Spoken like a trial lawyer.
"for legal purposes"
Give me a break.
The truth is, the owner of a demolition company and two professors of structural analysis and construction say the videos are clear evidence of a CD.
You can ignore these experts by saying "That isn't enough for legal purposes", if it makes you feel good.
Ahem. Once again, you are misconstruing and misstating the facts.
You were the one who claimed that Jowenko's opinion, based on a few minutes of video, would be compelling "expert" evidence
in court. In fact, it would nothing of the sort. For the reasons set out previously, the man would be laughed out of court.
It was
you who raised the issue of Jowenko testifying
in court, not I. Not that it will ever happen. I suspect that the man would sooner slit his wrists than put himself and his reputation on a witness stand over his misguided and embarrassingly unprofessional words regarding WTC7.
You are so wrong on so many levels about nearly everything you post here, but when you try to pretend that it was I who raised the legal issue, that's just downright dishonest. I simply responded to the legal issue that was raised in
your post. It is doubly dishonest when you use your initial lie to also create an ad hominem in the process as you have done in your most recent post above, to which I am responding.
You claimed that Jowenko would make a good expert witness for the CT brigade to prove,
in court, that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. I pointed out to you why and how you were wrong about that. I pointed out to you that you haven't a clue what you're talking about when it comes to experts offering opinions in court, and I pointed out to you why and how Jowenko would be blown away on the witness stand since he based his "expert" opinion on a few minutes of video.
As you will recall,
you claimed that he didn't need any more than that to formulate an "expert" opinion
for purposes of testifying in court and you claimed that an expert need not have any background information, etc. for his testimony in court to be accepted.
I told you how wrong you were, and told you that any expert who comes to court without background information and without conducting thorough and in-depth investigation into the issue at hand would not be successful.
This all still stands. You know not of what you speak when it comes to facts, evidence, legal thresholds, expert witnesses, or anything else about the law, legal processes or procedures.
And now you have the audacity to insinuate that my referring to "legal purposes" is some kind of a dodge, when it was
you who raised legal purposes in the first place?
That's way beyond lame, Chris, and as transparent as hell. It is apparent to me that you know that you have no meaningful response of substance so, instead, you're just writing crap in hopes that nobody notices your lack of substance.
Guess what? You have failed.
No matter how much you try to claim otherwise, the videos are not evidence of controlled demolition. They are merely evidence of a building collapsing.
The fact that you don't even know why this is so, and the fact that you are afraid to ask why it is so, is very telling.
