Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[BigAl]

But physical evidence was available. WPI and Astanah-Asl both had access to WTC 7 steel.

And the history of several major construction projects inside WTC7 made the identification of where the steel came from impossible.

I suspect you have been told this before and you chose to ignore it.

You are a troll.

 

[johnny karate]

But physical evidence was available. WPI and Astanah-Asl both had access to WTC 7 steel.

No, physical evidence wasn't available:

Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders’ efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

And the lack of easily identifiable physical evidence is not an uncommon occurence in forensic engineering. Which is why computer simualtions are so widely used and accepted. Once again, science trumps your personal incredulity.

 

[Gamolon]

But physical evidence was available. WPI and Astanah-Asl both had access to WTC 7 steel.

Right.

After examining the steel, he says fires caused the collapses. This coming from a man who specializes in structural design and failure analysis who inspected physical evidence.

 

[Darkhole]

from Poland?

From Holland!

Not that I be proud of.

Jowenko at work in 2008:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosta/page8/

 

[deep]

After examining the steel, he says fires caused the collapses. This coming from a man who specializes in structural design and failure analysis who inspected physical evidence.

Err.. what? Please provide a direct quote, and remember that we're discussing WTC7.

 

[RedIbis]

No, physical evidence wasn't available:


And the lack of easily identifiable physical evidence is not an uncommon occurence in forensic engineering. Which is why computer simualtions are so widely used and accepted. Once again, science trumps your personal incredulity.

If WTC 7 steel was so difficult to identify (not that it would have been hard to locate that rather large pile sitting across Vecesy St.), how were WPI and Astanah-Asl able to identify it?

 

[johnny karate]

Err.. what? Please provide a direct quote, and remember that we're discussing WTC7.

There you go demanding evidence again. What happened to your poisition that these are all just "opinions", and therefore one is equally valid as another?

Oh, that's right... you only apply such sophistry to your claims. When someone else makes a claim, suddenly your standards become more rigorous.

 

[johnny karate]

If WTC 7 steel was so difficult to identify (not that it would have been hard to locate that rather large pile sitting across Vecesy St.), how were WPI and Astanah-Asl able to identify it?

Are you actually trying to conflate NIST not being able to distinguish individual pieces of WTC7 steel from each other with them not being able to identify which steel came from WTC7?

Really?

Did you honestly expect anyone to fall for that?

 

[RedIbis]

Are you actually trying to conflate NIST not being able to distinguish individual pieces of WTC7 steel from each other with them not being able to identify which steel came from WTC7?

Really?

Did you honestly expect anyone to fall for that?

I'll rephrase since you seem to having trouble with this. Why did WPI and Astanah-Asl have access and were able to identify WTC 7 steel but NIST was not?

 

[Pardalis]

But physical evidence was available. WPI and Astanah-Asl both had access to WTC 7 steel.

But since within the laws of the physical world, there would be other ways such steel could have been reported without it having been at the WTC 7, how could you be sure that this evidence wouldn't have been tampered with?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5203569&postcount=2

 

[Gamolon]

Err.. what? Please provide a direct quote, and remember that we're discussing WTC7.

From his paper here:
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:XDGSh37YkAUJ:www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Research/wtc/documents/astaneh-testimony%2520congress-march%25206%2520final.pdf+Abolhassan+wtc&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

He states the following about his role at the scene.

My involvement in the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center is to conduct a reconnaissance of the collapsed and damaged WTC buildings and to collect the perishable data. The main objectives of the reconnaissance are to learn as much as possible from the actual collapsed structures and to document the failure modes and performance of the members and connections as well as quality of the construction. The purpose of collecting the perishable data is to collect material samples, photographs, videotapes, drawings and data on design, construction and collapse. Using the information collected and by conducting the necessary analyses and research, we try to establish probable causes of the collapse and most likely scenario for such collapse.

So, in his own words he says "My involvement in the investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center is to conduct a reconnaissance of the collapsed and damaged WTC buildings..."

So he wasn't there to just look at WTC1 and WTC2, but "THE BUILDINGS" in general. Which is evidenced by this article in which he talks about seeing steel specifically from WTC7.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html

One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized. Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue. The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward. ''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

So he looked at steel from all buildings and still comes to the conclusion that fire was the cause for collapse. Here is his conclusion about the twin towers from this PDF linked here.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060905082531/http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Publications/Astaneh-9ASEC-WTC+Paper+2003.pdf

The collapse of the towers was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents. It is also the opinion of the author that had there been better fireproofing installed to delay the steel structure, specially the light weight truss joists and exterior columns from reaching high temperature until the content of the buildings burned out, probably the collapse could be avoided and the victims above the impact area rescued.

He never once (that I have seen) mentions anything other than structural failure due to fire for any of the buildings that collapsed. He doesn't mentioned specifically that he believes WTC7 was caused by fire, but he sure would have mentioned it if he thought otherwise.

We can always write him an email and ask.

 

[deep]

There you go demanding evidence again. What happened to your poisition that these are all just "opinions", and therefore one is equally valid as another?

Oh, that's right... you only apply such sophistry to your claims. When someone else makes a claim, suddenly your standards become more rigorous.

You seem to forget that I provided evidence for the claim you're referring to.

 

[johnny karate]

I'll rephrase since you seem to having trouble with this. Why did WPI and Astanah-Asl have access and were able to identify WTC 7 steel but NIST was not?

No one ever said NIST didn't have access to the WTC7 steel, so we can take that strawman argument off the table right now.

And again, you're conflating two separate issues: Being able to identify which pieces of steel came from WTC7, and being able to distinguish individual pieces of WTC7 steel from one another. It is the latter that NIST was not able to do. Nor were WPI and Astaneh-Asl.

From WPI (bolding mine):

A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.

They had a piece of WTC7 steel, but they didn't know from what part of the structure it came.

From the New York Times:

One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks.

...

By comparing the beam's specifications with architectural drawings, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said he would be able to tell roughly where the beam came from.

Astanah-Asl examined an I-beam in the wreckage. At best, he said at a later time he might be able to get a rough idea from what part of the structure it came (and I couldn't actually find anything indicating if he was ever able to), but he wouldn't be able to identify which specific beam it was.

NIST needed to find a specific beam out of thousands of tons of steel wreckage in which nothing was individually marked in order to provide the "physical evidence" you're demanding. And anyone with even the slightest knowledge of forensic engineering knows what an incredibly stupid demand it is.

 

[Gamolon]

I'll rephrase since you seem to having trouble with this. Why did WPI and Astanah-Asl have access and were able to identify WTC 7 steel but NIST was not?

From NIST's own site.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?
Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders’ efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You seem to forget that I provided evidence for the claim you're referring to.

Since when does an opinion become evidence?

 

[johnny karate]

You seem to forget that I provided evidence for the claim you're referring to.

You seem to forget you were wrong about your evidence.

ETA: I've bumped the relevant thread. Feel free to go there and actually defend your position as opposed to just pretending you won the argument.

 

[deep]

He doesn't mentioned specifically that he believes WTC7 was caused by fire, but he sure would have mentioned it if he thought otherwise.

Thanks, that was my understanding as well.

We can always write him an email and ask.

Perhaps you should have handled that before incorporating the claim into your argument.

 

[Pardalis]

NIST needed to find a specific beam out of thousands of tons of steel wreckage in which nothing was individually marked in order to provide the "physical evidence" you're demanding. And anyone with even the slightest knowledge of forensic engineering knows what an incredibly stupid demand it is.

Red doesn't recognize the thousands of pieces of human bodies recovered and whose DNA was analyzed and confirmed by forensic specialists, but this one piece of steel seems the only physical evidence that he holds to the highest importance.

 

[johnny karate]

Perhaps you should have handled that before incorporating the claim into your argument.

Good point. Dr. Astaneh-Asl probably believes NIST's conclusions about the collpase of WTC7 to be incorrect, but just didn't think to mention it to anyone, ever.

 

[deep]

You seem to forget you were wrong about your evidence.

ETA: I've bumped the relevant thread. Feel free to go there and actually defend your position as opposed to just pretending you won the argument.

I've already defended my position - if you disagree, that's your choice. Feel free to continue reinforcing your position with additional evidence - at the very least, my silence will tell people everything they need to know.