• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

funk de fino said:
Do you know what lease means?
Click to expand...

Considering he investigated the collapses on behalf of the insurance companies, you'd think he'd find the timely leasing interesting enough to deserve a mention.


triforcharity said:
And here is just a smattering of what we have.

(Long list of scholarly papers)
Click to expand...

Tri, just pick the one you think is the best and I'll study it and offer my critique. If your best one fails, there's no point in wasting my time with all the others.
 
Ok, NIST's report on the collapse of the Twin Towers.


See you in about a month.

I require a point by point, with refrences, and notes. Including your math.

See you then.
 
bardamu said:
Tri, just pick the one you think is the best and I'll study it and offer my critique. If your best one fails, there's no point in wasting my time with all the others.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's how it works :newlol
 
bardamu said:
Tri, just pick the one you think is the best and I'll study it and offer my critique. If your best one fails, there's no point in wasting my time with all the others.
Click to expand...


YOUR Critique? LOL. Who are you, and what are your qualifications again?
 
triforcharity said:
Ok, NIST's report on the collapse of the Twin Towers.

See you in about a month.

I require a point by point, with refrences, and notes. Including your math.

See you then.
Click to expand...

Are you sure the NIST report was in your list? In any case, we're supposed to be looking for independent liars who are supporting the official lie. NIST are the official liars, so they don't count.
 
bardamu said:
Richard Gage was using the bricks to demonstrate that WTC 7 couldn't have collapsed the way it did without being demolished. Let's suppose we have 58 bricks and we place one brick on top of each of the 57 exterior columns. Then we dangle the remaining brick from a string so that it's at the same height as the others. Now we cut the string at exactly the same time as the edge of the roofline begins to move downwards. What happens? Well, for the first couple of seconds at least, all the bricks drop at the same rate. That's not possible without columns being removed intentionally. End of story.
Click to expand...

That's genius. Keep describing something other than tower 7's collapse, then say that tower 7 didn't resemble it. So smart.

Keep proving Dunning-Kruger for us. You're batting 1.000 so far. Some day, you should also take a peek on how Tower 7 collapsed. It wasn't a case of exterior columns being "cut". Your's and Gage's explanation does not explain why the penthouse disappeared first, it cannot explain the roofline kinks, and it certainly doesn't explain why the east side failed first. And since we're talking exterior columns, and given your previous defense of explosives, your and his explanation cannot explain how explosives werre used without immediately adjacent buildings having all their windows blown out. At some point, you need to realize that explosives are not only unproven, they're contradicted.

Seriously: You need to study the actual collapse details.

bardamu said:
Your professor of structural engineering thinks... (snipped)
Click to expand...

Boy, you really missed the point entirely. Each and every one of these researchers published before NIST did. Only one cited FEMA's BPR (and you need to read the other works he cites, BTW). The point is that they all independently studied the information that was out there, they all did not have any reason to defend this shibboleth of the conspiracy plotting US government you all continue to push, and none of them concluded that there was anything suspicious about the collapses, even when only considering the initial hypotheses.

So, you want to try again with this whole "researchers only rely on what lying scientists tell them"? While you're at it, you want to actually provide evidence that the NIST report researchers actually lied to begin with? Simply saying they're the "Official Story" doesn't cut it; the NIST reports contain far more evidence and has far more internal consistency than anything truthers have come up with (granted, that's a low bar for achievement, but still, the point is that conspiratorialism has yet to compose a coherent narrative regarding the collapse that didn't fail under the weight of it's own contradictions). Arup didn't spot any lies, and they disagreed with aspects of the NIST report. Quintiere didn't claim that those researchers lied, and he's been a fierce critic of NIST. Ditto Astaneh-Asl. You want to actually defend this claim of yours that NIST researchers lied? So far, you've demonstrated that you don't even know what they said, let alone what they could've gotten wrong.
 
triforcharity said:
Ok, NIST's report on the collapse of the Twin Towers.


See you in about a month.

I require a point by point, with refrences, and notes. Including your math.

See you then.
Click to expand...

What about just the NIST FAQ ? After all that was the document that most of the population read and the one that helped ease their worries. Therefore to a large extent it was even more important to get that document right. So shall we say just the FAQ then ?
 
Last edited:
Mangoose said:
ElMondoHummus: The best video showing the duration of the WTC2 collapse is Clip 8 in P200015.mpg on the Moussaoui trial exhibits website. The collapse begins at 10:00 and the last portion of the collapse (core columns obscured by the dust cloud) is visible at 10:27. That's 27 seconds of from start to finish.
Click to expand...
The morons in the truth movement can't count that high; everything for them is falling faster than free fall, including their IQ.

Debris comes out of the WTC and the failed truth movement fringe few anti-intellectual expert no plane morons say it is the nose. 8 years and they fail to realize how stupid their ideas are? the six sigma of stupid
 
dtugg said:
I would have to say that the WTC no planers have a slight edge. But I saw, in person, a plane fly into the WTC so I am probably biased. Also, it is probably a safe bet that virtually all WTC no planers are Pentagon and Shanksville no planers but the reverse isn't true.
Click to expand...

Hey dtugg....tell us about the plane you saw ? Did it have windows ? (A FOX reporter said it didn't) Any pods or anything like that ?
 
bill smith said:
Hey dtugg....tell us about the plane you saw ? Did it have windows ? (A FOX reporter said it didn't) Any pods or anything like that ?
Click to expand...

It was more than eight years ago and I was more than a mile away... I don't remember those types of details (or if it was even possible to see them). However, I can say that I saw a large twin engine jet fly into the south tower. And since all sane people know that that plane was UA175 we can say for certain that it had windows and there were no pods.
 
dtugg said:
It was more than eight years ago and I was more than a mile away... I don't remember those types of details (or if it was even possible to see them). However, I can say that I saw a large twin engine jet fly into the south tower. And since all sane people know that that plane was UA175 we can say for certain that it had windows and there were no pods.
Click to expand...

What do you think the FOX reporter saw then ?....No windows.....big blue logo etc. He was pretty close too by the sounds of it. I have the video if you need it.
 
bill smith said:
What do you think the FOX reporter saw then ?....No windows.....big blue logo etc. He was pretty close too by the sounds of it. I have the video if you need it.
Click to expand...
He saw a plane hit the tower. What's your point? You do know people generally suck at details?
 
bill smith said:
What do you think the FOX reporter saw then ?....No windows.....big blue logo etc. He was pretty close too by the sounds of it. I have the video if you need it.
Click to expand...

So what are you arguing? Are you saying a plane DID hit the building, but it wasn't the plane in the "official story" or was it no plane and the video was faked and both the FOX report and dtug are lying, were fooled, or were 'in on it'? Have you ever had a consistent narrative?
 
bill smith said:
What do you think the FOX reporter saw then ?
Click to expand...

He, along with a few hundred thousand other people, saw UA 175 fly into the WTC.

....No windows.....big blue logo etc. He was pretty close too by the sounds of it. I have the video if you need it.
Click to expand...

Eyewitnesses get details wrong all the time. In fact it is much more suspicious if all eyewitnesses agree 100%. You are a twoofer so it cannot be expected that you would understand why. Plus the plane was flying fast, so he probably didn't have enough time to get a good look at it. And depending where he was standing, he might not have been able to see windows at all.

I am not sure why I am even responding to you. Perhaps I shouldn't be drinking this early.
 
dtugg said:
He, along with a few hundred thousand other people, saw UA 175 fly into the WTC.



Eyewitnesses get details wrong all the time. In fact it is much more suspicious if all eyewitnesses agree 100%. You are a twoofer so it cannot be expected that you would understand why. Plus the plane was flying fast, so he probably didn't have enough time to get a good look at it. And depending where he was standing, he might not have been able to see windows at all.

I am not sure why I am even responding to you. Perhaps I shouldn't be drinking this early.
Click to expand...

Ah sure it must 11 am somewhere on Earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom