Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[BigAl]

I wonder if any debunker wants to sink his teeth into this story and comment.This is just too juicy to let it go past on the jref conveyor belt without sweating you guys. What about you Fitzgibbon ?.

Praimnath was lucky. So what?

What he went through is described in much more detail in One hundred two minutes By Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn

 

[BigAl]

Yes, imagine if flight 175 had actually ?

Why don't you spend more time learning and less time trolling imagining?

 

[bill smith]

Yes, quite possibly.

Tell me about his desk?? Was it a big heavy oak desk? Or one of those wimpy cubicle desks. Was it attached to other things? I would like to know more about his desk.

Fetch Bo-bo!!

I t was probably quite a strong well-fixed desk if it could stop a 767 travelling at 500 mph. If that helps.

 

[BigAl]

I t was probably quite a strong well-fixed desk if it could stop a 767 travelling at 500 mph. If that helps.

Pointless conjecture.

 

[triforcharity]

Lucky guy.

I heard stories like that for months. I heaard of a guy who spilled coffee on himself on his waay up to his office, on the 90th floor of WTC 2. He went to the bathroom in one of the sky lobbies to clean up. Saved his life.

I heard stories about this kindaa stuff for months.

What's your point?

 

[bill smith]

Lucky guy.

I heard stories like that for months. I heaard of a guy who spilled coffee on himself on his waay up to his office, on the 90th floor of WTC 2. He went to the bathroom in one of the sky lobbies to clean up. Saved his life.

I heard stories about this kindaa stuff for months.

What's your point?

So far we have a very strong desk. Now how come the wing was intact ? Was it still full of jet fuel ?

 

[TruthersLie]

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

Please provide us with your thesis which shows that NIST is wrong. If you do a good enough job you might be able to get it published... it would be the FIRST one which says NIST is wrong.

I eagerly await your thesis (don't forget the engineering which shows that nIST is wrong... arguments from ignroance and incredulity don't work in engineering.)

PLEASE. PRETTY PLEASE provide the thesis. It should only take you about 20 or 30 pages of work if it is that easy to find and spot.

 

[twinstead]

I somehow doubt it was the entire, intact plane wing Praimnath was talking about. Tell you what, bill, why don't you do some research and find out exactly what he saw. Maybe you can even GASP! talk to him. I wouln't recommend you let him in on the fact that you think he is lying; that might ruin the interview.

 

[TruthersLie]

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.

Ah... the Larry S was in on it for Insurance Fraud.

Damn twoof... when will you come up with something that hasn't been completely and utterly demolished?

Yes, Larry S was in on it for insurance fraud so he could LOSE MONEY.
That makes perfect sense...

Like putting on 19 hijackers from countries who are friendly to the US to be able to invade Iraq...

absolutely amazing

 

[triforcharity]

So far we have a very strong desk. Now how come the wing was intact ? Was it still full of jet fuel ?

I don't know why it was still intact. Do we have pictures of it? Do we have the piece in question available to us? Do we have the dimensions of it?
Do we know what color this guy's eyes were?
Do we know if it was the tip, the middle, or the piece nearest the fuselage?

I don't know, as I wasn't with him under his desk. To speculate is stupid.

I wasn't there in the tower. I got as far as the lobby, that was it.

Were you there?

What is your point??

Again, weird things happened.

 

[bardamu]

Hmm.. there were only two seconds of free fall noted at all, yet Gage's demonstration and your point is an argument trying to say that there was zero internal resistence. The more you post, the further you deviate from what actually happened. Go time the collapse. Note how the total collapse time in fact deviates from any notion that the entire structure was in any sort of free fall. It was measured to be 40% longer than it should have been had the roofline indeed been in free fall.

The more you post, the further away you put yourself from what actually occurred that day. Instead of just (to paraphrase) 'relying on the opinion of some other former architect who's just lying', you'd better look up the basics of WTC 7's collapse. A segment fell as a unit, most likely 8 stories total, and the uniform failure of that segment allowed part of the roof to fall without resistence until it impacted the collapsed section. The total time, even minus the penthouse collapse, refutes the notion of no internal resistence during the collapse. The time the collapse took proves exactly what Gage thinks he's arguing against, and that's that there were internal collisions and structure that had to be impacted before it failed.

But you don't see this because you quite obviously haven't tried to comprehend the original information. That's a bad spot to start from with us here.

There was zero resistance around the entire perimeter of the roof virtually simultaneously for at least two seconds. Nothing else matters.

Even after being told that this demonstrates that researchers not involved with the US government don't find anything suspicious about the collapses, you still miss the point? Really? You're that dense? You work on one professor's early misapprehension, ignoring the fact that he last looked at that aspect of the incident back in 2002, didn't have the benefit of NIST's findings, and still didn't find anything suspicious?

I didn't choose which professors to work on. I followed the links you provided as examples of good independent research. It turns out that the structural engineers you put all your faith in believed that burning jet fuel can melt steel.

On top of that, you yourself discuss one professor and two engineers who stated something at odds with the NIST report and don't realize that you yourself just negated your earlier post saying that these independent researchers:

​

You're so oblivious to your own inconsistency that you don't realize you refuted your own statement from earlier?

You've just refuted your own statement that these engineers didn't have the benefit of NIST's findings at the time they made their comments. How could they have been at odds with NIST before NIST got involved? What they did do is support the official conspiracy theory by making false claims that, as experts, they should have known were false. That's what happens when you start with your conclusion and work backwards.

Random? You mean when they said:

​

Or when they said:

​

Which one of those are you referring to? Those are entirely sensible statements about the difficulty of modeling through FEA the longer the collapse progresses. If you have an issue with these statements, expand on why they're wrong. Just stating "they got it so wrong..." is a cop out. You're hiding behind generalities. Explain what you think they got wrong. Let's see if you truly understand the argument.

Or are you talking about something else with the "random" mention? Citation, please, and explanation of what they meant by "random" and why they were wrong. Your posts have never proceeded from known events, which means we need to ask what in God's name you're talking about before we can explain anything. What statement by NIST saying some aspect of the collapse was "random" was so wrong that "it had to be deliberate"? Generalities don't cut it; quote the statement and explain why it's wrong.

-----

WTC 7's time for collapse completely indicates that internal resistence was met, and also disproves Gage's allegation by demonstrating the exact case he claims WTC 7 did not fit.

And "random" elements of the collapse creating difficulties for modeling is nothing more than a statement of fact. See above, and take the challenge. Try making real arguments, instead of stating unsupported generalities.

NIST use the word "random" in conjunction with the word "uncertainty". It's a cop-out so they don't have to provide anything but the vaguest of details for their proposed collapse mechanism. The problem NIST have is that this alleged random nature of the collapses conflicts with the video evidence.

Proceeding from the observed nature of the descending collapse front of each of the twin towers and the descending roofline of WTC 7, it's clear that the three collapses were too uniform and symmetrical to have been caused by random forces.

 

[beachnut]

The nose-out nonsense was made up by mentally ill conspiracy theorists. How delusional are those who repeat the lie since the mentally ill never provided evidence to prove or support their moronic fantasy. No proof will be posted in this thread only quote mining to support delusional off topic tripe.

The photo is a 2093 pound of TNT impact of a plane; Got physics?

Ironically a truther posted proof of a plane at WTC2 quote mining a witness, thus making further support of the nose-out nonsense ridiculous.

all I could see was the plane wing wedged at my office door http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/09/ar911.last.ones.out/index.html

Given the tiniest of threads truthers are self-debunking spewing evidence against their fail moronic delusions.
Truther proves 175 hits WTC2! Good job

Then there is some truther spewing WTC7 junk in a WTC2 nose-out thread; what's new?

 

[twinstead]

Ironically a truther posted proof of a plane at WTC2 quote mining a witness, thus making further support of the nose-out nonsense ridiculous.

What's sad is the truther lack of comment on all the OTHER eye-witness accounts in the same list.

 

[tfk]

Moe-rons.

How wide is a doorway?

How long is a wing of a 767?

What percent of the wing is stuck in a doorway?

What percent of a wing is part of the fuel tank?

Is this tiny percent of a wing equivalent to "an intact wing"?

A whole bunch of people in that area died. A very, very few lucky ones survived. We have stories ONLY from the very, very few lucky ones.

These stories are NOT representative of the stories that all the people there would have to tell. But guess what...?

The poor unfortunate dead people can not tell their stories.

So a few moe-rons cite "the unbelievable stories coming out"...? The story from EVERYONE who survived is pretty near unbelievable. If "unbelievable" is interpreted to mean "highly improbable".

But the highly improbable stories of the highly improbable survivors are the only one that others get to hear.

We are ankle-deep in moe-rons...

Tom

 

[bill smith]

Moe-rons.

How wide is a doorway?

How long is a wing of a 767?

What percent of the wing is stuck in a doorway?

What percent of a wing is part of the fuel tank?

Is this tiny percent of a wing equivalent to "an intact wing"?

A whole bunch of people in that area died. A very, very few lucky ones survived. We have stories ONLY from the very, very few lucky ones.

These stories are NOT representative of the stories that all the people there would have to tell. But guess what...?

The poor unfortunate dead people can not tell their stories.

So a few moe-rons cite "the unbelievable stories coming out"...? The story from EVERYONE who survived is pretty near unbelievable. If "unbelievable" is interpreted to mean "highly improbable".

But the highly improbable stories of the highly improbable survivors are the only one that others get to hear.

We are ankle-deep in moe-rons...

Tom

Hey there T. How come those few survivors did not mention any fire ?

 

[Macgyver1968]

Hey there T. How come those few survivors did not mention any fire ?

Troll much?

 

[tfk]

The Canadian moe-ron, Jeff Hill, calls Stanley a liar for claiming that he can see the North Tower from his office.

Then he indicates Stanley's office as in the South-west corner of the tower. This is utterly false. As can be seen from this picture:

There are at least 16 office windows from the tip of the wing to the west corner of the building.

But the Canadian moe-ron's (mis)interpretation is that Stanley meant that he could see the North Tower by looking out the southern windows. Perhaps (most assuredly) that's not what Stanley meant.

Perhaps Stanley's office space was open offices with cubicles and low partitions. Perhaps if Stanley walked out of his office into the open space, he could see the North Tower out the west wall windows.

Perhaps, if Stanley's office had a glass wall, he didn't even have to leave his office to see the North Tower.

Easy to call people "liars", ain't it, Jeff?


Tom

PS. There's no fuel in the outer extremities of the wings...

 

[twinstead]

Hey there T. How come those few survivors did not mention any fire ?

Ah, grasshopper, you have learned your Kung Woo well. Remember, when presented with questions one cannot answer, one must carefully step aside and quickly change the subject. Eeeeeexelent.

 

[tfk]

Hey there T. How come those few survivors did not mention any fire ?

You're on "ignore".

Even when I read your crap, you're still on "ignore".

 

[twinstead]

I as well am a proponent of "virtual ignore". I don't need any forum software. If I choose to read what bill and others have posted at all it's strictly for entertainment value.