Totovader
Game Warden
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 3,321
Why ask a question that has already been answered?
How many times will I need to answer for you to accept the facts?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split Thread WTC7 collapse (again) - split from: How did you rule out that 911 was an insid
- Thread starter Miragememories
- Start date
Why ask a question that has already been answered?
How many times will I need to answer for you to accept the facts?
Ok you said
His knowledge of the techniques, required work, and characteristics is hardly better than that of a layman.
But that is, as you understand, absolutely unfounded. First of all you don't know his knowledge and techniques (if you look at http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,6,2 then high structures is mentioned, what is 'high'?) What makes him different other than the fact that his company is located at the other side of the ocean and the buildings here are small ? If the official collapse theory is true and we use the principle of causality then it is easy to derive from that that he would be able to do it. But I understand your position now. I can also imagine a little bit where you want to go to, because from experience with very high buildings we know that extreme explosions and flashes are visible on all levels and it is a big job to do it. But not for wtc7 where the thread is about, for that building a single level blast is sufficient. I still don't understand it after a year, but I'm a very slow learner.
Last edited:
ref
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,685
I wonder the same thing. Why make it such a demolition looking demolition?! Stupid NWO once again. (Eventhough it doesn't look like a demolition)
Last edited:
Let's cut the crap.
The freaking building was on fire.
The FDNY knew it was going to collapse
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc
Because they knew and saw it was greatly damaged
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage
and in flames
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf
Now it doesn't freaking matter what laypeople think it looks like, because no matter how many times you repeat to yourself that it looks like a CD, it's not.
end of story.
The freaking building was on fire.
The FDNY knew it was going to collapse
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofthewithdrawalfromwtc
Because they knew and saw it was greatly damaged
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/accountsofwtc7damage
and in flames
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf
Now it doesn't freaking matter what laypeople think it looks like, because no matter how many times you repeat to yourself that it looks like a CD, it's not.
end of story.
Last edited:
Miragememories
Banned
I only have so much patience with your childish behavior Toto.
You've received excellent answers.
MM
Then you must agree that structural damage to specific areas could have taken it down as well.
Not to mention that all the freaking evidence points to structural damage and fires.
Miragememories
Banned
You raise a good point here stateofgrace and I'm not reluctant to admit it.
I'm not going to look up my post for my exact wording but the essence of what I said was they planned for WTC7 to be within the collapsing WTC 1 debris fall.
I believe that WTC7 was indeed a controlled demolition but I can only speculate about why they did it and as you alude to, why didn't they do it differently.
The best answer I've heard proposed, is that it was a major screwup.
The scenario has it that the collapse of WTC7 was planned to occur under the debris cloud from the falling WTC1 and be blamed on the WTC1 collapse.
Hidden by that massive debris cloud, a CD of WTC7 would be well masked while guaranteeing the total destruction of WTC7 and it's contents..unlike a topple which would produce far less predictable results.
Something went wrong and they failed to trigger the demolition in time with the WTC1 collapse.
That obviously presented two problems.
They had to finish the job (CD WTC7) and they had to have some kind of explanation to account for it's collapse.
Once they corrected the problem with the CD, they allowed time for the debris damage and fires to build a case for the re-planned collapse.
MM
Wow, you're willing to contort your mind in unimaginable idiotic positions to accept the most absurd theories in order to deny what really happened.
The CTist mind is an amazing thing.
The CTist mind is an amazing thing.
Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Lisa Simpson
Last edited by a moderator:
And of course the damage to WTC 7 somehow didn't trigger the explosives in the building, and as the building kept burning for hours, the explosives this way remained intact until "they" could re-establish their connection with the CD sequence.
Makes perfect sense...
What the **** does that mean, care to address my point pea-brain?
Stop using insults to argue your point. Any further attacks will result in a suspension.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: Lisa Simpson
Last edited by a moderator:
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
MM, you acknowledge that WTC7 was on fire and received damage due to falling debris. You have seen the testimonies of numerous firefighters and other first responders who say that this fire and damage was sufficient to cause the collapse.
Based on this, I would like you to give an honest answer to the following question:
Is it possible that WTC7 actually did collapse due to fire and damage, without the need for CD?
Miragememories
Banned
Controlled demolition is structural damage engineered in specific areas.
You and others would prefer to believe that on 9/11, for the first time in history, what happened to WTC7, a total, rapid, symmetrical collapse of a modern 47 story concrete & steel office building, occurred due to a "fluke of nature".
Not only that, in spite of FEMA's statements, NIST's 6+ years of delays, and many professional opinions to the contrary, you feel disagreement with your "fluke of nature" belief is, to paraphrase your many remarks; "insane, crap, a lay person's belief, not a CD, end of story."
MM
Miragememories
Banned
And of course the damage to WTC 7 somehow didn't trigger the explosives in the building, and as the building kept burning for hours, the explosives this way remained intact until "they" could re-establish their connection with the CD sequence.
Makes perfect sense...
There is no proof that fires existed in the structural locations that the controlled demolition needed to occur.
MM
And you're contending the first ever secretive controlled demolition of a working office building who was on fire for hours before the CD initiation sequence was triggered. Not to mention the first ever silent CD.
Freak accidents can happen, science-fiction fantasy conspiracies don't happen in real life.
FEMA didn't study the collapse in detail. They said "imploded" as a figure of speech.
So? You better be ready when it comes out, the longer we wait the more thorough it'll be. It's going to be a good read.
One, and he wasn't shown and told everything (like the fact that it was damaged and on fire for hours.).
Last edited:
And what locations would those be?
I said silent meathead.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
I don't think "fluke of nature" is an appropriate term. There was nothing "natural" about what occurred on 9/11. You may have remembered hearing about those massive terrorist attacks that took place that led to the collapse of WTC7.
First of all, as Pardalis already pointed out, you have one professional opinion: Jowenko's. No other CD professional on the planet supports your theory. All others that have offered one actually contradict your theory.
Furthermore, comments of "insane" and "crap" are not born of disagreement, but rather of a complete and total lack of evidence presented by CTers. And until your side presents such evidence, those comments will continue.
Care to address the video of the building on fire, and the firemen testimonies?
Reality isn't going away anytime soon.
Last edited: