9/11 media happenings
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Oh and for those joining us a quick recap of this thread in the form of a dramatic interlude,
Jazzz is the black night.
The Architect, the laws of physics, the rest of the posters on this thread (dishonourable exclusion of Fela Fan natch) and sanity will be played by King Arthur.
Jazzz is the black night.
The Architect, the laws of physics, the rest of the posters on this thread (dishonourable exclusion of Fela Fan natch) and sanity will be played by King Arthur.
TheArchitect
New Member
Just to add to that recap, waaay back in the distant throes of this thread old Jazzzz was asked to sustantiate and support his case that there was incontrovertable proof that the US Government organised the death of 3,000 of its own men, women, and children in the WTC/Pentagon Attack.
Now you might foolishly assume that anyone accusing others of such a heinous crime might have looked into it before arriving at a conclusion. You'd be wrong.
Jazz claimed that there was proof from the firefighters themselves that there were only small fires. We proved this wrong.
Jazz claimed that the buildings fell at near free fall speed. We proved this wrong; in fact they were slowed by over 25% due to the resistance of the lowe structure.
Jazz claimed that the core columns would have stood without the outer structure, because they had a safety factor of 600%. Not only did we prove this wrong, but it turned out that he'd plucked the 600% figure out of thin air.
And so on.
But of course there was no telling Jazz. Apparently he knows more about structures than everyone else; me, structural engineers, NIST, the lot. Apparently there's nothing wrong with making up figures off the top of your head. And so on.
I confidently expect a rerun from the fool. Prepare to be dazzled by the Black Night once again.
Now you might foolishly assume that anyone accusing others of such a heinous crime might have looked into it before arriving at a conclusion. You'd be wrong.
Jazz claimed that there was proof from the firefighters themselves that there were only small fires. We proved this wrong.
Jazz claimed that the buildings fell at near free fall speed. We proved this wrong; in fact they were slowed by over 25% due to the resistance of the lowe structure.
Jazz claimed that the core columns would have stood without the outer structure, because they had a safety factor of 600%. Not only did we prove this wrong, but it turned out that he'd plucked the 600% figure out of thin air.
And so on.
But of course there was no telling Jazz. Apparently he knows more about structures than everyone else; me, structural engineers, NIST, the lot. Apparently there's nothing wrong with making up figures off the top of your head. And so on.
I confidently expect a rerun from the fool. Prepare to be dazzled by the Black Night once again.
TheArchitect
New Member
Jazzz said:Oh do you want to explain why TA was right about the DCR ratios then?
Have you wondered where TA has got to?
Rreading comprehension was never your stong point Jazz, was it? The last time I was here it was because I was ill and had spare time to argue with you instead of....wait for it......actually doing my job of designing tall buildings.
But I've just had an athroscopic synovectomy, so I'm back for a week!
8den said:
At least that would be better than a repeat of his nonsense.
TheArchitect
New Member
I would have more respect for his nonsense if he'd actually ever been able to put together a case. It was/is like battering your head off of a brick wall.
For example, Jazz got all upset when I pointed out that the external envelope carried half the weight of the floors. How did I know this? Well, not to put too fine a point on it, one end rested on it. He seemed to think that the floors were some sort of massive cantilever or something. Sheesh.
For example, Jazz got all upset when I pointed out that the external envelope carried half the weight of the floors. How did I know this? Well, not to put too fine a point on it, one end rested on it. He seemed to think that the floors were some sort of massive cantilever or something. Sheesh.
TheArchitect
New Member
<tumbleweed blows gently across the street>
TheArchitect
New Member
fela fan said:
My, what an incisive and witty argument. Tell me, do you have anything meaningful to add to the discussion at hand? Are you, in fact, able to add any meaningful technical input? It would be a first for you on this thread, as I recall.
TheArchitect said:
So, your recollection abilities amount to nearly 4000 posts? Yeah, rock on man. Bollocks you're on eh?
Your reading ability is tainted by the simple failure to get a person's name correct.
Meaningful technical input? Is this the standard bearer for posts on this thread? No mate, i've got no fucking technical data to offer, it's not my strong point. But so fucking what?
As for general things that are meaningful, yes, i have plenty. And have had for about five years now on these 911 threads. And accordingly i post.
TheArchitect
New Member
fela fan said:
Do feel free to enlighten me. I'm assuming that you're not getting all whiney about a missing "z" or somesuch , for that would be childish.
And yet to are more than happy to comment on technical issues? Tell me, don't you think that this might devalue your commentary, inasmuch as (by your own admission) you do not bring any level of experience or understanding to such matters?
With respect, I've yet to see any such meaningful comments but do look forward to them in the coming hours and days. And in the interim, good on you for not letting your admitted lack of understanding in the technical issues germaine to the collapse impede your desire to comment! Bravo!
editor said:
Oh dear mr editor. For a person who continually calls for evidence and facts and peer-reviewed links, you announce a fact that is nothing more or less than your own imagination.
That is very low, very poor indeed.
You've totally fucked up there man. Or do you claim your subjective judgments to be equal to scientific peer-reviewed facts and evidence?
Not one of your better ripostes, and it wasn't even anything to do with you either! Oh dear mate.
aylee said:
That's an interesting conclusion you've managed to come up with. I hope it doesn't impact upon the rest of your faculties and how you exercise them. If it does, then that reflects poorly on anything you may say.
Both for you and the rest of the people you seem to speak for.
TheArchitect
New Member
Yes, but I suspect that Fela would rather argue this issue than post some more meaningful, incisive discussions regarding the cause of the collapse.
Fela, just as a matter of interest, what EXACTLY do you think caused the towers to collapse?
Fela, just as a matter of interest, what EXACTLY do you think caused the towers to collapse?
TheArchitect said:
You can be sure of one thing. Fela's theory will involve the use of mirrors.
TheArchitect
New Member
As long as it doesn't involve Judy Wood's incredible death ray or the Web Fairy's missiles/pods/holograms.......
TheArchitect said:
For 1 and 2, probably the planes. For number 7 it's less certain.
I've never been convinced of explosives, but the collapse of 7, and the general behaviour of those at the top echelons of power in the US cause me to retain an open mind on things.
So, to conclude, probably the planes for two of the towers, don't know about the third tower, but nothing is certain at this juncture in history.
Not much is over 911.
editor said:
Well, based on your figures, there will in turn be several hundreds of thousands of posts, if not millions, that have been blasted to cyber ether by yourself and/or the mods on your behalf.
Do you really need to continue with the description of me as silly and stupid? It's hardly correct is it, and does nothing to advance your cause in debating circles.
TheArchitect
New Member
fela fan said:
And do you want to discuss WTC7 in any depth? I'm not sure that would be particularly productive until we (eventually) see the final NIST report, as even they're not entirely settled on a reason yet.
Yes. Well. There it is... and to be honest (having been away for a bit) I am somewhat suprised to see this thread still going.
I think I may have posted on it once - about three months ago. I doubt I had anything particularly useful or illuminating to say - and sadly little has changed in this respect but still I persist.
Still.... I'm not alone eh.
Hello everyone. I'm in New Zealand and it's a qtr past midnight. As far as I'm aware, there's been no new evidence that may or may not change anyone's minds - although a while back I saw The Lemonheads - Evan appeared to be very very very drunk indeed - could barely string a sentence together, though he did swear blind that 9/11 was an inside job, and who was I to disagree? I mean I didn't write "It's a shame about Ray" did I? I didn't write that song about still wearing my ex-girlfriend's favourite t-shirt all the time.
So there you go. That's my 2c.
I think I may have posted on it once - about three months ago. I doubt I had anything particularly useful or illuminating to say - and sadly little has changed in this respect but still I persist.
Still.... I'm not alone eh.
Hello everyone. I'm in New Zealand and it's a qtr past midnight. As far as I'm aware, there's been no new evidence that may or may not change anyone's minds - although a while back I saw The Lemonheads - Evan appeared to be very very very drunk indeed - could barely string a sentence together, though he did swear blind that 9/11 was an inside job, and who was I to disagree? I mean I didn't write "It's a shame about Ray" did I? I didn't write that song about still wearing my ex-girlfriend's favourite t-shirt all the time.
So there you go. That's my 2c.
TheArchitect
New Member
Clearly not so boring as to prevent you reading the thread.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
