Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

Originally posted by bsbray11

I am asking to see the actual proof. Do you know what that means?

Yes.

The proof is in the consensus of any and all of the qualified professionals that have an opinion that matters on the subject.

Your opinion means nothing, nor does your call for proof, since the goalposts will move like you've got them mounted on a flatbed truck or casually brush aside evidence that should make you question yourself..

2 perfect examples of this would be:

1- how you don't acknowledge that the lack of barotrauma from the survivors in the elevators when the planes hit. A rational person would admit that once it is shown that there was none of those types of injuries, that would logically show that there were no explosives capable of severing core columns going off at that time due to the close proximity of those people.

2- how you don't acknowledge that some survivors in the stairwells during the global collapse oc 1 positively state that the wind during the collapse forced them down the well. Yet you argue that the wind was blowing up the stairwell in some sad attempe to prolong the delusion of explosive demolitions. To say nothing of their lack of barotraume too.

Originally posted by ANOK

Both sides of the argument are hypothesis's with varying degrees of logic.

And unfortunately for truthers, their logic is so thin it can be deemed to be transparent to any professional whose opinion matters.

I'm sure this means nothing to you though. Such a pity.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
Would you like anything else with that crow?

In addition to the 9/10 news conference, it was also reported on 03/03/00 in the Associated Press of these issues.

This is old debunked claptrap.

Sorry, but you are not actually debunking that Rumsfeld said this on 9/10. The video above proves that he did. You thought you were debunking something but what was being referred to, did actually happen.

Ahhh, so now I understand your confusion about the events on 9/11.

I never debunked nor tried to debunk that Rummy said that.

I was debunking 2 OTHER things in the quoted passage. Let me clear them up for you, to help dispel your confusion.

1- that the money was actually "missing"

2- that this was news. It wasn't news, it was old. A year and a half old.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
He is correctly pointing out that there was never 2.3 trillion dollars in cash missing

What are you talking about? Did you even watch the video that was posted?

And you have no proof it wasn't connected to 9/11 in any way. You're just stating your faith.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
I am asking to see the actual proof. Do you know what that means?

Yes.

The proof is in the consensus of any and all of the qualified professionals that have an opinion that matters on the subject.

That's actually not what constitutes proof in the scientific sense. What you just described is a popularity contest, and unfortunately for you disinformed opinions don't constitute science.

But here's my next question anyway:

Do you know what it means when I ask you to post the proof from the NIST report?


And here's the question that comes after that:


Can you please post what you think is the proof from the NIST report?

reply to post by bsbray11


You are kidding right? Seriously? Are you really that blind to the reality of the 2.3 trillion in ACCOUNTING JOURNAL ADJUSTMENTS that did not have adequate documentation? Because thats what it was. An audit by the GAO said that 2.3 trillion in adjustments (not cold hard cash) did not have adequate receipts. It was public knowledge long before 9/11/01 and it was public knowledge after 9/11/01 and was properly reconciled after 9/11/01. In other words..

It wasnt missing cash
And it wasnt connected to events of 9/11


Trying to claim either of the two is an outright lie.

Originally posted by bsbray11

That's actually not what constitutes proof in the scientific sense.

It's proof all right. Proof that none of these qualified professionals give truther beliefs a second thought.

disinformed opinions don't constitute science.

But informed opinions from recognized experts prove the hypothesis to be correct.

Do you know what it means when I ask you to post the proof from the NIST report?

Yep.

It means that you are here to troll, and most definitely NOT learn about barotrauma, etc.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
You are kidding right? Seriously? Are you really that blind to the reality of the 2.3 trillion in ACCOUNTING JOURNAL ADJUSTMENTS that did not have adequate documentation? Because thats what it was. An audit by the GAO said that 2.3 trillion in adjustments (not cold hard cash) did not have adequate receipts.

The only person that keeps bringing up cash (as in actual dollar bills) is you.

Here is a mainstream media source that even refutes you:

The War On Waste
Defense Department Cannot Account For 25% Of Funds — $2.3 Trillion

(CBS) On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.

He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.

"In fact, it could be said it's a matter of life and death," he said.

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

Just last week President Bush announced, "my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending."

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

www.cbsnews.com...


$2.3 was missing.

That doesn't mean someone slipped up and wrote down a wrong number somewhere.

That means... they don't know where it went.

Originally posted by bsbray11

That means...

That you are completely out of your depth.

And have never balanced a checkbook in your life....

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
That you are completely out of your depth.

And have never balanced a checkbook in your life....

Seriously, what are you trying to argue? That the Pentagon didn't really lose any money, that it was all just writing down numbers wrong or something?

Is that what it looks like the above article says to you?

Originally posted by vipertech0596
LOL...talk about clutching at straws....

I would direct you to research his actual duties for the Commission. I would also direct you to research the type of answer that government employees are expected to give when asked about classified information in a public setting.

You entered a discussion I was having with another contributor in this thread by implying that I don't do my research when I quoted Farmer as saying that the Commission (of which he was a senior member), "...discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue." You wanted to put these comments into a wider context in which Farmer said he thinks the Commission's report was extremely accurate... a moot point, since his opinion changes NOTHING about the fact the Commission was lied to.

Since then, you and I have gone to and fro about Farmer's statement that he knew nothing of the allegations surrounding the claim that Mahmoud arranged for $100,00 to be wired to Atta, despite being mandated as a Commision member to investigate "the flow of assets to terrorist organizations.

First, you laughably argued his ignorance about this critical issue was a disconnect (i.e. he simply forgot this was something he'd once heard about). Then you introduced - and finally hid behind - 'national security' as an explanation for why this man could not even admit to having heard about some allegations that Condoleezza Rice and the Commission itself had already been publicly asked to comment upon!!!

Get real. In no way would an admission that he had heard of these allegations constitute a threat to national security. A simple acknowledgement he'd heard of them reveals nothing other than what was already in the public domain for years.

The fact is, he was either lying, has a shocking memory, or was excluded from an important part of the Commission's work. The only other explanation is that the Commission never even scratched the surface of the allegations which, given their significance, is another reason to question the overall value of the official account... you know, the one Farmer thinks is extremely accurate.

'National security' is just a convenient, last-gasp security blanket for people like you to avoid having to be big enough to admit this. Since you're tucked in safe and sound, our discussion appears to be over.

reply to post by bsbray11


And earlier in the thread, Joey gave you a link to the story when it was originally made public in 2000. You, as usual, ignore the facts

Originally posted by bsbray11
When one of your "fellow" "debunkers" is posting nonsense about "hushabooms," it's not a straw-man at all.

He was referring to the demolitions that was supposed to have brought WTC 7 down, which necessarily would have detonated at the moment of collapse. There were no explosions nor were there any explosive flashes at the moment of collapse as shown during every OTHER controlled demolitions in history, so either they were some never before seen hushaboom explosives, or there weren't explosives to begin with.

You conspiracy people are the ones who brought up controlled demolitions in WTC 7, not me or anyone else, so you can't just go around and reinvent how controlled demolitions work as it suits your agenda. These engineers "requested permission to speak freely" regarding WTC 7, so go ahead, speak freely about why there were no explosions or flashes when WTC 7 came down. While you're at it, explain why anyone would want to blow up WTC 7 from the inside out.

And I've never mentioned anything here about space beams either but you have a lot of trouble understanding that, don't you?

You really do enjoy digging yourself deeper into that hole you're in, don't you? I presume this whole "King Kong destroyed the WTC" bit of yours is coming from Barry Jennings claim that the front lobby of WTC 7 looked as if King Kong smashed the place up. Since he's an eyewitness who was physically there at WTC 7, by your own logic it necessarily means that you conspiracy people need to believe King Kong destroyed WTC 7 the same way eyewitnesses said they "heard explosions". The fact is, he said it looked AS IF King Kong destroyed it and you're twisting his words around to suit your purposes the exact same way you're twisting the "witnesses heard explosions" claims. You're STILL only disproving your own claims and only proving mine. Thank you. Again.

I'm still waiting for you to be intellectually honest and renounce these controlled demolitions claims. After all, you convinced me to renounce the "Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11" claim.

Originally posted by bsbray11
This?:

Good grief, bsbray, stop it. That is NOT what the NIST report says. First of all, that diagram isn't 12-69. It's diagram 12-70, and the correct caption is "Exterior column buckling after initiation of global collapse after fire-induced damage and without debris impact damage (slabs removed from view)" as shown on page 594 of NCSTAR 1-9. It's a diagram of an alternative scenario of what the collapse would have looked like if the towers hadn't suffered damage from the collapse of the north tower. It was included to show that WTC 7 was damaged by debris from the north tower specifically because it DIDN'T fall that way.

So when I say you conspiracy people are deliberately falisfying information to spread false public unrest, how are you showing I'm wrong, exactly? We both know you didn't come up with this yourself, but instead found it on some damned fool conspiracy web site and are blindly repeating it without even looking it up to see if it's even true. Sheesh, the graphic didn't even have the correct caption on it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
First of all, that diagram isn't 12-69. It's diagram 12-70, and the correct caption is "Exterior column buckling after initiation of global collapse after fire-induced damage and without debris impact damage (slabs removed from view)" as shown on page 594 of NCSTAR 1-9.
It's a diagram of an alternative scenario of what the collapse would have looked like if the towers hadn't suffered damage from the collapse of the north tower. It was included to show that WTC 7 was damaged by debris from the north tower specifically because it DIDN'T fall that way.

So what? Here is their diagram with the damage...



Is there any difference? No, it still doesn't match what was actually observed.

No one seems to want to address the fact the WTC 7 landed mostly in its footprint...



Impossible from an uncontrolled collapse, especially if it twisted like NIST wants us to believe.

So when I say you conspiracy people are deliberately falisfying information to spread false public unrest, how are you showing I'm wrong, exactly? We both know you didn't come up with this yourself, but instead found it on some damned fool conspiracy web site and are blindly repeating it without even looking it up to see if it's even true. Sheesh, the graphic didn't even have the correct caption on it.

No one is falsifying anything, except you.

many people are waking up to the truth about 911. They are slow to realize that all the videos were fake, and no planes existed on that day, or could have been flown into the towers.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
And earlier in the thread, Joey gave you a link to the story when it was originally made public in 2000. You, as usual, ignore the facts

How do you know they didn't lose another $2.3 trillion, and just use the same number to make it sound like the same story over again?

Anyway "Joey" is apparently trying to argue that somebody just wrote down some numbers wrong somewhere which is a total misinterpretation of the article.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bsbray11
When one of your "fellow" "debunkers" is posting nonsense about "hushabooms," it's not a straw-man at all.

He was referring to the demolitions that was supposed to have brought WTC 7 down, which necessarily would have detonated at the moment of collapse. There were no explosions nor were there any explosive flashes at the moment of collapse

That's not what NYPD Craig Bartmer said, who was right beside WTC7 when it started "collapsing."

But of course you already know better than a police officer who was actually standing there that day, and you'll just say he was "confused" or "under stress" (again, not being there you would know SO much better) so there is no use arguing with you.

I'm still waiting for you to be intellectually honest and renounce these controlled demolitions claims. After all, you convinced me to renounce the "Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11" claim.

But you still haven't renounced your friend's belief that the Michelin Man destroyed WTC7!

Just keep bringing up space beams and all the other garbage no one is talking about in that poor effort to discredit. You really stand out that way.

reply to post by ANOK

No one seems to want to address the fact the WTC 7 landed mostly in its footprint...
Impossible from an uncontrolled collapse, especially if it twisted like NIST wants us to believe.

Please present the argument to support your contention that it was IMPOSSIBLE from an uncontrolled collapse. You state that it landed MOSTLY in its footprint - if it landed ALMOST MOSTLY in its own footprint then would have that been possible or is it still impossible?

Sorry, its just such an entirely ridiculous notion that your unilateral declaration of a very subjective description should be the basis for proof of a conspiracy.

Originally posted by ANOK
So what? Here is their diagram with the damage...

What the heck do you mean, so what? Bsbray was caught red handed at posting a diagram from the NIST report that had an intentionally altered caption. The whole "without impact damage" sentence was snipped off to falsely make it appear as if this was the way NIST was claiming the building fell, when the whole diagram was that it was to show that the structure did suffer impact damage or else it would have fallen that way. Are you self styled "truthers" so seduced by your damned fool conspiracy web sites that you're even going to willfully ignore such outrageously fake information they're feeding you?

I'm sorry, but "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" didn't work on Dorothy and it certainly isn't going to work on the rest of us. You conspiracy people *are* spreading false information to further your conspiracy agenda regardless of whether you want to admit it or not.

Is there any difference? No, it still doesn't match what was actually observed.

Would you mind backing up this claim with a link? The famous video of the collapse (the one where you conspiracy mongors are deliberately snipping off the part showing the penthouse collapsed) was taken while facing the north side. This diagram showed what was estimated to have been happening on the south side, which was on the opposite side of the structure and outside of view of the camera.

What video do you have that showed what was happening on the south side while all this was happening, because to my knowledge there is no such video. Or, did you post this claim without even bothering to read your own caption?

Impossible from an uncontrolled collapse, especially if it twisted like NIST wants us to believe.

Since everyone else runs away from this question the same way three card monty players do when the cops show up, I'll ask you- the original, unmolested-by-conspiracy-mongors video of the WTC 7 collapse shows that the Penthouse collapsed into the interior of the building before the exterior section did, meaning that it literally collapsed from the inside out. Please show even ONE case in any time in history where any controlled demolitions demolished a building from the inside out in this way.

It never happened because it's unnecessarily convoluted, ridiculously difficult, and a waste of time, so ergo, using your own "never before in history" logic it means it couldn't be a controlled demolition. What do you have that shows otherwise? Other than diagrams with phony captions, that is?