Split Thread 'Nose-out' footage

[bill smith]

You're on "ignore".

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

A common debunker tactic I suspect..

 

[bill smith]

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:

[qimg]http://911review.com/spencer/markup/spencer06_files/wtc2scar.jpg[/qimg]

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...

Just watch them wingtips slice that there steel like it was just so much butter and the wingtips was the knife..

 

[bill smith]

I was just watching Jim Fetzer give Gravy a drubbing on Hardfire. Some interesting stuff on no planes. tampered videos and so on.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5692853335910175330#

 

[HyJinX]

No response is the best response.

 

[carlitos]

LOL

Indeed.

 

[bill smith]

Indeed.

[qimg]http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/2920/picture8sa.th.png[/qimg]

This was in answer to post #841. Hmmm ?

 

[Slayhamlet]

Indeed.

It's like a picture within a picture

 

[TruthersLie]

Hey... how did you get that picture of my screen?

are you tapped into my screen you NWO hooligans? inside jobby job... carnivore, NSA wiretapping...

 

[Macgyver1968]

Poor Billy..can't get no one to play with him.

 

[dtugg]

I will never again respond to bs. I might read its posts for comedy value but that is it.

 

[bill smith]

I will never again respond to bs. I might read its posts for comedy value but that is it.

You shpuld never say never dtugg. Just think how much face you will now lose if you ever respond to one of my posts again ?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Bill Smith never cared for anyone but him/herself. Why do you think Bill's always here? Because Bill has no friends who can help him with his dimentia & delusions of granduer.

We try to help Bill, but it seems like a lost cause anyways. Perhaps Bill should seek professional or phsychiatric help!

 

[dafydd]

I will never again respond to bs. I might read its posts for comedy value but that is it.

Good idea,the best way to annoy mindless attention seekers is to ignore them.

 

[bill smith]

Good idea,the best way to annoy mindless attention seekers is to ignore them.

Ypu shpuld swear the same blood-oath never to reply to my posts again just as dtugg did Dafydd.

 

[bardamu]

How long is a wing of a 767?

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

Just over half of each wing had fuel inside at the time. The outside halves were empty.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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

You really don't understand what this means, do you? That 2 seconds demonstrates exactly what I said, that a section of floors failed and descended as a unit, meaning that the roofline had nothing to hit for those 2 seconds when it fell. If it meant anything else, how would you then explain the non-freefall periods both before and after that two seconds? You think they only blew a few floors and the rest of it was a natural collapse? The reality is that actual events contradict your claim of intentional demolitions. In short, reality contradicts your fantasy.

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.

And again, it was initial information. And again, it proves that no one was moving in lockstep with NIST. But feel free to keep hammering away at the very point that disproves your earlier post.

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.

I refuted my statement? No. What the post does is show that you were wrong. Remember: It was you who said:

I've listened to both sides of the argument and my informed judgement is that these scientists and engineers haven't looked into it and are simply relying on the opinions of other scientists and engineers who are lying.

It's true they did not have the benefit of NIST's report at the time they made their initial analyses. That's exactly the point: How could these initial researchers have been "simply relying on the opinions of other scientists and engineers who are lying" when those supposedly lying engineers hadn't even made statements yet? There was not yet any supposedly "official story" to march in lockstep with at the time the researchers I cited made their statements.

That's why your second post contradicts your first. You're just trying to negate without maintaining any internal consistency with your claims. Being consistent is easy when you're telling the truth, but difficult when you're spinning fantasy. You should stop spinning fantasy.

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.

First, "'Random' in conjunction with the word 'uncertainty'. One more time:

... there was a great increase in the uncertainty in the progression of the collapse sequence, due to the random nature of the interactions, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris.

There are greater uncertainties in predicting the precise progression of the collapse sequence as the anaysis proceeded due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris. The uncertainties deriving from these random processes increasingly influenced the deterministic physics-based collapse process. Thus, the details of the progressoin of horizontal failure and final global collapse were sensitive to the uncertainties in how the building materials (steel, concrete) and building systems and contents interact, break up, and disintegrate.

Yes, they were uncertain about much of the "random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris". That's the nature of dealing with a complex analysis of tens to hundreds of thousands of elements in a model. They're making statements of reality regarding the difficulties of modeling. What they are not are cop outs, as you tryto claim. You can model of hundreds of thousands of individual elements in a Finite Element Analysis application, or, you can get finer resolution by going to a million elements. Or 10 million. Or a hundred million. But, is dealing with a few hundred thousand elements enough to get a good approximation of what you're modeling? The answer depends on whether those elements are the critical elements of the system. And that's the point of those statements about "random nature" and the like: The modelers didn't worry about inconsequential collisions later in the model that had nothing to do with the critical failures or took place after those failures occurred. Instead, they concentrated on key events. You don't worry about whether a random piece of floor truss impacts a random piece of concrete, and you certainly don't worry about tracking it after the critical failure that led to the truss falling to begin with. You worry about whether a critical element of a structure is stressed and fails due to whatever load is put on it, and what path that load takes up to the point the structure can no longer remain standing. And you end your analysis there, because anything after that is nothing more than rubble tracking. That's what they were getting at with their statements. It wasn't some silly admission that "this is a vague analysis", it's an explanation of what the limits of those analyses were. You have to go far out of your way to misread their use of the word "random" to imply anything other than this.

Second:

...so they don't have to provide anything but the vaguest of details for their proposed collapse mechanism"

This is utterly, demonstrably incorrect. There's are whole reports full of detail regarding WTC 7's collapse mechanism, and earlier reports with more voluminous detail on the Twin Towers. Don't conflate the fact that you didn't read any of it with the fantasy that the detail doesn't exist. The explanations exist in great detail.

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.

There are so many problems with this statement, it's hard to know where to start. You think you can negate in-depth studies of debris, careful analysis of higher resolution videos than what you find on the internet, correlations with witness reports of what they observed within and outside the structures, measurements taken with survey equipment prior to collapse, and heavy Finite Element Analysis models with superficial observations from internet videos? If you think you can, go for it. But you need to do better than just make vague noises like "too uniform and symmetrical". You want to discuss the "observed nature of the descending collapse front..."? Good. Then discuss it. All you're doing is plastering opinion devoid of analysis here, and from previous posts, we know you don't know the internal structure or the collapse events at all, so you need to provide your explanation for why you deviate from the current narrative. For example, for the Twin Towers: Can you explain the tilt of the upper sections? Can you explain the bowing? Can you explain why the column splices to the external panels show downward sheer, and the internal connections to the core columns are either intact but massively distorted, or are severed and distorted in the downward direction? While you're at it, can you explain why none of those recovered elements show no signs of spalling, shredding, or any other sort of explosive effect?

The whole problem is, you've demonstrated that you don't even know what NIST's explanation of any of the three towers collapses are. Hell, you can't even describe the structural frame of the Twin Towers correctly; that's blatantly obvious in your other posts. So why should we trust vague statements from you when you have already shown you don't even have a base of established knowledge to work from? The answer is: We shouldn't. Hence, our responses. Defend your analysis in the face of data. Explain the bowing. Explain the tilts. Explain the state of the recovered debris. While we're at it, explain what you mean by "uniform and symmetric" when, for example, it's well known that the South tower's debris fell mostly to the east. That doesn't seem so symmetric. In short, post more than superficialities. That's all you've been doing so far, and none of it has been working at all.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

(Bump)

BTW, in addition to the above, you want to explain why you tried to claim that "the ones who saw a plane, saw it on TV" (sic) when it was patently obvious that there were eyewitnesses too?

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

You leave out every single eyewitness in Manhattan when you try to make that claim.

My name is Jeff Benjamin and I was visiting a client, Axcelera Specialty Risk, on the 83rd floor of the North Tower when we observed an approaching aircraft (American Airlines Flt.11)from a distance of aprox. 3-4 miles. At the time we initially spotted the plane, it appeared to be level with us. We could distinctly identify the American airlines insignia and my client commented that perhaps the plane had taken off from Kennedy and was experiencing mechanical problems. As the plane approached us it seemed to climb. I stood up from the conference table and walked over to the window assuming as everyone did that there was no imminent danger. As the plane came closer we could see that it was traveling at a high rate of speed and the sound of the engines intensified. Immediately before impact we could see images in the cockpit and the plane banked sharply. A split second later we heard an echoing shot, fell to the floor and observed a fireball followed by debris which struck the side of the building. At the same time you could feel the building sway every so slightly for a brief moment. We immediately retreated towards the main part of the office where we noticed a huge fireball shooting out of the elevator shaft which quickly disappeared.

http://911digitalarchive.org/stories/details/7639

"I saw the plane come in. My office faces north. I just finished my coffee and I heard my friend say, 'Oh no, oh no.' This plane was coming right at us, then it went up and hit the upper floors. –Nicholas Scinicariello, 86th floor

Link

At some point after our arrival and after we had moved to the west side of West Street, I heard a loud roar of a jet, looked up and saw the second plane impact the south tower. At that point it was clear to me it was a terrorist attack. We stepped over small airplane aviation parts, on Vesey, continued west, continued looking at the building. - FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro

"I looked over my shoulder and saw the United Airlines plane coming. It came over the Statute of Liberty. It was just like a movie. It just directly was guided into the second tower." Lakshman Achuthan

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/nyregion/12VIGN.html?ex=1192766400&en=990f09a40f324af3&ei=5070
​

​

There are many more of these testimonies here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheysaw:eyewitnessaccountsofthenycai

This claim has been refuted. There were eyewitnesses. Bardamu has forwarded an unsupportable, contradicted claim. Next myth, please.

If your implication was that no one witnessed it live, then that's an indefensible claim. So please, if that's what you meant, can you explain why you got it wrong? Or, if we misunderstood, can you explain what you were actually trying to say? We're you merely referring to people who weren't there in Manhattan at the time? Granted, that would be sort of a silly thing to claim; of course people not that close would've had no choice but to watch it on TV, but the point is that there must be some reason you said what you said. What is it?

 

[twinstead]

You really don't understand what this means, do you? That 2 seconds demonstrates exactly what I said, that a section of floors failed and descended as a unit, meaning that the roofline had nothing to hit for those 2 seconds when it fell. If it meant anything else, how would you then explain the non-freefall periods both before and after that two seconds? You think they only blew a few floors and the rest of it was a natural collapse? The reality is that actual events contradict your claim of intentional demolitions. In short, reality contradicts your fantasy.



And again, it was initial information. And again, it proves that no one was moving in lockstep with NIST. But feel free to keep hammering away at the very point that disproves your earlier post.



I refuted my statement? No. What the post does is show that you were wrong. Remember: It was you who said:

​

It's true they did not have the benefit of NIST's report at the time they made their initial analyses. That's exactly the point: How could these initial researchers have been "simply relying on the opinions of other scientists and engineers who are lying" when those supposedly lying engineers hadn't even made statements yet? There was not yet any supposedly "official story" to march in lockstep with at the time the researchers I cited made their statements.

That's why your second post contradicts your first. You're just trying to negate without maintaining any internal consistency with your claims. Being consistent is easy when you're telling the truth, but difficult when you're spinning fantasy. You should stop spinning fantasy.



First, "'Random' in conjunction with the word 'uncertainty'. One more time:

​

Yes, they were uncertain about much of the "random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris". That's the nature of dealing with a complex analysis of tens to hundreds of thousands of elements in a model. They're making statements of reality regarding the difficulties of modeling. What they are not are cop outs, as you tryto claim. You can model of hundreds of thousands of individual elements in a Finite Element Analysis application, or, you can get finer resolution by going to a million elements. Or 10 million. Or a hundred million. But, is dealing with a few hundred thousand elements enough to get a good approximation of what you're modeling? The answer depends on whether those elements are the critical elements of the system. And that's the point of those statements about "random nature" and the like: The modelers didn't worry about inconsequential collisions later in the model that had nothing to do with the critical failures or took place after those failures occurred. Instead, they concentrated on key events. You don't worry about whether a random piece of floor truss impacts a random piece of concrete, and you certainly don't worry about tracking it after the critical failure that led to the truss falling to begin with. You worry about whether a critical element of a structure is stressed and fails due to whatever load is put on it, and what path that load takes up to the point the structure can no longer remain standing. And you end your analysis there, because anything after that is nothing more than rubble tracking. That's what they were getting at with their statements. It wasn't some silly admission that "this is a vague analysis", it's an explanation of what the limits of those analyses were. You have to go far out of your way to misread their use of the word "random" to imply anything other than this.

Second:

​

This is utterly, demonstrably incorrect. There's are whole reports full of detail regarding WTC 7's collapse mechanism, and earlier reports with more voluminous detail on the Twin Towers. Don't conflate the fact that you didn't read any of it with the fantasy that the detail doesn't exist. The explanations exist in great detail.



There are so many problems with this statement, it's hard to know where to start. You think you can negate in-depth studies of debris, careful analysis of higher resolution videos than what you find on the internet, correlations with witness reports of what they observed within and outside the structures, measurements taken with survey equipment prior to collapse, and heavy Finite Element Analysis models with superficial observations from internet videos? If you think you can, go for it. But you need to do better than just make vague noises like "too uniform and symmetrical". You want to discuss the "observed nature of the descending collapse front..."? Good. Then discuss it. All you're doing is plastering opinion devoid of analysis here, and from previous posts, we know you don't know the internal structure or the collapse events at all, so you need to provide your explanation for why you deviate from the current narrative. For example, for the Twin Towers: Can you explain the tilt of the upper sections? Can you explain the bowing? Can you explain why the column splices to the external panels show downward sheer, and the internal connections to the core columns are either intact but massively distorted, or are severed and distorted in the downward direction? While you're at it, can you explain why none of those recovered elements show no signs of spalling, shredding, or any other sort of explosive effect?

The whole problem is, you've demonstrated that you don't even know what NIST's explanation of any of the three towers collapses are. Hell, you can't even describe the structural frame of the Twin Towers correctly; that's blatantly obvious in your other posts. So why should we trust vague statements from you when you have already shown you don't even have a base of established knowledge to work from? The answer is: We shouldn't. Hence, our responses. Defend your analysis in the face of data. Explain the bowing. Explain the tilts. Explain the state of the recovered debris. While we're at it, explain what you mean by "uniform and symmetric" when, for example, it's well known that the South tower's debris fell mostly to the east. That doesn't seem so symmetric. In short, post more than superficialities. That's all you've been doing so far, and none of it has been working at all.

Well, that's a much better way of putting it than I could ever, but when all is said and done, this means "bardamu, you don't know what you are talking about. Why should anybody listen to what you have to say?"

 

[Macgyver1968]

Ypu shpuld swear the same blood-oath never to reply to my posts again just as dtugg did Dafydd.

Bill is like "Brokeback Mountain" for some on this board...."I just can't quit ya!"

although I'm trying.

 

[Mangoose]

Just over half of each wing had fuel inside at the time. The outside halves were empty.

Something the Pentagon no planers forget.