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

[Grizzly Bear]

I object to TNT equivalency as it creates a false visual image, as I've highlighted. 315 tons of TNT. Kaboom. LOL.

I said to you earlier I had no problem with BN using units of TNT for a comparison. It's fine, providing that a reader understands the differences in energy release rates are what factor into whether some thing simply burns, or goes "kaboom." Calling it misleading seems to imply you're referring to a laymen audience who doesn't understand what those enrgy units represent, and clear most everybody in this thread so far, including yourself can make the distinction just fine.

I think it's kind of silly that you, BN, myself, and the others have to debate about something like this.

 

[DGM]

B) Examine all visual evidence very carefully and list notable or suspicious details of each collapse event

You still fail to explain what makes certain events "notable or suspicious" and others not?

 

[000063]

Why is re-examination of the most complete visual record possible the key element in honest historic review of 9-11-01?

Because the visual record is the best BS detector we have.

People tend to lie to each other and to themselves. The visual record doesn't lie. As explained in the web site:

"A detailed visual record can be double and triple checked, sometimes from multiple viewpoints. Without an accurate recorded history, it is impossible to verify or disprove any claim made by any agency or individual, no matter how grossly inaccurate."

So you're quoting your own claim that the Vr is the best evidence as evidence that the VR is the best evidence.

Well, I'm convinced.

Sarcasm aside, all your big talk is saying is that you're basing it one one form of evidence. Not all of them. You know the one about the blind men and the elephant, right?

 

[Myriad]

I object to TNT equivalency as it creates a false visual image, as I've highlighted. 315 tons of TNT. Kaboom. LOL.

Yes, a false visual image, in your own mind. You can object to it if you will. And I, having at least a similarly vivid imagination, can equate an amount of energy expressed in Watt-seconds (Joules) with a false visual image of a big lightning bolt. You can object to that too. What weight do those objections carry?

Why the obsession with visual images anyhow?

Howabout simply stating the volume of jet fuel involved, clearly stating how long it burned for, stating what effect it had upon the subjequent fires ? Not shock-and-awe enough for you ? Join AE911T. They are great at making hype-ridden assertions. Same story, different side of the fence. You're not better than that eh ?

Better? Who knows or cares? I'm far more likely to be correct, and that's what I care about.

As much as I rolled my eyes when the Bush administration and then the U.S. media promoted the silly idea of "shock and awe," I still recognize that the phrase originally referred to an actual attack carried out by actual weapons against actual targets killing actual people. Visual images didn't really have anything to do with it; that's why I rolled my eyes. (That, and that the live visual images from that initial attack on downtown Baghdad were pretty limited awe-wise. Modern weapons are designed to kill the target, not make spectacular SFX. If you want real shock and awe, look at the results -- not just pictures; the actual results, some of which require numbers and words to adequately convey -- of the American cluster bombing of the vehicle columns later in the same war. Shocking and awful in every way.) If you want shock and awe from visual images, try tubgirl or goatse.

"Howabout" this: using energy units to convey an amount of energy is clearly stating the amount of energy. Your objection isn't science or even politics, it's art criticism.

Have you bought into the pomo notion that history (if not all reality) is only about images, symbols, and metaphors? That a better metaphor will win a war? Is that why the obsession with visual images, even virtual ones within your own mind?

Here you go, from three years ago: a thread about 9/11 Truth as art criticism. The connection to (and between) M_T's lists and your phrasing complaints only just occurred to me; worth exploring further. Is that what this all comes down to?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Myriad]

Wow, check this out, from the thread linked in my previous post:

In art criticism, no conclusions are or can ever be ultimately correct or wrong. Therefore, to regard any particular conclusion as correct or wrong to any degree beyond expressing which idea one is leaning toward at that moment, can only indicate closed-mindedness. Similarly, most truthers are consistently reluctant to specify their own theories of what actually did happen, claim to remain open to all possibilities, and claim that bringing about further investigation is their chief aim. It makes me suspect that their main cause for displeasure with skeptics is not that skeptics reach conclusions opposing the truthers', but that they spoil the game by coming to any definitive conclusion at all.

(emphasis added)


Isn't that basically what M_T and femr have been saying (not only about skeptics but about Truthers like CIT and AE who do advance specific alternative scenarios), what this entire thread has been about since the beginning? Suddenly this whole opaque thread, and its two companion threads, have an intellectual framework to fit into.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[000063]

Here you go, from three years ago: a thread about 9/11 Truth as art criticism. The connection to (and between) M_T's lists and your phrasing complaints only just occurred to me; worth exploring further. Is that what this all comes down to?

Respectfully,
Myriad

You forgot Ergo's arbitrary claim that a single number should take two sentences to express before he would accept it. Thought that seems more like an overly pedantic English Teacher than any sort of art.

 

[Myriad]

Hmm, I'm not comfortable regarding Ergo's kaleidoscopically contrarian claims as part of any intellectual framework for anything. Maybe a separate kind of performance art of its own, but not one of interest to me or, I'm pretty sure, to Major_Tom or femr2.

Respectfully
Myriad

 

[Major_Tom]

Here you go, from three years ago: a thread about 9/11 Truth as art criticism. The connection to (and between) M_T's lists and your phrasing complaints only just occurred to me; worth exploring further. Is that what this all comes down to?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Concerning the first of the 3 questions:

1) Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?


The answer is "no" for all 3 buildings. The visual record is available for comparison with the NIST's claimed initiation mechanisms for all 3 buildings.

In other words, even before addressing the question of demolition or the claims of AE911T, we can verify your conception of history is pure fantasy.


To be very clear, what you believe to have occurred historically concerning what is known and unknown about each collapse is one big daydream.

That is pretty big news and I didn't need to show a single bomb or space beam to do it.


Simple, honest review of the visual record shows that Myriad's understanding of the collapses of all 3 buildings is nothing more than the stuff that dreams are made of.

You see, Myriad? I only need the first question to verify that you are living in a dream.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

If you are honest enough to answer the first question correctly, you will be in a less deluded, more sober state to examine questions 2 and 3 with the attention that sincere historic review merits.

 

[DGM]

Concerning the first of the 3 questions:

1) Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?


The answer is "no" for all 3 buildings. The visual record is available for comparison with the NIST's claimed initiation mechanisms for all 3 buildings.

In other words, even before addressing the question of demolition or the claims of AE911T, we can verify your conception of history is pure fantasy.


To be very clear, what you believe to have occurred historically concerning what is known and unknown about each collapse is one big daydream.

I would agree if one only used your hand pick "notable or suspicious" observations. If one uses all the evidence the answer is not as clear.


So, What is your criteria for deciding what is "notable or suspicious"?

 

[Major_Tom]

So, What is your criteria for deciding what is "notable or suspicious"?

Each person has his own criteria. These are the lists that I use to answer each of the 3 questions along with the collective visual record.

You could go through the collective visual record yourself and form lists sufficient to answer questions you might have.

These are my lists. For my own research these lists have proved to be quite powerful tools by which I can check the claims of others, like AE911T for example. You can have your own lists.

 

[beachnut]

...
You could go through the collective visual record yourself and form lists sufficient to answer questions you might have. ...

You left out hundreds and thousands of features. Your list exposes the collapses as gravity collapses, which destroys your delusion they were illusions.

 

[tsig]

I have no "tricks". In the most basic terms possible this is the logic I use to review the historic event of the 9-11-01 as openly and honestly as possible:

.....................................
This website approaches the historic question of what actually happened to the WTC towers by carefully examining the events directly.


The following approach seems quite rational. The reader can think of it as the "A, B, C's" of a rational approach to WTC historic review.:


A) Form and organize a complete visual record

B) Examine all visual evidence very carefully and list notable or suspicious details of each collapse event

C) Compare the visual record with all existing official and academic explanations by answering the following 3 questions in order:


1) Does the visual record match the official explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

2) Does the visual record match any of the known "9/11 truther" explanations of how and why each building collapsed?

And after these questions are answered honestly, the question of possible demolition is addressed:


3) Does the visual record contain evidence of intentional manipulation of structural components behind any of the 3 collapses?

Note that the "demo" question isn't addressed until the third and final question.

The first question to ask is whether the NIST correctly identified the "how and why" of the collapses like they claim. If the answer is "yes", then the demo question need not be addressed at all.

If the mechanisms the NIST claims are correct, there is no more need for any of us to debate and we can all stop inquiring.

It is because the NIST claimed collapse mechanisms do not match the visual record that the mystery continues and there is a reason to address questions 2 and 3. This is a very important part of our history that many of you prefer to ignore.

And in the case of JREF, if you cannot honestly answer the first question then your arguments against anything but the "official story" are quite cheap and superficial.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Why is re-examination of the most complete visual record possible the key element in honest historic review of 9-11-01?

Because the visual record is the best BS detector we have.

People tend to lie to each other and to themselves. The visual record doesn't lie. As explained in the web site:

"A detailed visual record can be double and triple checked, sometimes from multiple viewpoints. Without an accurate recorded history, it is impossible to verify or disprove any claim made by any agency or individual, no matter how grossly inaccurate."

You don't realize that the NWO fabricated the visual record?

 

[tsig]

What a lot of feigned interpretaions you lot seem to create all by yourselves ...


It's perfectly clear, it's simply misleading, and he's openly trying to make the numbers as big as possible to create AE911T-style hype-inducing tag-lines. Really silly. He's also switching unit type randomly, going from scaling involving a few thousand pounds, to hundreds of tons. Really rather amusing to watch.


Am not insisting on Joules at all.
As you add, you're quite aware I'm not making any assertion of Watts.
I'm not trying to craftily imply the damage is electrical, as you well know.
I'm also not in the slightest implying super space beams either. What a lot of nonsense Myriad. You know none of it is true, as you freely state immediately afterwards, so why assert it in the first place ? Nonsense.


Yes, it is.


Surprisngly enough, I don't agree. I think suggesting damage to the towers was electrical is absolute nonsense. I think suggesting space beams is absolute nonsense. I think craftily trying to suggest I've made any such assertion is absolute nonsense.

I object to TNT equivalency as it creates a false visual image, as I've highlighted. 315 tons of TNT. Kaboom. LOL.


0.015 kg of Uranium good for you ? LOL. Have it in peanuts ? Much less mass of peanuts is required, you know

Howabout simply stating the volume of jet fuel involved, clearly stating how long it burned for, stating what effect it had upon the subjequent fires ? Not shock-and-awe enough for you ? Join AE911T. They are great at making hype-ridden assertions. Same story, different side of the fence. You're not better than that eh ?


Yet another ridiculous assertion.

You guys really are at the top of your game. Awesome critical thinking skills on show. <Applause>

Why not?

 

[Major_Tom]

You don't realize that the NWO fabricated the visual record?

The collected visual record is about the only BS-proof history of the events there is.

Pictures are some of the only things left not talking out of their arses. People lie shamelessly, visual evidence does not.


This is why when we can verify that the photographic record contradicts both the official version of events and the AE911T version of events, it is natural to ask what the hell really happened to the three buildings?

And at that point, thankfully we have the visual record as the only remaining faithful account of events.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For this very purpose my website is titled "9-11-01 Visual Evidence Archive". One needs to preserve the visual record before it can be analyzed with the most care possible.

Because when all the BS falls away, the intact visual record is all you have left so it is our duty to preserve it and pass it to the future generations.

 

[NoahFence]

This is why when we can verify that the photographic record contradicts both the official version of events and the AE911T version of events, it is natural to ask what the hell really happened to the three buildings?

Uh...

So you're saying it was neither terrorism nor a deliberate controlled demolition?

How's the water in the deep end?

 

[Major_Tom]

For you, the choice is between AE911T and NIST.

For me, both parties look like this:

Who should I believe, the visual record or yourselves? When both the NIST and AE911T claim things contrary to the visual evidence, maybe you should consider thinking outside the block for a change.

 

[ergo]

Who should I believe, the visual record or yourselves? When both the NIST and AE911T claim things contrary to the visual evidence

It's still not clear what your objections to AETruth's analysis are. Your accusation that they believe in a block model ignores the fact that they are responding to Bazant's nonsense. I raised this in this post in the OOS thread, but you continued to shout about "blockheads" and never responded. Sorry, but this does nothing to convince.

 

[Major_Tom]

Ergo, I've been a bit busy. I'll revive the argument there and respond within the next day.

 

[000063]

The collected visual record is about the only BS-proof history of the events there is.

It's just as subject to misinterpretation as any other account.

Pictures are some of the only things left not talking out of their arses. People lie shamelessly, visual evidence does not.

But it can be misread, can be ambiguous. Didn't you see the ending of Inception?

People were actually measuring the tilt angle of that top to figure out if it was going to fall or not, completely missing the point of the deliberate ambiguity.

This is why when we can verify that the photographic record contradicts both the official version of events and the AE911T version of events, it is natural to ask what the hell really happened to the three buildings?

There's also the physical record.

And at that point, thankfully we have the visual record as the only remaining faithful account of events.

"After you've eliminated the inconvenient, whatever remains, however impossible, must be the truth."

 

[000063]

It's still not clear what your objections to AETruth's analysis are. Your accusation that they believe in a block model ignores the fact that they are responding to Bazant's nonsense. I raised this in this post in the OOS thread, but you continued to shout about "blockheads" and never responded. Sorry, but this does nothing to convince.

Ergo, you don't generally exhibit the most...flexibility of opinions. Convincing you would be rather difficult.