• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

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.


MM

Since you completely mischaracterize the report, it's hardly a valid criticism MM. But I have replied on the WTC7 thread, so go over there. This is not a Jowenko issue, so I'm not going to post here.
 
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.

Since the eyewitnesses know there was no man-made demolition explosion at WTC, what Jowenko has to say about WTC7 is wrong and irrelevant.
 
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.

Of course it's not surprising. That's because no one is taking you seriously, which I doubt is something you would find very surprising anymore.

Do you honestly not a see a connection to the scenario you've described above and the scenario you described in 2007 about your paranoid fantasies of nuclear attacks and martial law?

Are you so blinded by your ideology and paranoia that you can't see in this instance, much like in your bizarre 2007 prediction, you are woefully out of your depth, and are simply talking about things you cannot even begin to understand?

You've horribly embarrassed yourself by showcasing your lunacy before.

I implore you not to go down that road again.
 
Miragememories said:
"Danny Jowenko has stood firm in his professional opinion that the WTC7 collapse, could not have been the result of fire."
DGM said:
"Could you link me to his continued support?"

You mean a daily repetition of his expert opinion for folks like yourself that dream he will change his mind?

If anything, the NIST report should have served to reinforce his opinion.

MM
 
Since you completely mischaracterize the report, it's hardly a valid criticism MM. But I have replied on the WTC7 thread, so go over there. This is not a Jowenko issue, so I'm not going to post here.
Go wherever you like.

Danny Jowenko claimed the fires were not capable of causing the collapse of WTC 7 and I'm attacking the only official argument that argues against him.

That seems to be a valid relationship to me.

Hide in whatever thread you wish to alienentity.

MM
 
MM:
If a leading paleontologist said it was a giant pterodactyl would you believe him without any further evidence or is Jowenko just a convenient crutch for your fantasy?
 
Last edited:
Go wherever you like.

Danny Jowenko claimed the fires were not capable of causing the collapse of WTC 7 and I'm attacking the only official argument that argues against him.

That seems to be a valid relationship to me.

Hide in whatever thread you wish to alienentity.

MM

Danny Jowenko claimed that WTC1 and WTC 2 were NOT controlled demolitions.

Why don't you value his expert opinion on these buildings?

Hide behind whatever "truth" you wish to Miragememories.
 
triforcharity said:
"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."

Great, we can start right away.

As I previously stated, I have a problem with the NIST fire simulations failing to debunk Danny Jowenko's contention that in his professional opinion,
there is absolutely no way fire caused the collapse of WTC7.

The NIST fire simulations indicate that floor 12 and floor 13 of WTC7 suffered from the greatest amount of heat energy.

Using NIST's Figure 9-13 from NCSTAR 1-9's fire simulation chapter, the NIST argues that on floor 12, a heat release rate of 200 MW was sustained
for over 2 hours from about 3 p.m. onward.

The NIST figure 9-11, indicates that fully developed fires covered an area of 750 square meters between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m.

My problem here is, the NIST used a fuel loading factor of 32 kg per square meter for their floor 12 simulations.

The NIST's heat release rate of 200 MW sustained for over 2 hours implies a total energy release of 1,440 GJ.

To do this, we have to assume that the combustible material on floor 12 of WTC7 released 20 MJ/kg.

Over an area of 750 square meters, that would represent the combustion of 72,000 kg of office material.

In other words 96 kg per square meter.

Knock the NIST time estimate down to 40 minutes, instead of 2 hours, and then their 32 kg per square meter fuel loading factor becomes in agreement with the 12th floor fuel load that the NIST has assumed.

You can only imagine how this grave error would wreak havoc with the NIST computer simulation results.

Once you've resolved this conflict (without breaking a sweat of course), I have some more issues to present regarding
the validity of the NIST fire energy estimates.

MM
 
Great, we can start right away.

..., I have a problem with the NIST fire simulations failing to debunk Danny Jowenko's contention that in his professional opinion,
there is absolutely no way fire caused the collapse of WTC7.
LOL, Danny blows up buildings has no clue what fire does. You picked the wrong expert to support your CD delusions.


The NIST fire simulations indicate that ... regarding
the validity of the NIST fire energy estimates.

MM
The best part about your ideas, it does not matter if NIST is wrong, WTC7 fell due to fire. That is so cool about NIST work, it they failed to do the work exactly right, they still have the correct final conclusion of fire destroyed the WTC. Not matter how it happened structurally, you lost, NIST wins. This is how fantasy goes, it fails, and reality wins. Unless you are a movie producer, then many times fantasy wins. Take your delusions and do a screen play; your only chance of any success.

Fact, the NIST fire simulation can be wrong, but fire still destroyed WTC7.
 
Danny Jowenko claimed the fires were not capable of causing the collapse of WTC 7
No, he didn't. Before he knew there were fires, he said it was "controlled demolition" and he stuck to his conclusion even though the more information he got the less sense he could make of it. After hearing about the fires -- and speculating on a reason for the "controlled demolition" -- he also said that steel would need to be replaced after a fire in costly repairs. That means he understands the danger fire poses to steel buildings.
 
Great, we can start right away.

As I previously stated, I have a problem with the NIST fire simulations failing to debunk Danny Jowenko's contention that in his professional opinion,
there is absolutely no way fire caused the collapse of WTC7.

And in Jowenko's professional opinion WTC1 and WTC2 were not controlled demolitions.
 
LOL, Danny blows up buildings has no clue what fire does. You picked the wrong expert to support your CD delusions.

The best part about your ideas, it does not matter if NIST is wrong, WTC7 fell due to fire. That is so cool about NIST work, it they failed to do the work exactly right, they still have the correct final conclusion of fire destroyed the WTC. Not matter how it happened structurally, you lost, NIST wins. This is how fantasy goes, it fails, and reality wins. Unless you are a movie producer, then many times fantasy wins. Take your delusions and do a screen play; your only chance of any success.

Fact, the NIST fire simulation can be wrong, but fire still destroyed WTC7.
Displaying your ignorance does not count as a rebuttal.

When you have something substantive to say, maybe people will listen.

It does matter that NIST was wrong.

They represent the official theory.

MM
 
Last edited:
Displaying your ignorance does not count as a rebuttal.

When you have something substantive to say, maybe people will listen.

It does matter that was NIST was wrong.

They represent the official theory.

MM

Did you know NIST was right about WTC1 and WTC2? Danny Jowenko agrees.
 
And in Jowenko's professional opinion WTC1 and WTC2 were not controlled demolitions.

Irrelevant.

Your point has been covered and repeating the question will only generate the same response.

Start a new thread if you wish to discuss WtC 1 and WTC 2.

MM
 
Irrelevant.

Your point has been covered and repeating the question will only generate the same response.

Start a new thread if you wish to discuss WtC 1 and WTC 2.

MM

I'm not discussing WT1 and WTC2 per se.

I'm discussing your blind faith like trust in Jowenko's opinion on WTC 7. His expert opinion on WTC 1 and WTC 2 contradicts a conspiracy.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom