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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Building 7 ... the saga continues
Comments
-
Ok, based on what? Can you explain what it says different that addresses any of my points?I watched the interview 3 times and it is
A: poorly translated resulting in a dodgy transcript
its a different interview when you leave the subtitles out
Implying that he was either incompetent and/or lazy and thus left information out.B: Interviewer was in my opinion not well prepared
So we argee.
Because that's what they interviewer was leading him towards. Perhaps if he had been made aware of the details as well as the official possible explanations he would not have needed to look for such a possibility.C: Lowenko based opinion of demolition assuming it was a couple of days later ... and was shocked it was only 7 hours after the twin towers fell ... I got a bit of a feeling he was looking for the possibility of how to get it done in 7 hours for the rest of the interview
And an interview who leads an expert on is not a good interviewer.
Yea, but then he might not have said anything that could be used to confirm a conspiracy theory.Best way would have been that Lowenko got all the info on wtc7 prepare himself and then do the interview
So I assume you now agree that this interview cannot an dshould not be used as an example of a expert questioning the official story or putting forward the demolition theory?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83656603&postcount=51Can you show me what picture he is withholding according to you ?
http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7swd.jpg
That one.
And from the report:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
Figure 5-16 on page 19
Figure 5-17 on page 20
You said they had read the report, so they had access to these photos, yet they say that they did not have them.
This can only be explain by dishonesty or incompetence.0 -
Ok, based on what? Can you explain what it says different that addresses any of my points?
Let me say it like this ... they literally took every word and translated it directly into English ... they left out the nuances every language has ... you need to understand the language to see thatBecause that's what they interviewer was leading him towards. Perhaps if he had been made aware of the details as well as the official possible explanations he would not have needed to look for such a possibility.
And an interview who leads an expert on is not a good interviewer.
It is also common in interviews that a person is asked what he sees (makes of it) so he can give an unbiased opinion ... it all depends on the angle you want to use in the interviewSo I assume you now agree that this interview cannot an dshould not be used as an example of a expert questioning the official story or putting forward the demolition theory?
I dont see why not tbhYou said they had read the report, so they had access to these photos, yet they say that they did not have them.
This can only be explain by dishonesty or incompetence.
I said he was quoting from the report ... big difference.. agree ?
And when it comes to Lowenko forming an opinion... imo the statements from the firefighters tells more about the damage then the photograph is capable of showing
Not that it would have made any difference .. Because we all know the damage had nothing to do with the collapse of building 70 -
Ok, can you please point out some of these nuisances and explain which of my points they address?Let me say it like this ... they literally took every word and translated it directly into English ... they left out the nuances every language has ... you need to understand the language to see that
But they are not giving him all of the unbiased information. They are either withholding it or are too incompetent to find it.It is also common in interviews that a person is asked what he sees (makes of it) so he can give an unbiased opinion ... it all depends on the angle you want to use in the interview
As you said the interviewer does not seem very knowledgeable.
And this is of course just what we see they are leaving out. It's highly likely from their less than honest/competent tactics and the fact they show the edited collapse, they aren't showing him all of the collapse.
Further they simply aren't just asking him what he sees, they continually refer to it as an implosion and continue to ask leading questions about demolitions.
Because the expert is being lead into a response by being denied information, and therefore is not able to give an expert opinion.I dont see why not tbh
Do you not believe these are big issues with the interview?
Do you think that the video is convincing?
I do not understand you point.I said he was quoting from the report ... big difference.. agree ?
Did they know about the report or not?
If they are quoting from it like you say, then they knew about. If they did, then they knew about the pictures in it. So therefore they lied.
If they did not know of the report, or only bothered to look at part of it, they are lazy, terrible documentarians.
The fact they aren't telling the truth about the photo is just a clear demonstration of just how crap this interview is.And when it comes to Lowenko forming an opinion... imo the statements from the firefighters tells more about the damage then the photograph is capable of showing
So then perhaps they should have given him the detailed information about the nature of the fires, their locations, the structure of the building and the possible mechanisms of collapse proposed by the report at the time.Not that it would have made any difference .. Because we all know the damage had nothing to do with the collapse of building 7
But they couldn't have shown him that as that runs the risk of him saying "Well yea, that makes sense. There's no reason to assume this was a demolition."0 -
Ok, can you please point out some of these nuisances and explain which of my points they address?
I don't know if it will adress your points tbhAnd this is of course just what we see they are leaving out. It's highly likely from their less than honest/competent tactics and the fact they show the edited collapse, they aren't showing him all of the collapse.
How can you conclude he showed the edited collapse ?Further they simply aren't just asking him what he sees, they continually refer to it as an implosion and continue to ask leading questions about demolitions.
Lowenko said at the start of the interview it was controlled demolitionDo you think that the video is convincing?
I doI do not understand you point.
Did they know about the report or not?
If they are quoting from it like you say, then they knew about. If they did, then they knew about the pictures in it. So therefore they lied.
If they did not know of the report, or only bothered to look at part of it, they are lazy, terrible documentarians.
No you jump from one conclusion to the other .... quoting from a report is different then having the full report in front of you .... And be honest that FEMA report is as crap as the interviewerThe fact they aren't telling the truth about the photo is just a clear demonstration of just how crap this interview is.
But do you agree that the statements of the firefighters about the damage are more valuable for lowenko to form an opinion then the picture from the reportBut they couldn't have shown him that as that runs the risk of him saying "Well yea, that makes sense. There's no reason to assume this was a demolition."
I leave that conclusion with you0 -
So why are you bringing it up exactly?I don't know if it will adress your points tbh
I have explained this twice. And I explain it directly in the quote you took.How can you conclude he showed the edited collapse ?
After he was told it was an "implosion" among many other leading questions and point..Lowenko said at the start of the interview it was controlled demolition
What precisely is convincing about it?I do
Do you thing that the experts opinion is well informed and untainted?
So you argee with the point I've been making for that last few points. The interview is either incompetent or dishonest. You are just choosing to believe he's incompetent.No you jump from one conclusion to the other .... quoting from a report is different then having the full report in front of you .... And be honest that FEMA report is as crap as the interviewer
Yup. But he wasn't given those. Nor was he given any of the important information. The photo is just the only thing they lie about (or clearly and unambiguosly display their lack of research about).But do you agree that the statements of the firefighters about the damage are more valuable for lowenko to form an opinion then the picture from the report
Yup and an out there conclusion it is thinking that someone needs information to make an informed opinion...I leave that conclusion with you0 -
Advertisement
-
So why are you bringing it up exactly?
Its just poorly translated and from that poorly translation they made a transcript ...I have explained this twice. And I explain it directly in the quote you took.
Sorry .... from looking at the interview i cannot conclude as fact they used the edited version .. so how do you know this as fact ?After he was told it was an "implosion" among many other leading questions and point..
No Lowenko talks about implosions first and then says this is controlled demolition
So how is the interviewer leading him ??Yup. But he wasn't given those. Nor was he given any of the important information. The photo is just the only thing they lie about (or clearly and unambiguosly display their lack of research about).
He was from 16:50 in the video .. Interviewer is also showing him paper/photos (not clear) pointing out where the damage was0 -
Ok, you keep insisting this. What is your point? What baring has this on the points I have been making.Its just poorly translated and from that poorly translation they made a transcript ...
Again, I've have already explain my reasons for thinking this is a strong possibility.Sorry .... from looking at the interview i cannot conclude as fact they used the edited version .. so how do you know this as fact ?
He refers to a "they" blowing columns up.No Lowenko talks about implosions first and then says this is controlled demolition
So how is the interviewer leading him ??
He refers to it as "intuition and guesswork" and offers no testimony from the firefighters regarding the damage or more importantly the fires, or the fact many of them said they knew the building was in danger of collapsing.He was from 16:50 in the video .. Interviewer is also showing him paper/photos (not clear) pointing out where the damage was
Again, as you pointed out the damage played no role, so not only are they giving him incomplete information, the coffee dregs they are giving him are irrelevant.
Again I only refer to the photo as them saying it doesn't exist demonstrates why this interview is worthless as evidence against the official story, or for the conspiracy narrative.0 -
Again, I've have already explain my reasons for thinking this is a strong possibility.
I just highlight this partAnd this is of course just what we see they are leaving out. It's highly likely from their less than honest/competent tactics and the fact they show the edited collapse, they aren't showing him all of the collapse.
Why do you state is a fact then ?
You are deliberately being dishonest ! ..why i don't know
You just proved again that you are not capable in having a proper and honest discussion
I'm done with you0 -
Again, in the documentary this interview is from, they repeatedly show the collapse of the building. But they only show the last half of the collapse, omitting the first half were the penthouse disappears into the building.I just highlight this part
Why do you state is a fact then ?
You are deliberately being dishonest ! ..why i don't know
You just proved again that you are not capable in having a proper and honest discussion
I'm done with you
For example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKFBJ1j96to
In this section at 30 seconds and 40 seconds
This is "the fact they show the edited collapse" I was referring to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKFBJ1j96to&feature=player_detailpage#t=115s
And here we see the expert watching the video.
Guess what?
So again:
It's highly likely from their less than honest/competent tactics and the fact they show the edited collapse, they aren't showing him all of the collapse.0 -
Again, in the documentary this interview is from, they repeatedly show the collapse of the building. But they only show the last half of the collapse, omitting the first half were the penthouse disappears into the building.
For example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKFBJ1j96to
In this section at 30 seconds and 40 seconds
This is "the fact they show the edited collapse" I was referring to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKFBJ1j96to&feature=player_detailpage#t=115s
And here we see the expert watching the video.
Guess what?So again:
It's highly likely from their less than honest/competent tactics and the fact they show the edited collapse, they aren't showing him all of the collapse.
Its not a fact yet you claimed it as a fact ... Do you know for a fact that they didn't show him more video's ??
Also the video's you showed are from a different program with things edited into it ... As you can see because the audio is not in sync with the video shown0 -
Advertisement
-
Again the fact I was referring to was the fact that the documentary only shows the edited footage of the collapse.Its not a fact yet you claimed it as a fact ... Do you know for a fact that they didn't show him more video's ??
I demonstrated this fact and pointed to examples of the documentary.
Do they show the full collapse? Do they show the edited collapse?
I use this fact, and the fact they the producers of the documentary are either dishonest or incompetent to conclude that it is highly possible that they are also only showed him the edited videos.
This is supported by the fact that the footage shows him only seeing the edited video.
They might have shown him the complete video, but there's nothing to show that they did, and very good reasons to think they did not.
So are you now claiming that they edited off him seeing the first section of the collapse?Also the video's you showed are from a different program with things edited into it ... As you can see because the audio is not in sync with the pictures shown
What was edited in that has any baring on my point?
And can I assume that you now wish to latch onto this inane point because you can't address all of the others you are missing?0 -
Again the fact I was referring to was the fact that the documentary only shows the edited footage of the collapse.
I demonstrated this fact and pointed to examples of the documentary.
Do they show the full collapse? Do they show the edited collapse?
The documentary is different then the edited footage you showed (from another program )So are you now claiming that they edited off him seeing the first section of the collapse?
What was edited in that has any baring on my point?
And can I assume that you now wish to latch onto this inane point because you can't address all of the others you are missing?
Yes the Lowenko interviewer had only one camera as is shown from 19:30 in the documentary
The footage you showed is from another program with a different camera angle with parts of the interview edited in clearly showing the audio is not in sync with the video ... They used parts of the Lowenko interview to make their own program0 -
So you are claiming that the parts showing the partial collapse before the interview and the parts with the collapse being shown on a laptop are not in fact from the same documentary for which the interview was produced?The documentary is different then the edited footage you showed (from another program )
Yes the Lowenko interviewer had only one camera as is shown from 19:30 in the documentary
The footage you showed is from another program with a different camera angle with parts of the interview edited in clearly showing the audio is not in sync with the video ... They used parts of the Lowenko interview to make their own program0 -
So you are claiming that the parts showing the partial collapse before the interview and the parts with the collapse being shown on a laptop are not in fact from the same documentary for which the interview was produced?
The clip you showed is not part of the "lowenko" documentary
And what do you mean when you say "the parts showing the partial collapse before the interview"
AFAIK the Lowenko interview was used and edited to suit the dutch news program yes
Do you believe this to be possible ?0 -
Yes it is:The clip you showed is not part of the "lowenko" documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t7Tjhe09Gk&feature=player_detailpage#t=118s
The two sections I already indicated, which are in the above video at 2:13 and 2:22.And what do you mean when you say "the parts showing the partial collapse before the interview"
Do you now accept that the documentary only showed the partial collapse as per my original point?
Yes they were edited to suit the program as they were the ones who conducted the interview.AFAIK the Lowenko interview was used and edited to suit the dutch news program yes
Do you believe this to be possible ?
The interview that BB posted was an extended version released on their website as far as I can gather.
If this is not the case, who conducted the interview?0 -
Yes it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t7Tjhe09Gk&feature=player_detailpage#t=118s
The two sections I already indicated, which are in the above video at 2:13 and 2:22.
Do you now accept that the documentary only showed the partial collapse as per my original point?
No because the documentary showed on boards is a different one as showed in Zembla ... Zembla made his own documentary and used parts of the full documentary ... as pointed out by the different camera positions and the fact the original documentary only used one camera .. .also Lowenko's audio doesn't match with the Zembla documentaryIf this is not the case, who conducted the interview?
Some freelance guy who sold/gave permission to use his footage in the Zembla documentary ??
I will see if i can get some info on who Zembla used for the documentary0 -
So was the interview that BB posted from the "real" documentary?No because the documentary showed on boards is a different one as showed in Zembla ... Zembla made his own documentary and used parts of the full documentary ... as pointed out by the different camera positions and the fact the original documentary only used one camera .. .also Lowenko's audio doesn't match with the Zembla documentary
If this is the case, how were they able to get him to say all the exact same stuff in the exact same way?
And are you now saying that the shot of him looking at the edited footage of WTC7's collapse was in fact faked?
And what exactly are you basing all of this on?Some freelance guy who sold/gave permission to use his footage in the Zembla documentary ??
I will see if i can get some info on who Zembla used for the documentary
Which is the real documentary you are referring to?0 -
So was the interview that BB posted from the "real" documentary?
If this is the case, how were they able to get him to say all the exact same stuff in the exact same way?
Parts of the documentary that got posted here where used in the Zembla DocumentaryAnd are you now saying that the shot of him looking at the edited footage of WTC7's collapse was in fact faked?
No it was edited in .. .as i explained.. You can clearly see the audio is not in sinc with what Lowenko is saying ... which is not uncommon in interviews btwAnd what exactly are you basing all of this on?
Which is the real documentary you are referring to?
I explained it earlier
The link posted by bb is done with one camera as i pointed out ... your link is from a different crew with parts of the original footage edited in ... mainly
audio
http://tvblik.nl/zembla/het-complot-van-11-september
full episode0 -
So you believe that the footage of him watching the edited collapse is in fact actually him.No it was edited in .. .as i explained.. You can clearly see the audio is not in sinc with what Lowenko is saying ... which is not uncommon in interviews btw
So you agree with my point that it only shows him seeing the edited collapse?
What's the name of this documentary? Who made it?Parts of the documentary that got posted here where used in the Zembla Documentary
I explained it earlier
...
The link posted by bb is done with one camera as i pointed out ... your link is from a different crew with parts of the original footage edited in ... mainly
audio
http://tvblik.nl/zembla/het-complot-van-11-september
full episode
Can you provide a link to this original documentary?
Or are you really just that desperate to avoid conceding a silly side point you insisted on clinging to to avoid my points?0 -
So you believe that the footage of him watching the edited collapse is in fact actually him.
Yes .. made by the Zembla crewSo you agree with my point that it only shows him seeing the edited collapse?
Yes in the Zembla documentary ... it also shows the edited audio from the link bb posted
Can you state as a fact he didn't see any other footage of the collapse ?What's the name of this documentary? Who made it?
Can you provide a link to this original documentary?
The complot of 9/11
Kees schaap was director
Aired on 10 september 2006Or are you really just that desperate to avoid conceding a silly side point you insisted on clinging to to avoid my points?
I thought for once we had a civil and normal discussion ... how wrong i was
Just point out what is impossible about my view on it and back up what you stated as fact ....0 -
Advertisement
-
It's called a voice over. It's fairly common in the documentary scene.Yes .. made by the Zembla crew
Yes in the Zembla documentary ... it also shows the edited audio from the link bb posted
The footage BB posted is the same footage and audio used in the documentary. BB's interview is just the uncut extended edition.
No, but I never have stated this as a fact.Can you state as a fact he didn't see any other footage of the collapse ?
I simply concluded it was highly likely that he wasn't because of the reason I have repeatedly listed. And again this was a side point.
That is the Zembla documentary.The complot of 9/11
Kees schaap was director
Aired on 10 september 2006
Zembla is the name of the show. The complot of 9/11 is the name of the episode.
And Kees Schaap is an editor for Zembla.
I did back up what was a fact.I thought for once we had a civil and normal discussion ... how wrong i was
Just point out what is impossible about my view on it and back up what you stated as fact ....
I stated that the documentary the interview was from only showed the edited version of the collapse.
I pointed out exactly were in the documentary this was, and you failed to show anything to the contrary.
You are now inventing a nonexistant documentary to avoid this.0 -
FirstCan you state as a fact he didn't see any other footage of the collapse ?No, but I never have stated this as a fact.
I simply concluded it was highly likely that he wasn't because of the reason I have repeatedly listed. And again this was a side point.And this is of course just what we see they are leaving out. It's highly likely from their less than honest/competent tactics and the fact they show the edited collapse, they aren't showing him all of the collapse.
Second
Where does it state that the interview bb posted is part of the Zembla documentary
You show it here as fact ...
Show me how you reached this conclusion ... Looking for this myself but cannot find anything to link both interviews/documentary's
.0 -
First
Second
Again the fact I am referring to here is the fact that in the documentary they only ever show (as in on screen to the viewer) the edited collapse.And this is of course just what we see they are leaving out. It's highly likely from their less than honest/competent tactics and the fact they show the edited collapse,(< that's a comma) they aren't showing him all of the collapse.
I have demonstrated this fact.
What I have not claimed was a fact was that they only showed him the edited collapse.
This is just a likely possibility based on the facts I presented earlier.
So what documentary is the interview BB posted from? Who conducted it?Where does it state that the interview bb posted is part of the Zembla documentary
You show it here as fact ...
Show me how you reached this conclusion ... Looking for this myself but cannot find anything to link both interviews/documentary's
I'm assuming it's from the Zembla documentary because it's the smae footage used in the Zembla documentary.0 -
Again the fact I am referring to here is the fact that in the documentary they only ever show (as in on screen to the viewer) the edited collapse.
I have demonstrated this fact.
No i demonstrated that the documentary bb posted and the clip you showed are different .. So you are referring (claiming as fact) things that cannot be stated as fact
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKFBJ1j96to&feature=player_detailpage#t=115s
The audio you hear when he is looking at building 7 falling is not even in the clip bb posted I listened to it again and its not in it ... So imo its edited
Unless you can show me where it is in the clip bb postedWhat I have not claimed was a fact was that they only showed him the edited collapse.
This is just a likely possibility based on the facts I presented earlier
you claimed as a fact that they only showed him the edited collapse in the clip bb posted using a clip that has nothing to do with the clip bb posted ... The second camera wasn't there ... the audio wasn't in the original clip ..
So what FACTS are there ??the fact they show the edited collapse, they aren't showing him all of the collapse.So what documentary is the interview BB posted from? Who conducted it?
I'm assuming it's from the Zembla documentary because it's the smae footage used in the Zembla documentary.
It showed Zembla used parts of that documentary and edited it0 -
You have demonstrated no such thing.No i demonstrated that the documentary bb posted and the clip you showed are different .. So you are referring (claiming as fact) things that cannot be stated as fact
Where exactly do you think you have done this?
Unless of course that that bit of audio comes from the section where the camera is filming over his shoulder rather than when it was filming him facing the camera?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKFBJ1j96to&feature=player_detailpage#t=115s
The audio you hear when he is looking at building 7 falling is not even in the clip bb posted I listened to it again and its not in it ... So imo its edited
Unless you can show me where it is in the clip bb posted
It was edited by the people who made both.
This is not what I claimed as a fact.you claimed as a fact that they only showed him the edited collapse in the clip bb posted using a clip that has nothing to do with the clip bb posted ... The second camera wasn't there ... the audio wasn't in the original clip ..
So what FACTS are there ??
I what I claim is a fact is that the documentary only shows the edited collapse throughout.
Can you please point to any section in Zembla documentary that shows the complete collapse as I have already shown that they show the edited collapse.
What was the name of this documentary that Zembla took the interview from?It showed Zembla used parts of that documentary and edited it
Please post a link for some information about it.0 -
I'm out of this discussion King Mob0
-
I'm out of this discussion King Mob
Before you go...
You made a statement that I asked you to respond toyou wrote:No they had a paper with a damage report from statements made by honest firefightersme wrote:'m sorry honest fire fighters? This statement suggests that you believe that some fire fighters were intentional dishonest and lied to FEMA, the NIST and made intentional false statements.
What evidence do you have that some fire fighters made intentionally dishonest statements? And what reason do you put forward for them doing so?
As to the Jowenko statement thats the first time I've linked to it, and King Mob's points still stand. The interviewer is either intentionally or unintentionally not furnishing Jowenko with all the available facts, and he clearly states that he's giving his opinion based on all the available information he's been provided. A much more complete picture was available, which could have completely revised his opinion.
Care to respond?0 -
-
That doesn't answer my question.
You said "honest firemen"
This means you think certain Firemen and other NY emergency services were dishonest.
Which firemen do you think lied and why did they lied?
And what evidence do you have that they were lying?0 -
Advertisement
-
That doesn't answer my question.
You said "honest firemen"
This means you think certain Firemen and other NY emergency services were dishonest.
Which firemen do you think lied and why did they lied?
And what evidence do you have that they were lying?
I asked you those questions in said post some time before you asked me your question
Why should i be arsed to answer more of your questions when you don't even have the courtesy to try and answer mine0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement