WTC 7 (Building 7)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So, you admit you haven't a clue...and yet think its fake.

Interesting.

Not originally posted by Oxymoron
I think it quite possibly is fake... I don't know, I...have no idea on it


What exactly is your point.

Do you think it clever to mis quote people by mixing up the context and meaning?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Interesting... Barry Jennings and Mr Hess trapped in 7 account.



http://screwloosechange.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/loose-change-9-11-america-coup-barry.html
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Interesting... Barry Jennings and Mr Hess trapped in 7 account.



http://screwloosechange.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/loose-change-9-11-america-coup-barry.html

Oxy, I am with you . . . there is a point where logic alone cannot explain reality . . . It is a personal journey . . . some will understand and many will not. . . . I will probably forever doubt the Official Story, maybe because I choose too. . . maybe because I subconsciously know something I cannot adequately articulate. . . .

My experience with confidential and undisclosed information which I have been privy to over my years is that it is usually withheld from the public to save embarrassment on the part of the authorities to protect political, moral or legal interests . . . political correctness also is a part of the decisions. . . I think this is a piece of the puzzle . . . . the 911 fiasco was a failure of bibical proportion at almost all levels. . . . our security people were asleep at the throttle as the railroad people would say. . . .
 

Chuck

Active Member
"Firstly, thank you for such a reasoned and IMO balanced post. I am interested in how you transitioned to accepting the OS."

Sorry for the slight diversion from the WTC7 discussion, but Oxy asked a question and I really didn't know where else to include my answer.

Oxy, it was not a matter of a transition as much as it was finally realizing how gullible I had become. How ironic was it that the term I regularly used to lampoon and mock the gullible "sheeple", was actually a far more fitting description of me and my friends. Those of us who "really" knew what was going on inside the secret Bilderberg & CFR meetings, were the enlightened ones, or see I thought. I viewed the people who thought I was a bit paranoid as useful idiots programmed to believe the party line.

Though I regularly discussed 9/11 in my attempt to wake people out of their stupor, my real hot button was "chemtrails". After quite a few years of study, I finally sent an email to about 100 friends warning them through a variety of videos and reports that we were being poisoned from the skies. So convinced was I that I was almost apoplectic. How could I continue to stand by in silence knowing that whatever the end-game was, these elite monsters were going to destroy us and our way of life forever? At this point it should be noted that although I believe there are some rather evil people lurking about, however, I question if all these things are the result of some grand all-pervasive conspiracy?

After sending that email, one of my old college buddies (now an SVP at a national bank) sent me a link to Mick's www.contrailscience.com, asking me to take a look. Absolutely convinced that the site was being run by a shill for the global elite, I nonetheless began to poke and prod in order to expose this rascal and prove to my friend that he was being conned. I remember being exasperated by Mick's cool, non-emotional demeanor. Mick, I surmised, was playing his part to perfection. How much were Mick his friends who sided with him, being paid for their "obvious" obfuscation, slight of hand and misdirection?

Trying to be intellectually honest in order to make certain I'd covered all my bases, though at the time I hadn't realized how closed-minded I had become, I was eventually hit with a few pieces of contrary evidence that caught my attention. Oxy, I think I spent at least 4 hours a day for a couple of weeks trying to debunk the debunkers, but admittedly I was losing ground. I realized how woefully ignorant I really was.

So, once this key cog in the NWO conspiracy machine began to jam, I decided to research other related conspiracies, but this time with a far more honest approach. Listen, I'm not in the least naive to the point where I think there wasn't prior knowledge of the attacks, but my standard of proof has risen. Just because I can't immediately explain something, should not cause me to conclude that a conspiracy is behind it. Did the Bush administration use 9/11 to their fullest advantage? Yes, I believe they did as proved by the passing of the Patriot Act and NDAA. Are the Batman and Sandy Hook massacres being used to their fullest extent by those wanting to disarm Americans? Yes, but that doesn't prove they were false flag operations. That's all I'm trying to say. I think those of us who recognize motives automatically assume that they must have been the perpetrators.

There is a mindset within the Patriot movement (Tea Party) in America, that assumes every negative event is intentionally designed by the "puppetmasters" to tighten the noose. And a great deal of it comes from Christian fundamentalists who believe that an anti-Christ led, one world government is a prophetic inevitability. So, the glasses with which a large segment of the US population is viewing these catastrophes, is definitely tinted.

NWO Glasses.jpg

So here's the point in all this. Confusion should not be a pretext to believe that something is conspiratorial. I was watching "Conspiracy Road Trip: UFO's" a few days ago, and people these people had become convinced that they we were under alien surveillance simply because there there things they could not explain. Nothing could be said to persuade them otherwise. So, yes, there area still many anomalies and oddities that have no explanations, and that, therefore, makes me ever vigilant but that doesn't necessitate that something nefarious is going on. Often times it's a cover-up of sheer ineptness which many of us mistake as intent.

My goal is to believe the truth. I don't want to be guilty of believing error and that's a double-edged sword, since there will be times when conspiracies will be worth exposing.

In this instance, I think we ought to take the testimony of men like Barry Jennings seriously. If what he heard were the detonations of planned explosives, that causes me to ask 3 questions:

1. Are we to believe these explosives were being used over a long period of time (which is unlike any demolition I've ever heard of) in order to begin weakening the building?

2. How could Jennings have made it out alive given the fact that he heard these explosions, if in fact they were part of a compact series that would bring the building down? I've never seen a controlled demolition that took so long after the first charges were detonated.

3. Wouldn't at least one of the video camera shots have picked up explosions in WTC7? Again, in all of the controlled demolitions I've watched, you can hear the blast concussions for seemingly miles. I don't hear anything of that magnitude in any of the tapes except for the fake that Mick exposed. LoL

What reasonable conclusions can we draw based upon Jenning's testimony? It doesn't add to the weight of the conspiracy if we cannot determine its proximate value.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
And that cannot be true due to the existence of of high quality video such as I posted. You respond asininely with... 'oh the towers were still standing then' leaving me to decide whether you are being deliberately obtuse or incredibly stupid as the towers were quite obviously and blatantly 'still standing throughout the grainy colour washed and backgroundless live feeds' as well. Why would a news station cover up the impacts with fade to blacks or logos.
That's a nonsensical interpretation of my statement: "Right now neither of the towers has collapsed, there is no dust, and the helicopter from which this footage was taken was upwind at 2,000 feet, and well above the haze of sea and city. The air is very clear here".

I don't know what it means but it sure as hell does not make sense to me, which is why I asked.
And I'm only trying to help. But if your mind keeps refusing to deal with simple groups of words, there's no way I can.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Oxy, I am with you . . . there is a point where logic alone cannot explain reality . . . It is a personal journey . . . some will understand and many will not. . . . I will probably forever doubt the Official Story, maybe because I choose too. . . maybe because I subconsciously know something I cannot adequately articulate. . . .

My experience with confidential and undisclosed information which I have been privy to over my years is that it is usually withheld from the public to save embarrassment on the part of the authorities to protect political, moral or legal interests . . . political correctness also is a part of the decisions. . . I think this is a piece of the puzzle . . . . the 911 fiasco was a failure of bibical proportion at almost all levels. . . . our security people were asleep at the throttle as the railroad people would say. . . .

Thanks George... we are not alone... and the truth is out there... whether we manage to find it or not, it has a habit of coming out eventually.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...secution-mania--forced-abdication-crisis.html

"There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so".

I found this a very interesting discussion... it is an hour but it is only radio!

 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Thanks C for your response. I think it important that we try to understand 'where people are coming from', when we are discussing things and I try to give an idea of 'my politics' or where I am coming from, in my posts.

Of course it could be argued that politics has nothing to do with it as this site is about bunk... but as Mick said somewhere on site, 'it is called Metabunk which is obviously an abstractive addition.

Every last thing comes down to politics... one mans conspiracy is another man's 'great plan' the same as one man's freedom fighter is another s terrorist.

To some a new world order is (based on the American ideology) is great but to others it is an anathema.

That people are striving for and accomplishing a NWO is not in question... it is out in plain sight... the question is 'what is this NWO like'... who benefits and who loses... what does it cost and what will happen to people who will not go along?

Oxy, it was not a matter of a transition as much as it was finally realizing how gullible I had become. How ironic was it that the term I regularly used to lampoon and mock the gullible "sheeple", was actually a far more fitting description of me and my friends. Those of us who "really" knew what was going on inside the secret Bilderberg & CFR meetings, were the enlightened ones, or see I thought. I viewed the people who thought I was a bit paranoid as useful idiots programmed to believe the party line.

The fact is you have never really known what goes on at the Bilderberg or Bohemian Grove etc because as you stated, it is secret. I have asked many people if they have heard of these groups and 99% do not even know they exist, let alone what goes on there and how it likely impacts our lives. At best you can glean a few snippets from leakages or sneak filming.

Do you like that or does it concern you?

Though I regularly discussed 9/11 in my attempt to wake people out of their stupor, my real hot button was "chemtrails". After quite a few years of study, I finally sent an email to about 100 friends warning them through a variety of videos and reports that we were being poisoned from the skies. So convinced was I that I was almost apoplectic. How could I continue to stand by in silence knowing that whatever the end-game was, these elite monsters were going to destroy us and our way of life forever? At this point it should be noted that although I believe there are some rather evil people lurking about, however, I question if all these things are the result of some grand all-pervasive conspiracy?

I really cannot comment on Chemtrails... I suspect they are messing with the weather and I know full well they have sprayed pathogens to test the effects on the population but I leave that to others.

After sending that email, one of my old college buddies (now an SVP at a national bank) sent me a link to Mick's www.contrailscience.com, asking me to take a look. Absolutely convinced that the site was being run by a shill for the global elite, I nonetheless began to poke and prod in order to expose this rascal and prove to my friend that he was being conned. I remember being exasperated by Mick's cool, non-emotional demeanor. Mick, I surmised, was playing his part to perfection. How much were Mick his friends who sided with him, being paid for their "obvious" obfuscation, slight of hand and misdirection?

Trying to be intellectually honest in order to make certain I'd covered all my bases, though at the time I hadn't realized how closed-minded I had become, I was eventually hit with a few pieces of contrary evidence that caught my attention. Oxy, I think I spent at least 4 hours a day for a couple of weeks trying to debunk the debunkers, but admittedly I was losing ground. I realized how woefully ignorant I really was.

That's great... you learned. That is what I am trying to do as well. I like this site, If my ideas are flawed I want to know about it. I have no problem in being proved wrong, I fact I appreciate it someone shows me where I am wrong. But it cuts both ways, debunkers can be wrong as well and I notice that when they are, they 99% of the time will not acknowledge it.

So, once this key cog in the NWO conspiracy machine began to jam, I decided to research other related conspiracies, but this time with a far more honest approach. Listen, I'm not in the least naive to the point where I think there wasn't prior knowledge of the attacks, but my standard of proof has risen. Just because I can't immediately explain something, should not cause me to conclude that a conspiracy is behind it.

So you research... and if it still makes no sense and the OS is full of holes, your country goes to war on lies, millions are killed and maimed, the people behind it get richer and more powerful, your country goes into massive debt due to fraud by companies who's directors get paid obscene profits salaries and bonuses, (instead of going to prison), the 'normal' people bail out the companies with their taxes and millions slide into homelessness and poverty and then find their way into private prisons where they make stuff for the industrial military complex and you wind up living in a surveillance culture where you are constantly monitored and suspected ... what do you conclude?

Did the Bush administration use 9/11 to their fullest advantage? Yes, I believe they did as proved by the passing of the Patriot Act and NDAA. Are the Batman and Sandy Hook massacres being used to their fullest extent by those wanting to disarm Americans? Yes, but that doesn't prove they were false flag operations. That's all I'm trying to say. I think those of us who recognize motives automatically assume that they must have been the perpetrators.

Motive and opportunity. Of couse some theories will be wrong but going back to the magic disappearing elephant... I know it's not real and therefore theorise on how it was done... it's shown that I am wrong... what do I do... must I concede it is real because I cannot prove how it was done?



There is a mindset within the Patriot movement (Tea Party) in America, that assumes every negative event is intentionally designed by the "puppetmasters" to tighten the noose. And a great deal of it comes from Christian fundamentalists who believe that an anti-Christ led, one world government is a prophetic inevitability. So, the glasses with which a large segment of the US population is viewing these catastrophes, is definitely tinted.

View attachment 1860

Everyone has their viewpoint. If they were getting their way and engineering a more and more xtian fundamentalist culture, they would love the NWO based on their model. Others would be up in arms about that NWO.

So here's the point in all this. Confusion should not be a pretext to believe that something is conspiratorial.

There are millions of conspiracies going on from regime changes and price fixing cartels to money laundering by the banks and the CIA... right down to the kids conspiring how to stay up later... these are not theories.

I was watching "Conspiracy Road Trip: UFO's" a few days ago, and people these people had become convinced that they we were under alien surveillance simply because there there things they could not explain. Nothing could be said to persuade them otherwise. So, yes, there area still many anomalies and oddities that have no explanations, and that, therefore, makes me ever vigilant but that doesn't necessitate that something nefarious is going on. Often times it's a cover-up of sheer ineptness which many of us mistake as intent.

Maybe there are aliens, maybe not... I think there likely is but I can't prove it. Even if I sat down with one for 6 hours and it showed me amazing things, if it left nothing tangible I could not prove it.

My goal is to believe the truth. I don't want to be guilty of believing error and that's a double-edged sword, since there will be times when conspiracies will be worth exposing.

We have all been decieved at various points in our lives, lies and truth are sometimes so interwoven and subjective that it is impossible to define... sorry to get all metaphysical but it is true :) or is it? We never learn if we do not make mistakes and we must trust to some degree or we would go insane... but to trust abjectly is out and out wrong... not to question is wrong.

In this instance, I think we ought to take the testimony of men like Barry Jennings seriously. If what he heard were the detonations of planned explosives, that causes me to ask 3 questions:

1. Are we to believe these explosives were being used over a long period of time (which is unlike any demolition I've ever heard of) in order to begin weakening the building?

Yes, good question. There are some who say that. I don't think this is fake... but I may be wrong and if I am I can live with it.



2. How could Jennings have made it out alive given the fact that he heard these explosions, if in fact they were part of a compact series that would bring the building down? I've never seen a controlled demolition that took so long after the first charges were detonated.
I don't know... many people claim explosions... some people have been quoted out of context on this issue which makes it all the more difficult to validate the ones who were not misquoted. Some have lied. But there are a lot that sound very genuine.


3. Wouldn't at least one of the video camera shots have picked up explosions in WTC7? Again, in all of the controlled demolitions I've watched, you can hear the blast concussions for seemingly miles. I don't hear anything of that magnitude in any of the tapes except for the fake that Mick exposed. LoL
It's back to the elephant I am afraid. Time will tell.
What reasonable conclusions can we draw based upon Jenning's testimony? It doesn't add to the weight of the conspiracy if we cannot determine its proximate value.

The link I posted with his quote, disputes his timing but it seems too big a difference for him to actually be that far out.
 

Clock

Senior Member.
Thanks for those comments, Oxy. It really helps as a debunker to see what is your point and that you have have questions that need to be answered.


To me, this is why Metabunk is the best debunking website in the world. It is not biased on an opinion, but we actually get 2 sides of the story, and despite having different political ideologys in mind, we can actually get along pretty well to understand their point if we actually give it a chance. This is not something I see on other skeptic blogs.
 
U

Unregistered

Guest
Also, Clock, I don't give a damn about Larry, aside from thinking a him a deplorably greedy man for going to court with his insurer fighting for the right to receive double the pay-out for the collapse of each of the buildings, given 'two separate planes constitutes two separate attacks', and his policy in regards to terrorism payed out 'per attack'. I also find the timing of his taking out that insurance policy somewhat suspect, given he started it two months prior to the event. If he didn't have some idea of what was going to happen, then he just 'got lucky', which is a disgusting thought in and of itself.

Also, which fire department commander was Larry talking too..? I haven't ever once seen this fellow named, nor has he ever come forward and said 'yep, I had that conversation, and nope, that's not what he meant.'
Just saying.

I agree. Barry Jennings described how a bomb exploded in WTC7 prior to the south tower coming down. There are hundreds of small yet significant elements of 9/11, before, during, and after the actual attacks, that to me point to inside planning and orchestration. I cannot quite understand how anyone who has looked into this event for over an hour could come to any other conclusion. Well, I can: it's due to the complexities of the response of the human brain to cognitive dissonance. However, overwhelming evidence is out there and should enable individuals with a high enough IQ to break through that dissonance and reconcile it by formulating a new world view.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I agree. Barry Jennings described how a bomb exploded in WTC7 prior to the south tower coming down. There are hundreds of small yet significant elements of 9/11, before, during, and after the actual attacks, that to me point to inside planning and orchestration. I cannot quite understand how anyone who has looked into this event for over an hour could come to any other conclusion. Well, I can: it's due to the complexities of the response of the human brain to cognitive dissonance. However, overwhelming evidence is out there and should enable individuals with a high enough IQ to break through that dissonance and reconcile it by formulating a new world view.

Barry Jennings heard explosions, which is quite expected, given what was going on (large fires, things falling 1000 feet).

The only explosions that might relate to an actual demolition would be those in the seconds before it. Like this:

 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Yes, it's been explained numerous times. Explanations abound. All over the internet, bookstores, and libraries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center


What do you find lacking in these explanations?

Apart from the figures they used in their computer model and a list or at least one example where the interior falls without it being seen externally until the facade falls at near free fall straight down into virtually it's own footprint or another example where one key girder failure resulted in a perfect example of a controlled demolition?

Nothing really. It makes perfect sense to those who want to believe that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Grieves

Senior Member
Did the Bush administration use 9/11 to their fullest advantage? Yes, I believe they did as proved by the passing of the Patriot Act and NDAA. Are the Batman and Sandy Hook massacres being used to their fullest extent by those wanting to disarm Americans? Yes, but that doesn't prove they were false flag operations. That's all I'm trying to say. I think those of us who recognize motives automatically assume that they must have been the perpetrators.
You must understand though that there is a major difference between a senseless act of violence being used to promote a discussion of sensible policies, and an extremely, almost suspiciously well coordinated act of terror being used to promote a massive campaign of senseless violence. The first is so reasonable as to make the conspiracy theories surrounding it seem ludicrous. The latter is so ludicrous as to make the conspiracy theories surrounding it seem entirely reasonable. The first, were it a planned conspiracy, would require motivations so evil and convoluted as to boggle the mind. The latter, were it a planned conspiracy, is laden with evident and abundant motive I need not list, not the least of which is buckets and buckets of money.... something for which far greater crimes have been committed in the past.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You must understand though that there is a major difference between a senseless act of violence being used to promote a discussion of sensible policies, and an extremely, almost suspiciously well coordinated act of terror being used to promote a massive campaign of senseless violence. The first is so reasonable as to make the conspiracy theories surrounding it seem ludicrous. The latter is so ludicrous as to make the conspiracy theories surrounding it seem entirely reasonable. The first, were it a planned conspiracy, would require motivations so evil and convoluted as to boggle the mind. The latter, were it a planned conspiracy, is laden with evident and abundant motive I need not list, not the least of which is buckets and buckets of money.... something for which far greater crimes have been committed in the past.

Well, one killed a hundred times as many people as the other, perhaps the conspiracy motives would be similarly proportional in evil? Is gun control 1/100th the evil of profiting from war?

I'm not sure what exactly is "extremely, almost suspiciously well coordinated" about 9/11? They arranged to catch planes within a few hours of each other. Is that so hard? It's about as well coordinated as a company ski trip.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Well, one killed a hundred times as many people as the other, perhaps the conspiracy motives would be similarly proportional in evil? Is gun control 1/100th the evil of profiting from war?

I'm not sure what exactly is "extremely, almost suspiciously well coordinated" about 9/11? They arranged to catch planes within a few hours of each other. Is that so hard? It's about as well coordinated as a company ski trip.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_kleinberg.htm

And apparently the answer is, 'The American people will need to lose their civil rights and be subjected to intense scrutiny and surveillance.'

Who says 'Terrorism doesn't work'?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Many individuals separately circumventing the practices and procedures that should have kept them out of the most well defended country on the planet, learning to fly and then simultaneously hijacking four separate airliners using nothing but the most rudimentary weaponry, and proceeding to crash those planes, in very short succession, into multiple targets is CONSIDERABLY more complex and coordinated than a company ski-trip. That you of all people would make such a comparison is pretty damn disheartening.
I'd challenge you to name a more coordinated terrorist attack in the history of mankind.
Well, one killed a hundred times as many people as the other, perhaps the conspiracy motives would be similarly proportional in evil? Is gun control 1/100th the evil of profiting from war?
The difference being there is no readily apparent motivation for murdering a bunch of children just to establish gun-control law. There's no 'cause' for such an action other than establishing some Orwellian nightmare of a police-state, and frankly I think Orwell got it all wrong, and his predecessor and in many ways mentor Huxley was far closer to the mark. The notion that every facet of American government and media is directly controlled by some Satanical fascist elite who want to take away your guns so they can literally enslave you is pretty far out there.
Whereas with 9/11, although the crime itself is far more heinous, the motivations behind it being a conspiracy need not be so Orwellian. It doesn't need to be every facet of the government and media conspiring to enslave the people. No mysterious syndicate of satanic Illuminati is required. All that's needed are key individuals in positions of high power working in coordination with the defense contractors who stand to gain the most. Dick Cheney, easily the most powerful VP in the history of VPs, is one such potential individual, who had the station, the influence, the connections, and the monetary (not to mention ideological) motive. His behavior surrounding 9/11 was also suspect.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Many individuals separately circumventing the practices and procedures that should have kept them out of the most well defended country on the planet, learning to fly and then simultaneously hijacking four separate airliners using nothing but the most rudimentary weaponry, and proceeding to crash those planes, in very short succession, into multiple targets is CONSIDERABLY more complex and coordinated than a company ski-trip. That you of all people would make such a comparison is pretty damn disheartening.
I'd challenge you to name a more coordinated terrorist attack in the history of mankind.

Terrorist attacks in general require very little coordination. This was the biggest terrorist attack ever, so yes, it's the most coordinated, but that's not saying much.

Many people getting into the country does not require coordination. It just requires that you get enough people into the country. They can meet up after.

Learning to fly does not need coordination. It just needs enough people to learn to fly.

Simultaneous hijacking is what I referred to as ski-trip complexity. Again, it just requires that they book flights that leave around the same time.

The implication of it being "suspiciously well coordinated" is that they needed outside help. Where exactly do you think they needed outside help?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
(I tried to quote but it kept quoting the first comment on the page and not the one I wanted- sorry- probably user (me) error)


Grieves said: "nothing but the most rudimentary weaponry"


People often latch onto that theme- "4 guys with box cutters defeated the most heavily defended country in the world"- But considering how easy it was to get on a plane with said box cutters...and the fact that no US plane on (or over) US soil had been hijacked in over 20yrs, its quite easy to see how people were completely surprised and taken off guard by the hijackings. Moreover, since most hijackings involved landing and making demands- and indeed the hijackers said that was what they were going to do- its easy to understand how they got control of the planes and why first response wasn't to shoot them down.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
overwhelming evidence is out there and should enable individuals with a high enough IQ to break through that dissonance and reconcile it by formulating a new world view.
That "new world view" had better include an understanding of civil structural stability, or it's a dead duck, whether one's IQ is high or low...

With that understanding comes a withering of desire to see any conspiracy in the collapse of a building of fifty long-span floors, slung between slender columns, standing on a bridge beam, all with two-hour fire insulation, which had been exposed to uncontrolled peripatetic fire for seven hours.

The "new world view" we all appear to desperately need is called "science".

Individuals with higher IQs don't suffer any "dissonance" with that idea.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Terrorist attacks in general require very little coordination.
How so, exactly..? I'd think most successful terrorist attacks would take a very high degree of coordination, from inception to execution.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
How so, exactly..? I'd think most successful terrorist attacks would take a very high degree of coordination, from inception to execution.

Because it's a small number of people. Sure it takes a lot of planning with those people, but how hard is that? Have you ever planned a wedding?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
How many thousands of folks get visas every year? How many folks take flying lessons every year? The shear numbers made it possible. You start with a larger group than you need, and those that fail, are sent somewhere else. They were one hijacker short anyway. I am not even sure that box cutters were on a prohibited list at that time. They were looking for guns, not box cutters.

I remember that some felt that ONLY the pilots on the planes knew exactly what the plan was. That is 4 folks, add in some direction and maybe a dozen folks knew the entire plan, if that many. One way to keep a secret is not let many know the entire plan.

Say that you want to plan a surprise birthday party for you spouse. You know that their mom and a friend are not good at keeping secrets. You invite the mom and tell her that you are having a special dinner for your spouse --that is what you tell your spouse also. You come up with something you need her friend to do, to get them to come over.

It seems simple to me
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
(I tried to quote but it kept quoting the first comment on the page and not the one I wanted- sorry- probably user (me) error)


Grieves said: "nothing but the most rudimentary weaponry"


People often latch onto that theme- "4 guys with box cutters defeated the most heavily defended country in the world"- But considering how easy it was to get on a plane with said box cutters...and the fact that no US plane on (or over) US soil had been hijacked in over 20yrs, its quite easy to see how people were completely surprised and taken off guard by the hijackings. Moreover, since most hijackings involved landing and making demands- and indeed the hijackers said that was what they were going to do- its easy to understand how they got control of the planes and why first response wasn't to shoot them down.

So why exactly would someone want to carry a "box cutter' on a plane?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500164_162-528967.html

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_kleinberg.htm

And before you cite the investigation concludes no insider trading... please ascertain who owns and why the $5M remains unclaimed.

Don't know how they would have fared as wedding planners?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Apart from the figures they used in their computer model and a list or at least one example where the interior falls without it being seen externally until the facade falls at near free fall straight down into virtually it's own footprint or another example where one key girder failure resulted in a perfect example of a controlled demolition?

Nothing really. It makes perfect sense to those who want to believe that.

No answers... interesting.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I remember that some felt that ONLY the pilots on the planes knew exactly what the plan was. That is 4 folks, add in some direction and maybe a dozen folks knew the entire plan, if that many. One way to keep a secret is not let many know the entire plan.

Say that you want to plan a surprise birthday party for you spouse. You know that their mom and a friend are not good at keeping secrets. You invite the mom and tell her that you are having a special dinner for your spouse --that is what you tell your spouse also. You come up with something you need her friend to do, to get them to come over.

It seems simple to me
Right. It's simple- heck, even easy for AlQueda to execute complex, well coordinated attacks on America with minimal information shared and a minimal number of parties involved... as easy as, say, planning a wedding or a surprise birthday party.
Do you guys hear yourselves?
Have you forgotten your own arguments about how impossible it would be to coordinate an attack of this nature from the inside without thousands of thousands of people being in on it?
I can hear the response now, "There's a difference between terrorists flying planes into buildings and internal enemies planting bombs in them!" Right, right... one's easy as pie, the other is entirely impossible...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I can hear the response now, "There's a difference between terrorists flying planes into buildings and internal enemies planting bombs in them!" Right, right... one's easy as pie, the other is entirely impossible...

One matches the observed events perfectly. One does not.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
One matches the observed events perfectly. One does not.
Right. Because nobody who observed the events suspects building 7 of being demolished but a few fringe weirdos.
Seriously man...?
What about building 7 abruptly collapsing, an event which took 7 years for any reasonable hypothesis besides explosives to be presented, fits 'perfectly'? If it fit 'perfectly', they'd have been able to explain it in short order.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Right. Because nobody who observed the events suspects building 7 of being demolished but a few fringe weirdos.
Seriously man...?
What about building 7 abruptly collapsing, an event which took 7 years for any reasonable hypothesis besides explosives to be presented, fits 'perfectly'? If it fit 'perfectly', they'd have been able to explain it in short order.

It was immediately explained. There was a large uncontrolled fire, which made the building collapse.

And it did not "abruptly" collapse, the building was sagging some time before the collapse, which is why they pulled everyone away from it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
So why exactly would someone want to carry a "box cutter' on a plane?

To hijack it.

It would seem like a trivial thing to get through security, even if they were actively looking for it. Consider that you were allowed to bring on a pocket knife with a four inch blade.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
It was immediately explained.
Not according to NIST, or any of the other investigative bodies, who had not and did not come to any conclusions about what had happened for several years.

There was a large uncontrolled fire, which made the building collapse.
In an entirely strange and wholly unprecedented manner, which distinctly resembled a demolition. This deserves no consideration though, I suppose.

And it did not "abruptly" collapse, the building was sagging some time before the collapse, which is why they pulled everyone away from it.
Right. The eye-witness reports of the building sagging. Which, though being no more numerous, are infinitely more valid than the eye-witness reports of explosions. Doesn't change the nature of the collapse itself, though... which was unquestionably very abrupt.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Not according to NIST, or any of the other investigative bodies, who had not and did not come to any conclusions about what had happened for several years.

In an entirely strange and wholly unprecedented manner, which distinctly resembled a demolition. This deserves no consideration though, I suppose.


Right. The eye-witness reports of the building sagging. Which, though being no more numerous, are infinitely more valid than the eye-witness reports of explosions. Doesn't change the nature of the collapse itself, though... which was unquestionably very abrupt.

They did not come to conclusions as to EXACTLY what happened. Why would they? Should they have immediately have been able to find out exactly which column collapsed? No. But to suggest they had no "reasonable hypothesis besides explosives" is ridiculous. The hypotesis was immediately "fire", or "fire combined with WTC debris damage".

And the reports of sounds resembling explosions are quite valid. And fit in with the observed events (fire, things falling from 1000 feet)
 

Grieves

Senior Member
And the reports of sounds resembling explosions are quite valid. And fit in with the observed events (fire, things falling from 1000 feet)

A prominent Emergency worker discussing his experience inside of building 7. Died in 2008 at age 53, circumstances undisclosed. He's just confused though, right?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

A prominent Emergency worker discussing his experience inside of building 7. Died in 2008 at age 53, circumstances undisclosed. He's just confused though, right?

No, he heard explosions. Lots of people did. There's were fires and things falling. A part of WTC1 fall on WTC7.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Barry_Jennings#Transcript_from_interview
 

Grieves

Senior Member
there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging and I had to climb back up and I had to walk back up to the 8th floor...it was dark and very very hot.
“When we reached the 6th floor the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way, I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and walk back up to the 8th floor,” said Jennings.
“The explosion was beneath me….so when the explosion happened it blew us back….both buildings (the twin towers) were still standing,” he added.
He describes experiencing an explosion within WTC7, which came from below... one that damaged the stairwell he was in severely, threw him off his feet, and left him in hot darkness... all prior to the towers collapsing, and thus before any major damage was dealt to the building from that source.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
No, he heard explosions. Lots of people did. There's were fires and things falling. A part of WTC1 fall on WTC7.
I'm surprised to see you referencing a transcript and yet failing/refusing to absorb key details therein.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
He describes experiencing an explosion within WTC7, which came from below... one that damaged the stairwell he was in severely, threw him off his feet, and left him in hot darkness... all prior to the towers collapsing, and thus before any major damage was dealt to the building from that source.

The 8th floor "explosion" was the WTC1 collapse and debris striking the building, according to Mr. Hess, who was with him.

See also:

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
Mick West Collapse of 12 Story Building in Miami Beach Current Events 3
Miss VocalCord São Paulo High Rise Fire and Collapse - Wilton Paes de Almeida Building Current Events 87
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Leifer Bent Steel In Building Fires Conspiracy Theories 1
Mick West First Interstate Tower Fire - Comparison with WTC Towers and WTC7 9/11 5
Mick West Have You Actually READ the NIST Report on Building 7? 9/11 12
Mick West Explained: Two Suns at Sunset - Harrow, UK [Reflection Off Building] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 19
Whitebeard Tehran Plasco Highrise Fire And Collapse - 9/11 WTC7, WTC1&2 Comparisons 9/11 84
NoParty Claim: Indigogo campaign to recreate 9/11 Plane Crash into Building 9/11 38
James Adams Rectangular building type objects on the surface of the moon [Like the Triangle] General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: WTC7 vs. Chechnya's Tallest Building Fire (Grozny-City Complex) 9/11 24
jomper WTC 7 (Building 7) General Discussion 0
lee h oswald 9/11: How hard is it to hit a building at 500mph? 9/11 930
Grieves BBC's Jane Standley Premature reporting of the collapse of WTC 7 (Building 7) 9/11 13
Fred259 WTC: Were the planes drones, how hard is flying a 767 into a building? 9/11 58
Mick West Building 7 Explained by Edward Current 9/11 2

Related Articles

Top