WTC 7 Question - why blow it up?

[Bell]

Also bear in mind, Danny Jowenko was only ever exposed to the last 6.5 seconds of the collapse, as I recall (please correct me if I'm wrong, thank you). He was going off of a very small sample of evidence, and I notice has not been speaking up lately in support of a CD, most likely because he's seen the remainder of the evidence. Once again, please correct me if I'm wrong on that, but the only quote of Jowenko's I've ever seen the TM use is the one from about five years ago when he was first shown the video and not a thing since.

Correct, they showed him the footage from the Naudet brothers. He also didn't know the building was badly damaged, neither that it was on fire.

Incorrect, the quote was from last year, when Dutch tv broadcast Loose Change, accompanied by a program debunking it.

 

[SDC]

And a question for the defenders of the 'not official theory yet' as one hasn't been promoted to my knowledge, what would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans not just fire and debris damage?

Actual evidence and intelligent interpretation thereof. None has yet been provided -- I don't think you meant "promoted," by the way, it's awkward if not unacceptable -- by the defenders of the "anything goes" CD/ CT.

And why the Guy Fawkes mask? It doesn't resonate 'round here.

 

[DGM]

And a question for the defenders of the 'not official theory yet' as one hasn't been promoted to my knowledge, what would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans not just fire and debris damage?

This is a very easy question. The physical evidence that is always left behind.

IE;

Explosive cutting marks on the steel.
Detonator remains.

This stuff would be obvious to the investigators/iron workers at the scene. Unless your saying these people are in on it, it never happened.

 

[Disbelief]

And a question for the defenders of the 'not official theory yet' as one hasn't been promoted to my knowledge, what would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans not just fire and debris damage?

Evidence. You know, things like residue, det cord, etc. that would show there were explosives there.

 

[Sabrina]

Correct, they showed him the footage from the Naudet brothers. He also didn't know the building was badly damaged, neither that it was on fire.

Incorrect, the quote was from last year, when Dutch tv broadcast Loose Change, accompanied by a program debunking it.

Ah; thank you, I had thought it was several years ago, not that recently.

Has anyone contacted him lately and offered him the remainder of the tapes and everything else that is available and asked him if, after viewing it all, he would want to amend his statement?

 

[johnny karate]

Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko:

"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."

"This is controlled demolition."

"A team of experts did this."

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

A nice list of interviews and I believe with translation that you can find an appropriate quotes stating how he believes it could have been done within the time frame of the attacks.

Interview with translation here:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...tion+interviews


Audio interview here

SD, what does Jowenko have to say regarding the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2, and do you unquestioningly believe that assessment as much as you do his assessment of WTC7 collapse?

 

[Bell]

Ah; thank you, I had thought it was several years ago, not that recently.

Has anyone contacted him lately and offered him the remainder of the tapes and everything else that is available and asked him if, after viewing it all, he would want to amend his statement?

Afaik he want's nothing to do with either conspiracies or debunkers. I'm not sure though. Gravy had (tried to) contacted him by e-mail shortly after the clips were on YouTube. Should be some info on him in Gravy's WTC7 paper.

 

[johnny karate]

And a question for the defenders of the 'not official theory yet' as one hasn't been promoted to my knowledge, what would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans not just fire and debris damage?

Very simple.

Any physical evidence. (So far, Truthers have none.)

A preponderance of eyewitness testimony from either before, during, or after the fact that explicitly and directly mentions explosives, related equipment, or people planting and/or removing such things. (So far, Truthers have none.)

The majority opinion of the controlled demolition industry. (So far, Truthers have Danny Jowenko, who, unfortunately for the Truth, also happens to contradict their belief that WTC 1 and WTC were CD as well.)

What would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans and just fire and debris damage?

 

[sts60]

And a question for the defenders of the 'not official theory yet' as one hasn't been promoted to my knowledge, what would it take to convince you that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition or a demolition by humans not just fire and debris damage?

1. Lack of the unmistakable collapse indicators observed by FDNY that day.
2. Evidence of the enormous amount of work done by demolition crews to prepare such a large building for demolition - gutting it, pre-cutting, charge emplacement, etc.
3. Unambiguous evidence of the actual use of demolition charges.
4. Testimony of the demolition crew.

That should about do it.

 

[DGM]

1. Lack of the unmistakable collapse indicators observed by FDNY that day.
2. Evidence of the enormous amount of work done by demolition crews to prepare such a large building for demolition - gutting it, pre-cutting, charge emplacement, etc.
3. Unambiguous evidence of the actual use of demolition charges.
4. Testimony of the demolition crew.

That should about do it.

An interesting thing is the explosive sounds are kept small by all the pre-cutting. Without this the explosive sounds would be much larger than a conventional controlled demolition.

I've been in a building before a demo and I did not feel safe. The support of the building was badly compromised before any charges went off.

 

[jaydeehess]

An interesting thing is the explosive sounds are kept small by all the pre-cutting. Without this the explosive sounds would be much larger than a conventional controlled demolition.

I've been in a building before a demo and I did not feel safe. The support of the building was badly compromised before any charges went off.

This is interesting in that Christopher 7 states that the columns of WTC 7 were much too massive to have succumbed to fire damage BUT he also has no problem with, at most, ONE report of a large explosion which was desacribed as a "clap of thunder" and occured as the building was in the process of collapsing.

 

[Swing Dangler]

It appears then that you reject the buildings actual collapse as evidence, correct?

* The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
* The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
* Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.
* The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
* The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

Any physical evidence.You know, things like residue, det cord, etc. that would show there were explosives there.

The CT inside job theory of course supersedes the necessity of evidence as it can be explained as covered up and removed.

Is there photographic evidence available of the removal of debris from WTC 7 that might show these things or the lack of these things?
I've seen numerous photos of the clean up of WTC 1 and 2 but can't seem to find debris removal for WTC 7.

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?

Could this analysis as completed by J.R. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering, and R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. professors of materials science and engineering, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts be considered evidence as examined here?

Testimony of the demolition crew.

Is this a realistic standard of evidence in a situation such as this be it a CD for good or nefarious reasons?

The majority opinion of the controlled demolition industry.

Jowenko addresses this issue in his phone call here.
I believe this interview was done in either Feb. or March of 2007.
He addresses why the CD industry in America wouldn't describe it as a CD.

Lack of the unmistakable collapse indicators observed by FDNY that day.

So because it looked like it was structurally unsound, that proves no CD? I don't think that would qualify as suitable evidence or logic.

2. Evidence of the enormous amount of work done by demolition crews to prepare such a large building for demolition - gutting it, pre-cutting, charge emplacement, etc.

Danny in his first interview refutes this line of evidence and determines that it could have been done within the time frame of that day with a team working quickly and efficiently. He doesn't fully state it was done before hand, however, that remains a possibility.

Thanks for answering the question and responding with civility and respect despite our different views.

Enjoy your evening!

 

[DGM]

It appears then that you reject the buildings actual collapse as evidence, correct?

* The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
* The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
* Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.
* The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
* The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

OK what the heck is the main structure and why would it not support the penthouse?

Also what's the difference between a structural failure gravity collapse and what you described?

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Really? Is that all? How much did the FBI share information with the CIA leading up to 9/11 and vica versa genius? Why didn't they? Are soviet agents the only concern of the agencies housed in WTC7 or is this delusion exclusive to you? Tell me more.

Simply amazing. My point was that "soviet agents (would have been) the only concern of the agencies housed in WTC7"???

Good Lord, man. Your comprehension skills are just awful. I really am embarrassed for you just now.

 

[SDC]

It appears then that you reject the buildings actual collapse as evidence, correct?

...

The CT inside job theory of course supersedes the necessity of evidence as it can be explained as covered up and removed.

Is there photographic evidence available of the removal of debris from WTC 7 that might show these things or the lack of these things?
I've seen numerous photos of the clean up of WTC 1 and 2 but can't seem to find debris removal for WTC 7.

...

So because it looked like it was structurally unsound, that proves no CD? I don't think that would qualify as suitable evidence or logic.

Danny in his first interview refutes this line of evidence and determines that it could have been done within the time frame of that day with a team working quickly and efficiently. He doesn't fully state it was done before hand, however, that remains a possibility.

Thanks for answering the question and responding with civility and respect despite our different views.

Enjoy your evening!

Lots of cuts by me to help me focus. I am not an engineer, nor even close -- so I have no serious qualifications to support my comments, which I gather puts us at the same level. But here is one general point, coming from my experience as a historian. Why is there so much emphasis on visual evidence? The untrained eye is a liar; you are relying chiefly on photos or videos. (I almost said "motion pictures." Creek go the knees.) Intelligent interpretation of visual evidence is, just like (for example) construction, demolition, and real estate management, not easy. It is tough to do it well. You need training, temperament, tools, etc.

Let me put it this way. Anyone who relies primarily on visual evidence (which includes, by the way, Jowenko's comments, since he is relying on visual evidence which he is evidently trying to interpret) is not behaving seriously. You are basically saying that technical knowledge or expertise mean little; it is your eye, staring at pictures that other people took, that counts. I repeat: the eye is a liar.

Another odd thing. You asked some time ago, "what would it take" to get people to believe the CT/ CD theory. Most responses said "evidence." I said "evidence and intelligent interpretation." That may sounds like I am waffling, but I'm not. A piece of physical evidence can only "say" so much. It has to be interpreted -- but that does not mean, Anything Goes! Or that every opinion is equal. Just the opposite; the emphasis is on intelligent interpretation.

Sen Moynihan is, I think, often quoted to the effect that everyone has a right to his/ her own opinion, but not to his/ her own facts. Facts come first, but they need interpretation. You have got a bunch of possible facts, splattered at random, but you have not provided intelligent interpretation. You have arranged them into patterns that make sense to you, but you have not convinced others that your pattern makes sense. It reminds me of the magpie, picking up shiny things and taking them away and arranging them.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Gee BillyRay I can't telling you I can't read for you.

Sorry.

Your best post yet. Not a single kwazy kwaim - just some innocuous, incoherent babbling.

I think you're on to something. Avoiding actual content seems to work for you. Proceed.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko:

"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."

"This is controlled demolition."

"A team of experts did this."

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

None of which, as I'm sure you know, answers the question.

A nice list of interviews and I believe with translation that you can find an appropriate quotes stating how he believes it could have been done within the time frame of the attacks.

What you believe is hardly evidence, and your link doesn't go anywhere. If appropriate quotes can be found, please find them and post them. Otherwise your point isn't proven.

On the comparison, WTC7 was a lot bigger, yes. Does that mean it would take less charges?

Dave

 

[johnny karate]

It appears then that you reject the buildings actual collapse as evidence, correct?

No, I reject, your, and any other layperson's, interpretation of the collapse.

* The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
* The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
* Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.
* The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
* The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

My comment above renders all of this moot.

The CT inside job theory of course supersedes the necessity of evidence as it can be explained as covered up and removed.

Which does not release Truthers from their obligation to provide evidence, or at the very least that incriminating evidence was removed.

If you truly believe that lack of evidence can be used as evidence, I want you to think long and hard about the implications this would have for the criminal justice system.

Is there photographic evidence available of the removal of debris from WTC 7 that might show these things or the lack of these things? I've seen numerous photos of the clean up of WTC 1 and 2 but can't seem to find debris removal for WTC 7.

This would be up to you and your fellow Truthers to provide. There were also numerous witnesses and first responders that could be contacted to provide testimony, as well.

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?

Your first step would be to prove that this "non-traditional CD" even exists or is possible before we get into what kind of equipment would be required.

Could this analysis as completed by J.R. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering, and R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. professors of materials science and engineering, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts be considered evidence as examined here?

Do any of these people espouse a CD theory? I think the answer to that question will answer yours.

Is this a realistic standard of evidence in a situation such as this be it a CD for good or nefarious reasons?

The standard of evidence we are requesting is to provide any at all. So yes, I would say it's realisitic.

Jowenko addresses this issue in his phone call here.I believe this interview was done in either Feb. or March of 2007.
He addresses why the CD industry in America wouldn't describe it as a CD.

Jowenko's opinions on this issue are irrelevant. He presumes to speak for the entire American CD industry, which is patently ridiculous. Also, the CD industry exists outside of America, even in some countries unfriendly to the U.S. Do you or Jowenko have any thoughts on why they would keep silent as well?

So because it looked like it was structurally unsound, that proves no CD? I don't think that would qualify as suitable evidence or logic.

No, but it certainly is a strong indicator that it collapsed due to fire and structural damage, and not explosives that no one saw or heard.

Danny in his first interview refutes this line of evidence and determines that it could have been done within the time frame of that day with a team working quickly and efficiently. He doesn't fully state it was done before hand, however, that remains a possibility.

I'd be careful how much credibility you give to Jowenko. Remember, he doesn't think that WTC1 and WTC2 were brought down by CD, which kind of puts a couple holes in the CT.

 

[HyJinX]

Gee BillyRay I can't telling you I can't read for you.

Sorry

BTW I see you like to nominate people. What can I win? lol

Well, given the first line of your post here...I'd say you're a shoo-in for a Stundie award.

 

[Disbelief]

It appears then that you reject the buildings actual collapse as evidence, correct?

* The collapse of the main structure commences suddenly (several seconds after the penthouse falls).
* The building sinks in a precisely vertical manner into its footprint.
* Puffs of dust emerge from the building's facade early in the event.
* The collapse is total, producing a rubble pile only about three stories high.
* The main structure collapses totally in under 7 seconds, only about a second slower than it would take a brick dropped from the building's roof to reach the ground in a vacuum.

Why should there be some delay of the building collapsing? Why would it not suddenly occur? How can you see what was happening with all the smoke and the lack of close up video?

I won't speak to the footprint idea, because I do not know if it fell in its own footprint.

Puffs of dust would be air forcing it out because of the penthouse collapse.

Why would the collapse not be total? What leads you to believe that only part of it should have fallen?

I do not know the exact time of the collapse, so I will let someone more knowledgeable speak to that.

The CT inside job theory of course supersedes the necessity of evidence as it can be explained as covered up and removed.

Then you run into the problem of the ever expanding conspiracy. Every person who was there would have to be in on it.

Is there photographic evidence available of the removal of debris from WTC 7 that might show these things or the lack of these things?
I've seen numerous photos of the clean up of WTC 1 and 2 but can't seem to find debris removal for WTC 7.

How easy is it to differentiate WTC7 debris with debris from the tower that fell on it? Would there be many photos since the building is so inconsequential to the majority of people?

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?

Can't answer that, as I have no knowledge of tools of the trade. I do wonder why you think that the military has such secret demo weapons. Why the need for them?

Could this analysis as completed by J.R. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering, and R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson, Jr. professors of materials science and engineering, at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts be considered evidence as examined here?

What does this say? "The steel got hot", is all I could see. Makes sense if there were fires and then a building collapse.

Is this a realistic standard of evidence in a situation such as this be it a CD for good or nefarious reasons?

I think a better way to phrase this might have been testimony of someone coming forward and explaining how they did it.

Jowenko addresses this issue in his phone call here.
I believe this interview was done in either Feb. or March of 2007.
He addresses why the CD industry in America wouldn't describe it as a CD.

What about the CD industry outside of America? Why is he only coming forward? I can't listen to it now, so I can not address his claims.

So because it looked like it was structurally unsound, that proves no CD? I don't think that would qualify as suitable evidence or logic.

Double Standard for you, based on your first points. You think it looks like a CD=Was a CD.

Danny in his first interview refutes this line of evidence and determines that it could have been done within the time frame of that day with a team working quickly and efficiently. He doesn't fully state it was done before hand, however, that remains a possibility.

Danny and no one else. I would have to hear what he has to say to address his points and I can't right now.

Thanks for answering the question and responding with civility and respect despite our different views.

Enjoy your evening!

You are welcome. Thank you as well for somewhat stepping to the plate instead of talking in gibberish as others have.