9/11 media happenings

[8den]

More dishonesty

I wasn't accusing you of anything.

Ahem

he <8den>was failing to answer some question of mine, claiming that he'd already answered it a few dozen times and if I didn't like the answer that was up to me.

Thats a direct accusation, how on earth is it hypothetical?

To avoid confusion in future, I'll be sure to keep your name out of any hypothetical points I make. Have a nice day!

Hey Jazzz you pigfucker. Just a hypothetical accusation that you rape farm animals.

 

[Structaural]

It doesn't take ages to look:

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

He's also pretty conservative for his figures used.

There's some great stuff on that site:

Was the Death Star Attack an Inside Job?

'We’ve all heard the “official conspiracy theory” of the Death Star attack. We all know about Luke Skywalker and his ragtag bunch of rebels, how they mounted a foolhardy attack on the most powerful, well-defended battle station ever built. And we’ve all seen the video over, and over, and over, of the one-in-a-million shot that resulted in a massive chain reaction that not just damaged, but completely obliterated that massive technological wonder.

Like many, I was fed this story when I was growing up. But as I watched the video, I began to realize that all was not as it seemed. And the more I questioned the official story, the deeper into the rabbit hole I went.

Presented here are some of the results of my soul-searching regarding this painful event. Like many citizens, I have many questions that I would like answered: was the mighty Imperial government really too incompetent to prevent a handful of untrained nerf-herders from destroying one of their most prized assets? Or are they hiding something from us? Who was really behind the attack? Why did they want the Death Star destroyed? No matter what the answers, we have a problem.'

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Hey Jazzz you pigfucker. Just a hypothetical accusation that you rape farm animals.

This is going a bit far....

There is a debate of sorts to be had here, let's try not to get too cuaght up in mudslinging....

 

[8den]

This is going a bit far....

There is a debate of sorts to be had here, let's try not to get too cuaght up in mudslinging....

Fine. I apologise, but Jazzz's behaviour is reprehensible, claiming I'm avoiding questions, and then when getting called on it, he dances around and claims "Oh gosh it was just a hypothetical don't get your knickers in a twist". How much lying deceitful bullshit must one guy spew?

 

[Jazzz]

Ahem

Thats a direct accusation, how on earth is it hypothetical?

Hey Jazzz you pigfucker. Just a hypothetical accusation that you rape farm animals.

I see you didn't quote me in full. This is what I said

I mean, imagine if I reported a post of 8den's, not because he called me a "pathetic rancid excuse for a human being" - which one understands to be quite fine around here these days, apparently - but because he was failing to answer some question of mine, claiming that he'd already answered it a few dozen times and if I didn't like the answer that was up to me. I'd be surprised not to be roundly ticked off for wasting moderator's time.

Is it not clear from that what I mean? How can I possibly be having a go at you for not answering my imaginary questions (which I certainly don't ask you, because I choose as little to do with you as possible) when I am saying that I would be in the wrong for doing so? The reason you were mentioned at all was to contrast editor's ridiculous beef with me with your very real personal abuse, which he was ignoring.

Lordy!

 

[editor]

The reason you were mentioned at all was to contrast editor's ridiculous beef with me with your very real personal abuse, which he was ignoring.

Did you report his comments?
No, you did not.
Did I ask him to stop his abusive comments?
Yes, I did.
So did I "ignore" him?
No I did not.

I see your ability to tell the truth remains as inept as ever.

So, are you going to answer my questions about your 'thermite' claims or do you intend to keep on proving that you're only here to promote the Kult of the Kookie Konspiracy?

 

[Jazzz]

Did you report his comments?
No, you did not.
Did I ask him to stop his abusive comments?
Yes, I did.
So did I "ignore" him?
No I did not.

I did not report his comments; I don't give a fuck about them.

I was simply comparing your silly stick-waving at some imagined wrongdoing of mine with a glaring piece of personal abuse (and indeed, threat of violence) that you were ignoring. Which you were when I wrote the post.

You are also, at present, ignoring his last 'pig-fucker' reference, which seeing as you told him to cease his nonsense shows that you are only pulling him as an afterthought when you feel obliged to.

But don't think this is about 8den. I am just pointing out your utterly bizarre moderation strategies.

 

[editor]

am just pointing out your utterly bizarre moderation strategies.

What's really bizarre is how I let you carry on trolling these forums with your lunatic theories.

 

[Jazzz]

Oh, a puzzle indeed. Could it be because I'm not actually a troll?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Anyhoos..........

Jazzz - Fancy having a crack at my queries in post #3562?

 

[Jazzz]

Anyhoos..........

Jazzz - Fancy having a crack at my queries in post #3562?

ah yes.

An explanation of how the towers collapsed that I find satisfactory.

This might come as a surprise - I don't have one. Well, not in much greater detail than 'they were demolished'. I can say that. I can theorise that thermite was used - this might offer an explanation for the well-documented pools of molten metal which burned for weeks and the other observations mentioned by Steve Jones. I can suggest that conventional explosives applied the coup-de-grace. There are other more outlandish scenarios knocking around too, such as mini-nukes and extraordinary devices that the US military might have up their sleeves. Who knows? Not me.

But I would bet every possession I have on what didn't happen, and that's the official collapse hypothesis. In the words of Sherlock Holmes, when you eliminate the impossible, etc etc.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I can theorise that thermite was used

But this is the bit I don't understand - the evidence against thermite being used is overwhelming - what is it that makes you ignore this? There must be some evidence that makes you think the way you do?

 

[axon]

But I would bet every possession I have on what didn't happen, and that's the official collapse hypothesis.

Why? I've still yet to see you explain why planes and fires could not have led to the collapse.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

observations mentioned by Steve Jones

Again, what is it that makes you accept someone like Steve Jones, yet dismiss people far more qualified to talk on the subject? I know you have a distrust of authority (hell, so do I), but it does seem that rather than questioning it - as is the correct thing to do in my opinion, you simply dismiss it out of hand...

 

[Jazzz]

Again, you're trying to translate my thinking into yours. As you should well know, I have been saying much the same for a very long time, certainly, long before Steve Jones came on the scene publicly. So why do you make out I am following anyone? If I think Steve Jones is worth paying attention to, it's for the same reason as another poster on urban75 - I think he makes very good points, points which I do not see any official source answering (the only rebuttal of his paper comes from some computer programmer).

 

[Jazzz]

Why? I've still yet to see you explain why planes and fires could not have led to the collapse.

Did you read the thread?

 

[editor]

As you should well know, I have been saying much the same for a very long time, certainly, long before Steve Jones came on the scene publicly.

Are you saying that you were banging on about thermite before the weaselly, own-university-shunned, comedy 'peer reviewed' bullshitter Jones dreamt it up?

 

[editor]

Oh, a puzzle indeed. Could it be because I'm not actually a troll?

You're either a troll or unhinged. The end result is much the same.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I have been saying much the same for a very long time... So why do you make out I am following anyone?

OK, if you aren't following anyone, you are certainly ignoring huge amounts of evidence that goes against your theories.

From what I can see you have started off with a conclusion, then worked backwards to find evidence to fit, dismissing that which doesn't support it - this is a fundamental flaw in your logic and reasoning.

 

[axon]

Did you read the thread?

Yes.
And I honestly haven't come across anything that addresses why planes and fires couldn't not have brought down the towers. If you think there has been could you point me to the post, or even better summarise what the reasons are?

 

[Jazzz]

Yes.
And I honestly haven't come across anything that addresses why planes and fires couldn't not have brought down the towers. If you think there has been could you point me to the post, or even better summarise what the reasons are?

Just taking the collapse in isolation, Steve Jones' paper is the best that I know. But if you aren't convinced, well that's up to you.

 

[Jazzz]

OK, if you aren't following anyone, you are certainly ignoring huge amounts of evidence that goes against your theories.

From what I can see you have started off with a conclusion, then worked backwards to find evidence to fit, dismissing that which doesn't support it - this is a fundamental flaw in your logic and reasoning.

That's exactly what I say NIST has done, along with ever increasing numbers, including 9/11 family members (as someone passed on to me today).

There's very little evidence that I am dismissing. I think you have got the logic mixed up. Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to think that observations in keeping with the official theory are actually evidence against controlled demolition; they aren't.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

you seem to think that evidence in keeping with the official theory is actually evidence against controlled demolition; it isn't.

No, I think the the evidence aginast controlled demolition is actually the evidence against controlled demolition.

There's very little evidence that I am dismissing

Errrr.... are you taking the piss?

 

[axon]

Just taking the collapse in isolation, Steve Jones' paper is the best that I know. But if you aren't convinced, well that's up to you.

Well reading the relevent parts of that paper (about the towers and planes etc) he seems to think that the fires could not have weakened the steel columns enough for them to fail. But he does no calculations to show why he think this, he just does as far as I can see. Also, I know that you don't put any weight on the source of information but do you think it was misleading of him to selective quote NIST on the sulpher compounds found in the debris but not their next sentence on the thousands of sulpher-containing computers in the towers?

Also he is a nut.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Just taking the collapse in isolation, Steve Jones' paper is the best that I know

This is what I mean by ignoring anything that contradicts what you believe - have you actually bothered to read the countless sites that tear Steve Jones paper to bits?

 

[Jazzz]

This is what I mean by ignoring anything that contradicts what you believe - have you actually bothered to read the countless sites that tear Steve Jones paper to bits?

You got one that is peer-reviewed? Why not?

I've found very little that addresses Jones' arguments, one very poor site by a computer programmer I believe.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I've found very little that addresses Jones' arguments, one very poor site by a computer programmer I believe.

If its the one I thiknk you mean it's anything but poor, it was a very well researched thing indeed...

 

[WouldBe]

You got one that is peer-reviewed? Why not?

I've found very little that addresses Jones' arguments, one very poor site by a computer programmer I believe.

Jones has heavily modified that paper since it was 'peer reviewed' so it not peer reviewd anymore.

That's like me getting backing from the pope for a plain english bible and when it goes to print it's a collection of grimms fairy tales.


E2A: When Jones says his paper has been 'peer reviewed' he probably means it was reviewed on a pier.

 

[Jazzz]

Jones has heavily modified that paper since it was 'peer reviewed' so it not peer reviewd anymore.

That's like me getting backing from the pope for a plain english bible and when it goes to print it's a collection of grimms fairy tales.


E2A: When Jones says his paper has been 'peer reviewed' he probably means it was reviewed on a pier.

What changes did he make exactly?

 

[WouldBe]

What changes did he make exactly?

Dunno. The last I saw on a conspiracy site IIRC he was still working on the modifications.