BombDr
Senior Member.
Fair enough. There may not be enough evidence to support a theory of controlled demolition. Although I wouldn't be surprised if someone could provide an explosive engineer that was a truther and you still wouldn't agree anyway. I'm the same way, everyone seems to be. I.e. our mental inertia usually weighs a bit more than we claim it does.
There was - Danny Jowenko was a Dutch demolition engineer who was shown the film of WTC7 and opined it was a controlled demolition, but that was simply on appearnce. He was asked to look at a film and give an opinion and was not told until after he said it was demolition that it was WTC7 on 911. He was slightly hounded by the rest of the explosives industry, somewhat unfairly in my view as I felt his interview with the CTers was dishonest and he was suckered into saying what they wanted to hear - and before that starts a whole new thread, it is just my opinion. Then he died in as car accident which just added another level of intrigue. In anycase, he looked at a film in the Netherlands and declared his opinion that it was demolition. He did not write a paper, nor do any calculations, nor ask a single question before declaring it as such. The other guy was a retired bloke who used to work for Controlled Demolition Inc called Tom Sullivan, which A&E made a big fuss about, but when you looked into his qualifications, he was licensed to transport explosives around and not an actual Explosive Engineer. Again, show me something worth looking at and I'll look, but so far all the claims of controlled demolition are implausible or technically unfeasible.
I find it odd that no one has been held accountable. Pretty much, no one. No engineer that should have known about buckling as "basic knowledge" so that WTC 7 wouldn't basically fall in on itself due to some debris and office fires. No engineer that claimed that the Two Towers could withstand airplanes and so forth has been held accountable, as far as I know. Pretty much no one in the intelligence community was held accountable for their billions of dollar a year failures. Instead, no... they need bigger budgets. No general in charge of defenses was demoted or resigned in utter disgrace... weren't they promoted instead? And so forth.
We might actually agree on something here. Im not sure you can blame the architechs or City building inspectors for the buildings collapsing from the plane impacts. They were still high on fuel and the kinetic energy alone would have been fatal I feel (Iv not done the calcs...!) Bear in mind the HMS Sheffield was sunk in the Falklands war by an Exocet missile that did not explode - it destroyed the ship by kinetic energy alone. Regarding accountability, yes there were certainly some intelligence failures, air defence failures and co-ordination between the FAA and NORAD failures, but these are incidental in my view and not evidence supporting a conspiracy.
Apparently neocons have been more interested in holding Obama Inc. accountable for Benghazi where a few Americans died than the other 911 where thousands did. Would that they had the same zeal for accountability, hearings, investigations and a "safety first" attitude on the original 911, huh?
Off topic mate.