Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's not what NYPD Craig Bartmer said, who was right beside WTC7 when it started "collapsing."

You're right. THIS is what Craig Bartmer said-

"I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the #'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw... I am shocked at the story we've heard about it to be quite honest.""

So you genuinely think it's suspicious that someone standing next to a building that's collapsing would be hearing BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM as it's falling down. What do you think he should have heard when a building comes crashing down, circus music or dolphins chattering?

What I find interesting is that Bartmer's testimony directly contradicts what Barry Jennings said about the front lobby looking like King Kong came through and smashing it up. How do you explain this contradiction? *I* explain it by Bartmer all but admitting he never went inside to see just how extensive the damage really was. Explain to me how you conspiracy people really aren't taking other people's quotes out of context, again?

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.

The only one with a blatant agenda to force the facts to conform to a favored scenario here is you. Nothing in Bartmer's testimony contradicts anything that NYFD deputy Chief Peter Hayden's eyewitness testimony of three story tall bulges from fire-induced structural damage as Bartmer doesn't go into detail over what the fires were doing one way or the other.

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.

You really are expert at trying to weasel out of your own words. Please answer the question already- will you be intellectually honest about renouncing these controlled demolitions stories as I was about renouncing the "Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11" claims? You were the one who brought up Saddam Hussein, not me.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
....... and the lack of barotrauma from anybody that heard these explosions.

You're full of it.

There. People on hospital beds talking about being injured by explosions. This is old, old news.

Now stop spreading lies.




Here's another for you where Arthur del Bianco describes numerous smaller explosions, then three "tremendous explosions," after which he says everything started coming down and the force of which threw him against a wall:

You've had plenty of time to come across these things already though, so what's with the non-existent learning curve, "Joey"?

edit on 1-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

1st video:
Well golly they sure dont seem to have a hard time hearing each other talking in such quiet talking. Sure doesnt look like they had their eardrums busted out. Interesting how if they were close enough to the "explosions" to get injured, their hearing is remarkably fine. Busted eardrums take about 2 months to heal. These guys are talking no problem and hearing each other just fine, even when the woman is speaking quietly. no loud, "WHAT? What ya say? I cant hear too good, speak up!" Very interesting! Strange how you didnt notice that. I thought that would have been obvious! Second, her description, "When that explosion hit", Gee what caused that large explosion?? OH!! Gee! A 767!!!!!!!!! Did you forget a plane hit the WTC? She was in the elevator when the plane hit, sending down fireballs. She didnt see a plane (OBVIOUSLY) while in an elevator. She mentioned some got burned. Refresh my memory, since when do you get burned by a large steel cutting powerful blast? You dont. Buts it funny, that you are trotting out this woman's account, which is describing the plane impact. Not the collapse, she got out of the building before it did. So that for you, is a swing and a miss.
2nd video.
I went through his account and noticed some more things you missed, or ignored. His account appears to be a little jumbled to the timeline of events. First off, he was in the North Tower when it was hit. He went down to the ground floor and helped people evacuate. He then went outside looking for a friend. Then went back in. He then says that he heard something like gunfire and then debris and rumbling launching him about and sliding for 50ft. stainless steel and glass and marble plates pushing them out and about. Then hes knocked out and awakens with a firefighter getting him out, when the Tower fell. Ok, now here is the problem area: How could there have been massive explosions inside the North Tower at the Concourse Level, throwing people and debris around, before the collapse of the South or North Tower, when there were people, cameras, news crews and numerous police/fire/paramedics in and around both Towers at the base? It seems to me he was in the lower levels when the South Tower came down, and he was down below it when it did. He got out right when the North Tower came down.

So in review, you got nothing that has evidence of demolition charges going off, or anyone injured with barometric injuries. Lots of broken bones and people cut and burned, but not so much barometric injuries. And again, no mention of demo charges or anything like demo charges going off prior to collapse. Only mentions of sequences of "booms" when the tower was collapsing. Not before.

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.

Ah yes Craig Bartmer. I am also familiar with his account. And as always, I see that you are having a little trouble with some reading and listening comprehension, just like every other truther I have run into over the past few years. Here is his quote:

"I saw, you know, there was definately fire in the building, you know, but ... um, I didn't hear any, and you know maybe this is movie crap, i didn't hear any creaking or i didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down, and all of a sudden the radios exploded and everybody started screaming, "Get away. Get away. Get away from it." and I was like a dear in the headlights. And I look up. "

Ok, so what got his attention to look up and the WTC7, while he's next to it? People screaming, the radio yelling to get away. Strange, no mention of hearing an earth-shattering KABOOM!!!!! prior to all of this, just silence, then looking up after people and radios started yelling about something (probably the building starting to collapse). Quote continued:

"It was that moment, you know, "Get away", and I looked up... and... it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. And all the things started peeling in on itself and... I mean, there was an umbrella of crap seven feet over my head that I just stared at.

Ok, so someone ells at him to "get away!!!" and he looked up. There he sees an "umbrella of crap" coming down at him, and the building peeling in on itself. You know, for someone that was right next to the WTC7 when it supposedly had explosions go off for it collapse, he doesnt mention any of that as getting his attention to look at the WTC7. How the hell can you miss something sounding like this when you are RIGHT NEXT TO IT?????

I dont see or hear any mention of him saying something like: "I'm standing around WTC7 and then I hear these loud bangs, like fireworks, or explosions, and then I look up and see the building coming down at me, this umbrella of crap." No, what got his attention to even look at the WTC7? Someone yelling and screaming to get away, and then he looks up to see the building peeling in on itself? Does that sound like a plausible scenario of demo charges going off?

Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running and the [explitive]'s hitting the ground behind me and the whole time your hearing "thoom. thoom. thoom. thoom. thoom." So. I think I know an explosion when I hear it."

Ok, so he starts running as the building is collapsing. And he's hearing "thoom thoom thoom" well golly gee, how else should a steel building sound like when it collapses? Let us hear what steel sound like when it snaps and fails:

WOW! That actually sounded like explosions too! Did someone plant demo charges on the crane? I dont think so. But it sure did sound like a blast going off.

So, using his own account, which is a piss-poor attempt to make it sound like demo charges brought it down, what got his attention to look up at the WTC7, while standing next to it? People yelling and screaming for everyone to get away. Only then does he look up. No explosions got his attention to look up. Wow! And then he describes how the building sounds like when its collapsing, well, no $!#% Sherlock it sounds like explosions!! Wow! His own account debunks any idea of demo charges going off prior to collapse. In fact, most accounts I've seen or heard about WTC7 all mention them just sitting around, and all of a sudden, there it goes and collapses, without warning!

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So you genuinely think it's suspicious that someone standing next to a building that's collapsing would be hearing BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM as it's falling down. What do you think he should have heard when a building comes crashing down, circus music or dolphins chattering?

Sorry "Dave," but you just claimed "There were no explosions nor were there any explosive flashes at the moment of collapse" in regards to WTC7.

Obviously now you have had to backtrack on that lie.

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.

The only one with a blatant agenda to force the facts to conform to a favored scenario here is you. Nothing in Bartmer's testimony contradicts anything that NYFD deputy Chief Peter Hayden's eyewitness testimony of three story tall bulges from fire-induced structural damage as Bartmer doesn't go into detail over what the fires were doing one way or the other.

Actually he does contradict their testimony because he specifically says he didn't see any hole big enough to bring an entire building down. Then again, NIST doesn't agree with you that the hole from debris damage played any significant role in that "collapse" either.

Any more lies?

You were the one who brought up Saddam Hussein, not me.

And you are the one who keeps bringing up space beams and all kinds of other nonsense no one is talking about, in an effort to distract from the topic.

Of course 'Dave' knows better in hindsight what was heard, than a firefighter who was actually there.

Dave is 'G.O.D.', remember?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

What do you think he should have heard when a building comes crashing down, circus music or dolphins chattering?

Maybe the chase music from the old "Benny Hill" show????

reply to post by bsbray11


Because there are chain of stories about that same audit, starting from when the GAO released its report, to the waning days of the Clinton Admin, to Rummy's Confirmation hearings, throughout his first 7-8 months as SecDef to 9/11.


The funny part is that you basically are now claiming that the Pentagon managed to lose FOUR YEARS worth of the Federal Budget (not just the DoD budget) in cash, in less than a year.

And you wonder why intelligent people dont take the truth movement very seriously.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Sorry "Dave," but you just claimed "There were no explosions nor were there any explosive flashes at the moment of collapse" in regards to WTC7.

Obviously now you have had to backtrack on that lie.

Oh, for the love of...! You really are a piece of work, bsbray. We both know full flipping well you were talking about BOMB explosions, not noises associated with large and heavy stuff crashing into other large and heavy stuff. If you're attempting to claim you were really referring to people hearing noises associated with large and heavy stuff crashing into other large and heavy stuff, then you are unrepentently lying through your teeth. Seriously, who in their right mind is going to argue whether or not people around a collapsing building were hearing noises associated with large and heavy stuff crashing into other large and heavy stuff?

Oh, and where are the bomb flashes? Neither he nor the other 100,000 people in Manhattan saw any flashes from your imaginary bombs going off. You do know that the laws of physics have to apply to your conspiracy stories just as they apply to everything else, right?

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.

You need to remember that it's only you conspiracy mongers who selectively choose who you believe and who you don't entirely according to your political agenda. I fully acknowledge the testimony of Craig Bartmer. He was there and I wasn't, which makes him a legitimate eyewitness which I'm obligated to listen to. I'm trying to incorporate what he saw with what every other witness saw who was there, and Barry Jennings said the lobby looked as if King Kong came by and smashed it up while Bartmer said he walked around WTC 7, saw a hole, but he didn't think it looked severe enough to cause a building to come down. From the two men's testimony it's clear Bartmer didn't go inside the building to see just how extensively damaged the structure was so the only one arguing for the sake of arguing here is you.

Actually he does contradict their testimony because he specifically says he didn't see any hole big enough to bring an entire building down. Then again, NIST doesn't agree with you that the hole from debris damage played any significant role in that "collapse" either.

And you accuse me of backpeddling! Need I remind you that it was YOU who posted that NIST diagram with the fake caption you got off some damned fool conspiracy web site? It showed right there what NIST believes the collapse would have looked like if the "hole from the debris damage didn't play any significant role in that collapse", which you posted because you're acknowledging that's not the way WTC 7 fell. Your own post shows that what you're claiming NIST said isn't even remotely what NIST actually said.

Did you even read the NIST report or are you making that up too?

And you are the one who keeps bringing up space beams and all kinds of other nonsense no one is talking about, in an effort to distract from the topic.

How can I be distracting from the topic when the whole Saddam Hussein thing was a topic YOU brought up and I'm the one tryign to get a straight answer out of you. I honestly admitted Saddam Hussein wasn't behind the attack because there's no proof that he was. Will you likewise honestly admit admit there were no controlled demolitions in WTC 7 becuase there's likewise no proof there were? Why are you so afraid to answer the question? I've asked you three times already.

You really have no credibility, bsbray.

Originally posted by ANOK
Of course 'Dave' knows better in hindsight what was heard, than a firefighter who was actually there.

Dave is 'G.O.D.', remember?

Thus, a textbook example of irony. I'm the one who's repeatedly pointing out to you conspiracy people that New York Fire Department deputy chief Peter Hayden was actually there at WTC 7 and he reported the fires were burning out of control and were causing a three story tall bulge in the structure. Are you telling me now that you've changed your mind and you now fully acknowledge what Deputy Chief Hayden saw was correct and that the fires really were causing extreme structural damage?

FYI Craig Bartmer was a police officer, not a firefighter. Why do I have to explain to you what your own conspiracies are?

Originally posted by NNEECE
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy

 

Also, NO COCKPIT BOXES FOUND. BULLLLLLL SHEEEEEET What the frack! We just found the box in the middle of the Atlantic from a Brazilian crash and they claim the the most unbreakable box just incinerated from the WTC fires and from the pentagon?! PLEASE. It screams inside job and the ones that suffer are the blue collar hard working people who made America great. What a middle finger to them 9/11 has been. The truth will never come out of the governments lips because they benefit too much from oil and every other reason they did 9/11 for. Sick!

Yes I thought it was bloody amazing that the boxes were destroyed (never heard of that occurring before) but they were able to find a bunch of paper passports. Go figure !!! At least 6 of the guys they accused of being terrorists and dying in the explosions are apparently still alive. Go figure !!!
Why so little plane wreckage? Where did the explosive residue come from? Why wasn't it investigated properly? Go figure !!! Too many inconsistencies and too many questions with no answers.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
Maybe the chase music from the old "Benny Hill" show????

LOL yep, the propensity for these conspiracy theorists to promote self delusion is simply staggering. Let's recap the discussion here so far-

-we have someone cutting off the section of video showing the penthouse collapsing into the interior of WTC 7 six seconds before the rest of the building, all so that they can say "witnesses heard explosions six seconds before the building collapsed.

-One guy posted a NIST diagram and when we look it up it we find out that it's a fake.

-Another guy posted another NIST diagram, and when we look IT up we see it's a diagram of what the opposite side of WTC 7 looked like when it collapsed.

-Another guy references an eyewitness that heard explosions, and when we point out these were the noises from the collapse of the building he starts arguing over what an explosion is.

-Getting a straight answer out of them on whether or not they accept eyewitness testimony from NYFD deputy chief Peter Hayden is akin to nailing jam to the wall

-and let's not forget this whole "engineers need to ask someone permission from someone to speak freely about WTC 7" thread to begin with, which noone seems to know who it is they need to ask persmission from.

-so when I bring all this outright bad information to their attention, what is their answer? "So what?".

These conspiracy people have zero credibility. If they can't even get their conspiracy claims past a bunch of nobodies like us, then how do they expect to fare in any independent investigation they mught get some day?

At least 6 of the guys they accused of being terrorists and dying in the explosions are apparently still alive. Go figure !!!

Which ones? Can you please name them? Which website did you read this on?

Originally posted by LexiconV


Yes I thought it was bloody amazing that the boxes were destroyed (never heard of that occurring before) but they were able to find a bunch of paper passports. Go figure !!!

At least 6 of the guys they accused of being terrorists and dying in the explosions are apparently still alive. Go figure !!!

Could you please post some evidence (dated after September 28 2001) of them still being alive.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
The funny part is that you basically are now claiming that the Pentagon managed to lose FOUR YEARS worth of the Federal Budget (not just the DoD budget) in cash, in less than a year.

And you wonder why intelligent people dont take the truth movement very seriously.

$2.3 trillion is already larger than the DoD's yearly budget.

You have no comprehension of what you're even talking about, do you?

Why do you think Donald Rumsfeld acted like he was pissed off about it in front of the media? I can't seriously believe you are acting as though this is a non-issue.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bsbray11
Sorry "Dave," but you just claimed "There were no explosions nor were there any explosive flashes at the moment of collapse" in regards to WTC7.

Obviously now you have had to backtrack on that lie.

Oh, for the love of...!

Awww Jeez not this crap again!!

We both know full flipping well you were talking about BOMB explosions

Ah, now you are going to pretend like you know the difference.

Guess what? The witness we are talking about, Craig Bartmer, who was actually there (unlike yourself), was implying they were explosives/bombs going off. Refer back to his interview if you have to.

It's no wonder you have to type up such epic rants to try to scramble out of your web of lies.




Again, first you claimed "There were no explosions nor were there any explosive flashes at the moment of collapse"

...and then you were forced to do an about face:

"So you genuinely think it's suspicious that someone standing next to a building that's collapsing would be hearing BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM as it's falling down"

You really have no credibility, bsbray.

Right, keep the insults coming. It's your last hope, "Dave."

reply to post by bsbray11


Can you refresh my memory as to what exactly got him to even look up at the WTC7 as he was standing right next to it? Can you please do that for me? I'll repost the whole quote to jog your memory:

"I saw, you know, there was definately fire in the building, you know, but ... um, I didn't hear any, and you know maybe this is movie crap, i didn't hear any creaking or i didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down, and all of a sudden the radios exploded and everybody started screaming, "Get away. Get away. Get away from it." and I was like a dear in the headlights. And I look up. It was that moment, you know, "Get away", and I looked up... and... it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. And all the things started peeling in on itself and... I mean, there was an umbrella of crap seven feet over my head that I just stared at. Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running and the [explitive]'s hitting the ground behind me and the whole time your hearing "thoom. thoom. thoom. thoom. thoom." So. I think I know an explosion when I hear it."

So according to him, what got his attention to the building? The one he's standing right next to? I'll wait to see if you figure it out.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by vipertech0596
The funny part is that you basically are now claiming that the Pentagon managed to lose FOUR YEARS worth of the Federal Budget (not just the DoD budget) in cash, in less than a year.

And you wonder why intelligent people dont take the truth movement very seriously.

$2.3 trillion is already larger than the DoD's yearly budget.

You have no comprehension of what you're even talking about, do you?

Why do you think Donald Rumsfeld acted like he was pissed off about it in front of the media? I can't seriously believe you are acting as though this is a non-issue.

Hmm, yeah, I too would be pissed off if I found out that we have such bad financial data keeping practices. Especially if it is holding up to $2 trillion dollars.

But hey, one thing I know about Truthers, you guys always like to leave out or ignore the really important stuff, the stuff that when in context, makes you look like fools! Like Rumsfeld's quote. Let us see the whole quote right after the "infamous" part:

The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible. We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us.
................
We have committed $100 million for financial modernization, and we're establishing a Defense Business Board to tap outside expertise as we move to improve the department's business practices.

www.defense.gov...

Ok, back to school folks. Take out your Reading Comprehension books and take a look at the quote above. Does Donald Rumsfeld say, A.) "$2.3 Trillion is missing and we don't know what happened to it," or did he say, (paraphrasing) B.) "We cannot track up to $2.3 trillion due to the information being stored on dozens of antiquated tech systems that are inaccessible or incompatible,"?

Well according to his exact quote, word for word and unmolested by the Truther websites, the answer is B.) Now why is it that you and your fellow "Truthers" ( I use the term loosely in this case due to the obvious pushing of a big lie), like to omit, ignore, bury, or forget the quote, and twist, warp and edit his words into something totally opposite? Is that how you perceive the truth?

Lets add some more info to the financial issue:

In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.

Reform is more than just changing an audit system, but also the way the bureaucracy works. If the department were a business, Jonas said, it would dwarf the world's largest private firms. DoD employs more than 3 million people; it has more than 600 facilities around the world and an annual budget of $370 billion; and it maintains more than $1 trillion in assets, she remarked.

www.defense.gov...

reply to post by GenRadek


These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised' end quote - wow, deliberately vague, ultimately it could also mean it can't be accounted for but then you can expect politicians and proxies to misrepresent the truth.

...'$370 billion; and it maintains more than $1 trillion in assets, she remarked.' end quote

With a budget that big and accountancy holes seemingly so huge, it could only be a fool who thinks there was no possibility that some money was diverted to provide funding for an false flag attack. Add to that statistical probability that some working there are high functioning psychopaths or have a criminal inclination.

Peace

reply to post by samkent


Research it for yourself. Just Google '9 11 terrorists still alive'.

Originally posted by LexiconV


Research it for yourself. Just Google '9 11 terrorists still alive'.

So you have no evidence to back up your statement.

The hijackers are dead.

And they're not only merely dead, they're really most sincerely dead.