Judges shocked by first time seeing video of WTC 7 collapse in Denmark court, March 2015

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Debunkology

If you want an unbiased opinion from one of the former worlds leading buildings demolition expert who is watching the video of Building 7 for the first time, then watch this video.

AHHH this frustrates me!!!!!

Do you honestly think I have not seen that video before a thousand times??

Really go look through a few of my threads on this subject

Sure this guy is shocked, but come one, they had to go to Poland to find a demolitions expert who would be "shocked" on camera to be seeing this for the first time. That makes me wonder why they had to go to Poland to get a guy, how many others did they have to approach before the got to scraping the bottom of the tub before they got to that guy.

LOL, Poland?

Firstly, it was a Dutch tv company who did the investigation, and secondly the guy is Dutch.

So of course, they didn't go very far did they because the Netherlands is a very small country!

a reply to: Debunkology

I Stand corrected, Dutch, not Polish

BUT

Wherever he is from!!!

It makes no difference the point is they had to go out of the English speaking world to find a guy who would appear shocked!

a reply to: Debunkology


Uh.....Larry Silverstein has paid 1.3 billion dollars in rent payments to the Port Authority just to retain his right to rebuild on the site. That was on top of the seven billion or so needed to rebuild the area. Now, it has been a few years since math class, but, I am pretty sure that 8 billion dollars far surpasses 500 million.

Now, about the missing trillions that you think Dick Cheney mentioned the day before..... First, it was Donald Rumsfeld talking about the 2.3 trillion, and, it was something that had been being discussed since early 2000....you know, when William Cohen was SecDef and Billy Boy Clinton was POTUS. Those records were at the Pentagon...not WTC 7.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Debunkology


It's not clutching at straws, it is pointing out that quite a few members of A/E 911 Truth, are not engineers or architects.

Ok. Quite a few. So how many of the 2,337 are not architects and engineers?

a reply to: Debunkology

Ok. Quite a few. So how many of the 2,337 are not architects and engineers?

That is the wrong question, the question is how many of them are not qualified in related fields

Really I am only going to pay attention to a high rise structural engineer, a Civil engineer or a high rise demolitions expert (and possibly a few others were their qualifications are appropriate)

Put it this way the American Society of Civil Engineers has almost 150,000 members, I will take their word over 2300 guys who only get their name on the list because they have some kind of technical qualification.

a reply to: Debunkology

I notice that you do not mention what Mr. Jowenko thought about WTC 7 after he had a chance to study the evidence. You know, when he agreed that damage/fire killed the building....

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Debunkology

I Stand corrected, Dutch, not Polish

BUT

Wherever he is from!!!

It makes no difference the point is they had to go out of the English speaking world to find a guy who would appear shocked!

"they" didn't go anywhere out of their own country. A dutch tv film crew with a dutch demolitions expert. Do you want me to show you former US marines and US generals talk about Buildings 7? there are the videos.

Are you saying that only Americans and British have a legitimate say on this matter? What a load of garbage.

Do you think Fox news would air this?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

As I pointed out, the first two I could understand, the third is in question, the Windsor building just feeds my curiosity more with a partial failure, not complete in seconds.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Debunkology

I notice that you do not mention what Mr. Jowenko thought about WTC 7 after he had a chance to study the evidence. You know, when he agreed that damage/fire killed the building....

I did not mention because I did not know. Could you point me in that direction?

a reply to: Debunkology

You are deflecting.

The point i was trying to make is that the view of one man is hardly evidence of anything of anything.

There were demolition experts who were at ground Zero when seven fell who have said they did not believe that anything they saw suggested a controlled demolition.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Debunkology

I notice that you do not mention what Mr. Jowenko thought about WTC 7 after he had a chance to study the evidence. You know, when he agreed that damage/fire killed the building....

The interview starts at 2:52



Danny Jowenko reiterated that Building 7 could not have been brought down by fire. When asked if he retracted his statements about the building being brought down by fire he says "absolutely not".

What is also interesting to note is that he says "if you are a controlled demolitions expert and you have to earn your money in the states and you say that it was a controlled demolitions....then you are gone!"

Which answers the question to OtherSideOfTheCoin why they probably haven't got a controlled demolitions expert on American tv who is shocked.

or why they might find it more difficult now that Jowenko is dead.

a reply to: Debunkology

He died 5 or 6 years after that interview so I hardly think that his death has anything to do with his views on 9/11

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Debunkology

You are deflecting.

The point i was trying to make is that the view of one man is hardly evidence of anything of anything.

You are contradicting.....yourself!

You said you would take the opinion of a chief demolitions expert of one of the biggest corporations. Isn't that only the opinion of one man also?

LOL!

a reply to: Debunkology

Not really what I was saying is that the opinion of a guy like Jowenko is more valid than that of a judge.

Please do not twist what I am saying.

But at the same time I am also saying that there were explosive experts there that day who say they saw nothing that would support the controlled demolition hypothesis.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Nicely put, while I think you pose a good argument the one thing that still gets me is no large steel building has fallen due to fire, some smaller ones but never a large one. Plenty of large ones have had severe fires though. However I know anomalies exist but why three in one day and never again? The third being the most curious as I said before, the fire wasn't severe, and would only justify a partial failure, not a complete failure in seconds.

It wasn't just due to fire that the Towers or WTC 7 fell was it ?

Most of the fires truthers try to use to back up their claims or NOT a full structural steel frame buildings many are reinforced concrete & structural steel, the thing is the steel parts of even those buildings tend to fail just with fire!!!!

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Debunkology

He died 5 or 6 years after that interview so I hardly think that his death has anything to do with his views on 9/11

Maybe, but his death came just three days after Dr Alan Sabrosky gave this interview.



Coincidence?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: cardinalfan0596

As I pointed out, the first two I could understand, the third is in question, the Windsor building just feeds my curiosity more with a partial failure, not complete in seconds.

The Windsor Tower wasn't fully steel framed

The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid

Overview
Location: Madrid, Spain
Fire Event: 12 February 2005
Fire started at the 21st Floor, spreading to all floors above the 2nd Floor. Fire duration: 18 ~ 20 hours
Fire Damage: Extensive slab collapse above the 17th Floor. The building was totally destroyed by the fire.
Construction Type: Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire
Fire Resistance: Passive fire protection. No sprinklers.
Building Type: 106 m (32 storeys). Commercial.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Again, please read my question, pertaining only to seven and I point out the fire that was there should have only resulted in a partial failure if any. It was not catastrophically damaged, not for a full collapse in seconds at least. Heck I've even acknowledged other arguments as not only valid but good. I'm not even arguing big conspiracy just asking a question why the huge failure on seven so fast? No other instance of this in a large steel structure from fire, only partial failure.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: wmd_2008

Again, please read my question, pertaining only to seven and I point out the fire that was there should have only resulted in a partial failure if any. It was not catastrophically damaged, not for a full collapse in seconds at least. Heck I've even acknowledged other arguments as not only valid but good. I'm not even arguing big conspiracy just asking a question why the huge failure on seven so fast? No other instance of this in a large steel structure from fire, only partial failure.

WTC 7 WAS DAMAGED the fire department reported an approx 20 floor gash on the elevation that faced the WTC North Tower also one corner had a several storey chunk badly damaged and the fires were left to burn uncontrolled for several hours ALL reported by the New York Fire Department.

Also it didn't fall in seconds when do you start measuring the collapse start, when you see the facade fail or WHEN you see evidence of the inside structure failing

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: bobs_uruncle I will add you to the list of people who consistently accuse the FDNY of lying about that day. It is not hard to find videos of WTC 7 on fire.

Is that a threat lol. Am I supposed to be worried? I've been shot, stabbed, poisoned and some CI wanker put two suitcase bombs on my plane after my operations Africa. Ewwww scary..

Not accusing the FDNY of doing anything, but I do know what all the pictures say and I don't recall the fdny stating that flaming debris started the fire, but the did say the building was being "pulled."

Cheers - Dave