9/11 "Building What?" ad campaign

[Sertes]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[QUOTE=revelarts;439542]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

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]

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]

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]

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

[jimnyc]

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

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]

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]

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.

[youtube]PbbZE7c3a8Q[/youtube]
4 min 49 sec