Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[DGM]

I'd like to know which is it:

Flight 93's target was WTC 7

or

Controlled Demolition for WTC 7

or

Thermite used to take down WTC 7

They can't have all 3 scenerios!

We know Flight 93's targets were the White House & the Capital Building & not WTC 7.

We know that there's no audio of a CD coming from the original videos of WTC 7.

Thermite is just an incendiary & a pyrotechnic. Not an explosive! Nano-thermite could be the same way, it sounds sexy as hell but there's no physical evidence of either being used on 9/11.

Either way the Truthers look it they failed to point out any inconsistencies within the 9/11 Commission & NIST.

No physical evidence of anything in over 8 years & they cry out for a new investigation. I say it's all simple tricks & non-sense.

I doubt the White house was ever a target (way to hard to find or hit from the air). What's this got to do with Mr Jowenkos' assessment of WTC7?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I doubt the White house was ever a target (way to hard to find or hit from the air). What's this got to do with Mr Jowenkos' assessment of WTC7?

I don't know! I'm not the one that brought it up.

Bill Smith

I believe ethat the original intention had been to crash flight 93 into WTC7. Unfortunately for the perps flight 93 was held up on the runway for an hpur by a fire making it too late to use for it's intended purpose. Then they had to reprogram the demolition sequence on the fly.
The best laid plans and all that. It would have been so neat had it all come to pass as planned. Three buildings, three planes and no mess in Pennsylvania.

I just threw that in there just in case anything else comes from Billy!

 

[Scott Sommers]

I think all the public "face" is mostly young people but, the older "hippies" are the ones with the disposable income and the "lefty" mindset to support this type of BS. The young NEED the old "lefties".

It could be. The source of funding for these guys is quite mysterious. They sell a lot of stuff, but I doubt this pays the bills for Dickie G. and the others that get paid by them.

On the other hand, the older people I know associated with WAC are not lefties in any sense that I grew up with and would be better described as Christian libertarians. Jan Johnson runs for the Constitutional Party and is a fundamentalist Christian. Betsy Orr Metz describes herself as a libertarian. Lawyers for 911 Truth are mostly Canadian and European, but the American ones are all hooked up with libertarians causes. Some of the younger members of WAC have a look that I would associate with leftist hippies and talk openly about a marijuana-related lifestyle, but they are Christian libertarians.

I suppose that being a Christian libertarian doesn't mean you're not a hippie. Maybe this is a Canadian thing I have or a generational thing. I know some older ones who are concerned about stereotypically hippie-related causes, like hungry people, but they're very quite in these larger organizations and don't seem to be doing much. That doesn't mean there isn't money involved from their side.

 

[Slayhamlet]

It's interesting you guys are discussing the final destination of the 4th plane (flight 93).

Bill Smith has proposed an extremely weak idea that it was to hit WTC7.

Consider the other 3 targets: WTC towers (The icons of NY City and the Financial Epicenter of the US), Pentagon (The symbol of American Military might).

WTC7 wasn't on the world's radar in importance. I wager every one of us knew of the other buildings, but WTC7? No way.

Truthers, are you with me on this? Were any of you even aware of WTC7 before 9/11?

So the idea that the final destination of flight 93 was the White House is perfectly consistent with the other targets: The Political centre of the US - home of the President of the United States. Targets just don't get any more important than that one.

Add to this the actual flight path of flt 93, before it crashed....take a look and see where it was headed - straight for Washington, DC. Only a truther could look at this and not see the obvious.

But if you're a CD conspiracy drone, your theory absolutely requires that explosives had to be placed in the target buildings. No wiggle room there.

So you have to avoid the White House as a target at all costs. This goes a long way to explaining Bill's notion - severe cognitive dissonance awaits if he doesn't.

You just can't avoid the implications:

The White House was very likely the target of flt 93
There were no explosives planted there...otherwise the perps could've blown it up even if the plane didn't hit.

Another good, solid reason that the whole CD theory needs to be thrown in the dustbin. It just doesn't fit the evidence, no matter how hard truthers work at it.

Props to Kim Hill for pointing this out to Richard Gage in her recent interview..

http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/sat/sat-20091121-0910-Richard_Gage_architecture_of_destruction-048.mp3

I think the more likely reason "bill smith" believes flight 93 was headed for WTC7 is that she, like most Truthers, cannot conceive of skyscrapers collapsing under any circumstances outside of a controlled demolition (or space beams or mini-nukes, depending on the brand of crazy). Remember, she thinks (and I'm using that word charitably) that the two planes that hit the Twin Towers were merely a cover for the CD, so likewise she assumes a plane was supposed to fly into WTC7 as cover for the CD there, too, but somehow the NWO ****ed up and it didn't materialize. The fact that the flight was headed nowhere in the direction of New York City never entered her tiny mind, of course.

Now, getting back to rational speculation, 93 was probably headed for the Capitol Building rather than the White House. I'm sure the White House was ruled out as too small of a target, whereas the Capitol Building is more easily identified. With all the distinct landscaping around it, the Washington Monument opposite of it and the National Mall leading up to it, it would be at least as easy to spot from the air as the Pentagon.

 

[Thunder]

i actually believe that the fourth and final target on 9-11 was going to be my house, the center of American Judaism.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Now I'm willing to give Sunder the benefit of the doubt because I don't think he believes thermal expansion is a novel phenomenon. He's suggesting that thermal expansion of the steel causing global collapse is a novel phenomenon.

Secondly, NIST suggests that the buckling of a single column, namely Column 79, led to global collapse, which would also be a novel phenomenon. Unless you have an example of a steel framed high rise bldg collapsing due to the failure of a single column, this would be the second novel phenomenon proposed by NIST. Not that they have the physical evidence to back this up, of course.

So again, two extraordinary claims, no extraordinary evidence.

I think this is worth commenting on, because it goes to the heart of skeptical enquiry. What, in this onctext, constitutes an extraordinary claim?

Presented in a vacuum, it's perfectly reasonable to characterise both of these claims as extraordinary. If 9/11 had never happened, then a claim that a steel-framed building could collapse due to thermal expansion and single-column buckling would require extraordinary evidence. In the real world, this would be a perfectly reasonable expectation, because the required action would be enormously expensive; existing buildings might need modification to prevent such a collapse, and new buildings would need to be built to modified codes at greater expense. Making all these changes on the basis of nothing other than computer modelling would be highly speculative, and very unpopular - although it wouldn't be unique; structures have been modified on the basis that modelling revealed an unexpected weakness.

Where RedIbis goes wrong, though, is in performing the usual truther contextectomy. We know that WTC7 collapsed, and therefore we can be certain that there was a cause for that collapse. In this context, the criterion for what is an extraordinary claim is completely different. Ordinary claims as to what caused the collapse are claims that assume facts already known, and do not hypothesise additional causes. Since the structure of WTC7 and the physical properties of steel are already known, and widespread and long-lasting fires were observed, then an ordinary claim would be one that hypothesises a realistic mechanism by which fire caused the known structure with known properties to collapse.

On the other hand, an extraordinary claim, in this context, is one that hypothesises (for example) explosives or thermite. There is no evidence from which a coherent argument can be made for the presence of either, nor do the known properties of either agree with the observations made before and during the collapse. The claim that WTC7 was demolished is, therefore, a very much more extraordinary claim than the claim that a previously unseen but physically reasonable mechanism caused a fire-induced collapse.

And, of course, there must be some reason for the collapse, because the building isn't still there. So we have one claim that's supported by computer modelling based on known properties of the structure, and another that actually contradicts what evidence we have available. In the circumstances, it's the latter, not the former, that's the extraordinary claim. And we have yet to see any ordinary evidence for it.

Dave

 

[dafydd]

And what would have been the reason given for this choice of target in the official story?

Al Qaeda hit American landmark buildings, the Twin Towers being a symbol of its economic power, the Pentagon being the symbol of its military might, and WTC 7... ?

Doesn't make much sense.

When did Bill ever make sense?

 

[RedIbis]

I think this is worth commenting on, because it goes to the heart of skeptical enquiry. What, in this onctext, constitutes an extraordinary claim?

Presented in a vacuum, it's perfectly reasonable to characterise both of these claims as extraordinary.

If 9/11 had never happened, then a claim that a steel-framed building could collapse due to thermal expansion and single-column buckling would require extraordinary evidence.

Ah yes, 9/11 possesses its own rules of physics, its own history of architecture.

In the real world, this would be a perfectly reasonable expectation, because the required action would be enormously expensive; existing buildings might need modification to prevent such a collapse, and new buildings would need to be built to modified codes at greater expense.

Uh, this is the real world, and if what NIST says is true, than there are hidden dangers, timebombs waiting to explode in high rise buildings across the world. All these bldgs require is heat, way below what is usually required for thermal expansion to threaten collapse.

Making all these changes on the basis of nothing other than computer modelling would be highly speculative, and very unpopular - although it wouldn't be unique; structures have been modified on the basis that modelling revealed an unexpected weakness.

Except that these models are flawed and NIST admits where they overestimated heat and fire duration.

Where RedIbis goes wrong, though, is in performing the usual truther contextectomy. We know that WTC7 collapsed, and therefore we can be certain that there was a cause for that collapse. In this context, the criterion for what is an extraordinary claim is completely different. Ordinary claims as to what caused the collapse are claims that assume facts already known, and do not hypothesise additional causes.

These "additional causes" as you call them are things like thermal expansion happening at temps well below expected. So they are in fact, made up facts, modeled facts, manipulated facts to produce an expected and matching result. Not very scientific.

Since the structure of WTC7 and the physical properties of steel are already known, and widespread and long-lasting fires were observed, then an ordinary claim would be one that hypothesises a realistic mechanism by which fire caused the known structure with known properties to collapse.

And yet there is nothing realistic about what NIST proposes. The fact that they were unable to produce any corroborating physical evidence is not the least of their problems.

On the other hand, an extraordinary claim, in this context, is one that hypothesises (for example) explosives or thermite. There is no evidence from which a coherent argument can be made for the presence of either, nor do the known properties of either agree with the observations made before and during the collapse. The claim that WTC7 was demolished is, therefore, a very much more extraordinary claim than the claim that a previously unseen but physically reasonable mechanism caused a fire-induced collapse.

Strawman. And you're description of NIST's hypothesis as "reasonable" is generous to the extreme.

And, of course, there must be some reason for the collapse, because the building isn't still there. So we have one claim that's supported by computer modelling based on known properties of the structure, and another that actually contradicts what evidence we have available. In the circumstances, it's the latter, not the former, that's the extraordinary claim. And we have yet to see any ordinary evidence for it.

Dave

Let's see, no other high rise, steel frame bldg collapses from fire. Every steel frame high rise bldg that has collapsed, did not collapse from fire, and you're suggesting that thermal expansion, much below temps at which this would usually occur and a single buckling column are not extraordinary claims?

It's entertaining to watch members of a skeptics forum try to defend a hypothesis without any physical evidence simply because it originates with an authoritative source. That's not skepticism, that's sycophancy.

 

[dtugg]

Now it's 18 posts that the cowardly red bird has made in this thread since my prediction that he wouldn't be answering Gamolon's simple question. And, shockingly, I have thus far been proven correct.

 

[Gamolon]

RedIbis.

Can you please answer my questions?

1. Since I did a search with your name and WTC7 in the criteria and only found three pages worth of posts, can you please point me in the direction of which posts you have made in which you discuss your belief that WTC7 was "most likely" a controlled demolition?

2. Since you put physical evidence so high on the totem pole, can you please provide me links or references to the physical evidence used to support your claim that a controlled demolition is "more likely".

3. Why the you so biased when discussing the official story? You always try and find fault with it yet never discuss the alternate theories having holes and contradictions even though these alternate theories don't have any physical evidence either.

Thanks.

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis.

Can you please answer my questions?

1. Since I did a search with your name and WTC7 in the criteria and only found three pages worth of posts, can you please point me in the direction of which posts you have made in which you discuss your belief that WTC7 was "most likely" a controlled demolition?

2. Since you put physical evidence so high on the totem pole, can you please provide me links or references to the physical evidence used to support your claim that a controlled demolition is "more likely".

3. Why the you so biased when discussing the official story? You always try and find fault with it yet never discuss the alternate theories having holes and contradictions even though these alternate theories don't have any physical evidence either.

Thanks.

Have you searched for the threads I've started?

 

[DGM]

Ah yes, 9/11 possesses its own rules of physics,

When has NIST violated the rules of physics? You need to explain this one.

 

[Gamolon]

Have you searched for the threads I've started?

I searched for your name and the word WTC7. As I said, three pages of your posts popped up, but not one discussed a controlled demolition theory about WTC7.

 

[dtugg]

RedIbis has never stated his supposed theory and what evidence supports it. He's flat out lying to suggest that he has.

 

[twinstead]

Have you searched for the threads I've started?

Perhaps answering those questions now, right here where they were asked, would go a long way towards silencing the people who claim you are biased against the "official story" in a way that you aren't with any other theory with the same or less evidence to support it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ah yes, 9/11 possesses its own rules of physics, its own history of architecture.

Carefully misunderstood; your denialism is up to its usual standard. The collapse of WTC7 is itself evidence that, under certain circumstances, a building that large can collapse, something which had never happened prior to 9/11. It's therefore supporting evidence for a claim that such a collapse can happen under a specific set of circumstances.

Uh, this is the real world, and if what NIST says is true, than there are hidden dangers, timebombs waiting to explode in high rise buildings across the world. All these bldgs require is heat, way below what is usually required for thermal expansion to threaten collapse.

Correct. That's why new codes have been issued to prevent any more buildings like that being built. So far, the structural engineering community seems content with those new codes.

Except that these models are flawed and NIST admits where they overestimated heat and fire duration.

(a) Appeal to perfection. (b) Cite, please.

These "additional causes" as you call them are things like thermal expansion happening at temps well below expected. So they are in fact, made up facts, modeled facts, manipulated facts to produce an expected and matching result. Not very scientific.

Scientific illiteracy is not going to help you much in this argument. Thermal expansion is well understood, and happens at all temperatures. NIST modelled the effects of the known behaviour of steel at the temperatures predicted by their fire models, and found that a specific failure mode was predicted. None of this is "made-up facts". The fact that you don't understand thermal expansion is not evidence than anybody else is lying.

And yet there is nothing realistic about what NIST proposes.

From your comments above about "thermal expansion happening at temps well below expected", it seems you're not competent to judge what's realistic; some experience of reality is needed for comparison.

Strawman.

And here's where you reap the benefits of being a no-claimer; you can say "Strawman" the moment anybody suggests the mere possibility that you might hold a definite position. If it's a strawman to suggest you think thermite or explosives are possible causes of the collapse of WTC7, then you're not saying anything, and will continue to bask in your ignorance and irrelevance.

Let's see, no other high rise, steel frame bldg collapses from fire. Every steel frame high rise bldg that has collapsed, did not collapse from fire, and you're suggesting that thermal expansion, much below temps at which this would usually occur and a single buckling column are not extraordinary claims?

As I said, well done for missing the point. Compared to a claim that it collapsed due to explosives (physically impossible on the basis of the evidence) or thermite (which has never caused the collapse of any building, let alone a high rise steel framed building), the claim that it collapsed due to fire (which has caused total collapse of steel framed buildings and steel framed sections of high rise buildings of hybrid construction) is very much less extraordinary.

It's entertaining to watch members of a skeptics forum try to defend a hypothesis without any physical evidence simply because it originates with an authoritative source. That's not skepticism, that's sycophancy.

I'm glad one of us is entertained. It's depressing to watch someone apparently intelligent making such an effort to be stupid.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

I predict that RedIbis will not be answering this question. Too bad stating the obvious does not qualify one for the MDC.

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

(didn't answer)

But hey, next time he might answer it!

Dave

 

[NutCracker]

But hey, next time he might answer it!

Dave

For all practical purposes, 2 = infinite, here.

 

[RedIbis]

Perhaps answering those questions now, right here where they were asked, would go a long way towards silencing the people who claim you are biased against the "official story" in a way that you aren't with any other theory with the same or less evidence to support it.

Doubtful.

 

[twinstead]

I know red doesn't answer questions, but mine is simply red, assume for just a second that the "official story" of wt7 is true, just for a minute. How would have the NIST's investigation and conclusion differed in that situation that wouldn't have aroused your suspicion? What makes you so biased against them?

Whoops. That's 2 questions. I'm screwed.