Merged David Chandler (ae911) sez "WTC7 was in free fall part of the time"

[boloboffin]

My page on Danny Jowenko:

http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Danny+Jowenko

And for the record, Danny Jowenko did not go into that interview blind. He'd been researching 9/11 CT before he was recorded. The proof is in the actual interview itself.

 

[alienentity]

In the following recorded phone call Danny Jowenko, the famous Dutch demolitions expert gives a very clear explanataion of why American demolitions people generally do not speak their minds. In fact the vast majority of them say nothing at all which may be significant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Danny Jowenko

Yikes! I'd missed this post 'cause I've got bill on ignore.

bill smith is apparently unaware that Danny Jowenko does NOT think the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition. He agrees with the conventional explanation (impacts, fires).

So bill, you are claiming that no American (or European) demolitions experts have come out in support of David Chandler because....the NWO/conspiracy has silenced them?

What evidence for this do you have? (Danny Jowenko's claim is an opinion, it's not evidence, btw)

 

[bill smith]

.
"Physics Toolkit" is a wrench, lying on a bench. It did nothing.

Mr. Chandler used it adequately (not great, but adequate) & produced some interesting, accurate results. He then, unfortunately, ran out of the realm that he knew well (physics) with his results, and into a realm that he knows not at all (structural dynamics).

NIST made NO "serious adjustments" to their final draft as a result of Mr. Chandler's input. They added 2 pages of explanation to what they'd already done, and one bullet point. They added this to 1000 pages of report.

They changed not one single conclusion based on this "new" information.
.

.
Gee, if you'd read the NIST report, you'd know.

What irony that you proudly refuse to sully your uninformed opinions with competent information...
.

.
Perhaps if you'd open your ears, you'd learn that NIST's data and Chandler's data agree completely.

And that NIST's data is in the public domain.

Or have you not bothered to look at page 603 of NIST's NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2....

... what was I thinking ...?

tk

So then can I take it that NIST has published the data that they used to program their computer model of the collapse of WRC7 ? Along with the assumptions they used ? So anybody can literally take that data and enter it into je same software that NISTused and presumably come up with the same results ? Well I'm sure you wouldn't lie or be misleading now T would you ?

 

[alienentity]

Thanks Bolo, I wasn't aware that Jowenko was a Larry Silverstein/FDNY conspiracist believer.

I wonder if David Chandler also thinks Larry Silverstein ordered the demolition. If not, he would disagree completely with Jowenko on all WTC buildings.

thanks to bill smith for illustrating the internal inconsistencies of this woo-driven conspiracy stuff.

 

[FineWine]

So then can I take it that NIST has published the data that they used to program their computer model ? Along with the assumptions they used ? So anybody can literally take that data and enter it into je same software that NISTused and presumably come up with the same results ? Well I'm sure you wouldn't lie or be misleading now T would you ?

Professor Astaneh, head of the Berkeley team, is a colleague of Dr. James Quintiere. Both are critics of NIST, and both regard the myth about explosives in the towers as total nonsense. The Berkeley simulations showed the towers collapsing EXACTLY as they did in real life. What about HIS data? Is he lying?

Why do you lie so constantly if you're seeking the "truth"?

 

[bill smith]

Yikes! I'd missed this post 'cause I've got bill on ignore.

bill smith is apparently unaware that Danny Jowenko does NOT think the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition. He agrees with the conventional explanation (impacts, fires).

So bill, you are claiming that no American (or European) demolitions experts have come out in support of David Chandler because....the NWO/conspiracy has silenced them?

What evidence for this do you have? (Danny Jowenko's claim is an opinion, it's not evidence, btw)

Actually Danny made his srarement about the Twin Towers BEFORE he had seen WTC7. I would lay odds that he has changed his mind about them. But no matter- WTC7 will do all on it's own. I think Danny is exactly right about why Americans in many firelds do not speak out though I think that that is in the process of change. I repost the phone call for interested observers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Dnny Jowenko

PS listen to these architects at Richard Gage's exposé in Washington yesrerday to get the idea.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20662

 

[triforcharity]

Hey Bill,

I posted some questions for you. Care to refute them?? Care to even take a stab at them??

How about the ones that I posted to Mr. Chandler?? Care to take a stab at any of those??? I bet you don't. Pretty sad as they are simple questions.

Or, are you too embarrassed to take me on, after that whooping you took about the missing steel.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The fuel burned off completely within a few minutes as we all know that petrol does. That left fire resistant carpets and office furniture widely spread over 4,000 square metre floors.

You're delusions about the office contents being fire resistant set aside...

Even if quantities of this material had been in contact with naked steel we know that the entire 500-mile length of steel in the frame was one gigantic contiguous heat sink.

and whatever the hell this is supposed mean aside from an egregious error in your treatment of the fires...

Not only that- the arrival of the lane would have blown most of the furniture in the impact zone over against the opposite wall. Office fires only burn at any given location for about 20 minutes.

It is where the debris was shifted into the largest concentrations that the fires were most concentrated, and the same regions where the collapses initiated.

So you see there is no good reason to believe that a one hour roving office fire could have affected so much massive structural steel so catastrophically.

An hour or two is all that was required in the first place. There's typically a reason that fire proofing has a rating of two hours when its intact; it's to prevent the steel components from reaching the critical stage where it begins to rapidly lose its integrity so that the occupants can get out safely without having the damn thing collapsing on them.

06mm, 60 kg/m steel beam (#W16x40) and 178mm x 533mm glulam beam following fire testing under full load. Steel beam collapsed after only 30 minutes of exposure while the glulam member remained straight and true, charring on 19mm on exposed surfaces.

Do you want a column like that supporting your building?

 

[alienentity]

Actually Danny made his srarement about the Twin Towers BEFORE he had seen WTC7. I would lay odds that he has changed his mind about them. But no matter- WTC7 will do all on it's own. I think Danny is exactly right about why Americans in many firelds do not speak out though I think that that is in the process of change. I repost the phone call for interested observers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Dnny Jowenko

PS listen to these architects at Richard Gage's exposé in Washington yesrerday to get the idea.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20662

Why don't you find a quote from Jowenko where he says he's changed his mind? Or are you content to just make stuff up?

I would lay odds on the latter.

And I don't need to lay odds that you won't come up with any demolition experts who support David Chandler - you've already conceded that point, pretending that it's all the NWO/conspiracy's fault that they haven't spoken out.

You still have no evidence, btw.

Your claims fail.

 

[bill smith]

Professor Astaneh, head of the Berkeley team, is a colleague of Dr. James Quintiere. Both are critics of NIST, and both regard the myth about explosives in the towers as total nonsense. The Berkeley simulations showed the towers collapsing EXACTLY as they did in real life. What about HIS data? Is he lying?

Why do you lie so constantly if you're seeking the "truth"?

But at least Quintiere wants a new independent enquiry- just as we do. Maybe the other guy too. What about you FineWine ?

 

[FineWine]

Actually Danny made his srarement about the Twin Towers BEFORE he had seen WTC7. I would lay odds that he has changed his mind about them. But no matter- WTC7 will do all on it's own. I think Danny is exactly right about why Americans in many firelds do not speak out though I think that that is in the process of change. I repost the phone call for interested observers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Dnny Jowenko

PS listen to these architects at Richard Gage's exposé in Washington yesrerday to get the idea.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20662

You've been caught lying again. I cited the thread "Is Danny Jowenko Echt Woo-Woo?" Jowenko held his erroneous views on WTC 7 at the same time he was acknowledging that the collapses of the towers did not resemble CDs. So, you see, you might "lay odds," but you certainly wouldn't pay off your loss. You have learned something from Heiwa.

 

[BigAl]

But at least Quintiere wants a new independent enquiry- just as we do. Maybe the other guy too. What about you FineWine ?

Unlike the "Truth Movement", he seems to be doing his investigations.

TITLE: Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1

J. Perf. Constr. Fac., Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421 (November/December 2007)

James Quintiere, Professor, Dept. of Fire Protection Engineering,
Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. E-mail: jimq@eng.umd.edu


ABSTRACT: This paper presents an experimental investigation of the
World Trade Center Tower 1 (WTC1) collapse using a 1/20-scale
model. The WTC1 fire on the 96th floor is reconstructed on a small
scale, and structural members including the floor trusses and the
exterior wall subsystem are built and tested under scaled fire
load. Scaling rules are used to determine the values of the
insulating material on the structural systems. This experimental
study demonstrates the use of scaled models to investigate a
real-world fire disaster. Results from the experimental
investigation are compared to analytical results and visual evidence
compiled in the National Institute of Standards and Technology
report on the investigation of the collapse of WTC towers. This
study helps engineers and researchers better understand the fire
behavior and the associated structural response in WTC1, and a more
solidly grounded collapse hypothesis can therefore pursued.

 

[bill smith]

Why don't you find a quote from Jowenko where he says he's changed his mind? Or are you content to just make stuff up?

I would lay odds on the latter.

And I don't need to lay odds that you won't come up with any demolition experts who support David Chandler - you've already conceded that point, pretending that it's all the NWO/conspiracy's fault that they haven't spoken out.

You still have no evidence, btw.

Your claims fail.

That sounds a bit like ''Prove it Copper'

 

[FineWine]

But at least Quintiere wants a new independent enquiry- just as we do. Maybe the other guy too. What about you FineWine ?

Quintiere wants real engineers and fire safety experts (he is one) to reexamine NIST's claims about the loss of fireproofing. He has utter contempt for agenda-driven fools spouting nonsense and acting as a lynch mob. HIS independent inquiry, in stark contrast to yours, would rely on real science.

However many lies you concoct, you can't hope to enlist a serious researcher into your insane mob.

 

[lapman]

But at least Quintiere wants a new independent enquiry- just as we do. Maybe the other guy too. What about you FineWine ?

That's an absolute lie. He wants a peer-review of the document and has a problem with a couple of items in the report. Overall, he agrees with NIST that damage and fires brought down the towers. He does not want a completely new investigation like you and your ilk want.

 

[davidschandler48]

You have no evidence for controlled demolition. You have a delusion based on no evidence. Is that a delusional opinion, or a failed opinion?

It's one thing to find fault with the evidence I have presented. It's another to say I have not produced evidence. It's another to pretend to a psychological diagnosis of someone you have never met (based on no evidence, I might add). I have in fact presented evidence based on physics. Please critique the evidence I have presented or the analysis.

Like the silent explosives of your fantasy CD conspiracy, your overwhelming evidence does not exist or you would list it.

I am fascinated by the lack of sounds argument used by NIST as a rationale to not even look at other evidence of explosives. There is abundant testimony to loud sounds. There is a loud blast sound captured on at least one video (with the fire fighters around a pay phone). There is evidence of loud blasts when people being interviewed in the street, along with the interviewer, flinch and turn toward the buildings even though the sounds are not captured on the highly directional microphones being used in the interviews. A number of clips run with alternate sound tracks. It is common practice to strip the sound and do voice-overs or other manipulation. In short, the sound data is a very spotty, unreliable form of evidence. It certainly doesn't justify refusing to look at physical evidence.

I first heard the lack of sounds rationale about a month prior to the release of the August WTC7 report. (If anyone can document an earlier discussion of it, please bring it to my attention.) The argument seemed to come out of nowhere and came with such vehemence (in response to one of my videos) that it caught my attention. When this turned out to be the lynchpin of the WTC7 report, I suspected a connection.

Bottom line, the sounds argument is very weak.

--David Chandler

 

[bill smith]

My page on Danny Jowenko:

http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Danny+Jowenko

And for the record, Danny Jowenko did not go into that interview blind. He'd been researching 9/11 CT before he was recorded. The proof is in the actual interview itself.

Where ? I saw the interview live.

 

[H'ethetheth]

This only shows that you are not looking at the bigger picture. The severing of perimeter columns by the aircraft put greater stress on the core columns. Add heat and damage to the mix and they were all set for failure once the rotation began. Remember that the core columns were not designed to handle major lateral loads.

That is sort of correct, except no planes hit the building and rotation did not begin.

 

[BigAl]

I am fascinated by the lack of sounds argument used by NIST as a rationale to not even look at other evidence of explosives. There is abundant testimony to loud sounds. There is a loud blast sound captured on at least one video (with the fire fighters around a pay phone).

That video has been discussed here in great detail. The location of the phone has been identified and the distance is such that if that noise emanated from GZ, it would have been heard all over lower Manhattan and recorded on the sound track of every video recorder in operation at GZ. No such recordings exist.

That noise was either faked in the computer or made by something very close to the microphone.

Search for "Lucia Davis", the name of the film maker.

There is no audio of an explosion that in timing and loudness is consistent with explosive demolition of any of the towers.

 

[bill smith]

You've been caught lying again. I cited the thread "Is Danny Jowenko Echt Woo-Woo?" Jowenko held his erroneous views on WTC 7 at the same time he was acknowledging that the collapses of the towers did not resemble CDs. So, you see, you might "lay odds," but you certainly wouldn't pay off your loss. You have learned something from Heiwa.

I have learned lots from Heiwa and lots more from the other engineers on the various threads.