Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Miragememories]

Sincere truth seekers are interested in the essential meaning of a statement.

BS artists resort to semantic game playing to hide the bankruptcy of their arguments.

Obsessive concern over the minute details of the speed and symmetry of the WTC7 collapse characterization
is a good example of such bs.

No other concrete and steel building has ever completely collapsed at high speed from fire alone.

That is the essence of what is important about WTC7.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

Sincere truth seekers are interested in the essential meaning of a statement.

BS artists resort to semantic game playing to hide the bankruptcy of their arguments.

Obsessive concern over the minute details of the speed and symmetry of the WTC7 collapse characterization
is a good example of such bs.

No other concrete and steel building has ever completely collapsed at high speed from fire alone.

That is the essence of what is important about WTC7.

MM

And, in 1986, no other space shuttle had exploded after liftoff, yet it happened.

In 2003, a space shuttle had never broken apart upon re-entry. but yet, it happened too.

Would you like to back up your claim of

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

So, where is that evidence to back up this BS claim.....

 

[Disbelief]

Sincere truth seekers are interested in the essential meaning of a statement.

That describes no one in the truth movement.

BS artists resort to semantic game playing to hide the bankruptcy of their arguments.

This describes the truth movement exactly.

Obsessive concern over the minute details of the speed and symmetry of the WTC7 collapse characterization
is a good example of such bs.

Look at the A&E presentation, and this is one of their main points.

No other concrete and steel building has ever completely collapsed at high speed from fire alone.

That is the essence of what is important about WTC7.

MM

Then you come out and lie about the construction of WTC7, though you have been repeatedly shown that the concrete was not a structural element. Yes, you are an intrepid "truth" seeker.

So, how does all this equate with the claim you made?

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.

I bolded it for you again. This is essential to your argument and it is an argument that you were making to support freefall. So now you are saying I am arguning semantics? Pathetic, even by your low standards.

 

[fess]

No other concrete and steel building has ever completely collapsed at high speed from fire alone.

That is the essence of what is important about WTC7.

MM

Back to the same old BS, with different words.

 

[Miragememories]

And, in 1986, no other space shuttle had exploded after liftoff, yet it happened.

In 2003, a space shuttle had never broken apart upon re-entry. but yet, it happened too.

OMG

That is the most pathetic and lame comparison imaginable..well almost.

You compare the highly vulnerable space shuttle technology against the millions of highly stable free standing concrete and steel structures on this planet.

Amazing.

MM

 

[TruthersLie]

Sincere truth seekers are interested in the essential meaning of a statement.

BS artists resort to semantic game playing to hide the bankruptcy of their arguments.

Obsessive concern over the minute details of the speed and symmetry of the WTC7 collapse characterization
is a good example of such bs.

No other concrete and steel building has ever completely collapsed at high speed from fire alone.

That is the essence of what is important about WTC7.

MM

You are correct.

No steel and concrete building has ever completely collapsed.

Too bad wtc1,2 and 7 were not steel and concrete. I thought we had gotten past this lie by implication? Or are you still trying to pass off light weight concrete in the floor pans (which has no strutural support offered to the building) as a concrete and steel building?

Even with numerous references which show they are considered steel framed buildings.

 

[BigAl]

OMG

That is the most pathetic and lame comparison imaginable..well almost.

You compare the highly vulnerable space shuttle technology against the millions of highly stable free standing concrete and steel structures on this planet.

Amazing.

MM

Please drop the concrete from any discussion of the collapse of WTC1/2/7.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Not knowing the construction of said buildings is somewhat of a thread killer before the discussion even takes place :\

 

[triforcharity]

OMG

That is the most pathetic and lame comparison imaginable..well almost.

You compare the highly vulnerable space shuttle technology against the millions of highly stable free standing concrete and steel structures on this planet.

Amazing.

MM

In 1912, no ocean liner had ever sank after hitting an iceberg. Yet, on April 12-13, it happened.

And yet, no other Blow out Preventer had ever failed before. But yet, on April 20th, one did.

There are many firsts in history. But yet, they happen all the time.

And Trutherslie is correct. Still to this day, a concrete and steel structure has not collapsed completly due to fire alone. This much is true.

 

[Miragememories]

Please drop the concrete from any discussion of the collapse of WTC1/2/7.

The concrete was there.

Get over it.

MM

 

[Bell]

The concrete was there.

Get over it.

MM

Evidence?

 

[Garb]

The concrete was there.

Get over it.

MM

So?

Honest question: did the Windsor tower have concrete in all of its floors or no?

 

[Oystein]

The concrete was there.

Get over it.

MM

Bell, of course there was "concrete there". Non-structural, lightweight concrete in the floors that had no structural purpose other than making sure people and desks don't fall through.

Garb: Of course the Windsor had concrete on all floors: In the core. None of it collapsed. All of the unprotected steel structure however collapsed.

 

[Garb]

Bell, of course there was "concrete there". Non-structural, lightweight concrete in the floors that had no structural purpose other than making sure people and desks don't fall through.

Garb: Of course the Windsor had concrete on all floors: In the core. None of it collapsed. All of the unprotected steel structure however collapsed.

I'm asking about within the steel structure for the floors.

I am aware that the core and lower levels of the Windsor tower were built with concrete.

 

[Oystein]

I'm asking about within the steel structure for the floors.

I am aware that the core and lower levels of the Windsor tower were built with concrete.

Yeah, that's why the answer to your question "did the Windsor tower have concrete in all of its floors or no?" is "yes".

 

[Carlos]

The concrete was there.

Get over it.

MM

But not at the columns.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

In 1912, no ocean liner had ever sank after hitting an iceberg. Yet, on April 12-13, it happened.

And yet, no other Blow out Preventer had ever failed before. But yet, on April 20th, one did.

There are many firsts in history. But yet, they happen all the time.

And Trutherslie is correct. Still to this day, a concrete and steel structure has not collapsed completly due to fire alone. This much is true.

1986 Space Shuttle warnings ignored
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-11-28/news/mn-4901_1_hubble-space-telescope

2003 Space Shuttle warnings ignored
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/columbia

BP Blow out Preventer warnings ignored
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/12/bp-whistleblower-claimed_n_573839.html

Iceberg disasters were not unheard of.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50D1EF93A5A11738DDDA90A94DD405B8284F0D3 (Date at the bottom)

The WTC collapses and the reasons given are not only the first time they are the only time. There was concrete and steel in the buildings. The concrete floors provided rigidity to the columns.

 

[Garb]

1986 Space Shuttle warnings ignored
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-11-28/news/mn-4901_1_hubble-space-telescope

2003 Space Shuttle warnings ignored
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/columbia

BP Blow out Preventer warnings ignored
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/12/bp-whistleblower-claimed_n_573839.html

Iceberg disasters were not unheard of.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50D1EF93A5A11738DDDA90A94DD405B8284F0D3 (Date at the bottom)

The WTC collapses and the reasons given are not only the first time they are the only time. There was concrete and steel in the buildings. The concrete floors provided rigidity to the columns.

Cite this claim.

Also if fires aren't a factor in weakening steel or causing collapse, why is fireproofing added to the columns?

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Cite this claim.

Also if fires aren't a factor in weakening steel or causing collapse, why is fireproofing added to the columns?

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/godfrey.htm

Note that the buildings are stiffened by the composite steel-concrete floors. The floors are an integral part of the structural system. Without the composite floor slabs, the buildings would soon collapse.

The fireproofing is there to protect the steel nobody says differently. It doesn’t however mean that a high-rise will completely collapse all the way around simultaneously once the fire goes past the fire proof rating.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The concrete was non-structural, If you want to start discussing the floors, yes they provided lateral stability to the buildings, but they were prefabricated steel truss systems, not concrete. The concrete was little more than a topping. If you guys are going to "debate" about structural materials you need to get them right before you start "correcting" others.