Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Disbelief]

Because OCTers make such a big issue of how the WTC7 collapse could not be a controlled demolition because they feel its footprint was too large.

They do so in direct response to the TM claim that the building fell in its own footprint. Nice try to act like the debunkers came up with the point for no apparent reason. Should I link you to the AE911 site for proof of the TM using this?

Whether successful or not, and whether its footprint is big or small, a controlled demolition is still a controlled demolition.

Using failed CDs to try and make a point about footprints is akin to lying.

How does "the wrong amount of explosives were installed or incorrect prepwork was done." not reflect on the quality of engineering behind a controlled demolition?

The engineering might have been top notch, but the execution/workmanship may have been poor. I forgot to add that charges not going off, whether from improper installation or faulty material, could also be a reason that a CD failed. A failed CD does not automatically mean that the engineering was bad, though it could very well be the case.

I never said that it did.

All total building collapses leave a footprint.

Well engineered controlled demolitions leave small footprints.

But that is the hint that you leave by only talking about large footprints.

A small footprint is very suggestive of an unnatural collapse.

A controlled demolition is an unnatural collapse.

Given the 47-story original size of WTC7 and its relatively small collapse footprint, it is a legitimate talking point.


MM

And here you go, right back to the small footprint being indicative of a CD, right after you suggested you have never said that. Also leads back to point one, that it is the TM that uses this.

 

[Bell]

It is totally relevant to this WTC7 thread.

The Official Theory claims fire caused the total collapse of a concrete and steel building, WTC7.

I'm requesting proof, and not a theoretical one, of another concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire.

It is the kind of proof OCTers are always demanding from the 9/11 Truth Movement.

MM

Are you suggesting that unless anything has happened before, it can not happen at all?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

It is totally relevant to this WTC7 thread.

The Official Theory claims fire caused the total collapse of a concrete and steel building, WTC7.

I'm requesting proof, and not a theoretical one, of another concrete and steel building that totally collapsed due to fire.

It is the kind of proof OCTers are always demanding from the 9/11 Truth Movement.

MM

Umm it's called reading Fire Science and understanding what fire can do to structures. And it's a plus to be a firefighter to know everything about fire. But for those who haven't a clue about WTC7 being on fire & collasping from fire, they haven't talked with a firefighter yet. Or maybe they're too scared to talk with a firefighter.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Are you suggesting that unless anything has happened before, it can not happen at all?

Apparantly so... on the other hand, accepting this line of argument automatically requires that he abandon [nano]thermite as a cause of the collapse since he will not be able to point out a single demolition carried out using the reactant as a cutter medium.

 

[TruthersLie]

Hey MM.

did you look up what an architectural footprint is yet?

 

[Miragememories]

Hey MM.

did you look up what an architectural footprint is yet?

Your point?

You would rather I refer to spread outside of its footprint?

MM

 

[Oystein]

You are off topic.

MM

Why did you not reply to that of my posts which was precisely on topic?

I asked you: When the interviewer told Danny that WTC7 had collapsed so clean you could walk around it - was he telling Danny something true or something false?

It seems to me very much on topic, since the topic is whether Danny was manipulated during the interview. So we must consider the questions:
1. Was he given true information?
2. Was he given sufficient information

If the answer is "no" to one or the other, that would support the suspicion that he was indeed manipulated.

So please do answer my question, as it is relevant to the OP.

 

[GlennB]

Your talk is cheap.

Your obvious evasion of the point about WTC7 being well past its fire-rating is also noted.

 

[GlennB]

The real talking point here, if you don't want to be off topic in this thread, is:

Was Danny given true or false information regarding the extent of the debris field?

MM?

You've studiously avoided Oystein's question for a very long time now ......

 

[Sam.I.Am]

1) The old WTC 7 used very little concrete in it's construction (mainly in the foundation, just like every other building in Manhattan built in that era). To call it concrete and steel building is like calling your average home a concrete and wood building. Both are in a limited sense correct but in a fire the concrete means nothing.

2) Even if (and it's not true but just for the sake of argument) WTC 7 was built with structural concrete as structural support members outside the foundation, the amount of preparation and explosives goes up, not down. That means that it becomes even more likely that someone would've noticed the prep, the blasts and the residue. Not less.

3) The new WTC 7 does have a concrete core. It was done at a great expense to bring in tenants who might otherwise shy away from locating their offices at ground zero. If that building collapses from fires and that collapse looks and sounds like the old WTC 7 collapse then you will have a point.

The reality that truthers can't seem to wrap their heads around is that fire and steel don't play well together and never have. Millions are spent on a steel skyscrapers fireproofing to protect them. This isn't done for appearance. If a steel structure, regardless of size, isn't protected against fire then the likelihood of collapse from fire is very high. If a steel structure, regardless of size, is protected with fireproofing and the fires aren't fought, the fireproofing will fail and the likelihood of collapse is high.

 

[GlennB]

strawman that you have been called on repeatedly, yet you keep on spewing it.

Neither the towers, nor wtc7 was a "concrete and steel building" except that the steel FRAMED building had concrete floorplans. The concrete played almost NO role in the structural integrity.

This sums it up, MM. The concrete in WTC7 is of no significance in this discussion.

You've introduced it late in the day here because you've been shown examples of steel-framed buildings collapsing through fire many times before.

 

[TruthersLie]

Your point?

You would rather I refer to spread outside of its footprint?

MM

I would rather that you use the terms correctly.

Did WTC 1,2 or 7 collape into their own footprint? (go look up what an architectural footprint is before you answer)

Were wtc 1,2 and 7 steel and concrete buildings? (go lookup what their design was)

AS soon as you have educated yourself on both of those strawman ******** arguments, come on back and we can discuss what you have learned.

ETA:
Because we have seen how academically lazy you are, let me google that for you..

Take any of the top 3 answers. NOw what is a buildings architectural footprint?

 

[Miragememories]

"Why did you not reply to that of my posts which was precisely on topic?

I asked you: When the interviewer told Danny that WTC7 had collapsed so clean you could walk around it - was he telling Danny something true or something false?

It seems to me very much on topic, since the topic is whether Danny was manipulated during the interview. So we must consider the questions:
1. Was he given true information?
2. Was he given sufficient information

If the answer is "no" to one or the other, that would support the suspicion that he was indeed manipulated.

So please do answer my question, as it is relevant to the OP."

Only in a courtroom do you have the right to demand a "yes" or "no" type response.

If an honest, sincere response from me is insufficient, than put me on ignore.

Little will be learned from a playing yes/no gotcha.

From watching the interview a number of times, it is my honest opinion that the interviewer provided Danny Jowenko
with all the information he had available at that time.

Was Danny given sufficient information?

That question addresses professional insight.

Depending on their level of knowledge and experience, a professional may, or may not,
feel they have been provided with sufficient information to express a professional opinion.

You and other OCT supporters seem to feel that you are more qualified to make that determination than Danny.

If it is your intent to answer your own questions than I see no point in making a response of any kind.

You seem to make the assumption that it would never occur to Danny Jowenko to go
online and read the information on WTC7. He had ample time between the two interviews.

So getting back to your second question, all I can say is that Danny could have re-considered his initial opinion
at any time without losing any respect from his audience or peers.

He could have said it looks like a controlled demolition but without more information he wasn't sure.

What you apparently can't, or won't accept, is that for Danny Jowenko, a man who had an intimate knowledge
of the controlled demolition process, the question was a no-brainer.

His only uncertainty, not unexpectedly, was in the how.

MM

 

[beachnut]

Is Danny an expert in gravity collapses? No. He blows up junk and got 2 out of 3 correct. Not even a C. We have a grade D expert.

Is Danny a structural engineer? No. Does he understand the structure of WTC7? No. Is he qualified in fire science? No.

Reality: The 911 truth 66.7 percent correct, D expert; Danny.

911 Truth Delusions world: the 911 truth 33.3 percent correct, F expert; Danny!

Now that is one heck of an X-pert, he is 67 percent right in the real world and only 33 percent correct in the delusional 911 truth world!

Sad 911 truth does not use math or science.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

From watching the interview a number of times, it is my honest opinion that the interviewer provided Danny Jowenko with all the information he had available at that time.

If the interviewer presented all of the information that was actually available to the general public at that time instead of selectively presenting and spinning information (also known as cherry picking and lying) in their presentation to Jowenko then your opinion might have some validity.

However, they decided either by choice or ignorance to omit information (sound, date, location and the entire collapse at a minimum) that was common knowledge and easily available at the time and then flat out lied about the site conditions after the collapse. That is a classic example of manipulation. And apparently you have fallen for it too by defending it after it has been pointed out to you just how wrong the presentation to Jowenko was, by claiming that they didn't have information available from the very first week after 9/11.

 

[twinstead]

What is the deal with endless threads about what people THINK people believe? Frankly, if Jowenko still insists that WTC7 was a CD he needs to be trying to get his cd expert community behind him. That's where this debate should be happening. His silence after 3 years, the lack of objection to the commonly-held narrative account of WT7 in scientific and engineering communities, and the fact that this "debate" only rages on relatively obscure internet forums should make any prospective "truther" go hmmmmmmm

 

[GlennB]

From watching the interview a number of times, it is my honest opinion that the interviewer provided Danny Jowenko with all the information he had available at that time.

Er, why? The interviewer's sincerity was overwhelming, or something? He has a nice voice? You checked out his CV? Saw his interview notes? Spoke to him personally?

You are a very gullible person MM. The exact opposite of the freedom-fighter you take yourself to be, in fact.

 

[Oystein]

Only in a courtroom do you have the right to demand a "yes" or "no" type response.

Wrong. I can demand that anywhere. I just can't force you to.

If an honest, sincere response from me is insufficient, than put me on ignore.

You did not answer the question. Neither honestly nor sincerely. You just did not. Please do so.

Little will be learned from a playing yes/no gotcha.

Gotcha?!? You think I gotcha??

From watching the interview a number of times, it is my honest opinion that the interviewer provided Danny Jowenko
with all the information he had available at that time.

I did not ask if that was the information that was available to the interviewer. I asked if the information was true or false. I see no reason why you are unable or unwilling to answer that question.

So getting back to your second question...

Please answer the first question first.

 

[TruthersLie]

bump for MM since he is dodging this.

I would rather that you use the terms correctly.

Did WTC 1,2 or 7 collape into their own footprint? (go look up what an architectural footprint is before you answer)

Were wtc 1,2 and 7 steel and concrete buildings? (go lookup what their design was)

AS soon as you have educated yourself on both of those strawman ******** arguments, come on back and we can discuss what you have learned.

ETA:
Because we have seen how academically lazy you are, let me google that for you..

Take any of the top 3 answers. NOw what is a buildings architectural footprint?

Now then... since we know what the architectural footprint of wtc 1, 2 and 7 are, how is any CD that puts debris outside of them part of the "footprint?" (answer... it isn't)

How does the collapse of wtc7 fall into its own footprint, when it struck two buildings which were 270 (ish) degrees apart across 2 streets, including from the ROOF of fitterman hall? Oh wait... that isn't part of the "footprint," so it DIDN"T collapse into its own footprint... isn't that right?

 

[Miragememories]

"Now then... since we know what the architectural footprint of wtc 1, 2 and 7 are, how is any CD that puts debris outside of them part of the "footprint?" (answer... it isn't)"

Buy a dictionary and quit obsessing on one use of a word that can be used very generically.

It is virtually impossible to have a collapse footprint that will match its architectural footprint.

"How does the collapse of wtc7 fall into its own footprint, when it struck two buildings which were 270 (ish) degrees apart across 2 streets, including from the ROOF of fitterman hall?"

Dunno?

I have never suggested that the WTC7 collapse was confined to its architectural footprint.

When experts talk about falling into its own footprint, they are speaking in relative, not absolute terms.

A point which you already knew.

As an example;

"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

And regarding your concerns about the size of the WTC7 debris field (since you apparently don't like the term: collapse footprint).

"The towers showered debris in a wide radius as their external frames essentially “peeled” outward and fell from the top to the bottom.

In contrast, the collapse of WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse."

bolding is mine

MM