Bob0627: A fireman climbed to the 78th floor and reported from the Sky lobby of the South Tower. "Two isolated pockets of fire. Can be knocked down with two lines." Two minutes later the building started coming down. Message sent at 9:56 Collapse at 9:58 https://www.911memorial.org/connect/blog/remembering-fdny-hero-battalion-chief-orio-j-palmer https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/...pe-reveals-no-awareness-of-imminent-doom.html
Which proves.................................nothing. It does not even suggest anything. He did not see the entire building or the massive fires burning elsehwere Idiotic failure for twoofers AGAIN.
Bob0627: The "crime" was the destruction of the Twin Towers. Whether it is called a collapse or a controlled demolition is irrelevant. I have seen videos of people demonstrating "cutter charges". I would think that the cutter charges necessary to cut through 1" thick steel would be different from what was needed to cut through 4" thick steel. Though I presume that if it can do 4 then it can do 1. By distribution I essentially mean tons of steel on each level. A box column with 4" thick sides is going to weigh more than an H column of 1" thick steel. I doubt that even structural engineers normally organize their data as tons of steel per level. But they don't normally deal with the problem of levels falling on top of each other and supposedly taking down the entire structure. I would bet 30 or more stories would remain standing if an accurate physics simulation of the North Tower were done, and we all know that didn't happen. All I am saying is that the falling top could not destroy the entire North Tower. So obviously something did. I am not saying what. But if I am right then lots of engineers and scientists should have figured it out about as fast as I did. So how did we have Two Decades of silence? I regard that as more important than the crime of demolition and finding perps. What would have happened 20 years ago if 1/3rd of the scientists and engineers in this country had been shouting that airliners could not do that? So why weren't they? And how do they explain it? I guess it ain't a free country though we bombed Iraqis to protect our freedom.
WTC # 7 (just like WTC # 1 & 2) was clearly a "controlled demolition" NO IFS, ANDS, OR BUTS. Flight 93 was most likely the third plane that was suppose to be intentionally crashed into WTC # 7 to cover up the rigged demolitions, but that got all FUBARED up when the plane was crashed in the Pennsylvania countryside outside of Shanksville, PA
I don't think the plane really crashed there. Start watching the first video in this post at the 2:18:50 time mark. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...tc-conclusions.551799/page-10#post-1074163852
How many people do you suppose that would entail? How do you figure the recruitment process went? Evil Government Recruiter: Is that Acme Demolitions? I need a large team prepared to kill thousands of Americans, we'll pay you millions each. Don't worry, nobody will notice you, the government will delete any CCTV. Acme Boss: I'm in, so are my massive team! Let's do it. EGR: I don't suppose you're any good at fitting elevator systems are you?
Here's an observation for you all to ignore or arm wave away: Danny Jowenko famously filmed for his WTC7 collapse reaction, was very surprised when told that it collapsed on 9/11. He indicated his opinion of a CD then suggested that they must have worked very fast. That is all undeniable fact. Now I ask you this - WHY was he surprised? He must have seen WTC1/2 both collapse, so being a demolition expert, why didn't HE conclude that both towers were demolished with CD? Had he held that conclusion, there would no surprise at all about WTC7. Surely he would just conclude that they had rigged them all together! What do you suppose Danny's "eyeballs" told him "in graphic detail" about WTC1/2?
Of course it didn't really "crash" as the "official" government megalomaniacs, and their brainwashing narrative states.
Here's what Betamax is talking about. Extended version of interview w/ Controlled Demo Expert Danny Jowenko confirming that Building 7 was brought down on purpose http://911blogger.com/node/3231
Gee thanks "Scott", now be a hero and answer the damn question! It appears that you are trying to bury it for obvious reasons.
Of course. Let"s take this crazy conspiracy needlessly up a few massive notches! Now we have to involve countless numbers of people to dispose of the actual plane! Now we have to dispose / murder all the passengers, dismember some of them and scatter their DNA all over the crash site! How many to get all the luggage and scatter this around the area? Now we have to get actual passengers onboard to fabricate(really!) their audio transcripts and phone calls! What now "Scott", some diversionary links and none of them answering that list?! What brainless world of conspirators, do they not just crash the damn plane? Nice and easy, logical, no messing. Are you able to use critical thinking here?
I just wanted to save the others the trouble of looking for it. Evidently Jowenko was wrong about the towers and right about building 7. One thing he said about the towers was that if it had been a controlled demolition, the explosions would have started at the bottom. I don't remember where but somewhere in one of these two videos,... http://www.politicalforum.com/index...tc-conclusions.551799/page-10#post-1074163852 ...an expert said that it was perfectly plausible for the towers to have been wired to explode from the top down. There we have two experts disagreeing. That shows that experts can jump to a premature conclusion. I linked to where an explanation for how the explosives were planted in this post. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...tc-conclusions.551799/page-11#post-1074164990 .There's more on that in the video below at the 1:16:50 time mark. Here's some more relevant info about building 7. Painful Deceptions (2005) by Eric Hufschmid (57:35 time mark)
What am I supposed to do if you ignore the theory that I post. The theory is that no plane crashed there. Go and watch Painful Deceptions at the 39:30 time mark. Go to the 1:38:00 time mark of the top video in this post. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...tc-conclusions.551799/page-10#post-1074163852
Pathetic evasion! Address these observations! I put it to you that it is one of the most absurd and needless over-complications possible. You can still believe your crazy conspiracy theory! The fact that you can't even concede something so blatantly ridiculous as this, is just proof of how entrenched you are in this whole thing.
This is kind of an argument as to what you mean by "controlled". It really means that it does what the person in control wants it to do. In a NORMAL controlled demolition the objective is to minimize collateral damage and the placement and sequence of explosives is critical. But if the objective is to create a spectacle and you don't give a **** about collateral damage, including people, then the quantity of explosives matters and the placement might not be too critical. Plus it might be very mind numbing to the people who see it and they go, "Noooo! Nobody would do that!" It is like when you see a car crash into a tree in a movie. Within the context of the movie it was an accident. But since you know it was a movie, it was CONTROLLED! This movie is too horrible for a lot of people.
[ No, you just wanted to offer the customary diversion and evasion. So basically, Bob knows more about it then Jowenko did? Is that what you are saying? Bob said his "eyeballs" told him it was a CD, but an expert looked and it clearly didn't occur to him. That SHOULD tell you something, but as usual, absolutely any single fact that contradicts any single tiny claim, sub-claim or irrelevant side-issue is arm waved away! That's just pathetic. Meaningless straw man comparison. You are simply saying that your expert on the WTC7 collapse can't see what all conspiracy theorists say is "obvious"! You're just doing what you always do, dump a video and say it explains everything. But it most certainly does not! Amaze the "viewers" and actually address posts without some dumb YouTube video or a link that ignores them.
According to the German mathematician Ansgar Schneider, even if the top section did crush the lower section as theorized by Bazant, the collapse would have been arrested within 2 seconds, leaving much more than 30 stories standing. Correct, that is an impossibility. And many did, some even faster than you. Some took a lot longer but eventually did. We don't have two decades of silence, I already noted that.
No one really knows what the alleged plane they officially designated as Flight 93 was all about. There's a lot of speculation about it but one thing is for sure, the official story is a LIE because it makes little or no sense as is nearly everything about the official 9/11 conspiracy theory.
I'm sure it's a total waste of time responding to your posts ... but: Non sequitur. None of that changes anything about what happened on 9/11. Jowenko was killed years ago. I don't speak for Jowenko and don't know what was in his head, so my opinion about why he was surprised is sheer speculation. As an expert in controlled demolitions, Jowenko knew full well controlled demolitions take weeks or months to plan and prepare. So his comment that "they must have worked very fast" was an on the spot comment based on his shock that it happened on 9/11 and he may have assumed that they must have somehow found a way to rig the building on 9/11. The video interview was about WTC7 not the twin towers and his immediate reaction was that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. That would be just about anyone's immediate reaction who has ever seen a controlled demolition and who is not in denial. As an addendum, if you decide to respond to this post and refuse to do so in an intelligent and mature manner, I will not respond in kind. There is a reason I am not going to respond to your newly created thread even though I can refute or comment on just about every one of your denialist claims.
Fine, silence from so many people that the ones making noise don't matter. Is that better? NASA scientists could cause an inelastic collision 6.8 million miles away but be SILENT about one a thousand miles from Cape Canaveral. How can they talk about it now?
I'm sure you read my take about why many who do know what really happened on 9/11 choose to remain silent. It's not a coincidence that the vast majority of those who are vocal are retired.
The feeling is mutual, but in my case it's because of your incessant evasion and diversion. This post of yours is another prime example. I see you don't understand what a non sequitur is! YOU SAID: If you mean the people who planned the demolition, of course. This had to be planned well in advance by controlled demolition experts and of course those who contracted them. THEN I SAID: How many people do you suppose that would entail? How do you figure the recruitment process went? Evil Government Recruiter: Is that Acme Demolitions? I need a large team prepared to kill thousands of Americans, we'll pay you millions each. Don't worry, nobody will notice you, the government will delete any CCTV. Acme Boss: I'm in, so are my massive team! Let's do it. EGR: I don't suppose you're any good at fitting elevator systems are you? Quite clearly my post follows EXACTLY your statement. You have avoided answering it because it is an absurd thing that conspiracy theorists never think about. So go on, answer the relevant questions. This may help from Jowenko for a much smaller building: DANNY JOWENKO: You need experienced people but if you had thirty or forty men... A few with cutting torch, others clearing the walls... Others hooking up the det cord and boosters. That all has to be coordinated and another hooks up the electronic systems, and then he goes. He said they worked fast and was surprised at this. No wonder you don't want to speculate. If he thought WTC1/2 were controlled demolitions he would not have been the least bit surprised. It would just be one more demolition on 9/11. Totally obvious. But his eyes didn't see what yours did and he was the expert. Says it all. And missing the point totally. His reaction, not denied, was surprise that a building was demolished on 9/11. It doesn't take Columbo to work out that he didn't think other buildings were demolished the same day. His conclusion was that it was a CD yet it doesn't have any detonation sounds and I have yet to see a single "911-truther" explain why the hell they needed to demolish it in the first place. I wonder what he would have said about the likelihood of any demolition charges that take "weeks or months to plan and prepare" surviving many hours of fire. Then again, whoever supposedly prepared this, would have had zero excuse for a demolition, had a massive chunk of collapsing tower not hit it! How do you figure the meeting went working out what to do? "Let's hope we get lucky with a legitimate reason to demolish it and hope none of the fires or impacts ruin the charges."
My response was a stated fact, all controlled demolitions are planned well in advance by controlled demolition experts and those who contract them, it's not speculation. In fact it was perfectly planned and executed 3 times on 9/11, a masterful job in terms of total destruction. It was actually far too perfect, especially WTC7. That was one problem, perfection. Another problem was destroying the South Tower before the North Tower. And yet another problem was the failure to create 3 total infernos before destroying the towers. Your questions require irrelevant speculation that changes nothing in terms of what happened on 9/11, a veritable non sequitur. The rest of your post is irrelevant to me. All I will add is that Jowenko made his point with respect to his background and standing (i.e. an expert opinion), end of story.
