Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I couldnt have said it better myself Dave.

Bartmer didnt even notice anything was wrong with the WTC7, as he was standing right next to it (didnt he say he didnt see or hear anything that would hint at possible collapse of the building?), and was only warned by the radio yelling for everyone to run like hell, and it was only then did he notice a 47 story building coming down at him. How could he have missed those demolition charges going off, which wold have gotten the building moving? I cannot get a straight answer from anyone.

It amazes me how some people think. They claim its a controlled demolition with explosives that were planted, but dont the demo charges have to go off first before the building starts to move? And if so, then how the hell were they missed by people standing right freaking next to the building???? Any blast powerful enough to sever steel columns, would have knocked people on their butts if they were standing right next to the building. But Bartmer only got wind of something amiss when the radio is what "exploded" with shouts to run! Thats about the only "explosive" part of his testimony.

reply to post by GenRadek


It really is a mute argument as to whether explosives were heard or not.

Regardless of whether they were heard, a building that lands in its own footprint has to have logically been a controlled demolition.





Pretty obvious if you know what you're looking at. Visual evidence trumps hearsay every time.

reply to post by ANOK

Ignoring the damage done to Fiterman Hall then?

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by ANOK

 

Ignoring the damage done to Fiterman Hall then?

No. Some damage is to be expected. Look how close it is to the other buildings.

No matter how you look at it the building landed mostly in its footprint, causing minimum damage to surrounding buildings.

Is this the damage you're talking about?



Look like that was from flying debris, proves nothing either way.

Originally posted by GenRadek
Bartmer didnt even notice anything was wrong with the WTC7, as he was standing right next to it

You're wrong. He said he saw the hole in WTC7. And he saw the fires. He goes on to say that he didn't see any hole that would threaten to bring the whole building down. But wait -- isn't that what the NIST report on WTC7 also said? Whoops, looks like the firefighters who were claiming the hole was going to cause a global collapse were just perpetuating stupidity even according to the official government report on that building's collapse.

That's to be expected though, since firefighters are not actually structural engineers and even if they were, it would be impossible for them to have scientifically predicted such a thing since nothing like it had ever happened on the face of the Earth before and it took NIST several years to even create a model that looks nothing like the actual collapse.


What else about Bartmer? Oh yeah, he was actually there, standing by the building. You weren't. "Dave" wasn't either. You talk about there not being any explosions associated with the collapse and yet that is exactly where this actual eyewitness disagrees with you. Then "Dave" even goes on to admit "of course there was "BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM"" and yet he's still ignorantly asking where there is any evidence of explosions?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GenRadek
Bartmer didnt even notice anything was wrong with the WTC7, as he was standing right next to it

You're wrong. He said he saw the hole in WTC7. And he saw the fires. He goes on to say that he didn't see any hole that would threaten to bring the whole building down. But wait -- isn't that what the NIST report on WTC7 also said? Whoops, looks like the firefighters who were claiming the hole was going to cause a global collapse were just perpetuating stupidity even according to the official government report on that building's collapse.

I meant that he didnt hear or see anything that would cause a collapse. Wait a sec. Which firefighters said the hole was going to cause a global collapse? You actually have proof of this? A firefighter said, "Well, it looks that hole is gonna bring down the whole building,"? Or are you twisting what firefighters said about the condition of the building as the fires progressed throughout the day?

That's to be expected though, since firefighters are not actually structural engineers and even if they were, it would be impossible for them to have scientifically predicted such a thing since nothing like it had ever happened on the face of the Earth before and it took NIST several years to even create a model that looks nothing like the actual collapse.

True, firefighters are not structural engineers. However, they are trained in what to look for in the event of possible building instability. They are trained to spot important signs of structural instability, such as: visible deformation of the structure, any leaning or tilting, gaps or bulges forming in structures, doors that cannot close or due to shifts in the walls, any visible movement, or invisible movement that can be tracked with a surveyor transit (which WAS done on WTC7 prior to collapse), and many more signals. Yeah, who would have known a 47 story building would collapse? But hey, after careful observations and measurements taken with a transit, they deduced that this building was going to collapse.

www.uvasfire.org...
Read the above link on what exactly firefighters are trained to look for in building fires and possible signs of impending collapse. Be sure to read ALL of them. Then go back to what actual firefighters stated about the conditions in WTC7. Bartmer was not a firefighter, ergo, he was not given this sort of training. What would he know if a building was going to collapse or not? But trained firefighters did. I'll take the word of a firefighter, over the word of Bartmer any day.

What else about Bartmer? Oh yeah, he was actually there, standing by the building. You weren't. "Dave" wasn't either. You talk about there not being any explosions associated with the collapse and yet that is exactly where this actual eyewitness disagrees with you. Then "Dave" even goes on to admit "of course there was "BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM"" and yet he's still ignorantly asking where there is any evidence of explosions?

So why does Bartmer leave out any mention of explosions getting his attention to WTC7? I mean do I have to spell it out for you with sock puppets? According to his very own account, the building started to collapse without any warning, and only after it started to collapse, did he hear anything. So how can you sit there are argue that Bartmer heard explosions during the collapse, but ignore the most fundamental fact that in order to get a building to start collapsing, you have to detonate the charges FIRST. THEN you can have the building collapse. Let me repeat that and type real s-l-o-w-l-y for you so you can understand better.
In ANY building demolitions with explosives, the building will not move until AFTER the charges have gone off. NEVER before. You will never have a building rigged with explosives, collapse, without having its demo charges go off first. I dare you to show me actual instances of this ever occurring. Bartmer did not hear anything and didnt notice anything, until people started to yell on the radio. How can he forget to mention hearing initial blasts, or "booms" before the collapse?

Yeah there was boom boom boom, after it started to collapse. Where was it before its started to? Answer me that, and stop playing around. Answer me the simple question, where were the booms before the collapse started, and why did he ignore to mention them, until after its started to collapse?

reply to post by ANOK


What proof do you have that a building, if it falls into its own footprint, must be a controlled demolition? Is there a demolition handbook that states this, or some engineering manual on building collapses that states this?

Or is this just another example of your personal incredulity standing in for actual facts?

reply to post by GenRadek

What proof do you have that a building, if it falls into its own footprint, must be a controlled demolition? Is there a demolition handbook that states this, or some engineering manual on building collapses that states this?
Or is this just another example of your personal incredulity standing in for actual facts?

What facts do you have that support the OS narrative? What have you been able to prove that demolition did not take place?
I am to assume that you believe that all these scientist & Engineers are stupid as well?
I have never seen you use science to debunk any of these technical papers written by the experts in their fields.
www.ae911truth.org...
Or are you going to make the claim that A&E is a Dam Fools Conspiracy website to?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GenRadek
Bartmer didnt even notice anything was wrong with the WTC7, as he was standing right next to it

You're wrong. He said he saw the hole in WTC7. And he saw the fires. He goes on to say that he didn't see any hole that would threaten to bring the whole building down. But wait -- isn't that what the NIST report on WTC7 also said? Whoops, looks like the firefighters who were claiming the hole was going to cause a global collapse were just perpetuating stupidity even according to the official government report on that building's collapse.

So then how do you explain Barry Jennings, the WTC 7 survivor who was trapped inside the building when the north tower fell? He specifically said that the lobby looked as if King King came through and smashed the place up. There are three and only three possible explanations-

a) Jennings was lying about the massive internal damage to the interior of the building and Bartmer was correct about WTC 7 suffering only superficial damage, OR

b) Bartmer was lying about the building only receiving superficial damage and Jennings was right about WTC 7 suffering massing internal damage, OR

c) neither Jennings nor Bartmer are lying because neither testimony contradicts the other. Bartmer only describes the outside of the building and doesn't go into detail about the interior of the building, while Jennings only describes the internal damage and doesn't go into detail about the outside of the building. Bartmer likewsie doesn't give his timeline of how he circled the building so he doesn't say whether he was in the vicinity at the time to see what NYFD Peter Hayden was seeing. Of course, this necessarily means...

d) YOU are lying, or to be precise, those damned fool conspiracy web sites you get all your information from, as they're picking and choosing which person to quote as it suits their purpose. They'll quote Jenninngs while conveniently forgetting what Bartmer says one moment, and then quote Bartmer while conveniently forgetting what Jennings said the next. OF course, they'll pretend Peter Hayden doesn't even exist at all. You're simply getting annoyed that we are quoting them together and you don't like that the end result of what they're saying is contradicting what you yourself want to believe.

You're starting to become notorious for being slippery around no-win questions that only damage your ulterior motives. Can you give a straight answer on this, at least- why the heck does it have to be the case with you conspiracy people that you insist *somebody* among the eyewitnesses just has to be lying?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

So then how do you explain Barry Jennings, the WTC 7 survivor who was trapped inside the building when the north tower fell? He specifically said that the lobby looked as if King King came through and smashed the place up. There are three and only three possible explanations-

You are wrong and you know it, Barry Jennings made it very clear that WTC 1 & 2 was standing when WTC 7 exploded.
Watch the video where Jennings said WTC 1&2 was standing after WTC 7 exploded!

World Exclusive: WTC7 Survivor Barry Jennings Account!!

www.youtube.com...=317

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall. [FOXNews]
"We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own or it would be taken down..."

whatreallyhappened.com...

Video evidence supports nothing but demolition.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

d) YOU are lying, or to be precise, those damned fool conspiracy web sites you get all your information from, as they're picking and choosing which person to quote as it suits their purpose. They'll quote Jenninngs while conveniently forgetting what Bartmer says one moment, and then quote Bartmer while conveniently forgetting what Jennings said the next. OF course, they'll pretend Peter Hayden doesn't even exist at all. You're simply getting annoyed that we are quoting them together and you don't like that the end result of what they're saying is contradicting what you yourself want to believe.

Look who is cherry picking information. How convenient of you to leave out the most important part of Jenninngs statement, that the WTC 1&2 where standing when WTC 7 exploded. Before you start crying and accusing other people of cherry picking information perhaps you should get your facts straight first.

It certainly looks like you are the one in here picking and choosing information to try and make the OS credible and by talking down to everyone who does not support you versions of the OS fantasies.
Apparently it looks like you are having a problem with the end results, no one else is.

reply to post by impressme


AE9/11T are a bunch of experts???? They actually wrote real technical papers??? I'd sure like to read them myself. I like fiction!

Thanks for the laugh impressme! I needed that!

For a bunch of experts, they sure do suck at their fields. I mean the garbage they wrote on the side bar, with their "list" of issues with the WTC. I mean come on!! Pyroclastic clouds?? REALLY?? No evidence of destruction by fire of WTC1,2 or 7? REALLY??

That whole group is a joke, and a bad one at that.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So then how do you explain Barry Jennings, the WTC 7 survivor who was trapped inside the building when the north tower fell? He specifically said that the lobby looked as if King King came through and smashed the place up.

Actually that is not what he "specifically" said, so either you don't know what "specific" means or you are lying again.

And that's not something for me to explain, that's something for you to explain, since you believe the official fairy tale, and nothing about that fairy tale explains why the lobby should have been destroyed before WTC7 collapsed.

c) neither Jennings nor Bartmer are lying because neither testimony contradicts the other. Bartmer only describes the outside of the building and doesn't go into detail about the interior of the building, while Jennings only describes the internal damage and doesn't go into detail about the outside of the building.

That's exactly the case but I'm sure you already realize as much.


Bartmer said there was no exterior damage that would cause the entire building to collapse. NIST even agreed with him after "investigating" that "collapse" for years. They both disagreed with all the laymen firefighters who were obviously confused and in shock about what they had just witnessed.

NO ONE has explained why the interior of WTC7 would be destroyed except the witness you cite, Barry Jenkins, who said there were explosions inside the building. People also heard explosions from WTC7 from outside, and there are even videos with people commenting on these. There are also 3 seismic events in 10 minute intervals shown by FEMA in their report that occurred after the Twin Towers had both collapsed, and what else? At least one witness described to mainstream media that there were explosions in similar intervals in the area during that time.


First you asked why there were no explosions coming from WTC7 when it collapsed, then you said "of course there would be BOOM BOOM BOOM," I mean come on man. What in the hell kind of sense are you even trying to make? None that I can see.

reply to post by GenRadek

AE9/11T are a bunch of experts???? They actually wrote real technical papers???

I'd sure like to read them myself. I like fiction!

Who are you trying to appeal to?
How can you say “fiction” when you have demonstrated that you have never read them?

For a bunch of experts, they sure do suck at their fields. I mean the garbage they wrote on the side bar, with their "list" of issues with the WTC. I mean come on!! Pyroclastic clouds?? REALLY?? No evidence of destruction by fire of WTC1,2 or 7? REALLY??

And you want to talk about Truthers being out of reach. “Pyroclastic clouds?? REALLY??” are you denying that there wasn’t Pyroclastic clouds, if so on what scientific evidence can you provide to prove that all these professionals are wrong and the News media videos filming these Pyroclastic clouds when WTC 1&2 came down are a figment of everyone imagination ?

reply to post by impressme

And you want to talk about Truthers being out of reach. “Pyroclastic clouds?? REALLY??” are you denying that there wasn’t Pyroclastic clouds, if so on what scientific evidence can you provide to prove that all these professionals are wrong and the News media videos filming these Pyroclastic clouds when WTC 1&2 came down are a figment of everyone imagination ?

Do you have any clue what a pyroclastic cloud is? If there were pyroclastic clouds on 9/11 in Manhattan after the collapse of the towers we would have tens of thousands of dead New Yorkers. They are the leading cause of death in a volcanic eruption. Temperatures inside pyroclastic clouds can reach hundreds of degrees.

There was a big cloud of dust on 9/11 as the buildings collapsed. As there is any time a building collapses. It was not pyroclastic. The idea that technical "experts" would you such a term so erroneously just goes to prove how unprofessional they truly are and why no attention is paid to them.

reply to post by hooper


Do you have any clue what a pyroclastic cloud is? If there were pyroclastic clouds on 9/11 in Manhattan after the collapse of the towers we would have tens of thousands of dead New Yorkers. They are the leading cause of death in a volcanic eruption. Temperatures inside pyroclastic clouds can reach hundreds of degrees.

cms.ae911truth.org...

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

Your point is entirely correct yet ATS user impressme gets the win for being right

In case anyone is confused Spam is a chicken like prouct - it is not chicken and a pyroclastic-like cloud is not a pyroclastic cloud.

Now should I take a leaf out of the book of some ATS users and accuse people of cherry picking facts to suit their argument?

edit to add

The idea that technical "experts" would you such a term so erroneously just goes to prove how unprofessional they truly are and why no attention is paid to them.

Once again language is a failing ' why no attention is paid to them' well I pay attention to them. The OS is a classic case in Papal Fallibility.

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy


So why do the idiots at A&E911 keep using the misleading term "pyroclastic like cloud"instead of the more accurate term cloud of dust ?
After all it is not hot ash from a volcano it is mostly dust from the spray on fire proofing.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Actually that is not what he "specifically" said, so either you don't know what "specific" means or you are lying again.

You are right. This isn't what he "specifically" said. What he did "specifically" say is:

"When they finally got to us, and they took us down to what, what they, they, uh, called
the lobby. 'cause I actually, when we got down there, I said: "Where are we?" He said: "This was the lobby." And I said: "You gotta be kidding me!" Total ruins. Totally destroyed. It looked like King Kong had came through and stepped on it.. Now keep in mind when I came in here, the lobby had nice escalators. It's a huge lobby. And for me to see what I saw, it's unbelievable." -Barry Jennings

The man said the lobby was "totally destroyed" and "it looked like King Kong had came through and stepped on it", so it's irrefutable that the interior of the building suffered catastrophic damage. I don't know what your ultimate goal was in this stunt to accuse me of lying and pretend this wasn't what Barry Jennings was saying, so I'll just presume it's yet another of your adolescent attempts to avoid having to admit you're wrong.

You know, like how you brought up that whole "Saddam Hussen responsible for 9/11" bit that only wound up blowing up in your face? When are you going to stop running away and answer the question? I asked you three times already.

And that's not something for me to explain, that's something for you to explain, since you believe the official fairy tale, and nothing about that fairy tale explains why the lobby should have been destroyed before WTC7 collapsed.

Ooooh, naughty naughty! I didn't ask about why the lobby should have been destroyed. I asked about why Jennings' eyewitness testimony apparently contradicts Bartmer's testimony, and the answer is obvious- it doesn't. You conspiracy mongors are disingenuously cherry picking their eyewitness account out of context to artifically infllate your credibility, so the contradictions are entirely due to the propaganda campaign being introduced by you people.

I'm not quoting anything but the things you people have been posting here, dude. It was you and your own fellow conspiracy mongers who first told me about Barry Jennings to begin with.

Bartmer said there was no exterior damage that would cause the entire building to collapse. NIST even agreed with him after "investigating" that "collapse" for years. They both disagreed with all the laymen firefighters who were obviously confused and in shock about what they had just witnessed.

Ohhhhh I get it...you're pulling your anal retentive tricks again. You're absolutely right- there WAS no exterior damage that would cause the entire building to collapse because exterior damage doesn't cause buildings to collapse. There has to be interior damage for loss of structural integrity to occur. Namely, the interior impact damage that Barry Jennings reported and the out of control fires that Peter Hayden reported.

...and just who are the "laymen firefighters" you're referring to? I'll go out on a limb and venture a guess...are they the ones who are saying things that you don't want to be true?

NO ONE has explained why the interior of WTC7 would be destroyed except the witness you cite, Barry Jenkins, who said there were explosions inside the building. People also heard explosions from WTC7 from outside, and there are even videos with people commenting on these. There are also 3 seismic events in 10 minute intervals shown by FEMA in their report that occurred after the Twin Towers had both collapsed, and what else? At least one witness described to mainstream media that there were explosions in similar intervals in the area during that time.

I already pointed out in a previous post that people were using "explosions" and "concussive noises from large structural components colliding with each other" interchangably, and I already pointed out the "explosions six seconds before the WTC 7 collapsed" was from the penthouse collapsing into the interior of the building (which every video of the collase proves), so your continued attempts to rewrite eyewitness and video testimonies to your liking is futile.

FYI his name is Barry Jennings, not Barry Jenkins. Why do I need to explain to you what your own conspiracy stories are?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by ANOK

 

Ignoring the damage done to Fiterman Hall then?

No. Some damage is to be expected. Look how close it is to the other buildings.

No matter how you look at it the building landed mostly in its footprint, causing minimum damage to surrounding buildings.

Is this the damage you're talking about?



Look like that was from flying debris, proves nothing either way.

Good point. Even if we take into account the damage of the supposedly weight carrying corner, the collapse should have been towards the damaged section, not into its own footpring, straight down, the way of most resistance. At least thats what i have been told.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The man said the lobby was "totally destroyed" and "it looked like King Kong had came through and stepped on it", so it's irrefutable that the interior of the building suffered catastrophic damage.

Right, and he attributed it to explosions going off, if you consult his total testimony. No one has ever presented evidence of any invisible debris from WTC1 flying through the lobby before it even collapsed or any other fairy tale you would have to believe, for his testimony to be in any way compatible with the official story.

And that's not something for me to explain, that's something for you to explain, since you believe the official fairy tale, and nothing about that fairy tale explains why the lobby should have been destroyed before WTC7 collapsed.

Ooooh, naughty naughty! I didn't ask about why the lobby should have been destroyed. I asked about why Jennings' eyewitness testimony apparently contradicts Bartmer's testimony, and the answer is obvious- it doesn't.

Then you asked a stupid question that you already knew the correct answer to, didn't you? What's your point?

You conspiracy mongors are disingenuously cherry picking their eyewitness account out of context to artifically infllate your credibility, so the contradictions are entirely due to the propaganda campaign being introduced by you people.

So you think by showing that two testimonies that support the "truth movement" don't contradict each other, you someone prove that all the testimonies that are contradicted within the "official story" aren't actually contradictions? Why do you even waste your time posting blatant fallacies like this?

The fact remains that the firefighters claimed the building was going to "collapse" (not even globally collapse), based on a hole they saw in the building created by a single piece of flying debris, that even the official NIST report on WTC7 claimed played an insignificant role in that building's "collapse." That is a direct contradiction between the firefighters' layman conjecture and NIST's unsupported final hypothesis.

I already pointed out in a previous post that people were using "explosions" and "concussive noises from large structural components colliding with each other" interchangably,

Wrong again. Show me where I anywhere claimed these noises were "concussive noises from large structural components colliding with each other." There is no evidence of that, and Bartmer himself even says they were explosions and that he believes he knows what explosions going off are when he hears them. That "BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM" is specifically not to be confused with failing steel according to his testimony, and you are trying to put words in his mouth and still lying.

And he was there, and you weren't. All you are doing is trying to replace an eyewitness account with layman conjecture when you weren't even there, because you can't accept being wrong.