10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

When was this HiEx Teleblaster II brought into general use Christopher7?

[FONT=&quot]The HiEx Teleblaster II is an example ....[/FONT]

What would Jowenko say if they asked him why there were no loud explosions from the tower during the CD?

There were no explosions on the videos he saw. It did not matter to him. The visual was enough for him to say "This is controlled demolition."

What would happen if jowenko stood up and said it would take a team of 30 men 2 months to set up the CD and that in his opinion it was impossible for this to have been done prior to 911, what would you say?

What if, what if, .... you can't accept what is, so you ask what if.

 

[LashL]

There were no explosions on the videos he saw. It did not matter to him. The visual was enough for him to say "This is controlled demolition."

That is precisely why the man will never, ever, appear in a courtroom as an "expert" witness regarding the events of 9/11. He spoke too soon, without bothering to gather any of the myriad of essential information he would require to come to a legitimate, informed, expert opinion. No wonder he's not talking these days, as much as the twoofers would love him to do so. He would be utterly useless as an expert witness in this case.

As an aside, Jowenko also said that WTC1 and WTC2 were [/I]not[/I] controlled demolitions. But guess what? No lawyer worth her/his salt would ever call him as an expert witness regarding those buildings either. Not even lawyers who wanted to show that the towers were not taken out by CDs. Do you wonder why?

 

[Christopher7]

You were the one who claimed that Jowenko's opinion, based on a few minutes of video, would be compelling "expert" evidence in court. In fact, it would nothing of the sort. For the reasons set out previously, the man would be laughed out of court.

IYO

It was you who raised the issue of Jowenko testifying in court, not I. Not that it will ever happen. I suspect that the man would sooner slit his wrists than put himself and his reputation on a witness stand over his misguided and embarrassingly unprofessional words regarding WTC7.

IYO

I told you how wrong you were, and told you that any expert who comes to court without background information and without conducting thorough and in-depth investigation into the issue at hand would not be successful.

IYO

And now you have the audacity to insinuate that my referring to "legal purposes" is some kind of a dodge, when it was you who raised legal purposes in the first place?

Yes

That's way beyond lame, Chris, and as transparent as hell. It is apparent to me that you know that you have no meaningful response of substance so, instead, you're just writing crap in hopes that nobody notices your lack of substance.

Now isn't that ironic?

No matter how much you try to claim otherwise, the videos are not evidence of controlled demolition. They are merely evidence of a building collapsing.

To make a long story short, you are saying that the owner of a demolition company doesn't know a CD when he sees one.

 

[LashL]

IYO

No. Fact.

IYO

No. Fact.

IYO

No. Fact.

Yes

Eureka. Since it was you who raised the 'legal purposes' aspect of this thread, your ridiculous strawman and ad hom should be retracted. I note that you have not done so yet. Why is that?

Now isn't that ironic?

Not at all.

To make a long story short, you are saying that the owner of a demolition company doesn't know a CD when he sees one.

No, I am saying the same thing that I have said above and which you continue to misinterpret, misconstrue, and which you wilfully refuse to comprehend.

It is this: your man, Jowenko, would not make a good witness since he offered his opinion solely on the basis of a few minutes of video. He would be torn apart on the witness stand as a result, and rightly so, by any competent lawyer.

Again, now that you admit that it was you who raised the legal issue in the first place, don't you think you should apologize for your unfounded insinuations in your prior posts?

And, what do you make of Jowenko's opinion that WTC1 and WTC2 were not CDs? Personally, I would never in a thousand years call the man to the witness stand to proffer his opinion about those buildings any more than I would about WTC7.

Oh, and the videos are still only evidence of a building collapsing, and not evidence of a controlled demolition. And you still haven't even asked why that is. Interesting. It almost seems like you just don't want to know the answer.

 

[funk de fino]

[FONT=&quot]The HiEx Teleblaster II is an example ....[/FONT]

Show me the one available in 2001 then mate

There were no explosions on the videos he saw. It did not matter to him. The visual was enough for him to say "This is controlled demolition."

What if he had sound and realised there were no explosions noises? The video gets played in court and all the sound recordings from that day are played and there are no CD explosions present. What would Jowenko most likely say?

What if, what if, .... you can't accept what is, so you ask what if

What would you say if he said it was impossible to rig it up, just answer the question? Would you accept his expert opinion?

 

[Belz...]

You know that these three experts are qualified to make the call so you revert to your silly simile.

Answer the question, Chris:

If you showed a doctor a picture of a discolored area on your butt cheek, and he looked at it for 6 seconds and said "Cancer... gotta go with the hard chemo.", would you agree with his assessment ?

That was 'make the call' not 'make the case'.

Is your reading comprehension disability intentional?

YOU're the one who said that the video evidence was SUFFICIENT for this case. If your "experts" make this call based on the video evidence and you trust their opinion even if it is based on fragmentary evidence, it follows that you and they think that this closes the case.

 

[Belz...]

If a video shows something that looks like a duck, that would be evidence it was a duck.

It did not quack like a duck in the videos.

This does not mean that it did not quack.

Argument from ignorance.

 

[Belz...]

I've already quoted the firefighter quotes on Gravy's page. What they reveal is that word had gotten down from someone at OEM that the building was going to collapse.

You've seen the pictures of WTC 7 with about 12 windows on two floors on fire. There was no inferno there.

You're new at this, aren't you ?

 

[Belz...]

Brilliant presentation of evidence there - NOT!

As usual from your ilk, when you don't like the facts, you attack the poster.

That's because you haven't followed the whole thread, mate.

If you can explain how the failure occured simultaeously over the full horizontal width of the building, please do so...

You mean you haven't been able to find the explanation ? Is Google that complicated ?

 

[RedIbis]

You're new at this, aren't you ?

Hardly.

 

[Belz...]

Then you're not very good at showing it.

 

[GlennB]

The difference here is that I actually went through the quotes. Again, because you're not getting it: the majority of the quotes describe the "word" coming down that the building was going to collapse. The majority of the quotes do not say that the building is engulfed in an inferno.

You are make assumptions that are not backed up with evidence.

My bolding.

The bolded part reveals the lack of logic you bring to this debate. Are you seriously proposing that the inferno / no inferno question can be resolved by pitting differing testimonies against each other - like a vote - and choosing a winner?

Does it not occur to you that testimonies describe what was seen at different times of the day, and reflect the progress of the fire's development ?

But let's just take one quote :

"We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca"

He was clearly there, not reporting second-hand information. If you have any evidence to prove that Lieutenant LaRocca is wrong, then please present it.

 

[RedIbis]

My bolding.

The bolded part reveals the lack of logic you bring to this debate. Are you seriously proposing that the inferno / no inferno question can be resolved by pitting differing testimonies against each other - like a vote - and choosing a winner?

No I am not and that is why I post photos of WTC 7. I do not depend on quotes to support my position because they are among the weakest of evidence. People can change their story, misdescribe what they saw, lie, be intimidated into remembering something else, etc. There are numerous provocative quotes on both sides of this issue.

You guys would have a hard time defending the official story if you couldn't rely on quotes.

Does it not occur to you that testimonies describe what was seen at different times of the day, and reflect the progress of the fire's development ?

Absolutely, and that is why it's important to notice in the WTC 7 collapse videos, there is no major fire burning. If the bldg was engulfed in an inferno just before the collapse, where are the flames, shooting out of the bldg as the floors collapse?

He was clearly there, not reporting second-hand information. If you have any evidence to prove that Lieutenant LaRocca is wrong, then please present it.

It's a simple exercise. You say that fire was on nearly all floors, show a picture of that, a video.

Here's WTC 7 just before collapse. Does it appear to you that the building is engulfed in an inferno?

 

[twinstead]

That's the problem with the YouTube generation. If you can't see a video or picture of it, it didn't exist.

Meanwhile, you are calling Lt LaRocca a liar.

Don't you know the ramifications of your claims? You are calling people liars and fools, or worse, complicit.

 

[twinstead]

You guys would have a hard time defending the official story if you couldn't rely on quotes.

Dude. We actually rely on evidence. Quotes are a part of that. All you have is personal incredulity.

Perhaps you could contact some of these 'quotes' (BTW these are real people who were actually there) and ask for some clarification.

Perhaps you can tell them that you have watched a couple videos and saw some pictures and you have concluded that the witnesses are full of crap.

 

[twinstead]

Here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

Here's some evidence of large fires. I could be like you and just pick one of those that looks like a huge fire and declare it PROVES the fire was huge. But no, I actually need corroborating evidence.

That's where the eye-witnesses come into play. You know, the ones you infer are lying.

 

[funk de fino]

Here's WTC 7 just before collapse. Does it appear to you that the building is engulfed in an inferno?

[qimg]http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/jrubins101/wtc7collapse.jpg[/qimg]

maybe if we looked from the other side?

and it sure looks like smoke coming out behind it? where is that from?

 

[slingblade]

America is suffering from a dearth of adages. That is my theory. The theory that is mine, because it is by me. It is my theory, this theory that I ha--

Sorry. I suffer from Pythonitis. At any rate, things are not always as they appear. Looks can be deceiving. Seeing isn't always believing. And if brains were CD, you wouldn't have enough to implode your own nose.

Yes. America needs a resurgence of adages. They are incredibly helpful.

 

[RedIbis]

maybe if we looked from the other side?

and it sure looks like smoke coming out behind it? where is that from?

Post the picture of the other side then.

I looked 911myths and I've seen all of the pics and videos of WTC 7 that are publically available. Not a single one shows raging fires, an inferno or most of the floors engulfed in flames.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I looked 911myths and I've seen all of the pics and videos of WTC 7 that are publically available. Not a single one shows raging fires, an inferno or most of the floors engulfed in flames.

What do you think was the origin of the enormous volumes of smoke coming out of the south face of the building?

Dave