Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

9/11 media happenings

Status
Not open for further replies.
kyser_soze said:
Or how about:

CIA and other intel agencies present a case that says 'There will be a serious terr attack involving aircraft against the US on September 11'. NSA chief advises against taking action. No action taken. 4 planes hijacked, 2 hit the WTC buildings in an unprecdented action, 1 hits the Pentagon and one is bought down by the actions of it's passengers.

My personal view on the matter is that the Administration were forewarned of this potential action, but decided not to act against it due to personal prejudice, both intellectual (Condi still saw Russia as the Big Threat) and personal (against George Tenet). Given the nature of the warning the strongest possibly evidentiary argument that can be bought is that Bush failed to act in a manner consistent with protection of the US.
Click to expand...
LIHOP - let it happen on purpose. Yes - not my personal theory, but one in which the USG is criminally responsible for 9/11 nevertheless. The '9/11 Truth Movement' has always encompassed both LIHOP and MIHOP (made it happen on purpose).

"They either let it happen, or they made it happen. And if they let it happen, they made it happen"
Phil Berg (lawyer for 9/11 family victims)
 
Jazzz said:
LIHOP - let it happen on purpose. Yes - not my personal theory, but one in which the USG is criminally responsible for 9/11 nevertheless. The '9/11 Truth Movement' has always encompassed both LIHOP and MIHOP (made it happen on purpose).

"They either let it happen, or they made it happen. And if they let it happen, they made it happen"
Phil Berg (lawyer for 9/11 family victims)
Click to expand...
Somehow i don't think that's what Kyser was refering to. Your theory is still shite by the by jazzz.
 
What Kyser suggests is not quite LIHOP, but LIHBI - Let It Happen By Incompetence
 
Jazzz said:
"They either let it happen, or they made it happen. And if they let it happen, they made it happen"
Phil Berg (lawyer for 9/11 family victims)
Click to expand...
Oh well, if a lawyer says so....

So Jazzz. About these missiles that were supposedly fired from the planes.
Do you still believe that's what happened then? Y/N?
 
Still waiting, Jazz

TheArchitect said:
Jazz

Since you like to claim that we - and in particular yours truly - misrepresent you when we debunk...sorry, respond to...your theories, I have a challenge for you.

Present us your theory about what hapennd on 9/11.

This includes at least:

- What flew into the towers.

- Why did they fall

- In case of controlled demolition: please show how the buildings where prepped, how it was possible to do that within the time limits, why nobody saw the prepped walls, how the dynamite and the wires survived the planes' impacts and why no traces of dynamite were found afterwards.

- Please explain why such a destruction would work without the slightest problems even though there has never been any building brought down that was even nearly as large as the towers, everything was done in a rush and therefore had to been done very sloppy, and even though everything went perfect.

- What flew into Pentagon

- Does that match with the eyewitnesses observations?

- What was the purpose of the attack?

- Who is involved into the conspiracy?

- How have the engineering communities across the globe been silenced?

- What do you think happened to WTC7?

This just to start with.

Please explain in detail and with your own words. No links to CT sites accepted. Any articles, etc. will be checked in order to ensure quotes are accurate. Any calculations will be checked. Unsupported speculation will be ignored.

Are you up to the challenge?
Click to expand...
 
Techno303 said:
^ I'd like to see him reply to that. Watch him wriggle though.:( and:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He stamped his foot and ran away like a toddler having a tantrum, following which you will note he avoids talking to me directly if he can. Therefore I am not particularly expecting a reply, but am resting comfortable in the knowledge that he got his arse kicked.
 
TheArchitect said:
In case of controlled demolition: please show how the buildings where prepped, how it was possible to do that within the time limits, why nobody saw the prepped walls, how the dynamite and the wires survived the planes' impacts and why no traces of dynamite were found afterwards.

- Please explain why such a destruction would work without the slightest problems even though there has never been any building brought down that was even nearly as large as the towers, everything was done in a rush and therefore had to been done very sloppy, and even though everything went perfect.
Click to expand...

What you don't look for, you won't find. Hence, that's why simple tests for explosives haven't been done.

If you can bring towers down neatly with some jet fuel and the cutting of a few beams you can certainly bring it down with a controlled demolition. I mean, the demolition companies might be out of a job, it's so easy. :rolleyes:

Why on earth do you think 'everything was done in a rush'?
 
Jazzz said:
What you don't look for, you won't find. Hence, that's why simple tests for explosives haven't been done.

If you can bring towers down neatly with some jet fuel and the cutting of a few beams you can certainly bring it down with a controlled demolition. I mean, the demolition companies might be out of a job, it's so easy. :rolleyes:

Why on earth do you think 'everything was done in a rush'?
Click to expand...
Some jet fuel and cutting a few beams?

Either you're a complete idiot or you, no wait, you're an idiot.
 
TheArchitect said:
He stamped his foot and ran away like a toddler having a tantrum, following which you will note he avoids talking to me directly if he can. Therefore I am not particularly expecting a reply, but am resting comfortable in the knowledge that he got his arse kicked.
Click to expand...
You think what you like - truth is I am tired of accommodating endless questions only to find the answers misrepresented every time the new batches come.
 
Jazzz said:
What you don't look for, you won't find. Hence, that's why simple tests for explosives haven't been done.

If you can bring towers down neatly with some jet fuel and the cutting of a few beams you can certainly bring it down with a controlled demolition. I mean, the demolition companies might be out of a job, it's so easy. :rolleyes:

Why on earth do you think 'everything was done in a rush'?
Click to expand...

Jazz

You were asked an extensive list of questions and challenged to provide a detailed response; do not cherry pick.

However in view of your response, I would like to add two questions.

- How long do you believe it took to clear the site?

- How long did the FEMA and NIST investigations take?
 
Bob_the_lost said:
Some jet fuel and cutting a few beams?

Either you're a complete idiot or you, no wait, you're an idiot.
Click to expand...
Well, that's what the planes did wasn't it? :)
 
nonamenopackdrill said:
To be honest Architect, you're not very good at this. Even the editor is better than you at it.
Click to expand...

Not very good at what? Jazz has been pretty thoroughly debunked so far, what with his made up figures and claims there were only teensy fires.

:confused:
 
TheArchitect said:
Corrected for accuracy.
Click to expand...
It is absolutely the most childish and low behaviour to attribute false quotes. I have reported the post. I ask you to remove it.
 
nonamenopackdrill said:
Errm, are you trying to fall into his trap on purpose? Because that's what actually happened.

edit: too late
Click to expand...
No, the insulation was stripped off, the major combustible was NOT JET FUEL and it did more than just snap a few beams, it snapped lots of beams.

How could a bit of burning aluminium take out a building?

Yet again Jazzz is being economical for the truth.
 
Jazzz said:
It is absolutely the most childish and low behaviour to attribute false quotes. I have reported the post. I ask you to remove it.
Click to expand...
FFS Jazzz, how many facts have you posted up so far that haven't been shown to be either lies, wrong or just fucking stupid?
 
Bob_the_lost said:
No, the insulation was stripped off, the major combustible was NOT JET FUEL and it did more than just snap a few beams, it snapped lots of beams.

How could a bit of burning aluminium take out a building?
Click to expand...

The plane snapped a few (in the context of the whole building) beams.

Burning fuel did the rest (and that's what burned the aliuminium). I think that's what happened. You going 'are you thick?' fell right into his trap.





As for the 'not jet fuel' - maybe jet fuel is different - I have no idea what the difference is between normal airplane fuel and jet fuel -, but I'm sure it wouldn't make a big difference. Fuel and a large metal object searing through the tower made it collapse.
 
Jazzz said:
It is absolutely the most childish and low behaviour to attribute false quotes. I have reported the post. I ask you to remove it.
Click to expand...

That's the closelt you've come to humour so far.

1. You did pluck the figure of 600% safety factor for the core out of the air and conceded that you could provide no substantiation.

2. You claimed that there were no significant fires in WTC based on a quote from a fire officer in a different part of the building, accused NIST of fabricating their fire modelling, and then were caught out by photgraphic evidence.

3. You presented the Fire Engineering quote out of context in order to support your argument.

4. You cherry picked an paper to support your calculations on structural loads but omitted to mention that it debunked your fire hypothesis.

Do I need to continue?
 
TheArchitect said:
That's the closelt you've come to humour so far.

1. You did pluck the figure of 600% safety factor for the core out of the air and conceded that you could provide no substantiation.

2. You claimed that there were no significant fires in WTC based on a quote from a fire officer in a different part of the building, accused NIST of fabricating their fire modelling, and then were caught out by photgraphic evidence.

3. You presented the Fire Engineering quote out of context in order to support your argument.

4. You cherry picked an paper to support your calculations on structural loads but omitted to mention that it debunked your fire hypothesis.

Do I need to continue?
Click to expand...

In fact, you're terrible. Go away.
 
nonamenopackdrill said:
The plane snapped a few (in the context of the whole building) beams.

Burning fuel did the rest (and that's what burned the aliuminium). I think that's what happened. You going 'are you thick?' fell right into his trap.





As for the 'not jet fuel' - maybe jet fuel is different - I have no idea what the difference is between normal airplane fuel and jet fuel -, but I'm sure it wouldn't make a big difference. Fuel and a large metal object searing through the tower made it collapse.
Click to expand...
No. Jet fuel, petrol fuel or kerosene, whatever you want to call it was not the major source of heat.

Jazzz made no mention of the speed of the impact, the ommission is enough to make his statement utter crap as tests and models show that with the insulation the building probably would have stood. The aluminium refered to is a reference to jazz's insane thermite theory not to any present in the building and all told you should be more careful about sticking your nose in where you clearly don't have a clue.
 
nonamenopackdrill said:
Not by you though. That's the point.
Click to expand...

Really? Do point me in the direction of the posts where you feel I didn't perform. Shall we start with the one where I showed his 600% was a load of bollocks? Or the one where his claim about minor fires in WTC was shown to be crud? Or where he ran away from his own "horizontal debris" argument.

I shall await your reply with interest. In the meantime you could perhaps point me in the direction of your own posts to Jazz which outperform mine?

;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
If the US govt organised 9/11 in order to justify a war in Afghanistran...
Replies
12
Views
37K
Citizen66
C
Dillinger4
'9/11 Truth Movement' and Academia
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
537
Views
29K
kyser_soze
K
friedaweed
  • Poll
So 9-11. Who really did it?
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
Crispy
Crispy
DrRingDing
  • Locked
Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
543
Views
34K
FridgeMagnet
FridgeMagnet
M
9/11 a conspiracy?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
221
Views
13K
Jazzz
Jazzz
Back
Top Bottom