Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[bardamu]

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.



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.


As Europe's top demolition expert has confirmed, loud noises and flashes are only secondary features of a standard controlled demolition. The primary feature of a standard controlled demolition is the sudden, (relatively) uniform and symmetrical fall of the roofline, brought about by removing the supporting structure one way or another at a lower level. In the case of WTC 7, the fall of the roofline was not just relatively uniform and symmetrical, it was so perfect that it seems more like a caricature of a controlled demolition than a real one.


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.


One column fails and because of that the other 80 columns all collapse together in the blink of an eyelid? Have the architects been prosecuted?


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?


OK, it's a deal. WTC 7 was demolished but the Twin Towers weren't. Now let's take it from there. Who demolished WTC 7?

[dtugg]

Hey genius, why don't you explain how the controlled demo was done without there being extremely loud blasts. Perhaps superdupernanotherm*te? But wait, your hero Steven Jones says that was just a fuse for regular explosives! Oops!

[Scott Sommers]

OK, it's a deal. WTC 7 was demolished but the Twin Towers weren't. Now let's take it from there. Who demolished WTC 7?

The firefighters and police who told everyone to move away because the building was coming down?

This is a real question; how old are you?

[GlennB]

In the case of WTC 7, the fall of the roofline was not just relatively uniform and symmetrical, it was so perfect that it seems more like a caricature of a controlled demolition than a real one.


Spot the newbie truther who hasn't yet heard of the East mechanical penthouse.

[Scott Sommers]

Spot the newbie truther who hasn't yet heard of the East mechanical penthouse.

Franky, this is just getting stupid. Don't you know, the US is being torn apart by the TRUTH of 911? Everyday the movement is growing. Important people like Charlie Sheen and Ed Asner are speaking up. There are demonstrations in the streets. Hundreds and thousands of construction professionals speak up all the time about this - not to mention all those firefighters. By the way, I've joined Firefighters for 911 Truth - really.

Actually, there have been 2 presidential elections in between then and now and 911 didn't come up once. Save yourself some time. Get a girlfriend, watch a movie, join a real political party. Just stop being one of these 911 Truth losers. It'll make your parents feel better.

[Dave Rogers]

As Europe's top demolition expert has confirmed,

Jowenko is only regarded as Europe's top demolition expert by truthers, and that only because they desperately want him to be Europe's top demolition expert.

loud noises and flashes are only secondary features of a standard controlled demolition. The primary feature of a standard controlled demolition is the sudden, (relatively) uniform and symmetrical fall of the roofline, brought about by removing the supporting structure one way or another at a lower level.

Your usage of the words "primary" and "secondary" is deliberately misleading here. What is more important is whether certain penomena are necessarily observed in accompaniment to a controlled demolition. Since it is impossible to muffle the noise of demolition explosives by more than about 6dB, a loud noise in excess of 124dB must necessarily be heard when an explosive demolition takes place. If no noise is heard, no demolition has taken place. On the other hand, the nature of the drop of the roofline is determined by the sequence in which the main structural members fail, not by the means by which they fail. Therefore, we can exclude explosives by the first, and cannot prove them by the second.

In the case of WTC 7, the fall of the roofline was not just relatively uniform and symmetrical, it was so perfect that it seems more like a caricature of a controlled demolition than a real one.

This is just drivel. You're claiming it must have been a controlled demolition because it looked too much like one to have been one. And, of course, like all 9/11 'truth', it's not true. The fall of the roofline consisted of a collapse of the East mechanical penthouse, a 4-6 second pause, then a V-shaped collapse starting from the middle and moving outwards. To describe it as perfect and symmetrical is, quite simply, a blatant lie.

One column fails and because of that the other 80 columns all collapse together in the blink of an eyelid? Have the architects been prosecuted?

I don't know about you, but I can blink in rather less than six seconds. Has your opthalmologist been prosecuted?

OK, it's a deal. WTC 7 was demolished but the Twin Towers weren't. Now let's take it from there. Who demolished WTC 7?

Let me point out that I don't have to answer that, because my claim is that Jowenko is mistaken about WTC7 being demolished. You, on the other hand, now have to construct a plausible hypothesis in which WTC1 and WTC2 fell due to fire and impact damage, but WTC7 was demolished. If you can't so this, you have to admit Jowenko might be sometimes wrong and sometimes right. And therefore, since your only argument is Jowenko's infallibility, you no longer have a position.

So why don't you take it from there? Give me a plausible scenario.

Dave

[eromitlab]

The primary feature of a standard controlled demolition is the sudden, (relatively) uniform and symmetrical fall of the roofline, brought about by removing the supporting structure one way or another at a lower level.

And how do you propose this happened to WTC 7 without the "secondary feature" of explosive charges going off, visibly and audibly? Is this where superduperultramegananotherm*te fits into your theory, only to be tossed aside when "people said 'bomb' and 'explosion' on TV!!!!11!!" is the next talking point?

Seriously, I wish troofers would at least watch Loose Change more than once before they hit forums to spread how many sooper sekrit smoking guns they now know all about and have to inform the brainwashed sheeple about before American Idol starts back up for another season.
I wish they'd do a little critical analysis of the claims and realize how wrong it all is, but hey, baby steps. Once we get troofers to stop informing people that Marvin Bush ran WTC security, more progress can be achieved.

[TruthersLie]

As Europe's top demolition expert has confirmed,


Who is this again? Danny J? Really? PROVE IT. Appeal to authority REJECTED


loud noises and flashes are only secondary features of a standard controlled demolition.


PROVE IT. PRovide a citation. As a "secondary feature" then you should be able to show DOZENS of if not HUNDREDS of Cd's around the world without loud detonations and flashes from the explosives going off. Provide a few. It should be easy.

(p.s. I worked in CD for a year... it doesn't happen except for the verinage technique, or when you pull a building over)


The primary feature of a standard controlled demolition is the sudden,
(relatively) uniform and symmetrical fall of the roofline, brought about by removing the supporting structure one way or another at a lower level.


Ah.. so the building falls down is the primary feature... Ok.

Uniform and symmetrical fall? GREAT. So then when the eastern mechanical penthouse collapsed... where was the symmetry? Was there another part of the building which collapsed t the same time symetrically?

Uniformly? If it was so symmetrical and uniform, how did fitterman hall get hit on the FREAKING ROOF from the collapse of wtc7?


In the case of WTC 7, the fall of the roofline was not just relatively uniform and symmetrical


It was neither uniform, nor symmetrical. You might just want to look up those words... they do not mean what you think they do.


, it was so perfect that it seems more like a caricature of a controlled demolition than a real one.


argumentum from assium noted. It would help if you had any experience or education in the field to back up your claims.


One column fails and because of that the other 80 columns all collapse together in the blink of an eyelid?


again you use words which do not mean what you think they do. "blink of an eyelid?" No. The collapse started when the eastern mechanical penthouse collapsed... then it 8 seconds pass and the rest of the structure collapses. that is not the "blink of an eyelid'



OK, it's a deal. WTC 7 was demolished but the Twin Towers weren't. Now let's take it from there. Who demolished WTC 7?

so you will fully accept Danny J's statements? Goody. Now that we agree on that lets look further at wtc7 and throw out the woo about the towers.

so we have wtc7 collapse and a single CD person (not the top Cd person in europe) says it looks like CD... but and I quote him "I'm just guessing here."

that is nice. Now we look for collaborting evidence. I mean it should be easy to find dozens of (if not hundreds of) peer reviewed engineering journals from around the world agreeing with Danny J. FIND ONE.

What you don't have any?

ok. Lets look at the standard characteristics of CD.
1. Loud explosive detonations. Where are they? Oh there are none.
2. Bright flashes of explosives detonated. Where are they? Oh there are none.
3. The people who set up these demolitions.. provide just one who says they did it. (to wire up a 30 story building took 2 20 man teams working 20 hours a day 4 months.). ARe there any? None.
4. Witnesses who saw this CD being set up? Oh there aer NONE.

[Panoply_Prefect]

What exactly qualifies Jowenko as "Europes Top demolition expert"?

Has he won some sort of competition?

[MikeW]

Jowenko is only regarded as Europe's top demolition expert by truthers, and that only because they desperately want him to be Europe's top demolition expert.
Slight derail (but supporting your point, so not really) - I just realised truthers do exactly the same thing with someone else, a Professor Bruce Lawrence.

When he said the "fatty bin Laden" tape was "bogus" he was happily referred to us America's top bin Laden expert, leading academic expert on bin Laden, and so on. I never found anyone else who said this other than truthers, so I think they just created the title to boost his credibility.

But the interesting bit is while he says one tape is fake, his "statements from bin Laden" book includes another from 2004 where bin Laden claims responsibility for the attacks, so presumably Lawrence believes this is genuine. Now his great expertise is, well, inconvenient, so what he says here is largely ignored.

So, the truther's treatment of Jowenko isn't unique. It's just part of the cherry-picking self deception required if you're to maintain your "inside job" beliefs.

[triforcharity]

As Europe's top demolition expert has confirmed, loud noises and flashes are only secondary features of a standard controlled demolition. The primary feature of a standard controlled demolition is the sudden, (relatively) uniform and symmetrical fall of the roofline, brought about by removing the supporting structure one way or another at a lower level. In the case of WTC 7, the fall of the roofline was not just relatively uniform and symmetrical, it was so perfect that it seems more like a caricature of a controlled demolition than a real one.

Other than the Verinage (SP?) technique, and the cables attatched to the building technique, there really is only one other way to CD a building. That being explosives. How, if it was explosives, did NOBODY hear it??

I was there, and did not hear any HUGE, DEAFENING, explosions. Care to try to explain that?


Also, would you care to explain how, if WTC 7 was so "relatively uniform and symmetrical" as you claim, did it POSSIBLY hit the ROOF of Fitterman Hall??

Here's some pics of Fitterman Hall.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/414px-Fiterman_hall_damage-1.jpg
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/911_HighQualityPhotos7782.jpg
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/911_HighQualityPhotos7784.jpg


One column fails and because of that the other 80 columns all collapse together in the blink of an eyelid? Have the architects been prosecuted?

No, just as a deck of cards, take one card out, the whole pile fails. This is not a big conspiracy.

Column 79 failed, which transfered too much load onto the other core columns. Because it then became beyond their safe loading point, they failed too. Its not that hard to imagine.



OK, it's a deal. WTC 7 was demolished but the Twin Towers weren't. Now let's take it from there. Who demolished WTC 7?

A natural organic process called fire. Please feel free to google it.

[Miragememories]

Ahh..I see the denial continues.

WTC7 was not felled by burning office furnishings.

Get over it.

If you want to believe the NIST bs, just admit to yourselves that
the truth is more than you can handle and lies make it easier
to sleep at night.

MM

[Dave Rogers]

It's magic. Say Jowenko three times, and Miragememories appears.

WTC7 was not felled by burning office furnishings.

If you'd been comprehending the thread, you'd see that I asked bardamu to start from what you've just stipulated and construct a plausible scenario, based on the assumption that Danny Jowenko is always right. I've asked the same of you, and I'm still waiting.

Dave

[triforcharity]

Ahh..I see the denial continues.

WTC7 was not felled by burning office furnishings.

Get over it.

If you want to believe the NIST bs, just admit to yourselves that
the truth is more than you can handle and lies make it easier
to sleep at night.

MM

I tend to believe my own two eyes, and my knowledge of fire and its properties. I do not need NIST to tell me that steel framed buildings+UNFOUGHT FIRE+7 hours=Collapse.

[Thunder]

If you want to believe the NIST bs, just admit to yourselves that
the truth is more than you can handle and lies make it easier
to sleep at night.


Toronto huh? figures.

you wanna talk about truth? the truth is that you guys have failed to convince more then .001% of the American people of your silly ideas.

if 9-11 Truth was REALLY that significant and full of "truth", you all wouldn't feel the need to come to JREF to attack us.

:)

[NutCracker]

Slight derail (but supporting your point, so not really) - I just realised truthers do exactly the same thing with someone else, a Professor Bruce Lawrence.

When he said the "fatty bin Laden" tape was "bogus" he was happily referred to us America's top bin Laden expert, leading academic expert on bin Laden, and so on. I never found anyone else who said this other than truthers, so I think they just created the title to boost his credibility.

But the interesting bit is while he says one tape is fake, his "statements from bin Laden" book includes another from 2004 where bin Laden claims responsibility for the attacks, so presumably Lawrence believes this is genuine. Now his great expertise is, well, inconvenient, so what he says here is largely ignored.

So, the truther's treatment of Jowenko isn't unique. It's just part of the cherry-picking self deception required if you're to maintain your "inside job" beliefs.

As I wrote in another thread some time ago, something similar applies to papers, opinions, arguments, analyses, hypotheses, factoids, facts and maybe some other stuff I forgot. xyz is a good X/true if it is consistent with the Truth. pqr is a bad X/false if it contradicts the Truth. X in {expert, opinion, paper, ...}. Simple machinery, really.

That why they do the hair-splitting and derailing: your argument/official story is wrong: so they scan it until they find something they can take issue with.. They found something "wrong," presto, proof that you are/the "os" is wrong.

Take for example the Szamboti "missing jolt" paper, or the Harrit "thermite chips". Both where riddled with methodological flaws. Any intellectually honest author would scratch his head wondering "did I made a mistake here?" over any single one of these flaws. But they came up with a conclusion that supported the Truth so the papers passed QC.

[Grizzly Bear]

Have the architects been prosecuted?

I recall a similar argument being posted by AE911 which went something like this:

If WTC 7 failed from
a localized fire event, Inman asks, why didn’t the
owners and insurers sue the designers? “Either the
building design was criminally faulty, or other causes
not related to the structural design or fire” brought
down WTC 7, he says.

The answer is simple; the designers aren't liable. The building conformed to local codes at the time of its construction. They included the required passive and active fire protection systems and design measures as specified. If the trade center collapses didn't sever the water supplies that the sprinklers operated off of, and the fires not allowed to burn continually the building would have very likely survived. You're suggesting they should be punished for a series of events that could not have been anticipated? Amusing...

[Miragememories]

"...based on the assumption that Danny Jowenko is always right. I've asked the same of you, and I'm still waiting."
That is the crux of the problem.

You assume too much.

MM

[TexasJack]

As Europe's top demolition expert has confirmed, loud noises and flashes are only secondary features of a standard controlled demolition. The primary feature of a standard controlled demolition is the sudden, (relatively) uniform and symmetrical fall of the roofline, brought about by removing the supporting structure one way or another at a lower level. In the case of WTC 7, the fall of the roofline was not just relatively uniform and symmetrical, it was so perfect that it seems more like a caricature of a controlled demolition than a real one.


But they are necessary, aren't they? You can put them in any order you want. And they are absent aren't they? You can say a bullet is a secondary feature in killing someone, that the gun is the primary one, but without the bullet, you wouldn't have a dead person.

[Miragememories]

"if 9-11 Truth was REALLY that significant and full of "truth", you all wouldn't feel the need to come to JREF to attack us."
You are wrong.

That was not an attack.

Just a candid observation on a slow news day.

MM

[Dave Rogers]

That is the crux of the problem.

You assume too much.

I'm simply asking you to make sense. So far, you've declined.

Dave

[Grizzly Bear]

One column fails and because of that the other 80 columns all collapse together in the blink of an eyelid?
Oh and I know this has beaten beaten down like a pulp but you did originally address this to me. I'd think it a bit rude not to answer. I don't think 18 seconds characterizes the "blink of an eyelid."

The collapse shows a recognizable progression of failure starting with the east penthouse, and progressing downward and to the west inside the building. Once the interior lost it's integrity entirely, all of the loads transferred to the exterior walls which could not support it. So the rest of the building fell.

I suspect that had Jowenko been aware of this he would have perhaps thought differently. However an uninformed opinion from an expert is about as good as an opinion from somebody who's completely illiterate in the subject. This why an appeal to authority fails. If however he holds such an opinion after being informed, that just means he's wrong.... and humans are far from perfect beings.

[bill smith]

The firefighters and police who told everyone to move away because the building was coming down?

This is a real question; how old are you?

Hey Scott.Did you know that the fire dept. had actually told people directly that they were going to bring the building down ? (WTC7) You can't really be nuch clearer than that . And if they brought WTC7 down then they certainly brought the Twin Towers down and then all of 9/11 was an inside job. Listen to the end of this short video for the proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

[Thunder]

Hey Scott.Did you know that the fire dept. had actually told people directly that they were going to bring the building down ? (WTC7) You can't really be nuch clearer than that . And if they brought WTC7 down then they certainly brought the Twin Towers down and then all of 9/11 was an inside job. Listen to the end of this video for the proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

"the building is about to blow up"

this is referring to Stuyvesant High School...NOT WTC 7.

this was dealt with like 4 years ago Bill.

still think you guys have "won"?

:p:D:p;)

people who have won, don't feel the need to convince others of their point of view.

yup, us Debunkers will be in cuffs any day now.

...any...day....now.

....any....day...now.

....any....day....now.

[bill smith]

"the building is about to blow up"

this is referring to Stuyvesant High School...NOT WTC 7.

this was dealt with like 4 years ago Bill.

still think you guys have "won"?

:p:D:p;)

people who have won, don't feel the need to convince others of their point of view.

yup, us Debunkers will be in cuffs any day now.

...any...day....now.

....any....day...now.

....any....day....now.


There is always Zanzibar Parky. lol

[Thunder]

There is always Zanzibar Parky. lol

i guess..that is your way of avoiding my rebutal.

why should anyone take you seriously when you do that Bill?

you DO want people to take your seriously, right?

[triforcharity]

Hey Scott.Did you know that the fire dept. had actually told people directly that they were going to bring the building down ? (WTC7) You can't really be nuch clearer than that . And if they brought WTC7 down then they certainly brought the Twin Towers down and then all of 9/11 was an inside job. Listen to the end of this short video for the proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

Edited for Rule 12
Saying that FDNY had to bring down 1&2, is accusing them of the murder of ~3000 people, including 343 of their own.

Edited for Rule 12

[Thunder]

Saying that FDNY had to bring down 1&2, is accusing them of the murder of ~3000 people, including 343 of their own.


huh...i didn't catch that. he accused the FDNY of killing 3,000 innocent people. including hundreds of their own.

back to ignore he goes. bye bye.

[bill smith]

i guess..that is your way of avoiding my rebutal.

why should anyone take you seriously when you do that Bill?

you DO want people to take your seriously, right?

Many people are predisposed NOT to believe in a conspiracy on 9/11. So I don't break my azz to convince anybody. I just put the bits and pieces I know up there for all to see. Those who are not moral cowards will evaluate. The moral cowards are more than happy to cling to the pathetic straws you debunkers hold out to them. Sad but true.

[DGM]

i guess..that is your way of avoiding my rebutal.

why should anyone take you seriously when you do that Bill?

you DO want people to take your seriously, right?
Are you kidding? That ship sailed last February.

[bill smith]

Edited for Rule 12
Saying that FDNY had to bring down 1&2, is accusing them of the murder of ~3000 people, including 343 of their own.

Edited for Rule 12

I suggest that people listen to he lady in the video saying that the FDNY told her directly that they were going to bring WTC7 down. Nothing to do with me Tri.

[triforcharity]

Right, Because people are never wrong.

People will often hear one thing, then think they heard something else, especially when there is extreme stress involved.


PS, I was there. We didn't bring down any of the WTC towers. Neither did any bombs, silent explosives, or unicorns. Mothra, maybe, but......

[DGM]

I suggest that people listen to he lady in the video saying that the FDNY told her directly that they were going to bring WTC7 down. Nothing to do with me Tri.
Is this not your verbage?
Hey Scott.Did you know that the fire dept. had actually told people directly that they were going to bring the building down ? (WTC7) You can't really be nuch clearer than that . And if they brought WTC7 down then they certainly brought the Twin Towers down and then all of 9/11 was an inside job. Listen to the end of this short video for the proof.

[bill smith]

Right, Because people are never wrong.

People will often hear one thing, then think they heard something else, especially when there is extreme stress involved.


PS, I was there. We didn't bring down any of the WTC towers. Neither did any bombs, silent explosives, or unicorns. Mothra, maybe, but......

You are not always accurate in what you say Tri. Remember the joining-the-FDNY-at-15 fiasco ? I have a file on it somewhere.

[Thunder]

he clearly believes that the FDNY had some part in the demolition of WTC 1,2, and 7. this at the very least, implicates the top leadership of the FDNY..and perhaps also the NYPD.

disgusting.

[triforcharity]

Please also post where I informed you that my DOB is not my true DOB. The day is correct, but the year is incorrect.

Point to something that I got wrong, that I maintained that I was correct, even after it being pointed out that I was wrong. You cannot do it. Ever.

[bill smith]

Please also post where I informed you that my DOB is not my true DOB. The day is correct, but the year is incorrect.

Point to something that I got wrong, that I maintained that I was correct, even after it being pointed out that I was wrong. You cannot do it. Ever.

Relax Tri...I probably won't expose you.

[dtugg]

Hi, bs. You only have 17 more days. You ready?

[Thunder]

Hi, bs. You only have 17 more days. You ready?

:D

i love it.

[BasqueArch]

As Europe's top demolition expert has confirmed, loud noises and flashes are only secondary features of a standard controlled demolition. ...<snip>
OK, it's a deal. WTC 7 was demolished but the Twin Towers weren't. Now let's take it from there. Who demolished WTC 7?

Oh, I thought you knew –

According to Truther Kevin “No One Remembers Me Doing Heroic Things For Days At Ground Zero First Responder” McPadden, WTC7 was CD’d by United States’ top demolition company, the American Red Cross.

“We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio – I couldn’t hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed – whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed – and that means to me most likely it was a countdown.”
“But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look – like just run for your life – because he didn’t want to bring it on his conscience – he didn’t want to go to his grave with that – and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together.”

The Prison Planet article also says:
In a taped interview with us after the event, McPadden made it clear that he and onlookers clearly heard “three, two, one” from the radio before the building collapsed.

-Just like in the Standard Surreptitious Controlled Demolition Movies Where There’s A Countdown Before Crowds Of Strangers Otherwise the Explosives Won’t Blow Up.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/130907_demolition_countdown.htm

[Thunder]

clearly, WTC 7 was demolished by the Mossad, the FDNY, and the Fed.

[BasqueArch]

clearly, WTC 7 was demolished by the Mossad, the FDNY, and the Fed.


The Mossad took pictures of the burning building, the FDNY provided the funds for the operation, the FED installed the bombs, and everything was planned by Larry and organized by the American Red Cross.

[deep]

Please also post where I informed you that my DOB is not my true DOB. The day is correct, but the year is incorrect.

Point to something that I got wrong, that I maintained that I was correct, even after it being pointed out that I was wrong. You cannot do it. Ever.


Easy there, tri. Everybody makes mistakes - especially once you hit your mid-30s and all the years start running together.

For example - at first, you had 6 years (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5179688&postcount=1423) experience with FDNY, but later on you remembered that it was actually 10 years (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5020802&postcount=176). It's all part of getting older.

[Thunder]

For example - at first, you had 6 years (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5179688&postcount=1423) experience with FDNY, but later on you remembered that it was actually 10 years (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5020802&postcount=176). It's all part of getting older.

hmm......that's some funny stuff.

:)

[Earthborn]

Listen to the end of this short video for the proof.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0In the interview with Zembla, at one point Jowenko speculated on the reason why WTC7 was supposedly imploded in a controlled demolition. After hearing about the fact that it had suffered substantial fire damage, he guessed that WTC7 had to be brought down because the fire would damage the steel which could perhaps not be repaired for less than rebuilding the entire structure. This means two things: He knew that fire was a known risk for steel buildings. Therefore the whole argument of "who could have imagined a steel building could collapse by fire?" is sufficiently answered. Jowenko could imagine it, and so could anyone else with an understanding of the risks for steel structures.
Since Jowenko is an expert, his thinking may be similar to the experts on the ground at the time. It is perfectly reasonable to assume they too were thinking -- and saying -- "if that thing doesn't come down on its own, we may have to bring it down." That does not make it suspicious the thing came down on its own, and it also doesn't make it suspicious that the authorities were evacuating people from the area in case it would come down on its own, nor that in the confusion of the day some media misheard rumours of an expected building collapse and thought it had already happened.Your video therefore doesn't show anything that requires a conspiracy.

[triforcharity]

Yes, you are correct. People do make mistakes. But, typically, people don't make mistakes that involve accusing the FDNY of killing ~3000 people, including 343 of their own.

[Thunder]

um.....this was no mistake. his video clearly accuses the FDNY of complicity in the demise of WTC 7.

[triforcharity]

Exactly my point.

[deep]

He knew that fire was a known risk for steel buildings. Therefore the whole argument of "who could have imagined a steel building could collapse by fire?" is sufficiently answered. Jowenko could imagine it, and so could anyone else with an understanding of the risks for steel structures.


No, Jowenko theorized that it might cost more to repair the building than it would to simply rebuild it, which is an acknowledgment that fire can damage steel. A "repair" would not be possible if in the event of a full collapse.

[Grizzly Bear]

A repair wasn't even feasible for WTC 5 or 6. WTC 7 plain collapsed. That's beside the point however, every person involved in the construction of a steel structure knows there is always a risk that it may collapse in full or partially. Building codes drive design, and designers [usually] adhere them as required by law. Even those that conform to code aren't immune however; especially if it concerns unforeseen circumstances which would interrupt a properly designed system.

Regardless of what he believes happened to 7 deep, I can assure you that he most likely is aware that with fire, damage isn't his sole concern or acknowledgment

[RedIbis]

Yes, you are correct. People do make mistakes. But, typically, people don't make mistakes that involve accusing the FDNY of killing ~3000 people, including 343 of their own.

And people don't typically forget about 4 years of service with the FDNY within two months time.

I'm starting to see a pattern here.

[Gaspode]

Keep the thread on-topic please.

[bardamu]

Spot the newbie truther who hasn't yet heard of the East mechanical penthouse.

Where's the evidence that in the 7 seconds following the collapse of the East mechanical penthouse all the interior columns were progressively failing?



Your usage of the words "primary" and "secondary" is deliberately misleading here. What is more important is whether certain penomena are necessarily observed in accompaniment to a controlled demolition. Since it is impossible to muffle the noise of demolition explosives by more than about 6dB, a loud noise in excess of 124dB must necessarily be heard when an explosive demolition takes place. If no noise is heard, no demolition has taken place. On the other hand, the nature of the drop of the roofline is determined by the sequence in which the main structural members fail, not by the means by which they fail. Therefore, we can exclude explosives by the first, and cannot prove them by the second.

Danny Jowenko: "You could even do this with cutting torches and cutter charges...if you had 30 or 40 men..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I



This is just drivel. You're claiming it must have been a controlled demolition because it looked too much like one to have been one. And, of course, like all 9/11 'truth', it's not true. The fall of the roofline consisted of a collapse of the East mechanical penthouse, a 4-6 second pause, then a V-shaped collapse starting from the middle and moving outwards. To describe it as perfect and symmetrical is, quite simply, a blatant lie.

Once the roofline had begun to move down, the collapse was uniform and symmetrical.



I don't know about you, but I can blink in rather less than six seconds. Has your opthalmologist been prosecuted?

Oh and I know this has beaten beaten down like a pulp but you did originally address this to me. I'd think it a bit rude not to answer. I don't think 18 seconds characterizes the "blink of an eyelid."


again you use words which do not mean what you think they do. "blink of an eyelid?" No. The collapse started when the eastern mechanical penthouse collapsed... then it 8 seconds pass and the rest of the structure collapses. that is not the "blink of an eyelid'

Try blinking about 7 seconds after the drop of the East mechanical penthouse. Before the blink, 80 columns are standing firm. After the blink, the same 80 columns have mysteriously lost all their strength.



Let me point out that I don't have to answer that, because my claim is that Jowenko is mistaken about WTC7 being demolished. You, on the other hand, now have to construct a plausible hypothesis in which WTC1 and WTC2 fell due to fire and impact damage, but WTC7 was demolished. If you can't so this, you have to admit Jowenko might be sometimes wrong and sometimes right. And therefore, since your only argument is Jowenko's infallibility, you no longer have a position.

So why don't you take it from there? Give me a plausible scenario.

You challenged me to go there and I accepted but you wouldn't follow me. My argument is obviously not Jowenko's infallibility, since he mistakenly believes the towers weren't demolished. My argument is Jowenko's prior knowledge of the official story at the time he was asked the question.

Anyway, I went there without you and here's what I found:

Controlled demolition of WTC 7 = Inside Job.



PROVE IT. PRovide a citation. As a "secondary feature" then you should be able to show DOZENS of if not HUNDREDS of Cd's around the world without loud detonations and flashes from the explosives going off. Provide a few. It should be easy.

(p.s. I worked in CD for a year... it doesn't happen except for the verinage technique, or when you pull a building over)

Why do I need dozens of examples? One example proves it's possible. Thanks for providing that example.



so we have wtc7 collapse and a single CD person (not the top Cd person in europe) says it looks like CD... but and I quote him "I'm just guessing here."

I'll quote him too: "I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded."



No, just as a deck of cards, take one card out, the whole pile fails. This is not a big conspiracy.

Column 79 failed, which transfered too much load onto the other core columns. Because it then became beyond their safe loading point, they failed too. Its not that hard to imagine.

Danny Jowenko's assessment is different: "They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards".



Saying that FDNY had to bring down 1&2, is accusing them of the murder of ~3000 people, including 343 of their own.


he clearly believes that the FDNY had some part in the demolition of WTC 1,2, and 7. this at the very least, implicates the top leadership of the FDNY..and perhaps also the NYPD.

disgusting.

Who told Giuliani the towers were going to collapse?

[T.A.M.]

NWO chief "The Godfather" told Guiliani of the collapse silly. Come on, isn't that obvious?

TAM:D

[Thunder]

Who told Giuliani the towers were going to collapse?

The Jews did. All clear now?

[BigAl]

Where's the evidence that in the 7 seconds following the collapse of the East mechanical penthouse all the interior columns were progressively failing?



http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

The description of what happened to the penthouse is on page 22, 26, 39, etc. Search the rest of the PDF for "penthouse" for yourself.

You are a troll.

Nobody that was an eyewitness to the collapse thinks it was anything but fire-induced.

Nobody with relevant expertise can explain in engineering terms why anything but fire and the lack of firefighting caused it to collapse.

Nobody.

[Crazytimes]

Why do truthers ignore the huge amount of damage that the collapsing penthouse would have done to the building ? You basically have part of the building ripping through to the ground floor.

[DGM]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

The description of what happened to the penthouse is on page 22, 26, 39, etc. Search the rest of the PDF for "penthouse" for yourself.

You are a troll.

Nobody that was an eyewitness to the collapse thinks it was anything but fire-induced.

Nobody with relevant expertise can explain in engineering terms why anything but fire and the lack of firefighting caused it to collapse.

Nobody.
They were all "duped or in on it". :rolleyes: You know, the same people that also saw the "planes".

[triforcharity]

Where's the evidence that in the 7 seconds following the collapse of the East mechanical penthouse all the interior columns were progressively failing?


NIST Reports.


Danny Jowenko: "You could even do this with cutting torches and cutter charges...if you had 30 or 40 men..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I


Not harly, as FDNY would have seen them in the building, blasting away at columns, causing a shower of sparks all over the place.

So, No, he is wrong again.


Once the roofline had begun to move down, the collapse was uniform and symmetrical.


I asked you once before, I will ask you again.

Please, for the sake of comedy, if something comes down "uniform and symmetrical" how did this occur?

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/414px-Fiterman_hall_damage-1.jpg
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/911_HighQualityPhotos7782.jpg
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/911_HighQualityPhotos7784.jpg

This was across the street from 7WTC, can you explain the roof please?

Thanks.


OH, one more thing!! How, if thats possible, did those guys get out??

Try blinking about 7 seconds after the drop of the East mechanical penthouse. Before the blink, 80 columns are standing firm. After the blink, the same 80 columns have mysteriously lost all their strength.


Is this like the clapity-clap bullcrap?? Argument from personal ignorance noted.

You challenged me to go there and I accepted but you wouldn't follow me. My argument is obviously not Jowenko's infallibility, since he mistakenly believes the towers weren't demolished. My argument is Jowenko's prior knowledge of the official story at the time he was asked the question.


Huh? He was wrong on 1&2, but right on 7?? Poppeycock.


Controlled demolition of WTC 7 = Inside Job.


Ok Mr. CSI,

Who?
What?
Where?
When?
Why?
How?

Please, bestow your knowledge on us, oh brilliant one.........:rolleyes::rolleyes:



Why do I need dozens of examples? One example proves it's possible. Thanks for providing that example.


You have not provided any examples. Please do so.



I'll quote him too: "I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded."


And I will quote NIST.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

They disagree.


Danny Jowenko's assessment is different: "They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards".

How did they blow them up, if nobody around heard the boom? How did these windows survive?

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/WTC9-13.jpg



Who told Giuliani the towers were going to collapse?

Did you forget that he was the Mayor?? Maybe, I dunno, the FIRE DEPARTMENT?? You're not very good at this game.

[Thunder]

hey..whats with all those dark skinned first-responders and national guardsmen?

is that FDNY guy, with his crotch promenantly focused, Barack Obama???

:)

[Grizzly Bear]

Where's the evidence that in the 7 seconds following the collapse of the East mechanical penthouse all the interior columns were progressively failing?

You're demanding a call for perfection. If the interior structure is lost the exterior cannot support itself. The conclusion is satisfied by NIST's modeling and examining structural plans of the building, as well as realizing that the east mechanical penthouse collapse is part of the overall collapse


Try blinking about 7 seconds after the drop of the East mechanical penthouse. Before the blink, 80 columns are standing firm. After the blink, the same 80 columns have mysteriously lost all their strength.

The penthouse event is part of the collapse. It is not independent. It suggests that it took a significant internal collapse event for the exterior structure to lose all integrity.

Buildings are systems; they might survive the failure of a few components of that system, but eventually one more piece breaks and the remaining doesn't have enough reserve capacity to hold everything else up. I'm not sure what the mystery is that you're referring to.



Danny Jowenko: "You could even do this with cutting torches and cutter charges...if you had 30 or 40 men..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

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

narrator: But it also happened on 9/11.

Danny Jowenko: The same day?

The same day? Are you Sure?

narrator: yes

Danny Jowenko: Are you sure that was the 11th? That can't be.

narrator: 7 hours after the WTC.

Danny Jowenko: Really? Then they worked hard.

[twinstead]

Danny Jowenko: Really? Then they worked hard.

Yea, that's the understatement of the year

[DGM]

Yea, that's the understatement of the year
Yeah and no one noticed them doing it either.:o

[bardamu]

I asked you once before, I will ask you again.

Please, for the sake of comedy, if something comes down "uniform and symmetrical" how did this occur?

This was across the street from 7WTC, can you explain the roof please?

I'm concerned with the sudden uniform and symmetrical drop of the roofline. Some steel could have bounced out of the footprint on the way down. It's not much damage anyway, considering the size of WTC 7.



You have not provided any examples. Please do so.

You provided one yourself. Verinage.



Did you forget that he was the Mayor?? Maybe, I dunno, the FIRE DEPARTMENT?? You're not very good at this game.

So the Fire Department top brass knew the towers were coming down and they ushered the mayor away to a safe place and left their own to perish inside the buildings. Nice.


Why do truthers ignore the huge amount of damage that the collapsing penthouse would have done to the building ? You basically have part of the building ripping through to the ground floor.

You're demanding a call for perfection. If the interior structure is lost the exterior cannot support itself. The conclusion is satisfied by NIST's modeling and examining structural plans of the building, as well as realizing that the east mechanical penthouse collapse is part of the overall collapse

The penthouse event is part of the collapse. It is not independent. It suggests that it took a significant internal collapse event for the exterior structure to lose all integrity.

Buildings are systems; they might survive the failure of a few components of that system, but eventually one more piece breaks and the remaining doesn't have enough reserve capacity to hold everything else up. I'm not sure what the mystery is that you're referring to.

Your explanation is vague. If all the interior columns had already failed at the time of the initiation of global collapse, what was supporting the West penthouse and the Screenwall?



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

narrator: But it also happened on 9/11.

Danny Jowenko: The same day?

The same day? Are you Sure?

narrator: yes

Danny Jowenko: Are you sure that was the 11th? That can't be.

narrator: 7 hours after the WTC.

Danny Jowenko: Really? Then they worked hard.

Danny Jowenko didn't understand the full extent of the conspiracy. He could only imagine it was an insurance scam that Silverstein had pulled on the spur of the moment to save money on repairs, so he had to force it into that framework.

When he first finds out it happened the same day, the look on his face is priceless.

[BigAl]

So the Fire Department top brass knew the towers were coming down and they ushered the mayor away to a safe place and left their own to perish inside the buildings. Nice.


Nobody died in the WTC7 collapse.

Everything you think you know about WTC appears to be wrong.

[DGM]

I'

When he first finds out it happened the same day, the look on his face is priceless.

So you don't think he believes it was a controlled demolition?

[twinstead]

bardamu have you stopped to wonder yet why so many people saw what you claim didn't exist?

[LashL]

I recall a similar argument being posted by AE911 which went something like this:
If WTC 7 failed from
a localized fire event, Inman asks, why didn’t the
owners and insurers sue the designers? “Either the
building design was criminally faulty, or other causes
not related to the structural design or fire” brought
down WTC 7, he says.
The answer is simple; the designers aren't liable. The building conformed to local codes at the time of its construction. They included the required passive and active fire protection systems and design measures as specified. If the trade center collapses didn't sever the water supplies that the sprinklers operated off of, and the fires not allowed to burn continually the building would have very likely survived. You're suggesting they should be punished for a series of events that could not have been anticipated? Amusing...


You're quite right that the designers were not liable but, for the record, Con Edison did sue the contractors, engineers and architects who designed 7WTC. Result: case dismissed on January 12, 2006.

[triforcharity]

I'm concerned with the sudden uniform and symmetrical drop of the roofline. Some steel could have bounced out of the footprint on the way down. It's not much damage anyway, considering the size of WTC 7.


You're ****** kidding me right?? You're serious?? Aparently you do not realize how big that building is.

So, if it was so uniform and symmetrical, how did that occur? If all of the colums failed at the exact same time, or within milliseconds, as you have claimed, what made the building tilt?

Oh, btw, Fitterman Hall was torn down due to the mold that had infested the entire building from that gash.



You provided one yourself. Verinage.


Silent explosives?? I think not.



So the Fire Department top brass knew the towers were coming down and they ushered the mayor away to a safe place and left their own to perish inside the buildings. Nice.

No, after the first collapse, everyone was pulled out of the other tower.

There was nobody in WTC 7. Your ignorance is showing.



Your explanation is vague. If all the interior columns had already failed at the time of the initiation of global collapse, what was supporting the West penthouse and the Screenwall?

I think, if you will read the report from NIST, you will understand WHY the penthouse fell. The collapse (IIRC) was already underway at that point. That was the first exterrior signs of it.


Danny Jowenko didn't understand the full extent of the conspiracy. He could only imagine it was an insurance scam that Silverstein had pulled on the spur of the moment to save money on repairs, so he had to force it into that framework.

When he first finds out it happened the same day, the look on his face is priceless.

Holy Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

WTC7 threads are always somewhat amusing. Mostly for what they say about the ignorance and fanaticism of 9/11 twoofers.

Try walking into a room full of muslims and telling them that The Kabbah (the holiest shrine in Islam) is just a dirt clod that some scam artist picked up and started telling people it was touched by Mohammed and started charging admission. Good luck getting out of that room with your head still attached.

Now try talking to a room full of twoofers about the massive fires that were roaring throughout WTC7 (the holiest shrine in the truther-MIHOP cult), the severe physical damage, the firefighters who predicted it would come down, and you'll get almost the same hysterical fanatical reaction. Many of the twoofers will also threaten to kill you for it.

It's funny how easily the tinfoilers are driven into epileptic fits just from telling them the truth.

[Grizzly Bear]

I think, if you will read the report from NIST, you will understand WHY the penthouse fell. The collapse (IIRC) was already underway at that point. That was the first exterrior signs of it.

Bardamu has already nuked the exception. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5358024&postcount=209) I think you'll find that Holy Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick. is a very well suited response.

[TruthersLie]

I'm concerned with the sudden uniform and symmetrical drop of the roofline. Some steel could have bounced out of the footprint on the way down. It's not much damage anyway, considering the size of WTC 7.


You might just want to look up those words I highlighted. They do not mean what you think they mean.
It was neither uniform, nor symmetrical. The building develops a bend in the middle. that is not uniform or symmetrical.

Since the Eastern Mechanical pethouse collapsed a full 7 seconds before the rest to be symmetrical there would need to be a Western mechanical penthouse to collapse... oh wait.. there isn't one. That isn't uniform or symmetrical

the eastern mechancial penthouse collapse alone shows it is not uniform or symmetrical.

go to dictionary.com and look up what those words mean. Then try again.

Your dodge is noted. How does a building collapse uniformly and symmetrically into its own footprint (the twoof LIE) and manage to strike two adjacent buildings which are across the strees in opposite directions? Hitting one at the ROOF. How is that "some steel bouncing up to the roof?" Handwave noted

http://techtock.com.au/images/blog/robot.jpg

Now instead of trying to handwave it away. Please explain to me how a symmetrical and uniform collapse manages to hit the building across the street at the roof causing a progressive collapse from the roof?

how is that symmetrical?



You provided one yourself. Verinage.


Ah... so hundreds of ninjaneers ran into a burning building and hooked up hydraulic jacks on two floors and then ran out, they then ran into the rubble and picked them up so no one would notice them? Of course they also used stealth hydraulics pumps, and stealth hydraulic lines... Irrelevant.


So the Fire Department top brass knew the towers were coming down and they ushered the mayor away to a safe place and left their own to perish inside the buildings. Nice.


Wow... you are a piece of .....
do us a favor. Go into any of FDNY fire house and tell them what you believe. Provide them all the arugments, just make sure to include that quote. Please. I'll even pay for your airline ticket.


Danny Jowenko didn't understand the full extent of the conspiracy. He could only imagine it was an insurance scam that Silverstein had pulled on the spur of the moment to save money on repairs, so he had to force it into that framework.

When he first finds out it happened the same day, the look on his face is priceless.

The only reason danny J brough tup the "pull it" insurance claim is that the "reporter" was talking to him about it PRIOR to the interview.

Arguments from incredulity noted and rejected. Try again. Maybe after you finish high school. You really should go back and try to graduate. It will help you out soooo much in your later life.

[TruthersLie]

I think, if you will read the report from NIST, you will understand WHY the penthouse fell. The collapse (IIRC) was already underway at that point. That was the first exterrior signs of it.


Tri. Why do you ask him to READ anything? He won't. He won't even look at that second picture of fitterman hall which shows the massive pile of debris at the base of it from wtc7. WE know it is because he doesn't understand it, but that is ok. Those who matter do.

I'm still waiting for any controlled demolitions which uses thermite or explosives to be demonstrated that is silent. If it was such a great way to do it, I'm sure there would be dozens of if not hundreds of videos of them.

I'm still waiting for him to show us.

his lack of understanding of what the verinage technique does is rather amusing. As is his attempt to say they are silent CD's without understanding how much MORE work would be involved (a lot more than any traditional CD which uses explosives) and how MUCH MORE noticable it would be with huge hydraulic jacks at the roofline of a floor in each and every column... And how MUCH MORE noticable it would be in the debris pile.

[dafydd]

Franky, this is just getting stupid. Don't you know, the US is being torn apart by the TRUTH of 911? Everyday the movement is growing. Important people like Charlie Sheen and Ed Asner are speaking up. There are demonstrations in the streets. Hundreds and thousands of construction professionals speak up all the time about this - not to mention all those firefighters. By the way, I've joined Firefighters for 911 Truth - really.

Actually, there have been 2 presidential elections in between then and now and 911 didn't come up once. Save yourself some time. Get a girlfriend, watch a movie, join a real political party. Just stop being one of these 911 Truth losers. It'll make your parents feel better.

That is the main Truther problem,lack of girlfriends.

[Darkhole]

Not sure it was posted before, and not a wtc7 like building, but caused by fire.

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

[TruthersLie]

<twoof mode>

But the entire building didn't collapse did it?

</twoof mode>

Of course that is ignoring the building type, the construction materials or the design... like how red stepped on his dick earlier by trying to make comparisions between the mandarin oriental hotel fire and wtc7....

[TruthersLie]

Hey red.

Lets compare these shall we?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/WTC7Column79.jpg

steel framed building. Steel framed construction.

Now lets look at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel shall we?
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/6821/2009210041879628.jpg

Now compare the first picture, with the second one. Pay attention to details. What do you see that is different? (there are 2 major differences in the images)

Do you see the differences red? Are you still going to try to say it is a steel framed building?

[bardamu]

his lack of understanding of what the verinage technique does is rather amusing. As is his attempt to say they are silent CD's without understanding how much MORE work would be involved (a lot more than any traditional CD which uses explosives) and how MUCH MORE noticable it would be with huge hydraulic jacks at the roofline of a floor in each and every column... And how MUCH MORE noticable it would be in the debris pile.

Verinage proves that controlled demolition doesn't necessarily involve 124dB bangs. In other words, your argument is bogus.



So, if it was so uniform and symmetrical, how did that occur? If all of the colums failed at the exact same time, or within milliseconds, as you have claimed, what made the building tilt?

If all the columns failed within milliseconds, it was a controlled demolition and therefore an inside job. What happened after that doesn't matter.


So you don't think he believes it was a controlled demolition?

He knows it was a controlled demolition. His look indicates that he realises immediately (some of) the implications.


Not sure it was posted before, and not a wtc7 like building, but caused by fire.

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

Sorry. Fails due to lack of suddenness, uniformity, symmetry and completeness.


Nobody died in the WTC7 collapse.

Everything you think you know about WTC appears to be wrong.

Giuliani didn't say he was told that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

Rudy Giuliani: "...we were told the World Trade Center was gonna collapse...".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6357586375896950217

The Fire Department sacrificed their own.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The Fire Department sacrificed their own.

Very few twoofers have the gonads to spew garbage like this.

This is not intended as praise.

[twinstead]

Verinage proves that controlled demolition doesn't necessarily involve 124dB bangs. In other words, your argument is bogus.


It also proves that a building can collapse without explosives. Just substitute the plane crash and resulting fires for the pulling of the support like Verinage does. In other words either your argument is bogus, or you think the NWO destroyed the WTC with the Verinage technique, which in that case means your argument is insane.

[carlitos]

So nine pages of nonsense, and we're left with either Mothra or those Sharks with nukes?

Seriously, I have highlighted something for bardamu's benefit.


So, if it was so uniform and symmetrical, how did that occur? If all of the colums failed at the exact same time, or within milliseconds, as you have claimed, what made the building tilt?
If all the columns failed within milliseconds, it was a controlled demolition and therefore an inside job. What happened after that doesn't matter.Here is a hint. Tilted building =/= "columns failed within milliseconds." Please read for comprehension.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Verinage proves that controlled demolition doesn't necessarily involve 124dB bangs. In other words, your argument is bogus.

If all the columns failed within milliseconds, it was a controlled demolition and therefore an inside job. What happened after that doesn't matter.

He knows it was a controlled demolition. His look indicates that he realises immediately (some of) the implications.

Sorry. Fails due to lack of suddenness, uniformity, symmetry and completeness.

Giuliani didn't say he was told that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

Rudy Giuliani: "...we were told the World Trade Center was gonna collapse...".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6357586375896950217

The Fire Department sacrificed their own.

There's no explosive residue in the WTC dust samples!

There was never a CD on 9/11 & it's clearly not an "Inside Job".

He knows that it was a CD just by LOOKING at it? WTF?!?!

That's what happens when a building collapses, its so sudden & complete.

You've just debunked yourself saying that Giuliani wasn't told then was! LMAO!

Hey, saying that the FD "sacrificed their own" is crossing the line. 1 more outburst like that & you'll get an earful from me & other firefighters. :mad:

[Grizzly Bear]

So nine pages of nonsense, and we're left with either Mothra or those Sharks with nukes?

Seriously, I have highlighted something for bardamu's benefit.

Here is a hint. Tilted building =/= "columns failed within milliseconds." Please read for comprehension.

He's still unable to comprehend that when columns lose their ability to support their loads, the failure is always sudden. tfk worded it pretty nicely some time ago when I was screwing around with the AE911 29 engineers skit; hundreds of parts failed, and the building didn't collapse because there was something left to make up for the slack. Each failure though raises the load that the remaining columns have to carry until one final part snapped and what was left wasn't able to carry it any more. In other words bardamu's complaint about simultaneous failure is not only unfounded, but his objection about it is based on some wickedly blissful ignorance.

[TruthersLie]

Verinage proves that controlled demolition doesn't necessarily involve 124dB bangs. In other words, your argument is bogus.


GREAT then you can show me the hydraulic jacks used in the towers or in wtc7. Have you told your twoofie leaders about this insight? It might cause them to dump the nanothermocrapola...

Oh wait... still fails. Hehehehe.


If all the columns failed within milliseconds, it was a controlled demolition and therefore an inside job. What happened after that doesn't matter.


Handwave noted. Please show that the columns failed within miliseconds (yet another word you don't understand).

How does a building which is falling uniformly and symmetrically fall and hit two buildings on opposite sides across the roads and do damage to the ROOF of fitterman hall causing a partial collapse?

it should be an easy thing to answer. And the easy answer is that it did not fall uniformly or symmetrically. It tilted over and hit the buildign across the street while it collapsed.

there goes twoofie lie. Thank you for playing.


Sorry. Fails due to lack of suddenness, uniformity, symmetry and completeness.


There you go again using words you do not understand. Please demonstrate how it fell uniformly. Use images and math to back up your statement. Same with symmetry. (since there was none). I look forward to your thesis.

[TruthersLie]

I have maintained it from 9/12. MOTHRA did it.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I have maintained it from 9/12. MOTHRA did it.

:D

nn1MWJt7GoI&feature=related

[twinstead]

I look forward to your thesis.

LOL that's funny. The only thing you'll get is another massive truther argument from incredulity

[triforcharity]

If all the columns failed within milliseconds, it was a controlled demolition and therefore an inside job. What happened after that doesn't matter.


Ok, if you say so.

Can you post something that ISN'T a personal belief?


Giuliani didn't say he was told that WTC 7 was going to collapse.

Rudy Giuliani: "...we were told the World Trade Center was gonna collapse...".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6357586375896950217

The Fire Department sacrificed their own.

Ok, you're a sick individual.

PS, can I get a linkey that is not a link to a ******* idiots video? Like, maybe something like NYT or something like that??

PS, I invite you to go down to Manhattan, to 10 House, and say that to their face. You won't, as all you are is a keyboard toughguy and a coward.

[bardamu]

Very few twoofers have the gonads to spew garbage like this.

This is not intended as praise.

Did they tell Giuliani the WTC was gonna collapse or not?


So nine pages of nonsense, and we're left with either Mothra or those Sharks with nukes?

Seriously, I have highlighted something for bardamu's benefit.

Here is a hint. Tilted building =/= "columns failed within milliseconds." Please read for comprehension.

Every floor? All the way down?

(Please note I'm not accepting it would even be relevant at the top)


GREAT then you can show me the hydraulic jacks used in the towers or in wtc7. Have you told your twoofie leaders about this insight? It might cause them to dump the nanothermocrapola...


You've lost track of the context. Debunkers say a building collapse can't be a controlled demolition if no loud bangs are recorded on the video soundtracks. Verinage proves that wrong. Verinage also proves that flashes on the outside of the building are not a necessary feature of controlled demolition. Now you're left with one argument: not enough windows were broken in neighbouring buildings. How many windows are broken when the verinage technique is used?

[BigAl]

Did they tell Giuliani the WTC was gonna collapse or not?


Yup. About 15 minutes before it did. A NYPD helicopter was close to the fire in the tower and the pilot reported the first bit of the collapse.

So what?

SOURCE:

New York Times columnist Jim Dwyer follows up on the charge that Mayor Giuliani knew the twin towers were going to collapse 15 minutes before it happened. He is the author of 102 Minutes: The Untold Story of the Fight to Survive
Inside the Twin Towers (Times Books, 2005)

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2007/10/05/segments/86672 (10 minutes)

[twinstead]

You've lost track of the context. Debunkers say a building collapse can't be a controlled demolition if no loud bangs are recorded on the video soundtracks. Verinage proves that wrong. Verinage also proves that flashes on the outside of the building are not a necessary feature of controlled demolition. Now you're left with one argument: not enough windows were broken in neighbouring buildings. How many windows are broken when the verinage technique is used?

Uh, no YOU have lost track of the context. Debunkers say a building collapse can't be a controlled demolition if no loud bangs are recorded on the video soundtracks. Verinage proves that--and the flashes on the outside of the building--are not a necessary feature of controlled demolition. So, since you are claiming the towers were brought down with CD, what we are left with is either there WAS NO CD and you are painfully wrong, or you are claiming that the towers were brought down using the Verinage technique, which is painfully idiotic.

[TruthersLie]

You've lost track of the context. Debunkers say a building collapse can't be a controlled demolition if no loud bangs are recorded on the video soundtracks. Verinage proves that wrong. Verinage also proves that flashes on the outside of the building are not a necessary feature of controlled demolition. Now you're left with one argument: not enough windows were broken in neighbouring buildings. How many windows are broken when the verinage technique is used?

No twoofie.

You are the one claiming it was CD. Ok. GREAT. We have several known methods of CD.
1. Explosives
2. Pulling a building over with a cable
3. the Verinage technique
4. Knocking a building over with a vehicle.

That is four methods of demolishing buildings. Now then.
If it was explosives, a charge of just 4 lbs would be detected on seismographs. Was there any seismographic evidence of explosives? NO.

If explosives were used, they would be easily heard by anyone in the tower complex and should be on any and all video of the collapses. Are there any? NO.

If thermite was used (which so far has not been demonstrted to cut through steel beams, nor has it been shown to cut through steel simultaneously), then there should be telltale signs of thermite. Is there any? No.

Were cables used to pull down the towers? No. During the clean up they used cables to pull over wtc6.

Was anything driven into the building to knock it over? No.

So that leaves the Verinage technique. Were there hydraulic jacks in the rubble? Yes or no? No. Were there hydraulic pumps for the jacks around the towers? No. Did anyone notice that they were putting in huge hydraulic jacks on the core columsn of wtc7? (you might want to look into what the verinage technique is and how it works. It requires EVEN more people and work than traditional CD.)

So you are left with NO way for the building to collapse besides for the common narrative.

So are you now doing the twoofie twostep? Can't be explosives, can't be cables, so now you shift shift shift to verinage techniques? REally? YOu really might want to get on the twoof mailing list. Ask Red Ibis/Bill Smith to cc you the newsletters

Come on twoofie, provide a complete narrative of the day... this JAQing off is just plain annoying.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Did they tell Giuliani the WTC was gonna collapse or not?

It would help if I knew exactly what you are referring to.


You've lost track of the context. Debunkers say a building collapse can't be a controlled demolition if no loud bangs are recorded on the video soundtracks. Verinage proves that wrong. Verinage also proves that flashes on the outside of the building are not a necessary feature of controlled demolition. Now you're left with one argument: not enough windows were broken in neighbouring buildings. How many windows are broken when the verinage technique is used?

No.... YOU have lost track of the context. Twoofers say the Twin Towers could have collapsed the way they did. That they had to be blown floor by floor.

Verinage proves that this is not the case. That buildings can naturally collapse at "near free fall acceleration" without need for explosives or exotic means like space based lasers, micro-nukes or magic super-duper-therm*te.

If you attempt to use verinage in your argument, then you are implicitly conceding that the Twin Tower collapses were completely natural under the circumstances.

[alienentity]

Bard - if I may add a couple of things to the discussion, you asked
'Your explanation is vague. If all the interior columns had already failed at the time of the initiation of global collapse, what was supporting the West penthouse and the Screenwall?'

That's not quite what the engineering analysis showed, but you're getting close. The columns failed East to West (obviously) and as the West PH falls into the building (indicating that those sections below have failed), the whole building finally enters into collapse.

Take a look at the amount of failure which had already occured up to that point, and it's a great deal of the interior structure - when the failures progress to the W PH, the rest of the structure fails very quickly - almost instantaneously, as you can see.

There's nothing in this that isn't expected or explained by the engineering analysis. You just don't need to invoke explosives to get the effect, unless you don't use an engineering model based on the actual building and the actual conditions.

Can you refer to a full-blown engineering model produced by the truth movement which can offer a comprehensive explanation? I don't think there is one, even if you wanted to, so we can't even critique it.

It's fairly easy for someone like you to make grand declarations, but can you back it up with engineering?

Second point: you are very keen to latch onto a few observations of Mr. Jowenko as some kind of validation of your beliefs. However, Mr. Jowenko didn't give a detailed engineering explanation for his observations, and even seemed puzzled that the building came down on the same day it was damaged - as if he initially assumed that it was wired at a later (not previous) date.
I think he understands that it couldn't have been wired prior to 9/11 - he knows that this is not really plausible.

But very well, you like what he says. But what about the demolitions experts who were actually at GZ and testified in detail about the absence of any evidence of controlled demolition? Surely you respect professionals, so you should heed these gentlemen as well.
Don't forget, Jowenko never had the opportunity to stand right in the rubble and see for himself, but people like Brent Blanchard and his colleagues did. How can you explain the fact that these guys categorically found it wasn't CD?

It's not so easy to dismiss experts who have opinions which counter your beliefs, if you want to take expert testimony seriously at all. I question your seriousness in this regard.

[alienentity]

I'm with Sword on the verinage. You've painted yourself into a corner on this one. If your argument is that there were no loud explosions because verinage was used, then you need to provide positive evidence that it was.

At the very least you ought to consult with a verinage company and find out what would be required to reproduce the effects seen on building 7. Remember the building suffered extensive fires, which would create some big problems if you were trying to run a demolition effort at the same time.

No truther has yet attempted to explain how the explosives or hydraulics (verinage equipment) could have survived such fires and remained operational.
I suspect you will avoid this topic as well you should - it creates more issues than you will ever solve.

Y'know, it's not difficult to convince truthers of these things...I mean, truthers will believe a lot of very questionable stuff, including various 'no plane' theories, Larry 'pull it' demolitons orders to FDNY! and nanothermite chips destroying 110 story towers.
Where you're going to have trouble is with skeptics and well-trained engineers. There I think your audience will be appropriately critical, and will not jump on your bandwagon without real evidence.

Get your engineering models ready - you'll need them.

[bardamu]

Yup. About 15 minutes before it did. A NYPD helicopter was close to the fire in the tower and the pilot reported the first bit of the collapse.

So what?


Jim Dwyer says that some officials suspected the the first tower was about to collapse 5 or 10 minutes before it did collapse, but the message didn't get to Giuliani in time. His conclusion is based on two unreasonable assumptions:

Maybe he knew, but there's no mechanism, that I'm aware of, by which he knew. In other words, how he would have known such a thing. You would have to assume what's already been completely disproven, which is that the buildings were demolished with some intentional plan. You would also have to assume that Giuliani was stupid enough to be right down the street where two of the tallest buildings were being demolished, which is not a good idea.


Then there's still the question of why the firefighters weren't evacuated as soon as it was realized the towers were in danger of collapsing.


Uh, no YOU have lost track of the context. Debunkers say a building collapse can't be a controlled demolition if no loud bangs are recorded on the video soundtracks. Verinage proves that--and the flashes on the outside of the building--are not a necessary feature of controlled demolition. So, since you are claiming the towers were brought down with CD, what we are left with is either there WAS NO CD and you are painfully wrong, or you are claiming that the towers were brought down using the Verinage technique, which is painfully idiotic.

No. Verinage proves that these are not necessary features of a controlled demolition, which means NIST rejected that hypothesis prematurely.



If you attempt to use verinage in your argument, then you are implicitly conceding that the Twin Tower collapses were completely natural under the circumstances.

Show me an example of verinage where they cause the upper section to fall onto the lower section by building a wood fire around each steel column.



Second point: you are very keen to latch onto a few observations of Mr. Jowenko as some kind of validation of your beliefs. However, Mr. Jowenko didn't give a detailed engineering explanation for his observations, and even seemed puzzled that the building came down on the same day it was damaged - as if he initially assumed that it was wired at a later (not previous) date.
I think he understands that it couldn't have been wired prior to 9/11 - he knows that this is not really plausible.

He was puzzled because his world view didn't allow him to believe the building could have been wired in advance.



Surely you respect professionals, so you should heed these gentlemen as well.

Professionals can be genuinely wrong, and professionals can be dishonest.


I'm with Sword on the verinage. You've painted yourself into a corner on this one. If your argument is that there were no loud explosions because verinage was used, then you need to provide positive evidence that it was.

I'm not saying verinage was used.



Y'know, it's not difficult to convince truthers of these things...I mean, truthers will believe a lot of very questionable stuff, including various 'no plane' theories

Wow!

[twinstead]

Show me an example of verinage where they cause the upper section to fall onto the lower section by building a wood fire around each steel column.

Do we get to crash huge fully-laden passenger jets into them first? Oh wait. You're a no planer. How convenient. And idiotic.

[Dave Rogers]

No. Verinage proves that these are not necessary features of a controlled demolition, which means NIST rejected that hypothesis prematurely.


NIST may perhaps have been aware of the absence of enormous hydraulic jacks in the WTC towers. Since no other explosive-free method of building implosion is known, and buildings are known to collapse as a result of fire, it's clear to the sane that NIST considered the only realistic possibilities.

Dave

[TruthersLie]

No. Verinage proves that these are not necessary features of a controlled demolition, which means NIST rejected that hypothesis prematurely.

Show me an example of verinage where they cause the upper section to fall onto the lower section by building a wood fire around each steel column.

He was puzzled because his world view didn't allow him to believe the building could have been wired in advance.

I'm not saying verinage was used.



So you point to verinage whY? If you state it was not used, then you are left with EXPLOSIVES.

So if it was explosives, then you would have anything above 4 lbs of dynamite on the seismographs. None are recorded.

If it was explosives then you would have large LOUD explosions. None are recorded.

If it was explosives, then you would have tell tale residue and steel which shows the damage.

Verinage is a type of CD which uses hydraulic jacks. Since it is an entirely different method of CD (which wouldn't work well on the towers anyways).

so you say you don't think verinage was used, then why are you using it as your "proof" of cd?

That is wonderful circular reasoning.

Provide a method and stick with it. Super duper nanothermite? Nope, that doesn't work. Thermite? Prove taht it can cut through steel beams horizontally or obliquely. Explosives? Show me the proof. Verinage? Show me the proof.

All would be easy to see and prove.

BTW a truther has shown it couldn't possibly be verinage because of it's "missing jolt." The verinage technique (and any similar techniques) would show a definate JOLT as the upper part strikes the lower part. You don't have that in the collapses. So ergo it isn't Verinage.

Again and again, stop JAQing off and provide a comprehensive (or even brief) description of what happened.

stop trying to have ALL twoofer theories... and choose one.

[Oliver]

Did any local JREF Truther actually contact Mr. Jowenko yet? :confused:
[That's what I would do in case of any doubts concerning WTC7]

[BigAl]

Jim Dwyer says that some officials suspected the the first tower was about to collapse 5 or 10 minutes before it did collapse, but the message didn't get to Giuliani in time. His conclusion is based on two unreasonable assumptions:

Dude, Everyone watching those towers expected them to collapse. I was one of those people.


Then there's still the question of why the firefighters weren't evacuated as soon as it was realized the towers were in danger of collapsing.


FDNY Command ordered (by radio) all hands out of WTC1 well before the collapse.

You appear to be clueless to the fact that the FDNY radios failed badly that morning and many firemen died as a direct result.

Such is the Twoofer way.

[TruthersLie]

Bump for RedIbis. Come on widdle birdy.. dont' fly away again.
Hey red.

Lets compare these shall we?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/WTC7Column79.jpg

steel framed building. Steel framed construction.

Now lets look at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel shall we?
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/6821/2009210041879628.jpg

Now compare the first picture, with the second one. Pay attention to details. What do you see that is different? (there are 2 major differences in the images)

Do you see the differences red? Are you still going to try to say it is a steel framed building?

Now in the first picture we see these HUGE LONG TRUSSES which have very little visible support. Where are those long unsupported spans in the second image red? Where are they?

Can you really not see a difference in the construction of these buildings? Are you ready to step away from that TRUTHER LIE about trying to compare apples to oranges?

[triforcharity]

Jim Dwyer says that some officials suspected the the first tower was about to collapse 5 or 10 minutes before it did collapse, but the message didn't get to Giuliani in time. His conclusion is based on two unreasonable assumptions:


Unreasonable?? How is that unreasonable??


Then there's still the question of why the firefighters weren't evacuated as soon as it was realized the towers were in danger of collapsing.


We tried. You see, if you had any kind of knowledge of the events of 9/11, you would know that communicating to the crews inside the Twin Towers was next to impossible, as the radios WOULDN'T ******* WORK!! The repeater that we used normally to communicate in the towers was not operational because the power was out to the repeater.



No. Verinage proves that these are not necessary features of a controlled demolition, which means NIST rejected that hypothesis prematurely.


No, there was no evidence of Hydraulic pumps, or rams, or explosives, or unicorns. They shouldn't have ruled out MOTHRA....


Show me an example of verinage where they cause the upper section to fall onto the lower section by building a wood fire around each steel column.


I have already showed you once about 10 different steel framed buildings that collapsed from fire, and you ignored them.

[BigAl]

Unreasonable?? How is that unreasonable??



We tried. You see, if you had any kind of knowledge of the events of 9/11, you would know that communicating to the crews inside the Twin Towers was next to impossible, as the radios WOULDN'T ******* WORK!! The repeater that we used normally to communicate in the towers was not operational because the power was out to the repeater.


Tri, do you recall roughly when the evacuation call went out over the radio?

[triforcharity]

BigAl,

I don't recall the exact time, but I would say it was about 8-10 minutes maybe before the collapse. I could be wrong, as time kinda stood still, but I do remember talking to people via radio making sure they heard the evacuation order.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Did any local JREF Truther actually contact Mr. Jowenko yet? :confused:
[That's what I would do in case of any doubts concerning WTC7]

There aren't any doubts about WTC7.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No. Verinage proves that these are not necessary features of a controlled demolition, which means NIST rejected that hypothesis prematurely.

If you attempt to use verinage in your argument, then you are implicitly conceding that the Twin Tower collapses were completely natural under the circumstances.

Show me an example of verinage where they cause the upper section to fall onto the lower section by building a wood fire around each steel column.

There's no need to. We've proven to you that fire can weaken steel. Verinage proves that a smaller upper block of a building can crush the larger lower block as a high rate of acceleration.

All that remains is for you to accept the result of adding 2+2.

Professionals can be genuinely wrong, and professionals can be dishonest.

And internet cranks can be flat out sociopathic liars.

I'm not saying verinage was used.

No one is saying you said that.

Now who is being dishonest?

[TruthersLie]

SOT.

No I said he claimed verinage was used... after the way he has been tap dancing around to try to say that verinage shows that CD can be silent, then he must mean they used the verniage technique.

Because to talk about verinage, when he is talking about CD, but we know there is NO PROOF of verinage is just stupid.... oh wait... that explains so much.

And to talk about verinage being silent, even though he has stated there were "explosions" is even more idiotic...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

SOT.

No I said he said verinage was used... after the way he has been tap dancing around to try to say that verinage shows that CD can be silent, then he must mean they used the verniage technique.

Because to talka bout verinage, when he is talking about CD, but we know there is NO PROOF of verinage is just stupid.... oh wait... that explains so much.

I stand corrected then.

My point about his implicit acceptance of the Twin Tower collapses remains, however.

[alienentity]

Professionals can be genuinely wrong, and professionals can be dishonest.


Yes, that describes Jowenko very well, doesn't it?


I'm not saying verinage was used.

Come on now, you're not fooling anyone. You'll make any excuse not to accept the reasonable conclusion that the towers might very well have collapsed under those circumstances without explosives.


I don't buy your arguments, which I think are rather weak. Sorry.
You haven't yet been able to come up with any convincing evidence that the towers didn't fall because of plane impacts and fires.

You can speculate until hell freezes over about what CD methods might have been used, but you have no proof to back that up, and no proof against the conventional understanding.
Really, you're just repeating the usual tired talking points, with some new and unsuccessful spin on verinage.

I give you a fail. Not convincing in the slightest.

Have you ever thought about where you're going with all these vague allegations and speculation? Do you expect something to come out of it, and if so, what? Without some real conclusive evidence, there will be no criminal charges against anybody. Just imagine what a grand jury would think if they heard this kind of fluff, and try to imagine what kind of case you'd be trying to bring.

You've really got nothing substantial, my friend. Someday perhaps you'll come to your senses. Someday soon I hope.

[alienentity]

Truthers display an amazing double standard and inability to view their arguments from another perspective.

Case in point: Bard's response to the fact that American demolitions experts and their teams were actually onscene, and have the skills and experience to recognize evidence. Instead of conceding the importance of their testimony, he resorted to a vague dismissal/smear
'Professionals can be genuinely wrong, and professionals can be dishonest. '

Of course, he wouldn't be able to see that his statement applies to Jowenko as well as Blanchard. Nor can he allow that Blanchard was actually there at GZ, and that makes his observations far less superficial than Jowenko's.

He's not the worst. I've seen truthers deny that Blanchard knows anything about CD's, since he has never demolished a building himself, only monitored demolitions. One person suggested he was just a photographer, not a CD expert.
Another claimed that Mark Loizeaux is working secretly for the conspiracy, and might have actually wired the buildings!!

Anything but accept these experts might indeed by correct (they most certainly are, IMHO), and that truther's assumptions might be wrong (they most certainly are).

This stuff is pretty low-grade denial, it's not even sophisticated enough to address the actual points made by Blanchard and Loizeaux. Now I guarantee you, as sure as butter comes from a cow, that if Blanchard was testifying that explosives WERE used in the towers, truthers would be crowing from the rooftops about him, as they do with Jowenko.

It's almost funny, except it's so sad. This willful blindness extends everywhere in trutherdom, right down to Tony Szamboti's ill-fated choice to ignore and deny the tower tilts.

Yeah, we should confront Jowenko with the absence of seismic, audio and visual corroboration of CD and see what excuses he can make for it. He really ought to go head-to-head with another demo expert on hardfire or something.
That would be worthwhile.

[Edx]

Getting Jowenko to talk to someone who knows what they are talking about would be nice.

If we could get him to admit that actually WTC7 only looks a little bit like a CD if you see only a few select videos with the sound off not knowing anything about it, it would be pretty funny.

[A W Smith]

Professionals can be genuinely wrong, and professionals can be dishonest.




Yes we know

http://www.voicesofsafety.com/fe/donsdefense/html/ref-1-p-1.html

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/11/richard-gages-new-engineer.html



(http://www.voicesofsafety.com/fe/donsdefense/html/ref-1-p-1.html)

[Grizzly Bear]

Truthers display an amazing double standard and inability to view their arguments from another perspective.
Snipped the rest for brevity... but yeah. And truthfully material on all of these topics is pretty easily accessible without ever having to touch a "government document" if their paranoia runs that deep. I for one am glad I kept every textbook I've bought since starting college in '05. It's some of that very study that demonstrated how insane the premise of some these theories are based on, and they give an excellent context to what's being claimed by the authoritative CT nuts.

[bardamu]

Do we get to crash huge fully-laden passenger jets into them first?

Even your fairy tale doesn't depict a passenger jet flying into WTC7, or fully-laden ones flying into the towers.


NIST may perhaps have been aware of the absence of enormous hydraulic jacks in the WTC towers. Since no other explosive-free method of building implosion is known, and buildings are known to collapse as a result of fire, it's clear to the sane that NIST considered the only realistic possibilities.


NIST ruled out the possibility of controlled demolition on the basis that there was no evidence of loud explosions, flashes or broken windows. No mention of hydraulic jacks in the NIST report, as far as I'm aware.


Did any local JREF Truther actually contact Mr. Jowenko yet? :confused:
[That's what I would do in case of any doubts concerning WTC7]

Ron Wieck spent an hour with him on the phone, then gave up after realizing he was dealing with a man of integrity.



You can speculate until hell freezes over about what CD methods might have been used, but you have no proof to back that up, and no proof against the conventional understanding.
Really, you're just repeating the usual tired talking points, with some new and unsuccessful spin on verinage.

I give you a fail. Not convincing in the slightest.

Have you ever thought about where you're going with all these vague allegations and speculation? Do you expect something to come out of it, and if so, what? Without some real conclusive evidence, there will be no criminal charges against anybody. Just imagine what a grand jury would think if they heard this kind of fluff, and try to imagine what kind of case you'd be trying to bring.

You've really got nothing substantial, my friend. Someday perhaps you'll come to your senses. Someday soon I hope.

Show me evidence that the interior columns of WTC7 failed progressively over a period of 7 seconds. The evidence I've seen shows that one column failed, then all the rest failed around 7 seconds later. NIST and some people here must have x-ray eyes.



Yeah, we should confront Jowenko with the absence of seismic, audio and visual corroboration of CD and see what excuses he can make for it. He really ought to go head-to-head with another demo expert on hardfire or something.
That would be worthwhile.

He doesn't have an axe to grind. He just gave his honest and expert opinion and he'd probably prefer to be left in peace now.

[funk de fino]

The Fire Department sacrificed their own.


Thats a scumbag claim.

[twinstead]

Even your fairy tale doesn't depict a passenger jet flying into WTC7, or fully-laden ones flying into the towers.


Are you nuts? Those planes were FULL of fuel for a trans continental flight. Also, a HUGE chunk of the WTC smashed into WTC7. Neither of which were included in your idiotic hyperbole I was addressing. Even if the planes were HALF full of fuel, which they were not, does that mean you get to ignore them because they are inconvenient?

The only thing worse than being wrong is being arrogantly wrong. Congratulations.

[Grizzly Bear]

NIST and some people here must have x-ray eyes..

In the absence of evidence of an alternative cause its a reasonable conclusion given the building's performance. If you feel otherwise, tough love.

[RedIbis]

In the absence of evidence of an alternative cause its a reasonable conclusion given the building's performance. If you feel otherwise, tough love.

NIST admitted that it didn't look for an alternative cause because it would have been a waste of time since evidence of it wasn't there to begin with.

Do you catch that carousel of logic?

[dtugg]

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?

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

Shockingly, my prediction has thus far turned out to be correct.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

NIST admitted that it didn't look for an alternative cause because it would have been a waste of time since evidence of it wasn't there to begin with.

Do you catch that carousel of logic?

Can you explain why NIST is fully involved in fire protection Red?

[lapman]

NIST admitted that it didn't look for an alternative cause because it would have been a waste of time since evidence of it wasn't there to begin with.

Do you catch that carousel of logic?
What an idiotic statement. Do they usually look for evidence of a hand grenade while they investigate a shooting incident? BTW, they did look at the alternative. Guess what, no evidence.

[twinstead]

Can you explain why NIST is fully involved in fire protection Red?

Ha. Fully involved. Fire. Get it? ;)

[TruthersLie]

NIST admitted that it didn't look for an alternative cause because it would have been a waste of time since evidence of it wasn't there to begin with.

Do you catch that carousel of logic?

Can you please tell me any type of "alternative" evidence which would have been overlooked in the piles?

Huge hydraulic jacks, with hydraulic pumps?

huge amounts of det cord and explosive residue?

any of that would have been found by the people handling the debris.

Nist said it wouldn't look for EXPLOSIVES because any explosive large enough to cut core columns would have had a 140DB explosions which would have been caught on any video camera within a mile. And guess what... there were NO explosions caught on ANY tape that match that description.

so was it silent explosives?

[Trojan]

The Fire Department sacrificed their own.

Wait a second -- the NYFD is complicit in the murder of their own?

Is this your claim?

[twinstead]

Wait a second -- the NYFD is complicit in the murder of their own?

Is this your claim?

Oh yea, you read it right. He's a little sweetheart, ain't he?

[RedIbis]

Can you please tell me any type of "alternative" evidence which would have been overlooked in the piles?

Huge hydraulic jacks, with hydraulic pumps?

huge amounts of det cord and explosive residue?

any of that would have been found by the people handling the debris.

Nist said it wouldn't look for EXPLOSIVES because any explosive large enough to cut core columns would have had a 140DB explosions which would have been caught on any video camera within a mile. And guess what... there were NO explosions caught on ANY tape that match that description.

so was it silent explosives?

You mean "any explosive" like RDX? Who proposed that as an alternative other than NIST?

[TruthersLie]

You mean "any explosive" like RDX? Who proposed that as an alternative other than NIST?

PLEASE, I am BEGGING you provide me with another "explosive" which can cut steel beams that is silent.

I'll wait for it. ANY explosive capable of cutting those beams. I'd love to know what it is.

Really. That is what you have? That is it?

super duper stealth explosives? Really?

It would help if you PROPOSED ANYTHING besides for just JAQing off. PROPOSE something.

[Grizzly Bear]

NIST admitted that it didn't look for an alternative cause because it would have been a waste of time since evidence of it wasn't there to begin with.

Do you catch that carousel of logic?
Are you implying that the NIST should have also looked into space beams and missiles? Why not earth quakes? THe WTC collapses registered on the Richter scale after all. Maybe the NIST should have investigated those too. Naw, could never be due to something a little more obvious than having a series of engineering disasters from an intentional terrorist attack right?...

[bardamu]

Wait a second -- the NYFD is complicit in the murder of their own?

Is this your claim?

Some of them must have been in on it, or at the very least they kept quiet after the fact.


Thats a scumbag claim.

Please don't shoot the messenger.


Are you implying that the NIST should have also looked into space beams and missiles? Why not earth quakes? THe WTC collapses registered on the Richter scale after all. Maybe the NIST should have investigated those too. Naw, could never be due to something a little more obvious than having a series of engineering disasters from an intentional terrorist attack right?...

They should have eliminated the impossible, which includes a fire-induced progressive collapse.

[dtugg]

Some of them must have been in on it, or at the very least they kept quiet after the fact.




Please don't shoot the messenger.

Removed breach of Rule 12

[Grizzly Bear]

They should have eliminated the impossible, which includes a fire-induced progressive collapse.
Are you sure I'm the one you should be making this case to? I suggest you contact the writers of the International Building Code and inform them with justification that their requirements on fire protection have no merit. I'm sure if your being truthful they'll seriously consider the implications of what you're saying, well providing anyway that your statement isn't of course a bald assertion or one of ignorance.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Some of them must have been in on it, or at the very least they kept quiet after the fact.

Please don't shoot the messenger.

No one is shooting anyone here. Though you may want to avoid Farrell's Bar in New York City (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard):

Firefighters and their unions don't hesitate to demand that safety issues be addressed. At Farrell's bar in Brooklyn, which is a firefighter and cop hangout, I asked one of New York's Bravest how he would respond to someone who said the 9/11 first responders were keeping quiet about what killed their brothers. He laughed, shook his head, and said, "There better not be a Halligan around. I'd put it through his <CENSORED> skull." At the center of Farrell's back bar stands a cross made from WTC steel and a portrait of longtime Farrell's bartender Vinny Brunton, a FDNY Captain with Ladder 105, who died on 9/11.

Firefighters don't appreciate people spewing that kind of hateful ignorant garbage about them and the honored dead. I'm surprised (and impressed) that Triforcharity held back as much as he did.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

They should have eliminated the impossible, which includes a fire-induced progressive collapse.

You don't even know what a progressive collapse is.

Shouldn't you figure that out before you declare it impossible?

[twinstead]

Some of them must have been in on it, or at the very least they kept quiet after the fact.

Of course. They MUST have. It's the only explanation. God forbid you actually take a step back and consider that you just might be full of crap.



Please don't shoot the messenger.


The messenger? THE MESSENGER? Dude. You're a member of a small, insignificant cult. You're too irrelevant to be a messenger. You're just the internet version of the bearded old man on the street corner telling us the world's going to end, and we're all going to hell. Don't flatter yourself please.

[Trojan]

Some of them must have been in on it, or at the very least they kept quiet after the fact.


I would love to see you go to a NYFD station and make that statement.

That you would make this allegation with no evidence shows you to yet another truther with no integrity.

[johnny karate]

Some of them must have been in on it, or at the very least they kept quiet after the fact.

I'll give you this much bardamu, as despicable as your allegations are, at least you've got the courage of your convictions (if lacking the courage to act on them), and at least enough cognitive capacity to go where a controlled demolition scenario would logically have to take you.

But clearly, if 9/11 was a conspiracy involving the FDNY, it also must have involved every other agency and organization connected to the events of that day before, during, and after the attacks. This would include, but not be limited to: NIST, FEMA, the FBI, the FDNY, the NYPD, the Port Authority, Interpol, the worldwide mainstream media, the worldwide scientific community, and the worldwide law enforcement community.

And let's not forget the general worldwide population, who despite the supposedly overwhelming evidence favoring an inside job, haven't even lifted a finger to so much as protest such gross and insidious abuses of power.

So I ask you this: If everyone not involved in such a thinly-veiled conspiracy is too amoral or apathetic to do anything about it anyway, what was the point of the conspiracy to begin with?

For whose benefit was this elaborate charade?

[twinstead]

I'll give you this much bardamu, as despicable as your allegations are, at least you've got the courage of your convictions (if lacking the courage to act on them), and at least enough cognitive capacity to go where a controlled demolition scenario would logically have to take you.


I have to agree with this. At least bardamu has realized the implications of his accusations and just lets it all out, if only superficially. I suspect now he will find out why so few truthers actually come out and say what they really feel; eventually it becomes obvious that everybody is in on it. That kind of realization must be scary for them.

[triforcharity]

Some of them must have been in on it, or at the very least they kept quiet after the fact.


Oh, right, but yet we will rush into a burning building for complete strangers, but, god forbid we stand up FOR OUR OWN ******* FAMILY!!

You obviously do not know how close of a bond we have for other firefighters. I would die for any one of the people I work with, and wouldn't hesitate one second. Not even one. Its clear that you have never felt this type of love before. Its actually somewhat sad really.

Any evidence?? I would love to see it.



Please don't shoot the messenger.


I cannot respond to this, as if I did, I would SURELY be banned from here in an instant.


They should have eliminated the impossible, which includes a fire-induced progressive collapse.

Why? Why is it impossible for fire to weaken steel??

[triforcharity]

No one is shooting anyone here. Though you may want to avoid Farrell's Bar in New York City (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard):

Firefighters and their unions don't hesitate to demand that safety issues be addressed. At Farrell's bar in Brooklyn, which is a firefighter and cop hangout, I asked one of New York's Bravest how he would respond to someone who said the 9/11 first responders were keeping quiet about what killed their brothers. He laughed, shook his head, and said, "There better not be a Halligan around. I'd put it through his <CENSORED> skull." At the center of Farrell's back bar stands a cross made from WTC steel and a portrait of longtime Farrell's bartender Vinny Brunton, a FDNY Captain with Ladder 105, who died on 9/11.

Firefighters don't appreciate people spewing that kind of hateful ignorant garbage about them and the honored dead. I'm surprised (and impressed) that Triforcharity held back as much as he did.

I'd pay for his trip, if he agreed to let me post the aftermath on youtube.

Believe me, it is taking alot not to respond the way that I would like to. As I said above, I would be banned instantly from this forum.

Bard,

I would HIGHLY reccomend you do NOT do this. I guarantee you, that it would not end well for you.

PS, if you do decide to go to FDNY and try this, PLEASE let me tag along. I promise, you'll be (in)famous afterward.

[TruthersLie]

They should have eliminated the impossible, which includes a fire-induced progressive collapse.

They did eliminate the impossible.

Unless you can provide explosives capable of cutting steel beams the size of those in wtc1,2 and 7 that is silent.

Do you have some twoof? I'd love to find some.

They eliminated the idea of thermite because it can't cut through steel beams horizontally, obliquely or simultaneously.

They didn't even think of super duper nanothermite because it didn't exist in enough quantities to do anything to the towers

they didn't think of death beams from outer space because they are not morons.

they also didn't test for giant lizard **** (so that means godzilla did it), or giant moth **** (mothra did do it I tell ya), pixie dust (tinkerbell did it).

The properties of steel and fire have been known for centuries...

Failed science again eh? Must be like High school for you ALL OVER AGAIN.

[Grizzly Bear]

Are you implying that the NIST should have also looked into space beams and missiles? Why not earth quakes? THe WTC collapses registered on the Richter scale after all. Maybe the NIST should have investigated those too. Naw, could never be due to something a little more obvious than having a series of engineering disasters from an intentional terrorist attack right?...

Well red? What are your thoughts? I'm a curious guy...

[twinstead]

they didn't think of death beams from outer space because they are not morons.


;)

[RedIbis]

Well red? What are your thoughts? I'm a curious guy...

Your questions are hypothetical and disingenuous, why would I respond to them?

[Grizzly Bear]

Your questions are hypothetical and disingenuous, why would I respond to them?

What? You mean like more disingenuous than first time occurrences being impossible?

[RedIbis]

What? You mean like more disingenuous than first time occurrences being impossible?

Just ask your question in a reasonable way and I'll try and answer. For one, I never said first time occurances were impossible.

[TruthersLie]

Bump for red ibis. Come on... answer the questions. Don't run away again.
PLEASE, I am BEGGING you provide me with another "explosive" which can cut steel beams that is silent.

I'll wait for it. ANY explosive capable of cutting those beams. I'd love to know what it is.

Really. That is what you have? That is it?

super duper stealth explosives? Really?

It would help if you PROPOSED ANYTHING besides for just JAQing off. PROPOSE something.

Please provide an example of any explosive capable of cutting steel silently.

[RedIbis]

Bump for red ibis. Come on... answer the questions. Don't run away again.


Please provide an example of any explosive capable of cutting steel silently.

I think the word you overlooked in my post was 'reasonable'.

[triforcharity]

Yes, providing a sample of an explosive cutting steel that is also silent IS unreasonable.

That might be the first thing I have ever seen you get right!!
WOO HOO!!! Now, just if we could get you to correct the other 498 things you get wrong daily.

[DavidJames]

Red believes the U.S. government is complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Red believes the U.S. government is complicit in the murder of 3000 people on 9/11.
Red believes the U.S. government is complicit in the worst crime in U.S. history.

He will only accept "reasonable" questions, clearly a patriot committed to seeking justice.
Please, don't ask Red any questions which might make him squirm or question his delusional mentality.

[TruthersLie]

I think the word you overlooked in my post was 'reasonable'.

I think you haven't read the relevant sections of the NIST report where they go over why they didn't look for explosives.

That is REASONABLE.

What is REASONABLE is to see that 2 freaking huge jets struck 2 of the tallest buildings in the world.

What is REASONABLE is to see that those buildings were literally towering infernos.

What is REASONABLE is to see that they were probably going to collapse because they couldn't fight the fires.

What is REASONABLE is to see that wtc7 was hit with THOUSANDS OF TONS of debris from one of the towers.

What is REASONABLE is to see that wtc7 burned for 8 hours

What is REASONABLE is to see that for most of that time it was unfought

What is REASONABLE is to understand that there are people with lots more specific education than you have

What is REASONABLE is to understand that many of those same folks have lots more relevant experience than you do

What is REASONABLE is to then look at their conclusions and see if there is any hew and cry from others in the field. (so please provide any peer reviewed engineering journal from ANYWHERE in the world. That is very REASONABLE.)

That is REASONABLE.

You bitch and whine about how they didn't test for explosives, when they explain WHY they didn't test for explosives.

Now that means in order to be REASONABLE you need to provide proof that there are explosives (or other means of cutting the steel columns) which are silent.

Now that we have covered what is REASONABLE, lets see your proof that you have ANY type of device which is silent, which would have brought down WTC7 that is not based on a simple idea that steel weakens in fire.

Provide your REASONABLE proof or STFU.

[TruthersLie]

NIST admitted that it didn't look for an alternative cause because it would have been a waste of time since evidence of it wasn't there to begin with.

Do you catch that carousel of logic?

You mean "any explosive" like RDX? Who proposed that as an alternative other than NIST?

I think the word you overlooked in my post was 'reasonable'.

You never stated "reasonable" to me in any of the posts that I asked you about. Not once.

Reasonable wasn't part of it.

You are claiming NIST didn't do their job. You are claiming that something brought down the towers.

GREAT. *********** PROVE IT!!!!

If you think there is a way to cut the steel columns that NIST missed please provide an example. Either silent explosives, thermite or duck farts. Provide an example. If you try the nanothermite crap, then show me nanothermite being used to cut steel horizontally or obliquely. It should be a piece of *********** cake.

so again
PLEASE, I am BEGGING you provide me with another "explosive" which can cut steel beams that is silent.

I'll wait for it. ANY explosive capable of cutting those beams. I'd love to know what it is.

Really. That is what you have? That is it?

super duper stealth explosives? Really?

It would help if you PROPOSED ANYTHING besides for just JAQing off. PROPOSE something.

That seems very reasonable. Now find some and provide some, or admit that you are full of crap and STFU.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Anyone know if the part of the interview were Jowenko says wtc1 and 2 were absolutely not CD is still available? The original clip is gone, none of the truther-posted clips contain it.

[CompusMentus]

Anyone know if the part of the interview were Jowenko says wtc1 and 2 were absolutely not CD is still available? The original clip is gone, none of the truther-posted clips contain it.



Have you watched these HERE (http://www.911blogger.com/node/3231)? Its billed as an "Extended version" and states it's raw and unedited. Perhaps this covers what you want? I haven't got time to look through myself sorry.

Compus

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect View Post
Anyone know if the part of the interview were Jowenko says wtc1 and 2 were absolutely not CD is still available? The original clip is gone, none of the truther-posted clips contain it.

Have you watched these HERE (http://www.911blogger.com/node/3231)? Its billed as an "Extended version" and states it's raw and unedited. Perhaps this covers what you want? I haven't got time to look through myself sorry.

Compus

Nope, the video "HERE" links to is all-WTC7.

Jowenko's video about WTC1 and 2 is still missing.

[MikeW]

Try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3wwdI0XawI

(I've also downloaded a copy for safe keeping.)

[Josarhus]

Anyone know if the part of the interview were Jowenko says wtc1 and 2 were absolutely not CD is still available? The original clip is gone, none of the truther-posted clips contain it.

This is the original show from Dutch television, unfortunately only Dutch language and no English text.

http://player.omroep.nl/?aflID=3273161

In the same show they made 3 simulated attempts to hit the Pentagon with an inexperienced person in a commercial jet simulator and succeeded all 3 times.

[TruthersLie]

Do you mean these?

k3DRhwRN06I
sep-HDZoEBM
boNzLZInbjU

The first one has the part where the reporter is asking about the towers and Danny J states that wtc7 was CD as opposed to the towers. he is then asked a question about it, and the look he gives the reporter is great...

[thecritta]

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

woops to late video is all gone

[TruthersLie]

woops to late video is all gone

whoops... I posted the three videos where danny J says that the towers WERE NOT CD. Look RIGHT ABOVE your bs claim.

whoops.. can you do 5 minutes of real research

[TruthMakesPeace]

Danny Jowenko re-confirmed his opinion that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition in 2007. He says "absolutely" it was CD, and could not have been done by fire.
In YouTube, enter the code: QajDxF9uEf4 or "Phone Call With Danny Jowenko" to hear it from the source.

[beachnut]

Danny Jowenko re-confirmed his opinion that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition in 2007. He says "absolutely" it was CD, and could not have been done by fire.
In YouTube, enter the code: QajDxF9uEf4 or "Phone Call With Danny Jowenko" to hear it from the source.
Debunked years ago. Check the date, the Star Date is 2010, this is not 2005!

But if you insist he is the expert, then he said WTC1 and WTC2 are not CD. Is this a 50 percent debunking thing? Did you just wake up after 8 years of silence? 8 years and no evidence. When did Jowenko investigate the WTC7 damage in 2001?

[WildCat]

danny jowenko re-confirmed his opinion that wtc 7 was brought down by controlled demolition in 2007. He says "absolutely" it was cd, and could not have been done by fire.
In youtube, enter the code: Qajdxf9uef4 or "phone call with danny jowenko" to hear it from the source.
2007?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Edited for rule 12. Do not make sockpuppet allegations in the threads. If you feel someone is a sockpuppet, report it along with your evidence.

[TruthersLie]

Danny Jowenko re-confirmed his opinion that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition in 2007. He says "absolutely" it was CD, and could not have been done by fire.
In YouTube, enter the code: QajDxF9uEf4 or "Phone Call With Danny Jowenko" to hear it from the source.

Oh look a new twoof.

GREAT.

Please go back and watch the earlier videos.

Those are great because they have some information missing from his "re-confirmed" opinion.

Things like
1. I haven't seen the plans, so I'm guessing here
2. I'm just guessing here
3. The towers were NOT CD.

Now he does say he stands by his claim that it could have been CD for wtc7. so what?

He has also NOT read the final NIST report (which came out AFTER this phone call) and he had not read the NIST report. He is NOT an engineer.

But hey, I'll take his word for it. I love taking witness claims. I'll take EVERYTHING HE SAYS. WILL YOU?

[TruthersLie]

Edited for response to modded post.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Do not make sockpuppet allegations in the threads.

[WildCat]

Edited for quote of modded post.
I was commenting on the video upload date, which was in February 2007.

IOW, old news. The video hasn't even had a comment in months, mobs aren't marching down the street demanding The Truth... the world collectively yawned at Jowenko's proclamation.

[NutCracker]

Danny Jowenko re-confirmed his opinion that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition in 2007. He says "absolutely" it was CD, and could not have been done by fire.
In YouTube, enter the code: QajDxF9uEf4 or "Phone Call With Danny Jowenko" to hear it from the source.

Since no evidence exists in support of Mr. Jowenko's opinion, we have to conclude that Mr. Jowenko is wrong.

[dafydd]

whoops... I posted the three videos where danny J says that the towers WERE NOT CD. Look RIGHT ABOVE your bs claim.

whoops.. can you do 5 minutes of real research

A truther doing real research? No way.

[MSgtWeiss]

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
FYI -- This link to Jowenko on Youtube has now been "removed by user."

One might suspect that the Twoofers have found his whole quote to be rather embarrassing to their little cult.

I'm sure there's another around somewhere with his quote about the twin towers, but I haven't had a chance to locate it yet.

[grandmastershek]

FYI -- This link to Jowenko on Youtube has now been "removed by user."

One might suspect that the Twoofers have found his whole quote to be rather embarrassing to their little cult.

I'm sure there's another around somewhere with his quote about the twin towers, but I haven't had a chance to locate it yet.

they're just deleting their way into reality!

[Oystein]

Try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3wwdI0XawI

(I've also downloaded a copy for safe keeping.)

We learn valuable things from Danny (if we did not know already:
0:57 - 1:21
Q: "So it's logical the second [tower] went first?"
DJ: "Of course. You clearly see that the building that was hit first was hit higher, so it went last because there was less weight to bring it down. That's essential knowledge for anyone who knows anything about demolition: You have to use the building's own weight."

1:52 - 1:56
DJ: "It collapsed at the exact location where plane hit and heated it."

2:11 - 2:30
DJ: "It can't have been explosives, as there was a huge fire. If there had been explosives, they would already have been burned. What's more, before being burned, their igniters would have gone off at 320 degrees Celsius, so they'd have detonated sooner."

3:54 - 4:07
That's what it looks like [each floor "exploding"]. But don't tell me they put explosives on all 100 floors. That's impossible. ... [It would be] a year's work."

[alienentity]

I've seen the videos previously as well. At roughly 2 minutes into video 1, Jowenko proclaims that, if the building fell on Sept 11, then the charges had to be placed very quickly on that day.

About 4 minutes in, Jowenko is clear that the building did not fall cleanly as if the 'heart' had been destroyed by cutter charges. He seems very skeptical, when they look at the debris pile - 'this building was not demolished' 'is that building 7?'

So it may very well be that he can tell by looking at the debris that it wasn't cd, but the truther steers him away from that conclusion - I guess the debris was well outside WTC 7's footprint and Jowenko immediately recognizes that problem.

About 6' 'thirty or forty men' would be needed to do it!

So his theory relies on a large team of demolitions people going in...ON 9/11, while the building was on fire, and placing det cord, boosters, cutting charges.

riiiiiiight. This scenario is just not plausible, according to Jowenko's own words. Even he seems very confused about it, and complains about the lack of photographs.

But with sufficient quote mining, you can make it look like he supports truther cd theories........

[Edx]

I've seen the videos previously as well. At roughly 2 minutes into video 1, Jowenko proclaims that, if the building fell on Sept 11, then the charges had to be placed very quickly on that day.

About 4 minutes in, Jowenko is clear that the building did not fall cleanly as if the 'heart' had been destroyed by cutter charges. He seems very skeptical, when they look at the debris pile - 'this building was not demolished' 'is that building 7?'

So it may very well be that he can tell by looking at the debris that it wasn't cd, but the truther steers him away from that conclusion - I guess the debris was well outside WTC 7's footprint and Jowenko immediately recognizes that problem.

About 6' 'thirty or forty men' would be needed to do it!

So his theory relies on a large team of demolitions people going in...ON 9/11, while the building was on fire, and placing det cord, boosters, cutting charges.

riiiiiiight. This scenario is just not plausible, according to Jowenko's own words. Even he seems very confused about it, and complains about the lack of photographs.

But with sufficient quote mining, you can make it look like he supports truther cd theories........

Maybe that's the point, its not that Jowenko is wrong per se about building 7, its that based on the information available to him and ONLY on specific assumptions being met could it be a controlled demolition. Since those assumptions aren't supported and the information available to him inadequate thats what makes the claim fail. In fact if you think about it what he says actually debunks the claim. ie. the idea that they'd need so many people to go into a burning building without anyone noticing is clearly absurd.

[alienentity]

Maybe that's the point, its not that Jowenko is wrong per se about building 7, its that based on the information available to him and ONLY on specific assumptions being met could it be a controlled demolition. Since those assumptions aren't supported and the information available to him inadequate thats what makes the claim fail. In fact if you think about it what he says actually debunks the claim. ie. the idea that they'd need so many people to go into a burning building without anyone noticing is clearly absurd.

Exactly. By his own metrics the hypothesis is invalidated. He does seem aware of the contradictions even as he speaks.
that's my take anyway.

[cyclonic]

Jowenko is not shown the penthouse falling first and of course the video has no sound when the twoofer shows it on his cheap laptop.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Jowenko is not shown the penthouse falling first and of course the video has no sound when the twoofer shows it on his cheap laptop.

Just for the record: I don't think the reporter is a truther. The clips were part of a longer program, the same where an amateur tries to hit the Pentagon in a simulator three times, succeeding each time.

I think its a bit like the BBC Conspiracy files.

[grandmastershek]

i would really love to head over there with all the photographic, video, and seismic data to see what he would say. of course we know though that if he changes his mind that immediately means "they " got to him.

anyone on here from denmark?

[Bell]

i would really love to head over there with all the photographic, video, and seismic data to see what he would say. of course we know though that if he changes his mind that immediately means "they " got to him.

anyone on here from denmark?

Jowenko is Dutch. But don't waste your time trying to contact him. Iirc Gravy tried to contact him years ago, but Jowenko does not want to talk about it.

The interviewer did mislead Jowenko. He only showed him the (CBS?) clip (the one that is in the Naudet documentary) and did NOT tell it happened on 9/11. Only afterwards, and then Jowenko was very confused.

[lijebaley01]

search --- Dutch tv news show Zembla investigates 9/11 theories ---- In the interview with jawenko around 32:30 he says the igniters would have been destroyed at 320C, making wtc 1&2 CD impossible. I would think that he would have agreed that a WTC7 controlled demolition would have been impossible as well, if he knew of the fires. At the end of the program, around 49 minutes he says he can't explain how a controlled demolition could have been pulled off.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Good point baley. Heat degrades the explosives properties of RDX, HMX, etc. Maybe someone more skilled in science can weigh in and explain exactly how and why.

[rubber_ritchie]

Thanks for the work on this guys. For many Troofers Jowenko's testimony is a key piece of evidence. I looked at the supposed phone call with Jowenko QajDxF9uEf4. I believe this to be a fake. The call is mostly leading questions from the caller and Jowenko just agrees and makes very brief statements which could easily be scripted.

[Bell]

Thanks for the work on this guys. For many Troofers Jowenko's testimony is a key piece of evidence. I looked at the supposed phone call with Jowenko QajDxF9uEf4. I believe this to be a fake. The call is mostly leading questions from the caller and Jowenko just agrees and makes very brief statements which could easily be scripted.

Truthers can't only use Jowenko's statement regarding WTC7 but ignore his statement regarding WTC1 and 2.

[TruthMakesPeace]

Danny Jowenko responds and elaborates (not "very brief statements") in his phone interview, at 1:28 on YouTube QajDxF9uEf4: "When 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 contolled demolition', you're gone, you know?" Danny does not go along with a lie, just to get business, like many cowardly and greedy contolled demolition companies. He is a strong man, who speaks the truth as he sees it, and is not manipulated by anyone.

[TruthersLie]

Danny Jowenko responds and elaborates (not "very brief statements") in his phone interview, at 1:28 on YouTube QajDxF9uEf4: "When 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 contolled demolition', you're gone, you know?" Danny does not go along with a lie, just to get business, like many cowardly and greedy contolled demolition companies. He is a strong man, who speaks the truth as he sees it, and is not manipulated by anyone.

So then you agree with ALL of what Danny J says?

yes or no?

[rubber_ritchie]

Danny Jowenko responds and elaborates (not "very brief statements") in his phone interview, at 1:28 on YouTube QajDxF9uEf4: "When 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 contolled demolition', you're gone, you know?" Danny does not go along with a lie, just to get business, like many cowardly and greedy contolled demolition companies. He is a strong man, who speaks the truth as he sees it, and is not manipulated by anyone.

So, Jowenko is credible? If you take all his testimonies on the 3 buildings from the documentary. He says 7 looks like a controlled demolition and the towers were demolished. So you believe that the first two collapsed without explosives but then they blew up 7 for good luck?

[A W Smith]

Danny Jowenko responds and elaborates (not "very brief statements") in his phone interview, at 1:28 on YouTube QajDxF9uEf4: "When 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 contolled demolition', you're gone, you know?" Danny does not go along with a lie, just to get business, like many cowardly and greedy contolled demolition companies. He is a strong man, who speaks the truth as he sees it, and is not manipulated by anyone.


They are gone? Really? Gone how? The government cant even keep the mob out of the construction and demo industry and you think just by claiming a CD they can be black balled? Child. You know NOTHING of the industry.

[TruthMakesPeace]

>So then you agree with ALL of what Danny J says?

That does not follow logically from my statement. You say "So" as if it is "therefore". Please state your premises in the form of a syllogism.

ALL? Only gullible lemmings believe ALL of what anyone says, especially the government's Official Conspiracy Theory, without peer reviewed scientific research.

"Yes or no?" is reminiscent of Bush's "You are with us, or with the terrorists" thinking, artificially limiting a variety of choices to 2.

It depends on what Danny Jowenko says, and I would evaluate the validity of each statement on its merits.

[Bell]

>So then you agree with ALL of what Danny J says?

That does not follow logically from my statement. You say "So" as if it is "therefore". Please state your premises in the form of a syllogism.

ALL? Only gullible lemmings believe ALL of what anyone says, especially the government's Official Conspiracy Theory, without peer reviewed scientific research.

"Yes or no?" is reminiscent of Bush's "You are with us, or with the terrorists" thinking, artificially limiting a variety of choices to 2.

It depends on what Danny Jowenko says, and I would evaluate the validity of each statement on its merits.

Jowenko: WTC1 & WTC2 were not a CD
Jowenko: WTC7 was a CD

Which of his statements do you agree with? Both? Only one of them? And if only one, how do you determine which of his statements is true and which one is not?

[triforcharity]

ALL? Only gullible lemmings believe ALL of what anyone says, especially the government's Official Conspiracy Theory, without peer reviewed scientific research.

Wait, what?

You mean like these proper, peer reviewed scientific papers?

Performance based structural fire engineering for modern building design
Rini, D., Lamont, S. 2008 Proceedings of the 2008 Structures Congress - Structures Congress 2008: Crossing the Borders 314

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I
Irfanoglu, A., Hoffmann, C.M. 2008 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (1),

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

Fire load in a steel building design
Razdolsky, L. 2008 Proceedings of the 4th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, ISEC-4 - Innovations in Structural Engineering and Construction 2, pp. 1163-1167

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

and there are the links at
http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-inde...holarly+Papers

and

http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm
you need to scroll down to see 20 of their peer reviewed papers

You mean like THOSE peer reviewed papers?

ETA: Two more

Effect of fire on composite long span truss floor systems, Graeme Flint, Asif Usmani, Susan Lamont, Jose Torero and Barbara Lane, "Journal of Constructional Steel Research", Volume 62, Issue 4, April 2006, Pages 303-315

Structural Response of Tall Buildings to Multiple Floor Fires, Graeme Flint, Asif Usmani, Susan Lamont, Barbara Lane, and Jose Torero, "Journal of Structural Engineering", Volume 133, Issue 12, December 2007, Pages 1719-1732

[twinstead]

Jesus, if accepting the common narrative of events because the evidence that supports it is overwhelming without a competing theory that accounts for all the available evidence better makes one a gullible lemming, then I guess I'm a gullible lemming.

[TruthersLie]

>So then you agree with ALL of what Danny J says?

That does not follow logically from my statement. You say "So" as if it is "therefore". Please state your premises in the form of a syllogism.

ALL? Only gullible lemmings believe ALL of what anyone says, especially the government's Official Conspiracy Theory, without peer reviewed scientific research.

"Yes or no?" is reminiscent of Bush's "You are with us, or with the terrorists" thinking, artificially limiting a variety of choices to 2.

It depends on what Danny Jowenko says, and I would evaluate the validity of each statement on its merits.

Got it.

So you will cherry pick his statements to support your idea, but ignore the rest of his conclusions.

Thank you very much.

You see, he is YOUR (truther) "expert." As your "expert" then you have to take ALL of what he says.

He completely rules out CD in the towers. He completely and utterly states they were impossible to be CD. He states that he didn't know that wtc7 collapsed the same day. He states that he is "just guessing" about wtc7 and shows his ignorance. He also states that CD triggers would go off in a fire at 320C. Were there any fires in wtc7? He didn't know about them. If there were fires in wtc7, then they would trigger the charges. Of course he also states how he has NO IDEA how it could be done in one day. Which part of those do you disagree with?

Why won't you take that?

P.s. The NIST report was fully peer reviewed

But it only takes about 10 minutes to see that you don't understand what pee review is, and that you don't know what google is or how to use it.

http://www.nist.gov/director/planning/impact_assessment.cfm#review
http://www.nist.gov/director/nrc/index.cfm

OR do you mean any of the nearly 100 fully peer reviewed engineering journals which support the common narrative?

Or do you mean the ZERO of peer reviewed engineering journals in ANY LANGUAGE in ANY COUNTRY in the world which support 9/11 was an inside job?

[djlunacee]

Well TriforCharity beat me to it, but I will follow up on that list with a question for cicorp, can you provide a list like this to support your position?

Tri, you restraint in light of the allegations that the FDNY was involved in some kind of cover up is beyond impressive, and as this is my first interaction with you, I would like to say thank you for all of the efforts you put forth on that fateful day.

[T.A.M.]

Danny Jowenko responds and elaborates (not "very brief statements") in his phone interview, at 1:28 on YouTube QajDxF9uEf4: "When 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 contolled demolition', you're gone, you know?" Danny does not go along with a lie, just to get business, like many cowardly and greedy contolled demolition companies. He is a strong man, who speaks the truth as he sees it, and is not manipulated by anyone.

>So then you agree with ALL of what Danny J says?

That does not follow logically from my statement. You say "So" as if it is "therefore". Please state your premises in the form of a syllogism.

ALL? Only gullible lemmings believe ALL of what anyone says, especially the government's Official Conspiracy Theory, without peer reviewed scientific research.

"Yes or no?" is reminiscent of Bush's "You are with us, or with the terrorists" thinking, artificially limiting a variety of choices to 2.

It depends on what Danny Jowenko says, and I would evaluate the validity of each statement on its merits.

So what you are saying is that you evaluate his OPINION (because he does not, despite his alleged qualifications, provide any evidence, just opinion) based on its VALIDITY? how do you do that? Do you have the structural engineering knowledge to determine the VALIDITY of his unproven OPINION on any of the collapses?

No, what you really mean is you select what parts he provides that SUPPORT your preconceived pov on the matter, and dismiss those that do not.

SO you accept his OPINION on WTC7, but not on WTC1/2.

Does that sum it up?

less then a handful of posts in 3 years...odd to start posting now. Someone finally tick you off enough you felt you needed to say something?

TAM:)

[Grizzly Bear]

It doesn't matter who the opinion is from, Jowenko has done little or nothing to justify how he arrived at his opinion and though he's entitled to one, it doesn't make him right. Opinions aren't worth much unless he's serious about presenting evidence to support it.

[triforcharity]

It doesn't matter who the opinion is from, Jowenko has done little or nothing to justify how he arrived at his opinion and though he's entitled to one, it doesn't make him right. Opinions aren't worth much unless he's serious about presenting evidence to support it.

Now Now Grizzly, you know the truther motto.

"Facts, evidence, proof: We will have none of that around here!"

[BigAl]

It doesn't matter who the opinion is from, Jowenko has done little or nothing to justify how he arrived at his opinion and though he's entitled to one, it doesn't make him right. Opinions aren't worth much unless he's serious about presenting evidence to support it.

The only videos that exist of the WTC7 collapse are taken from the north and have lower buildings obscuring lower part of WTC7.

What was on video did look like a CD if you don't know that from the South, major damage and fire was causing the structure to collapse.

Jowenko wasn't told that the video he was asked about was part of the WTC collapse.

[Telltale Tom]

Wait, what?

You mean like these proper, peer reviewed scientific papers?

Performance based structural fire engineering for modern building design
Rini, D., Lamont, S. 2008 Proceedings of the 2008 Structures Congress - Structures Congress 2008: Crossing the Borders 314

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I
Irfanoglu, A., Hoffmann, C.M. 2008 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (1),

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

Fire load in a steel building design
Razdolsky, L. 2008 Proceedings of the 4th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, ISEC-4 - Innovations in Structural Engineering and Construction 2, pp. 1163-1167

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

and there are the links at
http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-inde...holarly+Papers

and

http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm
you need to scroll down to see 20 of their peer reviewed papers

You mean like THOSE peer reviewed papers?

ETA: Two more

Effect of fire on composite long span truss floor systems, Graeme Flint, Asif Usmani, Susan Lamont, Jose Torero and Barbara Lane, "Journal of Constructional Steel Research", Volume 62, Issue 4, April 2006, Pages 303-315

Structural Response of Tall Buildings to Multiple Floor Fires, Graeme Flint, Asif Usmani, Susan Lamont, Barbara Lane, and Jose Torero, "Journal of Structural Engineering", Volume 133, Issue 12, December 2007, Pages 1719-1732

Yes but they have not produced one movie between them. What do you expect us to do... read this stuff!?

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes but they have not produced one movie between them. What do you expect us to do... read this stuff!?

Well we could always write a picture book!

The only videos that exist of the WTC7 collapse are taken from the north and have lower buildings obscuring lower part of WTC7.

What was on video did look like a CD if you don't know that from the South, major damage and fire was causing the structure to collapse.

Jowenko wasn't told that the video he was asked about was part of the WTC collapse.

Understandable but I recall somewhere that he maintained his position after the fact. Not sure if my memory screwed up there or not. I do remember when told it was the same day he was quite unsure about the demolition idea :\

[TruthersLie]

Well we could always write a picture book!



Understandable but I recall somewhere that he maintained his position after the fact. Not sure if my memory screwed up there or not. I do remember when told it was the same day he was quite unsure about the demolition idea :\

Griz.

NO you are correct.

He was called on the phone by some truthers in 2007 and he confirmed his opinion that wtc7 was brought down by CD.

I would love some dutch debunkers to give him a call and ask him if he has read the NIST final draft of wtc7 and ask him if he knows about the huge fires in wtc7, and if he still stands by his statement that the igniters would fail at 320C in office fires.

I have a feeling that he didn't realize it was on fire... but that is just a WAG.

[DGM]

Yes but they have not produced one movie between them. What do you expect us to do... read this stuff!?
A little off your game today, huh? Normally your parody is so much better (everyone has off days, don't worry about it). Keep up (the normally) good work, we're enjoying it. :D

[TruthMakesPeace]

Let's just take the first of your long list of articles which supposedly support the Bush Story for the Gullible (buildings collapsed due to fire alone). The list is from the AE911Truth.info site of Joseph Nobles, a voice writer with no degree in engineering (but a BA in Bible and dropped out of his Masters program).

I read the article "Performance Based Structural Fire Engineering for Modern Building Design" by Darline Rini and Susan Lamont. These ladies do not support the BS4G. This is a false reference, calling your other so called "references" in to question. They merely state:

"While current practice in the United States is primarily prescriptive in nature, performance based structural fire engineering is beginning to have an impact on building design particularly as architects conceive more complex designs and engineers have an increased understanding of structural fire response from the WTC collapse and more recently the Windsor tower fire in Madrid. "

[TruthMakesPeace]

OK, let's take article #2 of on your list of "references" - the Government funded Purdue study, which only used computer models, which can be programmed to "prove" anything, such as the BS4G.

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I, Page 2:
"No detailed observational data on the perfoemance of tower core elements exist. Therefore the Purdue research team used finite element simulations to assist in estimating the impact response."

[DGM]

OK, let's take article #2 of on your list of "references" - the Government funded Purdue study, which only used computer models, which can be programmed to "prove" anything, such as the BS4G.

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I, Page 2:
"No detailed observational data on the perfoemance of tower core elements exist. Therefore the Purdue research team used finite element simulations to assist in estimating the impact response."
And?????????

[TruthMakesPeace]

Let's take #3 on your list of "references" supporting the BS4G. This article has statements supporting what the Truthers have been saying all along. Strike 3. "Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events" by G. P. Cherepanov:

Abstract The subject of the paper is the collapse of towers and highscrapers, particularly, the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in New York on September 11, 2001. The deduced equations of progressive collapse are used to refute the generally accepted opinion of experts about progressive collapse of the WTC towers in the free-fall regime, which is the official version of the US government. It is proved that progressive collapse is much slower than free fall.

[TruthersLie]

Let's take #3 on your list of "references" supporting the BS4G. This article has statements supporting what the Truthers have been saying all along. Strike 3. "Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events" by G. P. Cherepanov:

Abstract The subject of the paper is the collapse of towers and highscrapers, particularly, the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in New York on September 11, 2001. The deduced equations of progressive collapse are used to refute the generally accepted opinion of experts about progressive collapse of the WTC towers in the free-fall regime, which is the official version of the US government. It is proved that progressive collapse is much slower than free fall.

And considering that the towers fell at much slowe than freefall rates (15 seconds and 20 + seconds respectively) the paper agrees with what we have seen.

Truthers are the ones who show their ignorance by running around parroting "freefall."

Please... pretty please provide just one peer reviewed engineering journal from anywhere in the world, in any language which says that NIST is wrong. It should be easy.

[TruthMakesPeace]

You should require more than one peer reviewed journal article, but you asked for one.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, et. al Bentham Open Chemistry & Physics Journal.

It is a peer reviewed journal. Open means that it does not require a paid subscription to view. Just Google "Bentham Journal thermite" and look at the top.

[TruthMakesPeace]

>"There are submittions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies..."
This supposed quote is repeated a few times on Google. But there are no references which prove that Noam ever said such a thing, not even on Chomsky.info, a web site made "with the purpose of celebrating Chomsky's work" with books, articles, interviews, talks, debates, and letters. A search of "9/11 studies" comes up empty. You should provide a source, or remove the bogus quote.

[ElMondoHummus]

This subforum has turned into a giant game of whach-a-mole. Cicorp: The Bentham debacle has already been covered.

Sunstealer's refutation of Jones's and Harrit's analyses:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4659658#post4659658
The problems with Bentham itself, and R.Mackey's adventure in trying to communicate problems with the paper:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3634184#post3634184
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3634377#post3634377
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3635331#post3635331
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3635363#post3635363
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3636576#post3636576
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3637492#post3637492
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3637761#post3637761
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3640780#post3640780
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3649874#post3649874
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3649918#post3649918
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3662754#post3662754
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3665594#post3665594
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3670334#post3670334
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3720078#post3720078
More on Bentham's editorial practices, completely separate from topics having anything to do with 9/11:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4619501#post4619501
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=145354
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/hoax-exposes-incompetence-or-worse-at.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/09/criticism-of-oa-publisher-bentham.html
Some quotes for context:
I received a reply from Mr. Alam to my reminder today, and it is not promising.

He decided to forward my complaints ... to the author of the paper.

I have informed him that, since the authors of dubious papers do not set the standards for journals, that his response is entirely inappropriate, and have reminded him that it is the editors who should be responding.

Thus far, only Mr. Alam has responded to anything, and it appears that he has no idea how real journals operate...
Two replies last night, both of them from Mr. Alam. The first was a forwarded message from Dr. Steven Jones. As you can expect, he disagrees with my assessment. However, as I indicated above, this is an editorial matter, and there is absolutely no reason why a submitter should be responding or even weighing in on the issue. This is clear evidence of a broken peer review process.

The second reply, in Mr. Alam's own words, was a suggestion that I should instead be submitting my own paper in response. I have never before seen a scientific journal article whose abstract dealt with the editorial standards of the journal itself. Needless to say, this suggestion is unprofessional, and borderline insane.

Regardless of whether or not the paper ultimately gets retracted, we can now confidently state that the publishers are incompetent. This matter needs to be resolved independent of any concerns with Dr. Jones or his paper...

•There has been public suspicion about Bentham's operation for more than a year now (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). In April 2008, Richard Poynder interviewed the Bentham Editorial Director, Matthew Honan, to get the company's response to criticism, especially criticism for spamming researchers to submit papers or join editorial boards. In the interview Honan would not identify the owners of the company and would not say why.
•The Davis-Anderson hoax clearly uncovered incompetence at this Bentham journal. We have to ask whether the journal lies about performing peer review or just performs it so badly that it's equivalent to no review at all. Even if the journal were cynically trying to maximize revenue from publication fees, a competent scam would not have accepted the Davis drivel.


The bottom line is this: There is zero evidence that any peer review done on Jones and Harrits work was competent to begin with, and that's presuming that Harrit, Jones, and Bentham itself was honest about having done peer review to begin with. So the publication of the paper in Bentham Open Access is insufficient to be considered legitimate peer review.

But above and beyond that, there are central errors of analysis in the Bentham paper by Jones and Harrit, and they are completely damning. These are not technicalities, but rather fundamental errors of method and analysis. Regardless of whether they published in Bentham or Nature, the fact remains that the analysis done was faulty, the methodology itself was poor in the extreme, and the data used to support the conclusions actually contradict the conclusions. Do a search on this forum for those old threads, but the bottom line is that even if the paper were published in a legitimate journal, it still is too error bound to take seriously. The fact that it was published in a vanity journal with poor editorial controls doesn't help it's reputation any.

[TruthersLie]

You should require more than one peer reviewed journal article, but you asked for one.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, et. al Bentham Open Chemistry & Physics Journal.

It is a peer reviewed journal. Open means that it does not require a paid subscription to view. Just Google "Bentham Journal thermite" and look at the top.

Reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?

I asked for a peer reviewed engineering journal. This is a vanity publication with a LONG history of publishing crap.

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/hoax-exposes-incompetence-or-worse-at.html

You really should look up what peer reviewed means. And then you should look up what a peer reviewed engineering journal means.

Or we can examine the 20 major methodological errors in this "paper." For a good examination of that you can look up the threads "an excellent analysis of dr jones latest paper."

Try again. This time with REAL science.

[TruthersLie]

>"There are submittions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies..."
This supposed quote is repeated a few times on Google. But there are no references which prove that Noam ever said such a thing, not even on Chomsky.info, a web site made "with the purpose of celebrating Chomsky's work" with books, articles, interviews, talks, debates, and letters. A search of "9/11 studies" comes up empty. You should provide a source, or remove the bogus quote.

Oh... poor twoof.

I took it from Mark Roberts (gravy) on his page
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/
and IIRC it is in one of the numerous videos of chomsky destroying 9/11 on youtube. But I don't remember which video. Look it up yourself.

Now unless you can definately prove that he has never said it, then I will be more than happy to leave it right where it is.

Noam Chomsky has made his disdain for truthers rather well known (he thinks you are bat **** crazy but is too polite to phrase it like that).

[ElMondoHummus]

Danny Jowenko responds and elaborates (not "very brief statements") in his phone interview, at 1:28 on YouTube QajDxF9uEf4: "When 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 contolled demolition', you're gone, you know?" Danny does not go along with a lie, just to get business, like many cowardly and greedy contolled demolition companies. He is a strong man, who speaks the truth as he sees it, and is not manipulated by anyone.

The context that's missing is that Jowenko also was only shown a brief video of the fires and also was not told the extent of the interior damage of the building. And in any opinions rendered since then, he has not demonstrated that he's made any study of what was known about the fires and damage done to 7 World Trade. In short, he gives no indication that his statements are anything more than quickly rendered opinions based on little more than what truthers have presented himz. Even if you give him credit for a serious rendition of an opinion, he still has not provided nearly enough rigor to stand up against even the most cursory of actual studies. If he would take the time to construct a more formal hypothesis complete with supporting arguments, like Steven Jones did, then we can consider his opinion be properly a fair retort to formal works. Until then, it's literally nothing more than hot air.

[triforcharity]

You should require more than one peer reviewed journal article, but you asked for one.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, et. al Bentham Open Chemistry & Physics Journal.

It is a peer reviewed journal. Open means that it does not require a paid subscription to view. Just Google "Bentham Journal thermite" and look at the top.

Oh, the pay-To-publish journal where the editor QUIT in disgust? You mean THAT "peer-reviewed" journal?

Yeah, Bentham is a sham. Their peer reviewed consisted of "did the check clear?"

Also, their whole experiment is flawed. Why you ask? They did not test in an inert environment.

Try again twoofie.

[triforcharity]

Yes but they have not produced one movie between them. What do you expect us to do... read this stuff!?

LOL!! BOOKS ON TAPE MAN!! Just sleep through it, and it is absorbed like osmosis.

[triforcharity]

Let's just take the first of your long list of articles which supposedly support the Bush Story for the Gullible (buildings collapsed due to fire alone). The list is from the AE911Truth.info site of Joseph Nobles, a voice writer with no degree in engineering (but a BA in Bible and dropped out of his Masters program).

I read the article "Performance Based Structural Fire Engineering for Modern Building Design" by Darline Rini and Susan Lamont. These ladies do not support the BS4G. This is a false reference, calling your other so called "references" in to question. They merely state:

"While current practice in the United States is primarily prescriptive in nature, performance based structural fire engineering is beginning to have an impact on building design particularly as architects conceive more complex designs and engineers have an increased understanding of structural fire response from the WTC collapse and more recently the Windsor tower fire in Madrid. "

Have you actually READ the paper? I have. You read the preface of the paper. Did you read the rest of it? Did you read the FULL paper? Cause, you have to pay for that you know.

[TruthersLie]

>"There are submittions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies..."
This supposed quote is repeated a few times on Google. But there are no references which prove that Noam ever said such a thing, not even on Chomsky.info, a web site made "with the purpose of celebrating Chomsky's work" with books, articles, interviews, talks, debates, and letters. A search of "9/11 studies" comes up empty. You should provide a source, or remove the bogus quote.

At about 7 minutes in to this he runs down the 9/11 "journals." It isn't the exact quote... but it is pretty close.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uIRfyrMGM0

Oh goody. I found it.
EAT IT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtA63_9tNV0&feature=related

at 320.

So what was that again twoof? Hmmmm? That would be that this FACTUAL quote is EXACTLY what I posted. Thank you for playing.

That is why you don't just trust google. As he states in the video, you can't get that type of experience with a few hours on google.

Try again.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Let's take #3 on your list of "references" supporting the BS4G. This article has statements supporting what the Truthers have been saying all along. Strike 3. "Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events" by G. P. Cherepanov:

Abstract The subject of the paper is the collapse of towers and highscrapers, particularly, the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in New York on September 11, 2001. The deduced equations of progressive collapse are used to refute the generally accepted opinion of experts about progressive collapse of the WTC towers in the free-fall regime, which is the official version of the US government. It is proved that progressive collapse is much slower than free fall.my hi-lite. his/her bold

Sigh. We've been through this. Had you actually read the papers, like Dave Rogers, you wouldn't've foolishly bolded selected parts.

edit - this deserves a laughing dog. The hi-lited part would be Stundie worthy if it weren't arcane.

:dl:

Don't take these two seriously. Cherepanov isn't a conspiracy theorist, but he's addicted to a different form of woo; he thinks that steel buildings are so highly stressed that a single shock can shatter them instantly like glass. He wrote a couple of papers based on a complete failure even to look at the real world features of the collapse, which simply don't bear the most superficial critical examination. I've commented on them here in the past; they're very, very bad.

And yet they got through a genuine peer review, unlike anything by Steven Jones. Funny, that.

Dave

[UNLoVedRebel]

Let's just take the first of your long list of articles which supposedly support the Bush Story for the Gullible (buildings collapsed due to fire alone). The list is from the AE911Truth.info site of Joseph Nobles, a voice writer with no degree in engineering (but a BA in Bible and dropped out of his Masters program). "
I made that list after someone asked about peer review papers about the WTC collapses. Get your **** together.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4354965#post4354965

[Earthborn]

I would love some dutch debunkers to give him a call and ask him if he has read the NIST final draft of wtc7 and ask him if he knows about the huge fires in wtc7, and if he still stands by his statement that the igniters would fail at 320C in office fires.

I have a feeling that he didn't realize it was on fire... but that is just a WAG.There is no reason to call him, as the original interview answers all your questions. When he declared WTC7 a controlled demolition, he didn't know anything about it. Only later in the interview does he learn that there was fire, and though he sticks to his story he can't make any sense of it.

[Dave Rogers]

You should require more than one peer reviewed journal article, but you asked for one.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, et. al Bentham Open Chemistry & Physics Journal.

It is a peer reviewed journal. Open means that it does not require a paid subscription to view. Just Google "Bentham Journal thermite" and look at the top.

Then look for the story about the managing editor of the journal having resigned in protest at the fact that this article was published without her consent or knowledge after having bypassed the peer-review process. This paper was not properly peer-reviewed; this is a matter of record.

Dave

[GlennB]

The context that's missing is that Jowenko also was only shown a brief video of the fires and also was not told the extent of the interior damage of the building....

If you really analyse those videos it's much worse than that. The interviewer leads endlessly, and flat-out lies a number of times. For example, in stating categorically that "you could walk right round the debris pile". At another point Jowenko is led to believe that the core consisted of 12 columns (".. these 12 .."). And so on. (from memory)

I suspect Jowenko over-invested his professional ego there, and feels embarrassed now.

And I always found that twoofer phone call in 2007 (?) call a little weird. Jowenko's home phone is not ex-directory by now, if it wasn't already? If it's his office, he picks up the call himself? Call me paranoid .... ;)

[Bell]

If you really analyse those videos it's much worse than that. The interviewer leads endlessly, and flat-out lies a number of times. For example, in stating categorically that "you could walk right round the debris pile". At another point Jowenko is led to believe that the core consisted of 12 columns (".. these 12 .."). And so on. (from memory)

I suspect Jowenko over-invested his professional ego there, and feels embarrassed now.

And I always found that twoofer phone call in 2007 (?) call a little weird. Jowenko's home phone is not ex-directory by now, if it wasn't already? If it's his office, he picks up the call himself? Call me paranoid .... ;)

Does anyone have a link to this phone call?

Eta: Listening to it now.

Eta 2: It does sound genuine. Voice seems right. Too bad he answers the phone with only his name, not a "Hallo..." or "Met..." (This is...) so I could not hear if it was Dutch or not. One thing that makes me wonder is, did Jowenko knew about the condition of WTC7? Or is he still going by the video he saw of it? In the end, though, it does not matter. It is just one expert's opinion on what happened to WTC7.

[Miragememories]

Danny Jowenko is a controlled demolitions expert from the Netherlands.
http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,3,1

In 2006, Danny Jowenko was interviewed for the Dutch news program; Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories.

These are a few of the comments Danny made after viewing the video of WTC7's collapse.

Danny Jowenko:

"They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."

"Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition."

"Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

[At this point Danny is informed that the video he has been watching was the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11]

"Are you sure it was the 11th??? [9/11] That can't be."

"This is work of man."

"I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded."

"...you can cut them funnel-shaped [columns], a column then cannot go to the left or to the right, it remains standing but they are loose. If it then goes you get the effect, they don't need to apply cutter charges everywhere."

"I don't know, you maybe will need 20 guys with a cutting torch. They have such a column within 15 minutes in such a V-form. Let them do 4 floors then with so many people. Everything then is loose as... all possible. It is all possible. I'm convinced."

"I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not..."

MM

[Miragememories]

So what?

Nothing about the collapse surprises anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and knows that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.
If you want expertise BigAl it is readily available!

Danny Jowenko is a controlled demolitions expert from the Netherlands.
http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,3,1

In 2006, Danny Jowenko was interviewed for the Dutch news program; Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories.

These are a few of the comments Danny made after viewing the video of WTC7's collapse.

Danny Jowenko:

"They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."

"Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition."

"Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

[At this point Danny is informed that the video he has been watching was the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11]

"Are you sure it was the 11th??? [9/11] That can't be."

"This is work of man."

"I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded."

"...you can cut them funnel-shaped [columns], a column then cannot go to the left or to the right, it remains standing but they are loose. If it then goes you get the effect, they don't need to apply cutter charges everywhere."

"I don't know, you maybe will need 20 guys with a cutting torch. They have such a column within 15 minutes in such a V-form. Let them do 4 floors then with so many people. Everything then is loose as... all possible. It is all possible. I'm convinced."

"I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not..."

MM

[BigAl]

If you want expertise BigAl it is readily available!

Danny Jowenko is a controlled demolitions expert from the Netherlands.
http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,3,1

In 2006, Danny Jowenko was interviewed for the Dutch news program; Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories.

These are a few of the comments Danny made after viewing the video of WTC7's collapse.

Danny Jowenko:

"I don't know, you maybe will need 20 guys with a cutting torch. They have such a column within 15 minutes in such a V-form. Let them do 4 floors then with so many people. Everything then is loose as... all possible. It is all possible. I'm convinced."


MM

Nobody prepared WTC7. Jowenko wasn't told that WTC7 was a fully occupied office building right up to the moment it was damaged by the collapse of the WTC towers,

Jowenko wasn't told that WTC7 burned for hours and that there was no water for firefighting.

Jowenko wasn't told of the unusual cantilever beam construction that contributed to the structural failure.

Nothing about the collapse surprises anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.

[Miragememories]

Nobody prepared WTC7. Jowenko wasn't told that WTC7 was a fully occupied office building right up to the moment it was damaged by the collapse of the WTC towers,

Jowenko wasn't told that WTC7 burned for hours and that there was no water for firefighting.

Jowenko wasn't told of the unusual cantilever beam construction that contributed to the structural failure.

Nothing about the collapse surprises anyone with relevant expertise that is familiar with WTC7's unusual all-steel structure and that the water source was destroyed on 9/11.

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.
As a followup, a few years later, Danny Jowenko was asked about his original conclusions.

In the time since he made his sensational observations, he had studied the WTC7 at great length.

He said he would change nothing from his original interview.

He remained absolutely convinced that WTC7 was felled by a controlled demolition.

MM

[BigAl]

As a followup, a few years later, Danny Jowenko was asked about his original conclusions.

In the time since he made his sensational observations, he had studied the WTC7 at great length.

He said he would change nothing from his original interview.

He remained absolutely convinced that WTC7 was felled by a controlled demolition.

MM

Was he told that WTC7 was an unusual all-steel building and that firefighting was impossible on 9/11?

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.

[DGM]

As a followup, a few years later, Danny Jowenko was asked about his original conclusions.

In the time since he made his sensational observations, he had studied the WTC7 at great length.

He said he would change nothing from his original interview.

He remained absolutely convinced that WTC7 was felled by a controlled demolition.

MM
And the towers absolutely were not.

We know!


;)

[16.5]

As a followup, a few years later, Danny Jowenko was asked about his original conclusions.

In the time since he made his sensational observations, he had studied the WTC7 at great length.

He said he would change nothing from his original interview.

He remained absolutely convinced that WTC7 was felled by a controlled demolition.

MM

Appeal to false authority.

Hey, MM, you ever notice that when truthers roll out somebody who said it looks like CD, they never find anyone who says it "sounded" like CD?

But thanks for rolling out Jowenko's statements from 2006. They have had such a "sensational" impact....

What brings you back here anyway, they close down the Loose Change forum, or you just got lonely?

[twinstead]

So mm that means that you agree with Jowenko about WTC 1 and 2?

[beachnut]

As a followup, a few years later, Danny Jowenko was asked about his original conclusions.

In the time since he made his sensational observations, he had studied the WTC7 at great length.

He said he would change nothing from his original interview.

He remained absolutely convinced that WTC7 was felled by a controlled demolition.

MM You found someone who thinks your CD delusion is real. Wow, go get your Pulitzer Prize. Cool; prove Danny studied the WTC 7 plans and knows the design cold. Prove it.

Wow, you did do something, you found someone who is wrong on 911 like you are. Got that

Provide your detailed technical argument to tie your eutectic to your failed conclusions on 911? Sorry, skip that question, that was big talk on your part, you have no technical argument!

Please list your list of "incriminating evidence"; can you do that? Or is that another lie? You will not; you have no evidence. 8 years of failed talk.

What did Danny say about the eutectic? What did Danny say about the fires not being fought and WTC 7 fully involved? The eutectic, how does it play in your idiotic not able to explain conspiracy as you look, with no real effort, for the murderers who did 911?

[funk de fino]

In the time since he made his sensational observations, he had studied the WTC7 at great length.

MM

Evidence?

[Miragememories]

Was he told that WTC7 was an unusual all-steel building and that firefighting was impossible on 9/11?

You'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.
Jowenko is qualified to make the call.

He was quite unambiguous in his conclusions.

MM

[BigAl]

Jowenko is qualified to make the call.


MM

Qualified? Apparently so.

Was he given complete and accurate information? Apparently not.

Was he told that WTC7 was an unusual all-steel building and that firefighting was impossible on 9/11?

He'd never learn this stuff from Richard Gage, AIA.

[Myriad]

Jowenko is qualified to make the call.


Then he must also be qualified to justify his call to other similarly qualified experts, in a way that convinces them. Which is what normally happens when an expert discovers something that other experts aren't aware of yet.

Too bad he's taking his time about doing so. If I were a Truther I'd be getting rather impatient after all these years. Perhaps some of his supporters who hold his views in such high regard should organize to pay his expenses (and if feeling generous, a consulting fee) for writing that technical paper.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[beachnut]

Jowenko is qualified to make the call.

He was quite unambiguous in his conclusions.

MM

So mm that means that you agree with Jowenko about WTC 1 and 2? No CD on 1 and 2, if he uses Danny. He impeaches his own source with the ease of a trained 911 truth faith based conspiracy theorist. Self debunking each lie and delusion with failed logic and no evidence.

MM says goodbye to CD in WTC 1 and 2; his expert tells him so; and his expert is qualified to make the call. lol

Now would be a great time for MM to back this lie up with more than delusional talk.
...
I am happy that through the efforts of many, that over the years since 9/11, an enormous amount of incriminating evidence has been collected.
...
I know what happen to the incriminating evidence; like a wife leaves a husband for good in an open marriage,
...
Anyone with an open mind, the incriminating evidence walked out of the "open minds" of all the truthers.

How does the eutectic fit MM's failed delusions on 911? Still waiting for the long list of (enormous) incriminating evidence! The only incriminating evidence so far is 911 truth spreads delusions based on lies and fantasy.
Don't forget; the eutectic, how does it fit MM's failed delusions on 911?

[Miragememories]

"Qualified? Apparently so.

Was he given complete and accurate information? Apparently not."

Apparently so.

"I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not..."

"Was he told that WTC7 was an unusual all-steel building and that firefighting was impossible on 9/11?"
Interviewer:"There was fire everywhere, and also in that building. [WTC 7]"
Danny Jowenko"But that was a small fire, they could extinguish that and that was what they've done."
Interviewer:"No they didn't do that."
Danny Jowenko"They didn't extinguish it?"
Interviewer:"No, not extinguished. So they'd have to do it while it was on fire."

MM

[BigAl]

Apparently so.




Interviewer:"There was fire everywhere, and also in that building. [WTC 7]"
Danny Jowenko"But that was a small fire, they could extinguish that and that was what they've done."


Interviewer:"No they didn't do that."
Danny Jowenko"They didn't extinguish it?"
Interviewer:"No, not extinguished. So they'd have to do it while it was on fire."

MM


Source?

Who told him the fires were "small"?

Was he told there as no attempt at firefighting and the fire went on for hours?

He'd never here this from Richard Gage.

[uke2se]

Apparently so.




Interviewer:"There was fire everywhere, and also in that building. [WTC 7]"
Danny Jowenko"But that was a small fire, they could extinguish that and that was what they've done."
Interviewer:"No they didn't do that."
Danny Jowenko"They didn't extinguish it?"
Interviewer:"No, not extinguished. So they'd have to do it while it was on fire."

MM

Yes, we realize you like Jowenko - the only expert in controlled demolitions who has spoken in favor of a twooth-movement claim, even though he apparently did so with insufficient information.

The question remains, MM: Does this mean you agree with Jowenko that WTCs 1 and 2 were NOT controlled demolitions?

[alienentity]

Danny Jowenko is a controlled demolitions expert from the Netherlands.
http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,3,1

In 2006, Danny Jowenko was interviewed for the Dutch news program; Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories.

These are a few of the comments Danny made after viewing the video of WTC7's collapse.

Danny Jowenko:

"They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."

"Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition."

"Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

[At this point Danny is informed that the video he has been watching was the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11]

"Are you sure it was the 11th??? [9/11] That can't be."

"This is work of man."

"I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded."

"...you can cut them funnel-shaped [columns], a column then cannot go to the left or to the right, it remains standing but they are loose. If it then goes you get the effect, they don't need to apply cutter charges everywhere."

"I don't know, you maybe will need 20 guys with a cutting torch. They have such a column within 15 minutes in such a V-form. Let them do 4 floors then with so many people. Everything then is loose as... all possible. It is all possible. I'm convinced."

"I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not..."

MM

Thanks for those very illustrative bare assertion fallacies, and a classic argument from authority.
The observations of Jowenko go far beyond simple documentary evidence which would be required to 'prove' scientifically that a CD had actually occurred. As discussed elsewhere, these would need to include careful engineering data, audio evidence of CD explosions, documentation of explosive squibs, forensic evidence of high explosives and cutter charges on the steel and the rubble, etc...

But of course his comments are devoid of any of these. Instead, he merely speculates about how it 'was' done, as if he actually knows!!!! He's not even a little bit skeptical..

I'll dig up some arguments in support of the moon landing hoax which show the same pattern. Time to go hike up a mountain tho...

[double_o]

Danny Jowenko is a controlled demolitions expert from the Netherlands.
http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,3,1

In 2006, Danny Jowenko was interviewed for the Dutch news program; Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories.

These are a few of the comments Danny made after viewing the video of WTC7's collapse.

Danny Jowenko:

"They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."

"Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition."

"Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

[At this point Danny is informed that the video he has been watching was the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11]

"Are you sure it was the 11th??? [9/11] That can't be."

"This is work of man."

"I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded."

"...you can cut them funnel-shaped [columns], a column then cannot go to the left or to the right, it remains standing but they are loose. If it then goes you get the effect, they don't need to apply cutter charges everywhere."

"I don't know, you maybe will need 20 guys with a cutting torch. They have such a column within 15 minutes in such a V-form. Let them do 4 floors then with so many people. Everything then is loose as... all possible. It is all possible. I'm convinced."

"I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not..."

MM

You mean this Jowenko:
k3wwdI0XawI

[Myriad]

Apparently so.

Interviewer:"There was fire everywhere, and also in that building. [WTC 7]"
Danny Jowenko"But that was a small fire, they could extinguish that and that was what they've done."
Interviewer:"No they didn't do that."
Danny Jowenko"They didn't extinguish it?"
Interviewer:"No, not extinguished. So they'd have to do it while it was on fire."



If Mr. Jowenko had sufficient information and qualifications to reach this conclusion, then he must also have sufficient information and qualifications to present his conclusion to other similarly qualified and informed experts, in a way that convinces them. That is what normally happens when an expert discovers something that other experts aren't aware of yet.

Too bad he's taking his time about doing so. If I were a Truther I'd be getting rather impatient after all these years. Perhaps some of his supporters who hold his views in such high regard should organize to pay his expenses (and if feeling generous, a consulting fee) for writing that technical paper.

The more you argue how solid and well-informed Jowenko's opinion is, the more glaring and contrary his failure to offer a professional technical argument for his position becomes.

No one's opinion matters, not even those of experts. The importance of expertise is that experts can show how they arrived at those opinions using accepted methods within an area of expertise. That (along with the level of relevant expertise) is the difference between e.g. NIST and ae11t. There's no equality of "your experts vs. our experts." It's experts who have shown their work vs. those who offer only opinions.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[uke2se]

If Mr. Jowenko had sufficient information and qualifications to reach this conclusion, then he must also have sufficient information and qualifications to present his conclusion to other similarly qualified and informed experts, in a way that convinces them. That is what normally happens when an expert discovers something that other experts aren't aware of yet.

Too bad he's taking his time about doing so. If I were a Truther I'd be getting rather impatient after all these years. Perhaps some of his supporters who hold his views in such high regard should organize to pay his expenses (and if feeling generous, a consulting fee) for writing that technical paper.

The more you argue how solid and well-informed Jowenko's opinion is, the more glaring and contrary his failure to offer a professional technical argument for his position becomes.

No one's opinion matters, not even those of experts. The importance of expertise is that experts can show how they arrived at those opinions using accepted methods within an area of expertise. That (along with the level of relevant expertise) is the difference between e.g. NIST and ae11t. There's no equality of "your experts vs. our experts." It's experts who have shown their work vs. those who offer only opinions.

Respectfully,
Myriad

The funny thing is, if Jowenko's opinion really mattered as much as MM and others want it to, that would mean WTCs 1 and 2 weren't controlled demolitions. This is why MM has fled from the discussion.

[Miragememories]

"The question remains, MM: Does this mean you agree with Jowenko that WTCs 1 and 2 were NOT controlled demolitions?"

I believe Danny Jowenko, like just about every other trusting soul, including myself, was shocked and awed by what he saw on 9/11. In quick order, we accepted the common belief that the sole cause of the WTC Twin Towers collapses were the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

At the time of his 2006 interview, Danny Jowenko was well aware that the mass media, the public, corporations, and most major governments accepted the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Being a wise businessman as well as a demolition expert, Danny knew that to go on record questioning the common belief about the cause of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses, would put him at odds with the people with whom he had to do business.

I'll illustrate my point with this extract from the later interview with Danny Jowenko. The same interview in which he reiterated his firm belief that WTC 7 was felled by a controlled demolition.

Danny Jowenko:"Listen, when the FEMA makes a report that it [WTC7] came down from 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, you're gone, you know?"
Interviewer:"Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?"
Danny Jowenko: "Of course, it's the end of the story."

You might ask at this point; if Danny believed it was bad for business, why in his original interview didn't he just agree that WTC 7 was felled by fire and avoid that controversy as well?

And that would be a fair question.

We know that Danny Jowenko was on record as being in agreement with popular opinion, that the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires were the cause of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses.

The reason for the apparent discrepancy in Danny Jowenko's responses about the cause of the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC 7, lies in how the original Dutch interview was conducted.

He was asked to watch the video of building 7 at the WTC.

But, and this is the crucial point, he was not told at that moment, that the video was from 9/11.

Here is an extract from the first portion of the interview In 2006, for the Dutch news program; Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories.

Interviewer:"What you see at the WTC, these are pictures of building #7. Let's take this and look what we see. Do you see a fire above somewhere?"
Danny Jowenko:"I see smoke however. Yeah, you always get dust, nothing has been removed from it? Does the top go first? No, the bottom."
Interviewer:"It starts on the bottom."
Danny Jowenko:"They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."
Interviewer:"Did this fall in a different way than the WTC? [WTC 1 & WTC 2]"
Danny Jowenko:"Don't you agree?"
Interviewer:"Yes, you see the bottom floors go first."
Danny Jowenko:"Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition."
Interviewer:"Your sure?"
Danny Jowenko:"Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

At this point, the interviewer tells Danny Jowenko when the collapse they have been studying occurred.

Interviewer:"But it also happened on September 11th."
Danny Jowenko:"The same day??? ..... Are you sure?????"
Interviewer:"Yes."
[long pause]
Interviewer:"There it goes again."
[They watch the WTC7 collapse again]

Danny now realizes the serious ramifications of his earlier unguarded opinion.

Danny Jowenko:"I remember that they told they've imploded it, it smoked for days, there was already much smoke gone. Are you sure it was the 11th??? That can't be."
Interviewer:"Seven hours after the World Trade Center came down."

So my argument to you uke2se is that Danny Jowenko was blind-sided into given an honest unguarded response about a collapse that he didn't know was part of 9/11.

He had the integrity to not shift from that opinion when given the opportunity at the time of that interview and in a subsequent interview, a year later.

Had he known beforehand that the collapse was part of 9/11, I'm sure he would have taken the safer, less controversial path.

Knowing how it might impact his business, he likely would have offered the conclusion that the collapse of WTC7 was also a direct consequence of what appeared to happen with the WTC Twin Towers.

MM

[beachnut]

I believe Danny Jowenko, ...
MM
No CD for WTC 1 or 2; and a failed opinion on WTC 7. 66.5 percent, not bad, but the terrorists made 75 percent. 911 truth zero percent.

What does Danny say about the eutectic; you know the topic of the tread you have failed to tie to your delusional WTC 7 CD theory now supported by Danny who says 1 and 2 are not CD.

Eutectic? The topic? Found your enormous amount of incriminating evidence yet; can you please list it, after you explain why your 8 years of failed CD ideas are tied to the eutectic?

[ElMondoHummus]

Danny Jowenko is a controlled demolitions expert from the Netherlands.
http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,3,1


Jowenko's fallacies have already been addressed in this forum, and were done so years ago. To recap that which has been known since 2006: The truthers who initially interviewed him did not tell about the extensive fires in the towers or that those were unfought for hours; that by itself demonstrates that his initial conclusion is flawed, given that his interviewers never gave him the necessary and central facts. In later queries, he's never referenced what's known about the fires or structural damage induced by the fires, and has merely expanded on elements of the structure and what would have needed to have been done to conduct an explosives demolition of the towers. Not only is that retailing of mere hypotheticals, but the concept of explosives has been addressed by pointing out the noise produced by the collapse is absolutely inconsistent with the use of such. In short, the sound produced contradicts the possibility of explosives use.

And no, don't bring up thermite; not only is that addressed in other threads, but 1. It's not an explosive, and 2. It's not an element of Jowenko's proposals.

Jowenko's conclusions are quite obviously not accepted by the engineering community at large, and I'm referring to the worldwide community, not merely the US component. As was pointed out to you back in 2007 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2658423#post2658423): The Eurocodes have been modified in response to NIST's reports. Furthermore, the findings from the 7 World Trade NIST study was released after the last round of ICC meetings to modify, but knowledge of the Twin Towers reports have already had an impact on codes generated by that body (http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/NIST-WorldTradeCenterRecommendations.aspx). We'll see what they do with the 7 World Trade studies during the next round of code changes, but if history is any guide, they'll be accepted. Regardless, pointing out Jowenko accomplishes nothing other than demonstrating that minority opinions exist, and when the particulars of Jowenko's opinion are studied, they fail on their own merits. One person in the demolitions industry who was not given complete information on the 7 World Trade building collapse and who has not built a complete theory but merely expanded on what would have been needed is not a contradiction of the established body of knowledge. It's not even a good critique. If you want a good critique, I'd advise looking at Arup or Dr. James Quintiere as examples. Citing Jowenko does you no good.

[uke2se]

I believe Danny Jowenko, like just about every other trusting soul, including myself, was shocked and awed by what he saw on 9/11. In quick order, we accepted the common belief that the sole cause of the WTC Twin Towers collapses were the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

At the time of his 2006 interview, Danny Jowenko was well aware that the mass media, the public, corporations, and most major governments accepted the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Being a wise businessman as well as a demolition expert, Danny knew that to go on record questioning the common belief about the cause of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses, would put him at odds with the people with whom he had to do business.

I'll illustrate my point with this extract from the later interview with Danny Jowenko. The same interview in which he reiterated his firm belief that WTC 7 was felled by a controlled demolition.

Danny Jowenko:"Listen, when the FEMA makes a report that it [WTC7] came down from 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, you're gone, you know?"
Interviewer:"Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?"
Danny Jowenko: "Of course, it's the end of the story."

You might ask at this point; if Danny believed it was bad for business, why in his original interview didn't he just agree that WTC 7 was felled by fire and avoid that controversy as well?

And that would be a fair question.

We know that Danny Jowenko was on record as being in agreement with popular opinion, that the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires were the cause of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses.

The reason for the apparent discrepancy in Danny Jowenko's responses about the cause of the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers and WTC 7, lies in how the original Dutch interview was conducted.

He was asked to watch the video of building 7 at the WTC.

But, and this is the crucial point, he was not told at that moment, that the video was from 9/11.

Here is an extract from the first portion of the interview In 2006, for the Dutch news program; Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories.

Interviewer:"What you see at the WTC, these are pictures of building #7. Let's take this and look what we see. Do you see a fire above somewhere?"
Danny Jowenko:"I see smoke however. Yeah, you always get dust, nothing has been removed from it? Does the top go first? No, the bottom."
Interviewer:"It starts on the bottom."
Danny Jowenko:"They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."
Interviewer:"Did this fall in a different way than the WTC? [WTC 1 & WTC 2]"
Danny Jowenko:"Don't you agree?"
Interviewer:"Yes, you see the bottom floors go first."
Danny Jowenko:"Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition."
Interviewer:"Your sure?"
Danny Jowenko:"Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."

At this point, the interviewer tells Danny Jowenko when the collapse they have been studying occurred.

Interviewer:"But it also happened on September 11th."
Danny Jowenko:"The same day??? ..... Are you sure?????"
Interviewer:"Yes."
[long pause]
Interviewer:"There it goes again."
[They watch the WTC7 collapse again]

Danny now realizes the serious ramifications of his earlier unguarded opinion.

Danny Jowenko:"I remember that they told they've imploded it, it smoked for days, there was already much smoke gone. Are you sure it was the 11th??? That can't be."
Interviewer:"Seven hours after the World Trade Center came down."

So my argument to you uke2se is that Danny Jowenko was blind-sided into given an honest unguarded response about a collapse that he didn't know was part of 9/11.

He had the integrity to not shift from that opinion when given the opportunity at the time of that interview and in a subsequent interview, a year later.

Had he known beforehand that the collapse was part of 9/11, I'm sure he would have taken the safer, less controversial path.

Knowing how it might impact his business, he likely would have offered the conclusion that the collapse of WTC7 was also a direct consequence of what appeared to happen with the WTC Twin Towers.

MM

Ah, I see. Jowenko is an authority to rely on when it comes to WTC 7, but not when it comes to WTC 1 and 2. That explains how you can claim that he later affirmed his view on WTC 7 even though he had a chance to recant because of the huge controversy that you allege.

Interesting way of attempting to have your cake and eat it. In internet parlance, we call this a massive fail.

[Miragememories]

Ah, I see. Jowenko is an authority to rely on when it comes to WTC 7, but not when it comes to WTC 1 and 2. That explains how you can claim that he later affirmed his view on WTC 7 even though he had a chance to recant because of the huge controversy that you allege.

Interesting way of attempting to have your cake and eat it. In internet parlance, we call this a massive fail.
The failure is all yours uke2se.

Your reply does not address my post at all.

Your obfuscation is an not argument.

MM

[uke2se]

The failure is all yours uke2se.

Your reply does not address my post at all.

Your obfuscation is an not argument.

MM

My reply addressed your post completely. If you don't realize that I can't really help you. You want to be able to use Jowenko to support your delusion of CD for WTC 7, but you don't want to acknowledge his opinion that WTC 1 and 2 weren't CD, so you invent a scenario in which Jowenko is somehow passively peer-pressured into supporting the official line for WTC 1 and 2, but "blindsided" into "revealing" that WTC 7 was a CD. You further claim that he had enough "integrity" to not recant his opinion on WTC 7 later on, despite this completely undermining your entire scenario.

Once again, epic fail.