9/11 media happenings

[Jazzz]

You are taking the piss now. Last i heard NORAD wasn't responsible for preventing drive by shootings, yet the gunman will be "air breathing". Could it be that you're taking an offhand remark and misinterpreting? YET A-FUCKING-GAIN?

In fact, don't answer that you useless waste of oxygen. You still owe me a couple of explanations, especially the one about how you manage not to read the responses i wasted time writing for your education.

that's their words, you twit;

NORAD provides aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. In short, the command monitors any potential air or space threat to the two nations, provides warning and assessment of that threat for both governments and responds defensively to any air-breathing threat to North America.

source

...and that came up in discussion with you last time up, so jeez.

 

[kyser_soze]

Prepared statement Air Force Gen. Howell M. Estes III, commander in chief, North American Aerospace Defense Command and, Senate Armed Services Committee,, Thursday, March 13, 1997

So this would be before or after NORAD turned off the internal threats radar as was revealed in subsequent post 9/11 hearings when the Pentagon admitted that it swtiched the system on and off to save money, and your basing you 'guarantee' that NORAD 'responds defensively to any air-breathing threat to North America' on a 10 year old prepared statement?

Dearie me...

 

[Jazzz]

So this would be before or after NORAD turned off the internal threats radar as was revealed in subsequent post 9/11 hearings when the Pentagon admitted that it swtiched the system on and off to save money

The defence of the USA is like central heating?

<falls off chair>

I'm afraid I missed that bit. It's nearly as hilarious as the reasoning given in the BBC documentary about failure to intercept being due to jets taking off in the wrong direction.


"Oh dear, the radar's gone again. Anyone got 50cents to put in the meter? No? Oh well, have to go without for a bit"

Do you really believe this crap?

 

[kyser_soze]

Well a couple of years ago when the Pentagon got pulled up for lying to the 9/11 commission about the general state of readiness of NORAD to respond to threats generally, but internal threats in particular, and it was found that they'd been passing the blame around to just about everyone else for what amounted to Pentagon failures.

What's even funnier is that you don't remember the thread you started about it crowing about how the Pentagon were 'liars' until it was pointed out that their admission before the Armed Services Committee rather undermined all the arguments the truth seekers were making about how NORAD should have responded.

The defence of the USA is like central heating?

No, but the vast network of radars etc that NORAD had costs LOTS of money to switch on - money that was incresaingly unavailable to it to spend in the 1990s with the 'peace divdend' cutting into defence spending (not to mention the money going into far more sexy porjects like SDI, UAVs, improving satellite coverage).

The Pentagon admitted it lied to cover it's ass at the 9/11 Commission about the readiness of NORAD, so quite why it's suddenly cropping up again is beyond me...

 

[Jazzz]

So they've told fibs to the 9/11 Commission, they admit it themselves, and this gives you confidence that it all makes sense?

Jesus they might as well say that US airspace was only defended on Thursdays, or that 9/11 succeeded because Betty the radar girl hadn't got to work yet

 

[Techno303]

So they've told fibs to the 9/11 Commission, they admit it themselves, and this gives you confidence that it all makes sense?

Jesus they might as well say that US airspace was only defended on Thursdays, or that 9/11 succeeded because Betty the radar girl hadn't got to work yet

Seems a hell of a lot more reasonable than any of your other wacko ideas Jazzz.

 

[Jazzz]

Rosie O'Donnell has come out in 9/11 Truth Colours

(she's quite big in the US, apparently)

 

[Yossarian]

Rosie believes? Well, why didn't you say so sooner? Sign me up as a truther, where can I get a T-shirt?

 

[editor]

Rosie O'Donnell has come out in 9/11 Truth Colours

(she's quite big in the US, apparently)

Oh well, that'll really tell those stupid folks at Protec where to get off with their fancy demolition expertise and carefully considered analysis!

If Rosie believes then that's good enough for me.

What does Jerry Springer think? That's very important too.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I'm under no obligation to indulge anyone's interrogations. Maybe you try posting on a thread where simply stating your position will have ten posters throwing incessant questions and also a load of personal shit at you - after 50 pages you might just get a bit tired too.

So, yet again, you are running away from something that rips a central part of your argument to shreds, yet are happy to let us know about the views of an American TV star.

Pathetic.

"Light on substance" was your view earlier in the thread - care to back that up? Or are we to assume that you simply can't?

 

[Jazzz]

So, yet again, you are running away from something that rips a central part of your argument to shreds, yet are happy to let us know about the views of an American TV star.

Pathetic.

"Light on substance" was your view earlier in the thread - care to back that up? Or are we to assume that you simply can't?

Hey - I've never come across any poster here that has attempted any kind of point-by-point rebuttal of say, Steve Jones' paper, which is peer-reviewed, the PROTEC offering is not.

But tell you what, if you want to choose your three top points of that report, I'll address those.

I'm sorry but I don't see I need spend all my time helping you guys out

 

[editor]

Hey - I've never come across any poster here that has attempted any kind of point-by-point rebuttal of say, Steve Jones' paper, which is peer-reviewed, the PROTEC offering is not.

And that'll be the <guffaw> paper from the his-own-University-shunned Jones "peer reviewed" by who exactly, Jazzz? What are their qualifications? Have they any relevant qualifications?

I must have asked you about 10 times and each time you wriggled away in an astonishing act of denial.

Breathtaking dishonesty.

Meanwhile the Protec report has real names attached to it and their qualifications and experience are clearly of the highest order. So why are you completely ignoring their findings? That doesn't make much sense if you're supposedly seeking the rtuth!

