Former employee of Controlled Demolition, Inc. talks about the WTC collapses

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


My suspicion is that there are actually far fewer "experts" who contend that it was a controlled demolition (although I'm not suggesting there are none). It's just that they are given greater prominence.

From what I have read, there is one Dutch Controlled demolition expert named Danny Jowenko. Has has stated that WTC-7 appears to be a controlled demolition. He does however state that WTC- 1 & 2 were NOT.

This is the snag. The truth movement likes to listen to what he states on WTC-7, but ignored his statements on 1 & 2.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


I just answered a U2U to that as I was referring to the total wing weight; as for your statement saying they are ignoring me; many people have sent U2U not sure why you are so concerned. I would say the reason they are not answering is because there is no logical answer to my question.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

reply to post by Joey Canoli


I love the way you completely dismissed any of the evidence that I have posted to back up the reason for my question. Wow looks like both sides of the argument have the same problem; lack of logic even in the face of evidence.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

I would also like for someone to tell me how an engine that weights 59,000lbs and 9' 6" Diameter does not appear to have made an impact crater; oh and mind you there are two of these?

WOW!! none of you have been typing while in the process of thinking about points you were wanting to make and happen to skip through what you were writing about. lmao

I would also like for someone to tell me how a wing weighing 59,000lbs with an engine 9'6" in diameter does not appear to have made an impact crater; oh and mind you there are two of these.

DOES THAT MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER!!! instead of pointing fingers and trying to change the subject matter; why not simply try and answer any of the questions I have asked? Some of you debate like kids on a school playground, if you cant answer then make fun of whatever you can; I thought ATS was made up of intelligent people looking for the truth on many different levels.

Like I said instead of outright dismissal why not address the evidence.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

And believe it or not I do agree many 9/11 truth movers; are working off of outright fantasy, theory, conjecture, and what other so called truth's that are told to them.

I have not done any of that mind you; I have used photos from the actual crash site; photos from Rolls Royce Engineering; photos from other known 757 crashes using the same engines; and have asked a question that I think all engineers ask;

"How does a craft weighting 220,000 lbs with a wing span of 124 feet; made of component parts most of which are virtually indestructibly ;make such a small hole in the Pentagon; and leave nothing behind to conclusively identify it as a 757?" or for that matter that it was flight 77?

If that seems like an unrealistic question to you; then there is no hope of ever finding out what really happened and who was involved.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

Originally posted by Six Sigma
This is the snag. The truth movement likes to listen to what he states on WTC-7, but ignored his statements on 1 & 2.

It seems when you listen to experts, it's either all or nothing, you take their opinion as either fact or falsehood, the technical reasons they give be damned. Is that right?

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
In order to put this to rest for those paying attention, let me put forth a reason for the second plane seen passing over the pentagon.

OR, it may have been National Guard C-130 from the Minnesota Air National Guard's 133rd airlift wing piloted by Lt. Col. Steven O'Brien, who was asked by controllers from Reagan to follow the plane and attempt to identify it. The C-130 followed it all the way to Washington and reported back to Reagan that it hit the Pentagon.

The supposedly "mysterious" second aircraft over the Pentagon

There really isn't anything you conspiracy people won't embellish to get people all paranoid over shadows, is there?

[edit on 10 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by MolecularPhD


Good posts. Yes the people who support the OS will not answer you on this. I have tried to get answers from them in the past.

They also can't debunk the small amount of damage displayed in the photo's of the Pentagon, before the roof collapsed - Including no damage on the lawn from the crash and the lack of jet fuel contamination.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

The reason everyone's ignoring you is because this is just so abysmally wrong, that there's zero point to trying to have a discussion with you.

No one is ignoring anyone, and I happened to agree with MolecularPhD, he has asked some very important questions. Questions that you cannot answer with credible sources.

Can you tell us why FAA stopped investigating and assembling crash commercial airliners starting from 911?

If MolecularPhD is wrong, then you have not proved it. Giving your “opinions” are not facts.

Do more research.

I would suggest the same for people who defend the OS.


[edit on 10-5-2010 by impressme]

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I can only speak for myself; as one who has spent a whole lot of time in those same shadows you are speaking of; not everything that appears kosher is.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

reply to post by MolecularPhD


I'd like to reply to this post of yours, and just discuss a mistake, I believe, in the source that told you those airplanes crashed at "400 miles per hour".

I have a lot I could also say, about the RB-211 engines...but that doesn't belong in this thread.

Originally posted by MolecularPhD

These two separate aircraft both were reported to have crashed at over 400 miles an hour.

I see that both images have been cached in "imageshack", and titled (by someone) as "crashed757". This is obviously incorrect, by my eye.

The first on looks like the Continental DC-10 that crashed in LAX in 1978...during takeoff. I am basing that on my knowledge of the paint scheme, and the traces I see on the radome.

Second one is obviously NOT a B-757! It is an American Airlines MD-80, and I'm going to wager that is the crash that occurred in Little Rock. THAT was a landing accident.

NEITHER of those accidents were "at over 400 miles per hour"!!

American Airlines Flight 1420, in Little Rock AR


AirDIsaster.com summary of Continental Airlines crash in Los Angeles, CA, 1978

Adding, here is a photo of the Continental paint scheme, of that era:



Note the red and orange stripes, on the radome (the 'nose').

Airplane caught fire, BTW. The ONLY two fatalities were two elderly people, who ignored the Flight Attendants' instructions, and opened a wing exit directly into the flames.







[edit on 10 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by impressme

Can you tell us why FAA stopped investigating and assembling crash commercial airliners starting from 911?

Abysmally wrong, yes that is a good way to describe it.

FAA aren't the agency doing the "investigating and assembling" --- NTSB are.

Oh...and where did the idea come from that they "stopped" from 9/11? I fear that this is more 'truther' lie tactics at work, meant to continually alter the facts, and cloud the issue.

Here, here's just ONE (there are plenty other examples of post-9/11 investigations...)

American Airlines Flight 587

NTSB Report of AAL 587






[edit on 10 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

I pray these guys keep coming out of the wood work exposing this crime.




I cant believe people still doubt what really happened that day...

reply to post by weedwhacker


I believe you are correct about the second image as being the AK incident; although your assessment of the structural design being that much different then the 757; which is the only logical reason for you stating the make of the plane; as for the speed of the craft if you have an FAA report stating the exact speed at which that craft was traveling I would love to see it; the first photo however is not that of a DC-10 as you claimed; it is a 757 radio remotely flown crash test preformed by Boeing;




This is a photo of the plane you are talking about (notice the nose cone)




This is a photo of a 757 notice the nose cone.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

reply to post by weedwhacker


Next? Let me guess we are going to start naming Agencies now? If you like I can start naming a few myself lol; so you are saying that the FAA does not have agents on the ground helping in NTSB investigations? and you are saying that FAA techs; engineers; contractors; and material specialists do not perform NTSB duties?

Want to try again?

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

reply to post by weedwhacker


Oh by the way I would love to read your comments on the RB-211 please enlighten me?


Anxiously Waiting

MolecularPHD

reply to post by weedwhacker

Can you tell us why FAA stopped investigating and assembling crash commercial airliners starting from 911?

Abysmally wrong, yes that is a good way to describe it.

Ok, so I made a mistake about FAA I can at least admit that.
So why NTSB didn’t investigated all four plane crashes on 911?

We have four commercial airliners all hijacked yet NTSB are not interested into investigating and constructing these crashes in a hanger where they always do. Yet on 911 we have four airliners all hijacked simultaneously without a hitch, this was the greatest terrorist act ever committed on American soil, yet the NTSB turns their back and does not investigate it? Is these normal protocol? I don’t think so.

Oh...and where did the idea come from that they "stopped" from 9/11?

Oh, you mean NTSB still investigates and assemble plane crash debris. See we all assume they didn’t, because they sure as hell didn’t do it on 911 did they?

I fear that this is more 'truther' lie tactics at work, meant to continually alter the facts, and cloud the issue.

Something the OS believers “MUST” do in order to support the OS lies.

To support the Truth, one does not need to tell lies do they?

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
reply to post by hooper

 

I could careless about your conspiracy nonsense; I am asking a logical question that anyone with half a brain would ask. Shadow of a Doubt" "Reasonable Doubt" you can battle semantics till your blue in the face; it still does not change the fact that the FAA would like us to suspend sheer logic. Look I have had first hand experience in this type of engineering; I am simply asking the question that I have asked myself sense day one of this horrible act. Until my Government which would include the FAA produces evidence that proves that these parts were from a RB-211 Engine (the one from flight 77); then to me this investigation should still be open; and it would be if they had nothing to hide.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

That's fine with me. Feel free to challenge the FAA. In fact, there are many more people you should also challenge, the majority of whom have no connection to the "government". This comes up often since, for some reason, there are people still under the mistaken assumption that all information and evidence somehow, magically, originated with, and is controlled by the "government".

This is what distinguishes those willing to accept conspiracy theories from those of us who are skeptical of such amorphous claims.

By all means, challenge whomever you can think of. We have been waiting for almost 9 years for someone to actually follow through and do that.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


BoneZ, I enjoy that photo of the democharges cutting that coal conveyor belt. All that coal dust. Wait, you think the demo charges caused the smoking on the beams of that? BoneZ, are you trying to trick us again with that picture? Cause that picture is showing a coal(or possibly iron ore, rock,) handling device getting cut by demo charges. But that dust is from the object itself. Notice the surroundings? Lots of dusty stuff over there.