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

Gamolon said:
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".
Click to expand...

Also, in order for someone to ignore "CORRECT MOVEMENTS"..those observable movements have to be measured correctlly......

Here lies the source of the problem......
 
Major_Tom said:
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.
Click to expand...

In your opinion what caused these ejections?

There has to be a catalyst. Was it fire and collapse? Thermite? Explosives?

What was it?
 
Major_Tom's analysis of those ejections appears identical to other paraedolia-related apparitions, like Jesus on toast, JFK mystery men and bigfoot.
 
ozeco41 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Major_Tom has posted after this, but has not replied to ozeco's conclusion.
I think this is best interpreted as MT agreeing that he abandoned a reasoned appraisal of the evidence for good.
 
Myriad said:
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
Click to expand...

That's what I am getting at. The truth movement has a bad habit of using "snippets" of actual information or certain words in to embellish/exaggerate the conspiracy flavor of the topic under discussion and to lead people into believing what they are trying to sell.

Perfect example of this is the thread you linked. The AE911 Truth site lists a video of the facade collapse only, followed up with statements about the COMPLETE collapse of WTC7 to have been less than 7 seconds. This is leading the reader to believe their take on the situation by providing blatantly incorrect information.

How would the readers viewpoint change if instead of reading this about WTC7 on their site...

it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds
Click to expand...

...the reader read the actual TRUE description like this...

The east mechanical penthouse collapsed into the building proper. During the next few seconds after the penthouse, the collapse then progressed west. This was followed by a global collapse of the rest of the building, for which 2.25 seconds was at freefall. According to video evidence, the complete collapse (beginning with the east penthouse) took at least 13/14 seconds.
Click to expand...
 
Oystein said:
Major_Tom has posted after this, but has not replied to ozeco's conclusion.
I think this is best interpreted as MT agreeing that he abandoned a reasoned appraisal of the evidence for good.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't go quite so far, and I hope ozeco keeps trying, because it's illuminating.

Have you ever tried to teach a small child something, when there is a big plate of cupcakes nearby in plain view?


"Okay, Jimmy, can you think of any words that start with the letter D?"

"Cupcake!"

"No, cupcake is a C word, it starts with a 'cuh' sound. D words start with a 'duh' sound. Can you think of any?

"Cupcake!"

"How about 'dinosaur'? Dinosaurs are your favorite. What sound does 'dinosaur' start with?

"Dinosaur wants a cupcake!"​


Substitute "ejections" for "cupcake" and you'll understand what ozeco's attempt at rational discourse was up against.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Major_Tom said:
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.
Click to expand...

lol20wut20in20hands.png
 
Can anyone find the WTC1 feature list thread in the math and science section? I can't seem to find it.

Did it disappear from JREF altogether?
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
Can anyone find the WTC1 feature list thread in the math and science section? I can't seem to find it.

Did it disappear from JREF altogether?
Click to expand...

Nobody could be bothered to move it I suppose.

eta: my mistake. it was moved.

Meanwhile (for the third time) -

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?
 
Last edited:
People can only access up to page 6 on that sub-forum?

I couldn't seem to access page 7 or above.
 
Major_Tom said:
People can only access up to page 6 on that sub-forum?

I couldn't seem to access page 7 or above.
Click to expand...

I can access every page except, strangely, page 1 (unless I go forward some pages and then click "first" in which case I get page 1).
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Meanwhile, back here -

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?
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
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?
Click to expand...

It would open up pandora's box. As Femr2 said, how could you know without doing it, without fact-checking? You want to divine an answer, to believe.

Obviously, one would review the new information carefully before jumping to a conclusion.


Why don't you school yourself in the information (verify claims) and give your own answer? (Because you do not verify claims independently. You believe in a group of "authorities" with no instinct to check facts for yourself.)

That is my point. Speculation replaces verification and you don't even realize it is happening.
...............

Thanks for the link.
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
It would open up pandora's box. As Femr2 said, how could you know without doing it, without fact-checking? You want to divine an answer, to believe.

Obviously, one would review the new information carefully before jumping to a conclusion.

Why don't you school yourself in the information (verify claims) and give your own answer? (Because you do not verify claims independently. You believe in a group of "authorities" with no instinct to check facts for yourself.)

That is my point. Speculation replaces verification and you don't even realize it is happening.
Click to expand...

From which the only conclusions possible are:

1) your work has led to no conclusions regarding my question, which you only meet with obfuscation.
2) it has led to conclusions, which you don't wish to share with us, preferring to taunt instead.

Neither is the course a serious scientist would take
 
Major_Tom said:
People can only access up to page 6 on that sub-forum?

I couldn't seem to access page 7 or above.
Click to expand...

Too lazy to check, but this sounds like user settings af the sort "only show threads with last post not older than 30 days".
I am sure you can change that somewhere.
 
Major_Tom said:
......................................

Isn't it kind of important to extract the following basic information from video??

1) Where were the first signs of over-pressurization leading into the collapse initiation sequence?

2) What part of each building moved the earliest leading into the visible collapse initiation sequence?

3) How long before the first signs of visible movements can we detect any type of creeping or swaying? (How far back can we take the collapse initiaton data and detect movement?)

4) What are the most accurate logs of trajectories of early movement of each building available in the public domain? How did each building move leading into and during the collapse initiation sequence?
Click to expand...

After 10 years, you are not able to answer these basic questions about the buildings.

wrt to WTC1, NIST got every one wrong.


That is how good they are at observing the buildings and you are at verifying claims. STJ911 and AE911T did even worse.
.....................

Our discussions rarely rose to the level of a technical discussion. The past year of posts in the WTC1 and 2 feature list threads shows our exchanges rarely rose to anything that can be called "technical".

I could locate the few technical exchanges we've had, but, for the most part, it is just JREF regulars screwing up on the questions posted above, among many other observables and measurables, over and over again (and then often forgetting the results).
 
Last edited:
Major_Tom said:
After 10 years, you are not able to answer these basic questions about the buildings.
Click to expand...


Actually we can. After the planes inflicted their damage and set the buildings on fire , they collapsed.

Do you have something better? We are after-all talking basics
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom