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

[bill smith]

they list only two and one of them is just an update of the other

http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/...l-dvds/history-and-events/inside-9/11-dvd-set

I saw it in 2004 I think. It's hard to remember exactly when.

PS. It's funny how things telescope together sometimes. When I think about it it wasn't until late 2005 that I actually checked it out on the internet even though I'd seen the doc. in 2004. But it stuck in my mind.

 

[carlitos]

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.

Obviously. That is where your "proof" would be.

Inevitability of collapse initiation. Could you please show me or explain to me where that proof is.

Do you believe it is in the NIST reports? Is that where to find it?

Whoosh.

 

[Oystein]

That is what I recall . Perhaps I misheard. All I know is that that was the precursor to my 9/11 research.

PS. At the time I didn't know for sure that the statement was incorrect.It seemed ighly unlikely to me but I still believed it. As I said ..y wouldn't I at that time ?

You didn't answer: Was that a correct statement?

 

[Major_Tom]

My claim was/is "impact damage plus unfought fires caused the collapses". I have sufficient elements of evidence to support that claim. I am not constrained to limit my sources of evidence to your narrow group of selected bits of visual evidence. I am not constrained to accept everything that R Mackey OR NIST or any other authority puts forward.

This was your original statement that I was questioning.

I asked if you could please show me your evidence. Specifically of the inevitability of the collapse initiations of any of the 3 buildings.


Most posters would say that is in the NIST reports.
...........


I just want to see the limits of the evidence you have. Can you show it to me for cross-examination?

I want to see where your evidence ends and your belief begins.

 

[Oystein]

This was your original statement that I was questioning.

I asked if you could please show me your evidence. Specifically of the inevitability of the collapse initiations of either of the 3 buildings.
...

I think ozeco already explained that asking for "evidence of the inevitability of the collapse initiations" is nonsense, given the obvious facts that
a) there was fire
b) there were planes
c) it can be shown that fires and planes have the ability to initiate collapses
d) collapses did initiate
All this constitutes excellent prima facie evidence that planes and fires did initiate collapses, even if that were not inevitable. (The last words are my interpretation of some parts of ozeco's most recent posts here).

If you want to counter that prima facie evidence, I think you have two possible routes:
a) Show that planes and fires cannot initiate collapses
b) Show that you have prima facie evidence for a different explanation

Asking us to prove inevitability is a fallacious call for perfection, I think.

 

[NoahFence]

I asked if you could please show me your evidence. Specifically of the inevitability of the collapse initiations of any of the 3 buildings.

Say, i provided you irrefutable evidence. You handwaved it away.
How come? 'Cause I call you MT?

 

[beachnut]

When 9/11 happened I believed every word I was told on TV.

When 9/11 happened I did not believe anything I was "told" on TV. Being a skeptic means you hold all information as suspect until verified, until it passes a reality check, fact check, math, physics and more. So when I hear steel melted, I say really, and remind myself the temperature reached in office fires, and jet fuel fires at 700 feet MSL on near standard day conditions, and I raise the BS flag! Where as you take what you told and believe it. Cool, thanks for sharing why you spew 911 truth lies.

I have found TV, newspaper, and other media make mistakes and tend to present hearsay, and the information they present is often only as good as the person who they quote is. If you believe what people say without checking how do you know it is right or wrong? You failed to figure out 911 for yourself and never had a firm grasp of reality, so you fall for the lies of 911 truth.

... the best rule is to take in what you find out there, and verify the conclusions, facts and evidence based on reality, based on science. Before you change you mind and join or believe idiotic movements which have failed like 911 truth.

Why wouldn't I when so many impressive people were lining up to tell me about how the top block fell and crushed the lower opart of the building down to the ground.

I never trust impressive people to tell me anything, they have to be right before they can be trusted, verified. You made a mistake, you believed them for the wrong reasons, are confused and then fell for the dumbed down 911 truth lies.
We have some who can't comprehend 911 issues so they believe in CD.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5946430#post5946430
Major Tom can't believe terrorists flew the planes into the WTC, so he makes up CD, or finds it plausible that CD could happen, the evil Satan like guys did it. You don't understand parts of 911, which makes you a mark for 911 truth delusions.

Plus I could see it on TV with my own ayes all day every day. That's my prima facie case. Me and milions upon millions of other.

If the terrorists had some how planted explosives instead of using aircraft, it would have taken weeks to years to figure out who did it. But since our 19 dolt murderers signed up, SIGNED UP, to fly, we have their names (even if fake) which leads to a TRAIL which is BIGGER and SPELLED OUT better than Tim McVeigh our home grown nut case terrorist.

Do you understand why you will be found if you take a plane and crash it? You have to sign up, pay for ticket, go through security, we got you on film. 911 was easy to track the idiots who did it after they did it; like knowing who will win a football game AFTER the game, who the team was is not a mystery.

Many of those millions and millions never questioned it again.

Even with all the errors and stupid claims made by TV etc, they got the big picture right, and you did too, but then fell for stupid claims of 911 truth. When you finally leave your failed 911 truth phase, you will learn how to understand TV and other media and get the story right. You seem to be bragging about falling for lies because you fell for the correct story first, for the wrong reasons.

But I had a second look after my interest was aroused by a few little things, chief among them being a National Geographic documentary that said that the building was supported exclusively by the perimeter walls.

The WTC gravity load is shared almost equally by the perimeter walls and the core. The neat thing about the perimeter walls; they are the lateral support for the WTC, the reason it does not fall over in winds, in hurricanes. Without the perimeter walls the WTC would collapse. When watching any documentary, you must check the facts, you must know how to understand and correct errors when you hear them. What did they say? quote? etc.

So I watched the videos again with more critical eyes and here I am.

You are saying you never checked what MSM said about 911, found 911 truth, and picked stupid over reality.
You need to take out the "more critical eyes" part.

 

[twinstead]

No, bill, you just started believing every word some other people said. It appears it's what you do.

 

[GlennB]

I asked if you could please show me your evidence. Specifically of the inevitability of the collapse initiations of any of the 3 buildings.

The scientific method doesn't work that way.

The mainstream evidence thus far provided has satisfied the overwhelming bulk of the scientific community that it explains the WTC collapses.

It's now the current theory.

If you want to overturn it, you need to better it. Which means providing your evidence and having it accepted by the community as demonstrably superior. Regrettably (for you) this means getting off your bar stool and actually publishing your aims, method, evidence, analysis and conclusions.

So - off you go. Do those things.

See you soon.

 

[Major_Tom]

c) it can be shown that fires and planes have the ability to initiate collapses

That is the specific I am questioning. Where is that proof? Is it in the NIST reports?

Do you have evidence for this claim or is it just a belief?

 

[Major_Tom]

I would say the most commonly employed tactic by most all truthers and debunkers is a total lack of effort to fact-check verifiable claims by all sources, official or other.


Total lack of the instinct to verify claims independently.

To me there is very little difference between the two main camps. They are both content with unverified hand-me-down knowledge. Both camps seem quite content believing in some authority figure with little capacity or desire to verify claims.

This was my original quote which Ozeco objected to.

When it comes to the ability to fact-check the Oystein statement quoted above, I see very little difference between your abilities and the abilities of many self-proclaimed truther experts.

You show little if no ability to fact-check your core assumptions. I doubt if most of you could even locate your own evidence. The main core assumption is in the Oystein point (c) quoted above.

 

[Carll68]

This was your original statement that I was questioning.

I asked if you could please show me your evidence. Specifically of the inevitability of the collapse initiations of any of the 3 buildings.


Most posters would say that is in the NIST reports.
...........


I just want to see the limits of the evidence you have. Can you show it to me for cross-examination?

I want to see where your evidence ends and your belief begins.

Tom...please...see that thing way above you --there-- over your head? Yeah, that thing. That was his point.

 

[Carll68]

As to Beachnuts point, we felt the aftershocks of an Earthquake here around 2PM today.

Epicenter? Virginia.

The breaking news story at the time?

"Youngstown quake felt in Pittsburgh"


In a rush to break the story, news agencies commonly mis-report events.

 

[Major_Tom]

For this reason, the simple 3 step process for independent verification of claims was proposed:

First, The largest and most complete visual record possible is gathered (and linked to the best sets of video through CTV, Xenomorph and Femr)

Second, The visual record is re-viewed and reconstructed to determine the collapse mode and global mass flow. This is summarized in the WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics.

Third, With the visual record and knowledge of the collapse dynamics, all verifiable claims, official or other, are cross-checked for accuracy.



This is printed on my website in a pretty obvious place, yet the title of the thread....
....................

Do you know why I bother to verify claims made by all parties, official or other?

This method works very well in countering incorrect statements by all parties. I noticed many incorrect statements from AE911T and STJ911 this way. I was also able to spot many incorrect statements in the NIST claims.


Since both expreme camps self-named "truther" and "debunker" regularly make verifiably incorrect statements, independent cross-checking is vital to come to a deeper understanding of the events based on verifiable facts.

 

[Carll68]

That is the specific I am questioning. Where is that proof? Is it in the NIST reports?

Do you have evidence for this claim or is it just a belief?

Again, you are BADLY missing O41's point.

Very badly.

 

[NoahFence]

That is the specific I am questioning. Where is that proof? Is it in the NIST reports?

Do you have evidence for this claim or is it just a belief?

Seriously?

 

[NoahFence]

For this reason, the simple 3 step process for independent verification of claims was proposed:

First, The largest and most complete visual record possible is gathered (and linked to the best sets of video through CTV, Xenomorph and Femr)

The largest and most complete visual record? ARE YOU NUTS?
You cherry pick a few observations! Even I can see that for crying out loud.
Seven Sisters....wt: is THAT

[

 

[Major_Tom]

I can see you have been paying attention for the last year.

.....................

Since any notable group in the 9/11 Truther community has ignored pretty much anything I have written, and since they ignore Femr2 as well,

why not just think of us as "fact-checkers" and "mappers".

This is all we seem to do anyway, we cross-check claims and map building movement.

In fact, months of my work were deemed unworthy to even be included in the conspiracy forum, so why not just think of me as a "mapper" and "verifier of all claims"?

 

[NoahFence]

In fact, months of my work were deemed unworthy to even be included in the conspiracy forum, so why not just think of me as a "mapper" and "verifier of all claims"?

You seriously still don't understand why those were moved? Really?

You admit they're not conspiracy related then whine like a girl when moved out of the conspiracy subforum. You make no sense.

 

[Major_Tom]

You seriously still don't understand why those were moved? Really?

You admit they're not conspiracy related then whine like a girl when moved out of the conspiracy subforum. You make no sense.

You had large lists of recorded observables and measurables within the forum.

You pushed for their removal.


That is what I would call "intellectual suicide". When the forum went in that direction, to move observables and measurables outside the forum while leaving discussion on those same subjects here, it created an environment in which direct verification of claims is not allowed.

You cannot discuss the collapse initiations of any of the buildings seriously without measurements and detailed observation.


That was an interesting decision on the part of the regular posters. Let us see how that plays out for you.
..........................


Anyway, I obviously do not fit into your truther or debunker labels since neither group has shown interest in any of the measurements, observations or reconstruction mappings.

I think the answer to this absurd thread is that this information has been rejected by both groups equally.

My approach based on verifiables has left me ostricized from both of the polarities.
....................

I guess we need a third category for people like me who map and reconstruct building movement and take the time to verify claims, official or other.



From step #1 I could be called an "archivist" since I am simply gathering and preserving the video and photographic record.

From step #2, I guess I could be called a "reconstruction mapper" or a "motion mapper". That is all I did. I reconstructed the collapse as completely as possible from the visual record.


From step #3 I begin to use the information gathered in steps #1 and #2 to verify all claims. My first year of posting was actually a checking and verification of the STJ911 claims, for which they kicked me out of their forum.

From step #3 I could be called a "fact-checker" or "verifier". How about "history detective"?