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

Last edited:
Titles of "demolition" make it clear, someone thinks 911 was an inside job. With key words, "WTC DEMOLITION 911 2001 CHARGE NWO CUTTER SQUIB".
Failed 911 papers labeled "technical papers" on 911, someone who thinks 911 was an inside job. http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4

Removing comments from web pages to hide your inside job tendencies, someone who thinks 911 was an inside job, and trying to cover it up. priceless
 
femr2...maybe I can get an honest answer out of you...

If the WTC was brought down by bombs, thermite, or a mix of both, why do we not see clear evidence of these on any of the dozens of videos taken on 9/11?
 
You said it. :rolleyes:
I don't want to derail this thread (that's of the rails to begin with) but, what discussions of substance is there left? I'm not talking engineering wise but 9/11 conspiracy wise. We can talk about the building collapses for years but, that's not a conspiracy.

Want to start a new thread?
 
femr2 just said that ProBonoShill believes that big foot is actually his father, and he was born on the moon.

There you go. Your pop is big foot, and you were actually born on the moon.


Jackanory is full of crap.


Carl68 is full of crap.


Yup. I just showed you rendered view of Flight 175 lit to replicate the images purported to be anomylous.


Your dad was big foot ! :rolleyes:



Ahhh I get it, everyone is "full of crap" except for you.

So you want us to believe you've never argued for the existence of pods on the planes?

You've never used the name Rizla2012?

You've never, ever believed there were two flight 175's?

The word "Demolition" has never been used in the title of your videos?

You've never supported MIHOP?

:dl:
 
femr2...maybe I can get an honest answer out of you...

If the WTC was brought down by bombs, thermite, or a mix of both, why do we not see clear evidence of these on any of the dozens of videos taken on 9/11?
His opinion is not the subject of this thread.

Despite it being the subject of this thread.
 
WTF do you mean by this?
Whoa there with the inept reading skills :)

Rather ironic, given what you were reading in my post. I'll try some bolding (was trying to not draw too much attention to your cut and paste oopsie, but hey ho...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...80#post7352880
Originally Posted by Oz1976
B]

femr2's theories.
Quote femr2- What theories would that be exactly ? Quotes please.
Which links to the quote...
Quote:
It's now been nearly 10 years since that tragic day and still not one person with a conscience has come forward to support either of yours or femr2's theories. No one from this inside jobby job team. 100's of 1000's of people are dead as a result of that day, and nope...no one involved could give a rats ass huh?
Are you not even bothering to keep track of the quotes you are mining ? Not a great idea leaving a reference to your local machine temp directory in place if you value your privacy.
:rolleyes:
 
femr2...maybe I can get an honest answer out of you...
Always, though maybe not the answer you want.

If the WTC was brought down by bombs, thermite, or a mix of both, why do we not see clear evidence of these on any of the dozens of videos taken on 9/11?
Are you suggesting "the WTC was brought down by bombs, thermite, or a mix of both" ?
 
Ahhh I get it, everyone is "full of crap" except for you.
No, you don't "get it".

So you want us to believe you've never argued for the existence of pods on the planes?
I've discussed all manner of things.

You've never, ever believed there were two flight 175's?
There are two "175" flights on the FlightExplorer data. Various inconclusive discussions have ensued as to the reasons why.

The word "Demolition" has never been used in the title of your videos?
The word "demolition" is in about a third of my YT video titles.

You've never supported MIHOP?
I've looked at all manner of positions. Argued for and against many. Rejected many. Continnuing to look at others.
 
Whoa there with the inept reading skills :)
... :rolleyes:
A possible cause for the failed 911 papers in your technical papers section?
http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4 A MIHOP event?

How will you prove 911 was an inside job with your "demolition" videos, with the misleading key words? Are you supporting Major Tom's attempt at backing in CD, while he looks for the evildoers, the Satan like bad guys? Is MT using the OJ method of finding the bad guys?
 
Whoa there with the inept reading skills :)

Rather ironic, given what you were reading in my post. I'll try some bolding (was trying to not draw too much attention to your cut and paste oopsie, but hey ho...


:rolleyes:

You mean ironic like this?

femr2
* As a covert scheme, it's already an epic fail.
* As a supposed tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy nut-job, bearing in mind my "side of the fence", it's been clear for many a long year that such a scheme was running, and still is. (I obtained the IP's of a number of notorious *debunkers* a while back, and guess what ? All on the same sub-net. Hilarious.)
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post7900.html#p7900
 
You mean ironic like this?
No, I mean ironic like not being able to spot that you posted a string containing your local machine temp directory in this post and then when I suggest you are losing track of what you are posting, highlighting that you have posted a string containing your local machine temp directory (which presumably includes your forename) and suggesting you look after your privacy a bit better, you ask me in big letters "WTF do you mean by this?". Ironic, indeed.

I suggest a little more care and tracking of what you are actually posting. It will hopefully reduce the irony levels at least.
 
No, I mean ironic like not being able to spot that you posted a string containing your local machine temp directory in this post and then when I suggest you are losing track of what you are posting, highlighting that you have posted a string containing your local machine temp directory (which presumably includes your forename) and suggesting you look after your privacy a bit better, you ask me in big letters "WTF do you mean by this?". Ironic, indeed.

I suggest a little more care and tracking of what you are actually posting. It will hopefully reduce the irony levels at least.

No, I mean ironic like not being able to spot that you obtained the IP's of a number of notorious *debunkers* a while back, while decrying that we all now live in a world driven by governments justifying the removal of our freedoms in the name of protecting us from nasty unseen *threat*; living in a world moving closer to real globalism in it's[sp] very ugliest sense.

That kind of irony.
That kind of hypocrisy
 
Last edited:
No, I mean ironic like not being able to spot that you obtained the IP's of a number of notorious *debunkers* a while back, while decrying that we all now live in a world driven by governments justifying the removal of our freedoms in the name of protecting us from nasty unseen *threat*; living in a world moving closer to real globalism in it's[sp] very ugliest sense.
And what would one have to do with the other ? :boggled:
 
You said it. :rolleyes:
I don't want to derail this thread (that's of the rails to begin with) but, what discussions of substance is there left? I'm not talking engineering wise but 9/11 conspiracy wise. We can talk about the building collapses for years but, that's not a conspiracy.

Want to start a new thread?
Discussions of 9/11 events fall legitimately into two groups:
  1. Technical matters where the big issues are
    • Demolition or not at WTC?
    • Was it something other than that plane at the Pentagon? AND
    • Was it shot down at Shanksville?
    AND
  2. "Conspiracy" matters more broadly read as the full range of issues in the social or political domains.
My interest has been and still remains in the technical issues with WTC building collapses as my primary interest. I think most of the technical stuff has been done to death. Certainly no-one has seriously challenged the three big issue questions where the answers remain "No", "No" and "No" to the questions as I framed them above.

I have no real interest in debating the socio political aspects of 9/11 for two main reasons:
1) It is outside my range of expertise; AND
2) The topics are inherently well nigh impossible to derive answers in contrast to the technical issues which are clean cut and easy to answer.

So there is nothing new coming up for discussion in the technical arena. Sure we have several resident trolls - IMO they are trolls not truthers - but playing their games by responding goes against my grain.

The one (or two) exceptions where new material has been coming forth is in the work of femr2 and Major_Tom. For example femr2's analysis of WTC7 collapse seems to be adding evidence to confirm NIST's findings.

I rarely join in personal attacks other than to respond to some directed at me and occasionally to others. I can filter out the noise false logic and dishonesty directed at femr2 and Major_Tom and the occasional bit which comes the other way. Not joining in either way does not mean that I don't see through the games.

Take out those two and what is left worthy of note?
  • The LashL periodic reporting of the continuing saga of April Gallop - Interesting to me mainly because of the legal machinatins.
  • The recent positive process assisting Chris Mohr prepare his videos.
  • and a few other little bits and pieces..

The bulk of the forum thread space is being expended in stereotyped to and fro with the resident trolls. None of it of any intrinsic value and where they are only playing for responses which I rarely give them.

So to your suggestion "Want to start a new thread?' - No I don't want to start a new thread. Mainly because the only topics remaining are in the "conspiracy" arena as you identify and I am not interested in debating those topics. I can hold my own with anyone in those technical areas which interest me. I would be way out of my depth in "conspiracy" and I doubt that the answers can be argued convincingly in that arena even if I put the effort into the research and learning.
 
Interesting way around rule 12, isn't it.
I'm pretty sure discussing people's claims and opinions is perfectly valid, as long as it doesn't stray onto the people themselves, and even then there's some wriggle room. If you think this thread is in violation of Rule 12, feel perfectly free to report it.

The irony part.
I see you quote-mined me.
Gasp.

How surprising.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom