Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I don't need to read it.

Of course not. You never need to read anything that contradicts what you've been told.

Someone has done some really nice work on you.

What I said was;"Firefighters did not see fires on every floor."

I trust the firefighters themselves who were there that day more than you.

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

I said this before and I'll say it again. For someone who believes that the NIST report on WTC7 can't possibly be true, you seem pretty adamant that the NIST can't possibly be wrong.

After years of investigation, the NIST found; no evidence that WTC7 was coming down early, there was not fire on every floor, WTC7 was never completely involved in fire, WTC7 was never fully engulfed, the whole south side of WTC7 had not been completely hit by the collapse of WTC1, that WTC7 never had fire at all, or most of its windows, WTC7 was never burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved, WTC7 never had fires on nearly all floors, and WTC7 was never fully involved in flames.!!!

When you have your truther meetings, do they make you stand at attention with your arms outstretched and palms turned up and make you repeat that over and over again? Do they whack you with rulers or branding irons if you get a word wrong?

One firefighter's uncorroborated opinion given as partial explanation for the WTC7 stand down.

You say "uncorroborated" while at the same time, you quoted a firefighter as having put a transit on the building. Do you understand what that means?

You can add it to your list of firefighter quotes regarding the "fully engulfed by fire" WTC7, which the NIST could not find any corroboration.

Except for all the photos and video of smoke pouring from every floor.

It must suck to be so wrong.

MM

Indeed.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Do you guys think that arguing with this particular brick wall is helpful in any way?

There's a reason why some of us have him on ignore.

 

[carlitos]

When you have your truther meetings, do they make you stand at attention with your arms outstretched and palms turned up and make you repeat that over and over again? Do they whack you with rulers or branding irons if you get a word wrong?

That makes sense. For the umpteenth time, I'd like to re-mention that it was called the Salomon Brothers building, not "WTC7." I'm not sure why I keep bringing this up, other than the fact that constructing a completely fictional narrative seems to be the goal of 9/11 'truth.'

There's a reason why some of us have him on ignore.

I had an epiphany recently, and deleted most of the truthers off my ignore list. That doesn't mean I will be directly engaging some of the dishonest ones, rather just skimming through the tripe posted by them.

 

[triforcharity]

I have backed up that assertion and you have apparently chosen to ignore my response.




As I pointed out to you before, the NIST made frequent reference to the relationship of the concrete and steel in WTC7.

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

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

MM

Does NIST ever say that the concrete gave any structural support for the towers? Nope, they sure don't. Not now, not ever.

 

[ozeco41]

Do you guys think that arguing with this particular brick wall is helpful in any way?

I doubt that arguing with any of the current batch of brick walls is productive in itself.

Even the old standby "I'm posting for the lurkers" is probably past its use by date.

It is probably a Pavlovian trained response for many of us. See truther nosense >>> salivate respond.

I try to resist. I have failed a couple of times. And feeding them keeps them coming back - they are also in Pavlovian mode. Post rubbish >> get response.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

That makes sense. For the umpteenth time, I'd like to re-mention that it was called the Salomon Brothers building, not "WTC7." I'm not sure why I keep bringing this up, other than the fact that constructing a completely fictional narrative seems to be the goal of 9/11 'truth.'

According to miragememories, this photograph doesn't exist.

Completely fictional narrative, indeed.

 

[TruthersLie]

I had a HUGE beautiful school trip completed for MM, and then my internet connection lost it (or JREF ate it) either way... Have to do it again.

I have backed up that assertion and you have apparently chosen to ignore my response.

As I pointed out to you before, the NIST made frequent reference to the relationship of the concrete and steel in WTC7.
[/quoet]
Oh goody. Quote mining from NIST. I'll bold the important parts that you missed.

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

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[/b] 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. "

MM

The FLOOR DECKING was concrete. The building was NOT a steel and concrete building. A steel and concrete building is a building in which the steel is REINFORCED with concrete.

They all were steel framed... and the concrete played NO part in the structure.
http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=834


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html



http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

http://www.scienceof911.com.au/the-argument/wtc-7


http://www.buildings.com/ArticleDetails/tabid/3321/ArticleID/2511/Default.aspx
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

But lets continue shall we? Ok. School is still in session MM.

Please show me where the concrete that is reinforcing this column is located? I don't see any.

or lets look at the main designers comments about the world trade center.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

steel frame, glass, concrete slabs on steel truss joists

What? it is a STEEL FRAMED BUILDING.

How about his own words from the same source.

"The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures.

I don't seem to see concrete mentioned anywhere in there... why is that?

But lets destroy your NIST cherrypicking w/out reading for comprehension. Are you ready mm?

http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire
by
Beitel, J. J., Hughes Associates, Inc
Iwankiw, N. R., Hughes Associates, Inc.
Introduction
This project was conducted for the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) under Contact Number NA1341-02-W-0686. It was commissioned to assess the needs and existing capabilities for full-scale fire resistance testing of structural connections under the direction of NIST Program Manager, William Grosshandler

now who is this for? Here I bolded it for you.
Oh it is for NIST.

Guess what they say? Hmmm?
About 7 world trade?

Steel moment frame with composite steel beam and deck floors; fire resistive with sprinklers

Hmm... I don't see concrete mentioned in there as being part of the structure...

What about wtc1 and 2?

Structural steel tube lateral system with composite floor truss system; fire resistive with retrofitted sprinklers

Nope... they don't mention concrete there either..

Hey, maybe this report just doesn't mention concrete buildings? oh no.. they do

Pentagon
Washington,DC,USA
Reinforced Concrete

and

Textile Factory
Alexandria, Egypt
Reinforced Concrete. no sprinklers

and

CESP, Sede 2
Sao Paulo, Brazil
Reinforced concrete frame, with ribbed slabs; no sprinklers

So we have a report for NIST which doesn't state the concrete was anything beyond part of the composite flooring.

The towers and wtc7 were long span truss steel framed buildings. Go pick up an architectural book or a engineering book and LEARN THE *********** DIFFERENCE.

 

[Miragememories]

"I don't need to read it."

"Of course not. You never need to read anything that contradicts what you've been told.

Someone has done some really nice work on you."

I have read through it all before and have retained copies of
every first responder statement I could find.

If anything has gotten to me, it is the truth.

"What I said was;"Firefighters did not see fires on every floor."

You cannot see what is not there, even if you think, or assume you do.

"I trust the firefighters themselves who were there that day more than you."

And the firefighters were consulted by the NIST during their investigation.

As I pointed out to you, and you chose to ignore.

Extract from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.xv
" NIST complemented in-house expertise with private sector technical experts; accumulated copious documents, photographs, and videos of the disaster; conducted first-person interviews of building occupants and emergency responders; analyzed the evacuation and emergency response operations in and around WTC 7; performed computer simulations of the behavior of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001; and combined the knowledge gained into a probable collapse sequence."

The NIST had every reason to want to buy into the exaggerated claims made in those firefighter quotes as it would have greatly bolstered the NIST's WTC7 global collapse initiation theory.

BUT, they could not for the simple reason that they could not corroborate those claims.

"I said this before and I'll say it again. For someone who believes that the NIST report on WTC7 can't possibly be true, you seem pretty adamant that the NIST can't possibly be wrong."

You are muddling your facts.

I have never even remotely suggested that any of the NIST reports were totally untrue.

The NIST collected volumes of honest data. How they handled that data is where I take issue.

What I claim is that the NIST makes too many unsubstantiated assumptions, place too much weight on pioneered computer models, are too willing to accept glaring discrepancies between modeled results and documented observations, and that they state their theory-based conclusions as if they were proven fact.

"WTC7 was leaning.

"You see the way it's leaning like this? It's definately coming down. There's no way to stop it! The structural integrity isn't there."

That's gotta suck for you to hear stuff like that from the firefighters who lost 343 of their own that day.

Now the only way out of this for you is to ignore this and pretend it was never posted or claim the firefighters were in on it and helped kill their own brothers, fathers, and sons."

"One firefighter's uncorroborated opinion given as partial explanation for the WTC7 stand down.

You can add it to your list of firefighter quotes regarding the "fully engulfed by fire" WTC7, which the NIST could not find any corroboration."

"You say "uncorroborated" while at the same time, you quoted a firefighter as having put a transit on the building. Do you understand what that means?"

Yes. It was used to monitor how level the building was at that location. [bulge in the damaged area of the southwest corner of WTC7] In other words, to determine if WTC7 was beginning to lean.

Does placing a smoke detector in my house automatically establish proof that it is on fire?

The NIST did report the use of a transit, but no where in their report prior to global collapse, did the NIST find any evidence that WTC7 was leaning.

"You can add it to your list of firefighter quotes regarding the "fully engulfed by fire" WTC7, which the NIST could not find any corroboration."

"Except for all the photos and video of smoke pouring from every floor."

You have a real problem accepting the truth.

The NIST relied heavily on visual confirmation for their final report and they insist that 10 floors at the most were ever on fire.

They examined all the photos and video of smoke supposedly pouring from every floor.

Try discounting the wind direction and the enormous amount of smoke from WTC6 which was joining that on the south face of WTC7.

Of those 10 floors, after 1 p.m., the NIST found "the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13."

You really have no case for your argument.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

According to miragememories, this photograph doesn't exist.

[qimg]http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7_Smoke.jpg[/qimg]

Completely fictional narrative, indeed.

Maybe you need a better view.

WTC6 was contributing substantially to the clouds of smoke climbing the south face of WTC7.

MM

 

[funk de fino]

Maybe you need a better view.

WTC6 was contributing substantially to the clouds of smoke climbing the south face of WTC7.

[qimg]http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/715/wtc7wtc6smokin1rua0.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5430/wtc6smoke1mh8.png[/qimg]

MM

Against the wind direction? Interesting.

I thought it was 13 floors on fire? You said 10. Could you source that please? I may be mistaken.

 

[Oystein]

Maybe you need a better view.

WTC6 was contributing substantially to the clouds of smoke climbing the south face of WTC7.

[qimg]http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/715/wtc7wtc6smokin1rua0.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5430/wtc6smoke1mh8.png[/qimg]

MM

The wind was blowing from north-west that day. In that picture, that would be left-to-right, from WTC7 to WTC6. More likely, some of the smoke hovering next to and above number 6 came from number 7, not vice versa. Certainly, none of the smoke directly on the facade of 7 came from 6.

 

[Oystein]

Against the wind direction? Interesting.

I thought it was 13 floors on fire? You said 10. Could you source that please? I may be mistaken.

The final NIST-report says "at least 10". They only counted those for which photographic or video evidence exists, IIRC.

 

[twinstead]

Yea, if the wind was indeed blowing north-west, there's no way that WTC6's smoke could have been contributing much at all

 

[Miragememories]

"I thought it was 13 floors on fire? You said 10. Could you source that please? I may be mistaken."

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.xxxvi
" The fires were ignited on at least 10 floors;
however, only the fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 grew and lasted until the time of the building collapse."

pg.18
" Fires broke out on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, near the damaged southwest corner of the building (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5)."

pg.18
" The collapse of WTC 1 damaged seven exterior columns, between Floors 7 and 17 of the south and west faces of WTC 7. It also ignited fires on at least 10 floors between Floors 7 and 30, and the fires burned out of control on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13.

MM

 

[Oystein]

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.xxxvi
" The fires were ignited on at least 10 floors;
however, only the fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 grew and lasted until the time of the building collapse."

pg.18
" Fires broke out on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, near the damaged southwest corner of the building (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5)."

pg.18
" The collapse of WTC 1 damaged seven exterior columns, between Floors 7 and 17 of the south and west faces of WTC 7. It also ignited fires on at least 10 floors between Floors 7 and 30, and the fires burned out of control on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13.

MM

I don't know where funk de fino got his 13 from. Just want to point out that "13" and "at least 10" are not a contradiction.

 

[Miragememories]

I see smoke from WTC7 and WTC6 combining;

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/715/wtc7wtc6smokin1rua0.png

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5430/wtc6smoke1mh8.png

Regardless of such quibbling, the NIST WTC7 investigation, which relied heavily on the same visual evidence you folks are citing, as well as firefighter interviews, determined that; "...fires burned out of control on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13.".

The NIST also determined, that after 1 p.m.,
"the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13."

That is the relevant finding.

MM

 

[BigAl]

I see smoke from WTC7 and WTC6 combining;

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/715/wtc7wtc6smokin1rua0.png

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5430/wtc6smoke1mh8.png

Regardless of such quibbling, the NIST WTC7 investigation, which relied heavily on the same visual evidence you folks are citing, as well as firefighter interviews, determined that; "...fires burned out of control on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13.".

The NIST also determined, that after 1 p.m.,
"the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13."

That is the relevant finding.

MM

And the relevant finding shows fire of sufficient size and duration to cause the collapse.

 

[beachnut]

Maybe you need a better view.

WTC6 was contributing substantially to the clouds of smoke climbing the south face of WTC7.





MM

Making excuses for you CD delusion? lol

You missed first hand testimony on the fires - you now quibble about fires you have no knowledge because you deny the facts, you deny the math, the physics and you think Danny is an exert on fire and gravity collapse. You made a mistake and failed with your delusion of CD. failure

 

[BigAl]

The wind was blowing from north-west that day. In that picture, that would be left-to-right, from WTC7 to WTC6. More likely, some of the smoke hovering next to and above number 6 came from number 7, not vice versa. Certainly, none of the smoke directly on the facade of 7 came from 6.

You are correct on the wind direction.

 

[BigAl]

Maybe you need a better view.

WTC6 was contributing substantially to the clouds of smoke climbing the south face of WTC7.

[qimg]http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/715/wtc7wtc6smokin1rua0.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5430/wtc6smoke1mh8.png[/qimg]

MM

There is video of the same smoke that shows it coming from WTC7.