Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[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

• Figure L-31. Plan View of Collapse Progression

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:

1. Jowenko still thinks it was a small fire, not a series of extensive ones, thus continuing to demonstrate an inaccurate understanding of the situation.
2. He still wasn't told the length of time the fires burned.
3. 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.
4. He gives zero arguments for why NIST's collapse scenario is flawed.
5. 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, 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

[qimg]http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/8828/nistwtc7floors8to45lt9.png[/qimg]

• Figure L-31. Plan View of Collapse Progression

[qimg]http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/4017/nistl31tx4.png[/qimg]

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 Earth^tm 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."

WRONG

Interviewer:"But it also happened on September 11th."
Danny Jowenko:"The same day??? ..... Are you sure?????"[/i]
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.

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.

 

[The Big Dog]

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?