snowdog90 said:

---

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.

---

Demolition charges bringing the buildings down doesn't explain it either.

They had gas in them. Damaged from falling plane debris, falling building debris smash them and fuel leaks out. Embers from the fires catch and whoosh, up they go. It's not hard to explain how they might have caught on fire if hit by pieces of building.

Besides, what part of the conspiracy requires that these specific vehicles caught fire? I mean, if it was a grand conspiracy WHY would those vehicles need to catch on fire? If it wasn't the falling building (demo or planes/fires) HOW and WHY did the burn? Magic again?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

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.

---

This isn't a lie, though, it was true. These other buildings are nrw information. But your inference is kinda comical. You're saying the conspiracy people are liars and I shouldn't trust them. And instead I should trust the honest and virtuous government.

snowdog90 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

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.

---

This isn't a lie, though, it was true. These other buildings are nrw information. But your inference is kinda comical. You're saying the conspiracy people are liars and I shouldn't trust them. And instead I should trust the honest and virtuous government.

---

And thousands of hours of video footage, thousands of eye witnesses, multiyear investigations by numerous parties, and common sense. That too.

JJxvi said:

---

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.

---

The fact that there were others in the building at the time he was also there (in the lobby and 3rd floor terrace before being evacuated) who do not corroborate his 'explosion' story tells you he was likely confused as to the time line. There is also no video evidence (IIRC) of any 'explosions' or fire in B7 before it was hit by WTC1.

You'd also think that the fire fighters who came back and ran way twice (towers collapsing) would have been found and corroborated his story.

I'm not saying the man is lying, far from it. IMO he was simply confused about the timeline of events and what happened when. Imagine the most stressful day in your entire life. Were you thinking clearly, can you remember every detail and event in the exact order that it happened? Now multiply that stress by 10. I'll bet he's just confused as to the timeline of what/when/where he was when things happened.

The conspiracy crowd is putting it all on ONE guys memory (no time stamps at all of what he did and where he was) and not a single other person in the building, nor video or audio recordings of that day match what he's saying about 'explosions' prior to WTC1 falling down and damaging B7.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

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.

---

This isn't a lie, though, it was true. These other buildings are nrw information. But your inference is kinda comical. You're saying the conspiracy people are liars and I shouldn't trust them. And instead I should trust the honest and virtuous government.

---

And thousands of hours of video footage, thousands of eye witnesses, multiyear investigations by numerous parties, and common sense. That too.

---

Exactly. Multi-year investigations that have led to many different conclusions.

You mention eyewitnesses. Like Barry Jennings?

snowdog90 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

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.

---

This isn't a lie, though, it was true. These other buildings are nrw information. But your inference is kinda comical. You're saying the conspiracy people are liars and I shouldn't trust them. And instead I should trust the honest and virtuous government.

---

And thousands of hours of video footage, thousands of eye witnesses, multiyear investigations by numerous parties, and common sense. That too.

---

Exactly. Multi-year investigations that have led to many different conclusions.

You mention eyewitnesses. Like Barry Jennings?

---

One guys memory vs 1,000's or others and 1,000s of hours of video.

And most of those "different conclusions' as has been pointed out multiple times on this thread, have an agenda (financial) or are comically easy to dismiss b/c they make no sense at all (like the "free fall speed" collapse).

ATM9000 said:

---

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?

---

Ah, the Al Franken thing. Good tmes...

I have not read the NIST report. I am not qualified to understand it if I did.

You clearly have trust in me that I'm at least not a liar. I have seen footage of explosions on 911. Two in particular.

1. Camera is on firefighters as they're working, when a huge BOOM is recorded. Firefighters flinch and look towards where the boom came from.

2. Reporter many blocks away from towers is reporting when a low rumble is heard. She stops talking, turns around and looks. She then turns back around and mentions "another explosion".

NIST did no explosive residue testing because they say there was no evidence of explosions. Immediately I don't trust the NIST report because I saw on video evidence of explosions.

The University of Alaska Fairbanks did a huge study and conclude NIST was wrong. I haven't read that either.

I've said it before. 911 was weird. So many things don't make sense. Maybe I'm wrong. I would love to be wrong, but it makes no difference at this point.

The lady in the video would have been much better served to posit theories that did not include fictional mega death rays. She is smart enough to offer other explanations for the extremeness of the bent steel, "dustification", and "toasted cars".

If memory serves, there was a bit of time until the pancaking of the floors became more widely accepted. I would be open minded enough to listen to someone discussing what happens when you dump jet fuel into a chimney like structure and set it on fire.

Things like grain silo explosions and the explosion in Lebanon come to mind. Insane things happen when the right mix is created.

Quote:

---

There is also no video evidence (IIRC) of any 'explosions' or fire in B7 before it was hit by WTC1.

---

Carful. That's just the thing. There is.

It presumably is damage from WTC-2 falling, but that question has to be left open as the range is much greater than the 10:28 fall of WTC-1.

This is what I mean by the NIST report is actually a good methodology--they publish elements that are sometimes unhelpful of the conclusion, like a good report would. One thing I don't think is just at all is saying it is any kind of contrived or sloppy government work.

This shows lobby damage like Jennings describes before WTC-1 fell but after 2. did(15 mins prior - 9:59am)



At south facade, at street level-- under the overhead promenade and walkway. Just ruined.



With just over an hour to go till falls - north facade view:



Now if you go by Jenning's interview, that supposed explosion completely blows away the landing below them in the stairwell around the 6th floor and came from below. At least in the interview, he makes very clear this is before 9:59am because the firefighters have to give up the first time when No.2 falls.

He may have gottend confused on the events, but the summary in the NIST report leaves out the trip up the freight elevator and a bit of his context. That's why seeing this window and the when he is filmed may be illuminating.

AggiEE said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved

---

Rothschilds?

Bilderbergers?

Trilateral Commission?

Masons?

Lizard People?

---

A bunch of Saudis that barely knew how to fly a plane?

---

Yet, they all went through the process of taking flying lessons and boarding planes that ultimately crashed into the Twin Towers and Pentagon. What a coincidence.

---

They took flying lessons on a completely different type of plane, for a very short period of time, and their instructor even said they weren't very good at it.

Yep...Lizard people alright, aka those swarthy middle eastern terrorist boogeymen that the US government seems to somehow continuously fund

---

I'm not sure if you've ever flown a plane. Probably not. I'll tell you that once it is in the air, it is not difficult to control direction and altitude. It's far easier than devising the ridiculous demolition plan you think someone undertook only to needlessly complicate their attack plan. Are you being obtuse or is this really how you think?

---

If it were so easy to fly a 757, we wouldn't require pilots to train for thousands of hours, not just a few weeks. It's one thing to merely maintain altitude or direction, and a completely other thing to accurately navigate into a building.

---

Sorry to burst your bubble, but flying those aircraft, especially without having to take off or land, is not difficult. I used to fly the simulator when I was young and my dad was a pilot with a major carrier. You only have to program the the flight path and the plane will do most of the flying. The skill comes in takeoffs, landings, weather, communications and just having the hours in the cockpit required by regulations. This is particularly true if your flying in clear whether and have large visible landmarks to direct your flight path

---

And you think they were able to program the flight path being Saudis with no training on a 757?

---

obviously so. People in the planes reported directional changes…also…3 planes hit their intended targets.

snowdog90 said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

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?

---

1. Camera is on firefighters as they're working, when a huge BOOM is recorded. Firefighters flinch and look towards where the boom came from.

---

I've already addressed this to you once but I guess you missed it.

Those firefighters are flinching in response to bodies hitting the ground from people who jumped. They even look at each other and confirm that that is what it is.

It's not explosions, no matter how much you want to believe it is.

Duckhook said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

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?

---

1. Camera is on firefighters as they're working, when a huge BOOM is recorded. Firefighters flinch and look towards where the boom came from.

---

I've already addressed this to you once but I guess you missed it.

Those firefighters are flinching in response to bodies hitting the ground from people who jumped. They even look at each other and confirm that that is what it is.

It's not explosions, no matter how much you want to believe it is.

---

You don't even know the video I'm talking about. It's an explosion, not a body hitting the ground. I'll try to find the video, but they're as hard to find as a doctor praising ivermectin.

snowdog90 said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

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?

---

Ah, the Al Franken thing. Good tmes...

I have not read the NIST report. I am not qualified to understand it if I did.

You clearly have trust in me that I'm at least not a liar. I have seen footage of explosions on 911. Two in particular.

1. Camera is on firefighters as they're working, when a huge BOOM is recorded. Firefighters flinch and look towards where the boom came from.

2. Reporter many blocks away from towers is reporting when a low rumble is heard. She stops talking, turns around and looks. She then turns back around and mentions "another explosion".

NIST did no explosive residue testing because they say there was no evidence of explosions. Immediately I don't trust the NIST report because I saw on video evidence of explosions.

The University of Alaska Fairbanks did a huge study and conclude NIST was wrong. I haven't read that either.

I've said it before. 911 was weird. So many things don't make sense. Maybe I'm wrong. I would love to be wrong, but it makes no difference at this point.

---

Multiple people with experience in imploding buildings have said on this thread that when you implode a building, it is basically gutted on the interior and there are wires and explosives everywhere. In other words, no one is working in the building and it's deserted in advance of the implosion.

Is it your position that WC7 was totally deserted, and had been for some time (you know, to give the super secret imploders the opportunity to do all this), prior to 9/11? Or are you saying that the building was actually being used up to and including 9/11?

Because y'all seem to be avoiding this basic, common sense issue and instead focusing on literally one ****ing guy.

titan said:

---

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.

---

I know it's nitpicking and maybe I don't know New York, but he specifically called out that no one was around and that he saw coffee smoking and half eaten sandwiches. It's 9:00 am. What is up with sandwiches? Others put just as much faith in "pull it" and some taking head saying building 7 collapsed before it really did.

Quote:

---

I know it's nitpicking and maybe I don't know New York, but he specifically called out that no one was around and that he saw coffee smoking and half eaten sandwiches. It's 9:00 am. What is up with sandwiches? Others put just as much faith in "pull it" and some taking head saying building 7 collapsed before it really did.

---

"Pull it" comes from the owner of the complex. Not just some guy. Its meaning is somewhat ambiguous. Nothing conclusive.

On (Jennings story) the coffee, half-eaten sandwiches, etc- -- this was a hasty meeting of the OEM called after WTC-1 was hit. He arrives after that meeting was abruptly adjourned and everyone told to go back downstairs. These two were a classic case of "didn't get the word" they were en-route up already.

The real disconnect is Jennings account strongly implies the floor is even missing after some explosion, the landing gone from under him, and that this is happening before 9:59am (first fall, of No.2 tower). That's what alot of the controversy swirls around. But his account is pretty clear what he is claiming--- and something bursting up the floor the way he describes (he appears to have been on the western stairwell) is apparently not addressed. He is not the only witness saying things like that (on some page linked earlier) but this is not something have delved into.

Was just was offering some thoughts on the chronology and forensics. And pointing out that that NIST report, and the Fairbanks one, are both very detailed and examining--so make of them what one will but don't say they are shallow whitewashes. I do think the WTC-7 fall looks way too neat to be `natural' but that is worth nothing.

Ok, I found the explosion videos. The one of the reporter is actually explosions before tower 7 fell. Or that's what the video claims. Start at 17:07.

Interesting. There is no doubt those are detonations/ "explosions" of some kind -- and what is interesting is they mention "it will come down, or be taken down" --- so the theoretical option to take it down was existing or thought to. The exercise trying to filter various sounds out was interesting, but actually unnecessary. You do hear it on the natural audio version. They react to it.

They say it has come down before it actually does. Is this the video that shows Jennings at a window somewhere?

Those clips would be better a little bit less cropped as short as they are, but they are clear enough.

Alot of this would make more sense if there was a more short term way they could have ordered it "taken down" and then do it. Or as a HQ maybe an option.

One offside: is even "live" video in 2001 live, or did they have like a 7-second delay. Just throwing it out there that they might know something seconds before their imagery shows it.

snowdog90 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

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?

---

1. Camera is on firefighters as they're working, when a huge BOOM is recorded. Firefighters flinch and look towards where the boom came from.

---

I've already addressed this to you once but I guess you missed it.

Those firefighters are flinching in response to bodies hitting the ground from people who jumped. They even look at each other and confirm that that is what it is.

It's not explosions, no matter how much you want to believe it is.

---

You don't even know the video I'm talking about. It's an explosion, not a body hitting the ground. I'll try to find the video, but they're as hard to find as a doctor praising ivermectin.

---

I suspect I do know, but I'll wait for your proof.

Edited to add this video. Wasn't too hard to find. Start at the 50:00 minute mark where the whole subject of people jumping begins. Watch for 3 minutes or so. It's jumpers, not explosions. I'm going to guess you say this is not the video you're talking about, because it completely refutes your explosion claim.

I don't think there are any jumpers from Tower 7?

titan said:

---

Interesting. There is no doubt those are detonations/ "explosions" of some kind -- and what is interesting is they mention "it will come down, or be taken down" --- so the theoretical option to take it down was existing or thought to. The exercise trying to filter various sounds out was interesting, but actually unnecessary. You do hear it on the natural audio version. They react to it.

They say it has come down before it actually does. Is this the video that shows Jennings at a window somewhere?

Those clips would be better a little bit less cropped as short as they are, but they are clear enough.

Alot of this would make more sense if there was a more short term way they could have ordered it "taken down" and then do it. Or as a HQ maybe an option.

One offside: is even "live" video in 2001 live, or did they have like a 7-second delay. Just throwing it out there that they might know something seconds before their imagery shows it.

---

I'm still looking for jennongs yelling out the window. Yeah, those videos are so short. I'm pretty sure I've seen longer versions of the first 2.

Duckhook said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

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?

---

1. Camera is on firefighters as they're working, when a huge BOOM is recorded. Firefighters flinch and look towards where the boom came from.

---

I've already addressed this to you once but I guess you missed it.

Those firefighters are flinching in response to bodies hitting the ground from people who jumped. They even look at each other and confirm that that is what it is.

It's not explosions, no matter how much you want to believe it is.

---

You don't even know the video I'm talking about. It's an explosion, not a body hitting the ground. I'll try to find the video, but they're as hard to find as a doctor praising ivermectin.

---

I suspect I do know, but I'll wait for your proof.

Edited to add this video. Wasn't too hard to find. Start at the 50:00 minute mark where the whole subject of people jumping begins. Watch for 3 minutes or so. It's jumpers, not explosions. I'm going to guess you say this is not the video you're talking about, because it completely refutes your explosion claim.

---

I posyed the video I'm talking about above. I'll watch yours.

Edit: I watched it. Wow. That is pretty horrible, and could be mistaken for an explosion, but that's not what I'm referencing. Check the video a few posts above.

titan said:

---

I don't think there are any jumpers from Tower 7?

---

I think almost all, if not all, come out of the North Tower.

Duckhook said:

---

titan said:

---

I don't think there are any jumpers from Tower 7?

---

I think almost all, if not all, come out of the North Tower.

---

So not even from Tower 2? Interesting.

I think by explosions he means relating to Tower 7, the one not hit by a plane at all, that Jennings was in. That said, there are claims of explosions in the Twins but that is not something even fooling with and won't unless re-study the whole thing and read those reports (standards would require it).

snowdog90 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

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?

---

1. Camera is on firefighters as they're working, when a huge BOOM is recorded. Firefighters flinch and look towards where the boom came from.

---

I've already addressed this to you once but I guess you missed it.

Those firefighters are flinching in response to bodies hitting the ground from people who jumped. They even look at each other and confirm that that is what it is.

It's not explosions, no matter how much you want to believe it is.

---

You don't even know the video I'm talking about. It's an explosion, not a body hitting the ground. I'll try to find the video, but they're as hard to find as a doctor praising ivermectin.

---

I suspect I do know, but I'll wait for your proof.

Edited to add this video. Wasn't too hard to find. Start at the 50:00 minute mark where the whole subject of people jumping begins. Watch for 3 minutes or so. It's jumpers, not explosions. I'm going to guess you say this is not the video you're talking about, because it completely refutes your explosion claim.

---

I posyed the video I'm talking about above. I'll watch yours.

Edit: I watched it. Wow. That is pretty horrible, and could be mistaken for an explosion, but that's not what I'm referencing. Check the video a few posts above.

---

I've scanned all thru the last video you posted and can't find anything showing firefighters flinching. Can you direct me to a timestamp?

Duckhook said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

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?

---

1. Camera is on firefighters as they're working, when a huge BOOM is recorded. Firefighters flinch and look towards where the boom came from.

---

I've already addressed this to you once but I guess you missed it.

Those firefighters are flinching in response to bodies hitting the ground from people who jumped. They even look at each other and confirm that that is what it is.

It's not explosions, no matter how much you want to believe it is.

---

You don't even know the video I'm talking about. It's an explosion, not a body hitting the ground. I'll try to find the video, but they're as hard to find as a doctor praising ivermectin.

---

I suspect I do know, but I'll wait for your proof.

Edited to add this video. Wasn't too hard to find. Start at the 50:00 minute mark where the whole subject of people jumping begins. Watch for 3 minutes or so. It's jumpers, not explosions. I'm going to guess you say this is not the video you're talking about, because it completely refutes your explosion claim.

---

I posyed the video I'm talking about above. I'll watch yours.

Edit: I watched it. Wow. That is pretty horrible, and could be mistaken for an explosion, but that's not what I'm referencing. Check the video a few posts above.

---

I've scanned all thru the last video you posted and can't find anything showing firefighters flinching. Can you direct me to a timestamp?

---

Start at 17:07 on the video I posted at 9:10.

titan said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

titan said:

---

I don't think there are any jumpers from Tower 7?

---

I think almost all, if not all, come out of the North Tower.

---

So not even from Tower 2? Interesting.

I think by explosions he means relating to Tower 7, the one not hit by a plane at all, that Jennings was in. That said, there are claims of explosions in the Twins but that is not something even fooling with and won't unless re-study the whole thing and read those reports (standards would require it).

---

Well, he's specifically referencing firefighters flinching in response to "explosions". I posted the only video I've ever seen that has that. Waiting on him to post his video documenting what he's talking about that is different from the one I posted.

Duckhook said:

---

titan said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

titan said:

---

I don't think there are any jumpers from Tower 7?

---

I think almost all, if not all, come out of the North Tower.

---

So not even from Tower 2? Interesting.

I think by explosions he means relating to Tower 7, the one not hit by a plane at all, that Jennings was in. That said, there are claims of explosions in the Twins but that is not something even fooling with and won't unless re-study the whole thing and read those reports (standards would require it).

---

Well, he's specifically referencing firefighters flinching in response to "explosions". I posted the only video I've ever seen that has that. Waiting on him to post his video documenting what he's talking about that is different from the one I posted.

---

Start at 17:07.

snowdog90 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

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?

---

1. Camera is on firefighters as they're working, when a huge BOOM is recorded. Firefighters flinch and look towards where the boom came from.

---

I've already addressed this to you once but I guess you missed it.

Those firefighters are flinching in response to bodies hitting the ground from people who jumped. They even look at each other and confirm that that is what it is.

It's not explosions, no matter how much you want to believe it is.

---

You don't even know the video I'm talking about. It's an explosion, not a body hitting the ground. I'll try to find the video, but they're as hard to find as a doctor praising ivermectin.

---

I suspect I do know, but I'll wait for your proof.

Edited to add this video. Wasn't too hard to find. Start at the 50:00 minute mark where the whole subject of people jumping begins. Watch for 3 minutes or so. It's jumpers, not explosions. I'm going to guess you say this is not the video you're talking about, because it completely refutes your explosion claim.

---

I posyed the video I'm talking about above. I'll watch yours.

Edit: I watched it. Wow. That is pretty horrible, and could be mistaken for an explosion, but that's not what I'm referencing. Check the video a few posts above.

---

I've scanned all thru the last video you posted and can't find anything showing firefighters flinching. Can you direct me to a timestamp?

---

Start at 17:07 on the video I posted at 9:10.

---

OK, I'll admit I have no idea what those sounds are. When and where are the sounds coming from?

titan said:

---

Quote:

---

There is also no video evidence (IIRC) of any 'explosions' or fire in B7 before it was hit by WTC1.

---

Carful. That's just the thing. There is.

It presumably is damage from WTC-2 falling, but that question has to be left open as the range is much greater than the 10:28 fall of WTC-1.

This is what I mean by the NIST report is actually a good methodology--they publish elements that are sometimes unhelpful of the conclusion, like a good report would. One thing I don't think is just at all is saying it is any kind of contrived or sloppy government work.

This shows lobby damage like Jennings describes before WTC-1 fell but after 2. did(15 mins prior - 9:59am)



At south facade, at street level-- under the overhead promenade and walkway. Just ruined.



With just over an hour to go till falls - north facade view:



Now if you go by Jenning's interview, that supposed explosion completely blows away the landing below them in the stairwell around the 6th floor and came from below. At least in the interview, he makes very clear this is before 9:59am because the firefighters have to give up the first time when No.2 falls.

He may have gottend confused on the events, but the summary in the NIST report leaves out the trip up the freight elevator and a bit of his context. That's why seeing this window and the when he is filmed may be illuminating.

---

So it was WTC2 desbris all over the place, just like it looks outside after the towers fell. There is no evidence of any blast damage you'd expect to see if there had been an explosion. And again your focused one ONE guys' story and ignoring several other peoples stories where we're in B7 at the same time he was. And not a single fire fighter has come forward to corroborate his story.

Finally, what's the point of blowing up B7 BEFORE the twin towers fell down when it's not damaged at that point (before Jennings heard "explosions"). I mean that just flies in the face of reason to blow up B7 when it's not burning and not damaged and only the twin towers are on fire at this point. What would the possible excuse be for "well the planes didn't hit B7 but the hell if it didn't fall too…!" I mean no ones going to accept that story at all. It just makes no sense to bring down B7.

21-years later and we still arguing like a mfer about 9-11.

snowdog90 said:

---

Ok, I found the explosion videos. The one of the reporter is actually explosions before tower 7 fell. Or that's what the video claims. Start at 17:07.

---

There's no time stamps on those videos. How do we know it's not the second plan hitting or WTC2 falling down?

Quote:

---

So it was WTC1 desbris all over the place, just like it looks outside after the towers fell. There is no evidence of any blast damage you'd expect to see if there had been an explosion.

---

I didnt' say there was. I said it corroborated what he described seeing. It went to the veracity of his visuals. And that is BEFORE the North tower closest to it fell. It really speaks to just the overall destruction.

Quote:

---

And again your focused one ONE guys' story and ignoring several other peoples stories where we're in B7 at the same time he was. And not a single fire fighter has come forward to corroborate his story.

---

You keep focusing on that `single' and not on that page that had other accounts talking about it -- and you keep implying I am saying it means anything other than Jennings account lines up in most details. Which makes it hard to single out and ignore his vivid description of what stopped him from descent. The best explanation is that he got confused on some of the causes of moments. But the mention of damage to that floor that traps them both is pretty vivid. If he is wrong he is wrong. Remember, he doesn't even witness the fall of the building. The above posts were just establishing the framework of his real-time witness account. And what story of his are you saying hasn't been corroborated?

If you spell that out, might find what is being misunderstood here.

snowdog90 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

titan said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

titan said:

---

I don't think there are any jumpers from Tower 7?

---

I think almost all, if not all, come out of the North Tower.

---

So not even from Tower 2? Interesting.

I think by explosions he means relating to Tower 7, the one not hit by a plane at all, that Jennings was in. That said, there are claims of explosions in the Twins but that is not something even fooling with and won't unless re-study the whole thing and read those reports (standards would require it).

---

Well, he's specifically referencing firefighters flinching in response to "explosions". I posted the only video I've ever seen that has that. Waiting on him to post his video documenting what he's talking about that is different from the one I posted.

---

Start at 17:07.

---

I've given this video a fair shot, and if this is what you guys are relying on, then I really feel sorry for you. A third grader can pick this apart.

I won't go through all of my issues with it, but my favorite unrealistic part is the janitor talking to a crowd of people years later claiming all the fire fighters had given up and he knew he had to take over.

He also, during this time of supposedly taking over for the NYPD, found the time to find a phone in a random office and call his mom long distance to Puerto Rico (I guess he magically knew that company's info to make a call like that?). During all of this time he was hearing explosions, according to him, which is what the loony tunes people like about him.

And, of course, there's the general vibe of the video that looks like it has the production value of a homemade video from 1984.

You guys honestly hang your hat on this *****

If you find a better video, I'll watch it, just like I did this one. And I'll go into it open-minded. But don't post this Mickey Mouse *****

agracer said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Ok, I found the explosion videos. The one of the reporter is actually explosions before tower 7 fell. Or that's what the video claims. Start at 17:07.

---

There's no time stamps on those videos. How do we know it's not the second plan hitting or WTC2 falling down?

---

Yep. No timestamps.

Ed Harley said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

titan said:

---

Duckhook said:

---

titan said:

---

I don't think there are any jumpers from Tower 7?

---

I think almost all, if not all, come out of the North Tower.

---

So not even from Tower 2? Interesting.

I think by explosions he means relating to Tower 7, the one not hit by a plane at all, that Jennings was in. That said, there are claims of explosions in the Twins but that is not something even fooling with and won't unless re-study the whole thing and read those reports (standards would require it).

---

Well, he's specifically referencing firefighters flinching in response to "explosions". I posted the only video I've ever seen that has that. Waiting on him to post his video documenting what he's talking about that is different from the one I posted.

---

Start at 17:07.

---

I've given this video a fair shot, and if this is what you guys are relying on, then I really feel sorry for you. A third grader can pick this apart.

I won't go through all of my issues with it, but my favorite unrealistic part is the janitor talking to a crowd of people years later claiming all the fire fighters had given up and he knew he had to take over.

He also, during this time of supposedly taking over for the NYPD, found the time to find a phone in a random office and call his mom long distance to Puerto Rico (I guess he magically knew that company's info to make a call like that?). During all of this time he was hearing explosions, according to him, which is what the loony tunes people like about him.

And, of course, there's the general vibe of the video that looks like it has the production value of a homemade video from 1984.

You guys honestly hang your hat on this *****

If you find a better video, I'll watch it, just like I did this one. And I'll go into it open-minded. But don't post this Mickey Mouse *****

---

I referenced that video for evidence of explosions, at 17:07.

Funny though, that janitor you're making fun of is Willie Rodriguez. W awarded him a medal for his heroism on 9/11. He saved many lives by unlocking stairwells on as many floors as he could so that people could get out.

So I'm not sure what your point is except that it's wrong.