Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[triforcharity]

Until you can show a high speed, complete building implosion, proven to be caused by fire twinstead, you are just blowing smoke out of your....

MM

Iv'e shown 3. Now, where were the booms from 7WTC? They seem to be missing from all of your comparisons.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

It is as symmetrical as what would be expected for a controlled building demolition.

Reference Example of a Legal Commercial Controlled Demolition
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3889/samplecdcomposite1cj3.png

Some controlled demolitions have better symmetry than others, but all successful ones are complete, high speed implosions.

Illegal WTC7 Controlled Demolition
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

You were expecting controlled demolitions to display collapse symmetry with the precision of a cut diamond perhaps?

MM

So in the 9+ years since 9/11, twoof has figured out that building collapses look pretty much the same regardless of the initiating event?

I don't know if congratulations are in order but what the hay.

Congrats....I can't wait to see what the next decade brings!

Go gravity...

 

[johnny karate]

Show me a 10 story, or greater, concrete and steel building proven to have been successfully totally imploded and destroyed by fire.

MM, by what right do you establish yourself as an authority to render judgment on structural engineering issues?

The reason I ask is because in the past you've established yourself as a ragingly blind ideologue whose primary interest is to forward an agenda as opposed to ascertaining the truth.

Case in point:

I can't guess when, but sometime before the next presidential elections I expect a second 9/11 type incident.

Unfortunately, to be effective, the ante would have to be raised. The goal will be to empower the current regime with extraordinary powers. The only way Congress will concede to such a thing is if an incident of extreme magnitude takes place and the threat of further such incidents remains in the offing. As part of the granted powers, the presidential elections of 2008 would likely be canceled as an emergency measure.

I don't think toppling the Sears Tower will do the trick.

A nuclear event is the most likely scenario that would carry sufficient persuasive weight with the American public and Congress.

Should this occur, members of the 9/11 Truth Movement can only expect to survive if they move underground and it's doubtful that they would ever again be a serious force to be reckoned it, given the expectation of a declaration of martial law throughout the U.S.

The fact is, if 9/11 was an inside job, the perpetrators have committed themselves too far to let it all fail, unless they believe the next government will be somehow compelled to continue policies that the current one initiated (Iraq, Homeland security measures etc.).

It's quite possible that 9/11 Stage 2 is already in place and timed to be initiated if and when it's absolutely deemed necessary. The reason we haven't seen it so far is because it will be so horrific that they don't really want to "push the button" unless they feel it's absolutely necessary to maintain their initial goals.

I know looking at these words, it all seems so outlandish, like some cheap thriller vacation reading, but when you think back to 9/11 and events like WTC 7, if you really believe it was an inside job, after deliberately killing 3,000+ innocent people, how likely is it that those responsible would chicken out now?

As it turns out, no new 9/11-type event occurred, nuclear or otherwise.

The 2008 elections were not canceled.

Martial law was not declared.

And perhaps most stinging of all, the Truth Movement did not get to become an underground band of freedom fighters.

Clearly, your paranoid delusions colored your perception of real-world sociopolitical events (to hilarious effect).

Is it possible those same paranoid delusion are now coloring your perception of structural engineering matters?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

WOLVERINES!!!
​

​

*cough* *cough*
​

 

[carlitos]

good to see you posting, johnny karate!

Clearly, your paranoid delusions colored your perception of real-world sociopolitical events (to hilarious effect).

Is it possible those same paranoid delusion are now coloring your perception of structural engineering matters?

 

[alienentity]

Until you can show a high speed, complete building implosion, proven to be caused by fire twinstead, you are just blowing smoke out of your....

MM

You just did. WTC7 was proven, by empirical methods and thorough engineering, to have imploded due to fires.

Why is it that none of your controlled demolition videos show buildings which have burned for hours?

It is your evidence which doesn't fit the events of 9/11. Sadly you don't have the presence of mind to understand that. You still don't understand how Barry Jennings' own testimony contradicts his assumptions, so maybe that shouldn't surprise me.

You truthers get a LOT of basic facts wrong. Coincidence? I don't think so.

 

[alienentity]

Note to MM - remember, there is engineering proof for WTC7's collapse.

Can you, with engineering arguments, critique the NIST model? Until then, you ought to show some respect for those who know a lot more than you do. It would be a healthy step in the right direction.

 

[Longfellow]

Sure. Please feel free .We for our part will continue to present his striking evidence to others .Seems like a win-win situation for the Truth Movement and the concerned citizens alike.

It does indeed sound like a win-win situation for the Truth Movement, bill smith. So tell me, please, why is it that, nearly 9 years on, no one is paying any attention to you? I don't mean here on this forum (where, to me, you receive an inordinate amount of attention) or on any other forum you may frequent, mind. I mean the Real World. Turn your head 90 degrees to the left. See that space over there where there's no computer screen? That's the Real World. Why are the people over there ignoring your 'evidence', bill smith? Doesn't it strike you as at least a little odd that you have to go on the internet to espouse your version of what happened nearly 9 years ago? Why aren't people talking about it at work, in cabs, on the street, in the queue for a movie, at the laundry mat? You can't find the '911 Truth Movement anywhere but the internet? Why is that?

Since 2006 (when I first became aware of the '911 Truth Movement' via, ironically enough, a drive-by trolling on an online racing league forum I used to participate in) people, much like yourself, have been proclaiming how the 'movement' will win out. It's only a matter of time, they say, before those responsible will be brought to justice. It's only a matter of time before we have our day in the sun!

Well. . .we're waiting! </Judge Smails_mode>

It's quite obvious that Mr. Jowenko was manipulated by the 'Truth Movement' and their pathetic attempts to use Mr. Jowneko as a specious appeal to authority is. also, quite obvious. You see, bill smith, this is why the world ignores the likes of you: You have no evidence, no logic, no coherent narrative. . .nothing. NOTHING.

Don't believe me? Fine. Wait until morning and open your daily paper. You're likely to find something about the oil spill in the Gulf and maybe something about Lindsay Lohan's latest legal troubles or perhaps Mel Gibson's latest outburst and let's not forget the funnies and the crossword but what is it you don't find? I'll tell you. Anything to do with your version of the events of September 11, 2001. Nothing. You have to log onto the internet and go looking for the '911 Truth Movement'. Doesn't that tell you anything, bill smith?

But don't despair about the Real World ignoring you, bill smith. You can take some solace in the fact that your family still loves you. That is, unless you've been spouting 'controlled demolition' or 'therm*te' or some other such silly thing at family reunions or holidays or cookouts or what-have-you.

You don't, do you?

 

[The Big Dog]

Until you can show a high speed, complete building implosion, proven to be caused by fire twinstead, you are just blowing smoke out of your....

MM

Until you can show a high speed, complete building implosion, proven to be caused by silent explosions MM, you are just blowing smoke out of your collapsed penthouse....

And if this thread wasn't enough of a rout, johnny karate comes and throws a bomb and high steps all over MM on his way to the end zone.

OUCH, MM!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The whole looks like a controlled demolition = is a controlled demolition.... I suppose one could say the truth movement is trying to take a page from the Russian communist movement of the early to mid 20th century to connect with the wing bats that make up the truth movement. The communist propaganda movement from the Pre-stalin era made imagery a staple motif since illiteracy at that time was so high. While the crazies eat it up like candy, the TM leaders get following by showing only the skin deep comparisons without getting into the nitty gritty.

 

[alienentity]

'She looks like a witch = she must be a witch'

It's a circular argument. Which is why truthers are a little 'loopy'. hehe

But seriously, until they break out of the circular logic and other fallacies, they're trapped and cannot escape this fantasy.

What a waste of a person's mind.

 

[Miragememories]

"WTC7 was proven, by empirical methods and thorough engineering, to have imploded due to fires.

Wrong.

No concrete and steel building has ever been proven by empirical methods to have completely imploded as the result of fire alone.

Apparently, alienentity you have no idea what the meaning of empirical is.

Too funny.

MM

 

[twinstead]

Wrong.

No concrete and steel building has ever been proven by empirical methods to have completely imploded as the result of fire alone.

Apparently, alienentity you have no idea what the meaning of empirical is.

Too funny.

MM

The why is the rank-and-file engineering and scientific community not up in arms then? Why is nobody paying attention to you?

 

[BigAl]

Wrong.

No concrete and steel building has ever been proven by empirical methods to have completely imploded as the result of fire alone.

Apparently, alienentity you have no idea what the meaning of empirical is.

Too funny.

MM

Correct but Whatever building you are talking about isn't WTC7.

There was no concrete involved with the collapse.

What else don't you know about WTC7?

There was no water for firefighting.

WTC7 collapsed because the all-steel building burned until the steel frame lost strength.

 

[Miragememories]

"Note to MM - remember, there is engineering proof for WTC7's collapse.

Can you, with engineering arguments, critique the NIST model? Until then, you ought to show some respect for those who know a lot more than you do. It would be a healthy step in the right direction."

Such arrogance from a someone who displays so little understanding of science.

Let us examine some of the premises that were the foundation of the NIST WTC7 computer model which you imply a sound understanding.

The NIST mysteriously picked 12 noon as the ignition time for the WTC 7 fires on floor 12. This is important because floor 12's fires heated floor 13 which was the floor where collapse initiation occurred in the NIST model. Specifically with column #79 and quickly followed within half a second, columns #80 and #81.

Why this is mysterious, is that those fires were supposedly started by flaming debris from the collapse of WTC 1 at 10:29 a.m.

You can start by explaining how those fires managed to remain dormant from 10:29 a.m. to 12 noon?

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Correct but Whatever building you are talking about isn't WTC7.

There was no concrete involved with the collapse.

What else don't you know about WTC7?

There was no water for firefighting.

WTC7 collapsed because the all-steel building burned until the steel frame lost strength.

Wow!

I don't believe I've ever heard of an "all steel building".

Wow again.

And you believe an all steel building could implode on itself from office cubicle fires?

Double wow.

Edited by Locknar: 

Content removed, breach of Rule 12...remember is it address the argument not attack the arguer.

MM

 

[alienentity]

Wrong.

No concrete and steel building has ever been proven by empirical methods to have completely imploded as the result of fire alone.

Apparently, alienentity you have no idea what the meaning of empirical is.

Too funny.

MM

Haha. You're now going to redefine the term empirical, just to try to win a tiny point?
'Empirical data is data that is produced by experiment or observation.'
'The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.'

By this definition the very detailed, scientific analysis of WTC7 collapse done by NIST is a perfect example of empirical methods.

Empirical does not mean 'perfect in every conceivable way'. It describes the methods.

The correct way to address the empirical data from the NIST report is to offer alternative explanations based on similar empirical methods.

This has not been done, to my knowledge, by any scientific body with regard to the LS-DYNA model or the SHAMRC Blast modeling.

What you ought to be doing is encouraging your movement to use those methods in support of your theories. Nobody would fault you for doing so.

But that's not what you're doing. You're trying to pretend, so the science just 'goes away'. That's handwaving, nothing else.

 

[Miragememories]

Why is nobody paying attention to you?

Wrong

Apparently I have your attention.

But maybe you are correct in identifying yourself as a "nobody".

MM

 

[alienentity]

Such arrogance from a someone who displays so little understanding of science.

Let us examine some of the premises that were the foundation of the NIST WTC7 computer model which you imply a sound understanding.

The NIST mysteriously picked 12 noon as the ignition time for the WTC 7 fires on floor 12. This is important because floor 12's fires heated floor 13 which was the floor where collapse initiation occurred in the NIST model. Specifically with column #79 and quickly followed within half a second, columns #80 and #81.

Why this is mysterious, is that those fires were supposedly started by flaming debris from the collapse of WTC 1 at 10:29 a.m.

You can start by explaining how those fires managed to remain dormant from 10:29 a.m. to 12 noon?

MM

So are you saying your position is that fires could not cause WTC7 to collapse?
That's what the burden of proof requires to to show.

Merely criticizing details of the NIST report does not constitute evidence that the building did not fail due to fires.

You'll never meet the burden of proof of your claims that way. But you might win a few cheap points with the uninitiated.

btw, your inability to assimilate relevant data with regard to the Jennings/Hess testimony is not a good sign for this next topic you're trying to tackle.

I suggest you calibrate on something easy, demonstrate that you are capable of rational and measured thought, before making a further laughingstock out of yourself.

 

[BigAl]

Such arrogance from a someone who displays so little understanding of science.

Let us examine some of the premises that were the foundation of the NIST WTC7 computer model which you imply a sound understanding.

The NIST mysteriously picked 12 noon as the ignition time for the WTC 7 fires on floor 12. This is important because floor 12's fires heated floor 13 which was the floor where collapse initiation occurred in the NIST model. Specifically with column #79 and quickly followed within half a second, columns #80 and #81.

Why this is mysterious, is that those fires were supposedly started by flaming debris from the collapse of WTC 1 at 10:29 a.m.

You can start by explaining how those fires managed to remain dormant from 10:29 a.m. to 12 noon?

MM

Even if true, so what?

Fire and lack of water for firefighting caused WTC7 to collapse.

There were no demolition explosions heard.

There is no Hush-A-Boom.