To 9/11 TM: WTC7 being a CD is illogical.

[DGM]

I was unaware that this link was blocked to 'visitors'?

MM

LCF message
Your access to this board has been blocked by the administration.

I was banned and if I click on links this is what I get. You can look at my post there, I don't think I broke any rules (except not toting the "truther" line).

 

[Miragememories]

this jumped out at me



So MM . the firefighters are in on it? yes or no? The firefighters had a transit on the building watching the progression of a three story bulge. And None of them, Not a one, Noticed a demolition team of forty men, Run into the building to plant those charges and then run out? A building that was being carefully watched? all day?

The firefighters were heroes and not conspirators.

This mythical bulge I cannot comment on as the visual evidence as witnessed by NIST's infamous southwest corner photo encompasses the area that the bulge is claimed to exist.

" At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors."

MM

 

[johnny karate]

The firefighters were heroes and not conspirators

And yet after six years, not a single firefighter that was on the scene, that witnessed firsthand the fire and damage that you claim was insufficient to cause the collapse, has expressed the slightest doubt or suspicion regarding the collapse of WTC7. Why do you suppose that is?

I seem to recall you and I going round and round on this very issue a while back and you eventually just shrugging your shoulders and walking away. Have you come up with anything since then, or are you still content to keep ignoring this very glaring contradiction in your theory?

 

[A W Smith]

Source?
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52021/1/

You are absolutely wrong!

Actually, I wish you were right because if Jowenko had said the WTC 7 CD had to have been prepared prior to 9/11, then he would be directly acknowledging it as part of the whole 9/11 event.

But he doesn't. His response remained that it must have been a crime of opportunity [CD of WTC 7] and that the perpetrators must have responded in this manner because of the financial losses incurred by the damage from the collapse of WTC 1.

You wish? You wish there was a conspiracy. but unfortunately for you. there wasn't.

I have no idea, and obviously you don't either, as to 'what in hell' your talking about.

My only reference to U.S. control demolition experts was this;
"As an interesting side note, Danny also indicated why he believed controlled demolition experts in the U.S. would be unwilling to go on record and agree that WTC 7 was a CD."

Please explain how that can be constructed to mean; "Then Danny Jowenko is unfamiliar with the way demolition contracts are handled in the United States. as i have pointed out previously. if the lowest bidder is not awarded the contracts. they can sue."

My recommendation is that maybe you should take a course in reading comprehension.

unwilling to go on record why?

maybe this?

Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

But. You can not be black balled from bidding on projects in the United States, hell I can even bid on demolition if i had the proper insurance riders. There is no way to prevent the lowest bidder from getting work. If they are not awarded contracts, they can sue. They can even sue the government for government projects. Danny Jowenko has either overlooked this point of is unfamiliar with the bidding process for construction or demolition projects in the United States. It is you who better brush up on reading and comprehension

An expert, not "my expert."



MM

Not YOUR expert? Well you seemed to have exerted a lot of effort to transcribe and post his testimony here
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52021/1/

Is that not YOUR post? If it is then he is YOUR expert.

 

[quicknthedead]

OK, sleahead, I just posted this OP (for both logic points) over at the stj911 forum.

Since it is open only to members, I will keep an eye on it periodically to see if there are any meaningful replies that I can provide from there to here.

Well, I can update what happened now.

There were two replies by metamars and Tony Szamboti, but they were not serious ones. Nevertheless, I replied to both of them in a respectful manner trying to help them understand the logic I had presented (which, BTW, they had not addressed).

However, when I went back to the site tonight, lo and behold I am now an inactive member and can not access the site. O me, O my, whatever am I to do???



I guress they only want members who parrot their story line...gee whiz, I guess I've been kicked out of the choir!



No matter. As I mentioned earlier, the forum for Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had become quite boring of late (almost like a ghost town), so they did me a favor!

 

[AZCat]

Well, I can update what happened now.

There were two replies by metamars and Tony Szamboti, but they were not serious ones. Nevertheless, I replied to both of them in a respectful manner trying to help them understand the logic I had presented (which, BTW, they had not addressed).

However, when I went back to the site tonight, lo and behold I am now an inactive member and can not access the site. O me, O my, whatever am I to do???



I guress they only want members who parrot their story line...gee whiz, I guess I've been kicked out of the choir!



No matter. As I mentioned earlier, the forum for Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had become quite boring of late (almost like a ghost town), so they did me a favor!

I am sorry to hear of this behavior by one of the factions of the "truth movement", but I am not surprised. Hopefully you will be posting more here as a result.

 

[BenBurch]

It has been demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that Silverstein's conversation with the unnamed FDNY commander had nothing to do with the subject of demolition.

Its not EVEN clear that his conversation has any effect one way or the other on the response to the fires in the building.

 

[theauthor]

Ah, that would be Joerg Schneider. Here is my e-mail exchange with him from December of 2006:

[SIZE=-1]Dear Professor Schneider,[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=-1]You and Professor Bachmann are often cited by conspiracists who contend, against all evidence, that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. As you know, every demolition expert and structural engineer in America rejects this thesis as baseless and insupportable.[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=-1]Matthys Levy, author of the book 'Why Buildings Fall Down,' was shocked to learn that conspiracists were distorting his words to make it appear as though he shared their fantasies. Are you aware of the claims made on your behalf? Do you really endorse a pernicious and unscientific view that ignores mountains of contradictory data?[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=-1]Please be good enough to clarify this matter.[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=-1]Yours Truly,[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=-1]Ronald Wieck[/SIZE]

​

[SIZE=-1]Hello,[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I said that Building WTC7 was most probably brought down by controlled demolition. I do not believe that this is a possibility for the two towers. I do neither know Mr. Levy nor his book.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Best regards[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]J. Schneider[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]So, you agree with Prof. Schneider about the Twin Towers? No? You say he doesn't know what he's talking about? Please, tell us more.[/SIZE]


​

So what we have here is a consensus.

Both Jowenko and Schneider, in their expert opinions, believe that wtc7 was a CD but the towers weren't. Why are you ignoring their opinion on building 7? Why are they saying it was most probably a controlled demolition?

 

[pomeroo]

Source?
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/52021/1/

You are absolutely wrong!

Actually, I wish you were right because if Jowenko had said the WTC 7 CD had to have been prepared prior to 9/11, then he would be directly acknowledging it as part of the whole 9/11 event.

But he doesn't. His response remained that it must have been a crime of opportunity [CD of WTC 7] and that the perpetrators must have responded in this manner because of the financial losses incurred by the damage from the collapse of WTC 1.



I have no idea, and obviously you don't either, as to 'what in hell' your talking about.

My only reference to U.S. control demolition experts was this;
"As an interesting side note, Danny also indicated why he believed controlled demolition experts in the U.S. would be unwilling to go on record and agree that WTC 7 was a CD."

Please explain how that can be constructed to mean; "Then Danny Jowenko is unfamiliar with the way demolition contracts are handled in the United States. as i have pointed out previously. if the lowest bidder is not awarded the contracts. they can sue."

My recommendation is that maybe you should take a course in reading comprehension.



Do you really feel altering my username makes your responses better?



That is old, well covered ground. If you wish to debate that issue, I suggest you post to that old thread that has already dealt with it. If that's too much bother, I'll dig up the link when time permits.



As we know, the towers didn't topple. They were never intended to. With WTC 1's 110 story height, those demolishing WTC 1 could be assured that sufficient debris and dust would enshroud WTC 7 and effectively mask that demolition.



An expert, not "my expert."



I think you have proven yourself to qualify as the most ridiculous A W Smith.

MM

All of your fantasies have been thoroughly discredited. No explosives went off immediately prior to the collapse of WTC 7. Larry Silverstein, as has been pointed out ad nauseam, LOST money, making it the dumbest insurance scam in history. Nobody noticed the extensive prep work involved in wiring a 47-story building for demolition. Not one of your fellow liars has come close to fitting this event into any sort of coherent conspiracy theory.

 

[pomeroo]

So what we have here is a consensus.

Both Jowenko and Schneider, in their expert opinions, believe that wtc7 was a CD but the towers weren't. Why are you ignoring their opinion on building 7? Why are they saying it was most probably a controlled demolition?

They should be ignored because they haven't studied the subjects. Who knows why they permitted themselves to be used by a mindless, evil movement?

 

[pomeroo]

Well, I can update what happened now.

There were two replies by metamars and Tony Szamboti, but they were not serious ones. Nevertheless, I replied to both of them in a respectful manner trying to help them understand the logic I had presented (which, BTW, they had not addressed).

However, when I went back to the site tonight, lo and behold I am now an inactive member and can not access the site. O me, O my, whatever am I to do???



I guress they only want members who parrot their story line...gee whiz, I guess I've been kicked out of the choir!



No matter. As I mentioned earlier, the forum for Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had become quite boring of late (almost like a ghost town), so they did me a favor!

To conspiracy liars, you are guilty of an unthinkable and unforgivable crime: you displayed intellectual integrity.

 

[LashL]

Well, I can update what happened now.

There were two replies by metamars and Tony Szamboti, but they were not serious ones. Nevertheless, I replied to both of them in a respectful manner trying to help them understand the logic I had presented (which, BTW, they had not addressed).

However, when I went back to the site tonight, lo and behold I am now an inactive member and can not access the site. O me, O my, whatever am I to do???



I guress they only want members who parrot their story line...gee whiz, I guess I've been kicked out of the choir!



No matter. As I mentioned earlier, the forum for Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice had become quite boring of late (almost like a ghost town), so they did me a favor!

Oh, my. I guess it just goes to show that the *cough* "scholars" for truth and justice are not even remotely interested in either truth or justice, except for a particular form of "swift justice" that they engage in when one of their members doesn't toe the party line.

Sad (in the sense that the *cough* "scholars" are once again shown to be merely touting an ideology at all costs rather than being interested in facts or evidence), but not at all surprising to those of us who have seen them for what they really are for years now.

Still, it's unfortunate that you were treated so harshly, and I wish you all the best going forward now that you've unburdened yourself of the yoke of the truth™ movement nonsense.

 

[quicknthedead]

Thanks, AZCat.

BTW, I apologize for some of my past conduct towards you and boloboffin over at DU forum. Unfortunately, this 9/11 topic seems to make you "kinda ornery" at times (but I think I've got this problem licked now).

 

[AZCat]

Thanks, AZCat.

BTW, I apologize for some of my past conduct towards you and boloboffin over at DU forum. Unfortunately, this 9/11 topic seems to make you "kinda ornery" at times (but I think I've got this problem licked now).

Please - don't worry about it. I just wrote an email the other day expressing regret that the internet seems to compress all of us into two-dimensional personalities, and that it becomes too easy to forget what we have in common in our real lives when all we encounter of each other online are the parts with which we disagree. I'm just as bad as anyone else (you've seen my posts at DU, so you should know what I mean), hence my admiration of those internet denizens who seem to keep calm and respectful of all others even in the most trollish of encounters. We should all strive to be more civilized, but (as with most things human) often we (including me) fall far short.

I look forward to a continued positive exchange with you - it is much more rewarding than sniping at each other.

 

[quicknthedead]

Oh, my. I guess it just goes to show that the *cough* "scholars" for truth and justice are not even remotely interested in either truth or justice, except for a particular form of "swift justice" that they engage in when one of their members doesn't toe the party line.

Sad (in the sense that the *cough* "scholars" are once again shown to be merely touting an ideology at all costs rather than being interested in facts or evidence), but not at all surprising to those of us who have seen them for what they really are for years now.

Still, it's unfortunate that you were treated so harshly. Good luck to you going forward now that you've unburdened yourself of the yoke of the truth™ movement nonsense.

Thanks, LashL.

Yes, it was harsh. The fact is I was looking forward to conversing more with metamars and Tony S., but this abrupt "HALT!" means my two replies to them (and both took some time to do) was all for nothing, and I never have liked wasting my time.

Let me see...I think I could say that differently:
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice is a waste of time.

Sounds about the same, doesn't it?

Yes, it is sad to see a lack of scruples in them; but everybody makes choices, and they've made theirs.

 

[quicknthedead]

I also, AZCat.

And those are good words you just penned!

I will take them to heart.
Thanks!

 

[slyjoe]

So what we have here is a consensus.

Both Jowenko and Schneider, in their expert opinions, believe that wtc7 was a CD but the towers weren't. Why are you ignoring their opinion on building 7? Why are they saying it was most probably a controlled demolition?

A consensus where the group consists of two people? That's funny.

 

[quicknthedead]

So what we have here is a consensus.

Both Jowenko and Schneider, in their expert opinions, believe that wtc7 was a CD but the towers weren't. Why are you ignoring their opinion on building 7? Why are they saying it was most probably a controlled demolition?

Hi theauthor,

Interesting.

You take their opinions on WTC7 being a CD as correct (and please remember, all opinions are subject to error as much as they are to being right), but then you are silent about their expert opinions on the twin towers not being CD's.

OK. Let's hold that thought for a moment and go to the question.

Why would anyone rig WTC7 for CD (well before 9/11)?

Is not the answer, in view of all that we know about what actually happened on 9/11, basically, "So they could do it as a CD on 9/11 because of expected debris damage from the fallen towers" (because they could then be able to "mask" the CD inside their cover story of debris damage)? Of course, this predicates they would have to know well in advance that the twin towers would be coming down.

You are silent on the opinions of these two CD experts when it comes to the towers. They both thought those buildings were not CD's, and yet at the same time you hold up their opinions on WTC7 as corroboration it was a CD.

It looks like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

The towers were not CD's according to them, which would mean our hypothetical perpetrators could not have known anything in advance about these buildings collapsing on 9/11, which would mean they would know nothing about any potentiality for debris damage occurring to WTC7.

So again, why would hypothetical perpetrators rig WTC7 for CD in the first place?

Since your CD experts claim the twin towers were not CD, this means according to them they were not rigged for CD by our hypothetical bad guys, which then means our hypothetical bad guys could not have known there would be any fallen debris to cause damage to WTC7 that they could use in "masking" their crime in their cover story in their CD of WTC7.

I am repeating myself here (as well as using reverse logic) in the hope that this will become clear to you. Once you see it you understand. However, you first need to be honest with yourself, clear your head of preconceived notions, and look at it fresh.

So, with the above in mind, why would hypothetical perpetrators rig WTC7 for CD? They would have had no hopes of getting away with the crime undetected since blowing up buildings in downtown Manhattan is a dead giveaway that major criminal undertakings are afoot. For you see, they would not have had their cover story.

The above may sound like twisted wording of the scenario, but this is exactly what it would be...and this yields an inescapable truth. To think WTC7 was a CD would be very twisted logic, so much so that it would be illogical and absurd.

Please understand, I am not addressing the reason(s) for blowing up the building per se (that question would have its own thread on "Conspiracy-Theory-Planet Forum.Blog", which I am not concerned with in this exercise).

This is simply looking at our hypothetical perpetrators to see if they would have planned and executed WTC7 as a CD within the known parameters.

The answer is they wouldn't, for they would have had no plan. And if they did have one, it would have been an unreal one, which means this has all become nonsense.

Therefore, to think WTC7 was a CD is illogical.



In addition, there are two other, different, powerful logic points that also mean logically that WTC7 could not have been a CD (thanks to alex04 and Confuseling):


---------------------


#2 {alex04}
If WTC7 was a CD, then it makes no sense they would have allowed it to look like one. It makes far more sense, if they really wanted to get away with it, they would have disguised it, maybe brought it down immediately after the towers had collapsed (as in "hidden from view"), or perhaps brought it down in manner of a more off-center demolition.

The fact that it looks like a classic CD, in the opinion of many, makes it even less likely to be a CD, simply by the fact that, had the "perps" exercised forethought of mind to disguise it properly, it beggars belief they would be so "sloppy" with the demolition in doing it so well.


---------------------


#3 (Confuseling}
The extra risk of getting caught is inherent in the fact that the building's smaller.

Explosives placed at ground level and all things being equal more than likely will create visible flashes, audible bangs, and detectable seismic signatures. Additionally, with less wreckage, one can assume a higher proportion of wreckage tainted with chemical residue or remnants of devices, making them considerably easier to find. There will be less destruction unleashed during the collapse, and no smoldering pile equivalent to the WTC 1 and 2 remains, so deliberately destroyed structural elements will be found more quickly, and in a condition more representative of their condition at the point of collapse.

In short, it would be an insane plan - far too insane for anybody capable of pulling it off to actually believe in.


---------------------


The truth of the 3 logic streams above is simple to understand.
What is hard is for some who have already made up their minds to accept it.

 

[gumboot]

Senior FDNY officers at WTC7 claim it had suffered sufficient damage from fires and debris impact that collapse was a near certainty. This is a fact.

Senior FDNY officers possess a level of professional expertise in regards to this incident that exceeds the professional expertise of everyone else who has commented on the collapse of WTC7. This is a fact.

Senior FDNY officers possess more information about the specific circumstances of this incident than any other expert who has commented on the collapse of WTC7. This is a fact.

Only three options are available.

1. FDNY senior officers are correct and WTC7 collapsed from debris and fire damage.
2. FDNY senior officers are correct in that WTC7 would have collapsed from debris and fire damage, however before this occured the building was imploded and FDNY senior officers failed to notice this.
3. FDNY senior officers are lying.

These are the only three options available in regard to the collapse of WTC7. There are no alternative explanations.

Options 2 and 3 bring senior officers of the FDNY into disrepute. Option 1 does not.
Options 1 and 2 accept that WTC7 would have collapsed due to fire and structural damage. Option 3 does not.

 

[Confuseling]

Quicknthedead, welcome to the dark side. You will find it interesting here

I wonder whether anyone else is a member of the Scholars' forum, and can tell us whether the thread still exists, or has disappeared down the memory hole?

Gumboot - to be fair, they could have just been grossly mistaken.