Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Oystein]

...
A model based on data which is over estimated by 300%, is a model with a fatal error.
...

No, it isn't, unless you provide proof that

a) your assumption is true ("...over estimated by 300%..."). Cite the estimate you are referring to, and argue, with substantiated facts, why it is such an overestimate)
b) a model with what you deem to be 100% data would be a model that recreates real world observations better in the relevant measurements. In other words: present a better model.

 

[carlitos]

Wow

B
Seriously, MM.

Just read that drivel.

Do you have any idea how batcrap crazy that is? Any at all?

And now you have the audacity to lecture us on the finer points of the NIST report?

That you have the audacity to position yourself as an authority on anything after that completely insane rant above is truly mind-boggling.

Make up your minds folks.

Do you want science or do you want soap opera?

I'm not the first person to tell you this, but your paranoid delusions are not real. Get help.

 

[Miragememories]

"...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."

You might like to look at NCSTAR 1-9 Vol2, pg 381., Fire Simulations

"Fire was first observed on the 12th floor, on the south side of the east face, at about 2:10 p.m."

For the purposes of the NIST computer simulation; " a 2 MW fire was prescribed near the center of the south face at an assigned time of 12:00 noon. No other fires were prescribed, and the spread of this fire beyond its point of origin was predicted by the model."

The NIST makes no attempt to explain this apparent arbitrariness.

MM

 

[beachnut]

...
I've substantiated Danny Jowenko's professional opinion that WTC 7 was not felled by fire and the proof is simply ignored. ...

Danny is not a professional fire science expert; he has no professional opinion on fire collapses, he is UNQUALIFIED. NOT AN EXPERT ON FIRE IN BUILDINGS.

Opinions from Danny are not proof of anything, it is an opinion. Your failure to understand the NIST study is not much more than an unqualified internet poster making up opinions based on no training in all areas involved.

Danny blows up buildings, he does not have a clue what fire can do and he proves it with a failed opinion. Why can't you produce real professional fire science experts to support your delusion. The delusion seals that deal.

 

[Oystein]

You might like to look at NCSTAR 1-9 Vol2, pg 381., Fire Simulations

"Fire was first observed on the 12th floor, on the south side of the east face, at about 2:10 p.m."

Can you explain why the fire there was dormant from 10:47 a.m. until 2:10 p.m. and then magically broke out?
(Notice how riddled with a false assumption this question is?)

For the purposes of the NIST computer simulation; " a 2 MW fire was prescribed near the center of the south face at an assigned time of 12:00 noon. No other fires were prescribed, and the spread of this fire beyond its point of origin was predicted by the model."

The NIST makes no attempt to explain this apparent arbitrariness.

MM

No need to "explain this apparent arbitrariness". Everybody who understands the first thing about models is that all inputs that are not derived from exact measurements are arbitrary. It can't be any other way.
The only thing that is of interest for any model is its ability to recreate actually observed reality. The NIST model with all its arbitrariness does that.

For the collapse sequence after 5 p.m., it is of little consequence if the fire on the 12th floor startet at 12 noon, 11 a.m., or 2 p.m.
All that matters is that the model matches the real world observation, namely ""Fire was first observed on the 12th floor, on the south side of the east face, at about 2:10 p.m."".

It does.
Therefore, it is a good candidate model.


If you don't like it, present a better model.

 

[johnny karate]

Just to make you happy jk I'll give you one response to that item.

It was a piece of speculation and not a prediction.

Nothing more.

If re-hashing such stuff makes your day, than go for it. It only shows how shallow you are.

Not so fast, MM.

Let's take a look at the very first line of your so-called "speculation":

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

You said you expected another attack to happen. You even gave a timeline. You then went on to provide in vivid detail the nature of this attack and its consequences, including carving a place for yourself in the post-apocalyptic environment as an underground freedom fighter.

Please don't insult the collective intelligence of this forum by now lamely trying to back-pedal on the meaning and intent when we can plainly see it in the unambiguous language you used.

You expected a second 9/11 type incident.

It's right there in black and white.

But anyway, back on topic: Now that we have firmly established your penchant for paranoid delusion and adherence to a conspiracy theorist mindset, how are we to take you seriously when you offer your layman's judgment on the significance of Danny Jowenko's so-called "expert opinion"?

 

[johnny karate]

Make up your minds folks.

Do you want science or do you want soap opera?

By your responses, it would appear no one really cares about scientific and rational discussion.

The problem is you're not having a discussion based on rationale or science. Your having one based on your own paranoid fantasies.

The reason I keep referring to your delusional prediction is to demonstrate your paranoid mindset and your history for being wildly off the mark because of your obsession with some fictional shadow regime bent on ruling the world.

You are not now offering a serious scientific discussion any more than you were offering a serious discussion of the political climate in 2007 when you predicted George Bush was going to attack the U.S. with nuclear weapons.

Everyone can see this.

Why can't you?

 

[alienentity]

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

Oh, I see where you got your thesis - you copied it verbatim from Dr. Frank Greening.


Were you ever going to properly attribute the work as Greening's or were you just going to let us assume it was your own?

Also I see this issue (it's not your idea, after all) has already been discussed on these forums.

Note: I didn't know about this until I researched the area of WTC7 floors and came across Greening's paper.
But I'd already used the NIST figures of fuel load/m2 and total fuel and realized that your 750 m2 figure is not the same as NIST's 3000 m2 estimate. (NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol2 page 362 -363)

that's where the difference lies, and also in the estimates for oxygen supply, which you haven't mentioned either.
It took me about 30 minutes to drill down to these issues, none of which have risen above the initial queries and amounted to much.

You see, the energy release is not just dependent on the fuel available but also the oxygen available. That's what governs the heat and speed of the fire.
But you are of course ignoring this issue completely. I read your plagiaristic post, it is nowhere to be found. You need to provide proper citations when you're making scientific claims.

 

[alienentity]

OH, and MM, Dr. Greening, the guy you copied these ideas from, doesn't disagree that fires caused the collapse of WTC7.

 

[Miragememories]

OH, and MM, Dr. Greening, the guy you copied these ideas from, doesn't disagree that fires caused the collapse of WTC7.

Cite please.

My observations and conclusions about the nature of the WTC7 collapse are not ideas held under copyright by anyone.

If, in some instances they happen to be in common with the viewpoint that is held by Dr. Greening, it is because we are both in agreement on those points.

And, I have made reference to that agreement with Dr. Greening in my earlier posts while pointing out that the NIST had failed to respond to his paper.

In Dr. Greening's critique of the NIST WTC7 Collapse Report, he closed with;

"Therefore I believe that an alternative collapse initiation and propagation hypothesis is called for -one that more accurately reflects the reality of what happened to WTC 7 on September 11th 2001."

bolding is mine

MM

 

[uke2se]

OH, and MM, Dr. Greening, the guy you copied these ideas from, doesn't disagree that fires caused the collapse of WTC7.

Man, I'm getting such a strong feeling of deja vue. I could have sworn we discussed this less than a week ago. The truther merry-go-round is getting smaller it seems.

 

[johnny karate]

Cite please.

My observations and conclusions about the nature of the WTC7 collapse are not ideas held under copyright by anyone.

If, in some instances they happen to be in common with the viewpoint that is held by Dr. Greening, it is because we are both in agreement on those points.

What an amazing coincidence. Too bad Greening actually published his "viewpoint" before you did. Do you perhaps have a theory on the development of life or the force of attraction generated by objects of large mass? If they happen to be strikingly similar to pre-existing theories, I'm sure it's because you are merely "in agreement" with those theories, and not blatantly plagiarizing someone else's work.

Seriously, do you have anything to offer besides paranoid delusions and stolen ideas?

ETA: In light of alienentity's post below, I'll have to add "dishonest implications" to the list.

 

[alienentity]

Cite please.

My observations and conclusions about the nature of the WTC7 collapse are not ideas held under copyright by anyone.

If, in some instances they happen to be in common with the viewpoint that is held by Dr. Greening, it is because we are both in agreement on those points.

And, I have made reference to that agreement with Dr. Greening in my earlier posts while pointing out that the NIST had failed to respond to his paper.

In Dr. Greening's critique of the NIST WTC7 Collapse Report, he closed with;

"Therefore I believe that an alternative collapse initiation and propagation hypothesis is called for -one that more accurately reflects the reality of what happened to WTC 7 on September 11th 2001."

bolding is mine

MM

You're kidding, right? First, with respect to WTC 7 Greening has written '


A WTC 7 Collapse Theory: No bombs or Thermite; Just Diesel

Postby Dr. G on Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:42 pm
It is clear that the collapse of WTC 7 was quite extraordinary and is difficult to explain by non-conspiratorial theories. Thus there is a tendency for some folks to jump to the idea that some sort of CD, accomplished by high-tech explosives, nano-thermite/thermate, etc, was behind the collapse. However, do we have to rule out "natural" causes simply because we can't think of one? I believe there are possible collapse theories that don't need prior human intervention, and I think a good case can be made for diesel fuel being the main agent that killed Building 7.'

And the WTC towers?

Let's examine the main thesis of the paper 'What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York'
by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson

'Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it remains to be checked whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis
proves that they do not.'

Greening may not agree with NIST's analysis, but it is a mistake to assume that he believes in controlled demolition of the buildings. There's no evidence that he does.

He's also been highly critical of David Chandler and Steven Jones. Funny how you ignore that criticism......

 

[Bell]

I've substantiated Danny Jowenko's professional opinion that WTC 7 was not felled by fire and the proof is simply ignored.

And it is proof, because the NIST Official WTC7 Collapse Theory which disagrees with Danny Jowenko's profession opinion, is based on fire calculations that are exaggerated by 300%.

MM

And you ignore that Danny Jowenko agrees 100% with NIST that the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 were not controlled demolitions.

 

[Bell]

The NIST model is riddled with errors.

MM

No! But Jowenko's opinion on WTC7 is.

 

[Bell]

n Dr. Greening's critique of the NIST WTC7 Collapse Report, he closed with;

"Therefore I believe that an alternative collapse initiation and propagation hypothesis is called for -one that more accurately reflects the reality of what happened to WTC 7 on September 11th 2001."

bolding is mine

MM

Alternative != controlled demolitions

 

[alienentity]

My observations and conclusions about the nature of the WTC7 collapse are not ideas held under copyright by anyone.

If, in some instances they happen to be in common with the viewpoint that is held by Dr. Greening, it is because we are both in agreement on those points.


MM

You are far too biased to be able to examine these issues without jumping to conclusions, as Greening warns.
The fact that you plagiarized him so blatantly is repugnant and intellectually dishonest, frankly (pun intended) - just a 'coincidence' that he modifies his early estimate of 500 m2 to allow 750 m2, and then you parrot the same number?
Don't make me laugh. You would get an instant F in any good university were you to attempt to pass off other people's work without proper citations.

Shame on you. I've provided full citations for you, and will continue to do so. I also do my own research, even with my limited skills, unlike many of you truthers, and when I was in university I was always able to clarify which ideas were my own and which were not - that is just a basic standard of scholarship which truthers are apparently in contempt of - yourself included.

As I said, this morning I had already discovered the issues in your post by simply checking thru NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 and 2 and digging it out for myself.
It didn't really take that long. I then provided full citations for my calculations and comments, something you should have done.

If I decide to waste any more time with you I will expect you to reciprocate, otherwise forget about it. I'm not interested in debating a parroting plagiarist.

 

[Miragememories]

"OH, and MM, Dr. Greening, the guy you copied these ideas from, doesn't disagree that fires caused the collapse of WTC7."

"Cite please."

You're kidding, right? First, with respect to WTC 7 Greening has written '


A WTC 7 Collapse Theory: No bombs or Thermite; Just Diesel

Postby Dr. G on Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:42 pm
It is clear that the collapse of WTC 7 was quite extraordinary and is difficult to explain by non-conspiratorial theories. Thus there is a tendency for some folks to jump to the idea that some sort of CD, accomplished by high-tech explosives, nano-thermite/thermate, etc, was behind the collapse. However, do we have to rule out "natural" causes simply because we can't think of one? I believe there are possible collapse theories that don't need prior human intervention, and I think a good case can be made for diesel fuel being the main agent that killed Building 7.'

And the WTC towers?

Let's examine the main thesis of the paper 'What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York'
by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson

'Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it remains to be checked whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis
proves that they do not.'

Greening may not agree with NIST's analysis, but it is a mistake to assume that he believes in controlled demolition of the buildings. There's no evidence that he does.

He's also been highly critical of David Chandler and Steven Jones. Funny how you ignore that criticism......

You present no evidence that Dr. Greening accepts fire as the cause behind the collapse of WTC7.

Although the NIST has ruled out, with good reason IMHO, why diesel fuel was not a factor, Dr. Greening is merely arguing that he is not convinced about the merits of their case. Given the NIST's poor performance, I'm not surprised that he has lost faith in the integrity of their investigation.

Before Dr. Greening embraces a theory that would entail a conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job, he wants to be sure that all natural cause possibilities have been properly ruled out.

I have no argument with such a responsible attitude.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

You are far too biased to be able to examine these issues without jumping to conclusions, as Greening warns.
The fact that you plagiarized him so blatantly is repugnant and intellectually dishonest, frankly (pun intended) - just a 'coincidence' that he modifies his early estimate of 500 m2 to allow 750 m2, and then you parrot the same number?
Don't make me laugh. You would get an instant F in any good university were you to attempt to pass off other people's work without proper citations.

Shame on you. I've provided full citations for you, and will continue to do so. I also do my own research, even with my limited skills, unlike many of you truthers, and when I was in university I was always able to clarify which ideas were my own and which were not - that is just a basic standard of scholarship which truthers are apparently in contempt of - yourself included.

As I said, this morning I had already discovered the issues in your post by simply checking thru NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 and 2 and digging it out for myself.
It didn't really take that long. I then provided full citations for my calculations and comments, something you should have done.

If I decide to waste any more time with you I will expect you to reciprocate, otherwise forget about it. I'm not interested in debating a parroting plagiarist.

In short, you are hiding behind a bs smokescreen.

Screw the messenger and the hell with the message.

The subject of 9/11 is too big to reduce to such pettiness as you attempt to do.

You really should feel ashamed of yourself.

Is ego gratification that important to you?

MM

 

[DGM]

So, MM is this why your here?

LooseChangeForums
Total Forum Posts: 53,796
Total Members: 1,740 (The newest member is themadness)
May 8 2009, 10:04 PM, a record 299 users were online.
There have been a total of 1 posts made in the last 24 hours.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/

Did all your fans leave the playground.