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

[Totovader]

It is true that I do not quote you in full.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.

But I have shown where some of your misquoting has lead to strawman arguments and endless loops in the debate. I'm not asking that every single thing be responded to- I am simply asking that you do not remove sections of my statements, and if you do, expect to defend it.

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.

Your religious analogy fails. We are not trying to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, here. I am trying to provide evidence "from the book" to show that the people who wrote the book had malicious intent.

To do that- I would do what every other scholar in the field has done: point to the inconsistencies and outright contradictions, highlight the sections giving weird or outdated orders, present the scientific case that the authors clearly could not have had any omniscience or communication from omniscience because the claims are contradicted by science, history, etc.

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.

I already commented on this. I am willing to concede that I don't know a beting of Dutch, but your appeal to an irrelevant authority does not change anything I have pointed out. As I said before, inflections, tone, etc are not unique to language itself. And although my "culture" may not be used to reading subtitles, I am. Subtitles are my native language. You may able to hear dutch, but I am capable of seeing the subtitles, I am familiar with the common ways of translation, subtitle fonts, and what may actually be taken out. I understand that the translation to words may be insufficient- but what you have not shown is how it would affect my observations at all. You simply hint at it, and then demand to be recognized as an authority.

In order to even begin to accept that your expertise should be taken at faith value, please list any mistranslations from the section we are referring to. After those mistranslations are verified, we can discuss if they would affect my observations or not.

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.

Dishonesty does not manifest itself in language or the translation of that language. As I already said, the inflection, tone- and hey evidence- do not need to be in a native tongue to be recognized. I'm not saying that knowing Dutch wouldn't help, but you have yet to show me where it specifically trumps my observations.

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.

You're jumping the gun. It's not that there isn't evidence- it's that it has not been stated or even researched. I'm not sure that this show intentionally misleading an expert would be that big of a scoop- I'm pretty sure no one would care. Unless there is some kind of massive cover-up (which I would be highly skeptical of) then there should be evidence of this intent outside of the documentary. However, since the evidence within the documentary itself is clear and largely unchallenged by you- I see no need to conduct further investigation.

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.

That seems... odd- not that I'm unwilling to do it, but that I would have to give you my full identity for it to be done- not something I'm willing to do. Paypal should be just fine- do you have a Paypal account?

 

[Earthborn]

do you have a Paypal account?

I do now!

I didn't have one because I don't have a credit card, but I looked into again last thursday and found out that it has only very recently been made possible to open a Paypal account in the Netherlands with only a checking account... It sure took Paypal Netherlands a long time...

I am simply asking that you do not remove sections of my statements, and if you do, expect to defend it.

Sorry, I am not going to quote you in full. I am only going to quote what I think is the kernel of the argument. Nothing personal: that's what I do with everybody. I can't actually remove sections of your statements, I can only stop repeating them.

Please note that I am not a mindreader, so I may have a different interpretation of what the main argument is than you do. Quoting you in full will not remedy that problem. If you think I am misrepresenting you or misinterpreting you, point it out or clarify. Don't ask for bandwidth waste.

Your religious analogy fails. We are not trying to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, here.

Irrelevant. My argument isn't about proving or disproving the existence of anything, but showing that different interpretations lead to different views, and that if you want to convince someone of your interpretation pointing to the thing that has convinced that person of the opposite interpretation isn't going to help much.

I am trying to provide evidence "from the book" to show that the people who wrote the book had malicious intent.

To do that- I would do what every other scholar in the field has done: point to the inconsistencies and outright contradictions,

You'll have to show of course that the things you see as contradictions are actually contradictions. Pointing to things that strike you as a bit odd and declaring them contradictions isn't enough.

highlight the sections giving weird or outdated orders, present the scientific case that the authors clearly could not have had any omniscience or communication from omniscience because the claims are contradicted by science, history, etc.

Notice that here you are talking about adding evidence from outside the book. Such evidence is always going to be more convincing than just pointing to the contents of the book itself, and it is all I am asking you to do.

As I said before, inflections, tone, etc are not unique to language itself.

Neither are they entirely universal to all cultures, and a lot of psychological research points out that these things can also be misleading. What they certainly don't allow you to do is accurately read someone's mind, such as when you claimed that Jowenko has "growing skepticism" and that he "realised he was intentionally misled". (Strange claims considering that after the interview was aired he never accused the journalists of intentionally misleading or misrepresenting him, and continues to stand firmly behind the conclusions of the documentary and his claims concerning WTC7 made early in the interview.)

I understand that the translation to words may be insufficient- but what you have not shown is how it would affect my observations at all. You simply hint at it, and then demand to be recognized as an authority.

I can't actually pinpoint it because you interpret what you see in the video in such a vastly different way than I do, that it almost seems like you saw something very different than I did. (Jowenko shows reluctance to declare it a controlled demolition? Honestly, wth?) The only way I can explain it -- without accusing you of intentionally misrepresenting what you saw -- is to assume there must have been something that is lost in translation. If our interpretations weren't so vastly different, I could probably tell you what.

Dishonesty does not manifest itself in language or the translation of that language.

Actually it does to a more significant degree than inflection, tone and body language do. It has been long known by psychologists that while people often believe they can accurately detect dishonesty through non-language cues, they more effectively detect lies when those are removed. Rebecca recently made a radioshow where this is mentioned as well.

You're jumping the gun. It's not that there isn't evidence- it's that it has not been stated or even researched.

That's the same thing. "Evidence" that isn't discovered isn't evidence, unless you wish to argue that there is "evidence" that a faster-than-light engine can be made from old tincans, just no one has researched how to do it.

I'm not sure that this show intentionally misleading an expert would be that big of a scoop- I'm pretty sure no one would care.

What makes you so sure that no one would care? Issues of lesser importance have lead to big scandals, so why would this suddenly be of no interest to anyone?

However, since the evidence within the documentary itself is clear and largely unchallenged by you-

It is not clear at all. If it was I should be able to see it, and I can't. I can't even meaningfully challenge it, because I don't see that it is actually there.

I see no need to conduct further investigation.

There is perhaps no need, but hopefully I have provided you with an incentive.

 

[Totovader]

Have it your way

Irrelevant. My argument isn't about proving or disproving the existence of anything, but showing that different interpretations lead to different views, and that if you want to convince someone of your interpretation pointing to the thing that has convinced that person of the opposite interpretation isn't going to help much.

This is non-sequitur.

"Different interpretations" leading to "different views" does not mean that the subject of the interpretation becomes sacred and untouchable. My evidence is not simply saying "the interview speaks for itself", and your analogy has already been pointed out as flawed.

You'll have to show of course that the things you see as contradictions are actually contradictions. Pointing to things that strike you as a bit odd and declaring them contradictions isn't enough.

I've explained in great detail why they are contradictions. You have not only ignored these glaring inconsistencies, but also removed them from the ongoing conversation.

I can't actually pinpoint it

Then your claim of expertise in the realm of translation becomes irrelevant.

 

[Miragememories]

Toto believe what you wish, but Jowenko, in spite of his own additional research later on, stood by his unwaivering belief that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

MM

 

[beachnut]

Toto believe what you wish, but Jowenko, in spite of his own additional research later on, stood by his unwaning belief that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

MM

So what! Jowenko says no CD on WTC1 and 2. But like you he is wrong on WTC7. Bingo. You and Jowenko are wrong. So?

No inside job, no real facts from you or 9/11 truth. Perfect day.

 

[Miragememories]

So what! Jowenko says no CD on WTC1 and 2. But like you he is wrong on WTC7. Bingo. You and Jowenko are wrong. So?

No inside job, no real facts from you or 9/11 truth. Perfect day.

I am in agreement with Danny Jowenko in his statement that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 did not appear similar to the collapse of WTC7.

His point was that the twin towers were a top down demolition and that WTC7 was a typical bottom down demolition.

He never stated that a top down controlled demolition was impossible.

His opinions on WTC 1 & 2 had had a good deal of time settle in in a way that was best for Jowenko's business interests.

With WTC7, I agree that he was caught by surprise and as a result spoke honestly without realizing the potential risk to future business contracts.

In a telephone interview with him in the spring of this year, Danny acknowledged that he had studied WTC7 extensively since that early interview and that his opinion was still the same.

He also acknowledged in the same interview that he was not surprised that demolition experts in the U.S. were not in agreement with him, as they risked future contracts if they failed to agree with the government's point of view.

MM

 

[johnny karate]

It's a good thing Jowenko was couragous enough to come forward, then. Of course, one has to wonder why he hasn't been coerced into silence like every other CD expert on the planet apparently has been. I guess the NWO goons must have accidentally skipped his house.

 

[pomeroo]

I am in agreement with Danny Jowenko in his statement that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 did not appear similar to the collapse of WTC7.

His point was that the twin towers were a top down demolition and that WTC7 was a typical bottom down demolition.

He never stated that a top down controlled demolition was impossible.

[Edited] Jowenko accepts the real science behind the collapses.

His opinions on WTC 1 & 2 had had a good deal of time settle in in a way that was best for Jowenko's business interests.

With WTC7, I agree that he was caught by surprise and as a result spoke honestly without realizing the potential risk to future business contracts.

In a telephone interview with him in the spring of this year, Danny acknowledged that he had studied WTC7 extensively since that early interview and that his opinion was still the same.

He also acknowledged in the same interview that he was not surprised that demolition experts in the U.S. were not in agreement with him, as they risked future contracts if they failed to agree with the government's point of view.

MM

Jowenko takes the ridiculous position that WTC 7 was demolished to protect "important papers." He's wrong.

Attack the argument, not the arguer and remember to be civil.

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

 

[Totovader]

Toto believe what you wish, but Jowenko, in spite of his own additional research later on, stood by his unwaivering belief that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

MM

And also stood by his position on 1 and 2- which completely contradicts your stance.

He can say whatever he wants- the fact remains that he has not written any papers, produced any justification for his position, and isn't even an expert in the appropriate field.

When asked to resolve these contradictions- you simply run away from them, which is entirely insufficient.

 

[pomeroo]

I am in agreement with Danny Jowenko in his statement that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 did not appear similar to the collapse of WTC7.

His point was that the twin towers were a top down demolition and that WTC7 was a typical bottom down demolition.

My assertion that you were lying was inexplicably and incorrectly edited out. Jowenko most certainly does NOT believe that the collapses of the Twin Towers were examples of top-down demolition.

 

[twinstead]

My assertion that you were lying was inexplicably and incorrectly edited out. Jowenko most certainly does NOT believe that the collapses of the Twin Towers were examples of top-down demolition.

Didn't Jowenko state the didn't believe the collapses of WTC1 and 2 were indicative of CD at all?

 

[pomeroo]

Didn't Jowenko state the didn't believe the collapses of WTC1 and 2 were indicative of CD at all?

Not that I'm aware of. Jowenko told me over the phone that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 look nothing like controlled demolitions and he has no problem with the mainstream account.

 

[twinstead]

Not that I'm aware of. Jowenko told me over the phone that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 look nothing like controlled demolitions and he has no problem with the mainstream account.

That's what I said. Jowenko didn't think that the collapses of WTC1 and 2 were indicative of CD at all

 

[Totovader]

This fact will surely cause MM to change his mind...

Come on. I'm funny.

 

[twinstead]

This fact will surely cause MM to change his mind...

Come on. I'm funny.

At the very least it should make MM realize the tenuous nature of his evidence. It's quite the dilemma: either Jowenko is wrong about WTC7, or he's wrong about WTC1 and 2.

I submit it is irrelevant; the facts remain regardless of Jowenko's observations.

He is neither wrong nor right--he is irrelevant.

 

[A W Smith]

How wrong you are

double post

 

[A W Smith]

How wrong you are

His point was that the twin towers were a top down demolition and that WTC7 was a typical bottom down demolition.

He never stated that a top down controlled demolition was impossible.

MM

Oh Merrie Melodies you are incorrect. I have to burst your fantasy bubble on this


Jowenko Debunks loose Change

 

[pomeroo]

That's what I said. Jowenko didn't think that the collapses of WTC1 and 2 were indicative of CD at all

You're right. I got confused.

 

[Miragememories]

My assertion that you were lying was inexplicably and incorrectly edited out. Jowenko most certainly does NOT believe that the collapses of the Twin Towers were examples of top-down demolition.

Are you again calling me a liar?

Did I state that Danny Jowenko believed WTC1 & WTC2 were top down 'controlled' demolitions?

NO.

Were both towers demolished?

YES.

Did the demolition action appear to start near the top and work it's way down?

YES.

In future, maybe you might wish to read my words more carefully before choosing what interpretation to place on them.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Oh Merrie Melodies you are incorrect. I have to burst your fantasy bubble on this


Jowenko Debunks loose Change

No bubble broken.

Jowenko does not state it is impossible.

He just states his belief that he doesn't believe it was done and talks about the difficulties that would be encountered.

He does not address the effectiveness of demolitions existing below the impact and fire zones.

He ackowledges a top down collapse because of the failure of vertical support below the impact and fire zone.

Controlled demolitions below that zone could achieve this and Jowenko says nothing to suggest they couldn't.

As I've previously pointed out, Danny Jowenko is well aware that disagreeing with the Official Story is bad for business.

He can't extricate himself from WTC7 because he trapped himself when he gave his full professional support to that opinion without realizing the consequences.

With WTC 1 and 2, he had ample time to consider the consequences of challenging popular belief and he took the safe road.

MM