It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

page: 15
23
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Well...that's precisely what I mean.

I would imagine that any challenges would be welcomed by those that arrived at the conclusions in par with the official story, especially if this is being questioned by those with structural engineering backgrounds, as well as demolition experts and other related fields.

It would seem reasonable.

The 9/11 commission report was a joke. It was obviously rushed and scrambled. Even reading through it makes one's mind boggle at the blatant equivocacy. Even more so, by appointing the controversial Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 commission report only to later have him drop out. How exactly this was all decided this is my concern...Still, I don't recall if building 7 was even mentioned in this report. Although I don't think it was at the time I looked at it.

The NIST reports on the other hand made scientific efforts to explain these initial conclusions...once the dust has settled so to speak. Of course, there are still questions and conflicts surrounding the manner in which these reports were produced.

I'm not going to say it happened one way or another, but the official story is clearly lacking.
edit on 5-6-2011 by laiguana because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Well...that's precisely what I mean.

I would imagine that any challenges would be welcomed by those that arrived at the conclusions in par with the official story, especially if this is being questioned by those with structural engineering backgrounds, as well as demolition experts and other related fields.

It would seem reasonable.

The 9/11 commission report was a joke. It was obviously rushed and scrambled. Even reading through it makes one's mind boggle at the blatant equivocacy. Even more so, by appointing the controversial Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 commission report only to later have him drop out. How exactly this was all decided this is my concern...Still, I don't recall if building 7 was even mentioned in this report. Although I don't think it was at the time I looked at it.

The NIST reports on the other hand made scientific efforts to explain these initial conclusions...once the dust has settled so to speak. Of course, there are still questions and conflicts surrounding the manner in which these reports were produced.

I'm not going to say it happened one way or another, but the official story is clearly lacking.
edit on 5-6-2011 by laiguana because: (no reason given)


It is still frustrating me, how it is still misunderstood, as to the purpose of the 9/11 Commission Report. It was not up to investigating the WTC impacts, fires, and subsequent collapses. That was left to NIST and FEMA.

The 9/11CR was tasked with compiling all the data, all the info, all the intel that was collected up to 9/11, and who dropped the ball. Of course its a sort of whitewash and a joke, because its painfully obvious: Would you like to be the one held responsible for accidentally allowing the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor? The true criminal acts and subsequent cover-ups are regarding the incompetence at all levels in the chain of command in the intelligence agencies. THAT is your true and ever real conspiracy. Which idiot, or idiots dropped the ball with the collected intel? Which moron is responsible for forgetting to pass along critical information to the proper authorities? Which numb skull, through sheer incompetence, ignored warnings of impending disaster? Which loser bogged down the system with miles of red tape, slowing down important info, or even withholding information because of inter-agency rivalry? You want to find the truth of what happened? Start there. THAT is your real conspiracy. The cover up of incompetence, stupidity, and sheer idiocy and bungling bureaucracy. Not planted bombs, faked lanes, no planes, missiles, thermites, etc.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
imho

big deal, huh?

any high school student with a simple understanding of physics and gravity can readily conclude for himself that steel does not melt at temperatures less than 3000 degrees-sustained over time

the conclusion of an inside job lies with the official explanation, which supports that the laws of physics are not true and steel in fact does melt at 2000 degrees-unsustained, and in fact, the loss of wtc 1/2 does not even have to correlate with which building was damaged first, as the second building hit, fell first, which of course begs the real question of the day...

even if you believe the official story, why did the last building hit, fall first?

of course there is no answer to that one, and simply, no other explanation is needed-certainly not from a professional engineer. the proof lies in high school physics books!



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





So when people describe a train derailment sounding like a bomb, they are stupid?


Frankly I have never seen or heard anybody describe something in that manner.

I have heard things to the effect of: "It sounded like a big explosion" to describe a loud sound but I'm sure I don't need to explain the semantic subtleties between someone saying "It sounded like a bomb going off" and "It sounded like there were bombs going off".

But whatever the case may be we don't know precisely what he heard, claiming that you know or can know for sure that he simply mistook one sound for another is just a ludicrous piece of BS (excuse my French).

- YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE HEARD.
- MOST PEOPLE CAN READILY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DIFFERENT SOURCES OF LOUD SOUNDS.
- MOST PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE DESCRIPTIVE CAPACITY TO ACCURATELY CONVEY THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THESE SOUNDS.

Given these restrictions where do you come off claiming that you KNOW that he heard loud crashes from falling debris. That is just nonsense.

Of course at the same time we don't know for sure that he did in fact hear explosions, it may even have an innocent explanation.

But given the context...

Given the context we would expect people to have heard explosions and we have actual footage of sounds which undeniably ARE explosions in the the area at around the same time.

It is just a small piece of a large puzzle that will never be complete.

BUT
and if you read nothing else read this

Please be aware that the "debunkers" do themselves an enormous disservice when they claim to know things they don't.

You DO NOT know, you CAN NOT know what the man actually heard without being at the place at the time, and you were not.

Pretending otherwise only establishes one fact (which has sadly been amply established multiple times): That you are peddling delusions as fact.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


Can always tell when someone resorts to using textbooks versus experience. Have a nice day.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   


You DO NOT know, you CAN NOT know what the man actually heard without being at the place at the time, and you were not.


Now, this is truly hilarious. Especially when the poster is trying to do the exact same thing.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by vipertech0596
 





Can always tell when someone resorts to using textbooks versus experience. Have a nice day.


I have heard high-explosive explosions (from mining operations), gunshots, exploding car tires, backfiring cars, enormous chlorine bombs (and I do mean ENORMOUS) and various other loud bangs before.

I am not referring to any textbook when I state that you need to have some sort of aural deficit if you think it is impossible to broadly distinguish the sources of these sounds.



Now, this is truly hilarious. Especially when the poster is trying to do the exact same thing.


WOW!!!

Back up a little. The quote is quite unequivocal about what the guy says he heard.

You are saying that the guy was wrong in thinking it was what he thought it was solely because of YOUR lack of aural abilities.

THIS IS YOUR ARGUMENT?

Get real.

I agree that there is a possibility that the guy may have been mistaken, but your argument seems to be that he HAD to have been mistaken because loud sounds ALWAYS happen in collapses and it is completely impossible to differentiate loud sounds.

Well newsflash: Loud sound do not always happen in collapses that cannot be distinguished from explosions. Don't try to sell your "thud" in the Verinage ludicrousness to me, that just underscores my suspicion that you are wholly incapable of using all your faculties correctly.

The guy was there, you were not. He seems pretty sure it was explosions, specifically isolating that cause to the exclusion of others. To say that he was definitely mistaken because he may have been mistaken only indicates that aside from an aural deficit there is also problems with your logical facility as well.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


So if you are so adamant that he heard explosions, and that that is what he heard when the building collapsed, (WTC7) what got Craig Bartmer's attention to WTC7 when it started to collapse? I have asked Bsbray, now I'm asking you. What, according to his very own words, got him to look up at WTC7, while he was standing right next to it?

Also, why is going to hear explosives or bombs going off in a building that is already collapsing? I thought the explosions are heard first, then the building collapses, not the other way around.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by GenRadek
 





So when people describe a train derailment sounding like a bomb, they are stupid?


Frankly I have never seen or heard anybody describe something in that manner.



Well I guess you dont read the papers much, or watch the news:
www.myfoxatlanta.com...


The derailment left behind a mangled mess of twisted metal, and insulation, diapers and other cargo from the cars littered the tracks. Trucks hauled away debris, and a block away, new train tracks were being laid.
Some who live near the scene told FOX 5 that it sounded like a bomb went off.


www.highbeam.com...


Service Officials are hoping a video camera and a recording device similar

to a plane's "black box" will reveal why an Amtrak train loaded with

Christmas shoppers headed for Chicago plowed into a freight train on the

South Side Friday, sending scores of passengers to a dozen area hospitals.

Inside the Amtrak train, the impact "sounded like a bomb going off,'' said

passenger Sara Fazio of Grand Rapids, Mich., who had been looking forward

to loading up on Christmas gifts in Chicago. "There was a lot of grinding

and crunching at the end.


www.nvdaily.com...


"So, I was getting ready to go around and then I backed up. She kind of almost like cut in front of me to go around. I was backing up to give her room. I pulled out so I could see and looked down to the right. I didn't see anything at that moment and then she went ahead and backed up and pulled around, and as soon as she got out over the first set of tracks, I saw the train. It looked like it was flying and it hit her.

"It sounded like a bomb went off. I parked my truck and jumped out and ran over and the train finally stopped and [I] saw her slumped over."


www.chinadaily.com.cn...

Several coaches went off the tracks when the Jammu Tawi express crashed head-on into a local train near Mukerian town in Punjab state at about noon (1:30 a.m. EST), they said.

"It sounded like a huge bomb explosion," a woman on the express train told Star News TV.

Officials said they had yet to determine the cause of the latest accident on India's railway network, which is one of the world's largest, but has a poor safety record.


And that was just found within 5 minutes.



- YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HE HEARD.
- MOST PEOPLE CAN READILY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DIFFERENT SOURCES OF LOUD SOUNDS.
- MOST PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE THE DESCRIPTIVE CAPACITY TO ACCURATELY CONVEY THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THESE SOUNDS.

Given these restrictions where do you come off claiming that you KNOW that he heard loud crashes from falling debris. That is just nonsense.


I dont know what he heard because, true, I was not there. However, one can extrapolate using a little known and rarely used ability in the truther world, called critical thinking and logic. First off, I ask you again, what got Craig Bartmer's attention to the WTC7 building as he was standing right next to it? Use his very own words. I posted his exact quote word for word twice. I want you to look it over, and then think hard as to what is the small detail that can put a huge monkey wrench in the "controlled demolition" fantasy of the truthers. Its very simple. I want to see you figure it out.




Of course at the same time we don't know for sure that he did in fact hear explosions, it may even have an innocent explanation.

But given the context...

Given the context we would expect people to have heard explosions and we have actual footage of sounds which undeniably ARE explosions in the the area at around the same time.


We have numerous, NUMEROUS sources of explosions, from numerous reasons, all of which are more plausible than any sort of actual explosives. I dont deny there were explosions. Of course there were! You just had two 767s impact two of the world's tallest buildings, setting fires to acres of offices and utility areas. You had falling debris impacting from 1,000ft. You have overloaded steel failing. You have crushed and burning vehicles, oxygen tanks of firefighters, electrical conduits, high pressure steam pipes, gaslines, ammunition, oxygen canisters form the airliners, bodies falling. Hell cars explode when on fire. You have so many sources of sounds that sound like bombs. And of course, people being people, once they realize its a terrorist attack, what do you think they are going to assume when they hear a loud bang? But again, what is the key thing missing from WTC7's collapse, which puts a HUGE dent in the controlled demolition fantasy nonsense? Reread Bartmer's account, then watch this video and see if you can figure out where his account goes against what the truthers say:


skip to 1:51

What got Bartmer's attention to WTC7 while he was standing right next to it?

edit on 6/5/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
10 years on here we are sat like a bunch of numptys all arguing the toss about this `` miracle `` because thats what it was. Bush admitted he was on the phone to god regulary. So it must be a miracle. The USA needed another pearle harbour and low and behold, god provided one. It makes a much sense to say it was god, rather than what really happened. Im totally sick of the whole thing.
No one here or any where else on the planet, is going to convince the OS crew that it was other than what they say.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I understand your reasoning.

It goes like this:
- Whatever it is the guy was wrong, because if he is right my world collapses.
- *List of reasons he could have been wrong*
- Therefore he was wrong.

Can you see why your reasoning is unacceptable. You have no right to insist he was wrong, he was there, he knows what he heard, you were not, you don't.

He may well have been wrong, but you have no reason other than your own prejudices to suspect this.

Nobody is using this guy's testimony as the ONLY evidence for explosions, at best it is a tiny piece of a HUGE puzzle. Yet you behave as if you not only KNOW better, cannot ever be mistaken and have godlike insight, but also that the fact that he is wrong disproves the whole truth movement.

All logical and epistemic fallacies of the highest order.

All this despite the fact that we have multiple line of outstanding evidence that there WERE in fact explosions which cannot be attributed to your suspected causes.



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


I'll bet he really does think there were bombs. I truly do. However, I also think he is very wrong.

Also, if you believe his testimony is more evidence of demolition, then why dont you believe the firefighters that were there and said that the building was going to collapse, the fact that it was tilting hours earlier before colapse, and producing a large bulge in the middle?

But I digress. You, nor bsbray have answered my simple question, what made Bartmer take notice of WTC7 as he was literally standing next to it as he claims? You say he definitely heard explosions, thats fine. I'm sure he did as you just had 220 acres of buildings collapse on top of hundreds of vehicles and numerous buildings burning like roman candles. What wouldnt go boom in that? But you failed again to answer my simple question. Its a simple question that unravels any ideas of demolition. Why do you and bsbray ignore this?

You say there was tons of evidence of explosions that were not attributed to my earlier list. How so? What proof do you have? More people hearing "kabooms"? You just got through telling me how wrong I am in claiming that what heard was not "bomb": related or demolition related. And then you go and without any proof, say that there is ample evidence of mysterious explosions that do not fit my list of probable causes.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 





I'll bet he really does think there were bombs. I truly do. However, I also think he is very wrong.


I don't care if you think the Pope lady-parts, you don't have any positive proof for your suspicion but are still peddling it as fact.

That is fundamentally dishonest.

Apart from the behavior of WTC7 and the fact that are tonnes of eyewitness accounts that involve explosions, including from firefighters there is this old video which I don't recall was ever "debunked":



Just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it's not there.




You say he definitely heard explosions, thats fine. I'm sure he did as you just had 220 acres of buildings collapse on top of hundreds of vehicles and numerous buildings burning like roman candles. What wouldnt go boom in that?


Listen to those Verinages again.

Crunch I will give you. Maybe at a push I will give you thud.

If you try to sell boom you have less credibility than a second hand car salesman. Nobody in their right mind and functioning aural accoutrement could confuse that for explosions.


edit on 6-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: 2nd part



edit on 6-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: 3rd part

edit on 6-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 




The placement of the sun and shadows in that video place its time between 10:15 and 10:45 or about 7 hours before WTC7 collapsed.

That would mean it took WTC7 uh about 7 hours to fall.

Hey I thought you guys said it fell at freefall speed.

Darkwing have you found any evidence that the hijackers are still alive dated after sept 28 2001 yet.
edit on 6-6-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


Dear All

9/11 an inside job, too all but the blind, deaf and down right dumb that is a given.

But to me there are two things going on.

The three buildings in Manhattan where supposed to come down as an act of terror in the very middle of the night. Causing an act of war just like Pearl Harbor but few civilian deaths. However the aircraft hit first and that is why they came down when they did.

The only way to hide the explosives at that time was to detonate them there and then.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by NNEECE
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


Another thing that really pisses me off is, ok Obama catching Osama is fantastic and I know alot of people don't believe that but I chose to believe it's truth and he really gains nothing but popularity from having something like that happen. Obama is not a horrible president and he's not the best but if we are going to talk in terms of holy sheet man what a horrible pres we have to look at George Bush! He is the ring leader of the big top 3 ring circus when it comes to the 9/11 attacks. everyone knows there was no plane found at the pentagon, and no building just collapses when it isn't hit like WTC 7 did. and 2 HUGE sky scrapping buildings don't fall strait down within seconds --if anything they would teeter a little bit possibly dropping the top half but not starting at the bottom!!!

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!


Do you still believe in US Presidents being the most powerful men in the world? You are not fully awake yet. When you are fully awake, you will realize they are just puppets...



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
NYPD cops are sharing some interesting stories from that day.

theerant.yuku.com...



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 





The placement of the sun and shadows in that video place its time between 10:15 and 10:45 or about 7 hours before WTC7 collapsed.


You are not aware that it is standard practice to remove key supports before a demolition? Go review some demo footage and engage the thing between your ears.

Also: If I start my car at 8 AM and start moving at 9 AM and got to work at 10 AM, how long does it take me to drive to work.

To debunkers really think that the collapse timing starts from the first explosion? Trying to sell the timing to start from the penthouse was bad enough, but this?

Are you going to start counting from when the building was built next?



Darkwing have you found any evidence that the hijackers are still alive dated after sept 28 2001 yet.


Why are you adding random dates?

If you want to engage in definitional retreat at least try to be a LITTLE subtle about it.
edit on 6-6-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


That particular video has some major issues. For one thing, the audio is originally in mono. The explosion is in stereo. It has been obviously added in, by whom? I dont know, but I have a nagging suspicion its from someone that is claiming to want the truth. Also listening to the video, the firefighters make no real mention of any explosions, and the moment the firefighters look in the direction of the alleged "explosion" there is a firefighter walking towards them telling them to get back cause "Seven is going to fall down" or "The second one is going to fall down." That added in quote by the videomaker LIED and made it look like he said "Seven is exploding". Once again, you got suckered by another TRUTHER that just lied to you. Two lies added into a video claiming to be for the truth. When will you truthers realize that in reality, you are being lied to by the very ones claiming to be for Truth?

Also, again, you failed to answer my question. What got Bartmer's attention to WTC7 as he stood right next to it? What got his attention to look up at the building? Answer me that please.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
It is still frustrating me, how it is still misunderstood, as to the purpose of the 9/11 Commission Report. It was not up to investigating the WTC impacts, fires, and subsequent collapses. That was left to NIST and FEMA.


What frustrates me is that you have been asked many times to show what the NIST report proved, if anything, but you choose to ignore those requests to waste your time typing out epic rants instead.

So... what exactly did NIST prove anyway, that you are so "frustrated" that people think the Kean Commission had the burden of proving?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join