Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Miragememories]

Proof by "it never happened before" incredulity. Brilliant. A couple of other things happened for the first time on 9/11. Can you name them?

Somehow you don't think 3 times in the same day, and not under similar circumstances is statistically impossible?

Don't answer that.

I know the knee-jerk response.

You can't argue against a person's religion, especially when you are inside their church.

Hopefully my efforts will make the visiting potential converts think twice,
or at least think.

MM

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I'm still waiting to hear all your significant revelations ElMondoHummus??

I'll ask again;

What was all this new "proper information" that became known in the NIST Final WTC7 Report?

MM

I already told you:

• He continued to characterized the fires as small. This now apparently in contradiction to information that he had access to. And you can't deny that he was saying that; you yourself quoted him saying it.
• He also gave no indication that he studied the collapse progression, or paid attention to any of the external details, such as the rate of descent of the north face, or the east-to-west progression of the failures.

Your turn: Please point out where he identifies a failure in that report he read. Please tell us what his critique is. Show that you actually know what his argument is, instead of simply latching onto him because he's a favorable authority for you to use. Show that you've actually studied something about the event. Tell us his critique.

 

[Oystein]

...
Hopefully my efforts will make the visiting potential converts think twice,
or at least think.

MM

If visiting potential converts realize from your posts how truthers regularly and dishonestly distort questions, pull imagined things from their rear and make up stories as they go, much is won.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Somehow you don't think 3 times in the same day, and not under similar circumstances is statistically impossible?

Two had nearly identical damage, the other burned with no fire fighting. Tough luck if you don't like the answer. Rare, yes, statistically impossible? It already happened so the discussion is moot.

 

[uke2se]

Somehow you don't think 3 times in the same day, and not under similar circumstances is statistically impossible?

Counterpoint: Do you think the fact that man hadn't gone to the moon at any time during history, and then suddenly two walked at the moon at the same time is statistically impossible? The comparison is quite apt, as the reasons for both are similar: in the case of the moon, it was the result of a long and arduous process in which science gave us the chance to go, and we went with three people, two of which walked on the moon. In the case of 9/11, it was the result of a long and arduous process during which 19 aspiring hijackers gathered the relevant information, education, documents and training only to hijack 4 aircraft, crash 3 of them into buildings, all three of which at least partially collapsed. Due to the significant non-symmetry of the collapse, one of the buildings fell on another, knocked out water-mains which prevented fire-fighting, leading to the building stricken by the taller one eventually collapsing from fire damage.

You see, it has nothing to do with statistics. If it did, any time something happens for the first time it would be statistically impossible.

Don't answer that.

I know the knee-jerk response.

There's nothing knee-jerk about it. It's simply reality. You should try living in it some time.

You can't argue against a person's religion, especially when you are inside their church.

This is true. Why we keep arguing with you despite your religion preventing you from seeing reason is beyond me to answer. I suppose it's mainly boredom.

Hopefully my efforts will make the visiting potential converts think twice,
or at least think.

Don't get your hopes up, twoof. Anyone reading this thread knows by now that your arguments are nothing but vile, repulsive lies in defence of the murderers of around 3000 people.

 

[carlitos]

???

Somehow you don't think 3 times in the same day, and not under similar circumstances is statistically impossible?

I don't really understand your response, from a logical standpoint.

By 'statistically impossible,' do you mean 'statistically improbable?'

If so, do you find that 4 aircraft being hijacked on the same day is unlikely?
Or do you think that 4 hijacked aircraft crashing on the same day is unlikely?
Or do you think that 2 aircraft crashing into high rise buildings causing those buildings to collapse is unlikely?
Or do you think that a third building collapsing, having been struck by debris from the first 2 buildings and set on fire, is unlikely?
Are you similarly incredulous about the other world trade center buildings that were destroyed, or the Pentagon damage? Was that damage "statistically impossible" for some reason?

Because really, "statistically" speaking, your response doesn't make any sense. What odds would you use to calculate the statistical likelihood of any of this? Number of terrorists / number of flights? I have no idea where you are going with this.

 

[The Big Dog]

If visiting potential converts realize from your posts how truthers regularly and dishonestly distort questions, pull imagined things from their rear and make up stories as they go, much is won.

and if their best evidence was a guy who got "blindsided" in 2007, and hasn't been heard from since is their best evidence, much is won.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Counterpoint:<snip>

Shorter version: Since everything that happens is impossible because they've never happened before that essentially everything that has happened for the first time is statistically impossible.

Pointless discussion is pointless. He won't change his mind. It is as always amusing to watch the paradox unfold for them.

 

[Miragememories]

There's that misleading picture picture again!! LULZZZ.

Hey, bro, I'll show you a picture of a concrete and steel highrise that had a total, high speed collapse as a result of fire, if you show me just where to buy those Hush A Booms!

Adding an additional image which shows the East Penthouse does nothing to change the character of the collapse once the whole building is engaged.

For 7 seconds, the NIST claimed that the guts of WTC7 was being ripped apart as column 79 failed below the East Penthouse.

Yet in spite of all the solid interconnections with the exterior walls, hardly a blemish was observed.

The real collapse occurred when the whole building could be seen to be collapsing which is what my sequence of screen captures reveal.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

Edited by LashL: 

Converted to link, as this has become spam with 3 repeats of the same image in such a short span in the same thread.

MM

 

[The Big Dog]

The real collapse occurred when the whole building could be seen to be collapsing which is what my sequence of screen captures reveal.

[qimg]http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png[/qimg]

MM

The REAL collapse folks, y'all hear that? The REAL collapse!

Not the actual collapse, the "REAL" collapse!

Man, it must be freaking AWESOME to just redefine words when they suit you.

By the way, MM, "hardly a blemish was observed." And he supports that claim with pictures showing about 15-20% of the exterior facade. Stand back folks, MM is DOING SCIENCE!!! And how does he support his claim that there were "solid" connections with the facade by showing a picture that does not show the connections. Very clever, MM!

Have a REAL great day, sport!

 

[BigAl]

Somehow you don't think 3 times in the same day, and not under similar circumstances is statistically impossible?

And Miragememories displays his ignorance of the use of probabilities.

 

[TruthersLie]

You were saying?

[qimg]http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1149/normalcbsb7montno3.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png[/qimg]

Not in unison [simultaneous performance of action]?

I see the complete building (in unison) collapsing symmetrically.

Your goalposts have not been moved.

MM

I love this truther line. It is ROFLMAO funny.

Just a quick question because you seem unable to understand the word "symmetrical."

How does a building have the EASTERN MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE collapse 8 seconds before the rest of the building collapse SYMMETRICALLY? Was there a western mechanical penthouse that collapsed 8 seconds after the REST of the collapse? (see, that would be symmetrical).

Was there a western mechanical penthouse that collapsed with the eastern mechanical penthouse 8 seconds BEFORE the rest of the building collapsed? That would be symmetrical.

ARe there pictures showing ALL 4 corners of WTC7 right before it collapsed, and be able to see ALL 4 corners collapsing? If there were, that would be symmetrical.

How does a building collapse into 2 different buildings which are over 90 degrees apart (but not 180 degrees), including damaging one of those buildings on the ROOF causing a partial collapse do it symmetrically?

You really need to go back and look up what the word "symmetrically" means.

p.s. I love the nicely cropped photos which leave out where the easter mechanical penthouse was... and how you ignore the massive crimp in the middle of the building which isn't falling symmetrically....

 

[GlennB]

The real collapse occurred when the whole building could be seen to be collapsing which is what my sequence of screen captures reveal.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

MM

MM - notice two things about that collapse sequence of yours

1. In the first shot, the E mechanical penthouse is missing.

2. In the first shot, light is shining through the upper left windows.

Pause for thought while you recognise the penthouse had, in fact, been missing for several seconds? What could that mean?

 

[Miragememories]

MM - notice two things about that collapse sequence of yours

1. In the first shot, the E mechanical penthouse is missing.

2. In the first shot, light is shining through the upper left windows.

Pause for thought while you recognise the penthouse had, in fact, been missing for several seconds? What could that mean?

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7-penthouse-kink.gif

Just explain why the perimeter wall was unaffected by your so-called proof of early collapse?

Supposedly for 7 seconds, from the roof to the 13th floor, column 79, column 80, column 81 and all the interconnecting steel was failing and pulling in the outside walls.

NIST's computer simulation says it was so and displayed a dramatic display of a distorted perimeter.

No human, no video, no camera supports anything of the sort, until the roofline begins to drop.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9872/set3sccompositeua1.png

Edited by LashL: 

Converted to link, as this has become spam with 4 repeats of the same image in such a short span in the same thread. Stop it.

Until you can prove differently, all your penthouse theorizing is just that.

Even your revered Ryan Mackey is trapped supporting the NIST hypothesis and was unable to explain how the perimeter wall did not hint at the devastation that the NIST model predicted;

"Now that is truly incredible.

You are in effect saying that we have a building inside a building.

That, even though the two are firmly connected to each other, it's supposedly credible that the inside structure underwent 7 seconds of collapse without visibly pulling in any of the the connected exterior walls.

And you are an engineer?"

"Yes, to all three questions. NCSTAR1A describes the structure's design and its anticipated response, and their hypothesis is consistent with my expectations and my statement. Furthermore, you have yet to provide any evidence that the above is wrong. Yet, curiously, you still seem to disagree."

bolding is mine

Blind obedience to the NIST doctrine.

The sheeple are well trained.

MM

 

[The Big Dog]

Until you can prove differently, all your penthouse theorizing is just that.

Blind obedience to the NIST doctrine.

The sheeple are well trained.

MM

LULZ! He is just shown a freaking video showing the damn collapse of the freaking penthouse, then has the balls to use the phrase "penthouse theorizing" but accuses US of being "Sheeple."

Bwhahaha!!!!

MM, you are a god damn CLASSIC!!

Go ahead and post your misleading pictures after the penthouse collapse, I need another great laugh, ya fraud.

 

[DGM]

Blind obedience to the NIST doctrine.

The sheeple are well trained.

MM

So tell us how it was done without effecting the outside of the building.

We'll let you ignore the kinks and buckles like you do.

 

[alienentity]

J



Blind obedience to the NIST doctrine.

The sheeple are well trained.

MM

Blind obedience to the facts, and if NIST also supports the facts, then support for the NIST reports.

Anyway, your pal Femr2 already debunked your phony claim. The building actually compresses slightly (seen also on other videos) and if you look down below the E PH, you can clearly see 'something' going on.
All just coincidences, I suppose.

Funny how truthers fail to recognize real causality in their zeal to prove bogus causality. Ironic.

 

[The Big Dog]

So tell us how it was done without effecting the outside of the building.

We'll let you ignore the kinks and buckles like you do.

Are we going to ignore the roof too, like he has been doing?

Because, the roof (and penthouse) is not part of a REAL building.

hee hee hee, GREAT THREAD MM, keep on posting, this thread is pristine!

 

[alienentity]

Since Jowenko has declared that the towers were not cd'd, does that mean he's incorrect?

But if he's wrong about the towers, why isn't he just wrong about WTC7?

Why do these contradictions not give pause to truther's cult-like beliefs? Possibly because they are experts at ignoring info they don't want to see.

Their best technical witness is clearly confused and is testifying against their own doctrine. LOL

 

[alienentity]

Can someone help MM to point out where the nanothermite charges are going off or the therm*te smoke is pouring out as the PH collapses?
I can't see it.... must be my 'reality insistence' glasses. Maybe I ought to put on my 'controlled demolition and inside job only' glasses.