Christopher 7 --- C7 & C4

[BeAChooser]

A through analysis of the physical evidence is by far the best way to conclusively determine what caused WTC 7 to collapse.

That's quite a change from your statement that "It took about 5 seconds for me to recognize that WTC7 was a controlled
demolition. It's a no brainer." Don't you think? Or are you claiming you conducted a "thorough" analysis in those 5 seconds? ROTFLOL!

BAC - "In response, you posted a couple videos of the WTC7 collapse (which, by the way, do not show the entire collapse sequence) and implied they showed something significant."

Look again, they do.

You must be claiming they show something significant (an opinion that real experts apparently don't agree with) since they clearly do NOT show the entire collapse sequence. They completely ignore the collapse of the east penthouse mechanical room that occurred about 7 seconds before the collapse they do show. But I guess they and you don't think that was "significant". Right?

That is all the owner of a demolition company, Danny Jowenko, needed to say that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD.

Mr Jowenko also said that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were "absolutely" NOT CDs.

And, by the way, shouldn't you mention to our readers that Mr Jowenko drew his conclusion about WTC7 after being shown ONLY the brief video clip that you posted ... the one which didn't show the east penthouse collapse? He may be a CD expert, but in reality he was led around by the nose ... by a *truth* movement member who not only fed him incomplete information but actually lied to him when he told him there was little damage and only a few small fires in the building. The truth is that Jowenko voiced his opinion without being told the building had been on fire for hours and hours ... without being told that firemen had stated hours prior to the collapse that the structure was heavily damaged, leaning and going to collapse. But then I guess you and that *truth* movement interviewer don't think that information was "significant". (sarcasm)

Anyone who says that WTC 7 does not look like a CD after a CD expert has said it is "absolutely" a CD, is lying.

And that would include all the other CD experts in the world? You are saying they are all liars? But I thought you just got done telling us in another thread that the side with the most *eyewitnesses* is the side with truth on their side. ROTFLOL!

Jowenko was told that WTC 7 collapsed several days after 911 so he gave an honest, unbiased opinion.

Actually, at the time Jowenko first expressed his opinion, the interviewer had failed to tell him that what he was looking at was an event that took place on 9/11 at the WTC site. Looks to me like Jowenko was led by the nose to his conclusion.

BY outing Valery Plame and ending her career,

First, must we *indignantly* remind you that this thread is about the collapse of WTC 7, not spurious allegations by democRATS about misconduct by members of the Bush administration? And second, apparently you are unaware that the "administration" did NOT out Valery Plame. Novak's primary source of information about Plame was not Scooter or Rove but former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage who admitted to being the source last year. And apparently he was unaware of Plame's undercover status when he spoke to Novak. Furthermore, you may be unaware that Fitzgerald knew Armitage was the source and still went ahead with his witch hunt and never once corrected the liberal press in its false assertions about Rove and Libby. But then I'm sure you really want to get back to talking about WTC 7. ROTFLOL!

He did not recognize the Trade Towers as CD's for the reason he gave.

But what about you? Do you agree with Jowenko that they weren't CDs?

BAC - "Jowenko speculated that the WTC7 demolition was not a pre-planned event but instead something Silverstein decided to do on the spur of the moment because the building was so damaged from the debris and fires. Do you believe that?"

No

Well, why not? I thought you thought Jowenko was an *expert*?

There was NO debris damage to the area of the initiating event.

How about fire damage?

There was not enough time on 911 to get everything and everyone needed to the site and rig WTC 7 for demolition. WTC 7 was rigged before 911.

But your CD *expert*, Mr Jowenko, clearly concluded there was enough time. A large portion of his interview video was, in fact, spent estimating the size of the crew and the amount of time it would have taken. So now you are telling us that he wasn't much of a CD expert afterall? But you are? ROTFLOL!

As you said, Jowenko was speculating.
Now you are asking me to speculate on 'why'.

ROTFLOL! Ok, since you apparently don't want to offer us a rational and self consistent reason why they would have deliberately demolished WTC 7 (presumably under the guise of a terrorist attack involving hijacked aircraft impacting WTC 1 and WTC 2), then let's just discuss the 'how'.

How did the demolition crew rig the building before the attack without anyone being the wiser? Demolition companies have stated it is highly unlikely they could have done that.

With that demolition experience you used to rule out a post-attack rigging of the structure, can you give us a brief estimate of how many people would have been involved in the rigging and how long it would have taken?

And wouldn't it have been a tremendous risk to wait 7 hours after the tower collapse with fires raging in the building before detonating the building? Afterall, couldn't those the fires damage the explosives or detonation devices?

And what about the risk of one or more firefighters discovering the demolition devices during their time searching the building for survivors? Or are you claiming that ALL the fireman at the site were part of the conspiracy?

And I have one more question. It seems like the perps were leaving a lot to chance in hoping that debris from the WTC towers would hit WTC 7 and cause enough damage and fires to explain away the collapse. What if that hadn't happened? What would the perps have done then? Just blow the building anyway ... which then definitely would have exposed the whole conspiracy?

You are asking me to speculate on every aspect of the collapse so you can talk it to death.

Hardly. I'm asking reasonable questions that I bet you are going to have a great deal of trouble answering.

So you think the beams in post #141 just broke off without bending or buckling?

I'm saying you don't even know what you are looking at. By the way, are you claiming that any broken beam that didn't bend or buckle must have been severed with a demolition device?

"I see that you previously stated that "It took about 5 seconds for me to recognize that WTC7 was a controlled
demolition. It's a no brainer." Well tell us exactly why we should believe you rather than the many other REAL experts out there who say different?"

Name one who says WTC 7 does not look like a CD.
Name one who says WTC 7 was definitely not a CD.

You are kidding, right?

Let's see ... the Senior Editor of Implosionworld.com (Brent Blanchard) said "Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse. As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless ... we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming ... but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to that building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

Oh that's right. You think he's a liar. And all the rest of the folks at Protec.

I thought that they collapsed under the weight of the upper stories until i started investigating and found out that the core framing was massive and essentially hollow.

So you consider yourself a structural engineering expert too? ROTFLOL!

The NIST report does not say what caused the bottom 70 floors of the WTC 2 framework to collapse.

And your theory is bombs? ROTFLOL!

 

[Christopher7]

You must be claiming they show something significant (an opinion that real experts apparently don't agree with)

Jowenko is a real, impartial expert.

since they clearly do NOT show the entire collapse sequence. They completely ignore the collapse of the east penthouse mechanical room that occurred about 7 seconds before the collapse they do show. But I guess they and you don't think that was "significant". Right?

It is not necessary to see the east penthouse fall to know that WTC 7 was a CD.

Mr Jowenko also said that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were "absolutely" NOT CDs.

Source?

And, by the way, shouldn't you mention to our readers that Mr Jowenko drew his conclusion about WTC7 after being shown ONLY the brief video clip that you posted ... the one which didn't show the east penthouse collapse?

SFW?
Just like me, and anyone not in denial, he recognized WTC 7 was a CD without seeing the penthouse fall.
Later in the interview, you can hear Dan Rather and that clip shows the penthouse falling. He did see the clips with the penthouse falling.
He remained adamant that WTC 7 was a CD.

He may be a CD expert, but in reality he was led around by the nose ... by a *truth* movement member who not only fed him incomplete information but actually lied to him when he told him there was little damage and only a few small fires in the building. The truth is that Jowenko voiced his opinion without being told the building had been on fire for hours and hours ... without being told that firemen had stated hours prior to the collapse that the structure was heavily damaged, leaning and going to collapse. But then I guess you and that *truth* movement interviewer don't think that information was "significant". (sarcasm)

What the Fire Chiefs thought is not significant.

A structural engineer thought the Meridian Plaza might fall.

It did not.

Three Fire Chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to fall, one Fire Chief did not.

They did not consult a structural engineer.

They had just seen the Trade Towers fall.

They had just lost hundreds of firefighters.

Their belief that WTC 7 was going to fall because of DD/F does NOT mean that's what caused the collapse.


No one lied to him except the person who told him that WTC 7 collapsed several days after 9/11.

In a phone call a couple months later, he reaffirmed that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD.

 

[BeAChooser]

Jowenko is a real, impartial expert.

If you say so. What I see is someone who was lied to by the interviewer and who drew a conclusion based on a highly edited version of the facts.

And by the way ... your expert seems to have disappeared. He doesn't seem to want anything more to do with the *truth* movement. Wonder why? Maybe it has something to do with being lied to by the *truther* who interviewed him. Perhaps he's just plain embarrassed to have been so easily fooled by you *truthers*. I bet he got a lot of ribbing from the rest of the demolition community. ROTFLOL!

It is not necessary to see the east penthouse fall to know that WTC 7 was a CD.

In your *expert* opinion? ROTFLOL!

Mr Jowenko also said that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were "absolutely" NOT CDs.

Source?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

He completely debunks the notion that the towers were CDs.

BAC - "And, by the way, shouldn't you mention to our readers that Mr Jowenko drew his conclusion about WTC7 after being shown ONLY the brief video clip that you posted ... the one which didn't show the east penthouse collapse?"

SFW?

SFW? I guess you'll have to provide me with a translation of your comment.

Later in the interview, you can hear Dan Rather and that clip shows the penthouse falling.

Prove that he actually saw it. Dan Rather was heard on lots of clips that did not show the penthouse falling.

What the Fire Chiefs thought is not significant.

Does it get any funnier than this, folks? ROTFLOL!

A structural engineer thought the Meridian Plaza might fall.

It did not.

I noticed that you just ignored my post about the Meridian Plaza fire on that other thread. You know ... the one where the United States Fire Administration explained why it fortunately did not collapse.

Three Fire Chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to fall, one Fire Chief did not.

Your point? That the one Fire Chief was right? ROTFLOL!

Their belief that WTC 7 was going to fall because of DD/F does NOT mean that's what caused the collapse.

Then why wasn't Jowenko told this information ... if it's so insignificant? You and I both know why Jowenko wasn't told what the firefighters on the scene thought and why they thought it.

No one lied to him except the person who told him that WTC 7 collapsed several days after 9/11.

So the interviewer telling Jowenko that there were only a few small fires in WTC 7 wasn't lying to him? You do know what the definition of "lie" is, don't you? ROTFLOL!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Wow, 8 pages and still no proof. Amazing...

 

[JimBenArm]

BeAChooser:
SFW=So F***ing What.

 

[BeAChooser]

SFW=So F***ing What.

Thanks. I feared that was it but I didn't want to just assume Christopher would substitute foul language for sound argument.

 

[JimBenArm]

Thanks. I feared that was it but I didn't want to just assume Christopher would substitute foul language for sound argument.

Oh, of course not!

 

[Christopher7]

If you say so. What I see is someone who was lied to by the interviewer and who drew a conclusion based on a highly edited version of the facts.

False.

He was shown several videos of the collapse. He knew it was a CD after seeing the first one.

The WTC 1 & 2 video was edited.

The WTC 7 videos parts 1, 2 and 3 are the complete interview.

You falsely accuse the producers of the WTC 7 video of lying and fail to notice or note the blatant misrepresentation of the facts by the producers of the WTC 1 & 2 video.

They show the squibs from the LC video and then edit in the statement by Jowenko about "bolts springing loose".

He was NOT referring to the squibs in that remark. He was talking about splices in the core framework failing.

The squibs are obviously not "bolts springing loose".

And by the way ... your expert seems to have disappeared. He doesn't seem to want anything more to do with the *truth* movement.

He reconfirmed his position in a telephone call a couple months later.

In your *expert* opinion?

In Jowenko's expert opinion.

He completely debunks the notion that the towers were CDs.

He did not think WTC 1 & 2 were CD's because they collapsed top down instead of bottom up.

Prove that he actually saw it. Dan Rather was heard on lots of clips that did not show the penthouse falling.

At 1:20 in the first video, you can hear Dan Rather say "...well placed dynamite to knock it down."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

Also in this video at 1:07 he says "I remember that they told me that they've imploded it, it smoked for days.


In the second video at 0:13 you can hear Dan saying "Here we're going to ....."
At 0:32 you can hear him say ".... third time today...."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

Your point? That the one Fire Chief was right?

Wrong.
The point is, not all the Fire Chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to collapse.

Then why wasn't Jowenko told this information ... if it's so insignificant? You and I both know why Jowenko wasn't told what the firefighters on the scene thought and why they thought it.

Did the producers of the WTC 1 & 2 video tell him about the dozens of firefighters who heard explosions?

If you want to get an unbiased opinion, you don't preface the showing of the evidence with things that other people said about it.

So the interviewer telling Jowenko that there were only a few small fires in WTC 7 wasn't lying to him? You do know what the definition of "lie" is, don't you?

Yes, you just told one.

The interviewer did not say there were only a few small fires in WTC 7

In the third video at 2:32 the interviewer says "There was fire everywhere"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

 

[Parsman]

I am really going to hate myself for joining in - I promised myself I wasn't going to feed the trolls. But....

From looking at a video of a building falling down some people seem to think it may look like a controlled demolition. Very few people in actual fact, and a very few of people whose business is controlled emolition (I believe that total still stands at 1?). However that is what they "see". All fine. Accepted even.

But you won't mind, will you, if I wait for the final report on the collapse of WTC7 detailling ALL the evidence gathered and coming to conclusions based on the science and the engineering of the situation. Until such time, as many people as want to can say "that grainy video looks like a CD" and it still means the square root of nothing at all.

 

[DGM]

Chris;
Many people have asked this question but it never seems to get answered. WHY demo WTC7 seems kind of pointless. Can you possibly shed light on this for us?

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC - "What I see is someone who was lied to by the interviewer and who drew a conclusion based on a highly edited version of the facts."

False.

He was shown several videos of the collapse.

I challenge you to point us to where in the video it shows the playing of a clip of the collapse that shows the entire collapse (i.e., includes the failure of the east penthouse mechanical room that occurred 7 seconds before the collapse that IS shown in the interview video.) If you claim it's a Dan Rather clip because you heard Dan Rather's voice, then provide us a link to that Dan Rather video and prove to us that the portion showing the east mechanical room failure was played during the interview.

The WTC 1 & 2 video was edited.

The video I linked clearly shows Jowenko stating that the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were NOT CD's and why. Are you suggesting the person in the video I linked isn't Jowenko? Or that the tranlation isn't accurate?

You falsely accuse the producers of the WTC 7 video of lying

A lie by omission. The interviewer in the WTC7 videos clearly let's Jowenko believe that there were only small fires in WTC7.

They show the squibs from the LC video and then edit in the statement by Jowenko about "bolts springing loose". He was NOT referring to the squibs in that remark. He was talking about splices in the core framework failing.

So you claim. Were you there when the interview took place? Do you speak Jowenko's native tongue? Can you link us to an "unedited" interview of Jowenko talking about WTC 1 and WTC 2 so we can see if you are right? This claims to be one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9TDJ8CM_eE&mode=related&search= I don't see anything removed from the one I linked (which was translated) during the portion where the squibs are shown and discussed. There doesn't appear to be any editing unless you are claiming the translation of Jowenko's comments is inaccurate. Is that your claim?

He reconfirmed his position in a telephone call a couple months later.

A long time ago. Where's Jowenko now? Anything at all recently from him? He seems to have abandoned you *truthers*.

He did not think WTC 1 & 2 were CD's because they collapsed top down instead of bottom up.

He also indicated that any explosives at the impact levels would have prematurely detonated ... another reason it wasn't a CD. "In Jowenko's expert opinion."

At 1:20 in the first video, you can hear Dan Rather say "...well placed dynamite to knock it down." ... snip ... In the second video at 0:13 you can hear Dan saying "Here we're going to ....."
At 0:32 you can hear him say ".... third time today...."

So now prove the video Jowenko was looking at those two moments showed the collapse of the east mechanical penthouse. That is your claim ... right? So provide us with the Dan Rather video where those statements are made and let's see if it shows the east mechanical penthouse collapsing. That is your claim ... right?

The point is, not all the Fire Chiefs thought WTC 7 was going to collapse.

So what? It is hard to get everyone to agree about everything. Surely you wouldn't have remained in the building because you heard 1 out of 4 firemen saying the building wouldn't collapse when the other three were all saying it would. Or would you?

Did the producers of the WTC 1 & 2 video tell him about the dozens of firefighters who heard explosions?

If they didn't, then they were remiss. They should also have told him the CONTEXT in which those statements were made. By the way, please provide a list of the firemen who think bombs brought down the WTC towers. I'm sure its a long one. (sarcasm)

you don't preface the showing of the evidence with things that other people said about it.

You do when it's expert opinion. The firemen thought the building would collapse long before it actually did. That was significant and Jowenko should have been informed.

The interviewer did not say there were only a few small fires in WTC 7. In the third video at 2:32 the interviewer says "There was fire everywhere"

Well first I have a problem with Jowenko being informed about the fire near the end of the interview when he's already put his reputation on the line by declaring it's a CD. Ask any psychologist. Most people in that situation will defend their position rather than change it ... even if it's wrong. It's human nature.

Furthermore, you are misrepresenting what the interviewer says.

*************

Interviewer - "This was the picture and movie thing. I don't know if I have other nice things to show, what more do I have. This has collapsed but the other building has imploded and on such a clean way that you have to ask yourself how could they do that in the chaos of that day. There was fire everywhere, and also in that building."

The interviewer was NOT saying the fire was everywhere in WTC 7. He just said there was fire in WTC 7. And continuing the video interview ...

Jowenko - "But that was a small fire, they could extinguish that and that was what they've done."

Jowenko is talking about the fire in WTC 7. His impression is that it was a small fire.

Interviewer - "No they didn't do that."

The interviewer does not correct Jowenko's mischaracterization of the fires in WTC 7 as small. Instead he just tells Jowenko that they didn't extinguish it.

Jowenko - "They didn't extinguish it?"

Interviewer - "No, not extinguished. So they'd have to do it while it was on fire."

**********

If nothing else, that's a lie by omission because the interviewer had the opportunity to correct Jowenko's mischaracterization of the size of the fires and did not. He mislead Jowenko. Just as you are trying to mislead the readers here.

 

[Christopher7]

I challenge you to point us to where in the video it shows the playing of a clip of the collapse that shows the entire collapse (i.e., includes the failure of the east penthouse mechanical room that occurred 7 seconds before the collapse that IS shown in the interview video.) If you claim it's a Dan Rather clip because you heard Dan Rather's voice, then provide us a link to that Dan Rather video and prove to us that the portion showing the east mechanical room failure was played during the interview.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1643313543353229958&q=wtc7

The east penthouse collapse starts at 0:06


I have already listed two places when the CBS video was playing.
Here's one more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

The CBS clip starts at 0:15. At 0:38 you can hear Dan saying
".. a building was deliberately destroyed..."

You keep making a big deal about the east penthouse.
Jowenko was absolutely sure that WTC 7 was a CD before he looked at the penthouse portion of the clip.
Seeing the screenwall and the west penthouse collapse into the building is enough to know that WTC 7 was a CD.

A lie by omission. The interviewer in the WTC7 videos clearly let's Jowenko believe that there were only small fires in WTC7.

So now it's a lie by omission. What about the "little damage" part?

...a *truth* movement member ....... lied to him when he told him that there was little damage and only a few small fires in the building.

The truth movement member did not lie, you did!

So you claim. Were you there when the interview took place? Do you speak Jowenko's native tongue? Can you link us to an "unedited" interview of Jowenko talking about WTC 1 and WTC 2 so we can see if you are right? This claims to be one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9TDJ8CM_eE&mode=related&search= I don't see anything removed from the one I linked (which was translated) during the portion where the squibs are shown and discussed. There doesn't appear to be any editing unless you are claiming the translation of Jowenko's comments is inaccurate. Is that your claim?

Earlier in the video they show the collapse he is looking at on a laptop.

The clips showing the squibs from LC2 were edited into the interview.
They fade to black, add the LC2 clip, then the voice over says " Where the conspiracy theorists see explosions... Jowenko sees something else which may explain the rapid collapse"

He was not shown, nor was he referring to the squibs when he said

"You also see, as it were, the bolts spring loose at each turn."

and, after another LC2 add in

"It had a very strong core, and the beams were pretty strong ... but they're joined and it was 410 meters tall."

He was obviously talking about the core columns, NOT the squibs!

 

[BeAChooser]

The east penthouse collapse starts at 0:06

After looking more closely at the Dan Rather clip and the interview tape, I have to admit you are right about Jowenko being given the opportunity to see the east penthouse mechanical room collapse. There is a 27 second gap between the time Dan Rather says "dynamite" and the point in the tape where the collapse of the east mechanical penthouse begins. At the time the collapse begins, Dan Rather is saying "Up now, here we are going to show you video tape of the collapse itself" and those words can be heard in the interview tape. The collapse specifically begins when Rather says "here we are". So yes, Jowenko was shown a videoclip with the east mechanical penthouse collapse. I was wrong.

But how closely did he look at the clip? I don't see Jowenko concentrating on the tape at that moment of the collapse. He glances at the monitor then looks away towards the interviewer. Frankly I think he missed that detail ... which isn't all that difficult to do the first time you watch this. And after all, he had already announced to the interviewer that it was "absolutely" a demolition so was he still in data gathering mode? And why had he already reached the conclusion it was a CD?

Let's look at how the tape starts. The interviewer is apparently showing Jowenko pictures of the building #7 and the collapse. There is no sound to accompany what he is shown, so this is apparently not the Dan Rather clip. At time 27 seconds in the tape after viewing this material, Jowenko says "Does the top go first? No, the bottom." This is clearly wrong yet the interviewer doesn't correct him. Instead, the interviewer says "It starts at the bottom." So up to this point, Jowenko was apparently not shown anything indicating the penthouse mechanical room collapsed first nor was he told by the interviewer that it did. I call that a significant omission. Don't you?

At 35 seconds into the tape, Jowenko says "Yes, you see the bottom floors go first." and again the interviewer agrees "Yes, the rest implodes." So the interviewer again lets Jowenko go on thinking the collapse began at the bottom. And this is important because the primary reason that Jowenko gave for concluding it was a CD is that the collapse began at the bottom. Which we see is not true. So Jowenko based his conclusion on a faulty premise.

I have already listed two places when the CBS video was playing.
Here's one more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

The CBS clip starts at 0:15. At 0:38 you can hear Dan saying
".. a building was deliberately destroyed..."

I'll agree that Jowenko is again being shown the portion of the clip with the east penthouse mechanical room collapse but he isn't concentrating on it. He is talking about the WTC tower collapses at the moment it is being shown. And that segment of the interview starts out with the interviewer saying "Look, it is simple like this? If you see the bottom going first, bursting-charges are involved?" So again, we find the interviewer deliberately misleading Jowenko into thinking the collapse began at the bottom instead of at the top in WTC 7.

You keep making a big deal about the east penthouse.

It is a big deal. It tells us that something very serious was happening in the structure many seconds before the collapse started at the bottom. It tells us that something was going on that perhaps doesn't fit the pattern of a CD painted by Jowenko and the *truth* movement.

Jowenko was absolutely sure that WTC 7 was a CD before he looked at the penthouse portion of the clip.

Exactly. And apparently hadn't been shown anything or told anything to suggest the collapse actually began with a major event on the roof.

Seeing the screenwall and the west penthouse collapse into the building is enough to know that WTC 7 was a CD.

Which is why dozens if not hundreds of demolition experts have joined in to agree with your *expertise*? (sarcasm)

So now it's a lie by omission.

Actually, it was more than a mere lie of omission. The interviewer knew that Jowenko thought the fires were small and let Jowenko continue thinking that despite having to have known that they were not small. That's being deceptive.

What about the "little damage" part? ... snip ... The truth movement member did not lie, you did!

First mention of damage to Jowenko is at the beginning of part 2 of the 3 part video, long after Jowenko has stated he's absolutely sure it was a CD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM

At 0:33, when describing the damage to WTC 7, the interviewer says "that building was damaged, not as serious as this building, this building, this building certainly not as serious as this building but it was slightly damaged at the outer side."

Only "slightly damaged"? Is that anything like "little"?

And, by the way, at 2:08 in part 2, Jowenko states "this is the work of man" and the interviewer gets him to agree with the statement "Thus we need no discussion about that ...", Jowenko answers "No, this is also a hired ... sir said it himself, you hear him saying 'pull it down'." Jowenko was referring to Silverstein's use of the word "pull" but he is misquoting him. Why didn't the interviewer correct that misquote? Surely the interviewer knew exactly what Silverstein said. So we have another instance of the interviewer letting Jowenko speculate on the basis of misinformation. Indeed, the Jowenko interview is filled with such instances.

Indeed, at 3:55 in part 2, we find yet another instance where the interviewer is letting Jowenko think the collapse began at the bottom.

Jowenko - "Yes, it starts on the bottom; ... snip ... "

Interviewer - "Ok, this has bursted from the bottom."

So ... was the interviewer just unaware that their video showed the east mechanical room on the penthouse collapsing first? Why else did this very important detail get overlooked throughout the entire interview? They even mentioned the penthouses at the end of the 3rd video and still the interviewer kept Jowenko in the dark. Why did they spend so much time speculating about Silverstein bribing people for insurance money (and how such corruption "ties America together") and spend so little time actually examining the details of the collapse and what the firemen were saying at the time? Were they really looking for the truth?

The fact is Jowenko jumped to his conclusion in the first 30 seconds of the interview after looking at (and being aware of) only a tiny portion of the evidence. That shouldn't give anyone great confidence in the accuracy of his method of analysis. Furthermore, the interviewer obviously wanted him to conclude there was a conspiracy and a demolition. He kept the failure of the east mechanical penthouse to himself (he had to have seen it). He understated the extent of the fires in the structures and failed to tell Jowenko what the firemen were saying at the time (he had to have know that). He (at least initially) understated the extent of the debris damage. He didn't correct Jowenko's misquote about Silverstein's use of the word "pull". Sorry, Christopher, but I don't think this was an honest interview.

 

[Christopher7]

After looking more closely at the Dan Rather clip and the interview tape,..... I was wrong.

But how closely did he look at the clip? I don't see Jowenko concentrating on the tape at that moment of the collapse. He glances at the monitor then looks away towards the interviewer. Frankly I think he missed that detail

Yes, i noticed that too

... which isn't all that difficult to do the first time you watch this. And after all, he had already announced to the interviewer that it was "absolutely" a demolition so was he still in data gathering mode? And why had he already reached the conclusion it was a CD?

He saw the rest of the interior [screenwall and west penthouse] collapse just before the exterior walls. It is obviously a CD.

The fact that the east penthouse collapsed first only adds certainty that it was a CD.

Clearing out a hole first allows the east and west walls to collapse inward.

Had they collapsed the whole interior at once, the north and south walls would collapse inward but the east and west walls would be forced outward, or the other way around.

The 'kink' that developed brought the east and west walls inward.

 

[BeAChooser]

It is obviously a CD.

Well if it is that obvious, then it is equally obvious that hundreds of demolition experts around the world must be keeping silent. Did Silverstein bribe them too? What possible motivation could they have for not joining Jowenko in pointing out *the truth*? Hmmmmmm?

 

[Christopher7]

Well if it is that obvious, then it is equally obvious that hundreds of demolition experts around the world must be keeping silent. Did Silverstein bribe them too? What possible motivation could they have for not joining Jowenko in pointing out *the truth*? Hmmmmmm?

As you well know, saying WTC 7 was a CD is effectively saying 911 was an inside job.

 

[BeAChooser]

As you well know, saying WTC 7 was a CD is effectively saying 911 was an inside job.

So? That didn't stop Jowenko from going public.

If anything, seeing Jowenko speak out without being harmed should encourage others to do the same. But it hasn't. So again, I ask you what possible motivation might they have for not doing so if it is as obvious a CD as you and Jowenko claim? Are demolition experts just evil (except for Jowenko)?

 

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
It is obviously a CD.

It's a little funny arguing about determining a CD by video images. A CD is basically a structural failure/gravity collapse. The problem with WTC 7 is the lack of noise.

I've seen 2 CD in person and I can truly say that I could identify one with my eyes closed. The sound is totally unique and unforgettable.

 

[BeAChooser]

It's a little funny arguing about determining a CD by video images. A CD is basically a structural failure/gravity collapse. The problem with WTC 7 is the lack of noise.

Maybe there was a lack of noise for the same reason there are a lack of demolition experts publically supporting the theory. The folks who shot the various videos were intimidated into *editing* the sound tracks.

 

[DGM]

Maybe there was a lack of noise for the same reason there are a lack of demolition experts publically supporting the theory. The folks who shot the various videos were intimidated into *editing* the sound tracks.

I've heard people say there was explosions but,(and you can ask anyone thats seen one live) they sound more like large caliber gun fire. Yes the noise is different. Regular explosives (bombs) have a much deeper sound and shock wave.