Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[carlitos]

Special pleading?

 

[uke2se]

So, MM, could you show us a single CD with FFA? Chris couldn't. Can you?

 

[Miragememories]

I find it very sad how quick mm is to hand wave all the demolition experts who disagree with his position, yet hold Jowenko, somebody who according to him is totally wrong about WTC1 and 2, as the supreme source concerning WTC7.

Yea, MM. They were afraid of looking unpatriotic, because there has never been a whistle blower who risked his job or even life before in the whole history of the universe.

What is really sad is how my valid arguments receive such disingenuous responses.

If you think my explanation as to why demolition experts in the U.S. are biased is incredible, than the reasonable thing to do would be to dismantle it with some valid counter-argument.

"Let me just say that in the wake of 9/11, anyone who dared suggest that it might have been an inside job would have been considered unpatriotic.

To quote George W. Bush; "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th. Malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

Maybe you prefer opinions made with obvious bias? I don't.

And go right ahead with your presentation of whistleblowers. And while your at it, you might like to list how many of them were well received and treated as heroes.


MM

 

[alienentity]

Source, or retraction of that statement please?

MM

You can clear it up yourself by answering this simple question:

Is Brent Blanchard an expert in controlled demolition?

We await your answer. No need to consult previous quotes, you can clear it up now. I'll accept your answer as your clear opinion.
If you don't want to offer an opinion, just say so.

 

[alienentity]

Since you are so married to science and a belief that a non-controlled demolition cause was behind the amazing collapse of WTC7, alienentity,
possibly you might share with us your explanation for 8 storys of freefall?"[/i]

MM

Sure thing.
Glad you asked.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

And go right ahead with your presentation of whistleblowers. And while your at it, you might like to list how many of them were well received and treated as heroes.


MM

You know nothing about being a hero. 343 of the finest people in Firefighting died 9 years ago, they are the 343 heroes that risked their own lives to save so many then sacrificed themselves to save more. I guess ignorance is your bliss!

 

[Miragememories]

"Please show us a CD that attains freefall."

" NIST NCSTAR 1A:

"A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face[WTC7] found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s"

Explain how the NIST confirmed 8-story freefall is possible without controlled demolition.

Do you even understand what it means for a whole building to drop at freefall speed over a vertical distance of 8-storys?

MM

 

[BigAl]

Explain how the NIST confirmed 8-story freefall is possible without controlled demolition.

Do you even understand what it means for a whole building to drop at freefall speed over a vertical distance of 8-storys?

MM

Here's how. Just imagine someone kicking the stool out from under you. You'll be in free-fall, at least for a moment. That's what happened to WTC7.

Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell (3:40 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc​

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Explain how the NIST confirmed 8-story freefall is possible without controlled demolition.

Do you even understand what it means for a whole building to drop at freefall speed over a vertical distance of 8-storys?

MM

F=G,M,M2xD2 divided by AR (air resistance). x SR (structural resistance)= No Free Fall Speed.

What were you saying about free fall speed? And no, there's no way in hell that 8 stories can fall 120 mph in a short distance that you assume happened without resistance.

 

[GlennB]

Do you even understand what it means for a whole building to drop at freefall speed over a vertical distance of 8-storys?

Yes.

It means the perps were actually setting out to create a new CD fall-rate world record, and give their game away totally, for absolutely no good reason.

Excellent plan and one that gets my ring-a-ding-ding endorsement. Way to **** with the sheeple's heads, eh?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Unless you are one of the terrorists, you have no way of knowing that WTC7 was not a target.

Unless you are the NWO you have no way of knowing that it was a target.

 

[Disbelief]

Explain how the NIST confirmed 8-story freefall is possible without controlled demolition.

Do you even understand what it means for a whole building to drop at freefall speed over a vertical distance of 8-storys?

MM

I will take this as an admission that you can not back up your claim that freefall acceleration is planned for in CDs. You made the claim, you back it up.

 

[alienentity]

Just to clarify for MM, since he's apparently confused about the subject:

We have 4 demolitions experts who've been quoted regarding the WTC collapses

Brent Blanchard
Ron Craig
Danny Jowenko
Mark Loizeaux

Let's catagorize their responses and exposure to the subject

______________________Brent Blanchard Ron Craig Danny Jowenko Mark Loizeaux
Was at GZ_________________Yes___________No_______No___________Yes
Examined Debris____________Yes___________No_______No___________Yes
Published paper_____________Yes___________No_______No___________No
WTC 1__________________No CD________No CD_____No CD________No CD
WTC 2__________________No CD________No CD_____No CD________No CD
WTC 7__________________No CD________No CD______CD_________No CD

This comparison shows that Danny Jowenko is not uniquely more qualified than any of the other experts, and in fact has the disadvantage of not being at GZ shortly after the attacks as were Blanchard and Loizeaux. ETA nor did Jowenko view a full video of the WTC 7 collapse, with audio (no demolition sounds).

But more important (which is why MM is avoiding it) is that our survey shows that:

100% of the experts agree that neither WTC 1 nor WTC 2 were brought down by controlled demolition.
75% agree that WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition, with 25% dissenting.

Of the total opinions given (12) only ONE is in dissent. That is 91.66% in agreement. Agreement AGAINST the opinions of 9/11 Truth.

And Jowenko is the star expert of 9/11 Truth? He's not helping their case. He's destroying it.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

When it comes to an opinion about whether WTC7 was felled by controlled demolition alienentity, I'll take the word of an expert in controlled demolitions over that of a corporate video producer any day.


MM

Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition Inc. explains why WTC7 can't have been a controlled demolition.



Brent Blanchard of Protec Documentation Services, webmaster of Implosionworld.com explains why WTC7 can't have been a controlled demolition.



Still haven't heard your opinion on this, MM. If what you said was true, then you are one of US now.

EDIT: Alienentity's post just above this is good too.

 

[Miragememories]

"Again, you are not an expert in controlled demolition.

I have noticed that you have no problem expressing what you feel to be your professional opinion on other 9/11-realted subjects, such as audio. Even when you must know that not all the facts are available to you.

Danny Jowenko had no problem concluding that collapse video of WTC7 he observed could only have been created by a controlled demolition.

Where he did show uncertainty and resorted to speculation, was in the discussion of the mechanics and planning of the WTC7 controlled demolition. Those being the areas where he needed as much information as could be made available."

"Oh, you've forgotten that he wasn't actually shown a full video, with sound and beginning at the actual start of the collapse. Gee, must be nice to be able to forget inconvenient facts so quickly"

And you conveniently ignore every argument that addresses Danny Jowenko's expertise in controlled demolitions as being far more credible than your own.

Such ignorance doesn't appear to be a stumbling block to forming your opinions.

"They were under severe pressure.

To quote George W. Bush; "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th. Malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

"You have this much ego that you imagine you know what 3 top experts are thinking, that you know what goes on in their lives? Wow.

Again, your attempt to mind-read these people is very weak; your attempt to misrepresent the credentials of Blanchard is downright dishonest; your attempt to dismiss all other possible expert opinions and cling to your 66% wrong Jowenko is childish.

That's why I mocked you with the childish 'Nya Nya', because the level you're operating on is grade-school and largely irrelevant to the evidence and facts."

Please source the quote where I supposedly made that specific representation of Brent Blanchard, or retract your accusation?

To argue that WTC7 was a controlled demolition is a de facto argument that 9/11 was an inside job.

Somehow joining those with such an opinion and risking Bush's label of being an outrageous conspiracy theorist doesn't sound like good business acumen.

I do agree with you that your use of Nya Nya was indeed very childish on your part. Par for the course though.

MM

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Just to clarify for MM, since he's apparently confused about the subject:

We have 4 demolitions experts who've been quoted regarding the WTC collapses

Brent Blanchard
Ron Craig
Danny Jowenko
Mark Loizeaux

Let's catagorize their responses and exposure to the subject

______________________Brent Blanchard Ron Craig Danny Jowenko Mark Loizeaux
Was at GZ_________________Yes___________No_______No___________Yes
Examined Debris____________Yes___________No_______No___________Yes
Published paper_____________Yes___________No_______No___________No
WTC 1__________________No CD________No CD_____No CD________No CD
WTC 2__________________No CD________No CD_____No CD________No CD
WTC 7__________________No CD________No CD_____CD_________No CD

This comparison shows that Danny Jowenko is not uniquely more qualified than any of the other experts, and in fact has the disadvantage of not being at GZ shortly after the attacks as were Blanchard and Loizeaux. ETA nor did Jowenko view a full video of the WTC 7 collapse, with audio (no demolition sounds).

But more important (which is why MM is avoiding it) is that our survey shows that:

100% of the experts agree that neither WTC 1 nor WTC 2 were brought down by controlled demolition.
75% agree that WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition, with 25% dissenting.

Of the total opinions given (12) only ONE is in dissent. That is 91.66% in agreement. Agreement AGAINST the opinions of 9/11 Truth.

And Jowenko is the star expert of 9/11 Truth? He's not helping their case. He's destroying it.

Well looks like MM got his ass handed to him, yet again.

 

[alienentity]

And you conveniently ignore every argument that addresses Danny Jowenko's expertise in controlled demolitions as being far more credible than your own.

Nice try shifting the goalposts! Since when are my qualifications in CD part of the conversation? How about your CD expertise?

We're both quoting expert opinion. Or are you proposing another double-standard, where you get to quote an expert, but I don't? LOL
Do you actually think you can fool people with these weak tricks?

Please answer the question regarding Brent Blanchard - is he an expert in controlled demolitions or not?

Answer the question. No need to keep dancing around your own opinion.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

And you conveniently ignore every argument that addresses Danny Jowenko's expertise in controlled demolitions as being far more credible than your own.

Such ignorance doesn't appear to be a stumbling block to forming your opinions.




Please source the quote where I supposedly made that specific representation of Brent Blanchard, or retract your accusation?

To argue that WTC7 was a controlled demolition is a de facto argument that 9/11 was an inside job.

Somehow joining those with such an opinion and risking Bush's label of being an outrageous conspiracy theorist doesn't sound like good business acumen.

I do agree with you that your use of Nya Nya was indeed very childish on your part. Par for the course though.

MM

You know what's funny about your arguement about Danny Jowenko? He never said in any of his interviews as saying that he heard explosive sounds coming from WTC7.

So if he didn't hear any explosive sounds coming from WTC7, that can mean only 1 of 2 things: Jowenko is deaf or you're lying about him.

 

[DGM]

We have 4 demolitions experts who've been quoted regarding the WTC collapses

Brent Blanchard
Ron Craig
Danny Jowenko
Mark Loizeaux

Let's catagorize their responses and exposure to the subject

.

You might want to re-read this post and make another "edit".

 

[alienentity]

For the record, MM refuses to clarify his opinion as to whether Blanchard is an expert or not.

Is that my fault? Again, I ask MM to answer the simple question:

Is Brent Blanchard an expert in controlled demolition?

Yes or No?