• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

10 story hole in WTC 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
methinks C7 does not understand the different forces involved in earthquakes and how they affect building structures

silly earthquakes
 
jaydeehess said:
MaGZ, how's it going in finding that mysterious stairwell with windows or determining how a A2A missile could cause major damage to a stairwell(let alone penetrate 20 feet or so into a building)?
Click to expand...

Listen to Jennings video. He tried to get in the service elevator but was directed to a stairwell nearby. We know one elevator was dislodged in WTC 7. I think this was the service elevator next to a stairwell near the souther face of WTC 7. Both the stairwell and service elevator were damaged due to the missile explosion.
 
MaGZ said:
Listen to Jennings video. He tried to get in the service elevator but was directed to a stairwell nearby. We know one elevator was dislodged in WTC 7. I think this was the service elevator next to a stairwell near the souther face of WTC 7. Both the stairwell and service elevator were damaged due to the missile explosion.
Click to expand...

Explain to me exactly how a heat seeking A to A missile target and would hit the WTC7?

Try and find out how much explosives these missiles carry and exactly how they really disable aircraft when they are fired at them?

Do some research on A to A missiles because you are making yourself look very silly here if you think the missile would have targetted and struck the WTC7 and that it could have caused even a miniscule amount of the damage you are claiming

Do not come back till you have more answers
 
funk de fino said:
Explain to me exactly how a heat seeking A to A missile target and would hit the WTC7?

Try and find out how much explosives these missiles carry and exactly how they really disable aircraft when they are fired at them?

Do some research on A to A missiles because you are making yourself look very silly here if you think the missile would have targetted and struck the WTC7 and that it could have caused even a miniscule amount of the damage you are claiming

Do not come back till you have more answers
Click to expand...

Is there an abort feature on A to A missiles once they are launched? Perhaps once the pilots saw the impact of flight 175 into WTC 2 they put the missiles on abort hoping they would land in the Hudson River. Apparently one did.
 
MaGZ said:
Is there an abort feature on A to A missiles once they are launched? Perhaps once the pilots saw the impact of flight 175 into WTC 2 they put the missiles on abort hoping they would land in the Hudson River. Apparently one did.
Click to expand...

Yet another missile? These things are breeding. But if it landed in the Hudson, maybe it's still there? Why not get your Scuba gear out and find it, then some of us might start taking you seriously.

Dave
 
MaGZ said:
Is there an abort feature on A to A missiles once they are launched? Perhaps once the pilots saw the impact of flight 175 into WTC 2 they put the missiles on abort hoping they would land in the Hudson River. Apparently one did.
Click to expand...

AIM 9L will be launched at target and using its seeker follow the heat signature to the target. If the target uses flares to try and fool the missile into looking at another heat signal the missile actually "blinks" and then rescans for the target and locks on again.

Once alongside the target it will explode sending razorsharp fragments into the plane. This is triggered by the proximity fuse IIRC. The missiles do not generally hit and destroy the aircraft with the explosives onboard the missile anywhere near is close enough due to the jet fuel tanks on the target aircraft and the fact the shards from the missile can damage control rods and electrical systems.

The pilot of the attacking aircraft has no control over the missile once it is off the rails, it is autonomous after this point. The range is generally less than 15 miles and dppends on a few of factors.

There is not a lot of explosives inside these missiles, not enough to cause the type of damage you think. The warhead only contains 20lbs explosives in total.

Your videos are not even close to what a missile of this type would look like. they travel at very high speed, up to around Mach 2.5. The ASRAAM is even faster.

What type of aircraft are you saying launched these missiles as it would be more specific as we would know what type exactly you are trying to say would be used. The AIM-9L was generally the standard heatseeker around at that time IIRC, certainly the one I used to load on the aircraft I worked on.

Yet again you are derailing the thread with nonsensse theories without doing basic research yourself though.
 
Christopher7 said:
Wrong

This is what happens in an earthquake

[qimg]http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3192/taiwansixslc1.jpg[/qimg]

This is what happens in a professional building implosion

[qimg]http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/2510/wtc7debris2iu7.jpg[/qimg]

The only thing that has ever caused a high rise building to implode is a CD.
Click to expand...

You're using earthquake pictures as a rebuttal???!!!! Why expose your ignorance with such pictures? Chris when you get to college be sure to take some geology courses. In the meantime I'll fill you in on a little secret; when the ground moves buildings get thrown about like rag dolls. There was no earthquake in New York on 9/11/2001.
 
Last edited:
On the same note, is there a video of a cd of a building (with audio) that you can't clearly HEAR the charges going off.
 
Christopher7 said:
Wrong

This is what happens in an earthquake


This is what happens in a professional building implosion



The only thing that has ever caused a high rise building to implode is a CD.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know which is funnier. The missile claim, or comparing earthquake collapses caused by the ground moving to a collapse caused by fire. And BTW, fire and structural damage has ALSO been the cause of building collapses. Please stop being dishonest.
 
funk de fino said:
AIM 9L will be launched at target and using its seeker follow the heat signature to the target. If the target uses flares to try and fool the missile into looking at another heat signal the missile actually "blinks" and then rescans for the target and locks on again.

Once alongside the target it will explode sending razorsharp fragments into the plane. This is triggered by the proximity fuse IIRC. The missiles do not generally hit and destroy the aircraft with the explosives onboard the missile anywhere near is close enough due to the jet fuel tanks on the target aircraft and the fact the shards from the missile can damage control rods and electrical systems.

The pilot of the attacking aircraft has no control over the missile once it is off the rails, it is autonomous after this point. The range is generally less than 15 miles and dppends on a few of factors.

There is not a lot of explosives inside these missiles, not enough to cause the type of damage you think. The warhead only contains 20lbs explosives in total.

Your videos are not even close to what a missile of this type would look like. they travel at very high speed, up to around Mach 2.5. The ASRAAM is even faster.

What type of aircraft are you saying launched these missiles as it would be more specific as we would know what type exactly you are trying to say would be used. The AIM-9L was generally the standard heatseeker around at that time IIRC, certainly the one I used to load on the aircraft I worked on.

Yet again you are derailing the thread with nonsensse theories without doing basic research yourself though.
Click to expand...

Two F-15 fighters from Otis Air National Guard Base fired the missiles.
 
MaGZ said:
Listen to Jennings video. He tried to get in the service elevator but was directed to a stairwell nearby. We know one elevator was dislodged in WTC 7. I think this was the service elevator next to a stairwell near the souther face of WTC 7. Both the stairwell and service elevator were damaged due to the missile explosion.
Click to expand...

Oh, I have listened to it MaGZ. Trouble is i only hear what he says, not what I want it to mean, which is the fashion of listening that you, quite apparently, use.

You surmised a stairwell with windows through which they could see the towers. So far you refuse to back up that contention.

Add to that your surmising that the supposed missile would have an abort feature. You fail again to back this contention and now have been informed that no such abort system is available to the pilots.

You keep saying that this air-to-air missile managed to impact WTC 7 and cause enough damage to the building to do various things.
-It starts fires. Perhaps if it went in a window the explosives could start a fire inside.
-It blasts a hole in the building. It has been pointed out several times that A2A missiles contain very little explosive. they are designed to explode and damage an aircraft, not a steel building. If one did manage to hit a building such as the WTC 7 it would leave a scorch mark on the outside of the building most likely. If it entered a window and exploded inside it would shred the contents of the office with shrapnel and, depending on what the interior walls were constructed of, some of that shrapnel might make it into the next room. What it would NOT do, what it could NOT do, is do anything other than superficial damage to concrete or steel work. What it would do if, somehow, it managed to go through windows and open doors and make it into the stairwell where Jennings and Hess were, is shred Jennings and Hess. It would not, could not damage the stairs themselves.

Now be a good Nazi, and play with the other brown shirts. Your ridiculous statements are as bad as anything that Killtown has come up with.
 
toy-1536b.jpg

Nope...this was used to launch the missiles :rolleyes:
 
Jonnyclueless said:
I honestly don't know which is funnier. The missile claim, or comparing earthquake collapses caused by the ground moving to a collapse caused by fire. And BTW, fire and structural damage has ALSO been the cause of building collapses. Please stop being dishonest.
Click to expand...

I hope it is dishonesty and not a lack of understanding.

Chris fails to acknowledge that in an earthquake the building fails at or near the foundation, AND then topples because the upper part of the building was moving (swaying) more than it was ever designed to, at the time that the failure occured.


oh, and for "funny". MaGZ wins, hands down, IMHO.
 
jaydeehess said:
I acknowledge that when buildings fall apart from the center outward the collapses will all look similar no matter the cause.

The "looks like" CD, is barely a blip on any evidentiary radar.
Click to expand...
So, you agree that WTC 7 looks like a CD?
 
Jonnyclueless said:
No, it fell in a manner consistent with Gravity. Just because it reminds you of a CD, which is also the result of Gravity does not mean it is consistent with a CD.
Click to expand...
Gravity has never caused a high rise building to implode without explosives.

NIST has promised that they will mathematically show what would have been needed to create a scenario with explosives.
Click to expand...
No they haven't.
Do you have a source for that statement or are you talking thru your hat?

But no point in waiting for that since your mind is already made up and your argument again is based on taking advantage of everyone not having all the information from the final report which is what is needed to make a proper argument.
Click to expand...
The information currently available [videos and pictures] clearly show that WTC 7 collapsed in a manner consistent with a CD.

These FACTS are not going to change in the final report.

It imploded

It collapsed in stages

It fell at a speed consistent with a CD

It landed mostly in it's own footprint

This is what happens in a professional building implosion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom