No planes at pentagon and Shanksville.
I appreciate your direct responses to mine. i also appreciate the absence of ad-hom in your responses and i will try and refrain from it.
There are a lot of aspects here and each could easily warrant their own thread. So i will start with some easy ones.
Planes disintegrating on impact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Iranian_Air_Force_C-130_crash
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10346431/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/iranian-military-plane-hits-building-killing/#.VzNf54QrKUkWhere is the c-130?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/world/europe/23plane.html?_r=0
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/02/don-t-believe-russian-airline-s-new-excuse-for-crash.htmlOf course there are also many pics of crashes of planes where some or much of the plane is intact.
What remains after a crash is dependent on speed, mass, fuel, angle, etc.
To prove or argue flight 93 wasn't a plane you would have to also have to evidence backing up an explanation of these things:
What happened to the passengers of flight 93?
How were they coaxed into calling their friends and family during the hijacking and reporting what was going on while it was happening?
How were they able to dispose of a the plane?
How were they able to coordinate the transpoder with secondary radar tracking on the ground?
How were they able to hide the plane from primary radar when they flew it somewhere else?
How did they commandeer the plane in the first place?
If they did it remotely how did they install the remote devices (if it was even possible in 2001) with out incredibly detailed maintenance personal, procedures, safety protocols, and records being altered or compromised?
How did they prep the crash site to have some debris?
I probably could think of more questions.
But what evidence exists outside of the perceived absence of wreckage on a grainy photograph that points to the questions i asked above?
WTC 7 fell into its own footprint in 6.5 seconds.....FREE FALL SPEED...
WTC 7 did not fall into it’s own footprint.
WTC site plan:
If it fell on to its own foot print the Verison Building would not be damaged:
Nor would there be damage to Filterman hall,
Nor damage to the building north of WTC 7 with the terrace
Conclusion:
Footprint argument=debunkedNext:
“6.5 seconds.....FREE FALL SPEED” (I am assuming you think it shouldn’t have looked like it went down all at once.)
It pancaked. Think of the steel beams as connected straws that crumple. The steel beams weaken, to the weight above and buckle providing no resistance until it came to non-buckled beams on the lower floors. (Steel loses its strength when heated) Large chunks of WTC 7 were damaged. (I can post those pics if you want, they are available on the net as well as fireman statements to that regard) Hence it looks as though it all comes down at once. but it came down in stages. Look closely at the video and you will see the 3:58 Mark it doesn’t come down all at once, the Penthouse on the left goes first, supporting the report that the floors failed imploding the building.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPoConclusion:
Freefall speed argument debunkedI totally agree with you that it very similar to a demolition. However, many things can look like one thing but be something entirely different. Once the facts are brought to bear the reality is revealed.
Additionally, lets say none of my above arguments are valid, you are still left a video only and no other evidence that it was prewired and demolished. And if it was prewired, it would be stupid to think that it didn’t explode much sooner when it caught fire, burned for hours and was severely damaged.
classic example of flawed logic from CT'ers
this pic suggests that because these other buildings didn't collapse from fire that WTC 7 shouldn't have.
This is the same thinking as that pot head from loose change.
And educated person or a person with common sense would immediately ask:
Were the conditions of the buildings that didn't collapse exactly the same as the conditions of WTC 7?
In other words....
Where they designed the same? steel beam structure? # of stories? etc.
Where they damaged by falling debris from a 110 story skyscraper that was damaged (fire fighter reported) 33% percent or more?
WTC 7: What does that picture tell you? Does that look to you debunked? Serious question.
That's another flawed logic question. You are asking question that excludes all the other info, facts and evidence of WTC 7 and determines its answer on 1 single pic.
If that was the only pic in existence before or after, and there wasn't testimony of firefighters, nor reports and other photos of damage of the building, nor did it get struck by debris from a 110 story building, and there wasn't damage from surround buildings from WTC 7, and there was other tangible evidence of WTC 7 being pre-wired, and there was a challenge by main stream civil and structural engineers and scientists, etc. i wouldn't have said it was debunked.
Exactly
Serious question, how come that building did not caught on fire? But WTC 7 that was across 2 buildings and the street did from debris from the twin towers?
Could it be somebody started that fire instead of the debris that came down from the twin towers?
Hmmm Yes
Makes for an interesting question & no doubt an even more interesting answer.
Building right behind WTC Still standing & Looks remarkably undamaged in the pic.
Stays standing & doesn't look to be gutted by fire.
Building further away & across the street destroyed by falling debris & Fire.
Ok ..... Waiting to Hear this one explained.
Sure in the pure sense of "is it possible", of course.
But again you are using flawed logic. Specifically if A happens to B that results in C, Then if A happens to X it should result in C which is incorrect (flawed logic) because, A (the damage) isn't the same in these instances (WTC 7 Far more damage and different damage), nor is X (the bank) or B (WTC 7) are the same in these instances. (apples and oranges in the same orchard)
And they are located in 2 different areas.
Its false logic like this and the other thing you said that is the foundation for persuasion. Its used in politics pretty much non stop. Critical thinking blows past this BS.
Think about it, you could say the same thing about tornadoes, in that some houses remain while others are demolished in the tornadoes path.
DebunkedGame Set Match, Can we move on now?
Maybe aliens did it?
