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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Who the hell is Barry Jennings?
Comments
-
demonspawn wrote: »Ok genius, you obviously missed the half hour of audio at the bottom of the page where Dylan Avery says everything in the text. How's about you listen to that before you make another comment.
What evidence does he provide?
Or do you just believe everything you're told?demonspawn wrote: »I already have you on ignore, I'm just reading your posts out of boredom.
Wouldn't want you to start asking these questions yourself.0 -
demonspawn wrote: »Ok genius, you obviously missed the half hour of audio at the bottom of the page where Dylan Avery says everything in the text. How's about you listen to that before you make another comment. I already have you on ignore, I'm just reading your posts out of boredom.
Why don't you and/or other similar minded theorists get together and hire a private detective, get somebody to organize it, and document it fully. Then you can find out if they're alive or dead, or if they refused to do it and gave the money back then you'd have something suspicious to show0 -
Jeboa Safari wrote: »Why don't you and/or other similar minded theorists get together and hire a private detective, get somebody to organize it, and document it fully. Then you can find out if they're alive or dead, or if they refused to do it and gave the money back then you'd have something suspicious to show
Why? That's already been done. It's not like you're gonna believe what I say over Dylan Avery.0 -
demonspawn wrote: »Dude, what are you smoking? It's Dylan Avery himself explaining everything that happened. What part of that confuses you so much?demonspawn wrote: »Oh, I guess Dylan Avery is lying about hiring a PI because..........?
He makes a profit from his movie, spreading the rumour that one of interviewees was murdered increases it's spread.
He's misrepresenting what happened.
He misremembers what happened.
And innumerable reasons more.
Then various combinations of some or all of these reasons.
Fact remains there's nothing to support his claims.demonspawn wrote: »And now I will no longer respond to your posts. You've proven yourself to be completely incapable of debunking even the most ludicrous of CTs so I won't waste any more of my time entertaining you. Enjoy the gas chambers.
But I would suggest actually opening your mind and asking some questions.0 -
OK Mob, what are your Questions, I'm willin to respond things that aint adhomeninms or non sequitors OK
Lets try it.0 -
Mahatma coat wrote: »OK Mob, what are your Questions, I'm willin to respond things that aint adhomeninms or non sequitors OK
Lets try it.
Well I've posted them before in a post responding to you, so you've already ignored them.
But for convenience I'll post them again:
Is there anything other than his word to believe that Avery hired a PI let alone that said PI never found them?
How is his story different from my clearly made up one?
Is there anything else at all to indicate that the family disappeared?
Why couldn't they make Jennings just "mysteriously vanish" like his family? Why was he killed, thus drawing suspicion?
Why was he killed at a suspicious time and not at any other time before?
Why was he killed at all when there wasn't anything that special about his testimony, considering there are many others trotted out and taken out of context to "prove" the exact same thing by CTers?
And can you please locate the daughter of Mary McAleese?
Now none of these questions are new.
They all point out serious flaws in the CT.
And so far they've all been ignored in lieu of adhomeninms or non sequitors.
Also just pointing out these are just my questions, other posters have asked others that where likewise ignored.
And I'm excluding the questions where I am asking you to back up unfounded accusations you made about my posts.
So gonna take a crack?0 -
Well I've posted them before in a post responding to you, so you've already ignored them.
But for convenience I'll post them again:Is there anything other than his word to believe that Avery hired a PI let alone that said PI never found them?How is his story different from my clearly made up one?Is there anything else at all to indicate that the family disappeared?Why couldn't they make Jennings just "mysteriously vanish" like his family? Why was he killed, thus drawing suspicion?Why was he killed at a suspicious time and not at any other time before?Why was he killed at all when there wasn't anything that special about his testimony, considering there are many others trotted out and taken out of context to "prove" the exact same thing by CTers?And can you please locate the daughter of Mary McAleese?
Try this number in the Morning, they Should know where she is
Tel +353 1 6 1 7 1oooNow none of these questions are new.They all point out serious flaws in the CT.And so far they've all been ignored in lieu of adhomeninms or non sequitors.Also just pointing out these are just my questions, other posters have asked others that where likewise ignored.
And I'm excluding the questions where I am asking you to back up unfounded accusations you made about my posts.
So gonna take a crack?
what part of my 'accusations' were unfounded????????0 -
Mahatma coat wrote: »Well, He said he did, did you notice the bit about me not responding to Adhomenim?
Why is is word so unquestionable to you?Mahatma coat wrote: »because your story is clearly Made up, in so far as you STATED THAT YOU MADE IT UP, See the difference, no one is wondering whether or not your strory is True, YOU TOLD US IT ISNT, see the inherrent difference?
So how do you know that he isn't just making it up?Mahatma coat wrote: »if they havent disappeared then they should be rather easy to find dont ya think.
We've see nothing to suggest anyone's made any such a search.
Also even if this was true it still doesn't prove anything at all, see the question about the daughter.Mahatma coat wrote: »Because Jennings was documented on film telling the Truth, He had to be seen to die.
Wouldn't him just vanishing like you think his family did just seem a lot less suspicious?
You probably wouldn't have even heard of him then.Mahatma coat wrote: »a convenient distraction inthe days before the NIST report.
It's been pointed out that this wasn't reported much (or at all) in the media.
The only people who would have given a crap (besides his friends and family) would be the Cters would would instantly think he was murdered and "read" NIST report anyway.Mahatma coat wrote: »So you think that there was nothing at all a bit odd about Barrys Original Testimony to Avery?? the timelines, the bodies in the lobby of building 7, the Fires and explosions Prior to the collapse of the other towers??
And all of these things and more are claimed by many other people (for the most part likewise having their words twisted.) So why target him specifically? Why draw attention to him and his case?Mahatma coat wrote: »Try this number in the Morning, they Should know where she is
Tel +353 1 6 1 7 1ooo
Then using your "logic" she must have been murdered by lizard people right?Mahatma coat wrote: »Well your Emma Macalese question isMahatma coat wrote: »Yep I'm glad you acknowledge what you are doing here.
Can you show a single post after these questions where they were even acknowledged?Mahatma coat wrote: »what part of my 'accusations' were unfounded????????0 -
What makes you so much better than everyone else on this thread?I've an open mind and am willing to ask questions?
To me, all you seem to do is disrespect the efforts that certain other users put into their posts. The very fact that you actually answered my question seriously, confirms for me that most of your posts are based on, and geared towards your own ego. Even your own sig will back me up.. (Of course it's impossible, that's why we do it.) But that's just my opinion, right?Really I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the "truth" movement.Gonna address my post?
Can you explain how my totally made up and unsupported claim is any different to Avery's claim?
Unless the answer is "yes" then don't even bother trying to compare yourself to Dylan Avery or his work, let alone think you can debunk all of his work with a stroke of your ego.. anyone who does is kidding themselves.Is there anything other than his word to believe that Avery hired a PI let alone that said PI never found them?
If you ask a stranger "what time is it?", do you then demand they prove it?Why couldn't they make Jennings just "mysteriously vanish" like his family? Why was he killed, thus drawing suspicion?
Why was he killed at a suspicious time and not at any other time before?Why was he killed at all when there wasn't anything that special about his testimony, considering there are many others trotted out and taken out of context to "prove" the exact same thing by CTers?And can you please locate the daughter of Mary McAleese?
So short of jumping out of her knicker-drawer with a camera, that's as far as I'm going to go with the Mary McAleese thing.
How about you do yourself and the thread some honour, and see if you can find any information about Jennings or his family's current whereabouts? You say that you have an open mind and are willing to ask questions, or does that count only when you get the answers you want?They all point out serious flaws in the CT.
Oh, and by the way.. If you don't believe someone, or don't like what they have said, that's not a serious flaw.0 -
Advertisement
-
So no then.
Then using your "logic" she must have been murdered by lizard people right?
I have provided you with a contact number for Emma MacaLese, it should be possible to call that number in the morning and confirm her existence, I would recomend not calling at the moment as its nearly 4AM in Dublin and I'm sure the Gardai wouldnt like that sort of thing.
Now can you provide me with a contact number for any of the Jennings Family, or someone who knows the Jennings Family, Or someone that has seen them in the last 6 months??????
see the difference?????0 -
Just not any questions about the official story. How is that open minded?
However every single claim and argument the conspiracy theorists make crumble under the slightest scrutiny.To me, all you seem to do is disrespect the efforts that certain other users put into their posts. The very fact that you actually answered my question seriously, confirms for me that most of your posts are based on, and geared towards your own ego. Even your own sig will back me up.. (Of course it's impossible, that's why we do it.) But that's just my opinion, right?
That's a quote from my favourite magician.... Maybe you should click on it before you use it to judge my character...What exactly is your argument here? What makes the "truth" movement hypocritical?Have you personally interviewed eyewitnesses to 911 on camera?
Unless the answer is "yes" then don't even bother trying to compare yourself to Dylan Avery or his work, let alone think you can debunk all of his work with a stroke of your ego.. anyone who does is kidding themselves.
I asked a very simple question: is there anything other than his word to back up his story?
Since you dodged the question entirely and it being at least the thrid time I've asked it, it's fairly clear that no there isn't.
And you you are willing to believe something because you were told to...Would a declaration signed in blood make any difference to you?
If you ask a stranger "what time is it?", do you then demand they prove it?
Why do you believe his story when he's provided nothing to support it?Why don't you ask the Bush dynasty?That's not a question, it's a comment. One with a not-so-subtle dismissive tone I might add.
No address? Nothing?
Must have been murdered by her husband then.How about you do yourself and the thread some honour, and see if you can find any information about Jennings or his family's current whereabouts? You say that you have an open mind and are willing to ask questions, or does that count only when you get the answers you want?
The thing is CTers here have claimed that they have evidence that the family have disappeared.
I asked for this evidence, it's yet to materialise.Serious flaws like what?
Oh, and by the way.. If you don't believe someone, or don't like what they have said, that's not a serious flaw.0 -
Mahatma coat wrote: »Just to put this one to bed before yhe skeppies think they have some kind of victory or somesuch
I have provided you with a contact number for Emma MacaLese, it should be possible to call that number in the morning and confirm her existence, I would recomend not calling at the moment as its nearly 4AM in Dublin and I'm sure the Gardai wouldnt like that sort of thing.
Now can you provide me with a contact number for any of the Jennings Family, or someone who knows the Jennings Family, Or someone that has seen them in the last 6 months??????
see the difference?????
Well again I never claimed to have that information, nor that it was available, hence why I (originally yekahs)asked you to find a relativly higher profile person.
Yet you can't seem to find anything at all.
So can you find the same thing you're asking me for?
Personal phone number, address and someone who has seen her in the last 6 months?
Or at least maybe back up the idea that they disappeared at all?0 -
well to be technical you never claim anything, you just dance around in circles making retarded Counterclaims and annoyin the Sh!te out of People
But Whats wrong with the contact info for Emma Macalese?????
Its fairly straightforward, ring that number during Irish office hours and ask if she's Dead.
If they say Yes, then lo and behold you were right and theres a whole massive nother conspiracy that we need ta be investigating, if they say no and try to keep you on the line I'd suggest running away before special Branch get there;)
As for the Jennings Issue, the original point was, if they havent disapeared they should be easy to find, especially to someone like Dylan Avery who dedicates his time to things like that, but he Hired a P.I and that P.I Had a quick look and then decided he'd be better off not looking. thats as much info as we have, thats what lead to our conclusion, like I said if you cant find Emma Macalese tomorrow morning then we should start gettin suspicious about the situation.0 -
Nope I question the official story. I read a lot of the conspiracy stuff.
However every single claim and argument the conspiracy theorists make crumble under the slightest scrutiny.Yea...
That's a quote from my favourite magician.... Maybe you should click on it before you use it to judge my character...
And if you read what I said before carefully, you'd realize that I didn't "use it" to judge your character, I am very capable of reading someone's card without depending on something like that.The simple fact they don't like it when you ask questions about their theory.Ok where are you getting this nonsense?I asked a very simple question: is there anything other than his word to back up his story?Can you explain how my totally made up and unsupported claim is any different to Avery's claim?
To answer your first question: yes, there is documentary film of Barry Jennings giving his testimony as an eyewitness on the day, that implicates certain leaders of the world's largest superpower, in conspiracy and mass murder.
Your ridiculous second question is answered by the absence* of documentary film of Mary McAleese giving evidence that implcates her son-in-law in murder.Since you dodged the question entirely and it being at least the thrid time I've asked it, it's fairly clear that no there isn't.And you you are willing to believe something because you were told to...
I saw and heard Barry Jennings on that video with my own eyes and ears, telling all of us that he "knew" he was stepping on Bodies. There is no room for misinterpretation on our part. The question is, do you believe Barry Jennings or not? and Why?
If you want to argue that the interviewer said he "saw" instead of "knew", then go ahead but it's nitpicking. Arguing that point is like arguing a spelling mistake, it really has no value except to derail the thread, and you won't get any input from me on the matter. If you ask me, using such a lame argument to try and disprove an entire thread is a massive fail. But as a tool of the corrupt, it may seem to work if nobody argues with you, but in reality it doesn't have any merit, it's just ****.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.Why do you believe his story when he's provided nothing to support it?
Come to mention it, generally speaking you haven't given much in the line of links or any evidence to prove or disprove anything. You say your open minded, where's the proof? I have yet to see a decent post from you, which counters any official story.I'll do so at the next disinfo agent meeting.It's a question. it starts with a "why" and ends with a "?".Why was he killed at all when there wasn't anything that special about his testimony, considering there are many others trotted out and taken out of context to "prove" the exact same thing by CTers?Why was he killed at all?there wasn't anything that special about his testimony, considering there are many others trotted out and taken out of context to "prove" the exact same thing by CTers.And that's it? A news article? From 09?
No address? Nothing?
Must have been murdered by her husband then.
The word "privacy" still means something to most people, thank God.
Perhaps you should raise the issue of "murder" with the police when you ring them tomorrow, looking for the president's daughter's address.You see the thing is I never said there was any information on their location to be found or claimed that I had such information. In fact I believe it would be rather hard to find a random family. Hence my example using a relatively known person.
Maybe a relatively known person to you, but I never even knew she had kids, let alone three of them. Nevertheless, I honored your request and found out what I could, the least you could have done is made an effort.The thing is CTers here have claimed that they have evidence that the family have disappeared.
I asked for this evidence, it's yet to materialise.
Well, evidence is evidence, either it's there or it's not. I believe that evidence of nothing is not the same as no evidence, though.*
I'm guessing that for this example, it's kind of like this... If you made a rabbit disappear, and some kid said "where's the rabbit?", you would reply "what rabbit?", then do a little "win" dance with yourself. Very persuasive, but not very honorable.The fact that the only answers to my questions are either the vast global conspiracy is stupid or non-existent.
The fact is, that people are taking on your questions, more than your taking on theirs.0 -
This thread is making my eyes bleed. So many hecklers who offer nothing except "your ****". This is what happens when you pretend to be sceptical and in fact all your doing is swallowing the official CT of Osama and friends with boxcutters, you have to disregard any and all anomalies or the whole house of cards falls down.
Jennings, because of his position speaks with authority. Jennings claimed unequivocally on camera that there was explosions in building 7 before either tower 1 or 2 came down.
This completely contradicts the official story. This creates a serious problem if you espouse the official and as yet unproven bin Laden CT. Now if we are sufficently open-minded enought to consider other possibilities it is plausible that whoever committed the grand crime and has gotten away with it would go to any means to cover up such a crime; including taking out key witnesses who could potentially implicate them. Jennings certainly falls into that category.
Then if you add in the secrecy of his death, and the apparent dissapearing of his family then you have grounds for suspicion. That is all that is being said here.
I mean how the **** are you supposed to prove that someone has dissapeared? All being fair he should have had a significant obituary, he was a hero in probably the most significant event, in terms of implications in most, if not all of our lifetimes.
As for the private investigator issue, demands of proof there is just more juvenile point-scoring. He may or may not be telling the truth, but to dismiss it purely because of your anti-CT stance is counter productive. Assuming its true, and it is plausable, Avery is hardly going to give out any further information than he has done already as it would implicate the investigator.
It is all really quite simple. Let's not overcomplicate it.0 -
Advertisement
-
wtc bombs
more here - there are tons of these videos, anyone open minded enough to look for them will find them within 5 seconds.
WTC7 explosion
WTC7 implosion - english subtitles
Michael Hess
0 -
Jennings made clear that he didn't stand over the claims Loose Change made for him as a witness. He clarified what he did and didn't see in the BBC interview - and frankly, some of his statements don't hold water regardless of what your opinion of what happened on the day. Avery admits that he only spoke to him for 20 minutes, and even if Avery actually did pay an investigator to look into his death/family, it seems rather unlikely that he couldn't find a different investigator to follow up when he got his full refund. tbh the most likely scenario is that the investigator didn't want to get involved in some truther stalking of a family who had just lost a loved one. There's nothing to suggest that the family has 'disappeared' beyond Avery claiming that a PI who refused his business said that they had sold their house and moved following the death.
And just to cap it all off - the 'smoking gun' explosion that he supposedly heard doesn't tally with the whole thermite notion that is required to string the truthers fantasy version of 911 together. He's no 'key witness' to anything that makes any difference to the events of the day.0 -
Jennings made clear that he didn't stand over the claims Loose Change made for him as a witness. He clarified what he did and didn't see in the BBC interview - and frankly, some of his statements don't hold water regardless of what your opinion of what happened on the day.
Feel free to ignore the Alex Jones commentary, I usually do.
0 -
Mahatma coat wrote: »there are 2 distinct types of poster on this thread
There is one Group exploring possibilities and generaly trying to get at the truth, whatever that may be
there is another group engaged in a Petty Pointscoring egowank who fail to contribute anything of substance to the thread.
hold on there now MC. I've been reading this thread from the start and I fully appreciate it's possible that Barry Jennings family have gone missing but so far there's nothing to support that. Well, other than a guy (Avery) who I know tells a lot of lies saying it's so.
And have you seen how horrible truthers are to some of the people they believe are hiding stuff in these CT's. Verbal abuse right along to death threats on them and their family members. Jennings didn't want to speak to the CT'ers and I wouldn't blame him. It's not a big leap for me to believe his family wouldn't either.
It's seems that what I call critical thinking some people call debunking. In any given situation there will be several obvious question that should be asked, no matter where your information is coming from. It's doesn't matter if the story is from a trusted source or fit's in with your world view, the questions should still be asked. The internet is fully of liars and cheats, and the so called 'truth' sites are some of the worst offenders.0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »This thread is making my eyes bleed. So many hecklers who offer nothing except "your ****". This is what happens when you pretend to be sceptical and in fact all your doing is swallowing the official CT of Osama and friends with boxcutters, you have to disregard any and all anomalies or the whole house of cards falls down.
Bring a gun on a plane in 2001, good chance to be caught... bring a knife in 2001 and little chance of being caught. In 2001 the accepted way to deal with hijackings was to follow the hijackers commands. The idea of using planes as weapons had come up in books, films and in some security reports. I really can't see the mystery.Brown Bomber wrote: »Jennings, because of his position speaks with authority. Jennings claimed unequivocally on camera that there was explosions in building 7 before either tower 1 or 2 came down.
I don't think anyone would disagree that he heard explosions. I think the issue lies with people thinking explosion = bomb. A fridge might explode if it was in a fire, lot's of things can explode in the right circumstances. 2 big planes had slammed into 2 big buildings, debris started fires in a third. I'd be shocked if they're weren't explosions. And the funny thing is to believe the main CT about WTC7 you need to accept that thermite was used and thermite doesn't explode.Brown Bomber wrote: »This completely contradicts the official story. This creates a serious problem if you espouse the official and as yet unproven bin Laden CT.
Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. That said there are hundreds of eye witnesses and their testimony is quite similar. Barry Jennings was happy to clarify what he said, so why believe him the first time and then not the second time?Brown Bomber wrote: »Now if we are sufficently open-minded enought to consider other possibilities it is plausible that whoever committed the grand crime and has gotten away with it would go to any means to cover up such a crime; including taking out key witnesses who could potentially implicate them. Jennings certainly falls into that category.
I think what you're saying here is if we've got enough imagination or have read enough fiction.Brown Bomber wrote: »Then if you add in the secrecy of his death, and the apparent dissapearing of his family then you have grounds for suspicion. That is all that is being said here.
He was not a famous man other than his eye witness accounts of 911. And he stayed firmly out of the media after 911 other than that BBC documentary. Seemed he liked his privacy. Other than his friends, family and the CT sites who exactly would take note of his passing. Given the way some CT'ers have behaved it makes perfect sense to me that his family are keeping a low profile.Brown Bomber wrote: »I mean how the **** are you supposed to prove that someone has dissapeared? All being fair he should have had a significant obituary, he was a hero in probably the most significant event, in terms of implications in most, if not all of our lifetimes.
Well firstly you hire someone to look from them, you don't hire someone, then call it off, then claim they have indeed disappeared even though you have no idea. Surviving an event doesn't make you a hero by default btw.Brown Bomber wrote: »As for the private investigator issue, demands of proof there is just more juvenile point-scoring. He may or may not be telling the truth, but to dismiss it purely because of your anti-CT stance is counter productive. Assuming its true, and it is plausable, Avery is hardly going to give out any further information than he has done already as it would implicate the investigator.
Person A: Did you hear Jonny disappeared?
Person B. No way, where did you hear that?
Person A. I wanted interview him and I couldn't find him.
Person B. Do you know him well?
Person A. No. not really at all.
Person B. So did you ring him or call at his house?
Person A. Well he moved and I don't have his number.
Person B. Okay but how do you know he's disappeared?
Person A. Well I hired a PI to check.
Person B. Makes sense. What did he find?
Person A. Well he didn't actually find anything
Person B. So he's really missing then?
Person A. Well...he didn't want me hassling the guy so wouldn't take the job.
Person B. O k a y. So you have no idea if he's actually missing then?
Person A. No I'm sure he's missing.
Person B. But maybe he moved away for a quiet life.
Person A. No I'm sure he's missing.
Person B. Would you not just get another PI?
Person A. No I'm sure he's missing.
etc etc.
I'm getting the feeling that critical thinking is being equated with an anti-CT stance around here.0 -
Advertisement
-
demonspawn wrote: »Dude, what are you smoking? It's Dylan Avery himself explaining everything that happened. What part of that confuses you so much? Oh, I guess Dylan Avery is lying about hiring a PI because..........?
And now I will no longer respond to your posts. You've proven yourself to be completely incapable of debunking even the most ludicrous of CTs so I won't waste any more of my time entertaining you. Enjoy the gas chambers.
A question, why would they kill Barry Jennings, who would be relatively minor in the whole conspiracy theory, and leave Dylan Avery alive?0 -
Where have I seen that pasted before? Ah yeah, just before "Na na na na na naa!". Save it, Your obviously clever but you don't seem as open minded as you'd like to think you are.
I did click on it, I prefer real magic to stage magic, and although it's a good quote, it's completely inaccurate and only serves the ego.
And if you read what I said before carefully, you'd realize that I didn't "use it" to judge your character, I am very capable of reading someone's card without depending on something like that.That doesn't cut it as an answer. I'll consider that 1 unanswered question, and 1 ignored one.
Another unanswered question, I'm going to stop counting now.What you asked was..
To answer your first question: yes, there is documentary film of Barry Jennings giving his testimony as an eyewitness on the day, that implicates certain leaders of the world's largest superpower, in conspiracy and mass murder.
Your ridiculous second question is answered by the absence* of documentary film of Mary McAleese giving evidence that implcates her son-in-law in murder.
I just answered it, Yes there is.
I made a similar if made up claim That I did the same yet found the Jennings family.
There is no difference at all between his story and mine, there simply isn't any evidence other than his word that it happened.
Unfortunately that's not good enough for me, cause I don't believe everything I'm told.I will give something the benefit of the doubt until I know for sure, one way or the other. It was like that on 9/11 before the buildings imploded, and it was like that yesterday when the Jennings video started.
I saw and heard Barry Jennings on that video with my own eyes and ears, telling all of us that he "knew" he was stepping on Bodies. There is no room for misinterpretation on our part. The question is, do you believe Barry Jennings or not? and Why?
If you want to argue that the interviewer said he "saw" instead of "knew", then go ahead but it's nitpicking. Arguing that point is like arguing a spelling mistake, it really has no value except to derail the thread, and you won't get any input from me on the matter. If you ask me, using such a lame argument to try and disprove an entire thread is a massive fail. But as a tool of the corrupt, it may seem to work if nobody argues with you, but in reality it doesn't have any merit, it's just ****.I never heard you say that about the official story. Where's the evidence there?This is a question about whether the PI was hired or not, I never said I believe that one way or the other, and why should I believe your argument's over Dylan's?You haven't provided anything to support your story either.
Come to mention it, generally speaking you haven't given much in the line of links or any evidence to prove or disprove anything.
Go look it up.
And in the meantime can you point out any positive claims I made that require me to back them up?You say your open minded, where's the proof? I have yet to see a decent post from you, which counters any official story.I'm going to walk through this once in this thread, I don't expect to have to do it again. Your "question" was...
Your question could have been phrased like this......followed by your dismissive opinion/comment...
Again, the answer to this is evident from the video. If the official story is that "fire" caused a building to implode, then the last thing you want is a survivor talking about explosions and dead bodies in the lobby. That's enough to get people with open minds to ask questions.
There are plenty of other witnesses who are taken out of context to prove the exact same stuff.
Why not kill them?
Or as has been pointed out why not kill Avery?The word "privacy" still means something to most people, thank God.
Perhaps you should raise the issue of "murder" with the police when you ring them tomorrow, looking for the president's daughter's address.So your solution is to not bother trying?
Maybe a relatively known person to you, but I never even knew she had kids, let alone three of them. Nevertheless, I honored your request and found out what I could, the least you could have done is made an effort.
Yet you can't find out any details about her, home, phone, nothing.
So why do you expect to find some random family in America?Well, evidence is evidence, either it's there or it's not. I believe that evidence of nothing is not the same as no evidence, though.*
I'm guessing that for this example, it's kind of like this... If you made a rabbit disappear, and some kid said "where's the rabbit?", you would reply "what rabbit?", then do a little "win" dance with yourself. Very persuasive, but not very honorable.It took me a while to figure this sentence out, there is probably some punctuation missing, maybe a word, I don't know. I thought it was nonsense at first.
The fact is, that people are taking on your questions, more than your taking on theirs.0 -
Mahatma coat wrote: »well to be technical you never claim anything, you just dance around in circles making retarded Counterclaims and annoyin the Sh!te out of People
But I don't need to make many positive claims to ask questions.
But I guess asking questions around here is a bit of a no-no....Mahatma coat wrote: »But Whats wrong with the contact info for Emma Macalese?????
Its fairly straightforward, ring that number during Irish office hours and ask if she's Dead.
If they say Yes, then lo and behold you were right and theres a whole massive nother conspiracy that we need ta be investigating, if they say no and try to keep you on the line I'd suggest running away before special Branch get there;)
Address, personal phone number and someone who has seen them in the last 6 months.
So how is that fair that you think you can just provide the Presidents number? Why can't you find the details you asked for?
Shouldn't it be easy?Mahatma coat wrote: »As for the Jennings Issue, the original point was, if they havent disapeared they should be easy to find,Mahatma coat wrote: »especially to someone like Dylan Avery who dedicates his time to things like that,Mahatma coat wrote: »but he Hired a P.I and that P.I Had a quick look and then decided he'd be better off not looking. thats as much info as we have, thats what lead to our conclusion, like I said if you cant find Emma Macalese tomorrow morning then we should start gettin suspicious about the situation.
He could just be entirely imagining the story.
So why exactly do you believe him?0 -
Jeboa Safari wrote: »A question, why would they kill Barry Jennings, who would be relatively minor in the whole conspiracy theory, and leave Dylan Avery alive?
He was a respected City Official and a Witness.If the official story is that "fire" caused a building to implode, then the last thing you want is a survivor talking about explosions and dead bodies in the lobby. That's enough to get people with open minds to ask questions.0 -
-
If the official story is that "fire" caused a building to implode, then the last thing you want is a survivor talking about explosions and dead bodies in the lobby. That's enough to get people with open minds to ask questions.
Who says that that the building imploded? It collapsed after fire and debris damage weakened a critical structure on a single floor. Jennings is clear enough about the heat of fires inside the building when he was there. What he's also clear enough about is that he didn't see any bodies in the lobby - and the video footage of the lobby on the day shows no bodies. If there were any bodies there at a later point in the day, they were moved from other wtc buildings - wtc7 was evacuated early on in the day, and only emergency workers and a few maintainance people remained after that point.0 -
Jeboa Safari wrote: »Right well that still doesn't explain why they'd leave Dylan Avery alive and kill him, Dylan Avery seems to be doing alot more than him and is still allowed to roam free making more claims?
I'd have thought it was obvious. Think about it.0 -
Joshua Jones wrote: »I'd have thought it was obvious. Think about it.
If he was so high profile and all why was he killed and Avery not?
Unless Jeboa Safari was right in saying that Jennings was relatively minor.0 -
The 'importance' of Jennings statements seem to just relate to the explosions he heard, and time of explosions. I've no doubt he heard booming noises, but that neither supports the thermite/thermate/nano-thermite nonsense, and nor does it support any conventional demolition explosives theory, given that whatever he heard fell far short of the sort of noise they actually make, and there wasn't any corresponding seismographic readings.0
-
Jeboa Safari wrote: »Right well that still doesn't explain why they'd leave Dylan Avery alive and kill him, Dylan Avery seems to be doing alot more than him and is still allowed to roam free making more claims?But wasn't Jennings City Official and a Witness?
If he was so high profile and all why was he killed and Avery not?
Unless Jeboa Safari was right in saying that Jennings was relatively minor.
If you really want to know, you'd phone the FBI, CIA, NSA or whoever you think might know.
"Jennings was a City Official and a Witness" is all I said, why do you people say he was "relatively minor" then say he was "so high profile"?
Maybe if Avery was killed, there would be too many "coincidences" to deny? I don't know.0 -
Advertisement
-
What are you asking me for?
If you really want to know, you'd phone the FBI, CIA, NSA or whoever you think might know.
"Jennings was a City Official and a Witness" is all I said, why do you people say he was "relatively minor" then say he was "so high profile"?
Maybe if Avery was killed, there would be too many "coincidences" to deny? I don't know.
Because if your theory was coherent you'd be able to supply a coherent answer.
If you are claiming he was killed because of his testimony you must explain why others who give the same aren't killed.
If you are claiming he was killed because he was a high profile and credible witness you must then explain why they didn't just kill Avery.
Oh and also you'd actually have to show he was murdered...
Slight little issue.0 -
A bit more respect to each other wouldn't go astray on this thread....0
-
Who says that that the building imploded? It collapsed after fire and debris damage weakened a critical structure on a single floor.
I feel embarrassed for anyone who still argues that it was "fire" that caused the wtc7 demolition.Jennings is clear enough about the heat of fires inside the building when he was there.What he's also clear enough about is that he didn't see any bodies in the lobby - and the video footage of the lobby on the day shows no bodies.
In the video we don't see much of the lobby at all, we see more of the escalator and even then, just a few seconds. Everything is covered in dust and debris, you could be looking at a part of a body and not recognize it, but you'd know what it feels like under your feet.If there were any bodies there at a later point in the day, they were moved from other wtc buildingswtc7 was evacuated early on in the day, and only emergency workers and a few maintainance people remained after that point.
Jennings was the Emergency Coordinator at the Office of Emergency Management, located in wtc7, he was called into work after the first plane hit. He was on the 23rd floor when the second plane hit.
His office should have had it's busiest day ever, instead he found it already abandoned.
When he and Hess were going down the stairs past floor 6, they witnessed an explosion below them and were blown back by the blast. This is before either of the two towers fell.
They made it out after both skyscrapers had come down, and were told by a police officer that "we have reports of more explosions" and you better run.
Why was building 7 evacuated?
What caused the explosion at the bottom?
What other explosions was the police officer talking about?
Did someone attempt to demolish the building just after plane #2 but failed?The 'importance' of Jennings statements seem to just relate to the explosions he heard, and time of explosions. I've no doubt he heard booming noises, but that neither supports the thermite/thermate/nano-thermite nonsense, and nor does it support any conventional demolition explosives theory, given that whatever he heard fell far short of the sort of noise they actually make,
Are you some kind of explosives expert?
How do you know "what he heard"?
Listen for yourself.and there wasn't any corresponding seismographic readings.
Would you please back this up?
A Seismograph from South Manhattan, New York at the exact date and time would be adequate.
Also, In your opinion, how would that explosion escape a seismograph?0 -
Did you see the entire unedited interview? No?
Here it is
http://blip.tv/file/1064938
What do you make of it? And remember, he was actually there.
His turnaround on the BBC documentary makes it more likely to me that he was having his arm twisted by someone.
As for not being able to find information on random person(s), well thats more bollox. Someone who has posted in this thread I was able to find just from their signature and posting history who they are, what they look like and what they do.
(I won't be sharing by PM or otherwise)
I'll give you other examples.
In this thread on Abuelazam (The Israeli-serial-stabber) from a single news interview by his ex-father-in-law I had enough to go on to find where he works, his exact home adress, his home phone number, wifes name, childrens names, his freemasonic lodge and other **** I can't remember.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055999963&highlight=abuelazam&page=3
And here in the Times Square fizzler thread with nothing more than names to go on myself and Enno connect 2 witnesses (exactly like Jennings) to Obama, the FBI and the Mafia.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055901235&highlight=Times+Square&page=30 -
If you are claiming he was killed because he was a high profile and credible witness you must then explain why they didn't just kill Avery.
That doesn't take much thinking about to be fair.
Jennings >>>> Eye-Witness to multiple explosions in building 7 before any towers fell which flys in the face of the official conspiracy theory.
Avery >>>> A Conspiracy theory film maker.
hmmmm.......Wonder who's the bigger threat to exposing their crime0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »Jennings >>>> Eye-Witness to multiple explosions in building 7 before any towers fell which flys in the face of the official conspiracy theory.0
-
Brown Bomber wrote: »His turnaround on the BBC documentary makes it more likely to me that he was having his arm twisted by someone.
But you've tons of evidence Jennings was ever threatened.Brown Bomber wrote: »As for not being able to find information on random person(s), well thats more bollox. Someone who has posted in this thread I was able to find just from their signature and posting history who they are, what they look like and what they do.
(I won't be sharing by PM or otherwise)0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »Jennings >>>> Eye-Witness to multiple explosions in building 7 before any towers fell which flys in the face of the official conspiracy theory.Brown Bomber wrote: »Avery >>>> A Conspiracy theory film maker.Brown Bomber wrote: »hmmmm.......Wonder who's the bigger threat to exposing their crime
And that the best way to eliminate a threat is to kill him, even though apparently it's in your power to have him simply disappear?
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Please explain what you mean, using examples.
Like any of the videos posted above where people say stuff like "It sounded like and explosion".
"Sounds like an explosion" does not mean "I heard explosives".
Conflating these two pharsess or implying they mean he same thing is taking them out of context.
Now why weren't the dozens of witness trotted out in the videos above murdered?
Why was the guy who made the film?0 -
Or it could be a known liar took his words out of context and exaggerated them for his own ends?
But you've tons of evidence Jennings was ever threatened.
I bet you won't.....
meaning what?
Otherwise quit the bull**** about taking words out of context. I've posted the uncut interview for you.0 -
Let me try this one more time...
A bit more respect wouldn't go astray here.
0 -
demonspawn wrote: »
nice post. Did someone mention that Jennings was misquoted lol.
Ya gotta laugh at some of these gobsh****
Did he misquote himself ? lmao0 -
Regarding the WTC7 collapse, why would "they" go to such elaborate lengths to bring the two towers down in such an incredulous way i.e. the planes, and then bring down the smaller tower using a method which, according to those engineers and architects, bears the unmistakable footprint of a controlled explosion?0
-
Regarding the WTC7 collapse, why would "they" go to such elaborate lengths to bring the two towers down in such an incredulous way i.e. the planes, and then bring down the smaller tower using a method which, according to those engineers and architects, bears the unmistakable footprint of a controlled explosion?
I'm just throwing this out there but perhaps the Shanksville plane was supposed to hit WTC7 but never made it.0 -
Advertisement
-
demonspawn wrote: »Sorry Bonkey, but this guy has repeatedly refused to accept even the most irrefutable evidence and puts forward no argument whatsoever. He dismisses this whole CT as a lie then claims to be open-minded, which even the most hardcore skeptic would take offense to. I don't see how that benefits this thread or the CT forum in general.
What irrefutable evidence?Edit: He even goes so far as to accuse Avery of misquoting a videotaped interview with Jennings. wtf?
Here's a quote from Jennings:The writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery, told The Conspiracy Files: "The amount of detail that Barry gave us in this interview was unreal. He says he was stepping over dead bodies in the lobby."
Barry Jennings himself disagrees with their interpretation of his words. Barry Jennings told the BBC: "I didn't like the way you know I was portrayed. They portrayed me as seeing dead bodies. I never saw dead bodies"
Now, you never answered my question, why would they kill Jennings, but leave someone like Avery, who seems to be doing much more to "blow their cover", alive?0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »I'm just throwing this out there but perhaps the Shanksville plane was supposed to hit WTC7 but never made it.
Given that it didn't crash though, surely it would have made more sense to then call off the bombing in WTC7 rather than leave the "evidence" they did?0 -
I think David Lynch sums it up pretty well.you don't have to believe everything in documentary for questions to come up.0
-
Jeboa Safari wrote: »Now, you never answered my question, why would they kill Jennings, but leave someone like Avery, who seems to be doing much more to "blow their cover", alive?
Jennings eye-witness.
Avery not eye-witness.0 -
Brown Bomber wrote: »Jennings eye-witness.
Avery not eye-witness.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement