Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Miragememories]

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...

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


MM

[Miragememories]

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.

I suggest you study my post here before you get overwhelmed in your beliefs;

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6181645&postcount=1552

MM

[Miragememories]

You mean this Jowenko:
k3wwdI0XawI

I suggest you read my post here before you open the champagne;

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6181645&postcount=1552

MM

[uke2se]

I suggest you study my post here before you get overwhelmed in your beliefs;

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6181645&postcount=1552

MM

So, how about it, MM? Jowenko says WTC 1 and 2 weren't CDs. That's gotta be right as well if we are to take Jowenko's opinion over all others'. Don't try to drag your ludicrous scenario about Jowenko being pressured into lying about WTC 1 and 2 either, because that's probably one of the stupidest ideas I've heard a truther post.

[uke2se]

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


MM

Ok, here (http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm) are some experts in controlled demolition saying the WTC towers weren't CD'd. Let's trust them. They is expert.

[triforcharity]

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

Source?

PS, did they have the audio turned on?

[ElMondoHummus]

I suggest you study my post here before you get overwhelmed in your beliefs;

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6181645&postcount=1552

MM

There's not a single element of that post that negates what I said. On the contrary, it confirms my criticism. Like I said: He wasn't given complete information regarding the collapses, and futhermore does not build a hypothesis built on what is known about the fires and subsequent effect of those fires on the towers. He doesn't build any cohesive narrative, he merely gives a reaction to a video he just seen.

If that post was meant to refute any aspect of what I said, then it fails. It supports it. It clearly demonstrates that he was not working with full information and in turn did not build anything near a complete hypothesis. You should go back and reread previous threads on the topics (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64261), threads you clearly do not recall despite having participated in them (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2658423#post2658423). Jowenko's opinions have already been refuted; you're resurrecting an already failed hypothesis. Here are some links (http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&safe=off&cof=S:http://forums.randi.org%3BL:http://forums.randi.org/images/misc/searchlogo.gif%3BLH:75%3BLW:849%3B&domains=forums.randi.org&sitesearch=forums.randi.org&ei=6P9VTPC7Jt61nAfU4O2QBA&q=jowenko+manipulated&start=10&sa=N).

[TruthersLie]

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

Just a simple question.

In this same interview you are quote mining here, how many times does he say "I'm just guessing here..." or "I wish I could look this up..." or "I have no idea how they could do that..." or "I wish I had the plans here..."

Because when you quotemine it like you have, boy does it look impressive. When you pay attention to how many times he says "I'm just guessing here..." and there rest it is rather funny.

He states in the interview he has NO IDEA how they could rig the building. None. And he is the TOP european CD expert (according to truthers).

he states the detonators would fail at 320C in any fire.

he states very clearly that wtc 1 and 2 are not CD.

Will you take ALL of Danny J's testimony? Or are you just a typical quote mining truther fraud?

[GlennB]

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.


Jowenko was also under the impression that the base of building was gutted by debris impact damage and that the CD team could just walk in and get straight to work on exposed columns.

He was also given the impression that there were only 12 core columns.

And - critically - not a single thought was given to why a CD team might be hanging around.

[bardamu]

Just a simple question.

In this same interview you are quote mining here, how many times does he say "I'm just guessing here..." or "I wish I could look this up..." or "I have no idea how they could do that..." or "I wish I had the plans here..."

Because when you quotemine it like you have, boy does it look impressive. When you pay attention to how many times he says "I'm just guessing here..." and there rest it is rather funny.

He states in the interview he has NO IDEA how they could rig the building. None. And he is the TOP european CD expert (according to truthers).

he states the detonators would fail at 320C in any fire.

he states very clearly that wtc 1 and 2 are not CD.

Will you take ALL of Danny J's testimony? Or are you just a typical quote mining truther fraud?

Bill was wondering which corner of WTC 7 dropped first.

[bill smith]

Jowenko is qualified to make the call.

He was quite unambiguous in his conclusions.

MM

Jowenko confirms absolutely.

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

[dafydd]

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

Will these delusionauts still be harping on about this in twenty years time? They've had nine years and produced nothing,no evidence,no whistle blowers,no passengers who were in on it,zilch,nada,rein-de-knots,niks. How long can they keep this up for? Surely this is a wide open field for psychologists?The 911 syndrome.Have any studies been done on truthers?

[Oystein]

Jowenko was also under the impression that the base of building was gutted by debris impact damage and that the CD team could just walk in and get straight to work on exposed columns.

He was also given the impression that there were only 12 core columns.

And - critically - not a single thought was given to why a CD team might be hanging around.

He also did not know that WTC7 had burned for hours. When he learned about that, he was pretty much clueless, as he know perfectly well that you can't rig a building whil it is burning, and that the charges already placed in burning fire would also just burn, not explode, before they could be detonated.

So here is a picture perfect example for the "Fallacy from false authority": While Jowenko may be an authority for CD, in this case he was clearly a very ill informed expert. An expert with wrong information can not come to the right conclusion.
Even if he presumably (we can doubt that he is correctly identified inb that phone call, could be fake) confirmed his CD stance a year later, we have no indication that he has in the meantime received better information.

[dafydd]

Jowenko was also under the impression that the base of building was gutted by debris impact damage and that the CD team could just walk in and get straight to work on exposed columns.

He was also given the impression that there were only 12 core columns.

And - critically - not a single thought was given to why a CD team might be hanging around.

Do not bother truthers with allusions to reality,it is non-productive.

[Grizzly Bear]

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.

Because he is a professional; he can never be wrong.
Anyway... He thinks Jowenko is something other than human (actually he thinks this of the Gage crew too). Most people understand that in the end these professionals are people and they have the same faults as everybody else, but not conspiracy theorists :rolleyes:

[Miragememories]

There's not a single element of that post that negates what I said. On the contrary, it confirms my criticism. Like I said: He wasn't given complete information regarding the collapses, and futhermore does not build a hypothesis built on what is known about the fires and subsequent effect of those fires on the towers. He doesn't build any cohesive narrative, he merely gives a reaction to a video he just seen.

If that post was meant to refute any aspect of what I said, then it fails. It supports it. It clearly demonstrates that he was not working with full information and in turn did not build anything near a complete hypothesis. You should go back and reread previous threads on the topics (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64261), threads you clearly do not recall despite having participated in them (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2658423#post2658423). Jowenko's opinions have already been refuted; you're resurrecting an already failed hypothesis. Here are some links (http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&safe=off&cof=S:http://forums.randi.org%3BL:http://forums.randi.org/images/misc/searchlogo.gif%3BLH:75%3BLW:849%3B&domains=forums.randi.org&sitesearch=forums.randi.org&ei=6P9VTPC7Jt61nAfU4O2QBA&q=jowenko+manipulated&start=10&sa=N).
You ignore the truth at your own peril.

Danny Jowenko had ample opportunity to change his mind.

He did not.

He had access to all the information available to everyone here.

He could have changed his mind.

Did he change his mind?

To quote Mr. Jowenko;
"It couldn't have been done by fire. Absolutely not!".

Has the level of bigoted responses changed one iota in this forum.

Absolutely not.

I do hope all the open-minded visitors who come here pay close attention.

The best case for supporting the cause of 9/11 Truth is presented by the clear ignorance behind the replies of all the Official Conspiracy Theory supporters here.

MM

[Oystein]

You ignore the truth at your own peril.

Danny Jowenko had ample opportunity to change his mind.

He did not.

He had access to all the information available to everyone here.

He could have changed his mind.

Did he change his mind?
...

Did he actually access the information and study it?
Do you know?

[Miragememories]

Jowenko was also under the impression that the base of building was gutted by debris impact damage and that the CD team could just walk in and get straight to work on exposed columns.

He was also given the impression that there were only 12 core columns.

And - critically - not a single thought was given to why a CD team might be hanging around.

To rename an old song;
Who's Lying Now?

I guess the truth only has to be provided by those who disagree with you?

Apparently, make it up as you go along, is just fine for those who support the Official Conspiracy Theory.

MM

[Telltale Tom]

Danny is one of the special truthers whose truth consists of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 was caused by the plane attack and subsequent fires while WTC 7 was caused by a controlled demolition team.

I would say he believes this, but at ae911truth we don't have beliefs, only truths.

[Miragememories]

He also did not know that WTC7 had burned for hours. When he learned about that, he was pretty much clueless, as he know perfectly well that you can't rig a building whil it is burning, and that the charges already placed in burning fire would also just burn, not explode, before they could be detonated.

So here is a picture perfect example for the "Fallacy from false authority": While Jowenko may be an authority for CD, in this case he was clearly a very ill informed expert. An expert with wrong information can not come to the right conclusion.
Even if he presumably (we can doubt that he is correctly identified inb that phone call, could be fake) confirmed his CD stance a year later, we have no indication that he has in the meantime received better information.

What you fail, or refuse to grasp the significance of Oystein, is that fire was so far from a being a possible cause for the WTC 7 collapse, that Danny has never wavered, even to this day, in his unequivocal conclusion that WTC 7 was felled by controlled demolition.

MM

[beachnut]

What you fail, or refuse to grasp the significance of Oystein, is that fire was so far from a being a possible cause for the WTC 7 collapse, that Danny has never wavered, even to this day, in his unequivocal conclusion that WTC 7 was felled by controlled demolition.

MM

You go with Danny, he says no CD for Towers, CD for WTC 7. You score 67 percent.

Go with your theory, you have zero percent, and fail to list your enormous amount of "incriminating evidence". Is it lost?

Or you can go with the truth, no CD on 911 and be 100 percent correct, and avoid making it 9 years of failed CD delusions.

Fire caused WTC 7 failure. Facts are hard to use when you have 8 years of CD delusions blocking you ability to analyze reality based evidence.

Better get with Gage, at least he is traveling on money collected from gullible donates too dumb to realize he spreads lies. Maybe you can join Gages traveling lie show and have your expenses covered. Only a few top truther are making money. DRG sells books, he makes money. Gage takes donations and travels. 911 truth movement is a scam for a few to make money off the many paranoid conspiracy theorists.

[Oystein]

What you fail, or refuse to grasp the significance of Oystein, is that fire was so far from a being a possible cause for the WTC 7 collapse, that Danny has never wavered, even to this day, in his unequivocal conclusion that WTC 7 was felled by controlled demolition.

MM

May I repeat:

Jowenko did not even know at all that WTC7 had burned!
He did not even know that WTC7 fell the same day!
He had been shown a video of the collapse without sound!

When the original interview was done with Jowenko, he was clearly the most uninformed person with regards to WTC7 that you could imagine!

He based his initial opinion of "yes, CD" on a video without sound. Had he been played the video with sound, I bet you, he would have first noticed the complete absence of the first telltale sign of real CDs: INSANELY LOUD BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG at the onset of collapse.


Later he found out: ooops! Did not fall same day! So he quickly thinks: How many quick working guys could rig a building in 7 hours or so?
Then he learns: ooops! Fires? I didn't know that!!
Ok, sure, he did not retract the rigging, for he can't imagine that a fire could bring down a building.
Now question: Is Jowenko an expert on the behaviour of burning buildings? Miragememories, I ask you to specifically address this question, should be a YES or a NO!

Then, a year later, someone calls this guy.
How do you know he has looked into the matter even one more minute after the original interview?
Has he? Miragememories, please answer that specific question! Should be yes, no, or I DON'T KNOW!

[ElMondoHummus]

To quote Mr. Jowenko;
"It couldn't have been done by fire. Absolutely not!".

Has the level of bigoted responses changed one iota in this forum.

Absolutely not.


And in the absence of any explanation for why he says this, why should anyone accept his unexplained, unsupported opinion over the open and available research that's already been accepted nationwide and is influencing code worldwide?? As I've pointed out in other posts, the NIST research has already affected American building code (ASCE 7 here in the US was cited by one of the engineers in this forum) and is being analyzed by the ICC (http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/NIST-WorldTradeCenterRecommendations.aspx), which is an international code body. The poster Architect here also said that the Eurocodes have been modified in response to the WTC 7 findings, as well as the ones for the main towers, but I don't have citations for those. At any rate, the studies I'm mentioning are available and open; Jowenko's argument, in contrast, is not. And you're proving it here by merely posting his assertions, not his arguments.

All you are accomplishing here is demonstrating that you're willing to hold on to a single individual's statements to salvage an untenable position. The fact of the matter is, the activities of the ASCE alone, let alone the ICC, demonstrates that Jowenko's position is not held generally. Also, given that explosives are contradicted on sound pressure levels alone, let alone the absence of demolition components remains as well as a marked lack of opportunity to install them, the fact remains that Jowenko is defending a disproven hypothesis. He's not even giving any arguments to support his stance. And you are doing nothing more than arguing from authority, a singular authority who's giving zero reason for anyone to believe him over the engineering and architectural communities.

If there's any substance to Jowenko's arguments, then provide it. But you need to stop employing this silly "He's an expert!" line of argument; all I need to do is point out the ASCE and ICC organizations believes the opposite to refute your argument. Unsupported appeals to authority get you nowhere. In contrast, the NIST studies, and the ASCE and ICC acceptance of those, as well as the worldwide employment of the knowledge generated in those studies (look up Arup and the Beijing TVCC fire for examples of such knowledge actually being put to use) are examples of open knowledge, used openly, and arguable on their own merits, not the merits of the professionals who assembled them.

[bill smith]

You go with Danny, he says no CD for Towers, CD for WTC 7. You score 67 percent.

Go with your theory, you have zero percent, and fail to list your enormous amount of "incriminating evidence". Is it lost?

Or you can go with the truth, no CD on 911 and be 100 percent correct, and avoid making it 9 years of failed CD delusions.

Fire caused WTC 7 failure. Facts are hard to use when you have 8 years of CD delusions blocking you ability to analyze reality based evidence.

Better get with Gage, at least he is traveling on money collected from gullible donates too dumb to realize he spreads lies. Maybe you can join Gages traveling lie show and have your expenses covered. Only a few top truther are making money. DRG sells books, he makes money. Gage takes donations and travels. 911 truth movement is a scam for a few to make money off the many paranoid conspiracy theorists.

Steel framed buildings do not fall down like a house of catds as WTC7 did Beachnut.The behaviour of the building in the attached video gives a better idea of how solid and strong a steel framed building really is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf243Pj0S-Y Steel frame

[BigAl]

What you fail, or refuse to grasp the significance of Oystein, is that fire was so far from a being a possible cause for the WTC 7 collapse,

MM

Sez who?

[beachnut]

Steel framed buildings do not fall down like a house of catds as WTC7 did Beachnut.The behaviour of the building in the attached video gives a better idea of how solid and strong a steel framed building really is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf243Pj0S-Y Steel frame
Too bad you can't back up lies with some math as you bailed-out of the math for the aircraft question.

Fire causes buildings to fail. Go ahead make up more delusions.

Danny says no CD for 1 and 2; he is 67 percent correct with his failed WTC 7 opinion. You are 100 percent wrong as you hitch your wagon to Heiwa and his delusions.

If only you could do math and physics you would not spew delusions made up out of ignorance.

Your video is not of a steel framed building; your delusions are based on big lies. Do you try to make a correct statement, or are you trying to post pure stupid? 8 years of failure.

[Miragememories]

"Just a simple question.

In this same interview you are quote mining here, how many times does he say "I'm just guessing here..." or "I wish I could look this up..." or "I have no idea how they could do that..." or "I wish I had the plans here..."

Because when you quotemine it like you have, boy does it look impressive."

Are you familiar with the value of salient points?

Well, what you are referring to as "quote mining" is just my concise presentation of the salient points in the Danny Jowenko interview.

When papers are written and researchers extract salient material from reference documents, they aren't accused of "cherry-picking" because they don't present the whole reference document.

The Danny Jowenko interviews are readily available for you to cross-reference if you feel I've misrepresented him in any way.

If my presentation looks impressive, it is because what Danny has to say is impressive, and not easily ignored or dismissed.

"When you pay attention to how many times he says "I'm just guessing here..." and there rest it is rather funny."
Nothing unusual about that, given the length of the interview and the size of the demolition project.

He never once suggests that there is insufficient information for him to be sure of this conclusion;

Danny Jowenko: "I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not...""

"He states in the interview he has NO IDEA how they could rig the building. None. And he is the TOP european CD expert (according to truthers).

he states the detonators would fail at 320C in any fire.

he states very clearly that wtc 1 and 2 are not CD.

Will you take ALL of Danny J's testimony? Or are you just a typical quote mining truther fraud?"
It is a lie to say; "He states in the interview he has NO IDEA how they could rig the building."

He makes numerous detailed suggestions about the procedures they could have followed.

One example;

Danny Jowenko: "... it maybe that they indeed used packet charges instead off all the cutting torch work, plus applying a linear cutter charge."

Yes, he did accept that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were not controlled demolitions and here is my take on that.

It is an appeal to those with open minds.

In a nutshell, Danny Jowenko accepted that the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers were not caused by controlled demolitions because;

-they were top down collapses
-he originally saw them as part of the same indoctrinating 'shock and awe' news event as everyone else
-they were assaulted by large commercial passenger jets
-they displayed dramatic fire activity
-the U.S. government quickly stated the view that it was solely a result of the terrorist aircraft attacks
-the mainstream press fully supported the government viewpoint
-FEMA's Report presented no alternative viewpoint
-the 911 Commision supported the Official Theory
-NIST fully supported the Official Theory
-multi-national corporations supported the Official Theory
-patriots were expected to support the Official Theory
-only terrorists and misguided troofers were expected to challenge the Official Theory
-like most people, Danny had no motivation to dig deep and question what he was told by those who traditionally commanded the public trust
-it's easier, and from a business and professional point of view, safer, to maintain the status quo
-Danny had never heard about or viewed the collapse of WTC7

For a good many of us, myself included, we bought the official story.

For a good many of us, myself included, when we saw and read about the collapse of WTC7, we stopped buying the Official Story.

As a professional editor for broadcast TV, I've probably worked on over a thousand interviews, going back to 1973, including John Dean, Nixon's former White House Counsel when the Watergate scandal made history, and whose interview I recorded in 1974.

Watching Danny Jowenko being interviewed, I saw a sincere professional, anxious to fully cooperate with his TV interviewer, well aware that the TV coverage could be beneficial for the Jowenko Demolition Company which he owns.

Being a professional building demolition engineer, Danny Jowenko, like all of his peers, must of course been very interested in the major collapses of the WTC Twin Towers. When interviewed specifically about those towers, it was clear that he was quite knowledgeable about the NIST conclusion that it was a cascading collapse resulting from the aircraft collision damage and subsequent fires. He had no reason to question their report, as it was extremely well prepared (10,000 pages) and he obviously embraced it, virtually quoting from it while explaining why he agreed with their collapse initiation assessment.

Danny has solidly backed the WTC Twin Tower part of the Official Story and is on record as having done so. To change his belief would look bad professionally, risk harming his business and would put him in opposition to the establishment and the popular point of view.

Why did he effectively contradict himself regarding these three WTC buildings and how can he continue to reconcile this contradiction?

I believe the answer to the first question lies in his interview about WTC7.

When discussing the possible rigging details of the controlled demolition operation, Jowenko focused on speed and the minimum requirements necessary to achieve the task in the 7 hour time frame presented to him.

His whole explanation avoided acceptance of the idea that the demolition was pre-planned and therefore connected to the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers.

An inside job scenario had not entered his mind, so he logically assumed that it must of been a same day "seize the moment" operation.

The only WTC link he considered was that Silverstein might have seized the opportunity presented by the collapsing Twin Towers, to get official approval for demolishing WTC7. Using the argument of public safety, the very expensive to repair, badly damaged WTC7, could be legally removed, and thus Silverstein's losses would be greatly reduced by his insurance coverage.

Regarding the question of why, having had the time to study 9/11 further, he has not yet acknowledged the difficulty in reconciling his collapse conclusions about WTC 7 and the WTC Twin Towers?

Maybe the best explanation can be summed up by this statement in his 2007 telephone interview with Jeff Hill;

Danny Jowenko: "when the FEMA makes a report that it came down from fire and you have to earn your money in the U.S. as a controlled demolition company...and you say no it was a controlled demolition...you're, you're gone....you know??"

"It's the end of your, your...it's the end of the story."

MM

[Redtail]

Are you familiar with the value of salient points?

Well, what you are referring to as "quote mining" is just my concise presentation of the salient points in the Danny Jowenko interview.

When papers are written and researchers extract salient material from reference documents, they aren't accused of "cherry-picking" because they don't present the whole reference document.

The Danny Jowenko interviews are readily available for you to cross-reference if you feel I've misrepresented him in any way.

If my presentation looks impressive, it is because what Danny has to say is impressive, and not easily ignored or dismissed.


Nothing unusual about that, given the length of the interview and the size of the demolition project.

He never once suggests that there is insufficient information for him to be sure of this conclusion;

Danny Jowenko: "I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not...""


It is a lie to say; "He states in the interview he has NO IDEA how they could rig the building."

He makes numerous detailed suggestions about the procedures they could have followed.

One example;

Danny Jowenko: "... it maybe that they indeed used packet charges instead off all the cutting torch work, plus applying a linear cutter charge."

Yes, he did accept that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were not controlled demolitions and here is my take on that.

It is an appeal to those with open minds.

In a nutshell, Danny Jowenko accepted that the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers were not caused by controlled demolitions because;

-they were top down collapses
-he originally saw them as part of the same indoctrinating 'shock and awe' news event as everyone else
-they were assaulted by large commercial passenger jets
-they displayed dramatic fire activity
-the U.S. government quickly stated the view that it was solely a result of the terrorist aircraft attacks
-the mainstream press fully supported the government viewpoint
-FEMA's Report presented no alternative viewpoint
-the 911 Commision supported the Official Theory
-NIST fully supported the Official Theory
-multi-national corporations supported the Official Theory
-patriots were expected to support the Official Theory
-only terrorists and misguided troofers were expected to challenge the Official Theory
-like most people, Danny had no motivation to dig deep and question what he was told by those who traditionally commanded the public trust
-it's easier, and from a business and professional point of view, safer, to maintain the status quo
-Danny had never heard about or viewed the collapse of WTC7

For a good many of us, myself included, we bought the official story.

For a good many of us, myself included, when we saw and read about the collapse of WTC7, we stopped buying the Official Story.

As a professional editor for broadcast TV, I've probably worked on over a thousand interviews, going back to 1973, including John Dean, Nixon's former White House Counsel when the Watergate scandal made history, and whose interview I recorded in 1974.

Watching Danny Jowenko being interviewed, I saw a sincere professional, anxious to fully cooperate with his TV interviewer, well aware that the TV coverage could be beneficial for the Jowenko Demolition Company which he owns.

Being a professional building demolition engineer, Danny Jowenko, like all of his peers, must of course been very interested in the major collapses of the WTC Twin Towers. When interviewed specifically about those towers, it was clear that he was quite knowledgeable about the NIST conclusion that it was a cascading collapse resulting from the aircraft collision damage and subsequent fires. He had no reason to question their report, as it was extremely well prepared (10,000 pages) and he obviously embraced it, virtually quoting from it while explaining why he agreed with their collapse initiation assessment.

Danny has solidly backed the WTC Twin Tower part of the Official Story and is on record as having done so. To change his belief would look bad professionally, risk harming his business and would put him in opposition to the establishment and the popular point of view.

Why did he effectively contradict himself regarding these three WTC buildings and how can he continue to reconcile this contradiction?

I believe the answer to the first question lies in his interview about WTC7.

When discussing the possible rigging details of the controlled demolition operation, Jowenko focused on speed and the minimum requirements necessary to achieve the task in the 7 hour time frame presented to him.

His whole explanation avoided acceptance of the idea that the demolition was pre-planned and therefore connected to the collapses of the WTC Twin Towers.

An inside job scenario had not entered his mind, so he logically assumed that it must of been a same day "seize the moment" operation.

The only WTC link he considered was that Silverstein might have seized the opportunity presented by the collapsing Twin Towers, to get official approval for demolishing WTC7. Using the argument of public safety, the very expensive to repair, badly damaged WTC7, could be legally removed, and thus Silverstein's losses would be greatly reduced by his insurance coverage.

Regarding the question of why, having had the time to study 9/11 further, he has not yet acknowledged the difficulty in reconciling his collapse conclusions about WTC 7 and the WTC Twin Towers?

Maybe the best explanation can be summed up by this statement in his 2007 telephone interview with Jeff Hill;

Danny Jowenko: "when the FEMA makes a report that it came down from fire and you have to earn your money in the U.S. as a controlled demolition company...and you say no it was a controlled demolition...you're, you're gone....you know??"

"It's the end of your, your...it's the end of the story."

MM
So he's a coward. That's all you have to say.

[Bell]

So he's a coward. That's all you have to say.

Must be. Since he does not want to concede he was wrong.

[bill smith]

Too bad you can't back up lies with some math as you bailed-out of the math for the aircraft question.

Fire causes buildings to fail. Go ahead make up more delusions.

Danny says no CD for 1 and 2; he is 67 percent correct with his failed WTC 7 opinion. You are 100 percent wrong as you hitch your wagon to Heiwa and his delusions.

If only you could do math and physics you would not spew delusions made up out of ignorance.

Your video is not of a steel framed building; your delusions are based on big lies. Do you try to make a correct statement, or are you trying to post pure stupid? 8 years of failure.

The only way any steel framed hi-rise building on Earth has ever been cleanly brought down is by explosive controlled crmolition. WTC1,WTC2 and WTC7 are not exceptions.

[Bell]

The only way any steel framed hi-rise building on Earth has ever been cleanly brought down is by explosive controlled crmolition. WTC1,WTC2 and WTC7 are not exceptions.

How many high rise buildings (say... 110 floors?) have you seen where a Boeing 767 crashed into at full throttle and then suffering a subsequential office fire ignited by the exploding jet fuel, which was not fought by the fire department?

You can round up to the nearest decimal.

[Miragememories]

So he's a coward. That's all you have to say.
And you are so brave?

Too funny.

MM

[bill smith]

How many high rise buildings (say... 110 floors?) have you seen where a Boeing 767 crashed into at full throttle and then suffering a subsequential office fire ignited by the exploding jet fuel, which was not fought by the fire department?

You can round up to the nearest decimal.

If that was such a good way to bring down skyscrapers they would be flying jets into buildings all over the place Belle.

[Bell]

If that was such a good way to bring down skyscrapers they would be flying jets into buildings all over the place Belle.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/index.html

And let's not forget the pilot who has to fly it into the building and the collateral damage :rolleyes:

Eta: And the question still stand: how many high rise buildings?

[carlitos]

And you are so brave?

Too funny.

MM

He didn't say that. He said that Jowenko is a coward. Which is true, if he believes that someone blew up the WTC (which one?) and is too afraid to do anything about it.

Danny Jowenko: "when the FEMA makes a report that it came down from fire and you have to earn your money in the U.S. as a controlled demolition company...and you say no it was a controlled demolition...you're, you're gone....you know??"

"It's the end of your, your...it's the end of the story."

[bill smith]

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/index.html

And let's not forget the pilot who has to fly it into the building and the collateral damage :rolleyes:

Eta: And the question still stand: how many high rise buildings?

At the end of their life the jets are cheap enough. Build in a ejector seat or bail out .....or even remote control. No big deal.

Collateral damage ?....not really. Apparently when you crash a plane into a steel framed skyscraper it collapses more or less straight down.

[Bell]

At the end of their life the jets are cheap enough. Build in a ejector seat or bail out .....or even remote control. No big deal.

:dl:

And collateral damage, no big deal?

And again, how many high rise buildings have you seen where a Boeing 767 crashed into at full throttle and then suffering a subsequential office fire ignited by the exploding jet fuel, which was not fought by the fire department?

[bill smith]

:dl:

And collateral damage, no big deal?

And again, how many high rise buildings have you seen where a Boeing 767 crashed into at full throttle and then suffering a subsequential office fire ignited by the exploding jet fuel, which was not fought by the fire department?

It's my bedtime Bell. Night-night.

[Bell]

It's my bedtime Bell. Night-night.

Typing a number would have been faster than typing that sentence... :rolleyes:

[Redtail]

And you are so brave?

Too funny.

MM

What else would you call someone who has the ability to prove that the US government was behind the murder of thousands of it's citizens, and started a war that would kill many more thousands of people from several different countries (or at "best" allowed it to happen) but won't say anything because it might cost him money*?

And for the record, yeah I'm brave. Mainly because if I see something I believe to be a wrong, I do something about it instead of whining on the internet.

* It amazes me that truthers will hold up losing money or a job as a reason for people to keep quiet about 9/11 but never consider the fact that if that someone really could prove that the gov'ment is covering up cds, remote controlled planes, a plan to let them do it, etc... they could write their own ticket. The movie rights alone could set them up for life.

[uke2se]

ITT: Truthers lying, dodging questions, making stupid assertions, appealing to authority, failing to account for the appealed to authority doesn't agree with them and trolling.

In other words, nothing is new in Trutherland.

[beachnut]

It's my bedtime Bell. Night-night.
After posting the video of a concrete building, saying it was a steel frame building, and spewing lies about steel frame buildings; it is best to call it quits. You might make mistake and post something that is not delusional.

The only way any steel framed hi-rise building on Earth has ever been cleanly brought down is by explosive controlled crmolition. WTC1,WTC2 and WTC7 are not exceptions. You posted a concrete building video for steel frame building and tell lies. Three lies backed with your own failed delusions. 8 years of failure, apologizing for terrorists and posting delusions.

Wrong about the plane, wrong about the sound, and posting a concrete building for a steel frame building. No math, no physics, no flying knowledge; what will you do tomorrow to exceed the nonsense you posted today?

... Collateral damage ?....not really. Apparently when you crash a plane into a steel framed skyscraper it collapses more or less straight down.
Straight down, is that a delusion or a lie?
The WTC towers are 1 acre each; the debris trashed 19 acres. You posted nonsense.

Sorry let me do the math for you... Two WTC towers are 1 acre; that is two acres. 19 acres is bigger than 2 by a factor of 9.5. Sorry, I forgot you don't do math. Geometry - more or less straight down would be 2 acres; you messed up by a factor 9.5. You are not wrong you are more or less 10 times wrong; an order of magnitude wrong.




The only way any steel framed hi-rise building on Earth has ever been cleanly brought down is by explosive controlled crmolition. WTC1,WTC2 and WTC7 are not exceptions.
Danny Jowenko disagrees, he said no CD on WTC 1 and 2. Danny holds at 67 percent, you are at zero, and the terrorist beat you both meeting their goals at 75 percent. Not as good as terrorists; You and 911 truth on target for 9 years of failure spewing delusional lies.

[Oystein]

May I repeat:

Jowenko did not even know at all that WTC7 had burned!
He did not even know that WTC7 fell the same day!
He had been shown a video of the collapse without sound!

When the original interview was done with Jowenko, he was clearly the most uninformed person with regards to WTC7 that you could imagine!

He based his initial opinion of "yes, CD" on a video without sound. Had he been played the video with sound, I bet you, he would have first noticed the complete absence of the first telltale sign of real CDs: INSANELY LOUD BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG at the onset of collapse.


Later he found out: ooops! Did not fall same day! So he quickly thinks: How many quick working guys could rig a building in 7 hours or so?
Then he learns: ooops! Fires? I didn't know that!!
Ok, sure, he did not retract the rigging, for he can't imagine that a fire could bring down a building.
Now question: Is Jowenko an expert on the behaviour of burning buildings? Miragememories, I ask you to specifically address this question, should be a YES or a NO!

Then, a year later, someone calls this guy.
How do you know he has looked into the matter even one more minute after the original interview?
Has he? Miragememories, please answer that specific question! Should be yes, no, or I DON'T KNOW!

Bumping for Miragememories, for he dodged two simple questions and the request for 2 very short answers. May I repeat:


Is Jowenko an expert on the behaviour of burning buildings? Should be a yes or a NO!
Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview? Should be a yes, no, or I DON'T KNOW!


I think, a brief and honest answer to these questions should lay the discussion to rest in a skeptics' forum ;)

[Miragememories]

"Jowenko did not even know at all that WTC7 had burned!"
WRONG

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."

"He did not even know that WTC7 fell the same day!"
WRONG

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]

Bumping for Miragememories, for he dodged two simple questions and the request for 2 very short answers. May I repeat:


Is Jowenko an expert on the behaviour of burning buildings? Should be a yes or a NO!
Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview? Should be a yes, no, or I DON'T KNOW!


I think, a brief and honest answer to these questions should lay the discussion to rest in a skeptics' forum ;)
Danny Jowenko is an expert in the controlled demolition of buildings.

Type (YELL) as large as you want Oystein, but Danny Jowenko never indicated audio, or the absence of same, was an issue in his finding that WTC 7 definitely could not have been felled by fire.

In addition, we know from the original interview that Danny Jowenko examined a number of NIST documents regarding WTC 7, including these diagrams;

Figure L-5 Floors to 45 plan

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/8828/nistwtc7floors8to45lt9.png

Figure L-31. Plan View of Collapse Progression

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4017/nistl31tx4.png

When confronted a year later about his original conclusion that WTC had to have been felled by controlled demolition;

Danny Jowenko: "I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not..."

MM

[ElMondoHummus]

So in short:
Jowenko still thinks it was a small fire, not a series of extensive ones, thus continuing to demonstrate an inaccurate understanding of the situation.
He still wasn't told the length of time the fires burned.
He still doesn't given an explanation for his opinion, let alone describes a mechanism for the collapse as observed i.e. Penthouse failing first, progression going downward from there and to the west.
He gives zero arguments for why NIST's collapse scenario is flawed.
He gives zero mechanism for how a demolitions would've replicated the collapse progression as observed (again: From east penthouse downward and to the west).
Got it. MM's operating on faith, not fact.

------


Grizzly Bear summarized things best last November:

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.

There's quite literally nothing to refute from Jowenko, as he gives zero to refute. His assertion is empty. Without a constructed argument, his opinion means nothing. My earlier post bears repeating:
And in the absence of any explanation for why he says this, why should anyone accept his unexplained, unsupported opinion over the open and available research that's already been accepted nationwide and is influencing code worldwide?? As I've pointed out in other posts, the NIST research has already affected American building code (ASCE 7 here in the US was cited by one of the engineers in this forum) and is being analyzed by the ICC (http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/CTC/Pages/NIST-WorldTradeCenterRecommendations.aspx), which is an international code body. The poster Architect here also said that the Eurocodes have been modified in response to the WTC 7 findings, as well as the ones for the main towers, but I don't have citations for those. At any rate, the studies I'm mentioning are available and open; Jowenko's argument, in contrast, is not. And you're proving it here by merely posting his assertions, not his arguments.

All you are accomplishing here is demonstrating that you're willing to hold on to a single individual's statements to salvage an untenable position. The fact of the matter is, the activities of the ASCE alone, let alone the ICC, demonstrates that Jowenko's position is not held generally. Also, given that explosives are contradicted on sound pressure levels alone, let alone the absence of demolition components remains as well as a marked lack of opportunity to install them, the fact remains that Jowenko is defending a disproven hypothesis. He's not even giving any arguments to support his stance. And you are doing nothing more than arguing from authority, a singular authority who's giving zero reason for anyone to believe him over the engineering and architectural communities.

If there's any substance to Jowenko's arguments, then provide it. But you need to stop employing this silly "He's an expert!" line of argument; all I need to do is point out the ASCE and ICC organizations believes the opposite to refute your argument. Unsupported appeals to authority get you nowhere. In contrast, the NIST studies, and the ASCE and ICC acceptance of those, as well as the worldwide employment of the knowledge generated in those studies (look up Arup and the Beijing TVCC fire for examples of such knowledge actually being put to use) are examples of open knowledge, used openly, and arguable on their own merits, not the merits of the professionals who assembled them.

[triforcharity]

So, can you provide a source for this year later inteview?

Also, he is not an expert on burning buildings. Sorry.

[Miragememories]

So, can you provide a source for this year later inteview?

Also, he is not an expert on burning buildings. Sorry.

It's been posted a few times already.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Drink your own water.

MM

[Panoply_Prefect]

At the end of their life the jets are cheap enough. Build in a ejector seat or bail out .....or even remote control. No big deal.

Collateral damage ?....not really. Apparently when you crash a plane into a steel framed skyscraper it collapses more or less straight down.

Yes, using airplanes would be nice and clean:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/damage.map.html

Not.

[twinstead]

So we think he's wrong about WTC7 and right about WTC1 and 2, and truthers think he's right about WTC7 and wrong about WTC1 and 2.

What's the big whoop? It appears to be a wash.

[Miragememories]

So we think he's wrong about WTC7 and right about WTC1 and 2, and truthers think he's right about WTC7 and wrong about WTC1 and 2.

What's the big whoop? It appears to be a wash.
It appears you can't be bothered to read actually?

MM

[TheRedWorm]

I'd like to hear how Danny would rig a building while it's on fire....

[bill smith]

So we think he's wrong about WTC7 and right about WTC1 and 2, and truthers think he's right about WTC7 and wrong about WTC1 and 2.

What's the big whoop? It appears to be a wash.

His certainty about WTC7 will do just fine for now..

Remember the golden rule ?.....''If there is a problem with WTC7 there is a problem with the whole 9/11 official story ''

[uke2se]

His certainty about WTC7 will do just fine for now..

Remember the golden rule ?.....''If there is a problem with WTC7 there is a problem with the whole 9/11 official story ''

So, can we decide that we're locked down now? You truthers acknowledge that there was no CD for WTC 1 and 2, as Danny Jowenko says so, and we can now focus on demonstrating why Jowenko is wrong about WTC 7? Because, if that's the case, we can wrap up this whole 9/11 truth thing tonight.

[BigAl]

WRONG

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."


WRONG

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 Jowenko is an expert in the controlled demolition of buildings.

Type (YELL) as large as you want Oystein, but Danny Jowenko never indicated audio, or the absence of same, was an issue in his finding that WTC 7 definitely could not have been felled by fire.

In addition, we know from the original interview that Danny Jowenko examined a number of NIST documents regarding WTC 7, including these diagrams;

Figure L-5 Floors to 45 plan

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/8828/nistwtc7floors8to45lt9.png

Figure L-31. Plan View of Collapse Progression

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4017/nistl31tx4.png

When confronted a year later about his original conclusion that WTC had to have been felled by controlled demolition;

Danny Jowenko: "I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not..."

MM

And nobody heard man-made demolition explosions. Lots of firemen reported the entire south side involved in fire and WTC7 was observed to be tilting due to fire-induced structural failure as early as 2PM.

[twinstead]

His certainty about WTC7 will do just fine for now..

Remember the golden rule ?.....''If there is a problem with WTC7 there is a problem with the whole 9/11 official story ''

Yea, but nobody but a few truthers believe he is right about WTC7, so according to the Rational People of Earthtm there is no problem.

[Grizzly Bear]

WRONG

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."


:rolleyes:


WRONG

Interviewer:"But it also happened on September 11th."
Danny Jowenko:"The same day??? ..... Are you sure?????"[/i]
Interviewer:[i]"Yes."
[long pause]
Interviewer:"There it goes again."
[They watch the WTC7 collapse again]

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Danny Jowenko is an expert in the controlled demolition of buildings.
And he's as human as you are. His title is pretty, his answers hold no weight if he's wrong. You will still disagree, but reality is pretty titles do not make people immune to being wrong.

When confronted a year later about his original conclusion that WTC had to have been felled by controlled demolition;

Danny Jowenko: "I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not..."

MM
Fortunately accuracy is not dictated by the amount of time somebody clings to an answer they embraced. Mr Jowenko is fully entitled to his opinion, however his position as a demolitions expert is frankly not relevant when he is wrong. Mr Gage is no more correct than he was 4 years ago, I don't care that he's an architect, his demonstrated experience doesn't even meet to the level of a freshman architecture college student.

Have a nice day :)

Regards, the ogre Grizzly Bear of JREF

[bill smith]

So, can we decide that we're locked down now? You truthers acknowledge that there was no CD for WTC 1 and 2, as Danny Jowenko says so, and we can now focus on demonstrating why Jowenko is wrong about WTC 7? Because, if that's the case, we can wrap up this whole 9/11 truth thing tonight.

We will work our way back to WTC1 and WTC2 never fear. You see we think Danny thought the same as hundreds of thousands of American engineers. They just took the official story and the media claptrap at face value. Nobody had ever seen a top-down aircraft-driven collapse before and they allowed their opinions to be formed for them. At that time they had no reason to doubt the government and the media.

It was different when Danny saw WTC7- he recognised that instantly as a controlled demolition..

Has he actually confirmed his initial opinion that the Twin Towers were as the government says ? Because he HAS vociferously and clearly confirmed the controlled demolition of WTC7.

[beachnut]

We will work our way back to WTC1 and WTC2 never fear. You see we think Danny thought the same as hundreds of thousands of American engineers. They just took the official story and the media claptrap at face value. Nobody had ever seen a top-down aircraft-driven collapse before and they allowed their opinions to be formed for them. At that time they had no reason to doubt the government and the media.

It was different when Danny saw WTC7- he recognised it instantly as a controlled demolition.. Has he actually confirmed his initial opinion that the Twin Towers were as the government says ? He HAS vociferously and clearly confirmed the controlled demolition of WTC7.
Media claptrap? lol, you spew nonstop delusions on 911 and can't figure out 911 after 8 years. You can't do the math to back up your failed claims and see they are delusional opinions. Now you can't do structural engineering and claim and idiot who was not in NYC on 911 says WTC7 was CD. Good job finding nonsense, it is what you do. You can't find reality as you easily hitch your wagon to pure delusions every chance you get.

Danny has not confirmed anything but the fact he is wrong. He offered zero back up information. Like you with the planes missing the WTC would have to crash; you offered nothing as proof! Danny is like you, he offers no math, no proof. Zero.

Like the sound on the videos of Flight 175, both have the same sound of 175 at different levels; you failed, Danny failed. Because you don't offer evidence, you offer failed opinions, and your opinions are based on ignorance and delusions. Pushing 9 years of delusions, posting nonsense and lies.

Offer proof for WTC7. You can't because you have nothing and you do nothing to fix your lack of knowledge; the entire 911 truth movement has nothing and no useful knowledge to solve 911.

[Bell]

We will work our way back to WTC1 and WTC2 never fear. You see we think Danny thought the same as hundreds of thousands of American engineers. They just took the official story and the media claptrap at face value. Nobody had ever seen a top-down aircraft-driven collapse before and they allowed their opinions to be formed for them. At that time they had no reason to doubt the government and the media.

It was different when Danny saw WTC7- he recognised that instantly as a controlled demolition..

Has he actually confirmed his initial opinion that the Twin Towers were as the government says ? Because he HAS vociferously and clearly confirmed the controlled demolition of WTC7.

Danny Jowenko has confirmed exactly diddly squat. He stated his opinion, that's all.

[16.5]

So, can we decide that we're locked down now? You truthers acknowledge that there was no CD for WTC 1 and 2, as Danny Jowenko says so, and we can now focus on demonstrating why Jowenko is wrong about WTC 7? Because, if that's the case, we can wrap up this whole 9/11 truth thing tonight.

Well, we can start out with the fact that he was shown the silent Truther edited video that does not show the collapse of the Penthouse, and then they lied to him saying that the "collapse" started at the bottom.

So the truthers lied, what a shock.

BANG
BANG
BANG
BANG
BANG
BANG

Hey MM, I notice your sources predate the NIST report on the collapse of WTC7. What has Danny said since then?

[Miragememories]

"Jowenko still thinks it was a small fire, not a series of extensive ones, thus continuing to demonstrate an inaccurate understanding of the situation.
He still wasn't told the length of time the fires burned."
Big assumption on your part. But still irrelevant.

Big or small, long lasting or short, Danny Jowenko remained firm that fires, could not have created the WTC 7 collapse.
"He still doesn't given an explanation for his opinion, let alone describes a mechanism for the collapse as observed i.e. Penthouse failing first, progression going downward from there and to the west."
He was very open and forth coming in his explanations. If, he had indicated that under certain circumstances fire might have been a factor, or if he had hedged on his no fire cause opinion, I could see your point. But he didn't!

It isn't just a matter of; could fire cause a concrete and steel building such as WTC7 to collapse?

But, could any fire make such a building suffer a complete collapse with the same symmetry as is achieved in a successfully executed controlled demolition?

Plain and simple, the answer is no.
"He gives zero arguments for why NIST's collapse scenario is flawed."
It was an interview, not a paper. While it would be enlightening to hear his opinion about the NIST's seriously flawed WTC 7 Report, it is not necessary as others have done a fine job revealing it's shortcomings.

You might like to start with Dr. Greening's paper which is highly critical of the NIST's fire and heat calculations, and totally rejects the NIST theory as to what caused the WTC7 to collapse.
"He gives zero mechanism for how a demolitions would've replicated the collapse progression as observed (again: From east penthouse downward and to the west)."
When asked to speculate, he does make a number of suggestions regarding possible controlled demolition mechanisms. He also eludes to the fact that given the mess the area was in, and the time limitations, there would be less need for concern about damage to WTC7's surroundings. The off timing collapse of the East Penthouse could easily fit within that scenario.

MM

[Grizzly Bear]

Let me just reiterate yet again in case it's not sinking in to these people that as pretty as job descriptions are I could care less about them if the claims do not demonstrate a level of competence that should be expected of somebody working in the field at their level.

[bill smith]

Danny Jowenko has confirmed exactly diddly squat. He stated his opinion, that's all.

Unfortunately you are quite wrong Bell.He categorically confirms the CD of WTC7 in the attached audio.

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

As far as I know he has never confirmed or even repeated his initial off-the-cuff impression that WTC1 and WTC2 were controlled demolitions.

[Miragememories]

And nobody heard man-made demolition explosions. Lots of firemen reported the entire south side involved in fire and WTC7 was observed to be tilting due to fire-induced structural failure as early as 2PM.
There are witnesses on record who claim they did hear demolition explosions.

Even the NIST, with there voluminous reports, never supported that level of fire activity or building damage.

MM

[16.5]

There are witnesses on record who claim they did hear demolition explosions.

MM

O'Rly?

You mean like these?

http://www.jowenko.com/

BANG BANG BANGITY BANGBANGBANG

Anyhow, please feel free to support your latest crazy claim.

Oh yeah, and your hero's analyis of the NIST report.

[bill smith]

Well, we can start out with the fact that he was shown the silent Truther edited video that does not show the collapse of the Penthouse, and then they lied to him saying that the "collapse" started at the bottom.

So the truthers lied, what a shock.

BANG
BANG
BANG
BANG
BANG
BANG

Hey MM, I notice your sources predate the NIST report on the collapse of WTC7. What has Danny said since then?
I think the sound may have been more like ....

sssssssssssssssss

sssssssssssssssss

sssssssssssssssss

....as they ignited the nanothermite incendiary that they had kitted the core columns out with. Just as effective and a LOT quieter.

[TheRedWorm]

Yet no truther has ever shown that therm*te even could be used to demolish a building. Strange, that.

[16.5]

sssssssssssssssss

sssssssssssssssss

sssssssssssssssss



Freaking Snakes? I knew it!

Snakes, how do they work?

[Bell]

Unfortunately you are quite wrong Bell.He categorically confirms the CD of WTC7 in the attached audio.

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

As far as I know he has never confirmed or even repeated his initial off-the-cuff impression that WTC1 and WTC2 were controlled demolitions.

No, I'm not wrong, for reasons already explained.

Opinion != Evidence

[uke2se]

We will work our way back to WTC1 and WTC2 never fear. You see we think Danny thought the same as hundreds of thousands of American engineers. They just took the official story and the media claptrap at face value. Nobody had ever seen a top-down aircraft-driven collapse before and they allowed their opinions to be formed for them. At that time they had no reason to doubt the government and the media.

It was different when Danny saw WTC7- he recognised that instantly as a controlled demolition..

Has he actually confirmed his initial opinion that the Twin Towers were as the government says ? Because he HAS vociferously and clearly confirmed the controlled demolition of WTC7.

Sorry, twoof, you can't have it both ways. Either you present Jowenko as the star witness of the twoof-movement, in which case you accept everything he has to say, or you discard his testimony as lacking corroborating evidence. Personally, I would go with the second option if I was a twoofer. I wouldn't want to torpedo my entire religion in one swoop. Then again, most twoofers are idiots, so the rational approach might not be the chosen one.

[bill smith]

Sorry, twoof, you can't have it both ways. Either you present Jowenko as the star witness of the twoof-movement, in which case you accept everything he has to say, or you discard his testimony as lacking corroborating evidence. Personally, I would go with the second option if I was a twoofer. I wouldn't want to torpedo my entire religion in one swoop. Then again, most twoofers are idiots, so the rational approach might not be the chosen one.

Nah...I think I will stick to what I said. Thanks for the advice though. lol

[uke2se]

Nah...I think I will stick to what I said. Thanks for the advice though. lol

Fair enough. We can safely disregard Jowenko then.

[bill smith]

Fair enough. We can safely disregard Jowenko then.

Sure. Please feel free .We for our part will continue to present his striking evidence to others .Seems like a win-win situation for the Truth Movement and the concerned citizens alike.

[ElMondoHummus]

Big assumption on your part. But still irrelevant.


Not an assumption. You yourself posted Jowenko assuming exactly that.

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."

His quote, not my presumption.


Big or small, long lasting or short, Danny Jowenko remained firm that fires, could not have created the WTC 7 collapse.


And without an explanation for why either NIST is wrong, or how what's known about the collapse contradicts the notion, his statement is worthless.


He was very open and forth coming in his explanations. If, he had indicated that under certain circumstances fire might have been a factor, or if he had hedged on his no fire cause opinion, I could see your point. But he didn't!


He was open in giving an opinion. He did not give any explanation. I challenge you to quote him on why fire could not have caused the collapse. Note: Not quote him saying "fire could not have caused this" or somesuch, but to quote his explanation on why it couldn't have.


It isn't just a matter of; could fire cause a concrete and steel building such as WTC7 to collapse?

But, could any fire make such a building suffer a complete collapse with the same symmetry as is achieved in a successfully executed controlled demolition?

Plain and simple, the answer is no.


Once again, give his evidence for this assertion. Without any explanation or substantiation, that's nothing more than unsupported opinion.


It was an interview, not a paper. While it would be enlightening to hear his opinion about the NIST's seriously flawed WTC 7 Report, it is not necessary as others have done a fine job revealing it's shortcomings.


Dodge. He's not giving any reason for why he believes fire could not have caused the collapse, nor is he giving any alternate mechanism. He's doing nothing more than stating a belief. That is far from being a cohesive criticism.

Furthermore, shortcomings =/= negation of an explanation, nor do they validate alternate hypotheses. He has to explain why explosives better fits the bill than fire does. He has not. Neither have you. From your deliberate vagueness here, I don't think you understand the collapses either, so we'll be satisfied with simple quotes from him explaining why his thesis is a better fit for the observations.

In the absence of such, again, he fails. As do you. So pony up his quotes. The ones you've provided so far are not explanations, they're mere assertions, empty of support.


You might like to start with Dr. Greening's paper which is highly critical of the NIST's fire and heat calculations, and totally rejects the NIST theory as to what caused the WTC7 to collapse.


I've already read Greenings work. And I understand that there are other valid critiques in existence, from Quintiere's critiques of the main towers report to Arup's critiques of NIST's opinions regarding the SRFM and the assumptions behind thermal creep. But what you fail to understand is that none of that even remotely validates Jowenko's assertion that explosives demolitions were used, nor does it even mean that NIST is wrong in stating that fires caused the collapse. Greening may have indeed rejected NIST's theory about the WTC7 collapse, but that simply means that if he's even right - and again, as I've pointed out before, the ASCE and the ICC, as well as the European regulatory bodies find it to be a very plausible explanation - then he's invalidated a specific model of collapse progression. Not the entire concept of the building failing due to fire damage.

And this bears repeating: None of that - none of it - opens the door to explosives demolitions. For that, Jowenko or anyone else must provide positive evidence. He has not. And all you've provided have been quotes from him, which as I've pointed out, are hollow and lacking substantiation.


When asked to speculate, he does make a number of suggestions regarding possible controlled demolition mechanisms. He also eludes to the fact that given the mess the area was in, and the time limitations, there would be less need for concern about damage to WTC7's surroundings.


Key word that even you concede: Speculation. That has been my entire point in this thread: None of what you've posted from him is anything more than speculation about how it could have been done had explosives been used. Jowenko has given zero explanation of what did happen. What he's said is not a fitting of explanation to evidence, it is nothing more than applying hypotheticals to blueprints. It's speculation. And that's what I've been saying this entire time: He's not explaining anything. He's not given any indication that he's studied the collapse progression, nor has he explained how explosives demolitions better fit what was seen during the collapse.

And NIST's report is exactly that: A fitting of proposed mechanisms to observations. Even if you hold that it is inaccurate, it doesn't fail to say "this is what was observed, this is the mechanism for what happened". Hence the identification of column 79, as well as the explanation of several floors falling as a unit in response to David Chandler's observation of unresisted fall for ~2 seconds. Even if it's wrong and not what happened - a big if, BTW - it is still superior to anything you've posted from Jowenko regarding the collapse in that it does not fail to lay out observation plus proposed mechanism equals explanation. Your own quotes from Jowenko demonstrate that all he's doing is saying "if". Your own posts demonstrate that he's doing nothing more than speculating in general, and not applying his knowledge to anything known and observed about the collapse progression.


The off timing collapse of the East Penthouse could easily fit within that scenario.

Demonstrate this, please. Explain how Jowenko has shown that the timing "could easily fit within that (presumably explosives demolitions) scenario".

[Grizzly Bear]

Sorry, twoof, you can't have it both ways. Either you present Jowenko as the star witness of the twoof-movement, in which case you accept everything he has to say, or you discard his testimony as lacking corroborating evidence.
Truthers tend to shoot themselves in the foot when they use Jowenko. They treat authority as if it's omnipotent, yet they think Jowenko is wrong when he states conclusively that the twin towers were not demolitions. Kinda defeats the purpose of treating a job description as an absolute indicator of correctness

[GlennB]

Truthers tend to shoot themselves in the foot when they use Jowenko. They treat authority as if it's omnipotent, yet they think Jowenko is wrong when he states conclusively that the twin towers were not demolitions. Kinda defeats the purpose of treating a job description as an absolute indicator of correctness

That sums it up nicely, and saves a lot of bandwidth ;)

[Miragememories]

"Jowenko still thinks it was a small fire, not a series of extensive ones, thus continuing to demonstrate an inaccurate understanding of the situation.
He still wasn't told the length of time the fires burned."
"Big assumption on your part. But still irrelevant.

Big or small, long lasting or short, Danny Jowenko remained firm that fires, could not have created the WTC 7 collapse."
"Not an assumption. You yourself posted Jowenko assuming exactly that."
Your assumption was in your statement; "Jowenko still thinks..".

You do not know, and have provided no basis for a belief that he still thinks it was a small fire.

MM

[uke2se]

Sure. Please feel free .We for our part will continue to present his striking evidence to others .Seems like a win-win situation for the Truth Movement and the concerned citizens alike.

Until we point out that Jowenko thinks the WTC towers weren't CD, effectively dismantling your religion. I'd say it's win-win for everyone BUT the twoofers.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Oystein
"Jowenko did not even know at all that WTC7 had burned!"
WRONG

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."

How extremely disingenious of you to brush over the fact that Jowenko was pretty much clueless ("But that was a small fire") about the nature and extent of the fires and therefore drawing conclusions from WRONG premises!


Originally Posted by Oystein
"He did not even know that WTC7 fell the same day!"
WRONG

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]

Huh???? Wrong??? What you quote there shows my claim was right: Ging into the interview, Jowenko had no idea that WTC7 fell the same day! You quote him as he is caught in the biggest surprise - he clearly indicates that he did not know it! He was told during the interview! So did Jowenko do a careful analysis of the events? Hell no! How disingeneous of you to brush over that very important fact!

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Bumping for Miragememories, for he dodged two simple questions and the request for 2 very short answers. May I repeat:

* Is Jowenko an expert on the behaviour of burning buildings? Should be a yes or a NO!
* Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview? Should be a yes, no, or I DON'T KNOW!


I think, a brief and honest answer to these questions should lay the discussion to rest in a skeptics' forum

Danny Jowenko is an expert in the controlled demolition of buildings.

That is NOT what I asked! I asked if Jowenko is an expert in the behaviour of burning buildings! How disingeneous of you to quote my question and then answer a different one!

Type (YELL) as large as you want Oystein, but Danny Jowenko never indicated audio, or the absence of same, was an issue in his finding that WTC 7 definitely could not have been felled by fire.

In addition, we know from the original interview that Danny Jowenko examined a number of NIST documents regarding WTC 7, including these diagrams;

Figure L-5 Floors to 45 plan

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/8828/nistwtc7floors8to45lt9.png

Figure L-31. Plan View of Collapse Progression

http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4017/nistl31tx4.png

When confronted a year later about his original conclusion that WTC had to have been felled by controlled demolition;

Danny Jowenko: "I've looked at the drawings, at the construction, and it couldn't have been done by fire...so no, absolutely not..."

MM

MM, did you notice that you quoted two very specific questions, and that you wrote many words, without answering the two questions at all? What a disingeneous dodge!! You quoted Jowenko, but you did NOT answer my question, if he had at all studied the collapse at all since the original interview!

My two questions are still open. Please answer them now:

* Is Jowenko an expert on the behaviour of burning buildings? Should be a yes or a NO!
* Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview? Should be a yes, no, or I DON'T KNOW!

[Oystein]

There are witnesses on record who claim they did hear demolition explosions.

Even the NIST, with there voluminous reports, never supported that level of fire activity or building damage.

MM

That is a flat out lie.

[Oystein]

Your assumption was in your statement; "Jowenko still thinks..".

You do not know, and have provided no basis for a belief that he still thinks it was a small fire.

MM

Do YOU know what he still thinks with regards to the size of the fires? How?
How does your answer to this question translate into an argument supporting Jowenko's and your belief?

[ElMondoHummus]

Your assumption was in your statement; "Jowenko still thinks..".

You do not know, and have provided no basis for a belief that he still thinks it was a small fire.

MM

You directly quote Jowenko saying "But that was a small fire" and call it my assumption?? Wow... that's a new level of oblivion for you, MM.

[Miragememories]

"Big or small, long lasting or short, Danny Jowenko remained firm that fires, could not have created the WTC 7 collapse."
"And without an explanation for why either NIST is wrong, or how what's known about the collapse contradicts the notion, his statement is worthless."
The NIST pioneered a theory which they have failed to defend against serious short comings.

Danny Jowenko gave an honest, experienced, professional opinion, that matches well with the know history of concrete and steel buildings
subjected to fire vs those subjected to controlled demolitions.

To say his opinion is worthless is nothing more than a reflection of your arrogance and prejudice.

MM

[uke2se]

The NIST pioneered a theory which they have failed to defend against serious short comings.

Danny Jowenko gave an honest, experienced, professional opinion, that matches well with the know history of concrete and steel buildings
subjected to fire vs those subjected to controlled demolitions.

To say his opinion is worthless is nothing more than a reflection of your arrogance and prejudice.

MM

I'd say NIST have defended it excellently against people with serious short comings.

[Bell]

The NIST pioneered a theory which they have failed to defend against serious short comings.

Danny Jowenko gave an honest, experienced, professional opinion, that matches well with the know history of concrete and steel buildings
subjected to fire vs those subjected to controlled demolitions.

To say his opinion is worthless is nothing more than a reflection of your arrogance and prejudice.

MM

Yet dismissing the NIST reports proofs your intellectual superiority.

[16.5]

Your assumption was in your statement; "Jowenko still thinks..".

You do not know, and have provided no basis for a belief that he still thinks it was a small fire.

MM

Uh, "still thinks"? Hey that reminds me, I pointed out that all of your comments about Danny predate the NIST report, what's he had to say lately?

Did he ever learn that the truthers that interviewed him showed him an edited version of the collapse and lied to him about where the collapse began?

Take your time, MM. Hell, Danny hasn't said a peep since 2007 as far as you have shown. Da Truth is right around the corner!

[bill smith]

Until we point out that Jowenko thinks the WTC towers weren't CD, effectively dismantling your religion. I'd say it's win-win for everyone BUT the twoofers.

See my previous post.

[Miragememories]

You directly quote Jowenko saying "But that was a small fire" and call it my assumption?? Wow... that's a new level of oblivion for you, MM.
Read again.

"Jowenko still thinks it was a small fire, not a series of extensive ones, thus continuing to demonstrate an inaccurate understanding of the situation."

You were making a current assumption with your statement; "Jowenko still thinks".

He made that quick comment during the first interview.

Though, it is also quite possible that Danny Jowenko considers the WTC7 fire to have been relatively small!


MM

[carlitos]

Read again.



You were making a current assumption with your statement; "Jowenko still thinks".

He made that quick comment during the first interview.

Though, it is also quite possible that Danny Jowenko considers the WTC7 fire to have been relatively small!


MM
At that point in the video, Jowenko still thinks that.

Some times people use the present tense when they discuss the past.

[Grizzly Bear]

To say his opinion is worthless is nothing more than a reflection of your arrogance and prejudice.

MM
No, most of us don't consider a job title the sole criteria that's makes his answers credible. I guess that's your definition of arrogance and prejudice.

[Oystein]

@ Miragememories: My two questions are still open. Please answer them now:

* Is Jowenko an expert on the behaviour of burning buildings? Should be a yes or a NO!
* Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview? Should be a yes, no, or I DON'T KNOW!

[Miragememories]

How extremely disingenious of you to brush over the fact that Jowenko was pretty much clueless ("But that was a small fire") about the nature and extent of the fires and therefore drawing conclusions from WRONG premises!

Huh???? Wrong??? What you quote there shows my claim was right: Ging into the interview, Jowenko had no idea that WTC7 fell the same day! You quote him as he is caught in the biggest surprise - he clearly indicates that he did not know it! He was told during the interview! So did Jowenko do a careful analysis of the events? Hell no! How disingeneous of you to brush over that very important fact!

That is NOT what I asked! I asked if Jowenko is an expert in the behaviour of burning buildings! How disingeneous of you to quote my question and then answer a different one!

MM, did you notice that you quoted two very specific questions, and that you wrote many words, without answering the two questions at all? What a disingeneous dodge!! You quoted Jowenko, but you did NOT answer my question, if he had at all studied the collapse at all since the original interview!

My two questions are still open. Please answer them now:

* Is Jowenko an expert on the behaviour of burning buildings? Should be a yes or a NO!
* Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview? Should be a yes, no, or I DON'T KNOW!


Maybe if your english comprehension was better I would pickup your confusion easier.

I answered the questions as asked.

I have said a number of times that Danny Jowenko was blind-sided in the interview and that was how he got caught giving an honest opinion about WTC7 before considering the political ramifications.

Try reading before you write Oystein.

[Bell]

Maybe if your english comprehension was better I would pickup your confusion easier.

I answered the questions as asked.

I have said a number of times that Danny Jowenko was blind-sided in the interview and that was how he got caught giving an honest opinion about WTC7 before considering the political ramifications.

Try reading before you write Oystein.

An honest opinion is ALL Jowenko gave. Doesn't proof anything.

o·pin·ion

1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert.
3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing.
4. The prevailing view: public opinion.
5. Law A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

[Oystein]

Maybe if your english comprehension was better I would pickup your confusion easier.

I answered the questions as asked.

I have said a number of times that Danny Jowenko was blind-sided in the interview and that was how he got caught giving an honest opinion about WTC7 before considering the political ramifications.

Try reading before you write Oystein.

No. You answered the questions as they were NOT asked.

Please do so now:

* Is Jowenko an expert on the behaviour of burning buildings? Should be a yes or a NO!
* Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview? Should be a yes, no, or I DON'T KNOW!

[16.5]

I have said a number of times that Danny Jowenko was blind-sided in the interview and that was how he got caught giving an honest opinion about WTC7 before considering the political ramifications.

Now THAT is a ringing endorsement!

Is "blindsided" the new definition of lied to and shown a misleading video?

I'll agree with that.

Any news since, say, Obama has been President, truther?

[Miragememories]

@ Miragememories: My two questions are still open. Please answer them now:

* Is Jowenko an expert on the behaviour of burning buildings? Should be a yes or a NO!
* Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview? Should be a yes, no, or I DON'T KNOW!

I answered the first question previously.

Here it is again;
"Danny Jowenko is an expert in the controlled demolition of buildings."

In response to your second question, I would have to say yes.

MM

[Miragememories]

Now THAT is a ringing endorsement!

Is "blindsided" the new definition of lied to and shown a misleading video?

I'll agree with that.

Any news since, say, Obama has been President, truther?
Go back and read the last pages of this thread.

Otherwise your comments are totally meaningless.

Which would appear to be your intention.

MM

[Miragememories]

An honest opinion is ALL Jowenko gave. Doesn't proof anything.

o·pin·ion

1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert.
3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing.
4. The prevailing view: public opinion.
5. Law A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.
So you've got a dictionary.

Congratulations.

MM

[uke2se]

Go back and read the last pages of this thread.

Otherwise your comments are totally meaningless.

Which would appear to be your intention.

MM

He doesn't need to re read anything. 16.5's assessment was correct. "Blindsided" in this case can only mean lied to and shown a misleading video.

[Bell]

So you've got a dictionary.

Congratulations.

MM

And you have Jowenko with an opinion. Well, opinions are like a-holes. Everybody has one. Congrats to you.

[Miragememories]

At that point in the video, Jowenko still thinks that.

Some times people use the present tense when they discuss the past.

In which case, they should make themselves clear.

Mindreading is not my forté.

MM

[Bell]

Mindreading is not my forté.

MM

Remove your tinfoil hat. That will help.

[Oystein]

I answered the first question previously.

Here it is again;
"Danny Jowenko is an expert in the controlled demolition of buildings."

In response to your second question, I would have to say yes.

MM

The first does not even address, much less answer my question.
My question was (excuse my aggressive font here, but you seem to have missed the important part):

* Is Jowenko an expert on the behaviour of burning buildings? Should be a yes or a NO!
I was NOT AT ALL asking about his expertship in "controlled demolition". I was very specifically asking about his expertship in "burning buildings". You must realize that the two are mutually exclusive in the context of this discussion and entirely different things. Please do not again answer a question which I haven't asked. I find this extremely impolite of you.



The second one:
Q Oy: "Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview?"
A MM: "I would have to say yes."

Begs the question: How do you know? Why do you have to say this? What is your evidence?

[Miragememories]

The first does not even address, much less answer my question.
My question was (excuse my aggressive font here, but you seem to have missed the important part):

* Is Jowenko an expert on the behaviour of burning buildings? Should be a yes or a NO!
I was NOT AT ALL asking about his expertship in "controlled demolition". I was very specifically asking about his expertship in "burning buildings". You must realize that the two are mutually exclusive in the context of this discussion and entirely different things. Please do not again answer a question which I haven't asked. I find this extremely impolite of you.



The second one:
Q Oy: "Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview?"
A MM: "I would have to say yes."

Begs the question: How do you know? Why do you have to say this? What is your evidence?
I know that he is an expert in controlled demolition and I said so.

He may also be an expert in fire behavior within buildings as that would relate to his profession.

If this is of such vital importance to you, I suggest you write to him at his online company address and share your findings with the rest of us instead of brow beating me to do the work for you!

Regarding ""Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview?", I said yes in light of his interview a year later where he re-affirmed his original statement that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC 7.

Again, if that answer does not suffice, go ask him yourself.

MM

[uke2se]

I know that he is an expert in controlled demolition and I said so.

He may also be an expert in fire behavior within buildings as that would relate to his profession.

If this is of such vital importance to you, I suggest you write to him at his online company address and share your findings with the rest of us instead of brow beating me to do the work for you!

Regarding ""Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview?", I said yes in light of his interview a year later where he re-affirmed his original statement that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC 7.

Again, if that answer does not suffice, go ask him yourself.

MM

I'd say this translates to "I don't know and I don't care because it doesn't help my argument".

[twinstead]

Again, if that answer does not suffice, go ask him yourself.



Perhaps he and you could go together and ask him, so you can find out why he insists that WTC1 and 2 could NOT be CD.

[carlitos]

In which case, they should make themselves clear.

Mindreading is not my forté.

MM

Did you know that the word "forte" doesn't have an accent, and it's just pronounced "fort?" I found this fascinating when I learned it. The French word forte means "strong point," more or less. I should have known sooner, because I knew that forte was 'loud' in Italian due to reading music, but still even then I didn't know that the Italians put the accent on the "o" and not the "e." But after learning Spanish, it all came together that you don't use an accent in a 2 syllable word unless you want the accent on the last syllable, like matón or something like that.

Anyway, I just wanted to be sure that someone learned something in this thread! :)

[uke2se]

Did you know that the word "forte" doesn't have an accent, and it's just pronounced "fort?" I found this fascinating when I learned it. The French word forte means "strong point," more or less. I should have known sooner, because I knew that forte was 'loud' in Italian due to reading music, but still even then I didn't know that the Italians put the accent on the "o" and not the "e." But after learning Spanish, it all came together that you don't use an accent in a 2 syllable word unless you want the accent on the last syllable, like matón or something like that.

Anyway, I just wanted to be sure that someone learned something in this thread! :)

AFAIK, "forte" simply means "strong", as in "Je suis tres forte" and "Il n'est pas forte".
/nitpick

[Miragememories]

Did you know that the word "forte" doesn't have an accent, and it's just pronounced "fort?" I found this fascinating when I learned it. The French word forte means "strong point," more or less. I should have known sooner, because I knew that forte was 'loud' in Italian due to reading music, but still even then I didn't know that the Italians put the accent on the "o" and not the "e." But after learning Spanish, it all came together that you don't use an accent in a 2 syllable word unless you want the accent on the last syllable, like matón or something like that.

Anyway, I just wanted to be sure that someone learned something in this thread! :)

Muchos gracias Carlitos!

I'm sure my life will be vastly improved with that tidbit of knowledge.

No accent on forte...right.

And if you haven't figured it out yet, my posts are not really directed to the closed minds that form the general populace of this forum.

You can't change people's religious beliefs that easily.

It is the more open minded visitors who I hope to reach.

MM

[TheRedWorm]

Do you have any evidence that 9/11 was an inside job? Answer honestly.

[16.5]

Go back and read the last pages of this thread.

Otherwise your comments are totally meaningless.

Which would appear to be your intention.

MM

What a weasel non-answer, you should be embarrassed.

Answer: truthers lied to your hero, they showed him a grossly misleading video. The last pages of the thread have not addressed these facts, Truther. Why are you lying about this truther?

And Danny has not been heard from since 2007.

C'mon truther, prove me wrong. Link us to something that post dates the NIST report, or go back to Loose Change, and STFU.

It is the more open minded visitors who I hope to reach. C'mon truther. It is 2010, man up. The Truth awaits.

[ElMondoHummus]

What a weasel non-answer, you should be embarrassed.

Answer: truthers lied to your hero, they showed him a grossly misleading video. The last pages of the thread have not addressed these facts, Truther. Why are you lying about this truther?

And Danny has not been heard from since 2007.

C'mon truther, prove me wrong. Link us to something that post dates the NIST report, or go back to Loose Change, and STFU.

It is the more open minded visitors who I hope to reach. C'mon truther. It is 2010, man up. The Truth awaits.

You reminded me of something: Boloboffin (he used to post around here) put up a page on Jowenko a while ago.
http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/ae911truths-case/other-issues/danny-jowenko/

I had forgotten that those interviews did indeed occur before the release of the 7 World Trade NIST reports. You're right, of course: There's been nothing out of him since 2007, and prior to that, all he was working with was a video and a blueprint. Definitely not the proper information that is now known.

[triforcharity]

It isn't just a matter of; could fire cause a concrete and steel building such as WTC7 to collapse?

But, could any fire make such a building suffer a complete collapse with the same symmetry as is achieved in a successfully executed controlled demolition?

Plain and simple, the answer is no.


You SURE about that? I happen to know of a building that had a massive fire, that was concrete with steel reinforcement, that fell just like a CD, and had no other damage whatsoever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p22OkclAU3o&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wfpRO9bTfo&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ1e3ddf3RM&feature=related
This one doesn't quite collapse like a CD, but brick and concrete buildings collapse from fire alone. The first two prove your little argument from personal ignorance is just that......ignorant.

ETA: One more for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h9TOFP7ViY&NR=1

This was, IIRC, a collage in England.

[TruthersLie]

You SURE about that? I happen to know of a building that had a massive fire, that was concrete with steel reinforcement, that fell just like a CD, and had no other damage whatsoever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p22OkclAU3o&feature=player_embedded


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wfpRO9bTfo&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ1e3ddf3RM&feature=related
This one doesn't quite collapse like a CD, but brick and concrete buildings collapse from fire alone. The first two prove your little argument from personal ignorance is just that......ignorant.

ETA: One more for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h9TOFP7ViY&NR=1

This was, IIRC, a collage in England.

Ummm tri.

A collage is where you make a big picture from little pictures... or you take pictures of the same theme and put them together...

I think you mean a college...

But I think it is close enough don't you?

And it is an engineering college in holland which suffers a partial collapse.

[triforcharity]

Ummm tri.

A collage is where you make a big picture from little pictures... or you take pictures of the same theme and put them together...

I think you mean a college...

But I think it is close enough don't you?

And it is an engineering college in holland which suffers a partial collapse.

Dude, it's 3 am where I am. Yes, it is collEge not collage. I have another hour to stay awake.

And yes, I did find it was in Holland. Hee is the link. http://www.europeanfireacademy.com/cms/show/id=710654

Click on summary

[triforcharity]

The NIST pioneered a theory which they have failed to defend against serious short comings.

Danny Jowenko gave an honest, experienced, professional opinion, that matches well with the know history of concrete and steel buildings
subjected to fire vs those subjected to controlled demolitions.

To say his opinion is worthless is nothing more than a reflection of your arrogance and prejudice.

MM

Show me ONE peer-reviewed paper that shows NIST is wrong. Nothing that comes from Bentham, or Journal of 911 Studies, is peer reviewed.

Get searching!

[triforcharity]

I answered the first question previously.

Here it is again;
"Danny Jowenko is an expert in the controlled demolition of buildings."

In response to your second question, I would have to say yes.

MM

Demolition =/= fire. Der.

Secondly, why do you assert that he has, if you have no idea. Cite your source please.

[triforcharity]

I know that he is an expert in controlled demolition and I said so.

He may also be an expert in fire behavior within buildings as that would relate to his profession.

If this is of such vital importance to you, I suggest you write to him at his online company address and share your findings with the rest of us instead of brow beating me to do the work for you!

Regarding ""Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview?", I said yes in light of his interview a year later where he re-affirmed his original statement that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC 7.

Again, if that answer does not suffice, go ask him yourself.

MM

I would say that his knowledge of fire science is limited. Not an expert.

Secondly, can you cite your source about the "year later" interview? I have seen the original interview where he was lied to, but not the more recent interview. Please cite it for me. Thanks.

[Oystein]

I know that he is an expert in controlled demolition and I said so.

He may also be an expert in fire behavior within buildings as that would relate to his profession.

If this is of such vital importance to you, I suggest you write to him at his online company address and share your findings with the rest of us instead of brow beating me to do the work for you!

Regarding ""Has Jowenko looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview?", I said yes in light of his interview a year later where he re-affirmed his original statement that fire could not have caused the collapse of WTC 7.

Again, if that answer does not suffice, go ask him yourself.

MM

MM,

the whole Jowenko-thing is an argument from authority. Had anyone asked little Johnny next door, given him the same information, and he had said "must be CD, can't be from fire", no one would push that, as little Johnny is not an expert and can't reliably judge these things.

You know that Jowenko did not have sufficient information about WTC7 before the interview started.
Is that correct? You know this to be true? You know that Jowenko did not even know what day WTC7 fell? You know that he had no idea about the fire situation? You know all that, don't you?

So, going into the interview, he was an expert for CDs without sufficient information. What is an expert without sufficient information? Answer: worthless. Do you agree?


Now what makes you think that a CD-expert is also a fire expert? You guess that, right? It is a personal belief, right? It is something you can imagine, correct?

But hey! Jowenko and his "expert" opinion is YOUR claim. YOU must show that he not only may be an expert for burning buildings, you must show that he is an expert.

In reality, there is no reason to think so. No CD expert ever has to deal with burning buildings. The experts who do are called "firefighters". They are organized in fire departments. The best of them are fire chiefs. The most experienced firefighters in the world with regard to highrise fires are the men and women of the FDNY. Their best men are the chiefs of the FDNY.

If you want to have an expert opinion about the situation of WTC7, the men to go to are the chiefs of the FDNY.

What did they say? The real experts, who were at the scene for hours? Vs. what does some random man in a far away continent say who may or may not be an expert and who is lacking sufficient information?


When Jowenko reaffirmed his original statement, how does that inform you that he has investigated the matter any furhter? That information is not contained in his statement. Isn't it much more likely to argue: He will come to the same conclusion if he still has the same information; he does come to the same conclusion, therefore, he may still have the same information?

Information that was insufficient. He did not understand the scope of the fires! He absolutely did not. He was not shown any fotographs, no witness statements about the size and nature of the fires.

The blueprints he was shown were very very basic. Far away from the detail needed to assess the strength of NIST's theory. In fact, Jowenko did not know NIST's paper.


You pull the answer "He may also be an expert in fire behavior within buildings" out of your arse. It is based on nothing but your personal imagination.

You pull the answer "Yes, Jowenko has looked at the matter in any detail at all after the original interview?" out of your arse. It is based on nothing but your imagination.


You have no proof for either.
You know that you don't.

You are a very dishonest poster.

[Miragememories]

"Do you have any evidence that 9/11 was an inside job? Answer honestly."
It appears to be common practice amongst the Official Conspiracy Theory supporters
in this forum to lie.

People who are fond of lying seem preoccupied with the need to specify "honesty"
in the responses from others.

Though it doesn't appear to matter what you say if you are an Official Conspiracy Theory supporter.

TheRedWorm, unlike others of your ilk, it is not necessary to ask me to answer honestly.

I have no reason to lie.

In answer to your question; yes.

MM

[uke2se]

It appears to be common practice amongst the Official Conspiracy Theory supporters
in this forum to lie.

People who are fond of lying seem preoccupied with the need to specify "honesty"
in the responses from others.

Though it doesn't appear to matter what you say if you are an Official Conspiracy Theory supporter.

TheRedWorm, unlike others of your ilk, it is not necessary to ask me to answer honestly.

I have no reason to lie.

In answer to your question; yes.

MM

So, why do you do it constantly?

Also, present said evidence in a paper and submit it for peer review. Claiming you have evidence when everything you produce on these forums is either based on lies of misunderstandings isn't getting you anywhere. If the Twoof is so important to you, get your bum off the internet and do something, or are you a coward?

[Miragememories]

"...truthers lied to your hero, they showed him a grossly misleading video. The last pages of the thread have not addressed these facts, Truther. Why are you lying about this truther?"
That is a lie.

Danny Jowenko was shown the same video that we have all seen here and accept is a true unaltered recording
of the WTC7 collapse.

If the video of WTC7 collapsing that Danny Jowenko watched was misleading, he certainly had ample opportunity
to correct his opinion after he was informed.

The producers were seeking an unprejudiced opinion.

You do know what an unprejudiced opinion is, I assume (huge assumption)?

MM

[16.5]

I have no reason to lie.

MM

Yet, curiously, you lied when you said you addressed the facts that

1. the Truthers falsely told Jowenko that the collapse started at the bottom

2. The truthers falsely showed Jowenko an edited video that did not show the collapse of the East Penthouse.

3. The fact that Jowenko has not been heard from since that surreptitiously recorded phone call in 2007.

You sent lurkers here on a fool's errand claiming you had addressed these facts.

That wasn't true, was it MM?

(Pathetic dodge of a response anticipated in 3...2...1...)

[Disbelief]

If the video of WTC7 collapsing that Danny Jowenko watched was misleading, he certainly had ample opportunity
to correct his opinion after he was informed.

MM

He also has had plenty of time to consider WTC1 & 2. Why would he be worried about backlash for claiming those were CDs if he is getting no flak for believing WTC7 was a CD?

[Miragememories]

"I had forgotten that those interviews did indeed occur before the release of the 7 World Trade NIST reports. You're right, of course: There's been nothing out of him since 2007, and prior to that, all he was working with was a video and a blueprint. Definitely not the proper information that is now known."
During that first interview, Danny Jowenko was working with the NIST WTC7 2004 Preliminary Report.

The final report from the NIST, added nothing substantially new.

More significantly, the NIST FINAL WTC7 COLLAPSE REPORT eliminated many of the arguments Official Conspiracy Theory supporters had been basing their case on.

The NIST claimed it had definitely solved the collapse mystery.

The NIST claimed the fuel tanks were not a factor in their fire-based collapse theory.

The NIST claimed the ancillary damage caused by the collapse of WTC 1 was also not a factor in their collapse theory.

So tell us, ElMondoHummus, what was all this new "proper information" that became known?

MM

[16.5]

Danny Jowenko was shown the same video that we have all seen here and accept is a true unaltered recording
of the WTC7 collapse.

If the video of WTC7 collapsing that Danny Jowenko watched was misleading, he certainly had ample opportunity
to correct his opinion after he was informed.

MM

What nonsense, sheer nonsense. The video was altered because the collpase of the Penthouse was edited out. I don't really care that you truthers think it is accurate, because it is not: it is shortened and silent. It is fraud.

BOOM

And how the hell is Jowenko supposed to know or care that they showed him a misleading video? He hasn't said a damn thing about it in three years.

[16.5]

During that first interview, Danny Jowenko was working with the NIST WTC7 2004 Preliminary Report.

MM

Wow... I am speechless. You just flat out made that up.

And so MM destroys what little credibilty he has. Sad.

I do enjoy how you say that the Final report added nothing new and then go ahead and list several things that were new in the final report. GENIUS!!!

[Oystein]

It appears to be common practice amongst the Official Conspiracy Theory supporters
in this forum to lie.

People who are fond of lying seem preoccupied with the need to specify "honesty"
in the responses from others.

Though it doesn't appear to matter what you say if you are an Official Conspiracy Theory supporter.

TheRedWorm, unlike others of your ilk, it is not necessary to ask me to answer honestly.

I have no reason to lie.

In answer to your question; yes.

MM

You have yet to answer any question that I posed you honestly without being kicked to it. You distort questions in a very dishonest way. You make up answers based on nothing and try to dishonestly pass them by as well-founded information. It is therefore not surprising that people would insist you write something honestly for a change.



Obvious follow-up question: Which is your "evidence that 9/11 was an inside job"? But that would be off-topic to the OP, as Danny Jowenko can't be the source of any such evidence.

[Oystein]

That is a lie.

Danny Jowenko was shown the same video that we have all seen here and accept is a true unaltered recording
of the WTC7 collapse.

If the video of WTC7 collapsing that Danny Jowenko watched was misleading, he certainly had ample opportunity
to correct his opinion after he was informed.

The producers were seeking an unprejudiced opinion.

You do know what an unprejudiced opinion is, I assume (huge assumption)?

MM

He was shown the video without sound. That seems to me an important alteration when you are speculating about an event whose most remarkable sensory feature would be the insanely loud BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG that every demolition expert knows accompany any explosive demolition. As someone pointed out: Jowenko's own homepage demonstrates that quite nicely in the trailer: http://www.jowenko.com/

How do you know the producers were seeking an unprejudiced opinion? Do you know them personally? Are they superhuman?
Again something you pull out of your arse in the face of utter ignorance.

[Oystein]

During that first interview, Danny Jowenko was working with the NIST WTC7 2004 Preliminary Report.

And this you know how? What is your evidence?

The final report from the NIST, added nothing substantially new.

No, only a new, improved theory :rolleyes:

More significantly, the NIST FINAL WTC7 COLLAPSE REPORT eliminated many of the arguments Official Conspiracy Theory supporters had been basing their case on.

The NIST claimed it had definitely solved the collapse mystery.

No.

The NIST claimed the fuel tanks were not a factor in their fire-based collapse theory.
The NIST claimed the ancillary damage caused by the collapse of WTC 1 was also not a factor in their collapse theory.
So tell us, ElMondoHummus, what was all this new "proper information" that became known?

MM

That is the scientific method, as employed by real critical thinkers, at work: Open minds can improve on their theories in light of evidence and reason.

[Miragememories]

"It isn't just a matter of; could fire cause a concrete and steel building such as WTC7 to collapse?

But, could any fire make such a building suffer a complete collapse with the same symmetry as is achieved in a successfully executed controlled demolition?

Plain and simple, the answer is no."
"You SURE about that? I happen to know of a building that had a massive fire, that was concrete with steel reinforcement, that fell just like a CD, and had no other damage whatsoever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p22Ok...layer_embedded"

Thanks for the links.

As expected, they were not videos of complete, in unison, symmetrical building collapses such as was observed with WTC7, and is the normal expectation from successful controlled demolitions.

They nicely illustrate how buildings collapse partially when they are not controlled demolitions.

MM

[16.5]

-Danny had never heard about or viewed the collapse of WTC7[/b]

MM

During that first interview, Danny Jowenko was working with the NIST WTC7 2004 Preliminary Report.


MM

Fascinating, ain't it folks? A couple of days ago, the Truther claimed that Jowenko "had never heard of the collapse of WTC7" and NOW? Jowenko was "working with the NIST WTC7 2004 preliminary report."

Oh MM, it is hard to lie, ain't it? You never know when you are going to stick your foot in your mouth.

Well, I'm just about done with this Truther.

Hey, MM, thanks for bumping this thread! Good job making it clear that the Truthers are a bunch of frauds.

[dafydd]

Why do these truthers never know that the floor has been wiped with them,and that their ass has been handed to them in a sling?

[triforcharity]

That is a lie.

Danny Jowenko was shown the same video that we have all seen here and accept is a true unaltered recording
of the WTC7 collapse.

If the video of WTC7 collapsing that Danny Jowenko watched was misleading, he certainly had ample opportunity
to correct his opinion after he was informed.

The producers were seeking an unprejudiced opinion.

You do know what an unprejudiced opinion is, I assume (huge assumption)?

MM

Yeah, like showing the entire collapse and not just the edited footage that they showed him.

Ahem *Pennthouse* ahem....

[triforcharity]

Thanks for the links.

As expected, they were not videos of complete, in unison, symmetrical building collapses such as was observed with WTC7, and is the normal expectation from successful controlled demolitions.

They nicely illustrate how buildings collapse partially when they are not controlled demolitions.

MM

How does a "symmetrical" building collapse hit two other buildings? One on it's roof? That is not symmetrical.

7WTC's collapse was not in unison either. But hey, it's cool. Shift **** **** those goalposts!

[Miragememories]

What nonsense, sheer nonsense. The video was altered because the collpase of the Penthouse was edited out. I don't really care that you truthers think it is accurate, because it is not: it is shortened and silent. It is fraud.


If the video he watched (and I'm not saying he wasn't shown the East Penthouse collapse), was continuous from start to finish, with no frames removed in between, and the speed unaltered, then it was a true presentation of WTC7 for that portion of time.

A year later, having had ample and easy opportunity to see every WTC7 video out there, Danny Jowenko remained firm in his belief that the collapse of WTC7 could not have been caused by fire!

MM

[16.5]

If the video he watched (and I'm not saying he wasn't shown the East Penthouse collapse), was continuous from start to finish, with no frames removed in between, and the speed unaltered, then it was a true presentation of WTC7 for that portion of time.

A year later, having had ample and easy opportunity to see every WTC7 video out there, Danny Jowenko remained firm in his belief that the collapse of WTC7 could not have been caused by fire!

MM

This tiny little snippet of video was completely truethy!! Except for the fact it was misleading and silent! And they lied and told him it started at the bottom!

Hee hee! Keep posting bro, now I'm just in it for the lulz.

[Oystein]

If the video he watched (and I'm not saying he wasn't shown the East Penthouse collapse), was continuous from start to finish, with no frames removed in between, and the speed unaltered, then it was a true presentation of WTC7 for that portion of time.

So you agree Jowenko was given only partial information? Thanks.

A year later, having had ample and easy opportunity to see every WTC7 video out there

Cool. And did he? Do you know? Got any evidence?


, Danny Jowenko remained firm in his belief that the collapse of WTC7 could not have been caused by fire!

MM

Yup, "belief" it is. ;)

[Oystein]

Fascinating, ain't it folks? A couple of days ago, the Truther claimed that Jowenko "had never heard of the collapse of WTC7" and NOW? Jowenko was "working with the NIST WTC7 2004 preliminary report."
...

Cool finding!

[uke2se]

Fascinating, ain't it folks? A couple of days ago, the Truther claimed that Jowenko "had never heard of the collapse of WTC7" and NOW? Jowenko was "working with the NIST WTC7 2004 preliminary report."

Oh MM, it is hard to lie, ain't it? You never know when you are going to stick your foot in your mouth.

Well, I'm just about done with this Truther.

Hey, MM, thanks for bumping this thread! Good job making it clear that the Truthers are a bunch of frauds.

Game, set and match. The twoof is out. MM lies.

[Grizzly Bear]

How does a "symmetrical" building collapse hit two other buildings? One on it's roof? That is not symmetrical.

7WTC's collapse was not in unison either. But hey, it's cool. Shift **** **** those goalposts!

There's no reason at all to care if it was symmetrical or not. The one thing CD's and non-CD collapses share is that the building collapses due to the loss of structural integrity. Everything about how a building "decides" to fall is dictated by the initiating collapse event and it's location relative to the floor plan and section. Truthers invented their little symmetrical and freefall canards to legitimize their controlled demolition fantasies, just as they invented the non-existence of simile, metaphor, exaggeration in witness statements. If they want to conclude that it was an intentional man-made explosive demolition, they need to provide more than their imaginative interpretations of simile, and provide evidence that proves without a doubt that explosives or their pet thermite was responsible for initiating and continuing the collapse

What the collision with fitterman hall and the Verizon building proves beyond any reasonable doubt is that any "controlled" element to the collapse was utterly and entirely absent, and not a single conspiracy theorist is willing to step up and admit that they were wrong.

[tsig]

Fascinating, ain't it folks? A couple of days ago, the Truther claimed that Jowenko "had never heard of the collapse of WTC7" and NOW? Jowenko was "working with the NIST WTC7 2004 preliminary report."

Oh MM, it is hard to lie, ain't it? You never know when you are going to stick your foot in your mouth.

Well, I'm just about done with this Truther.

Hey, MM, thanks for bumping this thread! Good job making it clear that the Truthers are a bunch of frauds.

Good work!

If they post long enough they'll always contradict themselves.

[Disbelief]

There's no reason at all to care if it was symmetrical or not. The one thing CD's and non-CD collapses share is that the building collapses due to the loss of structural integrity. Everything about how a building "decides" to fall is dictated by the initiating collapse event and it's location relative to the floor plan and section. Truthers invented their little symmetrical and freefall canards to legitimize their controlled demolition fantasies, just as they invented the non-existence of simile, metaphor, exaggeration in witness statements. If they want to conclude that it was an intentional man-made explosive demolition, they need to provide more than their imaginative interpretations of simile, and provide evidence that proves without a doubt that explosives or their pet thermite was responsible for initiating and continuing the collapse

What the collision with fitterman hall and the Verizon building proves beyond any reasonable doubt is that any "controlled" element to the collapse was utterly and entirely absent, and not a single conspiracy theorist is willing to step up and admit that they were wrong.

That's because it was an "uncontrolled" controlled demolition to shift suspicion. Of course, our intrepid CTists were on the case and noticed the tomfoolery of the perpetrators. I can hear Cheney now, "We would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for these meddling kids!"

[GlennB]

Thanks for the links.

As expected, they were not videos of complete, in unison, symmetrical building collapses ....... (which) is the normal expectation from successful controlled demolitions.

MM


Just like WTC7 then, which started collapsing internally several seconds before the external walls gave way, you mean?

Are you coming round to a non-CD pov MM?

[Miragememories]

"During that first interview, Danny Jowenko was working with the NIST WTC7 2004 Preliminary Report."
"Wow... I am speechless. You just flat out made that up."
You only reveal the depth of your ignorance 16.5.

For example, go to 5:43 in the original interview (part 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU&feature=related

They are studying Figure L-31. Plan View of Collapse Progression.

This is on page L-32 of the NIST WTC7 2004 Preliminary Report.
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

It is one of several that Danny Jowenko discusses in his interview for the
Dutch news program "Zembia Investigates 9/11 Theories (2006)

MM

[beachnut]

Just like WTC7 then, which started collapsing internally several seconds before the external walls gave way, you mean?

Are you coming round to a non-CD pov MM?
Evidence is not used when the expert conspiracy theorists make up delusions. They are not trying to understand 911, they are building delusional conspiracy theories and the goal is failure; they have a perfect record of 8 years, pure failure.

Danny got 7 wrong, and 1 and 2 right; 67 percent correct, he beats 911 truth by 67 points. If truthers used logic, they would not be using Danny, he completely messes up their delusions but they have no clue why.

[GlennB]

They are studying Figure L-31. Plan View of Collapse Progression.



That would include the part where Jowenko indicates on the plan the core columns that would have to be cut, and the interviewer says "These twelve?" ?

The fact that neither of them stopped to do any counting says a lot about this rigorous analysis, don't you think?

[Miragememories]

He was shown the video without sound. That seems to me an important alteration when you are speculating about an event whose most remarkable sensory feature would be the insanely loud BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG that every demolition expert knows accompany any explosive demolition. As someone pointed out: Jowenko's own homepage demonstrates that quite nicely in the trailer: http://www.jowenko.com/

How do you know the producers were seeking an unprejudiced opinion? Do you know them personally? Are they superhuman?
Again something you pull out of your arse in the face of utter ignorance.
Apparently you are wrong.

There is more to being sure about a controlled demolition than just your
"BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG"! ! !

You make it quite clear from the link to Jowenko's homepage that he must be aware of sound.

Yet, Danny never once suggests that he needs to hear the collapse in order to confirm his conviction that it was not a collapse caused by fire.

MM

[Miragememories]

Fascinating, ain't it folks? A couple of days ago, the Truther claimed that Jowenko "had never heard of the collapse of WTC7" and NOW? Jowenko was "working with the NIST WTC7 2004 preliminary report."

Oh MM, it is hard to lie, ain't it? You never know when you are going to stick your foot in your mouth.

Well, I'm just about done with this Truther.

Hey, MM, thanks for bumping this thread! Good job making it clear that the Truthers are a bunch of frauds.
Nice job proving the act of fraud was yours.

I'm amazed at how illiterate the Official Conspiracy Theory supporters are here.

In his first interview I refer to the fact that Danny Jowenko was being shown diagrams from the NIST WTC7 2004 Preliminary Report
and no one comprehends this.

Pablum responses are all you understand apparently.

Too funny.

MM

[Miragememories]

How does a "symmetrical" building collapse hit two other buildings? One on it's roof? That is not symmetrical.

7WTC's collapse was not in unison either. But hey, it's cool. Shift **** **** those goalposts!
You were saying?

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

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

Not in unison [simultaneous performance of action]?

I see the complete building (in unison) collapsing symmetrically.

Your goalposts have not been moved.

MM

[uke2se]

Nice job proving the act of fraud was yours.

I'm amazed at how illiterate the Official Conspiracy Theory supporters are here.

In his first interview I refer to the fact that Danny Jowenko was being shown diagrams from the NIST WTC7 2004 Preliminary Report
and no one comprehends this.

Pablum responses are all you understand apparently.

Too funny.

MM

:words:

:dl:

[carlitos]

You were saying?

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

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

Not in unison [simultaneous performance of action]?

I see the complete building (in unison) collapsing symmetrically.

Your goalposts have not been moved.

MM

You "see" one side of the exterior of the building. Since we know that the debris actually fell across not one but 2 streets, we know it wasn't symmetrical. Since we know that one of the mechanical penthouses collapsed into the building well before the exterior was observed to collapse, we know with relative certainty that some chaotic collapse was underway inside. Anyway, stick with your story anyway; your belief is faith-based and won't change despite this information.

[alienentity]

Thanks for the links.

As expected, they were not videos of complete, in unison, symmetrical building collapses such as was observed with WTC7, and is the normal expectation from successful controlled demolitions.

They nicely illustrate how buildings collapse partially when they are not controlled demolitions.

MM

By your metrics the chaotic, asymmetrical collapses of the WTC towers then proves they weren't CD's. Thanks for killing your own theory.

Also, the fires were being fought, showing that the firefighting efforts may have saved them from total collapse. Just like WTC5, where there was massive failure of steel structure, but not complete collapse.

Besides, CD's don't always result in complete collapses, so that isn't a valid measurement - but we already knew this, which is why your arguments are so inadequate.

[ElMondoHummus]

During that first interview, Danny Jowenko was working with the NIST WTC7 2004 Preliminary Report.

The final report from the NIST, added nothing substantially new.

More significantly, the NIST FINAL WTC7 COLLAPSE REPORT eliminated many of the arguments Official Conspiracy Theory supporters had been basing their case on.

The NIST claimed it had definitely solved the collapse mystery.

The NIST claimed the fuel tanks were not a factor in their fire-based collapse theory.

The NIST claimed the ancillary damage caused by the collapse of WTC 1 was also not a factor in their collapse theory.

So tell us, ElMondoHummus, what was all this new "proper information" that became known?

MM

So, since he's supposedly studied (as opposed to just leafed through) the prelim NIST report, I guess you can point us to quotes where he identifies a specific aspect of NIST's model and explains what flaws he sees in it. Feel free to point us at those quotes.

Or, if he's written down his critique, feel free to point us at that too.

[16.5]

During that first interview, Danny Jowenko was working with the NIST WTC7 2004 Preliminary Report.

The final report from the NIST, added nothing substantially new.




In his first interview I refer to the fact that Danny Jowenko was being shown diagrams from the NIST WTC7 2004 Preliminary Report and no one comprehends this.

MM

Hee, the lulz continue! The question was why your hero has never responded to the NIST report.

You respond that "he was working with" the preliminary report and nothing had changed.

And "working with" means "being shown a diagram from."

FANTASTIC!!

Brilliant truther!

[16.5]

You were saying?

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

MM

Hey, MM, great photo! It shows the collapse just after the Penthouse failed.

Slick, champ, posting that bull **** takes some balls after I pointed out how misleading that was.

Good for you truther!

[Miragememories]

"By your metrics the chaotic, asymmetrical collapses of the WTC towers then proves they weren't CD's. Thanks for killing your own theory."[i]

As you well know;

WTC 2, WTC 1, and WTC 7 all fell completely.

WTC 2, WTC 1, and WTC 7 all fell at high speed.

WTC 2 and WTC 1 were both; quite symmetrical, and fountain-like in their cascading, top-down, imploding collapses.

WTC 7 had a quite symmetrical, lower floor (for those who quibble about the height), imploding collapse.

[i]"Also, the fires were being fought, showing that the firefighting efforts may have saved them from total collapse. Just like WTC5, where there was massive failure of steel structure, but not complete collapse."
The fires were never fought at their source inside WTC 1 and WTC 2.

"Besides, CD's don't always result in complete collapses, so that isn't a valid measurement - but we already knew this, which is why your arguments are so inadequate."

Failed controlled demolitions can result in partial, or off balance collapses.

Successful controlled demolitions do not.

Look again;

WTC 7

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

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

Classic Controlled Demolition
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3889/samplecdcomposite1cj3.png

No one has shown a comparison example of a concrete and steel highrise that had a total, high speed collapse as a result of fire!

MM

[carlitos]

No one has shown a comparison example of a concrete and steel highrise that had a total, high speed collapse as a result of fire!

MMProof by "it never happened before" incredulity. Brilliant. A couple of other things happened for the first time on 9/11. Can you name them?

[Miragememories]

So, since he's supposedly studied (as opposed to just leafed through) the prelim NIST report, I guess you can point us to quotes where he identifies a specific aspect of NIST's model and explains what flaws he sees in it. Feel free to point us at those quotes.

Or, if he's written down his critique, feel free to point us at that too.
I'm still waiting to hear all your significant revelations ElMondoHummus??

I'll ask again;

What was all this new "proper information" that became known in the NIST Final WTC7 Report?

MM

[16.5]

As you well know;


http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

No one has shown a comparison example of a concrete and steel highrise that had a total, high speed collapse as a result of fire!

MM

There's that misleading picture picture again!! LULZZZ.

Hey, bro, I'll show you a picture of a concrete and steel highrise that had a total, high speed collapse as a result of fire, if you show me just where to buy those Hush A Booms!

[Miragememories]

Proof by "it never happened before" incredulity. Brilliant. A couple of other things happened for the first time on 9/11. Can you name them?
Somehow you don't think 3 times in the same day, and not under similar circumstances is statistically impossible?

Don't answer that.

I know the knee-jerk response.

You can't argue against a person's religion, especially when you are inside their church.

Hopefully my efforts will make the visiting potential converts think twice,
or at least think.

MM

[ElMondoHummus]

I'm still waiting to hear all your significant revelations ElMondoHummus??

I'll ask again;

What was all this new "proper information" that became known in the NIST Final WTC7 Report?

MM


I already told you:

He continued to characterized the fires as small. This now apparently in contradiction to information that he had access to. And you can't deny that he was saying that; you yourself quoted him saying it.
He also gave no indication that he studied the collapse progression, or paid attention to any of the external details, such as the rate of descent of the north face, or the east-to-west progression of the failures.
Your turn: Please point out where he identifies a failure in that report he read. Please tell us what his critique is. Show that you actually know what his argument is, instead of simply latching onto him because he's a favorable authority for you to use. Show that you've actually studied something about the event. Tell us his critique.

[Oystein]

...
Hopefully my efforts will make the visiting potential converts think twice,
or at least think.

MM

If visiting potential converts realize from your posts how truthers regularly and dishonestly distort questions, pull imagined things from their rear and make up stories as they go, much is won.

[Grizzly Bear]

Somehow you don't think 3 times in the same day, and not under similar circumstances is statistically impossible?
Two had nearly identical damage, the other burned with no fire fighting. Tough luck if you don't like the answer. Rare, yes, statistically impossible? It already happened so the discussion is moot.

[uke2se]

Somehow you don't think 3 times in the same day, and not under similar circumstances is statistically impossible?

Counterpoint: Do you think the fact that man hadn't gone to the moon at any time during history, and then suddenly two walked at the moon at the same time is statistically impossible? The comparison is quite apt, as the reasons for both are similar: in the case of the moon, it was the result of a long and arduous process in which science gave us the chance to go, and we went with three people, two of which walked on the moon. In the case of 9/11, it was the result of a long and arduous process during which 19 aspiring hijackers gathered the relevant information, education, documents and training only to hijack 4 aircraft, crash 3 of them into buildings, all three of which at least partially collapsed. Due to the significant non-symmetry of the collapse, one of the buildings fell on another, knocked out water-mains which prevented fire-fighting, leading to the building stricken by the taller one eventually collapsing from fire damage.

You see, it has nothing to do with statistics. If it did, any time something happens for the first time it would be statistically impossible.


Don't answer that.

I know the knee-jerk response.

There's nothing knee-jerk about it. It's simply reality. You should try living in it some time.


You can't argue against a person's religion, especially when you are inside their church.

This is true. Why we keep arguing with you despite your religion preventing you from seeing reason is beyond me to answer. I suppose it's mainly boredom.


Hopefully my efforts will make the visiting potential converts think twice,
or at least think.

Don't get your hopes up, twoof. Anyone reading this thread knows by now that your arguments are nothing but vile, repulsive lies in defence of the murderers of around 3000 people.

[carlitos]

Somehow you don't think 3 times in the same day, and not under similar circumstances is statistically impossible?
I don't really understand your response, from a logical standpoint.

By 'statistically impossible,' do you mean 'statistically improbable?'

If so, do you find that 4 aircraft being hijacked on the same day is unlikely?
Or do you think that 4 hijacked aircraft crashing on the same day is unlikely?
Or do you think that 2 aircraft crashing into high rise buildings causing those buildings to collapse is unlikely?
Or do you think that a third building collapsing, having been struck by debris from the first 2 buildings and set on fire, is unlikely?
Are you similarly incredulous about the other world trade center buildings that were destroyed, or the Pentagon damage? Was that damage "statistically impossible" for some reason?

Because really, "statistically" speaking, your response doesn't make any sense. What odds would you use to calculate the statistical likelihood of any of this? Number of terrorists / number of flights? I have no idea where you are going with this.

[16.5]

If visiting potential converts realize from your posts how truthers regularly and dishonestly distort questions, pull imagined things from their rear and make up stories as they go, much is won.

and if their best evidence was a guy who got "blindsided" in 2007, and hasn't been heard from since is their best evidence, much is won.

[Grizzly Bear]

Counterpoint:<snip>

Shorter version: Since everything that happens is impossible because they've never happened before that essentially everything that has happened for the first time is statistically impossible.

Pointless discussion is pointless. He won't change his mind. It is as always amusing to watch the paradox unfold for them.

[Miragememories]

There's that misleading picture picture again!! LULZZZ.

Hey, bro, I'll show you a picture of a concrete and steel highrise that had a total, high speed collapse as a result of fire, if you show me just where to buy those Hush A Booms!
Adding an additional image which shows the East Penthouse does nothing to change the character of the collapse once the whole building is engaged.

For 7 seconds, the NIST claimed that the guts of WTC7 was being ripped apart as column 79 failed below the East Penthouse.

http://a.imageshack.us/img822/9589/nistwtc7sim1.jpg

Yet in spite of all the solid interconnections with the exterior walls, hardly a blemish was observed.

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/2936/wtc7column79hm2.png

The real collapse occurred when the whole building could be seen to be collapsing which is what my sequence of screen captures reveal.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png


Converted to link, as this has become spam with 3 repeats of the same image in such a short span in the same thread.

MM

[16.5]

The real collapse occurred when the whole building could be seen to be collapsing which is what my sequence of screen captures reveal.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

MM

The REAL collapse folks, y'all hear that? The REAL collapse!

Not the actual collapse, the "REAL" collapse!

Man, it must be freaking AWESOME to just redefine words when they suit you.

By the way, MM, "hardly a blemish was observed." And he supports that claim with pictures showing about 15-20% of the exterior facade. Stand back folks, MM is DOING SCIENCE!!! And how does he support his claim that there were "solid" connections with the facade by showing a picture that does not show the connections. Very clever, MM!

Have a REAL great day, sport!

[BigAl]

Somehow you don't think 3 times in the same day, and not under similar circumstances is statistically impossible?



And Miragememories displays his ignorance of the use of probabilities.

[TruthersLie]

You were saying?

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

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

Not in unison [simultaneous performance of action]?

I see the complete building (in unison) collapsing symmetrically.

Your goalposts have not been moved.

MM

I love this truther line. It is ROFLMAO funny.

Just a quick question because you seem unable to understand the word "symmetrical."

How does a building have the EASTERN MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE collapse 8 seconds before the rest of the building collapse SYMMETRICALLY? Was there a western mechanical penthouse that collapsed 8 seconds after the REST of the collapse? (see, that would be symmetrical).

Was there a western mechanical penthouse that collapsed with the eastern mechanical penthouse 8 seconds BEFORE the rest of the building collapsed? That would be symmetrical.

ARe there pictures showing ALL 4 corners of WTC7 right before it collapsed, and be able to see ALL 4 corners collapsing? If there were, that would be symmetrical.

How does a building collapse into 2 different buildings which are over 90 degrees apart (but not 180 degrees), including damaging one of those buildings on the ROOF causing a partial collapse do it symmetrically?

You really need to go back and look up what the word "symmetrically" means.

p.s. I love the nicely cropped photos which leave out where the easter mechanical penthouse was... and how you ignore the massive crimp in the middle of the building which isn't falling symmetrically....

[GlennB]

The real collapse occurred when the whole building could be seen to be collapsing which is what my sequence of screen captures reveal.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

MM

MM - notice two things about that collapse sequence of yours

1. In the first shot, the E mechanical penthouse is missing.

2. In the first shot, light is shining through the upper left windows.

Pause for thought while you recognise the penthouse had, in fact, been missing for several seconds? What could that mean?

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7-penthouse-kink.gif

[Miragememories]

MM - notice two things about that collapse sequence of yours

1. In the first shot, the E mechanical penthouse is missing.

2. In the first shot, light is shining through the upper left windows.

Pause for thought while you recognise the penthouse had, in fact, been missing for several seconds? What could that mean?

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7-penthouse-kink.gif
Just explain why the perimeter wall was unaffected by your so-called proof of early collapse?

Supposedly for 7 seconds, from the roof to the 13th floor, column 79, column 80, column 81 and all the interconnecting steel was failing and pulling in the outside walls.

NIST's computer simulation says it was so and displayed a dramatic display of a distorted perimeter.

http://a.imageshack.us/img822/9589/nistwtc7sim1.jpg

No human, no video, no camera supports anything of the sort, until the roofline begins to drop.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

Converted to link, as this has become spam with 4 repeats of the same image in such a short span in the same thread. Stop it.



Until you can prove differently, all your penthouse theorizing is just that.

Even your revered Ryan Mackey is trapped supporting the NIST hypothesis and was unable to explain how the perimeter wall did not hint at the devastation that the NIST model predicted;

"Now that is truly incredible.

You are in effect saying that we have a building inside a building.

That, even though the two are firmly connected to each other, it's supposedly credible that the inside structure underwent 7 seconds of collapse without visibly pulling in any of the the connected exterior walls.

And you are an engineer?"
"Yes, to all three questions. NCSTAR1A describes the structure's design and its anticipated response, and their hypothesis is consistent with my expectations and my statement. Furthermore, you have yet to provide any evidence that the above is wrong. Yet, curiously, you still seem to disagree."
bolding is mine

Blind obedience to the NIST doctrine.

The sheeple are well trained.

MM

[16.5]

Until you can prove differently, all your penthouse theorizing is just that.

Blind obedience to the NIST doctrine.

The sheeple are well trained.

MM

LULZ! He is just shown a freaking video showing the damn collapse of the freaking penthouse, then has the balls to use the phrase "penthouse theorizing" but accuses US of being "Sheeple."

Bwhahaha!!!!

MM, you are a god damn CLASSIC!!

Go ahead and post your misleading pictures after the penthouse collapse, I need another great laugh, ya fraud.

[DGM]

Blind obedience to the NIST doctrine.

The sheeple are well trained.

MM
So tell us how it was done without effecting the outside of the building.

We'll let you ignore the kinks and buckles like you do.

:rolleyes:

[alienentity]

J



Blind obedience to the NIST doctrine.

The sheeple are well trained.

MM

Blind obedience to the facts, and if NIST also supports the facts, then support for the NIST reports.

Anyway, your pal Femr2 already debunked your phony claim. The building actually compresses slightly (seen also on other videos) and if you look down below the E PH, you can clearly see 'something' going on.
All just coincidences, I suppose.

Funny how truthers fail to recognize real causality in their zeal to prove bogus causality. Ironic.

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/3/2/920361115.gif

[16.5]

So tell us how it was done without effecting the outside of the building.

We'll let you ignore the kinks and buckles like you do.

:rolleyes:

Are we going to ignore the roof too, like he has been doing?

Because, the roof (and penthouse) is not part of a REAL building.

hee hee hee, GREAT THREAD MM, keep on posting, this thread is pristine!

[alienentity]

Since Jowenko has declared that the towers were not cd'd, does that mean he's incorrect?

But if he's wrong about the towers, why isn't he just wrong about WTC7?

Why do these contradictions not give pause to truther's cult-like beliefs? Possibly because they are experts at ignoring info they don't want to see.

Their best technical witness is clearly confused and is testifying against their own doctrine. LOL

[alienentity]

Can someone help MM to point out where the nanothermite charges are going off or the therm*te smoke is pouring out as the PH collapses?
I can't see it.... must be my 'reality insistence' glasses. Maybe I ought to put on my 'controlled demolition and inside job only' glasses.

[GlennB]

Until you can prove differently, all your penthouse theorizing is just that.



Are you denying the penthouse collapse preceded the collapse of the N and W walls by several seconds, MM ?

That would be truly remarkable.

[16.5]

Are you denying the penthouse collapse preceded the collapse of the N and W walls by several seconds, MM ?

That would be truly remarkable.

Dude's a No-Roofer, man.

[Miragememories]

Are you denying the penthouse collapse preceded the collapse of the N and W walls by several seconds, MM ?

That would be truly remarkable.
Never said that.

Everyone is blowing smoke but no one is attempting to address the argument.

Frustration will do that I guess.

MM

[uke2se]

NVM, not worth it.

[16.5]

Never said that.

Everyone is blowing smoke but no one is attempting to address the argument.

Frustration will do that I guess.

MM

Oh, you mean the argument where you referred to the collapse of the Eastern penthouse as "theorizing"?

Or the part where you referred to a building with a collapsed mechanical penthouse and roof as being "unblemished"?

Those arguments, sport?

hee hee! Welcome back, MM, GREAT FREAKING THREAD!!

/Seriously, "frustrated"?? This is as far from frustrated as I can be. Damn, son, we've been handing you shovels over the last eight hours and you just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. Hilarious!!

[alienentity]

By making a non-argument the truther cannot be contradicted.

He's just going to keep making irrelevant, obtuse statements. At no time will he bring forth actual evidence of something.

That's how weak the truther position really is folks.

[alienentity]

Question to the genius truthers: where did the PH go?

Why did windows randomly fall out all the way down the building directly under the PH, with no explosions heard?

Where are your explosions, truthers? M.I.A.

Better find them or your CD theory is dead. 9 years is an awful lot of fail for you to hang your hat on.

[Grizzly Bear]

They need none of that. Just make something resemble something else on the surface and then like *magic* it becomes the other!

Man... in a world like that... if I visualize a milkshake in my steak I could magically substitute a steak with my milkshake. Mmmm, I'm hungry now....

[alienentity]

This clip shows the windows broken many floors down directly below the PH. They broke just around the time it collapsed into the building.

The prevailing and accepted theory is that the internal collapse was underway, evidenced by these artifacts.

Would truthers like to offer a competing hypothesis which better describes the evidence here? Notice that there were NO EXPLOSIVE SQUIBS of any kind seen in any of those windows - so why did they break at that time?

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/WTC7windows.jpg

[A W Smith]

What you are claiming as a symmetrical global collapse is not. It is mainly the exterior moment frame shell of the building. You can see even in photos of the debris pile with the shell draped over it that many of these connections were still intact.
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/wtc7_debris.jpg

Time line

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/timeline.jpg

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

[alienentity]

Is this consistent with the other historic demolitions using thermite? Oh, wait a minute, thermite has never been used for a controlled demolition of a steelframe building!

:cool:

[16.5]

Time line



Sorry, MM has made clear that the real collapse started at 8.2 seconds.

Everything before that is invalid.

And it appears that using facts makes one a "Sheeple."

Ain't that right MM?

[triforcharity]

You were saying?

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

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

Not in unison [simultaneous performance of action]?

I see the complete building (in unison) collapsing symmetrically.

Your goalposts have not been moved.

MM

Really? From grainey YouTuube videos? Explain Fitterman Hall. Thanks.

[triforcharity]

As you well know;

WTC 2, WTC 1, and WTC 7 all fell completely.


Wow, for once, MM posts a fact. Well, for the most part. Except for the part that still remained amid the rubble that was cut down later.


WTC 2, WTC 1, and WTC 7 all fell at high speed.


Compared to?


WTC 2 and WTC 1 were both; quite symmetrical, and fountain-like in their cascading, top-down, imploding collapses.


Really? How is this http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/7WTC/sat_photo_911.jpg symmectrical? I see NOTHING that is symmectrical in this photo.


WTC 7 had a quite symmetrical, lower floor (for those who quibble about the height), imploding collapse.


Fitterman Hall. http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/WTC%20Attack/414px-Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/WTC%20Attack/414px-Fiterman_hall_damage-1.jpg

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/WTC%20Attack/911_HighQualityPhotos7784.jpg

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/WTC%20Attack/911_HighQualityPhotos7782.jpg

I think you might need to google for the meaning of the word symmetrical.

here, let me Google that for you. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=def%3A+symmetrical



The fires were never fought at their source inside WTC 1 and WTC 2.


We know that. He was talking about the collapses that I posted. Contect my friend, context.


Failed controlled demolitions can result in partial, or off balance collapses.

Successful controlled demolitions do not.

Look again;

WTC 7

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

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

Classic Controlled Demolition
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3889/samplecdcomposite1cj3.png


Yeah, so....your point is?


No one has shown a comparison example of a concrete and steel highrise that had a total, high speed collapse as a result of fire!

MM

Wait, now it's a highrise building? I thought you said
It isn't just a matter of; could fire cause a concrete and steel building such as WTC7 to collapse?

But, could any fire make such a building suffer a complete collapse with the same symmetry as is achieved in a successfully executed controlled demolition?

Plain and simple, the answer is no.


So, now it's a highrise? I mean, not to mention that the concrete in 7WTC had no use in supporting the structure whatsoever....but hey, who cares really. Right MM?

[triforcharity]

Somehow you don't think 3 times in the same day, and not under similar circumstances is statistically impossible?

Don't answer that.

I know the knee-jerk response.

You can't argue against a person's religion, especially when you are inside their church.

Hopefully my efforts will make the visiting potential converts think twice,
or at least think.

MM

Show me those statistics. Thanks.

[Scott Sommers]

Somehow you don't think 3 times in the same day, and not under similar circumstances is statistically impossible?

I don't normally make these kinds of arguments, but do you know what the term 'statistics' and it's adverb 'statistically' mean? The term is quite unlike other words for which this kind of argument has been made. Words like 'delusion', 'hallucination' and 'mental illness' existed a long time before they became controlled by modern professional organizations and continue to have standard and meaningful useage quite different from their professional form. The words related to 'statistic' are quite different. There is no other standard or meaning useage outside of their use by mathematicans.

So I have to ask you, do you know anything about statistics? Tell me, tell us, what understanding of statistics do you bring to this discussion?

[GlennB]

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

I see the complete building (in unison) collapsing symmetrically.



Never said that.

Everyone is blowing smoke but no one is attempting to address the argument.


Everyone but you is addressing the argument.

You, though, are merely persisting with your claim that WTC7 was a classical, synchronised CD and that the building fell in unison and into its own footprint, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Your only point of "evidence" is that you "see" the building coming down symmetrically.

[TSR]

Your only point of "evidence" is that you "see" the building coming down symmetrically.

.
... by ignoring the first several seconds of the collapse, and the damage done to two different buildings across two different streets from WCT7...
.

[GlennB]

.
... by ignoring the first several seconds of the collapse, and the damage done to two different buildings across two different streets from WCT7...
.

... and the lack of a tightly synchronised series of explosions and flashes. And the lack of flying glass from the unprepped building ...

[16.5]

... and the lack of a tightly synchronised series of explosions and flashes. And the lack of flying glass from the unprepped building ...

... and by claiming that a building with a collapsed mechanical penthouse and roof is "unblemished"....

[Miragememories]

... and the lack of a tightly synchronised series of explosions and flashes. And the lack of flying glass from the unprepped building ...
WTC7 was not an undamaged building at the time of its collapse.

We know it had a large multi-story gouge on the south side as well as multi-story damage to its southwest corner.

This could account for the greater debris spread on the south and west sides.


MM

[Miragememories]

... and by claiming that a building with a collapsed mechanical penthouse and roof is "unblemished"....
That is a lie, I never said that.

MM

[GlennB]

... and the lack of a tightly synchronised series of explosions and flashes. And the lack of flying glass from the unprepped building ...

WTC7 was not an undamaged building at the time of its collapse.

We know it had a large multi-story gouge on the south side as well as multi-story damage to its southwest corner.

This could account for the greater debris spread on the south and west sides.

MM

Firstly, the greater debris spread was to the north (Fitterman Hall, West Broadway), not the south (Vesey St.)

Secondly, what do your points here have to do with absence of synchronised detonations, flashes and flying glass?

[DGM]

That is a lie.

MM
Why did you not correct C7 when he stated?

Columns 79, 80 and 81 supported the east penthouse. The failure of these columns occurred on the lower floors that cannot be seen in photo you posted. The windows probably broke because of the distortion to the exterior wall as the floors moved downward with the interior columns and pulled downward on the exterior wall until they broke loose and fell.

This seems to go against your theory.


:rolleyes:

[16.5]

Yet in spite of all the solid interconnections with the exterior walls, hardly a blemish was observed.
MM

That is a lie.

MM

Cool story bro! Thanks for coming back, sport.

Remember folks, collapsed roof and penthouse is "hardly a blemish"! It's just a flesh wound!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

[beachnut]

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

What is not in the tool box of 911 truth.
1. logic
2. definition of symmetry
3. truth
4. physics
5. math
6. research skills
7. structural engineering
8. fire science
9. fire fighting
An endless list... too much to list before a late lunch.

The people pushing the delusion of CD on 911 are habitual cherry pickers, leaving facts and evidence, and opposite opinions, behind for the occasional failed expert moronic conclusion. Danny becomes a double failure for 911 truth.

[GlennB]

Cool story bro! Thanks for coming back, sport.

Remember folks, collapsed roof and penthouse is "hardly a blemish"! It's just a flesh wound!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

Why that link eventually led to me watching Eddie Izzard "covered in bees" I don't really know, but thanks for the laffs :D

[Miragememories]

"Your only point of "evidence" is that you "see" the building coming down symmetrically."

Myself and thousands of others, including the subject of this thread, Danny Jowenko.


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

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

Converted spammed images to links.

Legal Commercial Controlled Demolition
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3889/samplecdcomposite1cj3.png



MM

[tuc0]

Myself and thousands of others, including the subject of this thread, Danny Jowenko.

Illegal WTC7 Controlled Demolition
http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1149/normalcbsb7montno3.jpg


http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png


Legal Commercial Controlled Demolition
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3889/samplecdcomposite1cj3.png



MM


The sad (and funny) thing is that this really is the best argument you guys have. And it's a pathetic argument.

[beachnut]

Myself and thousands of others, including the subject of this thread, Danny Jowenko.

Illegal WTC7 Controlled Demolition
...

Legal Commercial Controlled Demolition
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3889/samplecdcomposite1cj3.png



MM The tiny building falling NOT symmetrical? lol

Illegal! lol, another lie based on; nothing.

That is funny, you show a non-symmetrical CD and the what looks symmetrical to you WTC7. Irony, you pick the leaning legal CD. See you are obsessed with Mark. Kind of a failure; no point is made and you failed to comment on the OP. This is off topic. Why not open your own thread to spew your failed ideas on WTC7 and stop SPAMMING the thread about Danny saying WTC 1 and 2 are not CD?

[twinstead]

I'll bet if you compared the video of the legal CD and the videos of the WTC7 collapsing and listened to them you'd find a very important difference. Do you know what that difference would be MM?

[DGM]

Myself and thousands of others, including the subject of this thread, Danny Jowenko.


MM
Thousands of people claimed to have seen Elvis after his death. What's your point?

[16.5]

Myself and thousands of others, including the subject of this thread, Danny Jowenko.

Illegal WTC7 Controlled Demolition
http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1149/normalcbsb7montno3.jpg


http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png


Legal Commercial Controlled Demolition
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3889/samplecdcomposite1cj3.png

MM

Wow, it takes a special kind of fraud to keep posting that misleading photo of wtc7.

MM, you are SPECIAL!!

lulz.

[Miragememories]

The tiny building falling NOT symmetrical? lol

It is as symmetrical as what would be expected for a controlled building demolition.

Reference Example of a Legal Commercial Controlled Demolition

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3889/samplecdcomposite1cj3.png

Some controlled demolitions have better symmetry than others, but all successful ones are complete, high speed implosions.

Illegal WTC7 Controlled Demolition

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

You were expecting controlled demolitions to display collapse symmetry with the precision of a cut diamond perhaps?

MM

Converted spammed images to links. Stop spamming the same images over and over again.

[carlitos]

I'm just curious.

The idea of comparing (sound free!) photos of a 10 story brick building being demolished by explosives with a 50-story steel frame building (on fire) ... was it yours? How did you get this idea?

For bonus points, are you familiar with the phrase "argument from incredulity?"

[Miragememories]

I'll bet if you compared the video of the legal CD and the videos of the WTC7 collapsing and listened to them you'd find a very important difference. Do you know what that difference would be MM?

Until you can show a high speed, complete building implosion, proven to be caused by fire twinstead, you are just blowing smoke out of your....

MM

[16.5]

Until you can show a high speed, complete building implosion, proven to be caused by fire twinstead, you are just blowing smoke out of your....

MM

That is called DODGING THE QUESTION.

hee hee, MM, you are really, REALLY bad at this.

BOOM

[Miragememories]

I'm just curious.

The idea of comparing (sound free!) photos of a 10 story brick building being demolished by explosives with a 50-story steel frame building (on fire) ... was it yours? How did you get this idea?

For bonus points, are you familiar with the phrase "argument from incredulity?"

Show me a 10 story, or greater, concrete and steel building proven to have been successfully totally imploded and destroyed by fire.

Until you can, the silence of my images is irrelevant.

MM

[BigAl]

Show me a 10 story, or greater, concrete and steel building proven to have been successfully totally imploded and destroyed by fire.

Until you can, the silence of my images is irrelevant.

MM

Find a steel building that had fire and no firefighting.

There was no concrete getting in the way of the fire at WTC.

I bet Jowenko doesn't know that. Richard Gage (AIA) would never tell him.

[tsig]

Show me a 10 story, or greater, concrete and steel building proven to have been successfully totally imploded and destroyed by fire.

Until you can, the silence of my images is irrelevant.

MM

Almost poetic, definitely Stundie.

[triforcharity]

Until you can show a high speed, complete building implosion, proven to be caused by fire twinstead, you are just blowing smoke out of your....

MM

Iv'e shown 3. Now, where were the booms from 7WTC? They seem to be missing from all of your comparisons.

[Porkpie Hat]

It is as symmetrical as what would be expected for a controlled building demolition.

Reference Example of a Legal Commercial Controlled Demolition
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3889/samplecdcomposite1cj3.png

Some controlled demolitions have better symmetry than others, but all successful ones are complete, high speed implosions.

Illegal WTC7 Controlled Demolition
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

You were expecting controlled demolitions to display collapse symmetry with the precision of a cut diamond perhaps?

MMSo in the 9+ years since 9/11, twoof has figured out that building collapses look pretty much the same regardless of the initiating event?

I don't know if congratulations are in order but what the hay.

Congrats....I can't wait to see what the next decade brings!

Go gravity...

[johnny karate]

Show me a 10 story, or greater, concrete and steel building proven to have been successfully totally imploded and destroyed by fire.

MM, by what right do you establish yourself as an authority to render judgment on structural engineering issues?

The reason I ask is because in the past you've established yourself as a ragingly blind ideologue whose primary interest is to forward an agenda as opposed to ascertaining the truth.

Case in point (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=12488):
I can't guess when, but sometime before the next presidential elections I expect a second 9/11 type incident.

Unfortunately, to be effective, the ante would have to be raised. The goal will be to empower the current regime with extraordinary powers. The only way Congress will concede to such a thing is if an incident of extreme magnitude takes place and the threat of further such incidents remains in the offing. As part of the granted powers, the presidential elections of 2008 would likely be canceled as an emergency measure.

I don't think toppling the Sears Tower will do the trick.

A nuclear event is the most likely scenario that would carry sufficient persuasive weight with the American public and Congress.

Should this occur, members of the 9/11 Truth Movement can only expect to survive if they move underground and it's doubtful that they would ever again be a serious force to be reckoned it, given the expectation of a declaration of martial law throughout the U.S.

The fact is, if 9/11 was an inside job, the perpetrators have committed themselves too far to let it all fail, unless they believe the next government will be somehow compelled to continue policies that the current one initiated (Iraq, Homeland security measures etc.).

It's quite possible that 9/11 Stage 2 is already in place and timed to be initiated if and when it's absolutely deemed necessary. The reason we haven't seen it so far is because it will be so horrific that they don't really want to "push the button" unless they feel it's absolutely necessary to maintain their initial goals.

I know looking at these words, it all seems so outlandish, like some cheap thriller vacation reading, but when you think back to 9/11 and events like WTC 7, if you really believe it was an inside job, after deliberately killing 3,000+ innocent people, how likely is it that those responsible would chicken out now?


As it turns out, no new 9/11-type event occurred, nuclear or otherwise.

The 2008 elections were not canceled.

Martial law was not declared.

And perhaps most stinging of all, the Truth Movement did not get to become an underground band of freedom fighters.

Clearly, your paranoid delusions colored your perception of real-world sociopolitical events (to hilarious effect).

Is it possible those same paranoid delusion are now coloring your perception of structural engineering matters?

[Sam.I.Am]

WOLVERINES!!!


http://a.imageshack.us/img839/3182/images8792266.jpg


*cough* *cough*

[carlitos]

Clearly, your paranoid delusions colored your perception of real-world sociopolitical events (to hilarious effect).

Is it possible those same paranoid delusion are now coloring your perception of structural engineering matters?

:solved1

[alienentity]

Until you can show a high speed, complete building implosion, proven to be caused by fire twinstead, you are just blowing smoke out of your....

MM


You just did. WTC7 was proven, by empirical methods and thorough engineering, to have imploded due to fires.

Why is it that none of your controlled demolition videos show buildings which have burned for hours?

It is your evidence which doesn't fit the events of 9/11. Sadly you don't have the presence of mind to understand that. You still don't understand how Barry Jennings' own testimony contradicts his assumptions, so maybe that shouldn't surprise me.

You truthers get a LOT of basic facts wrong. Coincidence? I don't think so.

[alienentity]

Note to MM - remember, there is engineering proof for WTC7's collapse.

Can you, with engineering arguments, critique the NIST model? Until then, you ought to show some respect for those who know a lot more than you do. It would be a healthy step in the right direction.

[Longfellow]

Sure. Please feel free .We for our part will continue to present his striking evidence to others .Seems like a win-win situation for the Truth Movement and the concerned citizens alike.


It does indeed sound like a win-win situation for the Truth Movement, bill smith. So tell me, please, why is it that, nearly 9 years on, no one is paying any attention to you? I don't mean here on this forum (where, to me, you receive an inordinate amount of attention) or on any other forum you may frequent, mind. I mean the Real World. Turn your head 90 degrees to the left. See that space over there where there's no computer screen? That's the Real World. Why are the people over there ignoring your 'evidence', bill smith? Doesn't it strike you as at least a little odd that you have to go on the internet to espouse your version of what happened nearly 9 years ago? Why aren't people talking about it at work, in cabs, on the street, in the queue for a movie, at the laundry mat? You can't find the '911 Truth Movement anywhere but the internet? Why is that?

Since 2006 (when I first became aware of the '911 Truth Movement' via, ironically enough, a drive-by trolling on an online racing league forum I used to participate in) people, much like yourself, have been proclaiming how the 'movement' will win out. It's only a matter of time, they say, before those responsible will be brought to justice. It's only a matter of time before we have our day in the sun!

Well. . .we're waiting! </Judge Smails_mode>

It's quite obvious that Mr. Jowenko was manipulated by the 'Truth Movement' and their pathetic attempts to use Mr. Jowneko as a specious appeal to authority is. also, quite obvious. You see, bill smith, this is why the world ignores the likes of you: You have no evidence, no logic, no coherent narrative. . .nothing. NOTHING.

Don't believe me? Fine. Wait until morning and open your daily paper. You're likely to find something about the oil spill in the Gulf and maybe something about Lindsay Lohan's latest legal troubles or perhaps Mel Gibson's latest outburst and let's not forget the funnies and the crossword but what is it you don't find? I'll tell you. Anything to do with your version of the events of September 11, 2001. Nothing. You have to log onto the internet and go looking for the '911 Truth Movement'. Doesn't that tell you anything, bill smith?

But don't despair about the Real World ignoring you, bill smith. You can take some solace in the fact that your family still loves you. That is, unless you've been spouting 'controlled demolition' or 'therm*te' or some other such silly thing at family reunions or holidays or cookouts or what-have-you.

You don't, do you?

[16.5]

Until you can show a high speed, complete building implosion, proven to be caused by fire twinstead, you are just blowing smoke out of your....

MM

Until you can show a high speed, complete building implosion, proven to be caused by silent explosions MM, you are just blowing smoke out of your collapsed penthouse....

And if this thread wasn't enough of a rout, johnny karate comes and throws a bomb and high steps all over MM on his way to the end zone.

OUCH, MM!

[Grizzly Bear]

The whole looks like a controlled demolition = is a controlled demolition.... I suppose one could say the truth movement is trying to take a page from the Russian communist movement of the early to mid 20th century to connect with the wing bats that make up the truth movement. The communist propaganda movement from the Pre-stalin era made imagery a staple motif since illiteracy at that time was so high. While the crazies eat it up like candy, the TM leaders get following by showing only the skin deep comparisons without getting into the nitty gritty.

[alienentity]

'She looks like a witch = she must be a witch'

It's a circular argument. Which is why truthers are a little 'loopy'. hehe

But seriously, until they break out of the circular logic and other fallacies, they're trapped and cannot escape this fantasy.

What a waste of a person's mind.

[Miragememories]

"WTC7 was proven, by empirical methods and thorough engineering, to have imploded due to fires.

Wrong.

No concrete and steel building has ever been proven by empirical methods to have completely imploded as the result of fire alone.

Apparently, alienentity you have no idea what the meaning of empirical is.

Too funny.

MM

[twinstead]

Wrong.

No concrete and steel building has ever been proven by empirical methods to have completely imploded as the result of fire alone.

Apparently, alienentity you have no idea what the meaning of empirical is.

Too funny.

MM

The why is the rank-and-file engineering and scientific community not up in arms then? Why is nobody paying attention to you?

[BigAl]

Wrong.

No concrete and steel building has ever been proven by empirical methods to have completely imploded as the result of fire alone.

Apparently, alienentity you have no idea what the meaning of empirical is.

Too funny.

MM

Correct but Whatever building you are talking about isn't WTC7.

There was no concrete involved with the collapse.

What else don't you know about WTC7?

There was no water for firefighting.

WTC7 collapsed because the all-steel building burned until the steel frame lost strength.

[Miragememories]

"Note to MM - remember, there is engineering proof for WTC7's collapse.

Can you, with engineering arguments, critique the NIST model? Until then, you ought to show some respect for those who know a lot more than you do. It would be a healthy step in the right direction."
Such arrogance from a someone who displays so little understanding of science.

Let us examine some of the premises that were the foundation of the NIST WTC7 computer model which you imply a sound understanding.

The NIST mysteriously picked 12 noon as the ignition time for the WTC 7 fires on floor 12. This is important because floor 12's fires heated floor 13 which was the floor where collapse initiation occurred in the NIST model. Specifically with column #79 and quickly followed within half a second, columns #80 and #81.

Why this is mysterious, is that those fires were supposedly started by flaming debris from the collapse of WTC 1 at 10:29 a.m.

You can start by explaining how those fires managed to remain dormant from 10:29 a.m. to 12 noon?

MM

[Miragememories]

Correct but Whatever building you are talking about isn't WTC7.

There was no concrete involved with the collapse.

What else don't you know about WTC7?

There was no water for firefighting.

WTC7 collapsed because the all-steel building burned until the steel frame lost strength.
Wow!

I don't believe I've ever heard of an "all steel building".

Wow again.

And you believe an all steel building could implode on itself from office cubicle fires?

Double wow.

Content removed, breach of Rule 12...remember is it address the argument not attack the arguer.

MM

[alienentity]

Wrong.

No concrete and steel building has ever been proven by empirical methods to have completely imploded as the result of fire alone.

Apparently, alienentity you have no idea what the meaning of empirical is.

Too funny.

MM

Haha. You're now going to redefine the term empirical, just to try to win a tiny point?
'Empirical data is data that is produced by experiment or observation.'
'The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.'

By this definition the very detailed, scientific analysis of WTC7 collapse done by NIST is a perfect example of empirical methods.

Empirical does not mean 'perfect in every conceivable way'. It describes the methods.

The correct way to address the empirical data from the NIST report is to offer alternative explanations based on similar empirical methods.

This has not been done, to my knowledge, by any scientific body with regard to the LS-DYNA model or the SHAMRC Blast modeling.

What you ought to be doing is encouraging your movement to use those methods in support of your theories. Nobody would fault you for doing so.

But that's not what you're doing. You're trying to pretend, so the science just 'goes away'. That's handwaving, nothing else.

[Miragememories]

Why is nobody paying attention to you?
Wrong

Apparently I have your attention.

But maybe you are correct in identifying yourself as a "nobody".

MM

[alienentity]

Such arrogance from a someone who displays so little understanding of science.

Let us examine some of the premises that were the foundation of the NIST WTC7 computer model which you imply a sound understanding.

The NIST mysteriously picked 12 noon as the ignition time for the WTC 7 fires on floor 12. This is important because floor 12's fires heated floor 13 which was the floor where collapse initiation occurred in the NIST model. Specifically with column #79 and quickly followed within half a second, columns #80 and #81.

Why this is mysterious, is that those fires were supposedly started by flaming debris from the collapse of WTC 1 at 10:29 a.m.

You can start by explaining how those fires managed to remain dormant from 10:29 a.m. to 12 noon?

MM

So are you saying your position is that fires could not cause WTC7 to collapse?
That's what the burden of proof requires to to show.

Merely criticizing details of the NIST report does not constitute evidence that the building did not fail due to fires.

You'll never meet the burden of proof of your claims that way. But you might win a few cheap points with the uninitiated.

btw, your inability to assimilate relevant data with regard to the Jennings/Hess testimony is not a good sign for this next topic you're trying to tackle.

I suggest you calibrate on something easy, demonstrate that you are capable of rational and measured thought, before making a further laughingstock out of yourself.

[BigAl]

Such arrogance from a someone who displays so little understanding of science.

Let us examine some of the premises that were the foundation of the NIST WTC7 computer model which you imply a sound understanding.

The NIST mysteriously picked 12 noon as the ignition time for the WTC 7 fires on floor 12. This is important because floor 12's fires heated floor 13 which was the floor where collapse initiation occurred in the NIST model. Specifically with column #79 and quickly followed within half a second, columns #80 and #81.

Why this is mysterious, is that those fires were supposedly started by flaming debris from the collapse of WTC 1 at 10:29 a.m.

You can start by explaining how those fires managed to remain dormant from 10:29 a.m. to 12 noon?

MM


Even if true, so what?

Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

There were no demolition explosions heard.

There is no Hush-A-Boom.

[Miragememories]

Haha. You're now going to redefine the term empirical, just to try to win a tiny point?
'Empirical data is data that is produced by experiment or observation.'
'The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.'

By this definition the very detailed, scientific analysis of WTC7 collapse done by NIST is a perfect example of empirical methods.

Empirical does not mean 'perfect in every conceivable way'. It describes the methods.

The correct way to address the empirical data from the NIST report is to offer alternative explanations based on similar empirical methods.

This has not been done, to my knowledge, by any scientific body with regard to the LS-DYNA model or the SHAMRC Blast modeling.

What you ought to be doing is encouraging your movement to use those methods in support of your theories. Nobody would fault you for doing so.

But that's not what you're doing. You're trying to pretend, so the science just 'goes away'. That's handwaving, nothing else.

"Haha. You're now going to redefine the term empirical, just to try to win a tiny point?"

Try; verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory.

The NIST offer us nothing less than a theory based on a number of suppositions.

I so look forward to your explanation as to how the WTC7 floor 12 fires could lie dormant from 10:29 a.m. to 12 noon, the time that the NIST claimed they were first initiated.

How empirical is that?

Ha ha.

MM

[BigAl]

Wow!

I don't believe I've ever heard of an "all steel building".

Wow again.

And you believe an all steel building could implode on itself from office cubicle fires?


Whatever you call the WTC7 fires, they were sufficient, given time and lack of water for firefighting to cause the collapse.

[BigAl]

T

I so look forward to your explanation as to how the WTC7 floor 12 fires could lie dormant from 10:29 a.m. to 12 noon, the time that the NIST claimed they were first initiated.



Even if true, so what?

Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

There were no demolition explosions heard.

There is no Hush-A-Boom.

[Bell]

Try; verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory.

The NIST offer us nothing less than a theory based on a number of suppositions.

:confused: :boggled: :eek:

























:dl:

[Miragememories]

"Such arrogance from a someone [alienentity] who displays so little understanding of science.

Let us examine some of the premises that were the foundation of the NIST WTC7 computer model which you imply a sound understanding.

The NIST mysteriously picked 12 noon as the ignition time for the WTC 7 fires on floor 12. This is important because floor 12's fires heated floor 13 which was the floor where collapse initiation occurred in the NIST model. Specifically with column #79 and quickly followed within half a second, columns #80 and #81.

Why this is mysterious, is that those fires were supposedly started by flaming debris from the collapse of WTC 1 at 10:29 a.m.

You can start by explaining how those fires managed to remain dormant from 10:29 a.m. to 12 noon?"
"Even if true, so what?"

The whole NIST theory and their fracking computer model is based on that kind of "so what".

I want a better explanation when 3,000+ innocent people have been murdered; don't you?

MM

[uke2se]

Why is nobody paying attention to you?

Wrong


Uhmm, what? I don't think that's a question that can be answered with the word "wrong". It makes no grammatical sense. Then again, you rarely make any sense at all, so why should grammar be any different.

[uke2se]

I want a better explanation when 3,000+ innocent people have been murdered; don't you?

MM

You have a good explanation. The problem is that you don't understand it. The problem lies with you, not with NIST.

[Miragememories]

:confused: :boggled: :eek:
:dl:

Well there goes your credibility.

Next?

MM

[johnny karate]

Such arrogance from a someone who displays so little understanding of science.

By what justification do you present your self as an authority on scientific matters, as opposed to a paranoid crank who believes martial law is around the corner?

[Miragememories]

You have a good explanation. The problem is that you don't understand it. The problem lies with you, not with NIST.
You don't reveal any understanding yourself.

Come back when you can show you do.

Too funny.

MM