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

[ProBonoShill]

No, you don't "get it".

Incorrect

I've discussed all manner of things.

Including the assertion flight 175 had secret pods attached to it.

There are two "175" flights on the FlightExplorer data. Various inconclusive discussions have ensued as to the reasons why.

Do you think that is a valid reason to believe there were two different Flight 175's?

If not, why were you making that idiotic claim?

The word "demolition" is in about a third of my YT video titles.

Why? Did a demolition take place? Who conducted this demolition? How was it done?

I've looked at all manner of positions. Argued for and against many. Rejected many. Continnuing to look at others.

Well gee, sucks to be you then, the rest of us figured it out years ago.

 

[tsig]

say what you will about truthers...they have a great sense of humor.

rotfl

 

[GlennB]

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

You ol' joker you

 

[Sabretooth]

Always, though maybe not the answer you want.


Are you suggesting "the WTC was brought down by bombs, thermite, or a mix of both" ?

Jumping Jesus....I asked you a question...answer it, please.

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm asking you, in your opinion, why are there are no visible signs of thermite/bombs/etc. in the period between the aircrafts striking the towers and the final collapse of WTC7?

 

[Sabretooth]

You ol' joker you

Sorry...I let a little optimism leak out there...won't happen again

 

[tfk]

...
For example femr2's analysis of WTC7 collapse seems to be adding evidence to confirm NIST's findings.

Are you sure that femr agrees with this point??

 

[tfk]

1) beachnut said "Your theory is 911 was an inside job" and I told him "incorrect".

So, now you appear to be saying that you believe that 911 was NOT an inside job.

This might be a big step for you.

You know, I was about to get all atwitter about this statement. Welcome you into the light & all that...

Then I remembered how elastic your word definitions can be.

Just to confirm, do you now really believe that 911 was not an inside job?

 

[BasqueArch]

So, now you appear to be saying that you believe that 911 was NOT an inside job.

This might be a big step for you.

You know, I was about to get all atwitter about this statement. Welcome you into the light & all that...

Then I remembered how elastic your word definitions can be.

Just to confirm, do you now really believe that 911 was not an inside job?

It's obvious you are not familiar with the newly discovered Humpty-Loki Rule
It will be in your next year's Continuing Education courses.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7470504#post7470504

 

[femr2]

So, now you appear to be saying that you believe that 911 was NOT an inside job.

I've never suggested "inside job" in the slightest. See the numeours dumb-ass MIHOP threads for aditional details, if you like

This might be a big step for you.

Nope. No "step" here, Tom. Perhaps your own understanding is progressing. Perhaps you'll be able to "step away from the keyboard" long enough to see why I find much of what you type to be really rather funny.

 

[femr2]

Are you sure that femr agrees with this point??

It's clear you haven't bothered to read, or understand, any of the WTC7 trace data presented.

Perhaps if you can find a way to look at it from another direction....

What part of the presentation of WTC7 trace data leads you to think otherwise ? What part of criticising the accuracy/quality/... of the NIST trace data is it that gets you confused ? What assertion based upon the WTC7 trace data have I made which does NOT "seem to be adding evidence to confirm NIST's findings" ?

 

[femr2]

Jumping Jesus....I asked you a question...answer it, please.

I did.

 

[bill smith]

Jumping Jesus....I asked you a question...answer it, please.

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm asking you, in your opinion, why are there are no visible signs of thermite/bombs/etc. in the period between the aircrafts striking the towers and the final collapse of WTC7?

If that metal pouring out of Tower 2 was molten steel. then thermite is the obvious candidate cause. From that it should be fairly easy to work out what was melted to create that volume of molten steel.

 

[femr2]

Including the assertion flight 175 had secret pods attached to it.

See my prior response.

Do you think that is a valid reason to believe there were two different Flight 175's?

There are two "175" flights on the FlightExplorer data. See prior response.

Why?

Explained many times. Search.

Well gee, sucks to be you then

Uncivil.

the rest of us figured it out years ago.

You appear to be of the slightly bizarre opinion that there is some "figuing out" to be done. How very strange.

To give you a clue...

What was the column-number by column-number buckling sequence of the core columns within the initiation zone ?

If you cannot answer, then when are you going to figure it out ?

 

[tsig]

So, now you appear to be saying that you believe that 911 was NOT an inside job.

This might be a big step for you.

You know, I was about to get all atwitter about this statement. Welcome you into the light & all that...

Then I remembered how elastic your word definitions can be.

Just to confirm, do you now really believe that 911 was not an inside job?

Well first we have to discuss 'in' and what we mean by that. Then we'll have to talk about 'side' and it's many meanings, then I'll tell you that I don't agree with any standard meaning of those words but have my own idiosyncratic ones.

 

[tsig]

If that metal pouring out of Tower 2 was molten steel. then thermite is the obvious candidate cause. From that it should be fairly easy to work out what was melted to create that volume of molten steel.

Can you link to any source that shows thermite producing rivers of molten steel?

 

[tfk]

So, now you appear to be saying that you believe that 911 was NOT an inside job.

I've never suggested "inside job" in the slightest.

I didn't say you did.

I ASKED you a question.

That you're now beginning your usual routine to avoid answering.

Let the dance begin...

 

[tfk]

It's clear you haven't bothered to read, or understand, any of the WTC7 trace data presented.

Perhaps if you can find a way to look at it from another direction....

What part of the presentation of WTC7 trace data leads you to think otherwise ? What part of criticising the accuracy/quality/... of the NIST trace data is it that gets you confused ? What assertion based upon the WTC7 trace data have I made which does NOT "seem to be adding evidence to confirm NIST's findings" ?

This is a simple question. It's got absolutely nothing to do with anything that I've read or understood. It's got nothing to do with any of my opinions about anything.

Your reply is a bunch of blah, blah, irrelevant, misdirecting blah...

Oz said that, in his opinion,

femr2's analysis of WTC7 collapse seems to be adding evidence to confirm NIST's findings.

There's only one question on the table, here.

Do you agree with Oz?
Or not?

If so, fine.
If not, why not.

 

[beachnut]

It's clear you haven't bothered to read, or understand, any of the WTC7 trace data presented.

Perhaps if you can find a way to look at it from another direction....

What part of the presentation of WTC7 trace data leads you to think otherwise ? What part of criticising the accuracy/quality/... of the NIST trace data is it that gets you confused ? What assertion based upon the WTC7 trace data have I made which does NOT "seem to be adding evidence to confirm NIST's findings" ?

Adding? lol
Why waste time with never to be published study of a point falling, smoothed to look like music? Zip, no value added, no goal, no purpose, no conclusion. Publishing date?

There was ONE flight 175, real research would not involve the study of two flight 175s in FlightExplorer, it means nothing. Reality based research is NTAP data, not FlightExplorer. Add in the failed 911 truth papers you have as Technical Papers on 911 ... nuff said

 

[femr2]

Do you agree with Oz?

Yup. You must be so focussed on "baiting femr2" that you are blind to discussion of the data you've criticised so much.

I've specifically and repeatedly used the data and observations to highlight to those who think "boom->immediate descent" why the early motion data shows that position to be incorrect.

There's obviously only a small number of "NIST findings" that are in scope, but the data does highlight early motion. It also highlights what a poor job of tracing they did, but that's separate, as you know.

That you have to ask the question is rather revealing.

 

[Sabretooth]

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" ?

Jumping Jesus....I asked you a question...answer it, please.

I did.

No, you did not…you danced. You tried to be all Socratic and clever, but it just made you look silly. Wanna swing for strike 3, truther?