27 votes

NY Times' David Sanger on C-SPAN Challenged by Caller, Doesn't Know That No Plane Hit WTC7

After a caller challenges NY Times coverage of 9/11, Sanger says there is no evidence that the buildings came down as a result of anything but planes hitting them. Problem: No plane hit WTC 7. A little Truth for Christmas Merry Christmas!

Ed Asner on WTC 7

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

he doesn't say that no plane

he doesn't say that a plane did or did not hit building 7. your title is pretty incorrect and deceptive

LOL that's right he said NOTHING about Building 7

...so he must not know that no plane hit it, since he falls back on the planes-brought-down-towers as his "answer." Ignoring the question is not an out.

See how that works? If you are in a court of law you are perfectly free to ignore questions, say nothing, by taking the Fifth. Then the jury is perfectly free to convict you.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

"...doesn't know that plane

"...doesn't know that no plane hit building WTC7."

then what you are saying is that he knows and is lying...pick one

How do I know what he is thinking? But you are right to

suggest that either way is disingenuous. So yea, the man is a liar, and it seems a fairly practiced one. A follow up question would have been in order.

Anyone looking for a New Years Eve idea how about having an Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out party, show the film, get drunk, then end it right before midnight and every one CELEBRATE THE YEAR OF TRUTH!

Release the Sandy Hook video.

Another LIAR

that I hope will be held accountable IF the truth ever comes out...and clearly Mr Sanger and his ilk are counting on that never happening. And they are probably correct.


deceptive title

I watched the video thinking he was going to say something other than what he did. I don't think we need to engage in "link bait" titles. His position is clearly that the planes took down the two towers and then the one tower falling on WTC7 caused it to collapse.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

Which tower fell on #7


fireant's picture

The North Tower.

Perimeter wall from 1WTC struck the very top of the south face, creating a gash, or breach from the top to the bottom, or close to the bottom. Note the streamer of dust hitting the south face slightly right of center:
7damage Hit
It caused this damage:
WTC7gashtop Anotated

WTC7gash Anotated
Confirmation of the south face gash is the vertical fold of the north face as it began to descend:
WTC7 Fold Anotated
The east part is falling toward the camera. The fold broke and sent that east portion into Fiterman Hall across Barclay Street to the north.

My avatar shows the west half falling to the south.

Undo what Wilson did

You couldn't even duplicate that with a set of Leggos, nevermind

50,000 tons of structural steel. The strength to weight ratio of steel is extraordinary. 100-story skyscrapers would not be possible without this substance. It's funny how you guys expect the yahoos to believe, first, that planes 1/2000 of the weight of a tower would deform it and make it fall with kerosene fires, which is all jet fuel is.


But the plane hits were the same as a toy airplane hitting a tree.

Then when you have no plane hit "twisting" the building and "throwing it off center" so that "gazillions of tones of concrete" pull it down, you come up with a new one: the building pulled ITSELF down, The most obvious and simplest explanation is the most strenuously avoided. The building was wired. And if one was wired, they all were, as Dr. Alan Sabrosky says.

The real giveaway is the lengths you go through to avoid saying the emperor has no clothes.

Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at US Army War College,
General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research. Concludes
that a combination of treasonous elements in the US government and
Israeli MOSSAD orchestrated 9/11, in order to enable invasion of Iraq.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

fireant's picture

You must be a comedian. If not, you should give it a go.

To make the ridiculous statement that 150 tons of mass at 450 knot velocity is like a toy airplane hitting a tree is clear evidence you have no clue of what you speak.

Undo what Wilson did

So that proves you are a blithering idiot, and try to hide it

by using elevated language and words like "velocity." We know the type. The impact of any weight traveling at any speed is purely relative to the thing it is hitting. 150 tons of mass is insignificant relative to a steel backbone and frame of 96,000 tons. Plus concrete and load makes each tower 500,000 tons. That's a weight ratio of over 2,400 to 1, tower to plane. Kinetic energy is absorbed by all connected mass in the tower. So yes, the plane hitting the tower was like an empty beer can hitting 40 lbs of steel, scaling just the steel part down.

empty beer can = .6 oz.

150/96,000= .6/x
converting to pounds x=40

Think of one of those 45 lb plates at the gym, and an empty beer can hitting it. Do you think the steel will not shred it? Do you think aluminum cuts steel? Funny they don't make bullets out of aluminum (what most of a plane is made of.) They use depleted uranium which is heavier than lead. Steel is three times denser than aluminum.

So yes, like a toy plane hitting a parking meter for all practical purposes. Want proof the planes were shredded like they were going through a cheese grater? Here ya go. Only the engines and landing gear are made of titanium-steel alloy.

And my how fast we change the subject from Building 7.

Tower backbone

Release the Sandy Hook video.

fireant's picture

Ya. And comparing the mass of the plane to the entire Tower is

meaningless, and sophomoric sophistry at best.
The only resistance to entering the buildings for those planes were the bolts holding the perimeter wall panels together and the side ends of the floors.

Undo what Wilson did

Part of the north structure

was propelled the length of two football fields with enough velocity to bring down a steel high-rise building?

fireant's picture

When you say "steel high-rise building", you neglect the fact

all three were large span, tube type designs. They cannot be compared to most high rise steel buildings, which at that time all others were box frame design. And yes, that makes a huge difference in 7WTC. A box frame design could have absorbed that damage; not a large span though. Losing the lateral stability of the perimeter wall was fatal.

Undo what Wilson did

More shill nonsense. How is this a "tube?"

Nor was it hollow as a "tube" implies. The tower backbone was an incredibly strong,, crossed braced 47 vertical beams of steel, the core beams nearly 5 feet wide. The towers had won design awards for strength and excellence in engineering.

You do realize there are penalities for helping cover up crimes, don't you?

Release the Sandy Hook video.

fireant's picture

What you show is a tube type structure. Here's more:

This photo, before drywall and partitions were installed, shows the hollowness of the Towers:
WTClight Through Towers Picture
Note the distance from the outer walls to the core structure; that's 60 feet of span with no vertical support:
Tube Design NTower Core
And while you are looking, see if you can find some structural signs of controlled demolition. All I can find are columns broken at their connectors.

Undo what Wilson did


inside a tube.

fireant's picture

Pivot point. Nothing was "propelled".

If a 600 foot section of perimeter wall is splayed outward, the top will land 600 feet away, no different than a broom falling over. The pivot point of the steel perimeter walls were plenty strong enough to support the pivot, contrary to building 7, where the pivot points were not strong enough, thus down and over, instead of just over.
Mass and gravity provided plenty of power to fall between two columns of 7 and take out all the lateral members on the way down. No way to know for sure, but 50 tons of steel is not out of the question.

Undo what Wilson did

600 feet

is 55 stories.

fireant's picture

Yep. And there are plenty of photos showing the perimeter walls

laid out across the debris fields for that distance, from the base outward. Some of the walls indeed fell over that distance.

Undo what Wilson did

Yea funny how gravity went sideways that day, instead of down

blowing 3 and 4 story, 20 ton chunks of perimeter wall all the way to Liberty Place, look to the right of the nearest tower WTC 2.


Release the Sandy Hook video.

fireant's picture

Thanks for your help. Note the wall segments are laying

end to end, just like as if they fell over.

Undo what Wilson did



fireant's picture

Here is a much better illustration of the east wall peeling:


Undo what Wilson did

fireant's picture

East wall of North Tower laying flat on the ground from

the base of the tower all the way to Winter Garden:

Undo what Wilson did

fireant's picture

Here is the splaying in action...

Pay attention to the circled objects in the video. Begin at 3:11. South Tower, east wall. Those are the tops of perimeter wall falling over. Note the arc. It gives you an idea how far down the pivot was. They are the tops of the wall where the plane impacted. Note from the video the upper portion slid inside the lower portion, which caused the lower portion to splay outward.
Splayed End Tower2

Undo what Wilson did

When is this in the video?

Thanks for the snipe hunt.

3:11 is the top

and nowhere close to 55 stories

fireant's picture

You have been implying splaying, or peeling of the walls

didn't happen. This shows it did.

Undo what Wilson did

You implied that 55 stories splayed

from the base.

Are you saying that a 55 story section from the top of the tower is responsible for the collapse of #7?