Incontrovertible EVIDENCE that the collapse of WTC7 proves Inside Job

[Zook]

There are some who believe that even if WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, that that still does not prove Inside Job. The purpose of this thread is, in large part, to encase that belief in a titanium-tempered time capsule and bury it to an equivalent depth of 47-stories ... so that when the outer layers of the Earth rub away thousands of years from now, far futuristic people with far futuristic archaeological tools, will still have a difficult time opening it up, and when they do, discover that several missing links must have trespassed on the Good Earth between their advanced race and their ancestral race that buried the capsule.

But enough of the preamble; onwards to the amble!

Mother Jayne, Mother Jayne, Mother Jayne ...

I will, for the twin sakes of argument and amusement, accept your contention that all three buildings were prewired at the time of construction (for safe disassembly at the time of required destruction). But if that were the case, then why do we have this testimony from Barry Jennings that clearly establishes that explosions occurred inside Building Seven prior to either twin tower collapsing?

NIST tried to claim (among its various claims) that the collapse of the first and closest tower (WTC2) caused significant collateral damage to WTC7, thereby prompting the authorities and Silverstein to decide to pull the building. But Barry Jennings states in no uncertain terms that he heard explosions coming from beneath his position in the building before either tower fell ... that is, before WTC2 could cause structural damage to WTC7.

This is irrefutable physical evidence of an Inside Job. Of course, there's a mountain of other physical and circumstantial evidence that corroborates Inside Job. But this thread was originated for the sole purpose of refuting the contention that the controlled demolition of WTC7 could mean something other than Inside Job.
To wit, damage to WTC7 from explosions existed prior to any alleged collateral damage from WTC2.

Now, Mother Jayne, you may yet argue that said in-building explosions are natural construction artifacts that occur from time to time in any tall building anywhere in the world; or that it was merely coincidental that such natural explosions happened to occur at approx. the same time that the twin towers were being condemned (by either Osama bin Laden or the Inside Job forces) ... but even you, with your sharp recognition of the potential need for construction-time prewiring in the duty of future safe building disassembly, will agree that that's tripping the photon fabulous!

ps: (FWIW, Barry Jennings passed away - allegedly due to a heart attack - two days prior to his scheduled testimony at a hearing on 9/11/2001 related stuff ... please google for the details.)

[Zook]

Oops ... I forgot to add the URL for the original post in this thread; here it is:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI

Posted by zookumar (here)
[...]
I will, for the twin sakes of argument and amusement, accept your contention that all three buildings were prewired at the time of construction (for safe disassembly at the time of required destruction). But if that were the case, then why do we have this testimony from Barry Jennings that clearly establishes that explosions occurred inside Building Seven prior to either twin tower collapsing?

NIST tried to claim (among its various claims) that the collapse of the first and closest tower (WTC2) caused significant collateral damage to WTC7, thereby prompting the authorities and Silverstein to decide to pull the building. But Barry Jennings states in no uncertain terms that he heard explosions coming from beneath his position in the building before either tower fell ... that is, before WTC2 could cause structural damage to WTC7.

This is irrefutable physical evidence of an Inside Job. Of course, there's a mountain of other physical and circumstantial evidence that corroborates Inside Job. But this thread was originated for the sole purpose of refuting the contention that the controlled demolition of WTC7 could mean something other than Inside Job.
To wit, damage to WTC7 from explosions existed prior to any alleged collateral damage from WTC2.

[...]

ps: (FWIW, Barry Jennings passed away - allegedly due to a heart attack - two days prior to his scheduled testimony at a hearing on 9/11/2001 related stuff ... please google for the details.)

[Steven]

Posted by zookumar (here)
...Barry Jennings passed away - allegedly due to a heart attack - two days prior to his scheduled testimony at a hearing on 9/11/2001 related stuff...

This alone is very suspicious and it happens nearly all the time when someone has a truth to share that could change the world. The list is very long...

Namaste, Steven

[jaybee]

Posted by zookumar (here)
Mother Jayne, Mother Jayne, Mother Jayne ...

Uncle Zook....hello....

I love your new Avatar...is that hansome chap you?

Let us proceed....all rise for the judge...you are the prosecution...
representing the Inside Jobbers..

I am the defence...representing the US Government. (I have come up
in the world..lol)

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence..then really
it should be the other way round...but it's your thread...so...off we go.

But if that were the case, then why do we have this testimony from Barry Jennings that clearly establishes that explosions occurred inside Building Seven prior to either twin tower collapsing?

I put it to you, that NOTHING is clearly established...what we have is
one man, with no corroborating evidence...MAKING a CLAIM...with no
other witnesses to support his claims?

Barry Jennings states in no uncertain terms that he heard explosions coming from beneath his position in the building before either tower fell ... that is, before WTC2 could cause structural damage to WTC7.


This is irrefutable physical evidence of an Inside Job.

Again...I put it to you that this is just one man with no evidence that
is just making a claim...which can by no stretch of the imagine be classed
as 'irrefutable physical evidence'.

I have watched him speak about it on a YouTube Video. It is impossible
to assess the reliability of him as a witness. He talks about hearing
explosions and the lobby being wrecked. Do you have ANY other
witnesses to attest to this alleged, eye witness testimony, my
dear learned friend, Uncle Zook?


I have this that weakens the case for the prosecution....

As with all things 9/11...there is confusion...and if I might put it to
you...the manipulation of evidence by Inside Jobbers...to try..come
hell or high water to attempt to cause doubt in people's minds about
the events of that fateful day.

In this interview shown on YouTube he talks about .....'stepping over
people...and you know you can feel when you are stepping over people'

But he is not happy about the interview...and wants it to be pulled.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=nyKtNHPeKxg

And from here....relating the same..but we can view it in the written word.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...7434230.stm#10

Did anyone die in the collapse of Tower 7?
There is no evidence that anyone died in Tower 7 on 9/11. However, conspiracy talk shows and websites seized on a recent interview for Loose Change with the crucial eyewitness Barry Jennings.

The writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery, told The Conspiracy Files: "The amount of detail that Barry gave us in this interview was unreal. He says he was stepping over dead bodies in the lobby."

Barry Jennings himself disagrees with their interpretation of his words. Barry Jennings told the BBC: "I didn't like the way you know I was portrayed. They portrayed me as seeing dead bodies. I never saw dead bodies"

Dylan Avery is adamant that he didn't take anything out of context. He played The Conspiracy Files a recording of Barry Jennings words: "The fire fighter who took us down kept saying do not look down. And I kept saying why.

"He said do not look down. And we're stepping over people and you know you could feel when you're stepping over people."

However, Barry Jennings told the BBC: "I said it felt like I was stepping over them but I never saw any.

"And you know that's the way they portrayed me and I didn't appreciate that so I told them to pull my interview."

This is evidence from the man himself that he felt he was not being portrayed
correctly by Dylan Avery.

[Zook]

Hi Mother Jayne,

Posted by jaybee (here)
Uncle Zook....hello....
I love your new Avatar...is that hansome chap you?
Let us proceed....all rise for the judge...you are the prosecution...
representing the Inside Jobbers..

I am the defence...representing the US Government. (I have come up
in the world..lol)

: Ummm ... well ... umm. Your honor, the defense attorney has put the prosecutor in an awkward situation. I would like to cite Narcissus vs Pond Reflection. It is of the prosecution's opinion that any attempt to answer the question: "Is that hansome chap you?" ... can only jeopardize the integrity of the prosecuting office, and ultimately, of this court.

Judge: "Counsel for the defense, please rephrase your question."

Defense Attorney: "As you suggest, your honor. Prosecutor, I love your new avatar. Is that enormously retentive chap, you?

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence..then really
it should be the other way round...but it's your thread...so...off we go.

Perhaps we should have a derivative thread, time permitting, where we can debate whose claims are more extraordinary.

I put it to you, that NOTHING is clearly established...what we have is
one man, with no corroborating evidence...MAKING a CLAIM...with no
other witnesses to support his claims?
Again...I put it to you that this is just one man with no evidence that
is just making a claim...which can by no stretch of the imagine be classed
as 'irrefutable physical evidence'.

Ahh ... but we have a figurative ton of corroborative physical and circumstantial data backing up this one witness ... and a virtual goose egg propping up the tall Arabian tale of Osama bin Ali Baba and The Nineteen Saudi Passport Pix.

I have watched him speak about it on a YouTube Video. It is impossible
to assess the reliability of him as a witness. He talks about hearing
explosions and the lobby being wrecked. Do you have ANY other
witnesses to attest to this alleged, eye witness testimony, my
dear learned friend, Uncle Zook?

I think most people who watched the video link I provided, would agree there is nothing in Barry Jennings' delivery that even remotely suggests that the witness is offering up anything other than a genuine, heartfelt, unrehearsed account of his experience inside WTC7 (on that fateful day of 9/11/2001).

Oh, btw ... there is one other witness. Michael Hess. Hess shared the experience with Jennings, from the moment they both found the 23rd floor OEM offices empty, to the time they were both rescued from the building. Hess's major contribution to the factual record is the timeline of his testimony, which David Ray Griffin astutely analyzes.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...80918031403456

As we can see by studying the timeline of Hess's interview, NIST is caught lying yet again. NIST has lied so many times now that the easier task is to count the number of times NIST has told the truth. Here, you can chop off all your fingers and both thumbs and still have a useful counting machine on your hand(s).

I have this that weakens the case for the prosecution....

As with all things 9/11...there is confusion...and if I might put it to
you...the manipulation of evidence by Inside Jobbers...to try..come
hell or high water to attempt to cause doubt in people's minds about
the events of that fateful day.

In this interview shown on YouTube he talks about .....'stepping over
people...and you know you can feel when you are stepping over people'

But he is not happy about the interview...and wants it to be pulled.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=nyKtNHPeKxg

And from here....relating the same..but we can view it in the written word.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...7434230.stm#10

This is evidence from the man himself that he felt he was not being portrayed
correctly by Dylan Avery.

I think the 7-part youtube series below will put the record straight on who is doing the manipulating of the evidence. Ironically, it's the same company that reported on 9/11/2001 that Building Seven fell some 20 minutes before it actually fell. The main thing to note is this. Dylan Avery essentially gave the microphone to Jennings and let him speak freely. By contrast, the BBC documentary tried to steer Jennings testimony to fit the NIST account; more the further, it showed only limited clips of Dylan's interview with Jennings (a not so subtle attempt to manipulate the timeline). The BBC clips focused on whether Jennings had seen or felt dead bodies - a trivial distinction. After blowing up this trivial distinction into a major issue, the BBC shills then concluded that there were no dead bodies. How logically absurd is that?! Do you not yet see the legerdemain, Mother Jayne?

Here, then, are the youtube videos (you should view parts 1-7 at the youtube website) that contain the complete version of Dylan's interview with Barry Jennings. In this version, you'll find nontrivial information such as when Jennings and Hess became trapped; and whether one or the other or both twin towers were still standing at the time Jennings and Hess became trapped. You know, vital factual information that shreds the NIST account of things.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mEbj58hBUQw

[jaybee]

I will leave this for your perusal... (as I haven't got the time for more at the mo..)


I am unable to embed it, for some reason, but here's the link..



https://youtube.com/watch?v=fRfct...eature=related



From your first post..

Posted by zookumar (here)
ps: (FWIW, Barry Jennings passed away - allegedly due to a heart attack - two days prior to his scheduled testimony at a hearing on 9/11/2001 related stuff ... please google for the details.)

I did google it...and he was not due to give testimony at anything...but he did
die two days before...

Opening Statement
Press Briefing—August 21, 2008
Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/opening_remarks_082108.html


I have watched/read your links...and feel like I have a handle on Barry Jennings now.


It is ridiculous, IMO...to suggest that he or his witness testimony was important
enough to warrant him being bumped off.

I feel for the guy.....one of the causes of heart-attack can be stress?

And IF his heart attack was brought on by stress...being in the 'truthseekers'
spot-light would not have helped...

The stuff he said about...'stepping on people'....(etc)...which he was mistaken
about....? Maybe he was suffering from shock/confusion after what he'd been through?

But Avery and Co...seized on it and started broadcasting stuff about
dead bodies...which Jennings was upset about.


Like I said...I feel for the guy...it is my assessment that he was USED by
Avery and Co...in life....and he is used by sections of the
the so-called 'truth-movement'...in death.

RIP Barry Jennings.

[Zook]

Hi Mother Jayne,

Posted by jaybee (here)


I will leave this for your perusal... (as I haven't got the time for more at the mo..)

I am unable to embed it, for some reason, but here's the link..

https://youtube.com/watch?v=fRfct...eature=related

From your first post..

I did google it...and he was not due to give testimony at anything...but he did
die two days before...

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/opening_remarks_082108.html

I stand corrected. I remembered that he passed away a few days before something significant was to be revealed about his WTC7 testimony. I misread that to mean that Jennings was about to testify before his passing, when in fact his passing was just prior to the release of the NIST report on WTC7. Mea culpa. I'm glad we nipped the inaccuracy before it had a chance to set root. As I said in that post, and it bears repeating again, we should all research (e.g. google) the information for ourselves ... there's so much information out there that even the most earnest and dedicated truthseeker can make simple mistakes. I'm sure you will agree that my mistake here has no significant bearing on the prosecution of the Inside Jobbers. So let's move to the significant stuff. I'm going to watch your new videos first before I comment.

[Zook]

Hi Mother Jayne,

Posted by jaybee (here)

I will leave this for your perusal... (as I haven't got the time for more at the mo..)
I am unable to embed it, for some reason, but here's the link..
https://youtube.com/watch?v=fRfct...eature=related

Integrity is key to good research. It is because of integrity that you needed to correct my mistake; and it was because of integrity that I needed to accept my mistake (however trivial it was) and apologize for it. I now submit to you clear evidence that exposes the creator of the video at the URL above, "AlienEntity1", as someone who is in dire need of integrity.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=E8yUR-sM4lU

AlienEntity1 zeroes the time a full two seconds before the structure even begins to move. Now, a building of approx. 116m does indeed take 4.86s to collapse in a free fall (on Earth). That's just a simple matter of plugging in values for the height variable in the kinematic equation: t=(2h/g)^0.5
[with h=height and g= Earth's gravity].

But AlienEntity1 would have us believe that it took 7 seconds for the structure in the video to collapse. Yes, it does take 7 seconds from the time our man of dubious integrity starts the clock. But he could have easily started the clock when the dinosaurs left the Earth and added 4.86s resulting in an observed free fall time of (delta to the last dinosaur + 4.86s). But he's a reasonable chap. He only decided to add two seconds in his presentation. Curiusly enough, if we subtract two seconds from seven seconds, we arrive at five seconds. Kinematic free fall time for 116 meters is 4.86s. In a way, we should be grateful to AlienEntity1 for confirming that controlled demolition does indeed approximate free fall time.

Getting back to the video you provided, Mother Jayne (which is also authored by AlienEntity1), our man of dubious integrity is again working hard at it. He makes several leaping assumptions - and phony estimates of time - to bring the timeline in concert with the patently fraudulent NIST report on WTC7. David Ray Griffin, by contrast, binds his analysis using documented fact (e.g. a DVD recording of Hess's interview and the time signatures contained within). In short, NIST and its army of motley myrmidons, have been caught time and again perpetrating a fraud. How many frauds must they run before your mind sees its first? That's a question you'll have to ask yourself, Mother Jayne.

[NoTingles]

Is it true or not, that there was someone lucky enough, in all that confusion going on, to find a little thing like a passport, among all the debris on the pavement below where one of the planes hit the towers. And on top of that luck, it just happened to not only belong to one of the hijackers, it was completely intact.

The FDR's from the WTC planes were recovered. As is usually the case in commercial aircraft incidents, the FAA wants these for analysis. Why didn't we hear about the results of the analysis, and why is it they were confiscated by US intelligence and removed from the crime scene? Anybody know where those FDR's are now?

These two little pieces should be enough to let people know that there is something wrong with the story we keep hearing.