9/11 media happenings

[MikeMcc]

You beat me to it with that one. If you google for the guys name as well there's an entry for Screw Loose Change, the content has been withdrawn for some reason but the cached page has an entry from someone saying that he'd spoken to Danny Jowenko and he was saying that he'd been mis-represented and that he didn't believe WTC7 was a CD job

 

[editor]

You beat me to it with that one. If you google for the guys name as well there's an entry for Screw Loose Change, the content has been withdrawn for some reason but the cached page has an entry from someone saying that he'd spoken to Danny Jowenko and he was saying that he'd been mis-represented and that he didn't believe WTC7 was a CD job

If ever you needed proof of how desperate the 9/11 nuts are, that video sums it up.

Have you watched the video? He couldn't make it any clearer!

 

[MikeMcc]

The 'cold fusion saga' is a good example of something - probably not quite what you have in mind, though.

http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/HistoricalAnalysisSummaryCharts.htm#mit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

With regard to your comment that 'not one demolitions expert' has disputed the circumstances of the towers collapse, perhaps you've forgotten the words of Van Romero? (former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures).

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

Here's his resume, incase you were wondering: http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.html

As I said, it's a saga.

Romero said something in the first few hours following the attack, which he later retracted and continues to deny.

 

[Jazzz]

Ummm, I wonder if that was judiciously editted. Fair enough he starts off saying that it looks like a controlled demolition, but later on he explains whats involved, the film doesn't show what sort of estimate of the time he did give. The impression he gives in the end in saying that it's odd is that he can't balance the timescale with the work that was required especially given that it was on fire!

That clip is very fairly edited. What's great about Jowenko is that he just gave his opinion without knowing when WTC7 came down so he just judged what he saw. Sure enough, he's not clear as to how they rushed in and wired it up to explode on the same day while it was on fire. I wouldn't be either!

You can confirm for yourself that he remains absolutely clear that it was a controlled demolition in .

 

[MikeMcc]

That clip is very fairly edited. What's great about Jowenko is that he just gave his opinion without knowing when WTC7 came down so he just judged what he saw. Sure enough, he's not clear as to how they rushed in and wired it up to explode on the same day while it was on fire. I would be too!

You can confirm for yourself that he remains absolutely clear that it was a controlled demolition in .

Oh please! It could be anyone on that recording

 

[editor]

That clip is very fairly edited.

But it totally cut out all the bits where he clearly states that it was not a CD!!!!!

Oh, and what's Kevin Ryan's qualifications please Jazzz?

 

[Jazzz]

But it totally cut out all the bits where he clearly states that it was not a CD!!!!!

Have you not learnt the difference between WTCs 1,2 and 7 yet?

fool!

 

[Jazzz]

Oh please! It could be anyone on that recording

If you google for the guys name as well there's an entry for Screw Loose Change, the content has been withdrawn for some reason but the cached page has an entry from someone saying that he'd spoken to Danny Jowenko and he was saying that he'd been mis-represented and that he didn't believe WTC7 was a CD job

Amazing. you're seriously asking me to accept the latter over the former!

 

[MikeMcc]

Amazing. you're seriously asking me to accept the latter over the former!

No, which is why I only mentioned it in passing and didn't link to or C&P from it. I'm certaining not suggesting it as any form of proof. As you point out it's just as contentious has your own link

 

[editor]

Have you not learnt the difference between WTCs 1,2 and 7 yet?

What's Kevin Ryan's qualifications please Jazzz?

Why won't you answer?

 

[kyser_soze]

This is a fucking joke. Jazz, the guy has said that he was unfairly edited, same as Romero has recanted his statement FOLLOWING it's appropriation by the 'truth' movement. Coupled with the comments about PNAC earlier in the thread, what it shows to most of us is that the only 'truth' your movement wants to reveal is it's own version of events, irrespective of the actual run of events.

Fuck's sake, WHY aren't you monkey's concentrating on the real issues, which is whether or not the Bush administration deliberately ignored intelligence warnings over this, and what they've done to cover it up - but instead an awful lot of people are wasting an awful amount of time chasing phantom explosives.

 

[Jazzz]

No, which is why I only mentioned it in passing and didn't link to or C&P from it. I'm certaining not suggesting it as any form of proof. As you point out it's just as contentious has your own link

My link is not contentious at all, it's him and the recording is out there.

Your quote (on google cache!) was just plain hearsay.

 

[Jazzz]

This is a fucking joke. Jazz, the guy has said that he was unfairly edited

Where?

 

[editor]

My link is not contentious at all, it's him and the recording is out there.

Hi Jazzz.

Seeing as I've answered your question, could you answer mine please?

What's Kevin Ryan's qualifications?

Each time you try and wriggle out of answering a polite question directly related to a point you yourself raised, you just look more dishonest and more desperate.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Where?

Why dont' you fucking well read the thread you useless turd?

 

[Jazzz]

Maybe think you should listen to your own advice BTL.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Public service announcement
​

If you are reading this then you've stumbled into a deeply twisted world. There are a few pointers you should take note of:

1) Jazzz cannot be trusted to get his facts or sources right
2) Jazzz will not read your posts, your links or anything else that implies he's wrong
3) Jazzz will not do what he says he will (ie reply to your posts)

Remember these three things and your discussion with a brick wall will be much more productive.

This message was brought to you by Bob_the_lost - The man who kicked Jazzz's arse so often Jazzz won't talk to him anymore.

 

[Jazzz]

I think you have anger management issues BTL.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Who's angry? I'm laughing at you right now.

 

[editor]

I think you have anger management issues BTL.

Can you answer my question please now, Jazzz?

I answered your question within minutes of you asking me - and even addressed your off topic elaboration - so why are you refusing to answer mine?

Is it because you're embarrassed to reveal the qualifications of this Kevin Ryan character or that you don't even know who he is?

It's really beginning to look like you're being wilfully dishonest here, so why not just be truthful?

 

[Jazzz]

Can you answer my question please now, Jazzz?

I answered your question within minutes of you asking me - and even addressed your off topic elaboration - so why are you refusing to answer mine?

Is it because you're embarrassed to reveal the qualifications of this Kevin Ryan character or that you don't even know who he is?

It's really beginning to look like you're being wilfully dishonest here, so why not just be truthful?

Oh cut out your 'wilfully dishonest' crap. You have no right to bandy that sort of accusation around. Your 'questions' are perfectly tedious - bore someone else with them.

 

[editor]

Oh cut out your 'wilfully dishonest' crap. You have no right to bandy that sort of accusation around. Your 'questions' are perfectly tedious - bore someone else with them.

Why won't you answer? It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask about the credibility and relevent experience and qualifications of people making fantastic claims.

Clearly you view Kevin Ryan's opinion as important, so why are you refusing to explain why you hold him in such high regard?

So what are Kevin Ryan's qualifications in the areas of structural engineering, explosives and demolition please?

 

[Jazzz]

er, I haven't mentioned the chap for weeks.

 

[8den]

You can confirm for yourself that he remains absolutely clear that it was a controlled demolition in .

Ah interesting call. The thing is Jazzz that Joenko, while still believing WTC7 was a controlled demolition, he is equally firm as to his believe that WTC1&2 were not destroyed by a controlled demolition.

OOOOOOH BOY! IT'S DOUBLE JEOPARDY
DILEMMA DAY JAZZZ!!!!​

See if you believe Joenko is an expert and his opinion is valid, and right you cannot hold him as proof that WTC 7 was a demolition job, while at the same time disregarding his opinion that WTC 1&2 weren't demolition jobs.

So Jazzz is it

a) Joenko is right and WTC 1&2 weren't brought down in a CD.

b) Joenko is wrong, and we get to dismiss him outright.

Do you want to have your cake Jazzz? Or eat your cake? Cause you sure as fuck can't do both.

 

[detective-boy]

Jazzz, pictured earlier, confronted with his special "Double Jeopardy Dilemma" Cake ....

 

[fela fan]

Fuck's sake, WHY aren't you monkey's concentrating on the real issues, which is whether or not the Bush administration deliberately ignored intelligence warnings over this, and what they've done to cover it up - but instead an awful lot of people are wasting an awful amount of time chasing phantom explosives.

Funny, that's been my main angle over this topic for a few years now.

One thing i've never managed to do yet is talk to an experienced jet pilot to ask them their opinions on how easy it is to manoeuver huge planes in the way they were. In particular the one that apparantly smashed into the pentagon at an altitude of something like five metres.

 

[fela fan]

Why won't you answer?

Freedom of speech? Freedom to speak or not speak, freedom to listen or not listen. Or don't they do that round this way any more?

 

[8den]

Funny, that's been my main angle over this topic for a few years now.

One thing i've never managed to do yet is talk to an experienced jet pilot to ask them their opinions on how easy it is to manoeuver huge planes in the way they were. In particular the one that apparantly smashed into the pentagon at an altitude of something like five metres.

You've obviously not been looking too hard.

I’ve been a pilot for the past 27 years, first in the Italian Air Force, and then as a check Captain for an airline.I have a good experience as a simulator instructor and examiner, (as a matter of fact one of my jobs was to train people with very basic experience…), and I flew NATO AWACS planes as an Aircraft Commander (air refueling qualified) and maritime patrol airplanes very low over water.

So, maybe immodestly, I think I can enter the 9-11 arena.

It was a left turn, which is what someone sitting on the left seat (captain’s seat) would do to keep a target to his left in sight. All this would require a bank angle of between 32 and 45 degrees, and a moderate rate of descent. Nothing that requires Iceman (remember Top Gun?) to do. Again, the hijacker decided to err on the undershoot side, and descended a lot more than what a good pilot would have done. Almost too much, since he had to fly the last seconds level at a very low altitude, clipping the lampposts along his way.

Of course; civilian controllers (and military as well) don’t usually get to see a
civilian airliner at 300 plus MPH at low level flown by a suicidal holy warrior.
Normal speed limit in Europe is 200 KTS (230 MPH) at or below 10000 feet.
This doesn’t mean airliners aren’t physically able to fly fast at low altitude.
We wish we were allowed to do it, it’s so much more fun! So if you see a blip
flying as fast as a military jet, you say “it looked like a military jet” but it
doesn’t prove anything.

http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

 

[fela fan]

Is that when experts are predicting something will happen, or analysing something AFTER it's occured? Cos if it's the former most experts are only slightly ahead of the rest of us in predicting accurately, but if it's a retrospective investigation while there are still errors and mistakes that accuracy tends to be much, much higher. Which after all is why we pay to train people through university (for example) that the myriad of differing skills required of our society can be attended by those who understand them best through training and education.

No, i wasn't referring to predictions and future, which should have been obvious from the language i used kyser. I am talking about when i see things happening or things that have already happened with my own eyes, then i read up what the experts, and others who write in factual terms are saying, and it's at odds with my very own experiences.

The conclusion is that i know what's right coz i saw it, or i was there, yet i see what's wrong being fed to the wider public dressed up as truth.

I'd hazard a guess it happens more often than you might care to think.

 

[fela fan]

You've obviously not been looking too hard.

And you've obviously got reading problems. I said i've yet to talk to an experienced pilot.

I'm not going to take anything on the net at face value, nor in the papers, nor anywhere, and certainly not on the propaganda tube, unless it's proven science.

Like i've just replied to kyser, i've seen too much reported at odds with my own experiences in life, and i only completely trust my own eyes, or science.