Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[funk de fino]

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.

What does lease mean and who owned the WTC Complex?

 

[funk de fino]

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.

He was nowhere near it actually.

 

[bardamu]

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?

The ones who saw a plane, saw it on TV.

 

[funk de fino]

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 ?

That was only for stupid 911 CT monkeys.

 

[twinstead]

The ones who saw a plane, saw it on TV.

Nobody saw it live in person? All of these are false?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw:eyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

 

[dtugg]

The ones who saw a plane, saw it on TV.

Wrong, no-planer. I saw it in real life.

 

[bill smith]

Wrong, no-planer. I saw it in real life.

Honest ?...Cross you heart and hope to die ?

 

[dtugg]

Honest ?...Cross you heart and hope to die ?

Well, I do work for the NWO so who knows.

 

[dafydd]

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?

No.

 

[bardamu]

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.

The 57 bricks fall at the same rate as the brick that's falling through air. It doesn't matter what happens before the edge of the roof begins to drop.

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.

How many professors of structural engineering need NIST to tell them that burning jet fuel can't melt steel? Why did two structural engineers tell the BBC that's why the towers fell? Journalists have been blamed for these early stories that turned out to be false, but it's clear now they came from qualified engineers. I wonder if Dunning and Kruger realized how wrong the experts can be.

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.

NIST said the collapse of building 7 could have been random. They got it so wrong that the mistake could only be deliberate.

 

[bardamu]

Nobody saw it live in person? All of these are false?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw:eyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

What drugs does Stanley do?

"I just happened to raise my head watching the Statue of Liberty and as I watched I saw this giant aircraft ... coming in slow motion towards me -- eye level, eye contact. And I just froze."

United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into the building, smashing through walls, bringing down the ceiling, breaking computers and overturning every desk -- except the one Praimnath had ducked under.

"I'm trembling and I'm crying, 'Lord, don't leave me here to die!' And I realize that I'm covered with debris when I try to get up," he said. "Peeking through the rubble, all I could see was the plane wing wedged at my office door, 20 feet from where I was." Stanley Praimnath Source

 

[tuc0]

What drugs does Stanley do?

Brilliant argument.

You also could have bolded "I saw this giant aircraft ... coming in slow motion towards me" or maybe "I could see [...] the plane wing".

 

[bill smith]

What drugs does Stanley do?

Have you heard this one bardamu ?

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/joseph_keith_081607_planes.mp3

 

[bill smith]

So the wing was stuck in the doorway ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7Q1KxgeGZQ wing stuck in doorway


PS. But suppose Stanley was not lying and the wing did slice through the columns intact ? That means that the perimeter columns in that location had been tampered with. Certainly modified somehow.

That or he is hugely lying and here was no plane.

Either way there is a big problem for the OCT.

 

[bardamu]

So the wing was stuck in the doorway ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7Q1KxgeGZQ wing stuck in doorway

The wing was stuck in the doorway even though it was carrying the jet fuel that exploded as soon as the plane got inside of the building.

Have you heard this one bardamu ?

http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/joseph_keith_081607_planes.mp3

There's one where Jeff speaks to a woman at Boeing who laughs when he asks if a 767 could fly so low at that speed.

Last I heard, after speaking to a lot of witnesses, he came to the conclusion that some of them weren't lying and they must have seen something in the air.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

That means that the perimeter columns in that location had been tampered with. Certainly modified somehow.

Can it get any stupider than that?

What's next Bill, saying that someone was unscrewing the nuts off the bolts of the parimeter columns?

God help you!

 

[bill smith]

The wing was stuck in the doorway even though it was carrying the jet fuel that exploded as soon as the plane got inside of the building.




There's one where Jeff speaks to a woman at Boeing who laughs when he asks if a 767 could fly so low at that speed.

Last I heard, after speaking to a lot of witnesses, he came to the conclusion that some of them weren't lying and they must have seen something in the air.

'' The wing was stuck in the doorway even though it was carrying the jet fuel that exploded as soon as the plane got inside of the building.''

I can't answer this myself but I'm sure a debunker will be along with an amusing explanation soon.

 

[bill smith]

The wing was stuck in the doorway even though it was carrying the jet fuel that exploded as soon as the plane got inside of the building.




There's one where Jeff speaks to a woman at Boeing who laughs when he asks if a 767 could fly so low at that speed.

Last I heard, after speaking to a lot of witnesses, he came to the conclusion that some of them weren't lying and they must have seen something in the air.

I have an interview between Morgan Reynolds and the famous pilot John Lear of Learjet corporation. In it he says that a collegue told him a number of years ago hat he was driving with a companion when they saw a 747 at about 300 feet flying along beside them. It looked perfect. Then he said it went out, just like a light. I can find the interview f you haven't heard it. (Expect Beachnut to show up)

 

[twinstead]

What drugs does Stanley do?

You are you accusing him of lying? You don't think he saw a plane? So ALL of those people were doing drugs? If there were no planes, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those people are lying, were mistaken, or was 'in on it'. Frankly, only a moron would suggest that.

 

[Mancman]

Why are there no videos or photos of what really impacted the WTC, if no planes were involved?