Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[alienentity]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RedIbis]

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

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

NIST

"identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse."

and

"[WTC 7] fell because thermal expansion, a phenomenon not considered in current building design practice, caused a fire induced progressive collapse."

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

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

So again, two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.

 

[dtugg]

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

 

[twinstead]

So again, two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.

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

 

[TruthersLie]

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

Wow. Red. It is an amazing interview.

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

Oh BEFORE the final draft of the NIST report.

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

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

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

 

[Gamolon]

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

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

Why the bias?

 

[lapman]

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

So, you are saying that because it's novel, it's impossible?

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

So, because it's novel, it means it's impossible? This is compared to the fantasy phenomenon of high explosives going of without a sound unless you can provide evidence of another confirmed CD by explosives performed before or since 9/11 that was completely silent and/or the roof structures collapsed into the building seconds prior to the rest of the collapse.

So again, two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.

However, they do base their conclusion on all available evidence. Your conclusion is based solely on "because I said so."

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

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

 

[tsig]

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

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

Thermal expansion and gravity are new phenomena?

 

[johnny karate]

So again, two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.

Really?

From the NIST Fact Sheet about the WTC7 investigation:

...[T]he NIST investigation of WTC 7 is based on a huge amount of data. These data come from extensive research, interviews, and studies of the building, including audio and video recordings of the collapse. Rigorous, state-of-the-art computer methods were designed to study and model the building’s collapse. These validated computer models produced a collapse sequence that was confirmed by observations of what actually occurred. In addition to using its in-house expertise, NIST relied upon private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs and videos of this disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001, and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence.

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

 

[johnny karate]

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

Bump for RedIbis.

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

 

[Thunder]

Thermal expansion and gravity are new phenomena?

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

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Gah... wrong button. Still composing.

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

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

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

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

• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=121626
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123927
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128194
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4675407#post4675407 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4675436#post4675436

 

[alienentity]

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

NIST
and


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

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

So again, two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[uk_dave]

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

NIST
and


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

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

So again, two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.

But not impossible, right?

So, if not impossible, then possible!!

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

 

[WildCat]

novel phenomena

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

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

 

[WildCat]

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

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

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

This appears to be RedIbis's new tactic - claim he answered the question some time long ago.

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

And the RedIbis counter is now at 4!

 

[Thunder]

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

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

 

[NutCracker]

And the RedIbis counter is now at 4!

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

 

[Luntoc]

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

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

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

It's obvious he's in on it.