Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[Belz...]

Danny Jowenko is under no obligation to defend himself by; "following through and providing a clear, written statement."

Mirage, what is it with truthers and Jowenko ? Are you so desperately lacking experts that you only cling to one ?

And second, did anybody ask for his opinion recently ? And, should he have changed his mind, would you interpret that as him being "paid off" ?

 

[leonAzul]

So in summation on that point, I agree with Danny Jowenko that WTC 7 was felled by CD

If that is so, then where is the seismographical evidence from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory? Surely a series of explosions of that size would have been recorded.

 

[uk_dave]

WTC7 has to be the strangest obsession ever encountered in a conspiracy theory. I mean....

No one died
The only people affected are Silverstein and the Insurers

....what the hell?

Tell you what 'truthers', why not club together and invest all your money in the insurance company which paid out on wtc7, then as major shareholders you can attend the shareholders meetings and bang on tables and DEMAND to know why your company coughed up when an obvious crime was committed. How about it?

 

[Darkhole]

I have stated on several occasions what it would require to falsify my beliefs regarding the 9/11 attacks. First, someone needs to demolish a building(i.e. a steel-frame high-rise) with fire and impact damage the way WTC 1,2 and 7 were destroyed. The collapse must mirror the dynamics of the actual collapse of those buildings. That would falsify my belief that those buildings must have been destroyed by explosive charges. Where can I see experimental verification? Words on paper don't count

Faculty of architecture Technical University Delft, The Netherlands.

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=XnPEUaVT7mg&feature=related

Ohh, and I wonder what Danny Jowenko has to say about this implosion.

 

[SDC]

SDC writes; "Why? No speculation, please, as to this; only solid evidence (a statement from him that he doesn't want to get involved, for example) should be acceptable."

Miragememories writes; "Well rather than posting a forum question you pre-qualify as unanswerable by the forum participants, I suggest you ask the man you want to provide your answer."

SDC writes; "I didn't prequalify it as unanswerable."

It is certainly unanswerable "by this forum's participants", if only Danny Jowenko's response meets the criteria of your question!

Danny Jowenko is under no obligation to defend himself by; "following through and providing a clear, written statement."

The news media went to him. He did not go to them.

The fact that he allowed himself to be interviewed for a national TV broadcast, risking his professional reputation and that of his company, makes it evidently clear that his 'controlled demolition related views' were "not worthless", and were "not off the cuff opinions".

SDC writes; "Sorry to hear that the Allen Funt approach is the norm. I guess I am naive."

Sorry to hear that you have no appreciation for the importance of an unprejudiced response.

Haven't you ever considered the reason why juries go through a rigorous selection process? The legal system is well aware of how knowledge of an event that played large on the public mind can make it all but impossible for a prospective juror to form a fair, unbiased opinion.

I was unaware that a demolition expert's response to a first time viewing of the collapse of WTC 7 qualified as an event that could be so easily lumped with Allen Funt's reality comedy Candid Camera".

I have no disagreement regarding you're being naive.

MM

Jeez oh pete. You step away for a day or two and your name gets dragged into the press. In Italics, yet.

A couple of points. You seem offended by my use of Allen Funt. Too bad. The process you described seemed more like his Candid Camera than anything else I could imagine in the media. Gosh, I guess my standards of commentary and discussion are all wrong.

What you have described still sounds to me more like "gotcha!!" than anything else. And yes, I have little use for the idea of the "unprejudiced response" in the public sphere. In brief, I think it stinks. You see, I was trained to believe in knowledge, and expertise, and thoughtfulness as playing important roles in the public sphere.

And I have served on several juries. Have you? I mean trials, in the legal system. So I know how those work, and suspect you do not, judging from your comments.

And I am well aware that no one here claims to speak for Jowenko, or have a direct line to him. But anyone who is interested should contact him and say, "What do you think now?", and, "Will you put that in writing? Because otherwise...."

I won't do that because after review of the statement and interpretations of it, and taking into account his failure to show up in the public debate, I have decided his comments have no particular significance. I stand by "off the cuff," except for heaven's sake leave off the starch!

Pfeh. That's enough.

 

[R.Mackey]

Let's calm it down, folks

So I'm back from travel again. I don't see any discussion that truly belongs here as there are numerous other threads treating Mr. Jowenko and so on, but I do see some bickering. You're not all bickering, but several are. I remind you, please keep this respectful. You are all responsible for your own posts, and no one else's. Govern yourselves accordingly.

Regarding the comments of Mr. Jowenko, whom we've discussed here endlessly, who can say why he has the opinion he does? I will accept that he has some expertise in demolition and probably even explosives. I will also accept that he may have been accurately represented in the various videos and transcripts we've seen. I just don't think it makes any difference.

I say this because Mr. Jowenko's comments are not in any way actionable. He's provided no reasoning, no details, no hypothesis. All we have is his opinion, and the only support for this opinion is his profession. This is the classic "argument to authority." There are many other authorities, equally if not better credentialled, who have a totally different opinion. This argument is, therefore, useless.

In my responses, you will note that I did not rely upon his or any other unqualified opinion, but rather discussed physical mechanisms. These can be independently verified. Anyone can challenge my arguments by presenting their own competing arguments also based on physics. These are problems that can be solved. Personal feelings, not so.

Mr. Jowenko's comments would be much more useful had he provided any of the following:

• Any explanation of what about the video he saw convinced him, i.e. features that he believes are proof of explosives
• An explanation of why explosives are the only way to have caused the effect, instead of just one way; without this, he commits an Affirming the Consequent logical fallacy
• Details regarding exactly how explosives could have created this effect, viz. where he feels they were placed, what types and amounts, how detonated, etc.

Unfortunately, we have none. Without this information, we have no way of knowing whether he has a reason at all, or whether he leapt to judgment, has a personal agenda, was deliberately hoaxing the interviewer, etc. And we have no way to follow up. Even if his comments turn out to be true, it hasn't helped our investigation one bit.

Until any way to follow up appears, Mr. Jowenko's comments are totally useless. Fortunately, we have many other sources of information, and as I described on previous pages, these leave no doubt whatsoever that explosives are not needed. There's more to learn from NIST et al., but the top-level question of explosives or not has no credible challenge that I'm aware of.

Once again, let me invoke the OP: What critical questions do you have? And as before, I may not be able to answer them, but even clarifying and asking the question will help us find an answer. To wit, we can't start "a new investigation" without these kinds of questions. Let's have them.

Thanks!

 

[Mr X]

I've been gone most of the last week and a half. Dropped in briefly to pen another bit for Gregory Urich, but that was it.

It appears that nearly nothing has happened with the Truth Movement. Likewise, what ongoing contentious discussions remain are of very low quality.

I'd like to try a return to constructive dialogue, and hopefully, bring this to a closure that is satisfying to all. In that spirit, I hereby place myself at your disposal. This thread is a living experiment. Here's how it works:

In this thread, I invite anyone -- but principally the Truth Movement -- to post their crucial questions. By that I mean your questions that, if they were to be answered, would convince you that there is no compelling reason to believe in any conspiracy surrounding September 11th.

If you post those questions, I will do my level best to answer them. I also freely admit that I am neither all-knowing nor infallible. It's quite possible that you will ask something I cannot answer. If so, I will be forthright about this. If I can answer but have doubts, I will give you those as well. Full disclosure.

This is meant to be a learning exercise for all of us. It will probably take some effort on your part to organize your thoughts carefully. You should present your questions in detail, with background, and your own analysis where possible. You should also think about what kind of answers you anticipate, and what those would mean.

I am completely clearing my Ignore list, and I pledge to keep this thread abuse-free to the best of my ability. For purposes of this thread, any past you may have with me or other posters here is forgotten.

This is open to non-Truth Movement folks as well, but I anticipate the Truth Movement must have more to question, thus I am specifically inviting them.

So... any takers? Let's hear what's on your mind.

Dear Mackey,

Why would someone (you) appoint themselves an authority and take on responsibilities that are clearly not theirs? Just why would someone aspire to be an NIST cheerleader?......

Look forward to your reply

 

[uk_dave]

Dear Mackey,

Why would someone (you) appoint themselves an authority and take on responsibilities that are clearly not theirs? Just why would someone aspire to be an NIST cheerleader?......

Look forward to your reply

Translation:

Why do you guys insist on spoiling our fun?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Dear Mackey,

Why would someone (you) appoint themselves an authority and take on responsibilities that are clearly not theirs? Just why would someone aspire to be an NIST cheerleader?......

Look forward to your reply

So, this is your critical question? This is your question that, if it were to be answered, would convince you that there is no compelling reason to believe in any conspiracy surrounding September 11th?

If not, then why are you derailing this thread?

 

[beachnut]

Dear Mackey,

Why would someone (you) appoint themselves an authority and take on responsibilities that are clearly not theirs? Just why would someone aspire to be an NIST cheerleader?......

Look forward to your reply

Squibs were debunked years ago. Seems you are 6 years too late to understand what others figured out 6 years ago.

Squibs, silent squibs? How did you guys do that? Do you just make it up without thinking, or think real hard? Does it come natural?

 

[Mr X]

Squibs were debunked years ago. Seems you are 6 years too late to understand what others figured out 6 years ago.

Squibs, silent squibs? How did you guys do that? Do you just make it up without thinking, or think real hard? Does it come natural?

Funny... last time I asked about squibs, you were all denying their existence. Now apparently it's been explained six years ago. I suppose sooner or later you'll all come up with a new way to evade the topic.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Funny... last time I asked about squibs, you were all denying their existence. Now apparently it's been explained six years ago. I suppose sooner or later you'll all come up with a new way to evade the topic.

Nobody's evading the topic. The explanation is that there were no squibs.

Firstly, squibs have nothing to do with demolition, they are small charges used by movie special effects people. Calling the plumes of ejecta "squibs" is a very poor use of language. Secondly, in the entirety of the collapses only six plumes of ejecta have ever been identified. This could have had no significant effect on the collapse dynamics. Thirdly, the plumes of ejecta show behaviour typical of a release of pressure - their intensity appears to increase slowly to a steady value before they are obscured by the collapse zone - and no behaviour typical of explosives i.e. no flash and no sudden, intense release of debris, falling off rapidly in intensity. Therefore, no, the squibs didn't exist, and the plumes of ejecta incorrectly described as "squibs" are clearly debris being forced out of broken windows by the pressurisation of air inside the towers as the tops collapse downwards.

And finally, yes, it was all explained years ago.

Dave

 

[Miragememories]

A couple of points. You seem offended by my use of Allen Funt. Too bad. The process you described seemed more like his Candid Camera than anything else I could imagine in the media.

Gosh, I guess my standards of commentary and discussion are all wrong.

About your last statement, I couldn't agree more.

And I have served on several juries. Have you? I mean trials, in the legal system. So I know how those work, and suspect you do not, judging from your comments.

Apparently you like to jump to conclusions.

I've done jury duty twice.

MM

 

[SpitfireIX]

Dear Mackey,

Why would someone (you) appoint themselves an authority and take on responsibilities that are clearly not theirs?

It is his responsibility.

Guideline a of Canon 3 of the ABET Code of Ethics for Engineers:

Engineers shall endeavor to extend public knowledge, and to prevent misunderstandings of the achievements of engineering.

Just why would someone aspire to be an NIST cheerleader?......


Look forward to your reply

Typical conspiracist tripe. You can't refute any of R.Mackey's arguments, so you're reduced to lame attempts to belittle them (and him, and NIST).

 

[R.Mackey]

Important!

I've had to report several recent posts. This thread is not for bickering or name-calling, nor is it for re-asking questions that have been answered a dozen times. That goes for the instigator as well as those who post emotional responses. If you see someone behaving improperly, just let it sink into the noise. Thanks.

---

Dear Mackey,

Why would someone (you) appoint themselves an authority and take on responsibilities that are clearly not theirs? Just why would someone aspire to be an NIST cheerleader?......

Look forward to your reply

I have no idea why someone would do that, but you are incorrect. I have made no such appointment, as I have claimed no authority.

The wording in my OP, which you quoted, was quite clear. I have a limited background in related topics of science and engineering, and I've spent a good deal of time looking at these topics, but none of this makes me an authority. You will also note that I avoid any argument to authority as a general rule. Instead, I have merely offered to help, and the validity of my arguments is self-derived, rather than being dependent upon any vestment of authority. In other words, my reasoning stands or falls on its own. I invite you to ask, I offer to do my best, and I expect you to examine my responses for accuracy. Simple as that.

As for why I would offer to help, it's because education is a good thing, for both of us. And I find this method of communication far more effective than the typical shouting matches. There have been some good questions asked in this thread, and some good follow-up discussions. No one is making you take part, of course, but the offer is open.

Also, regarding "being a cheerleader for NIST," I might remind you that in my whitepaper I have an entire chapter dedicated to its criticism, and the latest version includes a 40-page appendix where I examine it for shortcomings vis-a-vis Eric Douglas's comments, and I agree with him on a whole pageful of bullet points. I've stated repeatedly that, while I find its method and recommendations eminently supportable, I have a few points of disagreement and at least one significant item where I think NIST is actually wrong. I'm unclear on how you equate this level of exposition and analysis with "cheerleading." So, if you have questions with NIST, I invite you to ask them. Doubly so if those questions are critical to your beliefs regarding September 11th.

 

[applecorped]

"I've had to report several recent posts. This thread is not for bickering or name-calling, nor is it for re-asking questions that have been answered a dozen times. That goes for the instigator as well as those who post emotional responses. If you see someone behaving improperly, just let it sink into the noise. Thanks."

Had to, or wanted to? Be honest.

 

[R.Mackey]

Had to, or wanted to? Be honest.

Had to. In my entire career here, with numerous debates in the trenches against the very worst of the Truth Movement, I believe I've used the Report feature a total of three times. I've also been unswervingly honest in this thread from the first word.

With that said, and with unswerving honesty, let us now please return to topic.

 

[applecorped]

Had to. In my entire career here, with numerous debates in the trenches against the very worst of the Truth Movement, I believe I've used the Report feature a total of three times. I've also been unswervingly honest in this thread from the first word.

With that said, and with unswerving honesty, let us now please return to topic.

Fair enough, back to the topic then!

 

[chillzero]

Split made to here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113889

Stop the bickering and keep it civil please.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Mr X]

Mackey, thanks for your reply. I was half expecting 'mockery', which Is what I usually get on this site when I ask a question.

Ok there is a lot in your reply.... lets focus on a few things.

'I've stated repeatedly that, while I find its method and recommendations eminently supportable, I have a few points of disagreement and at least one significant item where I think NIST is actually wrong'

Fantastic!... when did this happen. Only a few months ago, everthing was answered with references to NIST as if it was gospel. Now astonishingly you all have doubts.

This wouldn't have anything to do with Steve Jones and others getting a paper published pointing out NIST's shortcomings. Thereby making all the NIST cheerleaders look like fools. (You can brazenly defend nonsense when only a few know the facts, but difficult when everyone knows the facts...... no?)

So it now trurns out you've got concerns too.

So what are you doing about your 'concerns'. Given all the energy you pour out here defending the Governments theory (.... and I still don't know why you do it), surely you must have taken the trouble to write to someone to point out the 'one significant item where' you 'think NIST is actually wrong'. And if you were to do this, how would this be any different from the many who have pointed out it's shortcomings since the day it was released..... you know, those people who were trying to find out what really happened.