Nobody knew for sure if anyone was still inside, wounded or too daft to flee it doesn’t matter. No way to blow it up lawfully until a full Fire Chief’s Inspection, and that would require weeks to obtain under the circumstances.
Danny doesn’t mention New York City fire codes. You can’t send men with EXPLOSIVES into a building that is ON FIRE, and that may very well be unstable enough to suffer partial break aways of floors.
Envision flaming chunks of building falling from the sky, and NO WAY you send in explosives into that type of mess!
Danny brings up the necessity of having to have a license to demolish a building that would take WEEKS to acquire, and THEN there is the ENORMOUS problem of securing INSURANCE against the possible death or injury of a demolition team going into a building that was just damaged and still burning. IMPOSSIBLE to get insurance for that without a complete damage survey with all fires extinguished for days.
WTC7 heeft erg lang in de brand gestaan, een gebrek aan bluswater en brandweermannen (veel omgekomen in de Twintowers, rest op zoek naar slachtoffers) heeft er toe geleid dat het vuur in WTC7 niet bestreden werd. De constructie was kwetsbaar in het centrum, waar de brand juist woedde. Staal bezwijkt na langdirig te worden blootgesteld aan hitte. Het gebouw is ook niet netjes in elkaar gestort, getuige de schade aan het naburige Fiterman Hall.
@Grofvolkoren onzin, een gebouw stort nooit in 1 keer compleet in vrije val naar beneden door brand. Onmogelijk. Ook al zou het constructiestaal zo heet worden dat het smelt, dan nog stort het gebouw niet zo in.
@barthoedemaker De verzwakte constructie (dus de draagbalken die al door de brand op hun max zaten) begaf het snel nadat 1 of enkele draagbalken de kracht niet meer aan konden. De kracht die hierdoor op de overige balken werd uitgeoefend was zo veel dat deze binnen seconden het ook opgaven. Het momentum dat vervolgens ontstond zorgde voor de snelle val. De manier waarop het gebouw is gebouwd, zorgde voor de manier van instorten. Desondanks is een anburig gebouw beschadigd.
fucking terrible, NIST said it fell due to a one column collapse which was caused by office fires.... i guess all tall buildings now need to be re-built as they're that weak..
" Pull it " said Mr Silverstein ( " then, WE watched the building collapse... ")
And the building fell in a STRAIGHT line, in only seven seconds...Even not need of scientific expert to SEE it with OUR own eyes ! (thanks to Misstorys)
Even a schoolchild, seeing this tower falling, can only admire the perfect controlled demolition of it.
@omeEd1973 We would like to kick our our government. We tried when we voted for Obama, but he turned out to be an "empty suit" and a liar, as bad as Bush.
That was so pathetic. Another great example of what is wrong with truthers. This guy knows nothing about building 7 except the very few cherry picked facts he was given and tries to show how it might be possible. If you guys are really "truth seekers" then why don't you show him the photos of the massive smoke that was coming out of the building and the heavy damage to the south side that DO exist instead of telling him you only have shots of the north side? You guys are a disgrace.
@rroman3212 If there was damage to one side of the building then the building would of fell towards where the damage was, not straight down like.... erm, a controlled demolition.
@BLAGASPANTS The building not fall straight down. The damage however was not what caused the fall. The point of what I said is that if you guys really believe it was a CD then why are you so afraid to show people ALL of the information and let them figure it out? Because you know they will actually use their intelligence and conclude that it was not a CD. Of course if you can get people roped in then they will be just like you and dismiss anything that explains it.
@rroman3212 Its already established that is was indeed a controlled demolition. by expert as in the video , architect and engineers etc. and you can see it with you own eyes.
@Misstorys You can see it with your own eyes... really? So you can tell from the outside that there were bombs on the inside? You must have some super X-ray vision that can see through digital youtube videos. As far as "expert architects and engineers", please enlighten me as to how the few "experts" that support your theories outweigh the rest of the industry.
@UBeeware "4 planes stop communicating with the flight towers."
Yep, just as the technology of the installed flight recovery software does to use that transponders radio channel for communicating with the remote operator. It took them until the twelveth of September 2001 to wipe the servers of those technical files but I got to read it all that night before they did wipe them.
One big issue overlooked in the interview is the fact that 7 WTC was heavily fortified as it housed the city's command bunker, the Secret Service, CIA, FTC and more. This contradicts the buildings footprint showing "only 12 support columns", and Jowenko commenting on it being a peace of cake to pull it; which is very unlikely for an extra fortified building.
@SKiLLa2007 "the fact that 7 WTC was heavily fortified" - Wrong. It contained no "bunker" and wasn't "fortified" - just ordinary offices. One tenant had one floor reinforced, as they installed particularly heavy machinery. But that played no significant role in the overall structural integrity, as the floors do not support any additional loads. In fact, such reinforcements are more a liability than an advantage, as they increase tge vertical loads.
@PapaOystein: No, you got it wrong; WTC 7 held the NY City command bunker in case of emergency and was heavily fortified, spreading the vertical load even more out than normally. And it hardly held any 'ordinary offices', it mainly held government related organisations like the Secret Service, CIA, DoD, IRS, OEM, FTC !
Why on earth would you deny this facts, it's all on public record ! See the list of tenants for yourself at: wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
@SKiLLa2007 "and was heavily fortified" - No it wasn't. It was simply an office with communication lines (well. phones, internet), meeting rooms, some screens with current info on things.
"it hardly held any 'ordinary offices', it mainly held government related organisations" - Gov. offices are offices. Desks, computers, coffee kitchens... Don't think James Bondish situation rooms!!
Gee, in what fantasy worlds do you guys spend your time?? CIA, DoD, IRS work is boring office work!
WTC tower 7 was a controlled demolition. The US government won't admit it because it makes it possible that WTC north and south towers could have been pulled as well.
I see the uploader carefully removed the section where Jowenko says that absolutely, certainly WTC 1 & 2 were NOT demolition. No question in his mind, and he describes exactly why.
mosswalker, you have literary HUNDREDS of witnesses that saw an American Airlines plane go INTO the pentagon - remember there is a highway only some hundreds of feet away, packed with people in rush hour?? You have scores of coroners identifying ALL but 5 passengers, American Airlines missing a plane, rescue crews finding 90% of the wreckage of said plane, and, frankly, a damage scenario that is well in line with what you would expect to find.
Jowenko had already concluded that fire alone could not have caused the collaps, before he first learned (at 2:40) that there were LARGE fires that were NEVER fought. And then he finds that all he can do is guesswork. So what's the value of this "expert opinion"? Zero! Nill! An expert with absolutely NO information on the topic at hand MUST come up with FALSE conclusions.
no... hes concluding how it was possible to plant explosives the same day considering the fires and how hard it would be to place them inside the building.
He already came to the conclusion that the building was a controlled demolition because it gave way from the bottom upward not from the top down (like wtc 1 and 2).
@terriblyill He speculated that it could JUST be done in a day - before he even knew about the fires. Then he learned about the fires - and that gave him serious doubts. For obviously good reasons.
What he really is saying is it LOOKS like a CD - which no one denies. Doesn't mean it IS a CD. I am sure, if Jowenko saw the video (and several others) with SOUND, he'd realize immediately that there were no BANG BANG BANGs form the high explosives. But they apparently showed silent videos.
No... he said thats a controlled demolition. He had some doubts but he reassures himself at the end of the video that theres no denying its a controlled demolition. Also, the video they showed him has sound. just click play on the video above and youll hear sound coming out. Although it is hard to hear over all the people screaming.
@terriblyill He clearly has neither the required information nor enough time to form a truly informed opinion. this is ad-hoc guess-work, and he is alone in the world of demolition experts. Don't you think it is strange that the entire truth movement has to this date only found one expert in a far-away land who thinks CD, and that someone was so ill informed when he was asked? What about the missing BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! ??
@PapaOystein Einstein was alone in the world of scientists...Danny saw WTC7 with no preconceptions to demolish...(sorry) and saw it clearly for what it was : CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
@jalusbrian Jowenko, having little to no information, saw a building in a gravitaion-contolled collapse. Yes, It LOOKS very much like CDs look - but that doesn't mean it IS one, and the best expert is prone to err when he lacks information. Again, Jowenko would most definitely notice the lack of audible (read: VERY VERY LOUD) explosions at the commencment of collapse, had he ever heard the sound track and not just seen the fall (part of the fall only, actually).
@PapaOystein thats the whole point paps...Jowenko was not primed with 'information'...he saw a building collapse in a classic controlled demolition. Thanks or pointing out the obvious. Your error is undestandable , as you are awash in neocon disinformation...loud explosions? with Thermate? Not likely.
@jalusbrian You are really something *lol* Let me repeat, and this time read slowly, and at least try to understand: The collapse LOOKED similar to the way CD'd buildings collapse. But CD is not the only cause for such a collapse. Earthquakes or fires could do the same. To tell different causes apart, you, me or Jowenko need additional information. I have plenty of such info, You ignore it. Danny had none. He did not know what it SOUNDED like. If he knew, he'd know immediately it WASN'T CD.
@klebbs1988 I have looked up all the relevant facts. Thank you. No sign of tampering with anything except for the huge, unfought fires over seven hours.
By the way: Do you think the twin towers were also CDs?
@jalusbrian "There were no huge fires in WTC7" - on that issue, I trust the FDNY and their assessment on the day and location a little more than I trust you. Ok? Photos and videos show fires (actual flames) on at least 10 different floors, and some of those floors burned pretty much throughout. Windows were shattered and smoke emenated from more floors. Fires burned unrestricted. That is, by any standard, a HUGE fire.
@PapaOystein photo evidence trust gulllibility any day. You trust them because they tell u what u want to hear. 10 floors out of 47...that leavse 37 untouched...with structuralo members sound.
The whole west side was untouched by fire..so were the left side supports..ditto for the north side.
Sorry but your FDNYhave no credibility.Perhaps they had a part in the CD!
@jalusbrian "10 floors out of 47...that leavse 37 untouched" - WRONG. It was AT LEAST 10 floors, but certainly more. 10 is a VERY conservative estimate.
"whole west side was untouched by fire". Videos show fires there.
".ditto for the north side." WRONG. Videos show fires along the entire width of north face
"your FDNYhave no credibility" Haha. There you show your true colours.
@Smetje4life "no fuckin airplane can take down buildings so symmetrically" - Wasn't airplanes, and wasn't *so* symmetrical. Fires can. Buildings went down. Where else should they go?
"do you really expect all those steel columns to fail at the same time due to fire" - No, and no one says the did. They failed in sequence,
"havent you heard that steel buildings do NOT fail from fires" - ask any structural engineer what fire does to steel structures.
@Smetje4life I think even the liars at AE911twoof have realized by now that the owner did NOT order any demolishion, but merely stated that the fire chief informed him that all firefighting efforts were pulled away from the building.
Sheesh. Learn english.
That stupid LIE was invented years ago, and found to be a blatant lie 2 minutes later. For FSM's sake, it's 2010, no one uses THAT old lie any more!
"Red" fires? Where did you get THAT stupidity from???
@PapaOystein Fox reporter Jeff Shapiro says:'Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall'
@jalusbrian "Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition" - holy crap.
a) That is second hand
b) Apparently they are talking about 1 WFC - a different building
c) Even if this story were true: It is impossible to rig a burning building for CD within 2 hours after insurance nods ok - which of course it wouldn't on a mere phone call. That takes months to years!
@PapaOystein i think danny is absolutely right about wtc7...lucky he was free of any contamination by official sources, or .... he might have believed...well that fires had brought it down!
@jalusbrian "lucky he was free of any contamination by official sources" - unfortunately, he was not free from indoctrination by twoofer lies. For example, he brings up the old "Larry said pull it" lie.
@PapaOystein you for eg believe that fires destroyed WTC7 and that fire and planes destroyde WTC1 and 2...solely because you were told this by authory figures(this is why power is popular!) the contradictions dont trouble you because the 'experts' said so...LOL Danny saw WTC7 for the first time as just a building falling...and said: that is Contolled Demolition! He was not conditioned by any official opinion or authority...
@PapaOystein I see you still hav that problem speaking or writting proper english. It seems to run among you that will believe the words from habitual liars as the bush syndicate has. For your information, the word you are trying to spell is 'truther'. Is that an infliction of the NYC/Jersey accent of the moron meatheads.
@PapaOystein And those that use "twoofer" are showing their blind obedience to another like a slave to the lie.
Those that can see for themselves the laws of this nation were not followed, but obstruction of justice was the goal, we need to rise up, and I hope you are one of the first to go down.
Besides, two for what? See how moronic you appear. Two for what. I'm just trying to help but you are too stuck in stupid to see that.
cont:. To use that term is also making you look like a lumbering blob leaning over at a full upright standing position like the retired punching bag at the local boxing gym looks like after thirty years of sparing with the greats. 'Yeah twooofer, one fer yoo, one fer mee, uh-hu hu' drooling all over the floor...
Or just an east coast goonie accent that only they 'dem selfus tink iz koool, yo vinnie'? You live in Jersey? You a guido bimbo?
@PapaOystein Not even a native speaker, then why do you parrot the moronic ny/nj accent of the meatheads. It makes you sound ignorant if you actually speak that way, but then you have bought the wackiest conspiracy theory of them all, the NIST/Bush/9 11 Con Mission work that they themselves have said is bunk. See how dumb you are.
@ISamuelII The rest of your reply is already marked as spam just as it should be. Yeah sure flying a plane into a building is a crime, so is obstruction of justice, your tribal members seem looked tight together on in a totally irrational manner. Tells a huge story in of itself.
Without evidence, no proper court or judge will consider your case. But that is what you twoofers bring to the table after 9 years: A mislead Jowenko, fed with woo and false information; zero engineering papers in real scientific journals; not a singel whisteblower from what would necessarily be a ridiculously HUGE conspiracy (talking about many thousands of people with inside knowledge all across many organisations), and tons of misrepresented facts.
@ISamuelII If you think "ignorant" when you read "twoofer", then I am head-on: Twoofers are defined as people ignorant of facts, reason and science when it comes to 9/11.
@ISamuelII "And those that use "twoofer" are showing their blind obedience to another like a slave to the lie." - No. They are merely saving on valuable characters for yt comments. Much shorter than "So-called truther" or "self-alleged truther".
"the laws of this nation were not followed" - Indeed - hijackings and terrorism are forbidden.
"I hope you are one of the first to go down" - Do you mean that as a threat of personal violence against me? For I hold no position to come down from.
@Smetje4life "and he said "pull it", singular not plural" - he said, verbatim: "and then the made that decision to pull it". What were they talking about? The danger of WTC7 collapsing, and fire chief Nigro INFORMING 8not asking) Silverstein that they pull out the men because the FDNY could not possibly fight fires there.
Did you critically read and understand Harrit's paper? Nit juyt youtubes? It is junk and bogus.
"Red fires " - and what os your source for "red fires"?
@Smetje4life "pull it doesnt mean pull out" - Your English comprehension is lacking. There is no doubt whatsoever in the context what Silverstein meant. You mean they feared loss of life, and then sent in a demolition team? Listen to Danny above what that means! Impossible!
"the "red fires" can be explained logically" - oh no doubt. But why do you think there were only red fires? Who told you? The fire fighters?
" the "red fires" can be explained logically ...the color stands higher in the energy-light spectrum"
You mean red indicates higher energy? Man, you flunked that big time... Should be interesting to see if any truther here dares to agree with me that you are obviously mistaken - it is the other way round: The coolest flames are red.
@Smetje4life Don't take what the scumbag says serious, just reply to counter any of its lies that others just might fall for. This scumbag has been desperately trying to distort the facts from the time it registered in here. It must have a confinable role in those crimes they way it will go on and on with utter bull sheet.
I suspect its a rabbi. Just a personal feeling I have.
@ISamuelII "I suspect its a rabbi. Just a personal feeling I have."
Why are so many twoofers such rabid, foam-spitting Jew-haters? So you think your earlier call for violence against me was okay because you think I am only a Jew? Thanks for the insight.
@Smetje4life "and if you agree that red fires ... are in no way capable of taking down buildings like that"
No, I do NOT agree with that. In fact, I will claim the opposite: Any raise in temperature is capable of deforming steel, and a potential hazard to the structural integrity of a construction. It's called thermal expansion, and has been determined to be the most likely cause of WTC7's destruction.
@Smetje4life "why dont buildings deform (and crumble) during heatwaves?"
They do deform. More prominent for long span structures like bridges or train rails - you surely have noticed gaps in these to allow for thermal expanion in summer heat?
Here we have the root cause of the problem: Thermal expansion is negligible for most houses, so it was not dealt with in building codes for Ney York. But WTC7 DID have long spans, they expanded, there was too little room for them to move safely, and OOPS.
@Smetje4life "and the "most likely cause" of WTC7's destruction was undetermined. if you had read quotes from the 9/11 report, you would have known that"
Can some twoofers please educate minheer Smetje?
The 9/11 Commission report was not an engineering report and did not deal with WTC7 at all.
NIST is an engineering institution, they did an engineering study, and determined the most likely cause quite precisely, You'd know that if you had read at least their executive summary of NCSTAR 1A.
I know about him, his site, and his lies. Gage is not a structural engineer. As an architect, he has never been involved in high rise construction. He doesn't know fire science has zero experience with controlled demolitions. He repeatedly tells lies, and embellishes facts in a deceiptful manner. He makes a full-time living off AE911T - he received a salary of US$ 75000 last year from that website. He lies for money. He's a fraud.
@Smetje4life "you also attack the credibility of jowenko,"
Jowenko has been fed too little, and partially wrong, infornation. The best experts are prone to come to false conclusion if given false and too little information. Jowenko did not know the extent, duration and nature of the fires, did not even know WHEN the building fell, was not shown a collapse video with sound, and knew very little about the structure.
He was wrong, but you can't blame him too much. Garbage in, garbage out.
@PapaOystein he saw the vid he drew his conclusion watching the vid the vid is according to you wrong information? stop making stupid excuses he doesnt have to know anything about the fires the building didnt fell down naturally but controlled your basic physics and science knowledge is crap you probably didnt finish high school keep believing in the fairy tale the government made up for you just keep the gulf of tonkin incident in mind i won't argue with you anymore it's pointless
@Smetje4life "the vid is according to you wrong information?"
Yes, if played silently, Jowenko misses important information: The lack of INSANELY LOUD BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANGs just before the start of collapse. Visit Jowenkos own website to hear what I mean: jowenko(dot)com.
"he doesnt have to know anything about the fires"
He does not (ignorance is bliss), but a real investigator would have to know, as fires are known to destroy buildings and make them collapse sometimes.
@Smetje4life "you probably didnt finish high school"
It doesn't matter, but I'll answer anyway: I did finish high school. My grade point average was the best among a class of 240 student. Only 3 of us reached that best grade. My strongest subject was physics, which was also my specialisation subject: Straight A+.
"the gulf of tonkin incident"
This is wildly off-topic and unrelated, but I take your bait: You probably think this was a false flag operation, right?
@Smetje4life "they did hear loud bangs on the twin towers but you dismiss this fact as a lie"
a) Jowenko is sure that the twin towers were NOT brought down by CD. Do you believe Jowenko?
b) You seem to imply that there were NO loud bangs just before WTC7 collapsed - thank you
c) There were in fact no incredibly loud explosions when the twin towers stared collapsing. Also, as these collapses started in the fire and impact zone, no explosives or igniters would have survived.
@PapaOystein So an A in physics made you an expert in explosives too!
Do YOU know that C4 (one of many examples) were sometimes used by troops in Vietnam to cook their meals! It sustains fire yet it doesn't explode coz It needs an electroshock for that, just like your zionist head!
@easyrhinotuber "So an A in physics made you an expert in explosives too!"
You get an F for reading comprehension. I started the post about my A in physics with "It doesn't matter" - it was only a reply to a dumb post by Smetje.
I know that some explosives just burn away quietly. That's why it is near impossible that any of the towers was demolished with explosives: Any explosives in the collapse initiation zone would have burned early. Did you notice the HUGE fires?
@Smetje4life "but what i do know is that the government's story is filled with lies"
You don't actually know that for Tonkin. But you are of course right in the general sense: Governments lie often. The Bush administration certainly lied to get a war against Iraq. No dispute here.
But it makes a huge difference if you lie to kill foreigners or your own people. It is hard to actually conspire to murder your own.
@easyrhinotuber "your zionist head!" ... "he's just doing his job"
You are clearly suffering from delusion and paranoia.
I often wonder: Is mental illness a requirement to become an antisemite, or does antisemitism make brains go ill? And why are so many 9/11-loons also antisemites? Is one caused by the other, or both caused by the same mental infliction?
@jalusbrian You wouldn't have the professions of architecture and structural and civil engineering, if constructing buildings that do NOT collapse were easy. It is difficult! Buildings are designed to carry a static load, and survive some additional and defined stress. Not to withstand hours of fire. It is not possible to construct buildings that defy gravity under all conditions.
You need to grasp that. Jowenko surely could explain it to you.
@PapaOystein Funny but plenty of buildings have burned for hours with REAL huge fires...like they were encased in flames...not just a few poking out of a few windows.
"All the proffered evidence that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11, when subjected to critical scrutiny, appears to have been fabricated." -- David Ray Griffin, Professor emeritus, philosopher, and author of couple of dozen books on philosophy and 9/11
@jalusbrian "David Ray Griffin" - a theologian. Theologians spread fantasy by profession. DRG has a proven track record of lies and distortions. It is considered embarrassing among the smarter of the TM to cite DRG, because he is so obviously wrong on so many counts.
"Richard Gage". No 2 minutes will pass after Richard opens his mouth before a lie comes out. He spreads 9/11 lies for a living. He skims you believers off your bucks as a career, and spends them on carribbean extravaganzas.
@jalusbrian I believe the FDNY guys because their lives depended on the correctness of their professional judhment, they were actually there, for hours, seeing it all with their own eyes, and were entirely within their own area of expertise. If DRG was witness to a revelation of God, I might believe him. He wasn't.
"WTC1 and 2 ... fall in 10 seconds" - WRONG.
But I asked what Danny Jowenko thinks about WTC 1 and 2. Do you know?
@PapaOystein you ...believe...thats a religious sentiment...yet you have the gall to diss Prof Griffin! As for the FDNY...evidence trumps opinion...the fires were small and limited, and couldn not way take down a 47 story buildinug in 6.5 seconds.
@jalusbrian No no, DRG is not lying out of religious sentiment, that's not what I say. I just point out he is wildly out of his field, and in his field accustomed to passing delusions off as "truth".
The evidence is photos and videos of fires throughout at least 10 floors, the evididence is smoke an blown windows on even more, the evididence is many witness accounts of experienced professionals of the most relevant field of expertise who were present at the scene.
@PapaOystein funny that you should claom DRG kis out of his field whe you are even further out even in just criticising him! LOL...The idea he passes delusions off as truth is an eg of your delusion being passed off as truth....
That smoke comes mainlhy from WTC5 and 6,...which burned furiously just across the street...Weve proven your witness accounts are trumped by the ophoto and video evidence...delusions passing as truth?!
@jalusbrian "funny that you should claom DRG kis out of his field whe you are even further out even in just criticising him" - I did not use my degree as an appeal to FALSE authority here. DRG having a PhD in theology is a fallacious argument.
"That smoke comes mainlhy from WTC5 and 6" - No. 5 and 6 were to the south of 7, wind blew mainly from north that day - away from 7.
Videos clearly show most smoke came from 7. Liars like DRG fooled you into seeing what's not there.
@PapaOystein no video show smoke swirling over the face of WTC7...not emanating from it ..nor do we seee nor can you show massive fires, nor can you prove that fire caused the free fall total collapse.....
Controlled Demolition is the only rational theory...
@PapaOystein no ..WTC7 fell at near free fall acceleration...so if yiou time the time it take for an upper floor or corner of the building to hit the ground its 6.5 seconds...Time it!
@jalusbrian "so if yiou time the time it take for an upper floor or corner of the building to hit the ground its 6.5 seconds" - yes - so THAT part fell at near freefall speed. But for 2.25 seconds only (see D. Chandler). And AFTER the entire core of the building had disintegrated, and the lower portion of the north face buckled. So, many seconds into the collapse, a small part of the building (part of the north wall) fell freely. The bulk of the building NEVER did.
"[A]ll three World Trade Center high-rise buildings, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed not by fire as our government has told us, but by controlled demolition with explosives." -- Richard Gage, Founding member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
"I have 'known' from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by the airplanes that ran into them." -- Daniel B. Barnum, B.Arch, FAIA
"[S]ymmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly". -- David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP, PhD, F.AICP
"Obviously it [WTC 7] was the result of controlled demolition and scheduled to take place during the confusion surrounding the day's events." -- Jack Keller, BS CE, MS Irrigation Eng, PhD Agricultural and Irrigation Eng, PE, F.ASCE
"In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished". -- Hugo Bachmann, PhD
"I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not." -- Danny Jowenko, Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V.
@jalusbrian "and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not." -- Danny Jowenko" - that is his uninformed (he did not know about the fires; he did not know even what day it happened; he had only the briefest glance at the most cursory blueprint - the column layout) opinion on WTC7.
What is your opinion on 1 and 2? What is his?
Arguments from authority are bad. Architects do not know well. how buildinfs perform in fires. Demo experts don't.
poetryhound is a fool, useful idiot, liar, enemy agent or some combination. Everyone watch architect richard gage's '911 blueprint for truth', diesel and office fires in a few places did not create statistically symmetrical collapse at almost freefall speed, anymore than i met with santa on the easter bunny's spaceship to hijack the deathstar. poetryhound is a fool, useful idiot, liar, enemy agent or some combination.
svelte is a guy starts who with the conclusion that there were bombs in WTC 7 & then works backwards to find evidence of them. So he found a video shot at 10:15am. It shows people responding to loud blasts coming from some unidentified place. And he claims the blasts were actually demo charges inside WTC 7 that went off at 5:20pm. Completely made up. And very dishonest. But that's the kind of crap he tries to feed everyone.
Hardly devastating, svelte. That's the guy who was inside WTC 7 when both towers collapsed & he was blown into the air. Gee, I wonder what could have caused that. A single demo charge in the morning that brought down the building 7 hours later? Sure bet. BTW, the guy's story was reported by NIST, not the Commission. You sure are confused, aren't you?
good point, the interviewers story of wtc 7 was from fema. I guess he didn't use the governments story because... WTC 7 WAS NEVER IN THE COMMISSION REPORT. CAN YOU GUESS WHY POETRY HOUND? IT MAKES NO SENSE OTHER THAN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!
Rust in vrede
Ares3ful 2 days ago
You always become the thing you hate! JEWS ARE THE NEW NAZIS
longdonginafatthong 5 days ago
ItWasTyped. com - the truth about conspiracy theories
culturebully3 1 month ago
It was ORDERED to be evacuated.
Nobody knew for sure if anyone was still inside, wounded or too daft to flee it doesn’t matter. No way to blow it up lawfully until a full Fire Chief’s Inspection, and that would require weeks to obtain under the circumstances.
centurion180ad 2 months ago
Danny doesn’t mention New York City fire codes. You can’t send men with EXPLOSIVES into a building that is ON FIRE, and that may very well be unstable enough to suffer partial break aways of floors.
Envision flaming chunks of building falling from the sky, and NO WAY you send in explosives into that type of mess!
centurion180ad 2 months ago
Danny brings up the necessity of having to have a license to demolish a building that would take WEEKS to acquire, and THEN there is the ENORMOUS problem of securing INSURANCE against the possible death or injury of a demolition team going into a building that was just damaged and still burning. IMPOSSIBLE to get insurance for that without a complete damage survey with all fires extinguished for days.
centurion180ad 2 months ago
Mossad kills another 9/11 expert. Danny's death has Israel written all over it. Danny will be missed. He was a courageous man!
tshirtfaction 3 months ago 2
Great upload more people need to veiw
TheCorruptA 4 months ago
For me it is a little bit "watching coffee dregs" LOL
Tarabass 4 months ago
WTC7 heeft erg lang in de brand gestaan, een gebrek aan bluswater en brandweermannen (veel omgekomen in de Twintowers, rest op zoek naar slachtoffers) heeft er toe geleid dat het vuur in WTC7 niet bestreden werd. De constructie was kwetsbaar in het centrum, waar de brand juist woedde. Staal bezwijkt na langdirig te worden blootgesteld aan hitte. Het gebouw is ook niet netjes in elkaar gestort, getuige de schade aan het naburige Fiterman Hall.
Grofvolkoren 4 months ago
@Grofvolkoren onzin, een gebouw stort nooit in 1 keer compleet in vrije val naar beneden door brand. Onmogelijk. Ook al zou het constructiestaal zo heet worden dat het smelt, dan nog stort het gebouw niet zo in.
barthoedemaker 4 months ago
@barthoedemaker De verzwakte constructie (dus de draagbalken die al door de brand op hun max zaten) begaf het snel nadat 1 of enkele draagbalken de kracht niet meer aan konden. De kracht die hierdoor op de overige balken werd uitgeoefend was zo veel dat deze binnen seconden het ook opgaven. Het momentum dat vervolgens ontstond zorgde voor de snelle val. De manier waarop het gebouw is gebouwd, zorgde voor de manier van instorten. Desondanks is een anburig gebouw beschadigd.
Grofvolkoren 4 months ago
@Grofvolkoren danny heeft verstand van concstructies, als hij zegt kan niet, dan kan het niet.
barthoedemaker 4 months ago
@barthoedemaker Ja en ik denk zelf na en gebruik meer dan één bron om tot een conclusie te komen.
Grofvolkoren 4 months ago
@Grofvolkoren haha ja, ik ook hoor, alleen geen officiele bronnen.
barthoedemaker 4 months ago
@Grofvolkoren Het gebruikte staal kan niet smelten onder een temperatuur van 1538 ⁰C,
een kantoor brand woord maximaal 1200 graden.
VideoVerifying 1 week ago
fucking terrible, NIST said it fell due to a one column collapse which was caused by office fires.... i guess all tall buildings now need to be re-built as they're that weak..
pigeonpsycho 5 months ago 11
One more truth teller dead. How many will it take before we revolt? INVESTIGATE. ACT.
beastshawnee 5 months ago 5
" Pull it " said Mr Silverstein ( " then, WE watched the building collapse... ")
And the building fell in a STRAIGHT line, in only seven seconds...Even not need of scientific expert to SEE it with OUR own eyes ! (thanks to Misstorys)
Even a schoolchild, seeing this tower falling, can only admire the perfect controlled demolition of it.
desertcathy 6 months ago 2
I always thought he would recant, like Bill Manning of "Fire Engineering Magazine."
I am sorry he died but I am glad he died an honorable man.
Of course, if he had recanted to save his children, anyone would understand.
Skeptic121 6 months ago
Im Dutch ...this translation is spot-on (for those who doubt it).
And I'm pissed 2
USA KICK OUT YOUR GOUVERNMENT !!!!
omeEd1973 6 months ago 13
@omeEd1973 We would like to kick our our government. We tried when we voted for Obama, but he turned out to be an "empty suit" and a liar, as bad as Bush.
Skeptic121 6 months ago
@Skeptic121 hey Skeptic, time for you to run for president.
koertje 6 months ago
@omeEd1973 Ja niks mis mee toch .wat hebben die gasten hier tegen die man ?
Misstorys 6 months ago
REST IN PEACE you will never be forgotten!
xxxxdarksidexxxx 6 months ago
That was so pathetic. Another great example of what is wrong with truthers. This guy knows nothing about building 7 except the very few cherry picked facts he was given and tries to show how it might be possible. If you guys are really "truth seekers" then why don't you show him the photos of the massive smoke that was coming out of the building and the heavy damage to the south side that DO exist instead of telling him you only have shots of the north side? You guys are a disgrace.
rroman3212 8 months ago
@rroman3212 If there was damage to one side of the building then the building would of fell towards where the damage was, not straight down like.... erm, a controlled demolition.
You're a fucking disgrace. Thick cunt.
BLAGASPANTS 6 months ago
@BLAGASPANTS The building not fall straight down. The damage however was not what caused the fall. The point of what I said is that if you guys really believe it was a CD then why are you so afraid to show people ALL of the information and let them figure it out? Because you know they will actually use their intelligence and conclude that it was not a CD. Of course if you can get people roped in then they will be just like you and dismiss anything that explains it.
rroman3212 6 months ago
@rroman3212 Its already established that is was indeed a controlled demolition. by expert as in the video , architect and engineers etc. and you can see it with you own eyes.
Misstorys 6 months ago 2
@Misstorys You can see it with your own eyes... really? So you can tell from the outside that there were bombs on the inside? You must have some super X-ray vision that can see through digital youtube videos. As far as "expert architects and engineers", please enlighten me as to how the few "experts" that support your theories outweigh the rest of the industry.
rroman3212 6 months ago
@BLAGASPANTS Did you look at the douchebag´s channel comments? Your not the only one having a problem with his bullshit.
flashlight67 6 months ago
And that's just a snippet of the unending bullsh*t that is being fed to the world..
Everyone needs to pull their heads out of their arses!!
Wake up and smell the bullsh*t before we are all buried by it..
911 was an inside job.. NO Doubt about it!!
☺
UBeeware 1 year ago 2
Bush's & Bin Laden's were family friends, who often visited each other & attended weddings etc.
All planes were grounded after the 911 incident, YET the Bin Laden's personal Airplane was still allowed to fly around.
Condoleezza Rice said, "No one ever imagined a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon."
Yet.. The government had created a mock exercise.. with model planes & even rescue vehicles.
Just look up "PROJECT MASCAL".. Or.. NORAD's Vigilant Guardian, Northern Vigilance, NC Exercise..
UBeeware 1 year ago 2
Let's summarize..
4 planes stop communicating with the flight towers.
Norad had war games happening on the day of 911 & sent planes off in the wrong direction.
Two planes hit two buildings and they fell.
A third building (out of sympathy?) spontaneously fell 7 hours later.
The pentagon was hit by a third.. plane?
All planes were flown by people who were ONLY (barely) trained to fly in cessna's.
Osama (a CIA tactician) was blamed by the Bush admin..
Bush senior WAS a senior director of the CIA.
?
UBeeware 1 year ago
@UBeeware "4 planes stop communicating with the flight towers."
Yep, just as the technology of the installed flight recovery software does to use that transponders radio channel for communicating with the remote operator. It took them until the twelveth of September 2001 to wipe the servers of those technical files but I got to read it all that night before they did wipe them.
ISamuelII 1 year ago
Google "pure fission bombs"
WTCnucleardemolition 1 year ago
One big issue overlooked in the interview is the fact that 7 WTC was heavily fortified as it housed the city's command bunker, the Secret Service, CIA, FTC and more. This contradicts the buildings footprint showing "only 12 support columns", and Jowenko commenting on it being a peace of cake to pull it; which is very unlikely for an extra fortified building.
SKiLLa2007 1 year ago
@SKiLLa2007 "the fact that 7 WTC was heavily fortified" - Wrong. It contained no "bunker" and wasn't "fortified" - just ordinary offices. One tenant had one floor reinforced, as they installed particularly heavy machinery. But that played no significant role in the overall structural integrity, as the floors do not support any additional loads. In fact, such reinforcements are more a liability than an advantage, as they increase tge vertical loads.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein: No, you got it wrong; WTC 7 held the NY City command bunker in case of emergency and was heavily fortified, spreading the vertical load even more out than normally. And it hardly held any 'ordinary offices', it mainly held government related organisations like the Secret Service, CIA, DoD, IRS, OEM, FTC !
Why on earth would you deny this facts, it's all on public record ! See the list of tenants for yourself at: wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
SKiLLa2007 1 year ago
@SKiLLa2007 "and was heavily fortified" - No it wasn't. It was simply an office with communication lines (well. phones, internet), meeting rooms, some screens with current info on things.
"it hardly held any 'ordinary offices', it mainly held government related organisations" - Gov. offices are offices. Desks, computers, coffee kitchens... Don't think James Bondish situation rooms!!
Gee, in what fantasy worlds do you guys spend your time?? CIA, DoD, IRS work is boring office work!
PapaOystein 1 year ago
WTC tower 7 was a controlled demolition. The US government won't admit it because it makes it possible that WTC north and south towers could have been pulled as well.
MassacreBlast 1 year ago
"niles harrit, a proffesor from copenhagen university"
Who can't even get HIS OWN university to publish his laughable "paper."
That's why he had to pay 600 bucks to get that crap uploaded to a website in India that calls itself a "journal."
Real impressive "science," when the only place you can get it published is on a website in a country where they worship COWS, fer chrissakes.
ROFLMAO
MsgtSpook 1 year ago
"an official who went out looking for bodies on the field in pensylvenia, said he returned after 20 minutes, no bodies, no airplane-wreck,"
A perfect example of dishonesty and cherry-picking quotes.
The official -- actually the county coroner at the Shanksville site -- said that he could see no bodies or plane parts WHEN HE FIRST ARRIVED.
His subsequent comments over the years made it plain that he found hundreds of body parts & plane parts over a period of many months.
SonsOfAzazel 1 year ago
I see the uploader carefully removed the section where Jowenko says that absolutely, certainly WTC 1 & 2 were NOT demolition. No question in his mind, and he describes exactly why.
A bit dishonest, aren't we?
SonsOfAzazel 1 year ago
@SonsOfAzazel
Well this video is talking about tower 7 not 1 and 2 so why dont you stick to the subject here.
A bit biased, arent we?
terriblyill 1 year ago
"why dont you stick to the subject here"
A bit embarrassed, are we, that your only demo "expert," Jowenko, says that the two towers were obviously NOT demo?
Also kind of odd that no one else in the demo business agrees with Jowenko on #7, too, but of course you don't want to talk about that.
One loon, out of the 20,000 licensed demo pros, and you think you've won the Nobel Prize.
HaidDeSalaami 1 year ago
mosswalker, you have literary HUNDREDS of witnesses that saw an American Airlines plane go INTO the pentagon - remember there is a highway only some hundreds of feet away, packed with people in rush hour?? You have scores of coroners identifying ALL but 5 passengers, American Airlines missing a plane, rescue crews finding 90% of the wreckage of said plane, and, frankly, a damage scenario that is well in line with what you would expect to find.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
Jowenko had already concluded that fire alone could not have caused the collaps, before he first learned (at 2:40) that there were LARGE fires that were NEVER fought. And then he finds that all he can do is guesswork. So what's the value of this "expert opinion"? Zero! Nill! An expert with absolutely NO information on the topic at hand MUST come up with FALSE conclusions.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
no... hes concluding how it was possible to plant explosives the same day considering the fires and how hard it would be to place them inside the building.
He already came to the conclusion that the building was a controlled demolition because it gave way from the bottom upward not from the top down (like wtc 1 and 2).
terriblyill 1 year ago
@terriblyill He speculated that it could JUST be done in a day - before he even knew about the fires. Then he learned about the fires - and that gave him serious doubts. For obviously good reasons.
What he really is saying is it LOOKS like a CD - which no one denies. Doesn't mean it IS a CD. I am sure, if Jowenko saw the video (and several others) with SOUND, he'd realize immediately that there were no BANG BANG BANGs form the high explosives. But they apparently showed silent videos.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
No... he said thats a controlled demolition. He had some doubts but he reassures himself at the end of the video that theres no denying its a controlled demolition. Also, the video they showed him has sound. just click play on the video above and youll hear sound coming out. Although it is hard to hear over all the people screaming.
terriblyill 1 year ago
@terriblyill He clearly has neither the required information nor enough time to form a truly informed opinion. this is ad-hoc guess-work, and he is alone in the world of demolition experts. Don't you think it is strange that the entire truth movement has to this date only found one expert in a far-away land who thinks CD, and that someone was so ill informed when he was asked? What about the missing BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! ??
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein Einstein was alone in the world of scientists...Danny saw WTC7 with no preconceptions to demolish...(sorry) and saw it clearly for what it was : CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@jalusbrian Jowenko, having little to no information, saw a building in a gravitaion-contolled collapse. Yes, It LOOKS very much like CDs look - but that doesn't mean it IS one, and the best expert is prone to err when he lacks information. Again, Jowenko would most definitely notice the lack of audible (read: VERY VERY LOUD) explosions at the commencment of collapse, had he ever heard the sound track and not just seen the fall (part of the fall only, actually).
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein thats the whole point paps...Jowenko was not primed with 'information'...he saw a building collapse in a classic controlled demolition. Thanks or pointing out the obvious. Your error is undestandable , as you are awash in neocon disinformation...loud explosions? with Thermate? Not likely.
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@jalusbrian You are really something *lol* Let me repeat, and this time read slowly, and at least try to understand: The collapse LOOKED similar to the way CD'd buildings collapse. But CD is not the only cause for such a collapse. Earthquakes or fires could do the same. To tell different causes apart, you, me or Jowenko need additional information. I have plenty of such info, You ignore it. Danny had none. He did not know what it SOUNDED like. If he knew, he'd know immediately it WASN'T CD.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein first look up the facts before you claim to know
klebbs1988 1 year ago
@klebbs1988 I have looked up all the relevant facts. Thank you. No sign of tampering with anything except for the huge, unfought fires over seven hours.
By the way: Do you think the twin towers were also CDs?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein how do we know you have look up the 'relevant facts'?
There were no huge fires in WTC7, as any photo and video willl show.Repaeting the lie that there were wont change reality
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@jalusbrian "There were no huge fires in WTC7" - on that issue, I trust the FDNY and their assessment on the day and location a little more than I trust you. Ok? Photos and videos show fires (actual flames) on at least 10 different floors, and some of those floors burned pretty much throughout. Windows were shattered and smoke emenated from more floors. Fires burned unrestricted. That is, by any standard, a HUGE fire.
Denying that is a clear lie.
Or you say that the firemen lied. Go tell the FD
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein photo evidence trust gulllibility any day. You trust them because they tell u what u want to hear. 10 floors out of 47...that leavse 37 untouched...with structuralo members sound.
The whole west side was untouched by fire..so were the left side supports..ditto for the north side.
Sorry but your FDNYhave no credibility.Perhaps they had a part in the CD!
jalusbrian 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jalusbrian "10 floors out of 47...that leavse 37 untouched" - WRONG. It was AT LEAST 10 floors, but certainly more. 10 is a VERY conservative estimate.
"whole west side was untouched by fire". Videos show fires there.
".ditto for the north side." WRONG. Videos show fires along the entire width of north face
"your FDNYhave no credibility" Haha. There you show your true colours.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
you are one dumb fuckin twat
no fire, no earthquake, no fuckin airplane can take down buildings so symmetrically
learn the fundamentals of physics and logic
do you really expect all those steel columns to fail at the same time due to fire
havent you heard before that such steel buildings do NOT fail from these [red] fires
the only solid reason for this failure is controlled demolition like the owner himself stated
Smetje4life 1 year ago
@Smetje4life "no fuckin airplane can take down buildings so symmetrically" - Wasn't airplanes, and wasn't *so* symmetrical. Fires can. Buildings went down. Where else should they go?
"do you really expect all those steel columns to fail at the same time due to fire" - No, and no one says the did. They failed in sequence,
"havent you heard that steel buildings do NOT fail from fires" - ask any structural engineer what fire does to steel structures.
"like the owner himself stated" - He did not.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
i said red fires you moron
red fires are weak and dont reach the temperatures which are needed
to melt or sufficiently weaken the steel for a collapse of the structure
the owner of WTC 7 stated himself to pull down the building
just get the facts through your thick skull
and there is proof of CD
when looked at the chemical composition of the dust
thermite remnants are found
that's ae911truth for ya !
Smetje4life 1 year ago
@Smetje4life I think even the liars at AE911twoof have realized by now that the owner did NOT order any demolishion, but merely stated that the fire chief informed him that all firefighting efforts were pulled away from the building.
Sheesh. Learn english.
That stupid LIE was invented years ago, and found to be a blatant lie 2 minutes later. For FSM's sake, it's 2010, no one uses THAT old lie any more!
"Red" fires? Where did you get THAT stupidity from???
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein Fox reporter Jeff Shapiro says:'Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall'
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@jalusbrian "Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition" - holy crap.
a) That is second hand
b) Apparently they are talking about 1 WFC - a different building
c) Even if this story were true: It is impossible to rig a burning building for CD within 2 hours after insurance nods ok - which of course it wouldn't on a mere phone call. That takes months to years!
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein in total denial...you wont accept anything that doesnt support your shonky theory. Its a true account...look it up!
as for the rigging..it had to be done long before...so here we agree
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@jalusbrian Have you figured out what Danny thinks about WTC1 and 2 - CD or not CD? What do you think?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein i think danny is absolutely right about wtc7...lucky he was free of any contamination by official sources, or .... he might have believed...well that fires had brought it down!
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@jalusbrian So what is Danny's position on WTC1 and 2, and what is yours?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@jalusbrian "lucky he was free of any contamination by official sources" - unfortunately, he was not free from indoctrination by twoofer lies. For example, he brings up the old "Larry said pull it" lie.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein you for eg believe that fires destroyed WTC7 and that fire and planes destroyde WTC1 and 2...solely because you were told this by authory figures(this is why power is popular!) the contradictions dont trouble you because the 'experts' said so...LOL Danny saw WTC7 for the first time as just a building falling...and said: that is Contolled Demolition! He was not conditioned by any official opinion or authority...
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@jalusbrian "He was not conditioned by any official opinion or authority" - but he was conditioned by someone else.
Now please tell me what Danny thinks about WTC1 and 2, and what you think about 1 and 2?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein I see you still hav that problem speaking or writting proper english. It seems to run among you that will believe the words from habitual liars as the bush syndicate has. For your information, the word you are trying to spell is 'truther'. Is that an infliction of the NYC/Jersey accent of the moron meatheads.
ISamuelII 1 year ago
@ISamuelII "the word you are trying to spell is 'truther'."
No. I would not lie. "Truther" is a blatant misnomer for people who spread false ideas, bad science and outright lies.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein And those that use "twoofer" are showing their blind obedience to another like a slave to the lie.
Those that can see for themselves the laws of this nation were not followed, but obstruction of justice was the goal, we need to rise up, and I hope you are one of the first to go down.
Besides, two for what? See how moronic you appear. Two for what. I'm just trying to help but you are too stuck in stupid to see that.
ISamuelII 1 year ago
cont:. To use that term is also making you look like a lumbering blob leaning over at a full upright standing position like the retired punching bag at the local boxing gym looks like after thirty years of sparing with the greats. 'Yeah twooofer, one fer yoo, one fer mee, uh-hu hu' drooling all over the floor...
Or just an east coast goonie accent that only they 'dem selfus tink iz koool, yo vinnie'? You live in Jersey? You a guido bimbo?
ISamuelII 1 year ago
@ISamuelII "You live in Jersey?"
No. Not even a native speaker. But you are funny :D
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein Not even a native speaker, then why do you parrot the moronic ny/nj accent of the meatheads. It makes you sound ignorant if you actually speak that way, but then you have bought the wackiest conspiracy theory of them all, the NIST/Bush/9 11 Con Mission work that they themselves have said is bunk. See how dumb you are.
ISamuelII 1 year ago
@ISamuelII The rest of your reply is already marked as spam just as it should be. Yeah sure flying a plane into a building is a crime, so is obstruction of justice, your tribal members seem looked tight together on in a totally irrational manner. Tells a huge story in of itself.
ISamuelII 1 year ago
@ISamuelII "obstruction of justice"
Without evidence, no proper court or judge will consider your case. But that is what you twoofers bring to the table after 9 years: A mislead Jowenko, fed with woo and false information; zero engineering papers in real scientific journals; not a singel whisteblower from what would necessarily be a ridiculously HUGE conspiracy (talking about many thousands of people with inside knowledge all across many organisations), and tons of misrepresented facts.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@ISamuelII If you think "ignorant" when you read "twoofer", then I am head-on: Twoofers are defined as people ignorant of facts, reason and science when it comes to 9/11.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@ISamuelII "And those that use "twoofer" are showing their blind obedience to another like a slave to the lie." - No. They are merely saving on valuable characters for yt comments. Much shorter than "So-called truther" or "self-alleged truther".
"the laws of this nation were not followed" - Indeed - hijackings and terrorism are forbidden.
"I hope you are one of the first to go down" - Do you mean that as a threat of personal violence against me? For I hold no position to come down from.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
no lies at AE911, only facts proof and science combined
didnt you hear in the video that the firemen were already out of the building?
and he said "pull it", singular not plural
it's not a lie you stupid dumbfuck
it's a scientific paper with years of research involved
watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
i notice that you didnt pay any attention during your physics class
red fires are relatively low energy fires unlike for example blue fires
get your facts straight monkeyboy
Smetje4life 1 year ago
@Smetje4life "and he said "pull it", singular not plural" - he said, verbatim: "and then the made that decision to pull it". What were they talking about? The danger of WTC7 collapsing, and fire chief Nigro INFORMING 8not asking) Silverstein that they pull out the men because the FDNY could not possibly fight fires there.
Did you critically read and understand Harrit's paper? Nit juyt youtubes? It is junk and bogus.
"Red fires " - and what os your source for "red fires"?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
you are being ignorant
dont try to devise stupid explanations like that
pull it doesnt mean pull out
and the "red fires" can be explained logically
if you got a stove and u put it higher the color of the flames change
also the color stands higher in the energy-light spectrum
you can find a scientific source for this yourself
Smetje4life 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Smetje4life "pull it doesnt mean pull out" - Your English comprehension is lacking. There is no doubt whatsoever in the context what Silverstein meant. You mean they feared loss of life, and then sent in a demolition team? Listen to Danny above what that means! Impossible!
"the "red fires" can be explained logically" - oh no doubt. But why do you think there were only red fires? Who told you? The fire fighters?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@Smetje4life "pull it doesnt mean pull out"
Look at the context. It does mean pull out.
" the "red fires" can be explained logically ...the color stands higher in the energy-light spectrum"
You mean red indicates higher energy? Man, you flunked that big time... Should be interesting to see if any truther here dares to agree with me that you are obviously mistaken - it is the other way round: The coolest flames are red.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
omg, u gonna start all over again?
i never said red stands higher in the energy light spectrum
i said: red fires... ==> ... put stove higher ...
==> ... colour of the flames change + higher energy-light spectrum ...
and really, you should shut the fuck up when u got quotes like these on youtube:
- "Red" fires? Where did you get THAT stupidity from??? -
you didnt know anything about energy-light relations before i fuckin mentioned it!
Smetje4life 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Smetje4life "i said: red fires... ==> ... put stove higher ... ==> ... colour of the flames change + higher energy-light spectrum ..."
Frankly, I don't understand what you are trying to say with that? What stove? :D
"you didnt know anything about energy-light relations before i fuckin mentioned it!"
You are very wrong on that.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@Smetje4life Don't take what the scumbag says serious, just reply to counter any of its lies that others just might fall for. This scumbag has been desperately trying to distort the facts from the time it registered in here. It must have a confinable role in those crimes they way it will go on and on with utter bull sheet.
I suspect its a rabbi. Just a personal feeling I have.
ISamuelII 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ISamuelII "I suspect its a rabbi. Just a personal feeling I have."
Why are so many twoofers such rabid, foam-spitting Jew-haters? So you think your earlier call for violence against me was okay because you think I am only a Jew? Thanks for the insight.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein It wasn't a call for violence, it was a call for the old idea of justice. A coconspirator gets what it deserves.
ISamuelII 1 year ago
@ISamuelII A co-sonspirator? You call me a murderer?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@ISamuelII
all of his posts are filled with utter nonsense
i thought he was a bit ill-informed or so
but i was wrong, this guy is a fuckin retard !
haha, a rabbi xd ?
what made u think of that
Smetje4life 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
and if you agree that red fires are the coolest ones
and are in no way capable of taking down buildings like that
will you consider controlled demolitions
as a more appropriate failure mode for the building
than those low energy fires?
Smetje4life 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Smetje4life "and if you agree that red fires ... are in no way capable of taking down buildings like that"
No, I do NOT agree with that. In fact, I will claim the opposite: Any raise in temperature is capable of deforming steel, and a potential hazard to the structural integrity of a construction. It's called thermal expansion, and has been determined to be the most likely cause of WTC7's destruction.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
oh dude, plz
dont start sputtering more nonsense
if u think that any raise in temperature is capable of deforming steel
than why dont buildings deform (and crumble) during heatwaves?
and the "most likely cause" of WTC7's destruction was undetermined
if you had read quotes from the 9/11 report, you would have known that
i'm done with you and your stupidity
enjoy what's left of your empty miserable life
Smetje4life 1 year ago
@Smetje4life "why dont buildings deform (and crumble) during heatwaves?"
They do deform. More prominent for long span structures like bridges or train rails - you surely have noticed gaps in these to allow for thermal expanion in summer heat?
Here we have the root cause of the problem: Thermal expansion is negligible for most houses, so it was not dealt with in building codes for Ney York. But WTC7 DID have long spans, they expanded, there was too little room for them to move safely, and OOPS.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@Smetje4life "and the "most likely cause" of WTC7's destruction was undetermined. if you had read quotes from the 9/11 report, you would have known that"
Can some twoofers please educate minheer Smetje?
The 9/11 Commission report was not an engineering report and did not deal with WTC7 at all.
NIST is an engineering institution, they did an engineering study, and determined the most likely cause quite precisely, You'd know that if you had read at least their executive summary of NCSTAR 1A.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
like i said
i'm done with you
/ignore
Smetje4life 1 year ago
@Smetje4life "/ignore"
Yup, that's what twoofers always will do sooner or later. You can't be a twoofer without being remarkably ignorant.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
i'm getting tired of you
google: Architect Richard Gage on The Standard Vancouver
final attempt: watch those vids
it can not be stated more clear than that...
Smetje4life 1 year ago
@Smetje4life "google: Architect Richard Gage"
I know about him, his site, and his lies. Gage is not a structural engineer. As an architect, he has never been involved in high rise construction. He doesn't know fire science has zero experience with controlled demolitions. He repeatedly tells lies, and embellishes facts in a deceiptful manner. He makes a full-time living off AE911T - he received a salary of US$ 75000 last year from that website. He lies for money. He's a fraud.
Keep that in mind.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
first of all i said:
- google: Architect Richard Gage on The Standard -
and let me get this straight
you are stating that this architect has zero experience with controlled demolitions
and therefore you attack his credibility
but you also attack the credibility of jowenko,
a controlled demolition expert with many years of experience
what's wrong with you...??
Smetje4life 1 year ago
@Smetje4life "you also attack the credibility of jowenko,"
Jowenko has been fed too little, and partially wrong, infornation. The best experts are prone to come to false conclusion if given false and too little information. Jowenko did not know the extent, duration and nature of the fires, did not even know WHEN the building fell, was not shown a collapse video with sound, and knew very little about the structure.
He was wrong, but you can't blame him too much. Garbage in, garbage out.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
Smetje4life 1 year ago
@Smetje4life "the vid is according to you wrong information?"
Yes, if played silently, Jowenko misses important information: The lack of INSANELY LOUD BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANGs just before the start of collapse. Visit Jowenkos own website to hear what I mean: jowenko(dot)com.
"he doesnt have to know anything about the fires"
He does not (ignorance is bliss), but a real investigator would have to know, as fires are known to destroy buildings and make them collapse sometimes.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein "fires are known to destroy buildings and make them collapse sometimes"
Could you tell us which building collapse due to fire most resembled the collapse of WTC7?
Thanks!
Skeptic121 1 year ago
@Smetje4life "you probably didnt finish high school"
It doesn't matter, but I'll answer anyway: I did finish high school. My grade point average was the best among a class of 240 student. Only 3 of us reached that best grade. My strongest subject was physics, which was also my specialisation subject: Straight A+.
"the gulf of tonkin incident"
This is wildly off-topic and unrelated, but I take your bait: You probably think this was a false flag operation, right?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
i'm not sure whether this was a false flag operation or not
but what i do know is that the government's story is filled with lies
it wouldn't be the first time for them
so you get A's on physics
and you still think fires take down buildings like that
you bring shame upon ur teacher
they did hear loud bangs on the twin towers but you dismiss this fact as a lie
yet you use the lack of this argument at WTC7 to prove yourself correct
clearly, you're doing something wrong
Smetje4life 1 year ago 2
@Smetje4life "they did hear loud bangs on the twin towers but you dismiss this fact as a lie"
a) Jowenko is sure that the twin towers were NOT brought down by CD. Do you believe Jowenko?
b) You seem to imply that there were NO loud bangs just before WTC7 collapsed - thank you
c) There were in fact no incredibly loud explosions when the twin towers stared collapsing. Also, as these collapses started in the fire and impact zone, no explosives or igniters would have survived.
You fail.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein So an A in physics made you an expert in explosives too!
Do YOU know that C4 (one of many examples) were sometimes used by troops in Vietnam to cook their meals! It sustains fire yet it doesn't explode coz It needs an electroshock for that, just like your zionist head!
easyrhinotuber 1 year ago
@easyrhinotuber "So an A in physics made you an expert in explosives too!"
You get an F for reading comprehension. I started the post about my A in physics with "It doesn't matter" - it was only a reply to a dumb post by Smetje.
I know that some explosives just burn away quietly. That's why it is near impossible that any of the towers was demolished with explosives: Any explosives in the collapse initiation zone would have burned early. Did you notice the HUGE fires?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Smetje4life "but what i do know is that the government's story is filled with lies"
You don't actually know that for Tonkin. But you are of course right in the general sense: Governments lie often. The Bush administration certainly lied to get a war against Iraq. No dispute here.
But it makes a huge difference if you lie to kill foreigners or your own people. It is hard to actually conspire to murder your own.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
and he's an architect, where do you get the fuckin idea
that he has never been involved in high rise construction
how do you know he doesnt know anything about fire science??
he does not tell lies, he shows facts and proof. look it up ...
what's wrong with making a living from that site
he puts a lot of time and effort in it
do you know who really is a fraud?
Al Gore !
Smetje4life 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Smetje4life "where do you get the fuckin idea. that he has never been involved in high rise construction"
From his CV.
"how do you know he doesnt know anything about fire science??"
Because nothing in his vita indicates he does.
"he does not tell lies"
I am afraid you are mistaken.
"what's wrong with making a living from that site"
Well, nothing really. Just asking "cui bono".
"do you know who really is a fraud? Al Gore !"
And?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
sigh...
continue to live in ur bubble
Smetje4life 1 year ago
@Smetje4life He isn't living in "his bubble", he's just doing his job!
easyrhinotuber 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@easyrhinotuber "your zionist head!" ... "he's just doing his job"
You are clearly suffering from delusion and paranoia.
I often wonder: Is mental illness a requirement to become an antisemite, or does antisemitism make brains go ill? And why are so many 9/11-loons also antisemites? Is one caused by the other, or both caused by the same mental infliction?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@easyrhinotuber
if his job is being stupid and ignorant, then yeah
he's doing his job all right
Smetje4life 1 year ago
@PapaOystein gravitation collapse?LOL...if buildings started to do that youd have the architectural profession collapsing....
Clearly your upset by Jowenko not asking you your opinion of WTC7...
Buildings well made collapse into dust only if exploded .
So CD it is...and thanks to Danny now many more folk are aware of this
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@jalusbrian You wouldn't have the professions of architecture and structural and civil engineering, if constructing buildings that do NOT collapse were easy. It is difficult! Buildings are designed to carry a static load, and survive some additional and defined stress. Not to withstand hours of fire. It is not possible to construct buildings that defy gravity under all conditions.
You need to grasp that. Jowenko surely could explain it to you.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein Funny but plenty of buildings have burned for hours with REAL huge fires...like they were encased in flames...not just a few poking out of a few windows.
and they didnt collapse
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@jalusbrian "just a few poking out of a few windows" - Why do you go public with such dirty lies?
Do you think WTC1 and 2 were CDs?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein well i have gone public..this is a public site.You can see lots of more public sites exposing th OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY
jalusbrian 1 year ago
"All the proffered evidence that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11, when subjected to critical scrutiny, appears to have been fabricated." -- David Ray Griffin, Professor emeritus, philosopher, and author of couple of dozen books on philosophy and 9/11
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@jalusbrian "David Ray Griffin" - a theologian. Theologians spread fantasy by profession. DRG has a proven track record of lies and distortions. It is considered embarrassing among the smarter of the TM to cite DRG, because he is so obviously wrong on so many counts.
"Richard Gage". No 2 minutes will pass after Richard opens his mouth before a lie comes out. He spreads 9/11 lies for a living. He skims you believers off your bucks as a career, and spends them on carribbean extravaganzas.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein hes an academic with a PHD and 36 books to his name...something you cant claim to have, as shown by your ignorance of theologians..
Ive heard this 'hes just a theologian rubbish before..written by those worried by his close reasoning and attention to the facts of 9-11
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@jalusbrian That PhD impresses you? You must be gullible.
Now what did you say is your opinion about WTC1 and 2, and what is Danny's?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein i can smell the envy on your comment...Youre the gullible one believing FDNY fellows when the evidence contradicts them...
WTC1 and 2 CD as well.as you can tell they fall in 10 seconds, no fires beyond the impact region. Law of Conservation of Momentum(go look it up)
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@jalusbrian I believe the FDNY guys because their lives depended on the correctness of their professional judhment, they were actually there, for hours, seeing it all with their own eyes, and were entirely within their own area of expertise. If DRG was witness to a revelation of God, I might believe him. He wasn't.
"WTC1 and 2 ... fall in 10 seconds" - WRONG.
But I asked what Danny Jowenko thinks about WTC 1 and 2. Do you know?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein you ...believe...thats a religious sentiment...yet you have the gall to diss Prof Griffin! As for the FDNY...evidence trumps opinion...the fires were small and limited, and couldn not way take down a 47 story buildinug in 6.5 seconds.
and yes wtc1 and 1 about 10 seconds.
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@jalusbrian No no, DRG is not lying out of religious sentiment, that's not what I say. I just point out he is wildly out of his field, and in his field accustomed to passing delusions off as "truth".
The evidence is photos and videos of fires throughout at least 10 floors, the evididence is smoke an blown windows on even more, the evididence is many witness accounts of experienced professionals of the most relevant field of expertise who were present at the scene.
The opinion is DRG's and yours
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein funny that you should claom DRG kis out of his field whe you are even further out even in just criticising him! LOL...The idea he passes delusions off as truth is an eg of your delusion being passed off as truth....
That smoke comes mainlhy from WTC5 and 6,...which burned furiously just across the street...Weve proven your witness accounts are trumped by the ophoto and video evidence...delusions passing as truth?!
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@jalusbrian "funny that you should claom DRG kis out of his field whe you are even further out even in just criticising him" - I did not use my degree as an appeal to FALSE authority here. DRG having a PhD in theology is a fallacious argument.
"That smoke comes mainlhy from WTC5 and 6" - No. 5 and 6 were to the south of 7, wind blew mainly from north that day - away from 7.
Videos clearly show most smoke came from 7. Liars like DRG fooled you into seeing what's not there.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein no video show smoke swirling over the face of WTC7...not emanating from it ..nor do we seee nor can you show massive fires, nor can you prove that fire caused the free fall total collapse.....
Controlled Demolition is the only rational theory...
jalusbrian 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jalusbrian "no video show smoke swirling over the face of WTC7" - try these:
g02aurpG1BQ
l3NuPKDGyBQ
Afb7eUHr64U (fires on east and south side)
vMhLRAQVNrU
For more fires try these:
hx8oOVm7zvg
G4SEhMpbo74 (east side at 0:33, north side at 0:48 - 3 floors on north side already completely burned out at this point in time )
There's another that I don't find now that has flames coming out of west side.
A building this large, with fires on all sides and many floors.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jalusbrian "no video show smoke swirling over the face of WTC7" - try these:
g02aurpG1BQ
l3NuPKDGyBQ
Afb7eUHr64U (fires on east and south side)
vMhLRAQVNrU
For more fires try these:
hx8oOVm7zvg
G4SEhMpbo74 (east side at 0:33, north side at 0:48 - 3 floors on north side already completely burned out at this point in time )
There's another that I don't find now that has flames coming out of west side.
A building this large, with fires on all sides and many floors.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@jalusbrian WTC7 in 16-18 seconds, WTC1 and 2 in closer to 12-15 seconds.
I would appreciate if you do not repeat the lies spread by DRG, Gage and others.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein no ..WTC7 fell at near free fall acceleration...so if yiou time the time it take for an upper floor or corner of the building to hit the ground its 6.5 seconds...Time it!
jalusbrian 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jalusbrian "so if yiou time the time it take for an upper floor or corner of the building to hit the ground its 6.5 seconds" - yes - so THAT part fell at near freefall speed. But for 2.25 seconds only (see D. Chandler). And AFTER the entire core of the building had disintegrated, and the lower portion of the north face buckled. So, many seconds into the collapse, a small part of the building (part of the north wall) fell freely. The bulk of the building NEVER did.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
with you papa, the words 'worried twit' comes to mind
jalusbrian 1 year ago
"[A]ll three World Trade Center high-rise buildings, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed not by fire as our government has told us, but by controlled demolition with explosives." -- Richard Gage, Founding member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
"I have 'known' from day-one that the buildings were imploded and that they could not and would not have collapsed from the damage caused by the airplanes that ran into them." -- Daniel B. Barnum, B.Arch, FAIA
jalusbrian 1 year ago
"[S]ymmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly". -- David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP, PhD, F.AICP
jalusbrian 1 year ago
"Obviously it [WTC 7] was the result of controlled demolition and scheduled to take place during the confusion surrounding the day's events." -- Jack Keller, BS CE, MS Irrigation Eng, PhD Agricultural and Irrigation Eng, PE, F.ASCE
"In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished". -- Hugo Bachmann, PhD
jalusbrian 1 year ago
"I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not." -- Danny Jowenko, Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V.
jalusbrian 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jalusbrian "and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not." -- Danny Jowenko" - that is his uninformed (he did not know about the fires; he did not know even what day it happened; he had only the briefest glance at the most cursory blueprint - the column layout) opinion on WTC7.
What is your opinion on 1 and 2? What is his?
Arguments from authority are bad. Architects do not know well. how buildinfs perform in fires. Demo experts don't.
But firemen do.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@jalusbrian "Jowenko not asking you your opinion of WTC7..." Do you believe WTC 1 and 2 were CDs?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein Do you believe a huge 110 story building can collapse in 10 seconds?
jalusbrian 1 year ago
The technology used to destroy the buildings are not known by the public....otherwise we would figure it out.
Right kids?
Rightttttt
You idiots really think their gonna use technology we can use and test on to figure out what happenned...
Maetr1k 2 years ago
How did the fires start? Apparently, building 7 was barely touched by WTC when the two towers fell.
hplaserjet2001 2 years ago
wtc7 collapsed in 11.september at 5:20 pm. It looked like controlled demolition!
And it was!!!!
If it was controlled demolition than they knew about 9/11 before it took place.
It takes days to plan and prepare for controlled demolition. ( not 8 hours)
911insidejob9116 3 years ago 6
Indonesia supports investigation for the existence of controlled demolition in 9/11 !!
trisetyarso 3 years ago 11
WTC7 = Controlled Demolition = Inside Job. Wake up America, you need to take back your country.
felicity5150 3 years ago 22
This has been flagged as spam show
poetryhound is a fool, useful idiot, liar, enemy agent or some combination. Everyone watch architect richard gage's '911 blueprint for truth', diesel and office fires in a few places did not create statistically symmetrical collapse at almost freefall speed, anymore than i met with santa on the easter bunny's spaceship to hijack the deathstar. poetryhound is a fool, useful idiot, liar, enemy agent or some combination.
SandovalAlarcon 3 years ago 3
9/11 is joke in yo' town.
dust4ngel 3 years ago
roflmao
im sure Larry would hate Danny when he knows what he says^^
weg ermee.
Aanthanur 4 years ago
svelte is a guy starts who with the conclusion that there were bombs in WTC 7 & then works backwards to find evidence of them. So he found a video shot at 10:15am. It shows people responding to loud blasts coming from some unidentified place. And he claims the blasts were actually demo charges inside WTC 7 that went off at 5:20pm. Completely made up. And very dishonest. But that's the kind of crap he tries to feed everyone.
PoetryHound 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This Jowenko guy clearly doesn't understand how sneaky muslims are.
danieleriskay 3 years ago
pleasae tell me about these SNEAKY muslims. Love to hear about them
bohemiangrove 3 years ago 2
I hope this comment was intended as a joke because it is.
merrimac291 2 years ago
Hardly devastating, svelte. That's the guy who was inside WTC 7 when both towers collapsed & he was blown into the air. Gee, I wonder what could have caused that. A single demo charge in the morning that brought down the building 7 hours later? Sure bet. BTW, the guy's story was reported by NIST, not the Commission. You sure are confused, aren't you?
PoetryHound 4 years ago
good point, the interviewers story of wtc 7 was from fema. I guess he didn't use the governments story because... WTC 7 WAS NEVER IN THE COMMISSION REPORT. CAN YOU GUESS WHY POETRY HOUND? IT MAKES NO SENSE OTHER THAN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!
thelastbernier 3 years ago