Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[triforcharity]

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

He might have phrased it a number of ways, but unless it 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

No, it most certainly isn't. Your "expert" believes the collapse was symmectrical. It most certainly wasn't. It also did not fall into "it's own footprint". This is not semantics, this is facts. You can try to twist and turn and minipulate what he said, but he most certainly is not talking about a collapse footprint. No matter how hard you try to twist it, it still doesn't say what you think it does.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Getting to the point - and it's been said numerous times as it is - appealing to Jowenko's "superiority" through what professional field he works in is irrelevant. If he has an opinion that he wants to state as fact he should be more than capable of backing it up and explaining to people less technically qualified why he believes something.

"He is a demolitions expert" is not enough
"He hasn't changed his mind" is not enough
"He was blind sided" is no excuse
"He gave an unbiased opinion" is not enough

I expect if he has an opinion and somebody takes his word for it, he/she should be able to tell me more than just a one-liner to support the validity of said opinion. Look up the definition of an appeal to authority.

Oh and while I'm on the subject of "blind sided", if we're going to dredge up that remark about other professionals being threatened into silence or "too overwhelmed by the truth" I hope you have an explanation MM, for the remarks of people outside of the jurisdiction of the United States. The US is a super power, but your expectation of it's judicial power internationally is shall I say... unrealistic. Remember the saying; extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence... I hope you have it.

 

[Garb]

So MM basically concedes that the term "falling into its own footprint" is not an argument against the official story because it means falling into its own "collapse footprint", which would have happened in a CD or otherwise?

I'm not sure what relevance this has.

 

[Oystein]

So MM basically concedes that the term "falling into its own footprint" is not an argument against the official story because it means falling into its own "collapse footprint", which would have happened in a CD or otherwise?

I'm not sure what relevance this has.

I think what MM wants to argue is:

If a building collapses (A), it ends up in its collapse footprint (B).
From this follows: Controlled demolition (C).

Or, to put in in formal logic:

premise: A -> B
premise: A
conclusion: C


But maybe it is more subtle than this:

All collapsing buildings (A) collapse into their collapse footprint (B).
All controlled demolitions (C) are collapsing buildings (A)
From this follows: All contolled demolitions collapse into their collapse footprint (B).
WTC7 (D) is a collapsing building (A)
WTC7 (D) collapsed into its collapse footprint (B)
Therefore, WTC7 (D) is a controlled demolition (C)

Or formally:
All C are A
All A are B
Therefore all C are B
D is B
Therefore D is C

I'll leave it to those who took logic 101 to sort out what's wrong there.

 

[tsig]

So MM basically concedes that the term "falling into its own footprint" is not an argument against the official story because it means falling into its own "collapse footprint", which would have happened in a CD or otherwise?

I'm not sure what relevance this has.

Isn't "a building falls into it's collapse footprint" a tautology?

Collapse footprint = what remains after a building fell

 

[GlennB]

Isn't "a building falls into it's collapse footprint" a tautology?

I believe it is.

"collapsed into its collapse footprint" is self-defining and meaningless.

MM summons this up as a justification for his views, however . And happily throws in the whole freefall canard to boot.

 

[Disbelief]

Just in case MM forgot about this (bolding mine):

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.

Maybe he has been quiet while he is researching his claim.

 

[triforcharity]

Just in case MM forgot about this (bolding mine):



Maybe he has been quiet while he is researching his claim pulling stuff out of his posterior.

FTFY, since we know that truthers never actually research anything. And if they do, they won't understand it anyway.

 

[A W Smith]

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.

Why didn't "demolition dave" support his accusations with a link to said documentary? And why did "Demolition Dave" refuse to provide his own credentials?

 

[alienentity]

Now funny you should bring up Brent Blanchard in reply to a post that lists a real explosive expert and all of his education. ...The debunking community is counting on him to be their debunker expert.

Your research chops are really bad then...

'Brent Blanchard is Director of Field Operations for Protec Documentation Services, a company that documents the work of building demolition contractors. This article is a summary of his response to those who feel that the WTC buildings "collapsed as if by a controlled demolition." His entire argument may be found on the Website he edits: www.implosionworld.com.

Blanchard and his experts at Protec are uniquely positioned to address concerns that explosives may have been used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings. They have worked with all major American demolition companies and many foreign ones to study the controlled demolition of over 1000 of some of the largest and tallest buildings around the world. Their duties include engineering studies, structural analysis, vibration/air overpressure monitoring and photographic.'

Blanchard's paper on the WTC collapses has cowriters as well. Are you going to pretend that none of them know anything about demolition as well?

But nevermind, if you can't fathom how someone who works documenting demolitions could know anything about it, there are other experts who have categorically stated that the towers and WTC 7 were NOT explosive controlled demolitions, namely:

Mark Loizeaux, who runs CDI, a very large American demolition firm
Ron Craig, Canadian demolition expert, Professor at Ryerson University in Toronto and member of the International Society of Explosives Engineers


Sivan, you can run, but you can't hide from the facts. And if you won't face what experts say, what does that say about your belief system?
Pretty damn shaky, it is.

 

[grandmastershek]

Your research chops are really bad then...

'Brent Blanchard is Director of Field Operations for Protec Documentation Services...

You forgot to include that Blanchard is a member of the Internat'l Society of Explosive Engineers, is published in their journal, and authored a book on the history of the demolition's industry.

 

[TexasJack]

Why didn't "demolition dave" support his accusations with a link to said documentary? And why did "Demolition Dave" refuse to provide his own credentials?

I remember this guy, and he did sound credible. He did have it for Blanchard, but at the same time, he didn't buy into the CD nonsense at all.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73979

 

[Disbelief]

MM is back. So, are you going to back up this claim yet?

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.

Have evidence yet or will you admit this was an incorrect statement?

 

[Miragememories]

I remember this guy, and he did sound credible. He did have it for Blanchard, but at the same time, he didn't buy into the CD nonsense at all.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73979

I guess he earns part marks.

MM

 

[Disbelief]

So MM, are you willing to answer yet? Keep doing this though, as you prove how the truthers are not willing to get the truth.

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.

 

[TruthersLie]

"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

Good. You seem to be learning.

Now that we have gotten the
"into its own footprint" out of the way, and we have corrected your lie about the towers and wtc7 being "steel and concrete" buildings we can move on to your latest ********.

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.

Please provide ANY proof that when you conduct a CD that you have buildings that undergo "complete freefall" for any duration.

You claim it is a "planned for characteristic in controlled demoltions." It isn't.

Provide a citation to support this claim, or retract it.

 

[Garb]

Isn't "a building falls into it's collapse footprint" a tautology?

Collapse footprint = what remains after a building fell

I would say so, which makes me wonder why MM brought it up in the first place.

 

[GlennB]

I would say so, which makes me wonder why MM brought it up in the first place.

Because in rare moments of reflection Truthers are mightily embarrassed by the "fell into its own footprint" nonsense, and need an escape route. That the 'escape' is tautologous is almost amusing. Few are as adept at this kind of wriggling as MM.

They're obliged to say that whatever happened was evidence of CD. This is because they start with belief in CT and have to torture reality to make it fit their faith. Holding multiple viewpoints at different times is no problem for them (watch Chris7 switch back+forth between explosives and thermite) and reminds me very much of the twisting and turning that creationist fundies have to go through when questioned about Noah's flood.

 

[twinstead]

They're obliged to say that whatever happened was evidence of CD. This is because they start with belief in CT and have to torture reality to make it fit their faith.

Indeed

Holding multiple viewpoints at different times is no problem for them (watch Chris7 switch back+forth between explosives and thermite) and reminds me very much of the twisting and turning that creationist fundies have to go through when questioned about Noah's flood.

Noah's flood was an inside job perpatrated by the ruling elite to keep the people down. Only a sheeple thinks God did it.

 

[Disbelief]

Hey, I see MM is back. So MM, are you going to finally step up and provide evidence for this claim or will you continue to act like you never made the statement? You demand so much from the debunkers, don't you think you should man up?

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.