911 Truth Movement

[Disco08]

Being as objective as possible I will say its odd but other documents from the flights were also found. If it was planted then why? The passport doesn't prove/disprove anything really.

You're right, but as you said, if it's planted - why? That's the thing.

 

[Mikee]

Watched a five minute Youtube video - CASE CLOSED

:clap Nice one...Have followed this for the last 10 years and watched many documentaries, get those ants outta your pants antzy before you post & jump to conclusions...

 

[AngryAnt]

:clap Nice one...Have followed this for the last 10 years and watched many documentaries, get those ants outta your pants antzy before you post & jump to conclusions...

I'm sure you've carefully considered the evidence and have made a sensible assessment of all the facts without jumping to any conclusions whatsoever then.

 

[Mikee]

I'm sure you've carefully considered the evidence and have made a sensible assessment of all the facts without jumping to any conclusions whatsoever then.

Yep, exactly. Well done, you nailed it this time.

 

[Streak]

Just copy the whole thing (after pressing quote so you see it in the reply box), tags included, and paste it into your new post.

Did that just cost me $20?

 

[Harry]

Findings reported in Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study states that -

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

NIST left all of this evidence out of its report. Why? Shouldn't this be fully investigated?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html

 

[Rosy]

I'd really like to know how they quote from posts in other threads.

I sent someone a detailed PM about it a couple of days ago. I'll copy it to the Technical support board. Same with posting photos, Same with posting URLs. Hope I've got a copy of the messages.

 

[Rosy]

I haven't addressed Bush and Cheney's reaction to the commission because its provable fact. They refused to do it publicly, refused to be forced to answer anything and insisted on doing it alone.

Why ? I've said a few times already that I have no doubt the US Govt tried to do its damnedest to cover up their screw ups before, during and after the event. What I don't believe is that the US Govt either planned the attacks or knew about them in advance and let them happen. But certainly the way Bush and Cheney treated the commission is deplorable.

Bravo :clapping

 

[Streak]

I sent someone a detailed PM about it a couple of days ago. I'll copy it to the Technical support board. Same with posting photos, Same with posting URLs. Hope I've got a copy of the messages.

Thanks Rosy, that would be great.

 

[Rosy]

..........
As I said, my knowledge on the subject isn't perfect and I'm happy to admit mistakes and will also happily retract a statement I've made if something new to me refutes it convincingly.

Jennings and Hess were eyewitness to events inside WTC7, the collapse of which is the focus of much conjecture. I think their testimony indicates there wee explosions, dust and soot inside WTC7 before either tower collapsed which would certainly support the controlled demolition hypothesis. Their testimony is also somewhat supported by other eyewitnesses who report hearing explosions within WTC7. At the least I think this evidence needs to be properly investigated. Unless there is reason to think otherwise I don't see why you wouldn't view either of these people as reliable witnesses.

It's strange that Jennings himself didn't suggest any suspicion of controlled demolition and his words have been twisted, edited out, misinterpreted, taken out of context to suit conspiracy agendas. People seem to be trying to put square pegs in round holes in regards to his reports.

 

[Disco08]

There's some strong allegations there. Do you have some examples to back them up?

One of the Loose Change guys has Jennings' full interview up on youtube. I don't think he'd do that if his goal was deceit.

Jennings says his main problem with the events is why WTC7 came down at all. He's no engneer but he asserts it was because of the explosions he heard.

 

[jb03]

There's some strong allegations there. Do you have some examples to back them up?

One of the Loose Change guys has Jennings' full interview up on youtube. I don't think he'd do that if his goal was deceit.

Jennings says his main problem with the events is why WTC7 came down at all. He's no engneer but he asserts it was because of the explosions he heard.

You mean a majority of the premise surrounding is WTC7 is based on one guy supposedly hearing some explosions, and who is not an engineer or not even in the demolition field.

That could be the most non-sensical aspect of a Cox Plate quality field of non-sensical aspects of the entire pro-conspiracy argument.

 

[Rosy]

There's some strong allegations there. Do you have some examples to back them up?

One of the Loose Change guys has Jennings' full interview up on youtube. I don't think he'd do that if his goal was deceit.

Jennings says his main problem with the events is why WTC7 came down at all. He's no engneer but he asserts it was because of the explosions he heard.

There are several examples. The pub beckons so I don't have time to post examples at the moment. Dead bodies is one that comes to mind.

Can you please give the link to the youtube interview so I can check the exact one you're referring to.

 

[Disco08]

Just search Barry Jennings uncut rosy. It's about a 20 minute clip.

The dead bodies reference is something Jennings said and later corrected. It's unfair to say there was anything dishonest about the way that was reported in most cases.

You mean a majority of the premise surrounding is WTC7 is based on one guy supposedly hearing some explosions, and who is not an engineer or not even in the demolition field.

That could be the most non-sensical aspect of a Cox Plate quality field of non-sensical aspects of the entire pro-conspiracy argument.

There's a little more to the conjecture about WTC7 and controlled demolition than that jimbob.

More quality derision though. You should take up Jesus. You'd fit right in.

 

[jb03]

.

More quality derision though. You should take up Jesus. You'd fit right in.

Not sure if that is a compliment or not but as they are rare I will take it.

 

[tigersnake]

There's some strong allegations there. Do you have some examples to back them up?

One of the Loose Change guys has Jennings' full interview up on youtube. I don't think he'd do that if his goal was deceit.

Jennings says his main problem with the events is why WTC7 came down at all. He's no engneer but he asserts it was because of the explosions he heard.

Why is this in any way slightly compelling? 'He's no engineer'. and who gives a rats arse if anyone 'heard explosions'? The documentaries I've seen, (the one made by the French brothers in particular who were in the buildings with firemen), was full of constant loud terrifying noises, creaks, scrapes, screams, bangs, booms, pops.

I place no credence whatsoever in anyong 'hearing explosions' in all that chaos. I've been saying it for days and days and you ignore it Disco.

 

[Rosy]

One of the Loose Change guys has Jennings' full interview up on youtube. I don't think he'd do that if his goal was deceit.

Jennings says his main problem with the events is why WTC7 came down at all. He's no engneer but he asserts it was because of the explosions he heard.

He also says the explosion could have been buses or cars. From what I've read he never indicated what he thought happened and who was responsible.

You seem to put a lot of faith in comments from Loose Change saying you doubt he'd do that if his goal was deceit. From what I've seen the doco was based on deceit. Not a balanced account but a portrayal of conspiracy.

The dead bodies reference is something Jennings said and later corrected. It's unfair to say there was anything dishonest about the way that was reported in most cases.

What did Jennings say about dead bodies and how did he later correct it?

All I can find is he said he was stepping over people. No mention of their condition or mortal state. He has clearly stated he never saw dead bodies. He did say that's the way they portrayed him (seeing dead bodies) and he didn't appreciate it so he told them to pull the interview.

 

[Disco08]

Why is this in any way slightly compelling? 'He's no engineer'. and who gives a rats arse if anyone 'heard explosions'? The documentaries I've seen, (the one made by the French brothers in particular who were in the buildings with firemen), was full of constant loud terrifying noises, creaks, scrapes, screams, bangs, booms, pops.

I place no credence whatsoever in anyong 'hearing explosions' in all that chaos. I've been saying it for days and days and you ignore it Disco.

Yeah it's not compelling. That point was made as a direct response to rosy's prevous post.

What is compelling is Hess and Jennings saying they heard explosions and saw dust and soot within WTC7 before the first collapse. Surely you can see why some people see that as compelling.

I don't ignore you at all BTW.

 

[Baloo]

Can you reconcile that with the decisions made in the lead up to 9/11 I mentioned in previous posts?

For now it's hard to make a call on hose decsions that were made without knowing the how those decisions came about. Had there been debate with the relevant authorities or bodies before being enacted in law. Had decisions been made a while back but just needed the process to ass them into law.

By all means if all the changes came out of the blue without any consultation then you need to wonder what was the trigger for it to happen. But without those details there is no way you can claim them to be difintely suspicous.

 

[Disco08]

I can and do. With the large number of forewarnings from other countries none of those decisions should ever have been made. Even if they were discussed previously they should have been rethought with the increased threat of airline hijacking based terrorist attacks. That's as suspiciuos as you can get, especially when viewed in context with his actions on the day, his refusal to cooperate with the commission and the destruction/suppression of crucial evidence.

He also says the explosion could have been buses or cars. From what I've read he never indicated what he thought happened and who was responsible.

You seem to put a lot of faith in comments from Loose Change saying you doubt he'd do that if his goal was deceit. From what I've seen the doco was based on deceit. Not a balanced account but a portrayal of conspiracy.


What did Jennings say about dead bodies and how did he later correct it?

All I can find is he said he was stepping over people. No mention of their condition or mortal state. He has clearly stated he never saw dead bodies. He did say that's the way they portrayed him (seeing dead bodies) and he didn't appreciate it so he told them to pull the interview.

I've never watched Loose Change. My point was if they were trying to decieve anyone about Jennings' testimony they wouldn't then put the full intervew into the public domain.

The multiple explsions he attributes to cars ans buses exploding happen while he is trapped. The one he says happened as he and Hess were on the stairs he says happened directly below him.

The quotes about dead bodies are here. Seems to me easy enough to mistake his meaning. You also seem to be making judgments that would be better made after you'd seen the footage in its entirity.