Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[twinstead]

I find it very sad how quick mm is to hand wave all the demolition experts who disagree with his position, yet hold Jowenko, somebody who according to him is totally wrong about WTC1 and 2, as the supreme source concerning WTC7.

Yea, MM. They were afraid of looking unpatriotic, because there has never been a whistle blower who risked his job or even life before in the whole history of the universe.

 

[Disbelief]

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

You are really bad at this. Here is your statement:

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

Please show us a CD that attains freefall. Please show us how freefall is planned in a CD. Chris could not do it, can you?

 

[alienentity]

=Miragememories;6284054





Where he did show uncertainty and resorted to speculation, was in the discussion of the mechanics and planning of the WTC7 controlled demolition.

Oh, you've forgotten that he wasn't actually shown a full video, with sound and beginning at the actual start of the collapse. Gee, must be nice to be able to forget inconvenient facts so quickly

They were under severe pressure.

You have this much ego that you imagine you know what 3 top experts are thinking, that you know what goes on in their lives? Wow.

FYI, Ron Craig, a Toronto explosives expert, has fought against the 9/11 Truth myths long since 9/11, even participating in radio debates such as the one with Richard Gage on the Syrett show.

So your claim is nothing more than a biased opinion.

And Brent Blanchard published his 'CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT ' in 2006 - long after the immediate shock of the terrorist attacks by 19 hijackers.

Again, your attempt to mind-read these people is very weak; your attempt to misrepresent the credentials of Blanchard is downright dishonest; your attempt to dismiss all other possible expert opinions and cling to your 66% wrong Jowenko is childish.

That's why I mocked you with the childish 'Nya Nya', because the level you're operating on is grade-school and largely irrelevant to the evidence and facts.

Just as I expect from you, though.

 

[carlitos]

Just so I can understand, they are saying that 2 seconds of free fall acceleration is proof of a "controlled demolition?" Presumably with silent bombs or magic termites or whatever?

Despite the fact that, for most of the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building, it wasn't falling at free fall acceleration?

And despite the fact that no other controlled demolition can be shown to achieve free fall acceleration?

That's some mighty fine illogic right there. WTC7 mostly didn't accelerate at free fall; therefore it was a controlled demolition. Other controlled demolitions have loud bangs and don't fall at free fall; therefore WTC7 looks "just like" a controlled demolition.

This belief appears to be faith-based.

 

[alienentity]

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

Hmm, and yet, Beachnut, notice how MM has no trouble pretending to read the minds of ALL the demolition experts who disagree with Jowenko?

So he applies a complete double-standard, yet expects perhaps that nobody will notice. This kind of basic dishonesty is sadly a requirement of the hardcore truther - you just cannot maintain the conspiracy/controlled demolition fallacies and competently or honestly view the actual evidence.

 

[BigAl]

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.



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

ISTM that the loss of lateral bracing for the core column followed by sudden buckling as shown in this animation is completely reasonable and consistent with how steel is affected by an unfought fire and the nature of the WTC7 fires on 9/11.

Just imagine someone kicking the stool out from under you. You'll be in free-fall, at least for a moment. That's what happened to WTC7.

Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell (3:40 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc​

 

[carlitos]

Again, that the Salomon Brothers building would be a "target" for anything requires a lot of imagination. It's really the stupidest part of their non-hypothesis.

 

[twinstead]

Again, that the Salomon Brothers building would be a "target" for anything requires a lot of imagination. It's really the stupidest part of their non-hypothesis.

I don't know. Salomon sounds remotely Hebrew. Maybe they didn't like the idea of a Hebrew building.

 

[alienentity]

That's some mighty fine illogic right there. WTC7 mostly didn't accelerate at free fall; therefore it was a controlled demolition. Other controlled demolitions have loud bangs and don't fall at free fall; therefore WTC7 looks "just like" a controlled demolition.

This belief appears to be faith-based.

His ideas have been completely destroyed, and now, as with C7, he presents as a 'Zombie Doctrine' - you can kill it over and over with facts, but it just keeps coming back.

These guys even claim magical powers, like MM's claimed ability to literally read the minds of demolition experts; they're not dissimilar to other hucksters and snake-oil purveyors. With intellectually corrupt leaders like Richard Gage and Steven Jones, is this really surprising?

 

[alienentity]

Again, that the Salomon Brothers building would be a "target" for anything requires a lot of imagination. It's really the stupidest part of their non-hypothesis.

And another fascinating aspect of their many failed claims is their inability to let go of even the least significant of them.

MM for example cannot escape from his myopic understanding of the Barry Jennings testimony, for example;
Nor from his equally slavish adherence to certain very narrow statements of Danny Jowenko, even though Jowenko's other testimony is directly contradictory to Truther Doctrine.

I'd feel sorry for these people if they weren't so aggressive in peddling their half-baked ideas.

 

[Scott Jurgenson]

ISTM that the loss of lateral bracing for the core column followed by sudden buckling as shown in this animation is completely reasonable and consistent with how steel is affected by an unfought fire and the nature of the WTC7 fires on 9/11.

Just imagine someone kicking the stool out from you. You'll be in free-fall, at lease for a moment. That's what happened yo WTC7.

Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell (3:40 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc​

How does a truther watch something like that and still beleive it was brought down by explosives?

Do they do the whole..."NIST hast to be in on it" schtick?

 

[beachnut]

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

I am not a terrorists, but to your delusions. WTC 7 was not a target, I use logic, evidence, flying experience, and cheat by asking the terrorists who plot it. Called research and logic, something you don't use as you picked a failure at recognizing gravity collapses and picked him as your "expert". He is 2/3rds right, or 1/3rd right. You choose poorly.

Please start your own thread on your latest delusions of WTC 7 being a target. Do you need the final heading of Flight 93 to help you make your decision?

If Danny has read NIST's report on WTC 7 and still thinks WTC 7 was a CD, he is not an expert and he may have comprehension problems.

You have a failed expert. Danny may be fooled by a gravity collapse, because the main energy source for CD is E=mgh (gravity is g, m is mass, h is height; towers had over 130 tons of TNT energy released due to gravity). Look it up before you expose your inability to learn with another post of CD delusion.

Which part of fire destroys buildings escapes your attention? It is a fact you ignore to maintain your CD delusions. With Danny saying WTC 1 and 2 are gravity collapse from impacts and fire, who is your tower expert in woo?

 

[bill smith]

Hmm, and yet, Beachnut, notice how MM has no trouble pretending to read the minds of ALL the demolition experts who disagree with Jowenko?

So he applies a complete double-standard, yet expects perhaps that nobody will notice. This kind of basic dishonesty is sadly a requirement of the hardcore truther - you just cannot maintain the conspiracy/controlled demolition fallacies and competently or honestly view the actual evidence.

Do you have a single case in the world of any professional demolition expert or demolition company standing up and saying:-

' Danny Jowenko is wrong because......'

I am looking for a direct refutation of Danny Jowenko by name .

 

[Bell]

Do you have a single case in the world of any professional demolition expert or demolition company standing up and saying:-

' Danny Jowenko is wrong because......'

I am looking for a direct refutation of Danny Jowenko by name .

Maybe you can start with providing us with an endorsement?

Eta: Outside the 9/11 denying and terrorist apologist architects and engineers from AE truth of course, but real experts.

 

[Miragememories]

As I expected, all the responses are nothing but empty-headed OCTer rhetoric.

MM

 

[alienentity]

Do you have a single case in the world of any professional demolition expert or demolition company standing up and saying:-

' Danny Jowenko is wrong because......'

I am looking for a direct refutation of Danny Jowenko by name .

What's the difference? Jowenko's conclusions are contradicted already by other leading demolition experts, period.

If I turn your question around on you, why hasn't Jowenko refuted, point-by-point, the conclusions of Loizeaux, Blanchard and Craig, or their colleagues?

In the battle of 'argument from authority' which MM has attempted to make, you guys lose very easily and by a wide margin.

Setting that aside, what's the difference? I don't see one of any substance.

 

[Miragememories]

"You also falsely stated that Brent Blanchard is somehow not an expert in controlled demolition."

Source, or retraction of that statement please?

MM

 

[bill smith]

What's the difference? Jowenko's conclusions are contradicted already by other leading demolition experts, period.

If I turn your question around on you, why hasn't Jowenko refuted, point-by-point, the conclusions of Loizeaux, Blanchard and Craig, or their colleagues?

In the battle of 'argument from authority' which MM has attempted to make, you guys lose very easily and by a wide margin.

Setting that aside, what's the difference? I don't see one of any substance.

Well I imagine because Jowenko does not want to fully enter the 9/11 fray. He simply gave his professional opinion that WTC7 was a Controlled Demolition and confirmined that opinion a year later after studying the details and the drawings and so on.

It's a pity that Mark Loiseaux or especially Ron Craig do not invite Danny to defend his statements on Coast-to-Coast or a similar show.

 

[Miragememories]

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

From what I can see, you've yet to make an argument.

Unlike you, I replied with a reasoned argument to your points.

Apparently, you are under the misguided belief that mockery and bluster are legitimate forms of counter-argument?

alienentity: "You do not offer any proof that freefall about midway in a controlled demolition is planned for."

Miragememories: "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?"

MM

 

[twinstead]

Source, or retraction of that statement please?

MM

I'm curious as to why, if you consider Mr. Blanchard to be a CD expert, do you favor Jowenko's opinion over his. Is Mr. Blanchard biased? If yes, how can you know?