Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[beachnut]

...
Maybe instead of claiming they are frauds, liars and idiots you could get an article published in a peer reviewed journal somewhere that proves they are frauds, liars and idiots? Yes? Maybe? Good luck with that.

As usual your failed movement is missing the big clue on this topic. WTC towers fell on 911 and they prove Heiwa is wrong, a fraud, and not capable of understanding large structures due to his shallow experience based on marine safety.

Case was closed on this failed concept on 911 and before if you had any experience or knowledge in engineering. Got some engineering skills? A degree? Anything besides your some hearsay, failed ideas and moronic conclusions on 911? When Heiwa states this failed concept he proves he is a fraud; now you have to step up and present some engineering concepts to show us why we are wrong and you can't do anything but post talk and whine about why you have to engineering when you can't even understand any of the concepts needed to understand why Heiwa is wrong.

 

[SteveAustin]

Steve:


So I did a typo, so shoot me. What I meant were that only a couple of demolition guys, who when shown the collapse of the twin towers, thought it looked like a controlled demolition. And they changed their minds later. Every other demolition expert thought the idea was insane.

Who is "every other demolition expert"? Is that another like finewines statement of "every single demolition expert in the world" type thing? Because you need to source your claims, and no I do not need to prove you wrong when you have not even proven you are right.

And mmm, you sure they changed their minds? I mean lol...

"Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.

Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.

Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.

Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --

Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."

Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.

Danny Jowenko: Exactly . http://www.pumpitout.com "

 

[BigAl]

Here's one who doesn't reject the controlled demolition certainty and coincidentally hhe also explains why demolitions experts especially in America do not speak out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4

There were no explosions consistent with man-made demolition at WTC for WTC7 of any other building.

Jowenko wasn't an eyewitness to WTC. Nobody that was an eyewitness agrees with him.

 

[deep]

Actually, you're the one making the claim. We all saw and know what happened. You're claiming something else did, without a shred of evidence. But, hey, don't let that worry you.

Hmm, nope, I'm not making any claims. Please quote whatever it is you're referring to.

 

[twinstead]

What does Jowenko think about the WTC 1 and 2?

 

[SteveAustin]

As usual your failed movement is missing the big clue on this topic. WTC towers fell on 911 and they prove Heiwa is wrong, a fraud, and not capable of understanding large structures due to his shallow experience based on marine safety.

Case was closed on this failed concept on 911 and before if you had any experience or knowledge in engineering. Got some engineering skills? A degree? Anything besides your some hearsay, failed ideas and moronic conclusions on 911? When Heiwa states this failed concept he proves he is a fraud; now you have to step up and present some engineering concepts to show us why we are wrong and you can't do anything but post talk and whine about why you have to engineering when you can't even understand any of the concepts needed to understand why Heiwa is wrong.

You are really starting to sound desperate, especially when your entire post is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, well and the usual insult at every opportunity.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I would love to, so how about you come over to a neutral discussion forum (or blog in this case) over at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=1#comments and join the debate there, you should of course read all 3200+ posts before posting there so that no one needs to repeat themselves. I have asked all of you to step outside of JREF before but have yet to have anyone brave enough to do so.

Or if you don't like the BBC blog page then how about coming over to http://truthaction.org/forum/index.php and discussing this there. Granted it's not a neutral place but the mods will allow any civil discussion in the proper forums.

Discussing anything on JREF leads nowhere because all you get is hate, vitriol and insults thrown at you 9 posts out of 10. So come on over to a pleasant forum where a real discussion can take place without all the interference from irrelevant nonsense.

Or alternatively if you don't feel comfortable with maintaining your argument here out of fear of getting hammered with insults you can supply any links you have via the private messaging system. All I'm requesting is links to the sources you used to derive your position, not for you to repeat verbatim whatever argument it is you hold. If I know what points you're considering factual then I'll either agree with them on the basis that they follow common architectural principals or I'll disagree and link you to/cite sources which specialize in talking about the relevant material. your choice but if you're entering this discussion by saying that the "OCT is extravagantly flawed" then I would usually expect you to either elaborate or link to posts you've made in the past that elaborated on your points.

 

[twinstead]

So what is it Steve? Is Jowenko wrong about WTC7 or wrong about WTC1 and 2?

 

[SteveAustin]

Oh. I get it. Steve's hung up on semantics, the last refuge of one who doesn't have a valid argument. It of course is FineWine's fault, because he said EVERY, which of course is a mistake because now no matter how much evidence Steve is given, no matter how many experts in CD think his delightful little movement is a bunch of morons, it won't be EVERY CD expert, so he can ignore it.

Nice debate mojo, Steve.

I'd be happy if he could show "many" have come forward to support the Official Conspiracy Theory, but nice try at discrediting me by your little rant there, nice try to make me look like what exactly?

Exactly how many have come forward to endorse the Official Conspiracy Theory twinstead?

finewine's use of the words "every demolition expert in the world" was not a mistake of semantics, it was intentional, and it's a simple disinfo trick that if you repeat something like this often enough people will end up believing it.

Regardless, he backtracked from his "every" to "many" but still has not bothered to back up his claim of "many" with any evidence.

Can you supply that evidence for him?

 

[beachnut]

You are really starting to sound desperate, especially when your entire post is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, well and the usual insult at every opportunity.

You are in a thread about engineering and you are talking about other topics. Present your engineering work to support the moronic failed ideas of Heiwa. You are also making a big mistake supporting Jowenko failed ideas on WTC7 as he support the WTC towers were a gravity collapse. So you have failed to support your moronic conclusion on the WTC towers by supporting Jowenko's failed ideas on WTC7. Do you try to use some logic as you are now stuck with a 1/3 wrong, or 2/3 right expert? Seems you lack the engineering skills to pick the right expert! You support the pizza box engineering of Heiwa and the 2/3 right CD expert Jowenko.

But you personally have zero engineering skills so how can you make a rational decision on the delusions of Heiwa? You have only posted some talk and no engineering support in the thread as you post off topic tripe.

 

[SteveAustin]

Or alternatively if you don't feel comfortable with maintaining your argument here out of fear of getting hammered with insults you can supply any links you have via the private messaging system. All I'm requesting is links to the sources you used to derive your position, not for you to repeat verbatim whatever argument it is you hold. If I know what points you're considering factual then I'll either agree with them on the basis that they follow common architectural principals or I'll disagree and link you to/cite sources which specialize in talking about the relevant material. your choice but if you're entering this discussion by saying that the "OCT is extravagantly flawed" then I would usually expect you to either elaborate or link to posts you've made in the past that elaborated on your points.

Go read that BBC blog (the 3200+ post one I just linked above). I did not enter that blog till about post 750 but if you want to see some of my arguments and some of my links they are all listed there. This is of course only a small portion of it but I think there is enough of it there for you to get a good general picture, especially with the copious links throughout.

There's no reason why I should have to relink every link and every report and and every source simply because you want me to. Check out the BBC blog, spend some time reading the arguments and checking the links (some of which I'm sure you are already familiar with), and then reply on the BBC blog.

 

[SteveAustin]

You are in a thread about engineering and you are talking about other topics. Present your engineering work to support the moronic failed ideas of Heiwa. You are also making a big mistake supporting Jowenko failed ideas on WTC7 as he support the WTC towers were a gravity collapse. So you have failed to support your moronic conclusion on the WTC towers by supporting Jowenko's failed ideas on WTC7. Do you try to use some logic as you are now stuck with a 1/3 wrong, or 2/3 right expert? Seems you lack the engineering skills to pick the right expert! You support the pizza box engineering of Heiwa and the 2/3 right CD expert Jowenko.

But you personally have zero engineering skills so how can you make a rational decision on the delusions of Heiwa? You have only posted some talk and no engineering support in the thread as you post off topic tripe.

ROFL, so because I posted a phone interview of Jowenko that shows that he did not retract his initial statement that it was a controlled demolition I have to automatically agree with every single thing he says?

Lurkers take note of that tactic, as it is often used on these forums. Every single post you make, and every single word you type is misinterpreted and turned around any which way they can in order to try and discredit the arguer instead of sticking to the arguments.

Also note the "beachnut mantra", which is the repeated use of insults, repeated so often it makes his sentences seem really disjointed.

 

[aggle-rithm]

No, it doesn't. The absence of voiced disagreement (or voiced agreement) means that we don't know what they think.

That makes sense. Since we don't know what the controlled demolition professionals think, then it's perfectly logical that they are aware that 9/11 was an inside job, and just don't feel like saying anything.

I mean, if they don't SPECIFICALLY say otherwise, then it's not only logical for a building to be demolished using magical explosives that make no sound, can be deployed in a busy office building without anyone knowing, and leave absolutely no trace in the aftermath, it's MOST LIKELY that this is what happened!

Suddenly it's all clear! Their silence speaks volumes! By not saying anything at all, they are really shouting "YES! WE BELIEVE IN BAT-CRAP CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT MAKE NO SENSE!!! JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR ANYONE IN OUR FIELD TO DO IT, DOESN'T MEAN THERE AREN'T SOOPER-SECRET GOVERNMENT CIA TYPES THAT HAVE SOOPER-DOOPER HI-TECH CAPABILITIES THAT NO ONE EVER HEARD OF!! YES-SIR-REE BOB!!!"

 

[deep]

Since we don't know what the controlled demolition professionals think, then it's perfectly logical that they are aware that 9/11 was an inside job, and just don't feel like saying anything.

The absence of voiced disagreement (or voiced agreement) means that we don't know what they think.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The absence of voiced disagreement (or voiced agreement) means that we don't know what they think.

And the fact that you're arguing semantics means that you've got nothing and you're just stalling for time until someone comes along who has something.

FYI, you're going to be waiting a very, very long time.

 

[aggle-rithm]

ROFL, so because I posted a phone interview of Jowenko that shows that he did not retract his initial statement that it was a controlled demolition I have to automatically agree with every single thing he says?

Lurkers take note of that tactic, as it is often used on these forums. Every single post you make, and every single word you type is misinterpreted and turned around any which way they can in order to try and discredit the arguer instead of sticking to the arguments.

Also note the "beachnut mantra", which is the repeated use of insults, repeated so often it makes his sentences seem really disjointed.

Way to bail out Heiwa! Did he ask for your help, or was your Spidey sense tingling?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

There's no reason why I should have to relink every link and every report and and every source simply because you want me to.

I was never asking you to provide them all... only what you thought brought up the most significant points. I don't have any particular expectations other than if you're entering this thread and you say something is wrong, then give me two examples, and one or two links that talk substantiate it. I've had a look at some of your older responses but there's not much new to them. The impression I got was that you lack a fundamental appreciation for how buildings are designed, and it got reflected in the posts you made.

this:

Were the fires hot enough to melt steel, all the steel in the towers? Or even just the steel in the area of the fires?

Old... look up visceoelastic creep.

How did the towers collapse symmetrically and not topple over on the side of the damage?

If you read any publication concerning column design you'd quickly find out how dumb this claim is...

and freefall with sudden onset:

What happened is the plane impacted and then for the next hour (give or take) the towers stood then suddenly at the rate of free fall the towers quite suddenly came down.

Old again... but an hour to an hour and a half of deteriorating integrity ain't sudden... Components failed and the structures continued standing because there was some margin left for remaining components to carry the loads. Then one final piece snapped and then there was no margin left. Thing have a breaking point.


and this:

(if you look at the videos what actually happens is not that the towers collapse but that each floor, one by one turns to dust, so there is nothing falling on the floor below it)

where I'm seeing you mirror bill smith's claim that the entire top section got pulverized to fine dust, which incidentally I recall you having done in the past on this forum.

Then nevermind providing links... your demonstration on the blog told me everything I needed to know. Thanks for for pointing it out though for future reference. If you have any questions concerning these you're more than free to do so. I won't mind thoughtfully pointing out your errors, so long as you're interested in taking the time to listen and then read any literature I recommend to you in the process.

 

[GlennB]

"Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

I always wondered why Jowenko himself picked up the phone. Does he have no secretary? Was it his home number? Is the identity of the recipient of the call verified or verifiable in any way?

 

[twinstead]

I'd be happy if he could show "many" have come forward to support the Official Conspiracy Theory, but nice try at discrediting me by your little rant there, nice try to make me look like what exactly?

Exactly how many have come forward to endorse the Official Conspiracy Theory twinstead?

finewine's use of the words "every demolition expert in the world" was not a mistake of semantics, it was intentional, and it's a simple disinfo trick that if you repeat something like this often enough people will end up believing it.

Regardless, he backtracked from his "every" to "many" but still has not bothered to back up his claim of "many" with any evidence.

Can you supply that evidence for him?

How about you call all the CD companies you can find and ask them? I believe that if any real CD experts had a problem with the "OCT" they'd be coming out in droves, but that's just me. You can demand they implicitly come out in favor of the "official story" before you believe it all you want.

All you have is Jowenko who has openly said he thinks the WTC7 was CD, but he doesn't even think 1 and 2 were CD. You may think he's wrong about 1 and 2, but I think he's wrong about 7. Implosionworld has thrown its two cents in in my favor. Even that by itself is fine for me. It isn't for you? Tough. The ball's in your court then. Perhaps your delightful little movement can actually get something accomplished and get some people who can actually DO SOMETHING about things.

Jesus. If the "official story" was as full of holes as you folks claim it is, and the science is SO good that the collapse as described was impossible, you should have real experts, main-stream media, and law enforcement people coming out of the woodwork supporting you.

Until then you can gesticulate wildly as much as you want.

 

[deep]

How about you call all the CD companies you can find and ask them?

Because it's not his responsibility to provide evidence for other people's arguments.