Over-statement man strikes again!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Your reading comprehension isn't the best I can see. Chill. I'm simply stating the facts. Jowenko has not publicly said what he believes happened to the towers since he was first asked about them in the Dutch TV documentary. What part of that don't you understand? I asked you a simple question -- if you'd consider him to be a "kook" if he now believes the towers were brought down by controlled demolition -- because I noticed you registered here less than 24 hours ago to tell us we're "cherry picking" and being "deceptive". You sounded like a "debunker" from JREF throwing around accusations like that.

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace

The reason why I suspect(ed) you were a "debunker" was because I noticed that your fist post as a registered member (less than 12 hours at the time of this post) was to attack other members of this blog. You should at least wait a few days to start lecturing and disrespecting people who've been here a lot longer than you ;)

Seriously, though, this blog has been infiltrated with "debunker" trolls for months. It's a well known fact to anyone who's been here 24+ hours. At first glance you came off like one to me. So I responded to you in a way that I felt you deserved -period.

That said, welcome to 911blogger! Thank you for gracing us all with your presence and for chastising us for being "deceptive cherry pickers" . Is that better? LOL

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace

"I (thought I) clearly explained why Jowenko said the towers weren't brought down with explosives -- because he hadn't researched WTC controlled demolition theories before he made his comments about them. This is a fact. The man didn't even know about Building 7 before the interview.

Those so-called "debunkers" don't care about the truth. So who really gives a flying fuck what they can claim about Jowenko? I don't. Do you? Do you honestly care what a small group of disingenuous assholes think about Jowenko, 9/11, you, me, etc.?"
---------------------------

Sorry to hear you're going to be "gone now", monkeyman. But I'll get over it ;-)

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace

Just something that I've thought about a couple of times: in the case of very tall and relatively narrow buildings, wouldn't it be actually safer to demolish them from top to bottom?

My thinking goes as follows: if something goes wrong in a bottom-up demo job, the whole upper part might topple to one side. However, when a very tall building is being destroyed from the top downwards, only the portion above and around the demolition wave could topple.

Is this totally wrong? Feel free to correct me.

Anyway, what we need is Structural Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Not a structuaral engineer, but I'm sure one will come along to correct what I get wrong: ;-)

As I understand it, bottom up demolition takes advantage of gravity--you blow the supporting columns, and as they go, and the rest of the charges travel up and around, the building falls in on itself more or less neatly. I don't know about safety, but one problem I see with top-down is, not using gravity, you'd need MORE explosives to do the same job.

As for it tipping over, I have seen a clip of a failed demolition--they tend to just crash to a halt straight down. It's funny, actually.

I always thought they did the top down because the buildings were so tall--both larger than any demolished on record, but making it look more like the planes did it makes sense.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

You've hit the nail on the head. That's one of Jowenko's reasons for not believing the Towers were brought down by CD. He said it would take way to much explosives to do the job from the top down.

I'd say a top-down demo also uses gravity, but less effectively than a bottom-up demolition.

I have also seen the failed demo clip. It suggests that a collapse is arrested fairly quickly in an intact structure and that highrises don't topple easily. I'm still wondering if buildings as tall as the Twin Towers can be safely demolished using the traditional technique. Has any skyscraper been demolished outside 9/11?

This picture shows how difficult it is to collapse a tall building:

http://kemicityhall.blogspot.com/2006/04/kemi-city-hall.html

Military explosives failed to cause even a single floor to give in.

Those in the demolitions industry will tell you even when everything is set just so, it's touch and go whether it will work according to plan. That link--which BTW the picture won't load :( --does say 1944; explosives and their use have been improved since.

Still, it makes one good point: if explosives CAN fail to bring a building down, what the hell makes anyone think kerosene has a chance?

;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

"that link--which BTW the picture won't load :( "

That's strange, because for me that page (made by me, incidentally) loads just fine. Could you retry?

"if explosives CAN fail to bring a building down, what the hell makes anyone think kerosene has a chance"

Exactly. Or, referring to Jowenko's argument, if a huge amount of explosives would be needed in a top-down demolition, how could short-lived fires accomplish the same?

Incidentally, those saying that the fires weakeaned the steel also typically claim that the fires lasted for 56 minutes in the South Tower and 102 minutes in the North. But of course, fires keep moving to new locations as burnable materials exhaust. I've read somewhere that any given place could burn for 20-30 minutes before the fire is exhausted there. More info, anyone?

So in practice for steel to have weakened to the point of collapse in a given location, it would have had to be weakened within just 20-30 minutes, if the above is correct.

And even if the steel had dramatically weakened in, say, one or two places, how would that translate into an entire floor collapsing at once? How large were the floors again in the Towers?

Consider what explosives expert Van Romero said on 9/11:

"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points."

http://911review.com/coverup/romero.html

_______________
"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!" -Dan Wallace

Except they only had one chance to do it right. So I'd think they'd err on the side of more.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

You can find a good video of a "FAILED DEMOLITION" below

Click to Watch Video

LOL--because what else are you going to do when your demolition fails? :)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.