10 story hole in WTC 7

[Christopher7]

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?

Whatever he saw in the first video was enough to convince him that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD.

He reaffirmed that opinion in a phone call a couple months later.

He did not comment on the penthouse or kink.

 

[lapman]

Whatever he saw in the first video was enough to convince him that WTC 7 was "absolutely" a CD.

He reaffirmed that opinion in a phone call a couple months later.

He did not comment on the penthouse or kink.

Ok, so he's supposed to make a definite conclusion from 9 seconds of muted video. Right. They why does he look so confused when they tell him that the building was on fire?

And we know the phone call was legitimate because?

 

[Christopher7]

So lets see... well it was hit by WTC1 when it fell, pictures and eyewitness accounts proves that.

There was no debris damage near the area of the initiating event.

And there were fires, big ones, pictures and eyewitness accounts proves that too.

The fires in the east part of WTC 7 progressed thru several floors as they consumed the fuel and burned out.

If you follow the time line of the progression of the fires, you will see that they only burned about 2 hours in any location.

Lets see... well fires do cause steel structures to fail, happened before this is just on a larger scale.

There is the 3 story toy factory in Thailand [that didn't meet the minimal Thai codes] and the exhibition hall in Chicago (?) that had very little interior framework.

No high rise building has imploded due to fire.

The only high rise structure to partially fail was the Windsor Tower.

The exterior columns in the Windsor towers weighed about 18 pounds per lineal foot. Columns 79, 80 and 81 weighed 730 pounds per lineal foot. [40 times as much]

It would take a bit longer to heat them up.

Oh! Then you have the fact firemen reported the sounds of internal structural failure

They heard 'creaking' and it was probably in the west half where all the debris damage was.

and visual evidence of bulging and leaning of WTC7.

There was no visual evidence of WTC 7 leaning.

The bulge was in the south west corner where the debris damage was.

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.

No we don't.

Please name a few and quote what they said.

 

[Christopher7]

Ok, so he's supposed to make a definite conclusion from 9 seconds of muted video. Right. They why does he look so confused when they tell him that the building was on fire?

Because he was trying to figure out how they could have rigged WTC 7 in a few hours.

And we know the phone call was legitimate because?

Voice recognition.

 

[firecoins]

Because he was trying to figure out how they could have rigged WTC 7 in a few hours.

Voice recognition.

A professional has to figure out how a skyscraper was rigged in a few hours because it is so difficult he could not do it himself? Hmm Maybe its just impossible to do

 

[lapman]

Because he was trying to figure out how they could have rigged WTC 7 in a few hours.

Um, he had no idea what he was looking at until they told him. Unless I'm thinking of the wrong video. Are you talking about the 3 part series or the seminar presentation?

Voice recognition.

So you have the full voice analysis that proves this?

 

[Christopher7]

Um, he had no idea what he was looking at until they told him. Unless I'm thinking of the wrong video. Are you talking about the 3 part series or the seminar presentation?

What you see is the WTC, these are pictures of building 7.
Let’s take this and look at what we see.
Jowenko:
Do you see fires above somewhere?
I: I see smoke however.
J: Yeah, you always get dust. Nothing has been moved from it?
Does the top go first? No, the bottom.
I: It starts on the bottom.
J: They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards.
I: Did this fall in a different way than the WTC?
J: Do you agree?
I: Yes, you see the bottom floors go first.
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.

Jowenko is an expert and it doesn't get any clearer than "absolutely"

It is not necessary to be a expert to see that WTC 7 was a CD, it's obvious to anyone who has seen a few building implosions. [unless they are in denial]

So you have the full voice analysis that proves this?

No

 

[firecoins]

It is not necessary to be a expert to see that WTC 7 was a CD, it's obvious to anyone who has seen a few building implosions. [unless they are in denial]

ok, 2 questions
1. who did it?
2. How did they get the explosives in the building?
Can't be CD if these 2 key questions can not be adequatly answered.

 

[twinstead]

Jowenko is an expert and it doesn't get any clearer than "absolutely"

It is not necessary to be a expert to see that WTC 7 was a CD, it's obvious to anyone who has seen a few building implosions. [unless they are in denial]

So what you are saying is that Jowenko is the only expert on CD in the world whose opinion matters, and anybody, even other experts just as qualified as Jowenko, who DON'T think it was CD are in denial?

Does that characterize your position properly? To me, it simply sounds like your standard mantra that every piece of evidence that agrees with your theory is right, and every bit of evidence that doesn't is wrong. You also imply that anybody who doesn't think the WTC7 was a CD, even if they are an expert, is in denial.

Yup. You had your mind made up before you even had a single piece of evidence either way. You are an embarrassment to real investigators everywhere.

 

[Belz...]

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

No, I choose to dismiss their statements because they are made with little or no investigation on the event.

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.

We're talking about 3000 murders. I'm sure they could have an important case in court. SIX YEARS LATER. So why don't they ?

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

So, basically you're saying that a doctor who sees a discoloration of your skin on the arm by way of a photograph can tell you what you have and prescribe chemotherapy and you won't question his conclusions ?

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

I am qualified to say that all experts need to review the evidence before making such a call. He did not.

Every high rise building that has imploded prior to 9/11 was a CD.

Irrelevant. Why the hell are you truthers so hung up on preceedents ?

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.

It's possible a matter of design, or perhaps the event was so catastrophic that it overwhelmed an otherwise-sound structure.

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 sign of fires on four contiguous floors.

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

And THAT is why you can't reach a conclusion using single videos or photographs.

 

[Belz...]

They heard 'creaking' and it was probably in the west half where all the debris damage was.

What was it you just said ?

'could have been' does not equal evidence.

 

[notheist]

Jowenko is an expert and it doesn't get any clearer than "absolutely"

OK. So now we know the two towers were NOT a controlled demolition. Jowenko was sure of that too.

Jowenko is trying to say WTC7 was imploded because it was damaged by WTC1 and fire. No big evil pre-planing, just using the collapse of the towers as an opportunity to help Silverstine get rid of his building.

But if you are a critical thinker unlike the gullible truther types you can see how ridiculous this is.
1. If the FDNY did pull off the worlds fastest controlled demolition there is no reason for them to lie about it. They would just come forward and say "Yes, we imploded WTC7 due to its weakened state and it was a danger to rescue efforts"
2. There is no reason to destroy the building in the first place it was a write-off just from the damage and fires. Take down the building latter either your insurance will pay for it or it becomes a big tax write-off.
3. You avoid trying to make it look an accidental collapse, you could have all the explosion you wanted, you could even announce the exact time you will do the implosion.

Think a little here your concept makes no sense at all.

 

[funk de fino]

your thoughts on post #2957 christopher7?

 

[lapman]

What you see is the WTC, these are pictures of building 7.
Let’s take this and look at what we see.
Jowenko:
Do you see fires above somewhere?
I: I see smoke however.
J: Yeah, you always get dust. Nothing has been moved from it?
Does the top go first? No, the bottom.
I: It starts on the bottom.
J: They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards.
I: Did this fall in a different way than the WTC?
J: Do you agree?
I: Yes, you see the bottom floors go first.
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.

Jowenko is an expert and it doesn't get any clearer than "absolutely"

True, but when they pointed out that it was on 9/11, he doesn't believe it a first. He repeats the "same day" question and finally asks, "Are you sure?"
He then states, "I remember that they told they've imploded it."
He also states, "I don't know the structure of the building." They only show him the column layout, not anything close to how the floors were laid out or the ConEd station. So he really is working with very limited information. When asked "Ok, but could it not be by fire?" Danny says no and explains a little about something dealing with the fire. He then states,"But I don't know, it's only guessing for me."
Danny's whole belief that 7 was demolished is based on his belief that Silverstein ordered it.

It is not necessary to be a expert to see that WTC 7 was a CD, it's obvious to anyone who has seen a few building implosions. [unless they are in denial]

Really. Link to one video that has part of the roof caving in several seconds prior to the start of the demolition.

No

What makes me doubt that is was real is that Danny keeps talking about how Silverstein says he is going to "pull it down." Silverstein never said that. Sounds like a problem with translation. Is there any non-9/11 based video where he talks in English?

 

[Unfit4Command]

Hey Chris, I have a question. According to NIST's final report on Building 7, what caused the collapse?

 

[Christopher7]

So what you are saying is that Jowenko is the only expert on CD in the world whose opinion matters,

No

and anybody, even other experts just as qualified as Jowenko, who DON'T think it was CD are in denial?

Do you know of any?

 

[Christopher7]

It is not necessary to be a expert to see that WTC 7 was a CD, it's obvious to anyone who has seen a few building implosions. [unless they are in denial]

ok,

ok

2 questions
1. who did it?
2. How did they get the explosives in the building?
Can't be CD if these 2 key questions can not be adequatly answered.

Those are subjects for another thread.

 

[funk de fino]

It is not necessary to be a expert to see that WTC 7 was a CD, it's obvious to anyone who has seen a few building implosions. [unless they are in denial]

therein lies your problem

on initial glances at the video (especially the edited ones) it may look similiar, however when you have the full story and really look at all the available video evidence and eye witness testimonies with all background information, then read the NIST report,then look and listen to real CD's, then anyone who still thinks it is a CD is in denial

you have nothing

 

[Christopher7]

No, I choose to dismiss their statements because they are made with little or no investigation on the event.

You think you know better than they if the videos are evidence.

We're talking about 3000 murders. I'm sure they could have an important case in court. SIX YEARS LATER. So why don't they ?

There's a lot of people working on it. More all the time.

So, basically you're saying that a doctor who sees a discoloration of your skin on the arm by way of a photograph can tell you what you have and prescribe chemotherapy and you won't question his conclusions ?

Why yes, thats just exactly what i've been trying to say. How terribly clever of you to figure it out.

I am qualified to say that all experts need to review the evidence before making such a call. He did not.

He did, the videos are the evidence.

Irrelevant. Why the hell are you truthers so hung up on preceedents ?

Relevant!
Building implosions are very distinctive. Easy to recognize.

It's possible a matter of design, or perhaps the event was so catastrophic that it overwhelmed an otherwise-sound structure.

The odds of a building being so perfectly designed as to mimic a professional building implosion because 1 out of 24 core columns failed, are somewhere between no-way and fagidaboudit.

 

[Belz...]

You think you know better than they if the videos are evidence.

No. I think YOU think THEY think videos are sufficient evidence. I don't know what THEY think.

There's a lot of people working on it. More all the time.

And yet they're still at the "asking" questions phase ? And yet they can't agree on a single theory ? And yet their numbers are made up of laypeople, to a very few exceptions ?

Why yes, thats just exactly what i've been trying to say. How terribly clever of you to figure it out.

Well, it's a good thing you're not a doctor, and I hope you never need one.

He did, the videos are the evidence.

Then why the hell do we ever collect pieces of airplane crashed, eh ? All we need to is take videos of the crash and post them on youtube.

Relevant!
Building implosions are very distinctive. Easy to recognize.

Really ? AND HOW COULD YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE SINCE SKYSCRAPERS RARELY COLLAPSE AT ALL ?

The odds of a building being so perfectly designed as to mimic a professional building implosion because 1 out of 24 core columns failed, are somewhere between no-way and fagidaboudit.

Argument from incredulity.

You have a pet theory and you'd do anything to cling to it.