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

[Miragememories]

Excellent- that's a fair definition.

Now, are you able to understand the contradictions present in your claim?

(This may be too big of a question- if necessary, I will list them out for you.)

Why do I bother answering your request?

Don't answer that it was rhetorical.

YES YES YES for the umpteenth time Toto I do see the contradictions but NOT in my claim!

The problem, as I have repeated to you, is that Danny Jowenko has yet to respond to the contradiction in his claim!

My name is not Danny Jowenko.

If you want an explanation for the contradiction, and I agree that it exists, ASK THE MAN!

MM

 

[Totovader]

Why do I bother answering your request?

Don't answer that it was rhetorical.

YES YES YES for the umpteenth time Toto I do see the contradictions but NOT in my claim!

The problem, as I have repeated to you, is that Danny Jowenko has yet to respond to the contradiction in his claim!

My name is not Danny Jowenko.

If you want an explanation for the contradiction, and I agree that it exists, ASK THE MAN!

MM

That's not an answer to my question- but I was shooting too high.

Let's bring it back down a level and see if we can still reach the right answer, we'll come back to this question in a little bit.

Instead, answer the following:

Why is it important to recognize contradictions present in our claims?

 

[Miragememories]

That's not an answer to my question- but I was shooting too high.

Let's bring it back down a level and see if we can still reach the right answer, we'll come back to this question in a little bit.

Instead, answer the following:

Why is it important to recognize contradictions present in our claims?

We'll get back to your question Toto.

What do you do for a living?

Take your time.

If you need help, feel free to ask your parents.

MM

 

[Totovader]

We'll get back to your question Toto.

What do you do for a living?

Take your time.

If you need help, feel free to ask your parents.

MM

That question clearly has no relevance to this discussion.

Again, the question you need to answer is: Why is it important to recognize contradictions present in our claims?

I'm not going to ask it 8 times.

 

[Miragememories]

That question clearly has no relevance to this discussion.

Again, the question you need to answer is: Why is it important to recognize contradictions present in our claims?

I'm not going to ask it 8 times.

Every question has relevance.

If you can't be bothered to answer my simple question than don't expect me to answer yours!

Carry on.

MM

 

[Totovader]

Every question has relevance.

If you can't be bothered to answer my simple question than don't expect me to answer yours!

Carry on.

MM

No, every question does not have relevance- which is why this forum has a very specific non-derailment policy.

Obviously, you're stalling again- but I'm not going to waste my time waiting for you to admit it this time.

Instead, I'll answer the question for you: Why is it important to recognize contradictions present in our claims?

The answer is: because in reality, there are no contradictions. Therefore, "whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." --Ayn Rand

In this case- your argument that Jowenko is an expert, and therefore should have his claims accepted is not only a fallacy, but is contradictory to his experience, and his claim. He has stated a contradiction- one that you are able to recognize. Yet, you still accept this contradiction and claim that he's an authority.

You attempt to supersede his authority by claiming that he's wrong- but that's self-defeating: he's the expert, and if we are relying on experts, you're certainly in no position to challenge him.

(Of course, this is why we avoid the fallacy of appeal to authority in the first place)

If- however- you are claiming that Jowenko is right because of the evidence, then it's still a contradiction because the evidence cannot point to both a legitimate collapse and a deliberate one at the same time.

So, you're either contradicting yourself by claiming Jowenko is an expert who should be believed and not believed because you say so- or you're contradicting yourself by claiming that the evidence Jowenko is resting his case on points to a legitimate and a deliberate collapse.

Yes, Jowenko is contradicting himself- but you are choosing to use his authority to make your case. What you don't seem to grasp is that agreeing with someone who is clearly contradicting themselves is a contradiction. He can't both be right and wrong at the same time.

 

[Miragememories]

Yes, Jowenko is contradicting himself- but you are choosing to use his authority to make your case. What you don't seem to grasp is that agreeing with someone who is clearly contradicting themselves is a contradiction. He can't both be right and wrong at the same time.

Ahh but you are wrong.

A person can be right and wrong at the same time if they are addressing two or more different items!

He is right about WTC7 and wrong about WTC 1 & 2.

MM

 

[Christopher7]

And that one statement represents the entirety of the evidence for CD.

(and it only looks like a CD if you ignore the tower1 debris, 7 hours of unfought fires, creaking, groaning, bulging, firefighter assessments of damage and collapse risk, the collapse of the east and west penthouses, and the lack of any visual or audio evidence of explosive charges.)

Thank you for acknowledging that the implosion of WTC7 looks like a CD.

Are unfought fires hotter than fires burning out of control?

The debris damage, creaking, groaning and bulging were in the SW part of WTC7.
NIST has now concluded that the debris damage was NOT a factor in the IE.

Chiefs Fellini and Hayden thought WTC7 was in danger of collapse, Chief Norman did not.

None of that changes the FACT that WTC7 looks like a CD.

 

[Totovader]

Ahh but you are wrong.

A person can be right and wrong at the same time if they are addressing two or more different items!

He is right about WTC7 and wrong about WTC 1 & 2.

MM

These are not "different items"- these are part of the same event. Claiming they are "different items" is just a further contradiction. The fact that you are trying to separate them indicates that you are very much aware of the contradiction in your own claim, but refuse to resolve it.

Regardless- claiming they are "different items" does not rebut any of the points I made above.

You're aware of the contradictions inherent in your claims. You are aware of what contradictions are, and why it's important to avoid them. You clearly understand that the contradictions are only stretched even further apart by claiming Jowenko's expertise is relevant... but you still fail to resolve them.

Tell me, what do you think of a person who freely admits that contradictions are present in their claims, but somehow still expects people to take them seriously?

 

[Miragememories]

These are not "different items"- these are part of the same event. Claiming they are "different items" is just a further contradiction. The fact that you are trying to separate them indicates that you are very much aware of the contradiction in your own claim, but refuse to resolve it.

Regardless- claiming they are "different items" does not rebut any of the points I made above.

You're aware of the contradictions inherent in your claims. You are aware of what contradictions are, and why it's important to avoid them. You clearly understand that the contradictions are only stretched even further apart by claiming Jowenko's expertise is relevant... but you still fail to resolve them.

Tell me, what do you think of a person who freely admits that contradictions are present in their claims, but somehow still expects people to take them seriously?

Nice try Toto but we are talking about 3 separate objects and a professionals opinion about what occurred to those 3 separate objects. In addition, I must add, his opinions were formed without benefit of foreknowledge regarding the relationship between all 3.

You can play all the pretty word games you like but you can't alter reality.

The contradiction that exists, is in need of explanation by the person who created it.

I agree with one of his opinions and have explained what I believe to be the motive for the contradiction that exists with his other 2 opinions.

If you really care about a resolution to your question, go to the source of the contradiction, Danny Jowenko.

MM

 

[Totovader]

Nice try Toto but we are talking about 3 separate objects and a professionals opinion about what occurred to those 3 separate objects. In addition, I must add, his opinions were formed without benefit of foreknowledge regarding the relationship between all 3.

The relationship? You just said they are separate objects. There- another contradiction.

Pointing out that they are 3 separate objects does not mean that they are of a different event. To prove this, answer the following question:

Is it possible that the collapse of 1 and 2 could be legitimate, but the collapse of WTC7 was a CD? If so, how?

You can play all the pretty word games you like but you can't alter reality.

Alter reality? I'm not the one trying to ignore contradictions, here. Remember- there are no contradictions in reality, so why does your theory have them?

The contradiction that exists, is in need of explanation by the person who created it.

I explained your contradiction: by claiming that Jowenko is an expert and his opinion is therefore credible, you are contradicting yourself when you try and claim he's wrong.

I agree with one of his opinions and have explained what I believe to be the motive for the contradiction that exists with his other 2 opinions.

The motive of a contradiction does not resolve it, nor does it make your contradictions go away. Furthermore, you have no evidence whatsoever for this so-called motive, you're just trying to make excuses.

If you really care about a resolution to your question, go to the source of the contradiction, Danny Jowenko.

The fact that you are stating this should be a big warning call to you. Do you care about the contradiction, why or why not? If you do, have you contacted Jowenko?

The fact that you do not seem to care about the contradiction, but continue to use Jowenko as an "expert" makes the weakness of your position so patently obvious that it's a wonder you still cling to it. See if you can understand this part- though I've had to repeat it quite often: Your position is self-defeating; it inherently contains contradictions you admit exist.

Furthermore, you did not answer my question in the previous post:


Tell me, what do you think of a person who freely admits that contradictions are present in their claims, but somehow still expects people to take them seriously?

 

[LashL]

Yes petty. Extremely petty.

Uh-huh. So petty that you considered it of sufficient significance to claim that it called my credibility into question when you erroneously thought that I was wrong. But now that you have eventually admitted, after six months, that it was you who was wrong, suddenly you consider the subject matter "petty".

You're not fooling anyone.

Not a lie if true.

Like I said, a lie.

And only an insult if the truth hurts.

Nonsense.

I'm not in the least embarrassed by those imperfect posts. I regret that they contained superficial factual errors but I don't feel the errors were pertinent to, or undermined, the intended message.

Sure. They are "superficial" errors now that you have admitted that they were your errors, but when you thought they were my errors, you certainly thought they were significant.

Now the construction. Well what did I get wrong there?

How would anyone know since you couldn't even identify the buildings that you were talking about, and since you didn't elaborate on the construction, and since you didn't answer the questions posed to you about the construction, and since you didn't provide the photos that you alluded to and were asked for?

My building is architecturally similar to WTC 1 and WTC 2 in that it was based on suspension design to allow for large open spaces unblocked by columns.

So you say, and yet the entire basis for this belief of yours appears to be that some unnamed person told you so in 1972.

As noted above, you did not elaborate on the construction beyond a single assertion, you did not answer the questions posed to you about the construction and you did not provide the photos that you were asked for.

What inquiries did I not respond to about the construction?

The thread is still there.

Did it not occur to you that I never checked those facts, which I obviously could have done, because I didn't think the accuracy of those assumptions was important to the post?

You clearly thought that the accuracy of those facts was important when you erroneously thought that I was wrong about them, since you claimed that they impacted very negatively on my credibility. Again, nice try.

Ahh..photographic evidence. Yes I took photographs of the building soon after it was constructed for an architect friend. That was how I discovered it's similarity to the WTC Twin Towers.

So you said, but when I expressed an interest in seeing them, you didn't provide them. And, see above.

I don't recall a request for pictures or related questions?

The thread is still there.

To sum up...<snipped out further self-serving attempts at revisionism>

Again, nice try.

As is obvious, the issue was that you made assertions that were incorrect and when your errors were pointed out to you with documented facts and evidence, you did not:

a) admit your errors;
b) check the facts to see if you were in error; or
c) say, "Oh, I didn't realize that but it wasn't important anyway because the real point I was trying to make was X."

What you did was:

1) claim that you were sure that you were right;
2) claim that you were sure that I was wrong;
3) claim that the fact that I was wrong was indicative of poor research skills on my part;
4) claim that you would return to prove me wrong; and
5) fail spectacularly on #1 through #4.

Were any of those errors relevant or important to the message of my building's WTC architectural similarity?

No.

See above.

Look, Miragememories, I am glad that you have finally admitted that you were wrong. Most members of your "movement" cannot bring themselves to do that in any circumstances, and it is a good thing that you have done so.

However, by continuing to engage in revisionism while doing so, you continue to undermine the veracity and legitimacy of your own posts.
You could - and should - have simply said, "Hey, I'm sorry about that, I was wrong," without all of the veiled and not-so-veiled gratuitous insults and lies, as that would have garnered a polite, "Thanks for that, let's move on," response.

Perhaps you can keep that in mind for next time.

 

[beachnut]

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.

Overall a very stupid post! Danny Jowenko is wrong. So are you. I love your silent explosives and your total lack of facts.

 

[Dave Rogers]

A person can be right and wrong at the same time if they are addressing two or more different items!

He is right about WTC7 and wrong about WTC 1 & 2.

Let's take that one apart and look at it, shall we?

Your belief about WTC7 comes down to the following train of logic:
(1) Jowenko is an expert on controlled demolitions.
(2) He believes WTC7 was a CD.
(3) He invariably recognises CD's correctly because of (1).
Therefore WTC7 was a CD.

However, your statement that Jowenko was wrong about WTC 1 & 2 invalidates (3), so your proof is invalid.

Now let's assume your proposed reason for Jowenko's error about WTC 1 & 2 is that they were an unconventional style of CD. That means that you are adding your own interpretation to Jowenko's analysis, and in effect claiming greater expertise than him on the recognition of CD's. What is your justification for claiming that there are types of CD that Jowenko would fail to recognise correctly, yet denying that there are types of collapse due to damage and fire that he would incorrectly believe to be a CD? These are not strawmen, they are positions you must be taking in order for your reasoning to be valid. Again, you are claiming greater expertise than your expert.

Now let's look at the debunker position. Jowenko claims that WTC7 was a CD, but WTC 1 & 2 were not. Since this scenario makes no sense, we assume Jowenko is mistaken either about WTC1 & 2, about WTC7, or both. We cannot draw any conclusions from his opinion. We therefore defer to the body of opinion of other witnesses and experts on CD who have commented on WTC7 and on WTC 1 & 2, which is an overwhelming majority against CD.

Note that you are in effect also claiming greater expertise than all these experts.

Dave

 

[GStan]

Thank you for acknowledging that the implosion of WTC7 looks like a CD.

I also think the moon looks like it has a face and that my father-in-law looks like Paul McCartney. How are those observations relevant? I'll tell you how. They are nearly equal to 'looks like a CD' in considering the evidence for CD. It also looks like a collapse by debris damage and fire. Its 'look' is not exclusive to CD, and therefore not evidence of exclusively CD.

Are unfought fires hotter than fires burning out of control?

Aren't 'unfought fires' the same thing as 'fires burning out of control'? (as opposed to a 'fought fire', which may be burning, but under control.) If you are asking if I think a fire left to its own devices would burn hotter than a fire that is being fought, I would say yes. If firefighters are achieving any measurable success in suppressing a fire, it stands to reason that it will not reach the same temperature as one that is burning unabated. I'm no fire expert though, so if we have any fire experts reading, correct me if I'm wrong. If that is not what you were asking, please clarify the point of the question.

The debris damage, creaking, groaning and bulging were in the SW part of WTC7.
NIST has now concluded that the debris damage was NOT a factor in the IE.

The debris damage ranged from the southwest corner to the center of the south face. Your persistance in representing it as being from 'the other end of the building' is a dishonest assertion and is yet further indication of the weakness in the argument you are presenting. NIST is testing a hypothesis from the known evidence. If there was little or no evidence of debris damage in the area of the IE presented to them, it would be prudent to not include debris damage in their working hypothesis, and instead, focus on that which they could support from the available evidence. This does not mean that there was no damage in that area; it only means that there are no reports of damage in that area. No evidence does not necessarily mean no damage. And I don't even know why you insist on making the intellectually dishonest leap from one to the other. I think damage in the area of the IE is unlikely based on the evidence, and I would bet a majority of the people you are trying to convince on this forum share my opinion. You are making an unnecessarily fallacious argument in support of a point that most people already agree with you on.

Additionally, while the bulge (an indication of a weakened structure) was definitely confirmed at the southwest corner, I would love to know your source for concluding that the creaking and groaning were only coming from the SW corner.

Chiefs Fellini and Hayden thought WTC7 was in danger of collapse, Chief Norman did not.

None of that changes the FACT that WTC7 looks like a CD.

Have you contacted Chief Norman to find out what he thinks of the assessment now? Or whether or not he believes the building was brought down with explosives? Probably not, your argument will be stronger if you stop right now while you have a tiny shred of hope to cling to, because contacting him might remove that shred.

I have already linked on this thread, the following hypothesis for how the observed collapse sequence could have progressed from a single column failure in the area of the IE.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf

It is neither proof nor evidence that the collapse did in fact progress this way, however, it does show that the observed collapse sequence did not require the use of explosives to be brought about. The style and speed of the collapse is not unique to CD. While the most popular video of WTC7 collapse does exhibit some visual characteristics of a CD, it could have been brought about without CD. Miragememories predictably did not respond when I presented him with this dilemma, but I don't expect the same from you. You have two logical choices here: 1) acknowledge that the observed collapse could have progressed without CD and stop trying to use the style/speed of collapse as evidence to support your theory, or 2) show the errors in the report. If you can show the errors that invalidate the hypothesis, I would willingly concede the point as evidence in support of CD.

 

[Pookster]

... I agree with one of his opinions and have explained what I believe to be the motive for the contradiction that exists with his other 2 opinions. ...

MM

Your unsubstantiated motive you believe he has, if true, would mean you're establishing that Jowenko is a liar about major events related to 9/11. Based on your belief, Jowenko's established he'll lie for what he believes is a valid motive. You have no way of knowing what else this person you've established as a liar (including his alleged motive for lying!) may be lying about, nor what any other motives he could be using may be.

And, you want to rely on his opinion. Too funny.

 

[Miragememories]

And the ripples go on and on and on and ...................

So what was in it that was so important that it needed to be prerigged with explosives and demolished in full view of the worlds media , six hours after the towers had collapsed?

Waits for the dodge.

Well I know for a fact that the KFC formula was there.

Seriously though, with the skeptic reasoning here, you would acquit an obvious murderer if we couldn't confirm their motive.

It's not like many motives haven't been offered as possibilities.

The Securities and Exchange Commission investigation probably tops the list.

But they are speculative and by their very nature, speculations are easy to attack by those unwilling to accept the premise that they are founded on.

MM

 

[SDC]

Great. The Post as evidence. Personally, I prefer the gossip on "Page 6," which is perhaps the paper's most reliable department.

Please list the cases which had to be abandoned. Enron? Oh, wait...

 

[einsteen]

1) acknowledge that the observed collapse could have progressed without CD and stop trying to use the style/speed of collapse as evidence to support your theory, or 2) show the errors in the report. If you can show the errors that invalidate the hypothesis, I would willingly concede the point as evidence in support of CD.

Except a typo (who doesn't make them, I'm also not good in English) widows instead of windows there is of course nothing that can be said about this hypothetical paper. It is of course a great paper, that does a great attempt to explain it. The Oklahoma bombing was also an example of a progressive collapse, there a single bomb was able to take away a huge part of a building, starting with a few failed columns. #7 is of course a different building. But if you accept 1) then you also have to accept that the designers of wtc7, the modern skyscraper, absolutely produced an architectural freak. Since we now know that even the diesel didn't play a role and the hypothesis has been brought back to an intense, but ordinary, office fire. That fire could also occur a year after its construction, did the designers give warranty ? If we accept the story and go again back to our product of improbabilities then two fires a couples of stories higher (those long span trusses not playing a role, and the good old fireproofing of course) wouldn't lead to the collapse, if you believe Scheuerman. Now let's see we have only one choice and that is to accept another low probability.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Seriously though, with the skeptic reasoning here, you would acquit an obvious murderer if we couldn't confirm their motive.

Well, if we also couldn't place the murderer at the place and time of the murder, couldn't identify the murder weapon, had no evidence that the deceased was actually murdered rather than dying of natural causes, and didn't even know the identity of the accused, then some kind of motive would be a nice starting point.

Dave