9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission

[editor]

The only conspiraloon theory i've found on that one was that the FBI was behind it in some manner.

Maybe sparticus has just dreamt up a brand new backdated conspiracy theory because he wasn't satisfied with the current ones?

 

[editor]

You really shouldn't bany about accusations that people are 'lying' in the ridiculously irresponsible way that you do. Grow up yourself.

Err, Sparticus claimed that I banned Nafeez.

That was, in fact, a lie.

 

[Jazzz]

Err, no. Wrong again, Jazzz. There is no "moderation tree" - all top level admins have as much say as the next one. Ask them if you don't believe me.

There is, of course, a procedure for being reinstated if you are banned but, not surprisingly, Nafeez ignored that like he completely ignored the rest of the FAQ.

However, we did try to respond to his inaccurate article and clarify his claims but it seems he was more interested in censoring all comments from urban75 mods (while happily posting up anonymous ones slagging us off).

But you'll have to remind me how that fits in with sparticus's claims that I banned Nafeez because I was a "big bully boy."

I didn't ban Nafeez. He was solely responsible for being banned from here by his own failure to read and respect the FAQ - like all posters are asked to do.

sparticus comment was perfectly fair in either the sense that you are the one ultimately responsible for the running of the website and hence your moderating team OR 'you' referring to the moderating team as a whole of which you are a member. I feel I am even wasting my time explaining this.

 

[editor]

sparticus comment was perfectly fair in either the sense that you are the one ultimately responsible for the running of the website and hence your moderating team OR 'you' referring to the moderating team as a whole of which you are a member.

It had already been patiently explained that I was not the person who banned Nafeez or binned his threads, so for Sparticus to claim that I was a "big bully" for banning him was a lie, and no amount of wriggling semantics will change that fact.

But who gives a fuck anyway, seeing as he's flounced off, no doubt to loon land where no-one questions his barking claims (see: "CIA responsible for 1993 WTC attack") or troubles themselves with trifling details like credible sources, expert testimony and real world analysis.

Who knows - maybe you'd get away with your hilarious sci-fi hologram plane claims there too!
Now what was the name of that "army manual" you got that tosh from?

 

[Jazzz]

It had already been patiently explained that I was not the person who banned Nafeez or binned his threads, so for Sparticus to claim that I was a "big bully" for banning him was a lie, and no amount of wriggling semantics will change that fact.

But who gives a fuck anyway, seeing as he's flounced off, no doubt to loon land where no-one questions his barking claims (see: "CIA responsible for 1993 WTC attack") or troubles themselves with trifling details like credible sources, expert testimony and real world analysis.

Who knows - maybe you'd get away with your hilarious sci-fi hologram plane claims there too!
Now what was the name of that "army manual" you got that tosh from?

On the contrary, you've been agressive, hysterical and irresponsible, it's been patiently explained to you that as the 'head honcho' (your phrase, of course) of the website you are responsible for acts of the moderation so sparticus' comment was perfectly fair.

The description 'big bully' - well I'd agree with that.

It's high time you accepted the serious issue here of 9/11 and encouraged discussion of the topic, rather than mauling it.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

On the contrary, you've been agressive, hysterical and irresponsible, it's been patiently explained to you that as the 'head honcho' (your phrase, of course) of the website you are responsible for acts of the moderation so sparticus' comment was perfectly fair.

The description 'big bully' - well I'd agree with that.

It's high time you accepted the serious issue here of 9/11 and encouraged discussion of the topic, rather than mauling it.

But it's not serious, every time we try to deal with the details it turns into a joke.

Edit: Spelling

 

[WouldBe]

It's high time you accepted the serious issue here of 9/11 and encouraged discussion of the topic, rather than mauling it.

If conspirasheep posted serious and sensible posts then there might be something to debate but while they post deluded fantasies there isn't.

 

[kyser_soze]

It's high time you accepted the serious issue here of 9/11 and encouraged discussion of the topic, rather than mauling it.

Well, if you would be prepared to actually provide some proof for your claims instead of extrapolations and conjecture, and deal with real world physics (fire didn't burn hot enough to melt metal-therefore it was a bomb; not taking into account that steel looses 50% of it's load bearing capacity at a temperature somewhat lower than it's melting point but well within the range of burning jetfuel and modern office equipment...would that be enough to make a tower collapse?) instead of holograms and stealth missles...

 

[Jazzz]

But it's not serious, every time we try to deal with the details it turns into a joke.

Edit: Spelling

Crap. You start from the position it's a joke, and find the logic to fit. But it is no joke.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Crap. You start from the position it's a joke, and find the logic to fit. But it is no joke.

You start from the position that it's serrious, and we find the logic hillarious.

 

[Crispy]

But it's not serious, every time we try to deal with the details it turns into a joke.

Edit: Spelling

Indeed. It's tiresome. I try sometimes, but the conspiraloons (offence intended) are just impossible to deal with. That's what stops the sensible debate, not the ed.

EDIT: and I do not have a conclusion I try to fit the facts to. just one that the facts actually fit the best.

 

[editor]

It's high time you accepted the serious issue here of 9/11 and encouraged discussion of the topic, rather than mauling it.

What?!!!!

This coming from the clown who only this week attempted to back up another of his fucking barking theories about (non existent) 'holographic planes' by referring us to a sci-fi 'army manual' set in the year 2025.

FUCKING PRICELESS!

 

[King Mob]

Well, if you would be prepared to actually provide some proof for your claims instead of extrapolations and conjecture, and deal with real world physics (fire didn't burn hot enough to melt metal-therefore it was a bomb; not taking into account that steel looses 50% of it's load bearing capacity at a temperature somewhat lower than it's melting point but well within the range of burning jetfuel and modern office equipment...would that be enough to make a tower collapse?) instead of holograms and stealth missles...

Don't forget that building do eat people.

 

[tarannau]

Crap. You start from the position it's a joke, and find the logic to fit. But it is no joke.

No, with your constant crackpot theories, your habit of trumpeting fiction as fact (Huntley innocent, Army 'Manual' extracts from 2025 as proof of current technology) and your inability to learn from your mistakes help make this topic on a big fat joke on these boards.

Perhaps if you could gain a grip on reality we could find your self-important wittering a little more credible and worthy of discussion?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

It's high time you accepted the serious issue here of 9/11 and encouraged discussion of the topic, rather than mauling it.

Crap in = crap out.

As true for 9/11 debate as it is for computer programming.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Could I draw attention, please
To Alexander Cockburn's piece?

 

[Jazzz]

Well, if you would be prepared to actually provide some proof for your claims instead of extrapolations and conjecture, and deal with real world physics (fire didn't burn hot enough to melt metal-therefore it was a bomb; not taking into account that steel looses 50% of it's load bearing capacity at a temperature somewhat lower than it's melting point but well within the range of burning jetfuel and modern office equipment...would that be enough to make a tower collapse?) instead of holograms and stealth missles...

Real world physics says that jet fuel can't melt steel. Yet we have huge pools of molten metal at the WTC which were still smouldering weeks later. Real world physics says that pyroclastic flows of the dust cloud are signatures of explosions. Real world physics suggests that gravity acts downwards yet huge steel beams were flung out sideways from the WTC. Real world physics recognises that the steel cores of the WTC were an enormous 'heat sink' and there is no possible way that they could have heated appreciably throughout the towers from the fires we know about. Real world physics offers no explanation for the complete collapse (into pieces no bigger than 38 feet) of the central cores without recourse to explosives. Real world physics asks what caused the clearly visible 'squibs' seen well below the collapsing floors. I can go on.

 

[Loki]

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Real world physics says that jet fuel can't melt steel. Yet we have huge pools of molten metal at the WTC which were still smouldering weeks later. Real world physics says that pyroclastic flows of the dust cloud are signatures of explosions. Real world physics suggests that gravity acts downwards yet huge steel beams were flung out sideways from the WTC. Real world physics recognises that the steel cores of the WTC were an enormous 'heat sink' and there is no possible way that they could have heated appreciably throughout the towers from the fires we know about. Real world physics offers no explanation for the complete collapse (into pieces no bigger than 38 feet) of the central cores without recourse to explosives. Real world physics asks what caused the clearly visible 'squibs' seen well below the collapsing floors. I can go on.

FFS, how many times do we have to go through this shit?

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

 

[Lock&Light]

But it is no joke.

I wish I didn't have to say it, but you, Dr. Jazzz, have become one.

 

[Yossarian]

Real world physics says that jet fuel can't melt steel. Yet we have huge pools of molten metal at the WTC which were still smouldering weeks later. Real world physics says that pyroclastic flows of the dust cloud are signatures of explosions. Real world physics suggests that gravity acts downwards yet huge steel beams were flung out sideways from the WTC. Real world physics recognises that the steel cores of the WTC were an enormous 'heat sink' and there is no possible way that they could have heated appreciably throughout the towers from the fires we know about. Real world physics offers no explanation for the complete collapse (into pieces no bigger than 38 feet) of the central cores without recourse to explosives. Real world physics asks what caused the clearly visible 'squibs' seen well below the collapsing floors. I can go on.

But would they really have gone to all that trouble just to kill Princess Diana?

 

[editor]

Could I draw attention, please
To Alexander Cockburn's piece?

Excellent piece. And this is oh-so-familair:

...the 9/11 nuts... who proffer what they demurely call “disturbing questions”, though they disdain all answers but their own. They seize on coincidences and force them into sequences they deem to be logical and significant.

Like mad Inquisitors, they pounce on imagined clues in documents and photos, torturing the data –- as the old joke goes about economists -- till the data confess. Their treatment of eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence is whimsical.

Apparent anomalies that seem to nourish their theories are brandished excitedly; testimony that undermines their theories – like witnesses of a large plane hitting the Pentagon -- is contemptuously brushed aside.

I didn't know this either:

As discussed in Wayne Barrett and Dan Collin’s excellent book Grand Illusion, about Rudy Giuliani and 9/11, helicopter pilots radioed warnings nine minutes before the final collapse that the South Tower might well go down and, repeatedly, as much as 25 minutes before the North Tower’s fall.

 

[editor]

Real world physics says that jet fuel can't melt steel. Yet we have huge pools of molten metal at the WTC which were still smouldering weeks later.

So all the highly qualified experts who have carefully studied and analysed the collapse of the WTC are wrong and you - Mr Fuck All Structural Engineering Qualifications and your gang of equally clueless 'truth seekers' - are right, yes?

So how do 'they' manage to keep all the experts permanently quiet then?

After all, if amateur dabbling 'investigators' like you and the "no qualifications needed" Loon Army can spot the fact that it was demolished, why aren't structural engineers all around the world up in arms about it?

Or are they all in on it too?

 

[Lock&Light]

Or are they all in on it too?

There are very few of the brethren who truly know the truth.

 

[King Mob]

Real world physics says that jet fuel can't melt steel. Yet we have huge pools of molten metal at the WTC which were still smouldering weeks later. Real world physics says that pyroclastic flows of the dust cloud are signatures of explosions. Real world physics suggests that gravity acts downwards yet huge steel beams were flung out sideways from the WTC. Real world physics recognises that the steel cores of the WTC were an enormous 'heat sink' and there is no possible way that they could have heated appreciably throughout the towers from the fires we know about. Real world physics offers no explanation for the complete collapse (into pieces no bigger than 38 feet) of the central cores without recourse to explosives. Real world physics asks what caused the clearly visible 'squibs' seen well below the collapsing floors. I can go on.

Do you know what the real world is?

 

[WouldBe]

From http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=23606

One such special on the Discovery Channel, called “Inside the Twin Towers,” had one piece of vital information that was new to me. Frank de Martini, a construction manager......began to worry about the structural soundness of the building. He reported that he wanted a structural engineer sent in because he could see the steel weakening and his fear was that the building might collapse

This was mentioned on one of the many programs in recent days. He is reported to have said on the radio he could see the steel buckling.

Absolutely no mention of explosions or blinding white light from thermite just due to the heat of the fires burning in the north tower.

 

[Jazzz]

Absolutely no mention of explosions or blinding white light from thermite just due to the heat of the fires burning in the north tower.

What, in this utterly weak piece of hearsay?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

Posted again, just to be sure.

 

[Jazzz]

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

Posted again, just to be sure.

A good example is Hollywood actor Martin Sheene recounting his reaction to 9/11 in a TV interview: ‘I said, “call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?”

That guy doesn't know even know his Sheens.

 

[WouldBe]

What, in this utterly weak piece of hearsay?

It's a transcript of a radio conversation that occured at the time. First hand eye witness account.

Don't you think it would have been useful for de Martini to have reported any explosions or tonnes of thermite burning white hot if he had seen it.