likesfish
You can't park here sir
And invisable det cord you'd still be tripping over the stuff once helped prepped a bridge for demolition rather than a a few blobs of plastic and a timer with a cool countdown.
It takes days of humping stuff about
Nanothermite and the World Trade Center
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
It takes days of humping stuff about
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
AMY ISN'T EVEN A TERRIER IN THE PHOTO!!!!!!!
Border Collie or Old English Sheepdog in the photo.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Something that strikes me as interesting, Jazzz, is the use you make of some rather clunky one-upmanship tactics, and in particular the elegant way in which you combine condescension towards your interlocutors with paranoid victim posturing.
I am confused: I am not sure whether I am the sneering persecutor of Jazzz, the Knight of Truth And Justice™, or the gormless fool who can't make any kind of meaningful contribution to any discussion - because this isn't the first time you've gone for this interestingly combinatorial response to my interventions.
Don't feel the need to explain - I just wanted to express my confusion at what seemed like a particularly uncharacteristic outbreak of inconsistency on your part *coughs up own diaphragm*
1) Not incalculable damage. A few hundred dead, maybe. The towers - potent symbols - remain standing
2) The world doesn't watch it happen live. This was the major psychological impact of 9/11. We watched it happen.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
No you didn't. You probably saw it on the news later in the day.
Nylock
I hate 'these days'...
I've never really understood why 9/11 troofers and conspiranuts seem to find it far easier to believe in the plausibility that the US government used a combination of ideologically fanatical agents kamikazeing two civilian airliners into the wtc along with some cunningly placed high explosives/thermite just to 'make sure the job got done' (or it was all holograms and high explosives) than it is to believe that some ideologically fanatical hijackers kamikazied two 180-tonne airliners each loaded with tens of thousands of gallons of highly combustible aviation fuel into 1&2 WTC at sub-mach speeds. Why is this? Sure the US and UK governments were all but called* on their bogus intel that led to the Iraq invasion later on but why believe that an elaborate plot and conspiracy would get the job done more efficiently than just flying two massive kinetic/thermal/explosive bombs in to the buildings and letting physics, chemistry and gravity do the work. It's mental. 
E2A: Or is it due to the arrogance of troofers (who mostly seem to hail from the US, Canada and the UK) that they assume that groups like Al-Qaida do not have the brains to work out how to best fly a 180 tonne airliner into a major structure in such a way as to guarantee it's collapse?
(*by the rest of the international community and not just the people protesting against the blatant move to war)
E2A: Or is it due to the arrogance of troofers (who mostly seem to hail from the US, Canada and the UK) that they assume that groups like Al-Qaida do not have the brains to work out how to best fly a 180 tonne airliner into a major structure in such a way as to guarantee it's collapse?
(*by the rest of the international community and not just the people protesting against the blatant move to war)
why believe that an elaborate plot and conspiracy would get the job done more efficiently than just flying two massive kinetic/thermal/explosive bombs in to the buildings and letting physics, chemistry and gravity do the work. It's mental.
"...little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked"
"The building structure would still be there."
"I designed it for a 707 to smash into it"
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners"
What the World Trade Center Building Designers Said: Before and After 9/11
"Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
editor
hiraethified
So exactly why are all these tens of thousands of qualified demolition experts across the world keeping quiet?
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
.... cos they'll get killed if they speak out .... like that bloke who died of natural causes .... 10 years after "speaking out".
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
You're forgetting the mini nukes Jazzz
They're not
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
not forgetting Danny Jowenko of course, the top European demolition expert. RIP Danny
I am extremely unfascinated by your posts existentialist
editor
hiraethified
I can't be arsed to go through that unverified list of supposed architects (or check what relevant qualifications they have, if any), but you seem to be contradicting yourself when you keep bringing up Danny Jowenko.
Have you any proof whatsoever that he was bumped off? A simple yes or no, will suffice here.
Well I suggest then you don't go around making claims about 'tens of thousands' of civil engineers whose opinions really you know little about.
No, I was contradicting you - one counterexample is all that is necessary to disprove a hypothesis.
editor
hiraethified
So why do you think there's not been a peep from the international community of suitably qualified demolition professionals?
Now back to Danny Jowenko. You've clearly suggested that he was bumped off. So have you any actual proof or not?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
Looks like either the architect and SE's fucked it up then, or the construction firms didn't follow the spec exactly enough, or fire precautions built into the original spec had been buggered by several decades of sparks, plumbers, air con engineers etc working in the service voids.
TBH given the lack of ability to understand about the potential for the various metals to burn in a cascade of rising temperatures from the SE's and architects in that gaggle, I'm really not surprised at all that it collapsed despite allegedly being designed to withstand a jet plane hitting it.
I suspect they didn't run this one properly by a fire / explosion / combustion engineer armed with a detailed breakdown of the materials being used in the building, and were mainly concerned with the direct impact, and the direct effect of the burning jet fuel on the strength of the main steels, rather than looking at what else it might set light to that might then burn at a much higher temperature.
I'm not at all surprised though that the architect might show up looking for alternative explanations other than him fucking up his calcs, particularly if he's build others since using the same building methods and calcs.
Has any other such building had either a large passenger jet full of fuel fly into it at full speed, or 2 other massive burning skyscrapers fall on top of them from a great height?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
given the amount of themite that was apparently used in there, I'd have to conclude that they must all have been in on it.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
The AE911Truth Petition:
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Please Take Notice That:
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
To view the list of petition signers, click here »
Note: This petition is for architects, engineers and general members of the public to sign. If you are an architect or engineer, we will display you on our supporters list after we have contacted you and verified your information. If you are a general member of the public, you will be displayed after we have reviewed your information.
Please take your time and be thorough. We know this is not your standard petition where you only sign your name. If required information is not entered, you will be notified of what fields are missing and given a chance to correct your form entry. When you have successfully submitted the form, you will see a "success page".
You will receive a confirmation e-mail after you fill out and submit this form. Please read it carefully and follow the directions contained within that e-mail. It contains instructions on how to complete the petition signing.
* = Required; * = Requested; * = Required for some; — other items are optional
I. Required information that will be displayed on the AE911Truth.org website
* First Name: (Full name or common nickname)
(please enter title prefixes as suffixes in the Title field; e.g. Dr., etc.)
* Middle: (optional Name or Initial)
* Last Name:
* Title:
(if applicable, your letters — i.e. "AIA", "P.E.", "M. Arch.", "B. Arch.", etc. — as you would like it displayed, and/or a descriptive title: i.e. "Architect" (only if licensed), "Intern Architect", "Architectural Staff", "Architectural Consultant", "Engineer" (only if licensed), "Engineering Staff", "Engineering Consultant", "Student", etc. — leave blank if none — other examples: Dr., Ph.D., Professor)
* Degree: Please Include: Degree, Discipline, University
(leave blank if none — example: B.A., Engineering, UC San Diego)
* License / Registration / Charter #: (for A&E's)
(leave blank if not applicable — example: C19220 CA)
* City:
* State / Province / Region:
(enter or use drop-down box to select U.S. states and Canadian provinces)
* Country:
* Short Bio:
(for your online profile, please enter a short, concise bio (at least 70 characters) about any technical education/experience you have — please do not use this space as your personal advocation area, and try to stick to true bio info — note that we reserve the right to edit publicly displayed information for spelling, grammar, content, length, etc.)
* Statement about 9/11 Skyscraper Destruction:
(please enter a few non-political sentences (at least 70 characters) about the building collapses — an opinion, a concern about the way they fell, a doubt about the official story, a reflection about any of the evidence presented on this website, or an analysis that you have read or researched, etc. Please avoid hate speech, personal or group attacks, alternative theories or comments that might be used to discredit AE911Truth, assigning blame to individuals or groups that you feel might be responsible for 9/11 or the WTC high-rise collapses, etc.)
* Optional Photo:
(you are strongly encouraged to upload an optional, recent, small(-ish), portrait-style photo of yourself (no non-human or 'avatar' images) — note that we may resize it, crop it, and/or perform various image manipulations to it as necessary to achieve 125w x 150h sizing and appropriateness for display, and it must be less than 50Kb in file size — supported file types and extensions are .gif, .jpg, .png and .bmp — larger photos are better than smaller photos)
* Discipline: Architecture Engineering
Other (specify)
(for 'Other', enter something descriptive of yourself)
* Status: Degreed & Licensed Degreed Student
Other (specify)
(for 'Other', enter something descriptive of yourself)
II. Required information that will not be displayed on the website
* Phone:
Important: You will not be added to the petition unless we can telephone you for verification. (although, non-A&E's are usually not phoned)
(###-###-#### or full international format — digits and spaces only, w/optional 'x' for extensions)
* Primary E-mail Address:
(NOTE: Please check for e-mails from AE911Truth.org in your spam folder)
III.Optional Information that will not be displayed on the website:
* What you would like us to know about you:
(please enter a few sentences about yourself, and/or a private comment — note that this will help us with your verification processing — if you have a website, or favorite 9/11 Truth hangout, or other web presence, where you are obviously posting, or any similar information, please include it here, as well any other comments you deem appropriate — you can also include "references" to/of (well-) known people in the movement who know you, such as, for example, leaders/organizers of your local 9/11 Truth groups, etc.)
* Security Code: Security Code:
Generate New Code
Enter Above Code:
I love it when someone contradicts themselves in the same post
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
So you keep insisting. Repeatedly.I am extremely unfascinated by your posts existentialist
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Plus, also: BADGERS!
Nylock
I hate 'these days'...
Difference between a Boeing 707 & a Boeing 767:
B-707 | B-767
145ft | 159ft (Length)
12ft | 16ft (Fuselage Width)
14ft | 18ft (Fuselage Height)
131ft | 156ft (Wingspan)
42ft | 52ft (Tail Height)
116.5t| 179t (Max takeoff weight)
65.5KL| 90KL (Fuel Capacity (KiloLiters))
540Kn | 493Kn (Cruising Speed (Knots))
Boeing 767 is:
14ft Longer
4ft wider/taller on fuselage
25ft wider on wingspan
10ft higher on Tail height
62.5t heavier at takeoff
carrying 24,500 more litres of fuel
47kn slower at cruising speed.
so... from the stats provided you can 'do the math' (as your fellow 911 troofer buddies are prone to saying) and work out just how much more force a 767 can bring to bear on a steel and concrete structure than a 707 can. Bearing in mind very tall structures like WTC 1&2 are built for both lightness and strength and are not 1000ft tall fortresses...
Lemon Eddy
Disliked by dwyer
Honestly, why the hell do you all bother. No matter what science/cites/evidence/logic/authority you bring to this discussion, Jazzz is not going to consider any of it. He skim reads your rebuttals just enough so he can google up some fuckawful loonsite that he can claim answers it, but that's all. He has absolutely no intention, ever, of being swayed on this. He's a true believer with unswerving faith. His personal religion is that the lizard jew illuminati staged it all to transform the jolly jape of crashing a couple of titchy tiny planes into various buildings into a terrible disaster. There's nothing mere reason can do to persuade this level of fanatic that he's wrong.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
That might explain why you tend to do it rather regularly yourself, thenI love it when someone contradicts themselves in the same post
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
You're absolutely right!
But then does there have to be a purpose? I read these threads for a couple of reasons, one of which is, I must admit, entertainment - it can be very funny reading some of the humour that gets deployed in the thick of the debate.
I'm also interested in psychology and cognitive process, and I find it very interesting to observe the way that a True Believer in something so evidently unbelievable operates in the way he squares his beliefs against reality in the face of a kind of relentless tsunami of rebuttal. Yes, there's plenty of cut and paste nonsense from prisonplanet, etc., but in between that there are the little digs, the way in which he refuses to engage - yet often can't quite let go enough to actually disengage - and the way that the disengagement process operates when it does happen.
He probably provides enough material for a research project, all by himself
And I know that some of that might sound a little cruel, and maybe unethical, but I take the view that Jazzz (in this particular example) is very much a willing participant, who is always free to drop out of these debates and/or not start any more, but seems happy to continue. I've asked myself whether he's perhaps delusional to the point that he doesn't really know what he's doing, but the amount of dissembling and clearly quite deliberate misdirecting he goes in for suggests to me that he has the cognitive capacity to understand what he is doing, and the process he is involved in, so I don't feel that this is a case of a vulnerable individual being picked on unreasonably.
And yes, sometimes, I stoop beneath myself and like to get a little dig in of my own. I won't say I'm proud of that, but I don't think I feel particularly ashamed, either.
Similar threads
