In reply to you ThaLoccster - I'm not interested in bickering about your beliefs being more accurate than mine or anyone elses, that's why I refused to engage with Oldave and I'm on the verge of ignoring you for the same reason.

Have I said that Barrys account of what he saw is the gospel truth. No?
Have I said that Mr Hess is an outright liar? No?

Have I said that the interview Mr Hess gave to the BBC, retracting his claim of any explosions in WTC7 differs significantly enough from both their original accounts to infer one of those individuals is lying? Yes.

Have you said that in referrence to Barry Jennings (in your own words) "that his story is infact erroneous" and "I have shown in this thread how his story cannot be true" Yes
Could this be perceived as posting in the same religionistic vain that a vast number of truthers and official story believers do? Potentially.
Are you on a one man crusade to rubbish anyone who dares to raise an air of suspiscion in a public forum?
I'll leave that one for everyone else to decide.

Originally posted by skunkmunky
In reply to you ThaLoccster - I'm not interested in bickering about your beliefs being more accurate than mine or anyone elses, that's why I refused to engage with Oldave and I'm on the verge of ignoring you for the same reason.

Have I said that Barrys account of what he saw is the gospel truth. No?
Have I said that Mr Hess is an outright liar? No?

Have I said that the interview Mr Hess gave to the BBC, retracting his claim of any explosions in WTC7 differs significantly enough from both their original accounts to infer one of those individuals is lying? Yes.

Have you said that in referrence to Barry Jennings (in your own words) "that his story is infact erroneous" and "I have shown in this thread how his story cannot be true" Yes
Could this be perceived as posting in the same religionistic vain that a vast number of truthers and official story believers do? Potentially.
Are you on a one man crusade to rubbish anyone who dares to raise an air of suspiscion in a public forum?
I'll leave that one for everyone else to decide.

I'm not pushing my beliefs, I'm merely relaying the accounts of people who have a far different account of the events than the one you are relaying.

If you would like to ignore me, feel free to.

As I said before in regards to Mr. Hess "changing" his story, I honestly do not know what his original story was, or what he "changed" it to. But it is likely that he examined the events and took into context the events that happened (the collapses) and was able to understand what happened in light of the context. In the chaos of the day I'm sure it was hard to understand what exactly had taken place, after understanding what had taken place, it made what he went through more understandable.

I'm not on a crusade to "rubbish" anyone's suspicions. There is a difference between having suspicions and pushing fallacies.

I do not understand the inherent suspicion simply because he clarified or changed his story.

By the time they experienced what they did, it was probably clear to them that the ongoing events were not a mere accident but were some kind of an attack. A massive BOOM followed by fire and destruction may have in fact seemed like an explosion. Does that mean it was? Not at all. A few tons of steel crashing into your building would likely create the same exact BOOM, fire, and subsequent destruction. It is possible that there was an explosion, at face value sure. In light of the accounts from the others who were present in the building, and the context of the events that were taking place, is it likely, not at all.

Originally posted by ThaLoccster

Originally posted by 4hero
To all those people that seem to think the collapse of the towers/fires caused building 7 to collapse, symmetrically, into it's own footprint at freefall speed... What about the FACT that no fire has EVER made a steel framed building collapse, yet on 9/11 there was a world 1st, three times in one day!

Does this very fact not raise alarm bells? I'd love to hear your explanations!

Does the fact that you make false claims raise any alarm bells?

As I understand it, the collapse was due to a combination of structural damage caused by falling debris and resulting damage from the fires. The modifications made to the building also were said to have compromised the integrity in light of the damage caused.

While many may or may not agree with that assertation, claiming that the buildings collapsed into their own footprint at freefall speed because of fire is just plain false.

The same holds true for the towers themselves. You can retract your claim that fire alone caused 3 buildings to fall that day. That is just not the case. The official stance is structural damage exacerbated by the fires caused the collapse.

edit on 10/12/2011 by ThaLoccster because: (no reason given)

False claims? How am I making a false claim? I didn't say fires alone cause it, re-read what I wrote and then you might realise you've made a reply without correctly reading what I wrote. Anyway, alarm bells should ring in your mind when you see a building come down in that way because to collapse symmetrically at freefall speed into it's own footprint would require carefully timed explosives, surely that is obvious?

OP, sorry if you think it's off topic but it's about building 7 and that ties in with your post in one way or another. I didn't realise we were not allowed to expand on things!

Originally posted by 4hero
What about the FACT that no fire has EVER made a steel framed building collapse, yet on 9/11 there was a world 1st, three times in one day!

Originally posted by 4hero

False claims? How am I making a false claim? I didn't say fires alone cause it, re-read what I wrote and then you might realise you've made a reply without correctly reading what I wrote. Anyway, alarm bells should ring in your mind when you see a building come down in that way because to collapse symmetrically at freefall speed into it's own footprint would require carefully timed explosives, surely that is obvious?

OP, sorry if you think it's off topic but it's about building 7 and that ties in with your post in one way or another. I didn't realise we were not allowed to expand on things!

You say right there, that fire caused 3 buildings to collapse. What am I missing?

It does seem like you made two claims in the same post, one that the collapse/fire couldn't have caused building 7 to collapse, then another saying that fire caused 3 buildings to collapse.

Nonetheless, this thread is in regards to the claims made by Barry Jennings and Michael Hess, there are other threads where you can discuss the irregularities of the collapse. I believe that is what he may have been referring to.