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

[Miragememories]

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.

lol

Find me ONE person on this planet, including yourself who won't lie under what they consider to be the right circumstances.

MM

 

[Totovader]

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?



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?



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.



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.



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?

*bump*

 

[SDC]

lol

Find me ONE person on this planet, including yourself who won't lie under what they consider to be the right circumstances.

MM

That wisecrack does not advance your argument. It's mere noise. How does saying "Jowenko lies like anyone else" help you? That's what you have now done.

Crikey. Hasn't Jowenko got anything else to say? Even if it isn't in English, there are people in this area with all sorts of language skills.

 

[GStan]

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.

I'm not asking that anyone accept any story, official, conspiracy or otherwise. I am merely pointing out that, given the explanation of the paper, the style and speed of the collapse are effectively removed as evidence exclusively for CD, since the observed could have progressed without the assistance of explosives. One can either accept that this explanation is possible and stop using style/speed as evidence for CD or show why the paper is sufficiently incorrect to invalidate the hypothesis. (Or at least cast enough doubt on it to raise suspicion of it.)

 

[Pookster]

lol

Find me ONE person on this planet, including yourself who won't lie under what they consider to be the right circumstances.

MM

If I wanted to commit professional suicide, yeah, I'd lie. Otherwise, I'd just retract what I said and/or state I had no comment on the matter.

But if you want to believe professional opinions of those who you've established will lie for what they consider is a valid reason to them, then go for it. I won't be at all surprised when you win your Darwin Award though. Just sayin'

 

[einsteen]

I'm not asking that anyone accept any story, official, conspiracy or otherwise. I am merely pointing out that, given the explanation of the paper, the style and speed of the collapse are effectively removed as evidence exclusively for CD, since the observed could have progressed without the assistance of explosives. One can either accept that this explanation is possible and stop using style/speed as evidence for CD or show why the paper is sufficiently incorrect to invalidate the hypothesis. (Or at least cast enough doubt on it to raise suspicion of it.)

If the NIST can prove that the simultaneous failure is a consequence of a local failure and Sheuerman is correct and
the collapse proceeds nicely (if a demo team did it then only charges at one story are sufficient) then there is not much
reason to reject that.

ps.
Is Arthur Scheuerman the same as this one, listed together with Steven. E. Jones ?
http://stj911.org/members/memberlist.php

 

[Miragememories]

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

Dave

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

My belief about how WTC7 comes down is given support by the following train of logic:
(1) Jowenko is an expert on controlled demolitions.
(2) He believes WTC7 was a CD.
(3) He has an opinion about CD's that should be given serious consideration because of (1).
Therefore his expert opinion improves the argument that WTC7 was a CD.

However, the statement that Jowenko was wrong about WTC 1 & 2 indicates a contradiction rooted in his opinion (2), so Danny Jowenko must clear up this contradiction by either changing his opinion about WTC 7 or changing his opinion about WTC 1 & 2.

Now let's assume the reason for Jowenko's error about WTC 1 & 2 is based on his observation that they were an unconventional style of CD.
That means that I am merely stating Jowenko's own comments for his convenient explanation regarding WTC 1 and 2.

Because of the contradiction he creates and the steadfastness of his WTC7 opinion, I'm claiming Jowenko has either amazingly overlooked his contradiction or is intentionally trying to avoid further controversy based on his acknowledgment that disagreement with popular opinion would be bad for business, not to mention having a potentially greater detrimental effect on his privacy and that of his family.

I am clearly not claiming greater expertise than him in the recognition of CD's.

Now let's look at your debunker position. Jowenko claims that WTC7 was a CD, but WTC 1 & 2 were not. Since this scenario is contradictory, Jowenko must be mistaken either about WTC1 & 2, about WTC7, or both. We cannot draw any final conclusions from his opinion, until he resolves the contradiction that his differing opinions have created.

We cannot use this contradiction as an 'illogical' excuse to elevate the body of opinion of other witnesses to that of expert. Experts on CD who have commented on WTC7 and on WTC 1 & 2, against CD can very easily be explained by Danny Jowenko's own telephone interview statement from last spring (2007) where he indicated his peers in the American demolition industry would not speak out against popular opinion because it would be bad for future contracts.

Note that I make no claim of greater expertise than any experts!

MM

 

[GStan]

If the NIST can prove that the simultaneous failure is a consequence of a local failure and Sheuerman is correct and
the collapse proceeds nicely (if a demo team did it then only charges at one story are sufficient) then there is not much
reason to reject that.

No theories will be proven definitively, given the volume of unknowns in the case. Not dd/f, not cd, or any other theory. And NIST does not have to. They are coming up with the most plausible explanation, not the only possible explanation. Right now, there is no reason to reject Sheuerman's hypothesis.

ps.
Is Arthur Scheuerman the same as this one, listed together with Steven. E. Jones ?
http://stj911.org/members/memberlist.php

I would seriously doubt it, yet from what I've seen of the truth movement, I would not be surprised if someone was listed on stj911.org unbeknownst to them or against their will.

 

[Miragememories]

*bump*

Somewhere Toto you lost your sense of reality.

Pointing out that they are 3 separate objects does not mean that they are of a different event.

Depends on the event now doesn't it?

Are the 3 separate collapses of 3 separate objects occurring at 3 separate times not 3 separate events?

How and why do these 3 separate collapse events magically turn into 1 event?

This discussion evolves around the contradiction existing with 3 opinions of 3 events.

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.

The contradiction goes away when the source of the contradiction (Danny Jowenko) makes a corrected statement free from contradiction.

MM

 

[Totovader]

Somewhere Toto you lost your sense of reality.

Easy for you to claim- unlikely you can justify such a ridiculous statement- and what's it based on? The fact that you keep dodging my questions necessitates that I have lost my sense of reality?

That doesn't even make any sense. If anything, I've shown that I have a much greater grasp on reality than you: I recognize the importance of resolving contradictions, you seem to think it's irrelevant. Reality disagrees with you.

Depends on the event now doesn't it?

Are the 3 separate collapses of 3 separate objects occurring at 3 separate times not 3 separate events?

Because- as you said- they're related. In order to prove this, I asked the following question, which you clearly ignored (and for good reason, by answering the question, you would have to admit to another contradiction):

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

If I'm wrong, then answer the question and settle the dispute. We have a general contradiction, here- I'm saying that I'm right and you're saying that I'm wrong. Claiming that I have no grasp on reality when I have shown the opposite to be true does not help your case.

How and why do these 3 separate collapse events magically turn into 1 event?

Because they all have the same cause- they all happened on the same day- and if it was an "inside job" as you claim, they would all necessarily have to be part of the same scheme. If you disagree, then you need to answer the question above and clarify your position- because, as stated, it's self-defeating.

This discussion evolves around the contradiction existing with 3 opinions of 3 events.

No, it revolves around the contradiction inherent in your position- and your inability to resolve it. We've already established what contradictions are, why they're important- and to a greater degree- what the specific contradictions are (although you have been dodging this for the entire thread). The only thing that remains is for you to logically follow from one to the next- in a manner similar to this:

1) MM, your assertion has inherent contradictions.
2) Contradictions are irrational, and do not conform to reality.
3) Therefore, one of your assumptions is incorrect.
4) Find the evidence and the reasons for what premises is wrong, and then resolve it.
5) Avoid further contradictions in doing so.

Pretty sure you can't do this- but it's so obvious that it needs to be done that you just continue to hurt your case by dodging it. I'm positive that you're aware of this elementary process, but that's why you can't do it and have to keep dodging my questions. Your cognitive dissonance does not allow you to separate your fantasy from the most simple rules of logic and reasoning.

Although I will give you some credit- most conspiracists don't stick around to expose the contradictions in their claims. By now the "debunker" has usually been called a shill or threatened, or the conspiracist has left.

Oh... wait, you already called us all shills and said we were paid off.

Apparently we're paid to teach you very simple and obvious problems with your self-defeating claims...

The contradiction goes away when the source of the contradiction (Danny Jowenko) makes a corrected statement free from contradiction.

This only makes you look worse. Not only have you accepted a theory which contradicts itself, but you recognize those contradictions, refuse to resolve them, and blame it on someone else. As I already stated, yes there are contradictions in Jowenko's claims- but those are not the contradictions we are talking about. The contradictions we are talking about are inhereted by claiming that Jowenko is an expert, and should be believed because he is an expert... who you believe is wrong.

You haven't even touched this one- you keep retreating to claiming that it's Jowenko's fault. It's not. It's yours. Deal with it.

I will ask you again, since you dodged it again: Remember- there are no contradictions in reality, so why does your theory have them?

Furthermore, Do you care about the contradiction, why or why not? If you do, have you contacted Jowenko?

Finally- and perhaps most importantly, 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?

By continuing to dodge these questions, you make it quite clear that you're aware of them- but unable to deal with the contradictions inherent in your claim. Furthermore, you cannot rely on your standard whining of "I don't see them" because they are clear, highlighted by very distinct color every time, and unambiguous.

 

[Totovader]

Dave

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

My belief about how WTC7 comes down is given support by the following train of logic:
(1) Jowenko is an expert on controlled demolitions.
(2) He believes WTC7 was a CD.
(3) He has an opinion about CD's that should be given serious consideration because of (1).
Therefore his expert opinion improves the argument that WTC7 was a CD.

Even though this is not true (and doesn't need to be in order for you to be inconsistent or make contradictions)... YES, let's go off this for now:

Now let's assume the reason for Jowenko's error about WTC 1 & 2 is based on his observation that they were an unconventional style of CD.

This statement- although still based on a ridiculous assumption with no supporting evidence- still contradictions your 1st premise. If he's an expert on CD (at least to the extent that you clearly need him to be) then claiming he doesn't know these methods negates his expertise.

Furthermore, this claim:

That means that I am merely stating Jowenko's own comments for his convenient explanation regarding WTC 1 and 2.

Contradicts this claim:

Note that I make no claim of greater expertise than any experts!

Which contradicts using Jowenko as an expert in the first place.

You recognize this- you have essentially admitted it, you just refuse to accept that it makes your claim irrational, and you refuse to resolve these contradictions. Why you accept contradictions in your claim is not exactly clear- a person who accepts contradictions in their claim but still tries to claim is is logically consistent is not someone I would take seriously, nor should anyone else.

Once you answer my questions in regards to this- maybe we can see where your thinking comes from... but as it stands, you're just clearly wrong, you know it, but you aren't able to admit it publicly or fix it.

 

[Totovader]

Prediction for the MDC:

It will take MM another 10 pages to admit that the contradictions are his.

It will take MM another 10 pages to admit that he cannot resolve the contradictions.

It's in the bones.

 

[Norseman]

Quote:
ps.
Is Arthur Scheuerman the same as this one, listed together with Steven. E. Jones ?
http://stj911.org/members/memberlist.php

I would seriously doubt it, yet from what I've seen of the truth movement, I would not be surprised if someone was listed on stj911.org unbeknownst to them or against their will.

Here is the answer from a different thread:

It's the condescension that gets me. Arthur Scheurman seems to have the crazy idea that all the evidence should be examined and the conclusions formed, and joined the "scholars" with that in mind. This seems to have affronted the Gaggle Of Morons, who as usual throw away all the evidence they don't like and start out with the conclusions.

 

[GStan]

Here is the answer from a different thread:

If you read the comments to the below blog entry, you will find some comments by Arthur himself, (or at least someone using this name). He is a member of stj911 but does not believe in the CTs or that explosives were used to bring down any of the 3 buildings.

http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/who-is-arthur-scheuerman/

 

[Miragememories]

It (the discussion) revolves around the contradiction inherent in your position- and your inability to resolve it.

You may have lost touch with reality but clearly you still reside in a world with a reality of your own defining.

One could argue that you Toto are the one unable to resolve the inherent contradiction.

Your hopes lie solely in discrediting the expert.

He remains a good expert helping my case for WTC 7's collapse being a controlled demolition because nothing has been established which discredits his expert opinion about WTC7.

Contradictions are irrational, and do not conform to reality.

I agree that they do not conform to reality, but I do not agree that the motivation behind a contradiction is necessarily "irrational".

I've explained why I believe this expert supports a contradiction and this contradiction has a very rational justification based on self interest.

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?

Well Mr. Jowenko has not yet made this "free" admission but when I successfully contact him and get some clarification, I will most certainly post his response.

MM

 

[stateofgrace]

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.

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/7752/wtc7secli0.jpg

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

Really ?

So what you are saying is there is ZERO motive, absolute zero motive to demolish WTC 7 six hours after the towers collapsed.

Let me summarise your entire case MM.

“WTC 7 looked like a controlled demolition so it was, everybody is lying unless they say it was. Mysterious unnamed guys sneaked into the said building beforehand , planned lots of explosives, nobody saw them of course and they left.

The Towers fell , didn't cause enough damage to drop building 7 nor did the fires but completely missed the preplanetd explosives which of course survived the damage and fires.

For some reason , six hours after the towers had fallen killing thousands "somebody" decided it would be a good idea to demolish WTC 7 in full view the worlds media, the fire fighters and anybody else who just happened to be passing by. In doing so they hoped to fool the entire planet into believing it failed due to the fire and damage.

There is absolutely zero motive for doing this and absolutely zero sane reason to do it but hey it seems sane to us.”

This all makes sense does it MM? It all seems rational?

I know life can be dull at time, even tedious but for God sake grow up and stop living in a fantasy world.

 

[Miragememories]

Really ?

So what you are saying is there is ZERO motive, absolute zero motive to demolish WTC 7 six hours after the towers collapsed.

Let me summarise your entire case MM.

