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

[carlitos]

hello? is this thing on?

Hi Major_Tom,

Perhaps you could address my comment in light of your questions. Specifically the difference between:

"what part of the building"

vs.

"what part of one side of the exterior of the building that was captured by video 10 years ago."​

Your focus on the visible exterior of the building is odd to me, especially given the design and lack of visibility from multiple angles via video of WTC7. Thanks!

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.

 

[GlennB]

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

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 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.

Do you realise you were responding to yourself just then?

 

[beachnut]

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?

You got this thing called research, down, to a science.

The evidence for a gravity collapse, from 911. Did you miss the evidence 10 years ago, like you can't find a thread you started? WTC complex destroyed by 10 terrorists in two 767 with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel. Did you realize how easy it was to crash a jet into a building?

Like your failed Holocaust denial, you have found a web site of woo, and now plagiarize the web site, with out reference. Why do you plagiarize your posts? Do you plagiarized your Holocaust denial claptrap?

What you found from a post last year at a woo site is nonsense. The RADAR data is taped, after the fact we have the exact track, no more confusion from changing transponder codes and having to Control other traffic. You have no clue what ATC does, what pilots do, no knowledge on RADAR or transponder procedures and function.

RADAR data stored on 911, on tape makes the web site you plagiarized without reference, nonsense.

 

[BasqueArch]

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

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

Pages 7-110 collapsed. Fortunately Beachnut saved the important segments below for forensic study, the other tons of words and observables were shipped to the Eighth Circle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ju lutem lexoni gazeta tërë parase të komentuar.Unë jampostimin letër për shqyrtim më shumë forume të shumta në një lloj të "procesit të shqyrtimit publik" para se të shkruarit e një drafti përfundimtar. Unë e kuptoj këtë forum mund të jenë mjaft armiqësor ndaj njerëzve të cilët nukndajnë pikëpamjet e njohura të shprehura, por ka të qartë disa njerëz të cilët mund të japin komente të dobishme.në kam vënë re se disa postera të duket i hutuar nga ejections e shtyllave rrethues dhe kolona buckling në përgjithësi dhe ndoshta kjo letër mund të ndihmojnë për të shpjeguarnjë mekanizëm natyror për paraqitjen e perimetrit të gjerë në rrënojat, në mesin e çështjeve të tjera.Pra, ndoshta ju mund të përfitojnë nga dhënia e reagime konstruktive ashtu si unë mund të

përfitojnë nga marrja e saj.Unë do të thelb të mbledhur dhe të përgjigjen për reagime të mirë duke injoruar fyerjet. Thanks. Si zakonisht ajo përfundon në woo quote:cores të cilin një ekip prishjen mund të shfrytëzojnë duke krijuar kushte të mjaftueshme fillestare të lartë në kullatlol Ju humbur të gjithë që "punojnë" për të bërë konkluzione idiot. 8 vjet dhe ju nuk mund të merrni CD e fundit. ... letra juaj mbështet një kolaps gravitetit. Adotë thotë që ju kanë lënë 911 të vërtetën dhe do të bashkohen me realitetin?Gazeta ekspozon nj ë mungesë e njohurive të modeleve, qëllimin dhe kufizimet e mode

 

[ozeco41]

Resistance to Reasoned Debate.

For the record here are the posts commenting on M_T's reluctance to continue a reasoned discussion of the evidence for my claim that "impact damage plus unfought fires caused the collapses".

I had supported that claim with: "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."

Which I thought (still think) was a reasonable concise statement of my position.

The record shows that I could not even get Major_Tom to agree to a discussion and the starting point of the discussion. He insisted only on "seeing the evidence". Given his distorted attitude towards evidence (and logic etc) I was not falling for that. The reason is obvious to regular observers of M_T's tactics - read the posts first then I will comment briefly.

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.

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 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.

Agreed but it goes further.

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

Thanks all for your insight into what has happened. Just a few brief comments:

• I was attempting to engage Major_Tom in an open, transparent, reasoned discussion of evidence plus the supporting logic of a straightforward claim. Briefly stated "impact damage plus unfought fires caused the WTC Towers collapses on 9/11".
• My approach was completely open to consideration of CD or any other form of human assistance.
• Despite being occasionally ( ) misunderstood I am probably the most "friendly towards Major_Tom" member to undertake such a reasoned discussion.
• M_T's consistent tactic is to coerce debate into his own narrowly defined agenda where he controls the issues that are allowed into debate of collapse initiation. He excludes Aircraft impacts and unfought fires from being considered. Then limits the other issues to include a number which are almost certainly unanswerable as to causal mechanism. Thereby setting up a possible "you can't prove it was natural therefore CD" false dilemma.
• Major_Tom has succeeded in avoiding reasoned discussion with me (at this stage) AND has succeeded in his tactic of getting discussion onto the areas he is prepared to consider. Read the last lot of posts. So, like our regular trolls whose goal is getting a response, M_T has the responses on his limited topics AND going nowhere.
• @Myriad - thanks for the "...and I hope ozeco keeps trying, because it's illuminating." I probably will but following my personal "Rules of Engagement" I try to avoid personal attacks and direct criticism. I will probably need to await a suitable opening.
• Finally remember that disagreeing with M_T's list of observables and the false logic surrounding his use of them actually meets his tactical target. He avoids reasoned discussion of matters which are relevant.

 

[BasqueArch]

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.


.....

In Observables class we studied squibbs and puffs for a week . These were puffs and therefore not explosives.

 

[ozeco41]

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

...... and you'll understand what ozeco's attempt at rational discourse was up against.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thanks. I will need a suitable opportunity.

 

[Major_Tom]

You got this thing called research, down, to a science.

The evidence for a gravity collapse, from 911. Did you miss the evidence 10 years ago, like you can't find a thread you started? WTC complex destroyed by 10 terrorists in two 767 with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, 66,000 pounds of jet fuel. Did you realize how easy it was to crash a jet into a building?

Like your failed Holocaust denial, you have found a web site of woo, and now plagiarize the web site, with out reference. Why do you plagiarize your posts? Do you plagiarized your Holocaust denial claptrap?

What you found from a post last year at a woo site is nonsense. The RADAR data is taped, after the fact we have the exact track, no more confusion from changing transponder codes and having to Control other traffic. You have no clue what ATC does, what pilots do, no knowledge on RADAR or transponder procedures and function.

RADAR data stored on 911, on tape makes the web site you plagiarized without reference, nonsense.

This ranks as among the weirdest posts I have read.

Is he mumbling to himself or talking to me? I have no idea what he is talking about.

Are you OK, Beachnut?

 

[NoahFence]

This ranks as among the weirdest posts I have read.

Is he mumbling to himself or talking to me? I have no idea what he is talking about.

Are you OK, Beachnut?

That post right there pretty much outs you as a typical truther.

Done.

 

[Major_Tom]

I think some of you are starting to openly hallucinate.

I think he copied and pasted his usual crap to the wrong poster. I don't recall flight data or denying the holocaust.

 

[carlitos]

Too cowardly to answer the other posts? OK.

 

[beachnut]

I think some of you are starting to openly hallucinate.

I think he copied and pasted his usual crap to the wrong poster. I don't recall flight data or denying the holocaust.

Usual crap is your claim of the inside job by evil guys, like Satan. Your CD delusion could be a hallucination as you think puffs are your evidence of CD.

I did not copy and paste, I cross posted as you suspected after you failed with the hallucination claim, it would be so easy to see who is the failed Holocaust denier is and how he plagiarized his post. I worked all day in the yard, made a few posts, added to one but posted it to you. Are you a Holocaust denier too? You don't understand the flying done on 911 either. Too busy working on the yard to be mumbling to myself. Do you always get things wrong? Your CD theory is more of a hallucination than a cross posting mistake. You forgot to put me on ignore. Was it a cross posting error on purpose MIHOP, or LIHOP? Your work must be so important, when will it be in a journal? Nov, Dec?

MIHOPTMYPTM ... find those Satan like bad guys yet?
Is Gravity collapse still an illusion done by the Satan evil guys?
Have you retracted these hallucinations of yours?

 

[GlennB]

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?

Bump for Major_Tom, who still hasn't answered this simple question.

 

[Major_Tom]

At this point in time it may be useful to review our posting history.


The OOS Propagation Model thread began May 11, 2010.

The WTC1 Feature List thread began October 26, 2010.

The WTC2 Feature list thread begins on May, 18, 2011 and begins on page 29, post 1128 of the thread above.
................................

Ozeco, I am not resistant, just incredibly bored. And I'd like to show you why...

Since you have made some nice posts, why don't we just review the posting history at this point instead of trying to reinvent the wheel?
...............

I believe you give a similar argument to the current one beginning on page 1 of the WTC1 Feature List thread?

Where else can I see your best summary to date?

After over a year of building posting histories on these subjects, I will not be taking yet another spin on the merry-go-round without reviewing past posts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The posting history of Beachnut is hilarious, beginning from the first comment after the OP in the OOS Model thread.

A lot of funny stuff in there.

 

[Myriad]

Having reviewed the posting history, my current interpretation is that Major_Tom no longer argues for any kind of 9/11 conspiracy theory because he no longer believes in any. Instead, the thrust of his arguments is to attempt to show that those who did believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories were amply justified in their beliefs. We skeptics were right only by accident because we automatically believed what the man was telling us without examining the evidence, while the truthers' far greater perceptiveness and intelligence in spotting the inaccuracies and flaws in 'the official story' (primarily in NCSTAR) led them to well-justified prudent suspicions that (again purely by accident) didn't happen to pan out.

It's a face-saving "we were wrong, but still way smarter than you" exit strategy. And it would explain why he's so insistent on everyone buying into the latter part before he admits the former (or discusses any aspect of the former in any way). All the bizarre qualities of his argumentation over the past year fall right into place.

It's even almost certainly true that some debunkers somewhere (like many Truthers everywhere) did un-skeptically buy into one narrative or another based entirely on political preference, without really examining the evidence. But I don't buy it as generally true. For one thing, many debunkers here did the math and showed their work. Truthers rarely did, and when they did (e.g. Heiwa, Balsamo) it was full of mistakes.

On the plus side, face-saving exit strategies make the world go round. Yes, Mom, you were right to think the woman I fell in love with was no good for me, even though after 20 years of happy marriage she's now your best friend. Yes, Boss, insisting on plan A over my objections was the smarter decision even though all the code we wrote for it is now in the scrap heap because we had to bring in plan B at the last minute to keep the project afloat.

Yes, Truthers, your ingenious insightful conspiracy theories were just the thing we sheeple would have needed to protect us from our own mindless acceptance of everything we see on teevee, if they only had been right.

Does that mean we can move on?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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?

It happened three times on 911, the empirical evidence is overwhelming.
Given that there is zero evidence of explosives, detonators, shock cord, cut columns etc there is no rational reason for thinking otherwise.

Wherever or not NIST can prove thats its possible or not is mostly of academic interest. It did happen. Now in the old days they would invent supernatural forces, gods or Demons, to explain what they could not understand. Most of us no longer do that, but some, like twoofers, still do.

NIST looked for a reason and found a possible explanation and had building codes changed to try to reduce the likelihood of it ever happening again.
You could find out that NIST got it 100% wrong without it having any affect whatsoever on anything other that requiring further changes to building codes. Feel free to do so.
Proving them wrong changes absolutely nothing about the reality that unfought fires can, and likely will, bring down steel frame buildings.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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"?

why should we bother? you are irrelevant to the subject. You studiously avoid making any claim of a CT nor do you debunk any CTer claim. You are simply in the wrong forum. Trying to persuading us that NIST got it wrong is pointless, persuade NIST or another body with real clout in the subject.

 

[carlitos]

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"?

Just FYI, if you ask nicely in this thread, you could have the words "mapper" or "verifier of all claims" appear under your username, instead of the current "graduate poster." I think it would be pretty cool.

 

[GlennB]

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"?

So why not "come out" as a 9/11 CT debunker, backed up by your many observations and calculations?

I strongly suspect Myriad's observations a few posts earlier are correct, and that you're just bashful about the switch. Loads of people here have managed it, why not you? Yeah, that public ego-investment is a bit of a bitch to get over (been there), but the vast majority of us are faceless posters on an internet backwater, so who cares?

 

[Major_Tom]

So why not "come out" as a 9/11 CT debunker, backed up by your many observations and calculations?

You miss the entire point.

One method limits itself to observables, measurables and provables.

Another method injects speculation.


If I limit myself to measurables, observables (verifiable things), I am just a "fact-checker".




You need the "truther" and "debunker" labels. I don't. It is just the way your minds seem to group things (hence the title of the thread).
.....................

Max Photon once called this tendency "binary mind". It is a weakness of the mind to group complex processes into 2 distinct opposing camps, a type of blindness.

Life simply does not work that way, but sharp distinctions into "2" is the way binary mind sees the world. It is basically reducing "fact" to a level ones limited mind can understand and some minds never seem to make it past the "binary" stage".

I'd like to go over this posting history because you can see this need to group me into one of 2 opposing groups from the very first OP of the first thread.

My method is pretty much complete as a 4 step process, and I have no intention to make a "Grand Poobah" demo theory based on things I cannot verify (based on speculation. Seeing through walls, reading minds and the like.).

My approach is so void of "truthism" that my threads were moved to the math and science section. Kind of ironic, don't you think?

Every measurement posted over the last 15 months seems to remain ignored while this gossip thread continues, accusing me of.........measuring? .........Looking and taking notes?

Fact-checking all claims?
....................

You kept waiting for some demo theory.......and you are still waiting, fishing for one.

The outline of my argument is finished. It centers on verification of all claims as stated, both yours and those of Richard Gage.


So which box do I fit in, from the binary point of view?