Correct.
MIHOP -femr2 and Major Tom's WTC1,2,7 Demolition Hypotheses
- Thread starter BasqueArch
- Start date
-
- Tags
- inside job mihop wtc 1 wtc 2 wtc 7
Correct.
NoahFence
Banned
Possibly correct, maybe incorrect.
What is your pixel resolution for that statement?
Carll68
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 324
ROFL.
incorrect. (that is my pixel resolution)
Oh, and..... M.I.H.O.P
But it doesnt mean whatever you think it means, it means something else.
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
Unknown.
I have to wait to see what Carl says, then I can quote-mine his findings. Stay tuned.
Carll68
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 324
Incorrect
[QOUTE]I .....quote-mine......findings. Stay tuned.[/QUOTE]
Deary me. So you qoute mine findings? the fabled characteristics of Satan come to mind
Last edited:
Carll68
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2009
- Messages
- 324
Am I correct in saying it is incorrect, or incorrect in saying it is correct? I got lost...sorry.
ROOSD. (always wanted to type that)
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
who's on first?
I DUNNO!
THIRD BASE!
I DUNNO!
THIRD BASE!
Like your standards? Like "Just Plain ******"? You sure set high super intellectual standards! Outstanding.
Does this mean you have dropped the CD delusion? No.
Does this mean you have dropped the inside job mentality? No
Does this mean you changed your mind and agree 19 terrorists murdered Americans and others on 911; and they are responsible? Like someone who robs you, or steals from you, they did it, you don't blame the government or made up evil guys you can't name...
Does this mean you have dropped the moronic claim you made, "the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion to mask an intentional act"? No.
Stalking? You are paranoid? It is called ignore, there is a setting, and a serious 911 debunker like yourself would use it if they had rational work so important they did not have time to be talking stalking. lol, Paranoia?
Retract your statement, bring down that wall of nonsense and let knowledge in MT. When will you publish all that super stuff you have, set a goal, state conclusions, etc.?
You said; "the supposed "gravity-driven collapse" is a mere illusion to mask an intentional act"? An illusion? What are your CD claims? Are you serious? Have you dropped the claim the gravity collapse was an illusion? Yes or No, are preferred answers instead of claims of stalking.
Simple retraction of inside job, CD, and the illusion? 1, 2, 3
2007? 2010
What? Is this your 2010 rewrite of 2007? Was Satan too strong? Is this inside job with CD post, or re-posting to Max?
Last edited:
Actually I do, but your version wasn't either, any more than my hypothetical "the dog out back" example was. But feel free to keep hair-splitting.LOL. Do you not think there's a difference between "a standard" and "the standard" ? I doRather ironic given the context of our prior discussion.
I asked you, repeatedly, whether your usage was standard. First you tried to dodge with the "minority" sidestep, and after I asked several more times, you said "yes". I continue to assert that your version of the term is not a standard, it is not the standard, it is not standard in any fashion. The third one covers the first two, just like your version of MIHOP includes every thing that was ever made to happen ever.
You never admitted you misinterpreted my post about non-standard usages, and explaining when one uses them.
Also, I'm not playing with context, though I figured you'd say that. My question is quoted in the exact same format you quoted it when you responded. Everyone can click here and see it plain. Maybe I forgot to put a line break in between the current posts and the old ones, in which case; whoops! My bad.
I'm not.If you are now changing your stance, and want to include literal MIHOP as a standard usage, great
Your definition is in the post I just linked to. I also note that you seemed to have no need to ascertain my meaning of standard before you responded to the question, unless you and only you get these unilateral meaning-deciding powers. I didn't specify the context of "standard", after all.
I'm being sardonic, of course, mocking your methods.
Here's the problem; if that wasn't your standard definition of MIHOP in the post, that leaves my definition, and we know what that is. If it was yours, then we know what yours is. Either you were saying your definition is the same as mine, or you were saying it wasn't.
Please stop quote-mining. Please.
Last edited:
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Well, if you don't want to be swept up in a JREF witch hunt you shouldn't be wearing black robes, a pointy black hat, flying a broom and cackling.
'
Let me answer this before it looks like I am avoiding the challenge.
My need for evidencce relates directly to my purpose in pursuing understanding of the WTC collapses of 9/11.
My purpose has been to be able to explain to interested persons including genuine sceptics why the towers collapsed. Specifically why the Twin Towers collapsed, WTC 7 is a different situation and I will touch on it later. In order to explain to lay persons I needed to satisfy myself as to the mechanism involved in the collapses and why there was no demolition. I am trained in civil/structural engineering and also military engineering with some demolition experience but not a high rise building specialist.
The process of explanation that I prefer is to work from the main elements of the "big picture" and pursue down into the details wherever the person I am discussing with needs to pursue more detail. The people I am talking to are rarely seeped in the mythology of conspiracy theory or those who are now referred to as "truthers". The situation is slightly different when the discussions are on an Internet forum and those joining the discussion include conspiracy theorists or truthers who are already well indoctrinated in the standard pro-CD issues. Most of my early discussions on the Internet occurred on the now defunct Richard Dawkins Forum where I was the leading "debunker side" technical poster (And sub forum moderator which led to some conflict of interest issues)
So I would start an explanation from the big picture which is simple. For each of the Twin Towers an aircraft flew into the towers, caused initial damage, started fires but initially the tower stood. Accumulating damage due to fires (and potentially some human assistance) weakened the impact and fire zone such that the top part of the tower fell and caused a rapid progressive collapse with total destruction resulting.
So much for the big picture. The evidence for it is readily available but most interested people take that big picture as given. The one question usually being "what about demolition".
From there the discussions would go further into such details as my discussion partner needed to clarify. I tried to avoid adversarial interactions if possible - not always succeeding.
So there is no easy answer to your request "Can you show your evidence and allow it to be examined by others?"
Of course I can BUT it is discussion specific. I made sure that my explanations could be backed by sound engineering forensic logic and to do that I would make sure that every element of "proof" of the mechanism of why the towers collapsed was there. So there would be from a few to dozens to potentially hundreds of different points. And I am not going to attempt to reproduce either a summary OR a comprehensive list of all the "evidence" I have called on. However that evidence was always available to the person I was in discussion with and that is where the evidence is relevant. I am not writing academic papers - different setting - different requirements.
Where my call to evidence differs from yours is that I see the visual record as merely part of the total available evidence.
Let me give one specific example. In considering the initial collapse ("collapse initiation") for the twin towers people would often lack an understanding of the damage that removal of (say) 25% of columns does to a building. There was often a presumption out there in trutherland that cutting 25% of columns would cause a 25% reduction in load carrying with the unsupported 25% being linearly uniformly redistributed to the remaining columns. As you would be aware that is far from the truth. So I would need to teach some basic engineering as part of the explanation - I have done many "text graphics" diagrams to show what can happen.
Now I regard the facts of basic engineering as evidence. In a court of law they would fall under the evidence available from an "expert witness".
That is merely one issue used as an example. I am aware of your tendency to call aspects of mechanism which occur out of sight "speculation" which carries pejorative overtones. I do not accept the all "out of sight" bits of mechanism are mere speculation. for example I have stated on many occasions that "once the top block started to fall the ends of the columns in the top block were bypassing the end of their other part in the lower tower." Should be obvious why that is true but look at the lack of clarity in "Missing Jolt" type papers over that single issue.
So I'm not listing even in summary all the evidence.
My own position for which I am confident that there is evidence:
For the Twin Towers - two critical stages - initial collapse where I can identify possible contributory mechanisms to the weakening of the impact and fire zone. I cannot "prove" that there were sufficient of those weakenings to cause the collapse without demolition assistance BUT the logistic and security aspects clearly say "no demolition". I am aware that NIST has given an explanation which is "perimeter led". For historic reasons of my involvement in Internet discussions I have never relied on NIST arguments - merely drawn on some of their material as evidence sources. Perimeter or core led is not of significance to me. It will remain insignificant until the unlikely event some one produces a substantial argument that changes the "big picture". i.e. validly raises the question of demolition - which is not a probable occurrence. For collapse progression - the cascading/pancaking down the open office space involved overwhelming impact loads. Sufficient to "prove" no CD required. The "peel off" of outer perimeter and "strip down" of core followed as natural consequences. All readily explainable with minimum evidence needed.
For WTC 7 I am content to accept that NIST has given a plausible explanation of the collapse of the interior followed by fall of the facades. Whether NIST is 100% correct matters little to me.
If you wanted me to produce more evidence we would need to go through a process of me explaining to you and producing evidence at each step where it was needed.
For many reasons that seem unnecessary to repeat, a natural focus is the collapse initiations. Do you have evidence that the collapse initiation mechanisms for any of the 3 buildings was natural?
Collapse initiation is a very specific event.
The evidence I request concerns specifically the initiation of collapse.
Most people here would probably claim the proof is in the NIST reports, since the NIST claims to explain the how and why of each collapse.
Where, in your opinion, can I find the evidence that the collapse initiations were natural?
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
Yes.
Recall I set a framework for explanation. I will only outline the explanation I would give to a layperson who is genuinely looking for an explanation.
So "Stage 1" explanation:
An aircraft struck the tower, caused damage which weakened the structure and started fires.
Fires were not fought for a number of reasons and caused further damage to accumulate.
Some time elapses then the fire and impact damage affected zone is so weakened that it collapses allowing the top block of the tower to start to fall.
From that moment the complete collapse of the towers is inevitable. I can give details if needed.
Prima facie the impact plus fire damage caused the collapse.
What more do you want?
The "interested layperson" may have heard stories about demolition.
At this early stage that one is easy:
"there is no evidence for demolition other than partial bits of claims made by conspiracy theorists. It is now 10 years and if there had been any truth in demolition it would have been published before now."
No point in opening the collection of truther falsehoods to confuse an honest layperson making genuine enquiries.
The content of "Stage 2" depends on what questions the "interested layperson" raises. There are many possible tracks. Hence my reluctance to try to either summarise or list it all.
If you are able to take on the role of "interested layperson" then put some questions that a genuinely interested layperson could ask. If not we can call the halt right now.
So what? Why does that claim matter to my "interested layperson"???
I said I would explain to an interested layperson - so no way will I comply with your unique style of logic...
My "interested layperson" does not know about NIST. And I do not suffer from/am not limited by your repeated confusion of objectives. The last thing I would do to my "interested layperson" is push him towards a secondary objective of "prove NIST wrong". His interest is "why did the towers collapse?" NOT "was the official report correct?" - that may arise as a secondary matter at Stage 2 or later.
Your need is not for evidence - rather for a coherent legitimate process of logic which joins the bits of available evidence. That method of linking the available evidence needs to be free from your preset bias towards CD plus your tactic of limiting the evidence to those bits of visual material which suit your approach.
There is no prima facie case that the collapses were anything other than "natural".
So if your objective is "introduce CD" you need to establish a prima facie case as step one. And for efficiency I suggest that you set aside the technical investigations into ever more minute details. Look to the domains of "Strategic - Why Do It?"; "Logistic Improbabilities" and "Security Impossibilities" because no matter what you "prove" in the technical domain the barriers in each of those other domains will individually block whatever technical findings. And, when combined, they make the task as close to impossible as we can claim in a para-scientific environment.
And if your objective is pursue the technical details then, as a matter of personal interest OK but don't imagine it can lead further. It will never get you to the real issues facing any claim for CD. Those real issues cannot be overcome by technical analysis.
ozeco41
Philosopher
SHORTER VERSION OF THE ABOVE POST
There was no CD.
If anyone wants to claim that there was it is up to them to prove their claim.
They will never prove such a claim by remaining in the domain of technical details.
And my previous post wrapped that lot in an explanation of how I would explain the Twin Towers collapses to an "interested layperson" who, naturally has no pre-set biases.
There was no CD.
If anyone wants to claim that there was it is up to them to prove their claim.
They will never prove such a claim by remaining in the domain of technical details.
And my previous post wrapped that lot in an explanation of how I would explain the Twin Towers collapses to an "interested layperson" who, naturally has no pre-set biases.
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,320
Yes there is evidence....but it's real, actual evidence and not made up fantasies by conspiracy theorists.....
Every event is a very specific event.....collapse progression is a very specific event also. Do you have a point or are you just stating the obvious so you can finally be right about something?
Looks like you have a lot of reading to do then....I would also suggest talking to some structural or mechanical Engineers...they should be able to clear up any confusion you have assuming you can understand the math and physics.
NIST is not the only body that wrote about the collapses....again...looks like you have some reading to do.
Start with NIST....then read the many other articles written on the collapses.....then go talk to some structural and mechanical Engineers....we have some around here that you can start with.
After that go find others.....then, if you still aren't convinced.....try to get your ahem "work" published in a peer reviewed journal like the JOM....see how far you get. After your article is rejected ask the reviewers why they rejected your paper and are laughing at your work.....eventually some of this will sink in and you will be on the road to recovery.
I hope that helps. Remember.......those who need help must first admit they need help...only then can their errors be corrected.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Before you even get to looking at the positive evidence as to "why it was natural" there is the even bigger situation. There has never been a realistic claim that it was "not natural".
I think MT et al need to get that fact into their thinking before they even contemplate looking further. They are further behind the eight ball than they think. (If this billiards/snooker oriented member has the analogy right.
)"Natural" is the prima facie situation and no-one has ever made a prima facie case for "non natural".
There is no case for "non natural". Don't waste time looking.
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,320
Before you even get to looking at the positive evidence as to "why it was natural" there is the even bigger situation. There has never been a realistic claim that it was "not natural".
I think MT et al need to get that fact into their thinking before they even contemplate looking further. They are further behind the eight ball than they think. (If this billiards/snooker oriented member has the analogy right.
"Natural" is the prima facie situation and no-one has ever made a prima facie case for "non natural".
There is no case for "non natural". Don't waste time looking.
Hmmmm....good point Oz........
Natural, murder? It was done by terrorists, caused by their action.
You have evidence on your web site. Requires knowledge and experience to see the gravity collapse, and that is what your web site exposes. Those blinded by the concept 911 was an inside job done by Satan like evil guys, will not comprehend the gravity collapse, and may call it, an illusion. The standard rule, for 911 truth, even for your special 911 super research expert observable category of whatever, to be self-debunking. "Just Plain" self-debunking.
Not understanding gravity collapse could start with the fact you don't think 2 terrorist pilots can hit the WTC towers. You make up opinions lacking the knowledge to make the call. If you studied and trained in engineering as the terrorist pilots studied and trained to fly, you would understand 911 and stop the CD nonsense (maybe).
Like an accident is a chain of events, your inability to grasp gravity collapse is a chain of failed ideas and opinions. Drop the obsession with NIST, your personal witch-hunt hurts your quest to back in CD.
ozeco41
Philosopher
We are so accustomed to discussing these events on the ground the truthers set. Rebutting silly piece of a picture claims for example.
It is so easy to forget the basics. There has never been a prima facie case for anything other than natural causes....allowing that by "natural" we mean the unaided consequences of flying an aircraft into a tower.
We give them round one by even agreeeing to discuss "unnatural" - before they make their prima facie case that is.
The analogy to "creationism" v "evolution" is apt and all the silly give the two sides equal hearings.
There ain't two sides to creation v evolution
...and sure as hell there ain't two sides to the collapses at WTC on 9/11.
NoahFence
Banned
ROFL incorrect.