Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

The fact is there are no scientists that support the OS fairytale.

NO scientists? this is a fact?

A&E proved NIST was a fraud.

AE has proven nothing.. not if you are using the word PROVEN correctly..

Most scientist and engineers supports demolition because scientifically this is the only thing that explains the demise of all three WTC.

most scientists certainly do not.. not even close..

Unless you have some evidence that prove that all three WTC were not demo, then I would have to say you will be the first in 10 years to present it

no I cannot prove that they were not CD, but no one has yet proven that they were.. and the burden of proof is not on me.. its on anyone who believes that the OS (as its called) is wrong..

We are not here to “assume,” and call them the facts.

but they are reasonable assumptions..

Care to explain how hundreds of tons of support beams were blasted over 500 feet in every direction from WTC 1&2, this does not scientifically support a straight down natural collapse does it?

blasted? kind of an assumption there huh? lots of downward force there, and as you probably know, two things cannot occupy the same space at the same time, so obviously as the building collapsed, downward force cause the ejection of certain items, that were in the way of the greater gravitational downward force

reply to post by ANOK


hey, your at the top of Adam Larsons list

anyway, why cant the outer walls be on top in a non controlled demo?
and why must they be in a controlled one?
also those are not the entire outer walls either, just significant chunks..

Originally posted by pccat
reply to post by ANOK

 

hey, your at the top of Adam Larsons list

anyway, why cant the outer walls be on top in a non controlled demo?
and why must they be in a controlled one?
also those are not the entire outer walls either, just significant chunks..

So, the outer walls, in your theory...should have remained in tact and stretched over city blocks in either direction if it was CD?

reply to post by DIDtm


no of course not, my point was that those pieces could have wound up on top in EITHER scenario..

Originally posted by pccat
reply to post by DIDtm

 

no of course not, my point was that those pieces could have wound up on top in EITHER scenario..

Using your logic then, not all of the buildings would have ended up with the sides on top....

YET..............

I just find how fascinating how much spin and embellishment the truthers always put o their material. We have a couple of supposed engineers who never even botherd to read the NIST report blindly repeat the exact same tired rhetorical questions these damned fool conspiracy web sites are pushing out, and how is it presented?

"Engineers request permission to speak freely regarding WTC 7"

Crackpots like Alex Jones and con artists like Dylan Avery have been "speaking freely" about WTC 7, Shanksvilles, the Pentagon, missile pods, secret agents smugling mysterious objects out of the Pentagon, and I forget what else, all without anyone getting any visit from any gov't ninja with a silenced pistol. Yet, the conspiracy people still insist on raping the truth and presenting it in a way that artifically instigates false paranoia like this. If they genuinely have the truth on thir side then why do they insist on changing things around to their liking?

Just WHO do these engineers need to "request permission" from when Alex Jones and Dylan Avery aren't bothering to ask permission, and just WHAT is stopping them from "speaking freely" when nothing seems to be stopping Alex Jones or Dylan Avery from speaking freely?

Originally posted by pccat

hey, your at the top of Adam Larsons list

Yes hilarious isn't it?

anyway, why cant the outer walls be on top in a non controlled demo?

Because the mass of the building would stop them, and the only place they have to go is empty space, path of least resistance, outwards. As the building comes down the debris falls down and out, pushing the outer walls down and out as the debris falls over the top of them. To get the outer walls to fall inwards you have to create a space and vacuum inside the building to give a space for the walls to fall inwards. This is what happens in an implosion demolition...

Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

and why must they be in a controlled one?

Because there is no way a natural collapse could have been timed perfectly in order to allow the building to collapse in it's footprint. The outer walls being on top of the debris pile is the definition of 'in it's own footprint' when it comes to implosion style demolition. It is the point of implosion demolition, and simply illogical to think a natural collapse could mimic that naturally.

This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

science.howstuffworks.com...

They're not lying you know.

also those are not the entire outer walls either, just significant chunks..

It doesn't matter. You can see all four walls from the bottom up to a significant height. As the walls fall inwards the top most sections are all going to be mixed in with the rubble pile. If it was a natural collapse the bottom of the walls would be the most covered, as they are right where all the rubble would pour out. The top of the building, and outer walls, would have been the furthest away from the footprint as the rubble would spread out.

But you know all this is irrelevant really as no one can yet show any evidence as to why the building started collapsing in the first place. Fire can not cause a steel building to fall symmetrically, let alone land mostly in its own footprint. Implosion demolition is the most logical answer, however much that bothers you and questions your beliefs.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I just find how fascinating how much spin and embellishment the truthers always put o their material.

Here comes the heckling from the peanut gallery....

No one is spinning anything other than you OSers. No one has mentioned those people you talk about.

Why don't you actually contribute to the discussion at hand, instead of your constant running cometary on what you think of 'truthers'? It's not helping anything but your ego. Your opinions prove nothing.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I just find how fascinating how much spin and embellishment the truthers always put o their material.

Here comes the heckling from the peanut gallery....

No one is spinning anything other than you OSers. No one has mentioned those people you talk about.

Dude, you must think you're in another thread. THIS thread specifically asks, and I quote:

"Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7"

So my asking why these engineers need to ask permission to speak freely and my asking why they need to ask permission when noone else...including you...seems to need to ask permission is a legitimate question. Your not liking me askign such an embarassing question by no means makes it any less of a legitimate question.

Why don't you actually contribute to the discussion at hand, instead of your constant running cometary on what you think of 'truthers'? It's not helping anything but your ego. Your opinions prove nothing.

You are absolutely correct. My opinions mean nothing. The lesson you truthers are refusing to learn is that your opinions likewise mean nothing. It's facts people want, not opinions sinister plots to take over the world, armies of secret gov't ninjas murdering thousands of innocent people, or what have you. If you can't getyour conspiracy claims past a nobody like me then what do you expect will happen in any independent investigation you might get in the future?

Originally posted by pccat
I am not going to get into a back and forth endless debate.. I have nothing to defend, nor do I feel a need to down play anything..

That's a typical response from someone when they have nothing to argue. When even the government is forced to admit that yes, WTC7 accelerated at free-fall, where else do you have to run anyway?

WTC7 falling into its own footprint (more or less) is indicative of structural failure, not necessarily controlled implosion..

Yet you were just denying that this happened at all, when it's more than obvious. And what makes you say it's "indicative of structural failure"? Obviously the structure "failed," but can you point to any other example of a skyscraper falling into its own footprint like this? No. Now you will say, but x, y, and z are different about WTC7 too, and that may be true, but it is still a lie to say that this is indicative of a natural failure when there is no precedent for any such thing at all.

I have found very few, better explanations for the WTC7 events than these links here..
www.debunking911.com...
www.debunking911.com...

Of course, just defer to a JREF troll's website that hasn't been updated in several years. That website has no credibility at all. I could make, and actually have maintained a more professional site than that in the past. Does that give me any more credibility? No.

Just wondering, has anyone done any research into mysterious deaths of demolition experts after 9/11/2001?

There are a lot of people out there who simply don't buy the OS. I wish they would stop putting so much energy into arguing the toss with those who do, especially about the collapse of WTC-7 and, instead, find new angles.

No one can deny the collapse of WTC-7 looks a little like a controlled demolition... even if they don't believe it was. In fact, if Silverstein had said that, because of who the tenants were and the sensitive nature of the information they held, the buidling had been primed to collapse in a controlled manner years ago as a contingency under certain situations, I don't believe anyone who currently believes the OS who would have doubted it.

But, he didn't say this and no one will ever be able to prove it was demolished from analysing YouTube videos or still photographs. The only way to prove it, forensically, would be to analyse the physical evidence and, 10 years on, I'm not sure there is enough of it left to conduct a thorough analysis anyway.

Then we have the OS theories which, whilst inconclusive to some, cannot be categorically disproven.

I believe the only way to discover whether any members of the US goverment or its agencies were actively involved in the planning and execution this attack is to find someone willing to talk on the record... someone who is not only willing to talk, but who can provide enough hard supporting evidence to give others the courage to do likewise.

Until then, you might all just as well cut 'n' paste comments from 10-year old ATS threads and save yourselves the effort of trying to come up with an original way of expressing old arguments.

so they found the blasting caps finally ?

Originally posted by pccat
these engineers are spouting the same naive arguments that have been torn to shreads right here on ATS.. amazing.. the first two are subtle opinions, but Brookman, Inman and Mason obviously do not have all of the facts, and have also more obviously ignored the witnesses..

It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire...

WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building...

collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed...

these guys are definitely not up to speed on all the nuances recently discussed..

THEN POST SOME OF THEM.......HOLY CRAP...all i'm reading here is I KNOW SOMETHING YOU DON'T BUT YOU CAN'T KNOW, KEEP BEING WRONG SO I CAN CALL YOU OUT IN THE FUTURE...THANKSsssssss

reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy


There is a very, very logical question that NONE of the "conspiracy" theorists will pay attention to, RE: WTC 7:

Why, if this were a "controlled demolition", didn't this "planned" CD occur at, oh...11 AM? Or, 3 PM?


Instead, the building exhibited all the indications (as have been recorded, and these facts pointed out time and again) of a damaged structure, from collateral debris, and the ensuing raging fires that went un-fought. Eventually, after the period of time when it was observed to be under intense stress, and showing signs of imminent failure, it finally began, with a portion that let go, and the cascade that followed.

Furthermore, in the aftermath of the area clean-up, numerous other buildings that, due to their particular design, had withstood the collateral damage, and ensuing fires, still had to be torn down because they were too badly damaged to be repaired.

WTC 7, with only slightly different impact pattern, a different internal design arrangement (no huge open atrium, for example) and any number of differences, in the way the fires spread, etc....could very well NOT have collapsed, and undergone the demolition later, as did those other buildings.


Finally, it is beyond ridiculous to make the (unsupportable, with no evidence whatsoever) claim that just because of some tenants, it *needed* to be taken down, as occurred....to, what? "hide" something? What was "hidden", exactly?? Wouldn't it still be there, after the building collapsed??

No, the 'conspiracy' people flap their gums, and distract from logic and reason by making this something it isn't.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Finally, it is beyond ridiculous to make the (unsupportable, with no evidence whatsoever) claim that just because of some tenants, it *needed* to be taken down, as occurred....to, what? "hide" something? What was "hidden", exactly?? Wouldn't it still be there, after the building collapsed??

If this is aimed at my earlier post, then you've missed my point completely. Please re-read what I wrote.

I did NOT put this forward as a theory.

reply to post by coughymachine


I composed my reply to the OP, as best it seemed to me, the premise presented.

Not to any of your posts, which I actually do not recall, specifically.

(Of course, now...you've piqued my interest, so will have to go read it).

Originally posted by weedwhacker
There is a very, very logical question that NONE of the "conspiracy" theorists will pay attention to, RE: WTC 7:

Why, if this were a "controlled demolition", didn't this "planned" CD occur at, oh...11 AM? Or, 3 PM?
...
No, the 'conspiracy' people flap their gums, and distract from logic and reason by making this something it isn't.....

Can you explain to me why the choice of what time it came down is more important than the physics of the collapse itself?

One is subject to human judgment (detonation time) but the other is consistent and does not change (physics). And you want to debate make a debate about someone's judgment, rather than the physics. Seems to me like you are the one doing all the gum-flapping.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Can you explain to me why the choice of what time it came down is more important than the physics of the collapse itself?

Well, for one thing, it was your fellow conspiracy theorists here who informed me that a countdown to the demolition was broadcasted over open Red Cross frequencies...and why the F the Red Cross would be involved in controlled demolitions is beyond me, but I digress...which necessarily means that there was a timed schedule when WTC would have come down. It's the whole reason why you see people synchronizing their watches in those war movies- everyone was ordered to kick off at some specific time so everyone needed to know exactly when that specific time was and that the specific time was the same for everyone else. These supposed conspirators are not going to count down to some arbitrary time out of the blue because all the conspirators need to know exactly when they're expected to, well, do whatever the conspirators need to do to pull off the most convoluted conspiracy in all of recorded human history. They counted down to the exact previously decided upon time that the WTC was planned to come down. You know that and so do I.

This is what happens when the conspiracy people throw accusations and hypothesis around willy nilly. Sooner or later their own words come back to haunt them. I'd like to see how these "engineers requestion permision to speak freely" about WTC 7 would have to say about that.

Originally posted by SatoriTheory

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy

 

Many are waking up to the reality that 911 was an inside job; however scary many deem it to be, that the U.S Government and Israel(Mossad) May have been in collusion to commit such an atrocity on the United states and murder 3000 innocent people. So they could justify going to War in the Middle-East.

Its just sickening down with the Government!

Do you really think they needed to do that just to go to war? Don't you think if they had just dive bombed the Pentagon the US would have went to war? Don't you ever ask yourself why such a huge event? An event that captured the worlds attention. Don't you feel it was bigger than it needed to be? It's as if they wanted to plant a seed that people would not forget.

If just a portion of the pentagon was damage, a portion that was supposedly empty, a portion that was under current renovation at the time of the incident, the american people would not have banded together and offered the support that they did.

In other words.... the pulling of the towers and WTC7 was a psychological play to get the people of America wanting some kind of revenge or retribution.... which allows the governmental powers to easily enact a plan to go to war with nations under false pretense......

People forgot about the pentagon, the media still basically only refers to the Towers when talking about anything involving that incident.