Split Thread WTC7 collapse (again) - split from: How did you rule out that 911 was an insid

[Pookster]

... We all know a great many people agree with me. ...

4.6%, in fact.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Hey MM,

What evidence convinced you that 9/11 was an inside job? Was it merely questions, or was it something more substantial? Please elaborate, if you don't mind.

MM, if you wouldn't mind answering.

 

[Miragememories]

Do you have an argument?

More appropriately...do you???

MM

 

[Par]

Well Par if you have equal credentials, you can contradict him right here and now?

Remember, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

 

[Par]

More appropriately...do you???

Remember, the burden of proof is on the claimant.

 

[johnny karate]

I mean what idiot would believe some debris damage and subsequent fires would result in a collapse like that?

You might want to check with the "idiots" referenced here.

But then again, what do they know? I'm sure the casual observance of an anonymous interent poster such as yourself far out weighs their firsthand experience and expertise.

 

[Pookster]

More appropriately...do you???

MM

No, seriously. Do you?

 

[johnny karate]

"flawed logic, a total absence of evidence and knowledge in fields completely unrelated to those required" clearly suggest the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

Fixed.

Danny Jowenko, an expert on the subject, which you aren't, agrees!

Danny Jowenko (the sole demolition experts CTers are able to produce) also agrees that WTC1 and WTC2 were not controlled demolitions. Oops! How's that inside job theory looking now, considering your only expert undermines it?

NIST, 6+ years later is still stalling on a final explanation and rumour has it that they might "cop out" and not present a final report at all!

And nobody cares except for a few random crackpots who have deluded themselves into thinking that the collapse of a building not directly involved in the attacks and in which no one died somehow figures into a vast conspiracy.

Please do not 'fix' others words.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Miragememories]

MM, if you wouldn't mind answering.

I'm sorry TheRedWorm, I didn't see your post.

What convinced me that WTC7 was an inside job?

Well up until the spring of 2006, I was willing to believe the official story.

Up until that point, I hadn't been exposed to the data surrounding the collapse of WTC7 and I had accepted the PBS argument explaining the WTC Towers' collapse as being 'pancaking' from fire weakened steel.

I mean, I know how my how 'attitude' must stink here, but I really didn't want to believe the most horrendous idea that "9/11 was an inside job", but I've always believed in forming my own opinions and for the life of me, I couldn't accept the WTC7 collapse as anything other than a controlled demolition.

Since the official story refuses to acknowledge the obvious, and insists that it was natural for a modern 47-story, over-engineered highrise office building to perform a total, high speed, symmetrical, collapse after being subjected to some debris damage and limited fire, I was forced to believe there was a coverup occurring.

When a demolition expert like Danny Jowenko agrees with me, it makes it even more difficult to believe the lie.

If the collapse of WTC7 was prepared in advance, as it obviously had to have been, then one has to consider how this reflects on WTC1 and WTC2, Shankesville and the Pentagon.

MM

 

[Totovader]

I'm sorry TheRedWorm, I didn't see your post.

What convinced me that WTC7 was an inside job?

Well up until the spring of 2006, I was willing to believe the official story.

Up until that point, I hadn't been exposed to the data surrounding the collapse of WTC7 and I had accepted the PBS argument explaining the WTC Towers' collapse as being 'pancaking' from fire weakened steel.

I mean, I know how my how 'attitude' must stink here, but I really didn't want to believe the most horrendous idea that "9/11 was an inside job", but I've always believed in forming my own opinions and for the life of me, I couldn't accept the WTC7 collapse as anything other than a controlled demolition.

Since the official story refuses to acknowledge the obvious, and insists that it was natural for a modern 47-story, over-engineered highrise office building to perform a total, high speed, symmetrical, collapse after being subjected to some debris damage and limited fire, I was forced to believe there was a coverup occurring.

When a demolition expert like Danny Jowenko agrees with me, it makes it even more difficult to believe the lie.

If the collapse of WTC7 was prepared in advance, as it obviously had to have been, then one has to consider how this reflects on WTC1 and WTC2, Shankesville and the Pentagon.

MM

According to your expert- no it doesn't. He's emphatically stated that 1 and 2 could not possibly have been a controlled demolition.

That- combined with your other nonsense- shows that you really do want to believe it was an inside job- you just have trouble justifying that belief.

 

[Par]

According to your expert- no it doesn't. He's emphatically stated that 1 and 2 could not possibly have been a controlled demolition.[/B]

You know, I have a sneaking suspicion that MM won’t address that. Rather, he’ll just move on to another well-worn canard as if nothing had happened.

 

[Pookster]

When a demolition expert like Danny Jowenko agrees with me, it makes it even more difficult to believe the lie.

Well, when a demolition expert like Danny Jowenko disagrees with you, does it makes it even less difficult to believe the truth?

 

[johnny karate]

When a demolition expert like Danny Jowenko agrees with me, it makes it even more difficult to believe the lie.

If the collapse of WTC7 was prepared in advance, as it obviously had to have been, then one has to consider how this reflects on WTC1 and WTC2, Shankesville and the Pentagon.

Well, as I pointed out in a previous post, your buddy Danny Jowenko agrees with the official version of events regarding the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.

So since you seem to be so intent on taking Jowenko's opinion as gospel, could you please outline a plausible conspiracy that involves WTC1 and WTC2 collapsing due to airliners being crashed into them (as Jowenko confirms) and WTC7 being destroyed via controlled demolition?

All aboard!

Next stop: Convoluted-ville!

 

[Totovader]

You know, I have a sneaking suspicion that MM won’t address that. Rather, he’ll just move on to another well-worn canard as if nothing had happened.

Most conspiracists never do- because if they even touch on it, they sink their entire argument.

It's rare that I even see Jowenko brought up because of this very fact- and when one sees the footage and realizes that he was intentionally misled, and was so uninformed and skeptical of his own position that it begs further review- the entire "expert" angle just disappears.

 

[TheRedWorm]

I'm sorry TheRedWorm, I didn't see your post.

<Snipped some stuff>
Since the official story refuses to acknowledge the obvious, and insists that it was natural for a modern 47-story, over-engineered highrise office building to perform a total, high speed, symmetrical, collapse after being subjected to some debris damage and limited fire, I was forced to believe there was a coverup occurring.

When a demolition expert like Danny Jowenko agrees with me, it makes it even more difficult to believe the lie.
<Snipped some other stuff>

MM

First off, don't worry about not seeing my post, it is a fast moving thread.
Second, thank you for your response.
Third, I find this quoted material telling. You say that it was a symmetrical collapse, but the mechanical penthouse collapsed a number of seconds before the collapse of the rest of the building. This also suggests that the collapse was not as "high speed" as you may think. Does this cause you to re-evaluate your position at all?

 

[Miragememories]

According to your expert- no it doesn't. He's emphatically stated that 1 and 2 could not possibly have been a controlled demolition.

That- combined with your other nonsense- shows that you really do want to believe it was an inside job- you just have trouble justifying that belief.

I specifically stated his opinion about WTC7 Totovader.

Regardless of what he said about WTC 1 & 2, that does not alter his opinion about the collapse of WTC7.

MM

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I specifically stated his opinion about WTC7 Totovader.

Regardless of what he said about WTC 1 & 2, that does not alter his opinion about the collapse of WTC7.

MM

but you dont think it casts the slightest bit of doubt as to the validity of his opinion?

 

[CptColumbo]

I specifically stated his opinion about WTC7 Totovader.

Regardless of what he said about WTC 1 & 2, that does not alter his opinion about the collapse of WTC7.

MM

So, his opinion only matters when it agrees with yours. Got it.

 

[Totovader]

I specifically stated his opinion about WTC7 Totovader.

Regardless of what he said about WTC 1 & 2, that does not alter his opinion about the collapse of WTC7.

MM

Way to dodge the point.

You specifically stated that believing WTC 7 was demolished brings into question 1 & 2. I pointed out that your expert disagrees- you can't seem to resolve that.

 

[Par]

I specifically stated his opinion about WTC7 Totovader. Regardless of what he said about WTC 1 & 2, that does not alter his opinion about the collapse of WTC7.

Truly beautiful!

Your expert should be taken seriously when he seems to support your conspiracy theories, but should be ignored when he appears to refute them.

(Special pleading fallacy: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html )