9/11 media happenings

[Jazzz]

No, I won't get lost!

This is a free board, I have the right to post here as much as anyone, so long as Ed don't take umbridge with anything I do/say.

You move over, Mr Four hundred and somit posts to my 20 odd.

umbrage, fool.

 

[Jazzz]

God you're stupid.

You're a deceptive coward because you won't answer that post. I merely attached your titles to the post where i remind you that Fox news isn't respected. You're still a deceptive coward because you haven't tried to address your deliberate ignorance and repeated repetition of things you know to be false.

Any closer to enlightenment yet?

You're the one being deceptive. You posted specifically about your (weak and rebutted) FOX news point in post #2323. Then I responded to that in post #2327. Then you addressed that reply by saying that you were really talking about something else. You're the one pissing about here.

 

[Pete the Greek]

umbrage, fool.

yeah.

Er, to Bob The Lost and Editor...

I can see a pattern develop.

he's picking fights with me, because he knows he has more luck on finding "inconsistencies" as I have (self admittendly) a lay person's knowledge of 9/11.

While this is still enough top defeat him in a row, I see he is ignoring your questions and focussing on me, which basically means he has lost the row but looking to pick up on any factual or otherwise inaccuracies I may come out with.

As a result, I'll leave you to pick apart the meat off his proverbial bones in the desert that is this thread. I fear the people in the right won this argument on page two.

With all the above in mind, I leave this thread be, and make way purely for BtL, Ed and others to swoop on the poor, listless Jazzz.

Enjoy.

 

[wee cough ed]

I tried to make the point that, to determine if there was preparation for the attack, a line of inquiry is the operation of the Tower Seven backup generator system. Because it is a known suspect MO reported from time to time in UK since 1981.

As for the hardy perennial thread argument on structural collapse ... it seems to me that the basis of your debate is one specificication and one assumption. Whereas the history of the buildings would suggest that debate should be based on two specifications and three assumptions.

 

[Jazzz]

You have trouble with even the most basic facts, don't you?

There's only one person dominating this thread, and that's you:

Yeah well it's me vs. you sorry lot isn't it.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You're the one being deceptive. You posted specifically about your (weak and rebutted) FOX news point in post #2323. Then I responded to that in post #2327. Then you addressed that reply by saying that you were really talking about something else. You're the one pissing about here.

Lies lies and damned lies:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5659566&postcount=2298

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5659601&postcount=2305

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5659643&postcount=2312

If you're too stupid to follow that train of logic then you really are beyond hope. Now, stop fuckign around you coward and deal with the orriginal point instead of trying to run off on a tangent.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Yeah well it's me vs. you sorry lot isn't it.

You missed that massive post where i listed some of the many lies, innacuracies and flat out wrong assertions you made then?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

What? No quick comeback? Whatever bollocks you post i'm off out, don't let him get away with too much while i'm out.

 

[Yossarian]

Charlie Brooker summing it all up nicely in tomorrow’s Guardian:

‘Here’s what really happened on 9/11. A terrible crime was committed by a group of determined terrorists. Appalling mistakes were made both before and after the terrible crime. The terrible crime was capitalized upon. The world was shit before the terrible crime, and got steadily shittier afterwards. That’s it!

So please, please, stop pissing your pants about controlled demolitions and the like – you’re wrong. You’re wrong! And it’s OK to be wrong. You can still distrust or even hate the government. But on this one? You’re wrong. And continuing to bang on about it isn’t heroic, it’s embarrassing.

The rest of the world isn’t asleep. You’re just dreaming out loud.’

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/columnists/story/0,,2013858,00.html

(Edit to add URL)

 

[Jazzz]

Lies lies and damned lies:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5659566&postcount=2298

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5659601&postcount=2305

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5659643&postcount=2312

If you're too stupid to follow that train of logic then you really are beyond hope. Now, stop fuckign around you coward and deal with the orriginal point instead of trying to run off on a tangent.

okay, I've read your post #2323 again and see that although you repeated the Fox news thing you were referring to other stuff. It was far from obvious, especially in a quickfire thread where I'm dealing with three of you.

But if you want to demand that I answer your questions you'll have to apologise for the abuse.

 

[Pete the Greek]

*sneaks into thread, whispers to Bob*

Don't apologise to him. You've said nowt wrong.

"sneaks off again and titters*

 

[Jazzz]

oh piss off you

 

[8den]

Oh hello badger kitten. What your opinion of the Jersey Girls and their documentary?

you rancid fuckwit thats not their documentary. Did they make it? Do they spout the conspiracy theories spouted in the documentary? No they're like many of us pissed off with the intelligence failures in the run up to 911.

Claiming it's their film is just as pahetic and the tissue of lies the filmakers build around their credible issues.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

okay, I've read your post #2323 again and see that although you repeated the Fox news thing you were referring to other stuff. It was far from obvious, especially in a quickfire thread where I'm dealing with three of you.

But if you want to demand that I answer your questions you'll have to apologise for the abuse.

Appologise? When you appologise for wasting my time and for posting up crap that's been debunked repeatedly i'll consider it. Untill then i'm going to stand by my assertion that you're an intellectual coward and deliberatly setting out to decieve people.

Analysis of why you're talking shite:

By myself:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4592605&postcount=1070
(I've done the same thing in other locations but those threads got binned, annoyingly at least one had you quoting the relevant passage if memory serves)

By others: http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445992

I could find more, but since you'll never, never accept you're wrong, or read links provided i don't see the point. For those who's minds are still open: WTC building 7 does not exhibit any symptoms of controlled detonation and had clearly visible and very sizeable physical damage from debris before it collapsed in addition to the large, unimpeded, fires burning throughout the building.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Oh hello badger kitten. What your opinion of the Jersey Girls and their documentary?

For editor, here's respected media outlets referring to 'the families' in just the same way I did

http://govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022004c1.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143231,00.html

etc.

The Jersey girls are of the cock up, not conspiraloon school of thought as far as I can see. (As am I.)

They want

Bush to publicly answer questions under oath regarding his actions on Sept. 11, what he knew about possible terrorist threats to the United States in the months before the attacks, and what he knew about the intentions of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. The group also asked why, to date, no one in government has been held accountable for the "countless failures leading up to and on [Sept. 11]."

( your source)


Nowt there about demolition, pods, holograms, Mossad, Jews, owls etc.

 

[MikeMcc]

Oh God, I've got an admission to make! I sorry, I fucked up. My points about failure in compression were wrong (and Jazz was right on that point).

 

[editor]

Oh God, I've got an admission to make! I sorry, I fucked up. My points about failure in compression were wrong (and Jazz was right on that point).

It's good that you're prepared to admit to minor mistakes. Of course, none of this goes any way to proving Jazzz's "invisible explosives/missile firing planes" theory, which remains as fact free and as grounded in sci-fi fantasy as ever.

Still, spurred on by your honesty, perhaps Jazzz might stop his long campaign of dishonest obfuscation and start answering my points - all of which were raised in direct response to the claims the has made here.

 

[MikeMcc]

At least I can admit I made a fuck up...

 

[TheArchitect]

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.

But Jazz. Your figures only showed (ahem) that it could allegedly carry the gravity load because you screwed up your figures and multiplied DCR by yield safety factor and then tensile strength.

Or in other words, you bolloxed up the calculation.

You also wholly failed to address the issue of composite structure, where no one element can act as a wholly unsupported free standing structure. Which is why only the bottom section of the core managed to stand for 15 seconds.

Or in other words, you yet again ignored inconvenient facts.

 

[TheArchitect]

WTC7 for beginners:

1. Woowoos claim there were no big nasty fires.

2. This proves otherwise.

 

[TheArchitect]

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).

Bollocks. Once again Jazz shows his ignorance of structural mechanics.

Yield point/strength (there is a minor difference) is generally the stress at which a material exhibits a specified deviation from proportionality of stress and strain. In other words it undergoes plastic deformation.

As others have pointed out if the load/stress/strain is removed then the deformation will remain permanent. If the load is increased then deformation will continue.

In passing, since Jazz tends to get them mixed up, tensile strength (also called ultimate strength) is the maximum strength developed in a metal in a tension test and hence not relevant to this discussion.

Now this is where Jazz goes spectacularly wrong.

You see it is important to differentiate between a single steel member and an overall framed structure. In tests, yield is based on the deformation of a single member and hence ultimate failure occurs when the beam collapses in a soggy mass.

However in a structure, deformation has a number of importnat implications:

- How will it affect the surround structure? Does it move uniformly?

- If not, then what happens to joints, connections, and the like. Bear in mind that steel is sized based on issues such as available cross-bracing, load transmission paths, and so on.

- Once a structure buckles, load paths can go any way. They vary significantly from the simple tests used in the lab for single members. Buckling may transfer load to an adjacent steel, causing failure, for example.

So in short, Jazz is talking out his beam end again.

 

[TheArchitect]

... I made a fuck up...

Ironically not quite as much as you think.

 

[axon]

So still no evidence that either
1) There was controlled demoliton or
2) Disproves that planes and fires could have caused the collapse.

I wonder why Jazzz doesn't pick up on these salient points?

 

[TheArchitect]

So still no evidence that either
1) There was controlled demoliton or
2) Disproves that planes and fires could have caused the collapse.

I wonder why Jazzz doesn't pick up on these salient points?

Jazz thinks that there is evidence. Somehow.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Oh hello badger kitten. What your opinion of the Jersey Girls and their documentary?

For editor, here's respected media outlets referring to 'the families' in just the same way I did

http://govexec.com/dailyfed/0204/022004c1.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143231,00.html

etc.

The Jersey Girls are NOT conspiraloons, despite conspiraloon attempts to co-opt their activism and grief they say , cock up not conspiracy....
In Lorie Auken's statement she said this of the 9/11 Commission Report:

A failure of whose imagination? What exactly does that mean? When you have a CIA director with his hair on fire, a system blinking red, 52 FAA warnings, an August 6th, 2001, PDB entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States’, leads on several 9/11 hijackers including Alhazmi, Almihdhar and Marwan Al-Shehhi, warnings from many foreign governments, a Phoenix memo warning of Islamic extremists taking flying lessons, the arrest of would-be terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui, facts imparted to one agent, Agent Frasca at the RFU at the FBI, 9/11 was truly a failure alright.

After the 9/11 Commission issued its report, the Jersey Girls pressured the Administration to follow its recommendations. They specifically commended the Commission for not politicizing blame in the report. "The USS Cole was bombed under Clinton's watch, and 9/11 happened under Bush's watch," said Rosemary Dillard. "I don't blame either administration; I blame the people who were reporting to them."[10] As the 2004 election neared, the widows criticized Bush for the failure to enact the recommendations of the commission; many interpreted this as an endorsement of Bush's opponent John Kerry; the New York Times reported, "In a statement clearly meant to influence voters in next week's election, the group did not explicitly endorse Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, but said Mr. Bush had 'allowed members of his own party to derail the legislative process.'"[11]

That's wiki, which YOU quoted.

Much as I can ask for a 7/7 inquiry, with other survivors and bereaved ( and you'll see a hell of a lot of news on that when the Crevice trial ends, but I do not believe the 7/7 conspiraloon theories and in order to make that clear, and to avoid being lumped with the loons, I actively argue AGAINST the 7/7 conspiraloons.

They continue to send me DVDS to my home address, and to email me and to be a pain in the bum. I have read all their batshit theories and I know them to be balls. Nonetheless I DO still want an inquiry independent of Government, faster, better compensation packages for families of terrorism victims & seriously injured in the UK and abroad, first aid kits in stations, better intra-agency communication, better equipment like radios that work underground, and education on PTSD. I will talk to the media about it, because that is when the Govt. listen. The emdia demand I talk about my personal experience as the trade off in order to make the inquiry point, so that's what I and others have to do. Doesn't mena I like doing it, but that is how it works. I believe we need an inquiry.

So do conspiraloons, but the difference is, they think it was an inside job cover up. They hope an inquiry will prove their belief.
So both I and the conspiraloons are calling for an inquiry.

But I am not a conspiraloon. Nor am I a liar, nor a shill, nor a fake, nor a team of M15 agents, nor an Islamophobe or a racist or a Government mouthpiece, or any of the other things I've been called this last 18 months.

And nor are the Jersey Girls. Do. You. See?

 

[Badger Kitten]

oh, and I'm v. glad this thread is here because it is a Dreadful Lesson to Conspiraloons about how their theories can be patiently dismantled by people with access to facts and shows up their quasi-reliosity for the palpable nonsense it is.

