Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Disbelief]

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

What about all the other questions you have not responded to?

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.

Are you going to recant since you have been called on it?

 

[funk de fino]

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

At least 10 then. 10 confirmed through hard evidence. Possibly more. I was certain that earlier reports said 13 floors. I may be mistaken but at least 10 and possibly 13 are not contradictory.

 

[alienentity]

MM you can clear it all up by simply stating whether Brent Blanchard is an expert on controlled demolition or not.

Yes or no?

Cat got your tongue?

 

[Miragememories]

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

Any time you wish to source NIST statements that cast doubt on
NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A fire conclusions, Glenn, feel free;

pg.29
" The visual evidence indicated that the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13.

By 1:00 p.m., there was no visual evidence that the small, early fires on Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 were still burning (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). Therefore, these fires were not included in the four-step analysis sequence.

There was no confirmed evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7. The layout of the other tenant spaces (Floors 15 and above) indicated that, had there been fires of the duration and intensity of those on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13, they would have been recorded in at least some of the photographic images or videos.

There were no signs of fires on the 5th and 6th mechanical floors. There was little combustible material on the 6th floor, making a sustained and intense fire unlikely. "

I have read nothing in the NIST Final report on WTC7 that suggests they were conservative in the above fire assessments.

MM

 

[uke2se]

So, MM, when are you going to answer the questions put to you? I'll restate mine again:

Could you provide examples of other CDs that caused FFA?

 

[TruthersLie]

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

Still waiting...

School is still in session MM.

Whenever you want to retract your ******** about steel and concrete in the attempt to imply they were reinforced concrete buildings....

Hey pot, there is a kettle on the phone for you.

 

[Miragememories]

MM you can clear it all up by simply stating whether Brent Blanchard is an expert on controlled demolition or not.

Yes or no?

Cat got your tongue?

That would clear up nothing.

You told those lies and now you are dodging because you have no
proof to substantiate them.

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"

If what you said was true, then it should be very easy to source my posts.

MM

 

[BigAl]

Any time you wish to source NIST statements that cast doubt on
NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A fire conclusions, Glenn, feel free;

pg.29
" The visual evidence indicated that the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13.

By 1:00 p.m., there was no visual evidence that the small, early fires on Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 were still burning (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). Therefore, these fires were not included in the four-step analysis sequence.

There was no confirmed evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7. The layout of the other tenant spaces (Floors 15 and above) indicated that, had there been fires of the duration and intensity of those on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13, they would have been recorded in at least some of the photographic images or videos.

There were no signs of fires on the 5th and 6th mechanical floors. There was little combustible material on the 6th floor, making a sustained and intense fire unlikely. "

MM

And the NIST conclusion is that the fire was of sufficient scale and duration to cause a collapse consistent with the eyewitness accounts, the evidence and fire science.

Your cherrypicked quotes do nothing to change that.

 

[Miragememories]

At least 10 then. 10 confirmed through hard evidence. Possibly more. I was certain that earlier reports said 13 floors. I may be mistaken but at least 10 and possibly 13 are not contradictory.

I appreciate your show of integrity.

MM

 

[alienentity]

MM you can clear it all up by simply stating whether Brent Blanchard is an expert on controlled demolition or not.

Yes or no?

 

[Miragememories]

And the NIST conclusion is that the fire was of sufficient scale and duration to cause a collapse consistent with the eyewitness accounts, the evidence and fire science.

Your cherrypicked quotes do nothing to change that.

The NIST theory.

MM

 

[funk de fino]

Many demo experts and officials were within a few hundred feet of WTC7 when it collapsed. None of them heard a CD.

 

[BigAl]

The NIST theory.

MM

Cite?

 

[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"

MM you can clear it all up by simply stating whether Brent Blanchard is an expert on controlled demolition or not.

Yes or no?

So I can take your repeated dodge as a tacit admission that you lied?

MM

 

[alienentity]

So is Blanchard a demolition expert? Or just a photographer with 'no experience with explosives, blasting or demolition'?

Just curious. What's your opinion?

 

[uke2se]

So I can take your repeated dodge as a tacit admission that you lied?

MM

Why don't you want to answer if Brent Blanchard is an expert in controlled demolition or not? It's a simple yes or no question.

My question is a bit harder, but as you seem so sure of your "facts", you should be able to provide examples of other CDs which caused FFA.

 

[alienentity]

So MM do you agree that Blanchard is only 'a self proclaimed "expert"', or does he actually have expertise in controlled demolition?

 

[alienentity]

Let's put it another way - Are Brent Blanchard and Danny Jowenko both experts in controlled demolition?

 

[Disbelief]

So I can take your repeated dodge as a tacit admission that you lied?

MM

I guess this applies to you as well, and your statement that you have been dodging was even before the statements with which you are accusing AE.

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.

 

[alienentity]

Does the direct observation of Blanchard and his colleagues at GZ add any value to their conclusions?
Does direct observation matter in determining the accuracy of an investigation, or is a partial video-clip with no audio a better way to judge a collapse?

Why is Jowenko in a better position to judge the collapse using a partial video clip with no audio vs the position of Blanchard and his colleagues who were at GZ, and have seen the video as well?