| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject: Lies told to Jowenko. Part I |
 |
|
Jowenko's interviewer said :
"Only building 7 collapsed cleanly with all the walls inside"
"It was so clean you could walk round it"
Lies.
Large segments of braced framing from WTC7 lodged up against the Verizon building, debris up to the walls of the US Post Office, A lump knocked out of 30 West Broadway with girders hanging off the roof and facade....
The interviewer was lying. Get it yet?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Exaggerating would be more accurate. Jowenko's opinion that it was CD was based on the video, anyway, not on this single statement by the interviewer that you've dredged up.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MiniMauve wrote: | | Exaggerating would be more accurate. Jowenko's opinion that it was CD was based on the video, anyway, not on this single statement by the interviewer that you've dredged up. |
"Dredged up" ?? They come from the very interview DeFecToR posted. How is that "dredged up"?? They're quotes.
And what he says is a blatant lie, a bit like me saying "I have run a mile in 4min 30secs" when I haven't. Falsehood. Untrue. Factually incorrect. Porkies.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Am i living in the twilight zone here. That image shows a clean collapse!!?!!
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | Am i living in the twilight zone here. That image shows a clean collapse!!?!! |
Jowenko : "It was not really clean ... that's a lot ... but this is still standing ... "
Interviewer : "Building seven collapsed cleanly with the outside walls going inside"
The interviewer LIES
Do you deny this, DefecToR ??
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | Am i living in the twilight zone here. That image shows a clean collapse!!?!! |
What's that piled up against the US Post Office then? Do you think you could walk through it? Really walk through it, that is, not your holgraphic image. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's clean in the sense that it didn't destroy any other buildings in the process of its own destruction. It didn't fall over sidways but straight down into its own footprint. Sure, the rubble is piled up close to the surrounding buildings but on the ground one could have walked round the perimeter more easily than walking over it since the remains of the building were for all intents and purposes equally distributed across the site and not piled up against just one corner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | It's clean in the sense that it didn't destroy any other buildings in the process of its own destruction. It didn't fall over sidways but straight down into its own footprint. Sure, the rubble is piled up close to the surrounding buildings but on the ground one could have walked round the perimeter more easily than walking over it since the remains of the building were for all intents and purposes equally distributed across the site and not piled up against just one corner. |
Q: What happened to Verizon's physical infrastructure around the World Trade Center?
A: We lost the central office [the facility that houses phone switching equipment] that was in the south tower [2 World Trade Center] on the 10th floor. That was totally vaporized. The real damage was to occur when 7 World Trade caught on fire. It came crashing down on us at about 5 p.m. That's what caused the mega-damage. When 7 World Trade collapsed, the basement flooded and it took our power generator out. It ripped a large amount of the eastern face of our building away.
( from http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,1540,2012764,00.asp )
"To the east, a mere 60 feet away, stood the 47-story 7 World Trade Center. When 7 WTC collapsed later that same day, it fell to the west, causing even more structural damage to the eastern portions of the first 9 floors housing Verizon’s most critical equipment. The burning rubble from its remains piled 7 stories high against and through the east facade. While the sturdy Verizon building remained standing, extreme damage was suffered in the surrounding streets by the collapsed steel ... "
( from http://www.buildings.com/Articles/detailbuildings.asp?articleID=2530 )
My emphasis
You seem to have redefined "footprint" James C.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it was a critic who mentioned recently that the largest previous CD was of a 25 storey building (or thereabouts).
Yet again what is remarkable about WTC7 is that a 47 storey building falls within approximately one and a quarter times it's own radius, according to the photo you've supplied.
By itself.
Because buildings always fall straight down I suppose?
Hmmm.
A TV presenter demonstrating sloppy research (surprise!) does nothing to explain away that incredible feat, and banging on about the hair-splitting definition of 'footprint' to deny the tidy total destruction is a very insecure hook to hang even a misinformation slur on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | I think it was a critic who mentioned recently that the largest previous CD was of a 25 storey building (or thereabouts).
Yet again what is remarkable about WTC7 is that a 47 storey building falls within approximately one and a quarter times it's own radius, according to the photo you've supplied.
|
Given that it was surrounded on 3 sides by other very substantial buildings and mangled 2 of them, I don't find it surprising it fell "within approximately one and a quarter times it's own radius". 
However - none of the Truthers here has yet addressed The Interviewer's blatant lies.
Uncomfortable with a fact? Changing the subject/throwing up a smokescreen (as ever)?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | I think it was a critic who mentioned recently that the largest previous CD was of a 25 storey building (or thereabouts).
Yet again what is remarkable about WTC7 is that a 47 storey building falls within approximately one and a quarter times it's own radius, according to the photo you've supplied.
|
Given that it was surrounded on 3 sides by other very substantial buildings and mangled 2 of them, I don't find it surprising it fell "within approximately one and a quarter times it's own radius".
However - none of the Truthers here has yet addressed The Interviewer's blatant lies.
Uncomfortable with a fact? Changing the subject/throwing up a smokescreen (as ever)? |
WTC7 was 570ft high, and had 1,868,000 square feet of floors
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center)
According to FEMA, the debris field was 70ft (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf page 24)
Although the goal of CD might be to knock a building 'into it's own basement', sometimes the basement just isn't big enough to swallow a building that large.
Plus 70ft is as near as dammit.
Still upset about TV 'lies'? You'll get used to it. You see them most days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Still upset about TV 'lies'? You'll get used to it. You see them most days. |
Indeed.
So are accepting that the interviewer lied?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: | | Am i living in the twilight zone here. That image shows a clean collapse!!?!! |
Jowenko : "It was not really clean ... that's a lot ... but this is still standing ... "
Interviewer : "Building seven collapsed cleanly with the outside walls going inside"
The interviewer LIES
Do you deny this, DefecToR ?? |
Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
I'll put this question as simply as i can. No big words, promise.
WHAT...ARE...THOSE...THINGS...INSIDE(important word, take note)...THE...RUBBLE...PILE...?
Oooooh, they...well...kind of look like THE FUKKING WALLS!!
My god.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well Ignatz? I see you've started a new thread on Jowenko. How about addressing my point here first?
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | Well Ignatz? I see you've started a new thread on Jowenko. How about addressing my point here first? |
What is your point? That a building bounded on 3 sides by other substantial RC buildings managed to stay within the same block?
What's your answer to the lies of Jowenko's interviewer when he said "you could walk around it" when quite clearly you couldn't? When he said "building 7 collapsed cleanly with the outside walls going inside" when quite clearly they didn't? Er, photographic evidence here .. hello ???
Is your point that "I, DeFecToR, would like to have it all ways" ? :
"It fell into its own footprint, but if a load of it bounced off nearby buildings then that's part of my theory too" ?
Hmmmm ?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: | | Well Ignatz? I see you've started a new thread on Jowenko. How about addressing my point here first? |
What is your point? That a building bounded on 3 sides by other substantial RC buildings managed to stay within the same block?
What's your answer to the lies of Jowenko's interviewer when he said "you could walk around it" when quite clearly you couldn't? When he said "building 7 collapsed cleanly with the outside walls going inside" when quite clearly they didn't? Er, photographic evidence here .. hello ???
Is your point that "I, DeFecToR, would like to have it all ways" ? :
"It fell into its own footprint, but if a load of it bounced off nearby buildings then that's part of my theory too" ?
Hmmmm ? |
Er, hello yourself. When i look at that image i see a building that has fallen neatly in to its own footprint with minimal damage to surround structures if at all.
When you look at it you see scary fractal artwok of BL's face with a cigar in his mouth and the caption "I love it when a plan comes together".
Join me in the real world when you've learned how to look at things.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeFecToR wrote: | | Join me in the real world when you've learned how to look at things. |
Would that be your "real world" where aircraft spray contraceptive drugs and dangerous fungal spores over the entire surface of the earth? 
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ad hominem attack again today: for shame Ignatz: you should set a better example
This topic is another "logical thinkers shoot themselves in the foot again" saga
Its not the interviewer who "lied": its the translator
Do critics not know that language loses nuance in translation?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | DeFecToR wrote: | | Join me in the real world when you've learned how to look at things. |
Would that be your "real world" where aircraft spray contraceptive drugs and dangerous fungal spores over the entire surface of the earth? |
Avoidance and distraction once again. Oh the happy world of the reality critic.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Ad hominem attack again today: for shame Ignatz: you should set a better example
|
And if the messenger has a verifiable track record of delivering absurd messages? Your precious "Ad hominem" goes out the window. Attack the messengers? Damn right, when the messengers are on record as believing in magic spells and pixie dust.
DeF and John White - do you believe in the "reality" of chemtrails or not? Or is that question too much of a "distraction" ? In your opinion - do chemtrails spread drugs and/or biological agents across the world from 30,000' ? It's a simple (but rhetorical) question.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I will not tolerate these disreputable tactics from you Ignatz: sort yourself out man
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: |
In your opinion - do chemtrails spread drugs and/or biological agents across the world from 30,000' ? It's a simple (but rhetorical) question. |
Haven't got he slightest clue. 
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | I will not tolerate these disreputable tactics from you Ignatz: sort yourself out man |
Disreputable?
nah - being presented with a photo of a mutilated child and being told you're a supporter of the mass-murder of innocents .... that's disreputable.
But I sucked it up and dealt with it so I suggest you do likewise, big guy.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:37 pm Post subject: Re: Lies told to Jowenko. Part I |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | Jowenko's interviewer said :
"Only building 7 collapsed cleanly with all the walls inside"
"It was so clean you could walk round it"
Lies.
Large segments of braced framing from WTC7 lodged up against the Verizon building, debris up to the walls of the US Post Office, A lump knocked out of 30 West Broadway with girders hanging off the roof and facade....
The interviewer was lying. Get it yet? |
Here's what I believe happened in that interview: Jowenko was shown a video of the twin towers collapsing, and was asked if it was a controlled demolition. He said no, controlled demolition is done from the bottom-up, while this is clearly from the top-down. He was then shown a video of the WTC7 collapse, which WAS from the bottom up and he said, "Now THAT is a controlled demolition."
Now, why would an expert in controlled demolition, after being showed two video segments, one of which did not look like a controlled demolition, and one of them that did, agree that one of them looked like a controlled demolition? Especially when he didn't realize that the second one he saw was on the same site and the same day as the first collapse?
The answer is obvious. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
That just leaves the question of why he would stick to this story even after being given more information about the WTC7 collapse. The same reason any professional would stand by an earlier statement, especially one caught on video -- he doesn't want to lose face and lose credibility as an expert. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Neat. Makes no sense of course aggle rythm: if Jowenko was shown the towers collapse first, he'd hardly be shocked that he was watching WTC7 collapse in the way he obviously is on the film: the psychological whammy wouldnt be there
Still, its interesting to watch critics engage in "CT thinking" to try and rationalise the reaction of an expert to the footage
"The film makers conspired to trick Jowenko into thinking WTC7 was CD when he obviously wouldnt have done if he had been told what the footage was first"
 well you might be right but for the wrong reasons. How about a man giving an honest opinion when he may have clammed up tight if aware of the implications of that honest opinion before hand? Then again, I dont know Jowenko's character: he may be a much better man than that
Coupled with the obvious fallacy of criticising a translation as "lying", and its clear this sallient of attack is going nowhere. Is that the bugle of critic retreat I hear sounding?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Neat. Makes no sense of course aggle rythm: if Jowenko was shown the towers collapse first, he'd hardly be shocked that he was watching WTC7 collapse in the way he obviously is on the film: the psychological whammy wouldnt be there
Still, its interesting to watch critics engage in "CT thinking" to try and rationalise the reaction of an expert to the footage
"The film makers conspired to trick Jowenko into thinking WTC7 was CD when he obviously wouldnt have done if he had been told what the footage was first"
well you might be right but for the wrong reasons. How about a man giving an honest opinion when he may have clammed up tight if aware of the implications of that honest opinion before hand? Then again, I dont know Jowenko's character: he may be a much better man than that
Coupled with the obvious fallacy of criticising a translation as "lying", and its clear this sallient of attack is going nowhere. Is that the bugle of critic retreat I hear sounding? |
There's no need to retreat. The whole idea of WTC7 being a controlled demolition is preposterous.
The ONLY reason to think WTC7 was demolished is to support the pre-conceived idea, "someone is lying". Other than that, it explains nothing. It doesn't fit into any hypothetical scenario in which the evil government decided to kill it's own people to start a war. And, of course, it makes absolutely no sense that people would risk life, limb, and reputation to secretly destroy a building that the lease holder had every right to destroy anyway. (Unless you believe Larry Silverstein was involved in the most bone-headed insurance scam in history, one which cost him millions of dollars in lost revenue. Even so, what does this have to do with "false flag terror"?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about this? Strictly a left-fielder, ive got no intention of debating it, but just something to "take home and chew":
| Quote: |
PSY-OP
Deliberately generate irrational and nonesensical actions to confuse and disrupt any attempt to expose the plot at the later date
WTC7 being CD'd?
"The bigger the lie, the more people will believe the lie" (various nazi's paraphrased)
"The more proposterious the reality of the confusion, the more people will prefer to acept the illusion"
(that ones from me  )
If logic is using the human mind as a computer, all that is required is to feed in one crucial deliberatley illogical peice of information and logic can never arrive at the truth of events
|
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | Neat. Makes no sense of course aggle rythm: if Jowenko was shown the towers collapse first, he'd hardly be shocked that he was watching WTC7 collapse in the way he obviously is on the film: the psychological whammy wouldnt be there
Still, its interesting to watch critics engage in "CT thinking" to try and rationalise the reaction of an expert to the footage
"The film makers conspired to trick Jowenko into thinking WTC7 was CD when he obviously wouldnt have done if he had been told what the footage was first"
well you might be right but for the wrong reasons. How about a man giving an honest opinion when he may have clammed up tight if aware of the implications of that honest opinion before hand? Then again, I dont know Jowenko's character: he may be a much better man than that
Coupled with the obvious fallacy of criticising a translation as "lying", and its clear this sallient of attack is going nowhere. Is that the bugle of critic retreat I hear sounding? |
Remind us again what Jowenko said about the collapses of the twin towers. I can't for the life of me remember....???
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a suggestion:
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: |
There's no need to retreat. The whole idea of WTC7 being a controlled demolition is preposterous.
The ONLY reason to think WTC7 was demolished is to support the pre-conceived idea, "someone is lying". Other than that, it explains nothing. It doesn't fit into any hypothetical scenario in which the evil government decided to kill it's own people to start a war. And, of course, it makes absolutely no sense that people would risk life, limb, and reputation to secretly destroy a building that the lease holder had every right to destroy anyway. (Unless you believe Larry Silverstein was involved in the most bone-headed insurance scam in history, one which cost him millions of dollars in lost revenue. Even so, what does this have to do with "false flag terror"?) |
So Jowenko believes it was CD because it LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE A CD, whereas you do not believe it was CD because you dont know why someone would set up a CD.
Notice your absurd logic here.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
