9/11 media happenings

[Yossarian]

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

1. The 9/11 Conspiracy guys are liars.
2. The 9/11 Conspiracy guys are retarded.

Good link, manages sums up the findings of this whole thread in about ten words.

 

[pk]

Loose Change.

LOL!

 

[pk]

http://video.google.com/url?vidurl=...c=gvpl&usg=AL29H21sssTX-LBVTdtIVi9NHLD7kEKDUg

 

[editor]

http://video.google.com/url?vidurl=...c=gvpl&usg=AL29H21sssTX-LBVTdtIVi9NHLD7kEKDUg

Now that is funny. Those conspiraloons are total total cocks - no, make that tragic fuckups. What kind of fucking idiot would believe this kind of barking bullshit?

Oh hang on. That's Jazzz and his chums.

And that Jimmy millionaire cunt who thinks that all the people on the flights faked their own deaths, lied to their families and are still alive and working for the government? What a loathsome despicable fruitnut cunt.

I hope he meets some family members of 9/11 victims and tries suggesting that they're were all fooled and that their loved ones were all liars.

 

[pk]

And that Jimmy millionaire cunt who thinks that all the people on the flights faked their own deaths, lied to their families and are still alive and working for the government? What a loathsome despicable fruitnut cunt.

I hope he meets some family members of 9/11 victims and tries suggesting that they're were all fooled and that their loved ones were all liars.

I'm not related to anyone who died in the 9/11 attacks, but I'd still strongly advise anyone pushing similar bullshit theories not to repeat them within my immediate earshot.

 

[pk]

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.

Interesting how the main promoter of these frankly fucking offensive theories has done a runner rather than stand by his ludicrous claims...

 

[detective-boy]

Both of those I took in good faith from webpages, and I was happy to be corrected.

Which webpages? If they actually exist it shouldn't be too hard to post the link now should it? Surely someone who knows more than every other structural and fire engineer in the world without ever having studied the subject shouldn't find that too taxing now, should they?

Unless, of course, it's all bollocks - now that would explain the reticence, wouldn't it?

 

[detective-boy]

I don't lie and am actually am bloody reasonable.

That bloody reasonable chap Jazzz, pictured during an earlier campaign ...

 

[Jazzz]

Which webpages? If they actually exist it shouldn't be too hard to post the link now should it? Surely someone who knows more than every other structural and fire engineer in the world without ever having studied the subject shouldn't find that too taxing now, should they?

Unless, of course, it's all bollocks - now that would explain the reticence, wouldn't it?

If you read the thread you would have found that TA found a few webpages with the 600% figure quoted. I didn't make a note of the one I found it on.

As things are, I didn't need the 600% to prove that the core could both stand up for itself and take the entire gravity load of the towers - I did it with NIST's own figures which TA kindly provided. So nitpicking over that is just nitpicking for the sake of being awkward.

 

[8den]

Now that is funny. Those conspiraloons are total total cocks - no, make that tragic fuckups. What kind of fucking idiot would believe this kind of barking bullshit?

Oh hang on. That's Jazzz and his chums.

And that Jimmy millionaire cunt who thinks that all the people on the flights faked their own deaths, lied to their families and are still alive and working for the government? What a loathsome despicable fruitnut cunt.

I hope he meets some family members of 9/11 victims and tries suggesting that they're were all fooled and that their loved ones were all liars.

While we're laughing at the retards, a conspiracy theorist boy band have put up a pro 911 conspiracy theories song


"Nine Eleven, Nine Eleven,
What came down with Building Seven"

Honestly I'd take the piss out of it, but it pratically does it itself.

 

[Jazzz]

I'm not related to anyone who died in the 9/11 attacks, but I'd still strongly advise anyone pushing similar bullshit theories not to repeat them within my immediate earshot.

What, so you are going to beat up these bereaved widows? You are aware that William Rodriguez is closely involved with many 9/11 victim's families?

Stop macho posturing pk, it's ridiculous.

 

[editor]

What, so you are going to beat up these bereaved widows? You are aware that William Rodriguez is closely involved with many 9/11 victim's families?.

So which of those bereaved widows believe that their loved ones are evil liars and are in fact alive and well and working for the government as part of the evil cover up, like that sick clown in the video claimed?

Or is this yet another of your attempts to distort the truth?

 

[Jazzz]

You lied when you claimed to have answered my questions.

Now you are being deceitful. I have not claimed to answer your silly lists about which floors explosives were on and demands to know what the people who planted them had for breakfast etc. And I have no intention of indulging you. I do claim to have addressed quite a few of the points you raise earlier in the thread. And I don't see why I need repeat myself.

 

[editor]

Now you are being deceitful. I have not claimed to answer your silly lists about which floors explosives were on a

Why is a request for further information about your outrageous claims "silly", Jazzz?

You claimed that the towers were invisibly wired with vast amounts of invisible explosives installed by invisible operatives. I've simply asked you to clarify this claim and give some technical details of how this impossible task was achieved and you keep running away from answering. Why is that?

...and demands to know what the people who planted them had for breakfast etc.

And that's another lie.

 

[TheArchitect]

YOU were proved wrong about the collapse times, as NIST didn't agree with you at all.

Liar.

You claimed that the towers collapsed at near free fall speed, and that this was evidence of controlled demolition, however you failred to substantiate this. I pointed out that if we use typical CTer collapse times of 13 seconds, this represents an increase of around over a third. Even the NIST figure of 11 seconds represents a slowing of 19.5%. That's substantial.

And let's remember exactly what NIST actually say:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

So which is it Jazz? Why do you believe them on collapse time but not cause? Are NIST always wrong, or just wrong when it suits you?

I was proven RIGHT in my assertion that there is no evidence of 'inferno' in the South Tower

Liar. No-one except YOU said that there had to be an "inferno". In fact, you claimed - wrongly - that there was little or no fire:

The fire in the South Tower was unremarkable and soon to be fully extinguished

black smoke had pretty much ceased coming out of the building

You then used to reports of a fire crew on the 78th floor - away from the main impact - to try and justify this claim.

You were proven wrong. Again.

I was happy to discard the figure of 600%

Liar. You made up the figure of 600%, then refused to give your source, and only caved when WE did the research for you. And you don't even see what's wrong with inventing the figure!

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

Liar. What you actually said was:

I quote that article to make out that Fire Engineering considered the investigation second-rate -

In fact FE only have problems with how the investigation looked at aspects such as performance of fire proofing and co-ordination of the fire fighting effort. In fact they have never questioned the principal aspects of the NIST report, have they?

I have NEVER claimed that tensile and yield strength are the same thing!

Liar. You are using tensile strength in your calculation, because it gives you an exagerated overall strength.

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.

It ca't and you have never disproven it. Quite the opposite. The core is part of a composite structure which relies on the interrelationship of the three main elements for overall stability. You keep thinking that the core's role in providing resistance to the overturning moment proves it was designed as a freestanding structure.

What you've actually sought to argue of late is that it has sufficient capacity to carry gravity loads itself, which is also crap. You only got those figures by mis-applying tensile loads (see above) and trying to argue (wrongly) that failure doesn't occur at the yield point.

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

Liar. You're the one that's made an arse of yourself. Again.

 

[Jazzz]

So which of those bereaved widows believe that their loved ones are evil liars and are in fact alive and well and working for the government as part of the evil cover up, like that sick clown in the video claimed?

Or is this yet another of your attempts to distort the truth?

Many of the bereaved widows and families are not at all happy with the USGs 'investigation' of 9/11 and are calling for a proper one. Maybe if you listened to them you'd stop being an apologist for the biggest whitewash in history.

 

[TheArchitect]

I'm not related to anyone who died in the 9/11 attacks, but I'd still strongly advise anyone pushing similar bullshit theories not to repeat them within my immediate earshot.

This is one of the things that annoys me most about the Truthers. 3,000 men, women, and children died on 9/11. This is a real issue, and it affected real people in the very worst way imaginable. Yet clowns like Feltzer, Jones, et al bandy about half-arsed theories and make truly terrible accusations agains tpeople without seeming to realise just how serious it all is.

 

[TheArchitect]

Many of the bereaved widows and families are not at all happy with the USGs 'investigation' of 9/11 and are calling for a proper one. .

Prove it.

Links?

Numbers?

Proportion of victims' families?

Nature of complaints?

 

[TheArchitect]

If you read the thread you would have found that TA found a few webpages with the 600% figure quoted. I didn't make a note of the one I found it on.

There we go. Jazz' research technique:

1. Find figure you agree with

2. Ignore all others

3. Don't even check it or write down where you got it.

What an arse.

 

[TheArchitect]

Now you are being deceitful. I have not claimed to answer your silly lists about which floors explosives were on and demands to know what the people who planted them had for breakfast etc. And I have no intention of indulging you. I do claim to have addressed quite a few of the points you raise earlier in the thread. And I don't see why I need repeat myself.

YOU'RE THE ONE WHO CLAIMED IT WAS BLOWN UP.

NOW PROVE IT

 

[Yossarian]

This is one of the things that annoys me most about the Truthers. 3,000 men, women, and children died on 9/11. This is a real issue, and it affected real people in the very worst way imaginable. Yet clowns like Feltzer, Jones, et al bandy about half-arsed theories and make truly terrible accusations agains tpeople without seeming to realise just how serious it all is.

Yes, but many of them didn't even die, did they? A lot of people who were on the supposed 'planes' were actually spirited away by the US Government, etc. etc...

A lot of conspiracy theorists genuinely don't seem to realise how their theories could upset or offend people who were actually affected by events, I think that's because the majority of them have Asperger's Syndrome or something.

 

[Jazzz]

Liar.

You claimed that the towers collapsed at near free fall speed, and that this was evidence of controlled demolition, however you failred to substantiate this. I pointed out that if we use typical CTer collapse times of 13 seconds, this represents an increase of around over a third. Even the NIST figure of 11 seconds represents a slowing of 19.5%. That's substantial.

No, 'near free-fall' is quite an apt description. If the floors slow each other down by just a few percent that multiplies to provide a large increase to the overall collapse time.

Another way of thinking about it - if you jumped from the towers with just a small piece of fabric as a parachute, you would be free-falling, yet you would certainly add at least 20% onto your descent time.[/quote]

 

[TheArchitect]

Why is a request for further information about your outrageous claims "silly", Jazzz?

Compare and contrast the standard of evidence Jazz offers us with the standards he demands of NIST. Hmmmm........

 

[TheArchitect]

No, 'near free-fall' is quite an apt description. If the floors slow each other down by just a few percent that multiplies to provide a large increase to the overall collapse time.

Another way of thinking about it - if you jumped from the towers with just a small piece of fabric as a parachute, you would be free-falling, yet you would certainly add at least 20% onto your descent time.

1. Do you have a problem with basic reading comprehension? Let me make it simple for you.

THE TOWERS FELL AT LEAST 20% SLOWER THAN FREE FALL. PROPORTIONATELY THIS IS A LOT. IT IS NOT "A FEW PERCENT" AS YOU CLAIM.

2. There is no comparison between a parachute and the collapse of a building. That you think this to be a helpful analogy tells us everything about your analytical powers.

 

[Jazzz]

Liar. You are using tensile strength in your calculation, because it gives you an exageratted overall strength.
...
It ca't and you have never disproven it. Quite the opposite. The core is part of a composite structure which relies on the interrelationship of the three main elements for overall stability. You keep thinking that the core's role in providing resistance to the overturning moment proves it was designed as a freestanding structure.

What you've actually sought to argue of late is that it has sufficient capacity to carry gravity loads itself, which is also crap. You only got those figures by mis-applying tensile loads (see above) and trying to argue (wrongly) that failure doesn't occur at the yield point.

Liar. You're the one that's made an arse of yourself. Again.

No, you've made an arse of yourself. You've realised that you were totally mistaken about the DCR figures, and rather than admit you were completely wrong, you've come out blazing about everything else you can.

Now, if you care to check my posts you would have found that I showed that the core could take the entire gravity load of the building WITHOUT any reserve capacity past the yield point. Just a case of taking NIST's own DCR figures with the steel specification. This gave a figure of 201%. If you like, you can add on your own factor for the steel being better than specified.

 

[TheArchitect]

A lot of conspiracy theorists genuinely don't seem to realise how their theories could upset or offend people who were actually affected by events, I think that's because the majority of them have Asperger's Syndrome or something.

I could excuse that. Instead these clowns seem to think it's a game.

Why have Dylan, Avery, Fetzer, and co never used the mucho money they made to carry out real research with recognised authorities? Why have they never taken their supposedly inctorvertible evidence to court? Why don't they conduct their own proper inquiry?

All the internet has done is afford these cranks a mouthpiece.

 

[TheArchitect]

Now, if you care to check my posts you would have found that I showed that the core could take the entire gravity load of the building WITHOUT any reserve capacity past the yield point. Just a case of taking NIST's own DCR figures with the steel specification. This gave a figure of 201%. If you like, you can add on your own factor for the steel being better than specified.

No you didn't. Reread the posts. But then you've proven that you have a problem with basic reading comprehension........either that or you deliberately misrepresent and cherry pick quotes - well, between inventing figures such as 600%.

 

[Jazzz]

1. Do you have a problem with basic reading comprehension? Let me make it simple for you.

THE TOWERS FELL AT LEAST 20% SLOWER THAN FREE FALL. PROPORTIONATELY THIS IS A LOT. IT IS NOT "A FEW PERCENT" AS YOU CLAIM.

2. There is no comparison between a parachute and the collapse of a building. That you think this to be a helpful analogy tells us everything about your analytical powers.

Oh do stop shouting you tiresome windbag!

20% represents very little resistance, because any substantial resistance from 100 floors or so is going to multiply through to provide collapse times many times in excess of the free-fall speed. And NIST agrees with me.

This is what they say

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.

'Near free-fall speed' is clearly a perfectly apt description. If you want to argue with that, you are arguing with NIST.

 

[Jazzz]

'empty vessels make the loudest noise...'

 

[editor]

Many of the bereaved widows and families are not at all happy with the USGs 'investigation' of 9/11 and are calling for a proper one. Maybe if you listened to them you'd stop being an apologist for the biggest whitewash in history.

You just made a direct link between the "bereaved widows" and the claims made in the video that the passengers were all in fact alive and well and working for the government. Why, exactly?

There is no connection. None of the widows believe that their loved ones are still living, so why did you infer that was the case? Please explain.

Oh, and do you think they're alive too, or would you agree with me that the bloke making the claims appears to be something of a deranged nutloop?