Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

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

Wait, what?

You mean like these proper, peer reviewed scientific papers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

You mean like THOSE peer reviewed papers?

ETA: Two more

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

Structural Response of Tall Buildings to Multiple Floor Fires, Graeme Flint, Asif Usmani, Susan Lamont, Barbara Lane, and Jose Torero, "Journal of Structural Engineering", Volume 133, Issue 12, December 2007, Pages 1719-1732
 
Jesus, if accepting the common narrative of events because the evidence that supports it is overwhelming without a competing theory that accounts for all the available evidence better makes one a gullible lemming, then I guess I'm a gullible lemming.
 
cicorp said:
>So then you agree with ALL of what Danny J says?

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

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

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

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

Got it.

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

Why won't you take that?

P.s. The NIST report was fully peer reviewed

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

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

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

Or do you mean the ZERO of peer reviewed engineering journals in ANY LANGUAGE in ANY COUNTRY in the world which support 9/11 was an inside job?
 
Last edited:
Well TriforCharity beat me to it, but I will follow up on that list with a question for cicorp, can you provide a list like this to support your position?

Tri, you restraint in light of the allegations that the FDNY was involved in some kind of cover up is beyond impressive, and as this is my first interaction with you, I would like to say thank you for all of the efforts you put forth on that fateful day.
 
cicorp said:
Danny Jowenko responds and elaborates (not "very brief statements") in his phone interview, at 1:28 on YouTube QajDxF9uEf4: "When FEMA makes a report, that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company, and you say 'no, it was contolled demolition', you're gone, you know?" Danny does not go along with a lie, just to get business, like many cowardly and greedy contolled demolition companies. He is a strong man, who speaks the truth as he sees it, and is not manipulated by anyone.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does that sum it up?

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

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

Now Now Grizzly, you know the truther motto.

"Facts, evidence, proof: We will have none of that around here!"
 
Grizzly Bear said:
It doesn't matter who the opinion is from, Jowenko has done little or nothing to justify how he arrived at his opinion and though he's entitled to one, it doesn't make him right. Opinions aren't worth much unless he's serious about presenting evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

The only videos that exist of the WTC7 collapse are taken from the north and have lower buildings obscuring lower part of WTC7.

What was on video did look like a CD if you don't know that from the South, major damage and fire was causing the structure to collapse.

Jowenko wasn't told that the video he was asked about was part of the WTC collapse.
 
triforcharity said:
Wait, what?

You mean like these proper, peer reviewed scientific papers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

You mean like THOSE peer reviewed papers?

ETA: Two more

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

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

Yes but they have not produced one movie between them. What do you expect us to do... read this stuff!?
 
Telltale Tom said:
Yes but they have not produced one movie between them. What do you expect us to do... read this stuff!?
Click to expand...

Well we could always write a picture book!

BigAl said:
The only videos that exist of the WTC7 collapse are taken from the north and have lower buildings obscuring lower part of WTC7.

What was on video did look like a CD if you don't know that from the South, major damage and fire was causing the structure to collapse.

Jowenko wasn't told that the video he was asked about was part of the WTC collapse.
Click to expand...

Understandable but I recall somewhere that he maintained his position after the fact. Not sure if my memory screwed up there or not. I do remember when told it was the same day he was quite unsure about the demolition idea :\
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Well we could always write a picture book!



Understandable but I recall somewhere that he maintained his position after the fact. Not sure if my memory screwed up there or not. I do remember when told it was the same day he was quite unsure about the demolition idea :\
Click to expand...

Griz.

NO you are correct.

He was called on the phone by some truthers in 2007 and he confirmed his opinion that wtc7 was brought down by CD.

I would love some dutch debunkers to give him a call and ask him if he has read the NIST final draft of wtc7 and ask him if he knows about the huge fires in wtc7, and if he still stands by his statement that the igniters would fail at 320C in office fires.

I have a feeling that he didn't realize it was on fire... but that is just a WAG.
 
Telltale Tom said:
Yes but they have not produced one movie between them. What do you expect us to do... read this stuff!?
Click to expand...
A little off your game today, huh? Normally your parody is so much better (everyone has off days, don't worry about it). Keep up (the normally) good work, we're enjoying it. :D
 
Let's just take the first of your long list of articles which supposedly support the Bush Story for the Gullible (buildings collapsed due to fire alone). The list is from the AE911Truth.info site of Joseph Nobles, a voice writer with no degree in engineering (but a BA in Bible and dropped out of his Masters program).

I read the article "Performance Based Structural Fire Engineering for Modern Building Design" by Darline Rini and Susan Lamont. These ladies do not support the BS4G. This is a false reference, calling your other so called "references" in to question. They merely state:

"While current practice in the United States is primarily prescriptive in nature, performance based structural fire engineering is beginning to have an impact on building design particularly as architects conceive more complex designs and engineers have an increased understanding of structural fire response from the WTC collapse and more recently the Windsor tower fire in Madrid. "
 
Last edited:
OK, let's take article #2 of on your list of "references" - the Government funded Purdue study, which only used computer models, which can be programmed to "prove" anything, such as the BS4G.

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I, Page 2:
"No detailed observational data on the perfoemance of tower core elements exist. Therefore the Purdue research team used finite element simulations to assist in estimating the impact response."
 
cicorp said:
OK, let's take article #2 of on your list of "references" - the Government funded Purdue study, which only used computer models, which can be programmed to "prove" anything, such as the BS4G.

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I, Page 2:
"No detailed observational data on the perfoemance of tower core elements exist. Therefore the Purdue research team used finite element simulations to assist in estimating the impact response."
Click to expand...
And?????????
 
Let's take #3 on your list of "references" supporting the BS4G. This article has statements supporting what the Truthers have been saying all along. Strike 3. "Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events" by G. P. Cherepanov:

Abstract The subject of the paper is the collapse of towers and highscrapers, particularly, the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in New York on September 11, 2001. The deduced equations of progressive collapse are used to refute the generally accepted opinion of experts about progressive collapse of the WTC towers in the free-fall regime, which is the official version of the US government. It is proved that progressive collapse is much slower than free fall.
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
Let's take #3 on your list of "references" supporting the BS4G. This article has statements supporting what the Truthers have been saying all along. Strike 3. "Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events" by G. P. Cherepanov:

Abstract The subject of the paper is the collapse of towers and highscrapers, particularly, the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in New York on September 11, 2001. The deduced equations of progressive collapse are used to refute the generally accepted opinion of experts about progressive collapse of the WTC towers in the free-fall regime, which is the official version of the US government. It is proved that progressive collapse is much slower than free fall.
Click to expand...

And considering that the towers fell at much slowe than freefall rates (15 seconds and 20 + seconds respectively) the paper agrees with what we have seen.

Truthers are the ones who show their ignorance by running around parroting "freefall."

Please... pretty please provide just one peer reviewed engineering journal from anywhere in the world, in any language which says that NIST is wrong. It should be easy.
 
You should require more than one peer reviewed journal article, but you asked for one.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, et. al Bentham Open Chemistry & Physics Journal.

It is a peer reviewed journal. Open means that it does not require a paid subscription to view. Just Google "Bentham Journal thermite" and look at the top.
 
Last edited:
>"There are submittions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies..."
This supposed quote is repeated a few times on Google. But there are no references which prove that Noam ever said such a thing, not even on Chomsky.info, a web site made "with the purpose of celebrating Chomsky's work" with books, articles, interviews, talks, debates, and letters. A search of "9/11 studies" comes up empty. You should provide a source, or remove the bogus quote.
 
Last edited:
This subforum has turned into a giant game of whach-a-mole. Cicorp: The Bentham debacle has already been covered.

Sunstealer's refutation of Jones's and Harrit's analyses:
The problems with Bentham itself, and R.Mackey's adventure in trying to communicate problems with the paper:
More on Bentham's editorial practices, completely separate from topics having anything to do with 9/11:
Some quotes for context:
R.Mackey said:
I received a reply from Mr. Alam to my reminder today, and it is not promising.

He decided to forward my complaints ... to the author of the paper.

I have informed him that, since the authors of dubious papers do not set the standards for journals, that his response is entirely inappropriate, and have reminded him that it is the editors who should be responding.

Thus far, only Mr. Alam has responded to anything, and it appears that he has no idea how real journals operate...
Click to expand...
R.Mackey said:
Two replies last night, both of them from Mr. Alam. The first was a forwarded message from Dr. Steven Jones. As you can expect, he disagrees with my assessment. However, as I indicated above, this is an editorial matter, and there is absolutely no reason why a submitter should be responding or even weighing in on the issue. This is clear evidence of a broken peer review process.

The second reply, in Mr. Alam's own words, was a suggestion that I should instead be submitting my own paper in response. I have never before seen a scientific journal article whose abstract dealt with the editorial standards of the journal itself. Needless to say, this suggestion is unprofessional, and borderline insane.

Regardless of whether or not the paper ultimately gets retracted, we can now confidently state that the publishers are incompetent. This matter needs to be resolved independent of any concerns with Dr. Jones or his paper...
Click to expand...
Peter Suber said:
•There has been public suspicion about Bentham's operation for more than a year now (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). In April 2008, Richard Poynder interviewed the Bentham Editorial Director, Matthew Honan, to get the company's response to criticism, especially criticism for spamming researchers to submit papers or join editorial boards. In the interview Honan would not identify the owners of the company and would not say why.
•The Davis-Anderson hoax clearly uncovered incompetence at this Bentham journal. We have to ask whether the journal lies about performing peer review or just performs it so badly that it's equivalent to no review at all. Even if the journal were cynically trying to maximize revenue from publication fees, a competent scam would not have accepted the Davis drivel.
Click to expand...

The bottom line is this: There is zero evidence that any peer review done on Jones and Harrits work was competent to begin with, and that's presuming that Harrit, Jones, and Bentham itself was honest about having done peer review to begin with. So the publication of the paper in Bentham Open Access is insufficient to be considered legitimate peer review.

But above and beyond that, there are central errors of analysis in the Bentham paper by Jones and Harrit, and they are completely damning. These are not technicalities, but rather fundamental errors of method and analysis. Regardless of whether they published in Bentham or Nature, the fact remains that the analysis done was faulty, the methodology itself was poor in the extreme, and the data used to support the conclusions actually contradict the conclusions. Do a search on this forum for those old threads, but the bottom line is that even if the paper were published in a legitimate journal, it still is too error bound to take seriously. The fact that it was published in a vanity journal with poor editorial controls doesn't help it's reputation any.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom