9/11 media happenings
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
editor
hiraethified
So you're going to keep on avoiding those tricky questions, eh?Jazzz said:ok, well no prizes for you, editor-san.
What's it like to live in such weird denial and be so desperate to champion yourself as a truth seeker that invisibly installed invisible bombs have to become part of your reality?
Not a single soul out of the tens of thousands that use the WTC saw a thing. Nothing.
Can you show me a single example of a large occupied building being secretly wired with explosives and blown up without a living soul noticing a thing? Or is another yarn from your 2012 sci-fi annual?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
He doesn't ignore the tricky ones, he ignores all of them. It's getting really annoying too when he turns round with his own set of questions demanding answers.
Jazzz - You talk shite, you make stuff up and you don't do the most basic of research. You're full of it and i do wish you'd wake up to your own bullshit.
Jazzz - You talk shite, you make stuff up and you don't do the most basic of research. You're full of it and i do wish you'd wake up to your own bullshit.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Oh do fuck off you gullible fruitcake.Jazzz said:
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
No, i can point out your failings for hours.Jazzz said:
Unfortunatly your hypocricy means that you'll fail to even attempt to answer the questions i asked earlier. Even if it's with a request for more information or amplification you'll try to wriggle out of it.
I tried to ask politely, it's a waste of time. Answer the fucking questions.
I was referring to the insults.Techno303 said:How about this then?
You patronising prick!
BTL I was in fact planning to address the last of your questions with my next post, but thought I'd set the scene first with my millionaire-style fastest-finger-first question. Any takers? You guys are pretty slow I must say.
editor
hiraethified
For you to claim that people are 'slow' to respond to your inane quiz is the height of hypocrisy. Seeing as you're still refusing to answer highly relevant questions that directly relate to your claims from weeks ago, I fail to see why anyone should entertain your latest attention-shifting tactic in a hurry.Jazzz said:
If you're asserting that the WTC was brought down by explosives, why do you keep running away when asked for specific details about how this was achieved?
So far, all you've come up with is a vague ramble along the lines of, "well, it was a busy building" as if that would somehow explain how teams of explosives experts would be free to invisibly roam from office to office, tearing down walls and drilling in explosives without a single soul noticing.
You've spectacularly failed to give a single example of a single large occupied building being furtively demolished in this bizarre manner, and you've refused to provide any details of what explosives were used and exactly were they were located.
So are you going to answer these important questions and back them up with credible sources, or I am in for yet more of your pathetic squirming?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
The last of my questions? I havent' asked you to prove fermat's last theorem in any of the three most recent ones. Could it be that you'll ignore the ones that would result in you admitting you were talking bollocks earlier? No! Never!Jazzz said:
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
And I'm still waiting for Jazzz to admit which loonspud site he got the 600% figure from....
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Techno303 said:
Cheers, will have a butchers at what's been said in guardian land...
The question you are asking editor is ground we have gone over maybe hundreds of times. I've expounded at length on it for you, yet you continually claim that I have never answered the point. I have, many times - you are simply saying that I have never answered it to your satisfaction. Well, whoopee-doo. You can go on like that for ever - what's the point?editor said:
editor
hiraethified
Your "at length" answer as to how the explosives were invisibly installed into the building has consisted of nothing more than, "it was a busy place."Jazzz said:
You have never offered any information as to the exact location of these supposed explosives. What floors were they on, Jazzz? How many? Where were they located? In what offices?
You've also failed to provide any kind of sane, rational explanation as to how this team of evil explosives experts apparently managed to undertake the immense amount of work needed to bring in, install, drill, test and wire up a vast amount of explosives in total and utter secrecy without a single soul in the building noticing anything even remotely suspicious.
And then there's the tricky matter of the complete lack of explosive residue in the building and the fact that thousands of highly qualified demolition and explosives expert have all seen and/or studied the evidence and *none* of them agree with you.
Please answer my questions. Thanks.
okay, well the theory that the core foundations were taken out in advance fits nicely with William Rodriguez' observations. For those who don't know of his story, he heard (and saw the results of) a massive explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower about six seconds before the plant impacted above. When WR testified as such for the 9/11 Commission it was behind closed doors, and his account was omitted from the final report entirely. Many others backed it up - they weren't even called to testify, such as Felipe David, who was badly hurt in the explosion.
Which brings us to my little quiz: this is borne out by the seismic record. The magnitudes of the events listed, and the answer to my quiz is:
Pentagon impact (didn't register)
Pennsylvania impact (160-180nms)
WTC impacts (230-260nms/s)
WTC collapses (richter scale)
The interesting thing is that the WTC impacts were the largest despite that they occurred so far removed from the ground, and the planes were 'shredded' horizontally as they went through the steel columns. This would be perfectly in keeping with the theory that they didn't represent the impacts at all (which didn't register) but rather explosions in the sub-basements to take out the cores of the towers. Of course the Pentagon impact not registering would also be nicely explained by the theory that there was no plane involved.
Which brings us to my little quiz: this is borne out by the seismic record. The magnitudes of the events listed, and the answer to my quiz is:
Pentagon impact (didn't register)
Pennsylvania impact (160-180nms)
WTC impacts (230-260nms/s)
WTC collapses (richter scale)
The interesting thing is that the WTC impacts were the largest despite that they occurred so far removed from the ground, and the planes were 'shredded' horizontally as they went through the steel columns. This would be perfectly in keeping with the theory that they didn't represent the impacts at all (which didn't register) but rather explosions in the sub-basements to take out the cores of the towers. Of course the Pentagon impact not registering would also be nicely explained by the theory that there was no plane involved.
editor
hiraethified
So all the experts, demolition specialists, structural engineers, insurance investigators and everyone involved with the official, peer reviewed, independently checked report are all wrong, because this bloke in the basement - who also failed to spot a single explosive or anything suspicious in the weeks before - says so?Jazzz said:
It's fucking ridiculous. Are you going to answer my questions yet?
editor
hiraethified
STOP WRIGGLING. Answer my question please. You have never provided a satisfactory answer, probably because you're unable to face the truth that you can't provide any rational explanation for these invisible explosives.Jazzz said:
Your self delusion has gone beyond a joke, but I'm not going away until you explain why not a living soul in New York saw or heard these tons of explosives being brought into their offices and and drilled into the structure.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Christ, not this bullcrap again.Jazzz said:
Care to tell us where the missing plane is then? And its passengers?
Oh, and STILL waiting for you to tell us where your 600% figure came from
editor said:
why don't you let it go Ed, you're just winding yourself up and you know you'll never win against him because he'll always find a way out.
It's all bullshit, everyone with a brain knows it's al bullshit, by entertaining him you're throwing him a buoy when his argument needs to drown in the sea of shite where it belongs.
p.s. I saw your Fuckwit and grovel galleries for the first time last night when browsing about...very good!!
Jazzz said:
Or indeed....that anyone will find satisfactory
Oh this is the most ridiculous argument! Of course, Lord Lucan is currently in my sitting room smoking a cigar. Well - if he isn't then where is he?beesonthewhatnow said:
I don't know where the plane is. That includes the area around the Pentagon. Hell I'm not sure it even took off!
editor
hiraethified
Seeing as you are unable to offer any kind of explanation as to how the the explosives were invisibly installed, why do you persist in your belief that the towers were brought down by them?Jazzz said:
Or have you now entered the realm of some sort of quasi-religious dogma where 'to believe' is simply enough and so there's no need to try and explain the impossible to non-believers?
editor
hiraethified
Really? So all the airport crew were in on it too? And the air control staff, baggage handlers, flight control staff and the airline - the lot! So where did the passengers actually go? Who took them there? And how did they fake the phone calls?Jazzz said:
Or are you just preaching the gospel of the Church of the Conspiraloons again?
The actual cause was an attack by the pilots with more or less support by more or less members of a more or less organised group which may or may not have been affiliated to Al-Quaeda.fela fan said:
For which there is shed loads of evidence.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
