9/11 Bombshell:WTC7 Security Official Details, Says bombs were going off in 7 before either tower co

Everything ,and i mean EVERYTHING that is " claimed " to be heard , can
be contributed to falling debris , stored chemicals or one of a number of
other logical explanations and easily explained . It's no mystery how
unreliable some eye witnesses can be and in a group as large as the 911
witnesses , the very few that come out on the conspiracy side is not
unusual . Not at all . Not withstanding those who just want some attention
and money . That brings the number of " credible " theory's to ZERO .
But , that's just m2c .

Originally posted by gen.disaray
Everything ,and i mean EVERYTHING that is " claimed " to be heard , can
be contributed to falling debris , stored chemicals or one of a number of
other logical explanations and easily explained . It's no mystery how
unreliable some eye witnesses can be and in a group as large as the 911
witnesses , the very few that come out on the conspiracy side is not
unusual . Not at all . Not withstanding those who just want some attention
and money . That brings the number of " credible " theory's to ZERO .
But , that's just m2c .

Thats not logical at all. The witness testimonial of Barry Jennings who reported seeing dead bodies in the lobby of WTC7 BEFORE either tower collapsed.

What caused these deaths?

It does not take Einstein to realize that secondary devices of some sort were present not only in the Twin Towers but WTC7 as well.

If what you are saying is correct then why did the 9/11 Commission fail to put that sort of information in its report? The 9/11 Commission did not even make mention of WTC7.

BeZerK

Originally posted by gen.disaray
That brings the number of " credible " theory's to ZERO .
But , that's just m2c .

At least you understand that concept. As to bringing the credible theories to zero, well, that is about 2 cents worth, if that.

This will be my only post for tonight. I have some stuff to do in the real world.

I would first off like to point out the Barry Jennings time line. It does not matter what he recollects now. HE arrived at the buncker at the 23rd floor and it was VACANT. ok?

It was vacant because tennants of WTC7 INCLUDING the bunker were evacuated. (for those that STILL want to cling to the Silverstein quote this did not include firemen)

So...you need to address the time now. The time between the evacuation order and the time Jennings arrived to the 23rd floor. Now look at the time when the first tower collapsed. Do i need to explain ANY further? Jennings stated at the time of the first collapse he noticed the lights blinking and the elevator shut down.. so he took the stairs.

Again... I does not matter what Jennings is now recollecting...It truly does not matter!

someone please point out where i am making a mistake here.

As far as the so called bodies... Jennings arrived when the triage that was set up in WTC7 lobby was more than likely in the stages of the evacuation.

Yes there was a triage set up at WTC7. This can all be verified in the NIST report.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
This will be my only post for tonight. I have some stuff to do in the real world.

I would first off like to point out the Barry Jennings time line. It does not matter what he recollects now. HE arrived at the buncker at the 23rd floor and it was VACANT. ok?

It was vacant because tennants of WTC7 INCLUDING the bunker were evacuated. (for those that STILL want to cling to the Silverstein quote this did not include firemen)

So...you need to address the time now. The time between the evacuation order and the time Jennings arrived to the 23rd floor. Now look at the time when the first tower collapsed. Do i need to explain ANY further? Jennings stated at the time of the first collapse he noticed the lights blinking and the elevator shut down.. so he took the stairs.

Again... I does not matter what Jennings is now recollecting...It truly does not matter!

someone please point out where i am making a mistake here.

As far as the so called bodies... Jennings arrived when the triage that was set up in WTC7 lobby was more than likely in the stages of the evacuation.

Yes there was a triage set up at WTC7. This can all be verified in the NIST report.

Your assuming the times that you have posted. Assumptions are not based on FACT. "LETS SAY", "ASSUMING" etc

3- I have yet to find a time as to when he arrived at the 23rd floor. But lets ASSUME it took at least 5 minutes to evacuate the OEM center at 9:44. We are now looking at about 10 minutes to 10. 9:50AM

The eye witness testimonial is much more potent as evidence than the NIST report which is full of distortions and is not even accurate. The NIST report has been thoroughly debunked over and over

I guess time will only tell until the New Loose Change movie is released with further information in detail about this Witness Testimony.

BeZerK

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I hope this is the begining of an avalanche of people close to the action on that day, who finally come forward with the truth. There have to be many cops, firemen, military people and news reporters who have fitted themselves with jawclamps since that day. The truth community has to keep up the pressure and be very visible to demonstrate solidarity and support to people who know what happened but do not feel safe coming forward with the facts.

Whether you like them or hate them personally, whether you endorse them or impugn their motives, I think we have to stay the course and back up the efforts of people like the Loose Change guys, Alex Jones and others, who many regard as self seeking show boaters. America loves a show. Maybe these colourful personalities can coax the timid 911 eyewitnesses onstage.

They will say what ever you pay them to say.

The NIST report has been debunked over and over?? Ok...if it has please provide me with a source along with a list of those that peer reviewed it.

Funny how people forget that fact that NIST held MANY public meetings with John Q. Citizen along with meeting with countless amounts of engineers..PHD's.. etc. They all had their time to go through the notes, and submit what they felt may need to be re-examined, prior to the release of the final document.

All that being said....

FACT: when Jennings got to the Bunker on the 23rd floor it was EMPTY! What am I missing here??? This time line was only CONFIRMED by NIST. They didn't make it up.

When Jennings LEFT the bunker, THATS when he said he heard the explosion.


[edit on 27-6-2007 by CaptainObvious]

CaptainObvious is a fluff artist.

He has an agenda to distract people from using their brains and comming to logical and rational conclusions about 9-11. The NIST is a terrorist endorsed document.

He will ramble on and take an argument into a circle simply to bury logical points further back in a thread, knowing no one will go back to look at those points. He simply dominates threads by stating the same thing in every single 9-11 post rather than HIM looking at the facts.

He is not doing an investigation, just taking all research from other people and comparing it to...what terrorists have provided as evidence. Look at the people involved and everyone shall see the truth. Look at the links in my signature, the technology to do 9-11 was ready 3 years before 2001.

We are all aware that three buildings collapsed in NYC, two were hit by planes. We know that the pentagon was damaged , ???plane???. How convenient that the side that had the best view of the pentagon has a bunch of dead people on it. Arlington National Cemetary is a secure facility, you must be an immediate family member of the deceased to visit their grave site. I know this because my Grandfather (Lt. Col, USAF) and Grandmother are buried there. Their plot is directly in front of the damaged side. I am not allowed to go back to their site, only my father is.

CaptainObvious wants the 'truthers' to stumble across the '9-11: Inside Job' book printed by the government. Never going to happen, if that is what you need to be convinced investigation is not for you. It was a crime, that was well covered up by people in office and people with money. Sometimes you have to piece evidence together, not all of the evidence is science and not all of it is OBVIOUS.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

I was at a play in Boston Friday night called RFK(a portriat of his life). I know RFK Jr. ...(through constant e-mails)

I grew up a Catholic in the subbies of Boston.... you HAD to like the Kennedy's in my home!

Robert F. Kennedy Jr....a real winner...now I know why CO can't figure this out, his pen pals are dope heads.

In 1983, he (RFK, Jr.) was arrested in a Rapid City South Dakota Airport for heroin possession after being found unconscious in an airplane bathroom with a needle stuck into his arm, a search of his carry-on bag uncovered 183 milligrams of heroin.

Originally posted by Spoodily
He will ramble on and take an argument into a circle simply to bury logical points further back in a thread, knowing no one will go back to look at those points.

Not meaning to derail and no offense but I noticed the same thing and I find this a lot more irritating than the name-calling and etc. that ATS is trying to cut back on here. I had an exchange with him once that started with me asserting that enough heat couldn't transfer that quickly, and it wrapped around and ended with him baldly assuming that the heat was more than sufficient to support something else he had said.

This stuff is harder to control than simple name-calling, I'm sure, but shouldn't there at least be some limit to how bad your short-term memory can be while posting? That's my complaint. The name-calling never bothered me.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Spoodily
He will ramble on and take an argument into a circle simply to bury logical points further back in a thread, knowing no one will go back to look at those points.

Not meaning to derail and no offense but I noticed the same thing and I find this a lot more irritating than the name-calling and etc. that ATS is trying to cut back on here. I had an exchange with him once that started with me asserting that enough heat couldn't transfer that quickly, and it wrapped around and ended with him baldly assuming that the heat was more than sufficient to support something else he had said.

This stuff is harder to control than simple name-calling, I'm sure, but shouldn't there at least be some limit to how bad your short-term memory can be while posting? That's my complaint. The name-calling never bothered me.

Bsbray? I called you names? I had a conversation about heat transfer with you ???

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Bsbray? I called you names? I had a conversation about heat transfer with you ???

You never called me anything but I think the exchange I remember was with you. It was either you or "F-Dog" but I can't find the exact posts. Either way, my point is still that there should be a limit on how absent-minded people can be and get away with it while posting.

I remember bringing up something about the size of the columns at the WTC, the fires and the time it takes for enough heat to transfer to start making columns hot enough to lose strength. The warping and buckling caused to steel before then is due to thermal expansion, which I think is understandable, and it doesn't threaten a global collapse. It takes considerably more heat to cause sufficient strength loss in the actual steel for failure, the columns would have been glowing, and the fires only burned sporadically for around an hour each. To sufficiently heat all that massive steel within such a short amount of time would take some incredible watts, nothing realistic in the least, and NIST's computer models show this.

Anyway, we got into an exchange along those lines, and before a page worth of posts were made, whoever I was talking to asserted completely baldly, to support something else that he said, that there was more than sufficient heat to weaken the steel enough to fail. No references, nothing, just says it and covers himself with more of the same. It draws into circles, and irritates me more than name-calling. I wasn't saying you did, though.

Originally posted by Spoodily
CaptainObvious is a fluff artist.

Thats an opinion of a person and not his post...I take offense to that and hope you get red flagged

Originally posted by SpoodilyHe has an agenda to distract people from using their brains and comming to logical and rational conclusions about 9-11. The NIST is a terrorist endorsed document.

Again your attacking the poster. And this paragraph is PURE B.S. and you know it.

Originally posted by SpoodilyHe will ramble on and take an argument into a circle simply to bury logical points further back in a thread, knowing no one will go back to look at those points. He simply dominates threads by stating the same thing in every single 9-11 post rather than HIM looking at the facts.

Hmmm...prove that please.

Originally posted by SpoodilyHe is not doing an investigation, just taking all research from other people and comparing it to...what terrorists have provided as evidence. Look at the people involved and everyone shall see the truth. Look at the links in my signature, the technology to do 9-11 was ready 3 years before 2001.

You seem like your afraid of the facts i present. Keep it up


CaptainObvious wants the 'truthers' to stumble across the '9-11: Inside Job' book printed by the government. Never going to happen, if that is what you need to be convinced investigation is not for you. It was a crime, that was well covered up by people in office and people with money. Sometimes you have to piece evidence together, not all of the evidence is science and not all of it is OBVIOUS.

Originally posted by Spoodily
Robert F. Kennedy Jr....a real winner...now I know why CO can't figure this out, his pen pals are dope heads.

In 1983, he (RFK, Jr.) was arrested in a Rapid City South Dakota Airport for heroin possession after being found unconscious in an airplane bathroom with a needle stuck into his arm, a search of his carry-on bag uncovered 183 milligrams of heroin.

I will refrain from being rude. Unlike you. Pretty bad when a person does something wrong almost 25 years ago has to get it thrown in their face by Google jockeys. 25 years ago! The man had a drug addiction!!

Why dont you take some time in looking at what this man has become. Look at the family he has raised. Look at what he is doing for our county and our planet.

Instead of your pathetic Wikipedia search for what this man did as a young person. I suggest you look at what he is doing to help children with Asthma, Autism, Life Threatening Food Allergies.

To only judge a man for a mistake he made 25 years ago is disgusting.

EDIT.... I removed a paragraph I changed my mind on

I have to add... Can anyone imagine how it must be to see your uncle who is president of the united states MURDERED?...then a short time later have to live with your DAD being murdered? All this beofre your 14th birthday? Yet we have internet thugs in here that want to judge that person. Makes me want to puke!

[edit on 27-6-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Pretty bad when a person does something wrong almost 25 years ago has to get it thrown in their face by Google jockeys. 25 years ago!

Yes, looking at people's histories is something you fail to do rather well.

Probably the reason why you defend the terrorists that committed the crimes of 9-11-2001 so much is because you know nothing about them and ignore their past.

I thought you were a fan of proof and facts...

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
The NIST report has been debunked over and over?? Ok...if it has please provide me with a source along with a list of those that peer reviewed it.

Funny how people forget that fact that NIST held MANY public meetings with John Q. Citizen along with meeting with countless amounts of engineers..PHD's.. etc. They all had their time to go through the notes, and submit what they felt may need to be re-examined, prior to the release of the final document.

All that being said....

FACT: when Jennings got to the Bunker on the 23rd floor it was EMPTY! What am I missing here??? This time line was only CONFIRMED by NIST. They didn't make it up.

When Jennings LEFT the bunker, THATS when he said he heard the explosion.
[edit on 27-6-2007 by CaptainObvious]

Here are some quotes to consider in the NIST report if you indeed read it:

NIST: For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.

NIST: None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degree C for as long as 15 minutes.
Nist Page 180.

NIST: Within the investigation of the recovered steel, Frank Gayle's group performed a paint defermation test which showed how paint would curl or change in a certain temperature range. So they took the samples and analized them to see what kind of temperature they were exposed to by looking at the paint. Less than 2 percent of the samples which have been pulled specifically from the fire zones, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire less than 2 percent seen temperatures of 480 degrees F* which is very low relative to the temperatures to "soften or melt" steel. "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C* during the fires or after the collapse. This was based on a method devoloped by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking." NIST page 181

NIST's investigation is being presented as the last word on the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC7. The collapse of each of the Twin Towers was the last of three events:

1. A plane hits the Tower, punching a gaping hole and producing a giant fireball (outside mind you)

2. The jet fuel ignites fires on several floors producing thick smoke and heating and possibly deforming some structures

3. The Towers collapse from top to bottom leaving virtually no identifiable pieces except fragments of its steel skeleton and aluminum cladding

Each of the above events where unimaginable, horrific and killed thousands of people. The report explains the first 2 points but fails to explain the 3rd point, violating engineering experience and required the invention of new theories. These are curious priorities for an investigation that falsely explains the three largest and least expected failures of engineered steel structures in world history: the total collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

Also, if NIST's computer models really do show collapse initiation, why don't they release those models?

BeZerK

BeZerk,

This shows that NIST has been debunked? They are forthcoming in all of their studies. All these Monday morning quarterback were given ample opportunity to write to NIST and submit what they have had to help. There were several meetings for the public and professionals prior to the release of the final document.

Sorry, unless you prove something wrong that NIST did. It is not debunked. By proving it is wrong you need to submit a paper to the scientific community and have it peer reviewed.

Originally posted by Spoodily
Yes, looking at people's histories is something you fail to do rather well.

Probably the reason why you defend the terrorists that committed the crimes of 9-11-2001 so much is because you know nothing about them and ignore their past.

I thought you were a fan of proof and facts...

Spoodily,

Honestly your posts have not provided anything to any thread that I have read. But please feel free to judge anyone that agrees with what all the evidence points to.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
BeZerk,

This shows that NIST has been debunked? They are forthcoming in all of their studies. All these Monday morning quarterback were given ample opportunity to write to NIST and submit what they have had to help. There were several meetings for the public and professionals prior to the release of the final document.

Sorry, unless you prove something wrong that NIST did. It is not debunked. By proving it is wrong you need to submit a paper to the scientific community and have it peer reviewed.

The same argument can be in place of the 9/11 Commission report, there were ample amounts of public witness's who testified and was not even callobrated into the Report.

Same principle with the NIST. It does not take Einstein to work that out.

BeZerK

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Honestly your posts have not provided anything to any thread that I have read.

Did the NIST report tell you that?

But please feel free to judge anyone that agrees with what all the evidence points to.

I'm letting you do that.

Captain Obviouse (and yes you are )

Pls point out to me in your NIST report where it explains the tilt and rotation of the top of the South Tower as it begins to collapse from underneath it.
Pls show me where it explains how the building defied physics, if there were no other energy acting on it other than gravity.

For more info see this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You'll notice no one in that thread could answer the question, nor de-bunk it, and so far no one has when asked in any other thread either. But seeing as you are the expert on the NIST report, and how you think it fully explains everything that happened, this should be an easy job for you, right?...

Now if you can't complete this simple task, are you going to admit there are holes in the official story that can't be explained, or like everyone else who thinks they know what happened that day ignore the question, or try to BS your way past it like all the others before you?

I look fwd to your answer...

Originally posted by ANOK
Captain Obviouse (and yes you are

)

Pls point out to me in your NIST report where it explains the tilt and rotation of the top of the South Tower as it begins to collapse from underneath it.

It's my NIST report? Well, I will have to say that the hundreds of engineers that were involved in it may be a little upset that I call it mine. I have looked through NIST and I can't find anything mathimatical, or any diagrams that show an explination of the rotation. This does NOT mean that it does not exist. I just read your post and skimmed through real fast.

Originally posted by ANOK
You'll notice no one in that thread could answer the question, nor de-bunk it, and so far no one has when asked in any other thread either. But seeing as you are the expert on the NIST report, and how you think it fully explains everything that happened, this should be an easy job for you, right?...

Now if you can't complete this simple task, are you going to admit there are holes in the official story that can't be explained, or like everyone else who thinks they know what happened that day ignore the question, or try to BS your way past it like all the others before you?
I look fwd to your answer...

All the smiley faces and winking...I hope your a female with all this flirting!!

First of all, this thread is for the so called Bombshell in WTC7 and the Security Officers NEW claims. Your attempt to derail it to meet your your needs is pretty "obvious" to me. The mods should pick up on it and at least tell you to knock it off.

I will however address a couple websites that have addressed the tilt of the tower. Please let me point out to you that I have NO IDEA if this was reviewed by people from the ASCE or any other engineers.
If you know of anyone that can look it over, please be my guest. My only friend that is an engineer works for BMW. So, he isn't much help.

www.911myths.com... (Mathmatics?) I still add with my fingers.


www.jnani.org...

Pretty good site that lays it out about CD. If you read these two sir, you will be the first that spends time looking at skeptics works.

Anyway, I can't admit that the story has "holes" in it. Or that it is flawed. If so, I'm sure there is ONE credible engineer that can show us how bombs, etc. were the casue of the collapse.

Anok, I think you should post your response in your thread you posted or U2U me. It's not fair to the OP that this has become a CD of the towers.

Gracie