Interview with Controlled Demo Expert, Danny Jowenko, confirming that Building 7 was brought down on purpose.
(Visited 89 times, 1 visits today)
Danny Jowenko on WTC 7 controlled demolition
You might also like:
Logging you in...
What is all of this talk about peer-review and science?
You DO realize that you have NOT ONE peer-reviewed paper about your magical demolition theories?
Only ones in FAKE journals that Steven E. Jones PAYS his way around?
Are you going to send me to JO911Studies at this time?
LOL.
Seriously, are you trying to debunk NIST and Bazant and Zhou, when your username REEKS of paranoid delusional bullshit?
Get real kid.
The ONLY engineers supporting you are crooks like the ones in my profile pic.
You DO realize that you have NOT ONE peer-reviewed paper about your magical demolition theories?
Only ones in FAKE journals that Steven E. Jones PAYS his way around?
Are you going to send me to JO911Studies at this time?
LOL.
Seriously, are you trying to debunk NIST and Bazant and Zhou, when your username REEKS of paranoid delusional bullshit?
Get real kid.
The ONLY engineers supporting you are crooks like the ones in my profile pic.
WTC 7 report is not supported by scientific experiments but by a computer simulation based on assumptions and added gas temperatures. The mathematical modeling data is withheld.
NIST acknowledges free fall and then tries to explain it as natural event using this very simulation which is based on its assumptions. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
NIST acknowledges free fall and then tries to explain it as natural event using this very simulation which is based on its assumptions. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
From Below; Could it be that if the heating of the concrete slabs, and the heat dispersal in sagging beams was included in the calculations, the temperatures required would not have been enough to have 30 shear studs break even for a simulation that has had 10% temperature increase added from nothing more than choice? More than likely but NIST withholds the input mathematical data.
Digest that for minute or two before i deal with free fall which NIST acknowledges happened.
Digest that for minute or two before i deal with free fall which NIST acknowledges happened.
From Below ; Now look at what NIST writes further on in the report - "Temperatures were uniform (Case B don't forget) across the bottom flange and web, but he top flange temperature was less by up to several hundred degrees BECAUSE THE SLAB ACTED AS A HEAT SINK." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p391 {pdf p53}
So if the slab acted as a heat sink why did they earlier write the slabs were assumed unheated and then left out of the calcuations??
Cont Above
So if the slab acted as a heat sink why did they earlier write the slabs were assumed unheated and then left out of the calcuations??
Cont Above
From below ; NIST chose to add 10%. NIST then assumed high steel temperature and applied the heat 1-1/2 seconds over the entire north east part of floor 13. The method did not allow for heat dispersal or beam sagging. NIST heated the floor beams but not the concrete slabs. Concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel, leaving this expansion out for the calculations for the shear studs.
"The temperatures were assumed...the slab was assumed to remain unheated." - NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 p349
Cont above
"The temperatures were assumed...the slab was assumed to remain unheated." - NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 p349
Cont above
I will answer the first part of your reply but first column 79.
NIST added 10% to the temperature results of its fire simulation (FDS).
"Case A used the temperature data as obtained from the FDS simuation. Case B temperatures increased the Case A gas temperatures by 10%" -NCSTAR 1A Pg 32 {pdf p.74]
"Only the fire-induced damage produced by Case B (10% Added) temperatures was carried forward as the intial condition for the building collapse analysis" NCSTAR 1A P 36{pdf p.78]
Continued Above
NIST added 10% to the temperature results of its fire simulation (FDS).
"Case A used the temperature data as obtained from the FDS simuation. Case B temperatures increased the Case A gas temperatures by 10%" -NCSTAR 1A Pg 32 {pdf p.74]
"Only the fire-induced damage produced by Case B (10% Added) temperatures was carried forward as the intial condition for the building collapse analysis" NCSTAR 1A P 36{pdf p.78]
Continued Above
Dear oh Dear, NIST has not released the mathematical input data for there models. It can't be scrutinized as an open report should be. Bazants and Zhou theories can not be supported by physical experiments so therefore it isn't a fact but an assumption which no scientific experiment can support.
The report into WTC7 was not peer reviewed and no scientifc experiments carried out. The reports have been accepted because people are incapable of believing the alternative. It's accepted on faith.
The report into WTC7 was not peer reviewed and no scientifc experiments carried out. The reports have been accepted because people are incapable of believing the alternative. It's accepted on faith.
You FAIL to realize, idiot, that the brief period of free fall DEBUNKS your magical demolition theories.
Please explain how a demolition could cause less than gravitational acceleration, 2.25 seconds of free fall, then back to less than free fall?
Please explain how the failure of Column 79 is FALSE and silent, indestructible explosives are what REALLY caused the collapse of wtc7?
structuremag(dot)org/archives/2007-11/sf-wtc7-gilsanz-nov07.pdf
WHEN will you email them with your rebuttal???
Please explain how a demolition could cause less than gravitational acceleration, 2.25 seconds of free fall, then back to less than free fall?
Please explain how the failure of Column 79 is FALSE and silent, indestructible explosives are what REALLY caused the collapse of wtc7?
structuremag(dot)org/archives/2007-11/sf-wtc7-gilsanz-nov07.pdf
WHEN will you email them with your rebuttal???
No, NIST's simulations have been REPRODUCED (a quality of a GOOD experiment) in the US AND across seas. Bazant and Zhou published THEIR math only 3 days after 911, in an ACTUAL paper, by ACTUAL engineers and physicists, and hasn't been refuted by 911 Twoofers since.
NIST's findings were peer reviewed by ASCE and a core set of other institutions. and are agreed upon by every major SE & Architectural organization known to man.
WHAT organizations believe in your magical conspiratard theories?
NIST's findings were peer reviewed by ASCE and a core set of other institutions. and are agreed upon by every major SE & Architectural organization known to man.
WHAT organizations believe in your magical conspiratard theories?
I'm sorry how have I lied? You yourself have just acknowledged free fall occurred. The free fall was simultaneous across the building.
The only magic here is NIST computer simulations which you have accepted on faith alone. There are no scientific experiments to support any of it and you have the cheek to ask me how to explain it scientifically.
So it seems you believe in science but chose when it should be properly applied. Shame NIST didn't feel the same way you do. What a redundant reply
The only magic here is NIST computer simulations which you have accepted on faith alone. There are no scientific experiments to support any of it and you have the cheek to ask me how to explain it scientifically.
So it seems you believe in science but chose when it should be properly applied. Shame NIST didn't feel the same way you do. What a redundant reply
Indeed, the north face DID fall at free fall during Stage 2 of collapse for 2.25 seconds.
So your MAGICAL explosives were not only silent, fireproof, and indestructible, but they caused WTC7 to fall SLOWER than free fall, magically SPEED UP to free fall for 2.25 seconds, then SLOW DOWN again for the rest of the collapse.
Please explain how this is scientifically possible lying retard?
LMAO
911 TRUTHERS=DEBUNK THEMSELVES!
So your MAGICAL explosives were not only silent, fireproof, and indestructible, but they caused WTC7 to fall SLOWER than free fall, magically SPEED UP to free fall for 2.25 seconds, then SLOW DOWN again for the rest of the collapse.
Please explain how this is scientifically possible lying retard?
LMAO
911 TRUTHERS=DEBUNK THEMSELVES!
LOL NIST admitted free fall
HARD QUESTION FOR TWOOFERS LIE
NIST admitted free fall of wtc 7 of 100 feet, that's 8 stories. If you thought twoofers were telling porkies about free fall in order for them to support a so called conspiracy theory. Then how much of a red faced, shit stained, baboon do you feel now, knowing that are actually right?
is it?
A. OMG i'm shit stained Baboon shill
B. Too quick insulting critical thinkers because i don't know the facts
C. Embarrassed
D. All of the above
HARD QUESTION FOR TWOOFERS LIE
NIST admitted free fall of wtc 7 of 100 feet, that's 8 stories. If you thought twoofers were telling porkies about free fall in order for them to support a so called conspiracy theory. Then how much of a red faced, shit stained, baboon do you feel now, knowing that are actually right?
is it?
A. OMG i'm shit stained Baboon shill
B. Too quick insulting critical thinkers because i don't know the facts
C. Embarrassed
D. All of the above
HARD QUESTIONS FOR 911 TWOOFERS
How could WTC7 have fallen at free fall when the east Penthouse collapsed 8.2 seconds before global collapse occurred?
What were PANY and FDNY saying about WTC7 3 hours before it collapsed?
Why are 911 Twoofers so scared to show pictures of the south side of WTC7?
How could WTC7 have fallen at free fall when the east Penthouse collapsed 8.2 seconds before global collapse occurred?
What were PANY and FDNY saying about WTC7 3 hours before it collapsed?
Why are 911 Twoofers so scared to show pictures of the south side of WTC7?
A building will never go free fall unless it is a controlled demolition.
The education system in America, have create this confusion. They can not comprehend basic information they have been, programmed by their own teachers and goverment.
He doesn't know WTC7 lol, stfu. 'The same day? Sure? Sure?' I'm Dutch and I can tell this is bad acting, besides that this guy doens't sound very expert I can tell you. Just a subjective conspiracy guy, wich our left-wing islam loving 'Nederland 3' has no problem with showing it.
When buildings R destroyed w/ fire, U usually C large deformations as the steel sags, & it falls over. The NT should've fallen over, not thru itself & what should've been the path of greatest resistance. If it had collapsed vertically, it should've taken longer,& there should've been more of the building left. How can 1/4 of the top crush 3/4 of the bld.w/cold steel 1000s of ft. below? The top tilted & should've crashed to the grnd, but vaporized mid-air. W/WTC7 there's no doubt it was a C.D.
You can't argue with people who think a good demonstration of "why the twin towers shouldn't have collapsed" is by dropping cardboard boxes onto each other...
The first true "Controlled Demolition" of a 5 Story Steel and Concrete Lab in the U.S. was in 1895. Everything was destroyed.
In 1895 after Nikola Tesla met with JP Morgan about his new discovery of the "Electric Ray" for Free, Worldwide Wireless Energy, using Niagara Falls for its power source, making Tesla's own AC Power Invention obsolete. By the time Tesla returned to his 5 story lab in NY, it was burned do the ground.
In 1895 after Nikola Tesla met with JP Morgan about his new discovery of the "Electric Ray" for Free, Worldwide Wireless Energy, using Niagara Falls for its power source, making Tesla's own AC Power Invention obsolete. By the time Tesla returned to his 5 story lab in NY, it was burned do the ground.
Trolls live in the comments of good videos.
"With the madrid building you're just lying."
Wrong. The steel collapsed. The concrete is what kept the frame standing. The twin towers might still be standing if they were constructed like the Windsor. So it turns out you're the one that's the liar. Pretty ironic, don't you think?
What about those examples of CD'd buildings that had "spurts" of free fall? Examples, please.
Wrong. The steel collapsed. The concrete is what kept the frame standing. The twin towers might still be standing if they were constructed like the Windsor. So it turns out you're the one that's the liar. Pretty ironic, don't you think?
What about those examples of CD'd buildings that had "spurts" of free fall? Examples, please.
"you're examples are all low building with entirely different engineering"
They're not all low, but none are skyscrapers, you're right. But that was not what RevoluciaNow asked for. I told him no steel skyscrapers besides WTC 7 have ever collapsed from fire but plenty of other steel buildings have. So he asked for examples and I gave them. Simple. The point is that fire can weaken structural steel & cause it to collapse. Steel in skyscrapers is not magically impervious to fire.
They're not all low, but none are skyscrapers, you're right. But that was not what RevoluciaNow asked for. I told him no steel skyscrapers besides WTC 7 have ever collapsed from fire but plenty of other steel buildings have. So he asked for examples and I gave them. Simple. The point is that fire can weaken structural steel & cause it to collapse. Steel in skyscrapers is not magically impervious to fire.
Comments by IntenseDebate
Loading IntenseDebate Comments...
What is all of this talk about peer-review and science?
You DO realize that you have NOT ONE peer-reviewed paper about your magical demolition theories?
Only ones in FAKE journals that Steven E. Jones PAYS his way around?
Are you going to send me to JO911Studies at this time?
LOL.
Seriously, are you trying to debunk NIST and Bazant and Zhou, when your username REEKS of paranoid delusional bullshit?
Get real kid.
The ONLY engineers supporting you are crooks like the ones in my profile pic.
WTC 7 report is not supported by scientific experiments but by a computer simulation based on assumptions and added gas temperatures. The mathematical modeling data is withheld.
NIST acknowledges free fall and then tries to explain it as natural event using this very simulation which is based on its assumptions. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
From Below; Could it be that if the heating of the concrete slabs, and the heat dispersal in sagging beams was included in the calculations, the temperatures required would not have been enough to have 30 shear studs break even for a simulation that has had 10% temperature increase added from nothing more than choice? More than likely but NIST withholds the input mathematical data.
Digest that for minute or two before i deal with free fall which NIST acknowledges happened.
From Below ; Now look at what NIST writes further on in the report – "Temperatures were uniform (Case B don't forget) across the bottom flange and web, but he top flange temperature was less by up to several hundred degrees BECAUSE THE SLAB ACTED AS A HEAT SINK." NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 p391 {pdf p53}
So if the slab acted as a heat sink why did they earlier write the slabs were assumed unheated and then left out of the calcuations??
Cont Above
From below ; NIST chose to add 10%. NIST then assumed high steel temperature and applied the heat 1-1/2 seconds over the entire north east part of floor 13. The method did not allow for heat dispersal or beam sagging. NIST heated the floor beams but not the concrete slabs. Concrete expands at 85% the rate of steel, leaving this expansion out for the calculations for the shear studs.
"The temperatures were assumed…the slab was assumed to remain unheated." – NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 p349
Cont above
I will answer the first part of your reply but first column 79.
NIST added 10% to the temperature results of its fire simulation (FDS).
"Case A used the temperature data as obtained from the FDS simuation. Case B temperatures increased the Case A gas temperatures by 10%" -NCSTAR 1A Pg 32 {pdf p.74]
"Only the fire-induced damage produced by Case B (10% Added) temperatures was carried forward as the intial condition for the building collapse analysis" NCSTAR 1A P 36{pdf p.78]
Continued Above
Dear oh Dear, NIST has not released the mathematical input data for there models. It can't be scrutinized as an open report should be. Bazants and Zhou theories can not be supported by physical experiments so therefore it isn't a fact but an assumption which no scientific experiment can support.
The report into WTC7 was not peer reviewed and no scientifc experiments carried out. The reports have been accepted because people are incapable of believing the alternative. It's accepted on faith.
You FAIL to realize, idiot, that the brief period of free fall DEBUNKS your magical demolition theories.
Please explain how a demolition could cause less than gravitational acceleration, 2.25 seconds of free fall, then back to less than free fall?
Please explain how the failure of Column 79 is FALSE and silent, indestructible explosives are what REALLY caused the collapse of wtc7?
structuremag(dot)org/archives/2007-11/sf-wtc7-gilsanz-nov07.pdf
WHEN will you email them with your rebuttal???
No, NIST's simulations have been REPRODUCED (a quality of a GOOD experiment) in the US AND across seas. Bazant and Zhou published THEIR math only 3 days after 911, in an ACTUAL paper, by ACTUAL engineers and physicists, and hasn't been refuted by 911 Twoofers since.
NIST's findings were peer reviewed by ASCE and a core set of other institutions. and are agreed upon by every major SE & Architectural organization known to man.
WHAT organizations believe in your magical conspiratard theories?
I'm sorry how have I lied? You yourself have just acknowledged free fall occurred. The free fall was simultaneous across the building.
The only magic here is NIST computer simulations which you have accepted on faith alone. There are no scientific experiments to support any of it and you have the cheek to ask me how to explain it scientifically.
So it seems you believe in science but chose when it should be properly applied. Shame NIST didn't feel the same way you do. What a redundant reply
Indeed, the north face DID fall at free fall during Stage 2 of collapse for 2.25 seconds.
So your MAGICAL explosives were not only silent, fireproof, and indestructible, but they caused WTC7 to fall SLOWER than free fall, magically SPEED UP to free fall for 2.25 seconds, then SLOW DOWN again for the rest of the collapse.
Please explain how this is scientifically possible lying retard?
LMAO
911 TRUTHERS=DEBUNK THEMSELVES!
Answer D.
LOL NIST admitted free fall
HARD QUESTION FOR TWOOFERS LIE
NIST admitted free fall of wtc 7 of 100 feet, that's 8 stories. If you thought twoofers were telling porkies about free fall in order for them to support a so called conspiracy theory. Then how much of a red faced, shit stained, baboon do you feel now, knowing that are actually right?
is it?
A. OMG i'm shit stained Baboon shill
B. Too quick insulting critical thinkers because i don't know the facts
C. Embarrassed
D. All of the above
HARD QUESTIONS FOR 911 TWOOFERS
How could WTC7 have fallen at free fall when the east Penthouse collapsed 8.2 seconds before global collapse occurred?
What were PANY and FDNY saying about WTC7 3 hours before it collapsed?
Why are 911 Twoofers so scared to show pictures of the south side of WTC7?
A building will never go free fall unless it is a controlled demolition.
The education system in America, have create this confusion. They can not comprehend basic information they have been, programmed by their own teachers and goverment.
He doesn't know WTC7 lol, stfu. 'The same day? Sure? Sure?' I'm Dutch and I can tell this is bad acting, besides that this guy doens't sound very expert I can tell you. Just a subjective conspiracy guy, wich our left-wing islam loving 'Nederland 3' has no problem with showing it.
When buildings R destroyed w/ fire, U usually C large deformations as the steel sags, & it falls over. The NT should've fallen over, not thru itself & what should've been the path of greatest resistance. If it had collapsed vertically, it should've taken longer,& there should've been more of the building left. How can 1/4 of the top crush 3/4 of the bld.w/cold steel 1000s of ft. below? The top tilted & should've crashed to the grnd, but vaporized mid-air. W/WTC7 there's no doubt it was a C.D.
You can't argue with people who think a good demonstration of "why the twin towers shouldn't have collapsed" is by dropping cardboard boxes onto each other…
WHat do you know he died in 2011
The first true "Controlled Demolition" of a 5 Story Steel and Concrete Lab in the U.S. was in 1895. Everything was destroyed.
In 1895 after Nikola Tesla met with JP Morgan about his new discovery of the "Electric Ray" for Free, Worldwide Wireless Energy, using Niagara Falls for its power source, making Tesla's own AC Power Invention obsolete. By the time Tesla returned to his 5 story lab in NY, it was burned do the ground.
R.I.P Mr Jowenko.
Trolls live in the comments of good videos.
"With the madrid building you're just lying."
Wrong. The steel collapsed. The concrete is what kept the frame standing. The twin towers might still be standing if they were constructed like the Windsor. So it turns out you're the one that's the liar. Pretty ironic, don't you think?
What about those examples of CD'd buildings that had "spurts" of free fall? Examples, please.
"you're examples are all low building with entirely different engineering"
They're not all low, but none are skyscrapers, you're right. But that was not what RevoluciaNow asked for. I told him no steel skyscrapers besides WTC 7 have ever collapsed from fire but plenty of other steel buildings have. So he asked for examples and I gave them. Simple. The point is that fire can weaken structural steel & cause it to collapse. Steel in skyscrapers is not magically impervious to fire.
The Windsor was nothing like the WTC. It had a 2-way spanning 280mm deep waffle slab supported by the CONCRETE CORE internal RC columns with additional 360mm deep steel I-beams & steel perimeter columns. Completely different & yet the steel collapsed . . . from fire. What you see still standing is concrete, not steel.
"Now instead of acknowledging that steel bldgs have indeed collapsed from fire, you're supposed to complain that none of them were at all like WTC 7, and then I get to point out that you simply asked for a steel framed building that has collapsed from fire. There. We can now skip that part."
See? I predicted your stupid response perfectly! You asked for steel building, then when you got them, you changed it to skyscrapers! LOLOLOL!
I looked up almost all of those. Many of them were partial collapses, like the school, where only the roof caved in. With the madrid building you're just lying. One thing that connects all your examples is that NONE OF THEM ARE HIGH RISE SKYSCRAPERS! That's what we're dealing with, not brides…
The Madrid Towers Steel was still intact after the fire what are you talking about?, the concrete portion pealed away taking a few girders leaving 85% of the structure intact after nearly 24 hours of being engulfed. You're completely wrong…go google it..their are hundreds of pictures of the building standing after the fire…nothing left but steel frames..
No high rise steel building has ever collapsed due to fire, you're examples are all low building with entirely different engineering…
"For CD'd buildings it depends. Some fall much slower, some for freefall speed in spurts".
Which CD'd buildings have fallen at free fall acceleration (not "speed") in spurts?
Now instead of acknowledging that steel bldgs have indeed collapsed from fire, you're supposed to complain that none of them were at all like WTC 7, and then I get to point out that you simply asked for a steel framed building that has collapsed from fire. There. We can now skip that part.
No steel building has ever collapsed from fire? McCormick Place, Chicago,'67 Sight & Sounds Theater, Strasburg PA 97 Dogwood Elementary School, Reston VA Sabena Technics Hangar, Brussels, '06 (collapsed fm aircraft fire) Madrid Windsor Hotel, '05 (steel portion collapsed, concrete didn't) Sandoz storage facility, Basel Switz, '86 Mumbai High North Platform (2005) GM plant, Livonia, 1953 Kmart fire, Falls Twnp PA,June 1982, steel bldg, collapsed in 40 min
please give me a steel framed building that has collapsed due to fire. don't give me a wooden barn in texas please
Lots of buildings, including steel buildings, have collapsed from fire. WTC 7 happens to be the first and only skyscraper to collapse from fire. Are you claiming the steel in skyscrapers is magically resistant to fire compared to steel in other structures? Not too bright, are you?
lol ;'). You realize how fucking dumb you sound right? The fact that you don't consider this fact suspicious considering the thousands of buildings which have caught fire is laughable.
"WTC7 is the first tall building to collapse primarily due to fire."
Yep. So? Are you claiming nothing can happen if it's never happened before? Not too bright, are you?
I'm quite sure you know you're behaving in a silly and paranoid manner. You clearly have no clue about standard practices with reports. First they put out a draft. The reason it's not a final report from the start is they want to get comments, suggestions, criticisms, etc. They then incorporate the comments they think are worthy of addressing and issue a final report. Standard practice. Only kooks think they're "forced" to incorporate comments. Case closed.
For CD'd buildings it depends. Some fall much slower, some for freefall speed in spurts. Why would they be more explicit? Because "truthers" were putting pressure on them to do so. That's why when they admitted it they called it a final report for no further questions. The only reason you bring up silverstien and rumsfeld is because you know on this point you can't win. WTC7 is the first tall building to collapse primarily due to fire. And it also fell at freefall for 2.25s. Case closed.
If they never thought it was a big deal in the first place, why would they care about being more explicit about it later on? You nutjobs place all this significance on crumbs of nothingness. Silverstein said "pull it"!!!! NIST "admitted" free fall!!! Rumsfeld said the plane was "shot down!!!! So now I'm getting paid to point out the dreary truth? Oh please. There's a good reason people refer to you guys as kooks.
Have you found out yet if CD'd buildings fall at free fall?
You’re clearly lying with your first assertion that they never “had to admit”. How much are they paying you or are you really that stupid?
(cont'd) Apparently, withholding info is pretty std practice for fed agencies but I do agree they should release the input data.
Regarding "getting rid" of the steel, did you know engineers from ASCE and SEAoNY had access to, and inspected, as much steel as they wanted? There are lots of photos of Ground Zero that show steel beams lying around. Do any of the beams show thermite cuts across them or signs of being violently blown apart by explosives? These kinds of damage would not be subtle.
NIST never "had to admit" anything & never attempted to silence anyone. That's just paranoia. The 40% still applies; they simply went into more detail, showing that the collapse started at less than freefall, then there was the 2.25 secs of freefall, & the rest of the collapse was less than freefall again. Is that what happens in a CD? Do you even know if CDs are at freefall? Don't forget the freefall measurement was only for a PORTION of the bldg. (north roof line), not the entire thing.
Single most significant? 2.25 seconds of freefall in WTC7 and the deliberate attempt to silence any mention of the building or it's implications. First they didn't mention it in the report, then they said oh it was only 40% of freefall, then they finally had to admit to 2.2s of freefall but added irrelevant data to make it seem plausible. Then when people asked for the computer data they wouldn't release it citing "national security". Oh, they also got rid of all the physical evidence. Any good?
Why compare a real conspiracy to a phony one? Don't you know the difference?
You claim there's all this evidence of a 9/11 inside job? Fine. What do you think is the single most significant piece of evidence? Not suspicions. Not questions. Evidence.
…Operation Gladio
USS Liberty
Gulf of Tonkin
Iran Contra
Madrid train Bombings
7/7 tube bombings
911….
RIP Danny Jowenko and many others.
what about iran contra? why do you dismiss the evidence infront of you cause you cant imagine the implications? isn't that intellectual dishonesty?
The fact remains. The NIST final report on WTC7 defies basic laws of physics. 1700 experts on one website alone say it's impossible. And who even needs that? Just look at the building drop. There's no way that building came down the way the government claims it did. An explanation from someone who believes what they want, rather then face reality is simply an explanation. Any murderer can come up with a BS explanation for anything.
You're certainly entitled to your opinions. I think national governments are inefficient and weak and too incompetent to pull off a monstrously complex plot like a 9/11 plot would have to be, with thousands of co-conspirators who never ever whistleblow or leak anything. As long as most people are content to keep purchasing the products the corporations feed us, there will be no need for concentration camps. Cheers.
Look, I know scientists who spoke out for scientific findings in pre-scientific times had a rough time. It can still happen, but if you follow proper scientific technique and methodology, you don't have as much of a problem. The 9/11 demo theories have sunk like a stone in the science world. They're not found in any engineering or physics text or classroom anywhere on the planet. They're not found in any legit science journals anywhere. It's not a conspiracy. The theories just don't cut it.