The latest "proof" from a 9/11 conspiracy friend

64,586 Views | 1244 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by double aught
C@LAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Infection_Ag11 said:

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.
government is incompetent. small groups of people working in tandem can be very competent.

see emergency operations
military operations
Infection_Ag11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
snowdog90 said:

CanyonAg77 said:

Quote:

These answers are a joke

Then you can easily debunk my assertion that a controlled demolition of Building 7 would require weeks of work, thousands, maybe tens of thousands of pounds of explosives, miles of wiring and det cord, hundreds of workers...

...and somehow, it was all done in total secrecy.


Ok, I'll answer.

Yes, obviously I believe it was wired to be demolished, which is why they were able to "pull it". After Silversteen, the new owner of the WTC, said that they gave the order to "pull it", "debunkers" claim he meant to pull people out of the area for safety. That's not what he said, though. He said, " pull it", which is a demolition term to blow the building.

So anyone claiming he didn't mean "pull it" are offering conjecture, not evidence or any "debunking". Explosions were heard and recorded from tower 7 throughout the day. If this was planned, as I believe it was, workers could have wired the building in the weeks before 9/11, at night and on weekends. Security guards and civilians would have no idea what the workers were doing.


Wiring a building for demolition is impossible to do in secret, especially one of the largest buildings in the world.

Moreover, the building didn't collapse in a fashion compatible with a controlled demolition. They collapse at the point of weakness where the planes hit and then gravity of the falling section takes out the rest of the building on its vertical drop. Also, the tallest building in history for which controlled demolition was used was 767 feet, and that was this year. The tallest demolition ever at that time was only a little over 600 feet. The Trade Center Towers were over TWICE that tall. There is literally no precedent for such a thing, then or now.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Infection_Ag11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
C@LAg said:

Infection_Ag11 said:

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.
government is incompetent. small groups of people working in tandem can be very competent.

see emergency operations
military operations


Sure, but a successful conspiracy to do what happened on 9/11 would be literally the greatest feat in human history. Nothing else would come close. This is true regardless of who did it. It's not a rational thing to believe simply on its face. And again, the fact remains that literally every such theory has been demonstrably disproven and eviscerated by reality over the years. It is the most thoroughly and definitively debunked conspiracy theory in existence.

But my post was specifically directed at those who believe it was bad actors within the top levels of government. The same people those same people claim can't lick an envelope correctly.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
FCBlitz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We are really discussing the mode of failure. Popular Mechanics really did a nice job on analyzing this.

WTC 1&2 were designed to withstand an impact of a 707. ( biggest plane at the time)

767 is bigger and carried much more fuel

The mass and broken fragments of the plane going through the building shredded all of the protective insulation on steel girders.

Resulting fireball heated the exposed steel girders to the point they buckled from the weight above.

Pretty simple.
ATM9000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
snowdog90 said:

CanyonAg77 said:

Quote:

These answers are a joke

Then you can easily debunk my assertion that a controlled demolition of Building 7 would require weeks of work, thousands, maybe tens of thousands of pounds of explosives, miles of wiring and det cord, hundreds of workers...

...and somehow, it was all done in total secrecy.


Ok, I'll answer.

Yes, obviously I believe it was wired to be demolished, which is why they were able to "pull it". After Silversteen, the new owner of the WTC, said that they gave the order to "pull it", "debunkers" claim he meant to pull people out of the area for safety. That's not what he said, though. He said, " pull it", which is a demolition term to blow the building.

So anyone claiming he didn't mean "pull it" are offering conjecture, not evidence or any "debunking". Explosions were heard and recorded from tower 7 throughout the day. If this was planned, as I believe it was, workers could have wired the building in the weeks before 9/11, at night and on weekends. Security guards and civilians would have no idea what the workers were doing.

Your basis for what was meant but 'pull it' is 100% conjecture. It is no more some hard evidence that you think it is than the inverse of the argument you claim is conjecture.
RWWilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This thread is proof that half of the population is below average intelligence.
Ghost of Andrew Eaton
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RWWilson said:

This thread is proof that half of the population is below average intelligence.


And they don't know it.
If you say you hate the state of politics in this nation and you don't get involved in it, you obviously don't hate the state of politics in this nation.
RWWilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

RWWilson said:

This thread is proof that half of the population is below average intelligence.


And they don't know it.
True. I always ask them their "best comprehensive explanation" that fits their conspiracy just to laugh at them more.

"A group of power-hungry neocons, led by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bush and others and organizationally represented by groups like the Project for a New American Century, seeks to bring about a "Pearl-Harbor-like event" that would accelerate a rightist revolution, laying the political foundation for invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Your basic Reichstag fire scenario, logical enough so far. Except in this story, the Reichstag fire is an immensely complicated media hoax; the conspirators plot to topple the World Trade Center and pin a series of hijackings on a group of Sunni extremists with alleged ties to al-Qaeda. How do they topple the Trade Center? Well, they make use of NORAD's expertise in flying remote-control aircraft and actually fly two such remote control aircraft into the Towers (in another version of the story, they conspire with al-Qaeda terrorists to actually hijack the planes), then pass the planes off as commercial jetliners in the media. But it isn't the plane crashes that topple the buildings, but bombs planted in the Towers that do the trick.

For good measure -- apparently to lend credence to the hijacking story -- they then fake another hijacking/crash in the Pentagon, where there actually is no plane crash at all but instead a hole created by a cruise missile attack, fired by a mysterious "white jet" that after the attack circles the White House for some time, inspiring the attention of Secret Service agents who point at it curiously from the ground (apparently these White House Secret Service agents were not in on the plot, although FBI agents on scene at Ground Zero and in Shanksville and elsewhere were).

Lastly, again apparently to lend weight to the whole hijacking cover story, they burn a big hole in the ground in Pennsylvania and claim that a jet went down there, crashed by a bunch of brave fictional civilians who fictionally storm the fictional plane cabin. The real-life wife of one of the fictional heroes, Lisa Beamer, then writes a convincingly self-serving paean/memoir to her dead husband, again lending tremendous verisimilitude to the hijacking story. These guys are good!"

B-1 83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Don't forget, the government had to kill a thousand or so people that were on those planes……or supposedly on those planes, because they sure didn't come home that day.
RWWilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B-1 83 said:

Don't forget, the government had to kill a thousand or so people that were on those planes……or supposedly on those planes, because they sure didn't come home that day.
Yes, those people were shipped to an island where they were killed. Geez. Get with the program. These are obvious answers!
sts7049
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RockTXAggie said:

Raiderjay said:

RockTXAggie said:

Squadron7 said:

RockTXAggie said:

TexasAggie_02 said:

the pentagon is effing huge, it's a quarter-mile across. the big white blur in that video that they claim is a "missile" is an airplane taken on video with a ****ty frame rate. If it had been a missile, it would have been really hard to see on that quality of video.


I'm merely saying the totality of all the events don't add up to me. We can dissect each individual occurrence from that day but the fact is ALL of these events happened on the same day with precision. The undertaking of all of those events is daunting when you think about it.

You know what is more daunting?

Getting the number of people who would have to go along with the sort of cover-up you are suggesting to keep silent. How many thousands do you think that would have to be? Maybe tens of thousands.


I think this is a common misconception that you need thousands of people to cover something up. You don't.

Just look at the dozens of real life conspiracies that were 100% true that weren't found out to be true for decades.

I don't think people like you realize the ****ed up **** the government has already done that crazy tin foil hat people were saying for years only to be proven right.
Waiting for list of dozens of 100% true conspiracies.....


It's on Google.com
you believe in the possibility of massive govt conspiracy BUT you believe the results presented to you on google??

completely delusional
sts7049
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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/






that is the "evidence" you are using?
Tanya 93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
snowdog90 said:

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.



So they wired an entire building over a couple of weeks and not a single person noticed a wire or explosives? No one noticed.

I have some ocean front property down at Lake of the Ozarks for sale if you are interested.
Satellite of Love
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's not entirely true. Yes they had some elevator shafts that went to different sky lobbies but there were express elevators and freight elevators that traversed the length of the building. There were 106 different elevators in each building. The aircraft impacts did cut cables that allowed service elevators to plummet to the basement. Some discussion of it here:
https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/wtcelevatorshafts

And yes the firefighters and people are wrong about explosions. People are going to closely associate loud booms to a bomb going off.
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No demo expert at all other than finding the videos of them pretty amazing on how they take down a building within it's own footprint. I thought that along with the miles of det cord, precision cutting of beams and such, and explosives, there are a myriad of tension cables to help collapse the building on itself.

Those don't disappear every day so that not a single person working there wonders "what the hell is that?".

Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
B-1 83 said:

Don't forget, the government had to kill a thousand or so people that were on those planes……or supposedly on those planes, because they sure didn't come home that day.
This is in fact where the best and final proofs for the straight-forward 9/11 events lie and hold up. Even the more poorly visually documented Pentagon plane there are final calls from those aboard of what was happening. Any scenario which claims the hijackings and plane rammings didn't happen, or were something else, just doesn't seem the least bit credible to put as fair a take on it as possible.

The only really vaguely possible thing is something is up with building WTC-7 -- in its case the testimony seen is not as easily explained and there seem more suspicious things about its neglect. And learned in this thread that it did contain very important offices.

But the total ridicule of those looking into it on basis as such things as attempted in depth analysis of videos, testimony and aftermaths is unfair and unwarranted. You have no further to look than the Nov 3/4 Election night controversy. All you really have here is some very weird events and more important --cover up and refusal to look closer at them -- that naturally generate skepticism. Especially when the official version is confirmed to be very deliberately skipping over many elements of the event that just "do not fit." Especially in light of what we have seen from 2016 to present such questioning seems not only forgivable but wise.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Satellite of Love said:

That's not entirely true. Yes they had some elevator shafts that went to different sky lobbies but there were express elevators and freight elevators that traversed the length of the building. There were 106 different elevators in each building. The aircraft impacts did cut cables that allowed service elevators to plummet to the basement. Some discussion of it here:
https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/wtcelevatorshafts

And yes the firefighters and people are wrong about explosions. People are going to closely associate loud booms to a bomb going off.
This illustrates another reason why ridicule of analysis is actually the more stupid response. We see it in the Jan6 committee and in the election 2020 ridicule. Right here you have introduced an additional fact about the elevators that counters the argument that was pointing out that others did not descend the length. The point?

There is such a thing as incomplete information, or inaccurate that is interpreted and discussed in good faith. But if your info is incomplete (your nugget above) or unknown to layman analyst like people watching videos (or a jury for that matter), than it doesn't mean their examination was absurd ---- it just means they missed something. This is why I said keep digging if you are going to play sleuth and investigate something---don't get wed to "your version or belief."

And yes, this extends to Election 2020. I have now seen more than enough evidence in the long months since to change from the view there were not and now realize that there may just be enough foolish and even stupidly emotional people to have had them genuinely vote for Biden despite what the Democrats ran on in August 2020 and October 2020 spelling out what they would do. And are doing as we speak, much to everyone but the elite's pain.
Satellite of Love
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AggiEE said:

Quote:

The buildings were in fact undergoing maintenance around the elevator shaft for a very long time preceding 9/11. The company in charge was changed from a public company to a private one. There were many weekends where certain areas of the building were restricted and closed off from access. You would not need extensive wires or detonator cables. Much of the crew could be completely oblivious to what they were actually doing, given that thermite residue was found in the dust, the application of which could have been under the guise of building enhancements or improvements rather than something sinister.


No thermite residue was found in the debris. The author of the original paper has not allowed anyone else to test their dust samples which supposedly contained un-reacted thermite.

Myles Powers does a good job covering the topic.
Satellite of Love
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Did you read the discussion in my link? It talks about the elevator crashes occurring in the lobby and basement levels. It has witness statements hearing and seeing the impacts from cars in those areas along with injuries.

Snowdog's proof is the brief blurb of the janitor who said he heard bombs go off in the basement. We have evidence from others who state that it was the crashes of elevator cars and the sounds and feeling of air rushing from elevator shafts prior to the crashes. It points to plausible explanations beyond the claims of bombs going off in the lobby/basement areas. Also this janitor didn't make these claims of an explosion until years laters. His first few interviews never mentions bombs going off.
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Satellite of Love said:

Did you read the discussion in my link? It talks about the elevator crashes occurring in the lobby and basement levels. It has witness statements hearing and seeing the impacts from cars in those areas along with injuries.

Snowdog's proof is the brief blurb of the janitor who said he heard bombs go off in the basement. We have evidence from others who state that it was the crashes of elevator cars and the sounds and feeling of air rushing from elevator shafts prior to the crashes. It points to plausible explanations beyond the claims of bombs going off in the lobby/basement areas. Also this janitor didn't make these claims of an explosion until years laters. His first few interviews never mentions bombs going off.
I did and its persuasive. Remember neither version is PROOF. At best all we are talking about is EVIDENCE. Go back to USS MAINE. Proof requires being able to either "rule in favor of A" or "rule out B".

But your link is very persuasive, and remember, I had surmised that possibility before even seeing a post about it. Your link addressed the question of the full length of the building. I can see WHY there are '9/11 Truthers' after seeing those points they mention but have seen nothing that persuades that WTC-1 and WTC-2 are other than what they appear. To wit: rammed by Islamist terrorists, set afire, and collapsed.

(Incidentally, WTC-2 never looked like a demolition -- its an obvious buckle and collapse. Now WTC-1 does have an odd resemblance to the "straight into footprint" type fall but not enough to "overturn the call" to use a football or baseball term.

But now read that page on WTC-7 with the agency man's testimony (and oddly timed death) and see if you don't find more holes in the Building 7 story. Remember, cover-ups often prove wrong-doing better than the initial evidence.

AggiEE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Satellite of Love said:

AggiEE said:

Quote:

The buildings were in fact undergoing maintenance around the elevator shaft for a very long time preceding 9/11. The company in charge was changed from a public company to a private one. There were many weekends where certain areas of the building were restricted and closed off from access. You would not need extensive wires or detonator cables. Much of the crew could be completely oblivious to what they were actually doing, given that thermite residue was found in the dust, the application of which could have been under the guise of building enhancements or improvements rather than something sinister.


No thermite residue was found in the debris. The author of the original paper has not allowed anyone else to test their dust samples which supposedly contained un-reacted thermite.

Myles Powers does a good job covering the topic.


I don't see any "debunking" in that video. It starts off with a bunch of childish comments questioning why Dr. Jones went into painstaking detail about the source of his samples, which is a pretty important consideration. Then moves into talk about how thermite can't melt steal yet somehow jet fuel can based on his "scientific" xbox pot experiment.

All in an obnoxiously cheeky british accent. I find it funny how anyone who questions an official story, whether it be JFK, 9/11, COVID is automatically a lunatic just because they find glaring issues in what is being reported.
Satellite of Love
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Did you watch the experiment performed at 8:35? They found no evidence of any aluminum which would be needed for nano-thermite charges. You claimed they found traces of nano-thermite, but how could that be without the presence of aluminum?

He didn't say jet fuel could melt steel beams. He was pointing out how such a small amount in the dust couldn't account for destroying steel beams when he couldn't do it to an Xbox. They only ones who make the melting steel beams argument are truthers.
TRADUCTOR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Did not require jet fuel fire to melt steel to bring down the towers. Sorta like the pickle jar steel lid you can't open; little hot water...
sts7049
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AggiEE said:

Satellite of Love said:

AggiEE said:

Quote:

The buildings were in fact undergoing maintenance around the elevator shaft for a very long time preceding 9/11. The company in charge was changed from a public company to a private one. There were many weekends where certain areas of the building were restricted and closed off from access. You would not need extensive wires or detonator cables. Much of the crew could be completely oblivious to what they were actually doing, given that thermite residue was found in the dust, the application of which could have been under the guise of building enhancements or improvements rather than something sinister.


No thermite residue was found in the debris. The author of the original paper has not allowed anyone else to test their dust samples which supposedly contained un-reacted thermite.

Myles Powers does a good job covering the topic.


I don't see any "debunking" in that video. It starts off with a bunch of childish comments questioning why Dr. Jones went into painstaking detail about the source of his samples, which is a pretty important consideration. Then moves into talk about how thermite can't melt steal yet somehow jet fuel can based on his "scientific" xbox pot experiment.

All in an obnoxiously cheeky british accent. I find it funny how anyone who questions an official story, whether it be JFK, 9/11, COVID is automatically a lunatic just because they find glaring issues in what is being reported.
questioning alone doesn't make you a lunatic

HOW you question it makes you a lunatic
AggiEE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Satellite of Love said:

Did you watch the experiment performed at 8:35? They found no evidence of any aluminum which would be needed for nano-thermite charges. You claimed they found traces of nano-thermite, but how could that be without the presence of aluminum?

He didn't say jet fuel could melt steel beams. He was pointing out how such a small amount in the dust couldn't account for destroying steel beams when he couldn't do it to an Xbox. They only ones who make the melting steel beams argument are truthers.

"Small amount in the dust". It is .1% of a random dust sample. That is a very significant amount given the sheer volume of dust generated by this event.

The paper also talks about the significance of iron-aluminum amount at length.

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2020/09/16/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

"The spheres from the thermite
reaction are observed (using X-EDS methods) to contain strong peaks for aluminum and iron,
and for "thermate"; sulfur is also prominent. (Note that the iron-aluminum-sulfur spheres from
MacKinlay's apartment contained very low calcium, so the sulfur is evidently not from gypsum, a
common building material). Thus we have chemical signatures for thermite variants, and we will
compare the composition of the thermite-generated spheres with the spheres found abundantly in the
WTC dust."

"I will simply say in this paper that iron-aluminum rich spheres are seen in both the WTC dust

and in spherules produced in thermite-control reactions. Details of the spherules and comparisons are
beyond the scope of this paper but are available to me and our team of researchers, and will appear in a
forthcoming paper. We consider the information borne by these previously-molten microspheres
found in large numbers in the WTC dust, for they tell us much about what took place that remarkable
day in history."
snowdog90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Satellite of Love said:

Did you read the discussion in my link? It talks about the elevator crashes occurring in the lobby and basement levels. It has witness statements hearing and seeing the impacts from cars in those areas along with injuries.

Snowdog's proof is the brief blurb of the janitor who said he heard bombs go off in the basement. We have evidence from others who state that it was the crashes of elevator cars and the sounds and feeling of air rushing from elevator shafts prior to the crashes. It points to plausible explanations beyond the claims of bombs going off in the lobby/basement areas. Also this janitor didn't make these claims of an explosion until years laters. His first few interviews never mentions bombs going off.


Satellite, thanks for the civil discussion. Your post about the elevator shaft is good. If I'm wrong about the one freight elevator going from top to bottom, my bad. The janitor, Willie Rodriguez, said a bomb went off in the basement first, then the plane hit around 10 seconds later. In one of those videos it shows a recording of two explosions 9 seconds apart.

I will concede that Willie could have been wrong. Maybe the plane hit and then rhe elevator crashed in the basement- 2 explosions. That does not mean that's what happened, but it could have.

You mention that Willie only made this claim years later. I will concede that - I don't know. But one of the things that makes 911 so frustrating is that no investigation happened until years later. Cleanup crews came in immediately and took evidence away. NIST investigation and report started out years later.

NIST claimed, as did you, that there was no evidence of explosions, so they did no explosive residue tests. This is just wrong. I've seen video of explosions going off on 911. One of them shows firefighters being interviewed after the planes have hit, then a huge boom, and they all jump at the noise.

I can't find that video, but let's just say it doesn't exist. Eyewitness testimony IS EVIDENCE. Hundreds of people reported explosions. Maybe they're wrong, but NIST should have tested for it. And they shouldn't have claimed there was no evidence of explosions when clearly there was.

But I'll even concede that all those people were wrong.

What do you make of Barry Jennings? He claims was trapped in tower 7 by an explosion before the towers fell.

Is he lying? Is he wrong? Is this not evidence of explosions on 911?

titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Satellite,

I am curious as well what you make of the Barry Jennings story--that interview and the page linked on page 7 (at 12:17am post) That article discusses other witnesses, and even the morning routine at 7 that is rather interesting including a meeting evacuated. But something happening to the building even before the twin towers go down.

WTC-7 to me seems possibly worth all the circling around some people are doing.
AggiEE
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Satellite of Love
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's the Stephen Jones paper that was debunked in the video I posted…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Shows didn't really watch my first video.

If the British accent was too distracting then watch Mick West covering the same topic and covering your paper.


RWWilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I challenge any 9/11 conspiracy "truther" to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter.
snowdog90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AggiEE said:





I've seen this video before, but I'm a business major. I assume you're an engineer, what do you conclude from watching this?
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Loyalty said:

People believe what they want to believe. Facts be damned.


Welcome to the world of "Alternative Facts".
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
Satellite of Love
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Berry Jennings is a new name to me. I'll have to look into him.
snowdog90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RWWilson said:

I challenge any 9/11 conspiracy "truther" to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter.


You ask this because you have no answer for Barry Jennings. This is typical.

If I'm wrong, tell me what you think of Barry Jennings. Does his story support the official story? Is he a liar?
snowdog90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Satellite of Love said:

Berry Jennings is a new name to me. I'll have to look into him.


Cool, thanks. Again, I appreciate the civility. I'm happy to be wrong, I'm really only interested in the truth.

 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.