10 story hole in WTC 7

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh and for those who want to know the REAL reason why the majority of engineers don't speak out about the WTC. It's not because of the reason that Chris is COMPLETELY MAKING UP. It's because the majority of them have no awareness that there are actually people out there making these absurd claims of CD. The majority are no more aware of people like Chris as they are aware that there are actually people out there who think the world is flat. And to these engineers such claims are so absurd that they aren't taken seriously by the majority of structural engineers and not credible enough to be worth responding. It would be like us speaking out against people claiming the earth is flat. What would be the point?

 

[Christopher7]

No he was not certain it was a CD, he needed more information to see what was going on. And he may have thought it was a CD at the end, but that's because it's all he conclude given the extremely limited data he got.

What part of 'absolutely' don't you understand?

J: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
I: You sure?
J: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.

He was absolutely sure that WTC 7 was a CD less than one minute into the interview.

The video of WTC 7 imploding is all the evidence he needed.

He knows better than you if the video is enough to say WTC 7 was a CD.

Do I think I know better? Do I think the 225 engineers who have done more than simply looked at a single video know better? ABSOLUTELY 100%.

So what?

What have those 255 engineers said?

Just because they contributed to the NIST report does not mean they they have seen the videos or that they believe WTC 7 was not a CD.

So far, i have seen the statements of two of those experts.

Have any experts viewed the videos and said that Jowenko is wrong?

No

Also, please prove your claim that all the world body of engineers are all simply silent on one of the most well known engineering issues in the history of man because they are all too scared. You and I both know that they don't say anything because they see nothing suspicious with the events of that day. And we ALL know the vast majority are well aware of the WTC 7 collapse.

In addition to the owner of a CD company and two Professors of structural analysis and construction, there are 130 architects and engineers who have seen all the evidence and believe WTC 7 was a CD.

How many will it take?

You find fault with a few of the 130 and write them all off.

THE VIDEOS ARE IN NO WAY EVIDENCE OF A CD. Not even the slightest bit.

Of course, The owner of a CD company and two Professors of structural analysis are wrong.

You know better.

You also know that 255 engineers believe WTC 7 was not a CD, even though only two have said so.

Less than three months after 9/11, and 2 1/2 years before NIST concluded that it "appears possible", those two experts concluded WTC 7 fell because of fire.

 

[Christopher7]

Why should I care about someone's opinion when the evidence contradicts it ?

What evidence?


They say the videos are not only evidence but proof that WTC a CD.

Yes, and anyone who makes such a call without looking at all the available evidence is a moron.

So you think Danny Jowenko and the two Professors of structural analysis and construction are morons.

On the other hand, you're saying that the videos of WTC7 don't look like a CD, and your opinion is more valid than Jowenko and both professors.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Chir chris chirs.

Can you do more than play tricks? AS I said, these guys have not directly said there was no controlled demolition on an individual basis because they have no reason to say so. Just like they also didn't come out and state that the world is not flat for all the flat erarth believers out there.

You are preying on this common ocurrance and taking advantage of the fact that the majority of engineers don't even acknowledge your type of claims. You know they don't mention it because they don't feel there is a CD and they feel it's absurd. And if they did they clearly would say so. And they clearly would not conribute and work on a conclusion that directly contradicted their claims. And these guys did MORE than look at a single video.

Again, let me remind you. You have one guy who looked at one video. And you use that to contest the world body of structural engineers. Face it, no matter how you dress it up and take advantage of a complete lack of response to your absurd claims, you still haev absolutely nothing.

Wow! 1 guy, who saw a few seconds of video. Wow, clearly that's proof of a CD.

And once again, what was your explanation for the 1000s of structural engineers around the world not pointing out that this is clearly a CD? Why is it only cultists and a single demolitionist who only saw a few seconds of video think so? If it's so obvious, why aren't there thousands of engineers all crying murder? After all you claimed the video is all that's needed to make the determination.

Of course you contradict yourself by claiming that many of the NIST engineers (an assumption on your part) may have only seen the video and thus not be able to make a proper determination. Once agian you have been dishonest just like you have quoted out of context to mislead people.

Tell me, if you are so interested in truth, why are you being so dishonest?

And as for those guys being wrong? I would clearly side with the majority of the world body of engineers than a couple of guys (all but one being CTers) who have seen nothing more than a few seconds of video. Absolutely.

Are you saying that all the other engineers are wrong and you are right? See, we can both play these cute little games if you want. But in the end, you have to go to bed knowing you have nothing and knowing that your claims are not taken seriously by professionals except for the 3 (out of the 100's of 1000s in the world.

Are we supposed to be impressed that you found .000000000001%? I'll go with the other 99.99999999999999%

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh and let me also add in direct response to your question of anyone coming out and saying Jowenco being wrong. I doubt hadrly any of the other experts know he is wrong, just as they likely aren't even aware that there are cult's such as yours that are claiming controlled demolitions, let alone wanting to even waste their time entertaining such absurd claims. And again, you are simply trying to take advantage of this fact that no one even consideres entertaining such nonsense.

Did you go talking to the NIST engineers? Did you go ask them these things? Of course you didn't. Doing so would onlyput a hole in your claims. Much easier to make absurdly false claims such as them all being too afraid to lose their jobs and other complete nonsense that you completely MAKE UP.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Heck, let's go one further Chris. If I find a single engineer (becase there is inevitably going to be one statistically) that thinks the earth is flat, will you concede that the earth is indeed flat? Because I don't see any geologists or scientists refuting these claims. I don't see them addressing the issue. Probably because they're all afraid to lose their jobs, right?

See, we can both play the same game if you want.

 

[Belz...]

What evidence?

What do you mean "What" evidence ? we're 10,000 pages into this thread. Surely you remember.

They say the videos are not only evidence but proof that WTC a CD.

"Proof" ? You've been shown AGAIN and AGAIN, Chris, that the way 7 WTC fell in the videos is in NO WAY unique to controlled demolitions. In fact, you've been shown AGAIN and AGAIN, Chris, that the way 7 WTC fell in the videos is INCONSISTENT with controlled demolitions because it lacks certain vital characteristics.

Why do you keep ignoring that ?

So you think Danny Jowenko and the two Professors of structural analysis and construction are morons.

Did they make their call without looking at all the available evidence ?

On the other hand, you're saying that the videos of WTC7 don't look like a CD, and your opinion is more valid than Jowenko and both professors.

Simple logic, Chris. Explosions make sounds. Explosions make blasts. None of that is visible or audible in the 7 WTC videos. Why is that ?

 

[BeAChooser]

If I find a single engineer (becase there is inevitably going to be one statistically) that thinks the earth is flat, will you concede that the earth is indeed flat?

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/crea-fe.htm "Few professional academics embraced it, though there were exceptions. Alexander McInnes, of Glasgow University, was a vehement flat-earther. So was Arthur V. White of the University of Toronto. White, a hydraulic engineer, designed several large hydroelectric dams built in Canada around the turn of the century."

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/120698/fea_006-2099.000.shtml " Another Flat Earth fanatic was John Hampden, an English engineer who offered 5,000 pounds to anyone who could prove the world was round."

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:rxmXEJXKqykJ:cba.mit.edu/events/04.09.I0/bios.pdf "Danny*Cohen. Danny is a distinguished engineer at SUN, since 2001. He received his PhD from Ivan Sutherland at Harvard University. He pioneered realtime applications of packet switching networks ... snip ... Danny is a bona fide member of the Flat Earth Society."

 

[Christopher7]

..... these guys have not directly said there was no controlled demolition on an individual basis because they have no reason to say so.

?

These guys say WTC 7 was a CD because they have looked at the videos.

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".


Danny Jowenko owns a demolition company.

Jowenko: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
Interviewer: You sure?
Jowenko: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.


Do not mistake polite statements for lack of conviction.

These experts are saying that WTC 7 was a CD.

They are qualified to make that determination based on the videos.


At very least, the videos are evidence of a controlled demolition.


The simple concept that a fire cannot make a building implode the way WTC 7 did, is easy for some, hard for others.

 

[Christopher7]

.... the way 7 WTC fell in the videos is in NO WAY unique to controlled demolitions.
.... the way 7 WTC fell in the videos is INCONSISTENT with controlled demolitions because it lacks certain vital characteristics.

There are those guys [experts] who disagree with you.

Did they make their call without looking at all the available evidence ?

In their expert opinions, the videos, without sound, were sufficient evidence to say that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

 

[funk de fino]

At very least, the videos are evidence of a controlled demolition.

no,the videos are evidence that even experts can be fooled by poor quality videos and lack of supporting facts or background information

when i was first shown the video by a truther i instantly thought it "looked" very "similar" to a CD, i dug a little deeper and discovered there is no way in hell it could have been

if i can do this then i'm sure that this expert could, if he did and still had the same thought on this then he would be a signed up memeber of your truther brigade and would be shouting it from the rooftops

he isnt, go figure

 

[Christopher7]

no,the videos are evidence that even experts can be fooled by poor quality videos and lack of supporting facts or background information

They saw the same videos we have all seen. Some are grainy, some are clear.

You're saying that these experts don't know what they are talking about.

As if

when i was first shown the video by a truther i instantly thought it "looked" very "similar" to a CD, i dug a little deeper and discovered there is no way in hell it could have been

Negative denial syndrome.

I can't figure out how they did it so it just can't be.

How 'bout

They placed the charges on the core columns in the elevator shafts, maintenance rooms and the mechanical floors [5 & 6] where only the 'maintenance' people who put them there would see them?

 

[slingblade]

I only hope that someday Chris is accused of something (which he didn't actually do), and those accusing him use the same standards of evidence against him that he uses here.

He. will. not. be. amused.

 

[GlennB]

How 'bout

They placed the charges on the core columns in the elevator shafts, maintenance rooms and the mechanical floors [5 & 6] where only the 'maintenance' people who put them there would see them?

Because you'd need to recruit 3 shifts of maintenance people to keep the conspiracy under wraps, and ensure not another soul entered those floors for the duration of the prep.

You'd leave detonation devices throughout the rubble pile.

You'd still have explosions and blasts (that were not witnessed on the day).

You'd have to be damn sure that WTC7 would be damaged and ablaze on the fateful day, otherwise the whole world would be seeing the totally spontaneous collapse of a very large building.

You'd still be lacking any motive for the crime.

and so on and so on .....

 

[Christopher7]

I only hope that someday Chris is accused of something (which he didn't actually do), and those accusing him use the same standards of evidence against him that he uses here.

Three experts stating that WTC 7 was a CD based on the videos, qualifies as evidence.

 

[slingblade]

Three experts stating that WTC 7 was a CD based on the videos, qualifies as evidence.

If it makes you feel better to think so, no amount of reason will change your mind. That much has become apparent.

It really makes me sad. You have a good mind, Chris. You're just using it so poorly. That always makes me sad. But carry on. It appears you must.

 

[Christopher7]

Because you'd need to recruit 3 shifts of maintenance people to keep the conspiracy under wraps, and ensure not another soul entered those floors for the duration of the prep.

You'd leave detonation devices throughout the rubble pile.

You'd still have explosions and blasts (that were not witnessed on the day).

You'd have to be damn sure that WTC7 would be damaged and ablaze on the fateful day, otherwise the whole world would be seeing the totally spontaneous collapse of a very large building.

You'd still be lacking any motive for the crime.

and so on and so on .....

Those experts must be crazy, they shouldn't believe their eyes.

They should use reverse logic like you guys:

I can't figure out how they did it They would have to control 3 shifts and make sure no one looked in the elevator shafts or certain locked maintenance rooms.
No, it would just be too hard.

The experts must be wrong.

They didn't hear any explosives and they still thought WTC 7 was a CD.

I mean really, what do experts know anyway?

 

[Belz...]

There are those guys [experts] who disagree with you.

Excellent! Why don't you get them together, and start a legal case against the US government. I can't wait to see your experts against their experts and see who's the more convincing.

Once the case is thrown out of court by the judge, I hope you'll drop this nonsense, too.

In their expert opinions, the videos, without sound, were sufficient evidence to say that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

Then they are quacks. Nobody with an ounce of scientific integrity makes such a certain call based on fragmentary information. Your experts are bunk machines.

Three experts stating that WTC 7 was a CD based on the videos, qualifies as evidence.

Thousands disagree.

 

[Belz...]

I mean really, what do experts know anyway?

Apparently, you apply that logic only to the experts that AGREE with you. The others are just paid shills, right ?

 

[funk de fino]

Three experts stating that WTC 7 was a CD based on the videos, qualifies as evidence.

sorry mate it does not, it qualifies as an opinion based on lack of facts and background information, if it was introduced as evidence anywhere it would be laughed at

i am saying nothing about whether they know what they are talking about but if they have seen all the background information i have seen, lack of evidence for CD, and other facts i have seen, the distortions of some claims about this building, and they still continue with the claims then, yes, IMO they are wrong unless they have the proof and the back up to what they say, not just by watching a video

would you be happy to be convicted on the video evidence studied by 3experts when you had no other evidence against you and in fact had supporting evidence in your favour?

should this expert opinion on the video evidence overide all other evidence?