TC329: If WTC7 collapsed into its own footprint, please explain this...

[nicepants]

I'll be honest; fitting a demolition of building 7 into a possible conspiracy is difficult but I think it was demolished. So does CD expert Danny Jowenko.

The problem with using Jowenko to support your theory is that he also claims that WTC1 & 2 were not CD.

 

[WildCat]

I'll be honest; fitting a demolition of building 7 into a possible conspiracy is difficult but I think it was demolished. So does CD expert Danny Jowenko.

Where can we read Jowenko's paper on the collapse?

 

[theauthor]

So, if you're done poisoning the well, do you have a theory about what happened to WTC7? One that makes sense and doesn't rely on unknown entities?

I predict you don't, but I've been surprised before.

How was that poisoning the well?

 

[aggle-rithm]

I'll be honest; fitting a demolition of building 7 into a possible conspiracy is difficult but I think it was demolished. So does CD expert Danny Jowenko.

Yeah, we know all about Jowenko.

When he gave his opinion on video, he knew nothing about the background of the building, did not have the benefit of hearing the sound, and could not see the lower half of the building, which would have shown the telltale flashes of explosives within the structure. Once he had given his opinion, I believe he had to stick to it in order to avoid looking like a fool...after all, they had him on video.

So, YOU don't have a theory to explain the collapse. But you know that the generally accepted theory is wrong? Or are you saying it is simply unlikely?

 

[theauthor]

Where can we read Jowenko's paper on the collapse?

Where can I read the NIST report on the collapse?

I mean, they are only being paid to come up with a report after 6 years, and Jowenko well he gave an opinion

 

[WildCat]

Where can I read the NIST report on the collapse?

I mean, they are only being paid to come up with a report after 6 years, and Jowenko well he gave an opinion

NIST has been studying it for 3 years. How much time has Jowenko spent on the matter?

 

[theauthor]

Yeah, we know all about Jowenko.

When he gave his opinion on video, he knew nothing about the background of the building, did not have the benefit of hearing the sound, and could not see the lower half of the building, which would have shown the telltale flashes of explosives within the structure. Once he had given his opinion, I believe he had to stick to it in order to avoid looking like a fool...after all, they had him on video.

So, YOU don't have a theory to explain the collapse. But you know that the generally accepted theory is wrong? Or are you saying it is simply unlikely?

FEMA said it was unlikely. They said the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. NIST, bless 'em, are really struggling.

 

[aggle-rithm]

How was that poisoning the well?

Technically, maybe it isn't. But it definitely impedes any sort of civil discourse to call someone a liar when he admits to making a mistake, especially since you demanded that he do just that.

 

[theauthor]

NIST has been studying it for 3 years. How much time has Jowenko spent on the matter?

That's my point. Why are you asking for a paper from a man who only ever gave his expert opinion, when you have a government body being paid to produce a report and they havent come up with anything in years?

 

[aggle-rithm]

FEMA said it was unlikely. They said the best hypothesis had only a low probability of occurence. NIST, bless 'em, are really struggling.

Since you don't know of a MORE likely theory, then the rational thing to do is to accept the MOST likely one.

 

[theauthor]

Technically, maybe it isn't. But it definitely impedes any sort of civil discourse to call someone a liar when he admits to making a mistake, especially since you demanded that he do just that.

Read, for comprehension please. I made no such demand. I asked gumboot to retract a statement not DGM.

You are communicating poorly here.

 

[aggle-rithm]

That's my point. Why are you asking for a paper from a man who only ever gave his expert opinion, when you have a government body being paid to produce a report and they havent come up with anything in years?

Correction: They haven't come up with the FINAL PRODUCT in years. Clearly, they have done a lot of work. If the requirements hadn't changed in the middle of the game, they would have been done by now.

 

[Arus808]

That's my point. Why are you asking for a paper from a man who only ever gave his expert opinion, when you have a government body being paid to produce a report and they havent come up with anything in years?

you do know that hte report for WTC7 was started AFTER the report for the WTC towers was completed.

You do know that the report for WTC 7 wasn't even going to happen, but people pushed NISt to do one.

YOu do know that NIST has other projects for CURRENT BUILDING SAFETY to complete than to work on a report about a building that HAS ALREADY Collapsed.

Dont know about you, but I rather them concentrate on making CURRENT AND FUTURE buildings more safe than to worry about a building we already know collapsed due to fire and damage

 

[theauthor]

Since you don't know of a MORE likely theory, then the rational thing to do is to accept the MOST likely one.

CD is far more likely. It has been proven hundreds of times to do to a building what was done to 7. Fire hasn't.

 

[Arus808]

CD is far more likely.

based on what? providey our evidence that it was CD (you know, detonation cord, residual evidence of explosives, you know tell-tale signs, left behind by a CD)

It has been proven hundreds of times to do to a building what was done to 7. Fire hasn't.

no it hasn't. Not one single evidnece has been brought forth. Care to finally offer up some?

 

[Disbelief]

CD is far more likely. It has been proven hundreds of times to do to a building what was done to 7. Fire hasn't.

Then you should have no problem producing evidence of a CD of a building 47 stories or higher. When you do, can you also provide the time required to prep the building for demo?

 

[nicepants]

CD is far more likely. It has been proven hundreds of times to do to a building what was done to 7. Fire hasn't.

"more likely"? What are the odds, please, and how did you calculate them?

 

[Drudgewire]

CD is far more likely. It has been proven hundreds of times to do to a building what was done to 7. Fire hasn't.

Well, fire and the large chunks of the towers that were bombarding it. I guess you're still right about that though, there isn't a lot of corresponding evidence that a building collapses from a building twice its size dropping tons of debris on it.

Hmmm, wonder why that is? Oh right... conspiracy.

 

[gumboot]

WELL DONE ON QUOTING THE WRONG POST!

HERES WHAT I SAID:

rETRACT YOUR STATEMENT THAT i AM A LIAR.

Yes, you also said that. Do you deny the other posts? You made those requests. Three times, you requested a building that collapsed straight down. Everyone who reads this thread can see that you made that request.

You also requested, as you've quoted above, a 47 storey CD in the middle of a city.

You did not, as you assert, ask for a demolition that did not cause damage.

My claim stands. You are a liar.

 

[aggle-rithm]

CD is far more likely. It has been proven hundreds of times to do to a building what was done to 7. Fire hasn't.

In THIS case, no. There was no opportunity to place explosives (in fact, it is illegal to use explosives for CD in New York City). There were no explosions heard. There was no evidence of explosions found in the debris.

Can the same be said of the hundreds of times CD has been proven to work?

Just because it looks like a controlled demolition doesn't mean it is. The primary mechanism for collapsing a building using explosives is gravity. The explosives are nowhere near powerful enough to do it.

The same mechanism brought down the weakened WTC7.