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

[ozeco41]

Just this point for the moment .... how can their position be described as 'subtle' when we don't know what it is? Or is this like a game of Mastermind where we're required to analyse a multitude of clues to arrive at the solution? If so, why?

Sure - we/you could go either way pivoting on this point.

"...when we don't know what it is?" I think we have the information to know "what it is" BUT is it beyond many of our members ability or willingness to understand or agree?

If so should "they" target a lower common level of understanding/comprehension?

If we were into the marketing of their ideas the answer is obviously "yes" - put colloquially they should sell to their "market"

If I claim to understand "their" positions - is that too arrogant????


AND the other approach is ..... well I don't need to be too obvious.

Then how do you sell shades of grey to a market that only recognises black or white?????

 

[GlennB]

"...when we don't know what it is?" I think we have the information to know "what it is" BUT is it beyond many of our members ability or willingness to understand or agree?

So fire away and tell us yourself, because I'm damned if I can work out "what it is". There are plenty of people here bright enough to understand.

If so should "they" target a lower common level of understanding/comprehension?

I don't know, because I don't know what their case is. But even refusing to state it clearly because they consider themselves at a higher level of understanding/comprehension is not only monstrously arrogant but raises the question of why they're bothering to post here at all if their efforts are pearls before swine.

Their case lives and dies on its own strengths, not whether it's savaged by ignorant, knee-jerk debunkery. But given that only a couple of years ago femr2 was proposing CD, pods(?) and heaven knows what else then he certainly doesn't have the credentials to get high-and-mighty about this. Let him publish his case and have it judged on its merits.

There is absolutely nothing useful to gain by playing the game that femr2 and Major_Tom are choosing to play.

 

[femr2]

Put in different language they are sceptics starting with a (sort of^#) CD or MIHOP position as the default - i.e. "CD must remain on the table until it is rigorously debunked and it has not yet been debunked in the process we are involved in". That position is not significantly different to the position most of us would adopt with our respect for the "scientific method" which position is "CD is not on the table until and unless someone puts forward a rigorous argument which requires us to consider it." The only difference between the two is the default.

Kind-of. I've stated, on this forum, my "position" on numerous occasions, namely that I'm less than happy about many details within the "official narrative"/NIST reports/...

As has been highlighted by the rigorous historic quote mining by those with, at best, nothing else to do, I've made statements such as...

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

During the time preceeding such, I've looked at many details (which those who choose to let such sail over their heads steadfastly ignore) which have refuted* many "theories" alluded to in the simple statement above.

*many here would use the word "debunked", but the word is now severely bastardised and reeks of all manner of unpleasant nasties. I don't like it. Also, I really don't care what "group" the wonderful fellows of JREF choose to categorise me with. It simply shows that they are not interested in details, actual skepticism, critical thinking...in the slightest. The manner in which folk "converse" with me is case in point. Really rather pathetic.

I'm of the opinion that sections of my video tracing have been of great value in understanding early motion of both WTC1 and WTC7, and have helped to continnually refine what may be the "outcome" of the time investment.

Also, of great value specifically to folk who do not want to be met with the rather pathetic "debunker" appeals to authority, especially NIST. Important sections are wrong, or at best inaccurate. Development of the tracing techniques provides a way for non-SE's to be provided with verifiable and independant data which disproves quite a range of still-discussed "truther theories". I am sure that, even if it has not been vocalised, that many folk following the studies by myself (and those of MT) have "trusted" the data (or produced their own) and shifted their previous position accordingly. I've asked "If descent of WTC7 was initiated by instantaneous removal of....then why is the building provably in motion beforehand ? What caused that motion ?"...many times. I imagine it made a few people think.

It strikes me as a better way to behave than "Go and read the NIST report, twoofie nut-job", "you don't know engineering" (funny in itself), "fire did it !!11!1 eleventy", "got math?!", ...

Many members here are what I'd call "coat-tail hangers", with very little personal technical knowledge, interest or understanding of the actual events they "discuss" who are here mainly to "be a debunker" with "the big boys" and enjoy "twoofer baiting". Yawn. Very yawn.

I've started one thread here on JREF, asking for imagery to confirm suggestion of WTC1/2 creep. Nada. I had to develop the tracing techniques to find any kind of early motion. Interesting in itself, but also highlights that the many assertions of creep by NIST are based upon what actual evidence ? Nada. Simply model output and engineering assumption, not real-world data. WTC1 motion became detectable ~9.5s in advance of release.

Until I have fully "run out" of details of interest, I'll continue to do so, regardless of whether the JREF members like it or not, many of whom demonstrate regularly that they have not bothered to understand details presented (Those rejecting ROOSD blindly are an obvious example).

Ho hum

 

[000063]

Eh ? Reads a bit funny that. I've definitely not stated or agreed a "standard" usage. Demanding that I agree with your "standard" when I've already affirmed "minority" usage of literal MIHOP is one aspect of our "discussion" I recall rather well. If you're still not happy with affirmed "minority" usage of literal MIHOP (or "common" for unstated USG-MIHOP with unstated "what" and "how", then tough luck I'm afraid.

is your usage of the term "MIHOP" a standard one?

Yes. All prior usage has been of the form (any who) made it (whatever it is) happen on purpose (by any means)

It has generally been destruction to ground of WTC 1 & 2, but not exclusively.

However, my usage is not the topic of this thread.

I have already highlighted the subjective nature of the acronym, and again...

Oh, wow, look at that. You were wrong about something. You did, in fact, point-blank claim your usage was standard.

I would also like to point out that your definition of "standard" seems to be grammatical nonsense. It's the equivalent of someone referring to "the dog out back", except that they chastise the person who they're talking to for assuming that any specific dog is being referred to, much less one that specifically is outside the building they are in. And then they claim that their usage is the standard one, because their vague non-definition includes every possible usage of the term, ever.

I'm not even to go bother to go dig up the rest of the things you asked for, when you can't even remember your own nonsense. Just go look through the thread and Ctrl+F for my username.

Also, I'm not sure why you're still attacking me when I'm opining that your theory or hypothesis shouldn't even be discussed in this thread, by reason of you not having a declared theory or hypothesis to discuss. (Haven't you chastised us for expecting you to jump to conclusions or suchlike?) I find it odd that bit was omitted from your quotes.

 

[NoahFence]

Geeze.... I wouldn't want f2 to be accused of ducking a question! Oh the shame:

Lets say they rerun it with femr's blessing and his awesome data. Will their conclusions change at all? Or will the building still have been the victim of an aircraft impact, massive fire, and subsequent collapse?

In other words, what possible difference can it make?

So femr - what difference would it make in the conclusion?

 

[femr2]

I'm damned if I can work out "what it is".

That you think you need to is most of the issue you have.

There are plenty of people here bright enough to understand.

Are you sure about that ?

I don't know, because I don't know what their case is.

Why should it matter ?

When stating technical details, what significance do you think what you "believe" I "believe" has upon such technical details ?

The answer is a categorical...zip, nada, none.

You have a personal desire to "box" my position. Many here want the same thing. Can't be attacking a fello "debunker", cany you. It's okay to froth at the mouth all over a "dirt dumb twoofer" though. It's a pathetic polarisation process.

But even refusing to state it clearly because they consider themselves at a higher level of understanding/comprehension

ROFL. Incorrect.

is not only monstrously arrogant

ROFL. Your assertion was incorrect, therefore your continued analysis is "monstrously arrogant"

but raises the question of why they're bothering to post here at all if their efforts are pearls before swine.

Who knows ? Perhaps it'll end up being a best-seller on group-think herd mentality ? Behaviours here could keep an analyst busy for decades.

Their case lives and dies on its own strengths

What case ?

not whether it's savaged by ignorant, knee-jerk debunkery.

What case ?

But given that only a couple of years ago femr2 was proposing CD, pods(?) and heaven knows what else

Are you sure about that, or are you trusting "your peers" ?

then he certainly doesn't have the credentials to get high-and-mighty about this.

You have no idea of my credentials.

Let him publish his case and have it judged on its merits.

Publish or die ! Yawn. You can read. If you have a problem with details I have posted on this forum, you are more than welcome to point out what technical issue you have with any assertion or conclusion I have presented.

There is absolutely nothing useful to gain by playing the game that femr2 and Major_Tom are choosing to play.

I'm not playing a game.

 

[femr2]

Oh, wow, look at that. You were wrong about something. You did, in fact, point-blank claim your usage was standard.

LOL. Do you not think there's a difference between "a standard" and "the standard" ? I do Rather ironic given the context of our prior discussion.

You had quite a discussion with me, trying to force me to state that "USG-MIHOP" was THE standard usage. You didn't succeed.

You are now splitting semantic hairs and playing with context to desperately "be right"/"make femr2 wrong". Funny.

If you are now changing your stance, and want to include literal MIHOP as a standard usage, great

I would also like to point out that your definition of "standard" seems to be grammatical nonsense.

Where is my definition of "standard" ?

I'm not sure why you're still attacking me

I'm not attacking you.

 

[femr2]

what difference would it make in the conclusion?

As I said, who knows. You'd have to actually do it before stating what the result was. Surely you realise that ?

 

[NoahFence]

As I said, who knows. You'd have to actually do it before stating what the result was. Surely you realise that ?

No, I wouldn't.

I know, for a FACT, that if you plug in your numbers instead of NIST's numbers, the buildings would still be gone today. Their conclusions wouldn't change one iota.

 

[femr2]

No, I wouldn't.

I know, for a FACT

Incorrect. You assume.

if you plug in your numbers instead of NIST's numbers, the buildings would still be gone today.

That is not what you were asking.

Their conclusions wouldn't change one iota.

What if the building did not collapse, or collapsed immediately ? Are you aware of the scenarios in which the buildings did not collapse ? Are you aware of the criteria for such ? Tis in the NIST report. Surely you've read it ?

 

[NoahFence]

That is not what you were asking.

Are you soft?

That's exactly what I'm asking. You're telling me I don't know what I am asking? If you take your little numbers and stick them in the NIST report in place of their numbers, is the conclusion changed?

Answer = NO.

(yea, yea, "incorrect", huh?)

I know, for a FACT

Incorrect. You assume.

Quote mine much? Quote the entire sentence in its entirety or don't bother. Don't chop it up so you can be all : high and mighty, being able to write "incorrect" one more time. Insufferable.

What if the building did not collapse, or collapsed immediately ? Are you aware of the scenarios in which the buildings did not collapse ? Are you aware of the criteria for such ? Tis in the NIST report. Surely you've read it ?

Try to keep up. They DID collapse. There is no room for hypotheticals. You and MTs cute little graphs don't change this.

 

[GlennB]

Try to keep up. They DID collapse. There is no room for hypotheticals. You and MTs cute little graphs don't change this.

This is femr2's dilemma in a nutshell.

If his observations/calculations lead him to conclude that the buildings should not have collapsed through damage+fire then he'll need to say so, otherwise he's pointlessly blowing hot air.

If they lead to the same result - collapse, as it happened - then all his work is purely academic and the most he can claim is that he understands the mechanism better than NIST.

What his work can never do is conclude that the collapse was natural and to be expected but should have been different. What happened happened. If the actual collapse is somehow "wrong" then there must have been advance human intervention, i.e. 'not natural cause'.

By not stating his conclusions (whatever his degree of certainty might be) he just gets to carry on seeking attention.

 

[NoahFence]

If his observations/calculations lead him to conclude that the buildings should not have collapsed through damage+fire then he'll need to say so, otherwise he's pointlessly blowing hot air.

Correct.

If they lead to the same result - collapse, as it happened - then all his work is purely academic and the most he can claim is that he understands the mechanism better than NIST.

ROTFL. Correct. If he actually does understand it better than NIST, more power to him. This has become his life's work - not NISTs. They did a fine job working under the mandate given them, came to a conclusion, and finished. They are not a 9/11 investigative organization. They've got other fish to fry.

By not stating his conclusions (whatever his degree of certainty might be) he just gets to carry on seeking attention.

....and that's what his ilk is really all about anyway.

 

[BasqueArch]

Beachnut has been stalking me with a single post I made in 2007 for a couple of months now.
The "satan" post, made famous by constant repetition by Beachnut, is from a 2007 conversation with Max Photon. Just to put that in perspective, the 9/11 forum didn't even exist at that time. I suspect Femr2 has never corresponded with Max Photon since Max stopped posting before Femr2 started.

I think this even beats the Femr2 witch hunt in absurdity.

He has repeated a single 2007 post for months. How can people be so blind as to not see this is a complete witch hunt?????
....................

JREF regulars, do you have any self respect left??

This is the standard you set for yourselves??

So I take it you now regret writing that post.
There are more like it you know.

 

[femr2]

Are you soft?

Nope.

That's exactly what I'm asking.

I'm afraid not.

You're telling me I don't know what I am asking?

I'm afraid so.

If you take your little numbers and stick them in the NIST report in place of their numbers, is the conclusion changed?

That would, of course, depend upon what happened within their simulation.

Answer = NO.

What if the simulated building stayed resolutely standing ?

(yea, yea, "incorrect", huh?)

See above.

Quote mine much? Quote the entire sentence in its entirety or don't bother. Don't chop it up so you can be all : high and mighty, being able to write "incorrect" one more time. Insufferable.

Helps if you can remember what you were actually talking about, you know.

Try to keep up. They DID collapse. There is no room for hypotheticals. You and MTs cute little graphs don't change this.

For your personal clarity and peace of mind...you were talking about the effect upon the NIST simulation, not the real-world events.

Try to keep up eh.

 

[femr2]

This is femr2's dilemma in a nutshell.

No dilemma I'm afraid.

If his observations/calculations lead him to conclude that the buildings should not have collapsed through damage+fire then he'll need to say so

Of course.

If they lead to the same result - collapse, as it happened - then all his work is purely academic and the most he can claim is that he understands the mechanism better than NIST.

Sure, though "better" might not be the right word. "Correctly" would be potentially more appropriate.

What his work can never do is conclude that the collapse was natural and to be expected but should have been different.

Who would suggest such ?

What happened happened.

Absolutely.

If the actual collapse is somehow "wrong" then there must have been advance human intervention, i.e. 'not natural cause'.

I think you are boxing yourself into a black/white situation. If NIST is shown to be incorrect, then NIST are incorrect. What scope of "wrong" are you limiting to ?

By not stating his conclusions (whatever his degree of certainty might be) he just gets to carry on seeking attention.

Incorrect.

 

[Carll68]

NIST Flight 175 impact orientation and trajectory wrong...
...therefore...
NIST impact damage assessment wrong...
...therefore...
etc.

That is great, save for the fact that they did not get the orientation or trajectory wrong......

But someone did....

Guess who F2.


Hint: it NIST and F2 both did a orientation and trjectory analysis, and 1 was INCORRECT, and the other wasnt, and NIST's wasnt INCORRECT...who did the flawed analysis?

 

[NoahFence]

Nope.


I'm afraid not.


I'm afraid so.


That would, of course, depend upon what happened within their simulation.


What if the simulated building stayed resolutely standing ?


See above.


Helps if you can remember what you were actually talking about, you know.


For your personal clarity and peace of mind...you were talking about the effect upon the NIST simulation, not the real-world events.

Try to keep up eh.

So you're still holier-than-thou, not only convinced that you're never wrong, but equally convinced that everybody else is never right.

I take back my apology, kiddo.

 

[Carll68]

In F2 world, in order to prove someone incorrect, all one needs to do is type:

"incorrect"

In the real world, one needs to validate there claims. F2 has been and continues to try to prove 2+2=4 by typing: 2+2=4....sorta like his MIHOP fiasco.

I learned first hand years ago that F2 lacks the knowledge to back up his bravado and bluster, and now simply exists to occasionally ammuse me.

 

[GlennB]

Incorrect.

Incorrect.