Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Bill's probably 16-25 yrs old. Give or take!
Click to expand...

That's what I figure, as well. I now know almost everyone who attends that 911 rally they have in NY every year. I counted about 120 this year and there couldn't be more than a dozen who are over 30 and about half of them are still in high school.

Everyone knows that AE911 isn't anything like it's supposed to be. I recently had a really close look at Lawyers for 911 Truth. First off, there's hardly any of them listed. Only about half are Americans. One of them provides no location information at all. The others appear to be connected with some form of libertarian party. There appear to be none for the USA who are just plain lawyers incensed by the situation but otherwise not connected with this whacko fringe.

Ironically, the ones from Canada are connected with the Canadian Action Party whose founder believes some sort of UFO political-thing and whose current national candidate is a socialist - in the Marxist sense.

I really don't believe there's any danger here. These are kids who will grow out of it into some wierd form of right-wing politics. The only dangerous people left Truthing would be dangerous no matter what.

With the trial of KSM, it's actually looking pretty pathetic.
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
It is material to me. I will answer your questions regardless of how old you are, but I'd like to find out how general my understanding of the situation is. You tell me you have never attended a Truther rally and I do know that almost every Truther that attends rallies is under 25.

I'm increasingly understanding that this whole Truther thing is really a bunch of kids with great internet video skills. I just can't see it anymore as anything that anyone should worry about. It's just amusement for people with too much time and really nothing else.
Click to expand...
I went to one of Gages' shows and most of the people there were 50+
"ex-hippie lefties". Just saying.

ETA I'm over 50 myself so I recognize the type.
 
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
there are not "1,000 of these degreed and licensed professionals " signed up to the petition, there is barely 1,000 licensed OR degreed signed up. Gage admitted as such in the NZ radio interview posted in another thread here.
Click to expand...

AW.

Actually there are 1000 architectural or engineering PROFESSIONALS and that includes anyone who works in the field... so draftsmen, office managers, secretaries, maybe even the janitors are also included. There are less than 350 licensed and degreed engineers and architects who have signed up.

They have changed the categories again because they kept getting NAILED on lying about their members.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Data is physical evidence?
Click to expand...

I just had to laugh at this :D

Red, your question poses a deep philosphical question. "Is data evidence?"
In a way, no. Data might be ink smudges on a piece of paper, or a mess of 0's and 1's on a digital storage device. It merely represents the physical evidence.
However, it's the best we can do. Ol' Isaac Newton himself was obliged - for purely practical reasons - to translate observation into recorded data. That way you can take your observations into the next room to work on them, or send them to an interested party in another country.

You are truly precious, Red :)
 
TruthersLie said:
AW.

Actually there are 1000 architectural or engineering PROFESSIONALS and that includes anyone who works in the field... so draftsmen, office managers, secretaries, maybe even the janitors are also included. There are less than 350 licensed and degreed engineers and architects who have signed up.
Click to expand...

Yup, and even that's including fake names, interns and such.

McHrozni
 
parky76 said:
why must Truthers always use these strawmen and personal attacks?
Click to expand...

Actually parky I really wonder why truthers must always datamine, use bs arguments and when they are pointed out to be wrong, they run away instead of manning up.
 
GlennB said:
I just had to laugh at this :D

Red, your question poses a deep philosphical question. "Is data evidence?"
In a way, no. Data might be ink smudges on a piece of paper, or a mess of 0's and 1's on a digital storage device. It merely represents the physical evidence.
However, it's the best we can do. Ol' Isaac Newton himself was obliged - for purely practical reasons - to translate observation into recorded data. That way you can take your observations into the next room to work on them, or send them to an interested party in another country.

You are truly precious, Red :)
Click to expand...

So you think data (which can and is manipulated) is the best you can do? Do you think that data is better than physical evidence?
 
RedIbis said:
So you think data (which can and is manipulated) is the best you can do? Do you think that data is better than physical evidence?
Click to expand...

It depends what point you are trying to make.

If it's "hours of fire and lack of firefighting" caused WTC7 to collapse, there is tons of evidence and precedent and relevant expertise to come to that conclusion. There is absolutely no other hypothesis that matches what happened on 9/11.

If it's "Column 79 failed due to expansion", experts depend on models and non-experts depend on experts and there is room, I expect, for people with relevant expertise to defend other hypothesis. None of these hypothesis show the first assertion to be wrong or require man-made anything to play a roll in the collapse.

As usual, you are not clear about what your point is.
 
Yeah, Bill Manning of Fire Engineering Magazine didn't think that much of data as opposed to hard evidence in the form of the hastily-removed steel when he wrote this in late 2001.

'' As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals. ''
 
DGM said:
I went to one of Gages' shows and most of the people there were 50+
"ex-hippie lefties". Just saying.

ETA I'm over 50 myself so I recognize the type.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt what you say is true. I keep hearing about these guys from people on this forum and I come across some from time to time. But the people that make and do all the stuff we thnk of as the Truth Movement are all really young.

Primarily I'm talking about We Are Change. All those videos on Youtube and all the demonstrations we talk about, the petitions, and the money aspects of the TM, this is all WAC. If there was no WAC, you would hear almost nothing from these guys. We might still have Dickie G, but he'd have trouble paying for things.
 
bill smith said:
Yeah, Bill Manning of Fire Engineering Magazine didn't think that much of data as opposed to hard evidence in the form of the hastily-removed steel when he wrote this in late 2001.

'' As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals. ''
Click to expand...

That was prescient.
 
RedIbis said:
Data is physical evidence? Or are you such a devotee of the official story that you take NIST's exaggerated data as actual fact? You are aware they admit where they exaggerated burn durations, right?
Click to expand...
Red, can you point out anything that might be forged out of this table?
 
Originally Posted by bill smith
Yeah, Bill Manning of Fire Engineering Magazine didn't think that much of data as opposed to hard evidence in the form of the hastily-removed steel when he wrote this in late 2001.

'' As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals. ''
Click to expand...
RedIbis said:
That was prescient.
Click to expand...

Red; what's your hypothetical for how any of the WTC towers collapsed?
 
RedIbis said:
Try answering my questions, though I can see why you don't.
Click to expand...

I am addressing it. I'd like to first know to what extent you think data on material properties is forged. Should it not be possible for anyone with experience to invalidate NISTS' finding by using similar information of the steel used in WTC 7. The documentation's out there, or has some inexplicable entity manipulated these as well? Try answering my questions now so I can answer to you appropriately. You've made me wait almost a year for one... I surely hope you won't make me wait that long for this one.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom