Well pdoherty, I guess we can discuss this in here, since you never replied in the other thread...

Sorry I dont respond to troll threads

edit: Although I will say this:

One of his actual specialities is:

http://www.ibk.ethz.ch/emeritus/Bachmann/about/index_EN

Id say hes perfectly placed to comment on building seven ;)

I would certainly say Hugo Bachmann is far more qualified to speak on building 7 than say.......a tour guide :lol:

Was Bachmann there on 9/11? According to firefighter testimony the building was looking to collapse all day and had a 20 story hole in it. Also, if one expert disagrees, but literally thousands do agree with the official story, does anyone else think it may be possible that they are seeking pulicity?

so 'literally' thousands agree with the official story regarding wtc 7?

i take you literally, so show us!

(and btw: which official story? the fema-report which concludes that their hypothesis has only a low probability of occurance? or you mean the nist-report on wtc 7 which still isn't released (five years is a very short time i guess)?)

again: please show us.

thanks

Okay Pd... What is field of expertise?

And don't just quote from the English translation... You brought this guy up, so I assume you done some research on him, besides quoting other peoples "research".

Whats gravys expertise?

Quit stalling and dodging the subject.

I'm not talking about Gravy, I'm talking about Bachman... Those two aren't comparable.

Gravy is a layman who is good at doing research and quotes experts extensively in his research (unlike wannabe researcher's like you for example. You should sit down, shut up and take notes when Gravy is talking, instead of using him to dodge a question).

Bachman is supposed to be an expert. Now are you done stalling and could you answer the question?

I already answered it in my first post and gave a source.

Yeah.... The source you gave is the english version of the institutes webiste, but their translation of the profesors degree isnn't the best.

Nonetheless, it's nice to see you post sources for one. Let's all hope that you keep it up...

However: The professor. First of all he's definety the closest thing to a real and credible source, that I've seen truthers post about. Not only does he have a degree in the general area of engineering, and can be said to talk about a subject that he actually knows about (Unlike, say Steven Jones or Uncle Fetzer)...
It's also nice to see you MIHOPers quote a member of academia who isn't either a philosopher or psychologist (Like probably over half the "scholars"), or someone who isn't clearly nuts (Judy Wood).

Professor Bachman seems pretty credible. But there are some problems using him as an expert.

1. He's a specialist in earthquake related damage.
2. He specializes in concrete.
3. He hasn't done any investigation of the WTC-site. He doesn't have access to the information and data that the investigators of WTC7 have access to.

Is Bachman knowledgable about the structural damage that an earthqauke can cause? Sure... But is his opinion more informed or credible than the thousands of engineers who havent found the collapse WTC7 suspicious? Of course not.

Kudos to you MIHOPers by the way´: It took you guys five years to find someone who's credited as engineer that agrees you... In aorund 80 years you'll have enough for a small soccerteam! :D

He doesn't need to see the data, he can tell just by looking at the video. Don't you know. Newspaper articles and video footage alone are enough to proove the conspiracy.

Just like the WTC fell in under 7 seconds, if you don't take into account the Penthouse, which adds another 6 or so seconds at least. I think the difference between 7 and 13 is quite big, especially if you are arguing free fall.

Of course I'm a moron and I'm believing the story. I dont come to this conclusion because I watched the collapse and counted it myself without having a pre given agenda to make sure it was under 7 seconds.

You do release I hope that for the building to have gone down straight down the way it did, that all structural members would have had to all fail at the same time, right?

Ok mainstreammedia I take your point.

Now could I see gravys qualifications in structural design and analysis?

Also mainstreammedia, Jorg Schneider is another professor at ETH. He also believes in wtc7 being demolished.

Check out his website:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...2006-48,GWYH:en

His expertise is in all areas of risk management to buildings, including fire.

Good! Glad that I could be of some help to point out that Bachmann is a far less than perfect source?

So you also agree that the vast amount of experts in this field do not support a controlled demolition?

As I allready said, Gravy's qualifications don't matter. He's not an expert, and have never pretended that he is: Asking for his qualifications in structural design, is like asking if he can cook a good spaghetti. pointless and insignificant to the matter at hand.

Still waiting for your answer to this mainstreammedia:



Also mainstreammedia, Jorg Schneider is another professor at ETH. He also believes in wtc7 being demolished.

Check out his website:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...2006-48,GWYH:en

His expertise is in all areas of risk management to buildings, including fire.

My response to what... Professor Schneider?

He's a engineer, and seems to deal with building safety than construction engineering. Is he qualified to speak out on a building that he's never seen? No, not from watching it on TV.

And that still doesn't change the fact that he is one out of tens of thousands of engineers who doesn't see a controlled demolition happening.

uh, i didn't know that tens of thousands of engineers have examined
the debris of the towers. the contradicition in your statement is obvious.

furthermore, why you suggest that all his information is from the tv.
maybe he read the fema and nist-report? maybe he looked into the construction
of the wtc?

also, let's not forget van romero. what has made his mind change so suddenly?
watching videos! so, if someone supports the official version by watching videos
then he's reliable, if someones against the official version by watching videos
he's not. what a logic, you're a brilliant thinker.

all you're arguments turn in a circle.

where are the experts? when there's an expert you say, he's in building safety
or in demolition , this has nothing to do with buildings collapse. when there's a structural
engineer presented you say that doesn't matter because he was not related to the wtc.

remember the engineers of the wtc? guess what. i think they would knew the most
about the structure of the towers. agree? they said they were build for (multiple)
impacts of planes.

The most ridiculous thing is that mainstreammedia supports gravys paper. Gravy is a tour guide lol

Ah yes, but the important thing is (And this is the third time I write this, hopefully your reading-comprehension skills have gone up dramatically since yesterday)

GRAVY'S BACKGROUND AND CREDENTIALS DOESN'T MATTER!

Gravy has never pretended he is anything else than he is. And he provides extensive sourcing for his papers (Something that you could learn from BTW).

Unlike for example Steven Jones, or Hugo Bachmann, Gravy doesn't put out his own opinion. He quotes experts in the relevant fields, and uses their findings and opnions.

Is any of this getting through to you, or do you want me to write it the fourth time?

I never wrote that... I wrote that they don't "see" a controlled demolition. But sure, let me rephrase that to clear things up:

He is one of tens of thousands of engineering professionals in the industrialized world. Since he and his buddy, are one of the only people with a background in construction engineering, that speaks out on the collapse of the WTC, it can be safe to assume that most other engineers don't support that hypothesis.

But why take ny word for it? Do your own research... Find a local engineering professor and give him a call! Couldn't hurt to get a professionals opinion, could it?

Could be... Read the earlier posts in the thread. Somebody wrote that he based that opinion on what he saw in a video/television. I think it actually was PD...
I doubt that he's done any comprehensive analysis, since I looked at his webpage, and couldn't find anything in German or English...

Romero is a professional... After realizing he had been wrong, and having had time to think about it, he changed his mind. Remember that he based his opinion on wat he saw on TV, when some journalist gave him a phonecall.
Scientist change their minds and hypotheis all the time, if they find out that the evidence don't support their hypothesis or original belief.

There are many kinds of "experts" and many kinds of engineering. An engineer that specializes in earthwuake collapses isn't that knowledgable about controlled demolition, and the other way around.

Regarding professor Bachman, he's not as qualified to speak out on construction enginering as different kinds of engineers (Which Pdoherty was sensible enough to agree with me on). But he certainly is qualified in his area of study, and he probably knows more about building collapses than 99% of the people on this board. But do I think he's more qualified than for example NIST? No. Would I believe him over NIST? No.

And they were right... The WTC did survive the impact of the planes. It was the fire that ultimately brought them down.

I wouldnt put myself on either side of this issue. I try to keep an objective stand point. I find the debate itself intriguing, although at times I see it hit some shallow points.
I do, however, take a stance on what is probably the backbone of the entire argument, which are the credible sources. Those who are skeptical seem to combat the idea that there are credible sources who support the Loosechange theory by saying that there are thousands who support the official story. It seems that alot of the skeptics have gone past merely being skeptical of the "truthers" theories but have also adopted the official story as their truth. It seems that if only a handfull of credible professionals go public in favor of the LC theory then the other thousands of credible, unspoken professionals are defaulted into the official story category.

Now, I know that there are many credible sources that speak out in favor of the official story. Many are noted in Gravy's guide. But I dont think it should be a surprise that many who have a credible voice on the topic stay quite and in the shadows. The incredibly sensitive nature of the issue is most definitely the biggest restraining force, especially with the jingoistic attittude much of the country has taken on post 911.
Many professionals who have the expertise to make valuable assessment of 911 would most definitely stay out of the spotlight for personal reasons. As soon as one does go public, they are immediately labeled as a conspiracy theorist or, as I've seen in some cases, "a nutjob." Now I do not doubt that there is the possiblity that some sources may come out into the splotlight for the attention, but I'd say the spotlight is more likely to repel credible voices from going public.
Again this is all due to the nature of the tragedy and the implications it would bring if you went against what we're supposed to believe. This is why the "truthers" movement will ultimately be hushed.
It's unfortunate because I believe that most are merely raising questions that may never get answered. I dont think that truthers are trying to start wild conspiracy theories or a modern rebellion. I really think the main motivation for the movement is justice.

Interesting post Chris...

You forget two things IMHO...

1: Some really good knowledgable sources don't speak put AGAINST the truthmovements arguments, because it would lend credibility to people they see as conspiracy theorists. 9/11 conspiracy theories are a belief that are held by a very small minorities on the fringe. Some people don't want to get involved in the debate, and give the theories credibility that way. I read an interview with a professor where he stated those escat reasons, but also said that IF the theories hit the mainstream he would get involved.

2: Many are afraid to be abused by the truthmovement.
Remember Jay Romero that somebody wrote about earlier? He made one small remark in an interview on 9/11, a remark that he regretted, and 5 years later he is STILL being brought up ny truthers.
Not only has his professional reputation been damaged, he's also been accused of selling out, etc.

A "small remark" ?????? Van Romero explicitly said the buildings had have been bought down with pre positioned explosives because the buildings fell far to methodically to have been the result of the plane impacts, he went back and did an almighty u-turn 10 days later and said "fire bought the buidlings down" , his reputation HAS not been tarnished because i believe he was promoted soon after.

and remember that he changed his mind on what he was shown on tv :lol:

yes, sure! :lol:

yes, sure:

and the tens of thousands didn't have seen it on tv but researched it at the location.

:lol:

Yes this was just a "small remark" an off the cuff freudian slip ? heehee :)




----------

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the
airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some
explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the
towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former
director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing
Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and
the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and
other structures.

Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on
national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse
of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions
used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for
something from the plane to trigger an event like that,"
Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the
detonations could have been caused by a small amount
of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small
amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero
said. The explosives likely would have been put in more
than two points in each of the towers, he said.

The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent
with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the
things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack
and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate
an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency
personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion,
he said. Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the
diversionary attack would have been the collision of the
planes into the towers.

got it! :)

Poor guy... He should have known that when a conspiracy theorists finds a small fact or a quote that proves him right, he holds on to it for dear life.

It doesn't matter if it was proved wrong or not, it'll always bop back up to the surface in some internet messaging board. And it doesn't matter when it was said... If it "proves" a conspiracy theory it doesn't matter if its a hundred years old or five years old. It always stays fresh, true and valid...

And that is why, I guess, that some people still repeat the fact that "15 of the hijackers are still alive", even though it's been proven wrong many times. :rolleyes:

NK-44...

I have no problem with you jumping in on the thread, but could you at least read the prior posts, before you put words in my mouth?

And that goes for you to... If you're that sure of a controlled demolition, why don't you visit or call up an engineer?

MSM, i was just correcting your comment that it was a "little remark" when it clearly wasn't.

And then? you would then say: 'but was has he to to with wtc'?

No, but maybe he can explain to you, how come fire and dislodged fireproofing could have kocked down WTC1 and 2... And how WTC7 came down.

so, if 'dislodged fireproofing' was the reason that the twins came down
(which is not proven by any facts, they just speculated on that with pure asumptions, read the nist-report on that!)
where's the dislodged fireproofing on wtc 7?

anyone? bueller? bueller?

I dont think anyone can say for sure what was going on in Romero's mind when he went back on his statements regardless of what he says now.
Some could say he made a big mistake, and after a week and a half he was enlightened to change his mind.
One could just as easily say Romero may have been influenced to say otherwise, or he perhaps realized the great consequences his statements would have on his future. This goes back to my previous post. The time he chose to come out with these allegations made them even more controversial. So much that his words would just about be looked at as treasonous.
Only Romero knows why he did what he did...most likely.

I think even the few professionals that have gone public in favor of "alternative theories to 911" speaks very loudly, even if their number aren't in the thousands.

In the midst of widespread jingoism, the pressure on those who do come foward must be astronomical. I watched the interview between Tucker Carlson and Steven Jones on MSNBC, where Jones was given...what? 90 seconds to describe his controlled demolition theory. The pressure Jones was under was obvious, mainly because Tucker, like much of the ignorant public (and I don't mean that in an insulting way, but a huge majority of Americans stopped looking closely at the tragedy after the main news coverage stopped like two - three weeks after 9/11. Most don't even know the truth movement and sites like this exist. Sorry about the run on) already have the preconcieved notion that Jones' explanations and hypotheses are completely erroneous and absurd without even listening to them or giving them a second thought.
This seems to be the biggest hindrance towards the "truth" movement..most people just don't want to listen.
It's very hard for a sane person to convince anyone that they're not nuts when they're wearing a straightjacket.

Like I said before, I'm neither skeptic nor truther but I do tend to intervene on certain aspects of the argument that I'm passionate about.

And most people who do use the first amedment and speak out get villified in the mainstream media(or by mainstreammeadia [:)]) and pressured into retiring (steve Jones) or sacked (Kevin Ryan), it's little wonder why firemen don't come forward even hthough alot of them actually testified to bombs going of inside the buildings, people have families to feed and bills to pay, it's just not worth it.

Testified to it? I was unaware of this.

I am well aware that reports of explosions (and the possibility of bombs) exist from multiple fire-fighters on 9/11. I apologize with the semantic nit-picking, but a firefighter hearing an explosion and saying "a bomb just went off" is not testifying to bombs in the building. Saying something and "testifying" to something are not the same thing.

Who are the firefighters who testified to bombs going off? Do they still believe this?

I didn't mean litrely testifying under oath, pedantic fool.

There is no need for name-calling.

I didn't assume you meant "testified under oath". The word "testify" has other meanings besides giving testimony under oath. But most of them refer to having evidence for something, or openly acknowledging it.

There is a big difference between a person saying "a bomb just went off" and that same person "testifying to bombs" in the buildings.

I will assume it was just unintentional hyperbole.

I will ask again, however, because I am genuinely curious - do any of the firefighters who mentioned "bombs" on 9/11 still believe there were bombs in the building?

Paul Isaac Jr., Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer - explained that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,” he said.




Edward Cachia, Firefighter – “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. We originally thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives”

Stephen Gregory, Assistant Commissioner - “I thought that I saw low-level flashes at the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”

Richard Banaciski, Firefighter – “It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all around like a belt, all these explosions.”

Christopher Fenyo, Firefighter - "At that point, a debate began to rage because. . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade, and officers were gathering companies together and the officers were debating whether or not to go immediately back in or to see what was going to happen with 1 World Trade at that point. The debate ended pretty quickly because 1 World Trade came down."

Thomas Fitzpatrick, Deputy Commissioner – “My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.”

Brian Dixon, Battalion Chief – “the lowest floor of the fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives all around it because…everything blew out on the one floor.”

Kenneth Rogers, Firefighter – “there was an explosion in the south tower…I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. It looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing.”

Karin Deshore, E.M.S - "Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode . The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and explosions where getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building"

Daniel Rivera, E.M.S. - "It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was - do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear "Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop" ? That's exactly what - because I thought it was that."


Again what the fuck you looking for ? a picture of cheney with his hand on a detonation plunger ? stop gving these criminal bastards the benefit of the doubt, THEY DON'T DESERVE IT.

I am familiar with Mr. Isaac's (aka Sentinal) beliefs. I was hoping that one of the fire-fighters who "testified to" bombs was actually in the building and witnesses them. Mr. Isaac is entitled to his opinion, but it is purely a second hand anecdote.

Originally thought. This quote seems to do the exact opposite of supporting the "bomb" hypothesis.

This is it? This isn't testifying to anything. This is people describing what they saw - many of them saying what they orginally or initially thought. Many of them using metaphors and similes. All of them unsourced. None of them within any context.

And STILL not one of them mentions seeing a bomb, wiring, anything that would prove these explosions were somehow made by pre-placed explosives.

Please try to keep this civil.

To answer your question... No. I was looking for something that you alluded to earlier - firefighters who "testified to" bombs in the building.

Instead you present me with one fiefighter who says “There were definitely bombs in those buildings". Unfortunately, he wasn't even in the towers. He can believe their were bombs as much as he wants, but he hasn't provided any evidence. His opinion is as valuable as yours at this point.

The rest of the quotes seem to be very important to you, yet not one of these folks testifies to bombs at all. Some of them go so far as say that they originally thought there were bombs... meaning that they no longer think there were bombs at all.

You've presented a list of quotes from firefighters. How many of them actually think that bombs were used in the buildings? The important question is do they think bombs were used? There is a big difference between saying "it looked like a bomb went off" and "I saw a bomb". You can't possibly think otherwise.

For a theory to be valid at all, it must be falsifiable, otherwise, it is completely and totally insignificant.

So, I'll ask you... what evidence would convince you that these firefighters do NOT believe bombs were used?