Split Thread WTC7 collapse (again) - split from: How did you rule out that 911 was an insid

[A W Smith]

Seem to be.

I just haven't dealt with that aspect of the subject in this thread.

The WTC7 collapse is a big subject.

Looks at the 10 story hole in WTC 7 thread if you doubt me.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71744

MM

 

[stateofgrace]

Seem to be.

I just haven't dealt with that aspect of the subject in this thread.

The WTC7 collapse is a big subject.

Looks at the 10 story hole in WTC 7 thread if you doubt me.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71744

MM

Only to you dear boy and the rest of the conspirators who are desperately trying to make a big deal out of the collapse of an empty building. The rest of the planet doesn't really give a toss, other than to take onboard any safely recommendations that maybe be put forward from the NIST report.

Of course MM, you could actually venture an opinion and tell us why WTC 7 was so important it had to be demolished.

Any chance this will happen ?

 

[Corsair 115]

Seem to be.

I just haven't dealt with that aspect of the subject in this thread.

The WTC7 collapse is a big subject.

Looks at the 10 story hole in WTC 7 thread if you doubt me.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71744

MM

You didn't answer my very simple question. WHERE WERE THE LOUD BOOMS?

 

[Totovader]

The subject was WTC 7.

I'm sure Jowenko has opinions about thousands of things.

WTC 1 and WTC 2 are another topic, on which I've dealt with HERE previously in context with Jowenko's statements.

Holy dodge of all dodges. The topic was Jowenko as an expert. You brought it up and now you want to remove that from the context. Do you understand how transparent that is?

Unless you can prove that his professional opinion about WTC7's collapse is negated by his opinion about the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2, I don't see the relevance of your argument?

Not only have I proven it, but others here have clearly shown it to you. I want to make this clear to you: your only response has been to ignore the contradiction and pretend that it's not relevant.

I'm discussing WTC7 and you are trying to steer the subject away to WTC 1 & 2 because you know your very vulnerable about WTC7 and can't defend your position!

I can very much defend my position on WTC7- I am addressing your claim in regards to an expert supporting your position. You are attempting to steer the conversation away from that for obvious reasons. I do not believe I am going to continue to try- because I am confident that others have seen your dishonesty and do not buy it.

 

[soylent]

This is what amazes me.

People can look at images like this and casually dismiss them as normal.

What in particular is strange about it?

 

[Mancman]

I agree, the mechanical penthouse, what was it half a story?, did indeed collapse before the main 47 story main building.

It's my opinion that the 'style of collapse' of the 47-story main structure holds greater significance than that of the 1/2 story mechanical penthouse which preceded it.

A demolition expert, Danny Jowenko agrees with me, regardless of the fact that he sees the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 differently.

MM

Ignore the penthouse collapse at your own peril, as it is in fact crucial.

See the footage of the event:

Source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5_e5yROoqY

Note the shockwave/ripple that travels down the building directly underneath the penthouse as it falls. When this ripple reaches the ground, the building collapses, core first, with a slight eastward lean.

Also note that the penthouse was directly above transfer trusses 1 and 2:

The most logical explanation is that the penthouse debris destroyed or damaged those transfer trusses and started global collapse.

 

[soylent]

The old "size is everything" argument.

Scale matters tremendously. Volume goes up as scale^3 and cross-section goes up as scale^2.

When you're just building one story tall it can be made of dried cow-dung, straw and clay and be a reasonably sound. The taller you build the more strength to weight ratio your materials need and at some point you need to exclude reinforced concrete and build these spindly steel designs.

 

[Gorgonian]

I think some clarification on what Jowenko believes and what study and research he has actually done to reach those conclusions is necessary here.

I have seen the video in which he is shown a single view of WTC 7 collapsing (I don't remember if it is after the penthouse collapse or not, but others have said it was and I am inclined to believe them since it would not then look like a CD). I do not think this video was even shown to him with sound playing (this would seem important!). If this is all he was given before being asked for a definitive conclusion, I do not think this opinion is very valuable (I would assume he would agree it is not as valuable as opinions from other experts with more access to crucial information such as the full collapse sequence, multiple angles, before-shots of damage, sound, etc.).

Now, I have also seen several claims of follow-up "phone calls" in which he has reiterated his position. That is fine, but I think a source is necessary for this claim at the very least. Even better would be an interview in which we could see if he has furthered his research into the event to include the full array of information that would be necessary to reach an informed conclusion, or if he is just standing by what he said in the video (that what he was shown looked like a CD). This would be go a long way towards determining the value of the expert testimony of Mr. Danny Jowenko. I would say until these issues are resolved, most of the rest of the discussion on this particular topic is not very useful.

 

[A W Smith]

let me get this straight. Jowenko is in expert in high rise demolition yet Jowenko has never demolished any building higher than one third as tall as WTC 7 ????

Jowenko is an expert in silent explosive or incendiary demolition yet all the example videos I see on their site have very loud explosive noise???

See for ypurself
http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,16,1

 

[Zlaya]

MM, if you wouldn't mind answering.

I think you missed the opening post, which actually answers your question.

 

[Zlaya]

You know, I have a sneaking suspicion that MM won’t address that. Rather, he’ll just move on to another well-worn canard as if nothing had happened.

I have sneaking suspicion that this topic is about WTC7, which was obviously a demolition, regardless of what damage is claimed on these forums.

 

[Zlaya]

Ignore the penthouse collapse at your own peril, as it is in fact crucial.

See the footage of the event:
[qimg]http://i11.tinypic.com/6ll7l86.gif[/qimg]
Source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5_e5yROoqY

Note the shockwave/ripple that travels down the building directly underneath the penthouse as it falls. When this ripple reaches the ground, the building collapses, core first, with a slight eastward lean.

Also note that the penthouse was directly above transfer trusses 1 and 2:
[qimg]http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/wtc7_layout_basic.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g73/chipmunk_stew/wtc7_damage_est.jpg[/qimg]

The most logical explanation is that the penthouse debris destroyed or damaged those transfer trusses and started global collapse.

Global collapse is a very commonly used word here ain't' it. Everything on that day was just poised to collapse and then globally collapses right?

From 1 column failure, and damage to the lower levels?

While other buildings around it were incinerated and destroyed, they still stood, but over designed brick **** house spook hive WTC 7 crumbled into a pile.

 

[johnny karate]

How can a building be incinerated and destroyed and still standing?

ETA: Zlaya, since you are so thoroughly convinced that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and couldn't possibly have been damaged enough by debris and fire to collapse, what do you think about what the experts referenced here who disagree? Are they lying or just mistaken?

 

[A W Smith]

I have sneaking suspicion that this topic is about WTC7, which was obviously a demolition, regardless of what damage is claimed on these forums.

I think you are confusing collapse with these

http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,16,1

which are "obvious demolitions'

Zlaya outside of the WTC complex, How many building collapses have you witnessed in your lifetime? if your answer is zero. How would you, or could you know the difference?

 

[soylent]

How can a building be incinerated and destroyed and still standing?

Is that some kind of zen kōan?

 

[Zlaya]

Only to you dear boy and the rest of the conspirators who are desperately trying to make a big deal out of the collapse of an empty building.

Silly official conspiracy theorist thinks that WTC was not full of Enron document and such.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

While other buildings around it were incinerated and destroyed, they still stood, but over designed brick **** house spook hive WTC 7 crumbled into a pile.

I forget, where did you get your degree in strucutral engineering?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I have sneaking suspicion that this topic is about WTC7, which was obviously a demolition, regardless of what damage is claimed on these forums.

I'm curious, what level of damage would be required for you to say that the collapse was not a deliberate demolition?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Silly official conspiracy theorist thinks that WTC was not full of Enron document and such.

Ohhh, that evil Jeffery Skilling. And let's not forget his brother is active in weather control programs for the NWO.

 

[Earthborn]

It's rare that I even see Jowenko brought up because of this very fact- and when one sees the footage and realizes that he was intentionally misled, and was so uninformed and skeptical of his own position that it begs further review- the entire "expert" angle just disappears.

I see no reason to assume that he was intentionally misled, but the way in which he was interviewed was certainly misleading. Here is the whole interview with him. I think it is obvious what happens: at first he gets to see only the video and uses his expertise to speculate what happens. He speculates wildly on how he thinks demolition experts must have done it. The journalist then feeds him more information bit by bit, and Jowenko struggles to fit it all into the narrative of his first conclusion. To me it seems like in the end he can't really make sense of it at all. He appears to be the victim of a psychological effect that he continues to trust the first conclusion he made with confidence and can then no longer come to any other.

It would have been better if the journalist had sent all the relevant information to Jowenko beforehand asking him to provide an expert opinion in an interview, instead of expecting him to make sense of the information provided bit by bit during the interview. He is a fairly intelligent man (with a few preconceptions against the United States) and he does know what he is talking about. I think if he had been given the necessary information -- including the official report -- to study beforehand, he would have come to a different conclusion. Probably that the official story isn't so unreasonable at all.

In fact, his expertise appears so good, that even his wild speculations are devastating to many truther claims: in the end he speculates about the reason WTC7 might have been demolished and it goes right at the heart of the "fire can't melt steel" myth. He speculates that perhaps WTC7 had to be brought down because it might not have been worth it to replace all that fire-weakened steel...