Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Miragememories]

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

Source please.

MM

 

[uke2se]

As I said here;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6263362&postcount=1095

MM

What you said there is not applicable to twinstead's post. It's simply an attempt by you to handwave inconvenient facts, which has become SOP for you and all other still active twoofers. The twoofers with any intellectual honesty aren't twoofers anymore.

 

[Disbelief]

More questions you missed, MM

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

Still waiting.

 

[GlennB]

Source please.

MM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA

A compilation of every (?) WTC7 collapse video.

Scroll to 6:12 for that particular video.

0:35 also shows the S lean, this time viewed from the NE.

 

[Bell]

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

How is this important?

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

The same Danny Jowenko who opined that WTC1 and WTC2 were no controlled demolitions?

 

[Miragememories]

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

"Goody. Thank you for admitting it."

<shrugs>

The sun came up that day as well. Do you want that on the record to?

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

Apparently yes, very much so."

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

As I said;

"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."

"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."

I said "a chief characteristic.."

Learn to read please. If you have a learning disability let me know and I'll make further allowances.

"When you do CD, 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."

It is impossible to collapse a 47-story building so that it is absolutely confined to its own footprint.

By your definition, there has never been a controlled demolition of any building.

And while were at it, I guess all those less than successful controlled demolitions were not controlled demolitions either.

Too fracking funny you are.

"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."

"but it is amazing that you ignore the eastern mechanical penthouse...See, that part of the collapse WAS IN ITS FOOTPRINT."

lol

You are sure that it didn't end up across the street during the unsymmetrical, toppling southward collapse you subscribe to?

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

"WTC7 was NOT a concrete and steel building."

I corrected your blatant error.

Until you can prove the non-existence and/or the structural insignificance of the concrete used on every floor in the construction of WTC7, you are misrepresenting the truth.

"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."

"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."

Good.

Only to correct your misunderstanding, Danny Jowenko's opinion was that WTC7 had to have been a controlled demolition and not that it just looked like one.

Any agreement with Danny's opinion that WTC7 was definitely a controlled demolition is an agreement that Danny must have been mistaken in his belief about WTC1 & WTC2 not being controlled demolitions.


MM

 

[Oystein]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA

A compilation of every (?) WTC7 collapse video.

Hey thanks! There are some shots that I haven't seen before, and I thought I had seen them all

 

[Oystein]

<shrugs>
...
As I said;

bolding is mine
...

"relatively small debris field" - relative to what?
So small a debris field that you could walk around it?
Or so large in fact it severly damaged 2 buildings across the street many stories up?

 

[twinstead]

Any agreement with Danny's opinion that WTC7 was definitely a controlled demolition is an agreement that Danny must have been mistaken in his belief about WTC1 & WTC2 not being controlled demolitions.

Why? Why can't he have been right about 1 and 2 but wrong about 7?

 

[GlennB]

Hey thanks! There are some shots that I haven't seen before, and I thought I had seen them all

You're welcome

Now if only MM might respond to that southerly lean , as it was him claiming #7 went straight down and was asking for the source ....

 

[Bell]

You're welcome

Now if only MM might respond to that southerly lean , as it was him claiming #7 went straight down and was asking for the source ....

He'll probably responds by posting more pictures of toppled buildings

 

[GlennB]

Any agreement with Danny's opinion that WTC7 was definitely a controlled demolition is an agreement that Danny must have been mistaken in his belief about WTC1 & WTC2 not being controlled demolitions.

Non sequitur. He might have been right about WTC7 and also right about WTC1+2. Or wrong about both. (Not that I believe he was right about 7, but your logic just isn't correct.)

while you're here ... any comment on that video with the southerly lean? The one where you asked for a source?

 

[Tricky]

A few of the most egregiously bad bickering and off-topic posts moved to AAH. Clean it up in here, all of you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Miragememories]

"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.

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

"Viewed from the side it doesn't. It leans southwards as it falls.
http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7leansouth-1.jpg"

Nice misrepresentation of the truth GlennB.

That image was screen-capped well into WTC7's global collapse.

WTC7 had dropped 18 or more storys before that southern tilt became noticeable.

"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?"

We have established no such thing. No one knows everything, and therefore we all suffer from a certain amount of ignorance. There is no evidence that the interviewer was lying.

It was a more neutral setting in the sense that, unlike the interview where he was asked about WTC 1 and WTC 2, Danny Jowenko, like most of the general public, was not well aware of WTC7's history.

Thus his initial opinion was not strongly influenced by the events of 9/11.

Danny was shown the video. The interviewer did identify it as WTC7 but he did not tell Danny that the collapse occurred on 9/11 until after Danny formed his initial opinion.

Of course Danny was somewhat incredulous when he first received the news. He watched the video over again and he examined some of the NIST floorplans from the 2004 NIST Preliminary Report on WTC7.

At no time did Danny hesitate or falter in his opinion that WTC7 had to have been a controlled demolition and that it could not have been caused by fire.

In spite of any details that he may or may not have known, when interviewed again in the following year, Danny Jowenko was just as certain in his opinion.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"relatively small debris field" - relative to what?
So small a debris field that you could walk around it?
Or so large in fact it severly damaged 2 buildings across the street many stories up?

I suggest you request a clarification from FEMA since it is their professional
assessment that you are questioning.

MM

 

[The Big Dog]

Nice misrepresentation of the truth GlennB.

That image was screen-capped well into WTC7's global collapse.

MM

Is this bizarro world?

I must have said 20 times that your heroes in the Video clipped the video that they showed Jowenko, and you hand waved it away.

And now you are OUTRAGED that Glenn showed you a "screencap"?

Wow.

 

[Miragememories]

Why? Why can't he have been right about 1 and 2 but wrong about 7?

Because the evidence supporting a finding of controlled demolition for WTC7
greatly favors Danny Jowenko's opinion on that collapse.

Danny is also on the record regarding how he feels businesses that disagree with the official WTC collapse conclusions will be treated.

Like all of us, he was well aware of the Official Story about WTC 1 and WTC 2 before he was asked to give his opinion on them.

He gave the politically correct response.

He was under no such pressure when he gave his opinion on WTC7.

MM

 

[carlitos]

Having unhid the post above (1107), may I ask some of you debate types, is that what they call special pleading?

 

[GlennB]

Nice misrepresentation of the truth GlennB.

That image was screen-capped well into WTC7's global collapse.

http://a.imageshack.us/img201/2907/wtc7compcollapse2.png

WTC7 had dropped 18 or more storys before that southern tilt became noticeable.

You showed us a still sequence supposedly showing WTC7 fell nice and straight all the way down. Your words -

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

I showed a still showing this was false.

And I am mis-representing something?

 

[twinstead]

Because the evidence supporting a finding of controlled demolition for WTC7
greatly favors Danny Jowenko's opinion on that collapse.

Danny is also on the record regarding how he feels businesses that disagree with the official WTC collapse conclusions will be treated.

Like all of us, he was well aware of the Official Story about WTC 1 and WTC 2 before he was asked to give his opinion on them.

He gave the politically correct response.

He was under no such pressure when he gave his opinion on WTC7.

MM

Well I disagree. I say there is NO evidence of controlled demolition of WTC7 no matter what you appear to believe, and Jowenko is wrong about wtc7 and right about wtc1 and 2. You disagree. So be it.

When you actually convince somebody important that you are right I'll pay attention, but until then, I, like practically the whole rest of the rational world believe the commonly-held narrative of that day (they don't call it commonly-held for nothing, you know) is the narrative that fits the available evidence the best.

You don't want to play a game of expert attrition on this one. You have no explanation for why you believe so many experts world-wide have been duped.