Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[BigAl]

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."

As I said, that is the relevant finding.

MM

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

 

[BigAl]

If you do not see smoke combining between WTC6 and WTC7, you have better eyes than anyone I know.

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

[qimg]http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3771/croppedlayout1ii2.png[/qimg]

MM

Watch the video that has been provided and you'll see smoke streaming from WTC7.

 

[twinstead]

Well, you know what? Screw having this debate in the halls of academia or in the scientific and engineering community. A tiny minority thinks 9-11 was an inside job and are convincing the world one relatively obscure internet forum and web page at a time.

Keep the faith, truthers.

 

[carlitos]

Not concrete reinforcement... it is in the FLOOR decking. It is vastly different.

I suppose that the workers jackhammering away at the floor decks "undervalued the structural strength gained from the reinforced concrete floors."

 

[GlennB]

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.

If you do not see smoke combining between WTC6 and WTC7, you have better eyes than anyone I know.

We were discussing the NIST fire analysis. They specifically limited any consideration of smoke to that which was recorded on visual media as coming from identifiable windows. Examples would be windows in the Spak videos you appear to have hand waved aside. Smoke wafting around in the lower levels is utterly irrelevant to this argument. To suggest that smoke belching from specific windows higher up is something to do with WTC6 is, frankly, just par for the course where your debate technique is concerned. That is, distortion, obfuscation, hand-waving and baseless assertion at every step.

Meanwhile, NIST's methodology does not invalidate testimony of trained experts in close proximity to the scene. Namely the FDNY. The methodology is extremely conservative, which you would no doubt welcome (although you show no signs of actually having read it).

 

[A W Smith]

If you do not see smoke combining between WTC6 and WTC7, you have better eyes than anyone I know.

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

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3771/croppedlayout1ii2.png

MM

Show me smoke gong from building 5 or 6 to building 7 in this video. WTF did the smoke do? get in through the lobby turnstiles and take elevators to the upper floors and jump out the windows? What a jackass.

 

[Miragememories]

Watch the video that has been provided and you'll see smoke streaming from WTC7.

Al, clearly there was lots of visible the smoke clouding the south face of WTC7.

My objection is to the baseless claims that WTC6 was not contributing to the overall level of smoke flowing up the south face.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Miragememories post 501, 1st August 2010, 04:32 PM

"Thanks for those very illustrative bare assertion fallacies, and a classic argument from authority.
The observations of Jowenko go far beyond simple documentary evidence which would be required to 'prove' scientifically that a CD had actually occurred. As discussed elsewhere, these would need to include careful engineering data, audio evidence of CD explosions, documentation of explosive squibs, forensic evidence of high explosives and cutter charges on the steel and the rubble, etc...

But of course his comments are devoid of any of these. Instead, he merely speculates about how it 'was' done, as if he actually knows!!!! He's not even a little bit skeptical..

I'll dig up some arguments in support of the moon landing hoax which show the same pattern. Time to go hike up a mountain tho..."

"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."

Extract from: alienentitity post 1139, 31st August 2010, 12:02 PM

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

Extract from: alienentitity post 1143, 31st August 2010, 12:16 PM

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

Who are you referring to in that pos there??

OMG

If you are referring to my reference to "corporate video producer"?, I was referring to alienentitity.

MM

 

[TruthersLie]

Miragememories post 501, 1st August 2010, 04:32 PM

Extract from: alienentitity post 1139, 31st August 2010, 12:02 PM

Extract from: alienentitity post 1143, 31st August 2010, 12:16 PM

OMG

If you are referring to my reference to "corporate video producer"?, I was referring to alienentitity.

MM

Still waiting for those citations to support your ******** definition of a "footprint" and your mischaracterization of the construction of the towers and wtc7.

Can I expect them anytime soon?

or do you plan to retract the ******** lie by implication?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Speculating only gets me accused of sensationalism.

Considering that, apart from your constant appeals to authority, virtually every post you've made consisted of speculation I wonder why you're suddenly so hesitant, but even so I was not asking you to speculate. Quite the opposite, I was asking you to offer a technically viable method of accomplishing a CD using thermite, nano-thermite or any type of explosive that would be consistent with the circumstances of the World Trade Center attack. This requires no more speculation than if I'd asked to to provide a technically viable method to change an automobile tire, or bake a cake.

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

You are correct. Unless you can offer a technically viable method, any discussion regarding thermite never rises above the level of "Could Superman beat the Incredible Hulk in a wrestling match?"
Thanks for finally admitting that. It took long enough.

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

You have referred to this belief in numerous posts, calling on the NISt Report as your authority. The last one was:

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."

As I said, that is the relevant finding.

I suppose you want to quibble about the difference between "completely engulfed" and "significant duration and intensity", then attempt to crabcrawl away from the rest of the post. Let's not waste more bandwidth on such juvenile evasions. Amended to read " a belief that "at least six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire"?"

Your credibility just took a big nosedive Chuck..

My credibility?
I'm not the one who predicted a nuclear attack before the last elections, followed by a declaration of martial law.
I'm not the one who has claimed to possess evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, then refused to provide anything more than speculation.


Now, care to provide us with that "evidence" and a technically viable method of employing a CD that is consistent with the facts surrounding the attack?
Or are you just going to put your head back in the sand and pretend this post doesn't exist?

 

[alienentity]

Miragememories post 501, 1st August 2010, 04:32 PM





If you are referring to my reference to "corporate video producer"?, I was referring to alienentitity.

MM

I'm not a corporate video producer. Never have been, never claimed to be.

Why would you wrongly refer to me that way? Are you that incompetent? Apparently you are...

Anyway, why are you so shy to say whether Brent Blanchard is an expert in controlled demolitions? Do you believe he is or not?
You love to cite Danny Jowenko, yet cannot bring yourself to address any other the other experts - this is a cognitive black hole you've created for yourself.

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

"3. MM admits that at least six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire.."

"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."

"You have referred to this belief in numerous posts, calling on the NISt Report as your authority"

No. Never. There is nothing left to doubt by the expression "six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire".

"I suppose you want to quibble about the difference between "completely engulfed" and "significant duration and intensity", then attempt to crabcrawl away from the rest of the post. Let's not waste more bandwidth on such juvenile evasions. Amended to read " a belief that "at least six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire"?"

Sorry Chuck. Weasel all you want but "six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire" does not have the same meaning as "fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13".

It is not quibbling. It reveals your lack of comprehension when using the english language.

MM

 

[Disbelief]

It is not quibbling. It reveals your lack of comprehension when using the english language.

MM

So, have you figured out the English language enough to back up 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.

Why the silence on this subject, mm?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Sorry Chuck. Weasel all you want but "six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire" does not have the same meaning as "fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13".

It is not quibbling. It reveals your lack of comprehension when using the english language.

MM

It is quibbling when you completely fail to address the other portions of the post and reply solely to a point I have already amended.
You're simply trying to direct attention away from your abysmal failure to provide the "evidence" you claimed you have, or submit a technically viable method of performing a CD that conforms to the facts surrounding the event, as I predicted.
It looks like at least one of us has a crystal ball that wasn't purchased through a Chinese dealer on eBay. And since I haven't seen any mushroom clouds lately,it ain't you!
Care to adress the rest of the post now?

 

[TruthersLie]

No. Never. There is nothing left to doubt by the expression "six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire".


Sorry Chuck. Weasel all you want but "six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire" does not have the same meaning as "fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13".

It is not quibbling. It reveals your lack of comprehension when using the english language.

MM

School is still in session MM.

Still waiting for you to provide those citations or to stop using the lying statements.

Which will it be?

 

[Miragememories]

"I'm not a corporate video producer. Never have been, never claimed to be.

Why would you wrongly refer to me that way?"

I stand corrected, make that "amateur video producer".

It was an old recollection from your first post over at the Loose Change Forum before you got banished to the Skeptics subforum for incivility.

"Hi dudes, dudettes and others,

This is my first time on your forum, just wanted to let y'all know I've produced a couple of videos that might interest you."

bolding is mine

"Anyway, why are you so shy to say whether Brent Blanchard is an expert in controlled demolitions? Do you believe he is or not?"

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"

Like I said; "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

 

[BigAl]

Al, clearly there was lots of visible the smoke clouding the south face of WTC7.

My objection is to the baseless claims that WTC6 was not contributing to the overall level of smoke flowing up the south face.

MM

The claim is irrelevant for the criteria and process NIST used to count the number of floors on fire. If anything, the smoke made the count an under-count and therefore conservative for the calculation the effect of fire on the structure.

The wind was north-to-south on 9/11. I know that first-hand. That would blow WTC6 away from WTC7.

 

[triforcharity]

Miragememories post 501, 1st August 2010, 04:32 PM




Extract from: alienentitity post 1139, 31st August 2010, 12:02 PM



Extract from: alienentitity post 1143, 31st August 2010, 12:16 PM




OMG

If you are referring to my reference to "corporate video producer"?, I was referring to alienentitity.

MM

Thank you. Now that makes it clear. I stand corrected.

 

[alienentity]

I stand corrected, make that "amateur video producer".

It was an old recollection from your first post over at the Loose Change Forum before you got banished to the Skeptics subforum for incivility.


bolding is mine

Speaking of lies, you just lied. My very first post at LCF was to announce my video.
It's titled 'Hi there' or something like that. The post was immediately moved to the Skeptic section, as LCF does not allow skeptics to post threads in other sections.
Kind of like the 'Star of David' approach of the Nazis - you're branded as soon as you state an opinion.

So MM is lying when he says I was 'banished' for 'incivility'. He also lied when he said I was banned from prominent forums. I have never been banned from any forum, including LCF.
I choose not to post there because they don't enforce their own forum rules (personal attacks were rampant) and they treat skeptics like second-class cattle by locking them into one section.

At JREF as with other legitimate forums, this type of scapegoating and marginalizing is not done. MM is welcome to post wherever he likes on JREF, without any restrictions.

Why do truthers resort to lying and censorship to get their way?

Why does MM need to once again openly lie about me?

 

[Miragememories]

The claim is irrelevant for the criteria and process NIST used to count the number of floors on fire. If anything, the smoke made the count an under-count and therefore conservative for the calculation the effect of fire on the structure.

The wind was north-to-south on 9/11. I know that first-hand. That would blow WTC6 away from WTC7.

Well I'll be damned (of course you knew that), but the all that heavy smoke from WTC6 seems to have a mind of its own.

Maybe if you look at the pictures standing on your head, you can somehow convince yourself that WTC6 smoke wasn't getting it on with WTC7 smoke.

MM