Livewire82 said:

---

I'm not sure what's more hilarious....
1.) that people still buy the COVID narrative
2.) that people still buy the 9-11 narrative
3.) that there are conservatives that are aware of absurdity of the COVID pharma propaganda yet simultaneously view the official 9-11 narrative proffered by that same government as rational and infallible

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" - Goebbles

---

Care to add in your thoughts on the Apollo missions and round earth narratives?

Livewire82 said:

---

I'm not sure what's more hilarious....
1.) that people still buy the COVID narrative
2.) that people still buy the 9-11 narrative
3.) that there are conservatives that are aware of absurdity of the COVID pharma propaganda yet simultaneously view the official 9-11 narrative proffered by that same government as rational and infallible

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" - Goebbles

---

Please enlighten us then, what do you think happened?

Livewire82 said:

---

I'm not sure what's more hilarious....
1.) that people still buy the COVID narrative
2.) that people still buy the 9-11 narrative
3.) that there are conservatives that are aware of absurdity of the COVID pharma propaganda yet simultaneously view the official 9-11 narrative proffered by that same government as rational and infallible

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it" - Goebbles

---

The covid narrative has been rife with revisions and proven lies. And for repeated shutting down of any questions of that narrative leads even more credence to those proven lies.

99% of engineers with functioning brain cells believe and understand the building were not "demolished" nor did they fall at free fall speeds. No one is shutting down your Twitter feed because you question the official story, firing you for not taking experimental, untested, medication, nor locking you inside your home.
The two are not really comparable.

aggiehawg said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

Whole lot of dusting going on.

---

And none of them came straight down, they still leaned with one part of the buidlings going down before it pulls the other side down. And that is with weeks or months of preparation for a controlled demolition.

---

Hmm - I watched your video. It is even more striking that 7 is even smoother. What do you make of that difference?

This is a very recent report (Sept 2019), with a lot of forensics. This doesn't seem so easy to just flip aside. (All the rest sure---but 7 has oddities)

https://ine.uaf.edu/media/222439/uaf_wtc7_draft_report_09-03-2019.pdf

But you clear see that upper penthouse or whatever on the eastern side of the roof (when looking at the north face as the video of collapse is usually doing) go first, then the rest.

Did a review of the Jennings interviews again with the design in mind. Will remark on it.

aggiehawg said:

---

TRADUCTOR said:

---

Not just jet fuel burning...but everything and wind, pressure, etc can raise the temp. The amount of heat generated from 1/4 mile high building collapsing is enormous and as of now; cannot be calculated. So the "toasted" cars is now known as normal effect of a 1/4 mile high building being felled by terrorism.

---

Fire load is just too much.

The Hubs has spoken of the hazards of fighting fires in tilt wall buildings. It is not the concrete that fails, it is their steel connectors. And the amount of time the fire has been happening is a major factor.

Video at LINK

---

"The hubs" or "the rib" needs to get banned from TA nomenclature. I know you use it often but still...

Quote:

---

"The hubs" or "the rib" needs to get banned from TA nomenclature. I know you use it often but still...

---

Why?

snowdog90 said:

---

agracer said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

agracer said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Titan and AgiEE

1. It's not a secret. I've told you about Barry Jennings and it is ignored by 99% of this thread. You don't want me to be right. You don't want to believe our own government could have done this. I get it, I was like that once. It should be easier to believe this now that our government doesn't even try to hide the corruption anymore, but more on that later.

---

One singular eyewitness, in the middle of an absolutely ridiculously stressful situation with literal buildings coming down around him hearing something that sounds like explosions vs mountains of evidence, eye witnesses, videos etc (and common sense) backing the official narrative.

---

It's entirely possible, and frankly quite likely, he heard the steel structure yielding/failing and it expanded and bolts/rivits also popping that sounds like explosions. Other stuff burning and collapsing. EDIT TO ADD: the towers fell while he was trapped and DEBRIS from the falling WTC towers hit building 7 (because, you know, it free fell straight down into the basement ;( ). He likely heard crap hitting B7.

My old house used to "pop" and night here in the Midwest. We sometimes get 90-deg days in the early fall followed by 60-deg nights. The wood structure pops while it contracts.

---

Here is Barry Jennings. 2 interviews. He heard the first explosion before any tower fell. Nothing hit tower 7 from outside causing the stairwell he was on to collapse, trapping him on the 8th floor. He says it was an explosion in tower 7 below him.

Watch. It's hard to claim he's lying or confused. His testimony is firsthand evidence of an explosion, at least one. If people want to say he's wrong, that's one thing, but witness testimony is evidence. It should have been investigated and there should have been tests done for explosive residue.

---

Sure seems to me he is saying one of the buildings was gone after the "explosion" partially collapsed the stairs he was descending for him to climb from 6 to 8.

https://www.corbettreport.com/9-11-whistleblowers-barry-jennings/

"When we reached the 6th floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way. There was an explosion and the landing gave way. And I was left there, hanging. I had to climb back up. And now I had to walk back up to the 8th floor. After getting to the 8th floor, everything was dark. It was dark and it was very, very hot. Very hot.

I asked Mr. Hess to test the phones as I took a fire extinguisher and broke out the windows. Once I broke out the windows, I could see outside below me. I saw police cars on fire. Buses on fire. I looked one way, the building was there. I looked the other way, it was gone."

---

Yes that is confusing, but he repeatedly says neither building had fallen when they were trapped. Maybe he was wrong.

---

Finished re-watching after having a plan of the building in mind and the compass directions. A couple of thoughs.

A) The first shorter interview is on 9/11/01 itself, about 1pm from context given in it. Jennings has just been rescued. Now what stands out is the other guy with him, the guy who helped arrange his rescue by seeing him waving from the window and he then and went go help. A couple of things stand out about that first interview and other witness. He is doing this standing in a street--- this tends to support that it is before a tower collapse has happened and completely engulfed everything in dust and ruin.

The later longer interview in 2007 clears many things up, but what want to remark on is he is a very good witness. His account even frazzled, just having escape in 2001 does not differ tremendously from later, just has less details than 2007.

Your question about the buildings and falling he clears up himself in the same interview when asked. FWIW, he makes clear that at the time of when waving for help both are still standing though burning. He describes clearly twice the firefighters having to abandon their attempt to get to him, because the towers falling-- so that would be 9:59am and then 10:28am. Finally they get to him and he is brought out of WTC7 by 1pm. He correctly states he didnt't see it fall. He is even home by the time he learns of this (it happened at 5:20pm)

IF his correction that both buildings were standing when he first tries to get help by breaking out the window and getting attention is correct, then the earlier explosion can ONLY be either the 9:02am impact on WTC-2, or an unknown cause. It is not the 8:46am impact on WTC-1 because that has already happened when he gets to WTC-7 and tries to get up to the meeting on 23rd floor.

Now the question arises, would the plane impact on WTC-2, from which his building is separated by an entire other building between that didnt' fall (WTC-6) and even WTC-1 (which is not really falling apart as fast) from WTC-2--- would that produce his "explosion" and destruction of the 6th floor landing where its a gaping hole under them from below? Would it at that distance? Look at the complex plan and you will see why this is puzzling. Another thing--the guy that rescues him describes how the backside of the building is already smashed, staircases inaccessible. Yet in the time frame only the 9:02 impact on WTC-2 seems capable of doing much. But it seems rather distant. Anyway, that's all got.

One thing is for sure--- his account is even architecturally consistent, which is one of the tests to go by.

Ok, but they are comparable in other ways...
as with Covid, people employ appeals to authoritarianism via consensus to shut down dialogue, i.e., 'the science', 'trust the experts', or your phrase, '99% of engineers with functioning brain cells'. Anyone who questions even just one of the multitude of inconsistencies of either narrative tends to be treated as either a heretic, dumb, and/or tinfoil hat wearer.

I don't claim know everything about what happened on that day. There are multiple -often conflicting- logical explanations for the different events. As with Covid, there is NOT consensus - other than the illusion of if forced from the top down. There is also not a narrative I'm committed to defending. I think blind obedience to any narrative for any event, be it the popular state-sanctioned one or Alex Jones', is neither virtuous nor patriotic.

However, anyone -regardless of their credentials- who defaults to the NIST explanation for how 2 planes collapsed 3 buildings into their footprints as if that is the most rational and normal explanation is the same to me as a doctor who cites 'the science' or the cdc to explain why healthy people are killing grandma so they need face diapers and infinite gmo mystery cocktails to live in society. 2 different forms of Scientism, not science IMO.

Bottom line, tower 7 doesn't make sense. I think a lot of other things don't make sense, but, as this thread confirms, it's pretty taboo to talk about it in public.

Also, bottom line, it almost doesn't matter. I kinda wish I'd never gone down this rabbit hole because nothing will change and I just get cally crazy a lot more than usual.
Whether or not the official story is true, our government is incredibly corrupt and has been for a long time.

I'm very interested to see what happens in the next presidential election, if it can still be called an election. If somehow we have a President Newsom, the status of Banana Republic will be official.

Agree entirely. Its especially absurd when you have such detailed forensics finding contradictions. This is normal variance in inquiries, and to ridicule one over the other because of other factors makes little sense.

Having looked over the NIST report it doesn't even factor significant damage to the 6th floor and other parts of the building described by Jennings, and yet his account architecturally matches the layout as he describes he and his associate's attempts to escape. To completely not address this is baffling -- especially since it is known the Con Edison substation did not explode (one longshot idea had when read this) since it was shut down at 4:33pm without incident. (That part is on the northern face at ground level) Yet by all appearances the report is careful and inclusive --- perhaps they simply did not know of the testimony and incident. NIST believes all who intended to leave had left by 9:59am.

Its a fascinating riddle. At the same time, things like disintegrating weapons and other such are clearly farcical. Jennings was a witness there and a real-time one (interview) and that's whole different thing than crazy speculations about the two main towers. At least imo.

There is mention of him being filmed at that window--- would like to see that. The guess is its the Washington Street side.

titan said:

---

Agree entirely. Its especially absurd when you have such detailed forensics finding contradictions. This is normal variance in inquiries, and to ridicule one over the other because of other factors makes little sense.

Having looked over the NIST report it doesn't even factor significant damage to the 6th floor and other parts of the building described by Jennings, and yet his account architecturally matches the layout as he describes he and his associate's attempts to escape. To completely not address this is baffling -- especially since it is known the Con Edison substation did not explode (one longshot idea had when read this) since it was shut down at 4:33pm without incident. (That part is on the northern face at ground level) Yet by all appearances the report is careful and inclusive --- perhaps they simply did not know of the testimony and incident. NIST believes all who intended to leave had left by 9:59am.

Its a fascinating riddle. At the same time, things like disintegrating weapons and other such are clearly farcical. Jennings was a witness there and a real-time one (interview) and that's whole different thing than crazy speculations about the two main towers. At least imo.

There is mention of him being filmed at that window--- would like to see that. The guess is its the Washington Street side.

---

I'll try to find that video. Ive seen it yesterday i think.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

"The hubs" or "the rib" needs to get banned from TA nomenclature. I know you use it often but still...

---

Why?

---

Personally, I like when you say hubs. For some reason, it gives me the impression that you guys are cute together and happy, which puts a smile on my face.

snowdog90 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

"The hubs" or "the rib" needs to get banned from TA nomenclature. I know you use it often but still...

---

Why?

---

Personally, I like when you say hubs. For some reason, it gives me the impression that you guys are cute together and happy, which puts a smile on my face.

---

We are. I'm not "the ball chain" nor "the rib".

And "Mr. aggiehawg" sounds more disrespectful to me.

Livewire82 said:

---

Ok, but they are comparable in other ways...
as with Covid, people employ appeals to authoritarianism via consensus to shut down dialogue, i.e., 'the science', 'trust the experts', or your phrase, '99% of engineers with functioning brain cells'. Anyone who questions even just one of the multitude of inconsistencies of either narrative tends to be treated as either a heretic, dumb, and/or tinfoil hat wearer.

I don't claim know everything about what happened on that day. There are multiple -often conflicting- logical explanations for the different events. As with Covid, there is NOT consensus - other than the illusion of if forced from the top down. There is also not a narrative I'm committed to defending. I think blind obedience to any narrative for any event, be it the popular state-sanctioned one or Alex Jones', is neither virtuous nor patriotic.

However, anyone -regardless of their credentials- who defaults to the NIST explanation for how 2 planes collapsed 3 buildings into their footprints as if that is the most rational and normal explanation is the same to me as a doctor who cites 'the science' or the cdc to explain why healthy people are killing grandma so they need face diapers and infinite gmo mystery cocktails to live in society. 2 different forms of Scientism, not science IMO.

---

So, no theory about what you think actually happened because you know it would sound insane and ridiculous. Got it.

lol, the whole plan of wiring the two towers to blow up hinges on some Third World terrorist mislins with 6 months of learning how to fly.

Livewire82 said:

---

Ok, but they are comparable in other ways...
as with Covid, people employ appeals to authoritarianism via consensus to shut down dialogue, i.e., 'the science', 'trust the experts', or your phrase, '99% of engineers with functioning brain cells'. Anyone who questions even just one of the multitude of inconsistencies of either narrative tends to be treated as either a heretic, dumb, and/or tinfoil hat wearer.

I don't claim know everything about what happened on that day. There are multiple -often conflicting- logical explanations for the different events. As with Covid, there is NOT consensus - other than the illusion of if forced from the top down. There is also not a narrative I'm committed to defending. I think blind obedience to any narrative for any event, be it the popular state-sanctioned one or Alex Jones', is neither virtuous nor patriotic.

However, anyone -regardless of their credentials- who defaults to the NIST explanation for how 2 planes collapsed 3 buildings into their footprints as if that is the most rational and normal explanation is the same to me as a doctor who cites 'the science' or the cdc to explain why healthy people are killing grandma so they need face diapers and infinite gmo mystery cocktails to live in society. 2 different forms of Scientism, not science IMO.

---

I have no issue with questions about gaps in the official narrative of 9/11.

What I do have a problem with is people insisting the towers and B7 were brought down by demolition charges. It's just not feasible if you have even a basic understanding of how building are brought down this way. You don't just plant a few charges and it comes down. You practically demo the structure throughout the building to the point where the building is barely standing on it's own (ALL FLOORS). It's just not feasible to do this in a building with office working coming in/out every day for months (8000+ in B7) and NO ONE SINGLE office worker has said anything about it.

Finally, WTC1 & 2 started to fall from the top. That's also not how you demo a building like this. It starts at bottom/middle as the numerous examples in the Vegas video demonstrate.

I also keep hearing they fall at "free fall speed" which again has been shown to be 100% false.

Question the narrative all you want. But don't feed me a crap sandwich and tell it's more like a grilled cheese b/c you cut it diagonal.

As for covid, the story has changed MULTIPLE times. Every conspiracy theory about the virus and the vaccine has shown to be true (came from a lab, no gain of function research funding, no side effects from the vaccine), the vaccine is fully approved (it's STILL NOT), vaccine is safe for children (who don't need it), vaccine to keep your job, take the vaccine to protect others (oops, that's wrong too). The gaslighting as been over the top.

As far as doctors, yeah most of them work for corporations and want to keep their jobs. No one is forcing you to believe the 9/11 narrative to keep your job, cancel your social media accounts, arresting you for walking on the beach or locking you in your homes.

Put my tinfoil hat on and watched the Dr. Wood video last night. Quick take is that she is either crazy or financially motivated, or potentially both.

The entire "inside job" theory rests on disregarding the hijackers, fuel on board, and a huge limitation of exoskeleton design of very large, tall buildings.

That being said, I think there is some interesting potential in looking further into the chemical and physical interactions that took place in those buildings that morning. Having seen several of the pieces of steel, watching all the documentaries, and after watching the Dr. Wood video there are some questions in my mind about what truly happened internally between impact and "dustification".

I would listen to someone explain to me that mixing certain ingredients and conditions in those buildings that morning led to a chemical / physical reaction that have not previously been observed. The folding and bending of the steel would be exhibit A that some incredible forces were at play that morning.

fka ftc said:

---

Put my tinfoil hat on and watched the Dr. Wood video last night. Quick take is that she is either crazy or financially motivated, or potentially both.

The entire "inside job" theory rests on disregarding the hijackers, fuel on board, and a huge limitation of exoskeleton design of very large, tall buildings.

That being said, I think there is some interesting potential in looking further into the chemical and physical interactions that took place in those buildings that morning. Having seen several of the pieces of steel, watching all the documentaries, and after watching the Dr. Wood video there are some questions in my mind about what truly happened internally between impact and "dustification".

I would listen to someone explain to me that mixing certain ingredients and conditions in those buildings that morning led to a chemical / physical reaction that have not previously been observed. The folding and bending of the steel would be exhibit A that some incredible forces were at play that morning.

---

You were more open and generous than I -- even though open minded and I was willing to take a look at the WTC-7 paradoxes and especially someone like Jenning's testimony from the immediate aftermath, all rather ideal in evidence terms to have.

But the moment I saw a blurb about `dustification' or some kind of beam weapon or anything like that for the Twins just waved it away. When you see the documentation (see below) behind the reports, you can't go that far into any rabbit-hole either.

I am still thoroughly at that Gerry Spence type of take: Two things may be true. Twin Towers destroyed by the AQ terrorist planes but it is possible WTC-7 was dropped for the reasons the owner stated, and that it in particular already had that capability set up for reasons tied to some of more shadowy and sensitive office roles. Its also just possible that fires dropped it-- -but why does the one exception of all those kind of buildings happen that day to it? But it turns out there is a gold mine of info that looks at this matter further.

NIST put their supporting documentation online. That is the kind of thing that a researcher if they can pick what they want, it is that. It shows that the damage Jennings describes is certainly present, lobby demolished, etc, but that doesn't prove the origin of the explosions. The collateral effect of No.1 tower strike and especially its fall better documented in the supporting documents.

https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611

Definitely not my forte but I watched the day long History Channel's 9/11 marathon, including the one about how the Towers were constructed. Few interior offices, most of the floors were open space using cubicles. And that was specifically requested in the design.

A fully loaded commercial aircraft with that much fuel on board, open space so it is not channeled in any particular direction and a ton of combustible materials that you would have in an office setting. Fire spreads very rapidly and intensifies as it encounters more and more "fuel."

Contrast that situation to what happened in the Pentagon with a crap ton of interior office spaces and walls that better contained the fire.

Livewire82 said:

---

Ok, but they are comparable in other ways...
as with Covid, people employ appeals to authoritarianism via consensus to shut down dialogue, i.e., 'the science', 'trust the experts', or your phrase, '99% of engineers with functioning brain cells'. Anyone who questions even just one of the multitude of inconsistencies of either narrative tends to be treated as either a heretic, dumb, and/or tinfoil hat wearer.

I don't claim know everything about what happened on that day. There are multiple -often conflicting- logical explanations for the different events. As with Covid, there is NOT consensus - other than the illusion of if forced from the top down. There is also not a narrative I'm committed to defending. I think blind obedience to any narrative for any event, be it the popular state-sanctioned one or Alex Jones', is neither virtuous nor patriotic.

However, anyone -regardless of their credentials- who defaults to the NIST explanation for how 2 planes collapsed 3 buildings into their footprints as if that is the most rational and normal explanation is the same to me as a doctor who cites 'the science' or the cdc to explain why healthy people are killing grandma so they need face diapers and infinite gmo mystery cocktails to live in society. 2 different forms of Scientism, not science IMO.

---

Let's remember, also...

ALL of these theories on how the towers fell are CONSPIRACY THEORIES, even the official story. Every one of these theories is based on video of 9/11 and maybe some physical samples left over from the scene. NIST did not investigate 9/11 until years later, well after the crime scene had been cleaned up.

In NIST's first report, they ignored tower 7 totally. They were forced to add the tower 7 "findings" a year later.

In doing this investigation, NIST, a goverment agency, was well aware that the government they worked for had already come to a conclusion about what happened. In fact, that government was fighting a war in 2 foreign countries based on a certain conclusion.

Most people on this board have a healthy skepticism of the government when it is charged with investigating itself, but not in this case. The fact that NIST concluded EXACTLY what its own government concluded is not surprising at all. Their conspiracy theory involves bin Laden, 19 hijackers, and 2 magical planes that took down 3 skyscrapers.

It is no more or less scientific than any other conspuracy theory that exists about 9/11. We will never know what happened with full certainty. It's not possible.

