IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags danny jowenko

Reply
Old 19th September 2006, 04:27 PM   #1
MarkyX
Master Poster
 
MarkyX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,157
Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

Remember this man talking about the WTC7 and how it was bought down by "bombs" due to showing only ONE video ?

Look what he says about the WTC, which 9/11 Deniers won't promote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI
__________________
MarkyX's Haunted Bloghouse - Read my boredom
MarkyX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2006, 04:31 PM   #2
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
I wish you'd address all our evidence of you being part of some HUGE conspiracy!!1!!one!!
Bell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2006, 05:00 PM   #3
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
What I hate, is they will still try to have it both ways. They will say he is a rock solid expert opinion for collapse of WTC7 via CD, but will say he didn;t know enough about the "proposed atypical demolition" that CTers suggest for WTC1 &2.

None the less, I would like to get Mr. Jowenko to sit down and read...yes READ the NIST Interim Report, and then see what he says.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 04:13 AM   #4
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
It seems to me that a new generation of truthers are emerging, at least here in Sweden, and since truther websites are prone to not actually removing old stuff, they tend to pick up somewhere 2005-2006.

This makes the old Jowenko vides starting to circulate again (which is how Google led me to this thread), and I was wondering if he ever elaborated, or even commented on the final WTC7 NIST report?
Panoply_Prefect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 04:32 AM   #5
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by MarkyX View Post
Remember this man talking about the WTC7 and how it was bought down by "bombs" due to showing only ONE video ?

Look what he says about the WTC, which 9/11 Deniers won't promote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI
It appears that the video is gone. If it's Jowenko explaining why WTC 1 and 2 were NOT man-made demolition, this link broke a long time ago.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 05:54 AM   #6
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,652
Jesus, bumping a 3 year old thread, that has to be a new forum best of sorts
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 06:25 AM   #7
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
It appears that the video is gone. If it's Jowenko explaining why WTC 1 and 2 were NOT man-made demolition, this link broke a long time ago.

He explained that no one could have rigged WTC 1&2 and that he was in line with the official "NWO"-explanation. However, the Twoofers never accepted his stance while quotemining the "interesting" parts of the interview...
Oliver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 06:36 AM   #8
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Jesus, bumping a 3 year old thread, that has to be a new forum best of sorts
Yes, sorry about that, I normally don't bump old threads. But this time I think its appropriate - although I post here regularly, this thread popped up when I was responding on a different board to one of the Truther TNG's. There really isn't any need to start yet another WTC7 CD thread IMHO.

It's actually sort of proves my point, the truthers take of in 2006, so this thread mirrors of how nothing happens in three years, and then just takes off as if time have been frozen...

And even though Truthers TNG ignores it, a lot has happened - the NIST WTC7 report for instance. I haven't heard anything from Jowenko since the release of that report. In his interviews he didn't strike me as a truther, so I still wonder if he maintains his position, and if he has been interviewed again, somewhere.
Panoply_Prefect is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 06:40 AM   #9
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect View Post
I haven't heard anything from Jowenko since the release of that report.

Well, you could ask him personally, if he doesn't have enough about all the stupidity already, of course...

http://www.jowenko.com/index.php/1,1,2
Oliver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 07:09 AM   #10
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Panoply_Prefect View Post
Yes, sorry about that, I normally don't bump old threads. But this time I think its appropriate - although I post here regularly, this thread popped up when I was responding on a different board to one of the Truther TNG's. There really isn't any need to start yet another WTC7 CD thread IMHO.

It's actually sort of proves my point, the truthers take of in 2006, so this thread mirrors of how nothing happens in three years, and then just takes off as if time have been frozen...

And even though Truthers TNG ignores it, a lot has happened - the NIST WTC7 report for instance. I haven't heard anything from Jowenko since the release of that report. In his interviews he didn't strike me as a truther, so I still wonder if he maintains his position, and if he has been interviewed again, somewhere.
Here's your answer:

Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.

Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.

Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?

Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.

Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --

Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."

Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.

Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.

Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?

Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?

Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.

Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.

Danny Jowenko: Exactly . http://www.pumpitout.com

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 07:15 AM   #11
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Here's your answer:

Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:

Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.

Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right. *snip*

http://www.pumpitout.com

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Oh, so you did present NIST's final explanation of the WTC7 collapse to Jowenko and ask him about it, right?

Anyway:

Quote:
Email: info@jowenko.com
Tel: +31 118 612735
Fax: +31 118 612779
Mobile: +31 653 24 21 25

Address:
Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V.
Veerseweg 107
NL - 4351 SL VEERE
Netherlands
Oliver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 07:22 AM   #12
JAStewart
Graduate Poster
Tagger
 
JAStewart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,521
RedIbis - get him in a court room! If he's your (only) expert who thinks its a CD, get him to testify to that. Get him to write a paper to get peer reviewed!

So much possibilities! So much time! So little chance of happening!
__________________
Ignorance and google is a horrible combination. - BigAl

Argumentum ad YouTubeum - sts60
JAStewart is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 07:30 AM   #13
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
Oh, so you did present NIST's final explanation of the WTC7 collapse to Jowenko and ask him about it, right?

Anyway:

Have you asked him about it? If you do, what are you going to say if he asks what physical evidence did NIST use to support their unprecedented, single column causing global collapse hypothesis?
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 07:34 AM   #14
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Have you asked him about it? If you do, what are you going to say if he asks what physical evidence did NIST use to support their unprecedented, single column causing global collapse hypothesis?

No, I didn't ask him since it's obvious that he didn't know all the facts concerning WTC7 back then, just like some other posters in here today ...
Oliver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 07:46 AM   #15
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Oliver View Post
No, I didn't ask him since it's obvious that he didn't know all the facts concerning WTC7 back then, just like some other posters in here today ...
What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 07:49 AM   #16
HyJinX
Graduate Poster
 
HyJinX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,662
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?
That WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition
__________________
What? You pooped in the refrigerator? And you ate the whole... wheel of cheese? How'd you do that? Heck, I'm not even mad; that's amazing. - Ron Burgundy
HyJinX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 07:52 AM   #17
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by HyJinX View Post
That WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition
That's an opinion.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 07:54 AM   #18
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,659
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Have you asked him about it? If you do, what are you going to say if he asks what physical evidence did NIST use to support their unprecedented, single column causing global collapse hypothesis?
Red, is it your contention that it is not possible to definitively determine what caused WTC7 to collapse without physical evidence?
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 07:58 AM   #19
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
That's an opinion.
One shared by a whole bunch of people who know a whole bunch more than you do about buildings and how they are built and how they fail.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 08:02 AM   #20
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 27,155
I always found it strange that Jeff Hill (if that's his real name) got straight through to Jowenko. Did Danny not have a secretary/receptionist? Did the recording start after the secretary transferred the call? If so, why?

Even stranger is the lack of comment from Truthers about the pack of lies that DJ was fed in the original video interview. "These 12" springs to mind from memory (the number of core columns). So does "You could walk around it" (of the debris pile).

Could go on. Can't be arsed.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 08:12 AM   #21
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
Danny Jowenko never mentioned hearing any sort of explosions on the tapes when he was interviewed. I brought that to the attention to the Truthers a long time ago. They wouldn't hear of it.
9/11 Chewy Defense is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 08:23 AM   #22
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Whatever happened to Jowenko? Haven't heard a thing about him, or from him, in 2+ years.

Seems he didn't persue the truth and the truthers didn't persue him. Oh well, throw him into the pile with Laura Chavez, Kevin McPadden and 'Mike the EMT' I suppose.

And I've never been able to figure out why the truthers thought Jowenko was so valuable to their cause. He disagrees with the "truth" 2/3 of the time!

For his opinion to be of value for the truthers we have to assume that he's wrong more often than he's right, and in the minority of cases where he's right he's unquestionably right.
CHF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 08:23 AM   #23
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?

That the Penthouse collapsed through that whole building before it collapsed. That a HUGE chunk of the WTC Tower did crash into the building. That there were several fires for hours. What else do you need to understand that the building was damaged in a severe manner?
Oliver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 08:30 AM   #24
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Red, is it your contention that it is not possible to definitively determine what caused WTC7 to collapse without physical evidence?
I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.

Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 08:31 AM   #25
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?
That structural failure due to fire and the lack of firefighting caused the collapse.

The exact manor of structural failure is claimed to be the failure of a specific beam. Peole with the facts and relevant expertise might debate that, but nobody claims that fire wasn't the primary cause.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 08:37 AM   #26
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
That structural failure due to fire and the lack of firefighting caused the collapse.

Maybe RedIbis is right and fires alone might not have brought the building down. But given the big chunk of debris of a WTC-tower falling into the side of WTC7 and the Penthouse on top of WTC7 crashing through that whole building, it is no effing surprise whatsoever that the whole building collapsed.

Quite the opposite, after all that immense damage, only a fool would claim that all of that was irrelevant concerning the buildings internal structure/stabillity.
Oliver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 08:40 AM   #27
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.

Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.
Ahhhhh so it wasn't impossible that wtc7 came down because of structural damage and fire. Thank you.

Job done. We can all go home now.
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 08:43 AM   #28
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,573
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.
What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it?
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 08:47 AM   #29
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it?
ooooohh I bet it's controlled demolition supported by evidence of sequential bright flashes and explosions immediately before the structure came down, together with evidence of the demolition charges having been installed and maintained during the fire and backed up with circumstantial evidence regarding the motive behind the cd of wtc7...which was.... ummmmm....some reason...to do with....stuff...an' such.
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 08:50 AM   #30
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it?
I predict that RedIbis will not be answering this question. Too bad stating the obvious does not qualify one for the MDC.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 09:01 AM   #31
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,573
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
I predict that RedIbis will not be answering this question. Too bad stating the obvious does not qualify one for the MDC.
I'm really curious.

If there is no physical evidence as Red claims, then that means there is no physical evidence for ANY theory concerning WTC7. That means that any proposed theory is based on video footage, sound, eyewitness reports, scientific knowledge, etc.

I would like to know what other theory, in Red's opinion, shows a more plausible explanation than what NIST describes.
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 09:03 AM   #32
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
What theory to you subscribe to concerning WTC7 and what physical evidence supports it?
Hey man, if you ignore the penthouse collapse and turn off the volume for the rest of the collapse, it's just like a CD!

What more do you need?
CHF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 09:05 AM   #33
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
RedIbis once claimed that he had a theory better than NIST's regarding WTC7 and that somehow column 79 was his best evidence. He, of course, refused to explain.
dtugg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 09:09 AM   #34
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
Originally Posted by Gamolon View Post
I would like to know what other theory, in Red's opinion, shows a more plausible explanation than what NIST describes.

P.E.E.'s
Phantasy-Enhanced-Explosives
Oliver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 09:09 AM   #35
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 14,659
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
I'm not an absolutist so I wouldn't say, "not possible." I would say that a collapse theory based almost entirely on computer simulation is highly unreliable, subject to manipulation, and far inferior to a theory which is supported by physical evidence.
So then Jowenko's assessment of WTC7's collapse is, at best, as equally unreliable as that of NIST due to its same lack of physical evidence. And you therefore agree that Jowenko's opinion should be summarily dismissed, right?

Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.
Please remind me what those two novel phenomena are.

Last edited by johnny karate; 20th November 2009 at 10:41 AM. Reason: I was greatly troubled by my inclusion of an unnecessary apostrophe
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 09:10 AM   #36
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 32,936
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
What facts do you know that he or "other posters" don't?
For a start, he was shown the collapse videos without the soundtrack, so he wouldn't have been aware of the absence of deafeningly loud explosions immediately before the beginning of the collapse.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 09:12 AM   #37
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 32,936
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Please remember that NIST is proposing two novel phenomena without any physical evidence.
Unlike the novel phenomena proposed by the truth movement, the novel phenomena proposed by NIST are consistent with known scientific laws.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 09:13 AM   #38
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
For a start, he was shown the collapse videos without the soundtrack, so he wouldn't have been aware of the absence of deafeningly loud explosions immediately before the beginning of the collapse.

Dave
Reportedly he wasn't told that WTC1 had collapsed just a few hundred feet from the opposite side of the video he was asked to comment on.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 09:17 AM   #39
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
Reportedly he wasn't told that WTC1 had collapsed just a few hundred feet from the opposite side of the video he was asked to comment on.

As far I remember, they didn't even show him that the Penthouse on top of WTC7 crashed through the whole building before the rest of WTC7 collapsed as well.
Oliver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2009, 09:18 AM   #40
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 32,936
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
Reportedly he wasn't told that WTC1 had collapsed just a few hundred feet from the opposite side of the video he was asked to comment on.
Or that the building had been in fire for seven hours, or that it had 47 storeys, or, indeed, that it was WTC7.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.