Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Disbelief]

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.

MM

Show us a single planned CD that has any freefall. Just one. Chris could not do it, so maybe you can.

 

[Miragememories]

911 truth can't comprehend why fire destroys buildings. They don't use logic, knowledge, or evidence.

Source?

Proof?

Any basis for substantiating such an all-inclusive opinion about thousands of individuals?

Prejudice and bigotry are not based on logic, knowledge or evidence.

Denial and ignorance are the basis of your claim.

MM

 

[alienentity]

For two years a fire destroyed a building of the Delft University in the Netherlands.
No demolition.

http://www.nuvideo.nl/algemeen/13697/instorting-bouwkunde-tu-delft.html

I think you mean '2 days'
Thanks for the post

AE

 

[alienentity]

The global collapse of WTC7 presented a symmetry that was too well balanced to have occurred naturally and without the aid of planned demolition.

Bare assertion fallacy. You're reading things into it which in all likelihood do not exist.

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.

MM

Another bare assertion. You do not offer any proof that freefall about midway in a controlled demolition is planned for.
Please show us at least some documentation to back up any of your claims. So far you offer none.

And besides, who cares what Danny Jowenko thinks? The only reason you're citing him is because he gave a quick, unscientific opinion based on a misleadingly edited video, and happens to be incorrect.

But you conveniently ignore the several demolitions experts who have actually investigated the WTC in person, starting in the immediate time after the buildings collapsed.
Of course, their opinions do not support your fantasy scenario, so they are edited away into oblivion.

No disrespect to Danny Jowenko, but I guarantee you he wasn't presented with the evidence against CD, such as:

Lack of demolitions explosions at the time when the collapse began
The near-silent implosion of the E PH about 8 seconds before global collapse.

Why was he not presented with a complete set of relevant facts? Doesn't this tend to disqualify his opinion anyway? I believe it does; it is certainly very unscientific in nature.

The desperate weakness of your claims is revealed by a simple examination of the facts. No wonder you have to ignore most of the evidence!

So, in reply to your argument from authority, I say 'Danny Jowenko was wrong, and Mark Loizeaux was correct'. And so is Ron Craig, and also Brent Blanchard.

See? We win by at least 3 to 1. You lose. Nya nya!!

 

[beachnut]

That was a partial collapse.

MM

Why?

Because they fought the fires. The section collapsed that was on fire and not fought. WTC7 was on fire and it was not fought, it collapsed. You 911 truth guys can't figure out fire.

8 years of failure and you are discussing a building which failed in fire and was not a target of the terrorists.

The funniest part is if you use Jowenko as your expert on WTC7 you have to say he is wrong on WTC 1 and 2. This means your expert is 33.3 percent correct for you delusion world of 911 truth. Your expert is a failure, F is his grade. Not a surprise since he is a CD expert not a fire expert, or structural engineer.

The best Jowenko gets is if you return to reality an find out he is 67 percent correct, messing up WTC 7 because he is not an expert on fire, he is an expert on CD.

Is your expert a 33 percent correct fantasy 911 truth expert, or a 67 percent correct reality based expert? Either way Jowenko is not an expert on gravity collapses and fires in buildings.

It would be best to quit in this thread, your expert Jowenko is a failure for your overall conclusion. It means he debunks you on 67 percent of your CD delusions. Are you on topic?

 

[alienentity]

Is your expert a 33 percent correct fantasy 911 truth expert, or a 67 percent correct reality based expert? Either way Jowenko is not an expert on gravity collapses and fires in buildings.

Hilariously true - only 9/11 Truthers would rely on the testimony of someone who is, by their own metrics, wrong 2/3rds of the time!

You couldn't make this up.

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by beachnut
911 truth can't comprehend why fire destroys buildings. They don't use logic, knowledge, or evidence.

Source?

Proof?

Any basis for substantiating such an all-inclusive opinion about thousands of individuals?

Ask a fireman and read these two quotes.

To be more exact, ask about a steel building with no masonry for fireproofing and a fire that is unfought by firemen or sprinklers. All of that describes WTC 1/2/7.

WTC 1/2 were steel truss buildings and the second quote describes how badly they handle fire.

Henry Guthard, engineer and one of [WTC designer] Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible".

Report From Ground Zero page 188
http://snurl.com/j54gc​

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/

(see table D-1 http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/#ad )

NIOSH Publication No. 2005-132:
Preventing Injuries and Deaths of Fire Fighters Due to Truss System Failures


All-steel trusses present their own hazards when exposed to fire. The mass and surface area of steel truss components are factors that determine time to failure. A heavy, thick section of steel has greater resistance to fire than a lightweight section of the same length because of the increased mass. A large, solid steel truss can absorb heat and take longer to reach its failure temperature, whereas a lightweight steel truss such as an open-web bar joist will be heated to its failure temperature much faster.

Once the failure temperature is reached, heavy steel trusses and lightweight metal trusses will react to the fire and fail in a similar manner. A steel member fails at the internal temperature of the steel and not at the ambient air temperature. This temperature is often referred to as the critical temperature of the steel member.

