Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[BigAl]

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

MM

It does when the alarm goes off.

The transit measurement told the structures experts present that WTC7 was doomed. It's not like they were frying hamburgers on the kitchen stove.

 

[Miragememories]

Right now the only smoke being blown is by you OCTers.

None of you appear brave enough to ponder why the NIST, with all their resources, 7 years of investigation, and after interviewing the firefighters, do not place any significant weight on the visual evidence displayed by the smoke rising up the south face of WTC7?

You have nothing that compares with what was available to the NIST investigation.

This is not like your Danny Jowenko claim of not being presented with all the available data.

The NIST 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

 

[TruthersLie]

Right now the only smoke being blown is by you OCTers.

None of you appear brave enough to ponder why the NIST, with all their resources, 7 years of investigation, and after interviewing the firefighters, do not place any significant weight on the visual evidence displayed by the smoke rising up the south face of WTC7?

You have nothing that compares with what was available to the NIST investigation.

This is not like your Danny Jowenko claim of not being presented with all the available data.

The NIST 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

BUMP for MM.
School is still in session MM.

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.

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/anal...e/windsor.html



http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ade_Center.pdf

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


http://www.buildings.com/ArticleDeta...1/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/buildi...de_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...pse_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

Textile Factory
Alexandria, Egypt
Reinforced Concrete. no sprinklers

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]

It does when the alarm goes off.

The transit measurement told the structures experts present that WTC7 was doomed. It's not like they were frying hamburgers on the kitchen stove.

Did it really?

They said they used the tool [transit].

Speculative repetition of "we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse" is not the same as; and we determined from the transit reading that WTC7 was leaning and likely to collapse.

Hayden never said the tool told us WTC7 was indeed leaning.

The NIST reported the use of the transit but did not indicate that it revealed that WTC7 was leaning. A fact I'm certain they wouldn't have left out of their report.

MM

 

[TruthersLie]

Did it really?

They said they used the tool [transit].

Speculative repetition of "we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse" is not the same as; and we determined from the transit reading that WTC7 was leaning and likely to collapse.

Hayden never said the tool told us WTC7 was indeed leaning.

The NIST reported the use of the transit but did not indicate that it revealed that WTC7 was leaning. A fact I'm certain they wouldn't have left out of their report.

MM

Just as certain as you were that Bush would use Nukes on the US population to take control forever, right?

We all see how that worked out.

 

[Disbelief]

Almost 150 posts have been made in this thread since you made this claim,

post 1119
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.

and yet you have never backed it up. Do you plan on doing so or will you retract it?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Almost 150 posts have been made in this thread since you made this claim,



and yet you have never backed it up. Do you plan on doing so or will you retract it?

I'd like to see his evidence showing that it has never happened before. He needs to provide videos of every building that has ever collapsed so that someone like femr2 can analyze the free-fally-ness of the buildings.

 

[femr2]

He needs to provide videos of every building that has ever collapsed so that someone like femr2 can analyze the free-fally-ness of the buildings.

I can do a few (as long as actual building metrics are provided, and the camera is pretty static...rare) but ALL of them ? Not a chance. Far too time consuming. My presence is still required in bars and on beaches you know

 

[BigAl]

Did it really?

They said they used the tool [transit].

Speculative repetition of "we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse" is not the same as; and we determined from the transit reading that WTC7 was leaning and likely to collapse.

Hayden never said the tool told us WTC7 was indeed leaning.

The NIST reported the use of the transit but did not indicate that it revealed that WTC7 was leaning. A fact I'm certain they wouldn't have left out of their report.

MM

Why do you substitute "leaning" for "bulge"? Hayden says "bulge".


Professional engineers predicted the collapse and they were right.

FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. "we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

An engineer at the World Trade Center site correctly predicts that WTC Building 7 is going to collapse. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden of the New York Fire Department will later recall: .We had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor, and see if there was any movement of, [WTC 7]. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?. The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. As Hayden will continue: .And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, .In its current state, you have about five hours... Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer. [BBC, 7/6/2008] WTC 7 will collapse at about 5:20 p.m. (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001), indicating that the engineer makes his prediction around midday or shortly after. [CNN, 9/12/2001]

 

[GlennB]

This is not smoke wafting up the front of WTC7 and being blown randomly by a breeze coming from around the corner. It's coming directly from virtually every broken window on the SW edge

ditto :

watch the videos if interested. The smoke is issuing from WTC7

 

[Oystein]

How many arms and legs does MM have???

 

[Oystein]

...
The NIST 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

Yeah. This is like a coroner's report about the man who was shot at least 10 times. He writes in colnclusion: "the only gun wounds of significance were 3 to his head and 3 to his heart".

Then you come along, quoting this, speculating about another man who's also bleeding, and claiming no one was shot!

 

[uke2se]

MM, could you please provide evidence of any other CDs which caused FFA?

 

[Oystein]

MM, could you please source the claim that complete freefall is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions? Thanks.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

MM doesn't have anything to prove. It's all hearsay, speckulation, BS & pure paranoia from his/her point of view.

 

[alienentity]

It's interesting to see the form of argumentation MM uses. His tactic seems to be to parse the semantic meaning of every statement that contradicts the controlled demolition theory, 'disproving' it by quibbling about the exact meaning.

This becomes rather humorous and desperate in many cases. For example, when trying to determine how much of WTC 7 was involved in fire (an impossible task because smoke was obscuring many floors, as NIST pointed out also), MM declares that it is 'a straight out lie' to say that firefighters saw fires on every floor.

Yet several firefighters testify that it appeared almost that way, so is it a substantive point? No, of course not. MM wants it to seem far more significant than it is.

'When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers'
'7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable.
–Firefighter Steve Modica'

These firefighters give their opinion, and it is fairly clear that they think the whole building was completely engulfed in fire (and smoke, as we can see with pics of the South side).

So it's not a lie at all to paraphrase the firefighters and declare that they said they saw fires on every floor. Were they correct? That's another point entirely.

But this statement 'completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories' is pretty clear. MM is wrong, the firefighters did think they saw fire on every floor, from their perspective.

Yes, we know their statements aren't 100% accurate. MM is eager to show this.

Yet, when it comes to the sacred statements of the late Barry Jennings, MM cannot accept that Jennings could be even slightly incorrect. Every statement he made must be treated as unassailable - and why is that? Because Jennings reported hearing a giant 'explosion' which he perceived happened before either tower collapsed.

When Jennings says he had no way of knowing when the towers collapsed, yet thinks he saw them standing, his testimony is unclear. But truthers must interpret his statements literally and without critical thought.

But several firefighters describe WTC7 as burning from 'ground to ceiling'? That's a 'straight out lie' according to MM.

More perceptive and objective readers will soon realize that eyewitness accounts are perceptions and must be corroborated carefully. Whereas firefighter statements can be corroborated with each other and the photographic record to establish that WTC7 was indeed heavily involved in fires, the Jennings statements are much harder to corroborate for accuracy. But yet it is still possible to demonstrate that Jennings' perception of time was probably incorrect - simply by corroborating his estimate of time with the estimates for when the OEM centre was evacuated shows us that it was later than he thought; and of course the fact that there were other personnel in the building when Jennings and Hess were upstairs, none of whom heard an explosion before WTC1 collapsed, contradicts his timeline.

All MM is trying to do is to discredit every source of info which runs counter to his beliefs. But he will never apply the same scrutiny and skepticism to his own claims, which makes his approach transparently biased and ridiculous.

The most ironic part is how truthers cherry-pick thru the NIST reports to try to bolster their arguments. NIST itself admits that smoke obscured direct observation of fires in many cases, so there are limitations to the NIST estimates in terms of accuracy - yet MM incorrectly represents the NIST estimates as some kind of absolute proof.
Too funny

 

[GlennB]

This becomes rather humorous and desperate in many cases. For example, when trying to determine how much of WTC 7 was involved in fire (an impossible task because smoke was obscuring many floors, as NIST pointed out also), MM declares that it is 'a straight out lie' to say that firefighters saw fires on every floor.

Yes.

If MM were to read NCSTAR 1-9 properly he'd realise that NIST were extremely conservative about their fire estimates.

 

[Miragememories]

post 1139
"You also falsely stated that Brent Blanchard is somehow not an expert in controlled demolition."

post 1143
".. your attempt to misrepresent the credentials of Blanchard is downright dishonest"

Source, or retraction of those statements please?"

I'm still waiting.

Question me all you want, but I have no intention of responding to liars who refuse to recant when called on it.

MM

 

[grandmastershek]

So what now? We need to add estimation to the concepts truthers fail to grasp? Along with simile, metaphor, etc, etc.

 

[Oystein]

Source, or retraction of those statements please?"

I'm still waiting.

Question me all you want, but I have no intention of responding to liars who refuse to recant when called on it.

MM

Was your claim that "complete freefall ... is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions?" true, an error, or a lie?