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

[Dave Rogers]

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

The antecedent is, as everyone (including you) is well aware, "The building", not "The entire building". The colloquial meaning of the sentence "The building is on fire" is universally understood to be "A significant part of the building is on fire"; if it were "The entire building is on fire", then no brick, stone or concrete building could be described as "on fire" because it must contain incombustible elements.

Most people seem to learn this sort of thing at some point in their lives. I wonder sometimes how truthers manage not to.

Dave

 

[tsig]

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.

Of course when a fire goes out any damage it might have done is immediately gone.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Of course when a fire goes out any damage it might have done is immediately gone.

And the superheated combustion gases never go near it again either

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

And since we do not know what damage there is on the south side we can have no idea of what the fire was like on that side. Air flow may have allowed large fires on that side without breaking windows on the North (visible side) of the same floor.

 

[000063]

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

I think it's just G.

 

[Marokkaan]

<YAWN>
What NIST said - "Note that only window glass breaking times were prescribed in the fire model. The observed fire activity gleaned from the photographs and video were not a model input, and thus one should not expect a perfect correspondence between predicted high temperatures and observed fire activity."

Why was this.....NIST says why - "The aim of the fire simulation for WTC 7 was to replicate the major features of the fires. given the limited knowledge of the debris impact and interior contents, while exploiting as much as possible the visual evidence contained within the few photographs and videotapes taken of WTC 7 following the collapse of the towers. As noted in the discussion of the the individual floors below, the simulations generally replicated the major fire features, including the rate of spread of the fires at the building perimeter (the photographs could not show interior burning) and the overall burn time for each of the affected floors. There was some variability in simulation of the duration of the fire activity in a given perimeter location on some highly partitioned floors. The descriptions of the actual fires are from Chapter 5 of this report."

Nice you are admitting it, so tell me, than how they did observe the fires in the building when even the simulations does not tell their conclusions.

If that was true, so then why are you here trying to convince a bunch of people that have nothing to do with NIST? Weird.

Why James randi, would try to convince everbody that uri geller fakes everything he even writed a book about it. But still a lot of people believes uri geller, and he earns everyday his money with his fake actions.

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!

Its nice when you have a little critical points, and you can have it, i wish you did the same with nist.... but ok, i respect your opinion.

By the way, i dont going to answer all your little critical points, they are not really important for me.

 

[Marokkaan]

OK. I watched a little of it.

Now I know why AE911 needed all that money ($20K IIRC). They had to hire an actor.

("truthers") Money well spent?

That's it.

No the actor is a long time active in the 911truth organisation.

But i dont like those little critical points, just i like said to the others, why you dont have those little critical points when nist came with their reports.

 

[WildCat]

Why James randi, would try to convince everbody that uri geller fakes everything he even writed a book about it. But still a lot of people believes uri geller, and he earns everyday his money with his fake actions.

Because many people are morons. Many of these morons are truthers.

 

[DGM]

No the actor is a long time active in the 911truth organisation.

But i dont like those little critical points, just i like said to the others, why you dont have those little critical points when nist came with their reports.

By "critical point" can I assume you mean "free fall" and such? If so, I need you to answer this question. Did you know the NIST reports were made so professionals could work to improve building safety and not to explain every detail to laymen? NIST was not trying to "debunk" your conspiracy theory. Do you understand this?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

why you dont have those little critical points when nist came with their reports.

Using the very video you've posted we can always do a comparison:

Fire Models:

AE911 vs NIST

-They use the same software
- They both use photographical guidance
- Only the NIST accounts for fuel loads
- Only the NIST performs a collapse model
- Only the NIST outlines its procedure
... Should I continue?

AE911 vs NIST for collapse conclusions

- AE911truth claims that a local failure never leads to complete faiilure
- AE911truth claims that fires do not cause steel framed buildings to collapse
- AE911truth claims that because other buildings have stood before that the WTC should have regardless of the differences between each
- AE911truth doesn't support their 10-minute theories with building analyses
- AE911truth relies on celebrities to boast their image
- AE911truth claims bombs because explosions were reported in a fire, and never scrutinizes witness testimony to separate witness figures of speach, fire related explosions, or physical evidence of bombs...

The NIST:
- Writes more than 10,000 pages of content full of analyses that AE911 should have done in the first place, never did in the first place, didn't want to do in the first place.
- They did modelling and made specific mentions of their procedure so that anyone who wants to scrutinize their results could gather the same information and run their own tests

On... and on...

 

[DGM]

Marokkaan:

Why is it with 1500+ engineers at their disposal, EA 9/11 only questions and never gives answers?

Are you impressed with the work of these 1500+ engineers?

 

[Marokkaan]

By "critical point" can I assume you mean "free fall" and such? If so, I need you to answer this question. Did you know the NIST reports were made so professionals could work to improve building safety and not to explain every detail to laymen? NIST was not trying to "debunk" your conspiracy theory. Do you understand this?

So when you read something, you are 100 % agreeing with everything?

No no i will not say naive.

 

[Marokkaan]

Using the very video you've posted we can always do a comparison:

Fire Models:

AE911 vs NIST

-They use the same software
- They both use photographical guidance
- Only the NIST accounts for fuel loads
- Only the NIST performs a collapse model
- Only the NIST outlines its procedure
... Should I continue?

AE911 vs NIST for collapse conclusions

- AE911truth claims that a local failure never leads to complete faiilure
- AE911truth claims that fires do not cause steel framed buildings to collapse
- AE911truth claims that because other buildings have stood before that the WTC should have regardless of the differences between each
- AE911truth doesn't support their 10-minute theories with building analyses
- AE911truth relies on celebrities to boast their image
- AE911truth claims bombs because explosions were reported in a fire, and never scrutinizes witness testimony to separate witness figures of speach, fire related explosions, or physical evidence of bombs...

The NIST:
- Writes more than 10,000 pages of content full of analyses that AE911 should have done in the first place, never did in the first place, didn't want to do in the first place.
- They did modelling and made specific mentions of their procedure so that anyone who wants to scrutinize their results could gather the same information and run their own tests

On... and on...

why you dont have those little negative critical points when nist came with their reports.

 

[DGM]

So when you read something, you are 100 % agreeing with everything?

No no i will not say naive.

How did you make that leap of logic from what I said?

Do you think I believe the reports are perfect? Guess what, they're not. The only thing is the problems with the reports do not in anyway effect the overall conclusions.

You didn't answer my question about your 1500+ engineers, are they doing a good job?

.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

why you dont have those little negative critical points when nist came with their reports.

Their errors are minute to the extent that their overall conclusions are sound. AE911's errors are large enough to send them back to the stone age.

 

[Marokkaan]

How did you make that leap of logic from what I said?

Do you think I believe the reports are perfect? Guess what, they're not. The only thing is the problems with the reports do not in anyway effect the overall conclusions.

You didn't answer my question about your 1500+ engineers, are they doing a good job?

.

Well give me some critics about the nist report, im curious.

Their errors are minute to the extent that their overall conclusions are sound. AE911's errors are large enough to send them back to the stone age.

Well tell me those errors, im curious

 

[WildCat]

Well give me some critics about the nist report, im curious.



Well tell me those errors, im curious

Why don't you cite the errors, and explain how they're significant enough to affect the conclusion?

We've already cited many errors and outright lies by your "1,500 experts", errors of such magnitude they not only fail to form a coherent alternate theory they also fail to raise any doubt at all about the accepted theory.

You're trying to prove something, do it. But I predict you will fail, as truthers have failed since 9/11. You have no facts, no evidence, no competence in any relevant subject. And neither do your "1,500 experts", whose total body of work appears not in any engineering or science journal but exclusively on youtube. Where the real science gets done, right Marokkaan?

 

[DGM]

Well give me some critics about the nist report, im curious.



Well tell me those errors, im curious

You first. Be specific.


You seemed to miss the question about your 1500+ engineers.

 

[Marokkaan]

You first. Be specific.


You seemed to miss the question about your 1500+ engineers.

Why me first, i only post critics about nist.

Now i asked you something so please answer.

 

[DGM]

Why me first, i only post critics about nist.

Now i asked you something so please answer.

I thought they could have done a better job documenting the building damage.

So far you have not specifically said anything. You link to videos and then when questioned you link to more.

How about those 1500+ engineers. Doing good work in your opinion?