Let’s Agree to Put an End to the Petty 9/11 Argument’s

reply to post by LaBTop


Graig Bartmer. I had to look him up. Curious thing though, during his interviews WTC 7 is already collapsing when he says he was hearing booms (during a demolition, you hear the explosions, THEN the building comes down. Mr Bartmer was hearing the structure giving way, not bombs. The rest of his testimony has a few....issues.....which are contradicted by literally dozens of other people who were there that day.

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

 

Children, you have to love them....

At this point I'm going to have to google that before I'll take that statement as fact.

Labtop, I asked some serious questions about your theory. specifically:

1. Is there any evidence, besides your word, that Thermobaric explosives are somehow much quieter than others, such that they were not detected at the time, and yet still gave an enormous seismic signature?

2. Is there any evidence for your statement that the time stamp in the video you cite in your theory is callibrated with the same atomic clock time as the seismograph cited?

These seem to me to be key pieces of evidence that can't simply be assumed.

Originally posted by GenRadek

Originally posted by LaBTop


He said he stood only a few feet under the umbrella of debris bursting out from the lower floors. That means that the penthouse wasn't moving yet on top of those 47 floors. He went running, and THEN he heard the BOOOM,BOOMM, BOOOMMM's.

But what got his attention to even look at the WTC7? His own words please.

I have no idea. You neither. Ask him. Be quick, he's suffering from multiple cancers given to him at Ground Zero. He could be dead by now. May he rest in peace at last, if that's the case.

And that first ULF sound, rumbles, ehh no, BOOOMMs in that video, one second before the east penthouse roof sinks. And it took 8.2 seconds more before the main roof line parapet started to move down.
But I know that he also stood about 7 feet under an umbrella of trash and then he ran for at least 8,2 + that 1 seconds before the total 47 stories higher roof line parapet started to sink, that's an awful lot of time to run away, after the first BOOOMM he heard.

This is my post above, where I posted his interview-video in :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Text of his words from 00:36 to 1:07 in that video :

It was...nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life...., you know, the thing started peeling in on itself. I mean...there was an umbrella of crap, seven feet over my head, I just stared at it...somebody grab my shoulder and I started running, and the # hit the ground behind me. (That was his description of his overall feelings, but not about the moment when he heard anything)

And the WHOLE TIME you heard BOOOMMM BOOOMMM BOOOM BOOOMM.
So, ...I.....I think I know an explosion when I hear it.

THAT first BOOOMM definitely got his attention to look at WTC 7.
Then somebody grab his shoulder and he started running.

I've capitalized the culprit for you, or you would miss it again, he heard the WHOLE time those BOOOMMs. And during that WHOLE time he experienced what he described and saw.
Do you really think that such an event is soundless, silent?

I suppose you made one of your, in the mean time, famous interpretation errors again, you thought that he first saw the peeling, but heard no sound...

Let me also begin pointing you, to the French hydraulic method of crushing columns, that started that gravitational collapse there. It looked to me as a concrete building with re-barred columns. Could have been steel columns too.
No problem either, to hydraulically displace steel columns too. (Did it a few months ago.)
At the WTC 7 at the 3rd to 5th maintenance floors without windows and with the louvers.
Just above the CONEDison power station where WTC 7 was build over, in a very peculiar way.
And that could assist a bit in the collapse. These hydraulic jack-screws are very compact, about 40 cm long. Enough equipment in that floor. And no onlookers. Just an extra idea for the think-tank pool.



Remember me posting that line : "One commenter posted this" ?
Then listen very good to the conversation you hear IN THE BEGINNING in that video, just before one of the guys shout : Whoh, whoh whoh, when the collapse starts. That's THAT very peculiar conversation I posted.

Does anybody possesses such software? I really want to hear it clearer.

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

MagicWand67, do not reply to him. All answers were given already, no need for new ones.
He's now clearly trying to derail the momentary important flow of this thread.

That's an absurd thing to ask someone to do, Labtop. For one thing, all you're doing is telling people to stop discussing ideas that are dangerous to your ideology, which is censorship regardless of whatever pretty word you want to use to call it. For another, I genuinely haven't seen anyone explain why on EARTH these supposed sinister secret agents would intentionally announce WTC 7 fell before it did, even though (according to MagicWand) they knew exactly what the building was and could see it still standing right outside their window. One moment you're saying they pulled off the most intricate and complex conspiracy in all of recorded human history with the sheer perfection of a supernatural act, and the next you're saying they're dimwits who mindlessly give out fatally incriminating information off a teleprompter and are too stupid to turn around and look out the window. This IS what you're saying, whether you want to admit it or not.

The OP's point is a plea to put an end to the petty 9/11 arguments. Seeing this whole discussion is nothing but a manifestation of the abject paranoia of a sinister hidden agenda beyond the BBC's explanation of "We goofed" this is without question one of the very petty 9/11 arguments he was referring to.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by LaBTop

 

Graig Bartmer. I had to look him up. Curious thing though, during his interviews WTC 7 is already collapsing when he says he was hearing booms (during a demolition, you hear the explosions, THEN the building comes down. Mr Bartmer was hearing the structure giving way, not bombs. The rest of his testimony has a few....issues.....which are contradicted by literally dozens of other people who were there that day.

This is yet another conspiracy mongor mind game that con artist Gage is playing. By every video in existence it's clear the collapse of WTC 7 began *before* the north facade collapsed, as proven by the collapse of the penthouse six seconds prior. He snips off the preceding six seconds from the video so he can turn around and say "mysterious noises were heard six seconds before the building collapsed". Like a building is supposed to fall down quietly?

This is LYING, regardless of where any of us stand on the 9/11 debate.

Originally posted by LaBTop

The embarrassing, for NIST, video by David Chandler, who proved 100% sure, that WTC 7 fell for 2.5 seconds in free fall.
That can only mean one simple thing, 18 floors were shattered to pieces above floor 5.

Does Chandler take into account that the south side of WTC 7 collapsed six seconds before the north side did (as he would have known, had he read the NIST report)? Or, does he simply take Gage's word for it that the whole building came down at once...and that WTC 7 never had any penthouse?

reply to post by LaBTop

"I saw, you know, there was definitely fire in the building, you know, but ... um, I didn't hear any, and you know maybe this is movie crap, i didn't hear any creaking or i didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down, and all of a sudden the radios exploded and everybody started screaming, "Get away. Get away. Get away from it." and I was like a dear in the headlights. And I look up. It was that moment, you know, "Get away", and I looked up... and... it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. And all the things started peeling in on itself and... I mean, there was an umbrella of crap seven feet over my head that I just stared at. Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running and the [expletive]'s hitting the ground behind me and the whole time your hearing "thoom. thoom. thoom. thoom. thoom." So. I think I know an explosion when I hear it."

Craig Bartmer.

Well, in his own words, didnt hear anything to indicate it was going to come down. No "movie crap" as he puts it eloquently. So that means no explosions. No ultra low frequency rumbles. No seismic shaking. No blasts. How can you have a "massive blast" and yet, hear nothing while standing right next to it? You cannot spin this one away LaBTop. And no, tamping the blast with water does not silence it. Even an explosive entry to a door, as you said, is freaking loud. A blast to sever massive steel columns and beams will not be muffled.

A thermobaric bomb cannot be tampered like conventional explosives because it defeats the very mechanism a thermobaric explosive uses. And no, this is not your made up magical thermobaric device that you pulled out of thin air. A thermobaric explosive is a fuel air bomb or any derivative where the fuel is dispersed to mix with air and then ignited by incendiary or explosive, causing a massive detonation which flattens the area by means of the massive over-pressure resulting from the blast. Now how the hell does sol-gel thermite and your plastic residues fit into this I do not know, since all it really does is sow confusion and muddies the water. I thought these are suppose to be painted on.

Back to Bartmer, I'll highlight the part you ignored:

I didn't hear any, and you know maybe this is movie crap, i didn't hear any creaking or i didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down, and all of a sudden the radios exploded and everybody started screaming, "Get away. Get away. Get away from it." and I was like a dear in the headlights. And I look up.

