Christopher 7 --- C7 & C4

[Norseman]

As for Van Romero:
[FONT=&quot]The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

[/FONT] Ten days later the Albuquerque Journal published this following article, describing a dramatic reversal of Van Romero's position.

[FONT=&quot]"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero

[/FONT] That's a rather dramatic repudiation of himself.
Somebody made this guy an offer he couldn't refuse.

Here is a more complete qoute of what Von Romero said:

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.
Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal/
My bolding.

On September 11th 2001 he gave his initial impression of the attack. Then he reevaluated the available information and talked to some experts in their field and arrived at a different conclusion. As the professional he is he then went to ABQjournal with his new findings. But this is obviously something that is beyond your ability to understand Christopher7, that someone can change their position after reevaluating the information and looking at more information.

 

[jaydeehess]

Name someone with Jowenko's qualifications who says WTC7 was not a CD.

Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition Inc.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition Inc.

That's not really a fair comparison. Based on the type of buildings he's brought down, Loiseaux is far better qualified than Jowenko.

Dave

 

[jaydeehess]

That's not really a fair comparison. Based on the type of buildings he's brought down, Loiseaux is far better qualified than Jowenko.

Dave

My bad, I had read into Chris's inquiry, "as good, or better, as Jowenko's"

Chris is correct I cannot name anyone with the qualifications of, and no more qualification than, Jowenko.

 

[Christopher7]

Here is a more complete qoute of what Von Romero said:

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal/
My bolding.

On September 11th 2001 he gave his initial impression of the attack. Then he reevaluated the available information and talked to some experts in their field and arrived at a different conclusion. As the professional he is he then went to ABQjournal with his new findings. But this is obviously something that is beyond your ability to understand Christopher7, that someone can change their position after reevaluating the information and looking at more information.

How did he conclude that:
[FONT=&quot]"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail,"
[/FONT]when the investigation hadn't even begun?

 

[Christopher7]

That's not really a fair comparison. Based on the type of buildings he's brought down, Loiseaux is far better qualified than Jowenko.

Dave

Jowenko has imploded buildings and he has been in the business for 30 years. He is well qualified and impartial.

The Loiseaux family is the foremost in building implosion but has Stacey seen and commented on the videos of the implosion of WTC7?

 

[technoextreme]

How did he conclude that:
[FONT=&quot]"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail,"
[/FONT]when the investigation hadn't even begun?

There was one building that clearly had trusses that failed due to fire damage.