Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[MarkyX]

Remember this man talking about the WTC7 and how it was bought down by "bombs" due to showing only ONE video ?

Look what he says about the WTC, which 9/11 Deniers won't promote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

[Bell]

I wish you'd address all our evidence of you being part of some HUGE conspiracy!!1!!one!! :p

[T.A.M.]

What I hate, is they will still try to have it both ways. They will say he is a rock solid expert opinion for collapse of WTC7 via CD, but will say he didn;t know enough about the "proposed atypical demolition" that CTers suggest for WTC1 &2.

None the less, I would like to get Mr. Jowenko to sit down and read...yes READ the NIST Interim Report, and then see what he says.

TAM

[Panoply_Prefect]

It seems to me that a new generation of truthers are emerging, at least here in Sweden, and since truther websites are prone to not actually removing old stuff, they tend to pick up somewhere 2005-2006.

This makes the old Jowenko vides starting to circulate again (which is how Google led me to this thread), and I was wondering if he ever elaborated, or even commented on the final WTC7 NIST report?

[BigAl]

Remember this man talking about the WTC7 and how it was bought down by "bombs" due to showing only ONE video ?

Look what he says about the WTC, which 9/11 Deniers won't promote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

It appears that the video is gone. If it's Jowenko explaining why WTC 1 and 2 were NOT man-made demolition, this link broke a long time ago.

[KDLarsen]

Jesus, bumping a 3 year old thread, that has to be a new forum best of sorts ;)

[Oliver]

It appears that the video is gone. If it's Jowenko explaining why WTC 1 and 2 were NOT man-made demolition, this link broke a long time ago.


He explained that no one could have rigged WTC 1&2 and that he was in line with the official "NWO"-explanation. However, the Twoofers never accepted his stance while quotemining the "interesting" parts of the interview...

[Panoply_Prefect]

Jesus, bumping a 3 year old thread, that has to be a new forum best of sorts ;)

Yes, sorry about that, I normally don't bump old threads. But this time I think its appropriate - although I post here regularly, this thread popped up when I was responding on a different board to one of the Truther TNG's. There really isn't any need to start yet another WTC7 CD thread IMHO.

It's actually sort of proves my point, the truthers take of in 2006, so this thread mirrors of how nothing happens in three years, and then just takes off as if time have been frozen...

And even though Truthers TNG ignores it, a lot has happened - the NIST WTC7 report for instance. I haven't heard anything from Jowenko since the release of that report. In his interviews he didn't strike me as a truther, so I still wonder if he maintains his position, and if he has been interviewed again, somewhere.

[Oliver]

I haven't heard anything from Jowenko since the release of that report.


Well, you could ask him personally, if he doesn't have enough about all the stupidity already, of course...

http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,1,2

[RedIbis]

Yes, sorry about that, I normally don't bump old threads. But this time I think its appropriate - although I post here regularly, this thread popped up when I was responding on a different board to one of the Truther TNG's. There really isn't any need to start yet another WTC7 CD thread IMHO.

It's actually sort of proves my point, the truthers take of in 2006, so this thread mirrors of how nothing happens in three years, and then just takes off as if time have been frozen...

And even though Truthers TNG ignores it, a lot has happened - the NIST WTC7 report for instance. I haven't heard anything from Jowenko since the release of that report. In his interviews he didn't strike me as a truther, so I still wonder if he maintains his position, and if he has been interviewed again, somewhere.

Here's your answer:

Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.

Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.

Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.

Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --

Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."

Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.

Danny Jowenko: Exactly . http://www.pumpitout.com

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

[Oliver]

Here's your answer:

Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right. *snip*

http://www.pumpitout.com

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html


Oh, so you did present NIST's final explanation of the WTC7 collapse to Jowenko and ask him about it, right? ;)

Anyway:

Email: info@jowenko.com
Tel: +31 118 612735
Fax: +31 118 612779
Mobile: +31 653 24 21 25

Address:
Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V.
Veerseweg 107
NL - 4351 SL VEERE
Netherlands

[JAStewart]

RedIbis - get him in a court room! If he's your (only) expert who thinks its a CD, get him to testify to that. Get him to write a paper to get peer reviewed!

So much possibilities! So much time! So little chance of happening!

[RedIbis]

Oh, so you did present NIST's final explanation of the WTC7 collapse to Jowenko and ask him about it, right? ;)

Anyway:



Have you asked him about it? If you do, what are you going to say if he asks what physical evidence did NIST use to support their unprecedented, single column causing global collapse hypothesis?

[Oliver]

Have you asked him about it? If you do, what are you going to say if he asks what physical evidence did NIST use to support their unprecedented, single column causing global collapse hypothesis?


No, I didn't ask him since it's obvious that he didn't know all the facts concerning WTC7 back then, just like some other posters in here today ...

[RedIbis]

No, I didn't ask him since it's obvious that he didn't know all the facts concerning WTC7 back then, just like some other posters in here today ...

What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?

[HyJinX]

What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?

That WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition

[RedIbis]

That WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition

That's an opinion.

[johnny karate]

Have you asked him about it? If you do, what are you going to say if he asks what physical evidence did NIST use to support their unprecedented, single column causing global collapse hypothesis?

Red, is it your contention that it is not possible to definitively determine what caused WTC7 to collapse without physical evidence?

[twinstead]

That's an opinion.

One shared by a whole bunch of people who know a whole bunch more than you do about buildings and how they are built and how they fail.

[GlennB]

I always found it strange that Jeff Hill (if that's his real name) got straight through to Jowenko. Did Danny not have a secretary/receptionist? Did the recording start after the secretary transferred the call? If so, why?

Even stranger is the lack of comment from Truthers about the pack of lies that DJ was fed in the original video interview. "These 12" springs to mind from memory (the number of core columns). So does "You could walk around it" (of the debris pile).

Could go on. Can't be arsed.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Danny Jowenko never mentioned hearing any sort of explosions on the tapes when he was interviewed. I brought that to the attention to the Truthers a long time ago. They wouldn't hear of it.

[CHF]

Whatever happened to Jowenko? Haven't heard a thing about him, or from him, in 2+ years.

Seems he didn't persue the truth and the truthers didn't persue him. Oh well, throw him into the pile with Laura Chavez, Kevin McPadden and 'Mike the EMT' I suppose.

And I've never been able to figure out why the truthers thought Jowenko was so valuable to their cause. He disagrees with the "truth" 2/3 of the time!

For his opinion to be of value for the truthers we have to assume that he's wrong more often than he's right, and in the minority of cases where he's right he's unquestionably right.

[Oliver]

What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?


That the Penthouse collapsed through that whole building before it collapsed. That a HUGE chunk of the WTC Tower did crash into the building. That there were several fires for hours. What else do you need to understand that the building was damaged in a severe manner? :confused::boggled:

[RedIbis]

Red, is it your contention that it is not possible to definitively determine what caused WTC7 to collapse without physical evidence?

I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.

Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.

[BigAl]

What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?

That structural failure due to fire and the lack of firefighting caused the collapse.

The exact manor of structural failure is claimed to be the failure of a specific beam. Peole with the facts and relevant expertise might debate that, but nobody claims that fire wasn't the primary cause.

[Oliver]

That structural failure due to fire and the lack of firefighting caused the collapse.


Maybe RedIbis is right and fires alone might not have brought the building down. But given the big chunk of debris of a WTC-tower falling into the side of WTC7 and the Penthouse on top of WTC7 crashing through that whole building, it is no ****** surprise whatsoever that the whole building collapsed.

Quite the opposite, after all that immense damage, only a fool would claim that all of that was irrelevant concerning the buildings internal structure/stabillity. :boggled:

[uk_dave]

I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.

Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.

Ahhhhh so it wasn't impossible that wtc7 came down because of structural damage and fire. Thank you.

Job done. We can all go home now.

[Gamolon]

and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.

What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it?

[uk_dave]

What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it?

ooooohh I bet it's controlled demolition supported by evidence of sequential bright flashes and explosions immediately before the structure came down, together with evidence of the demolition charges having been installed and maintained during the fire and backed up with circumstantial evidence regarding the motive behind the cd of wtc7...which was.... ummmmm....some reason...to do with....stuff...an' such.

[dtugg]

What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it?

I predict that RedIbis will not be answering this question. Too bad stating the obvious does not qualify one for the MDC.

[Gamolon]

I predict that RedIbis will not be answering this question. Too bad stating the obvious does not qualify one for the MDC.

I'm really curious.

If there is no physical evidence as Red claims, then that means there is no physical evidence for ANY theory concerning WTC7. That means that any proposed theory is based on video footage, sound, eyewitness reports, scientific knowledge, etc.

I would like to know what other theory, in Red's opinion, shows a more plausible explanation than what NIST describes.

[CHF]

What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it?

Hey man, if you ignore the penthouse collapse and turn off the volume for the rest of the collapse, it's just like a CD!

What more do you need?

[dtugg]

RedIbis once claimed that he had a theory better than NIST's regarding WTC7 and that somehow column 79 was his best evidence. He, of course, refused to explain.

[Oliver]

I would like to know what other theory, in Red's opinion, shows a more plausible explanation than what NIST describes.


P.E.E.'s
Phantasy-Enhanced-Explosives

[johnny karate]

I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.

So then Jowenko's assessment of WTC7's collapse is, at best, as equally unreliable as that of NIST due to its same lack of physical evidence. And you therefore agree that Jowenko's opinion should be summarily dismissed, right?

Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.

Please remind me what those two novel phenomena are.

[Dave Rogers]

What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?

For a start, he was shown the collapse videos without the soundtrack, so he wouldn't have been aware of the absence of deafeningly loud explosions immediately before the beginning of the collapse.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.

Unlike the novel phenomena proposed by the truth movement, the novel phenomena proposed by NIST are consistent with known scientific laws.

Dave

[BigAl]

For a start, he was shown the collapse videos without the soundtrack, so he wouldn't have been aware of the absence of deafeningly loud explosions immediately before the beginning of the collapse.

Dave

Reportedly he wasn't told that WTC1 had collapsed just a few hundred feet from the opposite side of the video he was asked to comment on.

[Oliver]

Reportedly he wasn't told that WTC1 had collapsed just a few hundred feet from the opposite side of the video he was asked to comment on.


As far I remember, they didn't even show him that the Penthouse on top of WTC7 crashed through the whole building before the rest of WTC7 collapsed as well.

[Dave Rogers]

Reportedly he wasn't told that WTC1 had collapsed just a few hundred feet from the opposite side of the video he was asked to comment on.

Or that the building had been in fire for seven hours, or that it had 47 storeys, or, indeed, that it was WTC7.

Dave

[RedIbis]

I predict that RedIbis will not be answering this question. Too bad stating the obvious does not qualify one for the MDC.

How many times are you going to be wrong?

[Dave Rogers]

How many times are you going to be wrong?

How many different ways are you going to avoid answering the question?

Dave

[NutCracker]

How many times are you going to be wrong?

dtugg just moved 1 RedIbis post towards being right.

[dtugg]

How many times are you going to be wrong?

Ah shucks, looks like the red bird proved me wrong by finally answering a simple question.

Oh wait...

[Gamolon]

I found a partial explanation from Red as to what he thinks happened.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4131332#post4131332

It's not my ground breaking theory, but at least an equally justifiable theory is CD. I would go so far as to say that it's more likely than the magic single column causing global collapse theory.

Also this.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4131270#post4131270

I don't know about any movement, but 9/11 skepticism will not die until you can explain something like why WTC 7 collapsed, without having to rely on a series of highly implausible hypotheses, which are not backed by physical, empirical evidence.

WTC 7 is just one example, of course.

So Red, based on those quotes above, please provide your physical evidence that leads you to believe that a controlled demolition is MORE LIKELY (your words) than what NIST explains.

Also, please provide your evidence that supports your claim that the hypotheses from NIST are HIGHLY IMPLAUSIBLE.

[RedIbis]

I found a partial explanation from Red as to what he thinks happened.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4131332#post4131332



Also this.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4131270#post4131270



So Red, based on those quotes above, please provide your physical evidence that leads you to believe that a controlled demolition is MORE LIKELY (your words) than what NIST explains.


It's going to be difficult to upload physical evidence to the forum. Perhaps, that will be available in the next upgrade.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It's going to be difficult to upload physical evidence to the forum. Perhaps, that will be available in the next upgrade.

What? No pictures or video of it?

[dtugg]

Does being such an intellectually dishonest coward bother you at all? It's a serious question.

[NutCracker]

It's going to be difficult to upload physical evidence to the forum. Perhaps, that will be available in the next upgrade.

dtugg just moved another RedIbis post towards being right. The counter now is 2.

[Dave Rogers]

It's going to be difficult to upload physical evidence to the forum. Perhaps, that will be available in the next upgrade.

So are you claiming to have physical evidence relevant to the collapse of WTC7? If so, can you please describe the physical evidence you possess?

Dave

[RedIbis]

Does being such an intellectually dishonest coward bother you at all? It's a serious question.

No it's not. How hard is it for me to ask you the same stupid questions? Does it bother you to be obnoxious and childish?

What's the problem here? How many times do I have to say the same things over and over? There are numerous threads in which I refer to and post the types of reports and evidence I find compelling. Granted, more often I respond to and discuss the official theories.

This thread, like nearly every thread begins with my attempt at adding to a discussion with some specific information. In this case it was Jowenko's follow up response. Soon it turns into another pissing contest. Congratulations, if you've accomplished anything at all, you've gotten me to engage in exactly the type of frivolous nonsense I try to avoid.

[dtugg]

Stop lying. You avoid discussion like it's the plague.

[NutCracker]

No it's not. How hard is it for me to ask you the same stupid questions? Does it bother you to be obnoxious and childish?

What's the problem here? How many times do I have to say the same things over and over? There are numerous threads in which I refer to and post the types of reports and evidence I find compelling. Granted, more often I respond to and discuss the official theories.

This thread, like nearly every thread begins with my attempt at adding to a discussion with some specific information. In this case it was Jowenko's follow up response. Soon it turns into another pissing contest. Congratulations, if you've accomplished anything at all, you've gotten me to engage in exactly the type of frivolous nonsense I try to avoid.

Well, if you posted evidence in numerous threads, please provide references here.

The counter now is 3.

[Gamolon]

There are numerous threads in which I refer to and post the types of reports and evidence I find compelling.

I just did a search using your name and "WTC7". I found 3 pages of individual posts from you and not one post links to any evidence or reports nor do you refer to any reports or evidence that supports your claim that controlled demolition is MORE LIKELY than what NIST describes in their report. So please, if I am missing something, refer me to the evidence you have garnered that supports your belief/claim that controlled demolition of WTC7 is more likely than NIST's conclusions.

Granted, more often I respond to and discuss the official theories.Right. So again, where are the post/posts you have made that refer to the reports or evidence that show controlled demolition to be more plausible than thermal expansion and the weakening of steel?

[TruthersLie]

Here's your answer:

Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.

Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.

Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.

Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --

Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."

Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.

Danny Jowenko: Exactly . http://www.pumpitout.com

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Wow. Red. It is an amazing interview.

I didn't know this happened after the FINAL report from NIST came out. When was that again? When was this telephone interview conducted again?

Oh BEFORE the final draft of the NIST report.

Again, READING FOR COMPREHENSION Red... you should try it.
Why is it that twoofs have such horrible reading comprehension?

Do we really want to get into Danny J again? And how he states repatedly that he is just guessing about wtc7? Or how he states repeatedly he hasn't looked at the engineering plans? Or how he states that wtc1 and 2 were NOT CD.

Do you really want to try that weak stuff all over again?

[johnny karate]

What's the problem here? How many times do I have to say the same things over and over? There are numerous threads in which I refer to and post the types of reports and evidence I find compelling. Granted, more often I respond to and discuss the official theories.

The problem here is that you have repeatedly dismissed the NIST hypothesis due to its lack of physical evidence. To be consistent, you would need to detail the physical evidence that exists for these competing hypotheses you find so compelling. I'm not interested in a pissing contest, only that you apply the same standards to theories you find agreeable as to the ones you don't.

[Grizzly Bear]

Is it just my imagination, or aren't just about all failures initiated by one final thing that breaks the camel's back?

[uk_dave]

Is it just my imagination, or aren't just about all failures initiated by one final thing that breaks the camel's back?

Are you suggesting that RedIbis was conceived on the back of a camel?:boggled:

[twinstead]

I thought this thread was about Jowenko. Where did camels come into it? ;)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Question for Red,

Why is it that Danny Jowenko never heard any explosives going off?

Here's part 1 of 3 from an interview:

k3DRhwRN06I

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM&feature=related

Part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU&feature=related

Notice that Jowenko asked if it was on the same day? He paused for atleast a minute to 1 /12 minutes then said about the smoke.

Jowenko in the same interview said: "I don't know the construction of the building." Then later on he says something about "packet charges"?

Red, I'm sorry, but Jowenko doesn't make sense!

[alienentity]

I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.

Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.

Fascinating. So do you know, for a fact, that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, or do you believe it is just a possibility?

Because, AFAIK, there is no comparable truther-computer simulation, based on engineering principles, which refutes anything that NIST came up with.
That means there's even less evidence for CD by that measure.

Regarding novel phenomena, you haven't clarified what those are. If you're referring to thermal expansion, that's not a novel phenomenon - it's a fact.
But you haven't made it clear yet.

[RedIbis]

Regarding novel phenomena, you haven't clarified what those are. If you're referring to thermal expansion, that's not a novel phenomenon - it's a fact.
But you haven't made it clear yet.

I certainly never said that thermal expansion was the novel phenomenon. Let's get it straight from Sunder,

NIST "identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse."
and
"[WTC 7] fell because thermal expansion, a phenomenon not considered in current building design practice, caused a fire induced progressive collapse."

Now I'm willing to give Sunder the benefit of the doubt because I don't think he believes thermal expansion is a novel phenomenon. He's suggesting that thermal expansion of the steel causing global collapse is a novel phenomenon.

Secondly, NIST suggests that the buckling of a single column, namely Column 79, led to global collapse, which would also be a novel phenomenon. Unless you have an example of a steel framed high rise bldg collapsing due to the failure of a single column, this would be the second novel phenomenon proposed by NIST. Not that they have the physical evidence to back this up, of course.

So again, two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.

[dtugg]

And the red bird has yet to answer the question. What a shock!!!!!!

[twinstead]

So again, two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.

And...the question to you is do YOU have an alternate theory that DOES have extraordinary evidence? If you don't, then the NIST's theory works for me. What else COULD it be? CD in this context is even more of an extraordinary claim.

[TruthersLie]

Bump for da widdle birdy who won't answer and will fly away.

Wow. Red. It is an amazing interview.

I didn't know this happened after the FINAL report from NIST came out. When was that again? When was this telephone interview conducted again?

Oh BEFORE the final draft of the NIST report.

Again, READING FOR COMPREHENSION Red... you should try it.
Why is it that twoofs have such horrible reading comprehension?

Do we really want to get into Danny J again? And how he states repatedly that he is just guessing about wtc7? Or how he states repeatedly he hasn't looked at the engineering plans? Or how he states that wtc1 and 2 were NOT CD.

Do you really want to try that weak stuff all over again?

[Gamolon]

RedIbis, are you equally as critical of controlled demolition theories as you are of NIST's theory?

I mean, none of the alternate demolition theories have the same level of "physical evidence" you require the official story to have yet you believe controlled demolition is more likely.

Why the bias?

[lapman]

Now I'm willing to give Sunder the benefit of the doubt because I don't think he believes thermal expansion is a novel phenomenon. He's suggesting that thermal expansion of the steel causing global collapse is a novel phenomenon.
So, you are saying that because it's novel, it's impossible?

Secondly, NIST suggests that the buckling of a single column, namely Column 79, led to global collapse, which would also be a novel phenomenon. Unless you have an example of a steel framed high rise bldg collapsing due to the failure of a single column, this would be the second novel phenomenon proposed by NIST. Not that they have the physical evidence to back this up, of course.So, because it's novel, it means it's impossible? This is compared to the fantasy phenomenon of high explosives going of without a sound unless you can provide evidence of another confirmed CD by explosives performed before or since 9/11 that was completely silent and/or the roof structures collapsed into the building seconds prior to the rest of the collapse.

So again, two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.However, they do base their conclusion on all available evidence. Your conclusion is based solely on "because I said so."

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

If Red's trying to imply that Dr. Sunder said something about "free fall", we all got that pretty much covered.

[tsig]

I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.

Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.

Thermal expansion and gravity are new phenomena?

[johnny karate]

So again, two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.

Really?

From the NIST Fact Sheet about the WTC7 investigation (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html):
...[T]he NIST investigation of WTC 7 is based on a huge amount of data. These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous, state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building’s collapse. These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred. In addition to using its in-house expertise, NIST relied upon private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs and videos of this 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 Sept. 11, 2001, and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.

Please cite a precedent for the NIST WTC7 investigation to substantiate your claim that the evidence they gathered was merely "ordinary".

[johnny karate]

RedIbis, are you equally as critical of controlled demolition theories as you are of NIST's theory?

Bump for RedIbis.

You've been asked this question in a variety of ways by many people in this thread. Please respond.

[Thunder]

Thermal expansion and gravity are new phenomena?

if it happened on 9-11, then it must have never previously occurred in the history of mankind.

[ElMondoHummus]

Gah... wrong button. Still composing.

ETA: You know what? I'm putting too much effort into this. The fact remains that this issue has been discussed before. And Ryan Mackey had the most insightful observation regarding the complaints that truthers bring up:

... NIST's theory is supported by simulation, calculations of component strengths and failure modes, and video and related records where possible. It isn't as strong as a theory that also has physical remains of the structure to bolster its conclusions, but it is a totally valid way to conduct science.

I hold out the possibility for alternate hypotheses, maybe even one better than NIST came up with. But you don't even have one. You're not participating. You're griping, and badly. Nobody here is fooled.

Just read the previous threads before prolonging this one. There's no new discussion happening here, and it's all been addressed before. If anyone finds any other posts/threads addressing NCSTAR 1-9 or thermal expansion in regards to column 79, feel free to add them.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121626
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123927
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128194
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4675407#post4675407 and http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4675436#post4675436

[alienentity]

I certainly never said that thermal expansion was the novel phenomenon. Let's get it straight from Sunder,

NIST
and


Now I'm willing to give Sunder the benefit of the doubt because I don't think he believes thermal expansion is a novel phenomenon. He's suggesting that thermal expansion of the steel causing global collapse is a novel phenomenon.

Secondly, NIST suggests that the buckling of a single column, namely Column 79, led to global collapse, which would also be a novel phenomenon. Unless you have an example of a steel framed high rise bldg collapsing due to the failure of a single column, this would be the second novel phenomenon proposed by NIST. Not that they have the physical evidence to back this up, of course.

So again, two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.

Red, thanks for the reply. I would agree with others who think that the term 'two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence' is too ambiguous to be very helpful.
In terms of specifics, the NIST engineering-based model showed that the failure of column 79, along with other structural changes to the integrity of the building, could cause the collapse.

You have not disproven this at all. Nor has any truther, by engineering model, or physical evidence, or anything else. If the NIST model bothers you, then the absence of a truther model should bother you even more.

But can you answer my first question please? I'll repeat it for convenience:

'So do you know, for a fact, that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, or do you believe it is just a possibility?'

I wonder if you're afraid to accept the implications of a truly honest answer to this question.

[uk_dave]

I certainly never said that thermal expansion was the novel phenomenon. Let's get it straight from Sunder,

NIST
and


Now I'm willing to give Sunder the benefit of the doubt because I don't think he believes thermal expansion is a novel phenomenon. He's suggesting that thermal expansion of the steel causing global collapse is a novel phenomenon.

Secondly, NIST suggests that the buckling of a single column, namely Column 79, led to global collapse, which would also be a novel phenomenon. Unless you have an example of a steel framed high rise bldg collapsing due to the failure of a single column, this would be the second novel phenomenon proposed by NIST. Not that they have the physical evidence to back this up, of course.

So again, two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.
But not impossible, right?

So, if not impossible, then possible!!

And much more plausible than a cd using exotic silent explosives planted at some unknown time for some unknown reason.

[WildCat]

novel phenomena
No, there was no "novel phenomena" proposed by NIST.

You still haven't found your first truthy Fact with which to found your Fact Movement, but keep trying tiger!

[WildCat]

No it's not. How hard is it for me to ask you the same stupid questions? Does it bother you to be obnoxious and childish?

What's the problem here? How many times do I have to say the same things over and over? There are numerous threads in which I refer to and post the types of reports and evidence I find compelling. Granted, more often I respond to and discuss the official theories.

This thread, like nearly every thread begins with my attempt at adding to a discussion with some specific information. In this case it was Jowenko's follow up response. Soon it turns into another pissing contest. Congratulations, if you've accomplished anything at all, you've gotten me to engage in exactly the type of frivolous nonsense I try to avoid.
This appears to be RedIbis's new tactic - claim he answered the question some time long ago.

It's all BS of course, as RedIbis has never once had the courage to come out and offer a theory he feels has more or equal standing then the NIST study.

And the RedIbis counter is now at 4!

[Thunder]

What's the problem here? How many times do I have to say the same things over and over?
.

now you know how debunkers feel when we try to engage and educate truthers.

[NutCracker]

And the RedIbis counter is now at 4!

Thank you. Driving home. Cooking. Chatting with the wife. I lost track.

;)

[Luntoc]

Remember this man talking about the WTC7 and how it was bought down by "bombs" due to showing only ONE video ?

Look what he says about the WTC, which 9/11 Deniers won't promote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

It's obvious he's in on it.:D

[fourtoe]

Has DJ ever discussed the use of [super/nano]thermite in taking down WTC7? Or any building in general?

[Panoply_Prefect]

Odd, since the clip that MarkyX posted back in -06, which contained the part where Jowenko states that WTC1 and 2 were not CD, is gone, I went back and tried to find it in the original interview. I assumed thats where I first saw his statement, but I can't find it in any of the three parts available on Youtube. Neither can I find it anywere else.

Is it gone, or am I just missing something?

[Scott Sommers]

Here's your answer:

Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.

Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.

Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.

Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --

Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."

Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.

Danny Jowenko: Exactly . http://www.pumpitout.com

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

With the trial of KSM coming up, this is the perfect opportunity to go public with this information. I'm sure hs lawyers will be looking for any chance to show that WTC was destroyed by Silverstein himself. You might also try seeing if Silverstein's insurances companies are interested in this because they had to pay him billions of dollars that you'll almost certainly be able to help they get back.

By the way, how old are you?

[bill smith]

Remember this man talking about the WTC7 and how it was bought down by "bombs" due to showing only ONE video ?

Look what he says about the WTC, which 9/11 Deniers won't promote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

Most architects and engineers around the world simply accepted what the media ws telling them at face value so when the demolition expert Danny Jowenko was asked about WTC1 and WTC2 he simply followed that pattern. But when he was shown the obvious controlled demolition of WTC7 he hd zero doubt about what he was seeing- controlled demolition. I suggest you call him and ask him what he thinks about WTC1 and WTC2 now.

But even in the unlikely event that Danny still thought that WTC1 and WTC2 were as the government say, the controlled demolition of WTC7 will more than suffice. After all if thre is a problem with WTC7, there is a problem with the whole 9/11 official story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Dnny Jowenko

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

But when he was shown the obvious controlled demolition of WTC7 he hd zero doubt about what he was seeing- controlled demolition.

But he didn't describe hearing any explosives going off when he viewed the video of WTC7.

So that means no explosives were used, Bill.

[Scott Sommers]

Most architects and engineers around the world simply accepted what the media ws telling them at face value so when the demolition expert Danny Jowenko was asked about WTC1 and WTC2 he simply followed that pattern. But when he was shown the obvious controlled demolition of WTC7 he hd zero doubt about what he was seeing- controlled demolition. I suggest you call him and ask him what he thinks about WTC1 and WTC2 now.

But even in the unlikely event that Danny still thought that WTC1 and WTC2 were as the government say, the controlled demolition of WTC7 will more than suffice. After all if thre is a problem with WTC7, there is a problem with the whole 9/11 official story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Dnny Jowenko

Except the brave members of AE911 who fight tirelessly for the truth. And don't forget all the ones who have published research in academic journals and other forums that support the idea of collapse through fire and damage.

In fact, I was talking to two construction specialists just today. One of them I've talked to about 911 Truth. The other man is his chief project engineer. When I told him there are Americans who believe the US government blew up the WTC with a CD, he started to laugh. What makes you think all those other architects and engineers who haven't joined AE911 and don't act as expert witnesses in 911-realted legal and civil cases haven't thought about this?

By the way, how old are you?

[Panoply_Prefect]

Most architects and engineers around the world simply accepted what the media ws telling them at face value so when the demolition expert Danny Jowenko was asked about WTC1 and WTC2 he simply followed that pattern. But when he was shown the obvious controlled demolition of WTC7 he hd zero doubt about what he was seeing- controlled demolition. I suggest you call him and ask him what he thinks about WTC1 and WTC2 now.

But even in the unlikely event that Danny still thought that WTC1 and WTC2 were as the government say, the controlled demolition of WTC7 will more than suffice. After all if thre is a problem with WTC7, there is a problem with the whole 9/11 official story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Dnny Jowenko

Ah, so nowadays its "The leading expert on controlled demolition is sure WTC7 was CD, and has probably changed his mind about WTC1 and 2 which means that was CD too."

Truther logic, I love it.

[Thunder]

Most architects and engineers around the world simply accepted what the media ws telling them at face value so when the demolition expert Danny Jowenko was asked about WTC1 and WTC2 he simply followed that pattern.

and WHY should I give a damn about Mr. Jowenko from Poland?

we have more then enough HIGHLY qualified Phd. level engineers right here in the USA, who are convinced that the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 were NOT caused by a CD.

case...closed.

[bill smith]

Except the brave members of AE911 who fight tirelessly for the truth. And don't forget all the ones who have published research in academic journals and other forums that support the idea of collapse through fire and damage.

In fact, I was talking to two construction specialists just today. One of them I've talked to about 911 Truth. The other man is his chief project engineer. When I told him there are Americans who believe the US government blew up the WTC with a CD, he started to laugh. What makes you think all those other architects and engineers who haven't joined AE911 and don't act as expert witnesses in 911-realted legal and civil cases haven't thought about this?

By the way, how old are you?

But why did your friend laugh ? Had he studied the subject or was this simply a case of someone finding the scenario ridiculous even without even looking into it ? If so it is a lot less than meaningful.

On the other side the engineers and architects of se911truth.org have studied the collapses before signing the petition demanding of Congress a new and independent 9/11 enquiry. There are now 1,000 of these degreed and licenced professionals signed up to the petition with more signing almost every day. Show your fiend this post and see how hard he laughs.

Why Suh, that's no question to ask....

[A W Smith]

But why did your friend laugh ? Had he studied the subject or was this simply a case of someone finding the scenario ridiculous even without even looking into it ? If so it is a lot less than meaningful.

On the other side the engineers and architects of se911truth.org have studied the collapses before signing the petition demanding of Congress a new and independent 9/11 enquiry. There are now 1,000 of these degreed and licenced professionals signed up to the petition with more signing almost every day. Show your fiend this post and see how hard he laughs.

Why Suh, that's no question to ask....

there are not "1,000 of these degreed and licensed professionals " signed up to the petition, there is barely 1,000 licensed OR degreed signed up. Gage admitted as such in the NZ radio interview posted in another thread here.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

On the other side the engineers and architects of se911truth.org have studied the collapses before signing the petition demanding of Congress a new and independent 9/11 enquiry. There are now 1,000 of these degreed and licenced professionals signed up to the petition with more signing almost every day.

According to Richard Gage, they didn't study it scientifically in his interview with Kim Hill.

1,000 A & E's! Only 1,000 of them? What about the rest of the A & E's?? Why only 1,000???

[Scott Sommers]

But why did your friend laugh ? Had he studied the subject or was this simply a case of someone finding the scenario ridiculous even without even looking into it ? If so it is a lot less than meaningful.

On the other side the engineers and architects of se911truth.org have studied the collapses before signing the petition demanding of Congress a new and independent 9/11 enquiry. There are now 1,000 of these degreed and licenced professionals signed up to the petition with more signing almost every day. Show your fiend this post and see how hard he laughs.

Why Suh, that's no question to ask....

I'm sure he'll be swayed by the powerful arguments of AE911.

Actually, he's one of the top steel structure engineers in Taiwan. One of the partners of his firm was the THE chief engineer at what was, for its time, the tallest steel structure building in Taiwan. But I suppose an American interior designer knows more than him right? After all, they're not Americans, right? And just like the 911 hijackers, there's no way anyone can do anything right, except Americans, right?

Sorry dude, but almost all engineers and building designers who listen to this crap believe it's swill. Have you ever talked with any of them? Do you actually know anyone who's graduated from university? What makes you think soooo many of them just don't know the facts, even 8 years later? Have you ever spoken with building designers who wouldn't even bother with Gage?

And honestly, how old are you?

[NutCracker]

and WHY should I give a damn about Mr. Jowenko from Poland?

we have more then enough HIGHLY qualified Phd. level engineers right here in the USA, who are convinced that the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 were NOT caused by a CD.

case...closed.

Err.. I do sense an Ad Hominem here ("from Poland") an appeal to authority ("highly qualified") and some US bias. Some here use the word racism to describe the Truthers' "cavemen" argument. That term might be appropriate here.

Why should not give anything about Jowenko's opinion because it seems to be only superficially founded in the facts. (Him being shown a short clip of the collapse on a laptop on the other side of the Atlantic without any further information.). An opinion that does not take the particularities of the event and the design of the building into consideration has limited value. That's why.

[bill smith]

I'm sure he'll be swayed by the powerful arguments of AE911.

Actually, he's one of the top steel structure engineers in Taiwan. One of the partners of his firm was the THE chief engineer at what was, for its time, the tallest steel structure building in Taiwan. But I suppose an American interior designer knows more than him right? After all, they're not Americans, right? And just like the 911 hijackers, there's no way anyone can do anything right, except Americans, right?

Sorry dude, but almost all engineers and building designers who listen to this crap believe it's swill. Have you ever talked with any of them? Do you actually know anyone who's graduated from university? What makes you think soooo many of them just don't know the facts, even 8 years later? Have you ever spoken with building designers who wouldn't even bother with Gage?

And honestly, how old are you?

Is this the same engineer that you told us about who said he would run a mile in the other direction if he saw a tower like the WTC on fire ? The reason being that everybody knows that Steel-framed skyscrapers always fall down from fire ? If so you will understand if I decide not to pay him a lot of heed.

[Scott Sommers]

Is this the same engineer that you told us about who said he would run a mile in the other direction if he saw a tower like the WTC on fire ? The reason being that everybody knows that Steel-framed skyscrapers always fall down from fire ? If so you will understand if I decide not to pay him a lot of heed.

Is this your idea of 'research'. I did not say this. I said, he said that steel-framed buildings on fire are dangerous and unpredictable. Do you need the original post to prove this? Besides, this is his chief project engineer.

Bill, are you a teenager? This is a real question.

[bill smith]

Is this your idea of 'research'. I did not say this. I said, he said that steel-framed buildings on fire are dangerous and unpredictable. Do you need the original post to prove this? Besides, this is his chief project engineer.

Bill, are you a teenager? This is a real question.

Yes I would like to see the original post you made. Don't forget to include a link so that I can go through the replies and so on. Thanks.

[Scott Sommers]

Yes I would like to see the original post you made. Don't forget to include a link so that I can go through the replies and so on. Thanks.

I'll get you the quote if you answer my other question. How old are you? I ask this question because it's related to my often repeated point that almost every active 911 Truther I can identify is under 25.

[bill smith]

I'll get you the quote if you answer my other question. How old are you? I ask this question because it's related to my often repeated point that almost every active 911 Truther I can identify is under 25.

My age is a closely guarded secret I am afraid. Not that it is a material point or will get you off the hook.

[Scott Sommers]

My age is a closely guarded secret I am afraid. Not that it is a material point or will get you off the hook.

It is material to me. I will answer your questions regardless of how old you are, but I'd like to find out how general my understanding of the situation is. You tell me you have never attended a Truther rally and I do know that almost every Truther that attends rallies is under 25.

I'm increasingly understanding that this whole Truther thing is really a bunch of kids with great internet video skills. I just can't see it anymore as anything that anyone should worry about. It's just amusement for people with too much time and really nothing else.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

My age is a closely guarded secret I am afraid. Not that it is a material point or will get you off the hook.

Bill's probably 16-25 yrs old. Give or take!

[Scott Sommers]

Bill's probably 16-25 yrs old. Give or take!

That's what I figure, as well. I now know almost everyone who attends that 911 rally they have in NY every year. I counted about 120 this year and there couldn't be more than a dozen who are over 30 and about half of them are still in high school.

Everyone knows that AE911 isn't anything like it's supposed to be. I recently had a really close look at Lawyers for 911 Truth. First off, there's hardly any of them listed. Only about half are Americans. One of them provides no location information at all. The others appear to be connected with some form of libertarian party. There appear to be none for the USA who are just plain lawyers incensed by the situation but otherwise not connected with this whacko fringe.

Ironically, the ones from Canada are connected with the Canadian Action Party whose founder believes some sort of UFO political-thing and whose current national candidate is a socialist - in the Marxist sense.

I really don't believe there's any danger here. These are kids who will grow out of it into some wierd form of right-wing politics. The only dangerous people left Truthing would be dangerous no matter what.

With the trial of KSM, it's actually looking pretty pathetic.

[DGM]

It is material to me. I will answer your questions regardless of how old you are, but I'd like to find out how general my understanding of the situation is. You tell me you have never attended a Truther rally and I do know that almost every Truther that attends rallies is under 25.

I'm increasingly understanding that this whole Truther thing is really a bunch of kids with great internet video skills. I just can't see it anymore as anything that anyone should worry about. It's just amusement for people with too much time and really nothing else.
I went to one of Gages' shows and most of the people there were 50+
"ex-hippie lefties". Just saying.

ETA I'm over 50 myself so I recognize the type.

[RedIbis]

Really?

From the NIST Fact Sheet about the WTC7 investigation (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html):


Please cite a precedent for the NIST WTC7 investigation to substantiate your claim that the evidence they gathered was merely "ordinary".

Data is physical evidence? Or are you such a devotee of the official story that you take NIST's exaggerated data as actual fact? You are aware they admit where they exaggerated burn durations, right?

[Thunder]

Or are you such a devotee of the official story that you take NIST's exaggerated data as actual fact?

why must Truthers always use these strawmen and personal attacks?

[TruthersLie]

there are not "1,000 of these degreed and licensed professionals " signed up to the petition, there is barely 1,000 licensed OR degreed signed up. Gage admitted as such in the NZ radio interview posted in another thread here.

AW.

Actually there are 1000 architectural or engineering PROFESSIONALS and that includes anyone who works in the field... so draftsmen, office managers, secretaries, maybe even the janitors are also included. There are less than 350 licensed and degreed engineers and architects who have signed up.

They have changed the categories again because they kept getting NAILED on lying about their members.

[GlennB]

Data is physical evidence?

I just had to laugh at this :D

Red, your question poses a deep philosphical question. "Is data evidence?"
In a way, no. Data might be ink smudges on a piece of paper, or a mess of 0's and 1's on a digital storage device. It merely represents the physical evidence.
However, it's the best we can do. Ol' Isaac Newton himself was obliged - for purely practical reasons - to translate observation into recorded data. That way you can take your observations into the next room to work on them, or send them to an interested party in another country.

You are truly precious, Red :)

[McHrozni]

AW.

Actually there are 1000 architectural or engineering PROFESSIONALS and that includes anyone who works in the field... so draftsmen, office managers, secretaries, maybe even the janitors are also included. There are less than 350 licensed and degreed engineers and architects who have signed up.

Yup, and even that's including fake names, interns and such.

McHrozni

[TruthersLie]

why must Truthers always use these strawmen and personal attacks?

Actually parky I really wonder why truthers must always datamine, use bs arguments and when they are pointed out to be wrong, they run away instead of manning up.

[Thunder]

Actually parky I really wonder why truthers must always datamine, use bs arguments and when they are pointed out to be wrong, they run away instead of manning up.

that too

[RedIbis]

I just had to laugh at this :D

Red, your question poses a deep philosphical question. "Is data evidence?"
In a way, no. Data might be ink smudges on a piece of paper, or a mess of 0's and 1's on a digital storage device. It merely represents the physical evidence.
However, it's the best we can do. Ol' Isaac Newton himself was obliged - for purely practical reasons - to translate observation into recorded data. That way you can take your observations into the next room to work on them, or send them to an interested party in another country.

You are truly precious, Red :)

So you think data (which can and is manipulated) is the best you can do? Do you think that data is better than physical evidence?

[BigAl]

So you think data (which can and is manipulated) is the best you can do? Do you think that data is better than physical evidence?

It depends what point you are trying to make.

If it's "hours of fire and lack of firefighting" caused WTC7 to collapse, there is tons of evidence and precedent and relevant expertise to come to that conclusion. There is absolutely no other hypothesis that matches what happened on 9/11.

If it's "Column 79 failed due to expansion", experts depend on models and non-experts depend on experts and there is room, I expect, for people with relevant expertise to defend other hypothesis. None of these hypothesis show the first assertion to be wrong or require man-made anything to play a roll in the collapse.

As usual, you are not clear about what your point is.

[bill smith]

Yeah, Bill Manning of Fire Engineering Magazine didn't think that much of data as opposed to hard evidence in the form of the hastily-removed steel when he wrote this in late 2001.

'' As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals. ''

[Scott Sommers]

I went to one of Gages' shows and most of the people there were 50+
"ex-hippie lefties". Just saying.

ETA I'm over 50 myself so I recognize the type.

I have no doubt what you say is true. I keep hearing about these guys from people on this forum and I come across some from time to time. But the people that make and do all the stuff we thnk of as the Truth Movement are all really young.

Primarily I'm talking about We Are Change. All those videos on Youtube and all the demonstrations we talk about, the petitions, and the money aspects of the TM, this is all WAC. If there was no WAC, you would hear almost nothing from these guys. We might still have Dickie G, but he'd have trouble paying for things.

[RedIbis]

Yeah, Bill Manning of Fire Engineering Magazine didn't think that much of data as opposed to hard evidence in the form of the hastily-removed steel when he wrote this in late 2001.

'' As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals. ''

That was prescient.

[Grizzly Bear]

Data is physical evidence? Or are you such a devotee of the official story that you take NIST's exaggerated data as actual fact? You are aware they admit where they exaggerated burn durations, right?
Red, can you point out anything that might be forged out of this table?
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/2162/tope.th.jpg (http://img685.imageshack.us/i/tope.jpg/)

[RedIbis]

Red, can you point out anything that might be forged out of this table?
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/2162/tope.th.jpg (http://img685.imageshack.us/i/tope.jpg/)

Try answering my questions, though I can see why you don't.

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by bill smith
Yeah, Bill Manning of Fire Engineering Magazine didn't think that much of data as opposed to hard evidence in the form of the hastily-removed steel when he wrote this in late 2001.

'' As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals. ''

That was prescient.

Red; what's your hypothetical for how any of the WTC towers collapsed?

[Grizzly Bear]

Try answering my questions, though I can see why you don't.

I am addressing it. I'd like to first know to what extent you think data on material properties is forged. Should it not be possible for anyone with experience to invalidate NISTS' finding by using similar information of the steel used in WTC 7. The documentation's out there, or has some inexplicable entity manipulated these as well? Try answering my questions now so I can answer to you appropriately. You've made me wait almost a year for one... I surely hope you won't make me wait that long for this one.

[tsig]

But when he was shown the obvious controlled demolition of WTC7 he hd zero doubt about what he was seeing- controlled demolition.



Seeing is believing right?

[Pardalis]

Try answering my questions, though I can see why you don't.

You got some nerve. :rolleyes:

[johnny karate]

Data is physical evidence?

Your original post to which I was responding:
So again, two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.

You'll notice the absence of the word "physical". Please try not to scuff the floors in here when dragging around those goal posts. We just had them redone.

Or are you such a devotee of the official story that you take NIST's exaggerated data as actual fact?

I'm a devotee of science. Feel free to present your own at any time which counters that of NIST.

You are aware they admit where they exaggerated burn durations, right?

Source, please.

[johnny karate]

Try answering my questions...

You first:
RedIbis, are you equally as critical of controlled demolition theories as you are of NIST's theory?

Bump for RedIbis.

You've been asked this question in a variety of ways by many people in this thread. Please respond.

[Scott Sommers]

Yes...yes...we all know 911 Truth is the divisive issue of the western world. You can fire officials for talking about it, but not a person will march in the streets. It's a movement that's growing everyday, but you can barely get 10 people out for a rally. There are thousands of construction professionals who belong to organizations that protesting for 911 Truth, but the so-called research about it comes from its own organization while everyone else ignores it. It relies on mythical substances and devices whose whereabouts, physical properties and even existance no one knows about.

Yawn...and you guys really think anyone cares about this? Honestly, how old are you? The average age of people in We Are Change is about 19.

[RedIbis]

Source, please.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf

You are familiar with it right?

[Justin39640]

I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.

Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.

So what's in the hanger at JFK?

[johnny karate]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf

You are familiar with it right?

Please quote the passage relevant to your claim.

[T.A.M.]

Try answering my questions, though I can see why you don't.

That is rich coming from you Red. You are not one to start DEMANDING that people answer the questions you pose to them...seriously.

TAM:)

[GlennB]

So you think data (which can and is manipulated) is the best you can do? Do you think that data is better than physical evidence?

If I wanted to analyse the collapse of a 47-storey building I wouldn't carry a 47-storey building around with me.

[WildCat]

Red; what's your hypothetical for how any of the WTC towers collapsed?
Red's total posts running away from this question when last asked is now 15.

He'll lie and say he answered it though, because as a proven liar taht's what he does.

[WildCat]

Please quote the passage relevant to your claim.
The intellectual coward and proven liar known as RedIbis here will not be providing any passages relevant to this claim.

That's the way he rolls, by running away.

[T.A.M.]

This is the way I see it. Red was very far from MIHOP (what I saw) until the final report came out on WTC7 and their explanation was (A) Inadequate for him, and (B) was not based on actual hands on physical evidence (part of the reason that it was inadequate for him).

Now to me, that is a weak reason, given all of the other mounds of physical evidence, to go full blown MIHOP...but it is what it is.

See what I do not get, is if we are to believe that all of the other evidence that proves the official account of 9/11 is fabricated and/or planted...the DNA, the plane parts, the phone calls, the eye witnesses, etc...

if that was all fabricated/planted, THEN WHY DID THE BIG BAD NWO NOT PLANT/FAKE SOME COLUMNS FOR WTC7 THAT WOULD PROVE THEIR STORY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT????

Why did the big bad perps forget to make some stuff to cover their asses on WTC7?

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

So what's in the hanger at JFK?

Apparently not any WTC 7 steel.

[T.A.M.]

Apparently not any WTC 7 steel.

and there, in one line, is the summation, IMO, of why Red went from being sensible, to the snake oil wagon.

TAM:)

[Justin39640]

Apparently not any WTC 7 steel.

So then
What physical evidence is there to support demolition claims?

[T.A.M.]

So then
What physical evidence is there to support demolition claims?

There is none. That is why the holy grail (WTC7) is actually a tin cup.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

and there, in one line, is the summation, IMO, of why Red went from being sensible, to the snake oil wagon.

TAM:)

Explain.

[TruthersLie]

Yeah, Bill Manning of Fire Engineering Magazine didn't think that much of data as opposed to hard evidence in the form of the hastily-removed steel when he wrote this in late 2001.

'' As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals. ''

Bill.

And what did he say AFTER the NIST report was completed?

Comeon billy, don't datamine and then ignore the rest of it.

Just like Danny J. You all datamine his wtc7 statements but then IGNORE his wtc 1 and 2 statements.

so he says wtc7 was CD. Ok.
and he says wtc 1 and 2 were not CD. Ok.

I'll accept his claims on both. NOw we look at the relevant engineering of wtc7 and of other CD professionals who were not "just guessing" because they have seen the plans, and were on site.

Why do you datamine and then ignore the rest of their statements?

[T.A.M.]

Explain.

I thought I did above. You have admitted that the WTC7 issue, and NISTs inability, in your opinion, to explain the collapses adequately (once again for you), is what turned you or convinced you of MIHOP. You have also said that the lack of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (ie the steel) was a big reason why they failed to convince you.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Bill.

And what did he say AFTER the NIST report was completed?

Comeon billy, don't datamine and then ignore the rest of it.

Just like Danny J. You all datamine his wtc7 statements but then IGNORE his wtc 1 and 2 statements.

so he says wtc7 was CD. Ok.
and he says wtc 1 and 2 were not CD. Ok.

I'll accept his claims on both. NOw we look at the relevant engineering of wtc7 and of other CD professionals who were not "just guessing" because they have seen the plans, and were on site.

Why do you datamine and then ignore the rest of their statements?

Oh I noes I noes....

WTC1/2 = Unconventional NON-Controlled Demolitions.
WTC7 = Conventional (except for use of thermite) Controlled Demolition.

What prize do I get???

TAM;)

[Pardalis]

So then
What physical evidence is there to support demolition claims?

Ouch. ;)

[bill smith]

This is the way I see it. Red was very far from MIHOP (what I saw) until the final report came out on WTC7 and their explanation was (A) Inadequate for him, and (B) was not based on actual hands on physical evidence (part of the reason that it was inadequate for him).

Now to me, that is a weak reason, given all of the other mounds of physical evidence, to go full blown MIHOP...but it is what it is.

See what I do not get, is if we are to believe that all of the other evidence that proves the official account of 9/11 is fabricated and/or planted...the DNA, the plane parts, the phone calls, the eye witnesses, etc...

if that was all fabricated/planted, THEN WHY DID THE BIG BAD NWO NOT PLANT/FAKE SOME COLUMNS FOR WTC7 THAT WOULD PROVE THEIR STORY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT????

Why did the big bad perps forget to make some stuff to cover their asses on WTC7?

TAM:)

I believe ethat the original intention had been to crash flight 93 into WTC7. Unfortunately for the perps flight 93 was held up on the runway for an hpur by a fire making it too late to use for it's intended purpose. Then they had to reprogram the demolition sequence on the fly.
The best laid plans and all that. It would have been so neat had it all come to pass as planned. Three buildings, three planes and no mess in Pennsylvania.

[Pardalis]

I believe ethat the original intention had been to crash flight 93 into WTC7.


And what would have been the reason given for this choice of target in the official story?

Al Qaeda hit American landmark buildings, the Twin Towers being a symbol of its economic power, the Pentagon being the symbol of its military might, and WTC 7... ?

Doesn't make much sense.

[T.A.M.]

I believe ethat the original intention had been to crash flight 93 into WTC7. Unfortunately for the perps flight 93 was held up on the runway for an hpur by a fire making it to late to use it for it's intended purpose. Then they had to reprogram the demolition sequence on the fly.
The best laid plans and all that. It would have been so neat had it all come to pass as planned. Three buildings, three planes and no mess in Pennsylvania.

Ok bill, you are harmless enough, so I will take you off ignore for a while.

I will bite. Why do you feel WTC7 was the original target of UA93? Oh and while you are at it, care to explain how they changed the demolition sequence on the fly, and why? Oh, and why did they wait until SEVEN hours later to bring the building down?

TAM:)

[Grizzly Bear]

Apparently not any WTC 7 steel.

Well we have tables similar to what I posted earlier... unless you believe some shady characters might have manipulated those too...

[WildCat]

This is the way I see it. Red was very far from MIHOP (what I saw) until the final report came out on WTC7
Huh? He's been a no-planer as far as the Pentagon is concerned from day 1 here. No way in hell can you think the Pentagon crash was faked and not be MIHOP.

[WildCat]

Apparently not any WTC 7 steel.
17 now Red.

[T.A.M.]

Huh? He's bene a no-planer as far as the Pentagon is concerned from day 1 here. No way in hell can you think the Pentagon crash was faked and not be MIHOP.

I always saw him as asking questions, having doubts, but not committing (he rarely does...lol) to anything as definitive as that...but I can't remember that far back that well now...lol

TAM:)

[WildCat]

I believe ethat the original intention had been to crash flight 93 into WTC7. Unfortunately for the perps flight 93 was held up on the runway for an hpur by a fire making it too late to use for it's intended purpose. Then they had to reprogram the demolition sequence on the fly.
The best laid plans and all that. It would have been so neat had it all come to pass as planned. Three buildings, three planes and no mess in Pennsylvania.
See how it's done RedIbis? bill smith at least has the courage of his convictions, and lays out an actual hypothesis no matter how silly. He's not a coward like you are.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I believe ethat the original intention had been to crash flight 93 into WTC7. Unfortunately for the perps flight 93 was held up on the runway for an hpur by a fire making it too late to use for it's intended purpose. Then they had to reprogram the demolition sequence on the fly.
The best laid plans and all that. It would have been so neat had it all come to pass as planned. Three buildings, three planes and no mess in Pennsylvania.


Flight 93's potential targets:
Binalshibh reminded Atta that Bin Ladin wanted to target the White House. Atta again cautioned that this would be difficult. When Binalshibh persisted, Atta agreed to include the White House but suggested they keep the Capitol as an alternate target in case the White House proved too difficult. Atta also suggested that the attacks would not happen until after the first week in September, when Congress reconvened.

"Then they had to reprogram the demolition sequence on the fly."

Yeah right Bill! Where did you dig that up from?

[Pardalis]

And what would have been the reason given for this choice of target in the official story?

Al Qaeda hit American landmark buildings, the Twin Towers being a symbol of its economic power, the Pentagon being the symbol of its military might, and WTC 7... ?

Doesn't make much sense.


You choose not to answer, Bill? I understand, it's really embarrassing for you.

[Lenbrazil]

Originally Posted by MarkyX
Remember this man talking about the WTC7 and how it was bought down by "bombs" due to showing only ONE video ?

Look what he says about the WTC, which 9/11 Deniers won't promote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI
It appears that the video is gone. If it's Jowenko explaining why WTC 1 and 2 were NOT man-made demolition, this link broke a long time ago.

That was part of a larger documentary which just like every other one produced by real journalists* went against the truthers. IIRC there was even a bit where a Dutch reporter w/no aviation experience was able to a jetliner into a building with a days (or was it hours?) training. It would be great if someone could find that.

* Except for the one made by that Canadian nut whose name escapes me right now.

[Lenbrazil]

Originally Posted by bill smith
Yeah, Bill Manning of Fire Engineering Magazine didn't think that much of data as opposed to hard evidence in the form of the hastily-removed steel when he wrote this in late 2001.

'' As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals. ''
Bill.

And what did he say AFTER the NIST report was completed?

And Manning had zero firefighting or engineering experience.He was a journalist, and yes he was talking about the ASCE Report

[GlennB]

I believe that the original intention had been to crash flight 93 into WTC7. Unfortunately for the perps flight 93 was held up on the runway for an hour by a fire making it too late to use for it's intended purpose.

And what route into lower Manhattan might the plane have taken, Bill? In order to hit WTC7 that is, given that it was closely surrounded on most sides by buildings of similar if not greater height ?

[Thunder]

I believe ethat the original intention had been to crash flight 93 into WTC7.

well then, you have a very stupid belief, void of any evidence whatsoever.

[BigAl]

And what route into lower Manhattan might the plane have taken, Bill? In order to hit WTC7 that is, given that it was closely surrounded on most sides by buildings of similar if not greater height ?

And an immense amount of smoke and haze that sould make picking one building out very hard.

[dtugg]

Try answering my questions, though I can see why you don't.

RedIbis asking people to answer questions?!?!?!

You have quite the nerve!!!!

[DGM]

I have no doubt what you say is true. I keep hearing about these guys from people on this forum and I come across some from time to time. But the people that make and do all the stuff we thnk of as the Truth Movement are all really young.

Primarily I'm talking about We Are Change. All those videos on Youtube and all the demonstrations we talk about, the petitions, and the money aspects of the TM, this is all WAC. If there was no WAC, you would hear almost nothing from these guys. We might still have Dickie G, but he'd have trouble paying for things.
I think all the public "face" is mostly young people but, the older "hippies" are the ones with the disposable income and the "lefty" mindset to support this type of BS. The young NEED the old "lefties".

[alienentity]

It's interesting you guys are discussing the final destination of the 4th plane (flight 93).

Bill Smith has proposed an extremely weak idea that it was to hit WTC7.

Consider the other 3 targets: WTC towers (The icons of NY City and the Financial Epicenter of the US), Pentagon (The symbol of American Military might).

WTC7 wasn't on the world's radar in importance. I wager every one of us knew of the other buildings, but WTC7? No way.

Truthers, are you with me on this? Were any of you even aware of WTC7 before 9/11?

So the idea that the final destination of flight 93 was the White House is perfectly consistent with the other targets: The Political centre of the US - home of the President of the United States. Targets just don't get any more important than that one.

Add to this the actual flight path of flt 93, before it crashed....take a look and see where it was headed - straight for Washington, DC. Only a truther could look at this and not see the obvious.

But if you're a CD conspiracy drone, your theory absolutely requires that explosives had to be placed in the target buildings. No wiggle room there.

So you have to avoid the White House as a target at all costs. This goes a long way to explaining Bill's notion - severe cognitive dissonance awaits if he doesn't.

You just can't avoid the implications:

The White House was very likely the target of flt 93
There were no explosives planted there...otherwise the perps could've blown it up even if the plane didn't hit.

Another good, solid reason that the whole CD theory needs to be thrown in the dustbin. It just doesn't fit the evidence, no matter how hard truthers work at it.

Props to Kim Hill for pointing this out to Richard Gage in her recent interview..

http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/sat/sat-20091121-0910-Richard_Gage_architecture_of_destruction-048.mp3

[DGM]

Bill didn't really say UA 93 was headed to NY, Did he? What were they taken the scenic route?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I'd like to know which is it:

Flight 93's target was WTC 7

or

Controlled Demolition for WTC 7

or

Thermite used to take down WTC 7

They can't have all 3 scenerios!

We know Flight 93's targets were the White House & the Capital Building & not WTC 7.

We know that there's no audio of a CD coming from the original videos of WTC 7.

Thermite is just an incendiary & a pyrotechnic. Not an explosive! Nano-thermite could be the same way, it sounds sexy as hell but there's no physical evidence of either being used on 9/11.

Either way the Truthers look it they failed to point out any inconsistencies within the 9/11 Commission & NIST.

No physical evidence of anything in over 8 years & they cry out for a new investigation. I say it's all simple tricks & non-sense.

[DGM]

I'd like to know which is it:

Flight 93's target was WTC 7

or

Controlled Demolition for WTC 7

or

Thermite used to take down WTC 7

They can't have all 3 scenerios!

We know Flight 93's targets were the White House & the Capital Building & not WTC 7.

We know that there's no audio of a CD coming from the original videos of WTC 7.

Thermite is just an incendiary & a pyrotechnic. Not an explosive! Nano-thermite could be the same way, it sounds sexy as hell but there's no physical evidence of either being used on 9/11.

Either way the Truthers look it they failed to point out any inconsistencies within the 9/11 Commission & NIST.

No physical evidence of anything in over 8 years & they cry out for a new investigation. I say it's all simple tricks & non-sense.
I doubt the White house was ever a target (way to hard to find or hit from the air). What's this got to do with Mr Jowenkos' assessment of WTC7?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I doubt the White house was ever a target (way to hard to find or hit from the air). What's this got to do with Mr Jowenkos' assessment of WTC7?

I don't know! I'm not the one that brought it up.

Bill Smith

I believe ethat the original intention had been to crash flight 93 into WTC7. Unfortunately for the perps flight 93 was held up on the runway for an hpur by a fire making it too late to use for it's intended purpose. Then they had to reprogram the demolition sequence on the fly.
The best laid plans and all that. It would have been so neat had it all come to pass as planned. Three buildings, three planes and no mess in Pennsylvania.

I just threw that in there just in case anything else comes from Billy!

[Scott Sommers]

I think all the public "face" is mostly young people but, the older "hippies" are the ones with the disposable income and the "lefty" mindset to support this type of BS. The young NEED the old "lefties".

It could be. The source of funding for these guys is quite mysterious. They sell a lot of stuff, but I doubt this pays the bills for Dickie G. and the others that get paid by them.

On the other hand, the older people I know associated with WAC are not lefties in any sense that I grew up with and would be better described as Christian libertarians. Jan Johnson runs for the Constitutional Party and is a fundamentalist Christian. Betsy Orr Metz describes herself as a libertarian. Lawyers for 911 Truth are mostly Canadian and European, but the American ones are all hooked up with libertarians causes. Some of the younger members of WAC have a look that I would associate with leftist hippies and talk openly about a marijuana-related lifestyle, but they are Christian libertarians.

I suppose that being a Christian libertarian doesn't mean you're not a hippie. Maybe this is a Canadian thing I have or a generational thing. I know some older ones who are concerned about stereotypically hippie-related causes, like hungry people, but they're very quite in these larger organizations and don't seem to be doing much. That doesn't mean there isn't money involved from their side.

[Slayhamlet]

It's interesting you guys are discussing the final destination of the 4th plane (flight 93).

Bill Smith has proposed an extremely weak idea that it was to hit WTC7.

Consider the other 3 targets: WTC towers (The icons of NY City and the Financial Epicenter of the US), Pentagon (The symbol of American Military might).

WTC7 wasn't on the world's radar in importance. I wager every one of us knew of the other buildings, but WTC7? No way.

Truthers, are you with me on this? Were any of you even aware of WTC7 before 9/11?

So the idea that the final destination of flight 93 was the White House is perfectly consistent with the other targets: The Political centre of the US - home of the President of the United States. Targets just don't get any more important than that one.

Add to this the actual flight path of flt 93, before it crashed....take a look and see where it was headed - straight for Washington, DC. Only a truther could look at this and not see the obvious.

But if you're a CD conspiracy drone, your theory absolutely requires that explosives had to be placed in the target buildings. No wiggle room there.

So you have to avoid the White House as a target at all costs. This goes a long way to explaining Bill's notion - severe cognitive dissonance awaits if he doesn't.

You just can't avoid the implications:

The White House was very likely the target of flt 93
There were no explosives planted there...otherwise the perps could've blown it up even if the plane didn't hit.

Another good, solid reason that the whole CD theory needs to be thrown in the dustbin. It just doesn't fit the evidence, no matter how hard truthers work at it.

Props to Kim Hill for pointing this out to Richard Gage in her recent interview..

http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/sat/sat-20091121-0910-Richard_Gage_architecture_of_destruction-048.mp3

I think the more likely reason "bill smith" believes flight 93 was headed for WTC7 is that she, like most Truthers, cannot conceive of skyscrapers collapsing under any circumstances outside of a controlled demolition (or space beams or mini-nukes, depending on the brand of crazy). Remember, she thinks (and I'm using that word charitably) that the two planes that hit the Twin Towers were merely a cover for the CD, so likewise she assumes a plane was supposed to fly into WTC7 as cover for the CD there, too, but somehow the NWO ********** up and it didn't materialize. The fact that the flight was headed nowhere in the direction of New York City never entered her tiny mind, of course.

Now, getting back to rational speculation, 93 was probably headed for the Capitol Building rather than the White House. I'm sure the White House was ruled out as too small of a target, whereas the Capitol Building is more easily identified. With all the distinct landscaping around it, the Washington Monument opposite of it and the National Mall leading up to it, it would be at least as easy to spot from the air as the Pentagon.

[Thunder]

i actually believe that the fourth and final target on 9-11 was going to be my house, the center of American Judaism.

:)

[Dave Rogers]

Now I'm willing to give Sunder the benefit of the doubt because I don't think he believes thermal expansion is a novel phenomenon. He's suggesting that thermal expansion of the steel causing global collapse is a novel phenomenon.

Secondly, NIST suggests that the buckling of a single column, namely Column 79, led to global collapse, which would also be a novel phenomenon. Unless you have an example of a steel framed high rise bldg collapsing due to the failure of a single column, this would be the second novel phenomenon proposed by NIST. Not that they have the physical evidence to back this up, of course.

So again, two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.

I think this is worth commenting on, because it goes to the heart of skeptical enquiry. What, in this onctext, constitutes an extraordinary claim?

Presented in a vacuum, it's perfectly reasonable to characterise both of these claims as extraordinary. If 9/11 had never happened, then a claim that a steel-framed building could collapse due to thermal expansion and single-column buckling would require extraordinary evidence. In the real world, this would be a perfectly reasonable expectation, because the required action would be enormously expensive; existing buildings might need modification to prevent such a collapse, and new buildings would need to be built to modified codes at greater expense. Making all these changes on the basis of nothing other than computer modelling would be highly speculative, and very unpopular - although it wouldn't be unique; structures have been modified on the basis that modelling revealed an unexpected weakness.

Where RedIbis goes wrong, though, is in performing the usual truther contextectomy. We know that WTC7 collapsed, and therefore we can be certain that there was a cause for that collapse. In this context, the criterion for what is an extraordinary claim is completely different. Ordinary claims as to what caused the collapse are claims that assume facts already known, and do not hypothesise additional causes. Since the structure of WTC7 and the physical properties of steel are already known, and widespread and long-lasting fires were observed, then an ordinary claim would be one that hypothesises a realistic mechanism by which fire caused the known structure with known properties to collapse.

On the other hand, an extraordinary claim, in this context, is one that hypothesises (for example) explosives or thermite. There is no evidence from which a coherent argument can be made for the presence of either, nor do the known properties of either agree with the observations made before and during the collapse. The claim that WTC7 was demolished is, therefore, a very much more extraordinary claim than the claim that a previously unseen but physically reasonable mechanism caused a fire-induced collapse.

And, of course, there must be some reason for the collapse, because the building isn't still there. So we have one claim that's supported by computer modelling based on known properties of the structure, and another that actually contradicts what evidence we have available. In the circumstances, it's the latter, not the former, that's the extraordinary claim. And we have yet to see any ordinary evidence for it.

Dave

[dafydd]

And what would have been the reason given for this choice of target in the official story?

Al Qaeda hit American landmark buildings, the Twin Towers being a symbol of its economic power, the Pentagon being the symbol of its military might, and WTC 7... ?

Doesn't make much sense.

When did Bill ever make sense?

[RedIbis]

I think this is worth commenting on, because it goes to the heart of skeptical enquiry. What, in this onctext, constitutes an extraordinary claim?

Presented in a vacuum, it's perfectly reasonable to characterise both of these claims as extraordinary.


If 9/11 had never happened, then a claim that a steel-framed building could collapse due to thermal expansion and single-column buckling would require extraordinary evidence.
Ah yes, 9/11 possesses its own rules of physics, its own history of architecture.

In the real world, this would be a perfectly reasonable expectation, because the required action would be enormously expensive; existing buildings might need modification to prevent such a collapse, and new buildings would need to be built to modified codes at greater expense.
Uh, this is the real world, and if what NIST says is true, than there are hidden dangers, timebombs waiting to explode in high rise buildings across the world. All these bldgs require is heat, way below what is usually required for thermal expansion to threaten collapse.

Making all these changes on the basis of nothing other than computer modelling would be highly speculative, and very unpopular - although it wouldn't be unique; structures have been modified on the basis that modelling revealed an unexpected weakness.
Except that these models are flawed and NIST admits where they overestimated heat and fire duration.

Where RedIbis goes wrong, though, is in performing the usual truther contextectomy. We know that WTC7 collapsed, and therefore we can be certain that there was a cause for that collapse. In this context, the criterion for what is an extraordinary claim is completely different. Ordinary claims as to what caused the collapse are claims that assume facts already known, and do not hypothesise additional causes.
These "additional causes" as you call them are things like thermal expansion happening at temps well below expected. So they are in fact, made up facts, modeled facts, manipulated facts to produce an expected and matching result. Not very scientific.

Since the structure of WTC7 and the physical properties of steel are already known, and widespread and long-lasting fires were observed, then an ordinary claim would be one that hypothesises a realistic mechanism by which fire caused the known structure with known properties to collapse.
And yet there is nothing realistic about what NIST proposes. The fact that they were unable to produce any corroborating physical evidence is not the least of their problems.

On the other hand, an extraordinary claim, in this context, is one that hypothesises (for example) explosives or thermite. There is no evidence from which a coherent argument can be made for the presence of either, nor do the known properties of either agree with the observations made before and during the collapse. The claim that WTC7 was demolished is, therefore, a very much more extraordinary claim than the claim that a previously unseen but physically reasonable mechanism caused a fire-induced collapse.
Strawman. And you're description of NIST's hypothesis as "reasonable" is generous to the extreme.

And, of course, there must be some reason for the collapse, because the building isn't still there. So we have one claim that's supported by computer modelling based on known properties of the structure, and another that actually contradicts what evidence we have available. In the circumstances, it's the latter, not the former, that's the extraordinary claim. And we have yet to see any ordinary evidence for it.

Dave

Let's see, no other high rise, steel frame bldg collapses from fire. Every steel frame high rise bldg that has collapsed, did not collapse from fire, and you're suggesting that thermal expansion, much below temps at which this would usually occur and a single buckling column are not extraordinary claims?

It's entertaining to watch members of a skeptics forum try to defend a hypothesis without any physical evidence simply because it originates with an authoritative source. That's not skepticism, that's sycophancy.

[dtugg]

Now it's 18 posts that the cowardly red bird has made in this thread since my prediction that he wouldn't be answering Gamolon's simple question. And, shockingly, I have thus far been proven correct.

[Gamolon]

RedIbis.

Can you please answer my questions?

1. Since I did a search with your name and WTC7 in the criteria and only found three pages worth of posts, can you please point me in the direction of which posts you have made in which you discuss your belief that WTC7 was "most likely" a controlled demolition?

2. Since you put physical evidence so high on the totem pole, can you please provide me links or references to the physical evidence used to support your claim that a controlled demolition is "more likely".

3. Why the you so biased when discussing the official story? You always try and find fault with it yet never discuss the alternate theories having holes and contradictions even though these alternate theories don't have any physical evidence either.

Thanks.

[RedIbis]

RedIbis.

Can you please answer my questions?

1. Since I did a search with your name and WTC7 in the criteria and only found three pages worth of posts, can you please point me in the direction of which posts you have made in which you discuss your belief that WTC7 was "most likely" a controlled demolition?

2. Since you put physical evidence so high on the totem pole, can you please provide me links or references to the physical evidence used to support your claim that a controlled demolition is "more likely".

3. Why the you so biased when discussing the official story? You always try and find fault with it yet never discuss the alternate theories having holes and contradictions even though these alternate theories don't have any physical evidence either.

Thanks.

Have you searched for the threads I've started?

[DGM]

Ah yes, 9/11 possesses its own rules of physics,

When has NIST violated the rules of physics? You need to explain this one.

[Gamolon]

Have you searched for the threads I've started?

I searched for your name and the word WTC7. As I said, three pages of your posts popped up, but not one discussed a controlled demolition theory about WTC7.

[dtugg]

RedIbis has never stated his supposed theory and what evidence supports it. He's flat out lying to suggest that he has.

[twinstead]

Have you searched for the threads I've started?

Perhaps answering those questions now, right here where they were asked, would go a long way towards silencing the people who claim you are biased against the "official story" in a way that you aren't with any other theory with the same or less evidence to support it.

[Dave Rogers]

Ah yes, 9/11 possesses its own rules of physics, its own history of architecture.

Carefully misunderstood; your denialism is up to its usual standard. The collapse of WTC7 is itself evidence that, under certain circumstances, a building that large can collapse, something which had never happened prior to 9/11. It's therefore supporting evidence for a claim that such a collapse can happen under a specific set of circumstances.


Uh, this is the real world, and if what NIST says is true, than there are hidden dangers, timebombs waiting to explode in high rise buildings across the world. All these bldgs require is heat, way below what is usually required for thermal expansion to threaten collapse.

Correct. That's why new codes have been issued to prevent any more buildings like that being built. So far, the structural engineering community seems content with those new codes.


Except that these models are flawed and NIST admits where they overestimated heat and fire duration.

(a) Appeal to perfection. (b) Cite, please.


These "additional causes" as you call them are things like thermal expansion happening at temps well below expected. So they are in fact, made up facts, modeled facts, manipulated facts to produce an expected and matching result. Not very scientific.

Scientific illiteracy is not going to help you much in this argument. Thermal expansion is well understood, and happens at all temperatures. NIST modelled the effects of the known behaviour of steel at the temperatures predicted by their fire models, and found that a specific failure mode was predicted. None of this is "made-up facts". The fact that you don't understand thermal expansion is not evidence than anybody else is lying.

And yet there is nothing realistic about what NIST proposes.

From your comments above about "thermal expansion happening at temps well below expected", it seems you're not competent to judge what's realistic; some experience of reality is needed for comparison.

Strawman.

And here's where you reap the benefits of being a no-claimer; you can say "Strawman" the moment anybody suggests the mere possibility that you might hold a definite position. If it's a strawman to suggest you think thermite or explosives are possible causes of the collapse of WTC7, then you're not saying anything, and will continue to bask in your ignorance and irrelevance.

Let's see, no other high rise, steel frame bldg collapses from fire. Every steel frame high rise bldg that has collapsed, did not collapse from fire, and you're suggesting that thermal expansion, much below temps at which this would usually occur and a single buckling column are not extraordinary claims?

As I said, well done for missing the point. Compared to a claim that it collapsed due to explosives (physically impossible on the basis of the evidence) or thermite (which has never caused the collapse of any building, let alone a high rise steel framed building), the claim that it collapsed due to fire (which has caused total collapse of steel framed buildings and steel framed sections of high rise buildings of hybrid construction) is very much less extraordinary.

It's entertaining to watch members of a skeptics forum try to defend a hypothesis without any physical evidence simply because it originates with an authoritative source. That's not skepticism, that's sycophancy.

I'm glad one of us is entertained. It's depressing to watch someone apparently intelligent making such an effort to be stupid.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

I predict that RedIbis will not be answering this question. Too bad stating the obvious does not qualify one for the MDC.

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

But hey, next time he might answer it!

Dave

[NutCracker]

But hey, next time he might answer it!

Dave

For all practical purposes, 2 = infinite, here.

[RedIbis]

Perhaps answering those questions now, right here where they were asked, would go a long way towards silencing the people who claim you are biased against the "official story" in a way that you aren't with any other theory with the same or less evidence to support it.

Doubtful.

[twinstead]

I know red doesn't answer questions, but mine is simply red, assume for just a second that the "official story" of wt7 is true, just for a minute. How would have the NIST's investigation and conclusion differed in that situation that wouldn't have aroused your suspicion? What makes you so biased against them?

Whoops. That's 2 questions. I'm screwed.

[NutCracker]

Doubtful.

And indeed infinte+1 = infinite.

[Grizzly Bear]

Ah yes, 9/11 possesses its own rules of physics, its own history of architecture.


Uh, this is the real world, and if what NIST says is true, than there are hidden dangers, timebombs waiting to explode in high rise buildings across the world. All these bldgs require is heat,

A building that is built to code generally won't incur damage due to thermal expansion or contraction, because they account for the expected response based on considerations for the climate region the design is in, and the differential extremes between inside and outside air temperature. Last time I checked fire is not a normal thermal load in a building. Also, the NIST attributes WTC7's vulnerability to it's design - specifically long spanning beams which increase the degree to which the thermal response takes effect.


way below what is usually required for thermal expansion to threaten collapse.
<snip>
These "additional causes" as you call them are things like thermal expansion happening at temps well below expected.

suggesting that thermal expansion, much below temps at which this would usually occur


This stuff bothers me. Are you suggesting that thermal expansion requires a specific threshold to take place? It looks to me like you read part of the NIST report with absolutely no understanding of the sciences you're critiquing the NIST for misappropriating. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion) has a nice article on thermal properties, I suggest you read it.

Let's see, no other high rise, steel frame bldg collapses from fire.
And you've yet... in all of your curiosity you've never asked the question... why?

[BigAl]

Ah yes, 9/11 possesses its own rules of physics, its own history of architecture.


Uh, this is the real world, and if what NIST says is true, than there are hidden dangers, timebombs waiting to explode in high rise buildings across the world. All these bldgs require is heat, way below what is usually required for thermal expansion to threaten collapse.


Only for those buildings that have a sub-standard cantilever frame design and on only days in which the water is turned off.

That would be only one building in the world and only on 9/11/2001.

You've been told this before. You are a troll.

[Gamolon]

Doubtful.

Ok.

Can you post one link or reference here that you have that shows any physical evidence that leads you to believe that WTC7 was a controlled demolition?

You seem to think that this type of evidence is the only way to actually prove something is true or not. Since you think the a controlled demolition is "more likely" than the official explanation, you MUST have at least one link or reference to physical evidence at your disposal.

[RedIbis]

I know red doesn't answer questions, but mine is simply red, assume for just a second that the "official story" of wt7 is true, just for a minute. How would have the NIST's investigation and conclusion differed in that situation that wouldn't have aroused your suspicion? What makes you so biased against them?

Whoops. That's 2 questions. I'm screwed.

They would have produced the buckled column and evidence of the thermally expanded floor systems. They would have produced physical evidence which supports why the thermal expansion occurred at temps far below what was expected.

Now in the spirit of debating in good faith, please answer why you accept their conclusions when they admit they did not use any physical evidence.

[Gamolon]

They would have produced the buckled column and evidence of the thermally expanded floor systems. They would have produced physical evidence which supports why the thermal expansion occurred at temps far below what was expected.

Now in the spirit of debating in good faith, please answer why you accept their conclusions when they admit they did not use any physical evidence.

You first.

I asked you why you believe a controlled demolition was more likely even though there is an absence of physical evidence. Unless you have a link or reference to that physical evidence that you are using to come to your conclusion.

So "in the spirit of debating in good faith..."

[BigAl]

They would have produced the buckled column and evidence of the thermally expanded floor systems. They would have produced physical evidence which supports why the thermal expansion occurred at temps far below what was expected.

Now in the spirit of debating in good faith, please answer why you accept their conclusions when they admit they did not use any physical evidence.


Because some of us are familiar with modeling. My familiarity says that the NIST hypothesis is plausible but if someone has an alternative to failure due to expansion of a specif beam, I'd listen to it. You certainly don't have one.

That doesn't say that anyone with relevant expertise believes that anything but fire and the lack of water for firefighting isn't the simple, correct explanation for why WTC7 collapsed.

[johnny karate]

Now in the spirit of debating in good faith, please answer why you accept their conclusions when they admit they did not use any physical evidence.

Because computer simulations provide a reliable basis for drawing conclusions in the scientific analysis of complex systems where physical evidence is not available. You may think otherwise, but forensic engineering disagrees with you, No offense, but I'm siding with science over your personal incredulity.

Now in the spirit of debating in good faith, please answer why you give more credence to a controlled demolition scenario which also lacks the physical evidence you claim is so crucial to a sound hypothesis.

[dtugg]

They would have produced the buckled column and evidence of the thermally expanded floor systems.

As you know, this was impossible because the steel wasn't marked in such a way that they could determine where in the building it came from.

They would have produced physical evidence which supports why the thermal expansion occurred at temps far below what was expected.

As others pointed out, you're obviously totally clueless on how thermal expansion works.

[Gamolon]

Now in the spirit of debating in good faith, please answer why you accept their conclusions when they admit they did not use any physical evidence.

The same reason you walk into a new building, skyscraper, house, etc. without any physical evidence that the structure is going to hold everything up as it was designed to do. You trust the engineers and designers that they are doing their job and calculating everything correctly. Everyday you trust computer models, stress calculations, blueprint designs, etc. for any sturcture you walk into. Do you ask for physical proof that the structure is going to hold everything up as stated before you enter a building?

[bardamu]

Let's see, no other high rise, steel frame bldg collapses from fire. Every steel frame high rise bldg that has collapsed, did not collapse from fire, and you're suggesting that thermal expansion, much below temps at which this would usually occur and a single buckling column are not extraordinary claims?

According to NIST, it's not just steel-framed buildings that don't totally collapse from fire:


The collapse of WTC 7 was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.


(NIST Response to the World Trade Center Disaster, November 19, 2008, page 5)

[Gamolon]

These "additional causes" as you call them are things like thermal expansion happening at temps well below expected. So they are in fact, made up facts, modeled facts, manipulated facts to produce an expected and matching result. Not very scientific.

So you are saying that thermal expansion doesn't happen until a certain expected temperature?

I have news for you. Here is a photo of train tracks and what happened to them on just a "HOT" July day due to thermal expansion.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/Train1.gif

[bill smith]

A building that is built to code generally won't incur damage due to thermal expansion or contraction, because they account for the expected response based on considerations for the climate region the design is in, and the differential extremes between inside and outside air temperature. Last time I checked fire is not a normal thermal load in a building. Also, the NIST attributes WTC7's vulnerability to it's design - specifically long spanning beams which increase the degree to which the thermal response takes effect.




This stuff bothers me. Are you suggesting that thermal expansion requires a specific threshold to take place? It looks to me like you read part of the NIST report with absolutely no understanding of the sciences you're critiquing the NIST for misappropriating. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_expansion) has a nice article on thermal properties, I suggest you read it.


And you've yet... in all of your curiosity you've never asked the question... why?

I think that the general conclusion was that WTC7 was not
a unique style of building. Therefore there are other similar steel-franed buildings out there with long beam spans. Have these buildings ever been identified and closed down for inspection since 9/11 ? Can you name any such building or provide a list of such buildings ? Or is that information held to be confidential ?

[lapman]

Now in the spirit of debating in good faith, please answer why you accept their conclusions when they admit they did not use any physical evidence.Because they base their conclusions on all available evidence. Do I believe that they are 100% accurate? No. But I believe that it's the best explanation that has been given. Can you come up with a better one that is supported by ALL the available evidence?

[alienentity]

Now, getting back to rational speculation, 93 was probably headed for the Capitol Building rather than the White House. I'm sure the White House was ruled out as too small of a target, whereas the Capitol Building is more easily identified.

Agreed.

[BigAl]

I think that the general conclusion was that WTC7 was not
a unique style of building. Therefore there are other similar steel-franed buildings out there with long beam spans.

To the extent that there are other buildings, they are only at risk if they develop a huge multi-floor fire and the sprinklers don't work and no firemen show up to fight the fire.

That's effectively what happened to WTC7 on 9/11.

[bill smith]

To the extent that there are other buildings, they are only at risk if they develop a huge multi-floor fire and the sprinklers don't work and no firemen show up to fight the fire.

That's effectively what happened to WTC7 on 9/11.

Suppose you are wrong and they only develop the small and widely seperated fires that we actually observed in WTC7 on 9/11 ? Are they at risk of sudden catastropic collapse ?

[BigAl]

Suppose you are wrong and they only develop the small and widely seperated fires that we actually observed in WTC7 on 9/11 ? Are they at risk of sudden catastropic collapse ?

I don't have to suppose anything. Your premise is wrong.

[johnny karate]

Suppose you are wrong and they only develop the small and widely seperated fires that we actually observed in WTC7 on 9/11 ? Are they at risk of sudden catastropic collapse ?

When did you observe the fires at WTC7?

[RedIbis]

Because computer simulations provide a reliable basis for drawing conclusions in the scientific analysis of complex systems where physical evidence is not available.

But physical evidence was available. WPI and Astanah-Asl both had access to WTC 7 steel.

[BigAl]

But physical evidence was available. WPI and Astanah-Asl both had access to WTC 7 steel.

And the history of several major construction projects inside WTC7 made the identification of where the steel came from impossible.

I suspect you have been told this before and you chose to ignore it.

You are a troll.

[johnny karate]

But physical evidence was available. WPI and Astanah-Asl both had access to WTC 7 steel.

No, physical evidence wasn't available (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html):
Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders’ efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

And the lack of easily identifiable physical evidence is not an uncommon occurence in forensic engineering. Which is why computer simualtions are so widely used and accepted. Once again, science trumps your personal incredulity.

[Gamolon]

But physical evidence was available. WPI and Astanah-Asl both had access to WTC 7 steel.

Right.

After examining the steel, he says fires caused the collapses. This coming from a man who specializes in structural design and failure analysis who inspected physical evidence.

[Darkhole]

from Poland?


From Holland! ;)

Not that I be proud of.

Jowenko at work in 2008:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosta/page8/

[deep]

After examining the steel, he says fires caused the collapses. This coming from a man who specializes in structural design and failure analysis who inspected physical evidence.


Err.. what? Please provide a direct quote, and remember that we're discussing WTC7.

[RedIbis]

No, physical evidence wasn't available (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html):


And the lack of easily identifiable physical evidence is not an uncommon occurence in forensic engineering. Which is why computer simualtions are so widely used and accepted. Once again, science trumps your personal incredulity.

If WTC 7 steel was so difficult to identify (not that it would have been hard to locate that rather large pile sitting across Vecesy St.), how were WPI and Astanah-Asl able to identify it?

[johnny karate]

Err.. what? Please provide a direct quote, and remember that we're discussing WTC7.

There you go demanding evidence again. What happened to your poisition that these are all just "opinions", and therefore one is equally valid as another?

Oh, that's right... you only apply such sophistry to your claims. When someone else makes a claim, suddenly your standards become more rigorous.

[johnny karate]

If WTC 7 steel was so difficult to identify (not that it would have been hard to locate that rather large pile sitting across Vecesy St.), how were WPI and Astanah-Asl able to identify it?

Are you actually trying to conflate NIST not being able to distinguish individual pieces of WTC7 steel from each other with them not being able to identify which steel came from WTC7?

Really?

Did you honestly expect anyone to fall for that?

[RedIbis]

Are you actually trying to conflate NIST not being able to distinguish individual pieces of WTC7 steel from each other with them not being able to identify which steel came from WTC7?

Really?

Did you honestly expect anyone to fall for that?

I'll rephrase since you seem to having trouble with this. Why did WPI and Astanah-Asl have access and were able to identify WTC 7 steel but NIST was not?

[Pardalis]

But physical evidence was available. WPI and Astanah-Asl both had access to WTC 7 steel.

But since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such steel could have been reported without it having been at the WTC 7, how could you be sure that this evidence wouldn't have been tampered with?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5203569&postcount=2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156482)

[Gamolon]

Err.. what? Please provide a direct quote, and remember that we're discussing WTC7.

From his paper here:
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:XDGSh37YkAUJ:www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Research/wtc/documents/astaneh-testimony%2520congress-march%25206%2520final.pdf+Abolhassan+wtc&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a (http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:XDGSh37YkAUJ:www.ce.berkeley.edu/%7Eastaneh/1-Research/wtc/documents/astaneh-testimony%2520congress-march%25206%2520final.pdf+Abolhassan+wtc&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

He states the following about his role at the scene.
My involvement in the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center is to conduct a reconnaissance of the collapsed and damaged WTC buildings and to collect the perishable data. The main objectives of the reconnaissance are to learn as much as possible from the actual collapsed structures and to document the failure modes and performance of the members and connections as well as quality of the construction. The purpose of collecting the perishable data is to collect material samples, photographs, videotapes, drawings and data on design, construction and collapse. Using the information collected and by conducting the necessary analyses and research, we try to establish probable causes of the collapse and most likely scenario for such collapse.So, in his own words he says "My involvement in the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center is to conduct a reconnaissance of the collapsed and damaged WTC buildings..."

So he wasn't there to just look at WTC1 and WTC2, but "THE BUILDINGS" in general. Which is evidenced by this article in which he talks about seeing steel specifically from WTC7.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html


One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized. Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue. The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward. ''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''So he looked at steel from all buildings and still comes to the conclusion that fire was the cause for collapse. Here is his conclusion about the twin towers from this PDF linked here.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060905082531/http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Publications/Astaneh-9ASEC-WTC+Paper+2003.pdf (http://web.archive.org/web/20060905082531/http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/%7Eastaneh/1-Publications/Astaneh-9ASEC-WTC+Paper+2003.pdf)

The collapse of the towers was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents. It is also the opinion of the author that had there been better fireproofing installed to delay the steel structure, specially the light weight truss joists and exterior columns from reaching high temperature until the content of the buildings burned out, probably the collapse could be avoided and the victims above the impact area rescued.He never once (that I have seen) mentions anything other than structural failure due to fire for any of the buildings that collapsed. He doesn't mentioned specifically that he believes WTC7 was caused by fire, but he sure would have mentioned it if he thought otherwise.

We can always write him an email and ask.

[deep]

There you go demanding evidence again. What happened to your poisition that these are all just "opinions", and therefore one is equally valid as another?

Oh, that's right... you only apply such sophistry to your claims. When someone else makes a claim, suddenly your standards become more rigorous.


You seem to forget that I provided evidence for the claim you're referring to.

[johnny karate]

I'll rephrase since you seem to having trouble with this. Why did WPI and Astanah-Asl have access and were able to identify WTC 7 steel but NIST was not?

No one ever said NIST didn't have access to the WTC7 steel, so we can take that strawman argument off the table right now.

And again, you're conflating two separate issues: Being able to identify which pieces of steel came from WTC7, and being able to distinguish individual pieces of WTC7 steel from one another. It is the latter that NIST was not able to do. Nor were WPI and Astaneh-Asl.

From WPI (bolding mine) (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html):
A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.

They had a piece of WTC7 steel, but they didn't know from what part of the structure it came.

From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html):
One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks.

...

By comparing the beam's specifications with architectural drawings, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said he would be able to tell roughly where the beam came from.

Astanah-Asl examined an I-beam in the wreckage. At best, he said at a later time he might be able to get a rough idea from what part of the structure it came (and I couldn't actually find anything indicating if he was ever able to), but he wouldn't be able to identify which specific beam it was.

NIST needed to find a specific beam out of thousands of tons of steel wreckage in which nothing was individually marked in order to provide the "physical evidence" you're demanding. And anyone with even the slightest knowledge of forensic engineering knows what an incredibly stupid demand it is.

[Gamolon]

I'll rephrase since you seem to having trouble with this. Why did WPI and Astanah-Asl have access and were able to identify WTC 7 steel but NIST was not?

From NIST's own site.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?
Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders’ efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You seem to forget that I provided evidence for the claim you're referring to.

Since when does an opinion become evidence?

[johnny karate]

You seem to forget that I provided evidence for the claim you're referring to.

You seem to forget you were wrong about your evidence.

ETA: I've bumped the relevant thread. Feel free to go there and actually defend your position as opposed to just pretending you won the argument.

[deep]

He doesn't mentioned specifically that he believes WTC7 was caused by fire, but he sure would have mentioned it if he thought otherwise.


Thanks, that was my understanding as well.


We can always write him an email and ask.


Perhaps you should have handled that before incorporating the claim into your argument.

[Pardalis]

NIST needed to find a specific beam out of thousands of tons of steel wreckage in which nothing was individually marked in order to provide the "physical evidence" you're demanding. And anyone with even the slightest knowledge of forensic engineering knows what an incredibly stupid demand it is.

Red doesn't recognize the thousands of pieces of human bodies recovered and whose DNA was analyzed and confirmed by forensic specialists, but this one piece of steel seems the only physical evidence that he holds to the highest importance. :boggled:

[johnny karate]

Perhaps you should have handled that before incorporating the claim into your argument.

Good point. Dr. Astaneh-Asl probably believes NIST's conclusions about the collpase of WTC7 to be incorrect, but just didn't think to mention it to anyone, ever.

[deep]

You seem to forget you were wrong about your evidence.

ETA: I've bumped the relevant thread. Feel free to go there and actually defend your position as opposed to just pretending you won the argument.


I've already defended my position - if you disagree, that's your choice. Feel free to continue reinforcing your position with additional evidence - at the very least, my silence will tell people everything they need to know.

[Gamolon]

Thanks, that was my understanding as well.





Perhaps you should have handled that before incorporating the claim into your argument.
So by him not saying anything directly about WTC7 collapsing due to fires, you are implying that he thinks otherwise?

[DavidJames]

I've already defended my position - if you disagree, that's your choice. Feel free to continue reinforcing your position with additional evidence - at the very least, my silence will tell people everything they need to know.I think your silence tells people everything you know.

[twinstead]

I think your silence tells people everything you know.

Oh no he di'int

[deep]

So by him not saying anything directly about WTC7 collapsing due to fires, you are implying that he thinks otherwise?


No, I'm not implying anything. He didn't offer a conclusion on WTC7 - that's it.

[johnny karate]

I've already defended my position - if you disagree, that's your choice.

And we're back to argument by "opinion". Just remember this next time someone doesn't feel particularly obliged to provide you with whatever evidence you demand in order to validate their claims.

Feel free to continue reinforcing your position with additional evidence - at the very least, my silence will tell people everything they need to know.

Why would I need to provide additional evidence when you haven't even addressed the evidence already provided?

And why do I need to continue to prove my argument to you when you apparently feel no need to prove yours beyond so-called evidence that has already been refuted?

Again, the double standards you apply are quite revealing of your level of intellectually dishonesty.

[grandmastershek]

I'm just curious how many CD experts they had to go through before they figured out how to swindle Danny.

[TruthersLie]

Thanks, that was my understanding as well.

Perhaps you should have handled that before incorporating the claim into your argument.

ROFLMAO.

Perhaps you should find out what Dr. Astaneh-Asl says to twoofs who try to datamine his quotes....

I can find his reply to twoofs in under 5 minutes, can you?

Please instead of datamining, try to read for comprehension. What does Dr. Astaneh-Asl say about twoofs and this craptacular idea of nanothermite? (look it up, it is very amusing)

[Jono]

I'm just curious how many CD experts they had to go through before they figured out how to swindle Danny.

Dude, they had to cross the Atlantic and try to succesfully hoodwink guys across Europe into believing "something was off".

Since human nature is predictable in that a first impression can sink in and stick like a crazed tick from hell, in some cases this ploy worked.

[triforcharity]

GMS,

I would say......All of them.

[bardamu]

Since human nature is predictable in that a first impression can sink in and stick like a crazed tick from hell,

Yes. Danny Jowenko was already convinced that the Twin Towers collapsed due to fires, and that first impression stuck with him in spite of the video evidence that was shown to him.

[twinstead]

Yes. Danny Jowenko was already convinced that the Twin Towers collapsed due to fires, and that first impression stuck with him in spite of the video evidence that was shown to him.

Hate to break the news to you, but quite a lot of people, experts even, are satisfied that the impact and fires felled the towers. Maybe if they just saw your videos they'd come to their senses, right? :rolleyes:

Are you one of those people who think Jowenko was right about wtc7, but "mistaken" about 1 and 2? Interesting way you have to rationalize that. Why couldn't he just be "mistaken" about wtc7?

[lapman]

Yes. Danny Jowenko was already convinced that the Twin Towers collapsed due to fires, and that first impression stuck with him in spite of the video evidence that was shown to him.
Danny went into great detail on what was going on in the video of the towers. He blew away all "evidence" that was put in front of him. Even what the firemen were saying, he explained fully what they really saw and heard. However, when shown the WTC7 TM approved video snippet, he was guessing the entire time. I love when he talks about how large the crew would be and what they would be doing inside the building. Yeah, nobody would hear the demo of the walls in order to place the charges. So we had silent explosives and stealth demo workers.

[Earthborn]

I'm just curious how many CD experts they had to go through before they figured out how to swindle Danny.Nobody swindled Danny Jowenko.

Since human nature is predictable in that a first impression can sink in and stick like a crazed tick from hell, in some cases this ploy worked.Jowenko's first impression certainly sunk in and stuck like a crazed tick, but it wasn't predictable that it would. The information the journalist provided later might have easily changed his mind, but instead he struggled to incorporate it into the narrative of his first impression and does not manage to make sense of it.

Interesting way you have to rationalize that. Why couldn't he just be "mistaken" about wtc7?He was mistaken about WTC7, no scare quotes necessary.

[Newtons Bit]

No one ever said NIST didn't have access to the WTC7 steel, so we can take that strawman argument off the table right now.

And again, you're conflating two separate issues: Being able to identify which pieces of steel came from WTC7, and being able to distinguish individual pieces of WTC7 steel from one another. It is the latter that NIST was not able to do. Nor were WPI and Astaneh-Asl.

From WPI (bolding mine) (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html):


They had a piece of WTC7 steel, but they didn't know from what part of the structure it came.

From the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html):


Astanah-Asl examined an I-beam in the wreckage. At best, he said at a later time he might be able to get a rough idea from what part of the structure it came (and I couldn't actually find anything indicating if he was ever able to), but he wouldn't be able to identify which specific beam it was.

NIST needed to find a specific beam out of thousands of tons of steel wreckage in which nothing was individually marked in order to provide the "physical evidence" you're demanding. And anyone with even the slightest knowledge of forensic engineering knows what an incredibly stupid demand it is.

Stamping or engraving the location or shop-drawing designation of a structural member (such as what occured in most of WTC1&2) is exceedingly rare in the industry. Typically, the designation is written on the member with paint or even chalk. It doesn't last forever.

[Dave Rogers]

Yes. Danny Jowenko was already convinced that the Twin Towers collapsed due to fires, and that first impression stuck with him in spite of the video evidence that was shown to him.

Ah, right, that clears things up. So when somebody disagrees initially with the truth movement then maintains their position, they're sticking with their erroneous first impression, but when somebody initially supports the truthers then maintains their position, then they were right all along and they're heroically defending the truth. Is that how it works?

Dave

[TruthersLie]

Hate to break the news to you, but quite a lot of people, experts even, are satisfied that the impact and fires felled the towers. Maybe if they just saw your videos they'd come to their senses, right? :rolleyes:

Are you one of those people who think Jowenko was right about wtc7, but "mistaken" about 1 and 2? Interesting way you have to rationalize that. Why couldn't he just be "mistaken" about wtc7?

Much more likely that he was "mistaken" about wtc7...

In the interview he states REPEATEDLY that "I'm just guessing here." and "I wish I had the design plans for this."

You can also tell in the interview that he had been discussing the collapse prior to the interview because he brings up the Larry S, "pull it" bullcrap.

[bardamu]

Ah, right, that clears things up. So when somebody disagrees initially with the truth movement then maintains their position, they're sticking with their erroneous first impression, but when somebody initially supports the truthers then maintains their position, then they were right all along and they're heroically defending the truth. Is that how it works?


It shows that both sides can use the 'first impression' argument. It might be more useful to examine the context. When Danny Jowenko was shown the videos of the Twin Towers, he already knew the official jet fuel story from the media. On top of that, the towers weren't brought down by a standard controlled demolition implosion. When he was shown the Building 7 video, he had no preconceived view of the event and recognised it straight away as a controlled demolition.

[NutCracker]

It shows that both sides can use the 'first impression' argument. It might be more useful to examine the context. When Danny Jowenko was shown the videos of the Twin Towers, he already knew the official jet fuel story from the media. On top of that, the towers weren't brought down by a standard controlled demolition implosion. When he was shown the Building 7 video, he had no preconceived view of the event and recognised it straight away as a controlled demolition.

This is indeed how it works.


A valid argument, analysis, paper, hypothesis or opinion is an argument, analysis, hypothesis or opinion consistent with da Troof.

A factoid that is consistent with da Twoof, is a fact.


Conversely:

A fact contradicting da Twoof is a fabrication.

An argumunt, analysis, paper or opinion contradicting da Twoof is not valid.


Just a big pile of circular logic poo this Twooferism is.

[johnny karate]

It shows that both sides can use the 'first impression' argument.

Not really. See, we don't need Jowenko. We can quite easily dismiss everything he says as unsubstantiated speculation and the body of evidence from which we draw our conclusions remains completely intact.

Truthers, on the other hand, desparately need Jowenko. If he goes away, he takes one of their few "experts". Which is why Truthers must engage in such elaborate mental gymnastics to pretend his opinion has any import.

Speaking of mental gymnastics...

It might be more useful to examine the context. When Danny Jowenko was shown the videos of the Twin Towers, he already knew the official jet fuel story from the media. On top of that, the towers weren't brought down by a standard controlled demolition implosion. When he was shown the Building 7 video, he had no preconceived view of the event and recognised it straight away as a controlled demolition.

Looks like a controlled demolition = controlled demolition.

Doesn't look like a controlled demolition = controlled demolition.

Your logic is unassailable. :rolleyes:

[Oliver]

If the Truthmovement would be an organized and intelligent group of people, they would show him the blueprint of WTC7 and show him all relevant footage concerning the debris that damaged the building, the information about the fires and let him examine that evidence to come to a sound conclusion in contrast to his initial thought.

[Pardalis]

On top of that, the towers weren't brought down by a standard controlled demolition implosion.

But but... It looks so much like a controlled demolition! :rolleyes:

You can't have it both ways, either you say it looks like a CD, or it doesn't.

When he was shown the Building 7 video, he had no preconceived view of the event and recognised it straight away as a controlled demolition.

That's the initial reaction you are talking about. That's what truthers expect people to think because it does, superficially, look like a CD.

When you look deeper, you understand it can't be a CD.

[Jono]

Jowenko has been given enough information by several people, besides truthers, on the WTC7 structural damage, construction and fire.
I recall that some time ago he replied that he still believed it to have been brought down by CD, because alleged secret important documents were destroyed (yes, he gave that as a reason).
It sounds to me like a man trying to rationalize his initial impression and digging in deeper instead of walking away from it, albeit to my knowledge he has never done any actual written work on his convictions thereof.

[Dave Rogers]

It might be more useful to examine the context. When Danny Jowenko was shown the videos of the Twin Towers, he already knew the official jet fuel story from the media. On top of that, the towers weren't brought down by a standard controlled demolition implosion. When he was shown the Building 7 video, he had no preconceived view of the event and recognised it straight away as a controlled demolition.

So what you're saying is that Jowenko's careful analysis of the Twin Towers collapses, based on a thorough understanding of the background to the events and a study of the actual collapse progression, is less reliable than his first impression when shown a video of a building he'd never heard of with the soundtrack missing so he wouldn't notice that there weren't any explosions? Classic truther thinking: the less information you have, the more right you must be.

Dave

[Pardalis]

Classic truther thinking: the less information you have, the more right you must be.


Truther thinking? That's an oxymoron. ;)

[bardamu]

See, we don't need Jowenko. We can quite easily dismiss everything he says as unsubstantiated speculation and the body of evidence from which we draw our conclusions remains completely intact.

You don't have much choice, really.



Truthers, on the other hand, desparately need Jowenko. If he goes away, he takes one of their few "experts".

The debunkers have tried and failed to make him go away. Ron Wieck spent an hour talking to him on the phone trying to win him over.



Looks like a controlled demolition = controlled demolition.

Doesn't look like a controlled demolition = controlled demolition.

Your logic is unassailable. :rolleyes:

Standard controlled demolition entails controlled demolition.

Non-standard controlled demolition (also) entails controlled demolition.


If the Truthmovement would be an organized and intelligent group of people, they would show him the blueprint of WTC7 and show him all relevant footage concerning the debris that damaged the building, the information about the fires and let him examine that evidence to come to a sound conclusion in contrast to his initial thought.

He's been given all the relevant details now and he's confident that his original conclusion was sound.


But but... It looks so much like a controlled demolition! :rolleyes:

You can't have it both ways, either you say it looks like a CD, or it doesn't.

They don't look like the kind of CD people are used to seeing, but they do look like top-down CD. That's because they ARE top-down CD.



That's the initial reaction you are talking about. That's what truthers expect people to think because it does, superficially, look like a CD.

When you look deeper, you understand it can't be a CD.

At first glance it looks like a standard CD and the more you watch it, the more it looks like a standard CD.



I recall that some time ago he replied that he still believed it to have been brought down by CD, because alleged secret important documents were destroyed (yes, he gave that as a reason).

I don't know the details behind this statement, but I'm guessing that somebody asked him for a possible motive. The reason he still believes it was brought down by CD is because there's no other rational explanation.



It sounds to me like a man trying to rationalize his initial impression and digging in deeper instead of walking away from it, albeit to my knowledge he has never done any actual written work on his convictions thereof.

I'm sure he doesn't want the attention, but he won't walk away from it because he has too much integrity.


Classic truther thinking: the less information you have, the more right you must be.


Well he's been given all the information since he first made the statement, so he must be even more right now than he was before.

[Thunder]

At first glance it looks like a standard CD and the more you watch it, the more it looks like a standard CD. .

none of the collapses at the WTC look like a standard controlled demolition.

a standard controlled demo of a building, starts with lots of loud bangs and flashes going up and down the building, but the building does not collapse.

then, there are more loud bangs and flashes going up and down the entire height of the structure..and then the building starts to collapse from the bottom up.

not WTC 1, WTC 2, or WTC 7, collapsed in this manner.

we all have seen controlled demolitions before. lots of them. the videos are all over the internet. they look nothing like what happened on 9-11.

try again.

[T.A.M.]

exactly. The only part of it that resembles a controlled demolition is specific to WTC7, and is the relatively (note that) symmetrical fall of the building when it collapses,...that is it.

No series of flashes. No series of audible (and quite loud) explosions. Nadda.

TAM:)

[Thunder]

if people can see Jesus in their Cheez-Wiz, then they can convince themselves that WTC 1,2, and 7 looked JUST LIKE a typical industrial controlled demolition.

[Grizzly Bear]

This has always been a really burning question for me when it comes to the CT's logic; if a building fails in a so-called "natural" manner won't the area where the collapse initiates determine the behavior of the rest of the structure as it fails? I know the answer to that already, but it seems n the CT's mind this is a non-existent issue.

As far as I can see if you ignore every other characteristic and focus on what happens when a building no longer has sufficient support to hold itself up it pretty much kills any attempt to call a collapse a controlled demolition.

They may look similar and are in fact only in the sense that the building in either case ultimately looses its integrity. In the absence of more characteristics that'd point to a CD, this argument that looks like = is has been dead on arrival........... for the last 8 years.... An uninformed or incompetent expert's opinion is irrelevant at this point.

[Dave Rogers]

Well he's been given all the information since he first made the statement, so he must be even more right now than he was before.

So we can be absolutely certain that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed due to the fires and the impact damage. Or is there some reason why Jowenko gets more right the more he learns about WTC7, but that doesn't apply to WTC1 and WTC2? Are you sure you want to go there?

Dave