MIHOP -femr2 and Major Tom's WTC1,2,7 Demolition Hypotheses

[BasqueArch]

Here, in chronological order:
What femr2 Believes – Theories and Opinions:

8/3/2009 All Tall Buildings Designed To Be Brought Down

Another very important factor to bear in mind is that, as with all tall buildings, specific information relating to how one might go about bringing them down was known whilst they were still om the drafting table. The execution of each descent was, to put it mildly, expertly accomplished...IMO http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post4166.html#p4166

8/21/2009 Aircraft Were Under Automated Control

…... Is it, in my opinion, probable that the aircraft were under automated control ? Yes. Is it, in my opinion, probable that the aircraft were under human control from three inexperienced pilots ? No. But that means nothing at all. Simply an opinion. I am spending my time actively 'proving' that the NIST Flight 175 impact orientation is wrong. How are you helping ? http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post4409.html#p4409

9/2/2009 Must Focus On Showing Every Fault With NIST

I think the ultimate answer is simply 'confirmation or not' of 'demolition'.
For WTC 1 & 2 we must focus on showing every fault with the NIST report.
The rest of our focus should be on the descent of WTC 7. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post4605.html#p4605

10/15/2009 Unseen Charges Initiated Descent, Blow roof

If any posters believe otherwise I would like them to explain how these charges worked!

Do you mean the charges which inititated descent, utilising the requirement to sever 96-98 core, blow the roof ( confirmed by radical increase in smoke ejecta ) closely timed with charges in upper and lower mechanical floor regions to ensure that gravity did it's thing, followed by...... Booom, boom, booom. Three charges synchronised to ensure that the central core did not remain upstanding, but instead descended figuratively into the basement. Though in practice it actually went....boooooom, and ended up in 36ft sections around ground zero.
Any charges would be directed towards the core. There would absolutely no rational reason to think that any of the actual destructive implementation would be visible to the public in the slightest (other than the obvious requirement to totally mash-up the mechanical floor regions)http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post4926.html#p4926

10/31/2009 MIHOP Destroyed Core

…..From the MIHOP perspective, I think it would be reasonable to suggest that linear rate destruction of the core could be an explanation, and the orientation of the core in both WTC 1 and 2 would be the right way round for the ejecta to be limited to limited faces... http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post5483.html#p5483

1/8/2010 Noise Of Explosive Charges Not An Issue

how would you severe the WTC IZ core columns?

I'd use explosive cutter charges, specifically ones which result in a plasma cut. Noise is not an issue for me. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post7745.html#p7745

1/8/2010 Explosions Weaken Base, Job Finished At Initiation. Towers Chopped At Three Mechanical Floors, Noise Not A Problem.

I do think it would be logical to use the impact time-frame to *weaken* the base columns (inner core only) and there is suggestion of explosions around that time.

I do think that it then becomes much easier, and require much less energy, to *finish the job* of severing the base inner core columns at initiation.

The question must be...what caused the fireball. Thermite doesn't sound like an obvious answer. Never seen a thermite fireball. Have you ?

I am not too concerned about noise-levels. I have heard all of the arguments which say that because video contains no loud explosions, that that proves no explosives were used. Absolute rubbish as far as I'm concerned, and I'm pretty clued-up on audio. In video, two 110 storey buildings come crashing to the ground with the sound being quieter than a nearby cough. The noise level from the descent itself should, and most certainly was, incredibly loud, akin to explosions of great magnitude. That we don't hear that either in video clarifies things.

A big problem with base core sever is the local ground linkage, which should result in some seismic signature. Perhaps time to drop in seismic timing data here.

We should not get too hung up on the actual accelerant used, be it RDX, supernanothermiate, exotic shaped charges, resonant matter disruptors, space beams, etc etc. If the behaviour suggests inner core sever at the base, that's good enough for the model.

Still think it would be more practical to chop the tower into three sections delimited by the mechanical floor regions. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post7743.html#p7743

1/17/2010 Small Explosives Used High Up At Internal Structures.

There are still many who believe that the only way for the towers to be demolished was the ol' boom-boom-boom of per-floor installed charges. It's just not a viable option, utterly unnecessary and it would not look the way it does in video.

All of the arguments about supersonic shock wave for HE are valid, in terms of debris ejecta, limiting potential use of some *explosives* strictly to internal structures, being relatively *small*, and relatively high up.

If supernanothermiate was used, it is more likely to have been in a non-explosive mode.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post7912.html#p7912

1/17/2010 Supernanothermiate Used To Invoke Initiation, Manipulation Of Few Cores, Post Descent Core Cleaning.

If cutter charges were used, why bother to use exotic materials when development of other simpler materials has been around for decades ?

Do you think that an R&D lab somewhere, in the last fifty years, may have been tasked with improving cutter charges ? Make them smaller. Make them simpler. Make them quieter. Make them wireless. Hey, forget the wireless, we can use the miles of unused network cables running up and down the core of the building if we really need to. Nobody takes any notice of IT bods playing with wires. They are invisible. The contents of the buildings were pretty much powdered, including computers, fixtures and (a bit macabre) people. No reason to think that if there were any devices installed that there should be any trace of such devices afterwards. Should we see *evidence* of the use of any kind of explosives on the resultant columns ? Maybe. Let's pop along to the huge warehouse with each and every piece of steel from Ground Zero in it and go through each of them with a fine tooth-comb. I lean towards invoked initiation, manipulation of a few special floors, and a little bit of post descent core cleansing, to finish the job. That only leave a small number of columns which would show anything *interesting*. Gravity is our friend, and he can't be ignored.

Using supernanothermiate (or something similar) to rapidly heat structural elements would not create noise, would explain quite a few observable building behaviours (especially close to each initiation) and would not need a horde of *ninjas* to install.

All speculation to some extent. I think the most productive route right now is the development of the recent descent and initiation models being discussed locally.
….
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post7914.html#p7914

1/23/2010 MIHOP. Large Numbers Of Explosives Demolition ! Deemphasized. Calls For Impartiality.

I'm openly on the side of the fence of MIHOP, however, there is a world of difference between saying MIHOP and saying explosive demolition, with an exclamation mark.

The latter implies all sorts of unquantified and inplausible events, such as the installation of large numbers of very quiet non-explosive explosives on every floor(ish), that to my mind would look very different to what we witness in video. (without getting into the padded cell of audio issues)

It is also quite useful, here, to remain fairly impartial, as we all (on the whole) focus on progressing and increasing the detail of studies, rather than shoot from the hip at every corner. There's a couple of phrases kicking around here...the devil is in the details...observation is far ahead of theory...

I would urge you to have a good trawl through lots of the threads here, with emphasis on those focussed upon Initiation, Inward Bowing and Runaway Open Office Space Destruction (ROOSD/OOSRD/OOS). There is specific discussion of the West face ejecta, under a heading of linear/terminal velocity. I also have a simple energetics based model (here) which may interest you.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post8133.html#p8133

4/19/2010 Explosives Not Required All The Way Down. MIHOP = Deliberate And Intentional *Bring Down*

You'd be out of here, psik. Your argument comes from nothing. Nowt. Zip. Nada. Misunderstanding. Hand waving. Do you REALLY think that explosives were required ALL the way down ? There I must mention hushabooms. I'm in very little doubt about the deliberate and intentional *bring down*, call it MIHOP, but the ridiculous and naieve (sp?) is just that. Ridiculous. Act together, psik. After many long years of, in all honesty, slight ignorance, and it is slight, I managed to get to grips with the, frankly, flimsy perimeter-floor slab-core connection strength conundrum. It's a right pain, but it matches observables and explains a whole heap of the behaviour. If you choose, as I do, to retain a MIHOP perspective, then not realising that you MUST be fully aware of the actual environment within which you are proclaiming knowledge of, you MUST be aware of the realities. Even if it took 20 floors of deliberate destruction to *get it going*, ......... once started, it was going to ground. End of story. Vertically, and semi-symmetrical.

The QUESTION is that of initiation. Scale of initiation. Condition of initiation. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post9718.html#p9718

4/26/2010 I’m MIHOP.

