'What about building 7'?

[DGM]

I think that's because at this point it's not about convincing anyone else. It's about holding on to a belief. Clinging to the "noble words of the lone martyr" is a great rock to cling to.

Yes.

The time-line does not work no matter how hard you try to massage it. It's telling he ignores it because it is the Achilles heel. Isn't that the definition of propaganda? Trying to get people to focus on issues that will not hurt your cause.

 

[Miragememories]

.........even considering the fact there's no way to reconcile Jennings time-line.

Everyone can't help but notice MM ignores this subject choosing only to argue what the witness said.

I do not ignore relevant points, but out of necessity, many of the people in this thread are on ignore.

The moderators advised me years ago that using the ignore feature was the best way to avoid violating the MA by reacting to members who persist in refusing to behave in a reasonable and civil manner.

 

[JayUtah]

I do not ignore relevant points, but out of necessity, many of the people in this thread are on ignore.

The moderators advised me years ago that using the ignore feature was the best way to avoid violating the MA by reacting to members who persist in refusing to behave in a reasonable and civil manner.

No.

If you violate the Membership Agreement, it is because you choose to. If others are being uncivil and unreasonable, then they are violating the MA and the appropriate response for you is to report them for moderation. Their continued violation of the MA, which you insinuate is what your critics are doing, is grounds for additional infractions and, ultimately, banishment. Suggesting that your critics habitually misbehave, but you do not request appropriate moderation, is simply rhetorical tap-dancing.

The only "necessity" I see for you to systematically ignore your critics is because you can't abide their rebuttals. I'm sure you do have quite a number of people on Ignore, but that does not help your case. The more people you ignore, the less likely you are to represent a viable point of view.

 

[LSSBB]

No.

If you violate the Membership Agreement, it is because you choose to. If others are being uncivil and unreasonable, then they are violating the MA and the appropriate response for you is to report them for moderation. Their continued violation of the MA, which you insinuate is what your critics are doing, is grounds for additional infractions and, ultimately, banishment. Suggesting that your critics habitually misbehave, but you do not request appropriate moderation, is simply rhetorical tap-dancing.

The only "necessity" I see for you to systematically ignore your critics is because you can't abide their rebuttals. I'm sure you do have quite a number of people on Ignore, but that does not help your case. The more people you ignore, the less likely you are to represent a viable point of view.

It's hard to change your mind. It's harder to change your mind when you don't listen to opposing voices. "How dare they disagree with my voice of reason! They shall henceforth be banished from my earshot!"

Sometimes you really should change your mind. How will you do so when your own mind is the only one you listen to? Even the most strident voice against you might be the most important for your future.

 

[000063]

I think that's because at this point it's not about convincing anyone else. It's about holding on to a belief. Clinging to the "noble words of the lone martyr" is a great rock to cling to.

Even as the waves come in.

I do not ignore relevant points, but out of necessity, many of the people in this thread are on ignore.

You are, of course, the sole arbiter of "relevancy".

The moderators advised me years ago that using the ignore feature was the best way to avoid violating the MA by reacting to members who persist in refusing to behave in a reasonable and civil manner.

That sounds a lot like an attempt to blame one's lack of emotional maturity on others.

 

[jaydeehess]

Just me? Or does anyone else feel that it relevant that Hess says " no explosion"?
That no firefighter thought it odd that people were trapped in WTC7 before it received any damage?

 

[JayUtah]

Just me? Or does anyone else feel that it relevant that Hess says " no explosion"?
That no firefighter thought it odd that people were trapped in WTC7 before it received any damage?

Of course those are only a few of the several reasons why Jennings' testimony is not reliable. And since Miragememories proposes that this testimony should trump all contravening evidence of any kind, it really can't endure a lot of flaws before it fails in that role. When we have the vast preponderance of evidence on one side, and Jennings alone on the other, it becomes hard to believe that everything else but Jennings is wrong.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Of course those are only a few of the several reasons why Jennings' testimony is not reliable. And since Miragememories proposes that this testimony should trump all contravening evidence of any kind, it really can't endure a lot of flaws before it fails in that role. When we have the vast preponderance of evidence on one side, and Jennings alone on the other, it becomes hard to believe that everything else but Jennings is wrong.

I know we've gone over this umpteen times already, but to conspiracy theorists in general, eyewitness testimony is like a sacred cow: It's always possible, due to the vagaries of human memory and other factors (such as embellishment, whether intentional or not), to find someone who "agrees" with your particular brand of conspiracy. (I put the "agrees" in quotes because there may be some degree of cherry-picking also involved.) As a result, conspiracy theorists demand that physical evidence be made to fit the eyewitness testimony, when reality works in exactly the inverse fashion: Any eyewitness testimony that cannot be reconciled with what we know to be true from physical evidence should be discarded.

 

[Miragememories]

It's hard to change your mind. It's harder to change your mind when you don't listen to opposing voices. "How dare they disagree with my voice of reason! They shall henceforth be banished from my earshot!"

Sometimes you really should change your mind. How will you do so when your own mind is the only one you listen to? Even the most strident voice against you might be the most important for your future.

One should not have a change of mind unless there is good reason for doing so.

Case in point, the second broken window.

The NIST accepts the validity of Mr. Jenning's claim and I found a documented image that supports Mr. Jenning's claim.

Rather than accept it as legitimate and allow the discussion to move forward, members would rather focus on discrediting it using any ridiculous argument at hand.

It is not just myself that should be open to a change of mind.

You must be equally prepared as well.

So far I see little, if any, willingness on the part of 'said members', to consider they may be wrong.

 

[Miragememories]

I may be thick but... don't windows have this amazing quality of letting people see through them without the need to break them?

You know, as in this photo that Redwood brought.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=31522&d=1409171886

Or what am I missing?

The windows were not broken because there was an issue about visibility.

Mr. Jennings and Mr. Hess needed to be able to yell down to the firefighters on the street.

Sealed office windows provide great sound proofing which made breaking them a necessity.

Also, there was no reason that I have heard that would have prevented either of the men from looking through the south facing windows.

 

[NoahFence]

The windows were not broken because there was an issue about visibility.

Mr. Jennings and Mr. Hess needed to be able to yell down to the firefighters on the street.

Sealed office windows provide great sound proofing which made breaking them a necessity.

Also, there was no reason that I have heard that would have prevented either of the men from looking through the south facing windows.

You honestly don't find it at all unusual that they heard explosions, yet the building didn't come down for another what - 7 hours? Can you find me a controlled demo elsewhere where you hear the explosives go off, but the building doesn't come down for another 7 minutes?

Nevermind hours.

 

[LSSBB]

One should not have a change of mind unless there is good reason for doing so.

Case in point, the second broken window.

The NIST accepts the validity of Mr. Jenning's claim and I found a documented image that supports Mr. Jenning's claim.

Rather than accept it as legitimate and allow the discussion to move forward, members would rather focus on discrediting it using any ridiculous argument at hand.

It is not just myself that should be open to a change of mind.

You must be equally prepared as well.

So far I see little, if any, willingness on the part of 'said members', to consider they may be wrong.

On the contrary. If you search my posting history, you will find admissions of error.

For example, I used to think that the diesel generator fuel was a significant factor for WTC7. I know now that it was not.

In other subject areas, I acknowledged lack of support to show Israel intentionally attacked the USS Liberty with an understanding that it was an American vessel.

How about you?

 

[pgimeno]

The windows were not broken because there was an issue about visibility.

Mr. Jennings and Mr. Hess needed to be able to yell down to the firefighters on the street.

I have no problem with the existence of two broken windows. I've lost track about why that is important.

Sealed office windows provide great sound proofing which made breaking them a necessity.

So, wouldn't the broken window in the NE corner provide an escape for any explosive sounds to go out if they went off in all 57 perimeter columns at the same time, to the point that it would be clearly heard above the sound of the collapse?

Wouldn't, in fact, such huge explosions as those needed to cut steel, blow out the windows if they were in the perimeter, and thus let the sound be heard even farther?

The lack of explosive sound is deafening. You said the explanation for the acceleration experienced by the WTC façade was the simultaneous removal of all columns. You further said that they would have been removed using high explosives. I showed how the type of high explosive needed to cut steel is a high velocity one such as RDX. These are even louder than e.g. dynamite or other explosives of the kind used to demolish concrete buildings. You require all 57 perimeter columns of WTC7 to have been removed at the same time.

How can 57 simultaneous explosions of RDX or other high velocity explosives not be heard as a huge BOOM, breaking all windows not just in that building, but in several blocks away?

You have provided no coherent explanation for that lack of sound.

 

[1stClassAlan]

For example, I used to think that the diesel generator fuel was a significant factor for WTC7. I know now that it was not.

Can you illuminate me as to why you changed your mind?

Here in the U.K. you would never ever get an office building through planning and building regulations with internal storage of any fuel and there are stringent safety cut-offs to boilers and heaters supplied from outside - and needless to say complete compartmentation of any rooms where fuel is admitted.

As far as I am aware - the diesel to the stand by generators were supplied via a double skinned pipe with insulating material between skins - this was deemed to satisfy the New York City Ordinances at the time; however; it would not have faired too well when hit by debris falling from The Towers.

Sensors fitted to the system would have determined an open end to be demand.

 

[LSSBB]

Can you illuminate me as to why you changed your mind?

Here in the U.K. you would never ever get an office building through planning and building regulations with internal storage of any fuel and there are stringent safety cut-offs to boilers and heaters supplied from outside - and needless to say complete compartmentation of any rooms where fuel is admitted.

As far as I am aware - the diesel to the stand by generators were supplied via a double skinned pipe with insulating material between skins - this was deemed to satisfy the New York City Ordinances at the time; however; it would not have faired too well when hit by debris falling from The Towers.

Sensors fitted to the system would have determined an open end to be demand.

Actually, I should not say "Know it was not". I should instead say "not know that it was." It would be more correct to state that there is insignificant evidence to make a conclusion the diesels contributed to the collapse.

It was in discussion on here with Truther Christopher7, and in rereading the final NIST report, that caused my personal reassessment.

 

[GlennB]

You honestly don't find it at all unusual that they heard explosions, yet the building didn't come down for another what - 7 hours? Can you find me a controlled demo elsewhere where you hear the explosives go off, but the building doesn't come down for another 7 minutes?

Nevermind hours.

This explosion is part of his theory, a theory requiring CD of #7 while #1 collapsed. The one in question here was a rogue explosion, part of the general screw-up that led them to abandon Plan A and go for Plan B, waiting till the afternoon to get it right finally, under cover of damage and fires that were very far from certain from the outset of the plan.

Scary stuff.

 

[jaydeehess]

Case in point, the second broken window.


The NIST accepts the validity of Mr. Jenning's claim and I found a documented image that supports Mr. Jenning's claim.

Rather than accept it as legitimate and allow the discussion to move forward, members would rather focus on discrediting it using any ridiculous argument at hand.

No, NIST reported the claims of Mr. Jennings, re: how many broken windows he created. Its a very minor point and was not investigated.
As pointed out, the supposed east side broken window does not actually look like a broken window.

Neither Mr.Jennings, nor Mr.Hess ever stated that they did in fact see the towers standing. Jennings implied a timeline from what he observed of the actions of the FFs. There is no evidence to back up that timeline.

It is not just myself that should be open to a change of mind.

You must be equally prepared as well.

So far I see little, if any, willingness on the part of 'said members', to consider they may be wrong.

I am quite willing to consider I may be wrong, when its warrented and when I can be shown to be in error. Gee, I actually did say I was wrong on one point and you recently just through it in my face. Now you want to have me do it again wrt saying Jennings did as a point in fact, see the towers standing while he was awaiting rescue. No, there is NO evidence to support this other than your desire for it to be true. In the previous instance there was documentary evidence in the form of a video that showed me that I was in error even though other sections of the same video had seemed to back my original contention.

"I had no way of knowing that": Jennings
"no explosion":Hess

Does it not strike you at all odd that no fire fighter statement can be found in which they note that they had people to rescue from WTC 7 before either tower fell? That no record of such an occurrence exists?
Does it not strike you as odd that even the security personnel located in the WTC 7 lobby right up to the collapse of WTC 2 did not report these explosions(you allude to both east and west stairwells being blocked by explosions)?

 

[Miragememories]

On the contrary. If you search my posting history, you will find admissions of error.

For example, I used to think that the diesel generator fuel was a significant factor for WTC7. I know now that it was not.

In other subject areas, I acknowledged lack of support to show Israel intentionally attacked the USS Liberty with an understanding that it was an American vessel.

How about you?

Interesting.

JSanderO rests his hypothesis of 7WTC's collapse on that diesel generator fuel. Some of the best technical minds I've encountered were unable to make him doubt his belief.

Regarding the attack on the USS Liberty, the evidence I have seen indicates that Israel knew they were attacking a US ship.

But any discussion about Israel is usually taboo so I avoid going there.

Regarding my own 'reversals', I have admitted my errors. Usually members accuse me of lying in those instances. I have no interest in lying, but being human I occasionally fail to fact check as well as I should.

I have said repeatedly, I have no desire to be right about my belief that 9/11 was an inside job.

It is a belief that has no upside.

If I am annoying to those who participate in this forum it is because I want them to properly convince me that I am wrong.

Sure I could agree to problems with eye witness testimony but from my experience here, "the baby gets tossed out with the bath water" when you accept doubt about any part of an eye witness statement.

Sadly, there are too many members that see this as a game or hobby. Get the twoofer!

Since 2006 I have been convinced that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and the only argument against that belief usually boils down to incredulity.

How many of you are brave enough to consider the terrifying possibility that you are seriously wrong about what you believe happened on 9/11?

 

[DGM]

How many of you are brave enough to consider the terrifying possibility that you are seriously wrong about what you believe happened on 9/11?

If any credible evidence was presented I would have no problem excepting it. There simply is none.

As far as knowing exactly what member failed first, JSanderO and I still agree to differ but his theory is not without merit (I just cant see adequate fuel source).

 

[jaydeehess]

Since 2006 I have been convinced that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and the only argument against that belief usually boils down to incredulity.

How many of you are brave enough to consider the terrifying possibility that you are seriously wrong about what you believe happened on 9/11?

Pick me! Shortly after 9/11 I saw posters claiming , at that time, "bombs in the towers". I had not considered that and thought it very odd to have planes rammed into the towers and bombs planted there as well. I examined the so called evidence and found it not just wanting but actually in many cases simply ridiculous.
Later, I saw the much touted "smoking gun" of WTC 7 as a controlled demolition and have seen nothing substantial in the form of evidence, to support that claim either. Indeed some, such as 'smoke bombs' strikes me as ridiculous.
There is no audio evidence for explosions and even you, a supposed expert in a field I too am well versed in, cannot supply a coherent reason why there is this lack of sound on every single recording.
There is no evidence to support Jennings' timeline either, other than the apparent desire of some for it to be true. There is no evidence that any fire fighter was called upon to rescue people from WTC 7 while the towers stood and burned. There is no evidence to back one witnesses timeline, a timeline he assumed from what little he could see, from a windowless stairwell, and from a window on the north side of WTC 7, in which explosions occurred in WTC 7 prior to the collapse of either tower