9/11 media happenings

[editor]

No.

So exactly what gives you the right to claim that "the families have rejected the 9/11 Commission as a farcical investigation and are calling for a proper one"?

Are you wilfully misrepresenting the facts, Jazzz?

 

[Jazzz]

No my points are not wrong, it will fail if the load is continuously applied.

I don't believe you at all (that ultimate compressive strength = compressive yield strength); everything else I came across suggested otherwise, particularly the requirement of the NYC building code 1968 which would make no sense if that is true. And I'm pissed off that you led me to believe that that came out of a reference manual when it did not. And it was because I was confident about my position that I was able to root out how your post was misleading.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Some of Jazzz's best one liners:

like all those hijackers who remained curiously undetected by everyone at the airports ...

They were.

Years, not months, of planning. This was surely the dress rehearsal.

It was?

but first my opponent would have to explain why the concrete had all turned to dust and there was no large rubble.

It wasn't, there was.

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

No it wasn't.

thousands of tons of steel provided a huge 'heat sink' for any fire, so the steel columns could only have risen a few degrees in tempature

But they didn't.

The WTC dust cloud was certainly a pyroclastic flow - you say 'hot' because there's only one time you will get such a flow without explosives - that's from a volcano.

You don't get that from explosives

No, but I would claim that no flames and hardly any smoke is a sign of a weak fire. Like with the South Tower just before collapse.

He likes this fact, pity it's wrong.

I venture that doesn't happen when you compress steel. It will crack and not go anywhere. Wood - very elastic: Steel - very unelastic.

Steel's about 15-30 times as elastic as wood.

Here's a nice pic of what looks very much like a beam sliced diagonally by thermite reaction - note the black deposits precisely where you would expect molten iron

Oddly it's a beam that was cut after the event with a cutting torch.

Thomas Eagar referred to the World Trade Centre as a fantastically redundant structure, and he's seems to be quoted as an authority on it. 600% sounds perfectly reasonable to me

Sounds about right, therefore jazzz claims it as a fact.

Well, all those reports of explosions for one, who was to say that Al-Qaeda hadn't planted a few?

Yes Jazzz, a perfectly logical thought process.

However there is nothing about the collapse that is not in keeping with CD.

Everything about the collapse is not in keeping with Controlled Demolition. When asked for examples of CD that back him up, he ran off.

You have to say why the hell should we pay any attention to the NIST report when it completely ignores crucial factors (refering to thermal conduction in the steel beams).

It did, Jazzz was talking shite again.

If you can bring towers down neatly with some jet fuel and the cutting of a few beams

Understatement aside (cutting a few beams, just a few), he ignores the major source of heat, office furnishings, kerosene was rather minor in comparison.

Up to post 1150 so far.

It comes down to whether others will stop attacking me for being correct.

You are criticised for several things, oddly this would be the last thing i'd "attack" you for.

 

[MikeMcc]

I don't believe you at all (that ultimate compressive strength = compressive yield strength); everything else I came across suggested otherwise, particularly the requirement of the NYC building code 1968 which would make no sense if that is true. And I'm pissed off that you led me to believe that that came out of a reference manual when it did not. And it was because I was confident about my position that I was able to root out how your post was misleading.

Get this into your head, and I don't frankly CARE how pissed off you are, once it gets past the yield point it will continue to deform until it fails or the load is removed. Items that have been deformed will appear to have a higher yield strength if the load is reapplied but it's ductility will be reduced. My points are still correct.

 

[Jazzz]

Get this into your head, and I don't frankly CARE how pissed off you are, once it gets past the yield point it will continue to deform until it fails or the load is removed. Items that have been deformed will appear to have a higher yield strength if the load is reapplied but it's ductility will be reduced. My points are still correct.

What on earth do you mean 'appear to have a higher yield strength'? If you are admitting that compressive strength is not the same as a compressive yield point, then that's conceding the point.

Yes of course the steel will deform past the yield point, it will simply deform but take increasing loads at the same time.

 

[Jazzz]

So exactly what gives you the right to claim that "the families have rejected the 9/11 Commission as a farcical investigation and are calling for a proper one"?

Are you wilfully misrepresenting the facts, Jazzz?

No. The Jersey Girls and family steering group can fairly be said to be have widespread support amongst the 9/11 families.

 

[Pete the Greek]

What on earth do you mean 'appear to have a higher yield strength'? If you are admitting that compressive strength is not the same as a compressive yield point, then that's conceding the point.

Yes of course the steel will deform past the yield point, it will simply deform but take increasing loads at the same time.

Jazz, have you ever stopped to think that 9/11 was the first time buildings of that size, structure and consistency were demolished in the way they were? (i.e. planes full of fuel flying into them at a rate of knotts)

How can you make assessments like this, as if it offers proof? They are only guesstimates at best.

You have very flimsy "evidence" my friend, sorry.

 

[WouldBe]

Yes of course the steel will deform past the yield point, it will simply deform but take increasing loads at the same time.

No it won't.

If by deforming the steel it could then take increasing loads the steel would then stop deforming.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

No. The Jersey Girls and family steering group can fairly be said to be have widespread support amongst the 9/11 families.

Source? Sorry, forgot who posted it. Only Jazzz is exempt from providing sources that don't dribble on themselves.

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz, have you ever stopped to think that 9/11 was the first time buildings of that size, structure and consistency were demolished in the way they were? (i.e. planes full of fuel flying into them at a rate of knotts)

How can you make assessments like this, as if it offers proof? They are only guesstimates at best.

You have very flimsy "evidence" my friend, sorry.

I don't think you should comment on this unless you've read the corresponding section in the thread (i.e. several pages of thread in which I didn't see a single post from you).

 

[Pete the Greek]

I don't think you should comment on this unless you've read the corresponding section in the thread (i.e. several pages of thread in which I didn't see a single post from you).

You obviously know not the art of the 'lurker'

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I don't think you should comment on this unless you've read the corresponding section in the thread (i.e. several pages of thread in which I didn't see a single post from you).

I don't think you should point any fingers untill you find a single building collapse brought about by HE, or thermite, that looks anything like the towers coming down.

 

[Pete the Greek]

I don't think you should point any fingers untill you find a single building collapse brought about by HE, or thermite, that looks anything like the towers coming down.

That's my point.

There isn't one.

Jazz is stuck, I feel. Oh dear.

 

[Jazzz]

No it won't.

If by deforming the steel it could then take increasing loads the steel would then stop deforming.

It's just like tensile strength being greater than the tensile yield point. The steel will compress up to the yield point, then it will give a certain amount (but not fail), then you will be able to increase the load and it will deform more as you do that, up to the point where it fails (the ultimate compressive strength). In the case of A36 steel the compressive strength will significantly greater than the compressive yield point (that's what the specification said by having 'significant reserve capacity' past the yield point).

 

[Pete the Greek]

this is hilarious.

The fact that there are untold witnesses who saw the planes fly into the buildings. The fact it was filmed. And of course, the fact that the communications from the plane's black boxes and the mobile phone calls were all recorded.

Oh dear, no way any conspiraloon can successfully pick their way through the maze of proof before them.

I wouldn't be a conspiraloon for all the tea in China. Far too much like hard work

 

[Jazzz]

I don't think you should point any fingers untill you find a single building collapse brought about by HE, or thermite, that looks anything like the towers coming down.

eh? WTC7 looked like an absolutely text-book building implosion. And the only thing that looked unlike a controlled demolition of WTCs 1&2 was that it came down from the impact floors downwards, which is no objection because demolition companies could very easily do that if needed.

 

[Pete the Greek]

eh? WTC7 looked like an absolutely text-book building implosion. And the only thing that looked unlike a controlled demolition of WTCs 1&2 was that it came down from the impact floors downwards, which is no objection because demolition companies could very easily do that if needed.

It looked like a text book implosion? Are you kidding me?

When was the last time you saw one of the tallest buildings in the world fall down because of a jumbo jet ploughing into it?

So what you saw was text book nothing. Text book bullshit, I can't believe I'm reading this.

There's no way you can say that because of the way the buildings came down, they must be because of an inside job.

The incidents were unprecedented. So the text book doesn't exist, because nothing like that happened before.

Have you got it yet? Hello, McFly???

 

[Bob_the_lost]

eh? WTC7 looked like an absolutely text-book building implosion. And the only thing that looked unlike a controlled demolition of WTCs 1&2 was that it came down from the impact floors downwards, which is no objection because demolition companies could very easily do that if needed.

NO IT DIDN'T YOU TIT.

It looked nothing like a text book implosion. I've pointed this out repeatedly, don't you remember?

WTC 1&2 look nothing like CDs, again this has been covered numerous times, do you not remember them either?

 

[Jazzz]

this is hilarious.

The fact that there are untold witnesses who saw the planes fly into the buildings. The fact it was filmed. And of course, the fact that the communications from the plane's black boxes and the mobile phone calls were all recorded.

You're the hilarious one If you have details about the black box data for flights 11 and 175, well you'll be the first. They are officially not recovered, although two passports were from the same crashes. Also I don't know where you get the idea that the mobile calls from the planes were recorded.

That's the very thing - your 'maze of proof', when you look for it, turns into a 'blancmange of proof' - rather insubstantial. I would advise you though to live in your cosy little world of preconceptions though PTG it would all be too unsettling for you.

 

[Pete the Greek]

NO IT DIDN'T YOU TIT.

It looked nothing like a text book implosion. I've pointed this out repeatedly, don't you remember?

WTC 1&2 look nothing like CDs, again this has been covered numerous times, do you not remember them either?

as exasperated as I am.

 

[Pete the Greek]

You're the hilarious one If you have details about the black box data for flights 11 and 175, well you'll be the first. Also I don't know where you get the idea that the mobile calls from the planes were recorded.

That's the very thing - your 'maze of proof', when you look for it, turns into a 'blancmange of proof' - rather insubstantial. I would advise you though to live in your cosy little world of preconceptions though PTG it would all be too unsettling for you.

the mobile phone calls were recorded you imbecile. They were logged.

Oh yeah...and the people on the other end of those calls kinda heard what was going on.

Do you deny that? You do accept that the recipients of the mobile calls heard the same story from each of the people on board, right?

 

[Jazzz]

It looked like a text book implosion? Are you kidding me?

When was the last time you saw one of the tallest buildings in the world fall down because of a jumbo jet ploughing into it?

NO PLANE FLEW INTO WTC7 you utter twit!

Serious PTG. Charging onto the back end of a huge 9/11 thread when you clearly know bugger all about the topic is no help to anyone.

 

[Jazzz]

the mobile phone calls were recorded you imbecile.

They weren't recorded. Comment as above.

(one exception that I know of - the Betty Ong call)

 

[Pete the Greek]

NO PLANE FLEW INTO WTC7 you utter twit!

Serious PTG. Charging onto the back end of a huge 9/11 thread when you clearly know bugger all about the topic is no help to anyone.

I know about as much about 9/11 as your averge person in the street. A lay person's amount. I saw the whole thing on TV after the FIRST plane, and I read the press and have read various articles in the press in successive years since then.

With this lay person's knowledge in mind - I can confidently claim to have more understanding about 9/11 than you, by a country mile.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Come on Jazzz, i'm waiting.

 

[Jazzz]

I know about as much about 9/11 as your averge person in the street. A lay person's amount. I saw the whole thing on TV after the FIRST plane, and I read the press and have read various articles in the press in successive years since then.

With this lay person's knowledge in mind - I can confidently claim to have more understanding about 9/11 than you, by a country mile.

In three posts you've appeared to claim that:

1) Black box data was recovered from the WTC
2) WTC7 was hit by a plane
3) The mobile phone calls from flight 93 were recorded

All of which are completely untrue. Which is in fact pretty much every point you've made. Go back to sleep!

 

[Pete the Greek]

In three posts you've appeared to claim that:

1) Black box data was recovered from the WTC
2) WTC7 was hit by a plane
3) The mobile phone calls from flight 93 were recorded

All of which are completely untrue. Which is in fact pretty much every point you've made. Go back to sleep!

you misconstruing sod! i said no such thing!

1) I said the black boxes (they are plane equipment, mate) were recovered from the, er, planes.
2) I said the two (twin) towers were hit - and if i didnt state this in words, I hoped this obvious fact would be taken for granted in what I was inferring.
3) The mobile calls were recorded, because I remember clips being played back on TV news reports.

where do you get your ideas from, Jazz?

 

[Badger Kitten]

Whenever I read this thread, this is the music I hear in my head

 

[Pete the Greek]

Whenever I read this thread, this is the music I hear in my head

you know what I think of, now you mention it?

http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/reservoirdogs/stuckinthemiddlewithyou.htm

 

[editor]

No. The Jersey Girls and family steering group can fairly be said to be have widespread support amongst the 9/11 families.

Really? So What are you basing this claim on please? Numbers and credible source, please.

Of course, none of them support your lunatic theories, do they? So why are you going on about this?