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

[Major_Tom]

[*]"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.

This. Collapse initiation. Where is your proof for this claim? I have been asking for the evidence to this claim for well over a year.

Most people think it is located in the NIST reports. You seem to be the only person posting that deviates from that view.

I know where others believe the evidence is for you statement, but where do you think it is?





I really don't need the rest. I have been focussing on collapse initiation for a long time.

This is identical to the Oystein post where I also specified collapse initiation.


Again, I am trying to discover where your beliefs about what initiated the collapse begin (of any of the 3 buildings) and where evidence ends. (I am trying to find out where you get your facts from about collapse initiation.)

 

[beachnut]

This. Collapse initiation. Where is your proof for this claim? I have been asking for the evidence to this claim for well over a year.

Most people think it is located in the NIST reports. You seem to be the only person posting that deviates from that view.

I know where others believe the evidence is for you statement, but where do you think it is?

k...)

A load of super observables. NIST is not need to understand fire did it. You have to have NIST as a foil for you made up junk. Thank JREF you must of found the ignore button.

Millions of engineers figured out impacts and fire did the damage to the entire 911 complex, on 911! We actually went to school to study physics, math and engineering concepts to include research, yet millions of lay persons knew too! What a waste of money!

Stop attacking NIST, publish your work, be all you can be. Do it. Be one of those labels you like to mention.

The evidence for gravity collapse was clearly seen on 911, it starts with two 767s flown by terrorists, which you don't believe in the first place, which means it is not a surprise your failure to understand how easy it is to fly a heavy modern Boeing jet engineered to remove all the bad handling qualities and crash into the two Largest Buildings in NYC leads to CD and the super moronic inside job you can't admit to, but clearly imply.

 

[ozeco41]

This. Collapse initiation. Where is your proof for this claim? I have been asking for the evidence to this claim for well over a year....

you are not reading clearly MT.

My claim - Stage 1 remember - is "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."

Which bit don't you accept???

• "Some time elapses"
• "the fire and impact damage affected zone is so weakened"
• "it collapses"
• "allowing the top block of the tower to start to fall."

Please read what I stated and try to not read implications that are not there.

...Most people think it is located in the NIST reports...

Try not to drift. I am asking you what bit is missing for you - not most people and I have not mentioned the NIST report. Try to focus on what I posted.

..You seem to be the only person posting that deviates from that view...

Whether I am or not is irrelevant. The issue before us is whether or not you accept as true what I have stated. And not something which I haven't stated BTW.

...I know where others believe the evidence is for you statement, but where do you think it is?

I really don't need the rest. I have been focussing on collapse initiation for a long time.

This is identical to the Oystein post where I also specified collapse initiation.

Again, I am trying to discover where your beliefs about what initiated the collapse begin (of any of the 3 buildings) and where evidence ends. (I am trying to find out where you get your facts from about collapse initiation.)

I am explaining but you are letting your thoughts wander all over the place.

Do you accept that the impact and fire zone collapsed letting the top block of storeys fall?

If you do not accept that the impact and fire zone was where the collapse initiated we have some more basic factors to examine. The top block more or less undamaged fell through the space of the impact and fire zone sticking the lower tower which was more or less undamaged????

 

[ozeco41]

I know where others believe the evidence is for you statement, but where do you think it is?

Accepted facts shown by multiple video clips, witness statements.

Of more importance is that I do not see how the statement is even in any dispute.

So stop asking me for evidence for a little while and state your counter claim.

I cannot see which sub-factor you can change.

"Some time elapses" - collapse did not start immediately upon impact

"the fire and impact damage affected zone is so weakened" - I haven't made any statement about what caused the weakening. Where else did the collapse start - in the videos available to the "interested layperson"

"it collapses" - do you suggest that collapse started somewhere else?

"allowing the top block of the tower to start to fall." - it didn't fly away into the Hudson.

 

[Carll68]

This. Collapse initiation. Where is your proof for this claim? I have been asking for the evidence to this claim for well over a year.

Most people think it is located in the NIST reports. You seem to be the only person posting that deviates from that view.

I know where others believe the evidence is for you statement, but where do you think it is?





I really don't need the rest. I have been focussing on collapse initiation for a long time.

This is identical to the Oystein post where I also specified collapse initiation.


Again, I am trying to discover where your beliefs about what initiated the collapse begin (of any of the 3 buildings) and where evidence ends. (I am trying to find out where you get your facts from about collapse initiation.)

I am pleading with you Tom...please..PLEASE...for the love of all things rational.....Look up ..over your head....I still have faith you will be able to see Ozeco41's point..but, as of right now...WHOOOSH.

 

[ozeco41]

I am pleading with you Tom...please..PLEASE...for the love of all things rational.....Look up ..over your head....I still have faith you will be able to see Ozeco41's point..but, as of right now...WHOOOSH.

I'm glad I made it the "interested layperson" ..
....seeing we are stalling at the start line.

 

[Major_Tom]

Accepted facts shown by multiple video clips, witness statements.

Of more importance is that I do not see how the statement is even in any dispute.

So stop asking me for evidence for a little while and state your counter claim.

I cannot see which sub-factor you can change.

"Some time elapses" - collapse did not start immediately upon impact

"the fire and impact damage affected zone is so weakened" - I haven't made any statement about what caused the weakening. Where else did the collapse start - in the videos available to the "interested layperson"

"it collapses" - do you suggest that collapse started somewhere else?

"allowing the top block of the tower to start to fall." - it didn't fly away into the Hudson.

I have seen your evidence. Thanks. That is all I was asking for.

No offence. I just wanted to see how you approach the question of evidence. You showed me.

 

[GlennB]

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

You pushed for their removal.

As I recall we pushed for its transfer to the Science forum, because you were not discussing CT. You're still not discussing CT, merely pursuing technical points.

So let me ask you yet again - if all of your evidence turned out to be totally accurate would it lead you to a conclusion different from "the collapses were caused purely by aircraft damage and the effects of fire?"

If no, we can stop talking as nobody here seems especially interested in refining the official theory by some small %age.

If yes, what would that conclusion be?

 

[ozeco41]

I have seen your evidence. Thanks. That is all I was asking for.

No offence. I just wanted to see how you approach the question of evidence. You showed me.

That is the most ridiculous claim to make Major_Tom.

We had an opportunity to examine the evidence to support a claim I made.

I outlined the process which I was prepared to take. It was an open, rational and transparent process.

You showed significant reluctance to engage in reasoned discussion. And now you abort the process before we have even agreed on the starting line.

So much for your regard for evidence when you will not allow me to show you evidence.

Never let it be said that I did not try. And you were the one putting up the barriers.

 

[ozeco41]

I am pleading with you Tom...please..PLEASE...for the love of all things rational.....Look up ..over your head....I still have faith you will be able to see Ozeco41's point..but, as of right now...WHOOOSH.

It looks like we will never know. And we couldn't even get to agreement on the starting line. Or rather Major_Tom couldn't agree on the basics.

Maybe another day....

...and all the evidence and reasoning I had been preparing to present can go back onto a dusty shelf in my brain.

 

[Major_Tom]

As I recall we pushed for its transfer to the Science forum, because you were not discussing CT. You're still not discussing CT, merely pursuing technical points.

So let me ask you yet again - if all of your evidence turned out to be totally accurate would it lead you to a conclusion different from "the collapses were caused purely by aircraft damage and the effects of fire?"

If no, we can stop talking as nobody here seems especially interested in refining the official theory by some small %age.

If yes, what would that conclusion be?

It would show that the NIST collapse initiation scenarios for WTC1 and 2 are incorrect and it that there are multiple ejections witnessed from outside the building that nobody is capable of giving any natural meaning to.


The ejections witnessed were ignored.

The correct movement of both WTC1 and WTC7 was ignored.
.....................

It shows how awful both experts and most self-proclaimed truthers and debunkers are at observing things.

The number of observables that were ignored over the last decade is stunning.

And that is pretty much the heart of the conclusions I have been able to draw.

 

[NoahFence]

Millions of engineers figured out impacts and fire did the damage to the entire 911 complex,

LOL

Millions of non-engineers did too. I surmise quite a few of those people can't even spell engineers correctly, yet they're still sitting here, sure of what happened, waiting to be proven wrong.

 

[NoahFence]

It would show that the NIST collapse initiation scenarios for WTC1 and 2 are incorrect and it that there are multiple ejections witnessed from outside the building that nobody is capable of giving any natural meaning to.

How does that prove or disprove a

CONSPIRACY

 

[Major_Tom]

LOL

Millions of non-engineers did too. I surmise quite a few of those people can't even spell engineers correctly, yet they're still sitting here, sure of what happened, waiting to be proven wrong.

According to my studies, only a very small number of people made the effort to independently verify results.

This is provable and it is quite amazing.

After a decade, it is shocking how many people accepted poor observation and data without making an effort to verify claims.

 

[GlennB]

It would show that the NIST collapse initiation scenarios for WTC1 and 2 are incorrect and it that there are multiple ejections witnessed from outside the building that nobody is capable of giving any natural meaning to.

The ejections witnessed were ignored.

The correct movement of both WTC1 and WTC7 was ignored.
.....................

It shows how awful both experts and most self-proclaimed truthers and debunkers are at observing things.

The number of observables that were ignored over the last decade is stunning.

And that is pretty much the heart of the conclusions I have been able to draw.

You have studiously avoided my question. Fancy trying again?

Iif all of your evidence turned out to be totally accurate would it lead you to a conclusion different from "the collapses were caused purely by aircraft damage and the effects of fire?

 

[NoahFence]

According to my studies, only a very small number of people made the effort to independently verify results.

This is provable and it is quite amazing.

After a decade, it is shocking how many people accepted poor observation and data without making an effort to verify claims.

The claim is that aircraft impacts and fire felled the buildings.

DO YOU DISPUTE THIS?

 

[Gamolon]

First you make the bolded statement below...

It would show that the NIST collapse initiation scenarios for WTC1 and 2 are incorrect and it that there are multiple ejections witnessed from outside the building that nobody is capable of giving any natural meaning to.

Then, in the same post, make the next statement below...

The ejections witnessed were ignored.

Which is it?

You're first statement implies that people DID look at the ejections, but are unable ("not capable" are the words you used) to explain. Then you go on to say they were ignored.

Can't claim both.

 

[NoahFence]

Yes he can.... and often does, much to our chagrin.

 

[Gamolon]

The correct movement of both WTC1 and WTC7 was ignored.

You have proof of this? Do you have proof that someone was provided the "correct" movements, that they acknowledged they received those "correct movements", and then told you to go pound salt without addressing them?

That's my definition of "ignore".

 

[Myriad]

Ultimately, that standpoint regarding the ejections (either one must conclude that they are highly suspicious, implying sabotage, or one must ignore them, implying willful disregard of part of the visual evidence) represents exactly the same kind of false choice fallacy as the poll in this thread.

Taking note of the observed objections and concluding that they were an inevitable, and hence ultimately uninteresting, consequence of collapse onset, due to the collapse necessarily altering the geometry of interior volumes, cannot be permitted or acknowledged. Perhaps because that makes the drama go away?

Respectfully,
Myriad