• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged New video! Architects and Engineers - Solving the Mystery of Building 7

what make Jowenko's little company THE expert compare to Cantillon in the UK for example?
 
RedIbis said:
The damage had little if any effect on the collapse, according to NIST, except in starting the fires, which burned, exhausted their fuel and moved on. You are perpetuating the lie that the entire bldg burned for 7hours. It didn't.
Click to expand...

The building was on fire for seven hours, and you are playing truther games, like always.

Anyway, how's the answer to the questions in my sig coming?

Tick tock Red.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
I know you will be able to show that it matters if it didn't:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Of course Red is just perpetuating the lie that the entire bldg had to burn for 7hours in order to cause the thermal expansion that caused the failure of the column. It didn't.

Tick tock, Red.
 
RedIbis said:
The damage had little if any effect on the collapse, according to NIST, except in starting the fires, which burned, exhausted their fuel and moved on. You are perpetuating the lie that the entire bldg burned for 7hours. It didn't.
Click to expand...


where did anyone say "that the ENTIRE bldg burned for 7hours.":confused:

And please show us the your calculations that show that a moving fire does not progressively weaken a building as it moves up to a point where it will fail. Evidence of bowing floors in other buildings indicates that this it not only likely but in fact a near certainty.
 
Marokkaan said:
I do not force you to watch the video.
Click to expand...
You're right you can't. Why do you think they made a new video with the same stuff most people have been ignoring for years. Is it more convincing this time around?

I asked if there was anything new. I'm thinking, if they don't make a new video the web hits (thus popularity) will drop. What do you think of this assessment?
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Of course Red is just perpetuating the lie that the entire bldg had to burn for 7hours in order to cause the thermal expansion that caused the failure of the column. It didn't.

Tick tock, Red.
Click to expand...

Nope. The location where thermal expansion and failure occur would have had to burn long enough and hot enough to produce such effects. Not that there is any proof that this happened.
 
Oystein said:
Stopping there. Another waste of time.

AE911"truth" telling the same old set of old lies over and over again, as if magically a lie becomes true if only you tell it often enough.

Nothing new in the entire video! Just the same old lies!
Marokaan, you believe proven liars!
Click to expand...


Thanks for taking the brain hit for the "team".

I just can't sit through these anymore, first lie, goodbye.


;)
 
RedIbis said:
Nope. The location where thermal expansion and failure occur would have had to burn long enough and hot enough to produce such effects. Not that there is any proof that this happened.
Click to expand...

You heard it here first people:

heat stays in the same place.

Signed Red Ibis

rolls eyes.
 
Sabretooth said:
Although, they suckered Ed Asner into narrating this one.
Click to expand...
You'd think between Rosie Odonnel, Ed Asner, and Charlie Sheen they'd have enough to conduct an actual engineering analysis by qualified people, but alas all we get is youtube nonsense.

I guess Rosie would rather spend her money on cheeseburgers, Ed on Depends, and Charlie on hookers and blow.
 
WildCat said:
Do you have the paper that was published in an engineering journal? Or do your "experts" think youtube is the place where groundbreaking science and engineering is done?
Click to expand...

It's almost as if ANYBODY can submit a YouTube video no matter how crazy. I'm shocked!
 
Not that there is any proof that this happened.
Click to expand...

Yes there is:

wtc7_debris.jpg
 
Marokkaan said:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nWRVqPYs-E
Click to expand...

At last the perfect presentation. No normal person can see this and fail to be convinced. We should begin immediately to examine the composition and powers of a new investigation because it can't be far away now. We don't want the government setting up their own investigation again. We saw what happened the last time.

Obama and his people must be paying close attention to this. Will he make a statement in due course ? Will the MSM jump ship now or later ?
 
bill smith said:
At last the perfect presentation. No normal person can see this and fail to be convinced. We should begin immediately to examine the composition and powers of a new investigation because it can't be far away now. We don't want the government setting up their own investigation again. We saw what happened the last time.

Obama and his people must be paying close attention to this. Will he make a statement in due course ? Will the MSM jump ship now or later ?
Click to expand...

you forgot the "j/k"
 
Oystein said:
Quick remarks:

  1. Ed Asner is neither an architect nor an engineer. He is just an impressive voice. I spot techniques of propaganda.
  2. 1:12: "Danny Jowenko is THE expert on this in Europe" - No. He is (was) only one expert; maybe "THE" expert in the Netherlands. When Danny was asked about his opinion, he A) did NOT know when it collapsed B) did NOT know that it was on fire when in collapsed C) Had never before seen structural drawings and had to form his opinion on seconds' notice D) did NOT know that there were no loud explosions, because he was shown silent video only (he would have noticed immediately the lack of very loud and many BANGS - compare to the audio of the trailer on his own website: http://jowenko.com/ E) also thought that WTC1 and 2 were NOT controlled demolitions F) had already been told about Silverstein's "pull it" quote, without understanding the context. In short, he disagrees with AE911"truth" on 2 of 3 buildings, and was woefully uninformed when he offered an ad-hoc opinion on WTC7.
  3. 1:31: "Let's compare" (then video of WTC7 next to a 3 real CDs - The viewer of this video is intentionally being mislead by the absence of sound! All videos of real CDs feature EXTREMELY LOUD BANGS! Building 7 did NOT
  4. 1:54: "Controlled demolitions cannot be done, rigged, in a day" - But that is what Danny Jowenko thought...
  5. "...it takes months" - Exactly, and that is one of the strongest arguments against CD.
  6. 2:27: (Voice of people at WTC7) "The building is about to blow up" - This foreknowledge is actually good evidence against CD
  7. 2:31: "And these people heard explosions: "we heard this sound, it sounded like a clap of thunder"" - Masochistic lie: NO, the person did NOT say he heard an explosion! He heard something LIKE a thunder! Abd that could very well be the thundering of a breaking, collapsing steel structure! No explosion! We know this, because the event was captured by several microphones - none captured the kind of EXTREMELY LOUD BANGS that characterize the explosions of real CDs
  8. 3:05: "Looked like an implosion" - yes, looked like. Not was.
  9. 3:30 "we are told by government agencies that this building came down as a result of normal office fires" - Lie. Nobody called these fires "normal". They were much more extensive than almost all office fires, and were unfought - both highly unnormal for office fires!

Stopping there. Another waste of time.

AE911"truth" telling the same old set of old lies over and over again, as if magically a lie becomes true if only you tell it often enough.

Nothing new in the entire video! Just the same old lies!
Marokaan, you believe proven liars!
Click to expand...

If that's supposed to be the best case for the defence your guys had better see what countries will not extradite them.(If they can find one)

PS what caused these explosions ? Make it something that we can add it to the case for the defance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oew1KYnC428 explosions
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom