WTC 7 Serious Proof of Controlled Demoltions

Originally posted by IvanZana


I always get a chuckle of the debunkers alice in wonder land logic when it comes to trying to cover up the facts. Insane rational. Also treasonous!

[edit on 9-4-2008 by IvanZana]

also, we arent the debunkers, you are. the truth remains that WTC7 fell due to structural damage and you are trying to debunk it. we are just showing you the truth and the logic that you seem to not want to understand.

why does it keep double posting on me?

[edit on 9-4-2008 by fastfingersfunk]

reply to post by fastfingersfunk


If 40 some storeys fell internally and caused an inward collapse, why did 10 storeys falling internally and pulling inward on the columns (NIST's...i.e. the government's theory of the collapse initiation) result in an exploding north tower?

By the time the north tower collapsed 47 storeys, it's mass was ejected outwards. Or there wouldn't be damage to 7. So, which is it?

Internal collapsing. Inward collapse or outward collapse?

It seems they want us to believe both.

also, we arent the debunkers, you are. the truth remains that WTC7 fell due to structural damage and you are trying to debunk it. we are just showing you the truth and the logic that you seem to not want to understand.

"The Truth" as you put it is something that was told to you by the perpetrators or those hiding the perpetrators. How do I know this? Because I dont believe everything I am told. I investigate, I ask questions, I look outside the box and I repeat. Its actually not that difficult once a little practice has been done.

Dont get me wrong, Im entirely open to your theory, I just havent seen the proof of it yet. I have seen plenty of proof to the contrary. And so have you if you would only set aside your preconceived notions for a moment, and if you do and dont come to the same conclusion thats your right. But at least you would have tried...

Ask yourself this one question and see the world through different glasses:

What if what we are saying is true?

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
also, we arent the debunkers, you are. the truth remains that WTC7 fell due to structural damage

Why is this a "truth"? There is not a single peer-reviewed paper explaining why WTC7 came down as it did. Apparently you think you know something no one else does? More like you think you know more than you really do, I think.

Originally posted by Grock
that was an obvious quote from someone else

It wasn't so obvious to me, because you don't know how to use the [*quote] [*/quote] tags (without the asterisks). I found the earlier post and fixed it, though. Sorry.

[edit on 9-4-2008 by bsbray11]

that was an obvious quote from someone else that I included into my post in order to make a point, please pay attention if you plan on attacking me.

"In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished.

-- Hugo Bachmann, PhD, Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of

Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

Author and co-author of Seismic Analysis of Concrete Reinforced Structures (1990), Vibration

Problems in Structures (1992): Practical Guidelines (1995), Structural Analysis of Linked Concrete

Beams (1998), Structural Construction for Engineers. An introduction (2001),

Earthquake-proofing Buildings (2002)

www.patriotsquestion911.com



I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Absolutely.



-- Danny Jowenko, Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction

company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified

and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German

Explosives Act. Jowenko's explosives engineers also hold the German

Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued

by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.

www.patriotsquestion911.com


Demand a new investigation.

Stand up. Be counted.

reply to post by IvanZana



This is the first time I've visited the patriotsquestion911 site. I'm kind of taken aback to find my name listed on their site. Granted, I joined ae911truth but, I didn't join this site. Actually, the reason why I visited the site was to throw my name in there. But, it's already there. Surprised me to say the least. I can't call it disingeneous though because I DID put my name out there on the ae911 site.

Also, on the patriot's site, they have a profile section of me and under it I am listed as a member of "scholars for 9/11 truth and justice". I never joined their site.

Now, I'm just wondering were else my name is being used?

Originally posted by IvanZana

"In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished.

-- Hugo Bachmann, PhD, Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of

Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

Author and co-author of Seismic Analysis of Concrete Reinforced Structures (1990), Vibration

Problems in Structures (1992): Practical Guidelines (1995), Structural Analysis of Linked Concrete

Beams (1998), Structural Construction for Engineers. An introduction (2001),

Earthquake-proofing Buildings (2002)

www.patriotsquestion911.com



I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Absolutely.



-- Danny Jowenko, Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction

company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified

and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German

Explosives Act. Jowenko's explosives engineers also hold the German

Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued

by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.

www.patriotsquestion911.com


Demand a new investigation.

Stand up. Be counted.

You must believe that WTC 1 & 2 were NOT cd then, since that's what Mr. Jowenko says.

Originally posted by nicepants

Originally posted by IvanZana

"In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished.

-- Hugo Bachmann, PhD, Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of

Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

Author and co-author of Seismic Analysis of Concrete Reinforced Structures (1990), Vibration

Problems in Structures (1992): Practical Guidelines (1995), Structural Analysis of Linked Concrete

Beams (1998), Structural Construction for Engineers. An introduction (2001),

Earthquake-proofing Buildings (2002)

www.patriotsquestion911.com



I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Absolutely.



-- Danny Jowenko, Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction

company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified

and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German

Explosives Act. Jowenko's explosives engineers also hold the German

Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued

by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.

www.patriotsquestion911.com


Demand a new investigation.

Stand up. Be counted.

You must believe that WTC 1 & 2 were NOT cd then, since that's what Mr. Jowenko says.

What I believe is not important. What is important is the facts.

Professionals in the field of demoltions and engineering agree that it was Controlled demoltions that took down WTC 7 on September 11th,2001.

Nice patns, and the 2 or 3 poorly informed and researched debunkers are not engineers or demolition experts, heck they are not even professionals.

We are intelligent, We listen to good honest professional people in the field. Our research and theirs is not based on theories but facts and extreme scientific experientation, simultations, and common sense.

Leading Scientist and professinals have all concluded through independant investigations and studies that Controlled demolitions were used in the Pulling of World trade Center 7 on September 11th, 2001.

I would always be skeptical of possible kids in their daddies basements that hold a grudges against the truth and truthers. Sometimes the truth hurts kids. Deal with it.

So unless your an engineer or have decades of experience in controlled demoltions and engineering, you should hush, and let the professionals speak.


Besides that NIST has been proven corrupt. Most of the evidence provided by the Government has been dubunked and proven fraudulant.

Originally posted by IvanZana

Originally posted by nicepants

Originally posted by IvanZana

"In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished.

-- Hugo Bachmann, PhD, Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of

Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

Author and co-author of Seismic Analysis of Concrete Reinforced Structures (1990), Vibration

Problems in Structures (1992): Practical Guidelines (1995), Structural Analysis of Linked Concrete

Beams (1998), Structural Construction for Engineers. An introduction (2001),

Earthquake-proofing Buildings (2002)

www.patriotsquestion911.com



I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Absolutely.



-- Danny Jowenko, Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction

company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified

and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German

Explosives Act. Jowenko's explosives engineers also hold the German

Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued

by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.

www.patriotsquestion911.com


Demand a new investigation.

Stand up. Be counted.

You must believe that WTC 1 & 2 were NOT cd then, since that's what Mr. Jowenko says.

What I believe is not important. What is important is the facts.

Professionals in the field of demoltions and engineering agree that it was Controlled demoltions that took down WTC 7 on September 11th,2001.

Nice patns, and the 2 or 3 poorly informed and researched debunkers are not engineers or demolition experts, heck they are not even professionals.

We are intelligent, We listen to good honest professional people in the field. Our research and theirs is not based on theories but facts and extreme scientific experientation, simultations, and common sense.

Leading Scientist and professinals have all concluded through independant investigations and studies that Controlled demolitions were used in the Pulling of World trade Center 7 on September 11th, 2001.

All? Which scientists? Which studies?

Originally posted by IvanZana

I would always be skeptical of possible kids in their daddies basements that hold a grudges against the truth and truthers. Sometimes the truth hurts kids. Deal with it.

So unless your an engineer or have decades of experience in controlled demoltions and engineering, you should hush, and let the professionals speak.

Besides that NIST has been proven corrupt. Most of the evidence provided by the Government has been dubunked and proven fraudulant.

Jownko, your professional, says that WTC1 & 2 were not CD.

LOL NIST "proven corrupt"? Source, please.
You do know that NIST's studies are the basis for engineering requirements for buildings in the US, right? Their work isn't limited to 9/11.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by nicepants]

Wow, you can even put it right in front of their face, to the point that they add it into their own quote and still they question the validity.

(hint:google those names and see for yourself)

There just is no getting through I guess. But remember this:

Its better to try and to fail than to have not tried at all.

Id rather go down as someone who tried to open the eyes of the shut tight than to join them in shutting my own.

P.S. - Thanks bsbray for the correction and quote info, I do appreciate it.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by Grock]

reply to post by IvanZana


Could this be one of the best posts and reply strings ever on ATS?

Mind-blowing videos presented in orig post AND in replies (a series of about 10) summarize ALL the best investigative journalism and expert authories in one place.

Not only do the pictures tell the story, BUT one of the testimonies in one of the videos mentions the following interesting points:

The day before, Rumsfeld announced the pentagon had misplaced 2.3 trillion dollars.

Halliburton won an uncontested bid for a 100 billion dollar clean-up.

The evidence about Enron ripping off 70 billion from Calif disappeared.

W's brother Marvin Bush & Burt Walker (cousin) were in charge of security when three weeks earlier the towers were shut down and evacuated and the security cameras turned of while work crews and engineers were allowed in.

Originally posted by counterterrorist
reply to post by IvanZana

 

Not only do the pictures tell the story, BUT one of the testimonies in one of the videos mentions the following interesting points:

W's brother Marvin Bush & Burt Walker (cousin) were in charge of security when three weeks earlier the towers were shut down and evacuated and the security cameras turned of while work crews and engineers were allowed in.

Wow. that's a bunch of made up BS.

Source stating that Marvin & Burt Walker bush were "in charge of security 3 weeks prior to 9/11"?

Source for your claim that the towers were "shut down & evacuated with the security cameras turned off"?

Sorry, I've been gone for a little while, so I want to jump in here with a recap.

Reading through some of the responses, I see it being argued that there were no explosions reported at WTC-7. That is false. While the cause and nature of what was witnessed may be disputable, I submit these videos...







I will continue my review momentarily...

WTC-7 did in fact fall at "free-fall" speed, as demonstrated in this video...

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Sorry, I've been gone for a little while, so I want to jump in here with a recap.

Reading through some of the responses, I see it being argued that there were no explosions reported at WTC-7. That is false. While the cause and nature of what was witnessed may be disputable, I submit these videos...

I will continue my review momentarily...

While there may have been explosions...an explosion is not proof of an explosive charge, there are many things that can go "boom" in a fire.

No one reported a series of sequential detonations consistent with a Controlled Demolition. No one.

Originally posted by nicepants
No one reported a series of sequential detonations consistent with a Controlled Demolition. No one.

Really? Or just no one that you will consider?

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions." [Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]

"There were explosions. There were flashes. There was molten metal running down the I-beams of the basement levels like lava flows. I've never seen anything like it. Yes, planes hit the buildings - anybody who says otherwise is a moron. But the explosions - the rapid, symmetrical, sequential explosions - they happened," states 'Mike'.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

If that "conspiracy site" isn't good enough for you, here it is in their own words.

graphics8.nytimes.com...

The Sept. 11 Records
A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public on Aug. 12. The New York Times has published all of them.

To sit there an exclaim "no one" is disingeneous, bordering on lying. And you know it.


[edit on 4/10/2008 by Griff]

Then of course, is some of the material which I have already posted, that seems to have been overlooked by some.

This rendering displays the World Trade Center and surrounding area, with color-coded damage status...



Why did WTC-7 collapse, when buildings that were closer and suffered far more sever damage did not?

You will notice that the chart above designates WTC-3 in black, as a "full collapse." In reality, full collapse is not an entirely accurate description. Despite the severe damage sustained by WTC-3, far more damage than that done to WTC-7 during the collapse of the Twin Towers, large portions remain standing.



There is also another example pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, of severe and deliberate damage done to a building that did not fully collapse. This is the Murrah building, destroyed on the OKC bombing.



[edit on 4/10/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
There is also another example pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, of severe and deliberate damage done to a building that did not fully collapse. This is the Murrah building, destroyed on the OKC bombing.

In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building.

Interview with Stacey Loizeaux

www.pbs.org...

When asked about the Murrah Building.