Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[fleckneymike]

No not really , I've "listened" to both sides of the argument at the conferences available on youtube by both NIST , and the critics .

 

This is all i would do as a juror listening to expert testimonies. What else would i be expected to do? We listen to experts picking out relevant points , we listen to criticisms and answers , we decide on that who and which explanation  is more credible.

I have listened to  Shyam Sunder's waffling ( and other nist mouthpieces)and don't find his or the others  explanations  credible in the slightest 

And in this particular theory , i find the critics are more credible than the official spokespersons .

Why are so many experts in many fields openly critical if it is all  so all definite ?

 

Once again have you read the final nist report ? you seem to be avoiding the question that i've been honest enough to answer .

 

Would either David Chandler or Richard Gage rank as 'experts' though?

[Zingari]

Would either David Chandler or Richard Gage rank as 'experts' though?

Yes i'd say so , along with the the other members off AE911 , why not?

They can't just be dismissed as tinfoils really . 

 

Danny Jowenko would certainly be classed as an top expert 

[MooseBreath]

David Chandler is a retired high school teacher. I've seen his video on the rate of the fall. He makes various assumptions, admitting he doesn't know some key parameters, as well as in terms of the rate of the fall, picks the fastest part of the fall as the rate he uses for his entire argument, ignoring the obvious fluctuations in speed and the obvious fact that the average speed of the full fall was significantly slower than you'd expect from a controlled demolition. That was what I picked up from watching a few minutes of one of his videos, after that I have no interest in anything else he have to say. He isn't an expert, doesn't have all the required.information, and uses questionable methods. A cynic might suggest he's in it for the money. They would be right.

Richard Gage was apparently an architect, but I can't find anything about him beyond the wackjob 9/11 conspiracy sites which he has a hand in, so in all honesty he could be just as well be one of those guys who walks around with a sign saying "the end is nigh" or whatever. When the NIST report was produced by dozens of highly qualified specialists citing research and contributions by hundreds more you know two things: one if it is a cover up, a giant fvck load of people are in on it and two, these people genuinely are experts, not just whackos trying to cash in online.

[fleckneymike]

Yes i'd say so , along with the the other members off AE911 , why not?

They can't just be dismissed as tinfoils really . 

 

Danny Jowenko would certainly be classed as an top expert 

 

So a high school physics teacher would be classed as an expert in a court of law?

 

Would Lynn Margulis be classified as one too?

[Zingari]

so you've not actually read the report that you  agree with then ?

[MooseBreath]

so you've not actually read the report that you agree with then ?

I haven't read every word, not a lot of point since it goes into the kind of detail you wouldn't expect non-specialists to understand. I have read a couple of summaries of it as well as the q&a sessions where they comprehensively deal with most of the kind of points that you seem to be raising.

[Zingari]

[MooseBreath]

Watched the video, what is it supposed to prove? Some mechanical engineer who works in the "aerospace and communications" industry (which probably means he does something like putting up residential satellite dishes for a living) says he doesn't believe it. So what when there are dozens of properly relevant credible experts presenting comprehensive peer reviewed evidence in the NIST report.

[Zingari]

Watched the video, what is it supposed to prove? Some mechanical engineer who works in the "aerospace and communications" industry (which probably means he does something like putting up residential satellite dishes for a living) says he doesn't believe it. So what when there are dozens of properly relevant credible experts presenting comprehensive peer reviewed evidence in the NIST report.

no not at all , it's just to show that more and more citizens in the US  are starting to wake up .

 

this is Barry Jenning and this short vid proves that wtc 7 was being prepared for complete demolition  before the twin tower collapses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q

[MooseBreath]

Yes it's probably true that people are questioning the events. It was part of a huge event and is not a subject that is easily understood by laymen, so it's ripe for people to make money out of pushing conspiracy theories.

[Zingari]

Yes it's probably true that people are questioning the events. It was part of a huge event and is not a subject that is easily understood by laymen, so it's ripe for people to make money out of pushing conspiracy theories.

why would Barry Jennings , who was in wtc7 before the collapse of the twin towers , make up the story that he'd just been trapped in building 7  and witnessed explosions blowing out the stairwells ? 

why would he make that up on the very day of the attacks ?

[Rincewind]

confusion?

[MooseBreath]

why would Barry Jennings , who was in wtc7 before the collapse of the twin towers , make up the story that he'd just been trapped in building 7 and witnessed explosions blowing out the stairwells ?

why would he make that up on the very day of the attacks ?

I don't know, but if that's the best you can do, I rest my case.

[OzFox]

No I haven't ,

What does it say about the collapse of WTC7 ?

It's a bit hard to take your argument seriously if you haven't bothered to read the most comprehensive document published on the whole affair. Some pretty big brains went into writing it you know, and it's also a riveting read. The level of detail and research is staggering, not just about the day of the attacks but also events in the years leading up to them.

In a nutshell it says WTC7 was badly damaged by the collapse of the north tower and numerous uncontrollable fires, so it collapsed. It goes on to say conspiracy theories concerning the building are not to be taken seriously as the government couldn't blow up a big skyscraper in the full glare of the worlds media and hundreds of emergency service personnel and expect to get away with it. Further, anyone that believes such theories is a wacko nut job.

Ok I made that last bit up, but you get the picture

[Zingari]

I don't know, but if that's the best you can do, I rest my case.

So basically it's very good "on the day" evidence that you can't or won't face up to or even try to explain .

 Disappointing from you, but not realy unexpected as it's par for the course with most people to ignore facts that don't fit into a preconceived  cosy view of things.

confusion?

Please  have another think about that  . 

How could he possibly be confused about whether or not he was  in WTC 7 before or after the collapse of the  towers? I'm going to stick my neck out here and say it really really is unlikely and i believe what he says.It's not something that anyone could even  be possibly confused about , it's  a pretty big event so i'm sure everyone would know if they entered a building before or after a pair of massive towers had just collapsed  around it . 

No one would or could  have gone into building 7 after  the  tower collapses and i'm pretty sure he knew which building he was in  if he worked there . So where's the possibility of confusion? To be as confused as to get something like that wrong is pretty inconceivable. 

He states quite clearly on the day that he was inside wtc 7 before the collapses occured  and he clearly states that explosions were taking place inside the building before the collapses too . He clearly states the stairwells had collapsed on his way out . Why ? What caused stairwells of the building  to collapse  before the twin towers had collapsed ? Why would he said there were explosions inside the building . 

The only possible answer is because there were explosions knocking out the stairwells that he was on at the time.

He was interviewed on TV on the actual day and this is a very good testimony as to what happened and when.

This testimony alone raises the suspicion level  that  building 7 was intentionally demolished .But of course it's much easier to just believe it all happened as we are told because we are never lied to .EVER ! 

[fleckneymike]

So basically it's very good "on the day" evidence that you can't or won't face up to or even try to explain .

 Disappointing from you, but not realy unexpected as it's par for the course with most people to ignore facts that don't fit into a preconceived  cosy view of things.

Please  have another think about that  . 

How could he possibly be confused about whether or not he was  in WTC 7 before or after the collapse of the  towers? I'm going to stick my neck out here and say it really really is unlikely and i believe what he says.It's not something that anyone could even  be possibly confused about , it's  a pretty big event so i'm sure everyone would know if they entered a building before or after a pair of massive towers had just collapsed  around it . 

No one would or could  have gone into building 7 after  the  tower collapses and i'm pretty sure he knew which building he was in  if he worked there . So where's the possibility of confusion? To be as confused as to get something like that wrong is pretty inconceivable. 

He states quite clearly on the day that he was inside wtc 7 before the collapses occured  and he clearly states that explosions were taking place inside the building before the collapses too . He clearly states the stairwells had collapsed on his way out . Why ? What caused stairwells of the building  to collapse  before the twin towers had collapsed ? Why would he said there were explosions inside the building . 

The only possible answer is because there were explosions knocking out the stairwells that he was on at the time.

He was interviewed on TV on the actual day and this is a very good testimony as to what happened and when.

This testimony alone raises the suspicion level  that  building 7 was intentionally demolished .But of course it's much easier to just believe it all happened as we are told because we are never lied to .EVER !

You do know how loud an explosion is right?

I believe Rincewind was saying that confusion may have lead the gentleman to confuse many details about the day. Once again for the conspiracy theorist require us to believe this man (who witnessed explosions etc) was not confused whilst simultaneously believing everyone else present on the day was confused as they didn't.

[Zingari]

You do know how loud an explosion is right?

I believe Rincewind was saying that confusion may have lead the gentleman to confuse many details about the day. Once again for the conspiracy theorist require us to believe this man (who witnessed explosions etc) was not confused whilst simultaneously believing everyone else present on the day was confused as they didn't.

he wasn't right next to the explosion , it was from many floors underneath him .

i think he'd know if the stairwell went  missing on his exit , and who else was in the building that states differently? 

 

basically you just keep on parroting,  "if it doesn't fit the official line , it didn't happen " claptrap.

[MooseBreath]

There are so many reasons why a person in such a situation may think they are seeing explosions or claim to have seen explosions that to use it as "evidence" is almost perverted.

Plus if there were explosions it doesn't even make sense from a controlled demolition point of view.

It's just a very, very weak thing to base your opinion on when you've got peer-reviewed evidence compiled by professionals and backed up by hundreds of independent experts.

It's pretty clear that your desire to believe something other than the official line is overwhelming your ability to reason, and maybe you need to reflect on why that might be the case.

[fleckneymike]

he wasn't right next to the explosion , it was from many floors underneath him .

i think he'd know if the stairwell went  missing on his exit , and who else was in the building that states differently? 

 

basically you just keep on parroting,  "if it doesn't fit the official line , it didn't happen " claptrap.

No. I am saying that he might not have heard explosions. He might well have heard collapses. As you've acknowledged that you have no idea what the official line is how do you know if something doesn't fit it?

[Zingari]

No. I am saying that he might not have heard explosions. He might well have heard collapses. As you've acknowledged that you have no idea what the official line is how do you know if something doesn't fit it?

why would stairwells collapse though ? that's the whole point,  it happened before the towers collapsed therefore before any fire damag

remember the south tower collapsed first so that couldn't be factor.

[James.]

 

 Disappointing from you, but not realy unexpected as it's par for the course with most people to ignore facts that don't fit into a preconceived  cosy view of things.

 

I like you Zingari but come on tell me you see the irony in this comment?

[fleckneymike]

why would stairwells collapse though ? that's the whole point,  it happened before the towers collapsed therefore before any fire damag

remember the south tower collapsed first so that couldn't be factor.

 

Again this collapsed stairwell theory hinges on one man claiming it happened before the twin towers fell, plus the fact that he was the only man in the building prior to the collapse. After the collapse people on floors 7-10 were evacuated out of WT7 (at the same time as Barry Jennings escaped) and non of them have reported the same thing. 

[shen]

It's a bit hard to take your argument seriously if you haven't bothered to read the most comprehensive document published on the whole affair. Some pretty big brains went into writing it you know, and it's also a riveting read. The level of detail and research is staggering, not just about the day of the attacks but also events in the years leading up to them.

In a nutshell it says WTC7 was badly damaged by the collapse of the north tower and numerous uncontrollable fires, so it collapsed. It goes on to say conspiracy theories concerning the building are not to be taken seriously as the government couldn't blow up a big skyscraper in the full glare of the worlds media and hundreds of emergency service personnel and expect to get away with it. Further, anyone that believes such theories is a wacko nut job.

Ok I made that last bit up, but you get the picture

 

Interesting, as the NIST report I've read concludes that the falling debris from the WTC towers had minimal effect on the collapse of WTC 7 other than starting fires in the corner that was in closest proximity to the towers... which incidentally was on the opposite side of the critical support beam that buckled and allegedly caused the entire collapse of the building. It did NOT collapse because of the WTC towers doing damage to it. I suggest you read it over again before you start getting too smug.

[fleckneymike]

Interesting, as the NIST report I've read concludes that the falling debris from the WTC towers had minimal effect on the collapse of WTC 7 other than starting fires in the corner that was in closest proximity to the towers... which incidentally was on the opposite side of the critical support beam that buckled and allegedly caused the entire collapse of the building. It did NOT collapse because of the WTC towers doing damage to it. I suggest you read it over again before you start getting too smug.

 

Everything you'd want to know and plenty you wouldn't

 

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

[Rincewind]

what I cannot understand if it was a controlled explosion is how  they knew where to place the explosives and what damage there would be before the collapse to have the desired affect. Surely they would prefer to not make it look like a controlled explosion so as not raise doubts and cause people to think it was a conspiracy.

perhaps my thinking is too simple.