The Third Tower

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
This may be a stupid question, but how does Mr. Jennings' eyewitness account prove the claim that there was a three story bulge in WTC 7? Why would there be all this damage to the interior lobby of WTC 7, while the exterior of the building only showed some isolated fires on about four floors? Could it be that the damage to the interior lobby of WTC 7 was cause by bombs within that building?

It doesn't It proves there was massive damage to the building before it collapsed, which the truthers are religiously denying for their perverse "no planes hit WTC 7" propaganda. A plane may not have hit WTC 7, but it's perfectly obvious that wreckage from WTC 1 *did* hit WTC 7...unless you think King Kong really did come through the WTC 7 lobby and wrecked the place, as Jennings described the damage as looking like...?

The bombs excuse is getting tired. It's blatantly obvious there were fire fighters, police, rescue workers, reporters, etc, and Jennings himself said the lobby was chock full of such people. Not a single person seems to know anything about any massive explosion in WTC 7 powerful enough to take out the lobby before WTC 1 collapsed, and it's ridiculous to claim everyone in Manhattan simply just forgot about it.

WTC 1 was just flipping huge, and when it fell, falling wreckage even smashed up a church several blocks away. Why is anyone even argung over such a ridiculous point?.

Because we'd like to see the proof with some pics from one of the thousands of cameras around on that day Dave..Surely someone took a pic of these raging fires and 3 storey bulge....
And I mean real pics..Not the altered ones please,,

double post

Originally posted by Dogdish
reply to post by TrueFalse

 

Wow, is right! Just when I was about to give up hope on GoodOlDave, he has a breakthrough.

I guess we could see it coming, back when he was calling truthers trusters.

What do you mean? The truthers ARE trusters. They explicitely trust everything Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, Morgan Reynolds, et al are pushing our regardless of how many times they've been caught passing off drivel. I can see right away you're trusters when I post eyewitness accounts who were physically there at the Pentagon and saw what it was that hit it...who all you conspiracy people insist are lying. WHY do you insist all the eyewitnesses are lying? From some video some anonymous conspiracy monger made on his home computer and posted on Youtube. Right.

Who here wants to take the bet that someone won't come here within the next few months and post, "Go watch Loose Change"? Good grief, people, wake up!

I see more emotions in your posts than I do facts, Dave. When they refer to trusters, I believe they mean trusters of the official story...

In any case, you seem to post an awful lot in the 911 forums and always with the same agenda. You literally can not accept one single peice of evidence about anything. Why don't you check out another forum and take a little break... maybe calm down a bit? Maybe debunk some UFO sightnings?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Dogdish
reply to post by TrueFalse

 

Wow, is right! Just when I was about to give up hope on GoodOlDave, he has a breakthrough.

I guess we could see it coming, back when he was calling truthers trusters.

What do you mean? The truthers ARE trusters. They explicitely trust everything Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, Morgan Reynolds, et al are pushing our regardless of how many times they've been caught passing off drivel. I can see right away you're trusters when I post eyewitness accounts who were physically there at the Pentagon and saw what it was that hit it...who all you conspiracy people insist are lying. WHY do you insist all the eyewitnesses are lying? From some video some anonymous conspiracy monger made on his home computer and posted on Youtube. Right.

Who here wants to take the bet that someone won't come here within the next few months and post, "Go watch Loose Change"? Good grief, people, wake up!

Originally posted by TrueFalse
wow dave.

so you are actually believing berry jennings... the man who was trapped on the 6th floor of WTC 7 cause and explosion happend beneath him and made it impossible to escape...

Who told you I *didn't* believe Jennings? He worked in the building and had a legitimate reason for being there, and everything he says corresponds to what was happening throughout the day and what everyone else was reporting.

And why did the lobby look like King Kong would go through it? He was walking over corpses in the lobby, did you know that? How could there be dead bodies in the lobby of WTC 7 ?

No he didn't. He said he was told to not look down by the fire fighters rescuing him and he's presuming he was stepping over bodies. He never saw any actual bodies himself so it's those damned fool conspiracy web sites who are embellishing that bit. Besides, they have a pretty conclusive list of who died and where they died, and there were no recorded fatalities in WTC 7.

Really nice, your are going into the right direction, but there is still much research for you to do to find out that the OS is bs.

Oh, I guarantee there's still a lot more things to be discovered which will significantly change our understanding of what happened on 9/11...but that doesnt change the fact that it was a terrorist attack. Just becuase we later found out the reason the Titanic sank had less to do with the iceberg and more to do with the crappy quality of steel the thing was built out of doesn't mean the whole iceberg story is a hoax and it was really sunk by lasers from outer space. There's only so far you can include your own details before it becomes an outright lie.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Your, "approximate collapse plume" is false. There was a gigantic crater in the roof of WTC 5 from where a large piece of wreckage from WTC 1 fell on it. This crater is the same distance from WTC 1 as WTC 7 was.

How can you say that they are the same distance apart? Even from your own picture WTC 7 is quite a bit farther away... Not to mention the Verizon building next door taking zero damage at all. The reason we are so focused on building 7 is this.. If we can prove it was taken down with a controlled demolition then it can be concluded that the explosives necessary to bring such a large building down were already in place before the attack. If they were not, it would be impossible to lay amidst such a raging inferno.

Just know this.. on 9/11/2001, 3 steel frame buildings totally collapsed due to fire.. No steel framed structure ever had a full collapse (and i stress FULL) due to fire, but on 9/11 3 fell with full collapse. Doesn't that make you wonder?

"They explicitely trust everything Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, Morgan Reynolds, et al are pushing our regardless of how many times they've been caught passing off drivel."

Unlike GOD (the omniscient one), I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not personally know Dylan Avery, Alex Jones or Morgan Reynolds. Therefore, I do not know, nor particularly care what their real motives and agenda are all about.

However, if you put two and two together, you can pretty much figure out that none of the above mentioned characters are very credible, since they NEVER give any inkling as to who the real 9/11 perps are and only deal in unaccountable generalizations (Government, NWO, Illuminati and whatever other garbage they can throw on the table to distract people from the real truth). So instead of bashing these frauds, maybe you should commend them for perpetuating the lies, since you obviously have something in common with them and are working for the same cause.


"I can see right away you're trusters when I post eyewitness accounts who were physically there at the Pentagon and saw what it was that hit it...who all you conspiracy people insist are lying. WHY do you insist all the eyewitnesses are lying?"

I don't know...maybe because we have not been provided with any credible physical evidence that a large commercial airliner crashed into the Pentagon. Maybe because officials refuse to release any of the ample photographic and video evidence available from the Pentagon, which would once and for all put this conspiracy to rest. Assuming, of course, the Official Fairy Tale is the real deal.

For example, I can have one thousand people tell me that a tornado demolished my home, however, if there is no physical evidence of such an occurrence, why should I believe any one of those alleged witnesses? If nobody bothers to do a proper and extensive investigation into this occurrence to verify this claim, again, why should I believe what one thousand people (who are all very capable of spreading lies) are saying?

Maybe I'm just funny or old school in that way, but I'd rather err on the side of reason than be some gullible schmuck who is grateful and appreciative for being led off of a cliff.


"From some video some anonymous conspiracy monger made on his home computer and posted on Youtube. Right."

As compared to some anonymous non-conspiracy theorist feverlishly posting redundant drivel on a conspiracy site.


"Good grief, people, wake up!"

Since your idea of waking up is bending over and having a treasonous Government/Media stick it to you, I'll stay asleep thank you very much.

reply to post by brigand


The Verizon building took zero damage ?

You are wrong about this . In case you missed it , thedman posted a link on page 2 of this thread , concerning this nonsense . Maybe you should go take a look at the 'zero-damage' .

www.civil.columbia.edu...

Originally posted by backinblack
Because we'd like to see the proof with some pics from one of the thousands of cameras around on that day Dave..Surely someone took a pic of these raging fires and 3 storey bulge....
And I mean real pics..Not the altered ones please,,

...but the problem for you is that these "thousands of cameras" wouldn't be taking pictures of WTC 7 before WTC 1 fell on it becuase it wouldn't be damaged, and they wouldn't have been taking pictures of it after the collapse becuase the whole place was a disaster area and dangerous to be in, and all non emergency personnel would have been herded out. There are many pictures of WTC 7 from the north side, but few if any would be from the south side where wreckage from WTC 1 hit it.

I find it suspicious that out of all the information that's freely available, from firefighter testimony of structural damage to even Barry Jennings' statements of the WTC 7 lobby being destroyed, the one thing you've decided will help you make up your mind is conveniently something that may not even actually exist. All along you conspiracy people have been insisting that we need to listen to what the eyewitnesses are saying and it's obvious I am. Why are you reneging on your own words now?

Originally posted by brigand
How can you say that they are the same distance apart? Even from your own picture WTC 7 is quite a bit farther away... Not to mention the Verizon building next door taking zero damage at all. The reason we are so focused on building 7 is this.. If we can prove it was taken down with a controlled demolition then it can be concluded that the explosives necessary to bring such a large building down were already in place before the attack. If they were not, it would be impossible to lay amidst such a raging inferno.

What do you mean, how can I say they're the same distance? Measure the distance from the impact crater on the roof of WTC 5 and compare it to the distance to the south side of WTC 7, and they'll be the same. There it is right on the aerial photograph. Go ahead and use a compass, I don't mind.

The reason we know it fell that direction is obvious- on the other side of the WTC 1-WTC 7 line is WTC 6, and from the aerial photograph you can see it was smashed up too. Not even the conspiracy people will have the gall to suggest that WTC 1 magically split in two and fell to each side of WTC 7. Everythign in that whole direction was smashed up, including WTC 7.

The problem is this- if it can be proven WTC 7 was NOT brought down by controlled demolitions, then continuing to insist it was brought down by controlled demolitions and everything esle must be gov't disinformation isn't research. It's blind fanaticism.

Just know this.. on 9/11/2001, 3 steel frame buildings totally collapsed due to fire.. No steel framed structure ever had a full collapse (and i stress FULL) due to fire, but on 9/11 3 fell with full collapse. Doesn't that make you wonder?

Yes, it does. It makes me wonder how people seem to believe this, and yet turn around and think it's perfectly logical that someone can sneak into an occupied building and plant controlled demolitions wothout anyone noticing despite it never happening in all of human history either. The most obvious answer is that you are simply making up excuses for why you shouldn't give up your conspiracy claims, but I'm open to suggestions.

"It doesn't It proves there was massive damage to the building before it collapsed, which the truthers are religiously denying for their perverse "no planes hit WTC 7" propaganda."

Can you show me a video or photographs of this "massive damage" to WTC 7? I've seen the small BBQ fire and the photoshopped image, so if you're going to pull those up again, don't waste your time. Why is "no planes hit WTC 7" propaganda? Is that the truth or is it a lie?


"A plane may not have hit WTC 7, but it's perfectly obvious that wreckage from WTC 1 *did* hit WTC 7...unless you think King Kong really did come through the WTC 7 lobby and wrecked the place, as Jennings described the damage as looking like...?"

Where is it obvious? And again, how can debris from the exterior damage an interior lobby, while leaving most of the exterior of that same building untouched?


"The bombs excuse is getting tired. It's blatantly obvious there were fire fighters, police, rescue workers, reporters, etc, and Jennings himself said the lobby was chock full of such people. Not a single person seems to know anything about any massive explosion in WTC 7 powerful enough to take out the lobby before WTC 1 collapsed, and it's ridiculous to claim everyone in Manhattan simply just forgot about it."

Maybe with your line of reasoning, but just because something is getting "tired", doesn't mean it's not true. Again, how can an interior lobby be damaged with debris falling on the exterior of a building and leaving most of the exterior portion untouched. Feel free to keep avoiding the question.


"WTC 1 was just flipping huge, and when it fell, falling wreckage even smashed up a church several blocks away. Why is anyone even argung over such a ridiculous point?."

The church you are talking about is St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. The church was one block away from WTC Tower 2, which was closer than WTC 7 was from WTC Tower 1.

Here is a map of the church and the entire WTC complex on 9/11/01:

wirednewyork.com...

Here is a picture of the church:

wirednewyork.com...

Are you actually comparing this diminutive four story building built in 1832 (and which was located closer to the collapse zone than WTC 7) to a 47 story modern steel framed skyscraper built in 1983?

C'mon GOD, get your act together; with absurd analogies like that, people are going to start losing faith in you.

Originally posted by Sky watcher
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I guess you missed the massive documentary explaining how bad they lied about the Pentagon too? Many police and Pentagon security personnel seen the plane fly over the Pentagon, bank and fly away as the building exploded. The air liner did a fake bombing run and even the dam cab driver admitted that he was in on the deal. His wife worked for the FBI. He spilled his guts when they were trying to get him to tell them where his car was after he claimed it was not on the bridge that morning with the pole damaging it. He thought the camera wasn't recording.

Busted!!!! Everything about that day was set up to fool you and I. Hell the end of the first video proves it was staged.

I missed this. What was the name of it. I would love to watch/listen to it.
May the 'truth be told'.

reply to post by DIDtm


There is a reason you missed this "massive documentary", its an internet scam. A couple of sad sacks went around Washington and did some half ass "interviews" and then try to sell the thing as a documentary. Again, its a scam, the 9/11 equivalent of the Nigerian prince.

reply to post by airspoon


Yes, the buildings were pre-rigged with explosives to "pull them" "in case of emergency," so if this was a controlled demolition with pre-rigged buildings, then it was all a controlled demolition. This is exactly what Dr. Alan Sabrosky of the US Army War College is saying. He thinks it was Mossad acting alone or working with corrupt elements in the American government. Still, people hate to acknowledge that this is true, and that we went to war with Iraq but never found WMD's, that 92% of the Afghanistan population doesn't even know that we're there because of 911 (we were bombing them in the late 90's also), nanothermite was found in the debris and the scientist studying it were Israeli. People will eventually get it, and when they do, it's not going to be a pretty day on the Mediterranean.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I guess It wouldnt be a 9/11 conspiracy thread without Goodoldave jumping on it right away with his completely irrational statements. Please correct me if Im wrong but I believe that you said, " the fires burned out of control causing a bulge in the steel structure" Twice!! Would you please type that statement again with your webcam on so we can all actually see you giggling like a schoolgirl behind your keyboard? Im not sure what planet you are from but there is no way, on Earth, burning cubicles, carpeting and computer monitors cause steel beams to " bulge". Oh, but then again building 7 was realllllyyy taaallllllll so of course the fires would cause it implode in 6.5 seconds! Thanks for the laugh, HAHAHAHAHA

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

The church was one block away from WTC Tower 2, which was closer than WTC 7 was from WTC Tower 1.

There was also damage to buildings at the corner of Chambers street and West Broadway , which is a full 4 blocks north/northeast of WTC7 .

So , what's your point ?

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by SphinxMontreal

 

The church was one block away from WTC Tower 2, which was closer than WTC 7 was from WTC Tower 1.

There was also damage to buildings at the corner of Chambers street and West Broadway , which is a full 4 blocks north/northeast of WTC7 .

So , what's your point ?

Don't you know? In the truther world there are exacting parameters for every random event, when those parameters are breached then you must declare "shenanigans"! For instance, if there is no record of the World Trade Center towers collapsing after being struck by a passenger jet then, of course, it cannot happen and therefore when it does happen shenanigans are officially declared and an investigation chaired by Ed Asner must be initiated to be followed shortly by the execution of ________________ (insert name of politician you hate most here).

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"So we go back to Fire Chief Hayden about the bulge witnessed by the NYFD."

Only one guy notices a three story (approx. 30 feet) bulge in WTC 7? And nobody bothered to snap a picture of this? Okey dokey.

Yes, how absurd of them. After all, they were standing in the middle of an apocalypse trying to help injured and trapped people like Barry Jennings out of the buildings, fighting fires, and making sure they didn't die themselves. How could they not stop to take a picture of the mayhem to placate you conspiracy fanatics who insist everything is part of some secret plot to take over the world..

"Also which side of the exterior are you talking about? Did you forget that a building has FOUR sides?"

Ahem. WTC 1 was to the south of WTC 7. When WTC 1 fell, it's necessarily going to hit the south side of WTC 7 that's facing WTC 1. WTC 1 is not going to do a back flip over WTC 7 and hit the north side or any other side WTC 7 would have. I shouldn't have to explain that to you.

Jeez, Louse, dude, it'd be one thing if you had something concrete to disprove eyewitness accounts, but having to bicker over which side of WTC 7 the wreckage would have hit to defend your conspiracy claims is taking it to a whole other level of fatuousness. Try again.

Excellent thread and information Airspoon. S&F

Wow! Yet another otherwise excellent 911 thread consumed by Good Ol' Dave's millionth postings of the same ol' thing.

Good Ol' Dave, are you a person or a task force of some kind? I have a difficult time beleiving that a warm body person would be as dedicated to propagating disinformation as you seem to be. If you're a task force or a member of one, which agency do you work for?

I say "dedicated to propagating disinformation" because neither you (Good Ol' Dave, that is) nor any other member of the usual gang of disinfo trusters has, can, nor ever will come close to explaining how the asymmetrical damage sustained by WTC7 could have caused its almost perfectly symmetrical controlled demolition style collapse.

My last sentence is not an open invitation for you, Good Ol' Dave, to yet again post the same ol' same ol' non-explanation that you've posted countless times before.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Your, "approximate collapse plume" is false. There was a gigantic crater in the roof of WTC 5 from where a large piece of wreckage from WTC 1 fell on it. This crater is the same distance from WTC 1 as WTC 7 was.

Fire fighters reported that the collapse of WTC 1 destroyed the water supplies to teh fire suppression systems in WTC 7. They also reported that the fires were burning out of control and were causing three story tall bulges in the structure. This necessarily gives the NIST report at least some measure of credibility, and necessarily means you conspiracy people are resorting to grasping at some pretty far fetched straws to keep your conspiracy stories alive.

edit on 22-11-2010 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)

You mean to tell me that our story is far fetched, when your story is "the building imploded perfectly because i piece of debris may have landed on it. But a piece also landed on another building that was slightly closer, any remained intact."
(i know its a lil late for this one but i just got here)