• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

carlitos said:
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.
Click to expand...
Miragememories said:
" 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"
Click to expand...


Apparently you are in disagreement with the NIST, and do not believe that a freefall period of global building collapse is possible under any circumstances?

If controlled demolitions are unable to achieve it, then certainly ordinary office cubicle fires can't.

So please explain carlitos, why you disagree with the NIST and why their calculations are so impossible on this point?

MM
 
I don't think MM is inclined to answer questions we pose to him. But it's funny to get his blood boiling by giving him facts/evidence to which he can't possibly relate or debunk.
 
bump for MM;

For the record, MM refuses to clarify his opinion as to whether Blanchard is an expert or not.

Is that my fault? Again, I ask MM to answer the simple question:

Is Brent Blanchard an expert in controlled demolition?

Yes or No?
 
Miragememories said:
Apparently you are in disagreement with the NIST, and do not believe that a freefall period of global building collapse is possible under any circumstances?

If controlled demolitions are unable to achieve it, then certainly ordinary office cubicle fires can't.

So please explain carlitos, why you disagree with the NIST and why their calculations are so impossible on this point?

MM
Click to expand...

Oh lord, you're not one of those Anti-Gravity people are you?
 
alienentity said:
Huh?
Click to expand...

You swapped CD and Not CD for Jowenko and Louizeax. But we get your point. On the other hand, you aren't going to get anywhere trying to explain logical fallacies to MM. He's just trolling and / or doesn't do logic.
 
Last edited:
He's right, you have Jowenko and Loizeaux reversed on your chart. I didn't catch it either at first.

EDIT:

carlitos said:
You swapped CD and Not CD for Jowenko and Louizeax. But we get your point. On the other hand, you aren't going to get anywhere trying to explain Special PleadingWP to MM. He's just trolling and / or doesn't do logic.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the numbers are still correct. The 91.66% expert stand against 9/11 twoof is quite damaging to MM's position. It will be entertaining to see how he screws up handling it.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
You swapped CD and Not CD for Jowenko and Louizeax. But we get your point. On the other hand, you aren't going to get anywhere trying to explain Special PleadingWP to MM. He's just trolling and / or doesn't do logic.
Click to expand...

Yeah but Jowenko is the poster-boy for 9/11 Truth, not just with MM.
I thought it was a good idea to put this in perspective.
 
Hey Chewy, can you fix the version that you quoted as well pls? If it's not too much trouble.

thx
 
It's the same thing you see with firefighters and WTC7.

Firefighters hear explosions, truthers hold them up as saints.

Firefighters see massive impact damage to WTC7, they see fires on every floor, they hear the groaning of metal grinding on metal as it shifts unnaturally, the see bulges where the frame has warped, the see it leaning from a mile away... Truthers say nothing about this... usually. The stupidest ones say what the smarter ones are thinking but won't say... that the firefighters were in on it.
 
BigAl said:
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​
Click to expand...
You have the mendacity to suggest that 8 storys of a building covering city block, could have all of its "lateral bracing for the core columns followed by sudden buckling" removed at the speed of kicking a stool out from under someone?

And to top it off, this freefall could be achieved by unfought office cubicle fires but not by controlled demolition?

MM
 
bump for MM;

For the record, MM refuses to clarify his opinion as to whether Blanchard is an expert or not.

Is that my fault? Again, I ask MM to answer the simple question:

Is Brent Blanchard an expert in controlled demolition?

Yes or No?
 
Miragememories said:
You have the mendacity to suggest that 8 storys of a building covering city block, could have all of its "lateral bracing for the core columns followed by sudden buckling" removed at the speed of kicking a stool out from under someone?
Click to expand...
absolutly.
And to top it off, this freefall could be achieved by unfought office cubicle fires but not by controlled demolition?

MM
Click to expand...

Yup. Steel fails in unfought fires in steel buildings. ISTR posting proof of this to you yesterday when you asked for a citation which you didn't respond to.

Such is the Twoofer way.

There was no man-made demolition at WTC.
 
Give it up. Now he's calling it a cubicle fire, like when that lady in IT had her scented candle tip over. Obvious troll is obvious.
 
Miragememories said:
"Source, or retraction of that statement please?"
Click to expand...
alienentity said:
You can clear it up yourself by answering this simple question:

Is Brent Blanchard an expert in controlled demolition?

We await your answer. No need to consult previous quotes, you can clear it up now. I'll accept your answer as your clear opinion.
If you don't want to offer an opinion, just say so.
Click to expand...

alienentity said:
post 1139
"You also falsely stated that Brent Blanchard is somehow not an expert in controlled demolition."

post 1143
".. your attempt to misrepresent the credentials of Blanchard is downright dishonest"
Click to expand...

You made the statement.

Either back it up or retract it!

MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom