Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Miragememories]

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.

"Haha. You're now going to redefine the term empirical, just to try to win a tiny point?"

Try; verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory.

The NIST offer us nothing less than a theory based on a number of suppositions.

I so look forward to your explanation as to how the WTC7 floor 12 fires could lie dormant from 10:29 a.m. to 12 noon, the time that the NIST claimed they were first initiated.

How empirical is that?

Ha ha.

MM

 

[BigAl]

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?

Whatever you call the WTC7 fires, they were sufficient, given time and lack of water for firefighting to cause the collapse.

 

[BigAl]

T

I so look forward to your explanation as to how the WTC7 floor 12 fires could lie dormant from 10:29 a.m. to 12 noon, the time that the NIST claimed they were first initiated.

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.

 

[Bell]

Try; verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory.

The NIST offer us nothing less than a theory based on a number of suppositions.

 

[Miragememories]

"Such arrogance from a someone [alienentity] 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?"

"Even if true, so what?"

The whole NIST theory and their fracking computer model is based on that kind of "so what".

I want a better explanation when 3,000+ innocent people have been murdered; don't you?

MM

 

[uke2se]

Why is nobody paying attention to you?

Wrong

Uhmm, what? I don't think that's a question that can be answered with the word "wrong". It makes no grammatical sense. Then again, you rarely make any sense at all, so why should grammar be any different.

 

[uke2se]

I want a better explanation when 3,000+ innocent people have been murdered; don't you?

MM

You have a good explanation. The problem is that you don't understand it. The problem lies with you, not with NIST.

 

[Miragememories]

Well there goes your credibility.

Next?

MM

 

[johnny karate]

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

By what justification do you present your self as an authority on scientific matters, as opposed to a paranoid crank who believes martial law is around the corner?

 

[Miragememories]

You have a good explanation. The problem is that you don't understand it. The problem lies with you, not with NIST.

You don't reveal any understanding yourself.

Come back when you can show you do.

Too funny.

MM

 

[TexasJack]

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:



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?

Thanks Johnny, that says it all.

 

[GlennB]

Try; verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory.

Modern commercial controlled demolitions involve high explosives, which cause extremely loud noises and visible flashes prior to the collapse of the building in question.

These were not witnessed at WTC7.

Empirically, then, WTC7 was not subjected to controlled demolition.

Cheers MM for your latest episode of self-debunking.

p.s. look up "necessary but not sufficient condition ..." before rambling on again about how you think it looked.

 

[uke2se]

Well there goes your credibility.

Next?

MM

No, it doesn't. He is expressing one of the only emotions available to a rational human being upon reading your posts: good tempered glee at the stupidity. The other emotion is disgust.

 

[johnny karate]

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.

Time to triple the meds.

To what specific meds are you referring?

And while we're on the subject, what meds do you recommend for someone having paranoid delusions about nuclear attacks, elections being canceled, martial law being declared, and casting himself and those who share his beliefs in the role of underground freedom fighters?

 

[Miragememories]

"Such arrogance from a someone [alienentity] who displays so little understanding of science."

"By what justification do you present your self as an authority on scientific matters, as opposed to a paranoid crank who believes martial law is around the corner?"

Johnny, science is not owned by anybody.

If you understand it, it is yours to do as you please.

I understand it.

Do you?

MM

 

[BigAl]

The whole NIST theory and their fracking computer model is based on that kind of "so what".


MM

On 9/11 nobody needed to have a formal theory and a computer model to know that fire with no water for firefighting was going to destroy WTC7.

By 2:00PM it was obvious by empirical observation.

 

[uke2se]

You don't reveal any understanding yourself.

Come back when you can show you do.

Too funny.

MM

I'm not the one claiming that the world engineering and science community is wrong. You are, and you apparently don't even have a basic grasp on physics. Your posts appear as common truther posts: incredulous and a bit dense.

ETA: By the way, how did that whole "the 2008 elections will be canceled, martial law will be instituted and truthers will go underground"- thing play out? I don't recall any nukes going off, and I distinctly recall a new President entering the White House in early 2009. Isn't that confusing?

 

[johnny karate]

Well there goes your credibility.

Next?

How much credibility do you lend someone who believes George Bush was going to detonate a nuclear device on American soil as a means of proclaiming himself dictator?

 

[Bell]

Well there goes your credibility.

Next?

MM

Back and to the left Miragememories, back and to the left.

 

[johnny karate]

Johnny, science is not owned by anybody.

If you understand it, it is yours to do as you please.

I understand it.

Where would you rank your understanding of science in comparison to your understanding of sociopolitical events?

Because as we've seen, your understanding of the latter is laughably inadequate.