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

Building 7 ???

1…457910…16

Comments

  • #182
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    No not really because it makes no impact on his 9/11 testimony.
    You've no evidence that he made false claims about 9/11 or that he received any money to do so.
    You're just grasping at straws.



    But if that case makes you wonder about his honesty enough to totally disregard everything you don't like about his testimony, how come you're not similarly wondering about the interviewer of Jennings?
    Dylan Avery is a proven liar about 9/11 stuff.

    Do you think he is an honest source, yes or no?

    Ill reserve judgement until I see the lies and then answer you



    Well, I'm using his testimony amongst other sources and evidence to refute one specific claim from Jennings which didn't make sense.
    Claims which come from a dishonestly edited and presented interview from a known liar and propagandist.
    I've made several points showing this to be a fact, but you're ignoring them.

    No and you dont have evidence that he did not
    All we have is the testimony of a corrupt official

    So what other sources


  • #183
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    enno99 wrote: »
    Ill reserve judgement until I see the lies and then answer you
    Several examples have been presented.
    A basic level of research of his nonsense claims shows he's a liar.

    Here's one very very clear and relevant example of hundreds I can point to:
    Aveary claims that WTC 7 fell in 6 seconds and shows a video supposedly showing this.
    Seen here at about 30 mins.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501
    A clearer example of a video showing the collapse and repeating the claim.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBUQ4zqo4ZA
    However, like most CTer sources Aveary edits his the footage he provides because the facts don't match his narrative.
    Here is a video showing the total collapse:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk
    Can you see the difference?

    So there's simply no way Aveary did not see the start of the collapse, yet he edits it out to make his claim that the tower fell in 6 seconds.
    Knowingly falsifying evidence to make it show something other than the truth is lying.

    Many, many others including other truthers have called him out on all this.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28film%29#Criticism

    So now, do you think he's an honest source?
    enno99 wrote: »
    No and you dont have evidence that he did not
    And again I have to explain that you can't prove a negative....
    Unfortunately, that's not how debate and logic works.
    enno99 wrote: »
    All we have is the testimony of a corrupt official
    And the testimony of several others, posted by Diogenes.
    And several other points I made.
    All of which are detailed earlier in the thread.
    All of which you ignored.
    enno99 wrote: »
    So what other sources
    Again, all detailed in previous posts.

    But lets see if we even need to read them, since you think that once someone is proven to be untrustworthy their claims can be totally disregarded, and I just proved that your only source is from a liar.


  • #184
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    Several examples have been presented.
    A basic level of research of his nonsense claims shows he's a liar.

    Here's one very very clear and relevant example of hundreds I can point to:
    Aveary claims that WTC 7 fell in 6 seconds and shows a video supposedly showing this.
    Seen here at about 30 mins.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501
    A clearer example of a video showing the collapse and repeating the claim.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBUQ4zqo4ZA
    However, like most CTer sources Aveary edits his the footage he provides because the facts don't match his narrative.
    Here is a video showing the total collapse:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk
    Can you see the difference?

    So there's simply no way Aveary did not see the start of the collapse, yet he edits it out to make his claim that the tower fell in 6 seconds.
    Knowingly falsifying evidence to make it show something other than the truth is lying.

    Many, many others including other truthers have called him out on all this.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28film%29#Criticism

    So now, do you think he's an honest source?

    No Perhaps not

    And again I have to explain that you can't prove a negative....
    Unfortunately, that's not how debate and logic works.

    That maybe so but my post was to shed light on the character of the man
    take from that what you will but I will look at his testimony with some reservations

    But lets see if we even need to read them, since you think that once someone is proven to be untrustworthy their claims can be totally disregarded, and I just proved that your only source is from a liar

    Again it was not my source

    So Avery aside here is the interview in full

    Barry Jennings unedited as far as i can tell

    http://blip.tv/i-am-dylan-avery/barry-jennings-uncut-1071126

    So we are left with Jennings who says he was in the building before the 2nd plane hit


  • #185
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    enno99 wrote: »
    No Perhaps not
    So they why are we having this conversation at all then? How come you're not totally disregarding everything he says like you are with the source you don't like?

    Why do you think he did lie so blatantly?
    do you think it's a problem since you see the specific lie I pointed to repeated everywhere including here?
    Why do CTers repeat this claim when it's so provably false with a modicum of fact checking?
    enno99 wrote: »
    Again it was not my source
    But he is, he's the one who asked the leading questions and edited the video dishonestly.
    enno99 wrote: »
    So Avery aside here is the interview in full

    Barry Jennings unedited as far as i can tell

    http://blip.tv/i-am-dylan-avery/barr...-uncut-1071126

    So we are left with Jennings who says he was in the building before the 2nd plane hit
    But in the other thread you don't think any witness testimony is reliable and should all be disregarded.
    So really you're left with nothing, but I've got all the other sources beyond eyewitness accounts which show that it's very unlikely that he was in the building before the 2nd plane hit...


  • #186
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    But in the other thread you don't think any witness testimony is reliable and should all be disregarded.

    That was Diogenes

    So really you're left with nothing, but I've got all the other sources beyond eyewitness accounts which show that it's very unlikely that he was in the building before the 2nd plane hit...

    The interview is over 20min long did you even watch it ?


    Ill go back through your posts to find these sources that dont include eyewitness reports


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    enno99 wrote: »
    That was Diogenes
    So you do think that eyewitness testimony is reliable?

    Do you think that Barry Jennings is totally reliable?
    enno99 wrote: »
    The interview is over 20min long did you even watch it ?
    I've seen it before, it's still full of dishonesty.

    Why did they edit it afterwards to make it sound like he said stuff he didn't?
    Why does Dylan Aveary lie?
    Why do CTers believe his lies and repeat them despite how false they become with the barest level of fact checking?
    enno99 wrote: »
    Ill go back through your posts to find these sources that dont include eyewitness reports
    And while your at it, can you find a single other source that backs up what Jennings is claiming?


  • #188
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    So you do think that eyewitness testimony is reliable?
    That would depend on the integrity of the witness

    Do you think that Barry Jennings is totally reliable?
    I have no reason to think otherwise


    I've seen it before, it's still full of dishonesty.
    So you think Barry Jenniings is a liar ?

    Why did they edit it afterwards to make it sound like he said stuff he didn't?
    You will have to ask them
    Why does Dylan Aveary lie?
    Thats a question for Dylan Avery

    Why do CTers believe his lies and repeat them despite how false they become with the barest level of fact checking?
    Again a question for CTers who put forward his views


    And while your at it, can you find a single other source that backs up what Jennings is claiming?

    Cant seem to find the sources you have that dont involve eyewitness testimony


  • #189
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    enno99 wrote: »
    Just got done for corruption


    The former chief of EMS for FDNY has been slapped with a hefty fine by the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board. Chief John Peruggia, who was demoted in early January following numerous complaints over the city’s response to the December 26, 2010 blizzard, agreed to pay a $12,500 fine to dispose of the matter

    Wait so lets get this clear. You think the guy is corrupt enough to play a part in covering up the deaths of thousands of Americans.

    I imagine he'd have received a pretty nice kick back for his part in that caper.

    But no ten years later he's still in the same job

    Who says crime pays?


  • #190
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Wait so lets get this clear. You think the guy is corrupt enough to play a part in covering up the deaths of thousands of Americans.

    I imagine he'd have received a pretty nice kick back for his part in that caper.

    But no ten years later he's still in the same job

    Who says crime pays?



    In 2001 he was promoted to division chief and put in charge of operations planning

    In 2003 promoted to deputy assistant chief

    2004 promoted to assistant chief designated as chief of EMS command


    We are born with two ears and one mouth
    So that we would listen more and talk less
    ( Diogenes)


  • #191
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    enno99 wrote: »
    In 2001 he was promoted to division chief and put in charge of operations planning

    In 2003 promoted to deputy assistant chief

    2004 promoted to assistant chief designated as chief of EMS command


    We are born with two ears and one mouth
    So that we would listen more and talk less
    ( Diogenes)

    He's still working though In a difficult and stressful job. Why would he not have retired with his ill gotten gains years ago?

    Would you play a part in the murder of thousands of people (including hundreds of colleagues) for a simple promotion?


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Di0genes wrote: »
    He's still working though In a difficult and stressful job. Why would he not have retired with his ill gotten gains years ago?

    Would you play a part in the murder of thousands of people (including hundreds of colleagues) for a simple promotion?

    And Im the conspiracy theorist

    I simply stated that I would have reservations about the testimony of someone who was found to be corrupt

    You are the one bringing up the mass murder of colleagues and civilians in the thousands

    As to why he did'nt quit his job maybe he was looking to be mayor /Govenor who knows


  • #193
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    enno99 wrote: »
    And Im the conspiracy theorist

    I simply stated that I would have reservations about the testimony of someone who was found to be corrupt

    9 years later.
    You are the one bringing up the mass murder of colleagues and civilians in the thousands

    I'm extrapolating from your theory. If he was lying about 9/11 he would be part of a extraordinary conspiracy theory wouldn't it be?
    As to why he did'nt quit his job maybe he was looking to be mayor /Govenor who knows

    More speculation.


  • #194
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Di0genes wrote: »
    9 years later.

    Well thats when I read it and with the information at hand came to my conclusion

    I'm extrapolating from your theory. If he was lying about 9/11 he would be part of a extraordinary conspiracy theory wouldn't it be?

    Your not extrapolating from any theory I put forward


    More speculation
    .

    Yes that answer was speculative only one that could be given to that type of question

    Dont know where you got the more from


  • #195
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    enno99 wrote: »
    That would depend on the integrity of the witness
    But a single incident years later is enough for you to totally ignore everything they say?
    enno99 wrote: »
    I have no reason to think otherwise
    Again you don't seem to be equally critical with witnesses you like.

    Barry Jennings claimed to have stepped over bodies on his way out of the building.
    There where no casualties at all in WTC7.
    So why did Barry Jennings claim there was dead bodies in the building when there wasn't?
    Could it be that he's misremembering stuff or was imagining stuff at the time due to shock and stress?
    If he was wrong about this point, why can't he be wrong about the time he arrived?
    enno99 wrote: »
    So you think Barry Jenniings is a liar ?
    No, I just think he's misremembering some points and these missteps were taken out of context by a dishonest hack for his own gain.

    Do you believe Jennings when he later claimed that Aveary was misrepresenting him and that he didn't support claims the edited video makes him seem to say?
    enno99 wrote: »
    You will have to ask them

    Thats a question for Dylan Avery
    But I'm just asking you personal guess as to why he is so deceptive.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Again a question for CTers who put forward his views
    But does it not bother you that they are putting forward lies that are easily proven to be wrong?
    Why are they doing that if they are doing the research into the truth they claim to be?

    Did you actually know that the claim I pointed out was false?
    enno99 wrote: »
    Cant seem to find the sources you have that dont involve eyewitness testimony
    Sources include official reports, photos and witness testimony which shows that by the time Jennings got to the building and for it to have been empty it must have been far later than he claimed in the video.

    Now what other evidence do you have to support any of Jennings' testimony?
    Or are you only relying on the word of actually unreliable witness distorted and twisted by a liar with an agenda?


  • #196
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »



    Sources include official reports, photos and witness testimony which shows that by the time Jennings got to the building and for it to have been empty it must have been far later than he claimed in the video.

    Now what other evidence do you have to support any of Jennings' testimony?
    Or are you only relying on the word of actually unreliable witness distorted and twisted by a liar with an agenda?

    Lets just deal with this for now

    If as you say the time he gets there is later than he remembers then his memory is really f*ucked because he just forgot about a passenger jet flying over his head and crashing into a skyscraper


    After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said

    http://archives.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

    I was called shortly after the first plane hit. I got there, uh, I had to be inside on the 23rd
    floor when the second plane hit.

    Uh, man the Office of Emergency Management at the World Trade Center 7. On the 23rd
    floor. As I arrived there, police are all in the lobby. They, uh, showed me the way to the elevator.
    We got up to the 23rd floor. Me and Mr. Hess who I didn't know was mr. Hess at the time. We
    couldn't get in. We had to go back down. Then, Security and the police took us to the down on thefreight elevators. When they took us back up, we did get in


  • #197
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    enno99 wrote: »
    Lets just deal with this for now

    If as you say the time he gets there is later than he remembers then his memory is really f*ucked because he just forgot about a passenger jet flying over his head and crashing into a skyscraper

    Or he could have thought second plane was the first one, having crashed well before he actually had gotten to the 23rd floor.
    Or he could have just misspoke.
    Or he could have been manipulated and edited by a known liar.

    Now along with the other points you've ignored (and which I'll assume you can't honestly answer) you seem to have missed the point that Jennings claimed to have "stepped over bodies" while leaving the building.
    No one died in WTC7.
    Why did Jennings say he walked over bodies when there simply wasn't any?

    Another point you missed is that Jennings himself stated that he was manipulated and edited by Aveary and doesn't support conclusions people are drawing from his testimony.
    Why does he claim this? Do you think he's lying here?

    And the final, really important point you've avoided is that you have nothing else to support Jennings' testimony at all.
    No other witness corroborates his (or more accurately Aveary's) claim that any of the explosions he heard were before the towers came down or his claim of bodies in the lobby.
    All the other witnesses and video evidence shows that he could have not entered an empty lobby before the second plane had hit.

    All you have is the word of a provably unreliable witness being manipulated and distorted by a known liar and a slimy propagandist.
    And yet you have used the flimsiest of excuses to disregard the witness who you don't like....


  • #198
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    Or he could have thought second plane was the first one, having crashed well before he actually had gotten to the 23rd floor.

    Utter bollocks A quick glance skyward he would see two towers on fire or are you saying he was in the building and it took him that long to reach the 23rd floor

    Or he could have just misspoke.

    He also could have spoke the truth

    Or he could have been manipulated and edited by a known liar.
    the press report was before avery's interview

    Now along with the other points you've ignored (and which I'll assume you can't honestly answer) you seem to have missed the point that Jennings claimed to have "stepped over bodies" while leaving the building.
    No one died in WTC7.

    Officialy nobody died but the official story is full of all sorts of ****
    Why did Jennings say he walked over bodies when there simply wasn't any?



    Another point you missed is that Jennings himself stated that he was manipulated and edited by Aveary and doesn't support conclusions people are drawing from his testimony.
    Why does he claim this? Do you think he's lying here?
    Most likely under duress from outside influence

    And the final, really important point you've avoided is that you have nothing else to support Jennings' testimony at all.

    Well michael hess was'nt very vocal but he's the mayors guy
    No other witness corroborates his (or more accurately Aveary's) claim that any of the explosions he heard were before the towers came down or his claim of bodies in the lobby
    . well if the building was empty at the time thats not suprising


    All the other witnesses and video evidence shows that he could have not entered an empty lobby before the second plane had hit.
    He did'n say it was empty the police were there

    Read the transcript or watch the video I posted for you earlier

    All you have is the word of a provably unreliable witness being manipulated and distorted by a known liar and a slimy propagandist.
    And yet you have used the flimsiest of excuses to disregard the witness who you don't like....

    Corruption a flimsy excuse
    Leaving a firefighter who saved your life under a truck

    And if your clever Synopsis is right why the F*ck were he and Hess told to go to 23rd floor of a building that was being evacuated since the first plane hit ?


  • #199
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    enno99 wrote: »
    Utter bollocks A quick glance skyward he would see two towers on fire or are you saying he was in the building and it took him that long to reach the 23rd floor
    Or he could have entered from a side that didn't offer him a good view of both buildings?
    Or he was simply shaken up and misremembered what he saw.
    enno99 wrote: »
    He also could have spoke the truth
    He could have, but there's no evidence to support that idea and it simply doesn't make any sense with the other facts.
    enno99 wrote: »
    the press report was before avery's interview
    Avery's interview is the only source for him claiming that he was in the tower before the plane hit.

    But good to see you've realised how dishonest and untrustworthy Avery is.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Officialy nobody died but the official story is full of all sorts of ****
    Oh this is hilarious...
    What evidence do you have that any one died in WTC7?
    What other witnesses reported bodies in the Lobby?
    You're simply imagining yet more vast conspiracy to cover a gaping hole in your story.

    The fact is that Jennings claimed that there was bodies, but there wasn't.
    He clearly is wrong on this count and by your own apparently strict standards, must be disregarded.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Most likely under duress from outside influence
    Again, inventing fictional conspiracies to plug holes.
    So what evidence do you have that he was influenced?
    Isn't the idea that he was influenced make him just as unreliable as the witness you don't like.

    In fact since you think that dreaming up these conspiracies is a fair and honest tactic, I may as well do it myself.
    John Peruggia was framed by 9/11 truthers who didn't like his testimony.
    So now you have to take his testimony as gospel, right?
    enno99 wrote: »
    Well michael hess was'nt very vocal but he's the mayors guy
    But he doesn't support any of the claims Jennings made.
    You have nothing else at all to support them.
    enno99 wrote: »
    He did'n say it was empty the police were there
    But several other witnesses and reports all point to the fact that the building was in the process of evacuation when the second plane had hit. The lobby reported full of people clambering to escape.
    If Jennings had arrived at the time reported in the Avery interview he would have seen more than a few police men.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Corruption a flimsy excuse
    Leaving a firefighter who saved your life under a truck
    Well yea since it's got nothing to do with his 9/11 testimony, but you've disregarded his testimony completely.
    I however have shown how your witness has gotten stuff wrong about 9/11 (claiming he saw bodies), says that he doesn't support what people are concluding about his testimony and is presented by a person who you now admit lies about 9/11 stuff.
    Yet you're still fighting tooth and nail to defend them.
    It's almost as if you have a bias or something...


  • #200
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Barry Jennings seemed sure of what he is saying To my mind maybe he got spooked maybe not hes not here to telll the tale

    King mob you can continue to trot out your john peruggia testimony if that sits right with you

    But to my my mind he left a guy under a firetruck who had just saved his life
    before he gave His 911 testimony that made my mind up on that guy


  • #201
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    enno99 wrote: »
    Barry Jennings seemed sure of what he is saying To my mind maybe he got spooked maybe not hes not here to telll the tale
    But he claims to see something which couldn't be there.
    He said he saw bodies when there wasn't any. His testimony is clearly flawed and unreliable.
    You're simply inventing conspiracies because you don't want to admit he got something very very wrong.

    So unless you've got actual evidence that there was bodies which were covered up, or any evidence he'd been coerced to change his testimony, then you can't claim that's what happened.
    It's dishonest and childish to do so.
    enno99 wrote: »
    King mob you can continue to trot out your john peruggia testimony if that sits right with you
    Again I will as you've not actually been able to show that he is unreliable in regards to 9/11. Also there's many other sources which back up his claim.
    I have shown that your only source is an unreliable witness being presented edited and dishonestly by a propagandist.
    But you can keep trotting them out if it sits right with you....
    enno99 wrote: »
    But to my my mind he left a guy under a firetruck who had just saved his life
    before he gave His 911 testimony that made my mind up on that guy
    Wait... so he's lying about his testimony but somehow left a little nugget like this in it?
    Why does that make sense?
    And why are you disregarding what he has to say about the timing, yet believing whole heartedly what he has to say in other parts?
    That not strike you as inconsistent?


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    and the vauge wishy washy explanations of WTC 1&2 fell on it despite the fact that it was earmarked for collapse BEFORE Towers 1 or 2 fell.

    Building 7 was home to the CIA, Secret Service, and Guilliani's Office of Emergency Management.

    As part of their contingency plan they had 24,000 gallons of diesel fuel.

    It's great when the gov't is allowed to break the building codes, but the people are not.

    Anyhow, I can see how a cut water lines and burning diesel fuel could easily take down a building.

    People don't realize what temperature can do to steel rivets.

    The building was weakened by falling debris. That load was then redistributed to other areas of the building. The greater load on the rivets failed when temperatures got hot enough.

    They deny that their diesel was a contributing factor in the collapse.


  • #203
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    But he claims to see something which couldn't be there.
    He said he saw bodies when there wasn't any. His testimony is clearly flawed and unreliable.
    You're simply inventing conspiracies because you don't want to admit he got something very very wrong.

    I am not ignoring this I am just trying to make some sense of it



    So unless you've got actual evidence that there was bodies which were covered up, or any evidence he'd been coerced to change his testimony, then you can't claim that's what happened.
    It's dishonest and childish to do so

    I take offence at being called a dishonest and childish


    Was not intending to create a conspiracy you asked me to speculate as to why he done this and then accuse me of creating a conspiracy If you dont want speculative answers dont ask that type of question it seems a bit underhanded

    Again I will as you've not actually been able to show that he is unreliable in regards to 9/11. Also there's many other sources which back up his claim.
    I have shown that your only source is an unreliable witness being presented edited and dishonestly by a propagandist.
    But you can keep trotting them out if it sits right with you....

    But you still havent provided these sources


    Wait... so he's lying about his testimony but somehow left a little nugget like this in it?
    Why does that make sense?
    And why are you disregarding what he has to say about the timing, yet believing whole heartedly what he has to say in other parts?
    That not strike you as inconsistent?

    Right he left that little nugget in how many people do you think have read that the way I have read it and you must agree with me because you havent tried to defend it

    first you say he was just misremembering the time then he forgot about a jet hitting a skyscraper then perhaps he was being misquoted by Avery or maybe he went in the side door and couldent see two of the of the biggest buildings in manhattan on fire or nobody told him about them Im sure two planes hitting the buildings were the topic of conversation at that time

    Will you please when you have time watch the unedited version of the interview and point out where Avery misrepresented him so we can deal with barry's statement on its own merits be it flawed /misremembered whatever


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LLHTh_UjBc


  • #204
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    enno99 wrote: »
    I am not ignoring this I am just trying to make some sense of it
    Barry Jennings claimed there was bodies in WTC7.
    There were no deaths in WTC7.
    Jennings could not have seen bodies in WTC7.
    His testimony is flawed.

    Not hard to grasp really.
    enno99 wrote: »
    I take offence at being called a dishonest and childish
    Well then I suggest not using childish and dishonest tactics.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Was not intending to create a conspiracy you asked me to speculate as to why he done this and then accuse me of creating a conspiracy If you dont want speculative answers dont ask that type of question it seems a bit underhanded
    But there's a limit to what you can honestly speculate.
    Imagining a vast conspiracy is not a reasonable one.

    What's wrong with the simple explanation that he felt that Avery misrepresented him?
    How do you know that this isn't the case?
    enno99 wrote: »
    But you still havent provided these sources
    Both I and Diogenes have provided many such sources.
    But since you haven't even acknowledged my request for sources that support Jennings I fail to see why i should bother gathering them.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Right he left that little nugget in how many people do you think have read that the way I have read it and you must agree with me because you havent tried to defend it
    Doesn't answer my question.
    Why since you think that his own comments portray him as a bad guy, why didn't he leave them out while he was lying about the other 9/11 stuff?
    Why do you think he's telling the truth here but are dismissing all the other stuff he's saying?
    enno99 wrote: »
    first you say he was just misremembering the time then he forgot about a jet hitting a skyscraper then perhaps he was being misquoted by Avery or maybe he went in the side door and couldent see two of the of the biggest buildings in manhattan on fire or nobody told him about them Im sure two planes hitting the buildings were the topic of conversation at that time
    Well considering he saw bodies that weren't there shows that his memory isn't prefect.
    And considering the amount of conflicting reports being throw around in the initial aftermath it's not a fantastic suggestion that he might not have gotten accurate reports himself.
    And considering the fact that the area was shrouded in smoke as well as hundreds of people rushing around, Jennings included it's not unlikely that he didn't see the impacts in the towers clearly.

    Are any of those things impossible? Yes or No?
    enno99 wrote: »
    Will you please when you have time watch the unedited version of the interview and point out where Avery misrepresented him so we can deal with barry's statement on its own merits be it flawed /misremembered whatever
    I have. Avery asks several leading questions and fails to ask proper follow up questions.
    Why exactly is there an edited version in the first place?
    Why are you still arguing for an known liar, who by your own strict standards you would have dismissed as unreliable (if not more so) as the witness who's testimony you don't like.

    I'm not particularly bothered to go through the video point by point because I see no reason at all to take it seriously.
    And if you were applying your own standards evenly, neither would you.


  • #205
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    have. Avery asks several leading questions and fails to ask proper follow up questions.
    Why exactly is there an edited version in the first place?
    Why are you still arguing for an known liar, who by your own strict standards you would have dismissed as unreliable (if not more so) as the witness who's testimony you don't like.

    I'm not particularly bothered to go through the video point by point because I see no reason at all to take it seriously.
    And if you were applying your own standards evenly, neither would you.
    Today 22:28
    OK heres a strange idea for you

    rather than another driveby dismissal You actually Get the transcripts and Show these leading Questions, clearly explaining why you dismiss them

    Then you can show us where Avery has been provento be Delibratley Lying


  • #206
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    OK heres a strange idea for you

    rather than another driveby dismissal You actually Get the transcripts and Show these leading Questions, clearly explaining why you dismiss them
    You mean like the drive bys you do?
    I've made several points against this same interview.
    But since Avery is a known liar and that Jennings makes a clearly false claim and lacks any supporting evidence, I don't see a single reason why I should take the video seriously and waste the time making points that you and Enno will likely just ignore as usual.

    If you really want to rejoin the discussion, go back and answer some of the points you've left hanging.
    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    Then you can show us where Avery has been provento be Delibratley Lying
    Already done so. And enno even seems to agree.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73595714&postcount=183
    King Mob wrote: »
    Several examples have been presented.
    A basic level of research of his nonsense claims shows he's a liar.

    Here's one very very clear and relevant example of hundreds I can point to:
    Aveary claims that WTC 7 fell in 6 seconds and shows a video supposedly showing this.
    Seen here at about 30 mins.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501
    A clearer example of a video showing the collapse and repeating the claim.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBUQ4zqo4ZA
    However, like most CTer sources Aveary edits his the footage he provides because the facts don't match his narrative.
    Here is a video showing the total collapse:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk
    Can you see the difference?

    So there's simply no way Aveary did not see the start of the collapse, yet he edits it out to make his claim that the tower fell in 6 seconds.
    Knowingly falsifying evidence to make it show something other than the truth is lying.

    Many, many others including other truthers have called him out on all this.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28film%29#Criticism

    So now, do you think he's an honest source?


  • #207
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »


    Well then I suggest not using childish and dishonest tactics.

    Like saying you have sources and not providing them

    Both I and Diogenes have provided many such sources.
    But since you haven't even acknowledged my request for sources that support Jennings I fail to see why i should bother gathering them.

    Thats more of your auld bollocks I never said I had sources But you on the other hand said you had


    Doesn't answer my question.
    Why since you think that his own comments portray him as a bad guy, why didn't he leave them out while he was lying about the other 9/11 stuff?
    Why do you think he's telling the truth here but are dismissing all the other stuff he's saying?

    Did you think he was a bad guy when you read his testimony







    I have. Avery asks several leading questions and fails to ask proper follow up questions.
    Why exactly is there an edited version in the first place?
    Why are you still arguing for an known liar, who by your own strict standards you would have dismissed as unreliable (if not more so) as the witness who's testimony you don't like.

    If you want to see leading questions you should read some of them testomonies diogenes put forward


    I'm not particularly bothered to go through the video point by point because I see no reason at all to take it seriously.
    And if you were applying your own standards evenly, neither would you.

    Then he did not misrepresent him or twist his words as you claimed all along



    Oh by the way when barry's account suits you and diogenes you dont mind using it

    Check out diogenes list of testimonies


  • #208
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    enno99 wrote: »
    Like saying you have sources and not providing them
    They're littered around the thread and contained in some of the links.
    I am as bothered to repost them as you are to look for them.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Thats more of your auld bollocks I never said I had sources But you on the other hand said you had
    That's a very round about way of finally saying you don't have evidence to back up Jennings' testimony, but you got there eventually.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Did you think he was a bad guy when you read his testimony
    Again doesn't answer my questions.
    It doesn't make him any worse than anyone else and has no baring on the accuracy of his testimony.
    enno99 wrote: »
    Then he did not misrepresent him or twist his words as you claimed all along
    Again, why is there an "edited" version of the video?
    Why does that video make Jennings seem to say stuff he doesn't?
    enno99 wrote: »
    Oh by the way when barry's account suits you and diogenes you dont mind using it

    Check out diogenes list of testimonies
    Now again you seem to ignored points you don't like.

    Did Jennings claim there was bodies in the lobby, yes or no?
    Were there bodies in the lobby, yes or no?


  • #209
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    Y
    Already done so. And enno even seems to agree.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73595714&postcount=183

    Now whos dishonest that was about the collapse and I agreed it it was dishonest
    But were talking about the barry jennings intervew here you need to show where he lied in that


  • #210
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    enno99 wrote: »
    Now whos dishonest that was about the collapse and I agreed it it was dishonest
    But were talking about the barry jennings intervew here you need to show where he lied in that
    I was pointing to that as an example of Avery's known lies, I'm reposting it because that's what MC asked for.
    You're grasping at straws.

    And if you want an example of him lying on the interview, just watch the differences between the edited and unedited interviews.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    King Mob wrote: »
    They're littered around the thread and contained in some of the links.
    I am as bothered to repost them as you are to look for them.

    No they are not Ive looked I take it you dont have them

    That's a very round about way of finally saying you don't have evidence to back up Jennings' testimony, but you got there eventually.

    More bollocks


    Again doesn't answer my questions.
    It doesn't make him any worse than anyone else and has no baring on the accuracy of his testimony.


    No worse than anyone else bet that firefighters family would disagree




    Again, why is there an "edited" version of the video?
    Why does that video make Jennings seem to say stuff he doesn't?

    But now you have an unedited version deal with that


    Now again you seem to ignored points you don't like.

    Did Jennings claim there was bodies in the lobby, yes or no?
    Were there bodies in the lobby, yes or no?

    So if your timeline is right why were he and Hess told to go to 23rd floor of a building that was being evacuated since the first plane hit


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement