Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

9/11 media happenings

Status
Not open for further replies.
That holograph thing is absolutely laughable. Anyone with even an ounce of an idea about how holographs work would discount that theory in a flash. Utterly, utterly preposterous.
 
WouldBe said:
Incoming means flying into the USA not originating from inside. Perhaps NORAD were worried about Utah launching an ICBM attack on New Hampshire.

Exactly, NORAD is like a doughnut with North America being the hole in the middle. This has been explained to Jazzz & the other CT'ers a number of times.
 
Bob_the_lost said:
Pretty fucking meaningless. I asked for "any offical document that states NORAD's responsability for detecting a hijacking." Not a one liner that says nothing at all about civilian air trafic.
Quite. On the basis of that NORAD are also responsible for a bird flu outbreak in the US ... if it arrives in a migrating goose coming into the airspace they monitor ... :D
 
RE: the ending the thread idea ...

Isn't there some programme on 9/11 on BBC2(?) this week? The Conspiracy Files or whatever?

Wouldn't it be worth just letting it run on over that seeing as we've come this far? :confused:
 
This thread should definitely be archived, and referred to whenever these nasty anti-semitic theories are raised by followers of David Icke (the son of God) or any other gullible muppet who belives the American Free Press has ever been a credible source of info.

Much like the skulls of villains were once impaled upon the spikes of London Bridge.
 
I think some of us should get together and get all the best debunking arguments together and link out to other debunkers...
 
Might be worth having a look to see how much circular sourcing goes on in the woo-woo sites too (site A says site C said that...., site B says site A said that...., site C says site B said that....,).
 
MikeMcc said:
Might be worth having a look to see how much circular sourcing goes on in the woo-woo sites too (site A says site C said that...., site B says site A said that...., site C says site B said that....,).
It's amazing how much of the crap can be sourced to a small handful of people...
 
simplyoutkast said:
911 was a bunch of bs.....have you seen loose change?
Bless.

Have you tried thinking for yourself rather than watching a carefully edited, selectively quoting, "bunch of bs" put together by agenda-laden woo-woo amateurs?
 
MikeMcc said:
Might be worth having a look to see how much circular sourcing goes on in the woo-woo sites too (site A says site C said that...., site B says site A said that...., site C says site B said that....,).

Might google pay someone to do that?

The answer is practically all in their index, it'd be a useful refinement to their ranking algorithm...
 
Wtc7

"That building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out?"

- Comment by a firefighter, September 11, 2001.

 
Jazzz said:
"That building is never coming down, that didn't get hit by a plane, why isn't somebody in there putting the fire out?"

- Comment by a firefighter, September 11, 2001.
Hey! Just throw away all the thousands of pages of expert analysis, independent investigation and peer reviewed research because some unknown bloke who's never been interviewed since said something in the heat of the moment when he didn't know what was going on!

Great work, Jazzz!
 
err... NIST haven't even come up with a finished theory as to why WTC7 came down, never mind a peer-reviewed one. And never mind independent! 0/3. But why let ignorance get in the way?
 
Can we get back to the core of the WTC towers?
I still don't see the link between the core being able to be freestanding (if this is the case, I personally dunno) and why CD and not planes/fires accounts for the collapse.
 
axon said:
Can we get back to the core of the WTC towers?
I still don't see the link between the core being able to be freestanding (if this is the case, I personally dunno) and why CD and not planes/fires accounts for the collapse.
You're right axon. The main focus of that was that when I said the core could be freestanding, TA and Crispy both jumped on it to say 'what a fool you are jazzz. The core wouldn't stand up on its own. What a ludicrous suggestion! This means, you are dumb, and it follows that everything else you say about the collapse is also dumb'. So, the question became a focal point as to which side was talking bollocks. And guess what - it wasn't me. ;)
 
Jazzz said:
You're right axon. The main focus of that was that when I said the core could be freestanding, TA and Crispy both jumped on it to say 'what a fool you are jazzz. The core wouldn't stand up on its own. What a ludicrous suggestion! This means, you are dumb, and it follows that everything else you say about the collapse is also dumb'. So, the question became a focal point as to which side was talking bollocks. And guess what - it wasn't me. ;)

So......why do you think CD brought the towers down rather than fires/planes?
 
Jazzz said:
err... NIST haven't even come up with a finished theory as to why WTC7 came down,
They have a working collapse hypothesis which I'd trust over anything dreamt up by fucking amateur idiots proposing invisible explosives installed by invisible people, missile-firing planes, children marked down for death, lying passengers, faked phone calls and the rest of the shot your spew out daily.

Look! Analysis from a credible source!
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

And then of course, there's the tons of considered analysis available from credible, qualified sources, none of which go along with your bonkers bedroom-brewed theories.

But don't tell me: that's because they're all in on it too, eh?!

Oh, are you going to answer my questions relating to the points you raised? Or are you going to keep on running away?
 
Seeing as we're now entering the domain of faith and belief when it comes to Jazzz's evidence, shall we have a poll to see who's been convinced by his arguments?

After all, he's been at absolute liberty to make nearly half a thousand posts in just this thread alone, so no one could accuse urban75 of not letting him get his side of the story over in the greatest depth imaginable.

So are you up for a deciding poll, Jazzz?
 
MikeMcc said:
Just had a peek back in my pet reference book (Engineer in Training:Reference Manual (8th Ed) by Michael R. Lindberg, a reference for US engineers seeking to pass their PE exams). In ductile materials (such as steel) the compressive yield point is the same as the tensile yield point. This will be the point at which the component fails.
Hi MikeMcc,

This has been bothering me a bit. Could you clarify whether this quote included the phrase 'this will be the point at which the component fails' or was that your addition?
 
MikeMcc said:
Just to throw another twopenneth in, here's a link to a video from Steve Spak about the major fire and serious damage to WTC7

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHdt7wRQtaY
But the point above - which everyone ignores, of course, is that - how did they know it was going to come down? It's by far the most surprising collapse of the three, and such a collapse - just by fire, wasn't even hit by a plane - had never happened before, ever. Yet it seemed word was out that it was about to come down, and sure enough it did. How on earth could anyone have known?

And besides, although there's certainly some fire going on there, it pales compared to fires like One Meridian Plaza, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom