Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[twinstead]

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

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

 

[TruthersLie]

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

No twoofie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[alienentity]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[alienentity]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bardamu]

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

So what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not saying verinage was used.

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

Wow!

 

[twinstead]

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

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

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

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

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

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

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

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

I'm not saying verinage was used.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is wonderful circular reasoning.

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

All would be easy to see and prove.

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

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

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

 

[Oliver]

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

 

[BigAl]

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

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

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

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

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

Such is the Twoofer way.

 

[TruthersLie]

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

Hey red.

Lets compare these shall we?

steel framed building. Steel framed construction.

Now lets look at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel shall we?

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

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

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

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

 

[triforcharity]

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

Unreasonable?? How is that unreasonable??

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BigAl]

Unreasonable?? How is that unreasonable??



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

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

 

[triforcharity]

BigAl,

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

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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

[dumbass]There aren't any doubts about WTC7.[/dumbass]

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

And internet cranks can be flat out sociopathic liars.

I'm not saying verinage was used.

No one is saying you said that.

Now who is being dishonest?

 

[TruthersLie]

SOT.

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

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

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

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

SOT.

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

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

I stand corrected then.

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

 

[alienentity]

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

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

I'm not saying verinage was used.

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


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

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

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

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

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