[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[MRC_Hans]

Demolition charges would have been installed in whatever system was adopted.

That is a non-answer. You know why the question is asked. How could demolition charges be placed in a building where people were at work, practically round the clock, seven days a week?

Do you have any idea of the number and size of demolition chareges needed to bring down a building the size of WTC7?

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

They would, yes. So, how was that done, in secrecy?

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

Yes, that is very much in doubt, and you know it.

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.

I see no evidence of demolition charges. When buildings burn and collapse, various explosive events are expected to happen. Where is the evidence of systematic, powerful explosions with the ability to destroy the structural integrety of an otherwise sound building?

And I repeat the question you ignored:

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]

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?

Absolutely not.
WTC7 came down by controlled demolition all right and I would have no difficulty in persuading an unbiased jury of that fact.
Silverstein admitted the building was 'pulled' and only verbal gymnastics that border on the ludicrous can say any different.
Why should a steel framed building be expected to fall when fire had never before brought down a steel framed building.
Kindly don't even try to persuade me otherwise.
If you wish to continue a sensible discourse then explain the white smoke in this vid, something you and others have consistently failed to do.
It is time for posters on here to stop obfuscating and start replying to points raised.
When are you going to answer a point, rather than keep changing the subject?
You should see immediately that to maintain the smoke as anything other than caused by explosions is ludicrous,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY&mode=related&search=

 

[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.

What gives you the idea that this is some form of game?

 

[SOMERLED]

That is a non-answer. You know why the question is asked. How could demolition charges be placed in a building where people were at work, practically round the clock, seven days a week?

Do you have any idea of the number and size of demolition chareges needed to bring down a building the size of WTC7?



They would, yes. So, how was that done, in secrecy?



Yes, that is very much in doubt, and you know it.



I see no evidence of demolition charges. When buildings burn and collapse, various explosive events are expected to happen. Where is the evidence of systematic, powerful explosions with the ability to destroy the structural integrety of an otherwise sound building?

And I repeat the question you ignored:

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

Here IS
"evidence of systematic, powerful explosions with the ability to destroy the structural integrity of an otherwise sound building"
Furthermore, this is the point at which I must insist on an end to your obfuscation.
Kindly address the following point, which is something you have consistently failed to do. Just explain the white smoke,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY&mode=related&search=

 

[Brainache]

Here IS
"evidence of systematic, powerful explosions with the ability to destroy the structural integrity of an otherwise sound building"
Furthermore, this is the point at which I must insist on an end to your obfuscation.
Kindly address the following point, which is something you have consistently failed to do. Just explain the white smoke,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY&mode=related&search=

Now you are talking about the towers. Weren't people talking about WTC7?

Anyway the puffs of smoke are jets of air being forced out of windows as the floors above collapse. In any demolition explosives are detonated before the stucture collapses, not as it is on the way down.

Absolutely not.
WTC7 came down by controlled demolition all right and I would have no difficulty in persuading an unbiased jury of that fact.

Maybe, if you were lieing to them and presenting false data.

Silverstein admitted the building was 'pulled' and only verbal gymnastics that border on the ludicrous can say any different.

"Pulled" does not mean demolished with explosives. He was referring to the teams of fire fighters still carrying out searches in the area. It is just a matter of reading the quote in context. No gymnastics required.

Why should a steel framed building be expected to fall when fire had never before brought down a steel framed building.

Wrong. Also, why do steel beams need fire-proofing then?

Kindly don't even try to persuade me otherwise.

Oops too late. So you admit you will ignore all contrary evidence? Well done.

If you wish to continue a sensible discourse then explain the white smoke in this vid, something you and others have consistently failed to do.

It has been explained hundreds of times by many people. You just refuse to listen.

It is time for posters on here to stop obfuscating and start replying to points raised.
When are you going to answer a point, rather than keep changing the subject?
You should see immediately that to maintain the smoke as anything other than caused by explosions is ludicrous,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7...elated&search=

Dear Mr Kirkman,
Please stop attributing to others that which you do yourself.

 

[apathoid]

Will this do.

No, it won't. Spitfire correctly pointed out that autoflight/autoland systems have been around for decades and that these systems are not guiding airplanes by remote control - and you reply to his post by repeating yourself, yet again. If you're having problems differentiating between autopilot and remote control, let me know - I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.


1. "December 1, 1984 - NASA Dryden experiment flew a Boeing 720 via remote control"
2. "1994 - NASA test involved 110 landings of a Boeing 737 airliner using GPS navigation"
3. "September 6, 2001 - Raytheon and the U.S. Air Force demonstrate new technology aircraft precision approach and landing system"


1. We are talking about Raytheon and JPALS, don't move the goal posts. We all know about the 707 remote control test flights.
2. Wrong. Autopilot, not remote control.
3. Also autopilot, not remote control.


You were asked to show where Raytheon admitted to testing PILOTLESS remote control systems, specifically regarding airliners and JPALS.

You did not. Please do so or retract your claim and/or admit that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. If you use Der Spiegel as a source, quote the original article, not the translation made by a Conspiracy Theory site.(Cooperative Research)

 

[apathoid]

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.

Apparently you have the buy the article. But I found this at a conspiracy site, the first part matches the link above.

Ein in den USA entwickeltes Notlandesystem soll Flugzeug-Entführungen erschweren: Im Ernstfall betätigt die Crew einen Schalter - und die Maschine steuert automatisch zum nächsten Flughafen.

Die Zeiten für Flugzeug-Kidnapper werden härter: In Amerika arbeiten Ingenieure daran, entführte Maschinen künftig durch einen verbesserten Autopiloten ohne Hilfe des Cockpits auf dem nächstgelegenen Flughafen zu landen - ein Notschalter, von der Crew oder der Bodenkontrolle betätigt, soll dann die Hebel im Flugzeug blockieren und den Entführern die Kontrolle aus der Hand nehmen.

Wie jetzt bekannt wurde, haben Techniker des US-Luftfahrt- und Rüstungskonzerns Raytheon bereits im August ein mit einem speziellen Notlandesystem ausgestattetes Passagierflugzeug sechsmal erfolgreich auf dem Militärflughafen Holloman in New Mexico gelandet * ohne dass die Piloten den Flugplatz angesteuert hätten.

Die Boeing 727 orientierte sich dabei nicht, wie üblich, am Radarfeuer am Ende der Landebahn, sondern an einer Kombination aus GPS-Satelliten- und Bodensignalen, die helfen, die Höhe * und damit den erforderlichen Anflugwinkel * bis auf einen Meter genau zu berechnen.

 

[SOMERLED]

Now you are talking about the towers. Weren't people talking about WTC7?

Anyway the puffs of smoke are jets of air being forced out of windows as the floors above collapse. In any demolition explosives are detonated before the stucture collapses, not as it is on the way down.



Maybe, if you were lieing to them and presenting false data.



"Pulled" does not mean demolished with explosives. He was referring to the teams of fire fighters still carrying out searches in the area. It is just a matter of reading the quote in context. No gymnastics required.



Wrong. Also, why do steel beams need fire-proofing then?



Oops too late. So you admit you will ignore all contrary evidence? Well done.



It has been explained hundreds of times by many people. You just refuse to listen.



Dear Mr Kirkman,
Please stop attributing to others that which you do yourself.

You have obviously failed to properly consider the evidence the video provides.
Your obfuscation continues,
"puffs of smoke" - "jets of air being forced out of windows as the floors above collapse"
"Puffs of smoke" do not propel heavy steel girders horizontally outwards at speeds of up to 60 mph.
Neither can collapsing floors be claimed when the corner is clearly still intact and material is being ejected out horizontally.
Kindly pay attention.

 

[CurtC]

Raytheon themselves admit to landing a PILOTLESS plane using the system.

I was going to address this, but I see it's already been done to death. Have you come to your senses and conceded that Raytheon made no such admission, and that these flights indeed had pilots?

WTC7 came down by controlled demolition all right and I would have no difficulty in persuading an unbiased jury of that fact.

The question is whether you could convince a panel of unbiased scientists, and the answer to that is that you clearly could not.

Why should a steel framed building be expected to fall when fire had never before brought down a steel framed building.
Kindly don't even try to persuade me otherwise.

Yes, my little boys do this same trick when they plug their ears with their fingers and yell "NA NA NA NA NA!"

If you wish to continue a sensible discourse then explain the white smoke in this vid, something you and others have consistently failed to do.

OK, how about not very hot, oxygen-starved fires? Those are the kind that produce white smoke.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Absolutely not.
WTC7 came down by controlled demolition all right and I would have no difficulty in persuading an unbiased jury of that fact.

The I suggest you present the evidence you would use for that jury. .. Since what you have presented here wil not convince anybody.

Silverstein admitted the building was 'pulled' and only verbal gymnastics that border on the ludicrous can say any different

No [tm].

Why should a steel framed building be expected to fall when fire had never before brought down a steel framed building.

Old hat.

Kindly don't even try to persuade me otherwise.
If you wish to continue a sensible discourse then explain the white smoke in this vid, something you and others have consistently failed to do.
It is time for posters on here to stop obfuscating and start replying to points raised.

Apart from the fact that it is mostly dust, what is your evidence that explosions should produce copious amounts of white smoke. And what has this to do with WTC7?




Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Here IS
"evidence of systematic, powerful explosions with the ability to destroy the structural integrity of an otherwise sound building"

Evidence rejected. Reasons:

1) That is the South Tower. We are currently discussing WTC7.

2) The alleged smoke is dust. This was amply proven as it settled over most of Southern Manhattan.

Furthermore, this is the point at which I must insist on an end to your obfuscation.

1) You have no authority to insist on anything.

2) I am asking you concrete questions. Answer them, and I will cease to ask them.

Hans

 

[SOMERLED]

Evidence rejected. Reasons:

1) That is the South Tower. We are currently discussing WTC7.

2) The alleged smoke is dust. This was amply proven as it settled over most of Southern Manhattan.



1) You have no authority to insist on anything.

2) I am asking you concrete questions. Answer them, and I will cease to ask them.

Hans

This smoke that is dust. What is this dust made of and how did it become 'dust'?

 

[SOMERLED]

The I suggest you present the evidence you would use for that jury. .. Since what you have presented here wil not convince anybody.



No [tm].



Old hat.



Apart from the fact that it is mostly dust, what is your evidence that explosions should produce copious amounts of white smoke. And what has this to do with WTC7?




Hans

Kindly consider this Italian page on WTC7.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAZ20070503&articleId=5550

 

[SOMERLED]

Apparently you have the buy the article. But I found this at a conspiracy site, the first part matches the link above.

The main point of this particular aspect is that the ability to have an unmanned large plane take off by remote control was available well before 9/11.
The next aspect is that the ability to deliver such an unmanned plane in detail enough to land it by GPS (unmanned) was also available prior to 9/11.
If you can land the plane, then you can most certainly draw it into a homing beacon. You have a guaranteed take off and delivery. You have no humans to concern yoursellf with. You have no problems connected with the vagaries that might well arise with some form of hijack. The explosives already in the building are primed and waiting, both towers have to be hit. You will most certainly plump for the Offutt remote control lift off and delivery over any other option.
That is what happened and that is why the Israelis were dancing on the roof when the hits were made.

 

[T.A.M.]

The issue of horizontally projected debris from the WTCs as a bone of contention with truthers has always puzzled me.

For instance, when you take a big mac from Mc Donalds, and smash it with your fist, do you expect the inner contents to simply drip out and fall to the ground? No, they are projected horizontally outward at a very fast speed.

TAM

 

[uk_dave]

For instance, when you take a big mac from Mc Donalds, and smash it with your fist.....
TAM

I'm with you comrade! If we all smashed big macs with our fists we would strike a blow against the corrupt tyrrany of the capitalist state and truly the workers will be united and free to take control of the means of production and go have lunch at burger king.

Power to the people!!

 

[SOMERLED]

The issue of horizontally projected debris from the WTCs as a bone of contention with truthers has always puzzled me.

For instance, when you take a big mac from Mc Donalds, and smash it with your fist, do you expect the inner contents to simply drip out and fall to the ground? No, they are projected horizontally outward at a very fast speed.

TAM

This is not the analogy I would have chosen, however it will do.
How do you get the contents of the sandwich to splatter out of the sides, without belting it with your hand?

 

[Hyperviolet]

The issue of horizontally projected debris from the WTCs as a bone of contention with truthers has always puzzled me.

For instance, when you take a big mac from Mc Donalds, and smash it with your fist, do you expect the inner contents to simply drip out and fall to the ground? No, they are projected horizontally outward at a very fast speed.

TAM

Yeah, maybe at the McDonalds in Israel.

Everywhere else it goes vertically downward faster than the speed of gravity

 

[HyJinX]

This is not the analogy I would have chosen, however it will do.
How do you get the contents of the sandwich to splatter out of the sides, without belting it with your hand?

Drop the top 20 floors of a 110-story skyscraper on it.

 

[SOMERLED]

I'm with you comrade! If we all smashed big macs with our fists we would strike a blow against the corrupt turrany of the capitalist state and truly the workers will be united and free to take control of the means of production and go have lunch at burger king.

Power to the people!!

Have you got that infoemation from your local fire station yet?
Remember, you did make the claim.