snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

But there is a very big difference between:

A) Most of NYC 9/11 attack is real, but WTC 7 was brought down deliberetely for (??) reasons.

and this:

B) All three building falls in NYC were engineered.


Which are you arguing, just to be clear?

---

I'm not sure how to answer this. Why would they lie about tower 7? Why would they say there was no evidence of explosions when there was tons of video evidence of explosions?

***** Into the rabbit hole again. Look, I believe 911 was a false flag used to start a 20-year "war on terror". Look up Aaron Russo. He tells about Nick Rockefeller basically telling him what was going to happen and laughing about it.

How they did it all, I don't know, I don't claim to know all the answers, but the holes in the official story are almost infinite, and large enough to drive a truck through (or fly a plane through).

And someone on this thread said Bin Laden admitted he did it. This is not true, and one of many falsehoods often repeated. Here's a link with stories saying Bin Laden DENIED doing 911.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=osama+bin+laden+denies+911&t=h_&ia=web

---

I was just looking for a basic worldview conclusion --- Correct me if I am wrong it seems you favor (B) --9/11 itself is the "rabbit-hole" not just WTC-7. In other words, choice B.

To better explain my query --- I just need to know where you were coming from. I was really asking a simple question like:

A) Do you believe the USS Maine exploded from an intentional act/mine
OR
B) Do you believe the USS Maine exploded from a spectacularly poorly timed but `routine' bunker disaster as such vessels sometimes suffered?

That's just an A or B answer. Its not saying you KNOW -- its saying where one leans.

Now back to 9/11: I seem to recall, and the date stuck in head for precisely that reason, that Osama admitted in a Nov 9 2001 interview (to Al Jazeera?) that "the damage had exceeded expectations" and that they had indeed done this work. So you have introduced an intriguing counter-argument link there.

RockTXAggie said:

---

What's perplexing to me is how quick people dismiss 9/11 and other conspiracy theories considering what the government just did to us with COVID over the last 2.5 years. The American government is full of straight up evil people.

It's false flag 101. Create a tragedy so tragic that it's blasphemous to question.

---

Then leave. If you truly believe the government killed people and covered it up, go find another country.

That's going too far the other way. They have done that before down through history. Its just to say 9/11 was that is the mind-boggling leap.

AggiEE said:

---

I've been in the camp that WTC1, 2, and 7 were a controlled demolition for a very long time. The totality of the collapse at free fall speed is unexplainable to me by any other cause. A progressive collapse would meet significant resistance to the core structures below it, slowing its speed, partially toppling over, and not ejecting enormous amounts of pulverized dust in its wake as it progresses downward. The pancaking collapse theory is completely untenable to me. Molten spheres of iron are found in abundance in the dust, there's video footage of molten iron streaming out of the building moments before collapse, all of this completely unexplained by jet fuel fires, not to mention numerous "squibs" located during the collapse. And WTC7 takes an otherwise head scratching situation for WTC 1 and 2 over the fence to "this is completely suspect" territory.

I don't really care for the emotional arguments that delve into how "logistically crazy" something like this would (or wouldn't) have to be. It's irrelevant to answering the specific question of what happened physically to the buildings. But I do not believe that the number of people involved would need to be that many that were true knowing participants. Military operations are extremely compartmentalized, and during that day there were numerous "drills" going on adding to the confusion.

Occam's razor is often used, but this should be applied to the physical situation itself - what is the most likely cause of WTC7? It would be the first building in history not hit by a plane, with some fairly benign fires, to completely collapse on its own footprint for no reason whatsoever. Buildings don't just do that. They are designed extremely conservatively to handle significant fire damage.

As with any forensic crime, once you know that it has occurred, you reconstruct the physical possibility of how it occurred, and then also follow up on the money trail and motive. Larry Silverstein must have been the most fortunate man in the world to not only buy the WTC complex in the months leading up to 9/11, but also take out an extremely large insurance policy covering terrorism. How many insurance claims have been proven to be fraudulent in a similar manner when murder is actually involved? The wake of 9/11 caused unprecedented government expansion through the creation of the Homeland Security departments, wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and a police state surveillance program.

The PNAC group even stated in the years prior to 9/11 that they would need a "New Pearl Harbor" to catalyze these objectives. Again, they must be the most fortunate think tank in the world to have that land on their lap if extreme expansion of government power is their primary goal. They got it.

And twenty years later we have COVID which has accomplished similar objectives. Even if you don't believe that this was an inside job, I don't see how anyone could be called crazy for suggesting the possibility given the number of glaring issues with what physically transpired that day.

---

Good Lord, we have another one

titan said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

But there is a very big difference between:

A) Most of NYC 9/11 attack is real, but WTC 7 was brought down deliberetely for (??) reasons.

and this:

B) All three building falls in NYC were engineered.


Which are you arguing, just to be clear?

---

I'm not sure how to answer this. Why would they lie about tower 7? Why would they say there was no evidence of explosions when there was tons of video evidence of explosions?

***** Into the rabbit hole again. Look, I believe 911 was a false flag used to start a 20-year "war on terror". Look up Aaron Russo. He tells about Nick Rockefeller basically telling him what was going to happen and laughing about it.

How they did it all, I don't know, I don't claim to know all the answers, but the holes in the official story are almost infinite, and large enough to drive a truck through (or fly a plane through).

And someone on this thread said Bin Laden admitted he did it. This is not true, and one of many falsehoods often repeated. Here's a link with stories saying Bin Laden DENIED doing 911.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=osama+bin+laden+denies+911&t=h_&ia=web

---

I was just looking for a basic worldview conclusion --- Correct me if I am wrong it seems you favor (B) --9/11 itself is the "rabbit-hole" not just WTC-7. In other words, choice B.

To better explain my query --- I just need to know where you were coming from. I was really asking a simple question like:

A) Do you believe the USS Maine exploded from an intentional act/mine
OR
B) Do you believe the USS Maine exploded from a spectacularly poorly timed but `routine' bunker disaster as such vessels sometimes suffered?

That's just an A or B answer. Its not saying you KNOW -- its saying where one leans.

Now back to 9/11: I seem to recall, and the date stuck in head for precisely that reason, that Osama admitted in a Nov 9 2001 interview (to Al Jazeera?) that "the damage had exceeded expectations" and that they had indeed done this work. So you have introduced an intriguing counter-argument link there.

---

First, Rumsfeld - 2.3 Trillion
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=donald+rumsfeld+announces+2.3+trillion&t=h_&ia=web

I believe 911 was a false flag, Bin Laden was the necessary scapegoat so that we could invade Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Syria, Libya, parts of Africa I can't remember. War is huge money for rich elites, the puppet masters of our corrupt politicians.
.
What do they care if a million Afghan and Iraqi civilians and thousands of American soldiers die? What do they care if 22 soldiers or vets are committing suicide every day because of the war? They're getting richer!!

So, A, I guess. The whole thing is a lie, in my opinion. False flag.

Again, look up Aaron Russo. He was a great American and very believable. He did a documentary about rhe FED, ran for Governor of Nevada, produced "Trading Places". He was a very successful, honorable man. Russo says that Nick Rockefeller told him what would happen months before 911.

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

But there is a very big difference between:

A) Most of NYC 9/11 attack is real, but WTC 7 was brought down deliberetely for (??) reasons.

and this:

B) All three building falls in NYC were engineered.


Which are you arguing, just to be clear?

---

I'm not sure how to answer this. Why would they lie about tower 7? Why would they say there was no evidence of explosions when there was tons of video evidence of explosions?

---

There is zero video evidence of explosions before the building came down…

Speaking of the 2.3 trillion lost money myth…I jump on to meta bunk and this thread was waiting for me!

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-rumsfeld-says-2-3-trillion-missing-from-the-pentagon.165/

Satellite of Love said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

But there is a very big difference between:

A) Most of NYC 9/11 attack is real, but WTC 7 was brought down deliberetely for (??) reasons.

and this:

B) All three building falls in NYC were engineered.


Which are you arguing, just to be clear?

---

I'm not sure how to answer this. Why would they lie about tower 7? Why would they say there was no evidence of explosions when there was tons of video evidence of explosions?

---

There is zero video evidence of explosions before the building came down…

---

Lol. This is one. I'll find more.



Found more, but so much has been scrubbed. I have seen much more video of explosions than what I can find now.
That was 8-10 years ago.

Explosions were happening all day long on 9/11. NIST reported that there was no evidence of explosives, a blatant lie.

https://newspunch.com/911-investigation-says-156-people-witnessed-explosions-at-wtc/

TexasAggiesWin said:

---

---

But we get crystal clear pics from the 'surface of Mars'…

snowdog90 said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

But there is a very big difference between:

A) Most of NYC 9/11 attack is real, but WTC 7 was brought down deliberetely for (??) reasons.

and this:

B) All three building falls in NYC were engineered.


Which are you arguing, just to be clear?

---

I'm not sure how to answer this. Why would they lie about tower 7? Why would they say there was no evidence of explosions when there was tons of video evidence of explosions?

---

There is zero video evidence of explosions before the building came down…

---

Lol. This is one. I'll find more.



Found more, but so much has been scrubbed. I have seen much more video of explosions than what I can find now.
That was 8-10 years ago.

Explosions were happening all day long on 9/11. NIST reported that there was no evidence of explosives, a blatant lie.

https://newspunch.com/911-investigation-says-156-people-witnessed-explosions-at-wtc/

---

So in your expert opinion, since you know it was blown up, how did all of that happen without a single person noticing it?


Do you think all of those people were murdered so they could not say the building was being wired to collapse?

Tanya 93 said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

But there is a very big difference between:

A) Most of NYC 9/11 attack is real, but WTC 7 was brought down deliberetely for (??) reasons.

and this:

B) All three building falls in NYC were engineered.


Which are you arguing, just to be clear?

---

I'm not sure how to answer this. Why would they lie about tower 7? Why would they say there was no evidence of explosions when there was tons of video evidence of explosions?

---

There is zero video evidence of explosions before the building came down…

---

Lol. This is one. I'll find more.



Found more, but so much has been scrubbed. I have seen much more video of explosions than what I can find now.
That was 8-10 years ago.

Explosions were happening all day long on 9/11. NIST reported that there was no evidence of explosives, a blatant lie.

https://newspunch.com/911-investigation-says-156-people-witnessed-explosions-at-wtc/

---

So in your expert opinion, since you know it was blown up, how did all of that happen without a single person noticing it?


Do you think all of those people were murdered so they could not say the building was being wired to collapse?

---

These videos are literally full of people "noticing" it. Explosions were reported and videoe'd all day. The greatest hero of 9/11 was a janitor in WTC - can't remember his name. He was given a medal from W. He saved many lives.

He says a bomb went off in the basement BEFORE the first plane hit.

So he "noticed".

Edit: His name is Willie Rodriguez.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez

Wait that's your proof? Wow. That last one is especially laughable. Those tiny flashes of light around a single exterior column is what set the whole chain reaction in motion?

Also people are using the sounds of explosives as a descriptor of things happening. They wouldn't have a frame of reference of elevators crashing or a plane hitting a building.

Except those explosions were the impact of the 1st and then freight elevators crashing to the basement.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-construction-worker-philip-morelli-experienced-an-explosion-in-the-sub-basement-of-the-north-tower.11992/

Quote:

---

I go downstairs. The foreman tells me to go to remove the containers. As I'm walking by the main freight car of the building in the corridor, that's when I got blown. I mean, the impact of the explosion of whatever happened, it threw me to the floor and that's when everything started happening. It knocked me right to the floor. You didn't know what it was. Of course, you're assuming something just fell over in the loading dock, something very heavy, something very big. You don't know what happened and all of a sudden you just felt the floor moving and you get up and the walls and then you know. Now, I'm hearing that the main freight car, the elevators, you know, I mean fell down. So, I was right near the main freight car. So, I assumed what that was. Then, you know, I mean you heard that coming towards you. I was racing, I was going towards the bathroom. All of a sudden I opened the door. I didn't know it was a bathroom and all of a sudden the big impact happened again and all the ceiling tile was falling down the light fixtures were falling, swinging out of the ceiling and I come running out the door and everything, the walls were down. And now I started running towards the parking lot.

---

On the flashes of light video…more than likely it's falling glass reflecting the sun's light. Similar claims made before and debunked
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/explained-flashes-of-light-during-the-world-trade-center-collapse.10224/

Well, well.

Your fist video and your last the fourth one certainly are interesting.

Here's the thing ---- they certainly DO explain why you may believe as you do. It is not something to be glibly ridiculed so much as needs to be answered. (I find the explanation of the suddenly descending elevators perhaps true---its even what thought from the description before I saw a link on next posts describing such a possibility)

But then again, that is competing possibilities. The second video flashes thing is disturbing because they are located exactly where the fatal bend and collapse begins. Again, can at least see WHY some would look at this with very long raised eyebrows.

Go back to the first video ---- one thing is clear is all those earlier witnesses were fairly sure they heard detonations or somesuch at the base of the building. Other than the elevator idea (which has merit imo) that is very hard at first to square with the air impact high above, and especially if it came before as so many seem sure of. (Its a pity none look at their watch that moment as would have done at anything untoward and do) It would be very important to know if it really is pre-impact. As it is, the timing is too close and the first impressions may not have realized the impact overhead has already just taken place. Its a very big structure.

There is an element here to consider---first impressions from witnesses tend to be more reliable than later skeptics, allowing for the fact that eyewitnesses and memory itself can be very tricky and uncertain. But I am speaking about the WHEN said. The survivors off Titanic first being interviewed over and over again insisted they saw her breaking up --- some even placed the point of break. These were simply dismissed, dismissed, by "experts" in the government inquiry who had a predisposition to just not think it was true. It would remain for Ballard to show it was.

I am struck here especially by that group of witnesses in the first vidoe, Stephanoupolos among them no less, that seemed to locate a street level detonation. Timing is everything, the elevators and shocks travelling down can account for much --IF one assumes (but that is all you can do) that they are wrong that this phenomena came before the impact.

Conclusion: nothing absolutely damning, but plenty of eyebrow raising questions. This matter of so many witnesses in the lobby area including those fireman saying what they did is actually more interesting than overly strained arguments trying to claim what fires can and cannot do to metal, etc. (Especially when you look at other aviation fires)

In any case, can certainly respect the conclusions and opinions you hold. There is more than enough there to at least have provoked all these questions. That's only natural to think they should be at least looked into.

Because on the other side, remember the same ones who always call anything a `conspiracy theory' gave you the 2020 elections results and the Collusion narrative.

Satellite of Love said:

---

Wait that's your proof? Wow. That last one is especially laughable. Those tiny flashes of light around a single exterior column is what set the whole chain reaction in motion?

Also people are using the sounds of explosives as a descriptor of things happening. They wouldn't have a frame of reference of elevators crashing or a plane hitting a building.

---

Typical. The firemen in the video are saying there were explosions in the building well after the first plane hit. You in your infinite wisdom say they are mistaken, and somehow that is proof there were no explosions. Yay Science!!

"Everyone reporting explosions in the subway is wrong, because science." Genius. No need to investigate.

As for the flashes on the last video, also typical. You can't explain them so you make the ridiculous statement that I'm claiming those 3 flashes caused the whole building to come down.

So much for WTC-2 footage. On the WTC-7 one thing can be set aside.

Those media and reporters are not being misheard or mistaking anything. They are clearly being advised that WTC-7 is soon to come down. That much is clear. They did have advance notice and its even visibly standing still as they say it, so they were not confused.

But I don't see why this couldn't mean they have gotten word it is unstable and is going to be coming down.

In other words, in fairness, them knowing in advance its going to fall doesn't mean its because it wasn't going to fall, but instead was blown up.

But they clearly know its coming.

Thanks for the response. Another thing. The elevators that would have been struck by the plane could not have caused an explosion at ground level. Elevators did not go all the way up. To get to the top floors, you had to change elevators twice. Elevators went about 33 floors each, so no elevator shaft went from top to bottom.

Willie Rodriguez, hero janitor, has said that a bomb exploded in the basement about 10 seconds before the first plane hit. In one of those videos, there is an audio recording. It was a conference call in the tower. One explsion is recorded, then 9 seconds later another. This backs up Willie's story - explosion, then plane crash.

snowdog90 said:

---

Thanks for the response. Another thing. The elevators that would have been struck by the plane could not have caused an explosion at ground level. Elevators did not go all the way up. To get to the top floors, you had to change elevators twice. Elevators went about 33 floors each, so no elevator shaft went from top to bottom.

Willie Rodriguez, hero janitor, has said that a bomb exploded in the basement about 10 seconds before the first plane hit. In one of those videos, there is an audio recording. It was a conference call in the tower. One explsion is recorded, then 9 seconds later another. This backs up Willie's story - explosion, then plane crash.

---

Hmm. That's an interesting design detail.

Here is the thing. One thing you should understand is you are not crazy and lunatic. Looking at that stuff it is no mystery why some doubts have risen for some. What would caution you is don't go too quick into `rabbit-holes' for their own sake. Always carefully consider the rebuttals and competing responses.

For example, that Metabunk.org site makes good arguments that should be considered. On the other hand it is quite mistaken to call any of this as "debunked". That would imply proof of which version is true.What it is is an alternative explanation, and maybe even a better one.

But it is wrong to call something debunked because it can be explained. Remember what I said about USS Maine. You have alternative explanations. But without proof, we don't know if its A or B. It would be completely invalid for a site to present in detail how the coal bunker could destroy the ship, and then go on to claim that had `debunked' the mine theory. And vice versa. They are just counter explanations. One will fit the evidence better than the other eventually.

The most fair and integrity approach is to keep digging and do not get committed to a `your side' or `take' version -- keep looking at the evidence. (One thing to seek is if ever get a time proof of if those events happened before the impact. Had I been there, I would have known because I just look at the time compulsively at anything unusual.)

What your video and testimony slips definitely are, are EVIDENCE. Not proof, but they sure do qualify as evidence. They should be respected as that at least.

snowdog90 said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

But there is a very big difference between:

A) Most of NYC 9/11 attack is real, but WTC 7 was brought down deliberetely for (??) reasons.

and this:

B) All three building falls in NYC were engineered.


Which are you arguing, just to be clear?

---

I'm not sure how to answer this. Why would they lie about tower 7? Why would they say there was no evidence of explosions when there was tons of video evidence of explosions?

---

There is zero video evidence of explosions before the building came down…

---

Lol. This is one. I'll find more.



Found more, but so much has been scrubbed. I have seen much more video of explosions than what I can find now.
That was 8-10 years ago.

Explosions were happening all day long on 9/11. NIST reported that there was no evidence of explosives, a blatant lie.

https://newspunch.com/911-investigation-says-156-people-witnessed-explosions-at-wtc/

---

So in your expert opinion, since you know it was blown up, how did all of that happen without a single person noticing it?


Do you think all of those people were murdered so they could not say the building was being wired to collapse?

---

These videos are literally full of people "noticing" it. Explosions were reported and videoe'd all day. The greatest hero of 9/11 was a janitor in WTC - can't remember his name. He was given a medal from W. He saved many lives.

He says a bomb went off in the basement BEFORE the first plane hit.

So he "noticed".

Edit: His name is Willie Rodriguez.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez

---

So all the wiring happened in like 6 hours overnight?

That is what I mean by noticing it.

This would be an insanely labor intense job.
But no one noticed the wires at all

titan said:

---

So much for WTC-2 footage. On the WTC-7 one thing can be set aside.

Those media and reporters are not being misheard or mistaking anything. They are clearly being advised that WTC-7 is soon to come down. That much is clear. They did have advance notice and its even visibly standing still as they say it, so they were not confused.

But I don't see why this couldn't mean they have gotten word it is unstable and is going to be coming down.

In other words, in fairness, them knowing in advance its going to fall doesn't mean its because it wasn't going to fall, but instead was blown up.

But they clearly know its coming.

---

Yep, I agree.

There were many reports of explosions in tower 7, but I would really have to look hard for that. It's been so long since I've watched all this stuff. One guy, on the day of 911 was interviewed. He was bloody and covered with dust. He said he got like that because of an explosion in tower 7 before the first tower fell. Others stated that tower 7 lobby was a mess, like a bomb had gone off, also before the first tower fell.

I'll try to find that stuff, but it's not easy these days. Back when I first started looking into this, youtube was full of 911 stuff. Some of it was kooky. Most was just playing video of what happened or talking to people who were there.

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

So much for WTC-2 footage. On the WTC-7 one thing can be set aside.

Those media and reporters are not being misheard or mistaking anything. They are clearly being advised that WTC-7 is soon to come down. That much is clear. They did have advance notice and its even visibly standing still as they say it, so they were not confused.

But I don't see why this couldn't mean they have gotten word it is unstable and is going to be coming down.

In other words, in fairness, them knowing in advance its going to fall doesn't mean its because it wasn't going to fall, but instead was blown up.

But they clearly know its coming.

---

Yep, I agree.

There were many reports of explosions in tower 7, but I would really have to look hard for that. It's been so long since I've watched all this stuff. One guy, on the day of 911 was interviewed. He was bloody and covered with dust. He said he got like that because of an explosion in tower 7 before the first tower fell. Others stated that tower 7 lobby was a mess, like a bomb had gone off, also before the first tower fell.

I'll try to find that stuff, but it's not easy these days. Back when I first started looking into this, youtube was full of 911 stuff. Some of it was kooky. Most was just playing video of what happened or talking to people who were there.

---

I think you may be confusing an account in the italics --it even sounds like one saw -- of the mess in the Lobby of WTC 1 or maybe 2, rather than WTC -7. It matters alot, because it is almost impossible that WTC-7 would be showing any damage like that from the impact on WTC-1 even before it fell unless it is after WTC-2 fell and debris hit it from it.

https://www.nist.gov/pao/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Come on man. At least try to investigate yourself rather than just blow more hot air.

Tanya 93 said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Satellite of Love said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

But there is a very big difference between:

A) Most of NYC 9/11 attack is real, but WTC 7 was brought down deliberetely for (??) reasons.

and this:

B) All three building falls in NYC were engineered.


Which are you arguing, just to be clear?

---

I'm not sure how to answer this. Why would they lie about tower 7? Why would they say there was no evidence of explosions when there was tons of video evidence of explosions?

---

There is zero video evidence of explosions before the building came down…

---

Lol. This is one. I'll find more.



Found more, but so much has been scrubbed. I have seen much more video of explosions than what I can find now.
That was 8-10 years ago.

Explosions were happening all day long on 9/11. NIST reported that there was no evidence of explosives, a blatant lie.

https://newspunch.com/911-investigation-says-156-people-witnessed-explosions-at-wtc/

---

So in your expert opinion, since you know it was blown up, how did all of that happen without a single person noticing it?


Do you think all of those people were murdered so they could not say the building was being wired to collapse?

---

These videos are literally full of people "noticing" it. Explosions were reported and videoe'd all day. The greatest hero of 9/11 was a janitor in WTC - can't remember his name. He was given a medal from W. He saved many lives.

He says a bomb went off in the basement BEFORE the first plane hit.

So he "noticed".

Edit: His name is Willie Rodriguez.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez

---

So all the wiring happened in like 6 hours overnight?

That is what I mean by noticing it.

This would be an insanely labor intense job.
But no one noticed the wires at all

---

My bad, you were talking about noticing the wiring or the labor. I don't know how they would have done it, but it would have taken a lot more time than that I'm sure. Maybe a week or two, working at night.

There were theories about that. I don't remember them exactly.

You can get lost in a welter of rabbit-holes once you start thinking in terms of `how this' or `it could have happened this way'.

Stick to trying to prove something untoward happened on the day. As in the videos that is easily the most compelling element here. If that can be done, the explanation will retroactively start being recoverable once have at least one solid thing. And one's view will either be disproved or strengthened.

titan said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

So much for WTC-2 footage. On the WTC-7 one thing can be set aside.

Those media and reporters are not being misheard or mistaking anything. They are clearly being advised that WTC-7 is soon to come down. That much is clear. They did have advance notice and its even visibly standing still as they say it, so they were not confused.

But I don't see why this couldn't mean they have gotten word it is unstable and is going to be coming down.

In other words, in fairness, them knowing in advance its going to fall doesn't mean its because it wasn't going to fall, but instead was blown up.

But they clearly know its coming.

---

Yep, I agree.

There were many reports of explosions in tower 7, but I would really have to look hard for that. It's been so long since I've watched all this stuff. One guy, on the day of 911 was interviewed. He was bloody and covered with dust. He said he got like that because of an explosion in tower 7 before the first tower fell. Others stated that tower 7 lobby was a mess, like a bomb had gone off, also before the first tower fell.

I'll try to find that stuff, but it's not easy these days. Back when I first started looking into this, youtube was full of 911 stuff. Some of it was kooky. Most was just playing video of what happened or talking to people who were there.

---

I think you may be confusing an account in the italics --it even sounds like one saw -- of the mess in the Lobby of WTC 1 or maybe 2, rather than WTC -7. It matters alot, because it is almost impossible that WTC-7 would be showing any damage like that from the impact on WTC-1 even before it fell unless it is after WTC-2 fell and debris hit it from it.

---

No, I'm talking about a video, probably several videos, I saw years ago. A heavyset black man who worked in tower 7 was evacuating the building after either the first or second plane hit. He said that as he was evacuating, a bomb went off in tower 7.

As I recall, that man died the night before he was going to give another interview about what happened to him.
I'll try to find him.

Edit...
Okay his name was Barry Jennings. He worked in tower 7. His story is in the below link. It starts a page or so down from the top. I'm sure the source will be questioned, but I've seen the video interview that the quotes are taken from. He was trapped in a stairwell in tower 7 by an explosion before the towers fell. He was trapped for hours while the other towers were collapsing. Firemen rescued him.

http://www.mujahidkamran.com/articles.php?id=45

Quote:

---

I used to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They used to make me angry. I used to yell at people that they were making a mockery of a tragedy.

Then Trump became president and exposed the swamp. Then Covid happened and I realized how truely evil the powers that run this country are.

Anything is possible. The government may not have been behind 9/11, but I challenge anyone that says the government wouldn't orchestrate something like that if it would benefit The Party.

---

I don't doubt any government's willingness to do something like this. But, like the "fake" moon landing, I doubt their competence to pull something like this off.

The conspiracy theorists are giving them too much credit.

AggieUSMC said:

---

Quote:

---

I used to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They used to make me angry. I used to yell at people that they were making a mockery of a tragedy.

Then Trump became president and exposed the swamp. Then Covid happened and I realized how truely evil the powers that run this country are.

Anything is possible. The government may not have been behind 9/11, but I challenge anyone that says the government wouldn't orchestrate something like that if it would benefit The Party.

---

I don't doubt any government's willingness to do something like this. But, like the "fake" moon landing, I doubt their competence to pull something like this off.

The conspiracy theorists are giving them too much credit.

---

That has always been one of the more compelling rebuttals, cynical as it is. And far more true than the almost as used "too many people would have had to be in on it" which is no longer so persuasive -- -because actually in the information age, nothing is easier than coordinating several remotely with the kind of money such powers-that-be have.

But the competence objection --- it remains undefeated in many ways.

The guy I wss trying to remember was Barry Jennings.

He worked in tower 7. His story is in the below link. It starts a page or so down from the top. I'm sure the source will be questioned, but I've seen the video interview that the quotes are taken from. He was trapped in a stairwell in tower 7 by an explosion before the towers fell. He was trapped for hours while the other towers were collapsing. Firemen rescued him.

http://www.mujahidkamran.com/articles.php?id=45

Barry Jennings reiterated in the exclusive interview his confusion over the explanation for WTC7's collapse - given that he clearly heard explosions inside the building:

"I'm just confused about one thing, and one thing only - why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place. I'm very confused about that. I know what I heard - I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel-oil tank. I'm an old boiler guy - if it was a fuel-oil tank, it would have been one side of the building."

You are right. It is talking about WTC-7, lobby and all. It sounded like a video I had seen, but there is no question it is not referring to WTC-1 or WTC-2.

And that explosion around the lobby is happening before the towers fell from the context of those trapped people. Which means what started the fires and damage had actually occurred before 10:30am.

There is some pretty disturbing testimony on that page and not easily put into any category. Let others judge. That Guiliani was to be there is very interesting, as he and all the others were warned to leave (possibly as simply because WTC-1 impact had led to a general evacuation, but still..)

Here's something had been wondering answered:

Quote:

---

WTC 7 had not been hit by any planes and there was no apparent reason as to why it should have collapsed into its footprints. The collapse of WTC 7 was ignored by the "mainstream" media. This is despite the fact that it housed offices of the Secret Service, the CIA, the Internal Revenue Service, Securities and Exchange Commission, Emergency Management Centre of the Mayor of New York, etc.

---

CIA no less. So there were things there important enough to wonder if maybe they were an issue for someone. It at least is more significant than if it had been a bunch of sales offices.

titan said:

---

You are right. It is talking about WTC-7, lobby and all. It sounded like a video I had seen, but there is no question it is not referring to WTC-1 or WTC-2.

And that explosion around the lobby is happening before the towers fell from the context of those trapped people. Which means what started the fires and damage had actually occurred before 10:30am.

There is some pretty disturbing testimony on that page and not easily put into any category. Let others judge. That Guiliani was to be there is very interesting, as he and all the others were warned to leave (possibly as simply because WTC-1 impact had led to a general evacuation, but still..)

Here's something had been wondering answered:

Quote:

---

WTC 7 had not been hit by any planes and there was no apparent reason as to why it should have collapsed into its footprints. The collapse of WTC 7 was ignored by the "mainstream" media. This is despite the fact that it housed offices of the Secret Service, the CIA, the Internal Revenue Service, Securities and Exchange Commission, Emergency Management Centre of the Mayor of New York, etc.

---

CIA no less. So there were things there important enough to wonder if maybe they were an issue for someone. It at least is more significant than if it had been a bunch of sales offices.

---

The rabbit hole is deep, for sure.

AggiEE said:

---

Barry Jennings reiterated in the exclusive interview his confusion over the explanation for WTC7's collapse - given that he clearly heard explosions inside the building:

"I'm just confused about one thing, and one thing only - why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place. I'm very confused about that. I know what I heard - I heard explosions. The explanation I got was it was the fuel-oil tank. I'm an old boiler guy - if it was a fuel-oil tank, it would have been one side of the building."

---

Thanks. I was just about to post this.

waitwhat? said:

---

To be clear what I'm saying is that your government lies to you on a regular basis and some people are too foolish to recognize it. They've been hooked by the media's mockery of those that recognize the intent of powerful people as folks that wear tinfoil hats.

Fools. Absolute fools.

---

The great irony of most conspiracy theories is that they require people who generally complain the loudest about the incompetence of government to simultaneously ascribe a near supernatural degree of competence and coordination to those same people.

Moreover, an entity capable of pulling such a thing off would be so unbelievably conniving and brilliant that you'd never know about it.

Jennings end in relation to the NIST report is more than a little jarring. Check out that article page. It goes into the background of this video more.

Maybe this whole thing is like what the venerable Gerry Spence said about OJ in his trial book: "They framed a guilty man"

Meaning -- two bad things may be true. Islamist Hijackers attacked the WTC but at the same time for reasons unclear, WTC-7 was destroyed deliberately, and this fact itself also sidelined.