- This topic has 424 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“You made only one point above that interests me” is the perfect response to all my frustration and anger at the wilful ignorance of those both more learned, more knowleadgeable and better positioned to understand and make use of the truth.
Regarding Danny Jowneko when I find the interview I have in mind I will post it. The short clip below gives the strong impression that the consequences for talking about controlled demolition are severe, which only really makes sense if the emergency scenario you favour did not happen. If people one day discovered that a building was quickly demolished on the day of 9/11, that could have no conceivable consequence, unless and only if it was not true. Unless it was proof that 9/11 was prepared and carried out from within the United States as a self inflicted wound. That’s leaving aside all the other contradictions this theory requires.
https://ia801702.us.archive.org/20/items/DannyJowenko022207/danny_jowenko_022207.mp3
At some point you’ll apply Occams razor. The simplest explanation of all the known facts, not just those which took place on September 11th, can not include this fantasy of an emergency demolition. It serves the authors of 9/11 to insist on it without evidence.
I’ll apologise for something after you apologise for calling me a racist.
OK, you’re talking to me again rather than playing to the gallery, and thanks for the link. That’ll do; I’ll post my reply under its appropriate parent comment above.
I believe that Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1” is foundational to Twin Tower demolition theory ….
Apparently so, but nobody else does. The 9/11 truth movement regards Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1” as just one of many pieces of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. You insist it is “foundational” and demand that everybody else discuss this point to the exclusion of all others. Your obsession extends to the point of blaming him for coronavirus protests in the UK.
How is your accusation consistent with reasoned debate about 9/11?
Ah; ridicule. I had hoped you might engage with some of the evidence I mentioned. Instead I’m accused thus:
– “Well of course those good murderers of the American state must be acting in good faith. Iraq? Chirac! It must have been rigged in super quick time, just a few hours. Super life saving job”
I have repeatedly stated that I think it likely that 9/11 was a NATO Secret Services Gladio B operation, to create a false justification to make the invasion of Afghanistan a NATO operation. I do not regard the US state as benign; it’s an evil empire of global military and economic domination. I was on the February 2003 demonstration, I have heckled Blair at multiple other demos, and I joined the Labour Party to support Corbyn, precisely because he never once voted for war. For saying that I trust the US state, you owe me an apology.
– “Danny looked for the only explanation available to his world view at the time”
Watch the video; the opposite seems to be the case. Jowenko studies WTC7’s plans, and goes through multiple methods of bringing it down. He even works out what sort of team would be needed. Designing and directing demolitions is what he did for a living; Jowenko clearly deploys his professional expertise.
– “Danny didn’t hold onto this next level of denial, he jettisoned it. As an expert he had to let it go.”
Evidence please. [Note – J has since provided a link.]
– “Until ‘yesterday’ Clark maintained there was no demolition”
That’s not true; my first references to emergency demolition were on Craig’s original 9/11 Post thread, closed to comments for some years now.
OK J, so you must think that the New York firefighters were in on the conspiracy. Just after hundreds of their comrades had been killed in the collapse of WTC2, the conspiracy somehow told the remaining firefighters “move the public back from WTC7 because we’re about to detonate a load of explosives it was already rigged with but which we never told you about”. Why the sudden change in heart, from secrecy and mass slaughter, to warning the firefighters and evacuating an exclusion zone? But whatever, the firefighters just did as they were told, like unthinking morons. These hundreds of men, many of them ex-military, brave enough to enter the burning Twin Towers, furious at the death of their comrades, just meekly obeyed their faceless masters and moved the public back with the words “move back, that building is about to blow up”, as recorded on video. I can’t express how utterly ludicrous I find such a proposal. The firefighters knew, but they didn’t object.
– “Why? Why this grand charade of officialdom to pretend demolition did not occur? Why did NIST falsify it’s own data to conceal demolition?”
Well possibly because the emergency demolition of WTC7 would release masses of asbestos and other toxins into the air. It would be a deliberate, premeditated act, so whoever authorised it would be liable to pay out compensation for the damage to people’s health, and when people started dying of asbestosis, anyone involved with the demolition could be charged with premeditated murder.
– – – – – – – –– “Why did NIST pretend something impossible happened three times in one day?”
J, someone must have told you that the collapses of the Twin Towers were impossible without explosives, causing you to build a scenario around that. I’ve seen dozens of websites that make that claim, many citing Chandler’s paper and Newton’s laws. But it’s not true; those sites mislead. The Twin Towers collapsed just as Newton’s laws predict for such structures. I know that because I’m reasonably good at Newtonian mechanics; I considered the structures, watched multiple collapse videos repeatedly, sometimes frame by frame, did a few sums and worked it out for myself. It’s all consistent – the initial crush at the damaged zone, the accelerating internal collapse, the peeling of the perimeter, the brief survival of the core remnant – everything I’ve seen, right down to the stripped bolts and the disposition of the debris. Structural failure initiating progressive collapse, just as maintained by the global mechanical engineering and building safety communities in their hundreds of thousands.
Look inside, J; ask yourself why you need to ridicule someone who, rather than accepting a common story told on multiple websites, hunts down the evidence, does the sums and works it out for himself. What’s so much better about believing an unofficial story just because it’s repeated on multiple websites, compared with believing the official story because it’s repeated in papers and on TV? Is it secret knowledge that you crave, a sense of being “in the know”? How can you be sure the conspirators didn’t deploy the story of Twin Tower demolition as a fall-back? The only safe strategy is to work it out oneself, so that’s what I’ve tried to do.
[Note – I had to post last night’s reply in two parts to get around Wordfence site security software]
As I wrote before, I don’t remember this incident. If you link to it, I will comment about it, and possibly apologise.
OK I’ve listened to your link danny_jowenko_022207.mp3. Yes, I realise that the argument has become polarised; we saw a similar effect with the European physics journal fiasco. But there’s nothing in this ‘phone interview suggesting that Jowenko changed his mind about an emergency demolition.
– “The 9/11 truth movement regards Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1” as just one of many pieces of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.”
So you do still accept it. You could have just said so instead of trying to fudge the issue. Just below, J refers to the collapses of the Twin Towers as “impossible”, and all over Truther websites you’ll find the claim that the collapses “broke Newton’s laws”.
I do Newtonian mechanics. Newton’s laws predict natural collapse as videoed; the opposite of the so-called Truther position.
Therefore, Twin Tower demolition theory is an anti-science conspiracy theory; it requires that the vast majority of the technically competent, millions upon millions of us, are all keeping quite about a flagrant fraud. As such it feeds public distrust of the scientific community and the very practice of science, and thus encourages climate science conspiracy theory and CoVID-19 conspiracy theory etc.
And behold! The Truthers are no longer interested in the UAF Report. Just as I predicted, their real target is the Twin Towers.
I admit, your view has evolved since I last encountered it on the other thread a good few years ago.
“OK J, so you must think that the New York firefighters were in on the conspiracy. Just after hundreds of their comrades had been killed in the collapse of WTC2”
That doens’t follow. They doing what they were told on the day. Many have been asking questions ever since.
How is your accusation that Chandler is responsible for coronavirus protests in the UK
consistent with reasoned debate about 9/11?Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration of WTC1” is by far the simplest, most concrete, least ambiguous false scientific argument I have ever seen. People think they understand it in full. To those who have fallen for it, it proves that the vast, vast majority of the millions of the technical and scientific community, all over the world, will proclaim the opposite of provable truth, because some unseen authority dictates what they say. There’s no mucking about with the vagaries of complex systems such as climate or the human body, no room for doubt or maybe. In the minds of the convinced, “scientists and engineers are merely whores; Chandler proved it with Newton’s laws”.
This corrupts the public’s understanding of what scientists do. It proclaims, essentially, that there is no science, there’s just authority, and if authority says “say the following”, scientists comply. And that is precisely the theme behind anti-vax, climate change denial, and covid-19 denial. And Node, you subscribe to the latter two as well.
Chandler is not the prime cause of science denial, that honour falls to the corporate media (see Goldacre’s Bad Science ), but he’s probably a major plank in it; the claims in his paper are certainly all over most of the Truther websites. People have informal conversations, you know? Attitudes tend to proliferate.
Just answer the question, or say “I made a ridiculous assertion, I retract it.”
I think you’ll find that Truthers are generally very unpopular with New York firefighters; they are certainly hostile to Alex Jones.
Regarding the five fire commissioners, ie. bureaucrats, of a minor, non-professional and volunteer fire company, try looking somewhere less biassed than A&E9/11″Truth”. You’ll find that although a vote proposed by just one commissioner was passed by the five, the rest of them refer all enquiries on that issue back to the one. A spokesman says that this one commissioner’s opinion is personal, and does not represent the view of the company.
Thanks for recognising that my views have evolved.
To follow up the point I made earlier that controlled demolitions fall with acceleration less than g, here’s a side-by-side video; count the storeys and note that WTC7 falls through about twice as many in the same time – though I wonder if the video on the right hadn’t also been slowed down:
The WTC7 Collapse: The World Trade Center Building 7 proof of Implosion — Ron South (YouTube)
I think the firefighters must have known of the emergency demolition. Some said that WTC7 would “either fall down, or be taken down” in the afternoon.
The WTC7 Demolition Flashes video that you linked to earlier seems to be a hoax:
They Fell For My Hoax 9/11 Video — EdwardCurrent (YouTube)
Demolition flashes on WTC building 7 – Mystery solved — Professor Simon Holland (YouTube)
I don’t think it’s ridiculous, so I don’t retract it. Chandler’s paper is anti-scientific and feeds public rejection of scientific findings. Chandler should retract it.
(But even if he did retract it, Truthers would just claim he’d been threatened. Wouldn’t you Node?)
So how do you get from Chandler’s paper to coronavirus?
I told you. How many more times?
Chandler’s paper implies the scientific and technical community tell the opposite of the truth in the service of authority.
Pb’s and your covid-19 theory says that the scientific and technical community tell the opposite of the truth in the service of authority.
See the similarity? Node, this is your damn ideology; “there are no facts, all opinions are equally valid, it all just depends on who you ask”. So if someone says it’s 5G causing illness and the virus is a hoax, that’s supposedly just as valid as the work of virologists, geneticists and epidemiologists. “Science is bollox; it’s just a conspiracy”.
You’ll never read Bad Science, will you?
Yes, but why Chandler? Why have you fixated on him? Surely Richard Gage would be a better candidate for chief 9/11 conspiracy theorist? It won’t be easy convincing any sane person that either of them are responsible for arson in Birmingham, but since you are determined, may I suggest you can make a better case for Gage being the culprit.
Node, do you give a flying fuck about science? You seem not to; you act like it’s all a game. When University of Alaska Fairbanks say WTC7 was brought down by explosives, you champion the supremacy of science, but when John Hopkins University says there’s a pandemic of a new virus, you say its a hoax. You do the whole thing backwards; choose your conclusion, and then either champion science or trash it as serves your purpose. I expect you’re contemptuous of my sincerity; “what a sucker”.
Gage is just a promoter and a bureaucrat. It’s Chandler who gives it a veneer of scienciness, with his papers, plots, graphs, tracking and talk about Newton’s laws.
“Gage is just a promoter …”
Yes, Gage promotes and coordinates the evidence for all aspects of the theory that the Twin Towers were explosively demolished, a theory that you say is unscientific. However Chandler is only responsible for a small part of that evidence. Furthermore, Gage is much better known than Chandler.
If your reasoning is that a 9/11 conspiracy theorist is responsible for the damage to 5G masts in Birmingham because the arsonists there have been encouraged by his bad grasp of science then surely Gage has been far more influential than Chandler and must shoulder the lion’s share of the blame?
I’d like to get this point clear before we tackle the question of whether Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists also share some of the blame.
Good question Node.
In the scientific and rational domain, “good question” flags a potential breakthrough event. It’s the one where the answer is likely to be unexpected. Not even in the expected direction.
Is it Fords or Audis that make traffic jams? Is it roll-ups or ready-mades that make the room smoky?
“Conspiracy theory” isn’t about what certain people believe or disbelieve. It’s about the type of process that supports the belief. Conspiracy theory is a different process than rationality. The two proceed under different rules.
You think I’m being flippant but there is a serious point to this questioning. I’m happy to have a rational discussion with you about 9/11, but I don’t think that’s possible while your obsession with Chandler extends to blaming him for coronavirus protests in England. I’ve offered you a chance to retract the claim but you maintain it’s true whilst being unable to explain why he alone, of all the conspiracy theorists on your hit list, should be held responsible.
So I’m giving you yet another opportunity to demonstrate that you are capable of rational though: Why Chandler? You should thank me for being so patient.
– “You think I’m being flippant…”
No I don’t. I try to discipline myself not to do sarcasm in text comments, because tone of voice is absent. I really do think you asked the critical question.
It isn’t a matter of which specific conspiracy theorist. It’s conspiracy theory itself; it’s a different mode of thought to rationalism.
I see Chandler as of critical importance because he’s the bridge. Without Chandler, you’d have Gage and A&E9/11 on one side, and technical consensus on the other. Onlookers’ only choice would be to pick a side, and the vast majority would pick technical consensus and then move on to something else (putting them closer to the truth but for inadequate reasons). But Chandler’s graphs and papers make it look like a technical disagreement, which it isn’t.
Other examples like Chandler are Professor Patrick Holford and Doctor Andrew Wakefield. I wish you’d read Bad Science, it’d save so much time.
