WTC 7 EXPLOSION witness barry jennings killed. Try to debunk that I CHALLENGE YOU, page 4

posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 12:14 PM

link

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Who mentioned the CIA? Ooops a small faux pas on your part perhaps?
But seriously, do they really sell baseball caps? Thats not going to help is it?
But really seriously, I have to wonder at the motivation of people who are not looking for answers but profess to have them all.
Those asking questions can come from all walks of life if they see something they don't understand or are inclined not to believe.
Those defending the OS are obviously from a much narrower demographic. That being, those who have a vested interest in the OS being the truth. These people would be:
Government employees and ???????????
So, all you debunkers have at some point denied being paid to do what you do, I would ask you; why do you bother?
Please don't patronise me by suggesting you are trying to educate people, thats BS and you know it.
I have a firm standpoint on religion for instance. Its all bogus as far as I'm concerned, but I don't spend a ridiculous amount of time trying to prove to the religious folk that they are wrong. It would be a waste of my time and they wouldn't be converted by what I said anyway, plus I don't care.
The same thing happens in these 911 threads. You guys don't convert anyone to your line of thinking, you don't educate anyone and most people ignore you, so why bother?
I appreciate its your right to post whatever you like on the subject so don't start with that garbage.
I also appreciate there is alot of BS theories surrounding 911. There are fringe elements in every subject and the truth movement has its fair share of charlatans and con men. However, you guys tar everyone with the same brush which belies the obvious intelligence that you all have, which suggests an ulterior motive.
I'm not attacking you guys for doing what you do, it is your right, I would just like to understand why.

GoodOlDave

posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:13 PM

link

Originally posted by OllyP
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

But really seriously, I have to wonder at the motivation of people who are not looking for answers but profess to have them all.
Those asking questions can come from all walks of life if they see something they don't understand or are inclined not to believe.
Those defending the OS are obviously from a much narrower demographic. That being, those who have a vested interest in the OS being the truth. These people would be:
Government employees and ???????????
So, all you debunkers have at some point denied being paid to do what you do, I would ask you; why do you bother?

This is completely off-topic, but if you genuinely want to know, for me, there are two reasons-

a) After watching Loose Change I had seriously considered whether there was something more sinister going on behind the scenes, but being a naturally curious person I looked into their claims to find out more information, and discovered the people behind Loose Change are a bunch of punk con artists lying through their teeth. They'll pick some grainy video of the plane impacts taken miles away specifically so they can claim some shiny part of the plane was missile pods, and they'll crop a photo of people bringing a triage tent into the Pentagon site in order to claim it was some mysterious tarp covered thing bring smoggled out. After likewise verifying all the other sites being mentioned, I found out THEY are lying through their teeth too- "No interceptors were scrambled", "there were no muslim names on the passenger manifests", "all the bomb dogs were withdrawn from the WTC", "Bush's cousin was in charge of WTC security", "noone saw what it was that hit the Pentagon", the lies and manipulations are an outright disinformation campaign to get people all paranoid over shadows.

...as well as...

b) the whole reason you people even got on my radar to begin with was when one of your fellow outer space fanatics invaded a political chat room I was in spouting how Bush staged 9/11. When I said I didn't subscribe to the idea, he said...and I quote..."Bush killed 3,000 people on 9/11 and since you're letting him get away with it, you killed them too. You are a murderer". Such unreasoned hate and blind zealotry over what is unquestionably his onw personal opinion both disgusted and fascinated me, and you people have been on my radar ever since.

Between being lied to by the conspiracy theorists, and seeing with my own eyes the outright blind devotion to this ideology to the point where you people actually hope these conspiracy stories are true, I realize I can't sit by the sidelines and allow those damned fool conspiracy web sites you get all your information from go unchallanged. Heck, one of your compatriots went to the Pentagon and shot the place up a few months back so I can see right away which direction you people are heading.

Doctor Smith

posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 08:04 PM

link

Just thought of something nobody else seems to have noticed. Barry Jennings stated that their was steaming coffee and sandwiches half eaten etc. Everyone was gone. This was before buildings 1 or 2 had fallen. Then he talked to someone on the phone and they said to get out of the building right away. Evidence of forewarning of the collapse.

Also. The explosions (according to Barry Jennings) in building 7 happened before and not after the other buildings collapsed. So the explosions could not have had anything to do with the other buildings. Unless parts of the crashed aircraft hit building 7 and caused the fires.

TrickoftheShade

posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 08:38 PM

link

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
Then he talked to someone on the phone and they said to get out of the building right away. Evidence of forewarning of the collapse.

So the perps were happy to kill all the people in the towers, but they were very keen that those in building 7 didn't die?

Doctor Smith

posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 09:44 PM

link

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
Then he talked to someone on the phone and they said to get out of the building right away. Evidence of forewarning of the collapse.

So the perps were happy to kill all the people in the towers, but they were very keen that those in building 7 didn't die?

He called people he knew and one individual (unidentified) said to leave the building immediatley. They were the emergency management. Probably somebody he worked with tipped him off.

Not important anyway. The point was. The building had bombs going off before either of the twin towers disintegrated.

Doctor Smith

posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 03:07 AM

link

Originally posted by Doctor Smith

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
Then he talked to someone on the phone and they said to get out of the building right away. Evidence of forewarning of the collapse.

So the perps were happy to kill all the people in the towers, but they were very keen that those in building 7 didn't die?

He called people he knew and one individual (unidentified) said to leave the building immediatley. They were the emergency management. Probably somebody he worked with tipped him off.

Not important anyway. The point was. The building had bombs going off before either of the twin towers disintegrated.

Now that I researched it more they left the building because they claim debris from the towers had caught building 7 on fire. But still their were big explosions. Why? How? Did Jennings go into a burning building?

micpsi

posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 04:41 AM

link

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by knowneedtoknow

Its not a good idea to pinch a video from another thread "WTC 7 Flashes" when that thread is in terminal decline because everyone, except the OP, accepts the flashes are birds.

Barry Jennings died 19/8/2008 so he survived 9/11 by very nearly 7 years and gave various interviews in that time. The perps seem to have taken an inordinate time to get around to murdering him don't you think ? Got any evidence of his murder ?

You ignore a vital fact. Jennings had communicated with Alex Jones for some time about his story and had shared information with him with the promise that his name would not be revealed. Jones made a DVD about what happened at WTC7 and Jenning's name became public knowledge. If he WAS murdered (and there is no evidence for this), the reason would have been so that he could not be interviewed by the media about the bombing at WTC7 before the towers collapsed, his seeing bodies, etc. Those who carried out 9/11 would not have wanted a credible public official contradicting the official story of what happened that day.

micpsi

posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 04:46 AM

link

reply to post by GenRadek

If you don't think fire fighters cannot distinguish between the sound of high-explosives and steel girders snapping, then you live in la-la land. But of course you are forced to embrace such desperate notions lacking any credibility because you are in denial about what really happened on 9/11.

TrickoftheShade

posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 08:25 AM

link

Originally posted by Doctor Smith

He called people he knew and one individual (unidentified) said to leave the building immediatley. They were the emergency management. Probably somebody he worked with tipped him off.

Not important anyway.

Okay, as long as you realise that your "evidence of forewarning" is unlikely to be suspicious. Unless the perps were desperate to save Barry. And then kill him.

The point was. The building had bombs going off before either of the twin towers disintegrated.

Jennings was, I think, mistaken.

GoodOlDave

posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 09:20 AM

link

Originally posted by micpsi
reply to post by GenRadek

If you don't think fire fighters cannot distinguish between the sound of high-explosives and steel girders snapping, then you live in la-la land. But of course you are forced to embrace such desperate notions lacking any credibility because you are in denial about what really happened on 9/11.

The only one in servile denial here is you. It's thoroughly understandable how people in the vicinity of WTC would think the explosions they were hearing were bombs, particularly since something going BOOM doesn't go BOOM I'M A BOMB or BOOM I'M AN ELECTICAL TRANSFORMER or even BOOM I'M A PRESSURIZED PIPE. This is particularly true in NYC since bombs actually were used against the WTC in 2003. If you want to cling to this "they were bombs" excuse then it is necessarily your responsibility to determine whether these firefighters still believe these explosions were actual bombs even today, rather than while it was happening when everyone was in shock and noone fully understood what was going on. To my knowledge, not a single firefighter who was there still believes there were actually bombs in the towers.

There were plenty of rumors and unverified reports floating around on 9/11 unfolded which were retracted later. The problem is that to get people all paranoid over shadows those damned fool conspiracy websites are repeating these claims while hiding the fact they had been later retracted, like Dylan Avery's infamous, "United 93 really landed in Ohio" claim in Loose Change. My first gut instinct is that you truthers are attempting to pull the same stunt here.

samkent

posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 10:05 AM

link

If you don't think fire fighters cannot distinguish between the sound of high-explosives and steel girders snapping, then you live in la-la land.

Are you saying fire fighters are trained to know the difference between

Explosives Boom
Steel snapping Boom
Dustoff cans Boom
Transformers Boom
Fire extinguisher Boom

Are you saying this part of their normal training?

There are a lot of things that go boom in this world. Most of them are not explosives.

Besides if the building were wired before hand, how could they guarantee the det cord and main charges wouldn’t go off as soon as the fire reached them? Don’t they have to fire these charges in a very specific order?

It's all these uncertainties that make the secret plan unworkable. One screw up and all the plans would be exposed.

Cassius666

posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 06:40 PM

link

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
New York fire fighters reported that the collapse of WTC 1 heavily damaged WTC 7, destroyed the power grid and cut off water supplies from the street to the fire suppression systems. Fire department deputy fire chief Peter Hayden reported that fires were burning out of control, and that there was a three story tall bulge in the side of WTC 7 becuase of the fires. Lieutenant James McGlynn likewise reported heavy fires and also reported the building was creaking heavily shortly before it collapsed.

I challenge you to disprove THAT.

Apart from the fact that it is impossible for 2 buildings to collapse in the fashion of a controlled demolition. We have all seen the pictures of wtc 7 coming down, it looked just fine, then it imploded. Just like that, I did not see any blazing fire that would justify its collapse. I am no expert, but I think it takes more than office fires on a couple of floors in some rooms to take down a building.

The WTC buildings closer to WTC 1 and 2, which took damage that was a lot worse, did not collapse and had to be demolished in the cleanup process, because they were damaged beyond the point of repair and did not collapse.

Doctor Smith

posted on Nov, 9 2010 @ 07:08 PM

link

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
New York fire fighters reported that the collapse of WTC 1 heavily damaged WTC 7, destroyed the power grid and cut off water supplies from the street to the fire suppression systems. Fire department deputy fire chief Peter Hayden reported that fires were burning out of control, and that there was a three story tall bulge in the side of WTC 7 becuase of the fires. Lieutenant James McGlynn likewise reported heavy fires and also reported the building was creaking heavily shortly before it collapsed.

I challenge you to disprove THAT.

Apart from the fact that it is impossible for 2 buildings to collapse in the fashion of a controlled demolition. We have all seen the pictures of wtc 7 coming down, it looked just fine, then it imploded. Just like that, I did not see any blazing fire that would justify its collapse. I am no expert, but I think it takes more than office fires on a couple of floors in some rooms to take down a building.

The WTC buildings closer to WTC 1 and 2, which took damage that was a lot worse, did not collapse and had to be demolished in the cleanup process, because they were damaged beyond the point of repair and did not collapse.

You might not be an expert but you certainly aren't a fool. No one has come up with an example of a modern building collapsing like those three buildings did. Other than controlled demolition. It's as simple as that. You can bash the whole side of a building in and it won't fall straight through itself at free fall speed.

And if someone thinks I'm wrong show us an example.

edit on 9-11-2010 by Doctor Smith because: (no reason given)

samkent

posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 06:11 AM

link

No one has come up with an example of a modern building collapsing like those three buildings did. Other than controlled demolition.

No one has tried to CD a building built the same way as the towers.

Compare pictures of a 1950’s auto crash to a modern auto crash. The modern auto crumples like a pop can. The towers were built in a lightweight fashion using all the engineering tricks of its day. It just wasn’t built to withstand what happened that day.

jexmo

posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 06:17 AM

link

The only thing that will make me waste my time on this thread is the title. Isn't that what is wrong with the forum. It might as well have said, "Guy who was in new york on 9/11 has died and no matter what anyone says or whatever evidence comes to light i will not change my opinion that he was killed by the government because of what he knew. Come and have an argument with me".

I hope you have recieved the reaction you were hoping for.

GoodOlDave

posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 10:07 AM

link

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
New York fire fighters reported that the collapse of WTC 1 heavily damaged WTC 7, destroyed the power grid and cut off water supplies from the street to the fire suppression systems. Fire department deputy fire chief Peter Hayden reported that fires were burning out of control, and that there was a three story tall bulge in the side of WTC 7 becuase of the fires. Lieutenant James McGlynn likewise reported heavy fires and also reported the building was creaking heavily shortly before it collapsed.

I challenge you to disprove THAT.

Apart from the fact that it is impossible for 2 buildings to collapse in the fashion of a controlled demolition. We have all seen the pictures of wtc 7 coming down, it looked just fine, then it imploded. Just like that, I did not see any blazing fire that would justify its collapse. I am no expert, but I think it takes more than office fires on a couple of floors in some rooms to take down a building.

DING DING DING!!!!!

That's it, right there, the reason for every goofball 9/11 conspiracy theory there is: speculation based upon really, really bad information.

NYFD deputy fire chief Peter Hayden was physically there at the WTC 7 site and he reported that the fires were burning out of control in WTC 7 due to the collapse of the north tower destroying the water supply coming in from the street that took out the fire supporession system in the building, as well as a three story tall bulge in the side of the structure. Another NYFD lieutenant who was ther reported the building was making groaning noises shortly before it collapsed. From this, it's blatantly obvious the WTC was *not* fine, but rather the fires were doing at least something horrid to the structure, which gives at least some credibility to the idea that the fires instigated the collapse. The reason you didn't see this yourself was becuase this was all seen from the south side of WTC 7 (the side facting the north tower) rather than the north side where most of the pictures you've seen were taken from.

Your not being given the full information of what happened is one half of the problem. The other half is when unrepentent con artists like Dylan Avery and Alex Jones comes in and deliberately withhold such information from you to get you to believe what they want you to believe, as well as people suffering from abject paranoia who are so much in love with the idea there's some secret conspiracy afoot they'll even accuse Deputy fire chief Peter Hayden of being some secret gov't disinformation agent sent to lie to you. Tell me something, in all seriousness, why do you so readily accept the word of some college kid who's making internet videos in his dorm room but not the word of an experienced firefighter who was actually there?

Doctor Smith

posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 07:57 PM

link

Nothing to see here. Continue to work in your high rise buildings they are completely safe. No reason to upgrade. Even though we claim they might collapse in their own foot print at any time. A little external damage and a few fires and the inevitable collapse will occur on cue. Once the collapse starts the whole building is doomed and will collapse at free fall speed. Through the strongest resistance. And as the steel gets thicker and thicker the further you go down it just doesn't matter. The collapse continues at free fall speed. pulverizing all concrete into a fine powder.

Scientist find nano thermate in all the dust samples but there is nothing to see here. Just mind your own business and continue on your way.

Still zero examples of any similar built buildings collapsing this way, for any reason other than Controlled Demolition.

One huge victory for Doctor Smith. Zero victories for the Trusters.

DIDtm

posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 03:02 PM

link

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by jambatrumpet
I just do not understand the flippant manner in which this first responder testimony is discounted....You say this is no proof of a controlled demolition, but that is exactly what many FDNY professionals claimed to have witnessed. They were there. We weren't.

Mostly, becuase you are seeing things in this that simply aren't there. The guy specifically said:

"At first I thought it was a professional demolition, where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear Pop Pop Pop Pop. That’s exactly what I thought it was when I heard that frigging noise."

Personally, my position is that if you conspiracy people need to resort to going over people's statements with a fine tooth comb like this looking for clues and hidden meanings, it only means you're getting pretty desperate to prove your conspiracy claims. With Watergate at least they had actual burglars in custody.

Regarding the above quotes.
--then you hear Pop Pop Pop Pop. Thats exactly what I thought when I heard the friggin noise.
They guy claims EXACTLY what he heard.

Then you Dave make the comment: ...resort to going over peoples statement with a fine tooth comb like this looking for clues and hidden meanings......
--But you, Dave, are the one in fact pointing out "At first.

Arent you doing exactly what you claim 'conspiracy people' are doing?

In fact Dave, you havent a clue what he meant by, 'at first'.....but you do, as we all do, know what he meant by 'pop pop pop pop'.
You fail again.

GoodOlDave

posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link

Originally posted by DIDtm
Regarding the above quotes.
--then you hear Pop Pop Pop Pop. Thats exactly what I thought when I heard the friggin noise.
They guy claims EXACTLY what he heard.

Then you Dave make the comment: ...resort to going over peoples statement with a fine tooth comb like this looking for clues and hidden meanings......
--But you, Dave, are the one in fact pointing out "At first.

Arent you doing exactly what you claim 'conspiracy people' are doing?

In fact Dave, you havent a clue what he meant by, 'at first'.....but you do, as we all do, know what he meant by 'pop pop pop pop'.
You fail again.

All right then, I invite you to show how this guy who said, "at first I thought it was bombs" still believes the buildings were brought down from bombs. I know you cannot becuase he doesn't, so you people have to snip this single sentence out of his testimony and deliberately ignore the rest becuase by itself, you can use it to make it appear the way you want it to appear.

Are you genuinely telling me you don't see the difference between the quote...

"I never said that I believe you conspriacy people are blithering idiots. For the most part I know you are intelligent and articulate"

...and the cherry picked quote...

"[snip]...I believe you conspiracy people are blithering idiots...for the most part...[snip]"

DIDtm

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Are you genuinely telling me you don't see the difference between the quote...

"I never said that I believe you conspriacy people are blithering idiots. For the most part I know you are intelligent and articulate"

...and the cherry picked quote...

"[snip]...I believe you conspiracy people are blithering idiots...for the most part...[snip]"

If that is what was done, I see the difference.
My only point was you DID the exact same thing you were claiming others to.
This cannot be refuted, for it is visible only 2-3 posts above this one.

I'll say this Dave. When I first came to this site, I had my doubts about 9/11. Was I a truther. Not in the least bit. I had questions about the size of the hole in the Pentagon. I had alot of questions about Shanksville.
You, Dave, in the beginning were the sole person that I noticed with your debunking. A lot of it made sense to me. But as I started to read thread after thread after thread on 9/11, I started to develop so many more questions. Flight 93, still makes no sense to me. I have no doubt it was shot down. Or there was a bomb on it that went off. The Pentagon, some of it makes sense (the 9/11 commission report). Some of it doesnt. I take eyewitness testimony to be the most important. Neither side of the eyewitness witness reports so far have swayed my judgment. I take both into consideration. You claim to, but you dont. You write off eyewitness testimony as being 'mistaken'. The fact that videos are not being released is a red herring to me.
I didnt even know about WTC7 6 months ago. It was basically hidden by the media. Most of my friends dont know about it either .Why is this? The biggest terrorist attack on our nation in our nation, and most of the populace dont even know what damage was done.
I am big into criminal activities. Im not saying Im a criminal. That is not what I am saying, but criminals intrigue me. From their crimes to their behavior to the investigation, to everything- its interesting to me. Granted its fiction, but CSI (all of them intrigue me. I absolutely love those shows. Seen every single one). TruTV and ID is on in my house pretty much 24/7.
I read books, criminal journals constantly. Without having a degree in criminal justice, I have over the past 10 years developed a keen sense to criminal behavior and what it consists of.
The reason I am saying this is, its not hard to identify that the actions of Bush, Cheney, our military, our government, our FBI etc, were in deed questionable in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and prior to it..
Maybe the 9/11 report to you is gospel, but to most people that have an honest open mind, it is not. Im not saying this to insult you by any means., with your writing style it is apparent that you are well educated person. However, that doesnt always translate into having an open mind.
Truthers have questions that are not answered. Most of them/us do not claim to know exactly what happened or who is behind it. All we know, is that the official story doesnt add up. There are too many questions unanswered both on the events of that day and its aftermath by our leaders. The more we investigate to try to get answers, many times we dont, we only walk away with more questions.
When there are SO many questions, generally the topic in question has a criminal element and/conspiracy behind it.
So while you may not think we are all blithering idiots, we dont think you guys are either. We just are not satisfied with the answers we've been given or lack of an investigation.