'What about building 7'?

[Spanx]

This also poses a serious problem for you because at the time (you claim), several people were still in the building and in the surrounding area(hundreds in the general area). No one else reported anything prior to the collapse of the towers. You're supporting an explosion strong enough to take out a stair-way but do no other damage to the building. All the windows in that area were still intact prior to the towers collapse.

You would almost think people around there would be more in-tune with their surroundings, you suggest they were oblivious.

No problem for MM, it doesn't matter what anyone else saw or heard. The only thing that really matters is what Jennings or Hess said. I can only assume because they were trapped inside a dark building thinking a small aircraft had hit one of the towers they were the only ones that knew what was going on.

 

[carlitos]

The stairwell explosion from below the 6th floor landing appears to have been a premature 'planned' detonation.

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[GlennB]

During each tower's collapse, 7 WTC was shrouded in a dust cloud, an ideal time for more structure weakening blasts.

Leading, according to you, to the collapse of WTC7 in the immediate aftermath of the WTC1 collapse.

How would 'the perps' have explained that collapse? The dust cloud knocked it over? The vibration was all too much for it?

Let's face it, MM, your current theory on the timing of the WTC7 collapse makes zero sense.

 

[NoahFence]

Leading, according to you, to the collapse of WTC7 in the immediate aftermath of the WTC1 collapse.

How would 'the perps' have explained that collapse? The dust cloud knocked it over? The vibration was all too much for it?

Let's face it, MM, your current theory on the timing of the WTC7 collapse makes zero sense.

His current theory?


They pretty much all are.

 

[1337m4n]

A question, Miragememories.

In this thread we showed that explosions are regular occurrences in burning buildings, from many varying causes: backdraft explosions, ruptured gas lines, exploding transformers, and several other possible causes. Not to mention several examples of things that sound like explosions without actually being explosions.

What evidence leads you to suspect that the explosions in question were caused by bombs/demo charges?

 

[DGM]

Leading, according to you, to the collapse of WTC7 in the immediate aftermath of the WTC1 collapse.

How would 'the perps' have explained that collapse? The dust cloud knocked it over? The vibration was all too much for it?

Let's face it, MM, your current theory on the timing of the WTC7 collapse makes zero sense.

No.....no. The debris from the North tower could not be enough. They had to weaken it much more during this time then wait 8 hours to finish the job so no one would catch on.

Yeah, MM has the logical angle.

 

[NoahFence]

A question, Miragememories.

In this thread we showed that explosions are regular occurrences in burning buildings, from many varying causes: backdraft explosions, ruptured gas lines, exploding transformers, and several other possible causes. Not to mention several examples of things that sound like explosions without actually being explosions.

What evidence leads you to suspect that the explosions in question were caused by bombs/demo charges?

He worked in media!

 

[GlennB]

No.....no. The debris from the North tower could not be enough. They had to weaken it much more during this time then wait 8 hours to finish the job so no one would catch on.

Yeah, MM has the logical angle.

In fairness, his theory (such as it is) has evolved over the years.

Originally he believed in the opportunistic, Jowenko-esque scenario, where a crack team of CDists nipped into the damaged building to take advantage of the situation.

Then the 8 storeys of freefall story broke and obviously the previous theory would no longer wash (far too much work in too short a time). Here he adopted a theory of pre-planned removal of all support over those 8 storeys.
But he came to accept that the damage and fires could never be guaranteed to occur and act as the perps' plausible alibi for the collapse.

Faced with that, things got weird. His theory then evolved to claim that WTC7 was 'supposed' to have fallen in the wake of the WTC1 collapse, and this recent interpretation of the Jennings testimony is designed purely to support that insanity.

Once again, it's the mere act of defending the theory that matters, not the substance of the theory or the validity or importance of the evidence that supposedly supports it.

WTC7 was intended to collapse just after WTC1 did, with absolutely no provocation.

 

[Miragememories]

Originally he believed in the opportunistic, Jowenko-esque scenario, where a crack team of CDists nipped into the damaged building to take advantage of the situation.

"What you see at the WTC, these are pictures of building #7. Let's take this and look what we see. Do you see a fire above somewhere?"

"I see smoke however. Yeah, you always get dust, nothing has been removed from it?

Does the top go first?

No, the bottom."

"It starts on the bottom."

"They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."

"Did this fall in a different way than the WTC? [WTC 1 & WTC 2]"

"Don't you agree?"

"Yes, you see the bottom floors go first."

"Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition."

"Your sure?"

"Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

At this point, the interviewer tells Danny Jowenko when the collapse they have been studying occurred.

"But it also happened on September 11th."

"The same day??? ..... Are you sure?????"

...

"You can imagine if there are all buildings surrounded that are intact and should stay intact with sensitive computer equipment, then you have to prepare very precisely your weakenings etc.

But it looks like it was that clean...."

"If this is the consequence of the coming down of the WTC towers... that would greatly astonish me. I can't imagine it. No."

"This is the work of man."

"How long would it take for you, for this building to..."

"But then it's more work, than a few hours with 30 men."

"If you think a little bit longer about it, how do you have to collapse such a building as fast as possible... and you bring down the columns only on the bottom floor and weakens them, you can cut them funnel-shaped, a column then cannot go to the left or to the right, it remains standing but they are loose.

If it then goes you get the effect, they don't need to apply cutter charges everywhere."

"But what you say not takes more than 7 hours?"

"I don't know, you maybe will need 20 guys with a cutting torch.

They have such a column within 15 minutes in such a V-form.

Let them do 4 floors then with so many people. Everything then is loose as... all possible.

It is all possible. I'm convinced."

Just for the record, I believe it was highly unlikely the demolition of 7 WTC was completely engineered on 9/11.

I am sure that after spending more time considering the problem, Mr. Jowenko realized that preparations for such a hurried 7 WTC demolition, would not only have been illegal, but in order to be successful, had to have been stealthily planned and put into effect prior to 9/11.

 

[Oystein]

But it looks like it was that clean...."
...
"If this is the consequence of the coming down of the WTC towers... that would greatly astonish me. I can't imagine it. No."

I highlighted the foundation and structure of Jowenko's argument logic at that point.

I believe he was not yet informed about, or had not fully digested, the extent of the fires that raged through #7 for hours.

 

[Spanx]

Well if MM says it's controlled demolition then it must be. He has provided all the necessary evidence. The statements of Jennings and Hess. The interview from Danny Jowenko where he watched a few seconds of the collapse. What more could anyone ask for?

 

[carlitos]

Ooh, "stealthily planned." That sounds sinister.

 

[GlennB]

I highlighted the foundation and structure of Jowenko's argument logic at that point.

I believe he was not yet informed about, or had not fully digested, the extent of the fires that raged through #7 for hours.

Correct, though it goes even deeper. But in the end Jowenko and his ill-informed opinions is irrelevant.

My point was that there was a time when MM accepted the 'opportunistic' WTC7 CD, but then abandoned that and moved on to an even less logical theory.

 

[LSSBB]

Ooh, "stealthily planned." That sounds sinister.

Proper framing is essential to good propping up.

 

[tsig]

In fairness, his theory (such as it is) has evolved over the years.

Originally he believed in the opportunistic, Jowenko-esque scenario, where a crack team of CDists nipped into the damaged building to take advantage of the situation.

Then the 8 storeys of freefall story broke and obviously the previous theory would no longer wash (far too much work in too short a time). Here he adopted a theory of pre-planned removal of all support over those 8 storeys.But he came to accept that the damage and fires could never be guaranteed to occur and act as the perps' plausible alibi for the collapse.

Faced with that, things got weird. His theory then evolved to claim that WTC7 was 'supposed' to have fallen in the wake of the WTC1 collapse, and this recent interpretation of the Jennings testimony is designed purely to support that insanity.

Once again, it's the mere act of defending the theory that matters, not the substance of the theory or the validity or importance of the evidence that supposedly supports it.

WTC7 was intended to collapse just after WTC1 did, with absolutely no provocation.

How can we be sure that Jennings didn't do it with a cutting torch and that's why he lied.

 

[Miragememories]

"But it looks like it was that clean....

...

If this is the consequence of the coming down of the WTC towers... that would greatly astonish me. I can't imagine it. No."

I highlighted the foundation and structure of Jowenko's argument logic at that point.

I believe he was not yet informed about, or had not fully digested, the extent of the fires that raged through #7 for hours.

I think we all know the "extent" of those "raging", migrating office cubicle fires that supposedly brought the steel-structured 7 WTC down at high speed.

There is nothing special about the ability of fires to briefly rage.

It is the where, when, and how much, that make for, "special".

In a nutshell, the office cubicle fires were insufficient cause.

There was not enough fire, of sufficient strength, duration, and location, to produce the necessary "special".

The NIST hypothesis fails because it cannot achieve its goal by the means they suggest.

Their hypothesis's initiation calls for column 79 to be dislodged and buckled, as a result of expanding "pushing" girders, created by heat induced steel expansion, over 5 sequential floors.

The girders have to push against resisting structural steel, without sagging, through a precise distance, in order to achieve column failure.

If the high, sustained temperature required to do this was ever produced, it would also weaken the pushing strength of the expanding steel girder causing it to sag, and column 79 would not fail.

So, no I do not think that Mr. Jowenko's lack of a complete knowledge regarding all that afflicted 7 WTC on 9/11 is at issue.

A year or so after he did that interview, now more familiar with 7 WTC, Mr. Jowenko, in a phone interview, unreservedly repeated his professional belief as a demolition engineer, that what he observed in the video of 7 WTC collapsing was a controlled demolition.

 

[LSSBB]

I think we all know the "extent" of those "raging", migrating office cubicle fires that supposedly brought the steel-structured 7 WTC down at high speed.

There is nothing special about the ability of fires to briefly rage.

It is the where, when, and how much, that make for, "special".

In a nutshell, the office cubicle fires were insufficient cause.

There was not enough fire, of sufficient strength, duration, and location, to produce the necessary "special".

The NIST hypothesis fails because it cannot achieve its goal by the means they suggest.

Their hypothesis's initiation calls for column 79 to be dislodged and buckled, as a result of expanding "pushing" girders, created by heat induced steel expansion, over 5 sequential floors.

The girders have to push against resisting structural steel, without sagging, through a precise distance, in order to achieve column failure.

If the high, sustained temperature required to do this was ever produced, it would also weaken the pushing strength of the expanding steel girder causing it to sag, and column 79 would not fail.

So, no I do not think that Mr. Jowenko's lack of a complete knowledge regarding all that afflicted 7 WTC on 9/11 is at issue.

A year or so after he did that interview, now more familiar with 7 WTC, Mr. Jowenko, in a phone interview, unreservedly repeated his professional belief as a demolition engineer, that what he observed in the video of 7 WTC collapsing was a controlled demolition.

Ah yes, all these fire effects and heat spreading calculations, have been made by you to back up your professional estimation, I take it?

Or are you just relying on your layman's uninformed guessing?

 

[Oystein]

I think we all know the "extent" of those "raging", migrating office cubicle fires that supposedly brought the steel-structured 7 WTC down at high speed.

You make it sound as if the fires were the cause of the high speed of the collapse. That's not so. Gravity was along with some sequence of progressive static failure.

There is nothing special about the ability of fires to briefly rage.

No. That's why it was so easy for experts on the scene to predict that #7 may or will collapse.

It is the where, when, and how much, that make for, "special".

In a nutshell, the office cubicle fires were insufficient cause.

There was not enough fire, of sufficient strength, duration, and location, to produce the necessary "special".

If you say so, I will of course believe you without further argument.
Or...
...actually...
...No

The NIST hypothesis fails because it cannot achieve its goal by the means they suggest.

Their hypothesis's initiation calls for column 79 to be dislodged and buckled, as a result of expanding "pushing" girders, created by heat induced steel expansion, over 5 sequential floors.

The girders have to push against resisting structural steel, without sagging, through a precise distance, in order to achieve column failure.

If the high, sustained temperature required to do this was ever produced, it would also weaken the pushing strength of the expanding steel girder causing it to sag, and column 79 would not fail.

I don't know if what you say has any merit.
But let's suppose it does.
Let's even suppose every step of your argument is correct, and NIST is wrong about this girder-pushing, col79 buckling hypothesis, that it didn't happen that way at all.

Then you still haven't shown that fires did not cause some (other)) steel members to fail (by some other method?) and start off progressive collapse

So, no I do not think that Mr. Jowenko's lack of a complete knowledge regarding all that afflicted 7 WTC on 9/11 is at issue.

Mr. Jowenko's state of knowledge has nothing to do with the argument you just made.

It's just that he based his expert opinion on incomplete data - and tehrefore ought not be trusted too much.

A year or so after he did that interview, now more familiar with 7 WTC, Mr. Jowenko, in a phone interview, unreservedly repeated his professional belief as a demolition engineer, that what he observed in the video of 7 WTC collapsing was a controlled demolition.[/color]

How do you know he was more familiar with 7 WTC then? Assuming the recording we have heard is genuine. (Perhaps this question is answered in the interview - I don't recall that, and don't have it handy at the moment)

 

[Spanx]

Let's hope MM never does jury service.

 

[GlennB]

A year or so after he did that interview, now more familiar with 7 WTC, Mr. Jowenko, in a phone interview, unreservedly repeated his professional belief as a demolition engineer, that what he observed in the video of 7 WTC collapsing was a controlled demolition.

A demolition which, according to you, was scheduled for just after 10:28 that day. Whereas Jowenko speculated that a team - ready to go - might take out "these twelve" (12 core columns on a few floors, already wrecked and exposed) and bring the building down. Rather unlike your theory that all vertical support over some 8 storeys was removed simultaneously.

You've been avoiding offering an explanation for these things for a few years now. Did you retract and I missed it? Such things happen, but the subject has been raised a number of times lately with no word from you afaics.