Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[beachnut]

I asked a scientific question beachnut.

A question that is very pertinent about WTC7, and the validity of Danny Jowenko's belief, that the collapse was in no way caused by fire.

Your welcome to take a break from your delusional rhetoric and take a crack at answering it?

MM

Owned, by fire science. You can say fire can't do it as long as you want; it is repeated failure.

Danny is not a fire expert. He blows up buildings. He has no clue what fire does, he used explosives after he cuts the beams almost all the way through. You have made an error in judgment, hitching your wagon to someone who says your CD on WTC 1 and 2 are nonsense. Danny must not understand the primary energy source for his CD business is gravity. Sad to see your expert fail; he was going good until he opened his mouth on 7. Hate to see people fail as you and Danny have.


The fire did cause the collapse. Your delusional CD claims is anti-science; you are owed by science. Will you learn enough science to avoid 9 years of failure? You did not ask a scientific question, you asked a nonsensical question based on your conclusion of CD. What do your friends say about your CD delusion? Mom and Dad? Teachers?

 

[BigAl]

You are babbling and not really raising any serious rebuttal for me to respond to.

Try again.

MM

He asked

I defy you to find me a single example of a building that had unfought, multi-story ignited fires in a building

 

[Bell]

Owned, by fire science. You can say fire can't do it as long as you want; it is repeated failure.

Danny is not a fire expert. He blows up buildings. He has no clue what fire does, he used explosives after he cuts the beams almost all the way through. You have made an error in judgment, hitching your wagon to someone who says your CD on WTC 1 and 2 are nonsense. Danny must not understand the primary energy source for his CD business is gravity. Sad to see your expert fail; he was going good until he opened his mouth on 7. Hate to see people fail as you and Danny have.


The fire did cause the collapse. Your delusional CD claims is anti-science; you are owed by science. Will you learn enough science to avoid 9 years of failure? You did not ask a scientific question, you asked a nonsensical question based on your conclusion of CD. What do your friends say about your CD delusion? Mom and Dad? Teachers?

There's none like you Beachnut. Don't ever change

 

[johnny karate]

Feel free to explain how it could remain dormant for 1 hour and 29 minutes?

Clearly, you do not have the training or background to understand why your question is stupid and why everyone is laughing at you for repeatedly asking it.

However, your paranoid delusions make you think your question has relevance, and, of course, have cast you in the role of the lone truth-seeker who was able to suss out such a glaring inconsistency that will inevitably lead to the unraveling of the Great Conspiracy you imagine is taking place.

You followed a similar pattern in your elaborate George Bush Will Destroy America with Nuclear Weapons fantasy. Again, it was a Truth no one else could see, and only you possessed the insight and courage to reveal it.

Yours is a very intriguing pathology.

 

[Oystein]

Is this dodge ball or what?

I raised a very important and valid question.

A question that you think is very important and valid. It isn't.

The NIST created a WTC7 computer model which was in part, based on the their assumption that the critical fire on the 12th floor was initiated at 12 noon.

Right. A model. What other assumptions go into this model? What is the purpose of this model? How does it square with reality?

A fire that the NIST claimed was caused by flaming debris from the collapse of WTC 1 at 10:29 a.m.

Can you quote in full?

I do not need to be a fire expert to see a problem with these two times!

According to the NIST, flaming debris struck the 12th floor south face of WTC 7 at 10:29 a.m., but they amazingly concluded that the fire did not actually start there until an hour and a half later, at 12 noon.

Please explain how this ie even remotely possible?

MM

Please explain why you think this is not possible?

 

[johnny karate]

You are babbling and not really raising any serious rebuttal for me to respond to.

It's interesting you level such an accusation at someone else considering your history for nonsensical rantings.

Do you honestly perceive your paranoid delusion about George Bush ending democracy with weapons of mass destruction as something other than babbling?

In your mind, does that strike you as something presented with clarity of thought?

Because you should know, to the rest of us it comes across as the ravings of a lunatic.

 

[Oystein]

I asked a scientific question beachnut.

No. It would be scientific if you could make a scientific argument, and not just JAQ off based on personal ignorance.

A question that is very pertinent about WTC7, and the validity of Danny Jowenko's belief, that the collapse was in no way caused by fire.

What on earth has Danny Jowenko to do with the timing of specific fires on a specific floor? Danny had not the slightest idea about the fires and an even worse idea about the timing of events! Danny was and is a totally clueless expert! A worthless expert! Go ask Danny your very important and valid question. Watch and enjoy his clueless face! He will not be able to say a word, because Danny was and still is absolutely totally fully clueless about the fires in WTC7 and what they did or could have done!

Your welcome to take a break from your delusional rhetoric and take a crack at answering it?

MM

Real world obeservation tells us floor 12 was fully involved in fire around 2p.m.
This real world fact can be better modelled with a fire start at 12 than with one staring 10:37.
Look up "model (science)" in a good dictionary.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You are babbling and not really raising any serious rebuttal for me to respond to.

It's true, no skyscraper like the WTC has ever collapsed solely due to fire. No steel framed building of this size has ever collapsed completely. You can argue for eternity how this is statistically impossible but before you contiue consider the rarity of:

• A large skyscraper burning,
  
• A skyscraper built with the same materials as the WTC narrows our viable comparatives down even further,
  
• A skyscraper that had the same structural framing design of the WTC, again, narrows our comparatives
  
• A skyscraper that had multi-story unfought fires where they were ignited simultaneously on several floors (2)
  
• Multi-story fires that burned unabated because either a massive projectile struck the building and severed all of the active fire protection systems (sprinklers) [2] or had the active fire protection disabled because the collapse of an adjacent skyscraper [1]
  
• Had structural damage or complete destruction of load bearing elements at the start of the fires

How many times has a building similar in size to the WTC (1 & 2) had all of these conditions come together all at once? According to you since this has only happened once so far it should be statistically impossible, yet it happened anyway.

 

[triforcharity]

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

Aparently you have no idea what the meaning of "Concrete provided no structural purpose in 7WTC."

I have shown you 3 buildings that collapsed either completly, or had more than 90% of the building collapse, all 3 from fire.

BTW, you cannot implode something with fire. Implode i a word you might want to google.

 

[triforcharity]

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

I recommend you google the word "smolder" after you get done with the word implode.

 

[triforcharity]

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

Nobody died in the collapse of 7WTC. Try again twoofie.

 

[332nd]

Is this dodge ball or what?

I raised a very important and valid question.

The NIST created a WTC7 computer model which was in part, based on the their assumption that the critical fire on the 12th floor was initiated at 12 noon.

A fire that the NIST claimed was caused by flaming debris from the collapse of WTC 1 at 10:29 a.m.

I do not need to be a fire expert to see a problem with these two times!

According to the NIST, flaming debris struck the 12th floor south face of WTC 7 at 10:29 a.m., but they amazingly concluded that the fire did not actually start there until an hour and a half later, at 12 noon.

Please explain how this ie even remotely possible?

MM

... So, you think that the entire building was set on fire at once?

... Bwahahahaha!

 

[triforcharity]

Typical failure to attack the argument.

If I can prove that the NIST failed to prove a 'fire' solution for the WTC7 collapse GlennB,
then your welcome to explain your alternative to controlled demolition?

And while your considering that, you might want to consider the distinct possibility that you
aren't privy to non-commercial methods of controlled demolition.

MM

Please, bless us with your knowledge of fire science. I eagerly await your posts, so I can take it apart bit by bit, piece by piece, and all the while, not even breaking a sweat.

Get on it!

 

[triforcharity]

Wrong

The NIST claimed the 12th floor fire did not become active until 12 noon, but they also claimed that fire was caused by flaming debris at 10:29 a.m.

Feel free to explain how it could remain dormant for 1 hour and 29 minutes?

MM

You need to read this http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf Specifically page 93. When you are done, and can actually tell me what it says, then we can continue.

 

[TruthersLie]

So the invisible ninja ran in and "pulled it" as a favor for Larry!

That is what your suggesting.

Are you saying Larry S has a ninja mistress?

oh...

oh

OH... you mean PULLED the building...

 

[Miragememories]

Still no intelligent responses to my question.

Danny Jowenko has stood firm in his professional opinion that the WTC7 collapse, could not have been the result of fire.

I have provided evidence of how the NIST are unable to get their facts in order, yet the NIST have the mendacity to claim they have solved the mystery behind the WTC 7 collapse.

They base their final conclusion on a so-called proof, output from a seriously
flawed computer simulation.

The NIST base their conclusion on floor 12 fire causing an initial failure of column #79 on the 13th floor.

The NIST claim the fire on floor 12 was caused by flaming debris from WTC 1 at 10:29 a.m.

Without explaining how it could be possible, the NIST claim the fire on the 12th floor actually started at 12 noon.

Supposedly it lay dormant for 1.5 hours!

And this is just my first question regarding the validity of the NIST fire calculations.

No reply from the Church of the Official Conspiracy Theory congregation.

Just lots of childish waffling.

Too funny...but not in the least surprising.

MM

 

[DGM]

Still no intelligent responses to my question.

Danny Jowenko has stood firm in his professional opinion that the WTC7 collapse, could not have been the result of fire.

Could you link me to his continued support? As far as I have seen he doesn't want to be bothered by any of this. Why do you think that is?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Still no intelligent responses to my question.

Danny Jowenko has stood firm in his professional opinion that the WTC7 collapse, could not have been the result of fire.

I have provided evidence of how the NIST are unable to get their facts in order, yet the NIST have the mendacity to claim they have solved the mystery behind the WTC 7 collapse.
They base their final conclusion on a so-called proof, output from a seriously
flawed computer simulation.

The NIST base their conclusion on floor 12 fire causing an initial failure of column #79 on the 13th floor.

The NIST claim the fire on floor 12 was caused by flaming debris from WTC 1 at 10:29 a.m.

Without explaining how it could be possible, the NIST claim the fire on the 12th floor actually started at 12 noon.

Supposedly it lay dormant for 1.5 hours!

And this is just my first question regarding the validity of the NIST fire calculations.

No reply from the Church of the Official Conspiracy Theory congregation.

Just lots of childish waffling.

Too funny...but not in the least surprising.

MM

You think you know fire science but you don't. You're not a firefighter nor a fire investigator nor is Mr. Jowenko. You know nothing!

All you've provided is speculation & nothing more. Alot of side stepping is all you're doing.

 

[Oystein]

Still no intelligent responses to my question.

The question is dumb because its assumptions are wrong.

I have provided evidence of how the NIST are unable to get their facts in order, yet the NIST have the mendacity to claim they have solved the mystery behind the WTC 7 collapse.

No, you have not. You have only been JAQing off, thereby presenting your ignorance.

They base their final conclusion on a so-called proof, output from a seriously flawed computer simulation.

You obviously have no experience and knowledge about these things. Shut up.

The NIST base their conclusion on floor 12 fire causing an initial failure of column #79 on the 13th floor.

The NIST claim the fire on floor 12 was caused by flaming debris from WTC 1 at 10:29 a.m.

Without explaining how it could be possible, the NIST claim the fire on the 12th floor actually started at 12 noon.

Supposedly it lay dormant for 1.5 hours!

No, wrong. You don't understand the dynamics of real building fires and the purpose and methods of modelling.

Danny Jowenko has stood firm in his professional opinion that the WTC7 collapse, could not have been the result of fire.

For the umpteenth time: His "professional" opinion is worthless because he is a) not a fire science professional and b) He was much less informed than even you about the whole incident. No expert can draw good conclusions on bad (false and missing) information.

 

[triforcharity]

Still no intelligent responses to my question.

Danny Jowenko has stood firm in his professional opinion that the WTC7 collapse, could not have been the result of fire.

I have provided evidence of how the NIST are unable to get their facts in order, yet the NIST have the mendacity to claim they have solved the mystery behind the WTC 7 collapse.

They base their final conclusion on a so-called proof, output from a seriously
flawed computer simulation.

The NIST base their conclusion on floor 12 fire causing an initial failure of column #79 on the 13th floor.

The NIST claim the fire on floor 12 was caused by flaming debris from WTC 1 at 10:29 a.m.

Without explaining how it could be possible, the NIST claim the fire on the 12th floor actually started at 12 noon.

Supposedly it lay dormant for 1.5 hours!

And this is just my first question regarding the validity of the NIST fire calculations.

No reply from the Church of the Official Conspiracy Theory congregation.

Just lots of childish waffling.

Too funny...but not in the least surprising.

MM

I am sorry, but I in fact posted a link, and asked you a few questions there MM. Care to address them?

Also, relying on someone who is a CD expert, to diagnose a fire-induced collapse, is like asking a plumber to do open heart surgery.

There are many people, myself included, that have concluded, based on our expert opinion in RELATIVE fields, that fire + Steel - water= Collapse.

Did you google the word "smolder" yet?

Lastly, you need to check out this link http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1A.pdf Specifically page 93. Please read it, and you tell me what you found out. It doesn't say what you think it does.