well he is dead now. and without explanation it would appear. I admit there's no ground to conclude anything from that. I just find it suspicious. And I don't see why having that opinion is so incredibly disgusting.
1. He is dead. That is one thing you have right.
2. Without an explanation to you, or the public at large, perhaps...so what? If my cousin dies tomorrow of a heart attack, do you think I owe the public an explanation? Do you think it then needs to be available on the internetz or the evening paper for it to prove its innocence? Grow up.
3. Suspicion in and of itself is not disgusting. It is the implied "conspiracy" behind your suspicion. That he was somehow taken out by big bad NWO operatives to silence him. You can play coy and innocent here all you want, but we know what you are hinting at...this is not "amazon.com" forum.
So nothing has come of it? what do you mean by that? What has to happen for someones testimony to mean something? His testimony was in direct contradiction to the official story. He apparently recieved threats (and I have no reason to think the reports of these threats were fabricated) and his the implication of his story bizarrely changed during the editing of a bbc documentary.. A documentary which found the need to poke fun at dylan avery, rather than covering jennings testimony properly.
1. Can you be specific wrt these alleged threats? Do you, or any truther know if such threats actually occurred? If so, who made them? Let me guess, some unnamed caller? Please. Give me one reason I should believe these alleged threats WERE NOT fabricated.
2. Dylan and his crew BEG mockery, trust me, it wasn't a stretch for the documentary to do so.
I find all these things very interesting. Especially given the 'small probability of occurance' of wtc7s collapse, Silverstien's pull it quote coupled with his refusal to name the fire department commander he spoke to (as well as eleborate on the pull it quote at all)... not to mention the remarkable video footage of wtc7s collapse... etc...
1. Small probability? based on what? Precedent? give me a break. The situation was unique in many respects, making precedent irrelevant.
2. Silverstein's quote. Really? 2009 and you are pulling out that sorry ass piece of weak debunked rubbish? really?
Whether you want to draw conclusions from all this is by the by. I don't see why it's such a crime to discuss it.
It is not a crime. It is extremely annoying however, to discuss certain elements of this worn out dead horse of a topic. It makes it equally repulsive, to have you bring up the Jennings death.
If i'm to be convinced wtc7 collapsed due to fire, I would like to have an explanation as to what caused the massive explosions Jennings experienced in wtc7. If there's an innocent explanation, why did the BBC feel the need to edit what he said and ridicule the idea that there were explosions prior to the twin towers collapse?
So who at the BBC is in on it, enough to edit Jennings "ground breaking" testimony?
I would wager large sums of money, that if Jennings himself came back from the dead, and told you that he was mistaken about the times of the explosions, your reply would not be,
"ok, now I am convinced.", but would be something along the lines of,
"Yah sure. Now I can see the NWO got to you, and you are recanting your story to protect yourself." please.
quite a few of the responses on this subject (particulary Alt-f) appear to be bascially saying
"ha. we've won and you've lost because nothing has happened and NIST still says it was fire that brought the building down! so it doesn't matter what anyone else says"
I'm just trying to get my head round your retort in the context of a critical discussion.
To have a "critical" discussion, both parties must be capable of "critical" thought and logical analysis. You seem incapable of either, so your "critical" discussion cannot occur.
TAM
