As to the first video, here is much more in-depth review of Ryan's presentation, which debunks the notion that he is the one guilty of dishonesty.
Here is a video putting the 9/11 fires in perspective.
The second video omits the forensic evidence cited in Gage's presentation, which has now helped to convince over 40 structural engineers and 60 aerospace engineers, nearly 1,200 other architectural and engineering professionals, as well as almost 8,200 other petition signers, including metallurgists, physicists, scientists, explosives experts and demolition contractors.
But never mind all of them since Jowenko disagrees about the Towers.
As I've noted before, he does not think the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition due to their unconventional nature, but as the website 911review.com has pointed out:
A demolition that is planned as part of a covert operation to fit a narrative of events that attributes the total destruction of the building to a different cause (such as a jetliner crash and consequent fires) has a very different set of requirements than a demolition that is planned to legally remove a building in an urban setting.And as 911blogger.com user "stallion4" has noted:
The towers weren't conventional demolitions. They were "top down" demolitions, which are rare in the professional demolition industry...Despite claims to the contrary, Jowenko has remained quite sure WTC 7 was a demolition. Perhaps the more conventional nature of WTC 7's demolition can be explained by evidence that indicates 10:45 a.m. was the originally planned demolition time.
Building 7 was a classic demolition job -- bottom up -- the type of demolition that Danny Jowenko is qualified to give his professional opinion on.
Here is why Gage doesn't include the collapse of WTC 7's penthouse in his presentation, and here are two videos that put squibs, fires, explosions, demolitions, collapses, crushdowns and the World Trade Center in perspective:
