9/11 media happenings

[TheArchitect]

You're a liar. You have not answered my questions.

But let's not quibble. Shall I start a poll to see who in this thread agrees with your contention that you've actually answered my questions with credible answers, as you claim?

Or would that be too much reality for you to handle?

Go for a poll. You've got to be cruel to be kind.


In the interim, those of us who have a better grasp of reallity than Jazz might want to have a moment of comic amusement over at:

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html

 

[editor]

Don't accuse me of lying when I have done nothing of the sort. I have not claimed to answered your whole silly list and have no intention of doing so. If you want to start a silly poll, it's your prerogative.

So you can't provide a credible explanation for a major part of your idiotic invisible explosives theory, you can't explain how and where the explosives were installed, you can't give a single example of a large occupied building being secretly demolished in this way and you can't provide a shred of evidence to back up any elements of your yarn?

Seeing as no one has ever demolished a building the size of the WTC, no one knows how many invisible explosives would be needed, but 4,000 separate highly visible charges were needed to take down a building half the size of one of the WTC towers. And the prep work in the abandoned building took seven months to complete.

And you believe an occupied building visited by 100,000 people every day could have been wired up with thousands of explosive charges drilled into steel beams without anyone noticing a thing!

You're so lost in your conspiraloon fantasy world you don't even realise that your dishonest wriggling has turned you into a laughing stock, and your invisible bombs theory the stuff of sci-fi comic books for little boys.

You sir, are a fraud. You haven't the honesty or dignity to admit that you can't back up your claims, and your endless attempts at evasion speak volumes of the paucity of your piss-weak 'theory.'

 

[fela fan]

You're a liar.

You and your liar claims.

Bit strong this kind of language, unless you're a politician.

Are you?

You ought to check your mirror from time to time mate.

 

[editor]

You ought to check your mirror from time to time mate.

*preens, purses lips and checks hair.

Nope, my mirror's fine thanks, freak.

 

[Lock&Light]

Nope, my mirror's fine thanks, freak.

Fela has a theory concerning mirrors. I hope he won't be expressing it again.

 

[fela fan]

*preens, purses lips and checks hair.

Nope, my mirror's fine thanks, freak.

It's only fine if you're happy to be a freak.

Freak.

 

[editor]

It's only fine if you're happy to be a freak.

Freak.

If you've got nothing on topic to add to this thread please fuck off with your idiotic, inane babblings. Thanks.

 

[fela fan]

If you've got nothing on topic to add to this thread please fuck off with your idiotic, inane babblings. Thanks.

Things are still on topic after 66 pages are they? Yer avin a laugh editor.

I just wonder why you've let this thread go on for so long when your normal instincts are to bin them after a couple of pages.

My inane ramblings that you speak of are simply a reaction and reflection of your own.

Mirror mirror on the wall...

 

[editor]

Things are still on topic after 66 pages are they? Yer avin a laugh editor.

Indeed they were. Before you shoved your gormless oar in, I was speculating on the amount of demolition charges needed for Jazzz's conspiracy fantasy to be true while others were challenging the specifics of his fact-free claims.

So if you've nothing on topic to add, kindly pick up your mirror and fuck off please.

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz,

You have consistenly lied and misrepresented evidence throughout this thread, whether deliberately or otherwise.

- You claimed that the firemen's radio transmission proved there was no serious fire. This was proven wrong.

- You claimed that collapse times were near free fall speed. This was proven wrong.

- You claimed that the core had a reserve capacity of 600%. This was proven wrong AND you have refused to tell us where you magicked it up from.

- You implied that FE disagreed with the NIST report. This was proven wrong.

- You claimed that tensile strength and yield strength were the same thing. This was proven wrong.

- You have cheery picked quotes from articles which you thought proved your case, but it was proven that they actually debunked yours.

Your whole CT is an unsubstantiated joke. Your inability to explain your own crazy explosives theory and then taking pot shots at Ed for asking for more details is just the icing on the cake.

Face it. You lost about 30 pages ago.

So you've finally realised that YOU are mistaken about the DCR ratios!

YOU were proved wrong about the collapse times, as NIST didn't agree with you at all.
I was proven RIGHT in my assertion that there is no evidence of 'inferno' in the South Tower
I was happy to discard the figure of 600%
I never claimed that FE 'disagreed' with the NIST report - I have taken their quotes objectively for what they are, it is you that fails to understand them
I have NEVER claimed that tensile and yield strength are the same thing!

You claimed that the core couldn't stand up for itself. You were proved wrong. You claimed that it couldn't take the entire design load of the WTC. You were proved wrong.

And you've recently made an arse of yourself by repeatedly misunderstanding the DCR ratios.

Sorry mate.

 

[editor]

Here Jazzz. This is what it took to demolish a building half the size of one of the WTC towers:

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

Now are you really, seriously insisting that 'they' were able to undertake four times that amount of work without a single person in the entire WTC complex noticing a single solitary thing, YES/NO?

 

[Jazzz]

You sir, are a fraud.

You should take back silly accusations like this. I do not lie.

I haven't the patience to indulge you in a discussion that will go absolutely nowhere - like all the times we have had such a discussion, and you've seen fit to bin the threads.

Why do you think that you are exempt from the ignore button? No-one else is.

 

[editor]

You should take back silly accusations like this. I do not lie.

Answer the questions please, wriggler. You have not answered my questions, and that is a fact.

Or do I need to remind you what other posters have said about your evasive tactics?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You should take back silly accusations like this. I do not lie.

You do make stuff up on a regular basis. Close enough.

 

[Jazzz]

Give it a rest ed! Are you going to go on for ever like this?

 

[Jazzz]

You do make stuff up on a regular basis. Close enough.

I don't 'make stuff up'. Neither do I post things I don't believe. Throwing around accusations of lying casually because it sounds good is not on and if editor knew better he wouldn't be so childish.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I don't 'make stuff up'. Neither do I post things I don't believe. Throwing around accusations of lying casually because it sounds good is not on and if editor knew better he wouldn't be so childish.

Bollocks you don't.

Nist never took into acount the thermal conduction of the steel in the towers?

600%?

I can list more, but you'll wriggle about one of them. You're pathetic and i'm still waiting for those answers you were "about to post" two days ago.

 

[Jazzz]

Bollocks you don't.

Nist never took into acount the thermal conduction of the steel in the towers?

600%?

I can list more, but you'll wriggle about one of them. You're pathetic and i'm still waiting for those answers you were "about to post" two days ago.

Both of those I took in good faith from webpages, and I was happy to be corrected. Stop accusing me of making stuff up or lying. You should know better too.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Both of those I took in good faith from webpages, and I was happy to be corrected. Stop accusing me of making stuff up or lying. You should know better too.

You make stuff up:

okay, no matter. I personally find the spire left briefly standing is evidence that its foundation was taken out.

Q3 How do you know this?

I see nothing that says that it was either a small proportion or that the point of failure was at the base. How do you get that information from the pictures?

You dress opinions up as if they were anything other than the delusional rantings of a paranoid conspiraloon. You state as fact things you've never even attempted to ascertain the truth about. You have no respect for technical terms and no understanding of why they are important. You're a joke.

 

[Jazzz]

I phrased that as a statement of personal opinion!

Stop giving me this crap.

Oh and as for technical terms I managed to get my head around the DCR figures which is more than can be said for TheArchitect.

 

[Jazzz]

Right, it looks like people have got nothing better to throw at me than childish insults.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I phrased that as a statement of personal opinion!

Stop giving me this crap.

Oh and as for technical terms I managed to get my head around the DCR figures which is more than can be said for TheArchitect.

No jazzz, i'll be polite to you when you behave in a manner that merits it. Answer the god damned questions.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Right, it looks like people have got nothing better to throw at me than childish insults.

Childish would be: "You smell of poo"

Not: "You're an incompetent paranoid jibbering idiot with delusions of sanity"

Yet again you're being sloppy with respect to the language you're using.

 

[Jazzz]

No jazzz, i'll be polite to you when you behave in a manner that merits it. Answer the god damned questions.

Don't be so fucking rude. You've accused me falsely of 'making stuff up'. This is childish stuff to throw around. I don't lie and am actually am bloody reasonable. The problem you and others have is not with me, but with the topic matter. Get over it. I have no obligation to oblige yours or anyone else's interrogations.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Don't be so fucking rude. You've accused me falsely of 'making stuff up'. I don't lie and am actually am bloody reasonable. The problem you and others have is not with me, but with the topic matter. Get over it.

No jazzz, the problem i have is entirely with you and your deception, twisting of facts and inability to engage in discussion. Answer the damned questions!

 

[Jazzz]

No jazzz, the problem i have is entirely with you and your deception, twisting of facts and inability to engage in discussion. Answer the damned questions!

There you go again! I don't 'deceive' or twist facts in any way that is deliberate. If you want me to engage in discussion with you shouting crap like this, you can forget it.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

There you go again! I don't 'deceive' or twist facts in any way that is deliberate. If you want me to engage in discussion with you shouting crap like this, you can forget it.

I tried polite, you ignored me. So fuck you and your childish (note: this is childish this time) refusal to engage.

Answer the questions and i'll be polite. Ignore them and i'll continue to treat you with the disdain that you merit.

 

[MikeMcc]

Don't be so fucking rude. You've accused me falsely of 'making stuff up'. This is childish stuff to throw around. I don't lie and am actually am bloody reasonable. The problem you and others have is not with me, but with the topic matter. Get over it. I have no obligation to oblige yours or anyone else's interrogations.

Yes you do, you make statements and fail to back them up with any reasonable evidence, when challenged about them you simply evade the questions. You are not being reasonable, which is why virtually all of the posters on this thread are challenging you!

 

[editor]

Don't be so fucking rude. You've accused me falsely of 'making stuff up'. T

You lied when you claimed to have answered my questions.

But to get back on topic, could you explain how the towers were invisibly wired please?

What floors and in what offices where the explosives installed and how did they manage to bring in such immense amounts of explosives and do the vast amount of drilling and necessary preparatory work without a single soul noticing a thing?

And could you give me some examples of other occupied buildings being demolished in this astonishing manner?

It seems to me that you're proposing the impossible but can't bear the thought of admitting you're wrong and that's why you refuse to engage me in this debate.

You're making the big claims. Back them up, please.

 

[pk]

Both of those I took in good faith from webpages, and I was happy to be corrected. Stop accusing me of making stuff up or lying.

You take stuff in good faith from web pages that have been PROVEN to be operated by liars and frauds and anti-semites, time and time again, even Joe Vialls and you know all his stories were invented to gain some kind of attention, he was a complete mental case.

You do make stuff up and you do lie, when cornered by people who can see a bullshit conspiranoid theory and have the time to bother tacking you on it.

I really don't know why you bother any more - is there anyone here who takes your theories as anything more serious than paranoid ramblings of someone suffering from what appears to be several mental disorders?

Apart from Fela Fan?