Christopher 7 --- C7 & C4 [Archive] - Page 2

jaydeehess

30th March 2007, 09:47 PM

In keeping with C7's request that Cd be discussed here and fire in the other thread I will answer the following post(from "10 storey hole") here.

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
So the building began coming apart 5 - 7 seconds before the west side roof and then the rest of the building began to fall and 4 - 6 seconds before the lone 'clap of thunder'.So what do you deduce this 'clap of thunder' was exactly?
Chris:
A lot of explosions going off at once or in very rapid sequence.

jaydeehess:
It certainly was NOT a series of closely spaced explosions taking out the core since the core had already been coming apart

Chris:
By very close i mean 100ths of a second, sounding like a single explosion.

Not if you wish the observed sequence of collapse to match what you propose. If all of the core columns were blown so close in time as to make the sound of all of them blend into one 'clap of thunder' then the entire core would have collapsed simultaneously. Instead what we know occured is that the after the east penthouse disappeared, then the screen wall, then the west penthouse also sank indicating a horizontal progression of failure in the core and not a simultaneous failure. Your senario would have produced failure of the entire core columns all within 1/100ths of a second(close enough to simultaneous for such things) not something that stretches out over a couple of seconds.

Chris:
My guess is, the columns under the penthouse were taken out one at a time to clear an area so the east and west walls could fall inward.
Daryl didn't have to run from the dust cloud so he was probably back around the 600' safety perimeter. He didn't hear the single devices going off one at a time but he did hear the big bang of the rest of the core columns and anything else they needed to blow.

That would require that sufficient time be allowed between chrages to allow an area to 'clear'. You have all columns going within 1/100ths of a second.

So Darryl was 600 feet away. You are aware that the sight of anything he was observing took place 0.29 microseconds before he saw it, while the sounds he heard took place a full second before he hears them.

Chris:
Demolitions companies have a variety of demolition devices, some louder than others.
We are not experts on what they have, when they use different devices, or why.
We can only speculate, endlessly.

None of them are silent!

Chris:
You are looking for a reason to deny that what Daryl heard and saw could have been a CD.

Oh, I believe that I have said that it could have been a CD. You keep seeming to miss it when I do say things like that. I simply cannot imagine any CD that would fit what Darryl describes and I cannot understand why we are to take Darryl at his word about his expertise in identifying the sound of an explosion over that of breaking steel.

I repeat;
I believe that the evidence supporting the hypothesis that debris damage and/or fire caused WTC 7 to collapse is much more convincing than the vidence that the building was taken down by explosive demolitions.

jaydeehess

30th March 2007, 09:53 PM

No, i said the Daryl was too far away to hear the collapse of the columns and floors under the penthouse. [which would have made a lot of noise]
Therefore he did not hear the [perhaps] smaller, single charges that started the initiating event.
The first thing he heard was the massive explosion that took out the other 18 core columns and whatever else that had to be blown to bring WTC 7 down.

Once again though your senario does not match the situation.

Columns 79,80,81 were at least as strong as the other 18. So they would hardly require smaller charges to take them out than to take out each of the other 18.
3 charges going off simultaneously would actually be a stronger percussive force than 18 going off in sequence.(it just would not last as long)

Gravy

30th March 2007, 10:11 PM

The splices [the pieces welded to the sides of the vertical columns] all severed in the same place and mostly straight.
The columns are not bent.

But Chris, how do you know what the columns above those splices looked like?

Do explain.

Ah, never mind. It's painful watching you contort your mind from one ignorant, desperate explanation to another, to another, to another. You think the exterior columns were blasted. That's just nuts.

Get help.

jaydeehess

30th March 2007, 10:18 PM

The only way for CD to be valid would be for it to mimic the effects that NIST showed for the senario of collapse.

That is column(s) 79/80/81 fail first resulting in a vertical failure that sees the east penthouse sink, followed by a horizontal, east to west, progressive failure of the other core columns resulting in a progressive, east to west sinking of the rooftop structures.

In 0.01 second an object would fall 2/100ths of an inch.
in 0.18 second an object would fall just over 6 inches
MAX!

18/100ths of a second is approx 10 frames of video.
How many frames of video does it take?
Would eighteen 0.01 second interval explosions really sound like one 'clap of thunder'?
Would it be louder than three 0.01 second interval explosions of equal power or would it just last longer?

A CD that has all 18 core columns being severed by explosives within 18/100ths of a second(such that the sound produced is indistinquishable from a single simultaneous explosion) would have seen the rooftop structures (west of the east penthouse)all starting to sink very close to within 18/100ths of a second from beginning to end. They did not. The screenwall very clearly started to sink well before the west penthouse's west end was moving downward, and had certainly gone more than 6 inches downward before the west penthouse began to sink as well.

jaydeehess

3rd April 2007, 12:21 PM

It is amazing how Christopher 7 can spend so much more time argueing against the fire cause rather than to defend his explosives cause of the collapse.

Not to mention the scant support he has received in showing evidence of explosives use by any like-minded folk here.

Christopher7

4th April 2007, 12:18 AM

In keeping with C7's request that Cd be discussed here and fire in the other thread I will answer the following post(from "10 storey hole") here.
Thank you.

Not if you wish the observed sequence of collapse to match what you propose. If all of the core columns were blown so close in time as to make the sound of all of them blend into one 'clap of thunder' then the entire core would have collapsed simultaneously.Wrong
Read post #252 again.

Instead what we know occured is that the after the east penthouse disappeared, then the screen wall, then the west penthouse also sank indicating a horizontal progression of failure in the core and not a simultaneous failure. Your senario would have produced failure of the entire core columns all within 1/100ths of a second(close enough to simultaneous for such things) not something that stretches out over a couple of seconds.
NiST Apx. L pg 33:
"The simultaneous failure of screenwall and west penthouse, ....."

So Darryl was 600 feet away. You are aware that the sight of anything he was observing took place 0.29 microseconds before he saw it, while the sounds he heard took place a full second before he hears them.
Good point
The very large explosion occurred about 2 seconds before the bottom floor caved out.

None of them are silent!40 floors collapsing under the penthouse would have made a lot of noise.
Daryl did not hear any of it. He was too far away.
He would not hear smaller single explosions either. IMO

Oh, I believe that I have said that it could have been a CD. You keep seeming to miss it when I do say things like that.I did miss that, my bad.
Thank you for the acknowledgement.
Daryl's statement qualifies as evidencd of a CD. [although not conclusive]

I simply cannot imagine any CD that would fit what Darryl describesActually, you have a very creative mind and you could come up with a scenario if you really wanted to.

and I cannot understand why we are to take Darryl at his word about his expertise in identifying the sound of an explosion over that of breaking steel.Daryl needs no expertise to describe what he heard as a clap of thunder.
You don't believe that it could have been demolition charges.
I don't believe that it could have been breaking steel.

I repeat;
I believe that the evidence supporting the hypothesis that debris damage and/or fire caused WTC 7 to collapse is much more convincing than the evidence that the building was taken down by explosive demolitions.We respectfully disagree on this point.

Gravy

4th April 2007, 12:23 AM

Chris, suppose the steel holding up a hypothetical skyscraper failed. What would you expect to hear?

Disbelief

4th April 2007, 08:41 AM

Christopher, I have a couple of questions about your pictures that you did not answer in the other thread.

Can a linear cutter charge cut completely through a support beam with no preliminary cuts?

What does a beam look like after a linear cutter charge is used?

Do you know when the pictures were taken to know if there would have been an opportunity to cut them?

Christopher7

4th April 2007, 11:28 AM

But Chris, how do you know what the columns above those splices looked like?
Perhaps you believe that the columns above the splices were bent.
I don't.

You think the exterior columns were blasted. Really? Show me where i said that.

Kent1

4th April 2007, 11:50 AM

If he was around 600 feet away he should of had no problem hearing the 40 story collapse. It would of been VERY VERY loud at well over 600 feet.

jaydeehess

4th April 2007, 11:57 AM

JD:
Instead what we know occured is that the after the east penthouse disappeared, then the screen wall, then the west penthouse also sank indicating a horizontal progression of failure in the core and not a simultaneous failure. Your senario would have produced failure of the entire core columns all within 1/100ths of a second(close enough to simultaneous for such things) not something that stretches out over a couple of seconds.
NiST Apx. L pg 33:
"The simultaneous failure of screenwall and west penthouse, ....."

Point taken, we have no reference as to the difference in time from the eastern most portion of the w.penthouse/screenwall falling and the west side. To my mind though the east end looks to tilt more than the west end indicating it went first.

JD:
So Darryl was 600 feet away. You are aware that the sight of anything he was observing took place 0.29 microseconds before he saw it, while the sounds he heard took place a full second before he hears them.
Good point
The very large explosion occurred about 2 seconds before the bottom floor caved out.

A very loud sound, a 'clap of thunder' is heard 2 seconds before he sees the bottom floor cave out. Which means that whatever produced the sound occured 3 seconds before he sees the bottom floor cave out.

We still do not know when, in the timeline of the collapse sequence this occured. It took about 5-7 seconds for the east penthouse to travel through the building. If Darryl's timeing is not absolutly correct(ie 'about 2 seconds') then what he heard could very well be that penthouse falling down or it impacting the 7th floor(which would be the loudest part of its fall)

JD:
None of them are silent!
40 floors collapsing under the penthouse would have made a lot of noise.
Daryl did not hear any of it. He was too far away.
He would not hear smaller single explosions either. IMO

Again with the definitive statements,"Daryl did not hear any of it". You have decided that what Daryl heard was an explosive going of and therefore he could not have heard the collapse startin.

JD:
Oh, I believe that I have said that it could have been a CD. You keep seeming to miss it when I do say things like that.
I did miss that, my bad.
Thank you for the acknowledgement.
Daryl's statement qualifies as evidencd of a CD. [although not conclusive]

Daryl's statement qualifies as non-expert, eyewitness, circumstantial evidence of CD or of snapping structural members.

JD:
I simply cannot imagine any CD that would fit what Darryl describes
Actually, you have a very creative mind and you could come up with a scenario if you really wanted to.

If I close my eyes and ignore other things then it just might fit.

JD:
and I cannot understand why we are to take Darryl at his word about his expertise in identifying the sound of an explosion over that of breaking steel.
Daryl needs no expertise to describe what he heard as a clap of thunder.
You don't believe that it could have been demolition charges.
I don't believe that it could have been breaking steel.

Daryl needs no expertise to report a loud sound and characterize it as similar to a familiar sound. He requires expertise to claim it had to be an explosion.

JD:
I repeat;
I believe that the evidence supporting the hypothesis that debris damage and/or fire caused WTC 7 to collapse is much more convincing than the evidence that the building was taken down by explosive demolitions.
We respectfully disagree on this point.

That we do

Christopher7

4th April 2007, 12:09 PM

Chris, suppose the steel holding up a hypothetical skyscraper failed. What would you expect to hear?
I would expect to hear a continuous rumbling sound.

I would not expect to hear a single clap of thunder in the middle of the collapse.

A collapse of a steel frame building is an on going series of connection failures.

Daryl did not hear the 5 to 7 second collapse of the columns and floors under the penthouse even though that would have made a very loud rumbling sound.

From two blocks away [more or less] he heard a clap of thunder about 4 seconds after the collapse began and about 2 seconds before the exterior walls started falling.

Perhaps you believe that one splice failure, or group of simultaneous splice failures, were many times louder than all the failures.

I think you will have a tough time selling that one anywhere but here.

jaydeehess

4th April 2007, 06:13 PM

I find it hard to actually believe that no one heard, at the distance of 600 feet, the internal collapse that was the east penthouse falling through. I mean I can hear a train rumbling along its tracks that is over 1500 feet away from my house. I can hear it in the house if my windows are open and that train is doing no more than 40 KPH usually and there are a lot of intervening buildings to block the sound.

Further to that, how many other people heard Daryl's 'clap of thunder' or having heard it thought it extrodinary? I would also imagine there were quite a few people who saw the north wall first floors bow out before the rest of the wall started coming down. Is there any video of the lower floors of the north wall?

Daryl was north of #7 right?

jaydeehess

4th April 2007, 06:16 PM

From two blocks away [more or less] he heard a clap of thunder

about 4 seconds after the collapse began
[more or less]
and about 2 seconds before the exterior walls started falling.
[more or less]

Daryl's timing of these events you are taking as gospel.

Christopher7

4th April 2007, 11:33 PM

[more or less]

[more or less]
Daryl's timing of these events you are taking as gospel.
No
We agree on the 'more or less'.
He said " sounded like a clap of thunder.....about a second later the bottom floor caved out..."
He made no mention of a rumbling before the clap of thunder.

No doubt other people heard and saw what Daryl heard and saw.
They may be keeping silent for fear of reprisal.

There may be other accounts on the 6,000 video clips that have been kept from public view for over 5 1/2 years.

Craig Bartmer said "I think I know an explosion when I hear one"

No single eyewitness account should be taken as gospel, nor should they be denied out of hand.

These two statements are evidence of a CD.

They are not conclusive in and of themselves but they cannot be ignored and it cannot be said that
"there is no evidence of explosions".

Disbelief

5th April 2007, 06:16 AM

No
These two statements are evidence of a CD.

They are not conclusive in and of themselves but they cannot be ignored and it cannot be said that
"there is no evidence of explosions".

But there is no evidence of bombs. Hence, no CD.

Christopher7

5th April 2007, 10:31 PM

But there is no evidence of bombs. Hence, no CD.
That's reverse logic.
If you mean physical evidence, you are safe in your denial because, as you know, the physical evidence was destroyed before it could be analyzed.

Kent1

5th April 2007, 10:53 PM

jaydeehess

5th April 2007, 11:06 PM

No
We agree on the 'more or less'.
He said " sounded like a clap of thunder.....about a second later the bottom floor caved out..."
He made no mention of a rumbling before the clap of thunder.

No doubt other people heard and saw what Daryl heard and saw.
They may be keeping silent for fear of reprisal.

There may be other accounts on the 6,000 video clips that have been kept from public view for over 5 1/2 years.

Craig Bartmer said "I think I know an explosion when I hear one"

No single eyewitness account should be taken as gospel, nor should they be denied out of hand.

These two statements are evidence of a CD.

They are not conclusive in and of themselves but they cannot be ignored and it cannot be said that
"there is no evidence of explosions".

As I said I can hear a train 1500 feet away. Daryl did not mention hearing the rumble of the collapse yet somehow manages to know that the clap of thunder occured 4 seconds after
the collapse began. From 600 feet away could he see the east penthouse? If he heard nothing then what caused his attention to go to the roof (basically looking up at a 45 degree angle)?

The 'fear of reprisal' refrain for explaining lack of corroiboration is yet another example of "lack of evidence=evidence" , and it goes nowhere since it requires a circular arguement. There was a gov't plot so people are afraid and therefore there is no evidence of a gov't plot beacuse it was a gov't plot.

As I said before they require no expertise to report a loud sound and characterize it in terms of a familiar sound (clap of thunder). They would require expertise to claim to have been able to positively identify that sound as something that is not so familiar such as saying, "I think I know an explosion when I hear one".

Their eyewitness report is evidence of an explosion OR a large structural member failing.

Chris since you are a carpenter you will have a metal measuring tape, probably a 1 inch or 3/4 inch wide one. Extend that metal tape upward in a high ceilinged room, for the sake of arguement make it 10 feet extended. Lock the tape and then slowly tilt the tape down. The tape remains relativly straight, only bending slightly until it suddenly emits a loud crack and kneels over. The 'crack' is very reminicent of a .22 cal gunshot. Very close to the same sound but not as loud. If you were not in the room but in an adjacent room you might assume a gunshot. Same goes for the sound of a 2 X 6 board falling flat on another. That is even louder and sounds exactly like a gunshot. I know hunting guides (experts at the sound of a gunshot) that will attest to having thought that sound was a gunshot.

Daryl and Craig were not experts in explosives. Their characterization of the sound as that of an explosion simply carries no weight.

So, there was a loud sound that, it is claimed, occured 4 seconds after a collapse had started. The start of this collapse that, it is claimed, was not heard, was only detectable then by looking up at close to a 45 degree angle and witnessing the sinking of the east penthouse. Then, about 1 second after the loud sound was heard (2 seconds after it actually emanated from the building given the distance and the velocity of sound in sea level air) the lower floors of the north wall caved outward.

Do I have this listed correctly Chris?

Kent1

5th April 2007, 11:09 PM

jaydeehess see my post above...for the full quote.
I saw his post #1628 in the other thread. Seems clear he has problems. Maybe if the figherfighter was temporarily blind and deaf for the beginning of the collapse I'd buy C7's claims. Otherwise it's clear he's grasping at straws.

Disbelief

6th April 2007, 06:20 AM

That's reverse logic.
If you mean physical evidence, you are safe in your denial because, as you know, the physical evidence was destroyed before it could be analyzed.

Just using your logic. You say that there is evidence for CDs because they heard explosions, and that is a leap. They heard explosions, so that is evidence of explosions. The cause of the explosions - be it bombs, transformers, gas tanks, whatever - is TBD so you have to use physical evidence. But you fall back on the "government conspiracy" so it was all destroyed. Now, you are involving the cleanup crews in the conspiracy because they would have to be silent. Plus, you are telling me that these guys are so good that they are able to clean up all physical evidence in that mountain of debris before anyone notices?

A W Smith

6th April 2007, 12:05 PM

Let me see if i can understand this. There were supposedly secret documents within the offices of building 7 outlining many conspiracies. But rather than have a shredding contractor destroy all evidence or even have in house aviator sunglass and trench-coat wearing agents destroy this evidence. They thought it was best to blast this building to kingdom come and disperse that documentation all over the streets of lower Manhattan where any passerby could just pick it up off the street and read it?

What a great idea! :dl:

Christopher7

7th April 2007, 12:00 AM

As I said I can hear a train 1500 feet away. Daryl did not mention hearing the rumble of the collapse yet somehow manages to know that the clap of thunder occured 4 seconds after
the collapse began. From 600 feet away could he see the east penthouse? If he heard nothing then what caused his attention to go to the roof (basically looking up at a 45 degree angle)?
He did not mention the penthouse because he did not see or hear its collapse.
"...heard....a clap of thunder...turned around...shocked to see...shockwave ripping through the building..."

The 'fear of reprisal' refrain for explaining lack of corroiboration is yet another example of "lack of evidence=evidence" , and it goes nowhere since it requires a circular arguement. There was a gov't plot so people are afraid and therefore there is no evidence of a gov't plot beacuse it was a gov't plot.Many people have come forward about 9/11. They have been harassed, fired or ignored.

Whistleblowers

http://www.pogo.org/m/hsp/hsp-911commission-040913.pdf

http://www.nswbc.org/Press%20Releases/NSWBC-911Comm.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/230904_whistleblowers.html

As I said before they require no expertise to report a loud sound and characterize it in terms of a familiar sound (clap of thunder). They would require expertise to claim to have been able to positively identify that sound as something that is not so familiar such as saying, "I think I know an explosion when I hear one".So only an explosives expert is qualified to identify an explosion.
Please
Craig was certain of what he heard.

Their eyewitness report is evidence of an explosion OR a large structural member failing.
No way could a structural member falling or breaking make a clap of thunder that could be clearly heard when all the falling and breaking under the penthouse was not heard.

So, there was a loud sound that, it is claimed, occured 4 seconds after a collapse had started. Where do you get 'claimed'?
There was a sound like a clap of thunder about 4 seconds after the penthouse started to collapse.
Do i need to do the math for you again?

about 1 second after the loud sound was heard (2 seconds after it actually emanated from the building given the distance and the velocity of sound in sea level air) the lower floors of the north wall caved outward.
Do I have this listed correctly Chris?Yes [minus the looking up part]

Christopher7

24th May 2007, 02:08 PM

Just using your logic. You say that there is evidence for CDs because they heard explosions, and that is a leap. They heard explosions, so that is evidence of explosions. The cause of the explosions - be it bombs, transformers, gas tanks, whatever - is TBD so you have to use physical evidence. But you fall back on the "government conspiracy" so it was all destroyed. Now, you are involving the cleanup crews in the conspiracy because they would have to be silent. Plus, you are telling me that these guys are so good that they are able to clean up all physical evidence in that mountain of debris before anyone notices?
Some volunteers at SEAoNY salvaged a few pieces of steel before the government could destroy all the evidence.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf

The sample from WTC 7 was analyzed and the results were published in this report:

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

BeAChooser

2nd July 2007, 11:20 AM

Christopher7, you insisted I ask my questions about your CD theories here. Very well.

Looking through this thread, you began by claiming its the lack of evidence that proves a CD. What can one do but laugh at logic like that.

In post #58, you were again asked to provide your evidence that WTC7 was a CD. In response, you posted a couple videos of the WTC7 collapse (which, by the way, do not show the entire collapse sequence) and implied they showed something significant.

But what do those videos really show? If a CD is that obvious in them, don't you think experts in demolition around the world would be coming forward by the droves to say so? All you currently have is the one ... Mr Jowenko.

In the other thread, you made the assertion that the number of eyewitness (and their expertise) to something was some sort of determinant of the truth. Your four eyewitness (all firemen) trumped the 1 non-fireman eyewitness. So why doesn't that logic work here? Why don't dozens of CD experts around the world who have looked at the WTC7 evidence and who say it was NOT a CD trump the one who does? Why is your logic different in this case?

And its turns out Mr Jowenko also said WTC1 and WTC2 were not CDs. So let me ask you, Christopher ... do you believe that? Or are you just going to claim, as you already did, that *this* thread is about WTC7 and ignore my question? If so, would you kindly link a thread where you will discuss the towers? Or is that something you simply don't want to discuss? And if not, why not?

But back to WTC7. Jowenko speculated that the WTC7 demolition was not a pre-planned event but instead something Silverstein decided to do on the spur of the moment because the building was so damaged from the debris and fires. Do you believe that? If so, how do you reconcile that with your claim in the other thread that there wasn't much damage to WTC7? You can answer that question since this thread is about WTC 7, can't you? Do you think the WTC7 demolition was a pre-planned event or not?

Now if you do believe Jowenko in this case, I can't figure out why Silverstein couldn't have waited till later to do that demolition but then I'm not a *truther*. Afterall, a bunch of other buildings were deliberately and publically brought down soon after 9/11 because they were damaged. Why would this one be handled differently? Maybe you can tell us why?

Like I said, let's get to the heart of the matter instead of continuing to spin around and around the issue. Let's see if you can present and define a rational theory of CD. Tell us how you think the demolition of WTC 7 was actually carried out and why. And answer your critics. Keep in mind that a successful defense of your *theory* is not just "claiming" that all the videos shot on 9/11 lacked sound or were too far away. A successful defense isn't ignoring questions like why they blasted with squibs from the top down. A successful defense isn't claiming only your CD expert is truthful (and only part of what he says is right) and all the rest of the experts around the world are corrupt, blackmailed into silence, or incompetent. A successful defense isn't claiming that $13,800 is all that stands between us and the proof it was a CD. A successful defense is not claiming that the beams in post #141 were cut when they clearly were not.

I see that you previously stated that "It took about 5 seconds for me to recognize that WTC7 was a controlled
demolition. It's a no brainer." Well tell us exactly why we should believe you rather than the many other REAL experts out there who say different? And if your expertise is that awesome, tell us what the first 5 seconds told you about WTC 1 and WTC 2. Or point me to a thread where you do.

Christopher7

3rd July 2007, 03:06 PM

Christopher7, you insisted I ask my questions about your CD theories here. Very well.

Looking through this thread, you began by claiming its the lack of evidence that proves a CD. What can one do but laugh at logic like that.
A through analysis of the physical evidence is by far the best way to conclusively determine what caused WTC 7 to collapse.

The possibility that similar buildings might collapse if one core column fails, mandates a swift, through examination of the physical evidence.

Withholding of most of the video and photographic evidence is unnecessary and makes any independent analysis very difficult.

Perhaps you trust the administration that systematically distorts scientific documents and has a clear conflict of interests in this matter, i don't.

In post #58, you were again asked to provide your evidence that WTC7 was a CD. In response, you posted a couple videos of the WTC7 collapse (which, by the way, do not show the entire collapse sequence) and implied they showed something significant. Look again, they do.

That is all the owner of a demolition company, Danny Jowenko, needed to say that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD.
Professional building implosions are very distinctive and easily recognizable, even by a lay person.
Anyone who says that WTC 7 does not look like a CD after a CD expert has said it is "absolutely" a CD, is lying.

But what do those videos really show? If a CD is that obvious in them, don't you think experts in demolition around the world would be coming forward by the droves to say so? All you currently have is the one ... Mr Jowenko.Saying that WTC 7 was a CD is saying that the US government is lying about 911.
Jowenko was told that WTC 7 collapsed several days after 911 so he gave an honest, unbiased opinion.
BY outing Valery Plame and ending her career, the administration sent a clear message to anyone who might expose their lies.
There will be a price to pay.

And its turns out Mr Jowenko also said WTC1 and WTC2 were not CDs. So let me ask you, Christopher ... do you believe that? He did not recognize the Trade Towers as CD's for the reason he gave.
They collapsed from the top down, not the traditional bottom up building implosion.

But back to WTC7. Jowenko speculated that the WTC7 demolition was not a pre-planned event but instead something Silverstein decided to do on the spur of the moment because the building was so damaged from the debris and fires. Do you believe that?No

If so, how do you reconcile that with your claim in the other thread that there wasn't much damage to WTC7? There was a lot of damage to the south west face of WTC 7
There was NO debris damage to the area of the initiating event.

Do you think the WTC7 demolition was a pre-planned event or not?There was not enough time on 911 to get everything and everyone needed to the site and rig WTC 7 for demolition.
WTC 7 was rigged before 911.

Now if you do believe Jowenko in this case, I can't figure out why Silverstein couldn't have waited till later to do that demolition but then I'm not a *truther*. Afterall, a bunch of other buildings were deliberately and publically brought down soon after 9/11 because they were damaged. Why would this one be handled differently? Maybe you can tell us why?
As you said, Jowenko was speculating.
Now you are asking me to speculate on 'why'.

Like I said, let's get to the heart of the matter instead of continuing to spin around and around the issue. Let's see if you can present and define a rational theory of CD. Tell us how you think the demolition of WTC 7 was actually carried out and why.You are asking me to speculate on every aspect of the collapse so you can talk it to death.

A successful defense isn't claiming that $13,800 is all that stands between us and the proof it was a CD. That's $239 and another 6 months before my FOIA request for pictures and videos of the south east part of WTC 7 will be considered.

A successful defense is not claiming that the beams in post #141 were cut when they clearly were not.So you think the beams in post #141 just broke off without bending or buckling?

I see that you previously stated that "It took about 5 seconds for me to recognize that WTC7 was a controlled
demolition. It's a no brainer." Well tell us exactly why we should believe you rather than the many other REAL experts out there who say different?Name one who says WTC 7 does not look like a CD.
Name one who says WTC 7 was definitely not a CD.

And if your expertise is that awesome, tell us what the first 5 seconds told you about WTC 1 and WTC 2. Or point me to a thread where you do.It took about 5 seconds for a demolitions expert to see that WTC 7 was a CD because it is blatantly obvious to anyone not in denial.
I did not recognize the Trade Towers were demolitions.
I thought that they collapsed under the weight of the upper stories until i started investigating and found out that the core framing was massive and essentially hollow.
The NIST report does not say what caused the bottom 70 floors of the WTC 2 framework to collapse.

DGM

3rd July 2007, 03:33 PM

Perhaps you trust the administration that systematically distorts scientific documents and has a clear conflict of interests in this matter, i don't.

This is something you need to explain. Nobody has explained the WHY of building 7. What could be the conflict of interest with that building.

simakperrce

3rd July 2007, 03:39 PM

Chris, why was Building 7 imploded?

BeAChooser

3rd July 2007, 06:09 PM

A through analysis of the physical evidence is by far the best way to conclusively determine what caused WTC 7 to collapse.

That's quite a change from your statement that "It took about 5 seconds for me to recognize that WTC7 was a controlled
demolition. It's a no brainer." Don't you think? Or are you claiming you conducted a "thorough" analysis in those 5 seconds? ROTFLOL!

BAC - "In response, you posted a couple videos of the WTC7 collapse (which, by the way, do not show the entire collapse sequence) and implied they showed something significant."

Look again, they do.

You must be claiming they show something significant (an opinion that real experts apparently don't agree with) since they clearly do NOT show the entire collapse sequence. They completely ignore the collapse of the east penthouse mechanical room that occurred about 7 seconds before the collapse they do show. But I guess they and you don't think that was "significant". Right?

That is all the owner of a demolition company, Danny Jowenko, needed to say that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD.

Mr Jowenko also said that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were "absolutely" NOT CDs.

And, by the way, shouldn't you mention to our readers that Mr Jowenko drew his conclusion about WTC7 after being shown ONLY the brief video clip that you posted ... the one which didn't show the east penthouse collapse? He may be a CD expert, but in reality he was led around by the nose ... by a *truth* movement member who not only fed him incomplete information but actually lied to him when he told him there was little damage and only a few small fires in the building. The truth is that Jowenko voiced his opinion without being told the building had been on fire for hours and hours ... without being told that firemen had stated hours prior to the collapse that the structure was heavily damaged, leaning and going to collapse. But then I guess you and that *truth* movement interviewer don't think that information was "significant". (sarcasm)

Anyone who says that WTC 7 does not look like a CD after a CD expert has said it is "absolutely" a CD, is lying.

And that would include all the other CD experts in the world? You are saying they are all liars? But I thought you just got done telling us in another thread that the side with the most *eyewitnesses* is the side with truth on their side. ROTFLOL!

Jowenko was told that WTC 7 collapsed several days after 911 so he gave an honest, unbiased opinion.

Actually, at the time Jowenko first expressed his opinion, the interviewer had failed to tell him that what he was looking at was an event that took place on 9/11 at the WTC site. Looks to me like Jowenko was led by the nose to his conclusion.

BY outing Valery Plame and ending her career,

First, must we *indignantly* remind you that this thread is about the collapse of WTC 7, not spurious allegations by democRATS about misconduct by members of the Bush administration? And second, apparently you are unaware that the "administration" did NOT out Valery Plame. Novak's primary source of information about Plame was not Scooter or Rove but former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage who admitted to being the source last year. And apparently he was unaware of Plame's undercover status when he spoke to Novak. Furthermore, you may be unaware that Fitzgerald knew Armitage was the source and still went ahead with his witch hunt and never once corrected the liberal press in its false assertions about Rove and Libby. But then I'm sure you really want to get back to talking about WTC 7. ROTFLOL!

He did not recognize the Trade Towers as CD's for the reason he gave.

But what about you? Do you agree with Jowenko that they weren't CDs?

BAC - "Jowenko speculated that the WTC7 demolition was not a pre-planned event but instead something Silverstein decided to do on the spur of the moment because the building was so damaged from the debris and fires. Do you believe that?"

No

Well, why not? I thought you thought Jowenko was an *expert*?

There was NO debris damage to the area of the initiating event.

How about fire damage?

There was not enough time on 911 to get everything and everyone needed to the site and rig WTC 7 for demolition. WTC 7 was rigged before 911.

But your CD *expert*, Mr Jowenko, clearly concluded there was enough time. A large portion of his interview video was, in fact, spent estimating the size of the crew and the amount of time it would have taken. So now you are telling us that he wasn't much of a CD expert afterall? But you are? ROTFLOL!

As you said, Jowenko was speculating.
Now you are asking me to speculate on 'why'.

ROTFLOL! Ok, since you apparently don't want to offer us a rational and self consistent reason why they would have deliberately demolished WTC 7 (presumably under the guise of a terrorist attack involving hijacked aircraft impacting WTC 1 and WTC 2), then let's just discuss the 'how'.

How did the demolition crew rig the building before the attack without anyone being the wiser? Demolition companies have stated it is highly unlikely they could have done that.

With that demolition experience you used to rule out a post-attack rigging of the structure, can you give us a brief estimate of how many people would have been involved in the rigging and how long it would have taken?

And wouldn't it have been a tremendous risk to wait 7 hours after the tower collapse with fires raging in the building before detonating the building? Afterall, couldn't those the fires damage the explosives or detonation devices?

And what about the risk of one or more firefighters discovering the demolition devices during their time searching the building for survivors? Or are you claiming that ALL the fireman at the site were part of the conspiracy?

And I have one more question. It seems like the perps were leaving a lot to chance in hoping that debris from the WTC towers would hit WTC 7 and cause enough damage and fires to explain away the collapse. What if that hadn't happened? What would the perps have done then? Just blow the building anyway ... which then definitely would have exposed the whole conspiracy?

You are asking me to speculate on every aspect of the collapse so you can talk it to death.

Hardly. I'm asking reasonable questions that I bet you are going to have a great deal of trouble answering.

So you think the beams in post #141 just broke off without bending or buckling?

I'm saying you don't even know what you are looking at. By the way, are you claiming that any broken beam that didn't bend or buckle must have been severed with a demolition device?

"I see that you previously stated that "It took about 5 seconds for me to recognize that WTC7 was a controlled
demolition. It's a no brainer." Well tell us exactly why we should believe you rather than the many other REAL experts out there who say different?"

Name one who says WTC 7 does not look like a CD.
Name one who says WTC 7 was definitely not a CD.

You are kidding, right?

Let's see ... the Senior Editor of Implosionworld.com (Brent Blanchard) said "Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse. As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless ... we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming ... but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to that building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

Oh that's right. You think he's a liar. And all the rest of the folks at Protec.

I thought that they collapsed under the weight of the upper stories until i started investigating and found out that the core framing was massive and essentially hollow.

So you consider yourself a structural engineering expert too? ROTFLOL!

The NIST report does not say what caused the bottom 70 floors of the WTC 2 framework to collapse.

And your theory is bombs? ROTFLOL!

Christopher7

3rd July 2007, 08:54 PM

You must be claiming they show something significant (an opinion that real experts apparently don't agree with)
Jowenko is a real, impartial expert.

since they clearly do NOT show the entire collapse sequence. They completely ignore the collapse of the east penthouse mechanical room that occurred about 7 seconds before the collapse they do show. But I guess they and you don't think that was "significant". Right?
It is not necessary to see the east penthouse fall to know that WTC 7 was a CD.

Mr Jowenko also said that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were "absolutely" NOT CDs.
Source?

And, by the way, shouldn't you mention to our readers that Mr Jowenko drew his conclusion about WTC7 after being shown ONLY the brief video clip that you posted ... the one which didn't show the east penthouse collapse?SFW?
Just like me, and anyone not in denial, he recognized WTC 7 was a CD without seeing the penthouse fall.
Later in the interview, you can hear Dan Rather and that clip shows the penthouse falling. He did see the clips with the penthouse falling.
He remained adamant that WTC 7 was a CD.

He may be a CD expert, but in reality he was led around by the nose ... by a *truth* movement member who not only fed him incomplete information but actually lied to him when he told him there was little damage and only a few small fires in the building. The truth is that Jowenko voiced his opinion without being told the building had been on fire for hours and hours ... without being told that firemen had stated hours prior to the collapse that the structure was heavily damaged, leaning and going to collapse. But then I guess you and that *truth* movement interviewer don't think that information was "significant". (sarcasm)What the Fire Chiefs thought is not significant.

A structural engineer thought the Meridian Plaza might fall.

It did not.

Three Fire Chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to fall, one Fire Chief did not.

They did not consult a structural engineer.

They had just seen the Trade Towers fall.

They had just lost hundreds of firefighters.

Their belief that WTC 7 was going to fall because of DD/F does NOT mean that's what caused the collapse.

No one lied to him except the person who told him that WTC 7 collapsed several days after 9/11.

In a phone call a couple months later, he reaffirmed that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD.

BeAChooser

3rd July 2007, 10:33 PM

Jowenko is a real, impartial expert.

If you say so. What I see is someone who was lied to by the interviewer and who drew a conclusion based on a highly edited version of the facts.

And by the way ... your expert seems to have disappeared. He doesn't seem to want anything more to do with the *truth* movement. Wonder why? Maybe it has something to do with being lied to by the *truther* who interviewed him. Perhaps he's just plain embarrassed to have been so easily fooled by you *truthers*. I bet he got a lot of ribbing from the rest of the demolition community. ROTFLOL!

It is not necessary to see the east penthouse fall to know that WTC 7 was a CD.

In your *expert* opinion? ROTFLOL!

Mr Jowenko also said that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were "absolutely" NOT CDs.

Source?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

He completely debunks the notion that the towers were CDs.

BAC - "And, by the way, shouldn't you mention to our readers that Mr Jowenko drew his conclusion about WTC7 after being shown ONLY the brief video clip that you posted ... the one which didn't show the east penthouse collapse?"

SFW?

SFW? I guess you'll have to provide me with a translation of your comment.

Later in the interview, you can hear Dan Rather and that clip shows the penthouse falling.

Prove that he actually saw it. Dan Rather was heard on lots of clips that did not show the penthouse falling.

What the Fire Chiefs thought is not significant.

Does it get any funnier than this, folks? ROTFLOL!

A structural engineer thought the Meridian Plaza might fall.

It did not.

I noticed that you just ignored my post about the Meridian Plaza fire on that other thread. You know ... the one where the United States Fire Administration explained why it fortunately did not collapse.

Three Fire Chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to fall, one Fire Chief did not.

Your point? That the one Fire Chief was right? ROTFLOL!

Their belief that WTC 7 was going to fall because of DD/F does NOT mean that's what caused the collapse.

Then why wasn't Jowenko told this information ... if it's so insignificant? You and I both know why Jowenko wasn't told what the firefighters on the scene thought and why they thought it.

No one lied to him except the person who told him that WTC 7 collapsed several days after 9/11.

So the interviewer telling Jowenko that there were only a few small fires in WTC 7 wasn't lying to him? You do know what the definition of "lie" is, don't you? ROTFLOL!

Jonnyclueless

4th July 2007, 12:13 AM

Wow, 8 pages and still no proof. Amazing...

JimBenArm

5th July 2007, 05:44 AM

BeAChooser:
SFW=So F***ing What.

BeAChooser

5th July 2007, 08:53 AM

SFW=So F***ing What.

Thanks. I feared that was it but I didn't want to just assume Christopher would substitute foul language for sound argument.

JimBenArm

5th July 2007, 09:50 AM

Thanks. I feared that was it but I didn't want to just assume Christopher would substitute foul language for sound argument.
Oh, of course not!

Christopher7

7th July 2007, 03:12 PM

If you say so. What I see is someone who was lied to by the interviewer and who drew a conclusion based on a highly edited version of the facts.
False.

He was shown several videos of the collapse. He knew it was a CD after seeing the first one.

The WTC 1 & 2 video was edited.

The WTC 7 videos parts 1, 2 and 3 are the complete interview.

You falsely accuse the producers of the WTC 7 video of lying and fail to notice or note the blatant misrepresentation of the facts by the producers of the WTC 1 & 2 video.

They show the squibs from the LC video and then edit in the statement by Jowenko about "bolts springing loose".

He was NOT referring to the squibs in that remark. He was talking about splices in the core framework failing.

The squibs are obviously not "bolts springing loose".

And by the way ... your expert seems to have disappeared. He doesn't seem to want anything more to do with the *truth* movement.He reconfirmed his position in a telephone call a couple months later.

In your *expert* opinion?In Jowenko's expert opinion.

He completely debunks the notion that the towers were CDs.
He did not think WTC 1 & 2 were CD's because they collapsed top down instead of bottom up.

Prove that he actually saw it. Dan Rather was heard on lots of clips that did not show the penthouse falling.At 1:20 in the first video, you can hear Dan Rather say "...well placed dynamite to knock it down."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

Also in this video at 1:07 he says "I remember that they told me that they've imploded it, it smoked for days.

In the second video at 0:13 you can hear Dan saying "Here we're going to ....."
At 0:32 you can hear him say ".... third time today...."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

Your point? That the one Fire Chief was right?Wrong.
The point is, not all the Fire Chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to collapse.

Then why wasn't Jowenko told this information ... if it's so insignificant? You and I both know why Jowenko wasn't told what the firefighters on the scene thought and why they thought it.
Did the producers of the WTC 1 & 2 video tell him about the dozens of firefighters who heard explosions?

If you want to get an unbiased opinion, you don't preface the showing of the evidence with things that other people said about it.

So the interviewer telling Jowenko that there were only a few small fires in WTC 7 wasn't lying to him? You do know what the definition of "lie" is, don't you? Yes, you just told one.

The interviewer did not say there were only a few small fires in WTC 7

In the third video at 2:32 the interviewer says "There was fire everywhere"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

Parsman

7th July 2007, 03:23 PM

I am really going to hate myself for joining in - I promised myself I wasn't going to feed the trolls. But....

From looking at a video of a building falling down some people seem to think it may look like a controlled demolition. Very few people in actual fact, and a very few of people whose business is controlled emolition (I believe that total still stands at 1?). However that is what they "see". All fine. Accepted even.

But you won't mind, will you, if I wait for the final report on the collapse of WTC7 detailling ALL the evidence gathered and coming to conclusions based on the science and the engineering of the situation. Until such time, as many people as want to can say "that grainy video looks like a CD" and it still means the square root of nothing at all.

DGM

7th July 2007, 03:37 PM

Chris;
Many people have asked this question but it never seems to get answered. WHY demo WTC7 seems kind of pointless. Can you possibly shed light on this for us?

BeAChooser

7th July 2007, 05:48 PM

BAC - "What I see is someone who was lied to by the interviewer and who drew a conclusion based on a highly edited version of the facts."

False.

He was shown several videos of the collapse.

I challenge you to point us to where in the video it shows the playing of a clip of the collapse that shows the entire collapse (i.e., includes the failure of the east penthouse mechanical room that occurred 7 seconds before the collapse that IS shown in the interview video.) If you claim it's a Dan Rather clip because you heard Dan Rather's voice, then provide us a link to that Dan Rather video and prove to us that the portion showing the east mechanical room failure was played during the interview.

The WTC 1 & 2 video was edited.

The video I linked clearly shows Jowenko stating that the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were NOT CD's and why. Are you suggesting the person in the video I linked isn't Jowenko? Or that the tranlation isn't accurate?

You falsely accuse the producers of the WTC 7 video of lying

A lie by omission. The interviewer in the WTC7 videos clearly let's Jowenko believe that there were only small fires in WTC7.

They show the squibs from the LC video and then edit in the statement by Jowenko about "bolts springing loose". He was NOT referring to the squibs in that remark. He was talking about splices in the core framework failing.

So you claim. Were you there when the interview took place? Do you speak Jowenko's native tongue? Can you link us to an "unedited" interview of Jowenko talking about WTC 1 and WTC 2 so we can see if you are right? This claims to be one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9TDJ8CM_eE&mode=related&search= I don't see anything removed from the one I linked (which was translated) during the portion where the squibs are shown and discussed. There doesn't appear to be any editing unless you are claiming the translation of Jowenko's comments is inaccurate. Is that your claim?

He reconfirmed his position in a telephone call a couple months later.

A long time ago. Where's Jowenko now? Anything at all recently from him? He seems to have abandoned you *truthers*.

He did not think WTC 1 & 2 were CD's because they collapsed top down instead of bottom up.

He also indicated that any explosives at the impact levels would have prematurely detonated ... another reason it wasn't a CD. "In Jowenko's expert opinion."

At 1:20 in the first video, you can hear Dan Rather say "...well placed dynamite to knock it down." ... snip ... In the second video at 0:13 you can hear Dan saying "Here we're going to ....."
At 0:32 you can hear him say ".... third time today...."

So now prove the video Jowenko was looking at those two moments showed the collapse of the east mechanical penthouse. That is your claim ... right? So provide us with the Dan Rather video where those statements are made and let's see if it shows the east mechanical penthouse collapsing. That is your claim ... right?

The point is, not all the Fire Chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to collapse.

So what? It is hard to get everyone to agree about everything. Surely you wouldn't have remained in the building because you heard 1 out of 4 firemen saying the building wouldn't collapse when the other three were all saying it would. Or would you?

Did the producers of the WTC 1 & 2 video tell him about the dozens of firefighters who heard explosions?

If they didn't, then they were remiss. They should also have told him the CONTEXT in which those statements were made. By the way, please provide a list of the firemen who think bombs brought down the WTC towers. I'm sure its a long one. (sarcasm)

you don't preface the showing of the evidence with things that other people said about it.

You do when it's expert opinion. The firemen thought the building would collapse long before it actually did. That was significant and Jowenko should have been informed.

The interviewer did not say there were only a few small fires in WTC 7. In the third video at 2:32 the interviewer says "There was fire everywhere"

Well first I have a problem with Jowenko being informed about the fire near the end of the interview when he's already put his reputation on the line by declaring it's a CD. Ask any psychologist. Most people in that situation will defend their position rather than change it ... even if it's wrong. It's human nature.

Furthermore, you are misrepresenting what the interviewer says.

*************

Interviewer - "This was the picture and movie thing. I don't know if I have other nice things to show, what more do I have. This has collapsed but the other building has imploded and on such a clean way that you have to ask yourself how could they do that in the chaos of that day. There was fire everywhere, and also in that building."

The interviewer was NOT saying the fire was everywhere in WTC 7. He just said there was fire in WTC 7. And continuing the video interview ...

Jowenko - "But that was a small fire, they could extinguish that and that was what they've done."

Jowenko is talking about the fire in WTC 7. His impression is that it was a small fire.

Interviewer - "No they didn't do that."

The interviewer does not correct Jowenko's mischaracterization of the fires in WTC 7 as small. Instead he just tells Jowenko that they didn't extinguish it.

Jowenko - "They didn't extinguish it?"

Interviewer - "No, not extinguished. So they'd have to do it while it was on fire."

**********

If nothing else, that's a lie by omission because the interviewer had the opportunity to correct Jowenko's mischaracterization of the size of the fires and did not. He mislead Jowenko. Just as you are trying to mislead the readers here.

Christopher7

7th July 2007, 09:00 PM

I challenge you to point us to where in the video it shows the playing of a clip of the collapse that shows the entire collapse (i.e., includes the failure of the east penthouse mechanical room that occurred 7 seconds before the collapse that IS shown in the interview video.) If you claim it's a Dan Rather clip because you heard Dan Rather's voice, then provide us a link to that Dan Rather video and prove to us that the portion showing the east mechanical room failure was played during the interview.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1643313543353229958&q=wtc7

The east penthouse collapse starts at 0:06

I have already listed two places when the CBS video was playing.
Here's one more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

The CBS clip starts at 0:15. At 0:38 you can hear Dan saying
".. a building was deliberately destroyed..."

You keep making a big deal about the east penthouse.
Jowenko was absolutely sure that WTC 7 was a CD before he looked at the penthouse portion of the clip.
Seeing the screenwall and the west penthouse collapse into the building is enough to know that WTC 7 was a CD.

A lie by omission. The interviewer in the WTC7 videos clearly let's Jowenko believe that there were only small fires in WTC7.So now it's a lie by omission. What about the "little damage" part?

...a *truth* movement member ....... lied to him when he told him that there was little damage and only a few small fires in the building.
The truth movement member did not lie, you did!

So you claim. Were you there when the interview took place? Do you speak Jowenko's native tongue? Can you link us to an "unedited" interview of Jowenko talking about WTC 1 and WTC 2 so we can see if you are right? This claims to be one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9TDJ8CM_eE&mode=related&search= I don't see anything removed from the one I linked (which was translated) during the portion where the squibs are shown and discussed. There doesn't appear to be any editing unless you are claiming the translation of Jowenko's comments is inaccurate. Is that your claim?Earlier in the video they show the collapse he is looking at on a laptop.

The clips showing the squibs from LC2 were edited into the interview.
They fade to black, add the LC2 clip, then the voice over says " Where the conspiracy theorists see explosions... Jowenko sees something else which may explain the rapid collapse"

He was not shown, nor was he referring to the squibs when he said

"You also see, as it were, the bolts spring loose at each turn."

and, after another LC2 add in

"It had a very strong core, and the beams were pretty strong ... but they're joined and it was 410 meters tall."

He was obviously talking about the core columns, NOT the squibs!

BeAChooser

8th July 2007, 10:14 AM

The east penthouse collapse starts at 0:06

After looking more closely at the Dan Rather clip and the interview tape, I have to admit you are right about Jowenko being given the opportunity to see the east penthouse mechanical room collapse. There is a 27 second gap between the time Dan Rather says "dynamite" and the point in the tape where the collapse of the east mechanical penthouse begins. At the time the collapse begins, Dan Rather is saying "Up now, here we are going to show you video tape of the collapse itself" and those words can be heard in the interview tape. The collapse specifically begins when Rather says "here we are". So yes, Jowenko was shown a videoclip with the east mechanical penthouse collapse. I was wrong.

But how closely did he look at the clip? I don't see Jowenko concentrating on the tape at that moment of the collapse. He glances at the monitor then looks away towards the interviewer. Frankly I think he missed that detail ... which isn't all that difficult to do the first time you watch this. And after all, he had already announced to the interviewer that it was "absolutely" a demolition so was he still in data gathering mode? And why had he already reached the conclusion it was a CD?

Let's look at how the tape starts. The interviewer is apparently showing Jowenko pictures of the building #7 and the collapse. There is no sound to accompany what he is shown, so this is apparently not the Dan Rather clip. At time 27 seconds in the tape after viewing this material, Jowenko says "Does the top go first? No, the bottom." This is clearly wrong yet the interviewer doesn't correct him. Instead, the interviewer says "It starts at the bottom." So up to this point, Jowenko was apparently not shown anything indicating the penthouse mechanical room collapsed first nor was he told by the interviewer that it did. I call that a significant omission. Don't you?

At 35 seconds into the tape, Jowenko says "Yes, you see the bottom floors go first." and again the interviewer agrees "Yes, the rest implodes." So the interviewer again lets Jowenko go on thinking the collapse began at the bottom. And this is important because the primary reason that Jowenko gave for concluding it was a CD is that the collapse began at the bottom. Which we see is not true. So Jowenko based his conclusion on a faulty premise.

I have already listed two places when the CBS video was playing.
Here's one more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

The CBS clip starts at 0:15. At 0:38 you can hear Dan saying
".. a building was deliberately destroyed..."

I'll agree that Jowenko is again being shown the portion of the clip with the east penthouse mechanical room collapse but he isn't concentrating on it. He is talking about the WTC tower collapses at the moment it is being shown. And that segment of the interview starts out with the interviewer saying "Look, it is simple like this? If you see the bottom going first, bursting-charges are involved?" So again, we find the interviewer deliberately misleading Jowenko into thinking the collapse began at the bottom instead of at the top in WTC 7.

You keep making a big deal about the east penthouse.

It is a big deal. It tells us that something very serious was happening in the structure many seconds before the collapse started at the bottom. It tells us that something was going on that perhaps doesn't fit the pattern of a CD painted by Jowenko and the *truth* movement.

Jowenko was absolutely sure that WTC 7 was a CD before he looked at the penthouse portion of the clip.

Exactly. And apparently hadn't been shown anything or told anything to suggest the collapse actually began with a major event on the roof.

Seeing the screenwall and the west penthouse collapse into the building is enough to know that WTC 7 was a CD.

Which is why dozens if not hundreds of demolition experts have joined in to agree with your *expertise*? (sarcasm)

So now it's a lie by omission.

Actually, it was more than a mere lie of omission. The interviewer knew that Jowenko thought the fires were small and let Jowenko continue thinking that despite having to have known that they were not small. That's being deceptive.

What about the "little damage" part? ... snip ... The truth movement member did not lie, you did!

First mention of damage to Jowenko is at the beginning of part 2 of the 3 part video, long after Jowenko has stated he's absolutely sure it was a CD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM

At 0:33, when describing the damage to WTC 7, the interviewer says "that building was damaged, not as serious as this building, this building, this building certainly not as serious as this building but it was slightly damaged at the outer side."

Only "slightly damaged"? Is that anything like "little"?

And, by the way, at 2:08 in part 2, Jowenko states "this is the work of man" and the interviewer gets him to agree with the statement "Thus we need no discussion about that ...", Jowenko answers "No, this is also a hired ... sir said it himself, you hear him saying 'pull it down'." Jowenko was referring to Silverstein's use of the word "pull" but he is misquoting him. Why didn't the interviewer correct that misquote? Surely the interviewer knew exactly what Silverstein said. So we have another instance of the interviewer letting Jowenko speculate on the basis of misinformation. Indeed, the Jowenko interview is filled with such instances.

Indeed, at 3:55 in part 2, we find yet another instance where the interviewer is letting Jowenko think the collapse began at the bottom.

Jowenko - "Yes, it starts on the bottom; ... snip ... "

Interviewer - "Ok, this has bursted from the bottom."

So ... was the interviewer just unaware that their video showed the east mechanical room on the penthouse collapsing first? Why else did this very important detail get overlooked throughout the entire interview? They even mentioned the penthouses at the end of the 3rd video and still the interviewer kept Jowenko in the dark. Why did they spend so much time speculating about Silverstein bribing people for insurance money (and how such corruption "ties America together") and spend so little time actually examining the details of the collapse and what the firemen were saying at the time? Were they really looking for the truth?

The fact is Jowenko jumped to his conclusion in the first 30 seconds of the interview after looking at (and being aware of) only a tiny portion of the evidence. That shouldn't give anyone great confidence in the accuracy of his method of analysis. Furthermore, the interviewer obviously wanted him to conclude there was a conspiracy and a demolition. He kept the failure of the east mechanical penthouse to himself (he had to have seen it). He understated the extent of the fires in the structures and failed to tell Jowenko what the firemen were saying at the time (he had to have know that). He (at least initially) understated the extent of the debris damage. He didn't correct Jowenko's misquote about Silverstein's use of the word "pull". Sorry, Christopher, but I don't think this was an honest interview.

Christopher7

8th July 2007, 05:00 PM

After looking more closely at the Dan Rather clip and the interview tape,..... I was wrong.

But how closely did he look at the clip? I don't see Jowenko concentrating on the tape at that moment of the collapse. He glances at the monitor then looks away towards the interviewer. Frankly I think he missed that detail
Yes, i noticed that too

... which isn't all that difficult to do the first time you watch this. And after all, he had already announced to the interviewer that it was "absolutely" a demolition so was he still in data gathering mode? And why had he already reached the conclusion it was a CD? He saw the rest of the interior [screenwall and west penthouse] collapse just before the exterior walls. It is obviously a CD.

The fact that the east penthouse collapsed first only adds certainty that it was a CD.

Clearing out a hole first allows the east and west walls to collapse inward.

Had they collapsed the whole interior at once, the north and south walls would collapse inward but the east and west walls would be forced outward, or the other way around.

The 'kink' that developed brought the east and west walls inward.

BeAChooser

8th July 2007, 05:21 PM

It is obviously a CD.

Well if it is that obvious, then it is equally obvious that hundreds of demolition experts around the world must be keeping silent. Did Silverstein bribe them too? What possible motivation could they have for not joining Jowenko in pointing out *the truth*? Hmmmmmm?

Christopher7

8th July 2007, 05:35 PM

Well if it is that obvious, then it is equally obvious that hundreds of demolition experts around the world must be keeping silent. Did Silverstein bribe them too? What possible motivation could they have for not joining Jowenko in pointing out *the truth*? Hmmmmmm?
As you well know, saying WTC 7 was a CD is effectively saying 911 was an inside job.

BeAChooser

8th July 2007, 05:52 PM

As you well know, saying WTC 7 was a CD is effectively saying 911 was an inside job.

So? That didn't stop Jowenko from going public.

If anything, seeing Jowenko speak out without being harmed should encourage others to do the same. But it hasn't. So again, I ask you what possible motivation might they have for not doing so if it is as obvious a CD as you and Jowenko claim? Are demolition experts just evil (except for Jowenko)?

DGM

8th July 2007, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by Christopher7
It is obviously a CD.

It's a little funny arguing about determining a CD by video images. A CD is basically a structural failure/gravity collapse. The problem with WTC 7 is the lack of noise.

I've seen 2 CD in person and I can truly say that I could identify one with my eyes closed. The sound is totally unique and unforgettable.

BeAChooser

8th July 2007, 06:18 PM

It's a little funny arguing about determining a CD by video images. A CD is basically a structural failure/gravity collapse. The problem with WTC 7 is the lack of noise.

Maybe there was a lack of noise for the same reason there are a lack of demolition experts publically supporting the theory. The folks who shot the various videos were intimidated into *editing* the sound tracks. ;)

DGM

8th July 2007, 06:27 PM

Maybe there was a lack of noise for the same reason there are a lack of demolition experts publically supporting the theory. The folks who shot the various videos were intimidated into *editing* the sound tracks. ;)
I've heard people say there was explosions but,(and you can ask anyone thats seen one live) they sound more like large caliber gun fire. Yes the noise is different. Regular explosives (bombs) have a much deeper sound and shock wave.

Calcas

8th July 2007, 06:57 PM

Chris;
Many people have asked this question but it never seems to get answered. WHY demo WTC7 seems kind of pointless. Can you possibly shed light on this for us?

No, they can't explain it.

Because it WOULD BE pointless.

Chris, care to hypothesize?

Christopher7

8th July 2007, 07:45 PM

So? That didn't stop Jowenko from going public.

If anything, seeing Jowenko speak out without being harmed should encourage others to do the same. But it hasn't. So again, I ask you what possible motivation might they have for not doing so if it is as obvious a CD as you and Jowenko claim? Are demolition experts just evil (except for Jowenko)?
He's in Europe and as he said, anyone in the US saying that WTC 7 was a CD "would be gone".

Christopher7

8th July 2007, 07:54 PM

Maybe there was a lack of noise for the same reason there are a lack of demolition experts publically supporting the theory. The folks who shot the various videos were intimidated into *editing* the sound tracks. ;)
So, we should ignore the visual evidence because we don't have much audio evidence. [just Daryl and Craig]

We should also ignore the owner of a CD company, who didn't have any audio evidence, and still says that WTC 7 was absolutely a CD.

DGM

8th July 2007, 07:58 PM

He's in Europe and as he said, anyone in the US saying that WTC 7 was a CD "would be gone".

Nobody that has spoke out in the US has ever been harmed or silenced. Alex Jones is living proof of that.

Christopher7

8th July 2007, 09:10 PM

Nobody that has spoke out in the US has ever been harmed or silenced. Alex Jones is living proof of that.
Not so

General Shenseki
Dixie Chicks
Valerie Plame
Stephen Jones
Kevin Ryan

Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer
Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott
James D. Smith
Major Eric Kleinsmith
(able danger whistle blowers)

Col. Steve Butler (man who trained two of the hijackers in US spy training in 1997)

Sibel Edmonds and Robert Wright (FBI agents)

Indira Singh

Major Mike McCormic (one of the most decorated heroes of 9/11 in NY)

These people were threatened, fired, had their pensions taken away, leagally gaged or arrested by a swat team (McCormic)

Don't bother posting your slander file on these people as it just reinforces the point that if you say the administration is not telling the truth there will be a price to pay.

BeAChooser

8th July 2007, 09:26 PM

He's in Europe and as he said, anyone in the US saying that WTC 7 was a CD "would be gone".

And you don't think Europe and the rest of the world outside the US have any other demolition experts besides Jowenko? ROTFLOL!

Why haven't any members of the Syndicat National des Entreprises de Démolition (SNED) in France come forward? Moe than 600 contractors are members of that organization. Are they all in fear for their lives from those nasty Americans in the black suits? (sarcasm)

Why didn't the attendees of this conference (http://www.asco-abbruch.de/html/demolition_2007.html) in Germany speak out? There were over 400 participants from all over Europe.

According to this article in Japan Times (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/member/member.html?nn20031230a3.htm) there "are roughly 30,000 demolition companies in Japan". Surely at least ONE person from ONE of those companies would come forward to support Jowenko's conclusion.

I ask you again. What is keeping any other demolition expert in the world from coming forward if it's so obvious that even you can see its a CD? Are demolition experts around the world completely imcompetent (except for Jowenko) or evil (except for Jowenko)?

BeAChooser

8th July 2007, 09:36 PM

So, we should ignore the visual evidence because we don't have much audio evidence. [just Daryl and Craig]

We should also ignore the owner of a CD company, who didn't have any audio evidence, and still says that WTC 7 was absolutely a CD.

We shouldn't ignore visual evidence.

But we also shouldn't ignore the auditory evidence, as you are doing.

And we also shouldn't promote such ridiculous nonsense as suggesting that all the demolition experts in the US are mum because they fear for their lives.

And by the same *truther* logic, the ridiculous nonsense that all the structural engineers, experts in macro-world physics, experts in fire, experts in steel and concrete and experts in seismology are incompetent or fear for their lives.

Indeed, what makes janitors, sub-atomic particle physicists, water treatment experts, economists, computer programmers, lawyers, and mechanical engineers so willing to sacrifice their lives when all the real experts in the subject of interest hide under their beds?

Christopher7

8th July 2007, 10:04 PM

We shouldn't ignore visual evidence.

But we also shouldn't ignore the auditory evidence, as you are doing.

And we also shouldn't promote such ridiculous nonsense as suggesting that all the demolition experts in the US are mum because they fear for their lives.
Who said any thing about fear for their lives?

And by the same *truther* logic, the ridiculous nonsense that all the structural engineers, experts in macro-world physics, experts in fire, experts in steel and concrete and experts in seismology are incompetent or fear for their lives.

Indeed, what makes janitors, sub-atomic particle physicists, water treatment experts, economists, computer programmers, lawyers, and mechanical engineers so willing to sacrifice their lives when all the real experts in the subject of interest hide under their beds?http://www.ae911truth.org

Some of these people are highly qualified structural engineers.
You seem to think that the others have no knowledge of things outside their area of expertise.
Such is not the case.

Many, but not all, experts are afraid to speak of for fear of being fired, not killed.

Would you please list some of these 'real experts' who say that WTC 7 was NOT a CD.

BeAChooser

8th July 2007, 10:23 PM

Not so

General Shenseki
Dixie Chicks
Valerie Plame
Stephen Jones
Kevin Ryan

Lt. Col. Anthony Schaffer
Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott
James D. Smith
Major Eric Kleinsmith
(able danger whistle blowers)

Col. Steve Butler (man who trained two of the hijackers in US spy training in 1997)

Sibel Edmonds and Robert Wright (FBI agents)

Indira Singh

Major Mike McCormic (one of the most decorated heroes of 9/11 in NY)

These people were threatened, fired, had their pensions taken away, leagally gaged or arrested by a swat team (McCormic)

ROTFLOL!

General Shenseki is not a member of the *truth* movement. He was fired. He left because the civilian leadership decided (right or wrong) not to listen to his views regarding the commitment needed to win the Iraq war.

Dixie Chicks were not punished by *the government*. They were punished by the people they relied on to buy their albums. If you insult your customers, expect to be punished.

Valerie Plame was not threatened or fired by the government. Nor has she had her pension taken away and she certainly hasn't been gagged or arrested. And she's also not on record supporting your silly theories.

Stephen Jones resigned from BYU. He himself stated he was not fired, left on amicable terms and was happy with the outcome. He was never threatened or fired by the government. Nor has he lost his pension, been gagged or arrested.

Kevin Ryan was fired because he represented his own screwy 9/11 views as those of Underwriters Laboratory when he published his views on UL stationary. He also misrepresented what UL data on the steel at the WTC means ... and did it on UL stationary.

Please provide proof that any of the able danger whistle blowers have been threatened, fired, had his pension taken away, gagged or arrested. Because to my knowledge, they have not. And I don't believe they have indicated any belief in your bombs in the towers theory.

As to Col. Steve Butler, Sibel Edmonds and Robert Wright I don't know whether the claims of their being threatened or otherwise punished are true or not. But I assure you that you only discredit the legitimate questions they (and the able danger whistle blowers) may be raising when you link them to nonsense like your bombs in the WTC towers theory. You do them a disservice.

Indira Singh? You really want to talk about Indira Singh? Ok. Her WTC7 testimony is assumption and heresay. Nothing more. Anything else she has to say? Well see my previous comment.

Major Mike McCormic? Your source for saying he was punished in some way?

BeAChooser

8th July 2007, 10:33 PM

Who said any thing about fear for their lives?

Jowenko. Remember? If not, see your post #302. And if not lives, fear of losing their job. That's just as ridiculous a claim.

http://www.ae911truth.org

Some of these people are highly qualified structural engineers.

Garbage. Here's a post I made previously on these claimed ae911truth experts. Let's see your response.

*************

Is "Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer, Lafayette, CA" really a structural engineer? I can find nothing to indicate that. Something written about his son on the web states that "His father, Haluk was an architect who came from Istanbul in 1945." And note that would make him over 80 years old.

How about "James Brooks, B. Civil Eng, University of Texas, Engineering Consultant"? I can't find anything on the web about him. Nothing at the University of Texas either. Who does he work for? What has he been working on since graduation? When was that?

"Jason Griffin, BS, Civil Engineer Washington Dc" is listed elsewhere as belonging to ASCE and being a project coordinator. But again, what is his actual experience. Is it water treatment? Foundation engineering? Highway engineering? Without knowing more, it's impossible to tell whether he actually has any relevant qualifications.

"Ted Muga, BSCE, Civil Engineer, San Diego, CA" is described on the Scholars for 9/11 *Truth* website as a "naval aviator, commercial pilot, structural engineering". But what engineering work did he ever actually do to merit the claim of being a structural engineer? At the patriotsquestion911 website he lists himself as a retired aviator and pilot. But there is no mention of being a structural engineer. Why not mention that if he is one?

By the way, there is an interview with Ted Muga on the web where he says he retired as a naval aviator in 1985 and retired as a commercial pilot in 1991. Again, there is no mention of his doing structural engineering at any time in his life. A little over half way through that interview, the interviewer makes several false claims ... that there was "a visible lack of wreckage around the site of the hole" in the Pentagon and that "there was no indication that the large turbine engines on each wing of the plane had impacted the sides of the Pentagon. There would have been some mark or small holes or something in the side of the Pentagon. The momentum of those heavy engines would have carried forward with the plane hitting in the side of the pentagon at over 200 mph and made some mark but there was nothing there." Both statements are absolutely false as photos that are readily available on the internet prove. And Ted Muga, claimed structural engineer, is asked about this and doesn't correct him. No, instead he claims the plane wreckage and contents (fuselage fragments, wing fragments, seats, etc) should have been strewn all over the front of the pentagon. He says that the engines didn't damage the building but should have. He claims that the fuselage and most of the rest of the plane (other than engines and landing gear) couldn't have damaged the building ... that the fuselage and wings should have shattered on impact. He says "there is absolutely no evidence at all that a large commericial aircraft had gone in there." Well that is absolutely FALSE. So clearly Ted is completely ignorant of the facts about the damage that occurred. But that doesn't stop him from regurgitate the lies of the interviewer because he, like the interviewer, apparently has an agenda so the truth doesn't matter to him.

In other venues, "Joseph Testa, P.E., Civil Engineer, Thousand Oaks, CA" claimed to have "worked in structural steel for years" and "studied major structural collapses." But all we really know about this guy is what he claims. We don't know where he's worked. We don't know what degrees he has. And searching California Professional Engineers returns no hits under that name.

Again, there is no other reference for "Dr. Michael Voschine, PhD., Structural Engineer, Miami, Florida" on the web other than ae911truth's. We have no idea if this a real person, where he got his degree, where he's been practicing engineering, what projects he's been involved in or what he actually thinks.

"Rob Tamaki, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Civil Engineer, Vancouver, BC" is not an expert in buildings. He's on the Small Water and Waste Systems Committee for B.C.. He's about as qualified as you when it comes to structures, impact, fire and collapse.

"John Franklin, P.E." Surely you can tell us more than that. What is is expertise and experience? Why is so little information provided if you've checked these folks credential out?

"Peter Gibbons P.E., Professional Engineer" Same complaint.

Next we have "Rich Reed, B.S. Structural Engineering, UC San, Structural / Soils Engineer" in San Diego, California. Not much else available about him either.

"Robert Tamaki, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Civil Engineer" Vancouver, BC. Same complaint.

"Dennis J. Kollar, P.E., Structural Engineer" Same complaint. Although there is a Dennis Kollar apparently working for Ambrose Engineering in Cedarburg, WI and they do structural engineering. They seem to do a lot of schools.

"Ron Paul LeBlanc, PE, Engineer" Same complaint. Oh wait. Turns out he's in another line of work now ... real estate and selling home businesses.

The ae911truth site lists "Charles N. Pegelow, PE, Civil Engineer. lic Calif CE 26344 (Structural)" as a member. Mr Pegelow has a BS in civil engineering, not structural engineering. That's a separate, higher level degree. His is also a civil engineering license, rather than a structural engineering license. The ae911truth website is dishonest in implying that it is a structural license. Furthermore, it turns out that Pegelow has been working for about 30 years in the oil drilling industry. He spent almost his entire life working on oil drilling platforms. He's not an expert on buildings, much less skyscrapers.

"Warren J Raftshol, MS Civil Engineering, 1982" is listed as from Suttons Bay, Michigan. Unusual name. Could this be the same person? "Warren Raftshol, Suttons Bay, MI 49682 Grape grower, winery owner, libertarian since 1965." And elsewhere on the web he's described as follows "Raftshol, 51, has a scraggly beard and wears wide suspenders, denim shirts and jeans. He's a man with no pretenses. Though he has a master's degree in civil engineering from Northwestern University, he chose agriculture on the family homestead. "Back in the early '80s," he reminds you, "there were no jobs.""

"Massimo Dell'Affidabilità, Ing., Engineer, Structural Specialist". Well the name is a sure clue that the entry is bogus. Don't you think?

*************

So what were you saying about ae911truth experts? ROTFLOL!

DGM

9th July 2007, 04:32 AM

Don't bother posting your slander file on these people as it just reinforces the point that if you say the administration is not telling the truth there will be a price to pay.

You forgot to mention Chris Bollyn. :D

JimBenArm

9th July 2007, 06:14 AM

You also forgot Christopher7 on that list. Oh, wait, he's just been laughed at and mocked mercilessly. Still alive and kicking, isn't he? Not been placed in a re-education camp or anything? Not even a threatening phone call?
And it's not like posting under a pseudonym here offers him any protection if the ebil gubbmint wants him. That he's still here, posting this nonsense freely, shows how laughable his ideas are!

Christopher7

14th July 2007, 01:57 AM

Devil's Advocate

14th July 2007, 05:31 AM

DGM

14th July 2007, 05:47 AM

The video was interesting to be sure. I would side with Jowenko, in his implication that the reason the building owner would want it brought down would be because of the high price of repair.
Just pay some people off to drop the building and just rebuild it.
But if that were the case, that would implicate the buildings owner, not the government. (If of course CD had been used at all

The catch with this though is it would have had to happen quickly and in plain sight.

I think it can happen quickly as long as you don't mind dropping the controlled part of the demolition. The catch to that is you need more explosives.

To think that no one would notice the tractor trailer pulling up and a large team loading the building with charges is just silly.

Besides the building was insured for this type of thing. Silverstein would have no motive and would have to convince the FDNY and the city to do it.

lapman

14th July 2007, 10:34 AM

You think the owner of a demolition company is talking nonsense because he hays WTC 7 was a CD.This is a fun one. Danny only saw the last 6 seconds of the collapse from a tiny, muted video clip. He was also only told that there was fire in the building. He was not told of the structural damage. Since the sound was muted, he would not have known that there wasn't a single sound of the so-called explosives recorded. So, he is basing his comments only on very limited info so he could only make assumptions. So the WTC7 interview was carefully engineered toward getting the results the interviewers wanted.

His comments on the WTC1&2 are a very different matter. The video he was looking at was the Loose Change video with sound including the "explanations" of what was being shown. He understood perfectly what was going on in the towers. He explained in detail why it was a collapse and not a CD. He explained why the "squibs" and "popping sounds" are a part of the collapse in great detail and went on to say that it would have been impossible to bring down the towers from the upper portions with explosives.

Christopher7

14th July 2007, 03:53 PM

This is a fun one. Danny only saw the last 6 seconds of the collapse from a tiny, muted video clip. He was also only told that there was fire in the building. He was not told of the structural damage. Since the sound was muted, he would not have known that there wasn't a single sound of the so-called explosives recorded. So, he is basing his comments only on very limited info so he could only make assumptions. So the WTC7 interview was carefully engineered toward getting the results the interviewers wanted.
They showed him videos of WTC 7 collapsing.

He knew about the debris damage.

1:35 into the interview he says
"They had a piece of luck that since there was already very much destroyed"

He knew about the fires.

1:09
"I remember that they told they've imploded it, it smoked for days."

He did not need to hear the explosions.

Whatever he saw convinced him that WTC 7 was a CD

At the end of the interview, after looking at the column layout, he still said that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD.

A couple months later, in a phone call, he reaffirmed that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD.

He is an expert, you are not.

The videos are clearly "compelling evidence" of a CD, yet the authors of a report, from an administration that systematically distorts scientific documents, say there is no evidence of CD.

The scientists and engineers make no mention of why CD was not considered a possibility.

How many people have independently stated that the videos are not evidence of a CD ?

DGM

14th July 2007, 04:06 PM

Chris:
You never answered me on the WHY. I'd really like to hear your thoughts

DGM

(eta) you can say you don't know, it's not a crime. I can except that

Christopher7

14th July 2007, 04:59 PM

Chris:
You never answered me on the WHY. I'd really like to hear your thoughts

DGM

(eta) you can say you don't know, it's not a crime. I can except that
There is no way i could know why, but there is motive.

$

However, that's another subject for another thread.

DGM

14th July 2007, 05:09 PM

There is no way i could know why, but there is motive.

$

However, that's another subject for another thread.
Thank you. Now that wasn't so hard was it.

Silverstein lost money but like you say thats for another day.

DGM

JimBenArm

14th July 2007, 05:52 PM

You think the owner of a demolition company is talking nonsense because he hays WTC 7 was a CD.

You think you know better.
Where did I say that? Point to where I said anything at all about that. I'm talking about YOU Christopher7. I'm pointing out that you're posting this junk, and no one has sent you away. But then, if you allow that thought to penetrate, you'd have to rethink the whole CD stuff, so you can't allow that to happen, can you, Chris ol' boy? Then you'd have to admit you're WRONG!
And that's the one word you are most afraid of.

Dave Rogers

14th July 2007, 06:37 PM

He knew about the fires.

1:09
"I remember that they told they've imploded it, it smoked for days."

Since WTC7 only burned for seven hours, doesn't Jowenko's assertion that "it smoked for days" prove that he didn't know the full details of the fires?

Dave

Christopher7

14th July 2007, 07:14 PM

Where did I say that? Point to where I said anything at all about that. I'm talking about YOU Christopher7. I'm pointing out that you're posting this junk,
You believe people in the CD business in the US are free to say "WTC 7 was a CD" without fear of reprisal, i do not.

Christopher7

14th July 2007, 07:46 PM

Since WTC7 only burned for seven hours, doesn't Jowenko's assertion that "it smoked for days" prove that he didn't know the full details of the fires?

DaveSo what?

He knew there was much damage. He knew there were fires.

By 4:45, the fire on floor 12 had burned out
The only fire in the area of the initiating event when WTC 7 collapsed was on floor 8 on the east side.

He did not need to hear the explosives or know the full details of the office fires you think caused the collapse.

He is an expert, you are not.

He said WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD based on what he saw in the first video.

After having a couple months to consider the evidence, he still said that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD.

No one can justifiably say that the videos are not evidence of a CD when the owner of a CD company says they are proof of a CD.

Jonnyclueless

14th July 2007, 08:01 PM

You believe people in the CD business in the US are free to say "WTC 7 was a CD" without fear of reprisal, i do not.

In other words they're all part of this conspiracy and all contradicting you because they are all afraid. What you really mean to say is that their expertise is devastating to your claims. Can you prove that they are all disagreeing with the conspiracy theories because they all fear reprisal?

Who is going to reprise them? And then that means that those people are part of it as well no? I would like to see this evidence so that we can confirm you aren't just making it up because it hurts your claims. Anyone can say such things, but this is really more a forum of science.

None of the supposed Engineers and Architect on your little web site seem to have any fear. Why is it only the people who don't buy into these claims do?

Dave Rogers

14th July 2007, 08:10 PM

So what?

No, you say so what. You're the one who chose to back up Jowenko's conclusion by stating that he knew about the fires. When you're proven wrong, suddenly you do an about-face and say it wasn't important that he didn't know about the fires. In other words, your confirmation bias is showing.

Dave

LashL

14th July 2007, 08:56 PM

The video was interesting to be sure. I would side with Jowenko, in his implication that the reason the building owner would want it brought down would be because of the high price of repair.
Just pay some people off to drop the building and just rebuild it.
But if that were the case, that would implicate the buildings owner, not the government. (If of course CD had been used at all)

That doesn't really make sense to me. If it would cost more to repair the building than to demolish it and rebuild, that is precisely what the insurers would choose to do. The owner would not be responsible for the cost of repairing or rebuilding. Thus, I do not agree with the implication that this would be a rational reason or motive to have it demolished, secretly, on September 11, 2001.

And I agree with everyone else here that there is no point in speculation. Wait until the NIST report comes out and see what they have to say.
I'm sure the CT crowd is expecting a whitewash, but just give it a chance before you dismiss it.

Agreed.

JimBenArm

14th July 2007, 09:11 PM

You believe people in the CD business in the US are free to say "WTC 7 was a CD" without fear of reprisal, i do not.
Oh, yeah, they sit around going "I can't tell that the government killed those people, I might not work again!" They are all obviously cowards, and are just okay with that. Not a one of them will come forward, because they all lack courage and integrity. Every last one of them.
Way to go, Chris. Just slammed another group of people, with zero evidence, just to support your "evil coverup" fantasy. Cool. So how many others are sniveling cowards, in order to make this fantastic scheme work?

Christopher7

14th July 2007, 11:08 PM

No, you say so what. You're the one who chose to back up Jowenko's conclusion by stating that he knew about the fires.
He did know about the debris damage and the fires.

When you're proven wrong, suddenly you do an about-face and say it wasn't important that he didn't know about the fires. In other words, your confirmation bias is showing.

DaveYour reading comprehension is impaired.

I said it doesn't matter if he knew the 'full details' of the fires.

You are trying to talk around the fact that he was certain that WTC 7 was a CD.

LashL

14th July 2007, 11:28 PM

You believe people in the CD business in the US are free to say "WTC 7 was a CD" without fear of reprisal, i do not.

So, what are you really saying here, Chris? You seem to be suggesting that those who work and have some degree of expertise in the demolition business in the United States are all - every single one of them - so fearful of losing their jobs that they would knowingly cover up the deliberate murder of thousands.

Let's pretend for a moment that both you and I are both employed by and have expertise in the demolition industry in the United States. Would you speak up and say that you believe, on the basis of your expertise in the demolition industry, that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were deliberately demolished?

I certainly would.

What is the price of your silence in the face of the deliberate murder of thousands? Personally, nobody could pay me enough to shut me up in the circumstances outlined above, and I have a very hard time believing that I am alone in that.

Arus808

14th July 2007, 11:57 PM

and what prevents a whislteblower from moving to another country then speaking out? what prevents those in other countries, not favorable of the US from speaking out?

Christopher7

15th July 2007, 12:05 AM

Oh, yeah, they sit around going "I can't tell that the government killed those people, I might not work again!" They are all obviously cowards, and are just okay with that. Not a one of them will come forward, because they all lack courage and integrity. Every last one of them.
Many people have forgotten about WTC 7, some are afraid to speak out, others are speaking out, but when they do, you brush them off as kooks.

You brush off Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth and anyone who says the official story is BS.

I have read the slam sheet on 13 of the engineers from ae9/11 truth.
Have you got one for the architects yet?
All those people have degrees in architecture or engineering.
Do you have one of those?
Who are you to say they don't know what they are talking about?

You deny the video evidence in spite of the fact that the owner of a CD company says WTC 7 was a CD based on that video evidence.

Then you say "There is no evidence"

Do you know more about CD's than Danny Jowenko ?

Christopher7

15th July 2007, 01:01 AM

and what prevents a whislteblower from moving to another country then speaking out? what prevents those in other countries, not favorable of the US from speaking out?People in foreign countries are speaking out but you won't hear about them on MSM.

http://www.911oz.com

http://www.911blogger.com/node/8267

http://www.prisonplanet.com/021104vonbuelow.html

When a fact like Jowenko saying that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD cannot be denied and therefore the videos of WTC 7 imploding are clearly evidence of a CD, people here try to change the subject.

LashL

15th July 2007, 01:48 AM

Hmmph. No answer, Chris?

So, what are you really saying here, Chris? You seem to be suggesting that those who work and have some degree of expertise in the demolition business in the United States are all - every single one of them - so fearful of losing their jobs that they would knowingly cover up the deliberate murder of thousands.

Let's pretend for a moment that both you and I are both employed by and have expertise in the demolition industry in the United States. Would you speak up and say that you believe, on the basis of your expertise in the demolition industry, that WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were deliberately demolished?

I certainly would.

What is the price of your silence in the face of the deliberate murder of thousands? Personally, nobody could pay me enough to shut me up in the circumstances outlined above, and I have a very hard time believing that I am alone in that.

Come on. What's your price?

Christopher7

15th July 2007, 02:03 AM

Hmmph. No answer, Chris?

Come on. What's your price?I would speak out and probably get fired.

You would accept Half Baked Farce I & II as reasonable and patiently wait 6 years or more for Half Baked Farce III, the final episode.

LashL

15th July 2007, 02:17 AM

I would speak out and probably get fired.

So, you would speak up despite the risk of being fired for doing so, yet you simultaneously believe that not a single person among the tens of thousands who actually work in the field would do so?

Really?

Do you not see the obvious here?

You would accept Half Baked Farce I & II as reasonable and patiently wait 6 years or more for Half Baked Farce III, the final episode.

That's just a silly and unfounded attempt to change the subject, and not worthy of response.

Let's stick with the current subject, which is you insinuating that there are a whole lot of people in the demolition industry who are deliberately and wilfully remaining silent about the conspiracy theories you spout (i.e. controlled demolitions) because, according to you, they would be fired for speaking up about the "truth".

What you are really saying here, Chris, is that those who work or have expertise in the demolition business in the United States are all - every single one of them - so fearful of losing their jobs that they would knowingly cover up the deliberate murder of thousands.

Now, you say that if you were one of those people who work or have expertise in the demolition business, you would speak up and expose the vast conspiracy that you imagine, so you obviously, would not be afraid of losing your job and would not be afraid of the NWO. So, why do you imagine that those who actually work in the industry should be or would be afraid?

You are suggesting that all of the thousands of people who work or have expertise in the demolition business have been cowed, paid off, or otherwise forced into keeping quiet about the murder of thousands of innocent people, for fear of losing their jobs. Yet you, had you been in their shoes, would stand up and speak up and have none of the fear that you ascribe to them.

It comes back to you accusing a whole lot of people of being either paid off or frightened into keeping quiet about the murder of thousands. No amount of money could buy my silence about such an atrocity, and I suspect that the same is true of most decent people.

Christopher7

15th July 2007, 03:00 AM

So, you would speak up despite the risk of being fired for doing so, yet you simultaneously believe that not a single person among the tens of thousand who actually work in the field would do so?
Exaggerate much?

There are very few experts in the CD industry.

Let's stick with the current subject,Right, After viewing one video of WTC 7 imploding, Jerwenko said that it was a CD.

It cannot be said that the videos are not evidence of a CD.

He is the only owner of a CD company to state his opinion publicly.

So far, no owner or expert from a CD company has viewed the videos and disagreed with him.

LashL

15th July 2007, 03:24 AM

Exaggerate much?

There are very few experts in the CD industry.

I am not exaggerating at all. How about quoting my words instead of cherry picking them, and how about reading them for comprehension instead of just pretending that they are what you wish them to be? That would be a good start. I realize how difficult that is for you troofer types but, come on, I spelled it out all nice and clear for you deliberately.

Right, After viewing one video of WTC 7 imploding, Jerwenko said that it was a CD.

Yes, exactly. No wonder he was wrong.

It cannot be said that the videos are not evidence of a CD.

Sure, it can. Watch this: the video is not evidence of a CD. See how easy that was?

He is the only owner of a CD company to state his opinion publicly.

Not so.

So far, no owner or expert from a CD company has viewed the videos and disagreed with him.

Not so. But you already know this. And even if it were true, which it is not, that wouldn't make him right, particularly since he killed his own credibility by jumping the gun and purporting to opine on the matter with insufficient data.

Now, back to the prior point - do you honestly believe that everyone who works in the demolition industry in the United States has been bought off or cowed into silence about the murder of thousands?

Christopher7

15th July 2007, 12:42 PM

Not so. But you already know this.
Please name the expert and CD company who has said that WTC 7 was definitely not a CD.

And even if it were true, which it is not, that wouldn't make him right, particularly since he killed his own credibility by jumping the gun and purporting to opine on the matter with insufficient data.He had sufficient data.

He knew about the debris damage and fires.

He could see WTC 7 implode.

He is an expert, you are not.

No one in the CD industry has said that Jowenko is wrong.

Now, back to the prior point - do you honestly believe that everyone who works in the demolition industry in the United States has been bought off or cowed into silence about the murder of thousands?I cannot speak for everyone in the industry. I have had people tell me that if they were to give away LC2 or other CT videos at work, they would be fired.

Other than the editors of Implosions World, [who document but do not actually demolish buildings] i have not seen any statement by an expert in the CD industry that has stated that WTC 7 was definitely not a CD, have you?

DGM

15th July 2007, 01:48 PM

Other than the editors of Implosions World, [who document but do not actually demolish buildings] i have not seen any statement by an expert in the CD industry that has stated that WTC 7 was definitely not a CD, have you?

The idea that it was a CD is not that well known.

You may find this hard to believe but not many people believe or have even heard the conspiracy claims. Sure it's big on the internet but only in small circles.

As Nicepants said why would they comment on a non issue? Jowenko hasn't said anything about it in a long time.

Christopher7

15th July 2007, 04:52 PM

The idea that it was a CD is not that well known.

You may find this hard to believe but not many people believe or have even heard the conspiracy claims. Sure it's big on the internet but only in small circles.
Thank you.

This explains why many people in the CD industry are not saying WTC 7 was or was not a CD.

So far, we have Jowenko saying it "absolutely" was a CD
and no one from a CD company saying that it was not a CD.

As Nicepants said why would they comment on a non issue? Jowenko hasn't said anything about it in a long time.Non issue?

If WTC 7 was a CD, then 9/11 was an inside job.

This is why some people are reluctant to speak out.

This is why some people don't even want to think about it.

This is why some people try to downplay or dispute the unbiased opinion of the owner of a CD company.

No expert from a CD company has disputed what Jowenko said.

Jowenko need not repeat himself, the video is available for all to see at any time.

The phone call where he reconfirms that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD, is also available.

DGM

15th July 2007, 05:34 PM

Chris;
If WTC 7 was a CD, then 9/11 was an inside job.

This is why some people are reluctant to speak out.

This is why some people don't even want to think about it.

This is where I think your wrong. I think you give people to little credit. I know for myself I would not hesitate to blow the whistle.

twinstead

15th July 2007, 05:57 PM

In order for Chris's fantasy to stay intact, he MUST believe that the only reason the vast majority of real CD experts on Earth haven't come out against the official story is because they are afraid.

In fact, Chris, you have to cling to that little belief like it is a some kind of life jacket after a shipwreck, don't you?

You are a walking, talking stereotype, Chris. Anybody who has studied conspiracy theorists are very well aware of the little circuit breakers that they have installed to protect their precious theories; without those theories they would be nobodies.

It requires you to become very very cynical towards your fellow humans, and that's a shame. To suggest that professionals in any field would kowtow to the government whom they know killed thousands of innocent people just to keep their jobs is so beyond ludicrous as to be almost funny.

Pathetic, but funny.

JimBenArm

15th July 2007, 08:00 PM

Many people have forgotten about WTC 7, some are afraid to speak out, others are speaking out, but when they do, you brush them off as kooks.

You brush off Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth and anyone who says the official story is BS.

I have read the slam sheet on 13 of the engineers from ae9/11 truth.
Have you got one for the architects yet?
All those people have degrees in architecture or engineering.
Do you have one of those?
Who are you to say they don't know what they are talking about?

You deny the video evidence in spite of the fact that the owner of a CD company says WTC 7 was a CD based on that video evidence.

Then you say "There is no evidence"

Do you know more about CD's than Danny Jowenko ?
There you go, putting words I didn't say into my mouth. The only thing I've done is call you out on calling all these people cowards. Because that's exactly what you've done. Remember? You said they won't come forward due to fear of reprisal. No other qualifiers, nothing about forgetting, or anything else. You just flat called them craven, snivelling cowards. Then you try to turn it into something else, because you can't face owning up to your own accusation.
What a man! I'm impressed! Now, what other things are you going to falsely accuse me of saying, so you don't have to own up to this? Hmm?

Christopher7

15th July 2007, 08:16 PM

In order for Chris's fantasy to stay intact, he MUST believe that the only reason the vast majority of real CD experts on Earth haven't come out against the official story is because they are afraid.
Wrong

As DGM said, the CD theory is not well known.

You keep ignoring the fact that no experts from CD companies have said WTC 7 was not a CD either.

No equally qualified expert has said that Jowenko is wrong.

Do you know of any CD companies [other than Jowenko] that have said anything one way or the other about WTC 7?

DGM

15th July 2007, 08:33 PM

Wrong

As DGM said, the CD theory is not well known.

You keep ignoring the fact that no experts from CD companies have said WTC 7 was not a CD either.

No equally qualified expert has said that Jowenko is wrong.

Do you know of any CD companies [other than Jowenko] that have said anything one way or the other about WTC 7?
Again why would they come out?
I don't go home at night and tell my wife i didn't cheat on her. They saw the news and didn't hit them as strange. You don't talk about non-issues. If they thought it was a CD we would know by now. Give them some credit as real people.

Christopher7

15th July 2007, 08:40 PM

There you go, putting words I didn't say into my mouth. The only thing I've done is call you out on calling all these people cowards.
You are putting words in my mouth.

I never said "all these people" or called anyone a coward.

You can't deny that Jowenko said WTC 7 was a CD based on the videos he saw, so you subject shift.

Saying that the videos are not even evidence of a CD after the owner of a CD company has said they are absolute proof of a CD, is a statement from denial.

JimBenArm

16th July 2007, 05:59 AM

You are putting words in my mouth.

I never said "all these people" or called anyone a coward.

You can't deny that Jowenko said WTC 7 was a CD based on the videos he saw, so you subject shift.

Saying that the videos are not even evidence of a CD after the owner of a CD company has said they are absolute proof of a CD, is a statement from denial.
Where was I talking about Jowenko? I've never stated an opinion on that anywhere, at any time. So, what in the hell are you talking about, subject shift? The only thing, ONLY THING I have ever pointed out to you is that YOU my friend, are no more qualified to be making these determinations than my pet dog is. You are a carpenter. You are NOT an engineer, any more than I am, so it doesn't make one whit of difference what you say.

Also, when you say "fear of reprisal" if that's not calling them cowards, exactly what are you saying about them? They are willing to stand by an do nothing while mass murderers go free. So, they're courageous patriots? Remember, those are your words, dude, you said them. YOU said that about others you know nothing about. Yet, I'm the one subject shifting. Maybe on your planet, but on mine, people are man enough to own the words they say.
Don't bother to reply. I know you'll avoid, subject shift, tap dance, and everything else under the book to avoid dealing with this. I'm not wasting any more bandwidth on you.
Toodles.

BeAChooser

16th July 2007, 11:36 AM

Do you not see the obvious here?

No, he doesn't. Which is why I've lost interest in debating him. It's pointless. I had a rather innocuous (and not foul) word for folks like him on another forum. But it still got me in trouble so I don't think I'll be using it here just in case the administrators object to labeling people.

lapman

16th July 2007, 01:10 PM

Ok, I have to admit that I was basing my response on videos that I saw in the past. My mistake.

They showed him videos of WTC 7 collapsing.

He knew about the debris damage.

1:35 into the interview he says
"They had a piece of luck that since there was already very much destroyed"

He knew about the fires.

1:09
"I remember that they told they've imploded it, it smoked for days."

He did not need to hear the explosions.
They never told that they imploded it. Jowenko also states that Silverstein says "pull it down." He never said "pull it down," only "pull it." Sounds like a problem with understanding the english language. Of course, Danny isn't corrected.

Whatever he saw convinced him that WTC 7 was a CD

At the end of the interview, after looking at the column layout, he still said that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD.

A couple months later, in a phone call, he reaffirmed that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD.Again, his conclusions are based on faulty information. He was told that Silverstein ordered the CD. He was only told about the FEMA report and not the NIST reports. So why would he believe it to be anything different.
He is an expert, you are not.True
The videos are clearly "compelling evidence" of a CD, yet the authors of a report, from an administration that systematically distorts scientific documents, say there is no evidence of CD.Danny wasn't there. He has only the video and what he was told. Every expert that has studied the physical evidence says that it wasn't a CD. Yet somehow, 30 to 40 people were able to get in there with torches, explosives, det chord, etc., demo walls and plant the charges, run the det chord outside the building and leave without anyone noticing. Yeah right.
The scientists and engineers make no mention of why CD was not considered a possibility.Because there is not evidence of CD.
How many people have independently stated that the videos are not evidence of a CD ?All of us.
Danny also makes his assumption based on the fact that he feels Silverstein wanted WTC7 demolished because of the damage, which would be logical. However, why tear it down that day and make it look like it just collapsed? Just to save a relitive few dollars in permit costs or where are the copies of the permits? What about his tenents? Shouldn't they have been allowed to empty out their offices? So, where is Danny's opinion about the penthouse falling 8 seconds prior to the rest of the building? Where is his opinion about the NIST documents?

Christopher7

19th July 2007, 01:04 PM

Where was I talking about Jowenko? I've never stated an opinion on that anywhere, at any time. So, what in the hell are you talking about, subject shift? The only thing, ONLY THING I have ever pointed out to you is that YOU my friend, are no more qualified to be making these determinations than my pet dog is. You are a carpenter. You are NOT an engineer, any more than I am, so it doesn't make one whit of difference what you say.
You talk about me and ignore the FACT that a CD expert said WTC 7 was a CD.

Jonnyclueless

19th July 2007, 01:47 PM

You talk about me and ignore the FACT that a CD expert said WTC 7 was a CD.

Are you saying you aren't ignoring the fact that there are many many CD experts saying it clearly wasn't?

I bet you I can find a doctor who will tell you that eating oranges will cause cancer. Does that make it true?

Christopher7

19th July 2007, 02:40 PM

They never told that they imploded it.
Jowenko said "I remember that they told they've imploded it"
We don't know who 'they' are.

Jowenko also states that Silverstein says "pull it down." He never said "pull it down," only "pull it." Sounds like a problem with understanding the english language. Of course, Danny isn't corrected. Wrong, a lot of people think the 'pull it' statement refers to CD.

Again, his conclusions are based on faulty information. He was told that Silverstein ordered the CD. The interviewers did not tell Jowenko about the 'pull it' statement.
He had learned about it before the interview.

He was only told about the FEMA report and not the NIST reports. So why would he believe it to be anything different. He was not told anything by the interviewers. They just showed him the videos.
After seeing one video he said "This is controlled demolition."

Danny wasn't there.Neither were the people at NIST.

He has only the video and what he was told.That's all anyone has.

Every expert that has studied the physical evidence says that it wasn't a CD.Not so.

Please name one expert that has studied the physical evidence and said that WTC 7 was not a CD.

Yet somehow, 30 to 40 people were able to get in there with torches, explosives, det chord, etc., demo walls and plant the charges, run the det chord outside the building and leave without anyone noticing. Yeah right.Wrong.

It would be impossible to get everything and everyone needed to rig WTC 7 to the site in a few hours, much less rig it in that time.

Because there is not evidence of CD.The owner of a demolitions company says the videos are conclusive proof that WTC 7 was a CD.

An administration that systematically distorts and falsifies scientific documents to fit it's political agenda says there is no evidence of CD.

You prefer to believe the latter and dismiss the former.

Danny also makes his assumption based on the fact that he feels Silverstein wanted WTC7 demolished because of the damage,Wrong

He said it was a CD based on the fact that WTC 7 imploded.

The 'pull it' remark only refers to why WTC 7 was demolished.

where is Danny's opinion about the penthouse falling 8 seconds prior to the rest of the building? Where is his opinion about the NIST documents?He saw the screenwall and the west penthouse fall just before the exterior.

The penthouse falling 5 seconds before only adds to his conclusion that it was a CD.

He did not need to read or evaluate the NIST report to see the obvious.

The videos are evidence of a CD.

Christopher7

19th July 2007, 06:11 PM

He was told that Silverstein ordered the CD.
He was also told that WTC 7 was imploded days later.

It makes sense to believe the 'pull it' remark if he thought WTC 7 imploded days later.

He speculated on how it could be done in one day.

Clearly, he believes that WTC 7 could be rigged in a few days.

Jonnyclueless

19th July 2007, 10:09 PM

So all this guy saw was a video? Wow. Sounds like you have a winner there. And yes lots of people think "pull it" is a CD term. because it is. But it doesn't mean what those many people think it means. And just because people think it means to use explosives doesn't make it true.

And many demolition company say it is definitely NOT a CD. yet you only listen to the ones who say they do. Isn't that really interesting.

And now you are accusing the other experts of falsifying documents. Wow, this is a pointless argument. We get it. Anyone who tells you there was a CD is credible. Anyone who doesn't is just getting paid off, working for the government, or is scared. You're just such an honest person Chris.

Of course he didn't need to read the NIST report, there might be important details in there that could blow a hole in your conspiracy.

Christopher7

20th July 2007, 01:17 AM

So all this guy saw was a video? Wow. Sounds like you have a winner there.
This guy owns a demolitions company, he is an expert.

He knows a controlled demolition when he sees one.

Who are you to say he's wrong?

And many demolition company say it is definitely NOT a CD.Name one

yet you only listen to the ones who say they do. There is only one.

And now you are accusing the other experts of falsifying documents.No, i stated that the Bush administration systematically distorts and falsifies scientific documents.

Unfit4Command

20th July 2007, 01:35 AM

He was also told that WTC 7 was imploded days later.

It makes sense to believe the 'pull it' remark if he thought WTC 7 imploded days later.

He speculated on how it could be done in one day.

Clearly, he believes that WTC 7 could be rigged in a few days.

He believes it could have been rigged by 30 (haven't watched the interview in a while, I think that's the number he gave) people, some with cutter torches and others planting the explosives.

Don't you think the people working in the building would have noticed people walking around with thousands of explosive charges and cutter torches? He never said, as far as I know, please correct me if I'm wrong, that the building could have been rigged in a few days when it was full of people without anyone noticing.

Christopher7

20th July 2007, 01:36 AM

From the '10 story hole' thread
I can't tell if they are just repeating what one of the guys said or if it's a voice over a combined video

You are right about the quick edits and voice overs.

It's hard to tell who said what.

I don't like sound bites either.

Longer clips would give a better sense of the context.

Christopher7

20th July 2007, 02:21 AM

He believes it could have been rigged by 30 (haven't watched the interview in a while, I think that's the number he gave) people, some with cutter torches and others planting the explosives.

Don't you think the people working in the building would have noticed people walking around with thousands of explosive charges and cutter torches? He never said, as far as I know, please correct me if I'm wrong, that the building could have been rigged in a few days when it was full of people without anyone noticing. Danny thought it was rigged after 9/11 when no one was working there.

Before 9/11, wireless charges could have been placed on the core columns on the
mechanical floors [5 and 6] and in the elevator shafts, where no one except the
'maintenance workers' who put them there would see them.

twinstead

24th August 2007, 08:39 PM

I'm bumping this old thread because chris thinks that THIS is the only place to critique his theory.

Reading the thread, I thing critique is a very mild word.

Christopher7

24th August 2007, 09:14 PM

I'm bumping this old thread because chris thinks that THIS is the only place to critique his theory.

Reading the thread, I thing critique is a very mild word.A few people here are honest enough to admit that WTC 7 looks like a CD.

WTC 7 imploded and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

That is evidence of CD.

Danny Jowenko and two professors of structural analysis and construction said it was 'absolutely' a CD based on the videos.

That is evidence of a CD

Daryl heard a 'sound like a clap of thunder' and a couple seconds later the bottom floor caved out.

That is evidence of a CD.

You can deny this evidence and then claim there is no evidence if you like.

beachnut

24th August 2007, 10:29 PM

A few people here are honest enough to admit that WTC 7 looks like a CD.

WTC 7 imploded and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

That is evidence of CD.

Danny Jowenko and two professors of structural analysis and construction said it was 'absolutely' a CD based on the videos.

That is evidence of a CD

Daryl heard a 'sound like a clap of thunder' and a couple seconds later the bottom floor caved out.

That is evidence of a CD.

You can deny this evidence and then claim there is no evidence if you like.
You would fall for anything if you think WTC7 is a CD. I have watched CD, and WTC7 is missing some very critical elements. You will continue to waste your time, and you still have not found anything to support your ideas. You ignore all the facts, and have no facts to support your ideas which are already countered by other evidence you refuse to take into account. Your shallow research are the biggest reason you will never get past the standard rant on this issue. Plus, if you have the evidence you need to claim the Pulitzer Prize now; what are you waiting for great research man?

Christopher7

25th August 2007, 12:28 AM

I have watched CD, and WTC7 is missing some very critical elements.The owner of a CD company and two professors of structural analysis and construction disagree with you.

You ignore all the facts,What facts have i ignored?

and have no facts to support your ideasFact: WTC 7 imploded

Fact: The exterior walls and most of the interior fell in about 7 seconds.

Fact: The entire collapse took about 15 seconds.

Fact: WTC 7 landed mostly in it's original footprint.

Fact: This is what happens in a professional building implosion.

which are already countered by other evidence you refuse to take into account. What evidence?

Christopher7

14th November 2007, 03:47 PM

JMarshall

14th November 2007, 05:46 PM

Wait... What definition of evidence are you using? Law? Scientific? Criminal? They all have slightly different definitions, and as such we all have to agree to adhere to one of them. Since truthers believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy, let's use the law definition... That would mean the evidence must be excluded from consideration based on indication of unreliability, and of social concerns. A sign, therefore would not be reliable, and as such not considered for evidence, while proof, would be considered since it is based on facts pertaining to the "case".

Think of it this way, if I were to shoot someone, and the police pulled my print off of the gun, that would be proof that I had handled that gun. Conversely, if the police found my Expert Rifle badge in my house that would be a sign I have experience with weapons, and as such they could easily come to a conclusion that I did it, but this wouldn't stand up as evidence...

I didn't see WTC7 implode, I saw it fall from structural fatigue. In fact, a lot of people are tagging the implode label on it just because they have seen a couple of controlled demolition implosions. If it looks like an implosion, yes that is a sign of implosion, but it isn't evidence.

LashL

14th November 2007, 07:44 PM

Funk

Do you understand the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' ?

evidence: sign or proof

Every high rise building building that has ever imploded, before or since 9/11, was a CD.

WTC 7 imploded.
This is a sign this it could have been a CD.
It is therefore evidence of a CD.

No, this is wrong.

In fact, it is a ridiculous, simplistic, uneducated piece of tripe.

The collapse of 7WTC is not "evidence" of a controlled demolition at all. It is "evidence" that the building collapsed, nothing more.

TerryUK

14th November 2007, 07:53 PM

No, this is wrong.

In fact, it is a ridiculous, simplistic, uneducated piece of tripe.

The collapse of 7WTC is not "evidence" of a controlled demolition at all. It is "evidence" that the building collapsed, nothing more.

What you state above is completely wrong.

Try defining the word 'evidence' before you talk about "tripe"

LashL

14th November 2007, 07:55 PM

What you state above is completely wrong.

Try defining the word 'evidence' before you talk about "tripe"

Unlike yourself, and unlike Christopher7, I deal with real evidence in real life on a daily basis. His post is, as I said, simplistic, uneducated tripe.

TerryUK

14th November 2007, 08:11 PM

Unlike yourself, and unlike Christopher7, I deal with real evidence in real life on a daily basis. His post is, as I said, simplistic, uneducated tripe.

I don't think you know what I deal with on a daily basis, and you clearly don't seem to know what the term 'evidence' means.

Please prove ( or demonstrate ) that his post is tripe, and please give your ideas as to what 'evidence' means.

Edit: A little hint -- facts, information, or observations, do not need to be proof, in order to qualify as evidence.

T.A.M.

14th November 2007, 08:15 PM

Terry you better have some pretty high credentials to tell a lawyer that they do not know what evidence is.

TAM:)

LashL

14th November 2007, 08:25 PM

I don't think you know what I deal with on a daily basis, and you clearly don't seem to know what the term 'evidence' means.

Please prove ( or demonstrate ) that his post is tripe, and please give your ideas as to what 'evidence' means.

Admittedly, I base my opinion that you do not deal with real evidence on a daily basis, or even a regular basis, on the content of your posts. Your posts indicate to me that you know not of what you speak.

If you have any real world legal experience and expertise, all you need in order to satisfy yourself that Christopher7's post #364 is simplistic and uneducated tripe is to read it.

TerryUK

14th November 2007, 08:36 PM

Admittedly, I base my opinion that you do not deal with real evidence on a daily basis, or even a regular basis, on the content of your posts. Your posts indicate to me that you know not of what you speak.

If you have any real world legal experience and expertise, all you need in order to satisfy yourself that Christopher7's post #364 is simplistic and uneducated tripe is to read it.

That just waffle.

Obviously, you can't back up what you say.

What does 'evidence' mean to you? Explain your position.

I don't think you can.

LashL

14th November 2007, 09:31 PM

That just waffle.

Obviously, you can't back up what you say.

What does 'evidence' mean to you? Explain your position.

I don't think you can.

You are wrong, as usual.

But I am not easily sidetracked by piffle, and that is all that you have offered so far.

To refresh your memory, since it appears that you are easily sidetracked by your own piffle, Christopher7 made a silly post rife with logical and factual errors, and I said that it was a ridiculous, simplistic, uneducated piece of tripe, because it was.

You then purported to 'defend' his ridiculous, simplistic, uneducated post, without actually saying anything in support of it at all (how silly is that?), and without demonstrating in any manner whatsoever that you comprehended the obvious logical and factual errors in his post.

Leaving aside Christopher7's piffle and your own piffle for the moment, here is the matter at hand from my responding post, which still remains: "The collapse of 7WTC is not evidence of a controlled demolition at all. It is evidence that the building collapsed, nothing more."

Do you have a problem with that? If so, what is your problem with it and why?

Dave Rogers

15th November 2007, 02:47 AM

Every high rise building building that has ever imploded, before or since 9/11, was a CD.

WTC 7 imploded.
This is a sign this it could have been a CD.
It is therefore evidence of a CD.

Every type of vehicle that was ever built, before or after the Apollo Lunar Module, was incapable of landing on the moon.
The Apollo Lunar Module was a vehicle.
This is a sign that it could have been incapable of landing on the moon.
It is therefore evidence that it did not land on the moon.

Is that how it works?

Of course, you could argue that the Apollo LM was designed to land on the moon, and WTC7 wasn't designed to collapse. So let's try again.

Every nuclear power station that was ever built, before or after Chernobyl, has not exploded.
Chernobyl was a nuclear power station.
This is a sign that it could have been impossible for it to explode.
It is therefore evidence that it did not explode.

Evidence it may be, but its weight is so close to zero that it's not worth considering.

Dave

funk de fino

15th November 2007, 04:05 AM

Funk

Do you understand the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' ?

evidence: sign or proof

Every high rise building building that has ever imploded, before or since 9/11, was a CD.

WTC 7 imploded.
This is a sign this it could have been a CD.
It is therefore evidence of a CD.

use the word "collapse" instead, it changes things for you

i know why you won't

JimBenArm

15th November 2007, 04:41 AM

What's with all the zombie threads coming back to life lately? I thought Halloween was over.
Oh, and Terry? You're wrong. Just sayin'.

Christopher7

15th November 2007, 04:53 AM

I didn't see WTC7 implode, I saw it fall from structural fatigue. In fact, a lot of people are tagging the implode label on it just because they have seen a couple of controlled demolition implosions. If it looks like an implosion, yes that is a sign of implosion, but it isn't evidence.You have seen WTC 7 implode, you just refuse to admit it.

FEMA 5-30
If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded

FEMA 5-31 Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded

FEMA 5-31 WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse.

NIST L-33 The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.

As always you deny any evidence presented and them chant "there is no evidence of CD".

WTC 7 did in fact implode.

FEMA recognized this yet you still try to talk around it.

You can play legal sophistry if you like but you cannot change the FACT that WTC 7 imploded.
i.e. It fell in on itself and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

The speed and manner was consistent with a CD.

This evidence of CD.

You will deny this too because you are simply in denial.

JimBenArm

15th November 2007, 04:59 AM

You have seen WTC 7 implode, you just refuse to admit it.

FEMA 5-30
If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded

FEMA 5-31 Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded

FEMA 5-31 WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse.

NIST L-33 The debris of WTC 7 was mostly contained within the original footprint of the building.

As always you deny any evidence presented and them chant "there is no evidence of CD".

WTC 7 did in fact implode.

FEMA recognized this yet you still try to talk around it.

You can play legal sophistry if you like but you cannot change the FACT that WTC 7 imploded.
i.e. It fell in on itself and landed mostly in it's own footprint.

The speed and manner was consistent with a CD.

This evidence of CD.

You will deny this too because you are simply in denial.
Your arrogance is insulting. You need to apologize for this post immediately. Just because we disagree with you does not mean anyone is in denial. This is demeaning, and a person with integrity would not use such terms.

Christopher7

15th November 2007, 05:22 AM

use the word "collapse" instead, it changes things for you

i know why you won't
Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." .......... It's actually being pulled in on top of itself.

Since that time, the term 'implosion' has become synonymous with controlled demolition. [when referring to buildings]

CD is the only known cause of a building implosion.

Building implosion is a fine art and only a few companies can do it.

The odds of a building imploding by chance are very remote.

The implosion of WTC 7 is very strong evidence of CD.

Christopher7

15th November 2007, 05:29 AM

Your arrogance is insulting. You need to apologize for this post immediately. Just because we disagree with you does not mean anyone is in denial. This is demeaning, and a person with integrity would not use such terms.Please

"I didn't see WTC7 implode"

That's denial Jim.

To say a building imploding is not evidence of CD when that's the only known cause, is denial.

JimBenArm

15th November 2007, 05:41 AM

Please

"I didn't see WTC7 implode"

That's denial Jim.

To say a building imploding is not evidence of CD when that's the only known cause, is denial.
Oh, how silly of me. I forgot that you're a carpenter, and able to diagnose this, as well as critique causes of a building collapse. Yes, if we don't agree with you it must be denial, or stupidity. What else could it be?

You still can't see your own arrogance, can you?

Christopher7

15th November 2007, 06:01 AM

Funk

Hers's one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

Here's another.
Please note that they cut off the beginning of the collapse.
That's when the clap of thunder Daryl heard would have occurred.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

The beginning of the collapse is missing from this video too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbqaybkbWI

Christopher7

15th November 2007, 06:56 AM

Oh, how silly of me. I forgot that you're a carpenter, and able to diagnose this, as well as critique causes of a building collapse. Yes, if we don't agree with you it must be denial, or stupidity. What else could it be?Yes, that was truly silly of you.
I did not diagnose this, FEMA did.

If you reject their diagnosis, you are in denial.

WTC 7 IMPLODED.

Seriously dude, it's bloody obvious.

funk de fino

15th November 2007, 06:59 AM

Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." .......... It's actually being pulled in on top of itself.

Since that time, the term 'implosion' has become synonymous with controlled demolition. [when referring to buildings]

CD is the only known cause of a building implosion.

Building implosion is a fine art and only a few companies can do it.

The odds of a building imploding by chance are very remote.

The implosion of WTC 7 is very strong evidence of CD.

Again replace implode with collapse and see where it leaves your evidence

Also from your own quote

FEMA 5-31 WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse.

Why only bold certain parts of that statement?

Did the penthouse collapse before the rest? Who says you get to decide if it is an implosion? Only if it suits your theory? Does Loizeaux think WTC7 was CD?

If it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was not CD then is it still an implosion?

If you can prove it was a CD then you can call it an implosion. You have it the wrong way round C7.

Christopher7

15th November 2007, 07:14 AM

Again replace implode with collapse and see where it leaves your evidenceNo

Did the penthouse collapse before the rest? Yes

Who says you get to decide if it is an implosion?I didn't, FEMA did.

FEMA 5-30
If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded

FEMA 5-31
Loss of strength due to the transfer trusses could explain why the building imploded

Does Loizeaux think WTC7 was CD?Does Loiseaux think WTC 7 imploded?

If it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was not CD then is it still an implosion?Yes, implosion means it fell in on itself.

funk de fino

15th November 2007, 07:16 AM

Funk

Hers's one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I

Where was this taken C7? Where is WTC7, I cannot see it and I do not know when this happenbed or where. In fact I think this is the one that was elsewhere was it not? Not at the WTC7?

Here's another.
Please note that they cut off the beginning of the collapse.
That's when the clap of thunder Daryl heard would have occurred.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

Shows nothing and never at any time does any of the people mention implode? This must be evidence it was not CD? The news guy says collapse. The firemen say blow up and I hear no explosions?

The beginning of the collapse is missing from this video too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbqaybkbWI

Strange I see the penthouse move but I see no explosions or hear any in this video. Why is that? Where are the videos like the ones on implosionworld that you so kindly showed me too?

This quote from youtube about a video that clearly shows the penthouse collpase followed by the total collapse is more than 7 seconds really says it all about the company you keep C7

Maybe you should get your eyes checked dork! The collapse sequence begins at 00:12, at the latest 00:13, and is COMPLETE no later than 00:19. That's 6 to 7 seconds you lying piece of filth. But the BLATANT fact that you are a LIAR was already apparent with your PATHETIC claim that this video is "rare video." You lying pig.

keep on wasting your life by all means

JimBenArm

15th November 2007, 07:42 AM

Yes, that was truly silly of you.
I did not diagnose this, FEMA did.

If you reject their diagnosis, you are in denial.

WTC 7 IMPLODED.

Seriously dude, it's bloody obvious.
Only to people like you, who consider their own expertise in areas outside their own to be greater than it is. Sorry, you are a complete and total layman, with no experience or expertise to make these determinations. This would be analogous to me correcting a surgeon on a videotaped documentary on open-heart surgery because I fileted a salmon once.
The fact you cannot or will not realize this is truly astounding!

Christopher7

15th November 2007, 07:54 AM

Only to people like you, who consider their own expertise in areas outside their own to be greater than it is. Sorry, you are a complete and total layman, with no experience or expertise to make these determinations. This would be analogous to me correcting a surgeon on a videotaped documentary on open-heart surgery because I fileted a salmon once.
The fact you cannot or will not realize this is truly astounding!Hello?

I think you and Funk have gone off the deep end.

FEMA made the determination.

funk de fino

15th November 2007, 07:59 AM

Hello?

I think you and Funk have gone off the deep end.

FEMA made the determination.

hello

Show me how many times NIST use implode compared to collapse

cherrypicker

phunk

15th November 2007, 09:41 AM

Stacy Loizeaux: The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." .......... It's actually being pulled in on top of itself.

Since that time, the term 'implosion' has become synonymous with controlled demolition. [when referring to buildings]

CD is the only known cause of a building implosion.

Building implosion is a fine art and only a few companies can do it.

The odds of a building imploding by chance are very remote.

The implosion of WTC 7 is very strong evidence of CD.

Actually, no. Using that definition of implosion, any collapse starting in the core of a building is going to be an implosion, regardless of the cause of the collapse. Implosion is a result of CD, but CD is not the only cause of implosion, and therefore you need further evidence to prove CD over the other causes.

Dave Rogers

15th November 2007, 10:05 AM

Actually, no. Using that definition of implosion, any collapse starting in the core of a building is going to be an implosion, regardless of the cause of the collapse. Implosion is a result of CD, but CD is not the only cause of implosion, and therefore you need further evidence to prove CD over the other causes.

Oooh, nice one. You caught Chris affirming the consequent. Like no-one's ever done that before where WTC7's concerned.

Dave

Christopher7

15th November 2007, 05:58 PM

Actually, no. Using that definition of implosion, any collapse starting in the core of a building is going to be an implosion, regardless of the cause of the collapse. Implosion is a result of CD, but CD is not the only cause of implosion, and therefore you need further evidence to prove CD over the other causes.What other cases?

CD is the only known cause of a building implosion.

Building implosion is a fine art.

It cannot happen by chance.

contra

15th November 2007, 06:20 PM

The odds of a building imploding by chance are very remote.

correct? however the chances are greatly increased if its hit be debris weighing tons from over a 1000 feet up?

Its like the chance of my being hit by a car by chance while sitting in my non ground level flat are next to zero. however if I go outside the changes change.

Hydrogen and Oxygen will spontaniously combine at room temperature to make water. Chemically this may take thousands of years, but would happen without heat.
The chances of water being created increase towards 100% (not quite though) if you add a flame.

The situation changing, changes the chance of an event.

Building implosion is a fine art.

Well if its a controlled demolition. you are right. It takes months to prepare, plan what to do, gut the building, wire it up, cut some of the supports to make it less stable. etc etc etc

It takes a long time to do, and is almost an art.

I had more... but I grow weary of this plane of existance... ie its 1.20am

Christopher7

15th November 2007, 06:44 PM

correct? however the chances are greatly increased if its hit be debris weighing tons from over a 1000 feet up?Not in this case.
The debris damage was to the south west part of WTC 7.
The implosion began in the east central part.

contra

15th November 2007, 06:49 PM

leftysergeant

15th November 2007, 06:58 PM

[COLOR=black]Fact: WTC 7 landed mostly in it's original footprint.

So did all the steel elements of the Windsor Tower above the mechanical floor that halted the collapse and that was ENTIRELY due to fires.

Fact: This is what happens in a professional building implosion.

Or in the case of a steel building involved in a severe fire, e.g., the Windsor Tower.

What evidence?

All of it, actually.

And let's go back to what morons like Gage call "squibs" at the top of WTC 7. They are rectangular and they do not expand as the building starts to subside. They do not shoot out horizontally. They are in the exact same location as debris damage more clearly visible from the other side of the building.

Most of the "evidence" presented by twoofers in re WTC 7 is just plain slovenly research, if it can be called that. the originator of the "squibs" BS is obviously a dim wit.

Christopher7

15th November 2007, 07:07 PM

So the chances didn't increase at all from the damage?
Nothing?
Zero?
Nada?

I find that hard to believe. I would think what anything that changed the whole way the weight of the building is disributed would change the chances of it falling. Add in the fire and such.... and the chances keep going up.Nada

NIST L - 36
"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. Progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel of the perimeter moment frame which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"

The damage to the SW part of WTC 7 had no significant effect on columns 79, 80 and 81.

contra

15th November 2007, 07:17 PM

Significant and none are very different.

I've lost blood.
I've lost a significant amount of blood.
Very different statements, one implying a lot more than the other.

Significant shows things changed, that when other factors are put in changes everything. If it had a massive effect it would have fallen right away. It had an effect with everything else; so it stood for hours then fell.

TerryUK

15th November 2007, 07:28 PM

JMarshall

15th November 2007, 09:06 PM

You have seen WTC 7 implode, you just refuse to admit it.

You will deny this too because you are simply in denial.

What is this an intervention? Hi, my names Josh, and I saw WTC7 fall, not implode...

[GROUP]
Hi Josh, we're here to help!
[/GFROUP]

Look, Christopher, I'm not offended, by your callow remarks, but there is something you have to understand, I do have demolition, and explosives experience, and as such I saw WTC7 fall from structural failure, it looked nothing like a CD to me.

Another thing, using your (il)logic:

CDs fall into their foot print, companies are so good they can bring a building down mere feet from other buildings and not harm them.

WTC7 fell mostly into it's footprint, with damage done to the surrounding areas, this is a sign it wasn't a CD!

So therefore, by your logic it is evidence that WTC was not a CD!

You see how that works? It's completely idiotic to think that way

You cannot possibly understand what all goes into an actual CD, so why do you think you can claim it was just from watching some videos?

Christopher7

15th November 2007, 09:34 PM

WTC 7 landed mostly in it's original footprint.
So did all the steel elements of the Windsor Tower above the mechanical floor that halted the collapse and that was ENTIRELY due to fires.The Windsor Tower did not implode.
It did not collapse completely as did WTC 7.
There was a partial collapse that took place over a period of an hour or more.
This is what happens in a professional building implosion.
Or in the case of a steel building involved in a severe fire, e.g., the Windsor Tower.
The Windsor was a hybrid design, with the weight of the building being carried by the reinforced concrete core.
It is not a suitable comparison for any reason.
The exterior columns were very light weight box beams [18 lbs. per lineal ft.]
Columns 79,80 and 81 weighed 730 lbs per lineal ft.

The Windsor Tower looked like a torch,

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/342/madridwindsortk8.jpg

WTC 7 did not.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/4300/copyof3zn0.jpg

which are already countered by other evidence you refuse to take into account.
What evidence?
All of it, actually.
What haven't i taken into account? Please be specific.

7. They are rectangular and they do not expand as the building starts to subside. They do not shoot out horizontally. They are in the exact same location as debris damage more clearly visible from the other side of the building.Upon close inspection, they look like the blob tried to escape and got stuck.
The "squibs" and "pull it" are "red herrings" if not "Trojan Horses" IMO.

Most of the "evidence" presented by twoofers in re WTC 7 is just plain slovenly research,The evidence i have presented is from the very government reports you site as your reason for believing WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F.

funk de fino

16th November 2007, 02:06 AM

hello

Show me how many times NIST use implode compared to collapse

cherrypicker

Just in case you missed this C7, I know you would not purposefully ignore this question?

I cannot seem to see any mentions of it? I may be wrong so please show me if you can?

You also have to show me more videos and sound because the last efforts you gave me were false. It should not be too hard there were literally thousands of cameras around that day.

leftysergeant

16th November 2007, 03:11 AM

There is also the lack of squibs, flying glass being blown out of windows, explosions being recorded on any of the many videos of the event. No ejecta and no detonations of cutting charges is positive disproof of CD.

firecoins

16th November 2007, 04:50 AM

another long pointless thread .

JimBenArm

16th November 2007, 05:40 AM

What is this an intervention? Hi, my names Josh, and I saw WTC7 fall, not implode...

[GROUP]
Hi Josh, we're here to help!
[/GFROUP]

Look, Christopher, I'm not offended, by your callow remarks, but there is something you have to understand, I do have demolition, and explosives experience, and as such I saw WTC7 fall from structural failure, it looked nothing like a CD to me.

Another thing, using your (il)logic:

CDs fall into their foot print, companies are so good they can bring a building down mere feet from other buildings and not harm them.

WTC7 fell mostly into it's footprint, with damage done to the surrounding areas, this is a sign it wasn't a CD!

So therefore, by your logic it is evidence that WTC was not a CD!

You see how that works? It's completely idiotic to think that way

You cannot possibly understand what all goes into an actual CD, so why do you think you can claim it was just from watching some videos?
You don't understand. He's a carpenter, which gives him abilities you and I can only dream of having.

JMarshall

16th November 2007, 12:54 PM

You don't understand. He's a carpenter, which gives him abilities you and I can only dream of having.

Oh... Ok, well that makes everything much clearer now... I stand corrected, with his vast knowledge of carpentry he knows much more about explosives than I could ever know... If you can't tell Christopher this is sarcasm, a sign someone doesn't actually believe what is said, and therefore, by your account, evidence they don't want to hear someone else's rheotoric.

jaydeehess

16th November 2007, 02:31 PM

Nada

NIST L - 36
"If the initiating event was due to damage to the perimeter moment frame, then it would have started along the south or southwest facade."

"Analysis of the global structure indicates that the structure redistributed loads around the severed and damaged areas. Progression of column failure to adjacent columns would have been arrested by the vierendeel of the perimeter moment frame which could span across a sizeable opening due to the strength and stiffness of the frame,"

The damage to the SW part of WTC 7 had no significant effect on columns 79, 80 and 81.

Chris 7's statement does not follow from the NIST quote.

NIST is stating that the initiation of collapse did not come from the physical damage done to the perimeter. IT DOES NOT state that the damage to the perimeter did not contribute to the global collapse.

I have an odd deja vu concerning my stating this.................

beachnut

16th November 2007, 03:01 PM

The Windsor Tower did not implode.
It did not collapse completely as did WTC 7.
There was a partial collapse that took place over a period of an hour or more.

The Windsor was a hybrid design, with the weight of the building being carried by the reinforced concrete core.
It is not a suitable comparison for any reason.
The exterior columns were very light weight box beams [18 lbs. per lineal ft.]
Columns 79,80 and 81 weighed 730 lbs per lineal ft.

The Windsor Tower looked like a torch,

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/342/madridwindsortk8.jpg

WTC 7 did not.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/4300/copyof3zn0.jpg

What haven't i taken into account? Please be specific.

Upon close inspection, they look like the blob tried to escape and got stuck.
The "squibs" and "pull it" are "red herrings" if not "Trojan Horses" IMO.

The evidence i have presented is from the very government reports you site as your reason for believing WTC 7 collapsed due to DD/F.
Funny stuff, looked like a torch~! OH, my, wonder if night time had something to do with it! If you are the best of 9/11 truth, you guys are full of crazy ideas and do not use logic or rational thought to figure out even simple things like night and day.

Pathetic, the word of the day, the word for all 9/11 truth.

The rest of your stuff proves your have no point.

Christopher7

16th November 2007, 04:53 PM

Just in case you missed this C7, I know you would not purposefully ignore this question?You're question is pure sarcasm.
We both know NIST did not use the word 'implode'
So what?
Are trying to deny that WTC 7 imploded?
Can you not see the obvious as FEMA did?

You also have to show me more videos and sound because the last efforts you gave me were false. It should not be too hard there were literally thousands of cameras around that day.The people and the cameras were moved back 2 or 3 blocks. Few could see much if any anything, but you know that.

In all the available videos, the sound track is missing or the critical moments just before the collapse and the beginning of the collapse have been cut. You know that too.

Over 6,000 videos and 6,000 photos were rounded up and are still being withheld from the public six years later.

There was no legitimate reason to remove all those videos and pictures.
Clearly, they are hiding critical evidence.

If this is a criminal investigation, the removal and destruction of the physical evidence was a crime.
If this is just the investigation of a building collapse, there was no reason to confiscate and withhold the photos and videos.

The excuse that the investigation is still going on is ridiculous.
FEMA and NIST released selected pictures of WTC 7 showing every angle of WTC 7 except the south east part where the huge '10 story gouge 1/4 to 1/3 the width of WTC 7' was supposed to be.

NIST FoIA told me they had 25 photos of the south west side and 2 videos at or near the time of the collapse but they would not be released until the 'investigation' was finished.

There is no logical or legitimate reason to release some of the photos and withhold others.

OTers love to demand what they know is not available to the public and rail "where's the boom,boom?"

You cannot honestly deny that WTC 7 imploded so you subject shift to you're well worn fall back position and say the lack of boom, boom is proof there were no explosions.

The videos clearly show the east penthouse collapse first and then the screenwall and west penthouse.
Finally, the exterior walls fall and the building collapses in on itself landing mostly in it's own footprint.
When a building collapses in on itself, it is called an implosion.

Christopher7

16th November 2007, 05:03 PM

Chris 7's statement does not follow from the NIST quote.

NIST is stating that the initiation of collapse did not come from the physical damage done to the perimeter. IT DOES NOT state that the damage to the perimeter did not contribute to the global collapse.

I have an odd deja vu concerning my stating this.................They included diesel fuel fires as a possible contributing factor despite evidence to the contrary.

If NIST thought the perimeter damage contributed to the collapse, they would have said so. They did not.

Christopher7

16th November 2007, 05:09 PM

Funny stuff, looked like a torch~! OH, my, wonder if night time had something to do with it! If you are the best of 9/11 truth, you guys are full of crazy ideas and do not use logic or rational thought to figure out even simple things like night and day.

Pathetic, the word of the day, the word for all 9/11 truth.

The rest of your stuff proves your have no point. Forum decorum requires us to attack the argument, not the arguer.
You are doing just the opposite.
Please address the issue.

LashL

16th November 2007, 09:41 PM

They included diesel fuel fires as a possible contributing factor despite evidence to the contrary.

If NIST thought the perimeter damage contributed to the collapse, they would have said so. They did not.

Hey, Chris, this thread is about the silly controlled demolition theory, not about debris damage and fires.

:rolleyes:

(Couldn't resist!)

GStan

29th November 2007, 06:59 AM

They included diesel fuel fires as a possible contributing factor despite evidence to the contrary.

That is an inaccurate statement. Evidence of diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event was not observed. That does not qualify as evidence to the contrary. It is merely an absence of definitive evidence in either direction.

ETA: If someone observed the intact diesel fuel line in the area of the initiating event, after the collapse of WTC1, that would be evidence to the contrary.

jaydeehess

29th November 2007, 10:54 AM

They included diesel fuel fires as a possible contributing factor despite evidence to the contrary.

If NIST thought the perimeter damage contributed to the collapse, they would have said so. They did not.

So where in the prelim report does NIST list the factors that would have contributed to the collapse Chris?

Fact is they do not go into how much any particular damage contributed to the initiation of the collapse do they Chris. all they do is run sims as to what would have to fail to immediatly initiate collapse.

,, and as GStan mentions, there is no evidence to the contrary regarding diesel fires, only a lack of direct evidence that it did occur. That's a distinction that eludes you it seems.

GStan

30th November 2007, 06:09 AM

Christopher7

2nd December 2007, 12:14 PM

Hey, Chris, this thread is about the silly controlled demolition theory, not about debris damage and fires.

:rolleyes:

(Couldn't resist!)Point well taken. :D

Christopher7

2nd December 2007, 12:34 PM

Chris,
In reading most of this thread and the 10 story gouge thread, its quite clear that you believe that the CD hypothesis is the most plausible explanation for WTC7 collapse. I was wondering if you believe that the DD/F hypothesis is impossible, regardless of how unlikely. Do you believe that any scenario that does not include a CD-type conspiracy is impossible?

If you've already answered this and I've missed it, I apologize for making you repeat it again.Given the conditions that existed in WTC 7, i do not think it is possible that DD/F caused the implosion.

I believe it would be impossible to design a building that would implode in 15 seconds, due to the failure of a single core column.

However:
LashL is right, this discussion should be on the "10 story hole" thread.

BenBurch

2nd December 2007, 12:35 PM

"The Windsor Tower looked like a torch,"

So much for the myth of high rise fires not getting hot enough to weaken steel, eh? Thanks for admitting that you were not only wrong, but a fool as well.

Christopher7

2nd December 2007, 03:17 PM

"The Windsor Tower looked like a torch,"
The exterior columns in the Windsor Towers were box beams weighing about 18 lbs per lineal foot.
Columns 79, 80 and 81 weighed 730 lbs per lineal foot.

funk de fino

3rd December 2007, 05:05 AM

Given the conditions that existed in WTC 7, i do not think it is possible that DD/F caused the implosion.

I believe it would be impossible to design a building that would implode in 15 seconds, due to the failure of a single core column.

However:
LashL is right, this discussion should be on the "10 story hole" thread.

I think if you take it to another thread you may want to rephrase that very open statement?

It will save you being shown to be wrong again.

Christopher7

3rd December 2007, 04:01 PM

If damage to surrounding buildings was not a consideration Chris, then there was absolutly no reason to attempt to implode the structure. We also know for a fact that if this was a vast conspiracy that the perpetrators also had no concern whatsoever as to the loss of life which this would bring on.

So the only concern the supposed perpetrators would have in bringing down WTC 7 would be to make it look as likely as possible that the debris damage and fires were responsible for the collapse. According to you, a collapse starting in the core of the building is as far as one can get from a DD/F caused collapse and thus the absolute worst way to address the only concern the perpetrators would have had in the destruction of WTC 7.
According to your contentions the best way to have destroyed WTC 7 would have been to have it fall to the south and east.

Damn these perpetrators for being both very, very good at what they do and very,very bad at what they do.:rolleyes:Indeed

Once again, this is reverse logic and has no bearing on the evidence.

It would have been smarter to have it fall to the south, we can only speculate.

Speculation and reverse logic cannot be used to deny the evidence.

WTC 7 IMPLODED [fell in on itself]
Every high rise building implosion, before or since, has been a CD.

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.
This is consistent with a CD.

WTC 7 landed mostly in its own footprint
This is consistent with an expert [if not perfect] building implosion.

Christopher7

3rd December 2007, 04:10 PM

I think if you take it to another thread you may want to rephrase that very open statement?
That is my opinion.

You do not agree.

Have a nice day.

jaydeehess

3rd December 2007, 04:37 PM

Indeed

Once again, this is reverse logic and has no bearing on the evidence.

It would have been smarter to have it fall to the south, we can only speculate.

yeah, there's a lot of that going around

Speculation and reverse logic cannot be used to deny the evidence.

Logic certainly can be used to decide whether or not the original contention is, indeed, logical. As I demonstrated, the original contention, that WTC 7 was deliberatly brought down in a collapse that had it fold inwards, as part of an elaborate and vast conspiracy to attack and kill civilians on 9/11/01 does NOT follow from any logical arguement.

WTC 7 IMPLODED [fell in on itself]
Every high rise building implosion, before or since, has been a CD.

That certainly does not preclude a collapse caused by a combination of heavy damage and fires creating a situation in which the building would fail in the fashion seen.

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.
This is consistent with a CD.

NO, you refer to the perimeter of the building. You do not know what failed internally prior to the perimeter coming down.

WTC 7 landed mostly in its own footprint
This is consistent with an expert [if not perfect] building implosion.

It is consistent with the initial failure causing the core to fail first. That is as far as you can go with such a statement. Anything that causes the core to fail first will result in the rest of the building preferentially being pulled towards the center of the building. ANYTHING!

Christopher7

3rd December 2007, 07:45 PM

Logic certainly can be used to decide whether or not the original contention is, indeed, logical. As I demonstrated, the original contention, that WTC 7 was deliberatly brought down in a collapse that had it fold inwards, as part of an elaborate and vast conspiracy to attack and kill civilians on 9/11/01 does NOT follow from any logical arguement.Correct, it flows the other way.
The videos of the implosion of WTC 7 are what convinced me, Danny Jowenko, Hugo Bachmann, Jörg Schneider, Stephen Jones, Richard Gage and millions of others, that WTC 7 was a CD.

WTC 7 IMPLODED [fell in on itself]
Every high rise building implosion, before or since, has been a CD.
That certainly does not preclude a collapse caused by a combination of heavy damage and fires creating a situation in which the building would fail in the fashion seen.It's a hell of a lot less likely.
To get 21 of the 24 core columns to fail near simultaneously would be near impossible any other way.

NO, you refer to the perimeter of the building. You do not know what failed internally prior to the perimeter coming down.
Yes we do.
First, columns 79, 80 and 81 failed.
[clearing out a hole for the east part of the building to fall into]

About 7 seconds later, the other 21 core columns failed.
[pulling the north and south walls inward]

About 1/2 second after that, the perimeter columns failed and the building fell in on itself.

The 21 core column and the perimeter columns fell in about 7 seconds.
That constitutes "most of the building".

It is consistent with the initial failure causing the core to fail first. That is as far as you can go with such a statement. Anything that causes the core to fail first will result in the rest of the building preferentially being pulled towards the center of the building. ANYTHING!Actually, the options are quite limited.
DD/F, CD, particle beam weapons and mutant ninja steel eating termites on steroids. Did i miss anything? :cool:

funk de fino

4th December 2007, 01:38 AM

That is my opinion.

You do not agree.

Have a nice day.

So you believe a building could not be designed to collapse with the failure of one core column? Your opinion sux. Of course they could design one. They would not want to design one and there would be no reason to, but it could be done.

You also thought that CD with no explosives and deliberately falling outside foorprint did not happen. You were wrong about that also.

funk de fino

4th December 2007, 01:47 AM

Correct, it flows the other way.
The videos of the implosion of WTC 7 are what convinced me, Danny Jowenko, Hugo Bachmann, Jörg Schneider, Stephen Jones, Richard Gage and millions of others, that WTC 7 was a CD.

I hope your never on a jury along with those clowns. There may be a miscarriage of justice. All other evidence would be denied for edited and silent video clips.

It's a hell of a lot less likely.
To get 21 of the 24 core columns to fail near simultaneously would be near impossible any other way.

Except thats not really how it works in real life is it. Ask a structural designer about it.

Yes we do.
First, columns 79, 80 and 81 failed.
[clearing out a hole for the east part of the building to fall into]

About 7 seconds later, the other 21 core columns failed.
[pulling the north and south walls inward]

About 1/2 second after that, the perimeter columns failed and the building fell in on itself.

The 21 core column and the perimeter columns fell in about 7 seconds.
That constitutes "most of the building".

So they can design a building that collapses with 3 core columns damaged?

Do you know what damage the penthouse caused inside the building when it fell into it?

Actually, the options are quite limited.
DD/F, CD, particle beam weapons and mutant ninja steel eating termites on steroids. Did i miss anything? :cool:

Yes, you missed everything

GStan

4th December 2007, 07:40 AM

Indeed

Once again, this is reverse logic and has no bearing on the evidence.

It would have been smarter to have it fall to the south, we can only speculate.

Speculation and reverse logic cannot be used to deny the evidence.

Nor can it be used to manufacture evidence where there is an absence of it.

WTC 7 IMPLODED [fell in on itself]
Every high rise building implosion, before or since, has been a CD.

Why use this amateur argument? Every event that has ever occurred, at some point, happened for the first time. While it is thought-provoking, it does not in any way constitute evidence for a CD.

Most of WTC 7 fell in about 7 seconds.
This is consistent with a CD.

The collapse is documented to be nearly 15 seconds from the point of the initiating event. This is not consistent with CD. Further, once the columns were weakened to the point of failure, gravity and resistance are what ultimately determine the speed of the subsequent collapse. Whether you believe the failure was brought about by DD/F or CD is irrelevant (and I think either one is possible.) The seven seconds is consistent with the collapse speed of a building that was weakened by DD/F or CD. It is consistent with CD but far from being exclusive to CD.

jaydeehess

4th December 2007, 08:45 AM

Correct, it flows the other way.
The videos of the implosion of WTC 7 are what convinced me, Danny Jowenko, Hugo Bachmann, Jörg Schneider, Stephen Jones, Richard Gage and millions of others, that WTC 7 was a CD.

That's a conclusion through logical arguement?

Originally Posted by C7
WTC 7 IMPLODED [fell in on itself]
Every high rise building implosion, before or since, has been a CD.
Originally Posted by jdh
That certainly does not preclude a collapse caused by a combination of heavy damage and fires creating a situation in which the building would fail in the fashion seen.
Originally Posted by C7
It's a hell of a lot less likely.
To get 21 of the 24 core columns to fail near simultaneously would be near impossible any other way.

Again a illogical conclusion. The destruction of the buildings of the WTC complex on 9/11/01 are unigue in history. In no other case in history has a large airliner been flown into large buildings at high speed. In no other case in history has debris from a 110 storey building hit and damaged other buildings, and in the case of WTC 7, in no other case has such a damaged building had fires that went unfought in any way..

Yes we do.
First, columns 79, 80 and 81 failed.
[clearing out a hole for the east part of the building to fall into]

About 7 seconds later, the other 21 core columns failed.
[pulling the north and south walls inward]

About 1/2 second after that, the perimeter columns failed and the building fell in on itself.

Actually 7 seconds after the initial failure seen on the roof, the roof structure above the rest of the core also started to fall. we do not know what occured inside the building in those intervals.
We do not know what the exact effect of the penthouse equipment falling through the building was.

The 21 core column and the perimeter columns fell in about 7 seconds.
That constitutes "most of the building".

No, the central portion of the roof, and the perimeter of the building fell in those 7 seconds.

Actually, the options are quite limited.
DD/F, CD, particle beam weapons and mutant ninja steel eating termites on steroids. Did i miss anything? :cool:

DD/F - evidence - there were indeed fires and structural damage
CD - evidence- "it looks close enough to be CD"
Particle beam weapons - evidence - Woods and Reynolds imaginations
MNSET - evidence - a few examples of corroded steel (frankly a lot more evidence than W&R have for DEW)

Christopher7

1st January 2008, 06:31 PM

Norseman

2nd January 2008, 08:39 AM

Responce to:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3289428#post3289428

I do not accept their denial that WTC7 looks like a CD.

Mr. Jowenko is a controlled demolitions expert. His company website:
http://www.jowenko.nl (http://www.jowenko.nl/)

This is a MUST SEE for anyone interested in the truth about WTC 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

In part 1
Jerwenko: ....This is a controlled demolition.
Interviewer: You sure?
Jerwenko: Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this.

In part 2
Interviewer: .....could it not be by fire?
Jerwenko: No

In part 3
When told of the debris damage and fires, Jerwenko continued to talk about HOW it was done. There is never any doubt in his mind that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

You may not agree with him but to insist that WTC7 does not even look like a CD is denial.

Christopher7 we are talking about lack of evidence for a controlled demolition of WTC 7 and not what the collapse of WTC 7 looked like in the videos. That is a big difference. Please go back and reread the NIST quotes I posted, NIST did not say what you are claiming they said.

Viewed without sound the videos of the WTC 7 collapse and videos showing building collapses caused by controlled demolition looks similar. And of course they look similar, they show buildings that are collapsing under the force of gravity. In the case of WTC 7 a progressive collapse (as described by NIST) initiated by column failure due to fire and a collapse initiated by cutting the columns in the same sequence with explosives would visually be very similar.

But when the sound is turned on the lack of evidence for a controlled demolitions in the case of WTC 7 immediately becomes evident. What is lacking in the soundtrack of the videos of the WTC 7 collapse, and that is clearly present in the soundtrack of videos showing building collapses initiated by controlled demolition with explosives? Like for instance in the video on the opening page of Jowenko's company website:
http://www.jowenko.com

Jowenko is surely a very competent demolition expert. But as an expert witness on WTC 7 he is very obviously a very flimsy straw man. In the video he makes a complete mess of himself, he doesn't know thing about the WTC 7 and the collapse, he have not read the FEMA report, he can not pick out the collapsed building in the picture, speculating wildly etc. Sorry but Jowenko is useless. You and I know more about WTC 7 than Jowenko does.

Nearly 7 years and yet zero evidence for a controlled demolition of WTC 7.

Christopher7

2nd January 2008, 05:44 PM

Christopher7 we are talking about lack of evidence for a controlled demolition of WTC 7 and not what the collapse of WTC 7 looked like in the videos. That is a big difference. Please go back and reread the NIST quotes I posted, NIST did not say what you are claiming they said.

Viewed without sound the videos of the WTC 7 collapse and videos showing building collapses caused by controlled demolition looks similar. And of course they look similar, they show buildings that are collapsing under the force of gravity. In the case of WTC 7 a progressive collapse (as described by NIST) initiated by column failure due to fire and a collapse initiated by cutting the columns in the same sequence with explosives would visually be very similar.[/

But when the sound is turned on the lack of evidence for a controlled demolitions in the case of WTC 7 immediately becomes evident. What is lacking in the soundtrack of the videos of the WTC 7 collapse, and that is clearly present in the soundtrack of videos showing building collapses initiated by controlled demolition with explosives? Like for instance in the video on the opening page of Jowenko's company website:
http://www.jowenko.com

Jowenko is surely a very competent demolition expert. But as an expert witness on WTC 7 he is very obviously a very flimsy straw man. In the video he makes a complete mess of himself, he doesn't know thing about the WTC 7 and the collapse, he have not read the FEMA report, he can not pick out the collapsed building in the picture, speculating wildly etc. Sorry but Jowenko is useless. You and I know more about WTC 7 than Jowenko does.You think you are more qualified to recognize a CD than the owner of a CD company.
He didn't need to know anything about the implosion of WTC7
The video, without sound, is enough.
Are you saying that WTC7 doesn't look like a CD?

BUSH appointed Shyam Sunder director of NIST shortly before the report was released.
The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents.
Of course his appointee will refuse to acknowledge that WTC7 looks like a CD.

Norseman

2nd January 2008, 06:06 PM

You think you are more qualified to recognize a CD than the owner of a CD company.
He didn't need to know anything about the implosion of WTC7
The video, without sound, is enough.
Are you saying that WTC7 doesn't look like a CD?

BUSH appointed Shyam Sunder director of NIST shortly before the report was released.
The Bush administration systematically distorts scientific documents.
Of course his appointee will refuse to acknowledge that WTC7 looks like a CD.

I think you should reread my post very carefully Christopher7.

Christopher7

2nd January 2008, 06:41 PM

I think you should reread my post very carefully Christopher7.I read your post.

Jowenko is an expert, you are not.

Your saying that he doesn't know a CD when he sees one is ridiculous.

Norseman

3rd January 2008, 08:33 AM

I read your post.

Jowenko is an expert, you are not.

Your saying that he doesn't know a CD when he sees one is ridiculous.

Yet again Christopher7 you managed to avoid the part of my post where I explained to you that a collapse of WTC 7 initiated by fire and a collapse initiated by explosives (CD) would look similar. But since all the videos showing the collapse of WTC 7 lacks the characteristic detonation sound of explosives, present inn all videos showing controlled implosions of buildings, they are not evidence in itself of a controlled demolition of WTC 7.

So that's it Christopher7, there is no evidence supporting your controlled demolition hypothesis. While there is ample evidence and scientific knowledge about steel structures and fire supporting NIST's working hypothesis. In your other thread you have been so kind to post the evidence showing fires in the area of the initiating event repeatedly.

jaydeehess

3rd January 2008, 02:32 PM

I read your post.

Jowenko is an expert, you are not.

Your saying that he doesn't know a CD when he sees one is ridiculous.

I believe you missed the point Norseman made that Jowenko , in the video, did not know anything about WTC 7 other than what he saw in the video of the collapse and from that and only that he drew a conclusion from which (suprise) he is unwilling to back away from even given the fact that there is no other evidence of a CD other than "it looks like a CD".
No sounds of detonations (you say many times that the steel columns were hefty brutes. As such then they would require hefty charges to cut and kick them. 24 of them at least, according to you. What was heard? One loud booming noise that was not recorded on any tape of the event, that did not cause onlookers to flinch/duck and as such was not the sharp pressure wave characteristic of an explosion which often does ellict such a reaction in explosive demolitions (in cases in which the steel columns are not as thick).

Jowenko had not, at the time of his initial conclusion, read anything about the WTC 7 collapse including the NIST prelim report.

Van Romero initially thought explosives were used in the towers and later corrected himself. That is simply being honest and admitting one's mistake. Jowenko however, I assume has now seen the research done and yet will not admit that his initial conclusion based upon scant evidence, was wrong. That is an example of ego overiding truth.

However, and you know this to be true, Jowenko is not the only demolitions expert to make pronouncements about WTC 7 and others conclude the exact opposite, that it was the damage and fires that brought the structure down. Furthermore fire damage experts and structural engineers also conclude that fire brought the building down.

jaydeehess

3rd January 2008, 02:37 PM

Richard Gage believes that explosives and a cornucopia of other items were used in the destruction visited upon the USA on 9/11/01 and Gage is an architect and therefore an expert.

However right on this forum we also have architects, one of which goes by the moniker "Architect" who do not believe that explosives were used in the destruction of the buildings.

Does the fact that Gage makes money in public appearances make his opinion have greater weight?

Christopher7

5th January 2008, 04:16 AM

Yet again Christopher7 you managed to avoid the part of my post where I explained to you that a collapse of WTC 7 initiated by fire and a collapse initiated by explosives (CD) would look similar.We are talking about an implosion.

But since all the videos showing the collapse of WTC 7 lacks the characteristic detonation sound of explosives, present inn all videos showing controlled implosions of buildings, Not so.
The critical seconds when Daryl heard the "clap of thunder" and saw "a shock wave ripping thru the building" have been edited out of the only 2 videos with sound.

they are not evidence in itself of a controlled demolition of WTC 7.The implosion of WTC7 looks like a CD.

So that's it Christopher7, there is no evidence supporting your controlled demolition hypothesis.The fact that WTC7 imploded is evidence that was a CD.

While there is ample evidence and scientific knowledge about steel structures and fire supporting NIST's working hypothesis.Please site your evidence to support The NIST hypothesis on the "10 story hole thread".

Christopher7

5th January 2008, 05:15 AM

I believe you missed the point Norseman made that Jowenko , in the video, did not know anything about WTC 7 other than what he saw in the video of the collapse and from that and only that he drew a conclusion from which (suprise) he is unwilling to back away from even given the fact that there is no other evidence of a CD other than "it looks like a CD".That's all that is needed in his expert opinion.

Building implosions are very distinctive, unmistakable.

No sounds of detonationsYou guys keep going back to this talking point.
The lack of available videos with the critical seconds of sound do not negate the indisputable visual proof that WTC7 imploded.

Jowenko had not, at the time of his initial conclusion, read anything about the WTC 7 collapse including the NIST prelim report.
He had all he needed to make a positive identification.

Van Romero initially thought explosives were used in the towers and later corrected himself.

That is simply being honest and admitting one's mistake. Jowenko however, I assume has now seen the research done and yet will not admit that his initial conclusion based upon scant evidence, was wrong. That is an example of ego overiding truth.You have no idea what Jowenko thinks.

As for Van Romero:
The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "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.

Ten days later the Albuquerque Journal published this following article, describing a dramatic reversal of Van Romero's position.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero

That's a rather dramatic repudiation of himself.
Somebody made this guy an offer he couldn't refuse.

However, and you know this to be true, Jowenko is not the only demolitions expert to make pronouncements about WTC 7 and others conclude the exact opposite, that it was the damage and fires that brought the structure down.Name someone with Jowenko's qualifications who says WTC7 was not a CD.

Furthermore fire damage experts and structural engineers also conclude that fire brought the building down.List them.

Here are some folks who say WTC7 was a CD.

234 architects and engineers: http://www.ae911truth.org/

2 Professors emeritus for structural analysis and construction
http://tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/ausland/663864.html

Torin Wolf demolitions expert
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2

Christopher7

5th January 2008, 05:22 AM

Richard Gage believes that explosives and a cornucopia of other items were used in the destruction visited upon the USA on 9/11/01 and Gage is an architect and therefore an expert.

However right on this forum we also have architects, one of which goes by the moniker "Architect" who do not believe that explosives were used in the destruction of the buildings.Would "Architect" or any other qualified person here care to give their real name and Credentials?

Does the fact that Gage makes money in public appearances make his opinion have greater weight?No

rwguinn

5th January 2008, 08:42 AM

Christpher7:
Have you not been warned in the past about bumping your BS posts without NEW comments and evidence?

Norseman

5th January 2008, 08:43 AM

As for Van Romero:
The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "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.

Ten days later the Albuquerque Journal published this following article, describing a dramatic reversal of Van Romero's position.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero

That's a rather dramatic repudiation of himself.
Somebody made this guy an offer he couldn't refuse.

Here is a more complete qoute of what Von Romero said:
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.
Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal/
My bolding.

On September 11th 2001 he gave his initial impression of the attack. Then he reevaluated the available information and talked to some experts in their field and arrived at a different conclusion. As the professional he is he then went to ABQjournal with his new findings. But this is obviously something that is beyond your ability to understand Christopher7, that someone can change their position after reevaluating the information and looking at more information.