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

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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.

And the lance armstrong award for backpeddling.........

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

So them saying that information doesn't exist, then us posting that information means "you don't know"?
Well I guess that's as close as you're going to get...

So the fact is they were very wrong in this regard and shows that they weren't giving their expert all of the information, either deliberately or due to gross incompetence.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

Well then such information is very important when determining whether or not the building collapsed due to fire.
I would have thought this would have been obvious.

And if you had actually watched the video you posted and insisted on discussing you'd see that the interviewer, again either deliberately or by incompetence, does not supply any of this information and Jawenko himself admits he doesn't know.

So one last simple question for you BB:
Given that you now clearly agree that Jawenko did not have access to important and vital information and only had seconds to analyse the scraps of information he did have, do you still think that his opinion is informed and valid? Yes or no?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So them saying that information doesn't exist, then us posting that information means "you don't know"?
Well I guess that's as close as you're going to get...

Well if you can provide proof of the dates that these photos were released I'll accept it. It doesn't mean that the interviewer was dishonest though.

King Mob wrote: »

So the fact is they were very wrong in this regard and shows that they weren't giving their expert all of the information, either deliberately or due to gross incompetence.

Gross incompotence is an serious exaggeration.

King Mob wrote: »

Well then such information is very important when determining whether or not the building collapsed due to fire.
I would have thought this would have been obvious.

And if you had actually watched the video you posted and insisted on discussing you'd see that the interviewer, again either deliberately or by incompetence, does not supply any of this information and Jawenko himself admits he doesn't know.

But he did supply him with a lot of official information.

And these are all points that Jowenko made based on that official information.

They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards.

• Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
• Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this.
• Then they worked hard. I don't know the construction of the building but then they very rigorously, very quickly placed charges. They had the piece of luck that since there was already very much destroyed in the environment that you don't have to be precise.
• This is work of man.
• 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.

King Mob wrote: »

So one last simple question for you BB:
Given that you now clearly agree that Jawenko did not have access to important and vital information and only had seconds to analyse the scraps of information he did have, do you still think that his opinion is informed and valid? Yes or no?

Yes of course. He was able to pass his informed judgement by just looking at the fall of the building and seeing the plans.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

And the lance armstrong award for backpeddling.........

I'm afraid I'm going to have to put you on ignore. Your starting to irritate me and your going to end up saying something OTT and getting banned and I don't want that. I've already explained to you that I never called you a liar. Since I won't be seeing anymore of your posts I'd ask the mods to keep a check on his "you sir are a liar" claims and the like.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm afraid I'm going to have to put you on ignore. Your starting to irritate me and your going to end up saying something OTT and getting banned and I don't want that. I've already explained to you that I never called you a liar. Since I won't be seeing anymore of your posts I'd ask the mods to keep a check on his "you sir are a liar" claims and the like.

I'll still be pointing out your gross falsehoods and dishonesty whether you respond to them or not.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well if you can provide proof of the dates that these photos were released I'll accept it. It doesn't mean that the interviewer was dishonest though.

The proof that the photos were in the public domain in 2001 has already been provided on this thread.

Gross incompotence is an serious exaggeration.

We'll settle for ordinary incompetence.

But he did supply him with a lot of official information.

That's nice. However plenty of official information was with held by malice or incompetence which could radically change his position.

And these are all points that Jowenko made based on that official information.

Seriously incomplete information. Had he seen the pictures of the fires engulfing the side of the WTC facing the towers he might have significantly changed his position as to whether it would have been possible to work in the building.
[/LIST]

Yes of course. He was able to pass his informed judgement by just looking at the fall of the building and seeing the plans.

While not being aware of the extent of the damage and other information.

Imagine a physician being asked to establish a cause of death based on photos and second hand information. He might think it a murder, not knowing there was significant information that would lead him to a different hypothesis but the information is withheld from him.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well if you can provide proof of the dates that these photos were released I'll accept it.

You're getting desperate now.
And since one of them is stamped with "Copyright 2001" I question whether you actually looked at the pictures in the first place and makes me question whether or not it's worth digging up the proof just for you to promptly ignore it.

But for a start here's the chapter on WTC7 from FEMA's World Trade Centre Building Performance Study released in 2002.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
Here is shows several of the pictures we posted and others of the side facing the world trade centre as well as a few others.
Photos which the interviewer said didn't exist.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It doesn't mean that the interviewer was dishonest though.

Gross incompotence is an serious exaggeration.

No it doesn't mean he was dishonest, though they could have been.
But either way they left out freely available information and claimed it didn't exist.
This means that they are deliberately withholding it. Or they simply didn't do enough research to find them.

And if a "documentary maker" doesn't do enough research when making a documentary about the "truth", what would you call it if incompetence is too extreme?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

But he did supply him with a lot of official information.

Like...?
They didn't supply him with information regarding the complete structure of the building or the nature or position of the fire or the damage done...
What exactly did they supply him beyond a video and a partial schematic?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And these are all points that Jowenko made based on that official information.

They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in afterwards.

Yes, the rest implodes. This is controlled demolition.
Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this.
Then they worked hard. I don't know the construction of the building but then they very rigorously, very quickly placed charges. They had the piece of luck that since there was already very much destroyed in the environment that you don't have to be precise.
This is work of man.
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.

Sorry, which official information refers to them blowing stuff up or hiring experts to demolish WTC7?
What information specifically is he basing all of this on besides a single viewing of a video clip?

Would not the fact he says: "I don't know the construction of the building" not have a baring on his opinion?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes of course. He was able to pass his informed judgement by just looking at the fall of the building and seeing the plans.

By what definition is it informed?
How can someone who doesn't know the internal structure of the building, where the fires and damage was and how bad they were and didn't know stuff like the sprinklers not working be considered "informed"?

Then of course I'd wager that he's probably not watching the full collapse either, rather the edited one CTer sites prefer to show.
But then, the documentary leaves out that as well, showing either more dishonesty or more incompetence, take your pick.

Penn

Lads, grow up. Seriously.

Thread locked.