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

[beachnut]

So you are suggesting that a ground floor core removal would necessarily send this blast wave through the whole 47-story WTC7?

MM

You have no idea about how WTC7 was built! Zip.

 

[einsteen]

If what I am saying is nonsense- then you're claiming that Christopher7 is wrong: CD implosions are not difficult.

Clearly, you're wrong- and Jowenko does not have the skill set necessary to be an "expert" in this field.

No, Jowenko- based on his experience- could not implode a building like WTC 7. His knowledge of the techniques, required work, and characteristics is hardly better than that of a layman.

If he's the best you got because you don't have buildings like WTC 7- then the best you got ain't good enough.

Try asking some experts that actually do the kind of work you're claiming happened and guess what you'll find...

You make a very easy question very difficult. But your conclusion is

1) Jowenko knows barely more than a lay man
2) Jowenko couldn't implode wtc7 because it is too tall for him
3) Random impact debris and fire have more experience than a CD professional, they know how to initiate a symmetrical collapse.

Totovader, since you are a supporter of the official theory you have to admit that imploding wtc7 is only a matter of simultaneously blowing up columns. If a key column leads to a progressive failure resulting in the simultaneous failure of all those columns then precisely timed explosions on one level are sufficient. Why couldn't Jowenko do that ? You don't give a proper answer.

 

[CHF]

Can you admit that the implosion of WTC7 looks like a CD?

So that's it, Chris? All this "research" and all you've got is that WTC7 looked like a demolition?

I've seen building fires that look exactly like buildings that were deliberately burned down. So by your retarded logic, every building fire was the result of arson.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how the FDNY knew WTC7 would collapse. Care to take a shot at it without accusing the firefighters of participating in a coverup? No other twoofer has been able to thus far.

And please, Chris - stop making references to Danny Jowenko's expertise when you disagree with him 67% of the time!

 

[Myriad]

So you are suggesting that a ground floor core removal would necessarily send this blast wave through the whole 47-story WTC7?

What I stated is pretty clear in my post. Here it is again, with the part you appear to have missed emphasized.

The collapse of WTC7 does not look like a CD.

What makes it not look like a CD is the glass. No CD is performed with window glass still in place.

That's because the blast wave from CD charges would shatter the glass and propel fragments at high velocities, causing injury and damage throughout a radius of a mile or more. A typical one psi peak blast overpressure acting on a 1m by 3m window would be the equivalent of throwing a two-ton load of bricks at the window (from the inside, of course) at the speed of sound.

Even if people and video cameras were out of harm's way at the time, every facing window near street level (or at whatever floor level you think the CD charges would have gone off) with line of sight to the WTC would have been shattered (not just the ones within range to be struck by falling debris), and every newspaper would have printed photographs of shotgun-like glass shard damage to street signs, mailboxes, cars, awnings, and any other penetrable barrier for blocks along Greenwich Street, Barclay Street, and West Broadway. Instead, we see only damage consistent with falling debris.

Since we don't see glass breaking until the collapse is already underway (and there's no evidence of such glass breakage even if it occurred out of immediate sight), it doesn't look like a CD.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Miragememories]

I've seen building fires that look exactly like buildings that were deliberately burned down. So by your retarded logic, every building fire was the result of arson.

Yet another close minded refusal to answer the question.

Your building fire makes absolutely no comparable sense CHF.

MM

 

[Christopher7]

The collapse of WTC7 does not look like a CD.

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

What makes it not look like a CD is the glass. No CD is performed with window glass still in place. That's because the blast wave from CD charges would shatter the glass and propel fragments at high velocities, causing injury and damage throughout a radius of a mile or more.
A typical one psi peak blast overpressure acting on a 1m by 3m window would be the equivalent of throwing a two-ton load of bricks at the window (from the inside, of course) at the speed of sound.
Even if people and video cameras were out of harm's way at the time, every facing window near street level (or at whatever floor level you think the CD charges would have gone off) with line of sight to the WTC would have been shattered (not just the ones within range to be struck by falling debris), and every newspaper would have printed photographs of shotgun-like glass shard damage to street signs, mailboxes, cars, awnings, and any other penetrable barrier for blocks along Greenwich Street, Barclay Street, and West Broadway. Instead, we see only damage consistent with falling debris.
Since we don't see glass breaking until the collapse is already underway (and there's no evidence of such glass breakage even if it occurred out of immediate sight), it doesn't look like a CD.
Respectfully,
Myriad

Actually, we don't see the collapse until it's under way in the only street view. The critical part just before the main collapse begins and the first part of the collapse is edited out.
You don't know how it was rigged and you can't get around the fact that it imploded.

 

[CHF]

Yet another close minded refusal to answer the question.

Your building fire makes absolutely no comparable sense CHF.

MM

I was using Chris' "logic."

Take up your complaints with him.

 

[CHF]

The collapse of WTC7 does not look like a CD.

What makes it not look like a CD is the glass. No CD is performed with window glass still in place.

It looked like a CD in that it collapse from the bottom. After that the similarities end.

 

[CHF]

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

That's pretty rich coming from someone who disagrees with this same demolition company owner more than we debunkers do!

Our view on Jowenko: WTC7 - wrong; WTC1 - right; WTC2 - right

Your view: WTC7 - right; WTC1 - wrong; WTC2 - wrong

Get it?

 

[Miragememories]

Even if people and video cameras were out of harm's way at the time, every facing window near street level (or at whatever floor level you think the CD charges would have gone off) with line of sight to the WTC would have been shattered (not just the ones within range to be struck by falling debris), and every newspaper would have printed photographs of shotgun-like glass shard damage to street signs, mailboxes, cars, awnings, and any other penetrable barrier for blocks along Greenwich Street, Barclay Street, and West Broadway. Instead, we see only damage consistent with falling debris.

What the photographs showed us certainly doesn't negate damage from bursting windows.

Anyone examining the many street level photos taken after the WTC7 collapse would have seen for the most part, extensive, very coarse damage covered in a heavy layer of dust.

Given that level of damage throughout the whole WTC complex, it would be quite surprising to see the more finely-detailed photographic evidence you describe as your imagined expectation.

At least you expressed your own opinion and gave a logical reason for it.

That's certainly a lot better than the cowards who attempted to reply by just changing the subject.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

I was using Chris' "logic."

Take up your complaints with him.

I won't bother going into how ridiculousness it is to compare a building fire to to controlled demolition.

Chris didn't just apply his own opinion.

A big, most significant difference, is that Chris had an expert's opinion in agreement with him.

MM

 

[CHF]

I won't bother going into how ridiculousness it is to compare a building fire to to controlled demolition.

What's so ridiculous? At least arson has some chance of being viewed as an accidental fire: they look and sound exactly the same. On the other hand, the noise made by demolition charges pretty much rules out any chance of it being mistaken for a non-CD collapse.

(Hint: Jowenko viewed a video with the SOUND OFF!)

A big, most significant difference, is that Chris had an expert's opinion in agreement with him.

The problem for Chris is that the rest of the CD industry seems to be stacked against him. Not only that, but Jowenko disagrees with the TM on two of three 9/11 collapses. Sure you want to cite him as your expert?

 

[johnny karate]

I won't bother going into how ridiculousness it is to compare a building fire to to controlled demolition.

That's not what he did. Apparently, you have no idea how analogies work. When someone says "A puppy is a kitten to a dog", they're not comparing dogs to cats, they're comparing the relationship between puppies and dogs to the relationship between kittens and cats.

Chris didn't just apply his own opinion.

A big, most significant difference, is that Chris had an expert's opinion in agreement with him one-third of the time

Bolded words added for clarification.

 

[Myriad]

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

I know that the glass is normally removed, and the reasons why the glass is removed.

Ask some owners of CD companies, if you think they don't also know those things.

Actually, we don't see the collapse until it's under way in the only street view. The critical part just before the main collapse begins and the first part of the collapse is edited out.
You don't know how it was rigged and you can't get around the fact that it imploded.

There is no way it could have been "rigged" that would leave the building usable until the morning of the event, but not produce shockwaves from the detonation charge demolitions.

What the photographs showed us certainly doesn't negate damage from bursting windows.

Anyone examining the many street level photos taken after the WTC7 collapse would have seen for the most part, extensive, very coarse damage covered in a heavy layer of dust.

Given that level of damage throughout the whole WTC complex, it would be quite surprising to see the more finely-detailed photographic evidence you describe as your imagined expectation.

I'm talking about the streets to the north, beyond the radius of damage from falling debris. Dust would not conceal the perforations of penetrable objects (including personal injuries) that sprays of high-velocity thick plate glass shards would have caused.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Totovader]

It's arrogant, unsupported replies like that, which make it pointless attempting to carry on a discussion with you Toto.

MM

What a pathetic cop out- I've been supporting these facts with information regarding Jowenko's experience.

Furthermore, this would only give credence to the argument that you could easily address the questions I've presented to you.

Yet again, you claim to be holier-than-thou but fall quite a bit short.

 

[Totovader]

You make a very easy question very difficult. But your conclusion is

1) Jowenko knows barely more than a lay man

Nope- that's a strawman.

2) Jowenko couldn't implode wtc7 because it is too tall for him

Another strawman.

3) Random impact debris and fire have more experience than a CD professional, they know how to initiate a symmetrical collapse.

And of course this is a strawman.

Pretty sad that you have to make such pathetic attempts to completely change the argument of your opposition, isn't it?

Totovader, since you are a supporter of the official theory you have to admit that imploding wtc7 is only a matter of simultaneously blowing up columns.

Non-sequitur.

If a key column leads to a progressive failure resulting in the simultaneous failure of all those columns then precisely timed explosions on one level are sufficient. Why couldn't Jowenko do that ? You don't give a proper answer.

I have given an answer- you just changed my argument into a strawman because you cannot face the facts: Jowenko does not have the expertise necessary to perform the job you necessarily claim had to have happened.

 

[Totovader]

Do you know what denial is Toto?

I'll give you a clue;

It's not a river in Egypt.

MM

Oh I know, I know!

It's when someone like you is faced with a multitude of contradictions inherent in their own claims, but seeks to avoid questioning or resolving those contradictions for fear that it will destroy their fantasies!

 

[Totovader]

In fact, let's number these so you can much more easily address them and stop dodging questions which are inconvenient to your irrational claims:

1) Is it possible that the collapse of 1 and 2 could be legitimate, but the collapse of WTC7 was a CD? If so, how?

2) Remember- there are no contradictions in reality, so why does your theory have them?

3) Do you care about the contradiction, why or why not? If you do, have you contacted Jowenko?

4) Tell me, what do you think of a person who freely admits that contradictions are present in their claims, but somehow still expects people to take them seriously?

My last post addressed why answering these questions is crucial to your credibility:




ETA: This is the 8th time I've had to post these questions. They are not going to go away simply because you don't like them, MM.

*bump^12


Miragememories, you keep ignoring these questions. Why is that?

We may have an answer:

Yet another close minded refusal to answer the question.

Indeed.

 

[stateofgrace]

And why the great fear from so many members here to admit something so obvious?

I can understand if a professional like Danny Jowenko refused to give an immediate response but he didn't refuse did he?

And years after the fact, after doing his own research, he still gives the same response.

Yet the amateurs here, refuse to admit what is patently obvious.

Whether you agree that it was or not, WTC7 most definitely does look like a CD!

Why such reluctance to make a concession that does not betray your point of view?

MM

But surely the perps who went to all this trouble would they have made sure WTC 7 didn't look like a CD.You said they demolished the towers with such control that they knew WTC 7 would sustain damage. Why not exercise the same control with WTC 7 and disguise it totally?

If as you are suggesting that this all power evil body of conspirators went to all the trouble of planting explosives, disguising it all with damage and fires and in the same process hoping to fool the entire planet, then why did it look like a CD ? Why not disgiuse it to look as though it wasn't a CD?

 

[einsteen]

I have given an answer- you just changed my argument into a strawman because you cannot face the facts: Jowenko does not have the expertise necessary to perform the job you necessarily claim had to have happened.

Because the tallest building he worked on was probably about 16 stories ?

I'm simply asking (and that is really no difficult question) why do you think he is unable to implode a building that has more stories ?