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

[stateofgrace]

Well.



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

Of course MM, you being such an individual, being such a free thinker. You never go along with herd do you?

By teh way one of your fellow truthers is claiming the photograghs from WTC 1 and 2 are fake, why do you not oppose this view?

Happy to go along with herd are you ? Or have you actually got a mind of your own? Oh maybe not too saturated with CT BS, I guess.

BTW " why did they demolish WTC 7? " Any thoughts of your own or are you waiting for the herd to come up with one ?

 

[Miragememories]

Of course MM, you being such an individual, being such a free thinker. You never go along with herd do you?

By teh way one of your fellow truthers is claiming the photograghs from WTC 1 and 2 are fake, why do you not oppose this view?

Happy to go along with herd are you ? Or have you actually got a mind of your own? Oh maybe not too saturated with CT BS, I guess.

BTW " why did they demolish WTC 7? " Any thoughts of your own or are you waiting for the herd to come up with one ?

What fellow truther?

What photographs?

As an individual I am not automatically attached to all the beliefs of someone who shares a common interest ie. 9/11 Truth. If this is the type of logic you apply, I understand why you consider yourself to be 3rd string here.

WTC7 thoughts?

If I answer that question I'll just get accused of mindreading again and I can assure you, I cannot read people's minds.

It's all good stateofgrace, you are in a comfort zone and I can dig that.

Enjoy it while it lasts because when it ends it won't be back and your apathy will be one of the reasons.

MM

 

[DavidJames]

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

Please seek help.

 

[Miragememories]

Please seek help.

Don't be so lazy and follow up on your opinions.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3292877#post3292877

Have you no self respect man?

MM

 

[DavidJames]

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

One more thing, CT boy, Jowenko has shown, by putting his name out there that he isn't paranoid. It's you that's attributing paranoid behavior or more accurately, projecting your paranoid behavior upon him.

Please seek help.

 

[stateofgrace]

What fellow truther?

What photographs?

As an individual I am not automatically attached to all the beliefs of someone who shares a common interest ie. 9/11 Truth. If this is the type of logic you apply, I understand why you consider yourself to be 3rd string here.

WTC7 thoughts?

If I answer that question I'll just get accused of mindreading again and I can assure you, I cannot read people's minds.

It's all good stateofgrace, you are in a comfort zone and I can dig that.

Enjoy it while it lasts because when it ends it won't be back and your apathy will be one of the reasons.

MM

Oh dear more self rightous nonsense. Do you actually have a mind of your own? Are you actually capable of any thought other than Ct nonsense?

Do you seriously believe that utter garbage you have just posted?

You sunbeam stand shoulder to shoulder with nutcase, loones and idiots that spout anything they like about 911 and you NEVER object to anything that they say. You never raise a voice against a single truther on this forum, you remain silent. You do so because you have not got the nerve to distance yourself from your little herd , so it is better to appease than oppose.You are no individual, individuals speak up when they disagree, so when are you going to speak up ?

I defy you MM, to challenge another truther on this forum who's opinions are not the same as yours, any, pick one. I quoted an example, in one thread Heiwa saying the photographs of the buckling in WTC 1 and 2 are fake. Do you agree? if not, then oppose him ,say something. You will not because he is part of your tiny little self rightous herd that truly believes you have spotted something that everybody else missed, hence the " comfort zone and I can dig it" BS.

Spare me your run down of my life sunbeam, you know zero about me and zero about what I believe or stand for. but just to enlighten you sunbeam, I actually do oposse the war in Iraq, I really have got off my ass and marched. Unlike you sunbeam I do not condem of the wild fantasies of the loons and the insane, I do not live in a paranoid world were I blame the US for every single terrorist action on this planet. yet you make me out to be your enemy simply because I will not buy into your insane theories about MIB planting bombs inside a building, blowing it up and hoping to fool the entire planet.

So what if Jowecko agrees with you about WTC 7, so bloody well what? Do I have to fall over and say "wow well one guy agrees with this nutty theory so I guess I should too". No MM I will not until you or somebody offers a complete and I mean a complete narrative of what happened to this building, including why it was demolished and by whom.

And as for your third string BS, I assure you sunbeam I am fully aware of the arguments put forward, I fully understand exactly what you are saying. I actually think you are not , cannot grasp the massive cover up that would have had to taken place and continues to take place. the hundreds of innocent people you accuse with your insane , self rightous theories.

 

[stateofgrace]

double post

 

[Jono]

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

Yes that seems to be the case, but what of it really?

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.

But what is this supposed to mean; "nothing"? His position is no secret, all we did was to superficially touch on possible "ifs", "why's" and "but's", by the default of inquiry; this very issue is non-sequitor to wether WTC7 was or was not brought down by CD.

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.

It's certainly plausible that there are a few doubters who remain silent not to cause any controversy, that's hardly an uncommon theme nor is it a designator of wether the doubt is valid or not.
I happen to know a number of academic historian-chaps who have notable doubts about the Holocaust, I'm not going to name them of course. However, the fact of their concern for controversy is not a yardstick for sympathy, coherence nor valid.

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

But I have heard it, we've been talking for a while on WTC7 and as I recall, my last reply to you on that note has not been answered.

Also, I ask you to stop with the polemics, it's rather boring and it makes it borderline impossible to discuss anything with you, no?

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

I do not understand what that means? Are you suggesting that this swedish man holds the views he has (on 9/11) just so that he might fit more easily into this community or?

 

[Miragememories]

One more thing, CT boy, Jowenko has shown, by putting his name out there that he isn't paranoid. It's you that's attributing paranoid behavior or more accurately, projecting your paranoid behavior upon him.

Please seek help.

Again you mangle the facts dj.

Remember the interview.

Slap your self a few times if that helps.

Danny Jowenko sat down with some good folks who were going to interview him and show him some videos.

They didn't knock on his door and announce; "yo Danny, we got some 9/11 video to show you that with your help will suggest that 9/11 was an inside job!"

He was caught off guard as everyone acknowledges. He watched the WTC7 collapse video and expressed his unequivocal professional opinion BEFORE he was alerted to the fact that the building was part of the WTC complex and fell on 9/11.

He never intentionally "put his name out there".

It was put out there after he unsuspectingly provided his professional opinion.

Of course you know this and your distortion of the truth is more evidence of how much you are in bed with those who wish the public to believe such lies.

MM

 

[Mancman]

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

Have fun http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3289745&postcount=357

 

[Miragememories]

Oh dear more self rightous nonsense. Do you actually have a mind of your own? Are you actually capable of any thought other than Ct nonsense?

Do you seriously believe that utter garbage you have just posted?

You sunbeam stand shoulder to shoulder with nutcase, loones and idiots that spout anything they like about 911 and you NEVER object to anything that they say. You never raise a voice against a single truther on this forum, you remain silent. You do so because you have not got the nerve to distance yourself from your little herd , so it is better to appease than oppose.You are no individual, individuals speak up when they disagree, so when are you going to speak up ?

I defy you MM, to challenge another truther on this forum who's opinions are not the same as yours, any, pick one. I quoted an example, in one thread Heiwa saying the photographs of the buckling in WTC 1 and 2 are fake. Do you agree? if not, then oppose him ,say something. You will not because he is part of your tiny little self rightous herd that truly believes you have spotted something that everybody else missed, hence the " comfort zone and I can dig it" BS.

Spare me your run down of my life sunbeam, you know zero about me and zero about what I believe or stand for. but just to enlighten you sunbeam, I actually do oposse the war in Iraq, I really have got off my ass and marched. Unlike you sunbeam I do not condem of the wild fantasies of the loons and the insane, I do not live in a paranoid world were I blame the US for every single terrorist action on this planet. yet you make me out to be your enemy simply because I will not buy into your insane theories about MIB planting bombs inside a building, blowing it up and hoping to fool the entire planet.

So what if Jowecko agrees with you about WTC 7, so bloody well what? Do I have to fall over and say "wow well one guy agrees with this nutty theory so I guess I should too". No MM I will not until you or somebody offers a complete and I mean a complete narrative of what happened to this building, including why it was demolished and by whom.

And as for your third string BS, I assure you sunbeam I am fully aware of the arguments put forward, I fully understand exactly what you are saying. I actually think you are not , cannot grasp the massive cover up that would have had to taken place and continues to take place. the hundreds of innocent people you accuse with your insane , self rightous theories.

I can make the same claim about you challenging your comrades here stateofgrace.

Practise what you preach!

The third string remark I attributed to your post about yourself earlier. If I recalled wrong, then I apologize.

Regarding the coverup. How do you know how many people had to have direct knowledge unless you were a participant?

You are only speculating and unless you were involved, you have no way of knowing what the level of participation was.

Skeptics with their monumental egos assume that if they can't figure it out then it can't be possible.

MM

 

[Totovader]

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.

*bump*

Stop dodging the question MM- it's not that tough.

 

[Miragememories]

Have fun http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3289745&postcount=357

Well thank you for proving my point Mancman.

I played that video through a good audio system and yes you can hear the sound of the WTC2 impact....barely!

That is the best you can do to prove your point that explosions would have been easily heard?

My god man!

That was a Boeing 767 slamming into what..the 80th floor of the South Tower (WTC2) at over 500 mph and we hear a faint distant rumble. A sound that barely competes with the other sounds in the background.
We hear a wall of traffic noise and sirens and then maybe at the same level or a bit less, the distant rumble.

A Hollywood soundtrack it was not!

If the outside sound of a plane crash as dramatic as that was so subdued in your recording example, is it any wonder that there are so few examples of loudly audible explosions from deep within the buildings themselves?

MM

 

[beachnut]

If the outside sound of a plane crash as dramatic as that was so subdued in your recording example, is it any wonder that there are so few examples of loudly audible explosions from deep within the buildings themselves?

MM

Deep? Let me see? 104 feet deep? That is as deep as you can get? Did I get close. Wow, 104 feet is really deep; no wonder the sounds of the exterior charges were muffled. There were really deep inside the 208 foot wide building! Did I say exterior cutter charges, I meant the silent exterior cutter charges. Now we need to find how deep the exterior was in the building?

104 feet is really deep, I no wonder the sounds of all those cutter charges were not heard, or seen blasting stuff all over!

 

[Miragememories]

Danny Jowenko has acknowledged how disagreeing with the 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.

I happen to know a number of academic historian-chaps who have notable doubts about the Holocaust, I'm not going to name them of course. However, the fact of their concern for controversy is not a yardstick for sympathy, coherence nor valid.

That is pretty low WhiteLion.

Comparing Holocaust denial to Danny Jowenko's professional opinion about WTC7. The fact you are willing to use such an example is absolutely disgusting and shows me the Nazi-like sympathies that lie in your argument.

MM

 

[Corsair 115]

That was a Boeing 767 slamming into what..the 80th floor of the South Tower (WTC2) at over 500 mph and we hear a faint distant rumble.

Perhaps you ought to view some of the other numerous videos of the second jet impact.

Perhaps too you can show why powerful explosives would make little noise and produce no physical effects, e.g. blast pressure wave.

 

[Miragememories]

Deep? Let me see? 104 feet deep? That is as deep as you can get? Did I get close. Wow, 104 feet is really deep; no wonder the sounds of the exterior charges were muffled. There were really deep inside the 208 foot wide building! Did I say exterior cutter charges, I meant the silent exterior cutter charges. Now we need to find how deep the exterior was in the building?

104 feet is really deep, I no wonder the sounds of all those cutter charges were not heard, or seen blasting stuff all over!

Waffle waffle waffle.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=357

So that outside, open air, well elevated, 500 mph+ crash of a Boeing 767 slamming into WTC2 sounded good and loud to you did it?

Or maybe that doesn't qualify as an explosion in your opinion?

Or maybe it's not "FACTUAL" enough?

MM

 

[beachnut]

max of 104 feet becomes DEEP inside!

Waffle waffle waffle.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=357

So that outside, open air, well elevated, 500 mph+ crash of a Boeing 767 slamming into WTC2 sounded good and loud to you did it?

Or maybe that doesn't qualify as an explosion in your opinion?

Or maybe it's not "FACTUAL" enough?

MM

Oh, I like your deep inside being a MAXIMUM of 104 feet! Just pointing out the irony in your DEEP inside. Wow, 104 feet is the furthers any or your fantasy cutter charges that were not heard on 9/11 could be.
This is deep inside, 104 feet?

..., is it any wonder that there are so few examples of loudly audible explosions from deep within the buildings themselves?

This is deep inside, 104 feet?

What a poor researcher all of 9/11 truthers are~! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xukjo7S1km8&feature=related Why? No sound of impact!? WRONG again, and what about that deep 104 feet. Cute stuff.

You know you could talk to people who heard 175, and missed all your explosives sounds, but you have chosen to be a fact less truther, not going for the big Puliter Prize for the 6th straight year, just posting hearsay facts less junk. 104 feet deep!

I bet they were about 1500 feet away. Time the impact sound. I could hear some fuel explosions from DEEP inside the building! 104 feet. Wow.

 

[LashL]

You can be so petty C!

Ah, starting a post with both an insult and a lie. How utterly unsurprising.

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.

Lie number two.

In typical twoofer fashion, that's a nice attempt at revisionism, Miragememories. Unfortunately for you, the JREF forum is not like the tinhat forum that you call home, and embarrassing posts here do not go down the memory hole, so people can read what actually transpired for themselves, no matter how much you try to revise history later.*

It was not a matter of a single post you made, nor was it a matter of one building being a few storeys shorter than you stated. Rather, it was a matter of you claiming to work in one of two "twin towers" in Toronto, each 22 storeys tall, each built in the early 1970s of similar construction to that of the WTC Twin Towers, and a matter of you claiming to have been in the 22nd floor stairwell of one of them (in which you claimed to work) while, in fact, no buildings such as you described actually exist in Toronto.

When I pointed out that the information you'd posted was incorrect (i.e., that there are no 22 storey tall "twin towers" in Toronto; that the buildings you referred to by address were actually 6 storeys and 18 storeys tall respectively; and that one of them was built in the late 1980s, not in the early 1970s even though you insisted otherwise), and when I provided incontrovertible evidence of this, you claimed not only that I was wrong but that I was so wrong that my credibility should be called into question about anything I post. (Oh, the irony!) You further claimed that you would return with evidence to prove me wrong.

Of course, you never did return with any evidence to prove me wrong because I had already provided facts and evidence that proved my claims to be entirely accurate and beyond dispute.

As for the construction, which you claimed was similar to the WTC towers, when you were asked specifically about those claims, you did not respond to the inquiries.

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.

Lie number 3.

Another attempt at revisionism on your part but, fortunately, the entire thread is still there for anyone to read, so you really should stop digging when you're already in a deep hole.

Your numerous errors and unfounded assertions are very relevant to your inability to get facts right, and very relevant to your propensity for accusing others without any basis in fact or reality.

It is very telling that you insisted, without any evidence whatsoever, and in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, that the facts and evidence I presented were wrong, while in reality, it was you who was entirely wrong.

It is also very telling that not even incontrovertible evidence could sway you from your unfounded beliefs, and it is very telling that instead of researching the matter - which would have taken only a few minutes since I had already provided you with all the links and evidence necessary to do so - you chose instead to spend much more time clinging to your unfounded beliefs.

There is value in the exercise as it exposed the reality that even in the face of incontrovertible evidence, you refused to admit you were wrong, you failed or refused to provide evidence to support your unfounded claims, and you failed or refused to retract your unsupported claims.

Just as you continue to do with respect to your numerous tinhat claims and unfounded assertions.

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

Lie number 4.

You were asked about the architecture that you alleged, and you were asked to provide the photographs that you alluded to, but you did not respond to those questions. You still haven’t, in fact.

So, how about it?

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

Lie number 5.

No, you didn't "ignore" it. Rather, you insisted that the building at 2190 Yonge was 22 storeys tall, and you claimed that I didn’t know what I was talking about when I told you - and proved to you - that it is only 6 storeys tall.

The building at 2200 Yonge is not 22 storeys tall either, but 17 storeys tall as I previously established, and it wasn’t built in the 1970s as you claimed, but in 1962-3, as I also previously established.

In other words, every single claim that you made about any and all of these three buildings was wrong and/or unsubstantiated by you. Every single one.

Taking the 3rd floor connecting corridor, one is never really aware of that small building in the middle.

What complete and utter nonsense.

You were right, I was wrong.

Finally!

And it only took you six months to eventually admit it.

Better late than never, though.

hang me I'm guilty.

Oh, look. An immediate and entirely disingenuous attempt to pretend that you finally admitting that you were wrong somehow equates to a call for your head on a pike.

How pathetic, and how sadly unsurprising.

The truth is out, I make mistakes.

Oh, look, another entirely disingenuous statement. How pathetic, and how sadly unsurprising.

However, this particular truth (that you make mistakes) has been evident here for a long, long time. There has never been even a second's doubt of it, and you continue to reinforce it with nearly every post you write.

At least you finally admitted to one of your many, many mistakes (even though while doing so, you have pretended that there was only one mistake at issue while, in reality, there were several).

I hope that in 2008, you will get better at acknowledging and admitting to your mistakes. Happy New Year.



*For those reading who don't know the backstory, here is the basic sequence of posts that sets it out:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656736&postcount=245
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656752&postcount=248
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656795&postcount=256
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656819&postcount=260
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656840&postcount=264
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656864&postcount=266
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656882&postcount=270
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656912&postcount=272
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2656932&postcount=275
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2658138&postcount=288
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2658157&postcount=291
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2658578&postcount=307
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2658598&postcount=311
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2658636&postcount=320
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2658684&postcount=329

 

[Christopher7]

Danny Jowenko recognized WTC7 was a CD because building implosions are very distinctive.

Interviewer:
What you see is the WTC, these are pictures of building 7.
Let’s take this and look at what we see.
Jowenko:
Do you see fires above somewhere?
I: I see smoke however.
J: Yeah, you always get dust. Nothing has been moved from it?
Does the top go first? No, the bottom.
I: It starts on the bottom.
J: They simply blew up the columns and the rest caved in afterwards.
I: Did this fall in a different way than the WTC?
J: Do you agree?
I: Yes, you see the bottom floors go first.
J: Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
I: You sure?
J: Absolutely, it’s been imploded.
This is a hired job. A team of experts did this.


There was no doubt in his mind that WTC7 was a CD.

You may not agree with him but you cannot seriously say that the implosion of WTC7 doesn't even look like a CD.

Please don't subject shift to the towers, the point here is:

The implosion of WTC 7 LOOKS LIKE A CD.