General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

here's your Dutch demolitions expert, Danny Jowenko, explaining how WTC1 and WTC2 were natural collapses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3wwdI0XawI

and if he had known about the structural damage to WTC7 at its base, he would have understood why it fell as well.

but now you guys just use this man's death to fulfill your sick fantasies.

good night. and good luck with your schizophrenia.

Acombfosho, it seems to me that you are treating some web evidence as factually true. Plenty of this stuff has been quite strongly refuted often by more trustworthy sources but you seem to be continuing to be trying to propagate these. As far as I can tell you have no credentials to bring more light to the situation, it seems like you see this unproven and extremely unlikely conspiracy in a religious way, believing it in a faith form rather than factual.
Some of the links you have given are clearly easy to quickly discount and you, that seems to have such a strong interest in this, should be trying to keep the information accurate.

How about what The Leading Former (he since passed away) Demolitions Expert from Europe - Danny Jowenko says? And confirmation here.

Or MIT Engineer Jeff King?

or even this simple experiment video which explains the basic laws of physics ?

nawhead has links that show Danny Jowenko does not believe these building came down due to expert demolition.
The man you have linked as a MIT Engineer Jeff King isn't. After a minute or two I found that he, by his own admission, has been working for the last 27 years full time as a family physician, doing office-based primary care here in the rural San Joaquin Valley of central California. . Many years ago he did an Electrical Eng degree at MIT but calling him an MIT Engineer is clearly trying to give undue weight to his testimony.

The simple experiment video which explains the basic laws of physics, this is complete rubbish. It is true that the laws of physics cannot be broken but they weren't. Surely nobody can believe that somebody secretly wired explosives in at least 100+ floors of the Twin Towers either before the plane hit or even more bizarely during the fire. As far as I can tell this demonstration has no connection with the dynamics of building collapse and tries to gain some credence by using the name of Richard Feynman.

It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

Richard P. Feynman
The collapse of the Twin Towers, sadly in this case, is not the theory but the experimental evidence of how large building collapse after both structural and unmanaged fire damage.

A lot of conspiracy videos misrepresent people and exaggerate credentials. This is worth a look:

TV tricks of the trade -- Quotes and cutaways
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07NMglQX6gE&list=FLTA_SD9OCs8dqvLilYcwbIw&index=26&feature=plpp_video

Dear BaseMetal, have my babies?

i want to publicly apologize to Acomb. it's not cool to make fun of people with mental illnesses. this whole experience has been eye-opening and depressing at the same time.

Acomb, if you're still reading this thread, i'm sorry. but please seek help. and i hope you get better.

hey nawhead, mitch, base metal et al.

I am probably wrong, and for what I consider to be good reasons, and I have held on to these ideas for quite some time.

As stated before, i'm quite open to being wrong. And indeed that seems the case. If this discourse was the deciding factor.

I'm so glad the government is taking so well of us all.

p.s. nawhead, lets actually talk on googletalk or skype, especially since we are the lads who are bashing away at keyboards to eachother when this would have been a 15min convo

As stated before, i'm quite open to being wrong. And indeed that seems the case.

I'm so glad the government is taking so well of us all

Now you're coming off a bit douchey.

I think that saying that I don't believe the US government (and by implication the US people, because they 'elect' their leaders) comes of douchey in and of itself. I'm sorry... I don't want to offend people but I don't think that fires did it, and ive noted my reasons, it's that simple!

I think that saying that I don't believe the US government (and by implication the US people, because they 'elect' their leaders) comes of douchey in and of itself. I'm sorry... I don't want to offend people but I don't think that fires did it, and ive noted my reasons, it's that simple!

Based on what? What is your background in civil engineering, explosions, detonations, etc? Why do you latch on to the less than 1% of the "experts" who say there is a conspiracy but completely ignore all of the actual evidence supporting the theory that the buildings were brought down my planes crashing into them?

The only reason is the following. It has never happened before, it has never happened since. We use steel for a reason. You put the term 'experts' in quotation marks as if they are loons, despite the fact that they are just following reason.

So lets broadly define it into those two camps that you are clearly happy to discuss.

Camp A 'government', Camp B 'loons'

Camp A 'government',says 'We know who did it, we won't investigate it. We won't halt bombing the middle east if offered the culprit, even if the ones who we say did it are Saudis, because we have a 'special relationship' with them. We want to preserve freedom by taking it away from our nationals (patriot act) and those who did it hate us because they hate our freedoms. The same camp then goes on to make billions of dollars through taxation leaving an entire nation close to bankruptcy in less than a decade. Open discourse on the matter is considered unpatriotic.

Camp B 'loons' say, fires have never demolished buildings before in history, planes crashing into buildings have never initiated free fall collapse, there has been precedents of government false flags before (tonkin, Gladio, northwoods) so we should not allow our whole foreign policy to be framed on an event we don't truly understand yet. The same camp goes on to discuss openly their opinions and try as best as they can to source the reasons why they have come to such a conclusion.

Who are the nut jobs?

Seems like a fair assessment of both camps.

Edited for clarity. I want you to think about this. Go to the largest building in your neighbourhood. Where I live at the moment in Daejeon the tallest building I have seen is about 20 stories. This is a thought experiment only, I am not encouraging you to actually do this.

Stand outside that building be it 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and so on stories.
Massive fire engulfs the building, all floors.
Now truly ask yourself, could this building accelerate through itself at around 10 floors a second?

The 911 commission report said 110 stories collapsed in under 12 seconds.

Does fire explain this? I doubt it.

Where I live right now, its about 12 stories. I can't ever imagine this whole structure despite how severe the fires are collapsing in 1.2 seconds.

Go to the nearest large building you can see from your window or home. Now imagine that per floor 0.1 seconds (or 10 stories per second) is all it would take for it all to collapse into dust due to fires.

The 911 commission report said 110 stories collapsed in under 12 seconds.

Does fire explain this? I doubt it.

Steel has a critical failure point, it's not and invulnerable material. Heat it up too much and it becomes brittle and loses most of it's strength. So yeah, I think fire does explain this.

CDA of course steel has a critical failure point. As does every other material.

It doesn't account for the two basic laws of physics I have mentioned every time in this thread and how the fact that molten steel was found under all THREE buildings

Basic logic. Build a jenga tower. Smash it to bits at the top end, yet preserve some structure about 2/3rds of the way down in order to have some remaining at the bottom. Set fire to the remaining top end of the structure.

Then... Expect fires hotter than those recorded at the remaining top end to be found under ground where no fires even existed before?

It flies in the face of anything I have ever known. If you believe this it 'true' because the government tells you so or the TV tells you so despite the fact both parties haven't given a shit... well, god bless you for holding onto your unsubstantiated beliefs