Please don't since you started out your post with a lie! Obviously you are the last person I would want to summarize even a fraction of my case.

I mostly certainly did provide a motive;

"The Securities and Exchange Commission investigation probably tops the list."

Apparently you live life by a double standard where you feel it is quite okay to freely accuse those you disagree with of being liars while you respond with naked lies yourself combined with fabricated misrepresentations of my posts.

MM

 

[Totovader]

You may have lost touch with reality but clearly you still reside in a world with a reality of your own defining.

On the contrary, I concede to the evidence using a process of reason which at least attempts to conform to reality. When I find that my assumptions do not match reality, I change them. You clearly do not do this.

It's called critical thinking- but that's a different discussion.

One could argue that you Toto are the one unable to resolve the inherent contradiction.

One could try and claim that, but one would clearly be desperate to dodge the questions and making a pathetic attempt to take the spotlight off of oneself in doing so.

Perhaps this would be the perfect opportunity for you to answer the question you continue to dodge in reference to this:

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?

Your hopes lie solely in discrediting the expert.

On the contrary- my hopes- and indeed my position- is that when you have arrived at a contradiction, one of your premises are wrong. Clearly, in this case it's partly due to the fact that Jowenko was working off of an ignorance of the situation, and to a smaller degree that he is not an expert in the specifics necessary to make an informed decision based on the very little information he was spoon fed.

This is not a contradiction. The assumption that he was 1) informed and 2) able to provide an expert opinion, are both false. The contradiction he arrives at gives a clue to this- but it more adequately addresses the fact that his premises are invalid. (That WTC 7 fell bottom up, that it collapsed in free fall, that demo teams "worked fast", etc)

He remains a good expert helping my case for WTC 7's collapse being a controlled demolition because nothing has been established which discredits his expert opinion about WTC7.

Except his statements- or should I say "expert opinion"- on WTC1 and 2. You recognize this contradiction and have admitted to it. That contradiction discredits his opinion as it makes his conclusion irrational.

I agree that they do not conform to reality, but I do not agree that the motivation behind a contradiction is necessarily "irrational".

Not sure why you're even talking about "motivation" since that has nothing to do with the question, which- once again- is:

Remember- there are no contradictions in reality, so why does your theory have them?

Try to answer the question this time- instead of a strawman.

I've explained why I believe this expert supports a contradiction and this contradiction has a very rational justification based on self interest.

You have not addressed your contradiction, and your pathetic explanation has no basis in fact and is nothing more than a dodging of the question- which, once again, is: Do you care about the contradiction, why or why not? If you do, have you contacted Jowenko?

Well Mr. Jowenko has not yet made this "free" admission but when I successfully contact him and get some clarification, I will most certainly post his response.

A telling admission, here- you indicate that you have not done so, yet- but you have been using his "expertise" for quite some time, now. Apparently, these contradictions do not matter to you, as you have no desire to resolve them. This is why it's so important for you to stop dodging my questions- in particular the one regarding what you think of individuals who have no problem with contradictions in their claims.

In case you are trying to retreat back to the claim that there is no contradiction (something you continue to hint at and seem to have just ignored in this post), you also need to answer the following, or concede that you were wrong in attempting to claim that they are "separate objects" and therefore it's "not contradictory to have separate causes": Is it possible that the collapse of 1 and 2 could be legitimate, but the collapse of WTC7 was a CD? If so, how?

Stop dodging these questions, MM- they are not going to go away.

 

[stateofgrace]

Please don't since you started out your post with a lie! Obviously you are the last person I would want to summarize even a fraction of my case.

I mostly certainly did provide a motive;


Apparently you live life by a double standard where you feel it is quite okay to freely accuse those you disagree with of being liars while you respond with naked lies yourself combined with fabricated misrepresentations of my posts.

MM

Oh I see, so are you saying WTC 7 was prerigged with explosives prior to 911 to destroy The Securites and Exchange Commissions Offices? Yes or no.

 

[Totovader]

In fact, let's number these so you can much more easily address them and stop dodging questions which are inconvenient to your irrational claims:

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

2) Remember- there are no contradictions in reality, so why does your theory have them?

3) Do you care about the contradiction, why or why not? If you do, have you contacted Jowenko?

4) 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?

My last post addressed why answering these questions is crucial to your credibility:

By continuing to dodge these questions, you make it quite clear that you're aware of them- but unable to deal with the contradictions inherent in your claim. Furthermore, you cannot rely on your standard whining of "I don't see them" because they are clear, highlighted by very distinct color every time, and unambiguous.

ETA: This is the 8th time I've had to post these questions. They are not going to go away simply because you don't like them, MM.