….. No, it wasn't. Am openly MIHOP, but these observational errors need to cease. Savvy ? http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post9854.html#p9854

5/5/2010
Quote:
…… I've already made it clear to you that I'm of the MIHOP variety. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ post10303.html#p10303

6/20/2010 Some Truth Movement Claims Ridiculous, But Not MIHOP

I would have thought the perimeter peeling study performed by MT (and you know what side of the *fence* MT leans on) would be enough for you to know a few basics. I would have thought that, as you know, I lean on the MIHOP side of the fence too, so why is it that you you're still not seeing how ridiculous some of the *truth movement* claims actually are ? Floor by floor explosives, with zero visual cues, no actual requirement to do so after initiation, just reams of information you've read through here which really should be helping you to throw out rubbish *ideas* and focus on the more important and critical questions. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post11270.html#p11270

11/12/2010 Prefers MIHOP To Controlled Demolition.

has controlled demolition been ruled out for the twin towers?

Not completely. I don't like the phrase, too many silly assumptions get bundled in, and so prefer MIHOP. http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post13684.html#p13684

 

[uke2se]

Now all they need is evidence.

 

[NoahFence]

You forgot:

7/11/2011 - "MIHOP" doesn't mean "Gubmint did it"

lol

 

[BasqueArch]

Incorrect. There is nothing about the acronym MIHOP which denotes "who".

As others have noted - Not only is there something about MIHOP which denotes "who", there is everything and MIHOP only means, by definition:

"Made it happen on purpose", shorthand for the view that elements within the U.S. government itself planned the September 11, 2001 attacks.- wikipedia

If femr2 has another who or no who he has to use another acronym, not misdefine MIHOP. End of.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

As others have noted - Not only is there something about MIHOP which denotes "who", there is everything and MIHOP only means, by definition:

"Made it happen on purpose", shorthand for the view that elements within the U.S. government itself planned the September 11, 2001 attacks.- wikipedia

If femr2 has another who or no who he has to use another acronym, not misdefine MIHOP. End of.

femr2's been misdefining MIHOP for quite some time. As documented by the examples below, his apparent purpose is to mislead.

On 3 July 2010, defending himself against Tony Szamboti's suggestion that femr2 was muddying the waters:

What ? I lean MIHOP. You know that. Folk here know that.
What on earth would I gain from muddying the waters ?

Tony Szamboti ignored him, so femr2 responded as though Tony Szamboti's response to a third party had questioned femr2's MIHOP cred:

Ahem.

I'm not in the habit of being accused of being a *fake* MIHOP'er. I suggest you get your act together Tony.

...snip...

(Would have been better to have this discussion in private *back home*, but am afraid I don't take kindly to the kind of accusations you've been throwing around.)

femr2's indignation in the face of Tony's non-accusation may have been the sign of a guilty conscience. A little over a month later, on 13 August 2010, femr2 stated a definition of MIHOP that would have justified the accusation Tony Szamboti had not made:

MIHOP is an accusation against the U.S. government of mass murder.

Nope. It means Made.It.Happen.On.Purpose. There's nothing in there to point fingers at a nefarious culprit. More assumptions. Getting quite tedious this.

That same day, femr2 expanded his personal definition of MIHOP to include a scenario that differs from the generally accepted narrative only in the mental state of the terrorists:

Not really. If you want to interpret MIHOP as some terrorists crashing an aircraft, knowing that the result would be desctruction to ground, that's one interpretation of MIHOP.

I don't subscribe to the notion of GWB donning a ninja suit and spending 10 years rigging every nut and bolt with supernanothermiate. Assumptions of some others are getting very tedious. Blinkered viewpoints, pfft.

So femr2 says it's MIHOP if the hijackers knew the towers would fall.

We don't know whether femr2 would consider it MIHOP if the hijackers merely hoped the towers would fall, or thought it likely that the towers would fall.

When talking to Truthers, however, femr2 continued to use MIHOP as a way of saying he's one of them. In addition to the examples provided by BasqueArch, here's an example from 19 November 2010:

I'm looking for signs of MIHOP. Did you not realise that?

Here's another example from the911forum. Major_Tom's "Rational MIHOP" thread began with these words:

I'd like to present how MIHOP can be convincingly argued.

A question we are all here to answer is whether there is any evidence of physical damage on 9-11-01 that could not have been caused by the accused hijackers. If so, it means there must have been a second party responsible, yet to be identified.

I argue that there is such evidence and this physical evidence is already in our possession.

The fall of WTC7 cannot be explained as a natural result of the actions of the accused hijackers.

From that passage and his subsequent posts, it's clear that Major_Tom would not accept a definition of MIHOP in which the hijacked aircraft were the root cause of the physical damage that ultimately led to the collapse of WTC7. Hence Major_Tom's definition of MIHOP is incompatible with what femr2 wrote here on 13 August 2010.

Yet femr2 allowed other participants in that thread to believe femr2's use of "MIHOP" was consistent with Major_Tom's. Here are some examples from 30 March 2011 (with italics as in the original):

Those details (early motion and ROOSD) do not eliminate ALL suggested MIHOP theories, but do refute most, and show information thrown around by the likes of AE911T to be false, requiring all who support the refuted MIHOP theories to have a serious position rethink.

As I said, early motion doesn't rule out ALL MIHOP scenarios, but does, imo, rule out many, especially those which rely upon any form of BOOM->release.

Another example from the same thread, on 5 May 2011:

Indeed I imagine the perspective of most here is that we are running out/have run out of viable MIHOP scenarios.

If MIHOP had been so broad a term as to include the generally accepted narrative, it would have been quite silly for femr2 to say anyone thinks we're running out of viable MIHOP scenarios.

So femr2 uses MIHOP to mean different things, depending on his audience.

Does that surprise anyone?

 

[Major_Tom]

Guys, I cannot thank you enough for all the free advertising.

You could always see the main arguments at my website, but for those who prefer to examine posts in detail over the last few years, The 9/11 Forum is a good place.

I highly recommend the "smart idiots" thread for some extra insight.

Perhaps you may want to reference the unmentionable threads in which I stated my opinions pretty carefully. Why not just review them? They are kind of funny, in the way many of you managed to record some pretty bone-headed mistakes in them.

I had those bone-headed mistakes recorded for all to see, until the threads met an unmentionable fate.

 

[Oystein]

...
So femr2 uses MIHOP to mean different things, depending on his audience.

Does that surprise anyone?

Not sure if I had any expectations, and hence if I am surprised now or not. But thanks for the thorough documentation which drives the point home quite clearly.

In the other thread, after Basque Arch posted his quote list the first time, femr2 pointed out, and ozeco concurred, that his views have changed over time, and that this change is perceptible in BA's quotes. Could it be that his use of MIHOP has changed over time, and not depending on changing audiences?

 

[beachnut]

Guys, I cannot thank you enough for all the free advertising.

You could always see the main arguments at my website, but for those who prefer to examine posts in detail over the last few years, The 9/11 Forum is a good place.

I highly recommend the "smart idiots" thread for some extra insight.

Perhaps you may want to reference the unmentionable threads in which I stated my opinions pretty carefully. Why not just review them? They are kind of funny, in the way many of you managed to record some pretty bone-headed mistakes in them.

I had those bone-headed mistakes recorded for all to see, until the threads met an unmentionable fate.

Your inside job Satan like did it delusion has failed to take hold; what will you do in the 11th year of delusions on 911, the TLAR method of failing to understand 911? Your website fails to make a point; what was the goal, what is the conclusion? Your claims are based on nonsense. You failed to prove anything you claim, as you fail to comprehend the things you don't see, because you can't do the math, you can't do the engineering, you fail to comprehend models; your web site proves it. Your web site is anti-intellectual claptrap. To prove it you could publish your claims in a real journal, but you can't, and you will never progress from the paranoid conspiracy theory camp to reality.

You spread the typical fire can't destroy buildings non-engineer anti-intellectual conspiracy theory nonsense.

Just one of many reasons to look beyond the surface of events may be because World Trade Center Tower 7, which was not hit by an airplane, fell as witnessed:

You fail to comprehend why buildings have fire systems, and why building are destroyed by fire.

How many years will it take for you to figure out 911? You could have taken some structural engineering courses and cured your ignorance on the issues you fail to comprehend; must not be that important to you.


You are propaganda director, as you show fires at night and lie saying the fires of the WTC were not as large as other fires. You are spreading lies about the fires on 911, fires in bright sunlight compared to fires at night.
The funny part of your failed web page, http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...op=view_page&PAGE_id=135&MMN_position=301:301 ,
You show steel failing in fire, and a building totaled by fire, never used again! This is funny, you show a fire which left a building too weak to be used again. Good job.

 

[ozeco41]

.... femr2 pointed out, and ozeco concurred, that his views have changed over time, and that this change is perceptible in BA's quotes...

It is more than merely "perceptible" IMO. I suggest that the change is the most important characteristic revealed by the sequence of quotations. Forget whether they are quote mined or not. What you see is a person who investigates and modifies his stance as a consequence of his findings. And that progression is clear in the bits that BasqueArch has selected to support whatever he is trying to prove. The concept of progression is strongly at odds with:

Here, in chronological order:
What femr2 Believes – Theories and Opinions:

How anyone could make that series of quotations and lead off with "believes". Present Tense?

....Could it be that his use of MIHOP has changed over time, and not depending on changing audiences?

An easier approach in my experience is to read the term in the context of the post where it occurs. The recent attempts to redefine MIHOP do not stand up if you read each usage in the context including the time it was used.

 

[femr2]

It is more than merely "perceptible" IMO. I suggest that the change is the most important characteristic revealed by the sequence of quotations. Forget whether they are quote mined or not.

Over and above quote mining are the blatant violations of rule 12 wich it would appear the moderators have no issue with (they are most definitely aware). Guess that means no more rule 12 eh

What you see is a person who investigates and modifies his stance as a consequence of his findings. And that progression is clear in the bits that BasqueArch has selected to support whatever he is trying to prove. The concept of progression is strongly at odds with:
How anyone could make that series of quotations and lead off with "believes". Present Tense?

Especially given that the OP is simply a cut and paste copy of this post with the seeming purpose of circumventing the rules against addressing the arguer by making addressing the arguer the topic of the thread How dumb is that ?

Quite how much more blatant it could be is beyond me (and yet the moderation team have not acted. go figure )

What would be funny is if I get a warning for this post...sending the clear message...

Break the rules as much as you like (if you are perceived to be on one side of a non-existent fence) but don't criticise da'mgmt (in public )

An easier approach in my experience is to read the term in the context of the post where it occurs. The recent attempts to redefine MIHOP do not stand up if you read each usage in the context including the time it was used.

MIHOP stands for Made It Happen On Purpose. Nothing more, as you have also made clear.

It being necessary to state what *it* is. Which can also be subjective.

That the original post this thread is a cut and paste copy of what was a response to...

Your theory is 911 was an inside job

Incorrect.

...shows how faulty folk are becoming.

How stupid do you have to be to TELL ME what I believe, when I have just stated my view on *inside job* explicitly.

femr2: I am wearing socks.
someone-on-the-other-side-of-the-planet: No, you're not !!1!1! eleventy.

 

[GlennB]

How anyone could make that series of quotations and lead off with "believes". Present Tense?

eta: retracted. I thought you were complaining about the grammar. Apologies.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Not sure if I had any expectations, and hence if I am surprised now or not. But thanks for the thorough documentation which drives the point home quite clearly.

In the other thread, after Basque Arch posted his quote list the first time, femr2 pointed out, and ozeco concurred, that his views have changed over time, and that this change is perceptible in BA's quotes. Could it be that his use of MIHOP has changed over time, and not depending on changing audiences?

His use of MIHOP has certainly changed over time, but there's no clear progression. He goes back and forth, depending on the audience.

It is more than merely "perceptible" IMO. I suggest that the change is the most important characteristic revealed by the sequence of quotations. Forget whether they are quote mined or not. What you see is a person who investigates and modifies his stance as a consequence of his findings. And that progression is clear in the bits that BasqueArch has selected to support whatever he is trying to prove.

Consider the dates:

Late 2009 through January 2010: femr2 advocates "cutter charges" and other explosives.

April through June 2010: femr2 defends his MIHOP Truther cred

August 2010: femr2 expands his definition of MIHOP to include scenarios that are scarcely (if at all) distinguishable from the story told by The 9/11 Commission Report.

March through May 2011: femr2 accepts Major_Tom's definition, in which MIHOP implies damage by agents other than the hijackers.

July 2011: femr2 ridicules the idea that MIHOP implies damage by agents other than hijackers.

Can ozeco41 explain how March through May 2011 fits into any kind of "progression"?

An easier approach in my experience is to read the term in the context of the post where it occurs. The recent attempts to redefine MIHOP do not stand up if you read each usage in the context including the time it was used.

Yes, the documented chronology makes sense only if we assume femr2 redefines MIHOP for every context.

As I wrote:

So femr2 uses MIHOP to mean different things, depending on his audience.

 

[GlennB]

How stupid do you have to be to TELL ME what I believe, when I have just stated my view on *inside job* explicitly.

What was it that changed your mind and convinced you that 9/11 was not an 'inside job' ? Or have you simply shifted from certainty that it was to uncertainty about the whole business??

When people ask you what you believe you tend to say "I have answered that question many times". Unfortunately these answers must include some that come from a different phase in your 9/11 beliefs. The CD phase, for example.

Any chance of a simple, explicit, statement of where you stand now?

 

[BasqueArch]

It is more than merely "perceptible" IMO. I suggest that the change is the most important characteristic revealed by the sequence of quotations. Forget whether they are quote mined or not. What you see is a person who investigates and modifies his stance as a consequence of his findings. And that progression is clear in the bits that BasqueArch has selected to support whatever he is trying to prove. The concept of progression is strongly at odds with:

originally Posted by BasqueArch
Here, in chronological order:
What femr2 Believes – Theories and Opinions:

How anyone could make that series of quotations and lead off with "believes". Present Tense? An easier approach in my experience is to read the term in the context of the post where it occurs. The recent attempts to redefine MIHOP do not stand up if you read each usage in the context including the time it was used.

Ozeco presupposes there’s something wrong with making that series of quotations and leading off with "believes". Present Tense?

Not defining terms
Definition: Believes: To accept as true or real.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/believes

One of femr2's errors is in not defining his terms and using terms differently than their definitions as in MIHOP and buckling (an engineering term) . Ozeco mistakenly assumes that when femr2 states what he accepts as true is in the past, he doesn’t accept them as true now. As soon as beliefs are stated, over time perforce they become beliefs in the past. I posted the dates to chronicle femr2’s beliefs, and any changes if any over time, something not usually done. I also linked his statements so that they could be examined in larger context. This is fair and precise.

Due to femr2’s refusal to state what he believes are his theories and opinions in the present, the only thing left to examine is what he has written in the past. All present statements become past statements. His past beliefs remain his present beliefs until revised. He is free to revise his beliefs, if indeed they have changed, but he stubbornly doesn’t.

So yes, femr2’s quoted past posts, unless revised by subsequent posts, are what he believes now.

Have femr2’s views changed over time

8/3/2009 All Tall Buildings Designed To Be Brought Down (not changed)
8/21/2009 Aircraft Were Under Automated Control (not changed)
9/2/2009 Must Focus On Showing Every Fault With NIST (not changed)

I’m MIHOP (not changed)
Femr2’s definition of MIHOP = Deliberate And Intentional *Bring Down*(not changed)

10/15/2009 Unseen Charges Initiated Descent, Blow roof (changed by later small charges opinion)
10/31/2009 MIHOP Destroyed Core (not changed)
1/8/2010 Noise Of Explosive Charges Not An Issue (not changed)
1/8/2010 Explosions Weaken Base, Job Finished At Initiation. Towers Chopped At Three Mechanical Floors, Noise Not A Problem. (partially changed, the base, by
1/17/2010 small number of charges statement)
1/17/2010 Small Explosives Used High Up At Internal Structures. (not changed)
1/17/2010 Supernanothermiate Used To Invoke Initiation, Manipulation Of Few Cores, Post Descent Core Cleaning.(opinion of means not changed -conflicts with previous)
1/23/2010 MIHOP. Large Numbers Of Explosives Demolition ! Deemphasized. Calls For Impartiality.(not changed)
4/19/2010 Explosives Not Required All The Way Down. MIHOP = Deliberate And Intentional *Bring Down*(not changed)
4/26/2010 I’m MIHOP.(not changed)
6/20/2010 Some Truth Movement Claims Ridiculous, But Not MIHOP (not changed)
11/12/2010 Prefers MIHOP To Controlled Demolition.(not changed)

What theories or opinions have changed or have been abandoned, femr2 refuses to say. His changes are towards fewer CD charges in fewer areas.

Femr2 believes in MIHOP = Deliberate And Intentional *Bring Down*

Two possible femr2 hypothesis for how the TwinTowers were deliberately and intentionally “ brought down”.
1) For WTC1,2 - Small number of charges at the upper cores causing perimeter bowing and failure of core before the perimeter. Possible additional charges at the mechanical floors.
2) WTC1,2 engineers designed the towers with weak spots for later demolition. Planes were automatically guided to hit these weak spots that would cause global collapse.

The only change in femr’s views I see are that from many charges in many areas of the Towers to fewer charges in fewer areas.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

To highlight just one part of BasqueArch's most recent post (as emphasized by GlennB) :

When asked to explain what he's getting at, femr2 routinely tells us he has already explained.

He seldom offers a specific citation. He expects us to dig up his prior statements on our own.

By referring us to his past statements, without providing citations, femr2 is continuing to endorse all of his past statements.

If femr2's beliefs have changed, then he should not be referring us to his entire body of work.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Perhaps you may want to reference the unmentionable threads in which I stated my opinions pretty carefully. Why not just review them? They are kind of funny, in the way many of you managed to record some pretty bone-headed mistakes in them.

Been there, done that.

 

[tsig]

It is more than merely "perceptible" IMO. I suggest that the change is the most important characteristic revealed by the sequence of quotations. Forget whether they are quote mined or not. What you see is a person who investigates and modifies his stance as a consequence of his findings. And that progression is clear in the bits that BasqueArch has selected to support whatever he is trying to prove. The concept of progression is strongly at odds with:
How anyone could make that series of quotations and lead off with "believes". Present Tense?

An easier approach in my experience is to read the term in the context of the post where it occurs. The recent attempts to redefine MIHOP do not stand up if you read each usage in the context including the time it was used.

How you can defend femr2 passes belief.

 

[Major_Tom]

Been there, done that.

Actually, you have turned yourself into a joke.

This thread is sure to continue the process.


One last thing I'd like to do with the WTC1 list is to introduce displacement vector mapping for the early antenna motion. Shall we pick up where we left off before?

It should be especially humorous to see what you wrote in my thread about coordinate systems while you ignored all your own comments while trying support the NIST camera 3 data.

We were looking upwards about 12 degrees for the Sauret WTC1 clip. That was very important to you then.

WTC7 camera 3 uses a sharper upward angle but you forgot all about that.

The original thread suffered an unmentionable fate. Can we revive it here so you can "teach me a lesson"?


I would be too bored to keep little lists on posters like you do, but at this point I would takle a personal pleasure in reviewing your posts and logic in a thread for all to see.

It will be less boring for me at this point since you left so many mistakes in your past posts that the process should be rather quick and relatively painless. I don't have much luck starting theads here, so can you be so kind as to do it for me, to "teach me that final lesson"?

 

[uke2se]

Actually, you have turned yourself into a joke.

No, no...

I'm pretty sure the joke's on you there, MT.

 

[BasqueArch]

.....

Originally Posted by Oystein
....Could it be that his use of MIHOP has changed over time, and not depending on changing audiences?

An easier approach in my experience is to read the term in the context of the post where it occurs. The recent attempts to redefine MIHOP do not stand up if you read each usage in the context including the time it was used.

Having different subjective definitions of one word depending upon the "usage in the context including the time it was used" makes it harder, not easier to clearly communicate.

The accruing knowledge in science and mathematics is partially due to the precise definitions of its terms.
One should follow a definitive record of the English language such as OED, for the present definition of MIHOP, though it costs $295 for a yearly subscription to find out.

Words are abbreviations of larger multi-word concepts.
To have conflicting different concepts described by the same word leads to more confusion, not less.