NoahFence
Banned
Its as if you could walk away from getting hit by a bus - only to have your arm magically break while watching TV at home 7 hours later.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
Its as if you could walk away from getting hit by a bus - only to have your arm magically break while watching TV at home 7 hours later.
This is a very cheap shot, MM, as I never claimed that he only broke out one window! Instead I referenced an interview by Jennings given on 9/11/2001 where JENNINGS stated, that he broke a window and not two or more windows. To the best of my knowledge "window" is singular and "windows" is plural.
But feel free to bring actual evidence, that Jennings broke out at least another window.
Well, it seems he didn't know "what actions he took" in 2007.
This image only shows the "removed columns and floor segments", it doesn't show the distribution of the debris. And that's why it doesn't support your claim.
If they weren't trapped on the north side, why didn't Jennings and Hess walk around to the south side of the building, where they would have the perfect view to the twin towers?
Chaotic situation after the collapse of both towers, getting new orders, etc.
He should have heard the collapse, he should have noticed the vibrations generated by the collapsing buildings, he should have noticed the dust clouds generated by the buildings. But he doesn't build up his account on such things, instead he only mentions the firemen.
No, your assumption is absurd! It is not only absurd, it isn't backed up by actual evidence, too. He didn't tell anything in the LC interview and he didn't mention this in the interview on 9/11/2001. And it is quite obvious why he didn't say anything about this: The collapse of WTC 1 trapped Jennings and Hess in the building, so Jennings could never have witnessed the collapse of WTC 1 oder WTC 2.
Where does Jennings state this? The only part in the LC interview that could refer to this is:
Even if Jennings timeline would be correct, which isn't the case, a possible collapse of WTC 1 or WTC 2 wouldm't be the cause of this actions, as Jennings stated:
So Jennings said that only a short time before his rescue, and that means that it was well after the collapse of WTC 1 even in Jennings (incorrect) timeline.
If Jennings was on a stairwell that was blown up by explosives, he would be dead. It is a silly claim to have explosives, a man, and damaged stairs, with the man living, undamaged. The only way you can live with major damage to a stairwell is if the damage was caused by Kinetic energy from a mass, an explosives would make your brain mush, and send particles into your person.
Any object hitting WTC 7 would send a shock wave through the steel frame of WTC 7.
Who planted the explosives in 911 truth's fantasy based on nonsense.
Any object hitting WTC 7 would send a shock wave through the steel frame of WTC 7.
Who planted the explosives in 911 truth's fantasy based on nonsense.
swright777
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Messages
- 897
Africanus said:
Africanus - I think you're taking MM's posts too seriously. He's not here for a productive discussion. He's unable or unwilling to change his position no matter how much proof/evidence you present. Just sayin' ...
Beachy,
He didn't say where the explosion was... only that he heard from his location inside the stair well... and that the stairwell below has been made impassable. If there was an explosion as claimed... it could have been elsewhere and far enough away to not have killed him but render the stair well unpassable.
You can't know much because there is no corroboration or means to discredit his account.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
No need to discredit it. He messed up on the time-line. Not unusual in such cases. It is fun to watch "truthers" twist and turn to try and shoe-horn it into their fantasy though.
No need to discredit it. He messed up on the time-line. Not unusual in such cases. It is fun to watch "truthers" twist and turn to try and shoe-horn it into their fantasy though.
I don't watch truthers (anymore) but it seems he and Hess were in the building and their accounts should be taken seriously. Sure they could have messed up recollections and poor observational skills and were under extreme stress. But still why disregard all of their account because truthers quote them?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I don't. I take them for what they are. I have no problem with his recollection of the "explosion" and stairway blockage. In-fact, fire fighters reported the same blockage (just at a different time). If I remember, Mr Jennings never actually stated times, he just related what he thought and "truthers" filled in the blanks to fit their needs.
Miragememories
Banned
Last edited:
Realtruthseeker
New Blood
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2014
- Messages
- 7
Some thoughts about WTC 7 and how we think.
Dear Mr JayUtah, thank you for your replies. I cannot see a clear answer or repost to my simple, physics based statement that; “Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition”. The colorful graph with lots of varied information does not show how, on this planet, (where g = 9.81 m/s/s), a building can suddenly go into absolute freefall like WTC 7 did, as admitted by NIST. As you are an intelligent man with more than a passing interest in physics, I am sure that if you were able to see the 3 towers falling as they did, both at and close to freefall, and were not simultaneously fed with "official" information, such as "19 arabs armed with box cutters, destroyed 3 towers with 2 aircraft, because they didn't like our freedom", you would have, on your own, personally worked out that they were each destroyed by pre-planted explosives or cutter charges. You would have analyzed that, to fall that fast, would require the removal of all the supporting structure, instantly or in a tightly timed sequence and that only well positioned and perfectly timed cutter charges could achieve this. This would have been your cool, clear headed, personal analysis, based on what you already knew and what you observed. The fact that now you are supporting a story which you absorbed at a moment when we were all vulnerable because deeply confused and anguished, perhaps in panic, and are now using your own knowledge to embellish it, shows me that you are needing to protect a belief which presently suits your world view. Namely that government is benevolent and the media is free and independent to say what they want on any subject. Your brain is functioning normally in protecting a belief that it considers essential to your survival. Did you notice how they all said the same thing even though there was no proof of anything to start with? How can it have been a surprise attack when the government and media immediately knew all about it the moment the 2nd plane hit? "It's Osama Bin Laden" they said! If they knew who did it before doing any research or uncovering any evidence they must have known, or decided it, before.
Some, meaning those of us who are able to access our upper brain functions even concerning such a traumatic event, despite the fact that it goes against what we previously believed our survival depended on, are able to process the information in a different way. In short, we are able to see through the lies, understanding the reason for the lies, seeing the pattern through history of these lies, and are able to see a different version of the truth. A less comfortable but more coherent understanding which encompasses the Media Industrial Complex, the Military Industrial Complex, the New World Order, the Patriot Act, the CIA psy-ops operations, why we are deliberately and permanently at war etc. You may understand a lot just by reading the PNAC's defining document:" Rebuilding Americas Defenses", written a year before 9/11. You may likewise be deeply enlightened by reading the CIA declassified papers on "Operation Northwoods". You may be able to change your views on what US government is about.
Thank you Sir.
To Beachnut, my new stopwatch tells me 7 seconds for WTC 7.
To Seymour Butz, sorry Sir, my mistake, "Brainwashed Morons" was JayUtahs expression, not yours. Not a lie but my mistake.
To tsig, a question of false logic; Saying that WTC 7 was CD because it was free-fall is not the same as saying all CD's are free-fall. Most CD's are not free-fall because they don't need to be. It's more costly to do a perfect CD than an adequate one so they mostly go for adequate. WTC 7 was a perfect CD because you, as did every other taxpaying american paid for it. I'm suspecting the 2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld announced the day before went missing from the Pentagon budget, may have had something to do with it. And yes, I do believe my milk bottle fell at free-fall when pushed off my high chair, but only when it didn't hit anything on the way down. When it did hit something like my lap or the legs of the chair on the way down, it definitely went slower. These were my first innocent observations before I could put words to it. Important to me I think because we should never lose the ability to innocently look at something and understand it, before our mind is polluted and controlled by the press.
Dear Mr JayUtah, thank you for your replies. I cannot see a clear answer or repost to my simple, physics based statement that; “Buildings cannot fall in or near free-fall acceleration except by controlled demolition”. The colorful graph with lots of varied information does not show how, on this planet, (where g = 9.81 m/s/s), a building can suddenly go into absolute freefall like WTC 7 did, as admitted by NIST. As you are an intelligent man with more than a passing interest in physics, I am sure that if you were able to see the 3 towers falling as they did, both at and close to freefall, and were not simultaneously fed with "official" information, such as "19 arabs armed with box cutters, destroyed 3 towers with 2 aircraft, because they didn't like our freedom", you would have, on your own, personally worked out that they were each destroyed by pre-planted explosives or cutter charges. You would have analyzed that, to fall that fast, would require the removal of all the supporting structure, instantly or in a tightly timed sequence and that only well positioned and perfectly timed cutter charges could achieve this. This would have been your cool, clear headed, personal analysis, based on what you already knew and what you observed. The fact that now you are supporting a story which you absorbed at a moment when we were all vulnerable because deeply confused and anguished, perhaps in panic, and are now using your own knowledge to embellish it, shows me that you are needing to protect a belief which presently suits your world view. Namely that government is benevolent and the media is free and independent to say what they want on any subject. Your brain is functioning normally in protecting a belief that it considers essential to your survival. Did you notice how they all said the same thing even though there was no proof of anything to start with? How can it have been a surprise attack when the government and media immediately knew all about it the moment the 2nd plane hit? "It's Osama Bin Laden" they said! If they knew who did it before doing any research or uncovering any evidence they must have known, or decided it, before.
Some, meaning those of us who are able to access our upper brain functions even concerning such a traumatic event, despite the fact that it goes against what we previously believed our survival depended on, are able to process the information in a different way. In short, we are able to see through the lies, understanding the reason for the lies, seeing the pattern through history of these lies, and are able to see a different version of the truth. A less comfortable but more coherent understanding which encompasses the Media Industrial Complex, the Military Industrial Complex, the New World Order, the Patriot Act, the CIA psy-ops operations, why we are deliberately and permanently at war etc. You may understand a lot just by reading the PNAC's defining document:" Rebuilding Americas Defenses", written a year before 9/11. You may likewise be deeply enlightened by reading the CIA declassified papers on "Operation Northwoods". You may be able to change your views on what US government is about.
Thank you Sir.
To Beachnut, my new stopwatch tells me 7 seconds for WTC 7.
To Seymour Butz, sorry Sir, my mistake, "Brainwashed Morons" was JayUtahs expression, not yours. Not a lie but my mistake.
To tsig, a question of false logic; Saying that WTC 7 was CD because it was free-fall is not the same as saying all CD's are free-fall. Most CD's are not free-fall because they don't need to be. It's more costly to do a perfect CD than an adequate one so they mostly go for adequate. WTC 7 was a perfect CD because you, as did every other taxpaying american paid for it. I'm suspecting the 2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld announced the day before went missing from the Pentagon budget, may have had something to do with it. And yes, I do believe my milk bottle fell at free-fall when pushed off my high chair, but only when it didn't hit anything on the way down. When it did hit something like my lap or the legs of the chair on the way down, it definitely went slower. These were my first innocent observations before I could put words to it. Important to me I think because we should never lose the ability to innocently look at something and understand it, before our mind is polluted and controlled by the press.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
The problem with your statement is exactly that it's too simple, as has been very carefully explained to you. What you claim is "physics based" is based not on Newtonian mechanics, but instead upon your simplistic caricature of it. Your expectations are not satisfied by the observable data because your expectations are wrong. I and others have attempted at length to instruct you on what that science actually entails, but it is clear that you insist that the world submit to your layman's error.
Utter nonsensical question-begging. You're simply restating your claims and insinuating that it's the only way a rational person could believe. Since I'm the professional and you are not, I'll kindly keep my own counsel about how to approach an engineering analysis problem.
More nonsense. Since you clearly can't finish the "physics" discussion you began, you're now groping for some other reason for why all the world's professionals, including myself, reject your claims. No, I'm not a cowering, quivering lump of vulnerable humanity shocked into repressed acceptance of some proffered official story. So quit trying to pin that tragic story on me. Instead I'm a properly educated, properly qualified person who simply isn't falling for your regurgitation of long-debunked pseudoscience.
Since you clearly have absolutely no intention of listening to what any of your critics are trying to tell you, I'll omit responses to the remainder of your pretentious screed.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
<not to derail this thread but> I would just love to see where Rumsfeld actually said that.
I wonder if you're just woefully misinformed or lying.
And this one, by your logic, didn't need to be either. But 'they' spent extra money to create a CD that just screamed CD? Perhaps 'they' are less bright than you think
p.s. learn to use paragraphs. It will make your drivel less hard to read.
Miragememories
Banned
Leftovers from a failed CD would have been a real problem to coverup.
Destroying the eye-ballable evidence made it easier to control the level of investigation.
Imagine a failed CD where half of WTC7 is left standing showing exposed columns rigged for rapid removal.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
That's not the point being made.
If it is quite possible to design an controlled demolition such that free fall does not occur and IF free fall can only be created by a different CD sequence then its a wonder that these sooper spooks who demolished WTC 7 did so in the supposed way that had to scream out that it was a demoltion.
Not sure what the H "Destroying the eye-ballable evidence made it easier to control the level of investigation." is supposed to mean since, according to you, free fall was "eye-ballable evidence".
If you meant something about some supposed but unnamed physical or docuementary evidence inside WTC 7, demolishing an entire building thus requiring that dozens or hundreds of workers descend upon the ruins to clean it up, well MM that's just a crazy dang notion that is.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
What was plan B if not all of the detonators on this untested technology went off and they got exposed? Would that have been an acceptable risk to the planners?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Your stopwatch must take 9-10 seconds to start counting up then. Or do you not consider the collapse of the East Penthouse to be part of the,, um,, collapse? If not, why not?
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
The dozens of clean up crew could be expected to either not see it as suspicious, or could be terminated without prejudice of course.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
- Status