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

[Miragememories]

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.

It's not that I don't see your point of view Toto.

The contradiction is not mine, it's Danny Jowenko's.

Danny Jowenko contradicts himself either willingly or unwillingly, I cannot be sure.

I do see the apparent contradiction in Jowenko's opinion about the 3 WTC buildings.

The key difference is that I can understand the contradiction in human terms and you prefer to see it in purely factual terms.

As a human being with life concerns that can be easily impacted by his professional behavior, it is understandable that Danny Jowenko wants to limit the sensationalist aspects of his public exposure regarding any opinions relating to 9/11.

He performed 'damage control' by going along with the status quo on WTC 1 and WTC 2 but he was professionally trapped by his opinion on WTC7 and he knew it could badly tarnish his reputation if he was to attempt to back away from that.

I'm sure both you and I would like to ask him how he can staunchly belief WTC7 was a controlled demolition without questioning the bizarre and highly suspicious coincidence of the twin towers completely collapsing on the same day due to reasons other than controlled demolition.

If WTC7 was pre-rigged for CD, then it's logical to suspect an inside job and that the twin towers were part of the operation.

I wish someone had/would ask him that question.

It's quite likely that given the amount of time that has passed, that Jowenko is well aware of the contradictory nature of the opinions he expressed and that he is hoping no one is going to "call him out on it".
Certainly he appears to be quite safe from any investigations by the mainstream news who are doing there best to only convey news which is pre-approved for public release.

My opinion remains that he is was truthful in his opinion about WTC7.

It is also my opinion that Jowenko, based solely on his observations of the twin towers collapses, was prepared to quickly embrace an initial impression that the towers were not controlled demolitions, simply because top down collapses were not the industry norm combined with the foreknowledge of world opinion on those collapses. He had no interest in embracing further controversy by suggesting they might be controlled demolitions. I see little evidence that he is a publicity seeker.

MM

 

[Jono]

It's not that I don't see your point of view Toto.

The contradiction is not mine, it's Danny Jowenko's.

Danny Jowenko contradicts himself either willingly or unwillingly, I cannot be sure.

I do see the apparent contradiction in Jowenko's opinion about the 3 WTC buildings.

The key difference is that I can understand the contradiction in human terms and you prefer to see it in purely factual terms.

As a human being with life concerns that can be easily impacted by his professional behavior, it is understandable that Danny Jowenko wants to limit the sensationalist aspects of his public exposure regarding any opinions relating to 9/11.

He performed 'damage control' by going along with the status quo on WTC 1 and WTC 2 but he was professionally trapped by his opinion on WTC7 and he knew it could badly tarnish his reputation if he was to attempt to back away from that.

Well, the above reminds me when a group of wine-experts did the proverbial "pepsi-test" so to speak. In one session they tasted six or seven glasses of wine, only... it was the same wine in the lot of 'em.
It comes as no surprize that this wasn't picked up my either one, yet to my recollection none of them kept their initial impression of the wines on the notable difference inbetween them.

I think one should give Jowenko the benifit of a doubt that had he realized his initial impression of WTC7 was completely off the mark; subsequent defence and clinging thereon would've been completely unnecessary. To suggest that he kept his CD-view on the WTC7 simply to save further embarresment, makes little occupational, logical sense and even less psycholocigal sense, imo.

 

[LashL]

Hmm.."a woman scorned.."

MM

As usual, your post is inaccurate. Accurate would be "a woman amused..." by your silly attempts to claim greater expertise than you have, your hilarious tap dancing, your ridiculous mental gymnastics, and your complete failure to get anything right. (Have you ever figured out that little problem of a 6 storey building not having 18 storeys or 22 storeys, by the way?)

Also accurate would be "a woman mildly surprised..." by your seemingly endless supply of unfounded claims and unabashedly bald and unsupported assertions.

But "scorned"? Nope. You must have me confused with someone else.

 

[A W Smith]

Merrie melodies your opinion does not matter. either you agree with your "expert" Danny Jowenko or you do not. and he is no longer valid. Your argument that he held his opinion back from 2 out of 3 buildings does not hold water. he had plenty of time to extract himself from the so called entrapment to restore his 'life concerns". yet he didn't.

 

[Miragememories]

As usual, your post is inaccurate. Accurate would be "a woman amused..." by your silly attempts to claim greater expertise than you have, your hilarious tap dancing, your ridiculous mental gymnastics, and your complete failure to get anything right. (Have you ever figured out that little problem of a 6 storey building not having 18 storeys or 22 storeys, by the way?)

Also accurate would be "a woman mildly surprised..." by your seemingly endless supply of unfounded claims and unabashedly bald and unsupported assertions.

But "scorned"? Nope. You must have me confused with someone else.

Oh sigh.

You can be so petty C!

Yes my building is a few storys shorter than I stated.

When I made that post, I was focusing on what I felt was of interest, the fact that architecturally my building was engineered the same way as WTC 1 and WTC 2.

The exactness of the height was irrelevant but for some reason you considered this to be nothing less than an error in the first degree.

Now had you accused me of being wrong about the building architecture, your point would have had some value.

So I ignored the little building between the one I work in and the comparable adjoining tower north of me.

Taking the 3rd floor connecting corridor, one is never really aware of that small building in the middle. Of course if you search online like you did after I provided the necessary info, it becomes apparent that it's there and you can get all the info you want.

You were right, I was wrong..hang me I'm guilty.

The truth is out, I make mistakes.

Happy New Year C!

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Well, the above reminds me when a group of wine-experts did the proverbial "pepsi-test" so to speak. In one session they tasted six or seven glasses of wine, only... it was the same wine in the lot of 'em.
It comes as no surprize that this wasn't picked up my either one, yet to my recollection none of them kept their initial impression of the wines on the notable difference inbetween them.

I think one should give Jowenko the benifit of a doubt that had he realized his initial impression of WTC7 was completely off the mark; subsequent defence and clinging thereon would've been completely unnecessary. To suggest that he kept his CD-view on the WTC7 simply to save further embarresment, makes little occupational, logical sense and even less psycholocigal sense, imo.

WhiteLion you only prove that a closed mind is unable to listen.

If my explanation makes so little sense, why don't you put your wine down for a moment and explain what does make sense about Jowenko's behavior?

MM

 

[beachnut]

WhiteLion you only prove that a closed mind is unable to listen.

If my explanation makes so little sense, why don't you put your wine down for a moment and explain what does make sense about Jowenko's behavior?

MM

Is that code for you do not have any facts, so you say "closed mind"? Does that means you do not think for yourself and you use hearsay? I have found it hard to figure out 9/11 truth and those who post one person like the hearsay from Jowenko and ignore all the other facts. Why is 9/11 truth not presenting facts? This is a mystery. Why just one expert from CD world? Does this mean the 99.99 percent remaining experts are too scared to come forward like you the brave people for 9/11 truth, knocking down doors and getting this on the front page of Time magazine, NY Times, the Post, etc. Where is the meat of your story? Just one lone person who has not even been to the scene on 9/11? Just one guy? Closed minded? I think we are seeing proof of 9/11 truth with locked minds! Good luck getting past being called people with nut case ideas. Cause the "explosives did it idea" is a nut case idea. Closed mind? I now am thinking about all those people on 9/11 who actually heard the buildings come down and not one of them has come forward with the stupid explosives did it. Witnesses there have actually posted here and you have failed to gather first hand testimony, real live on the spot stuff, but support an expert who never studied it past video evidence from truthers out to cherry pick and mislead others. Super cool stuff that has not earned you and your disrespectful lot the Pulitzer Prize! Closed minds; monopoly of 9/11 truth.

 

[Totovader]

It's not that I don't see your point of view Toto.

The contradiction is not mine, it's Danny Jowenko's.

Danny Jowenko contradicts himself either willingly or unwillingly, I cannot be sure.

I do see the apparent contradiction in Jowenko's opinion about the 3 WTC buildings.

The key difference is that I can understand the contradiction in human terms and you prefer to see it in purely factual terms.

As a human being with life concerns that can be easily impacted by his professional behavior, it is understandable that Danny Jowenko wants to limit the sensationalist aspects of his public exposure regarding any opinions relating to 9/11.

He performed 'damage control' by going along with the status quo on WTC 1 and WTC 2 but he was professionally trapped by his opinion on WTC7 and he knew it could badly tarnish his reputation if he was to attempt to back away from that.

I'm sure both you and I would like to ask him how he can staunchly belief WTC7 was a controlled demolition without questioning the bizarre and highly suspicious coincidence of the twin towers completely collapsing on the same day due to reasons other than controlled demolition.

If WTC7 was pre-rigged for CD, then it's logical to suspect an inside job and that the twin towers were part of the operation.

I wish someone had/would ask him that question.

It's quite likely that given the amount of time that has passed, that Jowenko is well aware of the contradictory nature of the opinions he expressed and that he is hoping no one is going to "call him out on it".
Certainly he appears to be quite safe from any investigations by the mainstream news who are doing there best to only convey news which is pre-approved for public release.

My opinion remains that he is was truthful in his opinion about WTC7.

It is also my opinion that Jowenko, based solely on his observations of the twin towers collapses, was prepared to quickly embrace an initial impression that the towers were not controlled demolitions, simply because top down collapses were not the industry norm combined with the foreknowledge of world opinion on those collapses. He had no interest in embracing further controversy by suggesting they might be controlled demolitions. I see little evidence that he is a publicity seeker.

MM

This is not an answer to the question.

The question, once again, is: Just so there is no confusion- please explain what a "contradiction" is in your own terms.

 

[twinstead]

WhiteLion you only prove that a closed mind is unable to listen.

The irony meter just went off the scale.

 

[Miragememories]

This is not an answer to the question.

The question, once again, is: Just so there is no confusion- please explain what a "contradiction" is in your own terms.

Toto, against my better judgment, I made some real effort and attempted to give you a good, concise answer to your question.

What I get in reply is a disingenuous button push that I assume is designed to provoke some response that can justify a report to the moderator.

The contradiction is Jowenko's and at the time when his statements created the contradiction, it is unknown, at least to me, if he realized his opinion on WTC7 called into question his opposite opinion about WTC 1 and WTC 2.

I agree with his conclusion about WTC7 and I've explained why I believe he was truthful and remained so.

I disagree with his conclusion about WTC 1 and WTC 2 and I've explained why he was wrong and/or lied about this.

If it is your intent to continue working from the point of view that nothing I have to say, short of agreeing with you is acceptable, then I guess this discussion, at least with you, has come to an end.

I suggest if you are really sincere in wanting to resolve the "contradiction", you contact Danny Jowenko and ask him.

MM

 

[DavidJames]

you contact Danny Jowenko and ask him.

MM

Tell me MM, before you accused him of being paranoid, of being concerned for his career and reputation, did you talk to him?

That is a yes or no answer MM, please respond with a yes or no.

 

[Totovader]

Toto, against my better judgment, I made some real effort and attempted to give you a good, concise answer to your question.

What I get in reply is a disingenuous button push that I assume is designed to provoke some response that can justify a report to the moderator.

The contradiction is Jowenko's and at the time when his statements created the contradiction, it is unknown, at least to me, if he realized his opinion on WTC7 called into question his opposite opinion about WTC 1 and WTC 2.

I agree with his conclusion about WTC7 and I've explained why I believe he was truthful and remained so.

I disagree with his conclusion about WTC 1 and WTC 2 and I've explained why he was wrong and/or lied about this.

If it is your intent to continue working from the point of view that nothing I have to say, short of agreeing with you is acceptable, then I guess this discussion, at least with you, has come to an end.

I suggest if you are really sincere in wanting to resolve the "contradiction", you contact Danny Jowenko and ask him.

MM

Again, this is not an answer to the question.

It should not be this difficult, MM. Enough with the red herrings- just answer the question.

Once again, the question is: Just so there is no confusion- please explain what a "contradiction" is in your own terms.

 

[Miragememories]

Tell me MM, before you accused him of being paranoid, of being concerned for his career and reputation, did you talk to him?

That is a yes or no answer MM, please respond with a yes or no.

Get your facts straight before you throw them at me DavidJames.

I never accused Danny Jowenko of being paranoid.

As a business man presenting a work-related unpopular point of view, it is not a sign of paranoia to be reasonably mistrustful of the reaction to said point of view.

And no I have never corresponded directly with Danny Jowenko.

MM

 

[DavidJames]

Get your facts straight before you throw them at me DavidJames.

You wouldn't know a fact if you tripped over it.

And no I have never corresponded directly with Danny Jowenko.

MM

Thank you.

 

[Miragememories]

Again, this is not an answer to the question.

It should not be this difficult, MM. Enough with the red herrings- just answer the question.

Once again, the question is: Just so there is no confusion- please explain what a "contradiction" is in your own terms.

Is there an echo in here?

Time to move on Toto. You are badgering in a lame attempt to extract a response and not an answer to your question.

The question was answered.

You don't like the answer.

Too bad.

Get over it and go count your puppies.

MM

 

[Totovader]

Is there an echo in here?

Time to move on Toto. You are badgering in a lame attempt to extract a response and not an answer to your question.

The question was answered.

You don't like the answer.

Too bad.

Get over it and go count your puppies.

MM

No, the question was not answered- and you conceded to this with your pathetic attempt at a personal attack when I asked for you to answer it the last time.

I suggested we dumb it down for you- and that's exactly what we have to do. Now you're avoiding that question. It really should not be that difficult, but I suspect that this is your own cognitive dissonance at work.

Let's see if I'm right. Answer the question. You had every opportunity to answer the series of questions previous to this, and you failed. (And you also have not resolved the contradiction in your dodging of this question.)

Stop dodging the question and just answer it. It should not be this difficult. There's no reason to have a standoff, here- so just stop stalling.

The question, yet again, is: Just so there is no confusion- please explain what a "contradiction" is in your own terms.

You're not helping your case by dodging such a simple question with dodging of a previous question.

 

[DavidJames]

I never accused Danny Jowenko of being paranoid.

These are the mind reading exercises you performed on Jowenko.

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

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.

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.

These are the paranoid tendencies you attributed to Jowenko.

but in spite of the pressure placed on him to alter his opinion, he steadfastly sticks to his controlled demolition conviction.

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?

You are welcome to document the "pressure placed on him to alter his opinion".

 

[Miragememories]

These are the mind reading exercises you performed on Jowenko.

These are the paranoid tendencies you attributed to Jowenko.
You are welcome to document the "pressure placed on him to alter his opinion".

Okay.

Apparently in your world there are only two states of mind.

Naivety or Paranoia?

Apparently for you, behavior that reflects; due diligence, caution, wisdom, experience, public awareness etc. is all just paranoia?

So Danny Jowenko is apparently foolish, or as you put it, paranoid, if he considers how his public statements might be interpreted?

Well it's time someone burst your bubble dj because if you deem Danny Jowenko's common sense behavior to be paranoid, then I'm all for paranoid behavior.

Oh, and I guess you wouldn't mind posting your address and phone number while your at it.

I mean only someone suffering from paranoid delusions would suspect that such information might get abused, right?

MM

 

[Jono]

WhiteLion you only prove that a closed mind is unable to listen.

My mind isn't closed, allthough it has filtering qualifiers for the stuff that swirls around it in the ether.

If my explanation makes so little sense, why don't you put your wine down for a moment and explain what does make sense about Jowenko's behavior?

MM

It was indeed my opinion that your conclusion seemed to make little sense, true, however I can't readily say why Jowenko acts the way he does or say the things he say. What I can do is to evalutate the odd profiling of him as to have this or that reason, motivation or psychological undertone.

Perhaps the answer is simpler, Jowenko himself might not really be sure what to believe and is a bit confused by the ordeal.

Either way, it was simply a curiosa comment, it doesn't matter to me why he says the things the say, only what they are and how they are substantiated.

 

[Miragememories]

My mind isn't closed, allthough it has filtering qualifiers for the stuff that swirls around it in the ether.



It was indeed my opinion that your conclusion seemed to make little sense, true, however I can't readily say why Jowenko acts the way he does or say the things he say. What I can do is to evalutate the odd profiling of him as to have this or that reason, motivation or psychological undertone.

Perhaps the answer is simpler, Jowenko himself might not really be sure what to believe and is a bit confused by the ordeal.

Either way, it was simply a curiosa comment, it doesn't matter to me why he says the things the say, only what they are and how they are substantiated.

Well.

I think one should give Jowenko the benifit of a doubt that had he realized his initial impression of WTC7 was completely off the mark; subsequent defence and clinging thereon would've been completely unnecessary. To suggest that he kept his CD-view on the WTC7 simply to save further embarresment, makes little occupational, logical sense and even less psycholocigal sense, imo.

That would be reasonable if not for the fact that Mr. Jowenko has given the same professional opinion consistently!

He's had the opportunity to consider his remarks and retract them or even modify them as a maybe.

What did he do?

He researched further and repeated his assertion that WTC7 was indeed, in his professional opinion, a controlled demolition.

You on the other hand have had more than ample time to consider his repeated consistent response and what have you done...from what I can see...nothing.

Danny Jowenko has acknowledged how disagreeing with accepted opinion on why WTC7 collapsed being bad for business was the reason why his associates in the U.S. refuse to publicly question the Official Story.

You reveal yourself as another Official Conspiracy clone by your inability to hear what and why Danny Jowenko says what he says.

I hope sacrificing individuality for the love of the herd is worth it WhiteLion?

MM