; September 6, 2001 - Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force demonstrate new technology aircraft precision approach and landing system; September 10, 2001 - Wife of David Kovalcin said her husband woke her up in the middle of the night complaining he couldn't sleep and that he seemed "very distressed" but she didn't know why; 9/11 - Five Raytheon employees are on three of the four hijacked planes)

 

[SOMERLED]

Did you actually read my post? The information is in the FBI's PENTTBOM case files. If you want it, I suggest you file a FOIA request.

-Gumboot

You are the one who is making the claim. It is incumbent upon you to file the request and thus prove your point. Until you can prove your point, how can you expect me to accept it?

 

[SOMERLED]

You are easily satisfied by any groundless hypothesis that smears America. Your beliefs are purely faith-based and fly in the face of evidence and logic. You appear to be devoid of critical thinking skills.

1. What do you mean by "faith based"?
2. All the evidence and logic points to an 'inside job'. I find it amazing that you can assert what you do, when you cannot produce one scintilla of evidence that the plane that hit the south tower was flight 175.
I have shown you countless examples of controlled demolition, you slide by any logical explanation of the evidence I put up and then make such claims?
It is you and other posters on here who demonstrates an ability to ignore critical thinking skills.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I had no difficulty believing the OCT for years. It was only when I learned of WTC7 dropping at or around free fall speed, that I realised something was badly wrong. When a steel and concrete building is clearly demolished by explosives, when that demolition is admitted and when one realises that those explosives could not possibly have been planted/set in place on 9/11 itself, then it is other people who then disturb me. I can accept someone who has such a busy day that they have no time to review material that is not on the MSM, still believing the OCT (as I did). My problems now revolve around people who claim to be au fait, yet still deny the truth.
Can you explain this?

So does that mean that if you are shown that WTC 7 did not fall at freefall speed, did not fall because it was demolished, and that it was never admitted to being a controlled demolishing, but rather that the collapse took around 15 seconds that the building was very seriously damaged and expected to fall long before it did, and that the supposed quote being used as an admission was nothing of that sort, you would stop believing it was a conspiracy and drop this whole thing?