TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 [126] 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »

quote:

Originally posted by culorut I think you are just doing your cause even more harm, if you cannot realize that web stats have nothing to do with how many people think the official story is true or not you are just as fucking dumb and ignorant as PKC.

whereas an ambiguous, poorly-designed poll on tranceaddict.com is the litmus test of the entire world!! ahhhh, you never cease to entertain me cretinrot!

Very good PKC, all websites that have been known to do the same thing as the randi forums.

They where conceived to attack the people who are asking legitimate questions. If the official story stood up in the first place they would not have to resort to such pathetic excuses of web space.

quote:

whereas an ambiguous, poorly-designed poll on tranceaddict.com is the litmus test of the entire world!! ahhhh, you never cease to entertain me cretinrot!

Like I said 43567534296 pages back now, show some numbers that favor your side?

LOL

Losing cause?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Very good PKC, all websites that have been known to do the same thing as the randi forums. They where conceived to attack the people who are asking legitimate questions. If the official story stood up in the first place they would not have to resort to such pathetic excuses of web space.

lol at "attack".

actually, they were created in the first place to counter the lies and distortions propogated by people like you. you didn't expect to be able to continue telling lies with no response did you?

i wonder if your bretheren can get more than 120-150 people next september! yeah, your movement is turning the world around!

Krypton post again, you are indirectly spreading 9/11 truth now.

You are a truther!

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Like I said 43567534296 pages back now, show some numbers that favor your side? LOL Losing cause?

My numbers would be the 9 million + people that didn�t join the 150 protesting in new york city this past september.

You mean you have to attend a rally to not believe the bullshit official story?




I can see you are not trying to be a moron anymore, you just are the fucking moron.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut You mean you have to attend a rally to not believe the bullshit official story?

oh, sorry. here i was thinking that a movement for change would want as many people as possible pushing for that change? silly me!

Whats the point of having "most" (hahahaha!) people believing that 911 was an inside job, if you can only get a tiny fraction of that to protests/meetings/circle jerks?

Its pathetic. You keep arguing on the internet and the people that are actually willing to get out there and do something are dwindling fast. Even if the 9 million new yorkers agreed with you, whats the point if they�re unwilling to take one day out of their life a year to make a point and get that new investigation?

Here's a thought: the 9 million new yorkers think youre a dickhead.

in 50 years, when you still havent garnered a second investigation, will you still be here parroting the same tripe or will you have accepted defeat?

quote:

Originally posted by culorut Krypton post again, you are indirectly spreading 9/11 truth now. You are a truther!

uh what?

I understand there are questions, and I'm all for an independent commission, but I certainly am not for wildly speculative conspiracies which wouldn't see day 1 in a court room, because frankly, you're accusing a few people of very very very serious crimes of treason, and you have very little to go on.

For example. Prove that bombs destroyed the WTC. We need bomb fragments. We need explosives residue. We need culprits...who set the bombs?...Who ignited the bombs?...We need prime suspects...Who ordered this treasonous act?

Instead, what you have is eyewitnesses hearing the sounds of explosions, which could be anything coming from a building as large as the WTC. There is no view of bombs going off. There is no evidence you can point to which lends credence to your assertion the explosions were from bomb blasts. It's so easy to see your huge holes in these conspiracy theories of yours. All you have to do is view your accusations through the lens of a lawyer. Colorut, trancer, and bse...you have presented a case before us. As it stands now, it should be immediately dismissed. Why? No prime suspects, no forensic evidence...not even a plot. Why in the hell should we believe you if, as I've just shown, your case is so incomplete and inconclusive? You 3 really expect us to believe you, without question, without critique? You're fooling yourselves. As long as people keep bumping this thread, I will never let up in my skepticism, until you 3 have something which is actually credible. When would your conspiracy theory be credible? When it's worthy to go before a judge and convict someone of treason...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton what you have is eyewitnesses hearing the sounds of explosions, which could be anything coming from a building as large as the WTC. There is no view of bombs going off. There is no evidence you can point to which lends credence to your assertion the explosions were from bomb blasts.

No, you just have people whose bodies were thrown from the blasts, etc., but they must have been dreaming or something, huh?

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X No, you just have people whose bodies were thrown from the blasts, etc., but they must have been dreaming or something, huh?

By all means, present your evidence. Who, what, when, where... we'll get to the "why" in no time.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton By all means, present your evidence. Who, what, when, where... we'll get to the "why" in no time.

lmfao

We've only been talking about all of this for how many years now?

I've posted many videos in which the eyewitnesses have stated that they were thrown by the blasts. Where in the hell have you been and why do I always seem to have to do all of your research for you?

I'll start with two names. Michael Hess and Barry Jennings.

They like playing stupid when presented with real facts Trancer-x.

50 years will go by and unless it is presented on CNN they will not believe it.

quote:

Originally posted by culorut 50 years will go by and unless it is presented on CNN they will not believe it.

Despite what a shitty news outlet CNN is...... its still 1000000000000 times more reliable than prison planet......

quote:

Despite what a shitty news outlet CNN is...... its still 1000000000000 times more reliable than prison planet......

CNN is a disgrace of a media outlet. Throw in FOX news and you can see why people who watch their shit religiously are so fucked up.

Regarding prison planet at least they stick to what they know and it's not full of propaganda. I dislike the loud mouth approach but I have to admit it is spot on about 99% of the time.

quote:

I'll start with two names. Michael Hess and Barry Jennings.

Spot on Trancer-x


Barry Jennings Uncut





I've been sitting on this interview for a while, but after viewing the latest BBC piece on WTC7, I feel the time has come to release it in its entirety.

After locating Barry in mid 2007, Jason and I visited him and he graciously granted us an interview during a lunch break.� He had agreed to grant us an interview under the conditions that we, at no time, associate his interview with his place of employment.

Jason and I were so thrilled with the content interview that we decided to release a few bits and pieces of it on both our show and Alex's. �

A few months later, as the film was nearing completion, I called Barry again to touch base and see how things were going.� It took him a bit to remember who I was, but as soon as he did, he began complaining about phone calls to his place of employment and that he was in danger of losing his job.� He requested to have his interview pulled from Loose Change, and I honored his request.

Fast forward to February, 2008, where I'm doing an interview with the BBC, and I'm informed by their crew that Barry told them the reason he asked for it to be pulled was because of the article on Prisonplanet claiming he was stepping over dead bodies, which he denies saying.� I call Barry to attempt to rectify the situation, and he is adamant that he did not use the phrase "we were stepping over people"

Fast forward one more time to two days ago, when the BBC piece finally aired.� I now feel an obligation to release his interview, in its entirety, into the public where it belongs for three reasons:

1) To see the difference between the interview he gave us, and the interview he gave the BBC.

2) To establish Barry's timeline in his own words.

3) To preserve his testimony, in his own words, for the historical record.

I have remained true to my word and kept his interview out of the film, however, I can no longer keep it from the public.� They deserve to hear Barry's story, out of his own mouth.

As I say in the end of the video, I would appreciate it if Barry could enjoy his privacy and live his life in peace.� My intention with releasing this is so his story can be told, not to cause him any further grief or suffering.

The 9/11 Interview with Michael Hess: Evidence that NIST Lied about When He and Barry Jennings Were Rescued


Shortly after the first strike on the World Trade Center, which occurred at 8:46 AM on 9/11, Michael Hess, New York City�s corporation counsel, and Barry Jennings, the deputy director of the Emergency Services Department of the New York City Housing Authority, headed to the Office of Emergency Management�s Emergency Operating Center, which was on the 23rd floor of WTC 7, where they assumed that Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be. But when Hess and Jennings arrived, the place was empty. Jennings then telephoned someone to ask what they should do and was told that they should leave immediately. Finding that the elevators would not work, they started down the stairs. When they reached the sixth floor, however, there was a powerful explosion beneath them, which, Jennings told the makers of Loose Change Final Cut,1 caused the landing on which they were standing to give way. Making their way back up to the eighth floor, they were able to break a window and call for help. Hess later reported: �[W]e were trapped on the eighth floor with smoke, thick smoke, all around us, for about an hour and a half [before] the New York Fire Department . . . came and got us out.�

Hess made this statement while being interviewed by Frank Ucciardo of UPN 9 News �on Broadway about a block from City Hall,� almost a half mile from WTC 7. This interview began before noon, most likely at 11:34. The conclusion that it began at 11:34 is based on evidence derived from a DVD containing UPN 9 programs from that morning, in which the Hess interview begins at the 57-minute mark. According to a note on the DVD itself, its video began at 10:37 AM, which would mean that the Hess interview began at 11:34. It is possible, however, that the video might have actually started at 11:00: At the 111-minute mark, the UPN 9 program switched to live coverage by CNN of a Taliban news conference, and the only reference we have been able to find to this coverage indicates that it began at 12:51.3 This would mean that the video began at 11:00 and the Hess interview, therefore, at 11:57. Nevertheless, whether the earlier or the later starting time is correct, UPN 9 News began interviewing Michael Hess before noon.

However, NIST�the National Institute of Standards and Technology�which was tasked with providing the official explanation of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, claimed that the two men were rescued at �12:10 to 12:15 PM.�4 Why might NIST have made this claim? The reason becomes evident in another NIST document�s statement about Hess and Jennings, which begins:

�With the collapse of the two towers, a New York City employee and a WTC 7 building staff person became trapped inside of WTC 7. The two had gone to the OEM center on the 23rd floor and found no one there. As they went to get into an elevator to go downstairs the lights inside of WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed. At this point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase.�5

According to NIST, therefore, Hess and Jennings, upon finding the OEM center vacated, started downstairs just after 9:59, when the second tower collapsed. It was this collapse, NIST suggested, that was responsible for the elevator�s failure to work.

As we saw earlier, however, Jennings said that they had arrived at the OEM center shortly after the strike on the North Tower, hence around 9:00 AM. He added, in fact, that he had to have been on the 23rd floor �when the second plane hit� (which was at 9:03).6 Besides contradicting Jennings� testimony on that point, the NIST account went on to say:

�When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 [the North Tower] collapsed, the lights went out in the staircase, the sprinklers came on briefly, and the staircase filled with smoke and debris. The two men went back to the 8th floor broke out a window and called for help.�7

According to NIST, therefore, what Hess and Jennings took to be an explosion in WTC 7 was really just an effect of the collapse of the North Tower. That collapse occurred at 10:28. Accordingly, if the two men were then trapped for about 90 minutes before they were rescued, this rescue must have occurred at about noon�hence NIST�s claim that they were rescued at �12:10 to 12:15 PM.�

NIST�s timeline is clearly implausible. Claiming that Hess and Jennings started down the stairs after the collapse of the South Tower caused the elevator to fail, NIST implies that it took them 29 minutes�from 9:59 to 10:28�to descend from the 23rd floor to the 6th floor.

NIST�s timeline is also directly contradicted by the testimony of Jennings, who said: �After getting to the 8th floor everything was dark . . . . [B]oth buildings were still standing. Because I looked . . . one way, looked the other way. . . . [B]oth buildings were still standing.�8

The strongest evidence against NIST�s timeline, however, is Hess�s interview with UPN 9 News. Defenders of the official account, according to which there were no explosions in WTC 7, might challenge the truth of Jennings�s testimony. But if Hess was giving an interview almost a half mile away before noon, then NIST�s timeline, according to which the two men were not rescued until after noon, is objectively disproved. This is the case whether we accept the 11:34 or the 11:57 starting time for this interview.

Given the fact that the interview occurred almost a half mile from the WTC, it would probably have taken Hess at least a half hour to get there after he was rescued (he surely would have talked to firefighters and other officials about the ordeal before taking off). So if the interview began at 11:34, he and Jennings would have been rescued before 11:05. If the interview began at 11:57, they would have been rescued before 11:30.

In either case, NIST�s explanation for the event that Hess and Jennings took to be a massive explosion in WTC 7 itself is disproved. If the two men were rescued before 11:05 after having been trapped, as Hess said, for about 90 minutes, the event must have occurred before 9:35. Even if they were not rescued until closer to 11:30, the event must have occurred at least by 10:00. In either case, the event could not have been the collapse of the North Tower, which did not occur until 10:28.

That said, I endorse the earlier times�11:34 for the beginning of the Hess interview, 11:05 or earlier for the rescue, and 9:35 or earlier for the explosion�for three reasons. First, the note on the DVD says that the video started at 11:34. Second, the account by Hess and Jennings suggests that they would have reached the 6th floor, where the landing was knocked out from under them, at about 9:15. Third, whereas the later times would suggest that this event occurred around 10:00, Jennings stated, as we saw, that after the explosion occurred and he and Hess made it back up to the 8th floor, the South Tower, which collapsed at 9:59, was still standing.

As I pointed out in The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, a BBC special on WTC 7 that aired July 6, 2008 (�The Conspiracy Files: 9/11�The Third Tower�), distorted Jennings� testimony. Although he evidently told the BBC interviewer the same story he had earlier told to the makers of Loose Change Final Cut, the BBC placed his testimony within the time-framework suggested by NIST. So, after playing footage in which Jennings described a massive explosion in WTC 7 (which was probably at about 9:15), the BBC says: �At 10:28, the North Tower collapses. . . . Tower 7 takes a direct hit. . . . Early evidence of explosives were just debris from a falling skyscraper.�9

However, Jennings will apparently not be available to correct the record. Jennings, 53 years old, evidently died in August 2008, reportedly only a few days before NIST issued its report on WTC 7.10

In any case, UPN 9�s interview of Michael Hess is now publicly available, thanks to Dylan Avery, who made a copy of it available, and Fred Burks, who posted it at The Transformation Team.

Michael Hess, WTC7 explosion witness

CNN

"TERROR ALERT HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO YELLOW!" DO NOT BE ALARMED THERE IS ONLY A VERY SLIGHT CHANCE THAT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WILL BE HORRIBLY AND UNJUSTLY KILLED BY ANY ONE OF THESE HUNDREDS OF TERROR TERROR! TERROR! TERROR! CELLS ALL OVER AMERICA!...in other news, dirty bombs, SARS, GAS PRICES AND CRIME...

LOL b.s.e., I beleive you just

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X lmfao We've only been talking about all of this for how many years now? I've posted many videos in which the eyewitnesses have stated that they were thrown by the blasts. Where in the hell have you been and why do I always seem to have to do all of your research for you?

Because the onus is on you to prove your case...

I'll start with two names. Michael Hess and Barry Jennings. [/QUOTE]

I have just watched the two videos posted by colorut of Michael Hess and Barry Jennings. Still, both of you fail to prove bombs had anything to do with the WTC. Neither even mentions a bomb, but only "explosion" and "thick smoke all around us". Even if they had mentioned the word "bomb", as some on the street did, that still doesn't prove that the explosions heard were bombs. Is that what you're going to tell a judge? "People heard explosions, judge, you're going have to assume they were bombs." The judge is logically going to ask you, "How do you know what the people heard were bombs?" Go ahead, attempt to answer this question...

Well, since you so fervantly believe that there were controlled demolitions, and you base this completely on eyewitness testimony of two people, who are you ready to prosecute? Once again, where are the bomb fragments? You STILL haven't provided definitive evidence of a bomb.

I guess I'm a troll for pointing this out, huh? Or a government agent?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton "People heard explosions, judge, you're going have to assume they were bombs." The judge is logically going to ask you, "How do you know what the people heard were bombs?" Go ahead, attempt to answer this question...

Dude, let me relate an alternative scenario to what you are saying, so that maybe you will understand your point better:

There are two bodies found in a house. Inside, you find blood spattered all over the North wall, at the base of the wall is the body, with several exit wounds to be observed on his/her body, their wallet/purse has been taken. Near the South exit there is the second body, lying on his/her stomach, two bullets in their back. You cannot find any shell casings, or fingerprints. You ask the neighbours if they heard anything, and they respond that they heard several gunshots after two gentleman entered the residence.

You rule it as a suicide.

edit__
Or natural causes.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Dude, let me relate an alternative scenario to what you are saying, so that maybe you will understand your point better: There are two bodies found in a house. Inside, you find blood spattered all over the North wall, at the base of the wall is the body, with several exit wounds to be observed on his/her body, their wallet/purse has been taken. Near the South exit there is the second body, lying on his/her stomach, two bullets in their back. You cannot find any shell casings, or fingerprints. You ask the neighbours if they heard anything, and they respond that they heard several gunshots after two gentleman entered the residence. You rule it as a suicide. edit__ Or natural causes.

The only problem with your story is that in this particular case, there weren't any bullet holes, or blood spatter..... In this instance, you have two victims lying side by side on a bed with a giant empty bottle of cyanide sitting between them, no blood, no bullet holes. the coroner has called this multiple suicide, and 3 people wearing tinfoil hats on the street are yelling the people were murdered with an assault rifle.....


show me evidence of controlled demolition besides halfwit arguments based on youtube videos of the collapse......

"The whole idea of the pancake theory ... that NIST talks about means that you have no resistance on the way down at that particular floor level that was supposedly weakened significantly. And by significantly I mean all around the perimeter, all at the same time. What an amazing thing that all of the bolts would have failed at the same time. All of the welds would have failed at the same time. And the whole thing comes down very nicely. There isn't even an explanation for how the core of the structure [collapsed]. It contained the elevators and the stairwells. It is an extremely highly structurally resisting part of the structure. So it is a very strong part of the structure. And it ... was virtually ignored [in the NIST report]. They just talk about the trusses that go across from column to column. And all of them fail at the same time. They start coming down. Even if you were to accept that, you've got resistance as the floors come down."

"I think Building number 7 is the big, big question mark and I don't know that there is an engineering explanation for that other than controlled demolition."

- Robert M. Korol Ph.D., P.Eng � Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University. Elected Fellow of the Engineering Institute of Canada for exceptional contributions to engineering in Canada. Fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. Well known for research on steel structures; the plastic theory of metal structures, inelastic buckling, limit analysis, environmental assessment and life cycle analysis methodologies. Hamilton-Wentworth's 1998 "Engineer of the Year."

quote:

Originally posted several times by BSE Furthermore, the Conservation of Energy applies to falling bodies as well. When an object falls, it converts the potential gravitational energy (derived from its height above ground) into kinetic (speed) energy. If the object has to use some of its energy on something else, like air resistance, there will be less energy available as kinetic energy; lengthening the time it spends falling. Let's use the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds. The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall. Let alone does a brick explode in mid-air, even if it collides with several other bricks or miscellaneous falling debree.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp and 3 people wearing tinfoil hats on the street are yelling the people were murdered with an assault rifle..... show me evidence of controlled demolition besides halfwit arguments based on youtube videos of the collapse......

Listen, I stay civil with you twats. The notion that the holes in the Official Story don't beckon a second investigation is laughable, and you 'skeptics' are really nothing more than shallow, teat-of-authority sucking noobs.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.