Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
24

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


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

    AS long as we don't ask any further questions :D
    Again that's not what I've said, argued or implied.
    Please read what I've actually argued and reply to that.
    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes




  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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!!!? :D

    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    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!!!? :D



    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?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.

    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?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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...?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


    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?
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?
    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.
    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?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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 wink.gif
    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".


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    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.

    22712899.jpg

    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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    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.

    22712899.jpg

    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.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.
    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...?
    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.
    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.
    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 wink.gif
    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.

    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭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...


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Di0genes wrote: »
    His expert opinion is based on not being presented with the full facts



    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.".


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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...


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,473 ✭✭✭robtri


    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....


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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

    WTC7_Smoke.jpg

    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

    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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

    WTC7_Smoke.jpg



    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement