10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

Watch the long versions of Jowenko, This guy sure does not seem sure in his opinion, but he had already made a commitment to a controlled demolition of WTC7 so he is stuck with trying make himself look good.

There was never any doubt in his mind that WTC 7 was a CD. The uncertainty was HOW it could be done in one day.

I am sure Jowenko thought the clean-up people did a controlled demolition on a damaged building 7 several days after 9/11. But note his shock when he is told it happened that day, Why? Because he knows it could not have been accomplished in that short a time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

He also knew that the US government was lying about it and tried to cover by speculating on how it could be done in one day. When told that they did not put out the fires, he said he could not explain that.

He is one of millions who can see the obvious.

That's why it's called a smoking gun.

His opinion is more important than most because he owns a demolition company.

These experts agree with him:

"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".


In their expert opinions, WTC 7 was a CD.
At very least, the videos are evidence of a CD.

 

[Christopher7]

I1.2 Initiating Components Fail Due to Fire Effects:
The initiating event may have been caused by fire effects on structural components.

Christopher, you don't get it do you?

Because the NIST study is real science and not a religious belief like 9/11 truth they use word like "may have" and "could cause".

My point is, there is no evidence of intense fires over 4 floors that would be required to cause that first core column to fail.

They did not 'do the math' on how long it would take office fires to heat a column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, to more than 500 C [932 F]

You view seems to be if is not 100% sure then it must be a controlled demolition, God of the gaps, Find hole and then try and cram your "Inside Job God" in the hole.

No

I am just pointing out that there is no evidence to support the failure of that first core column.

People here have said that there is lots of evidence for the 'official' hypothesis.

Such is not the case.

If push came to shove and you asked me what is the likelihood that the collapse of the WTC were a controlled demolition, I would not say 100% for sure it was not, No from the evidence at hand it would be something like 99% chance it was caused by impact damage and fire.

There was no impact damage anywhere near the area of the initiating event.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2506097#post2506097

Only a fool would bet on something with such bad odds as a WTC controlled demolition.

Do you really think that Jowenko and the professors are fools?

 

[Christopher7]

I'll ask again

would you be happy to be convicted on the video evidence studied by 3 experts 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 in your case?

I answered you in post 2929

"No
These expert opinions on the video evidence should be considered along with other expert testimony and other evidence."

 

[Christopher7]

So, when confronted with experts who say something you can't deal with, you call them quacks and bunk machines.

You are qualified to say this because....?

Thousands disagree.

Thousands of what?

Experts in the field. You know, something that you are not.

You glibly proclaim that there are thousands of experts in the field that disagree with Jowenko and the professors.

You don't know what the experts believe.

There are only two that i know of and they stated their position in 2001 before the evidence had been gathered.

To my knowledge, there are no experts who have said Jowenko and the professors are wrong.

The null-hypothesis is no CD, I don't need them to tell me that there was no CD, but I'd need a whole lot of them to say it WAS one, or at least ONE of them with ACTUAL EVIDENCE that it was, not just his snap judgment.

Jowenko was able to make a snap judgment because it's obvious that WTC 7 was a CD. He reaffirmed his belief in a phone call months later after looking at the drawings of WTC 7.

The professors did not make a snap judgment. They studied the available videos. They are experts and they consider the videos evidence of CD.

There are 135 architects and engineers at ae911truth.org who believe WTC 7 was a CD.

How many will it take?

BTW, there is no evidence that fires caused that first core column to collapse, so why do you believe that it did?

You keep trying to say that the 255 experts who contributed to the report believe that there is no evidence of CD.
You have no idea what they believe.

Precisely, which is why I never mentioned what they believe. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You said thousands disagree.

When i asked you to name three, you said "Read the NIST report" as if the contributors were among the 'thousands' who disagree.

 

[funk de fino]

I answered you in post 2929

"No
These expert opinions on the video evidence should be considered along with other expert testimony and other evidence."

good, so you would not be happy to be convicted on the testimony of three witnesses of video evidence with little or no background information when there was conflicting evidence in your favour?

i thought this was all you had? if you had more you would be doing more than gibbering about it on here then surely?

 

[Belz...]

To my knowledge, there are no experts who have said Jowenko and the professors are wrong.

Let me clarify: we don't need them to say they disagree; but we'd need them to say they AGREE in order for their silence to support your theory, Chris.

Jowenko was able to make a snap judgment because it's obvious that WTC 7 was a CD.

Unfortunately for you that is a non sequitur. Snap judgments are suspect no matter who makes them. Jowenko did not have all the evidence at hand and that mutes his call.

The professors did not make a snap judgment. They studied the available videos.

Tell me, Chris: how many high-rise buildings have collapsed in the history of high-rise buildings before 9/11 ?? And how would you expect such a collapse to look like if it happened as described by NIST ?

It's a very important question to which I'd like an answer.

There are 135 architects and engineers at ae911truth.org who believe WTC 7 was a CD.

How many will it take?

1000 x belief = 0.

BTW, there is no evidence that fires caused that first core column to collapse, so why do you believe that it did?

Actually, there IS evidence and we've been discussing it ad nauseam, here.

When i asked you to name three, you said "Read the NIST report" as if the contributors were among the 'thousands' who disagree.

And ?

 

[twinstead]

You said thousands disagree.

When i asked you to name three, you said "Read the NIST report" as if the contributors were among the 'thousands' who disagree.

That report gives the names and qualifications of every contributor. If you think their silence supports your cause, perhaps you could contact some of them and ask them what they think of Jowenko's analysis, and the idea of CD in WTC7 in general.

They are on record as disagreeing with you, IMO, because their names are basically on what makes the official story, well, official. Perhaps if you could get one or two of them to 'risk it all' for truth and justice and admit they really don't believe what they put their names to, then you'd have a story.

Oh, wait. According to you, all scientist and engineers are too afraid to loose their jobs to come out against those who murdered 3000 innocent people.

I guess you're stuck, huh? Now you can pretty make up whatever you want about what they 'really' believe.

 

[notheist]

"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"

And of course you can show some of the structures these guys have done in the past. I notice most seem to be professors, well that just prove the old saying "those who can't do, teach"

Here is a clue, you judge a persons expertise by what they have done, Can you show me an engineer who has designed say a 50 story building who says the WTC were a controlled demolition? No.

The guy who invented the process of controlled demolition of large structures says the WTC WERE NOT a controlled demolition, and he hold the record for this sort of thing. The best you can come up with is this "also ran" in the field and less then sure in his opinion on WTC7 but very sure that the towers WERE NOT a controlled demolition.

So we can agree the twin towers were NOT a controlled demolition, Right? After all Jowenko said so, and he is your guy.

 

[twinstead]

So we can agree the twin towers were NOT a controlled demolition, Right? After all Jowenko said so, and he is your guy.

Since Chris most definitely thinks the twin towers were CD, I predict the response you will get from this is, "This thread is about WTC7. It's off topic".

That was his response to the last person who mentioned that little tidbit.

 

[notheist]

There are 135 architects and engineers at ae911truth.org who believe WTC 7 was a CD.

FYI that site at one time had Burney Rubble, Robin Hood, Ms. Janet Jackson And Ron Jeremy listed as “Structural Engineers”

Nobodies and many are students and some who call themselves “Engineering Staff” Translated…. I work at an engineering firm, could be the copyboy or mail room guy. And note a full 40 of them are listed but not verified as being experts in anything. How much you want to bet I can get a fake name on that site?

Now look at the names on the NIST report, All of them the top people in the fields, the best of the best. Look at the Sydney Opera House, an engineering marvel, Now where do you think the firm who designed and built that stand on the controlled demolition conspiracy theory? Don't look at ae911truth.org.

Look at the people who promote the Inside Job scam, students and 20 something losers who are looking at a lifetime of low wage jobs in the service industry. Gullible twits who will buy and conspiracy theory so long as it matches their political views.

 

[notheist]

I am just pointing out that there is no evidence to support the failure of that first core column.

So by your "reasoning" (I use the term lightly in your case) NIST has no evidence as to why WTC7 fell and since the truthers certainly have noting in the way of real evidence then that leaves only one logical conclusion. World Trade Center 7 did not collapse!

But of course that is silly, it did collapse, so the question becomes how did it happen given the evidence at hand.

So lets see... well it was hit by WTC1 when it fell, pictures and eyewitness accounts proves that. And there were fires, big ones, pictures and eyewitness accounts proves that too. Lets see... well fires do cause steel structures to fail, happened before this is just on a larger scale. Oh! Then you have the fact firemen reported the sounds of internal structural failure and visual evidence of bulging and leaning of WTC7.

Then you have the nations best structural engineers, controlled demolition experts and hundreds of others look at this and they to a man say it was fire that killed WTC7. Kind of a no-brainer,

But you do have a bunch of "experts" who can not prove their skills with real world accomplishments, defrocked professors, theologians and lets not forget the "Dude! I saw it on YouTube" losers. They say it was an inside job, no evidence, just "Dude! it so looked like one of them implosions"

You want to believe in the truthers, fine with me, Somebodies got to make the coffee at Starbucks, And get use to it because with thinking skills like that you will be doing that kind of stuff for a long time.

 

[notheist]

"They did not 'do the math' on how long it would take office fires to heat a column, weighing over 4 tons per floor, to more than 500 C [932 F]"

If you were really interested in truth you would also consider something I have been thinking about. When you heat something even a little it expands, structural engineers have to take this into account when they build, a 30ft long beam will grow and shrink by inches just from the heating and cooling of the day. slip joints have to be built into the structure to take this movement.

In a fire a big dangers is the expansion of steel which can be much greater then normal, if the expansion goes beyond the "slip" built in you can have rivets pop, welds break and all kinds of nasty things.

 

[Christopher7]

good, so you would not be happy to be convicted on the testimony of three witnesses of video evidence with little or no background information when there was conflicting evidence in your favour?

The video evidence, by itself, is not enough to convict but the testimony of these experts that "This is controlled demolition. A team of experts did this" and "with the utmost probability WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" would be considered evidence for the prosecution in a court of law.

They are experts, you are not. They did not need 'background information' to make their decision. The videos were enough for them to say that WTC 7 was a CD.

What is the conflicting evidence?

 

[twinstead]

The video evidence, by itself, is not enough to convict but the testimony of these experts that "This is controlled demolition. A team of experts did this" and "with the utmost probability WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" would be considered evidence for the prosecution in a court of law.

They are experts, you are not. They did not need 'background information' to make their decision. The videos were enough for them to say that WTC 7 was a CD.

Do you think that perhaps a court of law would subpoena members of the NIST and CD experts who would testify that in their expert opinion it wasn't CD? Remember there's a lot more CD experts on Earth than your little team.

See, you think the silence from all the other experts around the world supports your theory. If we were to go to court, that belief would be tested, don't you think?

And, what exactly do you think the court would think if 100 experts disagreed with your 3 or 4? I would imagine you should be careful of what you wish for.

 

[notheist]

The video evidence, by itself, is not enough to convict but the testimony of these experts that "This is controlled demolition. A team of experts did this" and "with the utmost probability WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" would be considered evidence for the prosecution in a court of law.

Yep... I can see it now Christopher walks in with so call experts who no one has ever heard of, who if you look close into their abilities you will find not very impressive at all, a controlled demolition expert from a country that has few large structures. Hell.. He didn't even know what day WTC7 collapsed, and he is your expert witness?

We walk in with structural engineers who design buildings that are engineering marvels. We have controlled demolition experts who have the records for the biggest and longest controlled structural demolitions.

Well you could plead insanity.

 

[Christopher7]

Let me clarify: we don't need them to say they disagree; but we'd need them to say they AGREE in order for their silence to support your theory, Chris.

You choose to dismiss the statements of these three experts because there are not thousands of similar statements.

134 architects and engineers have joined Richard Gage AIA at ae911truth.
You can find reason to doubt a few of them so you dismiss all of them.

What is your reason for dismissing Richard Gage?

Unfortunately for you that is a non sequitur. Snap judgments are suspect no matter who makes them. Jowenko did not have all the evidence at hand and that mutes his call.

He did not need other evidence. In his expert opinion, the videos alone were proof of a CD.

He is an expert, you are not. You are not qualified to say he is wrong.

BTW, Ronald Hamburger and Hassan Astaneh did not have all the evidence.

Tell me, Chris: how many high-rise buildings have collapsed in the history of high-rise buildings before 9/11 ?? And how would you expect such a collapse to look like if it happened as described by NIST ?

Every high rise building that has imploded prior to 9/11 was a CD.
According to the NIST hypothesis [set of assumptions] WTC 7 was so poorly designed that the failure of a single column caused WTC 7 to implode in about 15 seconds mimicking a CD.

They worked backwards to explain how the implosion could fit the official story but they did not attempt to explain how fires caused that first column to fail.

There is no evidence to support the collapse of four floors around columns 79, 80 and/or 81.

This is WTC 7 at about 4 p.m.

There is no sign of fires on four contiguous floors.

There is no sign of floors collapsing in the burned out areas.

There could have been fires burning around columns 79, 80 and 81 on four contiguous floors but 'could have been' does not equal evidence.

 

[funk de fino]

The video evidence, by itself, is not enough to convict but the testimony of these experts that "This is controlled demolition. A team of experts did this" and "with the utmost probability WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" would be considered evidence for the prosecution in a court of law.

They are experts, you are not. They did not need 'background information' to make their decision. The videos were enough for them to say that WTC 7 was a CD.

What is the conflicting evidence?

the experts watched videos, what else did they have?

how do you know what i am an expert in, you have not asked me?

i would certainly class myself as an expert in watching videos

if i showed policemen a video of you shooting someone with a gun and asked them if it looked like a murder, what would you expect them to say if this is all the information they had?

they then said it looked like a murder using a firearm in their expert opinion

what if i tell them it was a blank round? does the testimony change?

the experts testimony is ok to use in court to convict you if they are without the facts concerning the blank round?

personally i would like them to have a little more up their sleeve if i was the jury, if it was enough you wouldnt be on here mouthing about it would you?

 

[firecoins]

There was never any doubt in his mind that WTC 7 was a CD. The uncertainty was HOW it could be done in one day.
.

Thats the sad secret about your theory. Its impossible to rig a skyscraper in a day, in secret, especially since the media was in the building to get shot of WTC 1 & 2. Sort of eliminates the theory. If CD could not be done, than it could not explain WTC 7. You need a new theory.

 

[lapman]

It's been a while since I've been on this. So forgive me if this has already been answered. What is Jowenko's take on the east penthouse collapsing 8.2 seconds prior to the rest of the building or the kink in the eastern part of the building?

 

[Christopher7]

Do you think that perhaps a court of law would subpoena members of the NIST and CD experts who would testify that in their expert opinion.

Yes

See, you think the silence from all the other experts around the world supports your theory.

No

If we were to go to court, that belief would be tested, don't you think?

Yes

And, what exactly do you think the court would think if 100 experts disagreed with your 3 or 4? I would imagine you should be careful of what you wish for.

The jury would have view the videos and weigh the credibility and reasoning of each expert.