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

[NoahFence]

You pushed for their removal.

I did nothing of the sort, but support its decision nonetheless.

Why?

It was not conspiracy related. This is a conspiracy subforum

Would you post about local weather reports in a sports subforum?

Would you talk about the chances of the Boston Bruins repeating as champions in a mathematics forum?

Well you might, but you'd have put it in the wrong place.

Your science and mathematics related posts were simply moved to where they belonged in the first place.

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

I agree. My detailed observations were that a massive aircraft slammed into the building, and a huge fire ensued that was unfought, getting worse every second for an hour until the inevitable happened. Then it did, and I knew what caused it even before the collapse was complete.

I've yet to be proven wrong.

 

[NoahFence]

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.

There's a reason for that you know. You just don't like it.

Why? IT DOESN'T MATTER that's why. Nothing changes. Every time you cry that page so-and-so of the NIST report is wrong, IT DOESN'T MATTER. Their conclusions don't change one iota.

The buildings are still gone. Doomed by the actions of radical islamic :'s. Impacts. Fires. Collapses.

 

[DGM]

.

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

You can not also argue that the initiation was not "natural" without showing a good reason to believe it would not be. Agreed?


DO YOU HAVE A GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT DAMAGE AND FIRE DID NOT DO WHAT WAS SEEN?


Would you like to start here?

 

[Oystein]

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?

Fires have destroyed buildings of all sorts ever since people started building buildings of all sorts. (I'll grant an exception for solid stone pyramids)

Q.E.D.

 

[Oystein]

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 you fail again. By unnecessarily limiting yourself to the visual record.
You'll never wise up.

 

[BasqueArch]

.....
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".

.....

Looks like the mathematics and science forum crowd are also ignoring pretty much everything you've written.

If you had said, and can still say - look we believe in a conspiracy besides al Quaeda but we won't tell you what we believe that conspiracy is. We're here to prove inside job demolition, I would have found that acceptable and probably the mods too. Instead you are peeing on our shoes and telling us it's raining.

 

[Major_Tom]

And you fail again. By unnecessarily limiting yourself to the visual record.
You'll never wise up.

If a claim contradicts the visual record, it is incorrect. I am simply fact-checking claims that people make, official or other, against what is visible.


Many of the claims made contradict the visual record. This, for me, has been so interesting about watching how people think about the buildings. How people can make claims that I can verify are not true.

It has been a very eye-opening experience. The video shows one thing, yet people feel free to embellish it with their own imaginations.

It is rather a no-brainer if you stop reading your own thoughts into the simple process.

 

[DGM]

If a claim contradicts the visual record, it is incorrect.

You don't consider the possibility the observer does not understand what he/shes observing.

Care to address this possibility?

 

[Major_Tom]

Why?

It was not conspiracy related. This is a conspiracy subforum

How do you fact-check claims without observing and measuring?

You must be using telepathy or belief, because those are your only choices left.

If you cannot figure that out....yipes!
...................

But the fact is that verification is not important to you. The forum is in a rather comical position because raw observation and measurement of the objects being discussed is removed.

What chance to you have to verify any claims under those conditions?

 

[Major_Tom]

You don't consider the possibility the observer does not understand what he/shes observing.

Care to address this possibility?

I have a 20 page thread on just this subject at the other forum. Huge philosophical and psychological subject.

Actually, that study is the 4th and final step.

 

[carlitos]

As I noted probably a year ago, it's an argumentum ad solipsism. Only that which we can see with our eyes is real, or something like that.

Limiting the study of a building collapse to what was seen by various video cameras is, quite simply, bizarre. The important bits of the building are inside, where you can't see them. I think that a child who has built things from legos or blocks would understand this concept.

 

[DGM]

I have a 20 page thread on just this subject at the other forum. Huge philosophical and psychological subject.

Actually, that study is the 4th and final step.

Have you come to any conclusions that people that do this sort of thing for a living might be interested in?

 

[bill smith]

If a claim contradicts the visual record, it is incorrect. I am simply fact-checking claims that people make, official or other, against what is visible.


Many of the claims made contradict the visual record. This, for me, has been so interesting about watching how people think about the buildings. How people can make claims that I can verify are not true.

It has been a very eye-opening experience. The video shows one thing, yet people feel free to embellish it with their own imaginations.

It is rather a no-brainer if you stop reading your own thoughts into the simple process.

Have a look at this short imaginary scenario please and tell me why some of the points might not make sense.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7415994&postcount=8 hyperlink

 

[BasqueArch]

If a claim contradicts the visual record, it is incorrect. I am simply fact-checking claims that people make, official or other, against what is visible.

Many of the claims made contradict the visual record. This, for me, has been so interesting about watching how people think about the buildings. How people can make claims that I can verify are not true. It has been a very eye-opening experience. The video shows one thing, yet people feel free to embellish it with their own imaginations.
It is rather a no-brainer if you stop reading your own thoughts into the simple process.

Amen brother!

Some people believe that the core columns were demoed and fell over 20 feet in order to produce a 54" buckling of the perimeter columns. This is silly of course, the entire building would have collapsed and contradict the visual record. But they still believe it!
Believe It Or Not!

Some people believe that falling in a straight line vertically is the same as falling in a circular or parabolic arc. This is silly of course, circular, parabolic and vertically straight motions are clearly mathematically and visually distinct. But they still believe it!
Believe It Or Not!

Some people believe that the antenna in WTC1 moved without moving the perimeter columns both attached by the hat trusses. There are no visual records that confirms their silly claims. But they still believe it!
Believe It Or Not!

It has been a very eye-opening experience. The video shows one thing, yet people feel free to embellish it with their own imaginations!

 

[NoahFence]

How do you fact-check claims without observing and measuring?

I DO observe. I'll readily admit I don't do a bunch of measuring though. Don't much see the need for it. I fact check.

For instance, I observed an aircraft hitting the building. This is a fact.
However, I did not measure the exact speed. Why? Because it's irrelevant in my opinion. I thought the building fell because of that impact, and the resulting fires. Your graphs and kiddo's graphs don't change that conclusion one iota. I see no conspiracy in any of your so-called observations. None. Will there be one forthcoming by the 20th anniversary?

But the fact is that verification is not important to you.

Sure it is. I thought an aircraft hit the towers, and caused them to collapse.

Well, there's one point confirmed by my keen observation skills.....

Oh look! Another.

Cause. Effect.

Impact - Fire - Collapse.

Al Qaeda did that. Do you disagree? How about F2? Does he agree?

 

[Carll68]

I DO observe. I'll readily admit I don't do a bunch of measuring though. Don't much see the need for it. I fact check.

For instance, I observed an aircraft hitting the building. This is a fact.
However, I did not measure the exact speed. Why? Because it's irrelevant in my opinion. I thought the building fell because of that impact, and the resulting fires. Your graphs and kiddo's graphs don't change that conclusion one iota. I see no conspiracy in any of your so-called observations. None. Will there be one forthcoming by the 20th anniversary?





Sure it is. I thought an aircraft hit the towers, and caused them to collapse.

[qimg]http://no757.0catch.com/_webimages/wtc-Impact_4.JPG[/qimg]

Well, there's one point confirmed by my keen observation skills.....

[qimg]http://www.september11news.com/AAFiremenDebrisAP.jpg[/qimg]

Oh look! Another.

Cause. Effect.

Impact - Fire - Collapse.

Al Qaeda did that. Do you disagree? How about F2? Does he agree?

His screen-name is Femr2, not F2.....please do not embellish it.

 

[beachnut]

...
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.

Some people like to label things, and some people think they are above the labels. I guess truther could think they are a special category, the super visual guy, who has majors in observables and minors in attacking NIST. There are those who think their stuff is more intellectual, more refine as they label people "smart idiots", "just plain idiots", "truthers" and "debunkers". To make up the EC, Extreme Camps, seems ironic, one side reality based, the other side fantasy based, with your special catagory in the middle, not in reality, not in fantasy, a new dimension which may require Rod Sterling to explain which branch of fiction you fit. The "or what" category where your fiction includes backing in CD with unknown evil guys behind 911, bad guys, like Satan (biblical fiction?). You are a truther, like the dead people in the Sixth Sense, you don't know you are a truther.
Looks like the group you call debunkers, the reality extreme of 911, see truthers, and some truthers don't know they are truthers.

You think 911 was an inside job, your special claim is; the gravity collapse was an illusion and imply it was not the 19 terrorists, but a Satan like set of bad guys. When you figure out gravity collapse is not an illusion, you will join reality. How long is that journey going to be? 10 more years?

How deep is the hole you are digging?

 

[000063]

It is rather a no-brainer if you stop reading your own thoughts into the simple process.

You're basically telling us to stop having an opinion that's not yours, and not to think about your claims.

No.

 

[ozeco41]

STATE OF PLAY SUMMARY

Ozeco41's counter challenge to Major_Tom

The Background to this Challenge.

Major_Tom has been pushing his own somewhat idiosyncratic approach to researching the WTC Towers Collapses. I have occasionally offered critique of the limits of M_T's method. Other members have offered much more and usually less restrained criticism. Then a series of posts on 21st August led to me making this comment:

...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.

...more interactions followed leading to me (ozeco41) offering to explain what the evidence is in the way that I most commonly use the evidence. That is in the form of an explanation to a (reasonable, honest) "interested layperson". I specified "interested layperson" because that is the audience which allows the cleanest approach to progressively laying out such evidence as is needed for that person to form their own opinion on the key question.

The key question is: "Do you (the interested layperson) now have a sufficient understanding of why and how the Towers collapsed?"

For some of those "interested laypersons" there is a secondary question or two: "Do you now understand why demolition was not needed and was not used?"

So I set out what would be "Stage 1" of my explanation and challenged Major_Tom to respond as if he was the "interested layperson". This was the challenge:

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....

Note "I will only outline the explanation...."etc. I am deliberately taking a rational path and equally I am avoiding the twisted and limiting logic of M_T's oft posted method.
Continuing:

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 a clear enough challenge, a rational process laid out and "stage 1" defined.

Major_Tom shows no acknowledgement of the challenge I have given and attempts to force me into his own limited approach. Several posts such as these examples:

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?

I asked you for evidence that you claimed to have.

Do you have evidence of the inevitability of the collapse initiations of any of the 3 buildings?

So Major_Tom is interested in evidence - I undertook to provide evidence in accordance with an explanatory process.

So let's check what evidence M_T wants because he hasn't said.

Here are the claims I made as my Stage 1:

• "An aircraft struck the tower, caused damage which weakened the structure and started fires." Major_Tom do you accept that this statement is true? Do you need further evidence? If so please specify what evidence.
• "Fires were not fought for a number of reasons and caused further damage to accumulate." Major_Tom do you accept that this statement is true? Do you need further evidence? If so please specify what evidence.
• "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." Major_Tom do you accept that this statement is true? Do you need further evidence? If so please specify what evidence.
• "From that moment the complete collapse of the towers is inevitable. I can give details if needed." Major_Tom do you accept that this statement is true? Do you need further evidence? If so please specify what evidence.
• Prima facie the impact plus fire damage caused the collapse. Major_Tom do you accept that this statement is true? Do you need further evidence? If so please specify what evidence.
• "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." Major_Tom do you accept that this statement is true? Do you need further evidence? If so please specify what evidence.

I then asked Major_Tom to respond as an interested layperson discussing with me my explanation. That offer is still open. "If you [i.e. Major_Tom] are able to take on the role of "interested layperson" then put some questions that a genuinely interested layperson could ask."

However, as I said at the outset "If not we can call the halt right now."

So what evidence is missing for what I have claimed so far?

Which bits don't you understand Major_Tom?

The ball is in your court BUT I will not play to your limiting rules.

 

[000063]

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.

Oh, well done.

#000063bookmark