Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[uke2se]

Johnny, science is not owned by anybody.

If you understand it, it is yours to do as you please.

I understand it.

http://www.aef.org.uk/downloads//NO at Heathrow.jpg

Edited by LashL: 

Removed hotlinked image. Please see Rule 5 here.

 

[DGM]

The whole NIST theory and their fracking computer model is based on that kind of "so what".

I want a better explanation when 3,000+ innocent people have been murdered; don't you?

MM

I want a better reason than "it didn't look right" to even consider anything you might want to say.

Got one?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

For those that keep whining that WTC 7 was a concrete and steel building! WTC 7's concrete was confined to the floor slabs which were not responsible for load bearing of the entire structure. The load bearing part was the steel frame

You want a reinforced concrete building? Look ar the Windsor tower... you know the hero example of the truth movement, and a shining example of the TM's sloppy research capacity

'She looks like a witch = she must be a witch'

It's a circular argument. Which is why truthers are a little 'loopy'. hehe

But seriously, until they break out of the circular logic and other fallacies, they're trapped and cannot escape this fantasy.

What a waste of a person's mind.

And it goes further. Once they have the attention of those they dupe they proceed with their false comparisons of the WTC with other building fires. They know, that once they're duped it's easy enough to say they didn't collapse is reason enough to say that any other building would never either. Just skip research of all the construction differences and apparently you have a case.

 

[Miragememories]

"Modern commercial controlled demolitions involve high explosives, which cause extremely loud noises and visible flashes prior to the collapse of the building in question.

These were not witnessed at WTC7.

Empirically, then, WTC7 was not subjected to controlled demolition."

Typical failure to attack the argument.

If I can prove that the NIST failed to prove a 'fire' solution for the WTC7 collapse GlennB,
then your welcome to explain your alternative to controlled demolition?

And while your considering that, you might want to consider the distinct possibility that you
aren't privy to non-commercial methods of controlled demolition.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

I want a better reason than "it didn't look right" to even consider anything you might want to say.

Got one?

Start here maybe;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6200523&postcount=735

MM

 

[GlennB]

Typical failure to attack the argument.

I attacked your "empirical" argument 100%. Up front. In the face. Head on.

What the hell are you whining about?

 

[DGM]

If I can prove that the NIST failed to prove a 'fire' solution for the WTC7 collapse


MM

When do you plan to do this? You do what the word "prove" means, don't you?

 

[Oystein]

...
You can start by explaining how those fires managed to remain dormant from 10:29 a.m. to 12 noon?

MM

JAQing off again?
What arguments do you bring to the table? Got any background in fire science, firefighting?

Nuh, just JAQing off.

 

[Miragememories]

On 9/11 nobody needed to have a formal theory and a computer model to know that fire with no water for firefighting was going to destroy WTC7.

By 2:00PM it was obvious by empirical observation.

Smoke makes people cough.

It doesn't usually have much effect on 47-story modern concrete & steel buildings other than make them no long wanted by their owner.

MM

 

[Oystein]

Typical failure to attack the argument.

If I can prove that the NIST failed to prove a 'fire' solution for the WTC7 collapse GlennB,
then your welcome to explain your alternative to controlled demolition?

We're waiting. Please start.

And while your considering that, you might want to consider the distinct possibility that you
aren't privy to non-commercial methods of controlled demolition.

MM

Yes. We're also ready to consider fairy dust, mothra and the Vogonic wrecking fleet. Even thermite.
All we need is someone with at least a theory of how it could be done with fairy dust, mothra, the Vogonic wrecking fleet or thermite.
Please provide one.

 

[johnny karate]

If I can prove that the NIST failed to prove a 'fire' solution for the WTC7 collapse GlennB,
then your welcome to explain your alternative to controlled demolition?

And while your considering that, you might want to consider the distinct possibility that you
aren't privy to non-commercial methods of controlled demolition.

By what justification do you present yourself as either an authority to contradict NIST or an authority on non-commercial methods of controlled demolition?

I mean, I suppose some deranged homeless guy could "prove" to me that my doctor failed to "prove" I have tonsillitis. But then again my doctor has years of medical training and the guy saying he's wrong is a smelly old hobo.

So how seriously should I take that smelly old hobo?

What if the smelly old hobo also told me George Bush had a secret evil plan to destroy America? Would that make him more or less credible?

 

[BigAl]

Typical failure to attack the argument.

If I can prove that the NIST failed to prove a 'fire' solution for the WTC7 collapse GlennB,
then your welcome to explain your alternative to controlled demolition?
MM

Fire and lack of water for firefighting.

There were no explosives used at WTC on 9/11.

 

[DGM]

Smoke makes people cough.

It doesn't usually have much effect on 47-story modern concrete & steel buildings other than make them no long wanted by their owner.

MM

So the invisible ninja ran in and "pulled it" as a favor for Larry!

That is what your suggesting.

 

[johnny karate]

Smoke makes people cough.

It doesn't usually have much effect on 47-story modern concrete & steel buildings other than make them no long wanted by their owner.

The professional firefighting experts who were present disagree with your assessment of WTC7.

By what authority do you contradict them?

And absent said authority, why should anyone take you seriously considering your documented history of paranoid delusions?

 

[Miragememories]

"For those that keep whining that WTC 7 was a concrete and steel building! WTC 7's concrete was confined to the floor slabs which were not responsible for load bearing of the entire structure. The load bearing part was the steel frame"

Hey I'm game.

Forget the concrete.

Show me your solid steel modern highrise that was imploded by office cubicle fires and you've got a case.

I'll be waiting.

Too funny.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

I attacked your "empirical" argument 100%. Up front. In the face. Head on.

What the hell are you whining about?

Hey no whining here.

You attacked nothing.

I'm still waiting for your 'reasoned' response to;

"Typical failure to attack the argument.

If I can prove that the NIST failed to prove a 'fire' solution for the WTC7 collapse GlennB, then your welcome to explain your alternative to controlled demolition?"

Your waffling does not count.

MM

 

[johnny karate]

Hey I'm game.

Forget the concrete.

Show me your solid steel modern highrise that was imploded by office cubicle fires and you've got a case.

Why do you think anyone should bother making "a case" to you? With your established history of paranoid delusions, what's the reasonable expectation you would not simply ignore anything that contradicts these paranoid delusions to which you've clearly dedicated your life?

 

[uke2se]

Hey I'm game.

Forget the concrete.

Show me your solid steel modern highrise that was imploded by office cubicle fires and you've got a case.

I'll be waiting.

Too funny.

MM

Straw man.

 

[uke2se]

Hey no whining here.

You attacked nothing.

I'm still waiting for your 'reasoned' response to;



Your waffling does not count.

MM

He gave you a response to your first post to which you have yet to reply, save for a bit of whining.

By the way, what about that paranoid delusion you had about the nukes and the canceled presidential election? You were wrong then. You are wrong now. It takes a big man to admit that he's wrong sometimes, and you're way overdue here.

 

[Miragememories]

"If I can prove that the NIST failed to prove a 'fire' solution for the WTC7 collapse..."

"When do you plan to do this? You do what the word "prove" means, don't you?"

Well let us start with a reply to my post; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6200523&postcount=735,
which everyone is going out of their way to ignore?

MM