Former Director of Studies at the Army War College says Israel did 911.

digme

Profile:
Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is a writer and consultant specializing in national and international security affairs.
In December 1988, he received the Superior Civilian Service Award after more than five years of service at the U.S. Army War College as Director of Studies, Strategic Studies Institute, and holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research.
He is listed in WHO'S WHO IN THE EAST (23rd ed.).

A Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Army War College, Dr. Sabrosky's teaching and research appointments have included the United States Military Academy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Middlebury College and Catholic University; while in government service, he held concurrent adjunct professorships at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Dr. Sabrosky has lectured widely on defense and foreign affairs in the United States and abroad.

Here's the video of the interview where he explains his position.

So what evidence does he provide of this?
Or does he just rely on his own authority?

digme

King Mob wrote: »

So what evidence does he provide of this?
Or does he just rely on his own authority?

Instead of asking 100 questions trying to trip posters up, why don't you watch the video so you're up to speed with the thread.

digme

digme wrote: »

Instead of asking 100 questions trying to trip posters up, why don't you watch the video so you're up to speed with the thread.

Because my internet is being painfully slow.
I am wondering if it is worth waiting for it to load.

I wasn't trying to trip anyone up I'm just wondering if he offers anything more than a list of claimed credentials and his word.

So what evidence does he produce in the video?

digme

King Mob wrote: »

Because my internet is being painfully slow.
I am wondering if it is worth waiting for it to load.

I wasn't trying to trip anyone up I'm just wondering if he offers anything more than a list of claimed credentials and his word.

So what evidence does he produce in the video?

Perhaps you're too quick for the internet.Load it up and come back to it later and we can have a chat.

Watched the video.
He offers nothing at all to support his assertion beyond old debunked stories and his own personal incredulity.

Just goes to show, you can still have a paragraph of credentials and still be suckered in by nonsense on the internet.

digme

King Mob wrote: »

Watched the video.
He offers nothing at all to support his assertion beyond old debunked stories and his own personal incredulity.

Just goes to show, you can still have a paragraph of credentials and still be suckered in by nonsense on the internet.

Who and what was debunked exactly?

digme

digme wrote: »

Who and what was debunked exactly?

Well pretty much everything he said about 9/11 is the usual truther party line.
"The hijackers couldn't pilot planes"
"No one knows about WTC7"
"There's no explanation why it fell"
"Dancing Israelis"
And so on.

Now digme, why do you think his opinion is any more valid than mine or yours?

digme

King Mob wrote: »

Well pretty much everything he said about 9/11 is the usual truther party line.
"The hijackers couldn't pilot planes" which is true
"No one knows about WTC7" is not a fact
"There's no explanation why it fell" he gave one
"Dancing Israelis" they were
And so on.

Now digme, why do you think his opinion is any more valid than mine or yours?

Looking at his credentials I'd have to say yes.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Well pretty much everything he said about 9/11 is the usual truther party line.
"The hijackers couldn't pilot planes"
"No one knows about WTC7"
"There's no explanation why it fell"
"Dancing Israelis"
And so on.

Now digme, why do you think his opinion is any more valid than mine or yours?

The dancing Israelis has been debunked?

digme

digme wrote: »

Looking at his credentials I'd have to say yes.

But nothing about his credentials means he had any more insight than you or I into any of the things he thinks show Israel are involved.

So is the only reason I should trust this guy is because of his credentials?

What evidence does he offer that isn't offered by others who don't have the credentials?

Brown Bomber

He talks a lot of sense for me. There is a massive question mark over the "Arabs did 9-11" conspiracy theory. Most roads lead to Israel and their sub-ordinates in the US. I would expect that anyone with an open mind who does some digging into 9-11 would conclude this.

Here is a list of Dr Sabrosky's articles http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/sabrosky/

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The dancing Israelis has been debunked?

Well as according to the guy in the video, "acting strangely" at least in someone's objective opinion is enough to absolve them from blame.
He claims that since the hijackers' behaviour didn't make sense to him, they couldn't possibly be involved.
I see no rational reason why this logic shouldn't apply to the Israelis he's accusing of being involved.

Now would you like to address my central point about this guy being no more informed than you or I?

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He talks a lot of sense for me. There is a massive question mark over the "Arabs did 9-11" conspiracy theory. Most roads lead to Israel and their sub-ordinates in the US. I would expect that anyone with an open mind who does some digging into 9-11 would conclude this.

Here is a list of Dr Sabrosky's articles http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/sabrosky/

And yet you've not approached my thread in the correct forum.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056323484

digme

King Mob wrote: »

But nothing about his credentials means he had any more insight than you or I into any of the things he thinks show Israel are involved.

So is the only reason I should trust this guy is because of his credentials?

What evidence does he offer that isn't offered by others who don't have the credentials?

Nothing about his credentials?Are you serious? Come off it now,you said his facts were debunked,which they were not.Everything he says is true.

digme

digme wrote: »

Nothing about his credentials?Are you serious?

I am being serious.
Please point out which of his credentials allows him more insight into any of the stuff he claims than you or I have.
What evidence would he have access to that we don't, and why doesn't he supply it?

digme wrote: »

Come off it now,you said his facts were debunked,which they were not.Everything he says is true.

Well best not get into that as those are topics for other threads.
But regardless, nothing he says is any different to what others claim or does he offer anything besides his own authority to make them more believable.

robtri

digme wrote: »

Looking at his credentials I'd have to say yes.

so if i find somebody with more credentials than this guy who says israel didnt do it.. you will believe him and agree israel didnt do it

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

And yet you've not approached my thread in the correct forum.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056323484

a) Not your thread
b) I'll post where I choose
c) Quit trying to take the thread off-topic as per usual on any Israel related thread.

digme

King Mob wrote: »

I am being serious.
Please point out which of his credentials allows him more insight into any of the stuff he claims than you or I have.
What evidence would he have access to that we don't, and why doesn't he supply it?


Well best not get into that as those are topics for other threads.
But regardless, nothing he says is any different to what others claim or does he offer anything besides his own authority to make them more believable.

Surely the man has a far better insight into the subject matter than we do?
How can you say otherwise? What makes you feel that you or me have the same insight as he would?

digme

robtri wrote: »

so if i find somebody with more credentials than this guy who says israel didnt do it.. you will believe him and agree israel didnt do it

You'd have to show why and deal with the facts of the matter.
I look at all sides.Do you?

digme

digme wrote: »

Surely the man has a far better insight into the subject matter than we do?

Why surely? I asked you to point out the specifics of his credentials that allow him to know more about any of the stuff he claims than we do, you apparently can't do that.
Does he claim to have some inside information about those things?
Does he supply this information or any other evidence?

digme wrote: »

How can you say otherwise? What makes you feel that you or me have the same insight as he would?

Because so far I've not seen him produce any evidence or information that separates him from other truthers or me, and if he does have such things, he's being awful coy about them.
Pointing to his credentials alone does not make him infallible. Relying on his credentials alone is an appeal to authority: a logical fallacy.

digme

King Mob wrote: »

Why surely? I asked you to point out the specifics of his credentials that allow him to know more about any of the stuff he claims than we do, you apparently can't do that.
Does he claim to have some inside information about those things?
Does he supply this information or any other evidence?


Because so far I've not seen him produce any evidence or information that separates him from other truthers or me, and if he does have such things, he's being awful coy about them.
Pointing to his credentials alone does not make him infallible. Relying on his credentials alone is an appeal to authority: a logical fallacy.

He would be in a better position to judge what happened and how it happened.I truly believe that.Why does he have to produce new facts? Aren't the ones already produced enough for the stance he takes on this?
He seems like a fairly knowledgeable man when it comes to these matters.
His credentials are a product of what he has achieved,I won't hold that against him.You seem to though.
If you have a degree in computer science I would surely take your opinion on matters relating to computers and i wouldn't expect someone who hasn't that degree to have the same insight as yourself.That's just idiotic.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Why surely? I asked you to point out the specifics of his credentials that allow him to know more about any of the stuff he claims than we do, you apparently can't do that.
Does he claim to have some inside information about those things?
Does he supply this information or any other evidence?


Because so far I've not seen him produce any evidence or information that separates him from other truthers or me, and if he does have such things, he's being awful coy about them.
Pointing to his credentials alone does not make him infallible. Relying on his credentials alone is an appeal to authority: a logical fallacy.

It's not relying on his credentials alone. Dr Sabrosky presents a viable alternative to the official conspiracy theory. He is a trained military analyst,

Who do you send your car too when it needs repairs? Who would you call if you thought you were having a heart attack? If your dog gets run over who do you take him too? Who cuts your hair? If you were getting a piece of valuable jewellery engraved who would you trust with it? When you have problems with your mobile phone do you call customer service or a random number from your phone book to get help?

digme

digme wrote: »

He would be in a better position to judge what happened and how it happened.I truly believe that.

So you think that because he has a long list of credentials he's more trustworthy?

digme wrote: »

Why does he have to produce new facts? Aren't the ones already produced enough for the stance he takes on this?

Because if he's not producing more facts or offering any new evidence or reasoning, then he's just repeating what other people have claimed making him no different than other truthers, which is my point.

digme wrote: »

He seems like a fairly knowledgeable man when it comes to these matters.
His credentials are a product of what he has achieved,I won't hold that against him.You seem to though.

That's not what I'm arguing.
I've been very clear on the fact that his credentials have no baring on his claims.
Pretending I've suggested otherwise is false.

digme wrote: »

If you have a degree in computer science I would surely take your opinion on matters relating to computers and i wouldn't expect someone who hasn't that degree to have the same insight as yourself.That's just idiotic.

And which of his credentials qualifies him to make any of the claims he made?
This is the 3rd time I've asked you this and despite how you're saying it's so obvious, you've yet to actually answer it.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's not relying on his credentials alone. Dr Sabrosky presents a viable alternative to the official conspiracy theory. He is a trained military analyst,

But he really doesn't provide anything that differentiates his claims form other conspiracy theorists.
He doesn't offer any new insights or reasoning, produces or claims to have any inside information and doesn't show any evidence new or otherwise.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who do you send your car too when it needs repairs? Who would you call if you thought you were having a heart attack? If your dog gets run over who do you take him too? Who cuts your hair? If you were getting a piece of valuable jewellery engraved who would you trust with it? When you have problems with your mobile phone do you call customer service or a random number from your phone book to get help?

Not the one mad heart surgeon/vet/barber/jeweller who claims the exact opposite of what most other surgeons/vets/barbers/jewellers say for one.

But I've not been saying that he's not to be trusted, I'm just asking for you guys to back up his claims with something more than "He's an expert."
So far, that's all he seems to have going for him. Well that and reasons why I'm being ridiculous for daring to not believe what I'm told by an expert....

digme

I'm going to leaba, I'll be back to chat with you tomorrow.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

c) Quit trying to take the thread off-topic as per usual on any Israel related thread.

THE IRONZZZ IT BURNZZZZ

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

But he really doesn't provide anything that differentiates his claims form other conspiracy theorists.
He doesn't offer any new insights or reasoning, produces or claims to have any inside information and doesn't show any evidence new or otherwise.


Not the one mad heart surgeon/vet/barber/jeweller who claims the exact opposite of what most other surgeons/vets/barbers/jewellers say for one.

But I've not been saying that he's not to be trusted, I'm just asking for you guys to back up his claims with something more than "He's an expert."
So far, that's all he seems to have going for him. Well that and reasons why I'm being ridiculous for daring to not believe what I'm told by an expert....

You miss point. He speaks with authority. His opinion should be considered by you, not brushed aside labelling him a "mad" conspiracy theorist and a "truther". You say he is "debunked". Well let's see shall we? Let's take the interview point-by-point and debunk them. Remembering debunk = To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of:


OK, so first he raises the interview with Controlled Demolitons expert Danny Jowenko (below).


Please debunk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boNzLZInbjU

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You miss point. He speaks with authority. His opinion should be considered by you, not brushed aside labelling him a "mad" conspiracy theorist and a "truther".

And you seem to not actually be reading what I've written.
I did not brush him aside, or label him mad.
I am considering his point and asking for something that backs up what he says. But all you're giving me is "He's an expert, therefore unquestionable."

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You say he is "debunked". Well let's see shall we? Let's take the interview point-by-point and debunk them. Remembering debunk = To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of:

No, I'm not going to do that on this thread as it's not my actual point.

Though that said this seems to be another case of "expert agrees with conspiracy, therefore is unquestionable."
So I'll ask the same question you've yet to answer for the other guy: what special evidence, inside information, expert reasoning or other insight does this guy actually provide?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And you seem to not actually be reading what I've written.
I did not brush him aside, or label him mad.
I am considering his point and asking for something that backs up what he says. But all you're giving me is "He's an expert, therefore unquestionable."


No, I'm not going to do that on this thread as it's not my actual point.

Though that said this seems to be another case of "expert agrees with conspiracy, therefore is unquestionable."
So I'll ask the same question you've yet to answer for the other guy: what special evidence, inside information, expert reasoning or other insight does this guy actually provide?

Haha! So according to you everything that Dr Sabrosky has said has been debunked ..........................

AS long as we don't ask any further questions

btw "mad", "truther" and "conspiracy theorists" are all labels that have been applied by you. He is not a conspiracy theorist. He is an independent expert in a related field who has come to an independent conclusion. Conspiracy theorist is just a cheap shot.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You miss point. He speaks with authority. His opinion should be considered by you, not brushed aside labelling him a "mad" conspiracy theorist and a "truther". You say he is "debunked". Well let's see shall we? Let's take the interview point-by-point and debunk them. Remembering debunk = To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of:


OK, so first he raises the interview with Controlled Demolitons expert Danny Jowenko (below).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdEtxFFx-Q4




And that's Danny pointing out that the controlled demolition of the WTC towers would be impossible.

So if Danny's right the WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then he must be right and then the WTC 1&2 weren't demolished by controlled demolition.


Out of curiosity BB, what do you think happened on 9/11?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Haha! So according to you everything that Dr Sabrosky has said has been debunked ..........................

AS long as we don't ask any further questions

Again that's not what I've said, argued or implied.
Please read what I've actually argued and reply to that.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

btw "mad", "truther" and "conspiracy theorists" are all labels that have been applied by you. He is not a conspiracy theorist. He is an independent expert in a related field who has come to an independent conclusion. Conspiracy theorist is just a cheap shot.

Again, never called him mad. I only compared him to truthers and conspiracy theorists because his claims are the exact same.
But I'm not particular interested in discussing the applicability of labels, especially when it's just you trying to avoid my actual point.

Di0genes

Oh and from the megamerge thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52075390&postcount=672

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdEtxFFx-Q4




And that's Danny pointing out that the controlled demolition of the WTC towers would be impossible.

So if Danny's right the WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then he must be right and then the WTC 1&2 weren't demolished by controlled demolition.

And..........?

Mr Atta and co. couldn't have placed explosives in Building 7 from their respective planes. Therefore official story = crock of ****.

What happened in WTC 1 & 2 are irrelevant at this point.

The above doesn't even come close to "debunk = To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: "

NEXT!!!?

Di0genes wrote: »

Out of curiosity BB, what do you think happened on 9/11?

I'm a bit of a floater tbh. Yet to be fully convinced. I've an open mind.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And..........?

Mr Atta and co. couldn't have placed explosives in Building 7 from their respective planes. Therefore official story = crock of ****.

What happened in WTC 1 & 2 are irrelevant at this point.

The above doesn't even come close to "debunk = To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of: "

NEXT!!!?



I'm a bit of a floater tbh. Yet to be fully convinced. I've an open mind.

Fantastic so you believe they flew planes into the towers and they then blew up building 7 because.

Unless you come up with adequate explanation as to why the WTC 7 was supposed to be demolished.

As mentioned it's not like Danny's kept advocating his theory it's been the better part of half a decade don't you have anything, y'know new?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Again that's not what I've said, argued or implied.
Please read what I've actually argued and reply to that.

King Mob this was your very first point after watching the video.

Watched the video.
He offers nothing at all to support his assertion beyond old debunked stories and his own personal incredulity.

You say that everything he says is "old debunked stories". The first point he made was in connection to the Jowenko interview I posted. I've simply asked you to demonstrate this debunking or accept that it is not in fact "debunked". Simple case of either/or

King Mob wrote: »

Again, never called him mad. I only compared him to truthers and conspiracy theorists because his claims are the exact same.
But I'm not particular interested in discussing the applicability of labels, especially when it's just you trying to avoid my actual point.

You quite clearly implied that you considered him "mad" with this comment

Not the one mad heart surgeon/vet/barber/jeweller who claims the exact opposite of what most other surgeons/vets/barbers/jewellers say for one.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

As mentioned it's not like Danny's kept advocating his theory it's been the better part of half a decade don't you have anything, y'know new?

Has he retracted?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

King Mob this was your very first point after watching the video.


You say that everything he says is "old debunked stories". The first point he made was in connection to the Jowenko interview I posted. I've simply asked you to demonstrate this debunking or accept that it is not in fact "debunked". Simple case of either/or

And that wasn't the point of my argument or even that sentence.
Regardless of whether or not you think those things he claimed are debunked, the fact and the point is that they are simply rehashes of what other people are claiming and is no different than what you and others who doubt the official story do here. His credentials have no baring on this.

This is my point, please address this.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You quite clearly implied that you considered him "mad" with this comment

Yes and there's oh so many mad jewellers and barbers out there.... :rolleyes:
Seeing as you are straining for any sidetrack or tangent you can grope for rather than addressing my actual point I will be as clear as possible: I was being tongue in cheek.
I do not consider him mad, I've never said anything of the sort, nor did I wish to imply it.

Now that that is out of the way and I'm using the most PC terms I can, can we please actually discuss the point I am making?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Regardless of whether or not you think those things he claimed are debunked

But King Mob. This is not about if I think they are debunked or not. Truth is I don't know but am interested in finding out. You said specifically that the points Dr Sabrosky had said in the PressTV interview were "all"..."Old debunked stories".

Therefore the issue is if YOUR claim stands up to scrutiny. This is just the very first point. There are many to get through to see if ALL Dr Sabrosky's points have been debunked or if you were just blowing hot air.

So I ask again...

Has the interview with Dutch expert in the science of controlled demolitions a Mr Danny Jowenko been "debunked"? If so, how? If not, say so and we'll move on.

King Mob wrote: »

the fact and the point is that they are simply rehashes of what other people are claiming and is no different than what you and others who doubt the official story do here. His credentials have no baring on this.

This is my point, please address this.

Well, "rehash" is just a sneaky way of saying repeated. Unconnected people realising the same honest conclusions independently is a reinforcement of the conclusion. To use "rehash" gives negative connotations unfairly.

His credentials have some baring as he was an insider. He has experience. With credentials by definition he speaks with authority. Why do you deny this? It at least commands him an audience. He has become topical due to a recent TV interview which you consider "old debunked stories". I am interested in putting that to the test. Are you...?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

But King Mob. This is not about if I think they are debunked or not. Truth is I don't know but am interested in finding out. You said specifically that the points Dr Sabrosky had said in the PressTV interview were "all"..."Old debunked stories".

Therefore the issue is if YOUR claim stands up to scrutiny. This is just the very first point. There are many to get through to see if ALL Dr Sabrosky's points have been debunked or if you were just blowing hot air.

So I ask again...

Has the interview with Dutch expert in the science of controlled demolitions a Mr Danny Jowenko been "debunked"? If so, how? If not, say so and we'll move on.

You work oh so hard to avoid the point...
I'm not going to go into his claims as it was never my point and it's not the point of the thread.
My original point is there for anyone who actually wants to discuss it.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well, "rehash" is just a sneaky way of saying repeated. Unconnected people realising the same honest conclusions independently is a reinforcement of the conclusion. To use "rehash" gives negative connotations unfairly.

And again you show that you're more interested in debating some pedantry than actually reading my post.
Why would I need to be sneaky about it when it's me actual point.
He himself says were he got the information, for example the video he specifically names and you've been trying to wedge into the discussion. He at no point offers or claims to have any original information or data and in fact only repeats claims that have been made many times before and does not add any evidence to them beyond his own authority.
This is my point. How many times do I have to say it to have it addressed?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

His credentials have some baring as he was an insider.

But they don't. None of his credentials offer him the chance to have any inside information. I've asked which ones do, but that question was avoided.

And even if one of them did offer him such information, he didn't give this information. Can you point to it? Again I've asked this before but was ignored.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He has experience. With credentials by definition he speaks with authority. Why do you deny this?

Because as I have been pointing out repeatedly none of his credentials give him any more authority or information than we have.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It at least commands him an audience. He has become topical due to a recent TV interview which you consider "old debunked stories".

And that's also the issue: the only reason he has an audience is because his credentials sound impressive, not because he offers anything new or verifiable.
This is an appeal to authority and it's a poor line of reasoning.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am interested in putting that to the test. Are you...?

Not really considering I can't even get you to actually address the one point I did make. It's kind of pointless to post stuff you're going to ignore because I called someone a conspiracy theorist or something just as offensive...

But if you can promise to actually address what I post like in an actual adult conversation, I'd have no problem tackling the points made in the video in their own thread.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

But if you can promise to actually address what I post like in an actual adult conversation, I'd have no problem tackling the points made in the video in their own thread.

???????????????????????

I don't know what to say to that. This is the thread on the video.

You say I'm avoiding the your point which is that Dr Sabrosky's analysis carries no more weight than the average persons. I disagree, that is not to say that his points should be scrutinised any less though.

Now to take you back to your unsupported claim that Sabrosky's points are "old debunked nonsense" could you now please address the very first point that he makes - the Jowenko interview?

Can you debunk the demolition experts analysis or not? If you dodge the issue for the 5th time I feel it is reasonable to assume that no you can't and we can move onto the next point.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't know what to say to that. This is the thread on the video.

This thread is about the Former Director of Studies at the Army War College and him claiming that Israel did 9/11.
Or am I reading the title wrong?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You say I'm avoiding the your point which is that Dr Sabrosky's analysis carries no more weight than the average persons. I disagree, that is not to say that his points should be scrutinised any less though.

But you have been avoiding the point. This is the first time you've addressed it and you've only written one line about it which kinda displays you don't even understand the point.
It's like pulling teeth to have a straight answer to a question here sometimes.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Now to take you back to your unsupported claim that Sabrosky's points are "old debunked nonsense" could you now please address the very first point that he makes - the Jowenko interview?

Can you debunk the demolition experts analysis or not? If you dodge the issue for the 5th time I feel it is reasonable to assume that no you can't and we can move onto the next point.

Fine, but only to remove yet another excuse for you to avoid the point, and I'm curious what other ones you'll come up with.
First watching the video I can only assume that the translation is fair and accurate, though this may not be the case.

Now as you can tell from the video this is clearly his first time watching the video of the WTC7 collapse, and since we don't see which video he's shown or where it's been edited we've no idea what he's actually commenting on.
I've a sneaking suspicion that like most CT sources, the guys showing him the footage have cut out the initial collapse of the east penthouse.

So we have an expert commenting on a few seconds of likely edited footage.
And then he says that he doesn't know the internal structure of the building.
He's then offered an incomplete schematic of the building which doesn't show the entire building's structure.
He's given something like this:
http://failures.wikispaces.com/file/view/WTC_7_Plan.jpg/94358600/WTC_7_Plan.jpg
When the structure also has elements like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Wtc7_transfer_trusses.png/300px-Wtc7_transfer_trusses.png

Furthermore the two continue the truther canard that the official story is that it was just fire that brought the tower down.
We are blue in the face on the WTC7 thread explaining that this isn't the case.
The interviewer, displaying his bias and dishonesty, then mentions damage to the structure but dismisses it by showing a diagram of the site:
http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg
Apparently this one.
But of course and again like other CT sources he fails to show pictures like this: http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7swd.jpg

So based off incomplete, dishonestly presented information and only given a few minutes to mull it over comes to the conclusion that it might be a controlled demolition?
Hardly convincing or what Alan Sabrosky was claiming he said.
In fact it's all based on the same old dishonest truther claims about WTC7 which have been long debunked...

Now since you hold his opinion in such high regard can I assume you also agree with his expert opinion that WTC1 and 2 couldn't have been demolitions? Or how about how he disagrees with the truther on the video and explains what the puffs of smoke he thinks are demo charges actually are? Or how about when he talks about standard demolition charges and not the magical thermite ones claimed by some truthers?
Do you feel that his "expert opinion" is accurate in these cases?

So what's the next hoop I have to jump though so you'll actually address the point I made?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

This thread is about the Former Director of Studies at the Army War College and him claiming that Israel did 9/11.
Or am I reading the title wrong?

The OP consists of three parts

1. Thread title
2. An introduction to Dr Alan Sabrosky
3. A link to an interview with Sabrosky

Are you seriously suggesting that we should only discuss the thread title? I suspect you are trying to skirt the issue as all your own initial responses and questions on page 1 of this thread were regarding all aspects the video.

King Mob wrote: »

But you have been avoiding the point. This is the first time you've addressed it and you've only written one line about it which kinda displays you don't even understand the point.
It's like pulling teeth to have a straight answer to a question here sometimes.

Instead of pulling teeth just open your eyes. Below is four seperate instances where I have adressed your point. Clearly I am not avoiding any point you've made.

It's not relying on his credentials alone.

He speaks with authority. His opinion should be considered by you, not brushed aside labelling him a "mad" conspiracy theorist and a "truther"

His credentials have some baring as he was an insider. He has experience. With credentials by definition he speaks with authority.

You say I'm avoiding the your point which is that Dr Sabrosky's analysis carries no more weight than the average persons. I disagree, that is not to say that his points should be scrutinised any less though.

King Mob wrote: »

First watching the video I can only assume that the translation is fair and accurate, though this may not be the case.

Meaningless speculation. Hinting at dishonesty and bias without any basis.
Debunk Success / Fail

King Mob wrote: »

Now as you can tell from the video this is clearly his first time watching the video of the WTC7 collapse, and since we don't see which video he's shown or where it's been edited we've no idea what he's actually commenting on.
I've a sneaking suspicion that like most CT sources, the guys showing him the footage have cut out the initial collapse of the east penthouse.

Debunk Success / Fail

King Mob wrote: »

So we have an expert commenting on a few seconds of likely edited footage.
And then he says that he doesn't know the internal structure of the building.
He's then offered an incomplete schematic of the building which doesn't show the entire building's structure.
He's given something like this:
http://failures.wikispaces.com/file/view/WTC_7_Plan.jpg/94358600/WTC_7_Plan.jpg
When the structure also has elements like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Wtc7_transfer_trusses.png/300px-Wtc7_transfer_trusses.png

Valid points but to remind you: debunk = To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of:

Debunk Success / Fail

King Mob wrote: »

Furthermore the two continue the truther canard that the official story is that it was just fire that brought the tower down.
We are blue in the face on the WTC7 thread explaining that this isn't the case.
The interviewer, displaying his bias and dishonesty, then mentions damage to the structure but dismisses it by showing a diagram of the site:
http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg
Apparently this one.
But of course and again like other CT sources he fails to show pictures like this: http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7swd.jpg

So based off incomplete, dishonestly presented information and only given a few minutes to mull it over comes to the conclusion that it might be a controlled demolition?
Hardly convincing or what Alan Sabrosky was claiming he said.
In fact it's all based on the same old dishonest truther claims about WTC7 which have been long debunked...

I'm not sure if you understand what debunk actually means anymore. It is absolute in the sense that if I sail across the globe that I debunk the flat earth theory. You have offered nothing close to debunking anything that the demolitions expert has said regarding building 7. You can't debunk anything with idle speculation and trying (and failing) to poke holes while ignoring the bigger picture. This is all you have offered. This is not "debunking".

In fact you don't even know what you are talking about. The interviewer is "biased" and "dishonest"? The interview is a "CT source"? Think again. It was a documentary produced by a high-profile, Dutch news outfit called Zembla http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zembla for dutch mainstream news. I thought you were supposed to be a skeptic? Don't you fact check before making your wild assumptions?

King Mob wrote: »

Now since you hold his opinion in such high regard

Lets stick to the facts. Sabrosky holds him in high regard. I never made such a claim.

King Mob wrote: »

can I assume you also agree with his expert opinion that WTC1 and 2 couldn't have been demolitions?

I'd suggest you listen to the expert. My uninformed opinion is irrelevant.

King Mob wrote: »

Or how about how he disagrees with the truther on the video and explains what the puffs of smoke he thinks are demo charges actually are?

a) It doesn't matter how many times you say it. Not everyone who tries to look at the 9/11 attacks with an open mind is a "truther".
b) He clarifies that this does not mean that it was not a controlled demolition.

But that is also not needed, the outside needs not to be imploded.

King Mob wrote: »

Or how about when he talks about standard demolition charges and not the magical thermite ones claimed by some truthers?

Naturally what "some truthers" say and what this demolition expert says are of no relevance to each other. That said, this interview was broadcast in 2006 before thermite was found I believe.

King Mob wrote: »

Do you feel that his "expert opinion" is accurate in these cases?

Well I certainly can't debunk him on anything but I guess I should join the que

King Mob wrote: »

So what's the next hoop I have to jump though so you'll actually address the point I made?

Either debunk him or accept that you were hasty in stating that Sabrosky's claims were "old debunked stories" and that the Jowenko interview is not "internet nonsense".

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Has he retracted?

Diogenes I assume that by your dodging of this question that he hasn't in fact retracted his statements.

Well sadly he'll now never have the chance as he's been killed in a car crash. May he RIP, he was a brave and principled man.



http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http://www.hartvannederland.nl/nederland/zeeland/2011/dodelijk-ongeluk-in-serooskerke/&usg=ALkJrhigNRvWDcsf1_3M5vsXDHmQ4YE2sw

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Diogenes I assume that by your dodging of this question that he hasn't in fact retracted his statements.

Well sadly he'll now never have the chance as he's been killed in a car crash. May he RIP, he was a brave and principled man.



http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http://www.hartvannederland.nl/nederland/zeeland/2011/dodelijk-ongeluk-in-serooskerke/&usg=ALkJrhigNRvWDcsf1_3M5vsXDHmQ4YE2sw

Did he make any follow up statements, investigate the matter further, speak on 9/11 documentaries?

He had six years before he died.

If your best demolition expert is a guy who's just watched the video once, and then made no follow up statements, well wow, thats just fantastic.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Did he make any follow up statements, investigate the matter further, speak on 9/11 documentaries?

He had six years before he died.

If your best demolition expert is a guy who's just watched the video once, and then made no follow up statements, well wow, thats just fantastic.

WTF does that even mean - "my best demolition expert"? Actually, never mind.

All I am interested in is if he ever retracted his expert opinion which he gave during the Dutch documentary interview.

Yes or No?

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

WTF does that even mean - "my best demolition expert"? Actually, never mind.

All I am interested in is if he ever retracted his expert opinion which he gave during the Dutch documentary interview.

Yes or No?

His expert opinion is based on not being presented with the full facts

Interviewer: On September 11, 2001 there were fires within [the building], but a plane never crashed into it.
Int.: Nevertheless, this building collapsed on September 11th.
Int.: This event didn't receive much attention; and, moreover, Denni Jowenko had never heard of it.
Int.: His reaction to the film we are showing him is unprejudiced.

Denni Jowenko: Did it seem to go [i.e., come down] from above? No, it starts from below.
D.J.: They simply blew away columns. Then the upper part follows [lit., comes after].

Int.: Did this fall in a different way than the World Trade Center [Buildings 1 and 2]?

D.J.: Don't you think so?

Int.: Yes, you [can] see the first floors going first.

D.J.: The rest simply falls into it.
D.J.: This is controlled demolition.

Int.: Without any doubt?

D.J.: Without any doubt.
D.J.: Certainly it came down from the top; this was a [deliberate] job.
D.J.: A team of experts did this.

Int.: But this also happened on September 11th.

D.J.: The same day?

Int.: The same day.

D.J.: The same day?!
D.J.: Are you sure?

Int.: Yes.

D.J.: Are you sure it was on the 11th?
D.J.: That can't be true.

Int.: Seven hours after the World Trade Center [Buildings 1 and 2] came down.

D.J.: Then they worked very hard.

Int.: In the official FEMA report, it couldn't be explained why Building 7 collapsed.

Int.: We discuss all the possibilities extensively with Denni Jowenko.
Int.: But his conclusion doesn't change: it was blown up.

D.J.: This was professional work, without any doubt.
D.J.: Those boys knew very well what they were doing.

Int.: The question is then whether it was prepared beforehand.
Int.: Or could it have been decided on on September 11th itself and been carried out?
Int.: How many men and how much time would you need to do it?

D.J.: I don't know exactly, but ...

Int.: Could you give an estimate?

D.J.: You would need experienced people. But, if you had 30-40 people, then ...
D.J.: A few with a plasma [?] cutter.
D.J.: And others assembling.
D.J.: And others to connect the dead cables with the boosters.
D.J.: It must all go at the same moment.
D.J.: And a third [team] setting off the electronic system.
D.J.: And then it goes.

Int.: There was fire everywhere, and also in that building.

D.J.: And not extinguished?

Int.: No, not extinguished. The men who would have done that would have had to have do it while fire was still burning inside [the building].

D.J.: That's strange. That's strange. I also think that's strange.
D.J.: I have no explanation for it

There's never any further decision Danny doesn't seem to ever elaborate discussing how the building would have been wired when it was fully involved in fire, or that huge chunks of the building had been ripped out.

A interview with someone who doesn't seem to be fully informed about the facts of the collapse of WTC 7 decides that it looks like a controlled demolition. He's shown a video (we don't know which video or was it edited) He's not looking at schematics, and doesn't seem to understand the background to the situation.

So he's never taken it back Brown Bromber. But it doesn't seem like there's much to take back.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The OP consists of three parts

1. Thread title
2. An introduction to Dr Alan Sabrosky
3. A link to an interview with Sabrosky

Are you seriously suggesting that we should only discuss the thread title? I suspect you are trying to skirt the issue as all your own initial responses and questions on page 1 of this thread were regarding all aspects the video.

And the following post you've made has nothing to do with Sabrosky.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Instead of pulling teeth just open your eyes. Below is four seperate instances where I have adressed your point. Clearly I am not avoiding any point you've made.

And for each of those I made follow up counter points all of which you've ignored.
And we're now in page four of the thread and you can only find four sentences that you think address my actual point I've been making since the second post.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Meaningless speculation. Hinting at dishonesty and bias without any basis.
Debunk Success / Fail

I don't speak Dutch so I've no idea how good that translation is. I've learned long ago not to trust translations from conspiracy theory sites. As such I can only assume that it's accurate.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Debunk Success / Fail

An excellent rebuttal that addresses my point perfectly :rolleyes:
But It's good to know that I've totally wasted my time making even more points to be ignored.

The fact is you don't see the videos or the pictures he's commenting on so we don't know if he's receiving the full facts or just the usual half truth that most CTers get.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Valid points but to remind you: debunk = To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of:

Debunk Success / Fail

So the expert stating clearly that he doesn't have all the facts when he's forming his opinion has no baring on that opinion...?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not sure if you understand what debunk actually means anymore. It is absolute in the sense that if I sail across the globe that I debunk the flat earth theory. You have offered nothing close to debunking anything that the demolitions expert has said regarding building 7. You can't debunk anything with idle speculation and trying (and failing) to poke holes while ignoring the bigger picture. This is all you have offered. This is not "debunking".

BB, you seem to be using an arbitrary definition of what you will accept as "debunked", and I'm not interested in engaging in a definition argument.
But I just need to ask you 2 questions:
In the video was the expert supplied with all the information such as the full extent of the damage and fire as well as the internal structure of the building?
Does the interviewer repeat untrue claims from the truther movement such as "the official story is that it was brought down by fire" and "WTC7 suffered no major damage".

Seeing as there is only the two honest answers (no and yes respectively) I don't think that the experts opinion can be taken as very accurate or informed.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In fact you don't even know what you are talking about. The interviewer is "biased" and "dishonest"? The interview is a "CT source"? Think again. It was a documentary produced by a high-profile, Dutch news outfit called Zembla http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zembla for dutch mainstream news. I thought you were supposed to be a skeptic? Don't you fact check before making your wild assumptions?

Then they should be ashamed of themselves for such biased and sloppy work.
It's apparent from the video that the interview is biased as he's repeating long debunked nonsense and he's dishonest because he's withholding information to get the opinion he wants.
With those tactics it's an honest mistake to assume he was a truther.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Lets stick to the facts. Sabrosky holds him in high regard. I never made such a claim.

I'd suggest you listen to the expert. My uninformed opinion is irrelevant.

a) It doesn't matter how many times you say it. Not everyone who tries to look at the 9/11 attacks with an open mind is a "truther".
b) He clarifies that this does not mean that it was not a controlled demolition.

Naturally what "some truthers" say and what this demolition expert says are of no relevance to each other. That said, this interview was broadcast in 2006 before thermite was found I believe.

Well I certainly can't debunk him on anything but I guess I should join the que

Funny how you don't seem to want to answer those questions.
I guess his opinion is only unquestionable when it happens to agree with the truther narrative.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Either debunk him or accept that you were hasty in stating that Sabrosky's claims were "old debunked stories" and that the Jowenko interview is not "internet nonsense".

His opinion is based on a first time viewing of a likely edited video of the collapse and didn't have access to the full information about the internal structure, extent of the physical damage or the nature of the fires.
This is not a solid foundation for an expert opinion and renders the opinion unreliable. Further more this opinion was skewed by the interviewer repeating old, long debunked claims from the truther movement.
You'll have to explain to me how this isn't debunked as by your definition.
I have exposed and ridiculed the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of the video

The fact that Sabrosky thought it was a solid opinion and billed it as an expert who had "analysed" the collapse shows that either a) he was lying about the video or b) could not identify the glaring problems with it.
Either way it shows that he's relying on some kind of nonsense.
And since this interview is both from 2006 and has been torn apart elsewhere long ago, I deem it old debunked nonsense.

and to bring this back to my actual point, none of the video in question has anything to do with Sabrosky's expertise. He's no more qualified to judge it's contents than you or me.
Nor did he produce this video or it's contents, he's just repeating what others have said, again no different what a lot of conspiracy theorist do here and elsewhere.

Now would you like to continue to avoid addressing my simple original point or would you like to waste more time?

robtri

digme wrote: »

Looking at his credentials I'd have to say yes.

digme wrote: »

You'd have to show why and deal with the facts of the matter.
I look at all sides.Do you?

you orignally stated he is more valid than you or King mob because of his credentials.... not because u look at all sides...

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

His expert opinion is based on not being presented with the full facts

false quote attributed to Jowenko wrote:

Int.: There was fire everywhere, and also in that building.

D.J.: And not extinguished?

Int.: No, not extinguished. The men who would have done that would have had to have do it while fire was still burning inside [the building].

D.J.: That's strange. That's strange. I also think that's strange.
D.J.: I have no explanation for it

This is straight out deception. Either you have been fooled yourself by some lying JREF groupie or you are the deceiver. Which is it? What was your source for this fabrication?

It's two completely different parts of the interview welded together.

This is from part 2 of the youtube interview.

INTERVIEWER: This was the picture and movie thing. I don't know if I have other nice things to show, what more do I have. This has collapsed but the other building has imploded and on such a clean way that you have to ask yourself how could they do that in the chaos of that day. There was fire everywhere, and also in that building.

DANNY JOWENKO: But that was a small fire, they could extinguish that and that was what they've done.

INTERVIEWER: No they didn't do that.
DANNY JOWENKO: They didn't extinguish it?

INTERVIEWER: No, not extinguished. So they'd have to do it while it was on fire.

(AND THIS IS HIS ACTUAL RESPONSE)

DANNY JOWENKO: For me it is a little bit like "watching coffee dregs", I mean, that is not a lot of information, if we had some pictures from the other side, especially those at the side of the twin towers.

INTERVIEWER: That's correct, we don't have that, there has only been created a kind of damage report. Here, it's a little bit guesswork/performed on intuition, using testimonies of firemen. They've seen that there was a damage here that probably went as far as here, it could be that also these 3 columns have been damaged, these 5 and these 2.

DANNY JOWENKO: Yes, then Silverstein must say bring it down because once there is fire, if it became hot you have to replace your steel. Do you know what it cost if you have to replace the bottom columns and jack up the rest? That will not be cheap for a building with 47 floors.

INTERVIEWER: [not translated]

DANNY JOWENKO: Then you say: away with it. And if there is a company, you so much million, we do it for 1 million. That's how it goes. Business goes very fast in such a situation. And they do it.

This is from part 3.

DANNY JOWENKO: I don't know than that it has been imploded as we call it. I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded. If this is the consequence of the coming down of the WTC towers... that would greatly astonish me. I can't imagine it. No.

INTERVIEWER: Remains strange that in the official reports they don't admit it's been imploded.

DANNY JOWENKO: That's strange. That's strange. I also think that's strange. I have no explanation for it.

As can be quite clearly seen what he was referring to as "strange" and having "no explanation for" is not how the explosives could be placed in a fire but that "the official reports they don't admit it's been imploded.".

Brown Bomber

robtri wrote: »

you orignally stated he is more valid than you or King mob because of his credentials.... not because u look at all sides...

Of course you value someones experience while still looking at all sides. Imagine you are hiking in the jungle with Jane Goodall and Louis Walsh and Jane says "Look! Up there on the hill, a Gorilla! and Louis says "nah Jane, that was a chimpanzee" You couldn't quite make it out yourself but which would you be more likely to accept that you've seen?