Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Oystein]

One remark about the discussion about "clean" CD and "in its footprint" and the "controlled" in "CD":

It may take a team of a dozend several weeks to wire one of the towers for a really clean CD, but we need not assume that anybody desired a clean CD. All they presumably wanted was for the tower to collapse. No "clean" needed, no "controlled" needed, no "in its footprint" needed. Just blast the thing to smithereens. Obviously, saving lives or adjacent property was not high on the list of priorities of the perps, whoever they may have been.

I could imagine a scenario where Larry calls his insurance, gets their go, says "pull it", and then twenty men with one charge of high explosives each and an axe go into WTC7, avoiding places that are on fire just then, hacking through wall claddings to get to columns, attaching charges, wiring them with some sort of remote controlled igniter, and leaving. Could be done in 40 minutes I am sure.

Even if several of the charges burn in the following hours, if 12 survive in strategic places, that might be well enough to bring the tower down unclean.


(Of course, I can imagine anything I like as long as I want to. Just need to assume the twoofer habit of making things up).

 

[Miragememories]

"I have shown that controlled demolitions are sometimes far from clean.

But they are still controlled demolitions.

The controlled demolition collapse of WTC7 was damn clean, albeit not a 10 of 10.

There was collateral damage, which is to be avoided at all costs in a usual public controlled demolition.

On 9/11, as we all know, WTC7 was not officially sanctioned for a "usual" controlled demolition.

To criticize it for failing to appear exactly as one is truly absurd. Something only an OCT zealot would suggest."

"--but figuratively speaking the 47 story skyscraper fell into it's own footprint and in a nice neat pile."

"It's the CTists who claim that the very precision of the collapse points to CD. The interviewer in the Jowenko interview does exactly this."

Well Glenn, it was by most people's definition, a very precise collapse;

Show me something comparable, proven by more than a weak theory (NIST),
to have been caused by fire alone and we'll have a genuine discussion point.

MM

 

[excaza]

Well Glenn, it was by most people's definition, a very precise collapse;

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/363814c71db3d77a2d.jpg[/qimg]

Show me something comparable, proven by more than a weak theory (NIST),
to have been caused by fire alone and we'll have a genuine discussion point.

MM

What is there to discuss when you won't provide any evidence for CD? What explosives were used? How much explosives were used? Why is there no evidence of any demolition equipment? How were the explosives rigged without anyone noticing? How were they detonated without anyone noticing or being injured by the blasts?

You yammer on about "CD! CD! CD!" yet provide no evidence, no hypothesis, no explanation at all other than "I don't agree with or understand the official reports, so it must have been CD." It's been 9 years, how long do we have to wait?

 

[GlennB]

Show me something comparable, proven by more than a weak theory (NIST), to have been caused by fire alone and we'll have a genuine discussion point.

Ah, the logical fallacy of "Nothing can be believed unless it has a precedent". I forget its proper title. Many steel framed buildings have failed entirely because of fire. None this tall, however.

p.s. your failed CD photos are of RC buildings. That's why they're still hanging together despite lying on their sides.

 

[Disbelief]

What is there to discuss when you won't provide any evidence for CD? What explosives were used? How much explosives were used? Why is there no evidence of any demolition equipment? How were the explosives rigged without anyone noticing?

You've presented absolutely nothing to support CD.

No, he presented a failed CD of a building of different construction than WTC7to prove that WTC7 was a CD that fell in its own footprint.

 

[Miragememories]

Ah, the logical fallacy of "Nothing can be believed unless it has a precedent".

No.

Just proof of existence will suffice.

Based on your logic, Santa Clause, the tooth fairy etc. etc. should be
given credence.

The nice closure-providing theory by the NIST, does not prove that WTC7 was
collapsed by fire.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

No, he presented a failed CD of a building of different construction than WTC7 to prove that WTC7 was a CD that fell in its own footprint.

No.

It was intended to illustrate that controlled demolitions can have all kinds of footprints.

Footprint size, generally reflects the quality of the engineering behind a controlled demolition.

A large footprint does not prove a controlled demolition was not a controlled demolition.

MM

 

[excaza]

No.

It was intended to illustrate that controlled demolitions can have all kinds of footprints.

Footprint size, generally reflects the quality of the engineering behind a controlled demolition.

A large footprint does not prove a controlled demolition was not a controlled demolition.

MM

Just like a small footprint does not prove a controlled demolition. So why do you keep insisting it does? Is it really the only 'evidence' you have?

 

[Disbelief]

No.

It was intended to illustrate that controlled demolitions can have all kinds of footprints.

Then why show a failed CD?

Footprint size, generally reflects the quality of the engineering behind a controlled demolition.

Not necessarily, since it could also mean that the wrong amount of explosives were installed or incorrect prepwork was done.

A large footprint does not prove a controlled demolition was not a controlled demolition.

MM

As excaza said, then a small footprint does not prove a CD was not a CD either.

So, if you can not tell by the footprint - whether large or small - if it was a CD or not, why do you insist on it as one of the TM's talking points? Can we not just discard the footprint as evidence for anything?

 

[GlennB]

No.

Just proof of existence will suffice.

Well then, many steel-framed buildings have collapsed from fire even when those fires were actively fought. If you want to debate that fact you'll just end up looking silly.

WTC7 was well past the fire-rating of its steel and fireproofing. Given what fire-rating is designed for, why would anybody be surprised that it fell?

Hmm?

 

[Miragememories]

Well then, many steel-framed buildings have collapsed from fire even when those fires were actively fought. If you want to debate that fact you'll just end up looking silly.

Your talk is cheap.

Show me a concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire.

It is called put up or shut up.

MM

 

[BigAl]

Your talk is cheap.

Show me a concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire.

It's irrelevant for the purposes of understanding how WTC1/2/7 collapsed.

 

[TruthersLie]

No.

It was intended to illustrate that controlled demolitions can have all kinds of footprints.

Footprint size, generally reflects the quality of the engineering behind a controlled demolition.

A large footprint does not prove a controlled demolition was not a controlled demolition.

MM

YOu keep using that word (footprint). It does not mean what you think it means. YOu might want to look up what an architectural footprint means.

Thanks.

 

[TruthersLie]

Your talk is cheap.

Show me a concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire.

It is called put up or shut up.

MM

strawman that you have been called on repeatedly, yet you keep on spewing it.

Neither the towers, nor wtc7 was a "concrete and steel building" except that the steel FRAMED building had concrete floorplans. The concrete played almost NO role in the structural integrity.

And you know it.

Please stop with the ******** strawman.

 

[Bell]

Your talk is cheap.

Show me a concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire.

It is called put up or shut up.

MM

Why would this be of any importance?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Your talk is cheap.

Show me a concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire.

It is called put up or shut up.

MM

Fires do do damage to concrete & steel. Being a firefighter & knowing what fire is capable of, really puts your arguements to rest that fire can cause collapses in buildings.

Read about Fire Science & tell me that you understand it.

 

[Miragememories]

"It was intended to illustrate that controlled demolitions can have all kinds of footprints."

"Then why show a failed CD?"

Because OCTers make such a big issue of how the WTC7 collapse could not be a controlled demolition because they feel its footprint was too large.
Whether successful or not, and whether its footprint is big or small, a controlled demolition is still a controlled demolition.

"Footprint size, generally reflects the quality of the engineering behind a controlled demolition."

"Not necessarily, since it could also mean that the wrong amount of explosives were installed or incorrect prepwork was done."

How does "the wrong amount of explosives were installed or incorrect prepwork was done." not reflect on the quality of engineering behind a controlled demolition?

"As excaza said, then a small footprint does not prove a CD was not a CD either"

I never said that it did.

All total building collapses leave a footprint.

Well engineered controlled demolitions leave small footprints.

"So, if you can not tell by the footprint - whether large or small - if it was a CD or not, why do you insist on it as one of the TM's talking points? Can we not just discard the footprint as evidence for anything?"

A small footprint is very suggestive of an unnatural collapse.

A controlled demolition is an unnatural collapse.

Given the 47-story original size of WTC7 and its relatively small collapse footprint, it is a legitimate talking point.


MM

 

[excaza]

Given the 47-story original size of WTC7 and its relatively small collapse footprint, it is a legitimate talking point.

Sure, until you get into the whole needing evidence thing and how there isn't any. You've had 9 years, shouldn't you have found something worth publishing by now? Not even a coherent hypothesis?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Bolding's mine:

Because OCTers make such a big issue of how the WTC7 collapse could not be a controlled demolition because they feel its footprint was too large.
Whether successful or not, and whether its footprint is big or small, a controlled demolition is still a controlled demolition.

One problem with your arguement pal. Where is the sounds of a CD on the original videos shot by numerous News people & amatuer filmers? Don't say "they cut out the sound" because that's a lie. So, where did the sound of a CD go?"

How does "the wrong amount of explosives were installed or incorrect prepwork was done." not reflect on the quality of engineering behind a controlled demolition?

Because it didn't look like or sound like a CD. Are you related to Richard Gage BTW?

I never said that it did.

All total building collapses leave a footprint.

Sure, Bigfoot caused the collapse.

Well engineered controlled demolitions leave small footprints.

That would be the Ewoks, they have small feet.

A small footprint is very suggestive of an unnatural collapse.

A controlled demolition is an unnatural collapse.

Nothings "unnatural" in a collapse, it's only naturally done with natural c-4 explosives made from mother earth.

Given the 47-story original size of WTC7 and its relatively small collapse footprint, it is a legitimate talking point.

So you're saying that a team of Ewoks went into the building, rigged it with thermal detenator charges & waltzed right out without being seen?


MM

 

[Miragememories]

"Show me a concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire."

It's irrelevant for the purposes of understanding how WTC7 collapsed.

It is totally relevant to this WTC7 thread.

The Official Theory claims fire caused the total collapse of a concrete and steel building, WTC7.

I'm requesting proof, and not a theoretical one, of another concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire.

It is the kind of proof OCTers are always demanding from the 9/11 Truth Movement.

MM