Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[TruthersLie]

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

Not in terms of engineering or architecture. They are VERY SPECIFIC TERMS. With SPECIFIC DEFINTIONS which you are LYING about.

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

Provide any example of a "collapse footprint" being used in engineering or architecture.

There is NONE in engineering or in architecture. You are being a LIAR again. When speaking of a footprint in engineering or architecture it deals with the BASE of the building.

So now that we know you are intellectually dishonest, we can examine your ******** about "collapsing into its footprint."

How does a building collapse into its footprint manage to strike two adjacent buildings that are 270ish degrees apart, including striking one on the roof?

oh it can't.

Drop the ******** about the "footprint." In CD you do drop the building into its footprint. Wtc7 wasn't in its footprint.

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

weasle words and dodging noted. you use the term footprint which has very SPECIFIC defintions. It is a LIE to use those terms the way you are doing. and you know it.

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

then you can show me any use of the term in any architectural or engineering text that says the footprint is different than the interior of the base of the building. It should be easy. Otherwise stop using that ******** LYING term.

USing an ignorant twoof "structural engineer" who should know better about what the PROPER terms are, shows just how incredibly STUPID you twoofs are. Even R. Gage repeats this same ********.

Get out a Dictionary and LOOK IT UP

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

Much better. There is no such term as a "collapse footprint." And trying to suborn the proper architectural terms is a ******** dodge... much like your moving the goalposts to a steel and concrete building, when neither of the towers, nor wtc7 meet that definition for building.

I understand that having delusions of adequacy makes you feel like you know somthing, but after your bad predictions of bush using nukes to take over... I seriously doubt that.

Now that we know you are using free internet at the library, go and LOOK UP THOSE TERMS.

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

"Provide any example of a "collapse footprint" being used in engineering or architecture.

There is NONE in engineering or in architecture. You are being a LIAR again. When speaking of a footprint in engineering or architecture it deals with the BASE of the building."

Get over yourself.

You are really pathetic TruthersLie, if the best you can do is suddenly introduce the term "architectural footprint", when you know damn well that the people in this non-tech forum have been using the term footprint for years.

You have no difficulty understanding what I mean by "collapse footprint".

I'll be damned if I'm going to constantly refer to it as; the area of debris resulting from the building's collapse, or use some equally ponderous description.

"How does a building collapse into its footprint manage to strike two adjacent buildings that are 270ish degrees apart, including striking one on the roof?

oh it can't."

Which clearly indicates a different meaning was intended.

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

"weasle words and dodging noted. "

Weasel from what?

Dodge what?

I am on record in exhaustive detail as to my views about the WTC7 collapse.

"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!"

"USing an ignorant twoof "structural engineer" who should know better about what the PROPER terms are, shows just how incredibly STUPID you twoofs are. Even R. Gage repeats this same ********."

Your bigotry is truly pathetic.

MM

 

[TruthersLie]

Get over yourself.

You are really pathetic TruthersLie, if the best you can do is suddenly introduce the term "architectural footprint", when you know damn well that the people in this non-tech forum have been using the term footprint for years.

and using it WRONG for years. Being corrected on it numerous times and IGNORING the definition so you can try to say that if wtc7 fell in its footprint (which it DIDNT) then it was CD because in CD you bring a building down in its footprint.

So try again. LOOK UP THE *********** WORDS AND USE THE RIGHT TERMINOLOGY MORON.

You have no difficulty understanding what I mean by "collapse footprint".

None what so ever. I understand that you do not understand what a buildings footprint is and have been trying to get people to agree that wtc 1,2 and 7 fell in their "own footprints." Your lack of understanding is rather amazing... but then again so is the shifting and moving of the goalsposts.

USE THE CORRECT *********** TERMINOLOGY.

I'll be damned if I'm going to constantly refer to it as; the area of debris resulting from the building's collapse, or use some equally ponderous description.

Oh rubble pile works. Debris pile works. Both of them are accurate and correct. Calling the collapse as the "footprint" is ********, and is incorrect terminology. Stop using the wrong *********** TERMINOLOGY.

Which clearly indicates a different meaning was intended.

No it clearly shows that the twoof "engineers" who say it fell into its own footprint are morons and haven't even bothered to LOOK at the collapse debris field.

But hey, you must be right... after all Bush Nuked the US and is now a dictator right? He didn't? Damn...

You claim it is used in the form you are using it in, then BACK IT UP. SOURCE IT or stop using it.

I am on record in exhaustive detail as to my views about the WTC7 collapse.

Yup and they are as wrong as that prediction about bush taking over the US...

Your bigotry is truly pathetic.

MM

ROFLMAO. I love it when ignorant twoofs try that. I am not bigoted... I am just being honest. 1250 "architect and engineering professionals" and NOT ONE *********** PEER REVIEWED PAPER, ANY WHERE IN THE WORLD, in ANY LANGUAGE which says NIST is wrong about ANYTHING.

Geee.... It has been 9 years, and a FULL year after the FINAL report on wtc7... where are they? (I have 4 peer reviewed articles on my CV, includign one which was written and publishedin less than 6 months. Why can't twoofs even manage that basic level of scholarship? Oh wait... they can't find a *********** dictionary (pyroclastic, free fall, and footprint....)

 

[triforcharity]

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.


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).


bolding is mine

MM

You are absolutely correct. This is absolutely a moot point, as not one single building fell into it's own footprint on 9/11. This much is true.

And I will absolutely agree with Mr. Mason, if 3 buildings fell into their own footprint, on the same day, in the same location, I would be very suspicious also.

But, we KNOW that this did not happen. Not once.

PS. It's not called a collapse footprint. It's called a pile of rubble.

 

[Miragememories]

"Get over yourself.

You are really pathetic TruthersLie, if the best you can do is suddenly introduce the term "architectural footprint", when you know damn well that the people in this non-tech forum have been using the term footprint for years.

You have no difficulty understanding what I mean by "collapse footprint".

I'll be damned if I'm going to constantly refer to it as; the area of debris resulting from the building's collapse, or use some equally ponderous description."

"...and using it WRONG for years...shifting and moving of the goalsposts...incorrect terminology...the twoof "engineers" who say it fell into its own footprint are morons... after all Bush Nuked the US and is now a dictator right? He didn't? Damn...I love it when ignorant twoofs try that. I am not bigoted...NOT ONE *********** PEER REVIEWED PAPER, ANY WHERE IN THE WORLD, in ANY LANGUAGE which says NIST is wrong about ANYTHING...Why can't twoofs even manage that basic level of scholarship?"

Quite the rant.

I believe triforcharity pretty much summed it up; "You are absolutely correct. This is absolutely a moot point, as not one single building fell into it's own footprint on 9/11. This much is true."

TruthersLie, you really should calm down.

Have a glass of wine.

Kick back.

And maybe watch this for some peace of mind;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSBYdRRuLxI

MM

 

[uke2se]

Quite the rant.

I believe triforcharity pretty much summed it up; "You are absolutely correct. This is absolutely a moot point, as not one single building fell into it's own footprint on 9/11. This much is true."

TruthersLie, you really should calm down.

Have a glass of wine.

Kick back.

And maybe watch this for some peace of mind;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSBYdRRuLxI

MM

Does this mean you will stop lying about the buildings falling into their footprints? If so, that's a major achievement for TruthersLie.

 

[Oystein]

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

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.

Please answer the first question first.

MM, in your continued quest to avoid honesty, you are still dodging my old first question. So I am bumping Post 1076 for you. Will you finally answer honestly and sincerely, if Danny Jowenko was given true or false information when the interviewer claimed that WTC7 fell so clean that you could walk around it?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Oystein]

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.

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;

Originally Posted by Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia
"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).

What utter folly.
Nobody would ever use the term "footprint" in that context to mean "collapse footprint". By definition, every collapsed buiding fell into its "collapse footprint", so a statement "chances of buildings collapsing into their own footprint ... are so remote" would obviously be FALSE, if the meant "collapse footprint", since they claim the probability of a tautology to be true were close to zero, when in fact it is precisely 1.

The ONLY reasonable meaning employed bye ANYBODY who EVER used the word "footprint" in conjunction with WTC collapses is "architectural footprint".

AND YOU KNEW THAT!

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

Originally Posted by FEMA 403-Chapter 5: WTC7
...
In contrast, the collapse of WTC 7 had a relatively small debris field because the façade came straight down, suggesting an internal collapse."

...

It was maybe relatively small, but it was
A) Way outside of the footprint
B) So unclean you could not walk around it
C) So large it badly damaged at least 2 buildings across streets, one of them, a 15-story building, on the roof.


AND YOU KNEW THAT!

 

[Miragememories]

MM, in your continued quest to avoid honesty, you are still dodging my old first question. So I am bumping Post 1076 for you. Will you finally answer honestly and sincerely, if Danny Jowenko was given true or false information when the interviewer claimed that WTC7 fell so clean that you could walk around it?

Thanks in advance.

It is not dodging Oystein

It is called ignore.

Your question has been replied to and I am satisfied with what I said.

Any further requests for a reply will be futile on your part.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

The ONLY reasonable meaning employed bye ANYBODY who EVER used the word "footprint" in conjunction with WTC collapses is "architectural footprint".

AND YOU KNEW THAT!

Isn't that fascinating?

I don't ever recall you using the term "architectural footprint" Oystein, and now it is like you invented the term.

MM

 

[Disbelief]

More questions you missed, MM

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6256957#post6256957

 

[twinstead]

Threads like this work right into truthers hands--all this semantic dribble about footprints and such, all this irrelevant minutiae droned on about, when the fact remains:

--There is no evidence of CD in the collapse of WTC7.
--The description of the collapse is not contested by ANY respected engineering, scientific, or controlled demolition organization anywhere on Earth.
--Nobody who actually matters is paying the least bit of attention to this "truth" movement.
--when I turn off my computer, the truth movement disappears.

Who gives a flying fudge what kind of "foot print" the damned building fell in?

 

[Oystein]

It is not dodging Oystein

It is called ignore.

Your question has been replied to and I am satisfied with what I said.

Any further requests for a reply will be futile on your part.

MM

Thanks for making clear that you have no intention to honestly or sincerely address questions that help clear up the issue raised in the OP: "Was Danny Jowenko manipulated?"

I am satisfied with that.

We both know the answer of course: No, the information given by the interviewer regarding the size and cleanliness of the debris field was false.
Does it follow that Danny was being consciously manipulted? Not necessarily. Could well be that the interviewer himself had fallen for twoofer lies.
However it is clear that Danny was given false and misleading information.


Ok now that you have openly admitted that you refuse to answer pertinent questions honestly, whatever point had remained to even take note of your posts has dissolved. Off to ingnore you go yourself, and I advise everyone to do likewise. Discussion with a proval liar is pointless, especially when he informs us openly about his contempt for honesty.

 

[Oystein]

Isn't that fascinating?

I don't ever recall you using the term "architectural footprint" Oystein, and now it is like you invented the term.

MM

Reading comprehension: FAILED.

I never said anybody used the term "architectural footprint". I said whenever someone uses the term "footprint" inm conjunction with WTC collapses, "architectural footprint" is the intended meaning.

Since I addressed that to you to explain to you that your usage of the term "footprint" to mean "collapse footprint" is bonkers, it follows naturally that you are not included in "everyone".

 

[TruthersLie]

Quite the rant.

I believe triforcharity pretty much summed it up; "You are absolutely correct. This is absolutely a moot point, as not one single building fell into it's own footprint on 9/11. This much is true."

TruthersLie, you really should calm down.

Have a glass of wine.

Kick back.

And maybe watch this for some peace of mind;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSBYdRRuLxI

MM

As soon as you stop LYING about what happened.
Pleae provide a single citation ANYWHERE which states your "definition" of a footprint. I'll wait for it.

Oh wait... you don't have one. You have been LYING about the collapse of the buildings, and you have been NAILED for it.

So lets stay on topic. What is the FOOTPRINT of a building? Hmmmm?

did ANY of the buildings which collapsed on 9/11 collapse into their own footprints?

 

[Miragememories]

"I believe triforcharity pretty much summed it up; "You are absolutely correct. This is absolutely a moot point, as not one single building fell into it's own footprint on 9/11. This much is true."

"...did ANY of the buildings which collapsed on 9/11 collapse into their own footprints?"

"did ANY [as in part of] of the buildings...collapse into their own footprints?", well yes. of course.

Did all of the buildings which collapsed on 9/11 collapse into their own footprints?

No. Of course not.

In the case of WTC7 specifically, did much of that building collapse into its own footprint?

Apparently yes, very much so.

"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

Is that significant?

Well yes it is, given that a chief characteristic of controlled demolition is that they concentrate as much of the collapsed building into its original footprint as possible.

Do we have good visual evidence to support the claim that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

Yes, we have excellent visual corroboration.

Note that even in profile, WTC7 shows an even, balanced collapse profile.

There are no known examples of a complete concrete and steel building ever collapsing in such a manner due to unfought fire.

Has an independent, unbiased expert in the controlled demolition of buildings observed the collapse
video in a neutral setting and opined that it was a controlled demolition?

Yes, Danny Jowenko unequivocally did just that.

MM

 

[excaza]

Well, that settles it then. Guess we can ignore the utter lack of any explosives or demolitions equipment. Or how some group hired by The Man somehow managed to rig an entire building with explosives without anyone noticing. Or how they managed to detonate enough explosives to sever all of the columns without making any noise.

The internal structure failed, couldn't possibly have been because of fire, must have been CD. Fireproofing of steel beams isn't even necessary, I don't know why they bother. Fire can never cause a building collapse.

 

[GlennB]

Do we have good visual evidence to support the claim that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

Yes, we have excellent visual corroboration.

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1149/normalcbsb7montno3.jpg

Note that even in profile, WTC7 shows an even, balanced collapse profile.

Viewed from the side it doesn't. It leans southwards as it falls.

Has an independent, unbiased expert in the controlled demolition of buildings observed the collapse
video in a neutral setting and opined that it was a controlled demolition?

Yes, Danny Jowenko unequivocally did just that.

We've already established that the interviewer was either ignorant or lying on a number of points. Calling this a "neutral setting" is absurd, and also we have no idea what video he was shown and at what point that video started. Did it show the E PEnthouse collapse?

 

[TruthersLie]

"did ANY [as in part of] of the buildings...collapse into their own footprints?", well yes. of course.

Did all of the buildings which collapsed on 9/11 collapse into their own footprints?

No. Of course not.

Goody. Thank you for admitting it.

Did the buildings collapse into their own footprints?
No.

did the buildings collapse? Yes.

In the case of WTC7 specifically, did much of that building collapse into its own footprint?

Apparently yes, very much so.

So is this like truther math? That 70% of freefall is "near" freefall?

Did wtc7 collapse into its own footprint? No it did not.

Your weasel wording doesn't change the fact that WTC7 did NOT collapse into it's own footprint. It did collapse.

The debris (which was OUTSIDE of the footprint) managed to strike two adjacent buildings which were 270(ish) degrees apart, helping to do $1.7 Billion in damages to the Verizion building, and instigating a partial collapse on the ROOF of fitterman hall.

How does a building which collapses into its own footprint manage to do that? Oh... it doesn't.

Stop using terms incorrectly. The building didn't collapse into its own footprint.

Is that significant?

Well yes it is, given that a chief characteristic of controlled demolition is that they concentrate as much of the collapsed building into its original footprint as possible.

Sorry, the chief characteristic of a CD is the LOUD RAPID FIRE SERIES OF EXPLOSIONS with flashes which happen RIGHT before the building collapses into its own footprint.

When you do CD (which I have done, have you?) you blow your charges so the building collapses into its own footprint. Now that we can see that wtc7 didn't collapse into its own footprint, it means it wasn't CD.

Do we have good visual evidence to support the claim that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

Yes, we have excellent visual corroboration.

Wow... a building falls down. it is amazing. REally truely, and fantastically. I'm sure that you will yell CD CD CD with any and every building which collapses right?

What kind of AUDIO evidence do you have? What, speak up I can't hear you... you seem to have something in your mouth....

oh none. Thanks for playing.

Note that even in profile, WTC7 shows an even, balanced collapse profile.

I'm sure you have video images of all four sides of the building to confirm this right?

What you don't? Damn.... we can see 3 corners of the building... but it is amazing that you ignore the eastern mechanical penthouse...

why do you ignore that? Hmmm? See, that part of the collapse WAS IN ITS FOOTPRINT.

There are no known examples of a complete concrete and steel building ever collapsing in such a manner due to unfought fire.

Bolding mine. I love it when you try to twist the FACTS and LIE using the ********.

This is JUST LIKE THE ******** ABOUT THE FOOTPRINT.

WTC7 was NOT a concrete and steel building. It was a unreinforced STEEL framed building.

USE THE *********** RIGHT TERMS.

And I love the appeal to perfection logical fallacy there... "complete" collapse. I and others have showed you several other collapses of steel framed buildings and you just handwave them away.

Has an independent, unbiased expert in the controlled demolition of buildings observed the collapse
video in a neutral setting and opined that it was a controlled demolition?

Yes, Danny Jowenko unequivocally did just that.

And what did he say about wtc 1 and 2 again? I am more than willing to accept ALL of Danny J's testimony at face value. How about you? I'm willing to accept that Danny J says that wtc7 LOOKS like a CD. I'm also willing to accept ALL of his testimony... how about you?

 

[twinstead]

So it appears, since Jowenko's word is pretty much the gospel truth for MM, that obviously WTC1 and WTC2 wasn't a CD, and WTC7 was.

Perhaps They wanted desperately to destroy WTC7 but couldn't find a way to do it. Then, lo and behold there was a terrorist attack on WTC1 and 2. Due to some quick thinking, they managed to rig WTC7 up with explosives right after the first tower was struck.

Then, hoping that at least one of the WTC1 or 2 would collapse, they seized on that as a reason to push the button for WTC7 when one of them DID, sending WTC7 crashing to the ground a few hours later with nobody the wiser.

An evil, but brilliant, plan.