| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 980 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours |
| ||||||
Quote:I told you there is more than just the program. Quote:The forum gave him nothing, he never was on it. The program makers were on the forum to answer questions from viewers, and someone from the forum called the expert on the phone to ask him questions directly. Gee, you guys really have a hard time getting things straight. Quote:That's precisely why I said the guy's behavior is very strange. Let me recap. He says he never heard about WTC7, and from his comments, obviously hasn't. They show him the footage, and he says it's controlled demolition. They say OK, but do you know it happened on the same day? He says wow, that's quick. They say yes, but not only that, the base had been on fire all day. He says wow, then I can't explain that (meaning: how they could plant the explosives that day). End of story... ON THE PROGRAM. They then tell him the whole story, how some people think it was destroyed with explosives planted well before as part of an inside job, this being denied by the official story which says damage and fire. He says he stands by his conclusion: controlled demolition. That is why that same conclusion was listed as part of the general conclusions of the program. Someone calls him for details, and he says he never wants to hear about it anymore, he's never going to comment on WTC7 anymore. He's puzzled by the fuss that's made around it, and says: there's no reason to doubt the official story; I now clearly remember the news reports at the time that said WTC7 had been demolished by explosives for the sake of precaution. End of story. Whatever he thinks the official story is, he knows that what he "now clearly remembers" as having allegedly been reported by the media at the time is impossible according to his own conclusion. And in the same sentence, he says that's what people should believe. Also: he clearly makes those memories of media coverage up, since they never existed and he clearly had never heard of WTC7 at the beginning of the program. The punchline is: "I never want to hear about this anymore, I never wanted to get trapped in this kind of controversy, and I explain it away with false pretenses before making it go away forever." Sounds like he ducks for cover, it's just a panic reaction. But: he never changed his conclusion.
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 980 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours |
| ||||||
Quote:Seems like you read selectively. These accounts are from the Oral Histories published by the NYTimes: "A rich vein of city records from Sept. 11, including more than 12,000 pages of oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians". Quote:These are listed alphabetically, and we're only at D here. Feel free to search them all, with non selective eyes. Some of those are pretty specific, aren't they? Just go and tell Captain Deshore her quotes are taken out of context or are something like "It sounded like a bomb".
| |||||||
|
originalgangster Registered: 09/27/06 Posts: 523 Loc: around the bend Last seen: 16 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
Quote: -------------------- please don't take away my highway shoes.. Write In Your Vote.com - US Politics. For the People, by the People. Everything posted by the user(s) Headieherbs is either an outright lie or a work of complete fiction
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 980 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours |
| ||||||
|
Look what I just found about Danny Jowenko, our demolitions expert. Apparently he changed his mind about not wanting to comment on it anymore. Some debunkers called him to provide him with the full info that would certainly turn him around. Alas, he stood by his conclusions:
Quote:
| |||||||
|
in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
I really respect that some people attempted to do independent research, but I'm just not impressed.
What we now have is a single expert, who to the best of anyone's knowledge still has not seen the NIST report (I very much doubt anyone communicated it in its entirety to him via the telephone, that would be more than an 8-hour conversation), has changed his story at least once, and whose statements (aside fromt he initial "I can't explain it") are only available second-hand. Meanwhile, we have large groups of experts at NIST and the ASCE who have studied the evidence (not just a video, but the actual remains) and have reached the conclusion that it was not a controlled demolition. These are people who have gone on record as saying so first-hand, and whose story has not changed. Now, weigh the evidence, who would you believe?
| |||||||
|
enthusiast Registered: 10/19/99 Posts: 980 Loc: inside my skull Last seen: 7 days, 3 hours |
| ||||||
Quote:Wow, so when it turns out that everything you thought is wrong, suddenly the expert isn't interesting anymore. Quote: Quote:Call me paranoid, but in a regular criminal case, it's common and pretty obvious to leave aside an expert's report if said expert is in any way related to the suspect. Mind you, no-one is accusing the expert of deliberately forging a bogus report, it's just that his natural interest could impair his scientific impartiality in a mostly unconscious way. And therefore it's generally accepted and standard practice to hire *independent* experts. Similarly, I'm not accusing NIST researchers to be in on a plot of some kind, it's just that they know the right answers before they start looking for it. This reminds me of a cartoon I recently saw (maybe on this forum?), about the difference between the scientific method ("Here are the facts, what is the conclusion?") and the political method ("Here is the conclusion, what facts can we find to support it?") for writing reports. Imagine you suspect the Iranian government of enriching uranium for military purposes. Are you going to be satisfied when the Iranian Atomic Agency releases a report stating that after thoroughly reviewing all the nuclear facilities in the country, one can conclude this suspicion is baseless? Of course not. You won't believe any Iranian agency, not even the Iranian Human Rights Bureau (if such exists) for that matter. You logically want an independent, international investigation by, say, the IAEA. Iran is not a credible source in this matter. It's the same with the very grave accusations of 9/11 being an inside job. Imagine a world where such a suspicion *could* be true. If you suspect the US government of staging the attacks, how could you be satisfied with reports to the contrary written by any government-related agency? You couldn't. How does this translate to the actual WTC7 NIST report which is in order here? Well, no-one really knows, since all we've got for the moment is a provisional report, the full version is expected only next year. But let me give you an example I found in the provisional report. You are, of course, familiar with the video excerpt showing alleged "squibs" on the south-west corner of the building. Well, reading the provisional WTC7 report by the NIST, I was impressed with the details they're going into. Clearly, they want to do away with the sketchy impression left by both the FEMA report and the 9/11 Commission report. So they go to great lenghts to describe every tiny event noticeable in the collapse of WTC7. A window popping out here, a crack appearing there, all with timings accurate up to hundredths of a second. And strangely, these controversial little puffs are missing in these descriptions. This is just an example, of course, but it illustrates the difference between a political report and a scientific report. And clearly some political reports are very skillfully disguised as scientific ones. Again, I'm not saying the NIST scientists are in on any plot. They just knew the right answers before starting, and are almost automatically blocking out that which doesn't fit in. Hardly scientific. The true scientific method was the one used by the Dutch program makers: introducing someone who's fresh and unknowing of the details. (And yes, I know NIST have a "conspiracy FAQ" in which they purport to debunk almost every conspiracy theory (except they don't even try to explain the molten metal), but that's part of the game, they still leave out inconvenient elements.) So, is there any possibility of a truly independent investigation? I don't know who should be in charge of it, and honestly, I doubt there will ever be one.
| |||||||
|
in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: The only proof I have that "everything I thought is wrong" is from second hand sources, including yourself. I don't have any proof that the expert actually saw the NIST report, I don't have any proof that he was ever told about the gaping hole in the building, I don't have any proof that he said anything beyond "I can't explain it". You claim to have this proof based upon forum posts, and an unconfirmed phone call. Clearly I can't argue with you on what you know, so there's no point in continuing that string of debate. That does not mean, however, that I accept everything you're saying. Quote: So, are you claiming that the American Society of Civil Engineers are not independent experts? When the preliminary report of the NIST was made available in 2005, the members of the 2002 ASCE team were asked for comment, and they concured with the report. This is available on the ASCE's website. The ASCE is not a branch of the government, and is frequently called upon to provide exactly the kind of independent testimony to which you are referring. In the case of WTC 7, they concur with the NIST findings. Quote: Can you back this up at all? Do you have any proof that the NIST began with the conclusion that the tower fell on its own and then searched for evidence backing that up, instead of the other way around?
| |||||||
|
refutation bias Registered: 10/21/02 Posts: 4,061 Last seen: 7 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Man oh man. I don't even know where to start at this point. Let's look at this first:
Quote: Then you proceeded to list several instances that you claimed you searched out of the New York Times Firefighter oral history compliation, but in reality all you did was regurgitate some stuff from 911review.com, with a little selective editing, to make it appear as if you had really done the work. But I'll get to that later. As for your suggestion that I read selectively, I'm inclined to say it was you who did that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't catch my meaning. I said I only found one instance of a firefighter claiming what he saw was the flashes like explosives, as in explosives placed in the building. But all the instances you posted, were people who had seen explosions or flashes, but never explicitly claimed that they were from explosives. Explosions, sure. Flashes, of course. Shit was getting ripped up, no doubt about that. Quote: Yes, none of them specifically indicate that the eyewitnesses believed it was explosives. Quote: 3 loud explosions. No surprise there. I'm sure there were lots and lots of sounds occuring that could be referred to as loud explosions when the WTC was in the process of coming down. Quote: More of the same. And only three? If this were a series of charges designed to rapidly bring down a 110 story builidng, wouldn't there be hundreds? Quote: OK, now we've got more booms. But wait, did Ed say the building gave at a lower floor, meaning the tower collapsed not from the point of impact but lower down(?), because clearly the tower collapsed from the point of impact. And is he saying he thought that because of what he heard? I think it's safe to say the picture he's painting is not so clear. Quote: Ok, Karin's description is a bit more graphic and I'll admit, intriguing. Her account was not in the link I used when I scoured the firefighters statements here http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_01.html . So she saw alot of initially orange then red flashes popping and exploding all around the building. So you think these were the controlled demo charges? Why does she describe explosions that keep getting bigger? I thought the way controlled demo works is that the support structures are cut so the building collapses under its own weight? Why then would she be describing explosions that keep getting bigger? I'm trying to visualize what she is describing but this is very speculative given the nature of eyewitness evidence. Lots of filters of perception involved here. When she says "with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see" I can't tell is she means an explosion is emitted from the building or if its a flash of light she's talking about. I don't know if she means an explosive blast "goes all around the building" or if she means a series of flashes travels all along the surface of the building. Can you tell me exactly what she means? This sort of speculation can be intriguing, but honestly, is it worth much in the way of evidence? Quote: Don't really know what to tell you about the belt description, see my assertions above regarding Karin's statement. Frankly, I've been working on this post/research for a few hours now and I'm a bit tired of it, if you want, we can dig into these eyewitness accounts later, though I'm not sure how, regardless of how much we speculate, any of these third hand records of perception boil down to hard evidence. But I'm so glad you qouted Rich Banaciski, because if you had actually read his account, rather than pasting that particular excerpt from 911review.com, you would have seen how much light he sheds on the whole farce about 7WTC later on: "They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down. That's when they let the guys go in." Does that put "pull" in more of a context now? Also, notice his mention of "tremendous, tremendous fires". But hey, none of these even matters right. You settled it yourself in another post: Quote: The expert said it, must be true. Case closed, right? Edited by Viveka (09/30/06 02:36 AM)
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Prominent barking moonbats who don't buy official 9/11 story | 1,150 | 4 | 10/29/04 03:32 PM by silversoul7 | ||
![]() |
Aversion to conspiracies | 1,459 | 15 | 07/03/03 01:49 PM by DoctorJ | ||
![]() |
your local PD as 9/11 commission... | 700 | 6 | 10/05/04 01:15 PM by ekomstop | ||
![]() |
Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours ( |
4,265 | 31 | 09/23/04 03:27 PM by ekomstop | ||
![]() |
The September 11 X-Files | 1,483 | 9 | 08/17/03 01:34 AM by BleaK | ||
![]() |
Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' ( |
17,550 | 176 | 09/28/04 12:14 AM by ekomstop | ||
![]() |
Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit in 9/11 ( |
2,324 | 24 | 10/29/02 09:54 AM by Xlea321 | ||
![]() |
Fahrenheit 9-11 is textbook disinfo | 565 | 6 | 07/14/04 09:07 AM by whiterasta |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 7,149 topic views. 1 members, 5 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||

