Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Chuck Guiteau]

Untrue.

I have no recollection of seeing him display prejudice against Jews.

Possible Israeli Mossad involvement in 9/11 is quite another matter.

MM

Many things are "possible". It is possible the Spanish Navy was involved. It's possible the Boy Scouts were involved. Without some evidence that would lead a reasonable person to include the Israelis as "possible" suspects, your statement is both meaningless and just as racist as if you'd said, " Possible NAACP involvement in 9/11 is quite another matter".

Tick, tock, MM. I'm still waiting on the "evidence" you claimed to possess showing that 9/11 was an inside job. And don't forget to post a technically viable method for the CD that fits the facts of the attack.
Feeling ?

 

[Oystein]

MM has not yet retracted the following lie:

Originally Posted by miragememories
post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

I suggest everybody suspend all debate with the liar MM until he has addressed this lie and retracted it.

 

[Bell]

MM has not yet retracted the following lie:

I suggest everybody suspend all debate with the liar MM until he has addressed this lie and retracted it.

No no no! MM is going to supply examples of FFA in a CD. Wait for it. Any minute now...

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

I'm not so sure MM is a liar and, at the risk of going against the tide, I think we should refrain from calling him one until we have more evidence.

One lies when one knowingly tells an untruth and, with the possible exception of his claim to have "evidence" of a conspiracy, it may very well be that he actually believes his own statements. That would make him a delusional boob, but not a liar. There is some indication of this from his own words.

MM has stated that, despite overwhelming evidence to support the 19 Muslim Hijackers position, he does not believe this to be the case. He has also admitted that he has nothing other than speculation to rebut it, and further, that mere speculation without evidence to back it up is meaningless. That is almost a textbook definition of a paranoid delusion.
To the best of my knowledge, he has stated no position of his own ( other than his alleged possession of "evidence"), and has merely taken the standard trolls tack of quoting other sources. Since these fit into his delusional view of reality, he may very well take them as gospel for no other reason.
Of course, there is his statement regarding the evidence, which he claims as his own.
We'll have to see if he can provide it. If not, then he pretty much condemns himself.

 

[Oystein]

I'm not so sure MM is a liar and, at the risk of going against the tide, I think we should refrain from calling him one until we have more evidence.

One lies when one knowingly tells an untruth and, with the possible exception of his claim to have "evidence" of a conspiracy, it may very well be that he actually believes his own statements.
...
To the best of my knowledge, he has stated no position of his own ( other than his alleged possession of "evidence"), and has merely taken the standard trolls tack of quoting other sources.
...

I have a hunch that the claim "complete freefall ... is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions" (my bolding) was invented fresh by him. He has not quoted anyone, as far as I can tell, and has so consequently ignored more than probably a dozend direct requests to source that claim that I am near 100% certain he knows this claim to be an unsupported invention. That would indeed make him a liar.

 

[Miragememories]

"I'm not so sure MM is a liar and, at the risk of going against the tide, I think we should refrain from calling him one until we have more evidence."

Finally, a voice of sanity amongst a chorus of kneejerks.

MM

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Finally, a voice of sanity amongst a chorus of kneejerks.

MM

Well, you could silence that "chorus of kneejerks" by actually responding to their questions and providing evidence of your claims, however you seem to be very selective about which posts you choose to respond to.

That's my observation from following this thread. Your mileage may vary. No guarantees are expressed or implied, and all that stuff.

 

[Disbelief]

"I'm not so sure MM is a liar and, at the risk of going against the tide, I think we should refrain from calling him one until we have more evidence."

Here I will present some evidence. Notice the post number when he initially made this statement and then note he has not made any post to demonstrate his claim. This continued failure to do so or to recant his claim, though he insists on this from others, shows tht he lied about the initial claim.

post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

Finally, a voice of sanity amongst a chorus of kneejerks.

MM

Plan on recanting or providing proof of your above statement?

 

[Miragememories]

Well, you could silence that "chorus of kneejerks" by actually responding to their questions and providing evidence of your claims, however you seem to be very selective about which posts you choose to respond to.

That's my observation from following this thread. Your mileage may vary. No guarantees are expressed or implied, and all that stuff.

Fair enough Mr. Skinny.

You have to keep in mind, I have quite a few members on ignore.

It is all very fine and nice to demand that I respond to each and every question, but if you have been truly following this thread, it should be quite apparent that when I answer questions that do not agree with popular group opinion here, they get ignored.

Why should I respect a double standard?

MM

 

[Disbelief]

Fair enough Mr. Skinny.

You have to keep in mind, I have quite a few members on ignore.

It is all very fine and nice to demand that I respond to each and every question, but if you have been truly following this thread, it should be quite apparent that when I answer questions that do not agree with popular group opinion here, they get ignored.

Why should I respect a double standard?

MM

Show me where I have ignored any question that you have put to me. Also, multiple people have asked you to back up your claim, so do you have all of us on ignore?

@Mr. Skinny Since MM does not have you on ignore (and I have no idea why I would be on his ignore list), could you please quote my post and show him where he has not backed his claim? Thank you.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Fair enough Mr. Skinny.

You have to keep in mind, I have quite a few members on ignore.

I'll consider that in the future, but I know through experience that it's hard to ignore your critics even if you have them on ignore. Other people have that nasty habit of quoting them so that you can't really ignore them.

It is all very fine and nice to demand that I respond to each and every question, but if you have been truly following this thread, it should be quite apparent that when I answer questions that do not agree with popular group opinion here, they get ignored.

Nah, I don't think you need to respond to "each and every question", but I think it would be wise of you to admit to a mistake regarding the "concrete and steel" construction.

If you can't admit to any mistake, then people will tend to give you a lot less credibility. Certainly, this is something you're capable of understanding.

Why should I respect a double standard?

MM

I'm not sure I've seen a double standard in this instance. I think the folks here have given you evidence you are mistaken on a couple of issues, but you seem unwilling to bend in the slightest. IMHO, I've just seen stonewalling on your part on a few important issues, and as a result the discussion/debate really can't proceed past bickering.

If you're not willing to be wrong on anything, even in the face of compelling evidence, maybe it's best to just leave the arena and let this thread die. It's getting painful to follow this thread any longer.

Maybe I should take my own advice and just leave the "reading" arena.

 

[GlennB]

... it should be quite apparent that when I answer questions that do not agree with popular group opinion here, they get ignored.

Except - for example - where you claimed that alienentity was shoved into the LCF skeptics area for being disrespectful. And where you ignored incontrovertible evidence that your claim was false. Evidence confirmed by an LCF admin (JFK) no less?

In fact I'd say it's clear that your opinions expressed here get a monumental amount of attention. How bizarre that you should take the opposite p.o.v.

Chuck might be right. Perhaps you're systematically delusional. But what you say here makes no sense, either way. You contradict yourself routinely.

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Finally, a voice of sanity amongst a chorus of kneejerks.

MM

I'm always willing to keep an open mind and here, as you have affirmed, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
But keeping an open mind is not the same thing as having an empty one, and so far the only person whose "sanity" is in doubt is yours. Not by reason of common consensus, but by your own words.

You have stated that you disbelieve the "official" findings regarding the events of 9/11, even though you also admit that without evidence that disbelief is mere meaningless speculation. Yet you continue to hold to it fervently.

It was you who predicted, in no uncertain terms, cataclysmic events would take place before the last election. None of these events came to pass, in fact just the opposite occurred, and your only response has been to mulishly ignore any references to these predictions despite repeated requests to explain yourself.

You have flatly claimed that you have evidence indicating 9/11 was an “inside job”, and once again, in the face of numerous requests to provide that evidence, you have invariably chosen to ignore these quite reasonable demands.

These are all clear indications of either a pattern of willful deception or a paranoid delusion.

In the final analysis, it will be you who makes the decision for us. Are you merely another underachieving delusional boob who blames “mysterious forces” for his inability cope with reality (and thus feverishly latches on to any huckster willing to pander to his worldview)?

Are you attempting to engage in acts of deception to gain momentary attention ( in short , are you just another lying troll desperate for someone, anyone, to recognize his existence)?

Or are you an honest and ethical individual with an insight we seem to lack? Your actions will dictate our response.

Maintaining your present course will prove beyond reasonable doubt that at best you are just another pathetic loser who has lost touch with reality, deserving only pity and contempt, and at worse that you are in fact a liar.

Or, you could stand up, provide the evidence you claim to have, prove your statements in regards to Oysteins request, and justify your position.

Tick, tock, MM

 

[Miragememories]

"Nah, I don't think you need to respond to "each and every question", but I think it would be wise of you to admit to a mistake regarding the "concrete and steel" construction.

If you can't admit to any mistake, then people will tend to give you a lot less credibility. Certainly, this is something you're capable of understanding."

It all depends on the context.

I have shown that even the NIST in their report made reference to WTC7 as being a "steel and concrete structure".

In addition, I have provided evidence from the NY Times about how over-engineered WTC7 was and how it underwent $200 million dollars in improvements.

No concession has been made to these points by the diehard OCTers here.

I am willing to concede to the terminology arguments re: architectural footprint and academic descriptions of the WTC7 building type, but not where they are used to obfuscate the underlying argument that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

If you have truly followed this thread, and are indeed a person with an open mind, you must realize that one has to be careful when agreeing.

Unlike other forums that I attend, I clearly hold a minority position here and face an onslaught of rebuke, mockery and pettiness whenever I agree with advisory opinions.

You'll be hard pressed to see Jref OCTers accept the merit in anything I, or any other 9/11 Truth advocate, post here.

MM

 

[Mr. Skinny]

It all depends on the context.

Agree.

I have shown that even the NIST in their report made reference to WTC7 as being a "steel and concrete structure".

True. I recall seeing that. However, in the context (there's that word again) of this discussion, it has been shown to you that construction with concrete floor slabs with steel columns and beams (that were not encased in concrete) is not the same as the examples of other buildings (which did not collapse) where the steel beams/colums were encased in concrete.

I just think you're being hard-headed about this issue and IMHO should admit you're wrong.

In addition, I have provided evidence from the NY Times about how over-engineered WTC7 was and how it underwent $200 million dollars in improvements.

I don't specifically recall your evidence here. However, every building designed for human occupancy or use is "overengineered". It's called "factor of safety".

[

No concession has been made to these points by the diehard OCTers here.

Well, yeah, people here can get quite anal about evidence, and what it means in the context of a discussion. Believe it or not, I actually don't like the debating style of two or three of your "opponents". Skeptics have their faults too, I suppose. Generally though, you can work around them if you smack them down with really good evidence to support your argument.

I am willing to concede to the terminology arguments re: architectural footprint and academic descriptions of the WTC7 building type, but not where they are used to obfuscate the underlying argument that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

OK. See, you held out too long admitting the "footprint" mistake, and did the same with the "concrete and steel" structure comparison. You should have just said: OK, I retract that statement - let's move on to more important issues.

If you have truly followed this thread, and are indeed a person with an open mind, you must realize that one has to be careful when agreeing.

Totally agree. Being careful with what you say is important. So is admitting mistakes and moving on.

Unlike other forums that I attend, I clearly hold a minority position here and face an onslaught of rebuke, mockery and pettiness whenever I agree with advisory opinions.

You'll be hard pressed to see Jref OCTers accept the merit in anything I, or any other 9/11 Truth advocate, post here.

MM

MM, the "onslaught of rebuke, mockery and pettiness" wouldn't seem as bad if you didn't wait so long to admit mistakes. People here get tired of people who "just can't admit a mistake". Usually, someone who readily admits a mistake is actually admired for doing so. It makes your star rise, so to speak, as an honest debate opponent.

 

[Oystein]

Amazing. MM still totally ignores all requests to clarify the following claim:

...
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

I am sure he has me on ignore. Mr. Skinny, Chuck, maybe you could quote this question:

MM, can you support the claim you made in Post 1119, which was:

"And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions."

 

[Miragememories]

"It all depends on the context."

"Agree."

"I have shown that even the NIST in their report made reference to WTC7 as being a "steel and concrete structure"."

"True. I recall seeing that. However, in the context (there's that word again) of this discussion, it has been shown to you that construction with concrete floor slabs with steel columns and beams (that were not encased in concrete) is not the same as the examples of other buildings (which did not collapse) where the steel beams/colums were encased in concrete.

I just think you're being hard-headed about this issue and IMHO should admit you're wrong"

Then show me that this is not relevant?

NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A Extracts;

pg.xxxix Executive Summary
"Broadening the scope of the “structural frame” approach to fire resistance ratings by including, as part of the structural frame, floor systems and other bracing members that are essential to the vertical stability of the building under gravity loads."

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness. The 1st floor slab was 0.36 m (14 in.) thick. The concrete on almost all of the other floors was poured on top of 76 mm (3 in.) deep corrugated metal decking."

pg.7
"The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely."

Did this technical argument get challenged by OCTers?

No.

Instead of arguing the merits of my point, they chose to argue terminology so they could avoid explaining how steel reinforced floor slabs could not be a factor in the structural strength of WTC7.

"In addition, I have provided evidence from the NY Times about how over-engineered WTC7 was and how it underwent $200 million dollars in improvements."

"I don't specifically recall your evidence here. However, every building designed for human occupancy or use is "overengineered". It's called "factor of safety"."

I suggest you read the NY Times article. In the case of WTC7, they were discussing engineering that was not typical and specifically referring to a specially adaptive design.

"No concession has been made to these points by the diehard OCTers here."

"Well, yeah, people here can get quite anal about evidence, and what it means in the context of a discussion. Believe it or not, I actually don't like the debating style of two or three of your "opponents". Skeptics have their faults too, I suppose. Generally though, you can work around them if you smack them down with really good evidence to support your argument."

There is more to argument than "smoking gun" evidence.

If it was as straightforward as that, most trials would never happen.

And yes, I've learned to "work around them" by using the ignore feature.

"I am willing to concede to the terminology arguments re: architectural footprint and academic descriptions of the WTC7 building type, but not where they are used to obfuscate the underlying argument that WTC7 was a controlled demolition."

"OK. See, you held out too long admitting the "footprint" mistake, and did the same with the "concrete and steel" structure comparison. You should have just said: OK, I retract that statement - let's move on to more important issues."

If you have truly followed this thread, you'll see where I bent over backwards to explain my usage of those terms. My message was quite understandable in terms of comprehensibility and context. I don't rebuke everyone for the chronic typos I observe unless their message is obscured. My message hasn't been obscured by the way I have referred to footprint or concrete and steel.

OCTers have merely taken the opportunity to pounce on those non-issues as a means to obfuscate the real argument.

Below are but a few examples of where I attempted to clarify but was met by deaf ears;

post 1078
It is virtually impossible to have a collapse footprint that will match its architectural footprint.

Also from post 1078
I have never suggested that the WTC7 collapse was confined to its architectural footprint.

When experts talk about falling into its own footprint, they are speaking in relative, not absolute terms.

A point which you already knew.

As an example;

"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

"Unlike other forums that I attend, I clearly hold a minority position here and face an onslaught of rebuke, mockery and pettiness whenever I agree with advisory opinions.

You'll be hard pressed to see Jref OCTers accept the merit in anything I, or any other 9/11 Truth advocate, post here."

"MM, the "onslaught of rebuke, mockery and pettiness" wouldn't seem as bad if you didn't wait so long to admit mistakes. People here get tired of people who "just can't admit a mistake". Usually, someone who readily admits a mistake is actually admired for doing so. It makes your star rise, so to speak, as an honest debate opponent."

I have to disagree.

Your words are easy when spoken from a position of strength (the majority position).

Show me all the rising stars on my opponents side?

MM

 

[Mr. Skinny]

MM,

Appreciate you responding, but your response does nothing more than repeat your previous behavior, in my opinion.

So, I honestly can't see having a fruitful discussion on these issues. I think you are the very opposite of "open minded".

Allow me to go back to lurking.

 

[Carlos]

The concrete slab was essential to the building and vertical members stability due its infinite stiffness (in terms of bending around the vertical axis and horizontal displacement), but it could not avoid neither the joints failure nor the excessive shear forces transmited to the slab by the connectors, both caused by the excessive thermal expansion of the beams. The concrete slabs were not designed to resist those shear forces.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

infinite stiffnesss? Not an engineering term I'm familiar with.