Moderated WTC 1 features list, initiation model / WTC 2 features list, collapse model

[femr2]

If you like I can teach you how to change joules to what the energy would be like in TNT, or gasoline, etc.

Did you not notice I included Joules values ?

But go ahead, try to make it look more like science, try to fool people.

You suggest adding *math and physics*, then complain about correct use of terms as *trying to make it look more like science*. Awesome.

Oh yes, 4e9 J says so much!

Good. You want the *math and physics*. You're a pilot/test pilot refueller/engineer/aircraft crash investigator and have been each of those for over 30 years each, so of course you'll be more than comfortable with energy values in Joules. The kids are. It's cool.

I don't think joules gets the impact of what happen

As I said AE911T-like hype inducing terms. It was like a mini-nuke going off...Shock + Awe.

Pulverised in mid-air.

Same story, different name.

Wrong again, you failed to read the reports.

Incorrect.

The impacts dislodged fire insulation

Where ? (including evidence, not speculation)

The impacts did 7 and 11 times more damage than the design impact.

Incorrect. The impact KE was a number of times above design.

you need to remember the jet fuel is part of the impacts

Who said it wasn't ? It weight a few pounds, and afterwards it went boom(ish).

Go ahead explain why the impacts did not doom the WTC towers. Make my year.

Ever heard a suggestion from NIST that if there were no fires the buildings would have stood...? Come on beachnut, oh what a tangled web you weave...

Ever noticed that after the impact the building was, you know, upright for quite a while ?

we can extreme very well based on the energy of impact how much damage was done.

Cool. Where then ? (Yes, I've read the report. Is that all you are basing your view upon ? We'd have to start a new thread to go into detail on NISTs methods to determine such data)

You are using NIST? This is funny.
I took the fuel at takeoff and did some pilot stuff, and came up with 10,000 gallons, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel.

10 years and you never bothered to check, simply repeating the same incorrect figure over and over again ?
Inumerable copy and pastes from my site where these numbers are posted clearly and you never bothered to actually read any of it that didn't serve your purpose to try and find some kind of personal attack juice ? Awesome.

I don't understand how you can use NIST stuff as your source, you did not check it like I did? Darn, now you love NIST.

The source info is in the report. Seems fine. Won't be 100% but much more accurate than your spectacular 10,000gazallions. Go check it...it's only 10 years on. Plenty time to update your information. You're not still a 500000ton tower guy are you ?

 

[femr2]

Who - I?

I specifically qualified my intention...

* you, aka whomever.

he started a new thread where he pretends to present a model, starting with a VERY short list of observables he seeks to explain.

Thread was titled *WTC 2 features list, collapse model*. Kinda expected that the list comes first you think ? You kinda close the door to reasonable conversation with MT with the ridiculous word I have italicised. Why should he entertain you ?

beachnut pointed out a still short, but longer than M_T's, list of VERY significant observables that do not belong to M_T's starting set of observables to be explained.

No. The MT observable list has meaning. It's not a timeline. If you don't personally understand the inclusion or exclusion of certain features, the right thing to do is ask MT.

Since it is M_T's theory

WTC 2 features list, collapse model.

I believe it is legitimate to ask if his own starting post that lists observables is to be understood as complete

I've made my views on that point clear.

femr2, is it okay with you if we discuss M_T's own theory in his own thread about his own theory?

Do what you like. Within the MA as a minimum, and focussed in certain directions to be useful. imo.

I am not going to comment on the conclusions before I am clear on the premises, facts and reasons that lead to it.

See suggestion above.

Is that okay with you?

Again, do what you please. My post was suggesting reasons why, if really silly stances are taken, the response is not what was sought.

 

[Major_Tom]

Since it is M_T's theory, I believe it is legitimate to ask if his own starting post that lists observables is to be understood as complete, before we go on with the topic, which is (excuse me if I remidn you again of this) not my theory, or NIST's, or JREF's, but Major_Tom's.

femr2, is it okay with you if we discuss M_T's own theory in his own thread about his own theory?

What thread? The one that was destroyed on WTC2 or the other one that was destroyed on WTC1?

Those were my threads until they were turned into a tossed salad.

 

[Oystein]

I specifically qualified my intention...

You oughtn't lump us all together and make assumptions about my frame of reference.
That was a stupid intention, femr.

Thread was titled *WTC 2 features list, collapse model*. Kinda expected that the list comes first you think ? You kinda close the door to reasonable conversation with MT with the ridiculous word I have italicised. Why should he entertain you ?

It is perfectly legitimate. Yes, the list came first - ridiculously incomplete. No explanation about why it was so stunningly short, and what motives guided the selection process. M_T stubbornly ignores legitimate questions. So I conclude there is a lot of pretemsion going on.

No. The MT observable list has meaning. It's not a timeline. If you don't personally understand the inclusion or exclusion of certain features, the right thing to do is ask MT.

And that is EXACTLY what I did:- I asked MT about it. Several times. It was the right thing to do, you say.
Did you notice how M_T never answered?
Now what would be the right thing to do for M_T? Answer or ignore?
And oh don't criticie me for my bad choice of words. If you go back in the thread, you will find that I posed my question in very polite terms. M_T did not answer then. Yes, I predicted he would not answer, and would not answer if reminded. So whatever abuse he suffered from me, he earned by running away from polite and serious debate.

WTC 2 features list, collapse model.

And this italicised phrase means what when you write it? It's not a theory? It's not M_T's?

...
Again, do what you please. My post was suggesting reasons why, if really silly stances are taken, the response is not what was sought.

There was no response. That's the problem. And again, I started with a reasonable and polite question, which you now agreed was the right thing to do, and didn't get an answer.

Why do you take the side of someone who has no intention of discussing his theory?

 

[Oystein]

What thread? The one that was destroyed on WTC2 or the other one that was destroyed on WTC1?

Those were my threads until they were turned into a tossed salad.

You had several days in the untossed WTC2 thread to reply. Not my problem that you ignored a reasonable question.

Let me repeat it:

You listed some features in your new WTC2 thread. 4 of them were pre-collapse observations.

I asked: Is that list exhaustive? If not, why did you pick these 4 features, rather than all, or any other 4 features from the hundreds or thousands of observations that were made?

 

[NoahFence]

You don't honestly think he's going to answer, do you?

 

[Major_Tom]

Those who wish to learn about the mechanics of WTC1 and 2 initiation can do so elsewhere.

I have been posting threads for a few years now in various forums. I post mainly within threads I have created.

Like R Mackey or RIchard Gage, you make the mess and expect others to clean it up, or you just leave the mess until it starts to stink.


I started these threads and you destroyed them. They are your mess now. They are a monument to how serious you are in your historic review of the events of 9-11-01.

We all know that WTC1 and 2 collapse initiations are the events to study the closest.

You had only two threads in your forum which deal with the issues in detail.

You have destroyed both of them. You do not really want your beliefs tested for accuracy.

Go back to your cocoon, I don't care.

Anyone who wishes to give the attention to the WTC1 and 2 collapse initiation processes that sincere historic review merits, they know where to look.

 

[beachnut]

• 7415 US gallons according to NIST
• 1483 US gallons of which burned outside the tower immediately after impact
• 5932 US gallons remaining inside the tower
• 2966 US gallons within impact zone

...

You are using NIST? This is ironic, you usually bash or make up nonsense about NIST.

NIST says 10,000 gallons in their report.

What page number and report did you get your numbers. Check you numbers again. Keep using joules for your work, it makes it look like science.

... Burned off after 10 minutes. ...

Is this a made up time, or quote from NIST? All the jet fuel burned off in 10 minutes? Is that short or a long time for jet fuel fires? Do you have a study on jet fuel fires, heat and intensity? What does NIST really say about the fires, how many pages and chapters talk about fires? Is a burned off after 10 minutes, a good summary? After 10 minutes? After? Is that a quote? How many joules per minute is that?

What page numbers is this one from? Does that mean all the heat energy was released in 10 minutes, all 315 TONs of TNT in heat energy? Go ahead use joules, it will help understand the massive heat energy so much more.

 

[femr2]

What page number and report did you get your numbers.

NCSTAR 1-5F

Is this a made up time, or quote from NIST?

FEMA (Ch2 iirc) and NIST (kicking around in there somewhere). 10/15 minutes.

All the jet fuel burned off in 10 minutes?

According to FEMA and NIST, about that, aye.

 

[beachnut]

NCSTAR 1-5F .

What page number has the numbers you posted for NIST? Like all of them.

• 7415 US gallons according to NIST
• 1483 US gallons of which burned outside the tower immediately after impact
• 5932 US gallons remaining inside the tower
• 2966 US gallons within impact zone

...

The 1483, 5932, and 2966, where are these numbers.

NIST said about 10,000 gallons on the jets at impact, how did you miss that?

FEMA (Ch2 iirc) and NIST (kicking around in there somewhere). 10/15 minutes. .

Page, paragraph. Quote? No joy? Source?

According to FEMA and NIST, about that, aye.

Page, paragraph, quote. Source? Did you check this with a real study to learn about heat, and other factors?

Why is the jet fuel left out feature list? Impacts? Is Major Tom a no-plane 911 truther?

 

[femr2]

What page number has the numbers you posted for NIST? Like all of them.

ROFL. Go find out. Much more informative that way.

 

[Oystein]

...
I started these threads and you destroyed them. They are your mess now. They are a monument to how serious you are in your historic review of the events of 9-11-01.
...

Cry-baby!

I did not destroy your precious thread. I asked a question early on, and you dodged, ducked, evaded and avoided it for a couple of days, with me reminding you more than once to please reply, before your baby was "destroyed".

You use this cry-baby excuse to go with your dodging, ducking, evasion and avoidance.


Please answer now:

Why did you pick only four pre-collapse features in your opening post for the WTC2 thread? Why these four, instead of any other four out of potentially hundreds or thousands of observed features? Was your feature list complete?

You can answer this now matter hiw "destroyed" your baby is and no matter how hard you must cry over it.

Or admit you never had any serious intention to openly and honestly debate your own topic, the "feature list"!

 

[beachnut]

ROFL. Go find out. Much more informative that way.

So u made up your numbers out of thin air?

 

[Major_Tom]

Anyone who has been using menu items on my website to follow feature lists may want to hold off for a day or two.

Yesterday my website was hacked and some magical force managed to re-edit my evidence lists on WTC1 and 2.

I wasn't aware anyone else could access my website and edit menu lists and webpages, so this is quite a new experience for me.


The following post shows what the feature list for WTC1 looked like before having many of the items removed a week or 2 ago:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7175497&postcount=1042

This is what it looks like now after the hacking and editing:


----------BEFORE COLLAPSE-----------
Damage to Basement and Lobby
Fire, Smoke Ejections as WTC2 is Struck
Strong Fire Ejections As WTC2 Collapses
Ejections Witnessed at 10:18
.
--------COLLAPSE INITIATION MODEL---------
Drift and Drop Movements Traced and Plotted: Summary
Upper West Wall Pulls Inward 9.5s before Collapse
Antenna Base Shifts Eastward 9.5s before Collapse
Concave Roof Deformity Measured by Drop Curves
Minimal Tilt: Less than 1 Degree before Falling
Both N and W Perimeter Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval
.
-----COLLAPSE PROGRESSION MODEL-----
South Wall Motion
Ejections Below Collapse Fronts
Mechanical Floor Ejections
Ejections Traversing E Face, Fls 50-55
Antenna Section Falls Southward
Entire E-W Width of the Core Survives Initial Collapse

So if anyone may be wondering why the list got much shorter, you'd have to ask the individual, group or organization that hacked my website why they edited the lists as seen.


Likewise, just as these 2 threads were being destroyed in JREF some mysterious forces edited the list for WTC2 within my website also.

This is what the list used to look like before the hacking: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7191106&postcount=1124

And this is what it looks like after the hacking and editing:

----------BEFORE THE COLLAPSE---------
Pressure Bursts from E Face, Fls 77 and 80
Inward Bowing of East Perimeter
Molten Substance Seen Falling from near NW Corner
.
------COLLAPSE INITIATION MODEL---------
78th and 75th Rows of Ejections Sharply DIscontinuous
78th fl E Face Ejections in Detail
East Perimeter Snaps Cleanly Along Bolt Seams
Flash and Destruction of NE Corner, Fl 90
W MER Perimeter w/Beam Flooring Ejected from Building
75-78th Fl W MER Panels Ripped along Failure Lines
.
-----COLLAPSE PROGRESSION MODEL-----
East Wall Motion
West Wall Motion
South Wall Motion
North Wall Motion
Ejections From Below WTC2 Collapse Front
Mechanical Floor Ejections
Free-fall Comparison: Tracking Earliest Falling Object
Portion of Core Survives Initial Collapse


Since some magical force has gained administration access to my website and edits my material, I have no idea what else in the site has been changed.

I'll need a few days to look over the changes made to my material through hacking and to address the security issues.

If there are some sincere people reading my posts and info from my website, best to read cautiously for a few days since somebody else has taken administrative control of the site temporarily and who knows what else was edited?

 

[beachnut]

Anyone who has been using menu items on my website to follow feature lists may want to hold off for a day or two.

Yesterday my website was hacked and some magical force managed to re-edit my evidence lists on WTC1 and 2.

...?

Could be those Satan like people you blame 911 on; they can magically remove support in buildings and make holographic planes which fool eye witnesses. Are you sure you are not do a false flag attack on yourself? My parents are aways erasing stuff by accident by hitting the wrong keys, or brushing the touch pad while hitting keys. Were you TWI?

Someone changed femr2 web pages, maybe it is the same person.

 

[Major_Tom]

Yeah. After 4 years of posting I am just now starting to gut the evidence list of my own website on purpose.

I wouldn't dismiss poltergeist or other electronic spirits. They only seem to delete items from the evidence lists.

I have had my own website for a while and it is the first time the website began to edit itself by deleting links to specific features.

Who knows? Maybe it is just an accident. All random, you know.

I have copies of the site elsewhere and I'll wait to see what else the digital phantoms or pure random chance wishes to delete from the site.

It is kind of cool in that the website just became alive, all by itself as I was watching and started editing itself. I didn't know that was even possible.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Can I go onto other websites and edit them, too? Is this some new web feature I don't know about?

Can my website become editable by the outside world like a wikipedia entry?

 

[Major_Tom]

This is pretty cool. Check this out: My WTC1 initiation feature list that was posted a week ago in this thread looked like this...

COLLAPSE INITIATION

Drift and Drop Movements Traced and Plotted: Summary
Upper West Wall Pulls Inward 9.5s before Collapse
Antenna Base Shifts Eastward 9.5s before Collapse
Fire Flair-up along E Face 3s before Collapse
Antenna Sags 2 ft into Roofline before Falling
Concave Roof Deformity Measured by Drop Curves
Earliest Ejections from fl 95, W Face, S Side
Over-pressurization of fl 98 before Falling Begins
Minimal Tilt: Less than 1 Degree before Falling
Both N and W Perimeter Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval
Both N and W Perimeter Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval
NW Corner: Upper Slides over N Face, Behind W Face
NE Corner: Upper Assembly Snaps Over Lower Portion
Jolts Detected in Earliest Antenna, NW Corner Drops
88th Fl S Face Light Grey Ejection
77th Fl Over-pressurization Timing Inexplicable


Now, after the website became alive, it looks like this....

--------COLLAPSE INITIATION MODEL---------
Drift and Drop Movements Traced and Plotted: Summary
Upper West Wall Pulls Inward 9.5s before Collapse
Antenna Base Shifts Eastward 9.5s before Collapse
Concave Roof Deformity Measured by Drop Curves
Minimal Tilt: Less than 1 Degree before Falling
Both N and W Perimeter Walls Fail Within 0.5s Interval



I have never seen anything like it....a self-editing website.

Maybe I can get it to talk, too.

 

[DGM]

Can I go onto other websites and edit them, too? Is this some new web feature I don't know about?

Can my website become editable by the outside world like a wikipedia entry?

It appears your site was hacked. This is not a new thing. It maybe a first for you but, increase your security and restore what was done (It's good you have a back-up). Don't start with speculation who might have done this. You've been stepping on toes on "both sides" lately.

Fix and move-on.

 

[NoahFence]

Maybe I can get it to talk, too.

http://www.nuance.com/talk/

 

[DGM]

Major_Tom:

The "computer and internet" forum here is an excellent source of information on how and what to do on your site.

Give it a try if you're not sure on what to do next.