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

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.