Why are Truthers so committed to the 'controlled demolition' theory

[Quiproquo]

From what I recall, when the fact that the building was on fire was pointed out to him, he said, "Hmm," and paused in apparent doubt about his assessment.

He reassessed the timing of the possible rigging of the building, not that fire was somehow a cause of the destruction of the tower.

His reaction, as an expert, seems candid as can be.

 

[uke2se]

His reaction, as an expert, seems candid as can be.

Then you're willing to admit that Jowenko - as an "expert" - says that fire and impact damage from the planes brought down WTC1 and 2? Good. We're 2/3rd's of the way towards making you a genuine critical thinker.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Evidence?

Dave

We teach dumb and ignorant people everyday at places called schools.....most leave these places knowing more about a subject than when they went in.....some might not understand what they have been taught but they don't call the teachers shills and liars!

I really think most Truthers and Conspiracy theorists are mentally ill. Whether or not this is treatable is another question.

 

[DC]

We teach dumb and ignorant people everyday at places called schools.....most leave these places knowing more about a subject than when they went in.....some might not understand what they have been taught but they don't call the teachers shills and liars!

I really think most Truthers and Conspiracy theorists are mentally ill. Whether or not this is treatable is another question.

evidence?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am curious. What do you guys think about the testimony of Danny Jowenko on the destruction/collapse of WTC7?

Danny Jowenko is a demolition expert, and when shown for the first time the destruction/collapse of WTC7, his immediate reaction is to attribute it to a "team of experts."

The first part of his thee part interview can be watched here.

As always, context is everything. Jowenko was the victim of a planned piece of deception by truthers. Initially, he was interviewed on a program discussing the collapses of the Twin Towers, and pointed out that (a) their collapses initiated at the areas where the planes had hit, rather than at the bases which is the way controlled demolitions are normally done, and (b) if charges had been placed in the areas where the planes hit they would have been set off by the fires much sooner. He concluded that the Twin Towers collapsed as a result of the airliner impacts, and that no explosives were involved, an opinion which he has never attempted to retract. A group of truthers then showed him a video of WTC7 without a sound track - so he wouldn't notice the absence of the sound of explosions - and without any information about the size or location of the building, and he was duly fooled into believing it was a controlled demolition. He has since expressed serious confusion about how WTC7 could possibly have been rigged for demolition in the time available, but sticks to his original opinion.

What we can deduce from this is that: (a) it's possible to fool an expert, from a restricted view of the WTC7 collapse with the sound track removed, into thinking it was a controlled demolition, and (b) Danny Jowenko has difficulty in changing his mind, even though he knows his opinion doesn't make sense.

Oh, and that truthers are lying scumbags who try to mislead people and pretend it's done to seek the truth. But we already knew that.

Dave

 

[DC]

As always, context is everything. Jowenko was the victim of a planned piece of deception by truthers. Initially, he was interviewed on a program discussing the collapses of the Twin Towers, and pointed out that (a) their collapses initiated at the areas where the planes had hit, rather than at the bases which is the way controlled demolitions are normally done, and (b) if charges had been placed in the areas where the planes hit they would have been set off by the fires much sooner. He concluded that the Twin Towers collapsed as a result of the airliner impacts, and that no explosives were involved, an opinion which he has never attempted to retract. A group of truthers then showed him a video of WTC7 without a sound track - so he wouldn't notice the absence of the sound of explosions - and without any information about the size or location of the building, and he was duly fooled into believing it was a controlled demolition. He has since expressed serious confusion about how WTC7 could possibly have been rigged for demolition in the time available, but sticks to his original opinion.

What we can deduce from this is that: (a) it's possible to fool an expert, from a restricted view of the WTC7 collapse with the sound track removed, into thinking it was a controlled demolition, and (b) Danny Jowenko has difficulty in changing his mind, even though he knows his opinion doesn't make sense.

Oh, and that truthers are lying scumbags who try to mislead people and pretend it's done to seek the truth. But we already knew that.

Dave

Evidence?
the complete show did actually not support the conspiracy theories......

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6624447947169635420#

 

[Dave Rogers]

Evidence?
the complete show did actually not support the conspiracy theories......

The Zembla show was the interview where Jowenko pointed out the problems with the WTC1 and WTC2 CD theories. The WTC7 comments were recorded later, IIRC, not during the Zembla programme. I see it wasn't clear from my post that I meant that.

Dave

 

[DC]

The Zembla show was the interview where Jowenko pointed out the problems with the WTC1 and WTC2 CD theories. The WTC7 comments were recorded later, IIRC, not during the Zembla programme. I see it wasn't clear from my post that I meant that.

Dave

What evidence do you have for this claim?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6624447947169635420#

full programm here, it seems to be recorded on the same day, the background suggest they did change position during the WTC1 and 2 interview, but the background in the WTC7 interview is exactly the same as at the end of the WTC1 and 2 interview.

 

[Dave Rogers]

full programm here, it seems to be recorded on the same day, the background suggest they did change position during the WTC1 and 2 interview, but the background in the WTC7 interview is exactly the same as at the end of the WTC1 and 2 interview.

I thought the WTC7 section had been recorded later. If you're right, then I've got the whole thing wrong and I apologise for making misleading statements. But are you sure this hasn't been edited together so as to give the impression the WTC7 part was included in the show?

Dave

 

[DC]

I thought the WTC7 section had been recorded later. If you're right, then I've got the whole thing wrong and I apologise for making misleading statements. But are you sure this hasn't been edited together so as to give the impression the WTC7 part was included in the show?

Dave

i just watched the whole thing again, and it looked into loose change theories. It does debunk Loose Change on Pentagon WTC 1 and 2. it does endorse LIHOP a bit, and letting open the question about WTC7 after Jowenko's comments on it.
And as far i know about the makers, one of them (Kees Schaap) was or is a truther, the other one not.

 

[Dave Rogers]

i just watched the whole thing again, and it looked into loose change theories. It does debunk Loose Change on Pentagon WTC 1 and 2. it does endorse LIHOP a bit, and letting open the question about WTC7 after Jowenko's comments on it.
And as far i know about the makers, one of them (Kees Schaap) was or is a truther, the other one not.

OK, looks like I've been mistaken all along on this then. I'll have to remember that next time it comes up.

What's quite clear is that Jowenko is extremely confused at what he sees of WTC7 in the context of when it fell, whereas he's very confident of his conclusions on the Twin Towers. So we have an immediate reaction on WTC7 which was then brought into doubt by further information, and an immediate reaction on WTC1 and 2 that wasn't brought into doubt by further information. That's a very much more nuanced position than the way it's normally portrayed by the truth movement. And there is no sensible hypothesis in which WTC7 was brought down by explosives, but WTC1 and WTC2 weren't.

Dave

 

[DC]

OK, looks like I've been mistaken all along on this then. I'll have to remember that next time it comes up.

What's quite clear is that Jowenko is extremely confused at what he sees of WTC7 in the context of when it fell, whereas he's very confident of his conclusions on the Twin Towers. So we have an immediate reaction on WTC7 which was then brought into doubt by further information, and an immediate reaction on WTC1 and 2 that wasn't brought into doubt by further information. That's a very much more nuanced position than the way it's normally portrayed by the truth movement. And there is no sensible hypothesis in which WTC7 was brought down by explosives, but WTC1 and WTC2 weren't.

Dave

you was also half right, one of them was/is a truther, didn't know that

http://zapruder.nl/portal/artikel/9_11_kees_schaap_over_de_zembla_docu/
in dutch.

 

[Sabretooth]

You know...when are we going to get an actual theory from the toof about this CD garbage?

All I hear from them is, "explosions! blah, blah", and "it doesn't look right, blah blah"...

So, the toof thinks it's a CD...how was it done? Who hired who? Who planted the demo tools? How many people involved? How much thermite was used? Who pulled the trigger?

Jeez, if I was a toofer, I'd be mad as hell...not at the OT crowd, but my own group! Gage has been sucking in money for what, 5 years? And his theory guesswork hasn't matured outside of "it looks a lot like a CD". With that steady flow of cash, I'd be demanding a working theory, or at least a hypothesis, by now.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Why are Truthers so committed to the 'controlled demolition' theory? It seems to me that they could still put forth their 'inside job' theory without the need for a controlled demolition. Why is controlled demolition so central to their conspiracy model?

It seems to me that it would be a lot easier for them if they just abandoned this nonsense:

1. For one thing, saying that the planes hitting the buildings was actually what caused them to fall has a major advantage...Namely, that it is TRUE.

2. There is also REALLY strong proof that planes hitting the buildings would be enough, not just because of expert opinions, but also because IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. We saw them hit and we saw it fall.

It appears that you've never argued with "no planes" believers. They start by refuting these two points and then move further into nonsense.

 

[TruthersLie]

On top of that, there is indeed a "Let It Happen On Purpose" (LIHOP) contingent out there. They're just relatively quiet compared to the "Made It Happen on Purpose" (MIHOP) folks.

ElMondo.

I think that would be the most logical part of twooferdom. I can easily understand how the government could "let it happen."

It is the one position of 9/11 truth that has any type of "rational" arguments.

Unfortunately there isn't enough evidence to suggest it is true.

 

[grandmastershek]

And that was the big problem with Jowneko, they showed him the clip from LC and nothing else...no sound, penthouse omitted, never showed him the seismic research, nada. I imagine being a professional he prepped for the interview with regard to the towers, but being he wasn't prepped for 7 he gave an off hand comment without any background knowledge coupled with some video manipulation.

I often see truthers try to rationalize the disconnect as if he was biased with regard to the towers as he already heard about it, but his WTC 7 remarks were the truth because they were free of external bias (while seeing video omitting key elements, and not getting the full picture). Such is "the truth"...poor guy.

 

[Brainster]

I lean towards the "Survivor" analogy. All the other elements of the CT have been voted off the island due to their obvious (and easily provable) flaws. Meanwhile, the CD crowd has been bolstered by Steven Jones and Richard Gage, who can take the argument into areas too technical for the average person to follow.

BTW, there is a LIHOP plus CD crowd out there; the "Truth" comes in more flavors than Baskin-Robbins.

 

[beachnut]

When your faith in the CD religion is strong enough, you can actually see it being CDed. you see the thermite falling from the building you see the explosives going of and make squibs and you see how fast it collapses and i mean that just can't be without a CD.
Only when you have lost your faith and watch the collapses again, you realize, heck what have i been seeing?

...

Sometimes you decide an idea is right, and you know it, no matter what the evidence is against it.

This is the case for most. They are not stupid. They support crazy theories, they figure it out, and move on.

I would guess half are "smarter" than I, and half are not. I am stuck at average, most of the ex-truthers have great potential as they move on.

When you get an idea, and you "know it" is right, it is hard to abandon it.

Like flying an aircraft, when you are new to instrument flying. Simulating weather under the "hood" you get the "leans", you know the plane is sideways or upside down, but your instruments clearly show you are straight and level! As a young pilot under the hood, one quick look at mother earth cages your gyros (your brain) to straight and level, you see your instruments are correct, bingo, one step closer to trusting your instruments and instrument crosscheck. What is needed for 911 truthers is that quick look at mother earth, what is that for 911 truth and the CD delusion?

 

[TruthersLie]

The Zembla show was the interview where Jowenko pointed out the problems with the WTC1 and WTC2 CD theories. The WTC7 comments were recorded later, IIRC, not during the Zembla programme. I see it wasn't clear from my post that I meant that.

Dave

Dave.

I hate to correct you on this, but you are wrong. The Zembla show was about both the towers and wtc7. The part where he is shown wtc7 collapsing in in the Zembla show.

So the show was against truthers, but the reporter did a poor job and did not present all of the evidence. he showed a shortened clip which did not include the collapse of the eastern mechanical penthouse and it had no sound. This was not an "ambush" by truthers, just a badly done piece by a journalist. (who happens to be a truther... did he leave out the pieces which were inconvenient for him? who knows)

ETA: I see that DC already corrected your error and you acknowledged it.

 

[Oystein]

I am curious. What do you guys think about the testimony of Danny Jowenko on the destruction/collapse of WTC7?

Danny Jowenko is a demolition expert, and when shown for the first time the destruction/collapse of WTC7, his immediate reaction is to attribute it to a "team of experts."

The first part of his thee part interview can be watched here.

Just asking.

We learn from the interview that
- Danny didn't know the first thing about the fires
- Danny didn't know the first thing about the timing
- Danny didn't know the first thing about the sounds (or rather lack thereof)
- Danny had previously heard some woo about Larry Silverstein
- Danny was mislead (lied to?) about the extent of the debris pile

In short: Danny was an expert with a tiny amount of information about the subject matter.
With insufficient and partially wrong data, the assessment of even the best experts is highly questionable and very possibly wrong.

We also learn from the video that Danny is very very skeptical about the possibility of rigging the building, and thinks it's impossible to do during the day. He didn't get a chance to think about any other scenario, so basically all we hear is Danny saying "it sure looks like a CD".


Quiproquo, tell us: why is Danny so far the only demo expert who thinks (or at least at one time thought) this was a CD? Why do all the experts who know more about the incident than Danny disagree vehemently?