How were demolition blasts concealed from the public?

[Brainache]

and why dont we hear that penthouse collapse in the videos?

Because there were no demolition charges going off.

If there was demolition charges big enough to sever the structural supports, they would have been audible for miles around ground zero.

Well done Dick! You have debunked the WTC7 CD theory.

 

[DC]

Because there were no demolition charges going off.

If there was demolition charges big enough to sever the structural supports, they would have been audible for miles around ground zero.

Well done Dick! You have debunked the WTC7 CD theory.

oh really? what explosive and how much would it need, you seem to know more, tell us pls.

 

[Arus808]

oh really? what explosive and how much would it need, you seem to know more, tell us pls.

and why should we do your homework? you can contact many controlled demolition companies to get this answer.

 

[Edmund Standing]

For the CD believers...

Did firefighters hear explosions?

Or explosive sounds?

See this analysis of the reports.

 

[Brainache]

oh really? what explosive and how much would it need, you seem to know more, tell us pls.

Did you watch any of those CD video clips posted earlier in this thread? They had lots of very loud charges going off and they were all in buildings which had been prepared for demolition. You know, the supports are already partially cut before they set off the charges, so in the case of WTC7 the charges would have had to be even bigger than the ones in those clips.

 

[theauthor]

What you are all forgetting is that CD expert Danny Jowenko reckons that wtc7 was demolished on the fly. He doesn't think it needed 1000's of charges covering all the floors.

 

[Arus808]

What you are all forgetting is that CD expert Danny Jowenko reckons that wtc7 was demolished on the fly.

what you dishonestly ignore is that all he was shown was a video of the WTC 7 collapse, and was given biased information from acouple of truthers, by having them tell him that hte building was used by the CIA.

Please provide his paper that he has written, that shows his analysis of the building's collapse. and of course the evidence he used to prove his accounts

He doesn't think it needed 1000's of charges covering all the floors.

actually, that is not what he said, but we know that you are a liar.

 

[gumboot]

What you are all forgetting is that CD expert Danny Jowenko reckons that wtc7 was demolished on the fly. He doesn't think it needed 1000's of charges covering all the floors.

He's not actually qualified to make that claim. Implosion companies don't actually lay the charges, nor calculate the amount - they subcontract a blaster to do that job. Blasters typically work for companies that make demolition explosives. The amount and number of charges used is only determined after very careful physical inspection of the building as well as a close look at plans.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I'm sure we've all seen this video before, but I noticed something very interesting--I can't believe I didn't notice it before.



Pay attention to the base of the building. That is the point from which the collapse proceeds. Now you can see at 00:17-00:18...

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/168034822563e3e62b.jpg[/qimg]

But there's more than just sight. There's also sound. Listen to the sound that you hear at the very moment the fireball appears.

None of the three WTC buildings had anything like that. If they were demolitions, the demolition somehow had to be concealed from the public.

Can you think of any method the perps might have used to accomplish such a feat?

Note the flash of light in the pic.

Perhaps there are "silencers" for explosives to create quiet detonations. I can't believe the NWO didn't send out a memo regarding this.

Perhaps there are "darkeners" for explosives to explode without any visual effect as well. Another memo goes missing. Woooooo...

I can't wait for the twoofers to bring up the "squibs".

 

[DC]

and why should we do your homework? you can contact many controlled demolition companies to get this answer.

its you Conspiracy-Deniers that keep saying it need 1000 of explosives.
so it looks like you guys know how much it would need, but no seems that just another lie from your side.

 

[DC]

what you dishonestly ignore is that all he was shown was a video of the WTC 7 collapse, and was given biased information from acouple of truthers, by having them tell him that hte building was used by the CIA.

Please provide his paper that he has written, that shows his analysis of the building's collapse. and of course the evidence he used to prove his accounts



actually, that is not what he said, but we know that you are a liar.

stop it with the lies pls.

Jovenko did not only see the video and the info he was given was NOT biased, because it is actually a ANTI CT docu they made, but when it came to WTC 7 , the expert was pretty sure it was CDed.

liar.

 

[DC]

He's not actually qualified to make that claim. Implosion companies don't actually lay the charges, nor calculate the amount - they subcontract a blaster to do that job. Blasters typically work for companies that make demolition explosives. The amount and number of charges used is only determined after very careful physical inspection of the building as well as a close look at plans.

misstake

Danny Jovenko is a Blaster. he is the guy that calculates and places the explosives. read his homepage.......

 

[DC]

He's not actually qualified to make that claim. Implosion companies don't actually lay the charges, nor calculate the amount - they subcontract a blaster to do that job. Blasters typically work for companies that make demolition explosives. The amount and number of charges used is only determined after very careful physical inspection of the building as well as a close look at plans.

ok lets ask an Expert

NOVA: What kind of analysis goes into figuring out how to demolish a building?

SL: Well, we've got what we refer to as our historic database, which is largely in my father and my uncle's brain. Ninety-five percent of our knowledge has come from hands-on experience—learning, watching different structures, watching the way they move. A lot of times my father and my uncle will walk in a building and they'll say, "Oh, this is just like the such and such building. This is what we're going to do." So, there really isn't a class you can take. There's no book you can read that's going to teach you how to do this. It's really a practical physical understanding of how buildings work. You know, just because an engineer designed a building to work one way, it doesn't mean that, when they built it, that that's actually how it's working. We have to go in and decide what is load bearing, what is not—what is safe to remove, what isn't. So there's quite a bit of in-the-field analysis that goes on.

NOVA: Do you tend to look at blueprints?

SL: Well, 90 percent of the time we don't have them. A lot of times those plans have been misplaced or have disintegrated into dust. But when we do have them, yeah, we use them but we don't rely on them. There's a difference between 'as drawn' and 'as built'. And you never trust the drawings. That's why we do test shots, which is going in and picking out a few key columns and actually loading them with explosives and shooting them ahead of time, to understand the loads within the columns.

 

[gumboot]

LIAR !!!!

Danny Jovenko is a Blaster. he is the guy that calculates and places the explosives. read his homepage.......

Sorry, you're quite right. I read an Explosive Engineer as something different to a Blaster, and all of the demolition jobs I've been able to find for Jowenko have another company subcontracting the blasting. My apologies.

 

[gumboot]

ok lets ask an Expert

That doesn't refute what I said. So you agree that Danny Jowenko lacks sufficient knowledge to make any determination about an explosive demolition of WTC7?

(Unless of course you're claiming he went and visited the building before it fell down)

 

[DC]

Sorry, you're quite right. I read an Explosive Engineer as something different to a Blaster, and all of the demolition jobs I've been able to find for Jowenko have another company subcontracting the blasting. My apologies.

ok i retract the liar then in this case

 

[Dave Rogers]

ok lets ask an Expert

And you never trust the drawings. That's why we do test shots, which is going in and picking out a few key columns and actually loading them with explosives and shooting them ahead of time, to understand the loads within the columns.

This scores a point against CD hypotheses - doesn't it seem rather interesting that this was clearly not done with any of the WTC buildings, when this expert suggests it's always done in any CD? "And you never trust the drawings." Not exactly a conditional statement, is it?

Dave

 

[DC]

That doesn't refute what I said. So you agree that Danny Jowenko lacks sufficient knowledge to make any determination about an explosive demolition of WTC7?

(Unless of course you're claiming he went and visited the building before it fell down)

he would not be in a possition to know exactly what explosives and how much is needed, but he is still an expert that has some abilitys to know if something was a CD or not. and sure, the info he got was not that much.
im sure he would have more info if NIST would bring out the report.

 

[DC]

This scores a point against CD hypotheses - doesn't it seem rather interesting that this was clearly not done with any of the WTC buildings, when this expert suggests it's always done in any CD? "And you never trust the drawings." Not exactly a conditional statement, is it?

Dave

yes that was indeed not done i guess. im pretty sure it was not.

on the other hand, they also did not remove the drywalls or weakened the bunker, those things the same expert in the same interview told us would act as stifeners.

and still you belive that asymetric damage and uncontrolled fires can do the same like those experts need weeks for. with test shots, calculations, prepwork etc....

 

[gumboot]

he would not be in a possition to know exactly what explosives and how much is needed, but he is still an expert that has some abilitys to know if something was a CD or not.

Sorry, I should be clear. I don't think it refutes his conclusion that it was CD, which is primarily based on how it looks. In fact I agree with him. I think the collapse of WTC7 does look very much like a CD.

I was using it more to refute his claim (or at least the claim others have attributed to him) that it could be rigged quickly.