10 story hole in WTC 7
- Thread starter Christopher7
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 911 conspiracy theory wtc
- Status
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Many bays away? Source?
NIST Apx. L pg 39 [43 on pg counter]
I4.4 Lateral Displacements: Fire effects may have caused column instability
failure by lateral displacements from asymmetric thermal expansion of the floor system.
Such thermally-induced displacements
must overcome the restraining effect of the remaining floor system
against further lateral deflection of the column.
When expanding steel cannot overcome the restraining effect of the remaining floor system, it will sag or buckle.
Meridian Plaza
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
pg 19 [24 on pg counter]
After the fire, there was evident significant structural
damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire
damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as
three feet -- under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the
reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places.
Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.
http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza_lessons.html
[FONT="]12. Columns and certain other structural elements are normally exposed to fire from all sides. In this fire, the steel columns retained their structural integrity and held their loads. Experience in this and similar high-rise fires suggest that columns are the least vulnerable structural members, due to their mass and relatively short height between restraints (floor to floor).
Major damage has occurred to horizontal members, without compromising the vertical supports.[/FONT]
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
Firefighting operations. You might want to actually look into what that entails some time. It includes a lot more than you, apparently, think.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
IYO
Danny Jowenko says
"This is controlled demolition."
[FONT="]Hugo Bachmann, and Jörg Schneider[/FONT] interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".
Who are you to say they don't know what they are talking about?
SOMERLED
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,358
If you're such a skeptic, how come you're not skeptical about 9/11.
Recent polls,
82 % = believed they have been lied to about 9/11.
68 % = believe 9/11 was an inside job.
90 % = believe the govt killed JFK.
How's that for a bit of reality.
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
I am a trial lawyer. I know an awful lot about "expert" witnesses because it is my job to know.
Like I said above, any "expert" who ever came to court and tried to pass off their opinion on the basis of a few minutes of videotape without having obtained a whole lot of background information and without having done a whole lot of in depth analysis would be laughed out of court.
You are simply wrong when you claim otherwise.
I invite you to educate yourself on the point. Somehow, though, I doubt that you will.
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
You're a loon, malcolm, and you have no concept of reality. Here's a hint: online polls do not reflect reality, and your posts are not even remotely close to reality.
Last edited:
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
Trial lawyers are not paid to tell the truth. They are paid to win.
You seem to have brought that mindset to this issue.
Danny Jowenko owns a demolition company.
He says the videos are evidence of a CD.
Two professors of structural analysis and construction say
the videos are evidence of a CD.
They are qualified to make that call.
A trial lawyer is not.
You can argue that they didn't have enough background information or in depth analysis but that's just an argument of personal incredulity.
These experts say the videos alone are clear evidence of a CD.
A trial lawyer says they are wrong.
Who are we to believe?
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
it does not matter, it is who will the jury believe that matters and i am afraid on the evidence you have provided they would side with the non-CD story
what other questions do you think a lawyer would ask jowenko when he was on the stand?
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
You know not of what you speak, as usual.
First, as an officer of the court, I am obligated to be truthful, and I always am. I have not and will not compromise my integrity for any client. Your attempt to insinuate otherwise is only reflective of your own inability to respond meaningfully to my posts. No surprise there.
Second, as a trial lawyer, I would never in a thousand years call an "expert" witness who spouts off an opinion on the basis of a few minutes of video. I would never in a thousand years call an "expert" witness who has not first gone in great depth into the background, facts, and evidence before providing a considered, rational, logical, and professional opinion on the specific questions at issue.
Jowenko has done none of the essential things that I would require for him to be a legitimate expert witness in this case. He looked at a few minutes worth of video (which deliberately did not include some very important parts) and spouted an off the cuff opinion without knowing any of the facts that he needed to know in order to come to a considered conclusion. He destroyed his own credibility, without any help from anyone but a couple of troofers.
No court would ever accept his opinion as helpful or useful, in light of the manner in which he delivered it to a couple of troofers without even asking any relevant questions, without knowing anything about the circumstances, etc. The man would be utterly humiliated if he ever got into a witness stand on this case, because he did not adhere to even the minimal professional standards that are required of properly qualified experts when it comes to appearing in court.
No lawyer worth his or her salt would ever put him forward as a witness regarding the WTC. Not a chance. Even troofers would not call him as a witness in court (assuming the troofers had a decent lawyer) for the reasons set out above. He simply would not help their case because he did not bother to look at the facts and evidence before spouting off an opinion, based on a few minutes of video. He would be so badly torn apart on cross examination that it would be painful to watch.
You seem to think that just because someone with expertise in a particular field expressed an ill-formed opinion that it somehow would be useful in court. That is not so. In court, it matters - greatly - how the "expert" formed his opinion with respect to the specific matter at hand, and it matters - greatly - the basis upon which he formed it. Jowenko has already doomed himself to being condemned for leaping to conclusions without having any of the relevant facts, without knowing anything about the building at issue, without knowing anything about the circumstances at the time, etc., and that means that his opinion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition will never be taken seriously in a court of law.
You are quite wrong if you think otherwise.
Contrary to your unfounded assertion, this is not an argument from incredulity. It is a matter of professional experience. Ask any legitimate trial laywer you like, and they will tell you the same thing. The "experts" you are proposing would only harm your case, and no trial lawyer worth her/his salt would ever put them forward on the basis of what you have presented to date.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
The video evidence is not the whole case.
If the jury were shown the videos and these experts were allowed to point out why, in their expert opinion, the videos are clear evidence that WTC 7 was a CD, their testimony would be taken seriously.
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
IYO
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
what other questions would the lawyer put to them?
ask them what other background investigations they did, what videos they seen and who showed them the videos, possible reasons that it may have fallen like that without CD, if the penthouse falling first made any difference in their opinion, how long and how many men it would have taken to rig this CD, why there was no explosions or the such like on the video, if pull is a term used when bringing a building like this down with explosives, what type of explosives would have to have been used and how much of them?
would the lawyer present to the court the videos of the firemen saying the building was going to fall and the fact that all operations were pulled from the site due to the building stability? would he pull in other expert who would rip apart what jowenko is saying based on video evidence?
all they have done is watched an edited video, if they were called to stand up in court and state it was CD they would look at other evidence prior to being called to the stand and come to the conclusion they were mistaken, they would never take the stand in a million years
what other evidence, you dont have any? i have already said, if you did you would not be here would you?
again, you have nothing
notheist
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2007
- Messages
- 196
So you are saying the term "Pull" is such a common term that even Silverstein who is not part of a controlled demolition crew knew it.
Then you should have no problem what so ever in finding something where the word is used to refer to a explosive controlled demolition BEFORE 9/11.
Funny is it not that people in the controlled demolition industry do not now or never have used "Pull" to refer to anything have to do with explosives?
notheist
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2007
- Messages
- 196
Christopher7 I have this impression you are completely clueless as to what it takes to implode a building. You have a child impression that you just plant some explosives and run some wire and it all very simple. There is information out there that would inform you but I don't think you want to know, it would be too much of a threat to your world view.
So enlighten with you knowledge of how a controlled demolition is done.
Somehow I don't think we will hear much from you.
So enlighten with you knowledge of how a controlled demolition is done.
Somehow I don't think we will hear much from you.
Belz...
Fiend God
No, I think you just forgot what the discussion was about.
Then it comes right back to my question:
If you showed a doctor a picture of a discolored area on your butt cheek, and he looked at it for 6 seconds and said "Cancer... gotta go with the hard chemo.", would you agree with his assessment ?
Thank you. You have just shown that you understand nothing about this issue, because you obviously have no clue what the explosives do in a demolition.
Belz...
Fiend God
I believe lying is an offense.
Ad hominem.
And yet you just claimed that the video evidence is ALL that the experts need to make this case.
Are you now retracting that statement ?
Belz...
Fiend God
Christopher7
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 6,538
There would be many questions and many witnesses.
The point is, the videos are evidence of CD.
They saw the same few videos we have all seen.
You have no idea what they would do.
Statement of denial.
You call the statements of these experts nothing, as if you know better. You don't.
- Status