Split from: Building 7's structure compartamentalised (Attn: apacherose105)

[WildCat]

Structural engineer and demolition expert named Danny Jowekno:

I know all about Danny "I can't be bothered with commenting further on this matter" Jowenko.

Can you please tell us where the footage used in the youtube video you posted came from originally?

 

[apacherose105]

Don't you think someone in the video would remark about the huge honking explosion they just heard? And funny, you never hear what the footage was from. Wouldn't want anyone to find the original, now would you? And besides, no way a handycam is going to pick up an explosion that clearly. Sounds like it's from a special effects cd.


Exactly, now you're catching on! Could you please tell us where exactly that footage is from? Because it would be nice to see the original, wouldn't it?

I believe one of the firemen says seven is exploding.

I'm a professinoal audio engineer and you can clearly hear the input signal clipping when the explosion occurs and the sound reverberating off of the other buildings. But this is just my opinion.

I want to see the proof of the claim that this explosion sound is added in. Is there any?

 

[WildCat]

I believe one of the firemen says seven is exploding.

I'm a professinoal audio engineer and you can clearly hear the input signal clipping when the explosion occurs and the sound reverberating off of the other buildings. But this is just my opinion.

I want to see the proof of the claim that this explosion sound is added in. Is there any?

Do you know the source of this video, yes or no? Don't you think that's an important detail?

 

[apacherose105]

I know all about Danny "I can't be bothered with commenting further on this matter" Jowenko.

Can you please tell us where the footage used in the youtube video you posted came from originally?

The interview first appeared on a Dutch television news program called, Zembla investigates 9/11 theories (2006). This is the unedited version of it.

I imagine that he's pretty sick of being contacted because of this video.

But his statements regarding the nature of collapse still stand as legitimate.

 

[Drudgewire]

Danny Jowekno

 

[apacherose105]

Do you know the source of this video, yes or no? Don't you think that's an important detail?

I do, sorry. The "seven is exploding" footage first appeared in a documentary on a major Italian network (Canale 5).
here's a clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

Could someone please prove that the "seven is exploding" footage's audio had been doctored, as someone has claimed? Let's play by the rules here, cmon.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Apache...

Would you agree that an actual engineers ability to detect engineering BS is far superior to your own?

 

[WildCat]

I imagine that he's pretty sick of being contacted because of this video.

Yeah, imagine being asked to back up your radical claim about the deaths of nearly 3,000 people! I guess he has better things to do.

I do, sorry. The "seven is exploding" footage first appeared in a documentary on a major Italian network

Unless the Italians made it themselves on 9/11, it didn't first appear there.

Who took the footage, where is it now? This is important to know, don't you think?

 

[T.A.M.]

my ignore list is going to be getting full soon...

someone let me know if apache decides to provide any critique, analysis, or anything resembling a debate...I think he is trolling. Welcome to ignore.

TAM

 

[apacherose105]

ummm, actually no.

There are thousands of hours of footage from people on the ground on 9/11.
Finding the name of the person who filmed it is probably going to be impossible.

Now could someone please send me the proof that the audio in that video is doctored?

 

[Brainster]

The interview first appeared on a Dutch television news program called, Zembla investigates 9/11 theories (2006). This is the unedited version of it.

I imagine that he's pretty sick of being contacted because of this video.

But his statements regarding the nature of collapse still stand as legitimate.

So you also accept his statement that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 were not controlled demolition?

Then how could the plotters be sure that WTC-7 would be sufficiently damaged by the collapse of the two towers that its own collapse would be able to be explained as caused by that damage?

CD of WTC-7 is not something you can believe in a vacuum. You have to believe in CD of the towers and you have to believe that dozens of firefighters and others were lying.

 

[Pardalis]

Apacherose105, was this faked?

 

[Gravy]

Actually, you have that backwards. The bottom image was used to make the left side of the top image. It was skewed to make it look level. You can tell by the distorted rooftop of the building in front of it at the lower right. This is the kind of thing people here talking about when they ask you to show your work. Was the skewing done properly? The two images were taken from completely different angles and will thus show different things. Just because skewing one image makes it look similar to the other, doesn't mean they are showing the exact same thing. I'm sure some of the more skilled image analysts on this forum can tell you what is right/wrong with this.
Furthermore, as was said before, without timestamps you are unable to determine whether or not the building suffered any extra damage between photos.

To be clear for onlookers, the skewing – the "doctoring"– was done by a truther who apparently watches too much CSI, not by NIST.

It seems we have another champion goalpost-mover on our hands. Let me put on my big surprise face.

apacherose, are you an adult? If so, can you please try to act like one?

Third time: try to remember that this forum is frequented by critical thinkers.

 

[Gravy]

Apacherose105, was this faked?

That's the video that convinced me to put Redibis on ignore. He claimed that the fires in WTC 7 weren't even hot enough to break windows. I showed him the video of windows breaking on the east and west sides of the building, and he outright claimed that it wasn't happening.

Just pathetic.

 

[Pardalis]

That's the video that convinced me to put Redibis on ignore. He claimed that the fires in WTC 7 weren't even hot enough to break windows. I showed him the video of windows breaking on the east and west sides of the building, and he outright claimed that it wasn't happening.

Just pathetic.

Yeah I know, I posted it for him in Diagora's thread and he completely ignored it.

You just can't help someone like that.

 

[apacherose105]

Apacherose105, was this faked?

Did I say it was?

 

[apacherose105]

To be clear for onlookers, the skewing – the "doctoring"– was done by a truther who apparently watches too much CSI, not by NIST.

It seems we have another champion goalpost-mover on our hands. Let me put on my big surprise face.

apacherose, are you an adult? If so, can you please try to act like one?

Third time: try to remember that this forum is frequented by critical thinkers.

sources, sources, sources.

Cmon, let's play by the same rules here guys.

 

[WildCat]

There are thousands of hours of footage from people on the ground on 9/11.
Finding the name of the person who filmed it is probably going to be impossible.

Nonsense, there is very little video from that day whose origin isn't known. Especially something this important!

The onus is on the "truth" movement to reveal their source.

 

[Norseman]

The PDF I linked above is ok, it's conclusions are a little quickly drawn but there does seem to be some upward floor bending. apacherose105, I haven't seen you comment on it but please read it if possible, it resolves these contradictions.

Yes Arie's analysis is quit good, except for the conclusion where he should have added light refraction as the most plausible cause for the bending in the corner area. Instead he tries to imply some slight doctoring of the NYPD photo. The refraction is due to temperature differences in the air, caused by smoke and hot gases coming up between WTC 7 and the Verizon building. Like what we can see in this photo from the Meridian Plaza fire.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/history.html

Notice how some of the exterior columns are bending in on the burned out floors/ burning floors, in reality they did not do that, its just the effect of refraction. Photographed from other angles and stages of the fire the effect is not there. The interior of the burned out floors would still be very hot and smoldering at this stage of the fire. That equals a lot of hot gases/air coming from the burned out and burning floors, creating a big temperature difference.

This effect is also apparent in two of the photos at the end of the report on the Meridian plaza fire.

Conclusion, there is no fakery with the NYPD photo. All details are consistent in all the available photos of the corner area. The floors and the window frames are still present. The only thing gone are the corner plates and corner column. The corner windows below floor 14 are hidden by smoke. That should be apperant from the crop I made from the NYPD photo below.

((
(Click for full size)

For a more detailed discussion find my recent posts from the never ending thread "10 story hole in WTC 7".

 

[apacherose105]

So you also accept his statement that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 were not controlled demolition?

Then how could the plotters be sure that WTC-7 would be sufficiently damaged by the collapse of the two towers that its own collapse would be able to be explained as caused by that damage?

CD of WTC-7 is not something you can believe in a vacuum. You have to believe in CD of the towers and you have to believe that dozens of firefighters and others were lying.

Dude, stop throwing conspiracy theories at me.
Assumptions assumptions assumptions.

YOu can't tell anyone what they 'have to believe'. It doesn't work like that.