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

[Miragememories]

Given that, I suspect your level of terror associated with appearing on the show with someone like Gravy is more attributed to the embarrassment those former guests endured from their ... ahem ... "participation".

I know, i know, it's difficult to understand why I wouldn't want to appear on a show that brought us such insightful delights as;

• • Pink Pistols
  • Circumcision
  • Hardfire Exposes the Naked Truth About Nudism

I'm really not interested in Gravy's pink pistols, circumcision or nudism revelations.

MM

 

[JimBenArm]

I know, i know, it's difficult to understand why I wouldn't want to appear on a show that brought us such insightful delights as;

• • Pink Pistols
  • Circumcision
  • Hardfire Exposes the Naked Truth About Nudism

I'm really not interested in Gravy's pink pistols, circumcision or nudism revelations.

MM

Fair enough. We're not interested in your cowardice, equivocation or nonsense, for that matter.

 

[Miragememories]

Fair enough. We're not interested in your cowardice, equivocation or nonsense, for that matter.

Ouch!

That really hurt man.

Where's the love?

MM

 

[Pookster]

I know, i know, it's difficult to understand why I wouldn't want to appear on a show that brought us such insightful delights as;

• • Pink Pistols
  • Circumcision
  • Hardfire Exposes the Naked Truth About Nudism

I'm really not interested in Gravy's pink pistols, circumcision or nudism revelations.

MM

A shame. Debating your views about 9/11 would've been so appropriate too.

 

[Jono]

But this is turning into a real pissing contest. I usually can't stand those, especially not after 3 years on Stormfront and past years debating Christian Identity, Creationism et al on ChurchUSA etc.

 

[Corsair 115]

Ah, yes. The "major broadcaster" whose hard-hitting lineup is:

...The Agenda with Steve Paikin

Hey now, The Agenda is actually a pretty darn good news & current affairs show.


Does this mean that MM actually works for TVO?

 

[Miragememories]

But this is turning into a real pissing contest. I usually can't stand those, especially not after 3 years on Stormfront and past years debating Christian Identity, Creationism et al on ChurchUSA etc.

No contest WhiteLion.

You folks can piss away to your heart's content.

Watch those sudden winds or should I say "puffs of air" don't get ya.

MM

 

[JimBenArm]

No contest WhiteLion.

You folks can piss away to your heart's content.

Watch those sudden winds or should I say "puffs of air" don't get ya.

MM

Yeah, and make sure the evil NWO doesn't get you!

BOO!

 

[Totovader]

No contest WhiteLion.

You folks can piss away to your heart's content.

Watch those sudden winds or should I say "puffs of air" don't get ya.

MM

"This isn't a pissing contest. Here's a one liner that will be measured for distance and accuracy."

 

[Totovader]

Well "your" shooting yourself in the foot.

Whether Ron "has a lot of buttons" or not is clearly not the issue of this thread- and it has nothing to do with the weakness of your position.

Now that we've established that you're terrified of being held accountable to your position in a more public sphere, perhaps we can explore why you're terrified.

I suggest you get back to the topic and try and resolve the multitude of contradictions present in your statements. I am sure that by attempting to resolve these- we can work out the why during the process.

Start with the very first contradiction- the one this thread was started on: How can you concede to Jowenko's "expertise" at will? It's a self-defeating concept.

If- on the other hand- you simply agree with his argument, then his "expertise" is irrelevant. If you agree with his evidence, then you're still stuck in a contradiction: partly because he has none, but also because based on the "evidence" he concluded that 1 and 2 could not possibly have been a controlled demolition.

Ready. Set. Go.

*bump*

 

[Miragememories]

*bump*

You can keep on repeating this request all you like Toto.

I answered the question quite succinctly yet you want me to keep answering it until I actually tell the lie you accuse me of.

MM

 

[Totovader]

You can keep on repeating this request all you like Toto.

I answered the question quite succinctly yet you want me to keep answering it until I actually tell the lie you accuse me of.

MM

Then I would expect a response to the question. You have never answered this- which is why my question was specific.

What lie- specifically- do you think I'm accusing you of? Do you agree with Jowenko in his "expert" view of the 1 & 2 collapse, or not?

Pretty simple question. No need to keep dodging it. If you do- that's obviously a contradiction... and if you don't... that's obviously a contradiction.

So- start 'splainin.

No more dodging, no more pretending you've answered or resolved this contradiction. All you've done is pretend it's not there- which is quite insufficient.

 

[johnny karate]

MM is clearly more interested in making ripostes than addressing the issues.

 

[Totovader]

MM is clearly more interested in making ripostes than addressing the issues.

Understandable- considering the obvious weakness of his position.

It's difficult to follow conspiracists when their claims are so obviously self-defeating.

MM- Do you think that logic simply does not apply to you? Do you understand what a contradiction is, and why it's important to confront them?

If you don't- then perhaps this is where the discussion needs to go.

 

[Jono]

No contest WhiteLion.

You folks can piss away to your heart's content.

Watch those sudden winds or should I say "puffs of air" don't get ya.

MM

See, you seem to show a rather evident willingness to engage in this kind of polemic tap-dancing. I don't like it, and it doesn't count as a substitute for lack of argumentative coherence.

Have I, personally, been that troublesome for you?

 

[Miragememories]

What lie- specifically- do you think I'm accusing you of? Do you agree with Jowenko in his "expert" view of the 1 & 2 collapse, or not?

Pretty simple question. No need to keep dodging it. If you do- that's obviously a contradiction... and if you don't... that's obviously a contradiction.

So- start 'splainin.

No more dodging, no more pretending you've answered or resolved this contradiction. All you've done is pretend it's not there- which is quite insufficient.

Like I said Toto I've already already addressed this.

Try here for instance;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3283334#post3283334

The problem is that you want a particular response from me that fits your concept of how the real world functions.

Unfortunately, that 'real world' is a fantasy of your own making.

Danny Jowenko has no wish to be a hero or a whistle blower.

As I have said, if he had known the first time he was shown the video of the collapse of WTC7 what the building was and that it was on 9/11, it is highly unlikely that he would have so unequivocally declared it a controlled demolition.

He probably would have at the most that it looked odd but he couldn't say more without doing research.

He trapped himself by his unhesitating pride and ego regarding his honest professional opinion.

To his credit, in the years since that original interview, he has researched WTC7 in detail (possibly hoping to find proof enough to change his opinion and explain away his original assessment) but in spite of the pressure placed on him to alter his opinion, he steadfastly sticks to his controlled demolition conviction.

With WTC 1 and WTC 2 there was no doubt as to what he was seeing and absolutely no doubt what most of the world believed happened on that day.

You can play dumb all you want but Danny Jowenko is anything but a fool.

He wasn't going to make bad business publicity worse by extending his WTC7 opinion to include WTC 1 and WTC 2.

He played it safe, and went along with the majority, giving safe standard explanations for why the twin towers collapsed, primarily based on it not being an apparent classic bottom down collapse.

In a telephone interview last spring when he reaffirmed his beliefs about WTC7 he also acknowledged that members of the demolition industry in the United States would not be expected to disagree with the official belief because it would be bad for business.

Anyway, you can scoff all you want but if you really put some open minded thought into what I've said, you'll see how much sense it makes.

Would you stick your neck out further?

Would you risk further damage to your business by offending the U.S. and it's European allies?

Would you accept the spillover effects on your family?

Would you relish being in the public eye as a professional standing against your own profession?

MM

 

[Mancman]

A few hours ago I posted a video that makes a mockery of MM's silly 'wall of noise overwhelmes the mic' claims. He posts 6 times after this but not one references the video. Huh.

 

[Pookster]

A few hours ago I posted a video that makes a mockery of MM's silly 'wall of noise overwhelmes the mic' claims. He posts 6 times after this but not one references the video. Huh.

He seems to be too preoccupied with his tap dancing.

 

[Totovader]

Like I said Toto I've already already addressed this.

Try here for instance;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3283334#post3283334

The problem is that you want a particular response from me that fits your concept of how the real world functions.

Unfortunately, that 'real world' is a fantasy of your own making.

Danny Jowenko has no wish to be a hero or a whistle blower.

As I have said, if he had known the first time he was shown the video of the collapse of WTC7 what the building was and that it was on 9/11, it is highly unlikely that he would have so unequivocally declared it a controlled demolition.

He probably would have at the most that it looked odd but he couldn't say more without doing research.

He trapped himself by his unhesitating pride and ego regarding his honest professional opinion.

To his credit, in the years since that original interview, he has researched WTC7 in detail (possibly hoping to find proof enough to change his opinion and explain away his original assessment) but in spite of the pressure placed on him to alter his opinion, he steadfastly sticks to his controlled demolition conviction.

With WTC 1 and WTC 2 there was no doubt as to what he was seeing and absolutely no doubt what most of the world believed happened on that day.

You can play dumb all you want but Danny Jowenko is anything but a fool.

He wasn't going to make bad business publicity worse by extending his WTC7 opinion to include WTC 1 and WTC 2.

He played it safe, and went along with the majority, giving safe standard explanations for why the twin towers collapsed, primarily based on it not being an apparent classic bottom down collapse.

In a telephone interview last spring when he reaffirmed his beliefs about WTC7 he also acknowledged that members of the demolition industry in the United States would not be expected to disagree with the official belief because it would be bad for business.

Anyway, you can scoff all you want but if you really put some open minded thought into what I've said, you'll see how much sense it makes.

Would you stick your neck out further?

Would you risk further damage to your business by offending the U.S. and it's European allies?

Would you accept the spillover effects on your family?

Would you relish being in the public eye as a professional standing against your own profession?

MM

This is not an answer to the question- this is entirely non-sequitur and is clearly not based in fact: Jowenko has not changed his position. If what you were saying is true, he would have either changed his position on 1 & 2 or on 7, publicly. What you have given me does not resolve the contradiction present in your argument- it only seeks to try and find some sort of cause for the contradiction, which has no basis in fact. All you are doing is trying to excuse the contradiction- which is patently absurd. Seeing as his business is not in jeopardy, and his ego is not part of the debate, I will be forced to issue my question again in hopes that you will not ignore it this time:

Now that we've established that you're terrified of being held accountable to your position in a more public sphere, perhaps we can explore why you're terrified.

I suggest you get back to the topic and try and resolve the multitude of contradictions present in your statements. I am sure that by attempting to resolve these- we can work out the why during the process.

Start with the very first contradiction- the one this thread was started on: How can you concede to Jowenko's "expertise" at will? It's a self-defeating concept.

If- on the other hand- you simply agree with his argument, then his "expertise" is irrelevant. If you agree with his evidence, then you're still stuck in a contradiction: partly because he has none, but also because based on the "evidence" he concluded that 1 and 2 could not possibly have been a controlled demolition.

Ready. Set. Go.

 

[DavidJames]

Like I said Toto I've already already addressed this.

Try here for instance;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3283334#post3283334

The problem is that you want a particular response from me that fits your concept of how the real world functions.

Unfortunately, that 'real world' is a fantasy of your own making.

Danny Jowenko has no wish to be a hero or a whistle blower.

As I have said, if he had known the first time he was shown the video of the collapse of WTC7 what the building was and that it was on 9/11, it is highly unlikely that he would have so unequivocally declared it a controlled demolition.

He probably would have at the most that it looked odd but he couldn't say more without doing research.

He trapped himself by his unhesitating pride and ego regarding his honest professional opinion.

To his credit, in the years since that original interview, he has researched WTC7 in detail (possibly hoping to find proof enough to change his opinion and explain away his original assessment) but in spite of the pressure placed on him to alter his opinion, he steadfastly sticks to his controlled demolition conviction.

With WTC 1 and WTC 2 there was no doubt as to what he was seeing and absolutely no doubt what most of the world believed happened on that day.

You can play dumb all you want but Danny Jowenko is anything but a fool.

He wasn't going to make bad business publicity worse by extending his WTC7 opinion to include WTC 1 and WTC 2.

He played it safe, and went along with the majority, giving safe standard explanations for why the twin towers collapsed, primarily based on it not being an apparent classic bottom down collapse.

In a telephone interview last spring when he reaffirmed his beliefs about WTC7 he also acknowledged that members of the demolition industry in the United States would not be expected to disagree with the official belief because it would be bad for business.

Anyway, you can scoff all you want but if you really put some open minded thought into what I've said, you'll see how much sense it makes.

Would you stick your neck out further?

Would you risk further damage to your business by offending the U.S. and it's European allies?

Would you accept the spillover effects on your family?

Would you relish being in the public eye as a professional standing against your own profession?

MM

It's one thing to allow your own paranoia to govern your behavior, it's another when you accuse others of possessing the same level of paranoia as yourself.

You are one sad human being.