9/11 media happenings

[editor]

By basically finding the most outragous ideas presented by people that could easily be ripped apart and derided but carefully avoided the PNAC.

Err, did you actually watch the program? They didn't even mention half the "outrageous" stuff that Jazz believes (invisible missile firing holographic planes, faked phone calls etc etc).

 

[Jazzz]

Jazzz: why would a pedantic self proclaimed 'truth seeker' like you turn off a well-sourced documentary that was full of first hand interviews and eye witness accounts that are absolutely central to your claims?

I didn't turn it off. You see, this is you leaping to conclusions as you do.

'I didn't watch all of it' because I left the room briefly to make some toast, also I missed the start.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Right well what part of the WTC7 collapse didn't look like an implosion?

DO YOU NOT READ THE DAMNED THREAD?

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5660343&postcount=2354

 

[DrRingDing]

I'm asking you to explain your 'straw man' comments and the only person seeming to get 'puffed up' is you.

My post was pretty self explanatory.

It's nice to see the good old BBC using a strawman to side step the riches gained by the people that sigend and proposed a 'new pearl harbour'.

 

[editor]

I didn't turn it off. You see, this is you leaping to conclusions as you do. 'I didn't watch all of it' because I left the room to make some toast, also I missed the start.

Liar.

I didn't watch all of it because I wanted to throw things at the screen.

 

[editor]

My post was pretty self explanatory.

Can you explain it for me please?

 

[TheArchitect]

I didn't 'make up' 600% - you found it quoted yourself. My calculations were fine - indeed MikeMcc has conceded that I was entirely right about compression failures. Yours on the other hand were a load of tosh... remember your DCR figures? You never had the maturity to concede you didn't understand them and I did.

1. You produced it from thin air, then refused to tell us where you got it. I found one, and one only, source which was unsubstantiated. That you fail to see why this is wrong would explain a lot.

2. No, you are wrong about compression failures. perhaps you should re-read my posts of late. I see you've stepped back from claiming that tensile strength is relevant, btw.

3. You were also wrong about the DCR figures. You claimed no allowance for additional yield strength had been made, when it had. It's you that don't understand them.

4. In a similar vein, you lied about the extent of fires in the towers prior to collapse.

5. You've never responded to horizontal ejection of debris calculations.

6. You overlooked the "near free fall" debacle, when you tried to argue that slowings of 20 to 60% were "insignficant".

7. You also failed to respond to the Edinburgh and Arup and papers which proved your arguments about fire failure to be crap. Oh, and Greening re: collapse.

8. I await your response to the video link I posted earlier today showing conclusive evidence (again) of a buckling failure.

This list can go on forever. You are an intellectual fraud. Your arguments have no substance. You cannot prove your theory, a theory which you refuse to fully share with us.


ETA: I meant to add - Jazz, you're an idiot.

 

[DrRingDing]

Err, did you actually watch the program? They didn't even mention half the "outrageous" stuff that Jazz believes (invisible missile firing holographic planes, faked phone calls etc etc).

Yea but they are playing to the masses that would have some doubts to the offical version. With respect to Jazzz his beliefs are at one end of the spectrum just as yours are.

 

[DrRingDing]

Can you explain it for me please?

You're pretty much the master of straw man arguements, so where is this faux ignorance leading pray tell?

 

[Yossarian]

By basically finding the most outragous ideas presented by people that could easily be ripped apart and derided but carefully avoided the PNAC.

Didn’t Panorama already do a whole series on PNAC? It does sounds like the arguments presented ones were ridiculous ones that could easily be torn apart, but that could apply to any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories – they’re all on incredibly shaky ground the minute they start saying what they think ‘really happened’.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Yea but they are playing to the masses that would have some doubts to the offical version. With respect to Jazzz his beliefs are at one end of the spectrum just as yours are.

I don't think the ed's position can be put at the end of a spectrum can it? It's not saying that the USG line is perfect, but that there is no evidence of a conspiracy. Whilst Jazzz's views are much closer to the lunatic edge of the conspiracy theorists, if not quite there yet (it was lazers!).

 

[TheArchitect]

Yea but they are playing to the masses that would have some doubts to the offical version. With respect to Jazzz his beliefs are at one end of the spectrum just as yours are.

Jazz has beliefs. Most of the posters here have critical analysis and evidence. Not much competition really.

 

[TheArchitect]

Ach, the woowoos are just smarting because so many of their leaders made an arse of themselves on the telly.

 

[detective-boy]

As the guy who made The Lone Gunman pointed out at the end, the CTers won't ever give up because if they accept what they're constantly being told they will lose their comfort blanket and get nothing to replace it ...

Jazzz, pictured relaxing during the screening (apres toast, obviously ...)

 

[DrRingDing]

Ach, the woowoos are just smarting because so many of their leaders made an arse of themselves on the telly.

A woo woo?

 

[laptop]

Aparently the old routefinder system comfirms the distance as 6.1 miles ...

As the animated map coloured in the route it was a true LOL moment!

So some conspiraloon just looked up the first interweb source that occurred to them and wasn't the slightest worried about ground truth?

Nooo. Can't believe it!

 

[editor]

Yea but they are playing to the masses that would have some doubts to the offical version. With respect to Jazzz his beliefs are at one end of the spectrum just as yours are.

I don't believe the USG has been entirely truthful or open. I believe that after 9/11 some considerable arse-covering and obfuscation took place. That opinion has been reached after reading God-knows how much material, expert research and analysis here and elsewhere.

I don't believe that represents the end of a spectrum, and it's certainly nowhere near as extreme as Jazzz's "look away from the TV because I don't like it!" faith-based beliefs.

 

[editor]

You're pretty much the master of straw man arguements, so where is this faux ignorance leading pray tell?

So you're really not going to answer my polite request that you elaborate on your claim, preferring ad hominens instead?

Shame. Oh well.

 

[Jazzz]

1. You produced it from thin air, then refused to tell us where you got it. I found one, and one only, source which was unsubstantiated. That you fail to see why this is wrong would explain a lot.

I accepted that the 600% was questioned, fairly enough, and discarded it: and then did perfectly well without it.

2. No, you are wrong about compression failures. perhaps you should re-read my posts of late. I see you've stepped back from claiming that tensile strength is relevant, btw.

It seems the best guide we have, information is that if anything compression strength is greater than tensile strength. The H200 standard I found for steel H-sections has compression strength equal to tensile strength. But regardless, I showed that we were hitting 200% just with the yield point, because you didn't understand the DCR calculations.

3. You were also wrong about the DCR figures. You claimed no allowance for additional yield strength had been made, when it had. It's you that don't understand them.

No, I understand them perfectly - it's you that hasn't clue. The DCR figures were not meant to represent yield points as you insist, they were intended show a ratio of load/working capacity. This is clear from NIST's statements, which you are incapable of understanding. Since you are the one claming to be so authoritative this is pretty damn poor.

4. In a similar vein, you lied about the extent of fires in the towers prior to collapse.

I don't 'lie'. I accepted I was wrong that there was some flame still going just before the South Tower collapsed. No evidence of an 'inferno' mind you.

5. You've never responded to horizontal ejection of debris calculations.

well, sorry, I can't remember them doubtless they were up to your usual standard.

6. You overlooked the "near free fall" debacle, when you tried to argue that slowings of 20 to 60% were "insignficant".

My argument made perfect sense and NIST agrees with me. How you keep persevering with this one is quite beyond me. Probably in the vein of 'keep repeating something enough times, people will think there is something in it'

7. You also failed to respond to the Edinburgh and Arup and papers which proved your arguments about fire failure to be crap. Oh, and Greening re: collapse.

I doubt this very much.

8. I await your response to the video link I posted earlier today showing conclusive evidence (again) of a buckling failure.

This list can go on forever. You are an intellectual fraud. Your arguments have no substance. You cannot prove your theory, a theory which you refuse to fully share with us.

YOU are the fraud TA. You have argued as if being a complete authority, yet you have been proved dreadfully wrong. With my little experience of engineering I managed to understand NIST's DCR calculation where you had absolutely no idea. You've been proved wrong about the core being able to stand up for itself. You've been proved wrong about the core being able to take the entire gravity load of the WTC. Don't call me a fraud.[/I] Your lists can and do 'go on for ever' - that doesn't mean there's anything of merit in them.

ETA: I meant to add - Jazz, you're an idiot.

I challenge you to a game of chess, scrabble or backgammon, your choice, we'll see who wins.

 

[Yossarian]

I challenge you to a game of chess, scrabble or backgammon, your choice, we'll see who wins.

"I won at backgammon - therefore 9/11 was an inside job."

 

[Jazzz]

"I won at backgammon - therefore 9/11 was an inside job."

Just disproving that I am an 'idiot'.

could be fun, too.

 

[Jazzz]

Tell you what, if any of my detractors on this thread beats me at scrabble I'll donate £10 to the server fund.

www.isc.ro

any takers?

 

[editor]

Tell you what, if any of my detractors on this thread beats me at scrabble I'll donate £10 to the server fund.

www.isc.ro

any takers?

Even by your standards, this is quite the daftest off-topic ramble you've taken for some time.

But back to the topic, why did you refuse to watch the whole programme tonight?

I would have thought a self-proclaimed 'truth seeker' like you would want to avail themselves with all the facts, whether they offended your faith-based beliefs or not.

 

[MikeMcc]

I didn't 'make up' 600% - you found it quoted yourself. My calculations were fine - indeed MikeMcc has conceded that I was entirely right about compression failures. Yours on the other hand were a load of tosh... remember your DCR figures? You never had the maturity to concede you didn't understand them and I did.

No, I said my statements were in error, I make no claims for anyone elses!

 

[Jazzz]

No, I said my statements were in error, I make no claims for anyone elses!

okay, fair enough.

 

[laptop]

So somehow confidence about scrabble ability trumps (for example) structural engineering experience - when the question is about structural engineering?

Does anyone know how I can find out whether any of the buildings I walk past tomorrow were designed by people who think they're good at scrabble - because I'd like to take a different route, please.




But the reference to games that depend on deception is most revealing. Conspiranoia is not in the slightest about ground truth, or real feelings, or real lives, or real deaths: it's about sleight of hand.

 

[Jazzz]

sorry to disappoint you laptop et al but the games challenge was in response to the 'idiot' jibe. Do you contend that idiots can reliably beat the intellectually superior at mind sports?

 

[MikeMcc]

I accepted that the 600% was questioned, fairly enough, and discarded it: and then did perfectly well without it.

Well it's good that both of us can admit to mistakes

It seems the best guide we have, information is that if anything compression strength is greater than tensile strength. The H200 standard I found for steel H-sections has compression strength equal to tensile strength. But regardless, I showed that we were hitting 200% just with the yield point, because you didn't understand the DCR calculations.

I think TA won that one, he showed your working to be incorrect

No, I understand them perfectly - it's you that hasn't clue. The DCR figures were not meant to represent yield points as you insist, they were intended show a ratio of load/working capacity. This is clear from NIST's statements, which you are incapable of understanding. Since you are the one claming to be so authoritative this is pretty damn poor.

as above

I don't 'lie'. I accepted I was wrong that there was some flame still going just before the South Tower collapsed. No evidence of an 'inferno' mind you.

Major fires appearing on multiple floors is an inferno to me

well, sorry, I can't remember them doubtless they were up to your usual standard.

My argument made perfect sense and NIST agrees with me. How you keep persevering with this one is quite beyond me. Probably in the vein of 'keep repeating something enough times, people will think there is something in it'

NIST says that they were unimportant in terms odf the structure, not in terms of the collapse times, you were initiallly arguing that they collapsed at free-fall rates. I take it now that you agree that they took somewhat longer?

I doubt this very much.


YOU are the fraud TA. You have argued as if being a complete authority, yet you have been proved dreadfully wrong. With my little experience of engineering I managed to understand NIST's DCR calculation where you had absolutely no idea. You've been proved wrong about the core being able to stand up for itself. You've been proved wrong about the core being able to take the entire gravity load of the WTC. Don't call me a fraud.[/I] Your lists can and do 'go on for ever' - that doesn't mean there's anything of merit in them.

you didn't prove anything of the sort, your calculations were wrong

I challenge you to a game of chess, scrabble or backgammon, your choice, we'll see who wins.Typical CTer mis-direction and attempt to de-rail, ususally happens when pwned

My comments in bold

 

[laptop]

Is it just me, or has jazzzz been infected by the spirit of phildywer?

Used to be just barking... now attempts to "win" by assuming a position of intellectual superiority, while ignoring the evidence of superior intellects all around him.

If I didn't know they were different people... but I don't know they've not swapped passwords.

 

[Jazzz]

It seems the best guide we have, information is that if anything compression strength is greater than tensile strength. The H200 standard I found for steel H-sections has compression strength equal to tensile strength. But regardless, I showed that we were hitting 200% just with the yield point, because you didn't understand the DCR calculations.

I think TA won that one, he showed your working to be incorrect

He did not, and I'll back myself to the hilt on this one MikeMcc. It's TA that doesn't understand what the DCR was. If he was right, how on earth can the safety factor be less than the specified steel strength?