Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[Mangoose]

Have you seen this one ?

http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com/watch?v=qbYAV5fCGiM Amateur 1

This too...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=g3cpHxbIIV4&feature=related Jennifer witness

FAIL! Both show a big-ass hole on the North Face of WTC1.

 

[triforcharity]

Mangoose,

I was thinking the same thing.

Billy, you might want to see a proctologist, as its obvious you have a case of cranial-rectal inversion.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Tied in with the position of the cameras is the question of why the North Tower was hit first.

Judging by the number of times the impact videos were broadcast on TV on 9/11 and during the following days, we can assume that acquiring footage of the plane crashes for the networks was a crucial part of the plan. Since the first crash was 15 minutes before the second, the TV cameras filming from the studios north of the WTC would be guaranteed to be pointing at the towers at time of the second crash. But the way it turned out, the TV cameras were all on the wrong side of the WTC and the impact videos were fluked by freelancers and amateurs. They risked not having any footage at all of the crash itself because the impacted wall was on the blind side of the TV cameras.

It would have made much more sense for the perps to hit the South Tower first, so that the cameras filming from the TV studios would be in place to capture the second plane as it crashed into the north face of the North Tower. The only logical reason for them not to do it that way would be if there was something about the impact of the second plane that needed to be hidden.

Obviously, this argument is not directed at the debunkers, but planehugging truthers should give it some thought.

Typical truther thought process; "Obviously, this argument is not directed at the debunkers." That sums it up

 

[MIKILLINI]

Have you seen this one ?

http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com/watch?v=qbYAV5fCGiM Amateur 1

This too...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=g3cpHxbIIV4&feature=related Jennifer witness

Wow Bill, it's amazing how much bogus crap you accept as evidence.

 

[bill smith]

Wow Bill, it's amazing how much bogus crap you accept as evidence.

You know what I find most interesting about the 'Jennifer Witness' clip in the attached hyperlink ? It proves either that there were really no planes or it proves that they deliberately introduced the evidence for a no-planes theory themselves.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5402648&postcount=697 hyperlink

 

[CORed]

It's called momentum. The piece of fuselage near the back of the plane was travelling forward. It hit the building and continued forward. It exited the building and continued forward and down. It hit the ground, and stopped.

I guess we can add momentum to the list of basic physics concepts truthers don't understand, to go along with gravity and thermal expansion.

 

[332nd]

In other words, you didn't see either of the planes. Who told you planes hit? CNN? Harley Guy?

I know this is a bit late but what is the obsession with "Harley guy"?

 

[bardamu]

I was at work in the UK when this happened. My wife phoned me from home right after the first news flash on UK TV after the first impact. She said a plane had hit the towers, I immediately assumed a small two seater or private jet etc. She said non, it was definately like a passenger plane, a big plane, she had seen the footage at that point.

What conclusion do you draw from this, and how is it relevant to this thread?

Every *single* photo and video showing the North Face of WTC1 and the South Face of WTC2 show the holes. 100% of the sample (hundreds of images). You seriously think there were no holes? Show me just one photo where the holes are missing.

I'm not saying the holes weren't there. I'm saying there should be more and better pictures of them. If you search the internet, you find the same few crap-quality images.

I know this is an overused response in regards to conspiracy fantasists, but: Dunning–Kruger effect. Only surprising thing is just how common it is with them.

I could mention a few qualified architects who are absolutely certain that three buildings could not have totally collapsed due to fires, but I don't want to be accused of appealing to authority.

Typical truther thought process; "Obviously, this argument is not directed at the debunkers." That sums it up

The argument was directed at Bill, who's not a debunker and not a no planer. People who are gullible enough to believe that three steel-framed buildings could collapse due to fires are not ready to hear about planes being faked.

You know what I find most interesting about the 'Jennifer Witness' clip in the attached hyperlink ? It proves either that there were really no planes or it proves that they deliberately introduced the evidence for a no-planes theory themselves.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5402648&postcount=697 hyperlink

Jennifer Oberstein is a fake witness. She said later she saw the second plane.

I guess we can add momentum to the list of basic physics concepts truthers don't understand, to go along with gravity and thermal expansion.

The question is why the laws of momentum, gravity and thermal expansion are applied on such an ad hoc basis.

I know this is a bit late but what is the obsession with "Harley guy"?

He knew too much:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21OnZaN2EWg

 

[332nd]

He knew too much:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21OnZaN2EWg

Why do you say that?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I could mention a few qualified architects who are absolutely certain that three buildings could not have totally collapsed due to fires, but I don't want to be accused of appealing to authority.

First of all, you don't even have that correct: None of the buildings collapsed due to the fires alone. Two of them suffered severe impact damage. And all three had elements of their design that rendered them susceptible to collapsing under the circumstances that occurred that day. But that's a little ahead of where you're currently at with your level of knowledge. Let's concentrate on those "qualified architects" you want to cite. Just go for it: Name them and present their arguments. Don't worry about what their authority is supposed to be, put forth what they come out say. Just don't forget to actually present their arguments too. And while we're at it, let's see if you understand them yourself (given what you just wrote, I doubt it, but we'll see). Too many of you truthers even screw up conspiratorial arguments, nevermind missing the boat on what actually happened.

But be forwarned: If you're thinking of Richard Gage and folks in AE911T, you'd better check this forum's archives. All those folks have been doing is forwarding the same old explosives/thermite BS that's been refuted for years now. If you really think those arguments are compelling, you've got some remedial reading to do.

But don't be scared. Give the names and arguments. See if you can make what they say stick. So far, you truthers are batting 0.000 on this.

And as far as Dunning–Kruger effect: Yes, I was aiming that at truthers like Gage who have zero tall building experience and also do not recognize the errors and fallacies involved in their arguments. But make no mistake: I was also aiming it at the likes of you, who's utterly representative of so many who believe they understand the event of the day, only to demonstrate that all they know are misrepresentations and distortions of facts instead of actual truth. Yes, that's aimed at all of you. You've all earned it many times over.

 

[bill smith]

What conclusion do you draw from this, and how is it relevant to this thread?




I'm not saying the holes weren't there. I'm saying there should be more and better pictures of them. If you search the internet, you find the same few crap-quality images.




I could mention a few qualified architects who are absolutely certain that three buildings could not have totally collapsed due to fires, but I don't want to be accused of appealing to authority.




The argument was directed at Bill, who's not a debunker and not a no planer. People who are gullible enough to believe that three steel-framed buildings could collapse due to fires are not ready to hear about planes being faked.




Jennifer Oberstein is a fake witness. She said later she saw the second plane.




The question is why the laws of momentum, gravity and thermal expansion are applied on such an ad hoc basis.




He knew too much:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21OnZaN2EWg

Do you think there is a case to be made for the no-planes theory having been deliberately planted by the government ?

 

[twinstead]

I'm not saying the holes weren't there. I'm saying there should be more and better pictures of them. If you search the internet, you find the same few crap-quality images.

This is a joke, right? There are hundreds of high-quality videos and pictures of the holes. What you are saying is that no matter HOW many there were, all you have to do is say that YOU think there's not enough and BAM! It's evidence of conspiracy. LOL

I could mention a few qualified architects who are absolutely certain that three buildings could not have totally collapsed due to fires, but I don't want to be accused of appealing to authority.

You do know there are more than a few qualified scientists and engineers who are absolutely certain the buildings COULD have totally collapsed due to fires (and damage, which you always leave out), right?

 

[Mancman]

Jennifer Oberstein is a fake witness. She said later she saw the second plane.

So someone near Bowling Green Station (south of WTC) didn't see the plane coming in from the north, but did see the plane coming in from the south? Oh wow, that's so suspicious.

 

[TruthersLie]

Bump for bard. Please answer the questions and provide citations.

And again, where is your proof that a jet moving 500 mph at 1,000 feet will cause ruptured eardrums? I'm still waiting for that.

Or your thesis about what NIST has wrong, or your video showing all 4 corners of wtc7 uniformly and symmetricaly collapse....

 

[TruthersLie]

I could mention a few qualified architects who are absolutely certain that three buildings could not have totally collapsed due to fires, but I don't want to be accused of appealing to authority.

GREAT. Then provide their published thesis which states that NIST is wrong. It should be easy to find a single peer reviewed architectural or engineering journal with an article which states NIST is wrong.

I eagerly await your thesis or a link to any truther opus about why NIST is wrong.

The question is why the laws of momentum, gravity and thermal expansion are applied on such an ad hoc basis.

Please explain what laws of momentum, gravity and thermal expansion are. Once you have done that, then please explain how those laws were only in effect on such an ad hoc basis.

Your appeal from ignorance is noted. Try to educate yourself... maybe take night classes.

 

[bill smith]

GREAT. Then provide their published thesis which states that NIST is wrong. It should be easy to find a single peer reviewed architectural or engineering journal with an article which states NIST is wrong.

I eagerly await your thesis or a link to any truther opus about why NIST is wrong.



Please explain what laws of momentum, gravity and thermal expansion are. Once you have done that, then please explain how those laws were only in effect on such an ad hoc basis.

Your appeal from ignorance is noted. Try to educate yourself... maybe take night classes.

NIST's final words described as their take-away message on the collapse of WTC7 were:-

1.The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery

2.WTC 7 collapsed because of fires, fueled by office furnishings

3.It did not collapse from explosives or from fuel oil fires"

If these pictures go out on coast-to-coast TV you can take my word for it that only people like you will believe NIST.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8607/wtc7controlleddemolitiohq3.jpg WTC7 Before
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-1.JPG WTC7 6 seconds later


www.ae911truth.org are 1,000 times more credible. You are at the end of your road.

 

[BigAl]

NIST's final words described as their take-away message on the collapse of WTC7 were:-

1.The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery

The reason WTC7 collapsed was never a mystery. It was caused by fire and lack of water for firefighting.

 

[triforcharity]

NIST's final words described as their take-away message on the collapse of WTC7 were:-

1.The reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery

2.WTC 7 collapsed because of fires, fueled by office furnishings

3.It did not collapse from explosives or from fuel oil fires"

If these pictures go on coast-to-coast TV you can take my word for it that only people like you will believe NIST.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8607/wtc7controlleddemolitiohq3.jpg WTC7 Before
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/wtc-rescuer/wtc7-1.JPG WTC7 After


www.ae911truth.org are 1,000 times more credible. You are at the end of your road.

Problem is, the first first picture has a caption that is a COMPLETE LIE!!!

Bankers Trust and Fitterman Hall were both SEVERLY damaged.

Here's their pictures.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/414px-Fiterman_hall_damage-1.jpg
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/911_HighQualityPhotos7782.jpg
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/911_HighQualityPhotos7784.jpg

And here is the Bankers Trust Building.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/FEMAphoto_WTC-299.jpg

I can't upload the other one I have.

ETA Here it is

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/bankers.jpg
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/abankers.jpg

 

[bill smith]

Problem is, the first first picture has a caption that is a COMPLETE LIE!!!

Bankers Trust and Fitterman Hall were both SEVERLY damaged.

Here's their pictures.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/414px-Fiterman_hall_damage-1.jpg
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/911_HighQualityPhotos7782.jpg
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/911_HighQualityPhotos7784.jpg

And here is the Bankers Trust Building.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/FEMAphoto_WTC-299.jpg

I can't upload the other one I have.

ETA Here it is

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/bankers.jpg
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/abankers.jpg

Well I hope you are this convincing on coast-to-coast TV.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Do you think there is a case to be made for the no-planes theory having been deliberately planted by the government ?

No, there is not.
Delusional, paranoid people like Nico Haupt and killtown associate themselves with that one.

A more rational question to you Bill is, as a plan, why would faking the video and destroying the trade towers deliberatly (creating a greater chance of being discovered) be a more logical approach than planes crashing into buildings?