Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[triforcharity]

The concrete in the towers wasn't on its own. So what's your point?

Saying the concrete wasn't structural is wrong. Face it.

You need to read this, http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1.pdf especially page 69 PDF. Tell me what it says to you.

I'll wait.....

 

[excaza]

Providing rigidity is structural.

You are aware of the difference between axial and torsional loads?

 

[cantonear1968]

If this thread has purposely been derailed, my apologies, but since it was originally about Danny Jowenko, I wanted to ask this question:

Much has been made by truthers that Jowenko thinks WTC7 was a controlled demolition, but given his statements on this, do they NOT have to stop using him as a reference when referring to WTC7 being demo'd using thermite? As I remember (and I admit I am getting to the point where it's just not worth my time to check anymore) he makes mention of 40 guys running around and dropping bags of explosives next to key support columns. He does not mention using thermite and he does not mention the yet-to-be-demonstrated device which attaches to the columns for the sideways burning thermite.

So while there is no audio evidence of explosives which eliminates even Jowenko's demo theory, can we at least agree that truthers cannot use him as a reference when it comes to their theory that thermite was used to bring down WTC7?

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

The NIST says that a combination of a 767's impact damage, and the ensuing fires, caused the collapse of 1&2 WTC. Your reading for comprehension sucks.

NIST blames office building fire not the impacts.

The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. …NIST

Right, that is why you use his name as your SN? Excellent! I hate the Yankees, should I change my name to "Yankees"? This makes NO sense whatsoever.

It makes all the sense in the world. It brings attention to him and people like him who think it's advantageous to their situation for America to be attacked. I'm pointing him out not celebrating him. You won't catch me defending him but i bet a lot of your friends here wouldand already have.

 

[T.A.M.]

You are aware of the difference between axial and torsional loads?

He is aware, he is just interested in being TECHNICALLY correct, relevance be damned.

TAM

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

You are aware of the difference between axial and torsional loads?

Yes. And I am aware of exactly what was claimed and exactly why it is wrong. It's either structural or it's not. Providing rigidity to the core is structurally important in a design such as the towers.

 

[Carlos]

Floors and bracing members provide lateral stability to the buildings, that's true, and I don't know any multi-storey building without concrete slab.

However, a building wich columns and beams are 100% has a totally different behavior from a building with concrete columns and beams in an fire situation.

In a fire situation, the first one is more susceptible to a collapse and the second one is more resistant to the fire effects. That's a fact!

So, you cannot compare buildings like Windsor and CCTV Mandarin Hotel with WTC 7.

 

[T.A.M.]

is it important to vertical load, or the energy required to collapse the tower vertically? If so, why? If so, did it provide any significant support for vertical load, or against a vertical collapse?

TAM

 

[triforcharity]

NIST blames office building fire not the impacts.

Yes, but do you understand that NOTHING would have been on fire, had it not been for the impacts? And the fire could possibly have been put out, or at least knocked down, in time to save the building, if it hadn't been for the plane impact? Do you not understand this?

Also, nice job quote mining BTW.

"In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf

It makes all the sense in the world. It brings attention to him and people like him who think it's advantageous to their situation for America to be attacked. I'm pointing him out not celebrating him. You won't catch me defending him but i bet a lot of your friends here would. and already have.

Really? Cite your source.

I am all about citing sources there Sivan.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

is it important to vertical load, or the energy required to collapse the tower vertically? If so, why? If so, did it provide any significant support for vertical load, or against a vertical collapse?

TAM

Do you think the building or the core could safely stand without the added rigidity the floors provided? Prove it.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Yes, but do you understand that NOTHING would have been on fire, had it not been for the impacts? And the fire could possibly have been put out, or at least knocked down, in time to save the building, if it hadn't been for the plane impact? Do you not understand this?

Also, nice job quote mining BTW.

"In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf

It was the fire not the plane impacts which according to NIST the towers withstood. What's the difference as to what starts the fire?

And again no plane hit WTC-7. There are no planes needed for your beliefs about sky scraper collapses.

 

[triforcharity]

Do you think the building or the core could safely stand without the added rigidity the floors provided? Prove it.

No, read page 69 of the NIST report 1-1.

 

[triforcharity]

It was the fire not the plane impacts which according to NIST the towers withstood. What's the difference as to what starts the fire?

And again no plane hit WTC-7. There are no planes needed for your beliefs about sky scraper collapses.

Try again. Stop quotemining NIST. I posted exactly what NIST states.

Fire+ Steel framed structure+time= collapse. Not unusual.

 

[T.A.M.]

Do you think the building or the core could safely stand without the added rigidity the floors provided? Prove it.

I dunno...you brought it up, and I asked you some questions about why you were discussing it and the relevence to progressive collapse. I am not an engineer.

So you believe that they did provide significant structural support in terms of vertical load, or preventing a progressive collapse...your theory...you prove it.

TAM

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Really? Cite your source.

I am all about citing sources there Sivan.

Cite exactly what? Sivan is supposedly just a conspiracy theory to most debunkers.

 

[Carlos]

It was the fire not the plane impacts which according to NIST the towers withstood. What's the difference as to what starts the fire?

The difference is the fact the fire protection was removed from the structure.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

I dunno...you brought it up, and I asked you some questions about why you were discussing it and the relevence to progressive collapse. I am not an engineer.

So you believe that they did provide significant structural support in terms of vertical load, or preventing a progressive collapse...your theory...you prove it.

TAM

You obviously came into this conversation late and didn't read back.

I did not bring it up. Someone here claimed the concrete in the towers was not structural. This was wrong and I sourced how. It's not about beliefs as far as my claim goes. You got that backwards.

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

The difference is the fact the fire protection was removed from the structure.

NIST speculates as much but never proves exactly how or how much as far as the towers go. And it is not their theory on what happened to WTC-7. So what's the difference?

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Try again. Stop quotemining NIST. I posted exactly what NIST states.

As did I. And NIST claims it was not the plane impacts. Besides you have no 500 MPH plane impacts for WTC-7 so what is the difference?

Fire+ Steel framed structure+time= collapse. Not unusual.

Actually NIST called it extraordinary.

"This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7."

 

[Carlos]

NIST speculates as much but never proves exactly how or how much as far as the towers go.

Knowing that steel loses strength at high temperatures and the impact and post-impact explosion easily remove the fire protection, the causes of the Twin Towers collapse becomes quite obvious.

And it is not their theory on what happened to WTC-7. So what's the difference?

WTC 1 & 2 and WTC 7 are different buildings.