And the board thanks you.
(not trying to be a provocateur) but it is September 11th
- Thread starter NAOS
- Start date
And the board thanks you.
JJ Rage
Active Member
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
That's because they either disappear or die in similar circumstances.
They either kill themselves or die of unknown reasons.
You can google the names of:
Barry Jennings
Beverly Eckert
Kenneth Johanneman
Michael H. Doran
Christopher Landis
Bertha Champagne
Paul Smith
Deborah Palfrey
Major General David Wherley
Salvatore Princiotta or
David Graham.
They all were witnesses that cooberated with 9/11 truth.
Specifically in significants to this thread, Barry Jennings claimed that him and a co-worker barely made it out of building 7 alive, and that a massive explosion blew them into the next hall.
He was also interviewed on the day of 9/11 by national news, obviously shaken and covered in soot.
He also claimed that he was walking over bodies on the bottom floor while exiting, which would contradict the 9/11 commission official report.
He then died in 2008 of unknown causes.
Interview with Barry about building 7:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I wonder... would a 50 ton piece of debris falling on the building cause such an "explosion"?
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I think it's interesting how conversations like this immediately take on a fevered pitch, and then the crowd is immediately categorized according to those that think we have a completely adequate explanation for how things happened and those that are crazy truthers. Those seem like pretty unattractive options to me.
Is it untenable to claim that we understand moderately well what happened, but lack certain details that MAY HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT? In other words, where is the middle ground? What do they say?
Is it untenable to claim that we understand moderately well what happened, but lack certain details that MAY HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT? In other words, where is the middle ground? What do they say?
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
No, that would probably be the JFK assassination.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Maybe, nobody is saying it couldn't.
It's just an example of an eyewitness with questions that were never addressed like always.
You never addressed how he and others claim there were dead bodies on the bottom of building 7, yet the commission report claims that building 7 was completely vacant.
Jennings existence in the building at time obviously contradicts that story.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
The reason that people are demonized by people and the media about asking questions about taboo topics, are the same reasons everyone else makes up the word "conspiracy theorist" to explain that persons inquiries.
Just like a wise man once said:
"Nobody questions things in this country anymore." - George Carlin
mellow
Well-Known Member
Against my better judgement I am going to weigh in.
I think it is safe to say that 911 was the defining moment of a generation, probably many generations. It changed America and the world more than any event since the New Deal. It was used to justify two major wars that cost the USA billions of dollars, led quickly to the passage of legilslation that removed protections for our privacy and rights, and changed American culture in almost everyway.
So what is wrong with asking questions about it? I find it interesting that so many people are willing to dismiss unanswered or difficult questions with a scoff at the 'conspiracy nuts', and accept the official line even though the offical line was established bya commision set up by a congress that over 80% of americans give a disapproval rating to. So congress sucks at the economy, the budget, jobs, taxes, military, spending, investigating steroids in Baseball and everything else they do, but their 911 Commission report, which didn't even start until Nov 2002, should be considered a discussion stopper?
I'm not saying WTC was thermited to the ground to prevent alien viruses from spreading to the IRS, however I think there are enough irregularities, and oddities that make me want more information.
I think it is safe to say that 911 was the defining moment of a generation, probably many generations. It changed America and the world more than any event since the New Deal. It was used to justify two major wars that cost the USA billions of dollars, led quickly to the passage of legilslation that removed protections for our privacy and rights, and changed American culture in almost everyway.
So what is wrong with asking questions about it? I find it interesting that so many people are willing to dismiss unanswered or difficult questions with a scoff at the 'conspiracy nuts', and accept the official line even though the offical line was established bya commision set up by a congress that over 80% of americans give a disapproval rating to. So congress sucks at the economy, the budget, jobs, taxes, military, spending, investigating steroids in Baseball and everything else they do, but their 911 Commission report, which didn't even start until Nov 2002, should be considered a discussion stopper?
I'm not saying WTC was thermited to the ground to prevent alien viruses from spreading to the IRS, however I think there are enough irregularities, and oddities that make me want more information.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
this is soooooooo over-the-top.
erhaps if we knew which details you think are missing that may have been important? Do you mean something like how to better protect steel structures in the future?
I think that any claim it has been falsified, or that there is a massive cover-up, needs evidence to support it before it becomes believable.
However, I'm sure there is a lot to talk about. Perhaps on the utility of guns in a cockpit, or transponders that a flight crew can't turn off?
Your FEMA trailer is right this way, sir. Please step inside & help yourself to all the re-educational information you could ever desire.
Whoa, man... no need to get crazy. Oscar Meyer cheese dogs are like $1.25 more expensive anywhere else.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Based on the evidence provided, I'm not convinced that building 7 fell because of diesel generator fires and debris from the falling towers. So, let's just go with all the other details.
(note: I'm not saying that I CAN'T BE CONVINCED that diesel generator fires and debris are sufficient.)
addictionary
Well-Known Member
The first one is from Turkey. We are just like that. And no I don't see a difference between the Reichstag fire and 9/11.
Because it's not like anything else, they would be wiped off the planet. Internet for that matter.
Are you convinced the lack of a single credible witness when thousands would have been needed is enough to rule out conspiracy?
Do you imagine that both 110 story towers falling at your feet might be something akin to an earthquake? Maybe weakening the foundation or main support pillars, along with being smashed by debris and fires in the building?
I've never understood what makes building 7 the smoking gun. What would an intentional destruction of that building accomplish? Why would it be done in conjunction with smashing planes full of people into buildings, is that part accepted as fact? What do we do next, what assumptions do we make if we discover the building was destroyed intentionally?
I'm not dismissing questions, I'm asking some of my own, but no one is answering them.
This falls into the category of "We have no idea what happened and based on that we've developed a specific theory as to what happened" stuff for me.
I've never understood what makes building 7 the smoking gun. What would an intentional destruction of that building accomplish? Why would it be done in conjunction with smashing planes full of people into buildings, is that part accepted as fact? What do we do next, what assumptions do we make if we discover the building was destroyed intentionally?
I'm not dismissing questions, I'm asking some of my own, but no one is answering them.
This falls into the category of "We have no idea what happened and based on that we've developed a specific theory as to what happened" stuff for me.