Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

Originally posted by laiguana
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.

That's also my whole point, and the point the engineers featured in the OP are making too.

The trolls on this forum won't accept that you can debunk the "official story" without immediately replacing it with another completed theory. It doesn't matter to them that, with or without another specific theory, the one they believe is still garbage and based on no evidence. If we wanted to make up more theories without hard evidence, we certainly could, and many people do, and of course the trolls love that. But it's losing sight of the fact that, again, the "official story" had no evidence to support it to begin with.


I'd love to see anyone here post what they think the NIST report proved, or even the Kean or FEMA reports for that matter.

I've been here asking for years, and the only honest answer is that NIST actually proved nothing, FEMA didn't even try to reach a conclusion, and the Kean report is trash even according to multiple people who helped write it at the time.

reply to post by bsbray11


Do you even know what you are talking about?

The 9/11 Commission Report was about intelligence leading up to 9/11.
NIST was to investigate how the buildings behaved and collapsed and the mechanisms for the collapse.

How hard is that to understand? Its not rocket science. It amazes me that people like you still dont know the fundamentals about what they are trying argue about.

Also, why are you not answering my question earlier about Bartmer? YOu trotted him out like a prize pony, and when I ask you a simple question about him, you ignore it. I'll ask again, what made Craig Bartmer look at the WTC7 while he was standing right next to it?

Originally posted by GenRadek
Do you even know what you are talking about?

The 9/11 Commission Report was about intelligence leading up to 9/11.
NIST was to investigate how the buildings behaved and collapsed and the mechanisms for the collapse.

How hard is that to understand? Its not rocket science. It amazes me that people like you still dont know the fundamentals about what they are trying argue about.

I hope you feel better after getting all of that out of your system, but it has nothing at all to do with what I just posted.


Let's see if you can read it this time, if I draw attention to it like this:

I'd love to see anyone here post what they think the NIST report proved, or even the Kean or FEMA reports for that matter.

You say it's not rocket science, but it must be pretty damned complicated to you because you never can explain what they proved.

I'll ask again, what made Craig Bartmer look at the WTC7 while he was standing right next to it?

He could have been looking at it for any number of reasons. What does that have to do with him hearing explosions as the building came down?

Originally posted by bsbray11


The trolls on this forum won't accept that you can debunk the "official story" without immediately replacing it with another completed theory.

But the "official story" is an invention of Truthers. If you can find me a reference that contains that term outside of Truthers' literature or debunkers using it as a shorthand I'd be surprised.

And you are of course at liberty to debunk a narrative that you have invented yourselves, but don't be surprised when nobody listens.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But the "official story" is an invention of Truthers.

NIST, FEMA and the Kean Commission reports were not made up by "truthers." They were all federally funded and "official" in the sense of them being officially-sanctioned federal government reports.

reply to post by bsbray11


But the notion of an "Official Story" - a single, unwavering narrative passed down from on high - is an invention of Truthers. If it isn't you will surely be able to find me an example of the term "Official Story" (or let's be ambitious, maybe even "OS") from non-Truther or debunker writings. If it's such a given then other media apart from Truth Movement sources must surely acknowledge its existence?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But the notion of an "Official Story" - a single, unwavering narrative passed down from on high - is an invention of Truthers.

So what, you think it helps your case that the three above-mentioned reports couldn't even get their stories straight between them?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

a single, unwavering narrative passed down from on high

That pretty much describes debunker tactics right there.

They still have not, not one of them, admitted that thermite can cut steel vertically. They still think that Bazant collapse idea is plausible. They still think it is completely impossible to differentiate high energy explosive sounds from collapse noises and bursting car tires. They still think that an object starts falling before it starts moving.

Debunkers are COMPLETELY unwavering. They believe what is in their HEADS, not what is in reality.

And yes there narrative does not always conform to the official publications, but when it deviates it goes to real cooky folk-myths like the inferno furnace cooked by "HIGH ENERGY" jet fuel, hollow buildings barely capable of standing up and that it is completely impossible to envision an aircraft flying into a building.

It is all the same rubbish, no connection ever made to reality.

reply to post by bsbray11


Of course. It shows your bias that you think they are "trying to get their story straight" instead of honestly investigating what happened. But that aside it also shows that there are different mainstream accounts for what happened, and therefore no "OS" as you envisage it.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If it isn't you will surely be able to find me an example of the term "Official Story"...

The British government's investigation into the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London was published as Report of the Official Account of the Bombings in London on 7th July 2005 and the US Government Printing Offices sells the Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Official Government Edition.

Let's just accept the term 'official account' and move on.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
It shows your bias that you think they are "trying to get their story straight" instead of honestly investigating what happened.

Now you are going to prove they were "honestly investigating what happened"?

And kudos to what coughy posted. Maybe "official" is just too big of a word for "TrickoftheShade" (sock puppet) to get a handle on. Any government-endorsed report is an official report, because they were officially endorsed by the government.

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.

I did. He said he heard the building go BOOM BOOM BOOM as it fell. Every person who was actually there heard the building go BOOM BOOM BOOM as it fell. The whole flipping island of Manhattan heard the building go BOOM BOOM BOOM as it fell. Of course I'm going to believe Bartmer saying he heard the building go BOOM BOOM BOOM as it fell. Either I can believe Bartmer is the only person out of 100,000 people standing in Manhattan who heard actual explosives going off, or, I can believe you're attempting to disingenuously cherry pick his testimony out of the 100,000 other testimonies from that day because it's the only one the conspiracy mongors have found that has a good chance to be perverted to their liking.

We both know you got this whole "Craig Bartmer" bit off some damned fool conspiracy web site like Prison Planet, dude. You're not fooling anybody.

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

Time to put up or shut up. Name ONE lie I posted here. ONE. Are you saying Barry Jennings *didn't* say the front lobby looked as if King Kong came by and destroyed it? Are you saying Jesse Ventura *doesn't* support the energy weapons from outer space claim? Are you saying Peter Hayden *didn't* see a three story tall bulge in the side of WTC 7? Are you claiming the OP *didn't* grossly exaggerate the title of this "engineers need to request permission before they're allowed to speak freely about WTC 7" thread?

Your not liking the facts I post in no way makes my facts any less factual. Good grief, little children behave in this way.

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"

Are you really trying to argue over what the definition of "explosion" is now? I mean, really?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


BREAKING ALTERNATIVE NEWS INSTRUCTIONS

1). All sources must be no older than 36 hours old.
2). The source/article MUST contain an obvious alternative or conspiracy angle. BAN is not for submitting general, political, or 'tabloid shock' news.
3). Copy and paste the EXACT headline as it appears in the original news article. Do not create or sensationalize your titles. Some editorial leeway is allowed, of course, if the original title is too long, inappropriate for ATS, inflammatory, etc.
4). The submission MUST be an actual news piece. Opinions, rants, blog pieces are not considered valid sources.

I did not put the article in breaking news but I did copy and paste the exact headline as in 3. So I followed best practice of ATS, I put the thread in the right place, I copied the title and added a little bit of info.

quote from you Are you claiming the OP *didn't* grossly exaggerate the title of this "engineers need to request permission before they're allowed to speak freely about WTC 7" thread?

I did not grossly exaggerate the title I copied and pasted,

quote from you on page 4 The OP is simply embellishing his post to make it more sinister sounding. - Well I point this out as a lie.

Lastly check out my reply on page 5 to this.

Peace

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
I did not put the article in breaking news but I did copy and paste the exact headline as in 3. So I followed best practice of ATS, I put the thread in the right place, I copied the title and added a little bit of info.

All right, then, if it makes you happy. What I should have said was that one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites made up the outrageously exaggerated title of engineers need to request permission before they're allowed to speak freely about WTC 7, and you got your information from said damned fool conspiracy web site and it struck some paranoid chord in you so much that you decided to pass it along. In the end you haven't shown why anything I said about the conspiracy theorists outrageously exaggerating their information was incorrect. All you did is deny you were the one who did it while at the same time admit you're willing to propagate it.

How this supposedly preserves your cedibility is beyond me.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But the "official story" is an invention of Truthers.

NIST, FEMA and the Kean Commission reports were not made up by "truthers." They were all federally funded and "official" in the sense of them being officially-sanctioned federal government reports.

So then how do you explain the Perdue University computer modelling? They did that research all on their own. What about the MIT report from structural engineer Thomas Eagar? He did that on his own as well.

It's blatantly obvious that "the official story" is an invention of your own making to describe anything that refutes what you yourself want to believe, regardless of how "official" it is.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GenRadek
Do you even know what you are talking about?

The 9/11 Commission Report was about intelligence leading up to 9/11.
NIST was to investigate how the buildings behaved and collapsed and the mechanisms for the collapse.

How hard is that to understand? Its not rocket science. It amazes me that people like you still dont know the fundamentals about what they are trying argue about.

I hope you feel better after getting all of that out of your system, but it has nothing at all to do with what I just posted.


Let's see if you can read it this time, if I draw attention to it like this:

I'd love to see anyone here post what they think the NIST report proved, or even the Kean or FEMA reports for that matter.

You say it's not rocket science, but it must be pretty damned complicated to you because you never can explain what they proved.

Well lets see, the NIST report was done to investigate the impact, fires, and collapse, and to see if any other sources were used in the destruction of the WTCs. They discovered that based on their research, and now I will take this right from their FAQ site:

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

wtc.nist.gov...

Well that is what they have found, I dont know what else you want me to say, since after going over their work, it all makes sense to me, since their tests and investigations corroborated with many eyewitnesses, including police, fire, and engineers. So in effect, they have show conclusively how the WTC were damaged and then later destroyed by impact AND fire.

I'll ask again, what made Craig Bartmer look at the WTC7 while he was standing right next to it?

He could have been looking at it for any number of reasons. What does that have to do with him hearing explosions as the building came down?

No no, see, you are just not getting this at all. I asked you specifically, from his own words, what got his attention to look at the WTC7 when it fell. I will repost it one more time for posterity to refresh your memory:

"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.""

Have I made it clearer? I do hope so, because you saying, what difference does it make, just shows your ignorance of the facts and certain realities that you do not wish to think about. I'll wait a little bit longer and see if it sinks in and you figure it out yourself. I seem to be an intelligent person and I do not wish to hold your hand and walk you to the answer, so I'll just leave it like this, and see if you can figure it out.
By the way, I say, so what I he heard boom booom boom as it collapsed? What did he hear before it started to collapse? There is a big thing missing, and I'm about ready to use one of Dave's terms to explain it, if you can't figure it out yet.

I think to make it easier, since you are not getting this basic easy answer, I guess I have to make it obvious by underlining.

edit to add:
Also, another piece to the puzzle, is this riddle: What order does a controlled demolition go, in terms of preparing, detonation, and collapse? I'm practically giving you the answer.

Originally posted by coughymachine

Let's just accept the term 'official account' and move on.

edit on 7-6-2011 by coughymachine because: (no reason given)

So people don't use the term Official Story outside of the truth movement.

Also, the TM does not use the term OS to describe just government reports. It usually means mainstream media reports as well. And anything that broadly agrees with the traditional narrative of what happened.

Originally posted by bsbray11


Now you are going to prove they were "honestly investigating what happened"?

I believe they were. You believe they weren't. It's not up to me to prove it, nor is such a thing really possible, since one can't really ever know someone's intentions.

One would have thought that you might be trying to prove their dishonesty. But then one remembers that you don't really go in for actions.

And kudos to what coughy posted. Maybe "official" is just too big of a word for "TrickoftheShade" (sock puppet) to get a handle on.

Ah, a bsbray standard. Straight for the ad homs.

My point was that no single official story exists. You posted a reply that inadvertantly proved this.

But you know, feel free to have another go. Where does anyone outside of Truthers or those responding to them ever use the term OS?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I did. He said he heard the building go BOOM BOOM BOOM as it fell.

Yet you claim there were no explosions coming from WTC7. Obviously you must know more about that "BOOM BOOM BOOM" than Mr. Bartmer or anyone else here does.

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

Time to put up or shut up. Name ONE lie I posted here.

That there were no explosions coming from WTC7.

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"

Are you really trying to argue over what the definition of "explosion" is now? I mean, really?

Everyone already knows what an explosion is. It's an extremely loud concussive noise caused by extremely rapid expansion of gases. You claimed they didn't happen. You were wrong. And not only do I believe you were just wrong, you've been here long enough to know better, so really I do think you are lying.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Well lets see, the NIST report was done to investigate the impact, fires, and collapse, and to see if any other sources were used in the destruction of the WTCs. They discovered that based on their research, and now I will take this right from their FAQ site: ...

Well that is what they have found, I dont know what else you want me to say, since after going over their work, it all makes sense to me, since their tests and investigations corroborated with many eyewitnesses, including police, fire, and engineers. So in effect, they have show conclusively how the WTC were damaged and then later destroyed by impact AND fire.

What does the word "conclusively" even mean to you?

I want to see the evidence they used to "prove" whatever you think they proved. Not an excerpt from one of their FAQs that was written in response to all the negative feedback they were getting in regards to their actual report in the first place.

Also, another piece to the puzzle, is this riddle: What order does a controlled demolition go, in terms of preparing, detonation, and collapse? I'm practically giving you the answer.

And you think there is no evidence to explain this sequence of events? There is no reason the explosions throughout the day were not preparing the structure for total collapse by pre-cutting columns. The detonation and collapse happen at virtually the same time. "BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM"