Small Twin Towers to be pulled, Experts Q&A needed

[shadowworks]

Hi

There are a block of flats in the city of Glasgow Gorbals area that going to be pulled very soon.

Ever time I walk by them I take a picture of the preparation as it progresses.

They have taken almost 6 weeks to weaken the walls and concrete supports, on ever other floor, They have been drilling directly into them and placing what I think are explosives charges.

I want to go on site and ask somebody or even the manager about the demolition company what he thinks of WTC7 and how long it would have taken to pull suck a building.

The claim is 7 hours for the WTC7 but these guys have taken 6 weeks and it looks like there are 20 guys from what I saw as I walked around the perimeter, not even counting who's inside.

I am asking you guys for good solid questions to ask an expert who does this for a living, how is WTC7 even possible and what it would take.

I have pictures of the flats but no place to upload them to.

[starchildtesla]

it was loaded with explosives before 911 .

[shadowworks]

[QUOTE=starchildtesla;310058]it was loaded with explosives before 911 .[/QUOTE

I believe that, you believe that, most of us believe this but! we are not experts and we do not blow buildings up.

This is a chance to film an expert who does this for a living, I will show him the WTC7 video as it collapses and I won't tell him that this was on 9/11 or what the building is, I will only show him the plans of the building and ask him what is involved in pulling the building and how long it would take if money was no object .

Then I will tell him it was WTC7 and it happened on 9/11 and no plane hit the building, there is one video like this on the net of some Dutch or German demolition expert being dumbfound when told that WTC7 happened on 9/11

I hope people in the UK would be surprised and believe the message if this was done again in English because I know how people hate to read subtitles because there dumbed down so much.


What would you guys ask a demolition expert about WTC7 if you could interview one? That is the purpose of the thread.

[cyince]

Pulled? They are going to pull the buildings down with cable? (Truthers are going to make pull mean CD no matter how many times they type it)

Seriously though, seeing the amount of work that actually goes into demolishing a building makes all the controlled demolition theories that much more improbable.

I would just ask them for their estimate on the time frame to rig the building for demo, and the amount of explosives that would been needed.

I would then ask if any explosives exist that are silent.

I would then as how you would hide the tell tale evidence of controlled demolition from the largest investigation in World history.

[starchildtesla]

1.Do explosives exist without wiring them up? Yes (like putting them in the elevator shafts)
2. Who said the explosives were silent?
3.evidence was shipped to china and melted..

But question i want to ask the Controlled demolotions experts is why dont they just put explosives on the top floors so the weight of the building will pankake ;)

[christophera]

it was loaded with explosives before 911 .

Absolutely. Adequate placement cannot be achieved without removing wall coverings and column facings.

[christophera]

I would then as how you would hide the tell tale evidence of controlled demolition from the largest investigation in World history.

The container was concrete and the engineered perfection therein caused a massive shockwave that pulverized the concrete into its particulate components of Sand and gravel (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg).

The concrete will be gone, just insist it never existed.

[cyince]

1.Do explosives exist without wiring them up? Yes (like putting them in the elevator shafts)
Good question
2. Who said the explosives were silent?
The video record(s)
3.evidence was shipped to china and melted..
The evidence was first investigated by 1st responders, none of which reported damage from explosives. THen evidence then had to be handled by crews loading it onto trucks, cutting it into smaller parts, none of which reported explosive damage.
There were dozens of k-9 units in the search, none found explosives.
The evidence was then shipped to fresh kills land fill (the majority, some was stolen by local steel companies, then later recovered), where it was examined by FEMA, and the FBI. No reports of explosives.
It then had to be loaded again, guess what, no none reported explosives, explosive damage.

But question i want to ask the Controlled demolotions experts is why dont they just put explosives on the top floors so the weight of the building will pankake ;)

Because, only 2 buildings in history have fallen that way. Two 110 story steel framed, steel cored sky scrapers. After being hit by 767s traveling 450+ mph.
Did you see the debris pile and collateral damage caused by the collapses. That should answer the question for you.

[mr_self_destruct]

Then I will tell him it was WTC7 and it happened on 9/11 and no plane hit the building, there is one video like this on the net of some Dutch or German demolition expert being dumbfound when told that WTC7 happened on 9/11

I would be careful about pulling a stunt like that...they might think you're taking the piss or are trying to stitch them up. Maybe you should just contact someone, explain what you're doing and see if they'll talk about it (anonymously if necessary).

[cyince]

This is a chance to film an expert who does this for a living, I will show him the WTC7 video as it collapses and I won't tell him that this was on 9/11 or what the building is, I will only show him the plans of the building and ask him what is involved in pulling the building and how long it would take if money was no object .

Then I will tell him it was WTC7 and it happened on 9/11 and no plane hit the building, there is one video like this on the net of some Dutch or German demolition expert being dumbfound when told that WTC7 happened on 9/11

That same demo expert says that wtc 1 and 2 were in no way a controlled demolition. Also when he was shown the video initially (of wtc 7), there was no sound. (Controlled demolitions are very loud). You want to be sure that your investigation is above board, deliberate deception if generally frowned upon.

[shadowworks]

That same demo expert says that wtc 1 and 2 were in no way a controlled demolition.

In now way that he knows does not mean it didn't happen this way and Firemen heard explosives in the building, weakening the core I would imagine.

The basement had been blown out as well.

Its obvious 9/11 was a very high level sophisticatedly demolition.


Also when he was shown the video initially (of wtc 7), there was no sound. (Controlled demolitions are very loud

Does anybody have a sound file on record of the collapse that I can examine?

Anybody know the distance of the microphones and pick up patterns of the mics in questions?

I'm am not an average acoustic engineer and know acoustic behaviour and resonances better than 90% of people who claim to be experts in the acoustics field.



You want to be sure that your investigation is above board, deliberate deception if generally frowned upon.

You should put that in a letter and send it to the 9/11 Omission Commission, not here.

[montag]

I would then as how you would hide the tell tale evidence of controlled demolition from the largest investigation in World history.
Are you sure you don't mean the largest cover up in world history?

The WTC7 collapse has never been investigated to my knowledge, it wasn't even mentioned in the 911 commission report.

[cyince]

In now way that he knows does not mean it didn't happen this way and Firemen heard explosives in the building, weakening the core I would imagine.

The basement had been blown out as well.

Its obvious 9/11 was a very high level sophisticatedly demolition.

You take his word as gospel on WTC7, but his opinion become irrelevant on the issues of WTC 1 and 2. Why is that?

The three biggest demolitions in world history, done covertly with new technology which still today nothing comes close to. It just seems a bit of a reach.

You should put that in a letter and send it to the 9/11 Omission Commission, not here.

The commission didn't knowingly deceive anyone. It is true parties with held information (CIA, Executive Branch), but to charge the commission as deceptive is simply wrong.

Are you sure you don't mean the largest cover up in world history?

The WTC7 collapse has never been investigated to my knowledge, it wasn't even mentioned in the 911 commission report.

Maybe if WTC 7 was part if its investigative mandate you would have a point. You know it didn't even mention the Verizon building either, hmm maybe your onto something.

[shadowworks]

You take his word as gospel on WTC7, but his opinion become irrelevant on the issues of WTC 1 and 2. Why is that?

Did I say I took his word as Gospel? can you show me that quote? ball bag.


Because it was not a regular demolition obviously, did you miss that?


The three biggest demolitions in world history, done covertly with new technology which still today nothing comes close to. It just seems a bit of a reach.

A bit of a reach if your believe in the USA elite government as good humans with the people at heart, it becomes the default if you know better, they have killed over 50 million people since WW2 in low level conflicts, have you not read Confessions of an Economic Hitman? killing 3000 in a false flag is nothing, doing it with some Hollywood flare is even better.

There is lots of military technology that you will not know or hear of in your life time that is in use today, your not helping to add any quality to this thread.



The commission didn't knowingly deceive anyone. It is true parties with held information (CIA, Executive Branch), but to charge the commission as deceptive is simply wrong.

The Commission was hand picked like the Warren commission, it seems you can use the same trick twice and get away with it on muppets.



Maybe if WTC 7 was part if its investigative mandate you would have a point. You know it didn't even mention the Verizon building either, hmm maybe your onto something.

It was part of the events on 9/11, why is it not part of the investigation? did it just fall down by itself?

Your talking nonsense so kindly get out of this conversation if you have nothing positive to add, nobody wants to be spat on while you talk pish, your just a shit kicker and your stinking this thread up as you walk around.

[cyince]

Your talking nonsense so kindly get out of this conversation if you have nothing positive to add, nobody wants to be spat on while you talk pish, your just a shit kicker and your stinking this thread up as you walk around.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

The video where he says wtc 1 and 2 were not controlled demos.

The three part interview where is says 7 is a controlled demo

R.I.P. Danny Jowenko - WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 1 of 3 - YouTube
R.I.P. Danny Jowenko - WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 2 of 3 - YouTube
R.I.P. Danny Jowenko - WTC7 Demolition Interviews, 3 of 3 - YouTube

So again, why believe him and quote him on one, and not the other. He says several times in the interview he wishes he had more pictures and time to think of it. Though as recently as 2007 he still contends that WTC7 was imploded. He also states a crew of 40 or more would be needed and it would have to be tightly controlled and hes not sure how long it would take. He says this before he is told there were fires burning.

Just because I disagree with you does not mean I'm not adding to the thread. This is the internet, if you don't like opposing opinions or getting your ideas challenged your in the wrong place.

You at this point are not adding to the substance or quality of the thread.

[barbitone]

Cyince, please have a look at these short videos and tell me what you see here.
I would like to know your views.


Building 7 countdown witness.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlxw9TZ_0Cc

This guy must have been hallucinating or he must be straight out lying.
Or he is telling you what he saw and heard?


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

Why does the cop say the building is about to blow up? Twice?
Why not say the building is collapsing or falling down or failing or showing signs of instability?
Is it because they can hear explosions going off?


These are just genuine questions.

[shadowworks]

Why does the cop say the building is about to blow up? Twice?

Because there are bombs in the building

Why not say the building is collapsing or falling down or failing or showing signs of instability?
Is it because they can hear explosions going off?.

Your wasting your time man, this person has already made there tiny mind up;)

[cyince]

Cyince, please have a look at these short videos and tell me what you see here.
I would like to know your views.


Building 7 countdown witness.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Jlxw9TZ_0Cc

This guy must have been hallucinating or he must be straight out lying.
Or he is telling you what he saw and heard?


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjmqkjwnvQ

I think he is lying. Simply because the story is uncorroborated and seemed to evolve for dramatic effect. Heres a related thread on it. Kevin himself posts once there.

His story gets a lot more full and detailed on the second telling (and is subsequent tellings) http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/09/kevin-mcpadden-expands-his-story-and.html


Why does the cop say the building is about to blow up? Twice?
Why not say the building is collapsing or falling down or failing or showing signs of instability?
Is it because they can hear explosions going off?

When your under pressure (a building is about to fall on you) are you eloquent and precise? First responders report the building creaking and 'exploding' throughout the day until its collapse. (exploding being bolts shearing, loads buckling, fire related explosions) That is why it was evacuated and salvage efforts stopped.


Because there are bombs in the building
No comments on the Jewenko interviews? Just a heads up by the end he estimates 40 guys with cutting torches plus about another 30-40 rigging explosives could probably do wtc7. Where are these 60-70 people? Did anyone see them?



Your wasting your time man, this person has already made there tiny mind up;)

I'm giving you an opportunity to give me specific evidence that would change my mind. You cannot do that, or have been unable to. To be fair none of my inquiries to you have gone answered. Who really has the tiny mind, and their mind made up?

[weston white]

Anybody have any actual footage of a building being taken down by cables? I would like to see that, that does not seem possible unless the building is a public hazard do to old age, natural disaster, compromised structure, etc. Even still it does not practical, in order to do this it would require wide open space around the perimeter of the building being taken down and would require massively oversized tractor equipment.

How could cables outpower a massive building? I fail to grasp that concept.

After running several Google searches about cables being used to demolish a building this was all I really found on building demo's:

Demolition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[weston white]

BTW, did I mention that Cyince is a complete shyster an illegitimate huckster? ;)

[weston white]

Man, Cyince must be getting tired of his cushy little debunking gig, being that his posts are not even worth replying to anymore, laff. Face it troll you are washed up, burned out, and faded, jaded, and dilated.

Damn, you need to seriously call in some reinforcement or something! You are not even cutting the mustard anymore, bud.

[cyince]

BTW, did I mention that Cyince is a complete shyster an illegitimate huckster? ;)

What purpose did this post even serve?


Man, Cyince must be getting tired of his cushy little debunking gig, being that his posts are not even worth replying to anymore, laff. Face it troll you are washed up, burned out, and faded, jaded, and dilated.

Damn, you need to seriously call in some reinforcement or something! You are not even cutting the mustard anymore, bud.

Weston, you have definatly replied to me in a general sense, (hit the reply button),however the 'replies' contained within thoes posts can hardly be considred a rebuttal, debunking, disproving, arguement againt or any other variation of a legitiamte reply. For an example see your responses in this thread, for posts populated with inane jabber and a distinct lack of critical thinking.

Its come to a point with you that replying to your posts has become tedious and redundant as you have addressed a small percentage of queries on your theories. You have stated you don't even bother with my links, and you ignore repeated inquiries into problems with your own understanding. After reading these two respsonses I'm seriously considering making a superthread with all of your idiotic statements, however I simply lack the time to format all your babbling into a coherant read.

Reinforcments? For what? In this thread alone major quetions have gone unanswered and ignored.

I'll ask you because I feel that these two are worth replying to.

Why beleive and quote Jowenko about WTC7, and not wtc 1+2.

Why beleive Kevin Mcphadden when his story has changed 3 times, each time acquiring new details.
9/11 Debunked: WTC7 "Radio Countdown" Disproven - YouTube

(I don't buy the 86 arguemnt BTW)

And a bonus for you!!

How you would hide the tell tale evidence of 3 of the biggest controlled demolitions from the largest investigation in World history, and the largest clean up/rescue operation in North American History.

[weston white]

rofl, well at least you put some heart into that post...

However;

Speaking of unanswered posts:

Anybody have any actual footage of a building being taken down by cables? I would like to see that, that does not seem possible unless the building is a public hazard do to old age, natural disaster, compromised structure, etc. Even still it does not practical, in order to do this it would require wide open space around the perimeter of the building being taken down and would require massively oversized tractor equipment.

How could cables outpower a massive building? I fail to grasp that concept.

After running several Google searches about cables being used to demolish a building this was all I really found on building demo's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolish


And a bonus for you!!

How you would hide the tell tale evidence of 3 of the biggest controlled demolitions from the largest investigation in World history, and the largest clean up/rescue operation in North American History.

I would say secret oaths and obligations combined with 2.3 trillion dollar payout, promotions, and threats of murdering you and or your family (staged to look like suicide/accident) if you break your oath, is a pretty good start. Geez, you ask like things such as this have never occurred before. Let me guess you believe in the magic bullet theory, eh?

I'm seriously considering making a superthread with all of your idiotic statements, however I simply lack the time to format all your babbling into a coherant read.

By all means please have at it, I would love to point out yet once more how madly you twist things around to meet your warped sense of perspective.

As for your other videos, I honestly do not know, as I do not concern myself with every joker whom comes along and posts a 9/11 video (or whatever video for that matter), but is certainly appears that you do... I like to stay on the scientific side of the debate now, there is way to much back and forth about issues that are in the end no very relevant.

BTW, did you ever look into those Canadian documentaries I posted for you? You seem to have gone GOA in that thread, as you usually do when you have been busted.