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

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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?

Nah it'd be more like an expert in an unrelated field and a lay person both claiming the video is of Jane Goodall saying it was a gorilla. But in actuality it's a video of someone dishonestly presenting information and leading Jane Goodall to say it was a gorilla when it wasn't.
And then for some reason you claim that the expert in an unrelated field is somehow more trustworthy or more valid than the layperson...

robtri

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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?

thats exactly the point thank you...

now what happens if I stumble accross in this jungle someone more qualified than Jane Goodall and he says no jane your wrong, its a chimp....

Brown Bomber

robtri wrote: »

now what happens if I stumble accross in this jungle someone more qualified than Jane Goodall and he says no jane your wrong, its a chimp....

Then Robtri you've probably met Tarzan himself.

I think you've missed the point. If two different experts give conflicting opinions you take them both on board in your overall evaluation, amongst many other factors. Simples.

Brown Bomber

Diogenes now that you've been unbanned could you please address the blatant deception in your last post in this thread?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73403422&postcount=50

Jowenko's words have been completely distorted.

Who's lies are they? Your's or the hallowed JREF's?

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Diogenes now that you've been unbanned could you please address the blatant deception in your last post in this thread?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73403422&postcount=50

Jowenko's words have been completely distorted.

Who's lies are they? Your's or the hallowed JREF's?

Your source for the alternative translation.

Di0genes

Also Brown Bomber you've lambasted me about raising the Arab Spring on your thread, how does Danny Jowenko fit it on this thread?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Diogenes now that you've been unbanned could you please address the blatant deception in your last post in this thread?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73403422&postcount=50

Jowenko's words have been completely distorted.

Who's lies are they? Your's or the hallowed JREF's?

Lol, Pot, Kettle.

I've made several points about how you and the people making and holding up the film are distorting his words.

BB, do you think that he was given all the facts before he formed his opinion? Yes or No?

Di0genes

Also BB we can quite clearly see/hear the interviewer is lying and feeding him false information.

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

The Interviewer is withholding information from Danny, Photos of the side of the Twin Towers existed.

And gave a much graver picture about the amount of fires and the amount of damage

Here, it's a little bit guesswork/performed on intuition, using testimonies of firemen.

The interviewer is lying or ignorant of firemen's testimonies at this point.

And again the testimonies of Firemen tell a much more serious story about the fire/damage to WTC

1. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert Larocco

2. ...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn

3. I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run. –FDNY Deputy Chief Nick Visconti http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html

4. All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes

5. When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)

6. The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110472.PDF

7. Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.

8. At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa

9. Chief Cruthers told me that they had formed another command post up on Chambers Street. At this point there were a couple of floors burning on Seven World Trade Center. Chief McNally wanted to try and put that fire out, and he was trying to coordinate with the command post up on Chambers Street. This is after searching for a while. He had me running back and forth trying to get companies to go into Seven World Trade Center. His radio didn't seem to be working right either because he had me relaying information back and forth and Chief Cruthers had me --

Q. So everything was face-to-face? Nothing was by radio?

A. Yeah, and it was really in disarray. It really was in complete disarray. We never really got an operation going at Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Captain Michael Donovan

10. Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports02.pdf page 48.
11. At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings. –M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports03.pdf page 49

[Note: the fires in 7 were probably not mainly due to damage from the south tower, but from the north.]
12. So yeah then we just stayed on Vesey until building Seven came down. There was nothing we could do. The flames were coming out of every window of that building from the explosion of the south tower. So then building Seven came down. When that started coming down you heard that pancaking sound again everyone jumped up and starts.

Q: Why was building Seven on fire? Was that flaming debris from tower two, from tower two that fell onto that building and lit it on fire?

A: Correct. Because it really got going, that building Seven, saw it late in the day and like the first Seven floors were on fire. It looked like heavy fire on seven floors. It was fully engulfed, that whole building. There were pieces of tower two [sic: he probably means tower one] in building Seven and the corners of the building missing and what-not. But just looking up at it from ground level however many stories -- it was 40 some odd -- you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block. –Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy

13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.secondary.explosions.wmv

14. Well, they said that's (7) fully involved at this time. This was a fully involved building. I said, all right, they're not coming for us for a while. Now you're trapped in this rubble, and you're trying to get a grasp of an idea of what's going on there. I heard on the handy talky that we are now fighting a 40-story building fully involved.

Now you're trapped in the rubble and the guys who are there are fighting the worst high-rise fire in the history of New York or history of the world, probably, I don't know, 40, story building fully involved, I guess that was probably the worst.

I was, needless to say, scared to death that something else was going to fall on us, that this building was going to come down and we were all going to die, after surviving the worst of it. [Note: I deleted the link this account, and searching the net for the text doesn’t turn up anything. This sounds like an account from north tower stairwell B survivor. Anyone who knows for sure, let me know.]

15. And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. ... the fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. –Firefighter Eugene Kelty Jr.

16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 69

17. "There's number Seven World Trade. That's the OEM bunker." We had a snicker about that. We looked over, and it's engulfed in flames and starting to collapse.
We're kind of caught in traffic and people and things, and everything's going on. We hear over the fire portable, "Everybody evacuate the site. It's going to collapse." Mark Steffens starts yelling, "Get out of here! Get out of here! Get out of here! We've got to go! We've got to go! It's going to collapse." I turned around, and I piped up real loud and said, "Stay in the frigging car. Roll the windows up. It's pancake collapsing. We'll be fine. The debris will quit and the cloud will come through. Just stay in the car." We pulled the car over, turned around and just watched it pancake. We had a dust cloud but nothing like it was before. –Paramedic Louis Cook
(Building 7 fire makes rescuer of NT stairwell victim’s route impassable, just before collapse):
I remember it was bad and I'm going to get to a point where we came back that way on the way up. We couldn't even go that way, that's how bad the fire was, but by the time I was coming back it was rolling, more than a couple of floors, just fully involved, rolling.
...So now it's us 4 and we are walking towards it and I remember it would have at one point been an easier path to go towards our right, but being building 7 -- that must have been building 7 I'm guessing with that fire, we decided to stay away from that because things were just crackling, falling and whatnot. So as I’m going back, that fire that was on my right is now on my left. I’m backtracking and that fire is really going and on the hike towards there, we put down our masks, which at this point started to realize maybe it would have been good thing if we had this mask on the way back, but then again between the fire and about halfway when I was on the way back, I got a radio call from the guys that we left and it was Johnny Colon the chauffeur of 43, who was effecting a different rescue. He was carrying somebody out.
He had called me and said “Hey Jerry don’t try and get back out the way you went in which was big heads up move because he said that building was rolling on top of the building that we were passing. That building was on fire and likely to collapse more too.
Between Picciotto asking me are you sure we can get out this way because it really didn’t look good with that fire and my guy telling me that you better not because of the area we crawled in was unattainable now too. ...we started going back the other way.
Q: Would that be towards West Street?
A: That would have been back towards what I know is the Winter Garden....[west]
–Firefighter Gerard Suden

18. I remember Chief Hayden saying to me, "We have a six-story building over there, a seven-story building, fully involved." At that time he said, "7 has got fire on several floors." He said, "We've got a ten-story over there, another ten-story over there, a six-story over there, a 13-story over there." He just looked at me and said, "**** 'em all. Let 'em burn." He said, "Just tell the guys to keep looking for guys. Just keep looking for the brothers. We've got people trapped. We've got to get them out." –Lieutenant William Ryan

19. I walked around the building to get back to the command post and that's when they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down. ...They had three floors of fire on three separate floors, probably 10, 11 and 15 it looked like, just burning merrily. It was pretty amazing, you know, it's the afternoon in lower Manhattan, a major high-rise is burning, and they said 'we know.' –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy

20. We were champing at the bit," says WCBS-TV reporter Vince DeMentri of his decision to sneak behind police barricades and report from 7 World Trade Center a half-hour before it collapsed. "I knew the story was in there." But after he and his cameraman slipped past officers, they lost all sense of direction. "From outside this zone, you could figure out where everything was," he says. "But inside, it was all destruction and blown-out buildings, and we had no clue. I walked into one building, but I had no idea where I was. The windows were all blown out. Computers, desks, furniture, and people's possessions were strewn all over." He found a picture of a little girl lying in the rubble. Then he realized that No. 7, aflame, was about fifteen to twenty feet ahead of him. "I looked up Barclay Street," he says. "There was nobody out. No bodies, no injured. Nobody. There were mounds of burning debris. It was like opening a broiler." http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5183/index.html

21. They are worried that number 7 is burning and they are talking about not ceasing operations.
–Deputy Commissioner Frank Gribbon

22. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire. It was too dangerous to go in and fight the fire. –Assistant Commissioner James Drury

23. We assisted some FDNY personnel who were beginning to attempt to fight the fire at 7 WTC. We assisted in dragging hose they needed to bring water into the building. –Kenneth Kohlmann PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/pa-police-reports04.pdf page 26

24. My first thoughts when I came down a little further into the site, south of Chambers Street, was, "Where am I?" I didn't recognize it. Obviously, the towers were gone. The only thing that remained standing was a section of the Vista Hotel. Building 7 was on fire. That was ready to come down. –Charlie Vitchers, Ground Zero Superintendent http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/profiles/profiles_vitchers_t.html
25. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower, and there was fire on every floor." – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)
26. At that point, Seven World Trade had 12 stories of fire in it. They were afraid it was going to collapse on us, so they pulled everybody out. We couldn't do anything. – Firefighter Maureen McArdle-Schulman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 17)
27. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring. All we could think is we were an Engine Company, we have got to get them some water. We need some water you know. With that, we positioned the rig, I don't know, 3 quarters of a block away maybe. A fire boat was going to relay water to us. I don't know if I have things in the right order, whatever, if we were getting water out of a hydrant first. Jesus Christ --
Q. Captain said you were getting water. You were draining a vacuum?
A. It was draining away from us. Right. We had to be augmented. I think that's when the fire boat came. I think the fire boats supplied us. Of course you don't see that. You just see the (inaudible) way and you know, we are hooking up and we wound up supplying the Tower Ladder there. I just remember feeling like helpless, like everybody there was doomed and there is -- I just felt like there was absolutely nothing we could do. I want to just go back a little bit.–Firefighter Kevin Howe
28. "When I got out and onto a clear pile, I see that 7 World Trade Center and the customs house have serious fire. Almost every window has fire. It is an amazing site. –Captain Jay Jonas, Ladder 6. (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002. P. 103)

29. Firefighter TJ Mundy: "The other building, #7, was fully involved, and he was worried about the next collapse." (Dennis Smith. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002.)
30. 7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable. –Firefighter Steve Modica http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/modica.html
31. So I attempted to get in through the Barkley Street ramp which is on Barkley (sic) and West Broadway, but I was being held back by the fire department, because 7 World Trade, which is above the ramp, was now fully engulfed.
–PAPD K-9 Sergeant David Lim http://www.911report.com/media/davidlim.pdf

32. We could hear fires crackling. We didn’t know it at the time, but No. 7 World Trade Center and No. 5 World Trade Center were immediately adjacent to us and they were roaring, they were on fire. Those were the sounds that we were hearing. ...At the same time, No. 5 World Trade Center, No. 6 World Trade Center and No. 7 World Trade Center were roaring. They were on fire. And they were right next to us. So we have all that smoke that we’re dealing with.
–FDNY Capt. Jay Jonas http://archive.recordonline.com/adayinseptember/jonas.htm

the interviewer continuing wrote:

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

[/QUOTE]

Again the interviewer is lying

1. The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. –FDNY Chief Frank Fellini

2. At that time, other firefighters started showing up, Deputy Battalion Chief Paul Ferran of the 41 Battalion, and James Savastano of the First Division assigned to the Second Battalion showed up and we attempted to search and extinguish, at the time which was small pockets of fire in 7 World Trade Center. We were unaware of the damage in the front of 7, because we were entering from the northeast entrance. We weren't aware of the magnitude of the damage in the front of the building. – FDNY Captain Anthony Varriale http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110313.PDF

3. [Shortly after the tower collapses] I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any fire at that time. Deputy ––Chief Nick Visconti http://tinyurl.com/paqux

4. A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. –FDNY Lieutenant William Melarango http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110045.PDF

5. I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and they weren't going to send anyone in. –FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

6. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too.

Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. – Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp

7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

8. Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J., Employed at 45 Broadway, in a letter to me.

9. So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

10. Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7.

We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.

Q. Were you injured?

A. Yes, I saw some stuff had fallen on me. I didn't believe that I was injured at that time. I discovered later on I was injured. I had some shards of glass impaled in my head, but once I was able to get all this debris and rubble off of me and cover my face with my jacket so that I could breathe, it was very thick dust, you couldn't see. We heard some sounds. We reached out and felt our way around. I managed to find some other people in this lower lobby. We crawled over towards the direction where we thought the door was and as we approached it the door cracked open a little, so we had the lights from the loading bay. We made our way over there. The loading bay doors were 3-fourths of the way shut when this happened, so they took a lot of dust in there, but everyone in those bays was safe and secure. We had face to face contact with Chief Maggio and Captain Nahmod. They told me – I said do whatever you need to do, get these people out of here. Go, go towards the water. –EMS Division Chief Jon Peruggia
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110160.PDF

11. You could see the damage at 7 World Trade Center, the damage into the AT&T building.
–FDNY Firefighter Vincent Palmieri http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110258.PDF

12. At this point, 7, which is right there on Vesey, the whole corner of the building was missing. I was thinking to myself we are in a bad place, because it was the corner facing us. –Fred Marsilla, FDNY
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110399.PDF

13. The way we got into the loading dock [of WTC 7] was not the way we were getting out. It was obstructed.

Q. The door was blocked?

A. Yeah, and we found our way -- we walked across the loading dock area, and we found there was another door. We went in that door, and from there we were directed to -- I really guess it was like a basement area of the building, but we were directed to an opposite door. –Dr. Michael Guttenberg , NYC Office of Medical Affairs http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110005.PDF

14. We eventually ended up meeting after the second explosion, three of us met up here, but I didn't see a lot of the people that were with me until two, three days later. I got word that they were okay. For instance, Dr. Guttenberg and Dr. Asaeda, who were at 7 World Trade Center, they got trapped in there and had to like climb in and out and get out because that building also became very damaged supposedly and they were there. We thought they were dead. I guess he was in an area where Commissioner Tierney might have been, I believe. I think she was in 7 also. –Paramedic Manuel Delgado http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110004.PDF

(After collapse of south tower)
15. The decision was either to go left or right and we ended up going right, between the two buildings, in the alleyway on the north, which turned out to be the right direction because apparently there was a lot of debris and part of 7 down already. Also, I did notice as I was making my exit the sound of the firefighters' alarms indicating that they were down. I did remember that as well but just could not see anything. –Dr. Glenn Asaeda http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/sept11_fdny_transcripts/9110062.PDF

16. I saw the firefighter. There were people screaming out of one of these two buildings over here saying they couldn't get out, and my partner took one straggler fireman, the one that we had with us, and was trying to break the door because the door obviously had shifted or something. They couldn't get the door open.

Q: That was 7 World Trade Center?

A: I believe it was 7. Maybe it was 5. It was at the back end of it because I do remember the telephone company [which is next to building 7]. So I think it was the back end of 7, I think right over here at that point, and they couldn't get out. Then I had ran down the block and I flagged a ladder company and they brought the ladder, which they had like a vestibule that you couldn't like really reach the people because the ladder wouldn't reach. So they went and got other resources, they went inside the building, and I told my partner that it wasn't safe and that we need to go because everything around us was like falling apart. –EMT Nicole Ferrell http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110304.PDF

17. The whole south side of Seven World Trade had been hit by the collapse of the second Tower. – Fire Captain Brenda Berkman (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 213)

18. At that point, they said that Seven World Trade had no face and it was ready to collapse. – EMT Mercedes Rivera: (Susan Hagen and Mary Carouba, Women at Ground Zero, 2002, p. 29)

19. You see the white smoke, you see the thing leaning like this? It's definitely going. There's no way to stop it. 'Cause you have to go up in there to put it out, and it's already, the structural integrity is not there. –Unidentified firefighter in this video.

20. As far as I was concerned, we were still trapped. I was hopeful. things were looking a whole lot better now than they were just a few minutes earlier, but we were a long way from safe and sound. Five World Trade Center was fully involved, Six World Trade Center was roaring pretty good, and behind them Seven World Trade Center was teetering on collapse.
The buildings just behind him and to his left were looking like they too might collapse at any time, and there were whole chunks of concrete falling to both sides. Flames dancing everywhere. The small-arms detonations were kicking up a notch or two, and it sounded like this poor guy was being fired at, by snipers or unseen terrorists, at close range. (Last Man Down by Richard Picciotto, FDNY Battalion Commander Penguin Books, 2002. page 191)

So what's worse BB, a slight mistake in the translation order (if that), or the interviewer misleading Danny Jowenko as to the amount of damage and fire fighters claims about the building?

enno99

Di0genes wrote: »

Also BB we can quite clearly see/hear the interviewer is lying and feeding him false information.



The Interviewer is withholding information from Danny, Photos of the side of the Twin Towers existed.

And gave a much graver picture about the amount of fires and the amount of damage





The interviewer is lying or ignorant of firemen's testimonies at this point.

And again the testimonies of Firemen tell a much more serious story about the fire/damage to WTC

Again the interviewer is lying




[/QUOTE]

You trot these firefighters testimonies every time and the you say this

Actually the exact opposite is true. Witness testimony is highly unreliable.

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag...v=56&id=&page=
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag...v=37&id=&page=
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag...v=37&id=&page=

A set of scholarly articles on unreliability of witness testimony

You then accuse every body of lying and omitting facts

But you are quite happy to take the word of Bush and his buddies who are proven F*cking Liars

Can you give a date when that photo was first published and can you be certain that the interviewer had it at the time of the interview?

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Can you give a date when that photo was first published and can you be certain that the interviewer had it at the time of the interview?

Well this one:
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7swd.jpg
Was published in 2001.

So either the interviewers didn't do enough basic research to find either of these photos (and other freely available videos and photos showing the damage) or they purposefully withheld this evidence.
Since most current truther sites still fail to publish these photos and have always left out the evidence I'm going to give the interviewers the benefit of doubt and assume they were just incompetent.

Either way it shows that expert simply didn't have all the information about WTC7 which means his opinion isn't reliable.
You guys don't seem to want to address this point.

Di0genes

enno99 wrote: »

Again the interviewer is lying

You trot these firefighters testimonies every time and the you say this

Actually the exact opposite is true. Witness testimony is highly unreliable.

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag...v=56&id=&page=
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag...v=37&id=&page=
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPag...v=37&id=&page=

A set of scholarly articles on unreliability of witness testimony

You then accuse every body of lying and omitting facts
[/quote]


Actually it's the interviewer in the original interview who claims he used witness testimoney

Original Interviewer wrote:

Here, it's a little bit guesswork/performed on intuition, using testimonies of firemen

The interviewer is claimingwitness testimony support his case, when in fact the witness testimony says the exact opposite.

Sauce for the goose.

But you are quite happy to take the word of Bush and his buddies who are proven F*cking Liars

Please provide examples where I have taken "Bush and his buddies" all on their word?s

Can you give a date when that photo was first published and can you be certain that the interviewer had it at the time of the interview?

As King Mob pointed out photos of the front of the building showing the widespread damage were available.

So the person interviewing Jowenko brought witness testimony into this debate not I.

enno99

Di0genes wrote: »

So the person interviewing Jowenko brought witness testimony into this debate not I.

So what is your excuse for using them in all the other threads ?

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

So what is your excuse for using them in all the other threads ?

What's you excuse for taking the word of Barry Jennings (an eyewitness) in the WTC7 thread?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

What's you excuse for taking the word of Barry Jennings (an eyewitness) in the WTC7 thread?

Let me clear up your confusion I dont recall saying I took anybodys word for anything

I pointed out Diogenes use of testimonies in several threads and later posting that they were highly unreliable

Also your use of testimony from a corrupt official to refute claims made by others

With regards to this thread

Even without the initial structural damage caused by debis from the impact from the collapse of WTC1 WTC7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on september 11 2001( nist report)

So Danny jowenkos opinion that fires would not cause that type of collapse and that he thought it was controled demolition is valid

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

So Danny jowenkos opinion that fires would not cause that type of collapse and that he thought it was controled demolition is valid

But you've dodged the important points, did Jowenkos know what the internal structure of WTC7 was like?
Did he have all the facts?
Why did the interviewers leave out mentioning the damage?

Di0genes

enno99 wrote: »

So what is your excuse for using them in all the other threads ?

A single eye witness testimony, or a few eye witness testimonys may be confused about simple facts (i.e the robber was white, no he was black, he was short, no he was tall).

All will however agree that they witnessed a robbery.

The testimony of 40-50 Fire professionals that the WTC 7 was engulfed in fire, they may be confused about different elements of the story, but they're all confident of the overall event;

The WTC 7 was fully involved in fire and had massive structural damage.

King Mob

Di0genes wrote: »

The testimony of 40-50 Fire professionals that the WTC 7 was engulfed in fire, they may be confused about different elements of the story, but they're all confident of the overall event;

The WTC 7 was fully involved in fire and had massive structural damage.

And this is supported by video and photographic evidence.

Brown Bomber

Take 2

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Diogenes ...could you please address the blatant deception in your last post in this thread?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73403422&postcount=50

Jowenko's words have been completely distorted.

Who's lies are they? Your's or the hallowed JREF's?

King Mob

While we're doing take twos, how about this one BB?

King Mob wrote: »

BB, do you think that he was given all the facts before he formed his opinion? Yes or No?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

While we're doing take twos, how about this one BB?

I honestly can't remember the interview in detail now. Will watch it again when I find out if it was Diogenes who distorted Jowenko's words to give a false impression of his statements or if it was taken from another source. If so, which one.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I honestly can't remember the interview in detail now. Will watch it again when I find out if it was Diogenes who distorted Jowenko's words to give a false impression of his statements or if it was taken from another source. If so, which one.

How convenient that you did forget that fact with me asking you all those times when you were posting in the thread.
I suppose a yes or no answer back then might have been a bit much to ask.

But the fact is that he didn't have the information needed to make an informed opinion. So whether or not Diogenes "distorted" anything is really a moot point.

But I do like how you're giving about about distortion when you can't even answer a yes or no question honestly.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

How convenient that you did forget that fact with me asking you all those times when you were posting in the thread.
I suppose a yes or no answer back then might have been a bit much to ask.

But the fact is that he didn't have the information needed to make an informed opinion. So whether or not Diogenes "distorted" anything is really a moot point.

But I do like how you're giving about about distortion when you can't even answer a yes or no question honestly.

I did answer honestly. I don't know. Even if I did watch the video again I still wouldn't know what an engineer needs to know to make an informed decision or what information was available at the time.

If you know the answer yourself by all means answer it.

But I do like how your giving out about honestly when you say distorting someones words is a moot point.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Take 2

Post 59? Well rested after your nice break?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I did answer honestly. I don't know. Even if I did watch the video again I still wouldn't know what an engineer needs to know to make an informed decision or what information was available at the time.

If you know the answer yourself by all means answer it.

So lets ask about want you do know.
Did he know the internal structure of the building?
Did he know the exact nature of the fires including their extent and position?
did he know the extent of the damage done to the buildin?
Did the interviewers offer him any of this information and give him time to properly analyse it?
(The answer is no to all of these btw.)

And if he lacked all of this information, how could he have an informed opinion?
Are all of these factors unimportant when determining whether or not a building collapsed due to fire?

How far are you willing to stretch your credulity to avoid giving the honest answer.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

But I do like how your giving out about honestly when you say distorting someones words is a moot point.

Well you see, whether or not Diogenes "distorted" anything, Jowenko's opinion is still ill-informed.
And you are doing increasing silly mental gymnastics to avoid that fact.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Post 59?

Nope.

As can be seen clearly here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73403422&postcount=50 you have posted a false transcript to completely give a false impression of Jowenko's statements.

Was this your own work? Or what is the source of the fraud?

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nope.

As can be seen clearly here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73403422&postcount=50 you have posted a false transcript to completely give a false impression of Jowenko's statements.

Was this your own work? Or what is the source of the fraud?

And I responded with either transcript it clear Jowenko is being lied to, or does not have the full facts of the situation.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

And I responded with either transcript it clear Jowenko is being lied to, or does not have the full facts of the situation.

But that is completely irrelevant to the point in hand.

You posted a false transcript which appears to have been intentionally altered to change the meaning of Jowenko's statements. This is the height of dishonesty. So what was your source?

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

But that is completely irrelevant to the point in hand.

You might want it to be "irrelevant", and start stomping up and down and focus on this tangent, but the fact with either translation it's clear Jowenko doesn't have the full information about the situation at the WTC 7, and is making his statement that it looks like controlled demolition without being fully informed about the condition of WTC 7.

You posted a false transcript which appears to have been intentionally altered to change the meaning of Jowenko's statements. This is the height of dishonesty. So what was your source?

Firstly Brown Bomber can you prove YOUR TRANSLATION IS THE CORRECT ONE?

Secondly, how dare you? Your accusation is that I was aware that the second translation was incorrect (as you claim) when I posted it, and set out lie and deceive the forum, intentionally.

Do you have a modicum of evidence to support this nasty vile assertion?

I suggest that you reword or retract that statement.

My "source" is a previous thread on this forum posted by Bonkey, now a site administration.

I would suggest that before you accuse people of being dishonest you get your facts straight.

Penn

Calm it down, the pair of you.

If either of you want to prove the other is wrong, provide evidence. Don't make it personal.

Di0genes

Barrington wrote: »

Calm it down, the pair of you.

If either of you want to prove the other is wrong, provide evidence. Don't make it personal.

Excuse, me I did not make it personal. Brown Bomber flat out called me a liar. I'd like to see him provide some evidence to support this assertion.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is the height of dishonesty. So what was your source?

Actually the height of dishonesty would be doing something like saying some photos don't exist when they actually do, especially when such photos might help an expert form an expert opinion.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73509339&postcount=59

But you don't seem interested in the fact that the expert was not given the information he needed, either by dishonesty or due to lack of research.

And you say a point is irrelevant yet you seem to forget we are only discussing Jowenko because you were looking for a tangent to avoid my original point.
Any chance we'll be getting back to that at some stage?

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

You might want it to be "irrelevant", and start stomping up and down and focus on this tangent, but the fact with either translation it's clear Jowenko doesn't have the full information about the situation at the WTC 7, and is making his statement that it looks like controlled demolition without being fully informed about the condition of WTC 7.

Perhaps and we can get to that later.

Di0genes wrote: »

Firstly Brown Bomber can you prove YOUR TRANSLATION IS THE CORRECT ONE?

I am taking it from an undisputed translation. I even mailed a link to my cousin in Belgium of the video and he has no issues with the translation on the video.

Di0genes wrote: »

Secondly, how dare you? Your accusation is that I was aware that the second translation was incorrect (as you claim) when I posted it, and set out lie and deceive the forum, intentionally.

I never said that you set out to decieve anyone. I said that your translation that you posted was a fraud, with the purpose to decieve. It's two completely seperate parts of an interview together to give an opposite meaning. All you had to was be open from the start from the beginning and we wouldn't be having this conversation. You didn't pull the text out of your hat, so you must have got it from somewhere.

Di0genes wrote: »

Do you have a modicum of evidence to support this nasty vile assertion?

Yes. The video I posted with the real translations and the false transcript you posted.

Di0genes wrote: »

I suggest that you reword or retract that statement.

I suggest that you pay more attention to what I write to avoid confusion.

Di0genes wrote: »

My "source" is a previous thread on this forum posted by Bonkey, now a site administration.

Your source is a conspiracy theory forum?

Di0genes wrote: »

I would suggest that before you accuse people of being dishonest you get your facts straight.

Perhaps I should remind you of the facts.

You posted a false transcript.

This transcript has been altered to support the "debunker" argument. This is a classic case of deception.

I asked you for your source in line with the charter.

if you state that something is a fact, then it's not unreasonable for someone to ask you to show that there is a strong basis for making such a claim

Either you altered the text or someone else had. I asked you to clarify this by posting a source.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Actually the height of dishonesty would be doing something like saying some photos don't exist when they actually do, especially when such photos might help an expert form an expert opinion.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73509339&postcount=59

But you don't seem interested in the fact that the expert was not given the information he needed, either by dishonesty or due to lack of research.

And you say a point is irrelevant yet you seem to forget we are only discussing Jowenko because you were looking for a tangent to avoid my original point.
Any chance we'll be getting back to that at some stage?

Are you saying that publishing a fraudelent transcript where an answer to one question is given as an answer to a completely seperate question is not the height of dishonesty?

You'd be having a field day if it was a CT source. If you don't have a problem with it it is a clear indication of bias.

(this is concerning whoever wrote the false transcript, not Diogenes)

Fabrication

A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth. Examples of fabrication: A person giving directions to a tourist when the person doesn't actually know the directions. Often propaganda is fabrication.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you saying that publishing a fraudelent transcript where an answer to one question is given as an answer to a completely seperate question is not the height of dishonesty?

If I say yes will you actually start addressing some of my points?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You'd be having a field day if it was a CT source. If you don't have a problem with it it is a clear indication of bias.

Well first off I was waiting for Diogenes to actually address your questions and points before I can determine whether or not it was dishonest.
Now that he has, I still don't think he was being dishonest.
Since you were badgering him, I decided to focus on important points rather than do the same.

I've been continually trying to get you to acknowledge that I'm even making the point that the video you were holding up is in itself dishonest in that it directly lies (claiming that the is no photos or information about the south face of WTC7) and clearly does not give the expert in question the information he needs yet still use his opinion as if it's informed.

If you don't have a problem with it it is a clear indication of bias.

So can you please answer the questions:
Did the makes of the video lie about the existence of information about the south side of WTC7?
Did the expert have access to any of the information he would have needed to make an informed opinion?

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Perhaps and we can get to that later.

No. Lets not.

Because at this point you're just splitting hairs. Using either translation it's clear Jowenko doesn't have the full facts of the situation, the interviewer is either unaware, or lying about the side of the building facing the Twin Towers, and makes several specific claims about the state of that side of the buildings based on claims from un named firefighters that I demonstrated directly contradict dozens of firemen's claims about the side of the building.

I am taking it from an undisputed translation.

How is it undisputed?

I even mailed a link to my cousin in Belgium of the video and he has no issues with the translation on the video.

And I should take your word on this?

I never said that you set out to decieve anyone.

You sir are liar.

I'll repeat that. You are a liar.

You said exactly this.

Brown Bomber to Me wrote:

you have posted a false transcript to completely give a false impression of Jowenko's statements.

Was this your own work?

You directly accused me of creating this fraud.

And then repeated it

This is the height of dishonesty.

The grammar of that statement is quite clear. "This." (my post} is the height of dishonesty. As in it's a lie.

You accused me of lying. And then lied about making the accusation.


No you said

This is the height of dishonesty. S

Yes. The video I posted with the real translations and the false transcript you posted.

And you're positive it's accurate?

I suggest that you pay more attention to what I write to avoid confusion.

I'm paying very close attention.

Your source is a conspiracy theory forum?

My source is a post by a site Admin I'd stop laughing.

Either you altered the text or someone else had. I asked you to clarify this by posting a source.

You've provided no evidence the text was altered.



You seem more interested in discussing about whether or not you called me a liar (you did) than on the interview itself.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Fabrication

A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. Rather, it is something made up, or it is a misrepresentation of the truth. Examples of fabrication: A person giving directions to a tourist when the person doesn't actually know the directions. Often propaganda is fabrication.

So a bit like saying that there was no photos or information about the south side of WTC7 when there actually was....?

So we can conclude that the interview is dishonest and invalid now?
Can we get back to my original, actual point?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

If I say yes will you actually start addressing some of my points?

You can say whatever you want. We both know the answer.

King Mob wrote: »

I've been continually trying to get you to acknowledge that I'm even making the point that the video you were holding up is in itself dishonest in that it directly lies (claiming that the is no photos or information about the south face of WTC7) and clearly does not give the expert in question the information he needs yet still use his opinion as if it's informed.

Well perhaps you point out the time in the video where this is said. And then share information that the photos you speak of where available at the time and that the news crew were aware of them.

King Mob wrote: »

If you don't have a problem with it it is a clear indication of bias.

If they were witholding important evidence I do have a problem with it I can assure you.

King Mob wrote: »

So can you please answer the questions:
Did the makes of the video lie about the existence of information about the south side of WTC7?

I've done a lot of drugs and drank a lot of alcohol in my life and as a result my memory is fooked. I honestly can't remember now.

King Mob wrote: »

Did the expert have access to any of the information he would have needed to make an informed opinion?

See above.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

(this is concerning whoever wrote the false transcript, not Diogenes)
.

The "false transcript"* you accused me of fabricating.

you wrote:

Was this your own work?

*the false transcript you haven't shown that was false.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

How is it undisputed?

Because nobody has disputed it.

Di0genes wrote: »

And I should take your word on this?

That's up to you.

Di0genes wrote: »

You sir are liar.

I'll repeat that. You are a liar.

:pac:

Di0genes wrote: »

You said exactly this.



You directly accused me of creating this fraud.

And then repeated it

Next time before you jumpt out of your pram try to understand the usage of the question mark.

Di0genes wrote: »

The grammar of that statement is quite clear. "This." (my post} is the height of dishonesty. As in it's a lie.

No. Take a deep breath and I'll explain.

This is what I said

You posted a false transcript which appears to have been intentionally altered to change the meaning of Jowenko's statements. This is the height of dishonesty. So what was your source?

The "this" was referring to the altering of the transcript. Not the posting of the transcript.

Di0genes wrote: »

And you're positive it's accurate?

Yep.

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm paying very close attention.

Creepy

Di0genes wrote: »

My source is a post by a site Admin I'd stop laughing.

:pac: So? An pseudonym who posts an unsourced transcript in an online CT forum is a good source to you?

Di0genes wrote: »

You've provided no evidence the text was altered.

I have. The real translation on the video vs the fabrication side by side.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

The "false transcript"* you accused me of fabricating.




*the false transcript you haven't shown that was false.

Ahh ffs...You yourself posted a segment from the same video with the same translation to try and prove some point.

& I never accused you of fabricating it.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You can say whatever you want. We both know the answer.

So that's a no then...

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well perhaps you point out the time in the video where this is said. And then share information that the photos you speak of where available at the time and that the news crew were aware of them.

Well this has been addressed before in several posts.
So you're either not reading what people are posting or being deliberately obtuse.

But just to make sure you have no excuse to avoid the point...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73509339&postcount=59

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

This takes place at ~2:50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&feature=related&hl=en&v=boNzLZInbjU
And for reference the side facing the twin towers is the south side.

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7swd.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

Both of these pictures (and many others including videos) were available in 2001.
And the numerous witness reports posted by Diogenes would have all been from before 2006.
They either deliberately withheld this information or are so inept or biased that they couldn't find it.

So now I'll ask the question again:
Did they lie about the existence of photos and information about the south side of WTC7.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If they were witholding important evidence I do have a problem with it I can assure you.

So would you consider stuff like the internal structure of the building, the extent and nature of the fires, the extent and nature of the damage and facts like the failure of the sprinkler system to be important? Yes or no?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've done a lot of drugs and drank a lot of alcohol in my life and as a result my memory is fooked. I honestly can't remember now.

See above.

Then maybe you should actually go and watch the video you posted about and insisted on discussing before you would address my actual point (which remains unaddressed.)

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ahh ffs...You yourself posted a segment from the same video with the same translation to try and prove some point.

& I never accused you of fabricating it.

Was this your own work?

Thats a accusation by you.

This is a new low for you brown bomber

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So that's a no then...


Well this has been addressed before in several posts.
So you're either not reading what people are posting or being deliberately obtuse.

But just to make sure you have no excuse to avoid the point...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73509339&postcount=59

This takes place at ~2:50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&feature=related&hl=en&v=boNzLZInbjU
And for reference the side facing the twin towers is the south side.

http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7swd.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

Both of these pictures (and many others including videos) were available in 2001.
And the numerous witness reports posted by Diogenes would have all been from before 2006.
They either deliberately withheld this information or are so inept or biased that they couldn't find it.

So now I'll ask the question again:
Did they lie about the existence of photos and information about the south side of WTC7.


So would you consider stuff like the internal structure of the building, the extent and nature of the fires, the extent and nature of the damage and facts like the failure of the sprinkler system to be important? Yes or no?


Then maybe you should actually go and watch the video you posted about and insisted on discussing before you would address my actual point (which remains unaddressed.)

"Never attribute malice that which can be attributed to stupidity"

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Thats a accusation by you.

This is a new low for you brown bomber

Again, please learn the difference between an accusation and a question.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"Never attribute malice that which can be attributed to stupidity"

Ok so for all the points I made I get one line....

Well could you at least answer with a yes or a no at least?

Do you now believe that the interview was wrong when he said that there was no information about the south side of the building? Yes or no?

Would the information that was available be important? Yes or no?

Would you consider stuff like the internal structure of the building, the extent and nature of the fires, the extent and nature of the damage and facts like the failure of the sprinkler system to be important? Yes or no?

Seriously, I'm not asking for much here.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Again, please learn the difference between an accusation and a question.

A accusation you repeated.....

You're running into pedantry, to avoid the whole argument.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Ok so for all the points I made I get one line....

Well could you at least answer with a yes or a no at least?

Do you now believe that the interview was wrong when he said that there was no information about the south side of the building? Yes or no?

I honestly don't know. If you say so I accept it.

King Mob wrote: »

Would the information that was available be important? Yes or no?

Again I don't know. You understand physics and the like so if you say I take you on your word.

King Mob wrote: »

Would you consider stuff like the internal structure of the building, the extent and nature of the fires, the extent and nature of the damage and facts like the failure of the sprinkler system to be important? Yes or no?

Seriously, I'm not asking for much here.

I would assume so. To an extent at least.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

A accusation you repeated.....

You're running into pedantry, to avoid the whole argument.

Ahh give it a rest will ya? There is no argument.

• You posted a bogus transcript
• I called you out on it.
• You are throwing your toys out of the pram

Wouldn't it just be easier for you to accept you got caught with your trousers down and we come move on.

Have you ever accepted you were wrong here?

FWIW, I believe you that you were simply fooled into thinking that the fraud was a real transcript. I thought that would be clear by now.

Di0genes

You posted a bogus transcript

You claim it is bogus. You've not provided any evidence that it is bogus.

I called you out on it.
You are throwing your toys out of the pram

No you're using this tangent to avoid the fact that either translation supports the fact that the interviewer is either being dishonest when talking to Danny, or doesnt have the first facts about the state of WTC7.

FWIW, I believe you that you were simply fooled into thinking that the fraud was a real transcript. I thought that would be clear by now.

Why did you ask if it was my work then.

Was this your own work?

The level of dishonesty here beggars belief.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Why did you ask if it was my work then.

The level of dishonesty here beggars belief.

How could I be sure if it was yours or someone elses?

It could concievably be either. Therefore (and this is the important point) I asked of you a QUESTION if it was yours or what was your source for the transcript.

It was a legitimate question that was in line with the charter.

I hope this clears up any confusion for you.