Engineers Request Permission to Speak Freely Regarding World Trade Building 7

Originally posted by GenRadek
So are you now going into the tried an true "truther" mantra of "if it sounded like an explosion, then it most certainly is, 100% proof of explosives used and it demoed"?

No, I'm just pointing out that the phrase "hushabooms" is 100% stupid because there were explosions.

You can pretend whatever you like caused them, because no one ever proved what was causing them all anyway.

But you can't say there weren't any damned explosions when there were explosions.


Leave it to a "debunker" to not understand.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
And for all you know, those issues were discussed in the closed door sessions and not placed into the report for security reasons. For which, you do not have a need to know.

I think you're clutching at straws. I'm afraid I don't accept that Farmer's admission he had heard about the allegations surrounding Mahmoud would have constituted a threat to national security... that's simply absurd. Just as it is absurd to argue he had never heard about them. He should have known.

Although terrorist funding was never properly investigated by the Commission, some staff members did produce a Monograph on Terrorist Financing, which relies, in part, on a US government investigation, the details of which appear in the monograph as Appendix A: The Financing of the 9/11 Plot).

You should note that, although the Commission did not carry out their own investigation, "the Commissioners have been briefed on the [Monologue on Terrorist Financing] and have had the opportunity to review earlier drafts of some of this work."

Again, how could this man NOT have known about these allegations, even if the public disclosure of the details was deemed to be a threat to national security???

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GenRadek
So are you now going into the tried an true "truther" mantra of "if it sounded like an explosion, then it most certainly is, 100% proof of explosives used and it demoed"?

No, I'm just pointing out that the phrase "hushabooms" is 100% stupid because there were explosions.

You can pretend whatever you like caused them, because no one ever proved what was causing them all anyway.

But you can't say there weren't any damned explosions when there were explosions.

It's only those damned fool conspiracy web sites you go to who's claiming anyone ever said there were no explosions. Of course there were explosions. These explosions had nothing to do with the collapse of the building or else the building would have collapsed the exact moment people heard them. If you're claiming they were bombs intended to damage the building for it to fall later then they aren't controlled demolitions- they're just bombs. What the heck do you think controlled demolitions are, anyway, just a funny title some marketing guy came up with as a gimmick? They're precision demolitions timed to go off in a mathematically precise order to bring a structure down, not just randomly like some drunk guy was trying to play The Mexican Hat Dance song on the detonator.

The explosions everyone heard were the flammable items in the building that exploded randomly when the fires reached them- electrical transformers, generators, fuel tanks, pressurized pipes, etc- all of which were irrefutably known to have been in the building. The floor immediately below WTC 2 was a mechanical floor dedicated to holding all of these items and it was the first floor to have thousands of gallons of aviation fuel dumped into it from the impact. How could there NOT have been explosions?

What the hushaboom term refers to is the lack of explosions, flashes, and other signs prevalent in every other controlled demolitions job AT THE MOMENT OF THE COLLAPSE, which every video of the collapse proves weren't there. Either your imagined conspirators invented a new explosive that detonated *and* generated 1200 degrees of heat to melt steel *and* did it while remaining completely quiet *and* without emitting a single lumen, OR, you're grasping at straws and misrepresenting the facts because you're desperate to push your "secret conspiracy" stories onto other people. Care to guess which one my money is on?

Leave it to a "debunker" to not understand.

Oh, no, I understand fully, all right. You WANT these secret sinister conspiracies of yours to be true. Can you give me even ONE example in any time in history when a building was demolished from the inside out like WTC 7 was? No you can not. You conspiracy people are making this baloney up to suit your own abject paranoia and we both know it.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Easy- I view the "secret hushaboom controlled demolitions" claims

Already another straw-man.

There were no freaking "hushabooms" when you have scores of witnesses testifying to numerous explosions throughout the day from all 3 buildings, from various locations in each of them.

Just another lie you constantly perpetuate.

...and none of them were responsible for bringing down the building or else the building would have come down at that very moment they were heard, not a half hour later. Do you know what controlled demolitions even are?

So where is your evidence that Saddam Hussein destroyed the Twin Towers?

There is absolutely nothing but uncorroborated accusations that show Saddam Hussein destroyed the tower, so I will be intellectually honest and renounce the claim as being false. As you have equally absolutely nothing but uncorroborated accusations that show the towers were brought down by secret controlled demolitions theories, will you be equally as intellectually honest and renounce your own conspiracy claims?

That cute little game of yours didn't work for you, did it?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

What the hushaboom term refers to is the lack of explosions, flashes, and other signs prevalent in every other controlled demolitions job

....... and the lack of barotrauma from anybody that heard these explosions.

All that anyone rational needs to do is compare these explosions to what happened at the Murrah Building where an ANFO bomb ( slower pressure wave propagation ) was exploded outside the building.

Lotsa ruptured eardrums from people inside the building - and hence shielded from the pressure wave.

For example, one can compare the victims from the impact explosions - like say those in the elevators - and note that there is zero reports of said barotrauma noted.

Burns? Yes.

Barotrauma? No.

The rational will come to the conclusion that there were zero explosives used that could sever any core columns.

The irrational will make claims to magic by invoking the tired and lame "but the military has stuff that we don't know about" garbage.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It's only those damned fool conspiracy web sites you go to who's claiming anyone ever said there were no explosions.

What are you talking about? Conspiracy websites are claiming there were no explosions now?

No, all the "damned foolery" I've seen denying the explosions has been done on here, with all the "hushaboom" nonsense.

These explosions had nothing to do with the collapse of the building or else the building would have collapsed the exact moment people heard them.

Not hardly. Columns are pre-cut in commercial demolitions but the buildings obviously don't fall when a single column is cut. A certain number have to be compromised first.

You don't think about what you post, before you post it, do you? Come on man.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
There is absolutely nothing but uncorroborated accusations that show Saddam Hussein destroyed the tower, so I will be intellectually honest and renounce the claim as being false. ...

That cute little game of yours didn't work for you, did it?

You tell me. You're the one always posting crap about space beams when no one is even arguing that. Does it work for you?

But really, when are you going to prove that Saddam Hussein destroyed the towers? You need to stop reading all these damned fool Fox News articles.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
....... and the lack of barotrauma from anybody that heard these explosions.

You're full of it.




There. People on hospital beds talking about being injured by explosions. This is old, old news.

Now stop spreading lies.




Here's another for you where Arthur del Bianco describes numerous smaller explosions, then three "tremendous explosions," after which he says everything started coming down and the force of which threw him against a wall:




You've had plenty of time to come across these things already though, so what's with the non-existent learning curve, "Joey"?

reply to post by bsbray11

Not hardly. Columns are pre-cut in commercial demolitions but the buildings obviously don't fall when a single column is cut. A certain number have to be compromised first.

Sometimes True:

Columns are precut before final demolition. Not always.

Always True:

Buildings start to collapse as soon as the last charge has been initiated. The difference in time between the first charge being initiated and the last is usually measured in milliseconds, occasionally in seconds but never in terms of minutes or hours.

Therefore:

Any loud sudden random noises from indefinite locations and of varying duration and loudness heard in and around Ground Zero on the morning of 9/11/2001 were not related to explosives or demolition.

reply to post by hooper


Your premise does not follow at all, and has nothing to do with the actual science of bringing a building down. It does not matter how much time elapses between explosions if you have only severed 4 or 5 columns out of nearly 50 core columns. The building will still not fall until you have reached a critical limit.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
....... and the lack of barotrauma from anybody that heard these explosions.

People on hospital beds talking about being injured by explosions.

So where's the barotrauma again? Your response is to my statement that there was no barotrauma injuries. A rational person making an argument against my statement would provide hospital statements of scores/hundreds of patients that suffered barotrauma injuries.

You have provided zero. This is a typical response from a truther though, and not unexpected from an uneducated , irrational group of individuals that don't know the difference, or rather more likely don't care about, the difference between injuries and barotrauma injuries.

so what's with the non-existent learning curve, "Joey"?

I have zero idea why you have a non-existant learning curve, Brian.

Barotrauma is expected from anyone standing in the vicinity of any explosive capable of severing core columns. I have no idea why you haven't learned this yet, especially since you have indeed had plenty of time to learn about this stuff yourself.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The building will still not fall until you have reached a critical limit.

Yes indeed.

Now, if only truthers could admit that fire and physical damage from plane impacts can do this very thing, then this sub-forum would cease to exist due to a lack of interest.

But of course in truther world, random cuts on columns can slowly reach this critical limit, but impact damage and fire cannot.

This is why we all laugh at truthers.

Originally posted by bsbray11

You tell me. You're the one always posting crap about space beams when no one is even arguing that. Does it work for you?

Lie.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thread Title: Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura discussing Nukes and DEW

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by hooper

 

Your premise does not follow at all, and has nothing to do with the actual science of bringing a building down. It does not matter how much time elapses between explosions if you have only severed 4 or 5 columns out of nearly 50 core columns. The building will still not fall until you have reached a critical limit.

And you think gravity is electricity and needs time to charge? That somehow or another the gravitational load on the members builds up over time like filling a bucket with water drop by drop? No, gravity is instantaneous, the moment the structure's critical members have exceeded their capacities then the failure initiates.

Ever seen a video of someone sitting in a chair with a bad leg? Does the chair slowly start to disintegrate or does the chair fail in a millisecond?

Originally posted by bsbray11
What are you talking about? Conspiracy websites are claiming there were no explosions now?

Well, *somebody* among you is spreading the propaganda that the 9/11 commission report is claiming there were no explosions, otherwise you wouldn't be gleefully announcing that witnesses heard explosions in a "Captain Obvious" moment. Firefighters heard explosions, TV crews heard explosions, the people within the building heard explosions, even we heard explosions during the television broadcast. Claiming we're refuting there were explosions is a gross misrepresentation of our statements so you can attack the misrepresented statements, which is the textbook definition of a strawman argument.

But then, the conspiracy people are misrepresenting eyewitnesses saying they heard explosions as appearing as they said they heard actual explosives, so misrepresentation is really the only evidence you conspiracy people really have to back your claims up. I don't know how many times I've seen some conspiracy mongor or another deliberately clip off the video portion of the penthouse collapsing into the interior of WTC 7 six seconds before it collapsed, all so that they can say, "witnesses heard explosions six seconds before WTC 7 collapsed". Disingenuous stunts like that are almost certainly the reason why these engineers were suckered into "requesting permission to speak freely" about WTC 7 to begin with.

Not hardly. Columns are pre-cut in commercial demolitions but the buildings obviously don't fall when a single column is cut. A certain number have to be compromised first.

You really don't want to abandon that sinking ship you're on, do you? If you're genuinely suggesting hordes of sinister secret agents snuck into three occupied buildings and secretly cut tens of thousands of giant columns without even one of the 25,000 electricians, janitors, security, inspectors, engineers, tenents, tourists, etc etc etc noticing a single thing, I am here to tell you that you're taking gullibility to a whole new level. All you've done is to prove how preposterous your own conspiracy claims really are. Thank you.

If you want to dismiss the 9/11 Commission's take on things as being ludicrous, fine, it's your right as a free citizen, but attempting to spread an alternative scenario that's to the nth degree even more ludicrous stinks of a conscious attempt to spread abject paranoia regardless of whether you wish to acknowledge the fact or not.

Originally posted by bsbray11
But really, when are you going to prove that Saddam Hussein destroyed the towers? You need to stop reading all these damned fool Fox News articles.

I already retracted the claim that Saddam Hussein destroyed the towers as there's zero evidence to support it. You've enlightened me on the truth that a suspicion of guilt is by no means proof of guilt. When are *you* going to be equally intellectually honest and retract the claim these "secret controlled demolitions" destroyed the towers or WTC 7 on those same grounds?

You're not going to go phony on me, are you?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So where's the barotrauma again? Your response is to my statement that there was no barotrauma injuries. A rational person making an argument against my statement would provide hospital statements of scores/hundreds of patients that suffered barotrauma injuries.

I don't have hospital records. That's why I posted a video of a man who said he was thrown by the force of an explosion. He says this from his hospital bed. If you don't want to see the forest for the trees, and you obviously don't, then just keep your head firmly planted where it's at. I really don't care.

You have also provided zero evidence that there were no barotrauma injuries. You are arguing from total ignorance.

Originally posted by hooper
And you think gravity is electricity and needs time to charge? That somehow or another the gravitational load on the members builds up over time like filling a bucket with water drop by drop?

I have no idea what you are talking about but you obviously have trouble grasping simple physics.

Re-read my post and try again:

It does not matter how much time elapses between explosions if you have only severed 4 or 5 columns out of nearly 50 core columns. The building will still not fall until you have reached a critical limit.

It's really very simple.

Please don't try to inject your erroneous "understanding" of physics into what I said, when I clearly said nothing like what you are now claiming.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bsbray11
But really, when are you going to prove that Saddam Hussein destroyed the towers? You need to stop reading all these damned fool Fox News articles.

I already retracted the claim that Saddam Hussein destroyed the towers as there's zero evidence to support it.

What about evidence that the Pillsbury Dough Boy destroyed the Twin Towers? You people watch too many damned fool Ghostbusters movies.

Just let me know whenever you're ready to drop the "space beams destroyed the towers" bit from all your straw-man posts and we can move on.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
You tell me. You're the one always posting crap about space beams when no one is even arguing that. Does it work for you?

Lie.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thread Title: Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura discussing Nukes and DEW

Okay, and what does that have to do with anything I am saying here, Cameronfox? I mean ThroatYogurt? "Joey"?

If you want to troll people with things they have never even said, why don't you take it out into the real world where you will get the attention you deserve?