• 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

This whole video is a cherry-pickers dream.

Nice...using a known sound-doctored video clip at 10:18 to "prove" explosions.

This thing is a joke, I don't even know where to begin...
 
DGM said:
Why should I spend time watching this? What does this have that I've not seen before. (I've been to his show, just to let you know).

Bottom line, what's new besides the video?
Click to expand...

Don't bother, it's 2006 all over again. Not a single piece of "new" anything. I wasted 14 minutes of my life to watch a re-run. Although, they suckered Ed Asner into narrating this one.
 
The nist report about wtc 7 is refuted, so there must be a new investigation!!!

6jetrq.png


bg5obt.png


http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/WTC_fire_sim_comparison_080912c.pdf
 
Building gets hit by debris, burns unchecked for seven hours, then falls down, as the firefighters on site strongly suspected it would. The only "Mystery of Building 7" is that anyone thinks there's anything surprising about this.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Building gets hit by debris, burns unchecked for seven hours, then falls down, as the firefighters on site strongly suspected it would. The only "Mystery of Building 7" is that anyone thinks there's anything surprising about this.

Dave
Click to expand...

I know you wouldn't suggest that any one location burned the entire time, right?
 
Marokkaan said:
The nist report about wtc 7 is refuted, so there must be a new investigation!!!

[qimg]http://i51.tinypic.com/6jetrq.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i51.tinypic.com/bg5obt.png[/qimg]

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/WTC_fire_sim_comparison_080912c.pdf
Click to expand...

<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."
 
DGM said:
Why should I spend time watching this? What does this have that I've not seen before. (I've been to his show, just to let you know).

Bottom line, what's new besides the video?
Click to expand...

I do not force you to watch the video.
 
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!
 
Sabretooth said:
Don't bother, it's 2006 all over again. Not a single piece of "new" anything. I wasted 14 minutes of my life to watch a re-run. Although, they suckered Ed Asner into narrating this one.
Click to expand...

Seems like Ed Asner has been a truther since at least 2004 ;)
 
RedIbis said:
I know you wouldn't suggest that any one location burned the entire time, right?
Click to expand...

The building was damaged significantly by debris, was then on fire for seven hours, and no attempt to control the fires progressed to a point where it might have had any effect. Please feel free to obsess over irrelevant details.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
The building was damaged significantly by debris, was then on fire for seven hours, and no attempt to control the fires progressed to a point where it might have had any effect. Please feel free to obsess over irrelevant details.

Dave
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

No, you're right...fires burning uncontrollably for 7 hours is no big deal...

:rolleyes:
 
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...

You are perpetuating the lie that Dave said that. Nice work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom