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

[GStan]

Please don't subject shift to the towers, the point here is:

[/B]The implosion of WTC 7 LOOKS LIKE A CD.

And that one statement represents the entirety of the evidence for CD.

(and it only looks like a CD if you ignore the tower1 debris, 7 hours of unfought fires, creaking, groaning, bulging, firefighter assessments of damage and collapse risk, the collapse of the east and west penthouses, and the lack of any visual or audio evidence of explosive charges.)

Other than that, the case is rock solid.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Please don't subject shift to the towers, the point here is:

The implosion of WTC 7 LOOKS LIKE A CD.

The point here is, in fact, that:

From the point of view of the specific video Jowenko was shown, in which the lower floors of the building are obscured, with the collapse of the East mechanical penthouse omitted from the clip shown and the soundtrack removed, the collapse of WTC7 looks like a CD.

Note that CD's generally involve large amounts of flame shooting out of the lowest floor or two of the building; Jowenko couldn't see that these weren't present because the lower floors aren't seen in any of the videos of the collapse. Note also that CD's generally involve a series of very loud reports from the charges going off, that these reports precede the collapse and are generally louder than the collapse, but that Jowenko wasn't aware of their absence because the video didn't have a sound track. Note, finally, that he was shown a single video from a single viewpoint, and that other videos from other viewpoints show more clearly the lean of the building as it fell, as well as other vitally important features that Jowenko didn't see such as the collapse of the East mechanical penthouse.

If your argument, therefore, is in effect that it is possible to find a small subset of the data gathered from the collapse of WTC7 which gives a convincing appearance of a planned building implosion, then I personally woud have to concede that point. However, when the totality of the available data is studied - which, as we all know, Jowenko wasn't given the opportunity to do - then there is no evidence to suggest that any expert would conclude that explosives were used.

Dave

 

[Mancman]

Well thank you for proving my point Mancman.

I played that video through a good audio system and yes you can hear the sound of the WTC2 impact....barely!

That is the best you can do to prove your point that explosions would have been easily heard?

My god man!

That was a Boeing 767 slamming into what..the 80th floor of the South Tower (WTC2) at over 500 mph and we hear a faint distant rumble. A sound that barely competes with the other sounds in the background.
We hear a wall of traffic noise and sirens and then maybe at the same level or a bit less, the distant rumble.

A Hollywood soundtrack it was not!

If the outside sound of a plane crash as dramatic as that was so subdued in your recording example, is it any wonder that there are so few examples of loudly audible explosions from deep within the buildings themselves?

MM

You have misunderstood.

That video was not to prove explosions could be heard (though they WOULD be heard at that distance), but that your statements:

"So tell me how you expect these explosions to evidence themselves in an environment filled with prevailing noise from sirens, debris falls, buildings on fire, and all the other sounds a big city makes during an emergency like 9/11?

We can't rely on recording devices, though there are recordings of explosions. Microphones set to normal background audio levels are easily overwhelmed by a situation that raises ambient levels as high as they were in lower Manhattan on 9/11."

and

"I would certainly expect the sound of plane crashes to be heard, especially since it was a normal NYC day until they occurred."

are silly.

The video shows that, even at great distance, explosions will evidence themselves even within the wall of noise you claim will hamper them being recorded. That video must be approaching one mile from the WTC.

We then have videos taken just hundreds of feet from the site with no audible explosions, even though the floors where collapse initiated were obliterated and open to the air.

 

[qwert]

Yes of course. Danny's opinion came well after the fact. Why do you ask? Have you brought yourself up to date on the subject or are you starting with me?



What are the reasons? Are you being cruel or what? I have spent a few years researching this and you ask me an essay type question that encompasses the whole subject as if it was a minor request. Do your homework man or maybe wade through this thread;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2225055#post2225055

I apologize. I am not in the habit of searching out all other posts a person has made when they post a controversial statement on these forums. On this thread however, the only evidence I have seen you present that WTC7 was a controlled demolition is Danny Jowenko's testimony,the fact it was "obvious", plus some sketchy arguments you put forth about the "style" of collapse of WTC7.

If it was obvious, I would not think that the reasons for you believing this would require an "essay".

Even if it is non-obvious, I would think that the reasons for such could be summarized in a couple of lines. I merely noticed that this thread seemed focussed on the testimony of Jowenko, and wanted to move it on to the other evidence you may have.

As you are unwilling to describe such other evidence, at this point I assume you have none.

Have you not bothered to read my other replies in this thread? I suggest you do. Your questions are most disrespectful given the fact that they have been addressed in this thread and rather than bothering to read the thread, you are merely repeating old questions. Geez.

Yes, I have read all of your replies prior to my posting in this thread. I could find less that half a dozen that gave any reasons other than the testimony of Jowenko. All of those seemed to be related to the "style of collapse". e.g. WTC7 landed in it's own footprint,

I have no reason to believe that Danny's "initial infamy" was at all good for his business. Again, if you are sincerely interested...read the thread and don't make a habit of jumping into a lengthy thread with questions that have already been addressed earlier!

And I have no reason to believe it was bad for business either. As such, we have no reason to weight his opinion higher than any other demolition experts.


So far, the only "reasons" I had seen you present on this thread for why we should believe WTC7 is a controlled demolition are:

The style of collapse
The testimony of Jowenko

Both of these would apparently be contradicted by the testimony of numerous other demolition experts who believe that WTC7 was NOT a controlled demolition.

Being neither a construction expert nor a demolitions expert, I am inclined to resort to the opinions of experts in these fields rather than dubious internet articles. I would suggest you may want to consider doing the same.

 

[stateofgrace]

I can make the same claim about you challenging your comrades here stateofgrace.

Practise what you preach!

The third string remark I attributed to your post about yourself earlier. If I recalled wrong, then I apologize.

Regarding the coverup. How do you know how many people had to have direct knowledge unless you were a participant?

You are only speculating and unless you were involved, you have no way of knowing what the level of participation was.

Skeptics with their monumental egos assume that if they can't figure it out then it can't be possible.

MM

More garbage from the never ending supply of garbage you seem to have at your disposal. I disagree with you MM, do you not get it sunbeam ? i disagree with your entire loony theory that you cannot substantiate.

My thoughts on WTC 7? sure hey why not. Nobody cares MM, nobody at all apart from you and a few brain dead conspirators who are desperately trying to make something out of it. desperately trying to make it your smoking gun, desperately trying to squeeze into your insane view of what happened on 911 and what has happened since. see MM you started with your conclusion , you started right away , with the conclusion that it was demolished and you have dedicated your entire live to proving it. you do not care that you could be wrong, this thought as never eleven entered your mind, you have convinced yourself you are correct and you need to show everybody else how correct you are. it is sad in a way that no matter what is put to you will maintain this view , you will never waiver, never falter, it has become your own personal challenge. your entire tiny little world revolves, proving that you are correct, not the truth this as has been dismissed years along with anything resembling rationality.Of course there are genuine people, the herd as you call them, who do not care for your theories, who are sick to death of seeing the same lame theories spewed on to the internet that they wish to address them. That they wish to hammer some sense into those that spew them. this is commendable, because unlike you normal people will never acusse innocent people of being involved in mass murder without absolute proof. This you have none of, this is the burden that you carry and one that eats away at you because you know that irrespective of how much you shout and scream nobody will ever listen to you. You see MM, normal people listen to real investigators, like those employed by NIST and unlike you they don't accuse these decent people of being involved in mass murder plots.

See MM, you can never offer up a narrative, never offer up an alternative theory, you will never answer the most simple question of all, why ? Why did they demolish WTC 7? I can answer this very simply question from the other side of the fence and move on, here let me show you.

Why did WTC 7 collapse ? simple it got hit by debris, burnt and fell down, see I can now move on, I am happy , given the bigger picture,this fits in well with everything else that happened that day.

You on the other hand cannot move on, you are stuck in the expanding circle of insanity that you must subscribe to, to validate your theory.It is simply the ripple effect, getting bigger and bigger with each and everything you say. For your pet theory to work it has to dismiss the firemen who said it was on fire, you have to dismiss those that said it was seriously damaged , you have to dismiss those that said it was in danger of falling down, you have to dismiss, the very man who gave the order to pull the fire fighting operation, Chief Nigro. You have to dismiss NIST, FEMA, calling them liars and anybody else who was involved and is still involved in conducting an investigation into the collapse of an empty building and figuring out how to make such buildings safer.You have to dismiss so much and clutch at so many straws for your believes to be true. And this is all it is, you want it to be ture, you want your view of the world to be true, irrespective of all else. There is so much you have to dismiss and ignore so much to for fill your paranoid delusions. Me, on the other hand have no such delusions.I simply ask myself the one question you had steadfast refused to answer.

Why on earth would they demolish an empty building?

The answer my friend is simple, they wouldn't , you know it, but of course when you are so wrapped up in the delusions you subscribe to , well better forget that one, call everybody puppets, the herd or whatever other inane insults you level at those who would dare to ask you such a rudimentary question.

 

[Miragememories]

You can be so petty C!

Ah, starting a post with both an insult and a lie. How utterly unsurprising.

Yes petty.

Extremely petty.

Not a lie if true.

And only an insult if the truth hurts.

So let's get down to it then and see how bad I've really been.

I'm accused of being a twoofer. That does sound sinister.

Apparently my home base is a tinhat forum.

I'm not in the least embarrassed by those imperfect posts. I regret that they contained superficial factual errors but I don't feel the errors were pertinent to, or undermined, the intended message.

Okay let me read on. This is exciting stuff. Reads like an old Perry Mason script (hope I spelled his name right or I'll be called up for that as well).

Okay, apparently over a few posts I failed to get those errors about my building and the other one squared away. Fair enough.

Yes my building is under 22 storys but definitely at least 18 (if you count the penthouse).

The other building to the north (2200 not 2190) I gave the wrong address. Sorry, wasn't expecting you or anyone else to be going there.

That little building (2190 I guess) is visible the 3rd floor walkway, but is not very noticeable from inside or out.

I did make the assumption that both my building and it's sister to the north (2200) were both built around the same time. I haven't verified your information but since it's not that important I'll concede to your superior Googling. Both buildings certainly looked to be of the same age and because they match architecturally the age assumption was easy to make.

Now the construction.

Well what did I get wrong there?

My building is architecturally similar to WTC 1 and WTC 2 in that it was based on suspension design to allow for large open spaces unblocked by columns.

What inquiries did I not respond to about the construction?

Oh yes I do apologize again for saying you were wrong and I was right. I was indeed terribly wrong in my belief that the building I work in was 22 storys.

Did it not occur to you that I never checked those facts, which I obviously could have done, because I didn't think the accuracy of those assumptions was important to the post?

I do hope to see this great story in an episode of Boston Legal sometime.

Ahh..photographic evidence. Yes I took photographs of the building soon after it was constructed for an architect friend. That was how I discovered it's similarity to the WTC Twin Towers.

I don't recall a request for pictures or related questions?

In my defence, I have only so much free time and I have probably orphaned my involvement in many threads here and elsewhere. I wasn't aware that this was something unique to me?

I think your response to my statement below is quite telling about your lack of objectivity not to mention lack of human perspective.

Taking the 3rd floor connecting corridor, one is never really aware of that small building in the middle.

To which you reply;

What complete and utter nonsense.

Before you make such a quick judgment, I suggest you walk that hallway and tell me how attention grabbing that building is.

To sum up, 6 months ago, according to you, while reporting the interesting similarity in architectural design between the building I worked in and that of the WTC Twin Towers, I made the grave error of stating my building was 4 storys taller than I should have, I gave you the wrong address and similar height error for it's sister building to the north and I got the construction date wrong for the other building wrong.

Were any of those errors relevant or important to the message of my building's WTC architectural similarity?

NO

MM

 

[Miragememories]

More garbage from... the never ending supply of garbage..

Why on earth would they demolish an empty building?

The answer my friend is simple...

It obviously wasn't empty!

MM

 

[Totovader]

You eluded to the fact that you're capable of doing your research via a dictionary. This would be a startling revelation- if true.

Just so there is no confusion- please explain what a "contradiction" is in your own terms.


By the way- that's a request. If you are just skimming my posts looking for the "?" symbol, then it's no wonder you're having so much trouble. I'll highlight them at this point so you stop playing games.


ETA: For bonus points, provide an example of a contradiction.

*bump^5

 

[Miragememories]

The video shows that, even at great distance, explosions will evidence themselves even within the wall of noise you claim will hamper them being recorded. That video must be approaching one mile from the WTC.

We then have videos taken just hundreds of feet from the site with no audible explosions, even though the floors where collapse initiated were obliterated and open to the air.

I never said anything that suggested the sound of those extremely loud aircraft impacts would be difficult to hear...geez.

Massive outside explosions are hardly comparable to those deep inside the building.

A fair comparison would be to provide a loud reference sound from a comparable 9/11 inside location.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

*bump^5

zzzzzzzzz


MM

 

[Totovader]

zzzzzzzzz


MM

Quit stalling.

 

[stateofgrace]

It obviously wasn't empty!

MM

And the ripples go on and on and on and ...................

So what was in it that was so important that it needed to be prerigged with explosives and demolished in full view of the worlds media , six hours after the towers had collapsed?

Waits for the dodge.

 

[Miragememories]

Quit stalling.

I have no reason to stall.

If you can't speak the language then go pester someone else.

MM

 

[Totovader]

I have no reason to stall.

If you can't speak the language then go pester someone else.

MM

You've been stalling for 10 pages.

Clearly, the problem is not language- it's your inability to answer simple questions because you know the error in your assertions becomes unavoidable when you do.

If you have no reason to stall- then stop stalling.

The question, for the 6th time is: Just so there is no confusion- please explain what a "contradiction" is in your own terms.

 

[johnny karate]

Guys, quit picking on MM. He has enough problems trying to remember where he works let alone dealing with all of your aggravating questions.

 

[Miragememories]

I apologize.

Sorry if I sounded abrupt Zalbik but you did ask a question that in all honesty required a lengthy reply to familiarize someone such as yourself who has not done a lot of research.

You are wrong in assuming that I base my beliefs about the nature of the WTC7 collapse strictly on Danny Jowenko's opinion. This is but one thread on WTC7 and Jowenko happens to be the focus. My opinion was formed before I heard about Danny Jowenko.

If you do read that unfortunately very lengthy thread that I referred you to, and STILL feel the way you do, then we might be able to talk.

All I ask is that you catch up and not ask me to go over old ground and be sincere.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

You've been stalling for 10 pages.

Clearly, the problem is not language- it's your inability to answer simple questions because you know the error in your assertions becomes unavoidable when you do.

If you have no reason to stall- then stop stalling.

The question, for the 6th time is: Just so there is no confusion- please explain what a "contradiction" is in your own terms.

Toto if I didn't have to consider the trigger happy reportage here I would gladly let you know what I think.

You present a no win scenario for me.

I keep answering your question.

I attempt to be polite and clear.

You keep responding in a beligerant manner accusing me of not answering the question yet you don't clarify what is missing from my answer?

MM

 

[Totovader]

Toto if I didn't have to consider the trigger happy reportage here I would gladly let you know what I think.

You present a no win scenario for me.

I keep answering your question.

I attempt to be polite and clear.

You keep responding in a beligerant manner accusing me of not answering the question yet you don't clarify what is missing from my answer?

MM

There is no need for me to "clarify" what is missing from your answer: you have not answered the question. That's all that needs to be said to point out that you're dodging the question. Quoting with a reply is not an answer.

Once again- this is the 7th time, now- the question is: Just so there is no confusion- please explain what a "contradiction" is in your own terms.

 

[Miragememories]

There is no need for me to "clarify" what is missing from your answer: you have not answered the question. That's all that needs to be said to point out that you're dodging the question. Quoting with a reply is not an answer.

Once again- this is the 7th time, now- the question is: Just so there is no confusion- please explain what a "contradiction" is in your own terms.

"a situation in which inconsistent elements are present"

MM

 

[Totovader]

"a situation in which inconsistent elements are present"

MM

Excellent- that's a fair definition.

Now, are you able to understand the contradictions present in your claim?

(This may be too big of a question- if necessary, I will list them out for you.)