Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[GlennB]

...

Danny never once suggested his controlled demolition opinion was uncertain because he required more information.



Lying, incompetence, leading ....

And he was amazed to hear it came down on 9/11 itself, but by that time he'd committed to CD as the reason.

Which video was he shown? Did it have the early collapse of the E Penthouse, because many truther videos conveniently skip that bit.

Was he informed that the FDNY were tracking its lean with surveying gear? That they predicted its fall well in advance? That the building was cordonned off? That Silverstein barely recouped the rebuilding costs from insurance? That no CD flashes and explosions were recorded at time of collapse despite several cameras recording the whole business? Nah.

Jowenko was led like a lamb to the slaughter into over-committing to the point where he couldn't easily back off without loss of face. Then what .. retract a few years later and look stupid, or just stfu and hope everybody goes away?

People are like this, MM. They open their fat mouths without thinking, trying to look good, and live to regret it.

[TruthersLie]

False. The interviewer says "No, it was very clean" before the identity of the wall is raised.

Additionally, the disputed wall was not the Verizon building (mis-translated as 'Four-zone') at all, but the US Post Office building, to the left of the photo and to the E of the site. The photo was taken from the N. We can clearly see Fitterman Hall to the left (in the photo) of the Irving Trust building.

Perhaps the interviewer was just plain ignorant, what with 12 core columns and getting buildings' identities entirely wrong. Plus not knowing debris was slammed onto the Verizon and Fitterman Hall making 'walking around it' out of the question.

D'uh :rolleyes:

Now what is rather funny is that the interviewer is from a dutch TV show which is DEBUNKING 9/11.

His interview of Danny J is very very (mis)leading for Danny J.

Though I do love how MM ignores the numerous times he states
"I'm just guessing here."
"I wish I had the building plans."

and other similar declarations that he is just guessing.

Of course in the same interview Danny J states very emphatically that CD detonators would fail at 300C in office fires.

What that tells me is that he didn't realize wtc7 had raging fires, and he never had that clarified.

[GlennB]

Now what is rather funny is that the interviewer is from a dutch TV show which is DEBUNKING 9/11.



Well, we live and learn. I'd never heard this until now.

Can you clarify that? Is there a link or two available?

[Bell]

Well, we live and learn. I'd never heard this until now.

Can you clarify that? Is there a link or two available?

I can verify this. The show was a companion to Loose Change which was aired the same night by the same station (BNN) and was to debunk the claims in that stupid movie.

Eta: In the show they showed that crashing an airplane (three times) into the Pentagon is not hard at all and indeed possible.

[alienentity]

Yah, well I first came across MM at the LCF when I posted links to some of my new videos. His method hasn't changed since that encounter - credulous belief in any statement which supports their thinking and outright denial or ignorance of those that do not, with no cognitive ability to balance the contradictions nor context.

The pitfalls of this method are many; one obvious one is that Jowenko himself contradicts the standard truther mythology regarding WTC1 and WTC2 by declaring they were NOT CD. So he really doesn't help their case, except if they ignore 2/3rds of his testimony (they do).

But even more obvious is the fact that other equally or more qualified demolition experts who were actually at GZ either on 9/11 or shortly after contradict truther hero Jowenko's opinions regarding WTC7. They have specific technical and forensic reasons behind their opinions, whereas Jowenko cannot offer forensic examination as he doesn't have access to it before opining.

Really, when you examine Jowenko's testimony in detail you can see a number of problems, which he himself identifies.
He knows that it would be impossible to set up a demolition of this building in just a few hours, it would take weeks or months.
He knows that it could not be done on the day in a burning building.
He knows that a burning building would probably destroy a lot of the devices were they to exist.

But he makes no attempt to eliminate these problems thru a factual examination, he just moves on as if they didn't exist! And his inability to account for the lack of forensic evidence is a tremendous deficit in his analysis.

But of course truthers are not interested in ANY truthful inquiry which would weaken their arguments, they're just looking for a few quick soundbites that they can quotemine and weave into the mythology - bereft of proper context, naturally.
Hence a few things Jowenko mentions in his superficial analysis are touted as definitive proof, but other experts are ignored or treated with great hostility.

That is precisely why the truth movement is doomed to fail. It is not based on competent analysis, and this can be exposed quite readily.

Sure there will always be people like MM and C7 who will trumpet this half-baked nonsense, but so what? They're incompetent...

[alienentity]

Of course in the same interview Danny J states very emphatically that CD detonators would fail at 300C in office fires.

What that tells me is that he didn't realize wtc7 had raging fires, and he never had that clarified.

Exactly. Devil's in the details...

[Miragememories]

"People are like this... They open their fat mouths without thinking, trying to look good, and live to regret it."

It is a pleasure to quote one of those people.

MM

[Grizzly Bear]

Again, that had no influence on his opinion that WTC7 was a victim of controlled demolition.

Danny never once suggested his controlled demolition opinion was uncertain because he required more information.
MM
Jowenko could be the living reincarnation of Jesus Christ and his opinion - with nothing to back it up - would still be irrelevant. No matter how established it is for him. You should really be focusing your efforts on how he supports his opinions rather than continuing to resort to fallacies. Notwithstanding, the martial Law incident you predicted would happen as Bush's presidency was coming to an end hasn't happened yet...

[Oystein]

MM, I am sorry if I am bugging you, but you ignored my questions in Post 1007 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6250800&postcount=1007)

May I kindly ask you to consider an answer? Here is my post again:


Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
Put whatever spin you want on the interviewer's use of "clean".

His main concern was that Danny be corrected in his mistaken belief that the Verizon Building east wall,
was the remains of a the west wall of WTC7.

MM

You forgot this line, which triforcharity highlighted - did you ignore that lie on purpose?


Quote:
INTERVIEWER: ... But you can walk around it. So clean that you can walk around it


MM, tell us, honestly: Was the interviewer speaking true or false with that statement? Did WTC 7 fall "so clean that you can walk around it" - true or false? (Any other answer but "true" or "false" will be handed back to you)

Thanks in advance!

[Miragememories]

"Yah, well I first came across MM at the LCF when I posted links to some of my new videos."

There was nothing new, not even the lies were new.

As I recall, it was request that LCF members comment on the videos.

Videos that we found to be nothing more than a regurgitation of the
pro-OCT propaganda created by others.

We, at LCF never found an ounce of original work in those videos.

We did find those videos to be classic examples of amateur film making.

Their debunking lead to the wounded puppy retreating to a forum that rejoiced in all such videos, good or bad, as long as they were anti-9/11 Truth.

MM

[Miragememories]

"MM, tell us, honestly: Was the interviewer speaking true or false with that statement? Did WTC 7 fall "so clean that you can walk around it" - true or false? (Any other answer but "true" or "false" will be handed back to you)"

If you want an absolute answer; "true" or "false", you have to give an absolute question.

The original question appears to be based on the interpretation of a photograph, and how
a reasonable person would interpret what constituted WTC7, after it had collapsed?

We could get absurdly technical here.

Going beyond your question though. I think it is a pointless exercise, regardless of how I respond, or how Danny Jowenko responded.

I have shown that controlled demolitions are sometimes far from clean.

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/488/fallenbuilding3uq1.png

But they are still controlled demolitions.

The controlled demolition collapse of WTC7 was damn clean, albeit not a 10 of 10.

There was collateral damage, which is to be avoided at all costs in a usual public controlled demolition.

On 9/11, as we all know, WTC7 was not officially sanctioned for a "usual" controlled demolition.

To criticize it for failing to appear exactly as one is truly absurd. Something only an OCT zealot would suggest.

MM

[Grizzly Bear]

By that logic Timothy McVeigh's attack against the Murrah building must have been an attempted "controlled" demolition that wasn't sanctioned to be "controlled."

[Fonebone]

You forgot this line, which triforcharity highlighted - did you ignore that lie on purpose?



MM, tell us, honestly: Was the interviewer speaking true or false with that statement? Did WTC 7 fall "so clean that you can walk around it" - true or false? (Any other answer but "true" or "false" will be handed back to you)


False -

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/363814c71db3d77a2d.jpg

"clean enough to walk around .." the WTC7 after collapse .
No !
This graphic was taken from the North-East - The post office building is to the left and a clear pile of debris seen looking south to the left of the two telephone pedestals blocks the route.
To the right of the graphic a clear pile of debris reaches the Fetterman building blocking a clear path around the WTC7 pile walking East.
The evidence indicates the interviewer was incorrect when he stated
the WTC7 collapse was "so clean you could walk around it " in the true literal sense of the phrase
--but figuratively speaking the 47 story skyscraper fell into it's own footprint and in a nice neat pile.
This is a us gov LIDAR altitude above sea level scan of the 9/11 murder scene and the WTC7 pile is the pillow shaped on the right.
The LIDAR scan indicates some debris outside the tower footprint but the
neat pile of steel and debris is clearly visible as a neat mound.

Hint - Use the giant crater in the WTC building as a reference point--
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/363814c71fc8b11a2d.jpg

In this LIDAR Altitude graphic cameo of the WTC murder scene the WTC7 rubble pile is the pillow shaped neat pile on the left. again , some debris is spread outside of the tower footprint, but again, very little.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/363814c71fc8b30cb7.jpg

Clean enought to walk around ? NO
Nice neat pile of rubble in their own footprints YES
See for yourselves

EXTRA CREDIT
Can you spot the nice neat piles of rubble of the two TWIN WTC
towers ?
Can you spot circular craters scattered around the WTC murder scene ?
Any of you military boys know what creates circular craters ?

[GlennB]

On 9/11, as we all know, WTC7 was not officially sanctioned for a "usual" controlled demolition.

To criticize it for failing to appear exactly as one is truly absurd.

Wha ????

It's the CTists who claim that the very precision of the collapse points to CD. The interviewer in the Jowenko interview does exactly this.

Now you want it both ways?

Incidentally it's your theory that WTC7 was prepped way in advance of 9/11. Presumably you're now moving towards the belief that the perps knowingly wired it to generate some collateral damage, to make it look convincing? Do explain, but it's clear that the debunkers here could do a better job of coming up with a coherent narrative on your behalf than you're doing yourself.

[Oystein]

If you want an absolute answer; "true" or "false", you have to give an absolute question.

The original question appears to be based on the interpretation of a photograph, and how
a reasonable person would interpret what constituted WTC7, after it had collapsed?

We could get absurdly technical here.

Going beyond your question though...

Tsk tsk tsk, MM
Squirming much because you are specifically asked to answer honestly?
Moving goalposts much?

I told you I'd be returning the question to you if your answer wasn't "true" and wasn't "false".

There is nothing absurdly technical about what the interviewer said to Danny Jowenko. Please remember, the interviewer came prepared, Jowenko unprepared to the interview.

My question WAS absolute. There are absolutely no two ways to interprete the interviewers statement: "But you can walk around it. So clean that you can walk around it"

Is that statement true or false?
Fonebone apparently had no trouble answering that question. Thankfully, he provided some evidence.
Look at Fonebone's evidence.
Do you disagree with Fonebone that the honest answer to my question is "false"?

[Oystein]

False -

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/363814c71db3d77a2d.jpg

"clean enough to walk around .." the WTC7 after collapse .
No !
...
Clean enought to walk around ? NO
Nice neat pile of rubble in their own footprints YES
See for yourselves

EXTRA CREDIT
Can you spot the nice neat piles of rubble of the two TWIN WTC
towers ?
Can you spot circular craters scattered around the WTC murder scene ?
Any of you military boys know what creates circular craters ?

Thank you.
The point of my question was not to discuss any properties of WTC7 and its rubble pile as such, but to assess the interview, and the quality and veracity of the information given to Jowenko by the interviewer.



About your other points:
- Most pieces of rubble in all 3 collapses came to rest close to to some point vertically below their original position. That is because all three were gravitationally driven collapses for the most part (most of the energy involved was kinetic energy in the gravitational field; most of the forces involved were gravitation). CD is only one special case of gravitational collapse. There is no a-priori reasen to assume that rubble piles would look different from different modes ofs collapse initiation.
- Circular craters can come from different causes: Landmines :D; meteorites; other high-impulse impacts; hollow structured caving in due to stress; underground wash-out; probably more. Which explanation do you prefer, and why?



ETA: Oh, and while we are at it, Fonebone, you did not yet reply to Post 962 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6241033&postcount=962) - my reply to your claim about Van Romero.

[GlennB]

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/verizondamagedetail.jpg

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/Verizon_building_damage2.jpg

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7broadway.jpg

[TruthersLie]

Well, we live and learn. I'd never heard this until now.

Can you clarify that? Is there a link or two available?

to the whole show?

I don't know.

I do know that this was originally from a kind of "debunking 9/11" on danish TV.

They looked at 4 of the biggest claims and rejected 3 of them out of hand.

IIRC they had the "hijackers can't have flown that way" and put a novice pilot in the simulator and he hit the pentagon 3 out of 3 tries.

They talked to Danny J, and in the FULL interview he points out that at 300C (IIRC) the detonators would fail, and that is why wtc 1 and 2 could not have been CD.

He is then taken through WTC7 by the same interviewer

I'll see if I can find the google video of the entire show with subtitles.

Ah.. found parts of it.
It is from the show ZEMBLA
here they look at the "hijackers can't have flown like that"
jZbUCoVEVsU

It is called ZEMBLA and aired on 9/10/06. It is dutch

ETA: Here is part one of 6 on youtube
rtfFtrpNB-I

ETA:
Here is the full video with subtitles on google video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6624447947169635420#

[TruthersLie]

False -

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/363814c71db3d77a2d.jpg

"clean enough to walk around .." the WTC7 after collapse .
No !
This graphic was taken from the North-East - The post office building is to the left and a clear pile of debris seen looking south to the left of the two telephone pedestals blocks the route.
To the right of the graphic a clear pile of debris reaches the Fetterman building blocking a clear path around the WTC7 pile walking East.
The evidence indicates the interviewer was incorrect when he stated
the WTC7 collapse was "so clean you could walk around it " in the true literal sense of the phrase
--but figuratively speaking the 47 story skyscraper fell into it's own footprint and in a nice neat pile.
This is a us gov LIDAR altitude above sea level scan of the 9/11 murder scene and the WTC7 pile is the pillow shaped on the right.
The LIDAR scan indicates some debris outside the tower footprint but the
neat pile of steel and debris is clearly visible as a neat mound.

Hint - Use the giant crater in the WTC building as a reference point--
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/363814c71fc8b11a2d.jpg

In this LIDAR Altitude graphic cameo of the WTC murder scene the WTC7 rubble pile is the pillow shaped neat pile on the left. again , some debris is spread outside of the tower footprint, but again, very little.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/363814c71fc8b30cb7.jpg

Clean enought to walk around ? NO
Nice neat pile of rubble in their own footprints YES
See for yourselves

EXTRA CREDIT
Can you spot the nice neat piles of rubble of the two TWIN WTC
towers ?
Can you spot circular craters scattered around the WTC murder scene ?
Any of you military boys know what creates circular craters ?

Just a simple question.

How does a building that collapses into its own footprint manage to strike two buildings which are about 270 degreees away from each other, including striking one of those in the roof?

Were the Verizion building and fitterman hall in the footprint of wtc7? How does taht happen?

[Oystein]

...
IIRC they had the "hijackers can't have flown that way" and put a novice pilot in the simulator and he hit the pentagon 3 out of 3 tries.
...

Not really a novice pilot. Just a novice to Boeings. The guy has some experience with small planes.

I can attest you that I, with no experience at the controls of a real plane, but some on PC flight sim, would be able to fly a 767 into a large building 3 out of 3 tries. I have been on a real 707 sim (NATO base training facility) once and found it much easier to align with a runway and do a go-around as low as 30 meters (I was instructed not to land, so the next person in line could take over "my" plane quickly while still flying). I have not the slightest doubt that I could have pointed the nose at any building on the ground and hit it smack-on. Much much much easier to hit a tall thing like the twin towers.

[Oystein]

One remark about the discussion about "clean" CD and "in its footprint" and the "controlled" in "CD":

It may take a team of a dozend several weeks to wire one of the towers for a really clean CD, but we need not assume that anybody desired a clean CD. All they presumably wanted was for the tower to collapse. No "clean" needed, no "controlled" needed, no "in its footprint" needed. Just blast the thing to smithereens. Obviously, saving lives or adjacent property was not high on the list of priorities of the perps, whoever they may have been.

I could imagine a scenario where Larry calls his insurance, gets their go, says "pull it", and then twenty men with one charge of high explosives each and an axe go into WTC7, avoiding places that are on fire just then, hacking through wall claddings to get to columns, attaching charges, wiring them with some sort of remote controlled igniter, and leaving. Could be done in 40 minutes I am sure.

Even if several of the charges burn in the following hours, if 12 survive in strategic places, that might be well enough to bring the tower down unclean.


(Of course, I can imagine anything I like as long as I want to. Just need to assume the twoofer habit of making things up).

[Miragememories]

"I have shown that controlled demolitions are sometimes far from clean.

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/9805/fallenbuilding1lv2.png

But they are still controlled demolitions.

The controlled demolition collapse of WTC7 was damn clean, albeit not a 10 of 10.

There was collateral damage, which is to be avoided at all costs in a usual public controlled demolition.

On 9/11, as we all know, WTC7 was not officially sanctioned for a "usual" controlled demolition.

To criticize it for failing to appear exactly as one is truly absurd. Something only an OCT zealot would suggest."
"--but figuratively speaking the 47 story skyscraper fell into it's own footprint and in a nice neat pile."
"It's the CTists who claim that the very precision of the collapse points to CD. The interviewer in the Jowenko interview does exactly this."
Well Glenn, it was by most people's definition, a very precise collapse;

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/363814c71db3d77a2d.jpg

Show me something comparable, proven by more than a weak theory (NIST),
to have been caused by fire alone and we'll have a genuine discussion point.

MM

[excaza]

Well Glenn, it was by most people's definition, a very precise collapse;

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/363814c71db3d77a2d.jpg

Show me something comparable, proven by more than a weak theory (NIST),
to have been caused by fire alone and we'll have a genuine discussion point.

MM

What is there to discuss when you won't provide any evidence for CD? What explosives were used? How much explosives were used? Why is there no evidence of any demolition equipment? How were the explosives rigged without anyone noticing? How were they detonated without anyone noticing or being injured by the blasts?

You yammer on about "CD! CD! CD!" yet provide no evidence, no hypothesis, no explanation at all other than "I don't agree with or understand the official reports, so it must have been CD." It's been 9 years, how long do we have to wait?

[GlennB]

Show me something comparable, proven by more than a weak theory (NIST), to have been caused by fire alone and we'll have a genuine discussion point.


Ah, the logical fallacy of "Nothing can be believed unless it has a precedent". I forget its proper title. Many steel framed buildings have failed entirely because of fire. None this tall, however.

p.s. your failed CD photos are of RC buildings. That's why they're still hanging together despite lying on their sides.

[Disbelief]

What is there to discuss when you won't provide any evidence for CD? What explosives were used? How much explosives were used? Why is there no evidence of any demolition equipment? How were the explosives rigged without anyone noticing?

You've presented absolutely nothing to support CD.

No, he presented a failed CD of a building of different construction than WTC7to prove that WTC7 was a CD that fell in its own footprint.:boggled:

[Miragememories]

Ah, the logical fallacy of "Nothing can be believed unless it has a precedent".

No.

Just proof of existence will suffice.

Based on your logic, Santa Clause, the tooth fairy etc. etc. should be
given credence.

The nice closure-providing theory by the NIST, does not prove that WTC7 was
collapsed by fire.

MM

[Miragememories]

No, he presented a failed CD of a building of different construction than WTC7 to prove that WTC7 was a CD that fell in its own footprint.:boggled:
No.

It was intended to illustrate that controlled demolitions can have all kinds of footprints.

Footprint size, generally reflects the quality of the engineering behind a controlled demolition.

A large footprint does not prove a controlled demolition was not a controlled demolition.

MM

[excaza]

No.

It was intended to illustrate that controlled demolitions can have all kinds of footprints.

Footprint size, generally reflects the quality of the engineering behind a controlled demolition.

A large footprint does not prove a controlled demolition was not a controlled demolition.

MM

Just like a small footprint does not prove a controlled demolition. So why do you keep insisting it does? Is it really the only 'evidence' you have?

[Disbelief]

No.

It was intended to illustrate that controlled demolitions can have all kinds of footprints.

Then why show a failed CD?


Footprint size, generally reflects the quality of the engineering behind a controlled demolition.

Not necessarily, since it could also mean that the wrong amount of explosives were installed or incorrect prepwork was done.


A large footprint does not prove a controlled demolition was not a controlled demolition.

MM

As excaza said, then a small footprint does not prove a CD was not a CD either.

So, if you can not tell by the footprint - whether large or small - if it was a CD or not, why do you insist on it as one of the TM's talking points? Can we not just discard the footprint as evidence for anything?

[GlennB]

No.

Just proof of existence will suffice.



Well then, many steel-framed buildings have collapsed from fire even when those fires were actively fought. If you want to debate that fact you'll just end up looking silly.

WTC7 was well past the fire-rating of its steel and fireproofing. Given what fire-rating is designed for, why would anybody be surprised that it fell?

Hmm?

[Miragememories]

Well then, many steel-framed buildings have collapsed from fire even when those fires were actively fought. If you want to debate that fact you'll just end up looking silly.
Your talk is cheap.

Show me a concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire.

It is called put up or shut up.

MM

[BigAl]

Your talk is cheap.

Show me a concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire.



It's irrelevant for the purposes of understanding how WTC1/2/7 collapsed.

[TruthersLie]

No.

It was intended to illustrate that controlled demolitions can have all kinds of footprints.

Footprint size, generally reflects the quality of the engineering behind a controlled demolition.

A large footprint does not prove a controlled demolition was not a controlled demolition.

MM

YOu keep using that word (footprint). It does not mean what you think it means. YOu might want to look up what an architectural footprint means.

Thanks.

[TruthersLie]

Your talk is cheap.

Show me a concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire.

It is called put up or shut up.

MM

strawman that you have been called on repeatedly, yet you keep on spewing it.

Neither the towers, nor wtc7 was a "concrete and steel building" except that the steel FRAMED building had concrete floorplans. The concrete played almost NO role in the structural integrity.

And you know it.

Please stop with the ******** strawman.

[Bell]

Your talk is cheap.

Show me a concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire.

It is called put up or shut up.

MM

Why would this be of any importance?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Your talk is cheap.

Show me a concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire.

It is called put up or shut up.

MM

Fires do do damage to concrete & steel. Being a firefighter & knowing what fire is capable of, really puts your arguements to rest that fire can cause collapses in buildings.

Read about Fire Science & tell me that you understand it.

[Miragememories]

"It was intended to illustrate that controlled demolitions can have all kinds of footprints."
"Then why show a failed CD?"

Because OCTers make such a big issue of how the WTC7 collapse could not be a controlled demolition because they feel its footprint was too large.
Whether successful or not, and whether its footprint is big or small, a controlled demolition is still a controlled demolition.

"Footprint size, generally reflects the quality of the engineering behind a controlled demolition."
"Not necessarily, since it could also mean that the wrong amount of explosives were installed or incorrect prepwork was done."

How does "the wrong amount of explosives were installed or incorrect prepwork was done." not reflect on the quality of engineering behind a controlled demolition?

"As excaza said, then a small footprint does not prove a CD was not a CD either"

I never said that it did.

All total building collapses leave a footprint.

Well engineered controlled demolitions leave small footprints.

"So, if you can not tell by the footprint - whether large or small - if it was a CD or not, why do you insist on it as one of the TM's talking points? Can we not just discard the footprint as evidence for anything?"

A small footprint is very suggestive of an unnatural collapse.

A controlled demolition is an unnatural collapse.

Given the 47-story original size of WTC7 and its relatively small collapse footprint, it is a legitimate talking point.


MM

[excaza]

Given the 47-story original size of WTC7 and its relatively small collapse footprint, it is a legitimate talking point.

Sure, until you get into the whole needing evidence thing and how there isn't any. You've had 9 years, shouldn't you have found something worth publishing by now? Not even a coherent hypothesis?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Bolding's mine:

Because OCTers make such a big issue of how the WTC7 collapse could not be a controlled demolition because they feel its footprint was too large.
Whether successful or not, and whether its footprint is big or small, a controlled demolition is still a controlled demolition.

One problem with your arguement pal. Where is the sounds of a CD on the original videos shot by numerous News people & amatuer filmers? Don't say "they cut out the sound" because that's a lie. So, where did the sound of a CD go?"

How does "the wrong amount of explosives were installed or incorrect prepwork was done." not reflect on the quality of engineering behind a controlled demolition?

Because it didn't look like or sound like a CD. Are you related to Richard Gage BTW?

I never said that it did.

All total building collapses leave a footprint.

Sure, Bigfoot caused the collapse. :rolleyes:

Well engineered controlled demolitions leave small footprints.

That would be the Ewoks, they have small feet. :p

A small footprint is very suggestive of an unnatural collapse.

A controlled demolition is an unnatural collapse.

Nothings "unnatural" in a collapse, it's only naturally done with natural c-4 explosives made from mother earth.

Given the 47-story original size of WTC7 and its relatively small collapse footprint, it is a legitimate talking point.

So you're saying that a team of Ewoks went into the building, rigged it with thermal detenator charges & waltzed right out without being seen?


MM

[Miragememories]

"Show me a concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire."
It's irrelevant for the purposes of understanding how WTC7 collapsed.
It is totally relevant to this WTC7 thread.

The Official Theory claims fire caused the total collapse of a concrete and steel building, WTC7.

I'm requesting proof, and not a theoretical one, of another concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire.

It is the kind of proof OCTers are always demanding from the 9/11 Truth Movement.

MM

[Disbelief]

Because OCTers make such a big issue of how the WTC7 collapse could not be a controlled demolition because they feel its footprint was too large.

They do so in direct response to the TM claim that the building fell in its own footprint. Nice try to act like the debunkers came up with the point for no apparent reason. Should I link you to the AE911 site for proof of the TM using this?


Whether successful or not, and whether its footprint is big or small, a controlled demolition is still a controlled demolition.

Using failed CDs to try and make a point about footprints is akin to lying.



How does "the wrong amount of explosives were installed or incorrect prepwork was done." not reflect on the quality of engineering behind a controlled demolition?

The engineering might have been top notch, but the execution/workmanship may have been poor. I forgot to add that charges not going off, whether from improper installation or faulty material, could also be a reason that a CD failed. A failed CD does not automatically mean that the engineering was bad, though it could very well be the case.



I never said that it did.

All total building collapses leave a footprint.

Well engineered controlled demolitions leave small footprints.

But that is the hint that you leave by only talking about large footprints.



A small footprint is very suggestive of an unnatural collapse.

A controlled demolition is an unnatural collapse.

Given the 47-story original size of WTC7 and its relatively small collapse footprint, it is a legitimate talking point.


MM

And here you go, right back to the small footprint being indicative of a CD, right after you suggested you have never said that. Also leads back to point one, that it is the TM that uses this.

[Bell]

It is totally relevant to this WTC7 thread.

The Official Theory claims fire caused the total collapse of a concrete and steel building, WTC7.

I'm requesting proof, and not a theoretical one, of another concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire.

It is the kind of proof OCTers are always demanding from the 9/11 Truth Movement.

MM

Are you suggesting that unless anything has happened before, it can not happen at all? :boggled:

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It is totally relevant to this WTC7 thread.

The Official Theory claims fire caused the total collapse of a concrete and steel building, WTC7.

I'm requesting proof, and not a theoretical one, of another concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire.

It is the kind of proof OCTers are always demanding from the 9/11 Truth Movement.

MM

Umm it's called reading Fire Science and understanding what fire can do to structures. And it's a plus to be a firefighter to know everything about fire. But for those who haven't a clue about WTC7 being on fire & collasping from fire, they haven't talked with a firefighter yet. Or maybe they're too scared to talk with a firefighter.

[Grizzly Bear]

Are you suggesting that unless anything has happened before, it can not happen at all? :boggled:
Apparantly so... on the other hand, accepting this line of argument automatically requires that he abandon [nano]thermite as a cause of the collapse since he will not be able to point out a single demolition carried out using the reactant as a cutter medium.

[TruthersLie]

Hey MM.

did you look up what an architectural footprint is yet?

[Miragememories]

Hey MM.

did you look up what an architectural footprint is yet?

Your point?

You would rather I refer to spread outside of its footprint?

MM

[Oystein]

You are off topic.

MM

Why did you not reply to that of my posts which was precisely on topic?

I asked you: When the interviewer told Danny that WTC7 had collapsed so clean you could walk around it - was he telling Danny something true or something false?

It seems to me very much on topic, since the topic is whether Danny was manipulated during the interview. So we must consider the questions:
1. Was he given true information?
2. Was he given sufficient information

If the answer is "no" to one or the other, that would support the suspicion that he was indeed manipulated.

So please do answer my question, as it is relevant to the OP.

[GlennB]

Your talk is cheap.



Your obvious evasion of the point about WTC7 being well past its fire-rating is also noted.

[GlennB]

The real talking point here, if you don't want to be off topic in this thread, is:

Was Danny given true or false information regarding the extent of the debris field?

MM?

You've studiously avoided Oystein's question for a very long time now ......

[Sam.I.Am]

1) The old WTC 7 used very little concrete in it's construction (mainly in the foundation, just like every other building in Manhattan built in that era). To call it concrete and steel building is like calling your average home a concrete and wood building. Both are in a limited sense correct but in a fire the concrete means nothing.

2) Even if (and it's not true but just for the sake of argument) WTC 7 was built with structural concrete as structural support members outside the foundation, the amount of preparation and explosives goes up, not down. That means that it becomes even more likely that someone would've noticed the prep, the blasts and the residue. Not less.

3) The new WTC 7 does have a concrete core. It was done at a great expense to bring in tenants who might otherwise shy away from locating their offices at ground zero. If that building collapses from fires and that collapse looks and sounds like the old WTC 7 collapse then you will have a point.

The reality that truthers can't seem to wrap their heads around is that fire and steel don't play well together and never have. Millions are spent on a steel skyscrapers fireproofing to protect them. This isn't done for appearance. If a steel structure, regardless of size, isn't protected against fire then the likelihood of collapse from fire is very high. If a steel structure, regardless of size, is protected with fireproofing and the fires aren't fought, the fireproofing will fail and the likelihood of collapse is high.

[GlennB]

strawman that you have been called on repeatedly, yet you keep on spewing it.

Neither the towers, nor wtc7 was a "concrete and steel building" except that the steel FRAMED building had concrete floorplans. The concrete played almost NO role in the structural integrity.



This sums it up, MM. The concrete in WTC7 is of no significance in this discussion.

You've introduced it late in the day here because you've been shown examples of steel-framed buildings collapsing through fire many times before.

[TruthersLie]

Your point?

You would rather I refer to spread outside of its footprint?

MM

I would rather that you use the terms correctly.

Did WTC 1,2 or 7 collape into their own footprint? (go look up what an architectural footprint is before you answer)

Were wtc 1,2 and 7 steel and concrete buildings? (go lookup what their design was)

AS soon as you have educated yourself on both of those strawman ******** arguments, come on back and we can discuss what you have learned.

ETA:
Because we have seen how academically lazy you are, let me google that for you. (http://tinyurl.com/26ug457).

Take any of the top 3 answers. NOw what is a buildings architectural footprint?

[Miragememories]

"Why did you not reply to that of my posts which was precisely on topic?

I asked you: When the interviewer told Danny that WTC7 had collapsed so clean you could walk around it - was he telling Danny something true or something false?

It seems to me very much on topic, since the topic is whether Danny was manipulated during the interview. So we must consider the questions:
1. Was he given true information?
2. Was he given sufficient information

If the answer is "no" to one or the other, that would support the suspicion that he was indeed manipulated.

So please do answer my question, as it is relevant to the OP."
Only in a courtroom do you have the right to demand a "yes" or "no" type response.

If an honest, sincere response from me is insufficient, than put me on ignore.

Little will be learned from a playing yes/no gotcha.

From watching the interview a number of times, it is my honest opinion that the interviewer provided Danny Jowenko
with all the information he had available at that time.

Was Danny given sufficient information?

That question addresses professional insight.

Depending on their level of knowledge and experience, a professional may, or may not,
feel they have been provided with sufficient information to express a professional opinion.

You and other OCT supporters seem to feel that you are more qualified to make that determination than Danny.

If it is your intent to answer your own questions than I see no point in making a response of any kind.

You seem to make the assumption that it would never occur to Danny Jowenko to go
online and read the information on WTC7. He had ample time between the two interviews.

So getting back to your second question, all I can say is that Danny could have re-considered his initial opinion
at any time without losing any respect from his audience or peers.

He could have said it looks like a controlled demolition but without more information he wasn't sure.

What you apparently can't, or won't accept, is that for Danny Jowenko, a man who had an intimate knowledge
of the controlled demolition process, the question was a no-brainer.

His only uncertainty, not unexpectedly, was in the how.

MM

[beachnut]

Is Danny an expert in gravity collapses? No. He blows up junk and got 2 out of 3 correct. Not even a C. We have a grade D expert.

Is Danny a structural engineer? No. Does he understand the structure of WTC7? No. Is he qualified in fire science? No.

Reality: The 911 truth 66.7 percent correct, D expert; Danny.

911 Truth Delusions world: the 911 truth 33.3 percent correct, F expert; Danny!

Now that is one heck of an X-pert, he is 67 percent right in the real world and only 33 percent correct in the delusional 911 truth world!

Sad 911 truth does not use math or science.

[Sam.I.Am]

From watching the interview a number of times, it is my honest opinion that the interviewer provided Danny Jowenko with all the information he had available at that time.

If the interviewer presented all of the information that was actually available to the general public at that time instead of selectively presenting and spinning information (also known as cherry picking and lying) in their presentation to Jowenko then your opinion might have some validity.

However, they decided either by choice or ignorance to omit information (sound, date, location and the entire collapse at a minimum) that was common knowledge and easily available at the time and then flat out lied about the site conditions after the collapse. That is a classic example of manipulation. And apparently you have fallen for it too by defending it after it has been pointed out to you just how wrong the presentation to Jowenko was, by claiming that they didn't have information available from the very first week after 9/11.

[twinstead]

What is the deal with endless threads about what people THINK people believe? Frankly, if Jowenko still insists that WTC7 was a CD he needs to be trying to get his cd expert community behind him. That's where this debate should be happening. His silence after 3 years, the lack of objection to the commonly-held narrative account of WT7 in scientific and engineering communities, and the fact that this "debate" only rages on relatively obscure internet forums should make any prospective "truther" go hmmmmmmm

[GlennB]

From watching the interview a number of times, it is my honest opinion that the interviewer provided Danny Jowenko with all the information he had available at that time.



Er, why? The interviewer's sincerity was overwhelming, or something? He has a nice voice? You checked out his CV? Saw his interview notes? Spoke to him personally?

You are a very gullible person MM. The exact opposite of the freedom-fighter you take yourself to be, in fact.

[Oystein]

Only in a courtroom do you have the right to demand a "yes" or "no" type response.

Wrong. I can demand that anywhere. I just can't force you to.

If an honest, sincere response from me is insufficient, than put me on ignore.

You did not answer the question. Neither honestly nor sincerely. You just did not. Please do so.

Little will be learned from a playing yes/no gotcha.

Gotcha?!? You think I gotcha?? :D

From watching the interview a number of times, it is my honest opinion that the interviewer provided Danny Jowenko
with all the information he had available at that time.

I did not ask if that was the information that was available to the interviewer. I asked if the information was true or false. I see no reason why you are unable or unwilling to answer that question.

So getting back to your second question...

Please answer the first question first.

[TruthersLie]

bump for MM since he is dodging this.

I would rather that you use the terms correctly.

Did WTC 1,2 or 7 collape into their own footprint? (go look up what an architectural footprint is before you answer)

Were wtc 1,2 and 7 steel and concrete buildings? (go lookup what their design was)

AS soon as you have educated yourself on both of those strawman ******** arguments, come on back and we can discuss what you have learned.

ETA:
Because we have seen how academically lazy you are, let me google that for you. (http://tinyurl.com/26ug457).

Take any of the top 3 answers. NOw what is a buildings architectural footprint?

Now then... since we know what the architectural footprint of wtc 1, 2 and 7 are, how is any CD that puts debris outside of them part of the "footprint?" (answer... it isn't)

How does the collapse of wtc7 fall into its own footprint, when it struck two buildings which were 270 (ish) degrees apart across 2 streets, including from the ROOF of fitterman hall? Oh wait... that isn't part of the "footprint," so it DIDN"T collapse into its own footprint... isn't that right?

[Miragememories]

"Now then... since we know what the architectural footprint of wtc 1, 2 and 7 are, how is any CD that puts debris outside of them part of the "footprint?" (answer... it isn't)"
Buy a dictionary and quit obsessing on one use of a word that can be used very generically.

It is virtually impossible to have a collapse footprint that will match its architectural footprint.

"How does the collapse of wtc7 fall into its own footprint, when it struck two buildings which were 270 (ish) degrees apart across 2 streets, including from the ROOF of fitterman hall?"
Dunno?

I have never suggested that the WTC7 collapse was confined to its architectural footprint.

When experts talk about falling into its own footprint, they are speaking in relative, not absolute terms.

A point which you already knew.

As an example;
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

And regarding your concerns about the size of the WTC7 debris field (since you apparently don't like the term: collapse footprint).

"The towers showered debris in a wide radius as their external frames essentially “peeled” outward and fell from the top to the bottom.

In contrast, the collapse of WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse."
bolding is mine

MM

[TruthersLie]

Buy a dictionary and quit obsessing on one use of a word that can be used very generically.

Not in terms of engineering or architecture. They are VERY SPECIFIC TERMS. With SPECIFIC DEFINTIONS which you are LYING about.


It is virtually impossible to have a collapse footprint that will match its architectural footprint.

Provide any example of a "collapse footprint" being used in engineering or architecture.

There is NONE in engineering or in architecture. You are being a LIAR again. When speaking of a footprint in engineering or architecture it deals with the BASE of the building.

So now that we know you are intellectually dishonest, we can examine your ******** about "collapsing into its footprint."

How does a building collapse into its footprint manage to strike two adjacent buildings that are 270ish degrees apart, including striking one on the roof?

oh it can't.

Drop the ******** about the "footprint." In CD you do drop the building into its footprint. Wtc7 wasn't in its footprint.


I have never suggested that the WTC7 collapse was confined to its architectural footprint.

weasle words and dodging noted. you use the term footprint which has very SPECIFIC defintions. It is a LIE to use those terms the way you are doing. and you know it.



When experts talk about falling into its own footprint, they are speaking in relative, not absolute terms.


then you can show me any use of the term in any architectural or engineering text that says the footprint is different than the interior of the base of the building. It should be easy. Otherwise stop using that ******** LYING term.

USing an ignorant twoof "structural engineer" who should know better about what the PROPER terms are, shows just how incredibly STUPID you twoofs are. Even R. Gage repeats this same ********.

Get out a Dictionary and LOOK IT UP


And regarding your concerns about the size of the WTC7 debris field (since you apparently don't like the term: collapse footprint).


Much better. There is no such term as a "collapse footprint." And trying to suborn the proper architectural terms is a ******** dodge... much like your moving the goalposts to a steel and concrete building, when neither of the towers, nor wtc7 meet that definition for building.

I understand that having delusions of adequacy makes you feel like you know somthing, but after your bad predictions of bush using nukes to take over... I seriously doubt that.

Now that we know you are using free internet at the library, go and LOOK UP THOSE TERMS.

[Miragememories]

"Buy a dictionary and quit obsessing on one use of a word that can be used very generically.

It is virtually impossible to have a collapse footprint that will match its architectural footprint."
"Provide any example of a "collapse footprint" being used in engineering or architecture.

There is NONE in engineering or in architecture. You are being a LIAR again. When speaking of a footprint in engineering or architecture it deals with the BASE of the building."
Get over yourself.

You are really pathetic TruthersLie, if the best you can do is suddenly introduce the term "architectural footprint", when you know damn well that the people in this non-tech forum have been using the term footprint for years.

You have no difficulty understanding what I mean by "collapse footprint".

I'll be damned if I'm going to constantly refer to it as; the area of debris resulting from the building's collapse, or use some equally ponderous description.

"How does a building collapse into its footprint manage to strike two adjacent buildings that are 270ish degrees apart, including striking one on the roof?

oh it can't."

Which clearly indicates a different meaning was intended.

"I have never suggested that the WTC7 collapse was confined to its architectural footprint."
"weasle words and dodging noted. "
Weasel from what?

Dodge what?

I am on record in exhaustive detail as to my views about the WTC7 collapse.

"When experts talk about falling into its own footprint, they are speaking in relative, not absolute terms.

A point which you already knew.

As an example;"
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

"USing an ignorant twoof "structural engineer" who should know better about what the PROPER terms are, shows just how incredibly STUPID you twoofs are. Even R. Gage repeats this same ********."

Your bigotry is truly pathetic.

MM

[TruthersLie]

Get over yourself.

You are really pathetic TruthersLie, if the best you can do is suddenly introduce the term "architectural footprint", when you know damn well that the people in this non-tech forum have been using the term footprint for years.

and using it WRONG for years. Being corrected on it numerous times and IGNORING the definition so you can try to say that if wtc7 fell in its footprint (which it DIDNT) then it was CD because in CD you bring a building down in its footprint.

So try again. LOOK UP THE *********** WORDS AND USE THE RIGHT TERMINOLOGY MORON.


You have no difficulty understanding what I mean by "collapse footprint".

None what so ever. I understand that you do not understand what a buildings footprint is and have been trying to get people to agree that wtc 1,2 and 7 fell in their "own footprints." Your lack of understanding is rather amazing... but then again so is the shifting and moving of the goalsposts.

USE THE CORRECT *********** TERMINOLOGY.


I'll be damned if I'm going to constantly refer to it as; the area of debris resulting from the building's collapse, or use some equally ponderous description.


Oh rubble pile works. Debris pile works. Both of them are accurate and correct. Calling the collapse as the "footprint" is ********, and is incorrect terminology. Stop using the wrong *********** TERMINOLOGY.


Which clearly indicates a different meaning was intended.

No it clearly shows that the twoof "engineers" who say it fell into its own footprint are morons and haven't even bothered to LOOK at the collapse debris field.

But hey, you must be right... after all Bush Nuked the US and is now a dictator right? He didn't? Damn...

You claim it is used in the form you are using it in, then BACK IT UP. SOURCE IT or stop using it.


I am on record in exhaustive detail as to my views about the WTC7 collapse.

Yup and they are as wrong as that prediction about bush taking over the US...

Your bigotry is truly pathetic.

MM

ROFLMAO. I love it when ignorant twoofs try that. I am not bigoted... I am just being honest. 1250 "architect and engineering professionals" and NOT ONE *********** PEER REVIEWED PAPER, ANY WHERE IN THE WORLD, in ANY LANGUAGE which says NIST is wrong about ANYTHING.

Geee.... It has been 9 years, and a FULL year after the FINAL report on wtc7... where are they? (I have 4 peer reviewed articles on my CV, includign one which was written and publishedin less than 6 months. Why can't twoofs even manage that basic level of scholarship? Oh wait... they can't find a *********** dictionary (pyroclastic, free fall, and footprint....)

[triforcharity]

Buy a dictionary and quit obsessing on one use of a word that can be used very generically.

It is virtually impossible to have a collapse footprint that will match its architectural footprint.


Dunno?

I have never suggested that the WTC7 collapse was confined to its architectural footprint.

When experts talk about falling into its own footprint, they are speaking in relative, not absolute terms.

A point which you already knew.

As an example;


"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

And regarding your concerns about the size of the WTC7 debris field (since you apparently don't like the term: collapse footprint).


bolding is mine

MM

You are absolutely correct. This is absolutely a moot point, as not one single building fell into it's own footprint on 9/11. This much is true.

And I will absolutely agree with Mr. Mason, if 3 buildings fell into their own footprint, on the same day, in the same location, I would be very suspicious also.

But, we KNOW that this did not happen. Not once.

PS. It's not called a collapse footprint. It's called a pile of rubble.

[Miragememories]

"Get over yourself.

You are really pathetic TruthersLie, if the best you can do is suddenly introduce the term "architectural footprint", when you know damn well that the people in this non-tech forum have been using the term footprint for years.

You have no difficulty understanding what I mean by "collapse footprint".

I'll be damned if I'm going to constantly refer to it as; the area of debris resulting from the building's collapse, or use some equally ponderous description."
"...and using it WRONG for years...shifting and moving of the goalsposts...incorrect terminology...the twoof "engineers" who say it fell into its own footprint are morons... after all Bush Nuked the US and is now a dictator right? He didn't? Damn...I love it when ignorant twoofs try that. I am not bigoted...NOT ONE *********** PEER REVIEWED PAPER, ANY WHERE IN THE WORLD, in ANY LANGUAGE which says NIST is wrong about ANYTHING...Why can't twoofs even manage that basic level of scholarship?"
Quite the rant.

I believe triforcharity pretty much summed it up; "You are absolutely correct. This is absolutely a moot point, as not one single building fell into it's own footprint on 9/11. This much is true."

TruthersLie, you really should calm down.

Have a glass of wine.

Kick back.

And maybe watch this for some peace of mind;

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

MM

[uke2se]

Quite the rant.

I believe triforcharity pretty much summed it up; "You are absolutely correct. This is absolutely a moot point, as not one single building fell into it's own footprint on 9/11. This much is true."

TruthersLie, you really should calm down.

Have a glass of wine.

Kick back.

And maybe watch this for some peace of mind;

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

MM

Does this mean you will stop lying about the buildings falling into their footprints? If so, that's a major achievement for TruthersLie.

[Oystein]

...
You did not answer the question. Neither honestly nor sincerely. You just did not. Please do so.
...

I did not ask if that was the information that was available to the interviewer. I asked if the information was true or false. I see no reason why you are unable or unwilling to answer that question.

Please answer the first question first.

MM, in your continued quest to avoid honesty, you are still dodging my old first question. So I am bumping Post 1076 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6258082&postcount=1076) for you. Will you finally answer honestly and sincerely, if Danny Jowenko was given true or false information when the interviewer claimed that WTC7 fell so clean that you could walk around it?

Thanks in advance.

[Oystein]

Buy a dictionary and quit obsessing on one use of a word that can be used very generically.

It is virtually impossible to have a collapse footprint that will match its architectural footprint.

When experts talk about falling into its own footprint, they are speaking in relative, not absolute terms.

A point which you already knew.

As an example;

Originally Posted by Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"
And regarding your concerns about the size of the WTC7 debris field (since you apparently don't like the term: collapse footprint).


What utter folly.
Nobody would ever use the term "footprint" in that context to mean "collapse footprint". By definition, every collapsed buiding fell into its "collapse footprint", so a statement "chances of buildings collapsing into their own footprint ... are so remote" would obviously be FALSE, if the meant "collapse footprint", since they claim the probability of a tautology to be true were close to zero, when in fact it is precisely 1.

The ONLY reasonable meaning employed bye ANYBODY who EVER used the word "footprint" in conjunction with WTC collapses is "architectural footprint".

AND YOU KNEW THAT!



And regarding your concerns about the size of the WTC7 debris field (since you apparently don't like the term: collapse footprint).

Originally Posted by FEMA 403-Chapter 5: WTC7
...
In contrast, the collapse of WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse."

...

It was maybe relatively small, but it was
A) Way outside of the footprint
B) So unclean you could not walk around it
C) So large it badly damaged at least 2 buildings across streets, one of them, a 15-story building, on the roof.


AND YOU KNEW THAT!

[Miragememories]

MM, in your continued quest to avoid honesty, you are still dodging my old first question. So I am bumping Post 1076 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6258082&postcount=1076) for you. Will you finally answer honestly and sincerely, if Danny Jowenko was given true or false information when the interviewer claimed that WTC7 fell so clean that you could walk around it?

Thanks in advance.
It is not dodging Oystein

It is called ignore.

Your question has been replied to and I am satisfied with what I said.

Any further requests for a reply will be futile on your part.

MM

[Miragememories]

The ONLY reasonable meaning employed bye ANYBODY who EVER used the word "footprint" in conjunction with WTC collapses is "architectural footprint".

AND YOU KNEW THAT!

Isn't that fascinating?

I don't ever recall you using the term "architectural footprint" Oystein, and now it is like you invented the term.

MM

[Disbelief]

More questions you missed, MM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6256957#post6256957

[twinstead]

Threads like this work right into truthers hands--all this semantic dribble about footprints and such, all this irrelevant minutiae droned on about, when the fact remains:

--There is no evidence of CD in the collapse of WTC7.
--The description of the collapse is not contested by ANY respected engineering, scientific, or controlled demolition organization anywhere on Earth.
--Nobody who actually matters is paying the least bit of attention to this "truth" movement.
--when I turn off my computer, the truth movement disappears.

Who gives a flying fudge what kind of "foot print" the damned building fell in?

[Oystein]

It is not dodging Oystein

It is called ignore.

Your question has been replied to and I am satisfied with what I said.

Any further requests for a reply will be futile on your part.

MM

Thanks for making clear that you have no intention to honestly or sincerely address questions that help clear up the issue raised in the OP: "Was Danny Jowenko manipulated?"

I am satisfied with that.

We both know the answer of course: No, the information given by the interviewer regarding the size and cleanliness of the debris field was false.
Does it follow that Danny was being consciously manipulted? Not necessarily. Could well be that the interviewer himself had fallen for twoofer lies.
However it is clear that Danny was given false and misleading information.


Ok now that you have openly admitted that you refuse to answer pertinent questions honestly, whatever point had remained to even take note of your posts has dissolved. Off to ingnore you go yourself, and I advise everyone to do likewise. Discussion with a proval liar is pointless, especially when he informs us openly about his contempt for honesty.

[Oystein]

Isn't that fascinating?

I don't ever recall you using the term "architectural footprint" Oystein, and now it is like you invented the term.

MM

Reading comprehension: FAILED.

I never said anybody used the term "architectural footprint". I said whenever someone uses the term "footprint" inm conjunction with WTC collapses, "architectural footprint" is the intended meaning.

Since I addressed that to you to explain to you that your usage of the term "footprint" to mean "collapse footprint" is bonkers, it follows naturally that you are not included in "everyone".

[TruthersLie]

Quite the rant.

I believe triforcharity pretty much summed it up; "You are absolutely correct. This is absolutely a moot point, as not one single building fell into it's own footprint on 9/11. This much is true."

TruthersLie, you really should calm down.

Have a glass of wine.

Kick back.

And maybe watch this for some peace of mind;

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

MM

As soon as you stop LYING about what happened.
Pleae provide a single citation ANYWHERE which states your "definition" of a footprint. I'll wait for it.

Oh wait... you don't have one. You have been LYING about the collapse of the buildings, and you have been NAILED for it.

So lets stay on topic. What is the FOOTPRINT of a building? Hmmmm?

did ANY of the buildings which collapsed on 9/11 collapse into their own footprints?

[Miragememories]

"I believe triforcharity pretty much summed it up; "You are absolutely correct. This is absolutely a moot point, as not one single building fell into it's own footprint on 9/11. This much is true."
"...did ANY of the buildings which collapsed on 9/11 collapse into their own footprints?"
"did ANY [as in part of] of the buildings...collapse into their own footprints?", well yes. of course.

Did all of the buildings which collapsed on 9/11 collapse into their own footprints?

No. Of course not.

In the case of WTC7 specifically, did much of that building collapse into its own footprint?

Apparently yes, very much so.

"The towers showered debris in a wide radius as their external frames essentially “peeled” outward and fell from the top to the bottom.

In contrast, the collapse of WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse."
bolding is mine

Is that significant?

Well yes it is, given that a chief characteristic of controlled demolition is that they concentrate as much of the collapsed building into its original footprint as possible.

Do we have good visual evidence to support the claim that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

Yes, we have excellent visual corroboration.

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1149/normalcbsb7montno3.jpg

Note that even in profile, WTC7 shows an even, balanced collapse profile.

There are no known examples of a complete concrete and steel building ever collapsing in such a manner due to unfought fire.

Has an independent, unbiased expert in the controlled demolition of buildings observed the collapse
video in a neutral setting and opined that it was a controlled demolition?

Yes, Danny Jowenko unequivocally did just that.

MM

[excaza]

Well, that settles it then. Guess we can ignore the utter lack of any explosives or demolitions equipment. Or how some group hired by The Man somehow managed to rig an entire building with explosives without anyone noticing. Or how they managed to detonate enough explosives to sever all of the columns without making any noise.

The internal structure failed, couldn't possibly have been because of fire, must have been CD. Fireproofing of steel beams isn't even necessary, I don't know why they bother. Fire can never cause a building collapse.

[GlennB]

Do we have good visual evidence to support the claim that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

Yes, we have excellent visual corroboration.

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1149/normalcbsb7montno3.jpg

Note that even in profile, WTC7 shows an even, balanced collapse profile.


Viewed from the side it doesn't. It leans southwards as it falls.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7leansouth-1.jpg

Has an independent, unbiased expert in the controlled demolition of buildings observed the collapse
video in a neutral setting and opined that it was a controlled demolition?

Yes, Danny Jowenko unequivocally did just that.



We've already established that the interviewer was either ignorant or lying on a number of points. Calling this a "neutral setting" is absurd, and also we have no idea what video he was shown and at what point that video started. Did it show the E PEnthouse collapse?

[TruthersLie]

"did ANY [as in part of] of the buildings...collapse into their own footprints?", well yes. of course.

Did all of the buildings which collapsed on 9/11 collapse into their own footprints?

No. Of course not.


Goody. Thank you for admitting it.

Did the buildings collapse into their own footprints?
No.

did the buildings collapse? Yes.


In the case of WTC7 specifically, did much of that building collapse into its own footprint?

Apparently yes, very much so.


So is this like truther math? That 70% of freefall is "near" freefall?

Did wtc7 collapse into its own footprint? No it did not.

Your weasel wording doesn't change the fact that WTC7 did NOT collapse into it's own footprint. It did collapse.

The debris (which was OUTSIDE of the footprint) managed to strike two adjacent buildings which were 270(ish) degrees apart, helping to do $1.7 Billion in damages to the Verizion building, and instigating a partial collapse on the ROOF of fitterman hall.

How does a building which collapses into its own footprint manage to do that? Oh... it doesn't.

Stop using terms incorrectly. The building didn't collapse into its own footprint.


Is that significant?

Well yes it is, given that a chief characteristic of controlled demolition is that they concentrate as much of the collapsed building into its original footprint as possible.


Sorry, the chief characteristic of a CD is the LOUD RAPID FIRE SERIES OF EXPLOSIONS with flashes which happen RIGHT before the building collapses into its own footprint.

When you do CD (which I have done, have you?) you blow your charges so the building collapses into its own footprint. Now that we can see that wtc7 didn't collapse into its own footprint, it means it wasn't CD.


Do we have good visual evidence to support the claim that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

Yes, we have excellent visual corroboration.

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1149/normalcbsb7montno3.jpg


Wow... a building falls down. it is amazing. REally truely, and fantastically. I'm sure that you will yell CD CD CD with any and every building which collapses right?

What kind of AUDIO evidence do you have? What, speak up I can't hear you... you seem to have something in your mouth....

oh none. Thanks for playing.



Note that even in profile, WTC7 shows an even, balanced collapse profile.

I'm sure you have video images of all four sides of the building to confirm this right?

What you don't? Damn.... we can see 3 corners of the building... but it is amazing that you ignore the eastern mechanical penthouse...

why do you ignore that? Hmmm? See, that part of the collapse WAS IN ITS FOOTPRINT.


There are no known examples of a complete concrete and steel building ever collapsing in such a manner due to unfought fire.


Bolding mine. I love it when you try to twist the FACTS and LIE using the ********.

This is JUST LIKE THE ******** ABOUT THE FOOTPRINT.

WTC7 was NOT a concrete and steel building. It was a unreinforced STEEL framed building.

USE THE *********** RIGHT TERMS.

And I love the appeal to perfection logical fallacy there... "complete" collapse. I and others have showed you several other collapses of steel framed buildings and you just handwave them away.


Has an independent, unbiased expert in the controlled demolition of buildings observed the collapse
video in a neutral setting and opined that it was a controlled demolition?

Yes, Danny Jowenko unequivocally did just that.


And what did he say about wtc 1 and 2 again? I am more than willing to accept ALL of Danny J's testimony at face value. How about you? I'm willing to accept that Danny J says that wtc7 LOOKS like a CD. I'm also willing to accept ALL of his testimony... how about you?

[twinstead]

So it appears, since Jowenko's word is pretty much the gospel truth for MM, that obviously WTC1 and WTC2 wasn't a CD, and WTC7 was.

Perhaps They wanted desperately to destroy WTC7 but couldn't find a way to do it. Then, lo and behold there was a terrorist attack on WTC1 and 2. Due to some quick thinking, they managed to rig WTC7 up with explosives right after the first tower was struck.

Then, hoping that at least one of the WTC1 or 2 would collapse, they seized on that as a reason to push the button for WTC7 when one of them DID, sending WTC7 crashing to the ground a few hours later with nobody the wiser.

An evil, but brilliant, plan.

[Miragememories]

Viewed from the side it doesn't. It leans southwards as it falls.

Source please.

MM

[uke2se]

As I said here;
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6263362&postcount=1095

MM

What you said there is not applicable to twinstead's post. It's simply an attempt by you to handwave inconvenient facts, which has become SOP for you and all other still active twoofers. The twoofers with any intellectual honesty aren't twoofers anymore.

[Disbelief]

More questions you missed, MM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6256957#post6256957

Still waiting.

[GlennB]

Source please.

MM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA

A compilation of every (?) WTC7 collapse video.

Scroll to 6:12 for that particular video.

0:35 also shows the S lean, this time viewed from the NE.

[Bell]

There are no known examples of a complete concrete and steel building ever collapsing in such a manner due to unfought fire.

How is this important?

Has an independent, unbiased expert in the controlled demolition of buildings observed the collapse
video in a neutral setting and opined that it was a controlled demolition?

Yes, Danny Jowenko unequivocally did just that.

MM

The same Danny Jowenko who opined that WTC1 and WTC2 were no controlled demolitions?

[Miragememories]

"did ANY [as in part of] of the buildings...collapse into their own footprints?, well yes. of course."
"Goody. Thank you for admitting it."
<shrugs>

The sun came up that day as well. Do you want that on the record to?

"In the case of WTC7 specifically, did much of that building collapse into its own footprint?

Apparently yes, very much so."
"Did wtc7 collapse into its own footprint? No it did not."

As I said;

"Apparently yes, very much so."

"The towers showered debris in a wide radius as their external frames essentially “peeled” outward and fell from the top to the bottom.

In contrast, the collapse of WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse."
bolding is mine

"Is that significant?

Well yes it is, given that a chief characteristic of controlled demolition is that they concentrate as much of the collapsed building into its original footprint as possible."
"Sorry, the chief characteristic of a CD is the LOUD RAPID FIRE SERIES OF EXPLOSIONS with flashes which happen RIGHT before the building collapses into its own footprint."

I said "a chief characteristic.."

Learn to read please. If you have a learning disability let me know and I'll make further allowances.

"When you do CD, you blow your charges so the building collapses into its own footprint. Now that we can see that wtc7 didn't collapse into its own footprint, it means it wasn't CD."
It is impossible to collapse a 47-story building so that it is absolutely confined to its own footprint.

By your definition, there has never been a controlled demolition of any building.

And while were at it, I guess all those less than successful controlled demolitions were not controlled demolitions either.

Too fracking funny you are.

"Do we have good visual evidence to support the claim that WTC7 was a controlled demolition?

Yes, we have excellent visual corroboration.

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1149/normalcbsb7montno3.jpg

Note that even in profile, WTC7 shows an even, balanced collapse profile."
"but it is amazing that you ignore the eastern mechanical penthouse...See, that part of the collapse WAS IN ITS FOOTPRINT."
lol

You are sure that it didn't end up across the street during the unsymmetrical, toppling southward collapse you subscribe to?

"There are no known examples of a complete concrete and steel building ever collapsing in such a manner due to unfought fire."
"WTC7 was NOT a concrete and steel building."
I corrected your blatant error.

Until you can prove the non-existence and/or the structural insignificance of the concrete used on every floor in the construction of WTC7, you are misrepresenting the truth.

"Has an independent, unbiased expert in the controlled demolition of buildings observed the collapse
video in a neutral setting and opined that it was a controlled demolition?

Yes, Danny Jowenko unequivocally did just that."
"I am more than willing to accept ALL of Danny J's testimony at face value. How about you? I'm willing to accept that Danny J says that wtc7 LOOKS like a CD."

Good.

Only to correct your misunderstanding, Danny Jowenko's opinion was that WTC7 had to have been a controlled demolition and not that it just looked like one.

Any agreement with Danny's opinion that WTC7 was definitely a controlled demolition is an agreement that Danny must have been mistaken in his belief about WTC1 & WTC2 not being controlled demolitions.


MM

[Oystein]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA

A compilation of every (?) WTC7 collapse video.

Hey thanks! There are some shots that I haven't seen before, and I thought I had seen them all :)

[Oystein]

<shrugs>
...
As I said;

bolding is mine
...

"relatively small debris field" - relative to what?
So small a debris field that you could walk around it?
Or so large in fact it severly damaged 2 buildings across the street many stories up?

[twinstead]

Any agreement with Danny's opinion that WTC7 was definitely a controlled demolition is an agreement that Danny must have been mistaken in his belief about WTC1 & WTC2 not being controlled demolitions.


Why? Why can't he have been right about 1 and 2 but wrong about 7?

[GlennB]

Hey thanks! There are some shots that I haven't seen before, and I thought I had seen them all :)

You're welcome :)

Now if only MM might respond to that southerly lean , as it was him claiming #7 went straight down and was asking for the source ....

[Bell]

You're welcome :)

Now if only MM might respond to that southerly lean , as it was him claiming #7 went straight down and was asking for the source ....

He'll probably responds by posting more pictures of toppled buildings :rolleyes:

[GlennB]

Any agreement with Danny's opinion that WTC7 was definitely a controlled demolition is an agreement that Danny must have been mistaken in his belief about WTC1 & WTC2 not being controlled demolitions.



:confused:

Non sequitur. He might have been right about WTC7 and also right about WTC1+2. Or wrong about both. (Not that I believe he was right about 7, but your logic just isn't correct.)

while you're here ... any comment on that video with the southerly lean? The one where you asked for a source?

[Tricky]

A few of the most egregiously bad bickering and off-topic posts moved to AAH. Clean it up in here, all of you.

[Miragememories]

"Do we have good visual evidence to support the claim that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

Yes, we have excellent visual corroboration.

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1149/normalcbsb7montno3.jpg

Note that even in profile, WTC7 shows an even, balanced collapse profile.

There are no known examples of a complete concrete and steel building ever collapsing in such a manner due to unfought fire."
"Viewed from the side it doesn't. It leans southwards as it falls.
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7leansouth-1.jpg"

Nice misrepresentation of the truth GlennB.

That image was screen-capped well into WTC7's global collapse.

http://a.imageshack.us/img201/2907/wtc7compcollapse2.png

WTC7 had dropped 18 or more storys before that southern tilt became noticeable.

"We've already established that the interviewer was either ignorant or lying on a number of points. Calling this a "neutral setting" is absurd, and also we have no idea what video he was shown and at what point that video started. Did it show the E PEnthouse collapse?"

We have established no such thing. No one knows everything, and therefore we all suffer from a certain amount of ignorance. There is no evidence that the interviewer was lying.

It was a more neutral setting in the sense that, unlike the interview where he was asked about WTC 1 and WTC 2, Danny Jowenko, like most of the general public, was not well aware of WTC7's history.

Thus his initial opinion was not strongly influenced by the events of 9/11.

Danny was shown the video. The interviewer did identify it as WTC7 but he did not tell Danny that the collapse occurred on 9/11 until after Danny formed his initial opinion.

Of course Danny was somewhat incredulous when he first received the news. He watched the video over again and he examined some of the NIST floorplans from the 2004 NIST Preliminary Report on WTC7.

At no time did Danny hesitate or falter in his opinion that WTC7 had to have been a controlled demolition and that it could not have been caused by fire.

In spite of any details that he may or may not have known, when interviewed again in the following year, Danny Jowenko was just as certain in his opinion.

MM

[Miragememories]

"relatively small debris field" - relative to what?
So small a debris field that you could walk around it?
Or so large in fact it severly damaged 2 buildings across the street many stories up?

I suggest you request a clarification from FEMA since it is their professional
assessment that you are questioning.

MM

[16.5]

Nice misrepresentation of the truth GlennB.

That image was screen-capped well into WTC7's global collapse.

MM

Is this bizarro world?

I must have said 20 times that your heroes in the Video clipped the video that they showed Jowenko, and you hand waved it away.

And now you are OUTRAGED that Glenn showed you a "screencap"?

Wow.

[Miragememories]

Why? Why can't he have been right about 1 and 2 but wrong about 7?

Because the evidence supporting a finding of controlled demolition for WTC7
greatly favors Danny Jowenko's opinion on that collapse.

Danny is also on the record regarding how he feels businesses that disagree with the official WTC collapse conclusions will be treated.

Like all of us, he was well aware of the Official Story about WTC 1 and WTC 2 before he was asked to give his opinion on them.

He gave the politically correct response.

He was under no such pressure when he gave his opinion on WTC7.

MM

[carlitos]

Having unhid the post above (1107), may I ask some of you debate types, is that what they call special pleading?

[GlennB]

Nice misrepresentation of the truth GlennB.

That image was screen-capped well into WTC7's global collapse.

http://a.imageshack.us/img201/2907/wtc7compcollapse2.png

WTC7 had dropped 18 or more storys before that southern tilt became noticeable.


You showed us a still sequence supposedly showing WTC7 fell nice and straight all the way down. Your words -

Note that even in profile, WTC7 shows an even, balanced collapse profile

I showed a still showing this was false.

And I am mis-representing something?

[twinstead]

Because the evidence supporting a finding of controlled demolition for WTC7
greatly favors Danny Jowenko's opinion on that collapse.

Danny is also on the record regarding how he feels businesses that disagree with the official WTC collapse conclusions will be treated.

Like all of us, he was well aware of the Official Story about WTC 1 and WTC 2 before he was asked to give his opinion on them.

He gave the politically correct response.

He was under no such pressure when he gave his opinion on WTC7.

MM

Well I disagree. I say there is NO evidence of controlled demolition of WTC7 no matter what you appear to believe, and Jowenko is wrong about wtc7 and right about wtc1 and 2. You disagree. So be it.

When you actually convince somebody important that you are right I'll pay attention, but until then, I, like practically the whole rest of the rational world believe the commonly-held narrative of that day (they don't call it commonly-held for nothing, you know) is the narrative that fits the available evidence the best.

You don't want to play a game of expert attrition on this one. You have no explanation for why you believe so many experts world-wide have been duped.

[Miragememories]

"It is impossible to collapse a 47-story building so that it is absolutely confined to its own footprint.

By your definition, there has never been a controlled demolition of any building.

And while were at it, I guess all those less than successful controlled demolitions were not controlled demolitions either."
"Prove it. Nice weasel words again... since no other building that size has ever been CD'ed it would be hard to show it... eh?

Though the CD's of the Landmark Tower and the J.L. Hudson implosions were confined to within their own footprints and didn't strike ANY buildings across the streets... amazing eh?"
interesting.

Or do you now consider the building grounds surrounding its "architectural footprint" to be part of the footprint?

"And while were at it, I guess all those less than successful controlled demolitions were not controlled demolitions either."
"while we are at it, I find it very interesting the countries of origins of those failed CD's. But we can look into them if you want...

But either way, the building didn't collapse into its own footprint. There was a small debris field, yup. Which then goes to the SO WHAT?

By collapsing and striking two adjacent buildings at over 180 degrees apart (rather asymmetrical don'tcha think?) it shows it wasn't a CD"

Countries of origin?

Sounds rather prejudicial to me.

But aside from your implied slur against other nationalities, you are dodging the key point here.

Not all controlled demolitions are perfect.

Sometimes they are less than perfect.

How does a less-than-perfect controlled demolition become a non-controlled demolition?

In that vein, whomever engineered the controlled demolition of WTC7 had much to gain from bringing it down as a less-than-perfect controlled demolition.

If anything, they did too good a job.

"You are sure that it didn't end up across the street during the unsymmetrical, toppling southward collapse you subscribe to?"
"Not at all. We can see the eastern mechanical penthouse collapse. How could it possibly end up on the other side of the road? Oh it couldn't... But where did it go anyways? How can you misrepresent the building type, the collapse area and the collapse time? Oh yea.. I forgot and intellectual midget like you HAS to."
Which means it is now inside of WTC7.

Are you pre-supposing that it collapsed to the ground before the completion of WTC7's global collapse?

Or is it not possible that late in the global collapse, when WTC7 was toppling to the south, the remains of the east penthouse were carried across the road?

"Until you can prove the non-existence and/or the structural insignificance of the concrete used on every floor in the construction of WTC7, you are misrepresenting the truth."
"you are the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you. the NIST reports, FEMA and others list wtc7 as a long span steel framed building. There is NO concrete reinforcement... Feel free to look them up."
Well let us see what the NIST had to say in NIST WTC7 FINAL.

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness."

"on Floors 8 through 47, the concrete was 0.14 m (5.5 in.) thick."

pg.7
" The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely. This type of floor system is thus referred to as a composite floor. The floor beams were framed into (connected to) girders with a variety of types of shear connectors1, through which the floor beams transferred gravity loads from the floors to the girders. The girders also framed into the columns with a variety of types of shear connectors and transferred the gravity loads to the columns."

pg.38
"Temperature-dependent mechanical properties of steel (Appendix E) and concrete (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A) used in the construction of WTC 7."

pg.52
"...power to the fuel pumps, (b) could not be sustained long enough, or generated too little heat, to raise the temperatures of the steel and concrete structure to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness..."

pg.55
"Thus, the details of the progression of horizontal failure and final global collapse were sensitive to the uncertainties in how the building materials (steel, concrete) and building systems and contents interacted, broke up, and disintegrated."
bolding is mine

Now you were saying?

MM

[Miragememories]

Is this bizarro world?

I must have said 20 times that your heroes in the Video clipped the video that they showed Jowenko, and you hand waved it away.

And now you are OUTRAGED that Glenn showed you a "screencap"?

Wow.
The only hand waving away that I can see is being performed by you 16.5.

You have no proof that Danny Jowenko has only seen a clipped version of the WTC7 collapse.

I believe GlennB was disingenuous in his use of a screencap showing WTC7 tilting to the south late in its collapse.

Had it been tilting like that early in its global collapse, it would have appeared to be what he obviously wanted it to look like, a random toppling collapse.

MM

[Miragememories]

You showed us a still sequence supposedly showing WTC7 fell nice and straight all the way down. Your words -

Note that even in profile, WTC7 shows an even, balanced collapse profile

I showed a still showing this was false.

And I am mis-representing something?

For the period of collapse that it covered, the sequence was accurate.

It was a documented recording and could not have been false.

You showed a freeze frame late in the collapse and gladly allowed people to conclude that it was a true reflection of how the WTC7 global collapse developed.

I will concede that as the debris pile grew at the bottom of the collapse the remaining building lost symmetry and fell towards the south.

MM

[triforcharity]

source please.

Mm


the mfing picture he posted of 7wtc falling south!! Ffs!!

[16.5]

The only hand waving away that I can see is being performed by you 16.5.

You have no proof that Danny Jowenko has only seen a clipped version of the WTC7 collapse.

MM

No proof. Jesus...

MM, did you not watch the very video you are extolling in this lengthy thread? You know, the one where they show him the truther cropped video that intentionally omitted the collapse of the Eastern penthouse?

Oh, lets settle this shall we:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

Start at 23 and watch through 40 seconds.

Does the top go first?

"its starts from the bottom." Yeah, so long as you don't show the collpase of the Penthouse, hey big guy!

Tsk, tsk, it seems that you are not too familiar with your own heroes' lies.

[Miragememories]

No proof. Jesus...

MM, did you not watch the very video you are extolling in this lengthy thread? You know, the one where they show him the truther cropped video that intentionally omitted the collapse of the Eastern penthouse?

Oh, lets settle this shall we:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

Start at 23 and watch through 40 seconds.

Does the top go first?

"its starts from the bottom." Yeah, so long as you don't show the collpase of the Penthouse, hey big guy!

Tsk, tsk, it seems that you are not too familiar with your own heroes' lies.
Nice video but it doesn't prove what Danny Jowenko has seen.

You were able to see all the WTC7 videos.

What makes you so certain that Danny Jowenko hasn't either.

Just because you see some of the video edited into an interview does not prove anything.

I edit documentaries for a living and I know this quite well.

Your assumptions are not facts.

MM

[16.5]

Nice video but it doesn't prove what Danny Jowenko has seen.

MM

Well, we'll agree that the video they actually show him watching was clipped, right, Mr. Editor?

Now, if only there was a way to prove that Jowenko saw the actual collapse video as you seem to claim. Oh, I know, you can prove it! He's your hero, you prove it. In the absence of that, we'll just conclude that he was lied to by idiots with an agenda.

Anyway, about the "it starts from the bottom" lie? Your silence on that? NOTED!

[beachnut]

The moment somebody "important" is convinced, he will be declared a "kook" by the orthodox church. As always. Boring and sad.
He means 911 truth has no evidence. He means 911 truth has delusions.

In this case 911 truth uses Danny as an expert. Danny says WTC 7 is a CD, and WTC 1 and 2 are not.

On the reality front we have Danny a person who blows up buildings getting 2 out of 3 right. He is 67 percent correct. A D effort.

On the nut case crazy CD world front, we have Danny getting 2 wrong out of 3. He is 33 percent corrects. Earning an F in the fantasy-land of 911 truth, he is proclaimed the expert of experts in gravity collapse issues, which in the real world he has labeled a CD.

Danny at best in the real world earns a D, and in the fantasy-land of moronic 911 truth claims, he scores an F, he flunks out!

How do you support an expert who has not clue what a gravity collapse looks like and is not qualified to comment on the WTC structurally? By saying experts are kooks when they are wrong? 911 truth are not experts, they are a loose group of people who can't figure out 911 and spread delusions instead of gaining knowledge. They are not kooks, they have failed to understand 911.

Recap:
Real world Danny, 67 percent correct.
911 truth delusion world Danny, 33 percent correct.

This is as good as Danny can get; should we add it up and divide by two. Wait, 911 truth does not do math. darn

[Childlike Empress]

He means 911 truth has no evidence. He means 911 truth has delusions.

In this case 911 truth uses Danny as an expert. Danny says WTC 7 is a CD, and WTC 1 and 2 are not.

On the reality front we have Danny a person who blows up buildings getting 2 out of 3 right. He is 67 percent correct. A D effort.

On the nut case crazy CD world front, we have Danny getting 2 wrong out of 3. He is 33 percent corrects. Earning an F in the fantasy-land of 911 truth, he is proclaimed the expert of experts in gravity collapse issues, which in the real world he has labeled a CD.

Danny at best in the real world earns a D, and in the fantasy-land of moronic 911 truth claims, he scores an F, he flunks out!

How do you support an expert who has not clue what a gravity collapse looks like and is not qualified to comment on the WTC structurally? By saying experts are kooks when they are wrong? 911 truth are not experts, they are a loose group of people who can't figure out 911 and spread delusions instead of gaining knowledge. They are not kooks, they have failed to understand 911.

Recap:
Real world Danny, 67 percent correct.
911 truth delusion world Danny, 33 percent correct.

This is as good as Danny can get; should we add it up and divide by two. Wait, 911 truth does not do math. darn


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9907451897c0442ad.gif

[Tricky]

More posts moved to AAH. Did you folks not read my earlier modbox? Cut out the bickering and insulting comments right now. We know you aren't insulting "groups", you're talking about each other.

If you have a problem figuring out what kind of posts are not compliant with the MA, then go to the thread in AAH (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=183852)and have a look. If it's that kind of stuff, don't post it.

If this continues, prepare for some escalating penalties. Comprendre?

[triforcharity]

Well let us see what the NIST had to say in NIST WTC7 FINAL.

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness."

"on Floors 8 through 47, the concrete was 0.14 m (5.5 in.) thick."

pg.7
" The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely. This type of floor system is thus referred to as a composite floor. The floor beams were framed into (connected to) girders with a variety of types of shear connectors1, through which the floor beams transferred gravity loads from the floors to the girders. The girders also framed into the columns with a variety of types of shear connectors and transferred the gravity loads to the columns."

pg.38
"Temperature-dependent mechanical properties of steel (Appendix E) and concrete (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A) used in the construction of WTC 7."

pg.52
"...power to the fuel pumps, (b) could not be sustained long enough, or generated too little heat, to raise the temperatures of the steel and concrete structure to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness..."

pg.55
"Thus, the details of the progression of horizontal failure and final global collapse were sensitive to the uncertainties in how the building materials (steel, concrete) and building systems and contents interacted, broke up, and disintegrated."
bolding is mine

Now you were saying?

MM

Yes, describing the floor. Does it say anywhere in any report, that the concrete provided anything other than walking space?

No. Nowhere. The structure did not require the concrete to stand.

[TruthersLie]

{skipping the boring flailing}


Well let us see what the NIST had to say in NIST WTC7 FINAL.

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness."

"on Floors 8 through 47, the concrete was 0.14 m (5.5 in.) thick."

pg.7
" The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely. This type of floor system is thus referred to as a composite floor. The floor beams were framed into (connected to) girders with a variety of types of shear connectors1, through which the floor beams transferred gravity loads from the floors to the girders. The girders also framed into the columns with a variety of types of shear connectors and transferred the gravity loads to the columns."

pg.38
"Temperature-dependent mechanical properties of steel (Appendix E) and concrete (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A) used in the construction of WTC 7."

pg.52
"...power to the fuel pumps, (b) could not be sustained long enough, or generated too little heat, to raise the temperatures of the steel and concrete structure to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness..."

pg.55
"Thus, the details of the progression of horizontal failure and final global collapse were sensitive to the uncertainties in how the building materials (steel, concrete) and building systems and contents interacted, broke up, and disintegrated."
bolding is mine

Now you were saying?

MM

OH goody... you managed to do a keyword search... and you found that there were CONCRETE floors. Wowsers... that provided what to the structure again? Huh?

I do love how you completely IGNORED where I schooled you, and how. Lets look at it again.

about the type of building.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

5-1 through 5-9... The concrete in the decking is not a load bearing system and is NOT part of how you describe the building. When concrete is used for reinforcement or the direct building materials it is. (as you find in the core of the madrid towers, the CCTV buidling in Beijing and the NEW WTC7.

ETA: and we will take a twoof source.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...e/windsor.html


In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick.
what was that? I can't hear you...

[Oystein]

Yes, describing the floor. Does it say anywhere in any report, that the concrete provided anything other than walking space?

No. Nowhere. The structure did not require the concrete to stand.

The concrete in the floors added mass and loads to the overall strcuture, thus adding a liability to the structural stability. :D

[triforcharity]

The concrete in the floors added mass and loads to the overall strcuture, thus adding a liability to the structural stability. :D

Leave your FACT out of this please!! SHILL!!!!:D:D

[GlennB]

For the period of collapse that it covered, the sequence was accurate.


But filmed from the north and at a considerable distance, making any lean in the N-S plane undetectable, therefore not 'accurate'. For accuracy we need to view it in the E-W plane also. You've been shown the best available in that plane, about 45°. Bear in mind even this angle diminishes the actual lean.

It was a documented recording and could not have been false.

The source of my still is not disputed. Unless you think it's CGI'd?

You showed a freeze frame late in the collapse and gladly allowed people to conclude that it was a true reflection of how the WTC7 global collapse developed.

The Irving Trust building (to the left of that shot) is 23 storeys* and 99m, almost exactly half of WTC7. WTC7's roofline in that still is in line with approx floor 19 of the Irving Trust. Allowing for the extra distance and the upward angle of the shot, WTC7 is barely half way into total collapse.

I can provide more stills comparing the earliest shot in that sequence (at commencement of collapse) and counting down the floors to the position of the one you've seen if you like, but you'll simply find the building had only collapsed about 23 floors by the time that degree of lean had developed.

I will concede that as the debris pile grew at the bottom of the collapse the remaining building lost symmetry and fell towards the south.


The southerly tilt started well before then. It's crystal clear.

* although a quick visual count and comparison with the height of WTC7 suggests even more. I suspect they're not counting at least some of the 'stepped' structure at the top.

[Darkhole]

For two years a fire destroyed a building of the Delft University in the Netherlands.
No demolition.

http://www.nuvideo.nl/algemeen/13697/instorting-bouwkunde-tu-delft.html

[Miragememories]

The concrete in the floors added mass and loads to the overall strcuture, thus adding a liability to the structural stability. :D
The concrete also made WTC7 more rigid and structurally stable.

It would be less inclined to collapse in the convenient manner described by the NIST.

MM

[beachnut]

For two years a fire destroyed a building of the Delft University in the Netherlands.
No demolition.

http://www.nuvideo.nl/algemeen/13697/instorting-bouwkunde-tu-delft.html
911 truth can't comprehend why fire destroys buildings. They don't use logic, knowledge, or evidence.

[Miragememories]

"For the period of collapse that it covered, the sequence was accurate."
"But filmed from the north and at a considerable distance, making any lean in the N-S plane undetectable, therefore not 'accurate'. For accuracy we need to view it in the E-W plane also. You've been shown the best available in that plane, about 45°. Bear in mind even this angle diminishes the actual lean."
Undetectable?

We aren't cutting diamonds here.

The kind of early toppling lean expected in an off-balance natural collapse would have been far from subtle, and quite evident, even at that distance.

"The source of my still is not disputed. Unless you think it's CGI'd?"

I do not suggest your still is a fake.

It is just plain misrepresentation. You might as well have shown a shot of the debris pile and noted how it wasn't a perfectly symmetrical mound.

The global collapse of WTC7 presented a symmetry that was too well balanced to have occurred naturally and without the aid of planned demolition.

It was quickly noted by Danny Jowenko and probably the chief reason he showed so little concern about the limited amount of additional data available
when he gave his first opinion.

And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

MM

[Miragememories]

For two years a fire destroyed a building of the Delft University in the Netherlands.
No demolition.

http://www.nuvideo.nl/algemeen/13697/instorting-bouwkunde-tu-delft.html
That was a partial collapse.

MM

[Disbelief]

And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

MM

Show us a single planned CD that has any freefall. Just one. Chris could not do it, so maybe you can.

[Miragememories]

911 truth can't comprehend why fire destroys buildings. They don't use logic, knowledge, or evidence.
Source?

Proof?

Any basis for substantiating such an all-inclusive opinion about thousands of individuals?

Prejudice and bigotry are not based on logic, knowledge or evidence.

Denial and ignorance are the basis of your claim.

MM

[alienentity]

For two years a fire destroyed a building of the Delft University in the Netherlands.
No demolition.

http://www.nuvideo.nl/algemeen/13697/instorting-bouwkunde-tu-delft.html

I think you mean '2 days'
Thanks for the post

AE

[alienentity]

The global collapse of WTC7 presented a symmetry that was too well balanced to have occurred naturally and without the aid of planned demolition.

Bare assertion fallacy. You're reading things into it which in all likelihood do not exist.


And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

MM

Another bare assertion. You do not offer any proof that freefall about midway in a controlled demolition is planned for.
Please show us at least some documentation to back up any of your claims. So far you offer none.

And besides, who cares what Danny Jowenko thinks? The only reason you're citing him is because he gave a quick, unscientific opinion based on a misleadingly edited video, and happens to be incorrect.

But you conveniently ignore the several demolitions experts who have actually investigated the WTC in person, starting in the immediate time after the buildings collapsed.
Of course, their opinions do not support your fantasy scenario, so they are edited away into oblivion.

No disrespect to Danny Jowenko, but I guarantee you he wasn't presented with the evidence against CD, such as:

Lack of demolitions explosions at the time when the collapse began
The near-silent implosion of the E PH about 8 seconds before global collapse.

Why was he not presented with a complete set of relevant facts? Doesn't this tend to disqualify his opinion anyway? I believe it does; it is certainly very unscientific in nature.

The desperate weakness of your claims is revealed by a simple examination of the facts. No wonder you have to ignore most of the evidence!

So, in reply to your argument from authority, I say 'Danny Jowenko was wrong, and Mark Loizeaux was correct'. And so is Ron Craig, and also Brent Blanchard.

See? We win by at least 3 to 1. You lose. Nya nya!!:D

[beachnut]

That was a partial collapse.

MM
Why?

Because they fought the fires. The section collapsed that was on fire and not fought. WTC7 was on fire and it was not fought, it collapsed. You 911 truth guys can't figure out fire.

8 years of failure and you are discussing a building which failed in fire and was not a target of the terrorists.

The funniest part is if you use Jowenko as your expert on WTC7 you have to say he is wrong on WTC 1 and 2. This means your expert is 33.3 percent correct for you delusion world of 911 truth. Your expert is a failure, F is his grade. Not a surprise since he is a CD expert not a fire expert, or structural engineer.

The best Jowenko gets is if you return to reality an find out he is 67 percent correct, messing up WTC 7 because he is not an expert on fire, he is an expert on CD.

Is your expert a 33 percent correct fantasy 911 truth expert, or a 67 percent correct reality based expert? Either way Jowenko is not an expert on gravity collapses and fires in buildings.

It would be best to quit in this thread, your expert Jowenko is a failure for your overall conclusion. It means he debunks you on 67 percent of your CD delusions. Are you on topic?

[alienentity]

Is your expert a 33 percent correct fantasy 911 truth expert, or a 67 percent correct reality based expert? Either way Jowenko is not an expert on gravity collapses and fires in buildings.

Hilariously true - only 9/11 Truthers would rely on the testimony of someone who is, by their own metrics, wrong 2/3rds of the time!

You couldn't make this up.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by beachnut
911 truth can't comprehend why fire destroys buildings. They don't use logic, knowledge, or evidence.


Source?

Proof?

Any basis for substantiating such an all-inclusive opinion about thousands of individuals?


Ask a fireman and read these two quotes.

To be more exact, ask about a steel building with no masonry for fireproofing and a fire that is unfought by firemen or sprinklers. All of that describes WTC 1/2/7.

WTC 1/2 were steel truss buildings and the second quote describes how badly they handle fire.


Henry Guthard, engineer and one of [WTC designer] Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible".


Report From Ground Zero page 188
http://snurl.com/j54gc





http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/

(see table D-1 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/#ad )

NIOSH Publication No. 2005-132:
Preventing Injuries and Deaths of Fire Fighters Due to Truss System Failures


All-steel trusses present their own hazards when exposed to fire. The mass and surface area of steel truss components are factors that determine time to failure. A heavy, thick section of steel has greater resistance to fire than a lightweight section of the same length because of the increased mass. A large, solid steel truss can absorb heat and take longer to reach its failure temperature, whereas a lightweight steel truss such as an open-web bar joist will be heated to its failure temperature much faster.

Once the failure temperature is reached, heavy steel trusses and lightweight metal trusses will react to the fire and fail in a similar manner. A steel member fails at the internal temperature of the steel and not at the ambient air temperature. This temperature is often referred to as the critical temperature of the steel member.

Findings reported by the National Engineered Lightweight Construction Fire Research Project indicate that unprotected lightweight steel C-joists fail within 4 to 6 minutes of exposure to fire [Grundahl 1992]. Testing conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Standards (now known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST) showed that unprotected steel open-web bar joists reached 1,200: F in 6 to 8 minutes Brannigan 1999]. Table D-1 illustrates that steel retains only 25% of its original strength at 1,200F and retains only half its original strength at approximately 900F. Building design calculations are based on original strength at normal temperatures. At elevated temperatures, steel may retain no excess strength.

...steel loses strength when exposed to temperatures commonly found in,structural fires. Steel has a high thermal conductivity, which means it can transfer heat away from a localized source and act as a heat sink. As long as the flame impingement is localized, the steel can transfer heat to other regions of the member-and thus the time to reach the critical temperature is delayed. If an intense fire is evenly distributed along the steel member, the critical temperature may be reached very quickly. Steel also has a high coefficient of
expansion that results in the expansion of steel members as they are heated. As an example, a 50-foot-long steel beam heated uniformly over its length from 720 to 972F will expand in length by 3.9 inches. The same beam uniformly heated to 800F would expand by 3.2 inches; if heated to 1,2000 F, the beam would expand by 4.9 inches [Grundahl 1991; Cotes 1997].

[Bell]

I think you mean '2 days'
Thanks for the post

AE

No, you should read that as "two years ago" :)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

When it comes to an opinion about whether WTC7 was felled by controlled demolition alienentity, I'll take the word of an expert in controlled demolitions over that of a corporate video producer any day.

Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition Inc. explains why WTC7 can't have been a controlled demolition.

Nj6ZtXt6W90

Brent Blanchard of Protec Documentation Services, webmaster of Implosionworld.com explains why WTC7 can't have been a controlled demolition (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf).

[TruthersLie]

occurred before in a concrete and steel building,MM

This is a LIE, and you have been schooled on it. The towers and wtc7 were long span steel framed buildings. AS defined by architects around the world. Stop repeating this lie.

Ranks up there with your lie about the footprint...

ETA:

They all were steel framed... and the concrete played NO part in the structure.
http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=834
The original WTC7 was a steel-framed building with a steel braced core and perimeter moment frame, conventional for high-rise buildings in New York City at the time.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

http://www.scienceof911.com.au/the-argument/wtc-7
The collapse of this building was an astonishing event in the history of modern architecture and structural engineering because never before had a tall steel framed building collapsed due to fire

http://www.buildings.com/ArticleDetails/tabid/3321/ArticleID/2511/Default.aspx
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

and this lovely PDF that is
http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf
page 7.

Now stop spreading this ******** LIE.

[GlennB]

The kind of early toppling lean expected in an off-balance natural collapse would have been far from subtle, and quite evident, even at that distance.

I don't know if you're deluded or actually choosing to lie here.

A film taken from the north, at considerable distance, will not show a southerly lean. The distinct lean shown in my still, at which point the building was only about 50% down. Perspective 101. The proof of this particular pudding is in the very still sequence you posted to prove 'symmetry', as it certainly includes the phase of collapse represented by my still. The one where southerly lean was crystal clear.

You have debunked yourself. I wonder if you can even understand that?

And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.



No it isn't. All you need is a drop that is sufficent.

What's more, deliberately aiming for a full 8 storey drop would be an insanely complex and dangerous (in terms of detection) plan requiring, among other things, rigging some 15% of all the storeys of an extremely busy commercial office block over a period of months. Do you really believe this is what happened? Really?

And, having already planned to trash the entire WTC area back into the stone age, do you seriously suppose the 'perps' would care so much about collateral damage around WTC7 that they would set out to achieve a neat collapse?

[GlennB]

Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition Inc. explains why WTC7 can't have been a controlled demolition.

Nj6ZtXt6W90

Brent Blanchard of Protec Documentation Services, webmaster of Implosionworld.com explains why WTC7 can't have been a controlled demolition (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf).

I'm expecting <crickets> here. Maybe vacuous bluster or more bare assertion.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm expecting <crickets> here. Maybe vacuous bluster or more bare assertion.

I'm willing to settle for him feeling embarrassed and humiliated for having shot off his pie-hole without checking his facts yet again (you'd think you would have learned by now, MM). Now he has to find a way to BS his way out of the corner he painted himself into and will probably screw that up too.

And they wonder why they haven't gotten anywhere in 9 years?:rolleyes:

[Oystein]

More experts on the scene, fire fighters, taking pictures and videos, and talking very cleary about severe, heavy, dangerous fires inside building 7:

gbIr7Ln4fXY

[triforcharity]

The concrete also made WTC7 more rigid and structurally stable.

It would be less inclined to collapse in the convenient manner described by the NIST.

MM

Source?

Show us the math. I would love to see it.

Show us the heat loading on the steel frames, and show me how concrete would effect that.

Show you work.

[triforcharity]

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

MM

Really? Show me another CD where freefall occurs.

I'll wait.....

[Miragememories]

"And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions"
"Show us a single planned CD that has any freefall. Just one. Chris could not do it, so maybe you can."

NIST NCSTAR 1A:

"A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face[WTC7] found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s"

The NIST validates the usage of the freefall.

Danny Jowenko an expert in controlled demolition validates the controlled demolition nature of WTC7.

What Chris may have not succeeded in was getting past your denial.

Something I am sure he never expected anyway.

MM

[Miragememories]

"The global collapse of WTC7 presented a symmetry that was too well balanced to have occurred naturally and without the aid of planned demolition."
"Bare assertion fallacy. You're reading things into it which in all likelihood do not exist."
unlikelihood; the state or fact of something's being unlikely, improbable, doubtful, dubious, not likely to happen

I stand by my statement until you can provide a reasonable basis for believing otherwise.

"And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions."
"Another bare assertion. You do not offer any proof that freefall about midway in a controlled demolition is planned for."
Maybe you might suggest how an 8 story freefall in WTC7 could be achieved without controlled demolition?

Since you are so married to science and a belief that a non-controlled demolition cause was behind the amazing collapse of WTC7, alienentity, possibly you might share with us your explanation for 8 storys of freefall?

"Please show us at least some documentation to back up any of your claims. So far you offer none."

That is not true.

NIST NCSTAR 1A:

"A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face[WTC7] found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s"

It is you who have failed to buttress your words with any substance.

"And besides, who cares what Danny Jowenko thinks?"

Because he is, what you aren't, an expert in controlled demolitions.

"The only reason you're citing him is because he gave a quick, unscientific opinion based on a misleadingly edited video, and happens to be incorrect."

No.

Because he gave an unbiased opinion.

"But you conveniently ignore the several demolitions experts who have actually investigated the WTC in person, starting in the immediate time after the buildings collapsed.
Of course, their opinions do not support your fantasy scenario, so they are edited away into oblivion."

Not at all.

There is strong reason to believe their opinions were strongly influenced by mainstream bias. I could expand ad nauseum on that point, but it would be best served by its own thread.

Let me just say that in the wake of 9/11, anyone who dared suggest that it might have been an inside job would have been considered unpatriotic.

"No disrespect to Danny Jowenko, but I guarantee you he wasn't presented with the evidence against CD, such as:

Lack of demolitions explosions at the time when the collapse began
The near-silent implosion of the E PH about 8 seconds before global collapse.

Why was he not presented with a complete set of relevant facts? Doesn't this tend to disqualify his opinion anyway? I believe it does; it is certainly very unscientific in nature."

Again, you are not an expert in controlled demolition.

I have noticed that you have no problem expressing what you feel to be your professional opinion on other 9.11-realted subjects, such as audio. Even when you must know that not all the facts are available to you.

Danny Jowenko had no problem concluding that collapse video of WTC7 he observed could only have been created by a controlled demolition.

Where he did show uncertainty and resorted to speculation, was in the discussion of the mechanics and planning of the WTC7 controlled demolition. Those being the areas where he needed as much information as could be made available.

"The desperate weakness of your claims is revealed by a simple examination of the facts. No wonder you have to ignore most of the evidence!"
I welcome real evidence but have little patience for bluster.

"So, in reply to your argument from authority, I say 'Danny Jowenko was wrong, and Mark Loizeaux was correct'. And so is Ron Craig, and also Brent Blanchard."
They were under severe pressure.

To quote George W. Bush; "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th. Malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

"See? We win by at least 3 to 1. You lose. Nya nya!!"

Nya nya?

MM

[alienentity]

]
Danny Jowenko an expert in controlled demolition validates the controlled demolition nature of WTC7.
]

You've already lost this 'argument from authority'.

You also falsely stated that Brent Blanchard is somehow not an expert in controlled demolition. But Mark Loizeaux is, so again, other experts contradict Danny Jowenko.

And to top it off , Jowenko, by your metrics, was wrong 66% of the time in his analysis.

Your position is laughable. You've lost the argument.

[Miragememories]

"That was a partial collapse."
"Why?

Because they fought the fires. The section collapsed that was on fire and not fought. WTC7 was on fire and it was not fought, it collapsed. You 911 truth guys can't figure out fire."

Because the building core is where it has it's main support. That is why controlled demolition experts remove the core columns as part of a pre-planned total building implosion.

Partial failure in the less load bearing peripheral structure does not prove there was any likelihood of the same thing happening across the whole building...and all at the same time.

"8 years of failure and you are discussing a building which failed in fire and was not a target of the terrorists."

Unless you are one of the terrorists, you have no way of knowing that WTC7 was not a target.

"The funniest part is if you use Jowenko as your expert on WTC7 you have to say he is wrong on WTC 1 and 2. This means your expert is 33.3 percent correct for you delusion world of 911 truth. Your expert is a failure, F is his grade. Not a surprise since he is a CD expert not a fire expert, or structural engineer."

I would say your continued inability to address the argument is what is truly funny. Your argument has been addressed repeatedly, and repeatedly you ignore the response.

MM

[twinstead]

I find it very sad how quick mm is to hand wave all the demolition experts who disagree with his position, yet hold Jowenko, somebody who according to him is totally wrong about WTC1 and 2, as the supreme source concerning WTC7.

Yea, MM. They were afraid of looking unpatriotic, because there has never been a whistle blower who risked his job or even life before in the whole history of the universe.

[Disbelief]

NIST NCSTAR 1A:

"A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face[WTC7] found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s"

The NIST validates the usage of the freefall.

Danny Jowenko an expert in controlled demolition validates the controlled demolition nature of WTC7.

What Chris may have not succeeded in was getting past your denial.

Something I am sure he never expected anyway.

MM

You are really bad at this. Here is your statement:

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

Please show us a CD that attains freefall. Please show us how freefall is planned in a CD. Chris could not do it, can you?

[alienentity]

=Miragememories;6284054





Where he did show uncertainty and resorted to speculation, was in the discussion of the mechanics and planning of the WTC7 controlled demolition.

Oh, you've forgotten that he wasn't actually shown a full video, with sound and beginning at the actual start of the collapse. Gee, must be nice to be able to forget inconvenient facts so quickly :D




They were under severe pressure.

You have this much ego that you imagine you know what 3 top experts are thinking, that you know what goes on in their lives? Wow.

FYI, Ron Craig, a Toronto explosives expert, has fought against the 9/11 Truth myths long since 9/11, even participating in radio debates such as the one with Richard Gage on the Syrett show.

So your claim is nothing more than a biased opinion.

And Brent Blanchard published his 'CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT ' in 2006 - long after the immediate shock of the terrorist attacks by 19 hijackers.

Again, your attempt to mind-read these people is very weak; your attempt to misrepresent the credentials of Blanchard is downright dishonest; your attempt to dismiss all other possible expert opinions and cling to your 66% wrong Jowenko is childish.

That's why I mocked you with the childish 'Nya Nya', because the level you're operating on is grade-school and largely irrelevant to the evidence and facts.

Just as I expect from you, though.:(

[carlitos]

Just so I can understand, they are saying that 2 seconds of free fall acceleration is proof of a "controlled demolition?" Presumably with silent bombs or magic termites or whatever?

Despite the fact that, for most of the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building, it wasn't falling at free fall acceleration?

And despite the fact that no other controlled demolition can be shown to achieve free fall acceleration?

That's some mighty fine illogic right there. WTC7 mostly didn't accelerate at free fall; therefore it was a controlled demolition. Other controlled demolitions have loud bangs and don't fall at free fall; therefore WTC7 looks "just like" a controlled demolition.

This belief appears to be faith-based.

[alienentity]

Unless you are one of the terrorists, you have no way of knowing that WTC7 was not a target.



Hmm, and yet, Beachnut, notice how MM has no trouble pretending to read the minds of ALL the demolition experts who disagree with Jowenko?

So he applies a complete double-standard, yet expects perhaps that nobody will notice. This kind of basic dishonesty is sadly a requirement of the hardcore truther - you just cannot maintain the conspiracy/controlled demolition fallacies and competently or honestly view the actual evidence.

[BigAl]

unlikelihood; the state or fact of something's being unlikely, improbable, doubtful, dubious, not likely to happen

I stand by my statement until you can provide a reasonable basis for believing otherwise.



Maybe you might suggest how an 8 story freefall in WTC7 could be achieved without controlled demolition?


ISTM that the loss of lateral bracing for the core column followed by sudden buckling as shown in this animation is completely reasonable and consistent with how steel is affected by an unfought fire and the nature of the WTC7 fires on 9/11.

Just imagine someone kicking the stool out from under you. You'll be in free-fall, at least for a moment. That's what happened to WTC7.


Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell (3:40 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc

[carlitos]

Again, that the Salomon Brothers building would be a "target" for anything requires a lot of imagination. It's really the stupidest part of their non-hypothesis.

[twinstead]

Again, that the Salomon Brothers building would be a "target" for anything requires a lot of imagination. It's really the stupidest part of their non-hypothesis.

I don't know. Salomon sounds remotely Hebrew. Maybe they didn't like the idea of a Hebrew building.

[alienentity]

That's some mighty fine illogic right there. WTC7 mostly didn't accelerate at free fall; therefore it was a controlled demolition. Other controlled demolitions have loud bangs and don't fall at free fall; therefore WTC7 looks "just like" a controlled demolition.

This belief appears to be faith-based.

His ideas have been completely destroyed, and now, as with C7, he presents as a 'Zombie Doctrine' - you can kill it over and over with facts, but it just keeps coming back.:p

These guys even claim magical powers, like MM's claimed ability to literally read the minds of demolition experts; they're not dissimilar to other hucksters and snake-oil purveyors. With intellectually corrupt leaders like Richard Gage and Steven Jones, is this really surprising?

[alienentity]

Again, that the Salomon Brothers building would be a "target" for anything requires a lot of imagination. It's really the stupidest part of their non-hypothesis.

And another fascinating aspect of their many failed claims is their inability to let go of even the least significant of them.

MM for example cannot escape from his myopic understanding of the Barry Jennings testimony, for example;
Nor from his equally slavish adherence to certain very narrow statements of Danny Jowenko, even though Jowenko's other testimony is directly contradictory to Truther Doctrine.

I'd feel sorry for these people if they weren't so aggressive in peddling their half-baked ideas.

[Scott Jurgenson]

ISTM that the loss of lateral bracing for the core column followed by sudden buckling as shown in this animation is completely reasonable and consistent with how steel is affected by an unfought fire and the nature of the WTC7 fires on 9/11.

Just imagine someone kicking the stool out from you. You'll be in free-fall, at lease for a moment. That's what happened yo WTC7.


Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell (3:40 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc

How does a truther watch something like that and still beleive it was brought down by explosives?

Do they do the whole..."NIST hast to be in on it" schtick?

[beachnut]

...
Unless you are one of the terrorists, you have no way of knowing that WTC7 was not a target.
... MM I am not a terrorists, but to your delusions. WTC 7 was not a target, I use logic, evidence, flying experience, and cheat by asking the terrorists who plot it. Called research and logic, something you don't use as you picked a failure at recognizing gravity collapses and picked him as your "expert". He is 2/3rds right, or 1/3rd right. You choose poorly.

Please start your own thread on your latest delusions of WTC 7 being a target. Do you need the final heading of Flight 93 to help you make your decision?

If Danny has read NIST's report on WTC 7 and still thinks WTC 7 was a CD, he is not an expert and he may have comprehension problems.

You have a failed expert. Danny may be fooled by a gravity collapse, because the main energy source for CD is E=mgh (gravity is g, m is mass, h is height; towers had over 130 tons of TNT energy released due to gravity). Look it up before you expose your inability to learn with another post of CD delusion.

Which part of fire destroys buildings escapes your attention? It is a fact you ignore to maintain your CD delusions. With Danny saying WTC 1 and 2 are gravity collapse from impacts and fire, who is your tower expert in woo?

[bill smith]

Hmm, and yet, Beachnut, notice how MM has no trouble pretending to read the minds of ALL the demolition experts who disagree with Jowenko?

So he applies a complete double-standard, yet expects perhaps that nobody will notice. This kind of basic dishonesty is sadly a requirement of the hardcore truther - you just cannot maintain the conspiracy/controlled demolition fallacies and competently or honestly view the actual evidence.

Do you have a single case in the world of any professional demolition expert or demolition company standing up and saying:-

' Danny Jowenko is wrong because......'

I am looking for a direct refutation of Danny Jowenko by name .

[Bell]

Do you have a single case in the world of any professional demolition expert or demolition company standing up and saying:-

' Danny Jowenko is wrong because......'

I am looking for a direct refutation of Danny Jowenko by name .

Maybe you can start with providing us with an endorsement?

Eta: Outside the 9/11 denying and terrorist apologist architects and engineers from AE truth of course, but real experts.

[Miragememories]

As I expected, all the responses are nothing but empty-headed OCTer rhetoric.

MM

[alienentity]

Do you have a single case in the world of any professional demolition expert or demolition company standing up and saying:-

' Danny Jowenko is wrong because......'

I am looking for a direct refutation of Danny Jowenko by name .

What's the difference? Jowenko's conclusions are contradicted already by other leading demolition experts, period.

If I turn your question around on you, why hasn't Jowenko refuted, point-by-point, the conclusions of Loizeaux, Blanchard and Craig, or their colleagues?

In the battle of 'argument from authority' which MM has attempted to make, you guys lose very easily and by a wide margin.

Setting that aside, what's the difference? I don't see one of any substance.

[Miragememories]

"You also falsely stated that Brent Blanchard is somehow not an expert in controlled demolition."

Source, or retraction of that statement please?

MM

[bill smith]

What's the difference? Jowenko's conclusions are contradicted already by other leading demolition experts, period.

If I turn your question around on you, why hasn't Jowenko refuted, point-by-point, the conclusions of Loizeaux, Blanchard and Craig, or their colleagues?

In the battle of 'argument from authority' which MM has attempted to make, you guys lose very easily and by a wide margin.

Setting that aside, what's the difference? I don't see one of any substance.

Well I imagine because Jowenko does not want to fully enter the 9/11 fray. He simply gave his professional opinion that WTC7 was a Controlled Demolition and confirmined that opinion a year later after studying the details and the drawings and so on.

It's a pity that Mark Loiseaux or especially Ron Craig do not invite Danny to defend his statements on Coast-to-Coast or a similar show.

[Miragememories]

"Your position is laughable. You've lost the argument."
From what I can see, you've yet to make an argument.

Unlike you, I replied with a reasoned argument to your points.

Apparently, you are under the misguided belief that mockery and bluster are legitimate forms of counter-argument?

alienentity: "You do not offer any proof that freefall about midway in a controlled demolition is planned for."

Miragememories: "Maybe you might suggest how an 8 story freefall in WTC7 could be achieved without controlled demolition?

Since you are so married to science and a belief that a non-controlled demolition cause was behind the amazing collapse of WTC7, alienentity,
possibly you might share with us your explanation for 8 storys of freefall?"

MM

[twinstead]

Source, or retraction of that statement please?

MM

I'm curious as to why, if you consider Mr. Blanchard to be a CD expert, do you favor Jowenko's opinion over his. Is Mr. Blanchard biased? If yes, how can you know?

[carlitos]

Special pleading?

[uke2se]

So, MM, could you show us a single CD with FFA? Chris couldn't. Can you?

[Miragememories]

I find it very sad how quick mm is to hand wave all the demolition experts who disagree with his position, yet hold Jowenko, somebody who according to him is totally wrong about WTC1 and 2, as the supreme source concerning WTC7.

Yea, MM. They were afraid of looking unpatriotic, because there has never been a whistle blower who risked his job or even life before in the whole history of the universe.
What is really sad is how my valid arguments receive such disingenuous responses.

If you think my explanation as to why demolition experts in the U.S. are biased is incredible, than the reasonable thing to do would be to dismantle it with some valid counter-argument.

"Let me just say that in the wake of 9/11, anyone who dared suggest that it might have been an inside job would have been considered unpatriotic.

To quote George W. Bush; "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th. Malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

Maybe you prefer opinions made with obvious bias? I don't.

And go right ahead with your presentation of whistleblowers. And while your at it, you might like to list how many of them were well received and treated as heroes.


MM

[alienentity]

Source, or retraction of that statement please?

MM

You can clear it up yourself by answering this simple question:

Is Brent Blanchard an expert in controlled demolition?

We await your answer. No need to consult previous quotes, you can clear it up now. I'll accept your answer as your clear opinion.
If you don't want to offer an opinion, just say so.

[alienentity]

Since you are so married to science and a belief that a non-controlled demolition cause was behind the amazing collapse of WTC7, alienentity,
possibly you might share with us your explanation for 8 storys of freefall?"[/i]

MM

Sure thing. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6284991#post6284991)
Glad you asked.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

And go right ahead with your presentation of whistleblowers. And while your at it, you might like to list how many of them were well received and treated as heroes.


MM

You know nothing about being a hero. 343 of the finest people in Firefighting died 9 years ago, they are the 343 heroes that risked their own lives to save so many then sacrificed themselves to save more. I guess ignorance is your bliss! :mad:

[Miragememories]

"Please show us a CD that attains freefall."
" NIST NCSTAR 1A:

[i]"A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face[WTC7] found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s"

Explain how the NIST confirmed 8-story freefall is possible without controlled demolition.

Do you even understand what it means for a whole building to drop at freefall speed over a vertical distance of 8-storys?

MM

[BigAl]

Explain how the NIST confirmed 8-story freefall is possible without controlled demolition.

Do you even understand what it means for a whole building to drop at freefall speed over a vertical distance of 8-storys?

MM

Here's how. Just imagine someone kicking the stool out from under you. You'll be in free-fall, at least for a moment. That's what happened to WTC7. Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell (3:40 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Explain how the NIST confirmed 8-story freefall is possible without controlled demolition.

Do you even understand what it means for a whole building to drop at freefall speed over a vertical distance of 8-storys?

MM

F=G,M,M2xD2 divided by AR (air resistance). x SR (structural resistance)= No Free Fall Speed.

What were you saying about free fall speed? And no, there's no way in hell that 8 stories can fall 120 mph in a short distance that you assume happened without resistance.

[GlennB]

Do you even understand what it means for a whole building to drop at freefall speed over a vertical distance of 8-storys?



Yes.

It means the perps were actually setting out to create a new CD fall-rate world record, and give their game away totally, for absolutely no good reason.

Excellent plan and one that gets my ring-a-ding-ding endorsement. Way to **** with the sheeple's heads, eh?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Unless you are one of the terrorists, you have no way of knowing that WTC7 was not a target.

Unless you are the NWO you have no way of knowing that it was a target.

[Disbelief]

Explain how the NIST confirmed 8-story freefall is possible without controlled demolition.

Do you even understand what it means for a whole building to drop at freefall speed over a vertical distance of 8-storys?

MM

I will take this as an admission that you can not back up your claim that freefall acceleration is planned for in CDs. You made the claim, you back it up.

[alienentity]

Just to clarify for MM, since he's apparently confused about the subject:

We have 4 demolitions experts who've been quoted regarding the WTC collapses

Brent Blanchard
Ron Craig
Danny Jowenko
Mark Loizeaux

Let's catagorize their responses and exposure to the subject

______________________Brent Blanchard Ron Craig Danny Jowenko Mark Loizeaux
Was at GZ_________________Yes___________No_______No______ _____Yes
Examined Debris____________Yes___________No_______No_______ ____Yes
Published paper_____________Yes___________No_______No_______ ____No
WTC 1__________________No CD________No CD_____No CD________No CD
WTC 2__________________No CD________No CD_____No CD________No CD
WTC 7__________________No CD________No CD______CD_________No CD

This comparison shows that Danny Jowenko is not uniquely more qualified than any of the other experts, and in fact has the disadvantage of not being at GZ shortly after the attacks as were Blanchard and Loizeaux. ETA nor did Jowenko view a full video of the WTC 7 collapse, with audio (no demolition sounds).

But more important (which is why MM is avoiding it) is that our survey shows that:

100% of the experts agree that neither WTC 1 nor WTC 2 were brought down by controlled demolition.
75% agree that WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition, with 25% dissenting.

Of the total opinions given (12) only ONE is in dissent. That is 91.66% in agreement. Agreement AGAINST the opinions of 9/11 Truth.

And Jowenko is the star expert of 9/11 Truth? He's not helping their case. He's destroying it.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

When it comes to an opinion about whether WTC7 was felled by controlled demolition alienentity, I'll take the word of an expert in controlled demolitions over that of a corporate video producer any day.


MM

Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition Inc. explains why WTC7 can't have been a controlled demolition.

Nj6ZtXt6W90

Brent Blanchard of Protec Documentation Services, webmaster of Implosionworld.com explains why WTC7 can't have been a controlled demolition (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf).



Still haven't heard your opinion on this, MM. If what you said was true, then you are one of US now. :D

EDIT: Alienentity's post just above this is good too.

[Miragememories]

"Again, you are not an expert in controlled demolition.

I have noticed that you have no problem expressing what you feel to be your professional opinion on other 9/11-realted subjects, such as audio. Even when you must know that not all the facts are available to you.

Danny Jowenko had no problem concluding that collapse video of WTC7 he observed could only have been created by a controlled demolition.

Where he did show uncertainty and resorted to speculation, was in the discussion of the mechanics and planning of the WTC7 controlled demolition. Those being the areas where he needed as much information as could be made available."
"Oh, you've forgotten that he wasn't actually shown a full video, with sound and beginning at the actual start of the collapse. Gee, must be nice to be able to forget inconvenient facts so quickly"

And you conveniently ignore every argument that addresses Danny Jowenko's expertise in controlled demolitions as being far more credible than your own.

Such ignorance doesn't appear to be a stumbling block to forming your opinions.

"They were under severe pressure.

To quote George W. Bush; "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th. Malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
"You have this much ego that you imagine you know what 3 top experts are thinking, that you know what goes on in their lives? Wow.

Again, your attempt to mind-read these people is very weak; your attempt to misrepresent the credentials of Blanchard is downright dishonest; your attempt to dismiss all other possible expert opinions and cling to your 66% wrong Jowenko is childish.

That's why I mocked you with the childish 'Nya Nya', because the level you're operating on is grade-school and largely irrelevant to the evidence and facts."

Please source the quote where I supposedly made that specific representation of Brent Blanchard, or retract your accusation?

To argue that WTC7 was a controlled demolition is a de facto argument that 9/11 was an inside job.

Somehow joining those with such an opinion and risking Bush's label of being an outrageous conspiracy theorist doesn't sound like good business acumen.

I do agree with you that your use of Nya Nya was indeed very childish on your part. Par for the course though.

MM

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Just to clarify for MM, since he's apparently confused about the subject:

We have 4 demolitions experts who've been quoted regarding the WTC collapses

Brent Blanchard
Ron Craig
Danny Jowenko
Mark Loizeaux

Let's catagorize their responses and exposure to the subject

______________________Brent Blanchard Ron Craig Danny Jowenko Mark Loizeaux
Was at GZ_________________Yes___________No_______No______ _____Yes
Examined Debris____________Yes___________No_______No_______ ____Yes
Published paper_____________Yes___________No_______No_______ ____No
WTC 1__________________No CD________No CD_____No CD________No CD
WTC 2__________________No CD________No CD_____No CD________No CD
WTC 7__________________No CD________No CD_____CD_________No CD

This comparison shows that Danny Jowenko is not uniquely more qualified than any of the other experts, and in fact has the disadvantage of not being at GZ shortly after the attacks as were Blanchard and Loizeaux. ETA nor did Jowenko view a full video of the WTC 7 collapse, with audio (no demolition sounds).

But more important (which is why MM is avoiding it) is that our survey shows that:

100% of the experts agree that neither WTC 1 nor WTC 2 were brought down by controlled demolition.
75% agree that WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition, with 25% dissenting.

Of the total opinions given (12) only ONE is in dissent. That is 91.66% in agreement. Agreement AGAINST the opinions of 9/11 Truth.

And Jowenko is the star expert of 9/11 Truth? He's not helping their case. He's destroying it.

Well looks like MM got his ass handed to him, yet again.

[alienentity]

And you conveniently ignore every argument that addresses Danny Jowenko's expertise in controlled demolitions as being far more credible than your own.



Nice try shifting the goalposts! Since when are my qualifications in CD part of the conversation? How about your CD expertise?

We're both quoting expert opinion. Or are you proposing another double-standard, where you get to quote an expert, but I don't? LOL
Do you actually think you can fool people with these weak tricks?

Please answer the question regarding Brent Blanchard - is he an expert in controlled demolitions or not?

Answer the question. No need to keep dancing around your own opinion.:D

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

And you conveniently ignore every argument that addresses Danny Jowenko's expertise in controlled demolitions as being far more credible than your own.

Such ignorance doesn't appear to be a stumbling block to forming your opinions.




Please source the quote where I supposedly made that specific representation of Brent Blanchard, or retract your accusation?

To argue that WTC7 was a controlled demolition is a de facto argument that 9/11 was an inside job.

Somehow joining those with such an opinion and risking Bush's label of being an outrageous conspiracy theorist doesn't sound like good business acumen.

I do agree with you that your use of Nya Nya was indeed very childish on your part. Par for the course though.

MM

You know what's funny about your arguement about Danny Jowenko? He never said in any of his interviews as saying that he heard explosive sounds coming from WTC7.

So if he didn't hear any explosive sounds coming from WTC7, that can mean only 1 of 2 things: Jowenko is deaf or you're lying about him.

[DGM]

We have 4 demolitions experts who've been quoted regarding the WTC collapses

Brent Blanchard
Ron Craig
Danny Jowenko
Mark Loizeaux

Let's catagorize their responses and exposure to the subject

.

You might want to re-read this post and make another "edit".



:rolleyes:

[alienentity]

For the record, MM refuses to clarify his opinion as to whether Blanchard is an expert or not.

Is that my fault? Again, I ask MM to answer the simple question:

Is Brent Blanchard an expert in controlled demolition?

Yes or No?

[alienentity]

You might want to re-read this post and make another "edit".



:rolleyes:

Huh?

[Miragememories]

Just so I can understand, they are saying that 2 seconds of free fall acceleration is proof of a "controlled demolition?" Presumably with silent bombs or magic termites or whatever?

Despite the fact that, for most of the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building, it wasn't falling at free fall acceleration?

And despite the fact that no other controlled demolition can be shown to achieve free fall acceleration?

That's some mighty fine illogic right there. WTC7 mostly didn't accelerate at free fall; therefore it was a controlled demolition. Other controlled demolitions have loud bangs and don't fall at free fall; therefore WTC7 looks "just like" a controlled demolition.

This belief appears to be faith-based.
" NIST NCSTAR 1A:

[i]"A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face[WTC7] found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s"

Apparently you are in disagreement with the NIST, and do not believe that a freefall period of global building collapse is possible under any circumstances?

If controlled demolitions are unable to achieve it, then certainly ordinary office cubicle fires can't.

So please explain carlitos, why you disagree with the NIST and why their calculations are so impossible on this point?

MM

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I don't think MM is inclined to answer questions we pose to him. But it's funny to get his blood boiling by giving him facts/evidence to which he can't possibly relate or debunk.

[DGM]

Huh?
Mark Loizeaux = WTC7 CD?

[alienentity]

bump for MM;

For the record, MM refuses to clarify his opinion as to whether Blanchard is an expert or not.

Is that my fault? Again, I ask MM to answer the simple question:

Is Brent Blanchard an expert in controlled demolition?

Yes or No?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Apparently you are in disagreement with the NIST, and do not believe that a freefall period of global building collapse is possible under any circumstances?

If controlled demolitions are unable to achieve it, then certainly ordinary office cubicle fires can't.

So please explain carlitos, why you disagree with the NIST and why their calculations are so impossible on this point?

MM

Oh lord, you're not one of those Anti-Gravity people are you?

[carlitos]

Huh?

You swapped CD and Not CD for Jowenko and Louizeax. But we get your point. On the other hand, you aren't going to get anywhere trying to explain logical fallacies to MM. He's just trolling and / or doesn't do logic.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

He's right, you have Jowenko and Loizeaux reversed on your chart. I didn't catch it either at first.

EDIT:

You swapped CD and Not CD for Jowenko and Louizeax. But we get your point. On the other hand, you aren't going to get anywhere trying to explain Special Pleading to MM. He's just trolling and / or doesn't do logic.

Indeed, the numbers are still correct. The 91.66% expert stand against 9/11 twoof is quite damaging to MM's position. It will be entertaining to see how he screws up handling it.

[alienentity]

Mark Loizeaux = WTC7 CD?

Got it thx :o

[alienentity]

You swapped CD and Not CD for Jowenko and Louizeax. But we get your point. On the other hand, you aren't going to get anywhere trying to explain Special Pleading to MM. He's just trolling and / or doesn't do logic.

Yeah but Jowenko is the poster-boy for 9/11 Truth, not just with MM.
I thought it was a good idea to put this in perspective.

[alienentity]

Hey Chewy, can you fix the version that you quoted as well pls? If it's not too much trouble.

thx

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Hey Chewy, can you fix the version that you quoted as well pls? If it's not too much trouble.

thx

NP!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It's the same thing you see with firefighters and WTC7.

Firefighters hear explosions, truthers hold them up as saints.

Firefighters see massive impact damage to WTC7, they see fires on every floor, they hear the groaning of metal grinding on metal as it shifts unnaturally, the see bulges where the frame has warped, the see it leaning from a mile away... Truthers say nothing about this... usually. The stupidest ones say what the smarter ones are thinking but won't say... that the firefighters were in on it.

[Miragememories]

ISTM that the loss of lateral bracing for the core column followed by sudden buckling as shown in this animation is completely reasonable and consistent with how steel is affected by an unfought fire and the nature of the WTC7 fires on 9/11.

Just imagine someone kicking the stool out from under you. You'll be in free-fall, at least for a moment. That's what happened to WTC7.


Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell (3:40 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc
You have the mendacity to suggest that 8 storys of a building covering city block, could have all of its "lateral bracing for the core columns followed by sudden buckling" removed at the speed of kicking a stool out from under someone?

And to top it off, this freefall could be achieved by unfought office cubicle fires but not by controlled demolition?

MM

[alienentity]

bump for MM;

For the record, MM refuses to clarify his opinion as to whether Blanchard is an expert or not.

Is that my fault? Again, I ask MM to answer the simple question:

Is Brent Blanchard an expert in controlled demolition?

Yes or No?

[BigAl]

You have the mendacity to suggest that 8 storys of a building covering city block, could have all of its "lateral bracing for the core columns followed by sudden buckling" removed at the speed of kicking a stool out from under someone?

absolutly.

And to top it off, this freefall could be achieved by unfought office cubicle fires but not by controlled demolition?

MM

Yup. Steel fails in unfought fires in steel buildings. ISTR posting proof of this to you yesterday when you asked for a citation which you didn't respond to.

Such is the Twoofer way.

There was no man-made demolition at WTC.

[carlitos]

Give it up. Now he's calling it a cubicle fire, like when that lady in IT had her scented candle tip over. Obvious troll is obvious.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

And to top it off, this freefall could be achieved by unfought office cubicle fires but not by controlled demolition?

MM

Let's see some eyewtiness testimony that people saw firefighters carrying explosives into Building 7 & planting them within a burning building.

[Miragememories]

"Source, or retraction of that statement please?"
You can clear it up yourself by answering this simple question:

Is Brent Blanchard an expert in controlled demolition?

We await your answer. No need to consult previous quotes, you can clear it up now. I'll accept your answer as your clear opinion.
If you don't want to offer an opinion, just say so.

post 1139
"You also falsely stated that Brent Blanchard is somehow not an expert in controlled demolition."

post 1143
".. your attempt to misrepresent the credentials of Blanchard is downright dishonest"

You made the statement.

Either back it up or retract it!

MM

[alienentity]

bump for MM;

Is Brent Blanchard an expert in controlled demolition?

Yes or No?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And to top it off, this freefall could be achieved by unfought office cubicle fires but not by controlled demolition?

MM

No seismic signatures, no blown out windows, no sounds of explosives, no flying debris from the blast waves, no detonators found in debris, no det-cord found in debris, no delay devices found in debris, no copper residue on blast-severed joints, impossibility of demo prep work on actively used building without detection...

None of which occurs if fire brings a building down.

[carlitos]

Indeed, the numbers are still correct. The 91.66% expert stand against 9/11 twoof is quite damaging to MM's position. It will won't be entertaining to see how he screws up handling ignores it.
Fixed that for you. :) I can't imagine MM slowing down to carefully consider your point, let alone respond intelligently and with substance relative to your point. That doesn't happen here, from what I have seen.

[triforcharity]

Explain how the NIST confirmed 8-story freefall is possible without controlled demolition.

Do you even understand what it means for a whole building to drop at freefall speed over a vertical distance of 8-storys?

MM


Fire.

Now it's your turn.

ETA: The entire building did not fall in FFA. A portion of the North Face did. You know that. You have been told before.

[alienentity]

Hmmm, not only does MM refuse to clarify whether he thinks Brent Blanchard is an expert on controlled demolition or not, but he also misrepresents the collapse of WTC 7 as being 'mostly freefall' (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/search/?c=1&q=The+mostly+freefall+collapse+of+WTC+7&type=post&sort=desc&forum[]=-1&s_m=12&s_d=21&s_y=2007&e_m=8&e_d=31&e_y=2010)

Warning, this false statement of MM's was made over at LCF. He's more careful here, but it's in the public record.

In MM's false world, an interval of approx. 2.25 s out of a total of at least 14 s is 'mostly freefall'. Wow. Now 16% is 'mostly'?

That's almost as embarrassing as the 66% of Jowenko's statements which contradict 9/11 Truthers, or the 91.66% of a sample of CD experts, including Jowenko, who disagree with 9/11 Truth.

Epic fail for MM. And caught in yet another lie.

[Disbelief]

You made the statement.

Either back it up or retract it!

MM

You mean like this statement you made?

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

You demand constantly of posters here, yet you fail repeatedly to back up your obviously false statements.

[TruthersLie]

You made the statement.

Either back it up or retract it!

MM

I"m glad you agree with that.

YOu made the statement about the debris pile = the "footprint"

Either back it up or retract it.

You have made the statement about the towers and wtc7 as being "steel and concrete buildings".

Either back it up or retract it.

[uke2se]

MM, can you show any examples of other CDs causing FFA?

[Oystein]

Even if this has been beaten to death: "T'is but a flesh wound ... Alright, we'll call it a draw"

zKhEw7nD9C4

[Miragememories]

"Please answer the question regarding Brent Blanchard - is he an expert in controlled demolitions or not?

Answer the question. No need to keep dancing around your own opinion."
The only one on the dance floor, or should I say dodge floor, is yourself.

You got caught in a lie and rather than make a retraction, you have been creating a smokescreen ever since.

post 1139
"You also falsely stated that Brent Blanchard is somehow not an expert in controlled demolition."

post 1143
".. your attempt to misrepresent the credentials of Blanchard is downright dishonest"

If I mistakenly attribute a statement to the wrong person, I have no problem admitting it.

Apparently you feel differently alienentity?

MM

[Disbelief]

The only one on the dance floor, or should I say dodge floor, is yourself.

You got caught in a lie and rather than make a retraction, you have been creating a smokescreen ever since.



If I mistakenly attribute a statement to the wrong person, I have no problem admitting it.

Apparently you feel differently alienentity?

MM

Too funny that you have the nerve to call out someone in this thread when everyone can look at your posting history. Do you remember this?


post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

You have been asked repeatedly to back up both the assertion that the concrete in any way provided structural support or that a characteristic of a CD is FFA. Do you plan to do so?

[Miragememories]

I will take this as an admission that you can not back up your claim that freefall acceleration is planned for in CDs. You made the claim, you back it up.
Pray tell, what is "freefall acceleration"?

MM

[Oystein]

Pray tell, what is "freefall acceleration"?

MM

"freefall acceleration" is g = 9.8 m/s2 - the acceleration a body experiences in the gravity field near the surface of planet earth when no other force is acting on it.

Did you not take physics in high school?

[Oystein]

...And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

MM

My bolding.

These two sentences imply, among others the following claims:

1. (Complete?) freefall is something that has never occurred in a concrete and steel building
Got a source for that claim?

2. (Complete?) freefall is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions
We have asked you to provide a source for this item for a long time now. Seems you can't support the claim. Ready to retract it?


More claims are less clearly discernable from the two sentences, however, they deserve some scrutiny:

3. WTC7 underwent a "complete freefall" for at least 8 stories.
Do you mean to say that ALL of WTC7 was in freefall for 8 stories? Or do you mean to say that "freefall" means really at the complete acceleration of 9.8m/s2? If the former, you need to support that claim. If the latter, we are not in disagreement, I think.

4. WTC7 was a "concrete and steel building", or its structural properties with regard to collapse mechanisms are comparable.
It has been pointed out to you many times that any concrete used in WTC7 did not contribute to overall structural stability, but rather representes a liabilty on account of its mass. All structural elements were steel. Not concrete. Do you acknowledge that?
Once you have acknowledged that fact, you can start explaining why the behaviour of other buildings that were not pure steel-frame is instructive with regards to WTC7.
Or you can retract that implicit claim and clarify for us that you don't consider concrete to be of relevance here.

5. Freefall occurred for at least 8 stories, but potentially more
What is your reason to include the claim of "at least"?

[Miragememories]

"It's the same thing you see with firefighters and WTC7.

Firefighters hear explosions, truthers hold them up as saints.

Firefighters see massive impact damage to WTC7, they see fires on every floor, they hear the groaning of metal grinding on metal as it shifts unnaturally, the see bulges where the frame has warped, the see it leaning from a mile away... Truthers say nothing about this... usually. The stupidest ones say what the smarter ones are thinking but won't say... that the firefighters were in on it."

Glad to see an OCTer admit that firefighters did indeed hear explosions.

Firefighters certainly saw impact damage to WTC7. That is not under dispute. The fact that after 7 years of investigation, the NIST determined that the impact damage had no direct connection to the WTC7 collapse initiation makes their observation meaningless to this debate.

Firefighters did not see fires on every floor. That is a straight out lie.

"..they hear the groaning of metal grinding on metal.." the quote below is the only quote I could find regarding groaning;

"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down."

Regarding the infamous bulge;

From Firehouse Magazine;
"By now, this is going on into the afternoon...but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."

"A guy who works nearby and a fireman, three blocks away thought the building was leaning.
No one at the scene thought WTC 7 was leaning.
Chief Hayden said there was a bulge in the SW corner.
He did not say it was leaning.
NIST did not say it was leaning.
WTC 7 was NOT leaning!"

9/11 Truthers ask for proof, not anecdotal conjecture such as your warped frame, leaning, fires on every floor, and unnatural shifting.

MM

[TruthersLie]

9/11 Truthers ask for proof, not anecdotal conjecture such as your warped frame, leaning, fires on every floor, and unnatural shifting.

MM


<snort><snicker><ROFLMAO>

Coming from you that is absolutely hilarious.

Where is your PROOF of the "Footprint"?
where is your PROOF of the "concrete and steel" of the wtc towers and wtc7?

Still waiting...

or do you retract your lies.

[twinstead]

9/11 Truthers ask for proof, not anecdotal conjecture such as your warped frame, leaning, fires on every floor, and unnatural shifting.



Holy double standard, Batman!

Yea, I have to agree with trutherslie. MM you owe me an irony meter for this statement; it just 'sploded into a million pieces.

[BigAl]

Glad to see an OCTer admit that firefighters did indeed hear explosions.

"Explosion" is just a loud noise. There were lots of loud noises at WTC.

nobody heard a loud noise consistent in timing, loudness and brisance with man-made demolition.



Firefighters certainly saw impact damage to WTC7. That is not under dispute. The fact that after 7 years of investigation, the NIST determined that the impact damage had no direct connection to the WTC7 collapse initiation makes their observation meaningless to this debate. NIST says that the collapse of WTC1 caused fires on 10 floors in WTC7. That would be a direct connection.

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


Firefighters did not see fires on every floor. That is a straight out lie.

Strawman. Nobody claims "every floor." Fire on "every floor " was unnecessary to cause the collapse of WTC7 in a way consistent with the evidence and fire science.


"..they hear the groaning of metal grinding on metal.." the quote below is the only quote I could find regarding groaning;



Here's another one for you.

On the 56th floor, an architect believes the building was failing structurally. Architect Bob Shelton had his foot in a cast; he'd broken it falling off a curb two weeks ago. He heard the explosion of the first plane hitting the north tower from his 56th-floor office in the south tower. As he made his way down the stairwell, his building came under attack as well. "You could hear the building cracking. It sounded like when you have a bunch of spaghetti, and you break it in half to boil it." Shelton knew that what he was hearing was bad. "It was structural failure," Shelton says. "Once a building like that is off center, that's it."
http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande





Regarding the infamous bulge;

From Firehouse Magazine;

9/11 Truthers ask for proof, not anecdotal conjecture such as your warped frame, leaning, fires on every floor, and unnatural shifting.

MM

Only a Twoofer could dismiss the statement of a Chief citing actual measurements as "anecdotal ".

[GlennB]

9/11 Truthers ask for proof, not anecdotal conjecture ....

I've only just stopped laughing. Too funny for words.

But how about - WTC7 was supposed to come down at the same time as WTC1, but things went a bit haywire. Then they managed to fix it in time for 5:25, even though the building was burning. And, what's more, they aimed - for fun - to set a new CD fall record by slicing out 8 entire floors simultaneously. Without making a noise. Without anyone noticing the prep work for months. To destroy financial records.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Glad to see an OCTer admit that firefighters did indeed hear explosions.

I've never said there wasn't. In fact, I don't know of any debunker who has. Explosions are a common feature of major structural fires. You have been told this before, but every time it comes up, you act like it's the first time you've heard it.. Either you have a rare form of recurring amnesia, or Alzheimers disease or you are simply lying your ass off like you have always done before along with every other twoofer before and after you.

Firefighters certainly saw impact damage to WTC7. That is not under dispute.

Actually, 9/11 twoofers do dispute it (http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=161).

“I was talking about the third building that nothing hit and yet it fell as if it was hit the same way, all three buildings fell the same way, but the third building wasn’t hit by anything,”
-Chronic Illegal Drug Abuser and 9/11 Twoofer, Willie Nelson


Firefighters did not see fires on every floor. That is a straight out lie.

Oh dear... you are not going to enjoy reading this:



I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.
–FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti

When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers

It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block.
– Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy, FDNY

We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside.
–Port Authority Police Department Officer William Connors

"There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse."
–Firefighter Gerard Suden

The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor."
– Fire Captain Brenda Berkman

"When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site. –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6, FDNY

7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable.
–Firefighter Steve Modica

So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.
–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim

We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors.
–FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down.
–FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

"..they hear the groaning of metal grinding on metal.." the quote below is the only quote I could find regarding groaning;

Regarding the infamous bulge;
From Firehouse Magazine;


WTC7 was leaning.

XImQ6a-VrnA

"You see the way it's leaning like this? It's definately coming down. There's no way to stop it! The structural integrity isn't there."

That's gotta suck for you to hear stuff like that from the firefighters who lost 343 of their own that day.

Now the only way out of this for you is to ignore this and pretend it was never posted or claim the firefighters were in on it and helped kill their own brothers, fathers, and sons.

[Oystein]

Gee, MM is getting his arms and legs chopped off left and right, and still continues spitting. What a man!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Only a Twoofer could dismiss the statement of a Chief citing actual measurements as "anecdotal ".

Indeed, MM quoted the passage and the words are in there. but he apparently doesn't know what a transit is.

His kind are skilled at shooting themselves in the foot like that.

Oh... and he isn't responding to this either for some sadly predictable and blatantly obvious reason.
No seismic signatures, no blown out windows, no sounds of explosives, no flying debris from the blast waves, no detonators found in debris, no det-cord found in debris, no delay devices found in debris, no copper residue on blast-severed joints, impossibility of demo prep work on actively used building without detection...

None of which occurs if fire brings a building down.

[Miragememories]

"You have made the statement about the towers and wtc7 as being "steel and concrete buildings".

Either back it up or retract it."

I have backed up that assertion and you have apparently chosen to ignore my response.

"Until you can prove the non-existence and/or the structural insignificance of the concrete used on every floor in the construction of WTC7, you are misrepresenting the truth."
"you are the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you. the NIST reports, FEMA and others list wtc7 as a long span steel framed building. There is NO concrete reinforcement... Feel free to look them up."

As I pointed out to you before, the NIST made frequent reference to the relationship of the concrete and steel in WTC7.

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness."

"on Floors 8 through 47, the concrete was 0.14 m (5.5 in.) thick."

pg.7
" The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely. This type of floor system is thus referred to as a composite floor. The floor beams were framed into (connected to) girders with a variety of types of shear connectors1, through which the floor beams transferred gravity loads from the floors to the girders. The girders also framed into the columns with a variety of types of shear connectors and transferred the gravity loads to the columns."

pg.38
"Temperature-dependent mechanical properties of steel (Appendix E) and concrete (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A) used in the construction of WTC 7."

pg.52
"...power to the fuel pumps, (b) could not be sustained long enough, or generated too little
heat, to raise the temperatures of the steel and concrete structure to the point of
significant loss of strength or stiffness..."

pg.55
"Thus, the details of the progression of horizontal failure and final global collapse were sensitive to the uncertainties in how the building materials (steel, concrete) and building systems and contents interacted, broke up, and disintegrated."
bolding is mine

MM

[GlennB]

Gee, MM is getting his arms and legs chopped off left and right, and still continues spitting. What a man!

None shall pass !!

[Miragememories]

"Firefighters see massive impact damage to WTC7, they see fires on every floor..."
"Firefighters did not see fires on every floor. That is a straight out lie."
"Strawman. Nobody claims "every floor."

Try reading before you make your next kneejerk reply.

MM

[TruthersLie]

I have backed up that assertion and you have apparently chosen to ignore my response.




As I pointed out to you before, the NIST made frequent reference to the relationship of the concrete and steel in WTC7.

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness."

"on Floors 8 through 47, the concrete was 0.14 m (5.5 in.) thick."

pg.7
" The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely. This type of floor system is thus referred to as a composite floor. The floor beams were framed into (connected to) girders with a variety of types of shear connectors1, through which the floor beams transferred gravity loads from the floors to the girders. The girders also framed into the columns with a variety of types of shear connectors and transferred the gravity loads to the columns."

pg.38
"Temperature-dependent mechanical properties of steel (Appendix E) and concrete (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A) used in the construction of WTC 7."

pg.52
"...power to the fuel pumps, (b) could not be sustained long enough, or generated too little
heat, to raise the temperatures of the steel and concrete structure to the point of
significant loss of strength or stiffness..."

pg.55
"Thus, the details of the progression of horizontal failure and final global collapse were sensitive to the uncertainties in how the building materials (steel, concrete) and building systems and contents interacted, broke up, and disintegrated."
bolding is mine

MM

As with the SCHOOLING I gave you on the LIE about the "footprint" in architectural and engineering terms a concrete and steel building is a buidling in which the steel is REINFORCED with concrete. Usually in the support areas such as the core.

When you say it was a steel and concrete building, you are LYING about the type of building it was. All of your references are dealing with the concrete laid for the FLOORS which provided NO (or very little) structural support and was just used for the static loading of the floors.

Do some basic *********** research and stop LYING about the type of construction. I have given you over 5 links which state the type of building which is a STEEL FRAMED buidling with concrete used for flooring. It is a VAST difference and it is a LIE (like your "footprint" ********.)

[Miragememories]

"Firefighters see massive impact damage to WTC7, they see fires on every floor..."
"Firefighters did not see fires on every floor. That is a straight out lie."
"Strawman. Nobody claims "every floor."
"Firefighters see massive impact damage to WTC7, Oh dear... you are not going to enjoy reading this:"
I don't need to read it.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote.

What I said was;"Firefighters did not see fires on every floor."

You cannot see what is not there even if you think, or assume you do.

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.xxxvi
"The fires were ignited on at least 10 floors; however, only the fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 grew and lasted until the time of the building collapse."

pg.xxxvii
"There were two sources of water (gravity fed overhead tanks and the city water main) for the standpipe and automatic sprinkler systems serving Floor 21 and above, and some of the early fires on those upper floors might have actually been controlled in this
manner."

pg.18
"Even though available images showing fires in WTC 7 did not allow the detailed description of fire spread that was possible for the WTC towers, there was sufficient information to derive general descriptions of fire ignition and spread on various floors of the building (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5)."

pg.19
"Between roughly 2:00 p.m. and the collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20:52 p.m., fires were observed spreading on the 7th floor through the 13th floor, with the exception of the 10th floor."

pg.21
"A fire was seen briefly on the north face of the 14 floor, about halfway between the midpoint and the northeast corner, at 5:03 p.m. No fire was evident in images taken a few minutes before and a few minutes after this time."

pg.29
"The visual evidence indicated that the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13.

By 1:00 p.m., there was no visual evidence that the small, early fires on Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 were still burning (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). Therefore, these fires were not included in the four-step analysis sequence.

There was no confirmed evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7. The layout of the other tenant spaces (Floors 15 and above) indicated that, had there been fires of the duration and intensity of those on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13, they would have been recorded in at least some of the photographic images or videos.

There were no signs of fires on the 5th and 6th mechanical floors. There was little combustible material on the 6th floor, making a sustained and intense fire unlikely.

...Hypothetically, there might have been fires on the 5 floor..."

pg.51
"Early fires were seen on the southwest corner of Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 shortly after
noon. These were short-lived"

pg.51
"Sustained fires occurred on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13."

pg.xv
" NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence."

In spite of your dramatic quote collection;

After years of investigation, the NIST found; no evidence that WTC7 was coming down early, there was not fire on every floor, WTC7 was never completely involved in fire, WTC7 was never fully engulfed, the whole south side of WTC7 had not been completely hit by the collapse of WTC1, that WTC7 never had fire at all, or most of its windows, WTC7 was never burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved, WTC7 never had fires on nearly all floors, and WTC7 was never fully involved in flames.!!!

"WTC7 was leaning.

"You see the way it's leaning like this? It's definately coming down. There's no way to stop it! The structural integrity isn't there."

That's gotta suck for you to hear stuff like that from the firefighters who lost 343 of their own that day.

Now the only way out of this for you is to ignore this and pretend it was never posted or claim the firefighters were in on it and helped kill their own brothers, fathers, and sons."

One firefighter's uncorroborated opinion given as partial explanation for the WTC7 stand down.

You can add it to your list of firefighter quotes regarding the "fully engulfed by fire" WTC7, which the NIST could not find any corroboration.

It must suck to be so wrong.

MM

[uke2se]

MM, could you provide an example of another CD that causes FFA?

[Miragememories]

"I have backed up that assertion and you have apparently chosen to ignore my response.

Until you can prove the non-existence and/or the structural insignificance of the concrete used on every floor in the construction of WTC7, you are misrepresenting the truth."
"you are the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you. the NIST reports, FEMA and others list wtc7 as a long span steel framed building. There is NO concrete reinforcement... Feel free to look them up."

As I pointed out to you before, the NIST made frequent reference to the relationship of the concrete and steel in WTC7.

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness."

"on Floors 8 through 47, the concrete was 0.14 m (5.5 in.) thick."

pg.7
" The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely. This type of floor system is thus referred to as a composite floor. The floor beams were framed into (connected to) girders with a variety of types of shear connectors1, through which the floor beams transferred gravity loads from the floors to the girders. The girders also framed into the columns with a variety of types of shear connectors and transferred the gravity loads to the columns."

pg.38
"Temperature-dependent mechanical properties of steel (Appendix E) and concrete (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A) used in the construction of WTC 7."

pg.52
"...power to the fuel pumps, (b) could not be sustained long enough, or generated too little
heat, to raise the temperatures of the steel and concrete structure to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness..."

pg.55
"Thus, the details of the progression of horizontal failure and final global collapse were sensitive to the uncertainties in how the building materials (steel, concrete) and building systems and contents interacted, broke up, and disintegrated."
bolding is mine

"When you say it was a steel and concrete building, you are LYING about the type of building it was."
"steel and concrete structure" [WTC7].

structure: a building

The NIST declared to the public that WTC7 was indeed a steel and concrete building.

I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself and send your idiotic complaint to the NIST. Apparently they are supposed to know a few things about building architecture.

MM

[Mikemcc]

As I pointed out to you before, the NIST made frequent reference to the relationship of the concrete and steel in WTC7.

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness."

"on Floors 8 through 47, the concrete was 0.14 m (5.5 in.) thick."

pg.7
" The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely. This type of floor system is thus referred to as a composite floor. The floor beams were framed into (connected to) girders with a variety of types of shear connectors1, through which the floor beams transferred gravity loads from the floors to the girders. The girders also framed into the columns with a variety of types of shear connectors and transferred the gravity loads to the columns."

pg.38
"Temperature-dependent mechanical properties of steel (Appendix E) and concrete (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A) used in the construction of WTC 7."

pg.52
"...power to the fuel pumps, (b) could not be sustained long enough, or generated too little
heat, to raise the temperatures of the steel and concrete structure to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness..."

pg.55
"Thus, the details of the progression of horizontal failure and final global collapse were sensitive to the uncertainties in how the building materials (steel, concrete) and building systems and contents interacted, broke up, and disintegrated."
bolding is mine




structure: a building

The NIST declared to the public that WTC7 was indeed a steel and concrete building.

I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself and send your idiotic complaint to the NIST. Apparently they are supposed to know a few things about building architecture.

MMConcrete decking is not the same as concrete reinforced.

The perennial example used by both sides in the arguement is the Windsor building in Madrid. The plain steel structure failed in the fire there, whilst the concrete encased steel structure (the core and the structure below the fire deck) survived.

It is not valid to say that WTC7 was a concrete reinforced (or encased) structure. It was a long span steel structure with concrete elements (primarily the decking). In particular the structure over the electrical substation was a particular source of weakness in the scenario that played out.

[BigAl]

I don't need to read it.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote.

What I said was;"Firefighters did not see fires on every floor."

Strawman, So what? There was enough fire for long enough to cause the structure to fail.


You cannot see what is not there even if you think, or assume you do.

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.xxxvi
"The fires were ignited on at least 10 floors; however, only the fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 grew and lasted until the time of the building collapse."

So what? Nothing here says that the collapse was caused by anything but unfought fire.


pg.xxxvii
"There were two sources of water (gravity fed overhead tanks and the city water main) for the standpipe and automatic sprinkler systems serving Floor 21 and above, and some of the early fires on those upper floors might have actually been controlled in this
manner."

So what? Nothing here says that the collapse was caused by anything but unfought fire.



pg.18
"Even though available images showing fires in WTC 7 did not allow the detailed description of fire spread that was possible for the WTC towers, there was sufficient information to derive general descriptions of fire ignition and spread on various floors of the building (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5)."

pg.19
"Between roughly 2:00 p.m. and the collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20:52 p.m., fires were observed spreading on the 7th floor through the 13th floor, with the exception of the 10th floor."

pg.21
"A fire was seen briefly on the north face of the 14 floor, about halfway between the midpoint and the northeast corner, at 5:03 p.m. No fire was evident in images taken a few minutes before and a few minutes after this time."

pg.29
"The visual evidence indicated that the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13.

By 1:00 p.m., there was no visual evidence that the small, early fires on Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 were still burning (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). Therefore, these fires were not included in the four-step analysis sequence.

There was no confirmed evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7. The layout of the other tenant spaces (Floors 15 and above) indicated that, had there been fires of the duration and intensity of those on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13, they would have been recorded in at least some of the photographic images or videos.

There were no signs of fires on the 5th and 6th mechanical floors. There was little combustible material on the 6th floor, making a sustained and intense fire unlikely.

...Hypothetically, there might have been fires on the 5 floor..."

pg.51
"Early fires were seen on the southwest corner of Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 shortly after
noon. These were short-lived"

pg.51
"Sustained fires occurred on Floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13."


So what? Nothing here says that the collapse was caused by anything but unfought fire.


pg.xv
" NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence."

In spite of your dramatic quote collection;

After years of investigation, the NIST found; no evidence that WTC7 was coming down early, there was not fire on every floor, WTC7 was never completely involved in fire, WTC7 was never fully engulfed, the whole south side of WTC7 had not been completely hit by the collapse of WTC1, that WTC7 never had fire at all, or most of its windows, WTC7 was never burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved, WTC7 never had fires on nearly all floors, and WTC7 was never fully involved in flames.!!!


T Correct. There was enough fire for long enough to cause the structure to fail.


One firefighter's uncorroborated opinion given as partial explanation for the WTC7 stand down.


Only a Twoofer could dismiss a quote a Chief who, after measuring the bulge with instruments as expressing "an opinion" , especially when the Chief's informed, professional conclusion came to pass three hours later.


You can add it to your list of firefighter quotes regarding the "fully engulfed by fire" WTC7, which the NIST could not find any corroboration.
MM

Only a Twoofer could read all those quotes and the documents they came from and conclude that the root cause of the WTC7 collapse was anything but unfought fire.

[TruthersLie]

As I pointed out to you before, the NIST made frequent reference to the relationship of the concrete and steel in WTC7.


<facepalm>

Like with the schooling about the "footprint" here we go.

[quote]
Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness."

"on Floors 8 through 47, the concrete was 0.14 m (5.5 in.) thick."

pg.7
[i]" The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely. This type of floor system is thus referred to as a composite floor. The floor beams were framed into (connected to) girders with a variety of types of shear connectors1, through which the floor beams transferred gravity loads from the floors to the girders. The girders also framed into the columns with a variety of types of shear connectors and transferred the gravity loads to the

[Bell]

MM, could you provide an example of another CD that causes FFA?

Quoted. Just in case Uke2se is on MM's ignore list.

Although I think MM is rather ignoring difficult questions instead.

[Miragememories]

Like with the schooling about the "footprint" here we go.
If anyone is in need english of lessons it is you.

"When you say it was a steel and concrete building, you are LYING about the type of building it was."
"steel and concrete structure" [WTC7].

structure: a building

The NIST declared to the public that WTC7 was indeed a steel and concrete building.

As I said in my last reply, "I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself and send your idiotic complaint to the NIST. Apparently they are supposed to know a few things about building architecture."

And if you persist in playing dumb, my ignore list can be expanded ad nauseum, but it won't stop me from posting for the visitors.

It is great using ignore and watching all the bs posts suddenly disappear.

If you feel I fit into that category, than please, by all means, put me on ignore.

MM

[BigAl]

If anyone need english lessons it is you.




structure: a building

The NIST declared to the public that WTC7 was indeed a steel and concrete building.


Citation, please.

[Chuck Guiteau]

No seismic signatures, no blown out windows, no sounds of explosives, no flying debris from the blast waves, no detonators found in debris, no det-cord found in debris, no delay devices found in debris, no copper residue on blast-severed joints, impossibility of demo prep work on actively used building without detection...

None of which occurs if fire brings a building down.

C'mon MM, this strikes at the very heart of your "theory". You can quibble, parse, and rely on cherry picked quotes all you want, but this is so elemental to your case it MUST be explained.
Why was there no physical evidence of explosives or rigging found, even though there were hundreds of highly trained investigators, hundreds more construction workers who would be familiar with such, and even bomb sniffing dogs on site for a prolonged period of time, and not one found so much as an inch long piece of shock tube.
And why haven't you (or any other CT'er) been able to provide a technically viable manner for effecting a CD that is even remotely consistent with known facts?

[Miragememories]

Citation, please.

Extract from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.52
"...power to the fuel pumps, (b) could not be sustained long enough, or generated too little heat, to raise the temperatures of the steel and concrete structure [WTC7] to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness..."

MM

[Disbelief]

post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

Do you ever plan on backing up this claim?

[BigAl]

Extract from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.52
"...power to the fuel pumps, (b) could not be sustained long enough, or generated too little heat, to raise the temperatures of the steel and concrete structure [WTC7] to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness..."
MM

That paragraph (continued from page 51) talks about concrete as part of the thermal mass. It in no way claims that rhe concrete is structural for the sake of understanding how unfought fire caused WTC7 to collapse.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

[Miragememories]

That paragraph (continued from page 51) talks about concrete as part of the thermal mass. It in no way claims that rhe concrete is structural for the sake of understanding how unfought fire caused WTC7 to collapse.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
Nice try Al but no cigar.

Extract from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.52
"...power to the fuel pumps, (b) could not be sustained long enough, or generated too little heat, to raise the temperatures of the
steel and concrete structure [WTC7] to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness..."

Regardless of what the context of the statement was, the NIST clearly made reference to WTC7 as a "steel and concrete structure".

In addition, they make other references to WTC7's concrete that clearly reveal a structural relationship.

pg.7
" The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely. This type of floor system is thus referred to as a composite floor. The floor beams were framed into (connected to) girders with a variety of types of shear connectors, through which the floor beams transferred gravity loads from the floors to the girders. The girders also framed into the columns with a variety of types of shear connectors and transferred the gravity loads to the columns."

pg.55
"Thus, the details of the progression of horizontal failure and final global collapse were sensitive to the uncertainties in how the building materials (steel, concrete) and building systems and contents interacted, broke up, and disintegrated."

MM

[carlitos]

Do you guys think that arguing with this particular brick wall is helpful in any way?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I don't need to read it.

Of course not. You never need to read anything that contradicts what you've been told.

Someone has done some really nice work on you.

What I said was;"Firefighters did not see fires on every floor."

I trust the firefighters themselves who were there that day more than you.

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

I said this before and I'll say it again. For someone who believes that the NIST report on WTC7 can't possibly be true, you seem pretty adamant that the NIST can't possibly be wrong.


After years of investigation, the NIST found; no evidence that WTC7 was coming down early, there was not fire on every floor, WTC7 was never completely involved in fire, WTC7 was never fully engulfed, the whole south side of WTC7 had not been completely hit by the collapse of WTC1, that WTC7 never had fire at all, or most of its windows, WTC7 was never burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved, WTC7 never had fires on nearly all floors, and WTC7 was never fully involved in flames.!!!

When you have your truther meetings, do they make you stand at attention with your arms outstretched and palms turned up and make you repeat that over and over again? Do they whack you with rulers or branding irons if you get a word wrong?


One firefighter's uncorroborated opinion given as partial explanation for the WTC7 stand down.

You say "uncorroborated" while at the same time, you quoted a firefighter as having put a transit on the building. Do you understand what that means?

You can add it to your list of firefighter quotes regarding the "fully engulfed by fire" WTC7, which the NIST could not find any corroboration.

Except for all the photos and video of smoke pouring from every floor.

It must suck to be so wrong.

MM

Indeed.

[Newtons Bit]

Do you guys think that arguing with this particular brick wall is helpful in any way?

There's a reason why some of us have him on ignore.

[carlitos]

When you have your truther meetings, do they make you stand at attention with your arms outstretched and palms turned up and make you repeat that over and over again? Do they whack you with rulers or branding irons if you get a word wrong?

That makes sense. For the umpteenth time, I'd like to re-mention that it was called the Salomon Brothers building, not "WTC7." I'm not sure why I keep bringing this up, other than the fact that constructing a completely fictional narrative seems to be the goal of 9/11 'truth.'

There's a reason why some of us have him on ignore.
I had an epiphany recently, and deleted most of the truthers off my ignore list. That doesn't mean I will be directly engaging some of the dishonest ones, rather just skimming through the tripe posted by them.

[triforcharity]

I have backed up that assertion and you have apparently chosen to ignore my response.




As I pointed out to you before, the NIST made frequent reference to the relationship of the concrete and steel in WTC7.

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness."

"on Floors 8 through 47, the concrete was 0.14 m (5.5 in.) thick."

pg.7
" The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely. This type of floor system is thus referred to as a composite floor. The floor beams were framed into (connected to) girders with a variety of types of shear connectors1, through which the floor beams transferred gravity loads from the floors to the girders. The girders also framed into the columns with a variety of types of shear connectors and transferred the gravity loads to the columns."

pg.38
"Temperature-dependent mechanical properties of steel (Appendix E) and concrete (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A) used in the construction of WTC 7."

pg.52
"...power to the fuel pumps, (b) could not be sustained long enough, or generated too little
heat, to raise the temperatures of the steel and concrete structure to the point of
significant loss of strength or stiffness..."

pg.55
"Thus, the details of the progression of horizontal failure and final global collapse were sensitive to the uncertainties in how the building materials (steel, concrete) and building systems and contents interacted, broke up, and disintegrated."
bolding is mine

MM

Does NIST ever say that the concrete gave any structural support for the towers? Nope, they sure don't. Not now, not ever.

[ozeco41]

Do you guys think that arguing with this particular brick wall is helpful in any way?

I doubt that arguing with any of the current batch of brick walls is productive in itself.

Even the old standby "I'm posting for the lurkers" is probably past its use by date.

It is probably a Pavlovian trained response for many of us. See truther nosense >>> salivate respond.

I try to resist. I have failed a couple of times. And feeding them keeps them coming back - they are also in Pavlovian mode. Post rubbish >> get response.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

That makes sense. For the umpteenth time, I'd like to re-mention that it was called the Salomon Brothers building, not "WTC7." I'm not sure why I keep bringing this up, other than the fact that constructing a completely fictional narrative seems to be the goal of 9/11 'truth.'

According to miragememories, this photograph doesn't exist.

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

Completely fictional narrative, indeed.

[TruthersLie]

I had a HUGE beautiful school trip completed for MM, and then my internet connection lost it (or JREF ate it) either way... Have to do it again.

I have backed up that assertion and you have apparently chosen to ignore my response.

As I pointed out to you before, the NIST made frequent reference to the relationship of the concrete and steel in WTC7.
[/quoet]
Oh goody. Quote mining from NIST. I'll bold the important parts that you missed.

[quote]
Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness."

"on Floors 8 through 47, the concrete was 0.14 m (5.5 in.) thick."

pg.7
" The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck[/b] by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely. This type of floor system is thus referred to as a composite floor. "

MM

The FLOOR DECKING was concrete. The building was NOT a steel and concrete building. A steel and concrete building is a building in which the steel is REINFORCED with concrete.

They all were steel framed... and the concrete played NO part in the structure.
http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=834


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html



http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

http://www.scienceof911.com.au/the-argument/wtc-7


http://www.buildings.com/ArticleDetails/tabid/3321/ArticleID/2511/Default.aspx
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

But lets continue shall we? Ok. School is still in session MM.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/WTC7Column79.jpg
Please show me where the concrete that is reinforcing this column is located? I don't see any.

or lets look at the main designers comments about the world trade center.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html
steel frame, glass, concrete slabs on steel truss joists
What? it is a STEEL FRAMED BUILDING.

How about his own words from the same source.
"The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures.


I don't seem to see concrete mentioned anywhere in there... why is that?

But lets destroy your NIST cherrypicking w/out reading for comprehension. Are you ready mm?

http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf
Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire
by
Beitel, J. J., Hughes Associates, Inc
Iwankiw, N. R., Hughes Associates, Inc.
Introduction
This project was conducted for the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) under Contact Number NA1341-02-W-0686. It was commissioned to assess the needs and existing capabilities for full-scale fire resistance testing of structural connections under the direction of NIST Program Manager, William Grosshandler

now who is this for? Here I bolded it for you.
Oh it is for NIST.

Guess what they say? Hmmm?
About 7 world trade?

Steel moment frame with composite steel beam and deck floors; fire resistive with sprinklers

Hmm... I don't see concrete mentioned in there as being part of the structure...

What about wtc1 and 2?

Structural steel tube lateral system with composite floor truss system; fire resistive with retrofitted sprinklers

Nope... they don't mention concrete there either..

Hey, maybe this report just doesn't mention concrete buildings? oh no.. they do


Pentagon
Washington,DC,USA
Reinforced Concrete

and
Textile Factory
Alexandria, Egypt
Reinforced Concrete. no sprinklers

and
CESP, Sede 2
Sao Paulo, Brazil
Reinforced concrete frame, with ribbed slabs; no sprinklers

So we have a report for NIST which doesn't state the concrete was anything beyond part of the composite flooring.

The towers and wtc7 were long span truss steel framed buildings. Go pick up an architectural book or a engineering book and LEARN THE *********** DIFFERENCE.

[Miragememories]

"I don't need to read it."
"Of course not. You never need to read anything that contradicts what you've been told.

Someone has done some really nice work on you."

I have read through it all before and have retained copies of
every first responder statement I could find.

If anything has gotten to me, it is the truth.

"What I said was;"Firefighters did not see fires on every floor."

You cannot see what is not there, even if you think, or assume you do.
"I trust the firefighters themselves who were there that day more than you."

And the firefighters were consulted by the NIST during their investigation.

As I pointed out to you, and you chose to ignore.

Extract from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.xv
" NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence."

The NIST had every reason to want to buy into the exaggerated claims made in those firefighter quotes as it would have greatly bolstered the NIST's WTC7 global collapse initiation theory.

BUT, they could not for the simple reason that they could not corroborate those claims.

"I said this before and I'll say it again. For someone who believes that the NIST report on WTC7 can't possibly be true, you seem pretty adamant that the NIST can't possibly be wrong."

You are muddling your facts.

I have never even remotely suggested that any of the NIST reports were totally untrue.

The NIST collected volumes of honest data. How they handled that data is where I take issue.

What I claim is that the NIST makes too many unsubstantiated assumptions, place too much weight on pioneered computer models, are too willing to accept glaring discrepancies between modeled results and documented observations, and that they state their theory-based conclusions as if they were proven fact.

"WTC7 was leaning.

"You see the way it's leaning like this? It's definately coming down. There's no way to stop it! The structural integrity isn't there."

That's gotta suck for you to hear stuff like that from the firefighters who lost 343 of their own that day.

Now the only way out of this for you is to ignore this and pretend it was never posted or claim the firefighters were in on it and helped kill their own brothers, fathers, and sons."
"One firefighter's uncorroborated opinion given as partial explanation for the WTC7 stand down.

You can add it to your list of firefighter quotes regarding the "fully engulfed by fire" WTC7, which the NIST could not find any corroboration."
"You say "uncorroborated" while at the same time, you quoted a firefighter as having put a transit on the building. Do you understand what that means?"

Yes. It was used to monitor how level the building was at that location. In other words, to determine if WTC7 was beginning to lean.

Does placing a smoke detector in my house automatically establish proof that it is on fire?

The NIST did report the use of a transit, but no where in their report prior to global collapse, did the NIST find any evidence that WTC7 was leaning.

"You can add it to your list of firefighter quotes regarding the "fully engulfed by fire" WTC7, which the NIST could not find any corroboration."
"Except for all the photos and video of smoke pouring from every floor."

You have a real problem accepting the truth.

The NIST relied heavily on visual confirmation for their final report and they insist that 10 floors at the most were ever on fire.

They examined all the photos and video of smoke supposedly pouring from every floor.

Try discounting the wind direction and the enormous amount of smoke from WTC6 which was joining that on the south face of WTC7.

Of those 10 floors, after 1 p.m., the NIST found [b]"the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13."

You really have no case for your argument.

MM

[Miragememories]

According to miragememories, this photograph doesn't exist.

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

Completely fictional narrative, indeed.

Maybe you need a better view.

WTC6 was contributing substantially to the clouds of smoke climbing the south face of WTC7.

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/715/wtc7wtc6smokin1rua0.png

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5430/wtc6smoke1mh8.png

MM

[funk de fino]

Maybe you need a better view.

WTC6 was contributing substantially to the clouds of smoke climbing the south face of WTC7.

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/715/wtc7wtc6smokin1rua0.png

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5430/wtc6smoke1mh8.png

MM


Against the wind direction? Interesting.

I thought it was 13 floors on fire? You said 10. Could you source that please? I may be mistaken.