Two New Yorkers who moved to my area saw explosions bring down World Trade Centers

[xotoxi]

Two New Yorkers who moved to my area saw explosions bring down World Trade Centers

Correct.

And those explosions were called American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175.

Neither Flight hit WTC 7 and yet eye-witness Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Dept for NYC Housing Authority, was inside WTC7 before either neighboring tower collapsed while explosions were going off around him.

Barry was inside a stairwell on the 6th floor landing trying to escape WTC7 when an explosion destroyed the stairs below him. He was forced to return to the 8th floor and wait for the FDNY cavalry to get him out of the building.

After reaching the lobby littered with dead bodies, Barry exited WTC 7 through a hole in one wall created by the FDNY.

Both Twin Towers were still standing at this point!

Barry's story can be found in a 10 minute video. He's introduced around the 3:55 mark and takes center stage between 5:15 - 9:05.

WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11.

If what Barry Jennings says is as credible as what you say...then I don't believe him.

 

[martybegan]

source please.

I've read the jennings account. If, we are to assume his eye witness testimony is truthful as he sees it, my guess is that his tracking of time was off. The damage he experienced was probably from the tower collapse, as he did not exit the building until both towers were down. As strated above by someone, eyewitness testimonies of people in the middle of all the events can be unreilable, this is particularly true with time, as few people will be looking at thier watches while hell is unfolding around them. That is why eyewitness accounts need to be in multiples, to get a sense of what happeneed from multiple sources, not 2-3.

You notice people who push the jennings thing have few other eyewitness testimonies to back the story up. Another example of cherry picking.

How many firemen were in WTC7 during or after the Twin Towers collapsed?

Prove to me that "...he (Jennings) did not leave WTC7 until both towers were down."

Jennings reiterates several times the Twin Towers were still standing when the explosion in the 6th floor stairwell drove him back to the 8th floor.

It's my "guess" they were both still standing when Barry and FDNY personnel left WTC7 through a hole in the wall after traversing a lobby containing numerous dead bodies.

(Do you also believe there was no loss of life in WTC7?)

Finally, the people I notice are the ones too fearful to contemplate the possibility that their government allowed a crime like 9/11 to happen.

WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11

From metapedia. best place i can find a direct quote

“I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down - all this time I’m hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time I’m hearing explosions, said Jennings, adding that when firefighters took them down to the lobby it was in “total ruins”.

He was STILL IN THE BUILDING when the towers fell. I still am not sure how he knew the towers were still standing when he was in a stairwell that got damaged.

When he was lead out through the lobby the towers were down. Could the bodies he saw been blown in during the collapse?

You keep quoting things wrong. So far all the events I have alluded to have been backed up by fact. My only real speculation is the jennings thing, and I am pretty confident in my analysis.

 

[MikeK]

Please watch these two short videos (36 and 9 seconds) of WTC7's 6.5 second vertical collapse without the words "controlled demolition" going through your mind.

George,

The reason why so many people believe the Towers were brought down by controlled demolition is they have seen controlled demolitions on television and the similarity in the way the Towers fell have them convinced that nothing else could produce the perfect "pancaking" effect they saw. The explanation offered by a group of architects and structural engineers on a Discovery Channel program disputes that belief with the logical argument that key structural members were melted by intense fire, gave way and initiated the progressive vertical collapse. But even that perfectly credible and logical explanation is the least convincing reason why I reject the controlled demolition theory.

Start with the fact that there are perhaps three or four demolition contractors in the U.S. with the kind of expertise and experience it would take to accomplish such an elaborate task. Even if it were possible to somehow induce one of those crews to undertake what clearly would be the most egregious crime in American history, consider the fact that the World Trade Center employed a highly efficient, armed security force which was supervised by an exceptionally conscientious manager. Do you believe it would be possible for a crew of sappers to get past them with case after case of explosives and related equipment and weave a timed network of demolition charges without being noticed? Do you know how long a job like that would take -- times two?

And even if all of the above were indeed possible, how many individual sappers would a job like that require? Six? Eight? A dozen? These people are not criminal mass murderers. They are extraordinary tradesmen, decent people with families and jobs they are content with. They aren't cynical Timothy McVeighs who hate everything and everybody. And even if they were, and if you were one of them, would you risk being involved in something like that with the possibility of even one accomplice being caught and informing? And how about the instigators who might conceive and fund such an operation. Would they assume such a risk?

When you think about all that would be involved in effecting the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center the possibility of it actually being carried out is beyond reason. It is pure fantasy.

 

[georgephillip]

Correct.

And those explosions were called American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175.

Neither Flight hit WTC 7 and yet eye-witness Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Dept for NYC Housing Authority, was inside WTC7 before either neighboring tower collapsed while explosions were going off around him.

Barry was inside a stairwell on the 6th floor landing trying to escape WTC7 when an explosion destroyed the stairs below him. He was forced to return to the 8th floor and wait for the FDNY cavalry to get him out of the building.

After reaching the lobby littered with dead bodies, Barry exited WTC 7 through a hole in one wall created by the FDNY.

Both Twin Towers were still standing at this point!

Barry's story can be found in a 10 minute video. He's introduced around the 3:55 mark and takes center stage between 5:15 - 9:05.

WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11.

If what Barry Jennings says is as credible as what you say...then I don't believe him.

How did two planes bring down three steel-framed skyscrapers?

 

[DiveCon]

Neither Flight hit WTC 7 and yet eye-witness Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Dept for NYC Housing Authority, was inside WTC7 before either neighboring tower collapsed while explosions were going off around him.

Barry was inside a stairwell on the 6th floor landing trying to escape WTC7 when an explosion destroyed the stairs below him. He was forced to return to the 8th floor and wait for the FDNY cavalry to get him out of the building.

After reaching the lobby littered with dead bodies, Barry exited WTC 7 through a hole in one wall created by the FDNY.

Both Twin Towers were still standing at this point!

Barry's story can be found in a 10 minute video. He's introduced around the 3:55 mark and takes center stage between 5:15 - 9:05.

WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11.

If what Barry Jennings says is as credible as what you say...then I don't believe him.

How did two planes bring down three steel-framed skyscrapers?

very easy
but you are clearly too fucking stupid to understand it

 

[martybegan]

Neither Flight hit WTC 7 and yet eye-witness Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Dept for NYC Housing Authority, was inside WTC7 before either neighboring tower collapsed while explosions were going off around him.

Barry was inside a stairwell on the 6th floor landing trying to escape WTC7 when an explosion destroyed the stairs below him. He was forced to return to the 8th floor and wait for the FDNY cavalry to get him out of the building.

After reaching the lobby littered with dead bodies, Barry exited WTC 7 through a hole in one wall created by the FDNY.

Both Twin Towers were still standing at this point!

Barry's story can be found in a 10 minute video. He's introduced around the 3:55 mark and takes center stage between 5:15 - 9:05.

WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11.

If what Barry Jennings says is as credible as what you say...then I don't believe him.

How did two planes bring down three steel-framed skyscrapers?

Sigh....

its simple when debris from the collapse of 2 of them impacts the 3rd and causes uncontrollable fires.

And you forget 3WTC was destroyed by the collapse as well, and the other 3 buildings were so heavily damaged they needed to be demolished.

So technically 2 planes took out 4 buildings, with 3 partials.

That basically means your statement means nothing.

 

[CurveLight]

You know what?

We're so far and away BEYOND

even EYEWITNESS reports...

They might have taken LSD, back in the day,

and totally HALLUCINATED the entire THANG.

THIS is what this schism in MSM has brought us.

Actually, there are hundreds of recorded detailed eyewitness reports from first responders that were kept hidden from the public for the first few years following 9E. To this day I've never seen even a half hearted attempt at explaining why.

 

[martybegan]

You know what?

We're so far and away BEYOND

even EYEWITNESS reports...

They might have taken LSD, back in the day,

and totally HALLUCINATED the entire THANG.

THIS is what this schism in MSM has brought us.

Actually, there are hundreds of recorded detailed eyewitness reports from first responders that were kept hidden from the public for the first few years following 9E. To this day I've never seen even a half hearted attempt at explaining why.

Source plox. kk thnx, bye.

 

[CurveLight]

If what Barry Jennings says is as credible as what you say...then I don't believe him.

How did two planes bring down three steel-framed skyscrapers?

Sigh....

its simple when debris from the collapse of 2 of them impacts the 3rd and causes uncontrollable fires.

And you forget 3WTC was destroyed by the collapse as well, and the other 3 buildings were so heavily damaged they needed to be demolished.

So technically 2 planes took out 4 buildings, with 3 partials.

That basically means your statement means nothing.

Do you know how many years it took to put out a report explaining WTC 7? I don't know what happened but common sense says when it takes more than seven years to explain a collapse then something fucked up is going on. The report also stated fire alone caused the collapse.

 

[CurveLight]

You know what?

We're so far and away BEYOND

even EYEWITNESS reports...

They might have taken LSD, back in the day,

and totally HALLUCINATED the entire THANG.

THIS is what this schism in MSM has brought us.

Actually, there are hundreds of recorded detailed eyewitness reports from first responders that were kept hidden from the public for the first few years following 9E. To this day I've never seen even a half hearted attempt at explaining why.

Source plox. kk thnx, bye.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/nyregion/12records.html

 

[CurveLight]

I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.

They moved to a new area because of what they saw.

They say what they saw was definately explosives that brought down the World Trade Center buildings.

They seen and heard the explosives as far down as 30 floors below from where the top floors coming down.

What in the world are you driving at, creative dreams? That the US itself blew up the Towers but blamed hapless Saudis for it? What the hell would have been the motive?

There is no question adequate motivation was present but I've not seen any conclusive evidence it was all a false flag.

But, you should know our top military leaders drew up plans to blame castro for attacks on Americans to justify invading Cuba. The kennedy admin shot the plan down but the point is, when the highest levels of our military offices make plans to attack our own citizens.....you aren't in Kansas anymore.

One thing that is interesting is just a few months before 9E happened there were two military exercises of extreme coincidence. One was a hijacked plane getting shot down in Pennsylvania. The other was a hijacked plane getting flown into the Pentagon.


Eta: one amazing coincidence about Operation Northwoods is the Generals were trying to figure out how they could sell it that a hijacked plane was crashed into either Florida or Cuba and the solution was to have an unsuspecting military pilot get diverted from his normal flight path to do a visual on the hijacked plane. So they were planning to incorporate innocent people into their plot. For the Pentagon, there was a C-130 pilot who got diverted from his flight path to do a visual on a commercial plane. Those are pure facts. The coincidences are rather amazing.

 

[martybegan]

How did two planes bring down three steel-framed skyscrapers?

Sigh....

its simple when debris from the collapse of 2 of them impacts the 3rd and causes uncontrollable fires.

And you forget 3WTC was destroyed by the collapse as well, and the other 3 buildings were so heavily damaged they needed to be demolished.

So technically 2 planes took out 4 buildings, with 3 partials.

That basically means your statement means nothing.

Do you know how many years it took to put out a report explaining WTC 7? I don't know what happened but common sense says when it takes more than seven years to explain a collapse then something fucked up is going on. The report also stated fire alone caused the collapse.

Part of the reason is they were working on the towers 1 and 2 report. The other reason is this is not a movie and we did not have a camera inside the building in slo mo recording what exactly happened. Engineering analysis is not instant. Look at how long they take to figure out airplane accidents.

And unlike the conspirancy theories, the technical portion of these reports is peer reviewed like hell before publishing.

Is this the NIST report you are talking about that had the various column failure scenarios? I have to re-read but I recall some of the failure paths included structure damage from debris.

 

[martybegan]

Actually, there are hundreds of recorded detailed eyewitness reports from first responders that were kept hidden from the public for the first few years following 9E. To this day I've never seen even a half hearted attempt at explaining why.

Source plox. kk thnx, bye.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/nyregion/12records.html

Actually the reasons for not releasing are in the article, it is a matter of opinion if they are good ones or not.

When does ANY government agency in ANY event give out information willingly?

 

[CurveLight]

I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.

They moved to a new area because of what they saw.

They say what they saw was definately explosives that brought down the World Trade Center buildings.

They seen and heard the explosives as far down as 30 floors below from where the top floors coming down.

What in the world are you driving at, creative dreams? That the US itself blew up the Towers but blamed hapless Saudis for it? What the hell would have been the motive?

Source plox. kk thnx, bye.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/nyregion/12records.html

Actually the reasons for not releasing are in the article, it is a matter of opinion if they are good ones or not.

When does ANY government agency in ANY event give out information willingly?

I've seen that lame excuse before. If it was a matter of authenticity what was being done to verify them while being kept from the public?

 

[CurveLight]

Sigh....

its simple when debris from the collapse of 2 of them impacts the 3rd and causes uncontrollable fires.

And you forget 3WTC was destroyed by the collapse as well, and the other 3 buildings were so heavily damaged they needed to be demolished.

So technically 2 planes took out 4 buildings, with 3 partials.

That basically means your statement means nothing.

Do you know how many years it took to put out a report explaining WTC 7? I don't know what happened but common sense says when it takes more than seven years to explain a collapse then something fucked up is going on. The report also stated fire alone caused the collapse.

Part of the reason is they were working on the towers 1 and 2 report. The other reason is this is not a movie and we did not have a camera inside the building in slo mo recording what exactly happened. Engineering analysis is not instant. Look at how long they take to figure out airplane accidents.

And unlike the conspirancy theories, the technical portion of these reports is peer reviewed like hell before publishing.

Is this the NIST report you are talking about that had the various column failure scenarios? I have to re-read but I recall some of the failure paths included structure damage from debris.

That doesn't make any sense at all and it shows you don't know why it took as long as it did. You're really trying to claim there was a shortage of personnel to examine the collapses? One reason is because it kept getting kicked around different agencies because they knew it was problematic. Nobody wanted to be forced to explain it with limited options. They settled on claiming fire alone brought down WTC 7. The new WTC 7 had been built and occupied before explaining the collapse.

 

[Gamolon]

What is the significance of the "mechanical penthouse" to a 6.5 second vertical fall of all 47 stories?

Because you're implying that the WHOLE STRUCTURE fell simultaneously at free fall speeds. You are implying that ALL SUPPORT members had to have been cut at the same time to achieve this TOTAL STRUCTURE SIMULTANEOUS FREE FALL COLLAPSE.

That is not the case.

The mechanical penthouse (and supports beneath) collapsed first INTO the building itself. You can actually see the damage it caused from the windows of the building being smashed as it fell inside the building. You now have a part of the TOTAL structure that has collapsed making all the other structural members have to pick up the slack for those members that collapsed. In addition, that penthouse collapsing inward caused damage to the OTHER structural members as it fell.

What is so hard to understand? Why is it that anyone trying to prove demolition leaves out the penthouse collapse? It's part of the building is it not? It collapsed into the building proper and damaged other parts of the support structure correct? Why would it not be discussed then?

I'm implying WTC7 including the mechanical penthouse descended at free fall acceleration over two seconds for a distance of over 1000 feet or approximately 8 stories.

HOW IS THAT BOLDED PART OF YOUR QUOTE ABOVE EVEN POSSIBLE???

The mechanical penthouse fell INTO the building itself BEFORE the roof line started it's fall. Here is the video again. Please watch it.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bjrAJVp4ds]YouTube - 9/11 - WTC 7 Collapse (penthouse)[/ame]

The left half of the penthouse falls into the building a full 6 or 7 seconds BEFORE the rest of the building starts to collapse. How can you honestly tell me that the ENTIRE WTC7 building fell at the same time at free fall speed when the video above shows you to be completely incorrect?

 

[Gamolon]

"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."

"But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling 'explosion! explosion! explosion!'"

Patriots Question 9/11

Here is William's first quotes from a CNN interview right after it happened:

RODRIGUEZ: I was in the basement, which is the support floor for the maintenance company, and we hear like a big rumble. Not like an impact, like a rumble, like moving furniture in a massive way. And all of sudden we hear another rumble, and a guy comes running, running into our office, and all of skin was off his body. All of the skin.

How did it get from a "Big rumble" like "moving furniture" in his CNN quote to a "massive explosion" later?

Answer me this. In his CNN quote, he says he heard two rumbles. After the second rumble the guy comes running screaming with his skin hanging off. If it was the first rumble that was the explosion, why didn't the guy come running and screaming when the first rumble happened? Why did he come running in after the second rumble, which according to you and William, was the plane impact?

George, care to discuss the above?

 

[martybegan]

I now know two New Yorkers who watched the World Trade Centers come down first hand and up close.

They moved to a new area because of what they saw.

They say what they saw was definately explosives that brought down the World Trade Center buildings.

They seen and heard the explosives as far down as 30 floors below from where the top floors coming down.

What in the world are you driving at, creative dreams? That the US itself blew up the Towers but blamed hapless Saudis for it? What the hell would have been the motive?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/nyregion/12records.html

Actually the reasons for not releasing are in the article, it is a matter of opinion if they are good ones or not.

When does ANY government agency in ANY event give out information willingly?

I've seen that lame excuse before. If it was a matter of authenticity what was being done to verify them while being kept from the public?

But it was still in the article. That was my point. Its your opionion that the reasons suck.

 

[martybegan]

Do you know how many years it took to put out a report explaining WTC 7? I don't know what happened but common sense says when it takes more than seven years to explain a collapse then something fucked up is going on. The report also stated fire alone caused the collapse.

Part of the reason is they were working on the towers 1 and 2 report. The other reason is this is not a movie and we did not have a camera inside the building in slo mo recording what exactly happened. Engineering analysis is not instant. Look at how long they take to figure out airplane accidents.

And unlike the conspirancy theories, the technical portion of these reports is peer reviewed like hell before publishing.

Is this the NIST report you are talking about that had the various column failure scenarios? I have to re-read but I recall some of the failure paths included structure damage from debris.

That doesn't make any sense at all and it shows you don't know why it took as long as it did. You're really trying to claim there was a shortage of personnel to examine the collapses? One reason is because it kept getting kicked around different agencies because they knew it was problematic. Nobody wanted to be forced to explain it with limited options. They settled on claiming fire alone brought down WTC 7. The new WTC 7 had been built and occupied before explaining the collapse.

it makes perfect sense. yes, they had difficulty getting the exact failure mechanism. And I may have been wrong about the debris. I read the report a while ago. I dont have the OCD obession or the time to re read it every time I post. I will this weekend.

Problematic does not mean ZOMG THEY BLEWS UP TEH BUILDINZG! The main issues revolve around the greater detail and forensics availible for tower 1 and 2. The collapse scenario they gave made sense to me when I read it (to be fair I am a ChemE not a civil, but I took basic courses in statics, and work with alot of civil engineers. The knowledge does spread among us when we discuss this stuff over lunch).

Again, Engineering isnt like the movies. You have to base your theories on what you have availible. But having 100% proof is almost impossible in these cases. My issue is that this is seen by truthers as a window into throwing every type of assinine theory onto the wall to see if it sticks. They peg slight doubt onto the offical version, then push thier version which usually is so implausible that it makes me sad to think people can be that stupid.

 

[CurveLight]

What in the world are you driving at, creative dreams? That the US itself blew up the Towers but blamed hapless Saudis for it? What the hell would have been the motive?

Actually the reasons for not releasing are in the article, it is a matter of opinion if they are good ones or not.

When does ANY government agency in ANY event give out information willingly?

I've seen that lame excuse before. If it was a matter of authenticity what was being done to verify them while being kept from the public?

But it was still in the article. That was my point. Its your opionion that the reasons suck.

If it was a matter of authenticity what was being done to verify them while being kept from the public?