Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Carlos]

But it's not exactly a term, when we are talking about bending around the vertical axis and horizontal displacement its stifness are considered infinite.

 

[ozeco41]

But it's not exactly a term, when we are talking about bending around the vertical axis and horizontal displacement its stifness are considered infinite.

Your careful qualification in the original post made it clear what you meant.

...due its infinite stiffness (in terms of bending around the vertical axis and horizontal displacement), but it could not avoid ...

Quite explicit. Fully understood by me.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm not so sure MM is a liar and, at the risk of going against the tide, I think we should refrain from calling him one until we have more evidence.

Chuck - Miragememories has been posting here for some time and like virtually all truthers who have come here, has turned to lies and deceit when stymied by the lack of evidence for thier fantasies.

Case in point just a few posts just below yours.

"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

MM is fully aware that not one of the buildings collapsed "symmetrically into their footprints at freefall speed", he has been corrected on this before yet insist on bringing it up over and over again.

Miragememories is a liar.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I am willing to concede to the terminology arguments re: architectural footprint and academic descriptions of the WTC7 building type, but not where they are used to obfuscate the underlying argument that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

What argument? Without supplying an underlying foundation for the position, you have no argument, only meaningless speculation. Even you have admitted this.

Unlike other forums that I attend, I clearly hold a minority position here and face an onslaught of rebuke, mockery and pettiness whenever I agree with advisory opinions.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I think you mean "adverse" opinions, or possibly you are referring to your numerous appeals to authority as your "advisors". Either way, you can expect mockery and rebuke when you make claims that you cannot back up then ignore repeated demands to do so, and not just on this forum, but anywhere else.

You'll be hard pressed to see Jref OCTers accept the merit in anything I, or any other 9/11 Truth advocate, post here.

How would you know? You haven't posted anything of merit so far. You've merely made a few blanket assertions, followed by volumes of cut and paste quotes (invariably attempting to utilize the logical fallacy of appeal to authority) regarding relatively trivial points of a central position that you've already admitted is meaningless speculation until the position itself can be established as viable.

I note a hint of desperation in your posts, MM. It's obvious that you now realize that you're hard a'starboard and circling fast.
Why don't you do the right thing and post your evidence, state a technically viable method for a CD that is consistent with the facts and man up.
At this point, every post you make that doesn't address these issues, which are central to your position, just makes you look worse.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Chuck - Miragememories has been posting here for some time and like virtually all truthers who have come here, has turned to lies and deceit when stymied by the lack of evidence for thier fantasies.

It's disappointing, but I'm beginning to agree with you.

Removed breach of Rule 12. Please re-read the Membership Agreement and abide by it.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[GlennB]

When experts talk about falling into its own footprint, they are speaking in relative, not absolute terms.

As an example;

Originally Posted by Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

Quite clearly Mason is not talking in relative terms here. If he were his statement would translate as "collapsing into their own collapse footprints", which would be meaningless.

And WTC7 did not collapse symmetrically, a point I think you've accepted by now.

Therefore Mason does not illustrate your point.

p.s. other posters have suggested that you claim to possess some undisclosed 'evidence' about 9/11. Can I assume this is a misunderstanding?

 

[TruthersLie]

It all depends on the context.

I have shown that even the NIST in their report made reference to WTC7 as being a "steel and concrete structure".

In addition, I have provided evidence from the NY Times about how over-engineered WTC7 was and how it underwent $200 million dollars in improvements.

I fully conceeded that there was a $200 Million upgrade to wtc7. And that there was NO mention of "structural" support offered by concrete. But that they added 375 TONS of Steel. Which you have pointedly ignored.

No concession has been made to these points by the diehard OCTers here.

I am willing to concede to the terminology arguments re: architectural footprint and academic descriptions of the WTC7 building type, but not where they are used to obfuscate the underlying argument that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

Oh goody. Then you will stop using the lie by implication (Implying that the collapses were much smaller and more orderly than they were. Ie the "footprint" lie. And you will stop implying that the construction of the towers or wtc7 was steel and concrete (that the steel was reinforced by the concrete)).

Goody. Thank you for rectifying your LIE about the collapse and the structural properties of the towers and wtc7.

If you have truly followed this thread, and are indeed a person with an open mind, you must realize that one has to be careful when agreeing.

What we have seen is incessant handwaving and attempts to dodge and weave.

You'll be hard pressed to see Jref OCTers accept the merit in anything I, or any other 9/11 Truth advocate, post here.

MM

As soon as you post anything which deserves merit, I'll be happy to agree with it. So far you have handwaved, ignored or lied... Sometime soon, I hope you will bring up something that deseves merit.

 

[TruthersLie]

And you come out and try the handwaving again.. you were showing promise too.

Then show me that this is not relevant?

NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A Extracts;

pg.xxxix Executive Summary
"Broadening the scope of the “structural frame” approach to fire resistance ratings by including, as part of the structural frame, floor systems and other bracing members that are essential to the vertical stability of the building under gravity loads."

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness. The 1st floor slab was 0.36 m (14 in.) thick. The concrete on almost all of the other floors was poured on top of 76 mm (3 in.) deep corrugated metal decking."

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."

Did this technical argument get challenged by OCTers?

Not at all. Because there is nothing to challenge there. The FLOOR DECKING was concrete that was about 3 inches thick. GREAT. The concrete wasn't part of the collapse. It had NOTHING to do with the structure.

if you wouldn't keep on lying by implying that the concrete in the structure was used for structural support, then I wouldn't have ot bust you on it.

Instead of arguing the merits of my point, they chose to argue terminology so they could avoid explaining how steel reinforced floor slabs could not be a factor in the structural strength of WTC7.

Because the composite floors were not part of the structural strength... it was used for carrying the loads on the floors.

Why does the lead architect talk soooooo much about the steel, but forget to mention concrete? Because the concrete isn't important in the building designs.

I suggest you read the NY Times article. In the case of WTC7, they were discussing engineering that was not typical and specifically referring to a specially adaptive design.

and it says NOTHING about the concrete being added to help with this "overengineering" but talks a great deal about the STEEL reinforcement.

If you have truly followed this thread, you'll see where I bent over backwards to explain my usage of those terms. My message was quite understandable in terms of comprehensibility and context. I don't rebuke everyone for the chronic typos I observe unless their message is obscured. My message hasn't been obscured by the way I have referred to footprint or concrete and steel.

OCTers have merely taken the opportunity to pounce on those non-issues as a means to obfuscate the real argument.

Below are but a few examples of where I attempted to clarify but was met by deaf ears;

post 1078
It is virtually impossible to have a collapse footprint that will match its architectural footprint.

Also from post 1078
I have never suggested that the WTC7 collapse was confined to its architectural footprint.

When experts talk about falling into its own footprint, they are speaking in relative, not absolute terms.

In architectural and engineering circles there is ONE footprint. The architectural/building footprint.

There is NO SUCH THING AS A COLLAPSE FOOTPRINT. PROVIDE THAT CITATION.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

There is NO SUCH THING AS A COLLAPSE FOOTPRINT.

I don't think that is correct.

"Fábio Bruno Pinto, Director Operacional, Fábio Bruno Construções Ltda.

• Security Measures Adopted for Brazilian Implosion:

• Pre-demolition simulation & analysis (including video output of collapse direction, debris and final collapse footprint)

• Protective nylon screens against flying debris and isolation of the area.

I was born on June 1st 1976 and graduated in mining engineer from the Federal University of Minas Gerais in 2000, with a specialization course in use of explosives at Michigan Tech University, USA. I Work with urban rock blasting and implosion. I have done over 30 implosions, including the largest implosion of Brazil (Presidium Frei Caneca)."

http://www.khl.com/events/demolition-summit/speakers/

 

[TruthersLie]

I don't think that is correct.

"Fábio Bruno Pinto, Director Operacional, Fábio Bruno Construções Ltda.

• Security Measures Adopted for Brazilian Implosion:

• Pre-demolition simulation & analysis (including video output of collapse direction, debris and final collapse footprint)

• Protective nylon screens against flying debris and isolation of the area.

I was born on June 1st 1976 and graduated in mining engineer from the Federal University of Minas Gerais in 2000, with a specialization course in use of explosives at Michigan Tech University, USA. I Work with urban rock blasting and implosion. I have done over 30 implosions, including the largest implosion of Brazil (Presidium Frei Caneca)."

http://www.khl.com/events/demolition-summit/speakers/

From the link provided (unless I have missed it), the bottom bio is there, but the top bullet points are missing. (ETA: IN fact the only place on all of google that the quote you put up is in your post. It is NOT in the link you provided. (unless it is the UAE filters on google).

In CD you speak of debris zones and collapse zones. You don't call it a collapse footprint (IIRC). The only reference I can find to "collapse footprints" is this link, and it isn't in there.

Now with that out there, I should have been very clear. In engineering and architecture when you speak of the "footprint" you are very clear on what you mean. In them when you speak of footprint you mean the base of the structure. (sometimes it includes the sidewalk around the structure) but that is what is ment.

If MM is trying to pass of the Ae911twoof "engineers and architects" who use the footprint bs, then they are obviously talking out of their asses.

In this article
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

Brent Blanchard is very clear and distinct between the collapse debris and the footprint of the buildings in the section Assertion 2.

And I would think that a website like controlled-demolition.com might have something on controlled demolition footprints... but amazingly enough they are not there.

ETA: Now with that all said, in Chapter 9 of the NIST report they use the term "collapse footprint."
The use the term 1 time.
On page 216 NIST NCSTAR 1 section 9.2.6 part C.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Recommendations.pdf

Command posts should be established outside the potential collapse footprint of any building which shows evidence of large multifloor fires or has serious

So with that said, I have to eat some humble pie. NIST does say it. ONE TIME.

There is no definition in the glossary, and it is not used (IIRC) in architecture or in engineering except that the "collapse" footprint would be the buildings architectural footprint.

I'm still waiting for good ole MM to provide me with any architectural or engineering (text or journal) which states a definition of a "collapse footprint."

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

From the link provided (unless I have missed it), the bottom bio is there, but the top bullet points are missing. (ETA: IN fact the only place on all of google that the quote you put up is in your post. It is NOT in the link you provided. (unless it is the UAE filters on google).

In CD you speak of debris zones and collapse zones. You don't call it a collapse footprint (IIRC). The only reference I can find to "collapse footprints" is this link, and it isn't in there.

Now with that out there, I should have been very clear. In engineering and architecture when you speak of the "footprint" you are very clear on what you mean. In them when you speak of footprint you mean the base of the structure. (sometimes it includes the sidewalk around the structure) but that is what is ment.

If MM is trying to pass of the Ae911twoof "engineers and architects" who use the footprint bs, then they are obviously talking out of their asses.

In this article
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

Brent Blanchard is very clear and distinct between the collapse debris and the footprint of the buildings in the section Assertion 2.

And I would think that a website like controlled-demolition.com might have something on controlled demolition footprints... but amazingly enough they are not there.

ETA: Now with that all said, in Chapter 9 of the NIST report they use the term "collapse footprint."
The use the term 1 time.
On page 216 NIST NCSTAR 1 section 9.2.6 part C.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Recommendations.pdf



So with that said, I have to eat some humble pie. NIST does say it. ONE TIME.

There is no definition in the glossary, and it is not used (IIRC) in architecture or in engineering except that the "collapse" footprint would be the buildings architectural footprint.

I'm still waiting for good ole MM to provide me with any architectural or engineering (text or journal) which states a definition of a "collapse footprint."

Well I searched "Collapse Footprint" and I found the KHL site. But once there I too could not find that exact quote. Part of the quote was in the google search result description. So I hit the cache button in the google description for the KHM site and I found that quote.

Now funny you should bring up Brent Blanchard in reply to a post that lists a real explosive expert and all of his education. Is Blanchard ever "very clear and distinct" in listing his own education? Because I did a search on Blanchard and I found this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2319605&postcount=67

Beavis and Butthead? That's not really Blanchard's reputation is it? He should clear that up with some credentials. The debunking community is counting on him to be their debunker expert.

 

[triforcharity]

From the link provided (unless I have missed it), the bottom bio is there, but the top bullet points are missing. (ETA: IN fact the only place on all of google that the quote you put up is in your post. It is NOT in the link you provided. (unless it is the UAE filters on google).

In CD you speak of debris zones and collapse zones. You don't call it a collapse footprint (IIRC). The only reference I can find to "collapse footprints" is this link, and it isn't in there.

Now with that out there, I should have been very clear. In engineering and architecture when you speak of the "footprint" you are very clear on what you mean. In them when you speak of footprint you mean the base of the structure. (sometimes it includes the sidewalk around the structure) but that is what is ment.

If MM is trying to pass of the Ae911twoof "engineers and architects" who use the footprint bs, then they are obviously talking out of their asses.

In this article
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

Brent Blanchard is very clear and distinct between the collapse debris and the footprint of the buildings in the section Assertion 2.

And I would think that a website like controlled-demolition.com might have something on controlled demolition footprints... but amazingly enough they are not there.

ETA: Now with that all said, in Chapter 9 of the NIST report they use the term "collapse footprint."
The use the term 1 time.
On page 216 NIST NCSTAR 1 section 9.2.6 part C.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Recommendations.pdf



So with that said, I have to eat some humble pie. NIST does say it. ONE TIME.

There is no definition in the glossary, and it is not used (IIRC) in architecture or in engineering except that the "collapse" footprint would be the buildings architectural footprint.

I'm still waiting for good ole MM to provide me with any architectural or engineering (text or journal) which states a definition of a "collapse footprint."

There is a use of the phrase "Collapse Footprint" but it is usually used in terms of "potential collapse footprint" that firefighters and other safety officers use to define a collapse zone around a building.

It also is used to define the area that a collapsed building occupies. But, the way MM used it, it is absolutely incorrect.

 

[Miragememories]

From the NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A

Recommendations

"Command posts should be established outside the potential collapse footprint of any building which shows evidence of large multi-floor fires or has serious structural damage. A continual assessment of building stability and safety should be made in such emergencies to guide ongoing operations and enhance emergency responder safety. The information necessary to make these assessments should be made available to those assigned responsibility (see related Recommendations 15 and 23 in NIST NCSTAR 1). "

bolding and underlining are mine.

"There is a use of the phrase "Collapse Footprint" but it is usually used in terms of "potential collapse footprint" that firefighters and other safety officers use to define a collapse zone around a building.

It also is used to define the area that a collapsed building occupies."

Some examples of my usage of the term collapse footprint in this thread;

"Given the 47-story original size of WTC7 and its relatively small collapse footprint, it is a legitimate talking point."

"It is virtually impossible to have a collapse footprint that will match its architectural footprint."

"And regarding your concerns about the size of the WTC7 debris field (since you apparently don't like the term: collapse footprint)."

"But, the way MM used it, it is absolutely incorrect."

The intent behind my usage of the expression "collapse footprint", is in full compliance with the NIST reference given above, "the collapse zone around a building", and "the area that a collapsed building occupies."

I fail to see how I am "absolutely incorrect" in how I've used the expression.

Such nit-picking as a means of refuting my overall argument is truly pathetic and only reveals the desperation behind your case.

MM

 

[DGM]

Such nit-picking as a means of refuting my overall argument is truly pathetic and only reveals the desperation behind your case.

MM

And what again was your "overall" argument?

 

[Disbelief]

And what again was your "overall" argument?

I think this was, but he has yet to back it up.

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.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Such nit-picking as a means of refuting my overall argument is truly pathetic and only reveals the desperation behind your case.

MM

What "overall argument"? You've already admitted that without a technically viable means to perform a CD that conforms to the circumstances of 9/11 you have no "overall argument", just meaningless speculation.

It's most telling that you go to some lengths to defend your use of terminology concerning an event that, by your own admission, never occurred.

Just keep repeating, "As long as my head is in the sand, the tiger can't see me", MM.
Then maybe everyone else will forget that you don't have an overall argument.

 

[triforcharity]

Im sorry MM, You don't say "footprint" but you quoted someone saying exactly that.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6260126&postcount=1060

In that context, he is talking about an architectual footprint. Not a collapse footprint. If he meant collapse footprint, he would make himself out to be a complete fool, as EVERY collapse falls into it's own collapse footprint. If it hadn't collapsed, there would BE no collapse footprint.

So, the way that you quoted it, it absoltely incorrect. This guy you quoted is not talking about a collapse footprint at all.

It would sound like this.

"collapsed into it's own collapse footprint" Which makes no grammatical sense, even to a guy whos first language is not English.

 

[TruthersLie]

Well I searched "Collapse Footprint" and I found the KHL site. But once there I too could not find that exact quote. Part of the quote was in the google search result description. So I hit the cache button in the google description for the KHM site and I found that quote.

ah that would do it. The UAE has difficulties running off of the cache.

and yet it is still amazing... (according to MM) that "collapse footprint" is common knowledge, yet it only shows up in like 3 places (that aren't unqualified truthers talking out of their asses).

Yet when you do footprint and look up construction, engineering or architecture it speaks about it being the base of the building.

I'm still waiting for someone to cite me any engineering or architectural manual, textbook, or journal article.

(as for the NIST issue...they say it 1x in 1 place)

Now funny you should bring up Brent Blanchard in reply to a post that lists a real explosive expert and all of his education. Is Blanchard ever "very clear and distinct" in listing his own education? Because I did a search on Blanchard and I found this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2319605&postcount=67

Beavis and Butthead? That's not really Blanchard's reputation is it? He should clear that up with some credentials. The debunking community is counting on him to be their debunker expert.

I don't think anyone with a modicum of basic intelligence has any doubt about Brent Blanchard's qualifications....

 

[triforcharity]

ah that would do it. The UAE has difficulties running off of the cache.

and yet it is still amazing... (according to MM) that "collapse footprint" is common knowledge, yet it only shows up in like 3 places (that aren't unqualified truthers talking out of their asses).

Yet when you do footprint and look up construction, engineering or architecture it speaks about it being the base of the building.

I'm still waiting for someone to cite me any engineering or architectural manual, textbook, or journal article.
(as for the NIST issue...they say it 1x in 1 place)



I don't think anyone with a modicum of basic intelligence has any doubt about Brent Blanchard's qualifications....

The NFPA uses it, but it is in relation to the potential collapse footprint that is around a building. I did a google search for "collapse footprint" and 99% came back to random sites, and a few came back to NFPA and NIST reccommendations.

I didn't see it in any engineering or architectual pages at all.

 

[Miragememories]

"It is virtually impossible to have a collapse footprint that will match its architectural footprint.

When experts talk about falling into its own footprint, they are speaking in relative, not absolute terms."

As an example;"

"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

"In that context, he is talking about an architectual footprint. Not a collapse footprint. If he meant collapse footprint, he would make himself out to be a complete fool, as EVERY collapse falls into it's own collapse footprint. If it hadn't collapsed, there would BE no collapse footprint."

"Collapse" is an adjective describing the footprint after its parent building has collapsed.

He might have phrased it a number of ways, but unless the collapse was contained by a force field, I'm certain that Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, realized that there was debris spill outside of the building's architectural footprint.

Your response is nothing more than ridiculous semantic quibbling.


MM