9/11 media happenings
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
axon said:Jazzz's sum total of evidence.: They didn't test for exlosives so there must have been explosives.Devastating.
They also never tested for the remains of the giant gorilla that grabbed the two planes and slammed them into the twin towers in the first place.
Jazzz said:
No, I was just trying to start a fight.
Sorry about that.
Oh. And Jazzz was trying to catch onto any old liferaft of support as well.
Can't you write an unsourced, ridiculous rebuttal of some of the points on the NIST report and host them on t'interweb somewhere? Jazz can then herald you as an important, authorative source and hastily link to you without checking any of the details. He'd like that very much.
Can't you write an unsourced, ridiculous rebuttal of some of the points on the NIST report and host them on t'interweb somewhere? Jazz can then herald you as an important, authorative source and hastily link to you without checking any of the details. He'd like that very much.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Oh. For. Fucks. Sake.Jazzz said:
Jazzz - ever since these debates with you started I have done my best to be nothing but civil with you - we've met IRL, and you're sound. Heck, no doubt we'll share a pint or spliff at glasto again this year....
However, posts like the above just make you look like an arrogant, deluded fool. Of all the things you could accuse TA of, "lacking in substance" is not one of them.
"Long winded"? Maybe - but this is the engineering of one of the worlds largest buildings, of course it can get long winded, to understand the mechanics involved takes years of training and experience.
Which, as a qualified architect, TA has, and you do not.
Please, take a step back, and see what a fool you are making of yourself
I've found that while TA has posted huge lists and waffled on endlessly there's been precious little actual proper engagement with what I've said. Crispy and BTL have scored more points against me in my book. Whereas TA is a damn fool for thinking that the core wouldn't stand on its own (which I disproved in post #745). But TA goes on and keeps repeating vast lists of points where he 'caught me out'; most of which times he did nothing of the sort but show he was either deliberately misrepresenting me or simply not able to follow.
It's been an unpleasant debate - believe it or not I don't mind being proved wrong if that's fairly what happens. That's a learning experience for all of us and my ego can take it. But being continually misrepresented while a load of spectators cheer on the misrepresentations is just a drag.
It's been an unpleasant debate - believe it or not I don't mind being proved wrong if that's fairly what happens. That's a learning experience for all of us and my ego can take it. But being continually misrepresented while a load of spectators cheer on the misrepresentations is just a drag.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
But TA has also posted up lots and lots of facts and solid engineering analysis, that comes from his background as an architect on tall building projects. You can argue against his debating style, but you have failed to argue against his facts and analysis.
I'm glad you've admitted you can be convinced. This, hopefully, removes the accusation that your theory is based only on belief.
I'm glad you've admitted you can be convinced. This, hopefully, removes the accusation that your theory is based only on belief.
TheArchitect
New Member
Jazz,
There are three reasons the posts are long winded:
1. Because the issues we're dealing with are complex, and you seem to have some....misconceptions....about structural engineering, building design, fire safety, and so on. All I did was reduce them to simple terms that you could understand if you were genuinely interested.
2. Because many of your arguments (say the amazing "made up" 600% safety factor, or the mass of the buildings) could only be disproven by reference to technical documents, or by calculations.
3. You attempt to wriggle out of difficult points by denying what you said, or misquoting articles, or (more often) changing topic and the only way to bring you back on topic is to actually remind you on what really happened.
Case in point:
- The challenge for you to tell us properly what you think happened.
- The ejection of horizontal debris
- Damage to the core prior to collapse
Still waiting for your reply on these. Whenever you fancy more of your theories being utterly debunked.
There are three reasons the posts are long winded:
1. Because the issues we're dealing with are complex, and you seem to have some....misconceptions....about structural engineering, building design, fire safety, and so on. All I did was reduce them to simple terms that you could understand if you were genuinely interested.
2. Because many of your arguments (say the amazing "made up" 600% safety factor, or the mass of the buildings) could only be disproven by reference to technical documents, or by calculations.
3. You attempt to wriggle out of difficult points by denying what you said, or misquoting articles, or (more often) changing topic and the only way to bring you back on topic is to actually remind you on what really happened.
Case in point:
- The challenge for you to tell us properly what you think happened.
- The ejection of horizontal debris
- Damage to the core prior to collapse
Still waiting for your reply on these. Whenever you fancy more of your theories being utterly debunked.
TheArchitect
New Member
Crispy said:
It's quite amazing. You'd almost think that it was the kind of subject which required years of study at university level. And yet CTers know it all from watching grainy google videos and "common sense".
Crispy said:
Where I am up for being convinced is that the nature of the collapses could possibly be explained without recourse to controlled demolition.
But it would take an actual disproof of controlled demolition - counter evidence against the theory, not merely evidence for the official version - for me not to believe that is what happened, as I believe MIHOP for plenty of other reasons unconnected with the collapse, and given that I believe MIHOP I also believe CD logically follows as part of it. You'll be able to understand this post. TA won't.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Do you not see that it is for you to prove CD, not us to disprove it?
If you can't grasp this basic point the whole thing is utterly futile.
If you can't grasp this basic point the whole thing is utterly futile.
TheArchitect
New Member
Jazzz said:
I understand it perfectly.
YOU decided that it was MIHOP for other reasons, presumably political, rather than based on any impartial and meaningful evidence of the collapse. In other words, you made it fit to your own worldview.
And you're not going to let anything like pesky facts or evidence (600%, remember) get in the way!
Jazz,
CD is disproved because there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence to suggest that it happened, not just because the debris wasn't tested, but there were NO eye-witness reports on what is a major operation. The building wasn't prepared in any way for CD (weakening of the structure or distribution of explosives), the collapse pattern didn't look like CD (no multiple collapse points) and NOONE has broken the silence over the 'plot' despite the many leaks that have befallen lesser schemes.
CD is disproved because there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence to suggest that it happened, not just because the debris wasn't tested, but there were NO eye-witness reports on what is a major operation. The building wasn't prepared in any way for CD (weakening of the structure or distribution of explosives), the collapse pattern didn't look like CD (no multiple collapse points) and NOONE has broken the silence over the 'plot' despite the many leaks that have befallen lesser schemes.
Badger Kitten
oof
And there are these people called terrorists, you know. Who kill people.
Or is that being denied as well?
Or is that being denied as well?
TheArchitect
New Member
But Jazz admits his theory is based on belief, not understanding or analysis.....
Ah, I know this! I watched the video in post 998!Badger Kitten said:
There ARE terrorists ... but they are in the Government of the US of A!
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Badger Kitten said:
What planet are you on? There are no terrorists. Just lizards. Big, green, scaly lizards. Get with the programme.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
You did nothing of the sort you deluded muppet.Jazzz said:
How hard is it to grasp that the core wouldn't stand on its own becuase it was never designed to do so...
detective-boy said:Ah, I know this! I watched the video in post 998!
There ARE terrorists ... but they are in the Government of the US of A!
http://mindprod.com/images/nohead.jpg
<image filename indicative of content - you know the rules - FM>
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Is there a point to this? You really are getting desperate hereJazzz said:
TheArchitect
New Member
Jazz has run away from the challenge - he can't (or will not) tell us properly what he thinks happened! I wonder why?
brixtonvilla
should be Oslovilla, really
Christ Jazz. Can't you just wave a white flag like anyone else?
TheArchitect
New Member
brixtonvilla said:
What, somone who doesn't realise that free fall isn't a speed? It's a rate of acceleration for heaven's sake? And then thinks that a 30 to 60% reduction isn't very much?
Someone who can't actually reliably quote articles or sources? Who links to articles which debunk his insane theory?
Someone who pulls figures like 600% out of the air? Despite claiming to understand structures?
Someone who claims that there was no fire in WTC2, despite photgraphs to the contrary?
Someone who accuses NIST of hiding evidence, but can't tell us what that evidence is?
Someone who admits that his viewpoint is based on belief, not analysis?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
