PDA

View Full Version : 9/11 "Building What?" ad campaign



Sertes
08-26-2010, 06:42 PM
http://world911truth.org/images/building-what-top.jpg

“Building What?” TV Ad Unveiled: 9/11 Family Members Speak Out

This Thursday August 26, members of the 9/11 families Manny Badillo and Bob McIlvaine got on the Alex Jones Show (infowars.com) to premiere the “BuildingWhat?” campaign TV ad (video below).

The goal of the “BuildingWhat?” campaign is to get this ad on every TV screen in New York and educate people about the elephant in the room, the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

Click here (http://world911truth.org/most-important-911-truth-campaign-ever/) to learn more about this unprecedented “BuildingWhat?” campaign and to support it with a donation (http://world911truth.org/most-important-911-truth-campaign-ever/) today.

hHIj9wzbYGQ

krisy
08-26-2010, 07:16 PM
Whats their point? Conspiracy theory? Government did it?

Little-Acorn
08-26-2010, 09:14 PM
Whats their point? Conspiracy theory? Government did it?
Isn't it always? :lame2:

Noir
08-26-2010, 09:20 PM
Lord only knows why they would want to bring building 7 down, but it has to be said, it did not collapse naturally,

krisy
08-26-2010, 10:26 PM
Uh,I see a lot of asking for money and blasting the media for not talking about building 7 right after the attacks,but thats it. No explanation as to what they think really happened. What do they think,that the Bush administration sent out faxes to all the liberal news outlets that hated him asking them not to discuss building 7?

Again,a lot of asking for money on this link.

jimnyc
08-26-2010, 10:32 PM
A lot of those who have visited this board has said similar, as did many armchair quarterbacks throughout the world. But the firemen and investigators that were actually hands on gave an extremely reasonable explanation as to why WTC7 came down. Some would rather just believe worse without reading what the experts actually on the ground stated.

DragonStryk72
08-26-2010, 10:35 PM
Uh,I see a lot of asking for money and blasting the media for not talking about building 7 right after the attacks,but thats it. No explanation as to what they think really happened. What do they think,that the Bush administration sent out faxes to all the liberal news outlets that hated him asking them not to discuss building 7?

Again,a lot of asking for money on this link.

Actually, that's a good sign, not a bad one. They need money to get the word out, but they're only asking for an investigation into it. Even if you look at the video, there's no evidence of any fire in the building. Any fire big enough to make that thing fall in on itself like that should have shown up, especially if it was caused by an outside source.

This part isn't conspiracy, it's actually a legitimate question. How does a building fall like that for no stucturally sound reason?

jimnyc
08-26-2010, 10:38 PM
Holy crap, didn't realize who it was who started this thread till I already replied. Long time no see, Sertes. No offense, but I went around the block a shitload of times with you (including our debate in the one on one section), and neither of us appear to be agreeing with the other or changing stances. I will gracefully bail out now and leave the thread to those more patient, and don't mind beating their skulls against bricks.

jimnyc
08-26-2010, 10:39 PM
Actually, that's a good sign, not a bad one. They need money to get the word out, but they're only asking for an investigation into it. Even if you look at the video, there's no evidence of any fire in the building. Any fire big enough to make that thing fall in on itself like that should have shown up, especially if it was caused by an outside source.

This part isn't conspiracy, it's actually a legitimate question. How does a building fall like that for no stucturally sound reason?

Read the debate I had with the OP - there was MUCH more fire than many believed, and in pictures - but most importantly the words of the firefighters themselves who were in the building before they were pulled out.

krisy
08-27-2010, 02:06 PM
Still waiting to hear a possible explanation if it wasn't due to the other two towers collapsing. How close to the other towers was this one?

I have to go with jim on this. He of course lives close and knows more than most of us. These conspiracy theories are getting nuts....really.

krisy
08-27-2010, 02:09 PM
Also,thats not much of a video to watch. Can't see much from that. I could believe there was a fire that can't be seen in that video.

Kathianne
08-27-2010, 05:25 PM
I pretty much watched wall-to-wall coverage of 9/11 from about 5 minutes after the first plane hit, until well into the late evening of the 12th. I've never seen convincing evidence on the side of government controlled.

Little-Acorn
08-27-2010, 07:30 PM
Read the debate I had with the OP - there was MUCH more fire than many believed, and in pictures - but most importantly the words of the firefighters themselves who were in the building before they were pulled out.

I read thru part of your debate, but wow what a lot of stuff. Haven't gotten to that part about "much more fire", or what the firefighters said. Can you summarize?

jimnyc
08-27-2010, 08:44 PM
I read thru part of your debate, but wow what a lot of stuff. Haven't gotten to that part about "much more fire", or what the firefighters said. Can you summarize?

The firefighters were fighting massive fires all throughout the building. Also, from the main wreckage, about 25% of one of the corners of WTC7 was completely destroyed. The fire departments had meters set up to measure WTC7 for the safety of the men inside, and the readings showed the building shifting, so they pulled the men out and the building subsequently collapsed. The men that were inside all spoke of out of control fires.

From the debate thread:


Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
Click image of WTC7 to make larger

1952


"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out.

"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good."

I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving.

revelarts
08-28-2010, 03:58 AM
Building 7 still is the oddest bird in the bunch. It's interesting how people just can't take a "just the facts mame" view of 9-11. I don't know what happened. that day. I don't buy all of the stuff that get's thrown around by the truthers or the guberment but I tend to agree with the folks that say that 7 was blown up. there are eye witnesses and cops and firefighters that have said they heard explosions. One Guy said he was knocked down inside the building on the eight floor by and explosion. and there are a lot of other things that just don't make sense to me.

that building was built as the city's emergency command center and had been reinforce to survive quakes and bomb and such right? But before any of the towers fell it was abandoned. why? If they thought the towers where in danger of falling why didn't they warn the people in the towers? ineptitude, more poor communications? maybe sure it's possible. likely? hmm i don't know.


there are demo expert that have seen the footage of building 7 go down a -without knowing what or where it was- and described it as a "perfect" demo job.

coming to my own non professional conclusion i looked at a lot building fires and Failed demolitions to see what uncontrolled fires do to a building and botched somewhat controlled building demolitions look like. And to me, it doesn't make any sense that building 7 would fall like it did. it should have fallen crooked and most of the top or large portions should have stayed in tack. especially sense a hunk of a corner was missing and the fire was on one side almost exclusively. the neat pile doesn't make sense at all based on the other things i saw.
but the fact that it fell at all still doesn't quite jib to me either. It's a very strong argument that steel buildings don't fall from fire. I've heard military guys talk about how hard it is to take down a building.

somethings stink to me.

the arguments of "do you really believe our own gov could..." only come into play when we start looking for suspects. but the physical evidence tells it's own story. who did it and why are separate questions altogether. And doesn't negate questions left unanswered or unclear at the crime scene.

something stinks. and at the barest minimum there's a cover-up that even the 9-11 commission chair people have a problem with.

Sertes
08-28-2010, 04:01 AM
Whats their point?

The point is no one saw WTC7 collapse on prime-time tv, many don't even know that a third high-rise collapsed that day.


Conspiracy theory?

The official explanation, which is a conspiracy theory (19 arabs led by Osama Bin Laden conspired to provoke act of terrorism on american soil), is that debris from the falling twin towers set WTC7 afire, then 7 hours later, about 5:20 in the afternoon, the building collapsed


Government did it?

No, the entire government is not under suspicion, too big and to clumsy, and it includes a minister that actually went against the official conspiracy theory (I think you never heard of Minister of Transportation Mineta deposition too, just like you didn't see or hear about the collapse of WTC7).
Even your former president is not under suspiction, many believe he was just another victim of the situation, which (I remind you) is not an insult, it's just the official explanation too.

Gaffer
08-28-2010, 08:31 AM
The point is no one saw WTC7 collapse on prime-time tv, many don't even know that a third high-rise collapsed that day.



The official explanation, which is a conspiracy theory (19 arabs led by Osama Bin Laden conspired to provoke act of terrorism on american soil), is that debris from the falling twin towers set WTC7 afire, then 7 hours later, about 5:20 in the afternoon, the building collapsed



No, the entire government is not under suspicion, too big and to clumsy, and it includes a minister that actually went against the official conspiracy theory (I think you never heard of Minister of Transportation Mineta deposition too, just like you didn't see or hear about the collapse of WTC7).
Even your former president is not under suspiction, many believe he was just another victim of the situation, which (I remind you) is not an insult, it's just the official explanation too.

My very first question is why, what purpose would it all serve? I think all the truthers have watched too many movies, read too many political thrillers and definitely watched to much Mission Impossible.

krisy
08-28-2010, 09:05 AM
My very first question is why, what purpose would it all serve? I think all the truthers have watched too many movies, read too many political thrillers and definitely watched to much Mission Impossible.

Thats what I want to know....WHO and WHY?

ALso,the collapse of 7 was talked about on tv,Kevin remembers it specifically. Fox news specifically.

revelarts
08-28-2010, 10:55 AM
Seems to me at a crime scene like this we should 1st acknowledge what happen, THEN go on to who, and a why.

Go to you tube and watch the Barry Jennings interviews. He was in World Trade Center 7. He says there where explosions in the building BEFORE the towers fell. And Below the 8th floor. Maybe someone has a good explanation for WHY or WHO did it. but Apparently that's WHAT happened.

jimnyc
08-28-2010, 11:18 AM
Seems to me at a crime scene like this we should 1st acknowledge what happen, THEN go on to who, and a why.

Go to you tube and watch the Barry Jennings interviews. He was in World Trade Center 7. He says there where explosions in the building BEFORE the towers fell. And Below the 8th floor. Maybe someone has a good explanation for WHY or WHO did it. but Apparently that's WHAT happened.

Read the debate Sertes and I had on this, or do a simple search on the internet. There were all kinds of things blowing up in WTC7 - generators and such. and completely compiled and reported by both the firemen in the building and the NIST reports.

And others want to jump on the bandwagon about how the building fell just like a controlled demolition, but apparently want to discount the real explanations by the engineers ON THE SCENE and all the agencies involved. I guess it's easier to listen to people who want to invent their own theories than actually read reports from those who stood on the very ground and investigated.

Tons and tons, mountains and mountains of actual proof towards what we read in the agencies reports - and to this day not a single ounce of proof backing up these theories. If WTC7 was brought down by demolition, doesn't anyone think they would have found SOMETHING, ANYTHING to back up that assertion? WTC's 1 & 2 were brought down by demo as well according to Sertes, but in a gazillion pounds of rubble, not a shred of proof found. A missile hit the pentagon, but not a shred of proof to back that up, and also consider that plane parts were found all over the place as we ll as bodies. Flight 93 never crashed in Pa, because there wasn't enough debris to Sertes' liking. Even though parts were found up to 5 miles away, and a crater that looked like a meteorite hit there. Sertes can't decide which happened - the plane was shot down or it was a missile. Either way, once again, not a shred of proof to back up either assertion and mountains of evidence to backup what we KNOW via telephone conversations and actual findings at the crash scene.

I have a hunch that the majority who still fall for this shit about WTC7 have never took the time to read the various agencies reports. I'm not saying everything detailed is rock solid, but there IS PLENTY of rock solid evidence in there, and not a shred of evidence indicating anything devious took place.

I don't know why I get so involved in threads like this. I guess it irks me that people will be so defensive of their theories, but never want to talk about the official reports, or why they can't give a bit of definitive proof to backup their theories - they can only give you just that, theories. 3 Towers, the Pentagon and a major crash scene in Pa - and NOT ONE BIT OF SOLID PROOF - nothing but theories from the nut crowd. Let me repeat that - NOT ONE BIT OF SOLID PROOF to backup any of the retarded theories. Sure, lots of "what if's" and "other engineers state this" - but I'll need to see some solid proof before I override what the thousands of professionals who combed through these sites have stated.

krisy
08-28-2010, 12:10 PM
Seems to me at a crime scene like this we should 1st acknowledge what happen, THEN go on to who, and a why.

Go to you tube and watch the Barry Jennings interviews. He was in World Trade Center 7. He says there where explosions in the building BEFORE the towers fell. And Below the 8th floor. Maybe someone has a good explanation for WHY or WHO did it. but Apparently that's WHAT happened.

I'm sure there were explosions,but that wouldn't be abnormal at all given the circumstances. Like jim said,generators....what about gas lines and things like that. Also,wouldn't the sheer impact of the other buildings falling considerably weaken other buildings in the area?

I'm asking the who and why because imo,there is nothing unusual to me about why the building collapsed.

revelarts
08-28-2010, 12:53 PM
I've read most of it a while back. It's so mannnyy pages. But as I said I've try to weigh the evidence from all sources. not just what supports any one point of view.


There were all kinds of things blowing up in WTC7 - generators and such. and completely compiled and reported by both the firemen in the building and the NIST reports.

What about the eyewitness report of explosions BEFORE the Buildings came down Jimmy. I'm talking about building 7 only. is that Included in what you consider evidence or do we completely dismiss it? Jennings was in the building and was knocked backwards by an explosion and the stairs on the 6 floor was blown out from under his feet. Before the Buildings fell. the Building was built FOR terrorist attacks and natural disasters. why would anything blow up before the buildings fell? I've haven't heard a good explanation for it yet.

It's not a matter of what I want to believe it's matter of evidence i can't dismiss. There are some items that can be dismissed and easily refuted this and other items about 7 IMO aren't so simple.

not wanting to believe something can be just a blinding Jim.


And others want to jump on the bandwagon ...

I'm not much of a bangwagon guy



I have a hunch that the majority who still fall for this shit about WTC7 have never took the time to read the various agencies reports. I'm not saying everything detailed is rock solid, but there IS PLENTY of rock solid evidence in there, ...but never want to talk about the official reports, or why they can't give a bit of definitive proof to backup their theories -

I've read some . there are so maaany pages.
Yes there is plenty of solid stuff not all of it jibs with the official stories.
And even the 9-11 commission Chairs said they were lied too and not given all of the info they needed. so the official reports are suspect as well. that's not to say that it's all crap but. but the official reports are not to be taken a holy writ either.



they can only give you just that, theories. 3 Towers, the Pentagon and a major crash scene in Pa - and NOT ONE BIT OF SOLID PROOF - nothing but theories from the nut crowd. Let me repeat that - NOT ONE BIT OF SOLID PROOF to backup any of the retarded theories. Sure, lots of "what if's" and "other engineers state this" - but I'll need to see some solid proof before I override what the thousands of professionals who combed through these sites have stated.

eye witness testimony is considered proof in most courts. But if you don't believe some witnesses that fine. or think you know better or EXPERTS know better than they do concerning what they saw and heard. that's fine.

The engineers have had multiple stories even the official engineers, I'm not an engineer so frankly I don't what to believe about that. the fact that there are some apparently reputable engineers that question it does give me some pause. you dismiss them all, you think they are all kooks, fools or idiots. OK maybe. I really can't say but i doubt it.

To me something still stinks.

Sertes
08-28-2010, 01:34 PM
Read the debate Sertes and I had on this, or do a simple search on the internet. There were all kinds of things blowing up in WTC7 - generators and such. and completely compiled and reported by both the firemen in the building and the NIST reports.

Jim... read slowly... WTC7 had explosions BEFORE the first Twin Tower collapse.

jimnyc
08-28-2010, 04:10 PM
What about the eyewitness report of explosions BEFORE the Buildings came down Jimmy. I'm talking about building 7 only. is that Included in what you consider evidence or do we completely dismiss it? Jennings was in the building and was knocked backwards by an explosion and the stairs on the 6 floor was blown out from under his feet. Before the Buildings fell. the Building was built FOR terrorist attacks and natural disasters. why would anything blow up before the buildings fell? I've haven't heard a good explanation for it yet

[QUOTE=Sertes;439545]Jim... read slowly... WTC7 had explosions BEFORE the first Twin Tower collapse.

Umm, guys, I WAS talking about before the building came down. There were all kinds of things blowing up in the building, which would be typical from a massive fire. Did I write somewhere that these things blowing up happened after the building collapsed? I'm unsure where you guys got that from what I wrote.

jimnyc
08-28-2010, 04:21 PM
I've read most of it a while back. It's so mannnyy pages. But as I said I've try to weigh the evidence from all sources. not just what supports any one point of view.

