Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

9/11 media happenings

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob_the_lost said:
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 aluminium refered to is a reference to jazz's insane thermite theory and all told you should be more careful about sticking your nose in.

I've been around and about on these threads since 2002 fyi.

Now, as said, metal slicing through a few beams and fuel (oh, and the speed of hitting the tower - though that's only considered to have contributed to breaking the structure rather than the heat - the heat is considered to have been from the igniting of the fuel and hence other materials [and Jazzz has been debunked on this as well, years ago]) is what caused the towers to collapse.

Jazz doesn't believe that. Maybe you don't either. I do though.
 
Bob_the_lost said:
No. Jet fuel, petrol fuel or kerosene, whatever you want to call it was not the major source of heat.


Correct; NIST and others confirm that the jet fuel mainly acted as an accelerant, whilst the impact pattern and consequent spread resulted in widespread and diffuse fires.

The imapct explosion, however, did dislodge and damage fireproofing making the steel susceptible to even "normal" fire loadings.
 
nonamenopackdrill said:
I've been around and about on these threads since 2002 fyi.

Now, as said, metal slicing through a few beams and fuel (oh, and the speed of hitting the tower - though that's only considered to have contributed to breaking the structure rather than the heat - the heat is considered to have been from the igniting of the fuel and hence other materials [and Jazzz has been debunked on this as well, years ago]) is what caused the towers to collapse.

Jazz doesn't believe that. Maybe you don't either. I do though.

With the deepest respect, you need to go and do a bit more reading. The NIST report would be a good start.
 
TheArchitect said:
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?

;)


Oh you misunderstand me. I don't agree with Jazz in any way. I just think you help him with your attempt at argument being to tell him he's wrong, louder and in different ways, rather than address his arguments.
 
nonamenopackdrill said:
the speed of hitting the tower - though that's only considered to have contributed to breaking the structure rather than the heat
Heat yes, damage no. Read the report.

Jazz doesn't believe that. Maybe you don't either. I do though.
What the fuck are you on? Read the last few pages.

All told my statement stands, be more careful about sticking your nose in.
 
nonamenopackdrill said:
Oh you misunderstand me. I don't agree with Jazz in any way. I just think you help him with your attempt at argument being to tell him he's wrong, louder and in different ways, rather than address his arguments.

And in what way did (say) disproving is crap on 600% safety factor or fall times not "address his argument". You have read my earlier posts, haven't you? :confused:
 
TheArchitect said:
Correct; NIST and others confirm that the jet fuel mainly acted as an accelerant, whilst the impact pattern and consequent spread resulted in widespread and diffuse fires.

The imapct explosion, however, did dislodge and damage fireproofing making the steel susceptible to even "normal" fire loadings.

Well precisely. Isn't that the point (and fuck me you've made one finally) regarding the key presence of fuel. It couldn't have happened without it.

The point was that earlier Jazz (simplified) gave the official version and Bob fell into his trap by saying "that's bollocks".
 
Jazzz said:
Why on earth do you think 'everything was done in a rush'?

The fact that nothing was found? Building maintenance is a non-stop job. You'd better be sure your bombs or related equipment aren't anywhere that gets inadvertently looked at...
 
nonamenopackdrill said:
Well precisely. Isn't that the point (and fuck me you've made one finally) regarding the key presence of fuel. It couldn't have happened without it.

The point was that earlier Jazz (simplified) gave the official version and Bob fell into his trap by saying "that's bollocks".
No, the version jazz gave was the same as saying that the towers feel because some arabic people ran into them quickly.

Jazzz shades the truth, you encouraging him does no one any help. Nor does your ignorance, but hell, maybe you'll learn unlike Jazzz.
 
nonamenopackdrill said:
Well precisely. Isn't that the point (and fuck me you've made one finally) regarding the key presence of fuel. It couldn't have happened without it.

Whereas a typical post of mine was:

The South Tower, WTC2, was hit by flight 175 - a Boeing 767 carrying about 9000 US gallons of fuel, travelling at around 540mph at impact. In addition to the plane itself, it carried around 9 tons of cargo.

(ii) As those of us who have seen the television pictures know, it was banking heavily when it hit. The centre of the aircraft hit the 81st floor, with the bulk of the aircraft hitting 79 to 83. Wingtips extended as far as 78 and 85.

(iii) The 78th floor suffered damage to 9 perimeter columns, and significant damage to the interior linings (including partitions), but no damage to the cor itself. Occupants are known to have survived,

(iv) The severity of damage on the floors above is not in doubt; floor slabs were broken in some areas and sagged elsewhere, core structure was compromised, and fire protection dislodged by the impact. A significant proportion of the plane's fuel (around 15%) exploded within the building itself, igniting the contents.

(vi) Firefighters made it as far as the 78th floor, reporting:


Quote:
9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/fir...e-excerpts.htm


(vii) These firefighters did not, however, make it above the 78th floor and the report of light fires is entirely consistent with the comparatively modest damage which occurred at this level.

(viii) If we look at the WTC modelling of the fire, this is quite clear; the greatest temperatures are found at 81 and 82, where the main impact occurred, and an area which firefighters never reached.

It is, however, a disingenious - some would say culpably misleading - account of the facts to suggest that the fires in WTC2 were light.
 
FridgeMagnet said:
Oh come off it, that's not an attribution of a false quote, that's satirising an existing one.
Anything that appears in a quotation box with the title 'originally posted by...' has to be accurate. You can't sign someone's name up to something they didn't write, however witty you think you may be :rolleyes:
 
Crispy said:
The fact that nothing was found? Building maintenance is a non-stop job. You'd better be sure your bombs or related equipment aren't anywhere that gets inadvertently looked at...
... because then somebody might get hurt. :(
 
Jazzz said:
Anything that appears in a quotation box with the title 'originally posted by...' has to be accurate. You can't sign someone's name up to something they didn't write, however witty you think you may be :rolleyes:
Don't waste my time. A quote with something highlighted and a caption of "corrected" is clearly a modification for effect. If it becomes confusing perhaps there's an issue but this certainly isn't.
 
For those who have watched the video in post #998 ...

Is Jazzz:

1. Ignoramus Profundus Nineelevenis
2. Ignoramus Horribilus Nineelevenis
3. Moonbatius Nineelevenis ?

Anyone good with editing video care to do a three or four minute edit containing the brief descriptions of each and we'll pop up a little poll thread? (Although I can thoroughly recommend the full 52 minutes and 35 seconds as (literally) laugh-out-loud a minute I suspect most people won't have the chance to watch it all ... which is a shame :( :( )
 
nonamenopackdrill said:
To be honest Architect, you're not very good at this. Even the editor is better than you at it.
Errr, the Architect has done one of the best demolition (every pun inended) jobs on the conspiraloons I've seen in a long time, whereas you have seemingly appeared on this thread to just have another sly pop at the editor.

Any chance you could bugger off before you wreck another good thread?
 
Jazzz said:
What you don't look for, you won't find. Hence, that's why simple tests for explosives haven't been done.

Jazzz's sum total of evidence.: They didn't test for exlosives so there must have been explosives. :D Devastating.
 
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)

Crispy had it right - LIHBI. TBH I don't understand why you CTers all going tizzy to attempt to prove things like your amusing scenario, when prosecuting the Administration for failing to protect the US from foreign threats, if of course the story of the Tenet meeting is true, would be a far easier evidentiary task, especially for a 'truth seeking' lawyer.

BTW, it's interesting that Berg is using RICO, and attempting to create a chain of events stretching back into the 1970s and 80s with the early funding of the Muj by the CIA (Here...altho ignore the real crazies saying that Global Warming is an Illuminati psyop...)...basically makes the same points as Jazz, which is a shame cos if he goes into court with what he's currently got - which generally amounts to supposition about people's moods, the collapse of a building that 'had' to be CD - he's going to be laughed at.

This is typical:


Cos of course, seeing how someone reacts on a TV broadcast is clearevidence of guilt...
 
beesonthewhatnow said:
Errr, the Architect has done one of the best demolition (every pun inended) jobs on the conspiraloons I've seen in a long time, whereas you have seemingly appeared on this thread to just have another sly pop at the editor.

Any chance you could bugger off before you wreck another good thread?
Sounds to me as if nonamenopackdrill has noticed the total lack of substance in TA's various inquisitions and rhetoric.
 
Jazzz said:
Sounds to me as if nonamenopackdrill has noticed the total lack of substance in TA's various inquisitions and rhetoric.

God it must be fun to go through life with out the burden of the little things; y'know things like facts, or reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom