controlled demolition

Demo Expert Confirms WTC-7 Was "Controlled Demolition"

Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko:

"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."

"This is controlled demolition."

"A team of experts did this."

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

For video, click below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_z8VMKL1ww

The vido clip above is an excerpt from a Dutch television program called, Zembla investigates 9/11 theories. It can be watched in its entirety at this link:
http://cgi.omroep.nl/cgi-bin/streams?/tv/vara/zembla/bb.20060911.asf

Here's some background information about Danny Jowenko's statments in Zembla investigates 9/11 theories:

Posted by dz on 911Blogger.com (9/12/06) under "Grab Bag of News Submissions":
One of the more interesting moments in this documentary (about 46:25 minutes into it) is when they ask demolition expert Danny Jowenko (who has his own demolition firm and reportedly has been active in this business for 27 years) to comment on videos of the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7.His response to the WTC 7 video: "This is controlled demolition".

Focusing on a one line proof

The crux of the conspiracy argument is that demolition is the only
possible explanation for the destruction of WTC1,WTC2 and WTC7. One
need only raise the single question: How could a collapse, caused only
by the damage of the plane collisions and subsequent fires cause the
remaining still intact structures to fall to the ground at the speed
of a free fall in a vacuum? No explanation can be produced for this,
because it would require breaking the laws of physics. It cannot be
done.

This scientific fact is the corner stone. It should be stressed and
focused on because it is undeniable. It is the truth that will
convince the skeptics. It certainly convinced me.

I, like many others, was very skeptical about the demolition theory,
mainly because the only evidence I was shown were the squibs.
Furthermore, I (also like many others) was completely ignorant of the
WTC7 collapse. It actually took over a year for me to see the light,
when I finally saw the on line videos of WTC7's collapse.

It does not take a physics degree to understand that the collapse of a
steel girder concrete reinforced building cannot occur in less time
than it takes for a bowling ball to fall from the top of the building

Floor number plates survive supposed inferno capable of disintegrated tall buildings

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9101989575044001945&hl=en-GBIt

This elevator sign out performed the core of the building!

The largest of the 47 core columns were 18"x36", with steel walls 4" thick near the base and tapering in thickness toward the top, and were anchored directly to the bedrock.

Making them one of the world’s largest heat sinks.

Apparently the heat was too intense for the steel columns and they all melted at the same instant, bringing down the building.

Maybe they should have made the core out of the same material this sign is made of. 

Jim Hoffman shreds NIST's latest release

NIST's World Trade Center FAQ
A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
by Jim Hoffman

Introduction

On August 30, 2006, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) posted on their website a list of fourteen frequently asked questions (FAQ) and answers to them. NIST should be commended for at least addressing a number of the serious questions that have been raised with regard to its investigation. However, NIST's new FAQ avoids answering the central charges of its most visible critique, Building a Better Mirage.

* That NIST fails to support it's key assertion that "collapse initiation" automatically leads to "global collapse".

* That NIST uses the diversionary tactic of describing some events -- such as the airliner crashes -- in great detail, while almost completely avoiding the core question of what brought the Towers down.

* That NIST's report is internally inconsistent, supposing that steel columns were heated to temperatures hundreds of degrees in excess of the maximum temperatures indicated by its steel samples.

* That NIST fails to substantiate it's implied claim that its computer models predicted "collapse initiation".

* That NIST fails to even address most of the features of the Towers' destruction that are apparently unique to controlled demolitions.

[SNIP]

Continued at link.

Confessions of a Controlled Demolition Convert

http://oldamericancentury.com/albanese_010.htm

By. John Albanese

Crisis In America

www.crisisinamerica.org

“Were the twin towers, and/or building 7, of the World Trade Center complex brought down by controlled demolition?”

This has been the question I’ve been asked to respond to at each and every forum and speaking engagement that I have participated in over the last several years. Regardless of the fact that my speaking engagements usually coincide with public showings of my film “Everybody’s Gotta Learn Sometime” which deals with much of the heavily censored history associated with 9/11 – with nothing at all to do with controlled demolition – it would appear that my personal opinions on this matter remains important to much of my audience. Despite my lack of expertise on this subject, it would appear that my audience demands that I publicly take a position on controlled demolition.

Modify claims about WTC7 fires: Some were "raging"

In The New Pearl Harbor, David Ray Griffin says, regarding WTC7, "there is no evidence of any raging fire" (p.21). This claim, often repeated, must be modified. Debunking sites use images from Steve Spak's film Day of Disaster to counter the argument for controlled demolition. This evidence cannot be ignored. Here I would like to suggest a refined argument for WTC7, and I recommend downgrading its importance in the 911 Truth movement.

Hopefully, the screen captures I uploaded appear below. These images are from Spak's film and show the west side and the south side. Typically, Truthers show video of the north side collapsing. The west face shows at least one floor where the windows are broken and a "raging" fire is belching from the building. The south side shows a wall of smoke and some structural damage (we know the SW corner had a gash about 15-20 floors high).

Two points should be made about these pictures:

1. There is definitely an intense fire in WTC7, but we do not know how widespread it is.

2. The wall of smoke suggests but does not confirm a widespread fire. There is definitely structural damage to the south side of WTC7, and all of the smoke is being vented out that side. The north side, for example, shows little evidence of smoke or fire.

A Structural Engineer Discusses WTC Collapse Theories

A Structural Engineer, Charles N. Pegelow, was a suprise guest on Jim Fetzer's radio program today (August 24, 2006).

Listen to the archived program; Jim Fetzer's "Non-Random Thoughts" - Thursday, August 24, 2006 (Pegelow is in the 2nd hour, David Ray Griffin in the 1st hour.)
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer06.html

...and hear the guy speak for himself.

His resume;

Education:
B. S. Civil Engineering 1972, Lamar University
B. S. Mathematics 1972, Beaumont,Texas

Experience:

Present: FULTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - private consulting engineer/ contract

1998: Contract Engineering - Paragon Engineering Inc. (Houston, TX)
1) Shell Nigeria onshore gas gathering compressor flow stations and pipeline export station.
2) Mozambique - offshore field development and design for 4 caisson platforms and one central gas export caisson platform.

1997: Contract Engineering - Reading and Bates (Brownsville, TX)
Structural / construction project engineer for the upgrade of Rig 41 for 1000 meters drilling depth. Engineering, construction, scope of work for the support steel for the riser turn-down sheaves, substructure reinforcement, and many miscellaneous structures.

Pull "pull it" from our talking points

The purpose of this blog is to suggest rhetorical strategies for refining the 9/11 Truth talking points. As more so-called debunking sites appear, we cannot ignore them and proceed in an echo chamber of self-congratulation. We must adjust our message to reflect a wider selection of evidence.

In this first entry, I would like to suggest dropping references to Larry Silverstein's famous "pull it" comment in the 2002 PBS documentary. Most Truthers believe Silverstein means "demolish building 7". Critics charge he really means "pull the personnel from building 7".

I recommend avoiding Silverstein's remark not because I think WTC7 fell via a gravitational collapse, but for the following reasons:

  • both interpretations are plausible, so an audience is forced to accept one on the basis of predisposition alone
  • it does not change the physical evidence one way or another
  • for some, this charge reinforces the unfair accusation that 9/11 Truth is about "blaming the Jews"; notice, for example, how this reasonable argument devolves quickly into a discussion of "Zionist circles"; later, Killtown makes excellent points about Silverstein coincidentally having a doctor's appointment the morning of 9/11, but this information will be overshadowed in a debate by ad hominem attacks