Then why are you asking about what was blowing up in the building and eyewitness reports - both of which are in various agencies reports?


What about the eyewitness report of explosions BEFORE the Buildings came down Jimmy. I'm talking about building 7 only. is that Included in what you consider evidence or do we completely dismiss it? Jennings was in the building and was knocked backwards by an explosion and the stairs on the 6 floor was blown out from under his feet. Before the Buildings fell. the Building was built FOR terrorist attacks and natural disasters. why would anything blow up before the buildings fell? I've haven't heard a good explanation for it yet.


Then you haven't read the NIST report as claimed as it explains the fall in much detail.


It's not a matter of what I want to believe it's matter of evidence i can't dismiss. There are some items that can be dismissed and easily refuted this and other items about 7 IMO aren't so simple.

not wanting to believe something can be just a blinding Jim.

I'm not much of a bangwagon guy


I've read some . there are so maaany pages.
Yes there is plenty of solid stuff not all of it jibs with the official stories.
And even the 9-11 commission Chairs said they were lied too and not given all of the info they needed. so the official reports are suspect as well. that's not to say that it's all crap but. but the official reports are not to be taken a holy writ either.

And with all that, is there ANY physical proof, even a shred, that any of the crash scenes happened any other way than what we read in the official reports? And how much out of those reports have been verified to the official story - TONS.


eye witness testimony is considered proof in most courts. But if you don't believe some witnesses that fine. or think you know better or EXPERTS know better than they do concerning what they saw and heard. that's fine.

If you're still talking about the things blowing up in WTC7 - even the firemen in the building reported explosions, so I do believe that, but in a controlled demolition you don't have an explosion go off every now and again only to have the building fall 7 hours later. What other eyewitnesses are you speaking of that you feel I have dismissed?


The engineers have had multiple stories even the official engineers, I'm not an engineer so frankly I don't what to believe about that. the fact that there are some apparently reputable engineers that question it does give me some pause. you dismiss them all, you think they are all kooks, fools or idiots. OK maybe. I really can't say but i doubt it.

To me something still stinks.

Did any of the engineers that might have differed a bit from others claim it was a controlled demolition? If so, please link me up. And reputable engineers who report completely on a few seconds collapse don't mean shit - unless they actually got in there with the building, got their hands dirty, and delivered us answers based on "hands on" investigation.

I find it odd that anyone would believe our government did this without a single shred of physical evidence out of a billion pounds of rubble - but they have nothing to show that this is the case. I think our government is capable of all kinds of shady things but I tend to believe in proof and facts instead of guessing at the worst with zero proof.

Sertes
08-28-2010, 05:59 PM
What about the eyewitness report of explosions BEFORE the Buildings came down Jimmy. I'm talking about building 7 only. is that Included in what you consider evidence or do we completely dismiss it? Jennings was in the building and was knocked backwards by an explosion and the stairs on the 6 floor was blown out from under his feet. Before the Buildings fell. the Building was built FOR terrorist attacks and natural disasters. why would anything blow up before the buildings fell? I've haven't heard a good explanation for it yet

Umm, guys, I WAS talking about before the building came down. There were all kinds of things blowing up in the building, which would be typical from a massive fire. Did I write somewhere that these things blowing up happened after the building collapsed? I'm unsure where you guys got that from what I wrote.

Timeline: AA11 on north tower. UA175 on south tower. They start burning.

NOW you have explosions at WTC7 !!

Then, half an hour later the south tower collapses. Then, half an hour later the north tower collapses.

According to Official Conspiracy Theory the debris from the falling towers start a fire on WTC7, that 7 hours later collapses.

Sertes
08-28-2010, 06:03 PM
Did any of the engineers that might have differed a bit from others claim it was a controlled demolition? If so, please link me up.

Here: 1,200 architects and engineers, listed with name, surname, title and occupation, provide a list of 10 elements in common between controlled demolitions and the 3 9/11 "collapses".

ae911truth.org (http://ae911truth.org)

jimnyc
08-28-2010, 06:06 PM
Here: 1,200 architects and engineers, listed with name, surname, title and occupation, provide a list of 10 elements in common between controlled demolitions and the 3 9/11 "collapses".

ae911truth.org (http://ae911truth.org)

Please do try and keep up. He stated that official engineers that were on the ground, actually involved in the investigation, had disagreed. I then asked my question, and you tossed in your post which has nothing to do with what he and I were discussing.

jimnyc
08-28-2010, 06:11 PM
Timeline: AA11 on north tower. UA175 on south tower. They start burning.

NOW you have explosions at WTC7 !!

Then, half an hour later the south tower collapses. Then, half an hour later the north tower collapses.

According to Official Conspiracy Theory the debris from the falling towers start a fire on WTC7, that 7 hours later collapses.

Damage to building - proven, even in a picture showing a massive whole missing.

Massive fires inside - as told by many firefighters and their battalion leaders.

Generators and such blew up during the day, as per testimony from firefighters inside the building.

Meters showed the building was actually shifting throughout the day, so they pulled the firefighters out - testimony of firefighters and their battalion leaders.

I imagine enough debris falling on the building, enough to take out an entire corner of the building, would be enough to cause generators and other electrical devices to explode and cause massive fires as well as massive structural damage from both the debris falling and the subsequent fires.

Sertes
08-28-2010, 06:18 PM
Damage to building - proven, even in a picture showing a massive whole missing.

Massive fires inside - as told by many firefighters and their battalion leaders.

Generators and such blew up during the day, as per testimony from firefighters inside the building.

Meters showed the building was actually shifting throughout the day, so they pulled the firefighters out - testimony of firefighters and their battalion leaders.

I imagine enough debris falling on the building, enough to take out an entire corner of the building, would be enough to cause generators and other electrical devices to explode and cause massive fires as well as massive structural damage from both the debris falling and the subsequent fires.

Please do try and keep up. We were not discussing evidence of debris AFTER THE COLLAPSES OF THE TWIN TOWERS; we were discussing Barry Jennings who got hit by an explosion in WTC7 half an hour BEFORE the collapse of either tower.
So there were NONE of the debris you're talking about in WTC7 yet
But there were already explosions.

PbbZE7c3a8Q
4 min 49 sec

jimnyc
08-28-2010, 06:26 PM
Please do try and keep up. We were not discussing evidence of debris AFTER THE COLLAPSES OF THE TWIN TOWERS; we were discussing Barry Jennings who got hit by an explosion in WTC7 half an hour BEFORE the collapse of either tower.
So there were NONE of the debris you're talking about in WTC7 yet
But there were already explosions.

So thousands and thousands of people there and this one man has a different story? No other person heard the explosions other than him? If anything, the surrounding buildings were probably being hit with falling debris for quite some time after the towers were initially hit.

jimnyc
08-28-2010, 06:28 PM
I also believe he was with a member of Giuliani's staff, as well as other firemen in the lobby and near vicinity. Why aren't all of these people running to the press with conspiracies of explosions in WTC7 before the other 2 towers fell?

Gaffer
08-28-2010, 09:11 PM
Explosives leave residue. There was no residue at any buildings.

Now just for shits and giggles have any of the truthers ever looked at the possibility that if there were explosives planted and set off that they might have been done by other muslim terrorists attacking from the ground? Why would it have to be the US government? Some mission impossible jihadis could have been behind it all. :laugh:

revelarts
08-28-2010, 10:32 PM
I also believe he was with a member of Giuliani's staff, as well as other firemen in the lobby and near vicinity. Why aren't all of these people running to the press with conspiracies of explosions in WTC7 before the other 2 towers fell?


For one thing some people who have gone to the press aren't really welcomed. If you were a reporter would you run his story Jimmy? There's a video of one Eyewitness who said he heard explosions in the basement of building 2 (?) Then he heard plans hit above. That's in the raw footage but what aired on TV was cut, and his story was "corrected" to go along with the official story. I doubt there's some mass cover-up it was probably just lazy reporting, easy reporting, --lets not make waves, --He must be mistaken the experts say reporting. It's just easier to go along with Guys like you that are so upset at the notion of anything but the story of steel buildings falling from 2 fires.

but to your question specifically, the firemen weren't with him only "mr Hess" was.
But do you see what your doing with your questions. You are dismissing his testimony not based on what he's said but based on lack of corroborating testimony. Which is a legitimate to ask for of course but it doesn't negate the truth of his testimony at all. Well below is Mr. Hess's interview on 9-11 and then a later interview. He expanded and changed his story a bit later. but the day of he simply gave a less detailed but nearly exact copy of what Mr. Jennings said. that there was an explosion near the 8th floor stairwell.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6e3K9jcPdXc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6e3K9jcPdXc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hy5lpp6yADw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hy5lpp6yADw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Jimmy here's my problem,
it's hard to get get any of the story strait, I've found lying and misquotes and changed stories and speculation on all sides.
My own council says that 7 stinks.

I've yet to here a definitive answer on why the Jennings and Hess in 7 before the collapse heard explosions felt the building shake etc.. It sounds like you have speculated debris to your satisfaction. I'm still not sure.

revelarts
08-28-2010, 10:33 PM
Graffer

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q_OIXfkXEj0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q_OIXfkXEj0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

:laugh2:

revelarts
08-28-2010, 10:47 PM
Jimmy, you asked about different reasons for the collaspe from the official story.
It's been a while since i've really dug into this stuff that deep I'm not sure i can just dig it up for you. But if I remember correctly the 1st fema report said one thing then it was something else from NIST years later some variation and some corrections. BUt those are the official reports. however there's been officail speculation without the "hands ons" inspection that your talking about that's been used in news reports , by gov't spokesmen and most others.

an MIT professor had one theory other scientist and engineers from around the country have given several different explanations that became part of the air that everything else had to be compared to well before the OFFICIAL reports came out. some said the truss where the problem, some said the rivets, some said the steel melted, others said it weakened, some said the impact and pancake force of the uppers stories was enough later others said no you have to combine it with the weaker steel. that's what i'm talking about.

Noir
08-28-2010, 11:21 PM
I think this 10 second clip shows resonable doubt for anyone who sees it, the building falls in a uniform motion, perpendicular to the ground and almost at free fall speed. Its just too perfect a collapse to have been done by nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Sertes
08-29-2010, 11:19 AM
Explosives leave residue. There was no residue at any buildings.

Now just for shits and giggles have any of the truthers ever looked at the possibility that if there were explosives planted and set off that they might have been done by other muslim terrorists attacking from the ground? Why would it have to be the US government? Some mission impossible jihadis could have been behind it all. :laugh:

AGAIN: no one blames US gov!

And for your assertion "explosives leave residue": that's true. If you don't want to find it you simply don't look for it!


12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

krisy
08-29-2010, 12:14 PM
AGAIN: no one blames US gov!

And for your assertion "explosives leave residue": that's true. If you don't want to find it you simply don't look for it!



http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Again,if not the government,then who?

Gaffer
08-29-2010, 12:48 PM
AGAIN: no one blames US gov!

And for your assertion "explosives leave residue": that's true. If you don't want to find it you simply don't look for it!



http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Your saying the government didn't look for residue traces, but they aren't to blame. You say it's all a big cover up by the government, but they're not to blame. As Krissy asked, who is?

Sertes
08-30-2010, 03:52 AM
Your saying the government didn't look for residue traces, but they aren't to blame. You say it's all a big cover up by the government, but they're not to blame. As Krissy asked, who is?

I'm saying that NIST got congress mandate to investigate cause and dynamic of the three collapses, and they didn't even test the residue for explosives/high incendiaries compounds.

That can be blamed on the system, because I bet people is not informed about this and many other crucial issues on 9/11.

When the people will know they will ask for a second, real investigation, with subpoena power. Then the investigators will give us names.

It took 14 years for the Zapruder film to go on prime-time tv; After 9 years many will see for the first time the collapse of WTC7, then we'll see what happens.

jimnyc
08-30-2010, 08:57 AM
I'm saying that NIST got congress mandate to investigate cause and dynamic of the three collapses, and they didn't even test the residue for explosives/high incendiaries compounds.

That can be blamed on the system, because I bet people is not informed about this and many other crucial issues on 9/11.

When the people will know they will ask for a second, real investigation, with subpoena power. Then the investigators will give us names.

It took 14 years for the Zapruder film to go on prime-time tv; After 9 years many will see for the first time the collapse of WTC7, then we'll see what happens.

Your own link states why they didn't search for residue:


NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.
Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.


As for the dolts always talking about engineers who solely saw video clips who state it was a controlled demolition, I'll take the following people who did in depth research for a better answer:


Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

And lastly, I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't even live in the USA to know better - but the collapse of WTC7 has been aired on national stations thousands and thousands of times on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and tons of pundits shows. Additionally, thanks to conspiracy nuts like yourself, it's probably been viewed by the general public millions upon millions of times on the internet.

Ok, this is really the last one. You don't seem to want to say WHO you think pulled off this conspiracy, only that we aren't being told the truth. They must have had thousands of people involved in years of planning - if they wanted to bring it down themselves, why not detonate it in a manner that it fell a different way to avoid people as smart as you from foiling their master plan? Are you saying they pulled off perhaps the best plan of all time, but forgot about little details that someone like yourself can solve from Italy?

jimnyc
08-30-2010, 09:01 AM
AGAIN: no one blames US gov!

Did you not yourself implicate Dick Cheney as lying as part of a cover up? Was he not part of the US government? Maybe he was flying solo and acted as a citizen and performed controlled demolitions and flew missiles along with a few other citizens?

Again, you like to play the conspiracy part but till this very day you have not provided one piece of factual and real evidence. Not one shred. Oh, unless you consider secretly moving the passengers to a hidden location and killing them before replacing the plane with a missile to hit the Pentagon. Umm, yeah, that's a great story! LOL :lol:

Nukeman
08-30-2010, 09:40 AM
I think this 10 second clip shows resonable doubt for anyone who sees it, the building falls in a uniform motion, perpendicular to the ground and almost at free fall speed. Its just too perfect a collapse to have been done by nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9AUmm It wasn't "done by nature" there was NOTHING natural about the intentional distruction of the twin towers.. It was deliberate!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gaffer
08-30-2010, 11:04 AM
I think this 10 second clip shows resonable doubt for anyone who sees it, the building falls in a uniform motion, perpendicular to the ground and almost at free fall speed. Its just too perfect a collapse to have been done by nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Actually nature had a lot to do with the collapse. It's called gravity. Weakening even one section of a tall building will cause a collapse. As the weight of the floors above come down on each other it pancakes. Gravity rules, everything goes straight down.

The building was shifting. That alone can cause generators and gas lines to explode. Which in turn causes fires. Fire melts steel. It doesn't have to be super hot, just continuous. In the case of building 7 the fires were burning for 7 hours.

One or two generators blow and other generators have to pick up the load. If it becomes too much and no one is there to monitor them they will blow too. Maybe an hour or two after the first ones blew. How the generators were effected by the initial plane strikes would depend on their locations in the building. There probably were a number of explosions throughout the day until the building collapsed.

Noir
08-30-2010, 11:24 AM
Actually nature had a lot to do with the collapse. It's called gravity. Weakening even one section of a tall building will cause a collapse. As the weight of the floors above come down on each other it pancakes. Gravity rules, everything goes straight down.

No, it does not lol.
A building of that size, 70ish floors, will have dozens of seperate support structures, each taking their own share of the weight of the building. For the buidling to fall in a uniform motion, perpendicular to the ground *all* of the support structures in the buidling would of had to of given way within milliseconds of eachother.

Also given the building fell more or less at free fall speed there could not of been any 'pancaking' which would of slowed the collapse (it may of only slowed it by a few seconds, but in terms of physics those seconds count for allot)


The building was shifting. That alone can cause generators and gas lines to explode. Which in turn causes fires. Fire melts steel. It doesn't have to be super hot, just continuous. In the case of building 7 the fires were burning for 7 hours.

Which would make it the first ever Steel building to be downed by fire and fire alone. Also, note that these generator explosions would not be uniform and would put more pressure on the areas of the buliding that they effected, making it less likly that this building would collapse in such a uniform motion.


One or two generators blow and other generators have to pick up the load. If it becomes too much and no one is there to monitor them they will blow too. Maybe an hour or two after the first ones blew. How the generators were effected by the initial plane strikes would depend on their locations in the building. There probably were a number of explosions throughout the day until the building collapsed.

A number of random, uncontrolled explosions leading to the uniform collapse of a mega-structure, doesn't sound likely to me.

Pagan
08-30-2010, 11:28 AM
Actually nature had a lot to do with the collapse. It's called gravity. Weakening even one section of a tall building will cause a collapse. As the weight of the floors above come down on each other it pancakes. Gravity rules, everything goes straight down.

The building was shifting. That alone can cause generators and gas lines to explode. Which in turn causes fires. Fire melts steel. It doesn't have to be super hot, just continuous. In the case of building 7 the fires were burning for 7 hours.

One or two generators blow and other generators have to pick up the load. If it becomes too much and no one is there to monitor them they will blow too. Maybe an hour or two after the first ones blew. How the generators were effected by the initial plane strikes would depend on their locations in the building. There probably were a number of explosions throughout the day until the building collapsed.

The problem is not only the "official" explanation of the twin towers defy's the laws of physic's there's also what happened to tower 7.

That and the crash into the Pentagon also contradicts not only every eye witness there which includes police officers, military and civilians.

More money was spent investigating Clinton's Blow Job than these attacks.

jimnyc
08-30-2010, 11:32 AM
No, it does not lol.
A building of that size, 70ish floors, will have dozens of seperate support structures, each taking their own share of the weight of the building. For the buidling to fall in a uniform motion, perpendicular to the ground *all* of the support structures in the buidling would of had to of given way within milliseconds of eachother.

Try reading the reports from the engineers who did the reports instead of replying on a ten second clip.


Also given the building fell more or less at free fall speed there could not of been any 'pancaking' which would of slowed the collapse (it may of only slowed it by a few seconds, but in terms of physics those seconds count for allot)

Again, read the report, it's all in there and explained in very long detail.


Which would make it the first ever Steel building to be downed by fire and fire alone. Also, note that these generator explosions would not be uniform and would put more pressure on the areas of the buliding that they effected, making it less likly that this building would collapse in such a uniform motion.


It wasn't fire and fire alone, did you not see about 18 floors of one of the corners of the building completely gutted? And I love how you explain what would have happened - should we listen to your explanation or from the hundreds of engineers who actually inspected everything?


A number of random, uncontrolled explosions leading to the uniform collapse of a mega-structure, doesn't sound likely to me.

First you say it was fire, now explosions. Stop regurgitating what you read on the conspiracy sites and READ the reports from the engineers.

jimnyc
08-30-2010, 11:34 AM
The problem is not only the "official" explanation of the twin towers defy's the laws of physic's there's also what happened to tower 7.

That and the crash into the Pentagon also contradicts not only every eye witness there which includes police officers, military and civilians..

Oh brother. "defies the law of physics" - and yet the engineers with hundreds of years of experience combined, if not thousands, say otherwise.

The Pentagon is a retarded issue to argue. Tons of plane parts and bodies were found there, and identified as those on the plane. nuff said.

Pagan
08-30-2010, 11:48 AM
Oh brother. "defies the law of physics" - and yet the engineers with hundreds of years of experience combined, if not thousands, say otherwise.

The Pentagon is a retarded issue to argue. Tons of plane parts and bodies were found there, and identified as those on the plane. nuff said.

No there weren't all one has to do is look.

Like for example here's one MIT engineer who is one of many who question

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=video&cd=1&ved=0CDYQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymotion.com%2Fvideo%2Fx1e 3og_wtc-collapse-was-controlled-demolit_news&ei=hNF7TOC3HIaCsQOBvbSCBw&usg=AFQjCNF2iffhC5L_EDIWGFJzTOWhIWEqYQ

For the record I'm not saying it was government or what not. It's just that there are way too many questions that need to be answered

jimnyc
08-30-2010, 12:25 PM
No there weren't all one has to do is look.

Like for example here's one MIT engineer who is one of many who question

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=video&cd=1&ved=0CDYQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymotion.com%2Fvideo%2Fx1e 3og_wtc-collapse-was-controlled-demolit_news&ei=hNF7TOC3HIaCsQOBvbSCBw&usg=AFQjCNF2iffhC5L_EDIWGFJzTOWhIWEqYQ

For the record I'm not saying it was government or what not. It's just that there are way too many questions that need to be answered

Was this MIT engineer part of the official team of investigators on the ground, or is he another "armchair QB"? Perhaps the most infamous of all these armchair QB's is Steven Jones, which some of the best engineers in the world literally laughed at when he submitted his paperwork.

I don't really care about what people THINK, I care about the people who actually spent thousands of hours on the ground and in the rubble and actually had access to people who were there for thousand of interviews. And not surprisingly, these engineers tell a different story.

FACTS will always be superior to theories.

jimnyc
08-30-2010, 12:28 PM
No there weren't all one has to do is look.

Like for example here's one MIT engineer who is one of many who question

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=video&cd=1&ved=0CDYQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymotion.com%2Fvideo%2Fx1e 3og_wtc-collapse-was-controlled-demolit_news&ei=hNF7TOC3HIaCsQOBvbSCBw&usg=AFQjCNF2iffhC5L_EDIWGFJzTOWhIWEqYQ

For the record I'm not saying it was government or what not. It's just that there are way too many questions that need to be answered

I'm confused BTW - your video is about WTC7 and thus that's what I replied about - but not sure if your garbled response gave any explanation as to how tons of the plane were found at the pentagon and bodies identified. What's your "theory" about the Pentagon? And specifically where did the military and/or police contradict themselves to the point that you feel something other than the plane hijacked crashed into the Pentagon?

Sertes
08-30-2010, 01:00 PM
Your own link states why they didn't search for residue:

Good to me, it's the first admission I get out from you.
NIST didn't search for explosive/high incendiary residue

Sertes
08-30-2010, 01:11 PM
Did you not yourself implicate Dick Cheney as lying as part of a cover up?

Either he's lying to cover his ass for allowing the third plane strike the pentagon or Norman Mineta, US minister of transportation lied under oath during the testimony before 9/11 commission.


Was he not part of the US government?

Of course he was, but a part is not the whole. And like I said Cheney and Mineta were both part of the US gov and they disagree on a crucial issue:
where was the vice president at 9:30 when there was time and the possibiliy for an intercept/shootdown of the third plane. And on who was on control at that time.
9/11 commission report says Cheney was in the bunker tunnel
Mineta says Cheney was in the command bunker, in command and aware of the plane location and direction.


Maybe he was flying solo and acted as a citizen and performed controlled demolitions and flew missiles along with a few other citizens?

Maybe he employed contractors from halliburton/blackwater, who knows?
You're implying that he either acted as representative of the gov or either all alone? Two extreme cases with no in-between?


Again, you like to play the conspiracy part but till this very day you have not provided one piece of factual and real evidence. Not one shred. Oh, unless you consider secretly moving the passengers to a hidden location and killing them before replacing the plane with a missile to hit the Pentagon. Umm, yeah, that's a great story! LOL :lol:

Sorry, you know I don't answer to misquotes, blatant lies and/or insults.
If you want to know my opinion you simply ask me.

Sertes
08-30-2010, 01:20 PM
One last clarification to Jim: our debate was before the Official Version for collapse of WTC7 was established, today we have it

The Official Version says that WTC7 collapsed from fires, debris only started the fires, and even without the damage from debris WTC7 would have collapsed from fires exactly the same as those experienced by it on 9/11.

That's the Official Version.

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/news/library/6-2b.jpg

NIST NCSTAR1A page 48

Pagan
08-30-2010, 01:26 PM
Well there are those who accept without question what there are told and then there are some who ask questions.

Bottom line is the official explanation defy's the laws of physics, you could say well it's a one off but all three buildings? Nope

All three towers imploded and fell at the rate of a free fall, they didn't "topple" nor did they fall at the speed as if it was a "sandwich" effect. Nor does kerosene burn at the level of heat that is required to melt the steel as explained.

Just google Steven E. Jones and there are others also asking how all three towers fell at -

There's too many questions that remain either answered or appear to be just flat out lies.

revelarts
08-30-2010, 02:07 PM
One last clarification to Jim: our debate was before the Official Version for collapse of WTC7 was established, today we have it

The Official Version says that WTC7 collapsed from fires, debris only started the fires, and even without the damage from debris WTC7 would have collapsed from fires exactly the same as those experienced by it on 9/11.

That's the Official Version.

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/news/library/6-2b.jpg

NIST NCSTAR1A page 48

what?
is that true?

Ok but the jet fuel was the initial catalyst for heat of the fires wtc 1&2. even though a lot of that burned off very quickly in the fire balls.
but 7 didn't have the same to start, however there was a some diesel fuel.
But still the fires were nothing like other buildings that have burned much longer , like 24 hours, and over more building area. And they never fell.

And I still don't know what those early explosions were there.

it stinks really bad.

Sertes
08-30-2010, 02:28 PM
what?
is that true?


True or not, that's the Official Version by NIST.

Here, this article is mine (Riccardo Pizzirani - SERTES), you'll find all the references to the official documents, I wrote it exactly a year ago and it's still unchallenged (of course, it's based on work of real scientists!):

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-09-26/nist-demise-freefall

jimnyc
08-30-2010, 04:53 PM
Well there are those who accept without question what there are told and then there are some who ask questions.

Bottom line is the official explanation defy's the laws of physics, you could say well it's a one off but all three buildings? Nope

All three towers imploded and fell at the rate of a free fall, they didn't "topple" nor did they fall at the speed as if it was a "sandwich" effect. Nor does kerosene burn at the level of heat that is required to melt the steel as explained.

Just google Steven E. Jones and there are others also asking how all three towers fell at -

There's too many questions that remain either answered or appear to be just flat out lies.

Yes, a conspiracy nut with no background on demolitions and a whole group of people with the same background. His own damn school turned their backs on him! LOL


Steven E. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. He has created the paper which has created the ground swell around the 911 conspiracy theories. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.
But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.
Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.
A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."






Read the rest of the page - you'll learn about these funny sites that have collections of engineers disputing the official version - then read further to find out who they really are! :lol:

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

jimnyc
08-30-2010, 04:54 PM
One last clarification to Jim: our debate was before the Official Version for collapse of WTC7 was established, today we have it

The Official Version says that WTC7 collapsed from fires, debris only started the fires, and even without the damage from debris WTC7 would have collapsed from fires exactly the same as those experienced by it on 9/11.

That's the Official Version.



NIST NCSTAR1A page 48

And my original stance stays as is, as the explanations that were given at the time of our debate still stand.

jimnyc
08-30-2010, 04:56 PM
True or not, that's the Official Version by NIST.

Here, this article is mine (Riccardo Pizzirani - SERTES), you'll find all the references to the official documents, I wrote it exactly a year ago and it's still unchallenged (of course, it's based on work of real scientists!):

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-09-26/nist-demise-freefall

Send your page off to some organizations/agencies that are involved in peer reviews on this matter and get back to me. There are hundreds of nuts out their like you and all are laughed at by the engineers actually in the business, not the engineers you cite who have backgrounds with nothing to do with demolition or buildings.

Pagan
08-30-2010, 05:24 PM
Yes, a conspiracy nut with no background on demolitions and a whole group of people with the same background. His own damn school turned their backs on him! LOL



Read the rest of the page - you'll learn about these funny sites that have collections of engineers disputing the official version - then read further to find out who they really are! :lol:

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

Believe what you will, but the reality still is the official explanation defy's the laws of physics. The towers fell at the speed of free fall and Kerosene does not burn that hot.

Questions need to be answered.

jimnyc
08-30-2010, 05:32 PM
Believe what you will, but the reality still is the official explanation defy's the laws of physics. The towers fell at the speed of free fall and Kerosene does not burn that hot.

Questions need to be answered.

And yet those involved in the investigation, from various agencies, all come to pretty much the same conclusion and they all have ruled out a controlled demolition. You can question their conclusions or rant all day long about conspiracies - but when after 9 years pass and not a single piece of evidence to any theory can be produced, and the official investigators give us enough proof that it would take a year to read - I'll take the side of those who were actually on the ground. Do you not find it odd, that if the official version were incorrect, that not one piece of evidence has been found to the contrary?

I'm done playing with you guys for now, although I'll read your comics from time to time. Post some kind, ANY kind, of solid evidence that is irrefutable (Such as a ton of plane parts and bodies at the Pentagon), and I'll come back and admit you have a valid viewpoint. Till then, enjoy your tinfoil, and don't bite down on it!

Noir
08-30-2010, 06:46 PM
Try reading the reports from the engineers who did the reports instead of replying on a ten second clip.



Again, read the report, it's all in there and explained in very long detail.



It wasn't fire and fire alone, did you not see about 18 floors of one of the corners of the building completely gutted? And I love how you explain what would have happened - should we listen to your explanation or from the hundreds of engineers who actually inspected everything?



First you say it was fire, now explosions. Stop regurgitating what you read on the conspiracy sites and READ the reports from the engineers.

Mkay, will read the report and get back.

and btw, i only went from discussion fires to explosions because the person i was replying to did, so take up with them.

Sertes
08-30-2010, 07:18 PM
I'll take the side of those who were actually on the ground. Do you not find it odd, that if the official version were incorrect, that not one piece of evidence has been found to the contrary?

That would be auspicable, but remember that the Official Version on collapses we have now was made by people who WHERE NOT ON THE GROUND aftermath 9/11 but started working on it on 2003. The official version is made out by 3 studies: 1) FEMA study (were on ground), later expanded/explained in 2) 9/11 Commission Report, later clarified/technically explained only about collapses by 3) NIST NCSTAR1 and 1A. NIST was not in the ground, and they didn't even receive a single piece of steel from WTC7. (Really!)


I'm done playing with you guys for now, although I'll read your comics from time to time. Post some kind, ANY kind, of solid evidence that is irrefutable (Such as a ton of plane parts and bodies at the Pentagon), and I'll come back and admit you have a valid viewpoint. Till then, enjoy your tinfoil, and don't bite down on it!

Well, thank you for your hospitality, even after years your hospitality is something one can trust. We disagree on almost everything, but you hold up to first amendament even in your own "house", I don't have your respect but you have mine. (is this a good answer to "enjoy your tinfoil?:laugh:)

Cya.

Pagan
08-30-2010, 09:55 PM
That would be auspicable, but remember that the Official Version on collapses we have now was made by people who WHERE NOT ON THE GROUND aftermath 9/11 but started working on it on 2003. The official version is made out by 3 studies: 1) FEMA study (were on ground), later expanded/explained in 2) 9/11 Commission Report, later clarified/technically explained only about collapses by 3) NIST NCSTAR1 and 1A. NIST was not in the ground, and they didn't even receive a single piece of steel from WTC7. (Really!)



Well, thank you for your hospitality, even after years your hospitality is something one can trust. We disagree on almost everything, but you hold up to first amendament even in your own "house", I don't have your respect but you have mine. (is this a good answer to "enjoy your tinfoil?:laugh:)

Cya.

Yep and the "Commie's" burned the Reichstag

-Cp
08-31-2010, 04:51 AM
Read the debate Sertes and I had on this, or do a simple search on the internet. There were all kinds of things blowing up in WTC7 - generators and such. and completely compiled and reported by both the firemen in the building and the NIST reports.

And others want to jump on the bandwagon about how the building fell just like a controlled demolition, but apparently want to discount the real explanations by the engineers ON THE SCENE and all the agencies involved. .

Right, and why not IGNORE the Architects and Engineers who call BULLSHIT on the official 9/11 report:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

1271 architectural and engineering professionals
and 9185 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.

jimnyc
08-31-2010, 08:08 AM
Right, and why not IGNORE the Architects and Engineers who call BULLSHIT on the official 9/11 report:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

1271 architectural and engineering professionals
and 9185 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.

Were any of them actually involved in the investigation? Do a little background on who all of those "architects and engineers" are and you'll find very few, if any, actually are involved in anything remotely to do with building demolitions, yet they proclaim to be experts on the towers.

BTW - wasn't it you that stated that anyone who didn't believe the official story was likely inbred? :lol:

revelarts
08-31-2010, 10:31 AM
Here's a demolition expert that's looking at WTC 7. He says WTC 1 and 2 didn't look like any demolition he had ever seen.
However he wasn't aware , at all , of the WTC 7 and was shown it unaware that it fell on the same day.

When he sees WTC 7 fall he's sure it's a controlled demolition. He's recognizes the it as falling consistent with demolitions. I can find no reason why he would say this if it's he wasn't sure it was true. Unless he's part of some counter conspiracy to make people believe in demolition. or was paid. both seem unlikely.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k3DRhwRN06I?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k3DRhwRN06I?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


here he confirms that he still of that opinion. and offers his own explanation of why U.S. demolition companies are not running to the press in agreement with him.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QajDxF9uEf4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QajDxF9uEf4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

FEMA said fire only, NIST says fire only. they say that the damage to building didn't contribute to collapse. And they didn't look for explosives.
Silversten the owner of the building tells the fire dept to "Pull it". it only burned for 5 hours on one side mainly. no other steel frame buildings have ever fallen by fire. there are some police that did hear and experience and report explosions in WTC7 just before it fell.

something's up with 7

-Cp
08-31-2010, 12:22 PM
Were any of them actually involved in the investigation? Do a little background on who all of those "architects and engineers" are and you'll find very few, if any, actually are involved in anything remotely to do with building demolitions, yet they proclaim to be experts on the towers.

BTW - wasn't it you that stated that anyone who didn't believe the official story was likely inbred? :lol:

Have a link to back up your claims on their lack of demolition expertise?

It was- but unlike some, I don't have a "dog in this race" from the aspect of being such a govt. fan-boy that I'm unwilling to objectively look at both sides.

jimnyc
08-31-2010, 12:51 PM
Here's a demolition expert that's looking at WTC 7. He says WTC 1 and 2 didn't look like any demolition he had ever seen.
However he wasn't aware , at all , of the WTC 7 and was shown it unaware that it fell on the same day.

When he sees WTC 7 fall he's sure it's a controlled demolition. He's recognizes the it as falling consistent with demolitions. I can find no reason why he would say this if it's he wasn't sure it was true. Unless he's part of some counter conspiracy to make people believe in demolition. or was paid. both seem unlikely.

here he confirms that he still of that opinion. and offers his own explanation of why U.S. demolition companies are not running to the press in agreement with him.

One question - was he officially involved in the investigation on the ground?


FEMA said fire only, NIST says fire only. they say that the damage to building didn't contribute to collapse. And they didn't look for explosives.
Silversten the owner of the building tells the fire dept to "Pull it". it only burned for 5 hours on one side mainly. no other steel frame buildings have ever fallen by fire. there are some police that did hear and experience and report explosions in WTC7 just before it fell.

something's up with 7

The collapse, not looking for explosive residue, the "pull" and no other steel framed building collapsing from fire have been discussed and answered before, not just on this site, but many others. Did you read the reports in their entirety? Did you read the firemen's explanation that were in WTC7 explain why they were "pulled" from the building? If you read the reports you wouldn't be asking silly questions. Your simply forming opinions from both sides without reading the lengthy reports.

jimnyc
08-31-2010, 12:56 PM
Have a link to back up your claims on their lack of demolition expertise?

It was- but unlike some, I don't have a "dog in this race" from the aspect of being such a govt. fan-boy that I'm unwilling to objectively look at both sides.

I didn't provide names, degrees and/or locations of expertise. Don't you think if people wanted to give a shit what these people think they should be proving that to us?

Here's an actual peer reviewed paper: http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

And I know it's not the same exact site, but to show you what you're up against if you expect people to believe a lame website over the actual people who investigated the scenes:


RE: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

As Pat and I get further into this subject, we will inevitably get into people not directly involved in the movie, but those that feed the frenzy of conspiratorial theory. One such organization is the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", who pop up with increasing frequency as some type of "expert" authority for the 9/11 "truth" movement. Sort of a Jedi Council for conspiracy nutbars. So I decided to look into them further, and see just how authoritative they are.

A look at their website (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PressRelease30Jan2006.html) reveals they are certainly full of themselves. Boldfaced headlines scream out the word, "experts" at every turn:

EXPERTS CLAIM OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY IS A HOAX

Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.

Duluth, MN (PRWEB)
January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

Their most famous member, and co-founder, is Steven Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University. He has become famous for publishing a paper on the WTC collapse. Thus far this paper though, has only been reviewed, not in a journal on physics, or structural engineering, but in a Marxist journal of political economy (http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/jones.htm). BYU itself has rejected his work. Dr. Jones primary research has been, not in structural engineering or the reaction of metals to heat, but in cold fusion, which even in the physics community is regarded as bordering on alchemy. Even more bizarrely, his other famous published work was one right out of the World Weekly News, claiming that Jesus visited Central America (http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm) based on ancient Indian artwork.

So maybe the "scholars" have other "experts" from whom Dr. Jones (Indiana?) is relying on, so I decided to look over their list of "full members" described here (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html) as:

Currently, S9/11T has four categories of members: full members (FM), who have or have had academic appointments or the equivalent;

I compiled the list of members and categorized them by specialty, position and institution, which actually was rather difficult. Oddly enough many of the members don't list their qualifications or university, which is quite strange, since every professor I have ever met is more than happy to go on for hours about their academic credentials.

I came up with a list of 76 members, expecting it to be full of Ivy League engineers and distinguished Middle Eastern scholars, experts bent on proving that the US government, and not Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centers. I was wrong.

Out of the 76 "experts" the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and "humanities" came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the "physicists", Jeffrey Farrer (http://www.physics.byu.edu/directory.aspx?personid=23), isn't even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. One has to wonder whether Steven Jones' janitor is also listed as an associate member?

So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn't seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Petit) with anti-matter weapons!

The second engineer is Judy Wood, who has been mentioned in the comments here for her bizarre billiard ball from the top of the World Trade Center theory. OK, Ms. Wood is an actual Mechanical Engineer at Clemson, but thus far her work has been primarily focused on the stresses of dentistry (http://www.ces.clemson.edu/%7Ewoodj/). A fascinating field no doubt, but hardly relevant to planes crashing into buildings.

So how many structural engineers are listed? Absolutely zero. How many experts in Middle Eastern studies, or the Arabic language? Also zero. But they do have a professor of social work!

So I thought, maybe I am being too narrow minded? Maybe these are just America's best and brightest minds, even if they are working out of their fields of specialty. Noam Chomsky at least, regardless of what you think of his kooky politics, is a respected professor of linguistics at MIT. So I looked up this list of the top 20 universities in the world (17 located in the US) from the Economist (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4339960), expecting to find the schools of our distinguished scholars to be well represented on it.

Wrong. A total of one professor, Kevin Barrett, a Professor of Folk Lore at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was represented.

Total number of "scholars" from the Ivy League, zero. Total number of "scholars" from Tunxcis Community College, one.


http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

More great reading above for the inbred type with mushy brains who can be swayed by tinfoil. :laugh2:

revelarts
08-31-2010, 04:57 PM
One question - was he officially involved in the investigation on the ground?


NO, but it doesn't negate his assessment at all. None of the technical investigators of NIST or FEMA where on the ground when it fell either. and where using films to visually analyze and assess the fall as well.
your one question has no bearing on his professional conclusions Jimmy.



The collapse, not looking for explosive residue, the "pull" and no other steel framed building collapsing from fire have been discussed and answered before, not just on this site, but many others. Did you read the reports in their entirety? Did you read the firemen's explanation that were in WTC7 explain why they were "pulled" from the building? If you read the reports you wouldn't be asking silly questions. Your simply forming opinions from both sides without reading the lengthy reports.


not looking for residue is a fact apparently, the reasons why are debatable i suppose but the fact seems to be that they didn't. Discussed before ??? i'm not sure what your saying, I'm just sighting points that seemed to be agreed apon or established. A point that leaves the question open as to if there was any residue. that's all. it just leaves the door open.

brought down by fire.
Look Jimmy it seems the conclusion of the reports is it fell from fire.
I'm not going to dispute the reports details as to why they think fire brought it down. The fact is they think that fire brought it down.
And no other similar steel building have fallen from fire. What's the problem with restating the relevant info. the reports add detail but not really any substance to the point right?
You might consider it silly and your satisfied by the official... technical explanation. but it to me it's a clear problem. NO other steel frame buildings but this one? And others have burned longer over a wider area and as hot?

"Pull it" yes I've read the alternative explanations.
It seems the fireman's and Silverstien's explanations don't jib with the timing. It seems the building was cleared and allowed to burn very early in the day while the firefighters focused on the efforts at towers 1 & 2

Jimmy I've read parts of the official reports. I assume you've read them all? But you haven't said anything that really contradicts the short list of facts I've laid out.
so the conclusions drawn from those facts should be sound.

jimnyc
08-31-2010, 05:22 PM
NO, but it doesn't negate his assessment at all. None of the technical investigators of NIST or FEMA where on the ground when it fell either. and where using films to visually analyze and assess the fall as well.
your one question has no bearing on his professional conclusions Jimmy.

With all due respect, I have been over these things hundreds of times, and for whatever reason, I end up being drawn in at the sheer laziness of others to keep regurgitating the same damn points over and over. PLEASE read the following link to my debate with Sertes, PLEASE read the second link which is to a page the will clear up many of your theories and talk about the leading "protesters" against the official version. And lastly, PLEASE read as much as you can from as many official reports as you can. It's obvious via certain questions asked by many that they never read the report and are drawing conclusions on their own.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?7661-Was-9-11-an-inside-job

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

One last thing, cause everyone likes to point to ae911truth website. Why did they delete posts from professionals who blew Jones's theories out of the water - and then eventually remove the forum altogether when the pressure got too tough? They used to have names listed of those on the petition and removed that. It was funny watching them squirm and delete posts while many made them look foolish. Certainly not indicative of a professional organization (on the debunking 911 site, be sure to read the portion about Steven Jones!)

Sertes
09-01-2010, 07:21 AM
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html


Sorry mate, your source is obsolete. That shitty website was updated more than 2 years ago, and it lacks any reference to NIST NCSTAR1A (august 2008) which IS the OFFICIAL VERSION of cause and dynamic of WCT7 collapse.

So the website lacks all the crucial elements that even NIST had to admit:

- the fact WTC7 had a stage of free-fall collapse through the path of most resistance for 2.25 seconds
- the fact damage from debris from the twin towers didn't contribute to the collapse, debris merely started the 7-hours long fires
- the fact that WTC7 is the only steel-framed high-rise ever collapsed due to fires in history
- the fact that WTC7 collapsed due to a COMPLETELY NEW phenomenon which they named "fire-induced progressive collapse"

And FYI in the same paper NIST analized and ruled out the possibility that WTC7 was brought down by a single giant bomb (because they didn't register the loud noise that would be associated to that event), BUT of course they didn't explore the more logical ways to bring down a steel-framed high-rise, that is the use of linear-shaped cutting charges. That was august 2008 (draft) and september 2008 (final version).

Then a team of scientists of ae911truth led by chemist Niels Harrit made experiments to 4 separate powders indipendently recovered in the rubble, and conclusively proved all show a mixture of nano-thermite, an high incendiary compound used to melt steel. The paper they produced was published after passing peer-review. It's still unchallenged (do you know what it means when a peer-reviewed paper is unchallenged?)

That's just a recap of what happened in the last 2 years, to bring you up to speed on events your source lacks.

And by the way you never explained US Minister of Transportation Norman Mineta testimony under oath, in the debate or after.

jimnyc
09-01-2010, 08:08 AM
Sertes - I didn't send him to that site specifically for WTC7 but for a better picture on everything being discussed, including the "pull" which he had just mentioned. As for your analysis, you are still regurgitating Steven Jones' bullshit that has been being laughed at for years now, by his school, by his peers, and those with actual experience. ae911truth is a joke no different than the scholars for 911 truth. As for a steel building never falling before in history - I guess you forgot our debate already, or didn't want to read the bullshit site I linked to.

Which brings me full circle - you guys want to constantly make claims with ZERO PROOF - and it's obvious to a newborn baby that the majority of you aren't READING.

Sertes, for what its worth, YOU I believe are reading all the reports and other sites. You are always very well detailed and prepared with your arguments. I just think you fell off a ladder when you were a kid and hurt your medulla oblongata. :)

revelarts
09-02-2010, 12:07 AM
Jimmy, why would you send me to the site for the wider view when WTC7 is all I've been talking about.

I have read a few pages at all of the links you've posted and finally made it trough all of your past debate with Serte.

My focus has been on WTC7 and you haven't really brought any new light to the specific points I'm looking at.

the only thing new to me were a few 1 story large warehouse style steel buildings that had a partially collapsed from fire. That was interesting but not really comparable to the type of building WTC7 was. Have any comparable structures ever fallen from fire?

You tried to dismiss the demolition professional by saying he wasn't "on the ground". Sorry that's not a strong argument. I brought up 2 WTC7 eye witnesses, city employees, that heard explosions and or earthquake type activity before either WTC 1 &2 fell. You suggested at 1st that no one else heard it, implying that their testimony should be dismissed. Sorry i don't dismiss them because no on else was with them at the time. They know what they saw and heard. Then you speculated that it might be other damaged items from the initial plane crash. transformers etc. As far as i've seen so far there's no official proof of that either. However one those witness doesn't believe that's the case. he was told, by some investigator or official that it was a damaged boiler however the witness on the ground indicated that he's worked with boilers in the past and was not convinced at all that it was a boiler explosion.

I'm not sure how reading about other real but somewhat tangentially related details will bear on these facts. Starting with the main one that NIST makes the singularly unique pronouncement that building collapsed by fire alone.
I have and will look at other items but these specific facts for WTC7 are compelling to me.
You discount or dismiss them all I guess. It's completely beyond belief in your mind. That's fine.

On these specific facts and there implications we'll just disagree.

jimnyc
09-02-2010, 12:24 AM
Jimmy, why would you send me to the site for the wider view when WTC7 is all I've been talking about.

Because there is a ton of information on that site pertaining to WTC7? Does that make sense?

I have read a few pages at all of the links you've posted and finally made it trough all of your past debate with Serte.


My focus has been on WTC7 and you haven't really brought any new light to the specific points I'm looking at.

the only thing new to me were a few 1 story large warehouse style steel buildings that had a partially collapsed from fire. That was interesting but not really comparable to the type of building WTC7 was. Have any comparable structures ever fallen from fire?

That's because I'm NOT trying to debate you, I've done that once already. I made a few general statements and implored those that haven't read all the official documents, to do so before making comments and asking questions about things that have already been covered/answered.


You tried to dismiss the demolition professional by saying he wasn't "on the ground". Sorry that's not a strong argument. I brought up 2 WTC7 eye witnesses, city employees, that heard explosions and or earthquake type activity before either WTC 1 &2 fell. You suggested at 1st that no one else heard it, implying that their testimony should be dismissed. Sorry i don't dismiss them because no on else was with them at the time. They know what they saw and heard. Then you speculated that it might be other damaged items from the initial plane crash. transformers etc. As far as i've seen so far there's no official proof of that either. However one those witness doesn't believe that's the case. he was told, by some investigator or official that it was a damaged boiler however the witness on the ground indicated that he's worked with boilers in the past and was not convinced at all that it was a boiler explosion.

My point on this all along is that I'm very sure that things were blowing up in various buildings after the initial hits to the towers and the ensuing damaged it caused - and grew progressively worse as fires grew.


I'm not sure how reading about other real but somewhat tangentially related details will bear on these facts. Starting with the main one that NIST makes the singularly unique pronouncement that building collapsed by fire alone.
I have and will look at other items but these specific facts for WTC7 are compelling to me.
You discount or dismiss them all I guess. It's completely beyond belief in your mind. That's fine.

On these specific facts and there implications we'll just disagree.

I don't dismiss them on a whim as you try to imply, I've read thousands of pages of documents over the years and probably half a billion news sources and interviews. It's very hard to discuss it with people who haven't sat around for hours and hours reading the reports - but I'm sure as shit not going to scour every report for specific answers to questions at this time. I would imagine that anyone who truly believed there is more to this story, or an inside job, wouldn't mind reading the reports before drawing final conclusions. And I'll bet 90% of these people have otherwise spent plenty of time reading the conspiracy crap and running with it without reading the actual reports. That's a generalization, not directed at you.

revelarts
10-06-2010, 03:09 PM
Does anyone know which tower these guys where in?
And What EXACTLY are they talking about with these huge explosions.


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IO1ps1mzU8o?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IO1ps1mzU8o?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Aqv7yHQOtQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Aqv7yHQOtQ?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>