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Hey - I've never come across any poster here that has attempted any kind of point-by-point rebuttal of say, Steve Jones' paper, which is peer-reviewed, the PROTEC offering is not.

But tell you what, if you want to choose your three top points of that report, I'll address those.

I'm sorry but I don't see I need spend all my time helping you guys out

So, in other words, you're running away again.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Jazzz]

And that'll be the <guffaw> paper from the his-own-University-shunned Jones "peer reviewed" by who exactly, Jazzz? What are their qualifications? Have they any relevant qualifications?

Do you want to tell me the names of people that have peer-reviewed any paper?

 

[Jazzz]

So, in other words, you're running away again.

Why am I not surprised?

Not at all. You are! I invited you to pick your three top points from your entirely non-peer reviewed work. Forgive me, but just waving a link around and demanding I debate with that is not the way it works. Unless of course, you want to address the entirety of Steve Jones' paper.

 

[Jazzz]

Meanwhile the Protec report has real names attached to it and their qualifications and experience are clearly of the highest order. So why are you completely ignoring their findings? That doesn't make much sense if you're supposedly seeking the rtuth!

Not the names of peer-reviewers.

 

[kyser_soze]

So they've told fibs to the 9/11 Commission, they admit it themselves, and this gives you confidence that it all makes sense?

Jesus they might as well say that US airspace was only defended on Thursdays, or that 9/11 succeeded because Betty the radar girl hadn't got to work yet

Well yeah, and you did when it first came to light until someone pointed out that it blew a hole into the 'NORAD should've responded' thread of the CTer narrative.

 

[editor]

Not the names of peer-reviewers.

Do you know if the "peer reviewers" are actually qualified in the relevant areas of expertise needed YES/NO?

Do you agree that if they are not qualified in the relevant areas of expertise then claiming it to be "peer reviewed" is an entirely hollow claim YES/NO?

 

[Jazzz]

As it's been peer-reviewed, that means that it has been reviewed by people with the necessary expertise. HTH

 

[Techno303]

Do you know if the "peer reviewers" are actually qualified in the relevant areas of expertise needed YES/NO?

Do you agree that if they are not qualified in the relevant areas of expertise then claiming it to be "peer reviewed" is an entirely hollow claim YES/NO?

I'd like to see Jazzz's reply to this question.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Hey - I've never come across any poster here that has attempted any kind of point-by-point rebuttal of say, Steve Jones' paper, which is peer-reviewed, the PROTEC offering is not.

Liar liar pants on fire.

You just never read them you hypocritical little toad.

 

[Techno303]

As it's been peer-reviewed, that means that it has been reviewed by people with the necessary expertise. HTH

Necessary expertise in what? What journal is it published in?

 

[WouldBe]

And that'll be the <guffaw> paper from the his-own-University-shunned Jones "peer reviewed" by who exactly, Jazzz? What are their qualifications? Have they any relevant qualifications?

Is that the same paper (mentioned earlier in this(?) thread) that got turned down for publication and is currently undergoing 'intensive re-working'?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Is that the same paper (mentioned earlier in this(?) thread) that got turned down for publication and is currently undergoing 'intensive re-working'?

No it's the one that was "peer reviewed" by his own organisation of fruitloops.

 

[kyser_soze]

No one has ever claimed the Protec assessment has been peer reviewed - however it is written by a company with a long history in the demolition trade and draws some basic, experience led commonsense points and does not make claims about WTC7 - what it does do is comment on things like the 'molten metal' commentary; about the 'the steel was just shipped off to China without anyone looking at it', dispelling many of the half truths that the 'Truth Movement' peddles as established fact.

It's also the case that you have steadfastly refused to comment on it's contents, especially the comments of those experienced in demolition about the logistical impossibilty of wiring towers 1&2 with demolition charges, either before or during the period when the planes hit the towers.

As for Dr Jones' 'peer review' process...he's being peer reviewed by other academics within the 9/11 truth movement. This isn't how peer review is conducted in a magazine like Nature...

 

[Andy the Don]

As it's been peer-reviewed, that means that it has been reviewed by people with the necessary expertise. HTH

That would be the same level of peer reviewing that slacker pile of crap which you put so much faith in Loose Change was reviewed to..??
I would also like to see the credentials of the peer reviewers of the websites to which you link.

 

[WouldBe]

No it's the one that was "peer reviewed" by his own organisation of fruitloops.

and then underwent 'significant modifications' after the so called peer review which surely means it's no longer peer reviewed.

 

[Techno303]

and then underwent 'significant modifications' after the so called peer review which surely means it's no longer peer reviewed.

Farcical. No wonder the academic institution he was working told him to fuck off.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Not at all. You are! I invited you to pick your three top points from your entirely non-peer reviewed work. Forgive me, but just waving a link around and demanding I debate with that is not the way it works

Errr, hang on a sec - it was YOU who claimed that the towers were brought down by CD. It has been a central point of your arguments pretty much since day one. That Protec report (written by people qualified in the appropriate field) rips your claim to shreds, and you still refuse to somment on it.

As for Jones and his paper:

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm


And as you're bleating on about peer review:

http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

Over to you

 

[Jazzz]

That would be the same level of peer reviewing that slacker pile of crap which you put so much faith in Loose Change was reviewed to..??
I would also like to see the credentials of the peer reviewers of the websites to which you link.

I've never claimed that 'Loose Change' was peer-reviewed. Nor have I 'put faith in it'. Don't get me wrong, I think its well worth watching but as a introduction. There is no question it has flaws.