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

[Earthborn]

All editing is done after filming.

That's my point, innit? It means that the tone of the documentary after it was edited cannot be used as evidence of the intentions of the film makers when they were filming. At most it is evidence of the intentions of the film makers while they were editing, but even then guesssing their intentions in such an indirect way is problematic.

No, it does not.

How does that work then? Did the film makers not know whether or not it was controlled demolition, but wanted it to be controlled demolition whether it was or not?

All they had to do was select the video with the worst vantage point

That of course assumes that they knew what the worst vantage point was, and that assumes a level of expertise that is not in evidence. It also assumes that they had access to videos with better vantage points and were able to recognise that those would not support the controlled demolition hypothesis.

When his suspicions about the credibility of the claim are raised

He shows absolutely no suspicions about the credibility that what he saw on the video was a controlled demolition. He just could not believe it could have happened on the 11th of september 2001.

Quite the opposite. You can see from the video that Jowenko was very reluctant to arrive at that conclusion

You must have obviously seen a very different video than this one. Or maybe you are confused about what is said by the journalist and what by Jowenko.

Jowenko is shown the video, and this is what follows:

Jowenko: "Does it (the collapse) start from the top? No, it starts from the bottom."
Journalist: "It starts from the bottom.
Jowenko: "They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."
Journalist: "So this is different from the World Trade Center?"
Jowenko: "Don't you agree?"
Journalist: "Yes, you see the bottom floors go first.
Jowenko: "Yes, and the rest drops. This is controlled demolition."
Journalist: "You're sure?"
Jowenko: "I'm sure. This is has been blown up. This is a contractual job. It has been done by a team of experts."
Journalist: "But this also happened on the 11th of september..."
Jowenko: "The same day?"
Journalist: "The same day."
Jowenko: "The same day? Are you sure?"
Journalist: "Yes."
Jowenko: "Are you really sure it was the 11th. That can't be."
Journalist: "Seven hours after the World Trade Center fell."
Jowenko: "Yeah? Then they must have worked very hard."

Sorry, I don't see any evidence that Jowenko was reluctant to arrive at the conclusion that it was a controlled demolition. He saw the video and declared it to be a controlled demolition almost immediately. Jowenko only expresses surprise that it happened on the same day, but that does not change his opinion that it must have been a controlled demolition.

Not only did the filmmakers do that, but they also handed Jowenko "all the evidence he needed" to draw the wrong conclusion.

Later in the interview the journalist handed him evidence that might cause Jowenko to draw the right conclusion. But Jowenko was too quick to draw the wrong conclusion and didn't change his opinion after that.

If they had approached Jowenko properly, told him their intentions, and allowed him to research it on his own- I doubt he would have arrived at the same conclusion.

No argument there. But the journalist could not reasonably have foreseen that Jowenko would draw an immediate conclusion with the first evidence he is confronted with. The journalist probably should have presented the evidence in a different way, but Jowenko should have asked for more information before confidently declaring it a controlled demolition.

They did not specifically state that-

Yes, they did.

Jowenko arrived at that conclusion on his own-

No, he doesn't.

From this video:

Jowenko: "but that was a small fire, they could extinguish that and that was what they must've done."
Journalist: "No, they did not extinguish the fire. So the people who had to do it (place explosives) had to do it while it was on fire. That is rather unlikely if you look at it that way, isn't it?"
Jowenko: "For me it is like reading tea leaves. I mean that is not a lot of information. If only we had some pictures from the other side, especially from the direction of the Twin towers."
Journalist: "Correct, we don't have that. There has only been a sort of damage report made... I have it here... This, it is bit guess work using testimonies of fire fighters. They've seen that there was damage from here probably until here and that has at least damaged these 3 columns and these 5 and these 2."

Again it is the journalist who provides the information that challenges Jowenko's conclusion. It is Jowenko who tries to fit it into the narrative of controlled demolition.

to then cleverly add that the building was on fire only draws the audience to the next conclusion: that the building was pre-rigged. Jowenko does not specifically state this- because he's (in all likelihood) questioning his premises- but it's what the audience is supposed to conclude.

If that is what the audience was supposed to conclude, then the film makers have failed miserably. You're probably the first one to come up with the idea. I certainly never heard of a "pre-rigging" hypothesis before.

I have provided evidence that the filmmakers intentionally misled Jowenko

Really? I must have missed it. Point out where it is, and 500 euros are yours. But you'll have to do better than "the film makers should have done this and they didn't" and "the tone of the documentary shows it".

I never said it was a conspiracy theory.

No, I said that your accussations of intentionally misleading Jowenko constitute a conspiracy theory. A small conspiracy perhaps, of only a few journalists, but the evidence you provide is in no way better than what conspiracy theorists usually present. Most of it shows to me that you could not have understood a lot of what was said in the interview as some claims you made are directly contradicted.

 

[einsteen]

I think you should have done the translation EB..

Here are the subs if anyone is interested

http://rapidshare.com/files/77497872/jowenko.sub.html

 

[einsteen]

So, you're saying a layman could have imploded WTC7 without the proper knowledge... if only he had the proper knowledge?

Got it.

And perhaps you should rethink what you're trying to say- lest you forget about the '93 incident...

I missed your post, but what I wanted to say that if the collapse is really something that started with a single point of initiation then the whole job is brought back to only finding that out. Theoretically a single bomb should be sufficient. That's also the conclusion we have to draw from the twin towers, a single fuel bomb would be a possibility, no that will not be a clean demolition, but it will work and it will be a complete one.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Thank you Earth for pointing out the part where Jowenko kept asking for more data, which he wasn't given. So of course he's going to have a really good opinion based on a single video, incorrect information provided by the twoofer, no pictures of the damage prior (thus he had to assume the building was in perfect shape and the fires were small), or the actual beginning of the collapse, etc.

I would say this goes being twoofism, and in the realm of a con job. And yes you clearly DID mis this part where they most certainly DID mislead the guy.

 

[uk_dave]

That's also the conclusion we have to draw from the twin towers, a single fuel bomb would be a possibility, no that will not be a clean demolition, but it will work and it will be a complete one.

hmmmmm a fuel bomb..... guess all you'd need for that would be a container and a lot of fuel. Would a plane do?

 

[Earthborn]

Thank you Earth for pointing out the part where Jowenko kept asking for more data, which he wasn't given.

Note that this is towards the end. He wasn't asking for more data from the beginning, because in the beginning he was quite confident. He only starts to say that he doesn't have enough data after the journalist has provided him with evidence that doesn't fit with his confident conclusion. And he was given extra information on the damaged state of the building.

So of course he's going to have a really good opinion based on a single video, incorrect information provided by the twoofer

I don't think the journalist is a truther (or was before the interview), and the information he provided is probably not incorrect. I assume you don't want to argue that there wasn't a fire in WTC7, and that those columns weren't damaged...

I would say this goes being twoofism, and in the realm of a con job. And yes you clearly DID mis this part where they most certainly DID mislead the guy.

I don't dispute that Jowenko was misled by the way he was interviewed. I just dispute that there is any evidence that it was intentional. Prove to me that it was intentional and win 500 euro. That is my mini-Conspiracy challenge.

 

[Totovader]

That's my point, innit? It means that the tone of the documentary after it was edited cannot be used as evidence of the intentions of the film makers when they were filming.

Only if you assume that the filmmakers have absolutely nothing to do with the editing. That would be a false assumption on your part. My point was that all films are edited after they're filmed, therefore your argument is non-sequitur.

At most it is evidence of the intentions of the film makers while they were editing, but even then guesssing their intentions in such an indirect way is problematic.

No guessing need be made- it's quite clear what the intentions were as I have pointed out. At best- if they didn't mean to mislead Jowenko- then there should have been some follow-up or explanation in the video at that point. The lack of that speaks to the intention.

How does that work then? Did the film makers not know whether or not it was controlled demolition, but wanted it to be controlled demolition whether it was or not?

That's the way conspiracy theories usually go...

That of course assumes that they knew what the worst vantage point was, and that assumes a level of expertise that is not in evidence.

Not necessarily that they knew the worst vantage point of all the available vantage points- but that they knew which vantage point would lead the witness to the conclusion they wanted him to arrive at. No expertise is required to perform this act.

It also assumes that they had access to videos with better vantage points and were able to recognise that those would not support the controlled demolition hypothesis.

Not necessarily- although I will concede that they could have just been ignorant. I find this hard to believe since this was supposed to be an investigative documentary, but specifically on the issue of which vantage point was used: they may not have been aware of the other footage available. However, the timing of what they showed him is still wildly misleading. He was only shown the portion of the collapse after the penthouse had collapsed. I firmly believe that if he was shown the full collapse- he would not have arrived at the conclusion that he did (assuming he's really an expert in his field... which isn't necessarily the case).

He shows absolutely no suspicions about the credibility that what he saw on the video was a controlled demolition. He just could not believe it could have happened on the 11th of september 2001.

That statement is contradictory. You cannot ignore the context of the claimed controlled demolition- this is specifically what Jowenko shows some obvious reservations about. "They must have worked really fast" is the best thing he could come up with on the spot- although it clearly makes no sense.

You must have obviously seen a very different video than this one. Or maybe you are confused about what is said by the journalist and what by Jowenko.

I cannot view that video at the time- but I am pretty sure I'm recalling the video correctly.

Jowenko is shown the video, and this is what follows:

Jowenko: "Does it (the collapse) start from the top? No, it starts from the bottom."
Journalist: "It starts from the bottom.

Here, the journalist has already mislead Jowenko. Although we could debate all day on what the role of journalists are- the statement of fact is that this conclusion is completely false. Jowenko should have been corrected, here. It's obvious that by showing this particular video to him, and selectively showing him only a portion of the collapse- the idea that it was a "bottom up" collapse is exactly what they wanted him to conclude (not only him as an individual, but him as a person who has knowledge of controlled demolition). Had he been shown the penthouse failure- he would not have arrived at the conclusion that it started at the bottom. (Again, assuming he's really an expert in the field).

Jowenko: "They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards."
Journalist: "So this is different from the World Trade Center?"
Jowenko: "Don't you agree?"
Journalist: "Yes, you see the bottom floors go first.
Jowenko: "Yes, and the rest drops. This is controlled demolition."

Here we can see why the video selection and the ommitted section are so terribly important to the investigation.

At this point I must stress: they did not allow Jowenko to investigate this on his own- they handed him the information he would need to draw the conclusion they wanted him to arrive at.

Respectfully, how you cannot see that is a mystery to me.

Journalist: "You're sure?"
Jowenko: "I'm sure. This is has been blown up. This is a contractual job. It has been done by a team of experts."
Journalist: "But this also happened on the 11th of september..."
Jowenko: "The same day?"
Journalist: "The same day."
Jowenko: "The same day? Are you sure?"
Journalist: "Yes."
Jowenko: "Are you really sure it was the 11th. That can't be."

It's important that you- and everyone else- understand why Jowenko was reluctant about this conclusion. At this point, he has been assured that this was a controlled demolition- and the information he would need to question that assertion has been withheld. Drawing on that incorrect conclusion, Jowenko is now faced with the contradiction of a ridiculous and fast demolition crew working to destroy a building for absolutely no reason in a matter of hours. Again- since he sees no reason to question his premises of a controlled demolition- he's unable to fully grasp the situation. He does the best he can with the available information:

Journalist: "Seven hours after the World Trade Center fell."
Jowenko: "Yeah? Then they must have worked very hard."

Instead of questioning his premise- again, because the necessary information was withheld- Jowenko is forced to base another false premise on that conclusion: they must have worked very hard. Had Jowenko been allowed to investigate the events prior to the interview- or even been given some questions or information before hand- or if the interviewer had been honest in the questioning and not so misleading- the conclusion would obviously have been different.

It's an interesting study in epistemology- but the point is that this quoted section shows the interviewer leading Jowenko through poor questioning, and a prevarication of the available data.

Sorry, I don't see any evidence that Jowenko was reluctant to arrive at the conclusion that it was a controlled demolition.

Read the first sentence again. You (correctly) included a question mark. He was initially reluctant to make that statement based on the top-down versus bottom-up problem, but when the interviewer incorrectly agrees with his false premise, he's allowed to run wild.

He saw the video and declared it to be a controlled demolition almost immediately. Jowenko only expresses surprise that it happened on the same day, but that does not change his opinion that it must have been a controlled demolition.

Almost immediately. The reservation he had there was squashed rather quickly by the interviewer.

Let us also not forget that there is a bit of bias, here. They are taking a video of a building collapsing to a demolition expert (again, who is not necessarily an expert in this particular area) and asking him "does this look like a CD to you?" The question itself is biased- Jowenko would have to necessarily conclude that the interviewers already know that it is, since it would be a silly question to ask him otherwise. It would be no different than dressing up a law-abiding citizen in leg-irons and a prison jump suit and then asking a police officer "does this look like a criminal to you?" The police officer would not feel compelled to ask the obvious question: "Well, has this person broken any laws?" because it's implied in the question itself.

That- would seem to me- to be a major problem with this entire line of questioning, but I can hardly say that much is intentional. It is- however- an indication of poor investigative skills (assuming, of course, that they were not going for a specific answer).

Later in the interview the journalist handed him evidence that might cause Jowenko to draw the right conclusion. But Jowenko was too quick to draw the wrong conclusion and didn't change his opinion after that.

You would have to be more specific, here. But I revert to my original statement regarding the first error- the "top-down" omission which allowed Jowenko to draw the wrong conclusion. Any information he's presented after that point which does not specifically address that error would not cause him to question that assertion.

No argument there. But the journalist could not reasonably have foreseen that Jowenko would draw an immediate conclusion with the first evidence he is confronted with.

I completely disagree. Not only did they go to a demolition expert- but they showed him video which necessarily lacked the information he would need to correct their pre-determined conclusion.

The journalist probably should have presented the evidence in a different way, but Jowenko should have asked for more information before confidently declaring it a controlled demolition.

Jowenko was going off the information he was presented. Without knowing that the interviewers had a specific agenda- and without knowing what questions were going to be asked after he had drawn his initial conclusion- he was obviously intentionally led down the wrong path.

This admission you have made right here should make that painfully clear to you. You can call it Jowenko's mistake if you like- that he didn't ask for more information- but it still makes it clear that he was intentionally misled.

Yes, they did.

No, they did not. They allowed him to arrive at his conclusion first- and then watched as he struggled to find answers to the inevitable contradictions.

They led him down that path.

No, he doesn't.

Yes- he most certainly does. Your quotations show that Jowenko is trying to resolve this contradiction by assuming that the fires would not have gotten in the way of the demolition attempts. He's still working to resolve the numerous contradictions arriving from his first premise.

From this video:

Jowenko: "but that was a small fire, they could extinguish that and that was what they must've done."
Journalist: "No, they did not extinguish the fire. So the people who had to do it (place explosives) had to do it while it was on fire. That is rather unlikely if you look at it that way, isn't it?"

I'm glad you quoted this section, because it speaks to what I forgot to add in my last post until I had already posted it- the interviewer is trying to draw Jowenko to conclude that the demolition charges could not have been set that day. This is the only natural conclusion that one can arrive at based on the false premise in the beginning of the interview- which would be the only natural conclusion for an individual in his position with the manipulated data he was given.

Jowenko: "For me it is like reading tea leaves. I mean that is not a lot of information. If only we had some pictures from the other side, especially from the direction of the Twin towers."

Here we can specifically see Jowenko resolving that his contradictions cannot be addressed. I believe that here, Jowenko may have realized that he was fed poor information. Remember, he's already concluded that 1 and 2 could not have been a controlled demolition. He has realized, now, that the fires make the CD of WTC7 either highly unlikely, or part of a conspiracy theory. He's questioning his original assertion, without having the information necessary to question it (because it's been withheld by the interviewer).

Journalist: "Correct, we don't have that. There has only been a sort of damage report made... I have it here... This, it is bit guess work using testimonies of fire fighters. They've seen that there was damage from here probably until here and that has at least damaged these 3 columns and these 5 and these 2."

And here- the journalist makes his final attack. Not only is he trying to downplay Jowenko's growing skepticism by claiming there is no other information (a flat out lie), but he's trying to claim that the information available is "sort of" complete- and (at best) based off of testimony. They made no mention of the structural damage as seen in other videos, and have indicated (at least from what I can see) that this is the only vantage point. Again, they could just be ignorant on that fact- but the conclusion they have led him to is quite obviously planned.

Again it is the journalist who provides the information that challenges Jowenko's conclusion. It is Jowenko who tries to fit it into the narrative of controlled demolition.

They are not challenging Jowenko's conclusion- only his efforts to resolve the contradictions inherent in that conclusion by claiming that the information they have given him is accurate, and that the other information available is inconclusive.

If that is what the audience was supposed to conclude, then the film makers have failed miserably. You're probably the first one to come up with the idea. I certainly never heard of a "pre-rigging" hypothesis before.

Did you notice what thread you're posting in?

Really? I must have missed it. Point out where it is, and 500 euros are yours. But you'll have to do better than "the film makers should have done this and they didn't" and "the tone of the documentary shows it".

This entire conversation has been me proving that to you- and you ignoring it. You have essentially admitted it here, but since you have put money on the line, I doubt you will be bold enough to admit it.

No, I said that your accussations of intentionally misleading Jowenko constitute a conspiracy theory.

I addressed why this conclusion is entirely inaccurate- and makes no sense. Your rebuttal here makes no sense in regards to my comments.

A small conspiracy perhaps, of only a few journalists, but the evidence you provide is in no way better than what conspiracy theorists usually present. Most of it shows to me that you could not have understood a lot of what was said in the interview as some claims you made are directly contradicted.

A "small conspiracy" is not the same as a conspiracy theory. How you can conclude that the evidence I have prevented equals a conspiracy theory is beyond me. Either you need to explain this better, or educate yourself on what a conspiracy theory entails. I have seen no indication that any of the claims I have made are contradicted by the facts- your quotations from the video directly confirm what I had previously stated- and your comments regarding the interviewer is further evidence for my conclusion.

 

[Totovader]

Note that this is towards the end. He wasn't asking for more data from the beginning, because in the beginning he was quite confident. He only starts to say that he doesn't have enough data after the journalist has provided him with evidence that doesn't fit with his confident conclusion. And he was given extra information on the damaged state of the building.

Entirely incorrect. Jowenko's first statement is made reluctantly. In order to arrive at the conclusion he did- he would have to have been misled via the video presentation as I stated. He begins to question that original premise after the interviewer allowed him to conclude that the charges could not have been set that day. If nothing else- the statement Jowenko makes in regards to "reading tea-leaves" proves that the interviewer has given Jowenko a specific lack of information, but also speaks to the fact that Jowenko was essentially brow-beaten on the spot, without the ability to research the facts on his own time.

As I said- this doesn't need to turn into a debate about journalistic integrity- it's simply quite clear from the interview that the conclusion that Jowenko arrived at was pre-planned and certain information was withheld in order to assure he arrived at that conclusion.

I don't think the journalist is a truther (or was before the interview), and the information he provided is probably not incorrect.

I disagree- based on the statements the interviewer made, it's quite clear that he's not simply "asking questions"- he's arrived at a conclusion and needs a pseudo-expert to confirm the cherry-picked portions of the information.

I assume you don't want to argue that there wasn't a fire in WTC7, and that those columns weren't damaged...

Had you been led to believe based on your own conclusion (from invalid information handed to you at the time of the interview) that it was a controlled demolition- the argument that there was a fire and structural damage (although they will argue it was minimal) would confirm a conspiracy theory in this context. That's important to remember. What you see as the interviewer trying to challenge Jowenko is actually the interviewer trying to use Jowenko's skepticism to lead him down a different path.

Remember: charges set that day (although silly and pointless) would not be a conspiracy theory (except that it's denied by official sources- but that is not within the context of this discussion). Charges set prior to 9/11 would have to be a conspiracy theory- because it necessarily implies a foreknowledge of the events. This is why Jowenko's skepticism needed to be quickly addressed and his conclusion still left open.

"I don't know" is the best thing for this interview that he could have said (from their vantage point) because it means that here, we have this demolition expert... and he can't explain how these events unfolded on that day- although he's sure it was a controlled demolition!

I don't dispute that Jowenko was misled by the way he was interviewed. I just dispute that there is any evidence that it was intentional.

As I stated when you originally made this concession- I do not understand how you can draw such a distinction. I have yet to see you adequately explain this. The video he was shown was intentionally misleading- the conclusions he was allowed to make are known errors based off a prevarication of the available information.

Even if you assume that the interviewer is just plain ignorant- it's ignorance fueled by a belief in conspiracism- which means that it's based on an intentional and willful ignorance of the available information. I don't see how you can avoid this fact.

Prove to me that it was intentional and win 500 euro. That is my mini-Conspiracy challenge.

Considering I have already provided an excellent- and irrefutable- argument in favor of this fact and you have ignored it, please explain what you would need to specifically see in order to admit that it was an intentional act. You seem to be skirting around the edges of solipsism at the same time you're making the very observations necessary to draw the conclusion I have. At the end of this discussion are you going to resort to claiming "we can't know anything" in order to avoid paying up?

 

[Totovader]

On that challenge- the crux of my argument is largely based on the video Jowenko is shown regarding WTC7 (the only actual piece of information he's given to draw his conclusion, and it's still prevaricated).

If it were proven to me that Jowenko was actually shown the full collapse- including the penthouse collapse 10 seconds prior to the entire structural failure and the interviewer points to it or otherwise draws attention to this fact- then I will actually pay you the 500 euros (although I don't own a single euro, I'll have to convert it to US).

Although there are certainly more facets to my argument- this is really the crucial piece. This is what allows Jowenko to stick to his premise and consequently (since he believes he's been given correct and complete information) attempt to resolve the contradictions inherent in that conclusion around it.

The consequences of this discussion- I must point out- are an excellent debunking of the entire WTC7 CD theory in the first place. That's why Jowenko is such a great asset to the debunking community. He arrived at the wrong conclusion based off of bad information which is easily resolved.

 

[Earthborn]

please explain what you would need to specifically see in order to admit that it was an intentional act.

The answer is really simple, but first I am going to tell you exactly what I don't need to see. Since Zembla is (usually) a reputable investigative journalism programme, I think it is obvious that the makers of the programme at the very least intended to make it look like a reputable investigative journalism programme, and if they indeed were to intentionally try to deceive people to manipulate viewers to a specific viewpoint, then they would try to conceal this in the programme. It is therefore that I will not accept any "evidence" that requires one to divine the true intent from the contents of the documentary itself. The null hypothesis is that the programme is what the makers of the programme wanted the viewers to think it is and that if it isn't the programme would not reveal itself.

To find acceptable evidence, you'll have to look outside the programme. Acceptable evidence includes but may not be limited to:

• One of the makers of the programme admitting in public to intentionally misleading interviewees, or any employees of Dutch public television providing testimony that this was the case.
• One of the interviewees suing Dutch public television for deliberately misleading him/her during the interview, preferably winning.
• Another reputable investigate journalism programme exposing that it there was deliberate manipulation of interviewees.
• The reports of parliamentary or otherwise authoritive investigations into the programme.

Note that while it does not require a huge conspiracy for the makers of a generally reputable investigative journalism programme to intentionally mislead interviewees to get them say things favourable to a particular political view, it is nevertheless a very big deal.

I have already provided an excellent- and irrefutable- argument in favor of this fact and you have ignored it

Ah, yes. Your argument is excellent and irrefutable. I guess it is excellent and irrefutable in the same way of many truther claims.

Only if you assume that the filmmakers have absolutely nothing to do with the editing.

No, even if the same filmmakers who shot the material also edited but changed their minds between shooting and editing. Much of the documentary involved debunking various truther claims, which they did very effectively. It is entirely conceivable that they asked Jowenko because they hoped he could debunk claims of controlled demolition, and for WTC1 en WTC2 he did. When Jowenko confidently declared WTC7 to be a controlled demolition and stuck with that conclusion despite some objections, the journalists may have felt that they had a scoop and edited the documentary with that in mind.

At best- if they didn't mean to mislead Jowenko- then there should have been some follow-up or explanation in the video at that point. The lack of that speaks to the intention.

The lack of such a follow-up can just as well be evidence that they didn't think/realise they had unintentionally misled him and trusted his conclusion.

but that they knew which vantage point would lead the witness to the conclusion they wanted him to arrive at. No expertise is required to perform this act.

That still assumes they knew which vantage point would lead the witness to the conclusion they wanted him to arrive at. I disagree that no expertise is required for that.

However, the timing of what they showed him is still wildly misleading.

You're probably right, but this does not prove malicious intent. It is much more likely that they just took with them whatever video they could find.

You cannot ignore the context of the claimed controlled demolition- this is specifically what Jowenko shows some obvious reservations about.

I don't see how he shows "some obvious reservations".

"They must have worked really fast" is the best thing he could come up with on the spot- although it clearly makes no sense.

That does not prove he had "some obvious reservations". Another explanation is that he really thought the demolition experts he imagined must have worked very fast.

but I am pretty sure I'm recalling the video correctly.

I doubt it.

Although we could debate all day on what the role of journalists are- the statement of fact is that this conclusion is completely false. Jowenko should have been corrected, here.

Of course he should have been corrected. But it is not reasonable to expect this from the journalist involved who is less of an expert then Jowenko is. The expert says that the building looks like it starts collapsing from the bottom, the journalist trusts in the expertise of the expert and his perception of the collapse is therefore influenced by what the expert has told him. He thinks he sees a collapse from the bottom.

they handed him the information he would need to draw the conclusion they wanted him to arrive at.

Respectfully, how you cannot see that is a mystery to me.

I try to see only what is there to see. And I do see they had a conclusion they wanted him to arrive at. That is just an assumption that colours your entire view of the video; a assumption that assumes the worst of people.

They are taking a video of a building collapsing to a demolition expert (again, who is not necessarily an expert in this particular area) and asking him "does this look like a CD to you?" The question itself is biased

Here you have a point. But also look how they went about trying to debunk other truther claims: they asked relevant experts whether truther claims were true. Does this look like a piece of this or that airplane to you? Can someone with minimal flight training really do that maneuver with a big plane? In almost all cases the truthmovement's claims were judged to be false. I think it is quite likely that they expected Jowenko to judge the controlled demolition hypothesis of WTC7 to be false as well.

Jowenko would have to necessarily conclude that the interviewers already know that it is, since it would be a silly question to ask him otherwise.

I don't think it would necessarily be a silly question to ask him otherwise, but he may have assumed that after watching the videos of the Twin Towers collapsing he was given a comparison video for him to point out the differences between those collapsing and a controlled demolition.

It is- however- an indication of poor investigative skills

The whole interview appears extremely lousy to me. It seems as if Jowenko was interviewed during his lunchbreak completely unprepared, the questions were jumbled up, the interviewer didn't know what he had to ask and what to show to Jowenko at what time.

That's why I am guessing "stupidity" over "malice". If it was done with malicious intend, I would have expected something better. Perhaps even something that might convince me.

Without knowing that the interviewers had a specific agenda- and without knowing what questions were going to be asked after he had drawn his initial conclusion- he was obviously intentionally led down the wrong path.

So the proof that he was "obviously intentionally led down the wrong path" is that he was interviewed by interviewers who had a specific agenda to intentionally lead him down the wrong path. The proof seems to assume the very thing it is meant to prove. Circular reasoning, innit?

No, they did not.

Yes, they did specifically tell him there was fire.

Yes- he most certainly does.

No, he does not come to his own conclusion that the building was damaged.

the interviewer is trying to draw Jowenko to conclude that the demolition charges could not have been set that day.

You are attempting the read the mind of the interviewer.

He's questioning his original assertion, without having the information necessary to question it (because it's been withheld by the interviewer).

If that's true, wouldn't you expect him to continue questioning is original assertion and after the interview is over try to find additional information... and likely change his mind after a while. Last I've heard, he still stands by his original assertion; that WTC7 collapsed by controlled demolition.

Not only is he trying to downplay Jowenko's growing skepticism by claiming there is no other information (a flat out lie),

The statement is ambiguous. With "We don't have that." the journalist may have meant that as far as he knew there was no other data, or that he didn't have other data with him.

 

[einsteen]

This is hypothetical, but I'm wondering if the big guys in America are interviewed in a similar way as they did with Jowenko (and of course didn't know it collapsed on 9/11) what they would say.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You can PM me about giving me that 500 euros.

 

[Totovader]

The answer is really simple, but first I am going to tell you exactly what I don't need to see. Since Zembla is (usually) a reputable investigative journalism programme, I think it is obvious that the makers of the programme at the very least intended to make it look like a reputable investigative journalism programme, and if they indeed were to intentionally try to deceive people to manipulate viewers to a specific viewpoint, then they would try to conceal this in the programme.

That's circular: it can't be deceptive, because I can see it's deceptive- and if they wanted it to be deceptive, they wouldn't let it appear to be deceptive?

It is therefore that I will not accept any "evidence" that requires one to divine the true intent from the contents of the documentary itself.

An interesting false dilemma you're setting up, here. We can't use the evidence of the video itself, because you think it's untouchable. This makes it quite inconvenient for me because my entire argument is based on what they did in the video, and you have ignored that with one snap of your fingers and claimed that the video itself is off-limits.

The fallacious nature of your premise, however, shows that the video is not quite untouchable.

The null hypothesis is that the programme is what the makers of the programme wanted the viewers to think it is and that if it isn't the programme would not reveal itself.

That's not much of a hypothesis- if you could successfully plan and carry out not being deceptive, then there would be no hatred of things like the MSM in the first place. In fact, some agencies, documentaries, individuals, positions, etc- are quite incapable of being deceptive without hinting at it. To believe that the attempt of deception is entirely undetectable has no basis in reality. I'm not even sure how you can make such a claim with a straight face.

To find acceptable evidence, you'll have to look outside the programme. Acceptable evidence includes but may not be limited to:

• One of the makers of the programme admitting in public to intentionally misleading interviewees, or any employees of Dutch public television providing testimony that this was the case.
• One of the interviewees suing Dutch public television for deliberately misleading him/her during the interview, preferably winning.
• Another reputable investigate journalism programme exposing that it there was deliberate manipulation of interviewees.
• The reports of parliamentary or otherwise authoritive investigations into the programme.

As I pointed out, this negation of the evidence itself is- although clever- quite fallacious. It's interesting to note your 3rd option, however- a different journalism outlet saying the exact same thing I have, using the exact same evidence, and coming up with the exact same conclusion would convince you... but I cannot? Is that simply because of who I am (a journalist, yes- but not a well-known one) or is it because you hold some kind of stake in "investigative journalism programs" that I cannot possibly attain? Besides a flat-out confession from the filmmakers (which I think we can both agree is unreasonable to expect) all of your other criteria require some sort of "authority".

So not only have you removed the evidence I need to make my case, but you've essentially stricken my observations from the argument because I'm no "authority".

Note that while it does not require a huge conspiracy for the makers of a generally reputable investigative journalism programme to intentionally mislead interviewees to get them say things favourable to a particular political view, it is nevertheless a very big deal.

I disagree- maybe I've seen more of it then you have, but that's pretty much what journalism is. The method of this interview makes that painfully obvious- and that method is something you have not yet spoken to.

Ah, yes. Your argument is excellent and irrefutable. I guess it is excellent and irrefutable in the same way of many truther claims.

I guess you have to make a pathetic attempt to attack me since you cannot address my argument. I'll ignore this one- but in the future, I won't hesitate to report these.

No, even if the same filmmakers who shot the material also edited but changed their minds between shooting and editing. Much of the documentary involved debunking various truther claims, which they did very effectively. It is entirely conceivable that they asked Jowenko because they hoped he could debunk claims of controlled demolition, and for WTC1 en WTC2 he did. When Jowenko confidently declared WTC7 to be a controlled demolition and stuck with that conclusion despite some objections, the journalists may have felt that they had a scoop and edited the documentary with that in mind.

The "scoop" angle is completely contradictory to the "honest" nature you're trying to portray this program as having. That contradiction is resolved when one realizes that there is nothing honest about the way the interview was conducted, the information presented, or the way the questions were asked. The premise that this was an honest documentary is invalid.

The lack of such a follow-up can just as well be evidence that they didn't think/realise they had unintentionally misled him and trusted his conclusion.

Again, this contradicts your claim of an "honest" program. Listen to what you're saying: they "trusted" one expert (who isn't even really an expert in this field) who was apprehensive about his conclusion and who was given misleading and incomplete information, and who was not allowed to research the events on his own... how can that "trust" be the hallmark of an "honest" program?

That still assumes they knew which vantage point would lead the witness to the conclusion they wanted him to arrive at. I disagree that no expertise is required for that.

"I disagree" is not a sufficient response.

You're probably right, but this does not prove malicious intent. It is much more likely that they just took with them whatever video they could find.

In order to show him the video, they would have had to have watched it first (I know, big assumption on my part)- in watching that video, they would have seen the collapse from the top-down. Therefore, when Jowenko specifically asked if this was a bottom-up collapse and they responded with an affirmative, it was a lie. Not only that- but it would have had to have been an intentional lie, since we know that they had information to the contrary.

I don't see how he shows "some obvious reservations".

Body language- tone- everything about that comment shows that he's just trying his best to resolve the inherent contradictions. I'd be willing to bet that what was going through his head at that point was something along the lines of "why would they do that?"

That does not prove he had "some obvious reservations". Another explanation is that he really thought the demolition experts he imagined must have worked very fast.

I'm sure he did- but the two are not mutually exclusive. You can have reservations about a conclusion... in fact- that's what reservations are...

Of course he should have been corrected. But it is not reasonable to expect this from the journalist involved who is less of an expert then Jowenko is.

Here's where you're wrong- as evidenced by the video. Jowenko has less information regarding the collapse than the interviewer. That specific situation had to be intentional. Again, you have not commented on the set-up of the interview at all.

The expert says that the building looks like it starts collapsing from the bottom, the journalist trusts in the expertise of the expert and his perception of the collapse is therefore influenced by what the expert has told him. He thinks he sees a collapse from the bottom.

Except that by viewing that video- the journalist already knows that the part they are not showing him has the top of the building already collapsed. It would be odd enough if the interviewer said nothing, but the little he does say while Jowenko is working through the problem is a lie.

Again- you admit there's deception, you just said it was not intentional (somehow). The video proves otherwise. This fact is inescapable.

I try to see only what is there to see. And I do see they had a conclusion they wanted him to arrive at. That is just an assumption that colours your entire view of the video; a assumption that assumes the worst of people.

I do not assume the worst in people- ever. My first conclusion is that this documentary was just poorly done... but the logical conclusion after watching it a couple more times is that there is no way it was unintentional. You see that they had a conclusion they wanted him to arrive at, yet you continue to ignore all the evidence that this intentional act was... intentional.

Here you have a point. But also look how they went about trying to debunk other truther claims: they asked relevant experts whether truther claims were true. Does this look like a piece of this or that airplane to you? Can someone with minimal flight training really do that maneuver with a big plane? In almost all cases the truthmovement's claims were judged to be false. I think it is quite likely that they expected Jowenko to judge the controlled demolition hypothesis of WTC7 to be false as well.

And I think they went after some of the low-hanging fruit. Your assumption requires that they would not be the least bit curious- it also requires that they again did no follow-up or preparation. If what you're saying were true, then they would have prepared Jowenko- allowed him to review the evidence prior to the interview, and had the necessary questions prepared.

That- however- was obviously contradictory to the answer they wanted from him.

I don't think it would necessarily be a silly question to ask him otherwise, but he may have assumed that after watching the videos of the Twin Towers collapsing he was given a comparison video for him to point out the differences between those collapsing and a controlled demolition.

I don't think it's necessarily a silly question, either (although it's largely irrelevant)- I'm saying that from Jowenko's perspective it would be. More to the point, you're wrong- though. He was not pointing out the differences (if he was, they would have given him the full video and perhaps a bit more information).

The whole interview appears extremely lousy to me. It seems as if Jowenko was interviewed during his lunchbreak completely unprepared, the questions were jumbled up, the interviewer didn't know what he had to ask and what to show to Jowenko at what time.

Again, you expect this from an "honest" organization? The method and tone of the interview supports my case.

That's why I am guessing "stupidity" over "malice". If it was done with malicious intend, I would have expected something better. Perhaps even something that might convince me.

That would require that the facts pointed to a conspiracy theory. Since the facts can only point to a conspiracy theory if they're obfuscated, manipulated, or just straight up lies- this exact way was the only way the interview could have been conducted with any expert (let alone a pseudo-expert) where the conclusion would have been the one they intended.

Don't forget- this is not just a conversation between two people going on in this documentary: this is an investigative reporter asking an "expert" his "expert opinion" on the collapse. That expert was given no preparation, no research, and barely any facts- the ones he was given were prevaricated.

Hello? How can you not see this as intentional? Every single thing about the interview points to an intention you have already admitted- I'm not even sure there's a next step for you... it just simply is obvious.

Not that I expect you to admit it- you've got money in the deal, now... I expect personal attacks and more attempts to ignore the evidence.

So the proof that he was "obviously intentionally led down the wrong path" is that he was interviewed by interviewers who had a specific agenda to intentionally lead him down the wrong path. The proof seems to assume the very thing it is meant to prove. Circular reasoning, innit?

Strawman, innit? I have given very clear and concise specifics regarding my conclusion. To wrap all those up into a "it is because it is" claim is so desperate that it has the opposite effect of what you intended: it shows that my argument is sound.

Yes, they did specifically tell him there was fire.

You're obviously trying to move the goalpost, here- and that is evidenced by your efforts to trim the conversation down to "yes he did" versus "no he didn't" and then change the meaning of what we're talking about. You took my entire comment and reduced it down to a meaningless "no he didn't" and then responded with "they did specifically tell him there was a fire" which is something I never refuted.

The entire comment I made was: "No, they did not. They allowed him to arrive at his conclusion first- and then watched as he struggled to find answers to the inevitable contradictions.

They led him down that path."

Your response, therefore, of "Yes, they did specifically tell him there was fire." is attempting to rebut something I was not arguing.

No, he does not come to his own conclusion that the building was damaged.

You again try to strawman the argument via a misquote, here.

Originally, I said: "Yes- he most certainly does. Your quotations show that Jowenko is trying to resolve this contradiction by assuming that the fires would not have gotten in the way of the demolition attempts. He's still working to resolve the numerous contradictions arriving from his first premise."

Which you reduced down to "Yes- he most certainly does."
To which you responded "No, he does not come to his own conclusion that the building was damaged."

Your response does not address the points made in my rebuttal- including the section where I point out that your quotations of the video itself prove you're wrong. This kind of fraudulent debating will have to be your only outlet if you plan on never paying me and still trying to maintain some face- but I will be watching carefully for it from now on.

You are attempting the read the mind of the interviewer.

No, I am not- it's clear from the questioning what the intention is- an intention you have already admitted to.

If that's true, wouldn't you expect him to continue questioning is original assertion and after the interview is over try to find additional information... and likely change his mind after a while. Last I've heard, he still stands by his original assertion; that WTC7 collapsed by controlled demolition.

Unless he's just trying to save face by appearing to be more of an expert than he really is. I've heard these claims as well, although I have not been able to find any comments, audio, or video of them- I do not necessarily question that he's full-on truther, but that's not relevant to the discussion, here.

The statement is ambiguous. With "We don't have that." the journalist may have meant that as far as he knew there was no other data, or that he didn't have other data with him.

Again, you have reduced this "honest" journalist down to a pathetic and ill-equipped lackey with poor interview skills. I guess I just have a better view of humanity than that... You cannot claim that "we don't have that" is ambiguous when the next thing he comments on is a specific listing of the reports they do have. Much like the video they showed him, they are limiting his information because to give him more information would allow him to draw a conclusion other than the one they wanted him to arrive at.

 

[Totovader]

Earthborn- I think at this point we're just going to continue going in circles. The concessions you have made (combined with your deceptions) are enough for me to confidently conclude that you agree with my position, but are unable to admit it.

I would be a fool to expect the money, but if you do decide to pay up- all of it will be donated to the International Firefighters Association.

 

[GStan]

Totovader has more patience than any person I've ever encountered either online or in real life.

 

[Earthborn]

The concessions you have made (combined with your deceptions) are enough for me to confidently conclude that you agree with my position, but are unable to admit it.

Your mindreading skills are apperently lacking. If I agreed with your position I would be perfectly capable of admitting it. As far as I see I made no concessions to your position and have not deceived you. I normally take accusations of deception very seriously but this time I won't ask you to provide evidence for it...

I expect personal attacks and more attempts to ignore the evidence.

I only ignore the evidence that I consider invalid. If you think I have personally attacked you, report me. I doubt any moderator will agree with you.

We can't use the evidence of the video itself, because you think it's untouchable.

No, not because it is untouchable, but because it is not in itself evidence of deliberate deception.

If someone argues that the Bible is of divine origin, I won't accept the contents of the Bible as evidence for that. No matter how "obviously divine" that person claims it is. I need evidence outside of the Bible.

If someone argues that the autobiography of a famous person contains deliberate falsehoods, I don't accept the contents of the autobiography as evidence of that. I need evidence outside of that autobiography.

Same thing here: if someone argues that the makers of a documentary intentionally deceived a person they interviewed, I don't accept the contents of the documentary as evidence of that (unless the makers admit it in the documentary). I need evidence outside of the documentary.

This kind of fraudulent debating will have to be your only outlet if you plan on never paying me

My plan is to pay you as soon as you provide reasonably convincing evidence and if the evidence includes anything that hasn't been made public I will personally report it to a news agency. 500 Euro for the scoop of the century is a bargain. If your claim is true it is something that has far reaching political consequences. Very deliberately and calculatingly deceiving an interviewee and by extension the public on tax expenses is not something that should be taken lightly.

But of course I am not going to pay you for saying things like "It's obvious!" and "How can you not see it?"

To believe that the attempt of deception is entirely undetectable has no basis in reality.

I never said it was undetectable. I said that in order to detect a lie, you'll have to rely on more than just the statement itself.

It's interesting to note your 3rd option, however- a different journalism outlet saying the exact same thing I have, using the exact same evidence, and coming up with the exact same conclusion would convince you... but I cannot?

Maybe I should have been clearer on that. I expect a different programme to present more evidence than just playing the video and saying: "This is obviously intentional deception" and "He is obviously reluctant to conclude that it is controlled demolition" and other mindreading attempts. I would expect them to present evidence of the claims outside of the original documentary itself.

Is that simply because of who I am (a journalist, yes- but not a well-known one) or is it because you hold some kind of stake in "investigative journalism programs" that I cannot possibly attain?

You can attain it. Just present outside evidence.

Besides a flat-out confession from the filmmakers (which I think we can both agree is unreasonable to expect) all of your other criteria require some sort of "authority".

And they all require some sort of outside evidence to convince that authority.

I'll ignore this one- but in the future, I won't hesitate to report these.

Go ahead, report me. It would be first time anyone reported me. I don't think I violated any of the forum rules, though.

The "scoop" angle is completely contradictory to the "honest" nature you're trying to portray this program as having.

The way I understand the word "scoop", it is not associated with dishonesty. According to the Free Dictionary it is "An exclusive news story acquired by luck or initiative before a competitor." Therefore I don't see how it is completely contradictory to the honesty.

they "trusted" one expert (who isn't even really an expert in this field) who was apprehensive about his conclusion and who was given misleading and incomplete information, and who was not allowed to research the events on his own... how can that "trust" be the hallmark of an "honest" program?

You are assuming that they knew that the information was misleading, that they knew that they had to let him research the events on his own.

"I disagree" is not a sufficient response.

Maybe you can test how much expertise is needed by showing the complete video to a bunch of people with no expertise and ask them whether they think it collapsed from the bottom or from the top and post the results.

In order to show him the video, they would have had to have watched it first (I know, big assumption on my part)- in watching that video, they would have seen the collapse from the [/i]top-down[/i].

It is likely that they watched the video beforehand, though not necessary. They may have downloaded it on the spot. It is possible that they had a video of the complete collapse, but it is also possible that they just used the first video they found and that one happened to have the first seconds missing.

Therefore, when Jowenko specifically asked if this was a bottom-up collapse and they responded with an affirmative, it was a lie.

Being able to understand the actual words in Dutch and being familiar with how Dutch people often express themselves, I wouldn't say that Jowenko was asking. He framed his statement as a question, and he even answers the question himself. The journalist merely repeats the answer in a tone of "I guess so..."

Jowenko: "Does it start from the top? No, it starts from the bottom."
Journalist: "It starts from the bottom."

I'd be willing to bet that what was going through his head at that point was something along the lines of "why would they do that?"

If that were the case, why didn't he come out and say that he felt like he was being deceived? Wouldn't expect that if someone felt like a documentary misrepresented him or felt pushed to come to a certain conclusion, he would have mentioned it? Maybe demand a rectification or something. I would expect someone to do that, and to this day Jowenko didn't and continues to agree with the conclusion of the programme.

Jowenko has less information regarding the collapse than the interviewer. That specific situation had to be intentional.

Maybe you can explain why you think that specific situation had to be intentional.

the journalist already knows that the part they are not showing him has the top of the building already collapsed.

I see no reason to assume that he knew that. You seem to assume that the journalist must have seen a longer video than the one he shows to Jowenko.

You see that they had a conclusion they wanted him to arrive at

I'm sorry, but I don't see that.

If what you're saying were true, then they would have prepared Jowenko- allowed him to review the evidence prior to the interview, and had the necessary questions prepared.

If what I am saying is true, they would have needed to do that in order to prevent this issue. But in the Netherlands it is very common to interview people very informally, even experts. It is not at all unrealistic to think that the journalist just before the deadline before editing called Jowenko hoping he might be able to debunk the WTC7 "demolition" theory, Jowenko said "Okay, you can come over during my lunch break today.", the journalist just grabs whatever information he can find and brings a camera. You seem to think it is unusual (and therefore suspicious) to do such an interview with little preparation, but it isn't.

Again, you expect this from an "honest" organization?

Yes. This is simply a very common style of interview on Dutch public television. And it should be noted that most often it works very well. Usually experts or politicians are careful enough not to make very definitive statements, and usually the stakes aren't this high.

 

[Totovader]

Your entire rebuttal, Earthborn, is to ignore precisely what I am saying and instead inject various strawman arguments within an improper quotation of my statements. You failed to even address any of the statements I made- you just cupped your ears and said "no you're not, no you're not". The degradation of this exchange has been obvious to anyone paying attention. You're slowly reducing the argument down to a simple exchange of grunts and hand waving...

I presented my case- I think it is clear that any rational individual will clearly see that the act of deception on the part of this program was clearly intentional. Your rebuttals have been insufficient- and in some parts you have completely removed my comments from the debate without justification.

Nothing that you have presented has caused me to change my position on any of the specifics- and I doubt that your outright rejection of the facts will not be convincing to any others.

Unless you're willing to go back and address my rebuttal in full- I see no reason to continue. Only responding to a portion of my observations is not a tactic I can accept as honest.

 

[Totovader]

As I predicted in my last post (which you ironically gave the same treatment) you have gone to great lengths to ignore very specific items pointed out in my argument, and instead have chopped up the comments I have made into something that does not even represent my contention. I provided examples before, and that did not seem to stop your efforts- so now I will painstakingly go through each of the comments you have manipulated to expose your deception.

It is my firm belief that this deception on your part is your cognitive dissonance. Honest people do not need to go to such lengths to avoid the facts.

First, it's important to note exactly what I'm talking about. When I first pointed it out, here:

Your response does not address the points made in my rebuttal- including the section where I point out that your quotations of the video itself prove you're wrong. This kind of fraudulent debating will have to be your only outlet if you plan on never paying me and still trying to maintain some face- but I will be watching carefully for it from now on.

I expected some kind of response- maybe not necessarily an "oh, you caught me"- but at least a "sorry, made a mistake". What I did not expect is for you to just give my observation the same treatment...

That entire paragraph above was reduced to this:

This kind of fraudulent debating will have to be your only outlet if you plan on never paying me

My prediction, therefore, seems rather poignant.

Next, my contention with your dismissal of any evidence you do not like with an odd circular argument is addressed in this comment:

An interesting false dilemma you're setting up, here. We can't use the evidence of the video itself, because you think it's untouchable. This makes it quite inconvenient for me because my entire argument is based on what they did in the video, and you have ignored that with one snap of your fingers and claimed that the video itself is off-limits.

Which you magically reduced to this:

We can't use the evidence of the video itself, because you think it's untouchable.

Furthermore, your conclusion based on this false premise is pointed out, here:

That's not much of a hypothesis- if you could successfully plan and carry out not being deceptive, then there would be no hatred of things like the MSM in the first place. In fact, some agencies, documentaries, individuals, positions, etc- are quite incapable of being deceptive without hinting at it. To believe that the attempt of deception is entirely undetectable has no basis in reality. I'm not even sure how you can make such a claim with a straight face.

Which you felt necessary to prune down to:

To believe that the attempt of deception is entirely undetectable has no basis in reality.

I wouldn't be so picky, but there's a problem with your... "method". First, it leaves a large portion of my rebuttal unaddressed- which only gives the appearance that you're ignoring it, which would seem to me to indicate you have no rebuttal. Also, by not addressing the statement in its entirety, you give the impression (and then respond to that impression) that I am not being explicit in my statements. I put a lot of effort into doing that so that you may not simply claim that I am demanding that you agree with me for no reason. When I said this is your only outlet- to ignore half my post and then take the rest as a chopped up nightmare- that's what I was referring to. Instead of addressing my points, you're ignoring them. The next one shows why that explicit definition is important.

My statement regarding the nature of the interview itself is something that you continue to ignore- as if I have made no statements in reference to it at all:

The "scoop" angle is completely contradictory to the "honest" nature you're trying to portray this program as having. That contradiction is resolved when one realizes that there is nothing honest about the way the interview was conducted, the information presented, or the way the questions were asked. The premise that this was an honest documentary is invalid.

By removing my rebuttal to your error, you changed my comment into this:

The "scoop" angle is completely contradictory to the "honest" nature you're trying to portray this program as having.

Another example of the same offense- this one is a bit more risky on your part, because you left out what could be considered the logical conclusion based on the observation:

In order to show him the video, they would have had to have watched it first (I know, big assumption on my part)- in watching that video, they would have seen the collapse from the top-down. Therefore, when Jowenko specifically asked if this was a bottom-up collapse and they responded with an affirmative, it was a lie. Not only that- but it would have had to have been an intentional lie, since we know that they had information to the contrary.

You changed this into 2 responses (which is fine by me) but you left out the important part (which I took the liberty of emphasizing above)- you also added your own emphasis... which isn't necessarily deceptive... but it's a bit rude:

In order to show him the video, they would have had to have watched it first (I know, big assumption on my part)- in watching that video, they would have seen the collapse from the top-down.

Therefore, when Jowenko specifically asked if this was a bottom-up collapse and they responded with an affirmative, it was a lie.

By cutting out my answers, you ignore the very evidence you claim to be looking for. Even in comments as short as the following:

Body language- tone- everything about that comment shows that he's just trying his best to resolve the inherent contradictions. I'd be willing to bet that what was going through his head at that point was something along the lines of "why would they do that?"

You're forced to change to nothing but:

I'd be willing to bet that what was going through his head at that point was something along the lines of "why would they do that?"

... so that you don't have to address what I'm actually saying, but can sink your teeth into something which is largely irrelevant- which you then attempt to respond to.

What's quite curious is the quotes where you remove what it is that I'm explaining to you, like the following:

Here's where you're wrong- as evidenced by the video. Jowenko has less information regarding the collapse than the interviewer. That specific situation had to be intentional. Again, you have not commented on the set-up of the interview at all.

You chopped off the head and the tail until you're left with this:

Jowenko has less information regarding the collapse than the interviewer. That specific situation had to be intentional.

... which is quite odd because it just gives you an opportunity to repeat your earlier claims and just ignore my rebuttal. Consequently, that creates an environment where I continue to provide evidence, and you simply repeat your claims by trimming my statements into nothing but "yes" or "no".

You make it even worse when you cut out the specific references I am making- so that you can go back and just pretend that I have asserted a case without any reference to the material:

My statement of:

Except that by viewing that video- the journalist already knows that the part they are not showing him has the top of the building already collapsed. It would be odd enough if the interviewer said nothing, but the little he does say while Jowenko is working through the problem is a lie.

Was made into nothing more than:

the journalist already knows that the part they are not showing him has the top of the building already collapsed.

Notice the part you took out? By viewing the video, and what little he does say... is a lie. You choose to ignore this.

Another example:

I do not assume the worst in people- ever. My first conclusion is that this documentary was just poorly done... but the logical conclusion after watching it a couple more times is that there is no way it was unintentional. You see that they had a conclusion they wanted him to arrive at, yet you continue to ignore all the evidence that this intentional act was... intentional.

Becomes nothing but:

You see that they had a conclusion they wanted him to arrive at

You make a claim, I respond to that claim with a rebuttal- and then you chop up that rebuttal so that you do not have to address it in full.

In another example we see you cutting out the chain of logic:

And I think they went after some of the low-hanging fruit. Your assumption requires that they would not be the least bit curious- it also requires that they again did no follow-up or preparation. If what you're saying were true, then they would have prepared Jowenko- allowed him to review the evidence prior to the interview, and had the necessary questions prepared.

Which you changed to:

If what you're saying were true, then they would have prepared Jowenko- allowed him to review the evidence prior to the interview, and had the necessary questions prepared.

It's as if you're playing a game but refuse to even recognize that I'm in it. Even something as simple as making a statement of fact:

Again, you expect this from an "honest" organization? The method and tone of the interview supports my case.

You have to manipulate into an opportunity for you to repeat yourself:

Again, you expect this from an "honest" organization?

Now that's just the stuff you changed. In the next post I will quote the relevant portions of my argument that you just flat-out removed- including the section where I pointed out that you were manipulating my comments before.

 

[Earthborn]

It is true that I do not quote you in full. I tend to quote only the things I think require a response. Anyone can read the original above, so I don't feel there is a need to repeat everything you wrote.

You also don't adress my point, and that is that your entire argument is based on shaky grounds. I will once again try to explain to you why:

• Suppose two people have carefully read a single book. One says that it has convinced him that God exists, the other says it convinced her that God does not exist. It is obvious that both must have interpreted the book very differently, and therefore neither of them can refer to the book itself to convince the other of their position.
• Talking about interpreting differently: the interview is in Dutch, my native language. You may be able to see body language and tone of voice, but I am capable of hearing which words are emphasised and which de-emphasised, I am familiar with common ways of expression, journalistic styles, and what is actually being said, while you are presumably from a culture that isn't even very used to reading subtitles. If the dishonesty of the filmmakers is somehow evident from the interview itself, I would be more qualified than you are to pick it up.

If your claims are true, then there would be evidence of this outside the documentary (barring an even greater conspiracy to suppress it). The fact that there simply isn't should give you pause to think.

I would be a fool to expect the money, but if you do decide to pay up- all of it will be donated to the International Firefighters Association.

A worthy cause. You know what? As a token of good will and to prove that I am willing to put my money where my mouth is, I will send you 50 euro through Western Union, trusting that you will donate it to the IAFF. Just PM me your full name, adress and e-mail adress.

 

[gumboot]

Who cares what Jowenko thinks? He was not on site when WTC7 collapsed and he has no experience in the explosive demolition of steel high rises.

Other demolitions experts who do have experience in the explosive demolition of steel high rises and were on site when WTC7 collapsed provide testimony in contradiction to Jowenko. Their testimony carries significantly greater weight than his.

-Gumboot