One million New Yorkers to see Building 7 fall (AE911truth)

page: 18
41
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ohhwataloser
 


If you think debris from WTC 1 and resultant fires , which only happened by chance and could not have been planned for, were not significant in the collapse of WTC 7 what do you think the perps plan was if it was a cd ?

Was it just to blow up WTC 7 as it stood there untouched and solid as it had for decades and with the world watching ? Seem likely to you ? And for why ?




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by slugger9787
No Dave you really are not all ears, for an explaination that does not involve SD weapons, armies of agents, or humans in a mile raidus being dums as a sack of hammers, so do not even shame yourself by claiming to be listening.



Up until now, that's 100% what the conspiracy people have put forward.



Dave you are not listening, in fact in your avatar, which has a quoe in it paraphrased "AWWWWWW GOD, (man thinks to self, and by thinking is occupying his mind on thoughts other than what is about to be said) NOT THIS CRAP AGAIN.
AND your right hand is covering up your right ear.

GOD made us with two ears and one mouth, and that is because most people need to spend twice as much time listening as they do talking, and about the subject of 911 WTC7, I suggest you listen more and talk less.

REPEAT
GOD made us with two ears and one mouth, and that is because most people need to spend twice as much time listening as they do talking, and about the subject of 911 WTC7, I suggest you listen more and talk less.

REPEAT
GOD made us with two ears and one mouth, and that is because most people need to spend twice as much time listening as they do talking, and about the subject of 911 WTC7, I suggest you listen more and talk less.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ohhwataloser
How bout e) a select small group of sinister people plant explosives that are not fully understood. Bringing all 3 towers down on their own footprint by demolition means that is not fully understood. Controling flow of information of any evidence of the above, by means that are not fully understood.

got anything against that theory?


Yes, I do. It's what throws your conspiracy stories into the trash before they get out of the gate-

a) the buildings were *occupied*, meaning there were lots and lots of people there, from tenants, security, engineers, custodians, and the like. If they wouldn't have seen your supposed gov't ninjas sneaking in with the explosives, they'd definitely have discovered them having been planted. What, you think an electrician who worked there for five years wouldn't notice some weird package with wires hanging out of it placed in a spot where it shouldn't be?

b) none of the steel recovered showed any signs of sabotage by explosives, thermite, or even laser beams, making the use of these supposed explosives a physical impossibility. The laws of physics need to apply to your conspiracies just like they do the rest of the world

c) It'd have to be more than just a handful of people in on this. All the engineers in NIST would need to be in on it, all the engineers in FEMA would need to be in on it, all the ground crews picking up the very steel you're talking about would need to be in on it, all the NYPD and NYFD would need to be in on it, the people in the NY port authority would need to be in on it, the photographers at ground zero would need to be in on it, etc etc etc. All it takes is one person to upset the entire apple cart, and there were so many people connected to the WTC there'd have been hundreds seeing something wasn't right. If soldiers are leaking classified Afghanistan secrets on Wikileaks, then they'd damned sure leak a 9/11 conspiracy too.

It'd be one thing if you said the attack was real but Bush allowed it to happen to fulful his own agenda, but jeez louise, this whole secret controlled demolitions conspiracy bit is some really messed up Wile E. Coyote cartoon bullsh*t. I can't even remotely take it seriously.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

It'd be one thing if you said the attack was real but Bush allowed it to happen to fulful his own agenda, ...


Ok Dave,
The official story is "WE had no idea this could/would happen."

the two variatios below
LIHOP and MIHOP are where everyone with a self created conspiracy theory began when they began questioning and doubting the OS.

If LIHOP is what happened, then the OS is false due to it not iimplicating those who LIHOP.

Same for MIHOP. It MIHOP is true, then the OS is false.

SO LIHOP And MIHOP if they occured, it took a conspiracy, following the events up to this day to prevent LIHOP and MIHOP from becoming known.

And conspiring sfter the fact, which is what happened in the Kennedy case, was accomplished by cherry picking the members who would spew out the OS, The Warren Commission.

After 911, how would post fact conspirators, who had enough power, position and authority to LIHOP or MIHOP, keet that from being known?

Hand pick people to form a commission or commissions to spew out an OS for public consumption.
That is how I would do it.


Variants
Most 9/11 conspiracy theories generally originate from dissatisfaction with the mainstream account of 9/11.[48]

"LIHOP" and "MIHOP"
Less extensive theories allege that official reports have covered up incompetence or negligence from U.S. personnel or the Bush Administration,[49] or involvement of a foreign government or organization other than al-Qaeda.[50] The most prevalent theories can be broadly divided into two main forms:

LIHOP ("Let it happen on purpose") – suggests that key individuals within the government had at least some foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately ignored them or actively weakened America's defenses to ensure the hijacked flights were not intercepted.[48][51]
MIHOP ("Make it happen on purpose") – that key individuals within the government planned the attacks and collaborated with, or framed, al-Qaeda in carrying them out. There is a range of opinions about how this might have been achieved.[48][51]

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 3-9-2010 by slugger9787]



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Dave here is some news:

Read More @NewWorldOrderReport.com

EXCLUSIVE: New Video of World Trade Center 7 Released Showing Michael Hess Calling Down For Help While He is Stuck in the Building


www.newworldorderreport.com... Help-While-He-is-Stuck-in-the-Building.aspx

After the first World Trade Center tower is hit, Barry Jennings, a City Housing Authority worker, and Michael Hess, New York’s corporation counsel, head up to the emergency command center of the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM), which is on the 23rd floor of WTC 7. Testimony from Barry Jennings and Michael Hess has rarely been confirmed, until now. This video was just released via a FOIA (freedom of information act request) and New World Order Report has obtained and released it on the internet.

Click here to see the new footage... www.newworldorderreport.com... elp-While-He-is-Stuck-in-the-Building.aspx

Take a look for yourself. Michael Hess, clearly visible, is stuck in the building. This corroborates the story they told that on the way down trying to evacuate the building, an explosion occurred inside of the building which trapped them. The stairway, where the explosion occurred, blew out the last floors in the stairwell. Barry Jennings gave an exclusive interview with Loose Change creator Dylan Avery where Barry stated that when he was finally found by firefighters, they stepped over dead bodies in the lobby on their way out. After the video publicly aired, Barry Jennings mysteriously died just before the BBC aired a piece about World Trade Center Building 7...

-Jonathan Elinoff



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
Take a look for yourself. Michael Hess, clearly visible, is stuck in the building. This corroborates the story they told that on the way down trying to evacuate the building, an explosion occurred inside of the building which trapped them. The stairway, where the explosion occurred, blew out the last floors in the stairwell. Barry Jennings gave an exclusive interview with Loose Change creator Dylan Avery where Barry stated that when he was finally found by firefighters, they stepped over dead bodies in the lobby on their way out. After the video publicly aired, Barry Jennings mysteriously died just before the BBC aired a piece about World Trade Center Building 7...


Now, you see, THIS is genuine information we can look at, rather than ridiculous "Bush knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew Hitler" innuendo dropping. Let's take a look at what he says-

-Jennings showed up when the building was already empty. The 9/11 commission report said WTC 7 started evacuating almost immediately after WTC 1 got hit at 8:46, so this would have taken about 1/2 hour to 45 mins to get everyone out, including the emergency personnel who stayed until everyone else left. This means by the time he drove there, parked his car, and made it to the lobby, the building had already been evacuated, making it around 9:30

-He took the elevator up to his office on the 23rd floor, found it was locked, came back down to the lobby to look through the crowds of firemen, police, etc someone to help him, and went back up on the service elevator. All that would take about thirty minutes, putting it at around 10:00

-He stayed on the floor trying to call out, use the equipment, etc until he finally got hold of someone that told him to evacuate. That'd take maybe fifteen minutes, or around 10:15.

-He and Hess started climbing down the stairs from the 23rd floor and made it to the 7th floor when things went kablooey. Jennings himself admitted he had weak knees so he certainly wasn't sprinting. This would take about 15 mins, around 10:30. The North tower collapsed at 10:28 so the timeline tells you right there that the explosion had to have been from wreckage from WTC 1 falling and striking WTC 7.

The problem I have with his testimony is that he said he went back upstairs a few floors and looked outside and saw the towers were still standing. You can slice and dice the timeline as you please, but at the end of the day the explosion he felt was VERY VERY CLOSE to the exact same time as the WTC 1's collapse, and there is NO WAY the towers could have been still standing at the time he said he said he saw them.

How do you explain this?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You just convinced me, so I do not need to explain.
If the building WTC7 was evacuatd,
where did the bodies appear to have come from?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You just convinced me, so I do not need to explain.
If the building WTC7 was evacuatd,
where did the bodies appear to have come from?



Barry Jennings later retracted his story about the bodies and Michael Hess has never said there were any.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by slugger9787
You just convinced me, so I do not need to explain.
If the building WTC7 was evacuatd,
where did the bodies appear to have come from?

Barry Jennings later retracted his story about the bodies and Michael Hess has never said there were any.


I genuinely didn't know Jennings had retracted it, but it makes sense. They pretty much have a comprehensive list of all the victims of 9/11 and where they were when they died, and the 9/11 commission report states there were no fatalities at WTC 7, so unless a gaggle of anonymous homeless people spontaneously descended on WTC 7 moments before WTC 1 collapsed I don't see how the conspiracy theorists can possibly back the claim up.

The explosion Jennings experienced had to have been from WTC 1 collapsing and throwing wreckage down onto WTC 7. This desperate grasping at straws to get people all paranoid over shadowy conspiracies is getting ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


This might interest you as regards Barry Jennings and bodies in the lobby of WTC 7 :-

www.youtube.com...

It is also of interest to note that when Barry Jennings was interviewed in the street on 9/11 itself he never mentioned bodies. As you point out yourself, the building having been evacuated where did they come from ?



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Fact is, it's impossible for WTC7 to fall like it did under the explanation that has been given. It's ridiculous to think that the fire actually weakened every structural point at the exact same rate in the center and at all four corners to cause the build to sink into the ground demo-style.

For some, that impossibility is legitimate enough to question all of the events of that day. For others, there should be no doubt at the very least, that WTC7 could never collapse like that...

Maybe if there was no video... and it seems that the initial intention may have been to have no video, because it seems the video I see from news casts that report it, are all 'accidentally' reporting the collapse before it happens, completing their report with the fore knowledge that no one was killed. I mean, what's up with that? If a building collapses from fire, it's going to take awhile, and it's most likely going to crumble in pieces.. and if it actually did collapse, it would be the first time in history, which would mean it would have to be unforeseen...

So how could these news stations report it collapse just minutes before it does?

The only way, is if it was known by someone that the collapse was imminent. And there has been no event in history to be able to look at that building on fire and foresee an imminent collapse of the entire building.

There is no scientifically plausible explanation... and definitely not an explanation that fits what we've been told officially.



[edit on 4-9-2010 by spiritualzombie]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

How do you explain this?


Because you speculated at several points instead of using the information given. You did so in an attempt to prove the information given was wrong.

That is not objective research, that is starting out with a preconceived notion and the intent to prove something wrong.

NIST did the same thing.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

How do you explain this?


Because you speculated at several points instead of using the information given. You did so in an attempt to prove the information given was wrong.


What the heck do you mean, "I'm speculating instead of using the information given". How am I *not* using the information given? Everything I posted came from Jennings, not me.

Please point out why anything I said was actually wrong.


That is not objective research, that is starting out with a preconceived notion and the intent to prove something wrong.


Dude, you aren't even making a microbe of sense here. Part of doing objective research is to take the information at hand and then seeing how it fits into the timeline as a whole. That's literally what I'm doing- taking the timeline that came from Jennings and tryinng to see how it fits into the events of the day.

The WTC isn't out in the desert or on the bottom of the cocean- it's in downtown Manhattan, one of the most conjested places on the planet. The explosion couldn't have been before the WTC towers collapsed becuase there'd be more witnesses to it than just him alone, and it can't have been after the collapse becuase he would've mentioned additional explosions. The explosion he felt had to have been from wreckage from the towers hitting it. If you have issues with exactly how long it would've taken him to find someone to bring him up via the service elevator, fine, but that still doesn't disprove what caused the explosion.

You people are only using Jennings' statement to manufacture innuendo of impropriety. You know that and so do I.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Aw, jeez, not this crap AGAIN!!



The explosions that caused damage in WTC7 "had to have" been from the WTC1 debris damage just like WTC7's collapse in general was "necessarily" due to the debris, right "Dave"?

But no wait -- every time I ask you to prove these kinds of garbage statements you make, that make no sense at all when you look at the details, you start ranting even more!


Put up or shut up, "Dave."



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Aw, jeez, not this crap AGAIN!!



The explosions that caused damage in WTC7 "had to have" been from the WTC1 debris damage just like WTC7's collapse in general was "necessarily" due to the debris, right "Dave"?

But no wait -- every time I ask you to prove these kinds of garbage statements you make, that make no sense at all when you look at the details, you start ranting even more!


Put up or shut up, "Dave."


Dude, is this some kind of weird children's game you're playing? I already posted THREE TIMES the chain of events from the WTC 1 collapse to the damage from the falling wreckage starting fires and taking out the power grid to NIST's explanation of how the fires caued the collapse, I even included the page numbers in the NIST report, and I even posted photos of WTC steel that showed NO explosive damage. Your only excuse is make believe you're coming up off the top of your head, and to noone's surprise it involves yet more secret disinformation agents hidden everywhere. I've answered your question so I fulfulled my obligation, so unless you're asking something truly idiotic like proof that wreckage from WTC 1 could have actually hit WTC 7, the problem child here is you, not me.

How about answering MY question for a change- you conspiracy people keep using the tired "no other skyscraper in history ever fell from a fire". How many of those fires accompanied a gigantic neighboring building collapsing, taking its power grid out, and cutting off all the water to its fire sprinklers?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
How about answering MY question for a change- you conspiracy people keep using the tired "no other skyscraper in history ever fell from a fire".


You mean how about you changing the subject to something we're not even talking about again?

That's not a change, that's what you already do endlessly. How about "No."



Dude, is this some kind of weird children's game you're playing? I already posted THREE TIMES the chain of events from the WTC 1 collapse to the damage from the falling wreckage starting fires and taking out the power grid to NIST's explanation of how the fires caued the collapse, I even included the page numbers in the NIST report, and I even posted photos of WTC steel that showed NO explosive damage.


Let's get some things straight.

The "chain of events" from WTC1's collapse to WTC7's collapse does not prove, anywhere, what brought down WTC7, even according to NIST. It's a cute story NIST made up for people who are too lazy to check the facts behind it. Yes WTC7 was hit by debris, but NIST also says it didn't cause significant damage and are only GUESSING when they say that it's what caused the fires. This is the conclusion you come to when you look at what "proof" they have offered, ie none.

So then for you to say the debris necessarily brought down WTC7, means that you actually have some kind of proof from logical deduction, which is a lie because you obviously don't, and nothing you are posting is truly logical. I might remind you that logical fallacies are, by definition, not logical. And neither are piles upon piles of them.

Telling me NIST's story, is not proof. If NIST offered proof for their own story, now that would be something different, but as far as I'm able to discern they didn't even claim it was proof themselves, only a "hypothesis." Can you tell the difference?

So really all that's left is for you to admit that you have nothing to stand on and you have absolutely no more evidence for what happened than any of the "truthers" you argue with pointlessly. You should really be arguing with government employees for what an awful job they did.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
The "chain of events" from WTC1's collapse to WTC7's collapse does not prove, anywhere, what brought down WTC7, even according to NIST. It's a cute story NIST made up for people who are too lazy to check the facts behind it. Yes WTC7 was hit by debris, but NIST also says it didn't cause significant damage and are only GUESSING when they say that it's what caused the fires. This is the conclusion you come to when you look at what "proof" they have offered, ie none.


All right, it's put up or shut up time. I've been saying from day one that the NIST report was an estimate, not a proof. I've always acknowledged there are OTHER possibilities as well (I.E. Dr. Quintiere's estimate that the towers never had sufficient fireproofing to begin with) which can make the NIST estimate wrong. Please show where I ever said the NIST report was actually "scientific proof" or else withdraw it for the lie it is.


So then for you to say the debris necessarily brought down WTC7, means that you actually have some kind of proof from logical deduction, which is a lie because you obviously don't, and nothing you are posting is truly logical. I might remind you that logical fallacies are, by definition, not logical. And neither are piles upon piles of them.


The irrefutable fact is that WTC 7 stood perfectly fine for several decades, and only collapsed after WTC 1 wreckage crash down on it. If you are denying this then you are lying through your teeth. To therefore say there is no corelation is being blind.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Hey, what is this saying "put up or shut up?"

This is a civil thread.

Lets play nice.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Please show where I ever said the NIST report was actually "scientific proof" or else withdraw it for the lie it is.


So then you do admit that NIST didn't actually prove why the buildings collapsed?

Great.


The irrefutable fact is that WTC 7 stood perfectly fine for several decades, and only collapsed after WTC 1 wreckage crash down on it. If you are denying this then you are lying through your teeth. To therefore say there is no corelation is being blind.


It also stood for several decades until those explosions started coming out of it that were reported by witnessed and caught on seismographs, labeled by FEMA as "further collapse" after the Twin Towers collapsed without any further explanation.

And these explosions happened closer to the final "collapse" than the debris impact did. And it stood for several decades before them.

edit on 10-9-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I don't know a single engineer that believes the towers fell due to heat and impact.


You do now.





new topics
top topics
 
41
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix is on-air in 24 minutes.
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP6

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def