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

[afinemadness]

Here is the original thread just in case you get lost or trip over a honey pot;

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=18745&view=findpost&p=14674183

MM

Did anyone else see this quote from the opening of the link
"However, the World Trade Center's core and elevator shafts were hermetically sealed, AKA, air-tight. The fire could not possibly have had enough oxygen to travel 1,300 feet down, retaining enough energy to destroy the bottom 8 floors of the building."

So I guess they pumped out all of the air every time an elevator door opened. How can someone even go further into an article when this is an opener.

 

[Christopher7]

Danny Jowenko is wrong.

So you know more about CD's than the owner of a CD company. Right.

Are you saying that WTC7 doesn't even look like a CD?

 

[Totovader]

So you know more about CD's than the owner of a CD company. Right.

Are you saying that WTC7 doesn't even look like a CD?

Hold the phone, Chuck- your pal Miragememories claims to be more of an expert than Jowenko...

Do you completely agree with Jowenko's expert opinion?

 

[twinstead]

So you know more about CD's than the owner of a CD company. Right.

Are you saying that WTC7 doesn't even look like a CD?

If you really take the time to actually learn how the WTC collapsed, the prior collapse of the penthouses and the shockwave emanating from them, the total lack of explosions prior to the collapse that characterize other CDs, the fact it didn't actually collapse into its own footprint, the fact that well-documented on-site observations by experts of the event show the building was in danger of collapse, well, yea, its resemblance to an actual CD is minimal.

And I'm not saying Jowenko is wrong, but there are those equally qualified as he who are. I'm just saying why don't you take these things into account?

And, of course Jowenko doesn't think WTC1 and 2 are CD. That's a sticking point, is it not?

 

[Christopher7]

Hold the phone, Chuck- your pal Miragememories claims to be more of an expert than Jowenko...

Do you completely agree with Jowenko's expert opinion?

The point i'm making at the moment is: WTC7 looks like a CD.

WTC7 IMPLODED.

There has NEVER been a high rise building implosion that wasn't a CD.

Jowenko said it was a CD. [he noted that the bottom floors went first]

Will you acknowledge that WTC 7 looks like a CD?

 

[Totovader]

The point i'm making at the moment is: WTC7 looks like a CD.

WTC7 IMPLODED.

There has NEVER been a high rise building implosion that wasn't a CD.

Jowenko said it was a CD. [he noted that the bottom floors went first]

Will you acknowledge that WTC 7 looks like a CD?

Way to dodge the question.

There has NEVER been a high rise building intentionally attacked by planes.

There is nothing to the collapse of Building 7 that is similar to a CD- with the exception that "it fell down". The claim that "it looks like CD, therefore it is" is not only fallacious, but clearly invalid.

The fact that you have to ignore this is of no surprise.

 

[CptColumbo]

Jowenko said it was a CD. [he noted that the bottom floors went first]

So he didn't see the penthouse fall in first?

 

[GStan]

The point i'm making at the moment is: WTC7 looks like a CD.

WTC7 IMPLODED.

There has NEVER been a high rise building implosion that wasn't a CD.

Jowenko said it was a CD. [he noted that the bottom floors went first]

Will you acknowledge that WTC 7 looks like a CD?

I have already linked on this thread, the following hypothesis for how the observed collapse sequence could have progressed from a single column failure in the area of the IE.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Scheuerman...entDec2006.pdf

It is neither proof nor evidence that the collapse did in fact progress this way, however, it does show that the observed collapse sequence did not require the use of explosives to be brought about. The style and speed of the collapse is not unique to CD. While the most popular video of WTC7 collapse does exhibit some visual characteristics of a CD, it could have been brought about without CD. Miragememories predictably did not respond when I presented him with this dilemma, but I don't expect the same from you. You have two logical choices here: 1) acknowledge that the observed collapse could have progressed without CD and stop trying to use the style/speed of collapse as evidence to support your theory, or 2) show the errors in the report. If you can show the errors that invalidate the hypothesis, I would willingly concede the point as evidence in support of CD.

Bumped (again), waiting for C7 or MM to address this.

 

[Christopher7]

I'm not saying Jowenko is wrong, but there are those equally qualified as he who are. I'm just saying why don't you take these things into account?

My point is just that WTC7 looks like a normal building implosion.

And, of course Jowenko doesn't think WTC1 and 2 are CD. That's a sticking point, is it not?

No.
He did not recognize the Towers as CD's because they were top down explosions.
This had never been done before.
WTC7 was an easily recognizable bottom up implosion.

 

[Christopher7]

Bumped (again), waiting for C7 or MM to address this.

Link gives "File Not found" msg.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Scheuerman...entDec2006.pdf

ETA:

The style and speed of the collapse is not unique to CD.

Yes it is.

 

[CHF]

There has NEVER been a high rise building implosion that wasn't a CD.

He did not recognize the Towers as CD's because they were top down explosions.
This had never been done before.
WTC7 was an easily recognizable bottom up implosion.

So WTC7 looked like a demolition, thus proving it was.

But the WTC towers looked like no demolition ever done...thus proving that it was a new kind of top-down demolition.

Glad to see your logic is consistent.

I can acknowledge that WTC7 looked like a demolition. Can you acknowledge that it didn't sound like one?

 

[Christopher7]

So WTC7 looked like a demolition, thus proving it was.

No

But the WTC towers looked like no demolition ever done...thus proving that it was a new kind of top-down demolition.

No

Glad to see your logic is consistent.

Your logic, not mine.

I can acknowledge that WTC7 looked like a demolition. Can you acknowledge that it didn't sound like one?

Thank you and no.

The sound or the critical part when Daryl heard what could have been an explosion, has been edited out of the videos.
We really don't know what those critical seconds sound like.

 

[Christopher7]

So he didn't see the penthouse fall in first?

Whatever he saw, it was enough for him to say:
Jowenko:This is controlled demolition.
Interviewer: You sure?
Jowenko: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.

 

[CHF]

The sound or the critical part when Daryl heard what could have been an explosion, has been edited out of the videos.
We really don't know what those critical seconds sound like.

The sound of CD charges has been edited out of videos???? Wow, that's pretty desperate even by twoofer standards.

I suppose the noise was also edited out of people's ears that day as well given how no one claims to have heard this:

 

[CHF]

Whatever he saw, it was enough for him to say:
Jowenko:This is controlled demolition.
Interviewer: You sure?
Jowenko: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.

But he's full of crap on the WTC towers. Again, I'm glad to see you're consistent.

Any idea why Jowenko hasn't produced anything on WTC7 since that Dutch TV interview?

 

[Christopher7]

Way to dodge the question.

There has NEVER been a high rise building intentionally attacked by planes.

WTC7 was not attacked by airplanes.

There is nothing to the collapse of Building 7 that is similar to a CD- with the exception that "it fell down".

WTC7 didn't just fall down, it imploded.
Building implosion is a fine art. It is extremely difficult to do.

The claim that "it looks like CD, therefore it is" is not only fallacious, but clearly invalid.

It couldn't be anything else imo.

Do you agree that WTC7 looks like a CD?

 

[CHF]

It couldn't be anything else imo.

What do you make of the FDNY saying WTC7 would collapse from structural damage and fire?

 

[Christopher7]

But he's full of crap on the WTC towers. Again, I'm glad to see you're consistent.

'Full of crap' came out of your head.
I say he didn't recognize the Towers were CD's because they were top down explosions.

Any idea why Jowenko hasn't produced anything on WTC7 since that Dutch TV interview?

1) It's not his problem.

2) MSM trashes anyone who says anything that conflicts with the OT.

 

[Christopher7]

What do you make of the FDNY saying WTC7 would collapse from structural damage and fire?

FDNY did NOT say WTC7 would collapse, Chiefs Fellini and Hayden did not know for sure. Chief Norman did not think WTC7 would collapse.

 

[pomeroo]

My point is just that WTC7 looks like a normal building implosion.

No.
He did not recognize the Towers as CD's because they were top down explosions.
This had never been done before.
WTC7 was an easily recognizable bottom up implosion.

Yes, it is true that anyone who imagines that the Twin Towers were destroyed by a top-down explosion, and not a plane crash, is a complete fool. And it is true that it has never been done.

WTC 7 cannot possibly be "an easily recognizable bottom up implosion," however, because demolition professionals don't recognize it as such. Now, you know absolutely nothing about demolition. What makes you right and people much smarter and more knowledgeable than you wrong? What is the source of your knowledge?