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: 17
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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.


Well at least you're honest about that much.

Now all you have to do is show how an official government report sanctioned by Congress, is not actually an official report.


And I am well aware that Kean, FEMA and NIST contradict each other on various points. The term "official story" doesn't mean it has to make sense altogether, and of course it doesn't.


Maybe one day we can even step past the semantics and get to actually discussing what any of these reports "proved."




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
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.

When 'the truth movement' uses the term 'official' (whether 'story', 'account' or 'narrative'), you know exactly what they are talking about. You've even had to invent a new term - 'traditional narrative' - just so you can continue to waste time arguing about the applicability of any term that might include the word 'official'.

Seriously, let this petty argument go and accept that people will use the terms they see fit, just as you talk about a 'conspiracy' as a way of distinguishing the 'official account' from alternatives, even though the 'official account' is, itself, a conspiracy!



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


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.


Why are you asking me for the evidence? Too lazy to read the report yourself? I'm not going to do your work for you.



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"


Right so the fact that he mentions hearing nothing at, standing right freakin next to it, and then only when someone on the radio starts screaming and yelling to run away and get away from it, does he look up to see the building coming down at him, doesnt sound suspicious at all? I mean, wow, to be just standing around right next the building, completely missing the sound of detonation of the demo charges inside, and then to be giving a heads up on the radio, to then FINALLY look up at the WTC7 coming down at him, just boggles the mind. What was he doing that he completely missed the blasts that started the collapse? Did he have his head in the ground with ear plugs???? I mean damn man, was he deaf? How can someone miss something like this, while standing right next to it??


Since when does a building start collapsing all by itself, and then have the demo charges go off as its already collapsing? And since when do they have random blasts to "soften up" the building, to collapse later? The correct sequence is, extensive prep, detonations, and then total collapse. Not: secret special prep, random detonations for 7 hours, collapse, and then actual detonations. Makes no sense whatsoever. And how in the name of God, did they manage to fireproof the explosives and the connections, and not have a soul notice anything in the building, before or during?

Ah yes, it was those pesky magical "hush-a-booms". Thats what it was! Of course!!


You can make all the excuses you want, but facts are facts, and make believe is make believe. You believe that somehow they managed to rig up a burning building to have random blasts go off during the day to soften it up as the building is burning (without having any charges go off prematurely), and then have the building collapse silently by itself which is the exact moment they decide to set off the charges (for no real reason whatsoever as the building is already collapsing), more power to you! The rest of us, in the real world are just going to
and



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Well at least you're honest about that much.

Now all you have to do is show how an official government report sanctioned by Congress, is not actually an official report.


Why would I want to show that? It's obviously an official report.


And I am well aware that Kean, FEMA and NIST contradict each other on various points. The term "official story" doesn't mean it has to make sense altogether, and of course it doesn't.


Why would TPTB create an "Official Story" that was inconsistent? Seems a rather odd way to go about manufacturing a cover-up.

Your answer is - well, I'm not sure what your answer is. But your tactic, like most Truthers, is to point to inconsistencies not as evidence of an honest process, but as signs of errors in a manufactured narrative. The former is much more likely, for obvious reasons.

You may dislike semantics but sometimes they're important, as here. Contained within the notion of an "OS" is the idea of a conspiracy, even when a cursory look reveal disparate "official" narratives. That's why you're so singularly failing to find an example of its use outside conspiracy circles.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

When 'the truth movement' uses the term 'official' (whether 'story', 'account' or 'narrative'), you know exactly what they are talking about.


I do. But the important point is that their grouping and simplification of several narratives into one account, and then calling it "official", presupposes the idea of a conspiracy (I use the term in the sense you understood it above).

Perhaps you can tell me why the "OS" isn't a single entity? Why would TPTB write accounts that conflicted each other? And does the "OS" contain MSM reports or are they exempt?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I do. But the important point is that their grouping and simplification of several narratives into one account, and then calling it "official", presupposes the idea of a conspiracy (I use the term in the sense you understood it above).

