@koertje Ha ha oh what funny .. more funnier than the door knob ! Everyone exept for 7 people until now need glasses and go back look at wtc 7 collapse.
@koertje Ik heb geen tv kabel meer zowiezo, niet voor niks mee gestopt. liever docus kijken op internet. dan quizen, eo, idols and other shit. ik zit meer in de UFo en black projects hoek kwa interesses. maar dat kan je zien op mijn kanaal. maar die expert in de video waarom zou hij het iet bij het rechte eind hebben ?
I am very sad to tell you all that Danny Jowenko died in a "suspiscious" carcrash the 16th of july. Here a link ( in German ) : alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2011/07/danny-jowenko-ist-tot.html
More links to local papers in Dutch: hvzeeland.nl/Nieuws/Item?nid=17096 , omroepzeeland.nl/nieuws/automobilist-omgekomen-bij-serooskerke.
It takes scientists years to determine the cause of any complicated scientific matter such as a buidling collapse. Jowenko concluded it was a CD in seconds, and spends the next 30 minutes searching for evidence to fit his conclusion. This is a sign of gross incompetence. Natural collapses are not his area of expertise yet he concludes it was not natural. Intentional collapses are his expertise yet he has no theory of how it could have been pulled off. There is something very wrong with that.
@rroman3212 You're kidding right? No it doesn't take scientists "years" to determine these things. Honest scientists can knock it out quickly...Honest Demolition experts can see it immediately. Shills for the Neo-Cons and Zionists will NEVER admit such a blatant false flag crime. Your "conclusion" is that it was a "natural" collapse, and then by your "reasoning" Jowenko can't comment on the event because he "only knows intentional" collapses. What circular reasoning! Or gross incompetence.
@SeenThisScene My comment shows that he has the ability to conclude something that is not his area of expertise, but when he is in his area of expertise he has no idea how to explain it. Yet you accept what he has to say. You ignore scientific investigation in favor of a youtube video based conclusion, then beleive that I am ignorant.
If you would like to have a real debate about this I can direct you to a website where we can express our viewpoints with readers who read and vote on them.
@rroman3212 DJ's "area of expertise" IS the "man-made" destruction of buildings. What is this gobbledy-gook you're blathering? Do I accept his opinions? Jowenko is honest and helpful. But seriously, even without Jowenko, Steve Jones or Dave Chandler, I can SEE SEE SEE this was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Nope, I won't let you waste my time diverting me off to some other site. You sound like a shill. We'll talk here - where folks can read our points and judge for themselves.
@rroman3212 You express "disdain" for this "YouTube conclusion" in this forum here...yet you want me to leave and go to some other website where other idiots no smarter than you will be "voting on our viewpoints"? That makes no sense at all- other than to bog me down at this other phantom site you suggest... Yes, Roman, either you're a shill or an idiot. Keep calling Jowenko "incompetent" and you will have proved yourself deserving of the title of "SHILL" or "IDIOT". (Maybe both...)
@rroman3212 Were it up to YOU, no suspicious death would EVER be solved...because you wouldn't allow police detectives to inspect the victim's corpse until it had already "been proved" that a murder had taken place. That is the height of asininity. Jowenko is not a dogcatcher by trade, or a basket weaver, or a candlestick maker. He is an expert-thus an AUTHORITY- in the SCIENCE of bringing buildings down with explosives. Trying to exclude him from this debate says FAR more about YOU than him.
@SeenThisScene Nice strawman. And yes he is an expert... at making buildings fall down. That does not mean that he can look at a 10 second video and instantly know more about how that building came down then the 200 scientists and structural engineers who spent 3 years investigating it. That is what is amazing about you guys. It does not matter how many people confirm something. If 1 person says the opposite which fits your story that is who you will believe.
lol, put yourself in their shoes. If you area US contracted engineer and your that guy that comes out and says its a CD, your career is over just like that.
Also, he didnt just instantly say it, he says that he researched the blue prints of the building. At least explain it properly instead of downplaying it.
Lastly, what about the hundreds or thousands of engineers that came out saying it was a CD? It goes both ways.
It wont be proven, thats why its a conspiracy. Its sketchy
@kyle87t Currently there are 1,523 architects and engineers signed up to demand a new 9/11 investigation. However there are 1.7 million architects and engineers in the US alone. This means .0008958% of the architects and engineers care enough to sign a petition. If 1 out of every 100 engineers who believe this signed up that would mean that 99.9% of the scientific community believes the buildings came down naturally. There are more scientists that dispute evolution then 9/11.
@rroman3212 Yeah well we saw one of those NIST scientists in action when he saw the thermal image photographs. He had never heard of the molten steel in the basement weeks after 9/11. And he was willfully ignorant. Yeah great scientists at NIST.
@RavenPrecept You are correct, he had never heard the molten steel argument. That is because he is getting his information from real scientists, not from youtube. The only people who make the molten steel argument are conspiracy theorists who don't realize that you can not tell the composition of molten metal simply by looking at it. Of course the whole thing is compltely irrelevant because molten metal does not implicate anything as far as the collapse. CD's have never left it behind.
@rroman3212 Overly keen to deny it at every point. First I heard the molten steel in the basement from TV news after 9/11. It may well be on YouTube, that does not make it wrong, unless you claim to be wrong because you're on YouTube. You can tell the temperature of any metal by the colour so don't use false arguments. So there was no molten metal because it's not important? Daft argument. Your reasoning contradicts itself.
@rroman3212 Mercury is molten but it does not look like molten steel. When solder is molten but it looks like mercury. Brass can be melted but it has to be red hot. Steel can be molten but it has to be near white hot. When a metal is white hot and molten it could be steel, why would you presume it's some other metal? When tungsten is white hot it's still solid, light bulb filament.
@RavenPrecept I have a video on my uploads where Les Robertson admits he saw a "little river of molten steel,flowing" at the WTC - search 9/11 Molten metal in WTC Basement - Les Robertson
@rroman3212 1. it was a control demolition 2. Fireman have stated that there was molten steel. 3. satelite spotted them, its on photo. 3 you can see it on video .
2. Yes firemen have stated that there was molten steel. My question to you is: how did they know it was steel? Especially being that you can not tell the composition of molten metal by looking at it.
3. Yes, satellites did spot molten metal. It again can not tell that it was steel. The temperatures it picked up were at a max of 1341 degrees. Steel has a melting point of 2750.
@rroman3212 If you watch this video you can see near white hot molten metal flowing from one of the twin towers. /user/cappucinokid100#p/u/56/Tz8fvp7eDNE
The way it sparks makes it look like steel. However it could be molten aluminum but at that temperature it would probably ignite and burn off with some white smoke. Do you now accept that near white hot temperatures were reached?
@RavenPrecept The video you showed me was a news story of a foiled plot at blowing up the GW bridge. At app 20 seconds in you can see some sort of puff from one of the towers. There is no way to tell if this was molten steel, molten aluminum, or just dust being brushed off. It is an unbelievably inconclusive shot that says absolutely nothing, and I really hope for your sake that this was not what you were talking about.
@rroman3212 Sorry about that, it seems that video was removed from his channel after I posted the link. Here is a different video of the same thing, /watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE
The way it sparks makes it look like steel. However it could be molten aluminum but at that temperature it would probably ignite and burn off with some white smoke. Do you now accept that near white hot temperatures were reached?
@RavenPrecept I accept that it was very hot. That is what happens when a plane full of jet fuel crashes into a building and is left to burn. Aluminum, or most metals for that matter do not have a very high melting point so there are a number of things that could have been. I am curious to know what your eye-ball analysis of this video leads you to conclude happened, considering that this event has been studied by scientists for almost a decade.
@rroman3212 There is a very particular bit of science involved here. Metal glows according to it's temperature, not it's melting point. Tungsten has such a high melting point that it stays solid in a light bulb at a temperature that would melt steel. The point about metal molten at a lower melting point, it would not be glowing brightly like the metal we see pouring from the building. You can actually tell how hot this metal is, without knowing what type of metal it is.
@rroman3212 The metal is hot enough to be molten steel, which supports those who say that fires melted the steel but contradicts you when you say can't be molten steel because the fire could not be that hot.
It also supports those who say the steel was melted with thermite since that is exactly what thermite is, molten steel.
@rroman3212 I am pretty gobsmacked that you need me to make it any clearer. At this point you should either be able to point out a flaw in my argument or you will suddenly see the implication and be looking for an explanation. It was a similar scientific point that made me realize it was an inside job. I was shocked and determined to find evidence corroborating or denying what had been proved to me. If you fail to see the point then there is no hope for you.
@RavenPrecept In other words the point you were trying to make sounds to ridiculous to actually say out loud, so instead you try to lead people to conclude it for themselves without them realizing how ridiculous they sound. If they do realize how ridiculous they sound then they are not capable of "seeing the truth". This is a very typical truther tactic. I am very aware of 911 conspiracy theories, I prefer real debates rather then youtube bickering but it is still interesting to see what I get.
@rroman3212 I did two posts but only one showed up. I already made the point in the post above your one metal colour = temperature. That really is the point.
If a metal is white hot then that's how hot it is. If it's white hot steel then it's molten. Now do you get it?
@RavenPrecept Why would you waste all this time to tell me that the metal was very hot? Even if it was white hot molten steel, why would this matter? What is your point? Know one cares what temperature the metal was. Truthers make a big deal out of it because it somehow feeds into their conspiracy theories. I was waiting to see where you were going with this but if that's it, if that is all you have to say, then like most people... I don't care. If you have a real point to make let me know.
@rroman3212 Don't try and make out you planned this all along. NIST say the temperatures did not get so high as to melt steel yet clearly they did. Was this the reason the building fell. What melted the steel? Was it thermite. Was it an inside job? I believe that 9/11 was an inside job and this information changes my entire outlook on the world.
@RavenPrecept Just to make sure I understand your claim... You believe that a team of 200 scientists and structural engineers at NIST (only 65 of which actually worked for the government, the rest were contracted through private companies) put together a fake scientific report to help the government cover up the largest mass murder in US history, all because of the color that appears on your computer monitor when you look at the molten metal video? Does that about sum it up?
@rroman3212 Makes you wonder does it not? How many scientists would put their name to this? Generally a report would be written by a handful of scientists. If 200 signed it then I would imagine they were making a point. Now if you're talking engineers putting their name on something try Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, I think it's over 1000, which trumps the 200 scientists you mention.
@RavenPrecept Currently 1537 9/11 truth engineers to be exact, compared to the 1.7 million architects and engineers in the US alone, which amounts to a whopping 0.09% of the industry (before excluding foriegn engineers from that list) that have signed onto your theories. The collapse of the towers is the most studied case of architectural failure in the history of the world. You believe that 1537 engineers know something the rest of the world apparently does not.
@rroman3212 There is certainly a stigma attached to saying you believe 9/11 was an inside job. Just as there was with people believing that the earth orbits the sun. This bit of knowledge was attributed to one man where as privately there were quite a few scientists of the day who believed this was the case. It certainly was was only a minority. They just did not want to pick a fight with the church over this.
@RavenPrecept There is a stigma about it because it is not true. Some people did believe that the earth orbited the sun, many did not. At that time there was no scientific evidence to prove either way so it was just a belief. Once science proved that the earth orbited the sun, people rightfully changed their minds. Truthers should do the same, and accept the evidence which is very clear.
@rroman3212 That was not how it happened. It was not that the scientific evidence convinced people, those people already knew. It was the consensus of opinion and the eventual change of political and religious atmosphere that meant it became acceptable to hold those opinions. Much like the 9/11 truth movement of today.
