Merged BBC WTC7 Programme

[mrbaracuda]

Gah, I just can't stand Avery and the other dumb****s.
Didn't know Gage is on a first name basis with Silverstein..

 

[boloboffin]

Ok, so maybe it was 10 days ago. But regardless, the debunk was bunk.

This is called "learning from our mistakes." I was one of the ones that went with the triage "debunk." I thought Jennings had seen the bodies on his way up. When I realized it was on his way out of the building, I knew it couldn't be the triage center. That's when I started speculating that bodies were thrown into the building by the collapse of the North Tower.

Now we know that Jennings didn't see any bodies. He certainly had the impression that bodies were there, but in the final analysis, he didn't see any bodies. That is the final debunking of this. Do I feel silly for misunderstanding Jennings in the first place? Yeah, but that's what I get for relying on conspiracy theorists for my information about what Jennings said.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I also have questions as how many firemen were even in the building, since, as the program showed, the collapses caused failures in the water system. Are firemen in the habit of rambling through a building, with either no water-supplied firehoses, or else an insufficient amount of them? I should think not.

You're assuming that the only thing firemen do is fight fires. There's also the extremely important role of search and rescue, and in an emergency one could imagine that firemen would carry that out even in the face of inadequate supplies of water. That will, of course, at times lead to the deaths of said firemen in the attempt to save the lives of others, which is why we tend to accord them an extraordinary measure of respect.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

The question is, how could ENOUGH of the columns fail so quickly that a symmetrical collapse is produced. There's a large time span, so perhaps some kind of argument could be made that sequential losses of columns' structural integrity occurred relatively slowly, but that a critical number was attained only over a brief time span. Why was the BBC not astute enough to ask a rather obvious question of Dr. Sunder? Especially since they interview ae911truth's Kamal Obeid, a structural engineer, who expresses doubt that simultaneous collapse of all columns is possible, even if local failures of one or two are not. Instead, they have incorporated a non-explanation explanation into their show.

Your criticism here seems to be that the BBC failed to produce an explanation of something that didn't happen. I know that mentioning the penthouse collapse has been dismissed by conspiracists as predictable, and therefore invalid for some mysterious reason, but it does provide rather visible and conclusive proof that the columns didn't collapse simultaneously; rather, the collapse of a subset of columns 79-81 must have preceded the more general collapse by about six seconds, which violates any definition of simultaneity that could reasonably be applied. We know for certain, therefore, that simultaneous column failure was not needed to produce a collapse as close to symmetrical as that of WTC7, whatever the failure mechanism, because we know that simultaneous failure did not occur.

Dave

 

[The Director]

Furthermore, although I thought the program was balanced, if I was an honest investigative journalist I would have certainly re-interviewed Jowenko, showed him the clips of Loizeaux, and then asked for a response. An EXPERT response. Why didn't BBC do this?

You will have to excuse me, I am a bit new at this. But, during Jowenko's original interview didn't the individual interviewing him happen to leave out the fact that the building was on fire for seven hours and that the fourth largest building in the world happened to fall on it?

In fact, Jowenko asked before watching the film: "Do you see a fire above somewhere? I see smoke everywhere." The translation gets a little choppy, but it seems that his interviewer says something that is not translated. Help me out with it here: h ttp://w ww.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I *Be sure to fill in the spaces*

 

[CptColumbo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

You can also do it like this:

 

[cyclonic]

You will have to excuse me, I am a bit new at this. But, during Jowenko's original interview didn't the individual interviewing him happen to leave out the fact that the building was on fire for seven hours and that the fourth largest building in the world happened to fall on it?

In fact, Jowenko asked before watching the film: "Do you see a fire above somewhere? I see smoke everywhere." The translation gets a little choppy, but it seems that his interviewer says something that is not translated. Help me out with it here: h ttp://w ww.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I *Be sure to fill in the spaces*

Welcome the director,danny was shown the collapse on a laptop with out sound and wasn't shown the east penthouse collapsing first,when after he said a 25 man team could have prepared it for demolition he was told it came down on the same day as the towers, he looked amazed then said they must have worked really fast! danny also has NO doubt that fires brought down wtc 1 and 2, a fact not mentioned by tricky dick gage.

 

[Drs_Res]

I do believe that I have heard it mentioned in more than one place that Jowenko does not seem to want to talk about this anymore.

 

[CptColumbo]

I do believe that I have heard it mentioned in more than one place that Jowenko does not seem to want to talk about this anymore.

I think that answers the question why many scientists/engineers/demolition experts don't want to be interviewed by "twoofers" or CTers in general.

 

[cyclonic]

here it is on 911blogger with a jon gold rebuttal video and twoofer comments:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16541#comment

i can't watch it, shaped for next 25 hrs, so any comments about the jon gold video would be good.

 

[TexasJack]

Yes, Richard Gage's complete denial of any smoke coming out of 7, was a moment of pure hilarity, only to be out done by Dylan Avey's f-bombs.

 

[Blender Head]

Did Gage, in his 'analysis' of "pull it", claim that Larry said "We made the deicison to pull it" or was he trying to make a larger point that 'it' cannot be used for a contigent of firefighters?

 

[cyclonic]

Just watched those 3 short jon gold videos, seems to me he was looking for intelligence about the command structure of the government.

 

[jberryhill]

The Jowenko video is an exercise in how not to get an expert opinion. Rather than provide him with the materials for his own study, he is guided along to a conclusion. I don't see why so much stock is put into his off-the-cuff reaction to this exercise.

 

[mrbaracuda]

Did Gage, in his 'analysis' of "pull it", claim that Larry said "We made the deicison to pull it" or was he trying to make a larger point that 'it' cannot be used for a contigent of firefighters?

You can watch what he says in the 20th minute.
They show a bit of "9/11 Mysteries" as an introduction, then the interview part with Silverstein and Gage comes on afterwards: "I ask, every viewer, to come to their own conclusion, about the language Larry's using and the emphasis [Silverstein interview part]. My personal response to his comment is that he was, uh, involved in a decision to, to uh, bring the building down - but, uh, who knows, what he was thinking or saying. This is just speculation."

The documentary talks about the leasing and insurance, Gage comes back on: "And you don't say 'We made the decision to pull it', which refers to something. You wouldn't say that about a group of fire (sic). You would say 'we made a decision to pull them out of the building'"

I think that's all from him, so yea, he does say that again later on.

 

[~enigma~]

This is just speculation.

The only honest statement to ever come out of the morally bankrupt cretins known as the truth movement.

 

[metamars]

You will have to excuse me, I am a bit new at this. But, during Jowenko's original interview didn't the individual interviewing him happen to leave out the fact that the building was on fire for seven hours and that the fourth largest building in the world happened to fall on it?

In fact, Jowenko asked before watching the film: "Do you see a fire above somewhere? I see smoke everywhere." The translation gets a little choppy, but it seems that his interviewer says something that is not translated. Help me out with it here: h ttp://w ww.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I *Be sure to fill in the spaces*

All the more reason to interview Jowenko. Maybe he will be of the opinion that the fires made all the difference, or maybe he will be of the opinion that they couldn't - you know, like members of ae911truth believe. Or would you suggest that Kamal Obeid didn't know about the fires?

You can't know what Jowenko has to say about this question unless you ask him. I find it hard to believe that he hasn't been asked, but maybe he hasn't wanted to be bothered, while a call from BBC might have been sufficient motivation to now answer.

Bad on BBC.

Since you're new around here, I will make a suggestion you can keep in mind. Ask yourself if "debunkers" do not show the same sort of lack of curiosity that the BBC has shown in their program under discussion.

I find that the lack of curiosity evinced by the BBC is not in the least unusual for "debunkers", the US media (and probably most of the Western media), and many 'official investigations' by Congress or Congressionally appointed groups, at least one of which didn't ask questions that a 10-year-old would find obvious.

We are allowed to "BELIEVE anything but we are allowed to KNOW nothing." Even in an ideal world, we can never know all the details. It would have been nice, though, if the BBC had tried harder - much harder - to reconcile contradictory information, or elucidate claims that have been around for years, which are not believed.

 

[Alt+F4]

What's up with Steven Jones' creepy laugh? I almost fell off my chair when Jones compares dust to DNA.

According to this program, the dust Jones analyzed was collected about an hour after the collapse of the north tower, so how could it have anything to do with WTC 7, the focus of this show?

 

[e^n]

We are allowed to "BELIEVE anything but we are allowed to KNOW nothing." Even in an ideal world, we can never know all the details. It would have been nice, though, if the BBC had tried harder - much harder - to reconcile contradictory information, or elucidate claims that have been around for years, which are not believed.

I don't entirely disagree with you, but you have to ask yourself what would it accomplish?

 

[mrbaracuda]

All the more reason to interview Jowenko. Maybe he will be of the opinion that the fires made all the difference, or maybe he will be of the opinion that they couldn't - you know, like members of ae911truth believe. Or would you suggest that Kamal Obeid didn't know about the fires?

You can't know what Jowenko has to say about this question unless you ask him. I find it hard to believe that he hasn't been asked, but maybe he hasn't wanted to be bothered, while a call from BBC might have been sufficient motivation to now answer.

Bad on BBC.

My understanding is he is 'not available' for questions about WTC7.