Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Who the hell is Barry Jennings?

135678

Comments

  • #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Podman wrote: »
    Just not any questions about the official story. How is that open minded?
    Nope I question the official story. I read a lot of the conspiracy stuff.
    However every single claim and argument the conspiracy theorists make crumble under the slightest scrutiny.
    Podman wrote: »
    To me, all you seem to do is disrespect the efforts that certain other users put into their posts. The very fact that you actually answered my question seriously, confirms for me that most of your posts are based on, and geared towards your own ego. Even your own sig will back me up.. (Of course it's impossible, that's why we do it.) But that's just my opinion, right?
    Yea...
    That's a quote from my favourite magician.... Maybe you should click on it before you use it to judge my character...
    Podman wrote: »
    What exactly is your argument here? What makes the "truth" movement hypocritical?
    The simple fact they don't like it when you ask questions about their theory.
    Podman wrote: »
    Have you personally interviewed eyewitnesses to 911 on camera?

    Unless the answer is "yes" then don't even bother trying to compare yourself to Dylan Avery or his work, let alone think you can debunk all of his work with a stroke of your ego.. anyone who does is kidding themselves.
    Ok where are you getting this nonsense?
    I asked a very simple question: is there anything other than his word to back up his story?

    Since you dodged the question entirely and it being at least the thrid time I've asked it, it's fairly clear that no there isn't.
    And you you are willing to believe something because you were told to...
    Podman wrote: »
    Would a declaration signed in blood make any difference to you?
    If you ask a stranger "what time is it?", do you then demand they prove it?
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Why do you believe his story when he's provided nothing to support it?
    Podman wrote: »
    Why don't you ask the Bush dynasty?
    I'll do so at the next disinfo agent meeting.
    Podman wrote: »
    That's not a question, it's a comment. One with a not-so-subtle dismissive tone I might add.
    It's a question. it starts with a "why" and ends with a "?".
    Podman wrote: »
    Which one? These are the last known reports of them (indo, herald), and as far as I gather, they are both still alive, Mary herself doesn't look particularly distraught.

    So short of jumping out of her knicker-drawer with a camera, that's as far as I'm going to go with the Mary McAleese thing.
    And that's it? A news article? From 09?
    No address? Nothing?

    Must have been murdered by her husband then.
    Podman wrote: »
    How about you do yourself and the thread some honour, and see if you can find any information about Jennings or his family's current whereabouts? You say that you have an open mind and are willing to ask questions, or does that count only when you get the answers you want?
    You see the thing is I never said there was any information on their location to be found or claimed that I had such information. In fact I believe it would be rather hard to find a random family. Hence my example using a relatively known person.

    The thing is CTers here have claimed that they have evidence that the family have disappeared.
    I asked for this evidence, it's yet to materialise.
    Podman wrote: »
    Serious flaws like what?

    Oh, and by the way.. If you don't believe someone, or don't like what they have said, that's not a serious flaw.
    The fact that the only answers to my questions are either the vast global conspiracy is stupid or non-existent.


  • #63
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Just to put this one to bed before yhe skeppies think they have some kind of victory or somesuch

    I have provided you with a contact number for Emma MacaLese, it should be possible to call that number in the morning and confirm her existence, I would recomend not calling at the moment as its nearly 4AM in Dublin and I'm sure the Gardai wouldnt like that sort of thing.

    Now can you provide me with a contact number for any of the Jennings Family, or someone who knows the Jennings Family, Or someone that has seen them in the last 6 months??????

    see the difference?????

    Well again I never claimed to have that information, nor that it was available, hence why I (originally yekahs)asked you to find a relativly higher profile person.

    Yet you can't seem to find anything at all.

    So can you find the same thing you're asking me for?
    Personal phone number, address and someone who has seen her in the last 6 months?

    Or at least maybe back up the idea that they disappeared at all?


  • #64
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    well to be technical you never claim anything, you just dance around in circles making retarded Counterclaims and annoyin the Sh!te out of People

    But Whats wrong with the contact info for Emma Macalese?????

    Its fairly straightforward, ring that number during Irish office hours and ask if she's Dead.

    If they say Yes, then lo and behold you were right and theres a whole massive nother conspiracy that we need ta be investigating, if they say no and try to keep you on the line I'd suggest running away before special Branch get there;)


    As for the Jennings Issue, the original point was, if they havent disapeared they should be easy to find, especially to someone like Dylan Avery who dedicates his time to things like that, but he Hired a P.I and that P.I Had a quick look and then decided he'd be better off not looking. thats as much info as we have, thats what lead to our conclusion, like I said if you cant find Emma Macalese tomorrow morning then we should start gettin suspicious about the situation.


  • #65
    Podman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 887 ✭✭✭Podman


    King Mob wrote: »
    Nope I question the official story. I read a lot of the conspiracy stuff.
    However every single claim and argument the conspiracy theorists make crumble under the slightest scrutiny.
    Where have I seen that pasted before? Ah yeah, just before "Na na na na na naa!". Save it, Your obviously clever but you don't seem as open minded as you'd like to think you are.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Yea...
    That's a quote from my favourite magician.... Maybe you should click on it before you use it to judge my character...
    I did click on it, I prefer real magic to stage magic, and although it's a good quote, it's completely inaccurate and only serves the ego.

    And if you read what I said before carefully, you'd realize that I didn't "use it" to judge your character, I am very capable of reading someone's card without depending on something like that.
    King Mob wrote: »
    The simple fact they don't like it when you ask questions about their theory.
    That doesn't cut it as an answer. I'll consider that 1 unanswered question, and 1 ignored one.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok where are you getting this nonsense?
    Another unanswered question, I'm going to stop counting now.
    King Mob wrote: »
    I asked a very simple question: is there anything other than his word to back up his story?
    What you asked was..
    King Mob wrote: »
    Can you explain how my totally made up and unsupported claim is any different to Avery's claim?

    To answer your first question: yes, there is documentary film of Barry Jennings giving his testimony as an eyewitness on the day, that implicates certain leaders of the world's largest superpower, in conspiracy and mass murder.

    Your ridiculous second question is answered by the absence* of documentary film of Mary McAleese giving evidence that implcates her son-in-law in murder.

    King Mob wrote: »
    Since you dodged the question entirely and it being at least the thrid time I've asked it, it's fairly clear that no there isn't.
    I just answered it, Yes there is.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And you you are willing to believe something because you were told to...
    I will give something the benefit of the doubt until I know for sure, one way or the other. It was like that on 9/11 before the buildings imploded, and it was like that yesterday when the Jennings video started.

    I saw and heard Barry Jennings on that video with my own eyes and ears, telling all of us that he "knew" he was stepping on Bodies. There is no room for misinterpretation on our part. The question is, do you believe Barry Jennings or not? and Why?

    If you want to argue that the interviewer said he "saw" instead of "knew", then go ahead but it's nitpicking. Arguing that point is like arguing a spelling mistake, it really has no value except to derail the thread, and you won't get any input from me on the matter. If you ask me, using such a lame argument to try and disprove an entire thread is a massive fail. But as a tool of the corrupt, it may seem to work if nobody argues with you, but in reality it doesn't have any merit, it's just ****.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
    I never heard you say that about the official story. Where's the evidence there?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why do you believe his story when he's provided nothing to support it?
    This is a question about whether the PI was hired or not, I never said I believe that one way or the other, and why should I believe your argument's over Dylan's? You haven't provided anything to support your story either.
    Come to mention it, generally speaking you haven't given much in the line of links or any evidence to prove or disprove anything. You say your open minded, where's the proof? I have yet to see a decent post from you, which counters any official story.
    King Mob wrote: »
    I'll do so at the next disinfo agent meeting.
    I'd appreciate that, don't forget the secret ****-shake.
    King Mob wrote: »
    It's a question. it starts with a "why" and ends with a "?".
    I'm going to walk through this once in this thread, I don't expect to have to do it again. Your "question" was...
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why was he killed at all when there wasn't anything that special about his testimony, considering there are many others trotted out and taken out of context to "prove" the exact same thing by CTers?
    Your question could have been phrased like this...
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why was he killed at all?
    ...followed by your dismissive opinion/comment...
    King Mob wrote: »
    there wasn't anything that special about his testimony, considering there are many others trotted out and taken out of context to "prove" the exact same thing by CTers.
    Again, the answer to this is evident from the video. If the official story is that "fire" caused a building to implode, then the last thing you want is a survivor talking about explosions and dead bodies in the lobby. That's enough to get people with open minds to ask questions.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And that's it? A news article? From 09?
    No address? Nothing?

    Must have been murdered by her husband then.

    The word "privacy" still means something to most people, thank God.

    Perhaps you should raise the issue of "murder" with the police when you ring them tomorrow, looking for the president's daughter's address.

    King Mob wrote: »
    You see the thing is I never said there was any information on their location to be found or claimed that I had such information. In fact I believe it would be rather hard to find a random family. Hence my example using a relatively known person.
    So your solution is to not bother trying?

    Maybe a relatively known person to you, but I never even knew she had kids, let alone three of them. Nevertheless, I honored your request and found out what I could, the least you could have done is made an effort.
    King Mob wrote: »
    The thing is CTers here have claimed that they have evidence that the family have disappeared.
    I asked for this evidence, it's yet to materialise.

    Well, evidence is evidence, either it's there or it's not. I believe that evidence of nothing is not the same as no evidence, though.*

    I'm guessing that for this example, it's kind of like this... If you made a rabbit disappear, and some kid said "where's the rabbit?", you would reply "what rabbit?", then do a little "win" dance with yourself. Very persuasive, but not very honorable.
    King Mob wrote: »
    The fact that the only answers to my questions are either the vast global conspiracy is stupid or non-existent.
    It took me a while to figure this sentence out, there is probably some punctuation missing, maybe a word, I don't know. I thought it was nonsense at first.

    The fact is, that people are taking on your questions, more than your taking on theirs.


  • #66
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    This thread is making my eyes bleed. So many hecklers who offer nothing except "your ****". This is what happens when you pretend to be sceptical and in fact all your doing is swallowing the official CT of Osama and friends with boxcutters, you have to disregard any and all anomalies or the whole house of cards falls down.

    Jennings, because of his position speaks with authority. Jennings claimed unequivocally on camera that there was explosions in building 7 before either tower 1 or 2 came down.

    This completely contradicts the official story. This creates a serious problem if you espouse the official and as yet unproven bin Laden CT. Now if we are sufficently open-minded enought to consider other possibilities it is plausible that whoever committed the grand crime and has gotten away with it would go to any means to cover up such a crime; including taking out key witnesses who could potentially implicate them. Jennings certainly falls into that category.

    Then if you add in the secrecy of his death, and the apparent dissapearing of his family then you have grounds for suspicion. That is all that is being said here.

    I mean how the **** are you supposed to prove that someone has dissapeared? All being fair he should have had a significant obituary, he was a hero in probably the most significant event, in terms of implications in most, if not all of our lifetimes.

    As for the private investigator issue, demands of proof there is just more juvenile point-scoring. He may or may not be telling the truth, but to dismiss it purely because of your anti-CT stance is counter productive. Assuming its true, and it is plausable, Avery is hardly going to give out any further information than he has done already as it would implicate the investigator.

    It is all really quite simple. Let's not overcomplicate it.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Podman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 887 ✭✭✭Podman


    wtc bombs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhGcBxONSvc


    more here - there are tons of these videos, anyone open minded enough to look for them will find them within 5 seconds.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNNhnoV-EOo


    WTC7 explosion
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw


    WTC7 implosion - english subtitles
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0


    Michael Hess
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfiLbXMa64


  • #68
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,311 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Jennings made clear that he didn't stand over the claims Loose Change made for him as a witness. He clarified what he did and didn't see in the BBC interview - and frankly, some of his statements don't hold water regardless of what your opinion of what happened on the day. Avery admits that he only spoke to him for 20 minutes, and even if Avery actually did pay an investigator to look into his death/family, it seems rather unlikely that he couldn't find a different investigator to follow up when he got his full refund. tbh the most likely scenario is that the investigator didn't want to get involved in some truther stalking of a family who had just lost a loved one. There's nothing to suggest that the family has 'disappeared' beyond Avery claiming that a PI who refused his business said that they had sold their house and moved following the death.

    And just to cap it all off - the 'smoking gun' explosion that he supposedly heard doesn't tally with the whole thermite notion that is required to string the truthers fantasy version of 911 together. He's no 'key witness' to anything that makes any difference to the events of the day.


  • #69
    demonspawn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭demonspawn


    alastair wrote: »
    Jennings made clear that he didn't stand over the claims Loose Change made for him as a witness. He clarified what he did and didn't see in the BBC interview - and frankly, some of his statements don't hold water regardless of what your opinion of what happened on the day.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LO5V2CJpzI


    Feel free to ignore the Alex Jones commentary, I usually do.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NttM3oUrNmE


  • #70
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    there are 2 distinct types of poster on this thread

    There is one Group exploring possibilities and generaly trying to get at the truth, whatever that may be

    there is another group engaged in a Petty Pointscoring egowank who fail to contribute anything of substance to the thread.

    hold on there now MC. I've been reading this thread from the start and I fully appreciate it's possible that Barry Jennings family have gone missing but so far there's nothing to support that. Well, other than a guy (Avery) who I know tells a lot of lies saying it's so.

    And have you seen how horrible truthers are to some of the people they believe are hiding stuff in these CT's. Verbal abuse right along to death threats on them and their family members. Jennings didn't want to speak to the CT'ers and I wouldn't blame him. It's not a big leap for me to believe his family wouldn't either.

    It's seems that what I call critical thinking some people call debunking. In any given situation there will be several obvious question that should be asked, no matter where your information is coming from. It's doesn't matter if the story is from a trusted source or fit's in with your world view, the questions should still be asked. The internet is fully of liars and cheats, and the so called 'truth' sites are some of the worst offenders.


  • #71
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    This thread is making my eyes bleed. So many hecklers who offer nothing except "your ****". This is what happens when you pretend to be sceptical and in fact all your doing is swallowing the official CT of Osama and friends with boxcutters, you have to disregard any and all anomalies or the whole house of cards falls down.

    Bring a gun on a plane in 2001, good chance to be caught... bring a knife in 2001 and little chance of being caught. In 2001 the accepted way to deal with hijackings was to follow the hijackers commands. The idea of using planes as weapons had come up in books, films and in some security reports. I really can't see the mystery.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Jennings, because of his position speaks with authority. Jennings claimed unequivocally on camera that there was explosions in building 7 before either tower 1 or 2 came down.

    I don't think anyone would disagree that he heard explosions. I think the issue lies with people thinking explosion = bomb. A fridge might explode if it was in a fire, lot's of things can explode in the right circumstances. 2 big planes had slammed into 2 big buildings, debris started fires in a third. I'd be shocked if they're weren't explosions. And the funny thing is to believe the main CT about WTC7 you need to accept that thermite was used and thermite doesn't explode.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    This completely contradicts the official story. This creates a serious problem if you espouse the official and as yet unproven bin Laden CT.

    Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. That said there are hundreds of eye witnesses and their testimony is quite similar. Barry Jennings was happy to clarify what he said, so why believe him the first time and then not the second time?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Now if we are sufficently open-minded enought to consider other possibilities it is plausible that whoever committed the grand crime and has gotten away with it would go to any means to cover up such a crime; including taking out key witnesses who could potentially implicate them. Jennings certainly falls into that category.

    I think what you're saying here is if we've got enough imagination or have read enough fiction.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Then if you add in the secrecy of his death, and the apparent dissapearing of his family then you have grounds for suspicion. That is all that is being said here.

    He was not a famous man other than his eye witness accounts of 911. And he stayed firmly out of the media after 911 other than that BBC documentary. Seemed he liked his privacy. Other than his friends, family and the CT sites who exactly would take note of his passing. Given the way some CT'ers have behaved it makes perfect sense to me that his family are keeping a low profile.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I mean how the **** are you supposed to prove that someone has dissapeared? All being fair he should have had a significant obituary, he was a hero in probably the most significant event, in terms of implications in most, if not all of our lifetimes.

    Well firstly you hire someone to look from them, you don't hire someone, then call it off, then claim they have indeed disappeared even though you have no idea. Surviving an event doesn't make you a hero by default btw.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    As for the private investigator issue, demands of proof there is just more juvenile point-scoring. He may or may not be telling the truth, but to dismiss it purely because of your anti-CT stance is counter productive. Assuming its true, and it is plausable, Avery is hardly going to give out any further information than he has done already as it would implicate the investigator.

    Person A: Did you hear Jonny disappeared?
    Person B. No way, where did you hear that?
    Person A. I wanted interview him and I couldn't find him.
    Person B. Do you know him well?
    Person A. No. not really at all.
    Person B. So did you ring him or call at his house?
    Person A. Well he moved and I don't have his number.
    Person B. Okay but how do you know he's disappeared?
    Person A. Well I hired a PI to check.
    Person B. Makes sense. What did he find?
    Person A. Well he didn't actually find anything
    Person B. So he's really missing then?
    Person A. Well...he didn't want me hassling the guy so wouldn't take the job.
    Person B. O k a y. So you have no idea if he's actually missing then?
    Person A. No I'm sure he's missing.
    Person B. But maybe he moved away for a quiet life.
    Person A. No I'm sure he's missing.
    Person B. Would you not just get another PI?
    Person A. No I'm sure he's missing.
    etc etc.

    I'm getting the feeling that critical thinking is being equated with an anti-CT stance around here.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    demonspawn wrote: »
    Dude, what are you smoking? It's Dylan Avery himself explaining everything that happened. What part of that confuses you so much? Oh, I guess Dylan Avery is lying about hiring a PI because..........?

    And now I will no longer respond to your posts. You've proven yourself to be completely incapable of debunking even the most ludicrous of CTs so I won't waste any more of my time entertaining you. Enjoy the gas chambers.

    A question, why would they kill Barry Jennings, who would be relatively minor in the whole conspiracy theory, and leave Dylan Avery alive?


  • #73
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Podman wrote: »
    Where have I seen that pasted before? Ah yeah, just before "Na na na na na naa!". Save it, Your obviously clever but you don't seem as open minded as you'd like to think you are.

    I did click on it, I prefer real magic to stage magic, and although it's a good quote, it's completely inaccurate and only serves the ego.

    And if you read what I said before carefully, you'd realize that I didn't "use it" to judge your character, I am very capable of reading someone's card without depending on something like that.
    You'll have to explain to me how this quote "only serves the ego".
    Podman wrote: »
    That doesn't cut it as an answer. I'll consider that 1 unanswered question, and 1 ignored one.

    Another unanswered question, I'm going to stop counting now.
    If you say so....
    Podman wrote: »
    What you asked was..

    To answer your first question: yes, there is documentary film of Barry Jennings giving his testimony as an eyewitness on the day, that implicates certain leaders of the world's largest superpower, in conspiracy and mass murder.

    Your ridiculous second question is answered by the absence* of documentary film of Mary McAleese giving evidence that implcates her son-in-law in murder.
    I just answered it, Yes there is.
    I was referring to his claims that he hired a PI.
    I made a similar if made up claim That I did the same yet found the Jennings family.

    There is no difference at all between his story and mine, there simply isn't any evidence other than his word that it happened.
    Unfortunately that's not good enough for me, cause I don't believe everything I'm told.
    Podman wrote: »
    I will give something the benefit of the doubt until I know for sure, one way or the other. It was like that on 9/11 before the buildings imploded, and it was like that yesterday when the Jennings video started.

    I saw and heard Barry Jennings on that video with my own eyes and ears, telling all of us that he "knew" he was stepping on Bodies. There is no room for misinterpretation on our part. The question is, do you believe Barry Jennings or not? and Why?

    If you want to argue that the interviewer said he "saw" instead of "knew", then go ahead but it's nitpicking. Arguing that point is like arguing a spelling mistake, it really has no value except to derail the thread, and you won't get any input from me on the matter. If you ask me, using such a lame argument to try and disprove an entire thread is a massive fail. But as a tool of the corrupt, it may seem to work if nobody argues with you, but in reality it doesn't have any merit, it's just ****.
    Did you see the entire unedited interview? No?
    Podman wrote: »
    I never heard you say that about the official story. Where's the evidence there?
    There's plenty, but that's not the topic here.
    Podman wrote: »
    This is a question about whether the PI was hired or not, I never said I believe that one way or the other, and why should I believe your argument's over Dylan's?
    Because my argument is: there is no evidecne to show this actually happened. Which is true.
    Podman wrote: »
    You haven't provided anything to support your story either.
    Come to mention it, generally speaking you haven't given much in the line of links or any evidence to prove or disprove anything.
    Again, I have to explain the burden of proof.
    Go look it up.
    And in the meantime can you point out any positive claims I made that require me to back them up?
    Podman wrote: »
    You say your open minded, where's the proof? I have yet to see a decent post from you, which counters any official story.
    Funny how you think an open mind mean I have to agree with you.
    Podman wrote: »
    I'm going to walk through this once in this thread, I don't expect to have to do it again. Your "question" was...
    Your question could have been phrased like this......followed by your dismissive opinion/comment...
    Again, the answer to this is evident from the video. If the official story is that "fire" caused a building to implode, then the last thing you want is a survivor talking about explosions and dead bodies in the lobby. That's enough to get people with open minds to ask questions.
    And he wasn't the only one "making the claim".
    There are plenty of other witnesses who are taken out of context to prove the exact same stuff.
    Why not kill them?
    Or as has been pointed out why not kill Avery?
    Podman wrote: »
    The word "privacy" still means something to most people, thank God.

    Perhaps you should raise the issue of "murder" with the police when you ring them tomorrow, looking for the president's daughter's address.
    Case and point.
    Podman wrote: »
    So your solution is to not bother trying?

    Maybe a relatively known person to you, but I never even knew she had kids, let alone three of them. Nevertheless, I honored your request and found out what I could, the least you could have done is made an effort.
    And all you found was a news article, because she is a relatively known person.
    Yet you can't find out any details about her, home, phone, nothing.
    So why do you expect to find some random family in America?
    Podman wrote: »
    Well, evidence is evidence, either it's there or it's not. I believe that evidence of nothing is not the same as no evidence, though.*

    I'm guessing that for this example, it's kind of like this... If you made a rabbit disappear, and some kid said "where's the rabbit?", you would reply "what rabbit?", then do a little "win" dance with yourself. Very persuasive, but not very honorable.
    Well then if evidence is evidence, you must conclude that the presidents daughter has likewise vanished right?
    Podman wrote: »
    It took me a while to figure this sentence out, there is probably some punctuation missing, maybe a word, I don't know. I thought it was nonsense at first.

    The fact is, that people are taking on your questions, more than your taking on theirs.
    Oh I'm sorry, I'll use clearer sentences and smaller words then.


  • #74
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    well to be technical you never claim anything, you just dance around in circles making retarded Counterclaims and annoyin the Sh!te out of People
    Because when I make claims I back them up.
    But I don't need to make many positive claims to ask questions.

    But I guess asking questions around here is a bit of a no-no....
    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    But Whats wrong with the contact info for Emma Macalese?????

    Its fairly straightforward, ring that number during Irish office hours and ask if she's Dead.

    If they say Yes, then lo and behold you were right and theres a whole massive nother conspiracy that we need ta be investigating, if they say no and try to keep you on the line I'd suggest running away before special Branch get there;)
    Notice how you fail to provide any of the stuff you ask me.
    Address, personal phone number and someone who has seen them in the last 6 months.

    So how is that fair that you think you can just provide the Presidents number? Why can't you find the details you asked for?
    Shouldn't it be easy?
    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    As for the Jennings Issue, the original point was, if they havent disapeared they should be easy to find,
    Well considering you guys can't find a relatively known person this really is called into question.
    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    especially to someone like Dylan Avery who dedicates his time to things like that,
    Assuming he looked in the first place, which he's supplied nothing to support that he had.
    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    but he Hired a P.I and that P.I Had a quick look and then decided he'd be better off not looking. thats as much info as we have, thats what lead to our conclusion, like I said if you cant find Emma Macalese tomorrow morning then we should start gettin suspicious about the situation.
    He claims he hired one, but offers nothing to show he did.
    He could just be entirely imagining the story.

    So why exactly do you believe him?


  • #75
    Podman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 887 ✭✭✭Podman


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    A question, why would they kill Barry Jennings, who would be relatively minor in the whole conspiracy theory, and leave Dylan Avery alive?
    Relatively minor? who decides that?
    He was a respected City Official and a Witness.
    Podman wrote: »
    If the official story is that "fire" caused a building to implode, then the last thing you want is a survivor talking about explosions and dead bodies in the lobby. That's enough to get people with open minds to ask questions.


  • #76
    Jeboa Safari
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭Jeboa Safari


    Podman wrote: »
    Relatively minor? who decides that?
    He was a respected City Official and a Witness.

    Right well that still doesn't explain why they'd leave Dylan Avery alive and kill him, Dylan Avery seems to be doing alot more than him and is still allowed to roam free making more claims?


  • #77
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,311 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Podman wrote: »
    If the official story is that "fire" caused a building to implode, then the last thing you want is a survivor talking about explosions and dead bodies in the lobby. That's enough to get people with open minds to ask questions.

    Who says that that the building imploded? It collapsed after fire and debris damage weakened a critical structure on a single floor. Jennings is clear enough about the heat of fires inside the building when he was there. What he's also clear enough about is that he didn't see any bodies in the lobby - and the video footage of the lobby on the day shows no bodies. If there were any bodies there at a later point in the day, they were moved from other wtc buildings - wtc7 was evacuated early on in the day, and only emergency workers and a few maintainance people remained after that point.


  • #78
    Joshua Jones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭Joshua Jones


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    Right well that still doesn't explain why they'd leave Dylan Avery alive and kill him, Dylan Avery seems to be doing alot more than him and is still allowed to roam free making more claims?

    I'd have thought it was obvious. Think about it.


  • #79
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Joshua Jones wrote: »
    I'd have thought it was obvious. Think about it.
    But wasn't Jennings City Official and a Witness?
    If he was so high profile and all why was he killed and Avery not?

    Unless Jeboa Safari was right in saying that Jennings was relatively minor.


  • #80
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,311 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    The 'importance' of Jennings statements seem to just relate to the explosions he heard, and time of explosions. I've no doubt he heard booming noises, but that neither supports the thermite/thermate/nano-thermite nonsense, and nor does it support any conventional demolition explosives theory, given that whatever he heard fell far short of the sort of noise they actually make, and there wasn't any corresponding seismographic readings.


  • #81
    Podman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 887 ✭✭✭Podman


    Jeboa Safari wrote: »
    Right well that still doesn't explain why they'd leave Dylan Avery alive and kill him, Dylan Avery seems to be doing alot more than him and is still allowed to roam free making more claims?
    King Mob wrote: »
    But wasn't Jennings City Official and a Witness?
    If he was so high profile and all why was he killed and Avery not?

    Unless Jeboa Safari was right in saying that Jennings was relatively minor.
    What are you asking me for?

    If you really want to know, you'd phone the FBI, CIA, NSA or whoever you think might know.

    "Jennings was a City Official and a Witness" is all I said, why do you people say he was "relatively minor" then say he was "so high profile"?

    Maybe if Avery was killed, there would be too many "coincidences" to deny? I don't know.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Podman wrote: »
    What are you asking me for?

    If you really want to know, you'd phone the FBI, CIA, NSA or whoever you think might know.

    "Jennings was a City Official and a Witness" is all I said, why do you people say he was "relatively minor" then say he was "so high profile"?

    Maybe if Avery was killed, there would be too many "coincidences" to deny? I don't know.

    Because if your theory was coherent you'd be able to supply a coherent answer.

    If you are claiming he was killed because of his testimony you must explain why others who give the same aren't killed.
    If you are claiming he was killed because he was a high profile and credible witness you must then explain why they didn't just kill Avery.

    Oh and also you'd actually have to show he was murdered...
    Slight little issue.


  • #83
    bonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    A bit more respect to each other wouldn't go astray on this thread....


  • #84
    Podman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 887 ✭✭✭Podman


    alastair wrote: »
    Who says that that the building imploded? It collapsed after fire and debris damage weakened a critical structure on a single floor.
    Engineers, Architects, Demolition Experts, John Kerry and even Larry Silverstein who ordered the Demolition. They are among many who say it imploded.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWS3cg2S_N0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJsJjYwYOAA


    I feel embarrassed for anyone who still argues that it was "fire" that caused the wtc7 demolition.
    alastair wrote: »
    Jennings is clear enough about the heat of fires inside the building when he was there.
    Quote and reference please?
    alastair wrote: »
    What he's also clear enough about is that he didn't see any bodies in the lobby - and the video footage of the lobby on the day shows no bodies.
    Jennings said, "We were stepping over people, you know you can feel when your stepping over people."
    In the video we don't see much of the lobby at all, we see more of the escalator and even then, just a few seconds. Everything is covered in dust and debris, you could be looking at a part of a body and not recognize it, but you'd know what it feels like under your feet.
    alastair wrote: »
    If there were any bodies there at a later point in the day, they were moved from other wtc buildings
    What is your source for this claim?
    alastair wrote: »
    wtc7 was evacuated early on in the day, and only emergency workers and a few maintainance people remained after that point.
    What maintenance people, and what were they doing?

    Jennings was the Emergency Coordinator at the Office of Emergency Management, located in wtc7, he was called into work after the first plane hit. He was on the 23rd floor when the second plane hit.

    His office should have had it's busiest day ever, instead he found it already abandoned.

    When he and Hess were going down the stairs past floor 6, they witnessed an explosion below them and were blown back by the blast. This is before either of the two towers fell.

    They made it out after both skyscrapers had come down, and were told by a police officer that "we have reports of more explosions" and you better run.

    Why was building 7 evacuated?
    What caused the explosion at the bottom?
    What other explosions was the police officer talking about?
    Did someone attempt to demolish the building just after plane #2 but failed?

    alastair wrote: »
    The 'importance' of Jennings statements seem to just relate to the explosions he heard, and time of explosions. I've no doubt he heard booming noises, but that neither supports the thermite/thermate/nano-thermite nonsense, and nor does it support any conventional demolition explosives theory, given that whatever he heard fell far short of the sort of noise they actually make,

    Are you some kind of explosives expert?
    How do you know "what he heard"?

    Listen for yourself.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw


    alastair wrote: »
    and there wasn't any corresponding seismographic readings.

    Would you please back this up?

    A Seismograph from South Manhattan, New York at the exact date and time would be adequate.

    Also, In your opinion, how would that explosion escape a seismograph?


  • #85
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Did you see the entire unedited interview? No?

    Here it is
    http://blip.tv/file/1064938

    What do you make of it? And remember, he was actually there.

    His turnaround on the BBC documentary makes it more likely to me that he was having his arm twisted by someone.

    As for not being able to find information on random person(s), well thats more bollox. Someone who has posted in this thread I was able to find just from their signature and posting history who they are, what they look like and what they do.

    (I won't be sharing by PM or otherwise)

    I'll give you other examples.

    In this thread on Abuelazam (The Israeli-serial-stabber) from a single news interview by his ex-father-in-law I had enough to go on to find where he works, his exact home adress, his home phone number, wifes name, childrens names, his freemasonic lodge and other **** I can't remember.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055999963&highlight=abuelazam&page=3

    And here in the Times Square fizzler thread with nothing more than names to go on myself and Enno connect 2 witnesses (exactly like Jennings) to Obama, the FBI and the Mafia.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055901235&highlight=Times+Square&page=3


  • #86
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    If you are claiming he was killed because he was a high profile and credible witness you must then explain why they didn't just kill Avery.

    That doesn't take much thinking about to be fair.

    Jennings >>>> Eye-Witness to multiple explosions in building 7 before any towers fell which flys in the face of the official conspiracy theory.

    Avery >>>> A Conspiracy theory film maker.

    hmmmm.......Wonder who's the bigger threat to exposing their crime :confused::confused::confused:


  • #87
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Jennings >>>> Eye-Witness to multiple explosions in building 7 before any towers fell which flys in the face of the official conspiracy theory.
    I was under the impression he heard explosions, not saw them?


  • #88
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    His turnaround on the BBC documentary makes it more likely to me that he was having his arm twisted by someone.
    Or it could be a known liar took his words out of context and exaggerated them for his own ends?

    But you've tons of evidence Jennings was ever threatened.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    As for not being able to find information on random person(s), well thats more bollox. Someone who has posted in this thread I was able to find just from their signature and posting history who they are, what they look like and what they do.

    (I won't be sharing by PM or otherwise)
    I bet you won't.....


  • #89
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Jennings >>>> Eye-Witness to multiple explosions in building 7 before any towers fell which flys in the face of the official conspiracy theory.
    One of many eye witnesses CTers like to take out of context to prove there were explosions.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Avery >>>> A Conspiracy theory film maker.
    You mean the conspiracy film maker who brought Jennings and others to the Cters attention?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    hmmmm.......Wonder who's the bigger threat to exposing their crime :confused::confused::confused:
    So you're saying that Avery posed little or no threat?
    And that the best way to eliminate a threat is to kill him, even though apparently it's in your power to have him simply disappear?

    :confused::confused::confused:


  • #90
    Podman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 887 ✭✭✭Podman


    King Mob wrote: »
    One of many eye witnesses CTers like to take out of context to prove there were explosions.
    Please explain what you mean, using examples.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Podman wrote: »
    Please explain what you mean, using examples.

    Like any of the videos posted above where people say stuff like "It sounded like and explosion".

    "Sounds like an explosion" does not mean "I heard explosives".
    Conflating these two pharsess or implying they mean he same thing is taking them out of context.

    Now why weren't the dozens of witness trotted out in the videos above murdered?

    Why was the guy who made the film?


Advertisement
Advertisement