Jowenko sticks by his statement. (Audio from yesterday) [Archive]

pomeroo

23rd February 2007, 11:14 AM

=T.A.M.;2371269]He is one of Northern Europes leading demolition experts.

He was shown a video of WTC7 then asked if it looked like it was CD. He was then compermised by the truthers who gave him the whole "secret documents in the building, USG is bad" speal, and now he appears to becoming a full blown truther...oh my...

TAM:)

Well, TAM, he can't be a "full blown truther" because he acknowledges that terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into the Twin Towers. He states that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 looked nothing like controlled demolitions (see the thread I started, "Is Jowenko Echt Woo-woo?"). Frankly, I'm baffled. I talked with him over the phone for a half-hour. He is very polite and sounds reasonable. I guess that he suffers from the visceral anti-Americanism that afflicts so many Europeans. Still, it is bizarre that the loons continue to cite as an authority someone who rejects the cornerstone of their madness.

T.A.M.

23rd February 2007, 11:22 AM

I think the loons cherry pick, as always. Based on his tone and language in the audio, I think he is taken in by the whole "secrets stored in WTC7" angle. What is puzzling is that he seems fine, as you have said, living with a polarized opinion on two aspects of a single event that must have a unified causation to be true.

Even with that being said, I have seen truthers rationalize that Jowenko can claim WTC 1&2 not brought down by CD, and WTC7 is, simply by saying that the WTC1&2 were brought down by NON-CONTROLLED, or ATYPICAL DEMOLITION, and hence the reason why Jowenko is fooled.

No matter what proof you provide them, the truthers will believe their own shaite, and find a way to make parts of his statement fit their model of "how it went down".

TAM

Quad4_72

23rd February 2007, 11:30 AM

Are demo experts structural experts?

That is what I was thinking. But you have to remember that a demo expert has to be able to analyze a building completely if he is going to demolish it properly.

mailman

23rd February 2007, 11:34 AM

parmanides

23rd February 2007, 11:41 AM

It is interesting that when you show an expert the raw data (without the political context, and the emotional highjacking that that entails) he can see it like it is - controlled demolition.

BTW he also explains (from an insiders position) that his co-professionals in the in the demolition field would have their careers ruined if they were to be as brave as him in calling it like they see it - explains alot

Quad4_72

23rd February 2007, 11:45 AM

I cant see what is posted over at LC but am I right to assume that he has agreed that it LOOKS like a CD?

Has he though, agreed that WTC7 WAS a CD...or are the truthers merely jumping on his statement that it does look like a CD when he doesnt actually agree with them that the buildings were actually brought down by CD?

Mailman

It appears that he believes that it was indeed a CD. In his original quote, he was shown the video and then he said without question it was a CD. Now he is saying that he still stands by his original statement. He is full blown woo.

Quad4_72

23rd February 2007, 11:46 AM

mailman

23rd February 2007, 11:46 AM

Ah yes, that old chestnut of destroyed careers! :D

I think the real reason morons who support CD may have had their careers destroyed is that they lose all credibility...and I guess the last person you want handling explosives is one with no credibility! :D

Mailman

Aphelion

23rd February 2007, 11:55 AM

Well, TAM, he can't be a "full blown truther" because he acknowledges that terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into the Twin Towers. He states that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 looked nothing like controlled demolitions (see the thread I started, "Is Jowenko Echt Woo-woo?"). Frankly, I'm baffled. I talked with him over the phone for a half-hour. He is very polite and sounds reasonable. I guess that he suffers from the visceral anti-Americanism that afflicts so many Europeans. Still, it is bizarre that the loons continue to cite as an authority someone who rejects the cornerstone of their madness.

I don't believe in CD either, but I eagerly await the building 7 report from NIST. Don't forget Bachmann and Schneider who also think 7 was a CD and are probably even more qualified to comment than Jowenko.

I don't think Jowenko haas just looked at the video. He says in the audio that he has also studied the plans of the building and i'm guessing since he first said this he has looked at the interim report from NIST.

T.A.M.

23rd February 2007, 12:09 PM

Well if he has studied the data (which I doubt. He did not state those words, but answered in the affirmative when "Jeff asked him if he had done so, along with some other things...I believe), than see my questions 2 and 3 above, which I would love him to answer.

TAM:)

I would put money on him not even having studied the architectural plans for WTC7, let alone the NIST findings...IMO

TAM

parmanides

23rd February 2007, 12:26 PM

Ah yes, that old chestnut of destroyed careers! :D

That 'chestnut' is a sociological fact.

If you mailman were to (for whatever reason) become a 'conspiracy theorist', would you not loose the esteem and emotional kudos of most of the people here. If you were given a salary via them to make your posts, would you not then jeopardise your livelyhood.

regardless of whether or not you would make such a conversion, the socialogical fact remains

parmanides

23rd February 2007, 12:45 PM

The raw data? So seeing a video and not analyzing ANY evidence to put it in context is how investigations are now held? This is news to me.

I refer to my last post. If you have a context (and the emotional investment that that entails), a long drawn out investigations can easily be bent to conform to your own preconceptions. Sometimes (not always) the immediate impression is just as valuable as the rabbithole of self deception that a longer 'scientific' investigation entails.

Two equally intelligent people can see the same facts and come up with different interpretations according to their political world view. This guy had no emotional investment and saw it how it was. as someone has mentioned, he has had the courage to investigate further and maintain his position without the emotional hijacking that is rife in this debate - a truly rare and scientifically 'pure' development.

Sometimes over investigating the facts in detail can be a block to the truth - you would rather focus upon an elaborate and hyperthetical scientific explanation that supports your political worldview, than see the elephant in the room. Its really hard to explain to overly logical people that their most treasured faculty may actually lead to an ultimately irrational stance.

BTW i dont support demolition of WTC1 and 2 - I just find WTC7 completely perplexing and appreciate all of you guys being here to help me get my own answers

thanks

Donal

23rd February 2007, 12:56 PM

you would rather focus upon an elaborate and hyperthetical scientific explanation that supports your political worldview, than see the elephant in the room.

Yes, we call this the Truth movement.

Science is science. And intellectually honest person won't let political leanings change what he or she sees.

parmanides

23rd February 2007, 01:03 PM

Yes, we call this the Truth movement.

Science is science. And intellectually honest person won't let political leanings change what he or she sees.

'science' can also be politics too

Donal

23rd February 2007, 01:06 PM

No, it can't. Science relies on hard data.

If you want to prove that the report has been influenced by politics, simply show where they erred. The data won't lie.

Prove them wrong.

Quad4_72

23rd February 2007, 01:12 PM

Two equally intelligent people can see the same facts and come up with different interpretations according to their political world view.

What about the hundreds of engineers in the scientific community that don't agree with the very few woos out there?

parmanides

23rd February 2007, 01:15 PM

parmanides

23rd February 2007, 01:20 PM

What about the hundreds of engineers in the scientific community that don't agree with the very few woos out there?

wont let me post links as im newbie!!
see post2371601

Quad4_72

23rd February 2007, 01:27 PM

Newsflash!!

human beings (for it is they who write scientific reports) live in a logical vacuum bubble with no emotional (therefore political) impulses shaping their perspective or investigative outcomes.

news to me. And how very 'unscientific' of you to not take the whole human into account :)

What in the world is that supposed to mean? Are you now suggesting that we ignore science because people can be politically biased?

mailman

23rd February 2007, 01:31 PM

That 'chestnut' is a sociological fact.

If you mailman were to (for whatever reason) become a 'conspiracy theorist', would you not loose the esteem and emotional kudos of most of the people here. If you were given a salary via them to make your posts, would you not then jeopardise your livelyhood.

The reason I would loose the esteem and emotional kudos of my fellow peers is simply because when you become a member of the 9/11 cult you become a moron and credibility becomes a thing of the past.

Mailman

parmanides

23rd February 2007, 01:50 PM

What in the world is that supposed to mean? Are you now suggesting that we ignore science because people can be politically biased?

if you like your reality black and white Quad4 then yes.

me, i like to use science AND see its limitations

Its just not my religion reverend

parmanides

23rd February 2007, 01:52 PM

The reason I would loose the esteem and emotional kudos of my fellow peers is simply because when you become a member of the 9/11 cult you become a moron and credibility becomes a thing of the past.

Mailman

regardless of whether or not you would make such a conversion (and god forbid, be proven wrong), the sociological fact STILL remains

Quad4_72

23rd February 2007, 02:03 PM

if you like your reality black and white Quad4 then yes.

me, i like to use science AND see its limitations

Its just not my religion reverend

If its good science, NO politics are involved. That is the kind of science I use. So what are the political motives and agendas of the leaders of the "truth" movement? How does it effect their science? (As has been proven time and time again, it effects their science A LOT)

parmanides

23rd February 2007, 02:11 PM

If its good science, NO politics are involved. That is the kind of science I use. So what are the political motives and agendas of the leaders of the "truth" movement? How does it effect their science? (As has been proven time and time again, it effects their science A LOT)

my point exactly -which is why Jowenko is so valuable

Firestone

23rd February 2007, 02:14 PM

my point exactly -which is why Jowenko is so valuableJowenko could be valuable, if he provides a clear paper with his arguments. That way, his peers can evaluate them.

Quad4_72

23rd February 2007, 02:18 PM

my point exactly -which is why Jowenko is so valuable

Peer review is key. Writing down random beliefs about what you THINK happened or what it LOOKED like is not sufficient evidence. When Jowenko writes a peer reviewed paper that has been submitted to credible peer review sources, let us know.

Minadin

23rd February 2007, 02:23 PM

The collapse of WTC 7 does look like a controlled demolition in the same way that a DC-8 looks like a Boeing 707. Or, if you prefer, in the same way that a coral snake might look like a red milk snake. That doesn't mean one = the other.

Redtail

23rd February 2007, 02:28 PM

Isn't there a paper written by a demo expert debunking CD? I remember seeing it on some site but I can't find it.

mailman

23rd February 2007, 02:48 PM

regardless of whether or not you would make such a conversion (and god forbid, be proven wrong), the sociological fact STILL remains

The only fact here is that morons like Jones et al are exactly that...morons.

They have been ostracised because they are wacko's.

Mailman

T.A.M.

23rd February 2007, 02:57 PM

First of all, I appreciate the honesty in your opinions Parmanides. Here are my comments on them:

That 'chestnut' is a sociological fact.

If you mailman were to (for whatever reason) become a 'conspiracy theorist', would you not loose the esteem and emotional kudos of most of the people here. If you were given a salary via them to make your posts, would you not then jeopardise your livelyhood.

regardless of whether or not you would make such a conversion, the socialogical fact remains

I don't buy this when it comes to the murder of thousands of people. I for one, would risk my job and my livelihood in a heartbeat if I thought to not do so would allow the murderer of 3000 people to go free. I would like to think that most of my fellow human beings would do so as well.

I refer to my last post. If you have a context (and the emotional investment that that entails), a long drawn out investigations can easily be bent to conform to your own preconceptions. Sometimes (not always) the immediate impression is just as valuable as the rabbithole of self deception that a longer 'scientific' investigation entails.

Two equally intelligent people can see the same facts and come up with different interpretations according to their political world view. This guy had no emotional investment and saw it how it was. as someone has mentioned, he has had the courage to investigate further and maintain his position without the emotional hijacking that is rife in this debate - a truly rare and scientifically 'pure' development.

Sometimes over investigating the facts in detail can be a block to the truth - you would rather focus upon an elaborate and hyperthetical scientific explanation that supports your political worldview, than see the elephant in the room. Its really hard to explain to overly logical people that their most treasured faculty may actually lead to an ultimately irrational stance.

BTW i dont support demolition of WTC1 and 2 - I just find WTC7 completely perplexing and appreciate all of you guys being here to help me get my own answers

thanks

This is a complete fallacy in almost all cases, particularly complex issues such as the collapses of the towers. If we have never seen a building collapse straight down by any other means than CD (ie the argument that no skyscraper has collapsed due to fire, so what else has caused them to come down), than of course anyone, expert or idiot, will say a building coming straight down looks like a "demolition", as it is our only frame of reference wrt collapsing buildings. The scientific investigation, details surrounding the collapse, debris/airliners hitting it are all VITAL to the TRUTH of why the buildings collapsed, not simply watching a VIDEO of the collapse.

'science' can also be politics too

NO, science, in its pure form is not politics. Politics can EFFECT Science, it can manipulate the outcomes of science, but science IS NOT politics.

my point exactly -which is why Jowenko is so valuable

Jowenko is valuable to the CT movement for what he hasnt said, for what he hasnt looked at. He is valuable because he has made the blanket statement of "WTC7 was done via CD" without examining the evidence (in my opinion, as I do not believe he has read the NIST report).

Trust me, I would bet money that if Jowenko read and UNDERSTOOD the NIST, he would likely retract his statement, or at least make it less absolute.

TAM:)

sleahead

23rd February 2007, 03:20 PM

I would like one thing from Jowenko - his explanation for the lack of seismic spikes that would occur from explosive detonations at WTC7. No seismic spikes = no CD. If he comes up with a wooish explanation for this, then he is a lost cause.

Donal

23rd February 2007, 03:24 PM

Hell, I'd like a peer reviewed paper from him.

David Wong

23rd February 2007, 03:38 PM

I think the entire industry would like to know the method for rigging a building for CD in a matter of a couple of hours. It'd save millions.

WildCat

23rd February 2007, 03:59 PM

Politics can EFFECT Science
[nit]
No, politics can AFFECT science.
[/pick]

The Doc

23rd February 2007, 04:12 PM

Jowenko's opinion is obviously important.

He is qualified in the field of demolition. However, his reason for stating why he thinks the building was a demolition is ridiculous. Secret documents I believe.

WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition. That offers no proof that it was a controlled demolition.

The opinion of a structural engineer would be more valid in this case.

Miragememories

23rd February 2007, 04:14 PM

First of all, I appreciate the honesty in your opinions Parmanides. Here are my comments on them:

I don't buy this when it comes to the murder of thousands of people. I for one, would risk my job and my livelihood in a heartbeat if I thought to not do so would allow the murderer of 3000 people to go free. I would like to think that most of my fellow human beings would do so as well.

This is a complete fallacy in almost all cases, particularly complex issues such as the collapses of the towers. If we have never seen a building collapse straight down by any other means than CD (ie the argument that no skyscraper has collapsed due to fire, so what else has caused them to come down), than of course anyone, expert or idiot, will say a building coming straight down looks like a "demolition", as it is our only frame of reference wrt collapsing buildings. The scientific investigation, details surrounding the collapse, debris/airliners hitting it are all VITAL to the TRUTH of why the buildings collapsed, not simply watching a VIDEO of the collapse.

NO, science, in its pure form is not politics. Politics can EFFECT Science, it can manipulate the outcomes of science, but science IS NOT politics.

Jowenko is valuable to the CT movement for what he hasnt said, for what he hasnt looked at. He is valuable because he has made the blanket statement of "WTC7 was done via CD" without examining the evidence (in my opinion, as I do not believe he has read the NIST report).

Trust me, I would bet money that if Jowenko read and UNDERSTOOD the NIST, he would likely retract his statement, or at least make it less absolute.

TAM:)

Trust you..as if...lol.

Jowenko got caught with his pants down the first time he was shown the video of the WTC7 collapse. As an expert and confident in his trained eye, he called it the way he saw it.

When he was informed as to the nature of the building he was jolted by the realization that he had added his expert opinion to a 9/11 event.

Since then he has examined the blueprints of WTC7 and has had ample opportunity to recant his statement and avoid further controversy directed at him. Amazingly, he has stuck to his guns and still stands by his professional opinion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

He even acknowledges that members of the controlled demolition industry in America are unlikely to risk their livelyhood by agreeing that WTC7 was a CD. Something that I have be saying all along!

He's an expert and you folks aren't!

Now you discount his belief because it doesn't fit with your own..even though you aren't qualified experts.

Jowenko knows he was originally only examining a video. He followed up with analysis of the WTC7 blueprints and he knows the nature of the buildings condition on 9/11; fire and debris damage. ALL the information was readily available to him. The easy road was to back off and say it wasn't a CD and no one would have thought the less of him. BUT NO..he knew what he saw and his investigation confirmed his belief. It was a controlled demolition, he knew controlled demolitions and he knew the conditions at that time did not suit any other explanation.

Of course you folks would disagree with God him/herself before you'd admit maybe you were mistaken in a belief.

The Truth Movement isn't asking for a belief in flying saucers or space rays...they are merely asking for a proper investigation into 9/11 because there is sufficient reason to cast doubt on the official conclusions that have been accepted as fact.

Yes there are loonys in the Truth Movement but JREF and it's ilk isn't comprised of a 100% stellar membership either.

MM

Wartrac

23rd February 2007, 04:47 PM

So where is his evidence other than looking at it saying it's a CD? No paper at all....what is his account for the penthouse collapse.....so the building fell to the S/SE and the north face fell upon the southern section of WTC7 that collapsed first? If he came out with some form of explanation other than "It looks like a CD" I would be more apt to listen.

And as the question was asked a million times......does this mean he is also right about WTC 1+2 not being a CD?

ConspiRaider

23rd February 2007, 05:17 PM

Jowenko's opinion is obviously important.

He is qualified in the field of demolition. However, his reason for stating why he thinks the building was a demolition is ridiculous. Secret documents I believe.

After looking at the video of his translated interview, I am incredibly underwhelmed by his conclusions. He definitely - despite his qualifications - seems to be just shooting from the hip on his reasons as to why WTC 7 was deliberately demolished. Vague references to "it's all about the money".

I didn't see anything about secret documents, but that would have been a planted idea by the interviewer anyway, if it happened. And totally meaningless. His ideas on motive are as valid as anyone's - no special weight can be given there.

Nothing impressed me about his reasons given for determining that WTC7 was a CD. He seemed to be casting around to justify it.

He's going to have to do a full analysis to be taken more seriously, and he's going to have to square that with what is projected to come from NIST's analysis.

parmanides

23rd February 2007, 05:27 PM

thanks for the response TAM:)

First of all, I appreciate the honesty in your opinions Parmanides. Here are my comments on them:

I don't buy this when it comes to the murder of thousands of people. I for one, would risk my job and my livelihood in a heartbeat if I thought to not do so would allow the murderer of 3000 people to go free. I would like to think that most of my fellow human beings would do so as well.

Maybe If you know your evidence would conclusively prove CD - The nature of this debate means you could lose everything and still be just another voice in the wilderness - very few would take that risk

This is a complete fallacy in almost all cases, particularly complex issues such as the collapses of the towers. If we have never seen a building collapse straight down by any other means than CD (ie the argument that no skyscraper has collapsed due to fire, so what else has caused them to come down), than of course anyone, expert or idiot, will say a building coming straight down looks like a "demolition", as it is our only frame of reference wrt collapsing buildings. The scientific investigation, details surrounding the collapse, debris/airliners hitting it are all VITAL to the TRUTH of why the buildings collapsed, not simply watching a VIDEO of the collapse.

thats cos in his expert opinion, no amount of collateral damage could give the impression of such a symetric and clean collapse - the initial observation immediately precludes such observations. He knows that the 'evidence' would need to be pretty far out to explain what he saw prima facie. too many conflicting reports and speculative science around the official story means he is forces to stick to his original assesment. If you think NIST is not speculative I suggest you reread.

NO, science, in its pure form is not politics. Politics can EFFECT Science, it can manipulate the outcomes of science, but science IS NOT politics.

we are not machines, we are humans, and our experimentation is greatly shaped by what we expect to find - there is no such thing as pure science, other than an abstract idea that you mistake for reality[/QUOTE]

Jowenko is valuable to the CT movement for what he hasnt said, for what he hasnt looked at. He is valuable because he has made the blanket statement of "WTC7 was done via CD" without examining the evidence (in my opinion, as I do not believe he has read the NIST report).

He has looked, and has kept his opinion

Trust me, I would bet money that if Jowenko read and UNDERSTOOD the NIST, he would likely retract his statement, or at least make it less absolute.

lets wait and see - though in this climate of character smearing i cant see him relishing that prospect:)

T.A.M.

23rd February 2007, 06:29 PM

MM:

You are so bitter lately...and you seem to have a thing for responding to my posts in particular. Thanks for the attention, but I get enough from FRIENDS and FAMILY.

Parm:

While I agree that Science is not perfect, it is far from POLITICS. As I have said, of course, due to the human factor, it can be AFFECTED (wildcat) by such, but the two are not equal in any sense.

I notice that people who believe Jowenko seem to be speaking alot for him. I am hearing things from you and MM that are obviously speculation or assumption. Since the man has spoken very little of it, and hasnt been interviewed by anyone since the "show him the video only" debacle, How can these things you say he has done (examine the blue prints, read and understood NIST, etc..) be any more than assumption?

If we assume, and it is a great assumption, that he has read the blue prints, and has read NISTs preliminary report on WTC7, and he still feels that WTC7 was ABSOLUTELY taken down by CD, than I will concede that you have ONE, I repeat, ONE Demolition Expert who believes the truth movements side of things.

Score = truth movement:1 Debunkers:The rest

TAM:)

T.A.M.

23rd February 2007, 06:33 PM

The Truth Movement isn't asking for a belief in flying saucers or space rays...they are merely asking for a proper investigation into 9/11 because there is sufficient reason to cast doubt on the official conclusions that have been accepted as fact.

If I thought this was the only thing the truth movement was asking for I would have easily relented by now and said,

"For the love of god give these people their damn investigation...even if it is to just shut them up."

However;

1. This is FAR from all the truth movement wants or seeks or states.
2. Even if the movement got their investigation, they would dismiss any and all evidence that did not fit their CTs, claiming shills and disinfo etc...blah blah blah!!!

TAM

twinstead

23rd February 2007, 06:54 PM

Like a balance sheet, all it takes is ONE similarly qualified CD expert to disagree with Jowenko and we are back to square one.

I'm concerned about any 'movement' that relies on so little evidence, a lone expert here, an anomaly there.

I still submit that any rational, unbiased person, when presented with the bulk of evidence concerning 911 and looking at it in a non political, non ideological way can only come to the conclusion that the official story, while not perfect, is the best explanation of what happened that day.

Some rogue, distanced CD expert is not going to change my opinion. In fact, it is telling to me that you CTs are so keen to take and run with ANY possible vindication of your world view without question.

I don't like you people, you extremists. I never will, and I will fight until my last breath to protect my family from the likes of you ever coming to power in my country.

Take that whatever way you like.

gumboot

23rd February 2007, 09:16 PM

I wonder if he has read the testimony of the firemen who witnessed WTC7.

The FDNY testimony is the key in the WTC7 debate. Either the building was brought down due to structural damage and fires, as described by the FDNY, or the FDNY were in on the plot to demolish the building. There are no other options.

I wonder if the demolition expert in question has had the matter of WTC7 put to him in these terms. If he says WTC7 is a CD, he is saying the FDNY were involved in it.

-Gumboot

Dazed

24th February 2007, 02:07 AM

The official "we know more about controlled demolition than someone who does it for a living" thread.

Yay.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

That must be why Silverstein had to "pull" the firefighters out.

Mashuna

24th February 2007, 02:25 AM

parmanides

24th February 2007, 02:50 AM

So has Jowenko had his career ruined then? If not, this would seem to give the lie to the theory that people are scared to come forward when they 'know the truth'.

Well he hasnt exactly 'come forward' - he is just a rare case of someone who has observed an event prima facia without the normal bias that infects this debate.

im as certain as i can be that there are people and contractors that would distance themselves from him if only because he is surrounded by controversy, unpredictability of viewpoint, and is high profile - amounts to the same thing

parmanides

24th February 2007, 03:18 AM

MM:

Parm:

While I agree that Science is not perfect, it is far from POLITICS. As I have said, of course, due to the human factor, it can be AFFECTED (wildcat) by such, but the two are not equal in any sense.

I notice that people who believe Jowenko seem to be speaking alot for him. I am hearing things from you and MM that are obviously speculation or assumption. Since the man has spoken very little of it, and hasnt been interviewed by anyone since the "show him the video only" debacle, How can these things you say he has done (examine the blue prints, read and understood NIST, etc..) be any more than assumption?

If we assume, and it is a great assumption, that he has read the blue prints, and has read NISTs preliminary report on WTC7, and he still feels that WTC7 was ABSOLUTELY taken down by CD, than I will concede that you have ONE, I repeat, ONE Demolition Expert who believes the truth movements side of things.

Score = truth movement:1 Debunkers:The rest

TAM:)

Hi TAM

I dont get this idea that science is this pure 'god' given faculty, that cannot lie, and is "all we've' got".

If you contest this, you are flying in the face of decades of modern and continental philosophy and humanities which identify the role of the observer. science is a step by step process and at every step unseen forces are litterally shaping what your senses tell you - come on, this is hardly new stuff. As i ve said before, i dont discount science, i just factor in the observer as well as the observed - if the 'conspiracy theory' became the prevailing paradigm throughout society, you would have thousands of highly intelligent scientists and engineers all finding corroberating evidence for CT. History clearly bares this out, russian/usa science 50 years ago for example.

i dont think Jowenko 'proves' anything - as with everything about 911 - it is another cumulative instance that points to a larger interpretation - given weight by his impartiality.

I dont want to repeat myself :) but there are reasons why anything that challenges the prevailing paradigm will appear to be an outnumbered view - but i dont form my opinion basedon the number of people who (publicly at least) believe it.

PerryLogan

24th February 2007, 03:52 AM

Jowenko is obviously a government shill.

There, you see? Now we don't have to listen to what Jowenko says.

If the Truthers can ignore inconvenient sources by calling them shills, so can we.

The Doc

24th February 2007, 04:34 AM

I didn't see anything about secret documents, but that would have been a planted idea by the interviewer anyway, if it happened. And totally meaningless. His ideas on motive are as valid as anyone's - no special weight can be given there.

I don't think the document issue was in the video. I can't remember though.

At some point (in a different interview? It was on a forum I think - don't know if it was legit) he said something along the lines of "I think that WTC7 was a demolition because the CIA had offices there".

Miragememories

24th February 2007, 07:23 AM

I don't think the document issue was in the video. I can't remember though.

At some point (in a different interview? It was on a forum I think - don't know if it was legit) he said something along the lines of "I think that WTC7 was a demolition because the CIA had offices there".

I think I remember Cheny off mic saying how well the demolition of WTC7 unfolded and how lucky they were to get away with fooling everyone; (It was mentioned was on a forum I think-don't know if it was legit).

MM

CHF

24th February 2007, 07:23 AM

Trust you..as if...lol.

Jowenko got caught with his pants down the first time he was shown the video of the WTC7 collapse. As an expert and confident in his trained eye, he called it the way he saw it.

When he was informed as to the nature of the building he was jolted by the realization that he had added his expert opinion to a 9/11 event.

Since then he has examined the blueprints of WTC7 and has had ample opportunity to recant his statement and avoid further controversy directed at him. Amazingly, he has stuck to his guns and still stands by his professional opinion that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

He even acknowledges that members of the controlled demolition industry in America are unlikely to risk their livelyhood by agreeing that WTC7 was a CD. Something that I have be saying all along!

He's an expert and you folks aren't!

Now you discount his belief because it doesn't fit with your own..even though you aren't qualified experts.

Jowenko knows he was originally only examining a video. He followed up with analysis of the WTC7 blueprints and he knows the nature of the buildings condition on 9/11; fire and debris damage. ALL the information was readily available to him. The easy road was to back off and say it wasn't a CD and no one would have thought the less of him. BUT NO..he knew what he saw and his investigation confirmed his belief. It was a controlled demolition, he knew controlled demolitions and he knew the conditions at that time did not suit any other explanation.

Of course you folks would disagree with God him/herself before you'd admit maybe you were mistaken in a belief.

The Truth Movement isn't asking for a belief in flying saucers or space rays...they are merely asking for a proper investigation into 9/11 because there is sufficient reason to cast doubt on the official conclusions that have been accepted as fact.

Yes there are loonys in the Truth Movement but JREF and it's ilk isn't comprised of a 100% stellar membership either.

MM

MM,

you are aware that Jowenko says the WTC towers were NOT demolitions, right?

So if you think he's reliable then here's where that leaves you: the WTC towers collapsed according to the OS while WTC7 was blown up 7 hours later for reasons that are not clear.

Good luck explaining that theory to a judge.

Miragememories

24th February 2007, 07:34 AM

CHF

24th February 2007, 07:37 AM

Yes it's apparently standard operating procedure for the FDNY brass to call building owners to get permission [b]to 'pull' fire fighters from non-existing fire fighting operations.[/n]

Yes, nothing strange about that...sigh.

MM

Silverstein didn't give permission - he was agreeing with what was already decided.

Good lord.

Mashuna

24th February 2007, 07:42 AM

Well he hasnt exactly 'come forward' - he is just a rare case of someone who has observed an event prima facia without the normal bias that infects this debate.

im as certain as i can be that there are people and contractors that would distance themselves from him if only because he is surrounded by controversy, unpredictability of viewpoint, and is high profile - amounts to the same thing

When you say 'I'm as certain as I can be', is that because you assume people will be distancing themselves from him because of his opinions, or do you have any evidence that this has actually ocurred?

pomeroo

24th February 2007, 08:22 AM

[=parmanides;2373370]Well he hasnt exactly 'come forward' - he is just a rare case of someone who has observed an event prima facia without the normal bias that infects this debate.

im as certain as i can be that there are people and contractors that would distance themselves from him if only because he is surrounded by controversy, unpredictability of viewpoint, and is high profile - amounts to the same thing

But, you have completely missed the point. The only way that a demolition specialist such as Jowenko can misinterpret the photos of WTC 7 is that his bias overrides his technical knowledge.

He understands that jihadists flew planes into the Twin Towers. Please, stop right there--the whole conspiracy edifice just collapsed into its own footprints. He believes, vaguely, that intelligence findings and other documents were stored in WTC 7, the contents of which government officials judged as too sensitive for public consumption. Arguing with him, it is difficult to convey the idea that carting those papers away in boxes would probably have been more efficient than blowing up the building. And it is precisely that sort of impasse that reveals the existence of an irrational bias.

Miragememories

24th February 2007, 10:45 AM

MM,

you are aware that Jowenko says the WTC towers were NOT demolitions, right?

So if you think he's reliable then here's where that leaves you: the WTC towers collapsed according to the OS while WTC7 was blown up 7 hours later for reasons that are not clear.

Good luck explaining that theory to a judge.

A judge would see that WTC7 was a different building than WTC1 and WTC 2 and therefore 'judge' accordingly.

Regarding Jowenko's opinion about the WTC 1 & 2 collapses;

First of all, he couldn't be as objective about images that had been seared into his mind as well as those of the whole world. When he watched the WTC7 collapse video, it was just another building, with no special significance in his mind, so he was as objective as he could professionally be, not influenced by pre-knowledge or other's opinions.

Secondly, the WTC 1 & 2 collapses compared to the WTC7 collapse were not typical controlled demolitions. No one in the 9/11 Truth Movement suggests they are typical CDs. They lacked the 'look' of the classic controlled demolition and he wasn't about to challenge standing belief, at least not on visual evidence alone.

Danny Jowenko had no such doubts about WTC7, it was an 'easy' call and he never hesitated in saying so.

Given a few years since he first declared that opinion, he followed up with a study of the WTC7 building plans, as well as had the opportunity to study all the information available about the WTC7 collapse from FEMA and NIST, as well as media accounts and firefighter eyewitness testimonials.

In the recent phone interview which started this thread, he calmly made it quite clear that he definitely still believed that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and that he felt American experts in the field felt the same, but wouldn't dare speak out because of the risk it would place on future business.

MM

parmanides

24th February 2007, 10:50 AM

But, you have completely missed the point. The only way that a demolition specialist such as Jowenko can misinterpret the photos of WTC 7 is that his bias overrides his technical knowledge.

He understands that jihadists flew planes into the Twin Towers. Please, stop right there--the whole conspiracy edifice just collapsed into its own footprints. He believes, vaguely, that intelligence findings and other documents were stored in WTC 7, the contents of which government officials judged as too sensitive for public consumption. Arguing with him, it is difficult to convey the idea that carting those papers away in boxes would probably have been more efficient than blowing up the building. And it is precisely that sort of impasse that reveals the existence of an irrational bias.

thanks for response pom:)

If The building came down from controlled demolition, the motive is academic.
detonation means inside job

As a long standing world expert on demolition, he can see that anything other than controlled demolition to make the building destruct like it did, would require a convoluted 'scientific' explanation more outrageous than the average 'conspiracy theory'. thats why he vaguely points to possible motives and methods - they are speculative inferences following on from a legitmate and undeniable primary observation.

even the official explanation is self admitted as highly improbable!

NoZed Avenger

24th February 2007, 10:58 AM

This is funny, in a perverse way.

"He's an expert; you're not -- so you must accept his bare opinion as correct."

"His opinion is against you on buildings 1 and 2."

"Oh, well, of course on those he's wrong. He's just an undisputable expert on the building where he seems to agree with me."

pomeroo

24th February 2007, 11:03 AM

[=Miragememories;2374074]A judge would see that WTC7 was a different building than WTC1 and WTC 2 and therefore 'judge' accordingly.

Regarding Jowenko's opinion about the WTC 1 & 2 collapses;

First of all, he couldn't be as objective about images that had been seared into his mind as well as those of the whole world. When he watched the WTC7 collapse video, it was just another building, with no special significance in his mind, so he was as objective as he could professionally be, not influenced by pre-knowledge or other's opinions.

Secondly, the WTC 1 & 2 collapses compared to the WTC7 collapse were not typical controlled demolitions. No one in the 9/11 Truth Movement suggests they are typical CDs. They lacked the 'look' of the classic controlled demolition and he wasn't about to challenge standing belief, at least not on visual evidence alone.

Danny Jowenko had no such doubts about WTC7, it was an 'easy' call and he never hesitated in saying so.

Given a few years since he first declared that opinion, he followed up with a study of the WTC7 building plans, as well as had the opportunity to study all the information available about the WTC7 collapse from FEMA and NIST, as well as media accounts and firefighter eyewitness testimonials.

In the recent phone interview which started this thread, he calmly made it quite clear that he definitely still believed that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and that he felt American experts in the field felt the same, but wouldn't dare speak out because of the risk it would place on future business.

MM

So, the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 are controlled demolitions because they don't look like controlled demolitions, and the collapse of WTC 7 is a controlled demolition because it does look like one. I see. I'm glad we cleared that up!

We continue: the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 are not "typical" demolitions. At last, something we can agree on. Yes, it is true that they are not demolitions at all, typical or atypical. I won't make myself appear ridiculous by feigning interest in your explanation of the precise nature of the demolitions of the Twin Towers. I do want to know why the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy decided on a type of demolition unknown to the demolition industry when the traditional method worked so well--if oddly belatedly--for WTC 7. Surely there is more involved than the IVC's well-documented propensity for leaving clues.

parmanides

24th February 2007, 11:04 AM

When you say 'I'm as certain as I can be', is that because you assume people will be distancing themselves from him because of his opinions, or do you have any evidence that this has actually ocurred?

hi mashuna:)

I have ethnic and disabled friends who have been turned down for jobs - 'I'm as certain as I can be', as a consequence of their race/physical condition. Could I get evidence of that? Highly unlikely.

Is there any truth to it - Highly likely

I would hate to live in your world, where reality is put on hold until 'evidence' that conforms to your own standards is found!

parmanides

24th February 2007, 11:09 AM

thanks for response pom:)

If The building came down from controlled demolition, the motive is academic.
detonation means inside job

As a long standing world expert on demolition, he can see that anything other than controlled demolition to make the building destruct like it did, would require a convoluted 'scientific' explanation more outrageous than the average 'conspiracy theory'. thats why he vaguely points to possible motives and methods - they are speculative inferences following on from a legitmate and undeniable primary observation.

even the official explanation is self admitted as highly improbable!

ps i dont believe cd on wtc1 and 2

pomeroo

24th February 2007, 11:12 AM

[=parmanides;2374081]thanks for response pom:)

If The building came down from controlled demolition, the motive is academic.
detonation means inside job

As a long standing world expert on demolition, he can see that anything other than controlled demolition to make the building destruct like it did, would require a convoluted 'scientific' explanation more outrageous than the average 'conspiracy theory'. thats why he vaguely points to possible motives and methods - they are speculative inferences following on from a legitmate and undeniable primary observation.

even the official explanation is self admitted as highly improbable!

But the building did NOT come down from controlled demolition, ergo, no inside job.

Why does Jowenko's opinion carry more weight for you than the opinions of ALL other demolition experts? Don't be silly: Of course it's a rhetorical question.

"even the official explanation is self admitted as highly improbable!"

Could we have an English translation for that sentence? How can an explanation, official or otherwise, "self-admit" (huh?) anything. Tell us the names of the real scientists, structural engineers, and demolition experts who find the conventional explanations for the collapse of WTC 7 "highly improbable."

pomeroo

24th February 2007, 11:15 AM

[=parmanides;2374118]ps i dont believe cd on wtc1 and 2

I'm sure almost everyone here is waiting to pounce, so I'll be brief: Say, What?

Firestone

24th February 2007, 11:18 AM

But the building did NOT come down from controlled demolition, ergo, no inside job.

Why does Jowenko's opinion carry more weight for you than the opinions of ALL other demolition experts? Don't be silly: Of course it's a rhetorical question.

"even the official explanation is self admitted as highly improbable!"

Could we have an English translation for that sentence? How can an explanation, official or otherwise, "self-admit" (huh?) anything. Tell us the names of the real scientists, structural engineers, and demolition experts who find the conventional explanations for the collapse of WTC 7 "highly improbable."I guess he is referring to the following paragraph from FEMA's report about WTC7:

The loss of the east penthouse on the videotape suggests that the collapse event was initiated by the loss of structural integrity in one of the transfer systems. Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.CTist generally forget that last sentence, of course.

pomeroo

24th February 2007, 11:20 AM

[=Firestone;2374139]I guess he is referring to the following paragraph from FEMA's report about WTC7:

CTist generally forget that last sentence, of course.

And when NIST finally releases its exhaustive report, the fantasists will reject it without reading it.

Miragememories

24th February 2007, 11:30 AM

So, the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 are controlled demolitions because they don't look like controlled demolitions, and the collapse of WTC 7 is a controlled demolition because it does look like one. I see. I'm glad we cleared that up!

We continue: the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 are not "typical" demolitions. At last, something we can agree on. Yes, it is true that they are not demolitions at all, typical or atypical. I won't make myself appear ridiculous by feigning interest in your explanation of the precise nature of the demolitions of the Twin Towers. I do want to know why the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy decided on a type of demolition unknown to the demolition industry when the traditional method worked so well--if oddly belatedly--for WTC 7. Surely there is more involved than the IVC's well-documented propensity for leaving clues.

Distortion of what I wrote. I never said the WTC 1 & 2 collapse didn't look like controlled demolitions. Is lying about what people say your favourite method of discussion..pomeroo?

Dropping bombs from an overhead plane onto a building would also be a form of controlled demolition, although it wouldn't look like a typical 'classic' CD.

MM

T.A.M.

24th February 2007, 11:33 AM

And when NIST finally releases its exhaustive report, the fantasists will reject it without reading it.

Well...almost. What I suspect will come out of the report, because they are HONEST SCIENTISTS WITHOUT AN AGENDA, is they will state that while all the evidence to date points towards a collapse caused by Debris damage and untreated fires, as per their interim report, they cannot rule out that BLAST EVENTS could not have created the collapse.

Of course they will say there is no evidence to indicate there was a BLAST EVENT, but the very lack of ruling it out will make the children of the "truth" go absolutely wild with glee. We will see quotes in signatures from NIST stating "we cannot rule out a blast event".

Come back here when it is out, and acknoledge my correctness...lol

TAM:)

Miragememories

24th February 2007, 11:39 AM

I guess he is referring to the following paragraph from FEMA's report about WTC7:

CTist generally forget that last sentence, of course.

NOT AT ALL!

The average seeker of the Truth about 9/11 sets a proper investigation as the primary goal!

Thank you for quoting that closing line from the FEMA report Firestone.

Professor Jones likes to refer to it as well when arguing that the current official story explaining the collapse of WTC7 doesn't stand up.

MM

pomeroo

24th February 2007, 11:50 AM

[=Miragememories;2374166]Distortion of what I wrote. I never said the WTC 1 & 2 collapse didn't look like controlled demolitions. Is lying about what people say your favourite method of discussion..pomeroo?

Dropping bombs from an overhead plane onto a building would also be a form of controlled demolition, although it wouldn't look like a typical 'classic' CD.

MM

It's always good for a few laughs when conspiracy liars pretend they're being lied about.

"They lacked the 'look' of the classic controlled demolition and he wasn't about to challenge standing belief, at least not on visual evidence alone."

Your words, right? You say that they (the collapses of the Twin Towers) lack the look of controlled demolitions. I write that you say that they didn't look like controlled demolitions. Somehow, I'm lying.

Am I missing anything?

Should we go over this again?

Aha! I've got it! They didn't look like classic controlled demolitions. Now we're making progress. Explain the concept of non-classic demolition. Is it anything like the top-down demolition dreamed up by some loon on 911blogger.com? Tell us why the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy employed non-classic demolition for the Twin Towers, but regarded the classic stuff as good enough for WTC 7.

Here's another example of your "favorite method of discussion":

"I think I remember Cheny off mic saying how well the demolition of WTC7 unfolded and how lucky they were to get away with fooling everyone; (It was mentioned was on a forum I think-don't know if it was legit).

MM"

I think I remember pitching a no-hitter in the World Series and striking out seventeen guys with my 100mph heater. Am I lying or merely nuts? No, you do not remember Cheney saying anything of the sort. NOBODY DOES. The reason nobody does is that it didn't happen. Are you lying or merely nuts?

T.A.M.

24th February 2007, 11:55 AM

Its like everything else with the twoof movement. They will use something word for word until it is proven unlikely, then they will modify what they call it or how they present it, so that it fits their silly theories.

CD was paraded around for ages by the twoofers, until people with brains actually showed how silly a premise it was, and how the collapses looked nothing like CD, then they started to differentiate it into "Classic" versus "Atypical". That will go on for a while, until it is also proven silly. Then they will likely change it to "Explosives" versus "Official Story", and then when that doesnt work anymore...well then they'll all just jump on the Starwars Beam theory wagon.

TAM:)

Firestone

24th February 2007, 12:12 PM

NOT AT ALL!

The average seeker of the Truth about 9/11 sets a proper investigation as the primary goal!I have yet to meet an "average seeker of the Truth about 9/11" who can properly define a "proper investigation". :rolleyes:

Thank you for quoting that closing line from the FEMA report Firestone.

Professor Jones likes to refer to it as well when arguing that the current official story explaining the collapse of WTC7 doesn't stand up.I would expect a professor to understand the following process:

hypothesis
do
investigate
adapt hypothesis
loop until hypothesis fits the facts

Once the final report on WTC7 is out, we'll see if the "Truth Movement" will be able to falsify it.
If the NIST-report on WTC 1/2 serves as precedent, it will not.

Panoply_Prefect

24th February 2007, 12:16 PM

Do all demolition experts agree with each other all the time? I for one am not surprised that you can find one demo expert who agrees on WTC7 was CD'ed. Its a huge world, and I imagine there are plenty demo experts around.

The interesting thing to see is how he came to the conclusion and how he fits that into the rest of knowledge around 911 we have. Like, how did he think they did it, what would he deem be the proper timeframe for such a demo-job etc.

If Im allowed to go woo here for an instance, I could easily think of unsubstantiated scenarios where WTC7 were brought down, but still excluding 911 from being an "inside job". I find it highly unlikely given the evidence at hand though.

CHF

24th February 2007, 12:17 PM

A judge would see that WTC7 was a different building than WTC1 and WTC 2 and therefore 'judge' accordingly.

Regarding Jowenko's opinion about the WTC 1 & 2 collapses;

First of all, he couldn't be as objective about images that had been seared into his mind as well as those of the whole world. When he watched the WTC7 collapse video, it was just another building, with no special significance in his mind, so he was as objective as he could professionally be, not influenced by pre-knowledge or other's opinions.

Secondly, the WTC 1 & 2 collapses compared to the WTC7 collapse were not typical controlled demolitions. No one in the 9/11 Truth Movement suggests they are typical CDs. They lacked the 'look' of the classic controlled demolition and he wasn't about to challenge standing belief, at least not on visual evidence alone.

Danny Jowenko had no such doubts about WTC7, it was an 'easy' call and he never hesitated in saying so.

Given a few years since he first declared that opinion, he followed up with a study of the WTC7 building plans, as well as had the opportunity to study all the information available about the WTC7 collapse from FEMA and NIST, as well as media accounts and firefighter eyewitness testimonials.

In the recent phone interview which started this thread, he calmly made it quite clear that he definitely still believed that WTC7 was a controlled demolition and that he felt American experts in the field felt the same, but wouldn't dare speak out because of the risk it would place on future business.

MM

So Jowenko is reliable when you agree with him but unreliable when you don't.

You're a hypocrite, MM. No two ways about it.

You have a painful choice to make, kid: either say goodbye to Jowenko as a source or say goodbye to your WTC tower demolition fantasies.

You can't cling to them both at the same time and not be an idiot.

T.A.M.

24th February 2007, 12:20 PM

Actually, Jowenko has explained that the reason WTC1 & 2 were not brought down by CD was because they came down top down, and this is not how it is done. This is why they are all hopping on the "Atypical" demolition bandwagon now. Heaven forbid they should just admit they came down the way NIST has said they did.

TAM:)

parmanides

24th February 2007, 12:27 PM

CHF

24th February 2007, 12:29 PM

I don't many demolition experts will jump to the defence of a theory that says on 9/11 the guv executed two demolitions that looked, sounded and behaved nothing at all like demolitions, thus indicating that they were special demolitions.

When something isn't at all like a demolition....it probably isn't one. Radical concept, I know.

T.A.M.

24th February 2007, 12:31 PM

pomeroo

24th February 2007, 12:31 PM

[=parmanides;2374305]hmm, why would I ever be suspicious of a GOVERNMENT report devised to asses the details of a potentialGOVERNMENT sponsored terrorist act??:confused:

Sorry guys, we could argue this one for ever - if you review my posts, all I really wanted to do was highlight Jowenko's unique and precious influence on the debate - irrespective of government reports and conditioned opinions

I hope you found at least some things to chew on, thanks and bye:)

Yes, it is quite natural and reasonable to be suspicious of an apolitical agency whose function is to determine why structures fail. Their connection to the shadow army that controls EVERYTHING is obvious.

Jowenko's wrong-headed guess is "precious" because it supports your fantasies.

I'm afraid I found little to chew on, but much to gag on.

Panoply_Prefect

24th February 2007, 01:27 PM

Why does the CT rational automatically think that all govt agencies will do what ever it takes to protect the current administration? This is thinking at a grade 3 level of logic and rational. There were hundreds of engineers and scientists that contribute to the NIST reports. Many of them had nil to no affiliation with the Republican party or the BUSH admin, yet you think it is quite simply...

NIST = GOVT, so NIST is covering up...man that is juvenile...and paranoid beyond belief.

TAM

Actually this is one of the things I thought the BBC documentary contributed most with. If you read the name of a military airline pilot or a scientist on the net, its very easy starting to accuse them for being "in on it" or "neocon" or "bought". However if you get to see the person behind the name tag its a totally different story - seeing the C-130 pilot, O'Brien, in the living, the coroner, Miller, and that scientist doing the Pentagon simulations, Hoffmann - suddenly they are not just "lieutenant colonel" (obvious government secret agent), but next-door neighbour, father-of-two, O'Brien (I wonder if Fetzer would be as feisty towards O'Brien had he been face to face with him...). BBC did what should be considered 101 - they left the internet and went into the real world and talked to the sources.

Its very, very easy sitting behind a keyboard in your own room, dissemniating accusations, playing detective, investigator or scientist. Its much harder to do it face-to-face. Me thinks it would have done the world a lot of good if all truthers had to actually face those they accuse, before posting on Youtube, Google and in the LC forums...

Cheers,
SLOB

Miragememories

24th February 2007, 03:06 PM

Actually this is one of the things I thought the BBC documentary contributed most with. If you read the name of a military airline pilot or a scientist on the net, its very easy starting to accuse them for being "in on it" or "neocon" or "bought". However if you get to see the person behind the name tag its a totally different story - seeing the C-130 pilot, O'Brien, in the living, the coroner, Miller, and that scientist doing the Pentagon simulations, Hoffmann - suddenly they are not just "lieutenant colonel" (obvious government secret agent), but next-door neighbour, father-of-two, O'Brien (I wonder if Fetzer would be as feisty towards O'Brien had he been face to face with him...). BBC did what should be considered 101 - they left the internet and went into the real world and talked to the sources.

Its very, very easy sitting behind a keyboard in your own room, dissemniating accusations, playing detective, investigator or scientist. Its much harder to do it face-to-face. Me thinks it would have done the world a lot of good if all truthers had to actually face those they accuse, before posting on Youtube, Google and in the LC forums...

Cheers,
SLOB

Excellent point SLOB

It's unfortunate that all the people in LC and JREF are so comfortably hidden behind aliases and computer screens. We are real people with families and want to live out our lives like everyone else.

The damn internet and one-dimensional text communication makes it so easy to turn us into adversaries.

Too bad it's so hard to drop our guards and have truly open communication without fear of being bashed in the process.

MM

beachnut

24th February 2007, 03:29 PM

Excellent point SLOB

It's unfortunate that all the people in LC and JREF are so comfortably hidden behind aliases and computer screens. We are real people with families and want to live out our lives like everyone else.

The damn internet and one-dimensional text communication makes it so easy to turn us into adversaries.

Too bad it's so hard to drop our guards and have truly open communication without fear of being bashed in the process.

MM

Yes as we see the guys telling the truth shine through and those telling lies like Fetzer look like nuts.

pomeroo

24th February 2007, 03:33 PM

[=Miragememories;2374739]Excellent point SLOB

It's unfortunate that all the people in LC and JREF are so comfortably hidden behind aliases and computer screens. We are real people with families and want to live out our lives like everyone else.

The damn internet and one-dimensional text communication makes it so easy to turn us into adversaries.

Too bad it's so hard to drop our guards and have truly open communication without fear of being bashed in the process.

MM

Now, then--about that memory of Dick Cheney...

T.A.M.

24th February 2007, 03:38 PM

Excellent point SLOB

It's unfortunate that all the people in LC and JREF are so comfortably hidden behind aliases and computer screens. We are real people with families and want to live out our lives like everyone else.

The damn internet and one-dimensional text communication makes it so easy to turn us into adversaries.

Too bad it's so hard to drop our guards and have truly open communication without fear of being bashed in the process.

MM

You try living by your own words there MM, and I can guarantee you I am an honorable enough fellow to do the same.

TAM

Miragememories

24th February 2007, 03:54 PM

Yes as we see the guys telling the truth shine through and those telling lies like Fetzer look like nuts.

I hate to agree about Fetzer but he has lost it.

I hate to label people as liars and I don't see him as such but he has definitely drifted off the path.

MM

Miragememories

24th February 2007, 03:56 PM

Now, then--about that memory of Dick Cheney...

lol..damn if I only had a tape of that.

Sorry, pure fiction, but I was merely poking at The Doc in his attributing comments to Jowenko without source...something we are constently acused of.

MM

Miragememories

24th February 2007, 04:02 PM

You try living by your own words there MM, and I can guarantee you I am an honorable enough fellow to do the same.

TAM

I can assure you T.A.M. "cut me and I will bleed."

Bully me and it's another matter.

We are all hiding alias personas and while it can be fun it ignores the fact that we are all real people living in the real world.

I love my family as much as I'm sure you love yours and I am well aware that the subject that we wrestle over is an ugly thing...wish it wasn't so..I would rather tussle over sports teams or favourite movies.

May you prove me an idiot...I wish it so in spite of my convistions.

MM

Cl1mh4224rd

24th February 2007, 04:32 PM

BTW he also explains (from an insiders position) that his co-professionals in the in the demolition field would have their careers ruined if they were to be as brave as him in calling it like they see it - explains alot
That's like a Catholic priest saying that pedophilia/homosexuality is acceptable to God, but no other Catholic priest will come forward, because they fear having their "careers" ruined, then pointing to all the priests who admit to such acts and have had their "careers" ruined as proof.

I believe that's called "affirming the consequent", and it's a logical fallacy.

gumboot

24th February 2007, 04:36 PM

May you prove me an idiot...I wish it so in spite of my convistions.

MM

You hear this argument a lot from those that support alternative theories for 9/11...

"I wish it wasn't true, I don't want it to be true..." blah blah.

I don't buy it for one second. There is SO MUCH evidence supporting the accepted account, and SO LITTLE supporting ANY alternative theory, that one could only support the alternatives by WILLINGLY ignoring evidence. Don't give me that "I wish it so" BS. You're a CTer. You CHOOSE to be a CTer in defiance of reality.

-Gumboot

Cl1mh4224rd

24th February 2007, 04:48 PM

T.A.M.

24th February 2007, 04:58 PM

twinstead

24th February 2007, 05:02 PM

As well, I believe even though there was no actual firefighting going on, that the FDNY did set up a perimeter about the building. I believe it was the contingent of firefighters along this perimeter that he was referring to.

In fact, I'll go further and say that to anybody with half a brain these are the firefighters he was referring to.

beachnut

24th February 2007, 05:13 PM

hmm, why would I ever be suspicious of a GOVERNMENT report devised to asses the details of a potential GOVERNMENT sponsored terrorist act??:confused:

Sorry guys, we could argue this one for ever - if you review my posts, all I really wanted to do was highlight Jowenko's unique and precious influence on the debate - irrespective of government reports and conditioned opinions

I hope you found at least some things to chew on, thanks and bye:)
I would be very suspicious of your posts after you think this:

This is the truth (above and beyond all the nonsense that gets spoken) of high-level freemasonry and secret societies.
It appears you may be kind of nutty. You believe in secret societies who can make us all act or treat us like cattle. Yet you display the knowledge of logic and reasoning of most CTers who act like lemmings in a cult.

You now make a veiled attempt to tie NIST to some secret organization in the government. Some groups that make sure all groups in the Goobermint are in line with some big CT. Yet the FBI fights the CIA, they fight the OMB, etc, etc, etc… Organizations in the government would turn each other in on such a CT as 9/11 truth movement dolts tell. These government entities have more mental prowess then you will ever show and would be able to turn in others who would do us harm.

Maybe you are like the Fortiers and can not talk to the authorities with you evidence to prove 9/11 was an inside job. I suggest you get off drugs, or what ever is keeping you from being able to go to the authorities. Clean up your act, go to the authorities ASAP and save us all with you rock solid evidence of the inside job that you know 9/11 was.

When can we expect the liberation you seek to provide us?

Freddy

24th February 2007, 05:48 PM

I refer to my last post. If you have a context (and the emotional investment that that entails), a long drawn out investigations can easily be bent to conform to your own preconceptions. Sometimes (not always) the immediate impression is just as valuable as the rabbithole of self deception that a longer 'scientific' investigation entails.

Wow, I never realized that science was just a "rabbit hole of self deception." I guess I'm going to have to become a troofer now (and now that I think about it, a creationist as well).

By the way, you are well named (though poorly spelled), since Parmenides was a Greek philosopher who denied that there was any such thing as change or motion, and that there is really only one thing that exists (appropriately called "the One"). You carry on the proud tradition of arguing the absolutely ridiculous. Well, not quite, since you haven't technically offered any arguments. But hey, the spirit is the same.

Cl1mh4224rd

24th February 2007, 06:18 PM

hmm, why would I ever be suspicious of a GOVERNMENT report devised to asses the details of a potential GOVERNMENT sponsored terrorist act??:confused:
You do realize that the people involved in the investigation of the WTC1 and WTC2 collapses weren't all government employees, right?

http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/

Quite a few of them were from academia and the private sector.

Myriad

24th February 2007, 06:50 PM

Quite a few of them were from academia and the private sector.

Didn't you know? The private sector's in on it too.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Dave Rogers

26th February 2007, 03:14 AM

It's unfortunate that all the people in LC and JREF are so comfortably hidden behind aliases and computer screens. We are real people with families and want to live out our lives like everyone else.

The damn internet and one-dimensional text communication makes it so easy to turn us into adversaries.

Too bad it's so hard to drop our guards and have truly open communication without fear of being bashed in the process.

I agree, sometimes it's hard to do anything online that doesn't turn into a flamewar, and as a result not much actual communication takes place.

Miragememories, just hypothetically assuming Jowenko is right, and WTC7 was demolished intentionally and WTC1 and 2 were not - what are the implications for the Truth movement? It seems to me that, although this is a piece of evidence that can't be too lightly dismissed, taken as a whole it suggests that nobody was guilty of anything more than demolishing an empty building that would have required major repairs or demolition anyway. Do you have a realistic scenario in which there is evidence of anything worse?

Dave

hellaeon

26th February 2007, 03:38 AM

if you like your reality black and white Quad4 then yes.

me, i like to use science AND see its limitations

Its just not my religion reverend

The science method has worked for aeons and the results are used politically, not the other way around. When it is done wrong, the process within exposes the frauds either immediately or over time.

You dont even know what you dont know. Dont embaress yourself further.

hellaeon

26th February 2007, 03:46 AM

I can assure you T.A.M. "cut me and I will bleed."

Bully me and it's another matter.

We are all hiding alias personas and while it can be fun it ignores the fact that we are all real people living in the real world.

I love my family as much as I'm sure you love yours and I am well aware that the subject that we wrestle over is an ugly thing...wish it wasn't so..I would rather tussle over sports teams or favourite movies.

May you prove me an idiot...I wish it so in spite of my convistions.

MM

Your lying. You dont want proof. You just want mystery and accusations, aparent deception and a handle that you be known as the shining light in all of it.

Your wrong. Get it? Prove any of the official reports wrong and you will get unseen magnitudes of adoration from the world for exposing the lies and bringing thousands and thousands of lying engineers and NWO agents to justice. All the resulting structural building regulations that have changed since will be null and void because some legend of the cyber scooby doo cracked the case!

Do you enjoy sado masochistic mental anguish?