 

[Jazzz]

The Jersey Girls are NOT conspiraloons, despite conspiraloon attempts to co-opt their activism and grief they say , cock up not conspiracy....
In Lorie Auken's statement she said this of the 9/11 Commission Report:

That's wiki, which YOU quoted.

Much as I can ask for a 7/7 inquiry, with other survivors and bereaved ( and you'll see a hell of a lot of news on that when the Crevice trial ends, but I do not believe the 7/7 conspiraloon theories and in order to make that clear, and to avoid being lumped with the loons, I actively argue AGAINST the 7/7 conspiraloons.

They continue to send me DVDS to my home address, and to email me and to be a pain in the bum. I have read all their batshit theories and I know them to be balls. Nonetheless I DO still want an inquiry independent of Government, faster, better compensation packages for families of terrorism victims & seriously injured in the UK and abroad, first aid kits in stations, better intra-agency communication, better equipment like radios that work underground, and education on PTSD. I will talk to the media about it, because that is when the Govt. listen. The emdia demand I talk about my personal experience as the trade off in order to make the inquiry point, so that's what I and others have to do. Doesn't mena I like doing it, but that is how it works. I believe we need an inquiry.

So do conspiraloons, but the difference is, they think it was an inside job cover up. They hope an inquiry will prove their belief.
So both I and the conspiraloons are calling for an inquiry.

But I am not a conspiraloon. Nor am I a liar, nor a shill, nor a fake, nor a team of M15 agents, nor an Islamophobe or a racist or a Government mouthpiece, or any of the other things I've been called this last 18 months.

And nor are the Jersey Girls. Do. You. See?

No they're not. They're widows trying to find out the truth about what happened. And finding that they can't get very basic answers to very simple stuff. Here's what they say about 'conspiracy theorists' - I note you've never commented on this quote:

"At first, we widows didn’t want to be seen with conspiracy people. But they kept showing up. They cared more than those supposedly doing the investigating. If you ask me, they’re just Americans, looking for the truth, which is supposed to be our right." Van Auken

You should watch their documentary BK. Here it is:


... and you would see that they ringingly endorse the work by Paul Thompson and his 9/11 Timeline. Funny thing when I quoted that a few pages ago editor rounded on me for quoting a 'conspiracy site'. And well, if you watch the film you would see that it addresses the defence failures on 9/11, suggests that the US military deliberately let Osama and his henchmen escape, in fact was protected by them when he needed kidney dialysis, that they helped create Al-Qaeda via funds transferred through the Pakistani ISI.. what else.. oh that WTC7 seemed a very strange and implausible collapse - much else that were I to post it, you would be barking 'conspiraloon'.

You should also read the questions that they posed to the 9/11 Commission, ones that went unanswered. Questions concerning Bush's conduct on the day. Questions asking about DNA identification of the hijackers. Questions about how on earth NORAD failed to intercept any of the four flights. Questions asking how passports can survive infernos. Questions about how the hijackers managed to get the visas.

In other words exactly the same questions that the 'conspiracy theorists' have been asking.

Yep, finally you recognise that you are on the same side as the conspiracy theorists with you and 7/7. But I don't hold out much hope for your success. The Jersey Girls are made from different stuff entirely. While they are simply demanding that the USG comes up with proper explanations for everything that happened you seem to be incredibly concerned with conspiracy-theorist bashing, am unfortunate trait picked up from urban75. Do you think they would be fobbed off with a reply like 'we don't have any proper footage on CCTV because it would upset grieving relatives?' would they hell. They haven't got to the bottom of 9/11 for sure yet but they forced the 9/11 Commission to happen at all and made Bush, Henry Kissenger, Paul Zelikow squirm.

Can I imagine you making Blair squirm? I don't think so.

 

[Yossarian]

The Jersey Girls don’t think 9/11 was an inside job though, no matter how much you might wish they did.

 

[Jazzz]

Oh God, I've got an admission to make! I sorry, I fucked up. My points about failure in compression were wrong (and Jazz was right on that point).

Thank you MikeMcc, and respect to you for admitting it.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

*waits for Jazzz to admit to peddling shite*