Their idea of “warning civilians to leave the area” (which is all the AP and Reuters say in describing it) is to fire a missile with no explosives into the building 10 minutes before the real one that brings it down. So you’ve got 10 minutes after hearing a “thunk” (bad luck if you happen to be sitting behind the wall that the dud hits) to round up your kids and anything that needs to be saved, run down from the 12th floor, and get a safe distance away.
1 Like
And if we were occupied, caged in, blockaded, and bombed for 40 years by Canadians, we’d be rallying around whatever resistance there was and firing rockets at the fuckers indiscriminantly. So what’s your point?
1 Like
They can also collapse from building fire if you have no fireproofing and are unable to fight them, and if the design lends itself to such a vulnerability. Facts. If not, obviously they would not fireproof steel.
I have. But like a warning shot, you aim it near the target, not at it. If you fire at it, it’s not a warning, it’s a shot to kill.
Israel bans journalists from reporting that Hamas is targeting the IDF airfields. But you can just look at the ratio of dead civilians to soldiers to see which side targets civilians.
For what its worth, Hamas swore off targeting civilians in 2005. Ratios of civilian to soldier death before and after confirm they’ve kept their word.
Let’s face it, Israel is a racist state engaging in apartheid conditions that have killed more minorities than South Africa and Rhodesia in their darkest ugliest days
2 Likes
It’s happened twice. And only twice. On the same day. Go figure.
It happened 3 times on 9/11. and actually WTC 5 had a similar failure, and if that was a high rise it would have fell as well.
Yes, there were a lot of “firsts” that day. So what is your point? As a structural engineer who has been building here in NYC for over 30 years, I can tell you WTC 1, 2 and 7 fell exactly as they should have based on the circumstances and the designs of the buildings. And there are dozens of independent engineering studies indicating exactly how they fell. Meanwhile the con men in Truth have produced ZERO, thats’ ZERO, studies on how a top down synhronized demolition is done. You know why? It’s out of a comic book. Only gravity can create such a perfect downward flow. If you think every floor of the Towers was wired at all trusses, and then detonated within milliseconds at each floor using magic dust, you might want to do a little research because that makes a Glen Beck rant look sane.
Not one building demo contractor or expert thinks WTC was some kind of pre-planned controlled demo. In fact, they find it comical that con men like Richard Gage can sell it to sheep. Yes, Richard Gage, the guy who said the “explosives” in WTC7 were planted starting in the 1980’s. Yes, he said that, and the look on his face was similar to the look on Dick Cheney’s face when he said Saddam had nukes.
So yes, go figure. I have. I studied, and it’s my field, and it’s not even debatable. But I’m all ears, debate the facts. Or will you abide by the Truther Oath and avoid debating facts and instead try to sound like you know construction and engineering when in reality you have no clue? Yes, that’s what usually happens with Truther’s.
C’mon man, it’s been 10 years and you are still looking at the equivalent of Birther sites?
2 Likes
Wow, you seem very, very defensive. Over-the-top, really. I don’t know who’s fever is worse–that of 9/11 truthers, or that of 9/11 official explanation defenders (as your post indicates you may be). The fact that all of your comments have been thoroughly debunked by others indicates this debate will not be settled here (btw, Gage’s group has 2,240 professional architects and engineers that disagree with your version of events–you are only one individual) And, it’s a bit off-topic to boot. I’ll just leave you to your radical beliefs on this one.
I agree with that description, and I’m not pro-Hamas either. But expect to be called an anti-Semite for having that view. The views of Israel’s actions in Gaza seem to be quite polar.
I think you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts…
Way to post an edited video (kind of like what a FOX talk show host does). Here is the FULL interview.
yes, Danny Jowenko says NO WAY that the Towers were a controlled demo. And on 7 he says he understands it came down weeks later. When told it was the same day he says NO WAY that it was pre-planned. He says they must have rushed in there that day with MASSIVE explosives, and ran cable out to the street, and then detonated it. That would of course have made noise you would hear for miles, deafen people in the area, leave MILES of blasting cable, and hundreds of blasting caps. NONE were found. NONE.
Oh, but THEN he is told the building was damaged, and that it had some fires. He THEN says “that’s not a lot of information” and “I can’t explain it”. Now, YOU tell ME why “Truth” did not show him ALL the information?? Why did they not show him the VIDEOTAPES of WTC7 with fires so hot on the lower floors that windows were popping out and flames shooting out? Why did they not show him the 20 Story gash in the front of the building, a result of a section of perimeter column estimated at 50 tons that almost sliced the building in half when the Towers collapsed? Not relevant? Wow. So the ONE expert that Truth posts on their site says NO WAY WTC1 and 2 were controlled demos, and NO WAY WTC7 was some kind of pre-planned demo (and that he wants more information and can’t explain it)!!! Wow.
Now, watch. Learn. There is lots of video and information on here. Guess who comes out looking like the nuts. Why did 9/11 Truth not show Jowenko THIS video. Instead they show him one video clip from the undamaged side of the building with no audio and from about a mile away. Right, don’t show him the close up videos, or interviews with FDNY people, etc. FOX tactics.
And the fact that Jowenko says during the interview that he understands 7 came down weeks later should tell you that he really was not paying that much attention to all of this. Yes, obviously if that building came down WEEKS later it was not from fire. Duh. And again, he asked for more info and said he could not explain it. And that is the ONE expert Truth puts on their site? Yes, this makes Sean Hannity look honest.
So, my statement that “not one building demo contractor or expert in the world thinks WTC was some kind of pre-planned controlled demo” is backed up by Danny Jowenko, yet you post his name to prove me wrong? That’s hysterical.
1 Like
There are experts on Birther Sites, Moon Landing Hoax sites, etc. Let’s just take structural engineers. Truth has about 40 globally out of several hundred thousand. So? There are more scientists who believe in Creationism. More importantly, NOT ONE of their structural engineers has ANY idea how this controlled demo was done, and even more importantly, many of them just want a new investigation based on the Bush Admin ignoring warnings. So stop name dropping, etc. Birther’s do that too. Yeah, “experts” have verified Obama’s “Kenyan Birth Certificate”, etc.
SPECIFICALLY which of my comments has been “debunked”, and how was it debunked? Can you debate facts, engineering, logic, physics, etc.? I’m all ears, so don’t say it can’t be settled here.
Radial beliefs? 99.999% of Engineers and 100% of building demo contractors and experts agree with ME. How is that “one individual”?? So how are my ideas radical?? There are studies by MIT, Purdue, Structure Mag, Implosion World, Mace, etc., I could go on an on, on the collapse. Yet these “professionals” you talk about can’t, in 13 YEARS, come up with ANYTHING on how these “controlled demo” was done, except to say that magic dust was used? They won’t even say how it was planted. Not even a VAGUE concept. I thought they were “experts”???
Funny stuff. So stop with the attitude, you are just as gullible as a Sarah Palin fan.
You want a simple explanation on how the Towers collapsed? Here you go:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
Now tell me SPECIFICALLY what part of that you are saying does not make sense, because as a structural engineer who has been building for over 30 years here in NYC it makes perfect sense to me and virtually every other engineer and construction professional in the world. And the .01% who disagree can’t tell you how THEY think this was done. Just “with magic dust”. …yawn…
1 Like
Methinks you protest too much. Nothing suspicious about that, no sireee…
I’m not a birther, truther, 10ther, or an official story defender. Your post seems filled with fearful defensiveness. Makes me wonder why you are so aggressively over-the-top with you comments. Perhaps you really believe the truthers, and can’t live with yourself?
Anyway, you’re barking up the wrong tree. And besides, you’re not an expert, and certainly only one person. Many others with far more knowledge and insight dispute your comments and beliefs.
So, please take your insecurities regarding 9/11 somewhere else. Your bullying is not appreciated here.
Ah, so all of us who protested against let’s say the Iraq War were “suspicious”??? Funny.
If you have any FACTS to debate, go for it. But stop the silly rhetoric please. If I only post one line, the Truther’s say “aha, you can’t even state your case”. Then if I state my case they say “aha, why do you need to post so much information??”.
Grow up please.
Oh, so you’ve gone from raving about 9/11, to raving about the Iraq war??
Mr. Comments, you seem to have gone off the rails. When did 9/11 affect you so much that you fire accusations aimlessly when you make the subject pop up, ‘accidentally’…
Melting down like a child having a tantrum won’t convince anyone that your crazy theories are true, you know.
Liked for the link, and I’m totally convinced as to cause of the collapses, but comparing 538 to a Sarah Palin fan’s a bit harsh, doncha think?
1 Like
9/11 Truther’s give liberals a bad name. Plus their idiotic theories would involve a lot of people I knew that were down there that day (some FDNY guys). 9/11 Truth are depraved scum, and they serve no useful purpose. Let’s remember that YOU are the one who brought this up first with your dopey post. So YOU are the one obsessed with this “controlled demo” nonsense. Stop twisting this.
If you are going to post sophomoric nonsense, expect a reply, especially when you call yourself “liberal”, because we smart liberals think you give us a bad name.
1 Like
No. Different agendas, same IQ. Anyone who thinks WTC was some kind of controlled demo after all these years is brain dead. This is not even debatable. It is people like 538 who give liberals bad name.
And remember that 538 is the one who brought this up. This was supposed to be a thread about Israeli policies that are not just, but then some clueless clown has to bring up 9/11 conspiracy nonsense.
And if I post some nonsense, I expect a reply with facts that challenge it. In fact when I have posted things that were subject to debate, when I have been presented with facts and either apologized or changed my opinion. I’m always open to smart debate. But 538’s idea of debate is to avoid ANY facts and just spew rhetoric. Sarah Palin fans do the same thing.
1 Like
If I meet some truthers, I’ll pass that on. Since I don’t know any truthers, it may take a while…
You really are obsessed with 9/11 aren’t you. I’m not, but I find your obsession curious.
Um, I never uttered (or typed) that anywhere in any of my comments–you’re drifting again…
Oh, real smart, you betcha!