Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[BigAl]

You present no evidence that Dr. Greening accepts fire as the cause behind the collapse of WTC7.

Here it is,

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post1127.html#p1127

 

[twinstead]

Here it is,

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post1127.html#p1127

Well, that appears to be evidence, all right.

 

[Bell]

In short, you are hiding behind a bs smokescreen.

Screw the messenger and the hell with the message.

The subject of 9/11 is too big to reduce to such pettiness as you attempt to do.

You really should feel ashamed of yourself.

Is ego gratification that important to you?

MM

A 9/11 denier and apologist for terrorist telling someone to be ashamed of himself? The hypocrisy...

 

[triforcharity]

Cite please.

My observations and conclusions about the nature of the WTC7 collapse are not ideas held under copyright by anyone.

If, in some instances they happen to be in common with the viewpoint that is held by Dr. Greening, it is because we are both in agreement on those points.

And, I have made reference to that agreement with Dr. Greening in my earlier posts while pointing out that the NIST had failed to respond to his paper.

In Dr. Greening's critique of the NIST WTC7 Collapse Report, he closed with;

"Therefore I believe that an alternative collapse initiation and propagation hypothesis is called for -one that more accurately reflects the reality of what happened to WTC 7 on September 11th 2001."

bolding is mine

MM

Here is the link that you SHOULD have posted.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=143&MMN_position=309:309

Or
http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/GreeningCommentsNCSTAR1-9.pdf

Yeah, you pretty much plagerized the entire post. I thought it sounded a little too sciency for you.

Oh, and you will get no argument from me about heat release. I think that the NIST underestimated the fuel loading. However, what I don't understand is this. Why does you assume that the fire only burned for about 40 minutes?

 

[johnny karate]

In short, you are hiding behind a bs smokescreen.

Screw the messenger and the hell with the message.

The subject of 9/11 is too big to reduce to such pettiness as you attempt to do.

You really should feel ashamed of yourself.

Is ego gratification that important to you?

Says the guy caught plagiarizing someone else's work and then lying about the conclusions of that work.

 

[Oystein]

For the last 20 posts, there has been mention of Danny Jowenko or how he has been manipulated or lied about.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

The whole title "Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers" is bogus. Danny is obviously a tough guy. He blows buildings up for a living. He is not the type to be manipulated by anyone. Not the US Govt. Not the Truthers. No one. He is a man who simply speaks what he sees.

 

[GlennB]

The whole title "Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers" is bogus. Danny is obviously a tough guy. He blows buildings up for a living. He is not the type to be manipulated by anyone. Not the US Govt. Not the Truthers. No one. He is a man who simply speaks what he sees.

And he gave an instant ill-considered opinion based on what the interviewer showed him and told him. Which was a mix of falsehoods and cherry-picked, out-of-context factoids.

 

[tuc0]

Tough guys can never be manipulated. By anyone. It's common sense.

 

[twinstead]

Lack of information can bring the toughest of men to their knees.

 

[Oystein]

The whole title "Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers" is bogus. Danny is obviously a tough guy. He blows buildings up for a living. He is not the type to be manipulated by anyone. Not the US Govt. Not the Truthers. No one. He is a man who simply speaks what he sees.

A salute and a fanfare to Danny!








(What a silly post)

 

[Bell]

The whole title "Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers" is bogus. Danny is obviously a tough guy. He blows buildings up for a living. He is not the type to be manipulated by anyone. Not the US Govt. Not the Truthers. No one. He is a man who simply speaks what he sees.

Danny Jowenko simply spoke about WTC1 and WTC2 not being controlled demolitions.

 

[A W Smith]

Jowenko, Such a big man he's too embarrased to admidt he was duped.

The whole title "Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers" is bogus. Danny is obviously a tough guy. He blows buildings up for a living. He is not the type to be manipulated by anyone. Not the US Govt. Not the Truthers. No one. He is a man who simply speaks what he sees.

Jowenko claims that stateside contractors remain silent because they fear they will be excluded from contracts. This is incorrect. There is no way to exclude qualified bidders from being awarded contracts. In fact if you are the lowest responsible bidder and the contract is awarded to the next highest bidder you can sue and be awarded the contract and/or you can force a re-bid. I don't know how they do it in the Netherlands but that's how they do it here. I have yet to see anyone show me an example of a qualified, insured, bonded contractor being blackballed from bidding contracts. Aside from racketeer influnced or mop ownership and even the mob finds ways to work around that.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

In fact if you are the lowest responsible bidder and the contract is awarded to the next highest bidder you can sue and be awarded the contract and/or you can force a re-bid. I don't know how they do it in the Netherlands but that's how they do it here.

Its pretty much how they do it here in Sweden as well, and us being a part of the EU lends me to believe it is so in the Netherlands as well.

 

[A W Smith]

Its pretty much how they do it here in Sweden as well, and us being a part of the EU lends me to believe it is so in the Netherlands as well.

Ron Weick, If you are reading this please give Danny a call and ask him by what method can a qualified, responsible, bonded, liquid, contractor who meets accounting methods and other requirements of a job for bid be blackballed from bidding on the basis of disagreeing with the generally accepted depiction of the collapse of any of the WTC buildings on that day.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Ron Weick, If you are reading this please give Danny a call and ask him by what method can a qualified, responsible, bonded, liquid, contractor who meets accounting methods and other requirements of a job for bid be blackballed from bidding on the basis of disagreeing with the generally accepted depiction of the collapse of any of the WTC buildings on that day.

Found this on the EU legislation on public procurment:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/index_en.htm

 

[Oystein]

Its pretty much how they do it here in Sweden as well, and us being a part of the EU lends me to believe it is so in the Netherlands as well.

Technically you are right, but in practice I have seen bids for offers that were worded such that in reality only the preferred contractor would meet all the specific requirements of a project.

Because price is not the only thing.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Technically you are right, but in practice I have seen bids for offers that were worded such that in reality only the preferred contractor would meet all the specific requirements of a project.

Because price is not the only thing.

The ranking type system of bidding can set that up pretty easily. This is where a group of judges assign a rank to both price and contractor expertise/qualifications and then determine a total score.

For instance, two contractors might bid almost exactly the same price but one of them will have a 10% advantage over the other. On the flip side, a contractor who prices a project 10% higher than the lowest bidder might only have his total score decreased by 2%. It all depends on how the bid is scored.

If the judges know who they want to win, and knows what the bid numbers are in advance, then it is possible for them to finagle the qualifications/expertise portion of the scoring to allow a higher/preferred contractor to win. Thankfully, bids are sealed and are opened last so it's difficult to cheat without breaking laws.

 

[Miragememories]

The ranking type system of bidding can set that up pretty easily. This is where a group of judges assign a rank to both price and contractor expertise/qualifications and then determine a total score.

For instance, two contractors might bid almost exactly the same price but one of them will have a 10% advantage over the other. On the flip side, a contractor who prices a project 10% higher than the lowest bidder might only have his total score decreased by 2%. It all depends on how the bid is scored.

If the judges know who they want to win, and knows what the bid numbers are in advance, then it is possible for them to finagle the qualifications/expertise portion of the scoring to allow a higher/preferred contractor to win. Thankfully, bids are sealed and are opened last so it's difficult to cheat without breaking laws.

It is very reassuring that truth and honesty now prevail in bidding processes.

Much like the honesty on Wall Street maintained by corporate fear of the law.

I'll let Danny know that in America honest folk have nothing to fear...well, except maybe those dishonest folk in powerful positions.

MM

 

[bill smith]

Found this on the EU legislation on public procurment:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/publicprocurement/index_en.htm

Panopoly Prefect do you know where Ron Wieck posts these days ? I find him an interesting guy to chat with.