Interesting. No sound. No boom. Nothing exploded, except for the radio. Did the radio bring down the WTC7? I kid. No, the only thing that even got his attention to look at WTC7 was the radio and then people saying run. But no loud kabooms! As Marvin the Martian would say: "Where's the kaboom? There should have been an Earth-shattering kaboom!" How did he and everyone else miss this blast while standing right next to it, but magically one camera picks up an ULF "boom" but no one else heard this? You are aware that in an explosive demolition, the kaboom is heard first, then the building moves. And for Craig to be standing right next to it, and notice nothing wrong until everyone around is running for their lives away from WTC7, how is that possible? You expect me to believe that no one noticed a loud kaboom standing right next to the building from which it came from? I know he said he heard "thoom thoom thoom" but that is while it collapsed. Yes a building collapsing will sound like explosions. However, demolition charges explode BEFORE the building collapses. Not during.

You must read my other thread in lockstep with this one, to be aware of all my arguments for explosive demolition of WTC 7, and then you also understand that all that evidence was already posted many years ago, from 2005 on, by me here and at a long defunct other forum, but nobody seems to understand it, beside a few academics who lend pieces of my work without ever naming it or me :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
There's also all the links (332) to my seismic work in there, and all the links (150+) to my thermobaric explosives work.
And "General", TB's are definitely NOT fuel/air bombs, they are far more sophisticated and stronger, while much smaller packaged. By repeating that all over this forum, you don't make it true.

And DrEugeneFixer should read my post in it about all my NIST report links and HOW exactly they corrected all photo's, including the Cianca photo, where I thus got an atomic clocked timestamp from, corrected by NIST itself. That answers your above post.
Then read this post a bit earlier posted there, where I try to make it real easy to understand why the Cianca photo timestamp proves that their is something VERY wrong with the WTC 7 seismogram.
If that seismogram is correct, then I am correct to say that it proves without a shimmer of doubt, that a huge explosion started the internal demolition of WTC 7's columns over 8 floors internally, and it took another 8.2 seconds before the whole roof started to sink down.
Also proven by David Chandler's evidence that WTC 7 fell globally, during the first 2.5 seconds after those 8.2 retention seconds, at perfect free fall speed, which is admitted at last by NIST, after a lot of wriggling to try to ridicule him.

I'll first answer the "General's" post above, since it is again loaded with misconceptions.
That will cost me a few posts.
Then, I will start to answer all questions on this page 9, from the top down.
ONLY if those people still want answers, since I in fact answer all in the following posts, and have answered them already in that other thread (linked above).

Your extra text, General, for which you again do not give a link to, now follows.
Not providing source links is very bad behavior in Internet forums, and everywhere, by the way, and you have a habit of doing it, too often to be a simple mistake.
For me, it looks on purpose, as if you try to implement slick behavior from my side.
When you use the local-quote (quote) or external-quote (ex) tags, you MUST add the SOURCE link.
As I did, and you don't...! :

"I saw, you know, there was definitely fire in the building, you know, but ... um, I didn't hear any, and you know maybe this is movie crap, i didn't hear any creaking or i didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down, and all of a sudden the radios exploded and everybody started screaming, "Get away. Get away. Get away from it." and I was like a dear in the headlights. And I look up. It was that moment, you know, "Get away", and I looked up... and...

Now follows my linked-to video its full text, i.o.w., all the words spoken by Bartmer in my linked-to video, there are no other words spoken by him in that video, and you know that damn well :

It was...nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life...., you know, the thing started peeling in on itself. I mean...there was an umbrella of crap, seven feet over my head, I just stared at it...somebody grab my shoulder and I started running, and the # hit the ground behind me. (That was his description of his overall feelings, but not about the moment when he heard anything)

And the WHOLE TIME you heard BOOOMMM BOOOMMM BOOOM BOOOMM.
So, ...I.....I think I know an explosion when I hear it.

After you will give a link to words SPOKEN by Bartmer HIMSELF in another video, and no quoted text by some news reporter, I will believe your additional text.

For now, I will ask you one simple question :
From both texts, where do you hear him say anywhere that he heard any sound at all from the onset of a natural gravitational collapse, thus, one without explosions.
I hear him only say he knew an explosion when he heard one. And he definitely heard many of them, as booommms.

I do not hear him say that he heard signs of a natural collapse, NOT ONE. Now, isn't that strange?
And I really hope that you understand that such a natural collapse, if occurred, is for sure not a silent one....

So, one simple conclusion we extracted already from the combined words :

In both texts he gives no indication AT ALL of the huge sound which MUST have been accompanying the first breaking of the building, where- and however that may have been.

He's not indicating any onset sound for your pet-theory, and also not for my pet-theory.
Thus I call that subject a DRAW : The first huge sound from a breaking building, he did not say a word about it.
But he underscores very precise, my pet-theory with his last two lines, the Booommms and that he knows an explosion when he hears one. And pay extra attention to his words : "the whole time".

EDIT : the above was also mentioned as an answer to this poster, first at top of this page 9 :
post by vipertech0596

It is a well known fact that many people who experienced a sudden blast very near to them, can't remember at all any SOUND of it, only the after effects of eardrums popped out, shrapnel wounds, blown off their feet, whatever more. But NOT the initial blast sound. Caused by the direct reaction of the body, to pump loads of Adrenaline into their system, to let their muscles react much faster then normal, and putting all their senses and brain on high alert, from the moment the Adrenaline spreads in the body. Which seems to flush that bit of memory from just before the Adrenaline injection in their blood stream. The initial blast.

Now, when you read your extra added text, one can assume one sure thing from it : he didn't hear anything indicating WTC 7 was starting to come down. PERIOD.

Then comes a very interesting piece of information, that all he heard were those radio's, bursting out to "get out of the way".
That can only mean one thing. That the demolition started at the roof its floor. Which is true, we can all see it starting with the sinking of those two penthouses down into the roof.

Because radio wearing officials much further away, who looked to the top of WTC 7, saw the east penthouse on top of the roof, sink into that roof. And knew the building gave way, thus shouted in their radios to get AWAY..! Then it took ANOTHER 8.2 seconds after the first kink in the east penthouse occurred, before the whole roof line started to sink down, with all facades in tight lock-step.
Note that 1 second before you saw the first kink occurring, that ultra low frequency rumbling can be heard in my linked video. And Bartmer says he didn't hear anything, UNTIL that umbrella of crap (debris), 7 feet above him, shot out of the facade above him.
Anybody reasonable sane will understand that that event will not have been soundless.
And that that event THUS must have accompanied that first deep rumbling sound.
And all the rest of the building falling does not add anything audible to my linked video.
Meaning that that first deep rumble must have been awful loud inside WTC 7.
But Bartmer heard from that moment on lots of boooms in a constant row. Which can only mean explosives. Chaotic gravitational collapses are NEVER accompanied by constant rows of booomms. Only by a whole cacophony of screeching sounds, knacking sounds, tearing sounds, breaking and cutting sounds, but never by such a perfect cascade of booomms as expressed by Bartmer.

And the way WTC 7 collapsed, indicates that its roof beams must have been cut under the two penthouses, or, another possibility, lots of internal columns where that roof rested on were suddenly out of the way, since we have those proven FIRST 2.5 seconds perfect free fall measured by David Chandler and admitted at last by NIST, to let all four facade-sides so utterly smoothly sink out of all news-camera sights. And since both penthouses sinked away first, we may assume that all resistance UNDER them was gone, their supporting roof floor was GONE.

Now we have a few very peculiar timing-descriptions we can extract from his words and my video.
1. No initial huge sound of structural steel breaking, says Bartmer. He must have forgot to mention them together with that "umbrella of crap" moment, since no high rise building crumbles silently.
2. Those radio's bursts indicated lots of people saw SOME dangerous WTC 7 external movement SOMEWHERE, then, Bartmer looks up and SEVEN FEET above him, all kind of crap already burst out of the facade 7 feet above him, as an umbrella, which MUST mean that their was :

Either,
shaped charge explosions of whatever kind and origin to break the backbone of a steel building, that forced a lot of debris out of the building down to a very peculiar, VERY LOW height (7 feet; 2.10 meter, above him) while cutting all main internal and external columns over a height of 8 floors high, proved without a shimmer of doubt by those FIRST 2.5 seconds free fall. The distance fallen in 2.5 seconds is calculated to be the height of 8 floors in WTC 7.

Or,
a gravitational collapse pressed the whole building down through LOTS of breaking beams and columns at the same 8 floors, to be stopped either by the impact of that falling huge part of the building by the rocky bottom under the deepest cellars, or by the heavy basement columns and concrete floors of those. Which is always a VERY chaotic process.
That gravitational collapse theory does not fit his words. Such collapses are very chaotic and deliver broad debris shoots to all kind of different angles and directions.

Not a neat umbrella of debris, which is a smooth bordered layer of debris seen from below. Like a curtain. Which accompany explosions that are set off by shaped charges, not chaotic collapses.

3. 1 second before the east penthouse-roof moves, you hear that huge low rumble sound in my linked to video. That must be the moment Bartmer looked up and saw its effect. After that he had 8.2 seconds more to flee out of harms way, and you walk damn fast and far loaded with adrenaline in that time. The most interesting remark is, that he says that that crap landed then BEHIND him. That means that that umbrella of crap wasn't that far out of the facade, that he could not outrun it, while it was JUST 7 feet (2.10 meters) above him.
Just try to outrun a brick falling from that height, from standing. That's nearly impossible, so that umbrella must have been very dusty debris.......Again, fine dust.....

GenRadek : Now how the hell does sol-gel thermite and your plastic residues fit into this I do not know, since all it really does is sow confusion and muddies the water. I thought these are suppose to be painted on.

Now you do it again. These were remarks from Dr Jones and Mr Ryan.
You are clearly sowing confusion and try to muddle the water. For the second time you lay words from other people in my mouth, and you never apologize.
A gentleman doesn't debate like that.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by LaBTop

The embarrassing, for NIST, video by David Chandler, who proved 100% sure, that WTC 7 fell for 2.5 seconds in free fall.
That can only mean one simple thing, 8 floors were shattered to pieces above floor 5.

Does Chandler take into account that the south side of WTC 7 collapsed six seconds before the north side did (as he would have known, had he read the NIST report)? Or, does he simply take Gage's word for it that the whole building came down at once...and that WTC 7 never had any penthouse?

I just gave a few posts above this one,again the link to my other thread , WTC Destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments.

Dave, do me a favor and provide us links to your remarks, because they are totally new to me.
Up till now I have never read anything about the South facade of WTC 7 around the time of collapse (17:20 P.M.)
Let it be that there are any photo's from it EVER published. Photo's while it came down.
Link please.

And WTC 7 had two penthouses (so called by about everyone writing about WTC 7) an east one that sank first, and a west one that sank at the end of those 8.2 seconds retention time that no movement occurred, so to see.
Until that west penthouse sank, and then the whole roof started sinking.
So, link please.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Again, link please to Mr Gage words you use.

I have clearly dissected the timeline of WTC 7's initiation to global collapse in my seismic work that's all over the place here, and I gave you numerous times now, in these two threads, the way you can find all my seismic and Thermobaric explosives posts.
Just use ATS Search : seismic "LaBTop" or thermobaric "LaBTop"

So why you go on a sidestep to attack Gage, without evidence he says what you accuse him from, is a bit far fetched in this thread. We are not bashing Gage or anyone from AEfor911Truth here, I do not quote Mr Gage, so why sidestepping to such a non-subject in this thread?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I am not saying that. MAgicWand was saying that. Again one, who tries to lay words in my mouth.

And let me be VERY clear about something VERY important to me :

I am on this forum the constant factor, who always advocates a fair debate, between Believers and Non-Believers.
Without both opponent groups, it's not a fair debate anymore, and I myself listen to, and read all your linked to material, and I can tell you, a few of your beloved debunker sites I can easily wreck into the ground with good arguments. But I have also read very solid contra arguments there.
Both isles seem to be stuck in cement these days.
We all must be flexible enough however to accept GOOD and SOLID counter arguments, even if they shatter your former subject-belief.

One example is the so-called free fall of both Towers 1 and 2. That's totally wrong, I posted very early already that the BBC video proved without doubt, that both collapses took more than 20 seconds each, which is far slower than free fall speeds.

Numerous times I have pleaded for listening to serious arguments from BOTH sides.
And I have been persuaded in the past by f.ex. JREF members here, to change my mind about Pf911Truth and CIT argumentation about Roosevelt Roberts Pentagon attack remarks. Their fly-over misdirection.

Which delivered me here and at their forums a lot of bad press.
But you know what? I don't give a flying fart about peoples misrepresentation of clear facts, I believe in real historical truth.

But you, Dave, want to beat a dead horse 200 times. And that's what I call derailing a good developing thread.
I am on my way to give so much old and new evidence that WTC 7 was a clear demolition, and the TWIN Towers too, that hordes of fresh and old members will HAVE to change their mind on the 9/11 subject, and start to dig into it themselves. When they are honest to themselves.

And such strong EVIDENCE will Put an End to the Petty 9/11 Argument's, which was exactly this thread's title.

If you want to attack my arguments, why don't you go and read my earlier post here, where I rowed-up all the EVIDENCE already laid before you by me in these two threads now, and NONE of you Believers have reacted on one of these strong indications of foul play by one or more governments.

Be constructive, give links to your argumentation, and I will take you serious.

reply to post by GenRadek


General, please provide me with your evidence that building-collapses sound like explosions.

Did you found ANY video material of NATURAL gravitational collapses? They must be VERY rare, since most people try to run away instead of filming such an event.
And where in we can hear those boomm boomm boomm boomm sounds Bartmer described, in full cadence.?
Since you state so boldly that natural collapses have the same sound pattern as explosive collapses.

GenRadek : Yes a building collapsing will sound like explosions. However, demolition charges explode BEFORE the building collapses. Not during.

Demo-charges do also explode DURING collapses. I have about 60 videos where you can hear that.

And DrEugeneFixer should read my post in it about all my NIST report links and HOW exactly they corrected all photo's, including the Cianca photo, where I thus got an atomic clocked timestamp from, corrected by NIST itself. That answers your above post. Then read this post a bit earlier posted there, where I try to make it real easy to understand why the Cianca photo timestamp proves that their is something VERY wrong with the WTC 7 seismogram.

reply to post by LaBTop


So, I read it, and I still think you're misinterpreting the evidence. Specifically, you speak as if the timestamp data was adjusted by NIST to the nearest single second. You're probably wrong about that (I'd give you about a 2% chance of being correct or 1/60, as you will see).

The Access database PhotoTiming was written for the purpose of determining the actual times for a set of photographs given the relative EXIF time for each and a single accurate time reference. For a set of photographs sharing a common clock from the same digital camera, an accurate time for a single photograph was sufficient to set the relative times for the entire set.

pdf link kindly provided by LabTop from page 20.

Basically, what they did was find one photo from a set that could be placed accurately in time, and then adjust the exif data times to new actual times based on a single photo. In the image on p. 20 of the pdf, we see that their baseline image for the cianca photos had a camera timestamp of 9:25:42, which was adjusted by 102 seconds to an "actual time" of exactly 9:24:00 What this indicates to me is that the Cianca Timestamps at least, were set to the nearest minute, or 30 seconds, rather than an exact second.

Anyway, nowhere in the paper is it stated that the photos are adjusted to the precision required for your theory to hold any water. Nor does it say what event is the baseline for the Cianca photos. It's probably simply a case of the adjustmed time being off by a few seconds.

Thats a simpler and more reasonable explanation than the silent explosives and Huge seismic event mentioned by nobody that your theory proposes.

I'd say this theory is dead in the water.

1. The NIST timestamp can't be shown to be as accurate as your theory requires.

2. Still no available evidence confirming the reality of these 'quiet thermobarics', that you postulate, besides a perhaps-nonexistent secret DuPont Blasting Manual.

reply to post by LaBTop


And you have the names of those people so close to the explosion that they had their eardrums ruptured from the blasts they don't remember? The same blasts that don't show up on any recording devices?