Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Miragememories]

"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."

"Prove it. Nice weasel words again... since no other building that size has ever been CD'ed it would be hard to show it... eh?

Though the CD's of the Landmark Tower and the J.L. Hudson implosions were confined to within their own footprints and didn't strike ANY buildings across the streets... amazing eh?"

interesting.

Or do you now consider the building grounds surrounding its "architectural footprint" to be part of the footprint?

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

"while we are at it, I find it very interesting the countries of origins of those failed CD's. But we can look into them if you want...

But either way, the building didn't collapse into its own footprint. There was a small debris field, yup. Which then goes to the SO WHAT?

By collapsing and striking two adjacent buildings at over 180 degrees apart (rather asymmetrical don'tcha think?) it shows it wasn't a CD"

Countries of origin?

Sounds rather prejudicial to me.

But aside from your implied slur against other nationalities, you are dodging the key point here.

Not all controlled demolitions are perfect.

Sometimes they are less than perfect.

How does a less-than-perfect controlled demolition become a non-controlled demolition?

In that vein, whomever engineered the controlled demolition of WTC7 had much to gain from bringing it down as a less-than-perfect controlled demolition.

If anything, they did too good a job.

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

"Not at all. We can see the eastern mechanical penthouse collapse. How could it possibly end up on the other side of the road? Oh it couldn't... But where did it go anyways? How can you misrepresent the building type, the collapse area and the collapse time? Oh yea.. I forgot and intellectual midget like you HAS to."

Which means it is now inside of WTC7.

Are you pre-supposing that it collapsed to the ground before the completion of WTC7's global collapse?

Or is it not possible that late in the global collapse, when WTC7 was toppling to the south, the remains of the east penthouse were carried across the road?

"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."

"you are the one making the claims, the burden of proof is on you. the NIST reports, FEMA and others list wtc7 as a long span steel framed building. There is NO concrete reinforcement... Feel free to look them up."

Well let us see what the NIST had to say in NIST WTC7 FINAL.

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness."

"on Floors 8 through 47, the concrete was 0.14 m (5.5 in.) thick."

pg.7
" The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely. This type of floor system is thus referred to as a composite floor. The floor beams were framed into (connected to) girders with a variety of types of shear connectors1, through which the floor beams transferred gravity loads from the floors to the girders. The girders also framed into the columns with a variety of types of shear connectors and transferred the gravity loads to the columns."

pg.38
"Temperature-dependent mechanical properties of steel (Appendix E) and concrete (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A) used in the construction of WTC 7."

pg.52
"...power to the fuel pumps, (b) could not be sustained long enough, or generated too little heat, to raise the temperatures of the steel and concrete structure to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness..."

pg.55
"Thus, the details of the progression of horizontal failure and final global collapse were sensitive to the uncertainties in how the building materials (steel, concrete) and building systems and contents interacted, broke up, and disintegrated."
bolding is mine

Now you were saying?

MM

 

[Miragememories]

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.

The only hand waving away that I can see is being performed by you 16.5.

You have no proof that Danny Jowenko has only seen a clipped version of the WTC7 collapse.

I believe GlennB was disingenuous in his use of a screencap showing WTC7 tilting to the south late in its collapse.

Had it been tilting like that early in its global collapse, it would have appeared to be what he obviously wanted it to look like, a random toppling collapse.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

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?

For the period of collapse that it covered, the sequence was accurate.

It was a documented recording and could not have been false.

You showed a freeze frame late in the collapse and gladly allowed people to conclude that it was a true reflection of how the WTC7 global collapse developed.

I will concede that as the debris pile grew at the bottom of the collapse the remaining building lost symmetry and fell towards the south.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

source please.

Mm

the mfing picture he posted of 7wtc falling south!! Ffs!!

 

[The Big Dog]

The only hand waving away that I can see is being performed by you 16.5.

You have no proof that Danny Jowenko has only seen a clipped version of the WTC7 collapse.

MM

No proof. Jesus...

MM, did you not watch the very video you are extolling in this lengthy thread? You know, the one where they show him the truther cropped video that intentionally omitted the collapse of the Eastern penthouse?

Oh, lets settle this shall we:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

Start at 23 and watch through 40 seconds.

Does the top go first?

"its starts from the bottom." Yeah, so long as you don't show the collpase of the Penthouse, hey big guy!

Tsk, tsk, it seems that you are not too familiar with your own heroes' lies.

 

[Miragememories]

No proof. Jesus...

MM, did you not watch the very video you are extolling in this lengthy thread? You know, the one where they show him the truther cropped video that intentionally omitted the collapse of the Eastern penthouse?

Oh, lets settle this shall we:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc

Start at 23 and watch through 40 seconds.

Does the top go first?

"its starts from the bottom." Yeah, so long as you don't show the collpase of the Penthouse, hey big guy!

Tsk, tsk, it seems that you are not too familiar with your own heroes' lies.

Nice video but it doesn't prove what Danny Jowenko has seen.

You were able to see all the WTC7 videos.

What makes you so certain that Danny Jowenko hasn't either.

Just because you see some of the video edited into an interview does not prove anything.

I edit documentaries for a living and I know this quite well.

Your assumptions are not facts.

MM

 

[The Big Dog]

Nice video but it doesn't prove what Danny Jowenko has seen.

MM

Well, we'll agree that the video they actually show him watching was clipped, right, Mr. Editor?

Now, if only there was a way to prove that Jowenko saw the actual collapse video as you seem to claim. Oh, I know, you can prove it! He's your hero, you prove it. In the absence of that, we'll just conclude that he was lied to by idiots with an agenda.

Anyway, about the "it starts from the bottom" lie? Your silence on that? NOTED!

 

[beachnut]

The moment somebody "important" is convinced, he will be declared a "kook" by the orthodox church. As always. Boring and sad.

He means 911 truth has no evidence. He means 911 truth has delusions.

In this case 911 truth uses Danny as an expert. Danny says WTC 7 is a CD, and WTC 1 and 2 are not.

On the reality front we have Danny a person who blows up buildings getting 2 out of 3 right. He is 67 percent correct. A D effort.

On the nut case crazy CD world front, we have Danny getting 2 wrong out of 3. He is 33 percent corrects. Earning an F in the fantasy-land of 911 truth, he is proclaimed the expert of experts in gravity collapse issues, which in the real world he has labeled a CD.

Danny at best in the real world earns a D, and in the fantasy-land of moronic 911 truth claims, he scores an F, he flunks out!

How do you support an expert who has not clue what a gravity collapse looks like and is not qualified to comment on the WTC structurally? By saying experts are kooks when they are wrong? 911 truth are not experts, they are a loose group of people who can't figure out 911 and spread delusions instead of gaining knowledge. They are not kooks, they have failed to understand 911.

Recap:
Real world Danny, 67 percent correct.
911 truth delusion world Danny, 33 percent correct.

This is as good as Danny can get; should we add it up and divide by two. Wait, 911 truth does not do math. darn

 

[Childlike Empress]

He means 911 truth has no evidence. He means 911 truth has delusions.

In this case 911 truth uses Danny as an expert. Danny says WTC 7 is a CD, and WTC 1 and 2 are not.

On the reality front we have Danny a person who blows up buildings getting 2 out of 3 right. He is 67 percent correct. A D effort.

On the nut case crazy CD world front, we have Danny getting 2 wrong out of 3. He is 33 percent corrects. Earning an F in the fantasy-land of 911 truth, he is proclaimed the expert of experts in gravity collapse issues, which in the real world he has labeled a CD.

Danny at best in the real world earns a D, and in the fantasy-land of moronic 911 truth claims, he scores an F, he flunks out!

How do you support an expert who has not clue what a gravity collapse looks like and is not qualified to comment on the WTC structurally? By saying experts are kooks when they are wrong? 911 truth are not experts, they are a loose group of people who can't figure out 911 and spread delusions instead of gaining knowledge. They are not kooks, they have failed to understand 911.

Recap:
Real world Danny, 67 percent correct.
911 truth delusion world Danny, 33 percent correct.

This is as good as Danny can get; should we add it up and divide by two. Wait, 911 truth does not do math. darn

 

[Tricky]

More posts moved to AAH. Did you folks not read my earlier modbox? Cut out the bickering and insulting comments right now. We know you aren't insulting "groups", you're talking about each other.

If you have a problem figuring out what kind of posts are not compliant with the MA, then go to the thread in AAH and have a look. If it's that kind of stuff, don't post it.

If this continues, prepare for some escalating penalties. Comprendre?

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

 

[triforcharity]

Well let us see what the NIST had to say in NIST WTC7 FINAL.

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness."

"on Floors 8 through 47, the concrete was 0.14 m (5.5 in.) thick."

pg.7
" The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely. This type of floor system is thus referred to as a composite floor. The floor beams were framed into (connected to) girders with a variety of types of shear connectors1, through which the floor beams transferred gravity loads from the floors to the girders. The girders also framed into the columns with a variety of types of shear connectors and transferred the gravity loads to the columns."

pg.38
"Temperature-dependent mechanical properties of steel (Appendix E) and concrete (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A) used in the construction of WTC 7."

pg.52
"...power to the fuel pumps, (b) could not be sustained long enough, or generated too little heat, to raise the temperatures of the steel and concrete structure to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness..."

pg.55
"Thus, the details of the progression of horizontal failure and final global collapse were sensitive to the uncertainties in how the building materials (steel, concrete) and building systems and contents interacted, broke up, and disintegrated."
bolding is mine

Now you were saying?

MM

Yes, describing the floor. Does it say anywhere in any report, that the concrete provided anything other than walking space?

No. Nowhere. The structure did not require the concrete to stand.

 

[TruthersLie]

{skipping the boring flailing}


Well let us see what the NIST had to say in NIST WTC7 FINAL.

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness."

"on Floors 8 through 47, the concrete was 0.14 m (5.5 in.) thick."

pg.7
" The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely. This type of floor system is thus referred to as a composite floor. The floor beams were framed into (connected to) girders with a variety of types of shear connectors1, through which the floor beams transferred gravity loads from the floors to the girders. The girders also framed into the columns with a variety of types of shear connectors and transferred the gravity loads to the columns."

pg.38
"Temperature-dependent mechanical properties of steel (Appendix E) and concrete (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A) used in the construction of WTC 7."

pg.52
"...power to the fuel pumps, (b) could not be sustained long enough, or generated too little heat, to raise the temperatures of the steel and concrete structure to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness..."

pg.55
"Thus, the details of the progression of horizontal failure and final global collapse were sensitive to the uncertainties in how the building materials (steel, concrete) and building systems and contents interacted, broke up, and disintegrated."
bolding is mine

Now you were saying?

MM

OH goody... you managed to do a keyword search... and you found that there were CONCRETE floors. Wowsers... that provided what to the structure again? Huh?

I do love how you completely IGNORED where I schooled you, and how. Lets look at it again.

about the type of building.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

5-1 through 5-9... The concrete in the decking is not a load bearing system and is NOT part of how you describe the building. When concrete is used for reinforcement or the direct building materials it is. (as you find in the core of the madrid towers, the CCTV buidling in Beijing and the NEW WTC7.

ETA: and we will take a twoof source.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...e/windsor.html

In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick.

what was that? I can't hear you...

 

[Oystein]

Yes, describing the floor. Does it say anywhere in any report, that the concrete provided anything other than walking space?

No. Nowhere. The structure did not require the concrete to stand.

The concrete in the floors added mass and loads to the overall strcuture, thus adding a liability to the structural stability.

 

[triforcharity]

The concrete in the floors added mass and loads to the overall strcuture, thus adding a liability to the structural stability.

Leave your FACT out of this please!! SHILL!!!!

 

[GlennB]

For the period of collapse that it covered, the sequence was accurate.

But filmed from the north and at a considerable distance, making any lean in the N-S plane undetectable, therefore not 'accurate'. For accuracy we need to view it in the E-W plane also. You've been shown the best available in that plane, about 45°. Bear in mind even this angle diminishes the actual lean.

It was a documented recording and could not have been false.

The source of my still is not disputed. Unless you think it's CGI'd?

You showed a freeze frame late in the collapse and gladly allowed people to conclude that it was a true reflection of how the WTC7 global collapse developed.

The Irving Trust building (to the left of that shot) is 23 storeys* and 99m, almost exactly half of WTC7. WTC7's roofline in that still is in line with approx floor 19 of the Irving Trust. Allowing for the extra distance and the upward angle of the shot, WTC7 is barely half way into total collapse.

I can provide more stills comparing the earliest shot in that sequence (at commencement of collapse) and counting down the floors to the position of the one you've seen if you like, but you'll simply find the building had only collapsed about 23 floors by the time that degree of lean had developed.

I will concede that as the debris pile grew at the bottom of the collapse the remaining building lost symmetry and fell towards the south.

The southerly tilt started well before then. It's crystal clear.

* although a quick visual count and comparison with the height of WTC7 suggests even more. I suspect they're not counting at least some of the 'stepped' structure at the top.

 

[Darkhole]

For two years a fire destroyed a building of the Delft University in the Netherlands.
No demolition.

http://www.nuvideo.nl/algemeen/13697/instorting-bouwkunde-tu-delft.html

 

[Miragememories]

The concrete in the floors added mass and loads to the overall strcuture, thus adding a liability to the structural stability.

The concrete also made WTC7 more rigid and structurally stable.

It would be less inclined to collapse in the convenient manner described by the NIST.

MM

 

[beachnut]

For two years a fire destroyed a building of the Delft University in the Netherlands.
No demolition.

http://www.nuvideo.nl/algemeen/13697/instorting-bouwkunde-tu-delft.html

911 truth can't comprehend why fire destroys buildings. They don't use logic, knowledge, or evidence.

 

[Miragememories]

"For the period of collapse that it covered, the sequence was accurate."

"But filmed from the north and at a considerable distance, making any lean in the N-S plane undetectable, therefore not 'accurate'. For accuracy we need to view it in the E-W plane also. You've been shown the best available in that plane, about 45°. Bear in mind even this angle diminishes the actual lean."

Undetectable?

We aren't cutting diamonds here.

The kind of early toppling lean expected in an off-balance natural collapse would have been far from subtle, and quite evident, even at that distance.

"The source of my still is not disputed. Unless you think it's CGI'd?"

I do not suggest your still is a fake.

It is just plain misrepresentation. You might as well have shown a shot of the debris pile and noted how it wasn't a perfectly symmetrical mound.

The global collapse of WTC7 presented a symmetry that was too well balanced to have occurred naturally and without the aid of planned demolition.

It was quickly noted by Danny Jowenko and probably the chief reason he showed so little concern about the limited amount of additional data available
when he gave his first opinion.

And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

For two years a fire destroyed a building of the Delft University in the Netherlands.
No demolition.

http://www.nuvideo.nl/algemeen/13697/instorting-bouwkunde-tu-delft.html

That was a partial collapse.

MM