9/11 documentary now

[west didsblue]

You can't see very well, can you?

Well come on then. Answer the question.
Was Danny Jowenko right about WTC7 but wrong about the twin towers in your opinion?

 

[west didsblue]

Lol, keep guessing. You think I didn't know Danny Jowenko said the twin towers weren't brought down by controlled demolition? He said that in the same interview I posted earlier. The towers weren't conventional demolitions. They were top down, which are rare in the demolition industry. Building 7 was a classic demolition job - bottom up - the type of demolition that Danny Jowenko was qualified to give his professional opinion on.

I rebutted your misinformed claim that "No-one with any real credibility has said anything that would suggest a controlled demolition." How about you explain how one of the leading experts in controlled demolition got is so completely wrong about Building 7?

So what you appear to be saying is that the twin towers were rigged up for a top down demolition that Danny Jowenko wasn't an expert in. Is it just coincidence that the demolition start point was where the aircraft hit on each building and all the burning aviation fuel didn't trigger the detonators early, set off the explosives early or burn through the detonation cord. It was an even more complicated job than I thought.
Either that, you're totally deluded or you're a WUM.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

Well come on then. Answer the question.
Was Danny Jowenko right about WTC7 but wrong about the twin towers in your opinion?

I've already answered that question. Do me the courtesy of answering mine.

 

[west didsblue]

I've already answered that question. Do me the courtesy of answering mine.

Which one?

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

So what you appear to be saying is that the twin towers were rigged up for a top down demolition that Danny Jowenko wasn't an expert in. Is it just coincidence that the demolition start point was where the aircraft hit on each building and all the burning aviation fuel didn't trigger the detonators early, set off the explosives early or burn through the detonation cord. It was an even more complicated job than I thought.
Either that, you're totally deluded or you're a WUM.

I'm not going to bother with you any more if you're going to resort to insults. Either debate this with me like an adult or not at all. Choice is yours.

 

[west didsblue]

I'm not going to bother with you any more if you're going to resort to insults. Either debate this with me like an adult or not at all. Choice is yours.

Where did I insult you?

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

Where did I insult you?

*SIGH* This is starting to become rather tedius.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

So what you appear to be saying is that the twin towers were rigged up for a top down demolition that Danny Jowenko wasn't an expert in. Is it just coincidence that the demolition start point was where the aircraft hit on each building and all the burning aviation fuel didn't trigger the detonators early, set off the explosives early or burn through the detonation cord. It was an even more complicated job than I thought.
Either that, you're totally deluded or you're a WUM.

I think it's best if we just accept that we're not going to agree on the final outcome. To me, it's clear as day that it wasn't a controlled demolition. Some people will watch them videos Jim posted and agree with the controlled demolition theory. I just don't buy it at all, to many unsure opinions or twisted words.

 

[west didsblue]

*SIGH* This is starting to become rather tedius.

Fine. You come on here, spout bullshit, don't answer questions, then take the moral high ground. You've ignored all the clear incontrovertible evidence about what really happened and posted numerous videos that are all either rubbish or explainable. You're now saying that your demolition expert is only an expert in one type of demolition. Sorry, you're full of shit. And you can't spell tedious. Good night.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

Fine. You come on here, spout bullshit, don't answer questions, then take the moral high ground. You've ignored all the clear incontrovertible evidence about what really happened and posted numerous videos that are all either rubbish or explainable. You're now saying that your demolition expert is only an expert in one type of demolition. Sorry, you're full of shit. And you can't spell tedious. Good night.

Since you are clearly incapable of debating like an adult and prefer to hurl insults and spit your dummy out, I won't be responding to any more of your posts.

 

[Paul_Powers_Tash]

So what you appear to be saying is that the twin towers were rigged up for a top down demolition that Danny Jowenko wasn't an expert in. Is it just coincidence that the demolition start point was where the aircraft hit on each building and all the burning aviation fuel didn't trigger the detonators early, set off the explosives early or burn through the detonation cord. It was an even more complicated job than I thought.
Either that, you're totally deluded or you're a WUM.

If it wasn't a controlled demolition then what exactly caused the collapse of building 7. There was no plane, no aviation fuel and most importantly no elevated levels of aluminium. The uncomfortable truth for those with a mind open enough to face them is that :-
a. No other modern steel building built to that specification has ever collapsed due to fire.
b. Firefighters at the scene were prevented from tackling what they believed to be an office fire in Building 7 and ordered to retreat behind a designated perimeter.
c. Demolition experts across the world say it has all of the visual hallmarks of a controlled demolition.
d. Silverstein saying " we had to pull it". To avoid the ridiculous arguments of what else pull it actually meant, "pull it" means to bring down a building in the demolition industry.

 

[idahoblues]

http://rememberbuilding7.org/7-facts

 

[Dubai Blue]

Building 7 was a classic demolition job - bottom up - the type of demolition that Danny Jowenko was qualified to give his professional opinion on.

If that's true, why did the mechanical penthouse at the very top of the building collapse first?

 

[jay_mcfc]

And the merry go round starts again. Look at the damage to the south side of WTC 7, especially the corner where there was damage to 20 floors. It would help conspiracy theorists if they would try to acknowledge the structural damage to the building rather than keep ignoring it exists. Actually I suppose it wouldn't but there you go.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

If it wasn't a controlled demolition then what exactly caused the collapse of building 7. There was no plane, no aviation fuel and most importantly no elevated levels of aluminium. The uncomfortable truth for those with a mind open enough to face them is that :-
a. No other modern steel building built to that specification has ever collapsed due to fire.
b. Firefighters at the scene were prevented from tackling what they believed to be an office fire in Building 7 and ordered to retreat behind a designated perimeter.
c. Demolition experts across the world say it has all of the visual hallmarks of a controlled demolition.
d. Silverstein saying " we had to pull it". To avoid the ridiculous arguments of what else pull it actually meant, "pull it" means to bring down a building in the demolition industry.

All of that has already been answered in this thread. The building wasn't hit by a plane, it was hit by the north tower on the way down, causing critical structural damage, then a huge fire started. Larry Silversteins comments about pulling actually came from the chief of fdny, he didn't want anymors lives being taken so he pulled his guys from the building, which was deemed a good decision.

 

[west didsblue]

Since you are clearly incapable of debating like an adult and prefer to hurl insults and spit your dummy out, I won't be responding to any more of your posts.

Thank fuck for that. It's pointless arguing with fanatics that ignore the main points and just post random videos instead of answering legitimate questions.

 

[west didsblue]

If it wasn't a controlled demolition then what exactly caused the collapse of building 7. There was no plane, no aviation fuel and most importantly no elevated levels of aluminium. The uncomfortable truth for those with a mind open enough to face them is that :-
a. No other modern steel building built to that specification has ever collapsed due to fire.
b. Firefighters at the scene were prevented from tackling what they believed to be an office fire in Building 7 and ordered to retreat behind a designated perimeter.
c. Demolition experts across the world say it has all of the visual hallmarks of a controlled demolition.
d. Silverstein saying " we had to pull it". To avoid the ridiculous arguments of what else pull it actually meant, "pull it" means to bring down a building in the demolition industry.

The uncomfortable truth for you is that all your "facts" are wrong and have been answered numerous times in this thread.

 

[worsleyweb]

We all agreed then?

 

[mat]

We all agreed then?

It was aliens?

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

If that's true, why did the mechanical penthouse at the very top of the building collapse first?

The penthouse droping just prior to the exterior is indicative of controlled demolition, whereby the interior columns are severed just a fraction of a second prior to the exterior, so as to create an inward pull on the exterior and keep the debris contained within the building’s footprint.