Perhaps you can tell me why the "OS" isn't a single entity? Why would TPTB write accounts that conflicted each other? And does the "OS" contain MSM reports or are they exempt?


Oh stop with this nonsense. What I call the 'official account' you called a 'traditional narrative' earlier, even though neither describes a 'single entity'.

The 'truth movement' isn't a single entity - and it certainly contains conflicting elements - but you use this catch-all term quite happily and I don't waste bandwith arguing the toss over it. Nor do I waste time arguing the fact that your opposition to what you call the 'truth movement' necessarily makes you an advocate of 'untruths'!

We have these terms on both sides of the debate and we all know broadly what they mean... let's just leave it there, shall we?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

I do. But the important point is that their grouping and simplification of several narratives into one account, and then calling it "official", presupposes the idea of a conspiracy (I use the term in the sense you understood it above).

Perhaps you can tell me why the "OS" isn't a single entity? Why would TPTB write accounts that conflicted each other? And does the "OS" contain MSM reports or are they exempt?


Oh stop with this nonsense. What I call the 'official account' you called a 'traditional narrative' earlier, even though neither describes a 'single entity'.

The 'truth movement' isn't a single entity - and it certainly contains conflicting elements - but you use this catch-all term quite happily and I don't waste bandwith arguing the toss over it. Nor do I waste time arguing the fact that your opposition to what you call the 'truth movement' necessarily makes you an advocate of 'untruths'!

We have these terms on both sides of the debate and we all know broadly what they mean... let's just leave it there, shall we?


Happy to. Although I'd note that you didn't feel inclined to answer my questions.

Obviously I agree that abstract concepts need names, if only for ease of discussion. But the names that people choose are sometimes telling - I not even you shy away from the word "story" perhaps because you realise ho loaded it is.

I also think that when such clumsiness of usage (even when intentional, as with OS) leads to such sloppy thinking as above, wherein posters seem to think that because the OS's different strands contain conflicting arguments this is actually evidence of a conspiracy, since they demand a single narrative from their own invented conception of what the "OS" should be, well - that's kind of telling as well.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I not even you shy away from the word "story" perhaps because you realise ho loaded it is.

I never use 'story', because it implies I've pre-judged the official account as a work of fiction... and I haven't. I have no interest in how others use it, nor why they use it.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
... leads to such sloppy thinking as above, wherein posters seem to think that because the OS's different strands contain conflicting arguments this is actually evidence of a conspiracy...

I think this 'accusation' has its root in a misunderstanding of my earlier post. The official account is a conspiracy, not because it may contain conflicting arguments, but because, by definition, the plot described by the 911 Commission was a conspiracy.
edit on 8-6-2011 by coughymachine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

I never use 'story', because it implies I've pre-judged the official account as a work of fiction... and I haven't.


Fair enough. But with respect you intervened in a discussion where I was criticising the use of that precise term. It seems you share my concerns.



I think this 'accusation' has its root in a misunderstanding of my earlier post. The official account is a conspiracy, not because it may contain conflicting arguments, but because, by definition, the plot described by the 911 Commission was a conspiracy.
edit on 8-6-2011 by coughymachine because: (no reason given)


I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm pointing out the poor logic of others when they demand that an "OS" - a notion which they themselves came up with - be consistent. And that that lack of consistency is somehow evidence of collusion and official conspiracy when in fact the reverse is true.

I appreciate you don't like the way I use the term conspiracy, but again it's a matter of shorthand. Of course I agree that the government's - and my, and most people's - idea of what happened on 9/11 involves a conspiracy, and I should perhaps have used the term "conspiracy theory" or "inside job" or something.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Why are you asking me for the evidence? Too lazy to read the report yourself? I'm not going to do your work for you.


It's a rhetorical question because I know they did not actually prove anything, but you apparently don't realize that yet.

So by looking for any sort of proof in their report and not being able to actually find any, I thought that might make you stop and think for a second. But of course that is a ridiculous thought, because you will never actually have to see any evidence to believe.


Since when does a building start collapsing all by itself, and then have the demo charges go off as its already collapsing?


First of all you have absolutely no evidence that the building started collapsing "all by itself."

And here is a demolition where you can hear charges still going off after it's already falling:




And before you start ranting, this is not a game of "spot the differences" but merely an example to prove to you that yes, charges can still go off even after the building is already falling, and it doesn't hinder the demolition in any way. It's a matter of precise timing.



And since when do they have random blasts to "soften up" the building, to collapse later?


Again you have no evidence at all that these were "random," and all commercial demolitions I have seen require pre-cutting work before the actual demolition sequence. The building in the video above is one example.



Ah yes, it was those pesky magical "hush-a-booms". Thats what it was! Of course!!


If you want to intentionally dumb yourself down, I can't help you. There were plenty of explosions (you know, the "BOOM BOOM BOOM"??) reported by scores of witnesses, and there was nothing even close to silent about any of the 3 collapses.



You can make all the excuses you want, but facts are facts, and make believe is make believe.


And you obviously prefer make-believe, with all of your erroneous assumptions and false statements.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Why would I want to show that? It's obviously an official report.


And you put all the official reports together, and you get a story of events. An official story because the story comes from official government reports.

Again, this doesn't mean they have to make sense when compared to each other, because they obviously don't. But they are still all reports endorsed by the federal government.



Why would TPTB create an "Official Story" that was inconsistent?


Why does anyone ever come up with an inconsistent story? Because they were making things up and lying to cover up real information. Obviously all of the various contradictions can't be all true. The different reports just say what they need to, to cover their own asses.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Fair enough. But with respect you intervened in a discussion where I was criticising the use of that precise term. It seems you share my concerns.

No... the precise term was 'official story' (or, 'OS') and I actually believed your principle objection was to the use of the word 'official' rather than 'story'. I guess I misunderstood.

My choice not to use 'story' is just a personal preference... I have no concerns about how others use it.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

And you put all the official reports together, and you get a story of events. An official story because the story comes from official government reports.

Again, this doesn't mean they have to make sense when compared to each other, because they obviously don't. But they are still all reports endorsed by the federal government.


So it would be more accurate to call them "Official Stories"? Although even that would remain a loaded term.

You say that if you put all the reports together you get a "story" of events. But you obvously don't. You get a series of competing and occassionally contradictory narratives. Show me another "story" that is composed of differing accounts that don't make sense together. Outside of literary novels - which tend to have different goals than secret government false flag events - you'll find it hard, I'd imagine.




Why does anyone ever come up with an inconsistent story? Because they were making things up and lying to cover up real information. Obviously all of the various contradictions can't be all true. The different reports just say what they need to, to cover their own asses.


Untrue. Look at the history of any scientific and historical enquiry and it's likely to be "inconsistent" as it develops. Your method here would suggest that the development of, say, particle physics was a conspiracy/ "What, they say there's a Higgs Boson now? They weren't saying that last year. They must be covering their asses."

And why would an inside job consider it more important for individual reports to "cover their asses" than for the whole "story" to remain consistent and beleivable? What you describe explains different departments covering up intel failures which is consistent with what most intelligent people think happened. But it doesn't explain why the insiders would allow various "official" sources to freestyle with different "official stories" of what happened with regard to the physics and engineering models. That would be an extremely odd way of conducting a conspiracy.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

My choice not to use 'story' is just a personal preference... I have no concerns about how others use it.


You are unconcerned that it shows they may have "pre-judged the official account as a work of fiction"?

I suppose that you might remain unconcerned about any of their opinions, but that hardly suggests faith in the judgement of the majority of "Truthers".



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You are unconcerned that it shows they may have "pre-judged the official account as a work of fiction"?

I suppose that you might remain unconcerned about any of their opinions, but that hardly suggests faith in the judgement of the majority of "Truthers".

You're putting words in my mouth. If you're really going to waste time arguing the minutiae, at least get the detail right. I said (underlined for clarity), "I never use 'story', because it implies I've pre-judged the official account as a work of fiction... and I haven't. I have no interest in how others use it, nor why they use it."

So, clearly, I am not concerned how "THEY" use the term 'story', and whatever concerns or faith you "suppose" I have in the "majority of "Truthers"" opinions or judgement is neither here nor there.
edit on 9-6-2011 by coughymachine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

deny ignorance and recognize that these engineers are not being paid to sell this idea.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by coughymachine

You're putting words in my mouth.


No I'm not. I directly quoted you.


If you're really going to waste time arguing the minutiae, at least get the detail right. I said (underlined for clarity), "I never use 'story', because it implies I've pre-judged the official account as a work of fiction... and I haven't. I have no interest in how others use it, nor why they use it."


You've already admitted you were mistaken about my original post. And now you seem to be having an argument about how you agree with me that "story" is not a good usage.


So, clearly, I am not concerned how "THEY" use the term 'story', and whatever concerns or faith you "suppose" I have in the "majority of "Truthers"" opinions or judgement is neither here nor there.
edit on 9-6-2011 by coughymachine because: (no reason given)


You refuse to use one of their central terms because - like me - you think it suggests a tendency to prejudge. I'm not making this up - you wrote it above. This may not "concern' you, but as I say, it hardly suggests faith in their methodology.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
No I'm not. I directly quoted you.

You're right, my apologies... I misread. I am unconcerned how others use the term 'story'.

Edit to add: I should add that, my faith in someone's - anyone's - judgement is not affected at all by their decision to use the term 'official story' just because I happen to prefer the term 'official account'.
edit on 9-6-2011 by coughymachine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.


Stop it already, bsbray. You know full flipping well I was referring to explosives, not loud noises, mainly because *you* were referring to explosives, not loud noises. If you're going to get that anally retentive in avoiding having to admit you're wrong, then fine-- there WERE NO explosions heard during the collapse of the WTC 7 and nobody ever heard explosions. Everyone head concussive sounds from the shock of dense construction materials and components colliding with each other. The average layman (including Bartmer and including myself) are using the terms "concussive sounds from the shock of dense construction materials and components colliding with each other " and "explosions" interchangably, which I accept because after a high enough decibel point every sound sounds like an explosion, while your fellow purveyors in abject paranoia are artifically perverting this as being evidence of actual explosives.

Let's get this straight once and for all- do you consider the explosions to be "concussive sounds from the shock of dense construction materials and components colliding with each other" or do you consider the explosions to be "actual explosives"? If it's the latter then your feigned innocence is a complete and utter lie, and if it's the former, then what are you even arguing about?

Sheesh, trying to get a straight answer out of you on anything is like trying to nail jam to the wall.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

It's a rhetorical question because I know they did not actually prove anything, but you apparently don't realize that yet.

So by looking for any sort of proof in their report and not being able to actually find any, I thought that might make you stop and think for a second. But of course that is a ridiculous thought, because you will never actually have to see any evidence to believe.


So you dont believe in scientific papers then, because according to you, they dont prove anything at all? Even if its all written out, researched, etc etc etc, it doesnt prove anything? What a sad sad sad world you must live in. Have you ever read a science journal, or a scientific paper? I'm willing to bet you never have. The NIST report is a scientific report written to see just how the WTC behaved and what caused it to collapse, by gathering all the data, records, known knowledge of metallurgy, demolitions, fire science, engineering, and many more fields, all compiled and tested to see if it was possible for the WTC to collapse the way they did. And their test results showed that indeed, it was very possible as it was compared to the actual events. They managed to recreate the events as best they could with what they knew. and it came out very close to the original. That is the scientific process. You see something happen in nature, you go back to the lab, research it, test it, check it, write about it. Did your tests agree with what was observed?

Did they prove 100% that this is exactly what happened? No, probably not, as there are always variables that no one can account for, but you give it your best guess. But it is pretty damn close and the best answer to what happened. And yes, even they could see that there was no actual evidence of demolition charges or explosives used. Its funny that you claim that you read through the paper and cant find any proof. Must be using those darn Truther blinders. I take it you wouldnt believe the Earth revolves around the sun, even if I gave you a paper explaining it.




First of all you have absolutely no evidence that the building started collapsing "all by itself."


And here is a demolition where you can hear charges still going off after it's already falling:




And before you start ranting, this is not a game of "spot the differences" but merely an example to prove to you that yes, charges can still go off even after the building is already falling, and it doesn't hinder the demolition in any way. It's a matter of precise timing.


Yes but what do we hear before the building started to collapse? I hear a whole series of blasts before the building even starts to shift in manner. I dont see the building starting to collapse before the blasts go off. THAT is the main issue, and THAT is the issue with Bartmer's account. What did he hear BEFORE the building started to collapse on him? Go back to his quote and reread it. He didnt hear ANYTHING until people on the radio shouted for him to run away, and then and only then he looked up. How can a building start to fall silently if it had been blown up, and how can someone stand right next to the building not hear a damn thing until the building is already collapsing? What you are saying is that this is a demolition where random blasts occur allegedly to stealthily sever important columns (and how the hell they managed to not go off during the impact of debris or the fires is beyond me) for 7 hours, and then the building starts to fall without any sound of blasts right before it moves, and the as the building is already collapsing, then the charges go off. Where were the opening blasts to get the building going? How did Bartmer miss these, along with the hundreds of firefighters and thousands of eyewitnesses in the general area? And why is it that in ALL accounts of the WTC7 collapse, no one mentions hearing series of blasts prior to the collapse? I'm not talking about kabooms people heard after 220 acres of buildings burned and collapsed burying many vehicles, severing gaslines, pressurized pipes, etc. I'm talking about actual detonations heard inside WTC7 or from WTC7. NOT that faked footage of the mono-audio/stereo explosion, and the added in nonsense that WTC7 is exploding. NOT accounts of hearing booms heard AS the building is collapsing. I want actual evidence of the detonations coming from WTC7 right before it started to collapse. You do know that in a controlled demolition, first the explosions are heard, then the building collapses. Not the other way around (unless you are far away from the area and accounting for the speed of sound).




Again you have no evidence at all that these were "random," and all commercial demolitions I have seen require pre-cutting work before the actual demolition sequence. The building in the video above is one example.


And pray tell, how did they manage to get a demolition crew into WTC7 as it was burning, leaning, tilting, and creaking, have them start blasting columns (which they somehow managed to get through the fires to get to them), plant explosives and set the wiring all inside an inferno?? Yes pre-cutting work is done in actual controlled demolitions. Show me how many have been done while inside a building is burning out of control



If you want to intentionally dumb yourself down, I can't help you. There were plenty of explosions (you know, the "BOOM BOOM BOOM"??) reported by scores of witnesses, and there was nothing even close to silent about any of the 3 collapses.


Oh boy............. Who said the collapses were silent? Unless you are willfully making a strawman argument. Silent in the sense that they collapsed without the resounding crescendo of blasts heard prior to collapse. THAT is what I mean. The fact that not one camera, recorder, or anything caught the sound of demolition charges going off prior to collapse. No sound of boom boom boom right before the collapses started. Sure people very close by heard something go boom, but what right do you have to claim THAT is ample evidence of demolitions or explosions caused by bombs? Why cant it be the sound of a floor falling on the floor below it, or a steel beam snapping? The buildings just started to collapse without much audible warning, and then made a hell of a lot of racket. Where are the blasts here?

How can the collapse be louder the blasts? This is what is meant by "silently collapsed". As in, they collapsed without a bang. All is heard is a roar that got louder. Not large blasts. A blast powerful enough to cut through the large steel pieces in the WTCs would have been VERY loud and very noticable prior to collapse. But as usual, you are just going to go back on the tried and true truther method of, "People heard booms. Dont know what they were, but that is enough evidence of demolition, because no one can explain them to my satisfaction."



And you obviously prefer make-believe, with all of your erroneous assumptions and false statements.


Erroneous assumptions? False statements? Me? What exactly?
edit on 6/9/2011 by GenRadek because: added more




top topics



 
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join