ninj
It's quite charming in its own way; there you go, insisting something you haven't been able to prove is possible happened.
Don't take it personally; no one in the 911 conspiracy league has been able to prove it was possible to plant demolition charges without anyone noticing. They've not even really tried; see the pattern of behaviour? Confronted with the fact the alternative explanation they offer is impossible they carry on insisting the official story is rubbish and the towers were demolished.
Just like Flood believers ignore the ark was impossible and carry on with their beliefs regardless.
I cut and paste as you seem unwilling or incapable of examining evidence that refutes conspiracist claims yourself. At least if I c&p you can't pretend you haven't seen it and any excuse for not responding to the refutation of conspiracist nonsense is gone.
The link for the data you want is already in the post; good to see you're doing thorough research, LOL, here's the spoon-feed, open wide, it's an aeroplane!!!
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf
I see none of the people supporting the conspiracist theories seem to have bothered looking at a reference Leolalia provided earlier
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
It basically says;
1/ The collapse of WTC1 & 2 did not look like controlled demolition. These start with an explosion at the base; WTC1 & 2 started at impact point.
2/ Explosive charges would either have to already be in place and be put in place without anyone noticing (impossible, large amount of the outer-perimeter interior walls would need to be removed let alone all the other visible disruption wiring a building for demolition would cause) and be unaffected by impact of explosion (impossible) or put in place in 55 minutes whilst the building was on fire (impossible).
3/ No building of the size of WTC 1,2 & 7 has ever been demolished using controlled explosive demolition
4/ Claims the buildings fell largely in their own footprints are wrong.
5/ So called 'squibs' are pneumatic effects of the collapse
6/ Eyewitness reports of explosions are probably mistaken given the lack of evidence for the use of explosives and the lack of seismograph evidence for explosions - and please don't make yourself look silly by using the graph beloved of conspiracists that seems to show something but when viewed in greater detail allows better resolution of the various stages of collapse and conclusively shows no signs of demolition explosions.
7/ No evidence has been found of thermite; Jones samples lack any proper trail of evidence that would preclude contamination and no signs of Hermite use (it's pretty characteristic) were noted in any beams in the eight months of removing debris.
8/ Steel from the WTC site was treated no differently from other scrap steel coming out of a pile of rubble, except that the WTC steel had a lot more people examining it.
9/ WTC7 collapsed whilst several demolition teams were nearby;
"We were all standing around helpless... we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. ... but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to he building and how hot the ire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited an a little later it went."
Of course, conspiracists all know that they, ignorant of demolition as they are, must know better sat in front of a computer screen after the event than demolition workers a few hundred yards away on the day... or that these demolition workers are liars and part of the conspiracy. Self-deluding arrogance or what?
10/ 'Pull it' does not mean 'controlled explosion' to someone in the demolition industry
11/ WTC7 sustained far severer damage than is made out by consopiracists and burnt unchecked for hours.
12/ Claims that no steel-framed buildings ever collapsed before due to fire are false and irrelevant; besides, no vessel like Titanic had ever sunk before until one did, no Space Shuttle was ever lost until one was; the argument 'no steel framed building collapsed due to fire before therefore it must have been explosives is untrue and illogical.
But of course, all the information in a report by demolition experts that indicate explosive demolition to be a fantasy is the work of stooges, and all the eye witness testimony from firefighters that prove WTC7 was showing all the signs of collapsing due to structural damage from being hit by rubble and from uncontrolled fires hours before it finally collapsed is just ignored by conspiracists.
After all, if a firefighter says something that means your pet theory is impossible, he must be lying and part of a cover-up that killed hundreds of his colleauges.
I'd love to see some of these conspiracists take their self-obsessed (well, you'd have to be to unreasonably ignore facts in favour of your own opinion) excreta into a New York firestation, find Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden and Fire Chief Daniel Nigro and tell them they were liars and parts of the conspiracy... because free of all the sanctimonious 'ooo, we're making the 'truth' know', that is what the conspiracists do. Accuse thousands of men and women of being liars, without one piece of solid evidence to support their claims.
berten
The quote from NORAD by AP says 'scrambled', not 'intercepted'. The same news item confirms the events of the day and shows changes were made to procedures after 911.
Funny how a conspiracist website can take 'scrambled' to mean 'intercept' when it suits them, but also fail to note in their article the source of their quote actually supports what they are arguing against.
How like the Borg - who use clever quotes from die-hard evolutionists to make it look like evolution is in doubt in the scientific community.
To be honest, I wouldn't wipe my arse with the website you quoted it is so biased; it starts with a fallacy and goes downhill from there. It also supports 'a missile hit the Pentagon' theory another classic of Conspiracist bullshit where the eye-witness testimony of the majority, those people who saw a passenger jet fly into the Pentagon (dozens on the Interstate it flew over just before impact alone) and concentrates on those few that support their preconception.
And the testimony of someone like Scott Forbes, which Leolalia dismantles nicely, is taken as gospel truth...
And still we wait for the explanation of how explosives were planted without anyone knowing about it.
And it won't be coming any time soon because it is impossible.
