Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Gamolon]

Thanks, that was my understanding as well.





Perhaps you should have handled that before incorporating the claim into your argument.

So by him not saying anything directly about WTC7 collapsing due to fires, you are implying that he thinks otherwise?

 

[DavidJames]

I've already defended my position - if you disagree, that's your choice. Feel free to continue reinforcing your position with additional evidence - at the very least, my silence will tell people everything they need to know.

I think your silence tells people everything you know.

 

[twinstead]

I think your silence tells people everything you know.

Oh no he di'int

 

[deep]

So by him not saying anything directly about WTC7 collapsing due to fires, you are implying that he thinks otherwise?

No, I'm not implying anything. He didn't offer a conclusion on WTC7 - that's it.

 

[johnny karate]

I've already defended my position - if you disagree, that's your choice.

And we're back to argument by "opinion". Just remember this next time someone doesn't feel particularly obliged to provide you with whatever evidence you demand in order to validate their claims.

Feel free to continue reinforcing your position with additional evidence - at the very least, my silence will tell people everything they need to know.

Why would I need to provide additional evidence when you haven't even addressed the evidence already provided?

And why do I need to continue to prove my argument to you when you apparently feel no need to prove yours beyond so-called evidence that has already been refuted?

Again, the double standards you apply are quite revealing of your level of intellectually dishonesty.

 

[grandmastershek]

I'm just curious how many CD experts they had to go through before they figured out how to swindle Danny.

 

[TruthersLie]

Thanks, that was my understanding as well.

Perhaps you should have handled that before incorporating the claim into your argument.

ROFLMAO.

Perhaps you should find out what Dr. Astaneh-Asl says to twoofs who try to datamine his quotes....

I can find his reply to twoofs in under 5 minutes, can you?

Please instead of datamining, try to read for comprehension. What does Dr. Astaneh-Asl say about twoofs and this craptacular idea of nanothermite? (look it up, it is very amusing)

 

[Jono]

I'm just curious how many CD experts they had to go through before they figured out how to swindle Danny.

Dude, they had to cross the Atlantic and try to succesfully hoodwink guys across Europe into believing "something was off".

Since human nature is predictable in that a first impression can sink in and stick like a crazed tick from hell, in some cases this ploy worked.

 

[triforcharity]

GMS,

I would say......All of them.

 

[bardamu]

Since human nature is predictable in that a first impression can sink in and stick like a crazed tick from hell,

Yes. Danny Jowenko was already convinced that the Twin Towers collapsed due to fires, and that first impression stuck with him in spite of the video evidence that was shown to him.

 

[twinstead]

Yes. Danny Jowenko was already convinced that the Twin Towers collapsed due to fires, and that first impression stuck with him in spite of the video evidence that was shown to him.

Hate to break the news to you, but quite a lot of people, experts even, are satisfied that the impact and fires felled the towers. Maybe if they just saw your videos they'd come to their senses, right?

Are you one of those people who think Jowenko was right about wtc7, but "mistaken" about 1 and 2? Interesting way you have to rationalize that. Why couldn't he just be "mistaken" about wtc7?

 

[lapman]

Yes. Danny Jowenko was already convinced that the Twin Towers collapsed due to fires, and that first impression stuck with him in spite of the video evidence that was shown to him.

Danny went into great detail on what was going on in the video of the towers. He blew away all "evidence" that was put in front of him. Even what the firemen were saying, he explained fully what they really saw and heard. However, when shown the WTC7 TM approved video snippet, he was guessing the entire time. I love when he talks about how large the crew would be and what they would be doing inside the building. Yeah, nobody would hear the demo of the walls in order to place the charges. So we had silent explosives and stealth demo workers.

 

[Earthborn]

I'm just curious how many CD experts they had to go through before they figured out how to swindle Danny.

Nobody swindled Danny Jowenko.

Since human nature is predictable in that a first impression can sink in and stick like a crazed tick from hell, in some cases this ploy worked.

Jowenko's first impression certainly sunk in and stuck like a crazed tick, but it wasn't predictable that it would. The information the journalist provided later might have easily changed his mind, but instead he struggled to incorporate it into the narrative of his first impression and does not manage to make sense of it.

Interesting way you have to rationalize that. Why couldn't he just be "mistaken" about wtc7?

He was mistaken about WTC7, no scare quotes necessary.

 

[Newtons Bit]

No one ever said NIST didn't have access to the WTC7 steel, so we can take that strawman argument off the table right now.

And again, you're conflating two separate issues: Being able to identify which pieces of steel came from WTC7, and being able to distinguish individual pieces of WTC7 steel from one another. It is the latter that NIST was not able to do. Nor were WPI and Astaneh-Asl.

From WPI (bolding mine):


They had a piece of WTC7 steel, but they didn't know from what part of the structure it came.

From the New York Times:


Astanah-Asl examined an I-beam in the wreckage. At best, he said at a later time he might be able to get a rough idea from what part of the structure it came (and I couldn't actually find anything indicating if he was ever able to), but he wouldn't be able to identify which specific beam it was.

NIST needed to find a specific beam out of thousands of tons of steel wreckage in which nothing was individually marked in order to provide the "physical evidence" you're demanding. And anyone with even the slightest knowledge of forensic engineering knows what an incredibly stupid demand it is.

Stamping or engraving the location or shop-drawing designation of a structural member (such as what occured in most of WTC1&2) is exceedingly rare in the industry. Typically, the designation is written on the member with paint or even chalk. It doesn't last forever.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes. Danny Jowenko was already convinced that the Twin Towers collapsed due to fires, and that first impression stuck with him in spite of the video evidence that was shown to him.

Ah, right, that clears things up. So when somebody disagrees initially with the truth movement then maintains their position, they're sticking with their erroneous first impression, but when somebody initially supports the truthers then maintains their position, then they were right all along and they're heroically defending the truth. Is that how it works?

Dave

 

[TruthersLie]

Hate to break the news to you, but quite a lot of people, experts even, are satisfied that the impact and fires felled the towers. Maybe if they just saw your videos they'd come to their senses, right?

Are you one of those people who think Jowenko was right about wtc7, but "mistaken" about 1 and 2? Interesting way you have to rationalize that. Why couldn't he just be "mistaken" about wtc7?

Much more likely that he was "mistaken" about wtc7...

In the interview he states REPEATEDLY that "I'm just guessing here." and "I wish I had the design plans for this."

You can also tell in the interview that he had been discussing the collapse prior to the interview because he brings up the Larry S, "pull it" bullcrap.

 

[bardamu]

Ah, right, that clears things up. So when somebody disagrees initially with the truth movement then maintains their position, they're sticking with their erroneous first impression, but when somebody initially supports the truthers then maintains their position, then they were right all along and they're heroically defending the truth. Is that how it works?

It shows that both sides can use the 'first impression' argument. It might be more useful to examine the context. When Danny Jowenko was shown the videos of the Twin Towers, he already knew the official jet fuel story from the media. On top of that, the towers weren't brought down by a standard controlled demolition implosion. When he was shown the Building 7 video, he had no preconceived view of the event and recognised it straight away as a controlled demolition.

 

[NutCracker]

It shows that both sides can use the 'first impression' argument. It might be more useful to examine the context. When Danny Jowenko was shown the videos of the Twin Towers, he already knew the official jet fuel story from the media. On top of that, the towers weren't brought down by a standard controlled demolition implosion. When he was shown the Building 7 video, he had no preconceived view of the event and recognised it straight away as a controlled demolition.

This is indeed how it works.


A valid argument, analysis, paper, hypothesis or opinion is an argument, analysis, hypothesis or opinion consistent with da Troof.

A factoid that is consistent with da Twoof, is a fact.


Conversely:

A fact contradicting da Twoof is a fabrication.

An argumunt, analysis, paper or opinion contradicting da Twoof is not valid.


Just a big pile of circular logic poo this Twooferism is.

 

[johnny karate]

It shows that both sides can use the 'first impression' argument.

Not really. See, we don't need Jowenko. We can quite easily dismiss everything he says as unsubstantiated speculation and the body of evidence from which we draw our conclusions remains completely intact.

Truthers, on the other hand, desparately need Jowenko. If he goes away, he takes one of their few "experts". Which is why Truthers must engage in such elaborate mental gymnastics to pretend his opinion has any import.

Speaking of mental gymnastics...

It might be more useful to examine the context. When Danny Jowenko was shown the videos of the Twin Towers, he already knew the official jet fuel story from the media. On top of that, the towers weren't brought down by a standard controlled demolition implosion. When he was shown the Building 7 video, he had no preconceived view of the event and recognised it straight away as a controlled demolition.

Looks like a controlled demolition = controlled demolition.

Doesn't look like a controlled demolition = controlled demolition.

Your logic is unassailable.

 

[Oliver]

If the Truthmovement would be an organized and intelligent group of people, they would show him the blueprint of WTC7 and show him all relevant footage concerning the debris that damaged the building, the information about the fires and let him examine that evidence to come to a sound conclusion in contrast to his initial thought.