• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Top-Down Demolition

pomeroo

Banned
P
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
7,081
:boggled: I can't think of anything to add to the following exchange. It speaks for itself--loudly.


And btw

Danny Jowenko HAS clarified his position through a phone call placed to him long after the video was produced -- and he maintains that he still believes Building 7 was brought down via controlled demolition:
http://911blogger.com/node/2925#comment-69918
Submitted by stallion4 on Wed, 01/10/2007 - 11:42pm.


» reply | -3 points
Minor Omission

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]
By the way, we missed your explanation of Jowenko's statement that the collapse of the Twin Towers does not resemble a controlled demolition.
Oh, I get it--he's right when it suits your politics. The rest of the time, he can be ignored.
Fraud.
Submitted by Ronald Wieck on Wed, 01/10/2007 - 11:28pm.


» reply | 3 points
@ the known LIAR Ronald Wieck

Jowenko, as well as nearly all other demolition experts, are not familiar with "Top Down" controlled demolition -- so his statements regarding the towers aren't conclusive. He also wasn't informed about the testimony from numerous first responders who heard several explosions which occurred in rapid succession, along with seeing several red/orange flashes near the base of the towers seconds BEFORE they came down, which are both classic earmarkings of controlled demolition using explosives. He also wasn't informed about the reports that FDNY and NYPD found bombs in the buildings.
Building 7, on the other hand, was a conventional controlled demolition using explosives, which Mr. Jowenko has nearly 20 years experience performing and is more than qualified to give his expert opinion on.
Off topic question, Ron; Do you receive any compensation to post at 911Blogger.com? Are you employed by someone to post here? Be honest, Ron, if you're capable of that.
Submitted by stallion4 on Thu, 01/11/2007 - 12:23am.


» reply | -3 points
True, Experts Doubt Its Existence

[below viewing threshold, show/hide comment]
Yes, it is true that no demolition experts are familiar with the imaginary concept "Top-down demolition." As I pointed out in an earlier post, shark fishermen are similarly unfamiliar with the use of tennis rackets to kill Great Whites. The zany notion, while comical, reveals the desperation of the fantasy movement, as one after another of its fantasies and fabrications bite the dust. There is an excellent reason why no demolition company has ever attempted a top-down demolition and none ever will: it is insane and defies all the principles of the demolition industry. Naturally, you don't care about stuff like that.
The "reports" that the police and fire departments "found" bombs in the buildings were false. No bombs were found and nobody thinks any were.
The alleged demolition of building 7 cannot be made to fit into any conspiracy scheme. What conceivable purpose could there have been for bringing down an obscure building seven hours after the attacks? Shouldn't your comic book super villains have remotely plausible motives?
On the off chance that your last question is serious, who could possibly have any interest in paying someone to post on a tiny blog with two dozen or so regular readers? I mean, sometimes it IS necessary to step outside our private worlds and enter the real one.
Submitted by Ronald Wieck on Thu, 01/11/2007 - 12:50am.


» reply | 2 points
Did everyone catch that?

I asked Ronald a simple yes or no question about whether or not he receives compensation to post here, and... HE DID NOT DENY THAT HE RECEIVES COMPENSATION TO POST AT 911BLOGGER.COM.
So in light of Ronald's absence of denial, I will ask him a follow up question; Ronald Wieck, who compensates you to post at 911Blogger.com?
Submitted by stallion4 on Thu, 01/11/2007 - 5:29am.


» edit | reply | 0 points
Dumb and Dumber

Conspiracy liars are characterized by stupidity, i.e., by enormous difficulties in processing information and marked inability to reason. You are, apparently, somewhat dumber than most.
Let's try it again.
There isn't a human on the planet who would pay anyone to post on a tiny, almost completely unknown blog that caters exclusively to teenagers and crackpots. Your question is ludicrous.
Incidentally, having said that, if you should ever find someone who has lots of money to blow on my favorite cause, me, by all means steer him my way. You would be entitled to a piece of the action.
OF COURSE, I am not "compensated" to waste time here. No one in his right mind dreams that backers are available for such obscure projects. I am here to collect material to assist my preparations for the National Debate on 9/11 conspiracy theories this March. I need to know what the tinfoil-hatters are peddling.
The gubmint does not know that this blog exists. Most of us have noticed that Bush has other things to worry about than the ass-over-heels antics of a few America-hating loons.
My first response was an emphatic denial for people who are capable of reading what I wrote. I now realize that I failed to consider the, ah, limitations of my audience.
Submitted by Ronald Wieck on Thu, 01/11/2007 - 5:46pm.
 
Wow. That kind of lunacy blows my mind.

"Jowenko, as well as nearly all other demolition experts, are not familiar with "Top Down" controlled demolition"-stallion4

Did he seriously post that? Well no ***** they aren't familiar with top down demolitions. CTs are the only ones familiar with those. I decided I REALLY want to try and be a CT sometime. Living in fantasy land sounds like a blast. That idiot basically debunked himself with that line.
 
Jowenko, as well as nearly all other demolition experts, are not familiar with "Top Down" controlled demolition
Click to expand...

along with seeing several red/orange flashes near the base of the towers seconds BEFORE they came down
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

Contradictions ahoy!
 
Last edited:
The top-down thing is clearly nonsense. Oliver's thread has a pretty good (if distressing) video clip that shows both the bowing in of the walls and the lack of flashes and explosions immediately before the collapse starts.

As far as Jowenko confirming anything by phone goes - if it can't be verified on the record, it doesn't count. The fact remains that he was shown a video of the north side of WTC7 with no sound, cutting out the earlier collapse of the east penthouse. The video also doesn't show the lower floors of the building.

You can see it here:



Jowenko says "they blew out the interior columns and it went down". This is entirely consistent with the NIST hypothesis that global collapse followed a failure of the system that transfered the loads laterally between supporting columns that didn't line up, across the 4th to 7th floors.

As far we can see: Jowenko isn't given a view of the damage to the south face, of the smoke pouring from the building or of the rubble falling onto from the collapse of the towers. He isn't told about the large amounts of fuel that could well have been pumped into the 4th floor. He also isn't told that the building was leaning over and that several firefighters testify that they knew the building was going to collapse and that this was why an area around it was cleared and the search for survivors in that area was abandoned.

Jowenko says it would need 30-40 people, and doesn't sound too sure if it is possible - when he is told that the building was also on fire it looks as if he can't make sense of it. Note that they also talk about the FEMA report and not the interim NIST report (which, presumably, wasn't released). How well they discuss even this with Jowenko we aren't shown. Nor do we know if he is given any idea of the extent of the fire.

Jowenko hasn't publicly commented since this clip. As I said before, a report of a phone call doesn't count.
 
Last edited:
Coritani said:

(emphasis mine)

Contradictions ahoy!
Click to expand...

Can you post pictures on that site? If so, feel free to use mine:

mousepawing


This is the typical twoofer debate in a nutshell. He tries to bite the mouse, but gets his own paw instead. At least the cat is cute when he does it :)
 
Ah, but Ron, you do get the employee discount at the New World Order store, don't you? I know my nieces and nephews loved their Moloch stuffed owls this Christmas.:D
 
Brainster said:
Ah, but Ron, you do get the employee discount at the New World Order store, don't you? I know my nieces and nephews loved their Moloch stuffed owls this Christmas.:D
Click to expand...

How do you stuff an owl with Moloch? Doesn't he kill you for things like that?
 
Here's a question: why do people say it was a top-down demolition when Loose Change keeps showing squibs closer to the ground, suggesting a bottoms-up demolition?
 
chippy said:
Here's a question: why do people say it was a top-down demolition when Loose Change keeps showing squibs closer to the ground, suggesting a bottoms-up demolition?
Click to expand...
Loose Change seems to have fallen out of favor with most of the Truthers, including its creators...
 
Ronald Weak, why do you feel the need to run back to JREF with a copy n paste of every exchange you have at 911blogger?

It's a bit like the child that comes home from school and says "Mommy look what I drawed for you at school today"


Keep in mind your membership agreement regarding civility.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rebel:

Why do you feel the need to post here with snide comments about Ron Weick. Seems kind of....juvenile really.

As for the "Top Down" CRAP, I do not need to say anything more, as even the simplest of Joe's can see it for what it is...absolute garbage.

TAM
 
rebel said:
Ronald Weak, why do you feel the need to run back to JREF with a copy n paste of every exchange you have at 911blogger?

It's a bit like the child that comes home from school and says "Mommy look what I drawed for you at school today"
Click to expand...
Odd. Ron isn't the child I'm seeing in this thread...
 
pomeroo said:
Jowenko, as well as nearly all other demolition experts, are not familiar with "Top Down" controlled demolition
Click to expand...

Any one know of any demolition experts who ARE familiar with the top-down demolition?

Oh right - the guys who blew up the towers...whoever "they" are.
 
it is astounding to see people make stuff up to compensate for holes in their pet theory. I mean top down demo??? come on man, is it that hard to slit your wrists with occams razor? The odd part is this is beyond occams ideal since we have a plausable scientific reason for the towers demise compared to a complete fabrication. You dont need to pick the least assumptive one because the CT one is complete assumption!
 
prior to 9/11 the term "Top Down" Demolition, I have a distinct feeling, did not exist, so the experts in it prior to that date would have been.........ZERO.

TAM
 
T.A.M. said:
prior to 9/11 the term "Top Down" Demolition, I have a distinct feeling, did not exist, so the experts in it prior to that date would have been.........ZERO.

TAM
Click to expand...

It's time to wake up and smell the coffee, Tammy. The towers were blown to kingdom ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ come. I don't care if it was top down, bottom up or in a figure of eight.
 
rebel said:
It's time to wake up and smell the coffee, Tammy. The towers were blown to kingdom ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ come. I don't care if it was top down, bottom up or in a figure of eight.
Click to expand...

Is that so?

What is the evidence for this assertion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom