Jowenko sticks by his statement. (Audio from yesterday)

[Quad4_72]

Apparently Jowenko still thinks that wtc7 was a controlled CD. Any one hear about this? Not that it matters, but still.

[Firestone]

So it is.

[CHF]

So when's his written report?

He could be famous!

[mailman]

Who is he and why is he infamous?

Mailman

[T.A.M.]

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

[T.A.M.]

Here is all I have to say to Jowenko:

1. did you read NISTs report?
2. If so, do you disagree with any of it?
3. If so, what areas do you diasgree, where are they wrong amd why?

If he answers these to my satisfaction, I will give him some credibility, otherwise he is merely another person LOOKING AT A VIDEO that LOOKS LIKE A CD, and saying, YES THAT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS BROUGHT DOWN BY CD.

TAM

[JAStewart]

Are demo experts structural experts?

[pomeroo]

Quote:

=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.]

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]

Originally Posted by JAStewart

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]

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

[parmanides]

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]

Originally Posted by mailman

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]

Originally Posted by parmanides

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

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.

[mailman]

Ah yes, that old chestnut of destroyed careers!

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!

Mailman

[Aphelion]

Originally Posted by pomeroo

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.]

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]

Originally Posted by mailman

Ah yes, that old chestnut of destroyed careers!

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]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Donal

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]

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]

Originally Posted by parmanides

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]

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

[parmanides]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

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]

Originally Posted by parmanides

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]

Originally Posted by parmanides

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]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

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]

Originally Posted by mailman

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]

Originally Posted by parmanides

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]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

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]

Originally Posted by parmanides

my point exactly -which is why Jowenko is so valuable

Jowenko could be valuable, if he provides a clear paper with his arguments. That way, his peers can evaluate them.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by parmanides

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by parmanides

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.]

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

Originally Posted by parmanides

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.

Originally Posted by parmanides

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.

Originally Posted by parmanides

'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.

Originally Posted by parmanides

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]

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]

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

[David Wong]

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.