Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[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."

Cite?

theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something

You are suggesting that the NIST conclusion as to the cause of
the WTC7 collapse is a proven fact and not just a theory?

A theory implies a level of uncertainty.

A factual conclusion removes any uncertainty.

"The uncertainties in predicting the precise progression of the collapse sequence increased as the analysis proceeded due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris.

The uncertainties deriving from these random processes increasingly influenced the deterministic physics-based collapse process.

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."

I see too much uncertainty-based wiggle room in that statement.

The NIST provided a theory.

MM

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Let’s do a recap, and see if there’s anything I missed.

1.MM believes that the collapse of 7WTC was due to a covert controlled demolition utilizing nano-thermite, but MM admits ( by default, since he’s failed to provide one, many times in this thread alone) that he has no technically viable method for accomplishing the task.

2.If the logistical projections given in rebuttal ( and once again, MM has failed to adequately address this issue) are even reasonably close, then an amount of nano-thermite necessary to accomplish the task is so great that it would be unfeasible to employ this material without anyone noticing, would certainly be noticed missing ( I’m pretty sure records are kept on this substance) and may in fact exceed the total amount that existed at the time.

3. MM admits that at least six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire, and those same levels also received significant structural damage during the collapse of 1WTC, leading a reasonable person to conclude that the combination of uncontrolled fire and initial structural damage led to its eventual collapse.

Is my scorecard up to date, or did I miss something?

 

[Miragememories]

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?

It is pointless to keep asking questions until you truthfully respond to this;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6292109&postcount=1294

I'll just put you on ignore if you continue to badger.

MM

 

[BigAl]

theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something

You are suggesting that the NIST conclusion as to the cause of
the WTC7 collapse is a proven fact and not just a theory?

A theory implies a level of uncertainty.

A factual conclusion removes any uncertainty.



I see too much uncertainty-based wiggle room in that statement.

The NIST provided a theory.

MM

NIST says that unfought fire caused WTC7 to collapse. I don't see anything to change that in what you call a citation.

 

[alienentity]

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

 

[alienentity]

'I'll take the word of an expert in controlled demolitions over that of a corporate video producer any day.'

A photographer for "Implosion World,"?

 

[Bell]

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.

Since Miragememories cannot provide such examples, he chooses to ignore your posts time and again rather than engage them. Shows how dishonest he really is.

 

[TruthersLie]

It is pointless to keep asking questions until you truthfully respond to this;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6292109&postcount=1294

I'll just put you on ignore if you continue to badger.

MM

So then.. does this mean that school is out?

Will you retract your lies about the construction and structural type of the towers?

I'm still waiting to see if you have retracted your misuse of the term "footprint."

It is rather funny how fast you have run away...

 

[Miragememories]

"Let’s do a recap, and see if there’s anything I missed.

1.MM believes that the collapse of 7WTC was due to a covert controlled demolition utilizing nano-thermite, but MM admits ( by default, since he’s failed to provide one, many times in this thread alone) that he has no technically viable method for accomplishing the task."

Speculating only gets me accused of sensationalism.

"2.If the logistical projections given in rebuttal ( and once again, MM has failed to adequately address this issue) are even reasonably close, then an amount of nano-thermite necessary to accomplish the task is so great that it would be unfeasible to employ this material without anyone noticing, would certainly be noticed missing ( I’m pretty sure records are kept on this substance) and may in fact exceed the total amount that existed at the time."

Unless you have the answer for your first question, your second question is purely speculative, and thus meaningless.

"3. MM admits that at least six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire, and those same levels also received significant structural damage during the collapse of 1WTC, leading a reasonable person to conclude that the combination of uncontrolled fire and initial structural damage led to its eventual collapse.

Is my scorecard up to date, or did I miss something?"

Show me where I have indicated a belief that "at least six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire"?

At no time was any floor in WTC7 known to be completely engulfed by fire.

Your credibility just took a big nosedive Chuck.

MM

 

[TruthersLie]

blah blah blah, handwave handwave dodge

MM

FIFY.

Now then.

When will we see any citations which fit your definition of the "footprint" from any engineering or architectural source? Still waiting.

When will we see any citations (not datamined ********) on how the towers and wtc7 were "steel and concrete" buildings as defined by architects and engineers around the world?

Or will you retract those lies by implication?

 

[Miragememories]

So then.. does this mean that school is out?

Will you retract your lies about the construction and structural type of the towers?

I'm still waiting to see if you have retracted your misuse of the term "footprint."

It is rather funny how fast you have run away...

You really believe the average visitor here has any appreciation for your
semantic quibbling?

This is not a school.

All three towers were constructed of many different materials.

Most notably, steel and concrete.

The NIST would not have referred to WTC7 as a steel and concrete structure if they did not want their intended public readers to perceive it that way.

They are using a generic context while you are demanding the acceptance of a specific context. Fine, go for it.

My usage was in the same context as that used by the NIST.

MM

 

[TruthersLie]

You really believe the average visitor here has any appreciation for your
semantic quibbling?

Semantics?
No.

Making sure that you use the correct terminology and calling you on trying to imply things that are NOT CORRECT

This is not a school.

YOu are right... if it was you might actually LEARN something. Too bad, because you did get monumentally schooled.

All three towers were constructed of many different materials.

No argument there. They were

Most notably, steel and concrete.

Yes they used steel and concrete. But the buildings are STEEL FRAMED and not reinforced by concrete.

To claim they were "steel and concrete" buildings is implying they were steel reinforced with concrete. You do this to then try to point to other steel reinforced with concrete buildings.

You are implying that the buildings were more robust then they actually were.

aren't you?

Did you get schooled over it?
yes you did.

The NIST would not have referred to WTC7 as a steel and concrete structure if they did not want their intended public readers to perceive it that way.

NIST is VERY clear that the buildings were steel framed and used concrete int he composite flooring. That is VASTLY different than what you are trying to imply.

and you know it.

Any engineer or architect would and should know the difference between steel framed, and steel reinforced with concrete.

the towers and wtc7 were steel framed buildings and were NOT reinforced with concrete. Weren't they?

They are using a generic context while you are demanding the acceptance of a specific context. Fine, go for it.

My usage was in the same context as that used by the NIST.

No your implied usage is VASTLY different than that used by NIST, (just like your "usage" of the term footprint). And you have been schooled on it. Use the proper terminology.

 

[GlennB]

never mind

 

[twinstead]

To claim they were "steel and concrete" buildings is implying they were steel reinforced with concrete. You do this to then try to point to other steel reinforced with concrete buildings.

You are implying that the buildings were more robust then they actually were.

This is important. MM is indeed trying to imply that the buildings were more robust than they were. He can claim you are arguing semantics all he wants; the fact remains that trying to make the buildings more robust is simply a debate tactic used not to prove his point by providing evidence of it, but by trying to instill doubt in the commonly-held narrative of that day so he can shove whatever cockamamie theory he makes up in its place.

It's pretty much conspiracy theorist 101

 

[Miragememories]

"Yes they used steel and concrete. But the buildings are STEEL FRAMED and not reinforced by concrete.

You are implying that the buildings were more robust then they actually were.

NIST is VERY clear that the buildings were steel framed and used concrete int he composite flooring. That is VASTLY different than what you are trying to imply."

You seem to be doing all the implying.

I'm just letting the facts speak for themselves.

You imply that the concrete in WTC7 played little part in the structural strength of the building.

I think you undervalue the structural strength gained from the reinforced concrete floors.

MM

 

[Bell]

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.

Miragememories, hellooo?

 

[twinstead]

I think you undervalue the structural strength gained from the reinforced concrete floors.

MM

You overvalue the structural strength

 

[funk de fino]

You seem to be doing all the implying.

I'm just letting the facts speak for themselves.

You imply that the concrete in WTC7 played little part in the structural strength of the building.

I think you undervalue the structural strength gained from the reinforced concrete floors.

MM

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

Do you accept this fact?

 

[Disbelief]

You seem to be doing all the implying.

I'm just letting the facts speak for themselves.

You imply that the concrete in WTC7 played little part in the structural strength of the building.

I think you undervalue the structural strength gained from the reinforced concrete floors.

MM

I am glad you like facts, how about providing some for this.

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.

 

[Miragememories]

You overvalue the structural strength

Do I?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...93AA25751C0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

MM