Most Americans choose to believe the NIST version. That's fine. I can't do that. Too many strange things don't make sense, especially tower 7, but also so many other things.

Just because I don't believe the official story does not mandate that I have to know exactly what happened and exactly how and why it was done. I don't and probably never will.

Is any of what I've said above crazy? Does this post make me an emotional tinfoil hat wearer?

I just read another thread about how harmful the vaccines are to pregnant and lactating women and their babies. This is the vaccine many were forced to take to keep their jobs.

Forced by the government.

The same government NIST is a part of.

fka ftc said:

---

Put my tinfoil hat on and watched the Dr. Wood video last night. Quick take is that she is either crazy or financially motivated, or potentially both.

The entire "inside job" theory rests on disregarding the hijackers, fuel on board, and a huge limitation of exoskeleton design of very large, tall buildings.

That being said, I think there is some interesting potential in looking further into the chemical and physical interactions that took place in those buildings that morning. Having seen several of the pieces of steel, watching all the documentaries, and after watching the Dr. Wood video there are some questions in my mind about what truly happened internally between impact and "dustification".

I would listen to someone explain to me that mixing certain ingredients and conditions in those buildings that morning led to a chemical / physical reaction that have not previously been observed. The folding and bending of the steel would be exhibit A that some incredible forces were at play that morning.

---

Wow, awesome, you watched it. As for Judy Wood, I disagree with your opinion of her, but no biggie.

What did you think of the toasted cars? Had you ever seen that part of 911 before? What the hell is that?

Quote:

---

Most people on this board have a healthy skepticism of the government when it is charged with investigating itself, but not in this case. The fact that NIST concluded EXACTLY what its own government concluded is not surprising at all.

---

(Talking about WTC-7 only here ---that is all have had time to get drawn into a deep dive of)

It - the NIST report- is a little more honest about its uncertainty than that implies though. Was very impressed with the supporting documentation, which is the kind of thing almost no one looks at. It admits all kind of things that don't help its main narrative, which is what a good approach does.

Like any truths and conclusion, it is hard to summarize quick, but it basically confirms the visuals of what Jennings reported. Where it goes off reservation is (and this may go to the pre-decided conclusion part) is just not discussing the implication of an explosion from below and and the circumstances that trap Jennings.

Here's the knot: everything Jennings says can be true --- but it really depends on if the "explosion" is the 9:02 am impact on WTC-2 and /or follow-up damage happening because of the debris falling down from WTC-1 -- not hitting it directly, I am talking about if it landing in front of it and blasting a sideways surget of debris into the ground floor.

One thing can say for sure for the skeptic side: they cannot be taken seriously if they don't watch Jennings interviews, and realize that his descriptions are very, very accurate, even down to having to resort to freight elevators to go on up to the 23rd as an alternative (because they ran the full length) when the normal going up was blocked/damaged. (that's another question--by what if its prior to a tower fall?)

You are very right to focus on Jennings and any similar testimony about events that morning. Just what is trapping him, and why bursting up from below?

Another point of honest usefulness of his account: it has nothing to say about the building falling other than his informed doubt. He didn't see it go. That leaves us looking at it falling at 5:20pm in a way that just seems surreally smooth.

And that's where things tand.

snowdog90 said:

---

Livewire82 said:

---

Ok, but they are comparable in other ways...
as with Covid, people employ appeals to authoritarianism via consensus to shut down dialogue, i.e., 'the science', 'trust the experts', or your phrase, '99% of engineers with functioning brain cells'. Anyone who questions even just one of the multitude of inconsistencies of either narrative tends to be treated as either a heretic, dumb, and/or tinfoil hat wearer.

I don't claim know everything about what happened on that day. There are multiple -often conflicting- logical explanations for the different events. As with Covid, there is NOT consensus - other than the illusion of if forced from the top down. There is also not a narrative I'm committed to defending. I think blind obedience to any narrative for any event, be it the popular state-sanctioned one or Alex Jones', is neither virtuous nor patriotic.

However, anyone -regardless of their credentials- who defaults to the NIST explanation for how 2 planes collapsed 3 buildings into their footprints as if that is the most rational and normal explanation is the same to me as a doctor who cites 'the science' or the cdc to explain why healthy people are killing grandma so they need face diapers and infinite gmo mystery cocktails to live in society. 2 different forms of Scientism, not science IMO.

---

Let's remember, also...

ALL of these theories on how the towers fell are CONSPIRACY THEORIES, even the official story. Every one of these theories is based on video of 9/11 and maybe some physical samples left over from the scene. NIST did not investigate 9/11 until years later, well after the crime scene had been cleaned up.

In NIST's first report, they ignored tower 7 totally. They were forced to add the tower 7 "findings" a year later.

In doing this investigation, NIST, a goverment agency, was well aware that the government they worked for had already come to a conclusion about what happened. In fact, that government was fighting a war in 2 foreign countries based on a certain conclusion.

Most people on this board have a healthy skepticism of the government when it is charged with investigating itself, but not in this case. The fact that NIST concluded EXACTLY what its own government concluded is not surprising at all. Their conspiracy theory involves bin Laden, 19 hijackers, and 2 magical planes that took down 3 skyscrapers.

It is no more or less scientific than any other conspuracy theory that exists about 9/11. We will never know what happened with full certainty. It's not possible.

Most Americans choose to believe the NIST version. That's fine. I can't do that. Too many strange things don't make sense, especially tower 7, but also so many other things.

Just because I don't believe the official story does not mandate that I have to know exactly what happened and exactly how and why it was done. I don't and probably never will.

Is any of what I've said above crazy? Does this post make me an emotional tinfoil hat wearer?

I just read another thread about how harmful the vaccines are to pregnant and lactating women and their babies. This is the vaccine many were forced to take to keep their jobs.

Forced by the government.

The same government NIST is a part of.

---

There's no reasoning with someone who is going to make these kinds of farcical claims. There is nothing magical about a 767 full of fuel starting an uncontrollable fire in a high rise building, after impact, being fueled first by the planes fuel (which was vaporized and ignited on impact), then continuing to burn as tons of paper, carpet, desks and other office accoutrements fueled the fire, along with the air blowing into the gaping hole made by the airliners impact. In none of the other examples of uncontrolled fires do you have this kind of ignition source, fuel source, circumstances (fire protection on the steel being blow off by the impacting airplane) nor do you have similar structural construction to the twin towers.

Multiple outside entities, with no government funding and no incentive to agree, have corroborated the NIST reports of the towers falling. The problem with the demo theory/conspiracy is there is 1000 holes in those theories vs just a few in the NIST report.

Occam's Razor,,,the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Re: Jennings... below is basically the official story and timeline from the NIST if anybody else wants to look at it like I did..

Quote:

---

6.4 ACTIVITY AT WTC 7 FROM 8:46 A.M. TO 10:30 A.M. EDT

At 8:46 a.m., the aircraft impact on the north side of WTC 1 showered debris onto the adjacent buildings and streets below. As a result of this impact, the electrical power went out for several seconds inside WTC 7. After learning of the situation at WTC 1, many occupants of WTC 7 immediately began leaving their building (Chapter 7). The OEM operations center also began receiving calls related to the emergency.

At 9:03 a.m., a building engineer in a hallway on the 44th floor heard glass breaking when the second aircraft struck WTC 2. Another interviewee stated that the second aircraft impact further indicated the possibility of a threat to WTC 7, and it quickly led to the first order to evacuate the building.
Shortly after WTC 2 was struck, there were numerous small fires outside WTC 7 at the street level. A firefighter entered WTC 7 from "the Washington Street and Vesey Street sides," connected a hose line to the "A" stairwell sprinkler riser, located on the west side of the building, and started the engine's pump. At 9:16 a.m., NYPD officers from Manhattan South began to establish a security perimeter extending two city blocks around the WTC site. This security perimeter contained WTC 7.

At 9:30 a.m., the FDNY Emergency Medical Service (EMS) established a Division at WTC 7 for assisting victims. An EMS triage center was established in the lobby of WTC 7 as occupants from WTC 1 and WTC 6 evacuated through WTC 7. In addition, at about 9:30 a.m., the building engineer mentioned above went up to the penthouse of WTC 7 to get supplies for the triage center. He reported that all mechanical and electrical equipment was operating, and that the building's air dampers were closed to control dust intake. As the evacuation continued, he had other building staff members check the tenant floors to make sure everyone was out of the building.

At approximately 9:32 a.m., after a report of a third aircraft heading into the city, a second order was given in the OEM office to evacuate the WTC 7 facility. A number of personnel stayed in the OEM office and continued to work. Again, at approximately 9:44 a.m., following the news that the Pentagon had been attacked, a Deputy OEM Commissioner verbally ordered the complete evacuation of WTC 7 (Sheirer 2004). This order included the evacuation of the OEM operations center on the 23rd floor. Before evacuating, OEM assigned personnel to work with each of the emergency responder command posts. Though this action reduced the impact of the loss of the OEM office, the loss did create difficulties related to the coordination of emergency responder operations and resources. As an example, shortly after WTC 7 was evacuated, the FDNY Fire Commissioner arrived, looking for the Mayor, who he believed to be at the OEM center on the 23rd floor. A guard met the Commissioner in the lobby and ordered him and his staff out of the building. The guard told him, "This building has been evacuated," and "OEM, the mayor, they're all gone" (Von Essen 2002).

At 9:45 a.m. the NYPD Command and Control Center at One Police Plaza was activated.

At 9:59 a.m., the triage center located in the lobby of WTC 7 was expanded. Operations were being set up on the loading dock of WTC 7 when WTC 2 collapsed.

When WTC 2 collapsed at 9:59 a.m., light debris from the collapse struck the south face of WTC 7 (Section 5.5). This collapse caused the emergency battery-powered lighting to come on inside WTC 7. In addition, the emergency AC power generators began operating. The building engineer went up to the 4th floor cafeteria. When he opened the east emergency exit door, he saw what he described as heavy smoke and dust, and there was a reddish glow from above. He also mentioned smelling fuel oil and feeling heat.

At approximately 10:00 a.m., a WTC 7 security manager was concerned that he might still have personnel on the 44th floor and started up the "A" (west) stairway to get his people out of the building. At 10:28 a.m., when WTC 1 collapsed, he had reached the 30th floor, and then continued up the stairway. There was rubble just before the 44th floor landing, and the stairway swayed or vibrated. Smoke or dust was swirling around. During this climb, he opened doors on the 23rd floor to check for OEM staff, and the floor was full of smoke or dust. He also opened a door on the 26th floor to check for occupants and found none. NIST was unable to find any evidence that, by approximately 10:30 a.m., any of the original occupants who intended to leave WTC 7 had not already done so (Chapter 7).

6.5.2 Rescue Operations

The initial response to the towers' collapses by emergency responders at the scene was to find lost members of their units and to conduct necessary rescue operations for personnel calling for help. Also, as the radio systems came back on line, emergency responders indicated that the radios became filled with Mayday distress messages, and surviving personnel began to respond to these calls for help. These statements are supported by numerous emergency responder comments during first-person interviews, as well as the numerous Mayday calls heard on the radios following the buildings collapsing. As a result of these calls, emergency responders initially were focused on rescuing trapped personnel and were not addressing any issues associated with the condition of WTC 7.

However, as the dust cloud continued to clear, it became apparent that WTC 7 had sustained damage and required immediate attention. The PAPD reported that the collapse of WTC 1 had done significant damage to WTC 7. FDNY personnel at the scene reported that a large amount of debris from WTC 1 had crashed through the front center (south side) of WTC 7 from approximately the 10th floor down to ground level, and debris ripped off part of the southwest corner from approximately the 8th floor up to the 18th floor. The collapse of WTC 1 also was ascribed as responsible for starting fires inside of WTC 7.

As all of the emergency responder restructuring operations were underway, three people became temporarily trapped inside WTC 7. Two New York City employees had gone to the OEM Center on the 23rd floor and found no one there. As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs, the lights inside WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At that point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase. When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers (at an unspecified location) came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor, broke out two windows, and called for help. Fire fighters on the ground saw them and went up the stairs.

A security officer for one of the businesses in the building headed back up to a floor in the 40s after WTC 2 collapsed to see if all his personnel were out of the building. He was accompanied by a police officer, but the police officer had trouble breathing around the 10th floor and exited the building. The security officer had reached the 30th floor when the building shook as WTC 1 collapsed, and the stairwell became dark. He began to descend and stopped at the 23rd floor to see if anyone was on the OEM floor. He opened the door to check for staff that might have been present and saw that the area was filled with smoke. He made it down to the 7th floor, where he stopped because he could not see or breathe at this point. He broke a window near the center of the north face to yell for help. A ladder truck pulled up, but could not reach the window because of the Con Edison building extension at the lower floors. Firemen came up the stairwell right away. Soon after WTC 1 collapsed, the security officer saw a fire on the west side of Floor 7 that he attempted to put out with an extinguisher, but he was unable to do so.

As the firefighters went up, they vented the stairway and cleared some of the smoke. They first met the security officer on the 7th floor, and fire fighters escorted him down the stairs. Other fire fighters from the group continued up the stairs, shined their flashlights through the staircase smoke and called out. The two trapped men on the 8th floor saw the flashlight beams, heard the firefighters calling, and went down the stairway. The firefighters took the men outside and directed them away from the building.

---

We're really dealing with trying to put together a timeline on Jennings testimony where like 15 minutes either way makes a huge difference in his testimony and for the most part he is inside of a building not seeing what is happening and so he does not have the same understanding of the sequence of events at that time that someone watching the news or who was outside in lower Manhattan that day would have.

He gets to the building somewhere after at least 9:00 am to report to help with the emergency at the cities OEM located in WTC 7. He goes up, finds nobody there, then comes down, hears a boom, and gets trapped, and tries to escape.

As far as I can tell, the "Jennings heard an explosion" is based on him doing everything early. We know the lobby of the building is intact at 10:00 am and destroyed at 10:30 am. The official report chooses to believe that Jennings was in the stairwell at 10:30 when WTC 1 collapsed. The truther story seems to be that this happened like at 10:15 in the middle of the two collapses. Its likely just confusion of timing on Jennings part and then him piecing it together after the fact. The extreme side, of the truthers stretch it even further. They believe that this "bomb" was even earlier than 10:00 am when WTC 2 collapsed. IMO, there is zero chance that an explosion went off in WTC 7 prior to 10:00 am and the collapse of tower 2. Earlier than 10:00 am and there would have been more people still in and around that building. It wasn't officially asked to evacuate until 9:30, and not all OEM personnel until 9:45.

IMO, WTC 2 collapsed at 9:59 am while Jennings was still trying to get to work at the OEM, and then WTC 1 collapsed while he was trying to leave the building and he was rescued after that. IMO nothing else makes sense. If he was really on an earlier timeline, he would have found more people in the building who would have told him "we're all getting the **** out." (Like the NYFD Fire Comissioner who arrived at the OEM presumably sometime shortly after 9:44 am and was told by a security guard that everyone has to get out and everyone from the city is gone). His story of going up and finding everybody totally gone points to him being there later in time than he thinks.

agracer said:

---

There's no reasoning with someone who is going to make these kinds of farcical claims. There is nothing magical about a 767 full of fuel starting an uncontrollable fire in a high rise building, after impact, being fueled first by the planes fuel (which was vaporized and ignited on impact), then continuing to burn as tons of paper, carpet, desks and other office accoutrements fueled the fire, along with the air blowing into the gaping hole made by the airliners impact. In none of the other examples of uncontrolled fires do you have this kind of ignition source, fuel source, circumstances (fire protection on the steel being blow off by the impacting airplane) nor do you have similar structural construction to the twin towers.

Multiple outside entities, with no government funding and no incentive to agree, have corroborated the NIST reports of the towers falling. The problem with the demo theory/conspiracy is there is 1000 holes in those theories vs just a few in the NIST report.

Occam's Razor,,,the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

---

Not sure the part about the fuel being vaporized and ignited at impact. Certainly a substantial quantity was as evidenced in the fireballs. But I had not seen until watching a recent documentary on the evacuation of people just how much fuel went into the buildings and down the elevator shafts.

Its also important to note that jet fuel is a kerosene not a gasoline and requires a much higher temp to ignite. Possible, if not probable, the Jet A soaked the building top to bottom and may have contributed to the "dustification" and to the collapse of the building. That was my point about investigating what may have been really going on inside and on the then evacuated floors.

Related to another post, I have no explanation for the toasted cars. The video said the dust cloud was cold or not hot but they may have varied. Again, pressures, volatile chemicals, etc can make for unusual results - not to be confused with the Hutchison nonsense which has been widely debunked over the years.

One point on the conspiracy to get us into a decades long conflict... there are much easier ways to accomplish this without secretly wiring buildings to vaporize and killing thousands of Americans. You could have leveled a city in Central America with the good doctor's fancy microwave device and accomplished the same global reaction.

Occam's razor wins again on this one - in my humble opinion of course.

Excellent. You are looking at some of the documentation had found as well. And how it both confirms Jenning's testimony, yet doesn't of course objectively answer/link everythiung he describes.

Quote:

---

We're really dealing with trying to put together a timeline on Jennings testimony where like 15 minutes either way makes a huge difference in his testimony and for the most part he is inside of a building not seeing what is happening and so he does not have the same understanding of the sequence of events at that time that someone watching the news or who was outside in lower Manhattan that day would have.

---

It absolutely does. That's why when found the supporting documentation have re-evaluated what was when. Its worth mentioning when they mention a triage in the lobby -- that WTC-7 had two bigs one actually. One on the ground floor, and a rather fancy wide one at the 3rd floor level that directly adjoined a very wide elevated plaza or terracce that joined to the Trade Center complex to the south. It formed a bridge over Vesey Street. This is the lobby where people were flooding into from the stricken towers to the south and the triage, and some from other entrances.

My statement of "magical planes" is referring to 2 planes taking out 3 steel-framed buildings.

If it's farcical to question tower 7 being the only steel-framed building in history to collapse due to office fires, I guess I'm being farcical.

Question. And I'm trusting you to be honest with this one and trust that you will be as we debated this years ago on this board when you used to cite Al Franken's clearly satirical book as evidence then realized it was satire and I've noticed you are no longer citing it. So I trust that you do try to argue from an honest place.

Here's the question: have you ever read the NIST report? If yes, can you honestly say you can follow and understand its' base findings and engineering based evidence to reach its' conclusion?

snowdog90 said:

---

My statement of "magical planes" is referring to 2 planes taking out 3 steel-framed buildings.

If it's farcical to question tower 7 being the only steel-framed building in history to collapse due to office fires, I guess I'm being farcical.

---

It may have been the first to collapse, but I think it is no longer the only one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasco_Building

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edif%C3%ADcio_Wilton_Paes_de_Almeida

Nobody can explain the toasted cars. Some of them ended up on top of another car. How did that happen? Again, it doesn't make sense. Much like so many other things on 9/11.

As for the dust, there's tons of people who were caught in the dust. I don't remember any of those people suffering from burns. That would suggest the dust was not hot.

I make no claim as to what any of that means, I just find it fascinating, a mystery.

JJxvi said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

My statement of "magical planes" is referring to 2 planes taking out 3 steel-framed buildings.

If it's farcical to question tower 7 being the only steel-framed building in history to collapse due to office fires, I guess I'm being farcical.

---

It may have been the first to collapse, but I think it is no longer the only one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasco_Building

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edif%C3%ADcio_Wilton_Paes_de_Almeida

---

Very interesting. Didn't know this. Thanks.

snowdog90 said:

---

JJxvi said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

My statement of "magical planes" is referring to 2 planes taking out 3 steel-framed buildings.

If it's farcical to question tower 7 being the only steel-framed building in history to collapse due to office fires, I guess I'm being farcical.

---

It may have been the first to collapse, but I think it is no longer the only one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasco_Building

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edif%C3%ADcio_Wilton_Paes_de_Almeida

---

Very interesting. Didn't know this. Thanks.

---

Accepting that the 9/11 conspiracy industry has lied to you, is the first step to recovery.

snowdog90 said:

---

My statement of "magical planes" is referring to 2 planes taking out 3 steel-framed buildings.

If it's farcical to question tower 7 being the only steel-framed building in history to collapse due to office fires, I guess I'm being farcical.

---

It was damaged by WTC 1 falling down. The south side of the building was damaged from the 10th floor down. It wasn't just fire. The structure was damaged.