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 ... the saga continues

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Sixtus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Are you taking the piss? That so-called transcript is pure deception that has been dishonestly edited to give a false impression of what Jowenko actually said.

    Can you provide a different translation?

    You know this, I pointed this out to you two years ago. You could have pleaded ignorance for these lies then but I don't know where your wiggle room is now to justify the spreading of these lies having had this intentional deception pointed out to you.

    First I've heard of it. Please provide a internal transcript. And why did Danny do only two interviews on the subject?


  • Options
    #33
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Sixtus wrote: »
    And why did Danny do only two interviews on the subject?
    He died in 2011 unfortunately.


  • Options
    #34
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Sixtus wrote: »
    Can you provide a different translation?



    First I've heard of it. Please provide a internal transcript. And why did Danny do only two interviews on the subject?

    It most certainly is not.
    As I've pointed out you previously when you tried to pass off these lies as truth.

    D.J.: And not extinguished?

    Int.: No, not extinguished. The men who would have done that would have had to have do it while fire was still burning inside [the building].

    D.J.: That's strange. That's strange. I also think that's strange.
    D.J.: I have no explanation for it
    Originally Posted by false quote attributed to Jowenko

    Int.: There was fire everywhere, and also in that building.

    D.J.: And not extinguished?

    Int.: No, not extinguished. The men who would have done that would have had to have do it while fire was still burning inside [the building].

    D.J.: That's strange. That's strange. I also think that's strange.
    D.J.: I have no explanation for it


    It's two completely different parts of the interview welded together.

    This is from part 2 of the youtube interview.

    ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT[/B]
    NTERVIEWER: This was the picture and movie thing. I don't know if I have other nice things to show, what more do I have. This has collapsed but the other building has imploded and on such a clean way that you have to ask yourself how could they do that in the chaos of that day. There was fire everywhere, and also in that building.

    DANNY JOWENKO: But that was a small fire, they could extinguish that and that was what they've done.

    INTERVIEWER: No they didn't do that.
    DANNY JOWENKO: They didn't extinguish it?

    INTERVIEWER: No, not extinguished. So they'd have to do it while it was on fire.
    (AND THIS IS HIS ACTUAL RESPONSE)
    DANNY JOWENKO: For me it is a little bit like "watching coffee dregs", I mean, that is not a lot of information, if we had some pictures from the other side, especially those at the side of the twin towers.

    INTERVIEWER: That's correct, we don't have that, there has only been created a kind of damage report. Here, it's a little bit guesswork/performed on intuition, using testimonies of firemen. They've seen that there was a damage here that probably went as far as here, it could be that also these 3 columns have been damaged, these 5 and these 2.

    DANNY JOWENKO: Yes, then Silverstein must say bring it down because once there is fire, if it became hot you have to replace your steel. Do you know what it cost if you have to replace the bottom columns and jack up the rest? That will not be cheap for a building with 47 floors.

    INTERVIEWER: [not translated]

    DANNY JOWENKO: Then you say: away with it. And if there is a company, you so much million, we do it for 1 million. That's how it goes. Business goes very fast in such a situation. And they do it.

    What is "strange" and of "no explanation" to the demolitions expert is something entirely different than your blatantly dishonest transcript describes. That is that the official reports deny any implosion.
    DANNY JOWENKO: I don't know than that it has been imploded as we call it. I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded. If this is the consequence of the coming down of the WTC towers... that would greatly astonish me. I can't imagine it. No.

    INTERVIEWER: Remains strange that in the official reports they don't admit it's been imploded.

    DANNY JOWENKO: That's strange. That's strange. I also think that's strange. I have no explanation for it.


  • Options
    #35
    Sixtus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    King Mob wrote: »
    He died in 2011 unfortunately.

    Thats still several years after this interview.


  • Options
    #36
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    DANNY JOWENKO: For me it is a little bit like "watching coffee dregs", I mean, that is not a lot of information, if we had some pictures from the other side, especially those at the side of the twin towers.

    INTERVIEWER: That's correct, we don't have that, there has only been created a kind of damage report. Here, it's a little bit guesswork/performed on intuition, using testimonies of firemen. They've seen that there was a damage here that probably went as far as here, it could be that also these 3 columns have been damaged, these 5 and these 2.

    What is "strange" and of "no explanation" to the demolitions expert is something entirely different than your blatantly dishonest transcript describes. That is that the official reports deny any implosion.

    Why does the interviewer lie about there being no photos of the twin tower side of the building?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why does the interviewer lie about there being no photos of the twin tower side of the building?

    One thing at a time.

    What do you make of diogenes/sixtus using the same fake, unsourced transcript which completely misrepresents what the demolitons expert said ( to support his argument when in actuality the honest and truthful transcript contradicts his argument) not once but TWICE!!!?


  • Options
    #38
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    One thing at a time.

    What do you make of diogenes/sixtus using the same fake, unsourced transcript which completely misrepresents what the demolitons expert said ( to support his argument when in actuality the honest and truthful transcript contradicts his argument) not once but TWICE!!!?
    I don't think you are accurately describing what Sixtus/diogenes did.

    And even if it was how you described it, it would not be nearly as dishonest as say withholding information while making a documentary to perhaps coax a preferred response from an interviewee.
    And it would by about as dishonest as say reposting such an interview when you've been shown clearly that the documentary makers were withholding information (or too incompetent or lazy to find something I could in less than 10 minutes) and could not address that.
    And it would be about as dishonest as using that indiscretion to continue to avoid the point I've made...


  • Options
    #39
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    you describe it then. I thought this would be right up your strasse consider what a stickler you are for "honesty".


  • Options
    #40
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    you describe it then. I thought this would be right up your strasse consider what a stickler you are for "honesty".
    Lol so avoiding the point as predicted.

    The additional text you gave does not actually refute the point that he made, so whether or not the translation is edited is irrelevant.
    He could have used the incorrect translation without checking or saw that your section is irrelevant. Hell he could have gotten it from a conspiracy website who wanted to cut out the blatant lie they tell. It's all pretty irrelevant.
    I'm not interested in discussing the accuracy of a source I did not use. Sixtus can do that himself.

    But his point stands (and you've not addressed it).
    The interviewer does not make an attempt to inform the expert of the details he need to form an expert opinion and the section of text Sixtus used highlights how the expert repeatedly says that he doesn't know the details.

    The only thing the text you are inserting shows is that the interviewer and documentary makers either lied or were crap at research.
    Which you seem to not want to address.


  • Options
    #41
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    , so whether or not the translation is edited is irrelevant.
    .
    --->
    Searching for honest in posts by King Mob
    229 Results (0.676 seconds)

    Advanced Search »
    http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?query=honest&forum=&user=68949&date_from=&date_to=
    :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    --->


    :pac:
    ...Irrelevant to the point he made. I then go on to explain this and what I thought of the translation.
    I've answered your question in full and more than than one way, but you don't seem at all interested in that answer.

    Since you aren't will you now address the fact that the interviewer was leaving out information, rendering the "expert" opinion moot?
    And perhaps explain why you reposted that interview even though you've been told that it tells a lie?


  • Options
    #43
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    ...Irrelevant to the point he made. I then go on to explain this and what I thought of the translation.
    I've answered your question in full and more than than one way, but you don't seem at all interested in that answer.

    Since you aren't will you now address the fact that the interviewer was leaving out information, rendering the "expert" opinion moot?
    And perhaps explain why you reposted that interview even though you've been told that it tells a lie?
    It's not irrelevant just because you say it's so. It appears that someone has knowingly put forward false evidence to advance their (and also conveniently your) argument. Discussing this is relevant, the poster putting forward the false transcript made it relevant - yet you, who constantly questions people's honesty and integrity want to keep shtum now. Weird.


  • Options
    #44
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,240 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Quit the personal sniping, lads. Discuss the points (not each other) or move on.


  • Options
    #45
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,437 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why does the interviewer lie about there being no photos of the twin tower side of the building?

    First ... very poor translation

    second... Interviewer refers to the testimony of firefighters describing the south-side of wtc7....

    The same firefighters you so vigorously defended here as being honest

    i dont think interviewer is lying but just stating he doesn't have the photo;s


  • Options
    #46
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It's not irrelevant just because you say it's so. It appears that someone has knowingly put forward false evidence to advance their (and also conveniently your) argument. Discussing this is relevant, the poster putting forward the false transcript made it relevant - yet you, who constantly questions people's honesty and integrity want to keep shtum now. Weird.
    EDIT: only just saw your warning after I posted, penn. Edit/delete/infract as appropriate.


  • Options
    #47
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,240 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    King Mob wrote: »
    EDIT: only just saw your warning after I posted, penn. Edit/delete/infract as appropriate.

    It's okay, I saw the time posted and presumed you were typing as I had posted it. No need for infraction but please rephrase post to be less antagonistic if you wish to continue this conversation.

    Thanks.


  • Options
    #48
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    i dont think interviewer is lying but just stating he doesn't have the photo;s
    Why didn't they have the photos? Could they not find something that I, someone with no background in research was able to easily find in minutes?
    Wouldn't those photos be relevant?
    What about the theories and other official opinions at the time, why didn't they present those to him?
    What about the complete blueprints and the full reports of the damage?

    And then there the fact the documentary uses the edited version of the collapse when showing it to the viewer, it's entirely possible that they likewise showed the edited collapse to their expert.

    All of it shows that the video makers were either being dishonest or incompetent and that the expert did not have all of the information available or needed to form an expert opinion.


  • Options
    #49
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It's not irrelevant just because you say it's so. It appears that someone has knowingly put forward false evidence to advance their (and also conveniently your) argument. Discussing this is relevant, the poster putting forward the false transcript made it relevant - yet you, who constantly questions people's honesty and integrity want to keep shtum now. Weird.

    Sixtus used a bad translation without a good reason. This is bad and would not be something I would have done.
    I still believe it is irrelevant to the point he made.

    will you now please address the point I made?


  • Options
    #50
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,437 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Why didn't they have the photos? Could they not find something that I, someone with no background in research was able to easily find in minutes?
    Wouldn't those photos be relevant?
    What about the theories and other official opinions at the time, why didn't they present those to him?
    What about the complete blueprints and the full reports of the damage?

    And then there the fact the documentary uses the edited version of the collapse when showing it to the viewer, it's entirely possible that they likewise showed the edited collapse to their expert.

    All of it shows that the video makers were either being dishonest or incompetent and that the expert did not have all of the information available or needed to form an expert opinion.

    I dont know .. even now i cannot find photo's describing what they did with a "damage report" The only photo's i know are from a smoke covered south side

    Also they refer to the fema report .. would have been nice if they could have done the interview with the NIST report

    Interviewer wasn't very knowledgeable i believe ...but we are discussing it here six years later with the NIST report in one hand.

    Again the translation to english is very poor as well


  • Options
    #51
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    I dont know .. even now i cannot find photo's describing what they did with a "damage report" The only photo's i know are from a smoke covered south side
    http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7swd.jpg
    Here's the chapter on WTC7 from FEMA's World Trade Centre Building Performance Study released in 2002.
    http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

    It has tons of information about the building, what the damage was believed to be, and had several pictures of the damaged side.
    Are you saying the makers of the documentary were unable to find these pictures and information?
    If so, then they are either lazy or incompetent.
    If not, why did they claim that they did not have them?
    weisses wrote: »
    Also they refer to the fema report .. would have been nice if they could have done the interview with the NIST report
    Or tell him the point the FEMA report had made to give him some background.
    Again the above report contains possible explanations for the collapse.
    Why was he not told about these?
    weisses wrote: »
    Interviewer wasn't very knowledgeable i believe ...but we are discussing it here six years later with the NIST report in one hand.

    Again the translation to english is very poor as well
    So if the interviewer was not very knowledgeable, and the expert was not given all the information needed to make an informed opinion, why is this video being put forward as expert opinion?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,437 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    http://www.debunking911.com/wtc7swd.jpg
    Here's the chapter on WTC7 from FEMA's World Trade Centre Building Performance Study released in 2002.
    http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

    It has tons of information about the building, what the damage was believed to be, and had several pictures of the damaged side.
    Are you saying the makers of the documentary were unable to find these pictures and information?
    If so, then they are either lazy or incompetent.
    If not, why did they claim that they did not have them?

    No they had a paper with a damage report from statements made by honest firefighters

    King Mob wrote: »
    Or tell him the point the FEMA report had made to give him some background.
    Again the above report contains possible explanations for the collapse.
    Why was he not told about these?

    He was told the building collapsed due to fires ... And don't forget the impact of the debis had nothing to do with the collapse

    King Mob wrote: »
    So if the interviewer was not very knowledgeable, and the expert was not given all the information needed to make an informed opinion, why is this video being put forward as expert opinion?

    No i believe the interviewer wasn't very knowledgeable but i don't believe he was withheld any information to form a opinion If so

    What info was withheld

    And why is this video disqualified as an expert opinion ? ?


  • Options
    #53
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    No they had a paper with a damage report from statements made by honest firefighters
    And pictures of the damage and fires. And information about the probable extent of the fires. Details of the spread of the fires. Structural diagrams of building. Possible and plausible mechanisms for the collapse.
    None of which they presented to him.
    weisses wrote: »
    He was told the building collapsed due to fires ... And don't forget the impact of the debis had nothing to do with the collapse
    But again, told nothing about the extent and nature of the fires or of the buildings structure or of any of the proposed mechanisms of collapse and how a fire could have caused it.
    weisses wrote: »
    No i believe the interviewer wasn't very knowledgeable but i don't believe he was withheld any information to form a opinion If so
    So if the interviewer was not very knowledgeable, how could he can given the interviewee the required information?
    weisses wrote: »
    What info was withheld
    As well as the above, the interviewer told an outright lie. There were pictures of the south facing side easily available and findable.
    The only two explanations for them not having them are that they were incredibly terrible at research or they were being dishonest.
    Which was it?
    weisses wrote: »
    And why is this video disqualified as an expert opinion ? ?
    Because the expert did not have the relevant information to form an expert opinion about the collapse.
    He repeatedly says that. You agree that the interview did not have all of the information, and it's clear it wasn't presented.
    It's also pretty obvious that he was being lead on and coaxed to give a preferred response, rather than an unbiased opinion.


  • Options
    #54
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,437 ✭✭✭weisses


    The interviewer quoted from the FEMA report so that information was there ... He described the state of the south facing section from statements from the firefighters

    What information relevant to his opinion was withheld ??


  • Options
    #55
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    The interviewer quoted from the FEMA report so that information was there ... He described the state of the south facing section from statements from the firefighters

    What information relevant to his opinion was withheld ??
    They don't quote from the FEMA report and refer to it as "a kind of damage report".

    Again details they left out include:
    • The nature and extent of the fires.
    • The statements from the fire-fighters which stated that they believed the building was in danger of collapsing.
    • Details such as the length of time the fire was burning and the failure of the sprinkler system on several floors.
    • The suggested mechanisms of the collapse.
    • The complete structure of the building, including the flaws that specifically lead to the collapse.

    And again:
    DANNY JOWENKO: For me it is a little bit like "watching coffee dregs", I mean, that is not a lot of information, if we had some pictures from the other side, especially those at the side of the twin towers.

    INTERVIEWER: That's correct, we don't have that, there has only been created a kind of damage report. Here, it's a little bit guesswork/performed on intuition, using testimonies of firemen. They've seen that there was a damage here that probably went as far as here, it could be that also these 3 columns have been damaged, these 5 and these 2.
    The expert says that he does not have a lot of information.
    The interviewer tells him that it does not exist. And since you are insisting that they knew about the FEMA report I linked, they knew such information including pictures of the south facing side of the building existed.
    So not only did they not present that information, they lied.

    So how could an expert give an expert, informed opinion when information is being withheld and left out and it looks like that the expert is being lead into a preferred response?
    The answer is they can't.


  • Options
    #56
    Sixtus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 291 ✭✭Sixtus


    weisses wrote: »
    No they had a paper with a damage report from statements made by honest firefighters

    I'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.


  • Options
    #57
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,437 ✭✭✭weisses


    Where did you get that quote/transcript from ??

    this one

    DANNY JOWENKO: For me it is a little bit like "watching coffee dregs", I mean, that is not a lot of information, if we had some pictures from the other side, especially those at the side of the twin towers.

    INTERVIEWER: That's correct, we don't have that, there has only been created a kind of damage report. Here, it's a little bit guesswork/performed on intuition, using testimonies of firemen. They've seen that there was a damage here that probably went as far as here, it could be that also these 3 columns have been damaged, these 5 and these 2.

    Found it ...... poorly translated

    What this translation is basically saying and its even contradicting itself that the firemen where guessing but yet its accepted as testimony and used as such

    That is not how he describes it ... He also points out on a piece of paper that there where 10 columns damaged as stated by firefighters on the scene

    And i am not insisting that they knew about the FEMA report... He is quoting from it in the video ...

    Even Jowenko assumes the fires were out .. But got corrected by the interviewer who says they were still burning


  • Options
    #58
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Where did you get that quote/transcript from ??

    this one
    ...
    Found it ...... poorly translated

    What this translation is basically saying and its even contradicting itself that the firemen where guessing but yet its accepted as testimony and used as such
    It's the one BB insisted was the correct one. Can you provide a more accurate one?
    weisses wrote: »
    That is not how he describes it ... He also points out on a piece of paper that there where 10 columns damaged as stated by firefighters on the scene
    And again I've provided a very long list of information they did not present and would have affected the experts opinion.
    weisses wrote: »
    And i am not insisting that they knew about the FEMA report... He is quoting from it in the video ...
    So then you agree that they knew about the report, thus know about the photos of the south side and therefore lied when they said they didn't have them?
    weisses wrote: »
    Even Jowenko assumes the fires were out .. But got corrected by the interviewer who says they were still burning
    Which indicates that he is not being given the correct and complete information. They might have said that the fires were still burning, but they do not explain to him the nature, extent and locations of the fires.

    The expert is not being given the information he needed. He says as much. The interviewer just makes it even more obvious by lying about the information.


  • Options
    #59
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,437 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    It's the one BB insisted was the correct one. Can you provide a more accurate one?.

    Nope sorry ... the transcript is the result of poor translation
    King Mob wrote: »
    And again I've provided a very long list of information they did not present and would have affected the experts opinion.

    How would you know as a non expert what info would affect an expert opinion ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    So then you agree that they knew about the report, thus know about the photos of the south side and therefore lied when they said they didn't have them?

    But why are you claiming
    King Mob wrote: »
    They don't quote from the FEMA report and refer to it as "a kind of damage report".

    I can not conclude he lied about it ... i read parts of that report but cant remember the pictures from the south side either

    I even think regarding to the expert opinion the testimony of the firefighters are more relevant then the picture

    King Mob wrote: »
    Which indicates that he is not being given the correct and complete information. They might have said that the fires were still burning, but they do not explain to him the nature, extent and locations of the fires.

    all irrelevant probably because he stated as well he couldn't believe fires could cause the collapse


  • Options
    #60
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Nope sorry ... the transcript is the result of poor translation
    Then talk to BB as he is the one who provided it and insisted that it was accurate.
    Can you point out which bits exactly are poorly translated, provide a better one and explain how any of it addresses the points I am making?
    weisses wrote: »
    How would you know as a non expert what info would affect an expert opinion ?
    1) Common sense.
    2) the expert repeatedly says he does not have enough information, and is repeatedly not given information that exists.

    Why do you think the long list of things I pointed to are not going to affect his opinion?
    How did the interviewer know this when he too was not an expert? Shouldn't he have just given all of the available information instead on being selective?
    weisses wrote: »
    But why are you claiming
    Because they don't directly quote anything from the report. And also they misrepresent it by referring to it as "intuition" and "a kind of damage report".
    weisses wrote: »
    I can not conclude he lied about it ... i read parts of that report but cant remember the pictures from the south side either
    Then if this is the case, the interviewer and documentary makers are simply lazy and/or incompetent.
    It's fine for you to forget details when you are just a poster on a forum, but when you are a documentary maker ostensibly setting out to find the truth about 9/11, leaving out information like that is not excusable.

    Do you at least acknowledge they were wrong when they said that they didn't have the photos, or at least were missing information that existed?
    weisses wrote: »
    I even think regarding to the expert opinion the testimony of the firefighters are more relevant then the picture
    The testimony of the firefighters specifically refer to them believing the building was on the verge of collapse.
    Was the expert informed of this?
    weisses wrote: »
    all irrelevant probably because he stated as well he couldn't believe fires could cause the collapse
    Because he was not provided with the full information about the nature of the fires and the complete structure of the building.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,437 ✭✭✭weisses


    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

    B: Interviewer was in my opinion not well prepared

    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

    Best way would have been that Lowenko got all the info on wtc7 prepare himself and then do the interview

    Can you show me what picture he is withholding according to you ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement