Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

9/11 media happenings

Status
Not open for further replies.
editor said:
Now we're getting somewhere!

Having read your stuff over the years editor, it's evident to me that you have far more facts at your disposal than myself. You also know more than me.

Easy really when one simply lowers their requirements as to what constitutes a fact. Firstly, just believe anything you read if it's written by an expert, or if it's been peer-reviewed.

Facts are easy if you want them to be.
 
Dubversion said:
fuck me, you really do go on, don't you? :D

Yes, that has been levelled at me before!

But dub, i seem to be in good company. A quick calculation tells me that you post nearly 700 times a month.

While i come in at a pretty quiet 200 times.

That means you go on, really go on, about three or four times as much as me.

And that is one fuck load mate.
 
fela fan said:
Firstly, just believe anything you read if it's written by an expert, or if it's been peer-reviewed.
As opposed to ... er ... just believing anything you read on the internet if it's written by a fuckwit, and it hasn't been peer-reviewed ....

... Right ... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
fela fan said:
Why are folk here ready to rely upon the testimony and 'evidence' of those who purport to be experts?
Errr, becuase they are qualified experts with more knowledge of the subject matter than me? :confused:
 
fela fan said:
Yes, that has been levelled at me before!

But dub, i seem to be in good company. A quick calculation tells me that you post nearly 700 times a month.

While i come in at a pretty quiet 200 times.

That means you go on, really go on, about three or four times as much as me.

And that is one fuck load mate.


ah, but on a broad and fascinating series of topics, unlike yourseld. And never with such crushing monotony as yourself. Or indeed quite such a patronising tone.

:)
 
detective-boy said:
As opposed to ... er ... just believing anything you read on the internet if it's written by a fuckwit, and it hasn't been peer-reviewed ....

... Right ... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
No, you don't get it, man. All interpretations are valid.
 
beesonthewhatnow said:
Did Jazzz ever respond to this?


nope Jazzz never responded to that, but he seems to be hinting earlier in bbc thread that he no longer believes the twin towers had explosives in the basement here (post 448) on the bbc thread, though I might be misreading that... perhaps some clarification is in order at this point...

Jazzz do you still believe WTC 1 and 2 were rigged with explosives in the basement, and if so could you please point out the problems with that report, as I'm struggling to work out what I've missed (unless they're in on it too... actually maybe they rigged it up is that it?)
 
beesonthewhatnow said:
Errr, becuase they are qualified experts with more knowledge of the subject matter than me? :confused:

Experts need the qualifier 'qualified' now do they?!

All i can say is that i've seen at first hand, several times, stuff that happens contrary to what the experts said. When you see that, then you realise that perhaps being an expert is simply not enough to get it right.

Of course many times they will be right, but it's certain to me that not on a few occasions they get it wrong.

That's why i can never accept at face value any more what the 'expert' says. I can only accept it as likely.
 
detective-boy said:
As opposed to ... er ... just believing anything you read on the internet if it's written by a fuckwit, and it hasn't been peer-reviewed ....

... Right ... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And who does that DB? Certainly not me thank you.

And i've read plenty of stuff that's been peer-reviewed in my job, and it can still be wrong.

Just like the 'experts'.

You write very simplistically, like the editor, that something is only credible once it's been peer-reviewed. Fuck man, can peers not be wrong?
 
Dubversion said:
ah, but on a broad and fascinating series of topics, unlike yourseld. And never with such crushing monotony as yourself. Or indeed quite such a patronising tone.

:)

There's plenty of room in the world for all sorts.

And this 'patronising' word, it's nothing but an accusation from someone who feels their ego has been attacked. And for sure, your ego is on show in this post of yours.
 
fela fan said:
Fuck man, can peers not be wrong?
Of course experts, no matter how highly qualified and experienced can be wrong. It happens all the time. But it is not the norm.

Peer-review is intended to reduce the likelihood of it being wrong, because it brings the opinions of several experts together, effectively in agreement. Even peer-reviewed stuff may be wrong. It happens from time to time. Mostly in new, rather than established, areas of knowledge and development. But its way, way not the norm.

Personally I always try and understand what it is that is being said, but where I don't have enough basic knowledge to do that, I apply common sense and a yardstick which says "If I decide I DON'T agree with this view I need to justify why".

Whereas unqualified fuckwits like Jazzz, who instantly declare themselves as knowing better than every expert who disagrees with his pre-conceived (by his own admission) conclusion, ARE normally talking bollocks.
 
fela fan said:
And who does that DB? Certainly not me thank you.

And i've read plenty of stuff that's been peer-reviewed in my job, and it can still be wrong.

Just like the 'experts'.

You write very simplistically, like the editor, that something is only credible once it's been peer-reviewed. Fuck man, can peers not be wrong?
But in the years since 9/11, AFAIK, not one demolition expert or structural engineer has piped up to dispute what happened. That's not the way it goes when somebody makes a cock-up in that way. Just look at the South Korean cloning scandal or the cold-fusion saga for examples of that.
 
Uncomfortable Questions: Was the Death Star Attack an Inside Job?

We’ve all heard the “official conspiracy theory” of the Death Star attack. We all know about Luke Skywalker and his ragtag bunch of rebels, how they mounted a foolhardy attack on the most powerful, well-defended battle station ever built. And we’ve all seen the video over, and over, and over, of the one-in-a-million shot that resulted in a massive chain reaction that not just damaged, but completely obliterated that massive technological wonder.

I was fed this story when I was growing up. But as I watched the video, I began to realize that all was not as it seemed. And the more I questioned the official story, the deeper into the rabbit hole I went.

Presented here are some of the results of my soul-searching regarding this painful event. Like many citizens, I have many questions that I would like answered: was the mighty Imperial government really too incompetent to prevent a handful of untrained nerf-herders from destroying one of their most prized assets? Or are they hiding something from us? Who was really behind the attack? Why did they want the Death Star destroyed? No matter what the answers, we have a problem.

Below is a summary of my book, Uncomfortable Questions: An Analysis of the Death Star Attack, which presents compelling evidence that we all may be the victims of a fraud of immense proportions.

Uncomfortable Questions about the Death Star Attack

questionsbook2.jpg


1) Why were a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the defenses of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an entire planet and the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle ships?

2) Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to deploy the station’s large fleet of TIE Fighters until it was too late? Was he acting on orders from somebody to not shoot down the rebel attack force? If so, who, and why?

3) Why was the rebel pilot who supposedly destroyed the Death Star reported to be on the Death Star days, maybe hours, prior to its destruction? Why was he allowed to escape, and why were several individuals dressed in Stormtrooper uniforms seen helping him?

4) Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that Darth Vader, the second-ranking member of the Imperial Government, is in fact the father of the pilot who allegedly destroyed the Death Star?

5) Why did Lord Vader decide to break all protocols and personally pilot a lightly armored TIE Fighter? Conveniently, this placed Lord Vader outside of the Death Star when it was destroyed, where he was also conveniently able to escape from a large-sized rebel fleet that had just routed the Imperial forces. Why would Lord Vader, one of the highest ranking members of the Imperial Government, suddenly decide to fly away from the Death Star in the middle of a battle? Did he know something that the rest of the Imperial Navy didn’t?

Emperor Palpatine fails to act after being informed of the attack

thepetbantha.jpg



6) How could any pilot shoot a missile into a 2 meter-wide exhaust port, let alone a pilot with no formal training, whose only claim to fame was his ability to “bullseye womprats” on Tatooine? This shot, according to one pilot, would be “impossible, even for a computer.” Yet, according to additional evidence, the pilot who allegedly fired the missile turned off his targeting computer when he was supposedly firing the shot that destroyed the Death Star. Why have these discrepancies never been investigated, let alone explained?

7) Why has their been no investigation into evidence that the droids who provided the rebels with the Death Star plans were once owned by none other than Lord Vader himself, and were found, conveniently, by the pilot who destroyed the Death Star, and who is also believed to be Lord Vader’s son? Evidence also shows that the droids were brought to one Ben Kenobi, who, records indicate, was Darth Vader’s teacher many years earlier! Are all these personal connections between the conspirators and a key figure in the Imperial government supposed to be coincidences?

8) How could a single missile destroy a battle station the size of a moon? No records, anywhere, show that any battle station or capital ship has ever been destroyed by a single missile. Furthermore, analysis of the tape of the last moments of the Death Star show numerous small explosions along its surface, prior to it exploding completely! Why does all evidence indicate that strategically placed explosives, not a single missile, is what destroyed the Death Star?




From here (check out the comments!)
 
All i can say is that i've seen at first hand, several times, stuff that happens contrary to what the experts said. When you see that, then you realise that perhaps being an expert is simply not enough to get it right.

Is that when experts are predicting something will happen, or analysing something AFTER it's occured? Cos if it's the former most experts are only slightly ahead of the rest of us in predicting accurately, but if it's a retrospective investigation while there are still errors and mistakes that accuracy tends to be much, much higher. Which after all is why we pay to train people through university (for example) that the myriad of differing skills required of our society can be attended by those who understand them best through training and education.
 
07-knights.jpg


Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!")
Bravely ran away, away. ("I didn't!")
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled. ("No!")
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about ("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out. ("I never did!")
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat, ("All lies!")
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin! ("I never!")

He is packing it in,
And packing it up,
And sneaking away,
And buggering off,
And chickening out,
And pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge.
 
detective-boy said:
Of course experts, no matter how highly qualified and experienced can be wrong. It happens all the time. But it is not the norm.

Peer-review is intended to reduce the likelihood of it being wrong, because it brings the opinions of several experts together, effectively in agreement. Even peer-reviewed stuff may be wrong. It happens from time to time. Mostly in new, rather than established, areas of knowledge and development. But its way, way not the norm.

Personally I always try and understand what it is that is being said, but where I don't have enough basic knowledge to do that, I apply common sense and a yardstick which says "If I decide I DON'T agree with this view I need to justify why".

Whereas unqualified fuckwits like Jazzz, who instantly declare themselves as knowing better than every expert who disagrees with his pre-conceived (by his own admission) conclusion, ARE normally talking bollocks.
Jones' paper has now passed a second set of peer-reviews including two physicists.

(science isn't about opinions)
 
Jazzz said:
Jones' paper has now passed a second set of peer-reviews including two physicists.

(science isn't about opinions)
That'll be the paper written by the Stephen Jones who is totally unqualified in the relevent areas of expertise and the same Jones whose paper was so dodgy that his own university made the unprecedented step of publicly disowning it, yes?

Could you name these "two physicists" please and list their relevant qualifications? Thanks.

Oh, and you seem to have forgotten to point out the errors in this document:
http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf

It's written by a world leading expert in demolition, so be sure to rebut his findings with credible sources. Thanks again!
 
editor said:
That'll be the paper written by the Stephen Jones who is totally unqualified in the relevent areas of expertise and the same Jones whose paper was so dodgy that his own university made the unprecedented step of publicly disowning it, yes?

Could you name these "two physicists" please and list their relevant qualifications? Thanks.
It was well within his expertise and as mentioned has just passed another set of peer-reviews. His university was forced to retract the smear it made of it.

I'll include you with pk re: asking for names of peer-reviewers :D

maybe I'll comment on that article everyone keeps waving around. Thing is, I've rarely encountered anyone bothering to address Steve Jones' paper, except by the kind of attack you make now.

Do you want to tell me what kind of peer-review process that protec article has gone through? :rolleyes:
 
Jazzz said:
You don't know much about peer-review do you pk? Reviewers are expected to remain anonymous.
So in the face of universal disinterest from actual, real, named experts who have singularly failed to rally around the unqualified, University-shunned barking theories of Jones, you actually think that people are going to swallow this line?

There is a strict process to peer reviewing papers, but with Jones' record, I very much doubt he'll be adhering to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom