Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty4eva
The reaction you get from people who are experts at buildings being presented with footage of Building 7 collapsing is at odds with what you say. Danny Jowenko is European demolition expert and this is his reaction to seeing footage of Building 7 collapsing.
In fact the 9/11 truth movement is comprised mostly of professionals. There are a lot of loud people in movement, the "9/11 was an inside job" chanters, but it is mostly professionals.
But, IMHO, you don't even have to be an expert in buildings to be able to know that it's a CD. Hate to quote more popular culture, but if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's a duck.
I have a suspicion the people who look at Building 7 collapsing and don't see an eerie similarity between that and a controlled demolition have a psychological need to deceive themselves and not see the world as it actually is. |
Yeah it does look a lot like a controlled demolition, that doesnt mean to say it was, as for Jowenko he says "oh thats controlled" at first, then when additional facts were pointed out, like when it actually happened and the fact the building was on fire at the time of collapse, he doesnt press the fact it was a CD, he says he cant explain it.
Think about it would a demolition team go in and rush a job that would normally take a team several days to do, while the building above and around them was on fire?
Wouldnt the fire officers and police officers and other people at the scene notice the dems team, (Jowenko says about 30 - 40 men)?
Would a skilled demolition team take the risk in wiring up charges with det cord? Which if its burnt can kick into demo mode, ie fast burn and trigger all the dets in the string? But not with the same effect as a CD.
One other point, large buildings in the US have to follow Federal and State (and even localised zoning) Building Regulations, these include design rules, stress rules and failsafe collapse systems.
That means when certain stresses are achieved, under certain circumstances the building flat pack collapses onto its own footprint. Most of the conspiracy believers seem to forget that!
So if a fire weakens the structure and starts a collapse, pre stressed in built weak points will also collapse and progressively (within a few seconds) stop the building collapsing outwards. In other words the initial collapse point may move the parts of the building just above the collapsed area off the footprint but the rest of the building collapses on itself.
Incidentally if you actually read the full FEMA report you will indeed see the wording "requires further investigation", several times in fact. This merely acknowledges that the FEMA investigation wasnt able to reach a full and satisfactory conclusion to the exact cause of collapse ( where it specifically started etc) Funny old thing that, it had a couple of other minor things to investigate at the same time.
Saying that however conspiracy theorists who love to quote those 3 words seemed to have completely forgotten all about the follow up more detailed NIST led investigation which really went into detail on 7WTC.
It stated the building had collapsed as a result of structural damage which occured from the collapse of the twin towers, and then subsequent multiple fires occuring throughout the building caused even greater structural damage.
They also conveniently ignore the fact that firemen in the building attempting to fight the fires heard the building creaking and groaning as bits fell off. In other words the building was not structurally intact at the time of collapse.
If explosives were used to drop the building then surely some flying glass would have been observed on one of the many films of the fire fighting attempt at the building or its subsequent collapse. And wouldnt all those bangs going off simultaneously create one motherf
ucker of an explosion that people would hear even out of the safety cordon?
Or did the US government develop some new super explosive that is not only invisible, doesnt produce any outward blast but is also soundless, just for this job?