WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

[Swing Dangler]

Before getting back and in order to ensure you truly believe your expert, and not just cherry picking his opinions you like, how about you agree with your experts opinion that WTC1 & 2 were not CD's.

HAAACHOOOO!!! So much staw in the air!
Your not ADD are you? I ask because you want to shift the topic to 1 and 2 while I have remained on WTC 7 as the thread's title suggests. I would suggest you do the same. If you choose, start a thread on 1 and 2 and Jowenko, and I will address that there.

Swing;Heres the 30 west broadway story you wanted.
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/const...all_39764.aspx
Today 02:07 PM

Thank you, however, I'm not looking for stories but for photos showing the area after the collapse of 1 and 2 but before WTC 7 collapse, and then finally after WTC 7 collapse.

Swing I have a couple of questions.
Have you ever been to a structure fire?
Have you ever been to a fire in an industrial setting?

Yes, actually a few days ago a chemical plant caught fire and jumped the street to another building as part of the same complex. I did not hear explosions, however, the building did collapse because of the wood used as part of the structural materials. Wood, not steel.

If you had you would realize that they are loud and that there are many explosive sounds during the fire. There are any number of combustible substances in buildings and the simple fact of a room flashing over can sound like an explosion.

Not in my experience. Rejected. And again, anything makes a loud explosion and my favorite, from POM, was pop cans! No I reject that outright because in the debunker world anything can sound like an explosion, anything but an explosive device. See the irony in the logic?
Now what would sound like a 'clap of thunder' and cause firefighters to claim it is going to blow up instead of collapse?

Have you ever seen even a small building collapse in person. I have and let me tell you those statements are not out of character. People use shorthand. They do not say "Get out of here the building has become unstable due to fire and we need to evacuate". They say "It is going to blow get out of here".

Not in my experience. Rejected.

Buildings almost always fall in also I must admit that I have never been involved in a collapse over 3 stories but I have never seen one fall over.
As far as your pictures did you ever consider they were caused by a sink hole? That would explain why they fell over.

Source for sink hole? No instead there was asymmetrical damage caused by an earthquake where one or more load bearing columns failed. I don't recall ever seeing a steel framed structure suffer global collapse in the same manner as a controlled demolition like WTC 7. Is there one on file?

I think those are earthquake pictures, which have absolutely nothing to do with the WTC7 situation.

Really? I was thinking they looked like collapses without explosives.
Much like this video here.
However, much different than this one here.

Have a great weekend!

 

[SDC]

So Blanchard's got no expert credentials.

next

Actually, the "Blanchard vs Jowenko" setup is completely irrelevant, because of a lack of preparation of the ground -- we are nowhere near able to answer it. What has been said is that Jowenko saw some video, and on that basis he said something. It has not been said that Jowenko studied the case in depth or detail. Even if he were the World's Greatest Russian- or Ukrainian-surnamed Netherlandish (Belgian?) Controlled Demolition Expert, if he did not study the case in depth and detail, his opinion would be of no use.

Until he does that, there is no point in asking anything of him. And again, you seemed to imply he'd be publishing soon; is that true or did I misread it?

 

[DavidJames]

I ask because you want to shift the topic to 1 and 2 while I have remained on WTC 7 as the thread's title suggests. I would suggest you do the same. If you choose, start a thread on 1 and 2 and Jowenko, and I will address that there.

You want to use Jowenko's opinion on WTC7 to bolster your position. I'm just curious about your consistency in picking your quotes. Jowenko doesn't believe WTC1 & 2 were CD's, so I'm curious if you equally willing to back that opinion. The fact that you dodged my question and replied with an adhom instead, suggests you aren't, and are in fact cherry picking the opinions that match yours.

 

[DGM]

So Blanchard's got no expert credentials.

next

Swings answer to this;

Originally Posted by DGM
Where did Jowenko get his?

Where did he go to school?

What was the last 12 jobs he did?

Were any for Jewish clients?

What was his mothers maiden name?

Was his father bald?

Did he prefer boxers or briefs?

Unless you can answer these questions he has no expertise.

Seems like par "twoofer" performance to me.

 

[afinemadness]

Yes, actually a few days ago a chemical plant caught fire and jumped the street to another building as part of the same complex. I did not hear explosions, however, the building did collapse because of the wood used as part of the structural materials. Wood, not steel.

That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. My one experience trumps all. I must also say that I do not believe that there were no explosions. Do yourself a favor do a search on chemical control in Elizabeth NJ and tell me that chemical fires do not explode. I have to tell you they also make interesting colors when they do.

Not in my experience. Rejected. And again, anything makes a loud explosion and my favorite, from POM, was pop cans! No I reject that outright because in the debunker world anything can sound like an explosion, anything but an explosive device. See the irony in the logic?
Now what would sound like a 'clap of thunder' and cause firefighters to claim it is going to blow up instead of collapse?

I have no idea why truthers feel that the only thing that sounds like an explosion is explosives. Do you not realize there was natural gas in the building? Do you not realize that cleaning fluids are combustible? You completely ignored that flashovers sound like explosions.

Not in my experience. Rejected.

So your vast experience allows you to make this decision.

Source for sink hole? No instead there was asymmetrical damage caused by an earthquake where one or more load bearing columns failed. I don't recall ever seeing a steel framed structure suffer global collapse in the same manner as a controlled demolition like WTC 7. Is there one on file?

And the ground gave way or the building never would have toppled over so please never say that anyone else uses a strawman this was the king of all strawmen.

Really? I was thinking they looked like collapses without explosives.
Much like this video here.
However, much different than this one here.

Have a great weekend!

I hope that you too have a great weekend

 

[DavidJames]

Not in my experience...
Not in my experience...
I don't recall...

Maybe you're not in the best position to make any intelligent comments.

 

[johnny karate]

Your choice of course. But if they layperson forms that opinion based upon expert opinion, what then?

Then please provide links to the expert analysis that confirms your position and I'll give it its due consideration.

Dodge noted.

There's nothing to dodge. You're not an expert and neither am I. For one non-expert to try and refute the argument of another is pointless.

I suspect the same evidence is used that NIST used in regards to 1 and 2.

The condition of the steel discovered at WTC 7 is evidence pointing to something other than a typical office fire. I understand that you reject that of course.

I reject no verifiable evidence. What I reject is idle speculation based on inconclusive data.

And speaking of dodges, you implied that there might be photographs showing the removal of incriminating evidence, and I pointed out that with all the witnesess and first responders present you wouldn't have to rely on photographs. Yet you didn't respond to that particular point. Why not? Why not get a list of those names and contact them and ask them if they saw anything suspicious? Wouldn't this go a long way to answering some of your questions?

Define non-traditional and I will try my best.

Your words, not mine:

However, could CD have been accomplished without the standard tools of a traditional CD such as det cord, caps, etc? If it were a state sponsored paramilitary/covert op would they use the same item or items be used?

They are not experts in controlled demolition so you reject their evidence of something other than office fire.

No, I reject your interpretation of their evidence as proof of CD. You cited them when asked to provide physical evidence of a CD, which they don't. Your layperson speculation is your own, and as such, meaningless.

Yes, but the logic behind that statement is in error.

No, it isn't you haven't provided any evidence.

"No, I reject, your, and any other layperson's, interpretation of the collapse."
I assume you reject any person's opinion that contradicts the OS. If so, why do you even respond on this thread. Here is an expert not a layperson and you reject his conclusion.

You might want to go back and read which conclusion of Jowenko's I reject, Mr. Strawman. I said I reject Jowenko's ability to read the minds of every American CD expert when you claimed he offered a reason why none of them support your claims. Nice try, though.

Jowenko remained silent until he was interviewed. If I remember the interview correctly he wasn't even aware of the collapse of WTC 7. Perhaps this explains the silence of others. It is difficult to form an opinion on something if you don't know that something exists. A construction engineer with a degree from Purdue was not aware of WTC 7 collapse. At which point she said it didn't look right.

I see. So your reasoning why no one in the worldwide controlled demolition industry except for Jowenko has come forward to champion the CD theory is because none of them are aware of the WTC7 collapse? Then why aren't you or any other CTer busy e-mailing all these experts to see what they think? After all, you think a horrific crime has been perpetrated and subsequently covered-up. You have a moral obligation to follow through on this. Better get crackin'!

Explosives that no one saw or heard? How can you justify this statement based upon the historical record, firefighter statements, video, etc.? And yes, I am speaking of just WTC 7.

How can I justify it? Because explosions don't equal explosives. If you have conclusive proof that someone witnessed an explosive device, please provide it.

False analogy wrapped in straw...we are of course discussing WTC 7 not 1 and 2 I have no idea if Jowenko has analyzed the aspects of 1 and 2 like he did 7. His opinion on 1 and 2 has no bearing on the discussion of 7.

I don't think you know what an analogy or a strawman argument is. I didn't say WTC1 and WTC2 were analogous to WTC7, nor did I attack a false position I assigned you. I merely ponted out that to accept Jowenko's position on WTC7, you have have to accept his position on WTC1 and WTC2, which can be found here. His opinion on WTC1 and WTC2 may have no bearing on WTC7, but it certainly has bearing on the CT as a whole. One that most of you conveniently ignore, as you're doing here.

ROFLMAO...terrorists generally leave lying around their tools of destruction so their attack maybe prevented. Excellent. Rejected. You fail.

Explosives leave physical evidence after they detonate. None was discovered at WTC7, nor were there any reports of anyone suspicious removing evidence. Not to mention there were no reports of anyone planting these explosives either. The failure is yours.

These verbal gymnastics don't release you from an obligation to provide any concrete evidence to support your claims, which you have yet to do.

 

[johnny karate]

Thank You. Yes I did. Didn't you understand it?

Then why aren't you rushing this evidence to the nearest investigative body or law enforcement agency? After all, you are claiming to have physical evidence that WTC7 was a CD so why aren't you doing something with it other than lamely attempting to score points in an Internet forum debate?

Tsk Tsk can't even maneuver a mouse.

Actually I did find those quotes and subsequently refuted them. This was all included in my paper that irrefutably proves that 9/11 was not an inside job. You can find it by searching here.

Addressed that already. Did you not see this?

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.co...8131/27474.htm

New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why
First, the doctor of physics right after 9/11 said WTC brought down by explosive devices but later abruptly recanted. Federal Lawsuit contends he may have been unduly influenced by government officials with statements only being cleared up through legal discovery methods.
15 Jun 2005

http://www.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/4june02.html

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Pete Domenici today reported that Van Romero of Socorro has been appointed by President Bush to serve on a White House commission aimed at closing the educational achievement gap for Hispanic American youth.

The only thing you "addressed" was a baseless fantasy on why Romero disagrees with you. This doesn't change the fact that he doesn't agree with you.

His truthful unbiased original expert opinion agrees with me.

His politically pressured revisionist lies agree with you.

In case you forgot…

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that."

Romero's a dead horse, sport. Again you can slander him all you want, it doesn't change anything. Why not team up with Swing Dangler and get crackin' on contacting other experts in the worldwide controlled demolitions industry to bolster your theories? This way, you can stop embarrassing yourself by claiming that someone who doesn't agree with you actually does.

BTW where's Blanchard's education? Come on chop chop

I never mentioned Blanchard.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Yeah that's right because everything is a black and white situation to you. That's why it's so easy for you to believe the dumbed down official version of events. The building is either completely collapsed or it's ok to enter no in-between right?

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Please translate this mess for me. I see a bunch of words strung together, but I can't make a lick of sense out of them. Particularly that last sentence. Please, someone help me understand.

To think that a building with floors gutted by fire and structural damage are just as secure as they were before that fact is what's absurd.

It wasn't some burned out, long-abandoned tenement in the Bronx. It was an evacuated, burning, structurally compromised office tower in the middle of a massive debris field and disaster zone. It was not a security risk, not remotely.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that there were top secret CIA files they were concerned about recovering. (Note: This is an example, only. Spare me the obtuse games please.) Would it be easier to a) coordinate with local authorities (FDNY, cops, etc.) to make sure that agents were in place to enter the building and retrieve them as soon as it became accessible, or b) put together, from scratch, a plan to obtain explosives, wire the building and bring it down - all without being noticed - in a single afternoon.

Oh, and plan b) would achieve nothing in the way of "securing" the files, btw. Oops.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

 

[pomeroo]

Mark Loizeaux
who got the contract to clean-up the WTC site? Is this your only demo expert who supports the official version?

NAZI? What's not true? Site it.

I have contacted fourteen demolition companies, in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut. You have contacted none. All the companies I contacted support the mainstream explanation. All of them reject the fantsist moonshine.

Bollyn is lying when he pretends that Mark Loizeaux claimed to be able to identify molten steel.

There is not a shred of evidence to suggest the use of explosives at the WTC complex.

 

[Arus808]

and why do people think that explosives can create molten steel?

 

[BillyRayValentine]

So Blanchard's got no expert credentials.

next

Oh, really?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Brent L. Blanchard currently serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services Inc., Rancocas Woods, New Jersey. The firm performs vibration consulting, structural survey and photographic work for contractors throughout the United States and abroad.

In addition, Mr. Blanchard is a senior writer for implosionworld.com, a website that publishes news and information related to the explosive demolition industry. His team's work is also regularly published in various periodicals such as The Journal of Explosives Engineering (ISEE-USA), Explosives Engineering (IEE-UK), Demolition Magazine, Demolition & Recycling International, Constructioneer and Construction News.

Over the past 24 years, Mr. Blanchard's photographic images depicting demolition projects have won numerous national and international awards, and collections of his team's work have been showcased in The Philadelphia Museum of Art and The Franklin Institute Science Museum, among other prestigious venues. He has also appeared on internationally broadcast television documentaries such as Demolition Day (CBS News), Demolition (NBC/Dateline), Blastmasters (The Learning Channel) and The Art & Science of Blasting (Discovery Channel) as an authority on the explosive demolition industry.

Let's see. CBS, NBC, The Learning Channel and Discovery channel all regard him as an authority on the industry. Yet you claim he has no expert credentials.

Hmmm...whom to believe?

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Oh, really?

Let's see. CBS, NBC, The Learning Channel and Discovery channel all regard him as an authority on the industry. Yet you claim he has no expert credentials.

Hmmm...Whom to believe?

Oh they do huh? Well I guess that just about does it huh? LOL

Hmmmm.... Let's see genius.

This says he's a writer and photographer with no mention of where he went to school or exactly what his experience is in actual demolition or explosives.

I have a camera and I'm writing to you right now. So?

And just where did this little tidbit of an excuse for Explosives expertise come from?

http://www.implosionworld.com/history4.htm

Implosion Worlds website? That’s it?

Is this one of his examples of writing? Did he write this himself? He should have included a photograph of himself. Couldn’t he find anyone to hold the camera? This guy's as big of a fraud as Meigs or Brownie. LOL

 

[ZENSMACK89]

I have contacted fourteen demolition companies, in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut. You have contacted none. All the companies I contacted support the mainstream explanation. All of them reject the fantsist moonshine.

Bollyn is lying when he pretends that Mark Loizeaux claimed to be able to identify molten steel.

There is not a shred of evidence to suggest the use of explosives at the WTC complex.

Post where they’ve been published on the record and their training and expertise.

 

[DGM]

Zensmack:
Would you please cut the condescending "genius" crap. It only makes you look childish and can be construed as a personal attack.

 

[ZENSMACK89]

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

It wasn't some burned out, long-abandoned tenement in the Bronx. It was an evacuated, burning, structurally compromised office tower in the middle of a massive debris field and disaster zone. It was not a security risk, not remotely.

Well how about this now? Now it's structurally compromised and on fire but just as secure as it always was and apparently safe enough to go inside. Yeah that makes sense.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that there were top secret CIA files they were concerned about recovering. (Note: This is an example, only. Spare me the obtuse games please.) Would it be easier to a) coordinate with local authorities (FDNY, cops, etc.) to make sure that agents were in place to enter the building and retrieve them as soon as it became accessible, or b) put together, from scratch, a plan to obtain explosives, wire the building and bring it down - all without being noticed - in a single afternoon.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Do you believe the building was so damaged it fell down or not? Who's going to send who in there? Make up your mind.

Oh, and plan b) would achieve nothing in the way of "securing" the files, btw. Oops.

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Who's theory? Yours?

 

[chillzero]

A reminder of Rule 12: Attack the argument and not the arguer. Remember to stay civil and polite, or further mod action will follow.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[sts60]

The evidence for the natural collapse was based upon the visual record as is the evidence for CD.

The collapse indicators include various sounds made by the building during the day, and other non-visual cues as discussed previously. More importantly, they include the observed deformation of the building as observed by FDNY personnel with a transit - a standard method for assessing collapse probability.

1.At what point was an assessment made of the interior structural integrity of the building to determine that a natural collapse was inevitable? I'm not aware of this piece of evidence. What I have read was the possibility, not certainty the building would collapse. In one news report captured on film at ground level, tan official has a news crew move back because they thought the building would tip over into another building. Tip over, not fall in on itself.

No interior assessment was performed because FDNY was already certain the building was in imminent danger of collapse. (I've been reasonably diligent, by the way, in saying that such indicators were not an absolute guarantee of collapse.) As for one guy saying the building might "tip over" - who was he? did he say "tip over"? was he talking about wall collapse? That's pretty thin.

2.And at what point in history does a natural collapse follow the characteristics of a controlled demolition collapse? I'm not aware of any.

Broadly speaking, lots of times. Buildings tend to fall down. There have been examples of this given in this forum and elsewhere.

The coolest example of this was a condo fire I was at, playing "yard guard" (part of the rapid intervention team outside) after laying out a few hundred feet of supply line. The floors pancaked inside the four-story structure, leaving the exterior walls almost completely intact. It looked normal until you peered in the bottom windows and saw four condos' worth of floors, furniture, etc inside.

The closest I've seen are buildings toppled on their side due to earthquakes or a failed CD. I would also like to know how asymmetrical damage by debris and fire can cause a symmetrical collapse.

Because buildings aren't truly monolithic structures built on giant hinges.

Here are examples of collapses due to asymmetrical damage, not exactly appearing as WTC 7 did. See the photos below.

Could you provide a reference for your tipped-over building pictures? I missed it if you already did.