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

[Mr. Skinny]

Wait can you give me some time, so i can search it on youtube?

Are you serious? YOU were asked a question that doesn't require a citation. Why do you need to search youtube for an answer?

 

[Telltale Tom]

I think we should call it a draw, and go along with the Danny Jowenko claims: that WTC 7 was certainly a controlled demolition and that WTC 1 and 2 were certainly not controlled demolitions. That way everybody should be happy.

Btw did you see the clip with Richard Gage looking at drawings in front of an 8 plus story building under construction. Did anyone recognize that building? I would be happy to bet that Richard Gage had nothing to do with it and it was not quite the "truth". Perhaps the AIA would consider this behavior unethical as the implication is that he is the architect for the building or in some way involved with it.

 

[TexasJack]

I think we should call it a draw, and go along with the Danny Jowenko claims: that WTC 7 was certainly a controlled demolition and that WTC 1 and 2 were certainly not controlled demolitions. That way everybody should be happy.

I agree Tom, let's call it draw, in the same way the Black Knight did. He should be a truther icon.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Are you serious? YOU were asked a question that doesn't require a citation. Why do you need to search youtube for an answer?

Obviously he needs someone else to tell him why he believes what he believes...

 

[uke2se]

Marokkaan, I've asked you a number of questions. Would you be so kind as to answer them, please?

 

[Marokkaan]

I think we should call it a draw, and go along with the Danny Jowenko claims: that WTC 7 was certainly a controlled demolition and that WTC 1 and 2 were certainly not controlled demolitions. That way everybody should be happy.

Btw did you see the clip with Richard Gage looking at drawings in front of an 8 plus story building under construction. Did anyone recognize that building? I would be happy to bet that Richard Gage had nothing to do with it and it was not quite the "truth". Perhaps the AIA would consider this behavior unethical as the implication is that he is the architect for the building or in some way involved with it.

NICE you admit wtc 7 was controlled demolition. But now we have to know who did this.

So we need a new investigation for wtc 7

I agree Tom, let's call it draw, in the same way the Black Knight did. He should be a truther icon.

LOl that was funny

 

[DC]

NICE you admit wtc 7 was controlled demolition. But now we have to know who did this.

So we need a new investigation for wtc 7



LOl that was funny

So would you agree with Danny Jovenko?
when he said the owner knew it was damaged and he was like, well CD it then. and they CDed it in a few hours.

means the 19 hijackers did 9/11, a horrible crime against humanity.
Silverstein merely cheated the insurance company.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You did not read the NIST report.

That says everything.....

I think its stuped to not read the NIST report even when you are truther, everybody has to read the nist report.

I think it's worth pointing out that the truther discussion of the NIST report is at least three stages removed from the body of evidence demonstrating that al-Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks. The only reason truthers like to think of it as relevant is that they have advanced an argument that the collapse of WTC7 could not be explained as a result of terrorists crashing airliners into WTC1 and WTC2, a simple argument from incredulity that merits no response in the first place. This is the first stage. The second stage is the refutation of this argument from incredulity by invoking the conclusions of the NIST report, which detail a plausible mechanism for collapse initiation; this should not be necessary, as it is an absurd claim that buildings cannot collapse after having suffered severe structural damage and prolonged uncontrolled fires. The third stage of remove is then the attempts by truthers to imply that any flaws in the specific collapse initiation mechanism proposed by NIST are evidence that no other fire- and impact-damage mechanisms are possible either, and that the NIST conclusion is an all-or-nothing deal; they try to claim that we must accept every detail of NIST's conclusions or concede that collapse without demolition devices is impossible. This is the third stage.

No competent structural engineer doubts that the collapse of WTC7 was caused by fire damage, with some contribution, though probably not a major one, from impact damage. The main concern from competent structural engineers over the collapse of WTC7 is whether there were significant flaws in its design, and whether we can learn from those flaws in future construction. Since this is in no way connected to the question of who was responsible for the attacks, it seems to me perfectly reasonable for Scott, who is concerned primarily with that latter question, not to waste his time on studying a highly complex and technical document which has no real bearing - however much it may have an imaginary one for truthers - on that question.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think we should call it a draw, and go along with the Danny Jowenko claims: that WTC 7 was certainly a controlled demolition and that WTC 1 and 2 were certainly not controlled demolitions. That way everybody should be happy.

Dave

 

[Marokkaan]

I think it's worth pointing out that the truther discussion of the NIST report is at least three stages removed from the body of evidence demonstrating that al-Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks. The only reason truthers like to think of it as relevant is that they have advanced an argument that the collapse of WTC7 could not be explained as a result of terrorists crashing airliners into WTC1 and WTC2, a simple argument from incredulity that merits no response in the first place. This is the first stage.

There is no proof, al qaida or bin laden did this. Al qaida is not been brought to the court and osama bin laden also not.

The second stage is the refutation of this argument from incredulity by invoking the conclusions of the NIST report, which detail a plausible mechanism for collapse initiation; this should not be necessary, as it is an absurd claim that buildings cannot collapse after having suffered severe structural damage and prolonged uncontrolled fires. The third stage of remove is then the attempts by truthers to imply that any flaws in the specific collapse initiation mechanism proposed by NIST are evidence that no other fire- and impact-damage mechanisms are possible either, and that the NIST conclusion is an all-or-nothing deal; they try to claim that we must accept every detail of NIST's conclusions or concede that collapse without demolition devices is impossible. This is the third stage.

The NIST report is not completed, there are a lot of errors in the report.

And 1500+ experts are telling the reports are not ok.

Im sorry i can not ignore those people, especially when you know, these people are like the most people in the world. They did not know a lot about the nist reports and they even did not know about wtc 7.

But they did a little bit research, and they made their conclusions.

No competent structural engineer doubts that the collapse of WTC7 was caused by fire damage, with some contribution, though probably not a major one, from impact damage. The main concern from competent structural engineers over the collapse of WTC7 is whether there were significant flaws in its design, and whether we can learn from those flaws in future construction. Since this is in no way connected to the question of who was responsible for the attacks, it seems to me perfectly reasonable for Scott, who is concerned primarily with that latter question, not to waste his time on studying a highly complex and technical document which has no real bearing - however much it may have an imaginary one for truthers - on that question.

Than you have a list with engineers who agrees with you?

And o please a list of independent engineers.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There is no proof, al qaida or bin laden did this. Al qaida is not been brought to the court and osama bin laden also not.

Irrelevant. Evidence exists independently of whether it has been presented in a court of law, and there is ample evidence, including the martyrdom videos of the hijackers, the statements of bin Laden himself, the admissions of Zacarias Moussaoui and the statements of Khalid Sheikh Mohamed prior to his capture, that al-Qaeda carried out the attacks under the leadership of Osama bin Laden. If you're going to pretend all this doesn't exist, then you're denying the obvious, and clearly delusional.

And 1500+ experts are telling the reports are not ok.

Im sorry i can not ignore those people, especially when you know, these people are like the most people in the world.

Their expertise is in irrelevant areas to those they are commenting on. They have no status, therefore, as experts, in this context. And it's not necessary to ignore them; the blatant contradictions and errors in their own statements make them self-refuting.

Than you have a list with engineers who agrees with you?

Again, irrelevant, as I made no such claim. Please refute my claim by presenting a list of structural engineers competent in the design of steel high-rise buildings who disagree with the conclusion that fire and impact damage caused the collapse of WTC7.

And o please a list of independent engineers.

Since it's trivially simple for a conspiracy theorist to construct a definition of the word "independent" that excludes all structural engineers with experience of high rise building design, there seems no point; you will simply reject any evidence offered to you on any point you choose to disbelieve.

Dave

 

[DC]

There is no proof, al qaida or bin laden did this. Al qaida is not been brought to the court and osama bin laden also not.



The NIST report is not completed, there are a lot of errors in the report.

And 1500+ experts are telling the reports are not ok.

Im sorry i can not ignore those people, especially when you know, these people are like the most people in the world. They did not know a lot about the nist reports and they even did not know about wtc 7.

But they did a little bit research, and they made their conclusions.





Than you have a list with engineers who agrees with you?

And o please a list of independent engineers.

you still don't know what an expert is. amazing.
even those that should be experts in that group are constantly wrong.

structural engineers claiming that half free fall acceleration is near free fall.

the only expertise they have is in Charlatanery.

 

[uke2se]

Marokkaan, I posed a number of questions to you earlier. I would very much like them answered. Thank you.

 

[000063]

So it's cognitive dissonance to try to fit isolated events into a consistent theory rather than draw conclusions from them in isolation and regardless of context? Wow, you learn something new every day.

Dave

And I think we're about to learn that he didn't understand a word you just said

So it's cognitive dissonance to try to fit isolated events into a consistent theory rather than draw conclusions from them in isolation and regardless of context? Wow, you learn something new every day.

Dave

hmm maybe you should try to understand what cognitive dissonance means....

Twinstead, you should've bet money.

 

[000063]

Just an example, if an alien did it and there is proof or big signals of evidence, a person who has cognitive dissonance, will ignore it, because the person has the assumption aliens does not exist, and its crazy to believe in aliens because the majority does not believe in aliens.

As you keep ignoring, there's no evidence of CD that fits into a unified, scientifically testable theory. There is no evidence of aliens that can fit into even a scientifically testable theory.

Just the same with a lot of debunkers. They have the assumption, the government will never do that or its crazy they used planes for there targets.

No, they've come to the conclusion that the government did not and could not have faked the 9/11 attacks. That's not "could not" as in "they wouldn't choose to do it", that's "could not" as in "physically impossible".

So the new information, that contradicts their believe in the official story, they will ignore no matter there are signs of evidence or something else.

The information Truthers present has been examined, and none of it fits into a scientifically testable narrative like the OS does. Most of the time, the theories contradict each other, and yet Truthers love to claim that their claims are all "obvious". They also ignore evidence from actual scientists and experts. For some reason, Truthers studiously avoid coming up with a unified theory, or presenting any evidence they consider the best, and will often decry competing theories as disinformation. The other Truther can't be wrong, because that would mean they could be wrong. They have to be a gov't agent.

 

[000063]

I believe Marokkaan thinks "LOL" counts as an argument.

He went to the Ergo school of debate, but failed "Sardonic Emotes 101".

 

[000063]

Wait can you give me some time, so i can search it on youtube?

you're serious

you're actually serious

 

[Marokkaan]

Irrelevant. Evidence exists independently of whether it has been presented in a court of law, and there is ample evidence, including the martyrdom videos of the hijackers, the statements of bin Laden himself, the admissions of Zacarias Moussaoui and the statements of Khalid Sheikh Mohamed prior to his capture, that al-Qaeda carried out the attacks under the leadership of Osama bin Laden. If you're going to pretend all this doesn't exist, then you're denying the obvious, and clearly delusional.

There is only one tape, where he said he did it. i think the december 2001 tape

But

1. authenticity of the tape is not 100 % also the translation is poor.

2. Even when he is saying its not enough. He has to take to the court.

3. You forgot the 19 hijackers, are there tapes of each hijacker?


About moussaoui he denied involvement, and the court had no evidence.

Khalid mohamed, was tortured. Just a tip, try to waterboard yourself. And than we will see i can let you say anything what i want.

But this is all speculating.

The why and who did it question is for me not important.

i want to know first what happened at the crimescene.

Their expertise is in irrelevant areas to those they are commenting on. They have no status, therefore, as experts, in this context. And it's not necessary to ignore them; the blatant contradictions and errors in their own statements make them self-refuting.

Thats your opinion, i think its not irrelevant.

I only talked about, the archtiects and engineers, there are also a lot of scientists who disagree the official story.

I can not ignore them, that would be crazy.

Again, irrelevant, as I made no such claim. Please refute my claim by presenting a list of structural engineers competent in the design of steel high-rise buildings who disagree with the conclusion that fire and impact damage caused the collapse of WTC7.

No, than dont make a claim telling that a lot of people(struc.engineers) believe in the official story.

You want to see the list? Go to ae911truth.org to find those engineers.

Since it's trivially simple for a conspiracy theorist to construct a definition of the word "independent" that excludes all structural engineers with experience of high rise building design, there seems no point; you will simply reject any evidence offered to you on any point you choose to disbelieve.

Yeah i even dont say the word independent, show me some names of structural engineers with experience of high rise building design, who believe in the collapse due fire etc.

I hope you can place a lot of names, because you believe the majority of those engineers believe in the official story.

 

[Marokkaan]

As you keep ignoring, there's no evidence of CD that fits into a unified, scientifically testable theory. There is no evidence of aliens that can fit into even a scientifically testable theory.

They found nano thermite, thats evidence of cd.

No, they've come to the conclusion that the government did not and could not have faked the 9/11 attacks. That's not "could not" as in "they wouldn't choose to do it", that's "could not" as in "physically impossible".

A natural collapse due fire with near freefall is also physically impossible.

The information Truthers present has been examined, and none of it fits into a scientifically testable narrative like the OS does. Most of the time, the theories contradict each other, and yet Truthers love to claim that their claims are all "obvious". They also ignore evidence from actual scientists and experts. For some reason, Truthers studiously avoid coming up with a unified theory, or presenting any evidence they consider the best, and will often decry competing theories as disinformation. The other Truther can't be wrong, because that would mean they could be wrong. They have to be a gov't agent

You only have to put the acronym NIST in your story. And than you will be right.

 

[DGM]

.
A natural collapse due fire with near freefall is also physically impossible.
.

Let me guess...............................You know this because of YouTube.


Is that where you went to school??