Miragememories
Banned
Last edited:
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split Thread WTC7 collapse (again) - split from: How did you rule out that 911 was an insid
- Thread starter Miragememories
- Start date
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Where did I accuse you of being a liar? I did not, I accused you of living in a fantasy world , so stop fabricating misrepresentations of my posts.
Last edited:
Pretty low? It was a comparison, but not to compare Jowenko's professional opinion to be of the same politically stigmatic caliber as for example a WWII-revisionist.
No, I made my point clear enough for you not to have made this strange response.
I said; "the fact of their concern for controversy is not a yardstick for sympathy, coherence nor valid. That was the point of the comparison, nothing more and nothing less.
Simply because someone is afraid to express their actual opinions publically does not mean that they are right or wrong, hence it is illogical to use such an appeal as an argument on the validity of Jowenko's views.
I thought this point was given to you in a simple enough manner, yet you made a pig's breakfast out of it as you responded with bla bla Nazi-like sympathies obfuscation.
Last edited:
Totovader
Game Warden
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 3,321
Pretty sure NOBODY is going to buy that pathetic excuse.
It's no mystery as to why you think questions which directly expose your lies, contradictions, and inconsistencies are "semantics".
Perhaps if you had actually attempted to answer them, instead of removing them and dodging them, you would deserve some sympathy.
Regardless, this is not an answer to the questions that you have still not answered.
Once again, those questions are:
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?
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
I wrote this on the 20th of december:
Of course my challenge also still stands: 500 euro for the first person to show evidence that Jowenko was intentionally misled that is a bit better than someone's personal (mis)interpretation of what was said in the interview.
Of course "intent" is something that is notoriously difficult to prove, so I think my money is fairly safe. But I certainly don't think my standard for evidence is unreasonably high. It does not require to prove "intent" irrefutably, objectively or scientifically. A confession by one of the filmmakers, or Jowenko stating that he feels like he was intentionally misled is enough. Showing that the filmmakers knew beforehand how Jowenko was going to react, or that they had access to video of the full collapse including the penthouse collapse, recognised the significance of it and specifically chose not to show it to Jowenko in order to get a specific answer... that's okay as well.
Even with such a low standard for evidence, I trust that my money is safe, because the evidence is just not there.
To accomodate Totovader, I opened up a paypal account, and on the 22th of december I put money on it. Only today, it appeared on my paypal account. Even considering that there were holidays in between, that sure took them a seriously long time. But of course I intent to keep my word. I don't joke about money. So far, Totovader has not PMed me the details necessary to paypal him 50 euro, which -- if I understand this paypal thingie correctly -- involves only his e-mail adress.
Of course my challenge also still stands: 500 euro for the first person to show evidence that Jowenko was intentionally misled that is a bit better than someone's personal (mis)interpretation of what was said in the interview.
Of course "intent" is something that is notoriously difficult to prove, so I think my money is fairly safe. But I certainly don't think my standard for evidence is unreasonably high. It does not require to prove "intent" irrefutably, objectively or scientifically. A confession by one of the filmmakers, or Jowenko stating that he feels like he was intentionally misled is enough. Showing that the filmmakers knew beforehand how Jowenko was going to react, or that they had access to video of the full collapse including the penthouse collapse, recognised the significance of it and specifically chose not to show it to Jowenko in order to get a specific answer... that's okay as well.
Even with such a low standard for evidence, I trust that my money is safe, because the evidence is just not there.
And I repeat. Please list the SEC investigations that in fact were derailed. Like Enron...?? Otherwise you've just got an Argumentum ad Harvey Pitt, which is worth nothing.
Miragememories
Banned
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
It's not our job to look validate your sources. You didn't look into it yourself, and expect us to buy it at face value as you did. That's the good little "sheeple."
Totovader
Game Warden
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 3,321
I just PM'd you my email address- I had assumed that you just disappeared, although it's good to see that you're still sending the money.
At this point- I'm busy holding MM accountable to his claims- but IIRC there was still a post waiting for you. I'm not going to go and dig it up. I considered this matter closed.
Nope. You made the claim. You provide supporting evidence.
I say it's nonsense.
Miragememories
Banned
Miragememories
Banned
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
Totovader just PMed me his e-mail adress, and I have sent him 50 euro to be donated to the AIFF. Hopefully it won't take as long to transfer it as it did to get it from my bankaccount.
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
Miragememories
Banned
Again I apologize for making the assumption that my unchecked recollection was accurate and that your dedicated research was in error.
Does this mean I can re-book that hotel room?
MM
Miragememories
Banned
Nope. You used it, presenting it as supporting evidence for your claim. It is your responsibility, as an adult, to substantiate it.
eeyore1954
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,811
I guess that is because you cannot but you appear to accept it since it bolsters your view.
you seem to accept many things as long as they support your beliefs.
Bombs in the basement when if you have the expertise you claim you would realize there is no logical explanation for the bombs to be planted in the basement, a recent thread I think on Loose change where the writer says the billowing smoke at the top of the trade center is evidence of an explosion.
Miragememories
Banned
I'm sorry..oh I've been warned about saying sorry.
I regret.
Ya that sounds better.
I regret that I have no idea where the "double standard" exists.
Stateofgrace questioned motive for felling WTC7 so I cited a newspaper article that provided, in my opinion at least, a reasonable motive.
Now I didn't write that story and am in no way prepared to explain it's author's research.
I fail to understand how I've applied a double-standard CptColumbo?
MM
Totovader
Game Warden
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 3,321
It does take a while- and there is a conversion rate fee (2.30 EUR)- the final number in is $68.49 USD
The maximum I could donate to the IAFF Fallen Firefighters Fund is $125 USD (plus a $5 administrative charge). Rather than wait for this to transfer to my own bank account, I just went ahead and did the $130 (almost matching your contribution).
Attached is a screencap of the invoice (with my personal information redacted).
This goes above and beyond what I would expect any conspiracist to do- and matching (almost) your contribution hopefully shows that I am just as prepared to back up my position. From my perspective, that puts us on equal ground.
