• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Top-Down Demolition

If Van Romero actually believed that the towers were brought down in a demolition he has more than enough support now to come out. If he came out people would know about it - and consequently would also know if anything happened to him.

That alone shows us that Romero does not believe the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.

Romero doesn't possess the "conspiracy" way of thinking. He has the ability to acknowledge he is wrong and admit it. Romero also has the ability of (careful CT's - this may be a new one for you) being able to learn. Your first guess won't always match your findings.
 
rebel said:
It's time to wake up and smell the coffee, Tammy. The towers were blown to kingdom ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ come. I don't care if it was top down, bottom up or in a figure of eight.
Click to expand...

there you have it. You actually dont know how it could be done, have no idea at all. But you have a desire and belief on how it was done and if nothing fits that worldview its discarded. Debating you is like hearing someone say "I completely understand physics at the quantum level"
 
hellaeon said:
there you have it. You actually dont know how it could be done, have no idea at all. But you have a desire and belief on how it was done and if nothing fits that worldview its discarded. Debating you is like hearing someone say "I completely understand physics at the quantum level"
Click to expand...

Someone buy this man a beer!
 
pomeroo said:
Actually, this is a fair question. I'd like to prod you people into visiting JREF and asking questions. Debates need not be acrimonious. If you bring to this forum a spirit of honest inquiry, you will be met with courtesy. You can raise any issue that interests you and take your best shot. If you attempt to pass yourself off as someone who doesn't require any specific knowledge to out-shout experts in their fields, you can expect your bubble to be pricked.
Click to expand...

It's ironic but unsurprising that it's the CT people complaining about the publicity given to their theories. It's also the CT boards which ban dissenting voices.
 
The Doc said:
If Van Romero actually believed that the towers were brought down in a demolition he has more than enough support now to come out. If he came out people would know about it - and consequently would also know if anything happened to him.

That alone shows us that Romero does not believe the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition.

Romero doesn't possess the "conspiracy" way of thinking. He has the ability to acknowledge he is wrong and admit it. Romero also has the ability of (careful CT's - this may be a new one for you) being able to learn. Your first guess won't always match your findings.
Click to expand...

It's an essential part of CT thinking that only first impressions count. Whatever someone thinks when they first see an event is the vital thing. The spur of the moment, unconsidered remarks are the only ones that count.

It's amazing that there wasn't more erroneous speculation at the time. Naturally, what mistakes that were made have now been corrected with more accurate information and more detailed analysis. To a CT mentality, that just means coverup.
 
rebel said:
...


Click to expand...

This is actually a very interesting post. I think that for all the convolutions and fake analysis and verbiage, that picture is why CT thinking arises.

The collapse of the towers was accompanied by loud noises and dust and heat. Controlled demolitions produce loud noises and dust and heat. Controlled demolitions use explosives. Therefore the collapse of the WTC was brought about by explosives.

I'd like to make a recommendation to Rebel. The formula for potential energy is a very simple one. Using publicly available information, such as the height and weight of the WTC towers, it is possible to figure out the amount of energy released when the towers fell. Don't ask any of the paid government shills on this forum to help work it out - but to be fair, don't ask the open minded seekers of truth either. If you need help, (say with issues like where the centre of gravity of the WTC is) then there are physics forums out there.

When the amount of energy has been calculated in some readily comprehensible form - say, ounces of TNT detonated - then take another look at the picture above, and give a considered opinion.

Bear in mind that this is a monstrous crime committed by the President of the USA against his own people, and I'm just asking for a few minutes of Rebel's time to help nail down the case against him.

I could give my own workings for this value - indeed, I have done elsewhere - but it wouldn't be as convincing as Rebel working it out for him(?)self. No CT or anti-CT spin, just the same physics that most fourteen year olds can deal with.
 
If I was a pure debunker I would say:

Yes wtc7 was a cd, the building became instable and had to be imploded for security reasons. the twin towers of course not, that is only the causal relation plane -> crash. And this is how a top-down CD looks...

http://www.zippyvideos.com/8482885496096576/implosion/

They avoided media attention for wtc7 because people might make a connection with the twin towers. Afterwards it was better to admit it because it worked out the wrong way...

But time will learn...

From a Dutch forum I've heard (I believe them) they contacted Jowenko again and that he studied wtc7 in more detail, he was even more convinced it was a CD.
 
einsteen said:
From a Dutch forum I've heard (I believe them) they contacted Jowenko again and that he studied wtc7 in more detail, he was even more convinced it was a CD.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then I would be curious as to what Jowenko would have to say to the other 99.99% of his industry who would disagree with his assesment.
 
Last edited:
einsteen said:
From a Dutch forum I've heard (I believe them) they contacted Jowenko again and that he studied wtc7 in more detail, he was even more convinced it was a CD.
Click to expand...

Did they just say that he said this? Or do they have an actual interview with him?

Drop us a link.
 
einsteen said:
From a Dutch forum I've heard (I believe them)...
Click to expand...

I know you do. That's because your only standard for believing them is that they were saying what you already believed.

This is what makes changing some people's ideas impossible. What reason did they have to be trustworthy other than that?
 
rebel said:
He did not retract the part that the towers could be demolished with a small amount of explosives. Live with that.
Click to expand...
A "small amount of explosives" is incapable of "blowing the feckin' building to kingdom come". So what is your position - it was a small amount of explosives, or the building was blown to kingdom come?
 
In fairness, it is via via info.

David Wong, that's not true, I believe wtc7 it is a CD until proven otherwise.
 
einsteen said:
In fairness, it is via via info.

David Wong, that's not true, I believe wtc7 it is a CD until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the opposite of the way it should be?

How could it ever be proven otherwise? The only way to discern the truth is if evidence of CD was found. Otherwise if it is not then the official story should be believed as true until proven otherwise.
 
einsteen said:
From a Dutch forum I've heard (I believe them) they contacted Jowenko again and that he studied wtc7 in more detail, he was even more convinced it was a CD.
Click to expand...
Poster pomeroo contacted him by telephone. He does still believe WTC7 was brought down by explosives.

However, there is no evidence whatsoever that he has "studied it in more detail."

Frankly, I don't care if he thinks it was brought down by Bigfoot, that doesn't make it true. While he should know better, it'll take much more than his unsupported opinion to make a whit of difference. He hasn't volunteered any.
 
R.Mackey said:
Wrong answer.

The less explosives were used, the more the collapse would look like a completely explosive-less one, correct?

What you are saying is, in effect, the WTC collapses were indistinguishable from the official theory, at least in terms of video and gross observable effects. We then throw that out as evidence of a CD.

So what evidence do you have, now that you've eliminated your greatest argument?
Click to expand...

61974588580c3d4e3.gif
 
R.Mackey said:
The less explosives were used, the more the collapse would look like a completely explosive-less one, correct?

What you are saying is, in effect, the WTC collapses were indistinguishable from the official theory, at least in terms of video and gross observable effects. We then throw that out as evidence of a CD.
Click to expand...
Whoa, R Mackey, what about homeopathic CD? :eek:

Sorry, could not resist. :blush:

DR
 
einsteen said:
In fairness, it is via via info.

David Wong, that's not true, I believe wtc7 it is a CD until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

What if NIST can never accurately model the collapse of WTC7?

Will you believe CD without any proof positive?

On the one hand you have damage to the building. That fact is not in dispute, though the extent of the damage and fires is.

But by agreeing that there was damage sustained by WTC7 from the collapse of the adjacent tower, the probability that this damage is what caused the collapse has to be greater than a CD which has:

1. No obvious motive
2. No plausible time frame for set-up
3. No guarantee of success (given that damage was sustained and could have lead to interference with the CD control mechanism)
4. No visual or audible evidence of explosions comparable to a recognised CD

Whereas impact damage and fire has a proven record of causing structural failure in a framed building.
 
Anybody Know About This Clown?

The kid who calls himself "stallion" (now, don't get Freudian with me) has invoked the name of another woowoo expert. After twenty-five pages of fruitless Googling, I'm bored (Hmmm. Fruit-filled Googles, the breakfast of morons--has a nice ring). Am I really dumb enough to take these ridiculous frauds seriously?

Anyway, has anyone ever heard of this clown? I can't find him. Notice that like so many icons of the America-hating loons, he is a MILITARY man (natch!). I note that our elusive expert claims to have seen explosions on "lower floors" of the Twin Towers. I suppose that proves it was a top-down demolition. Aarrgh!

Stallion-4 writes:
"There's also at least one other demo expert that has gone on record to say a top-down demolition of the towers was possible. His name is Mark Johnson, a former military explosives/demolition expert from Philadelphia. He's on record saying, ""I was trained to implode buildings, blow out bridges as well as being trained extensively in explosive booby traps of all kinds... From day one on Sept. 11th, after seeing the footage of the airliner striking the WTC on CNN and seeing explosions happening on lower floors of both towers, I knew right then and there that the towers were purposely being imploded".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom