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

[RKOwens4]

you make a wrong claim there, i suggest you watch the full jowenko interview again.

Do you have a link to a video that begins earlier in his reaction that this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8d5f9O6K0

This video starts with him (apparently) watching the video of the collapse of WTC7 for the first time. He says, "Do you see a fire above somewhere?" The interviewer says, "I see smoke however." and Jowenko says, "Yeah, you always get dust, nothing has been removed from it?" If you can find more to this video, BEFORE these events, in which the interviewer tells him the building was on fire, then I'll stand corrected. But in this video is seems clear to me that Danny Jowenko is looking at the following angle of WTC7 in the seconds before its collapse (the pic below is what he sees)...

...and sees the smoke but no fire and, puzzled, he asks the interviewer if he sees fire anywhere above. And instead of the interviewer responding by saying, "Yes the building was on fire for seven hours.", he instead misleads Jowenko by saying merely, "I see smoke however." and Jowenko dismisses the smoke by saying, "Yeah you always get dust" (presumably he means in controlled demolitions you always get dust, and therefore he believes that what he's seeing is dust, not smoke from a fire). Therefore I stand by my earlier statement. Showing video of a building collapsing with a laptop without even telling the person WHAT the building was, or that its lower floors had been damaged by a falling skyscraper, or that the building was on fire for seven hours, or even that it collapsed on 9/11, is like showing a picture of the Titanic to someone without telling the person what the ship was or that it had hit an iceberg, and asking him how he thinks the ship sank. That person is in NO position to act as an "expert"! The FDNY was ON the scene of WTC7 all day, they saw the fires with their own eyes and made the prediction that it was going to collapse. Danny Jowenko didn't even know what the building was or that it was on fire, and watched a video of its collapse over a laptop five years after the fact. So who's more qualified: the FDNY or Danny Jowenko?

 

[DC]

Do you have a link to a video that begins earlier in his reaction that this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8d5f9O6K0

This video starts with him (apparently) watching the video of the collapse of WTC7 for the first time. He says, "Do you see a fire above somewhere?" The interviewer says, "I see smoke however." and Jowenko says, "Yeah, you always get dust, nothing has been removed from it?" If you can find more to this video, BEFORE these events, in which the interviewer tells him the building was on fire, then I'll stand corrected. But in this video is seems clear to me that Danny Jowenko is looking at the following angle of WTC7 in the seconds before its collapse (the pic below is what he sees)...

[qimg]http://humanbeingsfirst.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/wtc7-penthouse-collapse-before-building-symmetrically-collapses-into-its-footprint.jpg[/qimg]

...and sees the smoke but no fire and, puzzled, he asks the interviewer if he sees fire anywhere above. And instead of the interviewer responding by saying, "Yes the building was on fire for seven hours.", he instead misleads Jowenko by saying merely, "I see smoke however." and Jowenko dismisses the smoke by saying, "Yeah you always get dust" (presumably he means in controlled demolitions you always get dust, and therefore he believes that what he's seeing is dust, not smoke from a fire). Therefore I stand by my earlier statement. Showing video of a building collapsing with a laptop without even telling the person WHAT the building was, or that its lower floors had been damaged by a falling skyscraper, or that the building was on fire for seven hours, or even that it collapsed on 9/11, is like showing a picture of the Titanic to someone without telling the person what the ship was or that it had hit an iceberg, and asking him how he thinks the ship sank. That person is in NO position to act as an "expert"! The FDNY was ON the scene of WTC7 all day, they saw the fires with their own eyes and made the prediction that it was going to collapse. Danny Jowenko didn't even know what the building was or that it was on fire, and watched a video of its collapse over a laptop five years after the fact. So who's more qualified: the FDNY or Danny Jowenko?

in the video 16:28

 

[Africanus]

The nist report about wtc 7 is refuted, so there must be a new investigation!!!

Did anyone notice that Chris Sarns relabelled this image from the NIST report (Fig. 5-115 p. 201)? According to the floor numbers the depicted fires are in the 11th floor and not in the 12th floor. The original label by NIST is hidden behind Sarns' label.

 

[leftysergeant]

For those of you who have never worked withthermite, like Marokaan, take a look at the demonstration at about 8:25. I keep telling you people that somebody would have seen the marks of thermite had it been there. Look at the residues that idiot boy Cole's thermite left on the steel.

No way are you going to hide that crap from hundreds of cops, fire fighters and iron workers.

This, of course, makes Erik Lawyer's remarks at 9:50 onward look even dumber. He should know better, if he is as qualified as he thinks he is. to comment on thermite and the investgation protocols if its use is suspected.

In this case, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

And his blather about "melted concrete" is just further disproof of his own understanding of the English language or of scientific arson investigations. There was NO thermally-melted concrete present in any of the structures, as far as anyone with common sense can tell. Ground-up, reconsttituted, reacted upon by chemicals, yes, but NOT melted. That curator Bart Voorsanger points out the meteorite as an artifact of thermal melting when, to the eyes of a fire fighter or construction worker, it clearly is not.

Waterboy Ryan goes on to prove himself outside his area of expertise when he makes the dirt-dumb statement that thermite may be why it was not possible to put the fire out sooner. Does that dirt-dumb clod think thermite burns for weeks in a scattered pile of unnsorted rubble? Did the idiot notice the lack of bright white flares at various spots in the rubble pile?

What a hideously under-qualified dork. He tests water samples? I wouldn't trust that poppinjay to test for cyanobacteria and E coli in a duck pond.

Now, as for that dork Ronald Brookman, sticking him in there just makes that whole gang look like even bigger schmucks than they already did.

Apparently the moron expected FDNY to just leave the steel there unti FEMA got there to look at it. I hope that dork never has anyhting to do with fire safety engineering. I further hope he never runs for public office. He has no clue what he is doing there, either. He would be a disaster as a member of a city Fire Commision, which seems to be a favored first venture of these types into politics.

He repeated the lie that the steel was being destroyed before it could be inspected. What a lying sack of crap.

 

[funk de fino]

Dave said:

Mangled grammar aside, the implied pronoun in the second phrase is [it], what is the antecedent?

Did he say entire building? No, you made it up.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Heat will have negative effects on an entire floor. Especially after burning for 2,3,4,5+ hours.

You know that Red. Why must you be obtuse?

 

[triforcharity]

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

Well, let's take a look at some of the things that could cause it.

HVAC equpiment including motors, compressors, and condensors.
CRT type tvs and computer monitors
Large motors with oil lube. (Elevator motors)

And since we know that one of the towers had just collapsed, we can also add:

Fuel tanks from the dozens of vehicles that were damaged/crushed in the collapse
Hundreds, if not thousands of SCOTT pack bottles from the firefighters that were in the building.

Ambulances with O2 bottles inside
Fire trucks with O2 bottles inside (above and beyond the SCOTT pack bottles)

Here's one that has slipped my mind for some time.

FDNY's Mask Service truck. This carried dozens and dozens of spare SCOTT pack bottles, and included a cascade system to be able to refill the bottles at a major scene. This vehicle was destroyed in the collapse.

Can you rule out ANY/ALL of these things that would make a VERY loud BOOM?

No, you cannot.

 

[bill smith]

For those of you who have never worked withthermite, like Marokaan, take a look at the demonstration at about 8:25. I keep telling you people that somebody would have seen the marks of thermite had it been there. Look at the residues that idiot boy Cole's thermite left on the steel.

No way are you going to hide that crap from hundreds of cops, fire fighters and iron workers.

This, of course, makes Erik Lawyer's remarks at 9:50 onward look even dumber. He should know better, if he is as qualified as he thinks he is. to comment on thermite and the investgation protocols if its use is suspected.

In this case, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

And his blather about "melted concrete" is just further disproof of his own understanding of the English language or of scientific arson investigations. There was NO thermally-melted concrete present in any of the structures, as far as anyone with common sense can tell. Ground-up, reconsttituted, reacted upon by chemicals, yes, but NOT melted. That curator Bart Voorsanger points out the meteorite as an artifact of thermal melting when, to the eyes of a fire fighter or construction worker, it clearly is not.

Waterboy Ryan goes on to prove himself outside his area of expertise when he makes the dirt-dumb statement that thermite may be why it was not possible to put the fire out sooner. Does that dirt-dumb clod think thermite burns for weeks in a scattered pile of unnsorted rubble? Did the idiot notice the lack of bright white flares at various spots in the rubble pile?

What a hideously under-qualified dork. He tests water samples? I wouldn't trust that poppinjay to test for cyanobacteria and E coli in a duck pond.

Now, as for that dork Ronald Brookman, sticking him in there just makes that whole gang look like even bigger schmucks than they already did.

Apparently the moron expected FDNY to just leave the steel there unti FEMA got there to look at it. I hope that dork never has anyhting to do with fire safety engineering. I further hope he never runs for public office. He has no clue what he is doing there, either. He would be a disaster as a member of a city Fire Commision, which seems to be a favored first venture of these types into politics.

He repeated the lie that the steel was being destroyed before it could be inspected. What a lying sack of crap.

See what the editor of 'Fire Engineering Magazine' Bill Manning had to say about it at the time. Fire Engineering Magazine is the most respected Fire Engineering publication in America and has been publishing for more than 100 years.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/020100fireengineering

 

[triforcharity]

Did anyone notice that Chris Sarns relabelled this image from the NIST report (Fig. 5-115 p. 201)? According to the floor numbers the depicted fires are in the 11th floor and not in the 12th floor. The original label by NIST is hidden behind Sarns' label.

Really? I believe Chris Sarns is a poster here.....Goes by the name Christopher7 IIRC.

It that is the truth (I am on my phone, so I can't download NIST report,) that is EXTREMELY dishonest......

Thanks for the heads up new guy! Welcome!! Beers in the fridge, help yourself.

 

[TexasJack]

See what the editor of 'Fire Engineering Magazine' Bill Manning had to say about it at the time. Fire Engineering Magazine is the most respected Fire Engineering publication in America and has been publishing for more than 100 years.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/020100fireengineering

Bill that is dated January 2002. NIST wasn't assigned to investigate the towers until September of that year. Do you have any statements from Bill Manning after the reports were finished?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It's not a question of the thousand things it might be Twinstead, It's what people will believe.

And here I thought it was about truth.

 

[leftysergeant]

See what the editor of 'Fire Engineering Magazine' Bill Manning had to say about it at the time. Fire Engineering Magazine is the most respected Fire Engineering publication in America and has been publishing for more than 100 years.

Nowhere does he say anything supporting a theory that he does not believe that fire caused the collapses. His concern is not that evidence of an inside job is being destroyed, but that the investigation is failing to ascertain what other buildings may be at risk of collapse due to the same design flaws.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The nist report about wtc 7 is refuted

As AE911truth confesses, their fire behavior model challenging the NIST is based on a single variable; photographs of exterior fires. While using those photographs helps project the movement of fires inside the building, for the models to provide an accurate measurement they require data on estimated fuel loads inside the building, fuel types, etc. - something which NIST does if you read NCSTAR 1-9A. I saw this model more than 2 years ago, it's nothing new, and like their case studies it's half-baked, incomplete, and not indicative of anything beyond their inability to follow proper procedure.

 

[beachnut]

The nist report about wtc 7 is refuted, so there must be a new investigation!!!

http://i51.tinypic.com/6jetrq.png

http://i51.tinypic.com/bg5obt.png

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/WTC_fire_sim_comparison_080912c.pdf

You sure are gullible, posting nonsensical videos.

When will you publish your paper? Gage has nothing, but nonsense, your failure to understand 911 and WTC 7 does not warrant a new investigation. There is nothing that will help you understand 911 save an new education; a self-help issue at best. 99.99 percent of all engineers can understand NIST WTC 7, and you can't recite to goals of NIST work, let alone understand anything about engineering or physics since you posted the work of liars, frauds and from Gage, who collected over 300k in one year and did nothing. Good luck, you need lots of help understanding 911 and you are not trying to learn how to get better.

You will do no paper, there will be no new investigation, there was nothing wrong with the many investigation already done. You don't do very good research.

Where is the paper which refutes NIST? Did you lie? Prove it in your own words? Good luck.

 

[Africanus]

Really? I believe Chris Sarns is a poster here.....Goes by the name Christopher7 IIRC.

It that is the truth (I am on my phone, so I can't download NIST report,) that is EXTREMELY dishonest......

Thanks for the heads up new guy! Welcome!! Beers in the fridge, help yourself.

I checked it one more time and I have to admit that I was wrong. Chris Sarns used the right labels, that was my fault. Blame it on me.

But I'm really interested in his calculations. There are some important details missing (e.g. the software he used for his calculations).

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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

...Where's the detailed analysis of the building collapse that's supposed to prove that this is a controlled demolition? I've heard the "reports of explosions," and the "only time a building completely collapses is during CD" before.

Where's AE911's building studies exactly? Is Ed Asner supposed to use his voice to paint a mental picture? Is Geraldo Rivera going to draw a map in the sand like he did during an ongoing military operation on live television? I hate to sound mean, but you have architect's and engineers exploiting anti-government slogans, viewer illiteracy, and TV personalities like this is a reality TV show, instead of bare-bones engineering and architecture studies. Maybe you can explain what is supposed to be significant about this video; I'm not seeing it.


After seeing this sort of practice for a few years now, I think this kind of response to such a video is fitting. Why should people go easy on AE911 for that?

 

[triforcharity]

I checked it one more time and I have to admit that I was wrong. Chris Sarns used the right labels, that was my fault. Blame it on me.

But I'm really interested in his calculations. There are some important details missing (e.g. the software he used for his calculations).

Ok, cool. No problem.

Here is the problem with Chris Sarn's analysis.

1-He has absolutely ZERO experience in fire science, or firefighting, or anything of the sort. He's a carpenter. Not a problem, but it's like asking a plumber to fill in for a vascular surgeon.

2-He used photographic evidence only. No calculations whatsoever.
No fuel load calculations, no temp analysis, nothing. Just his own eyeballs and MS Paint it looks like.

3- I've asked him if he considered the different variables that would have an effect on fire temp, progression, etc. and he seemd to ignore the question at all costs.

Conclusion: The analysis by Chris Sarns is complete and total garbage. No calculation, no fuel load estimates, nothing.

 

[grandmastershek]

See what the editor of 'Fire Engineering Magazine' Bill Manning had to say about it at the time. Fire Engineering Magazine is the most respected Fire Engineering publication in America and has been publishing for more than 100 years.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/020100fireengineering

Why don;t you call him up and ask him what he thinks today? Ya know since NIST has written the reports and all

 

[RKOwens4]

in the video 16:28

No, man. He only tells Danny Jowenko that the building was WTC7 and that it was on fire and that it collapsed on 9/11 AFTER Jowenko already says that he believes it was a controlled demolition. I've seen the entire video and I know his reaction when he tells him it collapsed on 9/11 and that it was on fire, but my point is that this was AFTER he showed him the video and asked his opinion and Jowenko gave his opinion. That's highly deceptive, wouldn't you agree?

Also, Jowenko's eventual statement later on about the fires (16 minutes after giving his "expert" opinion) shows clearly that he was very, VERY mistaken about the fires. He says, "But that was a very small fire, they could extinguish that and that was what they've done." Even at this point in the video, he actually believes that the fires in WTC7 were small enough to be extinguished and that they were. This was not the case. The sprinklers were out and there was no firefighting effort whatsoever made by the FDNY to even try to extinguish the fires. At the time of its collapse, WTC7 was engulfed on 6 floors. Listen to the FDNY, not a guy watching a video on a laptop five years later with totally incorrect information about the fires. Even after the interviewer tells him the building would had to have been wired for implosion all within a few hours and on the chaos of the day and while the building was on fire, Jowenko still maintains it was perfectly feasible. I know truthers will maintain that Jowenko is THE go-to guy for controlled demoltion expertise, but this kind out outrageous claim to me destroys any and all credibility that the guy has. Even demolishing a 10 story building takes months of prep work, MONTHS, while they're free to move around in the open freely without sneaking around. A few hours, in secrecy, for a building twice as tall as any building that's ever been imploded, all while the building was on fire??? Give me a break.

 

[triforcharity]

Would that be a variation of poisoning the well? Or would that be just plain old GI=GO?