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
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You can say whatever you want. We both know the answer.
    So that's a no then...
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Well perhaps you point out the time in the video where this is said. And then share information that the photos you speak of where available at the time and that the news crew were aware of them.
    Well this has been addressed before in several posts.
    So you're either not reading what people are posting or being deliberately obtuse.

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

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73509339&postcount=59
    DANNY JOWENKO: For me it is a little bit like "watching coffee dregs", I mean, that is not a lot of information, if we had some pictures from the other side, especially those at the side of the twin towers.

    INTERVIEWER: That's correct, we don't have that, there has only been created a kind of damage report
    This takes place at ~2:50 http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&feature=related&hl=en&v=boNzLZInbjU
    And for reference the side facing the twin towers is the south side.

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

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

    So now I'll ask the question again:
    Did they lie about the existence of photos and information about the south side of WTC7.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    If they were witholding important evidence I do have a problem with it I can assure you.
    So would you consider stuff like the internal structure of the building, the extent and nature of the fires, the extent and nature of the damage and facts like the failure of the sprinkler system to be important? Yes or no?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I've done a lot of drugs and drank a lot of alcohol in my life and as a result my memory is fooked. I honestly can't remember now.

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


  • Options
    #93
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


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

    & I never accused you of fabricating it.
    Was this your own work?

    Thats a accusation by you.

    This is a new low for you brown bomber


  • Options
    #94
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    So that's a no then...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


  • Options
    #95
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Thats a accusation by you.

    This is a new low for you brown bomber

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


  • Options
    #96
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    "Never attribute malice that which can be attributed to stupidity"
    Ok so for all the points I made I get one line....

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

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

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

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

    Seriously, I'm not asking for much here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Again, please learn the difference between an accusation and a question.

    A accusation you repeated.....

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


  • Options
    #98
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok so for all the points I made I get one line....

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

    Do you now believe that the interview was wrong when he said that there was no information about the south side of the building? Yes or no?
    I honestly don't know. If you say so I accept it.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Would the information that was available be important? Yes or no?
    Again I don't know. You understand physics and the like so if you say I take you on your word.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Would you consider stuff like the internal structure of the building, the extent and nature of the fires, the extent and nature of the damage and facts like the failure of the sprinkler system to be important? Yes or no?

    Seriously, I'm not asking for much here.

    I would assume so. To an extent at least.


  • Options
    #99
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Di0genes wrote: »
    A accusation you repeated.....

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

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

    • You posted a bogus transcript
    • I called you out on it.
    • You are throwing your toys out of the pram
    Wouldn't it just be easier for you to accept you got caught with your trousers down and we come move on.

    Have you ever accepted you were wrong here?

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


  • Options
    #100
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    You posted a bogus transcript

    You claim it is bogus. You've not provided any evidence that it is bogus.
    I called you out on it.
    You are throwing your toys out of the pram

    No you're using this tangent to avoid the fact that either translation supports the fact that the interviewer is either being dishonest when talking to Danny, or doesnt have the first facts about the state of WTC7.
    FWIW, I believe you that you were simply fooled into thinking that the fraud was a real transcript. I thought that would be clear by now.


    Why did you ask if it was my work then.
    Was this your own work?

    The level of dishonesty here beggars belief.


  • Options
    #101
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Why did you ask if it was my work then.

    The level of dishonesty here beggars belief.

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

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

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

    I hope this clears up any confusion for you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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.........


  • Options
    #103
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #104
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #105
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #106
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #107
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #108
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #109
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,293 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Lads, grow up. Seriously.

    Thread locked.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement