Big assumption on your part. But still irrelevant.
Not an assumption. You yourself posted Jowenko assuming exactly that.
Interviewer:"There was fire everywhere, and also in that building. [WTC 7]"
Danny Jowenko"But that was a small fire, they could extinguish that and that was what they've done."
Interviewer:"No they didn't do that."
Danny Jowenko"They didn't extinguish it?"
Interviewer:"No, not extinguished. So they'd have to do it
while it was on fire."
His quote, not my presumption.
Big or small, long lasting or short, Danny Jowenko remained firm that fires, could not have created the WTC 7 collapse.
And without an explanation for why either NIST is wrong, or how what's known about the collapse contradicts the notion, his statement is worthless.
He was very open and forth coming in his explanations. If, he had indicated that under certain circumstances fire might have been a factor, or if he had hedged on his no fire cause opinion, I could see your point. But he didn't!
He was open in giving an opinion. He did not give any
explanation. I challenge you to quote him on why fire could not have caused the collapse. Note: Not quote him saying "fire could not have caused this" or somesuch, but to quote his
explanation on why it couldn't have.
It isn't just a matter of; could fire cause a concrete and steel building such as WTC7 to collapse?
But, could any fire make such a building suffer a complete collapse with the same symmetry as is achieved in a successfully executed controlled demolition?
Plain and simple, the answer is no.
Once again, give his evidence for this assertion. Without any explanation or substantiation, that's nothing more than unsupported opinion.
It was an interview, not a paper. While it would be enlightening to hear his opinion about the NIST's seriously flawed WTC 7 Report, it is not necessary as others have done a fine job revealing it's shortcomings.
Dodge. He's not giving any reason for why he believes fire could not have caused the collapse, nor is he giving any alternate mechanism. He's doing nothing more than stating a
belief. That is far from being a cohesive criticism.
Furthermore, shortcomings =/= negation of an explanation, nor do they validate alternate hypotheses. He has to explain
why explosives better fits the bill than fire does. He has not. Neither have you. From your deliberate vagueness here, I don't think
you understand the collapses either, so we'll be satisfied with simple quotes from him explaining why his thesis is a better fit for the observations.
In the absence of such, again, he fails. As do you. So pony up his quotes. The ones you've provided so far are not explanations, they're mere assertions, empty of support.
You might like to start with Dr. Greening's paper which is highly critical of the NIST's fire and heat calculations, and totally rejects the NIST theory as to what caused the WTC7 to collapse.
I've already read Greenings work. And I understand that there are other valid critiques in existence, from Quintiere's critiques of the main towers report to Arup's critiques of NIST's opinions regarding the SRFM and the assumptions behind thermal creep. But what you fail to understand is that none of that even remotely validates Jowenko's assertion that explosives demolitions were used, nor does it even mean that NIST is wrong in stating that fires caused the collapse. Greening may have indeed rejected NIST's theory about the WTC7 collapse, but that simply means that if he's even right - and again, as I've pointed out before, the ASCE and the ICC, as well as the European regulatory bodies find it to be a very plausible explanation - then he's invalidated a specific model of collapse progression. Not the entire concept of the building failing due to fire damage.
And this bears repeating: None of that -
none of it - opens the door to explosives demolitions. For that, Jowenko or anyone else must provide positive evidence. He has not. And all
you've provided have been quotes from him, which as I've pointed out, are hollow and lacking substantiation.
When asked to speculate, he does make a number of suggestions regarding possible controlled demolition mechanisms. He also eludes to the fact that given the mess the area was in, and the time limitations, there would be less need for concern about damage to WTC7's surroundings.
Key word that even you concede: Speculation. That has been my entire point in this thread: None of what you've posted from him is anything more than speculation about how it
could have been done had explosives been used. Jowenko has given zero explanation of what
did happen. What he's said is not a fitting of explanation to evidence, it is nothing more than applying hypotheticals to blueprints. It's
speculation. And that's what I've been saying this entire time: He's not
explaining anything. He's not given any indication that he's studied the collapse progression, nor has he explained how explosives demolitions better fit what was seen during the collapse.
And NIST's report
is exactly that: A fitting of proposed mechanisms to observations. Even if you hold that it is inaccurate, it doesn't fail to say "this is what was observed, this is the mechanism for what happened". Hence the identification of column 79, as well as the explanation of several floors falling as a unit in response to David Chandler's observation of unresisted fall for ~2 seconds. Even if it's wrong and not what happened - a big if, BTW - it is
still superior to anything you've posted from Jowenko regarding the collapse in that it does not fail to lay out observation plus proposed mechanism equals explanation. Your own quotes from Jowenko demonstrate that all he's doing is saying "if". Your own posts demonstrate that he's doing nothing more than speculating in general, and not applying his knowledge to anything known and observed about the collapse progression.
The off timing collapse of the East Penthouse could easily fit within that scenario.
Demonstrate this, please. Explain how Jowenko has shown that the timing "could easily fit within that (presumably explosives demolitions) scenario".
