WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by ZENSMACK89
"I Zensmack89, believe that considering the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years makes it very possible that given the circumstances of that day, the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 might have been considered an valid option for these same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed."

.......................

You seem to think they can go in and out of a building all day and all night that's on the verge of collapse to get out documents that need to be shred or data that needs to be secured. Did they retrieve anything in the eight hours the building stood?

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Once again you what others have said goes sailing right over your head.

Any incriminating docuements would have been shredded hours, days or weeks before 9/11/01. There would be an extreme requirement to keep any and all alleged docuementation concerning this secure and to destroy any and all that were no longer needed. It would be of the utmost idiocy to have any such docuemantation withing a few hundred feet of the 110 storey structures that one was about to demolish anyway.
Once again I ask, what significance to this is the fact that the emergency office was located so close? Again, be specific I am getting a chill from all of your handwaving.

quote Zensmack:
And once again you're not reading.

"Let's say for argument sake no inside job..."

It has nothing to do with your supposition concerning no inside job. It has to do with your supposition that there were incriminating docuements in WTC 7 that needed to be destroyed. The idea that any such docuements would have beed destroyed well in advance of and for that matter kept well away from, the attacks on the towers is what sailed over your head, and now it appears that the entire flow of the thread is also too much for you to keep track of.

Do try to keep up.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler
I'm sure it would be very easy to reproduce the collapse of WTC 7 due to fire and asymmetrical damage via a computer modeling program. I'm surprised NIST or for that matter Purdue has not done that yet.
Or at least the "initiation". They might not follow through on the complete collapse.

No it would not be "easy". In the case of the towers there was a lot of information about the initial damage. The mass, construction and velocity of the planes was known within an easily determined range as was the construction of the towers and where the planes hit.

Such was not the case for WTC 7. It is not known within the same range as for the towers, the mass, velocity, direction and location of the impacting debris nor is the type of debris known for certain.

So right from the beginning a model for WTC 7 would be much more complex than was carried out on the towers. Then thee is the fires. while the initial extent and progression of fires in the towers is well docuemented by video and still photos this is not the case for WTC 7 since the wreckage ofthe towers occluded the south side as did the smoke from WTC 7. The videos and photos of the towers had nothing in the way to occlude the view, no so for WTC 7. So now this makes the modelling job even worse.

[ZENSMACK89]

For the last time: you are the one proposing the scenario that incriminating documents were stored in WTC 7, and that it was destroyed on purpose to destroy said documents. I did not claim this and I do not believe it. That makes it your story, not mine. I'm merely responding to your claim and pointing out the problems with it.


No I'm not. Can you read or are you just lying? Not necessarily. Are all documents that are secured or are shred in any business only incriminating in nature? They might be but they also might be something that can't afford to be unsecured.

If you want to keep saying "No, it's yours!", feel free, but I see no further need to respond to such weird denial. It's cute when my kid does it. It's just bizarre and sad when a presumed adult does it.


Presumption is exactly your problem. You only seem to understand and accept the easiest of scenarios. No wonder you don't question the simplistic dummied down official version.

I agree that the occupants of WTC 7 failed to foresee the collapse of the Twin Towers. But that doesn't support your scenario.


No need for you to agree it was proven on Sept 11th. It fits perfect if you can read.

You didn't. But that's what it would have taken if CD was really required, except for one sub-scenario described below.

That's not what it would have taken for a building that is claimed to be in danger of collapse but can't be pinpointed as to when it will collapse. Some buildings are pulled down without any explosives.

"The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to “pull” the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement." - Brent Blanchard of Protec Documentation Services Inc.

No, I don't. I don't think such incriminating evidence would have been stored at the epicenter of the attacks - and presumed response to them - at all; that's crazy. Keeping the documents there once the attacks were underway would have been even crazier.


Why does it have to be incriminating? Maybe it is but maybe it's just SECRET. What's more secret then the CIA or the "SECRET" Service?

Correction: fire on many floors and extensive structural damage to one side. I already described (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2976220&postcount=217) the unmistakable collapse indicators which developed as a result, the same kind I've studied at the fire academy. And that is my scenario, but it's not relevant because...


So why the need for so many explosives?

... it's your claim that the building had to be brought down with explosives. Controlled demolition of skyscrapers takes hundreds of pounds to hundreds of kilograms of explosives, and extensive preparation, especially in built out and furnished buildings.


No it's not my claim it had to be brought down with explosives but it could have been.

Now, you either accept the building was not significantly damaged, thus requiring a full load of explosives to bring down, or you accept that it didn't need the typical amount because it was significantly compromised by fire and debris damage, contradicting your line "You seem to think..." above. In either case, you're proposing that CD experts carrying significant amounts of explosives were secretly sent into the damaged, burning building and stealthily prepared it for demolition in a few hours. Either version is just nuts.

No it's you who can only seem to comprehend the most simplistic and black and white situations. Thus your tendencies to presume incorrectly what people are talking about.

And I'm pointing out why they are crazy. You can't restrict discussion to evidence-free claims of "they might have been hiding something". We're looking at whether they make any sense or not in the first place, and we're looking at if they could have been pulled off. If you don't like having your claims sanity-checked, don't bring them up.

Yes they might be hiding more then just their own liability. That's crazy just because you have decided so.

Not interested in more FUD smokescreen. You're just raving at this point, and not even making a coherent argument. The parts of it that are clear are just nutty - only a step or two away from the "no planes" gold standard of lunacy. I hope, for your sake, you can back away from the brink.

You're not interesting in anything that threatens the nice warm bubble of denial and ignorance you have built up around yourself. Put your blinders back on and keep your hands tightly cupped over your ears and enjoy the bliss.

[ZENSMACK89]

It has nothing to do with your supposition concerning no inside job. It has to do with your supposition that there were incriminating docuements in WTC 7 that needed to be destroyed. The idea that any such docuements would have beed destroyed well in advance of and for that matter kept well away from, the attacks on the towers is what sailed over your head, and now it appears that the entire flow of the thread is also too much for you to keep track of.

Do try to keep up.
Do try to learn to read.

Are all documents that are secured or are shred in any business only incriminating in nature? They might be but they also might be something that can't afford to be unsecured.

[Sabrina]

I believe "pulling" a building over (i.e. attaching cables to it for the express purpose of using said cables to literally pull the building down) has only ever been done on buildings that are ten stories or less. We're talking about a 47 story building here; the type of pulling usually referred to in demolition circles (i.e. the cables again) would not be used to demolish WTC7.

[DavidJames]

You're not interesting in anything that threatens the nice warm bubble of denial and ignorance you have built up around yourself. Put your blinders back on and keep your hands tightly cupped over your ears and enjoy the bliss.That’s a lot of bravado coming from someone who supports an inside job. An anonymous person accusing innocent people of mass murder without a shred of evidence.

So please blather on about others having blinders on and their hands over their ears Tell me more, CT boy. Where is your evidence? Where is your story and your evidence to support it? Can you make a case or are you limited to “just asking questions”? Intelligent, rational adults do their analysis, arrive at a conclusion and then start talking about it. Are you willing to take that challenge? Can you be a rational adult and state your case, show us your analysis?

[BillyRayValentine]

This is some theory of yours. Did they say anything about also locating their emergency bunker only 300 feet away from the last time the terrorist attacked?...

--------

If it was so clearly at risk then why was the emergency bunker located there?


With respect to the emergency bunker, proximity to the anticipated target was clearly a consideration. They were operating on the assumption that the towers might be attacked again, not that they would collapse. The prospect of a collapse would never have entered the picture.

Do you think the conspiracists had the same expectations? Or do you think that, just maybe, the prospect of a collapse would have influenced their thinking. Given that they were the ones blowing the building(s) up, and all.

Do you ever think before you post, even just a little bit?

[ZENSMACK89]

That’s a lot of bravado coming from someone who supports an inside job. An anonymous person accusing innocent people of mass murder without a shred of evidence.

So please blather on about others having blinders on and their hands over their ears Tell me more, CT boy. Where is your evidence? Where is your story and your evidence to support it? Can you make a case or are you limited to “just asking questions”? Intelligent, rational adults do their analysis, arrive at a conclusion and then start talking about it. Are you willing to take that challenge? Can you be a rational adult and state your case, show us your analysis?

Why don't you go back and read the OP to this thread and then read my posts and replies before you make a comment. Do it once before you comment next and then try to make a practice of it. Then if you want you can start your own thread based on your Blind Faith in authority and maybe I'll comment and show you where you're wrong. Again.

[ZENSMACK89]

With respect to the emergency bunker, proximity to the anticipated target was clearly a consideration. They were operating on the assumption that the towers might be attacked again, not that they would collapse. The prospect of a collapse would never have entered the picture.

Do you think the conspiracists had the same expectations? Or do you think that, just maybe, the prospect of a collapse would have influenced their thinking. Given that they were the ones blowing the building(s) up, and all.

Do you ever think before you post, even just a little bit?
Do you ever read before you post?

[ZENSMACK89]

I believe "pulling" a building over (i.e. attaching cables to it for the express purpose of using said cables to literally pull the building down) has only ever been done on buildings that are ten stories or less. We're talking about a 47 story building here; the type of pulling usually referred to in demolition circles (i.e. the cables again) would not be used to demolish WTC7.
I was pointing out that a building can fall without tons of explosives. I thought you believed three buildings fell on 9/11 without any explosives used?

[sts60]

So please blather on about others having blinders on and their hands over their ears Tell me more, CT boy. Where is your evidence? Where is your story and your evidence to support it? Can you make a case or are you limited to “just asking questions”? Intelligent, rational adults do their analysis, arrive at a conclusion and then start talking about it. Are you willing to take that challenge? Can you be a rational adult and state your case, show us your analysis?

I doubt it. ZENSMACK89 is unable to actually decide what scenario he actually supports, is unable to describe it clearly, or is simply unwilling to actually commit to and defend a particular scenario and is just trying to have it every way at once.

I'm leaning towards the last option at this point, due to the classic FUDcasting recipe being followed. Toss out any number of suspects (Giuliani! Bush! Secret Service!), various motives (documents incriminating the conspiracy! ordinary non-conspiracy secret documents! insurance fraud! liability!), various scenarios (lots of explosives! a few explosives! pulling!). Continually misrepresent others' statements (you think this! you think that!) and deny responsibility for one's own scenarios (we're only talking about motives! I didn't say it had to be that!). Slip in the usual bogus claims (fire on a few floors! alleged structural damage!). Season to taste with the usual insults (you can't read! you're lying! you're in a bubble!). Sprinkle with heaping doses of projection (it's your claim! it's your claim!) Wave hands vigorously, reheat and serve repeatedly - this recipe never runs out.

If he just can't figure out a coherent scenario, or can't express himself clearly, that's sad. If he's deliberately trying to fuzz the issue to generate FUD - a strategy I've seen many times before - that's annoying. Either way, the claim that a 47-story building was deliberately destroyed in order to destroy some papers and CDs is just... pathological. I'm afraid to think of ZS's state as the years progress with no big revelation that WTC 7 was deliberately destroyed, as the public at large continues to ignore - heck, to never even hear about - this notion, and the big revolution never comes.

[DavidJames]

Why don't you go back and read the OP to this thread and then read my posts and replies before you make a comment. Do it once before you comment next and then try to make a practice of it. Then if you want you can start your own thread based on your Blind Faith in authority and maybe I'll comment and show you where you're wrong. Again.BS, CT boy - you have not stated your case and supported it with evidence. Prove it CT boy.

[Alferd_Packer]

STS60, your recipe has been nominated.

[ZENSMACK89]

So please blather on about others having blinders on and their hands over their ears Tell me more, CT boy. Where is your evidence? Where is your story and your evidence to support it? Can you make a case or are you limited to “just asking questions”? Intelligent, rational adults do their analysis, arrive at a conclusion and then start talking about it. Are you willing to take that challenge? Can you be a rational adult and state your case, show us your analysis?

I doubt it. ZENSMACK89 is unable to actually decide what scenario he actually supports, is unable to describe it clearly, or is simply unwilling to actually commit to and defend a particular scenario and is just trying to have it every way at once.

I'm leaning towards the last option at this point, due to the classic FUDcasting recipe being followed. Toss out any number of suspects (Giuliani! Bush! Secret Service!), various motives (documents incriminating the conspiracy! ordinary non-conspiracy secret documents! insurance fraud! liability!), various scenarios (lots of explosives! a few explosives! pulling!). Continually misrepresent others' statements (you think this! you think that!) and deny responsibility for one's own scenarios (we're only talking about motives! I didn't say it had to be that!). Slip in the usual bogus claims (fire on a few floors! alleged structural damage!). Season to taste with the usual insults (you can't read! you're lying! you're in a bubble!). Sprinkle with heaping doses of projection (it's your claim! it's your claim!) Wave hands vigorously, reheat and serve repeatedly - this recipe never runs out.

If he just can't figure out a coherent scenario, or can't express himself clearly, that's sad. If he's deliberately trying to fuzz the issue to generate FUD - a strategy I've seen many times before - that's annoying. Either way, the claim that a 47-story building was deliberately destroyed in order to destroy some papers and CDs is just... pathological. I'm afraid to think of ZS's state as the years progress with no big revelation that WTC 7 was deliberately destroyed, as the public at large continues to ignore - heck, to never even hear about - this notion, and the big revolution never comes.

"(you think this! you think that!)" The only thing sts60 ever does.

[ZENSMACK89]

BS, CT boy - you have not stated your case and supported it with evidence. Prove it CT boy.
What's my case? Did you read yet or can't you?

[ZENSMACK89]

Now once again just as a reminder to all the genius’s who got an "F" in reading comprehension…

Post #239

Let's say for argument sake no inside job.

Boo Hoo. What’s the matter got nothing on the liability issue?

Oh poor babies. Don’t throw a tantrum.

[DavidJames]

What's my case? Did you read yet or can't you?
Thanks for proving my point, CT boy. You haven't stated your case and supported it with evidence.

[DGM]

Now once again just as a reminder to all the genius’s who got an "F" in reading comprehension…

Post #239



Boo Hoo. What’s the matter got nothing on the liability issue?

Oh poor babies. Don’t throw a tantrum.
You don't think he had liability insurance? The liability issue is really not much concern for Silverstein. He would just let the insurance company fight it out.

The part that makes no sense is why would he risk getting caught to save a little aggravation. Your scenario is almost all (if works) or nothing (if caught) for him.

[ZENSMACK89]

Thanks for proving my point, CT boy. You haven't stated your case and supported it with evidence.

Thanks for proving my point that knowing absolutely nothing about a topic doesn’t stop the likes of you from shooting off your mouth.

[ZENSMACK89]

You don't think he had liability insurance?

STOP! Not just Silverstein and insurance. Go back and read.

[DGM]

STOP! Not just Silverstein and insurance. Go back and read.
I did read it. If it was not an inside job like you said, The insurance would cover the liability. The whole site was covered for acts of terror unlike in "93" when it was not and the liability was an issue.

Do I misunderstand you? If so please correct me.

[ZENSMACK89]

I did read it. If it was not an inside job like you said, The insurance would cover the liability. The whole site was covered for acts of terror unlike in "93" when it was not and the liability was an issue.

Do I misunderstand you? If so please correct me.

It could have been an inside job I'm only saying it didn't need to be for people to have an incentive to cover things up.

And how long did it take for Silverstein to collect in the no fault scenario? Did I not show where they were concerned with a full and timely insurance payment so that they could get the rebuilding started and not have to spend more hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees?

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...settlement.php

World Trade Center insurance settlement reached
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Almost six years later. And what were they all so concerned with…?

“Spitzer's office said that the settlement, which was the biggest obstacle to reconstruction at the World Trade Center site, "will save additional tens of millions in legal costs and allow the Port Authority and Silverstein Properties to focus on rebuilding at Ground Zero." Prior litigation has cost Silverstein and the insurance companies hundreds of millions of dollars. “

Now what if WTC7 is on fire and severely damaged and maybe about to fall on another building which will also be costly. The building has severe damage to one side that maybe was caused by the falling towers or maybe more damage from an explosive device. Or better yet maybe the building might have been breaking some fire codes …

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A9679C8B63
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER; City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center
By JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON
Published: December 20, 2001
New York Times

“Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes.”

And was Silverstein and insurance liability the only concern surrounding the events and people of 9/11? For instance in a civil case involving the 93 bombing who was found more liable the terrorists or the Port Authority of NY/NJ?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...top_world_news

"Port Authority Found Liable in 1993 WTC Bombing (Update2)
Oct. 26 (Bloomberg) -- A New York jury said the owner of the World Trade Center was legally responsible in the 1993 terrorist bombing that killed six people and injured 1,000.

The civil trial jury today found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 68 percent liable for the attack, in which terrorists detonated explosives in a rented van in the 400-car garage under the former twin towers. The terrorists were 32 percent liable, the jury said."

That's right. Port Authority 68% liable Terrorists 32% liable. Are you telling me there is no interest from anyone to downplay or dismiss out of hand secondary explosions? Planes make it no fault.

[jaydeehess]

Do try to learn to read.

Are all documents that are secured or are shred in any business only incriminating in nature? They might be but they also might be something that can't afford to be unsecured.

Run of the mill sensitive docuement desatruction was addressed in post 188 by Sabrina. you came back suggesting that the ordfer to destroy whatever docuements needed destroying came from the administration
Originally Posted by ZENSMACK89
"I Zensmack89, believe that considering the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years makes it very possible that given the circumstances of that day, the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 might have been considered an valid option for these same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed."


So, there are two choices in your fantasy
- the docuements in question are incriminating of the involvement of the administration. Given that you use the phrase, "the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years" in connection with "same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed", the implication is that what you are referring to is the senario in which 9/11 inside job docuements were destroyed.

-the other choice is that the "the knuckleheads (crooks and murderers) in power today" did bring down the towers but failed to realize that the nearby WTC 7 contained sensitive but non-incriminating docuements and that they would be in danger of falling into the hands of someone in the general public as a result of the damage done to this structure.
In this case you suppose that a good, secure and efficient way to destroy those docuements would be to destroy the building before it falls of its own accord. Somehow, someone is to enter a creaking building that is on fire and in danger of collapse and set explosives designed specifically to bring the building down mostly in its own footprint and in such a way as to ensure the destruction of said hypothetical docuements.

In order to somehow back this up you ask if any sensitive docuements found their way into the hands of the media. There would be several answers to that; first a FF or NYPD coming accross any such docuement is most likely to turn it over to higher authorities; agents from the various agencies involved would have people on site actively looking for such types of docuements and available for anyone else who finds one to turn it over to them, there may well have been nothing so particularily sensitive in the first place.

You also ask if anything was recovered by the agencies involved but it was pointed out to you that they would not be in the habit of telling anyone what they did or did not recover in the way of docuements that they did not want the general public to know about in the first place.


Are we clear now?

[ZENSMACK89]

Run of the mill sensitive docuement desatruction was addressed in post 188 by Sabrina. you came back suggesting that the ordfer to destroy whatever docuements needed destroying came from the administration


So, there are two choices in your fantasy
- the docuements in question are incriminating of the involvement of the administration. Given that you use the phrase, "the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years" in connection with "same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed", the implication is that what you are referring to is the senario in which 9/11 inside job docuements were destroyed.

-the other choice is that the "the knuckleheads (crooks and murderers) in power today" did bring down the towers but failed to realize that the nearby WTC 7 contained sensitive but non-incriminating docuements and that they would be in danger of falling into the hands of someone in the general public as a result of the damage done to this structure.
In this case you suppose that a good, secure and efficient way to destroy those docuements would be to destroy the building before it falls of its own accord. Somehow, someone is to enter a creaking building that is on fire and in danger of collapse and set explosives designed specifically to bring the building down mostly in its own footprint and in such a way as to ensure the destruction of said hypothetical docuements.

In order to somehow back this up you ask if any sensitive docuements found their way into the hands of the media. There would be several answers to that; first a FF or NYPD coming accross any such docuement is most likely to turn it over to higher authorities; agents from the various agencies involved would have people on site actively looking for such types of docuements and available for anyone else who finds one to turn it over to them, there may well have been nothing so particularily sensitive in the first place.

You also ask if anything was recovered by the agencies involved but it was pointed out to you that they would not be in the habit of telling anyone what they did or did not recover in the way of docuements that they did not want the general public to know about in the first place.


Are we clear now?

Yes I'm all clear on your multiple fantasies. Now when will you be replying to something I posted?

[Sabrina]

Yes I'm all clear on your multiple fantasies. Now when will you be replying to something I posted?

http://lolthulhu.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/arwedda-ur_sanity.png
Sorry, couldn't resist.

[DGM]

It could have been an inside job I'm only saying it didn't need to be for people to have an incentive to cover things up.

But fault had no bearing on the payout for the towers. They wanted to settle with two separate claims (more $) and the insurance co. wanted one blanket claim. That's what the hold up (besides the year of cleanup and recovery) was.

And how long did it take for Silverstein to collect in the no fault scenario? Did I not show where they were concerned with a full and timely insurance payment so that they could get the rebuilding started and not have to spend more hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees?

As above with the exception of 7 where he (Silverstein) owned the building (not leased) and no one was killed, so cleanup and reconstruction could start immediately.



And was Silverstein and insurance liability the only concern surrounding the events and people of 9/11? For instance in a civil case involving the 93 bombing who was found more liable the terrorists or the Port Authority of NYC?

As far as code problems the fuel tank installation had to be approved or Silverstein would not be able to insure the building. This was not a secret installation.

Civil cases would be covered by the liability insurance. As I said in "93" the buildings were not specifically insured for acts of terror.

[PhantomWolf]

And how long did it take for Silverstein to collect in the no fault scenario? Did I not show where they were concerned with a full and timely insurance payment so that they could get the rebuilding started and not have to spend more hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees?

Actually no you didn't. Look at the Date of the article. It took them 6 years to get the Insurance company to settle, and that was out of court after starting litigation. Had the Insurance company wanted too, they could still be going. Sliverstein had to pay for the new WTC 7 out of his own pocket and hope that he'd get something back for it, the reason the new tower hasn't even been started 6 years later is that it's taken so long for the Insurance company to pay up. How is that "a full and timely insurance payment" in any way shape or form?

[twinstead]

Good luck, gentlemen; this has all the hallmarks of becoming a Chistophera thread.

[DGM]

I have no idea were he's going with this. The only way the insurance companies would not pay out would be if it was an inside job. I think, no I'm sure the insurance companies have investigated this much more than anyone of us knows. If anything was fishy they would be the ones bringing it up.

[ZENSMACK89]

Actually no you didn't. Look at the Date of the article. It took them 6 years to get the Insurance company to settle, and that was out of court after starting litigation. Had the Insurance company wanted too, they could still be going. Sliverstein had to pay for the new WTC 7 out of his own pocket and hope that he'd get something back for it, the reason the new tower hasn't even been started 6 years later is that it's taken so long for the Insurance company to pay up. How is that "a full and timely insurance payment" in any way shape or form?

I said that's what they were concerned with and happy when it was finally settled. If you could read you would see where I had had written that it took 6 years as it is. Do you think it would have been easier, less expensive, or timelier in another scenario? Be my guest I’m all ears.

[PhantomWolf]

I said that's what they were concerned with and happy when it was finally settled.

Of course they were concerned about it, Sliverstein was paying a massive rental on a property that didn't exist. If you were having hundreds of thousands of dollars a month drain out of your pocket for 6 years, wouldn't you be concerned about it, and happy when it finally got settled 6 years later?

Do you think it would have been easier, less expensive, or timelier in another scenario? Be my guest I’m all ears.

How about one where the Insurance company paid up within a year? If Silverstein had done what his investors wanted him to and insured the buildings against total loss, then he wouldn't have had to try and get the insurance to pay for two events instead of one to get enough to rebuild, and then the insurance company wouldn't have fought tooth and nail to avoid paying out as much. That would have been a far easier, less expensive and timelier senario.

[ZENSMACK89]

But fault had no bearing on the payout for the towers. They wanted to settle with two separate claims (more $) and the insurance co. wanted one blanket claim. That's what the hold up (besides the year of cleanup and recovery) was.

And why did fault have no bearing on the insurance genius? What have I been saying? And again is getting insurance the only problem I pointed to? How about legal fees? How about time? How about things that don’t concern insurance you seem to be avoiding?

As above with the exception of 7 where he (Silverstein) owned the building (not leased) and no one was killed, so cleanup and reconstruction could start immediately.

There were other concerns that I laid out. Also The WTC7 story is tied into the towers and the planes. It's not a total separate entity. It has to all tie together as a story.

As far as code problems the fuel tank installation had to be approved or Silverstein would not be able to insure the building. This was not a secret installation.

This doesn't address the article I posted. Also use your imagination as to what can happen with a fuel tank in a fire that's still burning out of control. Who's is liable for that if the worse should occur? How does that look politically for someone looking to run for President in the future? Who's idea was that bunker location? He's still denying it.

Civil cases would be covered by the liability insurance. As I said in "93" the buildings were not specifically insured for acts of terror.


So there was no problem in 93? No concern? That's an excuse backed by nothing but a bare assertion.

[ZENSMACK89]

Good luck, gentlemen; this has all the hallmarks of becoming a Chistophera thread.

Though it won't help don't wish them luck wish them facts.

[ZENSMACK89]

Of course they were concerned about it, Sliverstein was paying a massive rental on a property that didn't exist. If you were having hundreds of thousands of dollars a month drain out of your pocket for 6 years, wouldn't you be concerned about it, and happy when it finally got settled 6 years later?

Thank's for agreeing. Now what if you had to go to the insurance companies with your hand out and a different story?

How about one where the Insurance company paid up within a year?

Does some mean full Phantom? Again you agree.

If Silverstein had done what his investors wanted him to and insured the buildings against total loss, then he wouldn't have had to try and get the insurance to pay for two events instead of one to get enough to rebuild, and then the insurance company wouldn't have fought tooth and nail to avoid paying out as much. That would have been a far easier, less expensive and timelier senario.


So what kind of senario was there Phantom?

[ZENSMACK89]

http://lolthulhu.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/arwedda-ur_sanity.png
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Way to come with the facts. You can always be counted on.

[The Almond]

I'm sure it would be very easy to reproduce the collapse of WTC 7 due to fire and asymmetrical damage via a computer modeling program. I'm surprised NIST or for that matter Purdue has not done that yet.

Do you have a reference for a study wherein a computer model was created in order to analytically replicate the mechanics of a collapse as shown on a video?

[PhantomWolf]

Thank's for agreeing. Now what if you had to go to the insurance companies with your hand out and a different story?

How does Silverstein being concerned at losing money for 6 years, and still losing money, and being relieved to finally get the case sorted help your claim that WTC was demo'ed?

Does some mean full Phantom? Again you agree.

Agree with what? You were asking for a better senario to court cases and legal costs for 6 years, I was giving one, a senario when the Insurance was paid out in a year without all the legal costs.

So what kind of senario was there Phantom?

You mean other than the one I gave where he listened to his investors instead of being money tight and refusing to pay out the premiums for total lose of the Towers and 7?

How about one where he points out to the Government that since they blew up his buildings, they have to pay to help rebuild them and tell the insurance company to play ball so that they could start building the minute the area was clear and get paying tenants back into the spaces he was paying a fortune for.

How does the fact that he had to battle the insurance company to get enough to not even break even on the rebuild and lost rental make any sort of sense to your claims that they destroyed the building on purpose, especially for insurance purposes? Surely if they had done so, they would have made sure that they were going to get paid enough to rebuild and get that fast, not get less than they needed to rebuilt and have to fight for that through the courts for 6 years.

[SDC]

Many of the most informative and complex threads in this conspiracy area concern engineering and science; the hard tech side of the 9/11 affair. This thread, on the other hand, is moving in the direction of insurance and real estate questions.

Now my higher education was in the humanities and history, and the depth of my ignorance about insurance and real estate is not to be plumbed. (All I know is that I pay my bills when I am told to.) But from reading the emails of the debunkers, I have come to appreciate that insurance, and the business fo real estate, are very complex areas; I never appreciated that before. So my humanities-based hat is off to those who work in these areas. I hope I don't sound patronizing or condescending; I just want to say, you guys are serious.

Does Z.Smack or S.Dangler appreciate the complexity of these fields? Or do they think that it is all, somehow, easy and intuitive to the meanest intelligence?

Heck, I'm just asking questions.

[DGM]

And why did fault have no bearing on the insurance genius? What have I been saying? And again is getting insurance the only problem I pointed to? How about legal fees? How about time? How about things that don’t concern insurance you seem to be avoiding?

Watch the snide remarks, I have been polite with you and I expect the same.

Legal fees are only if you are disputing the claim, there will always be disputes it's expected if you are not a person that would get pushed around by these people. The only way to speed these things up would be to have none of it happen at all (no 9/11).



There were other concerns that I laid out. Also The WTC7 story is tied into the towers and the planes. It's not a total separate entity. It has to all ties together as a story.

So what? The only scenario that makes this all easy is for none of it to happen. As long as it's part of the act of terror the other concerns are all tied together. their's always problems and Silverstein would expect it.

This doesn't address the article I posted. Also use your imagination as to what can happen with a fuel tank in a fire that's still burning out of control. Who's is liable for that if the worse should occur? How does that look politically for someone looking to run for President in the future? Who's idea was that bunker location? He's still denying it.

He denying the fact that it was not to code. The fact that the insurance company paid out would mean there was not much of an issue. Who is liable? the insurance company that insures the building. Your thinking too much here, No one blames him for the terror attacks, he did not start the fires so who would blame him.



So there was no problem in 93? No concern? That's an excuse backed by nothing but a bare assertion.

Who said that? Not me, your making this up. There was lots of problems after "93" that's probably why he insured for acts of terror huh?

[Sabrina]

Way to come with the facts. You can always be counted on.

*yawns* Let me know when you come up with a coherent, plausible theory, Zen; until then, I think I'll just make my sarcastic comments as I see fit.

[DGM]

Zen:
I had 3 friends working on the clean-up and they have said there was paper all over that site. Watch the videos from that day the whole area was littered with papers.Spilling the contents of a building in the street is not the best way to destroy files. Why not post agents around the building and tell everyone that there classified stuff in there and no one can go in. Hell give them guns and make it obvious, It's the CIA no one would question that.

[Arus808]

by the respones in this thread, it seems that zens has never had to deal with settling with insurance companies for expenses or loss or damage to property.

If they did, they'd have an inkling at how insurance companies will go through each claim with a magnifiying glass, even hiring their own experts to refute any claims, and deny any claims when they can.

If you think they paid Silverstein without so much at sniffing the evidence, you are a in a dream world


When my father was hit by a car, while riding my moped, he suffered a heart attack and his right knee was shattered. the Woman who hit him was a person on welfare, and the car she drove cost LESS than my moped did . My dad's bills were over $120,000 because of the heart attack,they ahd to go in and do a bypass. And he's had 6 operations concerning his knee, and he still can't walk or stand for long periods of time. You know how long it took to settle with the womans' insurance company? nearly 8 years. Because of piling up medical bills due ot the accident.

And I still didn't get paid, to this day, for the damage to my moped.

[ZENSMACK89]

by the respones in this thread, it seems that zens has never had to deal with settling with insurance companies for expenses or loss or damage to property.

If they did, they'd have an inkling at how insurance companies will go through each claim with a magnifiying glass, even hiring their own experts to refute any claims, and deny any claims when they can.

If you think they paid Silverstein without so much at sniffing the evidence, you are a in a dream world

Where the hell did I claim this wasn't the case? I'm the one who posted the article of how long it took them to pay. Your point is exactly what I am saying. Even though the official version is that WTC7 fell because of collateral damage from the towers, a no fault claim it still took almost 6 years for the insurance to pay up. Complicate that no fault story with absolutely any other possibilities like explosive devices or brought down some other way on purpose or possibly that the damage to WTC7 was caused by something else like a fire hazard and you're looking at an insurance nightmare. Possibly more then 10 years waiting for a payout if it comes at all.

Get it?

[ZENSMACK89]

Zen:
I had 3 friends working on the clean-up and they have said there was paper all over that site. Watch the videos from that day the whole area was littered with papers.Spilling the contents of a building in the street is not the best way to destroy files. Why not post agents around the building and tell everyone that there classified stuff in there and no one can go in. Hell give them guns and make it obvious, It's the CIA no one would question that.
They didn't just spill the building into the street. It was incinerated. Heat corroded steel in the rubble. Would 10 stories of broken windows and documents flying out and blowing in the wind like someone here describe " to all corners of the earth" from a now unsecure building be a better option? And once again this was not the only problem.

[ZENSMACK89]

*yawns* Let me know when you come up with a coherent, plausible theory, Zen; until then, I think I'll just make my sarcastic comments as I see fit.
No you just keep sleeping. You're much better at that then discussing anything factual or relevant.

[DGM]

Where the hell did I claim this wasn't the case? I'm the one who posted the article of how long it took them to pay. Your point is exactly what I am saying. Even though the official version is that WTC7 fell because of collateral damage from the towers, a no fault claim it still took almost 6 years for the insurance to pay up. Complicate that no fault story with absolutely any other possibilities like explosive devices or brought down some other way on purpose or possibly that the damage to WTC7 was caused by something else like a fire hazard and you're looking at an insurance nightmare. Possibly more then 10 years waiting for a payout if it comes at all.

Get it?
I certainly get it now. It would be stupid to have CD this building for the reasons you just gave. Thanks for clearing that up. I though all a long you supported the CD theory. Sorry about that.

[DGM]

They didn't just spill the building into the street. It was incinerated. Heat corroded steel in the rubble. Would 10 stories of broken windows and documents flying out and blowing in the wind like someone here describe " to all corners of the earth" from a now unsecure building be a better option? And once again this was not the only problem.
You were there? I know people that will argue differently.

[ZENSMACK89]

Watch the snide remarks, I have been polite with you and I expect the same.

Legal fees are only if you are disputing the claim, there will always be disputes it's expected if you are not a person that would get pushed around by these people. The only way to speed these things up would be to have none of it happen at all (no 9/11).

What do you want me to tell you? Facts are facts. The official line is that terrorist hijacked planes and flew them into buildings something no one could have protected against and it still took 5 years for the insurance to pay up and what Sliversteins lawyers claim hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees. I also pointed to where the Port Authority of NY/NJ was found more liable in civil suits in the 93 bombing then the terrorist who committed the bombing.

Now are you going to sit there and tell me none of this was of any concern?

So what? The only scenario that makes this all easy is for none of it to happen. As long as it's part of the act of terror the other concerns are all tied together. their's always problems and Silverstein would expect it.

Yes there were problems even with the simplest no fault story. How long did it take overall with that simple story? Do you think anyone felt the need to complicate that story if they didn't have to?

He denying the fact that it was not to code. The fact that the insurance company paid out would mean there was not much of an issue. Who is liable? The insurance company that insures the building. Your thinking too much here, No one blames him for the terror attacks, he did not start the fires so who would blame him.

So why is Giuliani still denying it and fighting with Jerome Haurer about whose idea it all was to locate the bunker if it's of no consequence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/us/politics/10giuliani.html

"In Campaign Year, Invoking 9/11 Raises New Debates
Published: September 10, 2007

A video by a group opposing Mr. Giuliani was recently posted online featuring Jerome M. Hauer, the director of the Office of Emergency Management under Mr. Giuliani, criticizing the decision to house the city’s emergency bunker at the World Trade Center, which had already been the site of an attack"

Who said that? Not me, your making this up. There was lots of problems after "93" that's probably why he insured for acts of terror huh?

Making what up? This is what you said when I stated it wasn't just a case of Silverstein liability and stated multiple times it wasn't necessarily an inside job...

I did read it. If it was not an inside job like you said, The insurance would cover the liability. The whole site was covered for acts of terror unlike in "93" when it was not and the liability was an issue.

Good so you agree that it would be best from a litigation standpoint if the towers were attacked in a way the Port Authority had no way to defend against especially since they were held more liable for the 93 attacks then the terrorists them self in a jury decision on a civil suit brought against them.

[ZENSMACK89]

I certainly get it now. It would be stupid to have CD this building for the reasons you just gave. Thanks for clearing that up. I though all a long you supported the CD theory. Sorry about that.
It would be stupid to admit to anything other then collateral damage. Thanks for agreeing.

[ZENSMACK89]

You were there? I know people that will argue differently.

The heat corroded steel was documented by FEMA the 10 story gash was documented in the preliminary NIST report on WTC7 and the building being engulfed in raging fires and on the verge of collapse is well you know that story... it’s what you believe.

So what part is it your little friends would disagree with?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
Run of the mill sensitive docuement desatruction was addressed in post 188 by Sabrina. you came back suggesting that the ordfer to destroy whatever docuements needed destroying came from the administration


So, there are two choices in your fantasy
- the docuements in question are incriminating of the involvement of the administration. Given that you use the phrase, "the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years" in connection with "same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed", the implication is that what you are referring to is the senario in which 9/11 inside job docuements were destroyed.

-the other choice is that the "the knuckleheads (crooks and murderers) in power today" did bring down the towers but failed to realize that the nearby WTC 7 contained sensitive but non-incriminating docuements and that they would be in danger of falling into the hands of someone in the general public as a result of the damage done to this structure.
In this case you suppose that a good, secure and efficient way to destroy those docuements would be to destroy the building before it falls of its own accord. Somehow, someone is to enter a creaking building that is on fire and in danger of collapse and set explosives designed specifically to bring the building down mostly in its own footprint and in such a way as to ensure the destruction of said hypothetical docuements.

In order to somehow back this up you ask if any sensitive docuements found their way into the hands of the media. There would be several answers to that; first a FF or NYPD coming accross any such docuement is most likely to turn it over to higher authorities; agents from the various agencies involved would have people on site actively looking for such types of docuements and available for anyone else who finds one to turn it over to them, there may well have been nothing so particularily sensitive in the first place.

You also ask if anything was recovered by the agencies involved but it was pointed out to you that they would not be in the habit of telling anyone what they did or did not recover in the way of docuements that they did not want the general public to know about in the first place.


Are we clear now?
Yes I'm all clear on your multiple fantasies. Now when will you be replying to something I posted?

If your fantasy was not addressed in my post then by all means lay out just wtfiretruck your senario is and how it differs from the options I posted. Once again I ask that you be specific.


Would 10 stories of broken windows and documents flying out and blowing in the wind like someone here describe " to all corners of the earth" from a now unsecure building be a better option?

IRS was on 24th & 25th floors
CIA 25th floor
DoD 25th floor
OEM 23rd floor
US Secret Service 9th & 10th floors

The 10 storey gash could only possibily endanger docuements of the US SS. BUT, as Chris 7 points out, a FF said that his inspection of the 9th floor revealed no heavy damage on the south face so the only papers that could fly out would have to be sitting out on a desk.

[ZENSMACK89]

If your fantasy was not addressed in my post then by all means lay out just wtfiretruck your scenario is and how it differs from the options I posted. Once again I ask that you be specific.

My scenario is liability and accountability. I can't lay it out anymore then I have.


IRS was on 24th & 25th floors
CIA 25th floor
DoD 25th floor
OEM 23rd floor
US Secret Service 9th & 10th floors

The 10 storey gash could only possibly endanger documents of the US SS. BUT, as Chris 7 points out; a FF said that his inspection of the 9th floor revealed no heavy damage on the south face

And those are the only windows that were broken in a building on the verge of collapse? What floors were on fire? Go get your little picture out. How did they get on fire?

so the only papers that could fly out would have to be sitting out on a desk.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that. You're reaching now.

And once again... As if that was the only concern.

[BillyRayValentine]

No your story not mine.

Failed to foresee? It's already proven they failed to foresee by placing the emergency bunker in WTC7. Where did I say they had to go in with a few hundred kilograms of explosives"? You seem to think they can go in and out of a building all day and all night that's on the verge of collapse to get out documents that need to be shred or data that needs to be secured. Did they retrieve anything in the eight hours the building stood? You also seem to think the building can fall from fire on a few floors and supposed structural damage to one side but now the building all of sudden is going to need "few hundred kilograms of explosives" in addition to this damage to get it to fall. Why is that?

Reading this nonsense, and the sts60 post to which it responds, it becomes clear just how completely lost you are. Funny stuff, actually.



Here's another twist.

Let's say for argument sake no inside job. But the terrorist like they are known to do followed up the plane attack with car bombs or explosive devices they were somehow able to get in the towers or in the street. Let's say some people even reported hearing secondary explosions and maybe even vans with explosives in them.

Now read this…

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=auaBMcR5LnA4&refer=top_world_news

"Port Authority Found Liable in 1993 WTC Bombing (Update2)
Oct. 26 (Bloomberg)...

snip

That's just brilliant. Ignoring for a moment the practical impossibility of the whole operation, you propose that they may have surreptitiously destroyed the building... to decrease their insurance exposure and potential civil liability.

That's Stundie-level idiocy, right there.

[BillyRayValentine]

No need for you to agree it was proven on Sept 11th. It fits perfect if you can read.

Elaborate please.

WTC 7 was chosen as the location for the emergency bunker, more than likely because they thought the towers might be attacked again and they wanted proximity. They clearly didn't consider the possibility of the towers collapsing when they made their choice. As it turned out, they should have.

Explain how this info "fits perfect" with any of the completely non-sensical scenarios you propose.

[buka001]

I am at present engaged in a "debate" on LCF, relating to WTC 7.

I have posed four simple questions -

How where the charges laid?
When were they laid?
How did it go undiscovered?
How did the charges survive the fire?

No one has really risen to the challenge of the question. Alot of diversions and claims that my questions are a backward science. Someone goes so far as to link me to an explanation of the four steps in scientific method. Yet, as I pointed out to him, a formulation of a hypothesis, which is step 2 in the link he provided is exactly what these questions seek to do.

I will perservere to ensure the debate does not go sidetracked! I would really like to see some pluasible theory as to how it was done.

[BillyRayValentine]

Do try to learn to read.

Are all documents that are secured or are shred in any business only incriminating in nature? They might be but they also might be something that can't afford to be unsecured.

Patently ridiculous.

Your charaterization of a completely evacuated, heavily damaged, burning building as "unsecured" is hereby rejected on grounds of stupidity. Who exactly do you propose they might have feared gaining access to the building and their treasure trove of vital, albeit non-incriminating, secrets? Soviet agents disguised as firefighters?

Of course, the more obvious point is that finishing off the building would do nothing to enhance the security of its contents. Quite the opposite, actually.

Utterly absurd, unmitigated woo. Let it flow, baby.

[YCHTT]

What I find funny is that the CTs go from "Government Conspericy" to "Insurance Fraud" in the same breath.

These people give our government too much credit. You are talking about the same people overlooking the fact that one of their own contractors was billing them over 500K to ship a 25 cent washer. Yet they can mastermind the biggest attack on our country and cover all the bases???

Dont get me started on insurance companies. Im battleing with one for going on 3 years now and I have been fighting with them since December to pay me 4 months of back disability.

[allibearbear]

Edited for civility
collectively, you're ganging up on Swing Dangler, you do realize this, don't you?
I found the 9/11 section of Zeitgeist fascinating;indeed, it was my first exposure to said "conspiracy theory". All of you, collectively, are not doing much in the way of convincing me the story is a falsehood, as much as you're convincing me you're a bunch Edited for civility. Make a valid point, already.

[allibearbear]

buka001

How where the charges laid?
When were they laid?
How did it go undiscovered?
How did the charges survive the fire?

Excellent questions. I think your questions illustrate that no one except the government could have pulled this off.

[GlennB]

buka001

How where the charges laid?
When were they laid?
How did it go undiscovered?
How did the charges survive the fire?

Excellent questions. I think your questions illustrate that no one except the government could have pulled this off.

No. He's illustrating that it couldn't have be pulled off at all.

What you're doing is beginning with a belief in CD, then stretching the bounds of reality looking for a motive,opportunity and method.

Let us know when you find them.

[buka001]

buka001

How where the charges laid?
When were they laid?
How did it go undiscovered?
How did the charges survive the fire?

Excellent questions. I think your questions illustrate that no one except the government could have pulled this off.


If that is your opinion, answer the questions, stating how the government addressed the four issues I am trying to address if one rigged WTC7 for a CD.

Can you also describe how you think that because of the uncertaintity as to how it was rigged, automatically means the government did it.

It would suggest that if you believe there is doubt as to how something was done, you assume government conspiracy. That is a narrow minded approach to an intelligent discussion.

[allibearbear]

I'm not beginning with a belief. I'm saying all of you osting against "conspiracy theorists" as though they're "conspiring to be stupid" is ridiculous. You sound like smug-olas.
Motive. Americans get laughed at when they ask, Why did they attack us? To scare us. Who? They did or we did? Not that absurd of a question.
Opportunity. The point of buka's questions. Americans have opportunity to place bombs in American buildings. Elementary.
Method? Lay a charge during the 15 minutes the guard takes a break everyday and the charge will survive the only two, small fires caught on video.
This isn't rocket science, but it's being made out to be.

[buka001]

:D

15 minutes to walk past a gaurd with a large suspicious bag, attach a demolition charge to a column and wire it safely and correctly and then walk away!
Quite an interisting security system they had there. One gaurd walks away for a 15min break and the entire building is now vulnerable for any criminal activities. And the wiring for the bombs? Where was that hidden? Where was the bomb hidden? How many times did they have to do that to rig the whole building.

2 small fires? Hell where do you suppose all the smoke came from then?

Need a logical answer to the questions so we can all consider the events that transpired that day.

I agree with you that its not rocket science. No need to divert down that path. These questions are simple. Answer them in a logical open manner and then we can proceed with a open discussion. No need for anger or flames.

[DGM]

The heat corroded steel was documented by FEMA the 10 story gash was documented in the preliminary NIST report on WTC7 and the building being engulfed in raging fires and on the verge of collapse is well you know that story... it’s what you believe.

So what part is it your little friends would disagree with?
My "little friends" would disagree with the building was "incinerated" totally destroying securely all contents of the building. Obviously your not willing to look at the evidence of the day like I pointed out. Computers, paper work and a host of other office stuff was found in the WTC 7 debris. Unlike the towers everything was not pulverized.

Why don't you do some research on your own once and stop parroting others peoples lies. Go talk to some of the people that were there they'll tell you about all the "secure" material that was dumped into the street.

[Mancman]

Method? Lay a charge during the 15 minutes the guard takes a break everyday and the charge will survive the only two, small fires caught on video.
This isn't rocket science, but it's being made out to be.

Yeah, because all 1,800,000sqft buildings have one security guard.

[DGM]

It would be stupid to admit to anything other then collateral damage. Thanks for agreeing.
And seeing that no evidence of CD has ever been found the only logical conclusion is that the events were exactly as the MSM reported. As you agree that trying anything such as CD would be monumentally stupid (risk of getting caught) the only logical thing for them to do was to let the building fall if it may. Anything else as you say would risk never getting paid. Thanks for making that point again and again and again.

[tsig]

Though it won't help don't wish them luck wish them facts.

We have the facts.

That you cannot see them is your lack of vision.

[Dave Rogers]

Method? Lay a charge during the 15 minutes the guard takes a break everyday and the charge will survive the only two, small fires caught on video.

Let's take a look at the statistics for the largest building ever imploded, to see how long this would take.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

"At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building ever imploded, eclipsing the record held by CDI since 1975 with the felling of the 361 ft. tall Mendez Caldiera Building in Sao Palo, Brazil.

At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded, eclipsing the record CDI set in 1997 with the felling 344 sq. ft. tall #500 Wood Street Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

At 2.2 Million square feet, Hudson’s is the largest single building ever imploded."

"CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex."

OK, twelve people times 24 days is 288 man-days or 2304 man-hours. Assuming WTC7 required the same amount of explosives - despite it being a bigger building - that means that 9,216 fifteen-minute breaks were required to rig the building. At one a day that's 25 years and 3 months to rig the building, so your conspirators needed to start in 1976, ten years before WTC7 was even built.

This isn't rocket science, but it's being made out to be.

Demolishing a building isn't anywhere near as trivial as demolishing your fantasies.

Dave

[tsig]

Edited for civlity
collectively, you're ganging up on Swing Dangler, you do realize this, don't you?
I found the 9/11 section of Zeitgeist fascinating;indeed, it was my first exposure to said "conspiracy theory". All of you, collectively, are not doing much in the way of convincing me the story is a falsehood, as much as you're convincing me you're a bunch Edited for civlity. Make a valid point, already.

Why would we want to convince you.

The point is made and you are sitting on it.

[twinstead]

I'm not beginning with a belief. I'm saying all of you osting against "conspiracy theorists" as though they're "conspiring to be stupid" is ridiculous. You sound like smug-olas.
Motive. Americans get laughed at when they ask, Why did they attack us? To scare us. Who? They did or we did? Not that absurd of a question.
Opportunity. The point of buka's questions. Americans have opportunity to place bombs in American buildings. Elementary.
Method? Lay a charge during the 15 minutes the guard takes a break everyday and the charge will survive the only two, small fires caught on video.
This isn't rocket science, but it's being made out to be.

No. It IS rocket science, but it is being made out NOT to be by you.

"lay a charge when 'the' guard takes a break everyday"? "the two small fires"? That means you don't believe the eye witness accounts of raging, uncontrolled fires, right? How convenient for you.

You're kidding right? It's like describing the building of the Hoover Dam by saying "yea, just have a couple guys dump some concrete in front of the river, and eventually the lake just fills up".

[sts60]

Edited for civlity
collectively, you're ganging up on Swing Dangler, you do realize this, don't you?
I found the 9/11 section of Zeitgeist fascinating;indeed, it was my first exposure to said "conspiracy theory". All of you, collectively, are not doing much in the way of convincing me the story is a falsehood, as much as you're convincing me you're a bunch Edited for civlity.
Hey! You left me out! No fair!

[jaydeehess]

My scenario is liability and accountability. I can't lay it out anymore then I have.

Actually I could swear that you gave a senario in which the building had to be destroyed in order to destroy sensitive materials within the building. As a matter of fact looking back at the "I Zensmack.." statement yes, yes you did say that. However anytime anyone tried to flesh this conjecture out you have denied that you have put such a senario forth.
Seems that now you wish to back away from such a senario in favor of a senario in which it was done to speed up insurance payouts.
You either address the senario you DID INDEED put forth or you admit it is not a probable senario. Your continued "I did not say that" is reminiscent of a schoolyard arguement.

- " Why blow up WTC 7?"
~ " 'cause!"
- " 'cause why?"
~ " 'cause they had to!"


And those are the only windows that were broken in a building on the verge of collapse? What floors were on fire? Go get your little picture out. How did they get on fire?


.....................
You have absolutely no way of knowing that. You're reaching now.

And once again... As if that was the only concern.

If all that occured was broken windows then yes, the only papers that would be in danger of flying out the window because of that would be those that were sitting around the office, not in file cabinets, not in safes. Any docuements that were properly stored would only be in danger IF the building collapsed and it would matter litte how it collapsed so demolishing the building deliberatly would be just as bad as allowing it to crumble on its own.

How the fires started are not germane to this discussion. If, as you seem to now imply (do you ever actually come out and say anything or just imply it?) the fires were deliberatly lit then please come up with a reason for doing so that fits in with your "WTC 7 was not part of the original plan". IF the reason is to give a reason to load explosives and bring the building down to destroy docuements then why not just light the offices in question on fire and destroy the docuements in that fashion? It would be a helluva lot more secure than imploding a 47 storey building. Then again if one can get inside to upper floors to light fires(without the FF's noticing this) then you can also remove files.

[ZENSMACK89]

Elaborate please.

WTC 7 was chosen as the location for the emergency bunker, more than likely because they thought the towers might be attacked again and they wanted proximity. They clearly didn't consider the possibility of the towers collapsing when they made their choice. As it turned out, they should have.

Explain how this info "fits perfect" with any of the completely non-sensical scenarios you propose.
Gee BillyRay I can't telling you I can't read for you.

Sorry

BTW I see you like to nominate people. What can I win? lol

[ZENSMACK89]

Patently ridiculous.

Your characterization of a completely evacuated, heavily damaged, burning building as "unsecured" is hereby rejected on grounds of stupidity. Who exactly do you propose they might have feared gaining access to the building and their treasure trove of vital, albeit non-incriminating, secrets? Soviet agents disguised as firefighters?

Of course, the more obvious point is that finishing off the building would do nothing to enhance the security of its contents. Quite the opposite, actually.

Utterly absurd, unmitigated woo. Let it flow, baby.

Really? Is that all? How much did the FBI share information with the CIA leading up to 9/11 and vica versa genius? Why didn't they? Are soviet agents the only concern of the agencies housed in WTC7 or is this delusion exclusive to you? Tell me more.

[Sabrina]

Prior to 9/11, Zensmack, the primary concentration of the intelligence community (note: this is as I understand the situation) was on the Soviet Union. This can be evidenced by the fact that the military, up until 9/11, trained as if they were going to fight the Soviets eventually. BillyRay offered that as a legitimate example of what might have been considered at the time, HAD YOUR SCENARIO (at least, our interpretation of your ramblings) been the case. You asked for facts; there you go, I gave you some facts.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Edited for civlity
collectively, you're ganging up on Swing Dangler, you do realize this, don't you?
I found the 9/11 section of Zeitgeist fascinating;indeed, it was my first exposure to said "conspiracy theory". All of you, collectively, are not doing much in the way of convincing me the story is a falsehood, as much as you're convincing me you're a bunch Edited for civlity. Make a valid point, already.

Well, according to the latest poll that says only 4.6% think the government made it happen, it's fitting that there is a 20 to 1 gang up on truthers.

There are many valid points. And if you think we're being jerks, go over to LCF and try defending a non-truther getting kicked off and banned from their forums for saying "Hey, I disagree with you guys."

Any dissent there is treated with extreme prejudice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminate_with_extreme_prejudice).

Truthers refuse to listen to reason, and just claim they're JAQ. (Just Asking Questions) yet they refuse to accept answers other than their preconceived answers. If you are truly on the fence and think that truthers are being the logical and thoughtful ones... Well, I question your fence standing abilities. It's quite obvious which side has reality on their side.

[Swing Dangler]

Do you have a reference for a study wherein a computer model was created in order to analytically replicate the mechanics of a collapse as shown on a video?

Well you could start here at Caltech (http://caltecheerl.library.caltech.edu/414/)
I'm not an expert of course, but with a little tweaking you could change the force causing the damage in the models described.

Or perhaps this analysis,Analysis of building collapse under blast loads, could shed some light as found at ScienceDirect (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2Y-49TRMCN-1&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f83e3cd90d73c21d50638b36ecea9b73).

[Swing Dangler]

Prior to 9/11, Zensmack, the primary concentration of the intelligence community (note: this is as I understand the situation) was on the Soviet Union. This can be evidenced by the fact that the military, up until 9/11, trained as if they were going to fight the Soviets eventually. BillyRay offered that as a legitimate example of what might have been considered at the time, HAD YOUR SCENARIO (at least, our interpretation of your ramblings) been the case. You asked for facts; there you go, I gave you some facts.

Facts? The Soviet Union is no longer in existence, correct?

[Sabrina]

I use the "Soviet Union" moniker because those are the tactics the military was trained to fight. Not the "Russian" tactics; "Soviet" tactics. Why the moniker did not change, I do not know; all I know is it IS still called "Soviet Union" in military terminology. Note that this is prior to 9/11, however; nowadays the focus is more on urban warfare, as I understand it.

[The Almond]

Well you could start here at Caltech (http://caltecheerl.library.caltech.edu/414/)

Not quite what I was looking for. The Caltech study focuses on the vibrations caused by earthquakes, and they're only analyzing a moment frame. That's an awfully far cry away from a full building. I also notice that they don't mention an analytical reproduction of the collapse. What I mean is, they haven't described a model with all of the necessary degrees of freedom for a falling, rolling, impacting object. Naturally, such a model would need to be applied to hundreds of thousands of elements.

I'm not an expert of course, but with a little tweaking you could change the force causing the damage in the models described.

I don't see any mention of universal applicability of the model they create. Vibrations caused by earthquakes and those caused by demolitions are radically different.

Or perhaps this analysis,Analysis of building collapse under blast loads, could shed some light as found at ScienceDirect (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2Y-49TRMCN-1&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f83e3cd90d73c21d50638b36ecea9b73).

A better reference, but my company doesn't have access to that particular structural journal. I noticed from the abstract, though, that they compared their model to photographs, not videos. My question is: are there any analytical models that compare a collapse to a video analytically?

[Swing Dangler]

Let's take a look at the statistics for the largest building ever imploded, to see how long this would take.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

"At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building ever imploded, eclipsing the record held by CDI since 1975 with the felling of the 361 ft. tall Mendez Caldiera Building in Sao Palo, Brazil.

At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest structural steel building ever imploded, eclipsing the record CDI set in 1997 with the felling 344 sq. ft. tall #500 Wood Street Building in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

At 2.2 Million square feet, Hudson’s is the largest single building ever imploded."

"CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex."

OK, twelve people times 24 days is 288 man-days or 2304 man-hours. Assuming WTC7 required the same amount of explosives - despite it being a bigger building - that means that 9,216 fifteen-minute breaks were required to rig the building. At one a day that's 25 years and 3 months to rig the building, so your conspirators needed to start in 1976, ten years before WTC7 was even built.
Dave
Your entire scenario is one huge False Analogy as you are trying to compare two different events and treating them as one. Of course your example is demolished much like WTC 7 was...from the bottom up!

If you don't think it could be a CD or even rigged under the conditions of the day, take it up with Danny Jowenko.

[sts60]

I'm going to apologize to Zensmack.

I read the last few pages of the thread, and didn't realize at first that he was not only mentioning the possibility of a 9/11 coverrup but also other motivations. I picked up on this from his replies, and did incorporate this into my later posts, but it was sloppy of me at the start.

Now, with that said, Zensmack asks: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2979684&postcount=265)

What's my case? Did you read yet or can't you?

Well, let's try to summarize what his case is. I can read, so I went back through ZS's posts in this thread again.

Let's try to answer his question
What's my case?
in terms of motive. Underlines added for emphasis.

First, the general question: Was it an inside job (part of 9/11 conspiracy) or not?

Inside job: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2979892&postcount=272)

It could have been an inside job I'm only saying it didn't need to be for people to have an incentive to cover things up.

Not an inside job: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2979892&postcount=272)

It could have been an inside job I'm only saying it didn't need to be for people to have an incentive to cover things up.

Now to a specific motive. Why blow up WTC 7 that day?

Covering up failure to prevent terrorist use of explosives at WTC 1/2: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2973092&postcount=105)

One reason could be explosive devices. If explosive devices were able to get close enough to the buildings like they did in 93 it would have been a proven security breach of exactly what security was suppose to be watching for. This would have caused an insurance payout nightmare...

I am not quite clear on how one covers up the presence of explosives by using more explosives to destroy another building, or for that matter why destroying documents of any type in WTC 7 covers up the presence of explosives at WTC 1/2. Maybe ZS will elaborate on that.

WTC 7 destroyed to help blame the terrorists: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2973527&postcount=112)

It was in the interest of New York to blame everything on terrorists and planes.

Which raises the question of, since the destruction of WTC 1/2 were already being blamed on the terrorists, as was the damage to WTC 7, what destroying WTC 7 accomplished. Either it was going to fall - which would be blamed on the terrorists - or it was simply going to be damaged and burned - which would also be blamed on the terrorists.

Destroyed to avoid insurance liability: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2975893&postcount=211)

Now if they did bring it down on purpose it might also be kept quiet for insurance reasons. Collateral damage from the tower collapse is completely no fault as opposed to taking it down on purpose. How long can you wait if you’re going to blame it on collateral damage?

Help Silverstein with insurance claims: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2979892&postcount=272)

And how long did it take for Silverstein to collect in the no fault scenario? Did I not show where they were concerned with a full and timely insurance payment so that they could get the rebuilding started and not have to spend more hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees...

Best way to destroy sensitive documents which are evidence of 9/11 conspiracy: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2976263&postcount=219)

...What if WTC7 wasn't part of the original plan and wasn't meant to be damaged by the towers. Why would they have shred anything before hand?

Best way to destroy sensitive documents which are not evidence of 9/11 conspiracy: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2973092&postcount=105)

I think is that its possible WTC7 was never meant to be damaged but once it was it posed a security risk. It was a high security building that housed several Gov agencies

And why was it the best way?...

Retrieval impossible with building structurally compromised: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2973092&postcount=105)

...once it was damaged it could no longer be safely secured nor possible to safely retrieve the many sensitive documents and data inside. A decision had to quickly be made as to what was the best thing to do. So they pulled it.

This still leaves the question as to how a demolition crew was rounded up and prepared a burning, damaged, fully built-out and occupied (i.e., everything but the people inside) 47-story building for controlled demolition in less than half a day. (He actually quotes some demolition experts, and the quotes show how absurd this is, but that's another post.)

Retrieval impossible with building not structurally compromised: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2973527&postcount=112)

Even with fire just gutting a few floors who are you going to send in the building to retrieve anything? IT people? Clerical people? How long can you wait? Who are you going to send in there who knows where and what to look for? Can you do another operation like at the Pentagon where you have a bunch of people in khakis and ties surveying the lawn?

Apparently securing the structurally-sound building and escorting appropriate people in once the fires are out is less satisfactory than destroying the entire building and hoping sensitive material isn't scattered in the collapse. (ZS seems to think that blowing the building up will pretty much incinerate everything, which isn't true, but that's another topic.)

Let's not forget that in either case,

Unable to come up with suitable personnel to recover documents: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2973884&postcount=119)
Who could have been sent into the burnt out floors and surrounding areas to look for sensitive documents and data?
Can't come up with people with suitable clearances bound by non-disclosure agreeements: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2973965&postcount=128)
Do they all have clearance to see other agencies documents and data or even all of the documents and data of their own agency?

(Since ZS responded to posts discussing the commercial occupants as well as gov't occupants, I assume he includes them in his questions. If not, I apologize for reading too much out of the exchange. Anyway...)

I'm trying to think of someone with a high-level clearance who is also bound by non-disclosure agreements for dealing with commercial entities, and who is physically capable of walking up stairs with protective gear and carrying things out. Oh wait! Me! I wonder if they have any people like that in New York City.

Cover-up of unspecified government conspiracy: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2975557&postcount=190)

"I Zensmack89, believe that considering the knuckleheads in power today and their now well known record of incompetence, corruption, lies, and cover-up over the last 7 years makes it very possible that given the circumstances of that day, the demolition of a 47 storey structure known as WTC 7 might have been considered an valid option for these same crooks and murderers to destroy sensitive material some of which might have been consider evidence of something they felt needed to be concealed."

Finally, in case we missed anything:

Unspecified all-purpose "placeholder" reason: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2973092&postcount=105)

Or it could simply be something only a real investigation could uncover.

So that's what I could pick out for Zensmack's case in terms of motive. That leaves all the practical considerations of how this might be done, and other complications, but that's another post.

[SDC]

In fact, the CD of the Hudson's building in Detroit had its problems. In particular, the debris damaged the "PeopleMover" express line. (Not planned!) Granted, the PeopleMover was mostly a dud but still, this indicates that even when you have a lot of time, resources, and experts, things can mess up.

It is amazing how many people believe that construction, and demolition, are easy and intuitive to the meanest intelligence. Come on, guys. Get an education, or at least experience.

[Swing Dangler]

Not quite what I was looking for. The Caltech study focuses on the vibrations caused by earthquakes, and they're only analyzing a moment frame. That's an awfully far cry away from a full building. I also notice that they don't mention an analytical reproduction of the collapse. What I mean is, they haven't described a model with all of the necessary degrees of freedom for a falling, rolling, impacting object. Naturally, such a model would need to be applied to hundreds of thousands of elements.

I don't see any mention of universal applicability of the model they create. Vibrations caused by earthquakes and those caused by demolitions are radically different.


A better reference, but my company doesn't have access to that particular structural journal. I noticed from the abstract, though, that they compared their model to photographs, not videos. My question is: are there any analytical models that compare a collapse to a video analytically?

I would suggest NIST models of the WTC.
I'm not sure if this model is completed yet as discussed briefly here (http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=/weekly/v48/i15/15a02701.htm).

Mechanical engineers use computers to visually represent a variety of engineering events. For Astaneh-Asl, the software helped predict how structures respond to real-world, high-speed events such as crashes. The software was used to simulate what Astaneh-Asl called the complex issues and nonlinearities needed to analyze the impact of an airplane and the ensuing fire. For the simulation, he used MSC.Dytran and MSC.Marc from MSC.Software of Los Angeles.

To create the model, Astaneh-Asl worked with David McCallen, director of the Center for Complex Distributed Systems at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. They have worked together in the past, most recently on a computer model showing the effects of earthquakes on San Francisco's Bay Bridge.
"Understanding how and why the World Trade Center buildings collapsed will help us prevent this type of building collapse in the future," Astaneh-Asl said.
More information of this model can be found here (http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/may02/departments/news_notes/news_note.html)

Vibrations from earthquakes or CD are still vibrations and apparently the same model used to study collapses from earthquakes can be tweaked to model building collapses.

[Dave Rogers]

Your entire scenario is one huge False Analogy as you are trying to compare two different events and treating them as one. Of course your example is demolished much like WTC 7 was...from the bottom up!

I'm fascinated by your assertion that the controlled demolition of a large building is a poor analogy for the controlled demolition of a large building. Would you care to elaborate on some of the more obvious differences between the two cases?

You see, the argument has always been that WTC7 could not have collapsed symmetrically and into its own footprint unless it were a controlled demolition, therefore the argument must be that the charges were placed so as to achieve that effect. While it's possible that some much simpler arrangement of charges might have brought the building down, the truth movement argument is that only a carefully designed demolition would have produced the controlled collapse that they argue was observed. Therefore, I'm using the rigging of a large building to achieve a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint as an example of the time taken to rig a large building to achieve a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint. If you argue that something simpler was actually done, then you're contradicting your own argument.

If you don't think it could be a CD or even rigged under the conditions of the day, take it up with Danny Jowenko.

I must admit, I've never seen or heard Danny Jowenko's description of how an unstable building that was on fire could have been rigged for demolition so as to achieve a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint in only eight hours. Could you give us a few quotes?

Dave

[Sabrina]

Also bear in mind, Danny Jowenko was only ever exposed to the last 6.5 seconds of the collapse, as I recall (please correct me if I'm wrong, thank you). He was going off of a very small sample of evidence, and I notice has not been speaking up lately in support of a CD, most likely because he's seen the remainder of the evidence. Once again, please correct me if I'm wrong on that, but the only quote of Jowenko's I've ever seen the TM use is the one from about five years ago when he was first shown the video and not a thing since.

[jaydeehess]

Well you could start here at Caltech (http://caltecheerl.library.caltech.edu/414/)
I'm not an expert of course, but with a little tweaking you could change the force causing the damage in the models described.

Or perhaps this analysis,Analysis of building collapse under blast loads, could shed some light as found at ScienceDirect (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2Y-49TRMCN-1&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f83e3cd90d73c21d50638b36ecea9b73).

In addition to what Almond has said I note that in both the links you provide it would be neccessary to know the characteristics of the building in question. This would be very difficult as the building had een damaged. First the best estimate of the full extent of that damage has to be determined as well as a range of error in that estimate. The effect of that damage then has to be determined as well as the varying senarios that take into account the error range for each area of damage.
Only then can you attempt to plug this into any computer modelling.

NIST may indeed have done this and would have to have done so for each fire senario(with the range of error for that damage as well) and for a senario(s) of a blast events.

gee and everyone wonders why it takes so long.

[jaydeehess]

At least it seems that SD is attempting to defend his contentions while Zens just denies that anything anyone else says about his contentions is actually what he said. I believe that is often reffered to as making things up as one goes along.

[Swing Dangler]

Also bear in mind, Danny Jowenko was only ever exposed to the last 6.5 seconds of the collapse, as I recall (please correct me if I'm wrong, thank you). He was going off of a very small sample of evidence, and I notice has not been speaking up lately in support of a CD, most likely because he's seen the remainder of the evidence. Once again, please correct me if I'm wrong on that, but the only quote of Jowenko's I've ever seen the TM use is the one from about five years ago when he was first shown the video and not a thing since.

He has been contacted since then and has maintained his analysis.

I'm fascinated by your assertion that the controlled demolition of a large building is a poor analogy for the controlled demolition of a large building. Would you care to elaborate on some of the more obvious differences between the two cases?
Better yet, I will let you do the analysis yourself:
1. Compare the number of floors.
2. Compare the building layout.
3. Compare the internal structure.
4. Compare the size in square feet.
5. Compare the vertical height.
6. Compare the contents.
7. Compare the construction materials.
8. Compare the speed of the collapse.
9. Compare the time of collapse.
10. Compare the analysis of experts.
11. Compare the conditions of the inside of the building.
12. Compare the conditions of the outside of the building.
13. Compare the location where charges would have to be applied.
14. Compare the time frame of subject one to the potential time frame or frames of subject 2.

I must admit, I've never seen or heard Danny Jowenko's description of how an unstable building that was on fire could have been rigged for demolition so as to achieve a symmetrical collapse into its own footprint in only eight hours. Could you give us a few quotes?

Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko:

"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."

"This is controlled demolition."

"A team of experts did this."

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

A nice list of interviews and I believe with translation that you can find an appropriate quotes stating how he believes it could have been done within the time frame of the attacks.

Interview with translation here:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...tion+interviews


Audio interview here (http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3)

[Swing Dangler]

And a question for the defenders of the 'not official theory yet' as one hasn't been promoted to my knowledge, what would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans not just fire and debris damage?

[Bell]

Also bear in mind, Danny Jowenko was only ever exposed to the last 6.5 seconds of the collapse, as I recall (please correct me if I'm wrong, thank you). He was going off of a very small sample of evidence, and I notice has not been speaking up lately in support of a CD, most likely because he's seen the remainder of the evidence. Once again, please correct me if I'm wrong on that, but the only quote of Jowenko's I've ever seen the TM use is the one from about five years ago when he was first shown the video and not a thing since.

Correct, they showed him the footage from the Naudet brothers. He also didn't know the building was badly damaged, neither that it was on fire.

Incorrect, the quote was from last year, when Dutch tv broadcast Loose Change, accompanied by a program debunking it.

[SDC]

And a question for the defenders of the 'not official theory yet' as one hasn't been promoted to my knowledge, what would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans not just fire and debris damage?

Actual evidence and intelligent interpretation thereof. None has yet been provided -- I don't think you meant "promoted," by the way, it's awkward if not unacceptable -- by the defenders of the "anything goes" CD/ CT.

And why the Guy Fawkes mask? It doesn't resonate 'round here.

[DGM]

And a question for the defenders of the 'not official theory yet' as one hasn't been promoted to my knowledge, what would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans not just fire and debris damage?
This is a very easy question. The physical evidence that is always left behind.

IE;

Explosive cutting marks on the steel.
Detonator remains.

This stuff would be obvious to the investigators/iron workers at the scene. Unless your saying these people are in on it, it never happened.

[Disbelief]

And a question for the defenders of the 'not official theory yet' as one hasn't been promoted to my knowledge, what would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans not just fire and debris damage?

Evidence. You know, things like residue, det cord, etc. that would show there were explosives there.

[Sabrina]

Correct, they showed him the footage from the Naudet brothers. He also didn't know the building was badly damaged, neither that it was on fire.

Incorrect, the quote was from last year, when Dutch tv broadcast Loose Change, accompanied by a program debunking it.

Ah; thank you, I had thought it was several years ago, not that recently.

Has anyone contacted him lately and offered him the remainder of the tapes and everything else that is available and asked him if, after viewing it all, he would want to amend his statement?

[johnny karate]

Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko:

"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."

"This is controlled demolition."

"A team of experts did this."

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

A nice list of interviews and I believe with translation that you can find an appropriate quotes stating how he believes it could have been done within the time frame of the attacks.

Interview with translation here:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...tion+interviews


Audio interview here (http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3)

SD, what does Jowenko have to say regarding the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2, and do you unquestioningly believe that assessment as much as you do his assessment of WTC7 collapse?

[Bell]

Ah; thank you, I had thought it was several years ago, not that recently.

Has anyone contacted him lately and offered him the remainder of the tapes and everything else that is available and asked him if, after viewing it all, he would want to amend his statement?

Afaik he want's nothing to do with either conspiracies or debunkers. I'm not sure though. Gravy had (tried to) contacted him by e-mail shortly after the clips were on YouTube. Should be some info on him in Gravy's WTC7 paper.

[johnny karate]

And a question for the defenders of the 'not official theory yet' as one hasn't been promoted to my knowledge, what would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans not just fire and debris damage?

Very simple.

Any physical evidence. (So far, Truthers have none.)

A preponderance of eyewitness testimony from either before, during, or after the fact that explicitly and directly mentions explosives, related equipment, or people planting and/or removing such things. (So far, Truthers have none.)

The majority opinion of the controlled demolition industry. (So far, Truthers have Danny Jowenko, who, unfortunately for the Truth, also happens to contradict their belief that WTC 1 and WTC were CD as well.)

What would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans and just fire and debris damage?

[sts60]

And a question for the defenders of the 'not official theory yet' as one hasn't been promoted to my knowledge, what would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans not just fire and debris damage?
1. Lack of the unmistakable collapse indicators observed by FDNY that day.
2. Evidence of the enormous amount of work done by demolition crews to prepare such a large building for demolition - gutting it, pre-cutting, charge emplacement, etc.
3. Unambiguous evidence of the actual use of demolition charges.
4. Testimony of the demolition crew.

That should about do it.

[DGM]

1. Lack of the unmistakable collapse indicators observed by FDNY that day.
2. Evidence of the enormous amount of work done by demolition crews to prepare such a large building for demolition - gutting it, pre-cutting, charge emplacement, etc.
3. Unambiguous evidence of the actual use of demolition charges.
4. Testimony of the demolition crew.

That should about do it.
An interesting thing is the explosive sounds are kept small by all the pre-cutting. Without this the explosive sounds would be much larger than a conventional controlled demolition.

I've been in a building before a demo and I did not feel safe. The support of the building was badly compromised before any charges went off.

[jaydeehess]

An interesting thing is the explosive sounds are kept small by all the pre-cutting. Without this the explosive sounds would be much larger than a conventional controlled demolition.

I've been in a building before a demo and I did not feel safe. The support of the building was badly compromised before any charges went off.

This is interesting in that Christopher 7 states that the columns of WTC 7 were much too massive to have succumbed to fire damage BUT he also has no problem with, at most, ONE report of a large explosion which was desacribed as a "clap of thunder" and occured as the building was in the process of collapsing.

[Swing Dangler]

It appears then that you reject the buildings actual collapse as evidence, correct?

* The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
* The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
* Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.
* The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
* The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

Any physical evidence.You know, things like residue, det cord, etc. that would show there were explosives there.
The CT inside job theory of course supersedes the necessity of evidence as it can be explained as covered up and removed.

Is there photographic evidence available of the removal of debris from WTC 7 that might show these things or the lack of these things?
I've seen numerous photos of the clean up of WTC 1 and 2 but can't seem to find debris removal for WTC 7.

However, could CD have been accomplished without the standard tools of a traditional CD such as det cord, caps, etc? If it were a state sponsored paramilitary/covert op would they use the same item or items be used?

Could this analysis as completed by J.R. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering, and R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. professors of materials science and engineering, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts be considered evidence as examined here (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html)?

Testimony of the demolition crew.
Is this a realistic standard of evidence in a situation such as this be it a CD for good or nefarious reasons?

The majority opinion of the controlled demolition industry.
Jowenko addresses this issue in his phone call here (http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3).
I believe this interview was done in either Feb. or March of 2007.
He addresses why the CD industry in America wouldn't describe it as a CD.

Lack of the unmistakable collapse indicators observed by FDNY that day.
So because it looked like it was structurally unsound, that proves no CD? I don't think that would qualify as suitable evidence or logic.
2. Evidence of the enormous amount of work done by demolition crews to prepare such a large building for demolition - gutting it, pre-cutting, charge emplacement, etc.
Danny in his first interview refutes this line of evidence and determines that it could have been done within the time frame of that day with a team working quickly and efficiently. He doesn't fully state it was done before hand, however, that remains a possibility.

Thanks for answering the question and responding with civility and respect despite our different views.

Enjoy your evening!

[DGM]

It appears then that you reject the buildings actual collapse as evidence, correct?

* The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
* The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
* Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.
* The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
* The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

OK what the heck is the main structure and why would it not support the penthouse?

Also what's the difference between a structural failure gravity collapse and what you described?

[BillyRayValentine]

Really? Is that all? How much did the FBI share information with the CIA leading up to 9/11 and vica versa genius? Why didn't they? Are soviet agents the only concern of the agencies housed in WTC7 or is this delusion exclusive to you? Tell me more.

Simply amazing. My point was that "soviet agents (would have been) the only concern of the agencies housed in WTC7"???

Good Lord, man. Your comprehension skills are just awful. I really am embarrassed for you just now.

[SDC]

It appears then that you reject the buildings actual collapse as evidence, correct?

...

The CT inside job theory of course supersedes the necessity of evidence as it can be explained as covered up and removed.

Is there photographic evidence available of the removal of debris from WTC 7 that might show these things or the lack of these things?
I've seen numerous photos of the clean up of WTC 1 and 2 but can't seem to find debris removal for WTC 7.

...

So because it looked like it was structurally unsound, that proves no CD? I don't think that would qualify as suitable evidence or logic.

Danny in his first interview refutes this line of evidence and determines that it could have been done within the time frame of that day with a team working quickly and efficiently. He doesn't fully state it was done before hand, however, that remains a possibility.

Thanks for answering the question and responding with civility and respect despite our different views.

Enjoy your evening!

Lots of cuts by me to help me focus. I am not an engineer, nor even close -- so I have no serious qualifications to support my comments, which I gather puts us at the same level. But here is one general point, coming from my experience as a historian. Why is there so much emphasis on visual evidence? The untrained eye is a liar; you are relying chiefly on photos or videos. (I almost said "motion pictures." Creek go the knees.) Intelligent interpretation of visual evidence is, just like (for example) construction, demolition, and real estate management, not easy. It is tough to do it well. You need training, temperament, tools, etc.

Let me put it this way. Anyone who relies primarily on visual evidence (which includes, by the way, Jowenko's comments, since he is relying on visual evidence which he is evidently trying to interpret) is not behaving seriously. You are basically saying that technical knowledge or expertise mean little; it is your eye, staring at pictures that other people took, that counts. I repeat: the eye is a liar.

Another odd thing. You asked some time ago, "what would it take" to get people to believe the CT/ CD theory. Most responses said "evidence." I said "evidence and intelligent interpretation." That may sounds like I am waffling, but I'm not. A piece of physical evidence can only "say" so much. It has to be interpreted -- but that does not mean, Anything Goes! Or that every opinion is equal. Just the opposite; the emphasis is on intelligent interpretation.

Sen Moynihan is, I think, often quoted to the effect that everyone has a right to his/ her own opinion, but not to his/ her own facts. Facts come first, but they need interpretation. You have got a bunch of possible facts, splattered at random, but you have not provided intelligent interpretation. You have arranged them into patterns that make sense to you, but you have not convinced others that your pattern makes sense. It reminds me of the magpie, picking up shiny things and taking them away and arranging them.

[BillyRayValentine]

Gee BillyRay I can't telling you I can't read for you.

Sorry.

Your best post yet. Not a single kwazy kwaim - just some innocuous, incoherent babbling.

I think you're on to something. Avoiding actual content seems to work for you. Proceed.

[Dave Rogers]

Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko:

"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."

"This is controlled demolition."

"A team of experts did this."

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

None of which, as I'm sure you know, answers the question.

A nice list of interviews and I believe with translation that you can find an appropriate quotes stating how he believes it could have been done within the time frame of the attacks.


What you believe is hardly evidence, and your link doesn't go anywhere. If appropriate quotes can be found, please find them and post them. Otherwise your point isn't proven.

On the comparison, WTC7 was a lot bigger, yes. Does that mean it would take less charges?

Dave

[johnny karate]

It appears then that you reject the buildings actual collapse as evidence, correct?

No, I reject, your, and any other layperson's, interpretation of the collapse.

* The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
* The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
* Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.
* The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
* The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.My comment above renders all of this moot.


The CT inside job theory of course supersedes the necessity of evidence as it can be explained as covered up and removed.Which does not release Truthers from their obligation to provide evidence, or at the very least that incriminating evidence was removed.

If you truly believe that lack of evidence can be used as evidence, I want you to think long and hard about the implications this would have for the criminal justice system.

Is there photographic evidence available of the removal of debris from WTC 7 that might show these things or the lack of these things? I've seen numerous photos of the clean up of WTC 1 and 2 but can't seem to find debris removal for WTC 7.This would be up to you and your fellow Truthers to provide. There were also numerous witnesses and first responders that could be contacted to provide testimony, as well.

However, could CD have been accomplished without the standard tools of a traditional CD such as det cord, caps, etc? If it were a state sponsored paramilitary/covert op would they use the same item or items be used?Your first step would be to prove that this "non-traditional CD" even exists or is possible before we get into what kind of equipment would be required.

Could this analysis as completed by J.R. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering, and R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. professors of materials science and engineering, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts be considered evidence as examined here (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html)?Do any of these people espouse a CD theory? I think the answer to that question will answer yours.

Is this a realistic standard of evidence in a situation such as this be it a CD for good or nefarious reasons?The standard of evidence we are requesting is to provide any at all. So yes, I would say it's realisitic.

Jowenko addresses this issue in his phone call here (http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3).I believe this interview was done in either Feb. or March of 2007.
He addresses why the CD industry in America wouldn't describe it as a CD.Jowenko's opinions on this issue are irrelevant. He presumes to speak for the entire American CD industry, which is patently ridiculous. Also, the CD industry exists outside of America, even in some countries unfriendly to the U.S. Do you or Jowenko have any thoughts on why they would keep silent as well?

So because it looked like it was structurally unsound, that proves no CD? I don't think that would qualify as suitable evidence or logic.No, but it certainly is a strong indicator that it collapsed due to fire and structural damage, and not explosives that no one saw or heard.

Danny in his first interview refutes this line of evidence and determines that it could have been done within the time frame of that day with a team working quickly and efficiently. He doesn't fully state it was done before hand, however, that remains a possibility.I'd be careful how much credibility you give to Jowenko. Remember, he doesn't think that WTC1 and WTC2 were brought down by CD, which kind of puts a couple holes in the CT.

[HyJinX]

Gee BillyRay I can't telling you I can't read for you.

Sorry

BTW I see you like to nominate people. What can I win? lol

Well, given the first line of your post here...I'd say you're a shoo-in for a Stundie award.

[Disbelief]

It appears then that you reject the buildings actual collapse as evidence, correct?

* The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
* The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
* Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.
* The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
* The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.


Why should there be some delay of the building collapsing? Why would it not suddenly occur? How can you see what was happening with all the smoke and the lack of close up video?

I won't speak to the footprint idea, because I do not know if it fell in its own footprint.

Puffs of dust would be air forcing it out because of the penthouse collapse.

Why would the collapse not be total? What leads you to believe that only part of it should have fallen?

I do not know the exact time of the collapse, so I will let someone more knowledgeable speak to that.


The CT inside job theory of course supersedes the necessity of evidence as it can be explained as covered up and removed.


Then you run into the problem of the ever expanding conspiracy. Every person who was there would have to be in on it.


Is there photographic evidence available of the removal of debris from WTC 7 that might show these things or the lack of these things?
I've seen numerous photos of the clean up of WTC 1 and 2 but can't seem to find debris removal for WTC 7.


How easy is it to differentiate WTC7 debris with debris from the tower that fell on it? Would there be many photos since the building is so inconsequential to the majority of people?


However, could CD have been accomplished without the standard tools of a traditional CD such as det cord, caps, etc? If it were a state sponsored paramilitary/covert op would they use the same item or items be used?


Can't answer that, as I have no knowledge of tools of the trade. I do wonder why you think that the military has such secret demo weapons. Why the need for them?


Could this analysis as completed by J.R. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering, and R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. professors of materials science and engineering, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts be considered evidence as examined here (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html)?


What does this say? "The steel got hot", is all I could see. Makes sense if there were fires and then a building collapse.


Is this a realistic standard of evidence in a situation such as this be it a CD for good or nefarious reasons?


I think a better way to phrase this might have been testimony of someone coming forward and explaining how they did it.


Jowenko addresses this issue in his phone call here (http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3).
I believe this interview was done in either Feb. or March of 2007.
He addresses why the CD industry in America wouldn't describe it as a CD.


What about the CD industry outside of America? Why is he only coming forward? I can't listen to it now, so I can not address his claims.


So because it looked like it was structurally unsound, that proves no CD? I don't think that would qualify as suitable evidence or logic.


Double Standard for you, based on your first points. You think it looks like a CD=Was a CD.


Danny in his first interview refutes this line of evidence and determines that it could have been done within the time frame of that day with a team working quickly and efficiently. He doesn't fully state it was done before hand, however, that remains a possibility.


Danny and no one else. I would have to hear what he has to say to address his points and I can't right now.


Thanks for answering the question and responding with civility and respect despite our different views.

Enjoy your evening!

You are welcome. Thank you as well for somewhat stepping to the plate instead of talking in gibberish as others have.

[DGM]

Swing;
The "truthers" did tell Jowenko that it was all done covertly right?:)

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by SD
The CT inside job theory of course supersedes the necessity of evidence as it can be explained as covered up and removed.

In another context this could be;
The creation of the universe theory supercedes the necessity of evidence as it can be explained as the action of an omnipotent being. In fact I have been told by believers in creation that creation is a much simpler explanation and covers absolutly all questions about the way the universe came to be what it is today. That is so very much like the CT claim that explosive use answers all questions as to why the buildings fell as they did.

Then there is the pesky effect on the way that justice is delivered which johnny karate outlined above.

[pomeroo]

Way to come with the facts. You can always be counted on.


Some of us have noticed that you haven't quite connected Larry Silverstein's insurance scam to the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy's scheme to conquer the world for Halliburton. It would appear that the nexus of dots is a tad incomplete.

Not that you're just blowin' smoke or anything...

[pomeroo]

buka001

How where the charges laid?
When were they laid?
How did it go undiscovered?
How did the charges survive the fire?

Excellent questions. I think your questions illustrate that no one except the government could have pulled this off.


Your comment illustrates that you are a fantasist with unfalsifiable beliefs. Explain to us why the demolition specialists who claim that your fantasies are logistical near-impossibilities are wrong. What do you know that they don't.

[pomeroo]

Your entire scenario is one huge False Analogy as you are trying to compare two different events and treating them as one. Of course your example is demolished much like WTC 7 was...from the bottom up!

If you don't think it could be a CD or even rigged under the conditions of the day, take it up with Danny Jowenko.


Ah, Swingie, so you agree with Jowenko's expert analysis of the collapses of the Twin Towers? He believes, AS YOU KNOW, the mainstream account totally and says that the way those buildings fell does not resemble controlled demolitions. You now renounce the snake oil your fellow conspiracy liars have been peddling?

[PhantomWolf]

* The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).

Why did the Penthouse go? You do realise that it falls into the building below it, which means that there was an internal collapse occuring inside the building at least 6 seconds before the facade started to collapse? How do you drop the inside of the building before the facade in CD?

Note that the other penthouse was falling into the building's interior prior to the facade collapse starting as well. Explain this under CD.

* The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.

Explain why 30 West Broadway was so damaged by the collapse of WTC 7 that it had to be demolished then.

* Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.

No, it's damage to facade cause by the collapse of WTC 1. As the collapse starts it, appears darker then the rest of the facade and due to the poor quality if the video is assumed by CT's to be dust. This has been long debunked. BTW, if the building was CD'ed, then since the collapse was from the bottom, why would they use explosives on the top floors?

* The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.

Actually it was more like 5-6, the bottom 3 floors were still semi intact. But how does this prove CD? Why wouldn't the building collapse into the same height pile regardless of how it fell? Buildings are 90% air you know. You might want to take a closer look at what is on top of the pile too. It's the Northern facade. How come that is on top of the pile of rubbble. Surely if the building fell as you claim, the roof should have been on top, not the north face.

* The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

The main structure, or the Facade? If the main structure is still standing when the north face collapses, how did both Penthouses collaspe into the building?

[TerryUK]

Ah, Swingie, so you agree with Jowenko's expert analysis of the collapses of the Twin Towers? He believes, AS YOU KNOW, the mainstream account totally and says that the way those buildings fell does not resemble controlled demolitions. You now renounce the snake oil your fellow conspiracy liars have been peddling?

The 'Twin Towers' didn't look like CD, so why would he say otherwise?

WTC 7 did look like a CD, and Jowenko said it was definitely a CD, and he should know, being a professional in that field.
I would hazard a guess that ALL collapses that he's seen which look like that were CDs.

[Bell]

The 'Twin Towers' didn't look like CD, so why would he say otherwise?

NWO operative 1: "Rig up WTC1 and WTC2 as usual?"
NWO operative 2: "Nooon! What do you want, make it look too obvious?"

WTC 7 did look like a CD, and Jowenko said it was definitely a CD, and he should know, being a professional in that field.
I would hazard a guess that ALL collapses that he's seen which look like that were CDs.

NWO operative 1: "Rig up WTC7 like the WTC towers?"
NWO operative 2: "Why?"

[ZENSMACK89]

Well, given the first line of your post here...I'd say you're a shoo-in for a Stundie award.
Allright! So what do I win?

[ZENSMACK89]

Who is the demo expert that supports the official version?

[TerryUK]

Who is the demo expert that supports the official version?

And doesn't the 'official' version say that collapse due to fire and debris damage is "of low probability" or words to that effect?

[ZENSMACK89]

Some of us have noticed that you haven't quite connected Larry Silverstein's insurance scam to the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy's scheme to conquer the world for Halliburton. It would appear that the nexus of dots is a tad incomplete.

Not that you're just blowin' smoke or anything...
I didn't know I was supposed to but if you insist....

http://www.100share.com/World-Trade-Center.htm

World Trade Center

Jul 1, 1997 12:00 PM
By CAROL CAREY

"After the bombing, we had the top security consultants in the nation, Kroll Associates, do a complete security analysis for us, and we followed their recommendations," says Douglas G. Karpiloff, program manager, security systems for the WTC. A 26-year veteran of the Port Authority, Karpiloff, a Certified Protection Professional, was general manager of tenant services after the bomb went off. He is responsible for the overall facility management of the $50 million security improvement program: $15 million in completed interim improvements and $35 million for permanent improvements, from the 250 multi-ton perimeter planters that prevent vehicles from crashing into the buildings, to the network of fiber optics and copper that will connect the redundant PCs and their multi-task, multi-user operating system to the lobby, parking and perimeter access control systems, alarms, intercom and CCTV systems.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.terrorism.world-trade-center/browse_thread/thread/763754c7ecf116f1/8006994c5a78b5f0

NY Governor Eliot Spitzer filed an amicus brief on 1/15/03 on behalf of the World Trade
Center's controversial lease-holder, the real estate magnate Larry Silverstein. This
document shows that Spitzer, as Attorney General, helped Silverstein get the whopping
$4.5 billion windfall for the 9/11 attacks. The record is clear: Spitzer helped reverse
a lower court's decision, by making credible Silverstein's argument that the two
different plane crashes on 9/11/01 should be compensated as two different terrorist
attacks.

Hicks' story also covers Governor Spitzer's recent scandals with police spying on rival
Joe Bruno, the Roger Stone voice mail threat, as well as new information and interviews
regarding the Spitzer links to Kroll executives Michael Cherkasky and Jerome Hauer.
Hicks hands in an original interview with Jerome Hauer, probing his documented links to
anthrax suspect Steven Hatfill. Hauer is widely believed to be the source of the White
House's foreknowledge about the anthrax attacks on 9/11/01.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12278

By November 2003, barely eight months after the invasion, there was an estimated 20 private security firms employing up to 15,000 private security contractors in Iraq protecting officials, supply convoys, oil wells, government buildings and private businesses, including banks. Some of the big players supplying private warriors included EOD Technologies, Omega Risk Solutions, Halliburton , DynCorp, Global Risk Strategies, Kroll Associates, SAS International, Special Operations Consulting, Blackwater, Edinburgh Risk Inc, and Armor Group. With business booming, a security contractor could make as much as $1000 a day tax-free for an array of duties.

[ZENSMACK89]

And doesn't the 'official' version say that collapse due to fire and debris damage is "of low probability" or words to that effect?
That's right...

http://www.wtc7.net/femareport.html

FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

[ZENSMACK89]

Simply amazing. My point was that "soviet agents (would have been) the only concern of the agencies housed in WTC7"???

Good Lord, man. Your comprehension skills are just awful. I really am embarrassed for you just now.

There is no Soviet Union genius so I really don't know what you meant.

[ZENSMACK89]

Prior to 9/11, Zensmack, the primary concentration of the intelligence community (note: this is as I understand the situation) was on the Soviet Union. This can be evidenced by the fact that the military, up until 9/11, trained as if they were going to fight the Soviets eventually. BillyRay offered that as a legitimate example of what might have been considered at the time, HAD YOUR SCENARIO (at least, our interpretation of your ramblings) been the case. You asked for facts; there you go, I gave you some facts.
Really?

What year did the Soviet Union fall?

What year was the WTC site attacked for the second time?

And thirdly what the hell are you insinuating?

[yodaluver28]

The FEMA study was a preliminary report that was released less than a year after the attacks. Some of the debris hadn't even been cleaned up yet and they didn't have as much information about structural damage to WTC7 that NIST has. The NIST report is taking so long because there are alot of complex dynamics involved in this particular instance and they are still learning what happened, how and why. That's their job, to discover the details. That takes time in a complicated case. The Twin Towers study was far more straightforward, that's why it didn't take as long.

[PhantomWolf]

Who is the demo expert that supports the official version?

How would Brent Blanchard from Protec and Implosionworld, Van Romero who while saying that the towers did look like a CD also states that "fire triggered the collapses," plus Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc, do? Between them they'd have forgotten more about CD than the entire "Truth" Movement ever knew. But I guess they they have been paid off just like the hundreds of thousands of experts in structures and explosives who all agree that fire and planes did it, right, even those that disgree with NIST like Arup and Quintiere.

[ZENSMACK89]

Very simple.

Any physical evidence. (So far, Truthers have none.)

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
Forensic Metallurgy
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires. -Fema Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination


A preponderance of eyewitness testimony from either before, during, or after the fact that explicitly and directly mentions explosives, related equipment, or people planting and/or removing such things. (So far, Truthers have none.)

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/index.html

On August 12, 2005, the New York Times announced the release of more than 12,000 pages of oral histories in the form of transcripts of interviews with 503 firefighters and emergency medical responders.

The following pages excerpt passages from the accounts pertaining to the observation of aspects of the destruction of the Twin Towers.*

* Explosions
* Dust clouds
* Ground shaking

The accounts also contain numerous descriptions of advanced warnings that WTC 7 would collapse.

The majority opinion of the controlled demolition industry. (So far, Truthers have Danny Jowenko, who, unfortunately for the Truth, also happens to contradict their belief that WTC 1 and WTC were CD as well.)

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/27474.htm

New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why
First, the doctor of physics right after 9/11 said WTC brought down by explosive devices but later abruptly recanted. Federal Lawsuit contends he may have been unduly influenced by government officials with statements only being cleared up through legal discovery methods.
15 Jun 2005

http://www.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/4june02.html

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth.

What would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans and just fire and debris damage?

A real investigation.

You were right. That was simple.

[TerryUK]

The FEMA study was a preliminary report that was released less than a year after the attacks. Some of the debris hadn't even been cleaned up yet and they didn't have as much information about structural damage to WTC7 that NIST has. The NIST report is taking so long because there are alot of complex dynamics involved in this particular instance and they are still learning what happened, how and why. That's their job, to discover the details. That takes time in a complicated case. The Twin Towers study was far more straightforward, that's why it didn't take as long.

So, regarding the cause of WTC 7 collapse, the answer is not an easily understandable, or straighforward one...

This begs the question:- why are so many OT JREFers absolutely certain it was due to fire and debis damage?

[ZENSMACK89]

How would Brent Blanchard from Protec and Implosionworld, Van Romero who while saying that the towers did look like a CD also states that "fire triggered the collapses," plus Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc, do? Between them they'd have forgotten more about CD than the entire "Truth" Movement ever knew. But I guess they they have been paid off just like the hundreds of thousands of experts in structures and explosives who all agree that fire and planes did it, right, even those that disgree with NIST like Arup and Quintiere.

I've asked you before. How is Blanchard an expert? If I were to publish Sports Illustrated would that make me a professional athlete? Were did Blanchard go to school? The same place Meigs went?

And stop with the Bush appointee will you?

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.co...8131/27474.htm

New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why
First, the doctor of physics right after 9/11 said WTC brought down by explosive devices but later abruptly recanted. Federal Lawsuit contends he may have been unduly influenced by government officials with statements only being cleared up through legal discovery methods.
15 Jun 2005

http://www.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/4june02.html

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

This Mark Loizeaux?

Molten Metal
Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble

Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.

[Arus808]

So, regarding the cause of WTC 7 collapse, the answer is not an easily understandable, or straighforward one...

This begs the question:- why are so many OT JREFers absolutely certain it was due to fire and debis damage?


point is we aren't. THe probablity is VERY high that the damage suffered by WTC 7 as supported by the EVIDENCE, suggest that the debris from teh collapse of wtc 1, damaged and set fire to WTC 7. And the layout of the building itself, was also responsible to why the building collapsed


read the preliminary NIST report on WTC7

[PhantomWolf]

I've asked you before. How is Blanchard an expert?

He works for a company highly involved in the industry, monitoring it and working with those that do it, he doesn't just publish it.

If I were to publish Sports Illustrated would that make me a professional athlete?

Blanchard isn't just a publisher, he works in the field with the guys that put the little things that go bang in the holes. If youwant to make an analogy it'd be closer to say he's the guy the goes with the team taking photos, monitoring heart rates, and documenting everything the Atheletes do. In the end a person doing that job would likely know far more about the sport than those playing it since those playing it are only concerned with their own part. he has to deal with the entire job.

Were did Blanchard go to school?

Why haven't you found this out yet? You were told to contact him and ask. If you were serious about it, you'd have done it by now. His employers at Protec obviously don't have a problem with his qualifications.

New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why

Baloney he explained to PM why. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

The paper printed an retraction and apology almost immediately he told them of their error. Further he says

"Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

This Mark Loizeaux?

And where does he say that the Towers were CD'ed in that quote? A quote I'd note is from a neo-nazi paper and only has the word of a neo-nazi as to what Mark Loizeaux actually said, but hey why not believe him over Loizeaux himself.

[pomeroo]

The 'Twin Towers' didn't look like CD, so why would he say otherwise?

WTC 7 did look like a CD, and Jowenko said it was definitely a CD, and he should know, being a professional in that field.
I would hazard a guess that ALL collapses that he's seen which look like that were CDs.


So, where exactly are we? Jowenko said to me in a long phone conversation (see the thread "Is Danny Jowenko Echt Woo-woo?") that he has no problem with the conclusion that jihadists hijacked planes and flew them into the Twin Towers. The Towers collapsed as a consequence of the impacts and resultant fires. Jowenko thinks that WTC 7 was demolished to hide sensitive documents of some sort.

Thus, we have an icon for your side ripping the heart out of your central fantasy and offering a cockeyed explanation for an event he hasn't examined very closely. Your "logic" is puzzling: Jowenko is a CD-expert; CD-experts can recognize CDs; Jowenko claims something is a CD, ergo it must be.

Why, when Jowenko states that the collapses of the Twin Towers were NOT CDs, doesn't that settle the matter? Why, when CD-experts in this country UNANIMOUSLY reject the myth of explosives at the WTC complex, don't they know what they're talking about?

Just how selective do you think you can be without getting laughed off the stage?

[pomeroo]

I've asked you before. How is Blanchard an expert? If I were to publish Sports Illustrated would that make me a professional athlete? Were did Blanchard go to school? The same place Meigs went?

And stop with the Bush appointee will you?

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.co...8131/27474.htm

New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why
First, the doctor of physics right after 9/11 said WTC brought down by explosive devices but later abruptly recanted. Federal Lawsuit contends he may have been unduly influenced by government officials with statements only being cleared up through legal discovery methods.
15 Jun 2005

http://www.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/4june02.html

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

This Mark Loizeaux?

Molten Metal
Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble

Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The most widely publicized report is one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack.


How do you expect to foist these clumsy lies and fabrications on people who know so much than you do?

How many times have I posted what Mark Loizeaux told me over the phone? To refresh your memory, he explained that he is not qualified to identify molten "steel" and never actually saw the pools of metal. He also explained in great detail why the CD-myth is absurd: the logistical problems of such a clandestine operation would be insurmountable.

You are citing the ravings of a neo-Nazi crackpot.

[PhantomWolf]

Having a quick peek on the net I discovered the following from an Admin on a demolitions forum:

I am sorry we do not allow discussion of 9/11. No matter how many times us demolition contractors explain that it was not a controlled demolition; there will always be conspiracy theorist that will debate it was.

He also points out that he gets copious amounts of e-mail on the subject from people who won't accept that it wasn't a CD.

[johnny karate]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
Forensic Metallurgy
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires. -Fema Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical ExaminationAwesome. However, there is nothing here that proves a CD. You might as well have posted a random page from the Flagstaff, AZ phone book. Also, for future reference speculation based on inconclusive data does not = physical evidence. You fail.


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/index.html

On August 12, 2005, the New York Times announced the release of more than 12,000 pages of oral histories in the form of transcripts of interviews with 503 firefighters and emergency medical responders.

The following pages excerpt passages from the accounts pertaining to the observation of aspects of the destruction of the Twin Towers.*

* Explosions
* Dust clouds
* Ground shaking

The accounts also contain numerous descriptions of advanced warnings that WTC 7 would collapse.Please provide quotes from anywhere in these testimonies where someone reported seeing an explosive device, related equipment, or a person or persons planting and/or removing them. Wait... I'll save you the time. There aren't any. You fail.


http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/articles/article/1518131/27474.htm

New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why
First, the doctor of physics right after 9/11 said WTC brought down by explosive devices but later abruptly recanted. Federal Lawsuit contends he may have been unduly influenced by government officials with statements only being cleared up through legal discovery methods.
15 Jun 2005

http://www.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/4june02.html

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth.I'm not sure why you provided a CD expert who doesn't agree with you. You must have misread my post. I wanted you to provide one that does. Whatever baseless fantasies you manufacture doesn't change the fact that Van Romero does not support your movement. You fail.

A real investigation.I sincerely wish you and your movement luck in getting this off the ground, and anxiously await the results. If I may make a suggestion though, you might want someone other than yourself to handle the investigative aspects. You don't seem to have much aptitude for the process.

[BillyRayValentine]

There is no Soviet Union genius so I really don't know what you meant.

Funny, but you seemed to know what I meant when you said:

Really? Is that all? How much did the FBI share information with the CIA leading up to 9/11 and vica versa genius? Why didn't they? Are soviet agents the only concern of the agencies housed in WTC7 or is this delusion exclusive to you? Tell me more.

Took about 12 hours for you to see your opportunity to be clever, apparently. Way to go.

But yes, youy clearly DID understand the soviet reference, as the prototypical example of a nefarious, uber-smooth, double agent. Someone willing and able, say, to wade into a massive, burning debris field...to penetrate a burning, badly damaged building... to steal some sort of vital information stored on the premises.

I was originally going to use KAOS instead of Soviets, but figured you wouldn't get the reference.

Regardless, I never thought that you might actually suggest that the FBI or CIA might be the party "they" feared getting their hands on the "secret files". Your ludicrous suggestion that the FBI might have destroyed the building to prevent the CIA from accessing their files, or vice versa, which you tie in with their historical reluctance to collaborate, is without question the most important (and entertaining) point you raise. It proves that your train has completely jumped the tracks.

[Dave Rogers]

Method? Lay a charge during the 15 minutes the guard takes a break everyday and the charge will survive the only two, small fires caught on video.

I apologise for even trying to refute this suggestion. I should, of course, have nominated it for a Stundie at once, an omission I now intend to rectify.

Dave

[buka001]

The problem with WTC7 is you have thousands of people, who have no understanding of engineering principles what so ever. Now these people have never in their entire lives seen a building collapse for any reason other than a CD.

They see the videos on youtube, tv etc. They think wow, looks like a CD. Some people unfortunately stick with that assumption, because they have nothing else at their dispossal to fit what they have seen.

They feel affirmed in their beliefs because they view troffer blogs etc that purport to have expert opinion stating that the building was brought down by a CD. They never stop to think about logic, they never sit back and question anything. They blindly accept this as gospel.

In my opinion. The best way to address the issue of WTC7, with conspiracy theorists is to ask the following simple logical questions.

How where the charges laid?
When were they laid?
How did it go undiscovered?
How did the charges survive the fire?

If they can be answered satisfactorily, then the debate on the reason for collapse can progress.

[Dave Rogers]

And a question for the defenders of the 'not official theory yet' as one hasn't been promoted to my knowledge,

Theory, no, but there's a fairly detailed hypothesis in the interim NIST report.

what would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans not just fire and debris damage?

Let's see.

(1) If NIST concludes that the building must have been demolished by explosives and their reasoning is, well, reasonable.
(2) Physical evidence of demolition explosives from the WTC7 debris pile with a verified chain of custody.
(3) A general consensus in the structural engineering community, backed up by peer reviewed publications, that the collapse could only have been due to explosives or other human intervention.

Arguments about the similarity between the observed collapse and a CD simply don't cut it, sorry. Without some model of how a building should or should not collapse due to fire and debris damage - which cannot be derived from common sense - then there is no comparison between how WTC7 fell and how it should have fallen, and without that there is no line of argument.

Dave

[Sabrina]

Really?

What year did the Soviet Union fall?

What year was the WTC site attacked for the second time?

And thirdly what the hell are you insinuating?

*sigh*

Zen, I am well aware that the Soviet Union has long since fallen. So is the military. I said they trained for Soviet TACTICS, and up UNTIL 9/11, Russia was still considered a highly volatile enemy of sorts. Training was conducted to ensure that we would be ready for possible war with the Soviets. To a lesser extent, we also trained for Korea. The POINT is, when BillyRay offered up the Soviet example, I was explaining to you that it was a perfectly logical assumption AT THAT TIME. FOLLOWING 9/11, we are more likely to focus on Islamic extremists than Soviet agents.

For an example; prior to 9/11, and AFTER the collapse of the Soviet Union, do you know what language was the one that, if you spoke it, meant you could pretty much write your ticket anywhere in the intelligence community? Russian. It's been replaced now by Arabic, Korean, and French (in that order as I understand it, and don't get up in arms about the French part; French is the language that many Arabic speakers learn as their second language rather than English, so it makes sense), but it is still a viable language to learn.

As to what I'm insinuating, I'd think that would be obvious; why not read my posts again and see if you can understand them better the second time around. :rolleyes:

[ZENSMACK89]

Funny, but you seemed to know what I meant when you said:

Took about 12 hours for you to see your opportunity to be clever, apparently. Way to go.

But yes, youy clearly DID understand the soviet reference, as the prototypical example of a nefarious, uber-smooth, double agent. Someone willing and able, say, to wade into a massive, burning debris field...to penetrate a burning, badly damaged building... to steal some sort of vital information stored on the premises.

I was originally going to use KAOS instead of Soviets, but figured you wouldn't get the reference.

Regardless, I never thought that you might actually suggest that the FBI or CIA might be the party "they" feared getting their hands on the "secret files". Your ludicrous suggestion that the FBI might have destroyed the building to prevent the CIA from accessing their files, or vice versa, which you tie in with their historical reluctance to collaborate, is without question the most important (and entertaining) point you raise. It proves that your train has completely jumped the tracks.

Maybe youy understood but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you would understand there are more security concerns for data and documents these days than just some 10 year defunct cold war nation. My mistake.

The failure to share information between the FBI and the CIA is topical to 9/11 and why I used it as an example instead of something like KAOS from a 1960's sitcom. You really need to get with it and try to catch up "Billy Ray Valentine". Trading Places? Geez. How funny.

All that being said is thisthe only reason you can think of in relation to security of a building that housed SEC, Secret Service, The Mayors Emergency bunker, and the CIA?

[ZENSMACK89]

How do you expect to foist these clumsy lies and fabrications on people who know so much than you do?

How many times have I posted what Mark Loizeaux told me over the phone? To refresh your memory, he explained that he is not qualified to identify molten "steel" and never actually saw the pools of metal. He also explained in great detail why the CD-myth is absurd: the logistical problems of such a clandestine operation would be insurmountable.

You are citing the ravings of a neo-Nazi crackpot.

Mark Loizeaux
who got the contract to clean-up the WTC site? Is this your only demo expert who supports the official version?

NAZI? What's not true? Site it.

[ZENSMACK89]

He works for a company highly involved in the industry, monitoring it and working with those that do it, he doesn't just publish it.



Blanchard isn't just a publisher, he works in the field with the guys that put the little things that go bang in the holes. If youwant to make an analogy it'd be closer to say he's the guy the goes with the team taking photos, monitoring heart rates, and documenting everything the Atheletes do. In the end a person doing that job would likely know far more about the sport than those playing it since those playing it are only concerned with their own part. he has to deal with the entire job.



Why haven't you found this out yet? You were told to contact him and ask. If you were serious about it, you'd have done it by now. His employers at Protec obviously don't have a problem with his qualifications.



Baloney he explained to PM why. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

The paper printed an retraction and apology almost immediately he told them of their error. Further he says

"Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."



And where does he say that the Towers were CD'ed in that quote? A quote I'd note is from a neo-nazi paper and only has the word of a neo-nazi as to what Mark Loizeaux actually said, but hey why not believe him over Loizeaux himself.
Where did Blanchard get his expertise? It's easy. Just answer it.

I'll take Romero's first impression of the towers as an expert instead of his revisionism wrapped in a Bush appointment thank you.

[SDC]

All that being said is thisthe only reason you can think of in relation to security of a building that housed SEC, Secret Service, The Mayors Emergency bunker, and the CIA?

Z.Smack, I think there were other occupants of WTC7 -- if I recall correctly, New Yorkers who knew the building referred to it as "the Salomon Brothers building." I may not be correct; I never have worked that far downtown. So let's see -- there are various government agencies sharing the building, plus corporations, and the largest (I think) spaceholder was, Salomon Brothers (plus at some point Smith Barney). If the secrets were so secret, why were they shared in an open building? Was Salomon Brothers a secret government agency as well? I think a person who occasionally posts here were at Sal Bros.

The idea of WTC7 as a hive of secret official activity is the Bunk.

[ZENSMACK89]

Awesome. However, there is nothing here that proves a CD. You might as well have posted a random page from the Flagstaff, AZ phone book. Also, for future reference speculation based on inconclusive data does not = physical evidence. You fail.

Given your record of lack of comprehension I'm sure that is true.

Please provide quotes from anywhere in these testimonies where someone reported seeing an explosive device, related equipment, or a person or persons planting and/or removing them. Wait... I'll save you the time. There aren't any. You fail.

They're there. Just use your mouse and click. It's easy.

I'm not sure why you provided a CD expert who doesn't agree with you. You must have misread my post. I wanted you to provide one that does. Whatever baseless fantasies you manufacture doesn't change the fact that Van Romero does not support your movement. You fail.

Sure he does....

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."

[ZENSMACK89]

Z.Smack, I think there were other occupants of WTC7 -- if I recall correctly, New Yorkers who knew the building referred to it as "the Salomon Brothers building." I may not be correct; I never have worked that far downtown. So let's see -- there are various government agencies sharing the building, plus corporations, and the largest (I think) spaceholder was, Salomon Brothers (plus at some point Smith Barney). If the secrets were so secret, why were they shared in an open building? Was Salomon Brothers a secret government agency as well? I think a person who occasionally posts here were at Sal Bros.

The idea of WTC7 as a hive of secret official activity is the Bunk.
The building and the different agencies were open to everyone who shared the building?

[sts60]

Lack of the unmistakable collapse indicators observed by FDNY that day.
So because it looked like it was structurally unsound, that proves no CD?
No, I neither said nor implied that.

The building was observed to have unmistakable collapse indicators. FDNY expected it to come down by itself. That does not by itself preclude CD - that is ruled out for other reasons, on which I have already elaborated.

I don't think that would qualify as suitable evidence or logic.
One word: parsimony. More words: Since there is strong evidence for "natural" collapse, and only weak and ambiguous evidence for CD, there is no logical need for the CD explanation - it's unparsimonious.

There are also no good reasons for it, and good reasons why it makes no sense, but that's covered elsewhere.

[NDBoston]

The building and the different agencies were open to everyone who shared the building?

I had free access on any Salomon Smith Barney floor. We had the most sq ft in 7 and dominated the building with employees. I could have accessed the same floors as some of the Federal agencies too where Salomon had space. It doesn't sound exactly like "Area 51" now does it?

Please explain how the building was wired for CD on floors 18-45 without anyone noticing that.

[SDC]

The building and the different agencies were open to everyone who shared the building?

I have no idea. But no government intelligence agency would be dumb enough to put super secret archives in a building shared by many, many others. Now perhaps you are going to say, "Yuck, yuck, Dubya is dumb enough." Probably not; did you know his Yale GPA was higher than Kerry's? -- but in any case I bet the lifetime civil servants are not that dumb.

So you should retreat to the notion that everyone in the building had to work for a secret government agency because the likes of the CIA infested it. But you know, of course, that not all intelligence community work is secret. Much is not. I spent a couple years translating (for lousy pay) public documents from Russian and Ukrainian into English for the Joint Publications Research Service (does that still exist?), which translations were publically available and used by scholars. My worst memory of that is a report of the newly independent Ukraine's IRS-equivalent, ca.1993. I remember screaming at my manager (the woman who sent me the articles to be translated): "There is not a goddamned active verb in the whole thing! It's all passive voice!" What a nightmare. Good practice, though.

[Sabrina]

I have no idea. But no government intelligence agency would be dumb enough to put super secret archives in a building shared by many, many others. Now perhaps you are going to say, "Yuck, yuck, Dubya is dumb enough." Probably not; did you know his Yale GPA was higher than Kerry's? -- but in any case I bet the lifetime civil servants are not that dumb.

So you should retreat to the notion that everyone in the building had to work for a secret government agency because the likes of the CIA infested it. But you know, of course, that not all intelligence community work is secret. Much is not. I spent a couple years translating (for lousy pay) public documents from Russian and Ukrainian into English for the Joint Publications Research Service (does that still exist?), which translations were publically available and used by scholars. My worst memory of that is a report of the newly independent Ukraine's IRS-equivalent, ca.1993. I remember screaming at my manager (the woman who sent me the articles to be translated): "There is not a goddamned active verb in the whole thing! It's all passive voice!" What a nightmare. Good practice, though.

Very true, SDC. Case in point; I have a Top Secret with Sensitive Compartmented Information clearance, with a FullScope polygraph soon to be added on top of that. Does that mean that every single day I deal with classified information? Heck no! It just means that, should there be a NEED for me to access the information, I have been determined to be trustworthy enough to handle said information. I would find it HIGHLY unlikely that any majorly sensitive documents would be found in WTC7, so the idea that the building had to be demolished to protect these documents is, on the fact of it, utterly ludicrous, and that's not even getting into the facts that I've posted wherein documents that are classified MUST be destroyed in one of five very specific ways because they are PROVEN to leave NO chance of reconstructing the information. Need I add that demolishing a building is NOT among those five? Didn't think so.

[ZENSMACK89]

I have no idea. But no government intelligence agency would be dumb enough to put super secret archives in a building shared by many, many others. Now perhaps you are going to say, "Yuck, yuck, Dubya is dumb enough." Probably not; did you know his Yale GPA was higher than Kerry's? -- but in any case I bet the lifetime civil servants are not that dumb.

You have no idea? Well let me give you an idea. I work a building where we are not the CIA, SEC, SS, or anything even remotely of that stature. Still I don't have clearance to go anywhere I want in the building. To assume the agencies and occupants of WTC7 would have been perfectly fine with a compromised building standing with no more electronic surveillance or security for an unforeseeable amount of time is to be exactly what you claim to “have no idea".

So you should retreat to the notion that everyone in the building had to work for a secret government agency because the likes of the CIA infested it.

Never said that.

But you know, of course, that not all intelligence community work is secret. Much is not.

Is none of it? Does it even have to be to need security?

I spent a couple years translating (for lousy pay) public documents from Russian and Ukrainian into English for the Joint Publications Research Service (does that still exist?), which translations were publically available and used by scholars. My worst memory of that is a report of the newly independent Ukraine's IRS-equivalent, ca.1993. I remember screaming at my manager (the woman who sent me the articles to be translated): "There is not a goddamned active verb in the whole thing! It's all passive voice!" What a nightmare. Good practice, though.


And? It doesn't have to be of a clandestine , secret or, illegal, nature to need security. And that's not to claim none of it was.

[SDC]

You have no idea? Well let me give you an idea. I work a building where we are not the CIA, SEC, SS, or anything even remotely of that stature. Still I don't have clearance to go anywhere I want in the building. To assume the agencies and occupants of WTC7 would have been perfectly fine with a compromised building standing with no more electronic surveillance or security for an unforeseeable amount of time is to be exactly what you claim to “have no idea".

SDC -- Nuts. Clearly I need to study up on quoting. Anyhow, here I go. I work in a large public institution, at a mid-management (department head) level. I do not have access to go everywhere, and my staff has even less. There are many levels of access, even in buildings that are open to the public. So what?

ZS -- Never said that.

SDC -- no you did not. I said "you should." That is subjunctive (or conditional? it's dropping out of the language) voice. Not indicative. I'm saying, "to be consistent, you should argue therefore..."

ZS -- Is none of it? Does it even have to be to need security?
And? It doesn't have to be of a clandestine , secret or, illegal, nature to need security. And that's not to claim none of it was.

SDC -- Damned quote function. Anyhow, my point remains that having the CIA in a building does not mean that that office of the CIA has oodles of secrets in their files in that building. The US intelligence community has many, many functions and archives (the latter in the sense of "collections of papers and documents, etc., not in active use, but available if they have to be" -- I just made that up, and yes, I have worked as an archivist, though in universities) which are not at all worth blowing up a building for. Such as whatever file may hold references to my translations of silly public reports from Russian or Ukrainian. (I qualified in Latvian and Polish, too, but who cared? My manager just laughed.)

My view remains first, that the evidence plus the intelligent interpretation thereof (by members of the appropriate community, construction, demolition, etc.) is that the Salomon Bros building fell because of debris from the towers, fires etc., not CD; and the CD/ CT that it was worth blowing up, because of secrets stored therein, makes no sense for a motive, because it was hardly the building in which important secrets would have been stored. Not to mention which, even in 2001, we were well into the online data age.

[SDC]

Z.Smack, before you reply, "How do you know that really important secrets weren't stored there, perhaps as would be typical in an office, at the cubicle which no one was using right then, because the last inhabitant was a slob and it's overrun with mouse droppings now," my answer is that I don't know. I can't prove a negative, and I wasn't there. But I think it is really unlikely, and the burden is on those trying to convince others of their theory. Just like with the prosecution in a trial. Such as I presume you are. Or why are we having this conversation? You want to convince others of the rightness of your ideas, don't you? Or at least to convince them that theirs are wrong.

[BillyRayValentine]

To assume the agencies and occupants of WTC7 would have been perfectly fine with a compromised building standing with no more electronic surveillance or security for an unforeseeable amount of time is to be exactly what you claim to “have no idea".

Bolding mine

See that bolded section? That's called a strawman. And a preposterous one at that. The idea that the damage and fires would have rendered WTC 7 an immediate and ongoing security risk is positively retarded. Had it remained standing, it would have been more secure than ever before. No one outside of the relevant fire and building professionals would have been able to get anywhere near it. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Did you know that you had to show ID to get below 14th street in the days following the attacks? And that was just to get to the downtown area. The notion that any damaged buildings would have been remotely accessible is absurd. You're clearly a kid who's never been to NYC and has no concept of either the scene that particular day and the days that followed, or how things are handled here in general.

[DGM]

Where did Blanchard get his expertise? It's easy. Just answer it.

I'll take Romero's first impression of the towers as an expert instead of his revisionism wrapped in a Bush appointment thank you.
Where did Jowenko get his?

Where did he go to school?

What was the last 12 jobs he did?

Were any for Jewish clients?

What was his mothers maiden name?

Was his father bald?

Did he prefer boxers or briefs?

Unless you can answer these questions he has no expertise.

[BillyRayValentine]

Maybe youy understood but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you would understand there are more security concerns for data and documents these days than just some 10 year defunct cold war nation. My mistake.

It was an example. I won't be troubled to list the name of every nation or organization from whom we keep secrets, just because you choose to be obtuse.

The failure to share information between the FBI and the CIA is topical to 9/11 and why I used it as an example instead of something like KAOS from a 1960's sitcom.

The cultural deficiences at the various law enforcement agencies, and their aversion to working together, is certainly topical to 9/11. But it has NO application to this discussion about WTC 7, unless you are arguing that their aversion to sharing info was so extreme, they'd sooner knock a building down than do it.

Not good, junior. You're really starting to get ridiculous now...

[DavidJames]

Not good, junior. You're really starting to get ridiculous now...I would replace "starting" with "continuing" as I'm still waiting for him to provide one piece of evidence supporting an inside job.

You'd think with over 1200 posts in less then 7 weeks there would be some substance, something beyond "just asking questions", or self perceived anomalies and coincidences.

[johnny karate]

Given your record of lack of comprehension I'm sure that is true.Brilliant retort. Hostile and evasive. But in the end you still have not provided any physical evidence of your CD claim.

They're there. Just use your mouse and click. It's easy.But just not quite easy enough for you to quote them. More evasiveness.

Sure he does....

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."You might have missed this article, published ten days after the above:

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. '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. Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones. Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building. But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images. Conspiracy theorists have seized on Romero's comments as evidence for their argument that someone else, possibly the U.S. government, was behind the attack on the Trade Center. Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists. "I'm very upset about that," he said. 'I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen.'

He doesn't agree with you. You can slander him all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that he doesn't agree with you. Also, in case you missed it when I said it earlier, Van Romero doesn't agree with you.

[HyJinX]

For Zen...

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE]No, I reject, your, and any other layperson's, interpretation of the collapse.
Your choice of course. But if they layperson forms that opinion based upon expert opinion, what then?

My comment above renders all of this moot.
Dodge noted.

"
Which does not release Truthers from their obligation to provide evidence, or at the very least that incriminating evidence was removed.
I suspect the same evidence is used that NIST used in regards to 1 and 2.


This would be up to you and your fellow Truthers to provide. There were also numerous witnesses and first responders that could be contacted to provide testimony, as well.
The condition of the steel discovered at WTC 7 is evidence pointing to something other than a typical office fire. I understand that you reject that of course.

Your first step would be to prove that this "non-traditional CD" even exists or is possible before we get into what kind of equipment would be required.
Define non-traditional and I will try my best.

Do any of these people espouse a CD theory?
They are not experts in controlled demolition so you reject their evidence of something other than office fire.

The standard of evidence we are requesting is to provide any at all. So yes, I would say it's realisitic.
Yes, but the logic behind that statement is in error.

Jowenko's opinions on this issue are irrelevant.
"No, I reject, your, and any other layperson's, interpretation of the collapse."
I assume you reject any person's opinion that contradicts the OS. If so, why do you even respond on this thread. Here is an expert not a layperson and you reject his conclusion.
Also, the CD industry exists outside of America, even in some countries unfriendly to the U.S. Do you or Jowenko have any thoughts on why they would keep silent as well?
Jowenko remained silent until he was interviewed. If I remember the interview correctly he wasn't even aware of the collapse of WTC 7. Perhaps this explains the silence of others. It is difficult to form an opinion on something if you don't know that something exists. A construction engineer with a degree from Purdue was not aware of WTC 7 collapse. At which point she said it didn't look right.

No, but it certainly is a strong indicator that it collapsed due to fire and structural damage, and not explosives that no one saw or heard.
Explosives that no one saw or heard? How can you justify this statement based upon the historical record, firefighter statements, video, etc.? And yes, I am speaking of just WTC 7.

I'd be careful how much credibility you give to Jowenko. Remember, he doesn't think that WTC1 and WTC2 were brought down by CD, which kind of puts a couple holes in the CT.
False analogy wrapped in straw...we are of course discussing WTC 7 not 1 and 2 I have no idea if Jowenko has analyzed the aspects of 1 and 2 like he did 7. His opinion on 1 and 2 has no bearing on the discussion of 7.

Please provide quotes from anywhere in these testimonies where someone reported seeing an explosive device, related equipment, or a person or persons planting and/or removing them. Wait... I'll save you the time. There aren't any. You fail.

ROFLMAO...so terrorists generally leave lying around their tools of destruction so their attack maybe prevented. Excellent. Rejected. You fail.

STS60-Since there is strong evidence for "natural" collapse, and only weak and ambiguous evidence for CD, there is no logical need for the CD explanation - it's unparsimonious.
The evidence for the natural collapse was based upon the visual record as is the evidence for CD.
1.At what point was an assessment made of the interior structural integrity of the building to determine that a natural collapse was inevitable? I'm not aware of this piece of evidence. What I have read was the possibility, not certainty the building would collapse. In one news report captured on film at ground level, tan official has a news crew move back because they thought the building would tip over into another building. Tip over, not fall in on itself.
2.And at what point in history does a natural collapse follow the characteristics of a controlled demolition collapse? I'm not aware of any. The closest I've seen are buildings toppled on their side due to earthquakes or a failed CD. I would also like to know how asymmetrical damage by debris and fire can cause a symmetrical collapse. Here are examples of collapses due to asymmetrical damage, not exactly appearing as WTC 7 did. See the photos below.


Phantom-Explain why 30 West Broadway was so damaged by the collapse of WTC 7 that it had to be demolished then.
Can you provide photographic evidence showing the 30 West Broadway did not receive any damage from the collapse of 1 and 2 and therefore all of the damage sustained was from WTC 7 only? If not I reject this argument.

Phantom-Why did the Penthouse go? You do realise that it falls into the building below it, which means that there was an internal collapse occuring inside the building at least 6 seconds before the facade started to collapse? How do you drop the inside of the building before the facade in CD?

Yes, I'm aware of that. I suspect it was to blow interior support columns first and then the perimeter columns. That however is better left to Mr. Jowenko to answer.

No, it's damage to facade cause by the collapse of WTC 1. As the collapse starts it, appears darker then the rest of the facade and due to the poor quality if the video is assumed by CT's to be dust. This has been long debunked. BTW, if the building was CD'ed, then since the collapse was from the bottom, why would they use explosives on the top floors?
Source for dust analysis?
Top floor? To remove the supports at that point to achieve a global symmetrical collapse without damaging surrounding structures.

Actually it was more like 5-6, the bottom 3 floors were still semi intact. But how does this prove CD? Why wouldn't the building collapse into the same height pile regardless of how it fell? Buildings are 90% air you know. You might want to take a closer look at what is on top of the pile too. It's the Northern facade. How come that is on top of the pile of rubbble. Surely if the building fell as you claim, the roof should have been on top, not the north face.

Some excellent quotes from that area:
Reporter: “I'm here with an emergency worker. He's a first year NYU medical student. He was down there; he was trying to help people. His name is Darryl.”

Darryl: "Yeah I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was, ah well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock." - 1010 WINS NYC News Radio (09/11/01) Source:
Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVdnFFNbPK8)

A clear cut description
In one of the most clear-cut examples so far that the WTC 7 was demolished comes from a video clip showing a couple of Ground Zero rescuers overheard talking about what is about to happen to the building.
here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0)

In the first video, two faint explosions* are heard as a group of rescuers are seen walking away from the area (these two faint explosions sound just like these two loud explosions* in this video clip taken at Ground Zero on 9/11). The group of rescue workers in the first video are then heard saying this about the WTC 7 after hearing these two faint explosions:
and here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnbpz9udYus)

In this clip here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0)
Rescuer 3: "The building is about to blow up. Move it back!"
"We are walking back. There's a building about to blow up. There's flame and debris coming down."

So what else could it mean by those obvious sounds of explosives going off and these rescuers then saying that the WTC 7 is “blowin” and was going to be “coming down soon” and is about to “blow up” while telling people to move away from the area other then the Seven was about to be brought down by a controlled demolition. Combine that with an expert opinion on the subject and the lack of an explanation from NIST or FEMA as well as the steel samples found, I think we can get back to the original topic of the thread...WTC7...why blow it up?

[DGM]

Swing;

Heres the 30 west broadway story you wanted.
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/construction/project_updates/fiterman_hall_39764.aspx

[DavidJames]

[QUOTE=johnny karate;2983245]Combine that with an expert opinion on the subject... and the lack of an explanation from NIST or FEMA as well as the steel samples found, I think we can get back to the original topic of the thread...WTC7...why blow it up?
Before getting back and in order to ensure you truly believe your expert, and not just cherry picking his opinions you like, how about you agree with your experts opinion that WTC1 & 2 were not CD's.

[afinemadness]

Swing I have a couple of questions.
Have you ever been to a structure fire?
Have you ever been to a fire in an industrial setting?
If you had you would realize that they are loud and that there are many explosive sounds during the fire. There are any number of combustible substances in buildings and the simple fact of a room flashing over can sound like an explosion.
Have you ever seen even a small building collapse in person. I have and let me tell you those statements are not out of character. People use shorthand. They do not say "Get out of here the building has become unstable due to fire and we need to evacuate". They say "It is going to blow get out of here". Buildings almost always fall in also I must admit that I have never been involved in a collapse over 3 stories but I have never seen one fall over.
As far as your pictures did you ever consider they were caused by a sink hole? That would explain why they fell over.

[ZENSMACK89]

See that bolded section? That's called a strawman. And a preposterous one at that. The idea that the damage and fires would have rendered WTC 7 an immediate and ongoing security risk is positively retarded. Had it remained standing, it would have been more secure than ever before. No one outside of the relevant fire and building professionals would have been able to get anywhere near it. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah that's right because everything is a black and white situation to you. That's why it's so easy for you to believe the dumbed down official version of events. The building is either completely collapsed or it's ok to enter no in-between right?

Give it up you have nothing.

Did you know that you had to show ID to get below 14th street in the days following the attacks? And that was just to get to the downtown area. The notion that any damaged buildings would have been remotely accessible is absurd. You're clearly a kid who's never been to NYC and has no concept of either the scene that particular day and the days that followed, or how things are handled here in general.


Yeah you know now but who knew that was going to be the case on 9/11? To think that a building with floors gutted by fire and structural damage are just as secure as they were before that fact is what's absurd. Give it up.

And I'm not a kid. I grew up in the New York area and had been to the WTC more times then I can remember. I use to work at Exchange Place in Jersey City and had to travel into the city at least 3 times a week on the path that stopped right underneath the towers.

Just give it up. Stick to insulting people and leave the factual content to the adults.

[GT/CS]

Swing I have a couple of questions.
Have you ever been to a structure fire?
Have you ever been to a fire in an industrial setting?
If you had you would realize that they are loud and that there are many explosive sounds during the fire. There are any number of combustible substances in buildings and the simple fact of a room flashing over can sound like an explosion.
Have you ever seen even a small building collapse in person. I have and let me tell you those statements are not out of character. People use shorthand. They do not say "Get out of here the building has become unstable due to fire and we need to evacuate". They say "It is going to blow get out of here". Buildings almost always fall in also I must admit that I have never been involved in a collapse over 3 stories but I have never seen one fall over.
As far as your pictures did you ever consider they were caused by a sink hole? That would explain why they fell over.

I think those are earthquake pictures, which have absolutely nothing to do with the WTC7 situation.

[SDC]

After my debacle I will not try to quote from S.Dangler's message. But a couple of questions arise (to add to the question pile):

In comments on the Penthouse, you say something like the question is for Mr Jowenko to answer. Will he, then? Is he preparing a statement which we will all soon be able to consult? And whatever exactly he has said so far he has not, I think, produced any formal, written responses to questions or other formal statements. I don't mean interviews, or transcripts of comments. When I say "formal, written", I mean just that, By Carbonate of Soda!, I sure do. Without that, he has said (almost) nothing.

You are not qualified to interpret any of the existing evidence. Mr Jowenko would be, I gather, if he would do anything other than look at films. Let me hasten to add that I am no more qualified than you are. However, I can read written statements and arguments which support the "accident" (natural?) collapse as opposed to CD. You have none which support the other.

I've said somewhere that the eye is a liar; the untrained eye, and often the trained eye is only slightly better (without further analysis). Well, the (untrained) ear is too. References to "explosions" do not mean that explosives were used in a CD. This is I think the one millionth time that this has been said and I claim my prize.

The untrained, uneducated eye and the untrained, uneducated ear are liars.

[afinemadness]

I think those are earthquake pictures, which have absolutely nothing to do with the WTC7 situation.
That works. I figured it had something to do with the ground not holding up the structure

[ZENSMACK89]

Brilliant retort. Hostile and evasive. But in the end you still have not provided any physical evidence of your CD claim.

Thank You. Yes I did. Didn't you understand it?

But just not quite easy enough for you to quote them. More evasiveness.


Tsk Tsk can't even maneuver a mouse.

You might have missed this article, published ten days after the above:

Addressed that already. Did you not see this?

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.co...8131/27474.htm

New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why
First, the doctor of physics right after 9/11 said WTC brought down by explosive devices but later abruptly recanted. Federal Lawsuit contends he may have been unduly influenced by government officials with statements only being cleared up through legal discovery methods.
15 Jun 2005

http://www.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/4june02.html

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth.

He doesn't agree with you. You can slander him all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that he doesn't agree with you. Also, in case you missed it when I said it earlier, Van Romero doesn't agree with you.

His truthful unbiased original expert opinion agrees with me.

His politically pressured revisionist lies agree with you.

In case you forgot…

"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.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."

BTW where's Blanchard's education? Come on chop chop

[ZENSMACK89]

Where did Jowenko get his?

Where did he go to school?

What was the last 12 jobs he did?

Were any for Jewish clients?

What was his mothers maiden name?

Was his father bald?

Did he prefer boxers or briefs?

Unless you can answer these questions he has no expertise.
So Blanchard's got no expert credentials.

next

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE=Swing Dangler;2986376]
Before getting back and in order to ensure you truly believe your expert, and not just cherry picking his opinions you like, how about you agree with your experts opinion that WTC1 & 2 were not CD's.
HAAACHOOOO!!! So much staw in the air!
Your not ADD are you? I ask because you want to shift the topic to 1 and 2 while I have remained on WTC 7 as the thread's title suggests. I would suggest you do the same. If you choose, start a thread on 1 and 2 and Jowenko, and I will address that there.
Swing;Heres the 30 west broadway story you wanted.
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/const...all_39764.aspx
Today 02:07 PM
Thank you, however, I'm not looking for stories but for photos showing the area after the collapse of 1 and 2 but before WTC 7 collapse, and then finally after WTC 7 collapse.

Swing I have a couple of questions.
Have you ever been to a structure fire?
Have you ever been to a fire in an industrial setting?
Yes, actually a few days ago a chemical plant caught fire and jumped the street to another building as part of the same complex. I did not hear explosions, however, the building did collapse because of the wood used as part of the structural materials. Wood, not steel.
If you had you would realize that they are loud and that there are many explosive sounds during the fire. There are any number of combustible substances in buildings and the simple fact of a room flashing over can sound like an explosion.
Not in my experience. Rejected. And again, anything makes a loud explosion and my favorite, from POM, was pop cans! No I reject that outright because in the debunker world anything can sound like an explosion, anything but an explosive device. See the irony in the logic?
Now what would sound like a 'clap of thunder' and cause firefighters to claim it is going to blow up instead of collapse?


Have you ever seen even a small building collapse in person. I have and let me tell you those statements are not out of character. People use shorthand. They do not say "Get out of here the building has become unstable due to fire and we need to evacuate". They say "It is going to blow get out of here".
Not in my experience. Rejected.
Buildings almost always fall in also I must admit that I have never been involved in a collapse over 3 stories but I have never seen one fall over.
As far as your pictures did you ever consider they were caused by a sink hole? That would explain why they fell over.
Source for sink hole? No instead there was asymmetrical damage caused by an earthquake where one or more load bearing columns failed. I don't recall ever seeing a steel framed structure suffer global collapse in the same manner as a controlled demolition like WTC 7. Is there one on file?


I think those are earthquake pictures, which have absolutely nothing to do with the WTC7 situation.
Really? I was thinking they looked like collapses without explosives.
Much like this video here. (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/noexplosivesplaceddemolition.wmv)
However, much different than this one here (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/oslo.mov).

Have a great weekend!

[SDC]

So Blanchard's got no expert credentials.

next

Actually, the "Blanchard vs Jowenko" setup is completely irrelevant, because of a lack of preparation of the ground -- we are nowhere near able to answer it. What has been said is that Jowenko saw some video, and on that basis he said something. It has not been said that Jowenko studied the case in depth or detail. Even if he were the World's Greatest Russian- or Ukrainian-surnamed Netherlandish (Belgian?) Controlled Demolition Expert, if he did not study the case in depth and detail, his opinion would be of no use.

Until he does that, there is no point in asking anything of him. And again, you seemed to imply he'd be publishing soon; is that true or did I misread it?

[DavidJames]

I ask because you want to shift the topic to 1 and 2 while I have remained on WTC 7 as the thread's title suggests. I would suggest you do the same. If you choose, start a thread on 1 and 2 and Jowenko, and I will address that there.You want to use Jowenko's opinion on WTC7 to bolster your position. I'm just curious about your consistency in picking your quotes. Jowenko doesn't believe WTC1 & 2 were CD's, so I'm curious if you equally willing to back that opinion. The fact that you dodged my question and replied with an adhom instead, suggests you aren't, and are in fact cherry picking the opinions that match yours.

[DGM]

So Blanchard's got no expert credentials.

next
Swings answer to this;

Originally Posted by DGM
Where did Jowenko get his?

Where did he go to school?

What was the last 12 jobs he did?

Were any for Jewish clients?

What was his mothers maiden name?

Was his father bald?

Did he prefer boxers or briefs?

Unless you can answer these questions he has no expertise.

Seems like par "twoofer" performance to me.

[afinemadness]

[quote=DavidJames;2986447]
Yes, actually a few days ago a chemical plant caught fire and jumped the street to another building as part of the same complex. I did not hear explosions, however, the building did collapse because of the wood used as part of the structural materials. Wood, not steel.

That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. My one experience trumps all. I must also say that I do not believe that there were no explosions. Do yourself a favor do a search on chemical control in Elizabeth NJ and tell me that chemical fires do not explode. I have to tell you they also make interesting colors when they do.

Not in my experience. Rejected. And again, anything makes a loud explosion and my favorite, from POM, was pop cans! No I reject that outright because in the debunker world anything can sound like an explosion, anything but an explosive device. See the irony in the logic?
Now what would sound like a 'clap of thunder' and cause firefighters to claim it is going to blow up instead of collapse?

I have no idea why truthers feel that the only thing that sounds like an explosion is explosives. Do you not realize there was natural gas in the building? Do you not realize that cleaning fluids are combustible? You completely ignored that flashovers sound like explosions.


Not in my experience. Rejected.
So your vast experience allows you to make this decision.

Source for sink hole? No instead there was asymmetrical damage caused by an earthquake where one or more load bearing columns failed. I don't recall ever seeing a steel framed structure suffer global collapse in the same manner as a controlled demolition like WTC 7. Is there one on file?

And the ground gave way or the building never would have toppled over so please never say that anyone else uses a strawman this was the king of all strawmen.


Really? I was thinking they looked like collapses without explosives.
Much like this video here. (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/noexplosivesplaceddemolition.wmv)
However, much different than this one here (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/oslo.mov).

Have a great weekend!
I hope that you too have a great weekend

[DavidJames]

Not in my experience...
Not in my experience...
I don't recall...Maybe you're not in the best position to make any intelligent comments.

[johnny karate]

Your choice of course. But if they layperson forms that opinion based upon expert opinion, what then?Then please provide links to the expert analysis that confirms your position and I'll give it its due consideration.

Dodge noted.There's nothing to dodge. You're not an expert and neither am I. For one non-expert to try and refute the argument of another is pointless.

I suspect the same evidence is used that NIST used in regards to 1 and 2.

The condition of the steel discovered at WTC 7 is evidence pointing to something other than a typical office fire. I understand that you reject that of course.I reject no verifiable evidence. What I reject is idle speculation based on inconclusive data.

And speaking of dodges, you implied that there might be photographs showing the removal of incriminating evidence, and I pointed out that with all the witnesess and first responders present you wouldn't have to rely on photographs. Yet you didn't respond to that particular point. Why not? Why not get a list of those names and contact them and ask them if they saw anything suspicious? Wouldn't this go a long way to answering some of your questions?

Define non-traditional and I will try my best.Your words, not mine:

However, could CD have been accomplished without the standard tools of a traditional CD such as det cord, caps, etc? If it were a state sponsored paramilitary/covert op would they use the same item or items be used?


They are not experts in controlled demolition so you reject their evidence of something other than office fire.No, I reject your interpretation of their evidence as proof of CD. You cited them when asked to provide physical evidence of a CD, which they don't. Your layperson speculation is your own, and as such, meaningless.

Yes, but the logic behind that statement is in error.No, it isn't you haven't provided any evidence.

"No, I reject, your, and any other layperson's, interpretation of the collapse."
I assume you reject any person's opinion that contradicts the OS. If so, why do you even respond on this thread. Here is an expert not a layperson and you reject his conclusion.You might want to go back and read which conclusion of Jowenko's I reject, Mr. Strawman. I said I reject Jowenko's ability to read the minds of every American CD expert when you claimed he offered a reason why none of them support your claims. Nice try, though.

Jowenko remained silent until he was interviewed. If I remember the interview correctly he wasn't even aware of the collapse of WTC 7. Perhaps this explains the silence of others. It is difficult to form an opinion on something if you don't know that something exists. A construction engineer with a degree from Purdue was not aware of WTC 7 collapse. At which point she said it didn't look right.I see. So your reasoning why no one in the worldwide controlled demolition industry except for Jowenko has come forward to champion the CD theory is because none of them are aware of the WTC7 collapse? Then why aren't you or any other CTer busy e-mailing all these experts to see what they think? After all, you think a horrific crime has been perpetrated and subsequently covered-up. You have a moral obligation to follow through on this. Better get crackin'!

Explosives that no one saw or heard? How can you justify this statement based upon the historical record, firefighter statements, video, etc.? And yes, I am speaking of just WTC 7.How can I justify it? Because explosions don't equal explosives. If you have conclusive proof that someone witnessed an explosive device, please provide it.

False analogy wrapped in straw...we are of course discussing WTC 7 not 1 and 2 I have no idea if Jowenko has analyzed the aspects of 1 and 2 like he did 7. His opinion on 1 and 2 has no bearing on the discussion of 7.I don't think you know what an analogy or a strawman argument is. I didn't say WTC1 and WTC2 were analogous to WTC7, nor did I attack a false position I assigned you. I merely ponted out that to accept Jowenko's position on WTC7, you have have to accept his position on WTC1 and WTC2, which can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI). His opinion on WTC1 and WTC2 may have no bearing on WTC7, but it certainly has bearing on the CT as a whole. One that most of you conveniently ignore, as you're doing here.

ROFLMAO...terrorists generally leave lying around their tools of destruction so their attack maybe prevented. Excellent. Rejected. You fail.Explosives leave physical evidence after they detonate. None was discovered at WTC7, nor were there any reports of anyone suspicious removing evidence. Not to mention there were no reports of anyone planting these explosives either. The failure is yours.

These verbal gymnastics don't release you from an obligation to provide any concrete evidence to support your claims, which you have yet to do.

[johnny karate]

Thank You. Yes I did. Didn't you understand it?Then why aren't you rushing this evidence to the nearest investigative body or law enforcement agency? After all, you are claiming to have physical evidence that WTC7 was a CD so why aren't you doing something with it other than lamely attempting to score points in an Internet forum debate?

Tsk Tsk can't even maneuver a mouse.Actually I did find those quotes and subsequently refuted them. This was all included in my paper that irrefutably proves that 9/11 was not an inside job. You can find it by searching here (http://www.google.com/).

Addressed that already. Did you not see this?

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.co...8131/27474.htm

New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why
First, the doctor of physics right after 9/11 said WTC brought down by explosive devices but later abruptly recanted. Federal Lawsuit contends he may have been unduly influenced by government officials with statements only being cleared up through legal discovery methods.
15 Jun 2005

http://www.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/4june02.html

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth.The only thing you "addressed" was a baseless fantasy on why Romero disagrees with you. This doesn't change the fact that he doesn't agree with you.

His truthful unbiased original expert opinion agrees with me.

His politically pressured revisionist lies agree with you.

In case you forgot…

"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.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."Romero's a dead horse, sport. Again you can slander him all you want, it doesn't change anything. Why not team up with Swing Dangler and get crackin' on contacting other experts in the worldwide controlled demolitions industry to bolster your theories? This way, you can stop embarrassing yourself by claiming that someone who doesn't agree with you actually does.

BTW where's Blanchard's education? Come on chop chopI never mentioned Blanchard.

[BillyRayValentine]

Yeah that's right because everything is a black and white situation to you. That's why it's so easy for you to believe the dumbed down official version of events. The building is either completely collapsed or it's ok to enter no in-between right?

Edited for civilityPlease translate this mess for me. I see a bunch of words strung together, but I can't make a lick of sense out of them. Particularly that last sentence. Please, someone help me understand.

To think that a building with floors gutted by fire and structural damage are just as secure as they were before that fact is what's absurd.

It wasn't some burned out, long-abandoned tenement in the Bronx. It was an evacuated, burning, structurally compromised office tower in the middle of a massive debris field and disaster zone. It was not a security risk, not remotely.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that there were top secret CIA files they were concerned about recovering. (Note: This is an example, only. Spare me the obtuse games please.) Would it be easier to a) coordinate with local authorities (FDNY, cops, etc.) to make sure that agents were in place to enter the building and retrieve them as soon as it became accessible, or b) put together, from scratch, a plan to obtain explosives, wire the building and bring it down - all without being noticed - in a single afternoon.

Oh, and plan b) would achieve nothing in the way of "securing" the files, btw. Oops.

Edited for civility

[pomeroo]

Mark Loizeaux
who got the contract to clean-up the WTC site? Is this your only demo expert who supports the official version?

NAZI? What's not true? Site it.


I have contacted fourteen demolition companies, in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut. You have contacted none. All the companies I contacted support the mainstream explanation. All of them reject the fantsist moonshine.

Bollyn is lying when he pretends that Mark Loizeaux claimed to be able to identify molten steel.

There is not a shred of evidence to suggest the use of explosives at the WTC complex.

[Arus808]

and why do people think that explosives can create molten steel?

[BillyRayValentine]

So Blanchard's got no expert credentials.

next

Oh, really?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Brent L. Blanchard currently serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services Inc., Rancocas Woods, New Jersey. The firm performs vibration consulting, structural survey and photographic work for contractors throughout the United States and abroad.

In addition, Mr. Blanchard is a senior writer for implosionworld.com, a website that publishes news and information related to the explosive demolition industry. His team's work is also regularly published in various periodicals such as The Journal of Explosives Engineering (ISEE-USA), Explosives Engineering (IEE-UK), Demolition Magazine, Demolition & Recycling International, Constructioneer and Construction News.

Over the past 24 years, Mr. Blanchard's photographic images depicting demolition projects have won numerous national and international awards, and collections of his team's work have been showcased in The Philadelphia Museum of Art and The Franklin Institute Science Museum, among other prestigious venues. He has also appeared on internationally broadcast television documentaries such as Demolition Day (CBS News), Demolition (NBC/Dateline), Blastmasters (The Learning Channel) and The Art & Science of Blasting (Discovery Channel) as an authority on the explosive demolition industry.

Let's see. CBS, NBC, The Learning Channel and Discovery channel all regard him as an authority on the industry. Yet you claim he has no expert credentials.

Hmmm...whom to believe?

[ZENSMACK89]

Oh, really?

Let's see. CBS, NBC, The Learning Channel and Discovery channel all regard him as an authority on the industry. Yet you claim he has no expert credentials.

Hmmm...Whom to believe?

Oh they do huh? Well I guess that just about does it huh? LOL

Hmmmm.... Let's see genius.

This says he's a writer and photographer with no mention of where he went to school or exactly what his experience is in actual demolition or explosives.

I have a camera and I'm writing to you right now. So?

And just where did this little tidbit of an excuse for Explosives expertise come from?

http://www.implosionworld.com/history4.htm

Implosion Worlds website? That’s it?

Is this one of his examples of writing? Did he write this himself? He should have included a photograph of himself. Couldn’t he find anyone to hold the camera? This guy's as big of a fraud as Meigs or Brownie. LOL

[ZENSMACK89]

I have contacted fourteen demolition companies, in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut. You have contacted none. All the companies I contacted support the mainstream explanation. All of them reject the fantsist moonshine.

Bollyn is lying when he pretends that Mark Loizeaux claimed to be able to identify molten steel.

There is not a shred of evidence to suggest the use of explosives at the WTC complex.
Post where they’ve been published on the record and their training and expertise.

[DGM]

Zensmack:
Would you please cut the condescending "genius" crap. It only makes you look childish and can be construed as a personal attack.

[ZENSMACK89]

Edited for civility

It wasn't some burned out, long-abandoned tenement in the Bronx. It was an evacuated, burning, structurally compromised office tower in the middle of a massive debris field and disaster zone. It was not a security risk, not remotely.

Well how about this now? Now it's structurally compromised and on fire but just as secure as it always was and apparently safe enough to go inside. Yeah that makes sense. Edited for civility

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that there were top secret CIA files they were concerned about recovering. (Note: This is an example, only. Spare me the obtuse games please.) Would it be easier to a) coordinate with local authorities (FDNY, cops, etc.) to make sure that agents were in place to enter the building and retrieve them as soon as it became accessible, or b) put together, from scratch, a plan to obtain explosives, wire the building and bring it down - all without being noticed - in a single afternoon.

Edited for civility Do you believe the building was so damaged it fell down or not? Who's going to send who in there? Make up your mind.

Oh, and plan b) would achieve nothing in the way of "securing" the files, btw. Oops.

Edited for civility

Who's theory? Yours?

[chillzero]

A reminder of Rule 12: Attack the argument and not the arguer. Remember to stay civil and polite, or further mod action will follow.

[sts60]

The evidence for the natural collapse was based upon the visual record as is the evidence for CD.
The collapse indicators include various sounds made by the building during the day, and other non-visual cues as discussed previously. More importantly, they include the observed deformation of the building as observed by FDNY personnel with a transit - a standard method for assessing collapse probability.
1.At what point was an assessment made of the interior structural integrity of the building to determine that a natural collapse was inevitable? I'm not aware of this piece of evidence. What I have read was the possibility, not certainty the building would collapse. In one news report captured on film at ground level, tan official has a news crew move back because they thought the building would tip over into another building. Tip over, not fall in on itself.
No interior assessment was performed because FDNY was already certain the building was in imminent danger of collapse. (I've been reasonably diligent, by the way, in saying that such indicators were not an absolute guarantee of collapse.) As for one guy saying the building might "tip over" - who was he? did he say "tip over"? was he talking about wall collapse? That's pretty thin.
2.And at what point in history does a natural collapse follow the characteristics of a controlled demolition collapse? I'm not aware of any.
Broadly speaking, lots of times. Buildings tend to fall down. There have been examples of this given in this forum and elsewhere.

The coolest example of this was a condo fire I was at, playing "yard guard" (part of the rapid intervention team outside) after laying out a few hundred feet of supply line. The floors pancaked inside the four-story structure, leaving the exterior walls almost completely intact. It looked normal until you peered in the bottom windows and saw four condos' worth of floors, furniture, etc inside.
The closest I've seen are buildings toppled on their side due to earthquakes or a failed CD. I would also like to know how asymmetrical damage by debris and fire can cause a symmetrical collapse.
Because buildings aren't truly monolithic structures built on giant hinges.
Here are examples of collapses due to asymmetrical damage, not exactly appearing as WTC 7 did. See the photos below.
Could you provide a reference for your tipped-over building pictures? I missed it if you already did.