Findings reported by the National Engineered Lightweight Construction Fire Research Project indicate that unprotected lightweight steel C-joists fail within 4 to 6 minutes of exposure to fire [Grundahl 1992]. Testing conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Standards (now known as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST) showed that unprotected steel open-web bar joists reached 1,200: F in 6 to 8 minutes Brannigan 1999]. Table D-1 illustrates that steel retains only 25% of its original strength at 1,200F and retains only half its original strength at approximately 900F. Building design calculations are based on original strength at normal temperatures. At elevated temperatures, steel may retain no excess strength.

...steel loses strength when exposed to temperatures commonly found in,structural fires. Steel has a high thermal conductivity, which means it can transfer heat away from a localized source and act as a heat sink. As long as the flame impingement is localized, the steel can transfer heat to other regions of the member-and thus the time to reach the critical temperature is delayed. If an intense fire is evenly distributed along the steel member, the critical temperature may be reached very quickly. Steel also has a high coefficient of
expansion that results in the expansion of steel members as they are heated. As an example, a 50-foot-long steel beam heated uniformly over its length from 720 to 972F will expand in length by 3.9 inches. The same beam uniformly heated to 800F would expand by 3.2 inches; if heated to 1,2000 F, the beam would expand by 4.9 inches [Grundahl 1991; Cotes 1997].

 

[Bell]

I think you mean '2 days'
Thanks for the post

AE

No, you should read that as "two years ago"

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

When it comes to an opinion about whether WTC7 was felled by controlled demolition alienentity, I'll take the word of an expert in controlled demolitions over that of a corporate video producer any day.

Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition Inc. explains why WTC7 can't have been a controlled demolition.



Brent Blanchard of Protec Documentation Services, webmaster of Implosionworld.com explains why WTC7 can't have been a controlled demolition.

 

[TruthersLie]

occurred before in a concrete and steel building,MM

This is a LIE, and you have been schooled on it. The towers and wtc7 were long span steel framed buildings. AS defined by architects around the world. Stop repeating this lie.

Ranks up there with your lie about the footprint...

ETA:

They all were steel framed... and the concrete played NO part in the structure.
http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=834

The original WTC7 was a steel-framed building with a steel braced core and perimeter moment frame, conventional for high-rise buildings in New York City at the time.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

http://www.scienceof911.com.au/the-argument/wtc-7

The collapse of this building was an astonishing event in the history of modern architecture and structural engineering because never before had a tall steel framed building collapsed due to fire

http://www.buildings.com/ArticleDetails/tabid/3321/ArticleID/2511/Default.aspx
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

and this lovely PDF that is
http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf
page 7.

Now stop spreading this ******** LIE.

 

[GlennB]

The kind of early toppling lean expected in an off-balance natural collapse would have been far from subtle, and quite evident, even at that distance.

I don't know if you're deluded or actually choosing to lie here.

A film taken from the north, at considerable distance, will not show a southerly lean. The distinct lean shown in my still, at which point the building was only about 50% down. Perspective 101. The proof of this particular pudding is in the very still sequence you posted to prove 'symmetry', as it certainly includes the phase of collapse represented by my still. The one where southerly lean was crystal clear.

You have debunked yourself. I wonder if you can even understand that?

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.

No it isn't. All you need is a drop that is sufficent.

What's more, deliberately aiming for a full 8 storey drop would be an insanely complex and dangerous (in terms of detection) plan requiring, among other things, rigging some 15% of all the storeys of an extremely busy commercial office block over a period of months. Do you really believe this is what happened? Really?

And, having already planned to trash the entire WTC area back into the stone age, do you seriously suppose the 'perps' would care so much about collateral damage around WTC7 that they would set out to achieve a neat collapse?

 

[GlennB]

Mark Loizeaux, President of Controlled Demolition Inc. explains why WTC7 can't have been a controlled demolition.



Brent Blanchard of Protec Documentation Services, webmaster of Implosionworld.com explains why WTC7 can't have been a controlled demolition.

I'm expecting <crickets> here. Maybe vacuous bluster or more bare assertion.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm expecting <crickets> here. Maybe vacuous bluster or more bare assertion.

I'm willing to settle for him feeling embarrassed and humiliated for having shot off his pie-hole without checking his facts yet again (you'd think you would have learned by now, MM). Now he has to find a way to BS his way out of the corner he painted himself into and will probably screw that up too.

And they wonder why they haven't gotten anywhere in 9 years?

 

[Oystein]

More experts on the scene, fire fighters, taking pictures and videos, and talking very cleary about severe, heavy, dangerous fires inside building 7:

 

[triforcharity]

The concrete also made WTC7 more rigid and structurally stable.

It would be less inclined to collapse in the convenient manner described by the NIST.

MM

Source?

Show us the math. I would love to see it.

Show us the heat loading on the steel frames, and show me how concrete would effect that.

Show you work.

 

[triforcharity]

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

MM

Really? Show me another CD where freefall occurs.

I'll wait.....

 

[Miragememories]

"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"

"Show us a single planned CD that has any freefall. Just one. Chris could not do it, so maybe you can."

NIST NCSTAR 1A:

"A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face[WTC7] found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s"

The NIST validates the usage of the freefall.

Danny Jowenko an expert in controlled demolition validates the controlled demolition nature of WTC7.

What Chris may have not succeeded in was getting past your denial.

Something I am sure he never expected anyway.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

"The global collapse of WTC7 presented a symmetry that was too well balanced to have occurred naturally and without the aid of planned demolition."

"Bare assertion fallacy. You're reading things into it which in all likelihood do not exist."

unlikelihood; the state or fact of something's being unlikely, improbable, doubtful, dubious, not likely to happen

I stand by my statement until you can provide a reasonable basis for believing otherwise.

"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."

"Another bare assertion. You do not offer any proof that freefall about midway in a controlled demolition is planned for."

Maybe you might suggest how an 8 story freefall in WTC7 could be achieved without controlled demolition?

Since you are so married to science and a belief that a non-controlled demolition cause was behind the amazing collapse of WTC7, alienentity, possibly you might share with us your explanation for 8 storys of freefall?

"Please show us at least some documentation to back up any of your claims. So far you offer none."

That is not true.

NIST NCSTAR 1A:

"A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face[WTC7] found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s"

It is you who have failed to buttress your words with any substance.

"And besides, who cares what Danny Jowenko thinks?"

Because he is, what you aren't, an expert in controlled demolitions.

"The only reason you're citing him is because he gave a quick, unscientific opinion based on a misleadingly edited video, and happens to be incorrect."

No.

Because he gave an unbiased opinion.

"But you conveniently ignore the several demolitions experts who have actually investigated the WTC in person, starting in the immediate time after the buildings collapsed.
Of course, their opinions do not support your fantasy scenario, so they are edited away into oblivion."

Not at all.

There is strong reason to believe their opinions were strongly influenced by mainstream bias. I could expand ad nauseum on that point, but it would be best served by its own thread.

Let me just say that in the wake of 9/11, anyone who dared suggest that it might have been an inside job would have been considered unpatriotic.

"No disrespect to Danny Jowenko, but I guarantee you he wasn't presented with the evidence against CD, such as:

Lack of demolitions explosions at the time when the collapse began
The near-silent implosion of the E PH about 8 seconds before global collapse.

Why was he not presented with a complete set of relevant facts? Doesn't this tend to disqualify his opinion anyway? I believe it does; it is certainly very unscientific in nature."

Again, you are not an expert in controlled demolition.

I have noticed that you have no problem expressing what you feel to be your professional opinion on other 9.11-realted subjects, such as audio. Even when you must know that not all the facts are available to you.

Danny Jowenko had no problem concluding that collapse video of WTC7 he observed could only have been created by a controlled demolition.

Where he did show uncertainty and resorted to speculation, was in the discussion of the mechanics and planning of the WTC7 controlled demolition. Those being the areas where he needed as much information as could be made available.

"The desperate weakness of your claims is revealed by a simple examination of the facts. No wonder you have to ignore most of the evidence!"

I welcome real evidence but have little patience for bluster.

"So, in reply to your argument from authority, I say 'Danny Jowenko was wrong, and Mark Loizeaux was correct'. And so is Ron Craig, and also Brent Blanchard."

They were under severe pressure.

To quote George W. Bush; "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th. Malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

"See? We win by at least 3 to 1. You lose. Nya nya!!"

Nya nya?

MM

 

[alienentity]

]
Danny Jowenko an expert in controlled demolition validates the controlled demolition nature of WTC7.
]

You've already lost this 'argument from authority'.

You also falsely stated that Brent Blanchard is somehow not an expert in controlled demolition. But Mark Loizeaux is, so again, other experts contradict Danny Jowenko.

And to top it off , Jowenko, by your metrics, was wrong 66% of the time in his analysis.

Your position is laughable. You've lost the argument.

 

[Miragememories]

"That was a partial collapse."

"Why?

Because they fought the fires. The section collapsed that was on fire and not fought. WTC7 was on fire and it was not fought, it collapsed. You 911 truth guys can't figure out fire."

Because the building core is where it has it's main support. That is why controlled demolition experts remove the core columns as part of a pre-planned total building implosion.

Partial failure in the less load bearing peripheral structure does not prove there was any likelihood of the same thing happening across the whole building...and all at the same time.

"8 years of failure and you are discussing a building which failed in fire and was not a target of the terrorists."

Unless you are one of the terrorists, you have no way of knowing that WTC7 was not a target.

"The funniest part is if you use Jowenko as your expert on WTC7 you have to say he is wrong on WTC 1 and 2. This means your expert is 33.3 percent correct for you delusion world of 911 truth. Your expert is a failure, F is his grade. Not a surprise since he is a CD expert not a fire expert, or structural engineer."

I would say your continued inability to address the argument is what is truly funny. Your argument has been addressed repeatedly, and repeatedly you ignore the response.

MM