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

[johnny karate]

He seems to be too preoccupied with his tap dancing.

And reading the mind of a Dutch demolition expert.

 

[Pookster]

And reading the mind of a Dutch demolition expert.

He's a busy man.

 

[Miragememories]

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.

It's very easy to confuse wisdom with paranoia.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

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.

Get over yourself.

I'm not going to wade back looking for your link that you had the time to whine about but was too much trouble for you to include in your complaint.

Post it again and if I'm not bogged down replying to others, I'll take a look at your incredible evidence.

MM

 

[Totovader]

The trap MM is falling into should have already been clear to him- but he's so desperate for "experts" that it doesn't matter that he's contradicting himself.

The appeal to authority fallacy is so important to recognize for this very reason: whether Jowenko is an expert or not is not the issue (though he is not an expert in this field), it's whether his argument is sound and supported by the evidence.

Even in the case of 1 & 2, Jowenko may be right, but that conclusion is based on such a poor evaluation of the evidence that you will not find any "debunkers" using it as an "expert" opinion. There are far more credible, concise, and relevant opinions from individuals who can support their observations with repeatable, verifiable, and widely accepted evidence.

This concept is completely foreign to people like MM- who also have no problems with the contradictions inherent in their position.

Unfortunately, for them, it makes it incredibly easy to debunk their claims- no lengthy argument is required to point out that a statement is self-defeating. Whether they choose to accept it or not is based entirely on their own bias and critical thinking skills, as well as their recognition of logic and the scientific method.

 

[Pookster]

It's very easy to confuse wisdom with paranoia.

MM

The fool thinks himself to be wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
--William Shakespeare

Just sayin' ... err .. quotin'

 

[qwert]

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.

A couple of questions for you Miragememories.

1) Do you have any reason to believe that WTC7 was a controlled demolition other than the statements put forth by Danny Jowenko?

2) If so, what are those reasons?

3) If not, how do you reconcile the fact that numerous demolitions experts with much more experience in this type of demoliton claim that WTC7 was NOT the result of a controlled demolition?

Basically, why do you choose to believe Danny Jowenko rather than the other experts? His experience & credentials do not seem as complete as the other experts. The other experts have put forth what look like very reasonable and sound arguments & simulations as to why WTC7 collapsed, but there seem to still be issues with how this could be a controlled demolition (e.g. the "boom" problem)

I've seen some of the evidence / theories of the various experts on how/why WTC7 collapsed, and I vaguely remember the original video with Danny Jowenko. It looks to me like he got some initial infamy (probably good for business) from the original claim & is hesitant to contradict that original claim now.

On another note, I'm not sure how reliable this is, but the link here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/220207_b_Jowenko.htm apparently has a recording of a phone call to Danny Jowenko in February 2007 in which he confirms that he still believes WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

 

[Miragememories]

The trap MM is falling into should have already been clear to him- but he's so desperate for "experts" that it doesn't matter that he's contradicting himself.

The appeal to authority fallacy is so important to recognize for this very reason: whether Jowenko is an expert or not is not the issue (though he is not an expert in this field), it's whether his argument is sound and supported by the evidence.

Even in the case of 1 & 2, Jowenko may be right, but that conclusion is based on such a poor evaluation of the evidence that you will not find any "debunkers" using it as an "expert" opinion. There are far more credible, concise, and relevant opinions from individuals who can support their observations with repeatable, verifiable, and widely accepted evidence.

This concept is completely foreign to people like MM- who also have no problems with the contradictions inherent in their position.

Unfortunately, for them, it makes it incredibly easy to debunk their claims- no lengthy argument is required to point out that a statement is self-defeating. Whether they choose to accept it or not is based entirely on their own bias and critical thinking skills, as well as their recognition of logic and the scientific method.

Words.

Lots and lots of meaningless words.

Toto you lose.

Pour yourself a tall one and go have a happy New Years Eve.

2008 will take you well beyond the pleasure of your word follies.

MM

 

[Totovader]

Words.

Lots and lots of meaningless words.

Toto you lose.

Pour yourself a tall one and go have a happy New Years Eve.

2008 will take you well beyond the pleasure of your word follies.

MM

Quit your whining and just answer the question. Nobody here buys your attitude.

 

[Miragememories]

A couple of questions for you Miragememories.

1) Do you have any reason to believe that WTC7 was a controlled demolition other than the statements put forth by Danny Jowenko?

Yes of course. Danny's opinion came well after the fact. Why do you ask? Have you brought yourself up to date on the subject or are you starting with me?

2) If so, what are those reasons?

What are the reasons? Are you being cruel or what? I have spent a few years researching this and you ask me an essay type question that encompasses the whole subject as if it was a minor request. Do your homework man or maybe wade through this thread;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2225055#post2225055

3) If not, how do you reconcile the fact that numerous demolitions experts with much more experience in this type of demoliton claim that WTC7 was NOT the result of a controlled demolition?

Have you not bothered to read my other replies in this thread? I suggest you do. Your questions are most disrespectful given the fact that they have been addressed in this thread and rather than bothering to read the thread, you are merely repeating old questions. Geez.

Basically, why do you choose to believe Danny Jowenko rather than the other experts? His experience & credentials do not seem as complete as the other experts. The other experts have put forth what look like very reasonable and sound arguments & simulations as to why WTC7 collapsed, but there seem to still be issues with how this could be a controlled demolition (e.g. the "boom" problem)

Believe what you wish to believe. It will all be good..until it's not!

I've seen some of the evidence / theories of the various experts on how/why WTC7 collapsed, and I vaguely remember the original video with Danny Jowenko. It looks to me like he got some initial infamy (probably good for business) from the original claim & is hesitant to contradict that original claim now.

I have no reason to believe that Danny's "initial infamy" was at all good for his business. Again, if you are sincerely interested...read the thread and don't make a habit of jumping into a lengthy thread with questions that have already been addressed earlier!

On another note, I'm not sure how reliable this is, but the link here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/220207_b_Jowenko.htm apparently has a recording of a phone call to Danny Jowenko in February 2007 in which he confirms that he still believes WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

If that is the phone call I believe it is, then it is very reliable as proof of Danny Jowenko's current opinion.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Quit your whining and just answer the question. Nobody here buys your attitude.

What question Toadie..err Toto?

You inject so much of your own bigotry into your posts it is difficult to dissect any questions that lie within?

MM

 

[Totovader]

What question Toadie..err Toto?

You inject so much of your own bigotry into your posts it is difficult to dissect any questions that lie within?

MM

Do I really need to keep repeating myself every 3 posts?

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.

 

[Totovader]

That's your last chance- by the way- MM.

If you can't answer such a simple question, I may have to dumb it down a bit more- which is annoying and unnecessary. If you would just stop pretending to be confused, we could move this along rather quickly.

 

[Miragememories]

Do I really need to keep repeating myself every 3 posts?

Apparently.

You appear to be so in love with blabbering out your comments that you fail to make concise questions.

Are you paid by the word or what?

I'm not quite sure how they pay you guys for maintaining the 9/11 myths.

Ignore that. Of course you can't acknowledge that you are financially rewarded for your activities here.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

That's your last chance- by the way- MM.

If you can't answer such a simple question, I may have to dumb it down a bit more- which is annoying and unnecessary. If you would just stop pretending to be confused, we could move this along rather quickly.

Trust me Toto with your handling of the language confusion is a given.

MM

 

[Totovader]

Fine, MM- have it your way. Let's bring this down to the level of irreducible primaries:

Do you understand what a contradiction is?

(Don't bother avoiding that question- I will keep repeating it until I get an answer.)

 

[Miragememories]

Fine, MM- have it your way. Let's bring this down to the level of irreducible primaries:

Do you understand what a contradiction is?

(Don't bother avoiding that question- I will keep repeating it until I get an answer.)

Sure do Toto!

Do you understand what delusional is?

Wife just called me to dinner so you ponder that..maybe crack open an english dictionary.

MM

 

[Totovader]

Sure do Toto!

Do you understand what delusional is?

Wife just called me to dinner so you ponder that..maybe crack open an english dictionary.

MM

You eluded to the fact that you're capable of doing your research via a dictionary. This would be a startling revelation- if true.

Just so there is no confusion- please explain what a "contradiction" is in your own terms.


By the way- that's a request. If you are just skimming my posts looking for the "?" symbol, then it's no wonder you're having so much trouble. I'll highlight them at this point so you stop playing games.


ETA: For bonus points, provide an example of a contradiction.

 

[twinstead]

Apparently.

You appear to be so in love with blabbering out your comments that you fail to make concise questions.

Are you paid by the word or what?

I'm not quite sure how they pay you guys for maintaining the 9/11 myths.

Ignore that. Of course you can't acknowledge that you are financially rewarded for your activities here.

MM

MM your insults and claiming his questions aren't precise enough for you isn't fooling anybody. Christ, it doesn't even fool me, and I'm on the third string of debunkers. This isn't some high school debate club; your rhetorical brownie point quest is pretty frivolous IMO. All you have shown to me is that it's difficult to corner you in a debate even if the position you hold is untenable. Congratulations. I'm suitably impressed.

Now. Franky you should drop the whole Jowenko thing and never mention his name again. It would actually help your position.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm not quite sure how they pay you guys for maintaining the 9/11 myths.

Ignore that. Of course you can't acknowledge that you are financially rewarded for your activities here.

Aaaaand the delusional paranoid finally reveals his true colors.

I think it's time to move on boys and girls. This is either an enormously elaborate wind-up or this guy is truly crazy enough to believe that there is an all-powerful secret and diabolical conspiracy that includes us being paid to argue with him on an internet message board.

Either way, I've had enough.

MM, I wish you the sincerest luck in saving the world from evil bionic werewolves from the future, or whatever it is you believe is behind all of this.