At 31:56 there are jets of air and debris coming out, caused by thousands of tons of concrete collapsing into a small space. No explosions. Buildings don't "topple over." They collapse when they are weakened so much that they can no longer support their own weight.
Rubbish. If a support gives way, that is exactly what happens. As for your "expert"..... "What a Kook! he never even mentioned the heat , the uninsulated steel , the outside supports, he is fundamentally dishonest. He did admit his whole model , theories require evidence , was based on his experiance, an explosives loader is a flunkie. All he does is strap explosives where he is told to, he is not qualified to decide which explosives to use, the amount needed , or where to put them. The fact he is being used to try and sell this fairy tale is proof the experts know he's full of it." "a lot"? Don't make me laugh, the few rogue so called "experts" who say anything about an inside job are in the extreme minority. Why do you ignore the ones who say otherwise. Don't answer. Circular reasoning. The experts don't say that and Jowenko implies otherwise too More inane circular reasoning. They weren't able to prepare demolitions in the twin towers. The fact the buildings gave way at the aircraft impact points demonstrates this beyond even minor doubt. Any explosives set in this area would NEVER have survived, it is just beyond absurd to claim otherwise. But then that's the truf movement for you!
I'm still waiting for someone to address this part of post #66. Tell us if he building on the right fell into its own footprint.
ok, the building fell within its footprint (mostly). there is nothing unusual about that. what matters is how they fell. buildings 1 and 2 were not CDs fatfreddy. the construction of these buildings were different than your house or office. the walls supports all of the weight of your house, this isn't true in the case of 1 and 2. personally i'm reasonably satisfied 1 and 2 were not CDs. yes, i've seen "all the evidence".
David C, so..."a building of that design" would exhibit "exactly" "the same...result"..."when one of its supports gives way" as "what a CD would do, take out the supports"? David C, would you care to supply any evidence to Prove that by only the failure of one of the supports - any building "of that design" - would fall exactly the same as as it would, as in the simultaneous failure of all it's supports? David C, have you ever played Jenga?
It didn't. The top left penthouse area gave way first directly under the support, the internal lower sections then started to collapse inward. The redistributed weight after one truss collapsed, caused the remaining two trusses to give way. Then the main building dropped, just like a CD. Here's one of the twoofer videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgaN5E6zk94 The bit the commentator misses, is that the model is on the framework on the inside of the building. What we see of the collapse is barely the top 3rd and mainly the right of the building on the opposite side to the support. The last part of the video also shows the building toppling OUT of its footprint @ 1:35 on the vid. Ridiculous analogy. If the remaining supports on the structure are able to keep the building up for a short period after one of them gives way, until they themselves give way, why wouldn't the building collapse that way? Has a twoofer ever explained why they took the building down in the first place? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8
David C, would you care to supply any evidence to Prove that by only the failure of one of the supports - any building "of that design" - would fall exactly the same as as it would, as in the simultaneous failure of all it's supports? Have the NIST Findings ever been submitted for full Peer Review? Are you a Structural Engineer? Do you understand what Evidence of Proof actually entails? Do you have any questions at all pertaining to the "Official Story" of the explanation of the "Event of Sept. 11, 2001 at The World Trade Center"? The analogy I Posted is quite a bit less "Ridiculous" than your proffered evidence to Prove your statements.
No two buildings will fall exactly the same way. WTC 1 did not fall the same way WTC 2 did, and WTC 7 did not fall like either one of those.
the following files are (or was) available online: NIST NCSTAR v1-9 NIST NCSTAR draft NIST NCSTAR 1, 2, 3a, 3a draft, 3c appx, 3 draft, 4 draft, 5a ch9 appx, 5 draft, 6 draft, 7, 8. i don't know which, if any, i'm missing. i have all of these files on my HDD. the 911 commission report is also available. these are good sources but other independent sources are (or was) available. i have no questions but i DO have a complaint. it ISN'T the "official story", it's the investigation into the events of 911. edit: i DO have a question: why would the government plan this attack and execute it on 911?
Hold on pal. One support gave way. We see this from the video whereby one corner collapses near the penthouse. This naturally redistributes the load as other parts are brought down, causing the remaining supports to fail. That is more than a valid conclusion from the engineers who produced the report. I see no reason to doubt it. Ha ha, from twoofers? Get out of here. Nope. Yes. Exactly. Do you have any to show explosives being planted, or a witness to this? Do you have any of the team of firefighters who suspect foul play, given the damn thing was a raging inferno for many hours? No? Do you understand the truly colossal statement "Burden of Proof"? Because you have it. I did have 12 years ago, not so much nowPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks for your worthless opinion. As with every single twoofer, you not only offer nothing, from a place of ignorance on any of the subject matter you claim the building was demolished when it was hit by the WTC debris field, raged on fire for hours and the fire department themselves concluded it was in danger of collapse. The "it fell straight down quickly therefore it is a CD" mantra is all you've got - it's opinion. No facts, no evidence. BUILDING 7 - why exactly? In your own time.
David C, perhaps you may be the one whom needs to "Hold on pal" !!! All I, dmoe, Posted was my query to you in Post #73 : David C, you made the statements in your Post#67. I simply asked for evidence to prove your statements of Post #67. Would it not be you that should shoulder "The Burden of Proof"? David C, could you also maybe produce evidence of proof that I, dmoe, ever stated anything to do with : I am not sure what you have been reading - but it is obviously not being Posted by me, dmoe. The rest of your Post #79 is...nothing but...puerile name calling...and feckless attempts to evade producing anything at all, as evidence, to support your erroneous statements.
This is the conclusion of the NIST report, where's your refutation of it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc&feature=youtu.be So you aren't a twoofer? Whatever You don't seem to be able to read or respond properly. Here is that bit again: Thanks for your worthless opinion. As with every single twoofer, you not only offer nothing, from a place of ignorance on any of the subject matter you claim the building was demolished when it was hit by the WTC debris field, raged on fire for hours and the fire department themselves concluded it was in danger of collapse. The "it fell straight down quickly therefore it is a CD" mantra is all you've got - it's opinion. No facts, no evidence. BUILDING 7 - why exactly? In your own time. Now, show the name calling bit and why my "feckless attempt" is inaccurate. Here's some help for you........ Did the penthouse area collapse several seconds before the main building dropped? Yes. Did the WTC debris field hit WTC7? Yes. Did it burn for hours on end? Yes. Did the fire department withdraw because of imminent collapse? Yes. Are they on record as saying this? Yes. Is there any evidence for planted explosives? No. Any witnesses to it? No. Is it twoofer opinion that it is a CD? Yes. Your responses seem to demand something that you don't demand of twoofers and miss responding to significant points: BUILDING 7 - why exactly? In your own time.
silverstien said "pull it" not "pull them". i have NEVER heard the term "pull it" used to order firemen to evacuate. 2 firemen i talked to locally has never heard the term used in that context either. i believe the above bit by you is erroneous.
Silverstein is not a fireman, he has little to do with the accounts of firemen who withdrew, relating the building was in imminent danger of collapse. "Pull it" is not in use in the demolition industry either, but why Silverstein used such a phrase is irrelevant. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm Anyway, it wasn't a CD.
David C, when did I state any "refutation"? I only asked if it was ever subjected to Peer Review? David C, you seem to compulsively mention the word "twoofer". What, may I humbly ask, is a "twoofer"? "Whatever"!?!? David C, is that your way of stating some self-created ignorance? David C, your opinion on my ability to be "able to read or respond properly" is just another failed attempt by yourself to evade responsibility to support your original statements. Again Posted below - from your Post #67 : So...David C, will you ever "be able to read or respond properly" to my follow up question to your Post #67 ?!!!? My Post #73 : That is all that I originally requested - and yet you, David C, still "seem" to be unable "to read or respond properly" to that request! The rest of your "rant" on your perception of my, as you so eloquently stated, "worthless opinion", is somewhat delusional and a product of your own imagination, owing to the fact that I, dmoe, have as yet to state any opinions relating to the subjects specified in your "rant" !!! Again, David C, when did I, dmoe, ever Post the aforementioned "mantra"? David C, you, yourself, repeated "the name calling bit and why (your) "feckless attempt" is inaccurate", in your ^^above^^ quoted Post! David C, again your ability "to read or respond properly" is only surpassed by your seeming ability to embrace delusion and ignorance. My Posts often request evidence or clarification of other Posters statements. Again your use of the word "twoofers" is, at the very least, ambiguous. If you perceive my requests as "demands", that is your failure, because I, dmoe, repeatedly requested in my Posts : I,dmoe, am only asking - you, David C, obviously prefer to perceive it differently. Again , that is of your own creation, so... When and if, you, David C, ever get around to "responding to significant points", and backing up your statements from your Post #67, then I will be more than amiable in responding to any pertinent points you bring up - until then...
My statements are backed up by the NIST report. Twoooofer (truthers who are anything but!) logic doesn't even have that level of support. Whatever to your reply, you seem a little on the weird side says David C about dmoe. Boring, and you didn't respond to a single thing directly, just more twaddle. BUILDING 7 - why exactly? In your own time.
So...your parroting of the purported facts of "the NIST report" are supported by "the NIST report"!?!? I am sure that in your supremely intelligent and completely logical and rational perception of your own self-imagined reality, that may suffice...but...!?!? David C, "Twoooofer" (now with twice the"o's"!!) - "(truthers who are anything but!)" ...but, what? David C, what "level of support" are you referring to, exactly? Are you possibly referring to the "level of support" that you proffer - in the aforementioned "supremely intelligent and completely logical and rational perception of your own self-imagined reality"? So...just more evasion and ignorance...have you ever heard the phrases : You Preach...You Fail...You Repeat! David C, your constantly puerile and inane name calling and personal attacks, do nothing to mask your obvious evasion and ignorance of Posted content. David C, from my own perusal of the evidence presented for the collapse of "BUILDING 7", I would have to say that the most prominent reason for the way in which it collapsed was the, more or less, immediate manifestation of the effects of Gravity. To recap...David C, You Preach! David C, You Fail! David C, You Repeat! My, dmoe's, final word to you is...Meh!
If you go back to my first statement, I make the observation that a building held up by 3 supports will fall that way. When one of its supports gives way, as witnessed by the penthouse dropping, followed by a catastrophic redistribution of its load causing the other supports to fail. The NIST report details this. You asked for evidence that such a thing occurs, when given it, you dismiss it because its from NIST. Question for the dumbest man on earth to avoid: Why do you disregard the report made by NIST made up of experts in the relevant fields? Ad hominem bullshit. Sarcasm also. Hark at the hypocrite. Duh, a truther, a seeker of truth. None too bright are you. The level of corroborative support from experts in relevant fields and the conclusions they arrive at. Your reason for dismissing this is what exactly? I am arguing with somebody who lacks the ability to read and reply correctly. You just avoid answering stuff. You quote it, but then ignore it. Did the penthouse area collapse several seconds before the main building dropped? Yes. Did the WTC debris field hit WTC7? Yes. Did it burn for hours on end? Yes. Did the fire department withdraw because of imminent collapse? Yes. Are they on record as saying this? Yes. Is there any evidence for planted explosives? No. Any witnesses to it? No. Is it twoofer opinion that it is a CD? Yes. Says the person who has failed to acknowledge one single thing I have said or respond to any question. More ad hominems - the stench of hypocrisy is strong with this one. Priceless. I am not preaching, my first post was a reply to a known forum troll. There was no failure, since you have done nothing to demonstrate what I have said is wrong. You don't understand what burden of proof is. Final word? I somehow doubt it, but it's one of the smartest things you've said. I double dare you to list one statement that is an insult in any of my posts. You don't know what an insult is do you?
silverstien was talking about something when he said pull it and it wasn't "to evacuate the firemen". after reviewing several CDs i believe it was.
