Split Thread WTC7 collapse (again) - split from: How did you rule out that 911 was an insid

[A W Smith]

No bubble broken.

Jowenko does not state it is impossible.

He just states his belief that he doesn't believe it was done and talks about the difficulties that would be encountered.

He does not address the effectiveness of demolitions existing below the impact and fire zones.

He ackowledges a top down collapse because of the failure of vertical support below the impact and fire zone.

Controlled demolitions below that zone could achieve this and Jowenko says nothing to suggest they couldn't.

As I've previously pointed out, Danny Jowenko is well aware that disagreeing with the Official Story is bad for business.

He can't extricate himself from WTC7 because he trapped himself when he gave his full professional support to that opinion without realizing the consequences.

With WTC 1 and 2, he had ample time to consider the consequences of challenging popular belief and he took the safe road.

MM

these are your words, deal with it

His point was that the twin towers were a top down demolition

 

[Totovader]

I am in agreement with Danny Jowenko in his statement that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 did not appear similar to the collapse of WTC7.

His point was that the twin towers were a top down demolition and that WTC7 was a typical bottom down demolition.

<snip>


MM

*Emphasis added

Um, actually, MM- yes you did!

 

[Miragememories]

*Emphasis added

Um, actually, MM- yes you did!

Did what?

You are so busy deleting and reducing I can't tell what point you are attempting to make.

WTC 1 and 2 were completely demolished and the collapse or demolition was downward from the impact zone.

We disagree on the cause of demolition.

MM

 

[Totovader]

His point was that the twin towers were a top down demolition and that WTC7 was a typical bottom down demolition.

Are you again calling me a liar?

Did I state that Danny Jowenko believed WTC1 & WTC2 were top down 'controlled' demolitions?

NO.

Not only did you lie in your first statement, but your claim that you never lied is also a lie.

The number of contradictions you have to make in order to try and stay afloat is impossible- you just end up making yourself look ridiculous. As I stated before, Jowenko is no ally to your position.

 

[Totovader]

Did what?

You are so busy deleting and reducing I can't tell what point you are attempting to make.

WTC 1 and 2 were completely demolished and the collapse or demolition was downward from the impact zone.

We disagree on the cause of demolition.

MM

Now you trying an equivocation to escape your own contradictions.

If Jowenko was merely pointing out that the building fell when he stated that it most certainly was not a controlled demolition, then your claim that he doesn't disagree with you is a lie in addition to your attempt to try and weasel out of it.

You want to dodge your own point by being ambiguous- but it seems that you don't realize that not only hurts your case, but brings us right back to square one: Jowenko is an expert, and he stated quite clearly that 1 and 2 were not a controlled demolition. You cannot have 7 be a CD and have 1 and 2 be legit- it makes no sense. It's a package deal.

 

[GT/CS]

At the very least it should make MM realize the tenuous nature of his evidence. It's quite the dilemma: either Jowenko is wrong about WTC7, or he's wrong about WTC1 and 2.

I submit it is irrelevant; the facts remain regardless of Jowenko's observations.

He is neither wrong nor right--he is irrelevant.

That's why MM's name is so appropriate by calling himself a mirage.

I know you're talking about Jowenko but I couldn't pass up that opportunity.

 

[A W Smith]

I transcribed the jowenko twin tower interview.

jowenko; this is bizzare
jowenko; it crashed in a more favorable spot
a bit more in the center
plus the buildings own weight on top
interviewer; so it's logical the second went first
jowenko; of course
you clearly see that the building that was hit first was hit higher so it went last because there was less weight to bring it down, thats essential knowledge for anyone who knows anything about demolition.
narrator: Jowenko sees another sign that no explosives were used. the building collapses from the top down
jowenko; If it had been done with explosives it would have collapsed from below, You'd place the explovises below of course
interviewer; and it would have started underneath?
jowenko; yes thats how you get the full weight, thats a present, the less you have to blow up.
interviewer; but the towers collapsed top down
jowenko; it collapsed at the exact location where the plane hit and heated it
narrator: the conspiracy theory assumes that the explosions began at the top
jowenko; it can't have been explosives as there was a huge fire, if there had been explosives they already would have burned, whats more before being burned theor igniteres would have gone off at 320 degrees celcius so they'd have detonated sooner.
narrator: where conspriacy theorists see explosions Jowenko sees something else which may explain the rapid collapse
jowenko; you also see as it were the bolts springing loose at each turn
it had a very strong core and the beams were pretty long, but the're joined and it was 410 meters tall, The energy is very uneven, So every verticle column has to carry a certain weight. At a slightly different moment from its neighbor, so to speak, it can't bear it, so it breaks to pieces across its entire length, bolts and all, it comes loose all the way down, and the side structures.. also strong because of the wind stress, which is how the building was built were mainly pressed outward.
(Jowenko views firehouse Lc "boom boom boom" clip)
Jowenko; he also says it, it simply gave out, at every level the weight was too much.
interviewer; but he says, it was as if..
jowenko; thats what it looks like, But don't tell me they put explosives on all 100 floors, thats not possible
interviewer; why? not?
jowenko; Of course it's not
Interviewer; you would'nt do it like that?
Jowenko; it would take a year
interviewer; A year? < this comment not in subtitles but you can hear the interviwer interject "A year?"
Jowenko; A year to place all those explosives, and prepare them and hook them up, with all the cables down there.

 

[Miragememories]

Now you trying an equivocation to escape your own contradictions.

If Jowenko was merely pointing out that the building fell when he stated that it most certainly was not a controlled demolition, then your claim that he doesn't disagree with you is a lie in addition to your attempt to try and weasel out of it.

You want to dodge your own point by being ambiguous- but it seems that you don't realize that not only hurts your case, but brings us right back to square one: Jowenko is an expert, and he stated quite clearly that 1 and 2 were not a controlled demolition. You cannot have 7 be a CD and have 1 and 2 be legit- it makes no sense. It's a package deal.

You can continue to "spin" all you wish Toto but don't accuse me of lying when your claim is unproven.

A lie is an intentionally stated mistruth and I have done no such thing.

I've explained my differences with Jowenko regarding WTC 1, 2 and 7 and they should be quite understandable to anyone not blinded by their own unwaivering convictions.

MM

 

[beachnut]

using Jowenko is proof 9/11 truth uses shallow research

You can continue to "spin" all you wish Toto but don't accuse me of lying when your claim is unproven.

A lie is an intentionally stated mistruth and I have done no such thing.

I've explained my differences with Jowenko regarding WTC 1, 2 and 7 and they should be quite understandable to anyone not blinded by their own unwaivering convictions.

MM

Jowenko and your ideas are crap on 9/11. Spin, you have used Jowenko, the only CD expert, of small buildings, as your only expert on CD saying a building that burned all day was a CD, saying a building he has not idea was unique in design, has no idea over 20,000 gallon of fuel was in there, has no idea on the damage, no idea of the time burning, not a single piece of evidence but a video! And no sounds of RDX, not a single sound of CD. You wind the spin game, you have spun this so far! LOL, your ignorance on 9/11 grows as you just sit and use ideas based on a video, not facts, just hearsay until you can back up this expert with a few more CD expert; oops, darn, they do not agree. Sad, you stand alone with 9/11 truth, known liars, and an expert who blows up small buildings. I think you have lost this one, but you win the spin war based on poor research and lack of details.

Where are the sounds of CD? That was a big fire in WTC7, as people walked by they said it was a giant fire. Does your CD expert know about the fire that raged all day (oh yes, he said really!). What about the fuel, does he know there was over 400 tons of TNT energy in the fuel, you know heat energy equal to over 400 tons of TNT! Was that a no spin master? Or was that you don't know? You don't know, lets put that on the board mm. Yes, that looks good, you don't know. That covers most topic of 9/11 for you and 9/11 truth; you don't know!

Things to remember about the CD expert!

Danny Jowenko, a demolition expert, said that the Twin Towers were not brought down by demolition. While looking at WTC7 ( a video), he said it was a demolition. If the Twin Towers were not a demolition and WTC7 was, makes no sense at all. Jowenko even said it would take a year to rig just 1 Tower, 2 Towers would take 2 years and WTC7 would take about 1/2 year to rig with explosives. 2 1/2 years to rig explosives on all 3 buildings. It doesn't add up! Jowenko's Interview about WTC7: (When asked how a CD begins and if it started at the top) No, the bottom - it starts from the bottom. They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards. This is controlled demolition. Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job performed by a team of experts. (Then he is told it happened the same day, his reaction) The same day? Are you sure? Are you sure it was the 11th? That can't be! (Then he is told about it burning for 7 hours his response) Really? They worked hard." Danny Jowenko never mentioned hearing any sort of explosive sounds in the interview. Interesting to note since he's supposed to be an expert. !!! sourced from 9/11 truth movenment supporters and many other places!!! ((IRONY))

Next CD expert, this one is worthless and has not spent enough time analyzing the WTC7 fire failure. Where are his diagrams how they would plant explosives, on which members. GEE, when he sees the plans for WTC7, he will see the problem, and why fire destroyed the building. Go show him please and stop using him until you prove he has spent at least 100 man hours analyzing the work and can really be an asset (now he is not an expert, just a fool who looked at a video and made funny comments), and then please present the work! Good luck, I doubt you can afford his work! I think using Jowenko is a fraud in so many ways.

 

[LibraryLady]

Let's keep the tone civil, folks, and remember to attack the argument.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[Miragememories]

Jowenko and your ideas are crap on 9/11. Spin, you have used Jowenko, the only CD expert, of small buildings, as your only expert on CD saying a building that burned all day was a CD, saying a building he has not idea was unique in design, has no idea over 20,000 gallon of fuel was in there, has no idea on the damage, no idea of the time burning, not a single piece of evidence but a video! And no sounds of RDX, not a single sound of CD. You wind the spin game, you have spun this so far! LOL, your ignorance on 9/11 grows as you just sit and use ideas based on a video, not facts, just hearsay until you can back up this expert with a few more CD expert; oops, darn, they do not agree. Sad, you stand alone with 9/11 truth, known liars, and an expert who blows up small buildings. I think you have lost this one, but you win the spin war based on poor research and lack of details.

Where are the sounds of CD? That was a big fire in WTC7, as people walked by they said it was a giant fire. Does your CD expert know about the fire that raged all day (oh yes, he said really!). What about the fuel, does he know there was over 400 tons of TNT energy in the fuel, you know heat energy equal to over 400 tons of TNT! Was that a no spin master? Or was that you don't know? You don't know, lets put that on the board mm. Yes, that looks good, you don't know. That covers most topic of 9/11 for you and 9/11 truth; you don't know!

Things to remember about the CD expert!
Next CD expert, this one is worthless and has not spent enough time analyzing the WTC7 fire failure. Where are his diagrams how they would plant explosives, on which members. GEE, when he sees the plans for WTC7, he will see the problem, and why fire destroyed the building. Go show him please and stop using him until you prove he has spent at least 100 man hours analyzing the work and can really be an asset (now he is not an expert, just a fool who looked at a video and made funny comments), and then please present the work! Good luck, I doubt you can afford his work! I think using Jowenko is a fraud in so many ways.

The rebuttal with special opening argument!

"Jowenko and your ideas are crap on 9/11."

It always comes to size. Danny Jowenko's opinion is that of a credible expert and certainly not as
a judge and jury.

A belief that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition doesn't depend on a single expert's appraisal.

There is a reason FEMA couldn't find a conclusion and why their head start research hasn't helped NIST with a long string of Delayed
Release Dates.

WTC7 was a building assaulted by WTC1 debris and that had varying amounts of spreading office furniture fires on certain floors for maybe as long as 7-8 hours.

NIST is no longer considering stored diesel fuel as a contributor to the WTC7 collapse hypothesis.

NIST knows the complete building's engineered design.

NIST supposedly has a significant amount of information regarding the extent of the WTC7 southside debris damage.

NIST knows where the fires occurred and estimates of office furniture fuel availability.

NIST has tested laboratory office furniture test fires as temperature peaking after an average of 20 minutes.

There is a whole collection of eye witness reports as well as audio and video reports containing WTC7 on site documentary recordings of explosions.

There are at least 6 different locations providing good documentary video of the WTC7 collapse.

It would appear that for NIST, computer modeling WTC7 should be much easier and with fewer required assumptions, unlike what was needed for WTC 1 and WTC 2.

NIST has had the same WTC7 "working hypothesis" for years but for some strange reason they delay a final draft for public comment, year after year after year.

Does this not suggest doubt on the part of NIST about how good an engineering argument they can make for "a natural
form of collapse expected under the known circumstances"?

MM

 

[pomeroo]

Are you again calling me a liar?

Yes. You are a shameless, egregious, flagrant liar.

Did I state that Danny Jowenko believed WTC1 & WTC2 were top down 'controlled' demolitions?

NO.

Your childish deceptions are pathetic. Danny Jowenko believes that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 were no demolitions of any sort. He believes that the Towers fell as a result of the impact damage and the the subsequent fires. He told me so.

Were both towers demolished?

YES.

NO. You are lying again. Neither Tower was demolished. There is overwhelming evidence that shows why these buildings fell as they did. Evidence for demolition is nonexistent. That means there is none--nothing--nada--zip--zero.

Did the demolition action appear to start near the top and work it's way down?

YES.

There was no demolition action anywhere. The collapses--OBVIOUSLY--proceeded from the impact floors.

The collapses of the buildings looked exactly as they would have had they resulted from planes crashes and ensuing fires. Your imaginary conspiracy found a way to simulate the effects of planes by actually using planes. No conspiracy liar has yet suggested a remotely plausible explanation for this phenomenon.

In future, maybe you might wish to read my words more carefully before choosing what interpretation to place on them.

MM

Your words do not merit careful reading. They are the uninformed ravings of an agenda-driven crank.

 

[Totovader]

You can continue to "spin" all you wish Toto but don't accuse me of lying when your claim is unproven.

A lie is an intentionally stated mistruth and I have done no such thing.

I've explained my differences with Jowenko regarding WTC 1, 2 and 7 and they should be quite understandable to anyone not blinded by their own unwaivering convictions.

MM

How is quoting your own words- only a few posts apart I might add- spin?

You most certainly have not explained the differences- you completely ignore them and then try to get away with a lie to resolve the contradictions.

You were caught. Deal.

Now see if you can resolve that contradiction without lying or dodging the question. This entire thread was made for you to do that and you have not.

 

[Pookster]

... NIST is no longer considering stored diesel fuel as a contributor to the WTC7 collapse hypothesis.

Just a general observation, but I find it interesting that Truthers are latching on to this as if it's going to somehow work to their advantage in proving a CD. I mean, this is the NIST we're talking about. The very same NIST that has been demonized as government shills for years now by the Truthers.

This may or may not apply to you, MM. It's just a general observation.

 

[Miragememories]

Just a general observation, but I find it interesting that Truthers are latching on to this as if it's going to somehow work to their advantage in proving a CD. I mean, this is the NIST we're talking about. The very same NIST that has been demonized as government shills for years now by the Truthers.

This may or may not apply to you, MM. It's just a general observation.

Whether it applys to me or not, I fail to see your point.

The logic should be quite clear.

NIST receives a great deal of admiration in this forum and it's 10 thousand page WTC 1 & 2 Collapse Report is often used here as the first round of defense against "Trutherism".

For years the diesel fuel available in WTC7 has been used to bolster the Official Story very hot 'fire fuel argument'.

NIST, by having this major point removed from their working hypothesis have certainly strengthened the argument against a fire collapse cause.

MM

 

[beachnut]

truth exposed as faith based woo of few

Whether it applys to me or not, I fail to see your point.

The logic should be quite clear.

NIST receives a great deal of admiration in this forum and it's 10 thousand page WTC 1 & 2 Collapse Report is often used here as the first round of defense against "Trutherism".

For years the diesel fuel available in WTC7 has been used to bolster the Official Story very hot 'fire fuel argument'.

NIST, by having this major point removed from their working hypothesis have certainly strengthened the argument against a fire collapse cause.

MM

It is clear how the fire collapse of WTC1,2, and 7 have 9/11 truth perplexed. You have to use facts and evidence to form rational conclusions. These are the things lacking in 9/11 truth, facts, and evidence, and the ability to form rational conclusions.

9/11 truth has found the ability to believe, just using faith, the hearsay lies of a few and come up with conclusion based on lies. An ability many rational people lack.

Thus, one of the biggest reason it becomes easy to rule out 9/11 being an inside job is due to people like you who post such crazy ideas on 9/11 most rational beings can use simple research skills picked up in k-5 to see the lies. Bingo

 

[DGM]

NIST, by having this major point removed from their working hypothesis have certainly strengthened the argument against a fire collapse cause.

What argument is there for CD? Because it looks like one or this guy says so. You've had 6 years and you can't even come up with a good "how or why". This whole CD thing is just pathetic. MM it's killing your movement just as well as "no-planes".

 

[stateofgrace]

The rebuttal with special opening argument!

"Jowenko and your ideas are crap on 9/11."

It always comes to size. Danny Jowenko's opinion is that of a credible expert and certainly not as
a judge and jury.

A belief that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition doesn't depend on a single expert's appraisal.

There is a reason FEMA couldn't find a conclusion and why their head start research hasn't helped NIST with a long string of Delayed
Release Dates.

WTC7 was a building assaulted by WTC1 debris and that had varying amounts of spreading office furniture fires on certain floors for maybe as long as 7-8 hours.

NIST is no longer considering stored diesel fuel as a contributor to the WTC7 collapse hypothesis.

NIST knows the complete building's engineered design.

NIST supposedly has a significant amount of information regarding the extent of the WTC7 southside debris damage.

NIST knows where the fires occurred and estimates of office furniture fuel availability.

NIST has tested laboratory office furniture test fires as temperature peaking after an average of 20 minutes.

There is a whole collection of eye witness reports as well as audio and video reports containing WTC7 on site documentary recordings of explosions.

There are at least 6 different locations providing good documentary video of the WTC7 collapse.

It would appear that for NIST, computer modeling WTC7 should be much easier and with fewer required assumptions, unlike what was needed for WTC 1 and WTC 2.

NIST has had the same WTC7 "working hypothesis" for years but for some strange reason they delay a final draft for public comment, year after year after year.

Does this not suggest doubt on the part of NIST about how good an engineering argument they can make for "a natural
form of collapse expected under the known circumstances"?

MM

Are NIST covering up mass murder, yes or no MM?

 

[Pookster]

Whether it applys to me or not, I fail to see your point.

Not surprising.

The logic should be quite clear.

NIST receives a great deal of admiration in this forum and it's 10 thousand page WTC 1 & 2 Collapse Report is often used here as the first round of defense against "Trutherism".

For years the diesel fuel available in WTC7 has been used to bolster the Official Story very hot 'fire fuel argument'.

NIST, by having this major point removed from their working hypothesis have certainly strengthened the argument against a fire collapse cause.

MM

(emphasis added)

Whether it strengthens, weakens, or has any substantial effect on a "fire collapse cause" argument is yet to be seen. Me thinks your wishful thinking is showing. The skeptics have primarily argued a "damage from the Towers and fire collapse cause" anyways.

If I were you, I'd be hesitant to take any solace in anything the NIST may be saying at this point regarding WTC 7. Give those well paid Government shills a chance to put together and issue an "official story" for you and the Truthers to really whine about.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Just a few comments I'd like to make.
First off, Jowenko, his alleged expertise aside, is simply one person giving an opinion after the observation of a few minutes of videotape. While you may cite him as an expert, he had very little information to base a decision on.
As has been noted before, there were demolition experts on site who had access to considerably more information, including actually witnessing the event and being in a position to asses it afterwards.They claim no CD.

Next, contrary to the opinion of one of the posters here, a layman, his relative knowledge of the structure notwithstanding, is not going to be able to bring down a building into it's own footprint with a bomb, even a big one. I have some experience with explosives and any single device capable of bringing down the building at all would have been immediately apparent to anyone. A CD is less labor intensive than taking down a structure manually, but it is still a very labor intensive operation. Support structures have to be weakened, holes drilled, charges set and strung, etc. The concept that a few guys can sneak in over a weekend, place a couple of satchel charges in just the right place and touch it off at their leisure only happens in the movies ( and it often takes longer to rig charges on a movie set than the alleged culprits had under one of the pro-CD posters scenarios).

Third, a CD leaves behind a large amount of detritus. Shock tubes, backing plates, UX caps, and what not. It is impossible to believe that should a CD have been performed none of the fireman, investigators, or workers could have overlooked this, and it is even harder to believe that they were all "in on it". But not one trace has so far come to light.

And lastly, there was no nitrate signature. Every conventional explosive in existence capable of performing such a task ( C4, Dynamite, Astrolite,Kinepac, etc) leaves a nitrate signature, and the amount of explosives necessary to bring down even one of these buildings would have been massive, leaving behind a nitrate signature that could not be disguised.
This signature is both pervasive and persistent, meaning it gets into everything and stays there for some time. Modern detection equipment is readily available to all the interested agencies, even private ones such as insurance investigators, and operates in the 1-2 picogram range.
In short, it couldn't be hidden, and yet none was found.
This, if nothing else, rules out the use of explosives.