@RavenPrecept Uhhh sure, ok. However it happened, I guess I wouldn't know. The 9/11 truth movement has gotten smaller, not bigger. This trend will continue.
@rroman3212 So's your dick. This trend will continue. Now how would I know that, fact is I don't and nether do you. My mother became a truther at the weekend. She says to me "I watched that collapse again, obviously it was a demolition. Now I feel you are wasting your life on this, you're smarter than that. Instead of railing against these people you should wise up and work with the NWO" Obviously I pointed out they murdered 3000 people, she responded, "useless eaters".
@RavenPrecept I don't "rail" against people, I rail against their logic. If you can make a reasonable case that the "NWO" murdered 3,000 people then I would accept it. No one has been able to do this in ten years.
@rroman3212 I think you miss the point, my mother suggested that the NWO murdered 3000 people and I should join the NWO since they were winning. It's pretty clear to a lot of people, the first responders, who are now all banned from the 9/11 10 memorial service. The people responsible for accepting the case that it was an inside job are those same people who ban 9/11 truth from the TV and the first responders from the ceremony. They have denied their guilt for 10 years.
@RavenPrecept Yes, I misunderstood your reply. The NWO you speak of is nothing more then the majority of people in this country who believe your theories are full of crap. And with good reason; there is no logical reason to believe anything that leads to your conclusions without disregarding reality.
@rroman3212 forget the NWO nonsense. what about the 100 day fires with temps up to 2800F, the explosiveness of wtc 1&2 which came down at about 60% slower than freefall, (and left 1100 people unaccounted for, pulverized most of the concrete and blasted the perimeter wall assemblies for hundreds of feet in every direction, WTC7's implosion, molten metal documented in the FEMA BPAT Appendix C and described by so many witnesses, the iron microshperes..etc that all point to explosives
@winston2015 I only have 500 characters. Please google "shotgun argumentation". The Temperatures did not last 100 days and were not 2800 degrees. NASA thermal imaging shows a Max temp at 1341. 60% slower then freefall? You are the 1st person I have ever heard say this. Pulverized concrete is a characteristic of any building collapse. Blasted perimeter walls are natural given the conditions. WTC was not an implosion. Molten metal is very normal with 1341* temperatures. Out of space.
@rroman3212 So it's the conclusions you have a problem with? I must admit it was the conclusions that gave me pause for thought. I simply looked at the evidence and followed it to the conclusions. As much as I dislike what it means I did not go back and deny the evidence. Your reasoning is circular.
@RavenPrecept If you had listened to anything I have said you would see how little sense you make. The problem with these youtube bickering matches is that you just spout nonsense and don't have to back it up. Here is a debate that I did on a real debate site. If you want a serious discussion on this then sign up and challenge me. It will be easy to tell which one I am:
@RavenPrecept The link doesn't seem to work If you go on debate.org, in the upper right hand corner in the "search debates" box type WTC7 and it is like the third one down which reads "that the US government is responsible for 911"
@RavenPrecept Yes, Raven, follow "Roman" over to another place where he can bog you down with bullshit and perhaps lure you into yet another circular argument with other shills...get you to expend time and calories not HERE in front of perhaps a thousand eyes but off in some corner where your doubts of the 9-11 "story" will harmlessly play out before 3 people (2 being shills). Roman is a shill, who says the same thing over..and over...and over. Trust your own EYES. WTC7 was imploded.
@SeenThisScene No it's to follow me over to a place where both people have to actually back up what they say with facts instead of just spouting bullsh!t like you do. Its obvious you wouldn't take the challenge because you clearly don't like the idea of having to defend your views, just keep repeating all the nonsense you hear from Alex Jones then tell everybody they need to think for themselves. The "thousands" of eyes here have no concern for facts. 500 character limits do not establish them.
@rroman3212 LMAO. If the "thousands of eyes here" have "no concern for facts", why the hell would you want them over at "the other place"? See, Roman, this is exactly what we're talking about. You can't even put an intrinsically coherent thought in one sentence. You claim to WANT people HERE...to go THERE...to join your discussion...but first you INSULT the people HERE...saying they "have NO CONCERN for FACTS". Christ, you are a tool. Either that, or you are the lowest paid shill in the shed.
@SeenThisScene "The other place" is a place where people have to actually support their arguments, instead of making up a bunch of crap and running away when someone challenges it. Its not that I want people to "join my discussion" it’s that I can't stand people who spread this nonsense to vulnerable young minds, but won't dare defend them in a real debate. I don't expect anyone to "follow me", its just fun to see how you guys make excuses and run away when challenged by a real contender.
@rroman3212 Roman, You piece of dogshit. Was that "harsh"? My last post was...as I write this: "22 hours ago". Here I am AGAIN. Does it look like I'm "running away"? There is NOTHING to debate. What? Which pants pocket did the "hijacker" keep his PASSPORT in?.... the passport that magically "flew" out the window of a vaporized aircraft fuselage, after a 400 knot impact, through all the carnage and pulverized cement and 1000 degree fire and ended up unscathed to be "found" on the street below?
@SeenThisScene There is nothing to debate because you have already made up your mind. Debates establish facts. To you facts no longer matter. If I propose a sensible reason that answers your suspicions you'll find one thing wrong with it and toss the entire explanation out the window. If you can not find one thing wrong, then I must be some government agent skillfully making stuff up. Either way you "win". Here’s an example: Passports found at crash sites is nothing unusual. Google Corey Lidle.
@rroman3212 I don't like the idea of having to explain the same fucking simple point -that Jowenko shows surprise ONLY when told WTC7 came down SAME DAY- TEN fucking ways because I'm either A) Talking to a complete moron, or B) Because I'm talking to a co-conspirator or accessory after-the-fact who helps hide the criminals who KILLED 1000's of my countrymen so that his foreign nation (Israel) can murder and steal at the expense of World Peace. Defending? I never tire of that, buddy boy.
@SeenThisScene So I am a government agent now??? lol! That is why arguing with truthers is so pointless. It is not possible that I just understand the facts better then you do, no it's that I must be "in on it" so avoid any REAL discussion with me. Yes I got your point, the only thing moronic here is how you still don't get mine that his showing surprise means absolutely nothing. Everyone was surprised when WTC7 came down. It takes years of analysis to find out why, not ten seconds on youtube.
@rroman3212 1) "arguing with truthers is pointless"? So why are you replying to me? Are you in the habit of behaving "pointlessly"? You contradict yourself at every turn. If we "truthers" are wrong about the 9-11 events, then logic says you are likely NOT a "government shill". But if we are right, then there is a distinct possibility you could be.
@SeenThisScene 1) You got me on this point. However, arguing with truthers is pointless if the intent is to get them to face facts when they are wrong about something. But instead they make up excuses every time (like calling me a shill) and then focus on those excuses, forgetting that they were ever wrong about anything. Your entire response is yet another example of this. But I’ll answer to them anyway…
@rroman3212 2) If there exists a group of people in this country who'd stoop to killing thousands in order to justify an agressive foreign adventure, which then further led to the deaths of 1000's of US soldiers, 100's of 1000's of people in other countries... It would be ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY to think that they would "draw the line" at promoting disinformation in the public media and on the web, right? Just using logic here, Rom.
@SeenThisScene 2) Your point is logical. But this point is part of what is so sad about all of this. Do you really believe that this is the world you live in? Government agents are people just like you and me. They grew up in the same towns and went to the same schools as you and me. Do you really believe so many people living among us are accessories to mass murderers and that NONE of them would ever talk about it? Is this your view of human nature? Of the people of America, and the world?
@rroman3212 3) Let's deal with this "shill" issue, since you claim it bothers you- OR you wish to belittle it with "LOLz". If a stranger says to me : "Weird weather we're having... Never seen a PLAID SKY before." I might chuckle. If he continues with this, and it seems he wants me to think he's serious, I am going to ask myself: "Where is he coming from? What is his game?" Any rational person would do the same. Say otherwise and I'm done with you. We clear?
@SeenThisScene 3) Yes, any rational person would do the same. If I understand where you are going with this, you are saying that I am suspicious because I keep coming back. It's not that difficult to understand. Obviously I enjoy a good debate otherwise I would not be on a debate website. My last point explains that I think it is sad how people change their entire world view over stuff that is completely made up. I also think the victims families should be able to move on. You guys don't help.
@rroman3212 4) I see a building drop. I see it drop uniformly. I see it drop more perfectly than ANY controlled demolition I've ever seen in my long and traveled life. And then you come along... and tell me: "Do not believe your eyes...there's things you don't understand...listen to my.., er, I mean, listen to 'these experts' over here.." At first Roman, I will try to discuss this issue with you. I will.
@SeenThisScene 4) No one is telling you not to believe your eyes. WTC7 does appear to be a CD, just like the world appeared to be flat. It is not till you look closer that you see the difference, something you guys don’t do. The penthouse can not be explained by any truther, so they disregard it. There was no extensive CD preparation, so they disregard it etc... All I am saying is to acknowledge ALL facts and realize how absurd it is to disregard everything that shows your theory to be false.
@rroman3212 5) But when you stated that Jowenko - an expert in the business for 30 years shouldn't be allowed to "comment" on this... Ahhhhh. I must think of the guy telling me the sky is plaid, and I wonder: "What could POSSIBLY make him say such a thing?" Why are you here? I don't know. Don't care. Why I am here? I see a goddamn building brought down by explosives and I unashamedly am hoping to light a fucking fire in the brains of anyone reading my comments so that they can see it too.
@SeenThisScene 5) I never said he should not be allowed to comment. I simply pointed out what was wrong with his analysis. It is classic conspiracy fallacy. His mind was made up before he ever attempted to research it. If he could actually come up with an explanation as to how it was done I would give it some merit, yet he can not. Every theory has been thoroughly debunked yet you guys still believe it. This falls into the realm of spiritual belief.
@rroman3212 Lastly) There are 3 possibilities which would explain your actions here:
1) You're an idiot.
2) You are a paid "shill".
3) You are an "unpaid" shill. That is, you are compelled to do this for a compelling reason: You belong to a certain community, and you cannot bear the reality that some element from your specific community has perpetrated this. And you realize the backlash that would be if the truth were revealed. And so you deny the truth in order to help hide the crime.
@SeenThisScene Lastly) I've made my point clear on why I am here. If my community did this I would want to know. I at one point I did believe this nonsense. It was not till I did what you guys don't that I snapped out of it... I considered that I was wrong. I researched BOTH sides and realized how fallacious and dishonest truther arguments are. Not to mention the word reality. Life teaches you things about human nature, you seem to ignore real life experiences in favor of youtube videos.
@rroman3212 1) I'm sick of you. But I'm not going away. Sorry. So you know where you and I (sadly) will be burning our next 1,000,000 calories. Happy? When you say something so ABSOLUTELY FUCKING OFFENSIVE as "well, the world once looked flat too." You are a JACKWAD of the highest order. I WORE the (nomex) uniform of THIS country, and my "IGNORANT BIRD BRAIN" guided a multi-million dollar "killing machine" through the night skies using ANVIS-6's along with a few other qualifications I have...
@SeenThisScene 1) Not surprisingly, you completely disregarded everything I said. Yelling at me in all caps on the internet does not strengthen your position. But by now it is obvious that the strength of your position is not a concern to you. It is much easier to misconstrue my arguments and change the subject, then it is to intelligently to address them so that is what you did.
@rroman3212 2) You say I "disregarded" everything you said. As you disregard everything *I* say. You did not answer my challenge as to who I blame for this. Perhaps your answer is "I won't dignify that insinuation". Nope. Dead silence from you. That's a "shock". (Still no "scary" caps. How I'm doin'?) You lie blatantly when you characterize my accusation as being that I argue "the whole world must be murderers, "blah, blah". I did not even remotely say that.
@SeenThisScene 2) What did I disregard... your "challenge" as to who you blame? Why would I respond to that? It is not my job to guess what your case is. If you believe something as crazy as you sure seem to then make your case. Tell me who you blame. Tell me why. Show me that you have a reason to believe this crap beyond faith. It is obvious by now that you are to scared to explain and defend your position or you would have accepted my challenge to defend it in a real debate.
@rroman3212 4) Earlier you wrote "at one point I did believe this nonsense". Interesting. So, essentially you doubted the 911 story at some point....then "later on", after "research", you changed. Is that the order? Wow. I see that you and I are "star-crossed" debaters. You see, from September 11, 2001 until at least 2006 (nearly 5 years) if someone had tried to tell me "Arabs didn't do this" I'd have destroyed them with every ounce of vigor as I'm using on you now.
@SeenThisScene 4) OK... so you didn't believe this stuff until you saw building 7. Your point? But while we are here, let me guess... As soon as you saw it you instantly knew it was a CD right? Because you know, it kind of looks like one. Except the fact that the penthouse fell before the rest of the building, and that there were no loud explosions, and that there was no extensive CD preparation etc... You know, if you disregard all of that then it looks exactly like a CD.
@rroman3212 2) But because I differ I'm a "flat-earther". Funny. Some in my immediately family designed -as in ENGINEERED- systems on the Shuttle. And YEAH, I have discussed 9-11 with them. And they are DEPRESSED. You say: "do you believe people who lived in the same towns, etc could do this?" NO. NO I DON'T. Are we clear? AGAIN: I DON"T BELIEVE A SINGLE AMERICAN PLANTED THE EXPLOSIVES IN THOSE BUILDINGS. Need that clarified some more? That ERADICATES your "How could they do that" argument.
@SeenThisScene Yes, I guess that does eradicate my argument. But it only adds to the absurdity of yours. You are suggesting that outsiders came in and did this to us, yet we decided to cover it up? How did these outsiders get into the WTC? How did no one notice that a bunch of guys were wiring the building with bombs? Have you ever seen a building prepared for CD?
@rroman3212 Tell ya right now "roman". I don't believe "the Government" pays people enough GOLD or even "30 pieces of Silver" to expend the energy you have... I guess we understand each other, huh?
@SeenThisScene Not really much energy. In fact it's kind of entertaining. I provide an intelligent response to what you say and you get mad and start yelling at me in all caps, completely changing the subject. I am sorry to make you question your religion. My intent was to find someone who would back up their arguments with logic. If you can not do that then let me know.
@rroman3212 3) Of course: the murder of 3,000 people in America, the deaths of 4 or 5,000 US soldiers and 100,000+ in foreign lands is entertaining to you. Yep. Oh, not what ya meant? No, roman, this is wrenching to me. Not entertaining. Wrenching. It's not only these deaths. It's knowing that there are reptiles in human form out there like you trying to cover this up. This will not do well for you. But I understand: You could not care one whit.
@SeenThisScene 3) No none of that is entertaining to me. What is entertaining is how the ones who believe this nonsense blatantly ignore reality and constantly change the subject or divert attention away from the absurdity of their positions by focusing on completely irrelevant things... like my comment about using CAPS for example.
@rroman3212 You know how they knew who two of the terrorists were? They found their passports in the dust of the twin towers. They needed DNA to identify the victims but obviously terrorist would leave their passports. There are so many absurd things about 9/11 that anyone who knows about it would question it. Having looking into it they would realise it was an inside job. Honest people would say it was an inside job, a dishonest person would pretend to believe the official version.
@RavenPrecept Picture yourself about to get into a fight with someone and saying they are scared of you. Then that person gets in your face and challenges you to do something... you reaction is to walk away and call them scared of you. Does that make sense? That is pretty much what you are doing now. You claim I am dishonest because I don't believe the official story. I then challenge you to a real debate and you decline, then you call me dishonest and say I am pretending to believe it. Really?
@rroman3212 I think I have learned enough about debating to know that the strongest debaters are those who stick to their guns. There is no possibility that you will ever change your point of view because we are both in contact with the same information and spout different views. I don't think you believe you have the truth just that you are very good at arguing the toss. There is no possibility that I could teach you anything. You have taught me that much.
@SeenThisScene You and I individually are not a huge threat to the criminals of 9/11. That's why they have not had us killed. However if you believe that Danny was killed for his views on 9/11 then it's not that hard to believe that they would send Roman to argue against us. If Roman is just a normal person he will be pissing himself laughing about this. However if he is an agent of the criminals of 9/11 then I just raised the stakes.
@RavenPrecept OMG LMFAO! Yes I am pissing myself laughing about it. I don't know if I should admit that or play along with this whole agent thing. It sounds like it could be a lot of fun. Anyway's I gave you guys a link to one of my debates where you can see my profile and all of the stupid stuff I have debated. Do you really think an agent paid to hunt down truthers would waste time debating steroids in baseball, or the value of marriage in our society?
@rroman3212 It seems to me then that you just like to take a position and debate it. Fair enough. Are you passionate about the truth or is this just a debate to see who can make the strongest points and win?
@RavenPrecept 1) I do like to win, but that is not what it’s about. I have always been fascinated at how 2 people can have the same exact info and hold two completely different positions. I enjoy debating because I enjoy exploring different concepts and understanding why people disagree on them. It helps me to better understand the world. What fascinates me about 9/11 is that so many thousands of people believe this inside job stuff yet I have never heard an intelligent supporting argument
2) that can hold up in a real debate. David Ray Griffin is by far the best I have seen yet his arguments are laced with misrepresentations and logical fallacies. But what interests me is that after people seem to get fooled by it they never explore if they are right. Instead they get this “epiphany” where they realize that everyone involved in government and all who is controlled by them are potentially liars and murderers so they can never trust facts again, and everyone who presents
3) a strong argument negating their position is either a liar or a government agent (like me lol). This whole thing was really more like an experiment. Truthers remind me of a boxer who wins a title but never puts it on the line. You guys have a self proclaimed title in that you believe you are right, but your title is unearned if you never defend it. To defend it you must accept that you might be wrong and take on opposing viewpoints head on. I am willing to do that, you are apparently not.
@rroman3212 Very good. I mean seriously very good. I gave you thumbs up. You said something I agree with. You are willing to put it on the line with the possibility you might be proved wrong. I agree if there is no possibility of being proved wrong then there is no value in being right. A bit like ebay ratings where they won't let you give negative feedback, pretty pointless. Anyway, you may hate this smug answer, I feel I don't need to be taught the opposing view but simply spread what I know.
@RavenPrecept 1) I'll go ahead and say: "roman" is not a "government agent". This accusation- being a "part" of the "big, shadowy conspiracy" that did 9/11- is extremely useful to the 911Liars movement. It isn't believable and thus I don't believe...) that several thousand, or even a couple "hundred" "co-conspirators" or "after-the-fact" paid tools have been sent out to "argue" against the Truth Mov't across "the internets" (Bush-ism). But first let's get some things straight...
@RavenPrecept 2) I use the word "shill" out of irritation and exasperation. That's my fault. Our "Roman" can then jump on that and then dismiss me as a "tinfoil hat-wearing" conspiracy buff, with the added detail now of believing the 9/11 conspiracy for "spiritual" reasons. (Regardless of my rather hardened atheism...)
As I wrote to Roman before, there are a mere 3 reasons to explain his behavior: 1) He's an idiot. 2) He's a gen-u-wine Government-paid "shill". 3) He's an "unpaid shill".
@RavenPrecept 3) I don't hold that "Roman" is a "gov't shill" for the reasons I put in post #1, PLUS the perpetrators of 9/11 probably know or knew, that America is SO incredibly stupid, ill-informed, naive and with the attention span of a gnat, that a battle across the "internets" would not be necessary. Roman would "hate" me for saying this, but the very proof of America's irredeemable idiocy can be verified by reading the contributions of people just like him on this board!
@RavenPrecept 4) There is another "4th" possibility: That "roman" is a common "troll". Perhaps some people get something "sexual" out of their trolling. It's like youngster's immature fascination with "ding dong ditch"- only he's well past 13 (I think). Am I assailing "Roman's" character now? Not any more than he is mine when he pulls out this ridiculous "spiritual belief" angle that he thinks motivates "truthers". At any rate, I will forgo labeling him "common troll".
@RavenPrecept 5) Ok. So where does that leave us? I don't think R-man is "government shill" (for the reasons in post #1)...or a common troll... so we're left with "idiot" or "unpaid shill" as possibilities. In good faith, I cannot say to you that he's not a idiot. (Sorry, Roman) But I don't think he is. (Yay! Roman!) I believe Roman is of a conviction that, he may know that 9/11 was a false flag attack, but he's arguing otherwise for personal reasons. What reasons could those be?
@SeenThisScene A very difficult one. I do get riled when they say we believe in CTs because we are losers and most debunkers tend to insult us deliberately. However that's an idiotic way of arguing. Roman is obviously bright enough to see the facts could lead to Inside Job but also bright enough to weave them so they don't. It comes down to honesty and loyalty. He is loyal to his position but not honest enough to admit he is wrong. Once he believes two contradictory theories he may crack.
@RavenPrecept 6) We could ask him... but because of the very game he's playing, he cannot give us the truth.
Raven, have you seen this? watch?v=u_Ffz0koJbI
AND do you know of "Rep". Eric Cantor's treason?
There is a reason why Chertoff, Feith, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Cantor etc (and very likely "roman") do what they do. And it is "rational" insofar as it is (for them) "evolutionary".
@rroman3212 To prevent a "misunderstanding" of my stated positions about WTC7, I believe 7 WAS a controlled demolition, therefore ALL were controlled demolitions, therefore they ALL had to be RIGGED and thus have RIGGERS. I stated I believe that "NO AMERICAN planted explosives" in the buildings. I also OF COURSE do not believe any "crazy Muslims" were involved. Be a fucking HERO and super-smart guy Roman and tell everyone who I'm pointing a finger at. Or play DUMB, and prove you're a LIAR.
@SeenThisScene At some point you must stop and realize that you can not argue that the entire world is full of murderers because you do not understand the official explanation of how the buildings collapsed. Even if the 200 scientists that worked on this report got it wrong, that doesn't mean the building was wired with bombs, along with every other one, along with the Pentagon, along with flight 93... along with... along with... along with...
@rroman3212 1) Oh roman, sometimes you make me angry and sometimes you make me laugh! Way to put words in my mouth. Sorry. If my position is "weakened" by writing in big "scary" capital letters, I'll try to stick to lower case just for you, Mmmmkay?
@rroman3212 You know, it went right past me, Roman: How could I accuse a group of people of this heinous crime? A "conspiracy" of people, to commit this heinous crime...but
YOU ARE!
YOU ARE accusing, at a minimum, a "conspiracy" of 19 Arabs of doing this. So, it's "easy to believe" Muslims could be so cold and calculating and murderous...but not Israelis?
Even though Israel HAS, in the past, conducted FALSE FLAG operations... Against America? Like the Lavon Affair?
@SeenThisScene Are you serious? Let me guess... Al Queada is completely made up right? There are no Muslim extremists on the other side of the world that want us dead right? Of course not. How crazy is it to believe that 19 Arabs did something like this? It seems a whole lot easier to believe that thousands of Americans planned, carried out, and covered it up and fooled the rest of the world doing this. Or just pick one of the above, maybe they just covered it up.
@SeenThisScene I think I won the argument though :-) What is a shame is I can't figure out if Roman actually believes what he is saying or simply wants to prevent people from thinking 9/11 was an inside job. I suppose I enjoy these debates because I feel that I can use the arguments these people put forward to to prove to them in their own language that 9/11 was an inside job. Unfortunately they just end up with them in a circular argument.
@RavenPrecept You hit the nail RIGHT ON THE HEAD. (Dammit! There I go with those caps again. I hope I didn't "upset" Roman... ) That is the dilemma: Is he merely an honest idiot, or does he do this -while playing the "simple seeker of truth"- for darker reasons. The answer? You can't pin it down. How easy life would be if you could!
@SeenThisScene People who have studied 9/11 and still support the official version are fairly rare. The official version only works if you are not really paying attention. It's like a movie with continuity errors, as long as you don't spot them then you enjoy the story. Once you start to see the errors the movie loses it's realism and you make a game of spotting more problems. Someone invested in the movie would defend it and say it's a great movie.
@RavenPrecept People who have studies 9/11 and believe the official story are indeed rare... here on youtube. It's not hard to understand why. Truthers have adopted every dishonest and fallacious method of argumentation there is. That is why truthers never last in real debates. It is way to easy to call them out on it.
@rroman3212 Well look guys, this has been fun but is showing to be extremely pointless. You guys clearly have no intention of defending your views in a real debate and would rather spout your nonsense in a 500 character limit format here in the comfort of youtube where there is no reason to argue with facts. If you want a real challenge with 8,000 character rounds, 3 days to respond to your opponent's argument, and an audience who will read and vote let me know.
@RavenPrecept Won the argument? What argument? This is nothing more then a meaningless bickering match. I already challenged you to a real argument. If you are so confident that you can "use my arguments" to show that it was an inside job then I am sure you would enjoy doing it in front of people who actually read it and vote. But we both know that is not the case.
@rroman3212 We see it was an inside job because of the way they brought down WTC7. First they say they had to demolish it for safety reasons. Then they say it's fallen down by itself whilst it's still standing. It's pretty blatant. It is weird that you think you can convince me of something that you don't even believe yourself.
@SeenThisScene I did follow someone to their own board. True enough there was room to expand on the topic but the moderator would disallow the best posts in favour of the Inside Job.
@rroman3212 You are assuming that 1.7 million engineers studied 9/11. We don't actually know what those 1.7 million think. We do know what Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth think. I know that if it were up to main stream media I would never have discovered 9/11 to be an inside job. It was a YouTube video that woke me up. It started a whole awakening process in me. As it has for millions of others. Getting away from the BBC news is a massive undertaking for the world.
Jesse Ventura is demo expert trained by best, that also makes him a dilusional clown trying to profit of deaths of victims of a terror attack by Muslims.
Never question officials, it is unAmerican to ask questions of your gov't - JV.
@SeenThisScene I expect Jowenkos death was an accident that would have happened if he was a dog catcher or 9/11 whistle blower. No sign of foul play. Yeah right...
@rroman3212 You have two sides to your brain. One side knows something instinctively where as the other side has to work it out. If we had to work everything out all the time then we would be very slow. However to explain things to other people you have to work it out. This is why having someone help you who needs everything explained makes the job take longer than if you did it on your own. The man knew instantly because he knows his job so well.
@rubberritchie its not fake..and your 'ovderwhelming majority of experts' means nothing...other than that they are gutless and not very glood experts...theyd have been primed with the official conspiracy theory, which renders their assessments null and void
@rubberritchie well Jowenkos expertise disagrees with you...and he is at an advantage..as he was not primed with the idea that what he saw was part of the WTC complex...
as for screwloosexchange..screw them! a shadowy site whose title shows its low calibre.
@rubberritchie Jowenko had heard the storyies of 9-11 and accepted the official view..BUT he was unaware of WTC7 so was not primed for that. When he saw that he saw a CD...had he not known of 9-11, would he have behaved the same way?
He examined WTC7 closely , as the videos show...try not to lie so openly...its embarrassing
@rubberritchie as for courts: prof David Ray Griffin: 'Blair's report, however, began by saying: "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law." Although the case was not good enough to go to court, Blair seemed to be saying, it was good enough to go to war.'
Great job, Einsteen! Great point that no demoltion experts in the States could say it was or they would get blacklisted. I agree with Danny, it clearly looks like a controlled demoltion. The tenants of WTC7, along with Silverstein make it all more than suspicious.
@rubberritchie no they are clearly CD...because the lower part of the building is untouchedm and should have offered resistance to the upper portion at least slowing its collapse. Sorry Rubber....He make no quick judgement...and ive seen the whole documentary
@jalusbrian So he's wrong on the towers but right on 7? If you dismiss his expertise on the towers you can't use him to back you up on building 7. This is how desperate for evidence the 'Truth movement' is.
@rubberritchie yes he is wrong on WTC1 and 2...why allow 7 to be Cd and not 1 and 2?? AND he is right on WTC7...you are wrong on all 3. How can a building collapse if the support columns are intact.
@rubberritchie You are right by saying what you believe to be true is an option. Just an option. What I believe is based on scientific fact learned in High School and college science and engineering classes. Alex Jones is a shill telling half truths and fear mongering for the Zionists. I do not need Alex Jones for anything. The manner in which the WTC buildings fell can ONLY have occurred ONE WAY. DEMOLITION
In the oiginal interview, watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I we learn that Jowenko knew NOTHING at all about WTC7, called his assesment "guesswork", and still speculated that fire could not have done it - before he even knew there were widespread, unfought fires! Before he even knew the DAY when WTC7 fell! What research has the man done since that interview and the phone call - do we know?
@Uhrwerkmann The point is: Jowenko had extremely little information at hand, and formed an ad-hoc opinion. Very weak argument if you base it only on him.
"many experts say that all 3 buildings are controlled demolitions." that's where you err: Jowenko seems to be the ONLY expert who thinks WTC7 was CD, but he also says the twin towers were definitely NOT CD.
The bldgs collapses were driven by gravity. There is no difference in appearance between CD and other causes. That's why they look alike
@Uhrwerkmann In particular: The collapsed of the twin towers do not at all look like CDs, they look very different! But more importantly: All three collapses SOUND extremely different - because there weren't the characteristic INSANELY LOUD BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG sounds of shockwave explosions. immediately at the onset of collapse. This alone proves: No CD. Not even remotely possible.
i've seen and heard a lot of different stuff. i think you know the statements by paul isaac? that he and a lot of other fire and policemen say there were DEFINITELY explosives in those buildings (wtc 1 and 2)? that there was molten metal and thermate?
"but he also says the twin towers were definitely NOT CD". i didnt find that. please tell me where he says it.
no bang bang bang sounds? that means all the firemen must have lied...
@PapaOystein if there was resistance from the lower floors from initial impact area then MAYBE a pancake type of collapse would have occurred leaving larger chucks of concrete and steel frame would have been visible in longer lengths: however, one can clearly watch many many videos of all THREE buildings DISINTEGRATE into their own bases leaving very small pieces and demolition dust
as far as the your BANG BANG BANG theory seismic data collected from the event period suggests otherwise
r.i.p. Danny Jowenko.
josgvis 4 months ago
R.I.P Danny :(
gerwazjana 4 months ago
Idiots together on the phone.
koertje 6 months ago
@koertje Ha ha oh what funny .. more funnier than the door knob ! Everyone exept for 7 people until now need glasses and go back look at wtc 7 collapse.
Misstorys 6 months ago
@Misstorys Mr Jowenko was a bit crazy.
Those people shouldn't drive cars, but he did.
No loss for the world when idiots die,
koertje 6 months ago
@koertje What is crazy about him ? I saw that interview from Zembla nothing crazy about it. Maar ja als jij dat vind voor mij mag het !
Misstorys 6 months ago
@Misstorys kijk liever niet naar zembla.
laat je niet misleiden door de media.
het valt voor een klein landje natuurlijk ook niet mee om documentaires te maken, maar
die van zembla zijn wel heel erg.
koertje 6 months ago
@koertje Ik heb geen tv kabel meer zowiezo, niet voor niks mee gestopt. liever docus kijken op internet. dan quizen, eo, idols and other shit. ik zit meer in de UFo en black projects hoek kwa interesses. maar dat kan je zien op mijn kanaal. maar die expert in de video waarom zou hij het iet bij het rechte eind hebben ?
Misstorys 6 months ago
RIP DANNY !
774stefan 6 months ago 2
I know of more people dieing unexpectedly in the 9/11 Truth Movement than in my own family, friends and acquaintances.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
What a nice man
josevanreyes 6 months ago
Thankyou Danny for your courage, RIP
jonathankerrsmith 6 months ago
AWESOME POST...THIS REALLY SAYS IT ALL
Emin7 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am very sad to tell you all that Danny Jowenko died in a "suspiscious" carcrash the 16th of july. Here a link ( in German ) : alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.com/2011/07/danny-jowenko-ist-tot.html
More links to local papers in Dutch: hvzeeland.nl/Nieuws/Item?nid=17096 , omroepzeeland.nl/nieuws/automobilist-omgekomen-bij-serooskerke.
Strenght to his family and friends!!
TheRui2000 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Danny Jowenko died in a strange car accident at the 16th of july 2011.
Alpinerbergen 6 months ago
Comment removed
Alpinerbergen 6 months ago in playlist WTC
It takes scientists years to determine the cause of any complicated scientific matter such as a buidling collapse. Jowenko concluded it was a CD in seconds, and spends the next 30 minutes searching for evidence to fit his conclusion. This is a sign of gross incompetence. Natural collapses are not his area of expertise yet he concludes it was not natural. Intentional collapses are his expertise yet he has no theory of how it could have been pulled off. There is something very wrong with that.
rroman3212 7 months ago
@rroman3212 You're kidding right? No it doesn't take scientists "years" to determine these things. Honest scientists can knock it out quickly...Honest Demolition experts can see it immediately. Shills for the Neo-Cons and Zionists will NEVER admit such a blatant false flag crime. Your "conclusion" is that it was a "natural" collapse, and then by your "reasoning" Jowenko can't comment on the event because he "only knows intentional" collapses. What circular reasoning! Or gross incompetence.
SeenThisScene 6 months ago
@SeenThisScene My comment shows that he has the ability to conclude something that is not his area of expertise, but when he is in his area of expertise he has no idea how to explain it. Yet you accept what he has to say. You ignore scientific investigation in favor of a youtube video based conclusion, then beleive that I am ignorant.
If you would like to have a real debate about this I can direct you to a website where we can express our viewpoints with readers who read and vote on them.
rroman3212 6 months ago
@rroman3212 DJ's "area of expertise" IS the "man-made" destruction of buildings. What is this gobbledy-gook you're blathering? Do I accept his opinions? Jowenko is honest and helpful. But seriously, even without Jowenko, Steve Jones or Dave Chandler, I can SEE SEE SEE this was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. Nope, I won't let you waste my time diverting me off to some other site. You sound like a shill. We'll talk here - where folks can read our points and judge for themselves.
SeenThisScene 6 months ago
@SeenThisScene RIGHT ON
Emin7 6 months ago
@rroman3212 You express "disdain" for this "YouTube conclusion" in this forum here...yet you want me to leave and go to some other website where other idiots no smarter than you will be "voting on our viewpoints"? That makes no sense at all- other than to bog me down at this other phantom site you suggest... Yes, Roman, either you're a shill or an idiot. Keep calling Jowenko "incompetent" and you will have proved yourself deserving of the title of "SHILL" or "IDIOT". (Maybe both...)
SeenThisScene 6 months ago
@rroman3212 Were it up to YOU, no suspicious death would EVER be solved...because you wouldn't allow police detectives to inspect the victim's corpse until it had already "been proved" that a murder had taken place. That is the height of asininity. Jowenko is not a dogcatcher by trade, or a basket weaver, or a candlestick maker. He is an expert-thus an AUTHORITY- in the SCIENCE of bringing buildings down with explosives. Trying to exclude him from this debate says FAR more about YOU than him.
SeenThisScene 6 months ago
@SeenThisScene Nice strawman. And yes he is an expert... at making buildings fall down. That does not mean that he can look at a 10 second video and instantly know more about how that building came down then the 200 scientists and structural engineers who spent 3 years investigating it. That is what is amazing about you guys. It does not matter how many people confirm something. If 1 person says the opposite which fits your story that is who you will believe.
rroman3212 6 months ago
@rroman3212
lol, put yourself in their shoes. If you area US contracted engineer and your that guy that comes out and says its a CD, your career is over just like that.
Also, he didnt just instantly say it, he says that he researched the blue prints of the building. At least explain it properly instead of downplaying it.
Lastly, what about the hundreds or thousands of engineers that came out saying it was a CD? It goes both ways.
It wont be proven, thats why its a conspiracy. Its sketchy
kyle87t 6 months ago
@kyle87t Currently there are 1,523 architects and engineers signed up to demand a new 9/11 investigation. However there are 1.7 million architects and engineers in the US alone. This means .0008958% of the architects and engineers care enough to sign a petition. If 1 out of every 100 engineers who believe this signed up that would mean that 99.9% of the scientific community believes the buildings came down naturally. There are more scientists that dispute evolution then 9/11.
rroman3212 6 months ago
@rroman3212 Yeah well we saw one of those NIST scientists in action when he saw the thermal image photographs. He had never heard of the molten steel in the basement weeks after 9/11. And he was willfully ignorant. Yeah great scientists at NIST.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept You are correct, he had never heard the molten steel argument. That is because he is getting his information from real scientists, not from youtube. The only people who make the molten steel argument are conspiracy theorists who don't realize that you can not tell the composition of molten metal simply by looking at it. Of course the whole thing is compltely irrelevant because molten metal does not implicate anything as far as the collapse. CD's have never left it behind.
rroman3212 6 months ago
@rroman3212 Overly keen to deny it at every point. First I heard the molten steel in the basement from TV news after 9/11. It may well be on YouTube, that does not make it wrong, unless you claim to be wrong because you're on YouTube. You can tell the temperature of any metal by the colour so don't use false arguments. So there was no molten metal because it's not important? Daft argument. Your reasoning contradicts itself.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept Do you have any idea what I said? Do you understand the difference between molten metal and molten steel, and why it is significant?
rroman3212 6 months ago
@rroman3212 Mercury is molten but it does not look like molten steel. When solder is molten but it looks like mercury. Brass can be melted but it has to be red hot. Steel can be molten but it has to be near white hot. When a metal is white hot and molten it could be steel, why would you presume it's some other metal? When tungsten is white hot it's still solid, light bulb filament.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@RavenPrecept I have a video on my uploads where Les Robertson admits he saw a "little river of molten steel,flowing" at the WTC - search 9/11 Molten metal in WTC Basement - Les Robertson
cappucinokid100 6 months ago
@rroman3212 1. it was a control demolition 2. Fireman have stated that there was molten steel. 3. satelite spotted them, its on photo. 3 you can see it on video .
Misstorys 6 months ago
@Misstorys
1. No it wasn't
2. Yes firemen have stated that there was molten steel. My question to you is: how did they know it was steel? Especially being that you can not tell the composition of molten metal by looking at it.
3. Yes, satellites did spot molten metal. It again can not tell that it was steel. The temperatures it picked up were at a max of 1341 degrees. Steel has a melting point of 2750.
rroman3212 6 months ago
@rroman3212 If you watch this video you can see near white hot molten metal flowing from one of the twin towers. /user/cappucinokid100#p/u/56/Tz8fvp7eDNE
The way it sparks makes it look like steel. However it could be molten aluminum but at that temperature it would probably ignite and burn off with some white smoke. Do you now accept that near white hot temperatures were reached?
RavenPrecept 5 months ago
@RavenPrecept The video you showed me was a news story of a foiled plot at blowing up the GW bridge. At app 20 seconds in you can see some sort of puff from one of the towers. There is no way to tell if this was molten steel, molten aluminum, or just dust being brushed off. It is an unbelievably inconclusive shot that says absolutely nothing, and I really hope for your sake that this was not what you were talking about.
rroman3212 5 months ago
@rroman3212 Sorry about that, it seems that video was removed from his channel after I posted the link. Here is a different video of the same thing, /watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE
The way it sparks makes it look like steel. However it could be molten aluminum but at that temperature it would probably ignite and burn off with some white smoke. Do you now accept that near white hot temperatures were reached?
RavenPrecept 5 months ago
@RavenPrecept I accept that it was very hot. That is what happens when a plane full of jet fuel crashes into a building and is left to burn. Aluminum, or most metals for that matter do not have a very high melting point so there are a number of things that could have been. I am curious to know what your eye-ball analysis of this video leads you to conclude happened, considering that this event has been studied by scientists for almost a decade.
rroman3212 5 months ago
@rroman3212 There is a very particular bit of science involved here. Metal glows according to it's temperature, not it's melting point. Tungsten has such a high melting point that it stays solid in a light bulb at a temperature that would melt steel. The point about metal molten at a lower melting point, it would not be glowing brightly like the metal we see pouring from the building. You can actually tell how hot this metal is, without knowing what type of metal it is.
RavenPrecept 5 months ago
@RavenPrecept Ok so, metal color = temperature. What is your point?
rroman3212 5 months ago
@rroman3212 The metal is hot enough to be molten steel, which supports those who say that fires melted the steel but contradicts you when you say can't be molten steel because the fire could not be that hot.
It also supports those who say the steel was melted with thermite since that is exactly what thermite is, molten steel.
RavenPrecept 5 months ago
@rroman3212 I am pretty gobsmacked that you need me to make it any clearer. At this point you should either be able to point out a flaw in my argument or you will suddenly see the implication and be looking for an explanation. It was a similar scientific point that made me realize it was an inside job. I was shocked and determined to find evidence corroborating or denying what had been proved to me. If you fail to see the point then there is no hope for you.
RavenPrecept 5 months ago
@RavenPrecept In other words the point you were trying to make sounds to ridiculous to actually say out loud, so instead you try to lead people to conclude it for themselves without them realizing how ridiculous they sound. If they do realize how ridiculous they sound then they are not capable of "seeing the truth". This is a very typical truther tactic. I am very aware of 911 conspiracy theories, I prefer real debates rather then youtube bickering but it is still interesting to see what I get.
rroman3212 5 months ago
@rroman3212 I did two posts but only one showed up. I already made the point in the post above your one metal colour = temperature. That really is the point.
If a metal is white hot then that's how hot it is. If it's white hot steel then it's molten. Now do you get it?
RavenPrecept 5 months ago
@RavenPrecept Why would you waste all this time to tell me that the metal was very hot? Even if it was white hot molten steel, why would this matter? What is your point? Know one cares what temperature the metal was. Truthers make a big deal out of it because it somehow feeds into their conspiracy theories. I was waiting to see where you were going with this but if that's it, if that is all you have to say, then like most people... I don't care. If you have a real point to make let me know.
rroman3212 5 months ago
@rroman3212 Don't try and make out you planned this all along. NIST say the temperatures did not get so high as to melt steel yet clearly they did. Was this the reason the building fell. What melted the steel? Was it thermite. Was it an inside job? I believe that 9/11 was an inside job and this information changes my entire outlook on the world.
RavenPrecept 5 months ago
@RavenPrecept Just to make sure I understand your claim... You believe that a team of 200 scientists and structural engineers at NIST (only 65 of which actually worked for the government, the rest were contracted through private companies) put together a fake scientific report to help the government cover up the largest mass murder in US history, all because of the color that appears on your computer monitor when you look at the molten metal video? Does that about sum it up?
rroman3212 5 months ago
@rroman3212 Makes you wonder does it not? How many scientists would put their name to this? Generally a report would be written by a handful of scientists. If 200 signed it then I would imagine they were making a point. Now if you're talking engineers putting their name on something try Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, I think it's over 1000, which trumps the 200 scientists you mention.
RavenPrecept 5 months ago
@RavenPrecept Currently 1537 9/11 truth engineers to be exact, compared to the 1.7 million architects and engineers in the US alone, which amounts to a whopping 0.09% of the industry (before excluding foriegn engineers from that list) that have signed onto your theories. The collapse of the towers is the most studied case of architectural failure in the history of the world. You believe that 1537 engineers know something the rest of the world apparently does not.
rroman3212 5 months ago
@rroman3212 There is certainly a stigma attached to saying you believe 9/11 was an inside job. Just as there was with people believing that the earth orbits the sun. This bit of knowledge was attributed to one man where as privately there were quite a few scientists of the day who believed this was the case. It certainly was was only a minority. They just did not want to pick a fight with the church over this.
RavenPrecept 5 months ago
@RavenPrecept There is a stigma about it because it is not true. Some people did believe that the earth orbited the sun, many did not. At that time there was no scientific evidence to prove either way so it was just a belief. Once science proved that the earth orbited the sun, people rightfully changed their minds. Truthers should do the same, and accept the evidence which is very clear.
rroman3212 5 months ago
@rroman3212 That was not how it happened. It was not that the scientific evidence convinced people, those people already knew. It was the consensus of opinion and the eventual change of political and religious atmosphere that meant it became acceptable to hold those opinions. Much like the 9/11 truth movement of today.
RavenPrecept 5 months ago
@RavenPrecept Uhhh sure, ok. However it happened, I guess I wouldn't know. The 9/11 truth movement has gotten smaller, not bigger. This trend will continue.
rroman3212 5 months ago
@rroman3212 So's your dick. This trend will continue. Now how would I know that, fact is I don't and nether do you. My mother became a truther at the weekend. She says to me "I watched that collapse again, obviously it was a demolition. Now I feel you are wasting your life on this, you're smarter than that. Instead of railing against these people you should wise up and work with the NWO" Obviously I pointed out they murdered 3000 people, she responded, "useless eaters".
RavenPrecept 4 months ago
@RavenPrecept I don't "rail" against people, I rail against their logic. If you can make a reasonable case that the "NWO" murdered 3,000 people then I would accept it. No one has been able to do this in ten years.
rroman3212 4 months ago
@rroman3212 I think you miss the point, my mother suggested that the NWO murdered 3000 people and I should join the NWO since they were winning. It's pretty clear to a lot of people, the first responders, who are now all banned from the 9/11 10 memorial service. The people responsible for accepting the case that it was an inside job are those same people who ban 9/11 truth from the TV and the first responders from the ceremony. They have denied their guilt for 10 years.
RavenPrecept 4 months ago
@RavenPrecept Yes, I misunderstood your reply. The NWO you speak of is nothing more then the majority of people in this country who believe your theories are full of crap. And with good reason; there is no logical reason to believe anything that leads to your conclusions without disregarding reality.
rroman3212 4 months ago
@rroman3212 forget the NWO nonsense. what about the 100 day fires with temps up to 2800F, the explosiveness of wtc 1&2 which came down at about 60% slower than freefall, (and left 1100 people unaccounted for, pulverized most of the concrete and blasted the perimeter wall assemblies for hundreds of feet in every direction, WTC7's implosion, molten metal documented in the FEMA BPAT Appendix C and described by so many witnesses, the iron microshperes..etc that all point to explosives
winston2015 4 months ago
@winston2015 I only have 500 characters. Please google "shotgun argumentation". The Temperatures did not last 100 days and were not 2800 degrees. NASA thermal imaging shows a Max temp at 1341. 60% slower then freefall? You are the 1st person I have ever heard say this. Pulverized concrete is a characteristic of any building collapse. Blasted perimeter walls are natural given the conditions. WTC was not an implosion. Molten metal is very normal with 1341* temperatures. Out of space.
rroman3212 4 months ago
@rroman3212 So it's the conclusions you have a problem with? I must admit it was the conclusions that gave me pause for thought. I simply looked at the evidence and followed it to the conclusions. As much as I dislike what it means I did not go back and deny the evidence. Your reasoning is circular.
RavenPrecept 3 months ago
@RavenPrecept If you had listened to anything I have said you would see how little sense you make. The problem with these youtube bickering matches is that you just spout nonsense and don't have to back it up. Here is a debate that I did on a real debate site. If you want a serious discussion on this then sign up and challenge me. It will be easy to tell which one I am:
debate.org /debates/That-the-US-government-is-responsible-for-9-11/1/
rroman3212 3 months ago
@RavenPrecept The link doesn't seem to work If you go on debate.org, in the upper right hand corner in the "search debates" box type WTC7 and it is like the third one down which reads "that the US government is responsible for 911"
rroman3212 3 months ago
@RavenPrecept Yes, Raven, follow "Roman" over to another place where he can bog you down with bullshit and perhaps lure you into yet another circular argument with other shills...get you to expend time and calories not HERE in front of perhaps a thousand eyes but off in some corner where your doubts of the 9-11 "story" will harmlessly play out before 3 people (2 being shills). Roman is a shill, who says the same thing over..and over...and over. Trust your own EYES. WTC7 was imploded.
SeenThisScene 3 months ago
@SeenThisScene No it's to follow me over to a place where both people have to actually back up what they say with facts instead of just spouting bullsh!t like you do. Its obvious you wouldn't take the challenge because you clearly don't like the idea of having to defend your views, just keep repeating all the nonsense you hear from Alex Jones then tell everybody they need to think for themselves. The "thousands" of eyes here have no concern for facts. 500 character limits do not establish them.
rroman3212 3 months ago
@rroman3212 LMAO. If the "thousands of eyes here" have "no concern for facts", why the hell would you want them over at "the other place"? See, Roman, this is exactly what we're talking about. You can't even put an intrinsically coherent thought in one sentence. You claim to WANT people HERE...to go THERE...to join your discussion...but first you INSULT the people HERE...saying they "have NO CONCERN for FACTS". Christ, you are a tool. Either that, or you are the lowest paid shill in the shed.
SeenThisScene 3 months ago
@SeenThisScene "The other place" is a place where people have to actually support their arguments, instead of making up a bunch of crap and running away when someone challenges it. Its not that I want people to "join my discussion" it’s that I can't stand people who spread this nonsense to vulnerable young minds, but won't dare defend them in a real debate. I don't expect anyone to "follow me", its just fun to see how you guys make excuses and run away when challenged by a real contender.
rroman3212 3 months ago
@rroman3212 Roman, You piece of dogshit. Was that "harsh"? My last post was...as I write this: "22 hours ago". Here I am AGAIN. Does it look like I'm "running away"? There is NOTHING to debate. What? Which pants pocket did the "hijacker" keep his PASSPORT in?.... the passport that magically "flew" out the window of a vaporized aircraft fuselage, after a 400 knot impact, through all the carnage and pulverized cement and 1000 degree fire and ended up unscathed to be "found" on the street below?
SeenThisScene 3 months ago
@SeenThisScene There is nothing to debate because you have already made up your mind. Debates establish facts. To you facts no longer matter. If I propose a sensible reason that answers your suspicions you'll find one thing wrong with it and toss the entire explanation out the window. If you can not find one thing wrong, then I must be some government agent skillfully making stuff up. Either way you "win". Here’s an example: Passports found at crash sites is nothing unusual. Google Corey Lidle.
rroman3212 3 months ago
@rroman3212 I don't like the idea of having to explain the same fucking simple point -that Jowenko shows surprise ONLY when told WTC7 came down SAME DAY- TEN fucking ways because I'm either A) Talking to a complete moron, or B) Because I'm talking to a co-conspirator or accessory after-the-fact who helps hide the criminals who KILLED 1000's of my countrymen so that his foreign nation (Israel) can murder and steal at the expense of World Peace. Defending? I never tire of that, buddy boy.
SeenThisScene 3 months ago
@SeenThisScene So I am a government agent now??? lol! That is why arguing with truthers is so pointless. It is not possible that I just understand the facts better then you do, no it's that I must be "in on it" so avoid any REAL discussion with me. Yes I got your point, the only thing moronic here is how you still don't get mine that his showing surprise means absolutely nothing. Everyone was surprised when WTC7 came down. It takes years of analysis to find out why, not ten seconds on youtube.
rroman3212 3 months ago
@rroman3212 1) "arguing with truthers is pointless"? So why are you replying to me? Are you in the habit of behaving "pointlessly"? You contradict yourself at every turn. If we "truthers" are wrong about the 9-11 events, then logic says you are likely NOT a "government shill". But if we are right, then there is a distinct possibility you could be.
SeenThisScene 3 months ago
@SeenThisScene 1) You got me on this point. However, arguing with truthers is pointless if the intent is to get them to face facts when they are wrong about something. But instead they make up excuses every time (like calling me a shill) and then focus on those excuses, forgetting that they were ever wrong about anything. Your entire response is yet another example of this. But I’ll answer to them anyway…
rroman3212 3 months ago
@rroman3212 2) If there exists a group of people in this country who'd stoop to killing thousands in order to justify an agressive foreign adventure, which then further led to the deaths of 1000's of US soldiers, 100's of 1000's of people in other countries... It would be ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY to think that they would "draw the line" at promoting disinformation in the public media and on the web, right? Just using logic here, Rom.
SeenThisScene 3 months ago
@SeenThisScene 2) Your point is logical. But this point is part of what is so sad about all of this. Do you really believe that this is the world you live in? Government agents are people just like you and me. They grew up in the same towns and went to the same schools as you and me. Do you really believe so many people living among us are accessories to mass murderers and that NONE of them would ever talk about it? Is this your view of human nature? Of the people of America, and the world?
rroman3212 3 months ago
@rroman3212 3) Let's deal with this "shill" issue, since you claim it bothers you- OR you wish to belittle it with "LOLz". If a stranger says to me : "Weird weather we're having... Never seen a PLAID SKY before." I might chuckle. If he continues with this, and it seems he wants me to think he's serious, I am going to ask myself: "Where is he coming from? What is his game?" Any rational person would do the same. Say otherwise and I'm done with you. We clear?
SeenThisScene 3 months ago
@SeenThisScene 3) Yes, any rational person would do the same. If I understand where you are going with this, you are saying that I am suspicious because I keep coming back. It's not that difficult to understand. Obviously I enjoy a good debate otherwise I would not be on a debate website. My last point explains that I think it is sad how people change their entire world view over stuff that is completely made up. I also think the victims families should be able to move on. You guys don't help.
rroman3212 3 months ago
@rroman3212 4) I see a building drop. I see it drop uniformly. I see it drop more perfectly than ANY controlled demolition I've ever seen in my long and traveled life. And then you come along... and tell me: "Do not believe your eyes...there's things you don't understand...listen to my.., er, I mean, listen to 'these experts' over here.." At first Roman, I will try to discuss this issue with you. I will.
And I did.
SeenThisScene 3 months ago
@SeenThisScene 4) No one is telling you not to believe your eyes. WTC7 does appear to be a CD, just like the world appeared to be flat. It is not till you look closer that you see the difference, something you guys don’t do. The penthouse can not be explained by any truther, so they disregard it. There was no extensive CD preparation, so they disregard it etc... All I am saying is to acknowledge ALL facts and realize how absurd it is to disregard everything that shows your theory to be false.
rroman3212 3 months ago
@rroman3212 5) But when you stated that Jowenko - an expert in the business for 30 years shouldn't be allowed to "comment" on this... Ahhhhh. I must think of the guy telling me the sky is plaid, and I wonder: "What could POSSIBLY make him say such a thing?" Why are you here? I don't know. Don't care. Why I am here? I see a goddamn building brought down by explosives and I unashamedly am hoping to light a fucking fire in the brains of anyone reading my comments so that they can see it too.
SeenThisScene 3 months ago
@SeenThisScene 5) I never said he should not be allowed to comment. I simply pointed out what was wrong with his analysis. It is classic conspiracy fallacy. His mind was made up before he ever attempted to research it. If he could actually come up with an explanation as to how it was done I would give it some merit, yet he can not. Every theory has been thoroughly debunked yet you guys still believe it. This falls into the realm of spiritual belief.
rroman3212 3 months ago
@rroman3212 Lastly) There are 3 possibilities which would explain your actions here:
1) You're an idiot.
2) You are a paid "shill".
3) You are an "unpaid" shill. That is, you are compelled to do this for a compelling reason: You belong to a certain community, and you cannot bear the reality that some element from your specific community has perpetrated this. And you realize the backlash that would be if the truth were revealed. And so you deny the truth in order to help hide the crime.
SeenThisScene 3 months ago
@SeenThisScene Lastly) I've made my point clear on why I am here. If my community did this I would want to know. I at one point I did believe this nonsense. It was not till I did what you guys don't that I snapped out of it... I considered that I was wrong. I researched BOTH sides and realized how fallacious and dishonest truther arguments are. Not to mention the word reality. Life teaches you things about human nature, you seem to ignore real life experiences in favor of youtube videos.
rroman3212 3 months ago
@rroman3212 1) I'm sick of you. But I'm not going away. Sorry. So you know where you and I (sadly) will be burning our next 1,000,000 calories. Happy? When you say something so ABSOLUTELY FUCKING OFFENSIVE as "well, the world once looked flat too." You are a JACKWAD of the highest order. I WORE the (nomex) uniform of THIS country, and my "IGNORANT BIRD BRAIN" guided a multi-million dollar "killing machine" through the night skies using ANVIS-6's along with a few other qualifications I have...
SeenThisScene 2 months ago
@SeenThisScene 1) Not surprisingly, you completely disregarded everything I said. Yelling at me in all caps on the internet does not strengthen your position. But by now it is obvious that the strength of your position is not a concern to you. It is much easier to misconstrue my arguments and change the subject, then it is to intelligently to address them so that is what you did.
rroman3212 2 months ago
@rroman3212 2) You say I "disregarded" everything you said. As you disregard everything *I* say. You did not answer my challenge as to who I blame for this. Perhaps your answer is "I won't dignify that insinuation". Nope. Dead silence from you. That's a "shock". (Still no "scary" caps. How I'm doin'?) You lie blatantly when you characterize my accusation as being that I argue "the whole world must be murderers, "blah, blah". I did not even remotely say that.
SeenThisScene 2 months ago
@SeenThisScene 2) What did I disregard... your "challenge" as to who you blame? Why would I respond to that? It is not my job to guess what your case is. If you believe something as crazy as you sure seem to then make your case. Tell me who you blame. Tell me why. Show me that you have a reason to believe this crap beyond faith. It is obvious by now that you are to scared to explain and defend your position or you would have accepted my challenge to defend it in a real debate.
rroman3212 2 months ago
@rroman3212 4) Earlier you wrote "at one point I did believe this nonsense". Interesting. So, essentially you doubted the 911 story at some point....then "later on", after "research", you changed. Is that the order? Wow. I see that you and I are "star-crossed" debaters. You see, from September 11, 2001 until at least 2006 (nearly 5 years) if someone had tried to tell me "Arabs didn't do this" I'd have destroyed them with every ounce of vigor as I'm using on you now.
And then I saw WTC 7.
SeenThisScene 2 months ago
@SeenThisScene 4) OK... so you didn't believe this stuff until you saw building 7. Your point? But while we are here, let me guess... As soon as you saw it you instantly knew it was a CD right? Because you know, it kind of looks like one. Except the fact that the penthouse fell before the rest of the building, and that there were no loud explosions, and that there was no extensive CD preparation etc... You know, if you disregard all of that then it looks exactly like a CD.
rroman3212 2 months ago
@rroman3212 2) But because I differ I'm a "flat-earther". Funny. Some in my immediately family designed -as in ENGINEERED- systems on the Shuttle. And YEAH, I have discussed 9-11 with them. And they are DEPRESSED. You say: "do you believe people who lived in the same towns, etc could do this?" NO. NO I DON'T. Are we clear? AGAIN: I DON"T BELIEVE A SINGLE AMERICAN PLANTED THE EXPLOSIVES IN THOSE BUILDINGS. Need that clarified some more? That ERADICATES your "How could they do that" argument.
SeenThisScene 2 months ago
@SeenThisScene Yes, I guess that does eradicate my argument. But it only adds to the absurdity of yours. You are suggesting that outsiders came in and did this to us, yet we decided to cover it up? How did these outsiders get into the WTC? How did no one notice that a bunch of guys were wiring the building with bombs? Have you ever seen a building prepared for CD?
rroman3212 2 months ago
@rroman3212 Tell ya right now "roman". I don't believe "the Government" pays people enough GOLD or even "30 pieces of Silver" to expend the energy you have... I guess we understand each other, huh?
SeenThisScene 2 months ago
@SeenThisScene Not really much energy. In fact it's kind of entertaining. I provide an intelligent response to what you say and you get mad and start yelling at me in all caps, completely changing the subject. I am sorry to make you question your religion. My intent was to find someone who would back up their arguments with logic. If you can not do that then let me know.
rroman3212 2 months ago
@rroman3212 3) Of course: the murder of 3,000 people in America, the deaths of 4 or 5,000 US soldiers and 100,000+ in foreign lands is entertaining to you. Yep. Oh, not what ya meant? No, roman, this is wrenching to me. Not entertaining. Wrenching. It's not only these deaths. It's knowing that there are reptiles in human form out there like you trying to cover this up. This will not do well for you. But I understand: You could not care one whit.
SeenThisScene 2 months ago
@SeenThisScene 3) No none of that is entertaining to me. What is entertaining is how the ones who believe this nonsense blatantly ignore reality and constantly change the subject or divert attention away from the absurdity of their positions by focusing on completely irrelevant things... like my comment about using CAPS for example.
rroman3212 2 months ago
@rroman3212 You know how they knew who two of the terrorists were? They found their passports in the dust of the twin towers. They needed DNA to identify the victims but obviously terrorist would leave their passports. There are so many absurd things about 9/11 that anyone who knows about it would question it. Having looking into it they would realise it was an inside job. Honest people would say it was an inside job, a dishonest person would pretend to believe the official version.
RavenPrecept 2 months ago
@RavenPrecept Picture yourself about to get into a fight with someone and saying they are scared of you. Then that person gets in your face and challenges you to do something... you reaction is to walk away and call them scared of you. Does that make sense? That is pretty much what you are doing now. You claim I am dishonest because I don't believe the official story. I then challenge you to a real debate and you decline, then you call me dishonest and say I am pretending to believe it. Really?
rroman3212 2 months ago
@rroman3212 I think I have learned enough about debating to know that the strongest debaters are those who stick to their guns. There is no possibility that you will ever change your point of view because we are both in contact with the same information and spout different views. I don't think you believe you have the truth just that you are very good at arguing the toss. There is no possibility that I could teach you anything. You have taught me that much.
RavenPrecept 2 months ago
@SeenThisScene You and I individually are not a huge threat to the criminals of 9/11. That's why they have not had us killed. However if you believe that Danny was killed for his views on 9/11 then it's not that hard to believe that they would send Roman to argue against us. If Roman is just a normal person he will be pissing himself laughing about this. However if he is an agent of the criminals of 9/11 then I just raised the stakes.
RavenPrecept 2 months ago
@RavenPrecept OMG LMFAO! Yes I am pissing myself laughing about it. I don't know if I should admit that or play along with this whole agent thing. It sounds like it could be a lot of fun. Anyway's I gave you guys a link to one of my debates where you can see my profile and all of the stupid stuff I have debated. Do you really think an agent paid to hunt down truthers would waste time debating steroids in baseball, or the value of marriage in our society?
rroman3212 2 months ago
@rroman3212 It seems to me then that you just like to take a position and debate it. Fair enough. Are you passionate about the truth or is this just a debate to see who can make the strongest points and win?
RavenPrecept 2 months ago
@RavenPrecept 1) I do like to win, but that is not what it’s about. I have always been fascinated at how 2 people can have the same exact info and hold two completely different positions. I enjoy debating because I enjoy exploring different concepts and understanding why people disagree on them. It helps me to better understand the world. What fascinates me about 9/11 is that so many thousands of people believe this inside job stuff yet I have never heard an intelligent supporting argument
rroman3212 2 months ago
2) that can hold up in a real debate. David Ray Griffin is by far the best I have seen yet his arguments are laced with misrepresentations and logical fallacies. But what interests me is that after people seem to get fooled by it they never explore if they are right. Instead they get this “epiphany” where they realize that everyone involved in government and all who is controlled by them are potentially liars and murderers so they can never trust facts again, and everyone who presents
rroman3212 2 months ago
3) a strong argument negating their position is either a liar or a government agent (like me lol). This whole thing was really more like an experiment. Truthers remind me of a boxer who wins a title but never puts it on the line. You guys have a self proclaimed title in that you believe you are right, but your title is unearned if you never defend it. To defend it you must accept that you might be wrong and take on opposing viewpoints head on. I am willing to do that, you are apparently not.
rroman3212 2 months ago
@rroman3212 Very good. I mean seriously very good. I gave you thumbs up. You said something I agree with. You are willing to put it on the line with the possibility you might be proved wrong. I agree if there is no possibility of being proved wrong then there is no value in being right. A bit like ebay ratings where they won't let you give negative feedback, pretty pointless. Anyway, you may hate this smug answer, I feel I don't need to be taught the opposing view but simply spread what I know.
RavenPrecept 2 months ago
@RavenPrecept 1) I'll go ahead and say: "roman" is not a "government agent". This accusation- being a "part" of the "big, shadowy conspiracy" that did 9/11- is extremely useful to the 911Liars movement. It isn't believable and thus I don't believe...) that several thousand, or even a couple "hundred" "co-conspirators" or "after-the-fact" paid tools have been sent out to "argue" against the Truth Mov't across "the internets" (Bush-ism). But first let's get some things straight...
SeenThisScene 2 months ago
@RavenPrecept 2) I use the word "shill" out of irritation and exasperation. That's my fault. Our "Roman" can then jump on that and then dismiss me as a "tinfoil hat-wearing" conspiracy buff, with the added detail now of believing the 9/11 conspiracy for "spiritual" reasons. (Regardless of my rather hardened atheism...)
As I wrote to Roman before, there are a mere 3 reasons to explain his behavior: 1) He's an idiot. 2) He's a gen-u-wine Government-paid "shill". 3) He's an "unpaid shill".
SeenThisScene 2 months ago
@RavenPrecept 3) I don't hold that "Roman" is a "gov't shill" for the reasons I put in post #1, PLUS the perpetrators of 9/11 probably know or knew, that America is SO incredibly stupid, ill-informed, naive and with the attention span of a gnat, that a battle across the "internets" would not be necessary. Roman would "hate" me for saying this, but the very proof of America's irredeemable idiocy can be verified by reading the contributions of people just like him on this board!
SeenThisScene 2 months ago
@RavenPrecept 4) There is another "4th" possibility: That "roman" is a common "troll". Perhaps some people get something "sexual" out of their trolling. It's like youngster's immature fascination with "ding dong ditch"- only he's well past 13 (I think). Am I assailing "Roman's" character now? Not any more than he is mine when he pulls out this ridiculous "spiritual belief" angle that he thinks motivates "truthers". At any rate, I will forgo labeling him "common troll".
SeenThisScene 2 months ago
@RavenPrecept 5) Ok. So where does that leave us? I don't think R-man is "government shill" (for the reasons in post #1)...or a common troll... so we're left with "idiot" or "unpaid shill" as possibilities. In good faith, I cannot say to you that he's not a idiot. (Sorry, Roman) But I don't think he is. (Yay! Roman!) I believe Roman is of a conviction that, he may know that 9/11 was a false flag attack, but he's arguing otherwise for personal reasons. What reasons could those be?
SeenThisScene 2 months ago
@SeenThisScene A very difficult one. I do get riled when they say we believe in CTs because we are losers and most debunkers tend to insult us deliberately. However that's an idiotic way of arguing. Roman is obviously bright enough to see the facts could lead to Inside Job but also bright enough to weave them so they don't. It comes down to honesty and loyalty. He is loyal to his position but not honest enough to admit he is wrong. Once he believes two contradictory theories he may crack.
RavenPrecept 2 months ago
@RavenPrecept 6) We could ask him... but because of the very game he's playing, he cannot give us the truth.
Raven, have you seen this? watch?v=u_Ffz0koJbI
AND do you know of "Rep". Eric Cantor's treason?
There is a reason why Chertoff, Feith, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Cantor etc (and very likely "roman") do what they do. And it is "rational" insofar as it is (for them) "evolutionary".
SeenThisScene 2 months ago
@rroman3212 To prevent a "misunderstanding" of my stated positions about WTC7, I believe 7 WAS a controlled demolition, therefore ALL were controlled demolitions, therefore they ALL had to be RIGGED and thus have RIGGERS. I stated I believe that "NO AMERICAN planted explosives" in the buildings. I also OF COURSE do not believe any "crazy Muslims" were involved. Be a fucking HERO and super-smart guy Roman and tell everyone who I'm pointing a finger at. Or play DUMB, and prove you're a LIAR.
SeenThisScene 2 months ago
@SeenThisScene At some point you must stop and realize that you can not argue that the entire world is full of murderers because you do not understand the official explanation of how the buildings collapsed. Even if the 200 scientists that worked on this report got it wrong, that doesn't mean the building was wired with bombs, along with every other one, along with the Pentagon, along with flight 93... along with... along with... along with...
rroman3212 2 months ago
@rroman3212 1) Oh roman, sometimes you make me angry and sometimes you make me laugh! Way to put words in my mouth. Sorry. If my position is "weakened" by writing in big "scary" capital letters, I'll try to stick to lower case just for you, Mmmmkay?
SeenThisScene 2 months ago
@SeenThisScene The CAPS thing is a joke. I gues I should have realized it would go over your head. redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/allcaps.htm
rroman3212 2 months ago
@rroman3212 You know, it went right past me, Roman: How could I accuse a group of people of this heinous crime? A "conspiracy" of people, to commit this heinous crime...but
YOU ARE!
YOU ARE accusing, at a minimum, a "conspiracy" of 19 Arabs of doing this. So, it's "easy to believe" Muslims could be so cold and calculating and murderous...but not Israelis?
Even though Israel HAS, in the past, conducted FALSE FLAG operations... Against America? Like the Lavon Affair?
SeenThisScene 2 months ago
@SeenThisScene Are you serious? Let me guess... Al Queada is completely made up right? There are no Muslim extremists on the other side of the world that want us dead right? Of course not. How crazy is it to believe that 19 Arabs did something like this? It seems a whole lot easier to believe that thousands of Americans planned, carried out, and covered it up and fooled the rest of the world doing this. Or just pick one of the above, maybe they just covered it up.
rroman3212 2 months ago
@rroman3212 Al Queada must be real, their flag is flying above the government building in Libya. Or could someone have put it up there as a joke?
RavenPrecept 2 months ago
@rroman3212 Why not?
RavenPrecept 2 months ago
@SeenThisScene I think I won the argument though :-) What is a shame is I can't figure out if Roman actually believes what he is saying or simply wants to prevent people from thinking 9/11 was an inside job. I suppose I enjoy these debates because I feel that I can use the arguments these people put forward to to prove to them in their own language that 9/11 was an inside job. Unfortunately they just end up with them in a circular argument.
RavenPrecept 2 months ago
@RavenPrecept You hit the nail RIGHT ON THE HEAD. (Dammit! There I go with those caps again. I hope I didn't "upset" Roman... ) That is the dilemma: Is he merely an honest idiot, or does he do this -while playing the "simple seeker of truth"- for darker reasons. The answer? You can't pin it down. How easy life would be if you could!
SeenThisScene 2 months ago
@SeenThisScene People who have studied 9/11 and still support the official version are fairly rare. The official version only works if you are not really paying attention. It's like a movie with continuity errors, as long as you don't spot them then you enjoy the story. Once you start to see the errors the movie loses it's realism and you make a game of spotting more problems. Someone invested in the movie would defend it and say it's a great movie.
RavenPrecept 2 months ago
@RavenPrecept People who have studies 9/11 and believe the official story are indeed rare... here on youtube. It's not hard to understand why. Truthers have adopted every dishonest and fallacious method of argumentation there is. That is why truthers never last in real debates. It is way to easy to call them out on it.
rroman3212 2 months ago
@rroman3212 Well look guys, this has been fun but is showing to be extremely pointless. You guys clearly have no intention of defending your views in a real debate and would rather spout your nonsense in a 500 character limit format here in the comfort of youtube where there is no reason to argue with facts. If you want a real challenge with 8,000 character rounds, 3 days to respond to your opponent's argument, and an audience who will read and vote let me know.
rroman3212 2 months ago
@RavenPrecept Won the argument? What argument? This is nothing more then a meaningless bickering match. I already challenged you to a real argument. If you are so confident that you can "use my arguments" to show that it was an inside job then I am sure you would enjoy doing it in front of people who actually read it and vote. But we both know that is not the case.
rroman3212 2 months ago
@rroman3212 We see it was an inside job because of the way they brought down WTC7. First they say they had to demolish it for safety reasons. Then they say it's fallen down by itself whilst it's still standing. It's pretty blatant. It is weird that you think you can convince me of something that you don't even believe yourself.
RavenPrecept 2 months ago
@SeenThisScene I did follow someone to their own board. True enough there was room to expand on the topic but the moderator would disallow the best posts in favour of the Inside Job.
RavenPrecept 2 months ago
@rroman3212 You are assuming that 1.7 million engineers studied 9/11. We don't actually know what those 1.7 million think. We do know what Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth think. I know that if it were up to main stream media I would never have discovered 9/11 to be an inside job. It was a YouTube video that woke me up. It started a whole awakening process in me. As it has for millions of others. Getting away from the BBC news is a massive undertaking for the world.
RavenPrecept 2 months ago
@SeenThisScene
Jesse Ventura is demo expert trained by best, that also makes him a dilusional clown trying to profit of deaths of victims of a terror attack by Muslims.
Never question officials, it is unAmerican to ask questions of your gov't - JV.
euro944t 6 months ago
@SeenThisScene
Did you paint that HUGE MENORAH on side of WTC 7.
Menorah - Symbol of Jewish celebration for the conquering of the goyim
euro944t 6 months ago
@SeenThisScene I expect Jowenkos death was an accident that would have happened if he was a dog catcher or 9/11 whistle blower. No sign of foul play. Yeah right...
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
@rroman3212 You have two sides to your brain. One side knows something instinctively where as the other side has to work it out. If we had to work everything out all the time then we would be very slow. However to explain things to other people you have to work it out. This is why having someone help you who needs everything explained makes the job take longer than if you did it on your own. The man knew instantly because he knows his job so well.
RavenPrecept 6 months ago
NIST should've at least tested for explosives. But they didn't.
charlesfloyb 10 months ago
One million internet dollars to whoever puts (back) up Jowenko's comments on WTC 1 and 2!
2210ethan 1 year ago
@2210ethan Jowenko said WTC1 and 2 were NOT controlled demolitions. Is that what you want?
Skeptic121 1 year ago
@Skeptic121
Excellent. Good to see someone remembers.
2210ethan 1 year ago
So awesome.
inhuman0id 1 year ago
This is excellent! Can't wait for more people to start waking up.
gaussalmighty 1 year ago
What are you talking about rubberritchie? Listen to what he says - "absolutely not".
WTC7 was a controlled demolition - anybody who can't see that is in denial.
louielovett 1 year ago
Comment removed
rubberritchie 1 year ago
@rubberritchie its not fake..and your 'ovderwhelming majority of experts' means nothing...other than that they are gutless and not very glood experts...theyd have been primed with the official conspiracy theory, which renders their assessments null and void
jalusbrian 1 year ago
Comment removed
rubberritchie 1 year ago
@rubberritchie well Jowenkos expertise disagrees with you...and he is at an advantage..as he was not primed with the idea that what he saw was part of the WTC complex...
as for screwloosexchange..screw them! a shadowy site whose title shows its low calibre.
jalusbrian 1 year ago
Comment removed
rubberritchie 1 year ago
@rubberritchie Jowenko had heard the storyies of 9-11 and accepted the official view..BUT he was unaware of WTC7 so was not primed for that. When he saw that he saw a CD...had he not known of 9-11, would he have behaved the same way?
He examined WTC7 closely , as the videos show...try not to lie so openly...its embarrassing
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@rubberritchie as for courts: prof David Ray Griffin: 'Blair's report, however, began by saying: "This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law." Although the case was not good enough to go to court, Blair seemed to be saying, it was good enough to go to war.'
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@rubberritchie which experts are you referring to? NIST? The 9/11 Commission?
inhuman0id 1 year ago
Great job, Einsteen! Great point that no demoltion experts in the States could say it was or they would get blacklisted. I agree with Danny, it clearly looks like a controlled demoltion. The tenants of WTC7, along with Silverstein make it all more than suspicious.
louielovett 1 year ago
Comment removed
rubberritchie 1 year ago
@rubberritchie no they are clearly CD...because the lower part of the building is untouchedm and should have offered resistance to the upper portion at least slowing its collapse. Sorry Rubber....He make no quick judgement...and ive seen the whole documentary
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@jalusbrian So he's wrong on the towers but right on 7? If you dismiss his expertise on the towers you can't use him to back you up on building 7. This is how desperate for evidence the 'Truth movement' is.
rubberritchie 1 year ago
@rubberritchie yes he is wrong on WTC1 and 2...why allow 7 to be Cd and not 1 and 2?? AND he is right on WTC7...you are wrong on all 3. How can a building collapse if the support columns are intact.
Richeie: D"OH
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@rubberritchie How much do you get paid for trolling?
inhuman0id 1 year ago
Comment removed
rubberritchie 1 year ago
@rubberritchie You are right by saying what you believe to be true is an option. Just an option. What I believe is based on scientific fact learned in High School and college science and engineering classes. Alex Jones is a shill telling half truths and fear mongering for the Zionists. I do not need Alex Jones for anything. The manner in which the WTC buildings fell can ONLY have occurred ONE WAY. DEMOLITION
inhuman0id 1 year ago
Comment removed
rubberritchie 1 year ago
@rubberritchie youve never seen a CD...right? So you wouldnt know what one looks like..let alone these special cases, as these used thermate.
The experts agt AE911truth DONT agree with you or your 'experts'. But thats science for you.And no Jowenko is credible..its you who are not credible.
jalusbrian 1 year ago
@rubberritchie you are using common 'tricks' criminal use to hide truths and spread misleading information
inhuman0id 1 year ago
Comment removed
rubberritchie 1 year ago
In the oiginal interview, watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I we learn that Jowenko knew NOTHING at all about WTC7, called his assesment "guesswork", and still speculated that fire could not have done it - before he even knew there were widespread, unfought fires! Before he even knew the DAY when WTC7 fell! What research has the man done since that interview and the phone call - do we know?
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
come on!
the guy who asks the questions in that jowenko interview told him that there were fires in wtc7 and he told him when it collapsed!
jowenko is an demolition expert and he says that this was an controlled demolition!
are you an demolition expert?
many experts say that all 3 buildings are controlled demolitions.
question:
do you REALLY believe, that its an coincidence, that all buildings came down by fire BUT IT LOOKS LIKE a controlled demolition??
Uhrwerkmann 1 year ago
@Uhrwerkmann The point is: Jowenko had extremely little information at hand, and formed an ad-hoc opinion. Very weak argument if you base it only on him.
"many experts say that all 3 buildings are controlled demolitions." that's where you err: Jowenko seems to be the ONLY expert who thinks WTC7 was CD, but he also says the twin towers were definitely NOT CD.
The bldgs collapses were driven by gravity. There is no difference in appearance between CD and other causes. That's why they look alike
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@Uhrwerkmann In particular: The collapsed of the twin towers do not at all look like CDs, they look very different! But more importantly: All three collapses SOUND extremely different - because there weren't the characteristic INSANELY LOUD BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG sounds of shockwave explosions. immediately at the onset of collapse. This alone proves: No CD. Not even remotely possible.
PapaOystein 1 year ago
@PapaOystein
i've seen and heard a lot of different stuff. i think you know the statements by paul isaac? that he and a lot of other fire and policemen say there were DEFINITELY explosives in those buildings (wtc 1 and 2)? that there was molten metal and thermate?
"but he also says the twin towers were definitely NOT CD". i didnt find that. please tell me where he says it.
no bang bang bang sounds? that means all the firemen must have lied...
Uhrwerkmann 1 year ago
@PapaOystein if there was resistance from the lower floors from initial impact area then MAYBE a pancake type of collapse would have occurred leaving larger chucks of concrete and steel frame would have been visible in longer lengths: however, one can clearly watch many many videos of all THREE buildings DISINTEGRATE into their own bases leaving very small pieces and demolition dust
as far as the your BANG BANG BANG theory seismic data collected from the event period suggests otherwise
inhuman0id 1 year ago
@inhuman0id "if there was resistance from the lower floor" - there was! :-)
"then MAYBE a pancake type of collapse would have occurred" - well, pancake or not, they collapsed. Yes.
"leaving larger chucks of concrete" - All the concrete was brittle and lightwe