Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[johnny karate]

Data is physical evidence?

Your original post to which I was responding:

So again, two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.

You'll notice the absence of the word "physical". Please try not to scuff the floors in here when dragging around those goal posts. We just had them redone.

Or are you such a devotee of the official story that you take NIST's exaggerated data as actual fact?

I'm a devotee of science. Feel free to present your own at any time which counters that of NIST.

You are aware they admit where they exaggerated burn durations, right?

Source, please.

 

[johnny karate]

Try answering my questions...

You first:

RedIbis, are you equally as critical of controlled demolition theories as you are of NIST's theory?

Bump for RedIbis.

You've been asked this question in a variety of ways by many people in this thread. Please respond.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Yes...yes...we all know 911 Truth is the divisive issue of the western world. You can fire officials for talking about it, but not a person will march in the streets. It's a movement that's growing everyday, but you can barely get 10 people out for a rally. There are thousands of construction professionals who belong to organizations that protesting for 911 Truth, but the so-called research about it comes from its own organization while everyone else ignores it. It relies on mythical substances and devices whose whereabouts, physical properties and even existance no one knows about.

Yawn...and you guys really think anyone cares about this? Honestly, how old are you? The average age of people in We Are Change is about 19.

 

[RedIbis]

Source, please.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2.pdf

You are familiar with it right?

 

[Justin39640]

I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.

Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.

So what's in the hanger at JFK?

 

[johnny karate]

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2.pdf

You are familiar with it right?

Please quote the passage relevant to your claim.

 

[T.A.M.]

Try answering my questions, though I can see why you don't.

That is rich coming from you Red. You are not one to start DEMANDING that people answer the questions you pose to them...seriously.

TAM

 

[GlennB]

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?

If I wanted to analyse the collapse of a 47-storey building I wouldn't carry a 47-storey building around with me.

 

[WildCat]

Red; what's your hypothetical for how any of the WTC towers collapsed?

Red's total posts running away from this question when last asked is now 15.

He'll lie and say he answered it though, because as a proven liar taht's what he does.

 

[WildCat]

Please quote the passage relevant to your claim.

The intellectual coward and proven liar known as RedIbis here will not be providing any passages relevant to this claim.

That's the way he rolls, by running away.

 

[T.A.M.]

This is the way I see it. Red was very far from MIHOP (what I saw) until the final report came out on WTC7 and their explanation was (A) Inadequate for him, and (B) was not based on actual hands on physical evidence (part of the reason that it was inadequate for him).

Now to me, that is a weak reason, given all of the other mounds of physical evidence, to go full blown MIHOP...but it is what it is.

See what I do not get, is if we are to believe that all of the other evidence that proves the official account of 9/11 is fabricated and/or planted...the DNA, the plane parts, the phone calls, the eye witnesses, etc...

if that was all fabricated/planted, THEN WHY DID THE BIG BAD NWO NOT PLANT/FAKE SOME COLUMNS FOR WTC7 THAT WOULD PROVE THEIR STORY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT????

Why did the big bad perps forget to make some stuff to cover their asses on WTC7?

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

So what's in the hanger at JFK?

Apparently not any WTC 7 steel.

 

[T.A.M.]

Apparently not any WTC 7 steel.

and there, in one line, is the summation, IMO, of why Red went from being sensible, to the snake oil wagon.

TAM

 

[Justin39640]

Apparently not any WTC 7 steel.

So then
What physical evidence is there to support demolition claims?

 

[T.A.M.]

So then
What physical evidence is there to support demolition claims?

There is none. That is why the holy grail (WTC7) is actually a tin cup.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

and there, in one line, is the summation, IMO, of why Red went from being sensible, to the snake oil wagon.

TAM

Explain.

 

[TruthersLie]

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. ''

Bill.

And what did he say AFTER the NIST report was completed?

Comeon billy, don't datamine and then ignore the rest of it.

Just like Danny J. You all datamine his wtc7 statements but then IGNORE his wtc 1 and 2 statements.

so he says wtc7 was CD. Ok.
and he says wtc 1 and 2 were not CD. Ok.

I'll accept his claims on both. NOw we look at the relevant engineering of wtc7 and of other CD professionals who were not "just guessing" because they have seen the plans, and were on site.

Why do you datamine and then ignore the rest of their statements?

 

[T.A.M.]

Explain.

I thought I did above. You have admitted that the WTC7 issue, and NISTs inability, in your opinion, to explain the collapses adequately (once again for you), is what turned you or convinced you of MIHOP. You have also said that the lack of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (ie the steel) was a big reason why they failed to convince you.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Bill.

And what did he say AFTER the NIST report was completed?

Comeon billy, don't datamine and then ignore the rest of it.

Just like Danny J. You all datamine his wtc7 statements but then IGNORE his wtc 1 and 2 statements.

so he says wtc7 was CD. Ok.
and he says wtc 1 and 2 were not CD. Ok.

I'll accept his claims on both. NOw we look at the relevant engineering of wtc7 and of other CD professionals who were not "just guessing" because they have seen the plans, and were on site.

Why do you datamine and then ignore the rest of their statements?

Oh I noes I noes....

WTC1/2 = Unconventional NON-Controlled Demolitions.
WTC7 = Conventional (except for use of thermite) Controlled Demolition.

What prize do I get???

TAM

 

[Pardalis]

So then
What physical evidence is there to support demolition claims?

Ouch.