benny Posted April 24, 2009 Report Posted April 24, 2009 Hear that now: Michael Hess witnesses the WTC7 explosion with all his five senses. Quote
GostHacked Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 Didn't take Science?To have sound, there needs something more important than a listener...and that something didn't exist. Sound does not travel in a vaccuum. Or actually since nothing existed before that, how could anyone witness it? With any of the senses. Quote
benny Posted April 25, 2009 Report Posted April 25, 2009 And Barry Jennings felt dead bodies in WTC7 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyKtNHPeKxg...feature=related http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/cons...les/7434230.stm http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250 Quote
segnosaur Posted April 27, 2009 Report Posted April 27, 2009 Michael Hess witnesses the WTC7 explosion with all his five senses. Same question I asked before, and you seem to be ignoring (not suprising, since you're likely unable to answer this question...) If this Michael Hess were close enough to experience WTC7 explosions first hand, and those explosions were part of a controlled demolition, how exactly did he survive? During controlled demolition, the building collapses only seconds after explosions are set off. If he were inside WTC7 during a suposed demolition, he'd likely be crushed under a few tons of rubble. Or are you suggesting that Michael Hess is some sort of superhero, able to withstand the crushing effects of a ton of concrete landing on him? Or maybe he has super-speed like the Flash, and was able to see and here the explostions and run out before the building collapsed. Quote
sharkman Posted April 27, 2009 Report Posted April 27, 2009 Michael Hess witnesses the WTC7 explosion with all his five senses. Hmm, I wonder how the explosion tasted? Quote
segnosaur Posted April 27, 2009 Report Posted April 27, 2009 Michael Hess witnesses the WTC7 explosion with all his five senses. Hmm, I wonder how the explosion tasted? Maybe he was actually seeing dead people, and that was one of the 5 senses.... Quote
benny Posted April 27, 2009 Report Posted April 27, 2009 (edited) Hess and Jennings are having contradictory recollections of what they lived through in WTC7. This can be explained by the monetary incentive Hess has to lie: Hess has been hired in the meantime by Giuliani as senior managing partner in Giuliani Partners. This security firm has earn $100 millions in just five years of operation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008...page=6#comments Edited April 27, 2009 by benny Quote
M.Dancer Posted April 27, 2009 Report Posted April 27, 2009 For good measure the truthers at Ground Zero added one final criticism, saying that the BBC is funded by General Electric. I'm not sure what that's based on, but I can say with absolute, yes absolute certainty, it isn't...nor have I ever been part of a conspiracy to cover up what really went on 9/11. Tr00thers Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
segnosaur Posted April 27, 2009 Report Posted April 27, 2009 Hess and Jennings are having contradictory recollections of what they lived through in WTC7. Let me get this straight.... You use Hess as 'proof' that there was an explosion (as part of a controlled demolition) even though you yourself admit his recollections contradict with other evidence you yourself presented. This has to be a joke, right? Quote
benny Posted April 27, 2009 Report Posted April 27, 2009 Let me get this straight....You use Hess as 'proof' that there was an explosion (as part of a controlled demolition) even though you yourself admit his recollections contradict with other evidence you yourself presented. This has to be a joke, right? Let a real commission get this straight. The Kean commission was really only a series of omissions. The names of the firefighters who worked in WTC7 right until its fall have not been published; Rudolf Giuliani’s testimony is not in the Kean report; etc. Quote
segnosaur Posted April 27, 2009 Report Posted April 27, 2009 Let a real commission get this straight. The Kean commission was really only a series of omissions. The names of the firefighters who worked in WTC7 right until its fall have not been published; Rudolf Giuliani’s testimony is not in the Kean report; etc. Perhaps before you start running around demanding new investigations, you should sit down and, you know, come up with some sort of description of 9/11 events that, you know, actually makes sense. Hey, you supposedly have a lot of 'smart' (ha ha!) people to draw on, like Jones. Should be able to come up with something. And just out of curiousity, do you think the existance of 'supermen' (you know, about to be in a collapsing building so they can witness 'explosions' yet still surviving) is somehow proof of something? And where is your demand for an investigation into whether the earth is really round and not flat? Quote
benny Posted April 27, 2009 Report Posted April 27, 2009 Perhaps before you start running around demanding new investigations, you should sit down and, you know, come up with some sort of description of 9/11 events that, you know, actually makes sense. Hey, you supposedly have a lot of 'smart' (ha ha!) people to draw on, like Jones. Should be able to come up with something.And just out of curiousity, do you think the existance of 'supermen' (you know, about to be in a collapsing building so they can witness 'explosions' yet still surviving) is somehow proof of something? And where is your demand for an investigation into whether the earth is really round and not flat? Smart people are scared to talk after what happened to Jennings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xca6o38ZNY Quote
segnosaur Posted April 27, 2009 Report Posted April 27, 2009 Smart people are scared to talk after what happened to Jennings. Except for the fact that this whole thread was started by someone posting a reference to a recent paper regarding demolition of the towers. If people are 'scared', then why are there supposedly "smart" people trying to publish their junk science? Why hasn't Jones been silenced if there is supposedly some evil conspiricy? Once again, you have illustrated a lack of critical thinking skills. You HAVE to be doing this as a joke... aren't you. Quote
benny Posted April 27, 2009 Report Posted April 27, 2009 Except for the fact that this whole thread was started by someone posting a reference to a recent paper regarding demolition of the towers. If people are 'scared', then why are there supposedly "smart" people trying to publish their junk science? Why hasn't Jones been silenced if there is supposedly some evil conspiricy?Once again, you have illustrated a lack of critical thinking skills. You HAVE to be doing this as a joke... aren't you. Jones has not been killed but he has been half silenced by being forced to take early retirement from Brigham Young University. Quote
segnosaur Posted April 27, 2009 Report Posted April 27, 2009 Jones has not been killed but he has been half silenced by being forced to take early retirement from Brigham Young University. How can you be 'half silenced'? And once again, if there were some evil conspiricy running around killing off people who questioned the 'official story', why would Jones even be allowed to publish anything? Why are people like him and Judy Wood allowed to speek at various Troother conferences? And once again, given the fact that the 'conspricy' hasn't stopped people like Jones and Wood from speaking out, why have neither you nor they come up with some sort of plausible description about what happened on 9/11? Quote
benny Posted April 27, 2009 Report Posted April 27, 2009 How can you be 'half silenced'? By losing the (scientific) instruments to backup your views. Quote
segnosaur Posted April 28, 2009 Report Posted April 28, 2009 (edited) How can you be 'half silenced'? By losing the (scientific) instruments to backup your views. Hmmmm... you claim the 'smart' people don't have the scientific instruments to back up their views. Ok, lets forget for a second the fact that those 'smart' people wouldn't necessarily need an special equipment to actually come up with some sort of description of 9/11. (They'd need to think logically and rationally, which of course they can't.) The opening post of this article dealt with and artical which was published by 'researchers' who claimed to discover explosives. Now you're saying that they don't have the 'scientific instruments' to back up their views. So now, are you saying that whatever research they did was faulty? After all, if they really didn't have the 'scientific instruments', then doesn't that mean that their research (and their claims) of explosives is bunk? So what is it, are the researchers 'silenced', or are their claims bunk? Edited April 28, 2009 by segnosaur Quote
benny Posted April 28, 2009 Report Posted April 28, 2009 The opening post of this article dealt with and artical (sic) which was published by 'researchers' who claimed to discover explosives. Here the names of the authors of the paper: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.