Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Miragememories]

Did you know NIST was right about WTC1 and WTC2? Danny Jowenko agrees.

Like a jury corrupted by reading a newspaper account before a trial, we'll never know what Danny Jowenko would have concluded if he had seen the video of the WTC Twin Tower collapses without the foreknowledge he had.

We do know his opinion on how disagreeing with popular belief would effect business.

MM

 

[uke2se]

Like a jury corrupted by reading a newspaper account before a trial, we'll never know what Danny Jowenko would have concluded if he had seen the video of the WTC Twin Tower collapses without the foreknowledge he had.

We do know his opinion on how disagreeing with popular belief would effect business.

MM

Like a jury corrupted by reading a newspaper account before a trial, we'll never know what Danny Jowenko would have concluded if he had read the NIST report before being interviewed and lied to by a truther.

We do know his opinion that the Twin Towers were NOT a controlled demolition, thus making truthers who cling to him for an appeal to false authority hilarious in their massive fail.

 

[johnny karate]

Go wherever you like.

Danny Jowenko claimed the fires were not capable of causing the collapse of WTC 7 and I'm attacking the only official argument that argues against him.

What do you suppose Danny Jowenko would think about your prediction that the 2008 elections would be canceled because George Bush was going to detonate a nuclear device on American soil as part of his evil plot to destroy freedom?

Do you suppose he might find that insane like everyone else does?

Do you suppose he might laugh out loud like everyone else does?

I only ask because you seem to be positioning yourself as Danny Jowenko's spokesperson, and in that role, I wonder if you think he would find your elaborate paranoid fantasies as hilariously deranged as everyone else does.

 

[johnny karate]

You mean a daily repetition of his expert opinion for folks like yourself that dream he will change his mind?

The only people obessessed with Danny Jowenko are Truthers. No one else cares, because here in reality we know his baseless snap judgment is meaningless in the face of the copious amounts of hard scientific data that directly refutes it.

And considering your documented history with paranoid delusions, I think you will agree it's only fair to assume that your obsession with Jowenko is based more on bolstering those paranoid delusions than it is in discerning truth or fact.

 

[johnny karate]

Great, we can start right away.

As I previously stated, I have a problem with the NIST fire simulations...

...Once you've resolved this conflict (without breaking a sweat of course), I have some more issues to present regarding
the validity of the NIST fire energy estimates.

But the real question here is why does it matter if you have a problem with the NIST report or any other highly technical scientific data that are clearly beyond your comprehension?

Your issues with NIST are wholly irrelevant to their validity.

Especially in consideration of the fact that you have an established history of paranoid delusions.

Remember, you are on record claiming George Bush was going to take over America and end democracy as we know it with a secret nuclear bomb attack. According to you, we should all be living under martial law right now, ruled by Emperor Bush. I imagine there would be some sort of toiling in mines involved, perhaps harvesting some rare mineral that Emperor Bush needs to extend his cyborg lifespan, but you didn't elaborate.

As a matter of fact, let me re-post your 2007 prediction again:

I can't guess when, but sometime before the next presidential elections I expect a second 9/11 type incident.

Unfortunately, to be effective, the ante would have to be raised. The goal will be to empower the current regime with extraordinary powers. The only way Congress will concede to such a thing is if an incident of extreme magnitude takes place and the threat of further such incidents remains in the offing. As part of the granted powers, the presidential elections of 2008 would likely be canceled as an emergency measure.

I don't think toppling the Sears Tower will do the trick.

A nuclear event is the most likely scenario that would carry sufficient persuasive weight with the American public and Congress.

Should this occur, members of the 9/11 Truth Movement can only expect to survive if they move underground and it's doubtful that they would ever again be a serious force to be reckoned it, given the expectation of a declaration of martial law throughout the U.S.

The fact is, if 9/11 was an inside job, the perpetrators have committed themselves too far to let it all fail, unless they believe the next government will be somehow compelled to continue policies that the current one initiated (Iraq, Homeland security measures etc.).

It's quite possible that 9/11 Stage 2 is already in place and timed to be initiated if and when it's absolutely deemed necessary. The reason we haven't seen it so far is because it will be so horrific that they don't really want to "push the button" unless they feel it's absolutely necessary to maintain their initial goals.

I know looking at these words, it all seems so outlandish, like some cheap thriller vacation reading, but when you think back to 9/11 and events like WTC 7, if you really believe it was an inside job, after deliberately killing 3,000+ innocent people, how likely is it that those responsible would chicken out now?

Seriously, MM.

Just read that drivel.

Do you have any idea how batcrap crazy that is? Any at all?

And now you have the audacity to lecture us on the finer points of the NIST report?

That you have the audacity to position yourself as an authority on anything after that completely insane rant above is truly mind-boggling.

 

[triforcharity]

Go wherever you like.

Danny Jowenko claimed the fires were not capable of causing the collapse of WTC 7 and I'm attacking the only official argument that argues against him.

That seems to be a valid relationship to me.

Hide in whatever thread you wish to alienentity.

MM

My expertiese IS fire science, which trumps his explosive demolition experience. Especially considering fire induced collapse is taught in the first 2 weeks of fire academy. This is one of the many topics I teach at the state fire academy.

What RELEVENT expertiese does Danny J. (Or you for that matter) have that says engineers and experts in Fire Science don't have?

I eagerly await your respenses.

 

[alienentity]

Like a jury corrupted by reading a newspaper account before a trial, we'll never know what Danny Jowenko would have concluded if he had seen the video of the WTC Twin Tower collapses without the foreknowledge he had.

We do know his opinion on how disagreeing with popular belief would effect business.

MM

You keep on dancing, but you keep tripping over the fact that Jowenko refutes 2/3rds of your delusions, so actually he's a liability to you, not a help.
You must be mighty desperate to take that testimony on as your flagship of proof - a quick viewing of a heavily edited video is the superficial standard you apply to yourselves, yet you will not accept a mountain of peer-reviewed empirical evidence that contradicts your cherished theories.

That is a very leaky, reeky double-standard. And that's why you fail. And will always fail in this matter unless you take your tin-foil hats off and accept reality.

 

[Dog Town]

You keep on dancing, but you keep tripping over the fact that Jowenko refutes 2/3rds of your delusions, so actually he's a liability to you, not a help.

MM will never get this. Sad, really. Can you say, cherry pick?

 

[Oystein]

Like a jury corrupted by reading a newspaper account before a trial, we'll never know what Danny Jowenko would have concluded if he had seen the video of the WTC Twin Tower collapses without the foreknowledge he had.
...

Wrong. We do know.

He rejects the notion that the twin towers were CD'ed on the basis of his professional expertise, namely: They don't look anything like CDs. Jowenko know very well that tall buildings are never imploded from the top down.

He could likely be wrong there. Because he clearly lacks knowledge about what really happened on 9/11.
See, Jowenko is a businessman in the Netherlands. He runs what IIRC is the leading company in that country for explosive demolition. So yeah, he's an expert there.

Then one day, some film makers pick up the Yellow Pages, look for a demolition firm, find Jowenko, call him and make a date for an interview.

There is no indication whatsoever that prior to that interview, Jowenko had taken any interest at all in 9/11 beyond what the general population did. I suppose that on 9/11, and the days after that, he saw the collapses of the twin towers, registered in his mind (maybe without being too conscious about it) that they looked a lot different from the collapses he brings about. Well, and that was probably it. Since he knew right away that the towers were not CD'ed. he never had any motivation to lool into the matter.
He never knew about WTC7.
He was probably told by the film crew that WTC7 would be a topic. He was told that they'd ask him about WTC7 in his capacity as explosive demolition expert, so he naturally assumed that WTC7 was demolished some time after 9/11.

Then comes the interview - and: surprise: WTC7 fell the same day? The same day???????? Whoops! I didn't know that!
Then comes the next surprise: What? There were fires??? You can't rigg or demolish a building that's burning... but urrr it was a CD (assuming the consequent, because, he, aren't you guys talking to me about CD?), so... you day fires??? Ok, must be... must be small fires. Something you can put out with a hand-held extinguisher... so.. Ok, I have no clue about these fires, so let's ignore this for a moment, while struggle to think how a building that big could be rigged within 7 hours.
If the fires could have brought down the building? You mean the fires that were so small that dozends of riggers could roam the building without fear of being burnt to smithereens? No, tiny fires, no, impossible.





Hello MM? Jowenko knew NOTHING about the conditions of the building. He was under false impressions. They did not show him the relevant video with sound.
Jowenko is utterly utterly clueless and worthless about WTC7.

He is nearly as clueless and worthless about the twin towers, but at least he HAD seen their collapse before (and seen they were not CD'ed).

 

[tuc0]

Wrong. We do know.

You're wasting your time on a clueless demagogue.

 

[Miragememories]

What do you suppose Danny Jowenko would think about your prediction that the 2008 elections would be canceled because George Bush was going to detonate a nuclear device on American soil as part of his evil plot to destroy freedom?

Do you suppose he might find that insane like everyone else does?

Do you suppose he might laugh out loud like everyone else does?

I only ask because you seem to be positioning yourself as Danny Jowenko's spokesperson, and in that role, I wonder if you think he would find your elaborate paranoid fantasies as hilariously deranged as everyone else does.

Just to make you happy jk I'll give you one response to that item.

It was a piece of speculation and not a prediction.

Nothing more.

If re-hashing such stuff makes your day, than go for it. It only shows how shallow you are.

Too funny.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

My expertiese IS fire science, which trumps his explosive demolition experience. Especially considering fire induced collapse is taught in the first 2 weeks of fire academy. This is one of the many topics I teach at the state fire academy.

What RELEVENT expertiese does Danny J. (Or you for that matter) have that says engineers and experts in Fire Science don't have?

I eagerly await your respenses.

"I eagerly await your posts, so I can take it apart bit by bit, piece by piece, and all the while, not even breaking a sweat."

I'm still waiting for a response to this;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6203068&postcount=832

Or are you having a problem with sweat?

MM

 

[uke2se]

Just to make you happy jk I'll give you one response to that item.

It was a piece of speculation and not a prediction.

Nothing more.

If re-hashing such stuff makes your day, than go for it. It only shows how shallow you are.

Too funny.

MM

It shows that your grasp on geo-politics isn't up to par, and that you are suffering from paranoid delusions. That reflects on your ability to make rational judgements on aspects surrounding 9/11 as well, as is clearly noticeable in your posts, which are full of similar paranoid ramblings and no actual evidence. Your attempts to mask this by JAQing off only serves to demonstrate how ill equipped you really are for this discussion.

My advice to you would be to retreat from the internet and have a long think about your life and the conspiracies you imagine. I hope you will note that you are not being rational, but drawn in a vicious circle of denial. A lot of people have serious trouble getting out of this circle, and it often affects personal life, like work and relatives. I wish you luck.

 

[Oystein]

Just to make you happy jk I'll give you one response to that item.

It was a piece of speculation and not a prediction.
...

Do you think that speculation was soundly based on fact and reason, or would you understand if we remained skeptic on that front?

Would you then understand that we think you are once again not basing your ideas on fact an reason?

 

[Oystein]

I'm still waiting for a response to this;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6203068&postcount=832

Or are you having a problem with sweat?

MM

It's really easy.

No one knows exactly from observation and measurment when individual fires started, when they ended, and exactly how intensive and extemsive they were.

However, some corner data is known from observations.

If you expect that the fire propagation model fully reflects reality, then you are already suffering from a delusion. That is not what models are expceted to do in science. Never.

Rather, the fires were modelled with as much input from reality as could be had, and were then adjusted such that the result matched the observations that could be had. That would constitute the best model that can possibly be had.
It is known in advance with certainty that this model will not be exactly like reality in every detail. But that is of little consequence. The Call for Perfection is a logical fallacy in the world of scientific models.

What the NIST model shows is this: A fire sequence that results in the fires that were obeservered on the premises in real life is capable of also resulting in a specific structural failure, given the design of WTC7, that leads to global collapse.


The model ought not be construed as repeating reality in evety detail from start to end.

It only needs to show that a fire-and-collapse sequence is a reasonably likely event. Engineering consequences (building codes) can be validly drawn from that. That was and is the main task of NIST.

The model therefore is the best theory we have. It comes with some unproven assumptions and is known, like every model, to be somewhat imprecise. But it is the best theory we have simply because we have no better. And no truther has ever come close to proposing something better.




Nota bene: These words above must not be construed as me admitting that your question is valid. NIST does not presume that a fire started on the 12th floor at noon out of nowhere, without any cause. Your question is therefore loaded and invalid. That is why no one answers it. Parroting jammonius, I could ask you "when did you stop beating your wife?" without breaking into a sweat.

 

[Telltale Tom]

You know at ae911truth one of the 7 reasons that WTC 7 exhibited all the signs of a controlled demolition is:

6. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

But you know we are being truthful when we do not mention that the same reason under the WTC 1 and 2 failures, because he says these were not controlled demolition.

 

[Miragememories]

Make up your minds folks.

Do you want science or do you want soap opera?

By your responses, it would appear no one really cares about scientific and rational discussion.

You can't discredit reasoned argument by making bullying-type attacks.

I provided a scientific response here;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6203068&postcount=832

And the response I get is bs; classic childish, sandbox behavior.

No one, particularly the self-proclaimed expert in fire science, triforcharity, has attempted to debunk that post.

I've substantiated Danny Jowenko's professional opinion that WTC 7 was not felled by fire and the proof is simply ignored.

And it is proof, because the NIST Official WTC7 Collapse Theory which disagrees with Danny Jowenko's profession opinion, is based on fire calculations that are exaggerated by 300%.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"I'm still waiting for a response to this;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=832"

"The Call for Perfection is a logical fallacy in the world of scientific models."

At what level of fallacy would you consider an error to be unacceptable?

A model based on data which is over estimated by 300%, is a model with a fatal error.

And that is only the beginning.

The NIST model is riddled with errors.

MM

 

[DGM]

At what level of fallacy would you consider an error to be unacceptable?

A model based on data which is over estimated by 300%, is a model with a fatal error.

And that is only the beginning.

The NIST model is riddled with errors.

MM

Could you link us to a better model? I'm anxious to see how you show NIST's result to be in error.


When will you understand, without something better your just pissing into the wind and (like the last 9 years) no one will pay attention.

Why don't you guys pool your pennies and start an independent investigation? You know like the one you've been asking to have.

 

[Oystein]

Make up your minds folks.

Do you want science or do you want soap opera?

Science. Not JAQing off with unfounded assumptions and misunderstood methology.

By your responses, it would appear no one really cares about scientific and rational discussion.

Most here do. You don't. As becomes clearly evident by your insistence upon the following argument from false authority:

...
I've substantiated Danny Jowenko's professional opinion that WTC 7 was not felled by fire and the proof is simply ignored.

And it is proof, because the NIST Official WTC7 Collapse Theory which disagrees with Danny Jowenko's profession opinion...

Danny Jowenko is NOT a professional for fire anything or even for structural design. Stop repeating that obvious lie! He is a professional expert for explosive demolition only. On top of that, he is an utterly - UTTERLY! - ill informed expert in the case of WTC7.

Real experts for fire propagation, structural buidling design are however found plentifully at NIST. On top of that real professional authority, these experts have profound, deep, intimate knowledge about pretty much all things relating to the WTC.

If an argument from authority should carry any weight, then clearly - CLEARLY! - the authority of NIST beats Danny's authority by millions of work hours spent and bits of information acquired.