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

DGM said:
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?
Click to expand...

Is that the only thing, while you have comment on every detail at the truthers.

Come on, act a little bit serious.

I said a lot, look at my posts on this thread or the others.

what about the 1500?
 
Marokkaan said:
Is that the only thing, while you have comment on every detail at the truthers.

Come on, act a little bit serious.

I said a lot, look at my posts on this thread or the others.

what about the 1500?
Click to expand...
Nothing you've said has any impact on the conclusions made in the reports. None of my concerns do either.

Do you think the 1500+ engineers at ae 9/11 are doing a good job figuring out what actually happened and where NIST got it all wrong?
 
Marokkaan said:
...
what about the 1500?
Click to expand...
The 1500 can't figure out 911, they are like you, no clue what happen on 911, so they signed Gage's petition out of ignorance. The 1500 have done the same research you have, zero. Posting YouTube nonsense is not research.
 
DGM said:
Nothing you've said has any impact on the conclusions made in the reports. None of my concerns do either.

Do you think the 1500+ engineers at ae 9/11 are doing a good job figuring out what actually happened and where NIST got it all wrong?
Click to expand...

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

yes
 
RKOwens4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

you claimed this

in fact he was never even told the building was on fire
Click to expand...

yes he was told the building was on Fire.
 
Last edited:
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...



Michael Donly, P.E. - Structural Engineer Expose the controlled Demolition of the WTC Buildings on 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9b5Xax-vgU&playnext=1&list=PLDBC3680045589CE8




.
 
walkyrie said:
Michael Donly, P.E. - Structural Engineer Expose the controlled Demolition of the WTC Buildings on 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9b5Xax-vgU&playnext=1&list=PLDBC3680045589CE8




.
Click to expand...
He has no relevent experience
He reviews drawing not creates them so apparently does not do original design
He didn't they know would fall down....wow neither did I, that's because I didn't know then what I know now.
Near free fall? well now we know how deep he has looked into this subject!
He went through Fema and NIST and still didn't notice that it was nowhere close to freefall???
Towers were designed for airplane impact.....yeah for a 707 flying slowly (sub 200mph and low or no fuel load) as opposed to a 767 flying fast and full of fuel
The column could support the impact? well they did so whats his point?
and then he goes on to building seven never mentioning the huge fires over 10 stories in WTC1????? (notice that the video is edited at that point....what did he say that A&E don't want us to hear? :)
WTC7 had small fires????? and fell into its own footprint (is this guy reading a script???)
and near freefall AGAIN!
personal incredulity

ok enough. He does not even know the basics of what happened.
 
Marokkaan said:
Well give me some critics about the nist report, im curious.
Click to expand...

I think their fuel loading is light. I also think their compartment temps are off. Not by much, but low.

But you see, it doesn't matter, because even at the lower temperatures, and the lighter fuel load, the building still collapses.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
He has no relevent experience
He reviews drawing not creates them so apparently does not do original design
He didn't they know would fall down....wow neither did I, that's because I didn't know then what I know now.
Near free fall? well now we know how deep he has looked into this subject!
He went through Fema and NIST and still didn't notice that it was nowhere close to freefall???
Towers were designed for airplane impact.....yeah for a 707 flying slowly (sub 200mph and low or no fuel load) as opposed to a 767 flying fast and full of fuelThe column could support the impact? well they did so whats his point?
and then he goes on to building seven never mentioning the huge fires over 10 stories in WTC1????? (notice that the video is edited at that point....what did he say that A&E don't want us to hear? :)
WTC7 had small fires????? and fell into its own footprint (is this guy reading a script???)
and near freefall AGAIN!
personal incredulity

ok enough. He does not even know the basics of what happened.
Click to expand...

Frankdemartini: I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU
 
Marokkaan said:
Frankdemartini: I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU
Click to expand...

What do you believe, Marokkaan? Do you believe the WTC towers could have withstood multiple impacts of jetliners (and not collapsed, as I understand is the intent here)?
 
uke2se said:
Do you believe impact from jet airliners is enough to bring any tall building down, or is it just the WTC that were impervious?
Click to expand...

No, and i can not tell about other tall buildings, you have to know the structure etcetera. But buildings like wtc. I would say no it is impossible to collapse like wtc did by a plane, and even multiple planes
 
fitzgibbon said:
Wow! That was Stundie-worthy.
Click to expand...

Better give one to the engineers then..

''

A white paper on the structure of the Twin Towers carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson contained eleven numbered points, including:

3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.''
 
Marokkaan said:
No, and i can not tell about other tall buildings, you have to know the structure etcetera. But buildings like wtc. I would say no it is impossible to collapse like wtc did by a plane, and even multiple planes
Click to expand...

So, why do you think the illuminati, NWO, criminal cabal or whatever have you, selected to fly jetliners into buildings that were supposedly impervious to jetliners? Wouldn't it have been easier to fly jetliners into buildings that weren't impervious? Surely there are many around.

Even if not, why not scratch the jetliner idea and go with another? Do you think the illuminati, NWO, criminal cabal or whatever have you are insanely stupid and insanely clever a the same time?
 
bill smith said:
Better give one to the engineers then..

''

A white paper on the structure of the Twin Towers carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson contained eleven numbered points, including:

3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.''
Click to expand...

Could you please either link to the investigation that found this or provide some sort of reference number so that I can find it?

Because I can't.

ETA: Note, I said the investigation. Not the same claim repeated again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom